#12650 Is It a Sin to Marry Outside Your Faith? Judgement and Grace - Jimmy Akin

Buying or selling your home, real estate for life can connect you with a pro-life real estate

agent. When real estate for life receives a referral fee, they donate 65% to Catholic answers.

Learn more at realestateforlife.org.

Welcome back. Catholic gifts was live. Jimmy Akin, our guest. Holy smoke, it felt I think I

must have been having fun that first hour because it felt like it took about five minutes.

That was a quick hour for me. But again, you were doing all the work, Jimmy, so

it might go a little slower for you, I don't know. It's a little slower, but it wasn't a drag.

Okay, good. You can ask Jimmy anything you want about the Bible. It's your Bible questions for

Jimmy Akin today, 888-318-7884. We talked about the Jimmy, we talked about the mysterious world

podcast, but we didn't talk about the Jimmy Akin podcast. Those drop on Monday. What do we got at the

Jimmy Akin podcast? Well, this last Monday, as I mentioned last hour, I published a video where I

interact with Evangelical Apologist Frank Turek. He was given a lecture tour, and he had an

interaction with a student named Chase at University of North Florida, and Chase is a Catholic

gentleman. He's also nice. I really nice. I spoke to him. Frank is also really nice. I've

been on his show. He and I have had positive reactions. In this exchange, Chase did a really

good job standing up for the Catholic faith, and Frank, even though he's a really sweet guy,

he could have used some improvement on some of the points that he made. So I went through and offered

helpful thoughts about arguments. Frank might not want to make in that form in the future,

in the spirit of Iron Sharpen's Iron, and Man Sharpen's another. So I was trying to be very

helpful, very cordial, and you can check out all of the advice that I had for Frank. There's more

than an hour of it. Then, that's very helpful. I want to be helpful. Then I coming up on this

Monday, I'm going to be looking at the prophet Elijah. There is an incident where he's on the run

from Queen Jezebel, and God directs him to take a journey to Mount Sinai, which is only about 11

days away from where he is, but it says he travels day and night, and it took him 40 days to get there.

Now, you can go a lot farther in 40 days and 40 nights of travel, even if you're just doing,

say, 12 hours of walking per day. He could have, if the Mediterranean Sea wasn't in the way,

he could have walked all the way to Rome. So what's going on with, and that's not an exaggeration,

I did the math, he could have walked to Rome if it wasn't for the Mediterranean Sea. So what's going

on with these numbers? And so Monday's episode is going to be talking about how we need to

use different expectations when we approach various things, the Bible has to say, including

the use of numbers, and whether they're always meant literally or not.

Oh, I'm so glad that you did that, because I do think, yeah, because the ancient mind that

wrote that work is not thinking about the numbers necessarily the same way, the modern person

who went to a public school is thinking about it. That's right. And this is a, it's a short

episode. I figure after doing more than an hour on Frank, I give the listeners a short one,

but it's an illustrative incident in scripture that I think makes the point effectively,

that we can't just use our modern expectations when we're reading ancient literature.

Check out the Jimmy Akin podcast, wherever you get your podcast, you can also go to Jimmy's page

youtube.com slash Jimmy Akin, and you'll find all this stuff that we talk about, and much,

much more. All right, to the phones we go, Bible questions for Jimmy Akin,

go into Matthew in Canada. Well, that narrows it down, listening on catholic.com. Welcome, Matthew.

Yeah, second largest country in the world geographically.

That's right. Thanks for having me on, guys.

But we're very happy to have you. Go ahead, Matthew.

So I'm a catholic, and I was chatting with a Protestant friend about whether it was a sin

for a Christian to marry a non-Christian. So my friend took the position that it was,

citing the passage in second Corinthians where St. Paul warns the Corinthians to not become

unequally yoked. I, of course, am aware of how the church will grant dysmensations

for Catholics to marry non-Catholics. And I didn't think that the church would permit that

if it was actually a sin. So the argument that I made was that Paul was giving his opinion

rather than relay a direct command from God. So while it would be unwise, it wouldn't be a sin.

So I just want to know what you think of my response. Like, was I correct? Or is there some error

in how I respond it? Is there a better way to defend these dysmensations? I'd love to know your thoughts.

Well, I guess I guess there are several different levels on which to think about this question.

First is the exgetical level. So I'm not looking at church teaching. I'm not looking at church law.

I'm not looking at anything like that. I'm just looking at the text and saying, what can I establish

from the text? Well, I can establish from the text that it is not a sin to be married to a non-Christian

because Saint Paul had many converts who had been married before they were Christian and he

expected them to stay married and be faithful spouses to their non-Christian spouse. So the mere

fact that you are married to someone who's a non-Christian is clearly not a sin. The question

would be, can you voluntarily enter a marriage with a non-Christian if you are a Christian?

And this is where the text in 2 Corinthians 6 becomes relevant. I would say based on my knowledge

of that text that both positions are potentially defensible on exogetical grounds. I think that

I think that you can read that passage as saying here Paul is articulating something that would

be sinful to do. You could also read it as Paul is saying something that it would be unwise to do

this or not preferable to do this but not saying it's a sin because he doesn't mention sin in this

passage. I think you could also have a kind of middle position where Paul, you could see Paul

is saying, well, it would be a sin in less special circumstances apply but if those special

circumstances apply it would not be sinful. So I think you could read this text in several

different ways and on an exogetical level my thought would be, and I'd have to think about this more,

but my first thought would be that this text under determines the question. That is, it does not

contain enough data for us to determine one of these interpretations over the others. So I think

the passage is ambiguous. At least my first thought is the passage is ambiguous enough to accommodate

several different interpretations and I wouldn't feel confident on exogetical grounds saying this is,

this one is what it definitely means. So that's handling this text from an exogetical perspective

which is the one that you and your friend have in common. Thinking about it as a Catholic though,

I also can consider church law and practice and so forth and you're right. The church

does grant dispensations for people to marry non-Catholics. It's clearly to marry non-Christians.

These are mixed marriage dispensations and it's clear that I technically they're what are known as

disparity of cult dispensations. It's clearly not preferable because if it was preferable you wouldn't

need a dispensation for it. But the church also requires that the Catholic party in a marriage be

in a state of grace at the time the marriage is performed. And if they're not in a state of grace,

the marriage will still be valid, but in order to have a illicit or lawful celebration of marriage,

the Catholic party needs to be in a state of grace. And so you could combine the fact that the

church does grant dispensations for disparity of cult with the fact that the Catholic party is

going to need to be in a state of grace and infer that this isn't or at least is not automatically

a sin, certainly not a mortal sin. So I think you've got an argument there and that would be

consistent with the idea either that Paul is not conceptualizing marrying a non-Christian as

always a sin. He might allow it in some circumstances or that he's just giving advice.

He's saying this in preferable, but he's not saying it's sinful to do this. I think both of those

are live options exegetically and they're also consistent with church practice. So I would say that

you offered a reasonable counter-proposal to your friend. I just wouldn't be able to prove it

at the current point because I'd need to do more study to see if I thought I could narrow down

the options further. I just couldn't prove it to your friend using exegetical grounds which are

the ones that he would accept. So what I might say to him is, hey, this passage can be read more than

one way and so I could acknowledge, well, if I'm limited to just what I can determine from the

text your interpretation friend is possible, but so are these other two interpretations and it

looks like this passage under determines the issue and we shouldn't either one of us should just

be automatically reading our preference onto it. Okay, Matthew. Yeah, thank you very much for

the very thorough answer. Thanks, Jimmy. No problem. Well, thank you for the call, Matthew.

I got to take a break there. I think I better take a break. All right, we'll be right back.

If you don't go anywhere, I see all those lines full, but we're going to work our way through them.

So hang on right back with more Bible questions for Jimmy on Catholic Cancer's Live.

Mrs. Show, make sure to catch up by downloading the podcast available online at Catholic.com.

Underwriting for Catholic Cancer's Live is provided by Magnificat. Published monthly Magnificat

features texts of daily mass, prayers, articles, meditations, art commentaries, and more,

in step with the liturgical rhythm of the church on the web at Magnificat.com.

Underwriting for Catholic Answers Live is provided by Real Estate for Life. Real Estate for Life

connects home buyers and sellers to real estate agents while supporting pro-life organizations

on the web at realestateforlife.org. Proclaiming the faith, changing lives.

The year was 2000. Mother receives an enormous package from the Vatican.

She opens a box live on her television show and discovers a monstrance that had been given

to John Paul II during his 1999 pilgrimage to Poland. To learn more about Mother Angelica's

life in the history of EWTN. Visit EWTN.com slash Mother Angelica.

Jimmy Akin, our guest Bible questions for Jimmy and they just keep coming so off we go to Illinois.

Mary is in Illinois. Mary, welcome. You got a Bible question?

I do. Thank you for taking my call. Sure. A couple of years ago, I was collecting some

Bibles. Our parish had an excess of Bibles. They were paperback Bibles. Nothing

very fancy except for the word of God, of course. And as I was gathering them, a clergy member

made the comment that not to give what is holy to dogs and not to throw pearls to swine.

And it really took me a back. I was giving these Bibles to homeless people. I do some outreach

in my community. And I often pray with them and give crucifixes and miraculous medals.

And I just, so is that considered? Should I just think if you buy Bibles out like that?

It just, I wasn't sure where that fit into Matthew 6, 7, 6, excuse me.

Okay. So Jesus is obviously using a metaphor here because he's not talking about literal

dogs and literal pigs. He's talking about giving things that are holy to humans

for whom it would be in one way or another inappropriate to give them these holy things,

because they're not going to respect them. So let me ask you a question. Two questions.

And these are also the same two questions I would be inclined to ask the priest who said this.

Do you think that homeless people are metaphorically dogs? Yes or no? No, that actually

brought my eyes. No. Okay. How about this? Do you think that homeless people are metaphorically swine?

No, absolutely not. No, good. You have a functioning sense of empathy. Congratulations,

you're not a sociopath, which might not be able to say to the priest who told you this.

So the idea, oh, also, by the way, did our Lord ever say anything about helping the poor?

Exactly. Yeah, he kind of did, didn't he? So we want to help the poor

to the extent we can and giving them, assuming they are receptive to spiritual

things like a crucifix or rosary or a Bible or say in a prayer with you, to the extent they're

they're receptive to those. Those are spiritual works of mercy that you should do for them.

Now, that doesn't mean that you should do them with every homeless person. There might be

homeless people who would not be receptive to this who would, you know, take a Bible and maybe

after you're gone, rip it up or something like that, you know, because they they want to be

defiant and nasty towards Christianity. There are some homeless people, just like there are some

honed people who are metaphorically dogs and swine. And for those you don't want to give them

holy things that they're going to disrespect and dishonor. But that's some people

and it has nothing to do with whether they've got a home or not. If the person is open to spiritual

works of mercy, like praying with them, giving them a crucifix, giving them a Bible, giving them a

rosary, you know, then that's a good thing to do. You want to do that. So, so I, you know, I want to

be as generous in spirit as I can to this priest and there is a caution that, you know, you should

think about if I give this person a Bible, is it best to give it to this person or would it be

better to give it to someone else? Maybe someone who's homeless who would appreciate it more.

So I want to be generous of spirit in thinking through his position, but taking his apparent

position without qualification, I would say it's positively sociopathic.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for much better. I often give them reading

glasses so they can read and talk. It's really a beautiful experience. And yeah, very, very rewarding

and humbling. So great. We'll keep up to good work. Mary, I'd like to send you one of Jimmy's books

and I'll tell you what, I'd like any one of you want. Edgar will walk you through the titles.

If there's a particular book that Jimmy Aiken has written, we'll send it to you. Just give a

send address there in Illinois. Thank you very much for that call. Mary. All right, off to Fresno,

California. We go Jordans and Fresno, watching on YouTube. Hey, Jordan, you got a Bible question?

Yes. Can you guys hear me? Yes. Ah, yes. So there's not two questions. And the first question

has to do a lot with the second question. But the first question is there's two perspectives.

And I noticed with Catholic answers on reading articles, I even read, sorry,

called Catholic answers from Charles Grande, or something like that. But pretty much

this perspective was that Hades, of course, you know, it's just this a boat of the dead.

Like when you go to Revelation of 2013, when it talks about Hades being, let me read quick.

Oh, yeah, death in Hades giving up the dead and, you know, they're thrown into this like a fire.

In this verse, it's seen as like, oh, Hades is refers to the abode of the dead, which means anyone

in heaven, Dahena, purgatory, et cetera. And so pretty much, pretty much they're trying to say this

perspective that Dahena is where people right now, when they're particularly judged, that's where

they go now. And the second phase is in the final judgment where it's the soul and body, not just the

soul. But then I found this other perspective where I found like Michael Lawton or Sam Shamoon saying

that, no, like right now when you die, particular judgment, you go to Hades and then in the final

judgment, that's when you get thrown into what is called Dahena. So I just wanted to clarify first

before asking my second question on that. If we first, you know, is it Hades or I think Dahena,

I'm aware also of, you know, the translations, of course, from infernos from Latin and them

having the same health definition, but I just wanted to clarify that.

Okay. Well, first of all, I haven't read the article you mentioned. I haven't heard the

individuals you mentioned express opinions on this. So I can't comment on what they've said.

There may be something that, you know, got lost in the transmission or something. So I'm not

critiquing anybody here, but what I can do is tell you what the relevant terms mean. Hades or

in Greek, Hades is a term for the place of the dead. Everybody goes to Hades or Hades when you die.

Good or bad, you go to Hades. And if you're going specifically to the place of the bad dead,

a different term will be used. The Aramaic term is Dahena. The Greek term is Tartarus.

And so Hades is a general term that refers to where all of the dead go. And there are more specialized

terms to indicate the place where the evil dead go. And I'll cycle it, you know, I'll use my

boomstick with the evil dead if I have to. But what's that guy's name? Oh, man, I'm sorry,

but that actor I care Bruce Campbell. Yeah. All right. Good Bruce Campbell reference. Yeah.

So when Revelation 20 says that death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, Hades there

is being used in the sense of the place of all the dead. What John is saying is everybody who is

dead gets brought back to life. Death and this is what's called sometimes called synonymous

parallelism. Death by saying death gave up its dead and the place of the dead gave up its dead.

It's another way of saying everybody who's dead gets resurrected. So that's what's going on there.

Now you can therefore validly say that today if you're using terms the Greek way, the way the

New Testament is used them, yeah, you could say that that everybody goes to Hades when you die.

That just means they go to the place of the dead. But that will be very confusing if you say

both because the term Hades has shifted meaning and a new conceptual framework

has come about where people think not in terms of a common place of the dead but different places

of the dead like heaven, purgatory and hell. An equivalent that would get the same point across

in modern language would be to say when you die you go to the afterlife because the afterlife is

where everybody who's dead goes without breaking it down into further categories.

So again, that's what I'd say to your first question. What's your second?

I'm sorry. And so for that first question just to clarify if somebody dies right now,

I can say like, oh, hey, since I can specify, hey, they go, they can go, they're so

possibility they go straight to Gehena. They could go to Gehena, yeah, if they're lost souls,

they would go to Gehena. If they're dead, I'm in other words. Got you. Okay, so Gehena,

you know, is active now. Okay, got you. Okay, so my second question was, and the reason I was

asking all this was because my kind of causal infotarian girlfriend, she pretty much brought up this

thing where you're your parental hostel. What girlfriend? You miss a Terry. Oh, or sorry,

one is one is kind of one is okay. Okay. Yes, she brought up this idea that instead that there's

no, there's no such thing as particular judgment, but there's like more of this place of rest

where people await the final judgment. And I guess the main idea to use was kind of, you know,

Revelation 14, 13, but and you know, I looked it up a lot and the way Catholics defend this,

I noticed they always use Luke 16 with the Reshman and Lazarus, or they use the seed on the cross

to show that hey, like no, you go straight to this place of comfort or this place of torment,

my girlfriend brought up that that comes before she has actually ascends into heaven. That doesn't,

so that comes before, you know, the time of grace. And then I also brought up to her, you know, the

verses of when Paul, you know, says, oh, to depart and get you with Christ or in second Corinthians,

away from the body at home with the Lord, but at that, in those verses, it also doesn't specify

when they'll be at home with the Lord. I mean, of course, everybody wants to be at home with the

Lord or be with Christ, but it doesn't say that it's going to be immediate or it's going to be

in that final judgment. So how would I go biblically explain that this particular judgment

actually exists? I'll tell you what, Jordan, you did get around to the question, but you gave Jimmy

two seconds before the music started to play. So I'm going to have to ask you to hang out. You've

taken up those two seconds, I guess. Well, were you going to answer? Did you have something you

could pull out of your hat in those two seconds? That would have been impressive. Jordan,

hang on. We're going to get to your, I'll let Jimmy, I'm sorry, Jimmy, if he could have done

it in two seconds. I'll let Jimmy gather himself from the disappointment of not getting to answer

that and we'll come right back answer your question, Jordan, and Catholic answers live.

Have you ever wondered about the mysterious, even obscure aspects of the Catholic faith?

Dive into the Jimmy Akin podcast where Jimmy brings together information from many fields

as he pushes the boundaries of apologetics. Tune in today to the Jimmy Akin podcast, mysteries of

the faith, a highly entertaining, informative, and at times humor a show that will help you grow

in your faith. Visit Jimmy Akinpodcast.com today to subscribe.

And now it's got one. The big book of Catholic answers is filled with helpful replies to more

than 250 questions about the faith. Questions about God, salvation history, the creed, the Bible,

the list goes on and on. Order your copy of the big book of Catholic answers today at shop.catholic.com

or ask for it at a good Catholic bookstore near you. We hope that one of the things that we

communicate here at Catholic answers live is that our Catholic faith allows us to be fully

serious about all the problems we encounter in the church and in the world. But it also lets us

have light hearts and maybe even mix in a bit of fun. And that is exactly what our good friend Joe

Hashmire does in his popular podcast, Shameless Popery. You should check it out at ShamelessJo.com.

Joe's got a deep grasp of the faith, morals, the teachings of the church, all that, but he's

also got a witty conversational style. He entertains and informs, but you will leave equipped to

better answer the most common challenges, misconceptions, and questions about the Catholic faith.

He's got insightful guests. He does on air debates and he takes a close look into all the things

that you want to know about as a Catholic living today. You'll walk away knowledgeable and filled

with joy. Look for Joe on his YouTube channel. Check him out at ShamelessJo.com or wherever you get

your podcast. And if you like what you hear, become a patron.

Welcome back to Catholic Cancer's Live. Jimmy Aiken is our guest. It's your Bible questions for

Jimmy Aiken this hour. And I got a couple of lines open that which has not been the case today.

So if you'd like to get your Bible question and whether you know a lot about the Bible or

nothing about the Bible, whether you are a committed Christian or completely secular.

If you've got a Bible question, we'd love to take it. 888-318-788-4. When we went to the

break Jordan in Fresno had just finished his question. But Jimmy, I'm going to let you

converse with Jordan. He hung out, but you had a follow-up question for him.

Yeah. So Jordan, I need to ask you a follow-up to make sure I'm answering the right question

because you said that your girlfriend believes that everybody experience or well at least she

believes that there aren't people experiencing suffering before the time of the second coming

in the general resurrection. But does she and she spoke in terms of a place of rest for these

individuals? Does she believe that they have caught that both the good and the bad dead

have conscious experiences between death and resurrection? Yes or no? Or does she interpret the

rest as unconsciousness? No, that's the thing. It's for her. She says because I brought up to her

how many people died they're alive in Christ and they can be alive in Christ. And obviously she says

no, I mean they're conscious, but it's more of like they're just waiting. Okay, and she thinks that

applies to both the good and the bad, right? Yes, but only after. Okay, yes, only after.

In our age, yes, yeah, got it, got it, got it. Okay, so this is a position that has or one

similar to this have been entertained by a few people in church history. This is very far from a

common position. But I would say that there certainly are passages that talk about the saved the

good dead experiencing rest prior to the resurrection. That's true. But we don't really have people,

we don't really have passages focused on what happens to the to the lost to the bad dead prior

to the resurrection except we've got we've got the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. And in that

it's clear that Lazarus has gone to a place of comfort and rest. The rich man has gone to a place

of torment. And so what your girlfriends move is is to say, well, that doesn't apply to our age.

Does she acknowledge that there will be people who will be lost on the last day?

Yeah, she acknowledges that when the final judgment. Okay, okay, good, good, hang on, Jordan,

just so you know, we're I'm trying to we've spent a good bit of time with you. And at some point

soon, we're going to have to move on. So I in any event otherwise, Si is going to eat my lunch and

you know, or you just said you fast for 22 hours a day. I get nothing if I eat your lunch. I literally

get nothing. In any metaphor, Si, metaphor, um, haven't said that. Uh, so the the question I would have

for her is if someone has rejected, uh, Christ and they and they ended up in a state of suffering

before the time of Christ, before Christ's death and resurrection. What do you have in scripture

that indicates a change in that? Because Jesus Himself gave us this parable. He gave it two

Christians. It's meant to teach Christians about how things work. And, um, and so consequently,

unless we have something else that overrules that, we should assume that these kinds of experiences

are happening today that, um, that some people, uh, experience comfort and rest, enjoy in the

afterlife and some people, even before the resurrection and that some people experience, uh,

suffering before the resurrection. So given that Jesus gave this parable to us Christians, we

ought to assume, well, that's the kind of stuff that's happening. In less, we can come up with

passages that contradict that. And so what your girlfriend would need to do is not just find

passages that refer to people experiencing rest in the afterlife, but passages because it's certain

that there are going to be people experiencing rest in the afterlife, specifically Christians who

have died in God's grace are going to experience rest in the afterlife, just like Lazarus does in

the parable. But what she needs to find are passages that say not only will saved Christians rest,

but damned people will rest too. And presumably, they also need to not have knowledge of the coming

doom for them. If they're going to be damned on the last day, and they're just kind of waiting

right now, they would need to not really know about their fate. Otherwise, they're going to be

distressed. I know if I'm waiting for the resurrection, and I already know that I'm going to be damned

on the last day, that's going to create. So I kill it. Would that create intense anxiety, fear,

and anguish for you? It sure would, Jimmy. Yeah, it would mean too. So it seems to me that your

friend's interpretation is something that is interesting, but it's going to be hard to come up with

passages that actually meet, that actually teach what she would need to be taught, which is not that

some people have rast or things like that, but that specifically the damned have rast until the

resurrection. And there aren't such passages. So I would say that the information we're given by

Jesus in the parable of Lazarus in the rich man is going to govern in less than until we get

such passages. And I'm setting aside everything. Revelation says because before the resurrection,

it's not focused on the damned. It's focused on the saved. But it does show them in heaven

in glorious, having glorious experiences. And something else that's worth pointing out is

Revelation only ever shows us. And this is an argument I think that's worth exploring.

Revelation only ever shows us the saved in heaven. It does show the saved in heaven,

like the martyrs under the altar in heaven, or those who come up out of the great tribulation.

So it does show a saved people in heaven before the resurrection. And it never shows us damned

people in heaven before the resurrection. So that would suggest that the fate of the saved

before the resurrection and the fate of the damned before the resurrection is different.

And that would suggest that there has been a distinguishing or particular judgment between

the saved and the damned. I will leave that there. We're going to keep moving. Try to get everybody

on here. Every time I call for calls, we get a lot of them. So off to Virginia, we go. Jason

is in Virginia watching on YouTube. Jason, go ahead with your Bible question.

Yes. How do I combat the idea of the great theology used in the Bible? I know the

contemporaries of the great theology point to Jason. I'm not able to hear you. You're

distorting pretty heavily. Could you take us off speakerphone and talk directly into the phone?

Yes. Can you give him better now? Little better. It's still pretty hard, Jason. Give it a try.

Let's see how it goes. Yes. My question is about pre-grace theology and how to combat that using

the Bible. Okay. Thank you for stating it concisely. That made it much easier to hear. So

there are a variety of passages that I would appeal to in combating free grace theology. For people

who may not be familiar, free grace theology is a minority position in Protestantism that holds

that basically intellectual ascent to the truths of the Christian faith is what saves you.

That you don't need beyond that to trust God or love God and man. Just intellectual ascent alone

will save you and you consequently don't need to live a life of love of God and neighbor in order to

be saved. You can't lose your salvation and their interpretation of faith alone which is actually

rejected by most Protestants is all you need to be saved and as soon as you're saved, you're saved

forever can never do anything to change that. There are multiple fronts on which I would critique

free grace theology using scripture. One of them is the adequacy of belief without

free grace theologyologians will frequently redefine repentance as just a change of mind based on

the word parts that are used in the Greek word metanoia, the word for repentance. They'll say,

well, based on its word parts, it's etymology. It would mean just change of mind. So if you change

your mind and say, oh yeah, I guess all those acts of adultery I did were bad. But I'm going to

keep doing it. I just recognize now that it's bad. Well, that would that would be sufficient

repentance for salvation. And that's clearly not the teaching of scripture. You can see that, for

example, in the gospels where John the Baptist has like soldiers and tax collectors come to him

and Pharisees come to him and he tells them especially the Pharisees bring forth fruit in keeping

with repentance. So repentance in the biblical mind is not just a sterile change of mind where you

just recognize, oh, I guess that thing I'm doing is a sin. It's something that is meant to bear fruit.

You don't do that sin anymore. Also in first Corinthians Saint Paul makes it clear that and he's

talking to Christians, he's talking to people who are already within the community of salvation. He says,

if you do the following things, you're not going to inherit the kingdom of God. So there are moral

requirements if you want to, if you want to be saved, you may not. So those are points I would

raise. I would also raise the point that the concept of faith can be understood in multiple

different ways. It can be understood as merely intellectual ascent. It can be understood as

intellectual ascent that incorporates trust in God and it can be understood as intellectual

ascent that incorporates trust in God and love of God and neighbor. And Saint Paul makes it clear

that it's the latter kind that saves. That indicates in first Corinthians 13 that if I have love,

if I have faith, you know, little move mountains, but I don't have love, I don't gain any benefit

from that. And he says what in Galatians 5, 6 that what does count in Christ is not circumcision or

un-circumcision. So he's talking about what counts towards salvation. But what counts is faith working

through love. So it's faith formed by love that is effective for salvation, not mere intellectual

ascent to the truths of Christianity as James makes clear when he points out in James 2 that even

the demons believe and they still tremble at the prospects of God's wrath. Then there's the claim

you can never lose your salvation and there are literally dozens of passages in scripture that

deal with that and indicate you can lose your salvation. So those are some of the lines that I would

pursue. I can see size about to say we're going to have to go to a break, but I wrote about all this

in my book The Drama of Salvation. So why don't we try to send you a copy of that and that can be

a further assistance? All you got to do is hang on, give us an address and we'll send it out to you.

Jason, we're very grateful to a donor who makes it possible for us to send these books out.

It's a great great thing that that donor does to make that possible. And Jason, we'd love you to

be a beneficiary of it. Just hang on, we'll send you the Drama of Salvation. Jimmy's right, we

got to take a break right back with more Bible questions for Jimmy Aiken on Catholic Answers Live.

The Catechism defines evangelization as the proclamation of Christ and his gospel by word and the

testimony of life. But what does that look like in real life? It looks like Saint Paul street

evangelists out in the public square sharing the good news. We're a Catholic non-profit that starts

conversations by handing out free sacramentals. Then we employ our method of listen, be friend,

proclaim, and invite. Catholic Answers is supported in part by Saint Paul street evangelization.

Visit streetavangelization.com to learn more. Alexian Brothers is a proud sponsor of Catholic Answers

Live. For 800 years, these Catholic brothers have offered a prophetic and daring response to the

gospel, serving Christ in the sick, the poor, and the dying. Is God calling you to be a courageous

disciple? If you feel call to total self-giving as a religious brother in the mission of Jesus,

call our vocations office at 847-264-8703. That's 847-264-8703. AlexianBrothers.org.

Hi, this is Father Mike Schmitz. I invite you to listen to Bible in the year and Catechism in the

year here on EWTN Radio. On Catechism in the Year, you'll encounter God's plan of sheer goodness for

us. Throughout the year, we read the Catechism of the Catholic Church with direct quotes plus

time for explanations and reflections. I hope you can join us every day or as often as you can.

Bible in a year and Catechism in a year with Father Mike Schmitz, tonight at 10 PM Eastern, 7 PM

Pacific on EWTN Radio.

Welcome back. Catechism is live. Jimmy Aiken, our guest. We've taken Bible questions.

Lots of great Bible questions so far. So back to the phones we go, because as I've said,

we'll try to get to everybody before we have to go. Keith is in Houston, Texas listening

on the I Heart Radio app. Glad you're here. Keith, go ahead with your question about the Bible for

Jimmy. Thank you. This might be a, I feel a little silly asking this question, but it might be fun

also in, in John 21, verse 15. Keith, are you, Keith, hang on Keith? Are you, could you take

us off speakerphone and talk directly into your phone? Oh, you are currently off speakerphone.

All right, right into the phone. Okay, right into the phone then. How's that? All right. That better?

Yep. Okay. In John 21, 15, Jesus asks Peter, do you love me more than these? What does

these refer to? Is it the other disciples? The fish? Or is he asking Peter if Peter loves

him more than these other disciples love him? And what do we do with that? Okay. So,

Cite Kellett, you can help me out here. All right. Do fish generally love the people who catch and

eat them? They do not. Okay, so I think we can rule out the fish. It's not them.

And that would mean that since Jesus doesn't specify any other frame of reference,

that the natural interpretation of the pronoun these is going to be the other people who are present.

And we're told who they are. It's a group of seven people, so six, if you deduct Saint Peter,

but right up at the front of the chapter in John 21, verse 2, it says that the people who were

present were Simon Peter, that's one, Thomas called the twin, that's two, Nathaniel of Cana

and Galilee, that's three, the sons of Zebedee, that's four and five, and then two other disciples,

that six and seven. And you can debate whether the author of the gospel is John the son of Zebedee

or whether he's another John, if he's another John, then he's one of the two unnamed disciples.

So you've got seven people other than Jesus present. When Jesus asks Saint Peter, do you love me

more than these? Okay, that eliminates Saint Peter. So he's asking Peter, do you love me more than

these six other disciples do? All right. Thank you for that clarification. All right, well,

thank you very much for the question. Thanks for calling. It's Bible questions for Jimmy.

I do love the idea of could it be the fish? I mean, it's like, yeah, fish don't normally like

love the people who catch and eat them, but it's Jesus Christ, man, could the fish maybe love him?

Fish love me, man, because I can't catch them and eat them. It's not fact, if I go fishing,

nobody catches a fish. I am like the bad luck man of fishing expeditions.

Have you ever had fish nibble your toes? Yeah, I've had that that it's a weird sensation.

Yeah, it is, isn't it? Yeah. I've nibbled some fish too, though, I must say. I've given

as well as I'm not living, not living once. I haven't done that yet, but fried ones I have.

Paul and Wisconsin, listening to EWTN on channel 130, serious XM satellite radio, go ahead with your

Bible question. Yeah, thanks for taking my call. Sure. My question has to do with Saint Paul,

and at the end of Acts, he is arguing in front of an enrollment official, and Paul is actually

trying to proselytize him, and eventually the X tells us that the enrollment official doesn't

think that Paul is in anything worthy of death, and they wouldn't let him go, but Paul appealed

to Caesar, and so they sent him to Caesar. So why so many years later did Paul get beheaded?

Was there something that changed when he was in Rome?

Okay, so the end of the enrollment official you're referring to is Portius Festus, who

was the brand new governor of Judea that had been sent, and you're referring to a conversation

that he had with the Jewish ruler Herod a grip of the second, and the two of them are having

a private conversation and expressed the opinion that Paul could have been released

if he hadn't appealed the case to Rome because that took it out of Festus's hands.

And then Paul does, so that is the story so far for those who may not be familiar with what we're

discussing. Festus then does his duty, by the way, Psycalod, I love that Festus is also this

character on Gunsmoke. Oh yeah, like Festus. It's hard not hard not to think of that Festus

when I'm thinking about the biblical Festus, but in any event he ships Paul off to Rome,

he has adventures getting there, and then he ends up in Rome for two years under house arrest.

And suddenly the book of Acts stops, and the only sensible explanation for why it stops is

that's when Luke was writing. So we can't look at Acts to tell us what the eventual outcome

of the trial was. We do have evidence that Paul was later beheaded, but when Acts cuts off,

it's in 8060, and we have no evidence that Nero was hostile to Christians in 8060. He became

hostile to Christians after the great fire of Rome in 8064, because people accused him, Nero,

of set in the fire, so he could remodel Rome the way he wanted it. And he then, according to

the Roman historian Tacitus, used Christians as scapegoats and said, oh no, they set fire to the city.

So those Christians there are a bunch of arsonists, and that's when Nero started persecuting

Christians. The evidence we have from various patristic sources, meaning early church writers,

is that Paul was actually released. He was acquitted at his first trial, which happened between

8060 and 8064, and then he went on other missionary journeys. He got to go to Spain, according to

our information, which comes in this case from the year 70. We have a reference to him from

Clement of Rome saying he got to go to the furthest reaches of the West, and if you're already in Rome,

the furthest reaches of the West means Spain. So Paul, that gives us evidence, Paul was released

from this captivity. He ended up traveling like he wanted to. He got to go to Spain like he wanted to,

but then he gets arrested later, still during the reign of Nero, and gets put to death because

the great fire of Rome had happened. Nero had turned against Christians, and actually Paul

was probably executed while Nero was in Greece, and he was executed by some officials of Nero

that he had put in charge of Rome, but they were following a policy that Nero had set of

executing Christian leaders like Peter and Paul. So that's what changed. It was the great fire of

Rome's soured imperial opinion on Christians. Okay, that's very helpful. Thank you very much.

All right. Let's go to Noah real quick in Springfield, Tennessee, watching on YouTube.

Noah, if you can ask this question very quickly, Jimmy will answer you, but if it's not quick,

he won't have time. Yes, I was just wondering what it meant to be poor and spirit in the attitudes.

Beautiful. Thank you. It basically means having the admirable qualities of being poor and not

having the admirable quality, the dis admirable qualities of being rich. So things like humility,

dependence on God, not being thrilled with having rich possessions and lording it over other people,

but just being humble and serving God and serving others, that's what being poor and spirit means,

as opposed to having the negative qualities that some poor people have, like just being obsessed

with money, because you got so little of it, or the negative qualities of being rich, like being

obsessed with money because you want more and more and more of it. So basically it's being humble,

serving God, serving neighbor, and not having the negative qualities of being either poor or rich,

or that I should say that either poor or rich people can have. Noah, I am very grateful to you.

That was extremely quick, and I want to send you a copy of Jimmy's book, The Bible is a Catholic book.

To say thanks, and we only had a minute with you, so you'll have a little more time with Jimmy

reading the book. Jimmy Aiken really enjoyed those two hours. That for me, that went very quickly,

thank you for that. Yeah, me too, thank you. That was a lot of fun. Check out Jimmy Aiken's

mysterious world, mysterious.fm, wherever you get your podcast, or at Jimmy Aiken's YouTube channel,

youtube.com slash Jimmy Aiken. And if you go there, you can also find the Jimmy Aiken podcast,

which is also available wherever you get your podcasts. That will do it for us. We'll see you

next time, God willing, right here on Cappiganso's Live.