October 10, 2023

October 10, 2023 By
0 Comments

[see book and purchase information]

The late Steve Hays (1959-2020) was a Calvinist (and anti-Catholic) apologist, who was very active on his blog, called Triablogue (now continued by Jason Engwer). His words will be in blue.

*****

Steve Hays wrote an article on 11 July 2009 entitled, “Scripture-twisting for Catholicism.” It was a “response” to my article, “Paul Prayed for Dead Onesiphorus (Protestant Commentaries).” Per his usual pathetic modus operandi, Steve didn’t see fit to link to my article, so people could see 1) exactly what he was responding to, and 2) another (Catholic) perspective, backed up in this instance to various degrees by Protestant commentators. I suppose that was asking too much of him. We know that no such fairness was extended, since 1) Steve was anti-Catholic, and 2) personally detested me. Just five days after he wrote this article, after all, he described me as “hypersensitive, paranoid, an ego-maniac, with a martyr and persecution complex” (7-16-09), and three months earlier (4-13-09), I was, according to him, supposedly a “narcissistic little jerk” and “actually evil”.

With such a view, we would fully expect to see bans and blocks. I tried to make some kind of response in the combox. If you take a look at it, you’ll see that the words, “Comment has been blocked” appear four times. That was me, of course. Readers can see many asinine anti-Catholics in the combox insulting me in their usual inane, vapid fashion. None of this behavior and action suggests a confidence in their own viewpoints, does it? The confident person who understands and can defend his or her view and critique others, has an open-minded, “bring it on” approach, and isn’t scared to link to opposing views, to attempt to rebut them point-by-point, or to allow the opponent to have their say in comboxes underneath critiques.

I want people to be aware of how self-defeating, absurd views like anti-Catholicism cause otherwise rational folks to become irrational, and also (usually) how they tend to cause them to express personal derision and detestation — if not sometimes outright hatred — towards Catholics. That‘s why I bring these things up. It reveals a great deal and casts doubt on the credibility of those who publicly express such slanderous thoughts. They can’t even rise to rudimentary Christian ethical standards. Wouldn’t it have been nice if Steve Hays had actually fully addressed and interacted with my article? But here is what he stated, with my replies:

2 Timothy 1:16-18 (RSV) May the Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiph’orus, for he often refreshed me; he was not ashamed of my chains, [17] but when he arrived in Rome he searched for me eagerly and found me — [18] may the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that Day — and you well know all the service he rendered at Ephesus.

2 Timothy 4:19 Greet Prisca and Aq’uila, and the household of Onesiph’orus.

1) If Paul shared the Catholic view of Purgatory, then why would he merely offer a prayer in passing for the departed soul of Onesiphorous? Wouldn’t we expect Paul to celebrate a requiem mass on behalf of Onesiphorus?

2) Likewise, why doesn’t Paul pray to Mary, Queen of Heaven, to intercede on behalf of Onesiphorus?

He may have done either thing or both. We simply don’t know. The text doesn’t say one way or another. Thus, Steve’s argument is a weak and insubstantial one from silence. The biblical text states that Paul prayed that God would have mercy on Onesiphorus on judgment day. This is what Hays had to grapple with, if he wanted to argue like a serious Calvinist apologist, seeing that Calvinism rejects the view that Christians ought to pray for the souls of departed human beings. Why did Paul pray for a dead person?! How can this be?! But he doesn’t ever really do that. He skirts around the edges of the discussion, obfuscates, engages in cynically hostile and intellectually unserious obscurantism, and sophistry. This is what he almost always did when “engaging” Catholic arguments.

3) It’s striking to see the way in which Armstrong misquotes Guthrie, to plant the false impression that Guthrie supports his interpretation. To the contrary, Guthrie is summarizing an interpretation he disagrees with as a preliminary step to then present his contrary interpretation.

It didn’t take long before the utterly unfounded attacks against my intellectual honesty began. Of course I did no such thing, and I think Steve was more than intelligent enough to know that. Thus, this amounts to a deliberate lie. I never stated that Donald Guthrie supported my interpretation. Nor did I even imply it. I simply cited ten Protestant commentators with regard to this issue, who exhibited the usual partial agreement and partial disagreement. Guthrie was cited precisely because of his witness concerning what other Protestant commentators believed, in agreement with Catholicism:

Since it is assumed by many scholars that Onesiphorus was by now dead, the question has been raised whether this sanctions prayer for the dead. Roman Catholic theologians claim that it does. Spicq, for instance, sees here an example of prayer for the dead unique in the New Testament. Some Protestants agree with this judgment and cite the Jewish precedent of 2 Macc 12:43-45 . . .

The point here is Guthrie noting that “many [Protestant] scholars” hold that “Onesiphorus was by now dead.” It follows (if they are correct) that Paul prayed for a dead man, and Guthrie, though he disagrees with the conclusion, notes that “some” Protestants think this exhibits prayer for the dead. I did exactly the same thing in citing evangelical (?) / open theist John E. Sanders, writing, “Some scholars contend that 2 Timothy 1:16-18 contains a reference to praying for the dead . . .” [my italics].

Did I claim that Sanders himself believed this? No. He — like Guthrie — was cited as a “hostile witness,” which is always a good argument, because we know such a person has no bias in favor of the Catholic position, and is simply citing facts about what some other fellow Protestant scholars believe. But Hays (due to his seething contempt, I say) apparently had a hard time grasping the nature of my argument, and so could only accuse me of misquoting Guthrie, and by logical extension, also Sanders. It’s a bum rap!

4) Armstrong also passes over in silence the various commentators who take issue with his interpretation (e.g. Knight, Liefeld, Marshall, Mounce, Towner).

This is just stupid. I was not obliged to cite every Bible scholar alive and dead with regard to the passage in question. The point of my paper was to show that some Protestant commentators agree that it is consistent with an interpretation that Paul was praying for the dead; therefore, not only Catholics believe that Paul prayed for dead Onesiphorus. Obviously other Protestants disagree. It’s doubly foolish for Steve to make this charge, in light of the fact that I had already done some of what he called for, five years earlier, in one of my books, which I alluded to in the first part of the article:

I have written about this issue in the past; notably in my book, The Catholic Verses [2004], pp. 169-174, and in A Biblical Defense of Catholicism [2003; completed in 1996], pp. 141-143.

In the former work, I addressed and critiqued nine very prominent Protestant commentators: all of whom disagreed with the Catholic interpretation to some extent, or a great extent. This was the very purpose of that book: to analyze how Protestants attempt to deal with ostensibly “Catholic verses” in the Bible. I summarized the data in a chart and then gave my $00.02 cents’ worth:

To summarize this somewhat amusing confusion and catalogue of evasive and rationalizing techniques, and what to do when faced with a Bible text utterly at odds with one’s own theology, I offer the following chart:

Commentator …………….Was Onesiphorus Dead?……..Did Paul Pray?

New Bible Commentary ……………….Possibly …………………………….Yes
Jamieson, Fausset, Brown …………….No …………………………………….Yes
A.T. Robertson …………………………….“Apparently” ……………………..“Wishing”
Int. Standard Bible Encyclopedia…..Possibly ……………………………“Pious wish”
New Bible Dictionary ……………………No position ……………………….Yes
Adam Clarke …………………………………No position ……………………….Maybe
Matthew Henry …………………………….Probably not ………………………Yes
Albert Barnes ……………………………….No ……………………………………..Yes
John Calvin ………………………………….No ……………………………………..Yes

The tally of nine prominent examples is as follows: “apparently dead” (one), “possibly dead” (two), agnostic position (two), “probably not dead” (one), and “not dead” (three). That’s about even, depending on how one grades the undecided votes. As for whether Paul prayed, that is less uncertain: “yes” votes (six), “maybe” (one), and description of his sentiments as “wishing” (two).

On the question of how possible or likely it is that Paul prayed for the dead, three rule it out altogether, holding that Onesiphorus was alive; two do not state whether they believe he was alive, so we cannot determine their position; one allows a distinct possibility, another, a slight one, and two admit some possibility, depending on whether one construes “wishing” as synonymous or similar to prayer.

All this confusion and disagreement suggests that Protestants really have no coherent explanation of this passage and that (quite possibly, given oft-evidenced hostility to Catholicism in these same writers) the desperation and strained nature of much of this interpretation is indicative of their attempts to avoid arriving at conclusions harmonious with Catholic theology. (pp. 173-174)

Ironically, Guthrie was actually mentioned, since he wrote the relevant portion of The New Bible Commentary. He partially agrees with us, as I explained:

The well-known Evangelical Protestant work, The New Bible Commentary (Guthrie, 1178; commentary by Guthrie himself) takes the astounding position that Onesiphorus is probably dead (citing 2 Tim. 4:19), yet holds that Paul was praying for his conduct during life; thus avoiding any implication of prayer for the dead. One might say that this is a distinction without a difference. (pp. 170-171)

I had also cited Guthrie, Robertson, and Jamieson, Fausset, & Brown in A Biblical Defense of Catholicism. Steve made the potshot that I passed “over in silence” those commentators who disagree with me (implying that I was scared to deal with them). In this particular article I didn’t deal with them, since I had no intellectual obligation to do so. But in both of my books above I did straightforwardly address and critique those commentators who disagree with us (in toto or in part).

Later on, I wrote the article, Was Onesiphorus Dead When Paul Prayed for Him?: Data from 16 Protestant Commentaries (1992-2016) [3-20-17]. Here I distinguished between five of the commentaries that regarded Onesiphorus as “dead or likely dead” and eleven that took a “possibly dead or neutral stance.” But Steve Hays gave no argument whatsoever, either way. His only goal was to attack my intellectual integrity and competence as a researcher (and to allow the usual childish mocking by his sycophants in the combox). I address the issue head on. But he merely skirts it and unseriously plays with it.

5) Assuming, for the sake of argument, that this is a prayer for the dead, how are the specifics of this prayer consistent with Catholic dogma? 

At least he is now being semi-serious, but I would argue that it is a rather poor and poorly thought-through objection. Paul appears here to be praying for Onesiphorus in a sense that even Lutherans, Anglicans, and Methodists agree with. Martin Luther wrote:

[S]ince God has not permitted us to know, how it is with the souls of the departed and we must continue uninformed, as to how he deals with them, we will not and cannot restrain them, nor count it as sin, if they pray for the dead. For we are ever certain from the Gospel, that many have been raised from the dead, who, we must confess, did not receive nor did they have their final sentence; and likewise we are not assured of any other, that he has his final sentence. Now since it is uncertain and no one knows, whether final judgment has been passed upon these souls, it is not sin if you pray for them; but in this way, that you let it rest in uncertainty and speak thus: Dear God, if the departed souls be in a state that they may yet be helped, then I pray that thou wouldst be gracious. And when you have thus prayed once or twice, then let it be sufficient and commend them unto God. For God has promised that when we pray to him for anything he would hear us. . . . the prayer of the heart, of devotion and of faith; . . . will help the departed souls if anything will. (Sermon for the First Sunday after Trinity; Luke 16:19-31, 1522-1523; in Sermons of Martin Luther, The Church Postils; edited and partially translated by John Nicholas Lenker, 8 volumes. Volumes 1-5 were originally published in Minneapolis by Lutherans of All Lands, 1904-1906. This sermon is found in vol. 4)

It is enough to pray God once or twice for her [his dead wife], as He has said to us: “Whatsoever ye ask, believing, ye shall receive.” If we keep always praying for the same thing it is a sign that we do not believe that our first prayers are answered, and unbelieving prayers only anger Him. (To Bartholomew von Starenberg, 1 Sep. 1524; in Luther’s Correspondence and Other Contemporary Letters, Vol. II: 1521-1530; translated and edited by Preserved Smith and Charles M. Jacobs [Philadelphia: The Lutheran Publication Society: 1918])

As for the dead, since Scripture gives us no information on the subject, I regard it as no sin to pray with free devotion in this or some similar fashion: “Dear God, if this soul is in a condition accessible to mercy, be thou gracious to it.” And when this has been done once or twice, let it suffice. (Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper, Feb. 1528, tr. Robert H. Fischer; in Luther’s Works, vol. 37)

Luther’s successor Philip Melanchthon wrote in 1530 in his Apology to the Augsburg Confession (article XXIV, 94), which is binding on Lutherans:

Now, as regards the adversaries’ citing the Fathers concerning the offering for the dead, we know that the ancients speak of prayer for the dead, which we do not prohibit; . . .

John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, believed in prayer for the dead (see several examples).

C. S. Lewis, the famous Anglican apologist, believed in praying for the dead and in purgatory (see several examples).

Is Paul’s prayer “consistent with Catholic dogma”?  Absolutely, for the simple reason that Paul didn’t know with certainty whether Onesiphorus was eschatologically (finally) saved or not. He’s praying for his soul, to be saved, just as he often prayed for those he knew on earth to be saved in the end.

Paul is praying that Onesiphorus will find mercy on the Day of Judgment. But if Onesiphorus went to Purgatory when he died, then it’s a sure thing that he will find mercy on the Day of Judgment. By definition, Purgatory is reserved for heaven-bound decedents (in Catholic dogma).

Correct, but again, Paul didn’t know for sure whether he was saved (in which case he likely would have gone to purgatory, but maybe not). Because of this lack of knowledge about his status, he prays for his soul to be saved. Steve erroneously assumes that Paul, and by extension all Catholics, somehow have or claim infallible knowledge about the fate of departed souls. So, nice try, but no cigar.

Praying for the dead in Purgatory is a prayer to hasten their progress in Purgatory. To expedite their entrance into heaven. It’s not a prayer for postmortem salvation–as if their eternal fate still hangs in the balance.

Indeed that is true (complete with one of Steve’s patented incomplete sentences). But Steve assumes (with no evidence, and none even proffered) that Paul is praying for him to be released from purgatory, rather than praying for his salvation. The actual text strongly suggests the latter and is silent on the former. If that is so, then all of this is a moot point, which was usually the only kind of point that Steve made, when addressing the topic of any and all Catholic beliefs. Catholics are free to pray for the salvation of a soul (whose final destiny we are not certain of), or for a quicker release from purgatory, if indeed the soul is in purgatory (which we can’t know for certain). The two are not mutually exclusive. There is no problem here. Steve only mistakenly thought there was a supposed difficulty, because, as usual, he didn’t properly understand Catholic theology.

He surely does now, though. No more games. Please pray for his soul.

*****

*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-three books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!
*
***
*

Summary: The late Calvinist Steve Hays tried to vainly argue that I was dishonest and out to sea in arguing that St. Paul prayed for the dead man Onesiphorus (2 Tim 1:16-18).

 

May 3, 2019

May 3, 2019 By

Data from 16 Protestant Commentaries (1992-2016)

Links go right to the relevant passages in the commentaries / books. Very few commentaries appear to be certainly against his being dead. I didn’t include those, for brevity’s sake; but there weren’t many.
*****
Dead or Likely Dead
 
1) Jouette M. Bassler, Abingdon New Testament Commentaries: 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus (Abingdon Press: 2011).
 
2) Gordon D. Fee, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus (Understanding the Bible Commentary Series) (Baker Books: 2011).
*
3) James B. Gould, Understanding Prayer for the Dead: Its Foundation in History and Logic (Wipf and Stock Publishers: 2016).
 
4) Murray J. Harris, Slave of Christ: A New Testament Metaphor for Total Devotion to Christ (InterVarsity Press: 2001).
 
5) Jerome D. Quinn, William C. Wacker, The First and Second Letters to Timothy: A New Translation with Notes and Commentary (Eerdmans: 2000).
 
Possibly Dead or Neutral Stance
 
1) Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (InterVarsity Press, 2nd edition, 2014).
 
2) Raymond F. Collins, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus: A Commentary (Westminster John Knox Press: 2002).
3) Africa Bible Commentary (Zondervan: 2010).
 
4 Samuel Ngewa, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus (Harper Collins: 2009).
 
5) R. Kent Hughes, Bryan Chapell, 1–2 Timothy and Titus (ESV Edition): To Guard the Deposit (Crossway: 2012).
 
6) Bruce B. Barton, David R. Veerman, Livingstone, Neil Wilson, 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus (Tyndale House Publishers, 1993).
 
7) Philip H. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus (Eerdmans: 2006).
 
8) George W. Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles (Eerdmans: 1992).
 
9) I. Howard Marshall, Philip H. Towner, The Pastoral Epistles (Bloomsbury: 2004).
 
10) Linda Belleville, Jon C. Laansma, J. Ramsey Michaels, 1-2 Timothy, Titus, Hebrews (Tyndale House Publishers, 2008).
 
11) Thomas Lea & Hayne P. Griffin, 1, 2 Timothy, Titus: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture (The New American Commentary) (Holman Reference: 1992).
 
[use “Look Inside” Amazon feature and search for “Onesiphorus”. See pp. 197-198]

***
Related Reading:
*

Paul Prayed for Dead Onesiphorus (Protestant Commentaries) [7-14-09]

Cardinal Newman on Onesiphorus and Prayer for the Dead [Facebook, 3-18-15]

St. Paul Prayed for a Dead Man: Onesiphorus [8-19-15]

St. Paul Prayed for Onesiphorus, Who Was Dead [National Catholic Register, 3-19-17]

***

(originally 3-20-17 on Facebook)

Photo credit: An Elderly Man as Paul, probably 1659, by Rembrandt (1606-1669) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

January 18, 2016

January 18, 2016 By
Paul6

Apostle Paul (1633?), by Rembrandt (1606-1669) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

(7-14-09)

*****

2 Timothy 1:16-18 (RSV) May the Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiph’orus, for he often refreshed me; he was not ashamed of my chains, [17] but when he arrived in Rome he searched for me eagerly and found me — [18] may the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that Day — and you well know all the service he rendered at Ephesus.

2 Timothy 4:19 Greet Prisca and Aq’uila, and the household of Onesiph’orus.

I have written about this issue in the past; notably in my book, The Catholic Verses, pp. 169-174, and in A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, pp. 141-143.

1) Alfred Plummer (1841-1926) (Anglican): The Expositor’s Bible (edited by W. Robertson Nicoll), The Pastoral Epistles, London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1891, pp. 324-326:

Certainly the balance of probability is decidedly in favour of the view that Onesiphorus was already dead when St. Paul wrote these words. . . . he here speaks of “the house of Onesiphorus” in connexion with the present, and of Onesiphorus himself only in connexion with the past. . . . it is not easy to explain this reference in two places to the household of Onesiphorus, if he himself was still alive. In all the other cases the individual and not the household is mentioned. . . . There is also the character of the Apostle’s prayer. Why does he confine his desires respecting the requital of Onesiphorus’ kindness to the day of judgment? . . . This again is thoroughly intelligible, if Onesiphorus is already dead.

. . . there seems to be equal absence of serious reason for doubting that the words in question constitute a prayer. . . .

Having thus concluded that, according to the more probable and reasonable view, the passage before us contains a prayer offered up by the Apostle on behalf of one who is dead, we seem to have obtained his sanction, and therefore the sanction of Scripture, for using similar prayers ourselves. . . .

This passage may be quoted as reasonable evidence that the death of a person does not extinguish our right or our duty to pray for him: but it ought not be quoted as authority for such prayers on behalf of the dead as are very different in kind from the one of which we have an example here. Many other kinds of intercession for the dead may be reasonable and allowable; but this passage proves no more than that some kinds of intercession for the dead are allowable; viz., those in which we pray that God will have mercy at the day of judgment on those who have done good to us and others, during their life upon earth.

2) James Maurice Wilson (1836-1931) (Anglican): Truths New and Old, Westminster: Archibald Constable & Co., 1900, p. 141:

We have, therefore, the sanction of St. Paul for remembering inn our prayers, and interceding for, those who have now passed into the other world . . .

3) Sydney Charles Gayford (Anglican): The Future State, New York: Edwin S. Gorham, second edition, 1905, pp. 56-57:

. . . the most satisfactory explanation is that Onesiphorus was dead. . . .

And so we may hold with some confidence that we have in this passage the authority of an Apostle in praying for the welfare of the departed.

4) John Henry Bernard (1860-1927) (Anglican), The Pastoral Epistles, Cambridge University Press, 1899, p. 114:

On the whole then it seems probable that Onesiphorus was dead when St. Paul prayed on his behalf . . .

5) Donald Guthrie (1915-1992) (Anglican): The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, The Pastoral Epistles: An Introduction and Commentary, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2nd edition, 1990, p. 148:

Since it is assumed by many scholars that Onesiphorus was by now dead, the question has been raised whether this sanctions prayer for the dead. Roman catholic theologians claim that it does. Spicq, for instance, sees here an example of prayer for the dead unique in the New Testament. Some Protestants agree with this judgment and cite the Jewish precedent of 2 Macc 12:43-45 . . .

6) William Barclay (1907-1978) (Presbyterian / Church of Scotland), The Letters to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 3rd edition, 2003, p. 175:

. . . there are many who feel that the implication is that Onesiphorus is dead. It is for his family that Paul first prays. Now, if he was dead, this passage shows us Paul praying for the dead, for it shows him praying that Onesiphorus may find mercy on the last day.

7) J. N. D. Kelly (1909-1997) (Anglican): A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, London: A&C; Black, 1963, p. 171:

On the assumption, which must be correct, that Onesiphorus was dead when the words were written, we have here an example, unique in the N.T., of Christian prayer for the departed. . . . the commendation of the dead man to the divine mercy. There is nothing surprising in Paul’s use of such a prayer, for intercession for the dead had been sanctioned in Pharisaic circles at any rate since the date of 2 Macc 12:43-45 (middle of first century B.C.?). Inscriptions in the Roman catacombs and elsewhere prove that the practice established itself among Christians from very early times.

8) John E. Sanders (evangelical / open theist): No Other Name, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1992, pp. 182-183:

Some scholars contend that 2 Timothy 1:16-18 contains a reference to praying for the dead; they contend that the person for whom Paul prays, Onesiphorus was dead.

Footnote 11: Among those commentators who understand Paul to be praying for the dead here are the following: W. Robertson Nicoll, The Expositor’s Greek Testament, Vol. 4 (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1951), p. 159; Henry Alford, The Greek Testament, Vol. 3 (Chicago: Moody Pres, 1958), p. 376 . . . J. E. Huther, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to Timothy and Titus (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1871), p. 263.

9) Philip Schaff (1819-1893) (Reformed Protestant), The International Illustrated Commentary on the New Testament, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1889, Vol. IV, The Catholic Epistles and Revelation, p. 587:

On the assumption already mentioned as probable, this would, of course, be a prayer for the dead. The reference ot the great day of judgment falls in with this hypothesis. . . . From the controversial point of view, this may appear to favour the doctrine and practice of the Church of Rome . . .

10) Charles John Ellicott (1816-1905) (Anglican): A New Testament Commentary for English Readers, London: Cassell & Co., Vol. III, 1884, p. 223:

There is but little doubt that when St. Paul wrote this Epistle Onesiphorus’ death must have recently taken place . . .

The Apostle can never repay now . . . the kindness his dead friend showed him in his hour of need; so he prays that the Judge of quick and dead may remember it in the awful day of judgment. . . .

This passage is famous from its being generally quoted among the very rare statements of the New Testament which seem to bear upon the question of the Romish doctrine of praying for the dead. . . . we here in common with Roman Catholic interpreters and the majority of the later expositors of the Reformed Church, assume that Onesiphorus was dead when St. Paul wrote to Timothy, and that the words used had reference to St. Paul’s dead friend . . .

Stay in touch! Like Biblical Evidence for Catholicism on Facebook:

Biblical Evidence for Catholicism

August 19, 2015

August 19, 2015 By

PaulRembrandt2

Paul the Apostle, by Rembrandt, c. 1657 [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

2 Timothy 1:16-18 (RSV): “May the Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me; he was not ashamed of my chains, [17] but when he arrived in Rome he searched for me eagerly and found me – [18] may the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that Day – and you well know all the service he rendered at Ephesus.” (cf. 4:19)

Catholics pray for the souls in purgatory, in order to aid them in their journey through purgatory to heaven. In praying for the dead, it is very reasonable to contend that some sort of intermediate state is presupposed, because it would be futile to pray for those in hell (prayer can no longer help them) and unnecessary to pray for those in heaven (they have everything they need). This verse offers biblical support for this belief.

Protestant commentators have been hopelessly confused about the passage and cannot offer a coherent, unified testimony as to its meaning. Consulting their conflicting opinions makes for fascinating reading indeed.

The well-known evangelical Protestant work, The New Bible Commentary (3rd edition, 1970) takes the astounding position that Onesiphorus is probably dead (citing 2 Tim. 4:19), yet holds that Paul was praying for his conduct during life. The prominent Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary (1864) also holds that Paul was praying, but obviously not for a dead man because, after all, “nowhere has Paul prayers for the dead, which is fatal to the theory, . . . that he was dead.” This is circular reasoning: merely assuming what it claims is proven.

Greek scholar A. T. Robertson (Word Pictures in the New Testament, 1930, Vol. IV, 615) concedes that Onesiphorus was dead, but desperately describes Paul’s prayer for him as a “wish” (essentially a distinction without a difference). The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1939) makes the same (what can only be described as) rationalization, using the description, “pious wish” (Vol. IV, 2195). Famous Presbyterian commentators Matthew Henry (1662-1714) and Albert Barnes (1798-1870) casually assume that Onesiphorus was not dead, since Paul prayed for him – again making prior assumptions about what is possible in the first place, which amounts to eisegesis, or reading into Scripture notions that are not there. But John Calvin denied that he was dead.

The “game” and conundrum for all these commentaries is to refuse to accept both things together: a dead man, and someone praying for them. Thus, if they think he was dead, they deny that he was prayed for. And if they acknowledge prayer, they deny that he was dead.

But all is not lost. I have located several Anglican commentaries and a few others (thanks largely to Google Books!), that accept both factors together and state that Paul prayed for a dead man. The Anglican commentaries include Alfred Plummer (1841-1926), in The Expositor’s Bible, James Maurice Wilson (1836-1931), Sydney Charles Gayford (in 1905), John Henry Bernard (1860-1927), Charles John Ellicott (1816-1905), and J. N. D. Kelly (1909-1997), in A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (London: A&C Black, 1963, p. 171). The latter states:

On the assumption, which must be correct, that Onesiphorus was dead when the words were written, we have here an example, unique in the N.T., of Christian prayer for the departed. . . . the commendation of the dead man to the divine mercy. There is nothing surprising in Paul’s use of such a prayer, for intercession for the dead had been sanctioned in Pharisaic circles at any rate since the date of 2 Macc 12:43-45 (middle of first century B.C.?). Inscriptions in the Roman catacombs and elsewhere prove that the practice established itself among Christians from very early times.

William Barclay (liberal Presbyterian: 1907-1978) concurs in his Letters to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. So does the well-known Reformed Protestant Church historian Philip Schaff (1819-1893) in The International Illustrated Commentary on the New Testament (1889, Vol. IV, 587). Other commentators who agree include W. Robertson Nicoll, The Expositor’s Greek Testament (1951) and the renowned Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1958).

What are we to conclude from all this jumble of various Protestant opinions? I’m always happy to present the information and let readers make up their own minds, but I conclude (for whatever it is worth) that the passage is pretty straightforward. Therefore, when a commentator decides that Onesiphorus is not dead or that he was and wasn’t prayed for, it’s an example of eisegesis and letting denominational bias interfere with objective Bible commentary.

It’s always ironic to note such an occurrence among Protestants, since our separated brethren are very fond of frequently pointing out that they go by the Bible alone, as their only infallible source of authority and rule of faith. They will habitually claim that they merely let it speak for itself.

Yet when it comes to an issue like this, where the biblical text seems to run contrary to a tenet of Protestant denominational dogma (i.e., that prayer for the dead is impermissible), all of a sudden there is plenty of “explaining away” and denial of what seems to plainly be present in the passage.

Bias should never surprise us. It’s natural to the human mind, and we all (including Catholics) have it. We all bring prior traditions to our Bible commentary, too, no matter how much we may try to deny it. It’s not a matter of “whether,” but which tradition is present.

I maintain that Catholics are as free as anyone else (if not more so) to simply let the Bible speak for itself. If it indeed teaches prayer for the dead in this passage, we accept that, as part of God’s inspired revelation. It corresponds to Catholic doctrinal / dogmatic teaching, tying into purgatory. In my experience of over 24 years of Catholic apologetics, the Bible always does that. This may be little-known and frequently denied by Protestants, but it’s true, and I’ve shown it with many examples in my own work, such as this present one.

***

April 2, 2024

April 2, 2024 By
0 Comments

“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you’ve received benefit from this or any of my 4,500+ articles, please follow this blog by signing up (email address) on the sidebar to the right, above the icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. Please also consider following me on Twitter / X and purchasing one or more of my 55 books. All of this helps me get more exposure and concretely supports my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!

*****

But even if the stimulus of her repentance proceeded from her faith, she heard her justification by faith through her repentance pronounced in the words, Your faith has saved you, by Him who had declared by Habakkuk, The just shall live by his faith. [Habakkuk 2:4] (Against Marcion, Bk. IV, ch. 18)

This verity of the gospel then stands unimpaired: I am not come to destroy the law and the prophets, but rather to fulfil them. [Matthew 5:17] He also dissipated other doubts, when He declared that the name of God and of the Good belonged to one and the same being, at whose disposal were also the everlasting life and the treasure in heaven and Himself too — whose commandments He both maintained and augmented with His own supplementary precepts. (Against Marcion, Bk. IV, ch. 36)

For each individual lives by his own faith, nor is there exception of persons with God; since it is not hearers of the law who are justified by the Lord, but doers, according to what the apostle withal says. (On Exhortation to Chastity, ch. 7)

In so many words he says: Since you are risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sits at the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. [Colossians 3:1-2] Accordingly, it is in our mind that he shows that we rise (with Christ), since it is by this alone that we are as yet able to reach to heavenly objects. These we should not seek, nor set our affection on, if we had them already in our possession. He also adds: For you are dead — to your sins, he means, not to yourselves — and your life is hid with Christ in God. Now that life is not yet apprehended which is hidden. In like manner John says: And it does not yet appear what we shall be: we know, however, that when He shall be manifest, we shall be like Him. [1 John 3:2] We are far indeed from being already what we know not of; we should, of course, be sure to know it if we were already (like Him). It is therefore the contemplation of our blessed hope even in this life by faith (that he speaks of)— not its presence nor its possession, but only its expectation. Concerning this expectation and hope Paul writes to the Galatians: For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. [Galatians 5:5] He says we wait for it, not we are in possession of it. By the righteousness of God, he means that judgment which we shall have to undergo as the recompense of our deeds. It is in expectation of this for himself that the apostle writes to the Philippians: If by any means, says he, I might attain to the resurrection of the dead. Not as though I had already attained, or were already perfect. [Philippians 3:11-12] And yet he had believed, and had known all mysteries, as an elect vessel and the great teacher of the Gentiles; but for all that he goes on to say: I, however, follow on, if so be I may apprehend that for which I also am apprehended of Christ. Nay, more: Brethren, (he adds), I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing (I do), forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of blamelessness, whereby I may attain it; meaning the resurrection from the dead in its proper time. Even as he says to the Galatians: Let us not be weary in well-doing: for in due season we shall reap. [Galatians 6:9] Similarly, concerning Onesiphorus, does he also write to Timothy: The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy in that day; [2 Timothy 1:18] unto which day and time he charges Timothy himself to keep what had been committed to his care, without spot, unrebukable, until the appearing of the Lord Jesus Christ: which in His times He shall show, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords, speaking of (Him as) God. It is to these same times that Peter in the Acts refers, when he says: Repent therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; and He shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of His holy prophets. [Acts 3:19-21] (On the Resurrection of the Flesh, ch. 23)

. . . the children of believers were designed for holiness, and thereby for salvation; . . . (A Treatise on the Soul, ch. 39)

Related Reading

*
*
*

*

***

*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,600+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

*

***

Photo credit: Portrait of Tertullian, by André Thevet (1584) [source] [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: Tertullian denied the novel Protestant doctrine of “faith alone” or sola fide, like — scholars tell us — all of the Church fathers did. His soteriological thought was Catholic.

December 26, 2023

December 26, 2023 By
0 Comments

François Turretin (1623-1687) was a Genevan-Italian Reformed scholastic theologian and renowned defender of the Calvinistic (Reformed) orthodoxy represented by the Synod of Dort, and was one of the authors of the Helvetic Consensus (1675). He is generally considered to be the best Calvinist apologist besides John Calvin himself. His Institutes of Elenctic Theology (three volumes, Geneva, 1679–1685) used the scholastic method. “Elenctic” means “refuting an argument by proving the falsehood of its conclusion.” Turretin contended against the conflicting Christian  perspectives of Catholicism and Arminianism. It was a popular textbook; notably at Princeton Theological Seminary, until it was replaced by Charles Hodge‘s Systematic Theology in the late 19th century. Turretin also greatly influenced the Puritans.

This is a reply to a portion of Institutes of Elenctic Theology (Vol. 2, Eleventh Topic: The Law of God, Seventh Question: The First Commandment), in which he addresses the communion of saints, including the invocation and veneration of saints. I utilize the edition translated by George Musgrave Giger and edited by James T. Dennison, Jr. (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, Phillipsburg, New Jersey: 1992 / 1994 / 1997; 2320 pages). It uses the KJV for Bible verses. I will use RSV unless otherwise indicated.  All installments of this series of replies can be found on my Calvinism & General Protestantism web page, under the category, “Replies to Francois Turretin (1632-1687).” Turretin’s words will be in blue.

*****

Gregory Nazianzus calls idolatry “the transference of adoration from the Creator to creatures” (metathesis tēs proskynēseōs apo tou pepoiēkotos epi ta ktismata, Oration 38, “On the Theophany,” 13 [NPNF2, 7:349; PG 36.325]), and Thomas Aquinas defines idolatry as “the giving of divine honor to a creature” (ST, II–II, Q. 94, Art. 3, p. 1598).

Exactly. Catholics agree 100% and this is what we teach, too. After all, both of these saints above were Catholics.

Nor can the idle distinctions and incrustations obtruded by the papists remove so great a crime. . . . The worship which the adherents of Rome pay to creatures does not differ from divine worship, neither as to the internal worship of confidence and hope, which they place in them, nor as to the external worship of adoration and invocation, which they offer them, . . . Hence if they make a distinction in words to deceive the more simple, nevertheless it remains really the same in practice. 

The “more simple” person here is Turretin, who can’t being himself to accurately understand Catholic doctrine. He’s certainly capable of it. Once again, having correctly stated Catholic doctrine (citing two Catholics), he immediately pretends that we believe something differently from what he just described. This is sheer foolishness (and that’s a mild description).

Fifth, the invocation of the saints rests upon a doubly false foundation. The first is that they are our mediators and intercessors with God, who can obtain temporal and spiritual benefits for us not only by their prayers but also by their merits. Since this is most false and most dishonoring to Christ (as we will show in the proper place), whatever is built upon it must necessarily be false and fictitious.

I’ve already disproven this in past installments. We need only note Moses, Elijah, and St. Paul, among many others. Turretin contradicts — or rejects, we should say — plain and repeated biblical teachings.

. . . sacrilegiously to constitute himself the distributor of heavenly blessings, is a pure imitation of impure Gentilism and Jewish superstition, having no foundation either in Scripture, or in pious antiquity . . . 

I have previously shown how this is untrue as well, with dozens of biblical examples. Does Turretin not even read Holy Scripture? If so, how is it that he misses so much of it?

XVII. Sixth, the invocation of saints was unknown to the apostolic church and to the first ages of Christianity. It is evident from the testimonies of the most ancient fathers. . . . And that the saints were . . . [not] invoked by them at that time can be proved by various arguments. . . . they did not (like the Romanists) make equal mention of religious prayers to the departed . . . 

He cites eight fathers or ancient Christian sources (most of whom were not the “most ancient“) asserting things with which Catholics are in perfect agreement: we don’t adore or worship creatures, etc. Not a single one of his eight sources mentions the words “invoke” or “invocation.” All eight statements are non sequiturs. Must anti-Catholic apologetics always battle straw men? I get so incredibly tired of this. But then, it immediately shows that they have no case, if they have to pretend that Catholics believe certain things, and then go on to absurdly oppose those. It’s a joke.

Invocation of saints is one particular thing. It’s not worship. And it was massively taught in the fathers. I have fourteen pages documenting this in my book, Catholic Church Fathers: Patristic and Scholarly Proofs (Nov. 2007 / rev. Aug. 2013), and more proofs in my books, The Quotable Eastern Church Fathers: Distinctively Catholic Elements in Their Theology (July 2013) and The Quotable Augustine: Distinctively Catholic Elements in His Theology (Sep. 2012). I shall now quote several of the abundant proofs, and opinions of renowned Protestant patristic scholars.

Protestant historians J. N. D. Kelly and Philip Schaff provide an overview of what the early Church believed about the saints:

A phenomenon of great significance in the patristic period was the rise and gradual development of veneration for the saints, more particularly for the Blessed Virgin Mary. . . . Earliest in the field was the cult of martyrs . . . At first it took the form of the reverent preservation of their relics and the annual celebration of their ‘birthday’. From this it was a short step, since they were now with Christ in glory, to seeking their help and prayers, and in the third century evidence for the belief in their intercessory power accumulates. . . . By the middle of the same [4th] century, according to Cyril of Jerusalem, the patriarchs, prophets, apostles and martyrs were commemorated in the liturgy ‘so that by their prayers and intercessions God may receive our supplications’. (Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, San Francisco: Harper & Row, fifth revised edition, 1978, 490)

In the numerous memorial discourses of the fathers, the martyrs are loaded with eulogies, addressed as present, and besought for their protection. The universal tone of those productions is offensive to the Protestant taste, and can hardly be reconciled with evangelical ideas of the exclusive and all-sufficient mediation of Christ and of justification by pure grace without the merit of works. . . . The best church fathers, too, never separated the merits of the saints from the merits of Christ, but considered the former as flowing out of the latter. (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 3, fifth revised edition, 1910, chapter VII, section 84, 438)

[Appealing to the three companions of Daniel] Think of me, I beseech you, so that I may achieve with you the same fate of martyrdom. (Hippolytus, On Daniel, 11:30)

“Remember me, ye heirs of God, ye brethren of Christ, pray to the Saviour for me, that I through Christ may be delivered from him who assaults me from day to day;” and the mother of a martyr: “O holy, true, and blessed mother, plead for me with the saints, and pray: ‘Ye triumphant martyrs of Christ, pray for Ephraim, the least, the miserable,’ that I may find grace, and through the grace of Christ may be saved.” (Ephraim, in Schaff, ibid., 438)

Basil the Great calls the forty soldiers who are said to have suffered martyrdom under Licinius in Sebaste about 320, not only a “holy choir,” an “invincible phalanx,” but also “common patrons of the human family, helpers of our prayers and most mighty intercessors with God. (M. Hom. 19, in XL Martyres; Schaff, ibid., 438)

Gregory Nazianzen is convinced that the departed Cyprian guides and protects his church in Carthage more powerfully by his intercessions than he formerly did by his teachings, because he now stands so much nearer the Deity; he addresses him as present, and implores his favor and protection. [Orat. In laud. Cypr.] In his eulogy on Athanasius, who was but a little while dead, he prays: “Look graciously down upon us, and dispose this people to be perfect worshippers of the perfect Trinity; and when the times are quiet, preserve us—when they are troubled, remove us, and take us to thee in thy fellowship.” (in Schaff, ibid., 439)

Gregory of Nyssa asks of St. Theodore, whom he thinks invisibly present at his memorial feast, intercessions for his country, for peace, for the preservation of orthodoxy, and begs him to arouse the apostles Peter and Paul and John to prayer for the church planted by them (as if they needed such an admonition!). . . . In his Life of St. Ephraim, he tells of a pilgrim who lost himself among the barbarian posterity of Ishmael, but by the prayer, “St. Ephraim, help me!” and the protection of the saint, happily found his way home. He himself thus addresses him at the close: “Thou who standest at the holy altar, and with angels servest the life-giving and most holy Trinity, remember us all, and implore for us the forgiveness of sins and the enjoyment of the eternal kingdom.” (in Schaff, ibid., 438-439)

May Peter, who so successfully weeps for himself, weep also for us, and turn upon us the friendly look of Christ. The angels, who are appointed to guard us, must be invoked for us; the martyrs, to whose intercession we have claim by the pledge of their bodies, must be invoked. They who have washed away their sins by their own blood, may pray for our sins. For they are martyrs of God, our high priests, spectators of our life and our acts. We need not blush to use them as intercessors for our weakness; for they also knew the infirmity of the body when they gained the victory over it. (Ambrose, in Schaff, ibid., 440)

At the close of his memorial discourse on Sts. Bernice and Prosdoce . . . he exhorts his hearers not only on their memorial days but also on other days to implore these saints to be our protectors: “For they have great boldness not merely during their life but also after death, yea, much greater after death. For they now bear the stigmata of Christ [the marks of martyrdom], and when they show these, they can persuade the King to anything.” He relates that once, when the harvest was endangered by excessive rain, the whole population of Constantinople flocked to the church of the Apostles, and there elected the apostles Peter and Andrew, Paul and Timothy, patrons and intercessors before the throne of grace. (John Chrysostom, in Schaff, ibid., 439-440)

You say, in your pamphlet, that so long as we are alive we can pray for one another; but once we die, the prayer of no person for another can be heard, and all the more because the martyrs, though they cry for the avenging of their blood, have never been able to obtain their request. If Apostles and martyrs while still in the body can pray for others, when they ought still to be anxious for themselves, how much more must they do so when once they have won their crowns, overcome, and triumphed? A single man, Moses, oft wins pardon from God for six hundred thousand armed men; and Stephen, the follower of his Lord and the first Christian martyr, entreats pardon for his persecutors; and when once they have entered on their life with Christ, shall they have less power than before? The Apostle Paul says that two hundred and seventy-six souls were given to him in the ship; and when, after his dissolution, he has begun to be with Christ, must he shut his mouth, and be unable to say a word for those who throughout the whole world have believed in his Gospel? (Jerome, Against Vigilantius, 6; NPNF 2, Vol. VI, 419-420)

Jerome disputes the opinion of Vigilantius, that we should pray for one another in this life only, and that the dead do not hear our prayers, . . . He thinks that their prayers are much more effectual in heaven than they were upon earth. If Moses implored the forgiveness of God for six hundred thousand men, and Stephen, the first martyr, prayed for his murderers after the example of Christ, should they cease to pray, and to be heard, when they are with Christ? (Schaff, ibid., 440-441)

Augustine infers from the interest which the rich man in hell still had in the fate of his five surviving brothers (Luke xvi. 27), that the pious dead in heaven must have even far more interest in the kindred and friends whom they have left behind. He also calls the saints our intercessors, yet under Christ, the proper and highest Intercessor, as Peter and the other apostles are shepherds under the great chief Shepherd. In a memorial discourse on Stephen, he imagines that martyr, and St. Paul who stoned him, to be present, and begs them for their intercessions with the Lord with whom they reign. He attributes miraculous effects, even the raising of the dead, to the intercessions of Stephen. (Schaff, ibid., 441)

Nor if deceased saints now possess greater love, do they on that account wish to be invoked by us . . . since they now know more perfectly that such honor is due to God alone.

I have already shown earlier in this series that Abraham (Luke 16) and Samuel (1 Sam 28:15-16) did not rebuke their petitioners (the “rich man” and King Saul) for requesting things of them; they simply refused the particular petitions (as God sometimes does with our prayers). A refusal (just as in cases of petitioning God, where he denies a request) is not the same as saying that the petition should and could have never been made to them. An angel was also petitioned by Lot, with no rebuke seen; and in that case, Lot’s two petitions were granted (Gen 19:15-21).

If these things were in fact impermissible and immoral, as Turretin asserts, then in all three cases, the ones invoked would certainly have rebuked that practice. But they don’t. There is no hint in any of the three passages that the practice was impermissible, let alone “idolatry” and “sacrilege” et al. Catholics are following the biblical models in this; Turretin and Protestants reject the biblical teachings, which is no small thing. Turretin’s false accusations towards us are also mortally sinful: a violation of one of the Ten Commandments.

We also have a biblical example of an angel talking “from heaven” to Hagar (Gen 21:17-18). If an angel can communicate with a human being from heaven, the implication — or plausible analogy — is that we can do the reverse and communicate to an angel in heaven. We just saw how Lot petitioned (in effect prayed to) an angel on earth and received his wishes. Seeing that the angel in Genesis 21 talked to a human being from heaven, then we can logically talk back to the same angel, or angels in general, by extension, and we can ask for angelic intercession, per the example of Lot in Genesis 19. Systematic theology flows from cross-examination and harmonization of relevant passages.

And if they could be addressed by us either by the voice or by letter (because they were with us sojourners in an earthly country), they
ought not to be invoked in their heavenly country, which is far distant from us.

Why? There is no reason for this reluctance, and as just seen, the Bible teaches otherwise. Turretin gives us unsubstantiated, arbitrary traditions of men only.

If there is the same reason for the invocation of the saints and the salutations of the living, why did Paul (who so often orders some to pray for
others) never command us to invoke the saints?

I don’t know. I would ask that he never taught faith alone or sola Scriptura, either; nor did he or anyone else in the Bible list the biblical books (the canon). Protestant scholars Alister McGrath and Norman Geisler wrote about the lac of an historical basis of sola fide (faith alone and extrinsic, imputed justification), one of the pillars of the Protestant Reformation:

Whereas Augustine taught that the sinner is made righteous in justification, Melanchthon taught that he is counted as righteous or pronounced to be righteous. For Augustine, ‘justifying righteousness’ is imparted; for Melanchthon, it is imputed in the sense of being declared or pronounced to be righteous. Melanchthon drew a sharp distinction between the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous, designating the former ‘justification’ and the latter ‘sanctification’ or ‘regeneration.’ For Augustine, these were simply different aspects of the same thing . . .

The importance of this development lies in the fact that it marks a complete break with the teaching of the church up to that point. From the time of Augustine onwards, justification had always been understood to refer to both the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous. . . . (McGrath, Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 2nd edition, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1993, 108-109, 115; emphasis in original)

For Augustine, justification included both the beginnings of one’s righteousness before God and its subsequent perfection — the event and the process. What later became the Reformation concept of ‘sanctification’ then is effectively subsumed under the aegis of justification. Although he believed that God initiated the salvation process, it is incorrect to say that Augustine held to the concept of ‘forensic’ justification. This understanding of justification is a later development of the Reformation . . .

Before Luther, the standard Augustinian position on justification stressed intrinsic justification. Intrinsic justification argues that the believer is made righteous by God’s grace, as compared to extrinsic justification, by which a sinner is forensically declared righteous (at best, a subterranean strain in pre-Reformation Christendom). With Luther the situation changed dramatically . . .

. . . one can be saved without believing that imputed righteousness (or forensic justification) is an essential part of the true gospel. Otherwise, few people were saved between the time of the apostle Paul and the Reformation, since scarcely anyone taught imputed righteousness (or forensic justification) during that period! . . . . . (Geisler, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, with Ralph E. MacKenzie, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1995, 502, 85, 222; emphasis in original)

Yet Protestants believe all those things, anyway. It may be that Paul knew that this was already taught by Jesus in Luke 16, and so didn’t need to necessarily be reaffirmed in his writings. But he prayed for a dead person, Onesiphorus. If he can pray for a person who is dead and have an effect, then I think it follows by analogy and plausibility that he likely also believed that we could ask the departed to pray for us.

Moses does not address Abraham, nor fly to his protection (Ex. 32:13), . . . 

He may have, and it was simply not recorded, or he may not have known of this theology at that earlier stage of the history of salvation. But the rich man did “fly” to Abraham, according to the words of Jesus. So we know that it is both possible and permissible.

It is evident that no father can be found in the first three centuries as a patron of this invocation.

This is untrue. Anglican patrologist J. N. D. Kelly states (see above) that “in the third century evidence for the belief in their intercessory power accumulates . . .” That is referring to the years 200-300, whereas Turretin claim that it can’t be documented till after 300. I also noted Hippolytus above, invoking saints. He died around 236 AD. I suspect that inscriptions in the catacombs offer more very early proofs, too. The Bible wasn’t formally and finally canonized until the late 4th century. Do Protestants not believe in a canon, as a result: because it was such a late development? No. But when it comes to Catholic beliefs that they object to, they inconsistently play this game. And as I just showed, even Turretin’s factual claims as to the dates of the first documentation of invoking saints, is false.

I agree that the doctrine developed (i.e., human understanding of it continually grew), like every other doctrine believed by Protestants or Catholics or Orthodox. What is unacceptable is to argue that it ought to be rejected because it had a relatively late development (greatly expanding in the 4th century), even though many things that Protestants have no difficulty whatsoever accepting have very little historical pedigree at all (sola fide and sola Scriptura, or are dated in the late 4th century (the biblical canon).

*

*****

*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

*

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

*

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

*

***

Photo credit: sciencefreak (12-27-14) [Pixabay / Pixabay Content License]

Summary: As part of my series of replies to Calvinist expositor Francois Turretin, I address the communion of saints, particularly the invocation of both saints & angels.

 

 

 

October 18, 2023

October 18, 2023 By
0 Comments

[see the book info-page / buy Kindle or Nook versions]
*

Chapter five (“Purgatory”) — pp. 239-252 — of my book, Bible Truths for Catholic Truths: A Source Book for Apologists and Inquirers (Manchester, New Hampshire: Sophia Institute Press, 2009); the paperback is now out-of-print. This book could also be known as Dave’s Topical Bible, and contains over 1,900 Bible passages, categorized under 115 thematic headings. I am now offering it online for free.
*
In these blog posts I use — for readers’ convenience — the original RSV of the manuscript (© 1971 by Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America), rather than KJV, which was mostly used in the paperback, due to copyright law. This book is all Bible, except for a few clarifying comments here and there. Subtitles sometimes differ from the published version. They are my own original titles.

*****

PURGATORY AND ANALOGOUS PROCESSES (50 PASSAGES)

Numbers 31:23 everything that can stand the fire, you shall pass through the fire, and it shall be clean. Nevertheless it shall also be purified with the water of impurity; and whatever cannot stand the fire, you shall pass through the water.

Deuteronomy 4:33-38 Did any people ever hear the voice of a god speaking out of the midst of the fire, as you have heard, and still live? Or has any god ever attempted to go and take a nation for himself from the midst of another nation, by trials, by signs, by wonders, and by war, by a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, and by great terrors, according to all that the LORD your God did for you in Egypt before your eyes? To you it was shown, that you might know that the LORD is God; there is no other besides him. Out of heaven he let you hear his voice, that he might discipline you; and on earth he let you see his great fire, and you heard his words out of the midst of the fire. And because he loved your fathers and chose their descendants after them, and brought you out of Egypt with his own presence, by his great power, driving out before you nations greater and mightier than yourselves, to bring you in, to give you their land for an inheritance, as at this day;

Deuteronomy 8:5 Know then in your heart that, as a man disciplines his son, the LORD your God disciplines you. (cf. 11:2)

Job 23:10 But he knows the way that I take; when he has tried me, I shall come forth as gold. (cf. 4:17; 25:4)

Psalm 51:2, 7 Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin! . . . Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.

Psalm 66:10-12 For thou, O God, hast tested us; thou hast tried us as silver is tried. Thou didst bring us into the net; thou didst lay affliction on our loins; Thou didst let men ride over our heads; we went through fire and through water; yet thou hast brought us forth to a spacious place. (cf. 12:6)

Proverbs 3:11 My son, do not despise the LORD’s discipline or be weary of his reproof,

Proverbs 17:3 The crucible is for silver, and the furnace is for gold, and the LORD tries hearts.

Proverbs 20:30 Blows that wound cleanse away evil; strokes make clean the innermost parts. (cf. 30:12)

Ecclesiastes 12:14 For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil.

Isaiah 1:25-26 I will turn my hand against you and will smelt away your dross as with lye and remove all your alloy. And I will restore your judges as at the first, and your counselors as at the beginning.

Isaiah 4:4 When the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion and cleansed the bloodstains of Jerusalem from its midst by a spirit of judgment and by a spirit of burning.

Isaiah 48:10 Behold, I have refined you, but not like silver; I have tried you in the furnace of affliction.

Jeremiah 9:7 Therefore thus says the LORD of hosts: ”Behold, I will refine them and test them, for what else can I do, because of my people?”

Jeremiah 33:8 I will cleanse them from all the guilt of their sin against me, and I will forgive all the guilt of their sin and rebellion against me.

Ezekiel 22:18, 20, 22 Son of man, the house of Israel has become dross to me; all of them, silver and bronze and tin and iron and lead in the furnace, have become dross. . . . As men gather silver and bronze and iron and lead and tin into a furnace, to blow the fire upon it in order to melt it; so I will gather you in my anger and in my wrath, and I will put you in and melt you. . . . As silver is melted in a furnace, so you shall be melted in the midst of it; and you shall know that I the LORD have poured out my wrath upon you.

Ezekiel 36:25, 33 I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. . . . on the day that I cleanse you from all your iniquities, (cf. 37:23; Lam 3:39; Dan 11:35; 12:10)

Micah 7:8-9 Rejoice not over me, O mine enemy; when I fall, I shall rise; when I sit in darkness, the Lord will be a light to me. I will bear the indignation of the Lord because I have sinned against him, until he pleads my cause and executes judgment for me. He will bring me forth to the light; I shall behold his deliverance.

Zechariah 9:11 As for you also, because of the blood of my covenant with you, I will set your captives free from the waterless pit.

Zechariah 13:1 On that day there shall be a fountain opened for the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to cleanse them from sin and uncleanness.

Zechariah 13:9 And I will put this third into the fire, and refine them as one refines silver, and test them as gold is tested. They will call on my name, and I will answer them. I will say, “They are my people”; and they will say, “The LORD is my God.”

Malachi 3:2-4 But who can endure the day of his coming, and who can stand when he appears? For he is like a refiner’s fire, and like fullers’ soap; he will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, and he will purify the sons of Levi, and refine them like gold and silver, till they present right offerings to the Lord. Then the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasing to the Lord as in the days of old and as in former years.

2 Maccabees 12:39-42, 44-45 . . . Judas and his men went to take up the bodies of the fallen . . . Then under the tunic of every one of the dead they found sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear . . . So they all . . . turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out . . . For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.

Wisdom 3:1-7 But the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God, and no torment will ever touch them. In the eyes of the foolish they seemed to have died, and their departure was thought to be an affliction, and their going from us to be their destruction; but they are at peace. For though in the sight of men they were punished, their hope is full of immortality. Having been disciplined a little, they will receive great good, because God tested them and found them worthy of himself; like gold in the furnace he tried them, and like a sacrificial burnt offering he accepted them. In the time of their visitation they will shine forth, and will run like sparks through the stubble.

Wisdom 11:9-10 For when they were tried, though they were being disciplined in mercy, . . . For thou didst test them as a father does in warning, . . .

Sirach 2:5 For gold is tested in the fire, and acceptable men in the furnace of humiliation.

Matthew 5:22 But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, “You fool!” shall be liable to the hell of fire.

Matthew 5:25-26 Make friends quickly with your accuser, while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison; truly, I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny. (cf. Luke 12:58-59)

Matthew 12:32 And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

Luke 16:19-31 There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. And at his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus, full of sores, who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man’s table; . . . the poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died and was buried; and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes, and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus in his bosom. And he called out, “Father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame.” But Abraham said, “Son, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things, but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.” And he said, “Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father’s house, for I have five brothers, so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.” But Abraham said, “They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.” And he said, “No, father Abraham; but if some one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.” He said to him, “If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead.”

1 Corinthians 3:11-15 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble – each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire. (cf. Acts 15:9; 2 Cor 7:1)

1 Corinthians 15:29 Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?

In Holy Scripture baptism is often used in the sense of afflictions and penances (“Baptism of fire”); as in Matthew 3:11, Mark 10:38-39, Luke 3:16, 12:50. If this is what Paul had in mind, the passage makes perfect sense: he is talking about penances on behalf of the dead. Cf. 2 Maccabees 12:44: “if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead.”

2 Corinthians 4:17 For this slight momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison,

2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body.

Ephesians 4:8-10 . . . “When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men.””(In saying, “he ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower parts of the earth? He who descended is he who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.)

Ephesians 5:5 Be sure of this, that no fornicator or impure man, or one who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

Philippians 2:10-11 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

1 Thessalonians 2:4  . . .  God who tests our hearts.

1 Thessalonians 3:13  so that he may establish your hearts unblamable in holiness before our God and Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his saints.(cf. 4:7)

Hebrews 10:22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

Hebrews 12:5-14  And have you forgotten the exhortation which addresses you as sons? – “My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor lose courage when you are punished by him. For the Lord disciplines him whom he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives.” It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. Besides this, we have had earthly fathers to discipline us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live? For they disciplined us for a short time at their pleasure, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant; later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. Therefore lift your drooping hands and strengthen your weak knees, and make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may not be put out of joint but rather be healed. Strive for peace with all men, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.

Hebrews 12:22-23 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to a judge who is God of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

1 Peter 1:6-7 In this you rejoice, though now for a little while you may have to suffer various trials, so that the genuineness of your faith, more precious than gold which though perishable is tested by fire, may redound to praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ.

1 Peter 3:19-20 . . . he went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water.

1 Peter 4:6 For this is why the gospel was preached even to the dead, that though judged in the flesh like men, they might live in the spirit like God.

2 Peter 1:9 . . . he was cleansed from his old sins.

1 John 1:7, 9  . . . the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. . . . If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

1 John 3:2-3 Beloved, we are God’s children now; it does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. And every one who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure.

Revelation 5:3, 13 And no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll or to look into it. . . . And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all therein, saying, “To him who sits upon the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honour and glory and might for ever and ever!”

Revelation 21:27 But nothing unclean shall enter it, nor any one who practises abomination or falsehood, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life.

PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD

1 Kings 17:21-22 Then he stretched himself upon the child three times, and cried to the Lord, “O Lord my God, let this child’s soul come into him again.” And the Lord hearkened to the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived.

2 Maccabees 12:39-42, 44-45 . . . Judas and his men went to take up the bodies of the fallen . . . Then under the tunic of every one of the dead they found sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear . . . So they all . . . turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out . . . For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.

Mark 5:35-42 While he was still speaking, there came from the ruler’s house some who said, “Your daughter is dead. Why trouble the Teacher any further?” But ignoring what they said, Jesus said to the ruler of the synagogue, “Do not fear, only believe.” And he allowed no one to follow him except Peter and James and John the brother of James. When they came to the house of the ruler of the synagogue, he saw a tumult, and people weeping and wailing loudly. And when he had entered, he said to them, “Why do you make a tumult and weep? The child is not dead but sleeping.” And they laughed at him. But he put them all outside, and took the child’s father and mother and those who were with him, and went in where the child was. Taking her by the hand he said to her, “Tal’itha cu’mi”; which means, “Little girl, I say to you, arise.” And immediately the girl got up and walked (she was twelve years of age), and they were immediately overcome with amazement.

John 11:39-44 Jesus said, “Take away the stone.” Martha, the sister of the dead man, said to him, “Lord, by this time there will be an odor, for he has been dead four days.” Jesus said to her, “Did I not tell you that if you would believe you would see the glory of God?” So they took away the stone. And Jesus lifted up his eyes and said, “Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. I knew that thou hearest me always, but I have said this on account of the people standing by, that they may believe that thou didst send me.” When he had said this, he cried with a loud voice, “Laz’arus, come out.” The dead man came out, his hands and feet bound with bandages, and his face wrapped with a cloth. Jesus said to them, “Unbind him, and let him go.”

Acts 9:36-37, 40-41 Now there was at Joppa a disciple named Tabitha, which means Dorcas . . . In those days she fell sick and died . . . But Peter . . . knelt down and prayed; then turning to the body he said, “Tabitha, rise.” And she opened her eyes, and when she saw Peter she sat up. And he gave her his hand and lifted her up. Then calling the saints and widows he presented her alive.”

The Bible informs us that the disciples raised people from the dead (Mt 11:5; Lk 7:22) and that Jesus told them that they would be able to, and should, do so (Mt 10:8). So they went out and did it, with (presumably) the use of prayer for that end. Thus, they prayed for the dead. We see above an example of St. Peter doing just that.

1 Corinthians 15:29 Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?

2 Timothy 1:16-18 May the Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me; he was not ashamed of my chains, but when he arrived in Rome he searched for me eagerly and found me — may the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that Day — and you well know all the service he rendered at Ephesus.

*
*****

*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-three books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!
*
***
*

Summary: I provide the biblical rationale for Catholic beliefs with regard to purgatory, prayer for the dead, divine chastisement, etc., by presenting categorized Bible passages.

February 8, 2023

February 8, 2023 By
0 Comments

Lucas Banzoli is a very active Brazilian anti-Catholic polemicist, who holds to basically a Seventh-Day Adventist theology, whereby there is no such thing as a soul that consciously exists outside of a body, and no hell (soul sleep and annihilationism). This leads him to a Christology which is deficient and heterodox in terms of Christ’s human nature after His death. He has a Master’s degree in theology, a degree and postgraduate work in history, a license in letters, and is a history teacher, author of 25 self-published books, as well as blogmaster (active on and off) for six blogs. He has many videos on YouTube.

This is my 57th refutation of Banzoli’s writings. For almost half a year (5-25-22 to 11-12-22) he didn’t write one single word in reply, because my articles were deemed to be “without exception poor, superficial and weak . . . only a severely cognitively impaired person would be inclined to take” them “seriously.” Despite this childish rationalizing, he found my refutations so “entertaining” that he bravely decided to “make a point of rebutting” them “one by one”: this effort being his “new favorite sport.”

He has now replied to me 14 times (the last one dated 1-22-23), and I will (rest assured) counter-reply to any and all actual arguments (as opposed to his never-ending insults) that he makes in direct response to me. I disposed of the main themes of his slanderous insults in several Facebook posts under his name on my Anti-Catholicism page. I plan (by God’s grace) to ignore them henceforth, and heartily thank him for these innumerable blessings and extra rewards in heaven (Matthew 5:11-12).

Google Translate is utilized to render Lucas’ Portugese into English. Occasionally I slightly modify clearly inadequate translations, so that his words will read more smoothly and meaningfully in English. His words will be in blue. Words from past replies of mine to him will be in green.

*****

This is my reply to Lucas Banzoli’s article, “Como Dave Armstrong “encontrou” a oração aos mortos na Bíblia” [How Dave Armstrong “Found” Prayer to the Dead in the Bible] (12-18-22). This was an alleged response to my article, “Bible on Praying Straight to God” (9-21-22).

Dave . . . claims that we can pray directly to God if we want (although he strongly discourages the practice, as we will see later), . . . 

I “discouraged” nothing. I contended that the two methods of prayer are not antithetical. I stated:

We can go to God directly anytime we like. He is that sort of loving Father. Nothing in Catholicism is against that. We simply note that there are times when a person holier than us is in the area, and that when that happens, we should ask them to pray for us rather than go directly to God.  . . . 

We can find prayer directly to God throughout the Old Testament. We also find (as I did and posted above) the practice of asking holy people to pray. It’s not “either/or”; it’s “both/and.” Lucas’ carefully chosen passages don’t contradict Catholicism at all: not in the slightest. We totally affirm them as he does.

I said that (1) all PRAYERS are addressed directly to God, and that (2) we never see a PRAYER addressed to a deceased saint. . . . Dave . . . cannot find a single one where the recipient of the prayer is anyone other than God. 

This is untrue. Saul asked the dead Samuel for advice: “tell me what I shall do” (1 Sam 28:15). Samuel replied: “Why then do you ask me, since the LORD has turned from you and become your enemy?” (1 Sam 28:16). He wasn’t saying that it was utterly improper to pray to him; only that it made no sense, since God had already made it clear that Saul was His enemy. The second example is the rich man praying to the dead Abraham for his brothers (Luke 16), which I have written about many times. That historical account came right from the lips of Jesus Himself. Also, Abraham’s nephew Lot prayed to an angel, which is someone “other than God” (Gen 19:15, 18-22).

Dave’s maneuver consists precisely in manipulating what has been affirmed, citing a truckload of texts that say nothing about prayer or about deceased “saints” . Yes, he literally spends the entire article quoting almost 30 biblical texts without any of them having anything to do with my “challenge”, either because he thinks his readers are a bunch of fools who won’t notice the maneuver, or because he is taking taking his job as a comedian too seriously.

As usual, Banzoli completely missed the analogical nature of my argument. I don’t know how. I made it very clear, what my argument was (as I think I always do). My examples had to do with various people in the Bible asking holier persons to pray for them, rather than going directly to God in prayer themselves. That’s the principle. I proved that this happened over and over again. I wrote:

This is a great one [Gen 20:6-7, 17-18] that I just discovered in writing this reply. It’s notable in that God Himself is telling a person not to pray for himself, so that he “shall live”, but that a holier person (a “prophet”: Abraham) will do so, according to God’s own revealed will, in both special and written revelation (the Bible). Abraham was the holier person. He prayed, and good things happened as a result, because it was all according to God’s will.

Thus, Abimelech was a “biblical character” and he was told by God Himself that Abraham would pray for him; therefore, he didn’t go “straight to God” in prayer, like Lucas claimed “ALL” biblical figures did. Lucas is again making a fool of himself by asserting a “universal negative”: probably the dumbest thing anyone can ever do in a debate. . . . 

The entire nation of Israel were “biblical character[s]” and they asked the prophet Samuel to pray for them [1 Sam 12:17-19, 23]; therefore, they, too didn’t go “straight to God” in prayer, like Lucas claimed “ALL” biblical figures did.

After providing many such examples that all contradicted Banzoli’s claim, I concluded:

From this massive biblical data, we conclude, then, that it’s best to “go straight to God” in prayer, unless there happens to be a person more righteous than we are in the immediate vicinity, who is willing to make the same prayer request. Then the Bible recommends that we ask them to intercede for us or any righteous cause, rather than asking God directly.

Then after establishing the repeated biblical principle of asking more righteous people to pray, I gave examples of extending this practice to dead saints, too:

Abraham was a deceased saint (even a real one without quotation marks around “saint”!) and he was prayed to and intercessory requests made of him, according to our Lord Jesus: Who told the story of actual events, whereby a rich man who died and went to Hades (Lk 16:22-23) asked Abraham to help his still living brothers: [Lk 16:27-31] . . .

King Saul also made a prayer request regarding himself, to the prophet Samuel, after the latter had died (28:3): [1 Sam 28:15-19] . . .

Or we can ask the dead Abraham or the dead Samuel and any other saint to pray for us, or an angel, as the Bible also teaches and affirms. It’s trusting God (Ps 91:2) to do what He recommends for our good.

Then I illustrated how men asked angels to pray for them as well:

How about praying to / asking the intercession of angels rather than God? Sure: the Bible directly refers to that practice, too, with not the slightest hint of condemnation or prohibition. Abraham’s nephew Lot rather casually did it: [Gen 19:15, 18-22]

Abraham prayed to God, and God answered his prayer. This is the pattern found throughout the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation: 

And Saul prayed to dead Samuel, and the rich man prayed to dead Abraham (so reported Jesus), and Lot prayed to an angel. Banzoli ignorantly denied that this ever took place. He’s dead wrong.

Dave does not read the Bible, he just “hunts” for random verses that he just discovered in some search engine. verses and quotes them as if he had discovered gunpowder. 

Right. I don’t read the Bible. I’ve only been defending it for 42 years without reading it. Makes a lot of sense, doesn’t it? The vast majority of Banzoli’s reply are laughable non sequiturs, because he never grasped the analogical nature of my argument in the first place. I will not cite all those portions, out of charity (which is why this reply is shorter than many other ones).

Banzoli attacks the Hail Mary:

First, the prayer is addressed directly to Mary and not to God, as the very beginning indicates. Mary is the subject, focus, and addressee of prayer, from beginning to end. God is mentioned only twice, both times in contexts that exalt the very person of Mary, and neither time as the recipient of prayer. 

This is sheer nonsense. First of all, technically, the first part of the Hail Mary is simply repeating Scripture and meditating upon it. Catholics didn’t come up with “Hail Mary, full of grace.” That was the angel Gabriel, who said that to her (Lk 1:28). Nor did Catholics invent “Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.” That was Mary’s cousin Elizabeth (Lk 1:42), who said it because she was “filled with the Holy Spirit” (Lk 1:41). Then we ask the Blessed Virgin Mary to pray for us. We’re not (technically) praying to her (as if she could answer in and of herself apart from God), but rather, asking her to pray or intercede for us (“Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death”).

Banzoli lies and claims that God is never “the recipient of prayer” in the Hail Mary. I’d like to ask him, then: who does he think we think Mary is praying to, when she prays for us in the hour of our death? Who does he think she is praying to? After all, we’re asking her to pray; we’re not asking her to fulfill the prayer by herself, without God. How can she pray for us without interceding to God on our behalf? This simply exposes Banzoli’s rank ignorance of Catholic prayer and theology alike.

We repeat Elizabeth’s words and say Mary is very “blessed.” Very scriptural. It’s a biblical sentiment! Who is it that fulfills Mary’s prophecy about herself: “henceforth all generations will call me blessed” (Lk 1:48)? Of course it is Catholics and Orthodox. Almost no Protestants do that. So once again; we’re the biblical ones. Protestants, when discussing the Blessed Virgin Mary, typically say they have no hostility or disrespect towards her; that they are simply following what the Bible itself says about her. Very well then: here is “the biblical Mary” (no development of doctrine or Catholic dogmas involved) saying with her own mouth that she would be called “blessed” by “all generations.” We follow the practice and they don’t.

As he is not able to point us to a single biblical prayer in the most “Hail Mary” style, where a dead person is invoked in place of God

Once again (repetition being a great teacher): Saul to Samuel, the rich man to Abraham, and (similarly) Lot to an angel . . .

Dave . . . has no text that speaks of a dead man praying for a living man

Revelation 6:9-10 . . . I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne; [10] they cried out with a loud voice, “O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before thou wilt judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell upon the earth?”

This is what is called an imprecatory prayer: calling for judgment against enemies. We can easily imagine that these same dead persons could and would also pray for those still on the earth who are being persecuted and may be martyred just as they were (Rev 6:11). There is no compelling reason to rule out that very likely possibility. And if that happened, they would be praying for living men, just as the Bible strongly implies that Moses and Samuel do (Jeremiah 15:1) and that angels do, since (for some odd reason) “the prayers of the saints” are in “the hand of the angel” (Rev 8:4), and they “rose . . . before God.”

What are angels doing with these prayers, pray tell? It looks to me like they are interceding for the living. So are “the twenty-four elders” (generally regarded by commentators as dead human beings), who have “golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints” (Rev 5:8). The relevant question again is: “what are they doing with ‘the prayers of the saints’?” The logical answer is that they are interceding; participating in those prayers as righteous creatures praying to God for some good purpose. In the Deuterocanon (disputed on inadequate grounds by Protestants) it state straight out that Jeremiah is doing so:

2 Maccabees 15:14 And Onias spoke, saying, “This is a man who loves the brethren and prays much for the people and the holy city, Jeremiah, the prophet of God.”

Dave . . . has no text that speaks of . . . a living man praying for a dead man,

That’s easy: Paul did so with regard to Onesiphorus, as I have written about many times:

Paul Prayed for Dead Onesiphorus (Protestant Commentaries) [7-14-09]

St. Paul Prayed for a Dead Man: Onesiphorus [8-19-15]

St. Paul Prayed for Onesiphorus, Who Was Dead [National Catholic Register, 3-19-17]

Was Onesiphorus Dead When Paul Prayed for Him?: Data from 16 Protestant Commentaries (1992-2016) [3-20-17]

Again: the people sin, ask Moses to pray for them, Moses prays to the Lord and the Lord grants Moses’ request. 

Exactly! As I explained regarding the Hail Mary: the people sin, ask Mary to pray for them (“pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death”), Mary prays to the Lord (since she is praying, and who would it be to, but God?) and the Lord grants Mary’s request.

While Moses could be said to have acted as an “intermediary” between the people and God, it is in an entirely different sense from the “saints” of Catholicism. First, because the people did not “pray” to Moses, as Catholics pray to the saints. 

We are asking saints to intercede for us, precisely as Moses was asked to do (being very holy).

Second, because Moses was alive, and after he dies we never again see any Jew asking Moses for anything or praying to him (precisely because they knew that prayers had to be addressed to God alone).

That would be news to Jesus, who informed us that a Jew (the “rich man”) prayed to Abraham (who was also known as a great intercessor on the earth). He didn’t “know” that his prayers had to be directed to God only, and Abraham never corrected him (as he certainly should have done if this were true). So Banzoli is wrong again. He doesn’t believe that Jesus told the truth; I do. It’s got to be difficult to keep being wrong again and again and again.

This is how Dave tries to justify the fact that Catholics never go directly to God

Another lie, and obviously so. Anyone with an IQ higher than a mushroom knows this isn’t true. It’s yet another one of Banzoli’s mindless, brainless, idiotic “universal negatives.” Sorry for the harsh language, but there is no other way to react to such inanities. I can disprove it in ten seconds: every Catholic at every Mass prays the Lord’s Prayer or Our Father as we call it. It’s a prayer to God. Jesus Himself taught all Christians to pray it. It’s His words. Therefore, it’s untrue that “Catholics never go directly to God.” Every Mass and every Catholic at every Mass proves it’s a lie. The question here is: “how can Banzoli possibly be this abysmally ignorant of Catholic practices?” And of course, in private prayer, Catholics go directly to God all the time. It insults my intelligence and that of all reading to even have to note this self-evident truth.

Once again, as I plainly stated in my article that Banzoli was replying to: “We can go to God directly anytime we like. . . . Nothing in Catholicism is against that. . . . We can find prayer directly to God throughout the Old Testament.” I’ve said the same thing for over thirty years in many articles (that could be found on my blog, and no; I will not waste my time searching for them now; these statements exist, if anyone wants further proof). 

Yet we never see a single NT biblical character praying to an OT “saint” . . . On the contrary, prayers are always, only and exclusively addressed to God , regardless of how much more “holy” these dead would be. [bolding his own]

Another universal negative; will Banzoli ever learn and cease asserting them? The “rich man” prays to Abraham (Luke 16). Disagree? Take it up with Our Lord and Savior Jesus: God the Son, since it’s from Him that we know this.

Of all the examples Dave hunted down in the Bible, you haven’t seen one where a righteous person refuses to pray for himself, only to let someone else pray for him. 

And within a minute, here comes another universal negative! Banzoli simply doesn’t know how to effectively debate. No one prevails in a debate by making a fool of himself every minute. The refutation of this false charge is in my article that he was replying to: God said to Abimelech: “I know that you have done this in the integrity of your heart” (Gen 20:6) and “Now then restore the man’s wife; for he [Abraham] is a prophet, and he will pray for you, and you shall live” (Gen 20:6).

Banzoli “responds” to Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16):

the great proof he has that praying to the dead is legitimate is a parable . . . the vast majority of immortalist theologians themselves recognize that the account is merely parabolic and that it has nothing to do with “real events” . . . if Dave were honest enough to recognize that Luke 16:19-31 is a parable and not a true story, he would lose the only text it can cite in its favor.

It’s not a parable, as I and many argue, but even if it were, Jesus couldn’t tell an untruth or false bit of theology in it. He couldn’t tell a parable, for example, in which there were four Persons in the Trinity or sixteen gods who have existed for all eternity, or a God that is not eternal. That can’t happen because 1) He’s Jesus, Who is God and knows all things, and 2) the Bible in which these parables are found is itself without error. So this “argument” proves nothing whatsoever. If we can never pray to anyone but God (i.e., ask them to intercede to God for us), then Jesus simply couldn’t and wouldn’t teach it in His story, whether it is a parable or not. But He did, so there we have it. I have argued this probably twenty times through the years and it is no less self-evident now than it ever was.

I imagine how beautiful Dave’s heaven must be,

This isn’t heaven; it’s Hades (Sheol), as Jesus expressly stated (Lk 16:23). So why does Banzoli blatantly represent the inspired words of God Himself (in God’s revelation)?

walking and singing and following the song, until he looks across and sees his kin and children burning before him and he can chat with them and he can do nothing to assuage their grief. suffering (although he would probably be the one “on the other side”, to make the analogy more accurate).

Again, since this is Hades and not heaven (nor hell), it’s irrelevant to pretend that it’s referring to heaven. That would make Jesus a liar. Obviously, Banzoli denies the existence of hell, but Jesus does not, and that’s the point. He talked more about hell than about heaven (in what we have in Scripture).

I also wonder how the rich man and Lazarus ended up in Hades with bodies and all, when in fact they should have been incorporeal spirits (little ghosts, as in the immortalist fable that Dave loves). 

It’s anthropomorphic language, that God often uses regarding Himself, too.

This is the problem when you are committed to false doctrine: you are bound to cling tooth and nail to the most outlandish arguments, since that is all you have.

Couldn’t have said it better myself!

And the worst is that not even if the parable of the rich man and Lazarus were a true story, this text could be correctly used in his favor, because neither the rich man is answered nor does he say a prayer.

He doesn’t have to have his prayer fulfilled for it to be a prayer or for it to be proper to pray to Abraham. Abraham refused the request, and gave the reason why. God refuses prayer requests too. But if it were fundamentally improper or wrong, Abraham would have had to correct the rich man, and say, “Pray only to God! Why are you praying to me?!” He never did (nor did he say it was impossible for him to fulfill — by whatever means — any request); therefore, Jesus taught that it was proper and permissible to pray to someone other than God; a dead man. The doctrine was already present in Genesis (Lot praying to an angel).

It’s certainly a prayer. The rich man makes a petitionary request and two intercessory ones:

“Father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Laz’arus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame.” (Lk 16:24)

“Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father’s house, for I have five brothers, so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.” (Lk 16:27-28)

“No, father Abraham; but if some one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.” (Lk 16:30)

Those are clearly prayers; the second and third also involve a supernatural occurrence: someone coming back from the dead to warn his brothers. Abraham didn’t say that he couldn’t cause that to happen, but that it wouldn’t make any difference, because if they were to repent, thy would have already done so as a result of reading Moses and the prophets (Lk 16:31). In the case of the first request, Abraham noted that it was not permitted (implied: by God) to cross from one region of Hades to the other.

In the Bible, prayer is establishing a connection between this world and the next.

If that’s the case (apart from the fact that the Bible never states this criterion, that I am aware of), then the incidents with Saul and Samuel, and Lot and the angel qualify.

Most of my 6th grade Religious Education students know that Saul was a godless and apostate king, tormented by evil spirits (1 Sam 16:23), who pursued David out of envy all his life, and who cold-bloodedly murdered the Gibeonites for protecting David.

Good for them. This has absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether a person (Saul being a person) can pray to someone other than God. There’s no rule that says that a lousy sinner isn’t permitted to pray any longer. So this is one of the innumerable non sequiturs that Banzoli haplessly, witlessly descends to in his reply. Samuel would have been duty-bound to say — as a holy prophet – in any event that he is not to be prayed to because he was 1) dead, and 2) not God, if in fact this were the biblical teaching. Since it’s not the biblical teaching, Samuel (like Abraham and the angel Lot prayed to) doesn’t say either thing.

a king punished with death precisely for practicing what Dave uses to base prayer for the dead! 

No Catholic advocates consulting mediums or necromancy. See my paper, Invocation of the Saints = Necromancy? [10-18-08]. No orthodox Catholic defends Saul’s effort to consult a medium. It’s beside the point, which is that the actual Samuel appeared, whatever Saul and the medium did or sought to do.

the very Bible that Dave never opened calls this practice an abomination and punishes its practitioners with death (as happened to Saul himself):

We agree that consulting a medium is an abomination. But as a point of fact, Saul was not killed for that (or at the very least, not primarily for it). As the risen Samuel noted, God had already turned against Saul. That happened when Saul offered sacrifices that only priests could offer (1 Samuel 13:9-14) and again when Saul didn’t utterly destroy the Amalekites (1 Sam 15:10-29). Somehow I knew this (never having opened a Bible), while Banzoli — in his infinite wisdom and knowledge — doesn’t (presumably having opened and read a Bible now and then). Samuel mentions the second reason right during his final encounter with Saul: “the LORD has turned from you and become your enemy . . . Because you did not obey the voice of the LORD, and did not carry out his fierce wrath against Am’alek, therefore the LORD has done this thing to you this day” (1 Sam 28:16, 18).

as if the necromancer’s invocation of Samuel justified the Catholic practice of communicating with the dead.

No Catholic apologist or theologian that I’m aware of, has ever claimed that. For the umpteenth time, it’s a non sequitur in this debate. All agree that occultic practices were and are wrong and forbidden.

But then why didn’t Samuel rebuke Saul for consulting him, as Dave argues? The answer is simple: because it wasn’t really Samuel, but a demon impersonating him.

The Bible never remotely states such a thing (and I contend that it certainly would, if it were true). It’s “Banzology” (which, frankly, I don’t put much stock in). He’s simply called Samuel, just as he was when he was alive. And he repeats what we know the real Samuel said while alive on the earth: such as the failure to destroy the Amalekites as the reason for Saul’s demise. Demons don’t tell the truth. They lie and deceive. Samuel (risen out of Sheol) told the truth, as confirmed by Saul’s predicted death, the very next day (1 Sam 28:19). Classic Protestant commentaries note the absurdity of the “demon” hypothesis:

Benson Commentary: He expressly says the woman saw Samuel, and if we believe that she did not see Samuel, but only an evil spirit personating him, we must call in question either the ability or integrity of the sacred writer: we must conceive either that he did not know what he wrote about, or that he designed to deceive his readers. Supposing then that both the woman and Saul might be deceived by an impostor in Samuel’s guise; yet we ask, Was this author deceived? Or did he mean to deceive us, when he gives us to understand, that the woman saw Samuel, and was frighted at the sight!

Barnes’ Notes on the Bible: It is manifest both that the apparition of Samuel was real, and also that the woman was utterly unprepared for it.
*
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary: [M]any eminent writers (considering that the apparition came before her arts were put in practice; that she herself was surprised and alarmed; that the prediction of Saul’s own death and the defeat of his forces was confidently made), are of opinion that Samuel really appeared.
*
Clarke’s Commentary: That Samuel did appear on this occasion, is most evident from the text; nor can this be denied from any legitimate mode of interpretation: and it is as evident that he was neither raised by the power of the devil nor the incantations of the witch, for the appearances which took place at this time were such as she was wholly unacquainted with. Her familiar did not appear; and from the confused description she gives, it is fully evident that she was both surprised and alarmed at what she saw, being so widely different from what she expected to see.
*
Lange’s Commentary: Of the three schemes of explanation of this difficult passage now held—namely, that which regards the affair as a mere deception, that which supposes a sort of mesmeric clairvoyance in the woman, and that which sees here a real appearance of Samuel by divine power, the last has found most favor among English orthodox expositors. . . . it is not easy to see how we can avoid finding in the narration a distinct declaration that Samuel actually appeared and spoke.

Somebody call a doctor, a psychiatrist, a vet maybe, but they can’t let a man like that write the things he writes. . . . 

It doesn’t matter what the Bible actually says; what matters is how this can be nominally manipulated to convey the opposite meaning. As is clear from my first rebuttal, all these years of apologetics have only made Dave a master of the art of deceit and dissimulation, a professional scarecrow striker, someone who compulsorily needs to deflect the heart of the argument, mutilate the opposing argument, distort everything said and then bombard with as many randomly quoted texts as possible, betting that no one will have the holy patience to analyze them one by one to embarrass themselves.

Just for the record . . . and I turn the other cheek, as promised in the introduction above. Please pray for my patience and my longtime inability to suffer fools gladly. I willingly suffer through these fifty billion insults for the sake of those whom I’m trying to reach with this article and others like it. I “offer it up” for them. If even just one person is prevented from leaving Catholicism due in part to the grace-enabled writings of this poor sinner, it will all be well worth it, and I salute the person to whom that happens, and praise the God Who made it possible.

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-one books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

Photo credit: The Rich Man in Hell and the Poor Lazarus in Abraham’s Lap (1517), by Hans Schäufelein (1480-1540) and Adam Petri (1454-1527) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: I defend the practice of invocation and intercession of saints, with biblical examples: all of which are able to stand up against the usual Protestant criticism.

May 12, 2022

May 12, 2022 By

Gavin Ortlund is an author, speaker, and apologist for the Christian faith, who serves as the senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai in Ojai, California. Gavin has a Ph.D. from Fuller Theological Seminary in historical theology, and an M.Div from Covenant Theological Seminary. He is the author of seven books as well as numerous academic and popular articles. For a list of publications, see his CV. He runs the YouTube channel Truth Unites, which seeks to provide an “irenic” voice on theology, apologetics, and the Christian life.

I greatly admire and appreciate Gavin’s ecumenical methodology, and viewpoint. It’s extremely refreshing to hear in this hyper-polarized age. He is an exemplary Christian role model of this open-minded, charitable approach. We all learn and “win” when good, constructive dialogue takes place. It’s never a “loss” to arrive at more truth or to recognize one’s own error.

*****

This is a reply to his video, “Purgatory: A Protestant Perspective” (12-7-21). Gavin’s words will be in blue.

Gavin starts by noting that Catholic apologists often claim that “everybody” (i.e., of the Church fathers) believed in purgatory. I grant that the belief is not as universal as some of these claims would make out, and that eastern fathers tended to not believe in it (or at least not in the western, “Latin” more developed manner), according to the somewhat different course of eastern Christian theology. On the other hand, it’s likely that I think it was more widely believed than Gavin thinks it was, and I would agree with Cardinal Newman (see below), that it was “almost a consensus” [my italics]. St. John Henry Cardinal Newman wrote in his landmark book, Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, in 1845:

Some notion of suffering, or disadvantage, or punishment after this life, in the case of the faithful departed, or other vague forms of the doctrine of Purgatory, has in its favour almost a consensus of the first four ages of the Church, though some Fathers state it with far greater openness and decision than others. It is, as far as words go, the confession of St. Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, St. Perpetua, St. Cyprian, Origen, Lactantius, St. Hilary, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Ambrose, St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, and of Nyssa, St. Chrysostom, St. Jerome, St. Paulinus, and St. Augustine. And so, on the other hand, there is a certain agreement of Fathers from the first that mankind has derived some disadvantage from the sin of Adam.

Next, when we consider the two doctrines more distinctly,—the doctrine that between death and judgment there is a time or state of punishment; and the doctrine that all men, naturally propagated from fallen Adam, are in consequence born destitute of original righteousness, we find, on the one hand, several, such as Tertullian, St. Perpetua, St. Cyril, St. Hilary, St. Jerome, St. Gregory Nyssen, as far as their words go, definitely declaring a doctrine of Purgatory: whereas no one will say that there is a testimony of the Fathers, equally strong, for the doctrine of Original Sin, though it is difficult here to make any definite statement about their teaching without going into a discussion of the subject.

On the subject of Purgatory there were, to speak generally, two schools of opinion; the Greek, which contemplated a trial of fire at the last day through which all were to pass; and the African, resembling more nearly the present doctrine of the Roman Church. And so there were two principal views of Original Sin, the Greek and the African or Latin.  . . .

It may be observed, in addition, that, in spite of the forcible teaching of St. Paul on the subject, the doctrine of Original Sin appears neither in the Apostles’ nor the Nicene Creed. (University of Notre Dame Press, 1989, with a foreword by Ian Ker, from the 1878 edition of the original work of 1845, Introduction, sections 15-16, pp. 21-23)

I’ve poured an enormous amount of energy into researching this. I’m really excited about this video, to share it with you all: probably more excited about this video than any other video I’ve done thus far. [0:30-0:42]

Excellent. That will make the video even better then. I, too have written a great deal about this topic, and love to discuss it. So I look eagerly forward to this exchange.

A lot of Protestants don’t really have a good conception of what purgatory is. [3:58 -4:03]

Very true. Nor do a lot of Catholics, I would add. Gavin then helpfully cites the Catholic Catechism for a solid definition.

Purgatory is not hell. [4:30-32]

Good.

Purgatory is not a second chance at salvation, okay? The people who go to purgatory are already saved. . . . Purgatory is not necessarily a place. . . . Recent popes have clarified it’s more of a condition of existence . . . The fire of purgatory . . . this is not necessarily literal fire . . . most people probably wouldn’t see it as literal fire today. [4:41-5:30]

Agreed all down the line.

Gavin expresses as a Protestant concern, the aspects of corruption of the doctrine of purgatory “on the ground” in the late Middle Ages, and says that this can’t be overlooked in a Protestant-Catholic discussion on purgatory. I think we mostly agree on that.

There’s a lot of financial manipulation of the laity [in the late Middle Ages, prior to Protestantism]. [10:01-07]

The Council of Trent agreed in its Decree on Purgatory (1563):

[T]his holy Council commands the bishops to strive diligently that the sound doctrine of purgatory, handed down by the Holy Fathers and the sacred Councils, be believed by the faithful and that it be adhered to, taught and preached everywhere.

But let the more difficult and subtle questions which do not make for edification and, for the most part, are not conducive to an increase of piety (cf. I Tim. 1:4), be excluded from the popular sermons to uneducated people. Likewise they should not permit opinions that are doubtful and tainted with error to be spread and exposed. As for those things that belong to the realm of curiosity or superstition, or smack of dishonorable gain, they should forbid them as scandalous and injurious to the faithful. [my italics]

Gavin distinguishes the “historical reality” from “official Catholic doctrine.” Excellent! He notes that Trent “condemned” abuses of the doctrine of purgatory (while thinking “they didn’t go far enough”). This acknowledgment of internal Catholic reform is so often not done in Protestant analyses. For many Protestant apologists, such excesses are in fact the official doctrines: so they mistakenly think. Or else they don’t take the time to make the crucial distinction that Gavin makes (even though they may be aware of these factors). This is one of many reasons why I have such great respect for Gavin’s presentations.

See also my related articles: Myths and Facts Regarding Tetzel and Indulgences [11-25-16; published in Catholic Herald]

The Biblical Roots and History of Indulgences [National Catholic Register, 5-25-18]

He notes that purgatory is inherently connected with many other Catholic beliefs and practices such as the Sacrifice of the Mass, prayers for the dead; indulgences, merit, penitential practices, etc. Of course it is. Catholic theology is a harmonious, interrelated organic entity. Each of these doctrines and practices can be defended from Holy Scripture and patristic history.

He mentions that Martin Luther and his successor Philip Melanchthon were not averse to prayer for the dead altogether, but only opposed the Sacrifice of the Mass and various other Catholic practices regarding the dead in purgatory. Very good again. I commend him for making (no doubt) many Protestants aware of this, who were previously ignorant of it. He stated that John Wesley affirmed a “duty” of praying for the dead and that C. S. Lewis believed in purgatory in some fashion. Nevertheless, the vast majority of Protestants today reject all prayers for the dead.

Gavin referred to doctrinal “accretion.” Catholics (and many non-Catholics) would say that doctrinal development (including for purgatory) is a legitimate thing, which retains the essence of a doctrine from beginning to end. Development is not evolution, in other words, in which one thing changes into something entirely different. The Catholic Church condemned the evolution of dogmas (I believe, in the time of Pope St. Pius X or earlier). “Accretion” is defined as “things that slowly kind of build up along the way throughout Church history, but that don’t authentically relate back to the aposto0lic deposit of the first century. . . . Purgatory is that; it’s an accretion.” [22:35-50]

This is precisely what Cardinal Newman would regard as a doctrinal corruption; the opposite of a consistent growth (in understanding) and development of the apostolic deposit. Thus, the stage is set for the fundamental debate: is purgatory an accretion / corruption that is not found in the apostolic deposit, or is it a development that is found there?

Let me start by acknowledging the strength of the Catholic claim against me from Church history. It is true, first of all, that the practice of praying for the dead is extremely common and extremely early. Second of all, one can also find wide usage of the language of cleansing, post-mortem fire throughout Church history. . . . You can find that language a lot and it comes in, relatively early on. [23:38-24:12]

He then notes that Catholic apologists “often overstate” their case “by ignoring all the countervailing evidence and . . . by taking anything that sounds remotely like purgatory: any kind of language of cleansing fire, and sort of glossing over all the differences and acting as though there’s this one, singular idea that goes back to the beginning.” [24:12-24:33]

Sure; that can and does happen. On the other hand, I think Gavin has to realize that these differences do not generally depart from the essence of the matter of purgatory. If it is not an essential difference being discussed, between one Church father and another, then it’s simply the working-out of development over time. Different understandings and particulars are believed in and discussed, and some of these will go the route of manifesting themselves as heretical in due course (Tertullian strayed after teaching great and orthodox things; Origen seemingly believed in universalism, etc.), while others are in the “orthodox” stream of development.

Gavin appears to agree with this outlook when he states: “What you have is so many competing ideas that gradually, slowly start to coalesce into a singular idea.” [25:29-38] That exactly describes Newmanian development, as long as the “competing ideas” compete within the same category of the essence of purgatory. So, for example, if one Church father thought purgatory was part of hell, or that it was permanent, neither would be a consistent development, and would be heretical.

All of this would be altogether expected under the theory of development (Cardinal Newman discusses them in the greatest detail), and is therefore not a refutation of same. It all comes down to, as I said, whether things are consistently developing or are accretions / corruptions of what came before.

And we can see these elements as part of the apostolic deposit because they are in the Bible itself. The Apostle Paul prayed for the dead Onesiphorus, as I have written about and debated many times. He stated what I believe was penances for the dead in referring to Christians being “being baptized on behalf of the dead” (1 Cor 15:29, RSV). In Holy Scripture baptism is often used in the sense of afflictions and penances (“baptism of fire”); as in Matthew 3:11, Mark 10:38-39, Luke 3:16, 12:50.

If this is what Paul had in mind, the passage makes perfect sense: he is talking about penances on behalf of the dead. I have called this “the most UnProtestant verse in the Bible.” Paul in the same letter says that “the fire will test what sort of work each one has done” (1 Cor 3:13). I wrote a paper called 50 Bible Passages on Purgatory & Analogous Processes.

Many of these passages (of the 50) would fall under what Gavin characterizes as “anything that sounds remotely like purgatory: any kind of language of cleansing fire”. He seems to think that many or all instances of this are special pleading; straining at gnats to make a point; trying to fit a square peg into  a round hole: to make it confirm purgatory. I’m not convinced of that. To me, all those motifs (the fifty I compile) show the very spirit and essence of purgatory, if not all the particulars, all the time (as we would expect of a primitive doctrinal kernel).

To use several relevant examples (I used KJV in this paper), God says He will “purge away thy dross” (Is 1:25) and “I have refined thee. . . in the furnace of affliction” (Is 48:10) and “I will put this third into the fire, and refine them as one refines silver, and test them as gold is tested” (Zech 13:9).

Moreover, God is described as having “washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion” and having “purged the blood of Jerusalem from the midst thereof by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning” (Is 4:4), and “cleans[ing] them from sin and uncleanness” (Zech 13:1) and it was written that “he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the LORD an offering in righteousness” (Mal 3:3).

Paul says “he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire” (1 Cor 3:15).

Peter refers to being “purged from his old sins” (2 Pet 1:9).

The writer of Hebrews says: “we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? [10] For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness” (Heb 12:9-10).

I don’t see — in light of all this — that anyone can claim, “God can’t possibly do these same sort of processes after death, to continue to purify, purge, and cleanse us.” All of these passages are a cumulative argument that this is indeed how God operates. There is nothing in the Bible, as far as I can see, that would prohibit any of this occurring after death (especially since we all agree that one must be actually holy — not just declared such — to enter heaven) as well as before death. These passages (and many more) make it altogether plausible to believe that they apply after death as well, within the notion of purgatory. It’s not special pleading; it’s considering all of the relevant biblical data and evidence, like every good Bible student and theologian ought to do. It’s systematic theology.

Gavin cites Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-c. 215) and Origen (c. 185-c. 254) as the earliest to use “purgatorial” language. If we’re not counting the biblical writers, I would agree (so does The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church).

Then you’ll find various statements about cleansing fire in Lactantius, and in Ambrose, and in Jerome, and in Augustine . . . [26:16-23]

Agreed, as far as it goes . . . In my book, Catholic Church Fathers: Patristic and Scholarly Proofs (ch. 4: “Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead”), I also include in this category, Cyprian, Hilary of Poitiers, Gregory of Nyssa (“purged of the filthy contagion in his soul by the purifying fire”: Sermon on the Dead), and Caesar of Arles (“we shall have to remain in that purgatorial fire as long as it takes for those above-mentioned sins to be consumed like wood and straw and hay”: Sermon 179 [104] ). Cardinal Newman added in the citation above, Tertullian, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Basil the Great, St. Gregory Nazianzus, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Paulinus. That’s a total of 14 Church fathers, and most of the most influential ones.

Famous Protestant historian Philip Schaff summarized the fathers’ views in this regard as showing “a strong tendency to the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory.” Regarding the use of the word “fire” he wrote: “The common people and most of the fathers understood it of a material fire” (History of the Christian Church, vol. 2, chapter XII, § 156: “Between Death and Resurrection”). These are his scholarly and expert and Protestant conclusions, not my amateur, lay, and Catholic-biased ones.

Note also that the significant development of the doctrine (as was the case with the Immaculate Conception) began in the east (Clement of Alexandria, Origen), and it was held by several prominent eastern Church fathers, including Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Jerusalem, Basil the Great, Gregory Nazianzus, and John Chrysostom: exactly half of the 14 fathers mentioned. These include the “Three Holy Hierarchs” of eastern tradition (Basil, Gregory Nazianzus, and John Chrysostom).

So this was not a western-only doctrine. It was held in the east and west, which is a great indication of apostolicity. If the later eastern fathers and eastern Catholics and (400 years afterwards) the Orthodox rejected it, then that is simply yet another instance of many of the east going notoriously and widely astray. They notoriously did so with regard to things like Christology and iconoclasm and divorce. Why not also purgatory? Even Origen was wrong insofar as he thought all men went through purgatory (he being a universalist, as Gavin notes). So he got the doctrine right but the application to human beings wrong. In any event, the Christian east’s own proclaimed greatest eastern fathers agreed with the essential doctrine (just as many of them agreed with the controversial filioque or something quite close to it). And that is very significant and telling.

One can cite a father in partial agreement. This isn’t dishonest (in Catholic presentations), unless something is stated like “all these fathers believed in the same doctrine in all its particulars.” Fathers can get bits and pieces wrong. Gavin himself, after all, cited Origen as one of the first to talk about purgatory, and so do Jaroslav Pelikan, Schaff, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, as well as Cardinal Newman. There is nothing wrong with this or (not necessarily in every case) “misleading.” He clarifies that Origen also had erroneous views; so do I in repeating what he said and agreeing.

Gavin claims that Catholics often take St. Cyprian out of context (his Epistle 51). He says it is about this life; therefore, irrelevant. I include this citation, myself, in my book on the fathers. I would say three things:

1) the analogy of such “purging” / “purifying” processes in this life are precisely an argument by analogy for what occurs — or may be speculatively thought to occur — in the next. So just as I use biblical arguments along these lines (many shown above), so Catholics can cite fathers speaking in the same vein.

2) St. Cyprian, in context, in this letter, refers to “it is one thing, when cast into prison, not to go out thence until one has paid the uttermost farthing”. This is pretty clearly, I think, a reference to Jesus’ words: “and you be put in prison; truly, I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny” (Mt 5:25-26, RSV; KJV has “uttermost farthing” here). There is an abundant patristic tradition of interpreting this passage as referring to purgatory. I detail this in my first book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, chapter 7 (pp. 129-130): “Purgatory”. It’s available online: search “Matthew 5:25-26” to get to the exact section, where I cite St. Francis de Sales, in turn mentioning many Church fathers’ interpretation of this passage.

3) This utterance is not the clearest thing in the world to interpret. I think, therefore, that there is leeway in interpretation, and we should give folks a “pass” if we disagree. But as I have demonstrated, many Church fathers interpret the biblical passage that Cyprian almost certainly has in mind, as referring to purgatory.

Therefore, I think one or more of the above considerations liberates Catholic apologists from the dreaded (and ubiquitous on both sides) charge of quoting out of context, as concerns the Church fathers.

Gavin then cites several portions of St. Cyprian that he thinks definitively settle the issue of whether he believed in purgatory. Gavin believes he didn’t. There might be some replies to some of that, but that would take a lot more work and I don’t have sufficient materials on hand to get into such a particular debate. Gavin might be right; I concede that. His citations were pretty good evidence. But if he is right about Cyprian, it would only mean that there were at least 13 Church fathers that taught purgatory, rather than 14. So that would not be a huge concession or “loss” in the overall scheme of things. Various Church fathers understand things better or worse than other ones do, and the earlier they are, the greater possibility that they may not understand later developed doctrines at all, or only quite inadequately.

Gavin notes that Tertullian was referring to Hades (not purgatory) when he spoke of “punishments” or “discipline” after life. But this is a classic example of a doctrine in its early stage of development. Certain things will be erroneous in light of how doctrines later develop. It’s correct insofar as he is talking about a third state besides heaven and hell in which souls undergo some sort of penitential and/or purgatorial suffering. Hades (or Sheol) before the death of Christ could be regarded as quite similar to purgatory after His death. Hades was referred to in this respect before the fifth century, as Philip Schaff generalized about early Church beliefs:

The majority of Christian believers, being imperfect, enter for an indefinite period into a preparatory state of rest and happiness, usually called Paradise (comp. Luke 23:41) or Abraham’s Bosom (Luke 16:23). There they are gradually purged of remaining infirmities until they are ripe for heaven, into which nothing is admitted but absolute purity. Origen assumed a constant progression to higher and higher regions of knowledge and bliss. (After the fifth or sixth century, certainly since Pope Gregory I., Purgatory was substituted for Paradise). . . . (History of the Christian Church, vol. 2, chapter XII, § 156: “Between Death and Resurrection”)

Thus, this is altogether to be expected. Cardinal Newman deals with this sort of thing all through his famous Essay on Development. As for Tertullian, it’s unclear to me if he is including penitential suffering of the righteous in his discussions on Hades or only sufferings of those who will end up in hell (in Treatise on the Soul, ch. 58, which I have in my Church fathers book). I’m inclined to slightly favor the latter interpretation at this point. In Luke 16, the “bad” part of Hades appears to be inhabited by the damned (whereas Lazarus was in the “good” part where heaven-bound souls were). It may be (I merely speculate) that some fathers (including Tertullian?) thought the “bad” part of Hades (per Luke 16) also included the saved who were undergoing purgation. This wouldn’t surprise me, seeing that it was such an early stage of development.

He cites Irenaeus who seems not to have referred to purgatory. Then he cites Hippolytus, who presents what I would say is a straightforward interpretation of Luke 16 and Jesus’ story about Lazarus and the rich man, which references Hades or what is often called “Abraham’s bosom”. He seems unaware of purgatory as well.

Gavin talks about “how incredibly diverse the patristic testimonies are on this topic.” [38:58-39:03]

How, then, can Protestant patristic scholar Philip Schaff characterize the early views as manifesting “a strong tendency to the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory”? It’s a matter of degree. Yes, there could be, and were diverse views that existed (maybe even “incredibly” so), but the question is how prominent they were, and whether we can say there was any sort of patristic consensus on the matter. If there was that, even if it was a “plurality”, it seems that the later more highly developed view of purgatory was well on its way in development. And Cardinal Newman (no slouch) called it “almost a consensus of the first four ages of the Church” (his italics).

It either was or it wasn’t. If it was, then the historical situation is perfectly harmonious with what Catholics would expect it to be. If it wasn’t, that would pose a problem for our view. Gavin has proven the existence of notable exceptions, but if that is all they are — exceptions — then he has not proven his case that purgatory was a mere corrupt “accretion” and not an apostolic development of a biblical doctrine already present in a robust kernel form.

Gavin says that Lactantius taught that “everybody” experiences some sort of judgment with fire at the Judgment Day. This would be another aspect of differences in early development. He thinks it all happens on Judgment Day, whereas now Catholicism holds that it begins at the death of the person who still has sins to be purged. I would say this is not of the essence of the doctrine. Purging of sin is the essence: not exactly when it begins. He provides no references for Lactantius, but the quotation I have in my book has Lactantius stating that there is differential experience of such “fire” among the righteous, according to how sinful they are at death:

But when He shall have judged the righteous, He will also try them with fire. Then they whose sins shall exceed either in weight or in number, shall be scorched by the fire and burnt: but they whom full justice and maturity of virtue has imbued will not perceive that fire; for they have something of God in themselves which repels and rejects the violence of the flame. (The Divine Institutes, Book VII, chapter 21; ANF, Vol. VII)

So that is two categories of the dead righteous: precisely as Catholicism teaches (one experiences purgation; the other does not).  The same chapter includes what he thinks happens to the damned. I didn’t include it in my book because I was referencing purgatory, not damnation. Lactantius indeed refers to “The same divine fire” but he also holds that people react to it differently, according to whether they are saved or damned, and among the righteous, according to how sinful they are. So he writes about the reprobates:

[T]he sacred writings inform us in what manner the wicked are to undergo punishment. For because they have committed sins in their bodies, they will again be clothed with flesh, that they may make atonement in their bodies; and yet it will not be that flesh with which God clothed man, like this our earthly body, but indestructible, and abiding for ever, that it may be able to hold out against tortures and everlasting fire, . . .

The same divine fire, therefore, with one and the same force and power, will both burn the wicked and will form them again, and will replace as much as it shall consume of their bodies, and will supply itself with eternal nourishment: which the poets transferred to the vulture of Tityus. Thus, without any wasting of bodies, which regain their substance, it will only burn and affect them with a sense of pain.

Thus, he teaches a “three-tier” afterlife, exactly as Catholicism does (i.e., three states: two eternal and one temporary). All are afflicted by “fire” but differently, according to which of the three categories they fit into. The most righteous “will not perceive” it. This is, of course, far closer to the Catholic view than any Protestant view. I don’t see how it supports Gavin’s overall case.

Gavin, citing a scholar, contends that Ambrose is a mixed bag on this issue. Maybe he is. I’ll “give” him this one and move on.

Jerome . . . uses the language of “fire” exclusively for hell . . . [43:25-30]

I have two passages in my book where Jerome uses the language of “fire” in the sense of purgation of the righteous:

Just as we believe there are eternal torments for the devil and all the naysayers and impious persons who say in their heart: “There is not God.” So too, for sinners and impious persons who are, nevertheless, Christians, whose works are to be tried in the fire and purged, we think that the sentence of the Judge will be tempered and blended with clemency. (Commentary on Psalms 18, 66, 24)

If the man whose work is burnt and is to suffer the loss of his labour, while he himself is saved, yet not without proof of fire: it follows that if a man’s work remains which he has built upon the foundation, he will be saved without probation by fire, and consequently a difference is established between one degree of salvation and another. (Against Jovinianus, Book II, 22; NPNF 2, Vol. VI)

Gavin says Augustine’s views are “complicated and open-handed” [44:07-11]. He cites him sounding tentative and speculative. But again, we would expect this. Purgatory was not yet a dogma at this time. Augustine died in 430. That’s still very early and before even several Christological and trinitarian doctrines were fully developed (Chalcedon was 21 years after his death). This doesn’t count for evidence that Augustine wasn’t sure about the doctrine, in terms of his own belief.

I also edited the book, The Quotable Augustine: Distinctively Catholic Elements in His Theology  I included the citation Gavin gave, from the Enchiridion. I also included another from that book, and six from City of God (from chapters 20-21). I won’t cite them here, as this is already long enough. But what Gavin cited doesn’t overturn the notion that Augustine believed in purgatory: and rather explicitly so for his time.

Gavin states that Ephraem and Aphrahat believed in soul sleep. Aphrahat refers absurdly to a “happy sleep” and a “disturbed sleep” (maybe dreams?). I’ll take Gavin’s word for it. This is a heresy: opposed even by John Calvin. I was writing about it way back in 1981, in my first major excursion into apologetics: a refutation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who also believe in this unbiblical nonsense (as did, apparently, Martin Luther). Again, just because they believed that, does not undermine my contention that the fathers exhibited “a strong tendency to the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory” (Schaff) and “almost a consensus of the first four ages of the Church [for purgatory]” (St. Cardinal Newman). These “anomalies” (sorry!) simply don’t prove the case that Gavin wishes to make.

I agree that there is such a thing as praying for the dead without presupposing purgatory (Protestants — like Lutherans — have a few versions of exactly that), so we need not argue that point. Nevertheless, I highly suspect that most of the fathers who refer to praying for the dead do so with that in mind: we are helping conscious souls suffer less and get to heaven sooner.

Gavin cites Ambrose, Funeral Oration of Theodosius (in my book), but denies that purgatory is referenced. Jacques Le Goff (The Birth of Purgatory, University of Chicago Press, 1984, 60) disagrees with his interpretation:

[Ambrose] clearly stated that the prayers of the living could help to relieve the suffering of the dead, that suffrages could be of use in mitigating the penalties meted out in the other world.

People have honest disagreements about these things.

Gavin cites Gregory Nazianzus and Cyril of Alexandria and makes a good case that they seemed to not have a conception of purgatory. More “points” for him. But does this and the rest that he has produced disprove a “near consensus” and “strong tendency to the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory”? No. Folks in the east got a lot of things wrong. This should not surprise anyone familiar with the Christological controversies and heresies or, for example, the iconoclastic controversy. I wrote in a 1997 article of mine:

Both East and West acknowledge wrongdoing in the tragic events leading up to 1054 when the schism finalized. Nevertheless, it is undeniably true that the West (and especially the Roman See) had a much more solid and consistent record of orthodoxy. For example, the Eastern Church split off from Rome and the Catholic Church on at least six occasions before 1054:

The Arian schisms (343-98)
The controversy over St. John Chrysostom (404-415)
The Acacian schism (484-519)
Concerning Monothelitism (640-681)
Concerning Iconoclasm (726-87 and 815-43)

This adds up to 231 out of 500 years in schism (46% of the time)! In every case, Rome was on the right side of the debate in terms of what was later considered “orthodox” by both sides. Thus, the East clearly needed the West and the papacy and Rome in order to be ushered back to orthodoxy.

I once asked an Orthodox priest who was invited to my group discussion at my house about this, and he sat there stunned and silent. Imagine that: eastern Christianity was in schism with Rome for the first 44 years of Augustine’s life (and eleven more before his birth) because it was enthralled with Arianism (which believes that Christ was created), and eleven more years of Augustine’s life because it couldn’t figure out that St. John Chrysostom was a good guy. Then it took the east 41 years to determine that Jesus Christ had both a divine and a human will (contra Monothelitism). So they split with Rome again over that. Then it took them a combined total of 89 years to come to the realization that iconoclasm was wrong: during which time they (you guessed it) split with Rome.

So why should anyone be surprised that they split off for good in 1054? They had had a lot of practice, and were wrong every time, just as they were wrong again in 1054. So they rejected popes and ongoing ecumenical councils. They definitely believed in the latter in the early years; then they suddenly ceased. Go figure. I summarized the sad history of heretical patriarchs in the east in the first millennium in that 1997 paper:

These historical facts may be briefly summarized as follows: All three of the great Eastern sees were under the jurisdiction of heretical patriarchs simultaneously during five different periods: 357-60 (Arian), 475-77, 482-96, and 512-17 (all Monophysite), and 640-42 (Monothelite): a total of 26 years, or 9% of the time from 357 to 642. At least two out of three of the sees suffered under the yoke of a heterodox “shepherd” simultaneously for 112 years, or 33% of the period from 341 to 681 (or, two-thirds heretical for one-third of the time), and at least 248 of these same years saw one or more of the sees burdened with sub-orthodox ecclesiastical leaders: an astonishing 73% rate.

Thus the East, as represented by its three greatest bishops, was at least one-third heretical for nearly three-quarters of the time over a 340-year span. If we examine each city separately, we find, for example, that between 475 and 675, the patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch were outside the Catholic orthodox faith for 41%, 55%, and 58% of the time respectively. Furthermore, these deplorable conditions often manifested themselves for long, unbroken terms: Antioch and Alexandria were Monophysite for 49 and 63 straight years (542-91 and 475-538 respectively), while Constantinople, the seat of the Byzantine Empire and the “New Rome,” was embroiled in the Monothelite heresy for 54 consecutive years (610-64). There were at least (the list is not exhaustive) 41 heretical Patriarchs of these sees between 260 and 711.

One can see the chart of these “bad patriarchs” in that paper. We hear about “bad popes” all the time (and there weren’t that many, and none formally heretical). We don’t hear so much about these lousy, pathetic patriarchs, most of whom couldn’t even get the doctrine of Christ right.

Gavin denies that St. John Chrysostom believed in purgatory and that he believed that “when you die, you go straight to heaven.” [54:35-55:07]. He says that Chrysostom believed in praying for everyone, even those in hell. But this doesn’t disprove that he held to some form of purgatory. He thought Mary sinned, too. Virtually every father had some belief that was wrong according to Catholicism or Protestantism or Orthodoxy or all three.

But many Christians believe (and I think — without checking — that the Catholic Church allows such a belief) that there is differential punishment in hell just as there are differential rewards in heaven. St. John Chrysostom expresses this very thing in his Homily on 1 Corinthians 15:41. If so, it make some sense to pray for lost souls that they would receive lesser punishment. But it seems to me that that is more or less a “retroactive” prayer that goes back to how God judges them within the purview of damnation.

It’s also Catholic teaching that we know virtually nothing about the identity of anyone in hell, save for Judas. We simply don’t know. So we can pray in charity for all men, even after they die, to be saved, even if we don’t believe in purgatory, because we don’t know if they were sentenced to hell or not. God is outside of time. He can answer such a prayer that applies to the “past” from our perspective.

Gavin cites passages from Chrysostom which he thinks affirm that he thought dead believers always go straight to heaven. But here’s another passage from my book:

But grant that he departed with sin upon him, even on this account one ought to rejoice, that he was stopped short in his sins and added not to his iniquity; and help him as far as possible, not by tears, but by prayers and supplications and alms and offerings. For not unmeaningly have these things been devised, nor do we in vain make mention of the departed in the course of the divine mysteries, and approach God in their behalf, beseeching the Lamb Who is before us, Who taketh away the sin of the world;—not in vain, but that some refreshment may thereby ensue to them. Not in vain doth he that standeth by the altar cry out when the tremendous mysteries are celebrated, “For all that have fallen asleep in Christ, and for those who perform commemorations in their behalf.” For if there were no commemorations for them, these things would not have been spoken: since our service is not a mere stage show, God forbid! yea, it is by the ordinance of the Spirit that these things are done. Let us then give them aid and perform commemoration for them. For if the children of Job were purged by the sacrifice of their father, why dost thou doubt that when we too offer for the departed, some consolation arises to them? since God is wont to grant the petitions of those who ask for others. . . . Let us not then be weary in giving aid to the departed, both by offering on their behalf and obtaining prayers for them: for the common Expiation of the world is even before us. Therefore with boldness do we then intreat for the whole world, and name their names with those of martyrs, of confessors, of priests. For in truth one body are we all, though some members are more glorious than others; and it is possible from every source to gather pardon for them, from our prayers, from our gifts in their behalf, from those whose names are named with theirs. Why therefore dost thou grieve? Why mourn, when it is in thy power to gather so much pardon for the departed? (Homily XLI on First Corinthians, 8; NPNF 1, Vol. XII)

If all believers go straight to heaven (no purgatory or other intermediate state at all, let alone purgation), I have several questions about the above:

1) Why does Chrysostom never indicate that this is prayer for their salvation, rather than for “consolation” and “purg[ing]”?

2) If indeed he was talking about praying for their salvation, wouldn’t he place that in the context of stating, “approach God in their behalf, beseeching the Lamb Who is before us, Who taketh away the sin of the world . . .”? Instead, he adds, “that some refreshment may thereby ensue to them.” That’s certainly not a synonym for salvation. You can’t have “some salvation.”

3) Even when Chrysostom refers to “pardon” he says in one place, “so much pardon” which indicates differential degrees, whereas salvation is either present or not (no degrees).

4) If he was referring to praying for their salvation, why do the words “save” or “saved” or “salvation” or “eternal life” never appear in the entirety of the Homily 41 on First Corinthians?

5) if they are in heaven already, why does Chrysostom urge his hearers to “give them aid”? Why would they need any aid, if they are in eternal bliss, in union with God, in heaven?

All of this makes much more sense if referring to some kind of intermediate state or purgatory rather than to heaven. This particular homily or portion of a homily is on 1 Corinthians 15:46. The entire 58-verse chapter is referring to Christians all the way through. So it seems reasonable that Chrysostom is here referring to those who are saved. Gavin says if they were saved, then Chrysostom thinks they went right to heaven.  But if that is the case then I think my five questions must be grappled with. Purgatory seems to be the reasonable solution and key to interpretation.

Does this development have an anchor in Scripture? Does it go back to the apostles? Does it go back to Christ? Does it go back to Holy Scripture? [1:05:10-19]

I gave an outline of my arguments along these lines above. I say “yes”: purgatory is found in primitive, kernel, seed form, just as we would expect it to be, under the outlook of Newmanian development.

The process of purification happens relatively instantaneously upon arrival in heaven: something like what is envisioned in I John 3:2:  [“we know that when he appears we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is”]. . . . upon the sight of God you will be made perfect. . . . the only question is: is the process by which a Christian is completely purified instantaneous, or relatively instantaneous, or is it a long, protracted kind of torment? [1:06:21-1:07:01]

I have stated something very similar for years, so I’m glad to see Gavin agree. For example, I wrote in my first book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (completed in 1996):

Protestants agree that real (not merely declared or imputed) holiness is a requirement for Heaven, but  disagree with the purification process, believing instead in some sort of instantaneous transformation at death for the redeemed. Thus, in Protestantism, both salvation and ultimate glorification are essentially one-time events, whereas in Catholicism, they are durational processes (both belief-systems are logically consistent with their premises). (p. 120)

The Bible itself — closely examined — doesn’t compel us to think that God’s work of grace in each soul is instantaneously completed at the moment of physical death. (p. 122)

I reiterated this in my book, The Catholic Verses: 95 Bible Passages That Confound Protestants (2004):

There is no Protestant-Catholic difference on this particular point. The only difference is a quantitative one: Catholics think this cleansing will involve a process, like our life on earth. And that process of sanctification can continue after death: in purgatory. Protestants, on the other hand, seem to think this all occurs in an instant.

One Protestant I was interacting with, stated: “God will certainly remove the filth of the flesh prior to the resurrection of our bodies.” Precisely, and that is what purgatory is; no Protestant should have the slightest objection to it. The big beef is (or should be) about how long this removal of filth takes, and exactly when it occurs. Both sides agree that the thing itself does occur in some fashion. (pp. 157-158)

I would say that the passages I have already provided indicate that a process is involved. Particularly, St. Paul, referring to [Judgment] “Day” (1 Cor 3:13) then states: “If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire” (1 Cor 3:15). I suppose one could say this was an instantaneous “zap”; but I submit that the plain and prima facie reading of the passage implies at least some process, taking into consideration the many analogous passages about purification, being refined in a furnace, etc. Usually when the Bible refers to our suffering, it’s a long and agonizing process. We don’t like it, but He thinks it’s good for us. Who are we to second-guess Him?

Paul in Romans 8 strikingly states that we are “children of God” and “heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ”. But a condition must also be met: “provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him” (Rom 8:16-17). He goes on to say, “I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us” (Rom 8:18). All of this is very much in line with what I have called the “spirit of purgatory.” Good spiritual things often come with great suffering. This is undeniable, repeated biblical teaching. But it all has great purpose and what we gain is so great in comparison that the sufferings are virtually nothing in comparison. It’s all consistent with what Catholics believe purgatory is about.

Gavin says that 1 Corinthians 3 refers specifically to “ministry work” and claims that the “fire” portion is being taken out of context. If this is true, then it couldn’t apply to everyone with regard to purgatory. I engaged in this very debate in 2007, over against the contentions of Reformed Baptist apologist James White. Here was my reply (I won’t indent it because it’s so long):

White attempts to make the passage apply only to Christian workers; those in ministry; the ordained, etc. I think this fails because, while there are indeed references to Christian workers: those who evangelize and teach, etc., there are just as many indications that Paul also generalizes his teaching. Even beyond that, one must remember that Paul is writing to the entire church at Corinth. The all-inclusiveness of what he is writing about is indicated more than once:

3:11: For no other foundation can any one lay . . .

3:12: Now if any one builds on . . .

3:14: If the work which any man has built . . .

3:15: If any man’s work is burned up, . . .

The next two verses after the passage under consideration (also the context) are clearly general: intended for all in the Corinthian church to whom he is writing:

[16] Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? [17] If any one destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him. For God’s temple is holy, and that temple you are.

Anyone who has God’s Holy Spirit inside of him is a Christian, because all who are truly God’s are indwelt with the Holy Spirit. This can’t possibly refer to simply Christian workers. Paul continues the general language in the next verse (3:18):

. . . If any one among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise.

Moreover, in verse 4:5 [a passage Gavin brought up] Paul refers again about rewards after death:

Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then every man will receive his commendation from God.

Most of the entire context of the passage (both before and after) is in generalized language. Paul even explains exactly why he mentioned himself and his co-worker Apollos:

[6] I have applied all this to myself and Apol’los for your benefit, brethren, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another. [7] For who sees anything different in you? What have you that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if it were not a gift?

As usual, Paul uses his own example (by the grace of God) as one to imitate (4:14-16). Thus, we see the parallelism of the example of himself as a Christian worker and apostle applied generally to all Christians. Note how he writes in 3:7:

So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth.

That was in the immediate context of his work with Apollos. But he clearly generalizes that to all Christians in similar language in 4:7:

For who sees anything different in you? What have you that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if it were not a gift?

In other words, all men are under God; He gives the grace; we cooperate with Him in that grace or can reject it (see. e.g., 9:24-27). And man’s works will ultimately be judged and rewarded or burned up. Therefore, considering all of this relevant context (especially 4:5-6), it is clear that the “purgatorial” judgments in 3:13-15 apply to all men, not just Christian workers.

3:16 and 3:17b plainly refer to (indwelt) Christians, so it stands to reason that the preceding section of 3:11-15 does also. Paul only provided himself as an example of the general principle that all we have is from God, by His grace (3:7 <—-> 4:7), and we can choose to build upon that grace and empowerment or destroy it. But the hypothetical person referred to in 3:17a is not saved in the end, since God “destroy[s]” him. This is a different notion entirely from that of 3:15, where a person’s work is “burned up” but he is “saved, but only as through fire.”

You really don’t find purgatory unless you’re already looking for it. [1:08:51-54]

And I would retort (since Gavin wishes to make this analysis of motive and intent) that, by the same token, maybe Protestants don’t and won’t see purgatory in Scripture because their preconceived theology and notions are so foreign to it that it wouldn’t even “register” if it confronted them “square in the face” from Scripture. Bias works both ways. We can only make our exegetical arguments. Gavin made his regarding 1 Corinthians 3 and I had already responded a length to it 15 years ago, with a ton of Bible (my usual methodology). As I always say: let readers judge who has a more plausible, convincing argument. Gavin makes his case well. He’s a formidable theological opponent. I think I do pretty good as well, if I do say so.

Gavin says there is a lot about heaven and hell in Scripture (I disagree about heaven, and many Bible commentators have noted how Jesus spoke much more about hell), and so little about purgatory. Again, it depends on what one is looking at and what one considers as evidence or “on-topic.” There actually is quite a bit, and I have presented it in many papers and several books. But many doctrines are “minimally presented” in the Bible: such as original sin and the virgin birth and the Two Natures of Christ: to mention three. That doesn’t make Protestants disbelieve in those things, despite having scanty biblical attestation. Nor do they care about the canon of the Bible and sola Scriptura having no biblical evidence at all. They firmly believe in both, based on Catholic authority (minus the deuterocanon) and their own groundless tradition of men.

He mentions the thief on the cross going to be with Jesus in paradise. That clearly refers to Hades or Sheol, which is where Jesus went immediately after He died. He didn’t go to heaven until His Ascension, about 42 days later. Jesus is likely saying that the thief would be saved, and in the “good” part of Hades (Luke 16), but this has no bearing as to whether he also had to go through purgatory first. Given the nature of his crimes, it makes sense (from where we sit) that he would. Gavin seems to think this is a good argument against purgatory. I don’t see how. The passage only teaches us that the thief was saved. But since all in purgatory are saved (as Gavin agreed in the beginning of his video), then this doesn’t preclude his still having to endure purgatory.

Being “home with the Lord” or “with Christ” doesn’t preclude purgatory, which is the “anteroom of heaven.” We’re much more with him there than we are on earth, and Catholic teaching on purgatory holds that its joys are greater than any we experience here, though the sufferings are also more intense than any here. In any event, we are with God in a very real sense, even in purgatory, just as we often experience Him more intensely when we suffer. Hence, King David joyously affirmed: “Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil;
for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me” (Ps 23:4) and God told Paul, who was suffering intensely (many think he had an eye disease: the “thorn in the flesh”) and asked three times for healing: “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness” (2 Cor 12:9). And in purgatory we have the joy of knowing we are saved and destined for heaven, since we are in a place where everyone is saved.

I think a lot of this debate hinges on what I would describe as an insufficient and incomplete Protestant understanding of both biblical suffering and biblical sanctification. It’s all a harmonious whole. Purgatory is consistent with what we know about sanctification and suffering. It’s simply extended to the afterlife. We have to be purged before we can enter heaven. We would be totally out of place there without being adequately prepared.

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

Photo credit: Photograph by “Zauberin” (3-17-13) [Pixabay / CC0 public domain]

***

Summary: Baptist pastor and apologist Gavin Ortlund does a thorough survey of the Church fathers & purgatory. I offer counter-arguments and also biblical evidence.

***

 

May 29, 2021

May 29, 2021 By

Dorfpastor replied in the combox of my paper, Prayers to Saints & for the Dead: Six Biblical Proofs [6-8-18]. His words will be in blue.

*****

First, I’d like to make a general statement. My critic starts with the accusation that what I did was “an attempt to legitimate an unbiblical doctrine.” Okay; if such a grandiose claim is made, then I would expect quite a bit of exegetical reasoning, other Bible passages introduced, Bible commentary, maybe delving into the Greek words, questioning my interpretations, showing how I quoted out of context. In other words it would be a meaty, in-depth biblical discussion.

Instead, what I got was six short bullet points: none longer than three sentences, and most only one or two. This is apparently regarded as a sufficient refutation of my extensive biblical argumentation. Most of my supporting arguments for the passages are utterly ignored, so that I have to repeat them now.

This is the problem, I’ve found, with much of Protestant counter-Catholic argumentation (believe me I know, having engaged in hundreds of debates). These sorts of “repluies” never get to the depth that they have to get to, in order to 1) refute the Catholic view, and 2) offer a more plausible biblical alternative. They don’t even directly address most of the biblical arguments we set forth.

My impression, reading the bible is complete different:

#1: if a parable or not, it is a conversation between two persons, both in the spiritual world after death.

Okay, here we go. I already dealt with the anticipated objection. Yet he makes it anyway, seemingly unaware that I did so, or else he would have offered counter-arguments to my supporting arguments. This is answered by what I already wrote (in green, with my added comments now):

1) Jesus couldn’t possibly teach doctrinal error by means of the story. And there are several, according to Protestant theology.

2) Abraham’s refusal to answer the prayer does not prove that he shouldn’t have been prayed to in the first place. Prayers can be refused. He never said, “You can’t pray to me!!!!! Pray only to God!” Protestants say we can’t pray to anyone but God. We can’t ask dead people to intercede to God for us. Jesus goes against both of those things by endorsing this story. He can’t teach falsehood in it. The rich man makes a petitionary prayer to Abraham, not God, in order to get a request. He doesn’t even ask him to go to God. He thinks that Abraham can himself answer it.

If indeed it were true that no one could ever pray to a creature rather than God, then Jesus couldn’t possibly have told this story. And Abraham would have certainly rebuked the rich man and would have told him to pray to God alone; and would have chided him for going to him instead of God. It’s irrelevant to the issue that the rich man was dead, because it remains wrong to pray to someone (alive or dead) other than God, in Protestantism. It wouldn’t suddenly become right (with an essential change of principle) just because he died. Therefore, the rich man would have violated that.

3) Abraham didn’t say, “I don’t have the power to send Lazarus and it’s blasphemous for you to think so.” He said, rather, that if he did send him, it wouldn’t make any difference as to the result Abraham hoped for. Thus, Abraham is presupposing that he has the power to answer a prayer request, but simply chooses not to, and explains to the rich man why.

4) Had Abraham fulfilled the request it would also be another instance of permitted communication between those in heaven or the afterlife (in this case, Hades) and those on earth, since the dead Lazarus would have returned to earth, to talk to the five brothers. Protestants tell us this is unbiblical and against God’s will (and is the equivalent of necromancy), yet there it is, right in Scripture, from Jesus.

5) If someone asks why we would even think of doing this in the first place, rather than going right to God, I address that, too (highlighting James 5:16: “The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects”):

#2: Samuel complains of having asked him. So an argument rather against…

Not at all. He doesn’t complain about being petitioned because (as Protestants would have it) no one should petition anyone but God. Rather, he questions the reasoning behind Saul’s action, by noting that God had already rejected Saul; therefore, why would he go to Samuel (as if Samuel the prophet of God would differ from God’s expressed will)? So Samuel says: “Why then do you ask me, since the LORD has turned from you and become your enemy?” (1 Sam 28:16). It’s a totally different thing from objecting to the prayer itself.

Far from refusing to answer the petition because no creature should ever do so, Samuel does answer, with three more sentences, but it’s a negative reply and a refusal: one that Saul doesn’t want to hear:

1 Samuel 28:17-19 (RSV) “The LORD has done to you as he spoke by me; for the LORD has torn the kingdom out of your hand, and given it to your neighbor, David. [18] Because you did not obey the voice of the LORD, and did not carry out his fierce wrath against Am’alek, therefore the LORD has done this thing to you this day. [19] Moreover the LORD will give Israel also with you into the hand of the Philistines; and tomorrow you and your sons shall be with me; the LORD will give the army of Israel also into the hand of the Philistines.”

#3: a misunderstanding of Jesus’ acclamation at the cross.

As with all the others, I dealt with the objection before it was made (then my argument was totally ignored).

[I]t was believed that one could pray to one such as Elijah (who had already appeared with Jesus at the transfiguration), and that he had power to come and give aid; to “save” a person (in this case, Jesus from a horrible death). It’s not presented in Matthew’s account as if they are wrong, and in light of other related Scriptures it is more likely that they are correct in thinking that this was a permitted scenario.

Jesus, after all , had already referred to Elijah, saying that he was the prototype for John the Baptist (Mt 11:14; 17:10-13; cf. Lk 1:17 from the angel Gabriel), and it could also have been known that Elijah and Moses appeared with Jesus at the transfiguration (Mt 17:1-6), if these were His followers.

#4: a wish of Paul, communicated to Timothy, it has nothing to do with a prayer directed to people who are already dead. Onesiphorus is more obviously still alive. Paul points to the fact of reward.

If it’s so obvious that Onesiphorus was still alive, then how odd that in a survey of 16 Protestant commentaries on the passage, I found that five of them held that he was “dead or likely dead” and eleven thought he was “possibly dead” or took a neutral stance. In a second paper surveying Protestant commentaries, I found 13 more who said that he was dead.

Again, these are Protestants and scholarly exegetes, not Catholics. If it’s true that he was dead, as these 18 Protestant Bible commentators believe, then this is explicit biblical evidence for prayer for the dead (case closed)!

#5: really 1 Corinthians 15:29 a difficult passage. Who seems to have the clear solution? But very risky to develop a doctrine of praying to Saints just by one bible verse.

It’s only one of six. Protestants offer no good interpretation of this odd verse. I offered (in a link) a plausible interpretation that makes perfect sense.

#6: In assurance by the Holy Spirit Peter and Jesus commanded a dead person to raise up (similarly to the command when Peter asked the lame man to stand on his feet, Acts 3:6.

Since my argument was completely ignored again, I repeat it for the convenience of readers:

Tabitha was a disciple in Joppa who died. Peter prayed to her when he said “Tabitha, rise.” See Acts 9:36-41. She was dead, and he was addressing her. There is no impenetrable wall between heaven and earth.  This is not only praying to the dead, but for the dead, since the passage says that Peter “prayed” before addressing Tabitha first person. And he was praying for her to come back to life.

Our Lord Jesus does the same thing with regard to Lazarus. He prays for Lazarus (a dead man: John 11:41-42) and then speaks directly to a dead man (in effect, “praying” to him): “Lazarus, come out” (John 11:43).

This is absolutely and undeniably prayer for the dead, and right from the examples of Peter and Jesus. Our critic completely ignores the two prayers and goes right to the command. We can’t be too careful to ignore what goes against our argument! But in speaking to the two dead people, Peter and Jesus also violate Protestant teachings of men, which say that no one can attempt to communicate with a dead person: which is collapsed into the sinful category of necromancy or sorcery. Therefore, peter and Jesus committed those sins, if we believe Protestant theology.

Me: I’ll stick with a sinless Jesus (Who is God and can’t possibly sin), thank you. He prayed for the dead and talked to the dead. So did St. Peter. Therefore, it’s permissible for any Christian to do so, too. It’s really not complicated, but for Protestants coming along and denying / rejecting plain biblical teaching.

***

Photo credit: The Raising of Tabitha (early 1790s), by Giovanni Domenico Tiepolo (1727-1804) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: A Protestant rejected my six biblical arguments for prayers to saints and for the dead but offered little argumentation. So I took the opportunity to strengthen my arguments all the more.

***

Follow Us!
OTHER RELATED CONTENT
1
Jesus' Resurrection and the Laws of...
Formation Matters
2
Eucharist Revival, Not Culture War
A Little Bit of Nothing
3
Pope Francis On What Is Missing...
Formation Matters
4
Infinite Dignity: Seemingly Opposed Theologies Come...
Formation Matters
Browse Our Archives
TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
John Chrysostom (c. 345-407) vs. "Faith Alone"
Our World Needs Peace - Be A Peacemaker
Sheep (Gospel for Apr. 21, 2024)
For This Type of Food
Thoughts on Day Two of the Trump Trial
Trent Horn: Dangers of Progressive Catholicism Book Review
view all Catholic blogs