Is Scripture Totally Clear? (vs. Anglican Stearns #2)

Last updated on: March 13, 2025 at 10:54 am By Dave Armstrong

+ the Church Fathers (Especially St. Augustine) on the Question of the Perspicuity (Clearness in the Main) of Scripture

Photo credit: Janeke88 (8-7-15) [Pixabay / CC0 Creative Commons license]

Edward Josiah Stearns (1810-1890) was an Episcopal clergyman from Maryland and author of several books. His volume, The Faith of Our Forefathers (New York: Thomas Whittaker, 1879), was a reply to The Faith of Our Fathers (1876), by James Cardinal Gibbons (1834-1921), one of the best and most well-known Catholic apologetics works, with an emphasis on scriptural arguments and replies to Protestant critiques of Catholicism. It had sold over 1.4 million copies by the time of its 83rd edition in 1917 and was the most popular book in the United States until Gone With the Wind was published in 1939. This volume highly influenced my own development as a soon-to-be Catholic apologist in the early 1990s: especially with regard to my usual modus operandi of focusing on “biblical evidence” for Catholicism.

The words of Rev. Stearns will be in blue, and those of Cardinal Gibbons in green. I use RSV for biblical citations.

***

A word of introduction is in order before we begin.

Catholics hold that Scripture is a fairly clear document and able to be understood by the average reader, but also that the Church is needed to provide a doctrinal norm, an overall framework for determining proper biblical interpretation. I’ve always found Holy Scripture to be clear in my many biblical studies, but Church history shows us that it isn’t clear enough to bring men to agreement. Catholics don’t think Scripture is nearly as unclear and obscure as we are often caricatured to supposedly believe. But we know that heretics throughout the centuries have distorted the Scripture, for whatever reason, so that an authoritative statement of orthodoxy becomes practically necessary in order to preserve unity as well as orthodoxy.

It’s often stated that Scripture is “perspicuous” (clear) and able to be understood in the main by the committed, regenerate layman, and that by comparing Bible passage with Bible passage, the truth can always be found. But the rub is that there are different ways of harmonizing the Scripture. There is the Calvinist way and the Arminian way and the Baptist way, the Lutheran, Anglican, Nazarene, Presbyterian, Methodist, Plymouth Brethren, 7th-Day Adventist, Mennonite, Church of God, Church of Christ ways, etc., etc. ad infinitum. Simply invoking the principle does not solve the problem in the least.

Catholicism doesn’t require a totally obscure Bible at all. This is a myth. But could virtually the entire Bible be understood without the need of authoritative teachers? No. And that’s rather obvious to this day. Protestants continue to absurdly claim that the Bible is perspicuous, yet fail to agree amongst themselves. And their reasons for why this is (stupidity or sin on the other guy’s part) are as absurd and silly as the original false premise.

One can arrive at any number of true doctrines by reading Scripture alone. I pretty much did that in a number of cases, when I was a Protestant. The problem, however, comes with the Jehovah’s Witness (an Arian) on the next block, who reads the same Scripture that we do and concludes that Jesus was created. It’s with the Mormon two blocks over who believes that God was once a man and that men can become gods. It’s with the Christian Scientist and the Sabellian (Jesus Only) and the Unitarian and Moonie and Scientologist and snake handlers and Name-it-Claim-it heretics, etc., etc., etc. They’re all operating on the principle of Scripture Alone, just as the ancient Arians and virtually all heresies did, too.

The Catholic view of authority and Holy Scripture is not about some ubiquitous churchman looking over everyone’s shoulder so that they would interpret each and every verse exactly as the Church says it ought to be interpreted (in fact, less than ten Bible verses are “officially” interpreted by the Catholic Church). People can read the Bible and it was largely clear; just not always, and it is not self-interpreting enough to prevent heresy without the Church intervening on behalf of orthodoxy. This is the Catholic rule of faith.

The Protestant rule of faith, sola Scriptura, on the other hand, cannot pronounce on orthodoxy, except on a denominational level only. All it can do is appeal back to the individual and claim that Scripture is perspicuous (clear) and formally sufficient and that no Church council has binding authority if an individual sees otherwise in Holy Scripture. That can never bring about unity, and never has in fact, because it is inadequate for establishing orthodoxy as applying to all Christians across the board.

“A competent guide must be clear and intelligible to all, so that every one may fully understand the true meaning of the instructions it contains. Is the Bible a book intelligible to all ? Far from it; it is full of obscurities and difficulties not only for the illiterate, but even for the learned.” (p. 104.) [cited on p. 84]

That there are hard places in Scripture nobody denies, but they are not those necessary to salvation. (p. 84)

This is one of those maxims of Protestantism that are easy to state, but much more difficult to prove (especially in actual practice). To give just two examples: baptism is said in Scripture several times to be necessary to salvation, yet Protestants can’t agree on whether this is true or not, and separate into five major camps regarding baptism. Secondly, the Eucharist is said to be necessary for salvation as well (Jesus states this repeatedly in John 6), but Protestant can’t agree on that, either. Therefore, I submit, judging by Protestantism’s various and contradictory conclusions, the Bible must not be clear — in and of itself without authoritative interpretation –about what is necessary for salvation.

The “things hard to be understood,” which ”St. Peter himself informs us” of, ” in the Epistles of St. Paul,” are, as the connection shows, certain prophecies, particularly about the “times and seasons,” which are purposely left in uncertainty, that we may be always watching for the coming of the Lord. (p. 85)

Okay; let’s take a closer look at this passage:

2 Peter 3:15-17 . . . So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, [16] speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. [17] You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability.

It’s indeed true that earlier in the chapter, St. Peter wrote about the coming of the Lord: the specific time of which we don’t and can’t know (“the day of the Lord will come like a thief”: 3:10). Verse 16 at its beginning appears to refer back to this theme, but then St. Peter moves on from it and makes a general statement: “There are some things in them [Paul’s letters] hard to understand.” In other words, he doesn’t write something to the effect of, “and this teaching [about prophecies, etc.] is hard to understand.” He is now expressing himself in broad terms. Then he notes that these “things . . . hard to understand” [in Paul] are what “the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction”.

If there is any doubt that he is thinking in general terms at this point, there can be none when we see that he writes, “. . . “as they do the other scriptures”. So now Peter is saying that many scriptures — not necessarily even those written just by Paul — are “twist[ed]” by the ignorant and unstable. And this, of course, proves the Catholic point and disproves the Protestant one about the perspicuity of Scripture: supposedly sufficient enough as to preclude a binding, authoritative interpretation from the Church. Note also that Peter ends with a warning: “lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability.” In other words, he thinks the problem is sufficiently serious to warn every reader to be vigilant and to not be led astray.

A comeback may be that Peter is only teaching that Pauline and/or other portions of Scripture are difficult only for the “ignorant and unstable.” The problem with that is that many people are “ignorant” (i.e., simply lacking knowledge of Scripture, or its exegesis, and the nature and exercise of hermeneutics: systematic interpretation of Scripture). Anyone who has spent much time at all in Christians circles (Protestant and Catholic alike; and I’ve been in both for many years) knows full well of the massive amount of biblical illiteracy.

That’s all it takes to distort the Bible, even before we get to deliberate heresy or spiritual, emotional, or theological instability. Needless to say, the endless internal Protestant disagreements do not give one much confidence at all in the Protestant assertion of “perspicuity of Scripture”. All that the denominationalism and division show is that excessive private judgment and rejection of a binding teaching authority as to orthodox theology leads to ecclesiological chaos and theological relativism, ending up in confusion and lack of certainty.

The passage the Archbishop quotes from 2 St. Peter 1:20, ”that no prophecy of Scripture is made by private interpretation,” refers, not to the explanation of it, but to the making of it, as the very wording of it shows; and if it did not, the next verse would make it plain. (p. 85)

Let’s look at this one, too:

2 Peter 1:20-21 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, [21] because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

Rev. Stearns’ exegesis is too simple and incomplete. The overall point Peter is making is that prophecy can’t be understood as a matter of private interpretation, because it’s spiritually discerned: having come from God the Holy Spirit in the first place. The more spiritual and less carnal a thing is, the more we need an authoritative Church to interpret and apply it, because the Church is the accumulated wisdom of spiritual persons for 2,000 years, which is far superior to anyone’s own specific understandings. But Rev. Stearns vainly contends that this has nothing to do with “explanation.”

I don’t see how that could be, because the word “interpretation” doesn’t refer to “the making of” prophecy. It refers to the understanding of it, and that leads us back to the discussion at hand: how clear Scripture is to the individual without any aid of a Church and a Sacred Tradition, or even matters such as cross-referencing from Scripture itself. Rev. Stearns is doing very poor exegesis and winds up special pleading.

To nail down his point, St. Peter goes on (originally the New Testament had no verses or chapters) to warn of the bad effects of erroneous private interpretation of Scripture:

2 Peter 2:1-3 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. [2] And many will follow their licentiousness, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled. [3] And in their greed they will exploit you with false words; . . .

St. Paul warns about the same sort of thing:

2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, [4] and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths.

These factors are some of the many reasons why it’s a dangerous thing for individuals to think that they understand all of Scripture, and — in the final analysis, or bottom line — need no assistance from an authoritative Tradition and/or Church: the latter being “the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15).

What the ”certain man” wanted of St. Philip (Acts 8:31) was something to aid his private judgment, not to supplant it; and the explanation that St. Philip gave of the prophecy commended itself to the man’s private judgment, else he would not have asked to be baptized. (p. 85)

I don’t think this flies, either. Let’s look at it:

Acts 8:27, 30-35 . . . behold, an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a minister of the Can’dace, queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of all her treasure, had come to Jerusalem to worship . . . [30] So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” [31] And he said, “How can I, unless some one guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. [32] Now the passage of the scripture which he was reading was this: “As a sheep led to the slaughter or a lamb before its shearer is dumb, so he opens not his mouth. [33] In his humiliation justice was denied him. Who can describe his generation? For his life is taken up from the earth.” [34] And the eunuch said to Philip, “About whom, pray, does the prophet say this, about himself or about some one else?” [35] Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this scripture he told him the good news of Jesus.

Rev. Stearns tries to make out that the eunuch had sufficient understanding, and only needed an aid for relatively better understanding. But that’s not how the text reads, prima facie. He’s asked if he understands what he is reading, and the eunuch answers, “How can I, unless some one guides me?” How clear can something be?! This is precisely what Catholics contend: it’s good to have an authoritative guide to help any given individual understand Scripture. The eunuch had an apostle. We have the Holy Church and Holy Tradition and other passages in the Holy Bible (cross-referencing). The eunuch was reading Isaiah 53, a well-known messianic passage. He didn’t even know that it applied to the Messiah, and thought it might be Isaiah writing about himself. And so Philip shared with him that it was referring to Jesus the Messiah.

Rev. Stearns makes a great deal out of the eunuch asking to be baptized, as if this confirmed that he had a solid, reliable “private judgment“. But the text informs us that, right after Philip started sharing the gospel, “they went along the road” and “came to some water” (8:36). We know that they were on “a desert road” (8:26), so it may very well have been some time before they arrived at water. And during that time, in Philip’s sharing of the gospel, he very likely would have proclaimed the necessity of baptism.

This is, after all, what St. Peter did in the first Christian sermon, recorded six chapters earlier in Acts. After proclaiming the gospel (Acts 2:22-36), the very next thing he did was to say, “”Repent, and be baptized every one of you” (2:38). So it’s more likely that Philip told the eunuch about baptism than it is that the eunuch already knew about its importance and necessity (although that’s certainly possible, too). But even if the eunuch did know that much, it has no bearing on his overall knowledge of Scripture. He surely didn’t know much about biblical theology, if he wasn’t aware that Isaiah 53 was a messianic passage. And this is precisely why he asked to be guided and instructed in biblical exegesis.

St. Augustine wrote about this passage:

And we know that the eunuch who was reading Isaiah the prophet, and did not understand what he read, was not sent by the apostle to an angel, nor was it an angel who explained to him what he did not understand, nor was he inwardly illuminated by the grace of God without the interposition of man; on the contrary, at the suggestion of God, Philip, who did understand the prophet, came to him, and sat with him, and in human words, and with a human tongue, opened to him the Scriptures. [Acts 8:26] Did not God talk with Moses, and yet he, with great wisdom and entire absence of jealous pride, accepted the plan of his father-in-law, a man of an alien race, for ruling and administering the affairs of the great nation entrusted to him? [Exodus 18:13] (On Christian Doctrine, Preface, 7)

The highly educated Augustine even wrote that he himself — like the Ethiopian eunuch — did not understand the book of Isaiah, which was recommended for him to read by his mentor, St. Ambrose, shortly after his conversion:

I, not understanding the first portion of the book, and imagining the whole to be like it, laid it aside, intending to take it up hereafter, when better practised in our Lord’s words. (The Confessions, ix, 5, 13)

St. John Chrysostom also preached about it:

Even as the eunuch of Candace read, but until one came who instructed him in the meaning of what he was reading he derived no great benefit from it . . . we must not attend to the words merely, but turn our attention to the sense, and learn the aim of the speaker, and the cause and the occasion, and by putting all these things together turn out the hidden meaning. (Homily on Matthew 26:19, Against Marcionists and Manichæans)

Rev. Stearns doesn’t discuss other biblical passages directly relevant to the question of the clearness or perspicuity of Scripture. But I will, because I think people deserve a much fuller biblical explanation:

Nehemiah 8:1-3, 7-9, 12 And all the people gathered as one man into the square before the Water Gate; and they told Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses which the LORD had given to Israel. [2] And Ezra the priest brought the law before the assembly, . . . [3] And he read from it . . . [7] Also Jesh’ua, Bani, Sherebi’ah, Jamin, Akkub, Shab’bethai, Hodi’ah, Ma-asei’ah, Keli’ta, Azari’ah, Jo’zabad, Hanan, Pelai’ah, the Levites, helped the people to understand the law, . . . [8] And they read from the book, from the law of God, clearly; and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading. [9] . . . and the Levites who taught the people . . . [12] . . . they had understood the words that were declared to them.

Mark 4:33-34 With many such parables he spoke the word to them, as they were able to hear it; [34] he did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything.

Luke 24:25-27, 32 And he said to them, “O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! [26] Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” [27] And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. . . . [32] They said to each other, “Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the scriptures?”

The two disciples on the road to Emmaus later marveled at how Jesus “opened to us the scriptures”. In other words, those prophecies were not understood until Jesus explained them, and in fact, most of the Jews did not see that they were fulfilled. Thus, Old Testament Scripture was insufficient for these messianic truths to be grasped simply by reading them. One could retort that the Jews were hardhearted and thus could not understand since they had not the Holy Spirit and God’s grace to illumine their understanding. But that proves too much because it would also have to apply to these two disciples, and indeed all of the disciples, who did not understand what was happening, even after Jesus repeatedly told them that He was to suffer and to die, and that this was all foretold.

The Phillips Modern English translation renders Luke 24:32 as, “he made the scriptures plain to us.” The Greek word for “opened” is dianoigo (Strong’s Concordance word #1272). According to Joseph Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1977 reprint of 1901 edition, p. 140), it means “to open by dividing or drawing asunder, to open thoroughly (what had been closed).” This meaning can be seen in other passages where dianoigo appears: Mark 7:34-35, Luke 2:23, 24:31,45, Acts 16:14, 17:3.

Obviously, then, Holy Scripture is informing us that some parts of it were “closed” and “not plain” until the “infallible” teaching authority and interpretation of our Lord Jesus opened it up and made it plain. This runs utterly contrary to the Protestant notion of perspicuity of Scripture and its more or less ubiquitous self-interpreting nature, at the very least as regards salvation. In this instance, it did have to do with salvation, because Jesus was talking about “all the scriptures the things concerning himself.” They hadn’t understood those passages until Jesus “opened” them up to them. It’s hard to imagine a clearer refutation of the Protestant notion of perspicuity.

Shortly after in the text, Jesus appears to the eleven disciples and reiterates the same teaching:

Luke 24:44-47 Then he said to them, “These are my words which I spoke to you, while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled.” [45] Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures, [46] and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, [47] and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

Note again that they didn’t understand the Old Testament Scriptures simply by reading them. Nor did they understand the gospel itself (thus Scripture wasn’t clear about even the gospel and salvation, for them to grasp it: directly contrary to what Protestants assert). It was necessary that Jesus “opened their minds to understand the scriptures.” If this was true of the disciples who lived with Jesus for three years and had innumerable discussions with Him, how much more is it necessary for us today and for men and women all through time? We don’t have Jesus to explain all of this, but we have the Church that He left, which was to be guided by the Holy Spirit and protected by Him from error (see, e.g., Acts 15:28: “it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us”).

The great Protestant theologian G. C. Berkouwer (1903-1996) wrote very helpfully about this issue of perspicuity:

An attempt has often been made to solve this problem by referring to the ‘objective’ clarity of Scripture, so that every incomplete understanding and insight of Scripture is said to be due to the blinding of human eyes that could not observe the true light shining from it . . .

In considering this seemingly simple solution . . . we will soon discover that not all questions are answered by it . . . An incomplete understanding or a total misunderstanding of Scripture cannot simply be explained by blindness. Certain obstacles to understanding may also be related to Scripture’s concrete form of human language conditioned by history . . . Scripture . . . is tied to historical situations and circumstances in so many ways that not every word we read is immediately clear in itself . . . Therefore, it will not surprise us that many questions have been raised in the course of history about the perspicuity of Scripture . . . Some wondered whether this confession of clarity was indeed a true confession . . . The church has frequently been aware of a certain ‘inaccessibility.’

According to Bavinck . . . it may not be overlooked that, according to Rome . . . Scripture is not regarded as a completely obscure and inaccessible book, written, so to speak, in secret language . . . Instead, Rome is convinced that an understanding of Scripture is possible – a clear understanding. But Rome is at the same time deeply impressed by the dangers involved in reading the Bible. Their desire is to protect Scripture against all arbitrary and individualistic exegesis . . .

It is indeed one of the most moving and difficult aspects of the confession of Scripture’s clarity that it does not automatically lead to a total uniformity of perception, disposing of any problems. We are confronted with important differences and forked roads . . . and all parties normally appeal to Scripture and its perspicuity. The heretics did not disregard the authority of Scripture but made an appeal to it and to its clear witness with the subjective conviction of seeing the truth in the words of Scripture. (Studies in Dogmatics: Holy Scripture, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1975, translated from the Dutch edition of 1967 by Jack B. Rogers, 268-271, 286)

See Related Reading

Is the Bible in Fact Clear, or “Perspicuous” to Every Individual? [2007]

Luther: Scripture Easily Grasped by “Plowboys” [11-1-08]

Erasmus’ Hyperaspistes (1526): Sola Scriptura and Perspicuity of Scripture [2-12-09]

The Perspicuity (Clearness) of Scripture: A Summary [1-22-10]

The Anglican Newman (1833-1838) on the Falsity of Perspicuity (Clearness) of Holy Scripture [3-7-11]

Bible: Completely Self-Authenticating, So that Anyone Could Come up with the Complete Canon without Formal Church Proclamations? (vs. Wm. Whitaker) [July 2012]

Perspicuity (Clearness) of Scripture (vs. Wm. Whitaker) [July 2012]

The Bible: “Clear” & “Self-Interpreting”? [February 2014]

The Clearness, or “Perspicuity,” of Sacred Scripture [National Catholic Register, 11-16-17]

Is Inspiration Immediately Evident in Every Biblical Book? [National Catholic Register, 7-28-18]

“Difficulty” in Understanding the Bible: Hebrew Cultural Factors [2-5-21]

Irish Ecclesiastical Record vs. Anti-Catholic George Salmon, Pt. 6: The Innumerable Perils of Perspicuity of Scripture and Private Judgment [3-16-23]

Rev. Stearns then produces many citations of the Church fathers (on pp. 87-95) in support or alleged support of Protestant perspicuity. Many simply say that it’s good and profitable to read Scripture, a thing that the Catholic Church has never denied. As an editor of three books of patristic quotations, I can present several, too, that support the Catholic position on this and are quite contrary to the Protestant view. Anglican patristics scholar J. N. D. Kelly wrote:

So Athanasius, disputing with the Arians, claimed that his own doctrine had been handed down from father to father, whereas they could not produce a single respectable witness to theirs . . .

The ancient idea that the Church alone, in virtue of being the home of the Spirit and having preserved the authentic apostolic testimony in her rule of faith, liturgical action and general witness, possesses the indispensable key to Scripture, continued to operate as powerfully as in the days of Irenaeus and Tertullian . . . Athanasius himself, after dwelling on the entire adequacy of Scripture, went on to emphasize the desirability of having sound teachers to expound it. Against the Arians he flung the charge that they would never have made shipwreck of the faith had they held fast as a sheet-anchor to the . . . Church’s peculiar and traditionally handed down grasp of the purport of revelation. Hilary insisted that only those who accept the Church’s teaching can comprehend what the Bible is getting at. According to Augustine, its doubtful or ambiguous passages need to be cleared up by ‘the rule of faith’; it was, moreover, the authority of the Church alone which in his eyes guaranteed its veracity. . . .

It should be unnecessary to accumulate further evidence. Throughout the whole period Scripture and tradition ranked as complementary authorities, media different in form but coincident in content. To inquire which counted as superior or more ultimate is to pose the question in misleading terms. If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the surest clue to its interpretation, for in tradition the Church retained, as a legacy from the apostles which was embedded in all the organs of her institutional life, an unerring grasp of the real purport and meaning of the revelation to which Scripture and tradition alike bore witness. (Early Christian Doctrines, San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1978, 45, 47-48; italics my own)

Let’s go right to the teaching of St. Augustine — virtually the “patron saint” of Protestantism — on how clear Scripture is, and whether it’s necessary to have the Church as its authoritative interpreter. I have seven pages of his citations on this topic, in my book, The Quotable Augustine: Distinctively Catholic Elements in His Theology (Sep. 2012, 245 pages). Here is a heavy sampling:

Let the reader consult the rule of faith which he has gathered from the plainer passages of Scripture, and from the authority of the Church, . . . (On Christian Doctrine, 3, 2, 2)

For many meanings of the holy Scriptures are concealed, and are known only to a few of singular intelligence . . . (Explanations of the Psalms, 68:30 [68, 36] )

For every one with average intelligence can easily see that the explanation of the Scriptures should be sought for from those who are the professed teachers of the Scriptures; and that it may happen, and indeed always happens, that many things seem absurd to the ignorant, which, when they are explained by the learned, appear all the more excellent, and are received in the explanation with the greater pleasure on account of the obstructions which made it difficult to reach the meaning. This commonly happens as regards the holy books of the Old Testament, . . . (On the Morals of the Catholic Church, 1)

But hasty and careless readers are led astray by many and manifold obscurities and ambiguities, substituting one meaning for another; and in some places they cannot hit upon even a fair interpretation. Some of the expressions are so obscure as to shroud the meaning in the thickest darkness. And I do not doubt that all this was divinely arranged for the purpose of subduing pride by toil, and of preventing a feeling of satiety in the intellect, which generally holds in small esteem what is discovered without difficulty. . . . the Holy Spirit has, with admirable wisdom and care for our welfare, so arranged the Holy Scriptures as by the plainer passages to satisfy our hunger, and by the more obscure to stimulate our appetite. For almost nothing is dug out of those obscure passages which may not be found set forth in the plainest language elsewhere. (On Christian Doctrine, ii, 7-8)

There are some passages which are not understood in their proper force, or are understood with great difficulty, at whatever length, however clearly, or with whatever eloquence the speaker may expound them; and these should never be brought before the people at all, or only on rare occasions when there is some urgent reason. (On Christian Doctrine, iv, 22-23)

I resolved, therefore, to direct my mind to the Holy Scriptures, that I might see what they were. And behold, I perceive something not comprehended by the proud, not disclosed to children, but lowly as you approach, sublime as you advance, and veiled in mysteries; and I was not of the number of those who could enter into it, or bend my neck to follow its steps. . . . nor could the sharpness of my wit pierce their inner meaning. (The Confessions, iii, 5, 9)

For not in vain have You willed that the obscure secret of so many pages should be written. The Confessions, xi, 2, 3)

Those who are able commentators on the Scripture, . . . notwithstanding their common loyalty to the one true faith, must often bring forward various opinions on account of the obscurity of many passages; although this difference of interpretation by no means involves departure from the unity of the faith; just as one commentator may himself give, in harmony with the faith which he holds, two different interpretations of the same passage, because the obscurity of the passage makes both equally admissible. (Ep. 82 [5, 34]: to St. Jerome [405] )

Without doubt in that sentence of the Apostle [1 Corinthians 3:11-15] we must look for another interpretation, and we must account it among those things, whereof Peter says, that there are certain in his writings hard to be understood, which men ought not to pervert unto their own destruction, . . . Here perhaps I may be asked, what my own sense is of this same sentence of Paul, and in what way I think that it ought to be understood. I confess that on this point I should rather hear men of more understanding and learning than myself speak, . . . (On Faith and Works, 26-27)

There is a third class of objectors who either really do understand Scripture well, or think they do, and who, because they know (or imagine) that they have attained a certain power of interpreting the sacred books without reading any directions of the kind that I propose to lay down here, will cry out that such rules are not necessary for any one, but that everything rightly done towards clearing up the obscurities of Scripture could be better done by the unassisted grace of God. . . . No, no; rather let us put away false pride and learn whatever can be learned from man; . . . lest, being ensnared by such wiles of the enemy and by our own perversity, we may even refuse to go to the churches to hear the gospel itself, or to read a book, or to listen to another reading or preaching, . . . Cornelius the centurion, although an angel announced to him that his prayers were heard and his alms had in remembrance, was yet handed over to Peter for instruction, and not only received the sacraments from the apostle’s hands, but was also instructed by him as to the proper objects of faith, hope, and love. (On Christian Doctrine, Preface, 2, 5-6)

If you acknowledge the supreme authority of Scripture, you should recognise that authority which from the time of Christ Himself, through the ministry of His apostles, and through a regular succession of bishops in the seats of the apostles, has been preserved to our own day throughout the whole world, with a reputation known to all. There the Old Testament too has its difficulties solved, and its predictions fulfilled. (Against Faustus the Manichee, xxxiii, 9)

What, moreover, shall I say of those commentators on the divine Scriptures who have flourished in the catholic Church? They have never tried to pervert these testimonies to an alien sense, because they were firmly established in our most ancient and solid faith, and were never moved aside by the novelty of error. (On Marriage and Concupiscence, ii, 51)

Likewise, St. John Chrysostom, whom Rev. Stearns cited at great length, taught the same thing:

If anyone unpracticed in the art undertake to work a mine, he will get no gold, but confounding all aimlessly and together, will undergo a labor unprofitable and pernicious: so also they who understand not the method of Holy Scripture, nor search out its peculiarities and laws, but go over all its points carelessly and in one manner, will mix the gold with earth, and never discover the treasure which is laid up in it. I say this now because the passage before us contains much gold, not indeed manifest to view, but covered over with much obscurity, and therefore by digging and purifying we must arrive at the legitimate sense. . . . we rest not in the mere words; for thus the heretics err, because they enquire not into the object of the speaker nor the disposition of the hearers. If we add not these and other points besides, as times and places and the opinions of the listeners, many absurd consequences will follow. (Homily XL on John, v. 5:31-32)

If in things of this life a man can gain no great profit if he conduct them in an indifferent and chance way, much more will this be the case in spiritual things, since these require yet greater attention. Wherefore Christ when He referred the Jews to the Scriptures, sent them not to a mere reading, but a careful and considerate search; for He said not, “Read the Scriptures,” but, “Search the Scriptures.” Since the sayings relating to Him required great attention, (for they had been concealed from the beginning for the advantage of the men of that time,) He biddeth them now dig down with care that they might be able to discover what lay in the depth below. These sayings were not on the surface, nor were they cast forth to open view, but lay like some treasure hidden very deep. Now he that searcheth for hidden things, except he seek them with care and toil, will never find the object of his search. (Homily XLI on John, v. 5:39-40)

*
***
*

Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six 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. If you believe my full-time apostolate is worth supporting, please seriously consider a much-needed monthly or one-time financial contribution. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV).

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. 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 and 100% tax-deductible donations if desired), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information.

You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my YouTube channel, Catholic Bible Highlights, where I partner with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos), and/or by signing up to receive notice for new articles on this blog. Just type your email address on the sidebar to the right (scroll down quite a bit), where you see, “Sign Me Up!” Thanks a million!

***

Photo credit: J aneke88 (8-7-15) [Pixabay / CC0 Creative Commons license]

Summary: Reply to Anglican Edward Josiah Stearns regarding the supposed total clearness of the Bible, pertaining to matters of salvation, and lack of necessity for a Christian authority.

Reply to Lutheran Johann Gerhard (1582-1637) #1

Last updated on: January 9, 2025 at 12:53 am By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

Ecclesial Infallibility; Trent: Protestants Are Regenerated Christians By Virtue of Baptism; Total Clearness of Scripture?; St. Bernard & the Catholic Church on Meritorious Works

Photo credit: Johann Gerhard (1582-1637) [public domain / Internet Archive Open Library: *Confessio Catholica*]

Lutheran scholars and apologists widely consider Johann Gerhard (1582-1637), a Protestant scholastic, to be the most knowledgeable Lutheran apologist in history. What’s particularly notable about him is that he actually directly interacted with the best Catholic apologetics and theological sources (such as St. Robert Bellarmine: 1542-1621). According to the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica article on Gerhard, he was “regarded as the greatest living theologian of Protestant Germany.” And it described his multi-volume book, “the Confessio Catholica (1633–1637)” as “an extensive work which seeks to prove the evangelical and catholic character of the doctrine of the Augsburg Confession [1530, written by Philip Melanchthon] from the writings of approved Roman Catholic authors.”

Gerhard’s words will be in blue. The first volume of this work is 1008 pages, and is in the public domain. I will be utilizing Google Translate to render the original Latin into English (with my own slight modifications to make it more readable). I use RSV for scriptural citations.

*****

Paul the Apostle, arguing against the Gentiles, produces testimony from three gentile poets, . . . First, he opposes the philosophers of the Athenians from the Phenomena of Aratus [Acts 17:28] . . . The Corinthians, some of whom deny the flesh, adduce a different refutation from . . . Menander [1 Cor 15:33]. . . . The third is . . . Epimenides of Crete [Acts 17:28; Titus 1:12]. . . . Moses, Christ, and Paul . . . bring to light the power of truth from the fact that it bursts forth even from the mouths of the unwilling.

Gerhard is explaining how one can appeal to certain portions of one’s opponents’ views (in this instance, Catholics) in order to bolster one’s own arguments, and how St. Paul used the same technique in his preaching and epistles. I fully agree with the principle, insofar as it is applicable in a given case. I edited an entire book consisting of “traditional / Catholic” utterances of Martin Luther.

I deny, of course, that Lutheran doctrine is entirely in accord with Catholic doctrine (so would, I’m pretty sure, the vast majority of Lutherans today), as Melanchthon seems to have vainly imagined in 1530; and that will be the thesis lying behind my replies in this series. But it’ll be fun to see Gerhard reiterate Melanchthon’s endeavor and give it the old college try.

Gerhard will be citing arguments from Catholics that he deems to be in harmony with Lutheran doctrine, just as I often happily note many points of teaching of Luther and Calvin that are perfectly consistent with our view. Truth is truth, wherever it is found (and unity is always to be sought as much as possible), and there is a lot of truth in Protestantism, unfortunately mixed with significant error.

Bellarmine, . . . Book 4, on Ecclesiastes, chapter 16, § 1, among the notes of Ecclesiastes, in the thirteenth place, refers to the confession of adversaries, and adds: “Such is the force of truth, that it sometimes compels even adversaries to give their testimony.”

He shows that Catholics like St. Robert Bellarmine also argue in the same fashion: citing opponents in agreement on particular points. I think virtually any good debater would be found doing the same.

The papal writers are fond of boasting the most. 1. Of the infallibility of the Roman Church. Our argument is, writes Bellarmine, lib. 3. de Ecclesiastes, chap. 14, “The Church cannot err absolutely, neither in absolutely necessary things, nor in others, which it proposes to us to believe or do, whether they are expressly stated in the Scriptures or not.” . . . We do not construct such an argument against this boasting. When the sons of the Roman Church bring forth such things in controversial dogmas, which confirm our belief, then they either err or do not err. If the former is stated, the boasting of the Pontiffs that the Roman Church does not err is false. If the latter, the accusation of the Pontiffs that our churches are promoting erroneous dogmas is false.

The famous baseball pitcher of the 1930s, Dizzy Dean, once remarked that “it ain’t braggin’ if you can do it.” The first task in this discussion is to determine what the Bible teaches about the Church. Is it infallible in matters of doctrines made binding on Christian believers? And of course we argue that it is, and we do because we believe that the Bible teaches it.

The two clearest reasons why are the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15), in which a decision was made — confirmed by the Holy Spirit Himself (15:28) which makes it not only infallible but inspired — that was binding on Christians many hundreds of miles away, in Asia Minor (Turkey: see Acts 16:4). The second compelling prooftext is 1 Timothy 3:15 (“. . . the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.”), which, when analyzed deeply enough, strongly asserts ecclesial infallibility.

Once this is determined, then the relevant question is how to locate and identify the one true Church that is assumed to be in existence in Holy Scripture, as opposed to whether this Church is infallible or not. Gerhard assumes that the very claim is ridiculous “boasting” out of necessity, because, I submit, no Protestant can dare assert an infallible Church, lest their own claims become immediately ridiculous: seeing that in their relentless divisions, they can never completely agree with each other on doctrine. In that profoundly unbiblical scenario of denominationalism, infallibility isn’t even on the radar screen, since Protestants can’t even agree on things as basic as baptism and the Holy Eucharist. I have pointedly described this tragi-comic state of affairs as “the Protestant quest for uncertainty.”

Therefore, rather than seriously grapple with the biblical teaching regarding the Church, they must belittle one of our self-consistent claims to be in adherence to that same biblical teaching. This argument (or, rather, accusation, I should say) is just plain silly and unserious. It’s also fascinating and telling that Gerhard uses the term “our churches” — whereas Bellarmine is presupposing and discussing the biblical terminology of “the Church” and (for many and various other reasons) identifying this with the Catholic Church.

2. On the denial of the truth of our Churches. Bellarmine, book 4, on Ecclesiastes, chapter 16, writes: “Catholics are nowhere found praising the doctrine or life of any heretics.” Therefore, if it were demonstrated that the sons of the Roman Church in many ways praised and approved our doctrine, differing from the common confession of the Roman Church, and indeed in those very chapters about which there is controversy between us and the Pontiffs, Bellarmine would be forced to admit that either that boasting was vain and futile, or that we were not heretics.

There is a middle position here, which I think is the actual true state of affairs. Catholics don’t assert that Protestants are utter heretics in the sense that, say, Arians and Sabellians (those who deny the Holy Trinity) are. It’s a mixed bag of many lesser errors, but not the most dangerous and heretical ones, that remove one from the category of Christian altogether. And in fact, most Lutherans (including Luther and Melanchthon in the beginning) believe the same about Catholics. We hold that Protestants are partially heretical in those instances where they depart from constant apostolic tradition, passed down in the Catholic Church from the beginning.

The Council of Trent (which occurred before Gerhard was born), in its Canon IV on baptism stated that “baptism which is even given by heretics in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, with the intention of doing what the Church doth, is . . . true baptism” and even anathematizes those who would deny this. It inexorably follows that Protestants are fellow Christians in the Body of Christ. Contrary to a widespread myth, these notions were not invented in Vatican II in the 1960s. They are actually rooted in St. Augustine, who argued that Donatist baptisms were valid.

The Catholic Church has always taught that baptism regenerates; brings about the new birth (Council of Florence, 1439: “Through baptism . . . we are reborn spiritually”: Denzinger 1311; cf. 239). Trent itself in a different section (Decree on the Sacrament of Penance, ch. 2: Denz. 1671-1672, plainly states, by logical deduction (by the nature of baptism), that Protestants are fellow Christians in the Body of Christ:

The Church exercises judgment on no one who has not entered therein through the gate of baptism. . . . It is otherwise with those who are of the household of the faith, whom Christ our Lord has once, by the laver of baptism, made the members of His own body . . . For, by baptism putting on Christ, we are made therein entirely a new creature, obtaining a full and entire remission of all sins . . . baptism itself is for those who have not as yet been regenerated.

So, going back to Gerhard’s argument, Protestants are regarded as fellow Christians by Catholics because of baptism. We agree with Lutherans and some other Protestants, too, that baptism brings about spiritual regeneration and ushers one into the kingdom of God, in a state of good graces and initial total forgiveness of sins. Agreeing on this is highly significant, but it doesn’t follow that we deny that Lutherans are heretical in several other particular areas. Gerhard offers a false a vs. b choice of how to classify Lutherans from a Catholic perspective. The anathemas of Trent are complex as well, and do not sweepingly condemn all Protestants, let alone Lutherans. Even Pope Benedict XVI, when he was a theologian before becoming pope, confirmed that.

Bellarmine, in lib.3. on the Word of God chapter 1, argues among other things that the obscurity of Scripture is proved.

I’m sure he wasn’t contending that all Scripture is utterly obscure, but rather, that parts of it are obscure enough to require an authoritative interpreter, in order to bring about doctrinal unity. Protestants lack that very thing, and claim that Scripture is perspicuous (clear) enough for any layperson to understand it. Bellarmine had good solid scriptural grounds to argue in that way. When Ezra read “the book of the law of Moses which the LORD had given to Israel” to the people (Neh 8:1), note that reading / hearing alone wasn’t sufficient. Levites “helped the people to understand the law, . . . and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading” (8:7-8).

St. Peter described St. Paul’s letters as follows: “There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures” (2 Pet 3:16). And he stated, “no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation” (2 Pet 1:20). St. Philip heard the Ethiopian eunuch “reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, ‘Do you understand what you are reading?’ And he said, ‘How can I, unless some one guides me?’ ” (Acts 8:30-31). The risen Jesus’ encounter with the two men on the road to Emmaus is also very instructive in this regard:

Luke 24:25-27, 32, 45 And he said to them, “O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! [26] Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” [27] And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. . . . [32] They said to each other, “Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the scriptures?” . . . [45] Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures,

St. Paul noted how learning the Scripture and the Christian faith itself properly takes time; it’s not a simple process: “I fed you with milk, not solid food; for you were not ready for it; and even yet you are not ready” (1 Cor 3:2). The writer of Hebrews reiterates the same point:

Hebrews 5:11-14 About this we have much to say which is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. [12] For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need some one to teach you again the first principles of God’s word. You need milk, not solid food; [13] for every one who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a child. [14] But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their faculties trained by practice to distinguish good from evil.

St. Paul warns about people who are “burdened with sins and swayed by various impulses, who will listen to anybody and can never arrive at a knowledge of the truth” (2 Tim 3:6-7) and those who “will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths” (2 Tim 4:3-4).

Jesus also warned about the potential dangers of following one’s own inclinations in theological matters, rather than true spiritual leaders in the Church: “many false prophets will arise and lead many astray” (Mt 24:11); “if any one says to you, ‘Lo, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. [24] For false Christs and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect” (24:23-24). Jesus even rebuked Nicodemus, a Pharisee sympathetic to Him, who would have been a teacher, in the matter of baptismal regeneration: “Are you a teacher of Israel, and yet you do not understand this?” (Jn 3:10).

This is why we need the Church to guide us. The Bible is clear that it’s not always clear just by reading it. If we try to do it on our own, much error will be present in too many people, and that’s exactly what we observe in Protestantism, where innumerable internal contradictions mean that either both or one of the parties who disagree with and contradict each other in any given instance are believing in falsehood. And that’s not good. It’s the devil who is the father of lies and all false doctrine. Erasmus, the great Catholic scholar, in opposing Martin Luther in 1526, wrote brilliantly about the shortcomings of perspicuity:

And then, as for what you say about the clarity of Scripture, would that it were absolutely true! But those who laboured mightily to explain it for many centuries in the past were of quite another opinion. (p. 129 of Hyperaspistes)

But if knowledge of grammar alone removes all obscurity from Sacred Scripture, how did it happen that St. Jerome, who knew all the languages, was so often at a loss and had to labour mightily to explain the prophets? Not to mention some others, among whom we find even Augustine, in whom you place some stock. Why is it that you yourself, who cannot use ignorance of languages as an excuse, are sometimes at a loss in explicating the psalms, testifying that you are following something you have dreamed up in your own mind, without condemning the opinions of others? . . . Finally, why do your ‘brothers’ disagree so much with one another? They all have the same Scripture, they all claim the same spirit. And yet Karlstadt disagrees with you violently. So do Zwingli and Oecolampadius and Capito, who approve of Karlstadt’s opinion though not of his reasons for it. Then again Zwingli and Balthazar are miles apart on many points. To say nothing of images, which are rejected by others, but defended by you, not to mention the rebaptism rejected by your followers but preached by others, and passing over in silence the fact that secular studies are condemned by others but defended by you. Since you are all treating the subject matter of Scripture, if there is no obscurity in it, why is there so much disagreement among you? (pp. 130-131)

Nor did I say that some places in Scripture offer difficulties in order to deter anyone from reading it, but rather to encourage readers to study it acutely and to discourage the inexperienced from making snap judgments. (p. 135)

But still, if I were growing weary of this church, as I wavered in perplexity, tell me, I beg you in the name of the gospel, where would you have me go? To that disintegrated congregation of yours, that totally dissected sect? Karlstadt has raged against you, and you in turn against him. And the dispute was not simply a tempest in a teapot but concerned a very serious matter. Zwingli and Oecolampadius have opposed your opinion in many volumes. And some of the leaders of your congregation agree with them, among whom is Capito. Then too what an all-out battles was fought by Balthazar and Zwingli! I am not even sure that there in that tiny little town you agree among yourselves very well. Here your disciples openly taught that the humanities are the bane of godliness, and no languages are to be learned except a bit of Greek and Hebrew, that Latin should be entirely ignored. There were those who would eliminate baptism and those who would repeat it; and there was no lack of those who persecute them for it. In some places images of the saints suffered a dire fate; you came to their rescue. When you book about reforming education was published, they said that the spirit had left you and that you were beginning to write in a human spirit opposed to the gospel, and they maintained you did it to please Melanchthon. A tribe of prophets has risen up there with whom you have engaged in most bitter conflict. Finally, just as every day new dogmas appear among you, so at the same time new quarrels arise. And you demand that no one should disagree with you, although you disagree so much among yourselves about matters of the greatest importance! (pp. 143-144)

You quarrel so much among yourselves, each of you claiming all the while to have the Spirit of Christ and a completely certain knowledge of Holy Scripture, how can you still . . . be outraged that an old man like me who knows nothing of theology should prefer to follow the authoritative consensus of the church rather than to join you, who dissent no less from the church than you dissent from each other? (p. 144)

You offend precisely in that you continually foist off on us your interpretation as the word of God . . . in interpreting Scripture I prefer to follow the judgment of the many orthodox teachers and of the church rather than that of you alone or of your few sworn followers . . . (pp. 180-181)

And so away with this ‘word of God, word of God.’ I am not waging war against the word of God but against your assertion; nor is the word of God inconsistent with itself but rather human interpretations collide with one another. If you are influenced by the judgment of the church, what you assert is human fabrication, what you fight against is the word of God. (p. 181)

I am not making the passages obscure, but rather God himself wanted there to be some obscurity in them, but in such a way that there would be enough light for the eternal salvation of everyone if he used his eyes and grace was there to help. No one denies that there is truth as clear as crystal in Holy Scripture, but sometimes it is wrapped and covered up by figures and enigmas so that it needs scrutiny and an interpreter. (pp. 219-220)

You say this as if I said that all Scripture is obscure and ambiguous, though I confess that it contains a treasure of eternal and most certain truth, but in some places the treasure is concealed and not open to just anybody, no matter who. (p. 223)

For which of them [the Church Fathers], in explaining the mysteries in these volumes, does not complain about the obscurity of Scripture? Not because they blame Scripture, as you falsely charge, but because they deplore the dullness of the human mind, not because they despair but because they implore grace from him who alone closes and opens to whomever he wishes, when he wishes, and as much as he wishes. (pp. 244-245)

Bernard . . . rejected . . . the merits of works . . .

Not at all. He taught precisely that which the Catholic Church teaches about merit (“both/and”), in harmony with 50 Bible passages: all the grace that alone and necessarily brings about good works comes from God, Who works with the person, who in turn cooperates with God; then God crowns His own gifts, in regarding the resultant voluntary good works as meritorious (as Augustine said). This is what the Catholic Church has always taught.

Hence, Trent, in its Decree on Justification, chapter 16, stated, “Jesus Christ Himself continually infuses his virtue into the said justified, — as the head into the members, and the vine into the branches, — and this virtue always precedes and accompanies and follows their good works, which without it could not in any wise be pleasing and meritorious before God . . .” (Denz. 1546). St. Bernard of Clairvaux [1090-1153] agrees:

If both the words and the works are not Paul’s, but God’s, Who speaketh in Paul or worketh through Paul; wherefore, in such case, are the merits Paul’s? Wherefore is it that he so confidently affirmed: “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith: henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give to me at that day”? Was it, perchance, that he was assured that the crown was laid up for him, because it was through him that those deeds were done?

But many good things are done by means of the wicked, whether angels or men; yet they are not reckoned unto them as meritorious. Or was it rather because they were done with him, that is to say, with his good will? “For,” saith he, “if I preach the gospel unwillingly, a stewardship hath been entrusted to me, but if willingly, I have whereof to glory.”

Moreover, if not so much as the very will, on which dependeth all merit, is from Paul himself; on what ground doth he speak of the crown, which he believeth to be laid up for him, as a crown of righteousness? Is it because whatsoever is even freely promised is yet asked for justly and as a matter of due? Finally he saith: “I know Whom I have believed, and I am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have intrusted unto Him.” The promise of God he calls his deposit; and because he believed Him that promised, he asketh for the fulfilment of the promise. What was indeed promised in mercy is yet due in justice. Thus it is a crown of righteousness that Paul expecteth; but of God’s righteousness; not of his own. It is forsooth just that God should pay what He oweth; but it is what He hath promised that He oweth.

This then is the righteousness upon which the Apostle presumeth, namely, God’s fulfilment of His promise; lest, if, disdaining this righteousness, he would establish his own, he be not subject to the righteousness of God; when it was all the while God’s will that he should be partaker of His righteousness, in order that He might also make him meritorious of a crown. For He constituted him partaker of His righteousness, and meritorious of a crown, when He deigned to take him as His fellow-worker in the works as a reward for which the crown of righteousness was laid up. Further He made him His fellow-worker, when He made him His willing worker, that is to say, consentient with His will. Accordingly the will is held to be God’s aid; the aid it gives is held to be meritorious. If then, in such a case, the will is from God, so also is the merit. Nor is there any doubt but that both to will, and to perform according to the good will, are from God. God therefore is the author of merit, who both applieth the will to the work, and supplieth to the will the fulfilment of the work. (Concerning Grace And Free Will, chap. 14)

***
*
Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six 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: [email protected]. 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: Johann Gerhard (1582-1637) [public domain / Internet Archive Open Library: Confessio Catholica]

Summary: First of two replies to the “Confessio” of Lutheran theologian Johann Gerhard (1582-1637), in which he sought to confirm Lutheran doctrines by various Catholic statements.

Doctrinal Development: 80 Bible Passages

Last updated on: December 10, 2024 at 11:11 am By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

Photo credit: cover of my self-published book (June 2002), designed by Chad Toney.

C. S. Lewis, the famous Anglican apologist, once wrote:

The very possibility of progress demands that there should be an unchanging element . . . the positive historical statements made by Christianity have the power . . . of receiving, without intrinsic change, the increasing complexity of meaning which increasing knowledge puts into them. (God in the Dock, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1970, 44-47)

The Catholic Church, in agreement with Lewis, defines doctrinal development as a growth of depth and clarity in the understanding of the truths of divine revelation. It is important to understand that the substantial or essential truths at the core of each doctrine remain unchanged. Only the subjective grasp of men increases. This increase is the result of the prayerful reflection of the Church, theological study and research (often occasioned by heretical challenges), practical experience, and the collective wisdom of the Church’s bishops and popes, especially when joined in ecumenical councils.

Like many Christian doctrines, the idea of doctrinal development is based on much implicit or indirect scriptural evidence (that will be compiled below). Furthermore, doctrine clearly develops within Scripture (“progressive revelation”). Examples: doctrines of the afterlife, the Trinity, the Messiah (eventually revealed as God the Son), the Holy Spirit (Divine Person in the New Testament), the equality of Jews and Gentiles, bodily resurrection, sacrifice of lambs evolving into the sacrifice of Christ, the canon of Scripture itself, etc. The Divinity or Godhood of Christ was only finalized in 325, and the full doctrine of the Trinity in 381. The dogma of the Two Natures of Christ (God and Man) was proclaimed in 451. These decisions of ecumenical councils were made in response to challenging heresies.

Not a single doctrine emerges in the Bible complete with no further need of development. In general, whenever Scripture refers to the increasing knowledge and maturity of Christians and the Church, an idea very similar to doctrinal development is present. Holy Scripture, then, is in no way hostile to development. Although understanding increases, the essential elements of doctrines exist from the beginning. Today’s Church shouldn’t be expected to look like the primitive Church if it is a living, vibrant, spiritual organism. But even the early Church looks like a small “Catholic tree.” It doesn’t look like a Protestant “statue.”

***

[all passages RSV]

Developmental Process

Matthew 5:17-18 Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. [18] For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.

Matthew 9:16-17 And no one puts a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch tears away from the garment, and a worse tear is made. [17] Neither is new wine put into old wineskins; if it is, the skins burst, and the wine is spilled, and the skins are destroyed; but new wine is put into fresh wineskins, and so both are preserved. (cf. Mk 2:21-22; Lk 5:36-38)

Matthew 13:31-32 Another parable he put before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed which a man took and sowed in his field; [32] it is the smallest of all seeds, but when it has grown it is the greatest of shrubs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches.”

Mark 1:14-15 Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, [15] and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the gospel.”

Romans 3:31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

Romans 4:11 He received circumcision as a sign or seal of the righteousness which he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised and who thus have righteousness reckoned to them,

Galatians 3:23-25 Now before faith came, we were confined under the law, kept under restraint until faith should be revealed. [24] So that the law was our custodian until Christ came, that we might be justified by faith. [25] But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a custodian;

Galatians 4:1-4 I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no better than a slave, though he is the owner of all the estate; [2] but he is under guardians and trustees until the date set by the father. [3] So with us; when we were children, we were slaves to the elemental spirits of the universe. [4] But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, . . .

Ephesians 1:9-10 For he has made known to us in all wisdom and insight the mystery of his will, according to his purpose which he set forth in Christ [10] as a plan for the fulness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.

Ephesians 4:13-14 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; [14] so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles.

Colossians 2:16-17 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a sabbath. [17] These are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.

Hebrews 10:1 For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices which are continually offered year after year, make perfect those who draw near.

Secrets, or Mysteries, or (Developed) “New” Teachings Revealed

Deuteronomy 29:29 The secret things belong to the LORD our God; but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.

Isaiah 42:9 “Behold, the former things have come to pass, and new things I now declare; before they spring forth I tell you of them.”

Isaiah 43:19 Behold, I am doing a new thing; now it springs forth, do you not perceive it? . . .

Isaiah 48:6 “. . . From this time forth I make you hear new things, hidden things which you have not known.”

Jeremiah 31:31-34 Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, [32] not like the covenant which I made with their fathers when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant which they broke, though I was their husband, says the LORD. [33] But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. [34] And no longer shall each man teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. (cf. Ezek 11:19; 18:31; 36:26: “new spirit” / “new heart”)

Jeremiah 33:3 Call to me and I will answer you, and will tell you great and hidden things which you have not known. . . .

Daniel 2:21-22, 28 He changes times and seasons; he removes kings and sets up kings; he gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding; [22] he reveals deep and mysterious things; he knows what is in the darkness, and the light dwells with him. . . . [28] . . . there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries . . .

Amos 3:7 Surely the Lord GOD does nothing, without revealing his secret to his servants the prophets.

Matthew 10:26 . . . nothing is covered that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known.

Matthew 11:25 At that time Jesus declared, “I thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes;” (cf. Lk 10:21)

Matthew 13:10-12 Then the disciples came and said to him, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” [11] And he answered them, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. [12] For to him who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away.

Matthew 13:24-30, 35 Another parable he put before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field; [25] but while men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. [26] So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. [27] And the servants of the householder came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then has it weeds?’ [28] He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’’ [29] But he said, ‘No; lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. [30] Let both grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.’” . . . [35] This was to fulfil what was spoken by the prophet: “I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter what has been hidden since the foundation of the world.” (cf. Mk 4:30-32; Lk 8:10)

Matthew 13:52 And he said to them, “Therefore every scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old.”

Mark 4:22 For there is nothing hid, except to be made manifest; nor is anything secret, except to come to light. (cf. Lk 8:17; 12:2)

John 13:34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.

Romans 3:21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, . . .

Romans 7:6 . . . we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit.

Romans 16:25-26 Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which was kept secret for long ages [26] but is now disclosed and through the prophetic writings is made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith —

1 Corinthians 2:7-11 But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glorification. [8] None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. [9] But, as it is written, “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him,” [10] God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. [11] For what person knows a man’s thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.

1 Corinthians 3:1-3 But I, brethren, could not address you as spiritual men, but as men of the flesh, as babes in Christ. [2] I fed you with milk, not solid food; for you were not ready for it; and even yet you are not ready, [3] for you are still of the flesh. . . .

1 Corinthians 4:5 Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness . . .

2 Corinthians 3:5-6 . . . God, [6] who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not in a written code but in the Spirit; for the written code kills, but the Spirit gives life.

Ephesians 3:1-11 For this reason I, Paul, a prisoner for Christ Jesus on behalf of you Gentiles — [2] assuming that you have heard of the stewardship of God’s grace that was given to me for you, [3] how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly. [4] When you read this you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, [5] which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; [6] that is, how the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel. [7] Of this gospel I was made a minister according to the gift of God’s grace which was given me by the working of his power. [8] To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, [9] and to make all men see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things; [10] that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places. [11] This was according to the eternal purpose which he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord,

Colossians 1:25-28 . . . I became a minister according to the divine office which was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known, [26] the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now made manifest to his saints. [27] To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. [28] Him we proclaim, warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man mature in Christ.

Titus 1:2-3 in hope of eternal life which God, who never lies, promised ages ago [3] and at the proper time manifested in his word . . .

Hebrews 8:10, 13 This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. . . . [13] In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. (cf. 9:15; 12:24; Lk 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25; Jer 31:31-33 [“covenant”] )

1 Peter 1:5 . . . a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

1 John 2:7-8 Beloved, I am writing you no new commandment, but an old commandment which you had from the beginning; the old commandment is the word which you have heard. [8] Yet I am writing you a new commandment, which is true in him and in you, because the darkness is passing away and the true light is already shining.

***

“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 5,000+ articles, please follow my blog by signing up (with your email address) on the sidebar to the right (you may have to scroll down a bit), above where there is an 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. My blog was rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT: endorsed by influential Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Actually, I partner with Kenny Burchard on the YouTube channel, Catholic Bible Highlights. Please subscribe there, too! 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 (however little!) more income for my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!

***

Understanding, Knowledge, and Wisdom, Increased

Deuteronomy 29:4 but to this day the LORD has not given you a mind to understand, or eyes to see, or ears to hear.

Psalm 51:6 . . . teach me wisdom in my secret heart.

Psalm 119:73 . . . give me understanding that I may learn thy commandments.

Psalm 119:169 . . . give me understanding according to thy word!

Proverbs 1:5 the wise man also may hear and increase in learning, and the man of understanding acquire skill,

Proverbs 2:6 For the LORD gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding;

Jeremiah 3:15 And I will give you shepherds after my own heart, who will feed you with knowledge and understanding.

Jeremiah 23:20 The anger of the LORD will not turn back until he has executed and accomplished the intents of his mind. In the latter days you will understand it clearly. (cf. 30:24)

Daniel 12:4 But you, Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, until the time of the end. Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase.

Matthew 13:13-14 This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. [14] With them indeed is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah which says: `You shall indeed hear but never understand, and you shall indeed see but never perceive.” (cf. Mk 4:11)

Matthew 13:19, 23 When any one hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what is sown in his heart; this is what was sown along the path. . . . [23] As for what was sown on good soil, this is he who hears the word and understands it; he indeed bears fruit, and yields, in one case a hundredfold, in another sixty, and in another thirty.”

Luke 9:45 But they did not understand this saying, and it was concealed from them, that they should not perceive it

Luke 24:45 Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures,

John 12:16 His disciples did not understand this at first; but when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that this had been written of him and had been done to him.

John 13:7 Jesus answered him, “What I am doing you do not know now, but afterward you will understand.”

1 Corinthians 2:12-14, 16 Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, that we might understand the gifts bestowed on us by God. [13] And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit. [14] The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. . . . [16] “For who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

1 Corinthians 13:9, 12 For our knowledge is imperfect and our prophecy is imperfect; . . . [12] For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood.

Colossians 1:9-10 And so, from the day we heard of it, we have not ceased to pray for you, asking that you may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, [10] to lead a life worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God.

Colossians 2:2-3 that their hearts may be encouraged as they are knit together in love, to have all the riches of assured understanding and the knowledge of God’s mystery, of Christ, [3] in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

2 Timothy 2:7 . . . the Lord will grant you understanding in everything.

Titus 1:1 Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to further the faith of God’s elect and their knowledge of the truth which accords with godliness,

Hebrews 5:11-14 About this we have much to say which is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. [12] For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need some one to teach you again the first principles of God’s word. You need milk, not solid food; [13] for every one who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a child. [14] But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their faculties trained by practice to distinguish good from evil.

2 Peter 3:15-18 And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, [16] speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. [17] You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability. [18] But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. . . .

Guidance from God

Psalm 25:4-5 Make me to know thy ways, O LORD; teach me thy paths. [5] Lead me in thy truth, and teach me, . . .

Psalm 25:12-14 Who is the man that fears the LORD? Him will he instruct in the way that he should choose. [13] He himself shall abide in prosperity, and his children shall possess the land. [14] The friendship of the LORD is for those who fear him, and he makes known to them his covenant.

Psalm 86:11 Teach me thy way, O LORD, that I may walk in thy truth; . . .

Psalm 94:12 Blessed is the man whom thou dost chasten, O LORD, and whom thou dost teach out of thy law

Psalm 103:7 He made known his ways to Moses, his acts to the people of Israel.

Psalm 119:12 Blessed be thou, O LORD; teach me thy statutes!

Psalm 119:27 Make me understand the way of thy precepts, . . .

Psalm 119:32-35 I will run in the way of thy commandments when thou enlargest my understanding! [33] Teach me, O LORD, the way of thy statutes; and I will keep it to the end. [34] Give me understanding, that I may keep thy law and observe it with my whole heart. [35] Lead me in the path of thy commandments,
for I delight in it.

Psalm 119:64 The earth, O LORD, is full of thy steadfast love; teach me thy statutes! (cf. 119:68)

Psalm 119:108 . . . teach me thy ordinances.

Isaiah 2:3 . . . “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; that he may teach us his ways . . .” (cf. Mic 4:2)

John 14:26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

John 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.

Romans 11:33-34 O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! [34] “For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?”

The Body of Christ (a Living, Organic, Growing Thing)

Ephesians 1:22-23 . . . the church, [23] which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all. (cf. 4:12; 5:23; Rom 7:4; 1 Cor 10:16; 12:27; Col 1:24)

Ephesians 2:19-21 So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, [20] built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, [21] in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord;

Ephesians 4:15-16 Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, [16] from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every joint with which it is supplied, when each part is working properly, makes bodily growth and upbuilds itself in love.

Colossians 2:18-19 Let no one disqualify you, insisting on self-abasement and worship of angels, taking his stand on visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, [19] and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.

***

Related Reading

Development of Doctrine web page

Development of Catholic Doctrine: Evolution, Revolution, or an Organic Process? [book, June 2002, 198p]

The Quotable Newman: A Definitive Guide to His Central Thoughts and Ideas [book, 12 October 2012, 415p]

The Quotable Newman, Vol. II [book, Aug. 2013, 290p]

Cardinal Newman: Q & A in Theology, Church History, and Conversion [book, May 2015, 367p]

Development of Doctrine: He Will Teach You . . . [2-17-91; rev. May 1996]

How Newman Convinced me to Become a Catholic [1996]

Overview of Development of Doctrine (Transcript of TV Interview) [5-1-99]

Development of Doctrine: Patristic & Historical Development (Featuring Much Documentation from St. Augustine, St. Vincent of Lerins, St. Thomas Aquinas, Vatican I, Popes Pius IX, Pius X, Etc.) [3-19-02]

Development of Doctrine: an Exclusively Catholic Concept? [10-17-02]

Development of Catholic Doctrine: A Primer [National Catholic Register, 1-5-18]

C. S. Lewis on Inevitable Development of Doctrine [2-17-19]

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. 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: cover of my self-published book (June 2002), designed by Chad Toney. See full book and purchase information]

Summary: I collect 80 biblical passages (including 28 from the OT) showing that various aspects of the notion of development of Christian doctrine are grounded in inspired revelation.

Response to a Lutheran Apologetic (Pr. Will Weedon)

Last updated on: November 18, 2024 at 6:01 pm By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

Featuring Liturgy and the Sacrifice of the Mass in the Church Fathers

Photo credit: cover of my self-published 2011 book

I am replying to the first portion of the video, Why you should be Lutheran INSTEAD of Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox (w/ Pr. Will Weedon) [8-9-24], on the YouTube channel of Javier Perdomo: who recently converted to Lutheranism from another form of Protestantism.

William Weedon has served as a parish pastor for 26 years and served as Director of Worship and Chaplain for the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod from 2012-2019 (a traditional Lutheran communion for which I have a great respect). He is the author of the books Celebrating the Saints, Thank, Praise, Serve and Obey and See My Savior’s Hands. Pastor Weedon holds a Master of Divinity and a Master of Sacred Theology degree from Concordia Seminary, St. Louis.

His words will be in blue.

*****

6:37 you can see why Lutherans would be more inclined toward Orthodoxy maybe than toward Rome. You don’t have indulgences

. . . which has an explicit biblical basis and a history that has often been distorted by Protestants for polemical purposes, or out of sheer lack of knowledge.

you don’t have Purgatory

. . . which has at least 110 Bible passages pointing to, and in complete harmony with essential aspects of it . . .

you don’t have any of the the weird stuff that uh that Lutheran struggled with across across the centuries with with Rome

“Weird” is often in the eye of the beholder and works both ways.

7:28 Orthodoxy has a perfect solution to this . . . the church can’t be wrong and therefore if we’ve been teaching this for any number of years it’s got to be the truth of God and you just need to learn to submit to that; you know that’s the way to go

The indefectibility of the Church is biblical teaching. See also:

1 Timothy 3:15 = Church Infallibility (vs. Steve Hays) [5-14-20]

So is apostolic succession:

Biblical Arguments for Apostolic Succession [9-9-09]

The Bible on Submission to Church & Apostolic Tradition + Biblical Condemnation of the Rebellious & Schismatic Aspects of the Protestant Revolt [8-27-11]

Apostolic Succession: More Biblical Arguments [1-6-17]

Apostolic Succession as Seen in the Jerusalem Council [National Catholic Register, 1-15-17]

Answers to Questions About Apostolic Succession [National Catholic Register, 7-25-20]

A New Biblical Argument for Apostolic Succession [National Catholic Register, 4-23-21]

“New” Apostle Matthias: Proof of Church Infallibility [12-31-21]

Lutherans are bound to the teachings of their own confessions: compiled in the Book of Concord. It’s not that different. But Orthodoxy and Catholicism can trace themselves back to the early Church and Jesus Christ, whereas Lutheranism only goes back to Martin Luther in the 16th century. Our views are both more coherent and consistent. Lutheranism tries to establish itself as uniquely consistent with patristic teachings, but fails every time, excepting cases where it already agrees with Catholicism or Orthodoxy (e.g., regarding baptismal regeneration or the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist). I’ve documented this many times in my own research.

7:44 but what do you do with Mary?

You do what Martin Luther did (assuming he was a good, orthodox Lutheran). He believed that she was a perpetual virgin (even during birth: i.e., a miraculous in partu birth), and held to a form of her Immaculate Conception, and believed in her Assumption, and that she was the Mother of God the Son (Theotokos), and in venerating her, within certain definite limits.

8:02 He cites a typical “flowery” Marian prayer from the Orthodox. I have dealt with this many times, in terms of similar Catholic language of veneration and intercession:

St. Alphonsus de Liguori: Mary-Worshiper & Idolater? [8-9-02]

Catholics Think Mary is “Co-Creator”? (vs. T.F. Kauffman) (Refuting a Distortion of What St. Alphonsus de Liguori Actually Teaches in The Glories of Mary) [7-17-23]

Mary, Not Jesus, is the Catholic “Savior”? (Response to More Misrepresentation of St. Alphonsus de Liguori’s Book, The Glories of Mary) [7-21-23]

Was St. Louis de Montfort a Blasphemous Mariolater? (cf. abridged, National Catholic Register version) [2009]

Maximilian Kolbe’s “Flowery” Marian Veneration & the Bible [2010]

8:51 they’ll always say, “hey we ask fellow Christians here on earth to pray for us.” I don’t ask a fellow Christian here on earth to grant me tears of repentance

We obviously ask other believers to pray to God that we would be granted tears of repentance by God’s grace. It’s the same with Mary, just on a larger scale, because she was so honored by God to be the mother of Jesus.

8:56 I don’t ask them to to grant me mercy . . . I just can’t square [that] with the Bible

Then why did the rich man in Hades, say, “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” (Lk 16:24, RSV)? That was recounted in a story (not a parable) by Jesus Himself. The rich man petitioned Abraham in three different ways. Abraham never told him that he mustn’t do so; only that the answer to his requests was no: just as God sometimes doesn’t answer our prayers. Then we are told that this is merely a parable. Even if it were, Jesus couldn’t teach theological falsehood in it. Or we’re told that this doesn’t “count” because it’s after death. That’s irrelevant, too, because if it is intrinsically impermissible to make petitions of anyone besides God, that would hold in Hades as well as on earth, and Jesus couldn’t and wouldn’t affirm the practice.

13:29 you cannot start reading the early church fathers before you encounter what a big deal the mass or The Divine Liturgy [is]: what we Lutherans often call the common service or the Divine service. It confronts you all over the place, right away. It’s there already [in] 150 AD. Read St Justin Martyr’s first apology and you you can clearly recognize, “that’s the same service we use.”

Lutherans thankfully retain the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist (though not transubstantiation), but they ditched the belief in the eucharistic sacrifice of the Mass, which the Church fathers believed in. So they aren’t following the fathers with regard to the essence of the Mass: that Jesus’ one-time sacrifice on the cross is made supernaturally present to us. See:

Transubstantiation & Church History: Dialogue w Lutheran [2-12-05; abridged on 10-23-18]

Eucharistic Sacrifice: The Witness of the Church Fathers [9-12-05]

Sacrifice of the Mass: Reflections on Theology & Patristics [9-22-05]

Development of Sacrifice of the Mass: Dialogue w Lutheran [9-22-05]

Sacrifice of the Mass / Cyprian’s Ecclesiology (vs. Calvin #11) [5-19-09]

Church Fathers and the Sacrifice of the Mass (Thoroughly Catholic!) [12-11-09]

Justin Martyr, Real Presence, & Eucharistic Sacrifice (vs. Lucas Banzoli) [9-13-22]

Lucas Banzoli Misrepresents Chrysostom’s Eucharistic Theology (+ An Overview of St. John Chrysostom’s Catholic View of the Eucharistic Sacrifice) [9-14-22]

Tertullian’s Eucharistic Theology: Lucas Banzoli vs. J.N.D. Kelly [9-15-22]

***

“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,900+ articles, please follow my blog by signing up (with your email address) on the sidebar to the right (you may have to scroll down a bit), above where there is an 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. My blog was rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT: endorsed by influential Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Actually, I partner with Kenny Burchard on the YouTube channel, Catholic Bible Highlights. Please subscribe there, too! 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 (however little!) more income for my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!

***

Pr. Weedon brought up St. Justin Martyr. Was he a good proto-Lutheran? Hardly. J. N. D. Kelly is a very well-known Anglican church historian. Here’s what he believes about Justin’s views:

Justin speaks [Dialogue with Trypho, 117, 1] of ‘all the sacrifices in this name which Jesus appointed to be performed, viz. in the eucharist of the bread and the cup, . . .’. Not only here but elsewhere [Ib., 41, 3] too, he identifies ‘ the bread of the eucharist, and the cup likewise of the eucharist’, with the sacrifice foretold by Malachi. (Early Christian Doctrines, HarperSanFrancisco, revised edition of 1978, p. 196)

Here are the two passages from St. Justin Martyr referred to:

Accordingly, God, anticipating all the sacrifices which we offer through this name, and which Jesus the Christ enjoined us to offer, i.e., in the Eucharist of the bread and the cup, and which are presented by Christians in all places throughout the world, bears witness that they are well-pleasing to Him. But He utterly rejects those presented by you and by those priests of yours, saying, ‘And I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands; for from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is glorified among the Gentiles (He says); but you profane it.’ Malachi 1:10-12 (Dialogue with Trypho, 117, 1)

Hence God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord; and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands: for, from the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same, My name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure offering: for My name is great among the Gentiles, says the Lord: but you profane it.’ Malachi 1:10-12 [So] He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us, who in every place offer sacrifices to Him, i.e., the bread of the Eucharist, and also the cup of the Eucharist, affirming both that we glorify His name, and that you profane [it]. (Dialogue with Trypho, 41, 3)

Kelly continues his lengthy commentary on Justin’s views:

It was natural for early Christians to think of the eucharist as a sacrifice. The fulfilment of prophecy demanded a solemn Christian offering, and the rite itself was wrapped in the sacrificial atmosphere with which our Lord invested the Last Supper. The words of institution, ‘Do this’, must have been charged with sacrificial overtones for second-century ears; Justin at any rate understood [1 apol. 66, 3; cf. dial. 41, 1] them to mean, ‘Offer this’. . . . Justin . . . makes it plain [Dial. 41, 3] that the bread and wine themselves were the ‘pure offering’ foretold by Malachi. Even if he holds [Ib., 117, 2] that ‘prayers and thanksgivings’ are the only God-pleasing sacrifices, we must remember that he uses [1 apol. 65, 3-5] the term ‘thanksgiving’ as technically equivalent to ‘the eucharistized bread and wine’. The bread and wine, moreover, are offered ‘for a memorial of the passion’, a phrase which in view of his identification of them with the Lord’s body and blood implies much more than an act of purely spiritual recollection. Altogether it would seem that, while his language is not fully explicit, Justin is feeling his way to the conception of the eucharist as the offering of the Saviour’s passion. (Kelly, ibid., pp. 196-197)

F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone, editors, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Oxford Univ. Press, 2nd edition, 1983, 475-476, 1221, wrote:

It was also widely held from the first that the Eucharist is in some sense a sacrifice, though here again definition was gradual. The suggestion of sacrifice is contained in much of the NT language . . . the words of institution, ‘covenant,’ ‘memorial,’ ‘poured out,’ all have sacrificial associations. In early post-NT times the constant repudiation of carnal sacrifice and emphasis on life and prayer at Christian worship did not hinder the Eucharist from being described as a sacrifice from the first . . .

From early times the Eucharistic offering was called a sacrifice in virtue of its immediate relation to the sacrifice of Christ.

Jaroslav Pelikan [Lutheran at the time of this writing, and later Orthodox], The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1971, 146-147, 166-168, 170, 236-237:

By the date of the Didache [anywhere from about 60 to 160, depending on the scholar]. . . the application of the term ‘sacrifice’ to the Eucharist seems to have been quite natural, together with the identification of the Christian Eucharist as the ‘pure offering’ commanded in Malachi 1:11 . . .

The Christian liturgies were already using similar language about the offering of the prayers, the gifts, and the lives of the worshipers, and probably also about the offering of the sacrifice of the Mass, so that the sacrificial interpretation of the death of Christ never lacked a liturgical frame of reference . . .

. . . it does seem ‘express and clear’ that no orthodox father of the second or third century of whom we have record declared the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist to be no more than symbolic (although Clement and Origen came close to doing so) or specified a process of substantial change by which the presence was effected (although Ignatius and Justin came close to doing so). Within the limits of those excluded extremes was the doctrine of the real presence . . .

Liturgical evidence suggests an understanding of the Eucharist as a sacrifice, whose relation to the sacrifices of the Old Testament was one of archetype to type, and whose relation to the sacrifice of Calvary was one of ‘re-presentation,’ just as the bread of the Eucharist ‘re-presented’ the body of Christ . . .

As John Adams once said, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

15:23 our Lutheran liturgy really is overwhelmingly the same heritage

It’s not, because it denies the very essence of the Mass: the eucharistic sacrifice.

15:28 Luther and the reformers were anything but revolutionaries on this question

Really? In 1525, Luther wrote his treatise, The Abomination of the Secret Mass (found in Luther’s Works, vol. 36, pp. 311-328). In it he calls the Catholic Mass “disgraceful,” “abominable,” “idolatries” (all on p. 311), “shameful,” “plague,” “deliberate blasphemies” (p. 312), “insults God,” “they deny God and insult the sacrifice that Christ has made and disgrace his blood” (p. 313), “the blasphemy is so great that it must simply wait for eternal hell-fire” (p. 320), etc. ad nauseam.

All through the diatribe he shows himself perfectly ignorant of the fact that we hold that it is a supernatural re-presentation of the one true Sacrifice on Calvary, not a repeated sacrifice (e.g., “they . . . offer him up more than a hundred thousand times throughout the world. They thereby deny . . . that Christ . . . has died and risen again”: p. 320). This is elementary, and was explained long since in the Church fathers. But once Luther got on his soap box, mere things like accuracy and fairness to opponents always quickly went by the wayside.

But he was undeniably a liturgical revolutionary because he “gutted” the Mass of its most essential element. In no way can he be viewed as consistently following the liturgical understanding of the Church fathers.

15:34 they kept whatever they could from the ancient tradition that was not contrary to the Bible

Ah, so now it’s at least qualified.

16:28 our churches are falsely accused of abolishing the mass

The problem is that if one omits what is essential and “non-negotiable” / “non-optional” in an ancient view, one can’t be said to be continuing the same ancient view, or call it their “heritage.” It’s a basic question of both fact and logical consistency. Catholicism and Orthodoxy continue what the fathers believed about liturgy. Lutheranism does not, nor does any form of Protestantism, save for possibly a few Anglo-Catholics.

17:29 in a Lutheran Church . . . the historic liturgy is being used

It certainly is not, with all due respect. It’s “historic” only back to Luther’s time. The Church fathers wouldn’t recognize it. They would say it is gutted, as we do.

35:55 Lutherans do teach that there is a sacrifice in the Eucharist. The sacrifice is a noun, not a verb. The sacrifice is the body and the blood which Christ once offered on the tree, [which] he now reaches to you to seal that salvation to you, so that you might know that your sins are forgiven, and that that sacrifice was offered on your behalf. He continually gives it to you

That’s exactly what we believe: so far . . .

36:26 we do not offer it up to him that is a big difference in perspective

The Council of Trent, in its Doctrine on the Sacrifice of the Mass (September 17, 1562), explains why we do:

He offered up to God the Father His own Body and Blood under the species of bread and wine . . . and by those words, “Do this in commemoration of me” (1 Cor. 11:24), He commanded them and their successors in the priesthood to offer them . . .

And this is indeed that clean oblation, which cannot be defiled by any unworthiness or malice of those that offer it; which the Lord foretold by Malachi was to be offered in every place, clean to his name (Mal. 1:11) . . . This, in fine, is that oblation which was prefigured by various types of sacrifices (Gen. 4:4; 8:20, etc.), during the period of nature and of the law; inasmuch as it comprises all the good things signified by those sacrifices, as being the consummation and perfection of them all.

We’re following the example of Our Lord at the Last Supper, as set down in inspired revelation. For more on this, see;

The Sacrifice of the Mass: A Lamb . . . Slain [3-8-92; rev. May 1996]

The Sacrifice of the Mass: Classic Catholic Reflections [1994]

Sacrifice of the Mass & Hebrews 8 (vs. James White) [3-31-04]

Passover in Judaism & a Mass that Transcends Time (“Past Events Become Present Today”/ Survey of “Remember” in Scripture) [7-7-09]

The Timeless Crucifixion & the Sacrifice of the Mass [9-25-09]

Is Jesus “Re-Sacrificed” at Every Mass? [National Catholic Register, 8-19-17]

39:05 this sacrifice once offered on the cross takes place continually in an unseen fashion in heaven

Catholics believe that in the Mass we are supernaturally included in this offering.

39:11 by way of commemoration when Christ offers to his father on our behalf his suffering

It’s not merely commemoration if we are supernaturally transported back to Calvary and Jesus’ suffering and death on the cross. In Revelation 5:6, St. John saw Jesus in a way that is very much like the Sacrifice of the Mass: “I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain.” Yet in 5:9 and 5:12 the text notes that Jesus “wast slain” and “was slain.” And we all know that Jesus rose from the dead and was resurrected. So the Bible teaches that there is a quality of the Mass and Jesus’ one-time sacrifice that transcends time. “Lamb” referring to Jesus occurs 28 times in the book of Revelation in RSV.

39:23 this is the unbloody sacrifice which is carried out in heaven

But it’s not unbloody because it is the one sacrifice that occurred in time in Jerusalem, and this is more or less proven by Revelation 5:6. At the very least, that passage is perfectly consistent with what we say about the Mass: especially since it occurs in the context of a massive worship service in heaven.

39:37 If we view the matter from the material standpoint the sacrifice in the Eucharist is numerically the same as the sacrifice that took place on the cross

Exactly! Now if Lutherans could only figure out that we agree on this point!

44:13 when we read the fathers, number one, we don’t burden them with infallibility. There’s going to be stuff in the fathers that they get wrong and we know that . . . the fathers are not the inspired and inherent scriptures

So do we. We don’t believe that the Church fathers collectively or individually are infallible. We think the Church and the pope are granted that gift, in carefully specified circumstances. What we look to is patristic consensus on issues, which we believe indicates or exhibits the scope and nature of the apostolic tradition that was passed down. We don’t even hold that St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas were infallible.

***
*
Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 4,900+ free online articles 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.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. 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: cover of my self-published 2011 book [see book and purchase information]

I critique Luther pastor Will Weedon’s rationale for remaining Lutheran, over against Catholicism. Highlights include the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Church fathers.

James Swan is Clueless Re Purgatory & Development

Last updated on: July 5, 2024 at 5:08 pm By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

Photo Credit: book cover for my (copyrighted) 2007 book, designed by Chad Toney [info. and purchase information]

Anti-Catholic Reformed Protestant polemicist James Swan (his words in blue below) is up to his old tricks again. This time, he attempts to cynically draw a line between Catholic scholars and lay Catholic apologists (including myself). His argument is that all we apologists do is dogmatically assert with insufficient reason that 2 Maccabees 12:41-46 self-evidently asserts purgatory in its full developed dogmatic meaning or proves that doctrine, whereas Catholic scholars (he provides the example of noted Franciscan theologian and Bonaventure scholar Zachary Hayes, OFM) are “fundamentally more honest . . . compared to the Catholic apologists” and take into account the element of development of doctrine. It’s the classic false dichotomy tactic, from anti-Catholics. “Divide and conquer!” He continues:

Hayes seems to realize that simply assuming the conclusion of what one wants to prove Biblically becomes tenuous in light of history. For Hayes, elements of Purgatory are found in 2 Maccabees 12, but as to purgatory proper, it was the result of development begun at the level of popular piety. For Catholic apologists, the text simply means purgatory. These are two very different approaches.

This is found in his article, “The Perspicuity of 2 Maccabees 12 on Purgatory?” (Boors All revised version of 9-16-11). He starts out by referring to an imaginary “gulf between Catholic scholarship and popular Catholic apologists . . . Many of the current Catholic apologists look at Biblical texts and simply assume they clearly prove purgatory.” The version on his Boors All blog is the “de-Armstronged” one: the game he plays where he refuses to name my name, even when he refers to my books. The original (with my dreaded name) was posted on James White’s blog on 3 March 2009. Here is the heart of his argument and blast against Catholic apologists:

When Karl Keating addresses this text in Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), he first asserts “Scripture teaches that purgatory exists” (p. 193) and then among a few proof texts, he bolsters his claim with: “Then there is the Bible’s approbation of prayers for the dead: ‘It is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they might be loosed from their sins’ (2 Macc 12:46).” In his book What Catholics Really Believe he states, “Unless it refers to Purgatory, 2 Maccabees 12:46 makes no sense” (p. 90). In his book, Answer Me This! (Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor, 2003), Patrick Madrid states, “The doctrine [of purgatory] is expressed clearly in the Old Testament book of 2 Maccabees 12” (p. 204). The New Catholic Answer Bible [Wichita: Fireside Catholic Publishing, 2005] insert [written by Paul Thigpen] answers the question “Is Purgatory in the Bible?” by stating, “The writer of 2 Maccabees praises the offering of prayers and sacrifices for the dead (see 12:38-46). Why do the departed need such assistance from us? So that their sins ‘might be blotted out’ (12:42)” (Insert H2). In his book, A Biblical Defense Of Catholicism [MS Word Version, 2001] Dave Armstrong has a section entitled “Scriptural Evidence for Purgatory.” The account described in 2 Maccabees 12:39-42, 44-45 is said to “presuppose purgatory” (p.128). . . .

In their zeal to win converts, current Catholic apologists think that simply citing a verse will be enough to win converts. When they’re challenged to exegete a passage, texts like 2 Maccabees 12 become minefields. For instance, Dave Armstrong’s “Biblical defense” of this text boils down to saying Jewish people prayed for the dead and Jesus never corrected this belief as an error of the Jews, nor did he deny a “third state” in the afterlife (p.128).

Now let’s unpack this nonsense. Paul Thigpen, in The New Catholic Answer Bible (notes co-written by yours truly) did not claim that this passage proved the full-blown doctrine of purgatory. Swan cited only the section that he mistakenly think bolstered his own critique. Rather, he states:

Like “the Holy Trinity,” “purgatory” is a term not occurring in Scripture; but the reality it refers to is implied by scriptural truths.

This is virtually the same point that Fr. Hayes makes. Swan cites him, writing about 2 Maccabees 12:39-45, as “evidence for the existence of a tradition of piety which is at least intertestamental and apparently served as the basis for what later became the Christian practice of praying for the dead and performing good works, with the expectation that this might be of some help to the dead. . . . we might better ask if anything in Scripture initiated the development that eventually led to the doctrine of purgatory.”

Fr. Hayes accepts development of doctrine; so do Catholic apologists. There is no fictional “divide” here. Swan is simply spinning and engaging in obscurantism and sophistry. Karl Keating’s book, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, cited by Swan, also has a twelve-page chapter, “Development of Doctrine,” in which he states, “Doctrines had to be thought out, lived out, even pierced together, over centuries” (p. 142). This includes the doctrine of purgatory. In Keating’s other book that Swan brings up, What Catholics Really Believe, he’s also more tentative and nuanced than what Swan very selectively presents to his readers:

But does Scripture mention purgatory directly, even under some other designation? Maybe . . . (p. 89)

Scripture at least indicates that a third state, apparently much like purgatory, could exist. (p. 90)

I don’t have Patrick Madrid’s book that Swan cites, but I have a similar one (signed by the author!), Why is That in Tradition? (Our Sunday Visitor, 2002). In that volume he discusses development of doctrine from pages 16-23, including using the famous acorn to oak analogy of development (pp. 19-20). He wrote in another book of his that purgatory “is expressed clearly in the Old Testament book of 2 Maccabees 12” but it doesn’t follow that it was the fully developed doctrine. And that prooftext involves deduction as well. Even the Holy Trinity was not fully developed for some five centuries after Christ. This is nothing unique at all.

***

“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,600+ articles, please follow this blog by signing up (with your email address) on the sidebar to the right (you may have to scroll down a bit), above where there is an 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 (however little!) more income for my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!

***

Then he comes to me. Any insinuation that I somehow am unaware of development of doctrine (whether concerning purgatory or any other doctrine) is flat-out ludicrous. It’s the main reason I was persuaded of the truth of Catholicism (after reading St. Cardinal Newman’s Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine), and I have a web page devoted to it, as well as a book. My first book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism; completed in 1996), that Swan cites, has a 13-page chapter on development, too (which can be read online for free). I wrote in this chapter:

At the very least, these passages prove that there can and does exist a third, intermediate state after death besides Heaven and Hell. Thus, Purgatory is not a priori unthinkable from a biblical perspective (as many Protestants casually assume). True, the Hebrew Sheol is not identical to purgatory (both righteous and unrighteous go there), but it is nevertheless strikingly similar. (p. 133)

I have even commented in one of my articles about the passage in question from 2 Maccabees:

[T]he question is, why did the Jews “pray for the dead” and “make atonement for the dead” as the passage in 2 Maccabees states? They did because they assumed that the dead were still in some sort of state in which they could be aided by intercessory prayer. And that can only be a third state besides heaven and hell. This is what the people whose practice is described must have believed. It doesn’t require a fully developed notion of purgatory; only an intermediate state of some sort besides heaven and hell: a place where they can still be helped by prayer on their behalf. . . . (“Purgatory: My Biblical Defense Of Its Doctrinal Development”: 9-20-11)

I’ve made many other similar statements, as documented in the above article:

The bulk of Newman’s extraordinary work is devoted to the exposition of a series of analogies, showing conclusively that the Protestant static conception of the Church (both historically and theologically) is incoherent and false. He argues, for example, that notions of suffering, or “vague forms of the doctrine of Purgatory,” were universally accepted, by and large, in the first four centuries of the Church, whereas, the same cannot be said for the doctrine of original sin, which is agreed upon by Protestants and Catholics.

Protestants falsely argue that purgatory is a later corruption, but it was present early on and merely developed. Original sin, however, was equally if not more so, subject to development. One cannot have it both ways. If purgatory is unacceptable on grounds of its having undergone development, then original sin must be rejected with it. Contrariwise, if original sin is accepted notwithstanding its own development, then so must purgatory be accepted. (“Development of Doctrine: A Corruption of Biblical Teaching?”: published in The Catholic Answer, Sep. / Oct. 1995)

Like “the Holy Trinity,” “purgatory” is a term not occurring in Scripture, but the reality it refers to is implied by scriptural truths. [The Catholic Answer Bible, 2002]

Authority in the early Church was developing just as the biblical canon and Christology and Mariology and purgatory and prayers for the dead and original sin and everything else were developing. [1-10-04]

Of course we won’t find a fully developed medieval conception of purgatory [in 1 Cor 3], but it is foolish to expect that anyway, just as it would be to expect to find full Chalcedonian Christology and trinitarianism in all its glorious nuanced complexity. That is true of all doctrines, so why should purgatory be an exception? [3-3-07]

Gavin [Ortlund] mentions the “core essence” of purgatory. Yes, we Catholic apologists (including Trent Horn) often focus on that, especially regarding the earlier Church fathers because this is how it is with virtually all doctrines. They develop and become much more fully understood as time goes on. So there is nothing odd or unusual about boiling down the essence of the doctrine to a few ideas. It can be as simple as five words: “purging of sin after death.” Things, for example, like whether the purgatorial “fire” is literal or not, or whether purgatory is a place or condition, are not essential elements. And for that reason, Catholics are allowed to hold different views on those matters. (“Reply #2 To Gavin Ortlund On Purgatory”: 5-14-22)

I habitually either qualify or presuppose doctrinal development or make clear in context that I am not claiming that Scripture “proves” a full-blown doctrine of purgatory. Hence, I used to have a paper up, entitled, “50 Bible Passages On Purgatory and Analogous Processes”.

The very title shows that I was not maintaining that each passage was explicit, and that there were analogies of process that suggested the concept of purgatory. A hundred times in my writings, I’ve stated that the Catholic notion of “biblical evidence” is not absolute proof, but rather, consistency and harmony with Scripture and a given doctrine, including implicit and indirect, deductive indications.

As usual, James Swan performs very poorly in his “research” and winds up warring quixotically against several straw men (all the Catholic apologists he critiques and their fictional supposed antipathy to development of doctrine). Pray for the man. So much twisting and misrepresenting of others’ views — no matter how much he may tragically despise their theology — can’t possibly be good for his soul. “You shall not bear false witness” (Mt 19:18; cf. Ex 20:16: one of the Ten Commandments).

***

*
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.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. 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: book cover for my (copyrighted) 2007 book, designed by Chad Toney [info. and purchase information]

Summary: Anti-Catholic James Swan absurdly contended that lay Catholic apologists & Catholic scholars have a huge disagreement as to whether the doctrine of purgatory developed.

Sola Scriptura: Reply #2 to Keith Mathison

Last updated on: July 5, 2024 at 1:55 pm By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

Photo Credit: Nicholas Mutton (2-23-08). Port Bannatyne Pier [UK] and sinking boat [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license]

Presbyterian Keith A. Mathison (M.A. Reformed Theological Seminary; Ph.D. Whitefield Theological Seminary) is the author of The Shape of Sola Scriptura (Moscow, Idaho: Canon Press, 2001): a book that many Protestants and Catholics alike believe to be the best recent defense of sola Scriptura. In 2012, I wrote a reply-article, “Solo” Scriptura vs. Sola Scriptura: Reply to Keith Mathison, which was in response to Keith’s article, “A Critique of the Evangelical Doctrine of Solo Scriptura“ (which in turn was taken from his book: pp. 237-253). As is usually the case with our illustrious brothers in Christ from the small anti-Catholic camp of Protestantism, no reply to it was ever received.

Currently, I reply to Keith’s article, Solo Scriptura, Sola Scriptura, and Apostolic Succession: A Response to Bryan Cross and Neal Judisch (by Keith Mathison) (Thoughts of Francis Turretin blog, 2-15-11). His words will be in blue. I won’t be defending any arguments of Cross and Judisch (that’s their burden, and they are fully capable), and will be concentrating primarily on Keith’s pro-sola Scriptura arguments in his very long article.

*****

the primary issue in this debate is not the doctrine of Scripture. It is the doctrine of the Church.

That’s how Protestants usually “spin” the argument. They can’t establish defend sola Scriptura from Scripture alone (which logically they must do), and so they frequently switch the topic over to Catholic ecclesiology, to get the spotlight off of their weak view. Technically, this is not defending their own position (it’s critiquing one of ours).

That said and understood, it’s also true that sola Scriptura began when Luther was backed into it in the Leipzig Disputation in 1519, almost as a desperate default position, when he expressly denied the infallibility of the Church and tradition (as I recently wrote about). The doctrine of the Church’s authority is indeed closely related to this discussion, but I deny that it is the supposed “primary issue.” This may seem to be quibbling, but presuppositions are very important in any debate, and often determine the direction or emphasis of the discussion.

In the same way, Protestant claims are going to be intrinsically offensive to Roman Catholics. Protestants are questioning things Roman Catholics hold sacred. The only relevant question, however, is whether certain claims are true, not whether those claims offend someone’s sensibilities. In sum, while things will be said in my response that Roman Catholics will undoubtedly find offensive, I do not know of any way to avoid it completely in this discussion. I trust that Roman Catholic readers will understand that my purpose in this response is not to offend for the sake of offending but to deal with the issues.

I fully agree; and vice versa; in opposing and revealing the fatal weaknesses of sola Scriptura, we critique one of Protestantism’s most deeply held “sacred cows”; one of its two self-described “pillars”. I’m not personally offended or emotionally threatened by any of these arguments. My job as an apologist is to seek and to defend truth, as best I can determine it. And I always seek to do that as objectively, rationally, and scripturally as I possibly can. I’ve written more about this topic than any other one in my 34 years of writing Catholic apologetics, oversee a huge web page on Bible and Tradition, and have authored three books (one / two / three) on the topic. So I think I have a few things to say that may be helpful to some folks in working through this all-important issue of Christian authority and the rule of faith.

A final preliminary observation is in order. One of the most frustrating difficulties encountered in discussions such as this is the fact that the starting assumptions of Roman Catholics and non-Roman Catholics are so different. Because these starting assumptions dramatically affect the way we read and evaluate evidence and arguments, it becomes difficult to avoid speaking past one another.

Very true. And this is where dialogue can be particularly helpful. If we directly interact with another view it’s difficult to talk past one another (i.e., if both parties are willing to truly dialogue and not simply engage in “mutual monologue”). So here we are!

For example, as I mentioned above, if one assumes the correctness of the Roman Catholic doctrine of the church, then the differences I allege between sola scriptura and solo scriptura become invisible.

I don’t think that: to an extent. As I wrote in my first reply:

I gladly acknowledge that there are several significant and noteworthy distinctions between the two views to be rightly made. I understood this as a Protestant, prior to 1990, when I read about this very issue in knowledgeable evangelical and Calvinist writers like Bernard Ramm, R. C. Sproul, and G. C. Berkouwer. . . .

I part company, however, concerning whether SAS [sola Scriptura] overcomes the fundamental difficulties that it claims bring down SOS [“solo” Scriptura], but not SAS. I believe SAS (i.e., in its more respectable manifestations such as Mathison’s) is a noble attempt to salvage a hopeless position. It’s a valiant effort which is inevitably doomed to failure. All forms of sola Scriptura, no matter how nuanced and sophisticated, ultimately fail to pass biblical and logical scrutiny.

Those who do not begin with the basic theological axiom of Roman Catholicism see abundant evidence against the claims of Rome in Scripture, the writings of the Church Fathers, and the documented events of church history. This evidence prevents them from believing that the Roman Catholic Magisterium has divine authority.

Those who do not begin with the basic theological axiom of Protestantism see abundant evidence against the claims of Protestantism in Scripture, the writings of the Church Fathers, and the documented events of Church history. This evidence prevents them from believing that Protestantism supersedes the divine authority of the Catholic Magisterium.

For those who adopt the basic theological axiom of Roman Catholicism, all of this “alleged” evidence essentially ceases to exist.

It doesn’t cease to exist. It’s still out there. Our task as Catholic apologists is to show how it is erroneous falsehood, based on Scripture, reason, and historical fact. I’ve done this in multiple hundreds of articles and in many of my 55 books.

From the perspective of the non-Roman Catholic, the Roman Catholic is doing something comparable to reading a red-letter Bible with red tinted glasses. If he sets aside the glasses, he can see all the words printed in red. If he puts the glasses on, all the words printed in red disappear from his sight.

From the perspective of the Catholic, the Protestant is doing something comparable to reading a red-letter Bible with red tinted glasses. If he sets aside the glasses, he can see all the words printed in red. If he puts the glasses on, all the words printed in red disappear from his sight. I wrote an entire book about this very common phenomenon, entitled, The Catholic Verses: 95 Bible Passages That Confound Protestants (Aug. 2004).

After spending about a third of his effort in his lengthy article critiquing Catholic ecclesiological reasoning (all of which I have defended many times and need not do so again here), Keith writes:

At this point, I will turn to the question of whether there is a principled difference between sola scriptura and solo scriptura with respect to the holder of ultimate interpretive authority and to the question of apostolic succession. . . .

According to Cross and Judisch, sola scriptura entails the indirect way of making oneself one’s own ultimate interpretive authority. They argue that sola scriptura does not truly allow for the interpretive authority of the church.

This is correct. In the final analysis, or ultimately, or as a logical reduction (and reductio ad absurdum, too, I would add), it does indeed devolve to the individual’s private judgment and conscience. I’ve written about this crucial aspect many times, but here is how I argued it less than three weeks ago:

Luther’s big problem in this regard, per the “theory” above, was his extreme naivete: thinking that everything would be fine and dandy in his new system and never being able to conceptualize the quite arguable connection between it and the proliferation of sects.

It’s real simple in the final analysis: others applied Luther’s new rule of faith (sola Scriptura, private judgment, and a distorted individualistic supremacy of conscience) and went their own way, differing from Luther, just as he had with the Catholic Church. Any astute observer could have easily predicted what happened. Erasmus and More and Eck could see what was coming, in their disputes with Luther. But Luther couldn’t (or wouldn’t, one might opine). . . .

The causes and the solutions are what is at issue between Protestants and Catholics. Luther and Calvin and Melanchthon apparently never figured out that it was their foundational principles which set the wheels of this sad process inexorably and inevitably in motion. The weakness, I submit, is in the foundation, not the superstructure of denominationalism gone wild. Calvin and Melanchthon were embarrassed — as well they should have been — at the “absurd” (as Calvin put it) nature of such strong disagreements occurring, and the “miserable anarchy.”

To their credit, they felt this tension, expressed it in private letters, and wished that it could be resolved before “posterity” got wind of it. They understood the scandalous, indefensible scandal of sectarianism and denominationalism in a way that few Protestants today do (after 500 years of rationalizing and pretending that it is a good, healthy thing).

But Calvin and Melanchthon didn’t understand or know how to properly solve the problem of relativism and Protestant “epistemology”. That’s my take, and it seems obvious to me. They were referring to the public and history’s reaction to the dissensions. They “got it.” The founders of the Protestant system (including Luther) thought that Protestant divisions were scandalous. This has been a problem since Day One: Luther at Worms in 1521. Private judgment and sola Scriptura inevitably produce such doctrinal relativism and ecclesiological confusion. . . .

In my opinion, Calvin, in the letter above to Melanchthon, and the sensitive Melanchthon, in his various despairing utterances, are rightly and admirably aghast with regard to a situation (division) which is equally alarming to us Catholics. In this instance they agree with us and candidly, honestly admit the strong contradiction between sectarianism and the Bible. But like Luther, they don’t see that the discord resulted from fallacious first principles, just recently conceived by their illustrious predecessor. . . .

They thought everyone would simply agree with them and that there would be this spontaneous, marvelous unity out under the “yoke of Rome.” Their novel views brought about what we see, despite whatever good intentions they had (which I readily grant them). But of course, they couldn’t even agree with each other.

All of the above historical facts (and the continuing sectarianism: unable to be contained) flow from sola Scriptura as well as from the distortion of solo Scriptura. The distinction between the two that Keith makes doesn’t solve the essential or fundamental difficulty. That is my point. Luther, Calvin, and Melanchthon saw and lamented the problem (inter-Protestant sectarianism and relentless disagreements) but they never analyzed it “deeply” enough to recognize its causes and solutions. I submit that they didn’t because it would implicate them and their new system, if they did so. We all find it hard to admit our mistakes. Hence, the negative fruit of a false doctrine and premise sadly continues to this day.

From the ascension of Christ until the writing of the earliest New Testament documents began in the middle of the first century, the apostles were orally preaching the content of the Gospel doctrine given to them by Christ. For ease and clarity of explanation, let us call the content of apostolic doctrine “X”.

Thus far, we agree.
*

During this same period of time, uninspired summaries of “X” were apparently being used in various churches for the catechetical instruction of new believers given prior to their baptism.

It doesn’t follow that all of it was “uninspired.” Keith simply assumes that without proof or evidence. This is his own presuppositional thinking without evidence, or his tinted glasses or blinders, so to speak. For example, prophets and prophesying continue in New Testament times (Lk 2:36; Acts 2:16-18; 11:27; 13:1; 15:32; 19:6; 21:9-10; 1 Cor 11:4-5; 12:10, 28-29; ch. 14 [throughout]; Eph 3:5; 4:11; 1 Thess 5:20; 1 Tim 1:18; 4:14), and this is inspired utterance, and was before it was — if it ever was recorded — in Scripture.

In Acts 15:28 (RSV) the decree of the Jerusalem Council was described in terms of “it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us.” That’s inspired utterance, too. It has to be because it was agreed to by the Holy Spirit and inspiration literally means “God-breathed.” So this was inspiration before it was known as Scripture (Acts 15:28) and would have been if it hadn’t been recorded in inspired Scripture, because it intrinsically was what it was. In other words, its nature didn’t change merely because it was included in Scripture. The Holy Spirit agreed with it (making it inspired utterance) at the time it happened: not only after it became part of the NT.

In the middle of the first century, the apostles, began putting “X” in writing in all of its fullness. These writings were inspired by the Holy Spirit. This process of inscripturating “X” was completed before the end of the first century.

Keith doesn’t expressly state it, but the standard Protestant view is that all of sacred tradition that was worth keeping was “inscripturated” in Scripture (conversely, any of it not later preserved in Scripture is not worthy to be called “tradition” or to abide by): and he very likely agrees with that. This notion of “inscripturation” of all legitimate tradition is impossible to arrive at by Scripture alone. It’s not a biblical position. Protestants simply assume it without proof, as one of their unbiblical man-made traditions.

no individual today came up with the rule of faith, the apostolic doctrine found in Scripture and summarized in the Nicene Creed – an historically objective and verifiable set of propositions by which churches that are true branches can be identified.

Any Protestant whatsoever, following Luther’s principle / sola Scriptura, can deny some tenet of the Niece Creed, and no one from a Protestant perspective can consistently tell him not to do so, or argue that he shouldn’t, without also implicating Luther and the entire edifice and first premise that Protestantism is built upon. I like the Nicene Creed as a standard that can be used in an ecumenical sense, pertaining to who is and is not a Christian. But lots of Protestants have already dissented from it. It’s not just hypothetical. All who deny baptismal regeneration do not “affirm one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.” For them, baptism is merely symbolic and has nothing directly to do with forgiveness of sins, let alone regeneration (which is massively connected to baptism in Scripture).

Again, this is an inaccurate description of what I argued in my book. It is a straw man. My argument is that the branches which have a plausible claim to be part of the church are those who adhere to the rule of faith, to the doctrine of the apostles. The rule of faith can be historically verified, and it is not something that I or any other Protestant created.

Indeed. Historically, few doctrines are more solid and virtually unanimous in the Church fathers than baptismal regeneration; and many Protestants reject it. It’s enshrined in the Bible, in the Church fathers (as Bryan Cross has documented in great depth), and in the Nicene Creed.

***

Paul does not appeal to hierarchical succession.

Sure he does:

Galatians 1:18-19 . . . after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. [19] But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.

It just so happened that he visited the first pope and leader of the Church: for fifteen days, and that the only other person he saw in Jerusalem was the bishop of Jerusalem, James. That’s hierarchy, folks. Then he reiterates:

Galatians 2:9 . . . when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship,

St. John was also in Jesus’ inner circle, and so had great relative authority, even among apostles. Then again, we have the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), where he appears to be a minor figure. He spoke, but his words weren’t recorded (Acts 15:12), as Peter’s and James’ words were. Paul then traveled around delivering the message that the apostles and elders at the council arrived at (with the confirmation of the Holy Spirit: Acts 15:28):

Acts 16:4 As they [he and Timothy] went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem.

Note that this is not coming from Paul (and Timothy) only; Paul’s passing along what the council decided; in other words, he is bound to, and spreads the news of, an official — and, we must add, infallible — Church council. That’s hierarchical Church government. The fact that this council consisted of the “apostles and the elders” (Acts 15:4, 6, 22-23; cf. 16:4) is one of many proofs of apostolic succession itself. After the apostles died out, the elders continued doing the same thing that they had done, working with the apostles.

There are other examples of Paul being subject to higher authority in the Church: “the church in Jerusalem, . . . sent Barnabas to Antioch” (Acts 11:22). Barnabas then “went to Tarsus to look for Saul; and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch” (Acts 11:25-26). So we have the Jerusalem church sending (essentially “commissioning”) Barnabas to Antioch, and bringing Paul from Tarsus to Antioch. The church at Antioch then determined to send financial relief for a famine “by the hand of Barnabas and Saul” (Acts 11:30).

So Paul was twice subjected to higher Church authority in this instance: Barnabas, sent from the church in Jerusalem, and the church of Antioch, which sent both him and Barnabas on an important task. Later, we’re informed that “Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem when they had fulfilled their mission” (Acts 12:25). Then we learn of a sixth instance, where the church leaders in Antioch again commissioned Paul and Barnabas, and that this was agreed to by the Holy Spirit (making it an infallible act of Church authority: which Protestants say could and should never happen):

Acts 13:1-4 Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers, . . . [2] While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” [3] Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off. [4] So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleu’cia; and from there they sailed to Cyprus.

Paul and Barnabas in turn function as bishops, since they “appointed elders for them in every church” (Acts 14:23). This indicates both hierarchical Church government and apostolic succession (an apostle ordaining priests or pastors in local churches). Paul later delegates the same episcopal authority to Titus that he had himself exercised, giving him the authority to “appoint elders in every town” as Paul “directed” him to do (Titus 1:5). Once again (this is now the eighth example), Paul is directly involved in hierarchical, episcopal Church governance and apostolic succession: quite contrary to Keith’s claims. None of this exhibits or suggests the alleged “lone ranger” Paul so mythologized and beloved of certain evangelical Protestants.

A creed’s authority does not depend on anyone’s agreement with it. A creed’s authority depends on whether it is true to the doctrine of Christ and the Apostles.

And who decides whether it is true or not?

Creeds are a written form of the confession of faith of the universal church. The early creeds evolved out of the context of the early church’s catechetical practices and were eventually put in written form. The Nicene Creed is the culmination of this process.

*
I guess, then, that Baptists and all who deny baptismal regeneration aren’t part of the universal Church, by this criterion (since they deny part of the creed or confession that represents same). Keith set it up; I’m merely mentioning some of the “anomalous” consequences of the mistaken reasoning.

The creeds are a confession of what the whole of the Church has read in Scripture.

But not all Protestants entirely agree with the Creed. So where does that lead them? If he says it doesn’t matter; that they can go their own way, then he defeats his own point. Self-refutation and internal contradiction and vicious logical circularity are never far away when discussing sola Scriptura.

the need for creeds . . . exists because some do not accept what Scripture clearly teaches. . . . some missed the plain teaching of Scripture.

Right; so — again — many Protestants deny “what Scripture clearly teaches” in a “plain” way, which is quintessentially encapsulated in the Nicene Creed, which asserts baptismal regeneration.

***

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. 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: Nicholas Mutton (2-23-08). Port Bannatyne Pier [UK] and sinking boat [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license]

Summary: Presbyterian Keith Mathison, the best current defender of sola Scriptura, makes a lengthy case for it, in reply to two former Reformed Protestant Catholics. I respond in depth.

Luther: “As Many Sects and Creeds as Heads”

Last updated on: June 17, 2024 at 6:45 pm By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

Photo credit: Martin Luther: 31 December 1525 (age 42), by Lucas Cranach the Elder [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

James Swan Misses the Forest for the Trees / Calvin & Melanchthon Embarrassed & Scandalized by Protestant Sectarianism

***

Swan’s words will be in blue, Luther’s in green, Calvin’s in brown, and Melanchthon’s in purple.

***

Anti-Catholic Reformed Protestant James Swan wrote an article entitled, “The Evils of Private Interpretation: ‘There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads’ “ (Boors All, 2-25-06). As usual, his goal is to show that Catholic apologists and other writers are incompetent, even dishonest stooges and buffoons: incapable of identifying the proper identification of a source. And accordingly, he says, “I’d like to demonstrate again the failure of Roman Catholic apologetics.”

My goal, however, is to go much deeper and analyze the import and significance of Luther’s statement. What are its implications? What does it suggest? Swan doesn’t touch any of that with a ten-foot pole. What’s quite obvious to one and all is that Luther despised and had contempt for this state of affairs. Swan wrote:

This is one of those quotes put forth by Roman Catholics attempting to substantiate Luther’s opinion of the failure of Protestant Biblical interpretation, as well as the need for the infallible authority of the Roman Catholic Church.

To this extent, I agree with Swan. As far as I know (having read quite a bit of Luther), he never denounced his own so-called “Reformation” or took any blame at all for bringing about a state of affairs in which “as many sects as heads” was even possible or thinkable, let alone actual. He didn’t blame private judgment or sola Scriptura, or the schismatic mentality, etc. Maybe something will turn up. But I think if it had, it would have been known by now and used in Catholic critiques of Luther and his ideas: which in the past were generally far more critical than they are now, and much more than my own point of view.

The strategy goes like this: use the above quote and then put forth something like- “…see, even Luther realized how much of a failure sola scriptura was.” . . .

they are misusing Luther to prove the alleged superiority of their church.

Well, in order to succeed in demonstrating that, it seems to me that the person would have to find Luther expressly making the specific point about sola Scriptura. I’ve never seen it. It’s perfectly legitimate and plausible, however, for Catholics to note that the change in the rule of faith — whatever Luther thought — indeed had a direct impact on the ludicrous proliferation of sects, which is directly contradictory to the biblical idea of one Church and no denominations. St. Paul was even more critical of sectarianism and division than Luther was.

Swan then goes on to note that several Catholics, including apologist Steve Ray, cited these words but provided no primary documentation. Yeah; ideally, they should have. Again, I agree. Swan noted that it was cited in the 1917 book, The Facts About Luther, by Patrick O’Hare: a book I used to cite, when I had few Catholic sources about Luther in the early 90s, but stopped, after determining that it was too “anti-Luther” and sloppy. But O’Hare does provide a primary source and some context:

“This one,” he says, “will not hear of Baptism, and that one denies the sacrament, another puts a world between this and the last day: some teach that Christ is not God, some say this, some say that: there are as many sects and creeds as there are heads. No yokel is so rude but when he has dreams and fancies, he thinks himself inspired by the Holy Ghost and must be a prophet.” (De Wette III, 61) [p. 214]

There is nothing whatsoever wrong with this. The primary source is there. He didn’t provide the name of the specific work (Letter to the Christians of Antwerp, from early 1525), which is unfortunate, but he gives the readers something to verify the words that Luther wrote: of that there can be no doubt. And they mean something. The 55-volume Luther’s Works (which I have in hardcover in my living room) chose not to include this letter in its three volumes of Luther’s letters (the year 1525 is in volume 49). Some twenty or so new volumes are planned; perhaps the editors will see fit to include it in those.

Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette (1780-1849) was a German theologian and biblical scholar, who compiled five volumes of Luther’s writings (Berlin: 1825-1828). They are now available online (in Latin and German): see volumes one / two / three / four / five. One can go to the Google book page for volume 3, type in the word “Antwerpen” in the “Search Inside” box and see that word in the name of the letter on page 60, and the year 1525. The words from the famous citation appear on page 61. The letter is in German. The PDF of the entire book can also be searched. The letter in question can be seen on page 60 (actually “79” in the pagination on top). I ran the German title, An die Christen zu Antwerpen through Google Translate and it came out as To the Christians of Antwerp. So this is definitely the letter, and one can see a photocopy of the original book online. I kept translating the material on page 61 (first two paragraphs and part of the third) and this is what I got:

For a long time under the papal regime we have suffered many cruel seductions from the scoundrels or the wicked spirits, which we believed and held to be human souls who had died and were supposed to be walking around in the flesh. This belief has now been brought to light and revealed by the grace of God through the Gospel, so that we know that they are not human souls, but pure evil devils who have deceived the people with false answers and have established much idolatry throughout the world.

*

But now that the wretched devil sees that his blustering and thumping no longer counts, he attacks something new and begins to rage in his members, that is, in the godless, and thunders out all sorts of wild, dark beliefs and teachings. One does not want to be baptized, another denies the sacrament; another sees a world between this and the last day; some teach that Christ is not God; some say this, some that, and there are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; his nonsense is now so gross that if he dreams or thinks of something, then the Holy Spirit must have inspired him and wants to be a prophet.

*

I must tell you an example here, because I have a lot to do with such ghosts. There is no one who claims to be more learned than Luther, who said, “They would all become nemesis of me; and if God would that they were what they think they are, and I were nothing.”

The Introduction on page 60 (presumably by De Wette) reads:

A fanatic from the Netherlands had come to Wittenberg, and had made his opinions known to Luther: this letter is directed against this and other fanaticisms. Luther wrote this letter in Latin, as Walch’s preface to the Xth Th. p. 90 claims, but Opsopoeus No. 15. gives it only in a Latin version (f. Beefenmeyer Litterargeſsch. d. Br. L. p. 58.) and so it can be found in Aurif. II. 281. Viteb. VII. 503. It was published in German under the title: A letter from D. Martini Luther to the Christians in Antorf. Wittenberg 1525. 4. S. Rotermund p. 43. It can also be found in German in the German edition Wittenb. II. 60. Jen. III. 109. Altenb. III. 101. Leipz. XIX. 345. Watch X. 1782. We deliver it in German after the first printing.

Is that enough primary documentation for Swan? If not, there is nowhere else to go. He commented under a related post on 11-28-07:

I would gladly welcome someone scrutinizing the text. In fact, I wouldn’t mind having some good translation work on this, even if it meant I was wrong on the conclusions I drew from the text. . . .

I can actually provide the German text for this quote, now that I actually have a reference (recall not one Catholic apologist I’ve ever come across has given any sort of helpful documentation for the quote…but they use the quote gleefully). . . .

I may be a bit paranoid due to all those in the RC’s in the past I’m used to dealing with.

His own article puts the lie to this (his claim in the second paragraph above). He himself cited the Catholic Encyclopedia (ironically and humorously without including the title of the article), which gave the title of the letter and the primary source from De Wette. That was in 1912. O’Hare also gave the primary source in 1916. Now we can access that in Google Books and translate it with Google Translate (which I did). It’ll all kosher and legit. Much ado about nothing, as usual.

One can readily see that O’Hare (or whoever else he may have gotten it from, in English) accurately translated it. The Catholic Encyclopedia article was written by Sydney Smith in 1912 under the title, “Union of Christendom.” Smith made, in my opinion, exactly the argument that should be set forth (one I have made myself, many times), without claiming that Luther agreed with it. He stated:

What was special and novel in Luther and his colleagues was that they erected the principle of an appeal to the Bible not only into an exclusive standard of sound doctrines, but even into one which the individual could always apply for himself without dependence on the authoritative interpretations of any Church whatever. Luther himself and his fellow-reformers did not even understand their new rule of faith in the Rationalistic sense that the individual inquirer can, by applying the recognized principles of exegesis, be sure of extracting from the Scripture text the intended meaning of its Divine author. Their idea was that the earnest Protestant who goes direct to the Bible for his beliefs is brought into immediate contact with the Holy Spirit, and can take the ideas that his reading conveys to him personally as the direct teaching of the Spirit to himself. But, however much the Reformers might thus formulate their principle, they could not in practice avoid resorting to the principles of exegesis, applied well or ill, according to each man’s capacity, for the discovery of the sense ascribed to the Holy Spirit. Thus their new doctrinal standard lapsed even in their own days, though they perceived it not, and still more in later days, into the more intelligible but less pietistic method of Rationalism.

Now, if the Bible were drawn up, as it is not, in the form of a clear, simple, systematic, and comprehensive statement of doctrine and rule of conduct, it might not, perhaps, seem antecedently impossible that God should have wished this to be the way by which his people should attain to the knowledge of the true religion. Still, even then the validity of the method would need to be tested by the character of the results, and only if these exhibited a profound and far-reaching agreement among those who followed it would it be safe to conclude that it was the method God had really sanctioned. This, however, was far from the experience of the Reformers. Luther had strangely assumed that those who followed him into revolt would use their right of private judgment only to affirm their entire agreement with his own opinions, for which he claimed the sanction of an inspiration received from God that equaled him with the Prophets of old [which he did indeed virtually claim, as I have documented to a tee]. But he was soon to learn that his followers attached as high a value to their own interpretations of the Bible as he did to his, and were quite prepared to act upon their own conclusions instead of upon his. The result was that as early as the beginning of 1525 — only eight years after he first propounded his heresies — we find him acknowledging, in his “Letter to the Christians of Antwerp” (de Wette, III, 61), that “there are as many sects and creeds in Germany as heads. . . .”

This is exactly my own opinion. Swan did, at least, cite a good chunk of the above, for which I give him credit. Luther’s big problem in this regard, per the “theory” above, was his extreme naivete: thinking that everything would be fine and dandy in his new system and never being able to conceptualize the quite arguable connection between it and the proliferation of sects.

It’s real simple in the final analysis: others applied Luther’s new rule of faith (sola Scriptura, private judgment, and a distorted individualistic supremacy of conscience) and went their own way, differing from Luther, just as he had with the Catholic Church. Any astute observer could have easily predicted what happened. Erasmus and More and Eck could see what was coming, in their disputes with Luther. But Luther couldn’t (or wouldn’t, one might opine).

Much better, I think, was the perspective of John Calvin, in addressing the problem of the wildly multiplying denominations, in a letter to Luther’s successor Philip Melanchthon, dated 28 November 1552. At least he is clearly embarrassed by it, implying that he thought the principles of Protestantism were in some way and to some extent responsible (otherwise, why the discomfort?). He stated:

For you see how the eyes of many are turned upon us, so that the wicked take occasion from our dissensions to speak evil, and the weak are only perplexed by our unintelligible disputations. Nor in truth, is it of little importance to prevent the suspicion of any difference having arisen between us from being handed down in any way to posterity; for it is worse than absurd that parties should be found disagreeing on the very principles, after we have been compelled to make our departure from the world. . . .

*

And surely it is indicative of a marvellous and monstrous insensibility, that we so readily set at nought that sacred unanimity, by which we ought to be bringing back into the world the angels of heaven. Meanwhile, Satan is busy scattering here and there the seeds of discord, and our folly is made to supply much material. At length he has discovered fans of his own, for fanning into a flame the fires of discord. (Selected Works of John Calvin: Tracts and Letters: Letters, Part 2, 1545-1553, vol. 5 of 7; edited by Jules Bonnet, translated by David Constable; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House [Protestant publisher], 1983, 454 pages; reproduction of Letters of John Calvin, vol. 2 (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1858; the letter in question is numbered as CCCV [305] and is found on pp. 375-381; the portion above is from pp. 376-377).

Whereas Luther made it clear that the other sects were completely separate from him, and fanatical, Calvin was more honest and open to criticism, and included himself in the scandal of denominationalism:

the eyes of many are turned upon us, so that the wicked take occasion from our dissensions . . . our unintelligible disputations. . . . difference having arisen between us . . . after we have been compelled to make our departure from the world . . . we so readily set at nought that sacred unanimity . . . our folly . . .

Melanchthon, too, was severely distressed over internal Protestant divisions and strife, as I have documented not just once, but twice. Protestant historian Philip Schaff referenced this:

The controversies among the Protestants in the sixteenth century roused all the religious and political passions and cast a gloom over the bright picture of the Reformation. Melanchthon declared [c. Dec. 1552?] that with tears as abundant as the waters of the river Elbe he could not express his grief over the distractions of Christendom and the “fury of theologians.” (History of the Christian Church, vol. 6, p. 46)

Writing to Cranmer on April Fools’ Day, 1548, Melanchthon expressed statements of embarrassment (?) quite similar to Calvin’s word above:

I do not, however, desire in this letter to do anything more than express my grief, which is so great, that it could not be exhausted, though I were to shed a flood of tears as large as our Elbe or your Thames.

You see what a multitude of explanations have been elaborated in former times, and are elaborated at this day; because a simple and sincere [appeal to] antiquity is neglected.

. . . no ambiguities should be left to posterity, as an apple of discord.

Melanchthon makes several dramatic, agonized remarks along these lines:

This most miserable anarchy causes me such anguish that I would gladly leave this life . . .

*

If only I could revive the jurisdiction of the bishops! For I see what sort of Church we shall have if the ecclesiastical constitution is destroyed.

*

I am unable to suggest anything that could heal this anarchy (letter to Hardenburg, c. 1558).

*

Something wasn’t going as planned (it seems obvious). He didn’t specifically place the blame on anything, but he was greatly troubled, to the point of many tears. Why? The devil again? Protestants and their leaders bore no blame at all? Human beings find it hard to admit any wrong, as we all know.
*

The causes and the solutions are what is at issue between Protestants and Catholics. Luther and Calvin and Melanchthon apparently never figured out that it was their foundational principles which set the wheels of this sad process inexorably and inevitably in motion. The weakness, I submit, is in the foundation, not the superstructure of denominationalism gone wild. Calvin and Melanchthon were embarrassed — as well they should have been — at the “absurd” (as Calvin put it) nature of such strong disagreements occurring, and the “miserable anarchy.”

To their credit, they felt this tension, expressed it in private letters, and wished that it could be resolved before “posterity” got wind of it. They understood the scandalous, indefensible scandal of sectarianism and denominationalism in a way that few Protestants today do (after 500 years of rationalizing and pretending that it is a good, healthy thing).

But Calvin and Melanchthon didn’t understand or know how to properly solve the problem of relativism and Protestant “epistemology”. That’s my take, and it seems obvious to me. They were referring to the public and history’s reaction to the dissensions. They “got it.” The founders of the Protestant system (including Luther) thought that Protestant divisions were scandalous. This has been a problem since Day One: Luther at Worms in 1521. Private judgment and sola Scriptura inevitably produce such doctrinal relativism and ecclesiological confusion.

The Catholic, on the other hand, believes that there is one Church instituted by Christ (of which Protestants are imperfectly a part, by virtue of baptism and common beliefs), which the Holy Spirit will prevent from falling into dogmatic error. We have the faith that God can and does do such a thing. Protestants don’t believe in such a thing as an indefectible Church that God ordained, free from error. The Catholic view is not only a far more plausible scenario, but also far more a biblical one, and spectacularly borne out by the facts of history.

If the Catholic Church were merely human, as so many seem to think, it would have long since evolved into something else, or disappeared. But it doesn’t do either thing. It’s the Protestant denominations that continually evolve into theological liberalism and that adopt immoral teachings, according to the zeitgeist. Witness, for example, the recent abominable caving of the United Methodists on homosexuality. John Wesley (I published a collection of his quotations with a Wesleyan publisher) is surely turning over in his grave. The liberal Protestant denominations have also long since caved on abortion, too: calling evil good. No other institution in world history is even remotely like the Catholic Church. Protestantism survives only to the extent that its life comes from the doctrines it inherited from us.

In my opinion, Calvin, in the letter above to Melanchthon, and the sensitive Melanchthon, in his various despairing utterances, are rightly and admirably aghast with regard to a situation (division) which is equally alarming to us Catholics. In this instance they agree with us and candidly, honestly admit the strong contradiction between sectarianism and the Bible. But like Luther, they don’t see that the discord resulted from fallacious first principles, just recently conceived by their illustrious predecessor.

Their anarchical and semi-Donatist principles set the wheels in motion that made rampant sectarianism historically inevitable. I’m sure they didn’t think that; nor was it their intent, but I hold all of them responsible for extreme naivete and irresponsibility in not anticipating what their principle of sola Scriptura would inexorably lead to.

They thought everyone would simply agree with them and that there would be this spontaneous, marvelous unity out under the “yoke of Rome.” Their novel views brought about what we see, despite whatever good intentions they had (which I readily grant them). But of course, they couldn’t even agree with each other.

It’s not with glee that I critique what I feel are flawed principles, while simultaneously acknowledging — as I always have — the great good which is also present in Protestantism and its members. The very fact that I have a high regard personally for many, many Protestants, makes me think that I can persuade them of some of the serious difficulties in their system, as perceived by a friendly “outsider.”

I appreciate anyone who takes the time to respond to anything I’ve written. (2-18-06; my emphasis; and this is at the bottom of an article dealing with mostly my arguments; he calls me a “guy”; per his usual juvenile methodology)

Really? How does this expressed appreciation harmonize with Swan’s refusal to reply to any critique I have made for about fourteen years now? If he appreciated even my critiques (notwithstanding his innumerable insults sent my way: including that I am supposedly psychotic and off my rocker), wouldn’t it follow that he would interact with what I offer? “Say one thing, do another”? Meanwhile, I continue to critique his articles (see his section on my Anti-Catholicism web page), because doing so is, I think, helpful for the purpose of understanding how to effectively confront the errors of Protestantism (and especially of the tiny fringe anti-Catholic faction). I refute falsehoods and bad arguments, so that my readers can get some suggestions as to how to reply to similar objections that they encounter. This is the utility of dialogue. It’s a great teaching tool.

***
*
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.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. 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: Martin Luther: 31 December 1525 (age 42), by Lucas Cranach the Elder [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: Anti-Catholic Protestant polemicist James Swan falsely claimed that Catholics never documented this famous quotation, and as usual he ignored its troubling implications.

Luther, Church Offices, + Swan’s & White’s Ignorance

Last updated on: June 13, 2024 at 5:18 pm By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

Photo credit: Portrait of Martin Luther (1525), by Lucas Cranach the Elder (1472-1553) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

James Swan’s words will be in blue, Bishop “Dr.” [???] James White’s in green, and Martin Luther’s in purple.

***

My debate with anti-Catholics over Protestants’ and Luther’s view of church offices (made farcical by their replies) goes back a long ways. In my 2007 book, The One-Minute Apologist, I made the statement:

A Protestant Might Further Object:

. . . The Bible teaches that bishops, elders, and deacons are all synonymous terms for the same office: roughly that of a pastor today. It doesn’t indicate that bishops are higher than these other offices. (p. 17)

The format of that book was vaguely like St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica. It included hypothetical objections in every two-page section. That’s what this was. I wasn’t maintaining that all Protestants held this view (of course they don’t!), or even most. Bishop James White had a field day in one of his critiques of my book (dated 6-13-07):

Just who believes this, I wonder? I have never read any work by any Protestant theologian of any note who has ever made this argument. So, is Armstrong just ignorant of Protestant ecclesiology, or, has he run into some tiny sect someplace that has come up with some new wacky viewpoint? Given that he was once non-Catholic, it is hard to believe he could be so ignorant of the reality regarding the fact that bishop and elder refer to the same office and are used interchangeably in the New Testament, but that this office is clearly distinguished from that of the deacon.

I made one concession as a result in my first reply of 6-14-07:

This is a case of a poor choice of one word (minor point) in the midst of a perfectly valid overall argument (major point); . . . It is true that this was an unwise use of “deacon”. If I had left out that word, the argument, coming from the hypothetical Protestant, would have been virtually identical to White’s own ecclesiology, since we see above that he equates elder and bishop (and has done so before, notably in this quote):

I am an elder in the church: hence, I am a bishop, overseer, pastor, of a local body of believers. (10 January 2001)

In fact, this utterance is the reason why I have taken to calling White “Bishop White.” He said it; I am simply following his own protocol.

The real fun began in my second reply, entitled, “James White Deacons-Elders-Bishops Controversy” (6-16-24). The most humorous aspect of it was my discovery of a prominent Lutheran (C. F. W. Walther [1811-1887]: the first president of the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod [LCMS] and its most influential theologian), who did indeed hold a view identical to my hypothetical one. He wrote in 1867:

. . . a Bishop set over the other ministers of the church was really nothing other than a presbyter (Elder), a pastor, who only for the sake of church order was set over the other ministers of the church and who had the additional authority given to him merely by human right.

. . . since there is no distinction between such offices according to divine right, so likewise between them and a Lutheran Deacon, to whom the office of the Word is commended. For the call to preach God’s Word publicly is truly the essence of the preaching office. To preach is the highest office (function) in the church, alone on account of which all other functions are necessary. It is also the judge of all other offices. Therefore the office of Lutheran Deacon is no helping office as is, for example, the office of caring for alms, the office of Church Father or Lay Elder. Rather it is the one true office which is specially instituted and established by Christ Himself. . . .

. . . A Deacon in the biblical sense is a man who only has a helping office to the ministry of the Word according to human arrangement. But a Deacon who is called to the preaching of the Word of God, as happens in the Lutheran Church, does not attend a helping office, but rather the highest office in Christendom. He is nothing else and nothing less than what the Scripture calls a pastor, Presbyter (elder), or Bishop. He has the same authority and rank of office and the same jurisdiction and the deacons in the biblical sense are also their servants.

. . . in the Lutheran Church the deacons who are called for the preaching of the Word of God and for the Administration of the Sacraments are seen as entirely equal to the pastors . . . [my bolding and italics]

Therefore, a major figure in a major Protestant denomination held the view that I proposed as a hypothetical one in my book. James White called me “ignorant” and this position a “wacky viewpoint.” It turns out that this position in fact existed in some high Protestant circles (hence, no need to revise my book). Needless to say, Bishop White offered no reply. He has run from me since 1995 and our first debate by regular mail, so that was nothing new. He has ignored me since 2010, after having replied to me (mostly with mere mockery) scores of times from 1996 onwards.

Enter James Swan at this point. He wrote a reply two days later (6-18-07) on “Dr.” [???] White’s own blog, entitled, “Deacons, Elders, Armstrong, and…Luther.” His particular (typical) goal was to criticize a supposedly inapplicable citation from Luther that I included in my second reply:

On this account I think it follows that we neither can nor ought to give the name priest to those who are in charge of Word and sacrament among the people. The reason they have been called priests is either because of the custom of heathen people or as a vestige of the Jewish nation. The result is greatly injurious to the church. According to the New Testament Scriptures better names would be ministers, deacons, bishops, stewards, presbyters (a name often used and indicating the older members). For thus Paul writes in I Cor. 4 [:1], “This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.” He does not say, “as priests of Christ,” because he knew that the name and office of priest belonged to all. Paul’s frequent use of the word “stewardship” or “household,” “ministry,” “minister,” “servant,” “one serving the gospel,” etc., emphasizes that it is not the estate, or order, or any authority or dignity that he wants to uphold, but only the office and the function. The authority and the dignity of the priesthood resided in the community of believers. (Concerning the Ministry, 1523, in Luther’s Works, Vol. 40: Church and Ministry II, edited by Conrad Bergendoff, Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1958, p. 35; translated by Conrad Bergendoff; my bolding and italics)

Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong has been attempting to justify his recent blunder in his new book, The One Minute Apologist. . . . If this were simply one of his blog entries or web pages, it wouldn’t be that big of deal for him. He would simply change his blatant error (If you visit DA’s blog, you know his entries can appear, disappear, or change hour to hour). Problem solved. Unfortunately for him, the error is in a published book. He will have to wait for his second edition to fix it. Thus, we’ve been subjected to long blog entries, as Dave tries to put forth anything possible to smooth over his error.

Right. Of course, like any thinker should, — and any honest one who can admit his mistakes –, I made a concession, one day after White’s criticism-article. I revise materials when I have learned new things and/or changed my mind. I used one word in an unwise way. Guilty as charged! Swan, in his seething anti-Catholic contempt, caricatures this approach as my supposedly constantly changing my blog articles, hoping no one would notice (i.e., equivocating, being deceitful, and not admitting mistakes). He gave me no credit whatsoever for my concession. He would probably think it was insincere.

This is nothing new, coming from him. He’s treated me in this fashion for 22 years now. He didn’t grapple with the argument that I actually made. His agenda is always simply to try to make a fool of me and prove that I am a dishonest, incompetent buffoon and miserable example of an apologist. He’s a one-note tune. And here, as always, he will fail in his nefarious goal. I didn’t answer at the time because I thought I already had adequately answered in my second reply to White. But now I will, and my case will be all the stronger.

Well, before we thank Mr. Armstrong for such an invincible argument, perhaps we should make sure Luther holds what Armstrong says he does. If he doesn’t, then certain conclusions follow as to the value of Dave’s research. Before we delve into the Luther quote Armstrong utilized, let’s take a quick survey of Luther’s writings.

Sometime between 1527 and 1528, Luther lectured on 1 Timothy. This Biblical book sets forth detailed information about elders and deacons. Hence, whatever Luther says here specifically has importance as to his view. When one reads through the lectures, it is not simply a passing comment from Luther on elders and deacons. Rather, one finds long discussions as to what these offices mean. Luther clearly distinguishes between the office of elder and deacon: . . .

If you’ve read my blog or any of my Luther papers, I have stated often that Dave Armstrong has trouble with Luther. The quote he uses once again proves he does not carefully consider his information before hitting “publish” on his blog. . . . Dave’s blog is often now you see it, now you don’t. I have demonstrated once again, Dave Armstrong struggles with context. In this instance, he has Luther’s Works Volume 40, so there is no excuse.

Swan cited several instances of Luther making distinctions between Church offices. They come from pages 283-301 of Luther’s Lectures on the First Epistle to Timothy, from vol. 40 of Luther’s Works. One would think — if one only read Swan’s side of things — that this settled the issue. But not so fast. Swan’s fundamental mistake was that he failed to consider that Luther’s thought often developed, changed, contradicted itself, vacillated, or strongly emphasized certain things in specific situations. And that is the case here.

Many have noted the stark difference between Luther’s writings before 1525 and the Peasants’ Revolt, and those afterwards. Before that horrible affair, he was a revolutionary, “fire-breathing” radical, and a sort of loose cannon (at least from the Catholic perspective). He made wild claims about himself and about received Catholic teaching and practice. After the experience of that war and internal dissensions of Protestantism and concerns about many things, he tempered his rhetoric quite a bit, and — as I have documented — even made some remarkably “Catholic” statements. See:

Martin Luther’s Remarkably “Pro-Tradition” Strain of Thought [1-18-08]

The “Catholic-Sounding” Luther: 25 Examples [6-16-08]

Top Ten Remarkable “Catholic” Beliefs of Martin Luther [1-19-15]

In 2014 I even compiled an entire book of such statements from him: The “Catholic” Luther : An Ecumenical Collection of His “Traditional” Utterances, (see the Introduction).

I contend that that Luther’s evolving views influenced his conception and understanding of the function of Church offices. Mark Ellingsen (b. 1949), a Lutheran pastor (ELCA) and scholar, wrote an article entitled, “Luther’s Concept of the Ministry: The Creative Tension” (Word & World, 1981, 338-346):

Recent scholarship has generally agreed that two lines of thought about the ordained ministry coexist in tension in Luther’s writings. One finds him speaking of the ordained ministry as derived from the priesthood of all believers; yet in other places he speaks of the office as divinely instituted. That such a tension is present is not surprising. Luther’s theology is characterized by tensions on many doctrinal loci. . . . he spoke about every doctrine in a variety of ways, depending upon the particular context/concern he was addressing. (p. 339)

The present issue, Luther’s view of the ordained ministry, can function as a test case for further demonstrating Luther’s pastoral approach to theology. We shall see that the two lines of thought in Luther about the ordained ministry are not peculiar to any particular period in his career. Rather both lines of thought are present throughout his career. (p. 340)

Carried to its logical conclusion this view of the ministry’s authority derived “from below” implies the model of minister as facilitator of the congregation — the non-directive kind of leadership style about which we have spoken. Yet one also finds the Reformer speaking of the office as divinely instituted, its authority derived “from above.” This line of thought distinguishes pastor and laity and implies that the pastor is in charge. We now need to identify the presence of these lines of thought in Luther . . .

When most Lutherans reflect on Luther’s view of the ordained ministry the notion of the universal priesthood usually comes to mind. The crucial text is 1 Peter 2:9,”You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into marvelous light. Luther appeals to this text in several places. . . . All that the ordained ministry does, it does in the name of the universal priesthood on behalf of the Church.

This theme appears frequently in Luther, particularly in his earliest writings. In his Treatise to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation (1520) he argues that ordination takes place only through the authority of the universal priesthood, not through the bishop’s authority to ordain. Likewise, in his 1523 treatise Concerning the Ministry, and in several other treatises [he lists three written in 1521 and 1523], this view of the ordained ministry appears. (p. 341)

The second strand in Luther’s view of the ordained ministry predominates later in his career. Instead of talking about the authority of the office as derived from the universal priesthood, Luther argues that the ministry’s authority is given directly by God. It is instituted by Christ Himself [he cites two of Luther’s treatises from 1528 and 1530]. This fact sets the minister apart from the universal priesthood. As such, Luther is quite clear at some points in distinguishing clergy from laity [he cites three works from 1529, 1530, and 1532]. His attributing sacramental status to ordination further indicates that the Reformer embraced this second view of the ministry. (p. 343)

. . . the emergence of this second view of the ordained ministry as instituted by Christ is merely the product of a development in Luther’s thought. Its dominance in the later stages of Luther’s life seems to be related to the different pastoral concerns which dominated in this period. His new emphasis seems to be connected with the turmoil in Wittenberg (1521) which ensued as a result
of the Reformation, the Peasants’ Revolt (1524-1526), and the horrible condition of the local parishes which the Saxon Visitation (1527-1528) revealed. In short, Luther articulated his view of the ministry as divinely instituted in situations when it became apparent that the common life of the church was not proceeding smoothly. The idea of the universal priesthood carried to extremes was not maintaining the office of ministry or keeping the church’s order. In response Luther began to speak of the ministry’s authority as an office distinct from the universal priesthood. (p. 344)

Ellingsen’s thesis (which was one aspect of the topic of his dissertation) corresponds well with my understanding expressed above, and makes perfect sense of the difference between what I cited from Luther and what Swan cited. Swan simply contended — as he always droningly and boorishly does in his attacks against my work — that I distorted Luther’s meaning, and that he got it right. The truth of the matter is far more nuanced and complex, and was expressed, I think, correctly by Dr. Ellingsen.

Early Luther (before 1525) had a much more fluid and revolutionary ecclesiology. After 1525 he became more traditional. So, sure enough, my citation was from the early period (1523) and Swan’s were from the later more conservative period (1527-1528). This explains the difference. It wasn’t my alleged distortions and ignorance. It was Luther’s complexity and changes according to situation and in reaction to horrible personal experiences.

Note that Ellingsen observed that Luther didn’t even give “sacramental status to ordination” until after 1528. He adopted a more traditional view. His best friend and successor Philip Melanchthon eventually became quite distraught regarding Luther’s earlier “anti-bishop” views. He longed, after 1530, for the return of the bishops that he and Luther had replaced with (not particularly virtuous) German princes.

I had linked to this article, by the way, already in my second reply to Bishop “Dr.” [???] James White on the subject (6-16-07). So Swan was already effectively refuted two days before he even wrote his attack-piece. I’ve simply strengthened that argument all the more in this reply (keep reading).

Lowell C. Green’s article, “Change in Luther’s Doctrine of the Ministry” (The Lutheran Quarterly 18 [1966] ) offers further corroboration of Ellingsen’s thesis:

[I]f we study Luther’s writings on the ministry and the priesthood of believers from 1520-25, isolated from his thought in other periods, we can find a strong case . . . that in the early years of the Reformation Luther apparently established the power of the congregation at the expense of the office of the ministry. The congregation appeared to have won, and the ministerial office seemed doomed to extinction in the reformation church. But a reversal set in during the second half of the 1520’s, and the office of the ministry was preserved to the developing Lutheran Church.

It is unfortunate that some scholars have limited their findings to a certain period in Luther’s career. They thereby subject themselves to the danger of rejecting in advance the possibility that Luther might have altered his position through the benefit of added experience. But this is, in fact, what took place. Prior to the Leipzig Debate of 1519, there is little indication that Luther’s view of the ministry or priesthood differed radically from that of the medieval church. In the reform treatises of 1520, however, Luther made tremendous changes. The doctrine of the general priesthood of believers emerged in protest to the outward, clerical priesthood of the papal system. The layman needed no priestly intermediary, Luther pointed out on the basis of I Peter 2:9, but through the atonement of Christ had become his own priest before the mercy seat of God. But from here on, the relation of the priesthood of believers and the office of the ministry became a problem. During the next five years Luther tended to subordinate the ministry to the priesthood. Then a change set in. Various causes for the transition might be cited. The lingering consequences of the Wittenberg anarchy of 1521-22, the peasants’ revolt, the emergence of the enthusiasts and fanatics, and the breakdown of the church that was revealed in the Saxon Visitation, must all have left their mark on Luther’s doctrine of the ministry. This becomes most noticeable after the so-called Large Catechism began to take shape, as early as 1528. The ministry was given greater authority . . . in studying Luther’s position we must be exact and clear in our thinking, and avoid constructing theories based solely on his formative writings from 1520-25.

When some folks — who can’t find anything constructive to do — set out to try to belittle, mock, and trash various of my writings and refuse to interact with them in a true dialogical fashion, it never ends well (at least in cases where I catch wind of it and have enough God-granted patience to respond).

And so, as always, it didn’t end well once again for the inimitable James Swan. He’ll ignore this (as he has all my refutations of his incessant logic- and fact-challenged nonsense for about 14 years now). But he can’t and won’t refute it. No skin off of my back. If he doesn’t have the courage of his convictions, he doesn’t. Only he can change that, with the aid of the Holy Spirit. For my part, I’m here to educate and offer food for thought, in the process of defending my expressed opinion over against unwarranted criticism. Thanks for reading!

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. 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 Martin Luther (1525), by Lucas Cranach the Elder (1472-1553) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: Martin Luther’s view of Church offices and clergy changed after 1525. Earlier, he had a radical egalitarian view. Then he became more traditional as a result of bad experiences.

Eck vs. Protestantism Chronicles: Veneration of Images

Last updated on: June 13, 2024 at 5:20 pm By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

Photo credit: Christ and Saint Mina. 6th-century icon from Bawit, Egypt [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Johann Eck (1486-1543) was a German Catholic theologian, who was arguably one of Martin Luther’s two most important and formidable debate opponents, along with Erasmus (I’ve compiled several of his devastating replies to Luther as well). He was ordained as a priest in 1508 and in 1510 was installed as a professor of theology at the University of Ingolstadt in Bavaria: which lasted for thirty years. He mastered both Greek and Hebrew and had a prodigious memory, boundless energy, and very considerable debating skills. He famously engaged Luther for eighteen days in the Leipzig Disputation of July 1519.

Eck’s argumentation might be said to be one of the quintessential examples of the Catholic theological and polemical response to the Protestant Revolt up to the opening of the Council of Trent in 1545. This is one of many excerpts from his best-known and principal volume, Enchiridion of Commonplaces Against Luther and Other Enemies of the Church. It first appeared in 1529 and eventually went through 91 editions. I will be using a later edition from 1541 (translated by Ford Lewis Battles, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1979; now in the public domain).

Eck’s words will be in black and my interjections in blue. I use RSV for scriptural citations.

***

Although the Jewish nation was somewhat inclined to idolatry, still God commanded them to have some images.

“You shall make also two cherubim of beaten gold on the two sides of the oracle. Let one cherub be on the one side and the other on the other” [Ex 25:18].

“The Lord said to Moses: Make a brazen serpent, and set it up for a sign” [Num 21:8].

[Objection] “You shall not make for yourselves any idol or graven thing, neither shall you erect pillars, nor set up a remarkable stone in your land, to adore it” [Lev 26:1; RSV: “to bow down to them”]. . . . “You shall not make a graven image or a likenness of anything which is in heaven above, on the earth below, or of those things which are in the waters under the earth” [Ex 20:4]. Something similar is said in Ex 34:17; Dt 4:23; 5:8; 27:15, and in many other passages of the Old Testament.

[Reply] By what preceded and what follows God explains his intention, for just as he forbade strange gods to be worshiped, so he forbade images of them, yet because we do not take our saints for gods, we are not forbidden to make images of them. For before the quoted words, he says: “You shall not have strange gods before me,” “You shall not make for yourself anything graven,” etc. There follows: “You shall not adore them, or worship them.” Note: they ought not to be carried to that extreme. So does Luther himself understand this.

But if Leo Jud of Zurich is tied to the letter in the Jewish manner, saying that it is absolutely forbidden to make images, the corollary would be that Solomon sinned, when he made twelve little lions in his throne; he would have sinned by carving oxen in the brazen sea, and lions; and oxen and cherubim in the brazen basins [2 Ch 9; 1 K 7]. Who is so stupid as to believe that there was no painter, no sculptor in Judah, who then carved the cherubim? And if the use of such things among the Gentiles seems similar to our own, still they are far differently used; they use them to another end.

[Objection] Hezekiah broke the brazen serpent which Moses had made [2 K 18:4].

[Reply] That Hezekiah destroyed the serpent was caused by this abuse of the idolatrous people. For in the same passage there follows: “For till that time the children of Israel burnt incense to it” [2 K 18:4]. Hence, if it were a question of the abuse of any image, that ought to be abolished; therefore he withdrew the serpent, not because there was an image, but because the Jews were worshiping it.

[Objection] Christ promised that the time is coming and now is when true worshipers worship God in spirit and in truth [Jn 4:23]. But the Spirit is not influenced by images.

[Reply] We say that God is to be worshiped especially in spirit and in truth. Images admonish and remind us to do this. For that the spirit does not exclude sensible signs, the sacraments, which have been established in sensible signs, furnish us proof.

[Objection] Furthermore, the peril of idolatry lurks under images, and the danger of unclean thoughts as well.

[Reply] There is no danger of incurring idolatry, for the simpleminded can most easily be instructed to rectify their intention, considering that they are to refer their veneration not to the image itself, but to the prototype . . .

[Objection] Balthasar Hubmaier makes this horned argument: Either images have been commanded, and then Scripture is shown forth, or they have not been commanded, and then are not valid.

[Reply] It is clear from the first and second and fourth points, how truly horned is this argument . . . This is not commanded in Scripture, therefore it is not to be observed. On the contrary, by this horn let us accuse him: is there anything commanded in Scripture, which is nevertheless not to be observed, as for example, on the hallowing of the Sabbath, on not eating blood or strangled animals, etc.? . . . I shall say: to celebrate the Lord’s Day to him is either a commandment and is set forth by Scripture, or is not a commandment, and is consequently invalid— something even the heretic will not say!

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. 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: Christ and Saint Mina. 6th-century icon from Bawit, Egypt [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: One of a series of posts documenting the Catholic apologetics efforts of Johann Eck (1486-1543) against Protestantism. This entry addresses veneration of images.

Eck Vs. Protestantism Chronicles: Veneration of Saints

Last updated on: June 4, 2024 at 5:44 pm By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

Eck’s words will be in black; my interjections in blue, and citations from Luther and other famous Protestants in green. I use RSV for scriptural citations.

***

The Saints as friends of God ought to be implored to intercede for us, and although the Saints are not to be worshiped with latria, because this is owed to God alone, yet they are to be venerated with dulia. John 12:26: “If any man minister to me, him will my Father who is in heaven honor.” If therefore God honors the saints why should we not honor the saints? “So long as you do this to one of the least of these my brothers, you have done it unto me” [Mt 25:40]. Therefore honor shown to the saints is shown to God.

“But to me thy friends, 0 God, are made exceedingly honorable; their principality is exceedingly strengthened” [Ps 139:17].

“If Moses and Samuel shall stand before me, my soul is towards this people” [Jer 15:1]. . . . There Jeremiah is manifestly hinting that the saints pray for the people.

“Call now if there be any that will answer you, and turn to someone of the saints” [Job 5:1]. These words, indeed, although Eliphaz the Temanite spoke them to Job, yet Job did not rebuke them, but received them as the salutary advice of a friend. Thus also Elihu said: “If there shall be an angel speaking for him, one among like ones, to declare man’s uprightness, he (that is, God) shall have mercy on him, and shall say: Deliver him, that he may not go down to corruption, I have found wherein I may be merciful to him” [Job 33:23f].

“Go to my servant Job, and offer for yourselves a holocaust. . . his face I shall accept, that folly may not be imputed to you . . .” [Job 42:8]. And later: “The Lord also was turned toward the penance of Job, when the latter prayed for his friends [Job 42:10].

Jacob said: “. . . and let my name be called upon them, and the names of my fathers Abraham, and Isaac . . .” [Gen 48:16].

Moses said to him: “Let thy anger cease, and be appeased upon the wickedness of thy people. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel … to whom thou swarest by thy own self, saying: I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven” etc. [Ex 32:12f]. And there follows: “The Lord was appeased upon the wickedness of his people” [cf. Ex 32:14]. Azarias in the fiery furnace prayed, saying: “Deliver us not up for ever . . . for thy name’s sake, and abolish not thy covenant. And take not away thy mercy from us for the sake of Abraham thy beloved, and Isaac thy servant, and Israel thy holy one, to whom thou hast spoken, promising that thou wouldst multiply their seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand that is on the sea shore” [Dan 3:34-35]. And he was freed with his companions from the fiery furnace.

“O Lord Almighty, God of Israel, hear now the prayer of the dead of Israel and their sons who have sinned before thee” [Bar 4 3:4], etc.

“Judas Maccabeus saw Onias extending his hands to pray for the people of the Jews; after this he saw another man wonderful in age and glory, concerning whom Onias said: he is the lover of the brethren and of the people of Israel, who prays much for the people and the whole holy city, Jeremiah, the prophet of God” [2 Macc 15:12-14].

If the fathers of the Old Testament in limbo, not yet blessed with the clear vision of the divine countenance, were praying for their own, how much more are the saints in eternal blessedness contemplating ceaselessly God face to face, to be believed to be praying for us.

“In as much as you have done to one of the least, my brothers, you have done it unto me” [Mt 25:45]. Therefore if honor is shown to the saints, honor will be shown to God.

“For this every saint will pray to thee in a suitable time” [Ps 37:6]. The Hebrews read “every merciful one”: the blessed moreover are saints and merciful.

Absalom, reconciled to his father yet for two years stopping in Jerusalem, did not see the face of his father [2 K 14:24ff]. Thus the sinner reconciled to God does not immediately present himself to God, but through mediators and intercessors.

Solomon ordered a throne to be placed for his mother next to his own [1 K 2:19]. The true peacemaking Solomon, Christ, honoring his mother, does the same thing. . . .

All honor which we direct to the divine Virgin redounds to Christ, Son of God and of the Virgin: we honor the Virgin as mother in the Son, and the Son in the Virgin mother. . . .

The angels pray for us: “The angel of the Lord shall encamp round about them that fear him, and shall deliver them” [Ps 34:8].

“For he has given his angels charge over you, to guard your ways” [Ps 91:11].

The angel prays for the Jewish people: “0 Lord of hosts, how long wilt thou not have mercy on Jerusalem, and on the cities of Judah, with which thou hast been angry? . . . And the Lord answered the angel . . . good, comfortable words” [Zech 1:12f].

“The four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials, full of odors, which are the prayers of the saints” [Rev 5:8]. ” . . . the angel stood before the altar, having a golden censer, and there was given to him much incense, that he should offer of the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar, which is before the throne of God. And the smoke of the incense from the prayers of the saints ascended up before God from the hand of the angel” [Rev 8:3f].

“Are they not all ministering spirits, sent to minister for them, who shall receive the inheritances of salvation?” [Heb 1:14]. Therefore angels support us: why then is it not permitted to call upon their support [suffragia] and ministry?

And the same reason applies to the saints as to the angels whose equals they are in the kingdom of heaven [Lk 20:36; Mt 22:30; Mk 12:25].

“No word overcame him (Elisha), and after death his body prophesied; in his life he did great wonders, and in death he wrought miracles” [Ecclus 38:14f].

1. Christ intercedes for us according to his humanity before God the Father. “For Christ Jesus makes intercession for us” [cf. Heb 7:25].

“Jesus has an everlasting priesthood, whereby he is able also to save forever, those who come to God by him, always living to make intercession for us” [Heb 7:24f].

“But if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the just: and he is our propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world” [1 Jn 2:1f].

If therefore Christ as head prays for us, why not also the saints his members, (who conform themselves to Christ) asking with him[?] . . .

If the living pray for one another, why do the blessed dead not also do this, who are more perfect in charity and more powerful with God and purer in mind? . . . God wills to be called upon through his saints, “I sought among them for a man who might set up a hedge and stand in a gap before me in favor of the land, that I might not destroy it, and I found none” [Ez 22:30].

[Objection] Christ alone, God, is to be called on because he alone is sufficient. He alone is most generous and most merciful, loving us more than all saints do. “If you ask the Father anything in my name, he will give it you” [Jn 16:23]. “Ask and you shall receive; seek and you shall find” [Lk 11:9]. “All things whatever you shall ask in prayer, believing, you shall receive” [Mt 21:22]. “Let us go therefore with confidence to the throne of his grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace in seasonable aid” [Heb 4:16].

[Reply] We confess that what is to be prayed for is to be prayed in the name of Jesus, is to be prayed for with assurance, yet that does not exclude the saints, because also through the saints as members we pray in the name of Jesus their head. Hence the Church concludes that the collects of the saints are through Christ our Lord. And although God is best and most merciful, yet he is also most orderly, disposes all things sweetly, and draws the lower things through the middle things to the higher things, as Dionysius says.

[Objection] “There is one mediator of God and men, Christ Jesus” [1 Tim 2:5]. Why then do we want to make from among the saints
more mediators?

[Reply] There is one mediator of redemption, Jesus Christ, because he alone has redeemed the human race; there is no other name under heaven in whom we are to be saved, but there are very many mediators of intercession. Therefore there is one mediator through redemption, just as also there is one savior. For he alone is the good shepherd who has given his life as redemption for many. But there are many mediators through intercession, just as also Scripture mentions very many saviors. Moses says “I was the mediator and stood between the Lord and you” [Deut 5:5]. “Likewise he raised them up a savior [RSV: “deliverer”] Othoniel” [Judges 3:9]. . . .

***

We honor, venerate, invoke . . . God and His saints, yet in an unequal manner. Him (because He is first and beginning of being and conserving and governing for all, and alone gives grace and glory) we worship with latria, which is owed to Him alone in accordance with the Scripture: “You shall adore the Lord your God, and Him alone you shall serve” (Dt 6:13; Mt 4:10). And again: “To God alone be honor and glory” (1 Tim 1:17).

And with this adoration Mordecai would not adore Haman, fearing lest he might transfer to a man the honor owed to God (Esther 3:2). And the angel forbade John from wanting to worship him (Rev 22:8 f). The saints as intercessors and patrons, not as conferers of grace and glory, but (by their merits and prayers) as obtainers of requests with God, and thus far beneath God, we venerate, honor, and invoke with dulia. (which is shown to excellent creatures as a sign of reverence) but the Virgin, bearer of God, by hyperdulia. . . .

In the litany the Church teaches the difference between the invocation or adoration of God and of the saints, where first of all the Holy Trinity is invoked under the distinction of persons and the unity of essence, to have mercy upon us. Then the intercession of the saints is implored, to pray for us. Finally, the litany returns to God that He may deign to hearken to us while the saints are praying together with us, may free us from evil, grant us grace, and bestow eternal life. The Church observes a similar form of prayer in the . . . “collects” which are said on the festivals of the saints, where we implore divine clemency through the merits and intercessions of the saints. It concludes with: “Through our Lord Jesus Christ, who with thee lives and reigns” etc.

The invocation of the saints is not explicitly enjoined in the Scriptures. Not in the Old Testament: where the people had otherwise slipped into idolatry, and the fathers were in limbo, not yet blessed. “Abraham has not known us’, and Israel was ignorant of us” (Is 63:16). Under the Gospel too there was no precept, lest the Gentiles being converted might believe themselves once more led back into the cult of those born of earth, so they would have worshiped (according to the old custom) the saints not as patrons, but as gods: just as they wanted at Lycaonia to sacrifice to Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14:10). Now if the Apostles and Evangelists had taught that the saints were to be venerated, they would have been blamed for arrogance, as if they themselves had sought that glory after death. Therefore he would not teach by express scriptures the veneration of saints, . . .

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. 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: Transfiguration of Jesus [Elijah and Moses also appearing], by Carl Heinrich Bloch (1834-1890) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: One of a series of posts documenting the Catholic apologetics efforts of Johann Eck (1486-1543) against Protestantism. This entry addresses veneration of saints.