One of the most poorly understood aspects of the Old Testament (hence brought up a lot to us apologists) are the wars where God tells the Israelites to slay every man, woman, and child. This is seen as the equivalent of the evil massacres such as we see today. They are not at all.
What is missed is that these are instances of God’s judgment upon the particular nations involved, since they have reached an apex of wickedness and point of no return. God then uses the Jews as His agent of judgment. When they messed up and rebelled, they were judged as well: by the Egyptians, by the Assyrians and Babylonians, and later the Romans. But their judgment wasn’t to annihilation, because they were still His chosen people, to bring His message of grace and salvation to all of mankind.
Now, here is a quick proof of this: the key verse of which just happened to catch my eye today, while looking for something else. The Hebrews / Israelites / Jews were to inherit the Promised Land. In order to do that, they had to drive out several nation-states that inhabited it already. Here is what God said to Abraham, when He told him he was to be a great father of nations:
Genesis 15: 13-16 (RSV) Then the LORD said to Abram, “Know of a surety that your descendants will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs, and will be slaves there, and they will be oppressed for four hundred years; [14] but I will bring judgment on the nation which they serve, and afterward they shall come out with great possessions. [15] As for yourself, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried in a good old age. [16] And they shall come back here in the fourth generation; for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete.”
See that last word, “complete”? That goes with “iniquity.” The idea was that the wickedness of the Amorites would not yet reach its fullness — be “complete” — till another four generations (roughly 120-160 years). At that time, in God’s Providence they were to be judged, and that was by the Jews as God’s agent of judgment, when they took over their land. God thus accomplishes two things: judges one nation and gives to another the land He promised to them. Both things are just and righteous. God has the right to utterly judge and kill even a whole nation because He is the creator, and gave moral standards to men, that they fully know from conscience, even prior to receiving revelation.
God makes it quite clear in many passages, that HE is the one acting: driving our and/or destroying nations. The Jews were just His vessels (Ex 23:23; 33:2; 34:11; Dt 7:1; 31:4; Josh 3:10; 10:12; 24:8, 18; 1 Ki 21:26; many more). Because He is the one judging wicked nations; therefore He gives orders like the following:
Deuteronomy 20:16-17 But in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God gives you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, [17] but you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Per’izzites, the Hivites and the Jeb’usites, as the LORD your God has commanded;
God also makes it clear that this is not because the Jews were inherently superior to the nations being judged:
Deuteronomy9:3-6 Know therefore this day that he who goes over before you as a devouring fire is the LORD your God; he will destroy them and subdue them before you; so you shall drive them out, and make them perish quickly, as the LORD has promised you. [4] “Do not say in your heart, after the LORD your God has thrust them out before you, `It is because of my righteousness that the LORD has brought me in to possess this land’; whereas it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD is driving them out before you. [5] Not because of your righteousness or the uprightness of your heart are you going in to possess their land; but because of the wickedness of these nations the LORD your God is driving them out from before you, and that he may confirm the word which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. [6] “Know therefore, that the LORD your God is not giving you this good land to possess because of your righteousness; for you are a stubborn people.”
These nations are judged “because of . . . wickedness” (Dt. 9:4-5), and the exact time is foreknown by God: precisely when their “iniquity . . . is . . . complete” (Gen 15:16).
How much is in a word! “Complete” in context here says it all . . . But one must understand beforehand basic “theology of God” concepts such as Providence, foreknowledge, and God’s prerogative of judging nations for sin, via secondary agents. On a few occasions, God basically acts alone in judgment: such as Sodom and Gomorrah, which were destroyed (Gen 19:24-25) because not even ten righteous people could be found in them (Gen 18:20-21, 32). But even here, the Bible informs us that two angels assist in destroying them (Gen 19:1, 13).
NOTE: This topic is too emotional for most people to discuss with objectivity (it’s right up there with hell); therefore, I have closed the comments. The excessively emotional comments / queries that were formerly here have been replied to already in one or more of the above papers.I urge anyone who has questions about these matters to read some of the papers above.
Last updated on: May 25, 2017 at 7:34 pm By Dave Armstrong
Works of Mercy (c. 1680), by Pierre Montallier (1643-1697) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
***
(10-10-13)
***
This took place spontaneously in a Facebook post announcing a new paper of mine. Bethany is a very friendly evangelical with Calvinist leanings. Her words will be in blue.
* * * * *
We are justified by our faith and our works, and it is not of ourselves. It’s not a contradiction when James says we are justified by works, because if we are saved we will necessarily have works…
For example, you can’t control your own conception or birth, and Jesus metaphorically explained salvation as being “born again”. A baby is born, not of his own will, but of God’s. A baby cannot will himself into existence, and neither can one dead in trespasses and sins will themselves into being made alive in Christ.
How do we know a baby is alive? By seeing if he is breathing, kicking, sucking, etc. By the baby’s works, we find evidence he has been born. This is the way we come to the conclusion that he is alive.
In the same way, our works “justify” in that they provide evidence for our rebirth. A baby can only be born once, and likewise one can be spiritually born only once.
We don’t disagree on those matters, as I noted.
So you don’t believe we in any way earn our salvation?
We can’t earn our salvation by our own efforts, considered in isolation from God’s grace (the heresy of Pelagianism). We can, however merit in God’s sight by applying the gift of God that He gave us (as St. Augustine put it: God “crowning His own gifts”), and working together with Him. After regeneration and initial justification we can do meritorious works, enabled and bathed in God’s grace.
These are not abstractly separated from salvation and put in a neat little box of “sanctification only,” as Reformed and other Protestants do. Since true biblical justification is infused and transformative, works are part of justification.
Hence we find that, e.g., in 50 Bible passages I’ve found about the final judgment, only works are mentioned and never faith. One cannot help but to find that striking.
If they’re not completely separated from salvation, isn’t that saying they play a role in achieving salvation?
Yes, in the sense I said. The problem is that Protestants almost always misunderstand the exact sense that Catholics believe in. 90% of all such discussions require time spent simply explaining what we believe, because the misunderstandings are so massive and systematic.
If you read my recent paper vs. James White, I explain much of this in it. I wrote in the paper, citing one of my own books [Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths]:
For the Catholic, justification is not the same thing as salvation or the attainment of eternal life. It can be lost or rejected by means of human free will and disobedience. So, to assert “justification by works,” even in a qualified sense, is not at all the same as asserting salvation by works. Therefore, it is scripturally improper to assert either salvation by works alone or salvation by faith alone. They are never taught in Holy Scripture, and are both denied more than once. Justification by faith or justification by works can be asserted in a limited sense, as Scripture does: always understood as hand-in-hand with the other two elements in the grace-faith-works triumvirate.
Also from the paper:
Catholics believe we are justified by faith and also by grace-based works done by the regenerate believer in conjunction with faith, as a co-laborer with God (1 Cor 3:9; 15:10; 2 Cor 6:1). . . . The Bible elsewhere freely places Rahab’s faith and works together. They are of a piece: neither can or should be ignored:
Hebrews 11:31 [RSV] By faith Rahab the harlot did not perish with those who were disobedient, because she had given friendly welcome to the spies.
Notice the “because” in the verse? Moreover, it is not foreign Scripture, to expressly state that works are the cause of justification or even a central criterion for eternal life. We’ve already noted this in Paul, above. Here it is again (repetition being a good teaching device):
Romans 2:13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.
So you don’t believe the works themselves in any way merit salvation, except in the sense Protestants believe… That our works are the fruit of our salvation and not our means of earning or keeping it?
I did read most of the article… Okay I skimmed it… But I do feel confused about what you’re saying because it sounds like you’re saying two things.
I have talked to many Catholics who believe that you must work in order to enter heaven… Not as a result of salvation but the cause of it. I once had a friend who I asked, if you were standing before God and he asked you why he should let you into heaven, what would you say? She replied, not mentioning Christ once, but listing her various works.
And she was very scriptural, because that is what the Bible always gives as a reason to enter heaven. I found 50 of these passages. But in the case of Rahab the harlot, the Bible also refers to her faith, which was the cause of her works.
I will send you my book on salvation: e-book in a PM. I also have lots of material on my Justification and Salvation page that goes over all these sorts of questions.
Thanks Dave, I’ll read it.
If we can tell God that he should let us in on the basis of our works, then that nullifies, “lest any man should boast.”
Why does Scripture mention works only every time it discusses the last judgment and being let into heaven or sent to hell? Matthew 25 is the classic . . . I wouldn’t argue that this means faith is no factor, but the fact remains that it is absent in all those accounts. Therefore, works cannot be separated from the equation of final salvation. But they are always accompanied by faith and enabled by God’s free grace.
It’s not boasting about works, but showing one’s genuine faith via works, as in James; showing that it is a real faith and not dead, lifeless, unfruitful faith.
It’s showing faith that on the basis of works, and not Christs atonement, God should allow you into heaven though. The question was “why should I let you in heaven”. If the answer to “why” is “because I was good”, that is boasting in your works to enter heaven.
The Bible talks about works the same reason I say a baby is alive because of his works (breathing, crying, etc.) Could a baby boast that he breathes? Or cries? Those abilities only came through the credit of God.
Whatever you call it; it’s scriptural. Our answer to God’s question of why we should go to heaven when we stand before Him, could incorporate any one or all of the following 50 responses: all perfectly biblical, and many right from the words of God Himself:
1) I am characterized by righteousness.
2) I have integrity.
3) I’m not wicked.
4) I’m upright in heart.
5) I’ve done good deeds.
6) I have good ways.
7) I’m not committing abominations.
8 ) I have good conduct.
9) I’m not angry with my brother.
10) I’m not insulting my brother.
11) I’m not calling someone a fool.
12) I have good fruits.
13) I do the will of God.
14) I hear Jesus’ words and do them.
15) I endured to the end.
16) I fed the hungry.
17) I provided drink to the thirsty.
18) I clothed the naked.
19) I welcomed strangers.
20) I visited the sick.
21) I visited prisoners.
22) I invited the poor and the maimed to my feast.
23) I’m not weighed down with dissipation.
24) I’m not weighed down with drunkenness.
25) I’m not weighed down with the cares of this life.
26) I’m not ungodly.
27) I don’t suppress the truth.
28) I’ve done good works.
29) I obeyed the truth.
30) I’m not doing evil.
31) I have been a “doer of the law.”
32) I’ve been a good laborer and fellow worker with God.
33) I’m unblamable in holiness.
34) I’ve been wholly sanctified.
35) My spirit and soul and body are sound and blameless.
36) I know God.
37) I’ve obeyed the gospel.
38) I’ve shared Christ’s sufferings.
39) I’m without spot or blemish.
40) I’ve repented.
41) I’m not a coward.
42) I’m not faithless.
43) I’m not polluted.
44) I’m not a murderer.
45) I’m not a fornicator.
46) I’m not a sorcerer.
47) I’m not an idolater.
48) I’m not a liar.
49) I invited the lame to my feast.
50) I invited the blind to my feast.
Where does Jesus get glory in all of that list?
It’s not boasting. We understand that it is from God. Yet we still did them, working with God’s grace, as Paul says: “working together with him . . . ” “Boasting” in the sense that Paul condemns would be saying that “I did these works with no help from God’s grace at all; therefore I have earned heaven.” That is the Pelagian heresy.
What he did on Calvary just seems ignored… And that is my main problem. He became sin for us. All of our sin was laid on him. By his stripes we were healed. Sin was inputed to him, and righteousness was imputed to us.
He gets the glory as the source of the grace that enabled all the works. This is what the Bible says: all that is straight from biblical accounts. If you say it is not giving God glory then your beef is with the Bible itself and Jesus and Paul’s and other’s words, not with Catholicism. Read Jesus’ words in Matthew 25:
Matthew 25:31-46 When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. Then the King will say to those at his right hand, `Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?’ And the King will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.’ Then he will say to those at his left hand, `Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?’ Then he will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.’ And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
But notice that the sheep asked him, when did we do these things? They did not recall their goodness for merit.
I hope you know I’m not trying to be annoying with these questions.
You’re not interacting with the biblical data . . . . this was the same problem with White’s chapter. He read into the text things that weren’t there, whereas I exegeted it and gave relevant cross-references.
When we stand before a righteous and holy God, can we really see ourselves as righteous except by his imputed righteousness? Isaiah cried, I am a man of unclean lips… Was he not a righteous man?
Yes, and now you’ve stumbled into why purgatory is so necessary. Thanks! We make it to heaven because we’ve exercised faith by God’s grace, in Jesus; accepting His death on the cross on our behalf; exhibited by works. Now we have to be made actually holy and without sin, and that’s where purgatory is necessary for almost all of us.
No; that is the reason that atonement is necessary. That is why when God asks, “why should I let you into heaven?” I can say , “thank you for providing a lamb to take place of me, taking on the full penalty for all of my sins, so that I could enter heaven. Thank you for your promise, your free gift.” Purgatory implies that Jesus payment was not enough.
You can say that; sure. My point was that whenever Scripture deals with this exact topic, that is never what it describes as being said; rather, it’s always works. And that is what you have to grapple with: why that is. The same Jesus also said:
Matthew 7:16-23 You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? [17] So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. [18] A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. [19] Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. [20] Thus you will know them by their fruits. [21] “Not every one who says to me, `Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. [22] On that day many will say to me, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ [23] And then will I declare to them, `I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.’
Ok well I will agree to disagree for now.
Like I said, you’re not disagreeing with me, but multiple instances of inspired Scripture. All I’ve done is cite Scripture on this. James explains all of this nicely, and that was the topic of White’s chapter that I replied to:
James 2:14-26 What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? [15] If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, [16] and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? [17] So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. [18] But some one will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith. [19] You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe — and shudder. [20] Do you want to be shown, you shallow man, that faith apart from works is barren? [21] Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? [22] You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, [23] and the scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”; and he was called the friend of God. [24] You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. [25] And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? [26] For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.
Echoed by Paul:
Romans 2:5-13 But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed. [6] For he will render to every man according to his works: [7] to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; [8] but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. [9] There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, [10] but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. [11] For God shows no partiality. [12] All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. [13] For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.
I’m sorry I realized that sounded abrupt. I didn’t mean it to sound that way. I had a baby crying in the background so had to tend to him.
We have both cited Scripture. You more than me since I was basically asking questions, but I agree with all the scripture you post. We have disagreement on the interpretation of those scriptures. You agree there, I’m sure.
Last updated on: June 3, 2017 at 5:33 pm By Dave Armstrong
The Last Judgment, by Hans Memling (c. 1433-1494) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
***
(7 June 2002: from prior papers)
***
It is quite morally reasonable to assume that God would give every person enough knowledge and revelation of Himself, thus ample opportunity, to repent. Romans 1:18-32 and 2:12-16 would seem to make that clear. Romans 1:20 is a general statement, applying to all people. In other words all people know there is a God, through creation (cf. Job 12:7-9; Ps 19:1-6; Jer 5:21-24). Romans 1:19 says it is plain to the wicked as well. So all know that God exists, but some wickedly suppress what they know to be true (1:18,21,25,28,32). The truth of God and the moral law is known intrinsically by humans, but it is suppressed. Also, passages about sudden death seem to me to imply that judgment follows, with no further chance of salvation: e.g., “Thou fool! This very night thy soul is required of thee!” or, “The Son of Man will come as a thief in the night” (i.e., some people will be unprepared). Many people never hear the gospel preached, but I do think that God gives sufficient knowledge and grace for all to know Him and to repent. The ones who haven’t heard the gospel still know enough — simply by being made in God’s image, conscience, etc. — to possibly be saved. No one will have any excuse on Judgment Day, whether they heard the Christian gospel or not, because the law is “written on their hearts.” Scripture teaches that sufficient grace is available for all regardless of circumstances of time, place, and other variables. The damned reject what they know. They are not merely ignorant of what they could have known, given a different, more fortunate circumstance. This is the biblical position.
++++++++++
Purgatory offers an aspect of further grace after death, but it is not a second chance. Whoever goes there is already “saved” in the sense that they are destined for heaven. Purgatory is the anteroom to heaven; not a fire escape from hell. It is not a “minimum security” hell, but rather, a beastly and uncomfortable “hot room” of the heavenly mansion. Even so, there are more pleasures to be had there than on earth. One is much closer to God there. ++++++++++
The law is already on everyone’s heart. If a further chance for salvation after death existed (as some theological liberals claim), why the biblical warnings about sudden death? I would say the nonexistence of a second chance after death is presupposed in, e.g., the parables of the wedding feast (Matthew 22:1-14) and the talents (Matthew 25:14-30). This is even more evident in the parable of the ten bridesmaids (Matthew 25:1-13), where the damned persons in the parable went to Jesus (i.e., after the 2nd coming: 25:6,10), but the “door was shut.” It was already too late. Jesus did not “know” them (25:12). So the moral of that story is:
Keep awake therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour. (Matt 25:12; NRSV)
All of this makes little sense on the assumption that there exists another chance for salvation after death. Note that they are described as “foolish,” not merely ignorant. They obviously knew about the bridegroom. This is all harmonious with Romans 1:18-32. Hebrews 9:27 is clear anyway:
. . . it is appointed for mortals to die once, and after that the judgment. (NRSV)
Furthermore, there is another frightening passage where Jesus discusses the coming of the Kingdom: Luke 17:20-37 (cf. Matt 24:26-28,37-44; Mk 13:32-37; Lk 21:34-36). He makes analogies to the Second Coming, which is alluded to in 17:24 and 17:30. “In the days of Noah” men were “eating and drinking, and marrying . . .” until “the flood came and destroyed all of them.” (17:26-27). They did have a hundred years or so to listen to old man Noah, but then that was all in this life, not the next. They rejected his counsel, and were judged and killed, and this is later compared to being thrown into hell, as I will explain shortly. Then Jesus compares Sodom to those who will be alive at the time of the Second Coming. They were “eating and drinking, buying and selling,” etc. (17:28). Then “it rained fire and sulfur from heaven and destroyed all of them” (17:29). Jesus says that’s how it will be when He returns (17:30). Our Lord urges vigilance and preparation in order to avoid damnation and judgment (17:31-33). Then the climax: He proceeds to explain that “on that night [when the Son of Man returns] there will be two in one bed; one will be taken and the other left” (17:34). He reiterates the point in 17:35. This is our warning of (sudden) judgment, as compared to the situations before the flood and the destruction of Sodom. The disciples ask Jesus where the persons who are “taken” go. He answers:
. . . Where the corpse is, there the vultures will gather. (17:37)
Now, apparently it is variously interpreted by commentators, but it seems to me that Jesus is here referring to hell, specifically Gehenna, which was His own word-picture for hell. Gehenna (from valley of Hinnom) was the garbage-heap of Jerusalem, outside the city walls. Much evil had previously taken place there (false idols, child sacrifice, pagan ceremonies, etc.). Gehenna/hell is described by Jesus in Mark 9:48 as a place “where their worm never dies, and the fire is never quenched” (cf. Isa 14:11). Dead bodies of executed criminals used to be cast into Gehenna (see, e.g., Jer 31:40). Worms used to feed upon the bodies, and fires were kept burning, for obvious reasons. In Isaiah 66:24, we read:
And they shall go out and look at the dead bodies of the people who have rebelled against me; for their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.
Interestingly, the latter statement is also in the context of the Second Coming of Christ, as indicated by Isaiah 66:15-16,22. The conclusion I draw, therefore, is this: Jesus is showing how judgment is very sudden. There will be no time to repent, and judgment will be swift. Physical death is clearly analogous to spiritual death in these passages. No second chance for salvation is even remotely implied. If we had such a further hope as this, the Bible would explicitly mention it somewhere.
++++++++++
What is truly callous is a view which lets people do whatever they want, until they stand before God and “make it right” when all the cards are on the table. They had more than enough time while on earth. God reveals Himself to all who seek Him. Someone who willfully rejects God all their life will not accept Him once they meet Him face to face, except out of a desire to save their own skin. Human rebellion and wickedness is often greatly underestimated. Self-preservation is not a good enough reason for God to save someone. There must be real repentance, and an acceptance of salvation as a free gift, and a true desire to follow God. Jesus taught (recounting Abraham’s words) that if people didn’t believe Moses and the Prophets, they wouldn’t believe even if someone were to rise from the dead (Lk 16:27-31). This is sheer rebellion, not mere ignorance.
++++++++++
Hell is the equivalent of a son — properly raised and loved — going out and joining the Mafia or KKK and totally rejecting his upbringing. His parents love him but alas, he goes further astray with each passing day. They reach out — he spurns them repeatedly. Now whose fault is that? Is this lifestyle choice by the son directly attributable to a lack of love from the parents? God didn’t make robots. He made free agents whom He will allow even to reject Him if they so choose. If that free will is real and not just illusory, then hell is inevitable. There has to be a place reserved for people who want nothing to do with God. Free will makes both evil and hell inevitable. God has the power over life and death, and He is Judge. “The Lord giveth; the Lord taketh away.” (Job, who understood this very well). All people know there is a God, through creation (cf. Job 12:7-9; Ps 19:1-6; Jer 5:21-24). Romans 1:19 says it is plain to the wicked as well. So all know that God exists. When Hitler or Stalin stand before God, they will be forced to explain themselves and their evil actions. They will be made to know beyond any doubt, beyond any of man’s foolish rationalizations, delusions, blame-shifting, and excuses, that their penalty is just; that they chose it of their own free will, and that God respects free will so much that he will let them spend eternity without Him. In a realm where God is not, there is undescribable evil. That is all that is necessary to explain the existence and nature of hell. It is not God’s fault at all. Rather, it is Satan and man which have created the aberration of hell.
++++++++++
In the Catholic view, salvation is a process of continual growth. Righteousness (and sanctification) is an acquired habit, which we must cultivate, guard and “pamper” — all due to the enabling power of God’s grace. Everyone makes a choice at every moment of the day to follow the path of righteousness or the path of death and destruction. Choices become habits; habits form character. Someone who gives little thought to God all during their life is not likely at all to accept God, even after death. They have coddled and babied their rebellion and wickedness throughout their life. Many have concluded that God is evil, and are willing to say that to His face when they meet Him. I have heard people say this, many times. What folly man commits! This is what Malcolm Muggeridge (in his inimitable manner) called “unresisting imbecility” or “fathomless incredulity.” This psychological/spiritual dynamic is amply verified by the treatment of Jesus. The truly humble and repentant ones instinctively understood who He was, or at least that they should follow His teachings and He Himself. Those who were prideful and trusting in their own works or the fact of their Jewishness to save themselves (Pelagianism) rejected Him, no matter what He did. When He performed miracles, they simply said He had a demon, and performed miracles by the power of Beelzebub. They saw Him as a threat to their political and ecclesiastical power, and so trumped up charges to dispose of Him (as John the Baptist was also treated). This is similar to our rationalizations by which we pretend that God doesn’t exist, so that He doesn’t mess up our lives. Finally, even His Resurrection didn’t move these people at all (as He had predicted: Luke 16:31). They immediately adopted a ludicrous view that the disciples stole the body. It’s obvious that human rebelliousness knows no bounds. Yet some people simplistically assume that once such a person dies they will immediately repent. Such a “repentance” is likely only the self-preservation instinct and not true contrition. I can conceive of a situation in which God does offer one last chance right before He commences judgment, but the Bible doesn’t reveal it that way, and the Church has never held such a view. In any event, I think people’s minds and wills are already made up by the time they die — by virtue of the life choices they have made.
++++++++++
God is Judge, and He is holy. He has the prerogative to judge His creatures, who have rebelled against Him and rejected His infinite love and mercy. I don’t know why this is so hard for so many to comprehend. It all follows as soon as free will is accepted. People want to blame God (or, in effect, change His nature to fit the image they have of what God should be like); I put the blame squarely on man. It is a fundamentally different approach. I accept God’s Revelation and His self-description on their own terms; those who reject the biblical revelation try to judge God and His teachings recorded there by a moral sense which was given to them by God in the first place. The stream can’t rise higher than the Source . . . Without a moral and loving God (“God is love”) there can be no absolute and binding standard of morality in the first place.
++++++++++
As to people’s knowledge of God’s character and mercy: all men have enough knowledge to choose to follow and adore God, but some men are granted extra knowledge. And some choose not to accept what is self-evident. This necessarily follows in a fallen world, in which much unfairness exists. And it is always ultimately a great mystery why some are saved and others are not.
++++++++++
It is folly for us to try to perceive God as if He is limited in knowledge and in time, like ourselves. He is not. God is all-loving, all-holy, and all-knowing. He knows what people would have done, given the chance, and I believe He incorporates that into His Final Judgment of each individual, just as I believe this is particularly true for infants (e.g., those slaughtered in their mother’s wombs). God looks at the heart. We look at outward appearances. God is not arbitrary and petulant. A far different God is revealed in Scripture, history, and in our own individual experiences of His ever-present mercy and forgiveness. All false beliefs come from below, and we allow ourselves to be deceived by the Evil One to a far greater degree than we are aware. All of us no doubt have sincere, false beliefs at this very moment. But there is an underlying spiritual battle to which Romans 1 refers. I believe that all individuals can arrive at spiritual truth if they just seek it wholeheartedly, and that this (necessarily) derives from the same grace which makes our salvation possible, because God is Knowledge as well as Love. Truth and salvation go hand in hand.
++++++++++
God distributes His grace sufficiently for all, despite differential circumstances and willingness to receive and act upon it. And God “evens things out” by taking into account the individual’s circumstances and environment, which affect both his judgment and culpability. Middle Knowledge allows God to know what people would have done, and I believe He acts accordingly, where the salvation of individuals is concerned. “Equal opportunity salvation” is grounded in God’s sufficient grace for all, universal atonement, and God’s recognition of the unfair burdens and deficiencies that many of us labor under, through no fault of our own (without undermining man’s profound and willful rebellion and wickedness at all). God knows everything, including future conditionals, and this makes His final judgment fair and just and loving, whether or not we fully comprehend it. I submit that we will one day, as we will be given extraordinary knowledge in heaven. We will have all of eternity to ponder these questions and God’s ineffable character and Providence which trouble many people so much now.
Photo credit: The Annunciation (1644), by Philippe de Champaigne (1602-1674) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
1) Luke 2:7 (RSV) And she gave birth to her first-born son . . .
Critics of the perpetual virginity of Mary (“PVM”) contend that “first-born” in Luke 2:7 is proof of — or at least strongly implies — that the Blessed Virgin Mary bore additional children. But “first-born” in Hebrew (bekor / בְּכוֹר: Strong’s word #1060) referred primarily to the first male son who “opened the womb”. Hence:
2)Numbers 3:12 Behold, I have taken the Levites from among the people of Israel instead of every first-born that opens the womb among the people of Israel. (cf. “opens the womb” in Ex 13:12; 34:19; Num 18:15)
Bekor did not include within itself reference to any additional children. The fact that this first male child was automatically called (when there were no other children) “first-born” shows by common sense that it applied whether or not additional children were in mind. In other words, it didn’t mean, by definition, “first of many” because if indeed it necessarily implied other children, then it could only have been used after those children had been born, in retrospect. But in fact this was not the practice. This understanding was the same in the New Testament, as shown by this passage:
3)Luke 2:22-23 And when the time came for their purification according to the law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord [23] (as it is written in the law of the Lord, “Every male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord”)
The word in Luke 2:7 is prototokos / πρωτότοκος: Strong’s word #4416. Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (one-volume edition, p. 967) states about its meaning in this verse: “Of itself it does not necessarily imply that Mary has other children.” Likewise, the Protestant Hastings Bible Dictionary (“Brethren of the Lord [2]”) concurs:
πρωτότοκος [prototokos / firstborn] among the Jews was a technical term, meaning ‘that which openeth the womb’ (Exodus 34:19 ff.), and does not imply the birth of other offspring.
4)Matthew 1:24-25 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife, [25] but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus.
This verse has been used as a supposed “proof” that Mary didn’t remain a virgin after the birth of Jesus, and that it necessarily implies a future change from what was the state of affairs before, but it proves no such thing, because in both English grammar and biblical usage it can simply mean “up to the time of” with no reference to the time after that. Compare also the following similar usages:
5)1 Samuel 16:23 And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to the day of her death.
So she had one after her death?
6)Matthew 11:12 From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and men of violence take it by force.
Violence clearly didn’t cease at that time; it was ongoing.
7) Philippians 1:5 thankful for your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now.
So Paul wasn’t thankful to the Philippian Christians anymore after the time he wrote that?
8)1 Timothy 4:13 Till I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching.
Are they supposed to stop doing so after he arrives?
9)John 19:26-27When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” [27] Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.
Mary is committed to the care of the Apostle John by Jesus from the cross. Many Protestant interpreters agree with the Catholic view that Jesus likely wouldn’t have done this if He had brothers (who would all have been younger than He was). It would have been a rank insult to these siblings, if they had actually existed: especially the fact that a non-son was called Mary’s “son” by Jesus. Or are we to believe that they had all suddenly died in the space of the three years of Jesus’ ministry or immigrated to Egypt or something?
Renowned Anglican scholar J. B. Lightfoot even thought that this consideration by itself decisively disproved the “siblings” theory. Some try to evade this difficulty by claiming that all of His siblings didn’t believe in Him; therefore, Jesus chose one of His disciples. But that’s simply a gratuitous assumption and special pleading. The Bible doesn’t state such a thing, and that wouldn’t have been relevant in Jewish culture, anyway: children took care of older parents.
10)Luke 1:30-31, 34 And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. [31] And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, . . . [34] And Mary said to the angel, “How shall this be, since I have no husband?”
Catholics believe that Mary’s reply to the angel Gabriel indicates a prior vow of consecrated virginity. St. Augustine, in his work Holy Virginity (4, 4), wrote: “Surely, she would not say, ‘How shall this be?’ unless she had already vowed herself to God as a virgin . . . If she intended to have intercourse, she wouldn’t have asked this question!”
11)The Greek word for “brother” in the New Testament is adelphos / ἀδελφός: Strong’s word #80). The well-known Protestant linguistic reference An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, by W.E. Vine, defines it as follows:
Adelphos: denotes a brother, or near kinsman; in the plural, a community based on identity of origin or life. It is used of: 1) male children of the same parents . . .; 2) male descendants of the same parents, Acts 7:23, 26; Hebrews 7:5; . . .4) people of the same nationality, Acts 3:17, 22; Romans 9:3 . . .; 5) any man, a neighbour, Luke 10:29; Matthew 5:22, 7:3; 6) persons united by a common interest, Matthew 5:47; 7) persons united by a common calling, Revelation 22:9; 8) mankind, Matthew 25:40; Hebrews 2:17; 9) the disciples, and so, by implication, all believers, Matthew 28:10; John 20:17; 10) believers, apart from sex, Matthew 23:8; Acts 1:15; Romans 1:13; 1 Thessalonians 1:4; Revelation 19:10 (the word ‘sisters’ is used of believers, only in 1 Timothy 5:2) . . .
It is evident, therefore, from the range of possible definitions of adelphos, that Jesus’ “brothers” need not necessarily be siblings of Jesus on linguistic grounds, as many commentators, learned and unlearned (rather remarkably), seem to assume uncritically (some even foolishly thinking that this word alone disproves the PVM).
12) Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit;
Critics of the PVM think this proves that Joseph and Mary had normal marital (conjugal) relations after the birth of Jesus. But the Greek word for “came together” (sunerchomai / συνέρχομαι: Strong’s word #4905), has a wide range of meaning, almost always not about sex. In fact, if we look at all the New Testament usages of this word, only one instance out of the 29 besides Matthew 1:18 is plainly sexual in meaning, in context (1 Cor 7:5).
In 28 other cases, its use is clearly not sexual in nature (Mk 3:20; 6:33; 14:53; Lk 5:15; 23:55; Jn 11:33; 18:20; Acts 1:6, 21; 2:6; 5:16; 9:39; 10:23, 27, 45; 11:12; 15:38; 16:13; 19:32; 21:16, 22; 25:17; 28:17; 1 Cor 11:17, 18, 20, 33, 34; 14:23, 26). It could simply have referred to the time they would actually live together as a married couple (because they didn’t during betrothal); when the husband takes her into his home (cf. Dt 20:7).
Another counter-argument is to list different translations where sunerchomai in this passage does not (necessarily) have a sexual connotation:
Phillips / New English Bible / REB: “before their marriage”
Today’s English Version / Goodspeed / CEV: “before they were married”
Barclay: “before they became man and wife”
Jerusalem: “before they came to live together”
Williams: “before they had lived together”
NRSV / Beck: “before they lived together”
Neither “marriage” nor “living together” means “engaging in sexual relations.” Granted, the latter usually is associated with the former, but they don’t mean the same thing, which is at issue. If these translators had thought that the latter was what the author (or context) intended or required, then clearly they wouldn’t have translated as they did. But no less than eleven translations (only the Jerusalem Bible has a connection with Catholicism) render the word in this fashion: in a way that does not support the “anti-perpetual virginity” position.
I am happy to yield to their professional judgment, as shown in the ways that they decided to translate the word sunerchomai in this instance. And the phrase “come together” itself does not necessarily mean sexuality (in English) either. It could, but it’s not clear-cut. Moreover, there is no translation I have located that expresses a sexual meaning beyond any reasonable or linguistic doubt.
13) In the King James Version, Jacob is called the “brother” of his Uncle Laban (Gen 29:15 / 29:10). The same thing occurs with regard to Lot and Abraham (Genesis 14:14 / 11:26-27). The Revised Standard Version uses “kinsman” at 29:15 and 14:14.
14) Neither Hebrew nor Aramaic has a word for “cousin.” Although the New Testament was written in Greek, which does have such a word, the literal rendering of the Hebrew word ach, which was used by the first disciples and Jesus, is indeed adelphos, the literal equivalent of the English “brother.”
15) In Luke 2:41-51: the story of Mary and Joseph taking Jesus to the temple at the age of twelve, it’s fairly obvious that Jesus is the only child. Since everyone agrees He was the first child of Mary, if there were up to five or more siblings, as some maintain (arguing, for example, from Matthew 13:55), they were nowhere to be found at this time.
This would mean that Mary had no further children for at least twelve years after Jesus (in the “siblings / Helvidian theory”). Mary was estimated to have been sixteen at His birth, which would then make her still only around 28 at this time. We’re to believe that it makes sense that she bore her first child at sixteen and then had no more from 16-28, and then had four or more after that? That’s not very plausible.
And when Mary said to Jesus, “your father and I have been looking for you anxiously” (2:48), wouldn’t she have said, “your father and I and your brothers an sisters . . .”? When Joseph and Mary were looking for Jesus, it doesn’t say they went to His supposed five brothers and four sisters (I would certainly do that first, as a parent); rather, “they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintances” (Lk 2:44). When they set out for Jerusalem, the Bible states that “he [Jesus] went down with them and came to Nazareth” (2:51). When they left, it’s described as, “And he went down with them and came to Nazareth . . . ” (2:51). Now it’s true that this doesn’t technically rule out siblings, but it sure doesn’t positively suggest them, does it?
16)Jesus Himself uses “brethren” in the larger sense. In Matthew 23:8 He calls the “crowds” and His “disciples” (23:1) “brethren.” In other words, they are eachother’s “brothers” (that is, the brotherhood of Christians).
17) In Matthew 12:49-50 Jesus calls His disciples and all who do the will of His Father “my brothers.”
18)Mark 15:40 . . . Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salo’me
19)Matthew 27:56. . . Mary the mother of James and Joseph, . . .
20) John 19:25 . . .But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas,
This other Mary (Matthew 27:61, 28:1) is called the Blessed Virgin Mary’s adelphe above (it isn’t likely that there were two women named “Mary” in one family, so she was likely a sister-in-law — 2nd century Hegesippus, as recorded in Eusebius, held that Clopas was the brother of St. Joseph — or a cousin: adelphe can be used for both).
21-22)Matthew 13:55-56 (cf. Mark 6:3) mentions “his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas” and “his sisters,” but in Mark 15:40 and Matthew 27:56 above, James and Joseph are also called sons of Mary, wife of Clopas. Therefore, at least those two aren’t Jesus’ siblings. But all are called “brothers.”
23) It’s true that sungenis (Greek for “cousin”) and its cognate sungenia appear in the New Testament fifteen times (sungenia: Lk 1:61; Acts 7:3, 14; sungenis: Mk 6:4; Lk 1:36, 58; 2:44; 14:12; 21:16; Jn 18:26; Acts 10:24; Rom 9:3; 16:7, 11, 21). But they are usually translated kinsmen, kinsfolk, or kindred in KJV: that is, in a sense wider than cousin: often referring to the entire nation of Hebrews.
Thus, the eminent Protestant linguist W. E. Vine, in his Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, lists sungenis not only under “Cousin” but also under “Kin, Kinsfolk, Kinsman, Kinswoman.” In all but two of these occurrences, the authors were either Luke or Paul. Luke was a Greek Gentile. Paul, though Jewish, was raised in the very cosmopolitan, culturally Greek town of Tarsus. But even so, both still clearly used adelphos many times with the meaning of non-sibling (Lk 10:29; Acts 3:17; 7:23-26; Rom 1:7, 13; 9:3; 1 Thess 1:4). They understood what all these words meant, yet they continued to use adelphos even in those instances that had a non-sibling application.
24) Strikingly, it looks like every time St. Paul uses adelphos (unless I missed one or two), he means it as something other than blood brother or sibling. He uses the word or related cognates no less than 138 times in this way. Yet we often hear about Galatians 1:19: “James the Lord’s brother.” 137 other times, Paul means non-sibling, yet amazingly enough, we’re told that here he must mean sibling, because he uses the word adelphos? That doesn’t make any sense.
Paul understood what all these words meant, yet he continued to use adelphos even in those instances which had a non-sibling application (just as Catholics argue was the case in the Gospels, with Jesus’ “brothers”). The fallacious linguistic argument often used tries to set forth the illogical notion that if a writer knows of a more specific word and doesn’t use it (i.e., anepsios or sungenis), then he must mean a more literal sense for the word that he does use (adelphos). But Paul’s use of adelphos in a sense other than sibling, explodes this argument.
25) Some folks think it is a compelling argument that sungenis isn’t used to describe the brothers of Jesus. But they need to examine the following passage, where sungenis appears:
Mark 6:4 And Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.” (cf. Jn 7:5: “For even his brothers did not believe in him”)
What is the context? In the preceding verse, the people in “his own country” (6:1) exclaimed: ‘Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?’ . . .” It can plausibly be argued, then, that Jesus’ reference to kin (sungenis) refers (at least in part) back to this mention of His “brothers” and “sisters”: His relatives. Since we know that sungenis means cousins or more distant relatives, that would be an indication of the status of those called Jesus’ “brothers”.
26) Jude is called the Lord’s “brother” in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3. If this is the same Jude who wrote the epistle bearing that name (as many think), he calls himself “a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James” (Jude 1:1). Now, suppose for a moment that he was Jesus’ blood brother. In that case, he refrains from referring to himself as the Lord’s own sibling (while we are told that such a phraseology occurs several times in the New Testament, referring to a sibling relationship) and chooses instead to identify himself as James‘ brother. This is far too strange and implausible to believe. Direct evidence that Simon is Jesus’ first cousin comes from Hegesippus through Eusebius. The latter (arguably) also alludes to Jude (Judas) being Jesus’ first cousin as well:
The same historian [Hegesippus] says that there were also others, descended from one of the so-called brothers of the Saviour, whose name was Judas, . . . (Book III, section 32, part 5; McGiffert translation, italics added; Williamson translates: “one of the ‘brothers’ of the Saviour named Jude . . .”: p. 143)
27) James also refrains from calling himself Jesus’ brother, in his epistle (James 1:1: “servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ”): even though St. Paul calls him “the Lord’s brother” (Gal 1:19).
28) Uzziah died when he touched the ark of the covenant, which was arguably the holiest object in the Old Testament, even though he was only trying to prevent it from falling (2 Sam 6:2-7). Others died by merely looking inside the ark (1 Sam 6:19; cf. Ex 33:20). When God was present in a special way on Mt. Sinai, at the time Moses received the Ten Commandments (Exodus, chapters 19 and 20), the people were warned not to even touch the mountain or its border, lest they die (Ex 19:12-13). I submit that this has implications for the propriety (though not literal necessity) of Mary being a perpetual virgin.
It follows analogically, and from pious reflection, I think, that it was fitting and proper by the nature of the relationship of a holy God and man. The Blessed Virgin Mary became, in effect, the New Holy of Holies, where God specially resides. But in the case of Mary, God is more present than He ever was in the tabernacle and temple, because now He is there physically, as a man, as well. Mary is the ark of the new covenant (as the Church fathers called her) and Mother of God (the Son).
The denial of Mary’s perpetual virginity (which was a radical innovation of the last 200-250 years, and not the view of the Protestant founders) exhibits an inadequate understanding of holy places. Consecrated persons and places are “set aside” for God’s holy purposes. Someone wrote to me in a Facebook discussion that Catholic beliefs about Mary would mean she wasn’t a “normal wife.” I replied that Mary was anything but a “normal” Jewish wife in the first place. She was suddenly “with child” miraculously by the Holy Spirit, and gave birth to Jesus: God the Son.
Most Protestants still accept the virgin birth. Consecrated virginity is far less notable than those two events. Yet the incarnation and virgin birth are widely accepted, while perpetual virginity is widely rejected. The traditional unity of the three related things is no longer comprehended by many.
St. Paul (1 Corinthians 7) maintains that the single state allows a higher, undistracted devotion to the Lord. Why should we think, then, that the Mother of God would be anything other than a perpetual virgin, devoted to God the Father, and her Son, God the Son? The virgin birth and perpetual virginity were the means that God chose to create the appropriate context in which the incarnation occurred. In Catholic thinking, and the ancient apostolic tradition, Mary’s perpetual virginity is a protection, so to speak, of the miraculous nature of the incarnation and Jesus’ birth. It’s a Christocentric doctrine: just as all Marian doctrines are.
29)St. Paul uses “cousin” (anepsios) in Colossians 4:10. Interestingly the KJV translates this passage “sister’s son,” which is akin to Semitic terminology and categories). And this is the only time it appears in the New Testament.
30) It’s true that the Gospel writers could have used the words sungenis or anepsios. But their not doing so is not as strong an argument as it may seem at first, once we understand that sungenis also has a very wide latitude (such that Paul only uses it in that wider sense of race or nationalism). That being the case, why use it, since it would be the same scenario as adelphos offers?
The same scenario applies to use of sungenis and its cognates elsewhere (see #22 above). In the KJV they are translated (besides Luke 1:36 and 1:58) kindred, kinsfolk, kin, kinsmen, and kinsman (Mark 6:4; Luke 1:61; 2:44; 14:12; 21:16; John 18:26; Acts 7:3, 14; 10:24). In the RSV, likewise, we have the renderings (even including Luke 1:36, 58) kin, kindred, kinswoman, kinsfolk, kinsmen, and kinsman. So it is unanimous there: not even the English “cousin” is used.
31) Simon was one of Jesus “brothers” in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3. The Christian historian Eusebius provides some relevant information about him:
After the martyrdom of James and the capture of Jerusalem which instantly followed, there is a firm tradition that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord who were still alive assembled from all parts together with those who, humanly speaking, were kinsmen of the Lord — for most of them were still living. Then they all discussed together whom they should choose as a fit person to succeed James, and voted unanimously that Symeon, son of the Clopas mentioned in the gospel narrative [note: Jn 19:25; perhaps Lk 24:18], was a fit person to occupy the throne of the Jerusalem see. He was, so it is said, a cousin of the Saviour, for Hegesippus tells us that Clopas was Joseph’s brother. (The History of the Church, translated by G. A. Williamson, Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1965, 123-124; italics added)
It turns out, then, that early tradition, from the second-century historian Hegesippus (and we have no reason to doubt its non-theological reporting of relationships) tells us that “Symeon” is also a son of Clopas. That’s very interesting because we have “Simon” (another form of Symeon) listed as a “brother” of Jesus, alongside James and Joseph, in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3. Thus, he is another first cousin, according to this scenario, not a blood brother.
32) Critics of the PVM make a big deal about Jesus’ “brothers” always seeming to be “hanging around” and being with Mary as well They argue that this most likely suggests their being her other children; otherwise, why are they always there? But the Hebrew “household” (if not virtually always) often would contain extended family members. It wasn’t like our nuclear families of today. For example, in the book, Families in Ancient Israel (Leo G. Perdue, editor; Westminster John Knox Press, 1997) we find this description:
The familial roles of males in the household’s kinship structure included those of lineal descent and marriage — grandfather, father, son, and husband — and those lateral relationships — brother, uncle, nephew, and cousin. (pp. 179-180)
The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary (edited by Allen C. Myers, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, rev. ed., 1975) concurs, noting that the Israelite family could include more than one nuclear family (thus, cousins would be residing together):
The basic social unit, comprised of persons related by kinship and sharing a common residence. The Israelite family was an extended family known as the “father’s house” or “household” (Heb. “bet-ab”), consisting of two or more nuclear families (i.e., a married couple and their children) or composite families (an individual with multiple spouses and their offspring) . . . other kin (including grandparents), servants, concubines, and sojourners might also be reckoned part of the household (cf. Gen. 46:5-7, 26). (“Family,” p. 376)
33) The New Testament never uses the phrases, “son[s] of Mary” or “son[s] of Joseph” for anyone besides Jesus.
34) “Son of Mary” appears once, referring to Jesus,
Mark 6:3 “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” . . .
Interestingly enough, He is called “brother” of four men and “his sisters” are mentioned. Yet none of them are called “sons / daughters” of Mary or Joseph.
35) The phrase, “Mary’s sons” never appears in the New Testament.
36) Neither one of the phrases, “daughter[s] of Mary” or “Mary’s daughter[s]” ever appear in the New Testament.
37-38)“Son of Joseph” (referring to the carpenter from Nazareth) appears twice: both times referring to Jesus:
John 1:45Philip found Nathan’a-el, and said to him, “We have found him of whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”
John 6:42 They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? . . .”
“Sons of Joseph” appears once (Heb 11:21), but unfortunately for deniers of Mary’s perpetual virginity, it refers to the patriarch Joseph. Why is that, if these are his sons and Jesus’ supposed siblings?
39) The phrase, “Joseph’s sons” never appears in the New Testament.
40)The phrase, “Daughter[s] of Joseph” never appears in the New Testament.
41)The phrase, “Joseph’s daughter[s]” never appears in the New Testament.
42-43) Mary is never called the “mother” of these alleged siblings of Jesus, whereas she is called Jesus’ “mother”:
John 2:1On the third day there was a marriage at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there;
John 19:25 . . . standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Mag’dalene.
44-45) In the following two passages, these “brothers” were mentioned but Mary wasn’t called their mother; only Jesus‘ mother:
Matthew 13:55 “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?”
*
Acts 1:14 All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.
Doesn’t it stand to reason and isn’t it common sense — if these “brothers” were indeed the siblings of Jesus –, that Acts 1:14 would read, instead, something like: “Mary the mother of Jesus and his brothers”? Then we wouldn’t be having this dispute; it would have been so clear and undeniable. A similar argument could be made for Mark 6:3.
*
Why wouldn’t God have made it easy to understand and logically and grammatically impossible to deny, if Jesus had siblings? Holy Scripture is always very clear (with a little of the necessary study of hermeneutics and exegesis). There were many opportunities and contexts in the New Testament where this could easily have taken place, but for some odd reason (maybe because the notion of Jesus having siblings is a falsehood and not historical fact?) it never does.
*
46)Genesis 35:22-26 lists twelve sons of Jacob, from four different women. Genesis 49 lists them again. They are the basis of the twelve tribes of Israel. Jacob also had one daughter, Dinah (Gen 34:1). So it’s irrelevant if one or more are referred to as the “son of Jacob” in light of all the information we have. The twelve sons are specifically named as his. No one (who holds to biblical inspiration) can question it. But the “brothers” and “sisters’ of Jesus are never described as sons or daughters in relation to either Mary or Joseph.
*
47) “Cousin” appears four times in the entire Old Testament in the RSV (three of those in Jeremiah, another in Leviticus). But “brother[s]” appears 390 times, “brethren” 154 times and “sister[s]” 110 times. So by a 654-4 ratio, we have those terms (which at first glance sound like siblings) used over against “cousin.” Obviously, many times they were used for non-sibling relatives.
*
48) The New Testament (produced by the same Jewish culture, excepting the Gentile Luke) totally reflects this. It has “brother[s]” 159 times, “brethren” 191, and “sister[s]” 24 times, while “cousin” appears exactly once (Col 4:10). So that’s a 374-1 ratio (even more lopsided than the OT), and for the entire Bible (minus the Deuterocanon), the numbers are 1028-5, or “cousin” used instead of “brother” or “sister” once in every 206 times a relative is mentioned.
49) “Uncle” and “aunt” are not very common words in the Old Testament. “Uncle appears only 13 times in the RSV. “Aunt” appears exactly once (Lev 18:14). Neither one appears at all in the New Testament! Again, “brother” and “sister” were the common terms used for a wide array of relatives, as shown.
*
50)Regarding Matthew 1:24-25 (#4 above): why is that Joseph abstained for the entire pregnancy — after she became his wife) if in fact he had marital relations with the Blessed Virgin Mary after Jesus’ birth? Rabbinic Judaism did not forbid sexual relations during the whole of pregnancy (especially not the final three months). I think we can safely assume that something of that sort was the custom of the Jews of Jesus’ time.
*
So why did Joseph do this? It’s difficult to posit any plausible reason, other than the fact that he intended to never have relations with her (she being the Mother of God). Sometimes the most effective and elegant arguments are the should-be-obvious ones like this that are easy to overlook.
*
*
***
*
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 a Catholic or to return to the Catholic 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).
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 two YouTube channels, Catholic Bible Highlights and Lux Veritatis (featuring documentaries), where I partner with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos and documentaries), 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: The Annunciation (1644), by Philippe de Champaigne (1602-1674) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
*
Summary: Comprehensive, thought-provoking collection of biblical arguments for the perpetual virginity of Mary (i.e., Jesus was an only child with no siblings or blood brothers).
. . . and Rejection of Baptismal Regeneration as its Antidote
Photo credit: Adam and Eve (1517). by Hans Holbein the Younger (1497/98–1543) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
I cite The Latin Works of Huldreich Zwingli, Volume Two, edited by William John Hinke and translated by Henry Preble (revised by Hinke), Philadelphia: The Heidelberg Press, 1922. I am specifically addressing a treatise written by Huldreich Zwingli (1484-1531), entitled, Declaration Regarding Original Sin, Addressed to Urbanus Rhegius (15 August, 1526), on pages 1-32. Urbanus Rhegius (1489-1541) was a Lutheran theologian.
Zwingli’s words will be in blue. I use RSV for biblical citations.
*****
I already addressed this question 19 years ago, citing scholars and Philip Melanchthon, who acknowledge that Zwingli was outside the Protestant mainstream on this issue. Now I am examining his own arguments. The editor writes on page 1:
This pamphlet was in answer to a letter of Rhegius to Zwingli, which has not been discovered thus far. (See Zwingli’s Werke, Vol. VIII. (1914), 633, note 4). Rhegius had some doubts as to the soundness of Zwingli’s views regarding original sin. This appears from a letter which he wrote on January 14, 1526, to Ambrose Blaurer of Constance, in which he expressed himself rather vigorously: “I am sorry Zwingli was not at Baden [i. e., the Baden Disputation, May 21-June 18, 1526]. He would have defeated all the Papists once for all, except in the matter of original sin, which he seems to treat in a very unsound fashion. . . .”
You are not the only one who thinks that I hold and write an unusual doctrine with regard to the pollution of human descent. There are other great men who entertain the same idea. (p. 2)
I will, therefore, with the help of Christ, try to make all men see clearly that what I have said upon this matter briefly but plainly, was not said at random or without authority from the sacred Scriptures; and that, on the other hand, much has been said by many people in regard to this matter which has little foundation in the truly sacred [canonical] writings (p. 3)
Note hat he is disagreeing not just with Catholics, but also his fellow Protestants.
What could be said more feebly or more at variance with the canonical Scriptures than that this disaster was relieved by the water of baptism, . . .(p. 3)
Hence he denies baptismal regeneration as well.
We often say we do not understand a thing when we do not want to understand it. (p. 3)
Truer words were never written!
I have said that the original contamination of man is a disease, not a sin, because sin implies guilt, and guilt comes from a transgression or trespass on the part of one who designedly perpetrates a deed. . . . The sin involved in the wrong-doing of our first parent is called “original sin,” not in the real sense of the words but metaphorically, and is nothing else than a condition, wretched to be sure, but much milder than the crime deserved. (p. 5)
1 Corinthians 15:21-22 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. [22] For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
Romans 5:12, 14-21 . . . sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned — . . . [14] Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. [15] But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. [16] And the free gift is not like the effect of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brings justification. [17] If, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. [18] Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. [19] For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous. [20] Law came in, to increase the trespass; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, [21] so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.
“Death” above refers to spiritual death, which will lead to damnation if not rectified by God’s grace and Jesus’ death on the cross on our behalf. This is hardly a “milder” offense. In fact, it’s the same rebellion against God that the devil and his demons committed. But there is more here. Adam represented the entire human race in some mysterious sense; hence “in Adam all die.” We were there committing the rebellion with him. It was a corporate fall of all mankind.
The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, in its article on “Original Sin,” explaining St. Thomas Aquinas’s conception (p. 1011), states:
Acc. to St. Thomas, Original Sin is transmitted not as the personal fault of Adam but as a state of human nature, yet constituting a fault inasmuch as all men are regarded as members of one great organism of which Adam was the first mover. Thus through his sin his descendants incur a culpability similar to that of the hand which executes a murder, moved by the human will. The instrument of transmission is generation.
The dominion of the devil is a result of original sin; it caused a catastrophic cosmic disorder (Gen 3:15; Jn 12:31; 14:30; 2 Cor 4:4; Heb 2:14; 2 Pet 2:19). That’s why the theological liberals who deny original sin (if not sin itself) invariably deny the existence of the devil and evil.
Romans 7:5, 13-25 While we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. . . . [13] Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, working death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. [14] We know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin. [15] I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. [16] Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good. [17] So then it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me. [18] For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. [19] For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. [20] Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me. [21] So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. [22] For I delight in the law of God, in my inmost self, [23] but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members. [24] Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? [25] Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I of myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.
St. Paul provides the solution in chapter 8: life in the Holy Spirit. He had also described the way we receive the Spirit and overcome original sin: through baptism, in the chapter before:
Romans 6:3-11 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? [4] We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. [5] For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. [6] We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the sinful body might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin. [7] For he who has died is freed from sin. [8] But if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him. [9] For we know that Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. [10] The death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. [11] So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.
St. Paul didn’t specifically mention receiving the Holy Spirit as a result of baptism in the above passage, but he did in three other passages, as did St. Luke, St. Peter, and our Lord Jesus Himself (Jn 3:5 further below):
Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’
Acts 9:17-18 So Anani’as departed and entered the house. And laying his hands on him he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came, has sent me that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” [18] And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized,
1 Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body — Jews or Greeks, slaves or free — and all were made to drink of one Spirit.
1 Corinthians 6:11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
Titus 3:5 He saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit . . .
Zwingli asserts over and over that original sin is not truly sin. He proclaims, referring to what orthodox Christianity calls original sin, “When, therefore, it is called “sin” in the Scriptures, it is clear enough, I think, that this is done by metonymy” (p. 6). Merriam-Webster defines “metonymy” as “a figure of speech consisting of the use of the name of one thing for that of another.”
How is it, then, that Paul constantly refers to “sin” and spiritual “death” in relation to Adam’s disobedience (Romans 5:12-21 above). If it doesn’t place us in a state whereby we need salvation, why does Paul write that “as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men” and “by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous” (Rom 5:18-19).
Clearly, it is very serious sin (not a mere metonymy); we all partook of it, and the consequences are spiritual death and ultimate damnation if we don’t accept God’s solution for it. If Paul isn’t referring to both actual and original sin in Romans 5-7, then sin is never discussed in Scripture. That’s how strong the references are.
It is nowhere written, “He that is not baptized, is damned;” . . . (p. 11)
Everlasting life has nowhere been promised on the terms that unless one has been circumcised or baptized he shall in no wise attain it, there is no reason why we should at random consign to the lower regions them that have not been marked by these signs. . . . Nor did Christ say, “He that is not baptized, shall not be saved. (p. 12)
That’s not true. Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, unless a man is born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (Jn 3:5). To not be in the kingdom, if this extends to one’s afterlife, is to be damned in hell.
Many assertions of the parallel contrary also teach essentially the same thing. In other words, if the Bible repeatedly says that baptism is necessary for salvation, it follows by inexorable logic that the contrary (minus a few clearly laid-out exceptions) is also true: one who lacks baptism is in danger of possible damnation. The Bible has at least fourteen passages that assert baptismal regeneration. The Bible says that we are “saved” by baptism (Mk 16:16; Titus 3:5; 1 Pet 3:21), and that through it “souls” are “added” to the Church and the kingdom (Acts 2:41), that we “may live a new life” as a result of it (Rom 6:4), and that we are “sanctified” and “justified” (1 Cor 6:11) and regenerated (Titus 3:5) by baptism. We also “put on Christ” when we are baptized (Gal 3:27).
In the Old Testament, since the time of Abraham (even before the Law was given) circumcision was required of all male Jews, or else they would be “cut off” from the community (basically the OT equivalent of being lost or damned, failing repentance):
Genesis 17:14 Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.
Ezekiel 31:18 . . . You shall be brought down with the trees of Eden to the nether world; you shall lie among the uncircumcised, with those who are slain by the sword.
Paul argues that circumcision was the prototype of baptism:
Colossians 2:11-13 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; [12] and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. [13] And you, who were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,
Zwingli does at least qualify his objection to original sin:
In the book upon Baptism I bore witness that I was speaking only of the children of Christians, saying that the original guilt could not damn them. The book itself plainly bears witness to this in two passages. . . . This I have added simply because I am sure about the children of Christians, that they are not damned by original sin; as to those of others I am less sure, . . . (p. 18)
This is contrary to the many biblical statements that I recited above, especially 1 Corinthians 15:22: “in Adam all die.” Zwingli seems to not understand the corporate nature of the fall of man. Thus, it matters not whose children particular children are. And there is a reason that baptism is urged upon all. It is to wipe out the penalties of original sin and to offer many other graces.
The condition of those who are born of Christian parents is on a par with that of those who were descended from Abraham. But the original disease did not destroy these; therefore, this disease will not destroy the others, I mean ours. The first proposition I prove thus: Those who are of the same Church are under the same condition, just as those who belong to the same commonwealth, share the same fortunes. (p. 19)
As I have already shown, they had to be circumcised, just as Christians now need to be baptized. If they can’t for some reason (the thief on the cross), or have never heard of it, then there are exceptions. Paul in Romans 2 discusses that. God knows everyone’s heart, and He is merciful and desires that none perish. In Zwingli’s time this thought was a lot less developed, but there was still the notion of limbo for unbaptized infants, not automatic damnation. But limbo was never a dogma.
Today it’s the Calvinists — not Catholics — who teach that even babies who have never heard the gospel will go to hell. That’s not to mention anti-Catholicism, whereby Catholics who actually believe all that the Church teaches will be damned. I was in a Calvinist forum once and some folks there were so sure I was damned, simply because I was a Catholic (even though Calvin stated that no one could know that), that one person said no one should even pray for me. See my articles:
But the children of Abraham had to follow the Law when that was given later through Moses, or they could be damned. It wasn’t good enough to simply be the children of Abraham, as John the Baptist made clear:
Matthew 3:7-10 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sad’ducees coming for baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? [8] Bear fruit that befits repentance, [9] and do not presume to say to yourselves, `We have Abraham as our father’; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. [10] Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
Jesus even said that some of these children of Abraham would be damned:
Matthew 8:11-12 I tell you, many will come from east and west and sit at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, [12] while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.”
This was after he said that a Roman centurion had more faith than could be found in Israel. Jesus and Paul made it clear that those who will be saved, have to do good works, lest they lose their salvation and justification:
Matthew 7:18-21 A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. [19] Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. [20] Thus you will know them by their fruits. [21] “Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.. . .
Matthew 19:16-17, 20-21 And behold, one came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?” [17] And he said to him, “. . . If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” . . . [20] The young man said to him, “All these I have observed; what do I still lack?” [21] Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” (in the parallel passage Lk 10:27 the ruler says, “. . . You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” And Jesus replied, “You have answered right; do this, and you will live.”)
Matthew 25:34-35, 41-43, 46 Then the King will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; [35] for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, . . . [41] Then he will say to those at his left hand, `Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; [42] for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, [43] I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ . . . [46] And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
Luke 3:9 (+ Mt 3:10; 7:19) . . . every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
Romans 2:6-10, 13 For he will render to every man according to his works: [7] to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; [8] but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. [9] There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, [10] but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. . . . [13] For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.
It is easily proved that absolutely no sin is taken away by the washing of baptism. For Christ the Lamb taketh away the sins of the world. And I John 2: 2, cries out thus: “He is the propitiation for our sins ; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” Also chapter 1 : 7, “The blood of Jesus Christ his son cleanseth us from all sin.” He who says, “from all,” omits nothing. The blood, therefore, cleanseth from original sin also, not the washing of baptism. . . . Otherwise the death of Christ were superfluous, if by corporeal things the incorporeal substance of the soul could be purified. (p. 27)
The Bible states otherwise. There is no dichotomy or contradiction between “Jesus’ death brought about forgiveness of our sins” and “baptism is the means that God also uses by which original sin is removed”:
Acts 2:38: And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins . . .”
Acts 22:16 “And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.”
Zwingli, like the foolish anti-traditionalist he is, thumbs his nose at the Church fathers and their views on original sin and baptism and remarkably accuses them of carnal rather than spiritual thinking. He knows more than all of them:
This is what for some time, most learned Urbanus, I have been turning over in my mind about original sin. I have at times also looked into the ancient writers on this matter, but how dark and involved their utterances are, not to say, based upon human rather than celestial teaching, I think you also will remark when you go to them again. I have had no leisure to go back to them for several years. (p. 30)
For on what testimony of Scripture, pray, does it rest that by baptism original sin is taken away or grace conferred, . . .? (pp. 30-31)
I have provided ample “testimony.”
*
***
*
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 a Catholic or to return to the Catholic 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).
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 two YouTube channels, Catholic Bible Highlights and Lux Veritatis (featuring documentaries), where I partner with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos and documentaries), 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: Adam and Eve (1517). by Hans Holbein the Younger (1497/98–1543) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
*
Summary: “Reformer” Zwingli whittles away at the traditional doctrine of original sin, differing even from his Protestant comrades, and totally rejects baptismal regeneration as its remedy.
Photo credit: John the Baptist in the Desert, by Cristofano Allori (1577–1621) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
I cite The Latin Works of Huldreich Zwingli, Volume Three, edited by Clarence Nevin Heller, Philadelphia: The Heidelberg Press, 1929. I am specifically addressing Zwingli‘s work, Commentary on True and False Religion (1525; translated by Henry Preble), which William Walker Rockwell in his Preface describes as “The earliest truly comprehensive treatise on Protestant theology” and the first to present “the full-orbed Protestant faith. . . . Zwingli presents an original and . . . comprehensive plan of arrangement and, therefore, justifies the claim that among Protestant system-builders he is the pioneer” (p. iii).
This is a reply to his section 7, “The Gospel” (pp. 118-131). Zwingli’s words will be in blue. I use RSV for Bible citations.
*****
He sent forth His disciples with the injunction, Mark 16: 15: “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned.” Here we learn, first, that the gospel is a thing which saves the believer. (p. 118)
Indeed it is, but baptism also saves us (see 13 more passages proving that), as the passage says. Zwingli asserts one part of it and ignores the other.
Peter also teaches, 1 Pet. 3: 20-21, saying that we are washed in baptism in the same way in which the men of old were once purified by the flood. And, that we shall not understand here the baptism of water but the internal change of the old man through repentance, . . . (p. 121)
It’s pretty tough to take this view when Peter clearly says in the same passage, “Baptism, . . . now saves you” (1 Pet 3:21). Once again, Zwingli sees only what he wants to see (according to his prior theology and premise) and ignores what he doesn’t want to accept. This is eisegesis (reading external things into Scripture) rather than exegesis (taking out of Scripture what is really there). We can be quite sure that if Peter had written, “baptism does not save you” that would be trumpeted far and wide by Protestants (as well it should be, if indeed he had expressed that). But because Peter actually stated that baptism “saves you” it has to be ignored or explained away.
If this passage isn’t clear enough for Zwingli, we have St. Peter’s sermon on the Day of Pentecost: the first Christian sermon in the new covenant:
Acts 2:38-41 “And Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.’ And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, ‘Save yourselves from this crooked generation.’ So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.”
Peter unquestionably taught the Catholic view of baptismal regeneration. Clear as day! Clear as pure water . . .
. . . the symbol of Baptism, . . . [there are] those who think that it wipes away sins . . . [they] speak what pleases themselves, not what the word of the Lord has taught. (p. 121)
Yes, of course we think it wipes away sins, because Holy Scripture says so fourteen times. If God inspired men to teach this in His Holy Word, that’s more than enough for us. Zwingli projects his eisegesis onto his opponents.
When, then, John [the Baptist] taught that man must review his life and change it, what hopes, pray, did he hold out? Did he ever teach, “By doing so and so ye will be saved”? By no means. (p. 121)
He did teach that, in asserting:
Matthew 3:8, 10 Bear fruit that befits repentance, . . . [10] Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. (identical in Lk 3:8-9)
No fruit (which mostly means good works) = no salvation, and hell as the alternative. In Luke, John goes on to provide several examples of what he means by these fruits / good works:
Luke 3:10-14 And the multitudes asked him, “What then shall we do?” [11] And he answered them, “He who has two coats, let him share with him who has none; and he who has food, let him do likewise.” [12] Tax collectors also came to be baptized, and said to him, “Teacher, what shall we do?” [13] And he said to them, “Collect no more than is appointed you.” [14] Soldiers also asked him, “And we, what shall we do?” And he said to them, “Rob no one by violence or by false accusation, and be content with your wages.”
Jesus directly ties good works to salvation (never mentioning faith) in the last judgment, described in Matthew 25. These are a few of the 100 refutations of “faith alone” in the Bible. But — true to form — Zwingli ignores all this that roundly refutes his false claim that John the Baptist supposedly never mentioned works in conjunction with salvation.
There isn’t much about John the Baptist in the Gospels. It’s very hard to overlook these passages. But when one is determined not to see what he doesn’t want to see (as Zwingli was), this is what we get. Heresy always begins with the sad adoption of many false and unbiblical premises.
*
***
*
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 a Catholic or to return to the Catholic 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).
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 two YouTube channels, Catholic Bible Highlights and Lux Veritatis (featuring documentaries), where I partner with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos and documentaries), 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: John the Baptist in the Desert, by Cristofano Allori (1577–1621) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
*
Summary: Zwingli, the third most important early Protestant leader after Luther and Calvin, was wrong about baptismal regeneration and the biblical view of the nature of faith & works.
Photo Credit: Theodore Beza, anonymous portrait at age 58 (1577) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
Theodore Beza (1519-1605) was a disciple of John Calvin and succeeded Calvin him as the spiritual leader of Geneva. At the Colloquy of Worms in 1557, Beza proposed a union of all Protestant Christians, but of course that didn’t happen, and never would happen.
I ran across the following information in volume one of the two-volume set, which I have in hardcover in my own library, Toleration and the Reformation (Joseph Lecler, S.J., New York: Association Press, 1960, from the 1955 French edition; translated by T. L. Westow). In September 1554 Beza wrote De haereticus a civili Magistratu puniendis [On the Punishment of Heretics by the Civil Magistrate]. Here are some excerpts from the French edition of 1560:
Shame upon that contradictory charity, that extreme cruelty, which, in order to save Lord knows how many wolves, exposes the whole flock of Jesus Christ! Rather see to it then, all you faithful magistrates . . . that you serve God well who has put the sword into your hands in order to vindicate the honour and glory of his majesty; for the sake of the salvation of the flock use that sword righteously against these monsters disguised as men. (p. 131; cited in Lecler, vol. 1, 348)
Beza was quite content, as was Calvin, to urge the civil authorities to discipline or kill those whom they considered heretics:
Tyranny is a lesser evil than such licence as allows everyone to act according to his fancy, and it is better to have a tyrant, even a cruel one, than to have no prince at all, or to have one who allows everyone to do as he likes. . . . Those who do not want a magistrate to interfere in religious affairs, and particularly to punish heretics, go against the explicit word of God . . . and bring about the ruin and utter destruction of the Church. (pp. 311-312; Lecler, 348)
He continued on later in the work:
If together with blasphemy and impiety there is also heresy, that is, if a man is possessed by an obstinate contempt of the Word of God, of ecclesiastical discipline and by a mad frenzy to infect even others, what greater, more abominable crime could one find amongst men? Surely, if one wanted to prescribe a punishment according to the greatness of the crime, it would seem impossible to find a torture big enough to fit the enormity of such a misdeed? (p. 339; Lecler, 348)
Fr. Lecler reports that he maintained these views later on as well:
After Giovanni Valentino Gentile had been beheaded at Berne (1566), Beza published a report of a previous trial of the heretic at Geneva, in which he fully upheld the judgment of the Council of Berne. He equally approved the condemnation of Johann Sylvanus, found guilty of Arianism and beheaded at Heidelberg, 23 December 1572. (p. 349)
Gentile was a non-trinitarian or Unitarian. He was tried at Geneva in June 1558 by John Calvin himself [see Paul Helm, John Calvin’s Ideas, Oxford University Press, 2006, 41], for heresy and blasphemy.
*
These heretics included the Anabaptists, according to Beza [writing in 1574; Lecler, 350]: the folks who believed in adult believer’s baptism (just like Baptists and many other Protestant groups do today). Catholics were usually not the ones put to death for heresy by either Reformed Protestants or Lutherans. That was reserved for Butcher Henry VIII‘s and Bloody Queen Elizabeth‘s England and the Anglicans (where, at the very least, 742 documented Catholic martyrdoms occurred). On the continent, it was, for the most part, fellow Protestants or heretics with an ancient pedigree, such as Arians. Fr. Lecler even reports:
In 1580 a Jesuit priest, Lucas Pinelli, was able to spend a few days at Geneva without being molested; he even managed an interview with Beza and was courteously received. (p. 350)
Bottom line: if Billy Graham or John MacArthur or Reformed Baptists today like James White and Gavin Ortlund could go back in time and meet John Calvin or Beza in Geneva, or Luther and Melanchthon over in Lutheran Germany, or Zwingli in Zurich, they could have ended up tried and convicted and drowned or burned at the stake, as blasphemous heretics and seditionists, whereas it would be likely that I, as a Catholic, could have a pleasant interview with Beza over tea or beer and leave town unharmed.
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 a Catholic or to return to the Catholic 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).
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 two YouTube channels, Catholic Bible Highlights and Lux Veritatis (featuring documentaries), where I partner with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos and documentaries), 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: Theodore Beza, anonymous portrait at age 58 (1577) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
*
Summary: Calvinist Theodore Beza (1519-1605), successor of John Calvin at Geneva, advocated the death penalty for fellow Protestants & other heterodox persons deemed to be heretics.
Photo Credit: Portrait of John Calvin (French school, 16th century) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
John Calvin’s words will be in blue.
I’ve written several times about the extreme intolerance of the early Protestant leader John Calvin (1509-1564). Protestants (usually only dimly acquainted with the history of the matter and according to received tradition), are accustomed to think that Calvin had a mere lapse regarding the execution of anti-trinitarian heretic Michael Servetus on 27 October 1553, as if this were an “embarrassing” exception to the rule of his usual thinking. Nothing could be further from the truth. I’ve written several times about this general topic:
I ran across another related document in the two-volume set, which I have in hardcover in my own library, Toleration and the Reformation (Joseph Lecler, S.J., New York: Association Press, 1960, from the 1955 French edition; translated by T. L. Westow). It was published in January 1554, within three months of Servetus’ execution by burning; largely as a result of criticisms received for his advocacy of that event. It’s called Declaratio orthodoxae fidei (Latin text: Calvini Opera, t. VIII, pp. 453-644].
The book is available for free in Latin, online [link one / link two/ link three / link four]. Post-Reformation Digital Library contains links to it on its John Calvin page. The work had never seemingly been translated into English until literally twenty-five days before this writing (14 May 2025), and even that is merely a self-published effort, using AI. I may eventually get to work, myself, and translate portions of it, using Google Translate. This is an important part of 16th century Protestant history that ought to be known. Truth is truth, and facts are facts.
No Reformed / Calvinist — or any sort of Protestant — publisher had seen fit to translate the Declaratio into English, these past 471 years. Yet so many times, Protestants will object when I simply note that their own folks have often sought to conceal unsavory aspects of their past history (while exercising a double standard in constantly and loudly proclaiming similar Catholic “skeletons.”
This was also true of the 55-volume Luther’s Works in English, which decided not to include several of Luther’s more controversial treatises or letters — some of which I have been citing from other sources since 1990. To their credit, the editors of that set have, in recent years, decided to greatly expand it, in order to reflect the scope of the much larger German Weimar edition of 1883. It is now up to at least 79 volumes.
Fr. Lecler describes Declaratio orthodoxae fidei as “one of the most frightening treatises ever written to justify the persecution of heretics” (Lecler, Vol. 1, 333). Then he cites Calvin, from the 1554 French edition of this work (I will cite those page numbers hereafter):
Our sympathy-mongers, who take such great pleasure in leaving heresies unpunished, now see that their fantasy hardly conforms with God’s commandment. Afraid lest the Church be blamed for being too severe, they would allow all kinds of errors to spread freely to secure tolerance for one man. But God does not even allow whole towns and populations to be spared, but will have the walls razed and the memory of the inhabitants destroyed and all things frustrated as a sign of his utter detestation, lest the contagion spread. He even gives us to understand that by concealing a crime one becomes an accomplice. Nor is this to be wondered at, since it is here a question of rejecting God and sane doctrine, which perverts and violates every human and divine right. (Lecler, Vol. 1, 333; Declaratio, 47-48; see Deut 13:12-18)
Calvin continues:
Though I admit that the princes have no power to penetrate the human heart with their edicts and to move them so that they submit to God and conform with the truth, their vocation compels them nevertheless not to tolerate that God’s name be reviled, and evil and venomous tongues tear his sacred word to pieces. . . .
That humanity, advocated by those who are in favour of a pardon for heretics, is greater cruelty because in order to save the wolves they expose the poor sheep. I ask you, is it reasonable that heretics should be allowed to murder souls and to poison them with their false doctrine, and that we should prevent the sword, contrary to God’s commandment, from touching their bodies, and that the whole Body of Jesus Chris be lacerated that the stench of one rotten member may remain undisturbed? (Lecler, Vol. 1, 334; Declaratio, 32, 35-36)
This was the same rationale, of course, as that of the Inquisition, defended by St. Thomas Aquinas and many others. But Calvin’s thinking (paraphrased by Lecler) was that ” ‘papists’ do not have the same right to persecute Protestants, since they follow a false doctrine!” (Vol. 1, 334). Hence, Calvin wrote:
The swords of persecutors cannot prevent good and faithful magistrates from applying the rod of justice for the sake of the Church, formerly applied unjustly; and the tortures, suffered by the martyrs, cannot be an obstacle to the protection which good princes bestow on the children of God. (Lecler, Vol. 1, 335; Declaratio, 21)
Ah, so we are to believe that Calvin advocated capital punishment, but not “cruel and unusual” punishment and torture leading up to it? He certainly didn’t act in accord with this sublime ideal. Regarding the Comparet brothers in Geneva in 1555, thought to be guilty of some sort of conspiracy against the government, Non-Catholic Calvin biographer Hugh Young Reyburn wrote:
One of the two men, Comparet, who had been arrested, was condemned on 27 June [1555] to have his head cut off, his body quartered, and the sections exposed in different places according to custom. His head with one quarter of his body was fastened to the gibbet referred to. . . . the younger Comparet was simply beheaded. The executioner did his work so clumsily that he added needless pangs to the victim’s agony, and the Council punished him by dismissing him from his office for a year and a day. Calvin, on the other hand, wrote to Farel on 24 July, “I am persuaded that it is not without the special will of God that, apart from any verdict of the judges, the criminals have endured protracted torment at the hands of the executioner.” [Opera, xv. 693; cf. xxi. 610] . . .
It was determined to get the truth out of him [Francois Daniel], and Calvin wrote to Farel on 24 July [Opera, xv. 693; cf. Letters of John Calvin (Phila.), Vol. 3, 206], “We shall see in a couple of days, I hope, what the torture will wring from him.” . . .
Although he was neither consulted as to the torture, nor was present when it was applied, Calvin certainly approved of it. . . .
It is unfortunate for Calvin’s reputation that he should have thought the use of torture justifiable under any circumstances, and it is still more unfortunate that he commended the use of it to prove that which was evident. . . . All that was proved was a sudden flare-up on the street created by the reckless folly of some half-intoxicated Libertines. Nevertheless, the Council acted as if the rioters had been the agents of a carefully-laid scheme of revolution.
These atrocious incidents of Calvin enthusiastically approving torture occurred just a year-and-a-half after he stated that he was opposed to torture, in his Declaratio orthodoxae fidei.
The public sentiment, Catholic and Protestant, as we have seen, approved of the traditional doctrine, that obstinate heretics should be made harmless by death, and continued unchanged down to the close of the seventeenth century. . . .
Not only dissenters and personal enemies, but also, as Beza admits, some orthodox and pious people and friends of Calvin were dissatisfied with the severity of the punishment, and feared, not without reason, that it would justify and encourage the Romanists in their cruel persecution of Protestants in France and elsewhere.
Under these circumstances Calvin felt it to be his disagreeable duty to defend his conduct, and to refute the errors of Servetus. He was urged by Bullinger to do it. He completed the work in a few months and published it in Latin and French in the beginning of 1554. It had an official character and was signed by all the fifteen ministers of Geneva.
Beza aided him in this controversy and undertook to refute the pamphlet of Bellius, and did so with great ability and eloquence.
Calvin’s work against Servetus gave complete satisfaction to Melanchthon. It is the strongest refutation of the errors of his opponent which his age produced, but it is not free from bitterness against one who, at last, had humbly asked his pardon, and who had been sent to the judgment seat of God by a violent death. It is impossible to read without pain the following passage:
Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death will knowingly and willingly incur their very guilt. This is not laid down on human authority; it is God who speaks and prescribes a perpetual rule for his Church. It is not in vain that he banishes all those human affections which soften our hearts; that he commands paternal love and all the benevolent feelings between brothers, relations, and friends to cease; in a word, that he almost deprives men of their nature in order that nothing may hinder their holy zeal. Why is so implacable a severity exacted but that we may know that God is defrauded of his honor, unless the piety that is due to him be preferred to all human duties, and that when his glory is to be asserted, humanity must be almost obliterated from our memories? . . .
Calvin’s “Defence” did not altogether satisfy even some of his best friends. Zurkinden, the State Secretary of Bern, wrote him Feb. 10, 1554: “I wish the former part of your book, respecting the right which the magistrates may have to use the sword in coercing heretics, had not appeared in your name, but in that of your council, which might have been left to defend its own act. I do not see how you can find any favor with men of sedate mind in being the first formally to treat this subject, which is a hateful one to almost all.” Bullinger intimated his objections more mildly in a letter of March 26, 1554, in which he says: “I only fear that your book will not be so acceptable to many of the more simple-minded persons, who, nevertheless, are attached both to yourself and to the truth, by reason of its brevity and consequent obscurity, and the weightiness of the subject. . . .”
Capital punishment for heresy was so widespread in Calvinist-controlled countries that Fr. Lecler noted:
The Dutch Protestant martyrology mentions 877 names for the sixteenth century, of which 617, or about two-thirds, were Anabaptists. Similar proportions would probably be found for Switzerland and the countries of central Europe, where the persecution was equally severe. (Vol. 1, 209; see Henri Pirenne, Histoire de Belgique , t. III, p. 362, n. 3, based on the Bibliographie des martyrologes protestants neerlandais, Ghent, 1890)
*
***
*
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).
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 two YouTube channels, Catholic Bible Highlights and Lux Veritatis (featuring documentaries), where I partner with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos and documentaries), 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: Portrait of John Calvin (French school, 16th century) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
Summary: I summarize John Calvin’s treatise from Jan. 1554, entitled Declaratio orthodoxae fidei [Declaration of the Orthodox Faith], in which he defends the duty of executing heretics.
Summary: The Protestant Revolt from its inception was a chaotic mess of mutually anathematizing, ever-warring factions: initiated by Luther’s principle of private judgment & sola Scriptura.
*
Dive into Part 4 of Dave Armstrong’s explosive series on Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation! Discover the jaw-dropping truth about the bitter rivalries and fiery conflicts that tore apart the early Protestant leaders after Luther’s 95 Theses in 1517. Far from the promised unity and harmony, reformers like Ulrich Zwingli, John Calvin, and others clashed viciously, hurling insults and accusations of heresy at one another. From Luther being called a “full-blown heathen” to Calvin labeling Lutheranism an “evil,” this video uncovers the chaotic infighting that defined the early Protestant movement.
*
Travel back 500 years to witness the shocking disunity among Protestant founders, including Luther’s scathing attacks on Zwingli, Oecolampadius, and Karlstadt, and Calvin’s fears of Lutheranism’s spread. Learn how these leaders, meant to unite under the Bible’s authority, instead condemned each other as “murderers of souls” and “enemies of Christ.” Plus, find out why even Anabaptists faced the death penalty under both Calvin and Luther’s influence!
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).
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 two YouTube channels, Catholic Bible Highlights and Lux Veritatis (featuring documentaries), where I partner with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos and documentaries), 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: cover of my self-published book from 2014.
My good and esteemed friend and apologist-colleague and fellow Michigander Steve Ray wrote in a public Facebook post (2 May 2025): “We don’t need a successor of Pope Francis; we need a successor [of] St. Peter.” Then in the combox, he wrote, “Oh, I’m very clear. There’s a deeper meaning than the surface text. Think about it.”
After thirteen hours, this post has received 706 likes and 34 shares (sadly, par for the course for this sort of thing).
So I did think about it, and this is my reply:
. . . which of course Pope Francis was, so it’s a bit of self-contradictory reasoning. For the point (at least if taken literally) to be successful, one must presuppose the falsehood that Pope Francis was nota successor of St. Peter, which is pseudo-sedevacantism, or a lousy pope who bound the faithful to false teaching (which would be contrary to the very high level Vatican I teaching of papal indefectibility).
If Pope Francis in fact did not bind the faithful to heresy or even non-heretical error, then it seems to me that the entire point is null and void. If he did, then I request that we all be shown where this occurred. Even pope-basher Phil Lawler, author of the hit piece, Lost Shepherd: How Pope Francis is Misleading His Flock (2018), which I eviscerated in many critical reviews, denied that anyone has demonstrated that Pope Francis was guilty of any heresy. He wrote on 3 May 2019:
Is the Pope a heretic? I am not qualified to address that question. . . . Who could make the authoritative judgment that the Pope had fallen into heresy and therefore lost his authority? Certainly not a handful of independent scholars. . . .
Peter Kwasniewski, one of the principal authors of the letter, now says that the document lists “instances of heresy that cannot be denied.” This, I’m afraid, is a demonstrably false statement. The “instances of heresy” mentioned in the letter have been denied, and repeatedly. The authors of the letter are convinced of their own arguments, but they have not convinced others. In fact they have not convinced me, and if they cannot persuade a sympathetic reader, they are very unlikely to convince a skeptical world. . . .
See my article on this view of Lawler’s, with many links. In a follow-up letter of 16 May 2025, Lawler wrote: ““the authors of the open letter made a tactical mistake, because the charge of heresy is very difficult to prove . . .” Now, he may have changed his mind in the meantime, and adopted the brain-dead schismatic or quasi-schismatic mindset of Taylor Marshall or the excommunicate Vigano et al, but that’s what he thought then, at any rate. And he was correct.
So I respectfully dissent from my respected friend and fellow apologist and Michigander Steve. I simply couldn’t let a statement like this pass by without comment.
The anti-papal rhetoric — generally speaking now — will continue with the next pope: I have predicted for several years now. And it will because in my opinion as an apologist and longtime observer of the Christian community, it’s a quasi-Protestant and Americanist attitude of hyper-individualism and nitpicking the pope whatever he does, which is highly reminiscent of both Martin Luther and theologically liberal dissident Catholics. It incorporates fundamental errors of both the far right and the far left of the ecclesiological spectrum. We either have a pope whom we respect and follow or not.
That’s not to say that we must agree with absolutely everything he said: up to what color socks to wear (as I have often joked about). I respectfully disagreed with Pope Francis on a few political issues, such as immigration, the use of nuclear energy, and climate change. But that’s just it: those things aren’t faith and morals and not areas where the pope is infallible or even particularly an expert. The Holy Father himself drew this distinction in his great encyclical Laudato si (5-24-15), where he wrote, “the Church does not presume to settle scientific questions or to replace politics” [188].
I’m not an ultramontanist in the sense that St. Cardinal Newman opposed. I am an orthodox Catholic, who follows the pope as the infallible and indefectible vicar of Christ on earth, and yes, the successor of St. Peter. What has happened in the last twelve years among his nattering nabob critics is an absolute disgrace and a scandal. I have done my best to counter these grave errors, with 241 articles defending the pope (now it’s 242) and proving that his critics were mistaken, and also a collection of 342 articles from others doing the same thing. But no one can be convinced by something that they refuse to read or seriously consider, even if they do read it.
“You can lead the horse to water, but you can’t make it drink,” in other words . . . Jesus said several times, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear” (Lk 14:35). He was criticizing the refusal to hear, or obstinacy. Many Catholics today refuse to consider any defense of Pope Francis because they have bought all of the propaganda and the false narrative. The only winner here is the devil. He has divided and conquered once again and we have been stupid and blind enough to let him do it.
And the saddest thing of all is that it will continue in the next papacy, because nothing satisfies this sort of critical, unCatholic spirit . . .
Now, when I generalize about an error as I am doing here (putting on my “Catholic sociologist” hat) the danger is that some people may think that I am assuming low motives or bad faith in those who hold the position, and that I am engaging in personal attacks. THIS IS NOT TRUE AT ALL. A person can hold an erroneous position in completely good faith and sincerity, thinking they are doing good and on the side of the angels. I think this is true, for example, of Luther and Calvin. At the same time it can be in fact an objectively false and dangerous belief. The effect is the same. The well-intentioned person spreading what is a grave error produces the same bad fruit.
I know Steve (friends for 43 years) and I know his heart and his motivation for what he does. A person (like Steve) can do a tremendous amount of good work (as he has: which I immensely admire), but still simply be wrong on one point. In other words, it’s not a matter of overall character (a “good” or “bad” person) but (usually) of a good person who is simply wrong about a specific matter; has received erroneous teaching and accepted it. It’s not a matter of good vs. evil but of right vs. wrong thinking (lacking facts, logic, internal cohesion and consistency, etc.).
So I say that the vast majority of folks who follow this line of thought have simply fallen victim to bad thinking and analysis and perhaps also in some cases the enticements of the “bandwagon.” If a lot of people are saying a particular thing, then it’s very difficult to dissent from it and to not be one of the crowd. The anti-Francis bandwagon became very large indeed and infiltrated many otherwise respectable and helpful institutions and Catholic circles. We all like to be accepted and we don’t like controversy. I hate the latter myself. But my job requires me to be involved in it at times.
I try to always do so without any personal enmity whatever, as in this case.
*
***
*
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).
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 two YouTube channels, Catholic Bible Highlights and Lux Veritatis (featuring documentaries), where I partner with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos and documentaries), 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!
Summary: Was Pope Francis a legitimate or worthy “successor” of St. Peter? The title of a Facebook post from my good friend & fellow apologist Steve Ray suggested otherwise & I replied.
Zwingli vs. John the Baptist & Baptism Re Salvation
I cite The Latin Works of Huldreich Zwingli, Volume Three, edited by Clarence Nevin Heller, Philadelphia: The Heidelberg Press, 1929. I am specifically addressing Zwingli‘s work, Commentary on True and False Religion (1525; translated by Henry Preble), which William Walker Rockwell in his Preface describes as “The earliest truly comprehensive treatise on Protestant theology” and the first to present “the full-orbed Protestant faith. . . . Zwingli presents an original and . . . comprehensive plan of arrangement and, therefore, justifies the claim that among Protestant system-builders he is the pioneer” (p. iii).
This is a reply to his section 7, “The Gospel” (pp. 118-131). Zwingli’s words will be in blue. I use RSV for Bible citations.
*****
He sent forth His disciples with the injunction, Mark 16: 15: “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned.” Here we learn, first, that the gospel is a thing which saves the believer. (p. 118)
Indeed it is, but baptism also saves us (see 13 more passages proving that), as the passage says. Zwingli asserts one part of it and ignores the other.
Peter also teaches, 1 Pet. 3: 20-21, saying that we are washed in baptism in the same way in which the men of old were once purified by the flood. And, that we shall not understand here the baptism of water but the internal change of the old man through repentance, . . . (p. 121)
It’s pretty tough to take this view when Peter clearly says in the same passage, “Baptism, . . . now saves you” (1 Pet 3:21). Once again, Zwingli sees only what he wants to see (according to his prior theology and premise) and ignores what he doesn’t want to accept. This is eisegesis (reading external things into Scripture) rather than exegesis (taking out of Scripture what is really there). We can be quite sure that if Peter had written, “baptism does not save you” that would be trumpeted far and wide by Protestants (as well it should be, if indeed he had expressed that). But because Peter actually stated that baptism “saves you” it has to be ignored or explained away.
If this passage isn’t clear enough for Zwingli, we have St. Peter’s sermon on the Day of Pentecost: the first Christian sermon in the new covenant:
Peter unquestionably taught the Catholic view of baptismal regeneration. Clear as day! Clear as pure water . . .
. . . the symbol of Baptism, . . . [there are] those who think that it wipes away sins . . . [they] speak what pleases themselves, not what the word of the Lord has taught. (p. 121)
Yes, of course we think it wipes away sins, because Holy Scripture says so fourteen times. If God inspired men to teach this in His Holy Word, that’s more than enough for us. Zwingli projects his eisegesis onto his opponents.
When, then, John [the Baptist] taught that man must review his life and change it, what hopes, pray, did he hold out? Did he ever teach, “By doing so and so ye will be saved”? By no means. (p. 121)
He did teach that, in asserting:
No fruit (which mostly means good works) = no salvation, and hell as the alternative. In Luke, John goes on to provide several examples of what he means by these fruits / good works:
Jesus directly ties good works to salvation (never mentioning faith) in the last judgment, described in Matthew 25. These are a few of the 100 refutations of “faith alone” in the Bible. But — true to form — Zwingli ignores all this that roundly refutes his false claim that John the Baptist supposedly never mentioned works in conjunction with salvation.
There isn’t much about John the Baptist in the Gospels. It’s very hard to overlook these passages. But when one is determined not to see what he doesn’t want to see (as Zwingli was), this is what we get. Heresy always begins with the sad adoption of many false and unbiblical premises.