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.
Including Sacraments, Grace, & Salvation; Protestants & Salvation Through Baptism & the Eucharist
Photo credit: Portrait of Martin Luther (1525), by Lucas Cranach the Elder (1472-1553) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
Norman L. Geisler (1932 – 2019) was an American evangelical Protestant theologian, philosopher, and apologist. He obtained an M.A. in theology from Wheaton College and a Ph.D. in philosophy from Loyola University, and made scholarly contributions to the subjects of classical Christian apologetics, systematic theology, philosophy of religion, Calvinism, Catholicism, biblical inerrancy, Bible difficulties, biblical miracles, the resurrection of Jesus, ethics, and other topics. He wrote or edited more 90 books and hundreds of articles.
Dr. Geisler was the Chairman of Philosophy of Religion at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (1970–79) and Professor of Systematic Theology at Dallas Theological Seminary (1979–88) and a key figure in founding the Evangelical Philosophical Society. He also co-founded Southern Evangelical Seminary. He was known as an evangelical Thomist and considered himself a “moderate Calvinist”. He was not an anti-Catholic (i.e., he didn’t deny that Catholicism was fully a species of Christianity).
This is one of a series of comprehensive replies to his book, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences (co-author, Ralph E. MacKenzie, graduate of Bethel Theological Seminary-West; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 1995). It’s available online in a public domain version, which has no page numbers, so I will utilize page numbers from my paperback copy, for the sake of full reference. I consider it the best Protestant critique of Catholicism (especially in terms of biblical arguments) that I have ever found, from any time period. The arguments are, for the most part, impressively presented, thought-provoking, respectful, respectable, and worthy of serious consideration (which I’m now giving them).
I’ll be concentrating on the eight sections of Part Two: “Areas of Doctrinal Differences” (202 pages). These installments will be listed and linked on my Calvinism & General Protestantism web page, in section XVII: “Catholics and Protestants” (second from the end). Dr. Geisler’s and Ralph MacKenzie’s words will be in blue. My biblical citations are from RSV.
*****
While Roman Catholic theology claims that there is no salvation apart from God’s grace, their view of the sacraments tends to take away in practice what they have affirmed in principle. The Catholic view of a sacrament, unchanged by Vatican II, is that it is given “not merely as a sign but as a cause of grace.” Catholic dogma states: “If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law do not contain the grace which they signify, or that they do not confer that grace on those who do not place any obstacle in the way, as though they were only outward signs of grace or justice, received through faith . . . let him be anathema. ” Furthermore, it is anathema to believe that “grace is not conferred from the work which has been worked” but has come from “faith alone.” This being the case, salvation is by sacraments. God’s normative way of saving sinners is, according to Catholic dogma, through the Catholic sacramental system . . . (p. 242)
The sacraments, institutionalized as they are in the Roman Catholic Church, are necessary for salvation. (p. 243)
Dr. Geisler here employs an extreme version of the common and most unfortunate Protestant “either/or” mentality, which has to do with the propensity to create false dichotomies that don’t logically — or theologically — follow. He claims that Catholic thought is contradictory insofar as we agree on grace alone (sola gratia) but also believe in sacraments. Then he cites a Catholic source asserting that sacraments “contain” and “confer” grace. Yet to him this is a contradiction. Why? Catholics reply that it’s still be grace, and that sacraments are merely conduits or the means of obtaining grace. There is no difference. It’s only a prior irrational antipathy to sacraments (physical or material means of obtaining grace) that would bring about this supposed conflict in one’s mind.
John 6:48-51 I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven;if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”
John 6:53-58 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the fleshof the Son of manand drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”
This is what Geisler is forced to oppose. His beef is ultimately against biblical teaching; not merely Catholic teaching, because the latter is derived from the former. It’s so clear in the Bible that many important — even the most important — Protestants agree. Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism, is one of these:
Little children . . . are free in every way, secure and saved solely through the glory of their baptism . . . Through the prayer of the believing church which presents it, . . . the infant is changed, cleansed, and renewed by inpoured faith. Nor should I doubt that even a godless adult could be changed, in any of the sacraments, if the same church prayed for and presented him, as we read of the paralytic in the Gospel, who was healed through the faith of others (Mark 2:3-12). I should be ready to admit that in this sense the sacraments of the New Law are efficacious in conferring grace, not only to those who do not, but even to those who do most obstinately present an obstacle.” (The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, 1520, from the translation of A. T. W. Steinhauser, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, revised edition, 1970, 197)
Likewise, in his Large Catechism (1529), Luther writes:
Expressed in the simplest form, the power, the effect, the benefit, the fruit and the purpose of baptism is to save. No one is baptized that he may become a prince, but, as the words declare [of Mark 16:16], that he may be saved. But to be saved, we know very well, is to be delivered from sin, death, and Satan, and to enter Christ’s kingdom and live forever with him . . . Through the Word, baptism receives the power to become the washing of regeneration, as St. Paul calls it in Titus 3:5 . . . Faith clings to the water and believes it to be baptism which effects pure salvation and life . . . When sin and conscience oppress us . . . you may say: It is a fact that I am baptized, but, being baptized, I have the promise that I shall be saved and obtain eternal life for both soul and body . . . Hence, no greater jewel can adorn our body or soul than baptism; for through it perfect holiness and salvation become accessible to us . . . (From edition by Augsburg Publishing House [Minneapolis], 1935, sections 223-224, 230, pages 162, 165)
All the major Lutheran denominations hold to baptismal regeneration. John Calvin agrees:
Let it be a fixed point, that the office of the sacraments differs not from the word of God; and this is to hold forth and offer Christ to us, and, in him, the treasures of heavenly grace. (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, 14:17)
There never can be a sacrament without a promise of salvation. (Ibid., IV, 18:19)
Those whom the Lord has once admitted into favour, and ingrafted into communion with Christ, and received into the fellowship of the Church by baptism, are freed from guilt and condemnation . . . (IV, 15:12)
God, regenerating us in baptism, ingrafts us into the fellowship of his Church, and makes us his by adoption, . . . (IV, 17:1)
It is his will that all who have believed, be baptised for the remission of sins. Hence those who have thought that baptism is nothing else than the badge and mark by which we profess our religion before men, in the same way as soldiers attest their profession by bearing the insignia of their commander, having not attended to what was the principal thing in baptism; and this is, that we are to receive it in connection with the promise, “He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved” (Mark 16:16). (IV, 15:1)
In this sense is to be understood the statement of Paul, that “Christ loved the Church, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word” (Eph. 5:25, 26); and again, “not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost” (Titus 3:5). Peter also says that “baptism also doth now save us” (1 Peter 3:21). (IV, 15:2)
We ought to consider that at whatever time we are baptised, we are washed and purified once for the whole of life. Wherefore, as often as we fall, we must recall the remembrance of our baptism, and thus fortify our minds, so as to feel certain and secure of the remission of sins. For though, when once administered, it seems to have passed, it is not abolished by subsequent sins. (IV, 15:3)
All who are clothed with the righteousness of Christ are at the same time regenerated by the Spirit, . . . we have an earnest of this regeneration in baptism. (IV, 15:12)
But how, they ask, are infants regenerated, when not possessing a knowledge of either good or evil? We answer, that the work of God, though beyond the reach of our capacity, is not therefore null. Moreover, infants who are to be saved (and that some are saved at this age is certain) must, without question, be previously regenerated by the Lord. For if they bring innate corruption with them from their mother’s womb, they must be purified before they can be admitted into the kingdom of God, into which shall not enter anything that defileth (Rev. 21:27). If they are born sinners, as David and Paul affirm, they must either remain unaccepted and hated by God, or be justified. (IV, 16:17)
They object, that baptism is given for the remission of sins. When this is conceded, it strongly supports our view; for, seeing we are born sinners, we stand in need of forgiveness and pardon from the very womb. . . . If, by baptism, Christ intends to attest the ablution by which he cleanses his Church, it would seem not equitable to deny this attestation to infants, who are justly deemed part of the Church, seeing they are called heirs of the heavenly kingdom. (IV, 16:22)
John Wesley, who was a lifelong Anglican (Anglicanism holding to baptismal regeneration), but is also considered the founder of Methodism, also concurs with Catholics, Luther, and Calvin:
By baptism we, who were “by nature children of wrath,” are made the children of God. And this regeneration, which our [Anglican] Church in so many places ascribes to baptism, is more than barely being admitted into the Church, though commonly connected therewith; being “grafted into the body of Christ’s Church, we are made the children of God by adoption and grace.” This is grounded on the plain words of our Lord, “Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” [John 3:5]. By water then, as a means, the water of baptism, we are regenerated or born again; whence it is also called by the apostle “the washing of regeneration.” Our Church, therefore, ascribes no greater virtue to baptism than Christ himself has done. Nor does she ascribe it to the outward washing, but to the inward grace, which, added thereto, makes it a sacrament. Herein a principle of grace is infused which will not be wholly taken away, unless we quench the Holy Spirit of God by long-continued wickedness. (A Treatise on Baptism; 11 Nov. 1756)
But “as by the offense of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation, so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men, to justification of life.” And the virtue of this free gift, the merits of Christ’s life and death, are applied to us in baptism. “He gave himself for the Church, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word” [Eph. 5:25-26]; namely, in baptism, the ordinary instrument of our justification. Agreeably to this, our Church prays in the baptismal office that the person to be baptized may be “washed and sanctified by the Holy Ghost, and, being delivered from God’s wrath, receive remission of sins, and enjoy the everlasting benediction of his heavenly washing;” . . . (Ibid.)
Our [Anglican] Church declares in the rubric at the end of the office, “It is certain, by God’s word, that children who are baptized, dying before they commit actual sin, are saved.” And this is agreeable to the unanimous judgment of all the ancient fathers. . . . Baptism doth now save us, if we live answerable thereto; if we repent, believe, and obey the Gospel, supposing this, as it admits us into the Church here, so into glory hereafter. . . . In the ordinary way there is no other means of entering into the Church or into heaven. (Ibid.)
Infants indeed, our Church supposes to be justified in baptism, although they cannot then either believe or repent, But she expressly requires both repentance and faith, in. those who come to be baptized when they are of riper years. (A Farther Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion, 1745)
The Churches of Christ and Disciples of Christ denominations believe in (adult) baptismal regeneration; and of course, Eastern Orthodoxy holds to baptismal regeneration. Geisler’s is a tiny, tiny minority view, both today and even more so throughout Church history. And it is because it’s contrary to Holy Scripture.
Martin Luther tied Holy Communion to salvation and forgiveness of sins:
What is the Sacrament of the Altar?
It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and the wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself. . . .
What is the benefit of such eating and drinking?
That is shown us by these words, “Given and shed for you for the remission of sins”; namely, that in the Sacrament forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation are given us through these words. For where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation. (Small Catechism, 1529, 20-21)
We go to the Communion because we receive there a treasure through and in which we obtain the forgiveness of sins. (Large Catechism, 1529, section 247).
So did John Calvin:
As bread nourishes, sustains, and protects our bodily life, so the body of Christ is the only food to invigorate and keep alive the soul. . . . to foster, refresh, strengthen, and exhilarate. . . . nourishing us unto life eternal, . . . (Institutes, IV, 17:3-4)
[H]e gave himself to be crucified for the redemption of the world; and he gives himself daily, when in the word of the gospel he offers himself to be partaken by us, inasmuch as he was crucified, when he seals that offer by the sacred mystery of the Supper, and when he accomplishes inwardly what he externally designates. . . . That Christ is the bread of life by which believers are nourished unto eternal life, . . . For there are some who define the eating of the flesh of Christ, and the drinking of his blood, to be, in one word, nothing more than believing in Christ himself. But Christ seems to me to have intended to teach something more express and more sublime in that noble discourse, in which he recommends the eating of his flesh—viz. that we are quickened by the true partaking of him, . . . (IV, 17:5)
The very flesh in which he resides he makes vivifying to us, that by partaking of it we may feed for immortality. “I,” says he, “am that bread of life;” “I am the living bread which came down from heaven;” “And the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world” (John 6:48, 51) . . . . by this food believers are reared to eternal life. (IV, 17:8)
Who sees not that the communion of the flesh and blood of Christ is necessary to all who aspire to the heavenly life? (IV, 17:9)
The true and substantial communication of the body and blood of the Lord, . . . are received not by the imagination or intellect merely, but are enjoyed in reality as the food of eternal life. (IV, 17:19)
Such, I say, is the corporeal presence which the nature of the sacrament requires, and which we say is here displayed in such power and efficacy, that it not only gives our minds undoubted assurance of eternal life, but also secures the immortality of our flesh, . . . (IV, 17:32)
So did the Anglican John Wesley:
What is to be inferred from this undeniable matter of fact,—one that had not faith received it in the Lord’s Supper? Why, 1. that there are means of grace; i. e. outward ordinances, whereby the inward grace of God is ordinarily conveyed to man; whereby the faith that brings salvation is conveyed to them who before had it not;—2. That one of these means is the Lord’s Supper;—and 3. That he who has not this faith ought to wait for it, in the use both of this and of the other means which God hath ordained. (Journal, 7 Nov. 1739)
All who desire an increase of the grace of God, are to wait for it in partaking of the Lord’s-Supper. . . . And that this is also an ordinary, stated mean of receiving the grace of God, is evident from those words of the Apostle, which occur in the preceding chapter. “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion [or communication] of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” [1 Cor. 10:16]. Is not the eating of that bread, and the drinking of that cup, the outward, visible mean, whereby God conveys into our souls all that spiritual grace, that righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost, which were purchased by the body of Christ once broken, and the blood of Christ once shed for us? Let all, therefore, who truly desire the grace of God, eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. (Sermon 16: “The Means of Grace,” 15 Nov. 1739)
We see, then, that these matters are not merely “a Catholic thing.” It’s a “mainstream Christian” and “biblical” thing. Christianity is sacramental by its very nature. Geisler is the “odd man out.”
And although some contemporary Catholics are beginning to acknowledge the Protestant contribution of forensic justification, it was not spelled out by the Council of Trent. Indeed, while there may be no logical incompatibility of forensic justification with the Roman Catholic concept of initial justification, there
are serious problems with the Catholic concept of progressive justification. (p. 247)
Trent did indeed allude to a limited sense of forensic or extrinsic justification. See: Trent Doesn’t Utterly Exclude Imputation (Kenneth Howell) [July 1996]. Therefore, this being the case, it’s not simply “some contemporary Catholics” who “are beginning” to think about these issues. It goes back almost 500 years. But in the sweeping, exclusive Protestant sense, imputed, external, declared justification is a falsehood:
Justification: Reply to Jordan Cooper (Highlighting Love as the Fulfilling of the Law & Commandments, in Relation to Justification & Salvation) [4-23-24]
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 Catholics 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), in partnership 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 Martin Luther (1525), by Lucas Cranach the Elder (1472-1553) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
*
Summary: Extensive biblical & historical reply to Dr. Geisler’s regarding sacraments, grace, & salvation; highlighting historic Protestants on salvation through baptism & the Eucharist.
Including Luther’s Qualified “Faith Alone”; Catholic Soteriology Accurately Presented; Meritorious Works; Bible vs. “Faith Alone”
Photo credit: self-designed cover for my 2010 book.
Norman L. Geisler (1932 – 2019) was an American evangelical Protestant theologian, philosopher, and apologist. He obtained an M.A. in theology from Wheaton College and a Ph.D. in philosophy from Loyola University, and made scholarly contributions to the subjects of classical Christian apologetics, systematic theology, philosophy of religion, Calvinism, Catholicism, biblical inerrancy, Bible difficulties, biblical miracles, the resurrection of Jesus, ethics, and other topics. He wrote or edited more 90 books and hundreds of articles.
Dr. Geisler was the Chairman of Philosophy of Religion at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (1970–79) and Professor of Systematic Theology at Dallas Theological Seminary (1979–88) and a key figure in founding the Evangelical Philosophical Society. He also co-founded Southern Evangelical Seminary. He was known as an evangelical Thomist and considered himself a “moderate Calvinist”. He was not an anti-Catholic (i.e., he didn’t deny that Catholicism was fully a species of Christianity).
This is one of a series of comprehensive replies to his book, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences (co-author, Ralph E. MacKenzie, graduate of Bethel Theological Seminary-West; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 1995). It’s available online in a public domain version, which has no page numbers, so I will utilize page numbers from my paperback copy, for the sake of full reference. I consider it the best Protestant critique of Catholicism (especially in terms of biblical arguments) that I have ever found, from any time period. The arguments are, for the most part, impressively presented, thought-provoking, respectful, respectable, and worthy of serious consideration (which I’m now giving them).
I’ll be concentrating on the eight sections of Part Two: “Areas of Doctrinal Differences” (202 pages). These installments will be listed and linked on my Calvinism & General Protestantism web page, in section XVII: “Catholics and Protestants” (second from the end). Dr. Geisler’s and Ralph MacKenzie’s words will be in blue. My biblical citations are from RSV.
*****
Before Luther, the standard Augustinian position on justification stressed intrinsic justification . . . . Intrinsic justification argues that the believer is made righteous by God’s grace, as compared to extrinsic justification, by which a sinner is forensically declared righteous (at best, a subterranean strain in pre-Reformation Christendom). (p. 222)
Here, Dr. Geisler bears witness to the fact that the distinctive and novel “faith alone” Protestant soteriology scarcely existed before the 16th century. Thanks for the confirmation! Catholics have been making the same point for 500 years. Geisler made similar points in other parts of his book:
For Augustine, justification included both the beginnings of one’s righteousness before God and its subsequent perfection — the event and the process. What later became the Reformation concept of ‘sanctification’ then is effectively subsumed under the aegis of justification. Although he believed that God initiated the salvation process, it is incorrect to say that Augustine held to the concept of ‘forensic’ justification. This understanding of justification is a later development of the Reformation . . . (p. 85)
One can be saved without believing that imputed righteousness (or forensic justification) is an essential part of the true gospel. Otherwise, few people were saved between the time of the apostle Paul and the Reformation, since scarcely anyone taught imputed righteousness (or forensic justification) during that period! . . . . . (p. 502)
Geisler even notes that the classic “faith alone” view was not, strictly speaking, initiated even by Martin Luther:
Melanchthon, Luther’s great systematic theologian, did use forensic terms to describe justification. (p. 222)
Geisler commendably points out some other qualifications in Luther’s own views, which is rare in Protestant “Reformation” apologetics. These highlighted aspects reveal that Luther’s position was closer to the Catholic belief regarding justification than most people are aware:
Amid the Protestant stress on Luther’s discovery it is sometimes forgotten that Luther also believed in a progressive sense of the word “justification.” For example, he said: “For we understand that a man who is justified is not already righteous but moving toward righteousness (WA 391, 83; LW 34, 152).” Further, “Our justification is not yet complete…. It is still under construction. It shall, however, be completed in the resurrection of the dead (WA 391, 252).” This sense of progressive justification is what many Protestants call “sanctification,” the process by which we are made righteous, not an act by which one is declared righteous.Toon adds, “Justification by faith is both an event and a process. What later Protestants were to divide, Luther kept together. He is quite clear that there is a moment when a sinner is actually justified by faith. He then has the righteousness of another, the alien righteousness of Christ, imputed to him.” However, “this is the beginning of a journey toward a time (following the resurrection of the dead in the age to come) when he will in fact possess a perfect righteousness created in him by the Spirit of God.” Luther also suggested that the believer is righteous in the eyes of God and yet sinful at the same time. “For Luther, faith is the right (or righteous) relationship to God. Sin and righteousness thus coexist; we remain sinners inwardly, but we are righteous extrinsically in the sight of God.” However, “Luther is not necessarily implying that this co-existence of sin and righteousness is a permanent condition.” Instead, for Luther, “the existence of sin does not negate our status as Christians.” (pp. 223-224; Geisler cites at length Peter Toon, Foundations for Faith [Westchester, Ill., Crossway, 1983, 58-59)
I’ve pointed this out, too, for many years. See, for example, my articles:
Trent understands justification in two senses (the second corresponding to the Reformed doctrine of sanctification), this second justification requires good works as a condition for ultimate justification. “It is thus both possible and necessary to keep the law of God.” . . . Trent understood justification in two ways: the first and second phases which Catholic scholars refer to as “initial” and “progressive” justification respectively. (p. 225)
Geisler makes another very helpful and ecumenical observation, accurately conveying Catholic doctrine (it’s refreshing to see):
Trent states that our initial justification must be seen as a “gift.” Thus, it comes as a surprise to many Protestants that Roman Catholics believe that “If anyone shall say that man can be justified before God by his own works which are done . . . without divine grace through Christ Jesus: let him be Further, “nothing that precedes justification, whether faith or works, merits the grace of justification. For if it is by grace, it is no more by works; otherwise, as the apostle says, grace is no moregrace.” The new Catechism of the Catholic Church says clearly: “The merits of our good works are gifts of the divine goodness” (2009).
It is only fair to point out here that when Catholic scholars cite James 2:24 (“we are justified by works”) they do not mean this initial justification which comes only by grace. Rather, they are referring to progressive justification (growth in righteousness) which Protestants call sanctification. Trent does assert, however, that works are necessary for salvation in the progressive and eventual senses, making it dogma that “by his good works the justified man really acquires a claim to supernatural reward from God.” It is precisely here that Catholics and evangelicals disagree. (p. 226; italics his own, in citing Trent)
At the end, Geisler, like a good Protestant, denies meritorious works. In so doing, he opposes much Scripture:
Scripture teaches that grace and meritorious works are mutually exclusive. . . . neither merit in the strict sense of what is justly earned nor merit which is based in part on what is earned but goes beyond that by God’s goodness is compatible with grace. (p. 230)
*
Really? I must have missed that. Here are some related passages that I have found, that teach otherwise:
Romans 15:17-18 . . . In Christ Jesus, then, I have reason to be proud of my work for God. [18] For I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has wrought through me to win obedience from the Gentiles, by word and deed,
*
1 Corinthians 3:6-9 I planted, Apol’los watered, but God gave the growth. [7] So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. [8] He who plants and he who waters are equal, and each shall receive his wages according to his labor. [9] For we are God’s fellow workers . . .
*
1 Corinthians 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me.
*
2 Corinthians 6:1 Working together with him, then, we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain.
*
Philippians 2:12-13 . . . work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; [13] for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
*
2 Thessalonians 1:11 To this end we always pray for you, that our God may make you worthy of his call, and may fulfil every good resolve and work of faith by his power,
St. Paul doesn’t dichotomize faith and good works, as Dr. Geisler does. They go hand-in-hand. And according to Jesus we receive rewards for good works not just in heaven, but also in this life:
Mark 10:29-30 Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, [30] who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, . . .
St. Augustine said that our merit was merely God crowning his own gifts. That’s what the Catholic Church teaches. It ultimately doesn’t come from us; it comes from God, giving us the grace to do any good thing (Ps 51:7, 10; 84:11). But we can and should willingly participate and do what He wants us to do, and God rewards that.
*
Works are not a condition of salvation; salvation is a gift of grace received by faith alone apart from meritorious works. None of us works for an inheritance; it is something graciously given to us by a benefactor. If, however, we are “rewarded” for our work by salvation or eternal life, then it is not truly and solely God’s grace, despite Catholic protests to the contrary. . . . the New Testament clearly speaks against obtaining salvation (whether justification or sanctification) as a reward (i.e., wage) for work done. (p. 230)
*
Neither initial righteousness (justification) nor progressive righteousness (sanctification) is conditioned on meritorious works. Rather, both are received by grace through faith apart from any works of righteousness. (p. 237)
*
Works-for-reward come under sanctification, not justification. They are what we do as a result of being saved, not what we do in order to be saved (i.e., to receive the gift of eternal life). (p. 238)
*
If we must live a life of sanctification as a condition for our ultimate justification (i.e., to get to heaven), then works have nullified grace. Works have become a de facto condition for heaven. But we cannot work for our salvation (Rom. 4:5; Eph. 2:8- 9); we can only work from it (Eph. 2:10). (p. 240)
*
I have collected a hundred Bible passages that contradict this understanding. Here are some of the clearest:
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 16:27 For the Son of man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay every man for what he has done.
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.
Luke 6:35 But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; . . .
Romans 2:6-10 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.
Romans 2:13-16 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. [14] When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. [15] They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them [16] on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
Galatians 6:7-9 Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. [8] For he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption; but he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. [9] And let us not grow weary in well-doing, for in due season we shall reap, if we do not lose heart.
1 Timothy 6:18-19 They are to do good, to be rich in good deeds, liberal and generous, [19] thus laying up for themselves a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of the life which is life indeed.
Hebrews 5:9 and being made perfect he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him,
James 2:14, 17, 20, 22, 24, 26 What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? . . . [17] So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. . . . [20] . . . faith apart from works is barren . . . [22] You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, . . . [24] You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. . . . [26] . . . faith apart from works is dead.
Revelation 20:12-13 . . . And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, by what they had done. [13] . . . and all were judged by what they had done.
The following two passages also explicitly teach that sanctification is directly related to salvation, in a way that Protestantism expressly denies:
Romans 6:22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life.
*
2 Thessalonians 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.
In the Gospel of John only one condition is laid down for obtaining eternal life: belief (e.g., John 3:16, 36; 5:24; 20:31). If salvation were not by faith alone then John’s whole message would be misleading, since it states that there is only one condition for salvation when actually there are two: faith plus works. Indeed, John states explicitly that the only “work” necessary for salvation is to believe. When asked, “What can we do to accomplish the works of God?” Jesus replied, “This is the work of God, that you believe in the one he sent” (John 6:29, emphasis added). There simply is nothing else we may do in exchange for our salvation. Jesus did it all (John 19:30; Heb. 10:14). (p. 231)
*
Dr. Geisler has somehow overlooked these three passages in the Gospel of John that do not fit at all into his extrabiblical schema:
John 3:36 He who believes [pistuo] in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey [apitheo] the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him. (1 Pet 2:7 uses the same parallelism, with pistuo and apitheo, though RSV translates the latter as “do not believe.” KJV renders it as “disobedient” in the same way that Jn 3:36 and several other verses [Rom 1:30; 2 Tim 3:2; Titus 1:6; 3:3] do)
*
John 5:28-29 . . . all who are in the tombs will hear his voice [29] and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.
*
John 15:2, 4-6, 8 Every branch of mine that bears no fruit, he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. . . . [4] Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. [5] I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. [6] If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned. . . . [8] By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be my disciples.
We find more of the same in the epistles written by the same St. John:
1 John 2:3-5 And by this we may be sure that we know him, if we keep his commandments. [4] He who says “I know him” but disobeys his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him; [5] but whoever keeps his word, in him truly love for God is perfected. By this we may be sure that we are in him:
1 John 3:24 All who keep his commandments abide in him, and he in them. . . .
2 John 1:8 Look to yourselves, that you may not lose what you have worked for, but may win a full reward.
*
***
*
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 Catholics 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), in partnership 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: I address various soteriological topics, including Luther’s qualified “faith alone”; Geisler’s accurate portrayal of Catholic soteriology, meritorious works, and Bible vs. “faith alone”.
Includes Anti-Infallibilist George Salmon; “Vicar of Christ”; “Holy Father”; “Supreme Pontiff”; Is Galileo a Catholic Difficulty?
Photo credit: self-designed cover for my 2012 book.
Norman L. Geisler (1932 – 2019) was an American evangelical Protestant theologian, philosopher, and apologist. He obtained an M.A. in theology from Wheaton College and a Ph.D. in philosophy from Loyola University, and made scholarly contributions to the subjects of classical Christian apologetics, systematic theology, philosophy of religion, Calvinism, Catholicism, biblical inerrancy, Bible difficulties, biblical miracles, the resurrection of Jesus, ethics, and other topics. He wrote or edited more 90 books and hundreds of articles.
Dr. Geisler was the Chairman of Philosophy of Religion at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (1970–79) and Professor of Systematic Theology at Dallas Theological Seminary (1979–88) and a key figure in founding the Evangelical Philosophical Society. He also co-founded Southern Evangelical Seminary. He was known as an evangelical Thomist and considered himself a “moderate Calvinist”. He was not an anti-Catholic (i.e., he didn’t deny that Catholicism was fully a species of Christianity).
This is one of a series of comprehensive replies to his book, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences (co-author, Ralph E. MacKenzie, graduate of Bethel Theological Seminary-West; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 1995). It’s available online in a public domain version, which has no page numbers, so I will utilize page numbers from my paperback copy, for the sake of full reference. I consider it the best Protestant critique of Catholicism (especially in terms of biblical arguments) that I have ever found, from any time period. The arguments are, for the most part, impressively presented, thought-provoking, respectful, respectable, and worthy of serious consideration (which I’m now giving them).
I’ll be concentrating on the eight sections of Part Two: “Areas of Doctrinal Differences” (202 pages). These installments will be listed and linked on my Calvinism & General Protestantism web page, in section XVII: “Catholics and Protestants” (second from the end). Dr. Geisler’s and Ralph MacKenzie’s words will be in blue. My biblical citations are from RSV.
*****
The classic refutation of papal infallibility was written by George Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church (1914). It has never really been answered by the Catholic church. (p. 206)
Salmon’s pathetic anti-Catholic screed, in fact, has been roundly refuted at least twice: first, by Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Murphy in The Irish Ecclesiastical Record (March / May / July / September / November 1901 and January / March 1902): a response (see the original sources) — which I’ve now transcribed almost in its totality — which was more than 73,000 words, or approximately 257 pages; secondly, by Bishop Basil Christopher Butler (1902-1986) in his book, The Church and Infallibility: A Reply to the Abridged ‘Salmon’ (1954, 230 pages). So that’s almost 500 pages of refutation, written 92 and 41 years prior to Geisler’s vacuous claim that no Catholic has ever “really” done it. Here’s what I have compiled:
Irish Ecclesiastical Record vs. Anti-Catholic George Salmon, Pt. 2 . . . In Which Dr. Salmon Accuses Cardinal Newman of Lying Through His Teeth in His Essay on Development, & Dr. Murphy Magnificently Defends Infallibility and Doctrinal Development Against Gross Caricature [3-12-23]
Irish Ecclesiastical Record vs. Anti-Catholic George Salmon, Pt. 4 . . . in which Dr. Salmon Sadly Reveals Himself to be a Hyper-Rationalistic Pelagian Heretic, and Engages in Yet More Misrepresentation of Development of Doctrine and Cardinal Newman’s Statements and Positions [3-15-23]
In view of the New Testament titles used of Peter it is clear that he would never have accepted the terms used of the pope today: “Holy Father” (cf. Matt. 23:9) or “Supreme Pontiff” and “Vicar of Christ.” The only vicar of Christ on earth is the blessed Holy Spirit (John 14:16, 26). Jesus said this of the Holy Spirit of God, not of Peter (John 16:13-14). (p. 212)
*
Talk about “classic”! This is classic contra-Catholic boilerplate unfounded “argumentation”: easy dismantled from Holy Scripture. Apparently, for Geisler, if the exact term doesn’t appear in Scripture, then it is invalid (never mind “Trinity” and “altar call” and a host of other terms). But even here he is inconsistent. The phrase, “Vicar of Christ” never appears in the Bible, either, in that exact form, yet Geisler somehow “knows” that it can only describe the Holy Spirit.
*
RSV in John 14:16, 26 uses the term “Counselor” for the Holy Spirit. Dictionary.com defines “vicar” as “a person who acts in place of another; substitute[;] a person who is authorized to perform the functions of another; deputy.” The Holy Spirit isn’t acting in God’s place because He is God (a very important point, it seems to me!). Nor is He God the Father’s “deputy” because He is equal to the Father.
*
Again, Geisler applies John 16:13 to the Holy Spirit, thinking that it proves He is the “vicar” but it says that the Holy Spirit would “guide you into all the truth.” That quality is not unique to Him. It also describes St. Paul:
Romans 9:1 I am speaking the truth in Christ, . . .
*
1 Corinthians 2:13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit.
*
Titus 1:1 Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to further the faith of God’s elect and their knowledge of the truth which accords with godliness,
And other Christian teachers:
2 Timothy 2:24-25 And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kindly to every one, an apt teacher, forbearing, [25] correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant that they will repent and come to know the truth,
And the one true Church:
1 Timothy 3:15 . . . the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
But a human being can function as a “vicar” or substitute or agent or ambassador for and of Jesus Christ because He said so:
Matthew 10:40 He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives him who sent me.
John 13:20 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who receives any one whom I send receives me; and he who receives me receives him who sent me.
We also see instances of radical identification with Jesus, such as the term “Body of Christ” for the Church, or St. Paul partaking in Christ’s afflictions (Col 2:8; cf. 2 Cor 1:5-7, 4:10, 11:23-30; Gal 6:17), or our “suffering with Christ” (Rom 8:17; 1 Cor 15:31; 2 Cor 6:9; Gal 2:20; Phil 3:10; 1 Pet 4:1, 13).
*
Where’s the beef, then? Jesus routinely refers to something highly akin to “vicar” in Matthew 10:40 and John 13:20 and the Apostle Paul picks up on the motif in a big way. So the pope represents Christ to the world, in a particularly visible, compelling fashion. This isn’t outrageous blasphemy; it’s straightforward biblical usage. Who is being more “biblical”?
*
The antipathy to the supposed anti-biblical title “Holy Father” is an equally silly and groundless argument. All one has to do to refute it is to note that there are such things as “holy men” referred to in the Bible. The writer of Hebrews calls the recipients of his epistle “holy brethren” (Heb 3:1). Peter refers to a “holy priesthood” (1 Pet 2:5) and “holy women” such as Sarah (1 Pet 3:5) and “holy prophets” (2 Pet 3:2; cf. Acts 3:21; Zechariah’s prophecy in Luke 1:70). John the Baptist is referred to as a “righteous and holy man” in Mark 6:20. Jesus refers to a “righteous man” in Matthew 10:41. Therefore, men can be called “holy” in Scripture. That solves half of this “pseudo-problem.” Can men also be called “father”? Of course they can:
Acts 7:2 And Stephen said: “Brethren and fathers, hear me. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham, . . .”
Romans 4:12 . . . the father of the circumcised . . . our father Abraham . . .
Romans 4:16-17 . . . Abraham, for he is the father of us all, as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations . . .” (cf. 9:10; Phil 2:22; Jas 2:21)
1 Corinthians 4:15 For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.
That solves the other half of the weak, insubstantial objection. If you can call a man “holy” and also (spiritual) “father”, then you can call a person both together (both being biblical), and the “problem” vanishes into thin air.
As for “Supreme Pontiff,” Peter even referred to the pagan emperor as “supreme” (1 Pet 2:13) and commanded believers to “Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution” including “governors” (1 Pet 2:13-14). So Dr. Geisler would have us believe that we can regard the Roman emperor as “supreme” (since the Bible says so) but not the leader of the Christian Church? That’s odd.
“Pontiff” is derived from the Latin pontifex, which literally meant “bridgemaker” (pons = “bridge” and fex = “Maker”) and in its popular original meaning meant “waymaker” or “pathfinder.” So the pope is the “supreme bridgemaker or pathfinder.” I love it! What’s controversial about that, pray tell?
As Geisler noted in the same paragraph, Peter called himself “a fellow elder” (1 Pet 5:1). That sounds like “bridgemaker” to me, so again, it’s much ado about nothing: cheap polemics in order to score supposed debating points and “zingers” against the Catholic Church. Jesus washed the feet of His disciples, called them “friends” and said, “the Son of man also came not to be served but to serve” (Mk 10:45) and “let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves” (Lk 22:26) and:
Mark 10:42-44 “. . . You know that those who are supposed to rule over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. [43] But it shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant, [44] and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all.”
Does that mean that Jesus wasn’t the Lord and their master, or even lesser than His own disciples? No, of course not. He was humble and served and ultimately died for us. Popes lead through service as well. St. Paul echoed this: “Not that we lord it over your faith; we work with you for your joy, . . .” (2 Cor 1:24) and referred to his “fellow workers” in ministry several times (Rom 16:3, 9, 21; 2 Cor 8:23; Phil 2:25; 4:3; Col 4:11; Phlm 1:24).
He even stated that “we are God’s fellow workers” (1 Cor 3:9). Mark (thought to be heavily influenced by Peter) noted that “the Lord worked with” the disciples as they went out and preached following Jesus’ resurrection (Mk 16:20). Nothing here is in the least unbiblical. But Dr. Geisler, strangely enough, contradicts several biblical themes or motifs in his “contra-papal” assertions.
There is a New Testament revelatory function like that of the Old, but it is in the New Testament “apostles and prophets” (cf. Eph. 2:20; 3:5) and it ceased when they died. (p. 213)
Ah, but there is no indication in the New Testament that the office of prophet or the practice of prophesying ever ceases. If there were, I assume Dr. Geisler would produce that evidence, but as we see, he does not. See my article, Papacy & OT Infallible Prophets Analogy (vs. Gavin Ortlund) [3-14-24]. Jesus called John the Baptist “more than a prophet” (Luke 7:26) and stated, “among those born of women none is greater than John; yet he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he” (Luke 7:28). Therefore, it is not in the least implausible that one man: the pope, could be infallible, which is a far lesser gift than the inspiration and direct revelation from God exhibited by the prophets.
Briefly put, then, the analogical argument is: “If prophets spoke with inspiration, then popes can plausibly speak infallibly, since the latter is a far less extraordinary gift than the former.” Or, from a different angle: “If those with lesser gifts can do the great thing (inspired utterance), then those with greater gifts can certainly do the lesser thing (infallible utterance).” St. Paul casually assumes that the office of prophet or the gift of prophecy, were perpetual in the Church:
Romans 12:6 Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith;
1 Corinthians 12:7-11 To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. [8] To one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, [9] to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, [10] to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. [11] All these are inspired by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.
1 Corinthians 14:1, 3-5 Make love your aim, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy. . . . [3] On the other hand, he who prophesies speaks to men for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation. [4] He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. [5] Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. He who prophesies is greater than he who speaks in tongues, unless some one interprets, so that the church may be edified. (see many more)
Perhaps the greatest embarrassment to the self claimed infallible church is its fallible judgment about Galileo Galilei (A.D. 1564-1642). Threatened by the implications of Galileo’s discovery, the Catholic church sided with the scientifically outdated Ptolemaic geocentric universe. (p. 218)
This is a red herring. The basic retort, which is decisive, was provided by the Catholic Encyclopedia in 1909 (“Galileo Galilei”):
Can it be said that either Paul V or Urban VIII so committed himself to the doctrine of geocentricism as to impose it upon the Church as an article of faith, and so to teach as pope what is now acknowledged to be untrue? That both these pontiffs were convinced anti-Copernicans cannot be doubted, nor that they believed the Copernican system to be unscriptural and desired its suppression. The question is, however, whether either of them condemned the doctrine ex cathedra. This, it is clear, they never did.
This is a fact, determined by the methods of historiography like any other purported historical fact. Dr. Geisler alludes to this article and partially cites it on page 219. He puts down some replies from Catholics, including one that noted that no question of faith or morals (the standard overarching categories for infallible pronouncements) was involved with Galileo. But this isn’t good enough for Geisler, so he protests:
None of these ingenious solutions is very convincing, having all the earmarks of after-the-fact tinkering with the pronouncements that resulted from this episode. . . . At any rate, the pope’s condemnation of Galileo only undermines the alleged infallibility of the Catholic church. Catholic apologists can always invoke their apologetic warehouse-that the pope was not really speaking infallibly on that occasion-but constant appeal to this non-verifiable distinction only weakens their case for infallibility. (pp. 219-220)
Well, this is fascinating, and yet another self-contradiction, since on page 203, Geisler, in his first sentence of his Chapter 11 (“Infallibility”) correctly states:
According to Roman Catholic dogma the teaching magisterium is infallible when officially defining faith and morals for believers.
Okay; so how is it that on page 219, after citing a Catholic source noting that the Galileo affair involved no matter of faith or morals, Geisler disagreed with his earlier pronouncement and claimed that it isn’t “very convincing” and is “after-the-fact tinkering”? Either he is correct about how the Catholic Church defines infallible utterances or not. I say he is correct on page 203 and contradictorily incorrect, concerning the same issue on page 219.
On page 204, Geisler even cited the portion of Vatican I in 1870 where papal infallibility was defined, and included in that is the statement explaining how when the pope “explains a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the Universal Church” he “operates with that infallibility . . .” It mentions “faith and morals” a second time in his own quote, too. The issues in the Galileo affair had nothing to do either with infallibility or the Catholic magisterium. They were about disputes regarding scientific evidences and method.
Nothing has changed since that time, 400 years ago. In his 2015 encyclical, Laudato si, Pope Francis wrote: “Here I would state once more that the Church does not presume to settle scientific questions . . . But I am concerned to encourage an honest and open debate . . .” (188) Geisler appears to again agree with the definition of infallibility according to Catholic teaching on page 204:
Roman Catholic scholars have expounded significant qualifications on the doctrine of papal infallibility. First, they acknowledge that the pope is not infallible in everything he teaches but only when he speaks ex cathedra, as the official interpreter of faith and morals. Avery Dulles, an authority on Catholic dogma, states that, for a pronouncement to be ex cathedra, it must: . . .
3. determine a doctrine of faith and morals, i.e., a doctrine expressing divine revelation;
He reiterates again on the same page:
Second, the pope is not infallible when pronouncing on matters that do not pertain to “faith and morals.” On these matters he may be as fallible as the next person.
He refers again to “faith and morals” on pp. 211-212 and a few more times as well. So which is it? If Geisler is to be trusted for accurately representing our view of the parameters of infallibility, then we must go with his earlier statements in this chapter. But he contradicts them later in the chapter, when it suits his contra-Catholic polemical interests. He can’t have it both ways. If he is correct later in the chapter, then he would be incorrect at the beginning, according to logic. But in fact he is correct in the beginning, and so he speaks falsehood at the end.
In any event, the Galileo pronouncements clearly do not fall under the criteria for infallible pronouncements. The whole canard that they supposedly did is basked in ignorance or (as here) self-contradiction in the zeal to refute the Big Bad Boogeyman of the Catholic Church. For further reading on this fascinating topic (e.g., St. Robert Bellarmine had a better understanding of scientific method than Galileo did), see:
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!
Summary: Dr. Geisler pulls out several classic and stereotypical anti-papal arguments out of a hat. I tackle several: “Vicar of Christ”, “Holy Father”, “Supreme Pontiff”, & Galileo & infallibility.
Photo credit: Lower part of col. 18 of the Greek Minor Prophets Scroll (Septuagint) from Nahal Hever (8HevXII gr) containing verses from Habakkuk. The arrow points at the divine name in paleo-Hebrew script. Dated to between 50 BC and 50 AD [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
Norman L. Geisler (1932 – 2019) was an American evangelical Protestant theologian, philosopher, and apologist. He obtained an M.A. in theology from Wheaton College and a Ph.D. in philosophy from Loyola University, and made scholarly contributions to the subjects of classical Christian apologetics, systematic theology, philosophy of religion, Calvinism, Catholicism, biblical inerrancy, Bible difficulties, biblical miracles, the resurrection of Jesus, ethics, and other topics. He wrote or edited more 90 books and hundreds of articles.
Dr. Geisler was the Chairman of Philosophy of Religion at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (1970–79) and Professor of Systematic Theology at Dallas Theological Seminary (1979–88) and a key figure in founding the Evangelical Philosophical Society. He also co-founded Southern Evangelical Seminary. He was known as an evangelical Thomist and considered himself a “moderate Calvinist”. He was not an anti-Catholic (i.e., he didn’t deny that Catholicism was fully a species of Christianity).
This is one of a series of comprehensive replies to his book, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences (co-author, Ralph E. MacKenzie, graduate of Bethel Theological Seminary-West; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 1995). It’s available online in a public domain version, which has no page numbers, so I will utilize page numbers from my paperback copy, for the sake of full reference. I consider it the best Protestant critique of Catholicism (especially in terms of biblical arguments) that I have ever found, from any time period. The arguments are impressively presented, thought-provoking, respectful, respectable, and worthy of serious consideration (which I’m now giving them).
I’ll be concentrating on the eight sections of Part Two: “Areas of Doctrinal Differences” (202 pages). These installments will be listed and linked on my Calvinism & General Protestantism web page, in section XVII: “Catholics and Protestants” (second from the end). Dr. Geisler’s and Ralph MacKenzie’s words will be in blue. My biblical citations are from RSV.
*****
The fact that the New Testament often quotes from the Greek Old Testament in no way proves that the apocryphal books contained in the Greek manuscript of the Old Testament are inspired. (p. 161)
I would respond in two ways:
1) Arguably the NT does cite the deuterocanon (even quite a bit), depending on how one defines “citation” (a complex issue that I dealt with in depth in #2 of this series). See my three-part listing of no less than 171 proposed examples (one / two / three).
2) If a Bible translation is cited as authoritative and inspired, and it includes sections that (possibly) happen not to be cited, it follows straightforwardly that the non-cited portions are also regarded as inspired and canonical (in this instance, books contained in the Greek Septuagint translation of the OT). One, therefore, has to determine which books were included in the Septuagint.
It is not certain that the Septuagint (LXX) of the first century contained the Apocrypha. The earliest Greek manuscripts that include them date from the fourth century A. D. (p. 161)
The great Protestant Bible scholar F. F. Bruce, in his book, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press, 1988), devotes a twelve-page chapter to the Septuagint. In listing the books included in it, he includes the deuterocanonical books, Judith, Tobit, a “considerably expanded edition” of Esther, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus (aka Sirach), Baruch, History of Susanna and Bel and the Dragon (portions of an expanded book of Daniel), and 1 and 2 Maccabees, which “form a sort of appendix” (pp. 47-48). This includes all seven books of the deuterocanon (called “Apocrypha” by Protestants), as well as additional chapters for Esther and Daniel.
With regard the issue of the content of the Septuagint in the first century AD, an argument is made by Catholic apologist Gary Michuta:
Rabbi Akiba ben Joseph (A.D. 37-135) . . . became the head of a rabbinical school located in the city of Jamnia during the first decades of the second Christian century. After the First Jewish Revolt (A.D. 66-73), the school in Jamnia became the center for Jewish religious and political thought. . . .
Until then, the Jews never had a single normative biblical text. The Old Testament circulated in many different translations and recensions, the most popular being the Greek translation of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint. Therefore, the first order of business was to adopt a single normative Hebrew text, thus setting the limits of the rabbinical Bible. It is here that Rabbi Akiba inadvertently tips his hand with regard to the Deuterocanon.
In a work called ToseftaYadayim, 2:13, Akiba says: “The Gospels and heretical books do not defile the hands. The books of ben Sira, and all other books written from then on, do not defile the hands” (2:13).
The phrase “do not defile the hands” refers to a non-sacred text. Sacred texts require ritual hand washing after they were touched. Non-sacred texts do not. Therefore, Akiba is stating that the texts listed are not sacred (i.e., they are not Scripture).
Since the Gospels appear to be mentioned, Akiba’s remarks are in regard to the Christian scriptures. What’s fascinating here is that Akiba’s rejection of the New Testament as Scripture also includes the rejection of the “books of ben Sira and all other books written from then on.” The book of Sirach (ben Sira) is the oldest book of the Deuterocanon (or what Protestants call the Apocrypha). Therefore, this decree rejects the whole of the Deuterocanon as inspired Scripture.
This declaration suggests two very important points. First, there must have been a significant number of Jewish Christians that accepted the Deuterocanon as Scripture prior to Akiba’s remark (i.e., before A.D. 132) for Akiba to associate it with the Christian scriptures. Second, Akiba must have believed that there existed a real possibility that non-Christian Jews may accept it as sacred Scripture as well. Otherwise, there would be no need for his ruling.
Although Rabbi Akiba had no love for Christianity, he nevertheless reveals a point commonly disputed by non-Catholics: namely, that the earliest Christians did indeed hold the Deuterocanon to be Sacred Scripture, just as they did the Gospels and the New Testament. Akiba doesn’t argue the point; rather, he assumes it and legislates against it. (“The False Prophet and the Deuterocanon,”Catholic Answers Magazine, 10-27-16)
This scenario is reflected in the entry, “Akiba ben Joseph,” by Luis Ginzberg, in the Jewish Encyclopedia (1906):
Akiba was the one who definitely fixed the canon of the Old Testament books. He protested strongly against the canonicity of certain of the Apocrypha, Ecclesiasticus, for instance (Sanh. x. 1, Bab. ibid. 100b, Yer. ibid. x. 28a), . . . To the same motive underlying his antagonism to the Apocrypha, namely, the desire to disarm Christians—especially Jewish Christians— who drew their “proofs” from the Apocrypha, must also be attributed his wish to emancipate the Jews of the Dispersion from the domination of the Septuagint, the errors and inaccuracies in which frequently distorted the true meaning of Scripture, and were even used as arguments against the Jews by the Christians.
It follows that the Septuagint at this time (early 2nd century) contained the deuterocanonical books. Geisler’s uncertainty on that point seems quite unwarranted. Also in this early period, St. Clement of Rome, in his epistle, written c. 80 AD in Greek, referred to the deuterocanon that was part of the Greek Septuagint, four times:
1 Clement 3 . . . nor acts a part becoming a Christian, but walks after his own wicked lusts, resuming the practice of an unrighteous and ungodly envy, by which death itself entered into the world.
Wisdom 2:24 but through the devil’s envy death entered the world, and those who belong to his party experience it.
***
1 Clement 27 . . . By the word of His might He established all things, and by His word He can overthrow them. Who shall say unto Him, What have you done? Or, Who shall resist the power of His strength? . . .
Wisdom 11:21 For it is always in thy power to show great strength, and who can withstand the might of thy arm?
Wisdom 12:12 For who will say, “What hast thou done?” Or will resist thy judgment? . . .
In 1 Clement 55, Judith is compared to Esther and described as one who was “strengthened by the grace of God” — and is called “blessed Judith”. In the same section, Clement also makes reference to the additional chapters of Esther that are only in the deuterocanon. He wrote, “For with fasting and humiliation she entreated the everlasting God, who sees all things; and He, perceiving the humility of her spirit, delivered the people for whose sake she had encountered peril.” This must be derived from those additional chapters, since the rest of the book (that Protestants exclusively accept) never mentions God at all. St. Clement appears to be citing Esther chapter 14 and descriptions of God’s deliverance of the Jews in passages such as 10:6, 9 and 16:21.
The Shepherd of Hermas (Greek, c. 140), in Book II, Commandment 1, states, “First of all, believe that there is one God who created and finished all things, and made all things out of nothing.” This is never stated explicitly in the Protestant Old Testament. But it is in the deuterocanon:
2 Maccabees 7:28 . . . look at the heaven and the earth and see everything that is in them, and recognize that God did not make them out of things that existed. . . .
The Didache (Greek, c. 140), chapter 4, states, “Be not a stretcher forth of the hands to receive and a drawer of them back to give.” This appears to be a citation of Sirach 4:31: “Let not your hand be extended to receive, but withdrawn when it is time to repay.”
*
***
*
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: Lower part of col. 18 of the Greek Minor Prophets Scroll (Septuagint) from Nahal Hever (8HevXII gr) containing verses from Habakkuk. The arrow points at the divine name in paleo-Hebrew script. Dated to between 50 BC and 50 AD [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
*
Summary: Dr. Geisler contended that “It is not certain that the Septuagint of the first century contained the Apocrypha.” I provide several strong historical evidences that it did.
Including Related Discussion on Confused, Baffled Protestant Exegesis of Matthew 2:23: “He shall be called a Nazarene”
Photo credit: Archangel Raphael with Bishop Domonte, by Bartolomé Esteban Murillo (1617-1682) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
Norman L. Geisler (1932 – 2019) was an American evangelical Protestant theologian, philosopher, and apologist. He obtained an M.A. in theology from Wheaton College and a Ph.D. in philosophy from Loyola University, and made scholarly contributions to the subjects of classical Christian apologetics, systematic theology, philosophy of religion, Calvinism, Catholicism, biblical inerrancy, Bible difficulties, biblical miracles, the resurrection of Jesus, ethics, and other topics. He wrote or edited more 90 books and hundreds of articles.
Dr. Geisler was the Chairman of Philosophy of Religion at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (1970–79) and Professor of Systematic Theology at Dallas Theological Seminary (1979–88) and a key figure in founding the Evangelical Philosophical Society. He also co-founded Southern Evangelical Seminary. He was known as an evangelical Thomist and considered himself a “moderate Calvinist”. He was not an anti-Catholic (i.e., he didn’t deny that Catholicism was fully a species of Christianity).
This is one of a series of comprehensive replies to his book, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences (co-author, Ralph E. MacKenzie, graduate of Bethel Theological Seminary-West; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 1995). It’s available online in a public domain version, which has no page numbers, so I will utilize page numbers from my paperback copy, for the sake of full reference. I consider it the best Protestant critique of Catholicism (especially in terms of biblical arguments) that I have ever found, from any time period. The arguments are impressively presented, thought-provoking, respectful, respectable, and worthy of serious consideration (which I’m now giving them).
I’ll be concentrating on the eight sections of Part Two: “Areas of Doctrinal Differences” (202 pages). These installments will be listed and linked on my Calvinism & General Protestantism web page, in section XVII: “Catholics and Protestants” (second from the end). Dr. Geisler’s and Ralph MacKenzie’s words will be in blue. My biblical citations are from RSV.
*****
1. There may be New Testament allusions to the Apocrypha, but there are no clear New Testament quotations from it. Not once is there a direct quotation from any apocryphal books accepted by the Roman Catholic Church. Further, although the New Testament cites the Hebrew Old Testament, it never once quotes any of the fourteen (or fifteen) apocryphal books as divinely authoritative or canonical. For example, they are never cited with introductory phrases like “thus says the Lord” or “as it is written” or “the Scriptures say,” such as are typically found when canonical books are quoted. (pp. 160-161)
It’s true that the formula is not used, but some citations are so close, with the citation itself being inspired as part of the inspired New Testament, that in places it becomes a “distinction without a difference.” Let’s look at two examples of perhaps the most striking similarities, in effect becoming “citations”:
2 Maccabees 12:44 For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead.
1 Corinthians 15:29 Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?
Tobit 12:15 I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints and enter into the presence of the glory of the Holy One.
Revelation 1:4 Grace to you . . . from the seven spirits who are before his throne. (cf. “seven spirits of God”: 3:1; 4:5; 5:6; “seven angels” appears nine times in Revelation: 8:2, 6; 15:1, 6-8; 16:1; 17:1; 21:9)
Revelation 8:3-4 And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God.
The belief in “seven spirits” (seemingly, archangels) has to come from some sort of Jewish tradition. The phrases, “seven spirits” and “seven angels” and “seven holy angels” never appear in the 66-book Protestant Old Testament in RSV. All we have is Tobit 12:15. Thus, a good case can be made that Revelation 1:4 and the other twelve references to seven “angels” or “spirits” in Revelation are indeed directly drawing from Tobit 1:15. We know, generally speaking, that New Testament angelology and eschatology significantly developed from the notions discussed in Judaism in the few hundred years before Christ.
The angel Raphael doesn’t appear in the Protestant Old Testament, but does in Tobit (nine times) and also in the non-canonical book 1 Enoch, 14 times. Six of the appearances in 1 Enoch are in conjunction with other archangels, Michael, Gabriel, and Uriel (Bk. I, ch. 4:1; ), or Michael, Gabriel, and Phanuel (Bk. II, ch. 1:33; ch. 2:60; Bk. IV, ch. 1:14-15, 19). “Michael” appears 18 times, “Uriel” 16 times, “Gabriel” eight times, and “Phanuel” five times.
Then there is a tie-in of some of these archangels in the canonical books accepted by all: Michael the Archangel (Dan 10:13, 21; 12:1; Jude 1:9; Rev 12:7) and the Archangel Gabriel (Dan 8:16; 9:21; Lk 1:19, 26). There is clearly a lot of interchange in the thought between the 66-book canon, the deuterocanon, and even additional apocalyptic books such as 1 Enoch (Geisler notes on p. 160 that it was alluded to in Jude 14-15). It’s not nearly as simple as Geisler makes out above, even though the allusions or citations don’t include “Thus says the Lord” etc.
Even accepted NT citations of the OT are often an exegetically and linguistically complex matter. See, for example, the article, “New Testament Use of the Old Testament,” by Roger Nicole, from Revelation and the Bible, edited by Carl. F. H. Henry (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker, 1958), pp. 137-151. It explains the nature of paraphrased citations and then provides many scriptural examples: the consideration of which leads one to adopt the general principle in the first place. Nicole wrote:
In certain cases the New Testament writers do not refer to a single passage, but rather summarize the general teaching of the canonical books on certain subjects in phrasing appropriate to the New Testament, although as to the essential thought they express indebtedness to, or agreement with, the Old Testament. This method of referring to the Old Testament teachings is obviously legitimate. The following passages might be viewed as examples of “quotations of substance,” as Franklin Johnson calls them in his able treatise on The Quotations of the New Testament from the Old Considered in the Light of General Literature (London, Baptist Tract and Book Society, 1896): Matthew 2:23; 5:31, 33; 12:3, 5; 19:7; 22:24; 24:15; 26:24, 54, 56; Mark 2:25; 9:12, 13;10:4; 12:19; 14:21, 49; Luke 2:22; 6:3; 11:49; 18:31; 20:28; 21:22; 24:27, 32, 44-46; John 1:45; 5:39, 46; 7:38, 42; 8:17; 17:12; 19:7, 28; 20:9; Acts 1:16; 3:18; 7:51; 13:22, 29; 17:2, 3; Romans 3:10; 1 Corinthians 2:9; 14:34; 15:3, 4, 25-27; 2 Corinthians 4:6; Galatians 3:22; 4:22; Ephesians 5:14; James 4:5; 2 Peter 3:12, 13.
Ronald F. Youngblood, in his chapter, “Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament,” from The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation (edited by Kenneth L. Barker; Acadamie Books, 1986, chapter ten) concurs:
3 What is meant by “quotations”? Roger Nicole reminds us that the New Testament writers did not have the same rules for quoting that we take for granted today. They neither had nor used quotation marks, ellipsis marks, brackets, or footnote references. They were therefore unable to indicate readily where quotations began and ended, whether omissions occurred in their citations, whether editorial comments were being inserted or intercalated, whether more than one Old Testament passage was being quoted, etc.
*
In addition “quotations” should be understood to include allusions and paraphrases, since the NT writers often quoted from memory and therefore with greater or lesser degrees of freedom. The minds of the New Testament authors were so saturated with Old Testament texts and teachings that they referred to the Old Testament in a variety of ways—now quoting precisely, now alluding to this or that passage, now paraphrasing—but never deviating from its life-transforming message. . . .
In a very few cases, no suitable Old Testament passage can be found as the source for what clearly seems to be direct citations of Scripture in the New Testament. In such instances it would seem that the New Testament writer was freely summarizing Old Testament teaching and did not intend to quote—either verbatim ac litteratim or ad sensum—a specific Old Testament verse. . . .
When New Testament writers cited the Old Testament, they were often alluding not only to the specific passage quoted but also to its context, whether near or remote. An excellent example is Hebrews 12:21: “The sight was so terrifying that Moses said, ‘I am trembling with fear.’ ” The NIV correctly footnotes Deuteronomy 9:19 as the closest Old Testament parallel, but the previous footnote recognizes Exodus 19 as the overall contextual setting. It was to be expected that most first-century readers and hearers, steeped in the Old Testament Scriptures, would see in their mind’s eye the entire context of any Old Testament verse or two brought to their attention. . . .
5. How do New Testament writers quote from the Old Testament? Wenham maintains:
We have … no right to demand of believers in verbal inspiration that they always quote Scripture verbatim, particularly when the Scriptures are not written in the native language of either writer or reader. As with the word preached, we have a right to expect that quotations should be sufficiently accurate not to misrepresent the passage quoted; but, unless the speaker makes it clear that his quotation is meant to be verbatim, we have no right to demand that it should be so. In the nature of the case, the modern scholarly practice of meticulously accurate citation, with the verification of all references, was out of the question. . . .
Various combinations of passages cited from two or more Old Testament books are not uncommon in the New Testament. A fine example is Romans 3:10-18, which, according to the NIV footnotes there, quotes from the Psalms, Isaiah, and (perhaps) Ecclesiastes. A noteworthy variation of this phenomenon is the so-called h+a98araz (“chain,” “necklace”; the same Hebrew root is used in Song of Songs 1:10, where it is translated “strings of jewels”), which intersperses a series of quotations with conjunctions, introductory formulas, and the like (see, e.g., Rom. 9:25-29 and NIV footnotes there).
If we’re talking about Nicole’s “quotations of substance,” there are a host of NT citations of the deuterocanon, that I compiled from the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th edition (Novum Testamentum: Graece et Latine, published by Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft) almost twenty years ago:
Moreover, we could examine — if someone wants to make a big issue about NT citations of the deuterocanon — some tortured attempted Protestant arguments regarding what they dubiously claim are citations of the OT. Perhaps the classic example of that is Matthew 2:23: “. . . that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, ‘He shall be called a Nazarene.’ ” I’ve written about the passage several times, in reply to both atheists (who claimed that the NT dishonestly cites things) or those Protestants who try to maintain that this came from the Old Testament.
*
Many Protestant commentators and exegetes freely admit that this prophecy doesn’t appear in the Old Testament, and is, therefore, a frustrating mystery from their sola Scriptura standpoint: much more averse to non-biblical writings or oral tradition. The problem they have is that the inspired NT specifically attributes the saying to “the prophets.” They have no truly satisfactory or plausible explanation of it.
*
So, for example, the great Baptist New Testament linguist A. T. Robertson, commenting on the interpretation of Matthew 2:23, admits: “It is best to confess that we do not know.”
*
Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers states: “No such words are to be found in the Old Testament. It is not likely that the Evangelist would have quoted from any apocryphal prophecy, nor is there any trace of the existence of such a prophecy.”
We may, with many of the ancient Christians, particularly Chrysostom, suppose, that the evangelist may refer to some writings of the prophets, which were then extant, but are now lost, or to some writings not put into the Sacred Canon, or to some paraphrases upon the writings. As to the interpretations which refer this to Christ’s being called Netzer, the Branch, Isaiah 11:1; Jeremiah 23:5; or Nazir, one Separated, or, the Holy One, they all fail . . .
Barnes’ Notes on the Bibleconcedes: “The words here are not found in any of the books of the Old Testament, and there has been much difficulty in ascertaining the meaning of this passage.”
*
Matthew Poole’s Commentary despairingly concludes: “There is no such saying in all the prophets. There is a strange variety of opinions as to these questions.”
Whence St Matthew obtained it, who knows? . . . Rightly, many have long since denied that this verse exists in the Scriptures of the Old Testament. Its condition, therefore, is the same as that of the prophecy of Enoch, introduced at length by St Jude into the Scriptures of the New Testament, and thus stamped with the seal of inspiration; the same as that of the apothegm, which, though delivered by our Lord, does not occur in the Gospels, but is quoted by the mouth of St Paul, and the pen of St Luke, Acts 20:35. . . . Where lay hid the Proverbs of Solomon from ch. Matthew 25:1; the prophecy of Azariah (2 Chronicles 15:2, etc.); the epistle of Elijah (2 Chronicles 21:12), until they were inserted in the books of the Old Testament, many ages after they were delivered? Certainly, there was no sufficient reason why St Matthew should frame[109] this, if it had been a perfect novelty in his own time. By such a proceeding, he would have more injured than advantaged the whole Christian cause. He had sufficiently numerous examples of prophecies fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth without this. Those who interpret this important verse more vaguely, so as to make out that it is contained here or there in the Scriptures of the Old Testament, in truth take away one from the ancient prophecies; whereas those who consider ΤῸ ΡΗΘῈΝ (that which was uttered), “He shall he called a Nazarene,” to have been expressly uttered of old, recognise a homogeneous portion of the entire testimony of prophecy, and thus in truth maintain the integrity and defend the simplicity of Scripture . . .
Despite all of this admitted uncertainty, Meyer’s NT Commentary stubbornly proclaims: “Others (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Clericus, Grätz) regard the words as a quotation from a lost prophetical book. But always, where in the N. T. the prophets are quoted, those in the completed canon are meant.”
*
The Catholic Encyclopedia (“Nazarene”: 1911) casually states regarding Matthew 2:23: “No explicit prediction to this effect is found in the recorded Old Testament prophecies, and various theories have been advanced to explain the reference. . . . but these interpretations seem far-fetched, to say nothing of other difficulties.”
*
Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin offers yet another intriguing, and quite plausible possibility, in his article, “Did Matthew Invent A Prophecy About Jesus?” (National Catholic Register, 10-24-12):
We know that there were many prophets in ancient Israel who genuinely spoke for God, even though their prophecies are not recorded in the Old Testament. . . .
Could it be that some of this material was passed down in the form of oral tradition, and this is what Matthew was referring to?
He notes that 1 Kings 18:3-4 referred to “a hundred prophets.” 1 Samuel 19:20 refers to “the company of the prophets.” These prophets could have possibly passed down oral tradition, which has been lost, or they could have written other biblical books that were subsequently lost. This is not some far-fetched or desperate notion, since, as Jimmy notes, “the Old Testament refers to them.” He provides four passages (I use RSV here):
1 Chronicles 29:29 Now the acts of King David, from first to last, are written in the Chronicles of Samuel the seer, and in the Chronicles of Nathan the prophet, and in the Chronicles of Gad the seer,
2 Chronicles 9:29 Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, from first to last, are they not written in the history of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahi’jah the Shi’lonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer concerning Jerobo’am the son of Nebat?
2 Chronicles 12:15 Now the acts of Rehobo’am, from first to last, are they not written in the chronicles of Shemai’ah the prophet and of Iddo the seer? There were continual wars between Rehobo’am and Jerobo’am.
2 Chronicles 13:22 The rest of the acts of Abi’jah, his ways and his sayings, are written in the story of the prophet Iddo.
Wikipedia presents many more similar fascinating examples in its article, “Non-canonical books referenced in the Bible.” The great evangelical biblical scholar F. F. Bruce commented upon the New Testament use of what might be called “anomalous” older Jewish writings:
So thoroughly, indeed, did Christians appropriate the Septuagint as their version of the scriptures that the Jews became increasingly disenchanted with it . . . We cannot say with absolute certainty, for example, if Paul treated Esther or the Song of Solomon as scripture any more than we can say if those books belonged to the Bible which Jesus knew and used . . . the book of Wisdom was possibly in Paul’s mind as he dictated part of the first two chapters of Romans . . . [footnote 21: The exposure of pagan immorality in Rom. 1:18-32 echoes Wisdom 12-14; the attitude of righteous Jews criticized by Paul in Rom. 2:1-11 has affinities with passages in Wisdom 11-15]. The writer to the Hebrews probably had the martyrologies of 2 Maccabees 6:18-7:41 or 4 Maccabees 5:3-18:24 in view when he spoke of the tortures and other hardships which some endured through faith (Heb. 11:35b-38, and when he says in the same context that some were sawn in two he may allude to a document which described how the prophet Isaiah was so treated [footnote 23: Perhaps the Ascension of Isaiah . . . ] . . .The Nestle-Aland edition of the Greek New Testament (1979) has an index of Old Testament texts cited or alluded to in the New Testament, followed by an index of allusions not only to the ‘Septuagintal plus’ but also to several books not included in the Septuagint . . . only one is a straight quotation explicitly ascribed to its source. That is the quotation from ‘Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam’ in Jude 14 f; this comes recognizably from the apocalyptic book of Enoch (1 Enoch 1:9). Earlier in Jude’s letter the account of Michael’s dispute with the devil over the body of Moses may refer to a work called the Assumption of Moses or Ascension of Moses, but if so, the part of the work containing the incident has been lost (Jude 9).
There are, however, several quotations in the New Testament which are introduced as though they were taken from holy scripture, but their source can no longer be identified. For instance, the words ‘He shall be called a Nazarene’, quoted in Matthew 2:23 as ‘what was spoken by the prophets’, stand in that form in no known prophetical book . . . Again, in John 7:38 ‘Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water’ is introduced by the words ‘as the scripture has said’ – but which scripture is referred to? . . . there can be no certainty . . .
Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 2:9, ‘What no eye has seen, nor ear heard . . . ‘, introduced by the clause ‘as it is written’, resemble Isaiah 64:4, but they are not a direct quotation from it. Some church fathers say they come from a work called the Secrets of Elijah or Apocalypse of Elijah, but this work is not accessible to us and we do not know if it existed in Paul’s time . . . The naming of Moses’ opponents as Jannes and Jambres in 2 Timothy 3:8 may depend on some document no longer identifiable; the names, in varying forms, appear in a number of Jewish writings, mostly later than the date of the Pastoral Epistles . . . We have no idea what ‘the scripture’ is which says, according to James 4:5, ‘He yearns jealously over the spirit which he has made to dwell in us’ . . .
When we think of Jesus and his Palestinian apostles . . . we cannot say confidently that they accepted Esther, Ecclesiastes or the Song of Songs as scripture, because the evidence is not available. We can argue only from probability, and arguments from probability are weighed differently by different judges. (The Canon of Scripture, Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1988, 50-52, 41; bolding my own)
The overall issue of New Testament citation of older sources including the deuterocanon is very complex and deep and nuanced, as I think I have offered enough information to demonstrate (and almost all from Protestant sources). The overly simplistic platitudes that Protestant apologists too often produce, over against Catholicism and Orthodoxy — that even someone as learned as Dr. Geisler has fallen into here — are woefully insufficient.
*
I think the bottom line as to New Testament citations is expressed well by my friend and fellow Catholic apologist, Gary Michuta:
The New Testament . . . formally quotes only a few books. . . a substantial number of Old Testament books . . . are never quoted (i.e., Ruth, 1st and 2nd Chronicles, Ezra, Esther, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Ezekiel, and Daniel) . . . What this shows is that the absence of a quotation, or even an allusion, proves nothing in regards to a book’s inspired status. Otherwise, none of these books should be considered Scripture, which is obviously false. (The Case for the Deuterocanon: Evidence and Arguments, Livonia, Michigan: Nikaria Press, 2015, p. 2)
*
***
*
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: Archangel Raphael with Bishop Domonte, by Bartolomé Esteban Murillo (1617-1682) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
*
Summary: Geisler asserts that “there are no clear New Testament quotations from” the deuterocanon. I broadly deny this & contend that the issue is very complex and nuanced.
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.