2025-07-16T10:04:29-04:00

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. 1 [3-10-23]

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. 3 . . . In Which Our Sophist-Critic Massively Misrepresents Cardinal Newman and Utterly Misunderstands the Distinction Between Implicit and Explicit Faith [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]
*
Irish Ecclesiastical Record vs. Anti-Catholic George Salmon, Pt. 5: Private Judgment, the Rule of Faith, and Dr. Salmon’s Weak Fallible Protestant “Church”: Subject to the Whims of Individuals; Church Fathers Misquoted [3-15-23]
*
Irish Ecclesiastical Record vs. Anti-Catholic George Salmon, Pt. 6: The Innumerable Perils of Perspicuity of Scripture and Private Judgment [3-16-23]
*
*
*
*
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).
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle and 100% tax-deductible donations if desired), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information.
*
You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my 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: self-designed cover for my 2012 book, Biblical Proofs for an Infallible Church and Papacy
*
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.
2025-07-15T09:39:19-04:00

Photo credit: self-designed cover for my book, published in September 2012.

 

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.

*****

Indeed, church history shows that many early Fathers, including Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom, and Augustine, believed that the New Testament
was the only infallible basis for all Christian doctrine . . . (p. 187)

Augustine gives supreme authority to Scripture alone. (p. 199)

For Augustine, the Bible alone is an infallible and inerrant authority.  (p. 201)

This is sadly typical Protestant revisionist Church history, and very easy to refute. I shall, therefore, document that all four of these men in fact believed in infallible authority besides the Bible.

St. Athanasius

What defect of teaching was there for religious truth in the Catholic Church …? (De Synodis, I, 3)

But the word of the Lord which came through the ecumenical Synod at Nicaea, abides forever. (Ad Afros Epistola Synodica 2)

But let the Faith confessed by the Fathers at Nicæa alone hold good among you, at which all the fathers, including those of the men who now are fighting against it, were present, as we said above, and signed: in order that of us too the Apostle may say, ‘Now I praise you that you remember me in all things, and as I handed the traditions to you, so hold them fast (1 Corinthians 11:2).’ (Ad Afros Epistola Synodica 10)

For had they believed aright, they would have been satisfied with the confession put forth at Nicæa by the whole Ecumenical Council; … Observe how entirely they disregard the truth, and how everything they say and do is for the sake of the Arian heresy. For in that they dare to question those sound definitions of the faith, and take upon themselves to produce others contrary to them, what else do they but accuse the Fathers, and stand up in defense of that heresy which they opposed and protested against? (Ad Episcopus Aegypti et Libyae, 5)

Who, then, that has any real regard for truth, will be willing to suffer these men any longer? Who will not justly reject their writing? Who will not denounce their audacity, that being but few in number, they would have their decisions to prevail over everything, and as desiring the supremacy of their own meetings, held in corners and suspicious in their circumstances, would forcibly cancel the decrees of an uncorrupt, pure and Ecumenical Council? (Ad Episcopus Aegypti et Libyae, 7)

… the sectaries, who have fallen away from the teaching of the Church, and made shipwreck concerning the Faith. (Against the Heathen 1, 6, 3)

For the statements are not fit for Christians to make or to hear, on the contrary they are in every way alien from the Apostolic teaching. . . . For what is so manifestly shewn to be evil, it is not necessary to waste time in exposing further, lest contentious persons think the matter doubtful. It is enough merely to answer such things as follows: we are content with the fact that this is not the teaching of the Catholic Church, nor did the fathers hold this. But lest the ‘inventors of evil things’ make entire silence on our part a pretext for shamelessness, it will be well to mention a few points from Holy Scripture, in case they may even thus be put to shame, and cease from these foul devices. (Letter No. 59 to Epictetus, 3)

Are they not then committing a crime, in their very thought to gainsay so great and ecumenical a Council? . . . masters of their heresy, who are, as James has said, double-minded men, and unstable in all their ways, not having one opinion, but changing to and fro, and now recommending certain statements, but soon dishonouring them, and in turn recommending what just now they were blaming? . . . For, what our Fathers have delivered, this is truly doctrine; and this is truly the token of doctors, to confess the same thing with each other, and to vary neither from themselves nor from their fathers; whereas they who have not this character are to be called not true doctors but evil. . . . the holy and veritable heralds of the truth agree together, and do not differ. For though they lived in different times, yet they one and all tend the same way, being prophets of the one God, and preaching the same Word harmoniously. And thus what Moses taught, that Abraham observed; and what Abraham observed, that Noah and Enoch acknowledged, discriminating pure from impure, and becoming acceptable to God. For Abel too in this way witnessed, knowing what he had learned from Adam, who himself had learned from that Lord, who said, when He came at the end of the ages for the abolishment of sin, “I give no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment, which ye have heard from the beginning.” Wherefore also the blessed Apostle Paul, who had learned it from Him, when describing ecclesiastical functions, forbade that deacons, not to say bishops, should be double-tongued; and in his rebuke of the Galatians, he made a broad declaration, “If anyone preach any other Gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be anathema, as I have said, so say I again. If even we, or an Angel from heaven should preach unto you any other Gospel than that ye have received, let him be anathema.” (Defence of the Nicene Definition, ch. II, 4 and 5)

. . . on the foundation of the Apostles, and holding fast the traditions of the Fathers, . . . (Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia, 54)

Paul justly praises the Corinthians, because their opinions were in accordance with his traditions. And the Lord most righteously reproved the Jews, saying, ‘Wherefore do ye also transgress the commandments of God on account of your traditions.’ For they changed the commandments they received from God after their own understanding, preferring to observe the traditions of men. And about these, a little after, the blessed Paul again gave directions to the Galatians who were in danger thereof, writing to them, ‘If any man preach to you aught else than that ye have received, let him be accursed.’ (Festal Letter #2, 6)

Let every one lend his aid, as feeling that he is himself a sufferer, lest shortly ecclesiastical Canons, and the faith of the Church be corrupted. . . . our Canons and our forms were not given to the Churches at the present day, but were wisely and safely transmitted to us from our forefathers. Neither had our faith its beginning at this time, but it came down to us from the Lord through His disciples. That therefore the ordinances which have been preserved in the Churches from old time until now, may not be lost in our days, and the trust which has been committed to us required at our hands; rouse yourselves, brethren, as being stewards of the mysteries of God, and seeing them now seized upon by others. (Encyclical Epistle to the Bishops Throughout the World, 1)

We are proving that this view has been transmitted from father to father; but ye, O modern Jews and disciples of Caiaphas, how many fathers can ye assign to your phrases? Not one of the understanding and wise; for all abhor you, but the devil alone; none but he is your father in this apostasy, who both in the beginning sowed you with the seed of this irreligion, and now persuades you to slander the Ecumenical Council, for committing to writing, not your doctrines, but that which from the beginning those who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word have handed down to us. For the faith which the Council has confessed in writing, that is the faith of the Catholic Church . . . (A, Defence of the Nicene Definition, ch. VI, 27)

Though we have a succession of teachers and become their disciples, yet, because we are taught by them the things of Christ, we both are, and are called, Christians all the same. . . . how are they of the Catholic Church, who have shaken off the Apostolical faith, and become authors of fresh evils? (Four Discourses Against the Arians, I, 3-4)

But after him and with him are all inventors of unlawful heresies, who indeed refer to the Scriptures, but do not hold such opinions as the saints have handed down, and receiving them as the traditions of men, err, because they do not rightly know them nor their power. . . . Luke . . . hands down the narrations of the saints, saying in the beginning of the Gospel, ‘Since many have presumed to write narrations of those events of which we are assured, as those who from the beginning were witnesses and ministers of the Word have delivered to us; it hath seemed good to me also, who have adhered to them all from the first, to write correctly in order to thee, O excellent Theophilus, that thou mayest know the truth concerning the things in which thou hast been instructed.’ For as each of the saints has received, that they impart without alteration, for the confirmation of the doctrine of the mysteries. Of these the (divine) word would have us disciples, and these should of right be our teachers, and to them only is it necessary to give heed, for of them only is ‘the word faithful and worthy of all acceptation;’ these not being disciples because they heard from others, but being eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word, that which they had heard from Him have they handed down. . . . we are not remiss in giving notice of its seasons, as we have received from the Fathers. . . . keeping to the apostolic traditions, . . . (Festal Letter No. 2, 6-7)

But since they allege the divine oracles and force on them a misinterpretation, according to their private sense, it becomes necessary to meet them just so far as to vindicate these passages, and to shew that they bear an orthodox sense, and that our opponents are in error. (Four Discourses Against the Arians, I, 37)

St. Cyril of Jerusalem

But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to thee by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures. . . . the articles of the Faith were not composed as seemed good to men; but the most important points collected out of all the Scripture make up one complete teaching of the Faith. And just as the mustard seed in one small grain contains many branches, so also this Faith has embraced in few words all the knowledge of godliness in the Old and New Testaments. Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which ye now receive, and write them an the table of your heart.  . . . Guard them with reverence, lest per chance the enemy despoil any who have grown slack; or lest some heretic pervert any of the truths delivered to you. For faith is like putting money into the bank, even as we have now done; but from you God requires the accounts of the deposit. (Fifth Catechetical Lecture, 12-13)

. . . the Holy and Apostolic Faith delivered to you . . . (Eighteenth Catechetical Lecture, 32)

. . . Peter, the foremost of the Apostles and chief herald of the Church, . . . (Eleventh Catechetical Lecture, 3)

St. John Chrysostom

Do not hold aloof from the Church; for nothing is stronger than the Church. The Church is thy hope, thy salvation, thy refuge. (Homily II: After Eutropius having been found outside the Church had been taken captive, 6)

And whence is division? From opinions contrary to the teaching of the Apostles. And whence come opinions of this sort? From men’s being slaves to the belly, and the other passions. For “such,” he says, “serve not the Lord, but their own belly.” And so there would be no offence, there would be no division, unless some opinion were thought of contrary to the doctrine of the Apostles. And this he here points out by saying, “contrary to the doctrine.” And he does not say which we have taught, but “which ye have learned,” so anticipating them, and showing that they were persuaded of and had heard them and received them. (Homily XXXII on Romans 16:17-18, v. 16:17)

There are many things which they [the “sacred writers”: in context] have delivered by unwritten tradition. (Homily I on Acts 1:1-2)

“That ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you.” It appears then that he used at that time to deliver many things also not in writing, which he shows too in many other places. But at that time he only delivered them, whereas now he adds an explanation of their reason: thus both rendering the one sort, the obedient, more steadfast, and pulling down the others’ pride, who oppose themselves. (Homily XXVI on 1 Corinthians 11:2, 2)

Ver. 15. “So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by Epistle of ours.” Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther. (Homily III on 2 Thessalonians, v. 2:15)

Not by letters alone did Paul instruct his disciple in his duty, but before by words also which he shows, both in many other passages, as where he says, “whether by word or our Epistle” (2 Thess. ii. 15.), and especially here. Let us not therefore suppose that anything relating to doctrine was spoken imperfectly. For many things he delivered to him without writing. Of these therefore he reminds him, when he says, “Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me.” After the manner of artists, I have impressed on thee the image of virtue, fixing in thy soul a sort of rule, and model, and outline of all things pleasing to God. These things then hold fast, and whether thou art meditating any matter of faith or love, or of a sound mind, form from hence your ideas of them. It will not be necessary to have recourse to others for examples, when all has been deposited within thyself. (Homily III on 2 Timothy, v. 1:13-18)

For both they who from the beginning sowed the word were unprofessional and unlearned, and spake nothing of themselves; but what things they received from God, these they distributed to the world: and we ourselves at this time introduce no inventions of our own; but the things which from them we have received, we speak unto all. (Homily VI on 1 Corinthians 2:1-2, 4, v. 2:5, 7)

“And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church;” that is, on the faith of his confession. Hereby He signifies that many were now on the point of believing, and raises his spirit, and makes him a shepherd. “And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” “And if not against it, much more not against me. So be not troubled because thou art shortly to hear that I shall be betrayed and crucified.” Then He mentions also another honor. “And I also will give thee the keys of the heavens.” But what is this, “And I also will give thee?” “As the Father hath given thee to know me, so will I also give thee.” . . . What dost Thou give? tell me. “The keys of the heavens, that whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in Heaven.” . . . For those things which are peculiar to God alone, (both to absolve sins, and to make the church incapable of overthrow in such assailing waves, and to exhibit a man that is a fisher more solid than any rock, while all the world is at war with him), these He promises Himself to give; as the Father, speaking to Jeremiah, said, He would make him as “a brazen pillar, and as a wall;” but him to one nation only, this man in every part of the world. . . . the Son gave him to sow that of the Father and that of Himself in every part of the world; and to a mortal man He entrusted the authority over all things in Heaven, giving him the keys; who extended the church to every part of the world, and declared it to be stronger than heaven. (Homily LII on Matthew 15:21-22, 3)

Both as being ardent, and as having been put in trust by Christ with the flock, and as having precedence in honor, he always begins the discourse. . . . he had the same power to ordain as they all collectively. . . . prelacy then was not an affair of dignity, but of provident care for the governed. . . . they were an hundred and twenty, and he asks for one out of the whole body: with good right, as having been put in charge of them: for to him had Christ said, “And when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.” (Luke xxii. 32, Ben.) (Homily III on Acts 1:12)

For addressing the leader of the apostles He said, “Peter, lovest thou me?” and when he confessed that he did, the Lord added, “if thou lovest me tend my sheep.” The Master asked the disciple if He was loved by him, . . . in order to teach us how great an interest He takes in the superintendence of these sheep. . . . these sheep which He entrusted to Peter and his successors. (Treatise Concerning the Christian Priesthood, Book II, 1)

Ver. 21. “Do thy diligence to come before winter. Eubulus greeteth thee, and Pudens and Linus, and Claudia.” This Linus, some say, was second Bishop of the Church of Rome after Peter. (Homily X on 2 Timothy, v. 4:21)

St. Augustine

APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION

If now you seem to yourself to have been tossed to and fro enough, and wish to put an end to labors of this kind, follow the pathway of Catholic teaching, which has flowed down from Christ Himself through the Apostles even unto us, and will hereafter flow down to posterity. (On the Usefulness of Believing, 20)

. . . the Acts of the Apostles; . . . which book I must needs believe if I believe the gospel, since both writings alike Catholic authority commends to me. (Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus, 5, 6)

The Catholic, which is also the apostolic, doctrine . . . (Against Faustus the Manichee, xxiii, 5)

You immediately deny that Matthew wrote the narrative, though this is affirmed by the continuous testimony of the whole Church, from the days of apostolic presidency to the bishops of our own time. . . . I ask you to believe the book which I quote to have been written by Matthew, since it has been handed down from the days of Matthew in the Church, without any break in the connection between that time and the present. . . . a book acknowledged and approved as handed down from the beginning in the Church founded by Christ Himself, and maintained through the apostles and their successors in an unbroken connection all over the world to the present day . . . (Against Faustus the Manichee, xxviii, 2)

We, namely, the catholic faith, coming from the doctrine of the apostles planted in us, received by a line of succession, to be transmitted sound to posterity—the catholic faith, I say, has, between both those parties, that is, between both errors, held the truth. (Lectures on the Gospel of John, 37, 6)

No one who has not yielded to the malicious and deceitful suggestions of lying devils, can be so blinded by passion as to deny the ability of the Church of the apostles— a community of brethren as numerous as they were faithful— to transmit their writings unaltered to posterity, as the original seats of the apostles have been occupied by a continuous succession of bishops to the present day, . . . (Against Faustus the Manichee, xxxiii, 6)

CATHOLIC CHURCH: INFALLIBILITY AND INDEFECTIBILITY

This same is the holy Church, the one Church, the true Church, the catholic Church, fighting against all heresies: fight, it can: be fought down, it cannot. (Sermon to Catechumens on the Creed, 14)

. . . the immoveable Catholic faith, . . . (Ep. 166 [3, 6]: to St. Jerome [415] )

For in the belly of the Church truth abides. Whosoever shall have been separated from this belly of the Church, must needs speak false things: . . . (Explanations of the Psalms, 58:3 [58, 5]; I rearranged the word order of the awkward translation; changing no words)

. . . sound doctrine, which alone is Catholic, . . . (Against Faustus the Manichee, xx, 23)

. . . to avoid offending the Church by erroneous doctrine, . . . (Against Faustus the Manichee, xxii, 46)

. . . the body of Christ, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and mainstay of the truth, dispersed throughout the world . . . (Against the Letters of Petilian the Donatist, ii, 104, 237)

. . . the holy and true Church of Christ . . . (Against the Letters of Petilian the Donatist, i, 22, 24)

. . . that Church which is the true Church of Christ. (Ep. 93 [12, 50]: to Vincentius [408] )

. . . the certainty of Catholic truth . . . (Ep. 139 [1]: to Marcellinus [412] )

. . . many states and places where we saw the true Catholic Church firmly established . . . (Ep. 185 [7, 25]: to Boniface [416])

Let us love what we sing: “Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!” that so they may know, by their own experience, with what perfect truth their mother, the Catholic Church, calls out to them . . . let them come to the true Church of Christ, that is, to the Catholic Church our mother . . . (Ep. 185 [9, 36 / 10, 46]: to Boniface [416])

His commands, which He has willed should be confirmed by so great authority of the Catholic Church. (On the Usefulness of Believing, 33)

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

Councils themselves, which are held in the several districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world . . . (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, ii, 3, 4)

They attempt, accordingly, to prevail against the firmly-settled authority of the immoveable Church by the name and the promises of a pretended appeal to reason. This kind of effrontery is, we may say, characteristic of all heretics. But He who is the most merciful Lord of faith has both secured the Church in the citadel of authority by most famous ecumenical Councils and the Apostolic sees themselves, and furnished her with the abundant armour of equally invincible reason by means of a few men of pious erudition and unfeigned spirituality. (Ep. 118 [5, 32]: to Deoscorus [410] )

RULE OF FAITH / “THREE-LEGGED STOOL” (BIBLE-CHURCH-TRADITION)

But those reasons which I have here given, I have either gathered from the authority of the church, according to the tradition of our forefathers, or from the testimony of the divine Scriptures, . . . No sober person will decide against reason, no Christian against the Scriptures, no peaceable person against the church. (On the Trinity, iv, 6, 10)

My opinion therefore is, that wherever it is possible, all those things should be abolished without hesitation, which neither have warrant in Holy Scripture, nor are found to have been appointed by councils of bishops, nor are confirmed by the practice of the universal Church, . . . (Ep. 55 [19, 35]: to Januarius [400] )

And let any one, who is led by the past custom of the Church, and by the subsequent authority of a plenary Council, and by so many powerful proofs from holy Scripture, and by much evidence from Cyprian himself, and by the clear reasoning of truth, to understand that the baptism of Christ, consecrated in the words of the gospel, cannot be perverted by the error of any man on earth . . . (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, v, 4, 4)

If, then, you have come to some understanding of what is not at variance with the rule of the Catholic faith, whereto you have attained as the way that is guiding you to your fatherland; and hast so understood it as to feel it a duty to dismiss all doubts whatever on the subject: add to the building, but do not abandon the foundation. And surely of such a character ought to be any teaching given by elders to those who are babes, as not to involve the assertion that Christ the Lord of all, and the prophets and apostles, who are much farther advanced in age than themselves, had in any respect spoken falsely. (Lectures on the Gospel of John, 98, 7)

But this I say, that according to the Holy Scriptures original sin is so manifest, and that this is put away in infants by the laver of regeneration is confirmed by such antiquity and authority of the catholic faith, notorious by such a clear concurrent testimony of the Church, that what is argued by the inquiry or affirmation of anybody concerning the origin of the soul, if it is contrary to this, cannot be true. (Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, iii, 26 [X] )

APOSTOLIC TRADITION

He cannot quote a decisive passage on the subject from the Book of God; nor can he prove his opinion to be right by the unanimous voice of the universal Church . . . (Ep. 54 [4, 5]: to Januarius [400] )

. . . moved, not indeed by the authority of any plenary or even regionary Council, but by a mere epistolary correspondence, to think that they ought to adopt a custom which had no sanction from the ancient custom of the Church, and which was expressly forbidden by the most unanimous resolution of the Catholic world . . . (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, iii, 2, 2)

And this is the firm tradition of the universal Church, in respect of the baptism of infants . . . (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, iv, 23, 31)

Whence, however, was this derived, but from that primitive, as I suppose, and apostolic tradition, by which the Churches of Christ maintain it to be an inherent principle, that without baptism and partaking of the supper of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and everlasting life? So much also does Scripture testify, according to the words which we already quoted. (On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins and on Infant Baptism, i, 34 [XXIV] )

You see with what confidence this great man [St. Cyprian] expresses himself after the ancient and undoubted rule of faith. [regarding infants possessing original sin] (On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins and on Infant Baptism, iii, 11)

*
***
*
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).
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle and 100% tax-deductible donations if desired), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information.
*
You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my 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: self-designed cover for my own book, that I edited: The Quotable Augustine: Distinctively Catholic Elements in His Theology (Sep. 2012).
*
Summary: Dr. Geisler incorrectly asserted that St. Athanasius, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. John Chrysostom, & St. Augustine all thought that only the Bible was infallible (sola Scriptura).

 

2025-07-14T16:51:58-04:00

Including Inscripturation; 2 Timothy 3:16; Is Only the Bible Inspired?; Oral Torah

Photo credit: cover for my own book, designed by Davin Schadt: from the version originally published by Catholic Answers (San Diego) in 2012.

 

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.

*****

Protestants, of course, believe all apostolic tradition is inscripturated in the Bible. (p. 180)

. . . the point of difference between Protestants and Catholics, namely, whether there exists today any authoritative normative teachings outside those revealed to apostles and prophets and inscripturated in the Bible. (p. 186)

Dr. Geisler, again writing with Ralph MacKenzie, stated in an earlier article, “A Defense of Sola Scriptura” (Christian Research Institute,  4-8-09):

It is not legitimate to appeal to any oral revelation in New Testament times as proof that nonbiblical infallible authority is in existence today. . . .

Since the death of the apostles the only apostolic authority we have is the inspired record of their teaching in the New Testament. That is, all apostolic tradition (teaching) on faith and practice is in the New Testament. . . . all apostolic teaching that God deemed necessary for the faith and practice (morals) of the church was preserved (2 Timothy 3:15-17). . . . 

There is not a shred of evidence that any of the revelation God gave them to express was not inscripturated by them in the only books — the inspired books of the New Testament — that they left for the church.

Inscripturation as a counter-reply to the biblical and Catholic rule of faith utterly fails, and is itself merely an unbiblical tradition of men (therefore, self-refuting, given Protestant premises of sola Scriptura). It’s simply not taught in the Bible. Rather, it’s assumed without any biblical indication (neither expressly stated nor even deduced).

The Bible never teaches that “all apostolic tradition (teaching) on faith and practice is in the New Testament.” Therefore, how could Dr. Geisler or any Protestant supposedly know the contrary? There is nothing whatsoever along these lines in 2 Timothy 3:15-17. It simply teaches that Scripture is great for teaching and reproof, etc. (which no one disagrees with).

Protestants agree that what apostles taught was binding, but they fail to see that some of that teaching wouldn’t be recorded in Scripture. The Bible itself teaches us that there are such teachings and deeds not recorded in it (Jn 20:30; 21:25; Acts 1:2-3; Lk 24:15-16, 25-27). The logic is simple:  Apostles’ teaching was authoritative and binding (i.e., for all practical purposes, “infallible”). Some of that teaching was recorded in Scripture, but some was not. The folks who heard their teaching were bound to it whether it was later “inscripturated” or not. Therefore, early Christians were bound to “unbiblical” teachings or those not known to be “biblical” (as the Bible would not yet be canonized until more than three centuries later).

If they were so bound, it stands to reason that we could and should be, also. Scripture itself does not rule out the presence of an authoritative oral tradition, not recorded in words. Paul refers more than once to a non-written tradition (e.g., 2 Tim 1:13-14; 2:2). Scripture informs us that much more was taught by Jesus and apostles than what is recorded in it. Scripture nowhere teaches that it is the sole rule of faith or that what is recorded in it about early Church history has no relevance to later Christians because this was the apostolic or “inscripturation” period. Those are all arbitrary, unbiblical traditions of men.

Where in the Bible does it say that this period is absolutely unique because the Bible was being written during it? When Paul was preaching he did so authoritatively, as an apostle. Not everything he said was later included in the Bible; therefore it was not all inspired (he was no walking Bible-machine any more than Jesus was). But he was an authority, and acted consciously upon this authority. Inscripturation teaches that anything not recorded in Scripture could not have been passed down by Paul: a contention that is absurd on its face.

As an example of a Protestant who accepts the binding, infallible nature of a teaching even if it isn’t taught in the Bible, I submit Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism. He wrote a letter to Albrecht (or Albert), Margrave of Brandenburg and Duke of Prussia, dated April 1532 by some and February or early March by others. The well-known Luther biographer Roland H. Bainton cites the following portion of it:

This testimony of the universal holy Christian Church, even if we had nothing else, would be a sufficient warrant for holding this article [on the Real Presence in the Eucharist] and refusing to suffer or listen to a sectary, for it is dangerous and fearful to hear or believe anything against the unanimous testimony, belief, and teaching of the universal holy Christian churches, unanimously held in all the world from the beginning until now over fifteen hundred years. (Studies on the Reformation, Boston: Beacon Press, 1963, p. 26; primary source: WA [Werke, Weimar edition in German], Vol. XXX, 552; my bolding)

Protestant historian Philip Schaff, in The Reformed Quarterly Review, July, 1888, p. 295, cited the passage and commented:

Luther combined with the boldest independence a strong reverence for the historical faith. He derives from the unbroken tradition of the church an argument against the Zwinglians for the real presence in the Eucharist . . . A Roman controversialist could not lay more stress on tradition than Luther does in this passage.

St. Augustine had taught the same 1100 years earlier:

As to those other things which we hold on the authority, not of Scripture, but of tradition, and which are observed throughout the whole world, it may be understood that they are held as approved and instituted either by the apostles themselves, or by plenary Councils, whose authority in the Church is most useful, . . . For often have I perceived, with extreme sorrow, many disquietudes caused to weak brethren by the contentious pertinacity . . . of some who, in matters of this kind, which do not admit of final decision by the authority of Holy Scripture, or by the tradition of the universal Church. (Letter to Januarius, 54, 1, 1; 54, 2, 3)

The Bible teaches sola Scriptura. Two points must be made here. First, as Catholic scholars themselves recognize, it is not necessary that the Bible explicitly and formally teach sola Scriptura in order for this doctrine to be true. Many Christian teachings are a necessary logical deduction of what is clearly taught in the Bible. (p. 184)

I agree so far. I disagree, however, that sola Scriptura is even a deduction from what is taught on the Bible, or an “indirect” teaching, etc. And I assert, moreover, that much in the Bible contradicts sola Scriptura. I’ve written three books about it, in addition to hundreds of articles:

100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura (Nov. 2011 / 10 May 2012 / slightly revised edition: Jan. 2025, 135 pages)

Pillars of Sola Scriptura: Replies to Whitaker, Goode, & Biblical “Proofs” for “Bible Alone” (July 2012 / Sep. 2012, 310 pages)

The Bible Tells Me So: A Catholic Apologist Challenges Protestants with Scripture (Jan. 2019, 161 pages)

The Bible does teach implicitly and logically, if not formally and explicitly, that the Bible alone is the only infallible basis for faith and practice. This it does in a number of ways. Scripture states that it is “inspired” and “competent” for a believer to be “equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). If the Bible alone is sufficient to do this, then nothing else is needed. Also, this text teaches that the Bible alone is inspired and capable of saving, edifying, and equipping believers.  (p. 184)

2 Timothy 3:16-17 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Elsewhere (exegesis), St. Paul frequently espouses oral tradition (Rom 6:17; 1 Cor 11:2, 23; 15:1-3; Gal 1:9, 12; Col 2:8; 1 Thess 2:13; 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6). The “exclusivist” or “dichotomous” form of reasoning employed by Protestant apologists here is fundamentally flawed. For example, to reason by analogy, let’s examine a very similar passage:

Ephesians 4:11-15  And his gifts were that some should be apostle, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, for the equipment of the saints, for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are able to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ,

If the Greek artios (RSV, complete / KJV, perfect) proves the sole sufficiency of Scripture in 2 Timothy, then teleios (RSV, mature manhood / KJV, perfect) in Ephesians would likewise prove the sufficiency of pastors, teachers and so forth for the attainment of Christian perfection. Note that in Ephesians 4:11-15 the Christian believer is equipped, built up, brought into unity and mature manhood, knowledge of Jesus, the fulness of Christ, and even preserved from doctrinal confusion by means of the teaching function of the Church. This is a far stronger statement of the perfecting of the saints than 2 Timothy 3:16-17, yet it doesn’t even mention Scripture.

Therefore, the Protestant interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 proves too much, since if all non-scriptural elements are excluded in 2 Timothy, then, by analogy, Scripture would logically have to be excluded in Ephesians. It is far more reasonable to synthesize the two passages in an inclusive, complementary fashion, by recognizing that the mere absence of one or more elements in one passage does not mean that they are nonexistent. Thus, the Church and Scripture are both equally necessary and important for teaching. This is precisely the Catholic view.

Also, this text teaches that the Bible alone is inspired and capable of saving, edifying, and equipping believers. This is evident from several things stated in the text. First, only the Scriptures are “inspired” or God-breathed. (p. 184)

I used to casually assume that this as true, until recently, even as a Catholic, for many years. But then I thought about it more deeply and concluded that it wasn’t, and that the Bible itself taught that this wasn’t the case. The Bible is certainly unique, and Catholics wholeheartedly agree.  But it’s not exclusively inspired. I shall explain why I now think that.

Prophets in the Old Testament are another example of infallible authorities. They were not simply “walking Bibles.” They said many things that were not recorded in the Bible, but were still from God, and as such, effectively inspired. So, for example, the prophet Samuel told Saul that he would “make known” to him “the word of God” (1 Sam 9:27). It was written that “the word of God came to Shemaiah the man of God” (1 Kgs 12:22). “The Word of the LORD” appears 243 times in the Protestant Old Testament (RSV); mostly coming through men. For example:

Genesis 15:1 . . . the word of the LORD came to Abram in a vision . . .

Numbers 3:16 So Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD, as he was commanded.

1 Samuel 3:21 . . . the LORD revealed himself to Samuel at Shiloh by the word of the LORD.

2 Samuel 7:4 But that same night the word of the LORD came to Nathan,

2 Samuel 24:11 . . .  the word of the LORD came to the prophet Gad, David’s seer . . .

1 Kings 6:11 Now the word of the LORD came to Solomon,

1 Kings 14:18 . . . the word of the LORD, which he spoke by his servant Ahijah the prophet.

1 Kings 18:1 . . . the word of the LORD came to Elijah, . . .

2 Kings 20:19 Then said Hezekiah to Isaiah, “The word of the LORD which you have spoken is good.” . . .

2 Chronicles 36:21 to fulfil the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah . . .

Etc., etc. . . .

The prophet Ezekiel wrote down the phrase, “the word of the LORD came to me” 49 times.

Nor is this only in the Old Testament. Prophets still exist in the New Testament, too, such as the “prophetess” Anna (Lk 2:36). St. Luke again wrote: “Now in these days prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. And one of them named Agabus stood up and foretold by the Spirit that there would be a great famine over all the world; and this took place in the days of Claudius” (Acts 11:27-28; cf. 21:10-11, where he predicts Paul’s captivity, prefacing his words with “Thus says the Holy Spirit, . . .”). Luke almost casually mentions the fact that “in the church at Antioch there were prophets . . ” (Acts 13:1) and that “Judas and Silas . . . were themselves prophets” (Acts 15:32).

St. Paul includes “prophets” —  whom “God has appointed in the church” — as one of the Church offices (1 Cor 12:28-29; 14:29, 32, 37; Eph 4:11), and refers to “prophesy[ing]” (1 Cor 14:1, 3-5, 24, 31, 39) and “prophecy” (1 Cor 14:6, 22). Paul even wrote that “the mystery of Christ, . . . has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit” (Eph 3:4-5) and noted the “prophetic utterances” that accompanied the ordination of Timothy (1 Tim 1:18; 4:14). Philip the evangelist “had four unmarried daughters, who prophesied” (Acts 21:8-9).

Therefore, there are many examples of infallible and virtually inspired revelation in both Testaments that are distinct from Holy Scripture itself. Whatever of  it was recorded, would be part of Scripture, but of course there was a lot that wasn’t recorded. It still had the same ontological essence nonetheless (just as Jesus’ hundreds of thousands of words to His family or disciples that are unrecorded, remained inspired and infallible). And all of this disproves sola Scriptura, as classically formulated, because it claims that only Scripture is infallible (let alone inspired). The “word of the LORD” given to a prophet is just as “God-breathed” (the literal meaning of “inspiration”) as Scripture, because it comes straight from God, as Scripture does.

Prophets (including prophets after Pentecost) are inspired, and the first Christian council at Jerusalem was inspired, too, since the Holy Spirit agreed with it (Acts 15:28). The first pope, Peter, even made an infallible declaration in the council (Acts 15:7-11) that was crucial in its determination. This in turn was largely based on a “vision” (Acts 10:17) that God gave to Peter (Acts 10:11-16), while he was in a “trance” (Acts 10:10). Peter was at first “perplexed” by it (10:17), but then God showed him the meaning by sending to him the Gentile centurion, Cornelius (Acts 10:25 ff.), to whom He had communicated by an angel (10:22, 30-32). The larger point is that so much of this had nothing directly to do with Scripture at all. Yet it was infallible (and arguably inspired as well).

Inspiration also occurs in God’s communication to prophets or to others through visions and direct encounters. In other words, it goes far beyond only Holy Scripture. Moreover, when Jesus was talking to His disciples about future persecution, He said, “do not be anxious how or what you are to answer or what you are to say; for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say” (Lk 12:11-12). Mark in his parallel passage puts it even more strongly: “it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit” (Mk 13:11). Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist “was filled with the Holy Spirit, and prophesied” (Lk 1:67). Simeon also had a close relationship with the Holy Spirit (Lk 2:25-26).

Now, if the Holy Spirit can talk to Jesus’ disciples in that way (and by extension possibly to any follower of Christ), or literally talk through them, is that, too, “divine speech” or “the words of God” or inspired? Since the Holy Spirit is God, the answer must be yes. But again, that’s not Scripture. Paul also refers to two spiritual gifts that seem to involve direct communication from God to human beings: “To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. To one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit” (1 Cor 12:7-8). Here again God the Holy Spirit is communicating to persons. Is that “inspired” and “the words of God”? It seems to me that all words that authentically come from God must be so. In other words, the words of God are “God-breathed.” And they go far beyond Holy Scripture.

Even the prophet himself was not to add to the revelation God gave him, for prophets were not infallible whenever they spoke but only when giving God’s revelation. . . . if there is no normative revelation after the time of the apostles and even the prophets themselves were not to add their teachings to the revelations God gave them in the Scriptures, then it follows that the Scriptures are the only infallible source of divine revelation. (p. 186)

Geisler is confused in his categories. As argued at length above, from Scripture, prophets were not only infallible, but also conveyors of inspired utterances from God — that went beyond the Bible. And that is quite contrary to sola Scriptura. Geisler, however, discusses prophets in relation to revelation, which is a different category.  Yes, Catholics agree with Protestants that public — though not private — revelation ended with the apostles (as Geisler notes on the same page, in context). But what has to be grappled with is the notion that prophets passing along the very words of God must also be inspired. Thus, there is indeed not only infallibility, but also inspiration apart from the Bible, which is utterly contrary to sola Scriptura.

I did a search of “prophet” and “revelation” occurring in proximity in the Bible, and they never do (at least not in RSV). So why is Geisler arguing in non-scriptural ways, according to unbiblical categories? Why does he associate those two things, when the Bible doesn’t, and not associate prophets and prophecy with inspiration, which the Bible does put together? Once again, the authentic “word of God” must always be inspired by its very nature and essence, whether it has to do with God’s words in the Bible (passed through men) or through prophets.

The total absence of reference to any other instrument or source of authority than the written Word (Gk. graphe) reveals that the locus of this sufficient authority is in the written Word (= Scripture). . . . Paul repeatedly stresses the need to cling to the Scriptures (1:13; 2:15; 3:15-16; 4:2). Finally, given that this [2 Timothy) was his last book (4:6-8), if there was some other apostolic authority other than the written Word of God the apostle surely would have mentioned it. (p. 184).

*
Yes, he did mention tradition in 2 Timothy. He made reference to oral tradition three times (1:13-14; 2:2; 3:14). In the latter instance, St. Paul says of the tradition, knowing from whom you learned it.The personal reference proves he is not talking about Scripture, but himself as the tradition-bearer, so to speak:
2 Timothy 1:13-14 Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; [14] guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.
*
2 Timothy 2:2 and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.
*
2 Timothy 3:14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it
The Bible constantly warns us “not to go beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6). This kind of exhortation is found throughout Scripture. Moses was told not to “add to what I command you nor subtract from it” (Deut. 4:2). (p. 186)
*
What Moses was commanded to teach is not identical to the written words that he recorded in the Torah (first five books).  The Jews also believed that he received oral tradition on Mt. Sinai. The mainstream pharisaic tradition, of which Jesus and Paul were a part (more on that below) accepted this as well, so it passed into early Christianity. Does Scripture indicate such an oral Torah / tradition, not — in its specifics — recorded in the Torah or Pentateuch? Yes; here’s some biblical evidence for it:
The law in Deut. xxiv. 1 et seq. says that if a man dismisses his wife with a bill of divorce (“sefer keritut”), and she marries again but is dismissed with a bill of divorce by her second husband also, the first husband may not remarry her. The fact that a woman may be divorced by such a bill has not, however, been mentioned, nor is it stated how she is divorced by means of the “sefer keritut,” or what this document should contain, although it must have had a certain form and wording, though possibly not that of the later “geṭ.” These examples, to which many more might be added, are held to imply that in addition to and side by side with the written law there were other laws and statutes which served to define and supplement it, and that, assuming these to be known, the written law did not go into details.
*
It appears from the other books of the Old Testament also that certain traditional laws were considered to have been given by God, although they are not mentioned in the Pentateuch. Jeremiah says to the people (Jer. xvii. 21-22): “Bear no burden on the Sabbath day, nor bring it in by the gates of Jerusalem; neither carry forth a burden out of your houses on the Sabbath day, neither do ye any work, but hallow ye the Sabbath day, as I commanded your fathers.” In the Pentateuch, on the other hand, there is only the interdiction against work in general (Ex. xx. 9-11); nor is it stated anywhere in the Torah that no burdens shall be carried on the Sabbath, while Jeremiah says that the bearing of burdens, as well as all other work, was forbidden to the fathers. It is clear, furthermore, from Amos viii. 5, that no business was done on the Sabbath, and in Neh. x. 30-32 this prohibition, like the interdiction against intermarrying with the heathen, is designated as a commandment of God, although only the latter is found in the Pentateuch (Deut. vii. 3), while there is no reference to the former. Since the interdictions against carrying burdens and doing business on the Sabbath were regarded as divine laws, although not mentioned in the Pentateuch, it is inferred that there was also a second code. . . .
*
The chief argument against the oral law is based on Deut. iv. 2: “Ye shall not add to the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.” Those who deny the existence of the oral law refer the phrase “the commandments which I command you” to the written law only, which is, therefore, designated by this passage as a complete code needing no amplification and admitting no diminution, whence the conclusion is deduced that there was no oral law in ancient times, since the written law precluded its existence. On the other hand it is held that the phrase “the commandments which I command you” does not necessarily exclude oral laws and statutes.
*
Moreover, the interdiction against adding to the law was directed only against individuals, not against the Sanhedrin or the judges, who were expressly empowered (Deut. xvii. 9-11) to expound and interpret the laws and to make new statutes; for the Sanhedrin or any other court would formulate their decisions only after examining the traditions preserved among the people and in conformity with certain logical and hermeneutic rules deduced from Scripture. . . .
*
The entire oral law in the wider sense, namely, the entire material of the Mishnah, the Tosefta, and the halakic midrashim, was preserved only orally, and was not reduced to writing until the beginning of the third century C.E., because there was a prejudice against recording halakot. (1906 Jewish Encyclopedia, “Oral Law”)
I drew the following information from a fabulous article by a Messianic Jew, Reb Yhoshua, entitled, The Oral Torah and the Messianic Jew. He provides the example of the prophet Samuel sacrificing in the high places:

According to the written Torah, sacrifices were not permitted anywhere but at the Tabernacle. (Lev 17:1-5) . . . After the Tabernacle was erected the written Torah does not seem to endorse the High Places at all. (Lev 17:8-9) One of the most startling proofs that an oral Torah existed is that the prophet Samuel continued to sacrifice at the High Places after the Tabernacle had been built. When Saul first met Samuel, Samuel was preparing a sacrifice at one of the High Places. (1Sam 9:12-13) Later in Israel’s history, Israel would be strongly rebuked for sacrificing at such cult sites, but because the Tabernacle was not at Shiloh or Jerusalem, the text of 1 Samuel seems to defer to the oral Torah, and allows the apparent transgression to pass without comment.. . . The only explanations possible are that either a leniency existed that was not mentioned in the written text of the Pentateuch, but was ordained by God and known to Samuel; or that Samuel was spiritually severed from Israel on the same day that he met Saul. Because Samuel continued to serve God and Israel for many more years, it is doubtful that he had been spiritually cut off from his people.

God had made the following condemnation in the Torah: “. . . I will destroy your high places . . .” (Lev 26:30). And it had been written a few hundred years before Samuel’s time:

Joshua 22:29 Far be it from us that we should rebel against the LORD, and turn away this day from following the LORD by building an altar for burnt offering, cereal offering, or sacrifice, other than the altar of the LORD our God that stands before his tabernacle!”

Surprisingly enough, the written Torah never specifies that Jerusalem would be the central place of worship, or that a Temple was to be built there (neither the words “temple” — in this sense — nor “Jerusalem” ever appears in the Pentateuch or Torah: first five books of the Bible).

The written Torah never acknowledges Jerusalem as the proper place for worship, and only briefly mentions that the Lord will someday chose a special place for Himself. (Lev. 18:6) Only the oral Torah identifies the chosen place as Jerusalem, yet David knew where he wanted to build the Temple. The written Torah also gives detailed instructions for how to build God’s sanctuary. It was to be a tent erected by the priests. . . . there is no provision in the Torah for a permanent structure to replace the Tabernacle. It was forbidden to add or detract from the commands that God gave to Moses (Duet. 4:2), and Moses never wrote down any plan for the Tabernacle to be permanently folded up and put away. If God did not pass his plan to someday have a Temple on to Moses, than all of Israel’s worship from the reign of Solomon on was invalid. Because Jesus frequented the Temple, Messianic Jews, as believers in Jesus as sinless, can be sure this too was clearly not the case.

Reb Yhoshua notes that Jesus was a follower of the Pharisaical tradition:

It is easy to overly simplify Jesus’ relationship with Pharisaic Judaism by anachronistically projecting modern Protestant doctrine into the New Testament. . . . The fact that Jesus also had differences with the Sadducees, the virulent anti-Oral Torah sect, is often downplayed; as is the fact that whenever he disagreed with them, it was because he held to a doctrine found only in the oral Torah – resurrection from the dead.

I noted this in an old paper of mine:

Jesus Himself followed the Pharisaical tradition, as argued by Asher Finkel in his book The Pharisees and the Teacher of Nazareth (Cologne: E.J. Brill, 1964). He adopted the Pharisaical stand on controversial issues (Matthew 5:18-19, Luke 16:17), accepted the oral tradition of the academies, observed the proper mealtime procedures (Mark 6:56, Matthew 14:36) and the Sabbath, and priestly regulations (Matthew 8:4, Mark 1:44, Luke 5:4). This author argues that Jesus’ condemnations were directed towards the Pharisees of the school of Shammai, whereas Jesus was closer to the school of Hillel.

The Encyclopedia Judaica (Jerusalem: 1971) backs up this contention, in its entry “Jesus” (v. 10, 10):

In general, Jesus’ polemical sayings against the Pharisees were far meeker than the Essene attacks and not sharper than similar utterances in the talmudic sources. This source contends that Jesus’ beliefs and way of life were closer to the Pharisees than to the Essenes, though He was similar to them in many respects also (poverty, humility, purity of heart, simplicity, etc.).

St. Paul actually called himself a Pharisee twice, after his conversion to Christianity  (Acts 23:6; 26:5). Jesus opposed the doctrine of the Sadducees (but not of the Pharisees: Matt 23:2). The Pharisees adhered to oral tradition and the Sadducees rejected it. Reb Yhoshua observes that Jesus and the early Christians (even the Jerusalem Council) “held a standard of kashrut, proper eating, that was consistent with the Oral Torah” (his footnotes incorporated:

three of the four commandments that the Jerusalem Council insisted all believers observe immediately upon becoming Jesus believers dealt with food. (Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25) Two of these came from the oral Torah: not to eat things sacrificed to idols, [Mishnah Avodah Zorah 2:3] and not to eat things strangled. [Mishnah Chullin 1:2] The written Torah does not forbid either of these types of food, yet Jesus, in Revelation, is portrayed as strongly rebuking the communities of Pergamum and Thyatira for breaking the ban on their consumption. (Rev 2:14 and 20) The authority of the Oral Torah in the lives of early Messianic believers cannot be doubted when half of the commands the Jerusalem council required of Gentiles were from the Oral Torah.

Jesus’ famous teaching on lust in the Sermon on the Mount was derived from the oral Torah (footnote incorporated):

Many scholars have struggled with Jesus’ teaching, “You have heard that our fathers were told, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ And I tell you that a man who even looks at a woman with the purpose of lusting after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Mat 5:27-28) It seems to demand something impossible of men, something the written Torah never asked. . . . Jesus was not arbitrarily adding an unnatural stringency to the Torah; he was teaching from a tradition Moses received at Sinai, “Not only is he who sins with his body considered an adulterer, but he who sins with his eye is also considered one.” [Leviticus Rabba 23:12]

So were His teachings on prayer:

Jesus’ ideas on prayer mirror those in the oral Torah, as well. He taught his disciples not to babble when they prayed (Mat. 6:7), and advised them to never stop praying for something they really needed. (Luke 18:1-6) What Jesus called babbling, Chazal labeled calculating, purposely making one’s prayers long so that they would be answered. Calculating, or babbling, was forbidden by the Oral Torah; [Babylonian Talmud, Berekhot 32b] and just as Jesus advised his disciples to continue asking God for what they wanted, the oral Torah commanded the Israelites, “If a man realizes that he has prayed and not been answered, he should pray again.” [Babylonian Talmud, Berekhot 32b]

Conclusion: the oral Torah seems to be fairly conclusively established from the written biblical record. By analogy, Christian oral apostolic tradition is also upheld as valid in the new covenant, which was a direct development of the old covenant (Matthew 5:17-20).

*
***
*
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).
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle and 100% tax-deductible donations if desired), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information.
*
You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my two YouTube channels, Catholic Bible Highlights and Lux Veritatis (featuring documentaries), where I partner with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos and documentaries), and/or by signing up to receive notice for new articles on this blog. Just type your email address on the sidebar to the right (scroll down quite a bit), where you see, “Sign Me Up!” Thanks a million!
*
***
*
Photo credit: cover for my own book, designed by Davin Schadt: from the version originally published by Catholic Answers (San Diego) in 2012.
*
Summary: I refute Dr. Geisler’s insufficient arguments regarding inscripturation, 2 Timothy 3:16, and whether only the Bible is inspired. I also provide biblical evidence for the Oral Torah.
2025-07-15T11:48:28-04:00

Also Including Analysis of Josephus’ and Philo’s Views, Jewish  Scholars at Jamnia (c. AD 90), and the Qumran Community

Photo credit: Protestant Church historian Philip Schaff (1819-1893) [Log College Press page]

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.

*****

Actually, all that the arguments used in favor of the canonicity of the apocryphal books prove is that various apocryphal books were given varied degrees of esteem by different persons within the Christian church, usually falling short of canonicity. Only after Augustine and the local councils he dominated mistakenly pronounced them inspired did they gain wider usage and eventual acceptance by the Roman Catholic Church at Trent. This falls far short of the kind of initial, continual, and complete recognition of the canonical books of the Protestant Old Testament and Jewish Torah (which exclude the Apocrypha) by the Christian church. It exemplifies how the teaching magisterium of the Catholic church proclaims infallible one tradition to the neglect of strong evidence in favor of an opposing tradition because it supports a doctrine that lacks any real support in the canonical books. (p. 165)

Geisler wars against himself here, as I will now proceed to demonstrate. He claims that the “evidence” supports the Protestant OT canon. He cites in its favor the advocacy (or supposed advocacy) of “Jerome . . . Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Athanasius” (p. 166). These are the same four fathers that he had already cited on page 162 as being “opposed” to the deuterocanon; and he cites the same four — for the same purpose — for a third time on page 169, and three (minus Origen) on page 171. I have four responses to this:

1) Merely repeating a falsehood makes it no more true or no less false than it was in the beginning. In my installment #4 I already dealt with Jerome, Athanasius, and Origen (and will address St. Cyril’s views in due course as well), and showed that a straight description of their view as “opposed” is unwarranted. If Geisler were so sure and confident about patristic consensus, surely he could cite many more Church fathers on his side, but as it is he names merely four men, three times. This certainly suggests a great weakness in his position, since if more support existed, as is required in this debate, surely he would have brought it forward.

2) Even if Dr. Geisler were correct about the views of these four men (which I deny), “four Church fathers do not a patristic consensus make.” It’s silly to even imply such a thing; in fact, it is an insult to the intelligence of any reader who has studied the Church fathers and/or who understands how the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox think about their authority. We regard a consensus of the Church fathers as highly significant, in terms of what is likely true. But four Church fathers obviously don’t constitute a consensus. There are at least fifty major Church fathers (I think most would agree). So four out of fifty is a mere 8%, if we use the estimate of fifty.

3) Dr. Geisler’s and other Protestant’s defenses of the “protocanon” of the OT relies precisely on the widespread consensus of the Church fathers. This is why they accept the books that they do; and we fully agree as far as these books go; we simply think seven more should be included. But Geisler applies a glaring double standard. When he writes elsewhere about patristic support for the protocanon (such as in his book How We Got the Bible), he names many Church fathers, and assumes that this makes a strong case (as indeed it does). Yet then when it comes to opposition (or supposed opposition) to the deuterocanon, he can only come up with four. This won’t do. Consensus is what it is, and four men isn’t that. Geisler himself refers above to “initial, continual, and complete recognition of the canonical books of the Protestant Old Testament” and “strong [patristic] evidence.” Thus, the very fact that he produces so many in one case and only four in the other, proves that his point of view (i.e., the standard Protestant one) is so weak that it ought to be rejected.

4) It’s an old, obnoxious, Protestant apologetical tactic, I’m afraid — and I’m in a good position to be aware of this, as a Catholic apologist these past 35 years — to make a great deal of one or a few exceptions to the rule, if many Church fathers cannot be produced in support of a particular novel and late-arriving Protestant view. In discussions of the OT canon, St. Jerome is always highlighted by the Protestant apologist, even though his opposition is not uniform or consistent; and St. Augustine (widely considered the greatest Church father in both camps) is minimized, because he strongly advocated the Catholic and Orthodox view. Protestants themselves usually try to argue from the consensus of the Church fathers regarding many doctrines, so it’s silly — and even embarrassing — to assume that one (Jerome) or just four fathers is definitive as to the deuterocanon. But this is what is done: if no consensus can be found, then they major on the minors and discuss just a few. But this is contrary even to their own ostensible patristic outlook and is self-defeating.

I’ve already in this series given documentation on this score from Jerome, Athanasius, Origen, Clement of Rome, The Shepherd of Hermas, and The Didache, and I’ll proceed now with many more citations, showing where the patristic consensus actually lies. It’s no mystery. For example, Anglican patristics scholar and Principal of St Edmund Hall, Oxford, J. N. D. Kelly (1909-1997) states:

The Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church . . . always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha, or deutero-canonical books. (Early Christian Doctrines, New York: Harper & Row, 2nd edition, 1960, p. 53)

In the first two centuries at any rate the Church seems to have accepted all, or most of, these additional books as inspired and to have treated them without question as Scripture. Quotations from Wisdom, for example, occur in 1 Clement and Barnabas, . . .  Polycarp cites Tobit, and the Didache Ecclesiasticus. Irenaeus refers to Wisdom, the History of Susannah, Bel and the Dragon and Baruch. The use made of the Apocrypha by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria is too frequent for detailed references to be necessary. (p. 54; see primary references in the online book, linked above)

Kelly goes on (pp. 54-55) to cite Augustine (“whose influence in the West was decisive”), Hilary, John Chrysostom, Origen, and Theodoret as of essentially the same opinion. That adds (including The Shepherd of Hermas, that I noted) up to at least 15 Church fathers or early treatises in favor of the deuterocanon. He also names others as opposed (Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzus, Epiphanius, Rufinus, Melito, and John Damascene). So that is — so far — 15 “pro” and 7 “con”: a 2-to-1 ratio or 68.2% to 31.8%: which is clearly a consensus towards the “pro” view, as verified also by his broad description of the view of the early Church.

Catholic apologist Gary Michuta documents the views of Church fathers in this respect in great depth, in his books, Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger (Port Huron, Michigan: Grotto Press, 2007) and The Case for the Deuterocanon: Evidence and Arguments (Livonia, Michigan: Nikaria Press, 2015). Here is a handy summary of the views of many fathers not mentioned above (and many that were listed as “opposed”):

1) Athenagoras cites Baruch 3:36 alongside citations of Isaiah, not indicating any difference. (Bigger, 76-77; Case, 112)

2) The Catacombs (2nd-3rd centuries) includes images drawn from Susannah, Bel and the Dragon, and Tobit (Bigger, 79-80)

3) Dionysius the Great cites Tobit and Wisdom and introduces Sirach as “divine oracles.” (Bigger, 98-99)

4) Archelaus, bishop of Mesopotamia, cites Wisdom 1:13 as an authority on doctrine. (Bigger, 99-100)

5) Lactantius cites Sirach to confirm doctrine. (Bigger, 101-102)

6) Aphraates the Persian refers to the martyrdoms of the Maccabees and quotes Sirach 29:17, seemingly not distinguishing them from the authority of the books of the protocanon. (Bigger, 103)

7) Alexander of Alexandria cites Sirach alongside 1 Corinthians, regarding the doctrine of God’s incomprehensibility. (Bigger, 104-105)

8) Cyril of Jerusalem includes Baruch in his protocanon, and stated that the deuterocanonical books, though “secondary” could be read in churches. He himself cited Wisdom and Sirach for doctrinal instruction and considered the deuterocanonical sections of Daniel as authentically part of that book, and sometimes cited them with the introduction, “It is written . . .”(Bigger, 114-117)

9) Basil the Great cites Judith, Wisdom, Baruch, and the deuterocanonical chapters of Daniel in a manner no different than the rest of Scripture (Bigger, 121-12)

10) Gregory Nazianzus  cites Baruch 3:35-37 concerning the Trinity and often cites Wisdom and Sirach without qualification. He regards the deuterocanonical chapters of Daniel as part of that book. He introduces a passage from Judith as having been taken from “Scripture.” In the context of listing great figures of the Old Testament, he includes the seven Maccabean martyrs. Then he goes on to cite examples in the New Testament, suggesting all as part of what Holy Scripture describes. (Bigger, 122-125)

11) Epiphanius was inconsistent. He compiled three list of canonical books, but they disagree with each other (as to the status of Baruch, the Letter of Jeremiah, Sirach, and Wisdom. In his work, Adversus Haereses 76.5 he even describes Wisdom and Sirach as among “the books of Scripture” and he does this in other places as well, and wrote of Wisdom, that it “has come from the mouth of the Holy Spirit.” He introduces Maccabees and the “extra” sections of Daniel with the formula, “It is written . . .” He describes Baruch as part of the “Scriptures.” (Bigger, 127-130)

12) Ambrose views Baruch as part of Jeremiah. He cites Tobit as a prophetic book. He quotes Wisdom as “Scripture”, with the introduction of “It is written . . .” (as he does also with 2nd Maccabees),  and writes that Wisdom contains the words of the Lord. He calls Sirach “Scripture” and accepts the deuterocanonical sections of Daniel as part of that book. (Bigger, 131-133)

13 Rufinus refers to Baruch as the words of Jeremiah. He refers to Sirach as both “Scripture” and “sacred Scripture.” Wisdom is said to contain prophecy. He regards the entire (Catholic) book of Daniel as the “deposit of the Holy Spirit.” (Bigger, 134-138)

14) John Cassian quotes Sirach and Wisdom as “Scripture.” (Bigger, 165-166)

15 Vincent of Lerins refers to Sirach as one of “the divine oracles” alongside Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. (Bigger, 166-167)

16) Leontius cites Sirach, Wisdom, and Baruch as Scripture. He utilizes Wisdom to affirm the consubstantiality of the Son. (Bigger, 173-174)

17) Gregory the Great introduces Wisdom with “It is written . . ” about sixteen times. (Bigger, 175-178)

18) Isidore of Seville listed as “books of the Old Testament” and “divine books” Wisdom, Sirach, Tobit, Judith, and 1 and 2 Maccabees, refers to “seventy-two canonical books.” In his Prologue to the Old Testament he mentions that “the Hebrews do not receive Tobias, Judith, and Maccabees, but the Church ranks them among the Canonical Scriptures . . . these are acknowledged to have, in the Church, equal authority with the other Canonical Scriptures.” (Bigger, 181-183)

19) John Damascene described Wisdom 3:1 as “divine Scripture” and Baruch in the same way, in a quote appearing between Psalms 14:7 and 137:1. He uses 2nd Maccabees to support the doctrine of God’s omniscience. (Bigger, 189-190)

20) Methodius states that Wisdom is “a book full of virtue, the Holy Spirit openly drawing his hearers” and cites Wisdom and Sirach as “Scripture” (Case, 118-119)

21) Gregory Nyssa describes Wisdom 1:4 as “Scripture.” (Case, 123)

22) Didymus the Blind cites Tobit 12:8-9 as “divinely-inspired Scripture,” Judith as part of the “Old Testament,” Sirach as “Scripture.” (Case, 123)

23) Theophilus of Alexandria cites Wisdom 1:7 as “Scripture.” (Case, 134-135)

24) Sulpitius Severus describes Tobit and the Maccabees as “Scripture.” (Case, 135)

25) Cyril of Alexandria cites Sirach 3:22 as “Sacred Scripture” and Baruch and Wisdom as “Scripture.” (Case, 136)

The eminent Protestant Church historian Philip Schaff (1819-1893; see much more about him), editor of the standard 38-volume set of the Church fathers, in his History of the Christian Church, Vol. 2 (of 8), leaves little doubt as to the history of the Old Testament canon, including the books disputed by Protestants:

The canon of the Old Testament descended to the church from the Jews, with the sanction of Christ and the apostles. The Jewish Apocrypha were included in the Septuagint and passed from it into Christian versions. . . .

The Catholic canon thus settled remained untouched till the time of the Reformation when the question of the Apocrypha and of the Antilegomena was reopened . . .

Soon after the middle of the fourth century, when the church became firmly settled in the Empire, all doubts as to the Apocrypha of the Old Testament and the Antilegomena of the New ceased, and the acceptance of the Canon in its Catholic shape, which includes both, became an article of faith. The first Ecumenical Council of Nicaea did not settle the canon, as one might expect, but the scriptures were regarded without controversy as the sure and immovable foundation of the orthodox faith.

Yet Geisler astoundingly claims: “there is virtually an unbroken line of support from ancient to modern times for rejecting the Apocrypha as part of the canon. This is true for both Jewish teachers and Christian Fathers” (p. 167)
*
It’s very difficult to harmonize Schaff’s and Kelly’s views and the patristic data supplied by Gary Michuta (summarized above) with Dr. Geisler’s scenario of “strong evidence in favor of an opposing tradition” regarding the deuterocanonical books.
*
Having ignored most of the patristic evidence, Dr. Geisler resorts to Jewish testimony. Yet if Jewish views on the Messiah or their rejection of the Holy Trinity were also considered normative, we would have no Christianity at all. Circumcision would still be required for all males. But the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) decided against that. Why, then, should various Jewish views on the canon of Scripture 60 or more years after Christ have any binding force on Christians? It’s yet another argument that reeks of desperation.
*
Philo, an Alexandrian Jewish teacher (20 B.C.-A.D. 40), quoted the Old Testament prolifically from virtually every canonical book. Never once, however, did he quote the Apocrypha as inspired text. (p. 168)
*
Gary Michuta, drawing from a book and an article — the latter specifically dealing with Philo’s use of the Old Testament — offers a solid response to this:
Philo does indeed quote a lot of Scripture. He makes about 2,000 quotations in all. . . . [but] out of these 2,000 quotations 1,950 of them come from the first five books of the Bible known as the Pentateuch. The remaining 50 quotations come from the rest of the Old Testament. (The Case for the Deuterocanon: Evidence and Arguments, Livonia, Michigan: Nikaria Press, 2015, 70-71)
The Jewish Encyclopedia (1906), in its article “Bible Canon” notes:
Philo, in his extant works, makes no mention of Ezekiel, Daniel, or the Five Rolls [i.e., Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther]. Since, however, even Sirach mentions Ezekiel, Philo’s silence about him is undoubtedly accidental; consequently, his failure to name the other books can not be taken as a proof that they were not in his canon.
Josephus (A.D. 30-100), a Jewish historian, explicitly excluded the Apocrypha, numbering the Old Testament as twenty-two books (= thirty-nine books in the Protestant Old Testament). Neither does he quote an apocryphal book as Scripture, though he was familiar with them. (p. 168)
*
To the contrary, Johann Peter Lange, in the section, “Additions of Esther: Introduction” of his book, A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Apocrypha (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1880) states:
In Josephus . . . we meet with variations in the history which suggest textual sources not now at hand  . . .
*
That Josephus used the Additions after the recension A. is universally acknowledged. (p. 204)
Josephus also cited 1st Maccabees in his Antiquities of the Jews. In his treatment of this book in the same volume, Lange noted that:
The history has received the confirmation of the Talmudic tradition, and Josephus accorded it an apparently unlimited confidence. (p. 478)
Whether he regarded it as scriptural remains an open question, but he did cite it as authoritative in some sense. Jewish Encyclopedia (1906); “Bible Canon”  stated:

Josephus (“Contra Ap.” i. 8), about the year 100, counted twenty-two sacred books. . . . It is not known with certainty what books were included. It is probable, however, that Lamentations and Baruch formed one book with Jeremiah, and . . . Esther still seems to have had its additions.

The Jewish scholars at Jamnia (c. A.D. 90) did not accept the Apocrypha as part of the divinely inspired Jewish canon. Since the New Testament explicitly states that Israel was entrusted with the oracles of God and was the recipient of the covenants and the Law (Rom. 3:2), the Jews should be considered the custodians of the limits of their own canon. And they have always rejected the Apocrypha. (p. 169)
*
This is of little relevance, as Geisler himself virtually conceded in one of his books from 21 years earlier:
The so-called Council of Jamnia (c. A.D. 90), at which time this third section of writings is alleged to have been canonized, has not been explored. There was no council held with authority for Judaism. It was only a gathering of scholars. This being the case, there was no authorized body present to make or recognize the canon. Hence, no canonization took place at Jamnia. (From God to Us: How we Got our Bible, co-author William E. Nix, Chicago: Moody Press, 1974, 84)
F. F. Bruce also weighed in on the question of Jamnia and also Qumran:

It is probably unwise to talk as if there was a Council or Synod of Jamnia which laid down the limits of the Old Testament canon . . .A common, and not unreasonable, account of the formation of the Old Testament canon is that it took shape in three stages . . . The Law was first canonized (early in the period after the return from the Babylonian exile), the Prophets next (late in the third century BC) . . . the third division, the Writings . . . remained open until the end of the first century AD, when it was ‘closed’ at Jamnia. But it must be pointed out that, for all its attractiveness, this account is completely hypothetical: there is no evidence for it, either in the Old Testament itself or elsewhere. We have evidence in the Old Testament of the public recognition of scripture as conveying the word of God, but that is not the same thing as canonization. (The Canon of Scripture, Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1988, 34, 36)

The discoveries made at Qumran, north-west of the Dead Sea, in the years following 1947 have greatly increased our knowledge of the history of the Hebrew Scriptures during the two centuries or more preceding AD 70 . . . All of the books of the Hebrew Bible are represented among them, with the exception of Esther. This exception may be accidental . . . or it may be significant: there is evidence of some doubt among Jews, as latter among Christians, about the status of Esther . . .

But the men of Qumran have left no statement indicating precisely which of the books represented in their library ranked as holy scripture in their estimation, and which did not . . .

But what of Tobit, Jubilees and Enoch, fragments of which were also found at Qumran? . . . were they reckoned canonical by the Qumran community? There is no evidence which would justify the answer ‘Yes’; on the other hand, we do not know enough to return the answer ‘No’. (Ibid., 38-40)

No canonical list or general council accepted the Apocrypha as inspired for nearly the first four centuries of the Christian church. (p. 169)
*
St. Athanasius drew up a list of the biblical canon in 367 in one of his Festal Letters. At first glance it might seem to support the Protestant view, but Esther isn’t present on the list, and F. F. Bruce observes:
As Athanasius includes Baruch and the ‘Letter of Jeremiah’ . . . so he probably includes the Greek additions to Daniel in the canonical book of that name, and the additions to Esther in the book of that name which he recommends for reading in the church, . . . Only those works which belong to the Hebrew Bible (apart from Esther) are worthy of inclusion in the canon (the additions to Jeremiah and Daniel make no appreciable difference to this principle) . . .
*
In practice Athanasius appears to have paid little attention to the formal distinction between those books which he listed in the canon and those which were suitable for the instruction of new Christians [he cites Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, and Tobit] . . . and quoted from them freely, often with the same introductory formulae – ‘as it is written’, ‘as the scripture says’, etc. [footnote 46: He does not say in so many words why Esther is not included in the canon . . . ] (Bruce, ibid., 79-80)
Most of the Fathers from this period rejected the Apocrypha. (p. 169)
*
The early church as a whole did not accept the Apocrypha as inspired. The infallible pronouncement by the Council of Trent that the Apocrypha is part of the inspired Word of God . . . is historically unfounded, . . . The council’s pronouncement went against a continuous line of teaching, . . . (p. 171)
*
The Council of Trent chose to follow the tradition that has less support in pronouncing the apocryphal books inspired. (p. 198)
*
Geisler didn’t provide nearly enough evidence to back up this historical assertion about early Christians, and I have provided a great deal in this series that refutes it.
*
Certainly, it is not based on any “unanimous consent of the Fathers” Catholics claim for their dogma. (p. 171)
*
This is often misunderstood by Protestants. The original Latin term did not literally mean “absolutely every one.” Rather, it meant consensus or a strong majority. See my article:
*
*
I have shown myself in this article and the preceding ones that a strong consensus in the early Church and the Church fathers in favor of the deuterocanon was indeed the case, and I cited many Protestant scholars in support of it.
*
The Wrong Test for Canonicity. When all is said and done, the Roman Catholic Church uses the wrong test for canonicity. . . . Other defenders of Catholicism make the same mistake, giving lip-service to the fact that the church only discovers the canon, yet constructing an argument that makes the church the determiner of the canon. They neglect the fact that it is God who caused (by inspiration) the canonical Scriptures, not the church. (p. 173)
*
The later church is not an evidential witness for the canon. The later church does not create or constitute evidence for the canon. It is only a discoverer and observer of the evidence that remains for original confirmation of the propheticity of the canonical books. Assuming that the church itself is evidence is the mistake behind the view favoring the canonicity of the Apocrypha. . . . 
*
Neither the earlier nor later church is the judge of the canon. The church is not the final authority for the criteria of what will be admitted as evidence in the way that judges are. That is, it does not determine the rules of canonicity. Since the Bible is the Word of God, only God can determine the criteria for our discovery of what is his Word. Or, to put it another way, what is of God will have his “fingerprints” on it, and only God is the determiner of what his “fingerprints” are like. It is up to the people of God simply to discover these divine characteristics that God has determined. . . . 
*
Both the early and later church is more like a jury than a judge. The role of a jury is to listen to the evidence, not create it or try to be it. They weigh the evidence, not make it or constitute it. Then, they render a verdict in accord with the evidence. This, as we have shown, is precisely what the Christian church has done in rendering its verdict that the Apocrypha is not part of sacred Scripture.  (p. 174)
*
Geisler doesn’t fairly portray the views of the Catholic Church on this score: at least not in this section. He gives passing lip service to “Catholic sources” that “can be cited supporting what looks very much like the ‘correct view’ of the biblical canon” (p. 173). Good, as far as it goes . . . But oddly enough, he doesn’t cite those sources in this context, so his readers can learn what the Catholic Church officially teaches about it. Instead he chose to merely discuss how “Catholic apologists often equivocate on this issue” (p. 173; my italics). What the Catholic Church actually teaches was declared on 8 April 1546, in the Council of Trent in its Fourth Session (less than two months after Luther’s death), when it issued the Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures, in which it affirmed that the books of Holy Scripture were
received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating” and “have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament–seeing that one God is the author of both” and that they were “dictated, either by Christ’s own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession.
There is nothing whatsoever here of the notion that the Catholic Church supposedly regards itself as an authority higher than inspired revelation, or that it vainly thinks that it “created” Scripture, etc. God the Holy Spirit did that, as it clearly states. The Catholic Church merely “receives” that which was God-breathed; it has “come down” to the Church. Far from “lording it over” the Bible, the Church “venerates” it and receives it with “reverence” and it is lovingly “preserved” by the Church. The Catholic Church went on to reaffirm these thoughts in more explicit and precise terms in its next two ecumenical councils:

First Vatican Council (1870)

These the Church holds to be sacred and canonical; not because, having been carefully composed by mere human industry, they were afterward approved by her authority; not because they contain revelation, with no admixture of error; but because, having been written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author, and have been delivered as such to the Church herself. (Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, chapter II; emphasis added)

Second Vatican Council (1962-1965)

The divinely-revealed realities which are contained and presented in the text of sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For Holy Mother Church relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that they were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (cf. Jn. 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:19-21; 3:15-16), they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself. (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation [Dei Verbum], Chapter III, 11; emphasis added)

This is magisterial Catholic teaching. To be fair, Geisler did, later in his book, accurately take note of Vatican I’s teaching on the canon. He wrote:
The church merely discovered which books God had determined (inspired) to be in the canon. Vatican I appears to agree . . . [he cites its words] . . . even Catholic dogma admits that the church only received and recognized the canon but did not actually cause or produce it. (p. 192)
This, of course, contradicts his statement from page 173: “When all is said and done, the Roman Catholic Church uses the wrong test for canonicity.” Which is it: right or wrong?
*
The apocryphal books . . . do not claim to be inspired . . . (p. 175)
*
This is yet another non sequitur, and a Catholic Answers Q & A utterly dismantled it:

No book of the Bible claims itself to be divinely inspired. Divine inspiration means that God himself authored the exact words of the text (using the human writer’s mind, personality, and background), and no book states anything like, “The words of this book were chosen by God” or “This book is divinely inspired.”

The term “inspired” (Greek, theopneustos) only occurs once in the Bible (2 Tm 3:16), where we are told that all Scripture is inspired. We first know that something is Scripture and then infer that it is inspired; we do not first know that it is inspired and then conclude it is Scripture.

The only non-technical references to inspiration occur when one book of the Bible reports that God or the Spirit spoke through the words of a different book (for example, see Heb 3:7-11, concerning Ps 95). In no case does a book of the Bible state this for itself. Even if it does claim to contain divine revelations or visions (as does the book of Revelation), it does not say of itself that every word of its text was inspired. That is something we must infer from 2 Timothy 3:16. Since no protocanonical book of the Bible meets [this] test, it can scarcely be expected of the deuterocanonical books.

Claiming to be inspired is a different thing from really being inspired [too]. The Book of Mormon claims to be the Word of God, but isn’t; the Gospel of John doesn’t, but it is.

*
***
*
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).
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle and 100% tax-deductible donations if desired), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information.
*
You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my 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: Protestant Church historian Philip Schaff (1819-1893) [Log College Press page]
*
Summary: Dr. Geisler wars against the facts of Church history regarding the Church fathers’ acceptance of the deuterocanonical books (verified by many Protestant historians).
2025-07-08T09:40:40-04:00

Photo credit: Saint Jerome Writing (c. 1605–1606), by Caravaggio (1571-1610) [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.

*****

On page 162 Dr. Geisler contended that “in the early church” there were “many who vehemently opposed” the deuterocanonical books, over against “some” who had a “high regard” for them. He claimed that among those who opposed the canonicity of the deuterocanon were St. Jerome (c. 343-420), St. Athanasius (c. 297-373), and Origen (c. 185-c. 254). I shall consider each in turn.

There are several anomalies in St. Jerome’s treatment of the deuterocanon, and his viewpoint on the canon of the Old Testament is not quite as clear-cut as many assume it to be. My good friend and fellow Michigander apologist Gary Michuta, in his excellent book, Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger (Port Huron, Michigan: Grotto Press, 2007), observed about St. Jerome (pp. 149-150; my own footnote numbering):

He . . . flatly denies that Tobit is part of the canon, [1] although elsewhere he cites it without qualification! [2] . . . Jerome adopts the popular convention in his Letter to Oceanus by quoting Baruch as a voice made by “the trumpets of the prophets.” [3] Sirach is both rejected and quoted as Scripture, [4] although it is formally quoted [5] and occasionally used without qualification. [6] Wisdom is also occasionally formally quoted. [7] Jerome even attributes the passages from Wisdom to the Holy Spirit. [8] Maccabees is used without distinction. [9] Jerome at times alludes to the Deuterocanonical sections of Daniel in his letters. [10] Deuterocanonical passages from Esther are likewise quoted. [11] . . . he lists Judith as one of the virtuous women of sacred Scripture . . . [12].

[1] Prologue to John.
[2] Commentary in Eccles. 8.
[3] Letter 77:4.
[4] Commentary on Isaiah, Book 2, 3:12; Letters 77:6: 108:22; 118:1; 148:2,16,18.
[5] Commentary on Jeremiah, Book 4, 21:14; Commentary on Ezekiel, Book 6, 18:6; and Letter 64:5.
[6] Commentary on Isaiah, Book 8, 24:4; Commentary on Ezekiel, Book 6, 18:6; Letter 57.1 To Pammachius; and Letter 125.19, To Rusticus.
[7] Commentary on Isaiah, Book 1, 1:24; Commentary on Zechariah, Book 3, 14:9; and Commentary on Malachi, 3:7 ff.
[8] Commentary on Galatians, Book 1, 3:2 . . . and Breviarium in Psalmos, Ps 9.
[9] Against Pelagians, Book 2:30; Letter 7, To Chromatius, Jovinus and Eusebius.
[10] Letter 3, 1 To Rufinus the Monk; Letter 22,9-10, To Eustochium; Letter 1, 9 to Innocent.
[11] Letter 48, To Pammachius, 14.
[12] Letter 65,1.

Gary Michuta again illustrated the complexities and anomalies of St. Athanasius’ view (pp. 110-112; footnote numbering my own):

Athanasius quotes both Baruch and Susanna right along passages from Isaiah, Psalms, Romans, and Hebrews; he makes no distinction or qualification between them [1]. Wisdom also is used as an authentic portion of sacred Scripture:

But of these and such like inventions of idolatrous madness, Scripture taught us beforehand long ago, when it said, ‘The devising of idols, as the beginning of fornication, and the invention of them, the corruption of life . . .’ [Ws 14:12] [2]

And later in the same work:

For since they were endeavouring to invest with what Scripture calls the incommunicable name . . . [3]

This reference to the “incommunicable name” comes from Wisdom 14:21 . . .

Athanasius quotes another passage from Wisdom as constituting the teachings of Christ, the Word of God. He undoubtedly uses it to confirm doctrine. [4] In another argument against Arians, he calls both the Protocanonical Proverbs and the Deuterocanonical Wisdom “holy Scripture” . . . [5] . . .Athanasius also quotes the book of Sirach without distinction or qualification, in the midst of several other scriptural quotations. [6] . . . Athanasius calls the Book of Judith Scripture. [7] Tobit is cited right along with several Protocanonical quotations [8] , and even introduced with the solemn formula “it is written.” [9]

[1] Four Discourses Against the Arians, Discourse 1.12.
[2] Against the Heathen, 11.1. Emphasis added.
[3] Against the Heathen, 1, 17.3.
[4] On the Incarnate Word, 4.6; 5.2.
[5] Defense Against Arius, 1, 3.
[6] Life of Anthony, 28 and Apology Against the Arians, 66.
[7] Four Discourses Against the Arians, Discourse 2.35 . . .
[8] Defense of Constantius, 17. Tobit is cited after Matthew and Isaiah.
[9] Defense Against Arius, Part 1, 11.

The great Protestant Bible scholar F. F. Bruce confirms Michuta’s analysis:

As Athanasius includes Baruch and the ‘Letter of Jeremiah’ in one book with Jeremiah and Lamentations [in his list of the OT canon], so he probably includes the Greek additions to Daniel in the canonical book of that name, and the additions to Esther in the book of that name which he recommends for reading in church [but doesn’t list as a canonical book] . . .

In practice Athanasius appears to have paid little attention to the formal distinction between those books which he listed in the canon and those which were suitable for instruction of new Christians. He was familiar with the text of all, and quoted from them freely, often with the same introductory formula — ‘as it is written’, ‘as the scripture says’, etc. (The Canon of Scripture, Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1988, 79-80; my bracketed comments, based on the larger context of Bruce’s analysis)

Catholic apologist “Matt1618” produced a magnificent treatise, “Did Some Church Fathers Reject the Deuterocanonicals as Scripture?” He states about Origen:

[H]e does put Baruch and the two Maccabees books in the canon. . . . he speaks approvingly of the Septuagint, which contains all the Deuterocanonical books. . . . Origen defends the use of the passage in Daniel 3 that Catholics have, the Song of the 3 children, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon, as found in Daniel 13 and 14 of the Catholic Bible. He says that Bel and the Dragon and Susanna, Daniel 13 and 14 and only found in the Catholic Bible, is found in every single Church of Christ. Origen himself acknowledges that all Churches use these books. And in which way? He notes that he refers to them as Scripture. His opponent said it was a forgery. He corrects his opponent. It is not a forgery, but he notes his own use of them as Scripture. [To Africanus, 5]

Origen protests the fact that  that these portions of Daniel now found only in Catholic Bibles, were “removed from the Scriptures.” [To Africanus, 9]  Here are more relevant passages from Origen:

But he ought to know that those who wish to live according to the teaching of Sacred Scripture understand the saying, ‘The knowledge of the unwise is as talk without sense,’ [Sirach 21:18] and have learnt “to be ready always to give an answer to everyone that asketh us a reason for the hope that is in us.” [1 Pt 3:15]  [Against Celsus, 7:12]

[A]s is written in the book of Tobit: ‘It is good to keep close the secret of a king, but honourable to reveal the works of God,’ [Tobit 12:7]–in a way consistent with truth and God’s glory, and so as to be to the advantage of the multitude.” [Against Celsus, 5:19]

“Matt1618” comments: “He uses the phrase, ‘As is written’, in reference to Tobit. The phrase ‘It is written’ always is a reference to Scripture, both in Scripture itself as well as its use by the Fathers. Thus, Origen sees Tobit as Scripture.”

Tobias [Tobit] (as also Judith), we ought to notice, the Jews do not use. They are not even found in the Hebrew Apocrypha, as I learned from the Jews themselves.” However, since the Churches use Tobias, you must know that even in the captivity some of the captives were rich and well to do. Tobias himself says, “Because I remembered God with all my heart; and the Most High gave me grace and beauty in the eyes of Nemessarus, and I was his purveyor; and I went into Media, and left in trust with Gabael, the brother of Gabrias, at Ragi, a city of Media, ten talents of silver” (Tobias, 1:12-14). [To Africanus, 13]

But that we may believe on the authority of holy Scripture that such is the case, hear how in the book of Maccabees, where the mother of seven martyrs exhorts her son to endure torture, this truth is confirmed; for she says, ‘ ask of thee, my son, to look at the heaven and the earth, and at all things which are in them, and beholding these, to know that God made all these things when they did not exist.’ [2 Maccabees 7:28]” [Fundamental Principles, 2:2]

And that which is written about wisdom, you may apply also to faith, and to the virtues specifically, so as to make a precept of this kind, “If any one be perfect in wisdom among the sons of men, and the power that comes from Thee be wanting, he will be reckoned as nothing ” or “If any one be perfect in self-control, so far as is possible for the sons of men, and the control that is from Thee be wanting, he will be reckoned as nothing; (Wisdom 9:6) [Commentary on Matthew, 4]

“Matt1618” summarizes:

The Protestant apologists who argue that Origen spoke against the Books and did not view the Deuterocanonical books as Scripture, are wrong. Though it is true that some of these books (only some of these books, as some are canonical) are not termed ‘canonical’, that is irrelevant. The question is whether he saw these books as Scripture. Origen clearly terms these books as Scripture, according to Origen himself. He also uses these books to teach doctrine.

There are some important reasons why citing these church councils does not prove the Apocrypha belonged in the canon of the Christian church. First, these were only local councils and were not binding on the whole church. Local councils have often erred in their decisions and have been overruled later by the universal church. . . . 

The books accepted by these Christian councils may not have been the Same ones in each case. Hence, they cannot be used as evidence of the exact canon later infallibly proclaimed by the Roman Catholic Church in A.D. 1546. . . .

The Council of Rome did not list the same books accepted by Hippo and Carthage. It does not include Baruch, thus listing only six, not seven, of the apocryphal books later pronounced canonical by the Roman Catholic Church . . . Trent lists it as a separate book. (pp. 162-163; including some of footnote 13)

Wikipedia, “Book of Baruch” refutes this:

Pope Innocent I (405 AD), the Council of Rome (382 AD), the Synod of Hippo (in 393), followed by the Council of Carthage (397) and the Council of Carthage (419) mention Jeremiah as a canonical book without mentioning Baruch, but it is commonly accepted that the absence of specific mention of Baruch in canon lists circulating in the West cannot be interpreted as an assertion that the Book of Baruch was non-canonical[;] only that it is being assumed within Jeremiah. Most of the Church Fathers considered Jeremiah as a single book, along with Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle.

F. F. Bruce stated that the Councils of Hippo in 393 (“along the lines approved by Augustine”) and the Third Council of Carthage in 397,

appear to have been the first church councils to make a formal pronouncement on the canon. When they did so, they simply endorsed what had become the general consensus of the churches in the west and of the greater part of the east. In 405 Pope Innocent I embodied a list of canonical books . . . it too included the Apocrypha. The Sixth Council of Carthage (419) re-enacted the ruling of the Third Council [397], again with the inclusion of the apocryphal books. (Ibid., p. 97)

Dr. Geisler’s trepidation about local councils is rectified (at least in Catholic eyes), by the oversight of Rome (Council of 382 and Pope Innocent’s proclamation of 405). In Catholic ecclesiology and authority, popes or councils in Rome overseen by him, can make decrees that confirm and ratify other local councils and make their decrees part of the universal magisterium. The Council of Trent reasserted the Catholic biblical canon on an even higher magisterial level, but the canonical lists had been the same in all five of these early councils and papal pronouncements (influenced by the great St. Augustine) between 382 and 419. Geisler tried unsuccessfully to undercut this impressive unanimity by majoring on the minors (a mistaken view regarding Baruch).

*
***
*
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).
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle and 100% tax-deductible donations if desired), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information.
*
You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my 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: Saint Jerome Writing (c. 1605–1606), by Caravaggio (1571-1610) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
*
Summary: I dispute the alleged “opposed” views of Origen, Athanasius, & Jerome, & note the agreement of four early councils & a papal pronouncement regarding the deuterocanon.
2025-07-07T17:45:05-04:00

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 Tosefta Yadayim, 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).
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle and 100% tax-deductible donations if desired), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information.
*
You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my 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.
2025-07-07T17:45:37-04:00

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?

See my article, Baptized for the Dead: The “UnProtestant” Verse (1 Cor 15:29) [2004]

***

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:

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:

Deuterocanonical References (?) in the Gospels [7-13-05] [67 written out; 67 more from Nestle, for 102 total]
*
Deuterocanonical References (?): Acts-Ephesians [7-27-05] [44 written out; 57 more from Nestle, for 101 total]
*
Deuterocanonical References (?): Philippians-Revelation [8-10-05] [60 written out; 31 more from Nestle, for 91] 
*
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 11:1Jeremiah 23:5; or Nazir, one Separated, or, the Holy One, they all fail . . .
Barnes’ Notes on the Bible concedes:  “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.”
*
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges candidly admits: “The meaning of this passage was probably as clear to the contemporaries of St Matthew, as the other references to prophecy Matthew 2:15Matthew 2:17; for us it is involved in doubt.”
*
Bengel’s Gnomen penetratingly observes:
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).
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle and 100% tax-deductible donations if desired), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information.
*
You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my 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.
2025-07-08T13:24:15-04:00

Photo credit: Image by geralt (12-4-13) [Pixabay / CC0 public domain]

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 differences over the canonicity of the Apocrypha are not minor. They are both doctrinal and canonical. Doctrinally, the Apocrypha supports prayers for the dead (which also entails a belief in purgatory). (p. 158)

Geisler is presupposing that the New Testament teaches against prayer for the dead or never sanctions it. This is untrue. There are two fairly clear primary texts and several secondary ones. But I’ll get to that later in my reply to his chapter on purgatory. Here I’ll simply note that it’s interesting that Geisler assumes that prayer for the dead presupposes the existence of purgatory. And that’s because prayer is of no use for someone in heaven; nor is it effective for anyone in hell. Both are — in different directions — beyond prayer.

Canonically, the grounds on which the Apocrypha was accepted undermine the true test for canonicity-propheticity. In short, if the Apocrypha can be accepted in the canon, lacking, as it does, the characteristics that meet the true test of canonicity, then other noncanonical books could be accepted on the same grounds. (p. 158)

The True Test of Canonicity. Contrary to the Roman Catholic argument from Christian usage, the true test of canonicity is propheticity. That is, propheticity determines canonicity. God determined which books would be in the Bible by giving their message to a prophet. So only books written by a prophet, that is, an accredited spokesperson for God, are inspired and belong in the canon of Scripture. (p. 166)

In fact, the entire Protestant Old Testament was considered prophetic. Moses, who wrote the first five books, was a prophet (Deut. 18:15). The rest
of the Old Testament books were known as “the Prophets” (Matt. 5:17) since these two sections are called “all the Scriptures” (Luke 24:27). (p. 167)

Jesus in Matthew 5:17 said, “Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them.” Luke 24:27 reads, “And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.” Neither of these verses prove what Geisler is contending: that there were only two “sections” of Scripture.

Moreover, as is well-known, the Jews divided their Hebrew Bible into three categories. Encyclopaedia Britannica (“Books of the Hebrew Bible”) elaborates:

The Hebrew Bible is organized into three main sections: the Torah, or “Teaching,” also called the Pentateuch or the “Five Books of Moses”; the Neviʾim, or Prophets; and the Ketuvim, or Writings. . . .

The books of the Neviʾim are categorized among either the Former Prophets—which contain anecdotes about major Hebrew persons and include Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings—or the Latter Prophets—which exhort Israel to return to God and are named (because they are either attributed to or contain stories about them) for Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and (together in one book known as “The Book of the Twelve”) the 12 Minor Prophets (Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi). The last of the three divisions, the Ketuvim, contains poetry (devotional and erotic), theology, and drama in Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs (attributed to King Solomon), Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles.

The Hebrew Bible as adopted by Christianity features more than 24 books for several reasons. . . . the Bibles used in the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and some Protestant churches were derived initially from the Septuagint, the Greek-language translation of the Hebrew Bible produced in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BCE. This included some books deemed noncanonical by Orthodox Judaism and most Protestant churches (see also Apocrypha),

Geisler does note on footnote 28 on page 167 that “‘The Prophets’ were later divided into Prophets and Writings.” But  he also states, “it is clear that the original (cf. Dan. 9:2; Zech. 7:12) and continual way to refer to the entire Old Testament up to the time of Christ was the twofold division of the ‘Law and Prophets.’ “

Jesus directly contradicted Geisler’s assertion of a two-section Old Testament when He stated in Luke 24:44, “These are my words which I spoke to you, while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled.” The Psalms are part of the “Writings”: the third section beyond the Torah and the prophets. The 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia: “Hagiographa (= ‘Writings’)” bears witness to a threefold division of the Old Testament in 130 BC:

Origin of the Collection.

The existence of the Hagiographa collection as a third part of the canon is first stated in the prologue (about 130 B.C.) to Sirach, with which the translator and grandson of the author of Ecclesiasticus prefaced his Greek translation. At the very beginning mention is made “of the many and important things which were transmitted to the Jews through the Law, the Prophets, and the others that followed them.” There is no doubt that in this summing up of the Old Testament literature the authors of the Hagiographa are meant by “those that [κα= “as authors”] followed the Prophets.” A confirmation of the fact that this Hagiographa collection ranked even then with the older books of the canon is found in a passage in I Maccabees (vii. 17; written probably 100 B.C.), where two verses of a psalm (lxxix. 2-3) are quoted as Holy Scripture; and as all the books of the Hagiographa as now known date back at least to the second half of the second century B.C., it may be inferred that the collection included even then—that is, in the beginning of the first century B.C.—the same books as now, with the exception, perhaps, that single detached portions may have been added later.

Classic Protestant commentaries (in analyses of Luke 24:44) concur with this analysis:

Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers: The three-fold division of the Law, the Prophets (including most of the historic books), and the Psalms (the latter term standing for the whole of the Kethubim, the Hagiographa or “holy writings,” of which the Psalms were the most conspicuous portion), corresponded to that which was in common use among the Jews.

Barnes’ Notes on the Bible: The prophets – This was the second and largest part of the Hebrew Scriptures. It comprehended the books of Joshua, Judges, 1st and 2nd Samuel, 1st and 2nd Kings, which were called the “former prophets;” and Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve smaller books from Daniel, to Malachi, which were called the “latter prophets.”

The psalms – The word here used probably means what were comprehended under the name of “Hagiographa,” or holy writings. This consisted of the Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, and Nehemiah, and the two books of Chronicles. This division of the Old Testament was in use long before the time of Christ, . . .

Matthew Poole’s Commentary: The Jews ordinarily divided the Old Testament into the law, the prophets, and the holy writings, which they called the Hagiographa. The Book of Psalms was one of the last sort, and one of the most noted amongst them. So as by these three terms our Saviour understands all the Scriptures of the Old Testament.

Benson Commentary: Under these three, the Jews were wont to comprehend all the books of the Old Testament. Under the name law, the five books called the pentateuch were included; the chief of the historical books were joined with the prophets, and all the rest with the psalms. 

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary: law … prophets … psalms—the three Jewish divisions of the Old Testament Scriptures.

Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible: In this he . . . alludes to the usual distinction among the Jews of the books of the Old Testament into the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa; among which last stands the book of Psalms, and is put for the whole

The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary (“Writings”) states that the books in this third category may have been grouped together as early as “300 B.C.”

But be all that as it may, it still remains to be seen if even all of these books known as “The Writings” or Ketuvim or Hagiographa were written by prophets, as Geisler curiously claims. I will shortly contend that they obviously were not.

Elsewhere, in his book, A General Introduction to the Bible (rev. 1986, pp. 212-216); “The Authors Were Apostles or Prophets”, Geisler explains:

It had to be a public, not strictly a private writing. That is, it had to be offered to the people of God and not merely a private record. . . . it had to be a word from God for the people of God. . . . In short, a prophet is not infallible in his private utterance but only in his prophetic utterances. Hence it is possible that the prophets wrote other things which were not prophetic.

Second, it is possible that a book could be prophetic but still not canonic. For although all canonic writings are prophetic, it is possible that not all prophetic writings are canonic. That is, perhaps God did not intend that all prophetic books would be preserved for posterity but only those select few He deemed necessary for the believer’s faith and practice. If that be so, then propheticity is only a necessary condition of canonicity but not a sufficient condition. In that case there would be another condition for canonicity. The most likely candidate for such a further condition would be acceptance by the people of God of the books they deemed of value to the broader Christian community. 

There were no apostles in the Old Testament. Therefore, by Geisler’s criterion, Old Testament books had to come from a prophet. Let’s see how that theory lines up with various books. Gleason Archer, in his Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago: Moody Press, 1964) wrote about the book(s) of Chronicles and Ezra:

It is quite possible that the Talmudic tradition (Baba Bathra 15a) is correct in assigning the authorship to Ezra. . . . he would have had every incentive to produce a historical survey of this sort. (p. 390)

Ezra himself  undoubtedly wrote most of the book named after him. (Note the use of “I” in Ezra 7-10.) (p. 396)

But Ezra wasn’t a prophet. He was a priest and a scribe skilled in the Torah (Ezra 7:6). This clashes with Geisler’s odd contention that “all canonic writings are prophetic.” Nehemiah is thought to have written the book of the same name (or possibly Ezra recording his word). But he wasn’t a prophet, either. He was a cupbearer to the Persian king Artaxerxes I and governor of Jerusalem.

The book of Esther gives no indication of its author. Some Jewish traditions claim that Mordecai was the author, and Archer opines that “Other possible authors might be Ezra or Nehemiah . . .” (p. 403): none of whom are prophets. This book, by the way, doesn’t even mention God or the Lord — but additional chapters of the book that Catholic Bibles contain, do mention God (22 times), and “Lord” also appears 21 times. So according to Geisler, the Protestant truncated version was a “word from God” that never mentioned Him, while the Catholic portions that mention both divine titles 43 times, are supposedly not canonical.

The book of Job gives no indication of authorship, and whoever wrote it seems not to have been a prophet, either. I have now shown that six Old Testament books agreed-upon as canonical by all Christians, lack the property of “propheticity” that Geisler claims they must have as “a necessary condition of canonicity.” If they lack propheticity, then why couldn’t this also be the case with one or more of the deuterocanonical books (known by Protestants as the “Apocrypha”)?

There is strong evidence that the apocryphal books are not prophetic. But since propheticity is the test for canonicity, this would eliminate the Apocrypha from the canon. First, no apocryphal books claim to be written by a prophet. . . . There is no predictive prophecy in the Apocrypha, such as we have in the canonical books (e.g., Isa. 53; Dan. 9; Mic. 5:2) and which is a clear indication of their propheticity. . . . There is no new messianic truth in the Apocrypha. Thus, it adds nothing to the messianic truths of the Old Testament. (p. 167)

Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin refutes this:

Books are Scripture if they are divinely inspired (2 Tim. 3:16). They do not have to have someone who functions as a prophet as their author . . .

Books do not have to contain predictive prophecy to be Scripture. Many do not contain forecasts of specific, future events in the literal sense of the text (i.e., the sense intended by the human author, apart from additional, spiritual meanings intended by the Holy Spirit). Ruth, Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes are examples of books that do not contain predictive prophecy.

However, the deuterocanonicals do contain predictive prophecy. This is true both of prophecies already fulfilled (see 2 Macc. 15:13–29) and prophecies still in the future (see Bar. 4:21–5:9; Tob. 14:5–7; 2 Macc. 7:23, 12:43). These reflect the same types of prophecy found in the protocanonical books of Scripture. . . .

For example, Wisdom 2:12–23 contains a meditation on how the wicked plot against a righteous man who regards himself as God’s son. They condemn him to a shameful death, but they do not recognize the secret purposes of God, who created man for incorruption. This is a clearer messianic prophecy than most. (“Deuterocanonicals and Prophecy,” Catholic Answers, 3-13-23)

Dr. Geisler saws off the “limb” of his own argument, that he is sitting on. He undermines his own case, since it’s revealed to be self-defeating. The most curious thing is that Dr. Geisler, well-trained in logic and very adept at debate, didn’t notice this.

Man, the weird things we have to argue about in apologetics!

*
***
*
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).
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle and 100% tax-deductible donations if desired), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information.
*
You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my 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: Image by geralt (12-4-13) [Pixabay / CC0 public domain]
*
Summary: Norman Geisler argues that the deuterocanonical books lack the necessary canonical property of “propheticity.” I note that at least six agreed-upon OT books do also.
2025-05-29T21:01:59-04:00

Photo Credit: copyright Catholic Bible Highlights, 2025.

 

Summary: This video defends the literal meaning of “This is my Body” with Scripture, logic, and faith— showing how belief in the Eucharist is not only reasonable and biblical, but essential.

Why do many Protestants reject the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist—even while believing in other miracles that defy logic and reason? In this eye-opening episode of Catholic Bible Highlights, Kenny Burchard and Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong continue to unpack the intense anti-Eucharistic arguments of Reformed theologian François Turretin, exposing the deep inconsistencies in his reasoning. If you’re a Protestant, ex-Protestant, or Catholic deepening your faith, this is a conversation you can’t afford to miss.

Related Article

François Turretin and the Debate Over the Lord’s Supper [Vs. Turretin #11: Eucharist, Pt. 1] (Does a traditional literal reading of “this is my body” entail “a thousand absurdities and contradictions”? The book of Job is instructive) [2-24-25]

Related Web Page

Eucharist, Sacrifice of the Mass, & Liturgical Issues

Related Book

Biblical Catholic Eucharistic Theology (Feb. 2011, 222 pages)

*
***
*
Practical Matters:  I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them. If you believe my full-time apostolate is worth supporting, please seriously consider a much-needed monthly or one-time financial contribution. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV).
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle and 100% tax-deductible donations if desired), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information.
*
You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my 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 Creditcopyright Catholic Bible Highlights, 2025.

2025-05-29T20:59:54-04:00

Photo Credit: copyright Catholic Bible Highlights, 2025.

 

This exchange occurred in the combox of my video, How Can That Be Jesus? (Turretin & the Eucharist) [Catholic Bible Highlights, 5-23-25]. The words of our Reformed Protestant friend will be in blue.

*****

It is very important to know what the other is arguing before making a long video which respectfully most of it has little to do with the argument.

I have answered Turretin in-depth in reply articles 14 times now; the last four concerning the Eucharist. This came from one of the four. Most had little to do with his larger argument; I agree, because I was taking off from his comments about the “impossibility” of God being bodily present in the bread and wine and constructing a demonstration of all the different types of God’s presence in the Bible. So it’s a massive response to that one aspect of his argument. In that sense I readily agree that I wasn’t dealing with his entire argument. I do that across all four of my written responses.

I am not going to suppose all of Turretin’s arguments but will give some of the basics of a Reformed argument against Christ being physically present on earth after the ascension into heaven and before the second coming. I think that will clear up many misconceptions and thus clear up some confusion and false accusations.

Go for it. I so rarely get any responses that it is delightful to find someone willing to engage.

1. Reformed theology (RT) is not claiming that God cannot be present with man at any time. The whole list of how God in his divine nature is immaterially present has little to do with the subject and RT has no issue with it. They might have some slight differences, but they definitely believe in God’s omnipresence and also his special presence with believers by the Holy Spirit.

I agree. My argument was a huge reductio, trying to show that if God is immaterially present in ten ways and materially present in another nine ways, then how can Turretin claim that it’s “impossible” to believe in transubstantiation. It makes literally no sense, and is a universal negative type pseudo-“argument”: which is always a bad move on any sort of debate. Turretin not only claims God doesn’t do what we claim He does at every Mass, but can’t possibly do it: which is an exponentially larger claim and extremely difficult to prove from the Bible.

2. RT has no issue with pre incarnate physical appearances of God (Theophanies) but hold the incarnation in a special place. I do not think God was physically present in the burning bush but that is off topic.

My argument didn’t entail claiming that Reformed Protestants disagreed with all of these sorts of presence. I am explaining my intention with the argument, which you seem to have largely missed. I didn’t claim God was “physically present in the burning bush” either. What I claimed (in my notes for this video) was that it fell under the category of “Divine Presence Involving Physicality” and that “God can be and was present in a special way in matter (the burning bush . . .)”. That’s a different claim from saying that God himself was physically present in the bush. I chose my words very carefully, as I always do.

3. RT has no problem with the incarnation

I never claimed it did. So why would you bring this up? I’m saying that, given your acceptance of the incarnation, why do you think transubstantiation would be impossible?

4. RT has no issue with the in Christ language by Paul and others in he Bible. The issue as we will see is how.

I never claimed that, either. You are assuming a lot of things about either my argument or my intentions for it or about what I supposedly think about Reformed Protestantism (that I don’t). But an e for effort . . .

Okay. So what is the argument? Why are RT so against Jesus being physically (body) now in the Eucharist.

Thanks for explaining! Inquiring minds want to know . . .

1. The first issue is best understood through the Chalcedonian definition. It states, ” one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only” (From the Council of Chalcedon 451).

Thus, Jesus is one person in two natures, divine and human. And these two natures are not confused, do not change, are not divided or separated. He still has two natures today. If Jesus Christ is body is present in the Eucharist then we are saying that Jesus’ human nature is present in the Eucharist.

That’s not what we believe; rather, that He is present, “Body, blood, soul, and divinity.” But it’s a sacramental presence, which is a different mode of presence. We can no more separate the two natures in the Eucharist than we can when we talk about Mary being the Mother of God (Theotokos). Mothers aren’t parents of natures but of people.

It is argued that a human nature can only be at one place at a time and has boundaries and a limited scope (amount). So how is Jesus Christ human nature in heaven and on earth?

Well, it’s the whole Jesus, not just the human nature, but it is His physical body, which is the human nature. Why do you think this is impossible? How could the fish and the loaves be multiplied? These things simply aren’t impossible for God. The prior problem is that Turretin and many (most?) Reformed think that miracles ceased. So transubstantiation is made “impossible” by ruling out a category and a possibility, rather than by theological or biblical argument.

How can He have a physical body, yet walk through walls? The Eucharist is neither theologically nor logically impossible for God to do.

And how do millions of people eat his human body but it is not used up?

Because it’s a miracle. How can one believe that miracles ceased when the Bible never said that this would be the case?

Again, it is said to be a natural limitation of a human nature that we cannot be at two places at once and that we have a limited amount of body.

But we are finite, created human beings. God the Son is not that.

The human nature does not change or morph into a divine nature per Chalcedon. So how does this happen? You can say it is a miracle but that does not really help unless one gives some sort of explanation on how a human nature is multipresent.

Why do we even have to explain it? It’s what Jesus taught, so we believe it. He held bread in His hand and said “this is my boy” and he held a glass of wine and said it was His blood. Then He said that if we don’t partake in both we have no life in us. The people who were at Chalcedon believed, for the most part, believed in the transformational character of the Eucharist, according to Protestant historian Philp Schaff and many others. They saw no conflict here; only Calvinists do, 15 centuries after Christ.

God became flesh to suffer and die as a human. The divine nature did not die. Jesus’ human nature died.

No; Jesus died and He had both natures. We don’t say that a “human nature” or in our case that a “soul died.” We say that a human being died.

But Jesus is one person and so God died on the cross. The Divine nature did not change so it could suffer in the incarnation. Why does the human nature change in the Eucharist?

Because God so willed it. Bread and wine can become God, just as we can be “partakers of the divine nature” too.

2. Secondly, after the ascension the disciples were looking up. Acts 1:10-11 describes what occurred. “10 They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11 “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”

Yes, in the sense of the incarnate Jesus. He came with a human body the first time and He will do so the second time with a glorified human body. Sacramental presence is different in kind from that.

Another part of the argument is Jesus will return bodily at the second coming. He does not come back in between.

The first doesn’t rule out the possibility of the second. This is simply the usual hyper-rationalistic “either/or” Reformed thinking, whereas the Bible is “both/and.”

thus, Jesus in his manhood is sitting at the right hand of the Father (or in heaven) waiting for the appointed time of his second coming. He is not on earth because that would be a second coming. He cannot be in two places or more at once. And he only has a limited amount of physical body. 

Who says He can’t do that? If Jesus says that He can and does and Calvin and Turretin and you disagree with Jesus, then I go with Jesus’ opinion.

3. Now many in the reformed theology camp ascribe to spiritual presence. At least one version of that sees a real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist but not on earth. So instead of Jesus coming down, believes are mystically brought up to heaven in the Eucharist to feed on the body and blood of Jesus.

None of which is in the Bible, so the sensible question is, “why would anyone believe that?”

This is not all of the RT but it is a view of the RT.

And it’s wrong and unbiblical, whatever it is.

That understanding would clear up many of the issues above. Jesus would be present in one location (not multi present at one time) and he has not come back to earth before his second coming (in his human nature). I ascribe to this view in some sense.

Paul says, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Cor 10:16, RSV),. He never says this is in heaven. You merely arbitrarily assume that, to make sense of your own false dilemma that really is none at all. The author of Hebrews also wrote:

Hebrews 13:10-12 We have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat. [11] For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest as a sacrifice for sin are burned outside the camp. [12] So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood.

That’s not in heaven either. And it’s the same as “the table of the Lord” that Paul refers to in 1 Corinthians 10:21.

There is still mystery in the doctrine of communion. I have some affection and almost want to believe in a Lutheran or Eastern Orthodox type of view of real presence.

Glad to hear that. Perhaps my arguments can make you consider our view as a possibility.

I am not big on the Aristolean [sic] philosophy involved in the RC version.

That’s not of the essence of it. It was merely tool to help us understand substance and accidents in greater detail. But the majority of the fathers already had a transformational view of the Eucharist by the 4th-5th centuries some 500-66 years before Aristotle began being known in the west.

But what keeps me from a complete ascribing to the view is I think the RT argument above holds some real weight.

I think if you examine its premises again you may have less confidence in it.

But again it is important to know and steelman an opponent’s argument. Very little of the video actually deals with the argument.

I have not created any straw man (which is the term, not “steel man”), as explained. Thanks so much for watching the video and interacting. God bless you.

*
***
*
Practical Matters:  I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them. If you believe my full-time apostolate is worth supporting, please seriously consider a much-needed monthly or one-time financial contribution. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV).
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle and 100% tax-deductible donations if desired), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information.
*
You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my 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 Creditcopyright Catholic Bible Highlights, 2025.

Summary: Detailed, substantive, civil dialogue with a Calvinist on reasons why Reformed Protestants reject the real bodily (corporeal) presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist.


Browse Our Archives