May 21, 2024

“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,600+ articles, please follow this blog by signing up (with your email address) on the sidebar to the right (you may have to scroll down a bit), above where there is an icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. Please also consider following me on Twitter / X and purchasing one or more of my 55 books. All of this helps me get more exposure, and (however little!) more income for my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!

***

I am critiquing Lecture XII (pp. 299-320) in the book, Errors and Persecutions of the Roman Catholic Church, published in 1881 by J. H. Chambers & Co. (St. Louis), which is entitled, “The Charge of Idolatrous Worship made against the Roman Church: Is it True?” It was written by a Presbyterian: Rev. Samuel J. Niccolls, D.D. (1838-1915). He was a chaplain during the Civil War, a pastor, and moderator at the 1872 meeting of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Detroit. The organization of the Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA) owes its success largely to his influence and perseverance. Dr. Niccolls was selected to receive special honors by Princeton University in its Sesquicentennial Celebration in 1896. His words will be in blue.

***

Protestants, ever since the time of the Reformation, have asserted that the worship of the church of Rome is idolatrous in its nature and tendencies. This charge constitutes one of the chief reasons of their opposition to that church. They claim that the usages of worship which prevail in it, are not only contrary to the practice of the primitive church, but that they are in direct contradiction to the positive commands of the Word of God.

On the other hand, the adherents of the church of Rome have most strenuously denied this charge as slanderous in the extreme; they have complained that they have been misrepresented in this matter, and that their true belief is the very reverse of what has been charged against them. . . . 

If it is not true, one party is a slanderer of the church of God, and a chief reason for its existence turns out to be a lie.

Very true!

If it is true, the other against whom the accusation is made, is branded with guilt and dishonor.

Yes, if true. The key word is if.

It is proposed to set the facts of this controversy plainly and fairly before the intelligent reader, that he may judge for himself.

Fair enough! Let’s see what he can come up with.

First of all, in order to reach a right decision, it is necessary to know what constitutes idolatry. Both Protestants and Romanists are agreed that it is a most heinous sin; that the word of God condemns it; and that idolatrous worship is hateful in the sight of God. But what is idolatry? What are the characteristics of an idolatrous worship? These questions are to be answered by the Scriptures, and by them alone.

The Bible is what we both revere as God’s inspired revelation, so it’s where the “battle” must be fought.

The internal act of worship consists in giving to God the supreme reverence, love and confidence of our hearts. Whatever usurps His place in the soul of man, is an idol, a false god; . . . 

The external act of idolatry consists in worshipping false gods, or in giving to other objects than God that homage and worship which are due to Him alone. Any form of worship which robs God of the supreme homage due Him, by ascribing divine attributes and offices to creatures; or which sets before the worshipper as the object of his trust and adoration, a being who is not God, is plainly idolatrous. It is a violation of the first commandment.

We agree.

But it is also taught in the Scriptures that God must not be worshipped by the use of images or pictures.

This is where we start to disagree.

The second commandment clearly forbids this, and stamps such worship as idolatrous. The precise thing forbidden by it, is the making of images or pictures as objects of worship, and bowing down to them and serving them, that is, performing acts of religious worship before them.

The “graven image” of Exodus 20:4 has to do with God’s forbidding of idolatry: making a stone or block of wood or a mere image God, and worshiping it. The Jews were forbidden to have idols (like all their neighbors had), and God told them not to make an image of Him because He revealed Himself as a spirit. The KJV and RSV Bible versions use the term graven image at Exodus 20:4, but many of the more recent translations render the word as idol (e.g., NASB, NRSV, NIV, CEV).
*
Context makes it very clear that idolatry is being condemned. The next verse states: “You shall not bow down to them or worship them” (NIV, NRSV), or “serve” them as if they were literally God (Ex 20:5; Dt 5:9). In other words, mere blocks of stone or wood (“them”) are not to be worshiped, as that is gross idolatry, and the inanimate objects are not God:

Revelation 9:20 (RSV) The rest of mankind, who were not killed by these plagues, did not repent of the works of their hands nor give up worshiping demons and idols of gold and silver and bronze and stone and wood, which cannot either see or hear or walk;

This does not absolutely preclude, however, the notion of worshiping the true God with the help of a visual aid, as I will show in due course. Idolatry is a matter of disobedience in the heart towards the one true God. We don’t always need an image to have an idol. Most idols today are non-visual: money, lust for power, convenience, our own pride or intellects; there are all sorts of idols. Anything that replaces God as the most important thing in our life and the universe, is an idol.

The Hebrew word translated ”serve” includes all kinds of external homage, such as burning incense, making offerings, and kissing in token of subjection.

I’ll take his word for that, but the point is to what or to Whom these acts are directed. This still doesn’t absolutely preclude all images and religious objects, properly used.

. . . terrible judgments . . . fell upon the people whenever they attempted to worship God by images. When in the wilderness the people demanded of Aaron that he should introduce image- worship among them, their purpose was not to renounce Jehovah as their God; they only asked a symbol of Him, as the heathen had their symbols.

I don’t think the text teaches this at all. They weren’t trying to worship the true God via an image. Aaron and the mob were after something entirely different:

Exodus 32:1, 4, 7-8 When the people saw that Moses delayed to come down from the mountain, the people gathered themselves together to Aaron, and said to him, “Up, make us gods, who shall go before us; . . .” [4] And he received the gold at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, and made a molten calf; and they said, “These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt! . . .” [7] And the LORD said to Moses, “Go down; for your people, whom you brought up out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves; [8] they have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them; they have made for themselves a molten calf, and have worshiped it and sacrificed to it . . .”

That’s not only rank idolatry and blasphemy, but polytheism as well. Dr. Niccolls completely misrepresents the nature of what was going on there. God said that He would “blot out of” His “book” (Ex 32:33) whoever engaged in this idolatry, and He “sent a plague” to judge them (Ex 33:35. This was not just using an image improperly in worship; it was much more serious: pretending that a golden calf was actually a “god”  who had brought them out of Egypt. Dr. Niccolls vainly tries to force-fit this into a scenario that would include all religious images, and it just doesn’t fly.

. . . one essential mark of the true worship of Jehovah, as contrasted with idolatrous worship, was that in it no images or visible objects representing the invisible object of worship were to be used. The Jews from the time of Moses until now, have always considered the worship of the true God by images as much an act of idolatry as the worship of false gods . . . Indeed, the scriptures make little or no difference between the worshipping of God by images, and the worshipping of false gods. Both are idolatrous.

This simply isn’t true. Moses had worshiped God in the burning bush on Mt. Sinai (Ex 3:2-6). It was not only fire, but also called an “angel of the Lord” (Ex 3:2), yet also “God” (3:4, 6, 11, 13-16, 18; 4:5, 7-8) and “the LORD” (3:7, 16, 18; 4:2, 4-6, 10-11, 14) interchangeably. The wandering Hebrews worshiped Him in the pillars of fire and cloud: all images of God, by God’s own design. One of the most striking and undeniable passages about such worship-of God-through-an-image appears in the very next chapter:

Exodus 33:10  And when all the people saw the pillar of cloud standing at the door of the tent, all the people would rise up and worship, every man at his tent door.

Note that the pillar of cloud is:

1) a creation (water, if a literal cloud);

2) visual, hence an image;

and

3) thought to directly represent God Himself.

It’s also a supernatural manifestation, which is a major difference compared to any true idol made by the hands of men; but that would make no difference for those who mistakenly hold that any image whatsoever associated with God is impermissible. The Bible mentions a pillar of cloud and also a pillar of fire (by night), representing God (see:  Ex 13:21-22; 14:24; Num 14:14; Neh 9:12, 19). The Bible specifically makes it clear that God was “in” the two pillars:

Exodus 13:21 And the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of cloud . . . and by night in a pillar of fire . . .

Exodus 14:24 . . . the LORD in the pillar of fire and of cloud looked down upon the host of the Egyptians . . .

Exodus 33:9 When Moses entered the tent, the pillar of cloud would descend and stand at the door of the tent, and the LORD would speak with Moses.

Numbers 12:5 And the LORD came down in a pillar of cloud, and stood at the door of the tent . . .

Numbers 14:14  . . . thou, O LORD, art in the midst of this people; for thou, O LORD, art seen face to face, and thy cloud stands over them and thou goest before them, in a pillar of cloud by day and in a pillar of fire by night.

Deuteronomy 31:15 And the LORD appeared in the tent in a pillar of cloud . . .

Psalm 99:7 He spoke to them in the pillar of cloud;

This represented God, and His people worshiped Him in the cloud, which we know with certainty from Exodus 33:10. It doesn’t always state that the people worshiped God through the supernatural image-pillars, but we know from Exodus 33:8-10 that it was entirely permissible to do so (no hint of condemnation in the biblical text); certainly not “idolatry.” Moreover, the Jews “worshiped” God as represented by fire — or God in the fire — in an additional way:

2 Chronicles 7:1-4 When Solomon had ended his prayer, fire came down from heaven and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices, and the glory of the LORD filled the temple. [2] And the priests could not enter the house of the LORD, because the glory of the LORD filled the LORD’s house. [3] When all the children of Israel saw the fire come down and the glory of the LORD upon the temple, they bowed down with their faces to the earth on the pavement, and worshiped and gave thanks to the LORD, saying, “For he is good, for his steadfast love endures for ever.” [4] Then the king and all the people offered sacrifice before the LORD.

God Himself expressly sanctions such images (cloud and fire), and worship in conjunction with them. Therefore, not all images of God are idolatrous. Case closed. Game, set, match . . .

God made Himself specially present in or near material objects, too. He states repeatedly that He is present above the “mercy seat” on the ark of the covenant, between the two carved cherubim (Ex 25:22; 30:6; Lev 16:2; Num 7:89; 1 Sam 4:4; 2 Sam 6:2; 2 Kg 19:15; 1 Chr 13:6; Ps 80:1; 99:1; Is 37:16; Ezek 10:4; Heb 9:5). Therefore, we are informed that the Jews would bow before the ark to pray or worship:

Joshua 7:6 Then Joshua rent his clothes, and fell to the earth upon his face before the ark of the LORD until the evening . . . [proceeds to pray in 7:7-8]

1 Chronicles 16:4 Moreover he appointed certain of the Levites as ministers before the ark of the LORD, to invoke, to thank, and to praise the LORD, the God of Israel.

Some of the early Calvinists were so fanatical that they smashed not only statues of saints, but also organs, stained glass, even statues of Jesus Christ and crucifixes. They ignored all the distinctions that the Bible plainly makes. We reject such clear biblical teaching at our peril. Iconoclasm (opposition to images) is a false tradition of men that was officially condemned by the Church long ago.
*
If, then, we find any church which in its teachings or practice, gives to men, or saints, or angels, the homage and praise which are due to God alone, we are right in calling it idolatrous;
*
Indeed. The mistake, however, is in claiming that the Catholic Church teaches that creatures should receive the same “homage and praise” as God. This is a damnable lie. You’ll notice that Dr. Niccolls produces no official magisterial text along these lines, to back himself up. There’s a good reason for that: there are none. So on what does he base his charge in the first place? Just because that’s what he wants to project onto Catholic worship, as if he can read our hearts and conjure up some supposed teaching of ours that is nonexistent? That‘s all he has?
*
or if we find a church which claims to worship the living God alone, and yet uses images or symbols to represent Him, and bows down to them, and serves them, we have a right to say, that such worship is idolatrous.
*
No we do not, if God is being worshiped in the same way as He is in the Bible, through the symbols of cloud and fire. Those are “images and symbols,” too, after all. We go by the Bible on this score. Dr. Niccolls and his Presbyterians do not. We’re much more biblical. They ignore things in the Bible that don’t conform to their unbiblical traditions of men.
*
There are, in general, four things taught and practised by the church of Rome against which Protestants bring the charge of idolatry. These are  the invocation of saints and angels; the worship of the Virgin Mary; the use of images in the worship of God; and the adoration of the Host.
*
None of these charges succeed, as I will proceed to show, as he addresses each one in turn. I’ve already disposed of the third one from clear and undeniable biblical teaching.
*
As to the first — the invocation of saints — the doctrine of the Roman church, as declared by the council of Trent, is as follows: ”That the saints who reign together with Christ, offer to God their prayers for men; that it is good and useful suppliantly to invoke them, and to flee to their prayers, help, and assistance, on account of the benefits to be obtained from God, through His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who is our only Redeemer and Savior.”
*
None of those involve worship or idolatry. It’s simply asking the saints to pray for us, just as we ask each other on earth to do so. This is expressly sanctioned by Jesus in his story of the rich man petitioning Abraham (Luke 16:19-31). We’re not placing anyone in God’s position. As Niccolls’ own citation from Trent states, it’s “on account of the benefits to be obtained from God, through His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.” That’s not idolatry! It’s shoddy, incoherent, woefully insufficient “logic” that claims that it is idolatry.
*
Saints and angels are confessedly the objects of worship in the Roman church; but a distinction is made between the worship offered to them, and to God. The worship of douleia is due to saints and angels, while that of latreia belongs to God alone. It is on this distinction that the Romanist relies to defend himself from the charge of idolatry. It has, however, been well remarked by a distinguished theologian, that this distinction is of little use.
*
This is laughably ridiculous. Having declared that the Catholic Church is idolatrous, he then immediately dismisses the crucial distinctions we make, — which prevent the charge from possibly being made –, as if they don’t matter. After all, some “distinguished theologian” said it made no difference! See how it works? The anti-Catholic critic can’t prove that we endorse rank idolatry, so he goes after our distinction between adoration of God and veneration of saints, which ought to altogether solve the problem that they have with us, by making crystal clear that it is not idolatry at all.
*
But in the nick of time the absurd charge is salvaged by merely proclaiming that we are — bottom line — lying through our teeth and that, in fact, there is no distinction. It’s desperation, folks. Know lousy arguments when you see them. As a veteran of probably 1500 written debates by now, believe me, I know ’em when I see ’em: and right away, too.
*
Any homage, internal or external, which involves the ascription of divine attributes to its object, if that object be a creature, is idolatrous.
*
We agree. We completely disagree that anything in our teaching espouses this. We don’t teach that any saint isn’t a creature, or is omniscient or omnipotent or omnipresent, or immutable, or answers prayers on their own without God, etc. It’s a lie; a bum rap. And where do these people get off making these claims; thinking that they don’t have to document them from our own theology and our official “books”?
*
It is easy to say that the saints are not to be honored as God is honored, but this does not alter the case, if the homage rendered them assumes that they possess the attributes of God . . .
*
We don’t teach this. That’s all that matters. Any layman can potentially practice it in a way that doesn’t conform to the teaching. That is not the teaching itself. Heresies and cults and theologically uneducated or miseducated people butcher the Bible itself (to use but one example of countless ones) all the time. Does it follow that the Bible is to blame for that? No, of course not. Nor is our teaching to blame for those who distort it. We don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. One bad apple doesn’t make all the apples in the cart bad or destroy the ideal or concept of the apple itself.
*
The facts are, as can readily be learned from the books of devotion in common and authorized use in the Roman church, that blessings are sought from the saints, which God alone can bestow, and that they are relied upon to obtain these blessings for their worshippers
*
Really? Again, we don’t worship them; we honor them. I again cite Dr. Niccoll’s own citation from rent, as to where the answers to prayer and the blessings come from: “benefits [are] obtained from God, through His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who is our only Redeemer and Savior.” This is presupposed in all such prayers or petitions. 
*
All blessings, temporal and spiritual, are sought for at the hands of the saints.
*
Basically, he is attacking the concept of “patron saints.” But a biblical argument can be made for it. Protestants object that certain saints have special or particular influence with God, and more efficacious prayers in specific area. I don’t see why. The Bible clearly teaches that different people have different levels of grace (Acts 4:33; 2 Cor 8:7; Eph 4:7; 1 Pet 1:2; 2 Pet 3:18).
*
From this it follows, it seems to me, that some might specialize in certain areas more so than others, according to different parts of the Body of Christ (there is much Pauline teaching on that). I don’t see why this should be either controversial or objectionable. It’s usually objected to because of observed excesses, while an ironclad argument against it from Scripture is rarely made.
*
The fact remains that “The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects” (James 5:16). In the larger context of that passage, James states:

James 5:17-18 Elijah was a man of like nature with ourselves and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth. [18] Then he prayed again and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth its fruit.

Would it not follow, then, that Elijah seemed to have a particular influence over weather? Therefore, why couldn’t someone ask him to pray to God about the weather, rather than someone else, since he had this record of asking for rain to cease, and it did for three and-a-half years? So he became, in effect, the “patron saint of meteorological petitions.” We do roughly the same in this life with friends, on the level of empathy. So, for example, if a woman has difficulty with miscarriage or difficult pregnancies or deliveries, she might go to a woman who has experienced the same thing and ask her to pray to God for her.

I don’t see any intrinsic difficulty here. Catholics don’t ever deny anyone the ability to “go straight to God.” But we assert with James that certain prayers of certain people have more power (also with regard to certain specificities); therefore it is sensible to go to them as intermediaries. And this includes those in heaven, of whom Jesus said that they were more alive than we are. The Bible massively teaches that we can and should go to the most holy person we know and ask them to pray to God for us or for some cause. So once again, we are being more biblical than our Protestant critics.

Thus the saints are asked to give that which God alone can bestow,

We don’t ask them to bestow the answer, but rather, to ask God to do so; to intercede.

and as they are addressed by their worshippers from every part of the earth,

We don’t worship them.

and by many thousands at the same hour, the mind of the worshipper must clothe them with the attributes of omniscience and omnipresence.

This doesn’t follow, either. See:

*
*
The second ground for the charge of idolatry is the worship of the Virgin Mary. . . . as the spirituality of the church declined, this feeling degenerated into a superstitious regard, and at last culminated in her worship as an object of divine honors. . . . the deification of the Virgin . . . 
*
The burden of this slanderer (and we must conclude that he is that by now) is to prove it from our documents. Needless to say, he doesn’t. He merely assumes that everyone knows this. It needs no proof. Why should I even bother arguing it if he gives no evidence that the Catholic Church actually teaches this in the first place? Some ignorant people may do it — even many –, but that’s not the Church, and it’s irrelevant to comparative theology and practice.
*
. . . the first step was the declaration of her “perpetual virginity,”
*
Which Luther and Calvin and virtually all of the early Protestant founders and leaders believed . . . So did John Wesley, the founder of Dr. Niccoll’s denomination:
I believe… he [Jesus Christ] was born of the blessed Virgin, who, as well after as she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin. (“Letter to a Roman Catholic,” quoted in A. C. Coulter, John Wesley, New York: Oxford University Press, 1964, 495)
Were they all filthy idolaters, t00?
*
the last act in the series was to declare her “immaculate conception”
*
How is that making her like God? The belief is that God performed a special miracle at her conception, to make her free or original sin. That doesn’t make her like God at all. It makes her like Eve before the fall of man: sinless, and like all of the angels that didn’t fall and rebel against God. Angels aren’t God, either. They are creatures. Martin Luther believed in this, too, until he modified it a bit later in life (still thinking she was sinless). Was he an idolater as well?
*
She was, according to this dogma, born without the least stain of original sin, and is thus placed, as to complete sinlessness, on an equality with her adorable Son.
*
This is cluelessly stupid and grossly unbiblical. As I just noted, if this were true, Adam and Eve before the fall and all of the unfallen angels would be equal to Jesus, too.
*
Dr. Niccolls then goes on to recite the usual litany of prayers addressed to Mary for her intercession, that sound horrible to Protestant ears because they are uniformly and essentially misunderstood. I’ve dealt with this several times:
*
*
The doctrine of the council of Trent on this point [the Mass] is, that the bread and wine are changed by the power of God into Christ’s body and blood. They do not represent, but they actually become the real Christ, and remain so. The consecrated wafer becomes the whole Christ — body, soul and divinity. . . . This worship is given in the belief that, as the bread has been changed into the true body of Christ, 
*
How, then, can it possibly be idolatry, if we are worshiping God Himself and not wafers or wine? It can’t be, by definition, because that would require replacing God with something else, whereas we believe that the bread and wine are God after consecration. Therefore, we are consciously worshiping God in the consecrated elements. I did so yesterday at church. Martin Luther also believed in the Real Presence and in adoration of the consecrated host.
*
If such a change has indeed taken place, and the whole Christ is locally present in the wafer, then indeed the worship would be proper.
*
Exactly! And that is the bottom line. We believe in the miracle; so did Luther. Therefore it can’t possibly be idolatry, precisely because we believe it to be God, not mere bread and wine, and idolatry always resides in the heart and interior disposition. If one doesn’t believe in the miracle of transubstantiation or something similar (like Luther), then (obviously) they think it is bread-worship, but that can’t be the case for Catholics who believe in it, by definition.
*
When men place before themselves a piece of bread — a wafer made of flour — and give to it the homage due to God alone, as the Romanist confessedly does,
*
This is asinine! We do not do that, and what he already wrote shows that he knows this. So why does he now go back and claim that we “confessedly” and supposedly give a “piece of bread” the “homage due to God alone”? It’s dishonest and deceitful! And it’s an utterly incoherent argument.
*
The arguments which are drawn from the Scriptures to defend the Romish doctrine of the Mass are contradictory, unsatisfactory, and in positive violation of well known and established laws of interpretation.
*
Easy to say. I provide extensive biblical arguments on my Eucharist and Sacrifice of the Mass web page.
*
The notion that the Lord’s Supper is a true sacrifice ”offered up for the living and the dead,” is in plain violation of the teachings of the New Testament, which declare that Christ’s once offering up himself a sacrifice, has made a complete atonement, and “by one offering he hath perfected forever those that are sanctified.” It is a remembrance, a memorial of a sacrifice already made once for all, and not a repetition of that sacrifice.
*
We don’t believe that it is a new sacrifice every Mass, but rather, a miracle by which the one historical sacrifice of Christ on the cross is supernaturally made present at each Mass.
*
It is also an insuperable objection to this doctrine, that it involves impossibilities and contradictions. It requires us to believe that a material object should be completely changed, and at the same time not changed. The bread remains bread, and the wine — wine; and yet we are required to believe that they are something else. It requires us to disbelieve and set aside the well authenticated evidences of our senses.
*
See:
*
***

*

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

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

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

*

***

Photo credit: sketch of Samuel J. Nichols. Source: Alfred Nevin, David Robert Bruce Nevin, editors, Encyclopaedia of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Encyclopaedia Publishing Co., 1884), 576. [Find a Grave website]

Summary: I respond to the anti-Catholic arguments of the Presbyterian Rev. Samuel J. Niccolls, D.D. (1838-1915), concerning alleged idolatrous worship & piety in Catholicism.

April 25, 2024

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

***

[relevant sections from my book,  The Quotable Eastern Church Fathers: Distinctively Catholic Elements in Their Theology (July 2013, 303 pages). To verify sources (standard Schaff edition of the Fathers), see the St. John Chrysostom section on the New Advent web page, “The Fathers of the Church”]

***

Baptism and Being “Born Again”

And for what reason, says one, if the laver take away all our sins, is it called, not a laver of remission of sins, nor a laver of cleansing, but a laver of regeneration? Because it does not simply take away our sins, nor simply cleanse us from our faults, but so as if we were born again. (Instructions to Catechumens, First, 3; NPNF1-9)

Baptism and Justification / Sanctification

Hear therefore what follows: “And such were some of you, but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the spirit of our God.” We promise to show you that they who approach the laver become clean from all fornication: but the word has shown more, that they have become not only clean, but both holy and just, for it does not say only “ye were washed,” but also “ye were sanctified and were justified.” What could be more strange than this, when without toil, and exertion, and good works, righteousness is produced? For such is the lovingkindness of the Divine gift that it makes men just without this exertion. (Instructions to Catechumens, First, 3; NPNF1-9)

Ver. 30. “Moreover whom He did predestinate, them He also called; and whom He called, them He also justified.” Now He justified them by the regeneration of the laver. “And whom He justified, them He also glorified” by the gift, by the adoption. (Homily XV on Romans 8:28: v. 8:30; NPNF1-11)

For, writing to the Corinthians, he says, “But ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.” (1 Cor. vi. 11.) What then, tell me? were these not baptized into the Father? Then assuredly they were neither washed nor sanctified. (Homily XXX on 2 Corinthians 13:10, 3, v. 13:14; NPNF1-12)

. . . when we had committed many and grievous sins, and had not ceased from youth to extreme old age to defile our souls with ten thousand evil deeds, for none of these sins did He demand from us a reckoning, but granted us remission of them by the washing of Regeneration, and freely gave us Righteousness and Sanctification. (Homily XXVIII on John, v. 3:17;  NPNF1-14)

Baptism and Salvation

We have the sum and substance of the good things: through baptism we received remission of sins, sanctification, participation of the Spirit, adoption, eternal life. (Homily XL on Acts 18:18; NPNF1-11)

Yea, again I say, great indeed is Baptism, and without baptism it is impossible to obtain the kingdom. . . . It is impossible to be saved without it, . . . (Homily III on 1 Corinthians 1:10, 6; v. 1:14, 17; NPNF1-12)

Baptismal Regeneration

These verily are they who are entrusted with the pangs of spiritual travail and the birth which comes through baptism: by their means we put on Christ, and are buried with the Son of God, and become members of that blessed Head. . . . the others [priests] are the authors of our birth from God, even that blessed regeneration which is the true freedom and the sonship according to grace. . . . our priests have received authority to deal, not with bodily leprosy, but spiritual uncleanness—not to pronounce it removed after examination, but actually and absolutely to take it away. (Treatise Concerning the Christian Priesthood, Book III, 6; NPNF1-9)

. . . I see that our discourse now constrains us to something more necessary to say what baptism is, and for what reason it enters into our life, and what good things it conveys to us. But, if you will, let us discourse about the name which this mystic cleansing bears: for its name is not one, but very many and various. For this purification is called the laver of regeneration. “He saved us,” he saith, “through the laver of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.” It is called also illumination, and this St. Paul again has called it, “For call to remembrance the former days in which after ye were illuminated ye endured a great conflict of sufferings;” and again, “For it is impossible for those who were once illuminated, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and then fell away, to renew them again unto repentance.” It is called also, baptism: “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ.” (Instructions to Catechumens, First, 2; NPNF1-9)

For it creates and fashions us anew not forming us again out of earth, but creating us out of another element, namely, of the nature of water. For it does not simply wipe the vessel clean, but entirely remoulds it again. For that which is wiped clean, even if it be cleaned with care, has traces of its former condition, and bears the remains of its defilement, but that which falls into the new mould, and is renewed by means of the flames, laying aside all uncleanness, comes forth from the furnace, and sends forth the same brilliancy with things newly formed. (Instructions to Catechumens, First, 3; NPNF1-9)

And consider: a man has gotten grievous sins by committing murder or adultery, or some other crime: these were remitted through Baptism. For there is no sin, no impiety, which does not yield and give place to this gift; for the Grace is Divine. (Homily I on Acts 1:1-2; NPNF1-11)

For if they were full of the Spirit, it was of that which is from the Laver of Baptism. (Homily XV on Acts 6:8; NPNF1-11)

And in another sense, too, a mystery is so called; because we do not behold the things which we see, but some things we see and others we believe. For such is the nature of our Mysteries. I, for instance, feel differently upon these subjects from an unbeliever. . . . He hearing of a laver, counts it merely as water: but I behold not simply the thing which is seen, but the purification of the soul which is by the Spirit. He considers only that my body hath been washed; but I have believed that the soul also hath become both pure and holy; and I count it the sepulchre, the resurrection, the sanctification, the righteousness, the redemption, the adoption, the inheritance, the kingdom of heaven, the plenary effusion of the Spirit. (Homily VII on 1 Corinthians 2:6-7, 2; NPNF1-12)

In Baptism are fulfilled the pledges of our covenant with God; burial and death, resurrection and life; and these take place all at once. For when we immerse our heads in the water, the old man is buried as in a tomb below, and wholly sunk forever; then as we raise them again, the new man rises in its stead. (Homily XXV on John, v. 3:5;  NPNF1-14)

. . . He freely gave to them by Baptism entire remission of their sins. (Homily XXVII on John, v. 3:14;  NPNF1-14)

Eucharist and Salvation

. . . what shall we say of the Body of Him Who is God over all, spotless, pure, associate with the Divine Nature, the Body whereby we are, and live; whereby the gates of hell were broken down and the sanctuaries of heaven opened? how shall we receive this with so great insolence? Let us not, I pray you, let us not slay ourselves by our irreverence, but with all awfulness and purity draw nigh to It; and when thou seest It set before thee, say thou to thyself, “Because of this Body am I no longer earth and ashes, no longer a prisoner, but free: because of this I hope for heaven, and to receive the good things therein, immortal life, the portion of angels, converse with Christ; this Body, nailed and scourged, was more than death could stand against; this Body the very sun saw sacrificed, and turned aside his beams; for this both the veil was rent in that moment, and rocks were burst asunder, and all the earth was shaken. This is even that Body, the blood-stained, the pierced, and that out of which gushed the saving fountains, the one of blood, the other of water, for all the world.” . . . But these things I say, not to keep us from approaching, but to keep us from approaching without consideration. For as the approaching at random is dangerous, so the not communicating in those mystical suppers is famine and death. For this Table is the sinews of our soul, the bond of our mind, the foundation of our confidence, our hope, our salvation, our light, our life. When with this sacrifice we depart into the outer world, with much confidence we shall tread the sacred threshold, fenced round on every side as with a kind of golden armor.  (Homily XXIV on 1 Corinthians 10:13, 7-8, v. 10:23-24;  NPNF1-12)

Parents often entrust their offspring to others to feed; “but I,” saith He, “do not so, I feed you with Mine own flesh, desiring that you all be nobly born, and holding forth to you good hopes for the future. For He who giveth out Himself to you here, much more will do so hereafter. I have willed to become your Brother, for your sake I shared in flesh and blood, and in turn I give out to you the flesh and the blood by which I became your kinsman.” This blood causeth the image of our King to be fresh within us, produceth beauty unspeakable, permitteth not the nobleness of our souls to waste away, watering it continually, and nourishing it. . . . [it] watereth our souls, and worketh in them some mighty power. This blood, if rightly taken, driveth away devils, and keepeth them afar off from us, while it calleth to us Angels and the Lord of Angels. For wherever they see the Lord’s blood, devils flee, and Angels run together. . . . This blood is the salvation of our souls, by this the soul is washed, by this is beautiful, by this is inflamed, this causeth our understanding to be more bright than fire, and our soul more beaming than gold; this blood was poured forth, and made heaven accessible. . . . Christ hath purchased us with His blood, and adorned us with His blood. They who share this blood stand with Angels and Archangels and the Powers that are above, clothed in Christ’s own kingly robe, and having the armor of the Spirit. . . . Now as this is a great and wonderful thing, so if thou approach it with pureness, thou approachest for salvation; but if with an evil conscience, for punishment and vengeance. “For,” It saith, “he that eateth and drinketh unworthily” of the Lord, “eateth and drinketh judgment to himself” ( 1 Cor. xi. 29 ); since if they who defile the kingly purple are punished equally with those who rend it, it is not  unreasonable that they who receive the Body with unclean thoughts should suffer the same punishment as those who rent it with the nails.  (Homily XLVI on John, v. 6:52;  NPNF1-14)

How it is so, hear. “Verily I say unto you, Except a man eat My flesh, and drink My blood, he hath not eternal life in him.” Since the Jews had before asserted that this was impossible, He showeth not only that it is not impossible, but that it is absolutely necessary. Wherefore He addeth, “He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood, hath eternal life.” ( Homily XLVII on John, v. 6:53-54;  NPNF1-14)

“As the Father liveth, so I live, and he that eateth Me shall live by Me.” And the “life” of which He speaketh is not life merely, but the excellent life; for that He spake not simply of life, but of that glorious and ineffable life, is clear from this. For all men “live,” even unbelievers, and uninitiated, who eat not of that flesh. Seest thou that the words relate not to this life, but to that other? And what He saith is of this kind: “He that eateth My flesh, when he dieth shall not perish nor suffer punishment”; He spake not of the general resurrection, (for all alike rise again,) but concerning the special, the glorious Resurrection, that which hath a reward. (Homily XLVII on John, v. 6:57;  NPNF1-14)

Faith Alone (Falsity of) / Antinomianism

This is why they are called martyrs, because when bidden to abjure (the faith), they endure all things, that they may speak the truth: and we, when we are bidden by our passions to abjure, let us not be overcome. Gold saith: Say that Christ is not Christ. Then listen not to it as to God, but despise its biddings. The evil lusts “profess that they know God, but in works they deny Him.” (Tit. i. 16.) For this is not to witness, but the contrary. And indeed that others should deny (Him) is nothing wonderful: but that we who have been called to bear witness should deny Him, is a grievous and a heinous thing: this of all things does the greatest hurt to our cause. “It shall be to (your)selves for a testimony.” (Luke xxi. 13), He saith: but (this is) when we ourselves stand to it firmly. If we would all bear witness to Christ, we should quickly persuade the greater number of the heathen. It is a great thing, my beloved, the life (one leads). . . . Wilt thou learn what a brilliancy there is in a good life, what a force of persuasion it has? . . . This has brought slanders on the awful articles of our creed, this has turned everything upside down, that no one takes any account of good living: this is a mischief to the faith. . . . The badness of the life is a mischief to the doctrine of the Resurrection, to that of the immortality of the soul, to that of the Judgment: many other (false doctrines) too it draws on with itself, fate, necessity, denial of a Providence. . . . This is why the devil has brought in the doctrine of Fate: this is why he has said that the world is without a Providence . . . (Homily XLVII on Acts 21:39-49; NPNF1-11)

Ver. 7. “To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life.” Here also he awakens those who had drawn back during the trials, and shows that it is not right to trust in faith only. For it is deeds also into which that tribunal will enquire. (Homily V on Romans 1:28: v. 2:7; NPNF1-11)

For “each of us shall give account of himself to God.” In order therefore that we may render up this account with a good defence, let us well order our own lives and stretch out a liberal hand to the needy, knowing that this only is our defence, the showing ourselves to have rightly done the things commanded; there is no other whatever. And if we be able to produce this, we shall escape those intolerable pains of hell, and obtain the good things to come; unto which may we all attain, by the grace and mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ . . . (Homily XXI on 1 Corinthians 9:1, 11, v. 9:12;  NPNF1-12)

And let us make a little chest for the poor at home; and near the place at which you stand praying, there let it be put: and as often as you enter in to pray, first deposit your alms, and then send up your prayer; and as you would not wish to pray with unwashen hands, so neither do so without alms: since not even the Gospel hanging by our bed is more important than that alms should be laid up for you; for if you hang up the Gospel and do nothing, it will do you no such great good. (Homily XLIII on 1 Corinthians 16:1, 7, v. 16:9;  NPNF1-12)

. . . not through believing only cometh your salvation, but also through the suffering and enduring the same things with us. (Homily II on 2 Corinthians 1:6-7, 1; NPNF1-12)

“And a virtuous mode of life,” for the doctrines need a mode of life . . . Attend to this, ye who come to baptism at the close of life, for we indeed pray that after baptism ye may have also this deportment, but thou art seeking and doing thy utmost to depart without it. For, what though thou be justified: yet is it of faith only. But we pray that thou shouldest have as well the confidence that cometh of good works. (Homily II on 2 Corinthians 1:6-7, 8, v. 1:10-11; NPNF1-12)

For to believe is not all that is required, but also to abide in love. (Commentary on Galatians, v. 5:6;  NPNF1-13)

We have believed. This is a beginning; . . . we show our faith by our works . . . Let not the hearing, however, make us too much at our ease; for although He doth it for His own sake, yet notwithstanding He requires a duty on our part. If He says, “Them that honor Me I will honor, and they that despise Me shall be lightly esteemed,” (1 Sam. ii. 30.) let us reflect that there is that which He requires of us also. (Homily II on Ephesians, v. 1:14;  NPNF1-13)

“It is the gift,” said he, “of God,” it is “not of works.” Was faith then, you will say, enough to save us? No; but God, saith he, hath required this, lest He should save us, barren and without work at all. His expression is, that faith saveth, but it is because God so willeth, that faith saveth. Since, how, tell me, doth faith save, without works? This itself is the gift of God. . . . He did not reject us as having works, but as abandoned of works He hath saved us by grace; so that no man henceforth may have whereof to boast. And then, lest when thou hearest that the whole work is accomplished not of works but by faith, thou shouldest become idle, observe how he continues, Ver. 10. “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God afore prepared that we should walk in them.” (Homily IV on Ephesians, v. 2:8-10;  NPNF1-13)

Let us then believe to His glory, let us live to His glory, for one is no use without the other; when we glorify Him rightly, but live not rightly, then do we especially insult Him, because we are enrolled under Him as a Master and Teacher, and yet despise Him, and stand in no dread of that fearful judgment seat. It is no wonder that the heathen live impurely; this merits not such condemnation. But that Christians, who partake in such great mysteries, who enjoy so great glory, that they should live thus impurely, this is worst of all, and unbearable. (Homily VII on Philippians, v. 2:9-11;  NPNF1-13)

Ver. 16, 17. “Now our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and God our Father, which loved us, and gave us eternal comfort and good hope through grace, comfort your hearts, and stablish them in every good work and word.” . . . For this is the comfort of Christians, to do something good and pleasing to God. . . . this is both His work and ours, so that it is in the way both of doctrines, and of actions. (Homily IV on 2 Thessalonians, v. 2:16-17;  NPNF1-13)

. . . if faith without a good life is unavailing, much more is the converse true. (Homily V on 1 Timothy, v. 1:20;  NPNF1-13)

. . . if we are always hearers, and never doers, we shall reap no advantage from what is said. (Homily II on 2 Timothy, v. 1:12;  NPNF1-13)

Faith therefore, without works, is fitly called a mere form without the power. For as a fair and florid body, when it has no strength, is like a painted figure, so is a right faith apart from works. (Homily VIII on 2 Timothy, v. 3:5;  NPNF1-13)

He too was one of the guests, for he had been invited; but because, after the invitation and so great an honor, he behaved with insolence towards Him who had invited him, hear what punishment he suffers, how pitiable, fit subject for many tears. For when he comes to partake of that splendid table, not only is he forbidden the least, but bound hand and foot alike, is carried into outer darkness, to undergo eternal and endless wailing and gnashing of teeth. Therefore, beloved, let not us either expect that faith is sufficient to us for salvation; for if we do not show forth a pure life, but come clothed with garments unworthy of this blessed calling, nothing hinders us from suffering the same as that wretched one. (Homily X on John, v. 1:13;  NPNF1-14)

“Is it then enough,” saith one, “to believe on the Son, that one may have eternal life?” By no means. And hear Christ Himself declaring this, and saying, “Not every one that saith unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven” ( Matt. vii. 21 ); and the blasphemy against the Spirit is enough of itself to cast a man into hell. But why speak I of a portion of doctrine? Though a man believe rightly on the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, yet if he lead not a right life, his faith will avail nothing towards his salvation. Therefore when He saith, “This is life eternal, that they may know Thee the only true God” ( c. xvii. 3 ), let us not suppose that the (knowledge) spoken of is sufficient for our salvation; we need besides this a most exact life and conversation. Since though he has said here, “He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life,” and in the same place something even stronger, (for he weaves his discourse not of blessings only, but of their contraries also, speaking thus: “He that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him”;) yet not even from this do we assert that faith alone is sufficient to salvation. And the directions for living given in many places of the Gospels show this. Therefore he did not say, “This by itself is eternal life,” nor, “He that doth but believe on the Son hath eternal life,” but by both expressions he declared this, that the thing doth contain life, yet that if a right conversation follow not, there will follow a heavy punishment. (Homily XXXI on John, v. 3:35-36;  NPNF1-14)

. . . because He had said above, “He that heareth My words and believeth on Him that sent Me,” “is not judged,” lest any one should imagine that this alone is sufficient for salvation, He addeth also the result of man’s life, declaring that “they which have done good shall come forth unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of judgment.” (Homily XXXIX on John, v. 5:28-29;  NPNF1-14)

How long shall we neglect our own salvation? Let us bear in mind of what things Christ has deemed us worthy, let us give thanks, let us glorify Him, not by our faith alone, but also by our very works, that we may obtain the good things that are to come . . . (Homily XLVI on John, v. 6:52;  NPNF1-14)

. . . a right faith availeth nothing if the life be corrupt, both Christ and Paul declare . . . (Homily LXIII on John, v. 11:40;  NPNF1-14)

Faith is indeed great and bringeth salvation, and without it, it is not possible ever to be saved. It suffices not however of itself to accomplish this, . . . on this account Paul also exhorts those who had already been counted worthy of the mysteries; saying, “Let us labor to enter into that rest.” “Let us labor” (he says), Faith not sufficing, the life also ought to be added thereto, and our earnestness to be great; for truly there is need of much earnestness too, in order to go up into Heaven. (Homily VII on Hebrews, v. 4:11-13;  NPNF1-14)

Faith and Works

At the same time, however, that he had reached to this height of good works, he did not thereby grow confident; but was full of anxiety and fear, therefore also he fasted rigidly, . . . nor did he say anything like this to himself. “What further need have I of fasting? I have gotten the mastery of myself; I have overcome my lusts; I have mortified my body; I have affrighted demons; I have driven away the devil; I have raised the dead; I have cleansed lepers; I am become terrible to the adverse powers; what further need have I of fasting, or to seek safety from that quarter?” . . . in proportion as he abounded with innumerable good works, so much the more did he fear and tremble. And he learnt this spiritual wisdom from his preceptor; for even he, after he had been rapt into the third heaven, and transported to paradise; and had heard unutterable words; and taken part in such mysteries; and traversed the whole world, like some winged being, when he wrote to the Corinthians, said, I fear “lest by any means having preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.” And if Paul was afraid after so many signal good works; . . . much more does it become us to fear; and the rather in proportion as we have stored up numerous good works. . . . For nothing is so apt to exalt to presumption as a conscience full of good works . . . (Homily I on the Statues, to the People of Antioch, 9 and 15; NPNF1-9)

If thou art a Christian, believe in Christ; if thou believest in Christ, shew me thy faith by thy works. (Homily V on the Statues, to the People of Antioch, 6; NPNF1-9)

Since, therefore, He rendereth to every man according to his works; for this reason He both implanted within us a natural law, and afterwards gave us a written one, in order that He might demand an account of sins, and that He might crown those who act rightly. Let us then order our conduct with the utmost care, and as those who have soon to encounter a fearful tribunal; knowing that we shall enjoy no pardon, if after a natural as well as written law, and so much teaching and continual admonition, we neglect our own salvation. (Homily XII on the Statues, to the People of Antioch, 15; NPNF1-9)

But by repentance I mean, not only to forsake our former evil deeds, but also to show forth good deeds greater than those. (Homily X on Matthew 3:1-2, 7; NPNF1-10)

“Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, love your enemies, and pray for them which despitefully use you: bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you. That ye may become like your Father which is in Heaven; for He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.” See how He hath set the highest pinnacle on our good deeds. For this is why He teaches not only to endure a blow, but to offer the right cheek also; not only to add the cloak to the coat, but to travel also two miles with him who compels thee to go one; in order that thou mightest receive with all facility that which is much more than these. (Homily XVIII on Matthew 5:38-40, 4; NPNF1-10)

“For if ye forgive men,” saith He, “your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if ye forgive not, neither will He forgive you.” . . . Since not by grace only, you see, ought we to become His children, but also by our works. And nothing makes us so like God, as being ready to forgive the wicked and wrong-doers; even as indeed He had taught before, when He spake of His “making the sun to shine on the evil and on the good.” (Homily XIX on Matthew 6:1, 11; NPNF1-10)

For as virtue even from things here was signified by Him to have her rewards, so vice also her penalties. For what I am ever saying, that I will say now also: that in both ways He is everywhere bringing about the salvation of His hearers on the one hand by zeal for virtue, on the other by hatred of vice. Thus, because there would be some to admire what He said, while they yield no proof of it by their works, He by anticipation awakens their fears, saying, Though the things spoken be good, hearing is not sufficient for security, but there is need also of obedience in actions, and the whole lies chiefly in this. (Homily XXIV on Matthew 7:21, 3; NPNF1-10)

But He seems to me to say these things, darkly hinting at the Jews, and amongst the believers at those who at first shone forth, but afterwards neglected virtue, and fell back; and those others again that have risen from vice, and have shot beyond many. For we see such changes taking place both with respect to faith and practice. Wherefore I entreat you let us use much diligence both to stand in the right faith, and to show forth an excellent life. For unless we add also a life suitable to our faith, we shall suffer the extremest punishment. . . . And all His parables also, as that of the virgins, that of the net, that of the thorns, that of the tree not bringing forth fruit, demand virtue in our works. . . . And why do I speak of the whole code. For even a part of it overlooked brings upon one great evils . . . they that have not fed the hungry, are for this condemned with the devil. (Homily LXIV on Matthew 19:27, 4; NPNF1-10)

For the former not having undertaken to obey, neither having become hearers of the law, showed forth their obedience in their works; and the latter having said, “All that the Lord shall speak, we will do, and will hearken,” in their works were disobedient. And for this reason, let me add, that they might not think the law would benefit them, He shows that this self-same thing condemns them, like as Paul also saith, “Not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.” (Homily LXVII on Matthew 21:12-13, 2; NPNF1-10)

For indeed both by works and by words must we show our good will towards Him. (Rom. vi. 4.) (Homily I on Acts 1:1-2; NPNF1-11)

But since after this grace, whereby we were justified, there is need also of a life suited to it, let us show an earnestness worthy the gift. And show it we shall, if we keep with earnestness charity, the mother of good deeds. (Homily VII on Romans 3:9-18: v. 3:31; NPNF1-11)

For since this discourse was about them that work and them that believe, he shows that the believer works more than the other, and requires more power, and great strength, and sustains no common degree of labor. For they counted faith worthless, as having no labor in it. Insisting then upon this, he shows that it is not only he that succeeds in temperance, or any other virtue of this sort, but he that displays faith also who requires even greater power. . . . Having said then, that he was justified by faith, he shows that he glorified God by that faith; which is a thing specially belonging to a good life. For, “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father Which is in heaven.” (Matt. v. 16.) But lo! this is shown also to belong to faith! Again, as works need power, so doth faith. (Homily VIII on Romans 4:1-2: v. 4:20-21; NPNF1-11)

Let us then give thanks, that we belong to them that are being saved, and not having been able to save ourselves by works, were saved by the gift of God. But in giving thanks, let us not do this in words only, but in works and actions. (Homily XVIII on Romans 10:14-15: v. 11:6; NPNF1-11)

“To walk worthily,” he says, “of the Lord.” Here he speaks of life and its works, for so he doth also everywhere: with faith he always couples conduct. (Homily II on Colossians, v. 1:9-10;  NPNF1-13)

“But if any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” Many consider that their own virtue is sufficient for their salvation, and if they duly regulate their own life, that nothing further is wanting to save them. But in this they greatly err, which is proved by the example of him who buried his one talent, for he brought it back not diminished but entire, and just as it had been delivered to him. It is shown also by the blessed Paul, who says here, “If any one provide not for his own.” The provision of which he speaks is universal, and relates to the soul as well as the body, since both are to be provided for. . . . And so says Isaiah, the chief of the Prophets, “Thou shalt not overlook thy kinsmen of thy own seed.” (Isa. lviii. 7, Sept.) . . . What is meant is this: The law of God and of nature is violated by him who provides not for his own family. But if he who provides not for them has denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel, where shall he be ranked who has injured his relatives? With whom shall he be placed? But how has he denied the faith? Even as it is said, “They profess that they know God, but in works they deny Him.” (Tit. i. 16.) What has God, in whom they believe, commanded? “Hide not thyself from thine own flesh.” (Isa. lviii. 7.) How does he then believe who thus denies God? Let those consider this, who to spare their wealth neglect their kindred. It was the design of God, in uniting us by the ties of kindred, to afford us many opportunities of doing good to one another. When therefore thou neglectest a duty which infidels perform, hast thou not denied the faith? For it is not faith merely to profess belief, but to do works worthy of faith. (Homily XIV on 1 Timothy, v. 5:8;  NPNF1-13)

But what if his life be unclean, and his deeds evil? It is of such as these especially that Paul declares, that they are not true believers at all: “They profess that they know God, but in works they deny Him.” (Tit. i. 16.) (Homily XXVIII on John, v. 3:18;  NPNF1-14)

Justification, Infused (Sanctification)

For this end are fasting and Lent appointed, and so many days of solemn assemblies, auditories, prayers, and teachings, in order that by this earnestness being cleansed in every possible way from the sins which we had contracted during the whole year, we may with spiritual boldness religiously partake of that unbloody Sacrifice; so that should this not be the result, we shall have sustained so much labour entirely in vain, and without any profit. Let every one, therefore, consider with himself what defect he hath corrected, what good work he hath attained to; what sin he hath cast off, what stain he hath purged away; in what respect he has become better. (Homily XX on the Statues, to the People of Antioch, 1; NPNF1-9)

For He came to set free from all evil deeds not the body only, but the soul too before the body. Thus, because in the heart we receive the grace of the Spirit, He cleanses it out first. (Homily XVII on Matthew 5:27-28, 2; NPNF1-10)

For it was not of grace only, that harlots entered in, but also of righteousness. For not, as continuing harlots, did they enter in, but having obeyed and believed, and having been purified and converted, so did they enter in. (Homily LXVII on Matthew 21:12-13, 3; NPNF1-10)

Peter calls the man irreproachable in all things one that “worketh righteousness,” [and Paul says] “touching the righteousness which is in the law found blameless.” (Homily VIII on 1 Corinthians 3:1-3, 4; NPNF1-12)

Ver. 11. “And such were some of you: but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified.” . . . as if he said, “Consider from what evils God delivered us; how great an experiment and demonstration of loving-kindness He afforded us! He did not limit His redemption to mere deliverance, but greatly extended the benefit: for He also made thee clean. Was this then all? Nay: but He also “sanctified.” Nor even is this all: He also “justified.” Yet even bare deliverance from our sins were a great gift: but now He also filled thee with countless blessing. (Homily XVI on 1 Corinthians 5:9-11, 9, v. 6:11; NPNF1-12)

For His grace touches the very soul, and thence plucks up the sin by the root. Here is the reason why he that hath been forgiven by the king may be seen with his soul yet impure, but the soul of the baptized no longer so, but purer than the very sun-beams, and such as it was originally formed, nay rather much better than that. For it is blessed with a Spirit, on every side enkindling it and making its holiness intense. And as when thou art recasting iron or gold thou makest it pure and new once more, just so the Holy Ghost also, recasting the soul in baptism as in a furnace and consuming its sins, causes it to glisten with more purity than all purest gold. (Homily XL on 1 Corinthians 15:29, 2;  NPNF1-12)

But what then is “the Gospel of Righteousness?” That which maketh righteous. By these words he leadeth them to the desire of Baptism, showing that the Gospel is for the working not only of the remission of sins, but also of righteousness. . . . the manner of life ought to keep pace with the Gospel. . . . He saith, “I will dwell in them, and walk in them;” (Lev. xxvi. 12.) for when the mind is become righteous, when it hath put off its sins, it becometh God’s dwelling. (Rom. vi. 16.) (Homily II on 2 Corinthians 1:6-7, 7-8, v. 1:10-11; NPNF1-12)

Ver. 24. “And put on the new man.” . . . Observe here how he calls this realizing of virtue, this bringing of it into being from nothing, a “creation.” . . .  He straightway created him, he means, to be a son: for this takes place from Baptism. This it is which is the reality, “in righteousness and holiness of truth.” There was of old a righteousness, there was likewise a holiness with the Jews. Yet was that righteousness not in truth, but in figure. For the being clean in body was a type of purity, not the truth of purity; was a type of righteousness, not the truth of righteousness. “In righteousness,” saith he, “and holiness,” which are “of truth.” . . . Now by righteousness is meant universal virtue. For hearken to Christ, how He saith, “Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in nowise enter into the kingdom of heaven.” (Matt. v. 20.) And again, he is called righteous, who has no charge against him; for so even in courts of justice we say that that man is righteous, who has been unrighteously treated, and has not done unrighteously in return. If therefore we also before the terrible Tribunal shall be able to appear righteous one towards another, we may meet with some lovingkindness. . . . Our part then is, never to put off the garment of righteousness, which also the Prophet calls, “the garment of salvation” (Isa. lxi. 10.), that so we may be made like unto God. (Homily XIII on Ephesians, v. 4:24;  NPNF1-13)

And is then this Spirit within us? Yes, indeed, within us. For when we have driven away lying, and bitterness, and fornication, and uncleanness, and covetousness, from our souls, when we are become kind, tender-hearted, forgiving one another, when there is no jesting, when we have rendered ourselves worthy of it, what is there to hinder the Holy Spirit from coming and lighting upon us? And not only will He come unto us, but He will fill our hearts; and when we have so great a light kindled within us, then will the way of virtue be no longer difficult to attain, but will be easy and simple. (Homily XIX on Ephesians, v. 5:18-21;  NPNF1-13)

As, for instance, great were the sufferings of Job, yet he suffered with thankfulness; and he was justified, not because he suffered, but because in suffering he endured it thankfully. (Homily IX on 2 Timothy, v. 4:8;  NPNF1-13)

Justification, Ongoing 

And look at the carefulness of God; neither did he give the whole to thee then, nor withhold the whole, but gave part, and promised part. And for what reason did he not give the whole then? In order that thou mightest show thy faith about Him, believing, on his promise alone, in what was not yet given. And for what reason again did he not there dispense the whole, but did give the grace of the Spirit, and righteousness and sanctification? In order that he might lighten thy labors for thee, and by what has been already given may also put thee in good hope for that which is to come. (Instructions to Catechumens, Second, 1; NPNF1-9)

Do not then seek all at once, but gently, and by little and little, ascend this ladder, that leads thee up to Heaven. (Homily LXIII on Matthew 19:16, 3; NPNF1-10)

Merit

Knowing these things then, let us fortify ourselves with virtue on all sides, and thus we shall avert the wrath of God, and let us make the members of the body instruments of righteousness; . . . (Homily IV on the Statues, to the People of Antioch, 12; NPNF1-9)

For as he who is living in iniquity, even before hell, hath punishment, being stung by his conscience; so the man who is rich in good works, even before the kingdom, will have the benefit of exceeding joy, in that he is nourished with blessed hopes. (Homily XVI on the Statues, to the People of Antioch, 13; NPNF1-9)

For this reason, the greater the good works we do, the less let us say of ourselves; this being the way to reap the greatest glory both with men and with God. Or rather, not only glory from God, but a reward, yea, a great recompense. Demand not therefore a reward that thou mayest receive a reward. Confess thyself to be saved by grace, that He may profess Himself a debtor to thee; and not for thy good works only, but also for such rightness of mind. (Homily III on Matthew 1:1, 8; NPNF1-10)

. . . if thou desire to become equal to the apostles, there is nothing to hinder thee. . . . let us imitate those things whereby the apostles became great. . . . From all worldly things, therefore, let us withdraw ourselves, and dedicate ourselves to Christ, that we may both be made equal to the apostles according to His declaration, and may enjoy eternal life; unto which may we all attain, by the grace and love towards man of our Lord Jesus Christ to whom be glory and might forever and ever. Amen. (Homily XLVI on Matthew 13:24-30, 4; NPNF1-10)

Let us become lovers of virtue. For so both before reaching the kingdom we shall reap the greatest benefits here, and when we are departed thither we shall partake of the eternal blessings; unto which God grant we may all attain by the grace and love towards man of our Lord Jesus Christ . . . (Homily LXII on Matthew 19:1, 6; NPNF1-10)

For even if all were believers, still all were not alike, but were different in their merits. . . . For when they who labor more, do not receive the greater reward also, many become more listless. On this ground even in the kingdom, the honors are not equal, nor among the disciples were all alike, but the three were preëminent above the rest. And among these three again there was a great difference. For this is a very exact method observed by God even to the last. Hence, “one star differeth from another star in glory,” (1 Cor. xv. 41), it says. And yet all were Apostles and all are to sit on twelve thrones, and all left their goods, and all companied with Him; still it was the three He took. . . . all the righteous are not to enjoy the same lot, if they exceed others even a little . . . (Homily XXXI on Romans 16:5, v. 16:16; NPNF1-11)

Here then let us not ask for our crowns, lest when the crowns come in their season, we diminish our recompense. For as in the case of artificers, they who support themselves and work receive higher pay; while those who have their maintenance with their employers, are curtailed in no small part of the wages; so also in regard to the saints: he that doth immense good and suffers extreme evil hath his reward unimpaired and a far more abundant recompense, not only for the good things which he hath done, but also for the evil which he hath suffered. But he that enjoys rest and luxury here, hath not such bright crowns there. Let us not then seek for our recompense here. But “then” of all times let us rejoice, when doing well we suffer ill. For God hath in store for us in that world not only the reward of our good deeds, but that of our temptations also. (Homily XLIII on 1 Corinthians 16:1, 6, v. 16:9;  NPNF1-12)

. . . in saying “God will perfect it,” this also again is made their praise, who have drawn to them the grace of God, so that He aids them in going beyond human nature. And in another way also a praise, as that “such are your good deeds that they cannot be of man, but require the divine impulse.” (Homily I on Philippians, v. 1:6;  NPNF1-13)

. . . because the Pharisee only said, “I am not as this publican,” he destroyed all his merit. (Homily II on 2 Timothy, v. 1:12;  NPNF1-13)

Let us labor earnestly then to become clean; . . . (Homily XII on Hebrews, v. 7:8;  NPNF1-14)

For it is not merely freedom from sins which makes a man holy, but also the presence of the Spirit, and the wealth of good works. (Homily XVII on Hebrews, v. 10:1;  NPNF1-14)

Sacraments and Salvation

. . . what great honor the grace of the Spirit has vouchsafed to priests; since by their agency these rites are celebrated, and others nowise inferior to these both in respect of our dignity and our salvation. For they who inhabit the earth and make their abode there are entrusted with the administration of things which are in Heaven, and have received an authority which God has not given to angels or archangels. . . . what priests do here below God ratifies above . . . (Treatise Concerning the Christian Priesthood, Book III, 5; NPNF1-9)

Salvation and Works

How then can one be saved? it may be asked. By application of the countervailing remedies: alms, prayers, compunction, repentance, humility, a contrite heart, contempt of possessions. For God hath marked out for us innumerable ways of salvation, if we be willing to attend. Let us then attend, and let us every way cleanse out our wounds, showing mercy, remitting our anger against them that have displeased us, giving thanks for all things to God, fasting according to our power, praying sincerely, “making unto ourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness.” For so shall we be able to obtain pardon for our offenses, and to win the promised good things; whereof may we all be counted worthy, by the grace and love toward man of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory and might forever and ever. Amen. (Homily XLI on Matthew 12:25-26, 6; NPNF1-10)

. . . in like manner now should I say Christ said this, from every motive to compel them, after the grace of God, to set their hopes of salvation and approval on the proof of their own good works. (Homily LXV on Matthew 20:17-19, 3; NPNF1-10)

Seest thou how not only the spoiler, and the covetous, nor only the doer of evil things, but also he that doeth not good things, is punished with extreme punishment. Let us hearken then to these words. As we have opportunity, let us help on our salvation, let us get oil for our lamps, let us labor to add to our talent. For if we be backward, and spend our time in sloth here, no one will pity us any more hereafter, though we should wail ten thousand times. . . . For this end God gave us speech, and hands, and feet, and strength of body, and mind, and understanding, that we might use all these things, both for our own salvation, and for our neighbor’s advantage. (Homily LXXVIII on Matthew 25:1-30, 2; NPNF1-10)

For it is upon works that both punishment and reward depend, not upon circumcision and uncircumcision. (Homily V on Romans 1:28: v. 2:10; NPNF1-11)

For he that is saved as a righteous man has a confidence accompanying his salvation. (Homily VIII on Romans 4:1-2: v. 1:1-2; NPNF1-11)

Let us then also glorify Him by faith as well as by works, that we may also attain to the reward of being glorified by Him. (Homily VIII on Romans 4:1-2: v. 4:21; NPNF1-11)

You see how he neither puts prayer without works, nor works without prayer. For after giving them credit for their obedience, then he prays; to show that we need both, our own part as well as God’s part, if we are to be duly saved. For it was not before only, but now too, even though we be great and in high esteem, we need grace from Him. (Homily XXXII on Romans 16:17-18, v. 16:20; NPNF1-11)

“Which I preached unto you, which also ye received, wherein also ye stand. By which also ye are saved, in what word I preached unto you; if ye hold it fast, except ye believed in vain.”

Seest thou how he calls themselves to be witnesses of the things spoken? And he saith not, “which ye heard,” but, “which ye received,” demanding it of them as a kind of deposit, and showing that not in word only, but also by deeds and signs and wonders they received it, and that they should hold it safe. . . . by demonstration from his deeds they were fully persuaded, not by bare words . . . (Homily XXXVIII on 1 Corinthians 15:1-2, 2;  NPNF1-12)

. . . if we have been earnest, having in sufficiency the plea which comes from each man’s own works, we shall depart with confidence, and shall obtain the good things that are laid up for them that love God . . . (Homily XLII on 1 Corinthians 15:47, 5, v. 15:58;  NPNF1-12)

. . . so truly is your salvation also then more especially put into action, that is, is displayed, increased, heightened, when it hath endurance, when it suffereth and beareth all things nobly. So then the work of salvation consisteth not in doing evil, but in suffering evil. Moreover he saith not, “which worketh,” but, “which is wrought,” to show that together with their own willingness of mind, grace also which wrought in them did contribute much. (Homily II on 2 Corinthians 1:6-7, 1; NPNF1-12)

“For good works, which God afore prepared that we should walk in them.” Not merely that we should begin, but that we should walk in them, for we need a virtue which shall last throughout, and be extended on to our dying day. If we had to travel a road leading to a royal city, and then when we had passed over the greater part of it, were to flag and sit down near the very close, it were of no use to us. This is the hope of our calling; for “for good works” he says. Otherwise it would profit us nothing. . . . As the Apostle saith “and the sanctification, without which no man shall see the Lord.” (Heb. xii. 14.) (Homily IV on Ephesians, v. 2:10;  NPNF1-13)

“Through your supplication,” he adds, “and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ according to my earnest expectation and hope.” Behold the humble-mindedness of this blessed one; he was striving in the contest, he was now close to his crown, he had done ten thousand exploits, for he was Paul, and what can one add to this? still he writes to the Philippians, I may be saved “through your supplication,” I who have gained salvation through countless achievements. (Homily III on Philippians, v. 1:18-20;  NPNF1-13)

Ver. 19. “That they may lay hold,” he says, “on eternal life.” For the doing of good works can secure the enjoyment of eternal life. (Homily XVIII on 1 Timothy, v. 6:19;  NPNF1-13)

Salvation, Instant (Falsity of)

Tell me, what wouldest thou? “not that ye give heed to me, but that ye ‘work out your own salvation with fear and trembling’”; for it is impossible for one, who lives devoid of fear, to set forth any high or commanding example; and he said not merely “with fear,” but “and with trembling,” which is an excessive degree of fear. Such fear had Paul: and therefore he said, I fear “lest having preached to others, I myself should be rejected.” (1 Cor. ix. 27.) For if without the aid of fear temporal things can never be achieved, how much less spiritual matters; for I desire to know, who ever learnt his letters without fear? who has become a proficient in any art, without fear? But if, when the devil does not lie in the way, where indolence is the only obstacle, so much of fear is necessary merely in order that we may master that indolence which is natural to us; where there is so fierce a war, so great hindrances, how can we by any possibility be saved without fear? (Homily VIII on Philippians, v. 2:12-16;  NPNF1-13)

But “one thing,” says he, “forgetting the things which are behind, and stretching forward to the things which are before, I press on toward the goal unto the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.” For what made him reach forward unto the things which are before, was his forgetting the things that are behind. He then, who thinks that all is accomplished, and that nothing is wanting to him for the perfecting of virtue, may cease running, as having apprehended all. But he who thinks that he is still distant from the goal, will never cease running. This then we should always consider, even though we have wrought ten thousand good deeds; for if Paul, after ten thousand deaths, after so many dangers, considered this, how much more should we? For I fainted not, saith he, although I availed not, after running so much; nor did I despair, but I still run, I still strive. This thing only I consider, that I may in truth advance. . . . “For our citizenship is in heaven” (Philip. iii. 20.), there is the prize; . . . Teach thy feet to be sure, for there are many slippery places, and if thou fallest, straightway thou losest much. But yet if thou fall, rise up again. Even thus mayst thou obtain the victory. . . . Look upward, where the prize is; the sight of the prize increaseth the determination of our will. The hope of taking it suffereth not to perceive the toils, it maketh the distance appear short. And what is this prize? No palm branch; but what? The kingdom of heaven, everlasting rest, glory together with Christ, the inheritance, brotherhood, ten thousand good things, which it is impossible to name. (Homily XII on Philippians, v. 3:13-14;  NPNF1-13)

. . . even after sanctification we have yet need of much faith, that we may not be shaken. (Homily III on 2 Thessalonians, v. 2:14;  NPNF1-13)

. . . and in after time there needs for what remains much earnestness. In order to preserve our purity, it is not sufficient for us merely to have been baptized and to have believed, but we must if we will continually enjoy this brightness, display a life worthy of it. This then is God’s work in us. To have been born the mystical Birth, and to have been cleansed from all our former sins, comes from Baptism; but to remain for the future pure, never again after this to admit any stain belongs to our own power and diligence. (Homily X on John, v. 1:12;  NPNF1-14)

Salvation, Moral Assurance of

Tribulations, that is, are so far from confuting these hopes, that they even prove them. For before the things to come are realized, there is a very great fruit which tribulation hath—patience; and the making of the man that is tried, experienced. And it contributes in some degree too to the things to come, for it gives hope a vigor within us, since there is nothing that so inclines a man to hope for blessings as a good conscience. Now no man that has lived an upright life is unconfiding about things to come, as of those who have been negligent there are many that, feeling the burden of a bad conscience, wish there were neither judgment nor retribution. What then? do our goods lie in hopes? Yes, in hopes—but not mere human hopes, which often slip away, . . . No such lot is ours: our hope is sure and unmoveable. (Homily IX on Romans 4:23: v. 5:4-5; NPNF1-11)

Thou too hast believed, thou hast performed many good deeds, thou hast mounted high: secure thyself, be in fear as thou standest, and keep a wary eye, lest thou fall thence. For manifold are the spiritual sorts of wickedness which aim to cast thee down. (Eph. vi. 12.) “Serve the Lord with fear,” he says, “and rejoice unto Him with trembling.” (Ps. ii. 11.) And how is rejoicing compatible with “trembling”? Yet this, be assured, is the only rejoicing; for when we perform some good work, and such as beseemeth those who do anything “with trembling,” then only do we rejoice. (Homily VIII on Philippians, v. 2:12-16;  NPNF1-13)

Suffering, Redemptive (Participation in Christ’s Suffering)

. . . the conduct of Paul far exceeds this. For all the rest leaving their own blessings chose to be partakers in the afflictions of others: but Paul did a thing much greater. For it was not that he consented to be a partaker in others’ misfortunes, but he chose himself to be at all extremities that other men might enjoy blessings. Now it is not the same for one who lives in luxury to cast away his luxury and suffer adversity, as for one himself alone suffering adversity, to cause others to be in security and honor. For in the former case, though it be a great thing to exchange prosperity for affliction for your neighbor’s sake, nevertheless it brings some consolation to have partakers in the misfortune. But consenting to be himself alone in the distress that others may enjoy their good things,—this belongs to a much more energetic soul, and to Paul’s own spirit. (Homily XXV on 1 Corinthians 10:25, 4, v. 11:1;  NPNF1-12)

Having spoken of one, and that the chief ground of comfort and consolation, namely, having fellowship [by sufferings] with Christ: he layeth down as second this which he now mentions, namely, that the salvation of the disciples themselves was procured thereby. “Faint not, therefore, he says, nor be confounded and afraid because we are afflicted; for this same thing were rather a reason for your being of good cheer: for had we not been afflicted, this had been the ruin of you all.” How and wherein? For if through lack of spirit and fear of danger we had not preached unto you the word whereby ye learned the true knowledge, your situation had been desperate. . . . For, saith he, the greater the intensity of our persecutions, the greater should be the increase of your good hope; because the more abundant also in proportion is your salvation and consolation. (Homily II on 2 Corinthians 1:6-7, 1; NPNF1-12)

For He did not only die for us, but even after His death He is ready to be afflicted for your sakes. He is eagerly and vehemently set upon showing that He is even now exposed to peril in His own Body for the Church’s sake, and he aims at this point, namely, ye are not brought unto God by us, but by Him, even though we do these things, for we have not undertaken a work of our own, but His. And it is the same as if there were a band which had its allotted leader to protect it, and it should stand in battle, and then when he was gone, his lieutenant should succeed to his wounds until the battle were brought to a close. Next, that for His sake also he doeth these things, hearken: “For His Body’s sake,” he saith, assuredly meaning to say this: “I pleasure not you, but Christ: for what things He should have suffered, I suffer instead of Him.” See how many things he establishes. Great, he shows, is the claim upon their love. As in his second Epistle to the Corinthians, he wrote, saying, “he committed unto us the ministry of reconciliation” (2 Cor. v. 20.); and again, “We are ambassadors on behalf of Christ; as though God were entreating by us.” So also here he saith, “For his sake I suffer,” that he may the more draw them to Him. That is, though He who is your debtor is gone away, yet I repay. For, on this account he also said, “that which is lacking,” to show that not even yet does he consider Him to have suffered all. “For your sake,” he saith, and even after His death He suffers; seeing that still there remains a deficiency. (Homily IV on Colossians, v. 1:24;  NPNF1-13)

Ver. 10. “Therefore I endure all things,” he says, “for the elect’s sake, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.” Behold another incentive. I endure these things, he says, not for myself, but for the salvation of others. It was in my power to have lived free from danger; to have suffered none of these things, if I had consulted my own interest. On what account then do I suffer these things? For the good of others, that others may obtain eternal life. What then dost thou promise thyself? He has not said, simply on account of these particular persons; but “for the elect’s sake.” If God has chosen them, it becomes us to suffer everything for their sakes. “That they also may obtain salvation.” By saying, “they also,” he means, as well as we. For God hath chosen us also; and as God suffered for our sakes, so should we suffer for their sakes. Thus it is a matter of retribution, not of favor. On the part of God it was grace, for He having received no previous benefit, hath done us good: but on our parts it is retribution, we having previously received benefits from God, suffer for these, for whom we suffer, in order “that they may obtain salvation.” (Homily IV on 2 Timothy, v. 2:10;  NPNF1-13)

. . . he says, “If we be dead with Him, we shall also live with Him.” For say, shall we partake with Him in things laborious and painful; and shall we not in things beneficial? But not even a man would act thus, nor, if one had chosen to suffer affliction and death with him, would he refuse to him a share in his rest, if he had attained it. But how are we “dead with Him”? This death he means both of that in the Laver, and that in sufferings. For he says, “Bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus” (2 Cor. iv. 10.); and, “We are buried with Him by baptism into death” (Rom. vi. 4.); and, “Our old man is crucified with Him”; and, “We have been planted together in the likeness of His death.” (Rom. vi. 5, 6.) But he also speaks here of death by trials: and that more especially, for he was also suffering trials when he wrote it. (Homily V on 2 Timothy, v. 2:11-14;  NPNF1-13)

Synergy: Cooperation with God’s Grace as “Co-Laborers”

. . . do according to thy power, with what has been entrusted to thee, to extend the holiness which thou hast received, and to make the righteousness which comes from the laver brighter, and the gift of grace more radiant; even as therefore Paul did, increasing all the good things which he received by his subsequent labors, and his zeal, and his diligence. (Instructions to Catechumens, Second, 1; NPNF1-9)

. . . if we be careless, we shall not be able to obtain salvation, no not even by the help of others; if, on the other hand, we be watchful, we shall be able to do this by ourselves, and by ourselves rather than by others. Yes; for God is more willing to give His grace to us, than to others for us; that we by endeavoring ourselves to do away His wrath, may both enjoy confidence towards Him, and become better men. Thus He had pity on the Canaanitish woman, thus He saved the harlot, thus the thief, when there was none to be mediator nor advocate. (Homily V on Matthew 1:22-23, 7; NPNF1-10)

. . . let us labor for a little while, that we may win the perpetual and imperishable crowns; unto which may we all attain, by the grace and love towards man of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory and might forever and ever. Amen. (Homily XXXIX on Matthew 12:1, 4; NPNF1-10)

Only let us also bring ourselves into a state meet for the grace from above, and all becomes easy. (Homily IV on Acts 2:1-2; NPNF1-11)

“And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together.” (v. 31.) This was the proof that they were heard, and of His visitation. “And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost.” . . . Do you see that together with the grace of God they also contributed their part? For everywhere it ought to be well observed, that together with the grace of God they do their part likewise. . . . again, that “they were all together.” (ch. iii. 6.) But in this place, having mentioned that they were heard, the sacred writer proceeds to speak also of them, what virtue they showed. Moreover, he is just about to enter upon the narrative of Sapphira and Ananias, and with a view to show the detestable conduct of that pair, he first discourses of the noble behavior of the rest. (Homily XI on Acts 4:23; NPNF1-11)

But when you hear of grace, think not that the reward of resolve on our part is thereby cast aside; for he speaks of grace, not to disparage the labor of resolve on our part, but to undermine . . . the haughtiness of an insolent spirit . . . Do not thou then, because that Paul hath called this a gift of grace, grow supine. (Homily II on Romans 1:8: v. 11; NPNF1-11)

Ver. 18. “For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make Gentiles obedient by word and deed, through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God.” . . . Nor can it be said that I have been entrusted indeed with the charge, but yet have not executed it. Or rather, it is not I that have executed, but Christ. Wherefore also it is in Him that I boast, not about common things, but about spiritual. . . . See how violently he tries to show that the whole is God’s doing, and nothing his own. For whether I speak anything, or do anything, or work miracles, He doth all of them, the Holy Spirit all. And this he says to show the dignity of the Holy Spirit also. . . . the exhibition of actions and conversation, the dead that were raised, the devils that were cast out, and the blind that were healed, and the lame that leaped, and the other marvellous acts, all whereof the Holy Spirit wrought in us. (Homily XXIX on Romans 15:14, v. 15:18; NPNF1-11)

Ver. 9. For we are God’s fellow-workers: “ye are God’s husbandry, God’s building.” Seest thou how to them also he hath assigned no small work, having before laid it down that the whole is of God? . . . Ver. 10. “According to the Grace of God which was given unto me, as a wise master-builder I laid a foundation.”

. . . in speaking of himself as wise, he allowed not this to stand as though it were something of his own; but first attributing himself entirely unto God, . . . (Homily VIII on 1 Corinthians 3:1-3, 6, v. 3:9-10;  NPNF1-12)

Ver. 2. “Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful:” that is, that he do not appropriate to himself his master’s goods, that he do not as a master lay claim for himself but administer as a steward. For a steward’s part is to administer well the things committed to his charge: not to say that his master’s things are his own; but, on the contrary, that his own are his master’s. Let every one think on these things, both he that hath power in speech and he that possesses wealth, namely, that he hath been entrusted with a master’s goods and that they are not his own; let him not keep them with himself, nor set them down to his own account; but let him impute them unto God who gave them all. . . . And Paul, no less, when he had said, “I labored more abundantly than they all,” (1 Cor. xv. 10.) added, “yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.” Elsewhere also, setting himself strongly against the same persons, he said, “For what hast thou which thou didst not receive?” (C. iv. 7.) “For thou hast nothing of thine own, neither wealth, nor speech, nor life itself; for this also is surely the Lord’s. (Homily X on 1 Corinthians 3:18-19, 5, v. 4:2;  NPNF1-12)

Ver. 10. “But by the grace of God I am what I am.” Seest thou again another excess of humility? in that the defects he imputes to himself, but of the good deeds nothing; rather he refers all to God. Next, lest he might hereby render his hearer supine, he saith, “And His grace which was bestowed upon me was not found vain.” And this again with reserve: in that he said not, “I have displayed a diligence worthy of His grace,” but, “it was not found vain.” “But I labored more abundantly than they all.” He said not, “I was honored,” but, “I labored;” . . . For if he labored more, the grace was also more: but he enjoyed more grace, because he displayed also more diligence. (Homily XXXVIII on 1 Corinthians 15:1-2, 7, v. 15:10-11;  NPNF1-12)

. . . “for he worketh the work of the Lord, as I also do;” (1 Cor. Xvi. 10.) . . . he elsewhere saith, “Now I rejoice in my sufferings, and fill up on my part that which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh.” (Col. i. 24.) Yet neither here nor there is it from boldness or any presumptousness. For as they wrought greater miracles than He according to that saying of His, “he that believeth on Me shall do greater works than these,” (John xiv. 12.) but all is of Him that worketh in them; so did they suffer also more than He, but all again is of Him that comforteth them, and fitteth them to bear the evils that betide them. (Homily I on 2 Corinthians 1:1, 4, 2, 4;  NPNF1-12)

And indeed it is no small praise, that God should work in one. For if He is “no respecter of persons,” as indeed He is none, but is looking to our purpose when He aids us in good deeds, it is evident that we are agents in drawing Him to us; so that even in this view he did not rob them of their praise. . . . But if God will perfect, then neither shall there be much labor, but it is right to be of good courage, for that they shall easily accomplish all, as being assisted by Him. (Homily I on Philippians, v. 1:6;  NPNF1-13)

Do thou be bold; “for it is God that worketh in you.” If then He worketh, it is our part to bring a mind ever resolute, clenched and unrelaxed. “For it is God that worketh in you both to will and to work.” “If He does Himself work in us to will, how dost thou exhort us? for if He works Himself even the will, the words, which you speak to us, have no meaning, ‘that ye have obeyed’; for we have not ‘obeyed’; it is without meaning that thou sayest, ‘with fear and trembling’; for the whole is of God.” It was not for this that I said to you, “for it is He that worketh in you both to will and to work,” but my object was to relieve your anxiety. If thou wilt, in that case He will “work in thee to will.” Be not affrighted, thou art not worsted; both the hearty desire and the accomplishment are a gift from Him: for where we have the will, thenceforward He will increase our will. For instance, I desire to do some good work: He has wrought the good work itself, and by means of it He has wrought also the will. Or he says this in the excess of his piety, as when he declares that our well-doings are gifts of grace. (Homily VIII on Philippians, v. 2:12-16;  NPNF1-13)

And thus will ye make the labor light for us, in all things taking a part with us, and stretching out a hand, and becoming sharers and partakers, both in one another’s salvation, and each one in his own. (Homily XXX on Hebrews, v. 12:15;  NPNF1-14)

Works, Good (in Grace)

For say, whence can an excellent life proceed? From no source, except from a Divine Power working in us. (Homily XLVII on Acts 21:39-49; NPNF1-11)

For just as food maintaineth our life, and by this ruleth the body, so if we have good works, we shall have the Spirit; and if we have the Spirit, we shall also have good works. As also, on the other hand, if we have no works, the Spirit flieth away. But if we be deserted by the Spirit, we shall also halt in our works. (Homily XXVIII on Romans 15:8, v. 15:13; NPNF1-11)

Works of the Law / “New Perspective on Paul”

Ver. 32. “Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the Law.” . . . For this he says is the cause of their destruction: “Because it was not by faith, but as it were by the works of the Law,” that they wished to be justified. And he does not say, “by works,” but, “as it were by the works of the Law,” to show that they had not even this righteousness. (Homily XVI on Romans 9:1: v. 9:32; NPNF1-11)

*
***

*

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

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

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

*

***

Summary: I compile extensive writings from St. John Chrysostom (c. 345-407): all of which express his opposition to the novel 16th century innovation of “faith alone”.

March 19, 2024

Rev. Dr. Jordan B. Cooper is a Lutheran pastor, adjunct professor of Systematic Theology, Executive Director of the popular Just & Sinner YouTube channel, and the President of the American Lutheran Theological Seminary (which holds to a doctrinally traditional Lutheranism, similar to the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod). He has authored several books, as well as theological articles in a variety of publications. All my Bible citations are from RSV, unless otherwise indicated. Jordan’s words will be in blue.

This is my 11th reply to Jordan (many more to come, because I want to interact with the best, most informed Protestant opponents). All of these respectful critiques can be found in the “Replies to Jordan Cooper” section at the top of my Lutheranism web page.

*****

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

*****

This is a response to Jordan’s YouTube video, “The Church Fathers on Prayer to Saints” (11-16-20).

3:43 I [am] going to spend some time in the early Church and go back and ask the question: did the earliest Christians pray to the saints? Is there evidence that the earliest Christians had an understanding of prayer that was broader than prayer as an act of worship directed toward God [and] that there was another kind of invocation of the saints or angels which was not an act of worship? 

Clearly so (as to the last sentence), as I hope to demonstrate.

4:32 Did the early Church view prayer as something that could be offered to God as well as the saints, or did they view it in the way that the Reformers would have viewed prayer: as something that is an act of worship that is directed solely toward God?

Catholic invocation of the saints is — by and large — simply asking them to intercede on our behalf to God because we don’t view departed saints as different than other human beings on earth, with respect to simply asking them to pray for us, and we are following James 5 where it is stated that “the prayer of a righteous man availeth much” (KJV), using the example of the prophet Elijah, who could change the weather with his prayers.” These saints have love for us, and they have great power. This is why we ask for their intercession. It’s not an act of worship at all. It’s “going to the holy person to ask them to pray for us.”

Protestants implicitly recognize this all the time when they go to their ministers and pastors, specifically, in order to ask them to pray on their behalf. I think that the premise underneath that act is thinking that the pastor’s prayers would have more effect; i.e., that he is closer to God. Otherwise, they could simply “go straight to God” as a certain Protestant polemic stresses. Catholics agree that we can always and should often pray directly to God. We just think that it’s equally biblical (as I have shown with many Bible passages) to ask relatively more holy people to pray for us, and that this includes perfected saints in heaven, who are more alive than we are, and aware of happenings on the earth.

6:09 if you look at the apostolic fathers [and] ask the question: do they speak of a prayer to the saints? The answer is, no they don’t.

I agree. Anglican patristic scholar J. N. D. Kelly explained that this doctrine was slow to develop:

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

This, of course, poses no problem for the Catholic view. Doctrines develop at different rates, and among the ones that were slow in the early centuries were the fine points of trinitarianism and the canon of the Bible (with the first complete NT list coming as late as 367 with Athanasius). The doctrine of the communion of saints was almost fully developed (if we are to accept Kelly’s scholarly judgment) before either of those doctrines. If that’s not a problem for Protestantism, neither is this for Catholicism. In fact, I would say (and so would Cardinal Newman: one of Protestant apologists’ favorite “whipping boys”) that this would be fully expected, or at least not surprising.

7:19 We do have to recognize that when we’re looking at the earliest writings, they’re short, they’re brief, [and] they’re not going to cover every aspect of Christian doctrine, so if there were prayers to the saints in Ignatius and Polycarp and figures like that, we don’t have evidence for it. But it’s not like we have some extensive corpus that we’re looking at, so it’s kind of hard to go [to] those letters and say definitively, “well they never mention it so they didn’t believe in it” . . .  that’s certainly not enough to say, “therefore no Christians are praying to the saints in this era.”

I completely agree. Well-stated.

15:00 [Irenaeus] “nor does she perform anything by means of angelic invocations”. There is no performance of anything by means of angelic invocations like the Gnostics are teaching, or by incantations or by any other wicked curious art. So he doesn’t say, “yeah there are wicked angelic invocations and there are righteous angelic invocations or invocations of the saints.” He seems to wrap all of this up in a package that’s going to be thrown out and then he goes on to to give his correction. He says, “but, directing her prayers to the Lord who made all things,” so he’s saying we don’t offer our prayers to these created things like angels; instead we offer our “prayers to the one who made all things in a pure sincere and straightforward spirit calling upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Nor does she perform anything by means of angelic invocations, or by incantations, or by any other wicked curious art; but, directing her prayers to the Lord, who made all things, in a pure, sincere, and straightforward spirit, and calling upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, she has been accustomed to work miracles for the advantage of mankind, and not to lead them into error.

Context doesn’t particularly help interpret this in any more depth (per our topic). But his use of the terms, “any other” certainly leads me to believe that he was — contrary to Jordan’s take — referring only to wicked “angelic invocations” — which doesn’t logically rule out a possibility of righteous “angelic invocations.” The New Advent site, which contains the 38-volume Schaff edition of the fathers, allows one to easily search them. So I will now search “invocation” in Against Heresies, to see if we can find anything of relevance.

One search result sheds light on what Irenaeus meant above. In Book I, ch. 24, concerning doctrines of Saturninus and Basilides, he states: “These men, moreover, practise magic; and use images, incantations, invocations, and every other kind of curious art.” It seems to be the same sort of biblically forbidden “magic” practices that he referred to in II, 32, 5. Likewise, in the Preface of Book II (1) he refers to beliefs of Gnostics: “their invocations and their mysteries.” Cf. I, 13, 2-3. So Irenaeus sanctioning direct prayer to the Lord doesn’t necessarily rule out asking saints to pray to the same Lord. We know for sure that he is expressing what all Christians agree with: it’s good to pray directly to God. But we don’t see that asking saints to intercede is different than (ultimately) going to God in prayer in the first place.

16:34 Irenaeus . . . says the church does not offer prayers to created things; we don’t invoke created things, we invoke the one who created all things and we do that through our Lord Jesus Christ. So this seems to be very clear evidence very early on.

I don’t see that he was expressing this thought. Here’s the continuation of his section that I cited above:

If, therefore, the name of our Lord Jesus Christ even now confers benefits [upon men], and cures thoroughly and effectively all who anywhere believe in Him, but not that of Simon, or Menander, or Carpocrates, or of any other man whatever, it is manifest that, when He was made man, He held fellowship with His own creation, and did all things truly through the power of God, according to the will of the Father of all, as the prophets had foretold. But what these things were, shall be described in dealing with the proofs to be found in the prophetical writings.

Irenaeus expressed that we can and should pray to God, and that the Gnostics engaged in wicked occultic practices. That much is certain. He didn’t necessarily say that any and all invocations of anyone besides God are always impermissible. Jordan is, I believe, superimposing that onto the text without enough information to do that, in my opinion. I would say that Irenaeus may not have believed in invocation of the saints, but that this section doesn’t prove that. We don’t know enough to know for sure, and Irenaeus died too “early”: at the beginning of the 3rd century: the time in which Kelly observed that “evidence for the belief in [saints’] intercessory power accumulates.”

Jordan addresses Justin Martyr (d. 165), who lived far too early in the development of the communion of saints (by Kelly’s timeline), and Clement of Alexandria (d. c. 215) and Tertullian (d. c. 225), who appeared to reject it. He decided not to deal in this talk with Origen (d. c. 254), about whom two Protestant reference works assert:

In arguing for it [i.e., seeking saints’ help and prayers] Origen appealed to the communion of saints, advancing the view [his footnote: “Esp. in Iesu nave hom. 16, 5″] that the Church in heaven assists the Church on earth with its prayers . . . (Kelly, ibid., 490)

Origen was apparently the first of the Fathers to give the cult of martyrs an express theological foundation. He placed it within the doctrine of the Communion of Saints and taught that the prayer of the saints is efficacious in so far as the faithful follow in their footsteps. (F. L. Cross & E. A. Livingstone, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2nd edition, Oxford University Press, 1983, 1227)

Origen comes right after Tertullian, and in my book on the Church fathers, I documented the espousal of invocation of saints and angels from Cyprian, Ephraem, Basil, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory Nyssa, Ambrose, John Chrysostom,  Jerome, Augustine, Cyril of Alexandria, Pope Leo the Great, Theodoret, and Gregory the Great. I have over seven pages devoted to Augustine’s view of the saints (he being the great “patron saint” of Protestantism), in my book, The Quotable Augustine: Distinctively Catholic Elements in His Theology (2012). On the invocation of saints in particular, he stated:

There was a fellow-townsman of ours at Hippo, Florentius, an old man, religious and poor, who supported himself as a tailor. Having lost his coat, and not having means to buy another, he prayed to the Twenty Martyrs, who have a very celebrated memorial shrine in our town, begging in a distinct voice that he might be clothed. . . . he, walking on in silence, saw on the shore a great fish, gasping as if just cast up, . . . on cutting up the fish, the cook found a gold ring in its belly; . . . (City of God, xxii, 8)

. . . upon recollection of the place in which are deposited the bodies of those whom they love, they should by prayer commend them to those same Saints, who have as patrons taken them into their charge to aid them before the Lord. (On the Care of the Dead, 6)

That’s just one of many.

35:21 The problem with . . . “patristic quote mining”: in especially [a] kind of pop-up Roman Catholic apologetics is, you could do a lot with random citations of fathers taken out of context, and make them sound very Roman Catholic. You can write a whole book that’s just every positive thing any church father says about Peter and stick them all together and make it sound like the papacy, but it’s not, because [if] you actually look at those quotes in context, [they have] nothing to do with the papacy. But if you have a bunch of strung together isolated quotes it can sound like that.

To be fair, Jordan goes on to say that some Protestants do that, too, and he cited an example of a book about the fathers and justification. I agree with him that some on both sides do some very shoddy work with the Church fathers.

36:39 [Lutheran theologian Martin] Chemnitz [1522-1586] . . . does a much more thorough and fair job of dealing with the Church fathers than almost anybody does today.

Funny; that wasn’t my impression at all when I critiqued him back in 2007:

*
*
He was trying to make out that all these fathers believed in sola Scriptura and they just don’t. It’s a losing battle. I wouldn’t recommend that any Protestant apologist try to prove that.  It’s a complete waste of time and a futile effort if there ever was one. Jordan then makes general statements about development of doctrine:
*
38:03  others have this principle as well that those ideas which are earlier are better than those ideas which are later, and I don’t know [that] this is generally true; oftentimes it is very true, but there are other times where it’s not quite as true, because . . . there’s a little lack of clarity on [some] issues which really does, I think, need some time to develop: at least develop in terms of what language we want to use. I would say the same about the doctrine of justification, as it takes some time to to hash out what what language best explains what is this reality in scripture that we are saved through faith, not by works, but we also need to do works. How does this work which is a difficult thing to put together, I think, in terms of figuring out what language you want to use and how you relate all these ideas together, so it does take some time.
*
And of course Catholics say the same about the invocation and intercession of saints. It took time to develop (though not as long as several other — and more important — doctrines). It involves several complexities and nuances and subtleties, just as justification does. In fact, Jordan goes on to say that “it’s not until the Reformation that those ideas [regarding justification] are really hashed out in their fullness, I think, and I think in a good way” (39:03).

So he’s perfectly content to assert that almost 1500 years needed to pass before anyone properly understood justification in its full Protestant sense; therefore, I submit that the same thing applies (in a much smaller time frame) to the issue of invocation and intercession of saints. If one accepts development in the first place, then one ought to incorporate it across the board in examining any given doctrine. To put it another way, it’s not unusual at all that such a nuanced doctrine as this took a few centuries to fully develop. Many other doctrines (and several that both sides accept), took much longer.

*

***

*

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

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

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

*

***

Photo credit: The metaphor of Hebrews 12:1, referring to “witnesses” is comparing saints in heaven to spectators in an arena. This photograph is from StockSnap (taken on 30 May 2014) [Pixabay / CC0 public domain]

Summary: Lutheran apologist Jordan Cooper contends that early Church fathers opposed the invocation of saints. For many, that was true. I analyze his reasoning.

March 12, 2024

Including Gavin’s Exceptionally Ecumenical & Irenic Statements About the Catholic Church & Catholics

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

In my opinion, he is currently the best and most influential popular-level Protestant apologist, who (especially) interacts with and offers thoughtful critiques of Catholic positions, from a refreshing ecumenical (not anti-Catholic), but nevertheless solidly Protestant perspective. That’s what I want to interact with, so I have issued many replies to Gavin and will continue to do so. I use RSV for all Bible passages unless otherwise specified.

All of my replies to Gavin are collected on the top of my Calvinism & General Protestantism web page in the section, “Replies to Reformed Baptist Gavin Ortlund.” Gavin’s words will be in blue.

This is my 25th reply to his material.

*****

I will be responding to roughly the first half of Gavin’s video, “Why I Don’t Accept The Papacy” (1-1-21).

0:43 Let me just say at the beginning here — because I’m going to be criticizing Roman Catholic theology — I want to start off by saying several things that I admire about my Roman Catholic friends and about the Catholic tradition. . . . “irenic” means aiming for peace and that is really important to me now. Irenicism doesn’t mean that we don’t contend for truth  . . . I think arguing for truth is really healthy, but it’s really important to me to have these conversations in as peaceable a way as possible. Part of that is just the state of dialogue in our culture right now. I think those of us who are followers of Christ need to model something better . . . I think that’s what the gospel calls us to do. . . . I need to be gracious and I need to be kind because of what God has done for me . . . I know I talk about that a lot, but it’s not just sort of a stylistic thing for me or icing on the cake . . . First Corinthians 13 says without love we’re a “resounding cymbal or clanging gong.” Love is essential for these conversations. I really believe that. 

Amen! I appreciate this very much, and I’m sure many Catholics do.  So often critiques of Catholicism and/or Catholics (and vice versa) are done in a spirit of both ignorance and (usually also) malice and hostility. Well done! I’ve always thought, too, that we can and should have these theological discussions in a jovial, mutually respective manner, and learn from each other, while we are also defending our own views and critiquing the other side’s position. I have sought to use the same approach in my 27 years online, and before. So it’s refreshing to see this. Music to my ears . . .

2:39 Catholics — generally speaking (obviously these are generalizations) —  do better than Protestants [in] philosophy and logic; especially in the Thomist tradition, and a lot of evangelicals are kind of iffy on philosophy, which is unfortunate. Number two [and three]: literature and the arts. Almost all [of] my favorite writers are Catholic: Malcolm Muggeridge,  G. K. Chesterton, Dorothy Sayers [she was actually Anglican], J. R. R. Tolkien, many others; architecture and liturgy and . . . the aesthetics of worship. Not all Protestants are bad at that, but many are. Number four: history and Latin. Latin is my favorite language, . . . and number five: social and political philosophy and even certain areas of moral philosophy . . . whatever you think about the Roman Catholic view on contraception, they’ve thought about that way more than many evangelicals have, and I admire their consistency and I admire [the fact] that they don’t just move with the times. 

Excellent. Returning the “favor,” I would point to my own articles, My Respect for Protestants / Catholic Ecumenical Principles [2001; addendum: 1-8-03] ,Gratefulness for My Evangelical Protestant Background [3-18-08], and What I Like About Calvinism and Calvinists [June 2009].

3:41 I don’t know if it’s weird to mention those things, but I’m just trying to be as productive as possible in the way we talk about these things.

5:44 the main text I think that is at play when we’re talking about the papacy is Matthew 16. And the thing that’s been so helpful for me
*
6:32 one of the big questions is what is this rock? Is it Peter as a person or in his office, [or] is it the confession Peter just made or is it Jesus, and then if it’s Peter, is it Peter in such a way that could support the doctrine of the papacy or something that would get you to the doctrine of the papacy
*
In my many treatments of this topic, I have cited many Protestants in support of Peter being the Rock. This is believed by a remarkable number of eminent Protestant exegetes and reference sources, including New Bible Dictionary, Word Studies in the New Testament (Marvin Vincent), Wycliffe Bible Commentary, New Bible Commentary, Anchor Bible (William F. Albright and C. S. Mann), Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (R. T. France), Expositor’s Bible Commentary (D. A. Carson), Eerdmans Bible Commentary, Henry Alford, Herman N. Ridderbos, Albert Barnes, David Hill, M. Eugene Boring, William Hendriksen, John A. Broadus, Carl Friedrich Keil, Gerhard Kittel, Oscar Cullmann, Peake’s Commentary, Gerhard Maier, J. Knox Chamblin, Craig L. Blomberg, William E. McCumber, Donald A. Hagner, Philip Schaff, Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 8, The Layman’s Bible Commentary, Encyclopaedia Britannica (1985; article by D. W. O’Connor, a Protestant), Robert McAfee Brown, and Richard Baumann.
*
If we want to look at the claim that Jesus’ phrase “keys of the kingdom” has Isaiah 22 in mind, the following Protestants agree with that: W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, Roland de Vaux, Craig S. Keener, M. Eugene Boring, The Interpreter’s Bible, S. T. Lachs, R. T. France, Ralph Earle (Beacon Bible Commentary), J. Jeremias, F. F. Bruce, Oscar Cullman, New Bible Dictionary, T. W. Manson, Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary, Adam Clarke’s Commentary, Martin Luther, New Bible Commentary.
F. F. Bruce, perhaps the most famous and well-regarded of the above group, wrote:
The keys of a royal or noble establishment were entrusted to the chief steward or majordomo; he carried them on his shoulder in earlier times, and there they served as a badge of the authority entrusted to him. About 700 B.C. an oracle from God announced that this authority in the royal palace in Jerusalem was to be conferred on a man called Eliakim . . . . (Isaiah 22:22). So in the new community which Jesus was about to build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward. (The Hard Sayings of Jesus [Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity, 1983], 143-144)

If the argument is indeed so weak, as Gavin thinks, why do so many Protestant scholars agree with key and essential elements of it? They may deny papal succession, but that is a separate discussion. I think they have inadequate reasons to deny the succession and that it follows logically from Petrine primacy.

6:57 you need infallible teaching coming from this office 

Acts 15:28: “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us.” That’s not only infallible; it’s inspired. Peter was the key figure at the council. After “there had been much debate” (15:7), Peter spoke about how God revealed to him the inclusion of the Gentiles and stated, “by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel” (15:7). And he led because God had given him — as the leader — a vision, described a few chapters earlier. When he was done the text says, “And all the assembly kept silence” (15:12). Then James the bishop of Jerusalem, acting in effect as master of ceremonies, says, “Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles” (15:14) and “with this the words of the prophets agree” (15:15). He adds nothing to Peter’s declaration; he only reiterated it. The “apostles and elders” worked together in the council with Peter, just as ecumenical councils function. Paul then went out and proclaimed the decree of the Jerusalem Council far and wide (Acts 16:4).

7:02 among the Church fathers you have all three of those major views represented: that the rock is Jesus, that the rock is Peter, [and] that the rock is Peter’s confession, and then what’s so interesting is you have a lot of hybrid views where it’s some combination thereof. And when we get into that we need to be asking what’s the logical relationship between these, so if it’s both Peter and Jesus how is that the case; how is it both of them and why is it both of them?

Jesus is the ultimate leader of the Church, of course, but Peter is the human leader on earth, who has successors. See my paper, Can Christ & Peter Both be “Rocks”? [4-21-22]. Gavin then mentions different views among the Church fathers concerning who the “rock” is. I would make note of two of the most respected Protestant exegetes of our time:

R. T. France wrote:
Jesus now sums up Peter’s significance in a name, Peter . . . The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus’ declaration about Peter as v. 16 was Peter’s declaration about Jesus . . . It is to Peter, not to his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied . . . (in Leon Morris, General Editor, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press/Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1985, vol. 1: Matthew, 254, 256)
D. A. Carson, another highly respected Protestant exegete, observed:
[I]f it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter . . . In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .” (in Frank E. Gaebelein, General Editor, Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1984, vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke [Matthew: D. A. Carson], 368)

Here are fourteen explicit examples of Church fathers calling Peter the rock (one could also say that he was the rock based on his confession of faith; but nevertheless, he was the rock upon which the Church was established; that both things were true; also that Jesus was the rock, too, but in a different sense):

Tertullian, writing around 200-220, stated that “Peter . . . is called the Rock whereon the Church was to be built” (Prescription against Heretics, 22).

Origen writing around 230-250, called Peter “that great foundation of the Church, and most solid rock, upon which Christ founded the Church” (In Exod. Hom. v. n. 4, tom. ii) and “Upon him (Peter)  . . . the Church was founded” (In Epist. ad Rom. lib. v. c. 10, tom. iv) and “Peter upon whom is built Christ’s Church” (T. iv. In Joan. Tom. v.).

St. Cyprian, c. 246, wrote about “Peter, upon whom by the same Lord the Church had been built” (Epistle 54 to Cornelius, 7).

Firmilian, c. 254, wrote about “one Church, which was once first established by Christ on a Rock” (Inter Ep. S. Cyp. Ep. lxxv).

Aphraates (c. 336) stated that “the Lord . . . set him up as the foundation, called him the rock and structure of the Church” (Homily 7:15, De Paenitentibus).

St. Ephraem (c. 350-370) called Peter “the foundation of the holy Church” (Homilies 4:1).

St. Hilary of Poitiers in 360 held that Peter was “the foundation-stone of the Church” (On the Trinity, Bk. VI, 20).

St. Gregory of Nazianzen (370) stated that Peter “is entrusted with the Foundations of the Church” (T. i. or. xxxii. n. 18).

St. Gregory of Nyssa (371) wrote that Peter was “the Head of the Apostles . . . (upon him) is the Church of God firmly established. . . . that unbroken and most firm Rock upon which the Lord built His Church” (Alt. Or. De S. Steph.).

St. Basil the Great (371) stated that Peter “received on himself the building of the Church” (Adversus Eunomius 2:4).

St. Epiphanius (c. 385): “upon which (Rock) the Church is in every way built . . . Foundation of the house of God” (Adv. Haeres.).

St. Ambrose (c. 385-389): “whom when He styles a Rock, He pointed out the Foundation of the Church” (T. ii. l. iv. De Fide, c. v. n. 56).

St. John Chrysostom (c. 387): “Head or Crown of the Apostles, the First in the Church . . . that unbroken Rock, that firm Foundation, the Great Apostle, the First of the disciples” (T. ii. Hom. iii. de Paenit. n. 4).

St. Jerome (385): “Peter, upon whom the Lord has founded the Church” (Letters 41, 2).

St. Augustine got this wrong, as Gavin noted. We don’t regard Church fathers as infallible.

10:13 there’s many other passages that identify Jesus as the rock on which the church is built

Yes, because He’s God. I cited five of these passages in my paper about there being two “Rocks”. It doesn’t preclude an earthly leader. Jesus calls Himself the Good Shepherd. Does that mean there are no pastors (“shepherds”) because Jesus is the Ultimate One? No. The Bible doesn’t employ false dichotomies and the “either/or” approach that Protestants do. Christians were called “living stones” by Peter in 1 Peter 2:5.  Paul writes about “the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone” (Eph 2:19-20).

Thus, “apostles and prophets” being the foundation doesn’t contradict Jesus also being the foundation.  Then we come back to the question of, “who was the foremost apostle”? In terms of leadership, Peter was, because Jesus commissioned Him by name, even changing his name to symbolize this leadership, and made him the preeminent human foundation of the Church. We are “co-workers” with God (“we are God’s fellow workers”: 1 Cor 3:9; “Working together with him”: 2 Cor 6:1; “the Lord worked with them”: Mk 16:20).

Gavin mentioned that Epiphanius thought the rock was Peter’s confession (10:34), but I just showed above how he thought Peter was the rock, too (both things can be true, because they don’t exclude each other). The fathers thought in biblical and Hebraic “both/and” terms. They didn’t think like Greek rationalists.

10:42  when people go that route they almost always identify Peter as the rock because of his confession

Yes, of course they do, because that is what the passage strongly implies. Peter proclaimed that Jesus was “the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Mt 16:16). Then Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you” (Mt 16:17). Then Jesus told him, “you are Peter [“Rock”], and on this rock I will build my church” (Mt 16:18). It looks — at least prima facie — like Peter was made the rock upon whom the Church was built because he exhibited the sort of faith that the leader of the Church would necessarily have to have. Both things are true. We don’t have to choose. So if so many fathers highlighted his faith, and so many focused on Peter himself, both were right! And those who say that Jesus is the rock are also right; but that is expressed in other passages, not this one.

Moreover, we see Peter exercising his role as leader in the early Church, after Pentecost. Now that He had received the indwelling Holy Spirit, he could really fulfill his role as Jesus intended, with power and zeal: Peter is regarded by the Jews (Acts 4:1-13) as the leader and spokesman of Christianity, and by the common people in the same way (Acts 2:37-41; 5:15). Peter’s words are the first recorded and most important in the upper room before Pentecost (Acts 1:15-22). He takes the lead in calling for a replacement for Judas (Acts 1:22). He’s the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, so he was the first Christian to “preach the gospel” in the Church era (Acts 2:14-36). This sermon contained a fully authoritative interpretation of Scripture, a doctrinal decision and a disciplinary decree concerning members of the “House of Israel” (2:36) – an example of “binding and loosing.” He works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12). He utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) emphatically affirmed by God (Acts 5:2-11).

His shadow works miracles (Acts 5:15). Peter is the first person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40). Cornelius is told by an angel to seek out Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1-6). Peter is the first to receive the Gentiles, after a revelation from God (Acts 10:9-48). He is the object of the first divine interposition on behalf of an individual in the Church Age (an angel delivers him from prison – Acts 12:1-17). The whole Church (strongly implied) offers “earnest prayer” for Peter when he is imprisoned (Acts 12:5). He’s the first to recognize and refute heresy, in Simon Magus (Acts 8:14-24). Peter is the first to preach Christian repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38). He takes the lead in the first recorded mass baptism (Acts 2:41). He commanded the first Gentile Christians to be baptized (Acts 10:44-48). He was the first traveling missionary, and first exercised what would now be called “visitation of the churches” (Acts 9:32-38, 43).

If all of that doesn’t indicate that he was the leader, what in the world would prove it, pray tell? The Catholic view harmonizes perfectly with the biblical data. The Bible clearly presents him as both the leader of the disciples and of the early Church. St. Paul’s the foremost evangelist and theologian. But he’s not leading the entire Church (in terms of an office) as Peter did. Jesus didn’t say He would build His Church upon Paul. Rather, God said, “he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel” (Acts 9:15). Peter is called the foundation of the Church and told to feed Jesus’ sheep. And Jesus prayed for him specifically, that his faith wouldn’t fail. And he gave him (only) the “keys of the kingdom of heaven.” It goes on and on.

13:44 the other passages that are generally brought into discussion — John 21 and Luke 22 for example — these passages just aren’t clear or explicit, and I’ve looked at the fathers on these as well and none of them are correlating these texts with peter’s rank or status within the church or something like that. Pretty consistently they’re looking at these passages as having to do with Peter’s restoration after his
14:11 It would be a it would be a proof of the papacy perhaps if Jesus said to Peter in John 21, “feed my sheep as my vicar” or if he said in Luke

*

***

*

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

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

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

*

***

Photo credit: St. Peter, by Paolo Emilio Besenzi (1608-1656) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: I reply to Baptist apologist Gavin Ortlund’s arguments against the papacy: his analyses of Matthew 16 and John 21. I note the cumulative NT evidence for the papacy.

March 9, 2024

Incl.  “Papal” & Patristic Exegesis of Matthew 16 and John 21; Relationship of the Bible & the Church

Pastor Mike Winger is the featured teacher of BibleThinker online ministry. He graduated from the School of Ministry at Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa and was ordained in 2006. He has since served in various ministries with a primary focus on being a youth pastor. Mike has since transitioned into laboring full time with BibleThinker to provide free teaching content worldwide. He also has a thriving YouTube channel called Learn to Think Biblically (688K subscribers). Mike is strongly committed to a careful and thoughtful study of the Bible with a view toward answering skeptics’ challenges with reason and Scripture. I use RSV for Bible verses. Mike’s words will be in blue.

*****

I’m responding to Mike’s video entitled, “Why Catholicism is WRONG” (8-24-15). It has received 316,481 views, as of 3-8-24.

1:06 if their claim’s accurate, then I can’t interpret the Bible only they can

In fact, the Catholic Church has required one particular view of a Bible passages for only nine passages in the entire Bible. This is an annoying myth that we hear all the time. Indeed, the orthodox, faithful Catholic interpret doctrines that he derives from Scripture with the help and guidance of the Church and sacred tradition, but so what? Every Protestant does the same thing within their own denominational tradition. No five-point Calvinist, for example, can find a verse in the Bible which proves apostasy or falling away, or one that teaches God’s desire for universal, rather than limited atonement (and there are many such passages). He can’t deny total depravity in any text, or irresistible grace. We all have orthodox and dogmatic boundaries that we abide by. No Christian of any stripe could say that John 1:1 does not teach the deity and Godhood of Jesus.

1:13 the Bible is extra it is not essential

This is sheer nonsense. The Catholic Church reveres the Bible as much as any Protestant denomination or individual. I remember reading The Battle for the Bible (1977) by Protestant scholar Harold Lindsell, back in the day (the early 80s) when I was a fervent evangelical, and his making the point that the Catholic Church had a doctrine of the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture — including after Vatican II, which changed no doctrines — that was as “high” as any Protestant view (it really struck me at the time, and I was delighted to learn of it). Catholics also think that sacred, apostolic tradition and the Church are infallible authorities, and we do because the Bible itself teaches this: notably in Acts 15 (the Jerusalem Council) and in 1 Timothy 3:15: both of which — closely examined — teach the infallible authority of the Church (which is directly contrary to sola Scriptura). This is not sola ecclesia, as it has been caricatured (by Mike and many others). It’s a three-legged-stool rule of faith: Bible-Church-Tradition: all of which are in complete harmony with each other.

1:19 Church statements are what’s essential 

They are, but not exclusively so, as he makes out, and in a manner that is hardly different from each Protestant denomination, that has creeds and confessions that they adhere to, just as we have our doctrines that we believe. Lutherans have the Book of Concord. Presbyterians have the Westminster Confession. Anglicans have the 39 Articles, etc. No one can claim that they aren’t “essential” too in their own domains.

1:19 when the Catholic theologian uses the Bible to try to prove Catholic doctrine it’s just an exercise. It’s not that they think they have to [do]. They don’t believe they have to use the Bible; they’re just doing that to try to convince you to try to convince others

This is pure mythology. How would he even go about proving such a ludicrous claim? You notice that he doesn’t cite anything to corroborate his charge. It simply comes from his own cynical anti-Catholic bias. No Catholic decree or argument from a Catholic theologian or apologist has ever stated that the Bible is unimportant or merely optional in doing theology. To the contrary, official Catholic documents like Vatican II, the Catholic Catechism, or papal encyclicals are literally filled with Scripture (at least as much if not more than the typical Protestant sermon). It’s clear from the sheer volume that Scripture is central in the whole enterprise.

2:37 the Roman Catholic Church bases their case . . .  for their authority [on] that single pillar that holds up all the doctrine of the church: “we declare it, therefore it’s true.”

First of all, we don’t say something is true simply because the Church declares it (which would be circular reasoning). What we actually say is that the Church declares it because it is based on the Bible and the history of doctrine and reason. Secondly, if there is any single “pillar” it’s the Bible; particularly this verse: “. . . the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15). If the Catholic Church is indeed that, again, it’s not because it merely makes the claim, but because the Bible said so, and we have many other biblical and historical reasons for identifying the Catholic Church as the one true Church of the Bible, that Jesus set up, with Peter as the first earthly leader.

2:59 Matthew 16 . . . whatever it does teach it certainly does not teach that Peter was the first pope 

Matthew 16:16-19 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” [17] And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. [18] And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. [19] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

At the very least he was clearly intended to be the leader of the new Church, of which he was even said to be the foundation (“Rock”). R. T. France, widely considered to be one of the best New Testament exegetes, stated: “Not only is Peter to have a leading role, but this role involves a daunting degree of authority . . . The image of ‘keys’ (plural) perhaps suggests . . . the steward, who regulates its [the house’s] administration . . . an authority derived from a ‘delegation’ of God’s sovereignty” (Vol. 1: Matthew, in Leon Morris, General Editor., Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press/Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1985, 256). That sounds pretty “papal,” doesn’t it? Yet it’s a commentary from a Protestant on the New Testament text (words of Jesus). Here are what other Protestants say, along similar lines:

Craig S. Keener wrote: “The image of keys (plural) perhaps suggests not so much the porter, who controls admission to the house, as the steward, who regulates its administration / probably refers primarily to a legislative authority in the church” (The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament [Downer’s Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1993], 256, 90). The great scholar F. F. Bruce stated that “in the new community which Jesus was about to build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward” (The Hard Sayings of Jesus [Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity, 1983], 143-144). T. W. Manson, in his book, The sayings of Jesus: as recorded in the Gospels according to St. Matthew and St. Luke (London: SCM Press, 1954 ed., p. 205 ) stated that Peter was — as shown by by Jesus’ words — “God’s vicegerent” who would “declare what is right and wrong for the Christian community” and whose decisions would be “confirmed by God”.

3:31  in fact 80% of the time the Church Fathers disagree with the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16

First of all, the fathers aren’t the ultimate authorities in exegesis, and if some of them got this wrong (from our Catholic perspective) it is no problem for our system at all. Biblical exegesis is an independent field of study and can be done today, regardless of what was believed about specific passages in the past. The above arguments from Protestant exegetes stand on their own. I have made the case from the Bible because both sides accept it as inspired, infallible revelation. Precisely because it is inspired, neither side can dismiss it. It has to be grappled with. The above is what some of the very best Protestant exegetes have stated about Matthew 16 and what it means (in a nutshell, Peter was given extraordinary authority by Jesus). Mike just whips up a negative bald sentence; I provided significant and solid Protestant scholarship. It’s a huge difference in methodology.

There were, in fact, many Church fathers (far more than 20%) who thought Peter was the rock, the foundation of the Church and its leader, based on Matthew 16. Here are 18 of them:

Tertullian, writing around 200-220, stated that “Peter . . . is called the Rock whereon the Church was to be built” (Prescription against Heretics, 22).

St. Hippolytus wrote around 225: “By this Spirit Peter spoke that blessed word, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. By this Spirit the rock of the Church was established” (The Discourse on the Holy Theophany, 9).

Origen writing around 230-250, called Peter “that great foundation of the Church, and most solid rock, upon which Christ founded the Church” (In Exod. Hom. v. n. 4, tom. ii) and “Upon him (Peter)  . . . the Church was founded” (In Epist. ad Rom. lib. v. c. 10, tom. iv) and “Peter upon whom is built Christ’s Church” (T. iv. In Joan. Tom. v.).

St. Cyprian, c. 246, wrote about “Peter, upon whom by the same Lord the Church had been built” (Epistle 54 to Cornelius, 7).

Firmilian, c. 254, wrote about “one Church, which was once first established by Christ on a Rock” (Inter Ep. S. Cyp. Ep. lxxv).

Aphraates (c. 336) stated that “the Lord . . . set him up as the foundation, called him the rock and structure of the Church” (Homily 7:15, De Paenitentibus).

St. Ephraem (c. 350-370) called Peter “the foundation of the holy Church” (Homilies 4:1).

St. Hilary of Poitiers in 360 held that Peter was “the foundation-stone of the Church” (On the Trinity, Bk. VI, 20).

St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 363), commenting on Matthew 16, calls peter “the foremost of the apostles and chief herald of the Church” (Catechetical Lecture 11, 3).

St. Optatus (c. 370), commenting on the same passage, wrote that Peter was “to be preferred before all the Apostles” and was “The Head of the Apostles” (De Schism. Don. l. vii. n. 3).

St. Gregory of Nazianzen (370) stated that Peter “is entrusted with the Foundations of the Church” (T. i. or. xxxii. n. 18).

St. Gregory of Nyssa (371) wrote that Peter was “the Head of the Apostles . . . (upon him) is the Church of God firmly established. . . . that unbroken and most firm Rock upon which the Lord built His Church” (Alt. Or. De S. Steph.).

St. Basil the Great (371) stated that Peter “received on himself the building of the Church” (Adversus Eunomius 2:4).

St. Epiphanius (c. 385): “upon which (Rock) the Church is in every way built . . . Foundation of the house of God” (Adv. Haeres.).

St. Ambrose (c. 385-389): “whom when He styles a Rock, He pointed out the Foundation of the Church” (T. ii. l. iv. De Fide, c. v. n. 56).

St. John Chrysostom (c. 387): “Head or Crown of the Apostles, the First in the Church . . . that unbroken Rock, that firm Foundation, the Great Apostle, the First of the disciples” (T. ii. Hom. iii. de Paenit. n. 4).

St. Jerome (385): “Peter, upon whom the Lord has founded the Church” (Letters 41, 2).

St. Cyril of Alexandria (424): “the church . . . over this he sets Peter as shepherd” (Comm. on Matt., ad. loc.).

Mike then brings up John 21, where Jesus tells Peter to “feed my sheep,” etc., and then he claims:

5:31 whatever Jesus is doing here, this says nothing about a papacy . . . if you didn’t know about the papacy, you’d never read the Bible and come up with that doctrine; it just would never happen. It would never occur to you. It’s completely artificially foisted upon the Scriptures; pushed onto the Bible. We need clear teachings, not vague implications.

It is clear teaching; I completely disagree. In the context of many Bible passages already indicating a profound leadership of Peter among the disciples and in the early Church (I found fifty such), it’s significant that Jesus uses an agricultural shepherd and sheep parallel, which is a metaphor for being a pastor. The word “shepherd” is used 15 times in the NT in this fashion. So what does Jesus do here? He was with seven of the disciples (Jn 21:2) in a post-Resurrection appearance.

But He singled out Peter and charged him to “feed my lambs” (21:15) and “tend my sheep” (21:16) and “feed my sheep” (21:17), which could quite plausibly be taken to mean His entire Church, since He uses the words “the sheep” or “sheep” 14 times in John 10: meaning, believers in the Church. There He was talking about Himself as the Ultimate Shepherd. But there are also earthly shepherds (pastors or priests or bishops). Jesus didn’t say this to all seven disciples present. He said it to Peter only. That must have some significance. It fits into the scenario of him being the leader of the Church.

After all, Jesus had already said (Mt 16) that He would build His Church upon Peter, as the Rock. This exhortation perfectly fits in with that. It’s the same sort of thing in Luke 22:32, where Jesus says, “I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail” and “strengthen your brethren” to Peter alone. I believe it’s the only time Jesus is said to have prayed for one person, who is named. And guess who it is? Just a “coincidence”: it’s once again Peter.

Many Protestant commentators say that Peter was singled out and asked three times because he denied Jesus three times. That may very well be true, but if so, it doesn’t follow that my interpretation is null and void. He still encouraged him to be a pastor of what is arguably the entire Church; and it goes along with Luke 22:32 and Matthew 16:18-19. Moreover, the parallel to the denials would be when Jesus asked him three times, “do you love Me?” But the other parts are not parallels to the denials. Thus, this attempted dismissal of the larger “papal” meaning of the passage fails in its evasive purpose.

Mike makes a bald analysis and a skeptical claim with no reasoning whatever. I reason through it, do exegesis, including cross-referencing, and make an actual argument. Which is the more impressive method of the two?

6:02 Jesus here is putting Peter in a shepherding position, yes absolutely, but does . . . feeding the sheep and tending the lambs make him like the ultimate apostle who’s in charge of all the other apostles?
*
The Bible massively indicates that he was the leader of the disciples and of the early Church. Protestants don’t even deny that. It’s too obvious. Here he is shown to be that again by being singled out. All of them would be shepherds but Jesus talks to Peter alone. It makes perfect sense. If He built His Church upon Peter, then Peter would certainly be charged with feeding the “sheep” en masse.
*
6:15 in fact Acts 20:28 it talks about all of the elders in Ephesus and all of them are told that they’re to shepherd the Church of God
*
Mike answers himself here. This was strictly a local context: elders in Ephesus (Acts 20:17) caring for that flock. The phrase, “church of God” can refer to only a local church (see, e.g., 1 Cor 1:2; 2 Cor 1:1). Peter didn’t have a specific flock when Jesus told Him to feed His sheep. So it seems to be a universal shepherding, which also is what we see in the nature of his first epistle, which is to a large group (“To the exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia”: 1:1), not one local church, as with Paul’s letters. I wrote in August 2022 about this:

Pontus was in the north of Turkey and largely surrounding the Black Sea north of it. Galatia was in the center of Asia Minor (Turkey),  Cappadocia in its southeast, and Bithynia in its northwest. “Asia” in the NT refers to Asia Minor.

So Peter was writing to Christians in a vast area. The size of Turkey is about a thousand miles from west to east, and 300-400 miles from north to south. This is the area, and also east and north of the Black Sea, that was the recipient of Peter’s first epistle. The letter is filled with decidedly “papal” commands: and Peter assumes sublime authority throughout his epistle:

“gird up your minds” (1:13 [RSV]); “be holy yourselves in all your conduct” (1:15); “love one another earnestly from the heart” (1:22); “So put away all malice and all guile and insincerity and envy and all slander” (2:1); “long for the pure spiritual milk” (2:2); “abstain from the passions of the flesh” (2:11); “Maintain good conduct among the Gentiles” (2:12); “Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution” (2:13); “Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.” (2:17); ” wives, be submissive to your husbands” (3:1); “Likewise you husbands, live considerately with your wives, bestowing honor on the woman” (3:7); “have unity of spirit, sympathy, love of the brethren, a tender heart and a humble mind.” (3:8); “Do not return evil for evil or reviling for reviling” (3:9); “in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense” (3:15: apologetics!); ” keep your conscience clear” (3:16); “keep sane and sober for your prayers” (4:7); “hold unfailing your love for one another” (4:8); “Practice hospitality ungrudgingly to one another” (4:9); “As each has received a gift, employ it for one another” (4:10); “Tend the flock of God that is your charge” (5:2: addressed specifically to other bishops); “you that are younger be subject to the elders” (5:5); “Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God” (5:6); “Be sober, be watchful” (5:8); and “Resist him, firm in your faith” (5:9).

This is altogether the scope and nature of a bishop’s teaching, with authority, and to Christians over an area a thousand miles wide and 400 miles from bottom to top. That’s not “local church” stuff!

8:57  the earliest interpretation where someone says that this is papal in John 21 is from 680 AD, over 600 years later. Then someone finally has the idea that this is papal and who is it? Pope Agatho; a very self-serving claim  for his own power to increase by tying it to this scripture.

Nice try. Here his claim is much more broad: no Church father at all thought the passage was “papal”; that is, indicative of Peter being the leader of the early Church, and we have to get all the way to 680 AD to find anyone who thinks this way. One wonders if Mike did any research on the matter. It’s likely that he simply read this in an old anti-Catholic book (filled with the usual history-challenged myths) and passed it along. All I have to do is find one Church father to refute this sweeping claim, but I have found nine:

Origen (c. 216): “the Chief Authority as regards the feeding of the sheep was delivered to Peter” (T. iv. l. 5, in Ep. ad Rom. n. 1).

St. Cyprian (c. 246): “to the same [Peter] He says, after His resurrection, Feed my sheep. And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, . . . yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one.” (Treatise 1: On the Unity of the Church, 4).

St. Ephraem (c. 350-370): “The Lord . . . delivered his flock to Simon . . . Three pledges he took from him as shepherd, that with love he should shepherd his lambs, and should visit his sheep with mercy, and should guard his ewes with fear.” (HVirg. 36, 6; CSCO 223, Syr. 94).

Ambrosiaster (c. 380-384): “After the Saviour all were included in Peter; for He constituted him to be their head, that he might be the shepherd of the Lord’s flock” (Quaest. 75, ex N. Test. in App. St. August. tom. iii. 2894).

St. Ambrose (385): Therefore did Christ also commit to Peter to feed His flock” (Ib. in. Ps. cxviii. [Mem] n. 3).

St. Epiphanius (c. 385): “He heard from the same God, ‘Peter, feed My lambs;’ to him was intrusted the flock; he leads the way admirably in the power of his own Master.” (Tom. ii. In Anchorat. n. 9).

St. John Chrysostom (c. 387): “He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren . . . [and] says, ‘If Thou lovest Me, preside over the brethren’ . . . He sets the presidency over his own sheep . . . He appointed this man (Peter) teacher . . . of the world.” (In Joan. Hom. lxxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii.).

“What advantage, pray, could be greater than to be seen doing those things which Christ with his own lips declared to be proofs of love to Himself? For addressing the leader of the apostles He said, Peter, do you love me? and when he confessed that he did, the Lord added, if you love me tend my sheep. The Master asked the disciple if He was loved by him, not in order to get information (how should He who penetrates the hearts of all men?), but in order to teach us how great an interest He takes in the superintendence of these sheep. This being plain, it will likewise be manifest that a great and unspeakable reward will be reserved for him whose labors are concerned with these sheep, upon which Christ places such a high value. . . . For what purpose did He shed His blood? It was that He might win these sheep which He entrusted to Peter and his successors. . . . Will you, then, still contend that you were not rightly deceived, when you are about to superintend the things which belong to God, and are doing that which when Peter did the Lord said he should be able to surpass the rest of the apostles, for His words were, Peter, do you love me more than these? . . . one is required to preside over the Church, and to be entrusted with the care of so many souls . . .” (On the Priesthood, Book II, 1-2)

St. Augustine (c. 400): “. . . the Lord commended his sheep to Peter himself to feed . . . when Christ speaks to one, unity is commended — and to Peter for the first time, because Peter is first among the apostles.” (Sermo. 295).

“[T]here are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house.” (Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus, ch. 4, 5).

“The Lord, indeed, had told His disciples to carry a sword; but He did not tell them to use it. But that after this sin Peter should become a pastor of the Church was no more improper than that Moses, after smiting the Egyptian, should become the leader of the congregation.” (Contra Faustum, Book XXII, 70).

“And again the Lord asked this question, and a third time He asked it. And when he asserted in reply his love, He commended to him the flock. For each several time the Lord Jesus said to Peter, as he said, I love you; Feed My lambs, feed My little sheep. In this one Peter was figured the unity of all pastors . . .” (Sermon 97 on the New Testament, 2).

“Peter generally stands for a figure of the Church.” (Sermon 25 on the New Testament, 10; cf. Sermon 96; Sermon 88, 4).

“For He says to Peter, in whom singly He forms the Church; Peter, do you love Me? He answered, Lord, I do love You. Feed My sheep. ” (Sermon 87 on the New Testament, 3).

St. Peter Chrysologus (432): “He commends His sheep to be fed by Peter, in His stead” (Serm. vi. In Ps. xcix).

Mike continues his comments on this passage from John 21:

9:45 Peter did not claim to be the Pope. He’s not treated as the Pope. He didn’t wield the power of the papacy. If Peter wasn’t the Pope, how can his successor be the Pope? If Peter’s not the Pope, nobody is; there is no Pope!

Well, we need only look at the above patristic passages regarding Jesus telling Peter to feed His sheep. How is Peter described?:

Chief Authority; head; shepherd of the Lord’s flock; presidency over the brethren; teacher . . . of the world; leader of the apostles; superintendence of these sheep; sheep which He entrusted to Peter and his successors; surpass the rest of the apostles; one is required to preside over the Church; entrusted with the care of so many souls; first among the apostles; charge to feed His sheep down to the present episcopate; pastor of the Church; the leader [like Moses] of the congregation; In this one Peter was figured the unity of all pastors; Peter generally stands for a figure of the Church; Peter, in whom singly He forms the Church; His sheep to be fed by Peter, in His stead.

If all of these descriptions aren’t “papal” what in the world is? How much evidence does one need, pray tell? How many more ways are necessary to describe what is clearly leadership of the entire Church? Nothing else is required. This is what many eminent Church fathers believed about John 21. Yet Mike claimed that no one thought this way until 680 AD. All these men were a bunch of ignorant, spiritually vacant dopes, I guess: to see all of this in a passage that Mike thinks is wholly insignificant in terms of Church government and the papacy. Make your choice, folks: Mike, or the Bible’s clear teaching and Church fathers like Cyprian, Ambrose, John Chrysostom, and Augustine. And then we can add the descriptions of Peter in the fathers, in interpreting Matthew 16:

the Rock whereon the Church was to be built; the rock of the Church; that great foundation of the Church; solid rock, upon which Christ founded the Church; Peter upon whom is built Christ’s Church; upon whom by the same Lord the Church had been built; Church . . . established by Christ on a Rock; the foundation; the rock and structure of the Church; the foundation of the holy Church; the foundation-stone of the Church; the foremost of the apostles; chief herald of the Church; preferred before all the Apostles; Head of the Apostles; entrusted with the Foundations of the Church; Rock upon which the Lord built His Church; received on himself the building of the Church; upon which (Rock) the Church is in every way built; Foundation of the house of God; the Foundation of the Church; Head or Crown of the Apostles; the First in the Church; that firm Foundation; the Great Apostle;, the First of the disciples; Peter, upon whom the Lord has founded the Church; the church . . . over this he sets Peter as shepherd.

That’s an awful lot of material to ignore, in order to pretend that St. Peter wasn’t the leader of the earliest Church; the first pope, if you will.

*

***

*

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

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

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

*

***

Photo credit: see book and purchase information for this title of mine from 2012.

Summary: Protestant apologist Mike Winger says that Matthew 16 & John 21 give no indication of the papacy whatsoever. I exegete them & cite Church fathers’ interpretation.

February 27, 2024

+ Does the New Testament Present an Ecclesiology of “The Church”?

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

In my opinion, he is currently the best and most influential popular-level Protestant apologist, who (especially) interacts with and offers thoughtful critiques of Catholic positions, from a refreshing ecumenical (not anti-Catholic), but nevertheless solidly Protestant perspective. That’s what I want to interact with, so I have issued many replies to Gavin and will continue to do so. I use RSV for all Bible passages unless otherwise specified.

All of my replies to Gavin are collected in one place on my Calvinism & General Protestantism web page, near the top in the section, “Replies to Reformed Baptist Gavin Ortlund.” Gavin’s words will be in blue.

This is my 24th reply to his material.

*****

I am responding to one of the central claims made in Gavin’s video, “Which Denomination Should You Choose?” (3-17-23). To anticipate one objection: I’m not seeking to be “triumphalistic” or arrogant in defending Catholic claims or critiquing Protestant ones. Everyone (and that includes Catholics!) defends their own view, whatever it is; they may change later, but they are defending one particular thing at any given point of time. I’m seeking to be, rather, “biblical”: as I always try to be in these disputes.

So I will bring a lot of the New Testament to the table and wonder aloud how Protestants interpret and apply these passages; challenge them a bit. I love to be challenged, myself. Catholics interpret the Bible regarding these matters in a certain way and so do Protestants. We ought to and can discuss them as brethren in Christ, and let folks decide — as best we can, hopefully led by the Holy Spirit’s guidance — what the Bible actually teaches in matters of ecclesiology. But we need to have this important discussion.

0:00 one of the questions I get very frequently is, “suppose I’m convinced of Protestantism; which particular denomination should I choose and how do I know in which particular local church?”

This is a very important question, because if we seek Christian truth, we want all of it that we can get, and since Protestant denominations contradict each other in literally hundreds of ways, it follows logically that someone is wrong in those instances (teaching falsehood) and that different denominations represent different degrees of biblical truth.  Protestantism by nature is not one unified whole, but an amalgam of mutually contradictory systems, that have no way of unifying, because of how they have defined authority and the seeking of Christian, biblical truth.

Of course, there is quite bit of common ground among Protestants, too, but what they have in common tends to be also what Protestants share in common with Catholics (trinitarianism, salvation by grace and so forth). The fact remains that they still massively contradict one another. I submit that this is neither a desirable state of affairs nor biblical.

0:24 [the] first [thing] is to realize that the stakes are not as high in choosing between two Protestant traditions, because the Protestant traditions recognize [that] the church does not begin and end with them. We’re not saying we’re the one true church, so if you make the wrong decision, . . . let’s say you become Anglican and you should have been Presbyterian, or you become Presbyterian and you should have been Methodist or something like this, the difference will not be that you’re not in the one true Church.

The problem with this is that the Bible doesn’t seem to ever teach that all this error can be present among Christians, and that it’s fine and dandy and of no concern (even encouraged). I mentioned in another reply recently that the NT mentions the phrase “the truth” 70 times. It’s presupposing that this entity called “the truth” is out there and can be identified. It does not teach (as far as I can tell) that everyone must somehow grasp for the highest degree of truth they can find (in their subjective, fallible judgment) in one given assembly of several thousand Protestant choices: all of which massively contradict the other groups.

The New Testament (St. Paul) refers to “one faith” (Eph 4:5). Jesus prayed three times during the Last Supper that Christians “may [all] be one” (Jn 17:11, 21-22). And what did He mean by that? Would it include massive doctrinal self-contradiction, as we find in Protestantism? It seems not, since Jesus defines this oneness as being “one, even as we are one” (Jn 17:11, 22) and “one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee” (Jn 17:21) and “perfectly one” (Jn 17:23). This is the oneness and unity that God the Father and God the Son enjoy. Do they disagree with each other? Never.  See, for one example of many, John 8:28-29: “. . . I do nothing on my own authority but speak thus as the Father taught me. And he who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what is pleasing to him.”

It seems to me that Gavin and Protestantism generally deny that this question of doctrinal and moral unity (including an institution to support such unity) is supremely important. They have given up on seeking it. They take a pass, so to speak. I submit that the New Testament assumes or presupposes that “the one true Church” is a discernible, objective fact (the very thing that Gavin says is not the case with any given Protestant denomination). Protestants act as if the very search for the one Church is impossible; it can’t be found. Otherwise they would identify it (as Catholics and Orthodox do), instead of being quick to deny that they even claim such a thing.

How is it, then, that Protestants can think that this matter is so unimportant that Gavin flat-out denies its crucial and non-optional nature by stating, “We’re not saying we’re the one true church”? This is “The Protestant ‘Non-Quest’ for Certainty”, as I have called it.

The New Testament appears to me to take a very different view. If we look up the phrase “the church” we find that it occurs 91 times in the NT. But most of these refer to a local congregation; we also find the term, “churches” (e.g., Acts 15:41; Rom 16:4 and 33 other times). But in the following 21 passages, it seems clear to me that “the church” or “church” refers — as determined by context —  to the one true Church:

Matthew 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.

Acts 5:11 And great fear came upon the whole church, . . .

Acts 20:28 Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son.

1 Corinthians 10:32 Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God,

1 Corinthians 11:22 . . . the church of God . . .

1 Corinthians 12:28 And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues.

1 Corinthians 15:9 . . . I persecuted the church of God. (same phrase at Gal 1:13)

Ephesians 1:22-23 and he has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church, [23] which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all.

Ephesians 3:10 that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places.

Ephesians 3:21 to him be glory in the church . . .

Ephesians 5:23-25 . . . Christ is the head of the church, his body . . . [24] . . . the church is subject to Christ . . . [25] Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,

Ephesians 5:27, 29, 32 [“the church” appears three times]

Philippians 3:6 . . . [Paul was] a persecutor of the church . . .

Colossians 1:18 He is the head of the body, the church . . .

Colossians 1:24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church,

1 Timothy 3:15 . . . the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

What does the Protestant do with that data? Well, usually they reply (I used to argue this myself in my Protestant days) that they have a general doctrinal unity, and allow differences on what they call “secondary doctrines” (another notion difficult if not impossible to find in the NT). Jesus urged us to “observe all that I have commanded you” (Mt 28:19), without distinguishing between lesser and more central doctrines. The Protestant “solution” for ecclesiology seems, with all due respect, biblically implausible, in light of the fact that in 295 Bible passages (that I have collected in one of my books) notions like “the faith” and “the truth” and “the doctrine” and “teaching” and “the message” are presented as all essentially synonymous.

In other words, again, the “one faith” (Eph 4:5) is assumed in the NT to be an objective entity — a unified body of teaching or “apostolic deposit” that can be identified. It certainly can be on the local level, but it also can be on a churchwide level, such as at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15), which made a decree, led by St. Peter and St. James, and by the Holy Spirit (hence, infallible), that applied to the entire Church (very much like later ecumenical councils). Hence, the Apostle Paul shared the decree as binding to local churches all through Asia Minor (Turkey; see Acts 16:4).

We see all this Bible above, yet Gavin describes quintessential Protestant ecclesiology as: “We’re not saying we’re the one true church.” Why, then, I ask in all sincerity (trying to understand this), would anyone want to join one mere denomination, which is (by its own self-description) not the one true Church: the one that Jesus Himself set up, with one of His disciples, Peter, as the leader (the pope?), and the other disciples as, in effect, bishops  (Mt 16:18)? How can this one true Church be said to be “the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15) if all it is, is a confusingly self-contradictory collection of thousands of individual denominations?

These inherently entail many hundreds of internal contradictions, and hence, inevitably, doctrinal errors all over the place, even if we can’t immediately determine which denomination is wrong, in terms of doctrine, when it contradicts another, and many others. But we know there are many errors in Protestantism (literally hundreds) by virtue of the nature of a logical contradiction. When two denominations contradict on some point of theology, both can’t be right. At least one is necessarily wrong, and both may be wrong. Error is present, in any event. This must be the case if we accept the laws of logic and of contradiction.

How does this state of affairs bring about the extraordinary oneness — including profound doctrinal agreement — that Jesus prayed for: like the Father and the Son being one? We Catholics contend that the Bible teaches that there is one Church only, with one truth and one unified apostolic tradition (granted, then we must determine how to find it in today’s world). Doctrinal contradiction of any sort is absolutely at odds with biblical teaching, which repeatedly urges unity and forbids divisions of any kind among Christians. Our Lord Jesus viewed His Church as being “one flock” (Jn. 10:16). St. Luke described the earliest Christians as being “of one heart and soul” (Acts 4:32). Luke 2:42 casually mentions “the apostles’ teaching” without any hint that there were competing interpretations of it, or variations of the teaching. St. Peter warned about “false teachers” among Christians, who would “secretly bring in destructive heresies,” which go against “the way of truth” (2 Pet. 2:1-2).

St. Paul, above all, repeatedly condemns “dissensions” (Rom 16:17), “quarreling” (1 Cor 1:11), “jealousy and strife” (1 Cor 3:3), “divisions” and “factions” (1 Cor 11:18-19), “discord” (1 Cor 12:25), “enmity” and “party spirit” (Gal 5:20), and calls for Christians to be “united in the same mind and the same judgment” (1 Cor 1:10; cf. Phil 2:2). He expressly condemns party affiliations associated with persons (1 Cor 1:12-13: “Is Christ divided?”; cf. 3:4-7).

He regards Christian tradition as of one piece; not an amalgam of permissible competing theories: “the tradition that you received from us” (2 Thess 3:6); “the truth which has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit” (2 Tim 1:14); “the doctrine which you have been taught” (Rom 16:17); “being in full accord and of one mind” (Phil 2:2); “stand firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel” (Phil 1:27). He, like Jesus, ties doctrinal unity together with the one God: “. . . maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, . . . one Lord, one faith, one baptism, . . .” (Eph 4:3-5). His strong and certain teaching on this topic is well summed up in the following two passages:

1 Timothy 6:3-5 If any one teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching which accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit, he knows nothing; he has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions, and wrangling among men who are depraved in mind and bereft of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain.

Titus 3:9-11 But avoid stupid controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels over the law, for they are unprofitable and futile. As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.

Protestant theologian H. Richard Niebuhr (1894-1962) wrote:

Denominationalism thus represents the moral failure of Christianity. And unless the ethics of brotherhood can gain the victory over this divisiveness within the body of Christ it is useless to expect it to be victorious in the world. But before the church can hope to overcome its fatal division it must learn to recognize and to acknowledge the secular character of its denominationalism. (The Social Sources of Denominationalism, New York: The World Publishing Co. / Meridian Books, 1957; originally 1929, 25)

That’s what a famous Protestant theologian wrote, mind you. It’s arguably far more critical than anything I have written above. But I fully agree that Protestants have to grapple with the question of denominationalism, which is extraordinarily difficult to justify based on biblical teaching. I freely admitted this when I was a Protestant, too, by the way. I thought it was scandalous and that it made evangelism very difficult to undertake, seeing that Christians disagreed about so much. I didn’t have a definitive “answer” to that (other than that sin brought about seemingly unsolvable division). My solution in the long run was to accept that the Catholic option made more biblical and historical sense: that it tied everything together in a way that no Protestant option could or ever would.

*

***

*

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

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

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

*

***

Photo credit: see book and purchase information for this volume of mine.

Summary: Protestant apologist Gavin Ortlund notes that Protestants are “not saying we’re the one true church.” I reply that the Bible makes it impossible to avoid this issue.

January 30, 2024

The Ambivalence and Inconsistencies of Protestant Thought on the Earliest “Monarchical” Bishops

Protestants, especially Presbyterians and Baptists, who hold to a “low church” ecclesiology without bishops, habitually argue that monepiscopacy, or the notion and state of affairs of single “monarchical” bishops holding the leadership of local churches, was a phenomenon that only started to significantly — and to them, unfortunately — occur in the mid-second century or even later than that. This is demonstrably untrue, based on the best historical sources we have for the early Church, as I documented in my recent articles about St. Ignatius of Antioch and Church historian Eusebius and other early Church fathers (before 200 AD).

Nevertheless, despite all of this rather compelling evidence, and granting a certain fluidity and development of Church offices in the New Testament and early Church, as I do, and as Cardinal Newman did in writing about development of doctrine, Protestants argue that the norm in the earliest decades of the Church, and the teaching of the Bible, was government by a group of presbyters or elders in each church or congregation.

On the other hand, there is a certain self-contradiction or tension in this view insofar as the same people concede that St. James was the bishop of Jerusalem at the time of the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15; thought to have occurred around 48-51 AD). Despite generally arguing against monepiscopacy in the first two centuries, they somehow manage to make an exception for James in Jerusalem. Why? Well, I submit and speculate that they tend to do that in order to avoid the implication that St. Peter presided over this council, in a position that would correspond to a “bishop of bishops” or the papacy. They don’t like that idea, and so they argue that James presided and was thus “over” Peter. And he did so because he was the bishop of Jerusalem. According to this thinking, there was no higher office in the Church than that.

Renowned 19th century Protestant Church historian Philip Schaff is an interesting case in this regard. He repeatedly asserts in his notes for McGiffert’s translation of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History (the first and most important history of the Christian Church), that monepiscopacy was “projected” back from the second or third centuries or beyond, to the Church of the first century. And so, in his Popular Commentary on the NT, in his Introduction to the book of James, he refers to James as “the so-called bishop of Jerusalem.” But then he also virtually contradicts himself, in writing:

James . . . was a prominent person in the early church. . . . he occupied a distinguished position in the early church. To him Peter sent a message, on his release from imprisonment: ‘Go show these things unto James and the brethren’ (Acts 12:7) [should be 12:17]. He presided at the Council of Jerusalem, and pronounced the decree of the assembled church (Acts 15:19). To him, as the head of the church of Jerusalem, Paul repaired on his last visit to that city (Acts 21:18). . . . and along with Peter and John, he mentions him as one of the three pillars of the church (Galatians 2:9). In the same Epistle we are also informed, that it was the presence of ‘certain who came from James’ which was the cause of Peter’s withdrawing himself from converse with the Gentiles (Galatians 2:21). . . .

If not actually bishop of Jerusalem, it would appear from these scriptural notices that James at least exercised a very important influence in the mother church. He was the recognised head of the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem. When Christianity was chiefly confined to Jewish converts, his influence must have been almost paramount And after its extension to the Gentiles, the Jewish Christians would esteem him to be peculiarly their apostle, as Paul was the apostle of the Gentiles; his influence would not be confined to Jerusalem, but would extend to all believers among the twelve tribes, wherever scattered.

I don’t see how being the “recognised head” of Christians in Jerusalem and indeed “the head of the church of Jerusalem” and a man who “presided at the Council of Jerusalem” is distinguishable from being a bishop. It’s a distinction without a difference, especially since St. Paul in the Bible wrote about bishops five times (Acts 20:28 [“overseers”]; Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3:1-2; Titus 1:7). So Schaff wants to have his cake and eat it, too, or in other words, he is equivocating. James isn’t the bishop of Jerusalem, but he is, but he isn’t, etc.

This is the sort of cognitive dissonance among Protestants, in grappling with “Catholic” elements of Scripture and early Church history, that was the theme of an entire book of mine:  The Catholic Verses: 95 Bible Passages That Confound Protestants (Sophia Institute Press, Aug. 2004). I do love Schaff as a scholar, however, and I’ve cited him hundreds of times because — ultimately — he always tries to be honest, sometimes even despite his strong denominational inclinations. The above is a prime example of this. He doesn’t agree with the idea that James was or could be the bishop of Jerusalem. But the facts are too great to deny it. And so he tries to deny it but in the end, simply can’t.

The great Protestant Bible scholar F. F. Bruce shows a similar ambivalence. He describes James very much as a bishop would be described, yet doesn’t want to use the word. Writing specifically about him and the early church in Jerusalem, he refers to “the increasingly dominant role which James would fill in Jerusalem” which was “documented by Paul and Luke independently” and his “leading role” and the fact that he was “evidently acknowledged as a leader of that church as a whole.” In the Jerusalem Council, “According to Luke, . . . it was James who summed up the sense of the meeting and expressed his judgment . . . the terms of the so-called Jerusalem decree.” In fact, according to Bruce, that “the Jerusalem church could not have promulgated” this decree “without James’s approval. See: Peter, Stephen. James & John (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1979, 90-91, 93).

The Eerdmans Bible Commentary, at Acts 15:13, states that “James appears by this time to be the acknowledged leader of the Jerusalem church, . . . (p. 992).

The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary (“James”) opined:

It was this James who assumed leadership of the church in Jerusalem . . . James dominates the accounts of official actions of the council at Jerusalem; he cast the deciding vote . . . According to Church tradition, James was the first bishop of Jerusalem. (p. 549)

The New Bible Dictionary (“James”) concurs:

Tradition stated that he was appointed first bishop of Jerusalem by the Lord Himself and the apostles (Eus., EH, vii. 19). He presided at the first Council of Jerusalem . . . (p. 597 in the first edition, 1962)

Note how the last two reference sources note that Church “tradition” held that James was the bishop of Jerusalem, without indicating whether they agreed with it or not.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (“James”; 1939) exhibits the usual Protestant reluctance to use the word “bishop”:

By the time of the Jerusalem convention, i.e. about 51 AD (compare Ga 2:1), James had reached the position of first overseer in the church (compare Ac 15:13,19). . . . Once more (58 AD), James was head of the council at Jerusalem when Paul made report of his labors, this time of his 3rd missionary Journey (Ac 21:17 ff).

Acts 21:17 refers to a meeting of the Jerusalem church including Paul. James is clearly the leader, as indicated by the wording: “On the following day Paul went in with us to James; and all the elders were present” (RSV). This is similar to the language Peter used in Acts 12:17, after he was delivered from a Jerusalem prison: “Tell this to James and to the brethren.”

McClintock and Strong Biblical Cyclopedia (“James”; 1880) is more directly skeptical:

Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. 2, 1) says that James, the first bishop of Jerusalem, . . . was surnamed the Just by the ancients on account of his eminent virtue. . . . Eusebius . . . says elsewhere that he was appointed by the apostles (V. Eccl. 2, 23). Clement of Alexandria is the first author who speaks of his episcopate (Hypotyposeis, bk. 6, apud Eusebius, Hist. Ecc. 2, 1), and he alludes to it as a thing of which the chief apostles, Peter, James, and John, might well have been ambitious. . . . According to Hegesippus (a converted Jew of the 2nd century) James, the brother of the Lord, undertook the government of the Church along with the apostles (μετὰ τῶν ἀποστόλων). . . . (ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. 2, 23).

St. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150- c. 215), according to Eusebius, wrote: “Peter and James and John after the ascension of our Saviour, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem.”” (EHBk II, 1, 3). The above source focuses on Peter, James, and John. Nevertheless, it is stated that the three “chose James” as “bishop of Jerusalem.” It doesn’t get any clearer than that. But the Protestant bias shines through again. The obvious facts of the matter as reported have to be undermined somehow, so that episcopal government is not seen to be the norm in the first century Church.

Hegesippus [fl. c. 180] was also cited by Eusebius — writing at a time close to that of Clement of Alexandria — as having stated the following: “And after James the Just had suffered martyrdom, . . . Symeon, the son of the Lord’s uncle, Clopas, was appointed the next bishop [of Jerusalem]. All proposed him as second bishop because he was a cousin of the Lord. (EH, IV, 22, 4; my italics). In the same context (IV, 22, 2-3) Hegesippus refers to “Primus . . . bishop in Corinth” and also a succession of bishops in Rome: “Anicetus was succeeded by Soter, and he by Eleutherus. In every succession, and in every city that is held which is preached by the law and the prophets and the Lord.” Plainly, he believe in monepiscopacy, including in Jerusalem. Eusebius also cites Hegesippus as stating:

They came, therefore, and took the lead of every church as witnesses and as relatives of the Lord. And profound peace being established in every church, they remained until the reign of the Emperor Trajan, and until the above-mentioned Symeon, son of Clopas, an uncle of the Lord, was informed against by the heretics, and was himself in like manner accused for the same cause before the governor Atticus. And after being tortured for many days he suffered martyrdom, . . . (EH, BK III, 33, 6; my italics)

Again, clear as day. James was bishop of Jerusalem, and then Symeon succeeded him. In his Bk IV, 5, 2-3, Eusebius names fifteen bishops of Jerusalem, from James to Judas (up to 135 AD). We see not a word there about government by a board of presbyters (not even conjointly with Peter and John). All we see are single bishops, one after another in succession.

McClintock and Strong then try to make an issue of how Hegesippus described James’ appointment as bishop of Jerusalem in another passage. Here are the actual words, as translated by Schaff and Wace: “James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles” (EH, II, 23, 4; my italics). They construe the word “with” as signifying government by a group rather than by one man. Eusebius had just written in section 1 of the same passage, about “James, . . . to whom the episcopal seat at Jerusalem had been entrusted by the apostles.”

The Greek word for “with” Hegesippus used, provided by McClintock and Strong themselves, is μετὰ (meta): Strong’s word #3326 (see also a second Strong’s page for it). As a proposition, it can mean several things. It certainly often — even usually — means “with” but it can also mean “after.” The NASB translation renders meta as “after” 82 times (KJV: 95 times). So it comes down to context. I have already provided two cross-reference from Hegesippus himself that contradict the “Protestant” interpretation in this instance (that James was not sole bishop of Jerusalem). As with the Bible, we interpret less clear utterances of the fathers by clearer ones, and we seek to harmonize them. Schaff draws the same “cynical-of-episcopacy” conclusion in his notes (footnote 491) for Eusebius, EH, II, 23, 4:

μετὰ τῶν ἀποστόλων, “with the apostles”; as Rufinus rightly translates, cum apostolis. Jerome, on the contrary, reads post apostolos, “after the apostles,” as if the Greek were μετὰ τοὺς ἀποστόλους. This statement of Hegesippus is correct. James was a leader of the Jerusalem church, in company with Peter and John, as we see from Gal. ii. 9. But that is quite different from saying, as Eusebius does just above, and as Clement (quoted by Eusebius, chap. 1, §3) does, that he was appointed Bishop of Jerusalem by the apostles.

Galatians 2:9 (RSV) reads: “James and Cephas [Peter] and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship.” This happened in Jerusalem, but technically, it’s not about leadership in the church of Jerusalem in particular. It’s about, I submit, leadership in the universal Church, by apostles who were still then living. If this supposedly means that the three conjointly led the Jerusalem congregation, then Schaff and those who think like him have to explain the contextual remark from Paul fourteen and fifteen verses earlier (Gal 1:18-19): “Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.”

Very few argue that Peter — or John — was the leader of the Jerusalem congregation, over against James. Whenever anyone states that there is a bishop or “leader” etc., it’s always James. But if this passage were only about the local Jerusalem church, we would have to conclude from how Paul worded it, then Peter was over James. But if Peter is viewed as the leader of the entire Church, and James of the local Jerusalem church, it makes perfect sense. The three “pillars” of Galatians 2:9 are pillars of the universal Church, not just the church in Jerusalem.

We see similar opinions about James as the leader in Jerusalem (bishop or no) in classic Protestant Bible commentaries (at Acts 15:13):

Ellicott’s Commentary James answered.—The position which James the brother of the Lord . . . occupies in the Council is clearly that of pre-eminence, justifying the title of Bishop of Jerusalem, which later writers give him. No one speaks after him; he sum up the whole debate; he proposes the decree which is to be submitted to the Council for approval.
*
Barnes’ Notes on the BibleHearken unto me – This whole transaction shows that Peter had no such authority in the church as the papists pretend, for otherwise his opinion would have been followed without debate. James had an authority not less than that of Peter.
This is sheer nonsense. Peter’s statement was indeed “followed without debate.” The actual text states that “after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, . . .” (Acts 15:7), and that after he spoke (his words recorded in 15:7-11), “all the assembly kept silence” (15:12). James — as the local bishop and “master of ceremonies” so to speak — then completely agreed with what Peter had said (“Simeon has related . . .”: 15:14) and simply reiterated his reasoning, which was the essence and ground of the council’s decree, supporting it from the Bible. It was Peter who was given a vision by God about the inclusion of the gentiles, recorded a bit earlier in Acts.  He took the lead in promulgating this “new” teaching, as is appropriate for a pope. Contrary to Barnes’ inane anti-Catholic view, Peter is presented as the leader of the Church in the first half of the book of Acts (before it moves on to describing St. Paul’s life and activities), as He was before Jesus’ death, too:
Peter’s name occurs first in a list of the apostles (Acts 1:13; cf. Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14).
*
Peter is regarded by the Jews (Acts 4:1-13) as the leader and spokesman of Christianity.

Peter is regarded by the common people in the same way (Acts 2:37-41; 5:15).

Peter’s words are the first recorded and most important in the upper room before Pentecost (Acts 1:15-22).

Peter takes the lead in calling for a replacement for Judas (Acts 1:22).

Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, so he was the first Christian to “preach the gospel” in the Church era (Acts 2:14-36).

Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12).

Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) emphatically affirmed by God (Acts 5:2-11)!

Peter’s shadow works miracles (Acts 5:15).

Peter is the first person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40).

Cornelius is told by an angel to seek out Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1-6).

Peter is the first to receive the Gentiles, after a revelation from God (Acts 10:9-48).

Peter instructs the other apostles on the catholicity (universality) of the Church (Acts 11:5-17).

Peter is the object of the first divine interposition on behalf of an individual in the Church Age (an angel delivers him from prison – Acts 12:1-17).

The whole Church (strongly implied) offers “earnest prayer” for Peter when he is imprisoned (Acts 12:5).

Paul distinguishes the Lord’s post-Resurrection appearances to Peter from those to other apostles (1 Cor 15:4-8).

Peter is often spoken of as distinct among apostles (1 Cor 9:5; cf. Mk 1:36; Lk 9:28,32; Acts 2:37; 5:29).

Peter is the first to recognize and refute heresy, in Simon Magus (Acts 8:14-24).

Peter’s name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together: 191 times (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon, and 6 as Cephas). John is next in frequency with only 48 appearances, and Peter is present 50% of the time we find John in the Bible! Archbishop Fulton Sheen reckoned that all the other disciples combined were mentioned 130 times. If this is correct, Peter is named a remarkable 60% of the time any disciple is referred to! He’s even mentioned more than St. Paul, whose name appears 184 times in the NT (23 of those as Saul).

Peter’s proclamation at Pentecost (Acts 2:14-41) contains a fully authoritative interpretation of Scripture, a doctrinal decision and a disciplinary decree concerning members of the “House of Israel” (2:36) – an example of “binding and loosing.”

Peter was the first “charismatic”, having judged authoritatively the first instance of the gift of tongues as genuine (Acts 2:14-21).

Peter is the first to preach Christian repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38).

Peter (presumably) takes the lead in the first recorded mass baptism (Acts 2:41).

Peter commanded the first Gentile Christians to be baptized (Acts 10:44-48).

Peter was the first traveling missionary, and first exercised what would now be called “visitation of the churches” (Acts 9:32-38,43). Paul preached at Damascus immediately after his conversion (Acts 9:20), but hadn’t traveled there for that purpose (God changed his plans!). His missionary journeys begin in Acts 13:2.

Paul went to Jerusalem specifically to see Peter for fifteen days in the beginning of his ministry (Gal 1:18).

All of this (most of it in the first half of the book of Acts) is in the New Testament, yet Barnes claims that “James had an authority not less than that of Peter?”! It’s utterly ludicrous. But that is what bias does to a mind. And Barnes is very often and excellent, insightful commentator.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary:  James . . .  was the acknowledged head of the church at Jerusalem, and . . . president of the assembly, . . .
*
Matthew Poole’s Commentary: . . . president of this council.
Meyer’s NT Commentary: . . . highly esteemed in Jerusalem as chief leader of the church, . . .
*
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges: James sums up the discussion, and pronounces the decision of the Church on this controversy . . . bishop of Jerusalem, . . . The president’s summary takes no note of the “much disputing” (Acts 15:7) but points out that a divine revelation had been made to Peter, and that it was accordant with the words of Old Testament prophecy. On these warrants he based his decision.
Pulpit Commentary: James’s place as presiding bishop is here distinctly marked by his summing up the debate. . . . A remarkable testimony against papal supremacy.
*
John Calvin in his Commentaries helpfully illustrates — with remarkable transparency if not cogency — how bias inclines Protestants (like Barnes and the Pulpit Commentary above) to think that James led the church in Jerusalem, so as to supposedly slight Peter (although it does no such thing), even though otherwise the same people might inconsistently opine that monepiscopacy wasn’t present in the first century:
*
[W]e shall see afterwards how great his authority was at Jerusalem. The old writers think that this was because he was bishop of the place; but it is not to be thought that the faithful did at their pleasure change the order which Christ had appointed. Wherefore, I do not doubt but that he was son to Alpheus, and Christ’s cousin, in which sense he is also called his brother. Whether he were bishop of Jerusalem or no, I leave it indifferent; neither doth it greatly make for the matter, save only because the impudency of the Pope is hereby refuted, because the decree of the Council is set down rather at the appointment, and according to the authority of James than of Peter. And assuredly Eusebius, in the beginning of his Second Book, is not afraid to call James, whosoever he were, the Bishop of the Apostles. Let the men of Rome go now and boast that their Pope is head of the Universal Church, because he is Peter’s successor, who suffered another to rule him, if we believe Eusebius.
*
Note, by the way, that Calvin believed that James — someone called “the Lord’s brother” — was literally His “cousin,” and that this is the scriptural “sense” in which “brother” is often used in the NT, thus disagreeing with the vast majority of Protestants today who deny Mary’s perpetual virginity. I have myself documented this several times (Luther and virtually all of the early Protestant leaders believed the same).
*
I have no idea what Calvin is referring to in claiming that Eusebius wrote that James was “the Bishop of the Apostles.” In Bk II, ch. 1, the word “bishop” occurs twice (in sections 2 and 3): both times referring to James as the bishop of Jerusalem. I searched in vain for the word “bishop” in the next fifteen chapters of Eusebius; so Calvin appears to have been using an edition of Eusebius that is now antiquated and inaccurate. Nice try, though. Calvin also futilely tried to argue — probably because of the same bias — that the epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch were not authentic.
*
It’s appropriate and fitting to end with Calvin’s words — so quintessentially and “textbook” low church Protestant — and my reply.
*
Related Reading

***

*

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

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

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

*

***

Photo credit: The original Peter, Paul, & Mary: Madonna and Child with Sts. Peter and Paul (1608-1609), by Giuseppe Cesari (1568-1640) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: The “anti-Petrine” bias of Protestants leads them to posit that James was bishop of Jerusalem in the 1st century: when single bishops supposedly didn’t exist.

December 27, 2023

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

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

*****

Should the bodies of saints and relics be adored with religious worship?

No. They should be venerated, not worshiped, like all holy things. As we have explained till we’re blue in the face (some folks are dense or slow, I reckon), adoration is for God alone.

We deny against the papists 

No, he denies against a straw man, not what the “papists” actually believe. You would think that an educated man could get it right. But that’s too much to ask. Where anti-Catholicism is concerned, straw men, ignorant, misguided insults, and non sequiturs rule the day, along with ignoring large portions of the Bible.

Although indeed the Sophists of the present day . . . deny that the adoration due to God is paid to them, but only veneration and honor; still it is certain that it was sanctioned by the authority of the Second Council of Nicea in these words: “Adoring bones, ashes, garments, blood, and sepulchers, still we do not sacrifice to them” (Actione 4, Mansi, 13:47).

Denzinger’s Enchiridion symbolorum is the official source for Catholic dogma. #600-603 in the 2012 edition are from the Second Council of Nicaea in 787.  The Definition concerning Sacred Images from Session 8, on October 23rd referred to such images or relics twice as “venerable” (#600, p. 207), and believers are urged “to give them salutation and respectful veneration. This, however, is not actual worship, which, according to our faith, is reserved to the divine nature alone. “Honor[ed]” and “venerates” are both mentioned twice more in this section (#601, p. 207). Further statements of the council from the same day refer to “veneration” (#605, p. 208) and “honor” (#608, p. 208). No adoration or worship seen here.

The older 1955 version (#302; see online on page 121; cf. #306, p. 123) is very similar. #302 states that “to render honorable adoration to them, not however, to grant true latria according to our faith.” Precisely. Why can’t Turretin get it right? There are many more Catholic decrees about it that Turretin could have consulted. Pope John XV wrote in 993 (Encyclical Cum conventus esset), that Catholics

venerate and honor the relics of the martyred and confessors in order that we may venerate him whose martyrs and confessors they are; we honor the servants so that honor may redound to the Lord, who said” Whoever receives you, receives me” [Mt 10:40] . . . (#675, p. 231)

It’s very clear what is going on. Something might be made of the fact that adoramus is the original Latin for “venerate” in this statement. But according to a Latin-English dictionary, the word can mean “reverence, honor, worship, adore.” In other words, it’s just like the Greek and biblical word proskuneo, that is applied both to God in the Bible and also many times to persons. Context determines the meaning, and it’s made very clear in the above statement. There is no usurpation of the Lord’s sole prerogatives; no idolatry or blasphemy. It is believed that the veneration of saints is a form of thanking and worshiping God, by Whose grace they are what they are. Turretin has no case against us.

Pope Martin V in 1418 referred to relics being “venerated” (venerari): #1269, p. 333). This word has a range of meaning, just as adoramus and proskuneo do. So we must go by context and what the Catholic Church decrees as proper belief and practice with regard to relics. Nowhere do we teach that they ought to be adored in place of God, as idols.

The Council of Trent on December 3, 1563, stated that relics are to be venerated and honored (#1822, p. 429; cf. #1867, p. 436), because “Through them many benefits are granted to men by God.” That’s not idolatry. God did many things through St. Paul, for example, that the great evangelist often refers to in his epistles (including “saving” others, many times). Was he trying to make himself an idol, equal to or above God, in so writing? Of course not. What he was saying applies to all saints, especially the following, which perfectly typifies biblical and Hebraic paradox:

1 Corinthians 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me.

Scripture has sanctioned such worship nowhere either by command or promise or example.

Relics has to do with the principles of sacramentalism: grace conveyed by physical things (e.g., water, the Eucharist), and the belief is part and parcel of the reverence that Scripture extends to all holy things. Hence, King David says, “I will worship toward thy holy temple in the fear of thee” (Ps 5:7). The temple is holy, so to worship towards it or in it is a good thing. And it’s holy because of its connection to God, as His special dwelling place on earth: especially in the Holy of Holies at its center (Ex 25:21-22).  

The ark of the covenant was so holy it could not be touched, and hence it was transported with poles that ran through rings on its side (Ex 25:13-15). In fact, on one occasion, when it was about to fall over while being moved, after the oxen stumbled, one Uzziah merely reached out to steady it and was immediately struck dead (2 Sam 6:7). Mt. Sinai was holy due to God’s tangible presence there, in the burning bush (Ex 3:5). Just before the Hebrews were to receive the Ten Commandments, God charged the people to not even touch the mountain, or its “border,” on pain of death (19:12-13). Even animals were included in the restriction! God’s special presence – considered apart from the fact that He is also omnipresent – imparts holiness (Deut 7:6).

The New Testament continues to refer to Jerusalem as the “holy city” (Mt 4:5; 27:53 above), and Jesus spoke of the Holy of Holies as “the holy place” (Mt 24:15; cf. Heb 9:2, 12, 25). St. Peter calls the Mount of Transfiguration “the holy mountain” (2 Pet 1:17-18; cf. Mt 17:1-6). Protestants widely use the terms “Holy Bible” and “Holy Land”. In so doing, they tacitly acknowledge the notion of “holy things”: even though, if pressed, they may argue against it, as I once did myself. If something is holy, then it can and should be reverences, including the bodies of holy people who have died.

Someone might agree with all of the above but note that it is not directly pertaining to relics. Well, the Bible has a lot about them, too, which is better understood in light of the above underlying principles. The Bible provides examples of relics having power to heal or bring about other miracles:

2 Kings 13:20-21 So Elisha died, and they buried him. Now bands of Moabites used to invade the land in the spring of the year. And as a man was being buried, lo, a marauding band was seen and the man was cast into the grave of Elisha; and as soon as the man touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood on his feet.

Methodist Adam Clarke, in his Commentary on the above passage, admitted the validity of the principle involved here, even though his subsequent remarks reveal that he doesn’t personally care much for it:

This shows that the prophet did not perform his miracles by any powers of his own, but by the power of God; and he chose to honour his servant, by making even his bones the instrument of another miracle after his death.

2 Kings 2:14 Then he took the mantle of Elijah that had fallen from him, and struck the water, saying, ‘Where is the Lord, the God of Elijah?’ And when he had struck the water, the water was parted to the one side and to the other; and Elisha went over.”

Acts 5:15-16 They even carried out the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and pallets, that as Peter came by at least his shadow might fall on some of them. The people also gathered from the towns around Jerusalem, bringing the sick and those afflicted with unclean spirits, and they were all healed.

Acts 19:11-12 And God did extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that handkerchiefs or aprons were carried away from his body to the sick, and diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them. (cf. Matthew 9:20-22)

Elisha’s bones were what Catholics classify as a “first-class” relic — a relic from the person himself. These passages, on the other hand, offer examples of “second-class” relics —  items that have power because they were connected with a holy person (Elijah’s mantle and even St. Peter’s shadow) — and third-class relics, or something that has merely touched a holy person or first-class relic (handkerchiefs that had touched St. Paul).

God said to Moses regarding the body of a lamb offered at the temple: “Whatever touches its flesh shall be holy …” (Leviticus 6:27). So now we again have a dead thing (like Elisha’s bones) imparting holiness. How is that any different from Catholic relics? Likewise, the same was said even of the cereal offering (Leviticus 6:14-18).

Protestant critics of relics will ask where we should draw the line between a proper use of relics and a corrupt, idolatrous one. If they become idols in place of God or are used for financial gain, or are thought to be magic charms (superstition), that’s wrong, and the line has been crossed. The understanding of them has to be sacramental and incarnational, and grounded in a proper biblical understanding of the veneration of saints.

Superstition and idolatry are — like lust or pride or greed — erroneous and wicked attitudes that reside in someone’s heart. We don’t usually know if this is what they are thinking simply by observing outward actions. Two people could be bowing before a relic. One is in fact (if we knew their inner attitude) viewing it as a charm or an idol, and is gravely sinning. The other is venerating it, which is perfectly biblical and Catholic. So the lines are difficult to determine, based on these inherently subjective factors. It’s not a simple matter.

If God wanted human beings to bow before and pray to God and worship Him before inanimate objects such as the ark of the covenant and the temple, because it was thought that holy things gave special power and efficacy to prayers, how much more should we venerate bodies of saints?:

Joshua 7:6 Then Joshua rent his clothes, and fell to the earth upon his face before the ark of the LORD until the evening, . . .

1 Chronicles 16:4 Moreover he appointed certain of the Levites as ministers before the ark of the LORD, to invoke, to thank, and to praise the LORD, the God of Israel. (cf. Deut 10:8)

2 Chronicles 7:3 When all the children of Israel saw the fire come down and the glory of the LORD upon the temple, they bowed down with their faces to the earth on the pavement, and worshiped and gave thanks to the LORD, saying, “For he is good, for his steadfast love endures for ever.”

Psalm 138:2 I bow down toward thy holy temple and give thanks to thy name for thy steadfast love and thy faithfulness; for thou hast exalted above everything thy name and thy word.

King Solomon prayed before the sacred altar: both standing and kneeling (1 Ki 8:22-23; cf. 8:54 [kneeling]; 2 Chr 6:12-14; the Jews swore oaths by the altar in the temple: 2 Chr 6:22). The prophet Daniel prayed to and thanked God in the direction of Jerusalem, three times a day, even from Babylon (Dan 6:10; cf. 1 Ki 8:44, 48; 2 Chr 6:20-21, 26-27, 29-30, 32-34, 38). Levites talked to God before the ark as well (Dt 10:8; cf. 1 Ki 3:15; 8:5; 1 Chr 16:4; 2 Chr 5:6). So how — in light of all of the above — can there possibly be an objection to praying in conjunction with relics?

The principle is precisely the same as what we have in the Bible, as far as I can see. Jesus exhibited the same sacramental principle, in using His saliva to heal someone, and by His robe healing a woman, or telling the blind man to go wash in the Pool of Siloam (after which he could see). He took a girl by the hand before He raised her from the dead (Mt 9:25), and touched blind people’s eyes before healing them (Mt 20:34), and touched a person’s hand before healing a fever (Mk 1:31), and touched an ear before healing it (Lk 22:51). The question is: why did Jesus do that when all He had to do was declare a healing? He did so because it was one of many examples of the sacramental principle behind relics.

And what He said about the woman being healed by touching “the fringe of his garment” (Lk 8:44) is remarkable with regard to relics. He referred to “some one” who “touched me” twice (Lk 8:45-46), and Luke reiterates that “she had touched him” (Lk 8:47). But literally speaking, she had not touched “Him” at all. She merely touched “the fringe of his garment”. Therefore, Jesus was equating His power with His own garment, and in a certain qualified sense, even Himself with it, in saying, “I perceive that power has gone forth from me” (Lk 8:46). The power went out from Him, through His garment, to the woman, and caused her to be healed. This is the Catholic doctrine of second-class relics, right from the mouth of Jesus.

It was the same with the apostles:

Acts 5:12 Now many signs and wonders were done among the people by the hands of the apostles. . . .

Acts 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.

Acts 19:11 And God did extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul,

Protestants will, furthermore, object to pilgrimages to relics in order to have more meritorious and efficacious prayer. This is little different from all the Israelite pilgrimages to Jerusalem for the feast days and to offer sacrifice in the temple. Holy places and holy things in the Bible have power, and this power can transfer in some supernatural way to Christians. Protestants object that paying a lot of money to do so is improper.

But I counter-reply that we shouldn’t object to a pious Catholic (now or in the Middle Ages) paying a lot of money to make a pilgrimage to a holy place, including seeing and venerating relics (it cost a lot of money for me to go to Israel), when we have no objection whatsoever to folks going on expensive vacations on yachts, or flying all around the world, spending multiple thousands of dollars (not to mention a host of other arguably materialistic things). If we can go see the wonders of nature or man’s architectural masterpieces, why is it immediately thought to be a “problem” if someone pays money to go on a religious pilgrimage?

Even Martin Luther (who started the Protestant movement) advocated the goodness and propriety of relics after his 95 Theses (October 1517) and even after the pivotal and famous (or infamous) Diet of Worms (January-May 1521):

[W]e ought to encase the bones of saints in silver; this is good and proper. (Sermons I, ed. and tr. John W. Doberstein; Sermon on the Man Born Blind, 17 March 1518; in Luther’s Works, vol. 51)

Many make pilgrimages to Rome and to other holy places to see the robe of Christ, the bones of the martyrs, and the places and remains of the saints, which we certainly do not condemn. (Explanations of the Ninety-Five Theses, Aug. 1518; tr. Carl W. Folkemer; in Luther’s Works, vol. 31)

These many years your Grace has been acquiring relics in every land; but God has now heard your Grace’s request and has sent your Grace, without cost or trouble, a whole cross, with nails, spears and scourges. I say again, grace and joy from God on the acquisition of the new relic! (To the Elector Frederic of Saxony, end of Feb. 1522; in Luther’s Correspondence and Other Contemporary Letters, Vol. II: 1521-1530; translated and edited by Preserved Smith and Charles M. Jacobs [Philadelphia: The Lutheran Publication Society: 1918] )

Luther’s 95 Theses never even mentioned relics, which makes sense, since he wrote all three of the above statements after the time of the 95 Theses.

A Protestant might object that people in the Bible didn’t collect and venerate bones; they simply buried people. But of course, a proper burial is honoring a  person, and visiting gravesites (as every Protestant has done) is not wholly unlike giving homage to holy persons and saints and making pilgrimages to their gravesites or relics connected with them. This is nowhere more evident than in the extreme reverence that Jews to this day give to gravesites of their heroes of the faith. I observed this firsthand in Israel in 2014 at Rachel’s tomb and King David’s. These are very holy places, and they are acting just as their ancestors did.

Protestants object that human beings tend to become idolaters, including of relics. The solution to that is to reform hearts and transform souls by the power of God, prayer, grace, and conversion of heart. The answer is not to eliminate every practice — including relics — that might lead to idolatry in such people. Lots of people make the Bible an idol, or find doctrines in it that simply aren’t there. Does that mean we get rid of the Bible, which arguably “caused” all the false doctrines floating around? No, we correct and educate such people and push them in the right direction.

It’s no different in Protestantism. Sola fide (faith alone) is sadly all too often corrupted into antinomianism. Love of the Bible becomes bibliolatry or a radical Bible Alone position. Private judgment devolves into rampant sectarianism and denominationalism. The various denominations don’t teach these things, but they are rampant “on the ground”: just as Protestants complain about Catholicism and relics. We don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. We reform the practice and foster a right understanding of the essential meaning underneath and behind it.

As often as in the Old or New Testament the examples of the dead are commemorated, their bodies are said to have been committed to the earth without any ostentation or religious veneration. Thus dying Jacob and Joseph ordered their bones to be carried out of Egypt to Canaan that they might rest with their fathers; but nowhere do we read that they were adored or kissed, nor were they placed in a tabernacle or carried about in processions or placed upon altars (all which are constantly practiced in the Roman church). 

That’s right. But we do read about God commanding manna (a second-class relic of God Himself, so to speak) to be kept:

Exodus 16:32-34 And Moses said, “This is what the LORD has commanded: `Let an omer of it be kept throughout your generations, that they may see the bread with which I fed you in the wilderness, when I brought you out of the land of Egypt.’” [33] And Moses said to Aaron, “Take a jar, and put an omer of manna in it, and place it before the LORD, to be kept throughout your generations.” [34] As the LORD commanded Moses, so Aaron placed it before the testimony, to be kept.

Why? What was the purpose? Why wasn’t the written biblical record enough? Why did God also command Moses to keep Aaron’s staff (Num 17:10), to also be kept in the ark? That was a second-class relic of Aaron. Both, along with the tablets of the Ten Commandments (a second-class relic of Moses, and written by the finger of God: Ex 31:18; Deut 4:13; 10:1-4), were kept in the ark of the covenant (Deut 10:2, 5; Heb 9:4), which we have seen was regarded as a great aid in prayer, praise, petitions to God, and the holiest item in the Jewish religion, just as the Wailing Wall is today, because it was connected with the temple; and they pray there as a result and believe that the prayers will be especially efficacious. I was honored and privileged to do the same.

Imagine, all of this is in the Bible, and yet the learned Turretin, blissfully ignorant, stupidly asserts: “Scripture has sanctioned such worship [what we say is, rather, veneration] nowhere either by command or promise or example.” 

And how could the Israelites be induced to kiss or carry about relics when (according to the law of Moses) he was considered polluted who had only touched a corpse.

Well, Turretin needs to answer this himself, since God commanded the Israelites to carry around and venerate His own relics; things directed connected with and caused by Him (manna that He sent — Ex 16:29; Deut 8:3, 16; Ps 78:24; Jn 6:31 —  and the tablets of the Ten Commandments that He wrote on).

God himself is said to have buried and concealed the body of Moses (Dt. 34:6) in order that the Israelites might not abuse the relics of so great a man to idolatry. 

Really? Who “said” this? It’s not in the Bible that I can find. If not, it’s merely a bald unsubstantiated surmise or speculation of Turretin, that has no authority and is irrelevant to the present dispute. But I am making biblical arguments, not just pulling thoughts out of a hat like a rabbit. But assume for a moment that God did do it for that reason. Why, then, wouldn’t He do that with anyone else? Joseph’s and Jacob’s bones were carried from Egypt. Why didn’t God take them and bury them secretly, for the same supposed reason that Turretin makes a wild guess about? King David was buried, so was Rachel. I visited their tombs in Israel. We know where Abraham was buried (in Hebron). Their bones could have been improperly venerated (from the Protestant perspective), just as Moses’ bones may have been.

It is very consistent with this that there was no other cause of the contest between Michael and Satan (mentioned in Jd. 9) than that Satan
wished to draw forth the dead body of Moses, which Michael wished to conceal and keep hidden.

More groundless thoughts of Turretin’s overactive imagination . . . Jude 9 no more supports his interpretation than Deuteronomy 34:6 does. Neither says a single thing about this supposed reason of God’s.

Christ rebukes “the Pharisees and scribes, hypocrites, because ye build tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous”
(Mt. 23:29) in the meantime despising their doctrines. No less are they to be censured who worship and venerate their dead bodies lying in sepulchers. 

This is a truly dumb and clueless argument. Context plainly proves that this statement from Jesus had nothing whatsoever to do with relics. It had an entirely different target and meaning:

Matthew 23:29-32 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, [30] saying, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ [31] Thus you witness against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. [32] Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers.

It’s nothing new for anti-Catholics to utterly ignore even the immediate context of a Bible passage, in their rush to mock and “disprove” Catholicism. It happens all the time. This is an absolutely classic example of it.

The miracle divinely performed at the bones of Elisha (2 K. 13:21) confirmed the faith of his preceding prophecy concerning the coming
irruption of the Moabites, but does not favor the religious worship of his body. 

The miracles shows that the presuppositional Catholic principle is correct: holy things, including the bodies of holy people, carry spiritual and potentially miraculous power. From this it follows that they can and should be venerated, the basis of which has already been abundantly shown above. All Turretin has are his own hostile man-made traditions, which are neither biblical nor in accord with the development of the doctrine throughout Church history.

*

*****

*

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

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

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

*

***

Photo credit: Elisha dividing the waters of Jordan with Elijah’s mantle, by Jean-Baptiste Despax (1710-1773) [Wikimedia Commons /  Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license]

Summary: As part of my series of replies to Calvinist expositor Francois Turretin, I address the communion of saints, particularly  relics, which are quite biblically based.

 

December 10, 2023

Chapter 10 (pp. 305-349) of my book, Bible Truths for Catholic Truths: A Source Book for Apologists and Inquirers (Manchester, New Hampshire: Sophia Institute Press, 2009); the paperback is now out-of-print. This book could also be known as Dave’s Topical Bible, and contains 2,051 Bible passages, categorized under 115 thematic headings. I am now offering it online for free.
*
In these blog posts I use — for readers’ convenience — the original RSV of the manuscript (© 1971 by Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America), rather than KJV, which was mostly used in the paperback, due to copyright law. This book is all Bible, except for a few (indented) clarifying comments here and there. Subtitles sometimes differ from the published version. They are my own original titles.

*****

“VAIN REPETITION” CHARGE (MASS, ROSARY, ETC.) / FORMAL, “LITURGICAL”  WORSHIP 

Psalm 136:1-5 O give thanks to the LORD, for he is good, for his steadfast love endures for ever. [2] O give thanks to the God of gods, for his steadfast love endures for ever. [3] O give thanks to the Lord of lords, for his steadfast love endures for ever; [4] to him who alone does great wonders, for his steadfast love endures for ever; [5] to him who by understanding made the heavens, for his steadfast love endures for ever;

The same exact phrase is repeated in 26 straight verses, for the entire Psalm. Obviously, then, God is not opposed to all repetition whatsoever. Repetition is a device used throughout the Psalms and also in Proverbs and the prophets. For example, in Psalm 29 “voice of the Lord” is repeated seven times in as many verses. “Thou hast” is repeated in six straight verses in Psalm 44:9-14.

Instructions concerning the Mosaic Law in the first five books are extremely repetitious. Elaborate, painstaking Instructions for the ark of the covenant (Ex 25:1-22), the tabernacle (Ex 25:23-40; chapters 26-27), and the Temple (1 Kings, chapters 6-7) illustrate the highly ritualistic nature of Hebrew worship (see also Leviticus 23:37-38 and 24:5-8). The four gospels often repeat each other’s sayings. Many other examples could be cited.

Matthew 6:7 And in praying do not heap up empty phrases [KJV: “vain repetitions”] as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard for their many words.

Jesus is discussing “empty phrases”. The Greek battalogeo here means “to repeat idly,” or “meaningless and mechanically repeated phrases.” So the Lord is condemning prayers uttered without the proper reverence or respect for God.

Revelation 4:8 And the four living creatures, each of them with six wings, are full of eyes all round and within, and day and night they never cease to sing, “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come!”

God is concerned with the inner dispositions and righteousness of the worshiper, and adherence to His commands (e.g., Is 56:6-7; Jer 17:24-26; Mal 1:11), not with outward appearance or how often something is repeated (which is contradicted by Psalm 136 and the passage above). This is a common theme in Scripture, and is seen in the following passages:

Isaiah 1:13-17 Bring no more vain offerings; incense is an abomination to me. New moon and sabbath and the calling of assemblies — I cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hates; they have become a burden to me, I am weary of bearing them. When you spread forth your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood. Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your doings from before my eyes; cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; defend the fatherless, plead for the widow.

Jeremiah 6:19-20 Hear, O earth; behold, I am bringing evil upon this people, the fruit of their devices, because they have not given heed to my words; and as for my law, they have rejected it. To what purpose does frankincense come to me from Sheba, or sweet cane from a distant land? Your burnt offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices pleasing to me.

Amos 5:11-14, 21-24: Therefore because you trample upon the poor and take from him exactions of wheat, you have built houses of hewn stone, but you shall not dwell in them; you have planted pleasant vineyards, but you shall not drink their wine. For I know how many are your transgressions, and how great are your sins — you who afflict the righteous, who take a bribe, and turn aside the needy in the gate. Therefore he who is prudent will keep silent in such a time; for it is an evil time. Seek good, and not evil, that you may live; and so the LORD, the God of hosts, will be with you, as you have said . . . I hate, I despise your feasts, and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies. Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and cereal offerings, I will not accept them, and the peace offerings of your fatted beasts I will not look upon. Take away from me the noise of your songs; to the melody of your harps I will not listen. But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream. (cf. Prov 15:8; 21:27; Mal 1:6-14)

Matthew 15:7-9 You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.” (cf. Mk 7:6-7)

Matthew 23:23 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.

James 1:26-27: If any one thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this man’s religion is vain. Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.

Ritualistic, formal worship of God is described as taking place in heaven (Rev 4:8-11; 5:8-14), complete with repetitious prayer (Rev 4:8 above), and repeated chants or hymns (4:11, 5:9-10).

HOLY WATER

Exodus 23:25 You shall serve the LORD your God, and I will bless your bread and your water; and I will take sickness away from the midst of you.

Numbers 5:17 and the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel, and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water.

Numbers 19:9, 13-20 And a man who is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer, and deposit them outside the camp in a clean place; and they shall be kept for the congregation of the people of Israel for the water for impurity, for the removal of sin. . . . Whoever touches a dead person, the body of any man who has died, and does not cleanse himself, defiles the tabernacle of the LORD, and that person shall be cut off from Israel; because the water for impurity was not thrown upon him, he shall be unclean; his uncleanness is still on him. This is the law when a man dies in a tent: every one who comes into the tent, and every one who is in the tent, shall be unclean seven days. And every open vessel, which has no cover fastened upon it, is unclean. . . . Whoever in the open field touches one who is slain with a sword, or a dead body, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days. For the unclean they shall take some ashes of the burnt sin offering, and running water shall be added in a vessel; then a clean person shall take hyssop, and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it upon the tent, and upon all the furnishings, and upon the persons who were there, and upon him who touched the bone, or the slain, or the dead, or the grave; and the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean on the third day and on the seventh day; thus on the seventh day he shall cleanse him, and he shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water, and at evening he shall be clean. But the man who is unclean and does not cleanse himself, that person shall be cut off from the midst of the assembly, since he has defiled the sanctuary of the LORD; because the water for impurity has not been thrown upon him, he is unclean.  

2 Kings 2:19-22 Now the men of the city said to Eli’sha, “Behold, the situation of this city is pleasant, as my lord sees; but the water is bad, and the land is unfruitful.” He said, “Bring me a new bowl, and put salt in it.” So they brought it to him.
Then he went to the spring of water and threw salt in it, and said, “Thus says the LORD, I have made this water wholesome; henceforth neither death nor miscarriage shall come from it.” So the water has been wholesome to this day, according to the word which Eli’sha spoke.

2 Kings 5:13-14 But his servants came near and said to him, “My father, if the prophet had commanded you to do some great thing, would you not have done it? How much rather, then, when he says to you, ‘Wash, and be clean’?” So he went down and dipped himself seven times in the Jordan, according to the word of the man of God; and his flesh was restored like the flesh of a little child, and he was clean.  

John 9:6-7 As he said this, he spat on the ground and made clay of the spittle and anointed the man’s eyes with the clay, saying to him, “Go, wash in the pool of Silo’am” (which means Sent). So he went and washed and came back seeing.

Water in Scripture is utilized for cleansing (Lev 14:8-9, 50-52; 15:5-27; 17:15; Num 8:7; 19:12, 18-19; 2 Ki 5:12; Ps 51:7; Ezek 16:4; 36:25) and purifying (Ex 29:4; 40:12, 30-32; Lev 11:32; 16:4, 24, 26, 28; 22:6; Num 19:7-8; 31:23; Deut 23:10-11; 1 Ki 18:33-34; Jn 2:6; Heb 9:19).

CANDLES AND INCENSE

Incense or burning sacrifices, as an image of prayer or offering, along with the metaphorical smelling of the offering by God, is a common biblical motif:

Genesis 8:20-21 Then Noah built an altar to the LORD, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And when the LORD smelled the pleasing odor, the LORD said in his heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; neither will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done.”

Leviticus 2:9 And the priest shall take from the cereal offering its memorial portion and burn this on the altar, an offering by fire, a pleasing odor to the LORD.

Leviticus 6:15, 21 And one shall take from it a handful of the fine flour of the cereal offering with its oil and all the frankincense which is on the cereal offering, and burn this as its memorial portion on the altar, a pleasing odor to the LORD. . . . It shall be made with oil on a griddle; you shall bring it well mixed, in baked pieces like a cereal offering, and offer it for a pleasing odor to the LORD.

Psalm 141:2 Let my prayer be counted as incense before thee, and the lifting up of my hands as an evening sacrifice!

Luke 1:9-10 according to the custom of the priesthood, it fell to him by lot to enter the temple of the Lord and burn incense. And the whole multitude of the people were praying outside at the hour of incense.

Revelation 5:8 And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints;

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 Bible even uses the symbolism of fragrance for the gospel, Jesus’ redemptive sacrifice on the cross, and charitable giving:

2 Corinthians 2:14 But thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumph, and through us spreads the fragrance of the knowledge of him everywhere.

Ephesians 5:2 And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

Philippians 4:18 I have received full payment, and more; I am filled, having received from Epaphrodi’tus the gifts you sent, a fragrant offering, a sacrifice acceptable and pleasing to God.

Explicit evidence for candles in the Bible is seen in the form of “lamps”. The classic form of this is the menorah, or seven-branched lampstand, which has often been used as a symbol of Judaism. The King James Bible often uses candle or candlestick in these passages and others (as did the American Standard Version of 1901). But the Greek lychnos and lychnia describe (technically) oil lamps, not candles per se (made of wax: as we know them today). These were containers filled with olive oil, with a wick of flax or hemp.

Exodus 25:31-38 And you shall make a lampstand of pure gold. The base and the shaft of the lampstand shall be made of hammered work; its cups, its capitals, and its flowers shall be of one piece with it; and there shall be six branches going out of its sides, three branches of the lampstand out of one side of it and three branches of the lampstand out of the other side of it; three cups made like almonds, each with capital and flower, on one branch, and three cups made like almonds, each with capital and flower, on the other branch — so for the six branches going out of the lampstand; and on the lampstand itself four cups made like almonds, with their capitals and flowers, and a capital of one piece with it under each pair of the six branches going out from the lampstand. Their capitals and their branches shall be of one piece with it, the whole of it one piece of hammered work of pure gold. And you shall make the seven lamps for it; and the lamps shall be set up so as to give light upon the space in front of it. Its snuffers and their trays shall be of pure gold. (cf. 26:35; Num 3:31; 4:9; 8:2-4; 1 Sam 3:3; 1 Ki 7:49; 1 Chron 28:15; 2 Chron 4:7,20-21; Jer 52:19; Zech 4:2, 11)

Exodus 27:19-20 All the utensils of the tabernacle for every use, and all its pegs and all the pegs of the court, shall be of bronze. And you shall command the people of Israel that they bring to you pure beaten olive oil for the light, that a lamp may be set up to burn continually. (cf. Lev 24:2-4)

Exodus 30:7-8 And Aaron shall burn fragrant incense on it; every morning when he dresses the lamps he shall burn it, and when Aaron sets up the lamps in the evening, he shall burn it, a perpetual incense before the LORD throughout your generations. (cf. 30:27; 31:8; 35:14; 37:17-23; 39:37; 40:4)

Exodus 40:24-25 And he put the lampstand in the tent of meeting, opposite the table on the south side of the tabernacle, and set up the lamps before the LORD; as the LORD had commanded Moses.

2 Chronicles 13:11 They offer to the LORD every morning and every evening burnt offerings and incense of sweet spices, set out the showbread on the table of pure gold, and care for the golden lampstand that its lamps may burn every evening; for we keep the charge of the LORD our God, but you have forsaken him.

2 Chronicles 29:7 They also shut the doors of the vestibule and put out the lamps, and have not burned incense or offered burnt offerings in the holy place to the God of Israel.

1 Maccabees 4:49-50 They made new holy vessels, and brought the lampstand, the altar of incense, and the table into the temple. Then they burned incense on the altar and lighted the lamps on the lampstand, and these gave light in the temple.

2 Maccabees 10:3 They purified the sanctuary, and made another altar of sacrifice; then, striking fire out of flint, they offered sacrifices, after a lapse of two years, and they burned incense and lighted lamps and set out the bread of the Presence.

Hebrews 9:2 For a tent was prepared, the outer one, in which were the lampstand and the table and the bread of the Presence; it is called the Holy Place.

Revelation 1:12-13, 20 Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands, and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden girdle round his breast; . . . As for the mystery of the seven stars which you saw in my right hand, and the seven golden lampstands, the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.

Revelation 2:1, 5 To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: “The words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand, who walks among the seven golden lampstands. . . . Remember then from what you have fallen, repent and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.”

Revelation 4:5 From the throne issue flashes of lightning, and voices and peals of thunder, and before the throne burn seven torches of fire, which are the seven spirits of God;

FASTING AND ABSTINENCE  AND LENT (50 PASSAGES) 

Exodus 24:18 And Moses entered the cloud, and went up on the mountain. And Moses was on the mountain forty days and forty nights.

Exodus 34:28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he neither ate bread nor drank water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.

Leviticus 10:9 Drink no wine nor strong drink, you nor your sons with you, when you go into the tent of meeting, lest you die; it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations.

Numbers 6:1-4
And the LORD said to Moses, “Say to the people of Israel, When either a man or a woman makes a special vow, the vow of a Nazirite, to separate himself to the LORD, he shall separate himself from wine and strong drink; he shall drink no vinegar made from wine or strong drink, and shall not drink any juice of grapes or eat grapes, fresh or dried. All the days of his separation he shall eat nothing that is produced by the grapevine, not even the seeds or the skins.”

Deuteronomy 9:9 When I went up the mountain to receive the tables of stone, the tables of the covenant which the LORD made with you, I remained on the mountain forty days and forty nights; I neither ate bread nor drank water.

Deuteronomy 9:25 So I lay prostrate before the LORD for these forty days and forty nights, because the LORD had said he would destroy you.

Deuteronomy 29:5-6 I have led you forty years in the wilderness; your clothes have not worn out upon you, and your sandals have not worn off your feet; you have not eaten bread, and you have not drunk wine or strong drink; that you may know that I am the LORD your God.

Judges 13:3-5 And the angel of the LORD appeared to the woman and said to her, “Behold, you are barren and have no children; but you shall conceive and bear a son [Samson]. Therefore beware, and drink no wine or strong drink, and eat nothing unclean, for lo, you shall conceive and bear a son. No razor shall come upon his head, for the boy shall be a Nazirite to God from birth; and he shall begin to deliver Israel from the hand of the Philistines.” (cf. 13:14)

1 Samuel 1:15 But Hannah answered, “No, my lord, I am a woman sorely troubled; I have drunk neither wine nor strong drink, but I have been pouring out my soul before the LORD.

1 Samuel 31:13 And they took their bones and buried them under the tamarisk tree in Jabesh, and fasted seven days.

2 Samuel 1:12 and they mourned and wept and fasted until evening for Saul and for Jonathan his son and for the people of the LORD and for the house of Israel, because they had fallen by the sword.

2 Samuel 12:16 David therefore besought God for the child; and David fasted, and went in and lay all night upon the ground. (cf. 12:21-23)

1 Kings 19:8 And he [Elijah] arose, and ate and drank, and went in the strength of that food forty days and forty nights to Horeb the mount of God.

1 Chronicles 10:12 And they buried their bones under the oak in Jabesh, and fasted seven days.

2 Chronicles 20:3 Then Jehosh’aphat feared, and set himself to seek the LORD, and proclaimed a fast throughout all Judah.

Ezra 8:21, 23 Then I proclaimed a fast there, at the river Aha’va, that we might humble ourselves before our God, to seek from him a straight way for ourselves, our children, and all our goods. . . . So we fasted and besought our God for this, and he listened to our entreaty. (cf. 9:5)

Nehemiah 1:4 When I heard these words I sat down and wept, and mourned for days; and I continued fasting and praying before the God of heaven.

Nehemiah 9:1 Now on the twenty-fourth day of this month the people of Israel were assembled with fasting and in sackcloth, and with earth upon their heads.

Esther 4:3 And in every province, wherever the king’s command and his decree came, there was great mourning among the Jews, with fasting and weeping and lamenting, and most of them lay in sackcloth and ashes.

Esther 4:16 Go, gather all the Jews to be found in Susa, and hold a fast on my behalf, and neither eat nor drink for three days, night or day. I and my maids will also fast as you do. Then I will go to the king, though it is against the law; and if I perish, I perish.

Esther 9:31 that these days of Purim should be observed at their appointed seasons, as Mor’decai the Jew and Queen Esther enjoined upon the Jews, and as they had laid down for themselves and for their descendants, with regard to their fasts and their lamenting.

Psalm 35:13 But I, when they were sick — I wore sackcloth, I afflicted myself with fasting. I prayed with head bowed on my bosom,

Psalm 69:10 . . . I humbled my soul with fasting, . . .

Psalm 109:24 My knees are weak through fasting; my body has become gaunt.

Jeremiah 36:9 In the fifth year of Jehoi’akim the son of Josi’ah, king of Judah, in the ninth month, all the people in Jerusalem and all the people who came from the cities of Judah to Jerusalem proclaimed a fast before the LORD.

Ezekiel 4:4-12 Then lie upon your left side, and I will lay the punishment of the house of Israel upon you; for the number of the days that you lie upon it, you shall bear their punishment. For I assign to you a number of days, three hundred and ninety days, equal to the number of the years of their punishment; so long shall you bear the punishment of the house of Israel. And when you have completed these, you shall lie down a second time, but on your right side, and bear the punishment of the house of Judah; forty days I assign you, a day for each year. And you shall set your face toward the siege of Jerusalem, with your arm bared; and you shall prophesy against the city. And, behold, I will put cords upon you, so that you cannot turn from one side to the other, till you have completed the days of your siege. And you, take wheat and barley, beans and lentils, millet and spelt, and put them into a single vessel, and make bread of them. During the number of days that you lie upon your side, three hundred and ninety days, you shall eat it. And the food which you eat shall be by weight, twenty shekels a day; once a day you shall eat it. And water you shall drink by measure, the sixth part of a hin; once a day you shall drink. And you shall eat it as a barley cake, baking it in their sight on human dung.

Daniel 6:18 Then the king went to his palace, and spent the night fasting; no diversions were brought to him, and sleep fled from him.

Daniel 9:3 Then I turned my face to the Lord God, seeking him by prayer and supplications with fasting and sackcloth and ashes.

Joel 1:14 Sanctify a fast, call a solemn assembly. . . . (cf. 2:15)

Joel 2:12 “Yet even now,” says the LORD, “return to me with all your heart, with fasting, with weeping, and with mourning;”

Jonah 3:5 And the people of Nin’eveh believed God; they proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them to the least of them.

Zechariah 8:19 Thus says the LORD of hosts: The fast of the fourth month, and the fast of the fifth, and the fast of the seventh, and the fast of the tenth, shall be to the house of Judah seasons of joy and gladness, and cheerful feasts; therefore love truth and peace. (cf. 7:3, 5)

Tobit 12:8 Prayer is good when accompanied by fasting, almsgiving, and righteousness. A little with righteousness is better than much with wrongdoing. It is better to give alms than to treasure up gold.

Judith 4:9, 13 And every man of Israel cried out to God with great fervor, and they humbled themselves with much fasting. . . . So the Lord heard their prayers and looked upon their affliction; for the people fasted many days throughout Judea and in Jerusalem before the sanctuary of the Lord Almighty.

Judith 8:6 She fasted all the days of her widowhood, except the day before the sabbath and the sabbath itself, the day before the new moon and the day of the new moon, and the feasts and days of rejoicing of the house of Israel.

Sirach 34:26 So if a man fasts for his sins, and goes again and does the same things, who will listen to his prayer? And what has he gained by humbling himself?

2 Maccabees 13:12 . . . they . . . besought the merciful Lord with weeping and fasting and lying prostrate for three days without ceasing,. . . (cf, 1 Macc 3:47; Baruch 1:5)

Matthew 4:2 And he [Jesus] fasted forty days and forty nights, and afterward he was hungry.

Matthew 6:16-18 And when you fast, do not look dismal, like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces that their fasting may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, that your fasting may not be seen by men but by your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

Matthew 9:14-15
Then the disciples of John came to him, saying, “Why do we and the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?” And Jesus said to them, “Can the wedding guests mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them? The days will come, when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast.” (cf. Mk 2:18-20; Lk 5:33-35; 18:12)

Luke 2:37 . . . She did not depart from the temple, worshiping with fasting and prayer night and day.

Luke 7:33 For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine; and you say, “He has a demon.” (cf. Mt 11:18; Lk 1:15)

Acts 13:2-3 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off.

Acts 14:23 And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they believed.

Acts 15:20 . . . abstain from the pollutions of idols and from unchastity and from what is strangled and from blood.

Acts 15:29 . . . abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. . . . (cf. 21:25)

Romans 14:3 Let not him who eats despise him who abstains, and let not him who abstains pass judgment on him who eats; for God has welcomed him.

Romans 14:6 He who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. He also who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God; while he who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.

Romans 14:15, 21 If your brother is being injured by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. Do not let what you eat cause the ruin of one for whom Christ died. . . . it is right not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that makes your brother stumble.

1 Corinthians 8:13 Therefore, if food is a cause of my brother’s falling, I will never eat meat, lest I cause my brother to fall. (cf. 2 Cor 6:4-5; 11:27)

The forty days of Lenten observance have several forty day parallels in Scripture (all listed above): Moses’ fasts on the the holy mountain (Ex 24:18; 34:28; Deut 9:9) and his intercession for Israel (Deut 9:25), Elijah’s journey to Mt. Horeb (1 Ki 19:8), Ezekiel’s lying on one side (Ezek 4:6), and Christ’s fast in the wilderness (Mt 4:2).

ASHES ON ASH WEDNESDAY 

Genesis 2:7 then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return.

Genesis 18:27 Abraham answered, “Behold, I have taken upon myself to speak to the Lord, I who am but dust and ashes.”

2 Samuel 13:19 And Tamar put ashes on her head, and rent the long robe which she wore; and she laid her hand on her head, and went away, crying aloud as she went.

Nehemiah 9:1 Now on the twenty-fourth day of this month the people of Israel were assembled with fasting and in sackcloth, and with earth upon their heads.

Esther 4:1, 3 When Mor’decai learned all that had been done, Mor’decai rent his clothes and put on sackcloth and ashes, and went out into the midst of the city, wailing with a loud and bitter cry; . . . And in every province, wherever the king’s command and his decree came, there was great mourning among the Jews, with fasting and weeping and lamenting, and most of them lay in sackcloth and ashes.

Job 2:8 And he took a potsherd with which to scrape himself, and sat among the ashes.

Job 34:15 all flesh would perish together, and man would return to dust.

Job 42:6 therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes.

Psalm 90:3 Thou turnest man back to the dust, . . .

Isaiah 58:5 Is such the fast that I choose, a day for a man to humble himself? Is it to bow down his head like a rush, and to spread sackcloth and ashes under him? Will you call this a fast, and a day acceptable to the LORD?

Jeremiah 6:26 O daughter of my people, gird on sackcloth, and roll in ashes; make mourning as for an only son, most bitter lamentation; for suddenly the destroyer will come upon us.

Jeremiah 25:34 Wail, you shepherds, and cry, and roll in ashes, . . .

Ezekiel 27:30 and wail aloud over you, and cry bitterly. They cast dust on their heads and wallow in ashes;

Daniel 9:3 Then I turned my face to the Lord God, seeking him by prayer and supplications with fasting and sackcloth and ashes.

Jonah 3:6 Then tidings reached the king of Nin’eveh, and he arose from his throne, removed his robe, and covered himself with sackcloth, and sat in ashes.

Judith 4:11, 15 And all the men and women of Israel, and their children, living at Jerusalem, prostrated themselves before the temple and put ashes on their heads and spread out their sackcloth before the Lord. . . . With ashes upon their turbans, they cried out to the Lord with all their might to look with favor upon the whole house of Israel.

Sirach 17:32 He marshals the host of the height of heaven; but all men are dust and ashes.

Sirach 40:3 from the man who sits on a splendid throne to the one who is humbled in dust and ashes, 

1 Maccabees 3:47 They fasted that day, put on sackcloth and sprinkled ashes on their heads, and rent their clothes. (cf. 4:39)

Matthew 11:21 Woe to you, Chora’zin! woe to you, Beth-sa’ida! for if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. (cf. Lk 10:13)

1 Corinthians 15:47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. (cf. 15:48-49)

Revelation 18:19 And they threw dust on their heads, as they wept and mourned, . . . 

EXAMINATION OF CONSCIENCE

1 Corinthians 9:24-27 Do you not know that in a race all the runners compete, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it. Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. Well, I do not run aimlessly, I do not box as one beating the air; but I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.

1 Corinthians 11:28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.

2 Corinthians 13:5 Examine yourselves, to see whether you are holding to your faith. Test yourselves. Do you not realize that Jesus Christ is in you? — unless indeed you fail to meet the test!

This sort of self-examination (usually prior to confession) is sometimes critiqued and scorned as “uncertainty of salvation,” as if it were a bondage or something undesirable, or altogether lacking in the hope and joy and peace that we have in Christ. It’s not that at all. St. Paul clearly had a robust confidence in God’s mercy and of the moral assurance of salvation. But he was also very aware of human sin and self-delusion.

The Greek word in 1 Corinthians 11:28 and 2 Corinthians 13:5 (“test” in the latter) is dokimazo. In KJV it is translated variously as examine, discern, prove, try, and approve. “Examine” in 2 Corinthians 13:5 is a different word: pirazo: usually translated as tempt or tempted. Dokimazo appears elsewhere in the New Testament in similar fashion:

Romans 12:2 Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

2 Corinthians 8:7-8 Now as you excel in everything — in faith, in utterance, in knowledge, in all earnestness, and in your love for us — see that you excel in this gracious work also. I say this not as a command, but to prove by the earnestness of others that your love also is genuine.

2 Corinthians 8:22 And with them we are sending our brother whom we have often tested and found earnest in many matters, but who is now more earnest than ever because of his great confidence in you.

Galatians 6:4 But let each one test his own work, and then his reason to boast will be in himself alone and not in his neighbor.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 but test everything; hold fast what is good,

1 Timothy 3:10 And let them also be tested first; then if they prove themselves blameless let them serve as deacons. 

ALMSGIVING: BEYOND MERELY TITHING 

Luke 3:11 And he answered them, “He who has two coats, let him share with him who has none; and he who has food, let him do likewise.”

Luke 19:8-9 And Zacchae’us stood and said to the Lord, “Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have defrauded any one of anything, I restore it fourfold.” And Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, since he also is a son of Abraham.”

Acts 2:44-45 And all who believed were together and had all things in common; and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need.

Acts 4:34-37 There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles’ feet; and distribution was made to each as any had need. Thus Joseph who was surnamed by the apostles Barnabas (which means, Son of encouragement), a Levite, a native of Cyprus, sold a field which belonged to him, and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet.

Acts 10:2 a devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms liberally to the people, and prayed constantly to God.

Acts 11:29 And the disciples determined, every one according to his ability, to send relief to the brethren who lived in Judea

Romans 12:8  he who exhorts, in his exhortation; he who contributes, in liberality; he who gives aid, with zeal; he who does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness.

1 Corinthians 16:1-2 Now concerning the contribution for the saints: as I directed the churches of Galatia, so you also are to do. On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that contributions need not be made when I come.

2 Corinthians 8:3-14 For they gave according to their means, as I can testify, and beyond their means, of their own free will, begging us earnestly for the favor of taking part in the relief of the saints — and this, not as we expected, but first they gave themselves to the Lord and to us by the will of God. Accordingly we have urged Titus that as he had already made a beginning, he should also complete among you this gracious work. Now as you excel in everything — in faith, in utterance, in knowledge, in all earnestness, and in your love for us — see that you excel in this gracious work also. I say this not as a command, but to prove by the earnestness of others that your love also is genuine. For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich. And in this matter I give my advice: it is best for you now to complete what a year ago you began not only to do but to desire, so that your readiness in desiring it may be matched by your completing it out of what you have. For if the readiness is there, it is acceptable according to what a man has, not according to what he has not. I do not mean that others should be eased and you burdened, but that as a matter of equality your abundance at the present time should supply their want, so that their abundance may supply your want, that there may be equality.

2 Corinthians 9:6-8 The point is this: he who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. Each one must do as he has made up his mind, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. And God is able to provide you with every blessing in abundance, so that you may always have enough of everything and may provide in abundance for every good work.

1 Timothy 6:17-18 As for the rich in this world, charge them not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on uncertain riches but on God who richly furnishes us with everything to enjoy. They are to do good, to be rich in good deeds, liberal and generous,

Hebrews 13:16 Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God.

GENUFLECTION AND KNEELING IN THE PRESENCE OF GOD

Genesis 18:1-2 And the LORD appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat at the door of his tent in the heat of the day. He lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, three men stood in front of him. When he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them, and bowed himself to the earth,

Genesis 24:52 When Abraham’s servant heard their words, he bowed himself to the earth before the LORD.

1 Kings 8:54 Now as Solomon finished offering all this prayer and supplication to the LORD, he arose from before the altar of the LORD, where he had knelt with hands outstretched toward heaven;

2 Chronicles 6:13 Solomon had made a bronze platform five cubits long, five cubits wide, and three cubits high, and had set it in the court; and he stood upon it. Then he knelt upon his knees in the presence of all the assembly of Israel, and spread forth his hands toward heaven; 

2 Chronicles 7:3 When all the children of Israel saw the fire come down and the glory of the LORD upon the temple, they bowed down with their faces to the earth on the pavement, and worshiped and gave thanks to the LORD, saying, “For he is good, for his steadfast love endures for ever.”

2 Chronicles 20:18 Then Jehosh’aphat bowed his head with his face to the ground, and all Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem fell down before the LORD, worshiping the LORD.

Ezra 9:5 And at the evening sacrifice I rose from my fasting, with my garments and my mantle rent, and fell upon my knees and spread out my hands to the LORD my God,

Nehemiah 8:6 And Ezra blessed the LORD, the great God; and all the people answered, “Amen, Amen,” lifting up their hands; and they bowed their heads and worshiped the LORD with their faces to the ground.

Psalm 95:6 O come, let us worship and bow down, let us kneel before the LORD, our Maker!

Ezekiel 11:13 And it came to pass, while I was prophesying, that Pelati’ah the son of Benai’ah died. Then I fell down upon my face, and cried with a loud voice, and said, “Ah Lord GOD! wilt thou make a full end of the remnant of Israel?”

Daniel 6:10 When Daniel knew that the document had been signed, he went to his house where he had windows in his upper chamber open toward Jerusalem; and he got down upon his knees three times a day and prayed and gave thanks before his God, as he had done previously.

Judith 13:17 All the people were greatly astonished, and bowed down and worshiped God, and said with one accord, “Blessed art thou, our God, who hast brought into contempt this day the enemies of thy people.”

Sirach 50:17 Then all the people together made haste and fell to the ground upon their faces to worship their Lord, the Almighty, God Most High.

2 Maccabees 3:15 The priests prostrated themselves before the altar in their priestly garments and called toward heaven upon him who had given the law about deposits, that he should keep them safe for those who had deposited them.

2 Maccabees 10:4 And when they had done this, they fell prostrate and besought the Lord that they might never again fall into such misfortunes, . . . 

Matthew 2:11 and going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh.

Matthew 8:2 and behold, a leper came to him and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, if you will, you can make me clean.”

Matthew 9:18 While he was thus speaking to them, behold, a ruler came in and knelt before him, saying, “My daughter has just died; but come and lay your hand on her, and she will live.”

Matthew 15:25 But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.”

Matthew 28:9 And behold, Jesus met them and said, “Hail!” And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him.

Mark 1:40 And a leper came to him beseeching him, and kneeling said to him, “If you will, you can make me clean.”

Romans 14:11 for it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall give praise to God.”

Ephesians 3:14 For this reason I bow my knees before the Father,

Philippians 2:10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

Revelation 1:17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand upon me, saying, “Fear not, I am the first and the last,”

Revelation 5:14 And the four living creatures said, “Amen!” and the elders fell down and worshiped. 

Revelation 7:11 And all the angels stood round the throne and round the elders and the four living creatures, and they fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God,

Revelation 11:16 And the twenty-four elders who sit on their thrones before God fell on their faces and worshiped God,

Revelation 19:4 And the twenty-four elders and the four living creatures fell down and worshiped God who is seated on the throne, saying, “Amen. Hallelujah!”

PRIESTLY BLESSINGS

Exodus 39:43 And Moses saw all the work, and behold, they had done it; as the LORD had commanded, so had they done it. And Moses blessed them. (cf. Gen 27:28-30; 28:1-6; 31:55; 47:7, 10; 48:14-20; 49:26, 28; Num 24:10; 2 Sam 19:39)

Leviticus 9:22-23 Then Aaron lifted up his hands toward the people and blessed them; and he came down from offering the sin offering and the burnt offering and the peace offerings. And Moses and Aaron went into the tent of meeting; and when they came out they blessed the people, and the glory of the LORD appeared to all the people.

Deuteronomy 33:1 This is the blessing with which Moses the man of God blessed the children of Israel before his death. (cf. 33:13, 20, 24)

Joshua 14:13 Then Joshua blessed him; and he gave Hebron to Caleb the son of Jephun’neh for an inheritance. (cf. 22:6-7)

1 Kings 8:14 Then the king faced about, and blessed all the assembly of Israel, while all the assembly of Israel stood. (cf. 8:55)

1 Chronicles 16:2 And when David had finished offering the burnt offerings and the peace offerings, he blessed the people in the name of the LORD,

2 Chronicles 6:3 Then the king faced about, and blessed all the assembly of Israel, while all the assembly of Israel stood.

2 Chronicles 30:27 Then the priests and the Levites arose and blessed the people, and their voice was heard, and their prayer came to his holy habitation in heaven.

Sirach 3:9 For a father’s blessing strengthens the houses of the children, but a mother’s curse uproots their foundations.

Sirach 36:17 Hearken, O Lord, to the prayer of thy servants, according to the blessing of Aaron for thy people, . . . 

Sirach 50:19-21 And the people besought the Lord Most High in prayer before him who is merciful, till the order of worship of the Lord was ended; so they completed his service. Then Simon came down, and lifted up his hands over the whole congregation of the sons of Israel, to pronounce the blessing of the Lord with his lips, and to glory in his name; and they bowed down in worship a second time, to receive the blessing from the Most High.

Luke 24:50-51 Then he led them out as far as Bethany, and lifting up his hands he blessed them. While he blessed them, he parted from them, and was carried up into heaven.

Romans 4:6 So also David pronounces a blessing upon the man to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works: (cf. 4:9; Acts 13:34)

Hebrews 7:1 For this Melchiz’edek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him;

Hebrews 11:20-21 By faith Isaac invoked future blessings on Jacob and Esau. By faith Jacob, when dying, blessed each of the sons of Joseph, bowing in worship over the head of his staff.

Hebrews 12:17 For you know that afterward, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no chance to repent, though he sought it with tears.

RELICS 

Exodus 29:37 Seven days you shall make atonement for the altar, and consecrate it, and the altar shall be most holy; whatever touches the altar shall become holy.

Exodus 30:28-29 . . . the altar of burnt offering with all its utensils and the laver and its base; you shall consecrate them, that they may be most holy; whatever touches them will become holy.

Leviticus 6:27 Whatever touches its flesh shall be holy; . . . (cf. 6:18)

2 Kings 2:11-14 And as they still went on and talked, behold, a chariot of fire and horses of fire separated the two of them. And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. And Elisha saw it and he cried, ‘My father, my father! the chariots of Israel and its horsemen!’ And he saw him no more. Then he took hold of his own clothes and rent them in two pieces. And he took up the mantle of Elijah that had fallen from him, and went back and stood on the bank of the Jordan. Then he took the mantle of Elijah that had fallen from him, and struck the water, saying, ‘Where is the Lord, the God of Elijah?’ And when he had struck the water, the water was parted to the one side and to the other; and Elisha went over.

Elijah’s mantle is an example of a “second-class” relic: items that have power because they were connected with a holy person.

2 Kings 13:20-21 So Elisha died, and they buried him. Now bands of Moabites used to invade the land in the spring of the year. 21 And as a man was being buried, lo, a marauding band was seen and the man was cast into the grave of Elisha; and as soon as the man touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood on his feet.

The bones or relics of Elisha had so much supernatural power or “grace” in them that they could even cause a man to be raised from the dead. His bones were a “first-class” relic: from the person himself or herself.

Mark 5:25-30 And there was a woman who had had a flow of blood for twelve years, and who had suffered much under many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was no better but rather grew worse. She had heard the reports about Jesus, and came up behind him in the crowd and touched his garment. For she said, “If I touch even his garments, I shall be made well.” And immediately the hemorrhage ceased; and she felt in her body that she was healed of her disease. And Jesus, perceiving in himself that power had gone forth from him, immediately turned about in the crowd, and said, “Who touched my garments?”

Luke 8:43-48 And a woman who had had a flow of blood for twelve years and could not be healed by any one, came up behind him, and touched the fringe of his garment; and immediately her flow of blood ceased. And Jesus said, “Who was it that touched me?” When all denied it, Peter said, “Master, the multitudes surround you and press upon you!” But Jesus said, “Some one touched me; for I perceive that power has gone forth from me.” And when the woman saw that she was not hidden, she came trembling, and falling down before him declared in the presence of all the people why she had touched him, and how she had been immediately healed. And he said to her, “Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace.”

Jesus did say also that her faith was what made her well, but the point is that it was also with the aid of a physical object that was in contact with Jesus: as indicated precisely by its effect of causing “power” to go “forth from him.” God used the physical object for spiritual (and supernatural physical) purposes: a healing. We see it again, when Jesus heals the blind man:

John 9:6-7 As he said this, he spat on the ground and made clay of the spittle and anointed the man’s eyes with the clay, saying to him, “Go, wash in the pool of Silo’am” (which means Sent). So he went and washed and came back seeing.

Jesus could have simply declared him healed, with no material object used. But, interestingly enough, Jesus didn’t do that. He used a bodily fluid (his own), and also clay, or dirt, and then the water of the pool, and rubbed the man’s eyes, to effect the miracle (two liquids, solid matter, and physical anointing action of fingers). The Bible thus teaches that physical things related to a holy person in some fashion, can be instrumental in bringing about miracles. This is exactly how Catholics view relics.

Acts 5:15-16 . . . they even carried out the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and pallets, that as Peter came by at least his shadow might fall on some of them. [16] The people also gathered from the towns around Jerusalem, bringing the sick and those afflicted with unclean spirits, and they were all healed.

St. Peter’s shadow is another example of a “second-class” relic. Jesus’ garments and saliva are also in this category.

Acts 19:11-12 And God did extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that handkerchiefs or aprons were carried away from his body to the sick, and diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them. (cf. Mt 9:20-22)

This is a third-class relic: a thing that has merely touched a holy person or first-class relic (St. Paul’s handkerchiefs and aprons).

*

*****
*

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

Photo Credit: JoeJ10 (3-14-21); traditional use of incense in a Roman Catholic Mass, with a Thurible [Wikipedia / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license]

***

Summary: I provide the biblical basis for Catholic sacramentals, liturgy, devotions, Lent, relics, physical objects in worship, holy water, candles and incense, genuflection, etc.

December 7, 2023

Chapter 9 of my book (available for free online), Inspired!: 191 Supposed Biblical Contradictions Resolved. See the Introduction and ch. 1: How Do Atheists Define a “Biblical Contradiction”? All Bible passages RSV unless otherwise noted.

*****
  1. How could Jesus be killed on a Friday and rise from the dead on Sunday, when Matthew 12:40 states: “so will the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth”?

In Hebrew idiom, the phrase “one day and one night” meant a day, even when only a part of a day was indicated. We see this, for example, in 1 Samuel 30:12-13 (cf. Gen. 42:17-18). We know that Jesus was crucified on a Friday because Scripture tells us that the Sabbath (Saturday) as approaching (Matt. 27:62; Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54; John 19:31). The “day of preparation” is Friday, the day before the Sabbath: Saturday, and the Sabbath was considered to begin on sundown on Friday, as with Jews to this day. We also know from the biblical data that the discovery of his Resurrection was on a Sunday (Mark 16:1-2, 9; Matt. 28:1; Luke 24:1; John 20:1). And we know that “three days and three nights” (Matt. 12:40) is synonymous in the Hebrew mind and the Bible with “after three days” (Mark 8:31) and “on the third day” (Matt. 16:21; 1 Cor. 15:4). Most references to the Resurrection say that it happened on the third day. In John 2:19-22, Jesus said that he would be raised up in three days (not on the fourth day). It would be like saying, “This is the third day I’ve been working on painting this room.” I could have started painting late Friday and made this remark on early Sunday.

For both the ancient Jews (6 PM to 6 PM days) and Romans (who reckoned days from midnight to midnight), the way to refer to three separate 24-hour days (in whole or in part) was to say, “days and nights.” We speak similarly in English idiom – just without adding the “nights” part. For example, we will say that we are off for a long weekend vacation, of “three days of fun” (Friday through Sunday or Saturday through Monday). But it is understood that this is not three full 24-hour days. Chances are we will depart part way through the first day and return before the third day ends. For a Saturday through Monday vacation, then, if we leave at 8 AM on Saturday and return at 10 PM on Monday night, literally that is less than three full days (it would be two 24-hour days and 14 more hours: ten short of three full days). Yet we speak of a “three-day vacation” and that we returned “after three days” or “on the third day.” Such descriptions are casually understood as non-literal. The ancient Jews and Romans simply added the clause “and nights” to such utterances, but understood them in the same way, as referring to any part of a whole 24-hour day. Thus the supposed “problem” or so-called “biblical contradiction” vanishes.

  1. Was a great stone rolled in front of the tomb (Matt. 27:60; Mark 15:46), or was there no such stone (Luke 23:55; John 19:41)?

There was no stone yet in Luke 23:55 because this referred to the time when Jesus was placed in the tomb (see 23:53-54). When women went back two days later, they found the stone rolled away (24:1-2). John 19:41 simply doesn’t mention the stone, but in John 20:1 we learn that there was one, which was rolled away. Therefore, all four Gospels — taken together — note that the tomb had a stone in front of it, which was rolled away. This is not contradiction; rather, it’s complete harmony.

  1. Who witnessed this meeting (Matt. 27:62-66) when guards were sent to secure the tomb?

All it takes is one person, who communicated it to one or more of the evangelists or to oral traditions that helped formulate the Gospels. Two prime candidates were Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, both Pharisees and followers of, or sympathetic to Jesus. The meeting included “the Pharisees,” after all. Simply because we can’t determine this with certainty from the texts alone, doesn’t mean or logically follow that there were none, or that this person or persons could not have communicated it. All it would take is one person at the meeting who was a follower of Jesus, or later converted to Christianity. This is not at all implausible.

  1. Was a guard placed at Christ’s tomb the day after his burial (Matt. 27:65-66), or was there no guard (Mark 15:44-47; Luke 23:52-56; John 19:38-42)?

The argument from silence doesn’t prove anything, and saying nothing about a particular event can’t possibly be contradictory to statements about said event because it has no content. Mark, Luke, and John would have to state something like “no guard was ever placed at the tomb” for this to be a real contradiction. And of course, they do no such thing. Therefore, it’s yet another pseudo-, bogus “contradiction.” One would think that logic (like fresh air, cute puppies, and the joy of ice cream) is something where Christians and atheists could readily agree with each other. But sadly, that’s not the case: at least not in the “1001 biblical contradictions” sub-group of anti-theist atheists.

  1. Did the two Marys visit the tomb (Matt 28:1), or both Marys and Salome (Mark 16:1), or several women (Luke 24:10), or only Mary Magdalene (John 20:1)?

Matthew didn’t mention Salome. So what? That’s of no relevance. In light of Luke, we can conclude that several women (more than the two Marys) saw the empty tomb (though not necessarily the risen Jesus). None of this is inexorably contradictory. Mary Magdalene could have told these other women about the tomb and also the fact that she had seen the risen Jesus. This implies repeated trips to witness the empty tomb, which was easy because it was right outside of town. As for John, he may be describing an earlier, initial visit by Mary Magdalene alone: perhaps indicated by “while it was still dark.” Then she went again with others. The text never states that “only Mary” went to the tomb, or that “Mary alone and no other woman” did so. Those are the sorts of words that would be required for an actual contradiction to be present.  As it is, no contradiction has been established.

  1. Was it dawn when Mary went to the tomb (Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2) or dark (John 20:1)?

Quite obviously, Mary Magdalene made an earlier pre-dawn visit, which appears to be the very first visit. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure this out. Later on, several other women visited, along with her. But many skeptics seem to have the odd, inexplicable view that no one could have possibly visited Jesus’ tomb (where the greatest miracle in history had just occurred) more than once.

  1. Was the stone still in place when women visited Jesus’ tomb (Matt. 28:1-2), or had it already been removed (Mark 16:4; Luke 24:2; John 20:1)?

It is readily observed also that the women saw the stone already rolled away when they arrived, as reported in Mark 16:4, Luke 24:2, and John 20:1. So how does the believer in biblical inspiration explain away what seems at first glance to be a glaring contradiction in Matthew’s account? Well, as is often the case and necessity, one has to examine the Greek word(s) involved and also the tense. Matthew employs an aorist participle, translated in some English versions in the English past perfect tense. For example, Weymouth states that an angel “had come and rolled back the stone”; Young’s Literal Translation has “having come, did roll away the stone.” New American Standard Bible / Amplified Bible: “earthquake had occurred”; Williams: “Now there had been a great earthquake”; Wuest: “an angel of the Lord having descended out of heaven and having come . . .” It’s true that this is a minority of translations, but it’s significant, and shows that such a rendering is quite possible and permissible, according to the informed and educated judgment of these language scholars / translators. Moreover, the translations of Young, Wuest, and the Amplified Bible were specifically designed to bring out the precise and exact meaning of the Greek, including the sense of tense.

  1. Was an angel sitting on the stone at the entrance of the tomb (Matt. 28:2) or was a man sitting inside the tomb (Mark 16:5)?

There were two angels (they are often called “men” in Holy Scripture) or more present in or near the tomb: as specifically affirmed in Luke 24:3-4 and John 20:12. Or Matthew was referring to the specific time when the stone was actually rolled away. As explained over and over in this book, different accounts do not contradict unless they explicitly rule out any other event than what they describe. In this instance, there could have been one angel inside the tomb, and later, two; the same for outside the tomb, or one angel could be seen in the tomb and a second hidden from the observer, etc. Any number of scenarios are logically possible, and logical inconsistency cannot be proven.

  1. Did the eyewitnesses of the risen Jesus run to tell the disciples (Matt. 28:8), or tell the eleven and all the rest (Luke 24:9), or say nothing to anyone (Mark 16:8)?

Matthew and Luke are non-contradictory.  The third statement is a well-known atheist canard, but it presupposes that Mark ends with that verse. It does not. It continues on to verse 20. Mark 16:9-20 is a disputed text among many Christians. That discussion is too complex and involved to delve into here, but if one accepts the arguments for the canonicity of Mark 16:9-20, then it’s consistent with the other Gospels and doesn’t contradict them. Even the words “they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid” (16:8) suggested only a temporary state, out of initial fear.

  1. Could Jesus be touched after his Resurrection (Matt. 28:9; Luke 24:39) or not (John 20:17)?

John 20:17 in KJV, which this particular atheist skeptic utilizes, has the phrase “Touch me not”. But that’s an unfortunate translation. RSV has “Do not hold me.” Baptist linguist A. T. Robertson, in his volume, Word Pictures in the New Testament (1930) explains it:

Touch me not (mh mou aptou). Present middle imperative in prohibition with genitive case, meaning “cease clinging to me” rather than “Do not touch me.” Jesus allowed the women to take hold of his feet (ekrathsan) and worship (prosekunhsan) as we read in Matthew 28:9.

Hence, almost all modern English translations have “hold” or “cling” or suchlike. And with this clarification, the supposed contradiction vanishes.

  1. How does Matthew 28:10 not contradict Luke 24:49, regarding Jesus’ instructions about what they should do when he rose from the dead?

In Matthew 28:10, Jesus tells his disciples to “go and tell my brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see me.” The disciples did see Jesus in Galilee after he was risen (Matt. 28:16-17; John 21:1). In Luke 24:49 Jesus told them to “stay in the city, until you are clothed with power from on high.” This is “apples and oranges.” Matthew is talking about post-Resurrection appearances. Luke’s passage, on the other hand, which describes what occurred after what Matthew described, has to do with the Day of Pentecost, when the disciples received the Holy Spirit, which happened right in Jerusalem. It’s described by the same writer, Luke, in Acts 2:1-4 (cf. language of Luke 1:35; 9:1; see also the related passage Acts 1:8). In Acts 1:9, Jesus ascends to heaven. Likewise, in Luke 24:51, He ascends to heaven. Both passages describe the same event, and are written by the same author. Matthew and Luke + Acts, then, refer to completely different things. But it’s fascinating that this couplet is somehow thought to be a contradiction, isn’t it?

  1. How could the disciples doubt that Jesus had risen from the dead (Matt. 28:17), while the Pharisees and chief priests believed it possible (Matt. 27:62-66)?

“Some [not all] doubted” (as Matt. 28:17 states), and for a time, yes. It was the typical human skepticism regarding miracles, among “some” of the disciples. The enemies of Jesus believed no such thing. They called Jesus an “impostor” (Matt. 27:63) and the gospel and Christianity a “fraud” (27:64). They were worried that the disciples would “go and steal him away” (27:64) and fake his Resurrection, which is why they asked for a guard in front of the tomb. I search in vain for any “contradiction” here. It’s literally impossible for it to be a contradiction because this is referring to two completely different groups of men. What it actually is (if the challenge were actually accurate: which it isn’t) is a failed attempt to establish a significant oddity or anomaly (Pharisees believing in Jesus while his own disciples doubted him). The problem is that it does so by making a false blanket statement about the disciples and an equally untrue description of the Pharisees and their allies. This won’t do. It’s lousy, if not outright dishonest, argumentation. Seeking in vain to embarrass Christians and to mock the Bible, they only embarrass themselves, which is only poetic justice, from where we sit.

  1. Did Joseph of Arimathea boldly ask for the body of Jesus (Mark 15:43) or do so secretly (John 19:38)?

The two attributes aren’t mutually exclusive. One can be both bold and operate in secret. Every special forces raid is of such a nature, as is every clandestine espionage assignment. It was “bold” to ask Pilate (not the nicest guy) this, whether it was in secret or not. This is a classic example of a desperate, trumped-up alleged “contradiction.” But I can assure everyone that it’s authentic. Some skeptic came up with this. I didn’t invent it.

  1. Was Jesus laid in a nearby tomb (Mark 15:46; Luke 23:53; John 19:41) or in Joseph’s new tomb (Matt. 27:59-60)?

These things aren’t mutually exclusive. Matthew merely adds the information that it was Joseph’s own planned tomb. Someone not asserting a thing consistent with what it does assert, doesn’t contradict another asserting that same thing.

  1. How could the women expect to persuade the Roman guards to let them anoint Jesus’ body (Mark 16:1)?

This presupposes that the women knew there was a guard. They had observed Jesus being placed in the tomb on Friday (Mark 15:46-47; Matt. 27:57-61), but the guard was not posted till Saturday, the “next day” (Matt. 27:62).

  1. Did the women who saw the risen Jesus tell the disciples? Matthew and Luke make clear that they did so immediately. But Mark 16:8 states, “they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid.” Is this not contradictory?

In Mark 16:8, the risen Jesus had not yet been seen. But Mark 16:9-10 asserts: “he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. She went and told those who had been with him.” Elsewhere I argued that Mary Magdalene first saw the risen Jesus earlier in the morning on Sunday. Matthew doesn’t declare that the women “immediately” told the disciples. It states, “they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples” (28:8). Therefore, a gap in time is possible that is harmonious with the data of Mark 16:8-10 and an earlier visit by Mary Magdalene. Likewise, Luke 24:10 reports that they “told this to the apostles” with no indication that it was “immediate.” No undeniable contradiction can be asserted, based on the false premise in the charge regarding Mark’s account, and the fact that all three accounts imply, prima facie, in my opinion, that the disciples were told fairly soon.

  1. Did the Ascension take place while the disciples were seated at a table (Mark 16:14-19), or outdoors at Bethany (Luke 24:50-51), or outdoors on the Mount of Olives (Acts 1:9-12)?

The account in Mark is an example of what is called “compression” or “telescoping”: literary techniques which were common, especially in ancient literature, and sometimes appear in the Bible. The text simply “jumps” to a future occurrence. It’s obvious that the disciples weren’t indoors watching the Ascension, for how could they see Jesus being “taken up into heaven” if so (Mark 16:19)? The present-day Bethany is located on the Mount of Olives, a little less than a mile from the Chapel of the Ascension. But Bible commentators note that it was the district of Bethany being referred to in Luke 24:50, which included the Mount of Olives. There was both a town and a district, just as is the case of my own present town in Michigan, which has a township around it with the same name. It was a system of toparchies, dating from the reign of Solomon We know this from the Old Testament, which contains (in RSV) the word “district” eighteen times in four different books (1 Kings; 2 Chron., Neh., Ezek.), including “district of Jerusalem” (Neh. 3:9, 12). Of particular note is Ezekiel 45:7, which refers to “the land on both sides of the holy district and the property of the city . . .” And in the New Testament, references to “district” (in Israel) occur six times in Matthew and Luke (e.g., “district of Caesarea Philippi”: Matt. 16:13). Mark 8:27 also references the “villages of Caesarea Philippi.”

  1. How could Luke know about Jesus talking to Herod during his trial (Luke 23:7-12)? And these speeches seem to have been remarkably well-preserved.

What an odd choice of example, since “chief priests and the scribes stood by” (Luke 23:10) as did Herod’s “soldiers” (Luke 23:11). All it would take was one or two of these (perhaps one who was a Christian or later became one) to report about this encounter, which entered into either oral tradition or directly into one of the Gospels. But as it is, Luke records not a single word that Herod said (so much for an absurdly alleged “remarkably well-preserved” verbal account); he only notes that “he questioned him at some length” (Luke 23:9). Since only Luke reports this incident, there was no secret or “miraculous” knowledge involved. All that is reported is that Herod questioned Jesus. We’re supposed to believe that no follower of Jesus could have possibly known that that happened? It’s ridiculous. It took only one follower to follow the irate persecuting crowds with Jesus from a distance and see them enter into Herod’s palace.

  1. Did the women buy burial materials before the Sabbath (Luke 23:56) or after (Mark 16:1)?

Luke 23:56 doesn’t assert this. It says they “returned [back home], and prepared spices and ointments.” Then they brought them to the tomb on Sunday (Luke 24:1; Mark 16:1). Pondering this sterling example, one wonders whether this biblical skeptic even read the passages in his or her zealous rush to find a “gotcha!” contradiction to embarrass Christians with. This one abysmally fails as an objection, and so do all the others detailed in this book.

  1. Were the disciples frightened when they saw Jesus (Luke 24:36-37) or glad when they first saw him (John 20:20)?

In Luke it was because they (just two of them, not “the disciples”) “supposed that they saw a spirit”: an event which almost always causes fear in recorded instances in Scripture. Then Jesus showed them his hands and feet (24:39) and they settled down. The text gives no indication of this being the first time they saw the risen Jesus. In John (a different incident, and seemingly the first time, in context) they were glad for the same reason: because he “showed them his hands and his side”: quickly proving that he was Jesus, so they wouldn’t be afraid. The text informs us: “Then the disciples were glad . . .” No contradiction exists, once the texts are actually analyzed and examined more closely (which the atheist skeptics, alas, never seem to have the time and/or desire to do).

  1. Was Jesus’ body anointed (John 19:39-40) or not (Mark 15:46 to 16:1; Luke 23:55 to 24:1)?

Mark and Luke don’t deny that Jesus’ body was anointed. If they don’t, there is no necessary contradiction. I submit that the women simply weren’t aware that at least some spices had been applied (as indicated in John 19:39-40). In any event, no contradiction has been proven.

  1. Did Nicodemus prepare Jesus’ body with spices (John 19:39-40) or, failing to notice this, did the women bring spices later (Mark 16:1; Luke 23:55-56)?

What happened is (humorously) explained right in the challenge! The women failed to see that Jesus’ body was prepared with spices, because the Sabbath was quickly approaching (John 19:42) — during which time this work would be disallowed –, so that they probably concluded that there hadn’t been enough time for such preparation. The women saw that Jesus was laid out with a linen shroud (Luke 23:53-55), but wouldn’t necessarily know if he had been anointed with spices. Therefore, they prepared the spices and ointments (23:56) and returned after the Sabbath to apply them (24:1).

  1. If Mary’s tomb visit (John 20:1) was earlier than the visit described in Matthew, why did she not encounter any guards?

Because, as the same passage states, she “saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb.” An angel had already removed the stone and as a result, “the guards trembled and became like dead men” (Matt. 28:4). Presumably they also fled as a result (likely for fear of their lives, for the penalty for not properly guarding something was death in Roman law); therefore, Mary didn’t see them.

  1. Did Peter did go into the tomb, while another disciple stooped and looked inside (John 20:3-6), or did he not enter the tomb and only stoop to look inside (Luke 24:12)?

Luke 24:12 is a disputed verse, not found in the earliest manuscripts, which is why RSV doesn’t even include it. In other words, it can’t be considered as part of the New Testament. Therefore, it’s irrelevant to the discussion of consistency of accounts or reputed lack thereof.

  1. Did the women stay outside the tomb (John 20:11) or enter it (Mark 16:5; Luke 24:3)?

John refers to Mary’s pre-dawn visit alone, and doesn’t refer to multiple “women” (the alleged charge is incorrect in that way), but only to Mary Magdalene. Mark and Luke refer to another visit of Mary Magdalene with other women (Mary the mother of James, and Salome: Mark 16:1, and “Joanna and Mary the mother of James and the other women with them”: Luke 24:10), when (unlike Mary’s first visit) they did enter the tomb. It’s different things happening at different times and hence, no contradiction. I know it must be frustrating for the skeptic (who is convinced of massive biblical “contradictions” yet can never find an undeniable one), but logic is what it is. I didn’t make it up.

  1. Did Mary Magdalene first see the risen Jesus at the tomb (John 20:11-15) or on her way home (Matt. 28:8-10)?

I propose that John records a pre-dawn Sunday visit by Mary Magdalene, which was the first recorded post-Resurrection appearance of Jesus to anyone. She returned later with other women and they all saw him. But the text in Matthew doesn’t claim that this was the first time she saw the risen Jesus.

  1. Was Jesus’ first Resurrection appearance right at the tomb (John 20:12-14) or fairly near the tomb (Matt. 28:8-9) or on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-16)?

Mark doesn’t say one way or the other. The others don’t indicate that their account was the “first” appearance, so different harmonious chronologies are entirely possible to construct (and a “contradiction” impossible to undeniably construct).

  1. Did Mary Magdalene recognize the risen Jesus? Of course she would! She’d known him for years. Matthew says that she did. But John (20:14-15) makes clear that she didn’t. How can this be?

John also makes it clear that it was “early, while it was still dark” (20:1). The same “dark” scenario is described in 21:4: “Just as day was breaking, Jesus stood on the beach; yet the disciples did not know that it was Jesus.”

  1. Why was the stone rolled away if Jesus could enter locked rooms (John 20:19)?

It wasn’t rolled away so Jesus could “get out,” but rather, to be a graphic visual demonstration that he rose from the dead.

  1. Were there, at the time of the Ascension, about 120 Christian brethren (Acts 1:15) or about 500 (1 Cor. 15:6)?

Acts doesn’t claim that that is the entire number of Christians in the world; only the amount in that place, who were living together. It’s sheer speculation to assert otherwise. Jesus appeared for forty days after he rose again (Acts 1:3), and so 500 Christians could have easily existed by the end of that period, seeing how wildly enthusiastic the early Christians were to spread the Good News of his Resurrection. 500 doesn’t contradict 120, as long as the latter is not stated to be the sum total of all Christians. Paul doesn’t say 500 is the grand total, either.

  1. Did twelve disciples see the risen Jesus (1 Cor. 15:5), or eleven: Thomas not being present (Matt. 28:16-17; John 20:19-25)?

In 1 Corinthians, either it was after the departed (and dead) Judas’ replacement with Matthias (Acts 1:20-26), so there were again twelve, or the title “twelve” was being used as a description of the group, which is done several times in the New Testament (including in John 20:24). Matthew 28 describes a time right before Jesus’ Ascension, before Judas had been replaced. Hence, “eleven” is used in the text (including Thomas). John uses “twelve” as the group title, even though Judas had by then departed, and there would have been literally eleven disciples, and ten without Thomas (John 20:24 again). No problem here (as always). In English usage, we also sometimes describe groups with a certain number, which isn’t literal. For example, the Big Ten Conference in NCAA (college) football actually has fourteen members. It began with ten. Yet it continues to be called “Big Ten” and not “Big Fourteen.” Is that a “contradiction”? No; it’s not literal, figurative usage, and non-literal language in a well-known established title. And so it was like this with the disciples in some passages, because they were first (and famously) numbered twelve.

  1. How come Paul only mentions that Jesus was “buried” (1 Cor. 15:4) and doesn’t mention an empty tomb?

This is one of the more bizarre charges (and, like all of these, was actually brought up by a real, live atheist (whose name shall be kept secret for the sake of charity). Right after Paul noted that Jesus was buried, he added, “he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time . . .” (1 Cor, 15:4-6). In Colossians 2:12 he states that “God, . . . raised him from the dead.” That is an empty tomb. He already mentioned that he was buried. In order to rise from the dead and to appear to others in many different places, the tomb necessarily (by virtue of logic) had to be empty. In Acts 13:29-31 Paul wrote: “they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a tomb. But God raised him from the dead; and for many days he appeared to those who came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem . . .” There’s the tomb: specifically mentioned. And if Jesus appeared risen in Galilee, he could hardly have still been in his tomb, could he? This is an exceedingly odd objection. There are many many more references to Jesus’ Resurrection in Paul’s writings (Acts 17:2-3, 30-31; 26:22-23; Rom. 1:4; 4:24-25; 6:4-5, 9; 7:4; 8:11, 34; 10:9; 1 Cor. 6:14; 15:3-8, 12-17, 20; 2 Cor. 4:14; 5:15; Gal. 1:1; Eph. 1:20; Phil. 3:10; 1 Thess 1:10; 2 Tim 2:8).

  1. Was Jesus first seen by Cephas (Peter), then the other ten disciples (1 Cor. 15:5), or by the two Marys (Matt. 28:1, 8-9), or by Mary Magdalene (Mark 16:9; John 20:1, 14-15), or Cleopas and others (Luke 24:17-18), or the disciples as a group (Acts 10:40-41)?

1 Corinthians doesn’t claim that he “first” appeared to Cephas, but that he appeared to him before he appeared to the other disciples: a completely different proposition. Peter is singled out as a witness not because he was the absolutely first person to see the risen Jesus, but rather, because he was the leader of the disciples and the early church (see the first half of the book of Acts). Mark 16:9 actually does expressly affirm that Mary Magdalene was the “first.” And so she was. John’s account is consistent with that notion. Does Matthew contradict this because of the second Mary? Not necessarily. Many scenarios can be easily imagined that instantly harmonize the passages. For example, maybe “the other Mary” happened to be looking away when the risen Jesus suddenly “met them”, so that Mary Magdalene was, technically, the first to see Him. Or Jesus met Mary Magdalene with no other women around, and then Matthew 28:9 records a second instance of his appearing to her, except with another woman, too. Luke 24 has the story of the two men on the road to Emmaus. Nothing definitely indicates they were the first; indeed, they could not have been because other Gospels record Mary Magdalene and the other Mary seeing Jesus early in the morning on the first Easter Sunday, whereas in this account it is said that the time was “toward evening” with the day being “far spent” (24:29). Acts states that the disciples were in the select group to whom Jesus appeared, as opposed to “all the people.” But it doesn’t say they were absolutely the first, and doesn’t therefore rule out Mary Magdalene being the first person, which is expressly stated in Mark. Conclusion?: all of these passages are perfectly harmonious and pose no problem for biblical infallibility or self-consistent accuracy and trustworthiness.

*

*****
*

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

Photo Credit: Resurrection of Christ, by Agnolo Bronzino (1503-1572) [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license]

***

Summary: Ch. 9 of Dave Armstrong’s book, “Inspired!”: in which he examines 191 examples of alleged biblical contradictions & disproves all of these patently false claims.


Browse Our Archives