37:26 what’s going on in a lot of these fathers [is] that most of the times when the fathers are talking about . . . things that look like works contribute to your justification, usually what’s going on is, 1) they’re just talking about how committing mortal sin destroys faith, 2) they’re talking about how receiving the sacraments saves or how hearing the word or whatever saves, or 3) they’re talking about good works meriting rewards in heaven: perhaps different levels of reward. All three of those are compatible with the Lutheran view . . .
What Roman Catholicism needs to show is that the fathers are saying that works contribute to justification in a sense stronger than any of those three. Let’s look at First Clement . . . We . . . reiterate how strong Clement’s language of justification by faith alone is . . . you could read
this to any normal well read theologian without mentioning the author and it would clearly come across as an espousal of justification by faith alone. He says that we are justified before God . . . then he goes on to say [we]:
are not justified by ourselves or by our own wisdom or understanding or godliness or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart, but by the faith through which from the beginning almighty God has justified all men to whom the glory be forever and ever. Amen. [from 1st Clement, ch. 32]
39:40 the only good Roman retort to this would be an appeal to “oh yeah, he’s only talking about initial justification, that is, that moment in time where man for the first time is is translated or moved from the state of being a child of wrath standing under God’s condemnation and then transferred into this state of grace whereby his sins are forgiven and he enters into a relationship with God.” And yeah, the Roman Catholic might be able to say “yeah that is without works; that is without any good deeds or anything,” but notice here and and be careful in reading the words of Clement here because not only is this to impose a category and conceptualization which is absent from Clement’s work . . . but it would also seem to run quite contrary to Clement’s own definition, because here he is talking about the justification of all men forever not just some initial point or initial translation and he’s also excluding works done in holiness of heart.
*
We have to take in all of the relevant elements of his letter together, so that, if indeed he mentions works in conjunction with justification elsewhere, then we have to explain why he doesn’t in this portion. The Catholic distinction between initial and subsequent justification would harmonize the two motifs. Or we can assert that Clement contradicted himself, or the good folks at the Scholastic Lutherans channel can interact with the sort of things I bring up here and propose another explanation. But the latter is like pulling teeth: to get Protestants to interact with serious critiques of their explanations (let alone to interact with our arguments). I hope for a change that this will prove to be an exception.
*
I would contend that in chapter 32, Clement is opposing salvation by works, or what was later to be the heresy of Pelagianism, and asserting grace alone, with which Catholicism fully agrees. Even when we talk about works, as the Bible does (connecting it to salvation and justification at least a hundred times) it’s always good works understood to be enabled and ultimately produced by God’s grace. They’re not self-generated. They originate in God’s power, grace, and will, and we cooperate with Him and perform them. Then he pronounces them to be meritorious (a biblical doctrine for which I have found fifty passages in support). The Council of Trent is very clear about this.
*
If chapter 32 was all we had from Clement, or all he wrote about this topic, then sure, I agree that it would sound, at least prima facie, like he believed in faith alone. But we also have other portions that address the topic of faith and works in connection to justification and salvation, which disprove that take, and which, as usual in these patristic discussions, are ignored by our three Lutheran apologists. They present a partial truth or a half-truth. It’s extremely common in Protestant patristics, especially on an amateur, lay, non-scholarly level. I frequently cite Protestant scholars like Schaff or Pelikan or Kelly who do not selectively cite in this fashion. But it’s endemic in popular lay Protestant apologetics.
*
and that is really key to understand here because only justified believers — only the regenerate people — are able to do works in holiness of heart because outside faith there is no holiness of heart so he’s also excluding good works done by the believers, which shows that he is not talking about those initially justified but all believers. . . . he says this is how almighty God has justified all men from the beginning and and and only by trying to read in foreign categories can you try to frame it in a different manner . . .
*
I think he is simply expressing the belief in justification by faith, that we agree with when it is applied to initial justification. I have compiled fifty passages about justification by faith also. It’s a biblical doctrine. But Protestants make a false dichotomy between those and the hundred, and fifty about the role that works and merit play in the process of salvation. We incorporate all of them into our theological understanding. We deny justification by faith alone, but not justification by faith itself. What is “foreign” is to separate sanctification from justification, a thing — as Protestant church historian Alister McGrath asserts — that no one did until Philp Melanchthon in the 16th century.
*
45:18 we can easily come up with a coherent understanding . . . without like trying to to conjure up some artificial contradiction between his two statements on justification
*
They bring up a few other things, too, but I want to see how they would respond to my argument from other statements of Clement’s, that I shall now present. It’s easy to set up a “triumphant” explanation if one ignores any serious contrary views.
*
In chapter 30 St. Clement wrote:
Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, being justified by our works, and not our words.
In the next chapter he stated about Abraham:
For what reason was our father Abraham blessed? Was it not because he wrought righteousness and truth through faith?
Then Clement teaches justification by faith in chapter 32. We totally agree, as to initial justification. We simply believe that good works (which are meritorious) are necessary after initial justification. But in talking about salvation, it’s clear that he thinks that faith and works are both required, not only faith:
For, as God lives, and as the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost live — both the faith and hope of the elect, he who in lowliness of mind, . . . has observed the ordinances and appointments given by God— the same shall obtain a place and name in the number of those who are being saved through Jesus Christ, . . . [58]
And again: “On account of her faith and hospitality, Rahab the harlot was saved” (chapter 12), and: “He [Abraham], in the exercise of obedience, went out from his own country, and from his kindred, and from his father’s house, in order that, by forsaking a small territory, and a weak family, and an insignificant house, he might inherit the promises of God. . . . On account of his faith and hospitality, a son was given him [Abraham] in his old age” (chapter 10), and: “On account of his hospitality and godliness, Lot was saved out of Sodom” (chapter 11), and: “It is requisite, therefore, that we be prompt in the practice of well-doing; for of Him are all things. And thus He forewarns us: ‘Behold, the Lord [comes], and His reward is before His face, to render to every man according to his work.’” (chapter 34).
*
See the theme and common thread there? He’s very explicit about the crucial role of works and merit in chapters 21 and 35:
Take heed, beloved, lest His many kindnesses lead to the condemnation of us all. [For thus it must be] unless we walk worthy of Him, and with one mind do those things which are good and well-pleasing in His sight. . . . Let us reverence the Lord Jesus Christ, whose blood was given for us; let us esteem those who have the rule over us; let us honour the aged among us; let us train up the young men in the fear of God; let us direct our wives to that which is good. Let them exhibit the lovely habit of purity [in all their conduct]; let them show forth the sincere disposition of meekness; let them make manifest the command which they have of their tongue, by their manner of speaking; let them display their love, not by preferring one to another, but by showing equal affection to all that piously fear God. Let your children be partakers of true Christian training; let them learn of how great avail humility is with God — how much the spirit of pure affection can prevail with Him — how excellent and great His fear is, and how it saves all those who walk in it with a pure mind. [my italics]
*
Let us therefore earnestly strive to be found in the number of those that wait for Him, in order that we may share in His promised gifts. But how, beloved, shall this be done? If our understanding be fixed by faith towards God; if we earnestly seek the things which are pleasing and acceptable to Him; if we do the things which are in harmony with His blameless will; and if we follow the way of truth, casting away from us all unrighteousness and iniquity, along with all covetousness, strife, evil practices, deceit, whispering, and evil-speaking, all hatred of God, pride and haughtiness, vain glory and ambition. [my bolding and italics]
All of this is thoroughly Catholic soteriology. Some, however, might refer to Clement’s statement about Abraham in chapter 31: “For what reason was our father Abraham blessed? Was it not because he wrought righteousness and truth through faith?” Yes, Abraham had faith. He’s the father of faith. He’s renowned for that. But he also had works. Jordan didn’t mention another instance (one of just three) where Abraham is mentioned, in chapter 10: “He, in the exercise of obedience, went out from his own country, . . . in order that, . . . he might inherit the promises of God.” That’s talking about works. One passage is about his faith, another about his works. Faith and works . . . We can’t only mention one and ignore the other. Clement was referring to Romans 4, which is about Abraham’s faith. But James 2:21-24 is also in the Bible:
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? [22] You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, [23] and the scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”; and he was called the friend of God. [24] You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
James directly ties the “reckoned as righteous” passage to Abraham’s work of being willing to sacrifice Isaac, which “fulfilled” the other passage. It’s not just faith. It’s faith that inherently, organically includes works, which “complete” faith. Genesis also makes it clear that Abraham’s obedience was central to God’s covenant with him:
Genesis 22:15-18 And the angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time from heaven, [16] and said, “By myself I have sworn, says the LORD, because you have done this, and have not withheld your son, your only son, [17] I will indeed bless you, and I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore. And your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies, [18] and by your descendants shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves, because you have obeyed my voice.”
Catholics joyfully agree that Abraham had extraordinary faith. But we don’t ignore the role that his works and obedience played in his being so honored by God, and saved. The author of Hebrews also mentions Abraham’s works. He ties it together with his faith, even in the famous “faith chapter”: “By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place which he was to receive as an inheritance . . .” (11:8). For more on Abraham’s justification, see my article: Abraham: Justified Twice by Works & Once by Faith [8-30-23].
*
***
“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,900+ articles, please follow my blog by signing up (with your email address) on the sidebar to the right (you may have to scroll down a bit), above where there is an icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. My blog was rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT: endorsed by influential Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Actually, I partner with Kenny Burchard on the YouTube channel, Catholic Bible Highlights. Please subscribe there, too! Please also consider following me on Twitter / X and purchasing one or more of my 55 books. All of this helps me get more exposure, and (however little!) more income for my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!
***
At 48:40 they cite this portion from St. Ignatius of Antioch:
Let none of you be found a deserter. Let your baptism endure as your arms; your faith as your helmet; your love as your spear; your patience as a complete panoply. Let your works be the charge assigned to you, that you may receive a worthy recompense. (Epistle to Polycarp, ch. 6)
49:05 that’s just plain scriptural, right? I mean, that’s language that’s used all the time in the scriptures and so Trent has to assume that the Protestants can’t [or] don’t have any way of reading that language in the Holy Scriptures, and since we think that we do, his response isn’t going to be sufficient.
*
Maybe not, or maybe so. But for whatever it’s worth, here is my response:
*
I think equally pious, reasonable Christians can hold that he could be referring (in using “recompense”) either to differential rewards in heaven or the reward of heaven itself. I shall contend that it is the latter, and provide reasons for so believing. If it refers to differential rewards, it’s no problem for Catholicism, since we agree that these occur. But if it refers to heaven, it’s a problem for the Protestant sola fide position. The fact that he refers to the possibility of desertion and also includes the corresponding idea of “endure” may mean that — at least at that point — Ignatius had apostasy in mind.
*
Thus, “recompense “would seem to be the converse of falling away: staying the course unto salvation itself. A paraphrase, if this is correct, would be: “Don’t fall away. Let your baptism, faith, love, patience, and works in general preclude this eventuality, and lead to the reward of heaven.” In 1 Corinthians 3:14 Paul, I think, refers to differential rewards in heaven. In Colossians 3:24 it seems to be heaven (“from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward”). So Paul uses the notion in two ways.
*
In the next chapter (7), Ignatius talks very “Catholic” and states, “I also am the more encouraged, resting without anxiety in God, if indeed by means of suffering I may attain to God, so that, through your prayers, I may be found a disciple [of Christ].” He attains to God and will be found to be a disciple if he suffers (not a word about faith there). This is meritorious works (anathema to Lutheranism and larger Protestantism). Ignatius didn’t stick works into a separate category of “non-salvific sanctification” as Lutherans do.
Then he writes, “Now, this work is both God’s and yours, when you shall have completed it to His glory. For I trust that, through grace, you are prepared for every good work pertaining to God.” Here he expresses the paradoxical biblical notion that our good works, enabled by God’s grace and done in faith, are at the same time God’s works, too. This means they are meritorious: examples of what St. Augustine calls “God crowning His own gifts.” This reflects four statements from St. Paul:
1 Corinthians 3:10 (RSV) According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and another man is building upon it. Let each man take care how he builds upon it.
1 Corinthians 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me.
2 Corinthians 1:12 For our boast is this, the testimony of our conscience that we have behaved in the world, and still more toward you, with holiness and godly sincerity, not by earthly wisdom but by the grace of God.
2 Corinthians 6:1 Working together with him, then, we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain. (in 6:7 Paul said that he did various things by “the power of God”)
In his Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Ignatius couples “faith and love” three times (Greeting, chapters 6, 13), and he writes:
Let no man deceive himself. Both the things which are in heaven, and the glorious angels, and rulers, both visible and invisible, if they believe not in the blood of Christ, shall, in consequence, incur condemnation. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.Matthew 19:12 Let not [high] place puff any one up: for that which is worth all is faith and love, to which nothing is to be preferred. But consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the grace of Christ which has come unto us, how opposed they are to the will of God. They have no regard for love; no care for the widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed; of the bond, or of the free; of the hungry, or of the thirsty. (6)
He places faith and works together; directly reflecting the words of Jesus at the Last Judgment in Matthew 25:31-46, and when he is commenting on grace he immediately brings up various good works. He refers to grace, faith, love, and good works, all in the same context, which is what St. Paul habitually does. Again, in his Epistle to the Trallians, he makes similar connections: “Wherefore, clothing yourselves with meekness, be renewed in faith, that is the flesh of the Lord, and in love, that is the blood of Jesus Christ” (ch. 8). In his Epistle to the Magnesians, he couples “faith and love” three times (chapters 1, 6, 13). In his Epistle to the Ephesians, he again uses the phrase “faith and love” twice (chapters 1, 14). And he associates faith and works:
. . . your name, much-beloved in God, which you have acquired by the habit of righteousness, according to the faith and love in Jesus Christ our Saviour. (1)
For it was needful for me to have been stirred up by you in faith, exhortation, patience, and long-suffering. (3)
. . . faith cannot do the works of unbelief, nor unbelief the works of faith. (8)
. . . making use of the Holy Spirit as a rope, while your faith was the means by which you ascended, and your love the way which led up to God. You, therefore, as well as all your fellow-travellers, are God-bearers, temple-bearers, Christ-bearers, bearers of holiness, adorned in all respects with the commandments of Jesus Christ, . . . (9)
None of these things is hid from you, if you perfectly possess that faith and love towards Christ Jesus which are the beginning and the end of life. For the beginning is faith, and the end is love . . . The tree is made manifest by its fruit; so those that profess themselves to be Christians shall be recognised by their conduct. For there is not now a demand for mere profession, but that a man be found continuing in the power of faith to the end. (14)
This simply isn’t faith alone, folks; no way, no how. Then they move on to the Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus:
49:33 ultimately why it’s so impressive is it seems to teach . . . [that] he himself took on him the burden of our iniquities; he gave his son as a ransom for us: “the Holy One for transgressors; the blameless One for the wicked; the righteous one for the unrighteous; the Incorruptible one for the corruptible, so on so forth, for what other thing was capable of covering our sins than his righteousness. By what other one was it possible that we the wicked and ungodly should be justified than by the only son of God? Oh sweet exchange oh and searchable operations oh benefits surpassing all expectations that the wickedness of many shall be head hid in a single righteous one and that the righteousness of one should justify many transgressors . . . ” Pretty clearly consistent with what Protestants believe and a lot harder, I think, to square with Roman Catholicism because this righteousness is found in another. . . . the language of imputation here . . . these are like the exact same categories Martin Luther would pick up 1,400 or so years later . . .
* When the fathers talk about good works being rewarded and that we will gain recompenses . . . only if you presuppose the Roman understanding that the recompense and the reward is an increase of our justice before God, only then will these quotations provide any form of support for the Roman Catholic understanding. We Lutherans confess in all of our confessions that God will reward good works done done here on earth that there will be heavenly gifts and rewards for us for the good works we do, but these things have nothing to do with our standing before God, which hinges on Christ’s righteousness, not our works.
Now here is my different take on this letter, with regard to soteriology. Here is the entire chapter that they cited, in the Epistle to Diognetus with regard to justification:
As long then as the former time endured, He permitted us to be borne along by unruly impulses, being drawn away by the desire of pleasure and various lusts. This was not that He at all delighted in our sins, but that He simply endured them; nor that He approved the time of working iniquity which then was, but that He sought to form a mind conscious of righteousness, so that being convinced in that time of our unworthiness of attaining life through our own works, it should now, through the kindness of God, be vouchsafed to us; and having made it manifest that in ourselves we were unable to enter into the kingdom of God, we might through the power of God be made able. But when our wickedness had reached its height, and it had been clearly shown that its reward, punishment and death, was impending over us; and when the time had come which God had before appointed for manifesting His own kindness and power, how the one love of God, through exceeding regard for men, did not regard us with hatred, nor thrust us away, nor remember our iniquity against us, but showed great long-suffering, and bore with us, He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the immortal One for those who are mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness? By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! That the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors! Having therefore convinced us in the former time that our nature was unable to attain to life, and having now revealed the Saviour who is able to save even those things which it was [formerly] impossible to save, by both these facts He desired to lead us to trust in His kindness, to esteem Him our Nourisher, Father, Teacher, Counsellor, Healer, our Wisdom, Light, Honour, Glory, Power, and Life, so that we should not be anxious concerning clothing and food. (ch. 9; complete)
This is discussing initial justification. There is no disagreement here. This is referring to an imputation of righteousness to the believer that Catholics can agree with, per the explanations of former Presbyterian minister and professor Kenneth Howell:
I am puzzled why anyone would say that extrinsic righteousness might be excluded by Trent. The only righteousness that justifies is Christ’s. But Catholic theology teaches that what is Christ’s becomes ours by grace. In fact Canon 10 anathematizes anyone who denies that we can be justified without Christ’s righteousness or anyone who says that we are formally justified by that righteousness alone. . . . Canon 10 says that Christ’s righteousness is both necessary and not limited to imputation i.e. formally. So, imputation is not excluded but only said to be not sufficient. With regard to imputation, if Trent indeed excludes it, I am ready to reject it. But the wording of the decrees does not seem to me to require this. . . .
The Protestant doctrine, it seems to me, has at least two sides. Imputation is the declaration of forgiveness on God’s part because of Christ’s work but it is also a legal fiction that has nothing immediately to do with real (subjective) state of the penitent. Now I think the declaration side of imputation is acceptable to Trent but not the legal fiction side. The difference between the Tridentine and the Reformation views, in addition to many other aspects, is that in the latter view God only sees us as righteous while in the former, Christ confers righteousness upon (and in) us. . . .
What is wrong with the Reformation view then? It is the sola part. Faith is essential but not sola fide. Remission of sins is essential but not sola remissione. Imputation via absolution is essential but not sola imputatione. I remember well how this hit me one day in my journey. So much of Protestantism represents a reductionism of the Catholic faith. The Protestants added their qualifiers (sola) and thereby threw out the fullness of faith. [Trent Doesn’t Utterly Exclude Imputation, July 1996]
But as soon as initial justification occurs, God works together with the believer to make it a real, day-by-day righteousness (not merely a declared or proclaimed righteousness that in fact is not actual righteousness). That’s where the two sides differ, but not on the above. Faith alone without love won’t cut it. Nothing whatsoever in this work contradicts Catholic soteriology. This epistle states, “For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness?” Precisely! The Council of Trent in agreement stated in its Decree on Justification (5): “the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called . . .”
This eloquent work approaches justification much as Paul does (and as Catholics do, rightly understood). He writes about initial monergistic justification — which we Catholics fully accept! But — again like Paul and Catholics — he doesn’t formally separate works from faith as Protestants do, and writes: “. . . to whom He sent His only-begotten Son, to whom He has promised a kingdom in heaven, and will give it to those who have loved Him” (chapter 10). He continues:
Or, how will you love Him who has first so loved you? And if you love Him, you will be an imitator of His kindness. And do not wonder that a man may become an imitator of God. He can, if he is willing. For it is not by ruling over his neighbours, or by seeking to hold the supremacy over those that are weaker, or by being rich, and showing violence towards those that are inferior, that happiness is found; nor can any one by these things become an imitator of God. But these things do not at all constitute His majesty. On the contrary he who takes upon himself the burden of his neighbour; he who, in whatsoever respect he may be superior, is ready to benefit another who is deficient; he who, whatsoever things he has received from God, by distributing these to the needy, becomes a god to those who receive [his benefits]: he is an imitator of God. [chapter 10]
And he writes along these lines in chapter 12:
When you have read and carefully listened to these things, you shall know what God bestows on such as rightly love Him, being made [as you are] a paradise of delight, presenting in yourselves a tree bearing all kinds of produce and flourishing well, being adorned with various fruits.
Once again, I see nothing whatsoever in this work that contradicts Catholic soteriology. But it seems to have some elements (seen above) that contradict Lutheran soteriology. It is what it is. I’m simply describing the nature of the work.
***
* Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 4,900+ free online articles or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
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.
Photo credit: St. Ignatius of Antioch [public domain / Get Archive]
Summary: I disagree with three Lutherans who claim that Clement of Rome (d. c. 101), Ignatius of Antioch (50-c. 110), and the Epistle to Diognetus (bet. 130-190) taught “faith alone.”
I shall now proceed to offer a critique of common Protestant attempts to ignore, explain away, rationalize, wish away, overpolemicize, minimize, de-emphasize, evade clear consequences of, or special plead with regard to “the Catholic Verses”: ninety-five biblical passages that provide the foundation for Catholicism’s most distinctive doctrines. . . .
I will assert – with all due respect and, I hope, with a minimum of “triumphalism” — the ultimate incoherence, inadequacy, inconsistency, or exegetical and theological implausibility of the Protestant interpretations, and will submit the Catholic views as exegetically and logically superior alternatives.
The dates of Calvin’s various Commentaries are as follows:
1540 Romans
1548 All the Epistles of Paul
1551 Hebrews, and the Epistles of Peter, John, Jude, and James
1551 Isaiah
1552 Acts of the Apostles
1554 Genesis
1557 Psalms
1557 Hosea
1559 Twelve Minor Prophets
1561 Daniel
1562 Joshua
1563 Harmony of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy
1563 Jeremiah
1563 Harmony of Three Gospels and Commentary on St John
I use RSV for biblical citations. Calvin’s words will be in blue.
A complete listing of this series will be on my web page, John Calvin: Catholic Appraisal, under the subtitle: “Bible vs. ‘Faith Alone’ vs. John Calvin”.
*****
Matthew 19:16-17, 20-21 And behold, one came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?” [17] And he said to him, “. . . If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” . . . [20] The young man said to him, “All these I have observed; what do I still lack?” [21] Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”
A blind confidence in his works hindered him from profiting under Christ, to whom, in other respects, he wished to be submissive. Thus, in our own day, we find some who are not ill-disposed, but who, under the influence of I know not what shadowy holiness, hardly relish the doctrine of the Gospel.
I see no “blind confidence in . . . works” in the passage. He asked sincerely how one achieved eternal life, assuming that a “good deed” would accomplish it. Jesus didn’t rebuke his confidence in the notion that a good man must do good works (since the Old Testament is chock-full of such injunctions); far from it, He reinforced his line of questioning and train of thought by asking whether he kept the commandments. That’s what Jesus thought was the “road” to salvation. He didn’t challenge him by asking, “why do you ask me about works? Don’t you know that they have nothing to do with salvation and are done only in gratefulness to God for a salvation already attained?” The text is massively contrary to Protestantism’s faith alone.
Asked by the man what he still lacked, Jesus said that it was the willingness to sell all that he owned (i.e., another work; not an exhortation to faith and assenting belief). Thus, the rich young ruler’s rejection of Jesus’ advice wasn’t based on “blind confidence” in his works, but rather, on the unwillingness to do one extraordinary work that Jesus said would save him. His fatal flaw was placing possessions above allegiance to God (a form of idolatry). Nothing here upholds faith alone at all. A theoretical Protestant who hypothetically was writing part of the Bible, could never have written the passage this way. Jesus twice emphasizes that works save a soul; never mentioning faith or belief in Himself (though those things are also true and necessary). The point is that Jesus highlighted that which Protestants falsely claim has nothing to do with salvation. How can this be? Well, we’ll see what else Calvin says about it.
But, in order to form a more correct judgment of the meaning of the answer, we must attend to the form of the question. He does not simply ask how and by what means he shall reach life, but what good thing he shall do, in order to obtain it. He therefore dreams of merits, on account of which he may receive eternal life as a reward due; and therefore Christ appropriately sends him to the keeping of the law, which unquestionably is the way of life, . . .
This is beyond silly, and is special pleading. If the man assumed some doctrine of meritorious works, Jesus certainly didn’t disabuse him of what Protestants think is a false notion by inquiring if he kept the commandments, did He? Again, He would have had to make the “elementary” point that works have nothing to do with salvation. But He didn’t, because it would be a falsehood. If Jesus sent him to the law, and the law had nothing to do with salvation, this would be unjust and wrong. He would be deceiving him. Yet Calvin, not grasping this point, dumbfoundedly thinks it is “appropriate” that Jesus directed Him there, and not to faith.
***
“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”!If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,800+ articles, please follow my blog by signing up (with your email address) on the sidebar to the right (you may have to scroll down a bit), above where there is an icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. My blog was rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT: endorsed by influential Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Actually, I partner with Kenny Burchard on the YouTube channel, Catholic Bible Highlights. Please subscribe there, too! Please also consider following me on Twitter / X and purchasing one or more of my 55 books. All of this helps me get more exposure, and (however little!) more income for my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!
***
Keep the commandments. This passage was erroneously interpreted by some of the ancients, whom the Papists have followed, as if Christ taught that, by keeping the law, we may merit eternal life.
That’s exactly what it teaches. Asked what achieves eternal life, Jesus replies with an inquiry as to whether he kept the commandments. It couldn’t be more clear than it is. Then when the man confirmed that he had done so, Jesus required another work (giving away all he had).
As we are all destitute of the glory of God, (Romans 3:23,) nothing but cursing will be found in the law; and nothing remains for us but to betake ourselves to the undeserved gift of righteousness.
Then why didn’t Jesus make precisely this same point, if it’s the bottom line? That’s the essence of discussion on this passage. Why in the world — presupposing faith alone soteriology for the sake of argument — didn’t Jesus do that? I have addressed Romans 3:23 elsewhere. Calvin thinks in this way, but Jesus expresses nothing whatever in this exchange that would suggest any agreement on His part.
And therefore Paul lays down a twofold righteousness, the righteousness of the law, (Romans 10:5,) and the righteousness of faith, (Romans 10:6.) He makes the first to consist in works, and the second, in the free grace of Christ.
And Calvin pits the two against each other, as if they are antithetical. Paul, on the other hand, doesn’t do that. He expressly connected works to salvation twice in the same epistle, and in three others:
Romans 2:6-7, 10, 13 For he will render to every man according to his works: [7] to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; . . . [10] but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, . . . [13] For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.
*
Romans 8:17 . . . heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.
Philippians 2:12-13 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; [13] for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
*
Colossians 3:23-24 Whatever your task, work heartily, as serving the Lord and not men, [24] knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward;
1 Timothy 4:13-16 Till I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. [14] Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophetic utterance when the council of elders laid their hands upon you. [15] Practice these duties, devote yourself to them, so that all may see your progress. [16] Take heed to yourself and to your teaching; hold to that, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.
Hence we infer, that this reply of Christ is legal, because it was proper that the young man who inquired about the righteousness of works should first be taught that no man is accounted righteous before God unless he has fulfilled the law, (which is impossible,) that, convinced of his weakness, he might betake himself to the assistance of faith.
Giving away all that he owned implicitly would require faith, for sure, but it was also a meritorious work, since Jesus said that doing it would bring him eternal life. So Jesus taught that works can save, then He taught that an extraordinary work that would require a lot of faith would ultimately save, in the case of this man (it’s nowhere taught that it’s required of every man). He never gets to a faith alone explanation of salvation, and remember, the question was about how one gains eternal life.
Neither scenario is true, according to Protestants, who deny that works have anything directly to do with salvation. So why does Jesus assert twice that they do? He is teaching false doctrine: so consistent Protestants must say. Since that is clearly impossible, we must throw out faith alone rather than reject our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as a false teacher and false prophet. This is perhaps the clearest rejection of faith alone in the New Testament. It’s unanswerable, and a fatal blow to the false doctrine in and of itself.
When Paul says, that the doers of the law are justified, (Romans 2:13,) he excludes all from the righteousness of the law.
Huh? How is it that Calvin can turn upside down a clear saying of Paul, and not feel in the least conflicted about it? This is one utterly confused man. Jesus said basically the same thing as Paul:
Matthew 7:21 Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. . . .
St. John concurs:
Revelation 20:12-13 . . . And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, by what they had done. [13] . . . and all were judged by what they had done.
Many Protestants want to flip this around, too, and fundamentally change its meaning, and teach that one can simply say “Lord, Lord” in the sinner’s prayer or suchlike, get justified for all time in one second as a result (which justification Calvinists assert can never be lost: which most Protestants do not believe), and deny any necessity for good works in connection with ultimate salvation, which contradicts at least a hundred Bible passages.
This passage sets aside all the inventions which the Papists have contrived in order to obtain salvation.
I don’t see how. I think it sets aside all the inventions that Protestants have contrived with regard to a vastly unbiblical “workless” salvation.
For not only are they mistaken in wishing to lay God under obligation to them by their good works, to bestow salvation as a debt
God is never under any obligation or “debt” to us, strictly speaking. But He chooses to mercifully grant merit to us as a reward insofar as we follow His will, by His grace and power. His works become our own:
1 Corinthians 15:10, 58 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. . . . [58] . . . be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain.
Philippians 2:13 . . . God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
It’s like a parent teaching a small child to read. The child then learns and reads something, and is rewarded by the parent. Was that the parent’s work or the child’s? Of course it is both. It’s a false dichotomy to deny that. The child didn’t generate the ability to read by himself or herself. Rather, it was a joint effort: ultimately brought about and caused by the parent, but the child also worked and was rewarded for the work that was only made possible in the first place by the parent. That’s God and us, and it’s why we can obtain merit for our good works and reward for same: up to and including salvation itself: so the Bible repeatedly teaches.
let every man who endeavors to regulate his life by obedience to Christ direct his whole attention to keep the commandments of the law.
Yes, let them do so. And let them understand that this is tied to salvation in the Bible. Calvin denies it, but he can’t overcome or overthrow all of the abundant biblical data.
The law must have been dead to him, when he vainly imagined that he was so righteous; for if he had not flattered himself through hypocrisy, it was an excellent advice to him to learn humility, to contemplate his spots and blemishes in the mirror of the law. But, intoxicated with foolish confidence, he fearlessly boasts that he has discharged his duty properly from his childhood.
Again, there is no textual evidence in the passage suggesting all of this, which is Calvin’s imagining and superimposition only. If he was in fact a rank hypocrite, Jesus (knowing all things, including this man’s thoughts and life) would have surely pointed it out to him, and rebuked it, just as He often did with the Pharisees. Instead, he accepts his word that he had observed the commandments from his youth (implying that he indeed had done so), and then strongly implied that his remaining sin, keeping him from salvation, was pride of possessions, or the idolatry of placing them above a full heartfelt obedience to God.
That’s a serious sin, too, without question, but it’s a different one from what Calvin dreams up, with no textual support; hence only a statement of his prior presupposition and therefore, eisegesis (i.e., improperly reading into a biblical text what isn’t there). Calvin believes that no one can ever possibly adequately observe the Mosaic Law. Jesus seems to think that this man did. Giving away all we have is not part of the Mosaic Law, as far as I know.
Calvin agrees in this section, writing, “I confess that we are nowhere commanded in the law to sell all.” So that was a separate issue, distinct from questions of Law-observance. The man asked Jesus what it was that he still lacked. If it were imperfect observance of the law, Jesus would have told him so, because that, too, would have been a thing that he lacked or fell short in fulfilling. But He didn’t. He moved onto a non-law consideration. Therefore, it logically follows that the man had indeed kept the law, as far as that goes: the very thing that Calvin vehemently denies (“if he had known himself thoroughly, as soon as he heard the mention of the law, he would have acknowledged that he was liable to the judgment of God”).
But if we are not prepared to endure poverty, it is manifest that covetousness reigns in us.
If it is expressly Gods will for us, yes. But it’s clearly not His will for most people. The Bible is not against rich men per se. Abraham and Joseph of Arimathea were rich men, without the slightest hint of condemnation in the Bible about their state. Calvin is too sweeping and legalistic. Anyone caring for a family has to be above the poverty level. That’s why, in the Catholic Church, when one wants to heroically renounce possessions and self-will, they are usually urged to be celibate, because such deprivations are much easier to undergo without a family to provide for. Jesus refers to His disciples leaving families, even wives, to follow Him. And in so doing, He said that they would receive eternal life as the reward.
*
***
* Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 4,800+ free online articles or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
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.
Photo credit: Anonymous Dutch portrait of John Calvin, c. 1550 [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
Summary: One of a series examining how John Calvin (1509-1564) exegeted biblical passages in his Commentaries that (in my opinion) refute the novel Protestant doctrine of “faith alone”.
I shall now proceed to offer a critique of common Protestant attempts to ignore, explain away, rationalize, wish away, overpolemicize, minimize, de-emphasize, evade clear consequences of, or special plead with regard to “the Catholic Verses”: ninety-five biblical passages that provide the foundation for Catholicism’s most distinctive doctrines. . . .
I will assert – with all due respect and, I hope, with a minimum of “triumphalism” — the ultimate incoherence, inadequacy, inconsistency, or exegetical and theological implausibility of the Protestant interpretations, and will submit the Catholic views as exegetically and logically superior alternatives.
The dates of Calvin’s various Commentaries are as follows:
1540 Romans
1548 All the Epistles of Paul
1551 Hebrews, and the Epistles of Peter, John, Jude, and James
1551 Isaiah
1552 Acts of the Apostles
1554 Genesis
1557 Psalms
1557 Hosea
1559 Twelve Minor Prophets
1561 Daniel
1562 Joshua
1563 Harmony of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy
1563 Jeremiah
1563 Harmony of Three Gospels and Commentary on St John
I use RSV for biblical citations. Calvin’s words will be in blue.
A complete listing of this series will be on my web page, John Calvin: Catholic Appraisal, under the subtitle: “Bible vs. ‘Faith Alone’ vs. John Calvin”.
*****
Matthew 7:16, 18-21 You will know them by their fruits . . . [18] A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. [19] Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. [20] Thus you will know them by their fruits. [21] Not every one who says to me, “Lord, Lord,” shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. . . .
Calvin pretty much misses the entire point of the passage, refuses to make specific comment on verses 18-21 (passes right over them) and instead decides to make his commentary an anti-Catholic rant:
If, for example, we place before our minds what Paul requires in bishops, (1 Timothy 3:1; Titus 1:6-9,) that description will be sufficient of itself to condemn the whole mass of Popery: for the Popish priests seem as if they purposely intended to present an opposite picture.
If one can’t provide a rational, sensible counter-reply, then one can always ignore! It’s the standard practice of Protestant apologists online, who only rarely engage in point-by-point dialogue with Catholic apologists. They are especially reluctant to do so in direct proportion to how much Scripture the Catholic offers in favor of their views and against the Protestant ones. Oh, the ironies . . .
Meanwhile, Jesus clearly, undeniably teaches here that works are one of the things that are absolutely essential to salvation, since the ones who don’t do them end up in hell (“fire”: following the agricultural analogies) and can’t go to heaven. I think this ought to have been directly addressed by Calvin, who was duty-bound to explain — to exhibit the courage of his convictions — how this can possible be squared with “faith alone.”
***
“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”!If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,800+ articles, please follow my blog by signing up (with your email address) on the sidebar to the right (you may have to scroll down a bit), above where there is an icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. My blog was rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT: endorsed by influential Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Actually, I partner with Kenny Burchard on the YouTube channel, Catholic Bible Highlights. Please subscribe there, too! Please also consider following me on Twitter / X and purchasing one or more of my 55 books. All of this helps me get more exposure, and (however little!) more income for my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!
***
Matthew 10:22 (cf. Mt 24:13; Mk 13:13) . . . But he who endures to the end will be saved.
Here, Calvin is brief. I cite his entire commentary:
This single promise ought sufficiently to support the minds of the godly, though the whole world should rise against them: for they are assured that the result will be prosperous and happy. If those who fight under earthly commanders, and are uncertain as to the issue of the battle, are carried forward even to death by steadiness of purpose, shall those who are certain of victory hesitate to abide by the cause of Christ to the very last?
It’s simply wrongheaded. This is not primarily a promise. Rather, it’s an exhortation to be vigilant. Nor is it an instance of assurance, for no one knows the future; hence, we don’t know with absolute certainly if we will endure to the end. St. Paul certainly exhibited no such faux-certainty, even about his own final state in the afterlife:
Philippians 3:10-14, 16 that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, [11] that if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. [12] Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make it my own, . . . [13] Brethren, I do not consider that I have made it my own; . . . [14] I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. . . . [16] Only let us hold true to what we have attained.
Elsewhere, St. Paul is very clear and direct:
1 Corinthians 9:25-27 Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. [26] Well, I do not run aimlessly, I do not box as one beating the air; [27] but I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.
1 Corinthians 10:12 Therefore let any one who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.
St. Peter casually assumes the possibility of falling away from grace and salvation. We don’t allow that to happen by engaging in numerous good works:
2 Peter 1:5-7, 10-11 For this very reason make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, [6] and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, [7] and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. . . . [10] Therefore, brethren, be the more zealous to confirm your call and election, for if you do this you will never fall; [11] so there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Likewise, St. John:
2 John 1:8 Look to yourselves, that you may not lose what you have worked for, but may win a full reward.
In the context of the parallel verse in Matthew 24:13, Jesus taught:
Matthew 24:4-5 . . . “Take heed that no one leads you astray. [5] For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray.”
Why is He warning His disciples about a thing that supposedly can’t happen? Who knows? Calvin’s theology requires him to believe in the unbiblical notion of believers being eternally secure (irresistible grace). Similarly, Jesus stated:
Luke 21:8, 34-36 “Take heed that you are not led astray; . . . [34] But take heed to yourselves lest your hearts be weighed down with dissipation and drunkenness and cares of this life, and that day come upon you suddenly like a snare; [35] for it will come upon all who dwell upon the face of the whole earth. [36] But watch at all times, praying that you may have strength to escape all these things that will take place, and to stand before the Son of man.”
Again, Jesus says:
Revelation 2:5 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.
In Revelation 2:10, Jesus says, “Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life.” It seems to me that if Calvin’s doctrine were true, He would have said something like, “you will be faithful unto death, at which time I will give you the crown of life.” But instead, the reward comes as a result of our faithful works and endurance. As always, it’s “both/and”: God’s grace enabling us to do good works, which He in turn rewards. But our works can’t be left out of it, as of no relevance whatsoever, and that’s what Calvin futilely attempts to do, because he is beholden to a false tradition of men, rather than to the Bible in this instance.
Matthew 16:27 For the Son of man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay every man for what he has done.
The reward of works has been treated by me as fully as was necessary under another passage.
The editor thinks that Calvin refers to his commentary on John 4:36. It’s a good verse that I could and should have included among my one hundred Bible proofs against “faith alone“. So let’s take a look at that:
John 4:36-38 He who reaps receives wages, and gathers fruit for eternal life, so that sower and reaper may rejoice together. [37] For here the saying holds true, ‘One sows and another reaps.’ [38] I sent you to reap that for which you did not labor; others have labored, and you have entered into their labor.”
How diligently we ought to devote ourselves to the work of God, he proves by another argument; namely, because a large and most excellent reward is reserved for our labor; for he promises that there will be fruit, and fruit not corruptible or fading.
Yes, and it is rewards for our work, including “for eternal life.” This is the whole point, and key to Protestant-Catholic soteriological disagreements.
And certainly both considerations ought greatly to encourage the ministers of the word, that they may never sink under the toil, when they hear that a crown of glory is prepared for them in heaven, and know that the fruit of their harvest will not only be precious in the sight of God, but will also be eternal.
This is better. Calvin virtually stumbles upon the Catholic view, almost despite himself. The fruit and the reward are “eternal.” I don’t see how that is essentially different from saying that “good works help bring about eternal life, along with grace and faith.” If B is a reward for A, then by the same token, we can also say that A (partially or wholly) causedB.
It is for this purpose that Scripture everywhere mentions reward, and not for the purpose of leading us to judge from it as to the merits of works; for which of us, if we come to a reckoning, will not be found more worthy of being punished for slothfulness than of being rewarded for diligence?
Note how Calvin takes a swipe at merit (and the God-enabled good works that bring it about), but that’s abundantly proven in Scripture as well. He offers no immediate Scriptures to justify his hostility to merit. I provide fifty that establish it beyond any doubt.
To the best laborers nothing else will be left than to approach to God in all humility to implore forgiveness.
That’s easy to say, but it’s not what the Bible teaches. It regularly asserts that works are one of the three things (along with grace and faith) directly involved in the causation of salvation.
But the Lord, who acts towards us with the kindness of a father, in order to correct our sloth, and to encourage us who would otherwise be dismayed, deigns to bestow upon us an undeserved reward.
But again, it’s deserved in terms of our having truly earned the reward by our works. That’s not just me making a bald claim (as Calvin often does); it’s at least a hundred Bible passages saying so. I didn’t write the Bible or determine my theology; I simply follow it wherever it leads me. It’s why there are many passages in the Bible in which a person (prominently, St. Paul) is “proud” about his work for God, and boasts about it. This sense of deserving reward would make no sense whatever if merit weren’t true, and if Calvin’s “faith alone” was true doctrine.
This is so far from overturning justification by faith that it rather confirms it. For, in the first place, how comes it that God finds in us any thing to reward, but because He has bestowed it upon us by his Spirit?
Yes, He rewards His own gifts, as St. Augustine noted. It doesn’t follow, however, that we did nothing, or that we get no credit. “Both/and.” God makes our works His. Both things are true. I provided seven Bible passages proving that in my previous installment (see especially 1 Cor 15:10, 58 and Phil 2:12-13).
Secondly, how comes it that God confers so great honor on imperfect and sinful works but because, after having by free grace reconciled us to himself, He accepts our works without any regard to merit, by not imputing the sins which cleave to them?
This is not an argument; it’s a false assumption. The Bible never teaches that every single work is imperfect and sinful, nor that God supposedly doesn’t impute these “sins” that “cleave” to them: as Calvin mistakenly believes. God thinks they are altogether good enough to not only receive merit but also to help bring about salvation. I have brought forth 150 Bible passages to prove it. I need not keep citing them. Readers may follow the links. And we are going through many of those now, in the effort to reveal how pitifully Calvin tries to systematically — and unsuccessfully — skirt around them. Sadly, it’s what almost all Protestant apologists have done for over 500 years, when it comes to actually grappling with Catholic biblical arguments (which they avoid like the plague but occasionally descend to trying to refute).
But, in order that this passage may be properly understood, we must comprehend the contrast between sowing and reaping The sowing was the doctrine of the Law and the Prophets; for at that time the seed thrown into the soil remained, as it were, in the blade; but the doctrine of the Gospel, which brings men to proper maturity, is on that account justly compared to the harvest. For the Law was very far from that perfection which has at length been exhibited to us in Christ.
This lame defense of faith alone might have worked (at least prima facie), except that the Bible contradicts it, by placing sowing and reaping together:
1 Corinthians 9:9-11 For it is written in the law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned? [10] Does he not speak entirely for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of a share in the crop. [11] If we have sown spiritual good among you, is it too much if we reap your material benefits?
2 Corinthians 9:6, 10 The point is this: he who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. . . . [10] He who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will supply and multiply your resources and increase the harvest of your righteousness.
Galatians 6:7-8 Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. [8] For he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption; but he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.
God doesn’t denigrate sowing, by equating it with antiquated law, as Calvin does; especially in these words:
as that seed was degenerated from the very root, and as the corn which could spring from it, though not good or natural, was choked by a huge mass of errors, it is unreasonable to suppose that such destructive corruption is compared to sowing
Now I return to Calvin’s commentary on Matthew 16:27:
When a reward is promised to good works, their merit is not contrasted with the justification which is freely bestowed on us through faith; nor is it pointed out as the cause of our salvation, but is only held out to excite believers to aim at doing what is right, by assuring them that their labor will not be lost.
If that were indeed true, then Calvin would and should have refuted all of these “Catholic verses” that I produce: showing exactly why and how they don’t refute faith alone (and provide us with many other verses that uphold that novel doctrine). But as we see, he doesn’t come within a million miles of doing so.
God, of his own good pleasure, bestows on our works a reward which we did not deserve.
The Bible says that they are worthy. That’s why Paul stated that he was “proud” of his own works, and boasted about them, and boasted about works of his followers, too. If we want to find the notion of works “deserving” reward, we can find that, too:
Matthew 10:10 . . . the laborer deserves his food.
Luke 10:7 . . . the laborer deserves his wages . . .
These two passages refer to the disciples going out and evangelizing and performing miracles.
1 Timothy 5:18 for the scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”
Revelation 2:23 . . . I will give to each of you as your works deserve.
Scripture knows nothing of the false doctrine of every good work inevitably being tainted by sin and corruption. God gives rewards that we have merited and deserve. Calvin gets it exactly backwards.
*
***
*
Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 4,800+ free online articles or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
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.
Photo credit: John Calvin: unknown 16th century portrait [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
Summary: One of a series examining how John Calvin (1509-1564) exegeted biblical passages in his Commentaries that (in my opinion) refute the novel Protestant doctrine of “faith alone”.
I shall now proceed to offer a critique of common Protestant attempts to ignore, explain away, rationalize, wish away, overpolemicize, minimize, de-emphasize, evade clear consequences of, or special plead with regard to “the Catholic Verses”: ninety-five biblical passages that provide the foundation for Catholicism’s most distinctive doctrines. . . .
I will assert – with all due respect and, I hope, with a minimum of “triumphalism” — the ultimate incoherence, inadequacy, inconsistency, or exegetical and theological implausibility of the Protestant interpretations, and will submit the Catholic views as exegetically and logically superior alternatives.
The dates of Calvin’s various Commentaries are as follows:
1540 Romans
1548 All the Epistles of Paul
1551 Hebrews, and the Epistles of Peter, John, Jude, and James
1551 Isaiah
1552 Acts of the Apostles
1554 Genesis
1557 Psalms
1557 Hosea
1559 Twelve Minor Prophets
1561 Daniel
1562 Joshua
1563 Harmony of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy
1563 Jeremiah
1563 Harmony of Three Gospels and Commentary on St John
I use RSV for biblical citations. Calvin’s words will be in blue.
A complete listing of this series will be on my web page, John Calvin: Catholic Appraisal, under the subtitle: “Bible vs. ‘Faith Alone’ vs. John Calvin”.
*****
Psalm 7:10 My shield is with God, who saves the upright in heart.
He declares, that as God saves the upright in heart, he is perfectly safe under his protection. Whence it follows, that he had the testimony of an approving conscience. And, as he does not simply say the righteous, but the upright in heart, he appears to have an eye to that inward searching of the heart and reins mentioned in the preceding verse.
Accordingly, I cite his comment on Ps 7:9 also:
Accordingly there follows immediately after the corresponding prayer Direct thou the righteous, or establish him; for it is of little importance which of these two readings we adopt. The meaning is, that God would re-establish and uphold the righteous, who are wrongfully oppressed, and thus make it evident that they are continued in their estate by the power of God, notwithstanding the persecution to which they are subjected.—For God searcheth the hearts. The Hebrew copulative is here very properly translated by the causal particle for, since David, without doubt, adds this clause as an argument to enforce his prayer. He now declares, for the third time, that, trusting to the testimony of a good conscience, he comes before God with confidence; but here he expresses something more than he had done before, namely, that he not only showed his innocence, by his external conduct, but had also cultivated purity in the secret affection of his heart.
None of this proves faith alone, or refutes the Catholic view of infused justification. Calvin simply notes that “they are continued in their estate by the power of God.” Of course we fully agree. That doesn’t preclude our necessary cooperation with God. But the point is that we must be righteous to be saved. Calvin hasn’t shown that it’s merely imputed righteousness and not an actual holiness of behavior. He provides nothing that Protestants need in order to determine that this verse supports rather than disproves the notion of faith alone.
***
“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”!If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,800+ articles, please follow my blog by signing up (with your email address) on the sidebar to the right (you may have to scroll down a bit), above where there is an icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. My blog was rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT: endorsed by influential Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. 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!
***
Isaiah 1:27Zion shall be redeemed by justice, and those in her who repent, by righteousness.
Because the restoration of the Church was hard to be believed, he shows that it does not depend on the will of men, but is founded on the justice and judgment of God; as if he had said, that God will by no means permit his Church to be altogether destroyed, because he is righteous. The design of the Prophet, therefore, is to withdraw the minds of the godly from earthly thoughts, that in looking for the safety of the Church they may depend entirely on God, . . . though men yield no assistance, the justice of God is fully sufficient for redeeming his Church. And, indeed, so long as we look at ourselves, what hope are we entitled to cherish? How many things, on the contrary, immediately present themselves that are fitted to weaken our faith! It is only in the justice of God that we shall find solid and lasting ground of confidence.
Calvin commits the same mistake that he did regarding the previous verse: he refers solely to God’s primary and ultimate causational role in salvation, while ignoring man’s part in the transaction. Since he denies man’s free will, this makes consistent sense within his own paradigm, but it’s unbiblical. God saves the righteous. We must cooperate with God’s grace and become more righteous, as opposed to merely being declared righteous when we really aren’t. The entire context of the chapter makes that abundantly clear:
Isaiah 1:16-21 Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your doings from before my eyes; cease to do evil, [17] learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; defend the fatherless, plead for the widow. [18] “Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool. [19] If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land; [20] But if you refuse and rebel, you shall be devoured by the sword; for the mouth of the LORD has spoken.” [21] How the faithful city has become a harlot, she that was full of justice! Righteousness lodged in her, but now murderers.
It’s interesting how many of these themes appear in the NT in conjunction with salvation:
“He saved us, . . . by the washing of regeneration” (baptism: Titus 3:5); “. . . our bodies washed with pure water” (Heb 10:22).
“Cleanse out the old leaven” (1 Cor 5:7); “let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, and make holiness perfect” (2 Cor 7:1); “our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience” (Heb 10:22).
“A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit” (Mt 7:18); “those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment” (Jn 5:29); “There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil” (Rom 2:9).
“do good . . . and you will be sons of the Most High” (Lk 6:35); “those who have done good, to the resurrection of life” (Jn 5:29); “glory and honor and peace for every one who does good” (Rom 2:10); “They are to do good, to be rich in good deeds, . . . so that they may take hold of the life which is life indeed” (1 Tim 6:18-19).
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you . . . have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, . . .” (Mt 23:23).
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed” (Lk 4:18).
“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” (Jas 1:27).
Isaiah26:2 Open the gates, that the righteous nation which keeps faith may enter in.
When the Prophet calls the nation “righteous and truthful,” he not only, as I mentioned a little before, describes the persons to whom this promise relates, but shews the fruit of the chastisement; for when its pollution shall have been washed away, the holiness and righteousness of the Church shall shine more brightly. . . .
Now, as the Prophet foretells the grace of God, so he also exhorts the redeemed people to maintain uprightness of life. In short, he threatens that these promises will be of no avail to hypocrites, and that the gates of the city will not be opened for them, but only for the righteous and holy. It is certain that the Church was always like a barn, (Matthew 3:12) in which the chaff is mingled with the wheat, or rather, the wheat is overpowered by the chaff; but when the Jews had been brought back into their country, the Church was unquestionably purer than before. . . . though the Church even at that time was stained by many imperfections, still this description was comparatively true; for a large portion of the filth had been swept away, and those who remained had profited in some degree under God’s chastisements.
There is not much to disagree with here –at least, prima facie; it reads very “Catholic”; even including themes not unlike the purifying processes of purgatory. But, as in the previous passages, Calvin basically is highlighting what God did, and ignoring the role of human beings cooperating with the God’s saving and enabling grace, per his theological system, which is insufficiently biblical.
Ten verses later (26:12), we see a synergistic, “both/and” passage (“thou hast wrought for us all our works”) that exhibits the notion of our works — truly ours! — being at the same time, God’s, much like 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.” Other translations help to elaborate upon this passage’s meaning:
NIV . . . all that we have accomplished you have done for us.
KJV . . . thou also hast wrought all our works in us.
NKJV . . . You have also done all our works in us.
Amplified . . . You have also performed for us all that we have done.
CEV . . . everything we have done was by your power.
GNB . . . everything that we achieve is the result of what you do.
We still do something. And because we cooperate and do what God makes possible, by His grace (as with all good works), we achieve merit in doing them; as St. Augustine famously wrote, “Merit is God crowning His own gifts.”
Isaiah 32:17 And the effect of righteousness will be peace, and the result of righteousness, quietness and trust for ever.
He now promises a different kind of repose, which will be a striking proof of the love of God, who has received them into favor, and will faithfully guard them. . . . that different kind of repose, on the other hand, which the children of God obtain by a religious and holy life, and which Isaiah exhorts us to desire, shewing that we ought fearlessly to believe that a blessed and joyful peace awaits us when we have been reconciled to God.
In this way he recommends to them to follow uprightness, that they may obtain assured peace; for, as Peter declares, there is no better way of procuring favor, that no man may do us injury, than to abstain from all evil-doing. (1 Peter 3:13.) But the Prophet leads them higher, to aim at a religious and holy life by the grace of God; . . .
Part of this “procuring favor” and that which we “obtain by a religious and holy life” is doing the good works which the Bible teaches are crucial to salvation itself. But Calvin carefully avoids any such implication. I submit that my hundred passages cannot all be dismissed simply by ignoring the author’s intent when it contradicts Calvinism. He almost “backs into” Catholic soteriology, but in the final analysis skirts around it.
Isaiah 33:15-16 He who walks righteously and speaks uprightly, who despises the gain of oppressions, who shakes his hands, lest they hold a bribe, who stops his ears from hearing of bloodshed and shuts his eyes from looking upon evil, [16] he will dwell on the heights; his place of defense will be the fortresses of rocks; his bread will be given him, his water will be sure.
No man, indeed, can be so holy or upright as to be capable of enduring the eye of God; for “if the Lord mark our iniquities,” as David says, “who shall endure?” (Psalms 130:3.) We therefore need a mediator, through whose intercession our sins may be forgiven; and the Prophet did not intend to set aside the ordinary doctrine of Scripture on this subject, but to strike with terror wicked men, who are continually stung and pursued by an evil conscience, This ought to be carefully observed in opposition to the Popish doctors, by whom passages of this kind, which recommend works, are abused in order to destroy the righteousness of faith; as if the atonement for our sins, which we obtain through the sacrifice of Christ, ought to be set aside.
Ah! Now we see the incipient anti-Catholicism that never lurks very far beneath the surface of Calvin’s commentary. Note how he creates a false dichotomy (a common feature of his theology and methods of argumentation). As soon as dreaded “works” are brought into play at all, they must be denigrated, as if the Bible doesn’t teach that they play a real role in salvation (always alongside grace and faith, which are antecedent to them). My hundred Bible passages are designed to cut through this falsehood and to relentlessly refute it from the Bible. Works are not in opposition to “the sacrifice of Christ”; rather, they naturally flow from it. They are how we show or prove that we are in Christ: as Jesus Himself taught:
John 15:2, 4-6, 8 Every branch of mine that bears no fruit, he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. . . . [4] Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. [5] I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. [6] If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned. . . . [8] By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be my disciples.
So why does Calvin pit our good works against the sacrifice of Christ on our behalf, as if the two things are intrinsically antithetical? Who knows? But we know that this emphasis — whether Calvin was aware of it or not — is a result of placing man’s false, nonbiblical traditions above the Word of God in Holy Scripture. The irony, of course, is that this is what Calvin always accuses Catholics of doing.
Isaiah 48:18-19 O that you had hearkened to my commandments! Then your peace would have been like a river, and your righteousness like the waves of the sea; [19] your offspring would have been like the sand, and your descendants like its grains; their name would never be cut off or destroyed from before me.”
Yet it would be foolish to attempt to penetrate into his secret counsel, and to inquire why he did not add the efficacy of the Spirit to the external word; for nothing is said here about his power, but there is only a reproof of the hard-heartedness of men, that they may be rendered inexcusable.
Here Calvin appears to wonder “aloud” why God isn’t a good Protestant in what he conveyed to the Jews, and why He doesn’t mention grace and/or the Holy Spirit every time He referred to commandments and works. When Calvin is stumped for ideas, he usually waxes eloquent and sophistical, as in this instance. He can be as clever as he is wrong.
Isaiah 56:1Thus says the LORD: “Keep justice, and do righteousness, for soon my salvation will come, and my deliverance be revealed.
He . . . points out the source and the cause why it is the duty of all to devote themselves to newness of life. It is because “the righteousness of the Lord approaches to us,” that we, on our part, ought to draw near to him. The Lord calls himself “righteous,” and declares that this is “his righteousness,” not because he keeps it shut up in himself, but because he pours it out on men. In like manner he calls it “his salvation,” by which he delivers men from destruction.
Again, Calvin superimposes the late Protestant doctrine of imputed, external, justification, by only stressing that God’s righteousness is in play, and not also our righteousness, from Him, which is related to salvation. The good works that regenerated, initially justified believers do are simultaneously God’s own. Therefore, He gets ultimate credit for them, while at the same time they are truly our own, too. That’s the biblical, Hebraic “both/and” outlook on life and theology. Many Bible passages teach this:
Mark 16:20 And they went forth and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them . . .
Romans 15:17-19 In Christ Jesus, then, I have reason to be proud of my work for God. [18] For I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has wrought through me to win obedience from the Gentiles, by word and deed, [19] by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Holy Spirit, . . .
1 Corinthians 3:9 For we are God’s fellow workers . . .
1 Corinthians 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me.
1 Corinthians 15:58 . . . be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain.
2 Corinthians 6:1 Working together with him, . . .
Philippians 2:12-13 . . . work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; [13] for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
Five of the next six verses in the chapter highlight good works as the path to the salvation alluded to in verse 1:
56:2 “Blessed is the man who does this, and the son of man who holds it fast, who keeps the sabbath, not profaning it, and keeps his hand from doing any evil.”
56:4-5 For thus says the LORD: “To the eunuchs who keep my sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant, [5] I will give in my house and within my walls a monument and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name which shall not be cut off.
56:6-7 “And the foreigners who join themselves to the LORD, to minister to him, to love the name of the LORD, and to be his servants, every one who keeps the sabbath, and does not profane it, and holds fast my covenant — [7] these I will bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer; . . .
*
***
*
Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 4,800+ free online articles or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
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.
Summary: One of a series examining how John Calvin (1509-1564) exegeted biblical passages in his Commentaries that (in my opinion) refute the novel Protestant doctrine of “faith alone”.
Photo credit: Historical mixed media figure of John Calvin produced by artist/historian George S. Stuart and photographed by Peter d’Aprix: from the George S. Stuart Gallery of Historical Figures archive [Wikimedia Commons / Creative CommonsAttribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license]
This is a reply to John Calvin’s Acts of the Council of Trent with the Antidote (Nov. 1547), specifically his comments on the Sixth Session of the Council of Trent (Jan. 1547), regarding justification. The online treatise is taken from Selected Works of John Calvin: Tracts and Letters, Vol. 3: Tracts, Part 3; edited and translated by Henry Beveridge (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1851). I have a hardcover copy of this volume in my own library: a reprint from Baker Book House (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1983).
John Calvin’s words will be in blue; citations from Trent in green. I use RSV for biblical citations.
It was indeed an absurd dream, but they are still more grossly absurd when they give it as their opinion, that none of all the things which precede Justification, whether faith or works, merit it. What works antecedent to Justification are they here imagining? What kind of order is this in which the fruit is antecedent in time to the root? In one word, that pious readers may understand how great progress has been made in securing purity of doctrine, the monks dunned into the ears of the reverend Fathers, whose part was to nod assent, this old song, that good works which precede justification are not meritorious of eternal salvation, but preparatory only. If any works precede faith, they should also be taken into account. But there is no merit, because there are no works; for if men inquire into their works, they will find only evil works.
Posterity will scarcely believe that the Papacy had fallen into such a stupor as to imagine the possibility of any work antecedent to justification, even though they denied it to be meritorious of so great a blessing! For what can come from man until he is born again by the Spirit of God?
Such works as repentance, any good thing that they do, by prevenient grace, the sort of general theistic belief that Paul refers to in Romans 1:20: “Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.” Or, “the law written upon their hearts”:
Romans 2:13-16 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. [14] When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. [15] They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them [16] on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
Or the virtuous pagan beliefs that Paul built upon in Athens, to preach the gospel:
Acts 17:22-23, 27-28 . . . “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. [23] For as I passed along, and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, ‘To an unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. . . . [27] . . . he is not far from each one of us, [28] for `In him we live and move and have our being’; as even some of your poets have said, `For we are indeed his offspring.’
Or the faith of the Roman centurion who came to Jesus, at whom Jesus “marveled” and said, “I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith” (Lk 7:9). Calvin believes in total depravity; i.e., that human beings can do no good whatsoever before they are regenerated, and that even ostensibly good actions are inevitably tainted by evil in some fashion. But the anonymous psalmist in 112:5-6 refers to the “righteous” (Heb. tob), as does the book of Proverbs repeatedly: using the words “righteous” or “good” (11:23; 12:2; 13:22; 14:14, 19), using the same word, tob, which appears in Psalm 14:2-3. References to righteous men are innumerable (e.g., Job 17:9; 22:19; Ps 5:12; 32:11; 34:15; 37:16, 32; Mt 9:13; 13:17; 25:37, 46; Rom 5:19; Heb 11:4; Jas 5:16; 1 Pet 3:12; 4:18, etc.). See my articles:
Very different is the reasoning of Paul. He exhorts the Ephesians to remember (Ephesians 2) that they were saved by grace, not by themselves nor by their own works.
We don’t deny that, so it’s a moot point or a non sequitur.
***
“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”!If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,800+ articles, please follow my blog by signing up (with your email address) on the sidebar to the right (you may have to scroll down a bit), above where there is an icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. My blog was rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT: endorsed by influential Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. 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!
***
Scripture, . . . opposes faith to works . . .
Really?:
Matthew 7:21 Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. . . .
Matthew 19:16-17, 20-21 And behold, one came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?” [17] And he said to him, “. . . If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” . . . [20] The young man said to him, “All these I have observed; what do I still lack?” [21] Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”
Matthew 19:29 And every one who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life. (cf. Mk 10:29-30)
Luke 3:9 (+ Mt 3:10; 7:19) . . . every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
John 5:28-29 . . . all who are in the tombs will hear his voice [29] and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.
Romans 1:5, 17 through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations, . . . [17] For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, “He who through faith is righteous shall live.” (cf. Acts 6:7)
Romans 2:13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.
Romans 16:26 . . . the obedience of faith
Galatians 5:6 . . . faith working through love.
1 Thessalonians 1:3 . . . your work of faith . . .
2 Thessalonians 1:11 . . . work of faith by his power,
Hebrews 11:8 By faith Abraham obeyed . . .
James 2:14, 17, 20-22, 24, 26 What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? . . . [17] So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. . . . [20] . . . faith apart from works is barren . . . [21] Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? [22] You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, . . . [24] You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. . . . [26] . . . faith apart from works is dead.
In the tenth chapter, they inveigh against what they call The Vain Confidence of Heretics. This consists, according to their definition, in our holding it as certain that our sins are forgiven, and resting in this certainty. But if such certainty makes heretics, where will be the happiness which David extols? (Psalm 32) Nay, where will be the peace of which Paul discourses in the fifth chapter to the Romans, if we rest in anything but the good-will of God?
Where, then, is that boldness of which Paul elsewhere speaks, (Ephesians 3:12,) that access with confidence to the Father through faith in Christ? . . . Nay, they overthrow all true prayer to God, when they keep pious minds suspended by fear which alone shuts the door of access against us. “He who doubts,” says James, (James 1:6) “is like a wave of the sea driven by the wind.” Let not such think that they shall obtain anything of the Lord. “Let him who would pray effectually not doubt.” Attend to the antithesis between faith and doubt, plainly intimating that faith is destroyed as soon as certainty is taken away.
*
We do have that access, but it’s not the same as absolute assurance of eschatological salvation. St. Paul also warned:
1 Corinthians 9:27 I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.
1 Corinthians 10:12 Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.
Galatians 5:1 For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.
Galatians 5:4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.
Philippians 3:8-14 Indeed I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as refuse, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own, based on law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith; that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Brethren, I do not consider that I have made it my own; but one thing I do, forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.
1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons.
But that the whole of their theology may be more manifest to my readers, let them weigh the words which follow under the same head. It ought not to be asserted, they say, that those who have been truly justified ought to entertain an unhesitating doubt that they are justified.
That’s not our teaching, which is thoroughly based on Paul’s. We simply deny absolute certainty of the future, including that of our attainment of heaven. This doesn’t equate to constant, anxious doubt, which is merely Calvin’s “either/or” self-delusion. It’s simply the acknowledgment of the obvious reality that we don’t know the future, and that we can possibly fall away from faith. Calvin, of course, denies that it’s possible to fall away, which is equally unbiblical, per the above articles. So each unbiblical error of his is compounded upon others, leading him further and further away from the Bible itself: all the while making the same accusation towards us, of the very thing he is doing..
I am ashamed to debate the matter, as if it were doubtful, with men who call themselves Christians. The doctrine of Scripture is clear. “We know,” says John, (1 John 4:6,) “that we are the children of God.”
Indeed, but how does John say that we know this?:
1 John 2:3-5 And by this we may be sure that we know him, if we keep his commandments. [4] He who says “I know him” but disobeys his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him; [5] but whoever keeps his word, in him truly love for God is perfected. By this we may be sure that we are in him:
1 John 3:24 All who keep his commandments abide in him, and he in them. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit which he has given us.
He doesn’t teach, “we’re absolutely sure because we have faith!” He wasn’t a Calvinist and would have — along with Paul and James and Peter — flunked out of their seminaries. Rather, good works and obeying commandments are how we know, and “knowing” doesn’t mean that it is for all time, into eternity. We can know in the present, because we’re in the present and there is no required speculation about what is to come. That’s Paul’s and John’s teaching. That’s why Paul refers to “lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified” (1 Cor 9:27) and “let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall” (1 Cor 10:12) and “if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make it my own. Brethren, I do not consider that I have made it my own . . . ” (Phil 3:11-13).
And, indeed, they are ignorant of the whole nature of faith who mingle doubt with it.
Again; it’s not doubt per se; rather, it’s a common sense acknowledgment that we don’t know the future. Jesus said, “he who endures to the end will be saved” (Mt 10:22). We don’t know that we’ll do that. But we have a strong faith that God’s enabling power will give us the strength and perseverance to do that, provided we are willing the whole way and don’t “fall away” (Gal 5:4; cf. Mt 13:6-7: parable of the sower). Paul condemns doubt (Rom 14:23), but he still warns about a possible falling away, if one isn’t vigilant and doesn’t “press on” like he does, or as James describes: “he who . . . perseveres, being no hearer that forgets but a doer that acts, he shall be blessed in his doing” (Jas 1:25).
*
***
*
Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 4,800+ free online articles or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
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.
Summary: Part II of my critical examination of John Calvin’s 1547 treatise, “Acts of the Council of Trent with the Antidote”: regarding the issue of justification by faith, and salvation.
Highlighting “Working Together with God” and Our Grounds for “Boasting” and “Pride” in the Meritorious Work We and Other Christians Do for the Sake of God and Evangelism
Photo credit: Historical mixed media figure of John Calvin produced by artist/historian George S. Stuart and photographed by Peter d’Aprix: from the George S. Stuart Gallery of Historical Figures archive [Wikimedia Commons / Creative CommonsAttribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license]
This is a reply to John Calvin’s Acts of the Council of Trent with the Antidote (Nov. 1547), specifically his comments on the Sixth Session of the Council of Trent (Jan. 1547), regarding justification. The online treatise is taken from Selected Works of John Calvin: Tracts and Letters, Vol. 3: Tracts, Part 3; edited and translated by Henry Beveridge (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1851). I have a hardcover copy of this volume in my own library: a reprint from Baker Book House (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1983).
John Calvin’s words will be in blue; citations from Trent in green. I use RSV for biblical citations.
The doctrine of man’s Justification would be easily explained, did not the false opinions by which the minds of men are preoccupied, spread darkness over the clear light.
I totally agree!; totally disagree, however, as to the theological system inside which, and because of which most of these errors are found.
The principal cause of obscurity, however, is, that we are with the greatest difficulty induced to leave the glory of righteousness entire to God alone. For we always desire to be somewhat, and such is our folly, we even think we are. As this pride was innate in man from the first, so it opened a door for Satan to imbue them with many impious and vicious conceits with which we have this day to contend. And in all ages there have been sophists exercising their pen in extolling human righteousness, as they knew it would be popular.
First of all, God massively shares His glory with us, as I have amply proven from Scripture. Secondly, Calvin, exhibiting his typical unbiblical “either/or” error of thought, doesn’t grasp that the good works that regenerated, initially justified believers do are simultaneously God’s own. Therefore, He gets ultimate credit for them, while at the same time they are truly our own, too. That’s the biblical, Hebraic “both/and” outlook on life and theology. Many Bible passages teach this:
Mark 16:20 And they went forth and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by the signs that attended it. Amen.
Romans 15:17-19 In Christ Jesus, then, I have reason to be proud of my work for God. [18] For I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has wrought through me to win obedience from the Gentiles, by word and deed, [19] by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Holy Spirit, . . .
1 Corinthians 3:9 For we are God’s fellow workers . . .
1 Corinthians 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me. (cf. 15:58)
2 Corinthians 6:1 Working together with him, . . .
Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
Philippians 2:12-13 . . . work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; [13] for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure. (cf. Titus 3:5-8)
This cooperation with God can also make us actually righteous (infused justification), by His grace, provided we are willing to cooperate:
Romans 2:13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.
Romans 3:22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. . . .
2 Corinthians 5:21 . . . in him we might become the righteousness of God.
2 Corinthians 9:10 He who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will supply and multiply your resources and increase the harvest of your righteousness.
Ephesians 4:24 and put on the new nature, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.
Philippians 1:9-11 And it is my prayer that your love may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment, [10] so that you may approve what is excellent, and may be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, [11] filled with the fruits of righteousness which come through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God.
Philippians 3:8-9 . . . For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as refuse, in order that I may gain Christ
[9] and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own, based on law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith;
What I find so remarkable is that a man as theologically educated as Calvin can miss so much Scripture! I just cited fourteen passages. Who’s more biblical here? But Calvin chooses to simply ramble on, giving his opinions while ignoring what inspired revelation actually teaches about the same topics. He does this — quite annoyingly — in much of his Antidote. I prefer to concentrate, thank you, on what Sacred Scripture teaches, not men’s minds (however “brilliant”) without immediate recourse to same. We all have to be grounded in the Bible, not our own thoughts, which too often wander from that reliable, never-failing standard.
When by the singular kindness of God, the impiety of Pelagius was repudiated with the common consent of the ancient Church, they no longer dared to talk so pertly of human merit.
Human merit, necessarily brought about by God’s grace (God crowning His own gifts,” as St. Augustine described it) is not Pelagian works-salvation. This is the obnoxious fallacy always spouted by Calvin, and his Calvinist followers, and many other Protestants. If such works are simultaneously God’s and our own (1 Cor 15:10 above), totally enabled by Him from the outset, that’s not mere human works. The Bible teaches that meritorious works are good and required. I found 38 Bible passages that teach this. If Calvin wants to disbelieve that much Scripture, then he needs to refute all of it and prove that they don’t mean what they sure appear to mean, and find other ones that teach otherwise. But I’m sure he won’t do that. I’ve replied to him so many times I know how he operates by now.
Trent in its Chapter XVI on Justification, stated that “Jesus Christ Himself continually infuses his virtue into the said justified,-as the head into the members, and the vine into the branches,-and this virtue always precedes and accompanies and follows their good works, which without it could not in any wise be pleasing and meritorious before God . . .God forbid that a Christian should either trust or glory in himself, and not in the Lord, whose bounty towards all men is so great, that He will have the things which are His own gifts be their merits.” Canon XXXII reiterates that “the good works” of the justified person are those “which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ.” Both/and.
They, however, devised a middle way, by which they might not give God the whole in justification, and yet give something.
We didn’t “devise” anything. We follow what St. Paul taught in the above six passages. What’s “devised” is Calvin’s rejection of clear biblical teaching.
Nay, their definition at length contains nothing else than the trite dogma of the schools: that men are justified partly by the grace of God and partly by their own works; thus only showing themselves somewhat more modest than Pelagius was.
It’s not either/or in this sense, because our works are at the same time, God’s (working with us, through grace [1 Cor 15:10], and power [Phil 2:13]). Calvin vainly tries to pretend that we teach that they are wholly and only our own works and divorced from the necessary connection to God’s 100% causal grace. We simply cooperate with Him. That can’t possibly be Pelagianism. Nor is it Semi-Pelagianism. But Protestants — stuck in the “either/or” hyper-rationalistic rut, have been falsely accusing us of those heresies for over 500 years, and, sadly, it won’t ever stop. Wikipedia, citing the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, states:
A distinction is made between the beginning of faith and the increase of faith. Semi-Pelagian thought teaches that the latter half – growing in faith – is the work of God, while the beginning of faith is an act of free will, with grace supervening only later.
That’s emphatically not Catholic teaching, and this was made clear in Canons I-III of the Sixth Session:
CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.
CANON II.-If any one saith, that the grace of God, through Jesus Christ, is given only for this, that man may be able more easily to live justly, and to merit eternal life, as if, by free will without grace, he were able to do both, though hardly indeed and with difficulty; let him be anathema.
CANON III.-If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.
Later on in his reply, Calvin offers a rare note of agreement, in stating, “To Canons 1, 2, and 3:, I say, Amen.” So he reads those and agrees. But they clearly teach that we reject both Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism. Yet nevertheless, here he is accusing us of these heresies, anyway, either contradicting himself or showing that he has gotten the definitions of those heresies wrong. It’s one or the other. That said, justification by works (alongside faith and grace) is biblical teaching, too:
Genesis 18:19 I have chosen him [Abraham], that he may charge his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing righteousness and justice; so that the LORD may bring to Abraham what he has promised him.
Romans 2:7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life
Romans 2:13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.
James 2:24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
they certainly understand that the human will has still some power left to choose good. . . . let them say whether he who makes us to be willing simply assists the will.
The regenerate, grace-enabled will can choose good, but not the unregenerate will, per Canons I-III above. Calvin confuses the two categories. That’s where he goes astray and starts misrepresenting Catholic theology. Alas, his prodigious powers of rationality fail him. Moreover, Trent’s Chapter V on Justification is quite plain when it declares that unregenerate man is “not able, by his own free will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in His sight.”
For if the will were wholly depraved, its health would not only be impaired but lost until it were renewed.
Total depravity is not required here; only an inability to save ourselves without God’s grace. It doesn’t thereby follow that we were maximally wicked through and through, in every conceivable way, as a result of the Fall and original sin. See my articles:
Paul claims the whole work for God; they ascribe nothing to him but a little help.
This distorts the Catholic view, as shown. It’s an outrageous caricature.
Is this the doctrine delivered by Augustine, when he says, “Men labor to find in our will some good thing of our own not given us of God; what they can find I know not?” (Aug. Lib. de Precator. Merit. et Remiss. 2.)
Exactly. Chapter XVI on Justification teaches the same: “Jesus Christ Himself continually infuses his virtue into the said justified,-as the head into the members, and the vine into the branches,-and this virtue always precedes and accompanies and follows their good works, which without it could not in any wise be pleasing and meritorious before God”. Canon IV teaches that our “free will” is “moved and excited by God.”
Moreover, God promises not to act so that we may be able to will well, but to make us will well.
Yep; that is stated in Philippians 2:13, that I cited above. Two sentences later, Calvin sites it. I am answering as I read, which is my custom in these dialogues.
The hallucination of these Fathers is in dreaming that we are offered a movement which leaves us an intermediate choice, while they never think of that effectual working by which the heart of man is renewed from pravity to rectitude.
Catholics believe in the predestination of the elect, just as Calvinists and other Protestants do. What we deny over against Calvinists (in this instance, in agreement with most Protestants) is predestination to hell.
***
“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,800+ articles, please follow my blog by signing up (with your email address) on the sidebar to the right (you may have to scroll down a bit), above where there is an icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. My blog was rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT: endorsed by influential Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. 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!
***
What then, you will ask, does Augustine mean when he speaks of the freedom of the will? Just what he so often repeats, that men are not forced by the grace of God against their will, but ruled voluntarily, so as to obey and follow of their own accord, and this because their will from being bad is turned to good. Hence he says, “We therefore will, but God works in us also to will. We work, but God causes us also to work.” Again, “The good which we possess not without our own will we should never possess unless he worked in us also to will.” Again, “It is certain that we will when we are willing, but he makes us to be willing. It is certain that we do when we do, but he makes us to do by affording most effectual strength to the will.”
This is exactly Catholic teaching, as shown in the citations from Trent above, and in the Scriptures I produced, that we fully believe in.
The whole may be thus summed up — Their error consists in sharing the work between God and ourselves, so as to transfer to ourselves the obedience of a pious will in assenting to divine grace, whereas this is the proper work of God himself.
Again, Calvin badly distorts our teaching. Canons I-III obviously agree with this and Calvin agreed with them, so he is again fighting with other statements he has made, which were accurate as to our view.
“He made him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might be the righteousness of God in him.” (2 Corinthians 5:19.)
Can anything be clearer than that we are regarded as righteous in the sight of God, because our sins have been expiated by Christ, and no longer hold us under liability?
Calvin wants to make out that this is merely imputed, declared, forensic righteousness, but that is not at all certain in the text itself. Two chapters later, Paul writes quite like a Catholic who believes in infused justification and sanctification as part and parcel of it:
2 Corinthians 7:1 Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, and make holiness perfect in the fear of God. (cf. Jas 4:8)
This is not merely declaring that we are cleansed, but actual cleansing. Immediately before this passage (and the original NT had no chapters and verses) we find the following:
2 Corinthians 6:14-17 Do not be mismated with unbelievers. For what partnership have righteousness and iniquity? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? [15] What accord has Christ with Be’lial? Or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? [16] What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, “I will live in them and move among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. [17] Therefore come out from them, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch nothing unclean; . . .
St. Peter adds:
1 Peter 1:14-16, 22 As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, [15] but as he who called you is holy, be holy yourselves in all your conduct; [16] since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.” . . . [22] Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere love of the brethren, love one another earnestly from the heart.
2 Peter 3:11. . . what sort of persons ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness,
It is not to be denied, however, that the two things, Justification and Sanctification, are constantly conjoined and cohere; but from this it is erroneously inferred that they are one and the same. For example: — The light of the sun, though never unaccompanied with heat, is not to be considered heat. Where is the man so undiscerning as not to distinguish the one from the other? We acknowledge, then, that as soon as any one is justified, renewal also necessarily follows: and there is no dispute as to whether or not Christ sanctifies all whom he justifies. It were to rend the gospel, and divide Christ himself, to attempt to separate the righteousness which we obtain by faith from repentance.
This section is good!
The whole dispute is as to The Cause of Justification. The Fathers of Trent pretend that it is twofold, as if we were justified partly by forgiveness of sins and partly by spiritual regeneration; or, to express their view in other words, as if our righteousness were composed partly of imputation, partly of quality. I maintain that it is one, and simple, and is wholly included in the gratuitous acceptance of God. I besides hold that it is without us, because we are righteous in Christ only. Let them produce evidence from Scripture, if they have any, to convince us of their doctrine.
While I admit that we are never received into the favor of God without being at the same time regenerated to holiness of life, [I] contend that it is false to say that any part of righteousness (justification) consists in quality, or in the habit which resides in us, and that we are righteous (justified) only by gratuitous acceptance. . . .
For however small the portion attributed to our work, to that extent faith will waver, and our whole salvation be endangered.
Paul did write the following:
1 Thessalonians 3:12-13 . . . may the Lord make you increase and abound in love to one another and to all men, as we do to you, [13] so that he may establish your hearts unblamable in holiness before our God and Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his saints.
Once again, it’s all from God’s grace, and at the same time we participate and cooperate and in so doing, obtain merit: just as in Catholicism. When we love other people, that’s a good work; something we do, and it’s not just a matter of robots doing what they must do, at God’s command. Hence, St. Paul could write, “I have reason to be proud of my work for God” (Rom 15:17). Paul mentions this theme of being “proud” or being able to “boast” about himself and his work five more times:
2 Corinthians 1:12, 14 For our boast is this, the testimony of our conscience that we have behaved in the world, . . . [14] . . . you can be proud of us as we can be of you . . .
2 Corinthians 5:12 . . . giving you cause to be proud of us, . . .
2 Corinthians 10:8, 13 For even if I boast a little too much of our authority, which the Lord gave for building you up and not for destroying you, I shall not be put to shame. . . . [13] But we will not boast beyond limit, . . .
2 Corinthians 11:10, 12 As the truth of Christ is in me, this boast of mine shall not be silenced in the regions of Acha’ia. . . . [12] And what I do I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do. (he continues in a sarcastic sense, in verses 16-18, 21, 30)
Philippians 2:16 holding fast the word of life, so that in the day of Christ I may be proud that I did not run in vain or labor in vain.
And he’s proud of other Christians who are being good disciples, too; he never writes anything remotely like the Calvinist mentality of “God did absolutely everything and we did nothing meritorious, because everything we do is worthless and hopelessly sinful!” Rather, he writes as follows, in nine passages:
1 Corinthians 9:15-18 . . . I would rather die than have any one deprive me of my ground for boasting. [16] For if I preach the gospel, that gives me no ground for boasting. For necessity is laid upon me. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! [17] For if I do this of my own will, I have a reward; but if not of my own will, I am entrusted with a commission. [18] What then is my reward? Just this: that in my preaching I may make the gospel free of charge, not making full use of my right in the gospel.
1 Corinthians 15:31 . . . my pride in you which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord . . .
2 Corinthians 7:4, 14 I have great confidence in you; I have great pride in you; . . . [14] For if I have expressed to him some pride in you, I was not put to shame; but just as everything we said to you was true, so our boasting before Titus has proved true.
2 Corinthians 8:24 So give proof, before the churches, of your love and of our boasting about you to these men.
2 Corinthians 9:2-3 for I know your readiness, of which I boast about you to the people of Macedo’nia, saying that Acha’ia has been ready since last year; and your zeal has stirred up most of them. [3] But I am sending the brethren so that our boasting about you may not prove vain in this case, so that you may be ready, as I said you would be;
2 Corinthians 12:5 On behalf of this man I will boast, . . .
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 2:19 For what is our hope or joy or crown of boasting before our Lord Jesus at his coming? Is it not you?
2 Thessalonians 1:4 Therefore we ourselves boast of you in the churches of God for your steadfastness and faith in all your persecutions and in the afflictions which you are enduring.
Having expressed all that praise of and pride in his own work and that of other Christians, Paul grounds it in the following six passages, in God’s enabling grace, as always:
Romans 11:18 . . . If you do boast, remember it is not you that support the root, but the root that supports you.
1 Corinthians 1:29, 31 so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. . . . [31] therefore, as it is written, “Let him who boasts, boast of the Lord.”
1 Corinthians 3:21 So let no one boast of men. . . .
1 Corinthians 4:7 . . . What have you that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if it were not a gift?
2 Corinthians 10:17-18 “Let him who boasts, boast of the Lord.” [18] For it is not the man who commends himself that is accepted, but the man whom the Lord commends.
2 Corinthians 12:5-6, 9 . . . on my own behalf I will not boast, except of my weaknesses. [6] Though if I wish to boast, I shall not be a fool, for I shall be speaking the truth. But I refrain from it, so that no one may think more of me than he sees in me or hears from me. . . . [9] but he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” I will all the more gladly boast of my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
Both things are simultaneously true: we can boast of our good works (imitating Paul as our model, as he says several times that we ought to do), and we can and must give God the ultimate credit for them. I try to make a regular habit of saying, “all glory to God” when someone compliments my work. But I say “thanks” too. I don’t pretend that I did nothing at all. I did do something! And God at the same time did it through me.
But for Calvin and Calvinists, all of this is unsavory bragging, making man higher than he is in the scheme of things, and a usurpation of God’s glory and grace: praising men at the expense of God (as if this is godless Pelagianism). They’re dead wrong. The Bible roundly refutes them, as we see in the many Bible passages I provided above.
John Calvin is so brazen and carnal in his thought, as to actually blaspheme Jesus Christ Himself, when he, in effect, mocks and rejects His answer to the rich young ruler:
It were long and troublesome to note every blunder, but there is one too important to be omitted. They add, “that when catechumens ask faith from the Church, the answer is, “If you will enter into life, keep the commandments.’” (Matthew 19:17.) Wo to their catechumens, if so hard a condition is laid upon them! For what else is this but to lay them under an eternal curse, since they acknowledge with Paul, that all are under the curse who are subject to the law? (Galatians 3:10.) But they have the authority of Christ! I wish they would observe to what intent Christ thus spake. This can only be ascertained from the context, and the character of the persons. He to whom Christ replies had asked, What must I do to have eternal life? Assuredly, whosoever wishes to merit life by works, has a rule prescribed to him by the law, “This do, and thou shalt live.” But attention must be paid to the object of this as intimated by Paul, viz., that man experiencing his powers, or rather convinced of his powerlessness, may lay aside his pride, and flee all naked to Christ. There is no room for the righteousness of faith until we have discovered that it is in vain that salvation is promised us by the law. . . . so preposterous are the Fathers of Trent, that while it is the office of Moses to lead us by the hand to Christ, (Galatians 3:24,) they lead us away from the grace of Christ to Moses.
Note the outrageous implications of this supposed “exegesis” of the passage (which is really eisegesis: reading into it what isn’t there). He cites Catholics giving catechumens the very words of Christ from Matthew 19:17 and then has the audacity to describe this as “what else is this but to lay them under an eternal curse . . .?”!!! Calvin acts as if the ruler is a special case, bound to the Law alone. But the passage need not read that way at all. It’s a generic question that he asked (“What must I do to have eternal life?”).
If Calvin and Protestantism and “faith alone” are correct, Jesus would certainly have had to say something very much like, “Why do you ask me about doing something to obtain eternal life? You can’t do anything. All you need to do is have faith in Me.” But of course in reality, Jesus’ answer was to keep the commandments. That was how to be saved and attain to eternal life in heaven. Once the man said that he had done that, then Jesus said he also had to give away all of his possessions: a thing not required in the Law of Moses, as far as I understand it; so Calvin’s recourse to the dreaded “law” as the explanation of all here, falls flat.
Calvin then has the gall to try to pit blasphemously St. Paul against Jesus. But Paul taught the same: following the commandments is simply acting in love, which sums up and fulfills all of God’s laws (Rom 13:8-10; cf. Gal 5:14). Then in context he proclaimed, “salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed” (13:11). The commandments and love, therefore, cannot be formally separated from justification and salvation, as Protestants sadly believe. St. John agrees with Jesus and Paul, too:
1 John 2:3-5 And by this we may be sure that we know him, if we keep his commandments. [4] He who says “I know him” but disobeys his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him; [5] but whoever keeps his word, in him truly love for God is perfected. By this we may be sure that we are in him:
1 John 3:24 All who keep his commandments abide in him, and he in them. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit which he has given us.
Revelation 14:12-13 Here is a call for the endurance of the saints, those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. [13] And I heard a voice from heaven saying, “Write this: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord henceforth.” “Blessed indeed,” says the Spirit, “that they may rest from their labors, for their deeds follow them!”
Even back in the book of Genesis, before the Mosaic Law had been given to Moses on Mt. Sinai, the same teaching is present, in what God said to Isaac:
Genesis 26:3-5 . . . “I will fulfil the oath which I swore to Abraham your father. [4] I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven, and will give to your descendants all these lands; and by your descendants all the nations of the earth shall bless themselves: [5] because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.”
St. James comments on Abraham:
James 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?
Lest they should not be liberal enough in preaching up the powers of man, they again repeat, under this head, that the Spirit of God acts in us according to the proper disposedness and co-operation of each. What disposedness, pray, will the Spirit of God find in stony hearts? Are they not ashamed to feign a disposedness, when the Spirit himself uniformly declares in Scripture that all things are contrary? For the commencement of grace is to make those willing who were unwilling, and therefore repugnant; so that faith, as well in its beginnings as its increase, even to its final perfection, is the gift of God;
This is exactly what Trent in its Sixth Session taught:
CANON III.-If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.
Calvin ends up preaching to the choir. As I have already noted, he is on record agreeing with the first three canons on justification. So why does he continue to quixotically argue as if we didn’t believe what we clearly do, and which he himself agreed with?
“God hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings, according as he hath chosen us in Christ, according to the good pleasure of his will.” (Ephesians 1:3.)
By these words he certainly restrains us, while receiving so great a blessing from God, from glorying in the decision of our will, as Augustine again says. (Ibid. c. 8.) This which man ought to receive as at the hands of God, is he to oppose to him as a merit of his own?
I have shown how Paul constantly boasted in his accomplishments and those of others; while giving God all the glory. It’s not contradictory; it’s not opposition to God. Rather, it’s the biblical and Hebraic “both/and” outlook, which Calvin is too rationalistic and caught up in men’s philosophies and traditions to grasp. It’s sad, since it is repeated and explicit biblical teaching. As for “glorying,” St. Paul even wrote, utterly contrary to Calvin’s argument above: “to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life . . . glory and honor and peace for every one who does good” (Rom 2:7, 10) and “we rejoice in our hope of sharing the glory of God” (Rom 5:2).
We are justified freely, they say, because no works which precede justification merit it. But when Paul takes away all ground of glorying from Abraham, on the ground that faith was imputed to him for righteousness, he immediately subjoins by way of proof — where works are, there a due reward is paid, whereas what is given to faith is gratuitous. Let us observe that he is, speaking of the holy Patriarch. Paul affirms, that at the time when he renounced the world to devote himself entirely to God, he was not justified by any works. If these spurious Fathers object, that it was then only he began to be justified, the quibble is plainly refuted by the context of the Sacred History. He had for many years exercised himself in daily prayer to God, and he had constantly followed the call of God, wherein was contained the promise of eternal life. Must they not therefore be thrice blind who see no gratuitous righteousness of God, except in the very vestibule, and think that the merit of works pervades the edifice? But it is proper to attend to the gloss by which they attempt to cloak this gross impiety, viz., that in this way they satisfy the Apostle’s sentiment,
“If it be of grace, then it is no more of works.” (Romans 11:5)
Abraham was justified both by faith and works, as I have written about at length: Abraham: Justified Twice by Works & Once by Faith [8-30-23]. Even Calvin wrote, “He had for many years exercised himself in daily prayer to God, and he had constantly followed the call of God, wherein was contained the promise of eternal life.” That is, of course, two works; rewarded by eternal life, so Calvin backs into Catholic teaching; seemingly not being aware of it. But we have seen that he is no stranger to not infrequent self-contradiction.
Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 4,800+ free online articles or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
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.
Summary: Part I of my critical examination of John Calvin’s 1547 treatise, “Acts of the Council of Trent with the Antidote”: regarding the issue of justification by faith, and salvation.
Photo credit: self-designed cover of my 2010 book, Biblical Catholic Salvation: “Faith Working Through Love” .
This is my reply to a lengthy comment by “ThornyCrown” underneath the video by my friend, Kenny Burchard, “Why ‘Sola Fidei’ is 100% unbiblical!! [30+ Verses to Highlight!!]” (10-6-24; utilizing my biblical research). His words — and I cite all of them — will be in blue. I use RSV for biblical citations.
*****
As a die-hard Protestant who left the Roman church 35 years ago,
I’m a die-hard Catholic, who left Protestantism 34 years ago. But I continue to have great respect for evangelical Protestantism and am ecumenical. I simply have some honest disagreements with my esteemed brothers and sisters in Christ, with whom I continue to have a great deal in common. And I’m sure Kenny feels the same way.
I find GREAT fault with this video by what Mr. B does NOT say.
That’s fine; it can be discussed (and I will be doing that), but it would be nice — and I think more sensible — if you responded to what he actually argued. To not do so is, bottom line, simply the old tired tactic of topic-switching and evading the responsibility of interaction with an opposing argument. If the Bible passages we produce (most from myself) are inadequate in your opinion, then by all means, show us (and everyone reading) how and why they are. If you have the superior biblical case, that should be a piece of cake for you; easy as pie (to use two culinary analogies). We’ll have that dialogue with you, but it takes two to dialogue.
It’s quite easy to lecture without the opposing view there to object,
Exactly my point! Since you yourself say you are responding to what Kenny didn’t say, rather than to what he did contend for, you are guilty of the very same thing you now condemn. There is not yet an opposing view because you set off into completely new territory. But I am now replying to you, providing the opposing view to your current off-topic argument, and giving you the courtesy of direct interaction. I respectfully ask that you extend to us the same courtesy.
so kindly allow these next two comboxes to be my objection.
You’re free to talk, as long as you remain civil. But in the future, again, we ask that you please stay on-topic. Otherwise, your comment veers too close to trolling.
First, I have before me a list of 30 people from antiquity who used the phrase “faith alone” or its derivative.
That’s clearly off-topic, since the video is about 30+ Bible passages, not the Church fathers. Secondly, did you do that research yourself or did you simply copy it from someone else? Thirdly, context is all-important in such discussions, so you need to provide documentation as much as possible: preferably to online sources, so context can be examined. Fourth, I did do my own research, in many posts on the same topic, in addition to my three books of patristic citations:
I won’t list them all, but suffice to say, they would obviously disagree with you.
Maybe in some very few cases; someone who simply got it wrong. I suspect, however, that in almost all cases, they do not, when their overall thought is considered. Again, I can prove that because I have done the work. I have time to do such work, as a full-time Catholic apologist, these past 23 years. Here’s what I have collected along these lines:
Marius Victorinus: For faith itself alone gives justification and sanctification (“Ipsa enim fides sola iustificationem dat-et sanctificationem” ).
You provide no documentation. I will do so. This quotation is from his Commentary on Galatians, which can be accessed online (with a little work!). It was published by Oxford University Press in 2005, translated with notes by Stephen Andrew Cooper. Here is the citation in context:
We, says Paul, we have believed in Christ, and we do believe in order that we might be justified based on faith, not works of the Law, seeing that no flesh—that is, the human being who is in flesh—is justified based on works of the Law. So knowing this, if we have believed that justification comes about through faith, we are surely going astray if we now return to Judaism, from which we passed over to be justified based not on works but faith, and faith in Christ. For faith itself alone grants justification and sanctification. Thus any flesh whatsoever—Jews or those from the Gentiles—is justified on the basis of faith, not works or observance of the Jewish Law. (Cooper, 152-153; italics not included, because I doubt that they were in the original)
Catholics agree that initially we are justified by faith alone (and of course, grace alone), contra Pelagianism. We have no beef with that at all. It’s “monergistic” at first. What we are saying is that after initial justification, we are then required to cooperate with God and do good works, if we are to be saved in the end, because “faith without works is dead.” Now, it may be that Marius Victorinus was simply wrong and held to a proto-Protestant view of justification, unlike virtually all other Church fathers (according to the Protestant scholars McGrath and Geisler). Translator Cooper notes that “it is perhaps the earliest Latin formulation of Paul’s theology in those terms [i.e., “faith alone”]” (p. 153).
Isn’t that interesting? Marius Victorinus lived from 290 to 364, so this means — if Cooper is correct — that no Latin Church father used the term “faith alone” for at least 260 years after the death of Christ. The fact that Protestants can find one man is no proof that the Church fathers en masse or as a consensus believed in “faith alone.” One can always find one or a few Church fathers who simply got things wrong. They’re not infallible, in Catholic teaching. But they usually agreed overwhelmingly on orthodox Catholic doctrine. This issue is no exception, as even my own articles alone prove.
St. Paul — over against Marius Victorinus — teaches over and over that good works play a crucial and necessary role in the attainment of salvation (i.e., in anyone who lives after they have been regenerated at baptism):
“As it is written, ‘He who through faith is righteous shall live.’” (Romans 1:17); “To those who by patience in well-doing seek for … immortality, he will give eternal life … glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good” (Romans 2:7, 10); “the doers of the law … will be justified” (Romans 2:13). The “end” of “sanctification” is “eternal life” (Romans 6:22), and indeed we are “saved, through sanctification” (2 Thessalonians 2:13); we’re “fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him” (Romans 8:17; cf. 1 Peter 4:13). He taught that we must do many good things and be fruitful in order to be saved:
Galatians 5:14, 19, 21-23. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” … Now the works of the flesh are plain … those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such there is no law.
2 Thessalonians 1:8, 11. … inflicting vengeance … upon those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. … To this end we always pray for you, that our God may make you worthy of his call, and may fulfill every good resolve and work of faith by his power …
1 Timothy 4:12, 15-16. … set the believers an example in speech and conduct, in love, in faith, in purity. … Practice these duties, … Take heed to yourself and to your teaching; hold to that, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.
Paul frequently makes many similar points in his letters: “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Philippians 2:12-13); “work heartily, … knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward” (Colossians 3:23-24); “woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness” (1 Timothy 2:15); “aim at righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness. Fight the good fight of the faith; take hold of the eternal life to which you were called” (1 Timothy 6:11-12); “keep the commandment … do good … be rich in good deeds … so that they may take hold of the life which is life indeed” (1 Timothy 6:14, 18-19).
Chrysostom… For he makes a wide distinction between commandments and ordinances. He either then means faith, calling that an ordinance, (for by faith alone he saved us) or he means precept, such as… (NPNF1: Vol. XIII, Homilies on Ephesians, Homily 5, Ephesians 2:11-12).
St. John Chrysostom’s overall thought needs to be taken into account. He did not believe in Protestant “faith alone” soteriology. For he also wrote:
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; . . . (Homily XXI on 1 Corinthians 9:1, 11, v. 9:12; NPNF1-12)
As often as you enter in to pray, first deposit your alms, and then send up your prayer; . . . 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)
For to believe is not all that is required, but also to abide in love. (Commentary on Galatians, v. 5:6; 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)
If faith without a good life is unavailing, much more is the converse true. (Homily V on 1 Timothy, v. 1:20; NPNF1-13)
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. (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)
See much more along these lines in my article about St. John Chrysostom, linked above.
Basil of Caesarea:… Let him who boasts boast in the Lord, that Christ has been made by God for us righteousness, wisdom, justification, redemption. This is perfect and pure boasting in God… justified solely by faith in Christ (Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, Part 1, p. 505)
Again, we are given no primary documentation. But I know that St. Basil rejected faith alone, based on research that I did way back in 2007:
Mere renouncement of sin is not sufficient for the salvation of penitents, but fruits worthy of penance are also required of them. (The Morals, 1, 3)
He who would obey the gospel must first be purged of all defilement of the flesh and the spirit that so he may be acceptable to God in the good works of holiness. (The Morals, 2, 1).
“Turn to your rest; for the Lord has been kind to you.” Eternal rest awaits those who have struggled through the present life observant of the laws, not as payment owed for their works, but bestowed as a gift of the munificent God on those who have hoped in him. (On Psalm 114, no. 5)
They, then, that were sealed by the Spirit unto the day of redemption, and preserve pure and undiminished the first fruits which they received of the Spirit, are they that shall hear the words “well done thou good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things.” In like manner they which have grieved the Holy Spirit by the wickedness of their ways, or have not wrought for Him that gave to them, shall be deprived of what they have received, their grace being transferred to others; or, according to one of the evangelists, they shall even be wholly cut asunder, —the cutting asunder meaning complete separation from the Spirit. (De Spiritu Sancto, chapter 15; NPNF 2, Vol. VIII)
Truly blessed is the soul, which by night and by day has no other anxiety than how, when the great day comes wherein all creation shall stand before the Judge and shall give an account for its deeds, she too may be able easily to get quit of the reckoning of life. For he who keeps that day and that hour ever before him, and is ever meditating upon the defence to be made before the tribunal where no excuses will avail, will sin not at all, or not seriously, for we begin to sin when there is a lack of the fear of God in us. When men have a clear apprehension of what is threatened them, the awe inherent in them will never allow them to fall into inconsiderate action or thought. (Letter 174: To a Widow; NPNF 2, Vol. VIII)
Ignatius of Antioch… His cross, and his death, and his resurrection, and the faith which is through him, are my unpolluted muniments [legal titles] and in these, through your prayers, I am willing to be justified (Epistle to Philadelphians)
But to me Jesus Christ is in the place of all that is ancient: His cross, and death, and resurrection, and the faith which is by Him, are undefiled monuments of antiquity; by which I desire, through your prayers, to be justified.
We are indeed justified by faith, but not by faith alone. St. Ignatius proves that he rejects the latter false doctrine in other statements:
None of these things is hid from you, if you perfectly possess that faith and love towards Christ Jesus [1 Timothy 1:14] which are the beginning and the end of life. For the beginning is faith, and the end is love. [1 Timothy 1:5] Now these two, being inseparably connected together, are of God, while all other things which are requisite for a holy life follow after them. No man [truly] making a profession of faith sins; [1 John 3:7] nor does he that possesses love hate any one. The tree is made manifest by its fruit; [Matthew 12:33] so those that profess themselves to be Christians shall be recognised by their conduct. For there is not now a demand for mere profession, but that a man be found continuing in the power of faith to the end. (Epistle to the Ephesians, ch. 14)
In his Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Ignatius couples “faith and love” three times (Greeting, chapters 6, 13), and he writes:
Let no man deceive himself. Both the things which are in heaven, and the glorious angels, and rulers, both visible and invisible, if they believe not in the blood of Christ, shall, in consequence, incur condemnation. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.Matthew 19:12 Let not [high] place puff any one up: for that which is worth all is faith and love, to which nothing is to be preferred. But consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the grace of Christ which has come unto us, how opposed they are to the will of God. They have no regard for love; no care for the widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed; of the bond, or of the free; of the hungry, or of the thirsty. (6)
He places faith and works together; directly reflecting the words of Jesus at the Last Judgment in Matthew 25:31-46, and when he is commenting on grace he immediately brings up various good works. He refers to grace, faith, love, and good works, all in the same context, which is what St. Paul habitually does. Again, in his Epistle to the Trallians, he makes similar connections: “Wherefore, clothing yourselves with meekness, be renewed in faith, that is the flesh of the Lord, and in love, that is the blood of Jesus Christ” (ch. 8). In his Epistle to the Magnesians, he couples “faith and love” three times (chapters 1, 6, 13). In his Epistle to the Ephesians, he again uses the phrase “faith and love” twice (chapters 1, 14). And he associates faith and works:
. . . your name, much-beloved in God, which you have acquired by the habit of righteousness, according to the faith and love in Jesus Christ our Saviour. (ch. 1)
For it was needful for me to have been stirred up by you in faith, exhortation, patience, and long-suffering. (ch. 3)
. . . faith cannot do the works of unbelief, nor unbelief the works of faith. (ch. 8)
. . . making use of the Holy Spirit as a rope, while your faith was the means by which you ascended, and your love the way which led up to God. You, therefore, as well as all your fellow-travellers, are God-bearers, temple-bearers, Christ-bearers, bearers of holiness, adorned in all respects with the commandments of Jesus Christ, . . . (ch. 9)
This simply isn’t faith alone, folks; no way, no how.
Bernard of Clairvaux… “solam justificatur per fidem,” (i.e., is justified by faith alone) (In Canticum serm. 22.8…PL 183.881):
I need a source in English, preferably with a link. Since St. Bernard isn’t one of the Church fathers, I’ll pass for the time being, since I am already devoting many hours of work to this response.
Obviously, the RCC arbitrarily picks and chooses which early teachers constitute “tradition” and choose only those which they feel are in conformity with the magisterium.
As I have shown in my own research (links above), the Church fathers en masse rejected “faith alone.”
This is dishonest, as was this video by not mentioning them.
The video was about biblical arguments. But charges of dishonesty of this sort aren’t allowed in this channel. Please cease and desist with the insults. “A word to the wise is sufficient.” We can discuss competing theologies without making such insinuations. The Catholic Church and Catholics honestly, sincerely believe what they do, and so do Protestants. The thing is to determine who is right. We do that by making rational, historical, theological, biblical arguments, not making sweeping charges of supposed heart-reading and sin. The great Protestant historian Philip Schaff observed:
If any one expects to find in this period [100-325], or in any of the church fathers, Augustin himself not excepted, the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone, . . . he will be greatly disappointed . . . (History of the Christian Church, Vol. 2, 588-589)
Second, Since Mr. B agrees that works of the Mosaic law “definitely” do not justify us (20:30). How nice. Why then are the Ten commandments of the Mosaic law “necessary for salvation” per CCC 2068???????
One must distinguish between the technical phrase “works of the law” (which referred to specifically Jewish works of national identity, per the understanding of some Protestants’ belief in “new perspective on Paul”) and works in general, or commandments. The Ten Commandments are still binding upon Christians. Or do you disagree with that? I imagine that the Catechism states that the Ten Commandments were necessary for salvation because Jesus said the same thing to the rich young ruler, when He asked Him, “what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?” (Mt 19:16). Jesus’ answer was, “If you would enter life, keep the commandments” (Mt 19:17).
St. Paul mentioned four of the ten (Rom 13:9) and then in the same noted that commandments were “summed up in this sentence, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'” Then he teaches that “love is the fulfilling of the law” (13:10) and in context proclaims that “salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed” (13:11). Then in Revelation 14:12, “the saints” are described as “those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus”. Then it is said about the “Blessed . . . dead who die in the Lord henceforth” that “their deeds follow them!” (14:13). Also in the same book Jesus taught that those who did not keep the Ten Commandments, such as “sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters” (22:15) would not enter heaven. St. John also states, “All who keep his commandments abide in him, and he in them” (1 Jn 3:24). It follows, then, that keeping those commandments are necessary to salvation and entrance into heaven (eschatological salvation).
Third, when we say (and the Bible concurs) that we are not saved by works, we mean ANY works, whether it be from the law, good works we do as a cheerful giver, or good works done in God’s grace. The distinction Mr. B tries to make between works of the law which don’t save — and faith and good works done with God’s grace which DOES save (CCC 1821) cannot stand biblical scrutiny.
Sure it can withstand biblical scrutiny. I’ve produced no less than 100 biblical passages that forbid faith alone. You have ignored them. Why is that: if you are so convinced we are wrong and you are right? You should have counter-explanations for every single one. Instead, you ignore and change the subject. This does not — to put it mildly — bespeak a confidence in your case or the courage of your convictions. Here are two of the clearest ones:
Romans 2:7 For he will render to every man according to his works: [7] to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;
James 2:14 What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?
Mr. B is advocating that anytime we hear we aren’t saved by works, to take that to mean the restriction of only those works emanating from the Pentateuch.
However, this cannot be so because Paul goes on record using the word “law” to designate the Scriptures as a WHOLE, which would mean he is NOT restricting good works of the law only to the Pentateuch, but ANY GOOD WORKS WHATSOEVER right up to this present day.
The Bible teaches that we aren’t saved by works in the sense of Pelagianism works-salvation (salvation by works alone), which the Catholic Church entirely rejects (e.g., Eph 2:8-9). But when Kenny is talking about the phrase “works of the law”, that has a specific meaning, applying to Jews who kept the Mosaic Law in its entirety (which no Christian does). “Works of the law” is a phrase that occurs seven times in Paul’s epistles. Paul also refers to “the law of the Jews” (Acts 25:8) and “the law of Moses” (1 Cor 9:9).
Good works in a generic sense are good! (a = a), and related to salvation: so say at least a hundred biblical passages. Protestants, on the other hand, believe in several things that have no scriptural support at all. The canon of the New Testament is one of those that they will readily admit. I would also contend that sola Scriptura and sola fide are two more things that lack any biblical support at all. But we can produce a hundred biblical passages against faith alone (I did that, myself), and I wrote a book called 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura.
For instance, he appeals to the law in 1 Cor 14:21, but he quotes Isaiah 28:11-12, which of course is NOT part of the Pentateuch. In Romans 3:19, he describes his citations from the O.T. in verses 10-18 as “what the law says”. However, these verses are derived from the Psalms (5:9, 10:7, 14:1-3, 36:1, 53:1-3, 140:3…as well as Proverbs 1:16, and Isa 59:7-8) all of which categorically proves that good works done under the old law– “for salvation”– cannot be restricted to the Mosaic law as is commonly supposed. Thus, we must not seek to qualify the kinds of works which are excluded for justification because the fact is, each and every kind of righteous work is prohibited; i.e., we are not to trust in them AT ALL, nor does God save us by ANY kind of righteousness on our part done with or without the grace of the Holy Spirit.
That’s simply not true, and I have a hundred Bible passages to prove it. So at this point the ball is in your court. In order to dissuade us, you have to produce counter-interpretations of all one hundred that are in line with “faith alone” and not in harmony with the Catholic and biblical soteriology of salvation by grace alone, by faith: to which works are organically connected and required. I dare say that you can’t do so, and that your refusal to even begin that necessary task is already pretty strong evidence that you can’t. You’re welcome to start at any time! We’ll be glad to publish that effort on our video channel and in any blogs I write in reply. And we will always answer and refute any such attempt, that is, unless you convince us, in which case we would be duty-bound to change our minds and become Protestants again. But clearly, that won’t ever happen if you completely refuse to engage in; indeed, run away from, what you must do to refute what we have offered — as you have done in this reply.
Mr. B will agree that no one can be justified by the Mosaic law, explicitly stated in Acts 13:39. Fine. But the problem with Catholicism emerges when you agree (for example) that if obeying one’s parent’s under the Mosaic law was not salvific, then how can you say that obeying your parents under the New Testament IZZZ salvific?
It is in conjunction with faith: all caused by God’s grace. It isn’t, in and of itself. We can say that it’s one thing that helps save one, because Jesus said so (Mt 19:17): honoring parents being one of the Ten Commandments. It’s one of dozens of works that the New Testament mentions as part of the overall equation of salvation. Jesus mentioned three works that helped cause salvation in one saying:
Matthew 25:34-35 Then the King will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; [35] for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, . . .
In another place, He mentioned five actions: the reward for each being eternal life:
Luke 18:29-30 And he said to them, “Truly, I say to you, there is no man who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, [30] who will not receive manifold more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life.”
Etc., etc., up to a hundred biblical passages. . . .
Yet that is exactly what they teach; i.e., God has created a new “system of grace” wherein the good works we do under the new covenant, now become the gateway to heaven. But by doing so, they have attached to their good deeds, a salvific EFFICACY on the same level as the blood of Christ. This is unacceptable and is “another gospel” per 2 For 11:4 which saves no one.
That doesn’t follow. I think I’ve gone through this before with you. To say that “x work plays a role in salvation, alongside faith, caused by grace” is not the same as equating that work in value with the blood of Christ. That simply doesn’t follow, either logically or theologically. But it sounds nice as anti-Catholic rhetoric and polemics. The only problem is that it’s a fallacy and falsehood.
I will continue in one more combox quoting from the #1 RC apologetic book for the last 25 years, Not By Faith Aloneby R. Sungenis, endorsed by all the major Catholic luminaries of today on the inside cover pages.
I believe the #1 Catholic apologetics book is Surprised by Truth, which has sold some half a million copies. My own conversion story is one of the twelve included in it.
To verify what I just said about good deeds having the same blood-cleansing efficacy as Christ’s blood, we read, “Works become JUST AS MUCH a salvific part of the individual’s justification as his faith” (p. 172). There is your equivalency factor, clear as the light of day and it is “100% unbiblical”… to use Mr. B’s video title.
It’s not unbiblical at all. I produced 100 biblical proofs. Christ’s blood brings about the possibility of salvation for anyone who repents and accepts God’s mercy, and is 1000% sufficient for that purpose. But then we have to do our part, which is exercising faith and doing good works. It’s not established by you at all that our faith or whatever good works we do are equivalent to Christ’s blood. I don’t see how they ever could be. Whatever good is in us is ultimately caused by God’s grace. Now, if faith without works is dead, then it logically follows that authentic faith cannot exist without works. And if that is the case, it also follows that works are as important as faith, seeing that the former literally bring the latter “to life”: so to speak.
Before I give more disturbing quotes,
“Disturbing”? What you have given is not “disturbing” in the slightest. I’ve had no problem refuting all or any of it.
the bulk of Mr. B’s time was throwing out the verses that tell us we ought to be good. But no Protestant alive or dead has ever advocated that faith be “dislocated” from works, to use Mr. B’s word. All the “good” passages simply mean that the elect in heaven will have had a GENERAL TENOR of being good, not that their goodness got them there!
That’s untrue. It’s a falsehood. I specifically chose my prooftexts — and Kenny uses my work in his videos –, keeping in mind this very thing: that Protestants would claim that works simply accompany faith, while supposedly having nothing to do with salvation itself. That’s not what the Bible teaches at all. Again and again, it establishes a causal relationship of works and salvation, just as with faith and salvation (grace being the main cause behind both). Matthew 25 (the judgment) and the Jesus and the rich young ruler passage (Matthew 19) show this most clearly. Here are a few more of the clearest of my biblical proofs, in terms of demonstrating a direct causal relationship:
Matthew 7:19, 21 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. . . . [21] “Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
John 5:29 . . . those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, . . .
Romans 6:22 . . . the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life.
Colossians 3:23-24 Whatever your task, work heartily, as serving the Lord and not men, [24] knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward;
2 Thessalonians 2:13 . . . God chose you from the beginning to be saved, through sanctification . . .
1 Timothy 6:18-19 They are to do good, to be rich in good deeds, liberal and generous, [19] thus laying up for themselves a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of the life which is life indeed.
Revelation 20:12-13 . . . And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, by what they had done. [13] . . . and all were judged by what they had done.
The dire difference is that we don’t believe we are saved or justified BYYYY them in any way whatsoever, whereas Catholics DO, which is their fatal error.
We are following clear and relentlessly repeated Scripture in this respect. You are not.
We say, yes, do a million good works to the glory of God, but if you begin to base your hope for HEAVEN on them (explicitly stated in CCC 1821), you are lost.
See the above seven passages in particular for the answer to this. But there are 93 more answers, too.
The “damnable works-righteousness” Mr. B (rightly) says Protestants accuse Catholics of, may be seen in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 261. Catholics seek to be, “supernaturally endowed to perform ordinary and extraordinary heroic acts FOR the salvation of the soul”. This is precisely where and why we part company.
Yes, because you depart from Scripture, and we obediently follow it, since it’s God’s inspired revelation. We don’t deign to place our man-made unbiblical traditions above God’s written Word and in contradiction of that same Scripture.
Allegedly, as long as they admit their good works are done under the umbrella of God’s grace, all will be well, or so they think. Instead of a singular confidence in the doing and dying of Christ alone (Romans 5:10) a clever trick is sneaked in through the back door.
Following biblical instructions and teachings isn’t “clever”; rather, it’s wise and spiritually fruitful and pleasing to God. I have nine passages from the letter to the Romans in my collection: proving that Paul rejects “faith alone.”
Specifically, when one has the intention of doing good works under the auspices of God’s grace, this mindset magically qualifies those deeds to become the hinge upon which the door into heaven swings (repeat, CCC 1821). What Catholicism is stipulating is that the power of his grace invigorates them on a path of good deeds, all of which are then instrumental in the verdict of justification (i.e., our right standing before God).
Now to Mr. Sungenis:
“Works are a primary criteria in [God] deciding whether or not the individual is saved” (p. 50).
“Works are the determining factor in our salvation” (p. 215; cf. p. 38 footnote).
“Works are the ultimate factor in the salvation of the individual” (p. 145).
“Salvation is either granted or denied based on works” (p. 159).
“A person’s eternal destiny is dependent on God’s final evaluation of the person’s deeds” (p. 484).
“If done through grace, they [works] are graciously meritorious for salvation”
(p. 102).
“The evaluation of our good works as noted in 1 Cor 3:13-17 and 2 Cor 5:10 will not result in personal rewards only, but “rather a judgment which will determine whether one will be saved” (p. 41).
That’s all biblical, per my 100 proofs. Matthew 25 is particularly clear in this respect.
In light of these audacious claims, there can be no doubt that Catholics have been rightly accused of working their way to eternal life, for that is exactly what they teach. Rather than trust in the mercy of God alone in the face of Jesus Christ (2 For 4:6) so that “no flesh should glory in his presence” (1 Cor 1:29) heavy emphasis is placed on their dazzling “performance rituals” to ensure a spot in heaven, and that being so, we shudder for the salvation of the Pope down to the pauper in the pew.
Contrary to the video’s thesis, “Faith Alone” is 100% biblical. The book on my shelf, “Faith Alone in 100 verses” by Wilkin is a case in point. I will NOT throw that book away after watching this presentation, for it did NOT have the power to persuade those of us aware of the facts Mr. B. OMITTED to say such as doing “heroic acts that save the soul” mentioned above which is downright preposterous.
Now why don’t you deal with my 100 passages, if you are so confident and sure of your belief? What stops you?
Hence, Evangelicals use the logo, “Faith Alone” merely as shorthand that guards against a tug-of-war. That is, a tug-of-war between trusting in our own “right conduct” to open heaven’s gate (per CCC 16) and the fatal error of giving equal trust to the “right conduct” of Christ the Lord!
“At the end of the day, “Faith Alone” brings perfect peace (Isa 26:3) to the one who trusts solely in the OBJECT of their faith, for “the one who believes in him will never be put to shame” (Romans 9:33).
God could have chosen to make “faith alone” the sole criterion of salvation. But He didn’t (as we know from the Bible). He chose to have works directly involved, too, since they are organically connected to faith and can’t be arbitrarily separated from it. The works are derived from His grace just as faith is. God crowns His own gifts, as St. Augustine stated, in choosing to regard our good works as meritorious.
*
***
*
Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 4,800+ free online articles or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
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.
Summary: I reply to every argument made by a Protestant who objected to Kenny Burchard’s video, “Why ‘Sola Fidei’ is 100% unbiblical!!” yet mostly ignored its evidences.
Photo credit: self-designed book cover of my own self-published book.
This exchange occurred in the combox of a video by Kenny Burchard, “No Tradition? Fine. NO CHRISTIANITY!” (Catholic Bible Highlights, 9-22-24). I provide the biblical research for this series. Our Protestant friend’s words will be in blue. I have cited all of them. I use RSV for Bible citations.
*****
Traditions are fine as all denominations have them. However, traditions should never add, alter, or delete anything from Scripture.
Traditions can be recorded in writing as well as being orally passed on. There isn’t any distinction on how these are transmitted. Traditions can be transmitted initially in writing and then orally taught; especially for those individuals who were illiterate in ancient times.
Paul wrote letters to certain churches and asked that they pass those writings on to other churches. Also, much of the New Testament writings were in use and recognized as biblical Scripture centuries before the Counsel of Trent formally recognized the Canon. (See Muratorian Fragment, a late 2nd-century-ce fragment of a Latin list of New Testament writings then regarded by Christians as canonical (scripturally authoritative).
Regarding oral Apostolic traditions, you spoke of these traditions without specifically identifying or listing what these traditions are. Which apostle or apostles passed down a specific tradition, and how do we know this? Are there any words of Christ passed on in any oral tradition that were not recorded in Scripture?
***
“traditions should never add, alter, or delete anything from Scripture.”
I agree. Sola Scriptura and sola fide aren’t taught in Scripture (which Protestants always demand) and contradict it. Things like the Immaculate Conception and Bodily Assumption of Mary aren’t explicit in Scripture, but are in harmony with it.
Of course, large parts of the biblical canon were recognized long before Trent, but there were still some serious disagreements right up to the time of the councils of Carthage and Hippo in the 390s. After that, the NT canon remained essentially up until Trent and the Protestant late tradition of decanonizing seven books. See my article: The New Testament Canon is a “Late” Doctrine.
“Which apostle or apostles passed down a specific tradition, and how do we know this?”
We can know some things; e.g., the perpetual virginity of Mary, from early tradition, in addition to biblical indications. I’ve written about that particular topic a lot. Also, episcopacy and hierarchical Church government is written about very early, by people like St. Ignatius of Antioch and Pope St. Clement of Rome. The belief in infant baptism is not explicit in Scripture (though I would argue that it is strongly implicit). St. Augustine and Martin Luther both talk about how it was a tradition passed down, and as such cannot be doubted. This was a major reason why Luther favored capital punishment for Anabaptists.
“Are there any words of Christ passed on in any oral tradition that were not recorded in Scripture?”
Not that I know of. But that doesn’t mean that they didn’t exist and were later lost to history. For example, in Mark 6:34 (RSV) it says, “He began to teach them many things.” But none are recorded in the larger passage. So it’s quite possible that some of that may not be explicit biblical teaching, but one or more of the disciples could have passed it along.
In short, it does not appear you can answer my question regarding Apostolic traditions.
The difference here is that I know the writings of Scripture to be true and authoritative; as it is the inspired word of God. There is nothing that compares! I can see them, touch them, and read them. Regarding Apostolic traditions, I can neither see, touch nor read them. And unfortunately, whether any of those traditions are true or not, there is simply no way to verify their source or authenticity. How can they possibly be equal to Scripture?
Anything can be said to be an Apostolic tradition … such as the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary. However, these traditions are nowhere to be found in Scripture, nor are they in harmony with Scripture. (The same is true for purgatory)
Sola Scriptura, as you know, means that Scripture is the final authority; not the only authority. As stated above, it is the inspired word of God. This is the very nature and purpose of Scripture. If you must have this spelled out for you in Scripture before you will understand and accept this truth, you are missing the meaning and purpose of Scripture. It is God’s word to us! As I stated in my initial post, you can have traditions, but they cannot add, delete or alter Scripture in any way. (Galatians 1)
You stated that Sola Fide isn’t taught in Scripture. I must disagree. Sola Fide or faith alone is taught throughout Scripture. You are saved by faith in Jesus Christ. That is the message of Scripture. There are numerous, numerous writings that teach this. Please do not belittle Scripture. (If you want to discuss James 2:24, we can do that.)
You also stated there were some serious disagreements by church leaders regarding some areas of the Canon prior to the Councils. That may be true to a point, but the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the New Testament was in fact recognized as Canon, used, studied and shared by the early churches well before the 390’s. (That’s a long time!) Also, I would argue, the writings of the New Testament became Scripture the moment they were written. They are God breathed and really did not need the blessings of man to make them so. The Councils did not make the Canon. God did! The Councils, after almost 400 years, finally recognized them as such.
Also, I believe the Old Testament Canon was pretty much set in stone by the Jews well before the time of Christ. It did not include ” the Protestant late tradition of decanonizing (these) seven books” . As you are assuredly well aware, the Jewish people did not recognize these books for a variety of reasons and none of these books were ever quoted by Jesus.
I do not mean to sound to argumentative. I can get a little fired up at times. However, I must also follow God’s word and only God’s word. If you can provide irrefutable evidence regarding any Apostolic tradition as being from an actual apostle and is a truth not already recorded, whole or in part, in the New Testament, I could possibly agree with it. But until then I’ll stay with Sola Scriptura.
Thanks for your time and discussion.
***
“In short, it does not appear you can answer my question regarding Apostolic traditions.”
I answered in part, and I will further answer presently.
“The difference here is that I know the writings of Scripture to be true and authoritative; as it is the inspired word of God.”
So do we. That’s no difference. The difference is when Protestants made it the sole infallible authority, which Scripture itself never teaches. Kenny’s latest video (uploaded this day, as I write) addresses this.
“There is nothing that compares! I can see them, touch them, and read them.”
Scripture is very unique. But it doesn’t follow that, just because only the Bible is inspired (i.e., in terms of a written document), that tradition and Church can’t be infallible (a lesser gift). We contend that the Bible teaches both of those things, too. But there is also inspiration beyond the Bible: the prophets spoke God’s inspired word, and the NT teaches that the office of prophet continued in the Church (whenever God speaks through anyone in a prophetic manner, it’s inspired). See my article: Reply To Gavin Ortlund’s 6-Minute Sola Scriptura Defense (Including the Biblical Case for Prophets as Inspired and Infallible Authorities Besides Holy Scripture) [1-26-24].
“Regarding Apostolic traditions, I can neither see, touch nor read them. And unfortunately, whether any of those traditions are true or not, there is simply no way to verify their source or authenticity. How can they possibly be equal to Scripture?”
Again, they are equal in terms of possessing authority, because inspired Scripture says that they are (as a general proposition). The Church, as the guardian of both Sacred Scripture and sacred apostolic tradition, proclaims and verifies specifically which are authentic and which aren’t. Even Protestants were forced to fall back on infallible, authoritative Church teaching when it came to the canon of the Bible. The Bible teaches the infallibility of the Church: 1 Timothy 3:15 = Church Infallibility (vs. Steve Hays) [5-14-20].
“As stated above, it is the inspired word of God. This is the very nature and purpose of Scripture.”
No need to reiterate what Catholics have believed from the beginning. You received Scripture from us, historically speaking. Even Luther gave the Catholic Church great credit for that.
“If you must have this spelled out for you in Scripture before you will understand and accept this truth, you are missing the meaning and purpose of Scripture.”
Again, this is not at issue. But for some inexplicable reason, you seem to think that it is. We need not spend valuable time arguing about commonly held premises and beliefs.
“It is God’s word to us!”
Yes it is! Prophets’ words are also God’s words to us. The phrase “word of the LORD” appears 243 times in the Protestant OT (RSV) and in many (maybe even most) instances it is referring to the words of prophets, not the Bible. In 101 of those instances, it reads, “the word of the LORD came to [so-and-so]”: i.e., that it was a direct revelation to a person, as opposed to Scripture.
“As I stated in my initial post, you can have traditions, but they cannot add, delete or alter Scripture in any way. (Galatians 1)”
Of course they can’t add to Scripture or “delete” it or alter it because they are not Scripture, so by definition . . . Once again, sacred apostolic tradition is authoritative and infallible (when deemed to be so by the Church) but not inspired. It’s not Scripture, but it’s always in harmony with what Scripture teaches. For example, the Bodily Assumption is not contradictory to anything we have in Scripture. We know it’s entirely possible because we have examples of other bodily assumptions to heaven, such as Elijah (many think, also Enoch) and those who will rise up to meet Jesus in the air when He returns.
A sinless person or the larger category of a sinless creature is not inconceivable because Adam and Eve were sinless before the fall, and the unfallen angels have always been sinless and always will be. Being in harmony with the Bible is different from being explicitly proven in the Bible.
“You stated that Sola Fide isn’t taught in Scripture. I must disagree. Sola Fide or faith alone is taught throughout Scripture. You are saved by faith in Jesus Christ. That is the message of Scripture. There are numerous, numerous writings that teach this.”
“Please do not belittle Scripture. (If you want to discuss James 2:24, we can do that.)”
It’s hardly belittling Scripture if I can offer up 78 Bible passages that refute faith alone. It would seem, rather, that Protestants are ignoring a great deal of Scripture that contradicts their false doctrine of “faith alone.” Ignoring that much Scripture is belittling it, if anything is. I’ve discussed James 2 many times; e.g., Reply to James White’s Exegesis of James 2 in Chapter 20 of His Book, The God Who Justifies [10-9-13].
“You also stated there were some serious disagreements by church leaders regarding some areas of the Canon prior to the Councils. That may be true to a point, but the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the New Testament was in fact recognized as Canon, used, studied and shared by the early churches well before the 390’s. (That’s a long time!)”
“Also, I would argue, the writings of the New Testament became Scripture the moment they were written. They are God breathed and really did not need the blessings of man to make them so. The Councils did not make the Canon. God did! The Councils, after almost 400 years, finally recognized them as such.”
“Also, I believe the Old Testament Canon was pretty much set in stone by the Jews well before the time of Christ. It did not include “the Protestant late tradition of decanonizing (these) seven books”. As you are assuredly well aware, the Jewish people did not recognize these books for a variety of reasons and none of these books were ever quoted by Jesus.”
“I do not mean to sound to argumentative. I can get a little fired up at times.”
No problem! I love debate. I so rarely find Protestants willing to debate, so it’s a real pleasure.
“However, I must also follow God’s word and only God’s word.”
The Bible teaches an authoritative tradition and Church in addition to itself. The “three-legged stool” rule of faith is an explicitly biblical doctrine.
“If you can provide irrefutable evidence regarding any Apostolic tradition as being from an actual apostle and is a truth not already recorded, whole or in part, in the New Testament, I could possibly agree with it. But until then I’ll stay with Sola Scriptura.”
That’s an arbitrary demand, which is not in the Bible; so it’s simply a tradition of man that you have adopted. As such, it’s neither infallible nor even authoritative; therefore there is no reason for anyone to follow it. Nor is “inscripturation” a biblical concept. It’s a Protestant tradition of men, just as sola fide and sola Scriptura are.
“Thanks for your time and discussion.”
Thank you, too. I had a lot of fun. And I hope the dialogue will continue!
*
***
*
Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 4,800+ free online articles or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
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.
Photo credit:self-designed book cover of my own self-published book. [see link for much book info. and all purchase options]
Summary: In-depth reply to a Protestant in which I discuss many biblical passages proving that the rule of faith, as described in the Bible itself, is Bible-Tradition-Church, not sola Scriptura.
Photo credit: Book cover (designed by myself) of my own self-published book.
This exchange took place in the combox of the video by Kenny Burchard: “Can Catholics even know if they’re saved?” (9-19-24). I provide the biblical research for the videos in this series, called Catholic Bible Highlights. The Protestant commenter’s words will be in blue. I have cited all of them.
*****
The answer to the video’s title question must be answered with an unequivocal NO. Catholics cannot know the certainty of their salvation because, “Nobody can with certainty of faith know whether or not he has fulfilled all the conditions which are necessary for achieving justification” (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 262). The fact that there are so many “conditions” must surely put Catholics in a frazzled state of mind.
We must also answer “no” to the question because all fans of the Pope are seeking to be, “supernaturally endowed to perform ordinary and extraordinary heroic acts for the salvation of the soul” (ibid, p. 261). But where is this mandate found in the Bible, let alone how can any Catholic ever know if they’re doing enough? The fact is, they can’t. A salvation based on works is sure to backfire come Judgment Day.
Finally, we must answer “no” because they are taking a position that has no biblical precedent; namely that “Christ’s redemptive activity finds its apogee [climax] in the death of sacrifice on the cross, [but] it is not exclusively the efficient cause of our redemption….” (ibid. 185).
I wonder what Jesus would think about those who don’t consider him the “efficient cause” as to the saving of the soul?
It’s not “NO” at all. Catholics are as much assured of their salvation (if they are free of mortal sin) as any Protestant. The bottom line is that no one knows the future, and whether they will fall away or not. Calvinists play the game, when one of their number falls into sin and rebellion, of saying that they never were saved, because their theology requires them to do that. But they don’t know that. Even John Calvin said we can’t know for sure who is in the elect and who isn’t.
What must be better understood here is the Catholic belief in “moral assurance of salvation.” I wrote about it. Here is a large chunk of the article:
The degree of moral assurance we can have is very high. The point is to examine ourselves to see if we are mired in serious sin, and to repent of it. If we do that, and know that we are not subjectively guilty of mortal sin, and relatively free from venial sin, then we can have a joyful assurance that we are on the right road.
I always use my own example, by noting that when I was an evangelical, I felt very assured of salvation, though I also believed (as an Arminian) that one could fall away if one rejected Jesus outright. Now as a Catholic I feel hardly any different than I did as an evangelical. I don’t worry about salvation. I assume that I will go to heaven one day, if I keep serving God. I trust in God’s mercy, and know that if I fall into deep sin, His grace will cause me to repent of it (and I will go along in my own free will) so that I can be restored to a relationship with Him.
We observe St. Paul being very confident and not prone to lack of trust in God at all. He had a robust faith and confidence, yet he still had a sense of the need to persevere and to be vigilant. He didn’t write as if it were a done deal: that he got “saved” one night in Damascus and signed on the dotted line, made an altar call and gave his life to Jesus, saying the sinner’s prayer or reciting John 3:16.
The biblical record gives us what is precisely the Catholic position: neither the supposed “absolute assurance” of the evangelical Protestant, nor the manic, legalistic, Pharisaical, mechanical caricature of what outsider, non-experienced critics of Catholicism think Catholicism is, where a person lives a “righteous” life for 70 years, then falls into lust for three seconds, gets hit by a car, and goes to hell (as if either Catholic teaching or God operate in that infantile fashion).
The truth of the matter is that one can have a very high degree of moral assurance, and trust in God’s mercy. St. Paul shows this. He doesn’t appear worried at all about his salvation, but on the other hand, he doesn’t make out that he is absolutely assured of it and has no need of persevering. He can’t “coast.” The only thing a Catholic must absolutely avoid in order to not be damned is a subjective commission of mortal sin that is unrepented of. The mortal / venial sin distinction is itself explicitly biblical. All this stuff is eminently biblical. That’s where we got it!
In the article, I back this up with tons of Scripture.
***
“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,800+ articles, please follow my blog by signing up (with your email address) on the sidebar to the right (you may have to scroll down a bit), above where there is an icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. My blog was rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT: endorsed by influential Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. 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!
***
“But where is this mandate found in the Bible, let alone how can any Catholic ever know if they’re doing enough? The fact is, they can’t.”
We Catholics believe in being very self-aware and “vigilant” in the spiritual life: we’re always examining ourselves to make sure that our hearts are oriented towards God (as a result — always — of God’s grace, that we must seek and ask for).
This very self-examination is what Protestants sometimes critique and scorn 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. Not at all. St. Paul expressed something that I believe is very much along these lines:
1 Corinthians 9:24-27 (RSV) 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.
Paul also wrote to the same Corinthians about the same necessity of self-examination:
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!
“A salvation based on works is sure to backfire come Judgment Day.”
I agree! I disagree, however, that the Catholic Church teaches Pelagianism. Look up the first three canons on justification from the Council of Trent. Even John Calvin agreed with them in his critique of Trent. And they teach salvation by grace alone, not by works, just as in Protestantism.
“I wonder what Jesus would think about those who don’t consider him the ‘efficient cause’ as to the saving of the soul?”
“Efficient” and “sufficient” are two different concepts. “Sufficient” is defined at Dictionary.com as “adequate for the purpose; enough.” “Efficient” is defined as “producing an effect, as a cause.” The cross was 1000% sufficient for the salvation of anyone. But it’s not 100% efficient because the damned refuse to freely assent and cooperate with God’s free gift of grace for salvation. As a result, they go to hell and even the cross can’t prevent that outcome, because God allows them to make that sad choice.
Therefore, Jesus’ death on the cross is not 100% efficient for the salvation of all, given human free will. It’s sufficient for anyone who accepts God’s mercy and the free gift of salvation by grace alone. If it were efficient, no one would go to hell, and universalism would be true. But we know from the Bible that it’s not. We deny irresistible grace, because it’s not a biblical doctrine.
I am familiar with your articles and even quoted you in one of my papers; namely, your statement on “merit” saying that, “Our meritorious actions are always necessarily preceded and caused and crowned and bathed in God’s enabling grace”.
I disagreed violently with that statement because it’s a half truth, that ultimately amounts to no truth at all. I mention it here because it will relate to your current comment.
Essentially, you failed to make the distinction between being SAVED by grace (defined as God’s unmerited FAVOR) and its secondary meaning, as you correctly point out above, of it being defined as his “enabling grace” (or “actual” grace, that being the power to perform this that or the other thing). The problem with Catholicism is that those in her ranks are hoping for heaven based on the good deeds they do with God’s ENABLING grace, explicitly stated in CCC 1821, but NOWHERE mentioned in Scripture.
In your comment, you mention the free gift OF God’s grace FOR salvation which only proves you’re trusting in his ENABLING grace to do good deeds, rather than saying we are saved BYYYY grace…WITHOUT the merit of works (the biblical view). You prove your own point by saying, “I assume that I will go to heaven one day, if I keep serving God”.
Well that’s nice, but THAT’S NOT THE GOSPEL Mr. Armstrong. Nor is Mr. Ott’s proclamation I made previously that salvation will be granted when God’s grace “supernaturally endows” someone “to perform ordinary and extraordinary heroic acts FOR the salvation of the soul” (ibid, p. 261).
NO! Only faith in the “extraordinarily heroic act” of Christ’s life and death saves the soul (Romans 5:10) and nothing more or less than that. It is the charity of what Christ has done altogether OUTSIDE of us that saves, not the charity of the Holy Spirit IN us!
You admit to trusting in the latter by mentioning your hand-clapping SERVITUDE, but it can never be. Neither will the statement by Robert Sungenis pass the fiery eyes of the Judge on that final day; namely, “Works become JUST AS MUCH a salvific part of the individual’s justification as his faith” (Not By Faith Alone, p. 172). That book came with the official stamps of approval by the higher ups, as well as page after page of endorsements from all the typical Catholic luminaries. (Can’t recall if you were one of them and I’m too lazy to get up and look). [I wasn’t]
So: unless I receive some sort of rebuttal, be it resolved then that the RCC attaches a salvific EFFICACY to such things as that coin you dropped in the homeless man’s hat, and THAT COIN may be considered to have “JUST AS MUCH” saving power as the blood that dripped down Calvary’s cross. Like it or not, this is what logically follows such thinking and it is… DIS-graceful.
As you can see, I’ve put aside the topic of assurance for now because it’s more important it be emphasized that assurance, let alone salvation, does NOT result from works that COME FROM grace. Scripture says that salvation “is by faith, that it may be ACCORDING TO grace” (Romans 4:16; i.e., his unmerited favor); it does not say, “by faith according to works that COME FROM grace”, which is exactly what Catholicism teaches and must be countered for those of us inclined to do so.
Yes, the works that come from his grace-producing power may be derivative of, may be a consequence of, and may actually PROVE grace is active, but good works cannot be compared to the blood of Christ, nor can it CONSIST of the saving grace of Romans 4:16; namely, a free gift which is said to be “guaranteed” by faith, and I would say, faith ALONE. God does not give us that free gift based on what WE do, but based on faith in what someone ELSE has done. Neither do those works have any part in the SAVING grace (not enabling grace) in which we now STAND (Romans 5:2).
Good day.
Again, we do not teach salvation by works. We teach justification by grace alone: by faith alone (initially), and then after that, salvation by the grace-enabled faith that organically contains within itself grace-enabled works, without which it is dead. Good works must be done after initial justification, and can’t be separated from the overall equation of salvation and arbitrarily placed in a separate box of “non-salvific sanctification.” The latter interpretation was not taught by the Church fathers and was introduced by Philip Melanchthon 1500 years after Christ. Protestant scholars Alister McGrath (an expert on the history of justification) and Norman Geisler affirm this.
You can’t just repeat Protestant slogans and the usual handful of verses that are almost always mentioned. You have to actually grapple with and incorporate relevant Scripture. You have offered three verses: that we can easily harmonize with our view. I have 78 on the relationship of salvation, faith, and works. For this discussion to proceed, you have to show us all how all those Bible passages can and must be interpreted within the framework of “faith alone” soteriology. I say that they cannot. It’s impossible. Meanwhile, you have still not fully comprehended Catholic soteriology. It contains some subtleties and complexity, because it’s based on the Bible, which also contains things difficult to understand (2 Pet 3:16), so this is to be expected.
“the RCC attaches a salvific EFFICACY to such things as that coin you dropped in the homeless man’s hat, and THAT COIN may be considered to have “JUST AS MUCH” saving power as the blood that dripped down Calvary’s cross.”
That’s not what we believe. As a Catholic apologist for now 34 years, I have never ever said anything as ridiculous as — or within a million miles of — your example of giving someone a coin in charity, and that this supposedly has as much saving power as Christ’s blood. It’s a caricature. You get nowhere creating straw men and knocking them down. We believe that sanctification can’t be separated from justification and salvation, and that works have some relevance to salvation, because Jesus and Paul and all other Bible writers said so. I just summarized this compelling biblical teaching in a recent 1000-word article for National Catholic Register. Here is the heart of that:
Jesus taught that “Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire” (Mt 7:19), and when directly asked about how one obtains eternal life, He said, “keep the commandments” and, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor” (Mt 19:16-17, 21). Jesus stated that His disciples who had done the good, self-sacrificing works of leaving “houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands” for His sake, would “inherit eternal life” as a reward (Mt 19:29).
Jesus said that those who would receive “eternal life” (Mt 25:46) would because “I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me” (Mt 25:35), and then He clarified that if they “did it to one of the least of these my brethren” they “did it” to Him (Mt 25:40). He also said, “love your enemies, and do good, . . . and you will be sons of the Most High” (Lk 6:35) and that “those who have done good” will be saved (Jn 5:29), and, “do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand” (Rev 2:5). Jesus stated that the saved were those who were “sanctified by faith in me” (Acts 26:18).
St. Paul taught the same: “as it is written, ‘He who through faith is righteous shall live.’” (Rom 1:17); “to those who by patience in well-doing seek for . . . immortality, he will give eternal life . . . glory and honor and peace for every one who does good” (Rom 2:7, 10); “the doers of the law . . . will be justified” (Rom 2:13). The “end” of “sanctification” is “eternal life” (Rom 6:22), and indeed we are “saved, through sanctification” (2 Thess 2:13); we’re “fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him” (Rom 8:17; cf. 1 Pet 4:13). He taught that we must do many good things and be fruitful in order to be saved:
Galatians 5:14, 19, 21–23 For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” . . . [19] Now the works of the flesh are plain: . . . [21] . . . those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. [22] But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, [23] gentleness, self-control; against such there is no law.
2 Thessalonians 1:8, 11 inflicting vengeance . . . upon those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. . . . [11] To this end we always pray for you, that our God may make you worthy of his call, and may fulfil every good resolve and work of faith by his power,
1 Timothy 4:12, 15-16 . . . set the believers an example in speech and conduct, in love, in faith, in purity. . . . [15] Practice these duties, . . . [16] Take heed to yourself and to your teaching; hold to that, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.
Paul frequently makes many similar points in his letters: “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phil 2:12-13); “work heartily, . . . knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward” (Col 3:23-24); “woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness” (1 Tim 2:15); “aim at righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness. Fight the good fight of the faith; take hold of the eternal life to which you were called” (1 Tim 6:11-12); “keep the commandment. . . . do good, . . . be rich in good deeds, . . . so that they may take hold of the life which is life indeed” (1 Tim 6:14, 18-19).
All of this (and several more passages I have from NT writers besides Paul) contradicts the Protestant “pillar” of “faith alone”: where works are – although highly urged – optional in the sense that they supposedly have nothing whatsoever to do with salvation. The Bible — as always — is clear, and it refutes faith alone soteriology and proves the Catholic view of justification and salvation.
*
***
*
Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 4,800+ free online articles or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
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.
Photo credit:Book cover (designed by myself) of my own self-published book.
Summary: Spirited exchange with a Protestant in which we discuss what Catholics understand to be the “moral assurance of salvation”: which is as solid as any Protestant assurance.
I didn’t find Christ in Catholicism . . . I lost the forest (the big picture of Christ) for a lot of unnecessary trees that were not scripturally grounded. Part of this . . . was due to some non-scriptural and even (in some cases) anti-scriptural doctrines that undermine the role and significance of Christ. I would love to come back to a purified Catholicism more in keeping with a biblical witness. The excessive adulation of Mary, which at times seems to me to come close to elevating her to the godhead (like a replacement consort for Yahweh in lieu of Asherah), is one such obstacle.
After I had made five in-depth responses to him, Dr. Gagnon replied (just for the record) in a thread on another Facebook page, on 9-17-24, underneath my links to all five: “like your other one, it is an amateurish piece.” This is his silly and arrogant way of dismissing my critiques in one fell swoop. I had informed him that I had over twenty “officially published books” [22, to be exact] and yet he replied that he didn’t know “whether” they were “self-published or with a vanity press or a reputable press.”
His words will be in blue. I use RSV for biblical citations.
The Marian dogma of the Immaculate Conception contains within it the seeds of its own destruction. For if Mary’s parents did not need to be sinless in order for her to be free from the stain of original sin, then neither did Jesus need Mary to be sinless in order to be born free from the stain of original sin, and all the more so since (per Matthew and Luke) Joseph had no involvement in Mary’s conception.
If this isn’t part of the dogma in the first place, then it can’t be the basis of the supposed “seeds of its own destruction”. It’s a false premise that Dr. Gagnon utilizes, in other words, which means that he is warring against a straw man of his own making. Blessed Pope Pius IX, in his 1854 declaration on the Immaculate Conception (Ineffabilis Deus) wrote:
And indeed it was wholly fitting that so wonderful a mother should be ever resplendent with the glory of most sublime holiness . . .
she was entirely a fit habitation for Christ, . . .
For it was certainly not fitting that this vessel of election should be wounded by the common injuries, since she, differing so much from the others, had only nature in common with them, not sin. In fact, it was quite fitting that, as the Only-Begotten has a Father in heaven, whom the Seraphim extol as thrice holy, so he should have a Mother on earth who would never be without the splendor of holiness.
In his treatise “On the Virginal Conception,” St. Anselm expounded the principle on which the doctrine rests in the fallowing words: “It was fitting that the conception of that man (Christ) should be accomplished from a most pure mother. For it was fittingthat that Virgin should be resplendent with such a purity, . . .” The Catechism teaches the same:
#722 The Holy Spirit prepared Mary by his grace. It was fitting that the mother of him in whom “the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” should herself be “full of grace.” She was, by sheer grace, conceived without sin as the most humble of creatures, the most capable of welcoming the inexpressible gift of the Almighty. . . .”
Likewise, in Munificentissimus Deus, Venerable Pope Pius XII’s declaration of the dogma of Mary’s Bodily Assumption in 1950, we find seven examples of the concept of fittingness, which is derived from the New Testament:
Hebrews 2:10 For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through suffering.
Hebrews 7:26 For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners, exalted above the heavens.
Matthew 3:15 But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now; for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.”
1 Corinthians 11:13 Judge for yourselves; is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
Ephesians 5:3-4 But fornication and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is fitting among saints. Let there be no filthiness, nor silly talk, nor levity, which are not fitting; but instead, let there be thanksgiving.
Colossians 3:18 Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.
2 Thessalonians 1:3 We are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren, as is fitting …
1 Timothy 2:6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was borne at the proper time.
1 Timothy 6:15 and this will be made manifest at the proper time by the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords,
Titus 1:3 and at the proper time manifested in his word through the preaching with which I have been entrusted by command of God our Savior …
Dictionary.com defines “fitting” as “suitable or appropriate; proper or becoming.” Thesaurus.com provides 21 synonyms for “fitting” including “apt,” “proper,” “correct,” “desirable” and “seemly.” We see that supposedly exclusively Catholic “fittingness” is a frequent and explicit biblical teaching, and that Catholic thinking is thoroughly, comprehensively, and deeply biblical. For more on this, see my article, ““Catholic” Notion of “Fittingness”: Quite Biblical! [2-2-23; expanded on 7-25-23].
***
“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”!If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,800+ articles, please follow my blog by signing up (with your email address) on the sidebar to the right (you may have to scroll down a bit), above where there is an icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. My blog was rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT: endorsed by influential Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. 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!
***
If Jesus’ sinlessness was not dependent on Mary being sinless, then there is no reason to postulate a doctrine that not only has no support in the NT witness but also surely would have been mentioned as a sign of God’s miraculous work in Jesus’ birth, had Matthew or Luke been aware of it.
It’s untrue that the only rationale for the doctrine is supposed necessity in order for Jesus to be sinless and impeccable (incapable of sin). Propriety or fittingness is an essentially different concept, and it is the Catholic Church’s rationale, following the biblical espousal of it in at least ten verses (shown above). Arguments from silence carry little force. Besides, we Catholics agree that Mary received fairly small amount of notice in the New Testament.
See my Facebook article, Why So Little Mention of Mary in the New Testament? (9-14-24). Nor is it absent from the Bible altogether. I contend — exclusively utilizing biblical arguments — that Luke 1:28 contains data sufficient to establish her sinlessness, which is the kernel of her being immaculate and freed from original sin. See my articles (especially the first one):
Moreover, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is in tension with the fact that the NT witness depicts Jesus alone as sinless (2 Cor 5:21; Heb 4:15; 1 John 3:5; 1 Pet 2:22), with all the rest of the world being sinners (e.g., Rom 3:9, 19-20; 23; 5:12-21),
and thus the only one who can save people from their sins.
That doesn’t technically follow, either. He doesn’t save us only because He is sinless (though that was part of it), but first and foremost because He is God and our Creator, and has the prerogative to do so — or not do so — as He pleased. The unfallen angels and Adam and Eve are and were sinless, respectively, but it doesn’t follow that either could save the human race. That fact alone proves that there are sinless creatures and sinless beings besides Jesus.
Presumably, had Mary been sinless, she could have died to make amends for the sin of the world (though I suppose that one could argue that even in a sinless state her life would not have been of sufficient value to offset the lives of all others).
She could not because she was not God. Period. God saves us. We don’t save ourselves (which would be the heresy of Pelagianism).
At any rate, there would have been no need for a Savior on her part since one who is without sin does not need amends to be made for her sin.
That doesn’t follow, either, because Mary would have been subject to original sin like every other person, but for a special preventive act of God’s grace. Jesus saved Mary from her sins by preventing them from ever occurring, at her conception. It’s still saving her from her sins. If, for example, someone locked a thoroughly drunk person (an alcoholic) who wanted to drive, in a closet, that would be “saving” him or her from a potential fatal accident.
Keeping alcohol away from the same person is “saving” them from their besetting sin: drunkenness, much more so than black coffee and a cold shower getting them sober after the fact. Sessions at Alcoholics Anonymous can “save” an alcoholic from his or her “sins.” So can disallowing them to have alcohol in the first place. Both involve “saving them.”
Mary was subject to inheriting original sin, as a member of the human race, that had been fallen since Adam. God simply took away at her conception what would have been inevitable, had He not done it. In that sense, then, in effect, He “forgave her of original sin.” Had original sin not been inevitable in her case, He wouldn’t have had to do that to preserve her from it. But in so doing He saved her from the sin and is thus properly called by Mary, her “savior.”
*
In fact, I submit that Mary was saved more completely or thoroughly than any human being has ever been saved. She, above all, can and did call God her “savior” since she received more grace for salvation and a life without actual sin, than anyone else ever has. It was 100% grace and 100% monergistic, since Mary couldn’t even accept it in faith (it being the moment of her conception).
*
Luke notes that Mary, after her time of “purification” (40 days) had been completed, she brought two doves or pigeons to the temple, “according to the law of Moses,” specifically Lev 12:6-8 where the offering is designated a “sin offering” (Heb. hattath), which a priest offers “to make atonement (Heb. kipper) on her behalf.” Now some recent translations change “sin offering” to “purification offering” based on the piel-conjugation meaning of the cognate verb. Yet hattath when not referring to an offering simple means “sin”; and the piel of the related verb means purification from sin, the opposite of the qal conjugation, “to sin.” Why a “sin offering” in connection with childbirth? It may be insurance for one’s child, in case of an unknown, previously un-atoned sin of the mother. This suggests that Mary did not view herself as sinless.
*
Nonsense; for the simple reason that Jesus also engaged in ritual purification rituals and was baptized, which everyone else was doing — under John the Baptist — for the forgiveness of sins. Does that “prove” that He was not sinless, or didn’t view Himself as sinless, too? Jesus offered sacrifices at the temple, which were ordinarily for the atonement for sins, and observed Passover, which was for (again, ordinarily) the same purpose. So this proves nothing by analogy and reductio ad absurdum.
*
I understand the “anticipatory grace” excuse, but it doesn’t hold in the NT witness. No one received the effects of Jesus’ atoning death until after he died for them on the cross. And those effects don’t make one sinless or eliminate the sinful impulse in the flesh prior to the reception of the resurrection body. So, no, Mary could not have been free from the stain of original sin (which is not just a juridical declaration but involves the transmission of the sin impulse in the flesh) through Christ’s death prior to Christ’s death.
*
Here, in effect, Dr. Gagnon argues that it was impossible for God to act in the manner that we believe He did in the Immaculate Conception of Mary. But it’s not intrinsically impossible at all. God can make exceptions to His own “norms” if He wills to do so. It shouldn’t need to be pointed out to a NT scholar that God can do whatever He wants.
*
The “fitting but not necessary” distinction is a distinction without much of a difference.
*
It’s an essential difference. They simply don’t mean the same thing. So this is really grasping at straws.
*
when you say that Jesus “wouldn’t want to be born of something tainted by sin,” you are just making stuff up. There is nothing even remotely close to that in the NT witness.
*
Actually, there is quite a bit about holiness being part and parcel of proximity to God (as a matter of fittingness): much of it in the Old Testament. See:
if Mary could be free of the stain of original sin even though her parents contributed to her the matter that went into making her flesh, why couldn’t Jesus be free of the same original sin despite Mary having sin?
*
It was possible that Mary could have sinned in another hypothetical “alternate” scenario ordained by God, but God chose that she be sinless, because it was fitting and proper for the Mother of God the Son.
*
And doesn’t the Spirit of Christ dwell in us who are not sinless?
*
Indeed. That’s why the Immaculate Conception was not of necessity, but only of fittingness.
*
kekharitomene (κεχαριτωμένη) [Luke 1:28] does not mean “full of grace.” It means “favored one,” which does not imply sinlessness. You are absolutely wrong on that.
*
Not everyone agrees about it not meaning “full of grace.” The great Baptist Greek scholar A. T. Robertson wrote:
“Highly favoured” (kecharitomene). Perfect passive participle of charitoo and means endowed with grace (charis), enriched with grace as in Ephesians. 1:6, . . . The Vulgate gratiae plena “is right, if it means ‘full of grace which thou hast received‘; wrong, if it means ‘full of grace which thou hast to bestow‘” (Plummer). (Word Pictures in the New Testament, Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930, 6 volumes, citation from Vol. II, 13)
Of course, Catholics agree that Mary has received grace. This is assumed in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception: it was a grace from God which could not possibly have had anything to do with Mary’s personal merit, since it was granted by God at the moment of her conception. Kecharitomene has to do with God’s grace, as it is derived from the Greek root, charis (literally, “grace”). Thus, in the KJV, charis is translated “grace” 129 out of the 150 times that it appears.
Presbyterian Greek scholar Marvin Vincent noted that even Wycliffe and Tyndale (no enthusiastic supporters of the Catholic Church) both rendered kecharitomene in Luke 1:28 as “full of grace” and that the literal meaning was “endued with grace” (Word Studies in the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1946, four volumes, from 1887 edition [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons]; citation from Vol. I, 259).
Likewise, well-known Protestant linguist W.E. Vine, defines it as “to endue with Divine favour or grace” (An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Co., four volumes-in-one edition, 1940; citation from Vol. II, 171). And he concurs that charis can mean “a state of grace, e.g., Rom. 5:2; 1 Pet. 5:12; 2 Pet. 3:18” (Vol. II, 170). All of these men (except Wycliffe, who probably would have been, had he lived in the 16th century or after it) are Protestants, and so cannot be accused of Catholic translation bias. I go on from these points to construct an entirely biblical argument for Mary’s sinlessness. It goes like this:
1. The Bible teaches that we are saved by God’s grace.
2. To be “full of” God’s grace, then, is to be saved.
3. Therefore, Mary is saved (Luke 1:28).
4. The Bible teaches that we need God’s grace to live a holy life, free from sin.
5. To be “full of” God’s grace is thus to be so holy that one is sinless.
6. Therefore, Mary is holy and sinless.
7. The essence of the Immaculate Conception is sinlessness.
8. Therefore, the Immaculate Conception, in its essence, can be directly deduced from Scripture.
For St. Paul, grace (charis) is the antithesis and “conqueror” of sin. To put it another way:
1. Grace saves us.
2. Grace gives us the power to be holy and righteous and without sin.
Therefore, for a person to be full of grace is both to be saved and to be completely, exceptionally holy. It’s a “zero-sum game”: the more grace one has, the less sin. One might look at grace as water, and sin as the air in an empty glass (us). When you pour in the water (grace), the sin (air) is displaced. A full glass of water, therefore, contains no air (see also, similar zero-sum game concepts in 1 John 1:7, 9; 3:6, 9; 5:18). To be full of grace is to be devoid of sin. Thus we might re-apply the above two propositions:
1. To be full of the grace that saves is surely to be saved.
2. To be full of the grace that gives us the power to be holy, righteous, and without sin is to be fully without sin, by that same grace.
What function then does the doctrine serve, consistent with the NT witness to Mary?
It produces an altogether fitting mother of the incarnate God. I would expect no less from God. It makes perfect sense to me, and nothing in the NT contradicts it.
Related Reading(still unreplied to as of this writing; and Dr. Gagnon was notified in several ways):
Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 4,800+ free online articles or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
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.
Photo credit:Dr. Robert Gagnon’s Facebook profile picture [link], as of 9-15-24.
Summary: Wide-ranging reply to one of NT scholar Robert Gagnon’s articles, where he simultaneously “attacks” & misunderstands the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In