Baptizing the Dead? (Odd Verse 1 Corinthians 15:29)

January 18, 2016 By Dave Armstrong

Baptism: fresco on the catacomb of Saints Marcellinus and Peter, Via Labicana, Rome, Italy [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Uploaded on 5 June 2002.

This discussion took place on a public Internet bulletin board, with six Protestants. Their words will appear in various colors, with my primary opponent’s words in blue.

* * * * *

How does a Protestant interpret this verse?:

1 Corinthians 15:29 (RSV) Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?

Footnote from my New Geneva Study Bible:

Apparently some in Corinth were being baptized on behalf of others who had already died. This practice is not mentioned elsewhere in the Bible or in other ancient writings. Numerous explanations of the practice have been proposed, all of them speculative and none persuasive. Paul mentions the rite only to show the logical inconsistency of his opponent’s position.

I don’t see how that last sentence follows. I think the entire context falsifies it. Paul’s statement — whatever it means — is used as a rhetorical argument favoring the resurrection of the dead, not as an anomalous, incongruous example within the context of a positive affirmation of resurrection. The entire chapter 15 is about Jesus’ Resurrection and that of His followers.

Paul’s point is that the Christian life of toil and suffering is pointless if there is no resurrection, and if Jesus didn’t rise again (15:14, 17, 19), and that if this were the case, we might as well be hedonists (15:32). After he makes his statement in 15:29, he proclaims in the next verse: “Why am I in peril every hour?” In other words, “why do I go through what I go through, if not for the hope of the resurrection and eternal life?” (cf. 15:32).

So his example of baptism is one of several practices which only make sense if there is a resurrection. By analogy, then, it is not presented as an inconsistency at all, but as an acceptable practice in light of the resurrection, just like his “peril” and dying “every day” (15:31). On the contrary, if he wished to condemn such a practice, it seems to me that here was his opportunity to make it clear that it was not only “logically inconsistent” but wicked and forbidden in the Church Age / New Covenant period.

Paul certainly made no bones about other Corinthian faults in his two letters to them. So I say that Paul is supporting the practice, and that this has to be harmonized with Christian theology in some fashion.

I don’t think Protestants would likely see this passage much differently than Roman Catholics.

I don’t think they “see” it at all. :-) Or if they do they wrongly interpret it, in my opinion, just as the commentary above does, with recourse to special pleading and avoidance of the crystal-clear context. And there is other Scripture or ancient writing similar to this, which I will bring in in due course.

As you may know LDS [Mormons] use this passage to try to proof-text their practice of baptism for the dead.

Yes. I think they are wrongly interpreting as well.

Perhaps they were baptized for the sake of those who had died. Meaning, because of the testimony of believers that had been perhaps slain for the faith, these people were now becoming believers and being baptized. I always thought that “huper” could be like “because of.” I dunno. One thing is for sure, you can’t build a doctrine out of one verse.

There was a cult near Corinth in which the members were baptized on behalf of dead friends and relatives. Thus cult also happened to believe in a resurrection.

Paul was telling the believers how futile life is if there is no resurrection (“if the dead are not raised…let us eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die”). Interestingly, that particular saying was popular among the Epicureans. Paul is drawing on the teachings and practices of pagan religions to give support to his argument! It is along these lines that Paul also appeals to the practice of the cult (I have forgotten their name) that practiced baptism on behalf of the dead; the reason that those people practiced this was because they believed in a coming resurrection. Paul is saying, “Why does that group that baptizes people on behalf of the dead do what they’re doing if there is no resurrection?” He is pointing out that even among pagans, a belief or disbelief in the resurrection guides their ways of life. In the case of the Epicureans, their disbelief resulted in a debauched lifestyle. In the case of the Corinthian cult, their belief resulted in a practice of baptizing members on behalf of the dead. Likewise, as Christians our belief in the resurrection should produce a certain response in us; namely, we should be willing to fight with wild beasts (v. 32), die as martyrs, and live holy lives (v. 34).

Could I ask where you found this historical information (because others have denied it)?

There is nothing to support that Corinthian believers were being baptized for their dead relatives or friends. The note derives its existence from pure speculation and is contrary to Paul’s larger message delivered through the testimony of his epistles.

Well, then this is a big difference of opinion. The above commentary said the practice may have occurred but that Paul opposed it. You say there is no evidence that it occurred, and that Paul is talking about something entirely different. I say Paul is upholding the practice also, but I would interpret it differently (and I am withholding my opinion till other opinions are on the table, because I want to see what they are).

Baptism is the identifying with someone or something. In this case Paul is speaking of identification as a dead person. It means the Corinthian believers were baptized or identified with Jesus Christ who had died for them. They were dead to the world but were alive to Christ. See the contrast of this idea in Gal. 2:20.

Considering Paul is about to launch in the program and pattern of the resurrection Paul was saying that if there is no resurrection then we have been baptized for a dead man (Jesus Christ). Paul here, I believe, equivocates the denial of the believers resurrection as a denial of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Clever, but I don’t buy it, for two reasons. First, 15:29 does not say we were baptized in Christ or with Him, as other baptism passages suggest; rather, it says people are baptized “on behalf” of the dead: an entirely different concept. Obviously, our Lord Jesus needs nothing done on His behalf.

Secondly, “the dead” seems to me to be a corporate term, not referring to Jesus alone. If you are right, this is an exceedingly strange way to refer to Jesus, as “the dead.” And apart from the strange idiom and style, it is contradicted throughout chapter 15, because when Paul is referring to Jesus, He says so in no uncertain terms, repeatedly, by using the title, “Christ” (15:3-4,12-17,20), whereas “the dead” clearly refers to the resurrection of us poor, miserable created human beings, in contradistinction to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, as in, e.g., 15:12-13,15-16,52. The distinction between the two couldn’t be more clear, with Paul often contrasting them in the very same verse.

Therefore, I believe your interpretation utterly collapses.

Actually it does work with the Greek. All you need to do is look at what Paul talks about in the proceding verse:

1 Cor. 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. 29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

In verse 29, Paul is contrasting the thought laid out in verses 24-28 which is the end of human history and after the judgement when even sin and death are defeated and God’s kingdom encompasses everything having defeated all enemies through the Son. Paul is basically saying in verse 29, “If these things (vv. 24-29) are not to be, then what is the point of being baptized for a dead man (Jesus Christ)?” It is a rhetorical question. Follow my line of thinking?

No, for reasons explained above.

St. Francis de Sales:

This passage properly understood evidently shows that it was the custom of the primitive Church to watch, pray, fast, for the souls of the departed. For, firstly, in the Scriptures to be baptized is often taken for afflictions and penances; as in Luke 12:50 . . . and in St. Mark 10:38-9 . . . — in which places Our Lord calls pains and afflictions baptism [cf. Matthew 3:11, 20:22-3, Luke 3:16].

This then is the sense of that Scripture: if the dead rise not again, what is the use of mortifying and afflicting oneself, of praying and fasting for the dead? And indeed this sentence of St. Paul resembles that of 2 Maccabees 12:44: “It is superfluous and vain to pray for the dead if the dead rise not again. . . .” Now it was not for those in Paradise [heaven], who had no need of it, nor for those in hell, who could get no benefit from it; it was, then, for those in Purgatory. Thus did St. Ephraim [d.373] expound it.

The “penance” interpretation is supported contextually by the next three verses, where the Apostle speaks of being in peril every hour, and dying every day. St. Paul certainly doesn’t condemn the practice, whatever it is (his question being merely rhetorical). Given these facts, and the striking resemblance to 2 Maccabees 12:44, the traditional Catholic interpretation seems the most plausible.

Furthermore, Paul prays for the dead man Onesiphorus in 2 Tim 1:16-18 (“. . . may the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that Day . . .” — cf. 4:19). The New Bible Commentary admits that Onesiphorus is likely dead, and that Paul is praying (but somehow not for the dead). A.T. Robertson, in his Word Pictures of the NT, states: “Apparently Onesiphorus is now dead as implied by the wish in 1:18.”

Conclusion?:

1. The guy is dead.
2. Paul is praying for him.
3. Therefore, prayers for the dead are taught (and practiced) by Paul.
4. Since Paul’s writings are part of inspired revelation, prayer for the dead is NT and orthodox Christian teaching.

1 Corinthians 15:29 merely extends that spiritual principle by sanctioning penances for the dead (secondary usage of “baptism” — and the similarity to 2 Macc 12:44). Penance, just like prayer, has the effect of aiding another person.

I anticipated your conclusion. as I stated above, such teaching is based purely upon commentators’ speculation. In a nutshell your thesis is begging the question (for those reading along: begging the question is the name given to an informal fallacy of argumentation which occurs when one assumes inadequate premises provide adequate support for a conclusion. It normally comes from: (1) leaving out a key premise (2) when a premise states the conclusion in some way (3) circular reasoning).

Well, that’s easy to say and sounds quite impressive, but the problem is that you have simply made an assertion and not demonstrated (by carefully taking apart my exegesis) how my argument has done any such thing. On the other hand, I replied to your exegetical argument point-by-point, and I believe I demonstrated that it made no sense in the entire contextual passage (though I agree that this doesn’t prove my view — it merely shows yours to be implausible). You have not yet counter-replied (I hope you will).

I gave all sorts of different arguments for my interpretation, but no one has yet grappled with them, apart from simply stating disagreement, which is, of course, philosophically and exegetically unimpressive, and no reason for anyone to be persuaded otherwise. So you disagree with prayers for the dead . . . fine; I already knew that, but there is still a text to be dealt with here.

In review of your thesis your conclusion is reached by speculating upon earlier commentators’ speculation. Therefore you forwarded no argument because your thesis is begging the question. In my thesis I forwarded biblical theology and prefaced my conclusion that I believe that Paul was equivocating a denial of the resurrection to a denial of Christ’s resurrection. I stated my opinion based upon biblical theology. Opinions are what you asked for, and what I presented to you. The problem is when you shift from opinions to facts by attempting to become dogmatic upon your opinion you then are committing a formal fallacy of affirming the consequent. Examples of the fallacy of affirming the consequent:

If Paul was hammering against baptizing for the dead, then David is right.

David is right.
Therefore, Paul was hammering against baptizing for the dead.
If you were a gorilla, you’d have two legs.
You have two legs.
Therefore, you must be a gorilla

If P then Q
Q
Therefore, P

Once the formal fallacy is spotted one need not continue to examine the argument. Since you have shifted from opinion to fact and I have noted the fallacy, there is no need for this apologist to further demonstrate why the argument is incorrect.

I don’t buy it at all, but shoot yourself.

Are you at least willing to reply to my critique of your interpretation, if you won’t respond directly (i.e., exegetically) to mine? We keep getting further and further away from the text itself, which is the really interesting thing in this discussion, not your descriptions of various logical fallacies wrongly applied to my analysis . . .

Look at the big idea that chapter 15 lays out and ask yourself why Paul is going through the trouble of presenting his counsel concerning the resurrection?

Fact of Christ’s resurrection (1-11)
Importance of Christ’s resurrection (12-19)
Order of resurrection (20-28)
Moral implications of Christ’s resurrection (29-34)
Bodies of the resurrected dead (35-50)
Bodies of the translated living (51-58)

Considering Paul had been handed a shopping list of problems and questions, what problem or question do you suppose he was answering? What fits the text better? A denial of the believers resurrection or baptism for the dead?

My notion fits in perfectly well with the schema of the chapter because Paul was making a rhetorical argument having to do with the fact that there are folks who are resurrected and alive in the afterlife. Paraphrase of his rhetorical question: “why do something for their sakes if they aren’t there in the first place?” That makes perfect sense to me.

You, on the other hand, have suggested a strange, eccentric reading of the phrase “the dead” and tried to apply it to Jesus’ Resurrection, whereas Paul everywhere else in the chapter (since you agree, of course, that context is relevant and important) uses it as a term for the general dead, and contrasts it to Christ several times. I think this indicates exegetical desperation on your part, to latch onto such an exceedingly weak and implausible thesis.

My problem with the way you are proceeding in this discussion is your ignoring of both my particular exegetical arguments (which are various) and my critiques of yours. In my opinion, there is no dialogue unless you or someone else does that (we’re just talking past each other).

Failing that, I will simply assume that my interpretation is unchallenged (and, I believe, the most plausible of the choices presented), and that my critique of yours is successful, because you are unwilling to even attempt to overthrow it. Why would I think otherwise? Sometimes silence speaks volumes. And it is golden. :-)

Certainly you are capable of better than that.

Basically, I’m not challenging your opinion because it hasn’t registered as an argument.

That’s a clever way to avoid a discussion. I’ll have to remember that one. :-)

What I’m saying is that quoting people’s speculation, and then adding your own speculation in the end is still just opinion.

Well, I’m not going to argue this other than to deny that I did it, or to say — granting that I was merely “speculating” –, that you are doing nothing different. Else, why do you yourself write below: ” I would point out that Calvin’s commentary on 1 Cor. 15:29-34 tends to support my opinion.”

So you quote Calvin’s speculations, add your own, and offer “just an opinion” in the end, but that is okay, whereas my effort somehow is not? Strange. Or is it because Calvin is a big shot, so then the procedure transcends your alleged logical difficulties and then becomes proper and quite appropriate?

I submit that your real problem seems to be my presupposition that penances and prayers for the dead are not ruled out from the outset; so I incorporate them into my interpretation of the passage. Of course, everyone brings a theological framework and paradigm to commentary (so it is nothing extraordinary that I do the same from my Catholic belief).

Our choice, then, in doing comparative exegesis, is to either merely put down the other view as “just speculation” or “just opinion” because we don’t like it, or to actually interact with it point-by-point (i.e., make a counter-argument) and show (giving our own opinions and speculations) how it is incorrect or implausible.

That sticks to the text, and is actually exegesis, as opposed to polemics and grandiose statements about the supposed fallacies in the other guy’s opinion. And I often wonder why it is so difficult to get people to do that. It’s really fun, and one learns so much by delving deeply into any given biblical text. I know I always learn something.

Calvin is widely read by many people and not at all obscure.

So are Marx, Freud, Darwin, Nietzsche, etc. So what? But I do agree with his comments against another false interpretation, and will cite them below.

To opinions, I say, great, good for you!

And to you! Cheers (offering a toast to your mere opinions).

Within the context Paul is making certain that people know about the resurrection of the dead in Christ. Again, this chapter is parked within an epistle that is relating the apostle’s answers to a shopping list of questions and problems. Because of this the exegete would seek to understand that nature of the question or problem Paul is responding to. I have suggested that there were those within Corinth that were denying the resurrection of the dead. I would argue that the context of the chapter supports this approach, as does the larger context of the epistle.

We’ve been through that, and it is not at issue.

Further, the thesis I present, although still my opinion, blends well within Paul’s theology.

Opinion? But I thought that is what you were objecting to in my posts????

Nevertheless, to support your thesis, you need to present something concrete showing that the church of Corinth had fallen into the heterodox practice of baptizing for the dead. To the best of my knowledge no such evidence exists other than speculation.

This has nothing to do with my opinion. I have no idea why you would think that it does. I’m not even interpreting Paul’s reference to “baptism” as referring to water baptism.

To the charge that mine, is “a strange, eccentric reading,” I would point out that Calvin’s commentary on 1 Cor. 15:29-34 tends to support my opinion.

He doesn’t say that “the dead” refers to Christ. That is what I was specifically saying was “strange, eccentric” in your view. And you have consistently refused to defend it and respond to my contextual critique. That’s your right, but it doesn’t impress me, and I dare say that it won’t impress an impartial reader.

His commentary gives the “Corinthian Church baptized for the dead” position a thorough plummeting, if you are interested in reading it.

Yes, it was very interesting. Thanks for that link. I totally agree with him when he critiques that particular view (and made a shorter version of his argument myself, above). I disagree with his own positive interpretation, though. I would like to cite the portion of his commentary that I agree with:

Before expounding this passage, it is of importance to set aside the common exposition, which rests upon the authority of the ancients, and is received with almost universal consent. Chrysostom, therefore, and Ambrose, who are followed by others, are of opinion that the Corinthians were accustomed, when any one had been deprived of baptism by sudden death, to substitute some living person in the place of the deceased — to be baptized at his grave. They at the same time do not deny that this custom was corrupt, and full of superstition, but they say that Paul, for the purpose of confuting the Corinthians, was contented with this single fact, that while they denied that there was a resurrection, they in the mean time declared in this way that they believed in it. For my part, however, I cannot by any means be persuaded to believe this, . . .

Granting, however, that the argument was conclusive, can we suppose that, if such a corruption as this had prevailed among the Corinthians, the Apostle, after reproving almost all their faults, would have been silent as to this one? He has censured above some practices that are not of so great moment. He has not scrupled to give directions as to women’s having’ the head covered, and other things of that nature. Their corrupt administration of the Supper he has not merely reproved, but has inveighed against it with the greatest keenness. Would he in the meantime have uttered not a single word in reference to such a base profanation of baptism, which was a much more grievous fault? He has inveighed with great vehemence against those who, by frequenting the banquets of the Gentiles, silently counte-nanced their superstitions. Would he have suffered this horrible superstition of the Gentiles to be openly carried on in the Church itself under the name of sacred baptism? But granting that he might have been silent, what shall we say when he expressly makes mention of it? Is it, I pray you, a likely thing that the Apostle would bring forward in the shape of an argument a sacrilege by which baptism was polluted, and converted into a mere magical abuse, and yet not say even one word in condemnation of the fault? When he is treating of matters that are not of the highest importance, he introduces nevertheless this parenthesis, that he speaks as a man. (Romans 3:5; Romans 6:19; Galatians 3:15.) Would not this have been a more befitting and suitable place for such a parenthesis? Now from his making mention of such a thing without any word of reproof, who would not understand it to be a thing that was allowed? For my part, I assuredly understand him to speak here of the right, use of baptism, and not of an abuse of it of that nature.

I would disagree with your interpretation of the verse.

That’s fine, but why? No one has replied to my interpretation, or to my counter-replies to their interpretation. Mine takes into account context, style, the different meanings of “baptism” in Scripture, and the parallel with Maccabees. No one has touched any of these elements thus far. Maybe they will yet.

Paul brings this verse seemingly out of nowhere to illustrate a point about the resurrection of the dead. It’s obvious that the practice was known to the Corinthian believers in some way,

I agree, whatever the practice actually is. Everyone is assuming that Paul is referring to water baptism, when it is not necessary to do so simply by virtue of the word “baptism,” which has a few different meanings in Scripture. Biblically (and in Catholicism), it is nonsensical to be water-baptized for someone else, because (for Catholics, Orthodox, and several species of Protestants such as Lutherans, Anglicans, Church of Christ, etc.) it confers regeneration, and a dead person is either regenerate or not. No “proxy baptism” will change that fact after they are dead. Even if one denies baptismal regeneration, “proxy baptism” makes no sense because the baptism applies only to the one receiving it.

because Paul would’ve probably shed more light on it if it was a new practice or an essential point in Christian doctrine.

What makes sense is the “penitential” interpretation, because that easily harmonizes with the parallel passage in Maccabees about prayer for the dead. The problem here is that Protestant theology has no place for such thought, and so it is ruled out from the outset; thus the text remains mysterious for Protestants because of the (in this instance) false preconception they bring to it.

My thought about it is that he was illustrating a practice from another religon to illustrate a truth about the resurrection.

I don’t find that plausible. Why talk momentarily about baptism in another religion, in the context of a thoroughly Christian discussion about the resurrection? But bringing in the notion of penance and prayers for the dead makes perfect sense in the context of the Christian theology of the general resurrection.

The reason: my NIV says “…what will those do who are baptized for the dead?” which sounds like it is directed toward people outside of the Corinthian church. Honestly, unless anyone can time-travel back to the 1st century the passage will always remain obscure.

Only for Protestants, because their theology disallows the (in my opinion) most plausible and sensible interpretation of the verse. It is somewhat obscure for Catholics too, but — with all due respect — I think we at least offer some sort of plausible explanation of it.

Here’s what the text note to my NIV Study Bible says if you’re curious.

Sure.

. . . because Paul does not give any more information about the practice, many attempts have been made to interpret the concept. Three of these are: 1. Living believers were being baptized for believers who died before they were baptized, so that they too, in a sense, would not miss out on baptism.

That makes no sense in any Christian system I am aware of, including Catholicism. The direct effect of a sacrament only applies to the one receiving it. We have the notion of “baptism of desire” for a person who was not baptized for some reason, but would do so if he could (such as the thief on the cross). That very concept and “loophole” — so to speak — presupposes that no one can be water-baptized for anyone else.

2. Christians were being baptized in anticipation of the resurrection of the dead.

This violates the text, because the baptism is on behalf of the dead.

3. New converts were being baptized to fill the ranks of Christians that had died.

Stretching it. This doesn’t deal with the text itself, but strikes me as desperate special pleading. Again, it ignores the element of “behalf”.

At any rate, Paul mentions the custom almost in passing,

Whether it is in passing or not, it has to be explained in some fashion. Better for Protestants to simply admit ignorance, than to special plead, in order to avoid at all costs a “Catholic” interpretation.

using its arguments substantiating the resurrection of the dead, but without necessarily approving the practice.”

There is no hint in the passage that I can see, that Paul disapproves of it. As I wrote earlier, if he did, it stands to reason that he would show his disagreement when he mentions it. That would be his responsibility as an Apostle and Christian teacher, responsible for his flock.

My problem with your exegesis is that:

1: How do we know that the guy [Onesiphorus] is even dead? It doesn’t seem totally certain.

Because Paul refers to the “household of Onesiphorus” twice. If I were writing to you, I don’t think I would say “I send greetings to the household of [name] . . . ” No, I would say, “Greetings to you and your house,” or “I hope you and yours are well,” as I often do. But you would be mentioned in it. That’s why some commentators think he was dead. E.g., The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (vol. 4, 2195, “Onesiphorus”) states:

It is not clear whether Onesiphorus was living, or whether he had died, before Paul wrote the epistle. Different opinions have been held on the subject. The way in which Paul refers to ‘the household . . . of Onesiphorus,’ makes it possible that Onesiphorus himself had died . . . but certainty is impossible.

2: Is Paul praying or simply expressing a wish?

Well, I think this attempted distinction is stretching it a bit too far. The Protestant, in his necessity to escape the implication of prayers for the dead, comes up with this business of Paul “wishing” (as several commentators do). In any event, his words read exactly like a prayer: “may the Lord grant him to find mercy on that Day” (2 Tim 1:18; RSV). What is the difference between, e.g., “I pray that God will bless you” and “I wish that God will bless you”? The sentiment is pretty much the same one.

To jump from that to the claim that praying for the dead is Biblical seems more like a leap — it is not certain enough for that kind of commitment.

I wasn’t making a full-fledged argument for prayers for the dead. I do that elsewhere. I just mentioned it as a cross-reference to the discussion on “baptism for the dead,” because Paul appears to have a verse from Maccabees in mind, where prayer for the dead is explicitly taught (and that shows it was indeed Jewish practice, whatever one thinks of the canonicity of that particular book). It’s fun to throw these things out to see what Protestants try to do with them. :-)

Thanks for your feedback, and my wish, hope, desire (prayer?) is that God will be merciful to you on that Day! :-)

Stay in touch! Like Biblical Evidence for Catholicism on Facebook:

Biblical Evidence for Catholicism

John Wesley Believed in Prayer for the Dead

January 3, 2016 By Dave Armstrong

. . . (also, approval of Luther and Lutherans)

Portrait of John Wesley (1788), by William Hamilton (1751-1801) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

(7-13-09)

John Wesley (1703-1791) was the founder of Methodism and a lifelong Anglican. From the book, John Wesley in Company With High Churchmen, Harrington William Holden, London: Church Press, 5th edition, 1872, pp. 84-87. Wesley’s own words will be in blue.

* * * * *

Wesley taught the propriety of Praying for the Dead, practiced it himself, and provided Forms, that others might. These forms, for daily use, he put forth, not tentatively or apologetically, but as considering such prayer a settled matter of Christian practice, with all who believe that the Faithful, living and dead, are one Body in Christ, in equal need and like expectation of those blessings which they will together enjoy, when both see Him in His Kingdom. Two or three examples, out of many, may be given: — “O grant that we, with those who are already dead in Thy faith and fear, may together partake of a joyful resurrection.” (x.40.) “. . . that we all together with those that now sleep in Thee, may awake to life everlasting.” (p. 48.) “Bring us, with all those who have pleased Thee from the beginning of the world, into the glories of Thy Son’s Kingdom.” (p. 73.) “By Thy infinite mercies, vouchsafe to bring us, with those that are dead in Thee, to rejoice together before Thee,” &c.; (p. 77.) The Prayers passed through many editions, and were in common use among thousands of Methodists of every degree, who, without scruple or doubtfulness, prayed for those who sleep in Jesus every day that they prayed to the common Father of all. Insomuch that there are Methodists of the old school (still abiding in the Ship by Wesley’s advice), who use them night and morning to this day, entirely undisturbed by the doubts which modern disputers have sought to cast upon the practice.

One such disputer (Bishop Lavington) did Wesley encounter, and notices him thus: — “Your fourth argument is, That in a collection of Prayers, I cite the words of an ancient Liturgy — ‘for the Faithful Departed.’ Sir, whenever I use those word in the Burial Service, I pray to the same effect: ‘That we, with all those who are departed in Thy faith and fear, may have our perfect consummation of bliss, both in body and soul.’ Yea, and whenever I say, ‘Thy Kingdom come;’ for I mean both the kingdom of grace and glory. In this kind of general prayer, therefore, for the Faithful Departed, I conceive myself to be clearly justified, both by the earliest Antiquity, by the Church of England, and by the Lord’s Prayer.” (1750.) xvi.345.

. . . “‘ ‘Tis certain, Praying for the Dead was common in the second century:’ you might have said, and in the first also (replied Wesley); seeing that petition, ‘Thy Kingdom come.’ manifestly concerns the saints in Paradise, as well as those upon earth.” “Praying thus far for the dead, ‘That God would shortly accomplish the number of His elect, and hasten His Kingdom,’ you will not easily prove to be any corruption at all.” xviii. 154, 155.

Having thus silenced these clerical disputants, Wesley re-published the above Prayers and continued the sale of them at all his preaching-houses as long as he lived. . . .

Exactly answerable to all this, are those awful words, in the prayer at the burial of the dead — ‘Beseeching Thee, that it may please Thee of Thy gracious goodness, shortly to accomplish the number of Thine elect, and to hasten Thy Kingdom; that we. with all those who are departed in the true faith of Thy Holy Name, may have our perfect consummation and bliss, both in body and soul, in Thy everlasting glory.'” Ss. 1. 298. . . .

And in a Manuscript of Mr. Wesley’s recently published for the first time; without date, but expressing the sentiment of his whole life as the above citations from his several Works sufficiently show; he says, “I believe it to be a duty to observe to pray for the Faithful Departed.”

* * *

Likewise, in what Martin Luther regarded as his final confession of faith in his 1528 work against the Zwinglians, Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper, he wrote as follows:

As for the dead, since Scripture gives us no information on the subject, I regard it as no sin to pray with free devotion in this or some similar fashion: ‘Dear God, if this soul is in a condition accessible to mercy, be thou gracious to it.’ And when this has been done once or twice, let it suffice.

(Luther’s Works, Vol. 37, p. 369)

Luther’s approval of prayers for the dead given out of free devotion was shared in Luther’s successor Philip Melanchthon’s apology to the Augsburg Confession (article XXIV, 94), where he wrote:

Now, as regards the adversaries’ citing the Fathers concerning the offering for the dead, we know that the ancients speak of prayer for the dead, which we do not prohibit; . . .

* * * * *

Dialogue Regarding Prayer for the Dead and the Bible

December 21, 2015 By Dave Armstrong

The Raising of Lazarus, by Sebastiano del Piombo (c. 1485-1547) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

(11-5-12)

This exchange occurred on my Facebook page (which is public; therefore I can cite it here). I’ve added a few additional replies that were not in the original “discussion.” I think it is very helpful to illustrate how not to argue any theological point, since my opponent uses many of the classic evasive and obscurantist, obfuscatory techniques of folks who don’t appear to be interested in an open, mutually respectful dialogue. His words will be in blue.

Here are the passages (RSV, as throughout):

2 Timothy 1:16-18 May the Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiph’orus, for he often refreshed me; he was not ashamed of my chains, [17] but when he arrived in Rome he searched for me eagerly and found me — [18] may the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that Day — and you well know all the service he rendered at Ephesus.

2 Timothy 4:19 Greet Prisca and Aq’uila, and the household of Onesiph’orus.

The “discussion” proceeds upon my opponent’s response to this.

* * * * *

Is that the only example you can find in the N.T. of prayers for the dead? Pretty slim pickings to base an entire doctrine on, especially when you look at what the verse says (2 Tim. 1:18): “The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day; and in how many things he ministered unto me at Ephesus, thou knowest very well.” Can we say “that day” (there and v. 12) is the Judgment Day? If he’s in hell when Paul wrote that, all it might be, is a wish (not prayer to God) that the man be given mercy in the judgment. Paul can wish and think that without actually praying that to God. If he’s in heaven, what might the mercy of God be for? Perhaps a wish on Paul’s part that the man not lose any rewards for all the help he gave Paul. In no case is this verse a necessary support for purgatory, because “that day” — Judgment Day — would be after one was in purgatory (if it existed).

No; there is more:

1 Corinthians 15:29-31 Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf? [30] Why am I in peril every hour? [31] I protest, brethren, by my pride in you which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die every day!

One Catholic interpretation of this fascinating passage holds that “baptized” is used not for the sacrament, but to denote redemptive suffering on behalf of the dead (analogous to prayer on their behalf) , along the lines of “baptism” used in this sense in other passages:

Mark 10:38 But Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?”

Luke 12:50 I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how I am constrained until it is accomplished!

The sense, in other words, is that if the dead don’t rise again, why should anyone suffer and mortify themselves for them, or pray for them? 15:30-31 backs up this interpretation, because Paul links his own suffering to the preceding verse. It’s also backed up by a very similar deuterocanonical passage:

2 Maccabees 12:40-45 Then under the tunic of every one of the dead they found sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. And it became clear to all that this was why these men had fallen. [41] So they all blessed the ways of the Lord, the righteous Judge, who reveals the things that are hidden; [42] and they turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out. And the noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen. [43] He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection. [44] For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. [45] But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.

Jesus not only prays for Lazarus, but in a sense, to him as well, by commanding him (a dead person). The same occurred when He raised Jairus’ daughter and the son of the widow of Nain. In commanding them to rise, He was simultaneously praying for them.

Likewise, when Peter raised Tabitha, the text specifically notes that he “prayed” and then commanded her. Lastly, the prophet Elijah clearly prayed (successfully) for a child to be raised.

[see John 11:41-44; Mark 5:39-42; Luke 7:14-15; Acts 9:40-41; 1 Kings 17:18-23]In fact, indirectly, Jesus even commanded His disciples to pray for the dead (“Heal the sick, raise the dead, . . .”: Mt 10:8). We’ve seen the models above [bracketed passages], of how one raises another from the dead. They include prayer, and also talking to the dead person.

All of this is quite anathema and unthinkable to most Protestants, but there it is, right in front of us, in Holy Scripture. Are we to follow the forbidden mere traditions of men, that go contrary to Scripture, or God’s inspired, infallible Word (as the Catholic Church has done in this instance)? The choice is very easy.

Dave, your examples above all seem to involve raising people from the dead. Is that what you do when you pray for the dead?

Are they instances of prayer for the dead or not? Your task is to prove that they are not if you have this odd notion that all such prayer is forbidden. But they clearly are, so you have a problem. 1 Corinthians 15:29-31 is not raising the dead, though; it is aiding the dead by penance or prayers. Protestants have very little cogent explanation for it.

Well, in John 11, Jesus’ prayer to God is not a prayer specifically for Lazarus, who is not even mentioned in His prayer to the Father, so I can say it was not a “prayer for the dead.”

That would be stretching it. In John 11:41 Jesus prays to the Father, “I thank thee that thou hast heard me.” Heard Him about what? The most plausible answer is that He prayed about raising Lazarus (especially since we know He did in other instances of His raising the dead). There is nothing else in the immediate context to suggest that the prayer where He had been “heard” was about anything other than Lazarus.

Mark 5 and Luke 7 do not even mention a prayer.

I didn’t claim that they did. What I stated was that “In commanding them to rise, He was simultaneously praying for them.” Jesus was talking to dead people in a way that Protestants claim we can never do (because they equate any such communication with necromancy, seances, etc.).

Acts 9 mentions prayer but does not give its contents, so we don’t know what Peter prayed.

Which is perfectly irrelevant to the present dispute (the exact content) . . . It remains proof that Peter prayed for a dead person. He was obviously doing that; then he talked to a dead person, too, saying, “Tabitha, rise.”

Only 1 Kings 17 tells us what was prayed (” let this child’s soul come into him again”), but, again, it was to raise the child from the dead.

And it was an instance of prayer for the dead. Case closed. Prayer for the dead is repeatedly illustrated in the biblical books that Protestants accept. Paul prays for the dead Onesiphorus too.

My point is that praying for the dead is nowhere encouraged by any N.T. writer

Really? I just demonstrated how it was.

and is pointless unless you were raising them from the dead and God led you to do that. More “pointless” than “forbidden.”

Paul wasn’t trying to raise Onesiphorus from the dead. Nor were those who suffered for the dead through penances (1 Corinthians 15:29-31, backed up by the precedent and scriptural proof of 2 Maccabees 12:40-45) trying to bring them back. Yet somehow (if we accept your view — and I don’t) the Christian Church has done it all through these centuries . . . how odd again. If Jesus and Paul and Peter and Elijah all prayed for the dead, it’s good enough for me!

So, when do you do it? When you want to raise someone from the dead?

Why do you believe in sola Scriptura when it is not taught in the Bible?

Ah, the old change-the-subject ploy….

Not at all. This is the premise that lies underneath your questioning. But even sola Scriptura doesn’t require a biblical prooftext that is identical in all particulars, as you now foolishly demand. You deny prayer for the dead. I showed it in the NT. Now you quibble about particulars (whether it is used to raise the dead), but logically that doesn’t disprove the fact. You claim my examples are only of this sort. Two of them are not.

I asked you, when do you do it? Obviously it is not to raise anyone from the dead. So, what is the scriptural justification, if any, for your prayers for the dead? 1 Cor 15?

I gave many biblical prooftexts for prayer for the dead. You don’t agree with them. Fine. There are always people who will pick and choose what they like from the Bible and what they don’t like. Nothing new there. We follow what the Bible teaches. You think eight or nine texts are insufficient to establish the doctrine and practice.

Yet, like almost all Protestants, I assume that you accept sola Scriptura as your rule of faith. Sola Scriptura is not ever explicated in a single verse in Scripture. I wrote two entire books about it, and tons more on my blog. Yet Protestants base their entire belief on authority and the basis of theology on this non-biblical tradition of men. You’re not stopped by the complete absence of any proof in Scripture, from believing it, anyway.

So I wonder why you say our biblical support is inadequate when I present many prooftexts, while you have none for sola Scriptura? Why don’t you apply this same criterion of proof to yourself, and cease believing in that?

The same is true for the canon of Scripture. Nothing in Scripture indicates which books belong in the Bible. The book of Esther doesn’t even mention God. Yet Protestants accept as dogma the fact that there are 66 books. And they arbitrarily decided to eliminate seven books that the early Church accepted as Scripture. The same authority that established the canonicity of the 66 books accepted by all, also canonized the seven books we Catholics accept.

I’ll ask you again, when do you do it? Obviously it is not to raise anyone from the dead. (Have you raised anyone from the dead lately?)

I haven’t, but Jesus casually assumed that His disciples would and could do so (“Heal the sick, raise the dead, . . .”: Matthew 10:8), and throughout history many people have:

. . . reports from St. Irenaeus, Pope St. Gregory the Great, and St. Augustine (City of God, Book XXII, ch. 8 ), and actual raisings said to be performed by St. Hilary, St. Ambrose, St. Martin of Tours, St. Benedict, St. Bernard, St. Malachy, St. Anthony of Padua, St. Elizabeth, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Ignatius Loyola, St. Dominic, St. Philip Neri, St. Patrick, St. Francis Xavier, and many others.”

(from my book, A Biblical Critique of Calvinism)

I’ve answered you several times. Now either you respond to what I’m saying, too, or this conversation is over. I don’t do “ships passing in the night.” Life is too short for futile conversations. A real dialogue is back-and-forth, not a lecturer and a listener.

So, when do you do it, what specifically do you pray and what is the scriptural justification, if any, for such a prayer for the dead? 1 Cor 15?

I’ve provided you with that. I even introduced some new material about fasting for the dead in my most recent blog / Facebook post [my paper, “Fasting for the Dead in the Old Testament: Not Essentially Different from Praying for Them”]. Yet here you are droning the same old questions as if I had said nothing. This type of fundamentalistic, robot-like lecturing is what is so ridiculous.

I have answered; you just didn’t get it, because I was dealing with the premise behind your question (in several ways). I can see now why you missed it, because you use a common sort of “argumentation” that we observe so often from certain types of Protestants. This same technique is also used constantly by Jehovah’s Witnesses. You hear only what you want to hear and ignore what the person on the other side is saying. I know the tactics, from over 30 years of evangelization and apologetics. I can spot them a mile away, and I was correct in my initial perception in this instance. Thanks for the classic garden-variety demonstration.

And, in fact, you have not answered my question. Read back through our posts. I showed that most all your examples of prayer for the dead related to raising them from the dead, so I asked you when you prayed for the dead, since (I assumed) it was not when you were raising someone from the dead. And what was the scriptural justification for it, 1 Cor. 15 (the only N.T. passage you cited that did not relate to raising someone from the dead). Your response was to change the subject to sola Scriptura or the canon, not answer my question about when you prayed for the dead. So, don’t say you have answered my question.You have not.

We disagree. You don’t get it. You don’t even have your basic facts right. But I thank you for providing a textbook case of how not to go about arguing a theological point. I’m sure it is instructive for many.

And again you don’t answer the question. If we were in a court of law, the Judge would instruct you to answer my question and you would not be able to dodge it.

Not all judges understand rhetoric and various techniques of argumentation, either. No biggie. But this is not a legal situation; it is a matter of what God’s inspired Word teaches on prayer for the dead. We Catholics accept the data from revelation. You do not.

Why don’t you copy and paste your answer to my question, when you pray for the dead, what you say in your prayer, and the scriptural justification for it. Go ahead.

I just wrote 48 minutes ago: “I haven’t” [raised anyone from the dead or prayed for that].

Yes, I assumed that. So, I asked when do [you] pray for the dead (if not to raise them from the dead), what do you say in your prayer, and what is the scriptural justification for that. You can copy and paste your answer to that if you already answered it and I missed it. Otherwise, please answer. Thanks.

We pray things like what Paul prayed for Onesiphorus, or what the Jews prayed, as seen in 2 Maccabees, with the same notions likely reflected in the thought of 1 Corinthians 15.

If I missed it, how hard is it for you to copy and paste it?

If you can read, go read. Maybe you’ll get it the second time around.

You’ve been boorishly repetitive, completely unwilling to dialogue or consider Scripture that doesn’t fit with your preconceived notions, unwilling to answer my counter-arguments or interact with much of the substance of those, and now you are misrepresenting my replies (because you can’t comprehend them and didn’t have a clue what I was doing when I brought up sola Scriptura in an altogether relevant fashion).

By the way, ad hominem is not needed nor appreciated.

I have critiqued your unwillingness to dialogue or answer my counter-arguments. That is a flaw in how you go about contending for your viewpoints, not about you as a person. I haven’t attacked you personally; only your methods. It is you who have committed the ad hominem fallacy by implying that I am lying: “don’t say you have answered my question. You have not.” I certainly did, in various ways. You simply didn’t comprehend my argument and my logic.

It’s not there to read. Thus my request for you to copy and paste it. Is that unreasonable?

It is there, and now you have this paper [I informed him of it in the Facebook thread], with additional answers.

* * * * *

Dead Saints: Playing Harps on Clouds or Interceding?

November 24, 2015 By Dave Armstrong

NASA photo [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

(12-29-06)

[all passages RSV]

* * * * *

1. “Cloud of Witnesses” – Hebrews 12:1

. . . we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses . . .

Word Studies in the New Testament (Marvin R. Vincent, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980; originally 1887; Vol. 4, p. 536), a famous, standard Protestant reference work, comments on this verse as follows:

‘Witnesses’ does not mean spectators [Greek martus, from which is derived martyr], but those who have borne witness to the truth, as those enumerated in chapter 11. Yet the idea of spectators is implied, and is really the principal idea. The writer’s picture is that of an arena in which the Christians whom he addresses are contending in a race, while the vast host of the heroes of faith who, after having borne witness to the truth, have entered into their heavenly rest, watches the contest from the encircling tiers of the arena, compassing and overhanging it like a cloud, filled with lively interest and sympathy, and lending heavenly aid.

Saints in heaven are therefore aware of, and observe events on earth, “with lively interest,” as Vincent puts it.

2. Prayers in Heaven for Those on Earth

Revelation 6:9-10 . . . I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne; they cried out with a loud voice, “O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before thou wilt judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell upon the earth?”

Here the martyrs in heaven are saying what are known as “imprecatory prayers”: pleas for God to rescue and vindicate the righteous. Examples can be found particularly in the Psalms (Psalms 35, 59, 69, 79, 109, 139) and in Jeremiah (11:18 ff., 15:15 ff., 18:19 ff., 20:11 ff.). An angel offers up a very similar prayer in Zechariah 1:12. Jesus mentions a type of this prayer in Matthew 26:53, in which He stated that He could “pray” to the Father and receive legions of angels to prevent His arrest had it been the Father’s will.

Therefore dead saints are praying for Christians on earth. If they can intercede for us, then why shouldn’t we ask for their prayers? Clearly, they’re aware of what is happening on earth. They are more alive, unfathomably more righteous, and obviously closer to God than we are. Omniscience isn’t required for them to hear our prayers, as is often charged. Rather, we have reason to believe that they are out of time, by God’s power, because to be in eternity is to be outside of the realm of time. That allows them to answer many requests for prayer because they have an infinite amount of “time” to do it.

Even Martin Luther and John Calvin admitted that the saints may be praying for us in heaven:

Although angels in heaven pray for us . . . and although saints on earth, and perhaps also in heaven, do likewise, it does not follow that we should invoke angels and saints.

(Smalcald Articles, 1537, Part II, Article II in Theodore G. Tappert, translator, The Book of Concord, St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House, 1959, 297)

I grant they pray for us in this way.

(Institutes of the Christian Religion, III, 20, 24)

If so, then how can it be wrong to simply ask dead saints to pray for us, since they are aware of earthly happenings?

3. Saints and Angels Presenting Our Prayers to God

Revelation 5:8 . . . the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.

Revelation 8:3-4 And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God. (cf. Tobit 12:12,15)

It’s somewhat unclear whether the twenty-four elders in this scene are angels or men, and commentators differ. References to them clad in white garments, with golden crowns (4:4,10) suggests the view that these elders are glorified human beings (see, for example, 2:10, 3:5,11, 6:11, 7:9,13-14, 2 Timothy 4:8, James 1:12, 1 Peter 5:4). In any event, in both examples above, creatures – whether men or angels – are involved with our prayers as intercessory intermediaries, which isn’t supposed to happen according to most versions of Protestant theology, where all prayer goes straight to God with no creature involved other than the one who prays the prayer. What in the world are these creatures doing with “the prayers of the saints”?

Also the deuterocanonical book 2 Maccabees (15:13-14), describes Jeremiah the prophet loving his people after his death and praying for them. since Protestants don’t accept that book as inspired, we might offer them also Jeremiah 15:1: “Then the Lord said to me, ‘Though Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my heart would not turn toward this people.'”

Here it appears that God receives the prayers of the dead saints as a matter of course. Moses and Samuel were both known as intercessors. One could argue that this is only a hypothetical, yet even parables can’t contain something that isn’t true. This mentions a state of affairs which is assumed to be possible (or else why would Jeremiah mention it at all, as coming from God?)

4. No Contact Between Heaven and Earth?

A) 1 Samuel 28:12,14-15 (Samuel): the prophet Samuel appeared to King Saul to prophesy his death. The current consensus among biblical commentators (e.g., The New Bible Commentary, The Wycliffe Bible Commentary) is that it was indeed Samuel the prophet, not an impersonating demon (since it happened during a sort of seance with the so-called “witch or medium of Endor”). This was the view of, e.g., St. Justin Martyr, Origen, and St. Augustine, among others. Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 6:19-20 reinforces the latter interpretation: “Samuel . . . after he had fallen asleep he prophesied and revealed to the king his death, and lifted up his voice out of the earth in prophecy, to blot out the wickedness of the people.”

B) Matthew 17:1-3 (the Transfiguration: Moses and Elijah): . . . Jesus took with him Peter and James and John his brother, and led them up a high mountain apart. And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his garments became white as light. And behold, there appeared to them Moses and Elijah, talking with him. (see also Mark 9:4 and Luke 9:30-31)

C) Matthew 27:52-53(raised bodies after the crucifixion): . . . the tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.

D) Revelation 11:3,6 (the “Two Witnesses”): And I will grant my two witnesses power to prophesy for one thousand two hundred and sixty days . . . they have power to shut the sky, that no rain may fall . . . and they have power over the waters to turn them into blood, and to smite the earth with every plague . . .

These two witnesses are killed (11:7-9), then raised after “three and a half days” and “stood up on their feet” (11:11), and then “went up to heaven in a cloud” (11:12). Many Church Fathers thought these two were Enoch and Elijah, because both of them didn’t die; thus this would explain their dying after this appearance on earth. Some Protestant commentators think the two witnesses are Moses and Elijah, because of the parallel to the Transfiguration, and also similarities with the plagues of Egypt and the fact that Elijah also stopped the rain for three-and-a-half years (James 5:17).

We must conclude based on the above passages that contact between heaven and earth is God’s will; otherwise He wouldn’t have permitted it in these instances. The Catholic belief in more interconnection between heaven and earth cannot be ruled out as “unbiblical”. One has to try other arguments to refute our beliefs in this regard.

5. Prayers for the Dead in the New Testament

Prayers for the dead are very clearly presented in the deuterocanonical book of 2 Maccabees (12:39-45). Protestants don’t accept that book as part of the Bible, of course, so is there anything about prayers for the dead in the New Testament? It may shock and surprise Protestants to hear it, but yes, there is. I contend that there are three passages:

A) 1 Corinthians 15:29 Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?

Protestants consider this one of the most mysterious and odd passages in the entire Bible. But it really isn’t that difficult to interpret. It’s very similar to 2 Maccabees 12:44: “It is superfluous and vain to pray for the dead if the dead rise not again. . . .” That gives us our clue as to what Paul means here. In the Bible “baptism” can describe not just the water ritual but also afflictions and penances (Luke 12:50, Mark 10:38-39, Matthew 3:11, 20:22-23, Luke 3:16). So Paul is saying that we pray and fast and undergo penance for the dead in purgatory precisely because they are resurrected and will live eternally. The “penance” interpretation is supported contextually by the next three verses, where the Apostle speaks of being in peril every hour, and dying every day. So this is a proof of both purgatory and prayers for the dead.

B) 2 Timothy 1:16-18 May the Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me; he was not ashamed of my chains, but when he arrived in Rome he searched for me eagerly and found me – may the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that Day – and you well know all the service he rendered at Ephesus.

This is another passage that gives Protestants fits. The problem is that it seems to plainly imply that Paul is praying for a dead man. Yet Protestants can’t accept that practice because of their theology; therefore, they must explain this away somehow. What they do is either deny that Onesiphorus is dead, or that Paul is praying. Most of the nine Protestant commentaries I consulted for this passage seen admit that he was praying, but deny that the person was dead. Some try to say that Paul was merely “wishing”, but I don’t see any difference between that and a prayer: it looks like a word game to avoid the implications. The same commentaries said he was possibly dead (two), take no position (two), think he was “probably not” dead (one), or deny it (three). A.T. Robertson, the great Baptist Greek scholar, felt that he was “apparently” dead and that Paul was “wishing” rather than praying. I think it’s much more plausible to simply take the Catholic position: the man died and Paul was praying for him.

C) Acts 9:36-37,40-41: Now there was at Joppa a disciple named Tabitha, which means Dorcas . . . In those days she fell sick and died . . . But Peter . . . knelt down and prayed; then turning to the body he said, “Tabitha, rise.” And she opened her eyes, and when she saw Peter she sat up. And he gave her his hand and lifted her up. Then calling the saints and widows he presented her alive.

Now, what would Peter have been praying for?: obviously, that Tabitha would be raised from the dead. So it seems indisputable that St. Peter literally prayed for a dead person, the very thing that Protestants say is not permitted, and supposedly not recorded in the Bible. And Jesus prayed for Lazarus, just before he was raised from the dead, in John 11:41-42 (“Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. I knew that thou hearest me always, but I have said this on account of the people standing by, that they may believe that thou didst send me”). The Bible informs us that the disciples raised people from the dead (Mt 11:5, Lk 7:22) and that Jesus told them that they would be able to, and should, do so (Mt 10:8). So they went out and did it. It’s natural to assume that prayer would accompany these extraordinary miracles (because God performs miracles – thus we ask). So almost certainly they prayed for the dead, too. It’s as simple as that. The prophet Elijah did the same thing in the Old Testament:

D) 1 Kings 17:21-22: Then he stretched himself upon the child three times, and cried to the Lord, “O Lord my God, let this child’s soul come into him again.” And the Lord hearkened to the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived.

Martin Luther and his successor as head of Lutheranism, Philip Melanchthon, accepted prayers for the dead:

As for the dead, since Scripture gives us no information on the subject, I regard it as no sin to pray with free devotion in this or some similar fashion: “Dear God, if this soul is in a condition accessible to mercy, be thou gracious to it.”

(Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper, 1528, in Luther’s Works, edited by Jaroslav Pelikan, vol. 37, 369)

[W]e know that the ancients speak of prayer for the dead, which we do not prohibit . . .

(Apology to the Augsburg Confession: Article XXIV, 94)

25 Bible Passages Indicating or Suggesting Purgatory

November 6, 2015 By Dave Armstrong

[public domain / Pixabay]

* * *

From my bestselling 1996 book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, pp. 123-145. The introductory material of the chapter (definitions) is omitted; also a few quotations. Footnoting numbers are from my original manuscript and differ from the present Sophia edition. All Bible passages are from RSV.

* * * * *

Psalm 66:12 Thou didst let men ride over our heads; we went through fire and through water; yet thou hast brought us forth to a spacious place.

This verse was considered a proof of purgatory by Origen [4] and St. Ambrose, [5] who posits the water of baptism and the fire of purgatory.

Ecclesiastes 12:14 For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil.

Isaiah 4:4 When the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion and cleansed the bloodstains of Jerusalem from its midst by a spirit of judgment and by a spirit of burning. (see also Isaiah 1:25-26)

St. Francis de Sales, the great Catholic apologist of the 16th century, commented on this verse as follows:

This purgation made in the spirit of judgment and of burning is understood of Purgatory by St. Augustine, in the 20th Book of the City of God, chapter 25. And in fact this interpretation is favoured by the words preceding, in which mention is made of the salvation of men, and also by the end of the chapter, where the repose of the blessed is spoken of; wherefore that which is said — “the Lord shall wash away the filth” — is to be understood of the purgation necessary for this salvation. And since it is said that this purgation is to be made in the spirit of heat and of burning, it cannot well be understood save of Purgatory and its fire. [6].

Isaiah 6:5-7 And I said:”Woe is me! for I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts.” Then flew one of the seraphim to me, having in his hand a burning coal which he had taken with tongs from the altar. And he touched my mouth, and said: “Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin forgiven.“

This passage is a noteworthy example of what happens when men experience God’s presence directly. An immediate recognition of one’s own unholiness occurs, along with the corresponding feeling of inadequacy. Like Isaiah, we must all undergo a self-conscious and voluntary purging upon approaching God more closely than in this present life.

Few doctrines are clearer in Scripture than the necessity of absolute holiness in order to enter heaven. On this, Protestants and Catholics are in total agreement. Therefore, the fundamental disagreement on this subject is: how long does this purification upon death take? Certainly, it cannot be logically denied as a possibility that this purging might involve duration.

4 Homily 25 on Numbers.

5 In Ps. 36; Sermon 3 on Ps. 118.

6 St. Francis de Sales, The Catholic Controversy (CON), tr. Henry B. Mackey, Rockford, IL: TAN Books, 1989 (orig. 1596), 358 (Part 3, Article 2: “Purgatory”).

Micah 7:8-9 Rejoice not over me, O mine enemy; when I fall, I shall rise; when I sit in darkness, the Lord will be a light to me. I will bear the indignation of the Lord because I have sinned against him, until he pleads my cause and executes judgment for me. He will bring me forth to the light; I shall behold his deliverance. (see also Leviticus 26:41,43, Job 40:4-5, Lamentations 3:39)

St. Jerome (d.420) considered this a clear proof of purgatory. [7]

Malachi 3:2-4 But who can endure the day of his coming, and who can stand when he appears? For he is like a refiner’s fire, and like fullers’ soap; he will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, and he will purify the sons of Levi, and refine them like gold and silver, till they present right offerings to the Lord. Then the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasing to the Lord as in the days of old and as in former years.

7 Ibid., 358.

St. Francis de Sales recounts the patristic views on this passage:

This place is expounded of a purifying punishment by Origen (Hom. 6 on Exodus), St. Ambrose (On Ps 36), St. Augustine (City of God, Bk. 20, ch. 25), and St. Jerome (on this place). We are quite aware that they understand it of a purgation which will be at the end of the world by the general fire and conflagration, in which will be purged away the remains of the sins of those who will be found alive; but we still are able to draw from this a good argument for our Purgatory. For if persons at that time have need of purgation before receiving the effects of the benediction of the supreme Judge, why shall not those also have need of it who die before that time, since some of these may be found at death to have remains of their imperfections . . . St. Irenaeus in this connection, in chapter 29 of Book V, says that because the militant Church is then to mount up to the heavenly palace of the Spouse, and will no longer have time for purgation, her faults and stains will there and then be purged away by this fire which will precede the judgment. [9]

2 Maccabees 12:39-42, 44-45 . . . Judas and his men went to take up the bodies of the fallen . . . Then under the tunic of every one of the dead they found sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear . . . So they all . . . turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out . . . For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.

The Jews offered atonement and prayer for their deceased brethren, who had clearly violated Mosaic Law. Such a practice presupposes purgatory, since those in heaven wouldn’t need any help, and those in hell are beyond it. The Jewish people, therefore, believed in prayer for the dead (whether or not this book is scriptural — Protestants deny that it is). Jesus Christ did not correct this belief, as He surely would have done if it were erroneous (see Matthew 5:22,25-26, 12:32, Luke 12:58-59, 16:9,19-31 below). When our Lord and Savior talks about the afterlife, He never denies the fact that there is a third state, and the overall evidence of His utterances in this regard strongly indicates that He accepted the existence of purgatory.

Matthew 5:22 But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, “You fool!” shall be liable to the hell of fire.

St. Francis de Sales elucidates the implications of this statement of Christ:

It is only the third sort of offence which is punished with hell; therefore in the judgment of God after this life there are other pains which are not eternal or infernal, — these are the pains of Purgatory. One may say that the pains will be suffered in this world; but St. Augustine and the other Fathers understand them for the other world. And again may it not be that a man should die on the first or second offence which is spoken here? And when will such a one pay the penalty due to his offence? . . . Do then as the ancient Fathers did, and say that there is a place where they will be purified, and then they will go to heaven above. [10]

9 St. Francis de Sales, CON, 359-360.

10 Ibid., 373-374.

Matthew 5:25-26 Make friends quickly with your accuser, while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison; truly, I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny. (see also Luke 12:58-59)

St. Francis de Sales:

Origen, St. Cyprian, St. Hilary, St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, and St. Augustine say that the way which is meant in the whilst thou art in the way [while you are going with him to court] is no other than the passage of the present life: the adversary [accuser] will be our own conscience, . . . as St. Ambrose expounds, and Bede, St. Augustine, St. Gregory [the Great], and St. Bernard. Lastly, the judge is without doubt Our Lord . . . The prison, again, is . . . the place of punishment in the other world, in which, as in a large jail, there are many buildings; one for those who are damned, which is as it were for criminals, the other for those in Purgatory, which is as it were for debt. The farthing, [penny] . . . are little sins and infirmities, as the farthing is the smallest money one can owe.

Now let us consider a little where this repayment . . . is to be made. And we find from most ancient Fathers that it is in Purgatory: Tertullian, [11] Cyprian, [12] Origen, [13] . . . St. Ambrose, [14] St. Jerome [15] . . . Who sees not that in St. Luke the comparison is drawn, not from a murderer or some criminal, who can have no hope of escape, but from a debtor who is thrown into prison till payment, and when this is made is at once let out? This then is the meaning of Our Lord, that whilst we are in this world we should try by penitence and its fruits to pay, according to the power which we have by the blood of the Redeemer, the penalty to which our sins have subjected us; since if we wait till death we shall not have such good terms in Purgatory, when we shall be treated with severity of justice. [16]

Matthew 12:32 And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

If sins can be pardoned in the “age to come” (the afterlife), again, in the nature of things, this must be in purgatory. We would laugh at a man who said that he would not marry in this world or the next (as if he could in the next — see Mark 12:25). If this sin cannot be forgiven after death, it follows that there are others which can be. Accordingly, this interpretation was held by St. Augustine, [17] St. Gregory the Great, [18] Bede, [19] and St. Bernard, [20] among others.

11 The Soul, 100,10.

12 Epistle 4,2.

13 Homily 35 on Luke 12.

14 Commentary on Luke 12.

15 Commentary on Matthew 5.

16 St. Francis de Sales,CON, 372-373.

17 City of God, 21:24.

18 Dialogues, 4,39.

19 Commentary on Mark 3.

20 Homily 66 in Cant.

Luke 16:9 And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by means of unrighteous mammon, so that when it fails they may receive you into the eternal habitations. (read Luke 16:1-13 for the context)

St. Francis de Sales:

To fail, — what is it but to die? — and the friends, — who are they but the Saints? The interpreters all understand it so; whence two things follow, — that the Saints can help men departed, and that the departed can be helped by the Saints . . . Thus is this passage expounded by St. Ambrose, and by St. Augustine. [21] But the parable Our Lord is using is too clear to allow us any doubt of this interpretation; for the similitude is taken from a steward who, being dismissed from his office and reduced to poverty [16:2], begged help from his friends, and Our Lord likens the dismissal unto death, and the help begged from friends unto the help one receives after death from those to whom one has given alms. This help cannot be received by those who are in Paradise or in hell; it is then by those who are in Purgatory. [22]

Luke 16:19-31 There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. And at his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus, full of sores, who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man’s table; . . . the poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died and was buried; and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes, and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus in his bosom. And he called out, “Father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame.” But Abraham said, “Son, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things, but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.” And he said, “Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father’s house, for I have five brothers, so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.” But Abraham said, “They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.” And he said, “No, father Abraham; but if some one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.” He said to him, “If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead.”

Zechariah 9:11 As for you also, because of the blood of my covenant with you, I will set your captives free from the waterless pit.

Ephesians 4:8-10. . . “When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men.” (In saying, “he ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower parts of the earth? He who descended is he who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.)

1 Peter 3:19-20 . . . he went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. (see also 4:6)

21 City of God, 12:27.

22 St. Francis de Sales, CON, 374-375.

Catholic commentator George Leo Haydock states:

Abraham’s bosom — The place of rest, where the souls of the saints resided, till Christ had opened heaven by his death . . . The bosom of Abraham (the common Father of all the faithful) was the place where the souls of the saints, and departed patriarchs, waited the arrival of their Deliverer. It was thither that Jesus went after his death; as it is said in the Creed, he descended into hell, to deliver those who were detained there, and who might at Christ’s ascension enter into heaven (see 1 Peter 3:19, Matthew 8:11) . . .

[on 1 Peter 3:19-20]: These spirits in prison, to whom Christ went to preach after his death, were not in heaven, nor yet in the hell of the damned; because heaven is no prison, and Christ did not go to preach to the damned . . . In this prison souls would not be detained unless they were indebted to divine justice, nor would salvation be preached to them unless they were in a state that was capable of receiving salvation. [23]

At the very least, these passages prove that there can and does exist a third (and intermediate) state after death besides heaven and hell. Thus, purgatory is not a priori unthinkable from a biblical perspective (as many Protestants casually assume). True, the Hebrew Sheol (Greek Hades — netherworld) is not absolutely identical to purgatory (both righteous and unrighteous go there), but it is nevertheless strikingly similar. Sheol is referred to frequently throughout the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 32:22, 2 Samuel 22:6, Psalm 16:10, 18:5, 55:15, 86:13, 116:3, 139:8, Proverbs 9:18, 23:14, Isaiah 5:14, 14:9,15, Ezekiel 31:16-17, 32:21,27). In Jewish apocalyptic literature (in the few hundred years before Christ), the notion of divisions in Sheol is found (for instance, in Enoch 22:1-14).

The Christian hell is equivalent to the New Testament Gehenna or “Lake of Fire”. Gehenna was literally the burning ash-heap outside Jerusalem, and was used as the name for hell by Christ (Matthew 5:22,29-30, 10:28, 18:9, 23:15,33, Mark 9:43,45,47, Luke 12:5 — cf. James 3:6). “Lake of fire” occurs only in Revelation as a chilling description of the horrors of hell into which the damned would be thrown (Revelation 19:20, 20:10,14-15, 21:8).

We know from Scripture that a few Old Testament saints went to heaven before Christ went to Sheol and led (presumably) the majority of the pre-Christian righteous there (Ephesians 4:8-10 and 1 Peter 3:19-20). Elijah went straight to heaven by a whirlwind, as we are informed in 2 Kings 2:11. It is also generally thought by all sides that Enoch went directly to heaven as well (Genesis 5:24). Moses came with Elijah to the Mount of Transfiguration to talk with Jesus (Matthew 17:1-3, Mark 9:4, Luke 9:30-31). By implication, then, it could be held that he, too, had been in heaven, and by further logical inference, other Old Testament saintly figures.

It follows that, even before Christ, there was a “two-tiered” afterlife for the righteous: some, such as Elijah, Enoch and likely Moses and others, went to heaven, whereas a second, larger group went temporarily to Sheol. Likewise, now the elect of God can go straight to heaven if sufficiently holy, or to purgatory as a necessary stopping-point in order to attain to the proper sanctity becoming of inhabitants of heavenly glory. Therefore, it is neither true that all righteous dead before Christ went solely to Sheol, nor that all after His Resurrection went, and go, to heaven. On the other hand, the reprobate dead in Sheol (or Hades) eventually are sentenced to hell (Revelation 20:13-15).

St. John Henry Cardinal Newman comments:

Our Saviour, as we suppose, did not go to the abyss assigned to the fallen Angels, but to those mysterious mansions where the souls of all men await the judgment. That He went to the abode of blessed spirits is evident, from His words addressed to the robber on the cross, when He also called it Paradise; that He went to some other place besides Paradise may be conjectured from St. Peter’s saying, He went and preached to the spirits in prison, who had once been disobedient (1 Peter 3:19-20). The circumstances then that these two abodes of disembodied good and bad, are called by one name, Hades, . . . seems clearly to show that Paradise is not the same as Heaven, but a resting-place at the foot of it. Let it be further remarked, that Samuel, when brought from the dead, in the witch’s cavern, said Why hast thou disquieted me, to bring me up? (1 Samuel 28:15), words which would seem quite inconsistent with his being then already in Heaven. [24]

1 Corinthians 3:11-15 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble – each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

This is a clear and obvious allusion to purgatory, or at least, even for the most skeptical person, something exceedingly similar to it. Thus thought the Fathers, such as St. Cyprian, [25] St. Ambrose,[26] St. Jerome, [27] St. Gregory the Great, [28] Origen, [29] and St. Augustine:

Lord, rebuke me not in Your indignation, nor correct me in Your anger [Psalm 38:1]. . . . In this life may You cleanse me and make me such that I have no need of the corrective fire, which is for those who are saved, but as if by fire . . . For it is said: He shall be saved, but as if by fire [1 Corinthians 3:15]. And because it is said that he shall be saved, little is thought of that fire. Yet plainly, though we be saved by fire, that fire will be more severe than anything a man can suffer in this life. [30]

St. Francis de Sales observes:

The Apostle uses two similitudes. The first is of an architect who with solid materials builds a valuable house on a rock: the second is of one who on the same foundation erects a house of boards, reeds, straw. Let us now imagine that a fire breaks out in both the houses. That which is of solid material will be out of danger, and the other will be burnt to ashes. And if the architect be in the first he will be whole and safe; if he be in the second, he must, if he would escape, rush through fire and flame, and shall be saved yet so that he will bear the marks of having been in fire . . . The fire by which the architect is saved can only be understood of the fire of Purgatory . . . . . .

When he . . . speaks of him who has built on the foundation, wood, straw, stubble, he shows that he is not speaking of the fire which will precede the day of judgment, since by this will pass not only those who have built with these light materials, but also those who shall have built in gold, silver, etc. All this interpretation, besides that it agrees very well with the text, is also most authentic, as having been followed with common consent by the ancient Fathers. [31]

1 Corinthians 15:29 Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?

St. Francis de Sales:

This passage properly understood evidently shows that it was the custom of the primitive Church to watch, pray, fast, for the souls of the departed. For, firstly, in the Scriptures to be baptized is often taken for afflictions and penances; as in Luke 12:50 . . . and in St. Mark 10:38-9 . . . — in which places Our Lord calls pains and afflictions baptism [cf. Matthew 3:11, 20:22-3, Luke 3:16].

This then is the sense of that Scripture: if the dead rise not again, what is the use of mortifying and afflicting oneself, of praying and fasting for the dead? And indeed this sentence of St. Paul resembles that of 2 Maccabees 12:44 [cited above]: It is superfluous and vain to pray for the dead if the dead rise not again. . . . Now it was not for those in Paradise [heaven], who had no need of it, nor for those in hell, who could get no benefit from it; it was, then, for those in Purgatory. Thus did St. Ephraim [d.373] expound it. [32]

The “penance” interpretation is supported contextually by the next three verses, where the Apostle speaks of being in peril every hour, and dying every day. St. Paul certainly doesn’t condemn the practice, whatever it is (his question being merely rhetorical). Given these facts, and the striking resemblance to 2 Maccabees 12:44, the traditional Catholic interpretation seems the most plausible.

In any event, Protestants are at almost a complete loss in coherently explaining this verse — one of the most difficult in the New Testament for them to interpret. It simply does not comport with their theology, which utterly disallows any penitential or prayerful efforts on behalf of the deceased.

2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body.

Our sins are judged here rather than forgiven, and this takes place in the next life. The standard Protestant theology of the judgment seat of Christ is not dissimilar to the notion of the chastising purifications of purgatory. There is a direct relation between judgment and the purging of sin. We are punished, in some fashion — or so St. Paul tells us in this verse — for evil deeds done. The pains of purgatory are roughly identical, or else highly akin, to this punishment, since they are the taking away of those sinful habits, tendencies, and affinities to which we have become attached. Conversely, we are rewarded for good deeds. As there are differential rewards for righteousness, so there are differential sufferings in purgatory for unrighteousness, so that a certain parallelism exists between the two concepts.

This passage is a sort of liaison between the theological categories justification and purgatory (and penance) — the former being the “positive” establishment of sanctity, and the latter being the “negative” removal of unholiness. This congruity between reward and punishment is even more clearly seen in 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 above, where St. Paul freely intermingles rewards and punishments, in the context of purgatorial fire. Given the obvious affinity of that passage with this one, each can be legitimately interpreted in light of the other. In doing so, the Catholic interpretation, with its distinctive understanding of faith and works, penance and purgatory, is more satisfactory exegetically than the usual Protestant interpretations, which are uncomfortable, by and large, with differential rewards and punishments (seeing these as somewhat incompatible with faith alone).

2 Corinthians 7:1. . . let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, and make holiness perfect in the fear of God.(see also 1 Thessalonians 3:13, 4:7)

Here is a description of that analogous process of sanctification in this life which will be greatly intensified and made completely efficacious in the next, in purgatory.

Philippians 2:10-11 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Revelation 5:3,13 And no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll or to look into it. . . .And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all therein, saying, “To him who sits upon the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honour and glory and might for ever and ever!”

If God refuses to receive prayer, praise and worship from the unrepentant sinner (Psalm 66:18, Proverbs 1:28-30, Isaiah 1:15, 59:2, Jeremiah 6:20, Amos 5:21-24, Micah 3:4, Malachi 1:10, John 9:31, Hebrews 10:38), why would He permit the damned to undertake this practice?

Furthermore, if God does not compel human beings to follow Him and to enjoy His presence for eternity contrary to their free will, then it seems that He would not — as far as we can tell from Scripture — compel them to praise Him, as this would be meaningless, if not repulsive.

Therefore, “under the earth” must refer to purgatory. Revelation 5:13 especially makes sense under this interpretation, as the praise spoken there does not in any way appear forced, but rather, heartfelt and seemingly spontaneous (which would not be at all expected of persons eternally consigned to hell — see Matthew 8:29, Luke 4:34, 8:28, James 2:19).

Some Protestant commentators readily admit that “under the earth” is a reference to those in Sheol or Hades. Granting this interpretation for the sake of argument, most Protestants would presumably regard Hades in this instance (after Christ’s death — see Revelation 5:12) as simply the “holding tank” for those ultimately destined for hell (the elect having been taken to heaven by Christ). But this leads straight back to the exegetical problem of God neither desiring nor accepting such praise from even the obstinate sinner, let alone the damned.

The acceptance of a third, intermediate state in the afterlife for the righteous as well as the reprobate, even after Christ’s Resurrection, is a seriously troublesome position if one holds to the tenets of mainstream Reformational eschatological theology. For — given the Protestant view on justification — why would (or should) there be any second state for the “saved” once the road to heaven was paved by Christ? This state of affairs leads inexorably to considerations of differential merit and reward, such that a whole class is relegated to continued separation from Christ in some partial sense, and by implication, punishment, since these children of God have not yet attained to full union with God in eternal happiness and bliss.

Once it is conceded that (dead) righteous men praise God from “under the earth,”the standard Protestant position of all the saved “going straight to heaven at death” crumbles, for the simple reason that this group is contrasted with those in heaven. Furthermore, a position that “under the earth” refers metaphorically to merely all dead righteous (who, according to Protestantism are in heaven), makes the phraseology of Philippians 2:10 and Revelation 5:3,13 absurdly redundant, since St. Paul and St. John would be saying, “Those in heaven, and on earth, and in heaven . . . .”

Again, the only reasonable alternate interpretation, given all the above data, is to posit the existence of purgatory, from which praise to God emanates — it being that portion of the Church stationed for a time in the portico of heaven, so to speak.

2 Timothy 1:16-18 May the Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me; he was not ashamed of my chains,but when he arrived in Rome he searched for me eagerly and found me — may the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that Day — and you well know all the service he rendered at Ephesus.

Onesiphorus appears to be dead at the time St. Paul writes this letter to Timothy. If that is true, then Paul is praying for the dead. One well-known Protestant commentary [33] admits that Onesiphorus is likely dead, citing the cross-reference of 2 Timothy 4:19, yet takes the remarkably incoherent position that St. Paul is praying for his conduct in life and reward at the Judgment. Thus, the admitted prayer (1:18), since it supposedly refers to the earthly life of the intended recipient, somehow thereby ceases to be a prayer for the dead even though it is pleading for mercy on the Day of Judgment for one who has indeed departed!

Now, of course, St. Paul could also pray for a living person to be recompensed justly by God, but this is missing the point, and is an example of the classic logical fallacy of proposing a “distinction without a difference.” For what distinguishes prayers for a living or a dead man, where the final Judgment is concerned?

Protestants say that it is impermissible to pray for the dead on this score since their fate is already sealed and it will be to no avail. The error here lies in the fact that the person’s fate had always been known (God being omniscient and out of time, foreordaining in a mysterious way the beginning and end of all things). In both cases our knowledge is paltry and altogether insufficient as to the person’s destiny. We pray out of charity (or, “desire,” as it were), and because we are commanded to, having been assured by the inspired biblical revelation that it has an effect.

The Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary, another respected evangelical reference, takes a different position: “His household would hardly retain his name after the master was dead . . . Nowhere has Paul prayers for the dead, which is fatal to the theory . . . that he was dead.” [34]

But Word Pictures in the New Testament, a six-volume linguistic commentary by the great Greek scholar A.T. Robertson, states: “Apparently Onesiphorus is now dead as is implied by the wish in 1:18.” [35]

On the face of it, why couldn’t St. Paul be referring to the house of Onesiphorus in the same sense in which we speak of a deceased person’s “surviving wife and children?” His statement in 1:18 is similar to our spontaneous utterances at funerals, such as “May God rest his soul,” etc. (sometimes spoken or thought despite theologies to the contrary). And if Paul is “wishing” for benefits for the soul of a dead man, as Robertson holds, how is this essentially any different from praying for the dead?

To conclude, of the three prominent evangelical Protestant commentaries surveyed, two hold that St. Paul is “praying,” and one that he is “wishing.” Two conclude that Onesiphorus is probably dead, with a third denying this. It might be supposed with good reason that if reputable, scholarly Protestant commentators are more or less forced into (for them) uncomfortable positions due to the inescapable clarity of a text, perhaps the Catholic interpretation is the best one, as it requires no unnatural straining. All that is necessary is the willingness to accept the practice of prayers for the dead, for which there is ample scriptural warrant, Jewish precedent, and abundant support in the early Christian Church, as will be demonstrated subsequently.

Hebrews 12:14 Strive for peace with all men, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord. (see also 12:1,5-11,15,23, Ephesians 5:5, 1 Thessalonians 4:3 1 John 3:2-3)

John Henry Cardinal Newman writes:

The truth itself is declared in one form or another in every part of Scripture. It is told us again and again, that to make sinful creatures holy was the great end which our Lord had in view in taking upon Him our nature, and thus none but the holy will be accepted for His sake at the last day. The whole history of redemption, the covenant of mercy in all its parts and provisions, attests the necessity of holiness in order to salvation; as indeed even our natural conscience bears witness also . . .

Even supposing a man of unholy life were suffered to enter heaven, he would not be happy there; so that it would be no mercy to permit him to enter . . . We conclude that any man, whatever his habits, tastes, or manner of life, if once admitted into heaven, would be happy there . . . [But] here every man can do his own pleasure, but there he must do God’s pleasure . . . . . Let us alone! What have we to do with thee? is the sole thought and desire of unclean souls, even while they acknowledge His majesty. None but the holy can look upon the Holy One; without holiness no man can endure to see the Lord . . .

Heaven is not heaven, is not a place of happiness except to the holy . . . There is a moral malady which disorders the inward sight and taste; and no man labouring under it is in a condition to enjoy what Scripture calls the fulness of joy in God’s presence, and pleasures at His right hand forevermore. [36]

Newman explains (in effect) why purgatory (which he accepts elsewhere, even before his conversion to Catholicism in 1845) is a necessary and indeed, ultimately desirable process for all of us imperfect sinners to undergo, in order to properly approach God in His unfathomable majesty and holiness.

Hebrews 12:29 . . . our God is a consuming fire.

(see also Exodus 3:2-6, 19:18, 24:17, Numbers 31:23, Deuteronomy 4:24, 9:3, Psalm 66:10-12, Malachi 3:2, 4:1, Hebrews 10:27, 31)

Revelation 21:27 But nothing unclean shall enter it, nor any one who practises abomination or falsehood, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life.

The relevance of this biblical data in terms of its analogy to the idea of purgatory is clear. The abundance of such scriptural evidence for purgatory led to a consensus among the Church Fathers as well. Protestant church historian Philip Schaff, who can definitely be considered a “hostile witness” as pertains this topic, summarized the belief of the early Christian Church:

These views of the middle state in connection with prayers for the dead show a strong tendency to the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory . . . there are traces of the purgatorial idea of suffering the temporal consequences of sin, and a painful struggle after holiness . . . The common people and most of the fathers understood it of a material fire; but this is not a matter of faith . . . A material fire would be very harmless without a material body. [37]

Despite all this, Protestantism rejected the beliefs in purgatory and prayers for the dead, with the exception of Anglicans, many of whom have retained some form of these. Popular Christian apologist C. S. Lewis was one of these traditional Anglicans. In one of his last books, Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer, [38] he stated that he prayed for the dead, among whom were many of his loved ones, and that he believed in purgatory, comparing it to an intense rinsing of the mouth at the dentist’s office. He thought no one would want to enter heaven unclean, as this would be downright embarrassing.

23 Haydock’s Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, New York: 1859; rep. Monrovia, CA: Catholic Treasures, 1991, 1376-1377, 1611.

24 Sermon: “The Intermediate State,” 1836.

25 Book 4, epistle 2.

26 Commentary on 1 Cor 3; Sermon 20; Commentary on Ps 116.

27 Commentary on Amos 4.

28 Dialogues 4,39.

29 6th Homily on Exodus.

30 Explanations of the Psalms, 37, 3. From Jurgens, William A., ed. and tr., The Faith of the Early Fathers (FEF), 3 volumes, Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1979, vol. 3, 17.

31 St. Francis de Sales, CON, 360-362.

32 Ibid., 368-369.

33 Guthrie, D. and J.A. Motyer, eds., The New Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 3rd ed., 1970, 1178. The Lutheran Johannes Bengel (1687-1752), and the Anglican Henry Alford (1810-71), both highly-respected expositors, also held that Onesiphorus was dead.

34 Jamieson, Robert, Andrew R. Fausset, and David Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1961 (orig. 1864), 1376.

35 Robertson, A.T., Word Pictures in the New Testament, Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930, 6 volumes., vol. 4, 615.

36 Sermon: “Holiness Necessary for Future Blessedness,” 1834 (On Hebrews 12:14).

37 Schaff, Philip, History of the Christian Church, vol. 2, “Ante-Nicene Christianity: A.D. 100-325,” 5th ed., New York: 1889; rep. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,ch. 12, sec. 156, 604-606.

38 New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1964, 107-109.

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 3,900+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

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

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

My Apologetics Books (#2): “The Catholic Verses” (2004)

October 14, 2015 By Dave Armstrong

[see the information page for this book, for full details and all purchase options]

(published by Sophia Institute Press in August 2004; 235 pages)

* * * * *

This was my third “official” publication in as many years, back in 2004, and the first of several, working with editor Todd Aglialoro: whose initial idea it was. The purpose and structure of this book (one of the most unique of all my books) was not simply a presentation of Catholic prooftexts (my Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths is that). Rather, the idea is the following (from the Introduction):

. . . 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 . . . 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 structure ensures that the volume is relatively more “polemical” than other works of mine, but polemics is not a bad thing, if done right, and often in apologetics it is absolutely necessary. One must sometimes throw some “counter-punches,” so to speak. I document and “argue with” inadequate Protestant responses to our prooftexts and show how even some of the best Protestant exegetes start to play games and special plead when they have no cogent alternative explanation.

The two verses that were the most fun to deal with were the ones about “baptism for the dead” (what I called “the most ‘un-Protestant’ verse in the Bible”) and Paul’s prayer for the dead man Onesiphorus. Protestant explanations for those passages might be described (with charity) as “high comedy.” In any event, it makes for some entertaining reading to watch what they try to do with them. Apologetics is often a lot of fun!

From the book’s Introduction:

I shall contend throughout this book that, far too often, Protestants do not take all of Scripture into account, and that they are guilty of eisegesis (reading into Scripture one’s own presuppositions), at least as often as Catholics are, if not more often. Protestants (especially on a popular level) often emphasize relatively few “proof texts” to the exclusion of a great deal of relevant biblical data.

Moreover, only rarely do they seriously engage the biblical texts utilized by Catholics to support their positions through the centuries. In probably most cases, they are not even aware of any passages that a Catholic might use to prove anything that would be contrary to Protestantism. Habitually, they do not even entertain the possibility. For many Protestants, such a state of affairs is literally impossible. It is not supposed to happen. When Catholics and Protestants grapple over the Bible and its interpretation, Protestants must always win (so they casually assume).

I hasten to add – and emphasize to the greatest degree — that these tendencies of bias and subjectivism and subconscious influence of denominational traditions do not necessarily entail a deliberate attempt to ignore or to twist Scripture. Every serious student of the Bible comes to the biblical text with a theological framework, in order to interpret it and make sense of it in its entirety. This is proper and right, and no one should have any objection to it.

Both Catholics and Protestants engage in systematic theology, a method which involves finding proof texts for a given doctrine. In so doing, men will have honest disagreements, in good faith. We highly respect the devotion to Bible study and to theological reflection exhibited by many of our Protestant brethren – often putting Catholics to shame.

. . . This is not a scholarly work, as I am no scholar in the first place, but merely a lay Catholic apologist; but it is not “anti-scholarly,” and I will incorporate scholarship wherever necessary to substantiate the argument.

. . . 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.

. . . If this book can convince the reader that Catholicism is at least as “biblically respectable” as any brand of Protestantism, I will have succeeded in my goal. In any event, I trust that all students of the Bible will be interested in comparative exegesis and a side-by-side analysis of competing views. Of course my ultimate aim is persuasion, but increased understanding (even while disagreement remains) is also a worthy accomplishment.

Dialogue with an Evangelical on Purgatory in the Bible

October 2, 2015 By Dave Armstrong

(vs. Bethany Kerr)

Illustration for Dante’s Purgatorio 24 by Gustave Doré (1832-1883) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

(10-7-13)This friendly and constructive exchange took place on my Facebook page, under a post from 24 September 2013. Bethany is an evangelical Protestant with Calvinist inclinations. Her words will be in blue.

* * * * *

Original post:

NO BIBLICAL EVIDENCE FOR BODILY MORTIFICATION ON BEHALF OF OTHERS? THAT WOULD BE BIG NEWS TO THE PROPHET EZEKIEL

EZEKIEL 4:4-8 (RSV) “Then lie upon your left side, and I will lay the punishment of the house of Israel upon you; for the number of the days that you lie upon it, you shall bear their punishment. [5] For I assign to you a number of days, three hundred and ninety days, equal to the number of the years of their punishment; so long shall you bear the punishment of the house of Israel. [6] And when you have completed these, you shall lie down a second time, but on your right side, and bear the punishment of the house of Judah; forty days I assign you, a day for each year. [7] And you shall set your face toward the siege of Jerusalem, with your arm bared; and you shall prophesy against the city. [8] And, behold, I will put cords upon you, so that you cannot turn from one side to the other, till you have completed the days of your siege.”

But Ezekiel was bearing an earthly punishment for the living… He did nothing to remove punishment for the dead.

Also, he was a prophet. Prophets had to do many things that would not be instructed to believers today. (Such as, making cakes over dung, keeping silent after a wife dies, or marrying prostitutes and staying with them throughout their prostitution).

From my understanding, prophets commonly did things like this to paint a picture.

In this particular argument I wasn’t claiming that he was doing something for the dead. But that is not at all unbiblical, either. Paul talks about those being baptized for the dead (1 Cor 15:29), and makes a direct reference to 2 Maccabees 12:44 (KJV): “For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead.” I believe he was referring to penance for the dead, per the plausible interpretation of St. Francis de Sales.

The Apostle Paul also prayed for the dead (Onesiphorus).

I agree that prophets do weird things; no argument there. My favorite is Isaiah going around naked. One of my female friends wisecracked about, “why couldn’t God pick a younger guy to do that?” :-)

But again, my target in this post was those who think such a thing is unbiblical, period: that it is impermissible and not something God would want done: even if only by a prophet, who is often commanded to do odd stuff. God can’t command anything that is intrinsically wrong.

LOL @your Isaiah comment!

I would love to one day discuss these things with you more but would not want to derail your thread. I enjoy reading your posts (even if I do disagree on theology)! And you seem like someone not offended by discussion as many can be, which is nice.

It’s fine, Bethany. This is on-topic. Feel free. Thanks for your very kind words, and you appear to be one who can disagree amiably, too. Good for you! I’m honored that you like reading my posts.

Yes, I definitely enjoy disagreeing amiably. (I’m a lightweight and you’re a heavyweight but that won’t stop me from trying.) LOL

I do wonder why you believe that Onesiphorus is an example of prayers being made for the dead. I don’t see that in scripture. I saw how he made a prayer that he hoped he would find mercy on “that day”…. But I don’t see any reason to believe that Onesiphorus was dead at the time he prayed this. It seems speculative.

I could pray that God would find mercy on someone who wronged a friend of mine (on that day) but my prayer could have no effect once the person was already dead. If they are born again, they are already a recipient of Gods mercy… But if not, there is nothing that can be done after death. They are already recipients of Gods wrath. The time has ended for prayers on their behalf.

But you’re forgetting purgatory. :-)

Well okay, purgatory… Where do you find it in scripture?

I guess I should begin with that my beliefs are very similar to Calvinism, although I do not know enough about it to be absolutely certain.

Here is a paper where I cite many Protestants on the Onesiphorus issue:

“Onesiphorus (2 Tim 1:16-18; 4:19): Explicit New Testament Example of the Apostle Paul Praying for the Dead (Explanations of Protestant Commentaries)”

I find indications of purgatory in lots o’ places. See: “Biblical Evidence for Purgatory: 25 Bible Passages.”

I will read it tonight and get back with you soon. Thanks, Dave.

Cool. My papers will put you to sleep, though!

No they are interesting! I actually read through much of your blog right after you added me as friend a year or so ago.

Isn’t that something? Wow!

I wanted to add that there is actually a Protestant argument for prayers for the dead, that presupposes the non-existence of purgatory (which would be used by, e.g., Lutherans, who do so):

Since God is outside of time, prayers can be “retroactive”; in other words, one could pray for a dead person, and God could apply the prayer to the person outside of time. Thus, you could actually pray for the person’s salvation after he or she died. God would simply apply it on the person’s behalf. We can do that since we don’t know a person’s destiny for sure. Prayer is always good and will have some positive result.

The first thing I noticed in your article regarding purgatory (since this is the heart of the issue) is that you brought up origin and Ambrose, and that they referred to purgatory, using Psalm 66:12 as a proof text.

I do not see Psalm 66:12 in context as speaking of the afterlife at all:

8 Bless our God, O peoples;
let the sound of his praise be heard,
9 who has kept our soul among the living
and has not let our feet slip.
10 For you, O God, have tested us;
you have tried us as silver is tried.
11 You brought us into the net;
you laid a crushing burden on our backs;
12 you let men ride over our heads;
we went through fire and through water;
yet you have brought us out to a place of abundance.

It is poetic speak, typical of psalms, but it also is speaking of the conflicts and trials of God’s people, while on earth. God brings us through many trials, through “fire and water”, and yet he has brought us out to a “place of abundance”. I don’t see any reason to assume this text is referring to the afterlife, especially if you go on to read the rest of the chapter. There is no indication there of purgatory, only speculation.

Also, it seems that Catholics distance themselves from many of the things Origen believed, and most places that I have read from Catholic sources say that Origen didn’t really have a good grasp on what purgatory actually / was/ in the first place.

I don’t know what he is quoted as saying that proves this verse to be referring to a place where your sins are removed from you after death, by fire, but I am sure that his beliefs were quite different than the Catholic church’s beliefs of today. Even if he were to have believed it the same way, that would not be proof of the doctrine of purgatory…I mean, Tertullian became a Monatist, but I doubt the Catholic church uses quotes from that era of his life to promote their teachings, since they considered him to be a heretic after that point. I say that to say that just because one of the early church fathers believed it, doesn’t make it true. It must be supported Biblically.

As for Ambrose, Catholics seem to use this statement by him to be proof that he believed in purgatory:

“Give, O Lord, rest to Thy servant Theodosius, that rest Thou hast prepared for Thy saints. . . . I loved him, therefore will I follow him to the land of the living; I will not leave him till by my prayers and lamentations he shall be admitted unto the holy mount of the Lord, to which his deserts call him”

Did you know that this is taken out of its context to give a false impression of what ambrose was saying? Only a bit earlier in his quote, this is what he says:

“The flesh, therefore, returns to earth, the soul hastens to the rest which is above..to which it is said, “Return to thy rest, oh my soul” (Ps. csvi 7) (Sec 31)

Into which rest, Theodosius hastenened to enter, and go into the city of jerusalem, of which it is said; and the kings of the earth shall bring their glory into it. (Apoc xxi 24)

That is true glory which is there assumed; that is the most blessed kingdom, which is there possessed, whither the apostle hastened, saying; we are confident therefore, and willing rather to be absent from the body ,and present with the Lord. Wherefore we labor that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him. (2 cor vs 8,9)

or well pleasing to him, (sec 32)

Freed, therefore, from the doubtful contest, theodosius, of august memory, now enjoys perpetual light, endless tranquility, and according to those things which he hath done in his body, rejoices in the fruits of divine remuneration. “I had to type that out because I could not find a text to copy and paste, and didn’t have much time so please forgive grammatical errors. You can see the rest of the text here: Roman Misquotation: or Certain Passages from the Fathers [Richard T. P. Pope]

I know I’ve only addressed such a small part so far. Got to go to bed though. OK I was wrong. I have to address one more thing before bed. I’ll leave you alone then.

From your article:

Isaiah 6:5-7 And I said: “Woe is me! for I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts.” Then flew one of the seraphim to me, having in his hand a burning coal which he had taken with tongs from the altar. And he touched my mouth, and said: “Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin forgiven.”

I would just mention here that Isaiah is not yet dead- and he is in his physical body- which is different from our souls being separated from our body upon death. This cannot be compared accurately to our experience after having died and being separated from this “body of death”. To be absent in the body is to be present with Christ.

I absolutely agree that if we came face to face with God at this moment, we would fall to our knees, absolutely ashamed of our sinfulness and being frightened to our core. But we are not yet separated from our bodies, which have a nature of sin. Our spirit and flesh are in constant war until death causes their separation.

Replying to your last comment first:

Again, I didn’t claim that Isaiah was dead, but it is irrelevant to my point, which was how we react when we meet God: we feel unworthy and want to make ourselves clean. That is the main notion that lies behind purgatory.

Protestants and Catholics agree that we have to be actually sinless to enter into heaven. We just think it’ll be more of a process to get clean: not an instant “zap”! So we agree on the essentials (gotta be clean and sin-free) and disagree on secondary elements (how long it will take and how painful).

Psalm 66:12 doesn’t necessarily have to be about the afterlife itself. It illustrates the principle of purging and cleansing that many biblical passages illustrate. We know that that process is a “biblical” one that God does all the time. So it stands to reason that He will after we die and enter literally into God’s presence in heaven. Even a guy like C. S. Lewis agrees with that. He believed in purgatory.

I am sure that his beliefs were quite different than the Catholic church’s beliefs of today.

I am, too, since all doctrines develop (including trinitarianism and Christology, very much so in the early centuries). But the essence remains the same.

Even if he were to have believed it the same way, that would not be proof of the doctrine of purgatory

That’s correct. The value of the fathers is if most of them believed one thing: then we conclude that the belief is apostolic in origin.

…I mean, Tertullian became a Monatist, but I doubt the Catholic church uses quotes from that era of his life to promote their teachings, since they considered him to be a heretic after that point.

Yep; it’s worthless to cite his Montanist writings.

I say that to say that just because one of the early church fathers believed it, doesn’t make it true. It must be supported Biblically.

We agree. This is why I cited 25 passages in my book. I merely noted that various fathers agreed with the interpretation. That’s important because how the fathers interpreted gives us a big indication of the teachings of the early Church and what the Bible teaches. It is interpreted authoritatively by the Church and eminent men in the Church: the fathers.

Re: St. Ambrose and purgatory: I couldn’t find an entire text of the funeral sermon in question, and I don’t trust anti-Catholic polemical works from 1840 to give me an accurate or anywhere near objective analysis of it. But I can cite the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church: a non-Catholic work, in its article on purgatory (pp. 1144-1145):

A more developed doctrine is taught by St. Ambrose, who asserts that the souls of the departed await the end of time in different habitations, their fate varying acc. to their works, though some are already with Christ.

This is exactly what we would expect to see from Ambrose, in his time period. See primary evidence from St. Ambrose and analysis from the dissertation, Prayer for the Dead from Ambrose to Gregory the Great (by Laszlo Illes Kaulics): pp. 10-18.

I have three pages of citations in my book, The Quotable Augustine, on purgatory (from City of God and the Enchiridion) and four pages documenting his views on alms, Masses, offerings, and prayer for the dead.

I’ll read the link you provided and get back with you! Wish I had more time… With six kids, it’s harder and harder to sit and write like i would like sometimes!

Six kids! God bless you. The most important job in the world . . .

From the link you provided, it appears that Ambrose was not very consistent in his views on the afterlife.
From the article:

When speaking about the eschatology of Ambrose one should note that he does not have a fully developed and consistent theory of salvation and damnation mechanisms in the next world, whether saints go to heaven immediately or stay in some place of repose.

But this isn’t surprising, as there are many church fathers, many of which disagreed with each other on a multitude of theological teachings….so I think the only way to know for sure is to see whether something is explicitly taught in the Bible – not to find where a church father here or there agreed or disagreed.

I don’t see purgatory in the scripture. I have seen many verses that are supposed to refer to purgatory, but the reasoning for assigning them to that idea is speculative at best.

I grew up in a religion that taught a future rapture in our time, and being left behind or caught up, then going through a great tribulation period for seven years….this doctrine was “proven” using select few verses from the Bible to support this theology…and hey, you could definitely believe that it was true if you only saw those verses and read them in the way they are presented by the left behind movement. But a closer look at the context reveals that those verses are not supporting that theology at all. In fact, I was told Jesus was going to come and rapture people on Sept 13, 1996, based on several passages, calculations, and some pretty faulty interpretation of scripture. Obviously, he didn’t come on that date, and their reasoning was flawed. Their proof texts didn’t prove what they assumed it did.

I think it’s sort of similar, the way purgatory is taught and then read into the scriptures. You can find scripture that sounds like it supports it, but in my opinion, its just read into it and doesn’t go along with the majority of the scripture which teaches that being absent from the body is being present with Christ. We are not attached to our sinful nature anymore after we die. That’s in our flesh. And I cannot depend on myself for salvation…if I did, I would without a doubt be completely doomed. I have already broken Gods law. If you break one commandment, you are guilty of all.

Jesus atoned for all of my sin when he died and paid my debt on the cross. There is no sin that his blood was not worthy to atone for. Purgatory makes it appear that Christ could not complete the job by his death on the cross..that something more than his blood is necessary for salvation.

Jesus said that “it is finished” when he died on the cross. He paid the price. If we could suffer and thereby earn salvation for ourselves or anyone else, would we not then have a right to boast? The Bible says the reason that salvation is by grace through faith and not of works is “lest any man should boast”.

The verse you cited does not speak of Christ’s atonement. I other words, it does not say ‘filling up what is lacking in Christ’s atonement”. It is speaking of the suffering that all Christians must bear in order to be image bearers of Christ…to bring glory to God. If the world hated him, it will also hate us…and if any man will live godly in Christ Jesus, they will suffer. But not as an atoning work.

There was still suffering for Christs name that was not accomplished yet…suffering that was appointed to Paul, and to other believers. Therefore, it was yet “lacking”.

* * *

But this isn’t surprising, as there are many church fathers, many of which disagreed with each other on a multitude of theological teachings….

That’s true, but they also had remarkable accord on doctrines that are distinctively Catholic, and agreement against most if not all doctrines that are distinctively Protestant.

so I think the only way to know for sure is to see whether something is explicitly taught in the Bible – not to find where a church father here or there agreed or disagreed.

Well, it’s both. Catholics believe that true doctrine will be verified by the convergence of biblical teaching, tradition (Church fathers), and the sanction of the authoritative teaching Church. Purgatory developed a bit slowly at first, but then it was accepted for many hundreds of years before being arbitrarily thrown out by Protestants.

I don’t see purgatory in the scripture. I have seen many verses that are supposed to refer to purgatory, but the reasoning for assigning them to that idea is speculative at best.

That’s how you would see it, with Protestant lenses on; whereas we see it all over Scripture in various ways. I don’t see sola Scriptura in Scripture, and you see that everywhere. True or false premises determine a lot of outcomes of what we believe.

It’s not proven in an “explicit, ironclad / no one could possibly doubt it” manner, but then it’s not required to be, since sola Scriptura is a false doctrine, and is not taught in the Bible (I’ve written two books just about that, and can send you e-books of both for free if you like). The irony is that Protestants apply sola Scriptura to all other doctrinal questions, when it itself is not a biblical teaching, and much in the Bible contradicts it.

I was a committed evangelical Protestant for 13 years, and an apologist in those days, too. I’m quite familiar with the teachings and outlooks: used to hold many of ’em myself. I didn’t get into date-setting, but I used to believe in Rapture eschatology, from reading Hal Lindsey, until I later read some Reformed stuff and stopped believing in the Rapture.

I think it’s sort of similar, the way purgatory is taught and then read into the scriptures. You can find scripture that sounds like it supports it, but in my opinion, its just read into it

Again, we are not presupposing the necessity for explicit proof for everything as you are, so you don’t “see” it because the proofs aren’t of that nature, for the most part. But there is plenty, including prayer for the dead, baptism for the dead (Paul flat-out mentions that, and you have to interpret it somehow), and third states after death (Luke 16 alone proves that).

and doesn’t go along with the majority of the scripture which teaches that being absent from the body is being present with Christ.

Here you are assuming that being in purgatory is being separate from Christ. It is closer to Him than we are on earth. Everyone in purgatory is already saved, or they wouldn’t be there.

We are not attached to our sinful nature anymore after we die. That’s in our flesh.

Eventually that will be the case, after God mercifully purges us of all our attachment to sin. It’s not just flesh, though. The devil and his demons were spiritual creatures, and they rebelled against God. Unless you mean it only in the non-material sense . . .

And I cannot depend on myself for salvation…if I did, I would without a doubt be completely doomed. I have already broken Gods law. If you break one commandment, you are guilty of all.

Neither do we. Catholics don’t believe in works salvation (heresy of Pelagianism). Trent makes that crystal clear. We believe in salvation by grace alone, but we don’t separate works from faith. as Protestants do by making sanctification separate from justification and salvation. All good works that we do are caused by God’s grace.

Jesus atoned for all of my sin when he died and paid my debt on the cross. There is no sin that his blood was not worthy to atone for.

Yes, of course. We don’t disagree on that.

Purgatory makes it appear that Christ could not complete the job by his death on the cross..that something more than his blood is necessary for salvation.

Not at all. Like I said, those in purgatory are saved, and they’re saved because of God’s grace and His work on the cross on our behalf. They are simply being cleansed so that they are fit to enter into God’s presence. No more games about it being merely extrinsic, imputed, forensic justification; after we die it is the real thing: we have to be literally holy and without sin to be fit to enter into God’s awesome presence.

That’s what purgatory does. As I stated before, both sides agree about holiness in heaven. There’s no sin there. How we get to that state from our present one is what is disputed.

Colossians 1:24 [“Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church” — RSV] is a specific sense of our participating in the death of Christ (which is a frequent biblical theme). The Church teaches that Jesus’ death was super-sufficient and efficient for the salvation of all who are saved. We simply have to accept that work and repent, so that it can be applied in our particular case.

I think what is meant is that Christ intends for us to join in spreading the redemption that He won on the cross (many verses on sharing Christ’s suffering and on helping to distribute His grace and salvation). Therefore, Paul would be saying that He is doing that, and that Jesus can’t do it because He can’t do the part that is what His followers do. It’s not a limitation on God; only saying that we play a role in it, too. “Both/and” and not “either/or.” This is biblical synergy. But the cooperation is not absolute equality: God is the cause of the grace and salvation; we only help distribute and apply it. It’s part of redemptive suffering on behalf of others. The Navarre Bible Commentary expresses this, as well:

24. Jesus Christ our Lord perfectly accomplished the work the Father gave him to do (cf. Jn 17:4); as he said himself when he was about to die, “It is finished,” it is accomplished (Jn 19:30).

From that point onwards objective redemption is an accomplished fact. All men have been saved by the redemptive death of Christ. However, St. Paul says that he completes in his flesh “what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions”; what does he mean by this? The most common explanation of this statement is summarized by St. Alphonsus as follows: “Can it be that Christ’s passion alone was insufficient to save us? It left nothing more to be done, it was entirely sufficient to save all men. However, for the merits of the Passion to be applied to us, according to St. Thomas (Summa theologiae, III, q. 49, a. 3), we need to cooperate (subjective redemption) by patiently bearing the trials God sends us, so as to become like our head, Christ” (St. Alphonsus, Thoughts on the Passion, 10).

St. Paul is applying this truth to himself. Jesus Christ worked and strove in all kinds of ways to communicate his message of salvation, and then he accomplished the redemption by dying on the Cross. The Apostle is mindful of the Master’s teaching and so he follows in his footsteps (cf. 1 Pet 2:21), takes up his cross (cf. Mt 10:38) and continues the task of bringing Christ’s teaching to all men.

Faith in the fact that we are sharing in the sufferings of Christ, John Paul II says, gives a person “the certainty that in the spiritual dimension of the work of Redemption he is serving, like Christ, the salvation of his brothers and sisters. Therefore he is carrying out an irreplaceable service. In the Body of Christ, which is ceaselessly born of the Cross of the Redeemer, it is precisely suffering permeated by the spirit of Christ’s sacrifice that is the irreplaceable mediator and author of the good things which are indispensable for the world’s salvation. It is suffering, more than anything else, which clears the way for the grace which transforms human souls. Suffering, more than anything else, makes present in the history of humanity the force of the Redemption” (Salvifici doloris, 27).

I’m a little confused now. I want to be sure I understand your position, Dave. Do you believe that Jesus’ blood is sufficient and completely paid our debt in full, to those who are regenerate?

Yes, this is Catholic teaching. It’s sufficient for the salvation of all men (not just the regenerate: which comes through baptism), but alas, some men reject it and God allows them to do that.

Do you believe that one who is saved is kept secure by Christ, and if they die (while in sin) they have to be refined but are still saved by grace?

Long discussion. The elect are who they are, and God knows that, but we don’t. That’s the problem in these sorts of analyses. The Reformed / evangelical notion of “absolute assurance of grace” is not a biblical position. Even Paul didn’t talk like he was absolutely sure (several passages). Catholics believe we can have a strong “moral assurance” that we are in good graces with God and will most likely be saved in the end, by examining ourselves to see if we are not in a state of serious sin. One can fall away from a state of grace and lose one’s salvation (dozens of Bible passages).

We believe that almost all those who are saved still have a “stain of sin” on their soul and will have to undergo purification in purgatory in order to be fit to enter into God’s presence in the sinless environment of heaven.

Do you believe that there is anything we must do to keep our salvation?

We have to persevere in faith, do good works (that are the evidence of a genuine faith that isn’t merely the bare assent of faith alone) and be free of mortal sin, that places that salvation in grave danger. That’s why we have confession: to give believers a chance to “clean themselves up” and do better in the future, by being open to the leading of God’s grace and His Word.

I think the purification does (or can, if we allow it) begin in this life. It’s all of a piece. It’s simply completed after death.

* * * * *

My Interview Notes for “Meet the Author” (Ken Huck)

January 18, 2013 By Dave Armstrong

. . . Re: The Quotable Newman and The Catholic Verses

(January 2013)

***

I was interviewed for about 45 minutes on 1-17-13. We talked about two of my books, published by Sophia Institute Press: The Quotable Newman (Oct. 2012) and The Catholic Verses (2004). Past guest authors on this show include: David B. Currie, Amy Welborn, Marcus Grodi, Dr. Diane Moczar, Teresa Tomeo, Dr. Paul Thigpen, Kevin Lowry, Rod Bennett, Brandon Vogt, Bruce Sullivan, and many others.

***

You can hear the interview in an audio podcast file on the show’s website (Radio Maria).

Here is the specific link for the audio file:

* * * [ Audio Link ] * * *

Ken had sent me interview questions beforehand, allowing me to prepare extensive notes. As it turned out, the interview covered only about 60-70% of the material I had prepared (replies regarding The Catholic Verses, particularly, were greatly curtailed, due to time pressure). Thus, my notes have some usefulness on their own. We also talked about a few matters that were not included at all in the prior questions received.

The interview questions will be in blue.

* * * * *

Could you give the “five minute version” of your conversion?

I was very happy as an evangelical Protestant. I underwent a conversion to Christ in 1977 after being very nominal in my Methodist faith as a child and young teenager. I was an apologist on college campuses in the late 80s and had done a lot of street evangelism also. In the late 80s I became involved in Operation Rescue, where we would block the doors of abortion clinics in order to save the lives of babies about to be killed.

In that movement I met many committed, serious Catholics (I never really had, before), and I was most curious about the Catholic prohibition of contraception. I didn’t get that. I wasn’t anti-Catholic, but I thought evangelicalism was sort of the cream of the crop of Christianity, and Catholicism had some things wrong.

In early 1990 I began ecumenical discussions in my home and invited two Catholics I had met. I also met Fr. John Hardon (a major Catholic author and catechist, and saintly man — canonization), and attended his informal catechetical meetings at the University of Detroit. After lengthy discussions, I became convinced on the contraception issue (after learning that the Anglicans were the first Christians to change the prohibition, in 1930). I thought Catholicism had the best moral theology of any Christian group.

But my big objection was infallibility, so I fought about that tooth and nail (citing liberal dissidents like Hans Küng and Joseph Döllinger). My friend suggested Cardinal Newman’s Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine and that pulverized all my objections. I also studied the Protestant Revolt (or what’s called the “Reformation”) from a Catholic perspective, for the first time. So it was moral theology and history of doctrine that were the main causes. By October 1990 and many discussions and books read, I was convinced that Catholicism was the fullness of the Christian faith: the Church. [see conversion story from Surprised by Truth and a lengthier, more technical published version, emphasizing development]

Your bio says that you are a full time Catholic apologist. I know the first time I heard the term apologist, I thought “What is he apologizing for?” What is an apologist?

“Apologist” means “defender” — so a Catholic apologist defends the Catholic faith by reason, and from the Bible (my specialty). The original meaning of the word “apologist” comes from Plato’s Apology (apologia in Greek), which was an account of the ancient philosopher Socrates defending himself against trumped-up charges, at his own trial. The same word is also in the Bible; e.g., 1 Peter 3:15, “stand ready to make a defense . . . ” So that was the original, classical meaning. Then in modern usage it became synonymous with saying we are sorry; but it still implies some sort of explanation or defense.

Your most recent book, The Quotable Newman, is of course, about the writing of Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman. Can you give the listeners a sketch of his life?

Newman lived from 1801-1890. He first became famous as an Anglican preacher and writer in the 1830s at Oxford, and was and is considered one of the greatest preachers in English and one of the very greatest writers. Parochial and Plain Sermons collects in eight volumes, his preaching from this time. I include a lot of that material in my book; it’s very good. He was also interested in reforming Anglicanism, and reviving more traditional “Catholic” aspects. His group of reformers was called the Oxford Movement or Tractarianism, after a series of pamphlets called Tracts for the Times. Yet he was still basically anti-Catholic.

He loved history and wrote about it; particularly about the Arian heresy of he 4th century. The Arians were like present-day Jehovah’s Witnesses: they thought Jesus was created, and deny that He is God. Eventually he began to see that in the early Church Rome had always stood firm, and that the analogy to Anglicans was semi-Arianism: sort of in the middle between orthodoxy and heresy. Some historical questions of this sort eventually caused him to start questioning whether Anglicanism was the Church. Around 1843 he began studying the issue of development of doctrine: how doctrines are better understood and explained in more detail as time goes on. That was the issue that caused him to argue himself into Catholicism, and he was received in 1845, to the great shock of the whole nation.

What part did Blessed Newman play in your own conversion experience?

As I mentioned, it was his Essay on Development that explained to me how the Catholic Church could be infallible when it taught binding doctrine. Because I loved history, as Newman did, when I read that, it explained in a brilliant way how one could go from the simplicity of the early Church to the complexity of Catholic doctrine as it is today. The doctrines developed. That was the key to my conversion, because it explained the history of doctrine in a way that was perfectly plausible, and also demonstrated the infallibility of the Church throughout history. This book, then, is sort of my way of repaying the huge debt I owe to Cardinal Newman for my own conversion.

Why does Blessed John Cardinal Newman continue to be significant to Catholics as well as Christians from other faith traditions?

He’s very important in many ways. His early sermons and writings as an Anglican are excellent, and continue to be admired by Anglicans. His conversion is said to be one of the more notable ones since St. Augustine. In the 1860s he was falsely accused of misrepresenting his story and playing fast and loose with the truth, and decided to write an explanation of his life and conversion, called the Apologia pro vita Sua. He won over the English public as a result and was very highly respected thereafter.

Just how extensive are the writings of Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman?

He wrote about 50 books on many different topics. There is also a multi-volume collection now of his correspondence. I have a couple complete shelves (about ten feet in length) of his own works in my library.

Did you read everything?

I have a technique that I call “heavily skimming”: sort of a cross between speed-reading and skimming a book. I went through virtually all of his books about theology and several volumes of correspondence (that I could obtain); also some biographical works. The number of sources I list in my book adds up to 51 books altogether. I think it was the most enjoyable reading I’ve ever done in my life. Pure joy!

Tell us about how the book is organized?

It has 123 topics, with the focus overwhelmingly on theology. They’re arranged alphabetically, then within each section, the citations are arranged chronologically, so the reader can see how his thought developed through the years. This is especially important in the section on his conversion, which runs 34 pages in the book. I think this may be one of the most unique or useful parts of the book: to follow that whole train of thought: how he changed his mind. It’s actually more so, what is called a “Reader” — because Newman writes in very long sentences. So the excerpts are generally longer, as compared to my collection of Chesterton quotes, where each was one sentence long.

In your book, some of the sections are just a few sentences, and on other topics you have extensive quotes. Tell us about some of the areas of theology he is most famous for addressing?

In addition to his historical works and Essay on Development, he wrote about education (The Idea of a University) and is very influential there; also a very sophisticated and thought-provoking treatment of philosophy of religion (a book called Essay on the Grammar of Assent). He wrote importantly about the religious conscience, and was a great advocate of more lay participation: anticipating Vatican II by over a hundred years. He’s a fabulous thinker, who would stimulate anyone who read his works.

The book has 12 pages on Anglicanism, 12 on apologetics, 20 pages of quotes on development of doctrine, nine on theological liberalism, 34 on various aspects of Mariology, 18 on papal infallibility, nine on the Bible. Those are some of the more extensive topics.

If I could read just one quote (from the Essay on Development):

. . . whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this. . . . To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.

The last clause is probably the single most famous quotation, that is often seen online. And that literally happened in my life. I read his book, and it was over. I felt that if I were true to Church history, I had to become a Catholic.

* * * * *

The Catholic Verses – 95 Bible Passages that Confound Protestants

You had a little fun with the subtitle. Why 95 Bible passages?

That goes back to the 95 Theses of Luther, that he tacked up on the door of the Church, to begin the so-called “Reformation.” So that was my way — in my usual provocative manner — of sort of being “in your face” to my Protestant friends: “here’s 95 Bible passages!” I actually discussed the subtitle with my editor; originally it had “ignore” in it, I think, but I argued that that was too strong, and we used “confound” — which is more accurate, I think. Titles are very important.

You cover 16 common topics that tend to separate Catholics from other Christian traditions. For example, chapter one is on the nature of “the Church” and you start with the verse 1 Timothy 3:15, that describes the Church as “the pillar and bulwark of the truth”. How do Catholics look at this verse compared to Protestants?

The way I contended in the book, and how Catholics generally would look at it, is as a proof of infallibility or the strong authority of the Church. I wrote a lengthy paper about this, separately from the book. If we analyze it logically, if the Church is the very “pillar” or support of truth, then obviously, this is profound authority. Most Protestants don’t view it that way. But there it is: right in the Bible. I note that John Calvin uses the verse to run down the Catholic Church, since he thought it contained so much error, and then argued for an invisible church as an alternative. But that doesn’t fly. It’s eisegesis: reading things into the Bible, rather than exegesis: reading things out of the Bible. Paul is talking about an institutional, historical Church that one can point to and identify.

There are two major pillars of Protestant theology – sola scriptura and sola fide. Tell the listeners about what these terms mean?

These are Latin terms, of course. Sola Scriptura (meaning, “Bible alone” or “Bible only”) is the belief that the Bible is the only infallible authority in Christianity. It doesn’t mean “only authority, period.” We must get our definitions accurate when critiquing Protestantism. It denies the infallibility of Church and tradition. But of course, the Bible has to be interpreted: that’s the catch. I’ve written two books just on this topic. My book, 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura was published by Catholic Answers last May.

Sola fide means, literally, “faith alone”: the Protestant belief that works are technically separate from salvation or justification, and placed in a separate category of sanctification. We’re saved by grace through faith alone, in their view. In practice, “faith alone” is usually used by Protestants in the sense of “saved by grace alone” (or, sola gratia). We entirely agree with them on that, but many Protestants don’t realize this and accuse us of believing in salvation by works, or what is called the heresy of Pelagianism, that St. Augustine fought so vigorously.

What are some of verses that a Catholic would point to, to make the case that sola scriptura isn’t valid or biblical?

One of my favorites, that I also have in the first chapter, is Acts 15, about the Jerusalem Council. The Council made a decree about how Christians should interpret aspects of the Mosaic law, declaring, “it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and us” (Acts 15:28). This is precisely how Catholics view ecumenical councils: led by the Holy Spirit. In Acts 16:4, we learn that Paul went around declaring the decision, “for observance”.

In chapter three, I mention the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:27-31), who said, “how can I [understand the Scripture] unless someone guides me?” Also, there is Nehemiah 8:8: “they read from the book . . . and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading.” I cite Paul’s casual assumption that tradition is binding on Christians: he says: “maintain the traditions” (1 Cor 11:2), “hold to the traditions” (2 Thess 2:15), to keep away from those who differ from the tradition that he gave to them (2 Thess 3:6).

What about sola fide?

An obvious one, that I presented was James 2:24: “a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” That pretty much sums it up! He’s not proclaiming salvation by works, which is clear in context, but he’s denying faith alone: separating the works entirely from it. I mention the rich young rule (Luke 18), where the man asked Jesus how he could be saved. Jesus mentioned many of the Ten Commandments and he said that he observed those. Then he told him to sell everything he had and give it to the poor. Not a word about “believe in Me by faith alone!”

There is Philippians 2:12-13: “work out your own salvation; for God is at work in you . . .” Paul makes it a joint effort. God always has to give the necessary grace, but we work with Him; so it says in 1 Corinthians 3:9: “we are God’s fellow workers” and in 2 Corinthians 6:1: “working together with him”. Paul puts it together in 1 Corinthians 15:10: “I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me.” Catholics, following Paul, refuse to separate the works that flow from grace and faith. They are part of the process of salvation; but always caused by grace.

I also write in Chapter Six about how virtually all passages about the last judgment discuss works and not faith at all. I have found 50 of these actually (bit not all those are in the book). This is very striking, and not what one would expect to find, by Protestant assumptions.

What would a Protestant say about the part “good works” play in our salvation? What would a Catholic say?

Protestants teach that good works are necessary in the Christian life, as the manifestation of an authentic, genuine faith, but they separate them from salvation altogether, putting grace and faith under the category of justification and works under the category of sanctification: technically separated from justification and salvation. Catholics say that faith and works are two sides of the same coin, as James makes very clear, and also Paul, in many passages, such as the examples I just gave. We don’t separate justification and sanctification like Protestants do.

What are some of the other verses that “confound Protestants”?

My favorite is 2 Timothy 1:16-18, where Paul prays for a dead man, Onesiphorus. He says, “May the Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiphorus . . . may the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that Day . . .”

It’s fascinating to see what Protestants do with that, because they are taught that prayer for the dead is impermissible, and makes no sense. I note how some Protestants accept it, citing C. S. Lewis. Lutherans pray for the dead. But for Calvinists and other Protestants, it’s a big no-no.

So I show what some famous historic Protestant commentators do with this. They had to either deny that Onesipherous was dead, or that Paul was praying. If they denied that he was dead, then they admitted that Paul prayed. If they thought he was dead, then they would play games with Paul’s prayer, saying it was a “wish” or a “pious wish.” This is what is called eisegesis, or reading into Scripture.

Another great favorite of mine is 1 Corinthians 15:29, that refers to “being baptized on behalf of the dead.” I call it “the most ‘un-Protestant’ verse in the Bible.” Protestant commentators literally have no clue what to do with this, and it’s fairly mysterious for Catholics, too. I offer an interpretation that St. Francis de Sales gave, where he argued that “baptism” here was used metaphorically, in the sense of affliction and penance on behalf of others (“baptism of fire,” etc.). He thinks the passage is referring to praying and fasting and doing penance for the dead, since there seems to be a close connection of this passage to 2 Maccabees 12:44: “it is superfluous and vain to pray for the dead if the dead rise not again.”

Very “Catholic” stuff!

Tell us a little about a couple of your other books that our listeners could find useful for helping them in their faith.

A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (my first book, written in 1996) is probably my most well-known. It is the most “catechetical” of my books, but it’s still apologetics. The One-Minute Apologist is sort of a shorter, capsulized version of the same thing: biblical support for Catholic doctrines. Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths simply collects Scripture passages on many distinctive aspects of the Catholic faith. It’s sort of a Catholic version of Nave’s Topical Bible: a reference source I have used for years. I have 35 books in all, on all the major aspects of Catholic theology and apologetics. If you go to my blog, on the very top of the sidebar is an icon link to my main books page, that has all my books and direct links to various ways to buy them: Amazon Kindle, pdf, ePub, Nook Book, iTunes, and paperback.

What are you working on now?

I’m doing two more quotations books: The Quotable Summa Theologica and The Quotable Aquinas. I’m enjoying it very much! This is sort of a second specialty of mine now: quotations books. I’ve also done collections of John Wesley, Chesterton, the Church fathers, St. Augustine, and great historic apologists. These are easy because it’s mostly cut-and-paste rather than typing.

Your website is massive; what can listeners find on your site?

It has over 50 separate web pages, and nearly 2,500 posts. I deal with all the major areas of Catholic theology, have pages about C. S. Lewis, Chesterton, Newman, ethical and life issues, conversion, romantic and imaginative theology, anti-Catholicism; Calvinism and Lutheranism, Luther and Calvin, philosophy, science, apologetic techniques and methods, atheism; you name it! I’ve been working continuously on these writings since I started a website in February 1997 and have been a full-time apologist and author for over 11 years now, so I need to sell books to make a living!

I also have Facebook and Twitter pages.

* * * * *

Books by Dave Armstrong: “Biblical Evidence for the Communion of Saints”

February 11, 2012 By Dave Armstrong

[completed and published at Lulu on 11 February 2012: 152 pages]

***

[cover design by Dave and Judy Armstrong; photograph by Alenka Rebernik; used with permission]

***

— to purchase go to the bottom of the page —

***

TABLE OF CONTENTS

***
[linked excerpts are not absolutely identical with the final product]

Dedication (p. 3)

Introduction (p. 5)

The Communion of Saints and Invocation and Intercession of the Saints

***

1. Reply to Objections to the Catholic Conception of the Communion of Saints (p.11)

2. Samuel the Prophet Appearing to Saul as an Argument for the Communion of Saints (p.19)

3. Biblical Data Regarding Communication from God and Ghosts in Dreams (p. 25)

4. Invocation of the Saints: Essentially Different from Magic and Necromancy (p. 37) [read portion] [read complete translation in Spanish]

5. Biblical Indications of Invocation of Angels for Intercessory Purposes (p. 47)

Veneration of Saints and Angels

***

6. Biblical Evidence for the Veneration of Saints and Imitation of Holy Persons as Models (p. 57)

7. Explicit Biblical Evidence for the Veneration of Angels and Men as Direct Representatives of God (p. 63)

8. Analogical Biblical Argument for Veneration of Saints and Angels from the Disapproval of Blasphemy of the Same (p. 69) [read online]

Images, Alleged Idolatry, “Controversial” Devotional Practices, and Relics

***

9. Exposition on the Veneration of Images, Iconoclasm, and Idolatry (p. 75)

10. Biblical Evidence for Praying to and Worshiping God While Bowing or Kneeling Before a Statue of a Creature Made by Human Hands (p. 83)

11. Biblical Examples of Worship of God via an Image (Pillar of Cloud, Burning Bush) (p. 89)

12. The Bronze Serpent as an Illustration of the Proper and Improper (Idolatrous) Use of Images (p. 91)

13. The Biblical Rationale for Crucifixes (p. 95)

14. Biblical Reflections on the Sacred Heart and Immaculate Heart Devotions (p. 101)

15. Biblical Evidence for Relics (p. 107)

Purgatory and Prayer for the Dead

***

16. A Fictional Dialogue on Purgatory (p. 113)

17. Biblical Indications of Purgatory in Matthew 5, Romans 8, and 1 Corinthians 3 (p. 117) [read portion]

18. Onesiphorus: the Dead Man that St. Paul Prayed for (p. 127)

19. 1 Corinthians 15:29 and “Baptism for the Dead”: What Does it Mean? (p. 131)

Penance and Mortification

***

20. A Biblical Defense of Penance as Analogous to Prayer and Grace (p.135)

21. Biblical Support for Physical, Penitential Mortification (p. 141)

INTRODUCTION

***

This volume consists entirely of papers, essays, and dialogues originally posted on my website and blog (both named Biblical Evidence for Catholicism): written between 1995 and 2011. These have been edited, revised, and combined in various ways, in order to clarify the thoughts, eliminate any repetition, and maximize the impact of the arguments.

Most of the queries that I originally responded to came from our Protestant brethren in Christ. These occurrences afforded me the opportunity to defend and clarify what Catholics believe with regard to the communion of saints, why we do, and to demonstrate that Catholic beliefs are in harmony with both Holy Scripture and the beliefs of the early Church.

I have written extensively on the biblical basis of the Catholic understanding of the communion of saints, purgatory, and penance in my books published by Sophia Institute Press: A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (pp. 101-165), The Catholic Verses (pp. 127-179), The One-Minute Apologist (various chapters), and Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths (pp. 239-252; 353-379).

This work might, therefore, be considered a supplemental or complementary treatment of various specifics of the overall topic, though many aspects previously dealt with in my other books will be presently touched upon, and this book has enough “new” subject matter to stand on its own right, apart from the others. The relationship of the Bible and Catholic doctrine is the greatest single emphasis of my own apologetic endeavors.

It is my sincere hope and prayer that my own ruminations along these lines may be of some benefit to others, and both edifying and educational.

***

Purchase Options

***

[PAPERBACK: List: $19.95] [KINDLE: 2.99] [NOOK: 2.99] [APPLE BOOKS: 2.99] [KOBO: 2.99] [LOGOS BIBLE SOFTWARE / FAITHLIFE: ONE OF NINE BOOKS] [ePUB: 2.99]

***

Last updated on 25 September 2020

***

Saints, Purgatory, & Penance (Index Page)

November 9, 2006 By Dave Armstrong

(February 2012, 152 pages)

[see full book and purchase information]

*****

COMMUNION OF SAINTS: GENERAL

Classic Reflections on the Communion of Saints [2-17-91; revised and expanded: 12-14-93]

The Cloud of Witnesses [cartoon tract; art by Dan Grajek, early 90s]
*

Communion of Saints: Biblical Introduction & Overview [1995; published in The Catholic Answer (Nov / Dec 1998)]

The Communion of Saints: All Who Are In Christ [2-17-91; rev. Dec. 1993 and May 1996]

Dialogues on Objections to the Communion of Saints [1996]

“Witnesses” of Hebrews 12:1 (Communion of Saints) [1998]

Saints Are Closely Observing Us (“Cloud of Witnesses”) [2004]

Bible and Catholicism on Ghosts and Messages from God in Dreams [2-7-06]

Interview on Catholic Answers Live: “Communion of Saints: A Cloud of Witnesses” (hear audio file: see #10) (6-26-06)

Reply to James White on Communion of Saints [6-20-07]

Samuel Appearing to Saul: Argument for Communion of Saints? [7-1-07]

Communion of Saints, Scripture, & Anti-Catholic Doug Mabry (With Emphasis Particularly on the Saul and [Dead] Samuel Incident) [7-8-07]

“Soul Sleep”: A Thorough Biblical Refutation [11-28-07]

Dialogue w a Protestant on Communion of Saints [3-19-11]

Books by Dave Armstrong: Biblical Evidence for the Communion of Saints [2012]

Treatise on Communion of Saints (Anthony Zarrella) [6-9-16]

Heaven-Earth Communication in Book of Revelation: James White Contradicts Explicit Biblical Teaching on the Communion of Saints Yet Again! [9-2-18]
*

C. S. Lewis & the Invocation & Communion of Saints [10-10-19]

Bible On Angels & The Communion Of Saints (Ch. 12 of my book, Bible Truths for Catholic Truths: A Source Book for Apologists and Inquirers) [12-11-23]

Vs. Turretin #1: Communion Of Saints 1 (Preliminaries) [12-21-23]

***

The Communion of Saints in Holy Scripture [Adrian Combe]

COMMUNION OF SAINTS: INVOCATION AND INTERCESSION OF SAINTS AND ANGELS

“Witnesses” of Hebrews 12:1 (Communion of Saints) [1998]

Intercession of the Saints in Heaven on Our Behalf [2004]

“The Prayer of a Righteous Man Availeth Much” (James 5:16: KJV): What Does It Mean? Dialogue with a Lutheran (vs. Stuart Floyd) [6-8-05]

Dialogue: Are Dead Saints Playing Harps or Interceding? [2-15-06]

Dead Saints: Playing Harps on Clouds or Interceding? [12-29-06]

Dialogue w “Bible Christian” on “Praying to Dead Saints” [3-1-07]

Does God Forbid All Contact with the Dead? [6-23-07]

Communion of Saints, Scripture, & Anti-Catholic Doug Mabry (With Emphasis Particularly on the Saul and [Dead] Samuel Incident) [7-8-07]

Praying to Saints: Brief Exchange with Sincere Inquirer [5-27-08]

Bible on Invocation of Angels & Saved Human Beings [6-10-08]

“One Mediator” (1 Tim 2:5) vs. All Human Mediation? [10-14-08]

Invocation of the Saints = Necromancy? [10-18-08]

Invocation of Saints & the Bible: Dialogue [2-14-10]

“Why pray to a saint rather than to God?” [4-1-10]

People Extend God’s Comfort & Peace (Communion of Saints) [Sep. 2010]

Biblical Evidence for Prayers of the Righteous Having More Power [3-23-11]

Luther’s Early Belief in Invocation of the Saints [10-4-11]

Intercession & Invocation of Saints & Angels (vs. Calvin) [Oct. 2012]

Does Invoking Mary at Death Ignore Jesus? [9-22-13]

Bible on Asking Dead Men to Intercede (Luke 16) [7-8-14]

Dialogue with an Anglican on “Praying to Mary,” Patron Saints, Etc. (vs. Dr. Lydia McGrew) [11-10-14]
*

Praying to Angels & Angelic Intercession [2015]

Asking Saints to Intercede: Teaching of Jesus [2015]

Why Pray to Saints Rather than God? [9-4-15]

Reply to a Lutheran Pastor on Invocation of Saints [12-1-15]

John Calvin Did Not Pray to Philip Melanchthon [9-19-09; revised with retraction, 5-3-16]

Dialogue on Praying to Abraham (Luke 16) [5-22-16]

Prayer to Saints: “New” [?] Biblical Argument [5-23-16]

Treatise on Communion of Saints (Anthony Zarrella) [6-9-16]

Must Catholics Pray to Saints or be Excommunicated? [12-2-16]

Why Would Anyone Pray to Saints Rather Than to God? [National Catholic Register, 1-8-17]

Invocation & Intercession of Saints & Angels: Bible Proof [10-22-16 and 1-9-17]

“Armstrong vs. Geisler” #5: Prayer to Creatures [2-20-17]

Dialogue: Rich Man’s Prayer to Abraham (Luke 16) and the Invocation of Saints (vs. Lutheran Pastor Ken Howes) [5-3-17]

Dialogue on Samuel Appearing to Saul (Witch of Endor) [5-6-17]

Dialogue on Prayer to the Saints and Hades / Sheol [12-19-17]

Prayers to Saints & for the Dead: Six Biblical Proofs [6-8-18]

4 Biblical Proofs for Prayers to Saints and for the Dead [National Catholic Register, 6-16-18]

Angelic Intercession is Totally Biblical [National Catholic Register, 7-1-18]

Why the Bible Says the Prayers of Holy People Are More Powerful [National Catholic Register, 3-19-19]

C. S. Lewis & the Invocation & Communion of Saints [10-10-19]

Vs. James White #13: Jesus Taught Invocation of Saints (And by James White’s “Reasoning,” Jesus Couldn’t be God and was a Blaspheming False Teacher) [11-16-19]

The Saints in Heaven are Quite Aware of Events on Earth (featuring a defense of patron saints) [National Catholic Register, 3-21-20]

Invocation of Saints and Angels (Luke 16 [Lazarus & the Rich Man & Abraham] is One of the Most Unanswerable Arguments in Catholic Apologetics) (vs. Jason Engwer) [5-26-20]

Invocation of Saints: Jesus Allegedly “Calling on Elijah” (vs. Jason Engwer) [6-8-20]

Prayer to Abraham and Dead People in Scripture [National Catholic Register, 6-20-20]

What Christ’s Words on the Cross Tell Us About Elijah and the Saints [National Catholic Register, 8-2-20]

Can Mary Hear “Simultaneous” Prayers of Millions? (vs. Matt Slick) [9-30-20]

Prayer to Creatures Proven from Holy Scripture (vs. Matt Slick) [10-1-20]

How Can a Saint Hear the Prayers of Millions at Once? [National Catholic Register, 10-7-20]

Jason Engwer, Origen, & Intercession of Saints [10-16-20]

Origen and the Intercession of Saints [National Catholic Register, 11-19-20]

Dialogue: Prayer For & To the Dead (w Dr. Lydia McGrew) [2-17-21]

Dialogue on Prayers to Saints & for the Dead [5-29-21]

Prayer to an Angel: An Explicit Biblical Example [11-21-21]

Reply to Jordan Cooper: Invocation of Saints [4-27-22]

Reply to Gavin Ortlund on Praying to the Saints (Including a Reply Regarding the [Blasphemous?] “Excesses of Marian Prayers” from the Protestant Point of View) [5-15-22]

Why Do We Ask Mary to Pray for Us? [National Catholic Register, 5-24-22]

Seven Replies Re Interceding Saints (vs. Lucas Banzoli) [5-25-22]

Answer to Banzoli’s “Challenge” Re Intercession of Saints [9-20-22]

Nutshell Systematic Theology of the Efficacy & Biblical Nature of “Prayers of the Righteous” [Facebook, 9-20-22]

Bible on Praying Straight to God (vs. Lucas Banzoli) [9-21-22]

Reply to Banzoli’s “Analyzing the ‘evidence’ of saints’ intercession” [9-22-22]

Reply to Banzoli’s “Questions for Catholics About Prayer…” [9-23-22]

5 Replies to Questions About Catholic (and Biblical) Prayer [National Catholic Register, 11-30-22]

Dead Saints Interceding (vs. Lucas Banzoli): Including a Back-and-Forth Discussion on Banzoli’s Tragic Denial of the Deity of Christ [2-8-23]

Bible & the Intercession of Saints (vs. Lucas Banzoli) [2-8-23]

John Calvin in Effect Regards Jesus’ Teaching on Prayer to Abraham as “Novel and Impure” [Facebook, 3-8-23]

Do Petitions to Departed Saints Offend God? [3-20-23]

Jason Engwer vs. the Biblical Case for Invoking Saints [4-22-23]

Invocation of Saints: Jason Engwer Still Out to Sea [7-19-23]

Jesus: Okay to Request Abraham’s Intercession [9-25-23]

Vs. J. Oliveira #3: Mediating Saints [9-28-23]

Vs. J. Oliveira #5: Talking to Dead Saints [10-3-23]

Defense of My NCR Article, “4 Biblical Proofs for Prayers to Saints and for the Dead” [Facebook, 10-7-23]

What Are Saints & Angels in Heaven Doing with Our “Prayers”? [Catholic365, 11-26-23]

Are Saints in Heaven Ignorant and Passive or Extremely Knowledgeable and Active in Charity and Prayer? [Facebook, 12-22-23]

Vs. Turretin #3: Communion Of Saints 3 (Intercession) [12-23-23]

Vs. Turretin #4: Communion Of Saints 4 (Invocation) [12-26-23]

Invoking Saints and Angels: A Nutshell Biblical Proof [Facebook, 12-26-23]

Vs. Turretin #7: Intercession & Veneration Of Angels [12-29-23]

Lutherans & Invocation #1 (Intro) [1-11-24]

Lutherans & Invocation #2 (Definitions of Prayer & Intercession; God Sharing His Glory; Views of St. Augustine & Many Other Church Fathers) [1-11-24]

Lutherans & Invocation #3 (Necromancy; Can Saints Hear Us?) [1-12-24]

Invocation Of Saints: 20 Biblical Proofs [1-15-24]
*

Lutherans & Invocation #4 (Revelation; Luke 16) [1-17-24]

Nutshell Biblical Intercession Of The Saints & Angels [1-17-24]
*

Here’s What the Bible Says About Asking Saints to Pray For Us [National Catholic Register, 1-22-24]
*

Origen & Interceding Saints & Angels (vs. Gavin Ortlund) [3-13-24]

Is All Prayer Necessarily Worship? (vs. Jordan Cooper): Including the Non-Worship Biblical Usage of “I Pray You” (RSV) / “I Pray Thee” (KJV) [3-20-24]

Saints Can Hear “Millions” Of Prayers? (Vs. Jordan Cooper): Including a Summary of the Extraordinary, Unfathomable Characteristics of Redeemed Human Beings in Heaven [3-20-24]

Bible & Invocation of Saints (vs. Jordan Cooper): 12-Point Summary + Biblical Evidence for the Treasury of Merit and Redemptive Suffering [3-22-24]
*

COMMUNION OF SAINTS: VENERATION OF SAINTS AND ANGELS

Is Mary Worshiped by Catholics? [3-8-99]

The Imitation of St. Paul & the Veneration of Saints [2004]

Veneration of Saints and Its Doctrinal Development: Dialogue with an Inquiring Baptist [12-1-08]

Bible: God Shares Glory with His Creatures [1-3-10]

Blasphemy Against Creatures & Things (Not Just Against God: A Biblical Exposition) [11-30-11]

Bible on Veneration of Saints & Angels: John Calvin’s Antipathy to Veneration of Saints and Angels vs. Explicit Biblical Evidences of Same [10-1-12]

Biblical Evidence for Veneration of Saints [2013]
*

Veneration of Saints: God “In” and “Through” St. Paul [5-7-13; slightly expanded on 5-17-21]
*
Veneration of & Bowing Before an Angel (Joshua 5:13-15) [9-7-13]

Venerating & Bowing Before Angels & Men: Biblical? [11-10-14]
*

Martin Luther’s Espousal of the Veneration of Saints [11-11-14]

*
New (?) Analogical Biblical Argument for Veneration of the Saints and Angels from the Prohibition of Blasphemy of the Same [8-8-15]
*

Bible on the Veneration of Angels & Men [9-10-15]

“Armstrong vs. Geisler” #8: Veneration; Bowing to Creatures [3-2-17]
*

The Veneration of Angels and Men is Biblical [National Catholic Register, 8-24-17]
*

Biblical Evidence for Veneration of Saints and Images [National Catholic Register, 10-23-18]
*

Veneration of Human Beings: Seven Biblical Examples (Apostles Paul and Silas, Kings David and Saul, Prophets Daniel and Samuel, Patriarch Joseph) [3-4-19]

Angel Gabriel’s “Hail” (Lk 1:28): Veneration of Mary? [3-8-19]

Imitating Paul & Saints: Biblical Argument for Veneration [10-29-21]

Elizabeth’s Veneration of God-Blessed Mary [12-2-21]

Bible on Imitating Saints (vs. T.F. Kauffman) [7-17-23]
*

Vs. J. Oliveira #2: Is Veneration Worship? [9-28-23]
*

True ‘Bible Christians’ Imitate and Venerate the Saints [National Catholic Register, 10-25-23]

Vs. Turretin #2: Communion Of Saints 2 (Veneration) [12-22-23]

Vs. Turretin #7: Intercession & Veneration Of Angels [12-29-23]

COMMUNION OF SAINTS: VENERATION OF ICONS AND IMAGES (INCLUDING OF GOD) / STATUES / HOLY OBJECTS / HOLY DAYS

Early Protestant Antipathy Towards Art (+ Iconoclasm) [1991]

Veneration of Images, Iconoclasm, and Idolatry (An Exposition) [11-15-02]

Dialogue: Is the Mass Similar to Jeroboam’s Idolatry? [8-7-04]

Ten Commandments: Changed by Catholics to Uphold Idolatry? [9-4-04]

“Catholicism Refuted” (?): “Father” / Purgatory / Statues / Confession (Pt. III) [12-11-04]
*

Bible on Holy Places & Things [1-8-08]

Martin Luther on Crucifixes, Images and Statues of Saints, and the Sign of the Cross [4-15-08]

Bible on Candles, Incense, & Symbolism for Prayer [2-16-09]

Dialogue on Sacramentalism, Holy Objects, and Relics [2-26-09]

Bible on Physical Objects as Aids in Worship [4-7-09]

Calvin, Zwingli, and Bullinger vs. Statues of Christ, Crucifixes, & Crosses [9-19-09]

Biblical Evidences and Arguments Regarding Holy Days [9-21-09]
*

Crucifixes: Abominable Idols or Devotional Aids? [11-10-09]

Eucharistic Adoration: Idolatry or Biblical? (vs. Calvin #47) [12-2-09]

Tonsure, Holy Oil, and “Judaizing”? (vs. Calvin #54) [12-22-09]
*

4th Century Icons of St. Peter and St. Paul Found in Rome [6-23-10; Facebook]

Christmas Trees as Idols?: Silly So-Called “Arguments” from Holy Scripture [12-12-10]

Biblical Evidence for Worship of God Via an Image [6-24-11]

Bible On God’s Special Presence Prior to the Incarnation [2011]

Blasphemy Against Creatures & Things: Not Just Against God: A Biblical Exposition [11-30-11]

Lutheran Philosopher Gottfried Leibniz on Non-Idolatrous Veneration and Pious, Devotional Use of Images [Facebook, 1-23-12]

The Bronze Serpent: Example of Proper Use of Images [Feb. 2012]

“Graven Images”: Unbiblical Iconoclasm (vs. John Calvin) [Oct. 2012]

Biblical Idolatry: Authentic & Counterfeit Conceptions [2015]

Should God the Father be Visually Depicted in Paintings? [2015]

Worshiping God Through Images is Entirely Biblical [National Catholic Register, 12-23-16]
*

The Biblical Understanding of Holy Places and Things [National Catholic Register, 4-11-17]
*

How Protestant Nativity Scenes Proclaim Catholic Doctrine [12-15-13; expanded for publication at National Catholic Register: 12-17-17]

Dialogue on Worship of God Via Natural Images (vs. Jim Drickamer) [1-16-17]

Newsflash!: Catholicism Utterly Opposes Idolatry, Too [1-18-17]

“Armstrong vs. Geisler” #9: Images & Relics [3-2-17]

Statues in Relation to Bowing, Prayer, & Worship in Scripture [12-26-17]
*

Biblical Evidence for Veneration of Saints and Images [National Catholic Register, 10-23-18]
*

Debate on JW Antipathy to Holy Days & Christmas [12-21-18]
*

Unbiblical Antipathy to Holy Water (vs. Calvin #29) [1-24-19]

Eucharistic Adoration: Explicit & Undeniable Biblical Analogies [2-1-19]

Dialogue: “Pachamama” (?) Statues & Marian Iconography [12-24-19]

Crucifixes: Devotional Aids or Wicked Idols? [National Catholic Register, 1-15-20]
*

Crucifixes & Worship Images: “New” (?) Biblical Arguments [1-18-20]
*

Was Moses’ Bronze Serpent an Idolatrous “Graven Image?” [National Catholic Register, 2-17-20]

St. Newman vs. Inconsistent Protestant Iconoclasts [3-21-20]

“Turretinfan” Calls a Statue of Jesus Christ an “Idol” (While His Buddy Bishop James White Praises the Statues of “Reformers” Calvin, Farel, Beza, and Knox) [6-8-10; rev. 6-24-20]

Is Worship of God Through an Image Biblical? (vs. Luke Wayne) [11-10-20]

Golden Calf & Cherubim: Biblical Contradiction? (vs. Dr. Steven DiMattei) [11-23-20]

Christmas: Theological (Reformed / Calvinist) Opposition . . . With My Biblical and Historical Refutations [12-16-20]

Golden Calf Idolatry vs. Carved Cherubim on Ark of the Covenant [National Catholic Register, 1-7-21]

Reply to Baptist Gavin Ortlund’s Critique of Icons [5-19-22]

St. Augustine, St. Basil the Great, & Veneration of Images (+ St. Augustine’s Enthusiastic Advocacy of Relics) [8-3-22]

Exchange with Brazilian Calvinist and sophist Pedro França Gaião, who is obsessed with the topic of images. He refused my repeated invitations to debate the issue from the Bible, and engaged in obfuscation and slander [Facebook, 8-3-22]

Biblical Defense of Images and Icons (vs. Matt Hedges) [8-3-22]

John Calvin Didn’t Oppose All Religious Images [4-10-23]

Is All Bowing Before Images “Idolatry”? (vs. T.F. Kauffman) [7-14-23]

Debate on Religious Images (vs. Eric Svendsen) [9-20-23]
*

Vs. Turretin #6: Communion Of Saints 6 (Images) [12-27-23]

COMMUNION OF SAINTS: RELICS

Biblical Evidence and Reasoned Arguments for Relics [2004]

Are Relics & Sacraments Mere Magical Charms? [2007]

Relics: Debate with a Baptist Pastor [6-3-08]

Dialogue on Sacramentalism, Holy Objects, and Relics [2-26-09]

Relics: A Collection of Explicit Biblical Proofs & Evidences [2009]
*

My Wedding Ring: Third-Class Relic (+ Examination of Fine Distinctions of Relic Classes) [9-16-15] [+ Facebook discussion: 4 November 2014; my ring touched 100 holy items in the Holy Land]

“Armstrong vs. Geisler” #9: Images & Relics [3-2-17]

Veneration of Relics: A Short Catholic Apologia [5-17-17]
*

Biblical Proofs and Evidence for Relics [National Catholic Register, 3-13-20]
*

Reply to Gavin Ortlund’s “Relics: A Protestant Critique” [5-12-22]

Reply #2 to Gavin Ortlund on Purgatory [5-14-22]

Relics Are a Biblical Concept — Here Are Some Examples [National Catholic Register, 5-31-22]

Biblical Evidence for Relics (vs. Lucas Banzoli) [6-10-22]

St. Augustine, St. Basil the Great, & Veneration of Images (+ St. Augustine’s Enthusiastic Advocacy of Relics) [8-3-22]

God Commanded Veneration of Second-Class Relics from He Himself [Facebook, 12-26-23]
*

Jesus and Relics: a “New” Biblical Argument [Facebook, 12-26-23]
*

Vs. Turretin #5: Communion Of Saints 5 (Relics) [12-27-23]

PURGATORY AND SHEOL (HADES)

Classic Catholic Reflections on Purgatory [1994]

Fictional Dialogue on Purgatory [1995]

25 Bible Passages on Purgatory [1996]

Purgatory: . . . Saved, But Only As Through Fire [4-21-94; rev. May 1996]

Purgatory: A Short Exposition [5-9-02]

A Biblical Argument for Purgatory (Matthew 5:25-26) [10-13-04]

“Catholicism Refuted” (?): “Father” / Purgatory / Statues / Confession (Pt. III) [12-11-04]

Is Purgatory a “Place” or a “Condition”?: Misconceptions From [Eastern Orthodox] Fr. Ambrose About My Opinion (and the Church’s View) / Also: Development and Alleged Historical Revisionism [7-24-05]

Dialogue with Lutherans on Jesus’ Descent Into “Hell” [2-1-07]

Purgatory: Refutation of James White (1 Corinthians 3:10-15) [3-3-07]

Has Limbo Been Relegated to Limbo? [12-28-07]

Luther Believed in Soul Sleep; Thus He Rejected Purgatory [2-9-08]

Dialogue on Sheol / Hades (Limbo of the Fathers) and Luke 16 (the Rich Man and Lazarus) with a Baptist (vs. “Grubb”) [2-28-08]

Luther: Purgatory “Quite Plain” in 2 Maccabees [3-5-09]

Purgatory is the Waiting Room for Heaven [4-25-09]

Luke 23:43 (Thief on the Cross): “Paradise” = Sheol, Not Heaven, According to Many Reputable Protestant Scholars [5-25-09]

50 Bible Passages on Purgatory & Analogous Processes [2009]

John Wesley’s Belief in an Intermediate State After Death [7-13-09]

Purgatory: My Biblical Defense of its Doctrinal Development [9-20-11]

John Wesley’s View of Purgatory and Analogous Processes [2013]

Dialogue with an Evangelical on Purgatory [10-7-13]

Multiple Meanings of “Paradise” in Scripture [1-2-14]

Purgatory in One Verse (1 Corinthians 3:15) [Facebook, 1-29-14]

Catholic Mystics & Contemplatives on Purgatory [2014]

Martin Luther’s Belief in Purgatory (1517-1522, 1528) [11-17-14]

Dialogue w Calvinists on Prayer for the Dead & Purgatory [3-18-15]

Dialogue: Raising of Tabitha from the Dead & Purgatory [March 2015]

50 Biblical Indications That Purgatory is Real [National Catholic Register, 10-24-16]

“Armstrong vs. Geisler” #1: Purgatory (Mt 12:32) [2-17-17]

“Armstrong vs. Geisler” #2: Purgatory (Lk 23:43) [2-17-17]

Does Matthew 12:32 Suggest or Disprove Purgatory? [National Catholic Register, 2-26-17]

Did Jesus Descend to Hell, Sheol, or Paradise After His Death? [National Catholic Register, 4-17-17]

11 Descriptive and Clear Bible Passages About Purgatory [National Catholic Register, 5-7-17]

Purgatory: Exchange with a Presbyterian (Calvinist) [5-11-17]

Armstrong vs. Collins & Walls #7: Unbiblical / Non-Patristic Purgatory? [10-19-17]

Dialogue on Prayer to the Saints and Hades / Sheol [12-19-17]

Reflections on Interceding for the Lost Souls [National Catholic Register, 6-26-18]

C. S. Lewis Believed in Purgatory & Prayer for the Dead [6-22-10; rev. 10-8-19]

Does Time & Place Apply to Purgatory? (vs. James White) [11-6-19]

Luke 16 Doesn’t Describe Hell or Purgatory, But Hades [1-16-20]

Dialogue: Purgatory & 2 Maccabees 12:39-45 [11-8-20]

Purgatory in the Bible (vs. Calvin #60) [1-15-21]

Reply to Gavin Ortlund on Purgatory [5-12-22]

Vs. J. Oliveira #6: Bible & Purgatory [10-3-23]

Purgatory: Biblical Indications (chapter five [“Purgatory”] — pp. 239-252 — of my 2009 book, Bible Truths for Catholic Truths: A Source Book for Apologists and Inquirers) [10-18-23]

“New” Argument on How Protestant “Faith Alone” Helps Prove the Absolute Necessity of Purgation After Death [Facebook, 2-24-24]

Temporal Punishment Is Biblical (James White Was Wrong): + a “New” Argument on How Protestant “Faith Alone” Helps Prove the Absolute Necessity of Purgation After Death [2-26-24]

“The Day” (1 Cor 3:13) & Purgatory (Vs. James White) [2-27-24]

Jewish 1st Century Belief in Purgatory (Paul Hoffer) [9-20-11]

Raising of Tabitha: Proof of Purgatory (Tony Gerring) [3-20-15]

PRAYER AND PENANCE FOR THE DEAD

Baptiz ing the Dead? (Odd Verse 1 Corinthians 15:29) [6-5-02]

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

New (?) Biblical Argument: Prayers for the Dead [2004]

“Catholicism Refuted” (?): “Father” / Purgatory / Statues / Confession (Pt. III) [12-11-04]

Prayer for the Dead & Retroactive Prayer (Luther & Protestants) [3-22-05]

Does God Forbid All Contact with the Dead? [6-23-07]

John Wesley Believed in Prayer for the Dead [7-13-09]

Prayer for the Dead (vs. Calvin #57) [2012]

Fasting for the Dead in the Old Testament (Not Unlike Praying) [11-4-12]

Dialogue on Prayer for the Dead & the Bible [11-5-12]

Dialogue: Jesus, Peter, Elijah & Elisha Prayed for the Dead (+ a discussion on apologetics methodology and effectiveness) [6-9-13]

“Pray for the Dead Like Paul Did!” (mock Church billboard) [Facebook, 2-10-14]

Dialogue w Calvinists on Prayer for the Dead & Purgatory [3-18-15]

“Armstrong vs. Geisler” #4: Prayer for the Dead [2-20-17]

Prayers to Saints & for the Dead: Six Biblical Proofs [6-8-18]

4 Biblical Proofs for Prayers to Saints and for the Dead [National Catholic Register, 6-16-18]

Reflections on Interceding for the Lost Souls [National Catholic Register, 6-26-18]

Dialogue w Lutherans: “Proxy Baptism”? (1 Cor 15:29) [12-28-18]

C. S. Lewis Believed in Purgatory & Prayer for the Dead [6-22-10; rev. 10-8-19]

The Anglican Newman on Prayer for the Dead (1838): It was as well-attested in the early Church as the Canon of Scripture [10-11-19]

Jesus, Peter, Elijah and Elisha All Prayed for the Dead [National Catholic Register, 2-23-20]

Dialogue: Purgatory & 2 Maccabees 12:39-45 (vs. Luke Wayne) [11-8-20]

Dialogue: Acts 9:40 and Prayers for (not to) the Dead (vs. Luke Wayne) [11-11-20]

Dialogue: Prayer For & To the Dead (w Dr. Lydia McGrew) [2-17-21]

Dialogue on Prayers to Saints & for the Dead [5-29-21]

Prayer for the Dead: Brief Exchange with a Friendly Agnostic [Facebook, 3-9-23]

Prayers to and for the Dead (vs. Jason Engwer): Did Jesus & Peter Talk to Dead People Before They Rose from the Dead, and — Along with Elijah and Elisha — Pray for the Dead, or Only Ask Them to Move After They Were Raised? (+ Part 2) [3-13-23]

PRAYER FOR THE DEAD: ST. PAUL AND ONESIPHORUS

Paul Prayed for Dead Onesiphorus (Protestant Commentaries) [7-14-09]

Cardinal Newman on Onesiphorus and Prayer for the Dead [Facebook, 3-18-15]

St. Paul Prayed for a Dead Man: Onesiphorus [8-19-15]

St. Paul Prayed for Onesiphorus, Who Was Dead [National Catholic Register, 3-19-17]

Was Onesiphorus Dead When Paul Prayed for Him?: Data from 16 Protestant Commentaries (1992-2016) [3-20-17]

Paul & Dead Onesiphorus (vs. Steve Hays) [10-10-23]

SACRAMENT OF PENANCE: CONTRITION, CONFESSION, SATISFACTION, AND ABSOLUTION

Classic Catholic Reflections on Penance [1994]

Fictional Dialogue on Penance [1995]

Penance: . . . Share Christ’s Sufferings [4-21-94; rev. May 1996]

Karl Adam, G. K. Chesterton, and Karl Keating on Confession [5-27-04; Facebook]

“Catholicism Refuted” (?): “Father” / Purgatory / Statues / Confession (Pt. III) [12-11-04]

Reply to James White: Penance & Redemptive Suffering: His Critique of My Book, The Catholic Verses: Part VI [1-2-05]

Formal Human Forgiveness of Sins in the Bible [6-10-07]

Vulgate’s “Do Penance”: Exchange w Reformed Protestants [2-2-08]

Martin Luther on Absolution & Private Confession [4-14-08]

Examination of Conscience: Biblical (Pauline) Evidence [7-14-08]

St. Mary Magdalene: Former Prostitute? [7-22-09]

Sacrament of Penance: Man-Made Tradition? (vs. Calvin #51) [12-21-09]
*

Temporal Punishment After Forgiveness: Catholicism (vs. John Calvin) [10-18-12]

The Bible on Confession & Absolution [2013]

Bible: Men & Angels Forgive Sins as Representatives of God [7-18-14]

Confession and Absolution Are Biblical [National Catholic Register, 7-31-17]
*

Absolution, Sanctification, & Forgiveness: Reply to Calvin #7 [12-19-18]
*

C. S. Lewis Practiced Confession to an Anglican Priest [10-7-19]

Weekly Mass Attenders Can Still End Up in Hell? Yes! (Attending Mass — Even for an Entire Lifetime — Doesn’t Excuse Us from the Moral Requirements of Christianity, Including Confession of Sin [1-24-20]

John 20:22-23 & Formal Absolution (vs. Steve Hays) [5-12-20]

No Confession to Men in the Bible? Seriously? Read On . . . [11-19-21]

Biblical Catholic Confession & Absolution (vs. Lucas Banzoli) (+ The Church Fathers on Auricular Confession to a Priest) [2-23-23]

John Calvin Sanctions Something Not Unlike Catholic Confession to Priests and Absolution [Facebook, 3-7-23]
*

Caricatures of Catholic Confession (vs. Calvin #63): Calvin Claims That the Catholic Church Requires Formal Confession of Every Venial Sin (!) [3-9-23]

Juan Oliveiro Foolishly Tries to Pit Jesus Against Penance [10-5-23]
*

Vs. J. Oliveira #10: Confession [10-6-23]

Temporal Punishment Is Biblical (James White Was Wrong): + a “New” Argument on How Protestant “Faith Alone” Helps Prove the Absolute Necessity of Purgation After Death [2-26-24]

INDULGENCES

Classic Catholic Reflections on Indulgences [1994]

Biblical Evidence for Indulgences [1996]

Indulgences & Distribution of Grace (vs. Calvin #58) [2012]

Catholic Indulgences: History & Myths [8-6-16]

Myths and Facts Regarding Tetzel and Indulgences [11-25-16; published in Catholic Herald]

The Biblical Roots and History of Indulgences [National Catholic Register, 5-25-18]
*

Vs. James White #11: Biblical Evidence for Indulgences [11-15-19]

Indulgences: Luther’s View & The Catholic Encyclopedia [2-16-24]

MORTIFICATION, FASTING, ABSTINENCE, ASCETICISM, MONASTICISM, SUFFERING, & REDEMPTIVE SUFFERING

Bible on Suffering and Hope in the Midst of It [1981]

Monasticism Defended from Scripture and Reason [1997]

Reply to James White: Penance & Redemptive Suffering: His Critique of My Book, The Catholic Verses: Part VI [1-2-05]

“I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions” (Col 1:24) [3-15-06]

Evangelical Counsels & Monasticism (vs. Calvin #33) [9-22-09]

Biblical Evidence for Penitential Mortification [2-19-10]

Abstinence on Fridays & Meat: Doctrine or Discipline? [4-11-11]

Biblical Evidence for Lent & Practices of Asceticism [2-15-12]

Fasting for the Dead in the Old Testament (Not Unlike Praying) [11-4-12]

Great Catholic Mystics on the “Dark Night of the Soul” [2014]

Martin Luther on Suffering, Mortification, & Sanctity [2014]

Redemptive Suffering Offers Spiritual Benefit to Others [9-22-15]

“No Ritual Can Make One’s Heart Right with Jesus”. False! [2-12-16]

“Armstrong vs. Geisler” #3: Merit & Penitential Suffering [2-18-17]

Heads Up on the #Ashtag Controversy [3-6-17]

The devil’s antics in opposing Christians, and suffering in the Christian life [The Michigan Catholic, 3-24-17]

Suffering With Christ is a Biblical Teaching [National Catholic Register, 3-27-18]
*

John Calvin vs. the Bible and John the Baptist, with Regard to Abstinence from Wine [Facebook, 1-26-19]

The Bible Says Your Suffering Can Help Save Others [National Catholic Register, 1-31-19]
*

Bible on Bodily Mortification for the Sake of Others [2-26-19]
*

Bodily Mortification is Quite Scriptural [National Catholic Register, 2-28-19]
*

Secular Psychology vs. Scriptural Bodily Mortification [3-3-19]
*

More Biblical Support for Bodily Mortification [National Catholic Register, 3-5-19]
*

Divine Discipline for Our Ultimate Good (Bible Passages) [Facebook, 4-9-19]
*

Biblical Hope and Encouragement in Your Times of Suffering [National Catholic Register; abridged and edited from 1981 material: 4-22-19]

C. S. Lewis Believed in Vicarious, Redemptive Suffering [10-17-19]

Why God Loves Monasticism So Much [National Catholic Register, 3-5-20]
*

On Catholic Bodily Mortification & Penance: Reply to a Protestant who criticizes Catholics “crawling on their hands and knees across stone” [6-15-23]

Penance, Redemptive Suffering, & Atonement (Ch. 11 of my book, Bible Truths for Catholic Truths: A Source Book for Apologists and Inquirers) [12-10-23]
*

LENT

Lenten Meditation: NT Teaching on Suffering with Christ [1996]

Lenten Meditation: Suffering & Comfort (Psalms) [3-22-04]

Lent: Unbiblical & Irrational Antipathy (vs. Calvin #30) [9-15-09]

Abstinence on Fridays & Meat: Doctrine or Discipline? [4-11-11]

Biblical Evidence for Lent & Practices of Asceticism [2-15-12]

Martin Luther on Suffering, Mortification, & Sanctity [2014]

Should We Give Up Facebook for Lent or No? [Facebook, 3-1-17]
*

Where are Lenten Practices in the Bible? [National Catholic Register, 2-23-19]
*

John Calvin vs. Lent and the Bible [National Catholic Register, 2-20-21]

15 Times Martin Luther Sounded Surprisingly Catholic When Talking About Suffering [National Catholic Register, 2-25-21]

[for lengthy philosophical analyses of suffering and the problem of evil, see my Philosophy, Science, and Christianity web page; second section]

*****

Last updated on 22 March 2024

***