November 15, 2023

November 15, 2023 By
0 Comments

Chapter 2 (pp. 19-30) of my book, Reflections on Radical Catholic Reactionaries (December 2002; revised second edition: 17 August 2013; slightly revised again in December 2023 for the purpose of the free online version). Anyone who reads this book should first read the following three introductory articles, in order to fully understand the definitions and sociological categories I am employing:

Introduction (on the book page)

Definitions: Radical Catholic Reactionaries, Mainstream “Traditionalists,” and Supposed “Neo-Catholics” [revised 8-6-13]

Radical Catholic Reactionaries: What They Are Not [9-28-21]

If you’re still confused and unclear as to my meanings and intent after that, read one or more of these articles:

Rationales for My Self-Coined Term, “Radical Catholic Reactionaries” [8-6-13]

My Coined Term, “Radical Catholic Reactionary”: Clarifications [10-5-17]

Clarifying My Coined Term, “Radical Catholic Reactionary” [4-3-20]

This book is modeled after the method and structure of the French mathematician and Catholic apologist Blaise Pascal’s classic, Pensées (“thoughts”). Catholic apologist and philosopher Peter Kreeft described this masterpiece as “raw pearls” and “more like ‘sayings’ than a book . . . ‘Sayings’ reflect and approximate the higher, the mode of Christ and Socrates and Buddha. That’s why Socrates is the greatest philosopher, according to St. Thomas (S.T. III, 42, 4).”

I am not intending to compare myself or my own “thoughts” or their cogency or import in any way, shape, or form, to those of Pascal, let alone to Socrates or our Lord Jesus! I am merely utilizing the unconventional structure of the Pensées, which  harmonizes well, I believe, with the approach that I have taken with regard to the present subject. I have sought to analyze (minus proper names, a la Trent) the premises, presuppositions, logical and ecclesiological “bottom lines” and (in a word), the spirit of a false and divisive radical Catholic reactionary strain of thought held by a distinctive sociological sub-group of Catholics.

*****

  1. The orthodox, faithful, obedient Catholic outlook on the Church (even in the truly grave crisis it now endures — arguably the greatest ever) is far more sunny than that of radical Catholic reactionaries. Their incessant pessimism and cynicism often runs contrary to a robust faith and trust in God, and a working knowledge of past crises.
  1. The Catholic Church has not caved into modernism and immorality, as so many other Christian groups have done. We have resisted, with God’s supernatural help. The most recent battle for the Church is already over. Have reactionaries missed it? The liberal / modernist / dissident / “progressives” have lost, and they know it full well. If only reactionaries could realize this fact. We are like Europe after World War II. It would still take a while to rebuild, but it was inevitable, and the nightmare was over.
  1. In 1990, I was amazed at the preservation — in the Catholic Church alone — of the traditional morality that I had increasingly come to espouse as an evangelical Protestant missionary and pro-life activist. I viewed it as the very last bastion against modernism and the secular humanist onslaught, and the glorious fullness of apostolic Christianity. I was, therefore, compelled to join such a wonderful Church, the Church, and was delighted to discover that it actually existed (I had had the usual invisible church conception of evangelicalism, but I was far less a-historical than most). And now reactionaries come around and tell me that all this was an illusion. Nonsense! The beliefs have not changed! We call this development. Obviously, we are operating from two completely polarized views of reality, when it comes to the Church. Someone must be wrong.
  1. Clearly, the Church has (institutionally) resisted the tides of secularization. There have been many individual casualties, sadly, as always with these huge, momentous spiritual/cultural battles. Priests, bishops, nuns and monks, heretical lay activists, DRE’s (even popes) may indeed have to give account to God for their actions or inactions. But whatever the case may be, the dogmas and structure of the Church have survived intact.
  1. I believe we shall see a huge revival (perhaps the largest ever) in this century, which I will witness when I am an old man, some 20-30 years from now. We’ve seen every abomination and form of wickedness imaginable in the 20th century. This is the age of martyrs, even more so than the early centuries. That blood is not shed in vain (redemptive suffering). History shows us that — generally — the centuries following terrible ones are times of revival, reform, and rejuvenation in the Church. Revival is cyclical, and recurring. It has always been this way. The tide is turning. Signs are all around us. Converts abound, vocations are increasing, and younger priests are overwhelmingly orthodox. Catholic outreach and apologetics on the Internet is thriving. Catholic radio and TV and book publishing are finally rising from the ashes. The Catholic home schooling movement is flourishing. Catechesis is slowly improving. Things are far different even from twenty years ago. I didn’t know a thing about Catholic apologetics in the late 80s, apart from Chesterton, who was dead for over 50 years (and I was a Protestant lay apologist). Now one can hardly avoid it. This is almost a Golden Age of Catholic apologetics. Only a blind person could fail to see and rejoice over all these positive developments.
  1. One can see the wave of the future if they look closely enough. It will be a slow resuscitation (we’re talking in terms of centuries and ages), but it’s inevitable if the Lord doesn’t return soon, if for no other reason than the fact of God’s amazing mercy, and His Providence, whereby we know that “all things work together for good, for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose” (Romans 8:28). Therefore, we ought to always be optimistic and joyful, in love with God and His Church, the Holy Father, the Virgin Mary and the saints.
  1. Do reactionaries have their heads in the sand? Like the Pharisees of old (the legalists and hyper-reactionaries of that time), they fail to discern the “signs of the times” (Matthew 16:3). They will tell us how many liberals and heterodox Catholics are still around, and point to the scorched earth left in their wake. Well, so what? There were many liberals around during the Catholic Reformation and the Council of Trent, too. It so happened that most of them had left the Church, rather than remain in it (though, of course, many liberals are leaving the Church today). They were called Protestants. There were liberals during the Councils of Nicaea (Arians), and Ephesus (Nestorians), and Chalcedon (Monophysites), and Vatican I (Old Catholics).
  1. Times of great revival and reform can occur even while heterodox liberals and heretics remain a problem. God is not bound by our timetables, desperation and alarmism, limited perceptions, and conceptions of things. He simply ignores the liberals and goes about His business. They are merely pawns in His Grand Scheme, just as the Egyptians or Assyrians or Babylonians or Persians or Greeks or Romans or Nazis or Soviet Communists were (all immensely powerful in their heyday). They are not in the middle of the Divine Plan, as we orthodox Catholics are, because they do not seek to do His will. They have rebelled, and are therefore, “out of the picture.” That is why they are already irrelevant, and destined for obsolescence in the dustbin of history, like all other heresies and schismatic sects (where, for example, are the Marcionites or Albigensians these days?).
  1. The only Christians — besides Catholics — with any staying-power historically, and semblance of apostolic orthodoxy, are the Orthodox — precisely because they maintained apostolic succession and have valid sacraments. Apart from that, Christian or quasi-christian sects eventually go liberal (mainline Protestants) or disappear. It takes many decades or centuries, but it happens. They have life in them only insofar as they approximate, or draw from, the Catholic Church. Liberalism, too, will disappear as any sort of major influence, because it has no life in itself. It can’t reproduce itself because it is the counsel of despair and disbelief. The very next generation will largely reject it. These things are absolutely certain, and are seen in decreasing membership rolls of “mainline” denominations. The demise (the real “auto-demolition”) may take a while yet, but it will occur, because God is not mocked.
  1. Complaints, undue criticism, condemnation, disobedience, dissent, bickering, moaning and groaning, silly and self-important pontifications, whining, waxing eloquently cynical: that’s what we so often see in the reactionary movement. It’s extremely unseemly, unedifying, and unappealing.
  1. It is denied that the reactionary position is characterized by an attitude of pessimism and lack of faith. “Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks” (Matthew 12:34). One reads the sort of comments reactionaries habitually make, and one is more than justified in arriving at certain conclusions, if words mean anything at all. If individual proponents of these viewpoints happen to have a joyful heart, then they would do well to include some positive remarks in public also. How about an article once in a while like “What’s Good in the Church?”? A gloomy “quasi-defectibility” outlook is contrary to a truly Catholic faith in God’s guidance of His Church. Many reactionary writings do not convey this sort of hope and sunny optimism at all.
  1. The important thing among these “true believers” is for them to know what they are against. That is sufficient for inclusion into the club. “My enemy’s enemy is my friend.” The same dynamic also applies to anti-Catholics in all their various nefarious manifestations. Some fundamentalists are even willing to absurdly embrace the Albigensian Gnostics, in the attempt to claim a pedigree apart from the Catholic lineage.
  2. The alarmist reactionary rhetoric gets worse and worse, as with all conspiratorial schemes and theories trumped-up in order to explain things that people find themselves unable to comprehend or understand (therefore, they disobey and lose confidence in their ecclesiastical superiors). Like Job’s comforters, reactionaries fail to see that God is at work: though mysterious and inexplicable His ways may continue to be. A little reading of Church history (the bleak periods) might do wonders. Catholics take the long view of history; they are not bound up by the fads and peculiarities and zeitgeist of any particular time period. This is one of the glories of the Church; one of the things that so attracts converts to it.
  1. A certain harmful and deleterious “spirit of radical Catholic reactionaryism” runs contrary to the spirit of obedience to the pope and Church authority, and to a bright, optimistic, hopeful faith (which martyrs possess in the very worst of circumstances). The doom-and-gloom mentality, exclusivistic orientation, and tendency to resort to conspiratorial explanations for things one is unable to comprehend also typifies certain strains of political conservatism, and “fundamentalist” branches of Orthodoxy and Protestantism.
  1. How can it be that converts abound despite the reactionary Chicken Little scenarios about the current-day Church? Were all converts like myself dupes who should have stayed in the “conservative” denominations? I’m here in the Church because it taught against contraception, like all Christians did before 1930. The fact that many Catholics disbelieve the teaching was absolutely irrelevant with regard to my decision to convert. The doctrine was correct. The same applies to divorce and abortion. This is what attracted me to the Church, because moral laxity can be found anywhere (original sin). But true, traditional, unchanging Christian moral teaching is only found in its fullness in one place. That’s what I had been seeking for, for ten years as a serious Christian. I found it, and here I am, and quite glad to be here, and not at all constantly “troubled” like so many reactionaries seem to perpetually be. It must get very tiring. Converts have found the pearl of great price. Reactionaries seem to want to prove that the pearl is really a jagged, stinky lump of coal, or worse.
  1. Converts know that there are problems of liberalism in the Church. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that out. Liberals (like the poor) will always be with us. But only one Church has true doctrine in toto, true moral teaching, the most sublime spirituality, saints and miracles and all the rest, and the unbroken history to verify those. That is what brings converts in, because we are well acquainted with the doctrinal chaos and ecclesiological anarchy in Protestantism.
  1. Faith and perseverance must enter in, in such troubled times in the Church. We need to understand that Church history repeatedly shows this pattern; that even the early Church had tremendous scandal and hypocrisy, and — above all — that the Church is indefectible. That’s why the orthodox Catholic remains forever an optimist. We readily acknowledge that modernism is rampant; we deny that it can ever overthrow the Church. One must have faith. Reactionaries ought to read the book of Job. Tough times afflict the Church as well as the individual. It is to be expected. Why does that surprise reactionaries? Liberalism, heterodoxy, and unbelief are never surprising, but a Church that remains orthodox despite all is perpetually a delightful and heartening “surprise.” The glory of the Church (like that of the saints) is not that it has no problems, but that it always sees a way through the problems. It always conquers them. Heresy has no life of its own, so it always fails eventually, while the Church marches on (as in Chesterton’s marvelous reflections on “orthodoxy”). It does so because it is God’s own Church, and God cannot fail.
  1. The Church has always had problems. The Catholic must take a long view of history. Modernism will not be defeated in a day. But it will be defeated, and we see more and more signs of that every day.
  1. The liberal is ignorant of Church history, and re-makes the Church in his own image. Protestants often take precious little interest in Church history at all. Reactionaries forget (or never knew) that the Church has been through very dark periods on many occasions.
  1. Radical Catholic Reactionaryism is profoundly pessimistic, which is fitting for Buddhists, Hindus, or nihilists, but not Christians. So God has given up on His Church? Even our Lord Jesus had His Judas, and St. Paul had his Corinthian church. God saw fit to include in the ancestry of Jesus a harlot (Rahab) and a murderer and adulterer (David). There was no “golden era,” if by that one means a period without serious ecclesiastical problems. I think reactionaries continue to believe in original sin, and the world, the flesh, and the devil. The Church is to be reborn in the caves and backwaters of Pharisaical reactionary gatherings? I think not. The verdict of Church history lies with the institutional Church, and most assuredly against the quasi-schismatic tendency that characterizes reactionary thought and opinions.
  1. The liberals are dying out. We ought to just forget about them, just like Merlin did to Queen Mab in the Arthurian legend. They will be irrelevant in another fifty years at the most, just like the buffoons of the so-called “Enlightenment” and French Revolution and the Communists and Nazis are today. If God mocks the fools and despots of the world, how much more so in the Church? Modernism will go the way of all heresies. Reactionaries give it far too much credit and attention. It peaked in the mid-70s and has been dying a slow death ever since.
  1. It always takes a bit of faith and foresight to recognize the beginnings of a revival when it is occurring. That’s nothing new. So reactionaries can’t see it, because they are concentrating on all the bad things and problems that are in the Church. Problems of one sort or another have always been present; obviously they didn’t prevent past revivals from occurring.
  1. The modernist, heterodox, dissident strategy was and is absolutely predictable, and it indeed occurred. But the liberal theological influence is rapidly fading, and they (like aged and irrelevant dinosaur Marxists on every college campus) know it, even if many of the shaken faithful do not yet know this, due to the harmful fallout from many Catholic institutions, having endured the devastating effects of the senseless “experimentation” and mindless “innovations”. But the dissenters didn’t expect to reckon with such a powerful adversary as John Paul II! That was God’s counter-attack, and we praise Him for it!
  1. What we have seen is that the Catholic Church has heroically and magnificently upheld traditional doctrine and morals, while virtually every other Christian group has caved in, to one degree or another. This is a major reason why I am a Catholic today. The stand on contraception was the first thing that started me on the road to conversion, because I desired the moral theology of the early Church and the apostles, and looked around to see who had preserved it in its totality.
  1. The Orthodox may not have a “modernist crisis” as we do (in a certain liturgical or “surface” sense), but the reason for that is (arguably) because they didn’t have the cultural and theological foresight (nor even the ability, without councils and central authority) to confront modernism head on and defeat it. Consequently, they are compromising on contraception, whereas we have stayed true to the universal Christian prohibition of contraception prior to 1930. Protestants (even evangelicals) are caving in and compromising doctrinally and morally all over the place (the Anglicans provide a clear, quick example of that). We have, of course, many individuals who are compromising and selectively believing, but Church doctrine has remained inviolate, and that was the promise of Jesus to Peter, not that every believing Catholic would be fully orthodox and observant (which has never happened and never will). When one faces a great evil and a powerful opponent (as in any military conflict), one takes some casualties, and there is much hardship, but in the long run, it is a better thing to do than to hide from reality or pretend that no problems exist, and engage in a pipe-dream that cultural isolationism will suffice to overcome them.
  1. The Church is dealing with these problems now. Things take time. The pessimist always concentrates on present miseries, while the optimist, idealist, or person exercising faith look at the good things that will come in the future, as the present decadent cycle comes to a close and the new revival starts to gradually pick up momentum. We need only look back at Church history to see what is coming next (excepting Christ’s return, of course). If the Second Coming isn’t imminent, then it is almost certain that major revival will come in this century.
  1. The indefectibility of the Catholic Church and its divine protection from the Holy Spirit is our grounds (in faith) that things will get better, and are, in fact, not as bad as they seem in the first place (at the deepest, spiritual level). Joy rests on grounds other than circumstances. Joy comes from inner peace of the soul, by the grace of God, and a Christian can possess it even in a concentration camp, or with incurable cancer. The saints even truly embraced suffering with joy, as a privilege and honor and a way to help save souls. I am referring to the optimism of the eye of faith: the assurance that God knows what He is doing, and that history has a purpose: that all things are in His Providence, though He obviously doesn’t will all things in His perfect will. He allows bad things, and then uses them for His own purposes. The modernist crisis is no different than anything else; God uses it for His benevolent ends, and is not mocked. Doom-and-gloom and Chicken Little pessimism are contrary to faith and the true Catholic spirit.
  1. I suspect that a lot of the reactionary analysis of the crisis in the Church comes down to temperament. Some people are of a state of mind and emotional make-up that they are naturally pessimists. They may struggle with depression or find it difficult to be of good cheer, with regard to day-to-day life. They might be going through any number of things that are legitimately troubling. Sensitive souls will be harmed and troubled more by evil and “things gone wrong” than less sensitive types. We mustn’t pretend that temperaments and personality types have no effect on our worldviews. They certainly do. Nevertheless, I think there are real, objectively measured grounds for optimism with regard to the Church situation, other than simply a feel-good delusion based on mere temperamental factors and circumstances.
  1. If we were to talk to someone in the dark cultural days of the collapse of the Roman Empire, we could tell them (with our perfect hindsight), that God would build up a new and better civilization, which indeed happened (Christian Western Civilization), and that our citizenship is ultimately not of this world in the first place (as St. Augustine argued in his classic, City of God). Jesus said the same thing: “My kingdom is not of this world.” It’s not that these things pose no problem or inner conflict at all (I’m very troubled about the descent of America into a moral sewer and sound-asleep intellectual stupor), but that the Christian has a frame of reference that transcends them and offers ultimate hope. We are to work within our cultures to do what we can to transform and “baptize” them. That was the aim of Vatican II, but reactionaries ignore that by looking at historical events after it, rather than the content in it.
  1. My basis for thinking that the 21st century will bring revival, is seeing right now many good, real, and significant signs, and the fact that the 20th century was the absolute worst in history (at least in terms of murder and other sorts of human suffering due to despotism). Among many of those who died were Christian martyrs: more than at any other time, even in the early Church, and that is important to consider because “the blood of martyrs is the seed of the Church.” Their suffering will not have been in vain. When Christians suffer, it is for redeeming purposes. So I believe that all this suffering will bear fruit in a revival that we already see the beginnings of. God’s mercy is such that He will pour out more graces after such a brutal century. Many Marian apparitions (approved ones) proclaim this same message as well.
  1. Modernism / liberalism is already undone. The fatal blows have been struck. The implementation will take a little time (basically, people have to die off, like the wicked generation in the Exodus under Moses); that’s all.
  1. We’re in a bleak period, having taken the brunt of liberal nonsense and heterodoxy (teetering and dazed, but still afloat and very much alive). There have been many such periods. There were popes who went whoring around; there were horrible massacres in the Crusades, which we are still trying to live down. There was astonishing ignorance. The worst periods were always followed by glorious periods. The 10th century was followed by St. Dominic and St. Francis of Assisi and St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Catherine. The Borgia Renaissance popes and numerous clerical abuses of that time (partially leading to the Protestant Revolt) were followed by St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Ignatius Loyola, St. Francis de Sales, St. Teresa of Avila, and the glorious Catholic Reformation. I submit that reactionaries have a pronounced lack of understanding as to precedents for this sort of thing and how God brought His Church out of them, every time, without exception. Invariably, the best centuries follow the worst. So if that model holds, what is likely to happen in the 21st century? Have reactionaries learned nothing from previous Catholic history (or are they just unaware of it, prior to their own lifetime, as so many are)? It’s human nature to think that our own period is the worst ever (not to deny that, indeed, very terrible and troubling things have happened in our age).
  1. One reactionary with whom I was dialoguing believed that the Catholic Church “may not recover for a thousand years, or ten thousand” (from the crisis of modernism). This person (and anyone else who believes the same) lacks faith in God and His promises, and can’t see any of the good things that are right in front of him. Somehow reactionaries believe that this crisis will take 10,000 years rather than a hundred or two to resolve. Even the liberals aren’t that confident about their supposed “victory.” Quite the contrary! There is no question that this mentality is full of the bleakness of utter despair for the Church, and lacking much of a sense that God is in control. Why be a Catholic at all, with such a low view of the Church? I don’t get it. I would never have converted if I believed this. There would be no reason to. So the reactionary view turns out to be “counter-conversion” (just as the liberals offer no reason to convert to the Church — they don’t urge it at all). If there were no hope for any earthly church then I would have stayed in my little self-chosen denomination, believing that one is just as good as another.
  1. The belief that God can guide even a human institution that is at the same time “His” in a special way takes more faith than believing that He can produce an inerrant, inspired Scripture through sinful men, but we believe it because we believe in the Word made Flesh. In other words, God can transform even the human into something glorious. It all flows from the incarnation.
  1. We mustn’t condemn all “change” per se, without examining the merits and demerits of each change. It strikes me as simply a knee-jerk reactionary impulse: “change is bad.” What about “changes” like the Catechism and the wave of converts and the flourishing of apologetics, or the significant rise in vocations in various quarters, or EWTN, or the strong trend of orthodoxy of young seminarians? Do reactionaries like those changes, or must they always see only the negative (much of which is arguably not even “negative” in the first place)?
  1. Reactionary lamentations about the state of the Church are scandalous and highly imprudent. Even if some few of their analyses are correct, it is not right to air dirty laundry in public, just as it is highly inappropriate for a married couple to loudly argue about their personal problems in a public restaurant.
  1. The fabulous joy, hope, and overwhelming feeling of “coming home” which I — along with many converts — have experienced upon entering the Catholic Church, could not last a day if I were to adopt the pessimistic, “o woe is me” views that reactionaries manage to hold.

*
*****
*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-three 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!
*
***
*
Photo credit: GioeleFazzeri (3-6-21) [Pixabay / Pixabay Content License]
*
Summary: Chapter 2 (pp. 19-30) of my book, Reflections on Radical Catholic Reactionaries (December 2002; revised in December 2023 for the free online version).
October 31, 2023

October 31, 2023 By
0 Comments

vs. Nathan Rinne

Including St. Augustine’s View on the Rule of Faith & the Perspicuity of Scripture; Luther & Lutherans’ Belief in Falling Away

Nathan Rinne is a “Lutheran layman with a theology degree.” He knows enough theology to be able to preach a sermon (“Still Justified by Faith Alone, Apart from Works of the Law”), which he did at the Clam Falls Lutheran Church in Wisconsin on October 29, 2023, in celebration of the Protestant Revolt, or what Protestants call “Reformation Day” (October 31st, when Luther tacked up his 95 Theses in 1517). This congregation is a member of the American Association of Lutheran Churches (AALC), which is a breakaway traditional Lutheran denomination (since Lutheranism as a whole is largely theologically liberal today). It had 16,000 members as of 2008, and is in friendly fellowship with the much larger Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod (1.8 million members). Nathan and I engaged in several substantive and cordial dialogues about a dozen years ago. His words will be in blue. I use RSV for Bible citations.

*****

“For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.”

– Romans 3:28

The phrase “works of the law” here (a technical phrase that St. Paul uses seven times) is not referring to all good works whatsoever (which is what most think it means), but rather, certain ceremonial Jewish laws. This is what is called the “New Perspective on Paul” (NPP): a Protestant scholarly movement that has a significant affinity with traditional Catholic doctrine in this respect. The Wikipedia article by this title provides a good summary:

The old Protestant perspective claims that Paul advocates justification through faith in Jesus Christ over justification through works of the Law. After the Reformation, this perspective was known as sola fide; this was traditionally understood as Paul arguing that Christians’ good works would not factor into their salvation – only their faith would count. In this perspective, first-century Second Temple Judaism is dismissed as sterile and legalistic.

According to [this view], Paul’s letters do not address general good works, but instead question observances such as circumcision, dietary laws, and Sabbath laws, which were the “boundary markers” that set the Jews apart from the other ethnic groups. . . . first-century Palestinian Judaism was not a “legalistic community,” nor was it oriented to “salvation by works.” . . .

The “new perspective” is an attempt to reanalyze Paul’s letters and interpret them based on an understanding of first-century Judaism, taken on its own terms. . . .

There are certain trends and commonalities within the movement, but what is held in common is the belief that the historic Lutheran and Reformed perspectives of Paul the Apostle and Judaism are fundamentally incorrect. . . .

The historic Protestant perspectives interpret this phrase [“works of the law”] as referring to human effort to do good works in order to meet God’s standards (Works Righteousness). . . . By contrast, new-perspective scholars see Paul as talking about “badges of covenant membership” or criticizing Gentile believers who had begun to rely on the Torah to reckon Jewish kinship. . . .

“New-perspective” interpretations of Paul tend to result in Paul having nothing negative to say about the idea of human effort or good works, and saying many positive things about both. New-perspective scholars point to the many statements in Paul’s writings that specify the criteria of final judgment as being the works of the individual.

Final Judgment According to Works… was quite clear for Paul (as indeed for Jesus). Paul, in company with mainstream second-Temple Judaism, affirms that God’s final judgment will be in accordance with the entirety of a life led – in accordance, in other words, with works.

— N. T. Wright

. . . in the perspective of Luther and Calvin, God graciously empowers the individual to the faith which leads to salvation and also to good works, while in the “new” perspective God graciously empowers individuals to the faith (demonstrated in good works), which leads to salvation.

Catholics, who also believe in merit (a biblical concept itself, which Protestants, including NPP advocates, deny), hold that faith and works cannot be separated, and that the latter is an intrinsic part of the former, without which faith is “dead” (see James 2:17, 26).

Yes, the church had always had to deal with relatively small break-off groups…

And Lutheranism: concocted by Martin Luther in 1517 and especially in his writings in 1521, is one of these. But it was different in that it was still trinitarian and Christian, alongside its errors.

But for the most part, the church was one body, catholic, that is universal – being found across the nations. 

Yes, and it remains so today, and has been so since the time that Jesus Christ established it with St. Peter as the first leader (Mt 16:18-19).

Then there was the Eastern schism some 1000 years ago, when the Eastern churches split from Rome, the Western half of the church.

That’s exactly what happened, as opposed to the Catholic Church departing Orthodoxy, as if it were the one true Church by itself. Eastern Christianity had in fact split off of Rome at least five times before, and in every occurrence they were on the wrong side of the dispute, as Orthodox today concede:

1. The Arian schisms (343-98)
2. The controversy over St. John Chrysostom (404-415)
3. The Acacian schism (484-519)
4. Concerning Monothelitism (640-681)
5. Concerning Iconoclasm (726-87 and 815-43)

1054 was simply a larger and sadly lasting instance of the same schismatic, “contra-Catholic” mentality.

Following this, about 500 years ago, the Protestant Reformation occurred, with Rome expelling Martin Luther and then other Protestants for their perceived rebellion. 

Let no one fool themselves: this was undeniably a schism, just as the Orthodox departure was. Nathan calls that split a “schism” but is reluctant to call the Protestant Revolt the same thing. But what is the essential difference? There is none. He even uses the qualifying term “perceived” in referring to Luther’s rebellion, implying that it wasn’t that, and is wrongly thought to be so by Catholics. It certainly was a revolt or rebellion. In fact, Luther departed from Catholic teaching in at least fifty ways before he was ever excommunicated, as I documented over 17 years ago. I commented upon this, after listing the fifty items:

So that is 50 ways in which Luther was a heretic, heterodox, a schismatic, or believed things which were clearly contrary to the Catholic Church’s teaching or practice, up to and including truly radical departures (even societally radical in some cases). Is that enough to justify his excommunication from Catholic ranks? Or was the Church supposed to say, “yeah, Luther, you know, you’re right about these fifty issues. You know better than the entire Church, the entire history of the Church, and all the wisdom of the saints in past ages who have believed these things. So we will bow to your heaven-sent wisdom, change all fifty beliefs or practices, so we can proceed in a godly direction. Thanks so much! We are forever indebted to you for having informed us of all these errors!!”

Is that not patently ridiculous? What Church would change 50 things in its doctrines because one person feels himself to be some sort of oracle from God or pseudo-prophet: God’s man for the age? Yet we are led to believe that it is self-evident that Luther was a good, obedient Catholic who only wanted to reform the Church, not overturn or leave it, let alone start a new sect. He may have been naive or silly enough to believe that himself, but objectively speaking, it is clear and plain to one and all that what he offered – even prior to 1520 – was a radical program; a revolution. This is not reform. And the so-called “Protestant Reformation” was not that, either (considered as a whole). It was a Revolt or a Revolution. I have just shown why that is.

No sane, conscious person who had read any of his three radical treatises of 1520 could doubt that he had already ceased to be an orthodox Catholic. He did not reluctantly become so because he was unfairly kicked out of the Church by men who would not listen to manifest Scripture and reason (as the Protestant myth and perpetual propaganda would have it) but because he had chosen himself to accept heretical teachings, by the standard of Catholic orthodoxy, and had become a radical, intent also on spreading his (sincerely and passionately held) errors across the land with slanderous, mocking, propagandistic tracts and even vulgar woodcuts, if needs be.

Therefore, the Church was entirely sensible, reasonable, within her rights, logical, self-consistent, and not hypocritical or “threatened” in the slightest to simply demand Luther’s recantation of his errors at the Diet of Worms in 1521, and to refuse to argue with him (having already tried on several occasions, anyway), because to do so would have granted his ridiculous presumption that he was in a position to singlehandedly dispute and debate what had been the accumulated doctrinal and theological wisdom of the Church for almost 1500 years.

No doubt such an argument sounds “harsh” and utterly unacceptable to Lutheran and other Protestant ears, but it’s nothing personal, and hey, their endless oppositional rhetoric against Catholicism (usually filled with caricatures and historical whoppers; even theological inaccuracies) also sounds quite harsh to us, too. It works both ways. The Catholic must respond — and cannot be faulted for responding — to the basic Protestant critique of us, just as Nathan is attempting to do in this sermon. Protestants have a well-honed perspective, but rest assured that we have ours, too, and it is at least as reasonable as theirs. Protestants are so used to no or feeble defenses of the Catholic Church over against “Reformation” rhetoric that they think their view of the Protestant Revolt is the only possible one available. I used to be of the same mind myself, until I actually read both sides. There are always two sides to every human conflict, and both need to be fairly considered.

Was the Reformation necessary? 

If it was a necessity – even one that God deemed necessary – was it a tragic necessity? 

No. What was necessary was a reform within the existing Catholic Church (which is always necessary at any given time, as we say: human beings being the sinners that we are).

Or, should we, perhaps feeling some blame for causing a rupture in the body, feel some shame for being Lutherans?

Current-day Lutherans are not to blame for the sin of schism, as the Catholic Church made clear at Vatican II, but Luther and the original Lutheran — and larger Protestant — movement were responsible for that sin. Lutheranism contains a great deal of truth, as all Protestant denominations do, and that is a very good thing. I thank God and am very grateful for what I learned when I was an evangelical, from 1977-1990.

Catholics contend that Catholicism is the fullness of theological and spiritual truth. It doesn’t have to run down Protestants as wicked and evil (as the tiny anti-Catholic wing of Protestants think of us). Rather, it is a “very good” and “best” scenario, as we see it, rather than “good vs. evil” or “light vs. darkness.” We’re not the ones making the accusation of “antichrists” and mass apostasy from Christianity itself, and supposed idolatry and blasphemy and all the rest. We would say, “we have much more to offer to you, our esteemed separate brethren, that can benefit you in your Christian walk with Jesus.” Its somewhat like the “pearl of great price” in the Bible.

Martin Luther also said some very good and “traditional-sounding” words about the Catholic Church, as I have documented. These came mostly after he was shocked by the further (and I would say, inevitable) inter-Protestant schisms of the Anabaptists, Zwingli, Carlstadt, iconoclasts, and others; as well as the Peasants’ Revolt of 1524-1525. Luther utterly detested these splits, saying that “there are as many sects as there are heads.” His rhetoric was much less fiery and volatile and “anti-traditional” after that; at least some of the time. But he refused to ever admit that he started all of this with his own schism and the new and false premises and presuppositions entailed (such as sola Scriptura and private judgment). How blind we all are to our own faults! When Zwingli was killed in battle, Luther wrote:

And recently God has notably punished the poor people of Switzerland, Zwingli and his followers, for they were hardened and perverted, condemned of themselves, as St. Paul says. They will all experience the same.

Although neither Munzerites nor Zwinglians will admit that they are punished by God, but give out that they are martyrs, nevertheless we, who know that they have gravely erred in the sacrament and other articles, recognize God’s punishment and beware of it ourselves. (Preserved Smith, The Life and Letters of Luther, Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1911, 291-292; letter from Wittenberg, “February or beginning of March, 1532)

In the same letter Luther decried the notion that anyone would “teach against the long and unanimously held doctrine of the Church” and stated that “we must not trifle with the articles of faith so long and unanimously held by Christendom.” In his mind, Catholicism was superior to the Protestants who deemed fit to split off against his own movement (using the same justification that he used to depart from Catholicism).

You see, even admirable men like Sir Thomas More (see the excellent movie A Man for All Seasons!) said that since the church basically owned the Bible they could decide how it was to be used and interpreted!

This needs to be documented, so one can consult the context. I just wrote yesterday about the Catholic Church and the interpretation of Scripture, knocking down the usual numerous myths But even if St. Thomas More — great as he was, as a saint and martyr — is shown to have expressed something contrary to official Church doctrine, he had no authority anyway, compared to the magisterium. Lutherans, in fact, argue the same way. Many times if I cite Luther, they will note that it’s not his view that counts, but rather that of the Book of Concord (and I understand this; I usually cite Luther in the historical sense, of how the early Protestants developed; as I have done in this article). Likewise, with us. Protestant critics need to properly consult ecumenical councils or papal encyclicals if they wish to critique our view, not individual scholars or theologians.

Some of Rome’s highest-ranking theologians, like the Court theologian Prier[i]as for example, even claimed the authority of the Gospel existed because of the Pope’s authority. He stated: 

“In its irrefragable and divine judgment the church’s authority is greater than the authority of Scripture…the authority of the Roman Pontiff…is greater than the authority of the Gospel, since because of it we believe in the Gospels.”)” (see Tavard’s Holy Writ on Holy Church)…

Again, one theologian doesn’t speak for the whole Church (and shouldn’t be presented as supposedly having done so). Not even any given Church father — including the great Augustine — can do so. The authoritative magisterium of the Church in harmonious conjunction with sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture determines these matters. An individual (and not a bishop) is cited, even though he has no binding authority in Catholicism. This is not the way to disprove anything in Catholicism.

Prierias died in 1523, 22 years before the Council of Trent began. Theologians are not even part of the magisterium (it is popes and bishops together in ecumenical councils in harmony with popes). He was simply wrong. The Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures, from the Fourth Session of the Council of Trent in 1546 (the year of Luther’s death), doesn’t approach Holy Scripture like Prierias did:

. . . keeping this always in view, that, errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel be preserved in the Church; which (Gospel), before promised through the prophets in the holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His Apostles to every creature, as the fountain of all, both saving truth, and moral discipline . . . (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament–seeing that one God is the author of both . . . as having been dictated, either by Christ’s own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession. (my italics)

The Catholic Church “receives” and “preserves” and “venerates” the Bible. It doesn’t claim authority over the Bible or the gospel. It’s two different concepts. One statement by one non-authoritative theologian doesn’t change this fact. Vatican I (1870) and Vatican II (1962-1965) elaborated upon this understanding and made it even more crystal clear that the Catholic Church doesn’t consider itself superior to or “over” the Bible:

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

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

Nathan himself stated later on, that “the Church, in it’s truly God-given authority, had recognized, and zealously guarded and passed down its primary tradition, the Holy Scriptures.“ Exactly! This is precisely what Vatican I and Vatican II clarified.    Likewise, Lutheran Carl E. Braaten wrote eloquently about the relationship of the Bible and the Church: thoughts that Catholics can wholeheartedly accept:

Scripture principle exists only on account of the church and for the sake of the church…The Scripture principle of Reformation theology and its hermeneutical principles make sense only in and with the church . . . The authority of Scripture functions not in separation from the church but only in conjunction with the Spirit-generated fruits in the life of the church, its apostolic confession of faith and its life-giving sacraments of baptism, absolution and the Lord’s Supper. (“The Problem of Authority in the Church,” in: Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson, editors, The Catholicity of the Reformation, Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans, 1996, 61-62)

This, to say the least, is a far cry from what Augustine meant. 

He, for one – like many others before and after him – also said things like, “Let us… yield ourselves and bow to the authority of the Holy Scriptures, which can neither err nor deceive…”

A citation would be nice for this one, too (many people online also cite it without documentation). But there is nothing contrary to Catholicism in these words, even without consultation of context. Every Christian ought to do so. Since we’re now gonna engage in the rather common exercise of “competing” St. Augustine citations, I’m more than happy to cull from the book that I edited, The Quotable Augustine (2012). It devotes six-and-a-half pages to the question of thoroughly Catholic Augustine‘s view of the rule of faith. Here are some of his words:

There is a third class of objectors who either really do understand Scripture well, or think they do, and who, because they know (or imagine) that they have attained a certain power of interpreting the sacred books without reading any directions of the kind that I propose to lay down here, will cry out that such rules are not necessary for any one, but that everything rightly done towards clearing up the obscurities of Scripture could be better done by the unassisted grace of God. . . . No, no; rather let us put away false pride and learn whatever can be learned from man; . . . lest, being ensnared by such wiles of the enemy and by our own perversity, we may even refuse to go to the churches to hear the gospel itself, or to read a book, or to listen to another reading or preaching, . . . Cornelius the centurion, although an angel announced to him that his prayers were heard and his alms had in remembrance, was yet handed over to Peter for instruction, and not only received the sacraments from the apostle’s hands, but was also instructed by him as to the proper objects of faith, hope, and love. [Acts x] And without doubt it was possible to have done everything through the instrumentality of angels, but the condition of our race would have been much more degraded if God had not chosen to make use of men as the ministers of His word to their fellow-men. For how could that be true which is written, “The temple of God is holy, which temple you are,” [1 Corinthians 3:17] if God gave forth no oracles from His human temple, but communicated everything that He wished to be taught to men by voices from heaven, or through the ministration of angels? Moreover, love itself, which binds men together in the bond of unity, would have no means of pouring soul into soul, and, as it were, mingling them one with another, if men never learned anything from their fellow-men. (On Christian Doctrine, Preface, 2, 5-6)

The authority of our books, which is confirmed by the agreement of so many nations, supported by a succession of apostles, bishops, and councils, is against you. (Against Faustus the Manichee, xiii, 5; cf. xi, 5; xiii, 16; xxxiii, 9)

[W]e hold most firmly, concerning our Lord Jesus Christ, what may be called the canonical rule, as it is both disseminated through the Scriptures, and has been demonstrated by learned and Catholic handlers of the same Scriptures . . . (On the Trinity, ii, 1, 2)

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

St. Augustine also wrote about the perspicuity (clearness) of Scripture:

[L]et the reader consult the rule of faith which he has gathered from the plainer passages of Scripture, and from the authority of the Church, . . . (On Christian Doctrine, 3, 2, 2)

For many meanings of the holy Scriptures are concealed, and are known only to a few of singular intelligence . . . (Explanations of the Psalms, 68:30 [68, 36] )

For him, the authority of the church was embodied in the living tradition, admittedly spearheaded by the Pope, and that was because the Scriptures were also the ultimate wellspring of that authority, the sum and substance of that authority. 

The Catholic Church wholeheartedly agrees, in affirming that the Catholic “teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit . . .” (Vatican II, Dei Verbum, ch. II, 10).

The same document stated that “Easy access to Sacred Scripture should be provided for all the Christian faithful” (ch. 6, 22); “the study of the sacred page is, as it were, the soul of sacred theology” (ch. 6, 24); “all the clergy must hold fast to the Sacred Scriptures through diligent sacred reading and careful study . . . The sacred synod also earnestly and especially urges all the Christian faithful, especially Religious, to learn by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures the ‘excellent knowledge of Jesus Christ’ (Phil. 3:8); “For ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.” (ch. 6, 25); “we may hope for a new stimulus for the life of the Spirit from a growing reverence for the word of God, which ‘lasts forever’ (Is. 40:8; see 1 Peter 1:23-25).” (ch. 6, 26); “the force and power in the word of God is so great that it stands as the support and energy of the Church, the strength of faith for her sons, the food of the soul, the pure and everlasting source of spiritual life.” (ch. 6, 21)

And the church in Luther’s day was failing, to say the least. In his day, the Pope was going so far as to say things like “since God has given us the papacy, let us enjoy it.” 

How is this inconsistent with what St. Paul wrote: “let every one lead the life which the Lord has assigned to him, and in which God has called him” (1 Cor 7:17)? Is the pope supposed to go around with a long face, and not “enjoy” his work? It’s a mere drudgery? Paul asserted that God “richly furnishes us with everything to enjoy” (1 Tim 6:17). Yet somehow the office of the papacy is to be devoid of such joy? Biblically, this makes no sense. “Joy” is mentioned 60 times in the NT. The disciples were “filled with joy” (Acts 13:52; cf. Rom 14:17; 15:13; 2 Cor 2:3; Gal 5:22; Phil 1:25; Col 1:11; 1 Thess 1:6; 1 Pet 1:8). This should be the case even when we “meet various trials” (Jas 1:2). James says to “Count it all joy.”

Clearly, here was a leader of God’s church who – so taken up with worldly power – was culpably ignorant of not understanding what God really intended for him to do. 

How does this follow from the words cited? Nathan attempts to judge a man’s heart, and for no sufficient reason: a thing which we ought never do. If these words (assuming they are authentic) indeed carry some nefarious or sinister meaning, then we would have to have some context, to judge that. Prima facie, I see nothing wrong or unbiblical about them. But whatever the man’s real faults, we point out that impeccability is not the same as papal infallibility. There were a few “bad popes.” Just as sinners wrote the inspired revelation of the Bible, so can sinners make infallible pronouncements. Most popes, however, have been good, pious Christians and holy men.

Luther . . . brought nothing new.

To the contrary, as I have documented, he brought at least fifty novel, new things into Christian theology: and all before he was ever excommunicated.

We can therefore never emphasize enough that Luther and the “Lutherans” – Rome’s term of abuse – never intended to leave the Roman Catholic Church but were ejected by them.

If “Lutherans” is a “term of abuse” then why was it retained by the denomination [s] that continued Luther’s split? Lutherans free to reject the term, just as we are to reject “papism” or “Romanism,” etc. Until they do, the above objection is a non sequitur.

The intention to leave is clearly latent in the fact that Luther came to espouse fifty things contrary to existing Catholic tradition, which showed his spirit of rebellion and arrogance (thinking he knew better than the Church and all of Church history and doctrinal precedent), just as lust in the heart precedes actual physical adultery. He spread these radical ideas far and wide, with the help of the printing press. It’s how every radical movement has functioned ever since: start promulgating ideas, to get people to believe them, and then appeal to the fact that they have (the ad populum fallacy).

And then, over and against their Roman Catholic opponents, the claim of these “first evangelicals” who agreed with Luther was not that they were doing anything new, but that their teachings truly were “holy, catholic and apostolic…” 

This claim is a demonstrable falsehood. Many things remained the same (thank God), but there were also many novel innovations and inventions, and no one who knows the facts of the matter can possibly deny that. It was a “mixed bag” from the Catholic perspective.

“The churches among us do not dissent from the catholic church in any article of faith,” they insisted. 

Right. And what would they call Luther’s fifty dissenting opinions, that Lutheranism largely followed? Permissible variations?

In addition to the nonsense about the role the Scriptures played in the church,

What’s “nonsense” is this accusation against the Catholic Church, as I thoroughly explained above.

the Pope had insisted he had full authority over temporal political matters and one had to believe this to be saved.

This was a widespread medieval understanding, and not exclusive to Catholicism. Luther thought that the Anabaptists were “seditious” and subverted not only the theological and ecclesial, but also civil order. He thought the same about the violent hordes of the Peasants’ Revolt, and Carlstadt and his image-smashers, Zwingli’s shocking rejection of the eucharistic Real Presence, etc. The medieval mind didn’t make much of a separation between the realms of Church and state.

In fact, Luther — along with Butcher Henry VIII — brought in the Church state, so that people were required in Germany to be a Lutheran simply by being born in a Lutheran-controlled territory of Germany. He treated princes as if they had authority in the Church, as if they were bishops (the old error of caesaropapism to some degree). How is that not meddling in temporal affairs? Yet Protestant polemicists so often have tunnel vision and a double standard, contending that only the Catholic Church had all these (real or merely imagined) problems, while ignoring the myriad of scandals and problems and endless sectarianism and radical mentalities and doctrinal errors / contradictions of many in the young Protestant movement and ever since.

Priests were forbidden to marry, in direct contradiction to Scripture.

This is not unscriptural at all. The Catholic Church was following St. Paul’s express recommendations for achieving an “undivided devotion to the Lord” (1 Cor 7:35) by celibate individuals (cf. “he who refrains from marriage will do better”: 1 Cor 7:38). Jesus said, “there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it” (Mt 19:12). I guess Protestants can’t “receive” it.  They’re picking and choosing again, what will be accepted in the Bible, and what will be rejected. Priestly celibacy is a good thing, not a bad thing. We simply follow Jesus’ and Paul’s advice to a greater extent than Protestants do. But — here’s the thing — it’s difficult to be celibate, so Protestants throw it out, contrary to Scripture, which doesn’t do so, simply because something is difficult.  The Bible teaches that “I can do all things in him who strengthens me” (Phil 4:13). I add that priests are allowed to marry in the eastern rites of the Catholic Church, because this is a “disciplinary” or pastoral matter, not a doctrinal or dogmatic one.

In conjunction with secular authorities, the offices of the bishops were often given to the highest bidders. 

Yes; that was scandalous; so were Lutherans and other Protestants pretending that secular bishops (many of whom cared not a whit about Christianity or morals in general) were quasi-bishops. There is enough sin and corruption and ignoring of the Bible to go around.

People became monks specifically because the Roman church taught and promised it was the surest way to achieve salvation by their increased merit. 

Heroic, exceptionally sacrificial sanctity or what is called the “evangelical counsels” is indeed one way to be more sure that we will attain heaven. See the many Bible passages about merit and sanctification tied directly to justification.

Laypersons were told that they could eliminate thousands of years of painful purging fire for their ancestors by “prayerfully” providing donations to the church.

The Papacy had recently expanded indulgences to include the claim of granting forgiveness itself… 

The Catholic Church — in the Catholic Reformation — reformed the practice of indulgences (which is itself a notion taught in the Bible). See my article, Myths and Facts Regarding Tetzel and Indulgences (11-25-16; published in Catholic Herald).

Also, men and women were given the body of Christ, but not the blood, which was reserved for the clergy. 

There was no theological / spiritual reason to receive both. There were considerations of the sacred blood possibly dripping, etc. But Christ can’t be divided, and is fully present in both the consecrated hosts and the chalice. I myself always receive only the consecrated host. See my article, The Host and Chalice Both Contain Christ’s Body and Blood (National Catholic Register, 12-10-19). Of course, we now allow both. It’s another pastoral / disciplinary matter, which can change according to place and circumstance; not doctrine.

In the Mass itself, the priests spoke of re-sacrificing Christ, and achieving salvation through this and other merits…

It’s not a “re-sacrifice” but rather, the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross supernaturally made present again.

But, above all, people were told that they could not be certain that they would even be saved… even make it to purgatory (for note that if you got to purgatory, you’d eventually get to heaven…). 

No one can be absolutely certain of what the future holds, because we are in time and simply can’t know that information. That includes the question of our own eternal destiny. Even John Calvin stated that no one but God can know who is of the elect. It’s folly and unbiblical (as well as irrational) to pretend otherwise.  We know that people fall away from the faith. We can’t be certain that we won’t. Catholics believe in what we call a “moral assurance of salvation.” I’ve always said that I am just as confident of my salvation (without being certain) as a Catholic, as I was when I was a Protestant. Catholics examine their consciences to make sure they are not in a state of mortal sin, that separates them from God and could possibly lead to damnation, if not repented of and absolved.

Right around the same time that Luther nailed the 95 theses to the Church doors in Wittenberg, the theologian Johann Altenstaig (in his Vocabularius theologiae, Hagenau 1517) was saying that the devil led people astray by making them think there was good evidence for their being saved. 

“No one, no matter how righteous he may be”, Altenstaig said, “can know with certainty that he is in the state of grace, except by a revelation”.

We can believe there is good evidence that we will be saved if we die in the next minute, through the examination of our consciences and confession if necessary (moral assurance) and the absence of subjective mortal sin, but it’s not certainty. He’s correct. Anyone who thinks they are absolutely certain of this is deluding themselves, short of an extraordinary revelation, just as he says. St. Paul argues the same way many times. He doesn’t assume he is saved once and for all time. That’s just Protestant man-made tradition. Martin Luther agrees with us: “one cannot say with certainty who will be [called] in the future or who will finally endure . . .” (Sermon on John 17; Luther’s Works, Vol 69:50-51). All agree that the elect will be saved and cannot not be saved, because God predestined it (yes, we believe in the predestination of the elect, too). But we can’t know with certainty who is in their number. That’s the problem.

In like fashion, one of the most important movers and shakers in the church, Cardinal Cajetan, wrote a few weeks before confronting Luther at Augsburg, wrote that “Clearly almost all come to the sacraments of penance and the Eucharist in reverent fear of the Lord and uncertain of being in grace. In fact theologians praise their continuing uncertainty and ordinarily attribute its opposite to presumption or ignorance” (both quotes from Cajetan Responds, a footnote from p. 269 and p. 66).

Once again, one Cardinal is cited; nothing from Trent or earlier ecumenical councils or papal encyclicals (which constitute the magisterium). So it carries no weight. I won’t bother checking context (I appreciate the documentation), but it looks to me like he is referring to a specific situation: the penitent approaching confession, which means they are conscious of some sin, and possibly mortal sin. I could see that they might have some uncertainty until they are absolved, at which point they are restored back to grace, and have a reasonable and fairly “high” moral assurance of salvation, were they to die on the way home, etc.

I don’t know why Nathan makes this a Catholic-Protestant issue, since Lutherans agree with us that a person can fall away from the faith and grace. One Lutheran, Joseph Klotz, in a helpful article entitled, “Three Examples of How Lutherans Deny Justification by Faith Alone: A Response – Part Two of Two” (6-29-15, SteadfastLutherans.org) observed:

The fact that confessional Lutherans teach that believers can fall away from the faith, while at the same time teaching that God earnestly desires all men to be saved shows that confessional Lutherans confess what the Bible teaches, . . .

This very issue comes into play when St. Paul discusses with Timothy the case of Hymenaeus and Alexander.

This charge [Timothy’s duty to order certain teachers not stray from pure doctrinal teaching] I entrust to you, Timothy, my child, in accordance with the prophecies previously made about you, that by them you may wage the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith, among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme (1 Timothy 1:18-20).

St. Paul is not saying here that Hymenaeus and Alexander will be judged in the temporal realm, by dying or some such thing, and suffer a loss of reward at the judgment seat of Christ on the Last Day, but still march into the New Heavens and New Earth, “as through fire.” He is saying that the very thing through which they would be saved, their faith, has been “shipwrecked.” It has been destroyed. The faith, which they once had as members of the Ephesian congregation, is no more. They have passed from life to death, so to speak. . . .

St. Paul similarly warns the Corinthians not to fall away from their faith into idolatry. . . .

It is revealing that St. Paul [in 1 Cor 10:6-11] uses the words “fell” and “destroyed” when describing what happened to those who continued in their unbelief. Again, he is not describing merely a temporal consequence of sin. Scripture tells us that these people, who were graciously delivered from bondage, persisted in unbelief. They resisted the working of God the Holy Spirit and eventually fell from the faith they had been given and were destroyed. Why does St. Paul recount this to the Corinthians? It is to be an example to them so that they do not similarly fall into sin, away from God, and be destroyed.

James Swan, a Reformed defender of Martin Luther (hundreds of articles) documented Luther’s belief in apostasy:

Through baptism these people threw out unbelief, had their unclean way of life washed away, and entered into a pure life of faith and love. Now they fall away into unbelief (Commentary on 2 Peter 2:22).

Verse 4, “Ye are fallen from grace.” That means you are no longer in the kingdom or condition of grace. When a person on board ship falls into the sea and is drowned it makes no difference from which end or side of the ship he falls into the water. Those who fall from grace perish no matter how they go about it. … The words, “Ye are fallen from grace,” must not be taken lightly. They are important. To fall from grace means to lose the atonement, the forgiveness of sins, the righteousness, liberty, and life which Jesus has merited for us by His death and resurrection. To lose the grace of God means to gain the wrath and judgment of God, death, the bondage of the devil, and everlasting condemnation. (Commentary on Galatians, 5:4; Luther’s Works, Vol. 27).

These words, “You have fallen away from grace,” should not be looked at in a cool and careless way; for they are very emphatic. Whoever falls away from grace simply loses the propitiation, forgiveness of sins, righteousness, freedom, life, etc., which Christ earned for us by His death and resurrection; and in place of these he acquires the wrath and judgment of God, sin, death, slavery to the devil, and eternal damnation. (Ibid.)

Cajetan incidently – like all of Rome’s “court theologians” – also placed the authority of the pope above that of a council, Scripture, and everything in the church… 

He is above a council and the Church, but not above Scripture. This is Catholic teaching. So even if good ol’ Cardinal Cajetan and all these “court theologians” were wrong, it wouldn’t hurt our viewpoint in the slightest. They have no binding authority. It’s just non-magisterial opinions. We don’t determine truth by the majority vote of a bunch of pointy-head theologians, as so many Protestants in effect do. When we do count heads and take votes (such as in ecumenical councils and papal elections), it’s from the bishops, who have biblically sanctioned authority in the Church.

Luther . . . was not about to give up the teaching about confession and absolution that his spiritual father, John Staupitz, had modeled for him and shared with him – and that Luther said had made him a Christian! 

But he modified an essential aspect of them, so in fact he did give them up.  Luther appears to apply the function of hearing a confession and giving absolution to all Christians, not solely to ordained Lutheran pastors: “. . . confession, privately before any brother, . . .” (The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, 1520, in Three Treatises, 214). The Apology for the Augsburg Confession, written by Luther’s close friend Philip Melanchthon in 1531, and binding on Lutherans, describes absolution as a sacrament.

For Paul, clearly, says that we are justified by faith in many places, without mentioning anything else.

That doesn’t logically rule out a role for works, as part and parcel of faith. Initial justification by faith is a thing we agree on. Justification by faith alone all through one’s life is where we have an honest disagreement. I have compiled fifty Bible passages that teach that works play a central role at the time of the judgment and in determining who will enter heaven (as the Lutheran Braaten noted above). Faith is only mentioned once in all of them (yes, once!), alongside works. I didn’t make this up. It’s in the Bible: fifty times! I’ve also collected 150 more passages that contradict “faith alone” and connect sanctification with justification in a way that Protestantism rejects, and that teach the doctrine of merit as well.

Nathan ends by citing Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI), and thinks he supported faith alone. I congratulation him for finally citing a magisterial source, right before he concluded. But even this may be from the time before he was pope (hence, not magisterial, if so). He provides no documentation, so we don’t know what it’s from, but I’ll have to take his word for its accuracy. The words as he presents them, however, do not support faith alone; quite the contrary. The pope writes:

Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life [which entails works, which he equates with faith]. And the form, the life of Christ, is love [love involves works and action as well]; hence to believe is to conform to Christ [works] and to enter into his love. So it is that in the Letter to the Galatians in which he primarily developed his teaching on justification St Paul speaks of faith that works through love (cf. Gal 5:14). [exactly; the Catholic position, and not harmonious with Protestant soteriology! Works cannot be formally separated from the overall equation] [my bracketed comments]

Related Reading 

William of Ockham, Nominalism, Luther, & Early Protestant Thought [10-3-02; abridged on 10-10-17]

*
Medieval Catholic Corruption: Main Cause of Protestant Revolt? [6-2-03; revised slightly: 1-20-04; 10-10-17]
*
Luther Film (2003): Detailed Catholic Critique [10-28-03; abridged with revised links on 3-6-17]
*
*
*
*
Critique of Ten Exaggerated Claims of the “Reformation” [10-31-17; its 500th anniversary date]
*
Papal Infallibility Doctrine: History (Including Luther’s Dissent at the Leipzig Disputation in 1519) (Related also to the particular circumstances of the origins of sola Scriptura) [10-8-07]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

*
*****

*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-three 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!
*
***
*

Photo credit: Portrait of Martin Luther (1528), by Lucas Cranach the Elder (1472-1553) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
*

***

Summary: I take on a sermon about the essential points of the Protestant so-called “Reformation”, by Nathan Rinne, and show that Catholicism is more biblical & historical.

 

October 30, 2023

October 30, 2023 By
0 Comments

Including: How Far Away Were the Cities that the Jerusalem Council Bound to its Decrees?

[see book and purchase information for The Catholic Verses]

“excatholic4christ” (Tom) was raised Catholic, lost his faith in high school, attended Mass for a while after he married and had children, and then “accepted Jesus Christ” as his Savior, leading to his sole attendance at an independent fundamental Baptist church for eight years. He claims that the “legalism” of this church and the fact that his “trust had been in men rather than God” caused him to “walk away from the Lord for 23 years.” He “returned to the Lord” in 2014. As of April 2020, Tom stated that he was “somewhere in the middle of the Calvinism-Arminianism debate,” but “closer to Calvinism.” I couldn’t determine his denomination. See Tom’s index of all of his replies. I will now systematically refute them. His words will be in blue. When he cites my words, they will be in black. I use RSV, unless otherwise specified.

*****

This is a reply to Tom’s article, The Catholic Magisterium’s Authoritative Interpretation of Scripture? (9-17-18)

Citing the three passages below, Armstrong argues for the validity and necessity of Catholicism’s claim to absolute authority in the interpretation of Scripture:

Nehemiah 8:8 “So they read from the book, from the law of God, with interpretation. They gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading.”

Acts 8:27-31 “So he got up and went. Now there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of the Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of her entire treasury. He had come to Jerusalem to worship and was returning home; seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah. Then the Spirit said to Philip, “Go over to this chariot and join it.” So Philip ran up to it and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah. He asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” He replied, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to get in and sit beside him.”

2 Peter 1:20 “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation.”

Directly beneath the three verses, Armstrong writes, “Catholics hold that Scripture is a fairly clear document and able to be understood by the average reader, but also that the Church is needed to provide a doctrinal norm, an overall framework for determining proper biblical interpretation.” p. 32.

Catholicism claims that its magisterium (i.e., the teaching office of the pope and his bishops) alone is divinely authorized to interpret Scripture.

It’s not like we demand one interpretation of every verse in the Bible. In fact, the Church has only authoritatively declared the meaning of a mere seven (or possibly nine) passages. That’s it! The Church, however, is the guardian and determiner of the orthodoxy of doctrines.

For multiple centuries, the church withheld the Bible from the laity

There are all sorts of myths surrounding this. See my papers:

Were Vernacular Bibles Unknown Before Luther? (Luther’s Dubious Claims About the Supposed Utter Obscurity of the Bible Before His Translation) [6-15-11]

Dialogue: “Obscure” Bible Before Luther’s Translation? [7-24-14]

Catholic Church: Historic “Enemy” of the Bible? [9-11-15]

Does the Catholic Church Think it is Superior to the Bible? [9-14-15]

Was the Catholic Church Historically an Enemy of the Bible? [National Catholic Register, 3-27-17]

Did Luther Rescue the Bible in German from Utter Obscurity? [National Catholic Register, 10-30-17]

Did Medieval Catholicism Forbid All Vernacular Bibles? [5-11-21]

Council of Trent: Anti-Bible or Anti-Bad Bible Translations? [5-12-21]

“Unigenitus” (1713) vs. Personal Bible Study? (+ Other Supposed “Anti-Bible” Catholic Proclamations & Analogies to Calvinist “Dogmatism” at the Synod of Dort) [5-14-21]

No, Pope Innocent III Did Not Prohibit the Bible in 1199 [National Catholic Register, 8-2-21]

Catholic Church “Above” the Bible? (vs. Lucas Banzoli) [5-25-22]

Banzoli’s “Church vs. the Bible” Myths Debunked [6-2-22]

“Church vs. the Bible” (vs. Francisco Tourinho) (Examining the Presuppositions That Lie Behind Past Catholic Recommended Restrictions on Individual Bible Reading) [6-5-22]

and, even now, does not strongly encourage individual Bible study.

This is also a myth. It certainly does do so. Ven. Pope Pius XII wrote in his 1943 papal encyclical, Divino Afflante Spiritu:

Nor is it forbidden by the decree of the Council of Trent to make translations into the vulgar tongue, even directly from the original texts themselves . . .

Being thoroughly prepared by the knowledge of the ancient languages and by the aids afforded by the art of criticism, let the Catholic exegete undertake the task, of all those imposed on him the greatest, that, namely of discovering and expounding the genuine meaning of the Sacred Books. In the performance of this task let the interpreters bear in mind that their foremost and greatest endeavor should be to discern and define clearly that sense of the biblical words which is called literal. (sections 22, end, and 23, beginning)

Likewise, Vatican II, Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum):

Access to sacred Scripture ought to be wide open to the Christian faithful . . . the Church, with motherly concern, sees to it that suitable and correct translations are made into various languages, especially from the original texts of the sacred books. If it should happen that . . . these translations are made in a joint effort with the separated brethren, they may be used by all Christians. (ch. 6, sec. 22)

Now, whether most Catholics follow the advice of the Church is another question entirely. Catholics are — broadly speaking, and for various reasons — quite ignorant of the Bible. I’ve written about it many times. But this isn’t worse than Protestant ignorance of Church history and sacred tradition, and the competing interpretations among Protestants, who are indeed more familiar with the Bible. Of what advantage is that, however, if they can’t agree on what it teaches in so many areas? Espousal of actual doctrinal error is far worse than mere ignorance. But ignorance and nominalism are always widespread (in any Christian environment), and I have made it my life’s work to combat it among Christians.

In contrast, God’s Word exhorts us to “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15). God’s Word also holds up as an example the believers in the city of Berea of northern Greece who “received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so” (Acts 17:11).

Amen! We heartily agree. Nothing is more filled with Scripture than papal encyclicals or Vatican II documents, or the Catechism. Each individual Christian is responsible to read and know and apply biblical teachings. Most fall short. In other words, it’s not just a “Catholic problem.” It’s a virtually universal education and ignorance problem. Generally, when I debate Protestants (including Tom) I offer, five or even ten times or more Bile verses in favor of my view than they give for theirs. Protestants strongly tend to ignore passages other than carefully selected ones that they are spoon-fed (which appear at first glance to support their views), whereas Catholicism takes into account all of Scripture, and considers all of it important and there for a reason, as an inspired revelation from God to us. That was one reason why I wrote the book that Tom is vainly trying to refute.

Nowhere in the Bible do we see anything resembling a dictatorial teaching office as we see with the Vatican hierarchy.

Tom slanders it as “dictatorial.” That isn’t our view. The Church is our Mother and Guide to the faith. We’re not forced to submit to it; we willingly do so, with the belief that God guides His Church and protects her from error. We do see — contrary to Tom’s denial — authoritative Church teaching in the Jerusalem council, which even appealed to the Holy Spirit:

Acts 15:28-29 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: [29] that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.

This was not merely a local church scuffle. The apostles Paul, Peter, and James were all there. The authoritative, binding letter was sent to “the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia.” Damascus, Syria was 155 miles from Jerusalem. That was a very long distance in those days. Antioch was a city in the middle (from an east-west perspective) of present-day Turkey, on its southern border (right next to present-day Syria). Antakya is the current Turkish city in the region. It’s 453 miles from Jerusalem. Yet here was the church in Jerusalem sending it binding instructions, claimed to be agreed with by the Holy Spirit. Cilicia was the region of southern Turkey extending quite a ways west from Antioch. So it was at least 453 miles from Jerusalem, and most of it many more miles away.

Moreover, Paul and Timothy “went on their way through the cities,” and “they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4). What cities or areas were these? Well, in the immediate context, Phrygia, Galatia, Bithynia, Troas, and Macedonia are mentioned as places that were visited by Paul and Timothy, and where they delivered the letter decided at Jerusalem by “apostles and elders” (Acts 16:6-10). Now let’s do some more ancient geography, to see how far these places were from Jerusalem:

Phrygia was in west and central Turkey (then known as Anatolia or Asia Minor). At the western end of Phrygia was the town of Aizanoi (modern Çavdarhisar).  That’s 991 miles away. But it wasn’t too far for the church in Jerusalem to send it binding decrees (what Tom ignorantly describes as a “dictatorial teaching office”). Galatia was just northeast of Phrygia, and thus almost as far as that location. Bithynia was north and a little west of Phrygia, and so even further from Jerusalem (more than a thousand miles away). Troas (also known as “The Troad”) was in the western part of Anatolia, and so further than any area mentioned yet. Lastly, Macedonia shortly after apostolic times was north of current-day Greece in the area of the former Yugoslavia (now again called the Republic of Macedonia). But it was larger than that and extended quite a bit into what is now Greece. It included the city of Thessaloniki (Paul wrote two letters to the Christians there), which still exists, and is, by land, no less than 1501 miles from Jerusalem.

Clearly, the Jerusalem council regarded itself as authoritative over Gentile Christians everywhere (and they were, of course, the vast majority of the rapidly accumulating body of Christians). The cities that Paul delivered this letter to (Acts 16:4) ranged from 991 to 1500 miles, as just shown. If that is not very much like the Vatican and Catholicism issuing doctrines that are binding in very large geographical areas, I don’t know what is. And it’s right in inspired Scripture. Let Tom deal with it! But so far he has ignored my first five critiques, which he was informed of before he banned me from commenting on his blog. What else is new with anti-Catholics? I was always banned in their venues: if not immediately, then as soon as I made any arguments there.

As the bishops of Rome consolidated their power and authority, the church became increasingly institutionalized and untethered from God’s Word.

As the founders and inventors of Protestantism consolidated their power and authority, their competing sects became increasingly relativized and chaotic and untethered from God’s Word (since, after all, their endless contradictions necessarily entailed much doctrinal error and conflict with the Bible).

The magisterium that claimed to defend orthodoxy had in reality suppressed and abandoned Scriptural truths in favor of its many man-made traditions. 

Once again he makes a claim with no substance: Tom’s stock-in-trade. My blog and books are dedicated to showing that this is not the case, all down the line.

The Reformers of the 16th century were able to return the church in part to the simple Gospel of salvation by God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone and to the sole authority of Scripture. While the Reformers did not agree on every single theological detail, they were united in the Gospel of grace. The same is true among genuine believers today. How can believers in different countries and cultures all over the world be united in the Gospel without a central authority? It’s an amazing thing to behold. The Holy Spirit divinely unites and guides believers through the Gospel of Jesus Christ and through His Holy Word.

The nature of the gospel was not at issue, as I have already addressed. Catholics agree on grace alone and Christ alone because they are biblical concepts. Scripture doesn’t teach that it is the sole authority. The example of the Jerusalem Council above proves that; and there are many other biblical proofs, too.

Armstrong is aware that the majority of his readers are not familiar with church history and is therefore confident that his arguments for Catholicism’s authority will appear logical.

They’re certainly more aware of it than the average Protestant. But my job is to educate, in any event. One can’t educate people who already know what you are about to teach them.

But even a casual student of church history knows popes and church councils have been in conflict.

If Tom would ever actually produce specific concrete examples of his sweeping claims, then we could have a discussion about it. As it is, there is no way to discuss a statement like the above; only to deny it, as I do now. There was never any conflict on doctrines that Catholics are bound to accept.

Armstrong points to the church’s magisterium as its guiding authority, but the magisterium has proven itself to be totally unreliable again and again. Dogmas have been defined that are un-Biblical and even anti-Biblical. By placing themselves above Scripture, the popes and their bishops were able to create man-made tradition upon man-made tradition. 

See my previous reply.

. . . we see that Catholicism has instead supplanted Scripture with its false gospel of salvation by sacramental grace and merit and by its anti-Biblical traditions.

No biblical arguments are provided. This is exceedingly weak argumentation; in fact, rarely any argument at all. Tom simply repeats anti-Catholic playbook polemics. For my part, I produce more than 200 biblical passages supporting the biblical gospel of faith which inherently includes works within itself, and against the false doctrine of “faith alone.”

Believers cry, “Sola Scriptura,” Scripture alone guides us, while Catholics, in substance, cry, “Sola Ecclesia,” their church leadership alone truly guides them.

This is untrue as well. First of all, we are believers, too. Secondly, we don’t believe in Church Alone. We believe in a rule of faith that consists of Bible, Church, and Tradition: all in complete harmony with each other, which includes Church and Tradition being in complete accord with the Bible. If Tom would stop misrepresenting what we believe, and read and interact with my replies, perhaps he would learn what we actually believe, and stop warring against a straw man.

*
*****

*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-three 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!
*
***
*

Summary: Anti-Catholic Tom just doesn’t understand the Catholic rule of faith and our method of interpreting Scripture. I explain the biblical parallel of Catholic authority.

October 27, 2023

October 27, 2023 By
0 Comments

Including “Straight Talk” on the Catholic and Protestant Inquisitions

[see book and purchase information for The Catholic Verses]

“excatholic4christ” (Tom) was raised Catholic, lost his faith in high school, attended Mass for a while after he married and had children, and then “accepted Jesus Christ” as his Savior, leading to his sole attendance at an independent fundamental Baptist church for eight years. He claims that the “legalism” of this church and the fact that his “trust had been in men rather than God” caused him to “walk away from the Lord for 23 years.” He “returned to the Lord” in 2014. As of April 2020, Tom stated that he was “somewhere in the middle of the Calvinism-Arminianism debate,” but “closer to Calvinism.” I couldn’t determine his denomination. See Tom’s index of all of his replies. I will now systematically refute them. His words will be in blue. When he cites my words, they will be in black. I use RSV, unless otherwise specified.

*****

This is a reply to Tom’s article, Catholic “Unity” and Denominationalism? (9-10-18).

Citing the seven passages below, Armstrong argues that the multiplicity of divisions within Protestantism is a bad thing:

John 17:20-23: “’I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one,’”

1 Corinthians 11:18-19: “For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.”

Romans 16:17: “I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them.”

1 Corinthians 1:10-13: “I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brethren. What I mean is that each one of you says, ‘I belong to Paul,’ or ‘I belong to Apollos,’ or ‘I  belong to Cephas,’ or ‘I belong to Christ.’ Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?”

1 Corinthians 3:3-4: “for you are still of the flesh. For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh, and behaving like ordinary men? For when one says, ‘I belong to Paul,’ and another, ‘I belong to Apollos,’ are you not merely men?

1 Corinthians 12:25: “that there may be no discord in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another.”

Philippians 2:2: “complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.”

The biblical data in this respect is so overwhelming that Tom decided to actually cite one of the seven passages in full, and to link to the other six.

Directly beneath John 17:20-23, Armstrong writes, “The Catholic position on Christian unity is fully in accord with biblical texts like this one. We believe that doctrine should be unified and that all Christians should be of one mind and spirit. It is to uphold this biblical injunction that we believe in dogma, hierarchical authority, apostolic Tradition, and a papacy. One may think what he will about all that, but it cannot be denied that Catholicism has traditionally been highly concerned with oneness of doctrine and avoidance of sectarianism and division.” p. 21.

Elsewhere he states, “In my opinion, this (i.e., division and denominationalism) is one of the most compelling and unanswerable disproofs of Protestantism as a system to be found in the Bible.” p. 25.

I completely agree with Armstrong regarding the Bible passages quoted above, that the Lord Jesus Christ and the apostles desired that all Christians be united in doctrine and practice, . . . 

This is very significant because, with this statement, Tom concedes the entire argument. Denominationalism (which necessarily — by nature — entails multiple conflicting doctrines, and hence much error, since two contradictory beliefs cannot both be correct) can’t be defended from Holy Scripture. I do give him a lot of credit for honestly recognizing this.

but there were tremendous challenges to that ideal from the very beginning. In his epistles, apostle Paul, relates that he was already alarmed at the Judaizers who were entering into the church and subverting the Gospel by insisting on works being added to grace.

The discussion is already over with, based on his previous sweeping concession. But Tom can’t stop with his concession and agreement, because then he would have no reply at all. Note, then, what he does next. Protestants, in dealing with denominationalism, almost always move from the biblical command and ideal, to the actual state of affairs. This is one of their many fatal errors. In effect, Protestants reason that “we can’t possibly live up to what we are commanded about unity, so we will invent new institutional structures that ignore and rationalize away these biblical commands.”

If we treated other doctrines in the Bible like this, the situation would be far worse than it is already. No Christian says, for example, that we can’t possibly live up to the prohibition of fornication and adultery, so we just have to accept fallen human nature as it is (“boys will be boys” etc.). That’s the world’s mentality: teenagers and young adults can’t possibly be sexually pure and abstinent. This is a lie. I have four children, ages 21-32, and they all did so (as my wife and I also did). So do many millions of other Christian unmarried young people. Christianity always requires a striving to live up to God’s sublime level of teaching and behavior, by His grace. What He commands us to do, He gives us the power and ability to do. This includes Christian unity and adherence to one unified body of doctrinal and moral truth, not multiple hundreds of competing, contradictory belief-systems.

Secondly, the fact that differing opinions exist, in contradiction to received apostolic tradition and the one Christian truth, doesn’t disprove that the one true Church exists. This is a fallacy. There have always been heresies and schisms, because these are people who decided to rebel against and depart from the received Catholic tradition. But the fact that some people may think 2+2=5 or that the earth is flat or that the sun goes around it, doesn’t change the facts that the truth is known in these instances, and that 2+2+4, and that the earth is a globe and travels around the sun. We don’t deny those truths because uninformed people exist and deny them.

Paul had to confront Peter, the alleged first infallible pope, at Antioch because of his compromise with the Judaizers.

This was an instance of Peter being a hypocrite for a time; not a doctrinal disagreement. Paul and Peter completely agreed, as to their opposition to the Judaizers, as seen clearly in the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15.

A response to Armstrong requires some knowledge of church history. It’s true that the bishops of Rome were eventually able to consolidate their power and impose a standardized and increasingly legalistic and ritualistic theology upon their subjects, but conformity was achieved often by means of intimidation and physical force. 

This is another huge concession. Tom admits that a “standardized . . . theology” and doctrinal “conformity” exists within Catholicism. But for some reason he doesn’t like this, and so has to run it down and slant his presentation of it. It’s a big discussion, but I would merely note the humor and irony of what Martin Luther stated about his own self-willed “authority” and infallibility when he decided to separate himself from the Catholic Church (having rejected fifty of its doctrines before his excommunication):

I shall no longer do you the honor of allowing you – or even an angel from heaven – to judge my teaching or to examine it. . . . I shall not have it judged by any man, not even by any angel. For since I am certain of it, I shall be your judge and even the angels’ judge through this teaching (as St. Paul says [I Cor. 6:3 ]) so that whoever does not accept my teaching may not be saved – for it is God’s and not mine. Therefore, my judgment is also not mine but God’s. (Against the Spiritual Estate of the Pope and the Bishops Falsely So-Called, July 1522, from Luther’s Works, edited by Jaroslav Pelikan [vols. 1-30] and Helmut T. Lehmann [vols. 31-55], St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House [vols. 1-30]; Philadelphia: Fortress Press [vols. 31-55], 1955. This work is from Vol. 39: Church and Ministry I [edited by J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, and H. T. Lehmann]; pages 239-299; translated by Eric W. and Ruth C. Gritsch; citation from pp. 248-249)

I have described Luther’s mentality here as “self-proclaimed super-duper infallibility and virtual inspiration.” Luther claimed far more authority than any pope has ever claimed. He thought he couldn’t possibly be wrong, even if an angel told him so. And let no one be deceived about early Lutherans’ use of the death penalty (with Luther’s express permission) to persecute the Anabaptists who disagreed on baptism. There was no religious liberty in early Lutheranism (as Luther’s most famous biographer, Roland Bainton freely admits and detests). If Tom believes in adult “believer’s baptism” he could very well have been executed in Luther’s Saxony in the 16th century. The leading anti-Catholic today, James White, certainly could have been, since he is a Reformed Baptist.

So Protestants want to bring up the Catholic Inquisition? I used to often do so myself before I converted. It was probably my favorite contra-Catholic “argument.” Protestants — in fact — had their own inquisition, which is rarely mentioned by Protestants (if they even ever learn about it). I have interacted with wives of Lutheran pastors, who weren’t aware that Luther advocated the execution of Anabaptists. I learned this in 1984, reading Bainton’s book on the drive down to my honeymoon, and I was a good evangelical Protestant then, and Luther was my hero (warts and all, as it were).

Was the authoritarian and imperialistic Roman Catholic church, which tortured and slaughtered millions in its quest for power, control, and wealth, what Jesus Christ and the apostles had in mind with regards to unity?

Now we enter the realm of the ridiculous, surreal, and hyper-slanderous charges. Tom reveals that he hasn’t done any serious research about numbers killed in the Inquisition. I have. John Bugay, a particularly ignorant anti-Catholic, claimed that 4.9 million were killed. I shot that down in 2010. Another man, who has since become a Catholic (so I won’t name him, in charity) claimed that the Catholic Inquisition claimed “50-68 million” lives (!!!). In fact, these are grotesque, comical, outrageous, know-nothing, brain-dead estimates. Actual scholars who have studied the Inquisition (including several non-Catholic ones) tell the truth about what we know.

I want to make it clear that I do not “defend” the Inquisition as a practice (because I know that when I bring this up, often I am falsely accused of that by anti-Catholics). I don’t defend such things committed by any Christian group. I never have. My position is that the early Church and current view of almost all Christians, of religious tolerance, is infinitely preferable. That said, what I do do is try to properly and accurately understand it in the context of its time (the Middle Ages and early modern periods).

In those days, almost all Christians (not just Catholics; minus only a few small groups like Anabaptists and Quakers) believed in corporal and capital punishment for heresy, because they thought (here is the correct premise) that heresy was far more dangerous to a person and society than physical disease was. That is exactly right: heresy can land one in hell; no disease could ever do that. So they believed in punishing the heretic for the sake of the good of the society. I deal with these issues at length, on my web page, “Inquisition, Crusades, and ‘Catholic Scandals’”.

It’s thought that the population of Europe was 73.5 million in 1340 and 50 million in 1450, due to the Black Death. It was about 70 million in 1550 and 78 million in 1600; 150 million by 1800. There is no way — from demographics and population research alone — that the numbers killed could be anything remotely approaching the ridiculous figures of 50-68 million. We know that they weren’t, anyway, by consulting actual historians and experts on the Middle Ages.

Edward Peters, professor of history at the University of Pennsylvania, author of Inquisition (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989). On page 87 of his book, Peters states: “The best estimate is that around 3000 death sentences were carried out in Spain by Inquisitorial verdict between 1550 and 1800, a far smaller number than that in comparable secular courts.”

Henry Kamen, a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society and professor of history at various universities, including the University of Wisconsin – Madison, is the author of The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision (London and New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998; fourth revised edition, 2014). Both Peters’ and Kamen’s work are featured in the Wikipedia article, “Historical Revision of the Inquisition”.

These two books are in the forefront of an emerging, very different perspective on the Inquisitions: an understanding that they were exponentially less inclined to issue death penalties than had previously been commonly assumed, and also quite different in character and even essence than the longstanding anti-Catholic stereotypes would have us believe. Dr. Kamen states in his book:

Taking into account all the tribunals of Spain up to about 1530, it is unlikely that more than two thousand people were executed for heresy by the Inquisition. (p. 60)

[I]t is clear that for most of its existence that Inquisition was far from being a juggernaut of death either in intention or in capability. . . . it would seem that during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries fewer than three people a year were executed in the whole of the Spanish monarchy from Sicily to Peru, certainly a lower rate than in any provincial court of justice in Spain or anywhere else in Europe. (p. 203)

For copiously documented facts and figures, see:  “Beyond the Myth of The Inquisition: Ours Is ‘The Golden Age’”, by Fr. Brian Van Hove, S. J., Faith and Reason (Winter, 1992).

One tires of these figures of “millions” thrown out, in complete ignorance of the actual scholarly research now available. Tom claims “millions” were killed by the Catholic Church. He offers no substantiation for this (as is his usual modus operandi; he rarely does serious research in this series). We don’t know how many “millions” he has in mind. Let’s assume for a moment that he meant two million, since he used the plural, “millions”; therefore, this would be his minimum figure.

Dr. Kamen says that about “two thousand” were killed in the Spanish Inquisition (the most famous one) “up to about 1530.” Dr. Peters  adds that there were “around 3000 death sentences . . . between 1550 and 1800.” So that is 5,000 altogether. This means that an estimate of two million is 400 times more numbers than scholars assert. Conclusion: Tom has no idea what he is talking about when dealing with this topic. That being the case, I suggest (in charity) that he shut up about it, before he embarrasses himself and destroys his own intellectual credibility (assuming there is any left) even further. Sadly, it’s all par for the course in anti-Catholic polemics.

50 million supposed deaths is 10,000 times more than the scholarly estimates. 68 million is 13,600 times more. Bugay’s “modest” figure of 4.9 million is 980 times more. This is ignoramus stuff. And that’s putting it mildly. In charity, I assume ignorance is in play and not deliberate lying. But I wouldn’t put it past many anti-Catholics, to deliberately lie about the Catholic Church that they hate so much (though they invariably hate a “Catholic Church” of their own making, not the real one). I can’t read Tom’s heart, so I don’t know if he is an ignoramus in historical matters or a liar. But those are the only two choices regarding this discussion, given his claim. If he is honest, he will read this article and recant his claim and repent and apologize for misleading his readers.

Catholic apologists see the multitude of Protestant denominations as a proof of their illegitimacy, but the growth of denominations was actually the fruit of constant reform and a check against wholesale heresy as had happened with Roman Catholicism. Catholics deride the decentralized patchquilt of evangelicalism, which bases its authority solely upon God’s Holy Word, but that is precisely where the Holy Spirit has done His work, not within the corruption of the Vatican’s regal hallways.

This is shoddy, unbiblical thinking. There is so much wrong with this mindset, that I feel like a mosquito in a nudist colony. Where to begin? I will cite two of my many past critiques of denominationalism:

I’ve been saying for years that this currently very fashionable fetish for uncertainty is a species of postmodernism or liberalism. The sad thing now is that many thinking evangelical or Calvinist Protestants are now adopting these liberal, skeptical modes of thought without being aware (or so it seems) of where they derive, or how contrary they are not only to Catholicism, but even to their own Protestant traditions (folks like Luther and Calvin).

The New Testament doesn’t offer the slightest hint of doctrinal relativism (to any degree), permitted differences on anything other than non-doctrinal matters such as what food to eat. It has not the remotest trace of the current (not historic) Protestant fascination with doctrinal diversity and subjective struggle, or the notion of “primary vs. secondary” doctrines; with the latter up for grabs and entirely optional.

Instead, what is found in the New Testament is a constant, unchanging casual assumption (above all in St. Paul) that there is but one truth, one faith, one commandment, one doctrine, one teaching, one message, one gospel, etc.

The “quest for uncertainty” is  the same mentality that has led to Episcopalianism accepting practicing homosexual bishops, and the ELCA (Lutheran) recently adopting the same thing for clergy, and PCUSA (Presbyterian) voting to remove fornication from the roster of sins, and all the mainline denominations sanctioning childkilling. (3-15-06; modified and condensed a bit)

Many Protestants are on a “quest for uncertainty” that never ends. It’s a very common theme. They glory in it. They think it’s great (rather than a tragic scandal) that they can’t figure lots of things out in Christianity and that their sects endlessly contradict each other.

They are forever searching (i.e., those who think like this). I like the treasure hunt as much as the next guy, but God wants us to know the truth, so we can fully live by it, rather than spend our whole lives searching, as if faith and spirituality were mere philosophy or a sort of “whodunit” where the (lifelong?) search is for the fullness of Christian truth rather than the murderer.

Many Protestants don’t think that the fullness of Christian truth is possible to find at all. They go beyond the endless quest and questioning to a sort of apathy or “worldly wise” cynicism. They’ve long since given up and resigned themselves to Protestant institutional chaos, and play self-deluded games that there is such a thing as “secondary doctrines” where it’s fine to disagree and contradict each other, since God supposedly didn’t make it clear enough in Scripture (how ironic!).

There are only so many ways to rationalize a violently, utterly unbiblical denominationalism. You either keep searching forever among the infinite choices, or become apathetic that the fullness of Christian truth can be found amidst the chaos and anarchism.

One of the leading arguments of atheists is: “how can Christians have any credibility because they disagree with each other so much?” In this sense, the atheist often understands the utter scandal of division and disunity even more than many Protestants do, who rationalize it away and glory in it. Luther and Calvin are certainly turning over in their graves. Despite their many errors, they never believed ideas as silly as these. They believed that there was one fullness of Christian truth and that they had it in their own camp (precisely as Catholics continue to believe). (2-12-14; condensed citation)

What good is Protestantism “bas[ing] its authority solely upon God’s Holy Word” when, sadly and tragically, in so many cases, Protestants can’t even figure out what the truth is? I always use the example of baptism, which is a pretty basic Christian doctrine, and believed to be absolutely necessary and supremely important by almost all Christians. Protestants can’t even agree on the nature and practice of that. I wrote about Protestants and baptism in my first book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism:

Protestants are split into infant and adult camps. Furthermore, the infant camp contains those who accept baptismal regeneration (Lutherans, Anglicans, and to some extent, Methodists), as does the adult camp (Churches of Christ and Disciples of Christ).  Regeneration absolutely has a bearing on salvation, and therefore is a primary doctrine. The Salvation Army and the Quakers don’t baptize at all (the latter doesn’t even celebrate the Eucharist). Thus, there are five distinct competing belief-systems among Protestants with regard to baptism.  (p. 242)

It’s the same with the Eucharist (regarded by many Protestants — as is baptism —  as a sacrament. Some believe in the Real Presence as we do (Lutherans and some “high church” or Anglo-Catholic Anglicans). Others believe in a mystical presence (Calvinists), and still others, that it is pure symbolism and no more (Baptists and many denominations and non-denominational Christians, including myself in the past). They can’t resolve these differences to “save their lives.” And it’s scandalous, because it is a biblically condemned disunity, and because falsehood must be present in one or more of these views, by the laws of logic and contradiction.

The devil is the father of lies. Falsehood and untruth do no one any good. Yet Protestants like Tom pretend that this is a good thing, in saying that it’s “where the Holy Spirit has done His work.”  Sorry; the Holy Spirit does not cooperate with false doctrines and falsehoods generally. We know who it is that lies behind those. And there are plenty of false doctrines in Protestantism. There must be, since contradictions are rampant. They just can’t figure out — in many cases — which doctrines are false and which are true. Thus, Protestantism in these instances reduces to mere subjectivism and relativism, rather than the biblical ideal of absolute truth and certainty by God’s grace and guidance.

Evangelical Protestants may be divided over secondary doctrinal beliefs, but we are united in our belief in the Gospel of salvation by God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone.

Protestants get the gospel of grace right, through Jesus Christ. Praise God. They don’t get everything wrong. When they agree with us (as here, and in many doctrines), they’re right! because we are the only ones who have preserved biblical and apostolic doctrine and morality in its fullness and completeness.

Armstrong describes this as “de facto doctrinal relativism” (p. 28), and dismisses it completely. 

That’s false. Here I am quoted out of context. I was referring specifically to so-called “secondary” doctrines “on which Protestants disagree.” The centrality of grace and Jesus Christ for salvation is not one of these doctrines, and they agree with us regarding this particular belief.

The only legitimate unity in Armstrong’s opinion is institutional homogeneity,

Yes; in accordance with the biblical notion that there is but one theological and spiritual “truth”, one “faith”, one “doctrine”, one “commandment”, one “teaching”, and one “message”. I have collected the NT instances of those words in one of my books. It took up thirteen pages.

which he would have the reader believe is the case with Catholicism, but how true is that claim?

Very true, and in fact anti-Catholic rhetoric and railing against our distinctive doctrines, which they hate and reject, absolutely proves this. Every anti-Catholic knows full well that we believe in papal infallibility, hierarchical Church government, private confession to priests, absolution, mortal and venial sins, transubstantiation, infant baptismal regeneration, penance, all the Marian doctrines, seven sacraments, eucharistic adoration, the invocation and veneration of saints, the necessary coupling of works with faith, the “three-legged stool” rule of faith (infallible Bible-tradition-Church), canonization of saints, purgatory, 73 OT books, and (on the moral plane) the prohibition of contraception and homosexual acts and divorce.

None of this is a mystery, and the anti-Catholic vigorously opposes and despises all of these beliefs, and never for a second wonders what we believe with regard to them. Nevertheless they — oddly enough — turn around — as Tom will do in his next comment — and claim that we don’t have doctrinal unity. We certainly do, when one consults our actual manuals of dogma, the Catechism, Vatican II, papal encyclicals, etc. But it’s equally certain to one and all that Protestantism has not, and can never achieve doctrinal unity, because of its rejection of conciliar and papal infallibility.

As I mentioned previously, the pope and his bishops were able to impose their man-made traditions as dogma by force with the support of civil authorities from the 500s right up into the 20th Century. That, thankfully, is no longer the case.

Catholics willingly accept Church teaching because that is what we believe. No one “forces” us to do so. What, is this the “millions” that Tom claims were killed for not accepting Church authority? Even in the Inquisition, almost all executions were performed by the civil authority of the state, not by Churchmen.

In present-day Catholicism, one can find a broad range of beliefs, even among the clergy, from the most liberal type of Bible-denying modernism to pre-Vatican II militant intransigence.

That’s right: among individual Catholics. But individual erroneous and/or rebellious opinions are not the same as dogmatic Church teachings and infallible doctrines. See my articles:

*
Have Heterodox Catholics Overthrown Official Doctrine? (vs. Eric Svendsen, James White, Phillip Johnson, & Andrew Webb) [6-3-96]
*
This book was published fourteen years ago and Armstrong could not have possibly foreseen the current crisis in the Catholic church, with many conservatives now publicly opposing pope Francis

Yes, when they do that, they are no different from Protestants or Catholic liberal heterodox dissidents. They have lost faith in papal indefectibility, which is binding doctrine, most clearly formulated in Vatican I in 1870. In 2004, when this book was published, I was defending Pope St. John Paul the Great from unjust criticisms from Catholics. I have defended the next pope, Benedict XVI as well, and I will defend the next one in the future. There are always folks in any group that don’t “get it.” This doesn’t change the nature of the official teachings of said group.

and his doctrine-bending reforms.

This is nonsense. Pope Francis has not changed a single required doctrine of Catholicism. He has modified a few practices, which is, of course, altogether permissible and within his prerogative as pope to do (requiring priestly celibacy was an example of this, hundreds of years ago). I know what I’m talking about, as I have defended him against scurrilous charges 220 times and collected another 299 defenses from others. If he had actually changed doctrines (which is impossible to do by the nature of the Catholic system (very unlike Protestantism), he would be a heretic. But even a strong papal critic like Phil Lawler, author of the book, Lost Shepherd: How Pope Francis is Misleading His Flock (2018), which I have dissected and exposed many times, admits that there is no case against him as a heretic:

Well, is the Pope a heretic? I am not qualified to address that question. . . . Who could make the authoritative judgment that the Pope had fallen into heresy and therefore lost his authority? Certainly not a handful of independent scholars.

To their credit, the authors of the Easter Letter recognize the need for an authoritative statement, for a judgment by the world’s bishops. But if that is their goal, should they not have approached sympathetic bishops privately, quietly, to make their case? . . .

Peter Kwasniewski, one of the principal authors of the letter, now says that the document lists “instances of heresy that cannot be denied.” This, I’m afraid, is a demonstrably false statement. The “instances of heresy” mentioned in the letter have been denied, and repeatedly. The authors of the letter are convinced of their own arguments, but they have not convinced others. In fact they have not convinced me, and if they cannot persuade a sympathetic reader, they are very unlikely to convince a skeptical world. . . . (“Is the Pope a heretic? The danger of asking the wrong question,” Catholic Culture, 3 May 2019)

In a follow-up article of 16 May 2019, Lawler added: “the authors of the open letter made a tactical mistake, because the charge of heresy is very difficult to prove . . .”

Yet we are to believe that anonymous anti-Catholic polemicist Tom knows more about Catholic teachings and what is heretical, than someone like Phil Lawler (or any adequately educated Catholic)? It’s beyond ridiculous. Therefore, this line of argument that he is attempting has not proven anything, either about the alleged heresy of the pope, or some supposed disproof of Catholic doctrinal unity. He needs to examine his own house and stop spouting ignorant and unsubstantiated statements.

Catholicism is certainly no unified monolith as its apologists would like you to believe.

Again, among individuals it is not, but they are not the magisterium of the Church. Actual, “official” Church doctrine (which is what we should be discussing, in any examination of what a given Christian communion creedally believes) is indeed unified and has not essentially changed.

It would be wonderful if all genuine Christians were united in doctrine and practice

Yes, wouldn’t it be nice (to quote the Beach Boys) if all Christians took all of the commands and teachings of the Bible seriously and professed allegiance to the one true Church established by Jesus Christ?

but this side of eternity we gladly rejoice in our unity in the Gospel of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

In other words, “we don’t have enough faith to believe in all of the biblical teachings, commanded in inspired revelation, or enough faith to believe that the Holy Spirit could prevent the one Church from descending into doctrinal error, so we will ignore the question of the truth with regard to many doctrines and keep spouting our slogans for the few things that we still hold in common as Protestants (minus several liberal denominations that have rejected even those). God could produce an inspired, inerrant Bible written by sinful men, but He can’t preserve an infallible Church inhabited by sinful men.”

Rome can keep its false gospel of sacramental grace and merit and its faux, worldly-patterned, institutional unity. . . . an objective analysis reveals the only unity Catholicism can boast of is its un-Biblical and anti-Biblical error.

This is simply boilerplate anti-Catholic polemics. Each issue has to be discussed on its own; so, nice try.

I have presented what the Bible teaches regarding Christian and doctrinal unity, and even Tom agrees that “all Christians” ought to “be united in doctrine and practice.” But he concludes in despair that it’s not possible for God’s Church to be doctrinally unified. Catholics refuse to sink to that hyper-skeptical level. We accept and seek to follow all of the Bible’s teaching, as opposed to Protestants picking and choosing — in an attitude of lack of faith in God’s power and providence — what they will adhere to, and what is “impossible” for God to accomplish “this side of eternity.”

I rest my case.

*
*****

*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-three 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!
*
***
*

Summary: Anti-Catholic Tom concedes that the Bible teaches required doctrinal unity among Christians, but then oddly proceeds to argue for Protestant relativism and chaos.

October 26, 2023

October 26, 2023 By
0 Comments

Including the Biblical Conception of “Saints” and “Sinners”

[see book and purchase information for The Catholic Verses]

“excatholic4christ” (Tom) was raised Catholic, lost his faith in high school, attended Mass for a while after he married and had children, and then “accepted Jesus Christ” as his Savior, leading to his sole attendance at an independent fundamental Baptist church for eight years. He claims that the “legalism” of this church and the fact that his “trust had been in men rather than God” caused him to “walk away from the Lord for 23 years.” He “returned to the Lord” in 2014. As of April 2020, Tom stated that he was “somewhere in the middle of the Calvinism-Arminianism debate,” but “closer to Calvinism.” I couldn’t determine his denomination. See Tom’s index of all of his replies. I will now systematically refute them. His words will be in blue. When he cites my words, they will be in black. I use RSV, unless otherwise specified.

*****

This is a reply to Tom’s article, Sinners in the Church? (9-3-18).

With the three passages below, Armstrong argues that both “saints” and “sinners” reside within the church:

2 Corinthians 11:2-4 I feel a divine jealousy for you, for I betrothed you to Christ to present you as a pure bride to her one husband. But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes and preaches another Jesus than the one we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you submit to it readily enough.

Galatians 1:1-6 Paul an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead— and all the brethren who are with me, to the churches of Galatia: Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father; to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen. I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel.

Revelation 3:1-6 And to the angel of the church in Sardis write: ‘The words of him who has the seven spirits of God and the seven stars. “‘I know your works; you have the name of being alive, and you are dead. Awake, and strengthen what remains and is on the point of death, for I have not found your works perfect in the sight of my God. Remember then what you received and heard; keep that, and repent. If you will not awake, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come upon you. Yet you have still a few names in Sardis, people who have not soiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white, for they are worthy. He who conquers shall be clad thus in white garments, and I will not blot his name out of the book of life; I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’

Directly beneath these passages, Armstrong writes, “…(these verses show) the Catholic position: there are sinners in the Church alongside “saints,” as in the parable of the wheat and the tares (Matt. 13:24-30). Many Protestants persist in believing that the Christian Church can be pure and without sinners or instances of hypocrisy, even though these passages show that this was not anticipated by the apostles our by our Lord Jesus.” pp. 16-17.

Armstrong has set up a semi-“straw man” here. To start with, evangelicals refer to the church both in the general sense of all genuine believers around the world who make up the Body of Christ and in the particular sense of a local congregation. Evangelicals certainly believe that when they gather together as a local church (Greek eccleisa [should be ecclesia] “called-out assembly or congregation”), there may be some included who have not genuinely accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior by faith alone.

Only God knows who is of the class of the elect or not. Human beings don’t have certain, infallible knowledge of individuals’ eternal destiny. Even John Calvin agreed with this observation.

But of course Catholics and evangelicals disagree fundamentally on the terms, “sinners” and “saints,” as Armstrong’s comments indicate. We evangelicals believe all people are sinners and deserve eternal punishment,

Catholics hold to original sin as strongly as Protestants do.

but that everyone who repents of their sin and accepts Jesus Christ as their Savior by faith alone are saved and become saints (Latin sanctus, Greek hagios “separated ones“).

Scripture uses the term “saints” in the generic sense of Christian believer (see many examples of this), but at the same time it also notes that there are exceptional people (in effect, saints in the Catholic sense of “exceptionally, heroically holy”) who are more righteous and holier than others:

“All Have Sinned” vs. a Sinless, Immaculate Mary? [1996; revised and posted at National Catholic Register on 12-11-17]

Total Depravity: Reply to James White: Calvinism and Romans 3:10-11 (“None is Righteous . . . No One Seeks For God”) [4-15-07]

Lucas Banzoli’s Mindless Denigration of an Imagined “Mary” (Including Extensive Biblical Analyses of Exceptionally “Righteous” and “Holy” People, and Merit) [9-11-22]

The Bible Is Clear: Some Holy People Are Holier Than Others [National Catholic Register, 9-19-22]

Sinless Creatures in the Bible: Actual & Potential (Including a Listing of Many Biblical Passages About Sin, Holiness, Blamelessness, Righteousness, Godliness, Perfection, and Sanctity) [10-20-22; greatly expanded on 7-27-23]

The Bible presupposes, for example, that there are exceptionally righteous people — such as the prophet Elijah — and that their prayers are more powerful than the prayers of those who are less righteous. James (5:16-18) gave the example of Elijah as “a righteous man” (5:16). noting that “he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth” (5:17). I don’t know of any Protestants (who may think they are so holy and eternally justified since their theology holds that they were merely declared righteous, when in fact they are not) who have successfully prayed such a prayer:

Bible on the Power of Prayers of the Righteous [11-16-22]

I noted in my Reply #2 in this series, the Bible’s reference to “blameless” people:

Zechariah and his wife Elizabeth . . . [are described] as “righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless” (Lk 1:6; cf. other “blameless” men: Noah [Gen 6:9]; King David [2 Sam 22:24]; King Asa [2 Chr 15:17]; Job [Job 1:1, 8; 2:3], and Daniel [Dan 6:22]). And all of this was even before Jesus died on the cross for our salvation and before the Holy Spirit came to dwell inside of all believers!

The book of Hebrews describes the people that Catholics call “saints” in the following passage:

Hebrews 11:32-38 . . . For time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets — [33] who through faith conquered kingdoms, enforced justice, received promises, stopped the mouths of lions, [34] quenched raging fire, escaped the edge of the sword, won strength out of weakness, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight. [35] Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life. [36] Others suffered mocking and scourging, and even chains and imprisonment. [37] They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were killed with the sword; they went about in skins of sheep and goats, destitute, afflicted, ill-treated — [38] of whom the world was not worthy — wandering over deserts and mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.

The word “saint” isn’t used, but it is clearly describing the second use of the word, as Catholics use it. The word “Trinity” and several other common Christian terms aren’t in the Bible, either. St. Paul differentiates between varying levels of devotion to the Lord, including heroic self-sacrifice, in noting (as a generalization, but reflecting reality) that the unmarried man is “anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord” (1 Cor 7:32) and that “the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit” (7:34) and that both exhibit an “undivided devotion to the Lord” (7:35).

Although we are saints because of Christ’s imputed perfect righteousness,

No; we are “saints” in the first, biblical sense if we have professed allegiance to Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior and are “believers” (see 12 NT uses of that term).

we still have a sinful nature and follow the Lord only imperfectly. 

Catholics say that we have a sinful inclination (subject to constant concupiscence, which, if indulged in, leads to temptation and/or sin). But the imperfect following of Jesus and our continued sinning is where we can agree (setting aside for a moment the vexed issue of the nature of justification), and what I am discussing when addressing the topic of “sinners in the Church.” It’s an apologetics topic because some Protestants use the “argument from sin” to claim that the Catholic Church can’t possibly be God’s one true — historically continuous and institutional — Church, founded by Jesus Himself. I in turn argue from the Bible that we are to fully expect and not be surprised at all at the existence of such sinners in the one true Church (because it has always been this way, from the beginning).

Catholic belief, as Armstrong presents it here, generally regards all of those who are not striving to be “good,” those both inside and outside the church, as sinners,

This is untrue. A “sinner” as we define it, is simply one who is presently sinning (as determined by a good examination of one’s own conscience). If a person, for example, steals a coat or visits a house of prostitution, or is a prostitute, then he or she is sinning, and hence, a sinner while they are engaging in those sins. Hence, Jesus said (in agreement with Catholics), “I came not to call the righteous, but sinners” (Mt 9:13); “the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners” (Mt 26:45). “Tax collectors” are often regarded in the NT as synonymous with “sinners” (because they almost universally cheated their own people, as agents of Rome). See Matthew 9:10; Luke 15:1; 18:13.

St. Paul does indeed use the word “sinners” in the sense of “subject to original sin” (Rom 5:8, 19), but he also uses the word in the Catholic sense:

1 Timothy 1:9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

The author of Hebrews does the same:

Hebrews 12:3 Consider him who endured from sinners such hostility against himself, so that you may not grow weary or fainthearted.

James is writing to Christians in his letter (“brethren”: 1:2, and 14 other times in the book, including “my beloved brethren”: 1:16, 19; 2:5). Yet at the same time he can call them (at least some of them) “sinners”:

James 4:8 Draw near to God and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you men of double mind.

St. Paul states in the present tense: “I am the foremost of sinners” (1 Tim 1:15) because in his past he “persecuted the church of God” (1 Cor 15:9; Gal 1:13). This utterly destroys the notion that the Bible describes as “sinners” only those who are not professed believers, or the “saved” as Protestants say (wrongly thinking that they are certain of their eternal destiny).

and those who have achieved or are on their way to achieving a super-sanctimonious “state of grace,” as saints.

This is incorrect, too. We believe that those who are in a “state of grace” are those who are 1) regenerated (at baptism) and 2) who are not currently engaged in serious, or mortal sin (a biblical distinction). We refer to people as “saints” in the second meaning, who have been determined (by a long “canonization” process of study in the Church) as ones who exhibited heroic, self-sacrificing, extraordinary sanctity. The Bible teaches that there exist differing levels of grace among human beings (even among believers), too.

But what is Armstrong REALLY trying to address here? It’s obvious he’s responding to Protestant objections to Catholic popes, cardinals, bishops, and priests for the copious instances of outrageous immorality, corruption, and cruelty down through the ages.

Yes, and another way I address this much-abused and much misunderstood topic is to note that all Christian groups — including Protestants — have been guilty of great sin, even including murder and persecution of fellow Christians (sanctioned at the highest levels by folks like Luther and Calvin). This renders the entire discussion a “wash.” Nothing is learned or accomplished by it.

It’s apparent to every thinking reader why Armstrong declines to cite that corruption directly in an apologetics book such as this. He’s not going to voluntarily bring up Catholicism’s embarrassing history if he can avoid it, but still feels he must address the Protestant criticism.

Our history is no better or worse than any other Christian group’s history, but it should be noted that we’ve also been around since the time of Christ, whereas Protestantism was invented fifteen centuries after Him; so we simply have much more history — four times as much —  that includes sinners in it as well as saints (as we would fully expect, human beings being what they are: mixtures of good and evil).

As for my supposedly attempting to avoid bringing up unpleasant instances in Catholic history, I direct Tom and anyone to my extensive web page, “Inquisition, Crusades, & ‘Catholic Scandals’ “. That’s an odd way of trying to supposedly hide such things. I address it in many places in my writings, including in some of the variants of my conversion story — since objection to the Inquisition was one of my own most strenuous objections to the Catholic Church.

I also have a section entitled, “Papal Scandals / ‘Bad Popes’ ” on my Papacy & Infallibility web page. It contains 18 articles. I’m more than happy to address the issue of “scandals in Catholic history”, but Protestants are always very reluctant to talk about the many “skeletons in their own closet and the glaring scandals that occurred during their so-called “Reformation.”

Protestants know full well that all men sin, even after accepting Christ as Savior by faith alone. What Protestants can’t abide is Catholicism’s boast that popes, in concert with their cardinals and bishops, are infallibly guided in all important matters touching upon faith and morals in the face of such blatant corruption.

The Bible doesn’t teach that authority and infallibility must coincide with personal sinlessness or impeccability. Jesus chose a man (Peter) who denied He was Christ three times, to be the first leader of His Church. Peter wrote part of the New Testament, too. Then He chose Paul to be the preeminent evangelist of all time and one who wrote half or more of the New Testament: a man who had persecuted and murdered Christians before his conversion.

God made an eternal covenant with King David, knowing from all eternity that David would have a man killed so that he could marry his wife, that he was already having sex with. But David repented, and the Bible describes him as “a man after his [i.e., God’s] own heart” (1 Sam 13:14). David became the prototype of the Messiah (Jesus) and wrote most of the Psalms. Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible, but he had murdered a man as well (Ex 2:12). Many more such biblical examples exist. If sinful men could write an inerrant, inspired Bible with the help of God’s grace (a greater gift), then certainly it’s not implausible (let alone impossible) for sinful men to be protected from error when they are popes proclaiming binding doctrine (a far lesser gift than biblical inspiration).

So some popes were notorious sinners? Very few were, in fact, but in any event, this poses no problem at all, in terms of the office possessing infallibility in carefully prescribed conditions. The two things are distinct. Even Jesus had one bad disciple, Judas, who is called a “disciple” several times in the Bible.

***

Related Reading

Sins and Sinners in the Catholic Church [1998]

*
*
*
*

*
*****

*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-three 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!
*
***
*

Summary: Anti-Catholic Tom is out to sea in his brief examination of the issue of “sinners in the Church.” I take a deeper look at the Bible’s teaching regarding “sinners” & “saints.”

October 24, 2023

October 24, 2023 By
0 Comments

Also, the Biblical Definition of the Gospel

[see book and purchase information for The Catholic Verses]

“excatholic4christ” (Tom) was raised Catholic, lost his faith in high school, attended Mass for a while after he married and had children, and then “accepted Jesus Christ” as his Savior, leading to his sole attendance at an independent fundamental Baptist church for eight years. He claims that the “legalism” of this church and the fact that his “trust had been in men rather than God” caused him to “walk away from the Lord for 23 years.” He “returned to the Lord” in 2014.

By August 2018 he felt he was able and equipped to offer refutations of this book of mine (see his index of all replies; I am banned from commenting on his site). It took him eight months to answer all of my “Catholic verses” (actually 104 in total). At least he did deal with every one, which is commendable. I will now systematically refute them. As of April 2020, Tom stated that he was “somewhere in the middle of the Calvinism-Arminianism debate,” but “closer to Calvinism.” We know neither his name nor his denomination (which is very unimpressive, in my book). His words will be in blue. When he cites my words, they will be in black. I use RSV, unless otherwise specified.

*****

#1: The Church is the Pillar of All Truth? (8-13-18)

I completely agree with Armstrong’s argument that the gospel preached by Catholicism  (salvation by sacramental grace and merit) and the Gospel preached by Biblical Christianity (salvation by God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone) are not the same, but are, in fact, diametrically opposed.

Except for the small detail that I have never made such an argument. I have maintained — both as a Protestant and Catholic apologist, since 1981 — that the gospel, as it is defined in the Bible itself, is held by Protestants, Orthodox, and Catholics alike. St. Paul defines the gospel in Acts 13:16-41 as the resurrection of Jesus (vss. 32-33), and in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8, the  “gospel” (15:1) that he “preached” (1:1) was that “Christ died for our sins” (15:3), was “was raised on the third day” (15:4), and appeared to Peter, the disciples, the apostles, and “more than five hundred brethren” (15:5-8).

We must define the “gospel” from the Bible. I just did so, and anyone who knows basic Christian theology knows that all three great branches of Christianity completely concur in these things. We do have other differences, of course. Catholics agree with Protestants that we are ultimately saved by Christ alone (Jn 11:25-26; 12:46; Rom 5:9-10), through grace alone (e.g., Rom 3:24; Gal 1:15; Eph 2:8; 2 Tim 1:9), and by and through faith (Rom 3:28; 5:1; Gal 2:16; 3:24), because those are biblical teachings. We disagree that salvation is by faith alone because that is not a biblical teaching:

Matthew 7:21 Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

John 14:12 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father.

Romans 2:13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

James 1:22 But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.

James 2:14 What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? (cf. 2:24)

The Catholic Church teaches that Protestants believe in the same gospel as we do in stating that Protestants, “as members of corporate groups . . . have heard the Gospel . . . The sacred Council gladly notes all this” (Vatican II, Decree on Ecumenism [Unitatis Redintegratio], 21 November 1964).

. . . let’s look at the first of the [sic] Armstrong’s “Catholic” verses by which he claims the church is the pillar of the truth:

I didn’t “claim” anything here. It was St. Paul in the inspired, inerrant revelation of Scripture who claimed that, in 1 Timothy 3:15. I merely defend what he wrote (“. . . the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth”).

From this verse, Armstrong argues that the Catholic church “is the [ . . . ] foundation [ . . . ] of truth; it is infallible; it is specially protected by the Holy Spirit so that it can be the Guardian and Preserver of apostolic tradition and truth and doctrine” (p. 3).

Tom improperly abridged my words without noting it, as indicated by the bracketed ellipses. The meaning wasn’t changed, but it is still a sloppy and inaccurate citation.

But is it reasonable to construe all of those claims from this verse?

Yes; it’s perfectly reasonable and solid exegesis.

Catholicism is prone to greatly overreach with its Bible interpretations as we shall see going forward.

I actually made a much more elaborate analysis of the passage eight years later in my book, 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura (2012, pp. 104-107, #82):

Pillars and foundations support things and prevent them from collapsing. To be a “bulwark” of the truth, means to be a “safety net” against truth turning into falsity. If the Church could err, it could not be what Scripture says it is. God’s truth would be the house built on a foundation of sand in Jesus’ parable. For this passage of Scripture to be true, the Church could not err — it must be infallible. A similar passage may cast further light on 1 Timothy 3:15:

Ephesians 2:19-21 . . . you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, [20] built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, [21] in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord;

1 Timothy 3:15 defines “household of God” as “the church of the living God.” Therefore, we know that Ephesians 2:19-21 is also referring to the Church, even though that word is not present. Here the Church’s own “foundation” is “the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.” The foundation of the Church itself is Jesus and apostles and prophets.

Prophets spoke “in the name of the Lord” (1 Chron 21:19; 2 Chron 33:18; Jer 26:9), and commonly introduced their utterances with “thus says the Lord” (Is 10:24; Jer 4:3; 26:4; Ezek 13:8; Amos 3:11-12; and many more). They spoke the “word of the Lord” (Is 1:10; 38:4; Jer 1:2; 13:3, 8; 14:1; Ezek 13:1-2; Hos 1:1; Joel 1:1; Jon 1:1; Mic 1:1, et cetera). These communications cannot contain any untruths insofar as they truly originate from God, with the prophet serving as a spokesman or intermediary of God (Jer 2:2; 26:8; Ezek 11:5; Zech 1:6; and many more). Likewise, apostles proclaimed truth unmixed with error (1 Cor 2:7-13; 1 Tim 2:7; 2 Tim 1:11-14; 2 Pet 1:12-21).

Does this foundation have any faults or cracks? Since Jesus is the cornerstone, he can hardly be a faulty foundation. Neither can the apostles or prophets err when teaching the inspired gospel message or proclaiming God’s word. In the way that apostles and prophets are infallible, so is the Church set up by our Lord Jesus Christ. We ourselves (all Christians) are incorporated into the Church (following the metaphor), on top of the foundation.

1 Peter 2:4-9 Come to him, to that living stone, rejected by men but in God’s sight chosen and precious; [5] and like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. [6] For it stands in scripture: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and he who believes in him will not be put to shame.” [7] To you therefore who believe, he is precious, but for those who do not believe, “The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner,” [8] and “A stone that will make men stumble, a rock that will make them fall”; for they stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do. [9] But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. (cf. Isa 28:16)

Jesus is without fault or untruth, and he is the cornerstone of the Church. The Church is also more than once even identified with Jesus himself, by being called his “Body” (Acts 9:5 cf. with 22:4 and 26:11; 1 Cor 12:27; Eph 1:22-23; 4:12; 5:23, 30; Col 1:24). That the Church is so intimately connected with Jesus, who is infallible, is itself a strong argument that the Church is also infallible and without error.

Therefore, the Church is built on the foundation of Jesus (perfect in all knowledge), and the prophets and apostles (who spoke infallible truth, often recorded in inspired, infallible Scripture). Moreover, it is the very “Body of Christ.” It stands to reason that the Church herself is infallible, by the same token. In the Bible, nowhere is truth presented as anything less than pure truth, unmixed with error. That was certainly how Paul conceived his own “tradition” that he received and passed down.

Knowing what truth is, how can its own foundation or pillar be something less than total truth (since truth itself contains no falsehoods, untruths, lies, or errors)? It cannot. It is impossible. It is a straightforward matter of logic and plain observation. A stream cannot rise above its source. What is built upon a foundation cannot be greater than the foundation. If it were, the whole structure would collapse.

If an elephant stood on the shoulders of a man as its foundation, that foundation would collapse. The base of a skyscraper has to hold the weight above it. The foundations of a suspension bridge over a river have to be strong enough to support that bridge.

Therefore, we must conclude that if the Church is the foundation of truth, the Church must be infallible, since truth is infallible, and the foundation cannot be lesser than that which is built upon it. And since there is another infallible authority apart from Scripture, sola scriptura must be false.

If Tom cares to counter-respond and actually engage in back-and-forth, one-on-one dialogue and debate, I’d love to see him grapple with all that. I understand that this was from a different book, but nevertheless it’s my more detailed and thought-through argumentation and reasoning regarding the same passage. In any event, what he views as “overreach”, I regard as a rather straightforward logical conclusion (as just explained).

If we examine the original Greek used in this verse, we find that the words for pillar and foundation, stulos and hedraioma, mean “pillar, column, prop, or support” and “prop or support” respectively.

That’s right. Stylos is Strong’s Greek word #4769 and hedraiōma is Strong’s Greek word #1477. I have drawn out the logical implications of the two words. Stylos appears 138 times in 99 passages in the Septuagint (LXX): the 3rd c. BC Greek translation of the Old Testament. It was used, for example, twice with regard to the pillars that Samson  broke apart, bringing down the house on his Philistine enemies:

Judges 16:26 . . . the pillars on which the house rests . . .

Judges 16:29 And Samson grasped the two middle pillars upon which the house rested, . . .

Likewise, in 1 Timothy 3:15, the Church is the stylos of the truth. If it collapses, the truth goes with it. But we know that the Church is indefectible and will never collapse or depart from apostolic, spiritual, biblical, and theological truth. The same word was used with regard to Solomon’s house, which “was covered with cedar above the chambers that were upon the forty-five pillars, fifteen in each row” (1 Kgs 7:3). The pillars support the chambers. The Church supports and upholds the truth, and to do so it must be infallible, as I argued above.

I like how hedraiōma is translated in Tom’s own NIV: “foundation.” What does it mean to be the “foundation” of the truth? I have elaborated upon what I think it means. On the Bible Gateway site that provides many translations for a given Bible verse, for our passage it lists no less than 32 versions that render hedraiōma as “foundation”, sixteen use “support” and eleven translate it as “ground.” There is no mystery as to what is meant in this passage. Protestants simply don’t like what it means — what the implications would be — (notably, the death of sola Scriptura as a rule of faith), and so they desperately seek to define it away.

The church (all genuine believers in Christ, not just leaders) is not the foundation of the truth, but is the steward of the truth, which we have in God’s Word. . . . 

Paul makes it repeatedly clear throughout his epistles that Scripture is our standard, not weak, fallible men inside the church.

This is ridiculous argumentation. Tom sees the verse before us, but brazenly ignores the clear implications of its meaning and proclaims his own eisegetical “interpretation” which has nothing to do with the passage itself; denying that the Church is the foundation of the truth, even though Paul in the Bible plainly states that it is. This is not proper exegesis. It is a deliberate twisting of God’s Word. Sadly, there is no other way to describe it. He has to grapple with the passage itself, as I have (more fully in my other book). If it doesn’t fit his theology, so much the worse for his theology . . .

For Catholics, Scripture is the foundation of the truth, too. There is no false dichotomy or either/or. Our rule of faith is the so-called “three-legged stool” of Bible-Tradition-Church. Though a different Greek word is used, Jesus expressed the same principle that the “house . . . without a foundation . . . fell, and the ruin . . . was great” (Lk 6:49; cf. the “house upon the sand”: Mt 7:26, as opposed to the “house upon the rock”: 7:24). In Solomon’s house, the “foundation” consisted of “huge stones, stones of eight and ten cubits” (1 Kgs 7:10). So what does the Bible describe as the “pillar and bulwark / ground / support / foundation” of the truth? The Church . . . I searched in both testaments and never do “word” and “pillar” or “foundation” appear together, as “church” and those terms do in 1 Timothy 3:15.

The pope and his bishops have set themselves up as the foundation and source of belief, leading to the creation of a plethora of spurious traditions throughout the centuries, but it is Jesus Christ and His Word that are our spiritual foundation.

More boilerplate obfuscation. To repeat, it’s the Bible (His Word, last time I checked) that plainly refers to “the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth”. God stated this; communicated it to us through the inspired (literally “God-breathed”) writing of the apostle Paul. Catholics didn’t make this up. And this passages demolishes sola Scriptura in one fell swoop and entirely, dramatically supports the Catholic “three-legged stool” rule of faith. The Church is always in harmony with the biblical revelation, and supports the tradition, which is also in harmony with the Bible.

Tom flatly refuses to exegete the passage, and it is a pathetic, pitiful display and a disgrace to the often venerable enterprise of Protestant apologetics.

“For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” – 1 Corinthians 3:11

According to Tom’s convoluted “reasoning” the Bible contradicts itself when it describes the Church as the “foundation” of truth. But inspired, inerrant documents cannot do that. It’s clear that there are different senses of “foundation” involved. That’s why Ephesians 2:20 (cited above from my other book) not only mentions Jesus  as the “cornerstone” of “the household of God” but also in the same verse, that the Church is “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets.” The biblical and Hebraic outlook is “both/and.” The Church is built upon Jesus and also apostles and prophets. That’s what the Bible teaches, no matter how much Tom may hate it. I don’t hate or try to wish away any biblical teaching. I conform my beliefs and my behavior to all of biblical teaching.

Throughout these replies, I will refuse to go down the usual rabbit trails and 101 diversions / “Bible hopscotch” games that anti-Catholics habitually employ. Tom is no different, and he attempted that in this reply. I will stick to the topic at hand. I did, however (as an exception to what will be my rule), address the issue of the nature of the gospel above, because that is fundamental and presuppositional in the overall discussion.

At the end, Tom cited two articles on this topic, to which he is “indebted.” At first I thought I would dismantle them, too, but on second thought I decided that if Tom wants to draw from other sources (which is perfectly fine), let him at least incorporate their thoughts and make the argument in his own words, which I would in turn deal with. As it is, he scarcely made any argument at all. If this reply is typical of what is to come in the next 103 installments, surely I will need ample prayer for heroic patience, to endure the almost unendurable tedium and relentless inanities entailed.

*
*****

*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-three 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!
*
***
*

Summary: I dismantle anti-Catholic Tom’s virtual “dissing” of an inspired Bible verse: 1 Timothy 3:15. He offers no exegesis whatsoever. I offer extensive and systematic exegesis.

October 17, 2023

October 17, 2023 By
0 Comments

[see the book info-page / buy Kindle or Nook versions]
*

Part two (pp. 201-235) of chapter four of my book, Bible Truths for Catholic Truths: A Source Book for Apologists and Inquirers (Manchester, New Hampshire: Sophia Institute Press, 2009); the paperback is now out-of-print. This book could also be known as Dave’s Topical Bible, and contains over 1,900 Bible passages, categorized under 115 thematic headings. I am now offering it online for free.
*
In these blog posts I use — for readers’ convenience — the original RSV of the manuscript (© 1971 by Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America), rather than KJV, which was mostly used in the paperback, due to copyright law. This book is all Bible, except for a few clarifying comments here and there. Subtitles sometimes differ from the published version. They are my own original titles.

See Part One.

*****

GOD’S RIGHTEOUSNESS  IN THE PSALMS

Psalm 7:9 . . . thou who triest the minds and hearts, thou righteous God.

Psalm 7:17 I will give to the LORD the thanks due to his righteousness, and I will sing praise to the name of the LORD, the Most High.

Psalm 11:7 For the LORD is righteous, . . .

Psalm 22:3 Yet thou art holy, enthroned on the praises of Israel.

Psalm 33:5 He loves righteousness and justice; the earth is full of the steadfast love of the LORD.

Psalm 50:6 The heavens declare his righteousness,

Psalm 71:16 . . . I will praise thy righteousness, thine alone.

Psalm 71:19  and thy righteousness, O God, reach the high heavens. Thou who hast done great things, O God, who is like thee?

Psalm 71:22 I will also praise thee with the harp for thy faithfulness, O my God; I will sing praises to thee with the lyre, O Holy One of Israel.

Psalm 77:13 Thy way, O God, is holy. What god is great like our God?

Psalm 78:41 They tested him again and again, and provoked the Holy One of Israel.

Psalm 89:14 Righteousness and justice are the foundation of thy throne; steadfast love and faithfulness go before thee.

Psalm 89:18 For our shield belongs to the LORD, our king to the Holy One of Israel.

Psalm 92:15 . . . the LORD is upright; he is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in him.

Psalm 97:6 The heavens proclaim his righteousness; and all the peoples behold his glory.

Psalm 99:5 Extol the LORD our God; worship at his footstool! Holy is he! (cf. 99:3,9)

Psalm 111:3 Full of honor and majesty is his work, and his righteousness endures for ever.

Psalm 116:5 Gracious is the LORD, and righteous; our God is merciful.

Psalm 119:137 Righteous art thou, O LORD, and right are thy judgments.

Psalm 119:142 Thy righteousness is righteous for ever, and thy law is true.

GOD ENABLING AND ESTABLISHING HUMAN RIGHTEOUSNESS IN THE PSALMS (50 PASSAGES)

Psalm 5:8 Lead me, O LORD, in thy righteousness because of my enemies; make thy way straight before me.

Psalm 7:9 O let the evil of the wicked come to an end, but establish thou the righteous, . . .

Psalm 7:10 My shield is with God, who saves the upright in heart.

Psalm 10:17 O LORD, thou wilt hear the desire of the meek; thou wilt strengthen their heart, thou wilt incline thy ear

Psalm 13:5 But I have trusted in thy steadfast love; my heart shall rejoice in thy salvation.

Psalm 14:5 There they shall be in great terror, for God is with the generation of the righteous.

Psalm 18:35 Thou hast given me the shield of thy salvation, and thy right hand supported me, and thy help made me great.

Psalm 19:8 the precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes

Psalm 21:2 Thou hast given him his heart’s desire, and hast not withheld the request of his lips.

Psalm 23:3 he restores my soul. He leads me in paths of righteousness for his name’s sake.

Psalm 25:5 Lead me in thy truth, and teach me, for thou art the God of my salvation; for thee I wait all the day long.

Psalm 28:7 The LORD is my strength and my shield; in him my heart trusts; so I am helped, and my heart exults, and with my song I give thanks to him.

Psalm 31:1 In thee, O LORD, do I seek refuge; let me never be put to shame; in thy righteousness deliver me!

Psalm 31:3 Yea, thou art my rock and my fortress; for thy name’s sake lead me and guide me,

Psalm 31:23 Love the LORD, all you his saints! The LORD preserves the faithful, . . .

Psalm 33:21 Yea, our heart is glad in him, because we trust in his holy name.

Psalm 34:15 The eyes of the LORD are toward the righteous, and his ears toward their cry.

Psalm 34:19 Many are the afflictions of the righteous; but the LORD delivers him out of them all.

Psalm 36:10 O continue thy steadfast love to those who know thee, and thy salvation to the upright of heart!

Psalm 37:17 . . . the LORD upholds the righteous.

Psalm 37:28 For the LORD loves justice; he will not forsake his saints. The righteous shall be preserved for ever, . . .

Psalm 37:31 The law of his God is in his heart; his steps do not slip.

Psalm 37:39 The salvation of the righteous is from the LORD; he is their refuge in the time of trouble.

Psalm 40:8 I delight to do thy will, O my God; thy law is within my heart.

Psalm 40:10 I have not hid thy saving help within my heart, I have spoken of thy faithfulness and thy salvation; I have not concealed thy steadfast love and thy faithfulness from the great congregation.

Psalm 40:11 Do not thou, O LORD, withhold thy mercy from me, let thy steadfast love and thy faithfulness ever preserve me!

Psalm 45:7 you love righteousness and hate wickedness. Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows;

Psalm 51:6-7 Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward being; therefore teach me wisdom in my secret heart. Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.

Psalm 51:8 Fill me with joy and gladness; let the bones which thou hast broken rejoice.

Psalm 51:9 Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all my iniquities.

Psalm 51:10 Create in me a clean heart, O God, and put a new and right spirit within me.

Psalm 51:11 Cast me not away from thy presence, and take not thy holy Spirit from me.

Psalm 51:14 Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, thou God of my salvation, and my tongue will sing aloud of thy deliverance.

Psalm 55:22 Cast your burden on the LORD, and he will sustain you; he will never permit the righteous to be moved.

Psalm 71:2 In thy righteousness deliver me and rescue me; incline thy ear to me, and save me!

Psalm 71:24 And my tongue will talk of thy righteous help all the day long, . . .

Psalm 73:1 Truly God is good to the upright, to those who are pure in heart.

Psalm 78:72 With upright heart he tended them, and guided them with skilful hand.

Psalm 79:9 Help us, O God of our salvation, for the glory of thy name; deliver us, and forgive our sins, for thy name’s sake!

Psalm 84:11 For the LORD God is a sun and shield; he bestows favor and honor. No good thing does the LORD withhold from those who walk uprightly.

Psalm 85:8 Let me hear what God the LORD will speak, for he will speak peace to his people, to his saints, to those who turn to him in their hearts.

Psalm 86:11 Teach me thy way, O LORD, that I may walk in thy truth; unite my heart to fear thy name.

Psalm 104:15  and wine to gladden the heart of man, oil to make his face shine, and bread to strengthen man’s heart.

Psalm 106:31 And that has been reckoned to him as righteousness from generation to generation for ever.

Psalm 118:14 The LORD is my strength and my song; he has become my salvation.

Psalm 119:34 Give me understanding, that I may keep thy law and observe it with my whole heart.

Psalm 119:40 Behold, I long for thy precepts; in thy righteousness give me life!

Psalm 119:165 Great peace have those who love thy law; nothing can make them stumble.

Psalm 143:1 Hear my prayer, O LORD; give ear to my supplications! In thy faithfulness answer me, in thy righteousness!

Psalm 143:11  For thy name’s sake, O LORD, preserve my life! In thy righteousness bring me out of trouble!

HUMAN RIGHTEOUSNESS IN THE PSALMS

Psalm 1:5 . . . the congregation of the righteous;

Psalm 1:6 for the LORD knows the way of the righteous, . . .

Psalm 7:8 The LORD judges the peoples; judge me, O LORD, according to my righteousness and according to the integrity that is in me.

Psalm 11:7 For the LORD . . . loves righteous deeds; the upright shall behold his face.

Psalm 15:2 He who walks blamelessly, and does what is right, and speaks truth from his heart;

Psalm 18:20 The LORD rewarded me according to my righteousness; according to the cleanness of my hands he recompensed me.

Psalm 18:24 Therefore the LORD has recompensed me according to my righteousness, according to the cleanness of my hands in his sight.

Psalm 24:4 He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully.

Psalm 26:3 For thy steadfast love is before my eyes, and I walk in faithfulness to thee.

Psalm 32:11 Be glad in the LORD, and rejoice, O righteous, and shout for joy, all you upright in heart!

Psalm 33:1 Rejoice in the LORD, O you righteous! Praise befits the upright.

Psalm 37:3 Trust in the LORD, and do good; so you will dwell in the land, and enjoy security.

Psalm 37:18 The LORD knows the days of the blameless, and their heritage will abide for ever;

Psalm 37:27 Depart from evil, and do good; so shall you abide for ever.

Psalm 37:37 Mark the blameless man, and behold the upright, for there is posterity for the man of peace.

Psalm 44:18 Our heart has not turned back, nor have our steps departed from thy way,

Psalm 64:10 Let the righteous rejoice in the LORD, and take refuge in him! Let all the upright in heart glory!

Psalm 68:3 But let the righteous be joyful; . . .

Psalm 73:1 Truly God is good to the upright, to those who are pure in heart.

Psalm 89:5 Let the heavens praise thy wonders, O LORD, thy faithfulness in the assembly of the holy ones!

Psalm 92:12 The righteous flourish like the palm tree, and grow like a cedar in Lebanon.

Psalm 94:15 for justice will return to the righteous, and all the upright in heart will follow it.

Psalm 97:11  Light dawns for the righteous, and joy for the upright in heart.

Psalm 97:12 Rejoice in the LORD, O you righteous, and give thanks to his holy name!

Psalm 106:3 Blessed are they who observe justice, who do righteousness at all times!

Psalm 118:20 This is the gate of the LORD; the righteous shall enter through it.

Psalm 119:1 Blessed are those whose way is blameless, who walk in the law of the LORD!

Psalm 119:56 This blessing has fallen to me, that I have kept thy precepts.

Psalm 119:63 I am a companion of all who fear thee, of those who keep thy precepts.

Psalm 119:69 The godless besmear me with lies, but with my whole heart I keep thy precepts;

Psalm 119:87 . . . I have not forsaken thy precepts.

Psalm 119:100 I understand more than the aged, for I keep thy precepts.

Psalm 119:110 . . . I do not stray from thy precepts.

Psalm 119:168 I keep thy precepts and testimonies, for all my ways are before thee.

Psalm 125:4 Do good, O LORD, to those who are good, and to those who are upright in their hearts!

Psalm 140:13 Surely the righteous shall give thanks to thy name; the upright shall dwell in thy presence.

GOD’S ENABLING GRACE AND THE “RIGHTEOUS” ACCORDING TO THE PROPHETS

Isaiah 12:2 Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and will not be afraid; for the LORD GOD is my strength and my song, and he has become my salvation.

Isaiah 26:7 The way of the righteous is level; thou dost make smooth the path of the righteous.

Isaiah 26:9 My soul yearns for thee in the night, my spirit within me earnestly seeks thee. For when thy judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world learn righteousness.

Isaiah 33:5 The LORD is exalted, for he dwells on high; he will fill Zion with justice and righteousness;

Isaiah 45:13 I have aroused him in righteousness, and I will make straight all his ways; . . .

Isaiah 45:22 Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other.

Isaiah 45:24 Only in the LORD, it shall be said of me, are righteousness and strength; . . .

Isaiah 48:18 O that you had hearkened to my commandments! Then your peace would have been like a river, and your righteousness like the waves of the sea;

Isaiah 49:8 Thus says the LORD: “In a time of favor I have answered you, in a day of salvation I have helped you; I have kept you and given you as a covenant to the people, to establish the land, to apportion the desolate heritages;

Isaiah 51:7 Hearken to me, you who know righteousness, the people in whose heart is my law; . . .

Isaiah 54:14 In righteousness you shall be established . . .

Isaiah 56:1 Thus says the LORD: “Keep justice, and do righteousness, for soon my salvation will come, and my deliverance be revealed.”

Isaiah 57:15 For thus says the high and lofty One who inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy: “I dwell in the high and holy place, and also with him who is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite.”

Isaiah 61:10 I will greatly rejoice in the LORD, my soul shall exult in my God; for he has clothed me with the garments of salvation, he has covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decks himself with a garland, and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.

Isaiah 61:11 For as the earth brings forth its shoots, and as a garden causes what is sown in it to spring up, so the Lord GOD will cause righteousness and praise to spring forth before all the nations.

Isaiah 62:12 And they shall be called The holy people, The redeemed of the LORD;

Isaiah 64:5  Thou meetest him that joyfully works righteousness, those that remember thee in thy ways.

Jeremiah 3:15 And I will give you shepherds after my own heart, who will feed you with knowledge and understanding.

Jeremiah 15:20 And I will make you to this people a fortified wall of bronze; they will fight against you, but they shall not prevail over you, for I am with you to save you and deliver you, says the LORD.

Jeremiah 17:14 Heal me, O LORD, and I shall be healed; save me, and I shall be saved; for thou art my praise.

Jeremiah 30:11 For I am with you to save you, says the LORD; . . .

Jeremiah 31:33 But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Jeremiah 32:39 I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me for ever, for their own good and the good of their children after them.

Jeremiah 32:40 I will make with them an everlasting covenant, that I will not turn away from doing good to them; and I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me.

Jeremiah 32:41 I will rejoice in doing them good, and I will plant them in this land in faithfulness, with all my heart and all my soul.

Jeremiah 39:18 For I will surely save you, and you shall not fall by the sword; but you shall have your life as a prize of war, because you have put your trust in me, says the LORD.

Ezekiel 11:19 And I will give them one heart, and put a new spirit within them; I will take the stony heart out of their flesh and give them a heart of flesh,

Ezekiel 18:31 Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed against me, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! . . .

Ezekiel 36:26 A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.

Daniel 9:18 O my God, incline thy ear and hear; open thy eyes and behold our desolations, and the city which is called by thy name; for we do not present our supplications before thee on the ground of our righteousness, but on the ground of thy great mercy.

Hosea 2:19 And I will betroth you to me for ever; I will betroth you to me in righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love, and in mercy.

Hosea 10:12 Sow for yourselves righteousness, reap the fruit of steadfast love; break up your fallow ground, for it is the time to seek the LORD, that he may come and rain salvation upon you.

Hosea 14:4 I will heal their faithlessness; I will love them freely, for my anger has turned from them.

Habakkuk 2:4 Behold, he whose soul is not upright in him shall fail, but the righteous shall live by his faith.

SANCTIFICATION AS PART OF SALVATION / INFUSED JUSTIFICATION (50 PASSAGES)

Psalm 51:2, 7-10 Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin! . . . Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. Fill me with joy and gladness; let the bones which thou hast broken rejoice. Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all my iniquities. Create in me a clean heart, O God, and put a new and right spirit within me.

Ezekiel 33:12-15, 18-19 And you, son of man, say to your people, The righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him when he transgresses; and as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall by it when he turns from his wickedness; and the righteous shall not be able to live by his righteousness when he sins. Though I say to the righteous that he shall surely live, yet if he trusts in his righteousness and commits iniquity, none of his righteous deeds shall be remembered; but in the iniquity that he has committed he shall die. Again, though I say to the wicked, `You shall surely die,’ yet if he turns from his sin and does what is lawful and right, if the wicked restores the pledge, gives back what he has taken by robbery, and walks in the statutes of life, committing no iniquity; he shall surely live, he shall not die. . . . When the righteous turns from his righteousness, and commits iniquity, he shall die for it. And when the wicked turns from his wickedness, and does what is lawful and right, he shall live by it.

Ezekiel 37:23 They shall not defile themselves any more with their idols and their detestable things, or with any of their transgressions; but I will save them from all the backslidings in which they have sinned, and will cleanse them; and they shall be my people, and I will be their God.

Matthew 5:20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

John 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth.

Acts 3:19 Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord,

Acts 15:8-9 And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith.

Acts 20:32 And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified.

Acts 26:18 to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.

Romans 2:13  For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

Romans 5:10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.

Romans 5:19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous.

Romans 6:13, 17 Do not yield your members to sin as instruments of wickedness, but yield yourselves to God as men who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments of righteousness. . . . But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed,

Romans 6:19 I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once yielded your members to impurity and to greater and greater iniquity, so now yield your members to righteousness for sanctification.

Romans 6:22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life.

Romans 8:10 But if Christ is in you, although your bodies are dead because of sin, your spirits are alive because of righteousness.

Romans 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not food and drink but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit;

1 Corinthians 1:2 To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours:

1 Corinthians 6:11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

2 Corinthians 7:1 Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, and make holiness perfect in the fear of God.

Ephesians 1:4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.

Ephesians 4:24 and put on the new nature, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.

Ephesians 6:14 Stand therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness,

Colossians 1:22 he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him,

Colossians 3:12 Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassion, kindness, lowliness, meekness, and patience,

1 Thessalonians 3:13 so that he may establish your hearts unblamable in holiness before our God and Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his saints.

1 Thessalonians 4:3, 7 For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from unchastity; . . . For God has not called us for uncleanness, but in holiness.

1 Thessalonians 5:23 May the God of peace himself sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit and soul and body be kept sound and blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

2 Thessalonians 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.

1 Timothy 4:7 . . . Train yourself in godliness; (cf. 4:12; 6:3-6)

1 Timothy 6:11 But as for you, man of God, shun all this; aim at righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness.

2 Timothy 2:21-22 If any one purifies himself from what is ignoble, then he will be a vessel for noble use, consecrated and useful to the master of the house, ready for any good work. So shun youthful passions and aim at righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call upon the Lord from a pure heart.

2 Timothy 3:12 Indeed all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted,

Titus 2:12, 14 training us to renounce irreligion and worldly passions, and to live sober, upright, and godly lives in this world, . . . who gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds. (cf. 1:1)

Hebrews 9:12-14 he entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the sprinkling of defiled persons with the blood of goats and bulls and with the ashes of a heifer sanctifies for the purification of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify your conscience from dead works to serve the living God.

Hebrews 10:10 And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Hebrews 10:14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.

Hebrews 10:29 How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace?

Hebrews 12:10, 14 For they disciplined us for a short time at their pleasure, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. . . . Strive for peace with all men, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.

Hebrews 13:12 So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood.

James 1:21, 26 Therefore put away all filthiness and rank growth of wickedness and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls. . . . If any one thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this man’s religion is vain.

James 4:8 Draw near to God and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you men of double mind.

1 Peter 1:2 chosen and destined by God the Father and sanctified by the Spirit for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: . . .

1 Peter 1:14-15 As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, but as he who called you is holy, be holy yourselves in all your conduct;

1 Peter 1:22 Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere love of the brethren, love one another earnestly from the heart.

1 Peter 2:5, 9 and like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. . . . But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, (cf. 2:24)

2 Peter 1:9 For whoever lacks these things is blind and shortsighted and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins.

2 Peter 3:11 Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of persons ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, (cf. 1:3,6-7)

1 John 1:7, 9 but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

1 John 3:3 And every one who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure. (cf. Jude 1:20-21)

THE OBEDIENCE OF FAITH / WORKS OF FAITH

John 3:36 He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.

John 6:27-29 “Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of man will give to you; for on him has God the Father set his seal.” Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”

Acts 5:32 And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey him.

Romans 1:5 through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations,

Romans 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel; . . .

Romans 16:26 but is now disclosed and through the prophetic writings is made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith –

1 Corinthians 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me. (cf. 15:58)

2 Corinthians 8:7 Now as you excel in everything — in faith, in utterance, in knowledge, in all earnestness, and in your love for us — see that you excel in this gracious work also.

2 Corinthians 9:13 Under the test of this service, you will glorify God by your obedience in acknowledging the gospel of Christ, and by the generosity of your contribution for them and for all others;

Galatians 5:6-7 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love. You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth?

1 Thessalonians 1:3  remembering before our God and Father your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ.

2 Thessalonians 1:8, 11 inflicting vengeance upon those who do not know God and upon those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. . . . To this end we always pray for you, that our God may make you worthy of his call, and may fulfil every good resolve and work of faith by his power,

Titus 1:16 They profess to know God, but they deny him by their deeds; they are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good deed.

Hebrews 5:9 and being made perfect he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him,

James 2:18 . . . I by my works will show you my faith.

James 2:22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works,

1 Peter 4:17 For the time has come for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God?

1 John 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments.

Revelation 2:19 I know your works, your love and faith and service and patient endurance, and that your latter works exceed the first.

NO ABSOLUTE ASSURANCE OF FINAL SALVATION / SALVATION AS A PROCESS

1 Samuel 11:6; 18:12 And the spirit of God came mightily upon Saul when he heard these words, . . . Saul was afraid of David, because the LORD was with him but had departed from Saul.

Ezekiel 18:24 But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity and does the same abominable things that the wicked man does, shall he live? None of the righteous deeds which he has done shall be remembered; for the treachery of which he is guilty and the sin he has committed, he shall die.

Ezekiel 33:12-15, 18-19 And you, son of man, say to your people, The righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him when he transgresses; and as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall by it when he turns from his wickedness; and the righteous shall not be able to live by his righteousness when he sins. Though I say to the righteous that he shall surely live, yet if he trusts in his righteousness and commits iniquity, none of his righteous deeds shall be remembered; but in the iniquity that he has committed he shall die. Again, though I say to the wicked, `You shall surely die,’ yet if he turns from his sin and does what is lawful and right, if the wicked restores the pledge, gives back what he has taken by robbery, and walks in the statutes of life, committing no iniquity; he shall surely live, he shall not die. . . . When the righteous turns from his righteousness, and commits iniquity, he shall die for it. And when the wicked turns from his wickedness, and does what is lawful and right, he shall live by it.

Matthew 7:21 Not every one who says to me, “Lord, Lord,” shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

Matthew 13:19-21 When any one hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what is sown in his heart; this is what was sown along the path. As for what was sown on rocky ground, this is he who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; yet he has no root in himself, but endures for a while, and when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately he falls away.

Matthew 24:10-13 And then many will fall away, and betray one another, and hate one another. And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. And because wickedness is multiplied, most men’s love will grow cold. But he who endures to the end will be saved. (cf. 10:22; Mk 13:13)

Mark 4:5-6, 14-19 Other seed fell on rocky ground, where it had not much soil, and immediately it sprang up, since it had no depth of soil; and when the sun rose it was scorched, and since it had no root it withered away. . . . The sower sows the word. And these are the ones along the path, where the word is sown; when they hear, Satan immediately comes and takes away the word which is sown in them. And these in like manner are the ones sown upon rocky ground, who, when they hear the word, immediately receive it with joy; and they have no root in themselves, but endure for a while; then, when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately they fall away. And others are the ones sown among thorns; they are those who hear the word, but the cares of the world, and the delight in riches, and the desire for other things, enter in and choke the word, and it proves unfruitful.

Luke 8:5-14 “A sower went out to sow his seed; and as he sowed, some fell along the path, and was trodden under foot, and the birds of the air devoured it. And some fell on the rock; and as it grew up, it withered away, because it had no moisture. And some fell among thorns; and the thorns grew with it and choked it. And some fell into good soil and grew, and yielded a hundredfold.” As he said this, he called out, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.” And when his disciples asked him what this parable meant, he said, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God; but for others they are in parables, so that seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand. Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. The ones along the path are those who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, that they may not believe and be saved. And the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear the word, receive it with joy; but these have no root, they believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away. And as for what fell among the thorns, they are those who hear, but as they go on their way they are choked by the cares and riches and pleasures of life, and their fruit does not mature.”

1 Corinthians 9:27  but I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.

1 Corinthians 10:12 Therefore let any one who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.

Galatians 4:8-9 Formerly, when you did not know God, you were in bondage to beings that by nature are no gods; but now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and beggarly elemental spirits, whose slaves you want to be once more?

Galatians 5:1, 4 . . . stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery . . . You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

Philippians 3:11-14  that if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Brethren, I do not consider that I have made it my own . . . I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.

Colossians 1:21-23 And you, who once were estranged and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him, provided that you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel which you heard, . . .

1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons.

1 Timothy 5:15 For some have already strayed after Satan.

2 Timothy 2:12 if we endure, we shall also reign with him; if we deny him, he also will deny us;

Hebrews 4:14 . . . let us hold fast our confession.

Hebrews 3:12-14 Take care, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day . . . that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we share in Christ, if only we hold our first confidence firm to the end.

Hebrews 6:4-6 For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God, and the powers of the age to come, if they then commit apostasy . . .

Hebrews 6:15  . . . Abraham, having patiently endured, obtained the promise.

Hebrews 10:26, 29 For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, . . . How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace?

Hebrews 10:36, 38-39 For you have need of endurance, so that you may do the will of God and receive what is promised. . . . but my righteous one shall live by faith, and if he shrinks back, my soul has no pleasure in him.” But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and keep their souls.

Hebrews 12:15 See to it that no one fail to obtain the grace of God; that no “root of bitterness” spring up and cause trouble, and by it the many become defiled;

James 1:25 But he who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer that forgets but a doer that acts, he shall be blessed in his doing.

2 Peter 1:10 Therefore, brethren, be the more zealous to confirm your call and election, for if you do this you will never fall;

2 Peter 2:15, 20-21 Forsaking the right way they have gone astray; they have followed the way of Balaam, . . . For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overpowered, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them.

Revelation 2:3-5 I know you are enduring patiently and bearing up for my name’s sake, and you have not grown weary. But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first. Remember then from what you have fallen, repent and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.

Revelation 2:10-11 Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who conquers shall not be hurt by the second death.

Revelation 2:25-26 only hold fast what you have, until I come. He who conquers and who keeps my works until the end, I will give him power over the nations,

Revelation 3:3 Remember then what you received and heard; keep that, and repent. If you will not awake, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come upon you.

Revelation 3:5 He who conquers shall be clad thus in white garments, and I will not blot his name out of the book of life; I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels. (cf. “blot” motif: Ex 17:14; 23:23; 32:32-33; Deut 9:14; 25:19; 29:20; 2 Ki 14:27; Ps 9:5; 69:28)

Revelation 3:11 I am coming soon; hold fast what you have, so that no one may seize your crown.

A VIGILANT MORAL ASSURANCE OF FAITH WITH PERSEVERANCE, IN HOPE

Romans 5:1-5 Therefore, since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have obtained access to this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in our hope of sharing the glory of God. More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not disappoint us, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us.

Romans 8:16-17 it is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.

Romans 12:12 Rejoice in your hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer.

Romans 15:4 For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that by steadfastness and by the encouragement of the scriptures we might have hope.

Romans 15:13 May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that by the power of the Holy Spirit you may abound in hope.

1 Corinthians 13:13 So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

Galatians 5:5-6 For through the Spirit, by faith, we wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love.

Ephesians 1:9-14, 18 For he has made known to us in all wisdom and insight the mystery of his will, according to his purpose which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fulness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. In him, according to the purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will, we who first hoped in Christ have been destined and appointed to live for the praise of his glory. In him you also, who have heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and have believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, which is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory. . . . having the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints,

Colossians 1:11-14 May you be strengthened with all power, according to his glorious might, for all endurance and patience with joy, giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified us to share in the inheritance of the saints in light. He has delivered us from the dominion of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

Colossians 3:24 knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward; you are serving the Lord Christ.

1 Thessalonians 5:8 But, since we belong to the day, let us be sober, and put on the breastplate of faith and love, and for a helmet the hope of salvation.

Titus 1:2 in hope of eternal life which God, who never lies, promised ages ago

Titus 3:7  so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life.

Hebrews 3:6 but Christ was faithful over God’s house as a son. And we are his house if we hold fast our confidence and pride in our hope.

Hebrews 6:11-12 And we desire each one of you to show the same earnestness in realizing the full assurance of hope until the end, so that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises.

Hebrews 6:18-19 so that through two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible that God should prove false, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to seize the hope set before us. We have this as a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters into the inner shrine behind the curtain,

Hebrews 10:23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful;

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

1 Peter 1:3-7 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! By his great mercy we have been born anew to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and to an inheritance which is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God’s power are guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. In this you rejoice, though now for a little while you may have to suffer various trials, so that the genuineness of your faith, more precious than gold which though perishable is tested by fire, may redound to praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ.

1 Peter 1:13 Therefore gird up your minds, be sober, set your hope fully upon the grace that is coming to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.

1 Peter 1:21 Through him you have confidence in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.

1 Peter 3:15 . . . Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence;

1 John 3:3 And every one who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure.

*
*****

*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-three 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!
*
***
*

Summary: I provide the biblical rationale for Catholic beliefs with regard to salvation, by presenting categorized Bible passages about grace, justification, faith & works, merit, etc.

October 17, 2023

October 17, 2023 By
0 Comments

[see the book info-page / buy Kindle or Nook versions]
*

Part one (pp. 161-200) of chapter four of my book, Bible Truths for Catholic Truths: A Source Book for Apologists and Inquirers (Manchester, New Hampshire: Sophia Institute Press, 2009); the paperback is now out-of-print. This book could also be known as Dave’s Topical Bible, and contains over 1,900 Bible passages, categorized under 115 thematic headings. I am now offering it online for free.
*
In these blog posts I use — for readers’ convenience — the original RSV of the manuscript (© 1971 by Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America), rather than KJV, which was mostly used in the paperback, due to copyright law. This book is all Bible, except for a few clarifying comments here and there. Subtitles sometimes differ from the published version. They are my own original titles.

See Part Two.

*****

SALVATION BY GRACE ALONE (SOLA GRATIA)

Acts 15:11 But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.

Acts 18:27 . . . When he arrived, he greatly helped those who through grace had believed.

Acts 20:24, 32 . . . the gospel of the grace of God.. . . And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified.

Romans 3:24 they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus,

Romans 4:16 That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his descendants — not only to the adherents of the law but also to those who share the faith of Abraham, for he is the father of us all,

Romans 5:2 Through him we have obtained access to this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in our hope of sharing the glory of God.

Romans 5:15, 17 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. . . . If, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

Romans 5:20-21 Law came in, to increase the trespass; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Romans 6:14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

Romans 11:5-6 So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.

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

Galatians 1:15 But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace,

Galatians 2:21 I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification were through the law, then Christ died to no purpose.

Ephesians 1:7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace

Ephesians 2:4-10 But God, who is rich in mercy, out of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with him, and made us sit with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God — not because of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

2 Thessalonians 2:16 Now may our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God our Father, who loved us and gave us eternal comfort and good hope through grace,

2 Timothy 1:9 who saved us and called us with a holy calling, not in virtue of our works but in virtue of his own purpose and the grace which he gave us in Christ Jesus ages ago,

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men,

Titus 3:7 so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life.

1 Peter 1:10 The prophets who prophesied of the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired about this salvation;

Holy Scripture teaches that grace is primary in that it enables both faith and works that are organically tied to it in the process of sanctification and eventual eschatological salvation (i.e., when we actually get to heaven, or purgatory: which means we are saved, too, and inevitably on the way to heaven).

There is a biblical sense in which we are saved by grace alone, and this is asserted unambiguously without immediate qualification (as we see to the contrary in the cases of faith alone and works alone: see the next two sections). That highlights the nature of the difference compared to faith and works. Grace Alone, is, therefore, an entirely biblical, orthodox, Catholic statement, as long as it is understood exactly in its proper sense (i.e., not utterly excluding works and faith in the overall mix).

SALVATION IS NOT BY FAITH ALONE (SOLA FIDE)

Ezekiel 33:12-15, 18-19 And you, son of man, say to your people, The righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him when he transgresses; and as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall by it when he turns from his wickedness; and the righteous shall not be able to live by his righteousness when he sins. Though I say to the righteous that he shall surely live, yet if he trusts in his righteousness and commits iniquity, none of his righteous deeds shall be remembered; but in the iniquity that he has committed he shall die. Again, though I say to the wicked, `You shall surely die,’ yet if he turns from his sin and does what is lawful and right, if the wicked restores the pledge, gives back what he has taken by robbery, and walks in the statutes of life, committing no iniquity; he shall surely live, he shall not die. . . . When the righteous turns from his righteousness, and commits iniquity, he shall die for it. And when the wicked turns from his wickedness, and does what is lawful and right, he shall live by it. 

James 2:14 What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?

James 2:17-18 So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. But some one will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith.

James 2:20 Do you want to be shown, you shallow man, that faith apart from works is barren?

James 2:22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works,

James 2:24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

James 2:26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.

We see above, directly in 2:24 and indirectly in all the others, that works also play a part in the sanctification and salvation process, but they are not by themselves. They are entirely enabled by God’s free grace and accompanied by faith.

SALVATION IS NOT BY WORKS ALONE (PELAGIANISM)

James 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?

James 2:25 And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?

This “justification by works” is not by itself, any more than faith is operative by itself. James writes of Abraham being “justified by works” (2:21) but this can’t be ripped from context, so as to distort his meaning, since in the verse immediately before he ties faith organically in with works, and he does the same in the verse immediately after, as he does in the larger context of 2:14, 17-18 and 2:26. They simply can’t be separated.

Likewise, when justification by works is asserted again in 2:24, it is qualified in 2:26, by connecting faith with it, and in the larger context before the statement, also in 2:14, 17-18, 20, 22. The works can’t possibly be interpreted as on their own, then, without doing massive violence to the contextual meaning and teaching.

The same applies to 2:25 and the statement about Rahab the harlot being “justified by works” — it is qualified in the same way in context, by the consideration of 2:14, 17-18, 20, 22, 26. Moreover, salvation by works alone is flatly and explicitly denied by St. Paul in Ephesians 2:8-9 and 2 Timothy 1:9, and the same is strongly implied in Rom 11:5-6 (see the section “Salvation By Grace Alone” above).

For the Catholic, justification is not the same thing as salvation or the attainment of eternal life. It can be lost, or rejected by means of human free will and disobedience. So to assert “justification by works” even in a qualified sense, is not at all the same as asserting salvation by works.

Therefore, it is scripturally improper to assert either salvation by works alone or salvation by faith alone. They are never taught in Holy Scripture, and are both denied more than once. Justification by faith or justification by works can be asserted in a limited sense, as Scripture does: always understood as hand-in-hand with the other two elements in the grace-faith-works triumvirate.

PAUL’S TEACHING ON THE ORGANIC RELATIONSHIP OF GRACE, FAITH, WORKS, ACTION, AND OBEDIENCE (50 PASSAGES)

Romans 1:5 through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations, (cf. Acts 6:7)

Romans 1:17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, “He who through faith is righteous shall live.”

Romans 2:6-7 For he will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; (cf. 2:8; 2:10)

Romans 2:13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. (cf. James 1:22-23; 2:21-24)

Romans 3:22  the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction;

Romans 3:31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

Romans 6:17 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed,

Romans 8:13 for if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live. (cf. 2 Cor 11:15)

Romans 8:28 We know that in everything God works for good with those who love him, who are called according to his purpose.

Romans 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel; for Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?”

Romans 14:23 But he who has doubts is condemned, if he eats, because he does not act from faith; for whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.

Romans 15:17-18 In Christ Jesus, then, I have reason to be proud of my work for God. For I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has wrought through me to win obedience from the Gentiles, by word and deed,

Romans 16:26 but is now disclosed and through the prophetic writings is made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith — (cf. Heb 11:8)

1 Corinthians 3:9 For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building. (cf. 3:8; Mk 16:20)

1 Corinthians 3:10  According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and another man is building upon it. Let each man take care how he builds upon it.

1 Corinthians 9:27  but I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.

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

1 Corinthians 15:58 Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain.

1 Corinthians 16:13 Be watchful, stand firm in your faith, be courageous, be strong.

2 Corinthians 1:6 If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation; and if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which you experience when you patiently endure the same sufferings that we suffer.

2 Corinthians 1:24  Not that we lord it over your faith; we work with you for your joy, for you stand firm in your faith.

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.

2 Corinthians 6:1 Working together with him, then, we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain.

2 Corinthians 8:3-7 For they gave according to their means, as I can testify, and beyond their means, of their own free will, begging us earnestly for the favor of taking part in the relief of the saints — and this, not as we expected, but first they gave themselves to the Lord and to us by the will of God. Accordingly we have urged Titus that as he had already made a beginning, he should also complete among you this gracious work. Now as you excel in everything — in faith, in utterance, in knowledge, in all earnestness, and in your love for us — see that you excel in this gracious work also.

2 Corinthians 10:15 We do not boast beyond limit, in other men’s labors; but our hope is that as your faith increases, our field among you may be greatly enlarged,

2 Corinthians 11:23 Are they servants of Christ? I am a better one — I am talking like a madman — with far greater labors, far more imprisonments, with countless beatings, and often near death.

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

Galatians 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

Galatians 5:6-7 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love. You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth?

Galatians 6:7-9 Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. For he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption; but he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. And let us not grow weary in well-doing, for in due season we shall reap, if we do not lose heart.

Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Philippians 2:12-13 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

Philippians 2:14-16 Do all things without grumbling or questioning, that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world, holding fast the word of life, so that in the day of Christ I may be proud that I did not run in vain or labor in vain.

Philippians 3:9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own, based on law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith;

Philippians 4:3 And I ask you also, true yokefellow, help these women, for they have labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.

Colossians 3:23-25 Whatever your task, work heartily, as serving the Lord and not men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward; you are serving the Lord Christ. For the wrongdoer will be paid back for the wrong he has done, and there is no partiality.

1Thessalonians 1:3  remembering before our God and Father your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ.

2 Thessalonians 1:8  inflicting vengeance upon those who do not know God and upon those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.

2 Thessalonians 1:11 To this end we always pray for you, that our God may make you worthy of his call, and may fulfil every good resolve and work of faith by his power,

1 Timothy 6:11 But as for you, man of God, shun all this; aim at righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness.

1 Timothy 6:18-19 They are to do good, to be rich in good deeds, liberal and generous, thus laying up for themselves a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of the life which is life indeed.

2 Timothy 2:10 Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain salvation in Christ Jesus with its eternal glory.

2 Timothy 2:22 So shun youthful passions and aim at righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call upon the Lord from a pure heart.

2 Timothy 4:7 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.

Titus 1:16 They profess to know God, but they deny him by their deeds; they are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good deed.

Titus 3:8 The saying is sure. I desire you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to apply themselves to good deeds; these are excellent and profitable to men.

Titus 3:14 And let our people learn to apply themselves to good deeds, so as to help cases of urgent need, and not to be unfruitful.

FINAL JUDGMENT IS ALWAYS ASSOCIATED WITH WORKS AND NEVER WITH FAITH ALONE (50 PASSAGES)

1 Samuel 28:15-19 Then Samuel said to Saul, “Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?” Saul answered, “I am in great distress; for the Philistines are warring against me, and God has turned away from me and answers me no more, either by prophets or by dreams; therefore I have summoned you to tell me what I shall do.” And Samuel said, “Why then do you ask me, since the LORD has turned from you and become your enemy? The LORD has done to you as he spoke by me; for the LORD has torn the kingdom out of your hand, and given it to your neighbor, David. Because you did not obey the voice of the LORD, and did not carry out his fierce wrath against Am’alek, therefore the LORD has done this thing to you this day. Moreover the LORD will give Israel also with you into the hand of the Philistines; and tomorrow you and your sons shall be with me; the LORD will give the army of Israel also into the hand of the Philistines.”

2 Kings 22:13 Go, inquire of the LORD for me, and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that has been found; for great is the wrath of the LORD that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not obeyed the words of this book, to do according to all that is written concerning us. (cf. 2 Chron 34:21)

Psalm 7:8-10 The LORD judges the peoples; judge me, O LORD, according to my righteousness and according to the integrity that is in me. O let the evil of the wicked come to an end, but establish thou the righteous, thou who triest the minds and hearts, thou righteous God. My shield is with God, who saves the upright in heart.

Psalm 58:11 Men will say, “Surely there is a reward for the righteous; surely there is a God who judges on earth.”

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

Isaiah 59:18 According to their deeds, so will he repay, wrath to his adversaries, requital to his enemies; . . .

Jeremiah 4:4 Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, remove the foreskin of your hearts, O men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem; lest my wrath go forth like fire, and burn with none to quench it, because of the evil of your doings. (cf. 21:12)

Ezekiel 7:3 Now the end is upon you, and I will let loose my anger upon you, and will judge you according to your ways; and I will punish you for all your abominations. (cf. 7:8; 33:20)

Ezekiel 36:19 I scattered them among the nations, and they were dispersed through the countries; in accordance with their conduct and their deeds I judged them.

Micah 5:15 And in anger and wrath I will execute vengeance upon the nations that did not obey.

Zephaniah 2:3 Seek the LORD, all you humble of the land, who do his commands; seek righteousness, seek humility; perhaps you may be hidden on the day of the wrath of the LORD.

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.

Matthew 7:16-27 You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? So every sound tree bears good fruit; but the bad tree bears evil fruit. A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits. Not every one who says to me, “Lord, Lord,” shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?” And then will I declare to them, “I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.” Every one then who hears these words of mine, and does them will be like a wise man who built his house upon the rock; and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat upon that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And every one who hears these words of mine, and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house upon the sand; and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell; and great was the fall of it.

Matthew 10:22. . . But he who endures to the end will be saved. (cf. Mt 24:13; Mk 13:13)

Matthew 16:27 For the Son of man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay every man for what he has done.

Matthew 18:8-9 And if your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better for you to enter life maimed or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire. (cf. Mk 9:43, 47)

Matthew 25:14-30 For it will be as when a man going on a journey called his servants and entrusted to them his property; to one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away. He who had received the five talents went at once and traded with them; and he made five talents more. So also, he who had the two talents made two talents more. But he who had received the one talent went and dug in the ground and hid his master’s money. Now after a long time the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them. And he who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five talents more, saying, “Master, you delivered to me five talents; here I have made five talents more.” His master said to him, “Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a little, I will set you over much; enter into the joy of your master.” And he also who had the two talents came forward, saying, “Master, you delivered to me two talents; here I have made two talents more.” His master said to him, “Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a little, I will set you over much; enter into the joy of your master.” He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, “Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not winnow; so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.” But his master answered him, “You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sowed, and gather where I have not winnowed? Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. So take the talent from him, and give it to him who has the ten talents. For to every one who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.”

Matthew 25:31-46 When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. Then the King will say to those at his right hand, “Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.” Then the righteous will answer him, “Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?” And the King will answer them, “Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.” Then he will say to those at his left hand, “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.” Then they also will answer, “Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?” Then he will answer them, “Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.” And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.

Luke 3:9  Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. (cf. Mt 3:10; 7:19)

Luke 14:13-14 But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just.

Luke 21:34-36 But take heed to yourselves lest your hearts be weighed down with dissipation and drunkenness and cares of this life, and that day come upon you suddenly like a snare; for it will come upon all who dwell upon the face of the whole earth. But watch at all times, praying that you may have strength to escape all these things that will take place, and to stand before the Son of man.

John 5:26-29 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself, and has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of man. Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth.

Romans 2:5-13 But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed. For he will render to every man according to his works: To those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honour and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality. All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

1 Corinthians 3:8-9 He who plants and he who waters are equal, and each shall receive his wages according to his labor. For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building.

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.

1 Thessalonians 3:12-13 . . . may the Lord make you increase and abound in love to one another and to all men, as we do to you, so that he may establish your hearts unblamable in holiness before our God and Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his saints.

1 Thessalonians 5:23 May the God of peace himself sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit and soul and body be kept sound and blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

2 Thessalonians 1:7-12 . . . when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance upon those who do not know God and upon those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at in all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed. To this end we always pray for you, that our God may make you worthy of his call, and may fulfil every good resolve and work of faith by his power, so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Hebrews 6:7-8 For land which has drunk the rain that often falls upon it, and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed; its end is to be burned.

1 Peter 1:17 . . .  who judges each one impartially according to his deeds.

1 Peter 4:13 But rejoice in so far as you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed. (cf. Rom 8:17)

2 Peter 3:10-14 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and the works that are upon it will be burned up. Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of persons ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be kindled and dissolved, and the elements will melt with fire! But according to his promise we wait for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. Therefore, beloved, since you wait for these, be zealous to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace.

Jude 1:6-16 And the angels that did not keep their own position but left their proper dwelling have been kept by him in eternal chains in the nether gloom until the judgment of the great day; just as Sodom and Gomor’rah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. Yet in like manner these men in their dreamings defile the flesh, reject authority, and revile the glorious ones. But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, “The Lord rebuke you.” But these men revile whatever they do not understand, and by those things that they know by instinct as irrational animals do, they are destroyed. Woe to them! For they walk in the way of Cain, and abandon themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam’s error, and perish in Korah’s rebellion. These are blemishes on your love feasts, as they boldly carouse together, looking after themselves; waterless clouds, carried along by winds; fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted; wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame; wandering stars for whom the nether gloom of darkness has been reserved for ever. It was of these also that Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord came with his holy myriads, to execute judgment on all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness which they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” These are grumblers, malcontents, following their own passions, loud-mouthed boasters, flattering people to gain advantage.

Jude 1:20-21 But you, beloved, build yourselves up on your most holy faith; pray in the Holy Spirit; keep yourselves in the love of God; wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.

Revelation 2:5 Remember then from what you have fallen, repent and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.

Revelation 2:23 . . . I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you as your works deserve.

Revelation 20:11-13 Then I saw a great white throne and him who sat upon it; from his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Also another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, by what they had done. And the sea gave up the dead in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead in them, and all were judged by what they had done.

Revelation 21:8 But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their lot shall be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death.

Revelation 22:12 Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense, to repay every one for what he has done.

MORTAL AND VENIAL SIN

1 John 5:16-17 If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is a sin which is not mortal.

Some non-Catholic Christians think that all sins are exactly alike in the eyes of God: everything from a white lie or a child stealing a cookie to mass murder. They believe this not out of common sense, but because they erroneously think that the Bible teaches it. But this mistaken notion is decisively refuted by the above passage. Scripture provides several indications of this difference in seriousness of sin, and in subjective guiltiness for it:

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.

Luke 12:47-48 And that servant who knew his master’s will, but did not make ready or act according to his will, shall receive a severe beating. But he who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, shall receive a light beating. Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required; and of him to whom men commit much they will demand the more.

Luke 23:34 And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” . . .

John 9:41 Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains.”

John 19:11 . . . he who delivered me to you has the greater sin.

Acts 17:30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all men everywhere to repent,

Romans 3:25  . . . This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins;

1 Timothy 1:13 though I formerly blasphemed and persecuted and insulted him; but I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief.

Hebrews 10:26: For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,

James 3:1 Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, for you know that we who teach shall be judged with greater strictness.

The Bible also refers to (mortal) sins which — if not repented of — will exclude one from heaven (e.g., 1 Cor 6:9-10; Gal 1:8; 5:19-21; Eph 5:3-6; Heb 12:16; Rev 21:8; 22:15).

Some objectors to these notions bring up James 2:10: “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it.” Does this prove that all sins are the same; equally destructive and worthy of judgment? No; the passage is dealing with man’s inability to keep the entire Law of God: a common theme in Scripture. James accepts differences in degrees of sin and righteousness elsewhere in the same letter, such as 3:1 (above). In James 1:12, the man who endures trial will receive a “crown of life.” James also teaches that the “prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects” (5:16), which implies that there are relatively more righteous people, whom God honors more, by making their prayers more effective (he used the prophet Elijah as an example). If there is a lesser and greater righteousness, then there are lesser and greater sins also, because to be less righteous is to be more sinful, and vice versa.

GRACE: QUANTIFIABLE DIFFERENCES

Acts 4:33 And with great power the apostles gave their Testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all.

Romans 5:20 Law came in, to increase the trespass; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,

Romans 6:1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?

Romans 12:3 For by the grace given to me I bid every one among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith which God has assigned him.

Ephesians 4:7 But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift.

James 4:6 But he gives more grace; therefore it says, “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.” (1 Pet 5:5 also cites this saying)

1 Peter 1:2 chosen and destined by God the Father and sanctified by the Spirit for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you.

1 Peter 4:10 As each has received a gift, employ it for one another, as good stewards of God’s varied grace.

2 Peter 1:2 May grace and peace be multiplied to you . . .

2 Peter 3:18: But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. . . .

DIFFERENTIAL MERIT BASED ON OUR RESPONSE TO GOD’S GRACE

Matthew 5:11-12 Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so men persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Matthew 6:3-4 But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your alms may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you. (cf. 6:5-6,16-18)

Matthew 10:41-42 He who receives a prophet because he is a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward, and he who receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward. And whoever gives to one of these little ones even a cup of cold water because he is a disciple, truly, I say to you, he shall not lose his reward.

Matthew 19:21 Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”

Matthew 19:29 And every one who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life.

Mark 9:41 For truly, I say to you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the name of Christ, will by no means lose his reward.

Mark 10:29-30: Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life.”

Luke 6:35, 38 But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the selfish. . . . give, and it will be given to you; good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For the measure you give will be the measure you get back.

1 Corinthians 3:6-9 I planted, Apol’los watered, but God gave the growth. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. He who plants and he who waters are equal, and each shall receive his wages according to his labor. For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building.

2 Corinthians 9:6 The point is this: he who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully.

Ephesians 6:8 knowing that whatever good any one does, he will receive the same again from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free. (cf. Matt 16:27)

2 Timothy 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

2 Timothy 4:8 Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that Day, and not only to me but also to all who have loved his appearing.

Hebrews 6:10 For God is not so unjust as to overlook your work and the love which you showed for his sake in serving the saints, as you still do.

Hebrews 10:35 Therefore do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward.

Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please him. For whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.

James 1:12 Blessed is the man who endures trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life which God has promised to those who love him.

2 John 1:8 Look to yourselves, that you may not lose what you have worked for, but may win a full reward.

Revelation 2:10 . . . Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life.

Revelation 3:11-12 . . . hold fast what you have, so that no one may seize your crown. He who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God; . . .

CO-WORKERS WITH GOD (SYNERGISM)

Mark 16:20 And they went forth and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by the signs that attended it. Amen.

Romans 8:28 We know that in everything God works for good with those who love him, who are called according to his purpose.

1 Corinthians 3:9 For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building.

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

1 Corinthians 15:58 Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain.

2 Corinthians 6:1 Working together with him, then, we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain.

Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Philippians 2:12-13 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

2 Peter 1:10 Therefore, brethren, be the more zealous to confirm your call and election, for if you do this you will never fall;

HUMAN DISTRIBUTION OF DIVINE GRACES AND SALVATION

Acts 2:40-41 And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

Romans 11:13-14 Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry in order to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them.

1 Corinthians 7:16 Wife, how do you know whether you will save your husband? Husband, how do you know whether you will save your wife?

1 Corinthians 9:22 I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

2 Corinthians 1:6 If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation; and if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which you experience when you patiently endure the same sufferings that we suffer.

2 Corinthians 4:15 For it [his many sufferings: 4:8-12, 17] is all for your sake, so that as grace extends to more and more people it may increase thanksgiving, to the glory of God.

2 Corinthians 5:18-19 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.

Ephesians 3:2 assuming that you have heard of the stewardship of God’s grace that was given to me for you.

Ephesians 4:29 Let no evil talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for edifying, as fits the occasion, that it may impart grace to those who hear.

Philippians 2:12-13 . . . work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

1 Timothy 4:16 Take heed to yourself and to your teaching: hold to that, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.

2 Timothy 2:10 Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain salvation in Christ Jesus with its eternal glory.

Hebrews 10:24 and let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works,

James 5:20 let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.

1 Peter 3:1 Likewise you wives, be submissive to your husbands, so that some, though they do not obey the word, may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives

1 Peter 4:8-10 . . . love covers a multitude of sins. Practice hospitality ungrudgingly to one another. As each has received a gift, employ it for one another, as good stewards of God’s varied grace.

Moreover, when we pray for someone and God answers, they are blessed, and one might say that they are given more grace thereby, just as Paul often opens his epistles, “grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Cor 1:2). This common greeting of “grace to you” (cf. Rom 1:7; 1 Cor 1:3; Gal 1:3; Eph 1:2; Phil 1:2; Col 1:2; 1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:2; Phlm 1:3; Rev 1:4) is in the sense of “may God give you more grace.” Thus, everyone who prays is potentially a “mini-distributor” of grace (and indirectly – in a limited sense — of salvation as well).

Revelation 1:4-5 John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne, and from Jesus Christ . . .

The angels also participate in this spreading around of God’s grace.

*
*****

*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-three 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!
*
***
*

Summary: I provide the biblical rationale for Catholic beliefs with regard to salvation, by presenting categorized Bible passages about grace, justification, faith & works, merit, etc.

 

September 26, 2023

September 26, 2023 By
0 Comments

Jason Engwer is a prolific Protestant anti-Catholic apologist and webmaster of the site, Triablogue. He used to interact with me from 2000 to 2010 or so and then promptly stopped. I continue to critique his material, if I think there is educational value in doing so. Maybe one day he’ll decide to start dialoguing again. In any event, I’ll continue to do what I’ve done these past [nearly] 33 years as a Catholic apologist, and if I see that he makes some dubious claim against a Catholic position, I’ll respond, provided it is substantive enough to be worth addressing.

*****

This is a response to portions of Jason’s article, “A Challenge to Those Who Deny Eternal Security,” which was posted sometime before August 2004. His words will be in blue. I will be using RSV for Bible citations.

Why were the apostles sure that they would go to Heaven, even though they still had time to sin (2 Timothy 4:18, 1 Peter 5:1, 2 John 2-3)?

2 Timothy 4:18 The Lord will rescue me from every evil and save me for his heavenly kingdom. . . .

This is in the sense that God is perfectly capable and willing to do so, but it presupposes that we, too, are willing and don’t fall from grace. The Bible doesn’t teach irresistible grace.  Many other passages (including four from the same book) also need to be considered in the overall mix. They show that there are conditions (i.e., it’s not a sure thing, set for all time), and that one can lose salvation and being in a state of grace with God if they don’t persevere to the end. The passages that Jason brings up all have to be interpreted in light of this other motif that is also plainly taught in the Bible, in the following seventeen passages, among others:

Romans 8:15-17 For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the spirit of sonship. When we cry, “Abba! Father!” [16] it is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God, [17] and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.

Matthew 10:22 . . . he who endures to the end will be saved. (cf. 24:13; Mk 13:13)

John 16:1 I have said all this to you to keep you from falling away.

Philippians 3:11-12 that if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. [12] Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make it my own,  . . .

1 Corinthians 9:27  but I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.

1 Corinthians 10:12 Therefore let any one who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.

Galatians 5:4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

Colossians 1:22-23 he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him, [23] provided that you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which has been preached to every creature under heaven, . . .

1 Timothy 1:19-20 . . . By rejecting conscience, certain persons have made shipwreck of their faith, [20] among them Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.

1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons.

1 Timothy 5:15 For some have already strayed after Satan.

2 Timothy 2:17-18 . . . Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, [18] who have swerved from the truth . . .

Hebrews 3:12-14 Take care, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day . . . that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we share in Christ, if only we hold our first confidence firm to the end.

Hebrews 6:4-6 For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God, and the powers of the age to come, if they then commit apostasy . . .

Hebrews 10:26-29, 36, 39 For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, [27] but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries. [28] A man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses. [29] How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace? . . . [36] For you have need of endurance, so that you may do the will of God and receive what is promised. . . . [39] But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and keep their souls.

2 Peter 2:15, 20-21 Forsaking the right way they have gone astray; they have followed the way of Balaam, . . . For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overpowered, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them.

Revelation 2:4-5 But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first. [5] Remember then from what you have fallen, repent and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.

Paul in his 2nd epistle to Timothy strongly implies that his salvation was conditional upon his perseverance and observance of God’s laws and a steadfast faith. This in turn is a different thing from the notion of achieving salvation and eternal security in one instant:

2 Timothy 4:7-8 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. [8] Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, . . .

Paul didn’t say, “I knew I was saved on such-and-such a date, because it is by faith alone and has nothing to do with works or sanctification.” No! He didn’t explain this as a typical evangelical Protestant like Jason would. He worked! He “fought” and “finished the race” and “kept [not just believed] the faith”. These all involve time and perseverance. And as a result, he states, “Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness.”

For Paul, salvation is a “both/and” synergistic proposition, not “either/or” (God does all, man can and does do nothing to attain it). So he writes that “he is able to guard until that Day what has been entrusted to me” (2 Tim 1:12), but also writes “guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us” (2 Tim 1:14). God works, and so do we, enabled by His grace.

If indeed we have free will, we can choose to stop cooperating with God’s grace, too. Thus, in his first epistle to Timothy, Paul referred to “some” who “will depart from the faith” (1 Tim 4:1) and “some” who “have already strayed after Satan” (1 Tim 5:15), and he names two of these: “Hymenaeus and Alexander” (“the coppersmith”: 2 Tim 4:14) who “have made shipwreck of their faith” (1 Tim 1:19-20). And “Hymenaeus. . . swerved from the truth” (2 Tim 2:17-18). Two other statements of Paul in 2 Timothy imply good works as part of the conditional salvific process:

2 Timothy 2:5-6 An athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules. [6] It is the hard-working farmer who ought to have the first share of the crops.

2 Timothy 2:11-12 The saying is sure: If we have died with him, we shall also live with him; [12] if we endure, we shall also reign with him;

There is no such thing as “eternal security” in either of Paul’s letters to Timothy. Quite the opposite . . .

1 Peter 5:1 So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ as well as a partaker in the glory that is to be revealed.

He writes similarly in 1:3-5 and 5:4, 10. At the moment he was that, if he was free of mortal sin. This is the Catholic understanding of moral assurance of salvation. It doesn’t follow that this grace and salvation can’t be lost. St. Peter clearly taught the possibility of apostasy and forsaking the faith in 2 Peter 2:15, 20-21, already cited above. Just seven verses earlier in the same book, Peter wrote:

1 Peter 4:13-14 But rejoice in so far as you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed. [14] If you are reproached for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. (cf. 5:9-10)

This echoes very similar Pauline teaching (cited above) from Romans 8:15-17 and Philippians 1:29 (“you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake”) and 3:10 (“that I may know him . . . and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death”). Some amount of suffering appears to be required for ultimate salvation, and this simply isn’t “faith alone.” 1 Peter 4:13-14 and Romans 8:15-17 mention God’s “glory” or our receiving His “spirit of glory” or being “glorified with him”. Here’s another similar passage (note the conditional “if”):

Romans 6:3-5 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? [4] We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. [5] For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.

This passage specifically has to do with baptism, but it has motifs similar to Romans 8:15-17 and 1 Peter 4:13.
*
Peter refers to “newborn babes” in Christ, who “may grow up to salvation” (1 Pet 2:2). That hardly sounds like an instant salvation that can never be lost. He also teaches that humility has something to do with salvation:
1 Peter 5:6 Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that in due time he may exalt you.
It would seem to follow that if we don’t humble ourselves, then we won’t be exalted at the last judgment.
2 John 1:2-3 . . . the truth which abides in us and will be with us for ever: [3] Grace, mercy, and peace will be with us, . . .
I’ve already addressed St. John’s theology regarding “eternal security” or the lack thereof (and Jason brings up the old chestnut 1 John 5:13 in his next comment):

“Certainty” of Eternal Life? (1 Jn 5:13 & Jn 5:24) [5-8-02]

Why did the apostles want the believers to whom they wrote to be sure of their future in Heaven (Romans 5:9, 1 Corinthians 1:8, Philippians 3:20-21, 1 Peter 1:3-5, 5:4, 1 John 5:13, 2 John 2-3)?

Romans 5:9 Since, therefore, we are now justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.
In Romans 8:15-17 (cited above), Paul makes salvation and glorification conditional upon our suffering with Christ (cf. Rom 5:3-5). This is reflected in the seeming conditional of Romans 5:2, in context, where Paul states that “we rejoice in our hope of sharing the glory of God.” If it were already certain and irrevocable, why wouldn’t Paul have, rather, written something like, “we rejoice in the fact that we have already received a certain assurance of sharing the glory of God”? In any event, a hope of something is not, strictly or logically speaking, a certainty of receiving it. Paul makes this clear elsewhere in the epistle, in conjunction with salvation:
Romans 8:24-25 For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? [25] But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.

Thayer’s Greek Lexicon defines hope (Gk., elpis, Strong’s Greek word #1680) as “expectation of good, hope; and in the Christian sense, joyful and confident expectation of eternal salvation”. Granted, this is not far from “certain” or “absolute” (and Catholics believe in this, in the sense of a reflective, self-examining moral assurance) but it’s not quite there, so that there is still a chance of losing such salvation or the divine grace that brings it about. That salvation is a process for Paul, also, is indicated when he writes that “salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed” (Rom 13:11). If we already possess it in absolute certainty, then it would be absurd and nonsensical to refer to it being “nearer”: and nearer at a subsequent point of time after “we first believed.”

Moreover, in Romans 2:6-7, Paul teaches that God “will give eternal life” based on (“according to”) the “works” of “every man” and to those who earn it through “patience in well-doing.” What’s with all these works?! Is Paul a lousy Pelagian or something? No! He teaches grace alone for salvation, through faith, which includes within it (inseparably) good works.

1 Corinthians 1:8 who will sustain you to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Yes He will. This is the only way we can be saved. But we must also cooperate. Hence, Paul writes in the same letter that even he could possibly be “disqualified” (1 Cor 9:27) and urges that “any one who thinks that he stands” should “take heed lest he fall” (1 Cor 10:12). 1 Corinthians 1:8 must be interpreted in light of that data (and much more from Paul, generally). We can decide that Paul is hopelessly self-contradictory (which runs counter to biblical inspiration and infallibility), or we can try to harmonize the two motifs in a way that is logically consistent.
*
Catholics offer a plausible Bible-soaked way to do that. Protestants offer, well (usually) a highly selective presentation of Bible passages without taking into considerations those of the other motif, like I am presently doing. But they are responsible, too, for taking all of the relevant biblical data into account, just as Catholics are. We don’t ignore their verses (I am going through them systematically in this article); they mostly ignore ours that indicate a conditional and not eternally secure salvation that is gained through a grace-enabled, but difficult and lengthy cooperative process on our end.
Philippians 3:20-21 But our commonwealth is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, [21] who will change our lowly body to be like his glorious body, . . .
8-9 verses earlier (making it in context), Paul proved that he regards this salvation as conditional: “if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained this . . . I press on to make it my own” (3:11-12). Here, as always, the two strains of thought, which I would say are paradoxical — very typical of Hebraic thought — but not contradictory, must be harmonized somehow. I think we do this by asserting that a very strong, confident moral assurance is possible if we are not in mortal sin, but that absolute assurance is not (since we don’t infallibly know he future), and that both are repeatedly taught in Holy Scripture.
*
Paul also writes: “Only let us hold true to what we have attained” (Phil 3:16). To me — at least prima facie — this implies either that we have to continue to perseveringly hold what we have attained, lest we possibly lose it (cf. 3:11-12) or maybe that there is more to attain than we have already attained (or both). Of course, “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” (2:12) goes against the notion of instant salvation without process. Christians are those who are hopefully “holding fast the word of life” (2:16) and who must “stand firm . . . in the Lord” (4:1).
*
1 Peter 1:3-5 refers to “hope”: which I have written about above. It and 1 Peter 5:4 must be understood in synthesis with the data from both epistles of Peter, as analyzed above.
*
Critics of eternal security argue that salvation depends on our present faith and our present behavior. Why, then, do the scriptures refer to people having salvation, or something associated with salvation, in the present because of a past faith or a past justification (Luke 7:50, Acts 19:2, Romans 5:1)? How is this possible if there isn’t a moment of faith in the past that results in our future salvation?
Luke 7:50 And he said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”
Again, this has to be interpreted in light of other related passages. So, for example, Jesus tells the woman caught in adultery, “go, and do not sin again” (Jn 8:11), and said, “he who endures to the end will be saved” (Mt 10:22), and “If you would enter life, keep the commandments” (Mt 19:17; cf. Jn 14:15, 21; 15:14). I have compiled fifty Bible passages showing that works were crucially involved in the question of whether one is saved or not. Faith isn’t even mentioned in any of them, save one.
Acts 19:2 And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” . . .
These people embraced Christ and Christianity. It simply doesn’t say that they were saved at one moment once and for all, and for all time. Protestant soteriology is smuggled into it, but of course that is eisegesis. Hebrews 6:4, 6 states that those who had “become partakers of the Holy Spirit” can nevertheless possibly still “commit apostasy”.
Romans 5:1 Therefore, since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
This is what we consider to be initial justification. The text doesn’t say that this means attainment of a salvation in one instant, that can never be lost. It can be lost (see all the seventeen Scriptures listed near the top).
*
Why do the scriptures say that salvation is a free gift of God’s grace (Romans 3:24, 5:17, 6:23, Revelation 22:17)? If attaining salvation through works would contradict grace (Romans 4:4, 11:6), then how can maintaining salvation through works be consistent with grace?
*
In these passages the Bible is opposing the notion that we can save ourselves by our self-generated works, apart from God’s grace (which is the heresy of works-salvation or Pelagianism). It’s not saying that works are not part and parcel of faith and hence also salvation, after the initial justification. They certainly are; so says the Bible at least fifty times. Romans 6:22, right before on of Jason’s prooftexts, refers to “sanctification and its end, eternal life.” That is the distinction:

1) initial justification  = monergistic with no works on our part;

2) maintenance of justification = synergistic and cooperative, and involves good works.

But in Protestant theology (very unlike Rom 6:22), sanctification has nothing directly to do with salvation. It’s the category they reserve for doing good things in gratefulness to God for a supposed salvation already achieved in an instant. When men’s theological systems and Holy Scripture clash, we must always choose God’s revelation over man-made tradition, that is shown to be false by contradicting the Bible. Revelation 22:17 has to be harmonized with Revelation 2:4-5, which says that it’s possible to fall away from the faith.
*
If some “really bad” sins cause the loss of salvation, while other sins don’t, as critics of eternal security tend to believe, then why do Paul and James say that a person would have to maintain a law of works perfectly in order to be saved by it, and that any violation of any aspect of that law makes a person guilty of violating the entire law (Galatians 3:10, James 2:8-10)?
*
The Bible does not teach that all sins are absolutely equal. James 2:10 deals with man’s inability to keep the entire Law of God: a common theme in Scripture. James accepts differences in degrees of sin and righteousness elsewhere in the same letter: “we who teach shall be judged with a greater strictness” (3:1). In 1:12, the man who endures trial will receive a “crown of life.” In James 1:15 he states that “sin when it is full-grown brings forth death”.
*
Therefore, there must be sins that are not full-grown and do not bring about spiritual death. James also teaches that the “prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects” (5:16), which implies that there are relatively more righteous people, whom God honors more, by making their prayers more effective (he used the prophet Elijah as an example). If there is a lesser and greater righteousness, then there are lesser and greater sins also, because to be less righteous is to be more sinful, and vice versa.
*
Righteousness doesn’t derive from the law. It comes from God and His enabling grace, not written words on a page, however good and true they are. Galatians 3:21 states “if a law had been given which could make alive, then righteousness would indeed be by the law” (cf. 2:16-17,21; 5:4-6,14,18; Rom 3:21-22; 4:13; 9:30-32). Paul writes in Romans 10:3: “For, being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness.”
*
John Calvin teaches something quite different from the Bible, when he addresses James 2:10:

Even were it possible for us to perform works absolutely pure, yet one sin is sufficient to efface and extinguish all remembrance of former righteousness, as the prophet says (Ezek. 18:24). With this James agrees, . . . [cites Jas 2:10] (Institutes III, 14:10)

[cites Jas 2:10-11] Therefore, it should not seem absurd when we say that death is the just recompense of every sin, because each sin merits the just indignation and vengeance of God. (Institutes III, 18:10)

It’s quite easy in context to see the error Calvin commits with regard to Ezekiel 18. The prophet is speaking generally and broadly of the sinners’ life vs. the life of the redeemed, righteous man. The verse (first part) states: “But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity and does the same abominable things that the wicked man does, shall he live?”
*
Notice that the sins are plural: not one little sin that supposedly undoes everything, as in Calvin’s schema. Ezekiel is teaching, in effect: “if you live in sin as the wicked and evil people do, you will [spiritually] die.” This is referring to people who give themselves totally over to sin (including mortal sins). These are what separate a person from God, not one white lie or lustful thought or stealing a cookie from the cookie jar. Context makes this interpretation rather clear and obvious:

Ezekiel 18:5-13 If a man is righteous and does what is lawful and right — [6] if he does not eat upon the mountains or lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, does not defile his neighbor’s wife or approach a woman in her time of impurity, [7] does not oppress any one, but restores to the debtor his pledge, commits no robbery, gives his bread to the hungry and covers the naked with a garment, [8] does not lend at interest or take any increase, withholds his hand from iniquity, executes true justice between man and man, [9] walks in my statutes, and is careful to observe my ordinances — he is righteous, he shall surely live, says the Lord GOD. [10] If he begets a son who is a robber, a shedder of blood, [11] who does none of these duties, but eats upon the mountains, defiles his neighbor’s wife, [12] oppresses the poor and needy, commits robbery, does not restore the pledge, lifts up his eyes to the idols, commits abomination, [13] lends at interest, and takes increase; shall he then live? He shall not live. He has done all these abominable things; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon himself.

The prophet continues in the same vein in 18:14-23. This is not Calvin’s “one sin”; it’s a host of sins, a lifestyle: a life given over to wanton wickedness and unrighteousness. Then in 18:26 he reiterates: “When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, he shall die for it; for the iniquity which he has committed he shall die.” If that weren’t clear enough, he refers again to “all the transgressions” (18:28, 31) and “all your transgressions” (18:30).
*
If passages like 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and Galatians 5:19-21 are lists of sins that cause the loss of salvation, as many critics of eternal security claim, then why do we see examples in scripture of people committing those sins, yet remaining saved (1 Corinthians 3:1-3, 11:17-32)?
*
It’s a matter of degree. Once again, Paul writes in the same letter that even he could possibly be “disqualified” (1 Cor 9:27) and urges that “any one who thinks that he stands” should “take heed lest he fall” (1 Cor 10:12). So Paul is not teaching in the letter that no one can ever lose salvation. These passages (and I would add three others of like nature: Eph 5:5; Rev 21:8; 22:14-15) certainly refer to a loss of salvation due to committing serious sins. By immediate and undeniable implication, there are other lesser sins that do not bring about a loss of salvation and/or grace and a right relationship with God.
*
Paul may not refer to a person who was saved and lost his salvation in this letter, but he certainly does in his epistle to the Galatians (“You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace”: 5:4), and three times in 1 Timothy and once in 2 Timothy (see citations above). He’s not required to repeat every teaching of his in every letter. They are to be interpreted as a whole.
*
If salvation could be lost, it couldn’t be regained (Hebrews 6:4-6).
*
That’s specifically referring to the sin of apostasy.
*
How, then, were people like David and Peter saved after committing sins such as adultery and denying Christ? If such sins aren’t bad enough to cause the loss of salvation, what would be?
*
1) They didn’t commit apostasy, and 2) they both profoundly repented; 3) both were also chosen by God for very special tasks, and so presumably had an extra “protection.” But the main difference is an absence of apostasy and deliberate rejection of God. As I have written about, Peter simply had a very short lapse of fear, during the terrible time of Jesus’ passion and trial. His whole sin may have lasted all of ten minutes. Then as soon as he heard the cock crow, he wept bitterly and repented. If God can’t forgive that, He wouldn’t be God.
*
Why does the book of the Bible that most often refers to salvation as a gift (Romans 3:24, 5:15, 5:16, 6:23, etc.) also tell us that the gifts of God are irrevocable (Romans 11:29)?
*
They are irrevocable on God’s end, but man has a free will that makes it possible for him to reject them:
1 Corinthians 2:14 The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
*
Matthew 23:37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!”
*
Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,300+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-three 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!
*
***
*

Photo Credit: St. Paul (1482), by Bartolomeo Montegna (1450-1523) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: I tackle several rapid-fire supposed prooftexts for eternal security, presented by anti-Catholic evangelical apologist Jason Engwer, & show that apostasy is possible.

September 23, 2023

September 23, 2023 By
0 Comments

[see book information and purchase options]

Jason Engwer is a prolific Protestant anti-Catholic apologist and webmaster of the site, Triablogue. He used to interact with me from 2000 to 2010 or so and then promptly stopped. I continue to critique his material, if I think there is educational value in doing so. Maybe one day he’ll decide to start dialoguing again. In any event, I’ll continue to do what I’ve done these past [nearly] 33 years as a Catholic apologist, and if I see that he makes some dubious claim against a Catholic position, I’ll respond, provided it is substantive enough to be worth addressing.

*****

I’m replying to an old debate (dated sometime prior to August 2004) that Jason had with Robert Sungenis on the topic of justification. I will interact only with Jason’s portions. His words will be in blue. I use RSV for Bible citations.

As James explains in 2:8-12, people would have to live perfectly, obeying all of God’s laws (James 2:10), in order to be saved through works. Instead of trusting in a law of works, we have to trust in a law of liberty (James 2:12).

James is reiterating that the law doesn’t save anyone, which is elementary NT soteriology, and a proposition concerning which Catholics and Protestants are in full agreement (see Rom 4:13-16). On the other hand, St. Paul notes that it is “the doers of the law who will be justified” (Rom 2:13) and that “the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good” (Rom 7:12) and “Christ is the end of the law” (Rom 10:4) and “love is the fulfilling of the law” (Rom 13:10). In other words, although the law itself doesn’t save, and “was our custodian until Christ came” (Gal 3:24), nevertheless, those who are justified by grace through faith will always do works, flowing from this grace-soaked faith, and these will be meritorious and play a role in their salvation. It’s not law and works by themselves, but flowing from faith (James 2:14, 17-18, 20-22, 24-26). These works are meritorious and help bring about salvation and eternal life:

Romans 1:17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, “He who through faith is righteous shall live.”

Romans 5:10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.

Romans 6:22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life.

2 Thessalonians 2:13 . . . God chose you from the beginning to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.

Hebrews 11:4 By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he received approval as righteous,

Jude 1:20-21 But you, beloved, build yourselves up on your most holy faith; pray in the Holy Spirit; keep yourselves in the love of God; wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.

He’s addressing the evidence of saving faith (James 2:14).

Not at all. Rather, in that verse he is asserting that faith alone cannot save (“Can his faith save him?”), and has to be accompanied by works, so that possessing both, a person can be saved.  He makes this perfectly plain ten verses later: “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” (Jas 2:24), and also three verses later: “faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead” (Jas 2:17).

Since faith always comes before works, do [Catholics] want to argue that people respond to the gospel with dead faith, which becomes living faith only later? 

That’s not possible for a Catholic to do, according to Trent,  in its Canons 1 and 3 on Justification:

CANON I. If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

CANON III. If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.

There’s no way to avoid the fact that Genesis 15:6 refers to righteousness being reckoned through faith alone, when Abraham does nothing more than trust God. There is no baptism, giving money to the poor, or any other work done in Genesis 15:6. Righteousness was reckoned to Abraham through faith alone, . . . James 2:23 refers to Abraham having righteousness reckoned through faith alone. There are no works in Genesis 15:6. . . . 

Genesis 15:6 does tell us what Paul means by “faith”. What occurs in Genesis 15:6? Is Abraham baptized? Is he circumcised? Does he give money to the poor? No, Abraham just believes God. That’s faith alone. If somebody today did nothing more than what Abraham did in Genesis 15:6, you as a Catholic would say that he was unjustified.

James (2:23) gives an explicit interpretation of Genesis 15:6, by stating, “And the scripture was fulfilled which says, ‘Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,’ and he was called the friend of God.” The previous three verses were all about justification, faith and works, all tied in together (2:20: “faith apart from works is barren”; 2:22: “faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works”) and this is what James says “fulfilled” Genesis 15:6.  So, no, according to the inspired exegesis of James, Abraham was not justified by “faith alone” in Genesis 15:6.

James tells another person to “show me” his faith through his works (James 2:18). That’s justification before men. We see something similar in James 3:13. Who would have seen Abraham’s work of offering Isaac? Isaac would have seen it. And millions of others have seen it by means of hearing about it through scripture. The idea of justification before men, regardless of whether the word “justify” is used, is a theme we see often in scripture, sometimes negatively (Matthew 6:1-5, Luke 16:15, Romans 4:2, Galatians 3:11) and sometimes positively (Luke 7:35, James 2:18, 3:13). The phrase “before God” in a passage such as Galatians 3:11 seems to assume that you can be justified before others as well. The concept of being justified, or vindicated, before men is Biblical and is what James refers to in 2:18. What else would “show me” mean? 

I don’t see how this proves that James is operating with an entirely different conception of works (“before men only, and not before God”). To the contrary, James, just like Paul, ties both faith and works into salvation, not just flattering and God-honoring appearances before men. They are connected to salvation itself (1:12, 21-22; 2:14) as well as to justification (2:21, 24-25); both things directed “Godward” and not merely towards other persons. Abraham proved that he feared God and believed. But it was not “before men.” It was a thing that was in and of itself, whether anyone saw it or not, and before God (for His sake, not God’s).

Per the usual unacceptable anti-Catholic method of citing the Church fathers, Jason cites three carefully selected snippets from St. John Chrysostom, out of context, in which he uses the phrases “faith alone” and “faith only”:

They said that he who kept not the Law was cursed, but he proves that he who kept it was cursed, and he who kept it not, blessed. Again, they said that he who adhered to Faith alone was cursed, but he shows that he who adhered to Faith alone is blessed. (Commentary on Galatians, 3)

by faith alone He saved us (Homilies on Ephesians, 5)

In his homily on Galatians 3, Chrysostom was treating the same topic as Paul in that passage: whether one is saved / justified by the law or by faith. Paul states in Galatians 3 that “no man is justified before God by the law” (3:11) and that we are “justified by faith” (3:24). That is the topic, rather than a supposed denial of works also being necessary in the quest for and attainment of salvation. Chrysostom, accordingly, cites Galatians 5:4: “You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.” He is basically making the same reference to initial justification in his comment from Homily 5 on Ephesians, too.

Catholics fully agree with Protestants that initial justification is monergistic and comes entirely through God’s grace (not by the law), which brings about our faith in response. What we deny is the notion of obtaining a salvation that can never be lost, through faith, and the notion that works play no role whatsoever in our salvation and justification, after initial justification.  That is the particular sense in which Chrysostom uses “faith alone” in the words Jason cites. This isn’t “faith alone” in the Protestant sense at all, and we know this for sure, by noting what he said about “faith alone” many times elsewhere (see below).

Attend to this, ye who come to baptism at the close of life, for we indeed pray that after baptism ye may have also this deportment, but thou art seeking and doing thy utmost to depart without it. For, what though thou be justified: yet is it of faith only. But we pray that thou shouldest have as well the confidence that cometh of good works (Homilies on Second Corinthians, 2)

In his Homily 2 on Second Corinthians, Chrysostom immediately conjoins the faith with works, and I commend Jason for including that portion. I take it that the “confidence” referred to is confidence of procuring salvation, if one continues faithfully in the Way. Moreover, in his comment on 1:6-7 he expressly denies “faith alone”:

for not through believing only comes your salvation, but also through the suffering and enduring the same things with us. . . . the work of salvation consists not in doing evil, but in suffering evil.

Therefore, he provides an interpretation of his own use of the phrase “faith only” in the same piece of writing, and proves that it is not according to the Protestant notion of “faith alone.”

For my part, I take into account St. John Chrysostom’s entire teaching on the topic; for example, as part of my extensive research for my 303-page book, The Quotable Eastern Church Fathers: Distinctively Catholic Elements in Their Theology (July 2013). This book included almost seven pages of his citations opposing “faith alone” and another five pages of his statements on “faith and works.” That’s real — and appropriately thorough — research, folks, as opposed to mere “quote-mining” for “pet passages”. But Jason didn’t cite passages such as the following from the great saint and Doctor of the Church:

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

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

[H]ow, tell me, doth faith save, without works? (Homily IV on Ephesians, v. 2:8-10; my italics)

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

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

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

[A] right faith availeth nothing if the life be corrupt, both Christ and Paul declare . . . (Homily LXIII on John, v. 11:40; my italics)

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

For unless we add also a life suitable to our faith, we shall suffer the extremest punishment. (Homily LXIV on Matthew 19:27, 4; my italics)

Should I conclude, then, that all of these people agreed with my view of salvation? No, obviously not. A church father could refer to salvation being through “faith alone” in one passage, but refer to baptismal regeneration or some other form of salvation through works elsewhere. He may have been inconsistent. Or he may have just defined “faith alone” differently than I do. We would have to examine each case individually.

I agree. I did examine St. John Chrysostom’s teachings on this specific topic sufficiently enough to reach a firm conclusion. Jason did not. And so he put out a mistaken, incomplete picture, and hence indefensibly misrepresented Chrysostom. It happens all the time with anti-Catholic attempts at “patristics.”

For [Catholics] to say that the words “faith alone” don’t appear in a passage like Mark 2:5 or Luke 18:10-14 is inconclusive. The concept can be there without the words being there, just as the concept can be absent with the words being there. Is the concept of faith alone present in passages like Mark 2:5 and Luke 18:10-14? Yes, it is. . . . 

The man in Mark 2:5 was paralyzed. He didn’t do any works. He wasn’t water baptized, was he? The text says that Jesus forgave him upon seeing their faith, not their faith and their works. Jesus could have told the paralytic that he was healed, then told him to be baptized if he wanted to be saved. Instead, Jesus saved him through faith alone.

Technically, from the passage, we know that the man’s sins prior to that time were forgiven, not that he was eschatologically saved. That is an assumption unwarranted in the text, that smuggles in Protestant faith alone soteriology and eternal security.  

To dismiss this case as an exception to the rule is arbitrary. As we’ll see, Mark 2:5 isn’t the only example of a Biblical figure being saved through faith alone, and we have no examples of a person believing, but being unforgiven until his baptism. Passages like Mark 2:5 aren’t exceptions to the rule. They’re examples of the rule.

Mark 2:5 reads, “And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, ‘My son, your sins are forgiven.’ ” This teaches (I think, arguably, anyway) justification by faith, but not “faith alone.” The two concepts are distinct. Catholics accept the first thing and reject the second as unscriptural and illogical. It’s the same for Luke 18:10-14. There simply isn’t enough information in the passage to conclude “faith alone.” Every mention of “faith” is not a proof of “faith alone.”

What about Luke 18:10-14? Jesus says nothing at all about baptism or any other work. 

Rather delightfully, Luke 18:10-14 concludes four verses before the passage about the rich young ruler, in which he asks Jesus, “what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” (18:18). Jesus in His two-part answer never mentions faith, but rather, He asked whether the man kept the commandments (18:20); then upon finding out that he did, said, “One thing you still lack. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven” (18:22). Two works are what would save him, according to God the Son, and this has to be harmonized with His teaching in Luke 18:10-14. That is the furthest thing imaginable from “faith alone.” Thus, Catholics fully concur with the [initial] justification by faith in both passages brought up by Jason, while not agreeing that subsequent faith is sufficient for salvation without accompanying works.

The thief on the cross (Luke 23:39-43) would be yet another example [Catholics] would have to dismiss as an exception to the rule. 
*
Of course we would, since that man couldn’t do anything (including any work or baptism) even if he wanted to. So it’s an exceptional situation, and God understands that. So do Catholics when we use it as the prime example of a “baptism by desire.”
*
[T]he Judaizers Paul was responding to in his writings, for example, didn’t deny the necessity of faith. They denied the sufficiency of faith. This is why Paul assumed that the Galatians would agree with him that their Christian life at least began with faith (Galatians 3:2). It’s not as though the Judaizers were opposed to having faith. Instead, the Judaizers, like Roman Catholics, added works as a requirement for salvation. 
*
We do so because Jesus, Paul, and the Bible massively, undeniably do so, and we follow them wherever they lead. See:
*
*
*
The reason why Paul had to define grace (Romans 11:6) and could assume that his opponents accepted the necessity of faith (Galatians 3:2) was because his opponents claimed to believe in salvation by grace and through faith. But they added works to grace and faith. The Roman Catholic Church has done the same thing. . . . 
*
Paul is not excluding a type of works that does nullify saving grace, while including another type of works that doesn’t nullify saving grace. Rather, he’s excluding all work, because work of any type would nullify salvation by grace.
*
Jason’s premise is wrong, because Paul — like Jesus (reply to the rich young ruler, etc.) — believed that works were necessary, too:

Romans 1:17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, “He who through faith is righteous shall live.”

Romans 6:22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life.

2 Thessalonians 2:13 . . . God chose you from the beginning to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.

I know, I already cited these, but repetition is a good teacher. And there is nothing better to recite and memorize than Holy Scripture. Sanctification and righteousness (including good works) are parts of the cause of salvation, not merely an optional way of “thanking God” for a salvation already supposedly gained with no chance of ever losing it: so says St. Paul.
*
Why is it that there are so many dozens of passages in scripture about salvation that only mention faith?
*
Because this is referring to initial justification, which indeed comes by and through faith, enabled by grace. Why is it — since we are asking challenging questions — that there are so many dozens of passages in scripture (at least fifty) about salvation that only mention works? Why is it that Jesus only mentioned works to the rich young ruler: precisely in reply to his query about how one attains heaven and is saved?
*
Since the work of justification was done by Christ, and that work is finished, it makes no sense to refer to multiple justifications. 
*
It makes just as much sense as it does for Paul to refer to an ongoing tense of “being saved” in the Bible:
1 Corinthians 1:18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. [note that Paul includes himself in this description, as well as the entire Corinthian assembly of Christians]
It makes as much sense as it does for the Bible to refer to a future salvation that is only attained through much effort and time:
Matthew 10:22 . . . he who endures to the end will be saved. (cf. 24:13; Mk 13:13)
*
Acts 15:11 But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus . . .
*
Philippians 2:12 . . . work out your own salvation with fear and trembling
*
Philippians 3:11-12 that if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. [12] Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make it my own,  . . .
*

It makes as much sense as Paul stating that salvation — far from being a one-time instant thing — was relatively “nearer to us now than when we first believed” (Rom 13:11), or that we as believers nevertheless still have a “hope of salvation” (1 Thess 5:8), or Peter asserting that we Christians are those who “grow up to salvation” (1 Pet 2:2).

If salvation is an ongoing process or lifelong quest (as I have just proven with ten Bible passages), then so is justification. It’s common sense. I also proved in a recent article utilizing the example of Abraham (including NT interpretations of his justification), that justification is ongoing and comes by works as well as by faith.

God glorifies those He justifies (Romans 8:30).
*
Of course He does. This particular verse tells us nothing about whether justification is a long process or can be lost, or is tied inexorably to sanctification. In context, however, Paul does clarify and states that we can become “heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him” (Rom 8:17). Note that suffering is a prerequisite for glorification and eschatological salvation, and he appears to be talking about a long process. This is verified by 8:18, where he states that “the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us,” and especially in the following passage:
Romans 8:35-36 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? [36] As it is written, “For thy sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.”
Paul repeatedly refers to people having peace in the present (Romans 5:1)
*
Absolutely. He writes in that verse that “since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” Catholics believe in a moral assurance of future salvation, conditional upon avoiding mortal sin or formally confessing it should we commit it. Then Paul refers in 5:2 to “this grace in which we stand.” But is that forever determined in one moment of decision for us? No. This grace can be lost, as Paul also teaches:

1 Corinthians 9:27  but I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.

1 Corinthians 10:12 Therefore let any one who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.

Galatians 5:4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons.

1 Timothy 5:15 For some have already strayed after Satan.

and assurance of the future (Romans 5:9-10, 6:8) because of a past justification.
*
Those passages have to be interpreted in light of the five above, which also come from Paul. Taken together, it adds up to a moral assurance, precisely as Catholics teach. One can have a very high degree of moral assurance, and trust in God’s mercy. St. Paul shows this. He doesn’t appear worried at all about his salvation, but on the other hand, he doesn’t make out that he is absolutely assured of it and has no need of persevering. He can’t “coast.” That seems to be his outlook. We can have assurance and faith and hope, yet this is understood within a paradigm of perseverance and constant vigilance in avoiding sin, that has the potential to lead us to damnation.
*
Moreover, Paul says that we will be presented “holy and blameless and irreproachable before him, provided that” we “continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel which [we] heard” (Col 1:22-23). The “past justification” is our initial one, but it can be lost through sin and rebellion, if we fail to persevere in grace (Gal 5:4) and seriously fall short in following God’s moral commands.
*
In passages like Mark 2:5, Luke 18:10-14, Acts 10:44-48, etc., there aren’t any saving works. Those passages . . . exclude all works.
*
This is an argument from silence, which never prove much, if anything. To simply not mention a thing in merely one passage is not proof that it is excluded altogether. Secondly, I already noted that Luke 18:10-14 is four verses before the rich young ruler passage. If in fact Jesus “excluded all works” in 18:10-14, then He almost immediately contradicted Himself in telling the rich young ruler that he could be saved and go to heaven by following the commandments and selling all that he had (i.e., two works; and Jesus never mentioned faith when asked about the process of salvation). Acts 10:44-48 is about the day of Pentecost and Christians first receiving the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. In that respect it is very similar to initial justification: God acting unilaterally in bestowing a tremendous blessing.
*
Nobody has ever been saved by obeying God’s commandments, even when they had faith.
Luke 18:18, 20 And a ruler asked him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” . . . [20] [Jesus] “You know the commandments: . . . “
According to Jesus, obeying the commandments can indeed save a person. He did go on to say that the rich young ruler “lack[ed]” just one thing: he had to give hiss possessions to the poor. So, then, he would have been saved by the commandments and one specific additional command from God to do a good work. Faith is never mentioned. According to Protestantism, Jesus would necessarily (lest he lead us all astray) have had to say something along the lines of, “Two things you still lack. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and exercise faith alone in me, and you will have treasure in heaven.”
*
That doesn’t even make any sense. If he had to do this work to be saved, then it clearly wasn’t faith alone. I would say that it’s implied that he had faith, in his following of the commandments. He had to believe in God in order to believe that these commandments came from Him and were worthwhile to abide by. But if faith alone is true, and if in fact “Nobody has ever been saved by obeying God’s commandments, even when they had faith,” then this passage could not possibly be written the way it is in fact written in the inspired, infallible revelation of Holy Scripture. And Jesus would become a sincere teacher of heresy at best or a lying deceiver at worst.
Romans 2:6-7, 13 For he will render to every man according to his works: [7] to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; . . . [13] For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.
*
Matthew 25:31-36 “When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. [32] Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, [33] and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. [34] Then the King will say to those at his right hand, `Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; [35] for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, [36] I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’”
*
Revelation 2:23 . . . I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you as your works deserve.
*
Revelation 20:11-13 Then I saw a great white throne and him who sat upon it; from his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. [12] And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Also another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, by what they had done. [13] And the sea gave up the dead in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead in them, and all were judged by what they had done.
*
Revelation 22:12 Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense, to repay every one for what he has done.
In these five passages, works alone are said to be a direct cause of justification (Rom 2:6-7, 13) and final salvation and admittance to heaven (Mt 25:31-36; Rev 2:23; 20:11-13; 22:12). This doesn’t exclude faith (by the same principle of the argument from silence just mentioned; and Catholics certainly don’t exclude it), but it does exclude “faith alone”, since for that to be true, it would have to be the only reason why people were saved, rather than works also being required, or being the only thing (alone or not) mentioned as being required, as in these passages.
*
Paul is excluding even good works done with faith and in obedience to God. He excludes the possibility that anybody has fulfilled Romans 2:13.
*

Nonsense. If this were true, then Paul would have had to write in Romans 2:13, “it is . . . the doers of the law who will not be justified.” But in fact he wrote, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit: “it is . . . the doers of the law who will be justified” (Rom 2:13). Jason’s extreme antipathy towards works — let it be known — amounts to a fringe and reactionary “faith alone” outlook that verges on antinomianism, and which is rejected by many if not most conservative Protestant theologians.

*
According to the Catholic Church, we are saved through laws such as the ten commandments . . . Nobody would arrive at the Roman Catholic gospel by studying the teachings of Jesus and the apostles.
*
According to Jesus, too (Lk 18:20): at least in the case of the rich young ruler. I’m very glad that if we must have an honest disagreement with someone, it’s with Jason and not Our Lord Jesus. I build an elaborate extensive scriptural case for Catholic soteriology, precisely by highlighting (with scores of NT passages) the teachings of Jesus and Paul.
*
Peter and the other apostles said that salvation comes upon believing response to the preached word
*

They also wrote the following (and these passages must be harmonized in any coherent take on NT soteriology):

Mark 16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Acts 2:38-41 And Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.’ And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, ‘Save yourselves from this crooked generation.’ So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

Acts 22:16 And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name. (cf. 9:17-18)

Romans 6:3-4 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

1 Peter 3:21 Baptism … now saves you …

[Catholics] would never tell people that believing in Christ gives them life and keeps them from condemnation. Instead, [Catholics] would tell them about . . . obeying the ten commandments, etc. You would tell them that believing in Christ isn’t enough.

If we did this (and of course it’s not all we do, and is a misinformed caricature), it would be exactly what Jesus said and didn’t say in Luke 18 (talking to the rich young ruler). That’s a good model to follow, I would say, since Jesus said, “he who believes in me will also do the works that I do” (Jn 14:12). One of these works was telling the rich young ruler how to be saved. So we can and should imitate it, according to Jesus’ words in John 14:12. Jesus also said — when He was being more detailed about these matters, as opposed to “proverbial” — that simply believing in Him wasn’t enough: “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I tell you?” (Lk 6:46). We should never contradict Jesus. Jason is in deep spiritual trouble and theological confusion by frequently doing so. It’s a frightening thing. And he continues to teach others on his blog.

Those who claim that faith must be combined with works in order for a person to be saved can’t explain the passages of scripture in which people are saved when they believe, before doing any works.

That’s easy. They aren’t “saved” in the sense that it can never be lost; they are initially justified (which is a monergistic, unilateral action of God’s grace). They are in good graces with God, and only “saved” in the sense that they will attain heaven if they persevere and never fall away from faith and grace.

Jesus didn’t always require faith to physically heal people or to perform some other miracle for them, but He did require faith to heal them spiritually.

He didn’t in the case of Paul, who had no Christian faith before God supernaturally converted him on the spot. We know this for sure because when this occurred, Jesus said to him (present tense), “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” (Acts 9:4) and “I am Jesus of Nazareth whom you are persecuting” (Acts 22:8).

there are no scriptural examples of people not being saved until they work,

See Matthew 25:31-36; Luke 6:46; 18:18 ff.; John 14:12; Romans 1:17; 2:6-7, 13; 5:10; 6:22; Philippians 2:12; 3:11-12; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; Hebrews 11:4; Revelation 2:23; 20:11-13; 22:12 — that’s fifteen passages (fifteen more than “no scriptural examples“), almost all of which were fully cited, above.

Romans 2:12-13 says that obedience to the law without sin brings justification. 

Then how can Paul say, “the doers of the law who will be justified” (2:13)? In other words, there are some who will be justified (innumerable passages in Paul), and to do so — according to what he states here — they had to follow the law by doing it. It’s not saying that this has to necessarily be done in a sinless state (Jason arbitrarily and groundlessly merely assumes that); only that it is the ones who act according to the law who will be justified, and insofar as they do that, they did it without sin, since disobeying the law, not following it, is sin. But none of this excludes faith. It’s asserting, rather, the necessity of works in the overall equation and process of justification and salvation.

*
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that we attain eternal life through grace, faith, and a system of works. 
*
So does the New Testament; especially Jesus and Paul, as repeatedly proven above. That’s exactly why we teach it! It’s Protestant soteriology that is shockingly unbiblical and which massively contradicts the Bible.
*
Acts 16:31 is heresy to a Roman Catholic. 
*
Not in the slightest. It simply states the principle that belief and faith in Jesus are necessary for salvation. Yes, of course! DUH! Elsewhere, the Bible frequently elaborates upon this and on how works are incorporated into the process of the attainment of salvation. Protestants like Jason only look at one sort of passage and ignore other related, relevant ones, leading to misleading half-truths (which are not much better than outright falsehoods). Catholics, in great contrast, harmonize all of them together.
*
This stark difference of methodology can be readily observed, above. Note the huge amount of Scripture I bring to bear: virtually all of which Jason ignored in his presentation. The Bible is the Bible, and it’s all inspired, infallible revelation. If we ignore or rationalize large portions of it, only harm (and possibly, eventual spiritual ruin) will result.
*
Jason almost certainly won’t reply to this because he has ignored my dozens of rebuttals of his arguments since 2010. But even in the days when he did respond, he would often ignore some 80% of my arguments (as I documented after becoming very tired of it), so he would likely do the same with all this scriptural data, if the past is a reliable guide. In fact, my documentation of his pathetic and what must also be called cynical “debate” (?) method of extreme “picking-and-choosing” appears to be what caused him to stop replying to me altogether.
*
***
*
Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,300+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-three 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!
*
***

Summary: The exact nature of justification, relationship of faith and works, and sanctification and justification are discussed in reply to anti-Catholic Jason Engwer.

Follow Us!
OTHER RELATED CONTENT
1
Understanding Jeremiah 1:4-19
The Pursuit of Holiness
2
Have You Ever Wanted to Hear...
Beloved
3
The Ancient Near East And Genesis...
The Pursuit of Holiness
4
While You Were Celebration The Resurrection...
Catholic Bard
Browse Our Archives
TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
"Pay Attention!"
Death Squads, The Good Shepherd, And Fr. Stanley
Frodo And Grace
Letter to incoming students from Stanford prez &...
Earth Day 2024: 5 Key Facts
Witch Trial Gravity Where 17th Century History is...
view all Catholic blogs