Photo credit: self-designed book cover of my own self-published book.
This exchange occurred in the combox of a video by Kenny Burchard, “No Tradition? Fine. NO CHRISTIANITY!” (Catholic Bible Highlights, 9-22-24). I provide the biblical research for this series. Our Protestant friend’s words will be in blue. I have cited all of them. I use RSV for Bible citations.
*****
Traditions are fine as all denominations have them. However, traditions should never add, alter, or delete anything from Scripture.
Traditions can be recorded in writing as well as being orally passed on. There isn’t any distinction on how these are transmitted. Traditions can be transmitted initially in writing and then orally taught; especially for those individuals who were illiterate in ancient times.
Paul wrote letters to certain churches and asked that they pass those writings on to other churches. Also, much of the New Testament writings were in use and recognized as biblical Scripture centuries before the Counsel of Trent formally recognized the Canon. (See Muratorian Fragment, a late 2nd-century-ce fragment of a Latin list of New Testament writings then regarded by Christians as canonical (scripturally authoritative).
Regarding oral Apostolic traditions, you spoke of these traditions without specifically identifying or listing what these traditions are. Which apostle or apostles passed down a specific tradition, and how do we know this? Are there any words of Christ passed on in any oral tradition that were not recorded in Scripture?
***
“traditions should never add, alter, or delete anything from Scripture.”
I agree. Sola Scriptura and sola fide aren’t taught in Scripture (which Protestants always demand) and contradict it. Things like the Immaculate Conception and Bodily Assumption of Mary aren’t explicit in Scripture, but are in harmony with it.
Of course, large parts of the biblical canon were recognized long before Trent, but there were still some serious disagreements right up to the time of the councils of Carthage and Hippo in the 390s. After that, the NT canon remained essentially up until Trent and the Protestant late tradition of decanonizing seven books. See my article: The New Testament Canon is a “Late” Doctrine.
“Which apostle or apostles passed down a specific tradition, and how do we know this?”
We can know some things; e.g., the perpetual virginity of Mary, from early tradition, in addition to biblical indications. I’ve written about that particular topic a lot. Also, episcopacy and hierarchical Church government is written about very early, by people like St. Ignatius of Antioch and Pope St. Clement of Rome. The belief in infant baptism is not explicit in Scripture (though I would argue that it is strongly implicit). St. Augustine and Martin Luther both talk about how it was a tradition passed down, and as such cannot be doubted. This was a major reason why Luther favored capital punishment for Anabaptists.
“Are there any words of Christ passed on in any oral tradition that were not recorded in Scripture?”
Not that I know of. But that doesn’t mean that they didn’t exist and were later lost to history. For example, in Mark 6:34 (RSV) it says, “He began to teach them many things.” But none are recorded in the larger passage. So it’s quite possible that some of that may not be explicit biblical teaching, but one or more of the disciples could have passed it along.
In short, it does not appear you can answer my question regarding Apostolic traditions.
The difference here is that I know the writings of Scripture to be true and authoritative; as it is the inspired word of God. There is nothing that compares! I can see them, touch them, and read them. Regarding Apostolic traditions, I can neither see, touch nor read them. And unfortunately, whether any of those traditions are true or not, there is simply no way to verify their source or authenticity. How can they possibly be equal to Scripture?
Anything can be said to be an Apostolic tradition … such as the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary. However, these traditions are nowhere to be found in Scripture, nor are they in harmony with Scripture. (The same is true for purgatory)
Sola Scriptura, as you know, means that Scripture is the final authority; not the only authority. As stated above, it is the inspired word of God. This is the very nature and purpose of Scripture. If you must have this spelled out for you in Scripture before you will understand and accept this truth, you are missing the meaning and purpose of Scripture. It is God’s word to us! As I stated in my initial post, you can have traditions, but they cannot add, delete or alter Scripture in any way. (Galatians 1)
You stated that Sola Fide isn’t taught in Scripture. I must disagree. Sola Fide or faith alone is taught throughout Scripture. You are saved by faith in Jesus Christ. That is the message of Scripture. There are numerous, numerous writings that teach this. Please do not belittle Scripture. (If you want to discuss James 2:24, we can do that.)
You also stated there were some serious disagreements by church leaders regarding some areas of the Canon prior to the Councils. That may be true to a point, but the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the New Testament was in fact recognized as Canon, used, studied and shared by the early churches well before the 390’s. (That’s a long time!) Also, I would argue, the writings of the New Testament became Scripture the moment they were written. They are God breathed and really did not need the blessings of man to make them so. The Councils did not make the Canon. God did! The Councils, after almost 400 years, finally recognized them as such.
Also, I believe the Old Testament Canon was pretty much set in stone by the Jews well before the time of Christ. It did not include ” the Protestant late tradition of decanonizing (these) seven books” . As you are assuredly well aware, the Jewish people did not recognize these books for a variety of reasons and none of these books were ever quoted by Jesus.
I do not mean to sound to argumentative. I can get a little fired up at times. However, I must also follow God’s word and only God’s word. If you can provide irrefutable evidence regarding any Apostolic tradition as being from an actual apostle and is a truth not already recorded, whole or in part, in the New Testament, I could possibly agree with it. But until then I’ll stay with Sola Scriptura.
Thanks for your time and discussion.
***
“In short, it does not appear you can answer my question regarding Apostolic traditions.”
I answered in part, and I will further answer presently.
“The difference here is that I know the writings of Scripture to be true and authoritative; as it is the inspired word of God.”
So do we. That’s no difference. The difference is when Protestants made it the sole infallible authority, which Scripture itself never teaches. Kenny’s latest video (uploaded this day, as I write) addresses this.
“There is nothing that compares! I can see them, touch them, and read them.”
Scripture is very unique. But it doesn’t follow that, just because only the Bible is inspired (i.e., in terms of a written document), that tradition and Church can’t be infallible (a lesser gift). We contend that the Bible teaches both of those things, too. But there is also inspiration beyond the Bible: the prophets spoke God’s inspired word, and the NT teaches that the office of prophet continued in the Church (whenever God speaks through anyone in a prophetic manner, it’s inspired). See my article: Reply To Gavin Ortlund’s 6-Minute Sola Scriptura Defense (Including the Biblical Case for Prophets as Inspired and Infallible Authorities Besides Holy Scripture) [1-26-24].
“Regarding Apostolic traditions, I can neither see, touch nor read them. And unfortunately, whether any of those traditions are true or not, there is simply no way to verify their source or authenticity. How can they possibly be equal to Scripture?”
Again, they are equal in terms of possessing authority, because inspired Scripture says that they are (as a general proposition). The Church, as the guardian of both Sacred Scripture and sacred apostolic tradition, proclaims and verifies specifically which are authentic and which aren’t. Even Protestants were forced to fall back on infallible, authoritative Church teaching when it came to the canon of the Bible. The Bible teaches the infallibility of the Church: 1 Timothy 3:15 = Church Infallibility (vs. Steve Hays) [5-14-20].
“As stated above, it is the inspired word of God. This is the very nature and purpose of Scripture.”
No need to reiterate what Catholics have believed from the beginning. You received Scripture from us, historically speaking. Even Luther gave the Catholic Church great credit for that.
“If you must have this spelled out for you in Scripture before you will understand and accept this truth, you are missing the meaning and purpose of Scripture.”
Again, this is not at issue. But for some inexplicable reason, you seem to think that it is. We need not spend valuable time arguing about commonly held premises and beliefs.
“It is God’s word to us!”
Yes it is! Prophets’ words are also God’s words to us. The phrase “word of the LORD” appears 243 times in the Protestant OT (RSV) and in many (maybe even most) instances it is referring to the words of prophets, not the Bible. In 101 of those instances, it reads, “the word of the LORD came to [so-and-so]”: i.e., that it was a direct revelation to a person, as opposed to Scripture.
“As I stated in my initial post, you can have traditions, but they cannot add, delete or alter Scripture in any way. (Galatians 1)”
Of course they can’t add to Scripture or “delete” it or alter it because they are not Scripture, so by definition . . . Once again, sacred apostolic tradition is authoritative and infallible (when deemed to be so by the Church) but not inspired. It’s not Scripture, but it’s always in harmony with what Scripture teaches. For example, the Bodily Assumption is not contradictory to anything we have in Scripture. We know it’s entirely possible because we have examples of other bodily assumptions to heaven, such as Elijah (many think, also Enoch) and those who will rise up to meet Jesus in the air when He returns.
A sinless person or the larger category of a sinless creature is not inconceivable because Adam and Eve were sinless before the fall, and the unfallen angels have always been sinless and always will be. Being in harmony with the Bible is different from being explicitly proven in the Bible.
“You stated that Sola Fide isn’t taught in Scripture. I must disagree. Sola Fide or faith alone is taught throughout Scripture. You are saved by faith in Jesus Christ. That is the message of Scripture. There are numerous, numerous writings that teach this.”
“Please do not belittle Scripture. (If you want to discuss James 2:24, we can do that.)”
It’s hardly belittling Scripture if I can offer up 78 Bible passages that refute faith alone. It would seem, rather, that Protestants are ignoring a great deal of Scripture that contradicts their false doctrine of “faith alone.” Ignoring that much Scripture is belittling it, if anything is. I’ve discussed James 2 many times; e.g., Reply to James White’s Exegesis of James 2 in Chapter 20 of His Book, The God Who Justifies [10-9-13].
“You also stated there were some serious disagreements by church leaders regarding some areas of the Canon prior to the Councils. That may be true to a point, but the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the New Testament was in fact recognized as Canon, used, studied and shared by the early churches well before the 390’s. (That’s a long time!)”
“Also, I would argue, the writings of the New Testament became Scripture the moment they were written. They are God breathed and really did not need the blessings of man to make them so. The Councils did not make the Canon. God did! The Councils, after almost 400 years, finally recognized them as such.”
“Also, I believe the Old Testament Canon was pretty much set in stone by the Jews well before the time of Christ. It did not include “the Protestant late tradition of decanonizing (these) seven books”. As you are assuredly well aware, the Jewish people did not recognize these books for a variety of reasons and none of these books were ever quoted by Jesus.”
“I do not mean to sound to argumentative. I can get a little fired up at times.”
No problem! I love debate. I so rarely find Protestants willing to debate, so it’s a real pleasure.
“However, I must also follow God’s word and only God’s word.”
The Bible teaches an authoritative tradition and Church in addition to itself. The “three-legged stool” rule of faith is an explicitly biblical doctrine.
“If you can provide irrefutable evidence regarding any Apostolic tradition as being from an actual apostle and is a truth not already recorded, whole or in part, in the New Testament, I could possibly agree with it. But until then I’ll stay with Sola Scriptura.”
That’s an arbitrary demand, which is not in the Bible; so it’s simply a tradition of man that you have adopted. As such, it’s neither infallible nor even authoritative; therefore there is no reason for anyone to follow it. Nor is “inscripturation” a biblical concept. It’s a Protestant tradition of men, just as sola fide and sola Scriptura are.
“Thanks for your time and discussion.”
Thank you, too. I had a lot of fun. And I hope the dialogue will continue!
*
***
*
Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 4,800+ free online articles or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
Photo credit:self-designed book cover of my own self-published book. [see link for much book info. and all purchase options]
Summary: In-depth reply to a Protestant in which I discuss many biblical passages proving that the rule of faith, as described in the Bible itself, is Bible-Tradition-Church, not sola Scriptura.
Photo credit: Book cover (designed by myself) of my own self-published book.
This exchange took place in the combox of the video by Kenny Burchard: “Can Catholics even know if they’re saved?” (9-19-24). I provide the biblical research for the videos in this series, called Catholic Bible Highlights. The Protestant commenter’s words will be in blue. I have cited all of them.
*****
The answer to the video’s title question must be answered with an unequivocal NO. Catholics cannot know the certainty of their salvation because, “Nobody can with certainty of faith know whether or not he has fulfilled all the conditions which are necessary for achieving justification” (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 262). The fact that there are so many “conditions” must surely put Catholics in a frazzled state of mind.
We must also answer “no” to the question because all fans of the Pope are seeking to be, “supernaturally endowed to perform ordinary and extraordinary heroic acts for the salvation of the soul” (ibid, p. 261). But where is this mandate found in the Bible, let alone how can any Catholic ever know if they’re doing enough? The fact is, they can’t. A salvation based on works is sure to backfire come Judgment Day.
Finally, we must answer “no” because they are taking a position that has no biblical precedent; namely that “Christ’s redemptive activity finds its apogee [climax] in the death of sacrifice on the cross, [but] it is not exclusively the efficient cause of our redemption….” (ibid. 185).
I wonder what Jesus would think about those who don’t consider him the “efficient cause” as to the saving of the soul?
It’s not “NO” at all. Catholics are as much assured of their salvation (if they are free of mortal sin) as any Protestant. The bottom line is that no one knows the future, and whether they will fall away or not. Calvinists play the game, when one of their number falls into sin and rebellion, of saying that they never were saved, because their theology requires them to do that. But they don’t know that. Even John Calvin said we can’t know for sure who is in the elect and who isn’t.
What must be better understood here is the Catholic belief in “moral assurance of salvation.” I wrote about it. Here is a large chunk of the article:
The degree of moral assurance we can have is very high. The point is to examine ourselves to see if we are mired in serious sin, and to repent of it. If we do that, and know that we are not subjectively guilty of mortal sin, and relatively free from venial sin, then we can have a joyful assurance that we are on the right road.
I always use my own example, by noting that when I was an evangelical, I felt very assured of salvation, though I also believed (as an Arminian) that one could fall away if one rejected Jesus outright. Now as a Catholic I feel hardly any different than I did as an evangelical. I don’t worry about salvation. I assume that I will go to heaven one day, if I keep serving God. I trust in God’s mercy, and know that if I fall into deep sin, His grace will cause me to repent of it (and I will go along in my own free will) so that I can be restored to a relationship with Him.
We observe St. Paul being very confident and not prone to lack of trust in God at all. He had a robust faith and confidence, yet he still had a sense of the need to persevere and to be vigilant. He didn’t write as if it were a done deal: that he got “saved” one night in Damascus and signed on the dotted line, made an altar call and gave his life to Jesus, saying the sinner’s prayer or reciting John 3:16.
The biblical record gives us what is precisely the Catholic position: neither the supposed “absolute assurance” of the evangelical Protestant, nor the manic, legalistic, Pharisaical, mechanical caricature of what outsider, non-experienced critics of Catholicism think Catholicism is, where a person lives a “righteous” life for 70 years, then falls into lust for three seconds, gets hit by a car, and goes to hell (as if either Catholic teaching or God operate in that infantile fashion).
The truth of the matter is that one can have a very high degree of moral assurance, and trust in God’s mercy. St. Paul shows this. He doesn’t appear worried at all about his salvation, but on the other hand, he doesn’t make out that he is absolutely assured of it and has no need of persevering. He can’t “coast.” The only thing a Catholic must absolutely avoid in order to not be damned is a subjective commission of mortal sin that is unrepented of. The mortal / venial sin distinction is itself explicitly biblical. All this stuff is eminently biblical. That’s where we got it!
In the article, I back this up with tons of Scripture.
***
“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,800+ articles, please follow my blog by signing up (with your email address) on the sidebar to the right (you may have to scroll down a bit), above where there is an icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. My blog was rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT: endorsed by influential Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Please also consider following me on Twitter / X and purchasing one or more of my 55 books. All of this helps me get more exposure, and (however little!) more income for my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!
***
“But where is this mandate found in the Bible, let alone how can any Catholic ever know if they’re doing enough? The fact is, they can’t.”
We Catholics believe in being very self-aware and “vigilant” in the spiritual life: we’re always examining ourselves to make sure that our hearts are oriented towards God (as a result — always — of God’s grace, that we must seek and ask for).
This very self-examination is what Protestants sometimes critique and scorn as “uncertainty of salvation,” as if it were a bondage or something undesirable, or altogether lacking in the hope and joy and peace that we have in Christ. Not at all. St. Paul expressed something that I believe is very much along these lines:
1 Corinthians 9:24-27 (RSV) Do you not know that in a race all the runners compete, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it. Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. Well, I do not run aimlessly, I do not box as one beating the air; but I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.
Paul also wrote to the same Corinthians about the same necessity of self-examination:
1 Corinthians 11:28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
2 Corinthians 13:5 Examine yourselves, to see whether you are holding to your faith. Test yourselves. Do you not realize that Jesus Christ is in you? — unless indeed you fail to meet the test!
“A salvation based on works is sure to backfire come Judgment Day.”
I agree! I disagree, however, that the Catholic Church teaches Pelagianism. Look up the first three canons on justification from the Council of Trent. Even John Calvin agreed with them in his critique of Trent. And they teach salvation by grace alone, not by works, just as in Protestantism.
“I wonder what Jesus would think about those who don’t consider him the ‘efficient cause’ as to the saving of the soul?”
“Efficient” and “sufficient” are two different concepts. “Sufficient” is defined at Dictionary.com as “adequate for the purpose; enough.” “Efficient” is defined as “producing an effect, as a cause.” The cross was 1000% sufficient for the salvation of anyone. But it’s not 100% efficient because the damned refuse to freely assent and cooperate with God’s free gift of grace for salvation. As a result, they go to hell and even the cross can’t prevent that outcome, because God allows them to make that sad choice.
Therefore, Jesus’ death on the cross is not 100% efficient for the salvation of all, given human free will. It’s sufficient for anyone who accepts God’s mercy and the free gift of salvation by grace alone. If it were efficient, no one would go to hell, and universalism would be true. But we know from the Bible that it’s not. We deny irresistible grace, because it’s not a biblical doctrine.
I am familiar with your articles and even quoted you in one of my papers; namely, your statement on “merit” saying that, “Our meritorious actions are always necessarily preceded and caused and crowned and bathed in God’s enabling grace”.
I disagreed violently with that statement because it’s a half truth, that ultimately amounts to no truth at all. I mention it here because it will relate to your current comment.
Essentially, you failed to make the distinction between being SAVED by grace (defined as God’s unmerited FAVOR) and its secondary meaning, as you correctly point out above, of it being defined as his “enabling grace” (or “actual” grace, that being the power to perform this that or the other thing). The problem with Catholicism is that those in her ranks are hoping for heaven based on the good deeds they do with God’s ENABLING grace, explicitly stated in CCC 1821, but NOWHERE mentioned in Scripture.
In your comment, you mention the free gift OF God’s grace FOR salvation which only proves you’re trusting in his ENABLING grace to do good deeds, rather than saying we are saved BYYYY grace…WITHOUT the merit of works (the biblical view). You prove your own point by saying, “I assume that I will go to heaven one day, if I keep serving God”.
Well that’s nice, but THAT’S NOT THE GOSPEL Mr. Armstrong. Nor is Mr. Ott’s proclamation I made previously that salvation will be granted when God’s grace “supernaturally endows” someone “to perform ordinary and extraordinary heroic acts FOR the salvation of the soul” (ibid, p. 261).
NO! Only faith in the “extraordinarily heroic act” of Christ’s life and death saves the soul (Romans 5:10) and nothing more or less than that. It is the charity of what Christ has done altogether OUTSIDE of us that saves, not the charity of the Holy Spirit IN us!
You admit to trusting in the latter by mentioning your hand-clapping SERVITUDE, but it can never be. Neither will the statement by Robert Sungenis pass the fiery eyes of the Judge on that final day; namely, “Works become JUST AS MUCH a salvific part of the individual’s justification as his faith” (Not By Faith Alone, p. 172). That book came with the official stamps of approval by the higher ups, as well as page after page of endorsements from all the typical Catholic luminaries. (Can’t recall if you were one of them and I’m too lazy to get up and look). [I wasn’t]
So: unless I receive some sort of rebuttal, be it resolved then that the RCC attaches a salvific EFFICACY to such things as that coin you dropped in the homeless man’s hat, and THAT COIN may be considered to have “JUST AS MUCH” saving power as the blood that dripped down Calvary’s cross. Like it or not, this is what logically follows such thinking and it is… DIS-graceful.
As you can see, I’ve put aside the topic of assurance for now because it’s more important it be emphasized that assurance, let alone salvation, does NOT result from works that COME FROM grace. Scripture says that salvation “is by faith, that it may be ACCORDING TO grace” (Romans 4:16; i.e., his unmerited favor); it does not say, “by faith according to works that COME FROM grace”, which is exactly what Catholicism teaches and must be countered for those of us inclined to do so.
Yes, the works that come from his grace-producing power may be derivative of, may be a consequence of, and may actually PROVE grace is active, but good works cannot be compared to the blood of Christ, nor can it CONSIST of the saving grace of Romans 4:16; namely, a free gift which is said to be “guaranteed” by faith, and I would say, faith ALONE. God does not give us that free gift based on what WE do, but based on faith in what someone ELSE has done. Neither do those works have any part in the SAVING grace (not enabling grace) in which we now STAND (Romans 5:2).
Good day.
Again, we do not teach salvation by works. We teach justification by grace alone: by faith alone (initially), and then after that, salvation by the grace-enabled faith that organically contains within itself grace-enabled works, without which it is dead. Good works must be done after initial justification, and can’t be separated from the overall equation of salvation and arbitrarily placed in a separate box of “non-salvific sanctification.” The latter interpretation was not taught by the Church fathers and was introduced by Philip Melanchthon 1500 years after Christ. Protestant scholars Alister McGrath (an expert on the history of justification) and Norman Geisler affirm this.
You can’t just repeat Protestant slogans and the usual handful of verses that are almost always mentioned. You have to actually grapple with and incorporate relevant Scripture. You have offered three verses: that we can easily harmonize with our view. I have 78 on the relationship of salvation, faith, and works. For this discussion to proceed, you have to show us all how all those Bible passages can and must be interpreted within the framework of “faith alone” soteriology. I say that they cannot. It’s impossible. Meanwhile, you have still not fully comprehended Catholic soteriology. It contains some subtleties and complexity, because it’s based on the Bible, which also contains things difficult to understand (2 Pet 3:16), so this is to be expected.
“the RCC attaches a salvific EFFICACY to such things as that coin you dropped in the homeless man’s hat, and THAT COIN may be considered to have “JUST AS MUCH” saving power as the blood that dripped down Calvary’s cross.”
That’s not what we believe. As a Catholic apologist for now 34 years, I have never ever said anything as ridiculous as — or within a million miles of — your example of giving someone a coin in charity, and that this supposedly has as much saving power as Christ’s blood. It’s a caricature. You get nowhere creating straw men and knocking them down. We believe that sanctification can’t be separated from justification and salvation, and that works have some relevance to salvation, because Jesus and Paul and all other Bible writers said so. I just summarized this compelling biblical teaching in a recent 1000-word article for National Catholic Register. Here is the heart of that:
Jesus taught that “Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire” (Mt 7:19), and when directly asked about how one obtains eternal life, He said, “keep the commandments” and, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor” (Mt 19:16-17, 21). Jesus stated that His disciples who had done the good, self-sacrificing works of leaving “houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands” for His sake, would “inherit eternal life” as a reward (Mt 19:29).
Jesus said that those who would receive “eternal life” (Mt 25:46) would because “I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me” (Mt 25:35), and then He clarified that if they “did it to one of the least of these my brethren” they “did it” to Him (Mt 25:40). He also said, “love your enemies, and do good, . . . and you will be sons of the Most High” (Lk 6:35) and that “those who have done good” will be saved (Jn 5:29), and, “do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand” (Rev 2:5). Jesus stated that the saved were those who were “sanctified by faith in me” (Acts 26:18).
St. Paul taught the same: “as it is written, ‘He who through faith is righteous shall live.’” (Rom 1:17); “to those who by patience in well-doing seek for . . . immortality, he will give eternal life . . . glory and honor and peace for every one who does good” (Rom 2:7, 10); “the doers of the law . . . will be justified” (Rom 2:13). The “end” of “sanctification” is “eternal life” (Rom 6:22), and indeed we are “saved, through sanctification” (2 Thess 2:13); we’re “fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him” (Rom 8:17; cf. 1 Pet 4:13). He taught that we must do many good things and be fruitful in order to be saved:
Galatians 5:14, 19, 21–23 For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” . . . [19] Now the works of the flesh are plain: . . . [21] . . . those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. [22] But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, [23] gentleness, self-control; against such there is no law.
2 Thessalonians 1:8, 11 inflicting vengeance . . . upon those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. . . . [11] To this end we always pray for you, that our God may make you worthy of his call, and may fulfil every good resolve and work of faith by his power,
1 Timothy 4:12, 15-16 . . . set the believers an example in speech and conduct, in love, in faith, in purity. . . . [15] Practice these duties, . . . [16] Take heed to yourself and to your teaching; hold to that, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.
Paul frequently makes many similar points in his letters: “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phil 2:12-13); “work heartily, . . . knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward” (Col 3:23-24); “woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness” (1 Tim 2:15); “aim at righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness. Fight the good fight of the faith; take hold of the eternal life to which you were called” (1 Tim 6:11-12); “keep the commandment. . . . do good, . . . be rich in good deeds, . . . so that they may take hold of the life which is life indeed” (1 Tim 6:14, 18-19).
All of this (and several more passages I have from NT writers besides Paul) contradicts the Protestant “pillar” of “faith alone”: where works are – although highly urged – optional in the sense that they supposedly have nothing whatsoever to do with salvation. The Bible — as always — is clear, and it refutes faith alone soteriology and proves the Catholic view of justification and salvation.
*
***
*
Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 4,800+ free online articles or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
Photo credit:Book cover (designed by myself) of my own self-published book.
Summary: Spirited exchange with a Protestant in which we discuss what Catholics understand to be the “moral assurance of salvation”: which is as solid as any Protestant assurance.
I didn’t find Christ in Catholicism . . . I lost the forest (the big picture of Christ) for a lot of unnecessary trees that were not scripturally grounded. Part of this . . . was due to some non-scriptural and even (in some cases) anti-scriptural doctrines that undermine the role and significance of Christ. I would love to come back to a purified Catholicism more in keeping with a biblical witness. The excessive adulation of Mary, which at times seems to me to come close to elevating her to the godhead (like a replacement consort for Yahweh in lieu of Asherah), is one such obstacle.
After I had made five in-depth responses to him, Dr. Gagnon replied (just for the record) in a thread on another Facebook page, on 9-17-24, underneath my links to all five: “like your other one, it is an amateurish piece.” This is his silly and arrogant way of dismissing my critiques in one fell swoop. I had informed him that I had over twenty “officially published books” [22, to be exact] and yet he replied that he didn’t know “whether” they were “self-published or with a vanity press or a reputable press.”
His words will be in blue. I use RSV for biblical citations.
The Marian dogma of the Immaculate Conception contains within it the seeds of its own destruction. For if Mary’s parents did not need to be sinless in order for her to be free from the stain of original sin, then neither did Jesus need Mary to be sinless in order to be born free from the stain of original sin, and all the more so since (per Matthew and Luke) Joseph had no involvement in Mary’s conception.
If this isn’t part of the dogma in the first place, then it can’t be the basis of the supposed “seeds of its own destruction”. It’s a false premise that Dr. Gagnon utilizes, in other words, which means that he is warring against a straw man of his own making. Blessed Pope Pius IX, in his 1854 declaration on the Immaculate Conception (Ineffabilis Deus) wrote:
And indeed it was wholly fitting that so wonderful a mother should be ever resplendent with the glory of most sublime holiness . . .
she was entirely a fit habitation for Christ, . . .
For it was certainly not fitting that this vessel of election should be wounded by the common injuries, since she, differing so much from the others, had only nature in common with them, not sin. In fact, it was quite fitting that, as the Only-Begotten has a Father in heaven, whom the Seraphim extol as thrice holy, so he should have a Mother on earth who would never be without the splendor of holiness.
In his treatise “On the Virginal Conception,” St. Anselm expounded the principle on which the doctrine rests in the fallowing words: “It was fitting that the conception of that man (Christ) should be accomplished from a most pure mother. For it was fittingthat that Virgin should be resplendent with such a purity, . . .” The Catechism teaches the same:
#722 The Holy Spirit prepared Mary by his grace. It was fitting that the mother of him in whom “the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” should herself be “full of grace.” She was, by sheer grace, conceived without sin as the most humble of creatures, the most capable of welcoming the inexpressible gift of the Almighty. . . .”
Likewise, in Munificentissimus Deus, Venerable Pope Pius XII’s declaration of the dogma of Mary’s Bodily Assumption in 1950, we find seven examples of the concept of fittingness, which is derived from the New Testament:
Hebrews 2:10 For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through suffering.
Hebrews 7:26 For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners, exalted above the heavens.
Matthew 3:15 But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now; for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.”
1 Corinthians 11:13 Judge for yourselves; is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
Ephesians 5:3-4 But fornication and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is fitting among saints. Let there be no filthiness, nor silly talk, nor levity, which are not fitting; but instead, let there be thanksgiving.
Colossians 3:18 Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.
2 Thessalonians 1:3 We are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren, as is fitting …
1 Timothy 2:6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was borne at the proper time.
1 Timothy 6:15 and this will be made manifest at the proper time by the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords,
Titus 1:3 and at the proper time manifested in his word through the preaching with which I have been entrusted by command of God our Savior …
Dictionary.com defines “fitting” as “suitable or appropriate; proper or becoming.” Thesaurus.com provides 21 synonyms for “fitting” including “apt,” “proper,” “correct,” “desirable” and “seemly.” We see that supposedly exclusively Catholic “fittingness” is a frequent and explicit biblical teaching, and that Catholic thinking is thoroughly, comprehensively, and deeply biblical. For more on this, see my article, ““Catholic” Notion of “Fittingness”: Quite Biblical! [2-2-23; expanded on 7-25-23].
***
“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”!If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,800+ articles, please follow my blog by signing up (with your email address) on the sidebar to the right (you may have to scroll down a bit), above where there is an icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. My blog was rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT: endorsed by influential Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Please also consider following me on Twitter / X and purchasing one or more of my 55 books. All of this helps me get more exposure, and (however little!) more income for my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!
***
If Jesus’ sinlessness was not dependent on Mary being sinless, then there is no reason to postulate a doctrine that not only has no support in the NT witness but also surely would have been mentioned as a sign of God’s miraculous work in Jesus’ birth, had Matthew or Luke been aware of it.
It’s untrue that the only rationale for the doctrine is supposed necessity in order for Jesus to be sinless and impeccable (incapable of sin). Propriety or fittingness is an essentially different concept, and it is the Catholic Church’s rationale, following the biblical espousal of it in at least ten verses (shown above). Arguments from silence carry little force. Besides, we Catholics agree that Mary received fairly small amount of notice in the New Testament.
See my Facebook article, Why So Little Mention of Mary in the New Testament? (9-14-24). Nor is it absent from the Bible altogether. I contend — exclusively utilizing biblical arguments — that Luke 1:28 contains data sufficient to establish her sinlessness, which is the kernel of her being immaculate and freed from original sin. See my articles (especially the first one):
Moreover, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is in tension with the fact that the NT witness depicts Jesus alone as sinless (2 Cor 5:21; Heb 4:15; 1 John 3:5; 1 Pet 2:22), with all the rest of the world being sinners (e.g., Rom 3:9, 19-20; 23; 5:12-21),
and thus the only one who can save people from their sins.
That doesn’t technically follow, either. He doesn’t save us only because He is sinless (though that was part of it), but first and foremost because He is God and our Creator, and has the prerogative to do so — or not do so — as He pleased. The unfallen angels and Adam and Eve are and were sinless, respectively, but it doesn’t follow that either could save the human race. That fact alone proves that there are sinless creatures and sinless beings besides Jesus.
Presumably, had Mary been sinless, she could have died to make amends for the sin of the world (though I suppose that one could argue that even in a sinless state her life would not have been of sufficient value to offset the lives of all others).
She could not because she was not God. Period. God saves us. We don’t save ourselves (which would be the heresy of Pelagianism).
At any rate, there would have been no need for a Savior on her part since one who is without sin does not need amends to be made for her sin.
That doesn’t follow, either, because Mary would have been subject to original sin like every other person, but for a special preventive act of God’s grace. Jesus saved Mary from her sins by preventing them from ever occurring, at her conception. It’s still saving her from her sins. If, for example, someone locked a thoroughly drunk person (an alcoholic) who wanted to drive, in a closet, that would be “saving” him or her from a potential fatal accident.
Keeping alcohol away from the same person is “saving” them from their besetting sin: drunkenness, much more so than black coffee and a cold shower getting them sober after the fact. Sessions at Alcoholics Anonymous can “save” an alcoholic from his or her “sins.” So can disallowing them to have alcohol in the first place. Both involve “saving them.”
Mary was subject to inheriting original sin, as a member of the human race, that had been fallen since Adam. God simply took away at her conception what would have been inevitable, had He not done it. In that sense, then, in effect, He “forgave her of original sin.” Had original sin not been inevitable in her case, He wouldn’t have had to do that to preserve her from it. But in so doing He saved her from the sin and is thus properly called by Mary, her “savior.”
*
In fact, I submit that Mary was saved more completely or thoroughly than any human being has ever been saved. She, above all, can and did call God her “savior” since she received more grace for salvation and a life without actual sin, than anyone else ever has. It was 100% grace and 100% monergistic, since Mary couldn’t even accept it in faith (it being the moment of her conception).
*
Luke notes that Mary, after her time of “purification” (40 days) had been completed, she brought two doves or pigeons to the temple, “according to the law of Moses,” specifically Lev 12:6-8 where the offering is designated a “sin offering” (Heb. hattath), which a priest offers “to make atonement (Heb. kipper) on her behalf.” Now some recent translations change “sin offering” to “purification offering” based on the piel-conjugation meaning of the cognate verb. Yet hattath when not referring to an offering simple means “sin”; and the piel of the related verb means purification from sin, the opposite of the qal conjugation, “to sin.” Why a “sin offering” in connection with childbirth? It may be insurance for one’s child, in case of an unknown, previously un-atoned sin of the mother. This suggests that Mary did not view herself as sinless.
*
Nonsense; for the simple reason that Jesus also engaged in ritual purification rituals and was baptized, which everyone else was doing — under John the Baptist — for the forgiveness of sins. Does that “prove” that He was not sinless, or didn’t view Himself as sinless, too? Jesus offered sacrifices at the temple, which were ordinarily for the atonement for sins, and observed Passover, which was for (again, ordinarily) the same purpose. So this proves nothing by analogy and reductio ad absurdum.
*
I understand the “anticipatory grace” excuse, but it doesn’t hold in the NT witness. No one received the effects of Jesus’ atoning death until after he died for them on the cross. And those effects don’t make one sinless or eliminate the sinful impulse in the flesh prior to the reception of the resurrection body. So, no, Mary could not have been free from the stain of original sin (which is not just a juridical declaration but involves the transmission of the sin impulse in the flesh) through Christ’s death prior to Christ’s death.
*
Here, in effect, Dr. Gagnon argues that it was impossible for God to act in the manner that we believe He did in the Immaculate Conception of Mary. But it’s not intrinsically impossible at all. God can make exceptions to His own “norms” if He wills to do so. It shouldn’t need to be pointed out to a NT scholar that God can do whatever He wants.
*
The “fitting but not necessary” distinction is a distinction without much of a difference.
*
It’s an essential difference. They simply don’t mean the same thing. So this is really grasping at straws.
*
when you say that Jesus “wouldn’t want to be born of something tainted by sin,” you are just making stuff up. There is nothing even remotely close to that in the NT witness.
*
Actually, there is quite a bit about holiness being part and parcel of proximity to God (as a matter of fittingness): much of it in the Old Testament. See:
if Mary could be free of the stain of original sin even though her parents contributed to her the matter that went into making her flesh, why couldn’t Jesus be free of the same original sin despite Mary having sin?
*
It was possible that Mary could have sinned in another hypothetical “alternate” scenario ordained by God, but God chose that she be sinless, because it was fitting and proper for the Mother of God the Son.
*
And doesn’t the Spirit of Christ dwell in us who are not sinless?
*
Indeed. That’s why the Immaculate Conception was not of necessity, but only of fittingness.
*
kekharitomene (κεχαριτωμένη) [Luke 1:28] does not mean “full of grace.” It means “favored one,” which does not imply sinlessness. You are absolutely wrong on that.
*
Not everyone agrees about it not meaning “full of grace.” The great Baptist Greek scholar A. T. Robertson wrote:
“Highly favoured” (kecharitomene). Perfect passive participle of charitoo and means endowed with grace (charis), enriched with grace as in Ephesians. 1:6, . . . The Vulgate gratiae plena “is right, if it means ‘full of grace which thou hast received‘; wrong, if it means ‘full of grace which thou hast to bestow‘” (Plummer). (Word Pictures in the New Testament, Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930, 6 volumes, citation from Vol. II, 13)
Of course, Catholics agree that Mary has received grace. This is assumed in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception: it was a grace from God which could not possibly have had anything to do with Mary’s personal merit, since it was granted by God at the moment of her conception. Kecharitomene has to do with God’s grace, as it is derived from the Greek root, charis (literally, “grace”). Thus, in the KJV, charis is translated “grace” 129 out of the 150 times that it appears.
Presbyterian Greek scholar Marvin Vincent noted that even Wycliffe and Tyndale (no enthusiastic supporters of the Catholic Church) both rendered kecharitomene in Luke 1:28 as “full of grace” and that the literal meaning was “endued with grace” (Word Studies in the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1946, four volumes, from 1887 edition [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons]; citation from Vol. I, 259).
Likewise, well-known Protestant linguist W.E. Vine, defines it as “to endue with Divine favour or grace” (An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Co., four volumes-in-one edition, 1940; citation from Vol. II, 171). And he concurs that charis can mean “a state of grace, e.g., Rom. 5:2; 1 Pet. 5:12; 2 Pet. 3:18” (Vol. II, 170). All of these men (except Wycliffe, who probably would have been, had he lived in the 16th century or after it) are Protestants, and so cannot be accused of Catholic translation bias. I go on from these points to construct an entirely biblical argument for Mary’s sinlessness. It goes like this:
1. The Bible teaches that we are saved by God’s grace.
2. To be “full of” God’s grace, then, is to be saved.
3. Therefore, Mary is saved (Luke 1:28).
4. The Bible teaches that we need God’s grace to live a holy life, free from sin.
5. To be “full of” God’s grace is thus to be so holy that one is sinless.
6. Therefore, Mary is holy and sinless.
7. The essence of the Immaculate Conception is sinlessness.
8. Therefore, the Immaculate Conception, in its essence, can be directly deduced from Scripture.
For St. Paul, grace (charis) is the antithesis and “conqueror” of sin. To put it another way:
1. Grace saves us.
2. Grace gives us the power to be holy and righteous and without sin.
Therefore, for a person to be full of grace is both to be saved and to be completely, exceptionally holy. It’s a “zero-sum game”: the more grace one has, the less sin. One might look at grace as water, and sin as the air in an empty glass (us). When you pour in the water (grace), the sin (air) is displaced. A full glass of water, therefore, contains no air (see also, similar zero-sum game concepts in 1 John 1:7, 9; 3:6, 9; 5:18). To be full of grace is to be devoid of sin. Thus we might re-apply the above two propositions:
1. To be full of the grace that saves is surely to be saved.
2. To be full of the grace that gives us the power to be holy, righteous, and without sin is to be fully without sin, by that same grace.
What function then does the doctrine serve, consistent with the NT witness to Mary?
It produces an altogether fitting mother of the incarnate God. I would expect no less from God. It makes perfect sense to me, and nothing in the NT contradicts it.
Related Reading(still unreplied to as of this writing; and Dr. Gagnon was notified in several ways):
Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 4,800+ free online articles or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
Photo credit:Dr. Robert Gagnon’s Facebook profile picture [link], as of 9-15-24.
Summary: Wide-ranging reply to one of NT scholar Robert Gagnon’s articles, where he simultaneously “attacks” & misunderstands the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
Why I Cited Protestant Scholars Who Believe that Jesus Thought Peter Himself was the “Rock”
Photo credit: cover of the Spanish-language book, ¿Cuál Es La Iglesia Verdadera?: Una Respuesta Evangélica A Las Pretensiones De La Iglesia De Roma from its Amazon page. Copyright by ibukku, LLC (June 5, 2024).
In chapter 3, “The Papacy and the History of the Church”, by Edgar Treviño, one of my statements was cited and its meaning and intent completely misrepresented in an embarrassing and inexcusable way, in a subsection entitled, “Do Protestant Scholars Support the Papacy in Matthew 16:18?” The author’s goal (typical of anti-Catholics’ modus operandi) was to make me — and the point I was making here — look ridiculous. In order to try to accomplish that, he had to create a caricature of my actual argument. In actuality, he has proven himself to be ridiculous, and manifested to one and all his inability to comprehend rather simple logic and straightforward reasoning.
Treviño’s words will be in blue. I used Google Translate to render the Spanish into English (excepting the citation from my book).
*****
I will concern myself in this article only with the portion that cited me and misrepresented my argument. It’s a case study in either 1) deliberate dishonesty in anti-Catholic argumentation, or 2) extraordinary incompetence and shoddy so-called “reasoning” and research ability in anti-Catholic polemics. Take your pick.
Roman Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong wrote:
Many prominent Protestant scholars and exegetes have agreed that Peter is the “rock” in Matthew 16:18;these include Alford, Broadus, Keil, Kittel, Cullmann, Albright, Robert McAfee Brown, and, most recently, respected Evangelical commentators R. T. France and D. A. Carson.(citation from my 2003 book,A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, p. 219; see alsothe entire chapter, available online for free, with the full documentation of the sources)
He did accurately cite me (thank you for small favors). But it’s his misinterpretation of my argument that is problematic and ludicrous.
And what good does it do Armstrong that these Protestant scholars interpret Peter as the “rock” of Matthew 16:18?It does him no good, because they do not believe in the papacy, in fact, they say that even if Peter was the “rock” in Matthew 16:18, that is no basis for the papacy.
It’s irrelevant whether they believe in the papacy or not (of course they don’t: being Protestant), because that isn’t why I cited them. I did precisely because they do not believe in the papacy. It’s the argumentative technique of the “hostile witness.” In other words, the reasoning runs as follows: “even several reputable, scholarly Protestants who disbelieve in the papacy agree with a key premise in the Catholic defense of Petrine primacy and the papacy that developed from it: i.e., that Jesus regarded Peter as “the Rock” in Matthew 16:18, not merely Peter’s confession or He (Christ) Himself” (the two standard views of almost all Protestants these past 500 years).
If one cites a dialogical / theological opponent in agreement regarding one important premise for a notion that he or she disagrees with, that is a very strong argument, with much force. If a Catholic cites other Catholics, the Protestant simply dismisses them as biased and partisan. But if their own Protestant scholars are cited, then they must stand up and take notice, if they are honest and seekers of truth. Protestant scholars, in other words, can’t be accused of partisan bias when they agree with some Catholic premise (as opposed to a Catholic belief).
Protestant apologists use the same technique all the time. I’ve personally observed this thousands of times, in my 34 years of doing Catholic apologetics. They will cite Catholic scholars in order to oppose some Catholic doctrine or premise of same. But Protestants usually cite liberal, nominal Catholic scholars, who barely even accept all that the Catholic Church teaches. I don’t have to do that. I cited solid, respectable Protestant scholars.
I searched the term,“Erudito católico romano”[Roman Catholic scholar”] in the book, and it appeared 14 times. The various co-authors cited Catholics such as Eamon Duffy, Robert B. Eno, Xabier Pikaza, Pierre Batiffol, [theological liberal] Raymond E. Brown (2), [theological liberal] Richard McBrien, Antonio Royo Marín, Yves Congar, and [orthodox] Ludwig Ott (3).
This is exactly the same sort of reasoning that I utilized. Yet when I do it, Treviño claims that it is irrelevant and ineffective. Well, then, when his co-authors do the same thing, it must be irrelevant and ineffective for them, too. Since he surely would reject that, his clueless pseudo-argument against me collapses, byreductio ad absurdum(there’s another form of argument for you), since his own colleagues use the same method.
Armstrong is not proving the papacy in Matthew 16:18 by quoting Protestant scholars.
I never claimed that I was doing that or seeking to do it. I agree! In my book, in the passage cited, I stated, “Many prominent Protestant scholars and exegetes have agreed that Peter is the “rock” in Matthew 16:18 . . .” I did not state, or argue, “Many prominent Protestant scholars and exegetes have agreed that the papacy is proven by Matthew 16:18.” Reading Treviño, one would think that I had stated the latter, not the former. But I was arguing that important Protestant scholars agreed with one particular argument for the papacy that Catholics have made for many centuries.
The first thing one learns in debate club in middle school is to understand one’s debate opponent’s views at least as well as they do themselves. Treviño miserably fails that test. He has no idea what I was even contending for, and seems unfamiliar with a type of argumentation that is very commonly used, and was in the very book he was part of: about a dozen times.
***
“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,800+ articles, please follow my blog by signing up (with your email address) on the sidebar to the right (you may have to scroll down a bit), above where there is an icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. My blog was rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT: endorsed by influential Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Please also consider following me on Twitter / X and purchasing one or more of my 55 books. All of this helps me get more exposure, and (however little!) more income for my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!
***
On the contrary, Dave Armstrong also makes the same mistake as other Catholic apologists, by quoting half-baked Protestant scholars who say that Peter is the “rock” in Matthew 16:18.
This is where Treviño makes an even bigger fool of himself. He not only astonishingly misrepresents what I was arguing, but then goes on to insult the Protestant scholars that I cited; thus proving how unaware he is even of his own broad theological heritage and Protestant tradition. I was already familiar with most of them as a Protestant (prior to 1990). Let me do a brief survey of them, for his sake, and that of any other Protestants who believe that I cited “half-baked” Protestant scholars to make my argument (information mostly from Wikipedia articles):
Henry Alford(1810-1871) was an English Anglican churchman, theologian, textual critic, scholar, poet, hymnodist, and writer. His chief fame rests on his monumental edition of the New Testament in Greek (8 vols.), written from 1841 to 1861 [see volumesone, two, three, four]. In this work he first brought before English students a careful collation of the readings of the chief manuscripts and the researches of the ripest continental scholarship of his day. Philological rather than theological in character, it marked an epochal change from the old homiletic commentary, and through more recent research, patristic and papyral, largely changed the method of New Testamentexegesis.Seemany of his other worksas well.
Carl Friedrich Keil (1807-1888) was a conservative German Lutheran Old Testament commentator. Keil was appointed to the theological faculty of Dorpat in Estonia where he taught Bible, New Testament exegesis, and Oriental languages. Keil was a conservative critic who reacted strongly against the scientific biblical criticism of his day. He strongly supported Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. He maintained the validity of the historico-critical investigation of the Bible only if it proved the existence of New Testament revelation in the Scriptures. To this aim he edited (withFranz Delitzsch) his principal work, a commentary on the Bible, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, 5 vols., 1872–77;available online). The work remains his most enduring contribution to biblical studies.
Gerhard Kittel (1888-1948), Lutheran author, with Gerhard Friedrich, of the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament(ten volumes, and also aone-volume edition; my own copy sits a foot away from me as I write).It’s considered by many scholars to be the best New Testament dictionary ever compiled. Mediating between ordinary lexicography and the specific task of exposition, TDNT treats more than 2,300 theologically significant New Testament words, including the more important prepositions and numbers as well as many proper names from the Old Testament.
Oscar Cullmann (1902-1999) was a French Lutheran theologian and ecumenist. In 1930, he was awarded a full professorship of New Testament. From 1936, he also taught the history of the early church. In 1938, he began teaching both subjects at Basel Reformed Seminary. In 1948 Cullmann accepted a position teaching theology in Paris at the Sorbonne while he continued at Basel. See his many writings.
William Foxwell Albright (1891-1971), a Methodist, was an American archaeologist, biblical scholar, and philologist. He is considered “one of the twentieth century’s most influential American biblical scholars”, having become known to the public in 1948 for his role in the authentication of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Albright was a leading theorist and practitioner of biblical archaeology, and is regarded as the founder of the biblical archaeology movement. He served as the W. W. Spence Professor of Semitic Languages at Johns Hopkins University from 1930 to 1958 and was the Director of the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem for several terms between 1922 and 1936. Albright’s work has had a lasting impact on the understanding of ancient Near Eastern history and the historicity of the Bible. See hismany works.
Robert McAfee Brown(1920–2001) was an AmericanPresbyterian minister, theologian, and ecumenist. He studied at the University of Oxford before completing a doctorate in the philosophy of religion at Columbia University in 1951. He was appointed as Professor of Religion at Stanford University in 1962. Seehis many books.
Richard Thomas (R. T.) France(1938–2012) was a New Testament scholar and evangelical Anglican cleric. He was Principal of Wycliffe Hall, Oxford, from 1989 to 1995. He also worked for theLondon School of Theology. He was known as one of the best exegetes and commentators on the New Testament. See hismany commentaries.
Donald Arthur (D. A.) Carson(born December 21, 1946) is a Canadian evangelical theologian. He is a Distinguished Emeritus Professor of New Testament atTrinity Evangelical Divinity Schooland president and co-founder of the Gospel Coalition. He has written or edited about sixty books (or more) and served as president of the Evangelical Theological Societyin 2022. Carson has been described as doing “the most seminal New Testament work by contemporary evangelicals” and as “one of the last great Renaissance men in evangelical biblical scholarship.” He has written on a wide range of topics including New Testament, hermeneutics, biblical theology, the Greek New Testament, the use of the Old Testament in the New, and more. He obtained a Doctor of Philosophy in New Testament from the University of Cambridge in 1975. He hasauthored and edited over 60 books.
And these were just scholars that I had mentioned in this regard 28 years ago, in my first book, completed in 1996. Since then, I have found at least twentymore prominent Protestant exegetes and reference works (making it a total of 29) who also held that Peter himself (not his confession) was the Rock:
New Bible Dictionary, Word Studies in the New Testament (Marvin Vincent), Wycliffe Bible Commentary, New Bible Commentary, Eerdmans Bible Commentary, Herman N. Ridderbos, Albert Barnes, David Hill, M. Eugene Boring, William Hendriksen, Peake’s Commentary, Gerhard Maier, J. Knox Chamblin, Craig L. Blomberg, William E. McCumber, Donald A. Hagner, Philip Schaff, Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 8, The Layman’s Bible Commentary, Encyclopaedia Britannica (1985; article by D. W. O’Connor, a Protestant), and Richard Baumann. For much more on this, see my article,Peter the Rock: Only a Catholic View? (vs. James White) [Includes Documentation of 14 Church Fathers Who Thought Peter Was the Rock] [5-11-24].
Now, if Treviño — in his infinite knowledge of Protestant scholarship — wishes to contend that all of these scholars and reputable reference works are also“half-baked” he is free, of course, to do so, but it will obliterate any shred of intellectual credibility he still has left. I think he should admit that he has no idea what he is talking about and instantly retire from pretending to engage in Protestant apologetics, in order to save himself from future embarrassing refutations such as this one. I feel bad for my Protestant brothers and sisters! Treviño — like anti-Catholics generally speaking — doesn’t represent the thought of serious Protestant exegetes and scholars.
Armstrong does not cite the conclusions of the Protestant scholars he cites, and they are very important, because their conclusions contradict what Armstrong believes about Matthew 16:18 and the papacy, and the interpretation of Peter being the “rock” according to what these Protestant scholars say about Matthew 16:18.These Protestant scholars do not connect Matthew 16:18 with the belief of the papacy (Armstrong does).
As explained, this is completely irrelevant to my argument (what is known in logic as a non sequitur). It’s understood and assumed going in that they reject the papacy and papal ecclesiology, by definition (as Protestants).
It is like trying to go 100 kilometers in a car that has little gasoline, and can only go 50 kilometers.Armstrong falls into the “non sequitur fallacy”, the conclusion does not follow from the premise.
*
This is sheer nonsense, since Treviño never even understood the nature of my argument in the first place, and so has been engaging in “straw man” tactics and caricature. Again (repetition being a good teacher), I wasn’t seeking to prove that they believed in the papacy itself, but rather, that they believed in an important premise of Catholic argumentation for the papacy: that Jesus regarded Peter Himself as the “Rock” upon which He would build His Church. To “Catholic ears” that is very “papal” indeed, however Protestants conceptualize it.
*
And many Protestants have made profound statements about the degree of Peter’s authority, too, based on Jesus having given him “the keys of the kingdom.” The argument for Petrine primacy and the papacy, based on the Bible, is a cumulative one, as I have often noted: made up of many strands that we believe all point in the direction of the papacy as a divinely instituted office in the Church. I wrote over 22 years ago, for example:
The case for the papacy is a cumulative argument. As such, showing that the consensus today is that Peter was the Rock is one aspect of that. It isn’t the whole ball of wax. We also show what was meant by having the keys of the kingdom, etc. We support our positions one-by-one and then conclude that the evidence is strong. (2-26-02)
* It is a “cumulative” argument. One doesn’t expect that all individual pieces of such an argument are “airtight” or conclusive in and of themselves, in isolation, by the nature of the case. I certainly don’t do so. . . . all the various evidences become strong only as they are considered together (like many weak strands of twine which become a strong rope when they are woven together). . . . all the various evidences become strong only as they are considered together (like many weak strands of twine which become a strong rope when they are woven together). (3-14-02)
I have refuted Banzoli’s writings66 times. From 25 May until 12 November 2022 he wrote notone singleword in reply, claiming that my articles were “without exception poor, superficial and weak” and that “only a severely cognitively impaired person” would take them “seriously.” Nevertheless, he found them so “entertaining” that after almost six months of inaction he resolved to “make a point of rebutting” them “one by one”; this effort being his “new favorite sport.” He has replied to me16 times(the last onedated 2-20-23). My replies can be found under his name on myAnti-Catholicism page.
*
When Roman Catholic apologists cite lists of Protestant scholars who say that Peter is the “rock” it does not prove their point, because these Protestant scholars do not believe in the Roman Catholic interpretation. To give the appearance that these Protestants support the Roman Catholic interpretation is either a failure to read the citations or intentionally omitting the full citations of these Protestant scholars and their interpretation of Matthew 16:18.
*
Merely repeating lies or falsehoods make them no more true or less false than they were the first time they were brought up. All Treviño does is spew out this stupid, clueless “reply” over and over; never understanding the nature of my argument. It’s astonishing to behold, and should be embarrassing and scandalous to all who read it. These Protestant scholars are following the interpretation (i.e., in terms of Peter being the Rock, not a pope) of at least 14 Church fathers that I have found:
*
Tertullian, writing around 200-220, stated that “Peter . . . is called the Rock whereon the Church was to be built” (Prescription against Heretics, 22).
Origen writing around 230-250, called Peter “that great foundation of the Church, and most solid rock, upon which Christ founded the Church” (In Exod. Hom. v. n. 4, tom. ii) and “Upon him (Peter) . . . the Church was founded” (In Epist. ad Rom. lib. v. c. 10, tom. iv) and “Peter upon whom is built Christ’s Church” (T. iv. In Joan. Tom. v.).
St. Cyprian, c. 246, wrote about “Peter, upon whom by the same Lord the Church had been built” (Epistle 54 to Cornelius, 7).
Firmilian, c. 254, wrote about “one Church, which was once first established by Christ on a Rock” (Inter Ep. S. Cyp. Ep. lxxv).
Aphraates (c. 336) stated that “the Lord . . . set him up as the foundation, called him the rock and structure of the Church” (Homily 7:15, De Paenitentibus).
St. Ephraem (c. 350-370) called Peter “the foundation of the holy Church” (Homilies 4:1).
St. Hilary of Poitiers in 360 held that Peter was “the foundation-stone of the Church” (On the Trinity, Bk. VI, 20).
St. Gregory of Nazianzen (370) stated that Peter “is entrusted with the Foundations of the Church” (T. i. or. xxxii. n. 18).
St. Gregory of Nyssa (371) wrote that Peter was “the Head of the Apostles . . . (upon him) is the Church of God firmly established. . . . that unbroken and most firm Rock upon which the Lord built His Church” (Alt. Or. De S. Steph.).
St. Basil the Great (371) stated that Peter “received on himself the building of the Church” (Adversus Eunomius 2:4).
St. Epiphanius (c. 385): “upon which (Rock) the Church is in every way built . . . Foundation of the house of God” (Adv. Haeres.).
St. Ambrose (c. 385-389): “whom when He styles a Rock, He pointed out the Foundation of the Church” (T. ii. l. iv. De Fide, c. v. n. 56).
St. John Chrysostom (c. 387): “Head or Crown of the Apostles, the First in the Church . . . that unbroken Rock, that firm Foundation, the Great Apostle, the First of the disciples” (T. ii. Hom. iii. de Paenit. n. 4).
St. Jerome (385): “Peter, upon whom the Lord has founded the Church” (Letters 41, 2).
ADDENDUM
Treviño made a “reply”on 8 October 2024. I read about six paragraphs, which consisted solely of juvenile insults, before giving up. I don’t waste my time interacting with fools and idiots who can only insult and lie about their opponents (“He is afraid of the truth, and that bothers him greatly” etc. ad nauseam); offering no rational thoughts. Life is too short. I interacted with the book portion, following Solomon’s advice: “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes” (Prov 26:5). But now is the time to apply his equally sage advice, “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself” (26:4).
***
*
Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 4,800+ free online articles or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
Summary: Edgar Treviño, in Which Is the True Church?: An Evangelical Response to the Claims of the Church of Rome (2024), utterly misrepresents my argument about Peter the Rock.
Isaiah vs. Protestant Soteriology / Absolution, Love, & Remission of Sins / Was Mary Who Wiped Jesus’ Feet with Her Hair, a Believer When She Did So? / Good Works of the Regenerate Rewarded with Heaven
Photo credit: Portrait of Philipp Melanchthon (c. 1535), by Hans Holbein (c. 1497-1543) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
Philip Melanchthon (1497-1560) was the founder of Protestantism: Martin Luther’s best friend, co-reformer, and successor as the leader of Lutheranism. Encyclopaedia Britannica (“Philipp Melanchthon“) states that “Melanchthon . . . in 1521 published the Loci communes rerum theologicarum (‘Theological Commonplaces’), the first systematic treatment of Reformation thought.” It’s considered the initiatory work in the Lutheran scholastic tradition. Modified editions appeared in 1535, 1543 and 1559.
Martin Luther wrote, “No better book has been written after the Holy Scriptures than Philip’s. He expresses himself more concisely than I do when he argues and instructs. I’m garrulous and more rhetorical” (Table-Talk, 1543; in Luther’s Works, Vol. 54, 439-440). Many think that this volume was the reason why Luther never wrote his own work of systematic theology. Melanchthon at length departed from Luther in some ways; most notably, in his denial of the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist, by the time of the 1543 edition, and on the question of free will.
Luther, who had some violent disagreements with him, never criticized him publicly and never really broke with him. In fact, the verdict of history is that Luther was kinder to Melanchthon than Melanchthon was to Luther. . . . Most Lutherans in America up to the present time have been critical of him, including Schmauck, Neve, Bente, Pelikan, and many others, although that attitude is changing somewhat. (p. 7)
*
Melanchthon was a prodigy. He entered Heidelberg University at twelve and received his bachelor’s degree at 14. He moved on to Tubingen, where he earned the master’s degree at 17, . . . He never received the doctorate and was never ordained into the ministry. He never preached from the pulpit, although he had much to do with the development of the study of oratory and homiletics. He received an appointment to teach at the newly established University of Wittenberg in 1518. . . . He remained at Wittenberg the rest of his life . . . differences [with Luther] appear as early as 1530, . . . and become more evident as the years roll on. (p. 8)
See also my introductory post for this series on Facebook, which highlights his historically brand-new position of imputed justification (sola fide). For other installments of this series, see my Lutheranism web page, second section: “Replies to Philip Melanchthon’s Loci Communes.” Melanchthon’s words will be in blue. I use RSV for biblical citations.
*****
Isaiah does not say that we should cease doing evil things and remission will be given you be cause of your virtues. Indeed, in another passage he clearly says of Christ, “Truly He has borne our griefs,” Is. 53:4. (p. 112)
*
Isaiah teaches that God draws all sinners by His grace, without which no one is, or can be saved, and there are passages hinting at the NT doctrines of justification, faith, grace, and salvation, as well as about God’s love and mercy and forgiveness. Thus far, Catholics and Protestants are in agreement. But Isaiah also regards works — as Catholics do — innecessary conjunction with faith (rejection of “faith alone”):
Isaiah 1:27 Zion shall be redeemed by justice, and those in her who repent, by righteousness.
*
Isaiah26:2 Open the gates, that the righteous nation which keeps faith may enter in.
Isaiah 32:17 And the effect of righteousness will be peace, and the result of righteousness, quietness and trust for ever.
Isaiah 38:2-3 Then Hezeki’ah turned his face to the wall, and prayed to the LORD, [3] and said, “Remember now, O LORD, I beseech thee, how I have walked before thee in faithfulness and with a whole heart, and have done what is good in thy sight.” . . .
Isaiah 64:5 Thou meetest him that joyfully works righteousness, those that remember thee in thy ways. . . .
Isaiah teaches the NT and Catholic doctrine of grace, works, and faith all being involved in the process of salvation (see fifty passages from Paul about this). He also proclaims the biblical and Catholic doctrine of good, meritorious works and obedience to God’s law and moral commands playing a central role in God’s determination of every person’s ultimate salvation or damnation:
Isaiah 3:10 Tell the righteous that it shall be well with them, for they shall eat the fruit of their deeds.
Isaiah 10:1-3 Woe to those who decree iniquitous decrees, and the writers who keep writing oppression, [2] to turn aside the needy from justice and to rob the poor of my people of their right, that widows may be their spoil, and that they may make the fatherless their prey! [3] What will you do on the day of punishment, in the storm which will come from afar? To whom will you flee for help, and where will you leave your wealth?
Isaiah 29:20 . . . all who watch to do evil shall be cut off,
Isaiah 33:15-16 He who walks righteously and speaks uprightly, who despises the gain of oppressions, who shakes his hands, lest they hold a bribe, who stops his ears from hearing of bloodshed and shuts his eyes from looking upon evil, [16] he will dwell on the heights; his place of defense will be the fortresses of rocks; his bread will be given him, his water will be sure.
Isaiah 48:18-19 O that you had hearkened to my commandments! Then your peace would have been like a river, and your righteousness like the waves of the sea; [19] your offspring would have been like the sand, and your descendants like its grains; their name would never be cut off or destroyed from before me.”
Isaiah 56:1 Thus says the LORD: “Keep justice, and do righteousness, for soon my salvation will come, and my deliverance be revealed.
Isaiah 57:1-2 . . . For the righteous man is taken away from calamity, [2] he enters into peace; they rest in their beds who walk in their uprightness.
Isaiah 59:2 but your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you so that he does not hear.
Isaiah 59:11-12, 18 . . . we look for justice, but there is none; for salvation, but it is far from us. [12] For our transgressions are multiplied before thee, and our sins testify against us; for our transgressions are with us, and we know our iniquities: . . . [18] According to their deeds, so will he repay, . . .
Melanchthon later refutes his own view, by citing Daniel:
Dan. 4:27, “Free yourself from sins by righteousness and alms for the poor, and there will be a cleansing of your iniquities.” (p. 113)
Exactly! This is Catholic merit and infused justification: God crowning His own gifts of grace, and our working together with Him.
Nor am I using this story to support the notion that good works merit the remission of present sins, . . . (p. 113)
So Melanchthon doesn’t get it. The text plainly teaches that, but he can’t see it, because his preconceived man-made tradition of “faith alone” blinds him to it.
Thus in this statement, “Forgive and it shall be forgiven you,” the first part is a commandment. The second part contains the promise; but it is not added that because of your forgiving spirit your sins are remitted to you. (p. 112)
We have our sins forgiven all the time, in absolution:
John 20:23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.
James 5:14-15 Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; [15] and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.
1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
we are accepted before God on account of the Mediator and not on account of our own worthiness or our own qualities. (p. 113)
*
That is quite true in initial justification and of regeneration, but not in later life, when we stumble into sin and have to be absolved, and where we have to persevere and exhibit good works, which then contribute to ultimate salvation.
*
“Her sins, which were many, have been forgiven her because she loved much,” Luke 7:47: Therefore remission of sins takes place on account of love. I reply: There is a twofold absolution. One is private, directed to the conscience which is struggling with the wrath of God. In this absolution we must understand that remission is received by faith and not on account of our virtues. . . . Our faith does not rely upon our love
but only on the mercy which has been promised, as is evident. (p. 114)
*
Jesus said that forgiveness was granted because of the great love of the penitent and also because of her faith (“Your faith has saved you; go in peace”: Lk 7:50). So it’s both faith and love (see my previous installment for much biblical data on the relationship of faith, works, and love). But Melanchthon holds that the forgiveness came only by faith and not “on account of . . . virtues”. He does the frequently observed Protestant false dichotomy: because it’s by faith it supposedly can’t also be by love.
*
Catholics say it is both (i.e., after regeneration and initial justification, as we must repeat till we’re blue in the face), because the biblical text plainly asserts that. We don’t have to force an outside tradition or philosophy onto the text (eisegesis). We can let it speak for itself, and follow it in grateful obedience: yielding up our predispositions to the inspired Word of God in the revelation of Scripture.
*
This takes place on account of good works which are testimonies of a person’s conversion, as when Christ here explains to the Pharisee why He had received the woman, namely because there were evident testimonies to her conversion. . . . Christ transfers this honor to this poor woman: the righteousness of the Law is pleasing here where there is the true knowledge of Christ. And in this congregation there is true worship, that is to say, repentance, faith, true calling upon God, love, kissing Christ’s feet and washing them, that is, adorning and defending the ministry of
the Gospel and the necessary zeal for the church, . . . Her many sins were forgiven her because she had been converted. (p. 114)
*
There is no evidence whatsoever in the text for what Melanchthon incorrectly assumes: that this woman was already a Christian believer. To the contrary, Luke’s narrative describes her as “a woman of the city, who was a sinner” (Lk 7:37) and Simon the Pharisee said, “If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, for she is a sinner” (7:39). Jesus then gave the parable of two debtors (7:41-43), where the debt of one was ten times that of the other (an obvious analogy to this woman), and He further noted that “her sins . . . are many” (7:47). She was a nonbeliever who was repenting and was on the verge of becoming a believer.
*
Christian movies (using the technique of “dramatic compression”) often portray this woman as Mary Magdalene, but again, the text gives no indication of that at all, and in fact, Mary Magdalene is mentioned two verses later in Luke 8:2, with no awareness that it’s the same person. Moreover, John 11:1-2 actually identifies the repentant woman as Mary, the sister of Lazarus, whom Jesus raised from the dead.
*
“Sinner[s]” appears 30 times in the Gospels, and never once does it refer to a believer or disciple of Jesus. Paul contrasts “sinners” with believers in Romans 5:8, 19. In one exception in the epistles, Paul says of himself, “I am the foremost of sinners” (1 Tim 1:15), but this is in the immediate context of a description of his past behavior: “I formerly blasphemed and persecuted and insulted him; but I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief” (1 Tim 1:13). So Melanchthon is simply wrong. This woman was not yet a believer / disciple of Jesus.
*
God gave her grace and faith enough to repent and perform an extraordinary act of love towards Jesus, and then her sins were forgiven — present tense: “are forgiven”: 7:47-48 — and she became a believer. Jesus expressly said that it was her faith and love that “saved” her; not faith alone. Melanchthon chose to simply disbelieve one thing that Jesus said and embrace the other. Oh how many errors our theology will contain if that is our method of Bible interpretation: picking and choosing which sayings of Jesus we will accept and which we will reject! Remember what Martin Luther wrote: “No better book has been written after the Holy Scriptures than Philip’s.” Forgive me if I am underwhelmed and unimpressed.
*
Eternal life is a reward because it brings blessings even if it is given for another reason, namely for the sake of Christ. Just as an inheritance is a reward for a son, even if it comes to him for another reason. This reply is brief and simple and it satisfies the objection of our adversaries who are exaggerating the word “reward” out of all proportion and are drawing some ridiculous conclusions from it, such as placing works and reward either in the realm of the marketplace, or making the price and the reward equal. Thus they come up with the notion of equalizing our obedience with our eternal life, and speak of the obedience of the merit of our worthiness (meritum de condigno); they imagine that men can satisfy the Law and they mix it all up with works of supererogation. And in regard to faith which does not look to our worthiness but to the Mediator and which receives the remission of sins and the inheritance of eternal life for the sake of Christ—of this they say nothing. (pp. 114-115)
*
More caricatures of Catholic teaching, and no documentation of what it actually is . . . What else is new in classic Protestant polemics? Melanchthon calls “ridiculous” the notion that eternal reward has some relation to our works. That’s highly interesting, since Jesus Himself expressly taught this:
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 19:29 And every one who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life. (cf. Mk 10:29-30; Lk 18:26-30)
*
Matthew 25:34-35 Then the King will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; [35] for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, . . .
Luke 6:35 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.
Luke 14:13-14 But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, [14] and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just.”
See many more similar biblical proofs from Jesus, Paul, and others. St. John is arguably referring to heaven, too, when he writes, “Look to yourselves, that you may not lose what you have worked for, but may win a full reward” (2 Jn 1:8). St. Paul certainly is doing so:
Colossians 3:23-25 Whatever your task, work heartily, as serving the Lord and not men, [24] knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward; you are serving the Lord Christ. [25] For the wrongdoerwill be paid back for the wrong he has done, and there is no partiality.
Our good works do not merit . . . the inheritance of eternal life, . . . (p. 115)
*
Really? Why don’t we look to see what the Bible actually teaches about works of faith, enabled by grace, being involved as causes of eternal life:
Matthew 7:18-21, 24 A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. [19] Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. [20] Thus you will know them by their fruits. [21] “Not every one who says to me, `Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.. . . [24] 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
*
Matthew 25:34-35, 41-43. 46 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, . . . [41] 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; [42] for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, [43] 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.’ . . . [46] And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
*
Luke 3:9 (+ Mt 3:10; 7:19) . . . every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
*
John 5:28-29 . . . all who are in the tombs will hear his voice [29] and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.
*
Romans 2:6-10 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; [8] but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. [9] There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, [10] but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.
*
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 1:8 inflicting vengeance upon those who do not know God and upon those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.
*
1 Timothy 6:18-19 They are to do good, to be rich in good deeds, liberal and generous, [19] thus laying up for themselves a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of the life which is life indeed.
*
Hebrews 5:9 and being made perfect he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him,
*
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?
*
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 20:12-13 . . . And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, by what they had done. [13] . . . and all were judged by what they had done.
*
***
*
Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 4,800+ free online articles or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
Photo credit: Portrait of Philipp Melanchthon (c. 1535), by Hans Holbein (c. 1497-1543) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
*
Summary: Replies to Philip Melanchthon, including Isaiah’s soteriology; love & absolution; Mary, who wiped Jesus’ feet: a believer?; good works of the regenerate rewarded with heaven.
James Refutes Faith Alone / Faith Without Love is Dead, Too / Love & Justification / Jesus Denies Faith Alone (Rich Young Ruler)
Photo credit: Portrait of Philipp Melanchthon (1537), by Lucas Cranach the Elder (1472-1553) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
Philip Melanchthon (1497-1560) was the founder of Protestantism: Martin Luther’s best friend, co-reformer, and successor as the leader of Lutheranism. Encyclopaedia Britannica (“Philipp Melanchthon“) states that “Melanchthon . . . in 1521 published the Loci communes rerum theologicarum (‘Theological Commonplaces’), the first systematic treatment of Reformation thought.” It’s considered the initiatory work in the Lutheran scholastic tradition. Modified editions appeared in 1535, 1543 and 1559.
Martin Luther wrote, “No better book has been written after the Holy Scriptures than Philip’s. He expresses himself more concisely than I do when he argues and instructs. I’m garrulous and more rhetorical” (Table-Talk, 1543; in Luther’s Works, Vol. 54, 439-440). Many think that this volume was the reason why Luther never wrote his own work of systematic theology. Melanchthon at length departed from Luther in some ways; most notably, in his denial of the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist, by the time of the 1543 edition, and on the question of free will.
Luther, who had some violent disagreements with him, never criticized him publicly and never really broke with him. In fact, the verdict of history is that Luther was kinder to Melanchthon than Melanchthon was to Luther. . . . Most Lutherans in America up to the present time have been critical of him, including Schmauck, Neve, Bente, Pelikan, and many others, although that attitude is changing somewhat. (p. 7)
*
Melanchthon was a prodigy. He entered Heidelberg University at twelve and received his bachelor’s degree at 14. He moved on to Tubingen, where he earned the master’s degree at 17, . . . He never received the doctorate and was never ordained into the ministry. He never preached from the pulpit, although he had much to do with the development of the study of oratory and homiletics. He received an appointment to teach at the newly established University of Wittenberg in 1518. . . . He remained at Wittenberg the rest of his life . . . differences [with Luther] appear as early as 1530, . . . and become more evident as the years roll on. (p. 8)
*
See also my introductory post for this series on Facebook, which highlights his historically brand-new position of imputed justification (sola fide). For other installments of this series, see my Lutheranism web page, second section: “Replies to Philip Melanchthon’s Loci Communes.” Melanchthon’s words will be in blue. I use RSV for biblical citations.
*****
Nor does this refutation conflict with Paul, when James adds, “A man is justified by works,” for he is speaking of the righteousness or works which Paul also proclaims with great emphasis as being necessary; but he denies that remission of sins is given on account of this righteousness. Therefore the word “to justify” should not be understood as being the equivalent of reconciliation, but as we have often said elsewhere, it means “to be approved.” A man is justified by his works, that is, he has a righteousness of works which is approved and which pleases God. That obedience is necessary in the reconciled and how it is pleasing to God has been said above. The person is not righteous or pleasing or accepted if he lacks this obedience and if sins against conscience remain. Therefore the statement that a man is obliged to have the righteousness of works must be confessed by us. But in the meantime the hearer must also learn some other things, namely that he does not receive the remission of sins because of his works, or that they are pleasing to God, for they do not satisfy His law, but they are pleasing only for the sake of the Mediator. It is clear that he must add these points. (p. 111)
*
Melanchthon tries very hard — as all Protestants must, to retain “faith alone” — to explain James 2 in a way harmonious with his novel soteriology, but he fails, for some of the reasons — besides others — that I have explained elsewhere:
James 2:20-26 refers back to Genesis 15:6 (as well as Genesis 22), and gives an explicit interpretation of the Old Testament passage, by stating, “and the scripture was fulfilled which says, . . .” (2:23, RSV, as throughout). The previous three verses were all about justification, faith, and works, all tied in together, and this is what James says “fulfilled” Genesis 15:6. The next verse then condemns Protestant soteriology by disagreeing the notion of “faith alone” in the clearest way imaginable. Moreover, Nehemiah 9:8 states, “thou didst find his heart faithful before thee, and didst make with him the covenant to give to his descendants the land of the Canaanite . . .”
*
James 2 is usually applied by Protestants to sanctification, but that is not what the passage says. It mentions “justified” (dikaioo: Strong’s word #1344) three times (2:21, 24-25): the same Greek word used in Romans 4:2, as well as 2:13; 3:20, 24, 28; 5:1, 9; 8:30; 1 Corinthians 6:11; Galatians 2:16-17; 3:11, 24; 5:4; and Titus 3:7. If James actually meant sanctification, on the other hand, he could have used one of two Greek words (hagiazo / hagiasmos: Strong’s #37-38) that appear (together) 38 times in the New Testament (the majority of times by Paul himself).
*
James — take note — doesn’t deny that Abraham also had faith, which was part of his justification as well (2:18, 20, 22-24, 26). We already knew Abraham was justified by a work in Genesis 22 because God rewarded him for something he had “done” and because he “obeyed” him.
Melanchthon has no basis in the actual text for asserting that justification has an essentially different meaning in James. He simply reads that into the passage (eisegesis), because James (writing like a good Catholic) ties works too closely to faith and justification, and in order to shore up his false theology. In a debate on justification, I observed:
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. . . .
*
Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (one-volume edition, pp. 172-173) . . . [on] the meaning of James 2:24:
*
How we can be righteous before God is dealt with in 2:23-24. The concern here is to combat a dead orthodoxy that divides faith and works. The works that justify are not legalistic observances but the works of loving obedience that Paul calls the fruit of the Spirit. Abraham was justified by a faith which found fulfillment in works. . . . the practical concern, namely, that the only valid faith is one that produces works, is very much in line with the total proclamation of the NT, including that of Paul himself.
*
. . . Catholics say that Paul and James are talking about exactly the same thing, . . .
Thus it is very apparent that James is not disputing about the entire matter but has spoken about only one aspect; he is demanding the righteousness of works and refuting those who imagine that they are righteous merely on the basis of their profession. (p. 111)
*
This is inaccurate, since he repeatedly mentions faith in context (2:5, 14, 17-18, 20, 22-24, 26). “Faith” in the sense of justification appears twelve times in James 2, and “works” are also mentioned twelve times. Thus, we see that James’ view is precisely the same as Paul’s: an organic relationship of faith and works (neither faith alone nor works alone). James isn’t simply discussing works in some separate sense. That’s a force-fit interpretation, and it doesn’t fly. The text is too clear.
*
But with regard to reconciliation and how our imperfect obedience is pleasing to God—of this he does not speak at this point, but above in ch. 1:18 he alludes to this matter a little when he says, “Of His own will God begot us with the Word of truth, that we should be the first fruits of his creatures.” (p. 111)
*
Indeed, but in the same chapter, he also merges faith and works, and expressly refutes “faith alone”: just as he does in chapter 2:
James 1:22-25 But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. [23] For if any one is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who observes his natural face in a mirror; [24] for he observes himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. [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.
Compare that to Paul:
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.
1 Cor. 13:2, “If I have all faith, but do not have love, I am nothing.” The reply to this is straightforward, easy, and clear: I grant the entire point. For we clearly affirm that love must be present, but it does not follow from this that we receive reconciliation on account of our love, and that our love is pleasing to God on the grounds that it satisfies the Law. (p. 111)
*
Love, like works, is part of the overall equation of justification and salvation. Melanchthon has again futilely attempted to separate what Holy Scripture does not separate:
Luke 6:35 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.
*
1 Timothy 2:15 Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.
*
Hebrews 6:9-12 Though we speak thus, yet in your case, beloved, we feel sure of better things that belong to salvation. [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. [11] And we desire each one of you to show the same earnestness in realizing the full assurance of hope until the end, [12] so that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises.
Note that we “inherit the promises” not through faith alone but rather, “through faith and patience.” Despite these three passages, Melanchthon falsely asserts that “it does not follow from this that we receive reconciliation on account of our love.” He’s right if we’re talking about initial justification, but not subsequent maintenance of justification. Faith, works, and love are all together and cannot and must not be separated. Paul combined faith and love in 1 Corinthians 13:2 (above), which could then be paraphrased as “faith without love is dead.” He combines faith and love thirteen other times as well:
1 Corinthians 13:13 So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
*
Galatians 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
*
Ephesians 1:15 For this reason, because I have heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love toward all the saints,
*
Ephesians 3:17-19 and that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; that you, being rooted and grounded in love, [18] may have power to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, [19] and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fulness of God.
*
Colossians 1:4 because we have heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and of the love which you have for all the saints,
*
1 Thessalonians 3:6 But now that Timothy has come to us from you, and has brought us the good news of your faith and love . . .
*
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.
*
2 Thessalonians 1:3 We are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren, as is fitting, because your faith is growing abundantly, and the love of every one of you for one another is increasing.
*
1 Timothy 1:5 whereas the aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith.
*
1 Timothy 4:12 . . . set the believers an example in speech and conduct, in love, in faith, in purity.
*
2 Timothy 1:13 Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus;
*
Titus 2:2 Bid the older men be temperate, serious, sensible, sound in faith, in love, and in steadfastness.
*
Philemon 1:5 because I hear of your love and of the faith which you have toward the Lord Jesus and all the saints,
Paul even combines faith, works, and love in one verse, six times:
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.
*
Galatians 5:6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love.
*
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.
*
1 Timothy 6:11 But as for you, man of God, shun all this; aim at righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness.
*
2 Timothy 2:22 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 3:10 Now you have observed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness,
Jesus does the same:
Revelation 2:19 “I know your works, your love and faith and service and patient endurance, and that your latter works exceed the first.”
Moreover, the writer of Hebrews mentions love and works together: “and let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works” (10:24). He had mentioned the “full assurance of faith” in 10:22, so in the space of three verses, he also mentions all three. So readers may notice that Melanchthon provides one “prooftext” in the effort to try to separate love from justification and remission of sins. I provide 24 passages to refute him. Who is being more “biblical”?
I’m not at all sure that that is true (and he provides no proof that it is). I do know that divine grace must precede both things. I don’t see that it would be any more implausible for God to produce love in us without faith (at first) than it would be for Him to produce faith without love.
*
Matt. 19:17, “If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” Therefore it is possible to satisfy the Law and our obedience merits eternal life. I reply: Our adversaries have established their errors by the use of this passage that man can satisfy the law of God and that the wickedness which is born with us is not an evil which is in conflict with the law of God, and that because of our fulfillment of the law the price of our eternal life has been paid. These errors have arisen because they did not distinguish the Law from the Gospel. (p. 112)
*
The “they” Melanchthon refers to here is Jesus Himself. He’s the one Who made “errors” according to the logical end result of Melanchthon’s theology. The rich young ruler had asked Him, “what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?”(Mt 19:16). If Jesus had been a good Lutheran, or just about any kind of Protestant, He obviously would have had to respond, “you can’t do any work to attain eternal life! You’re dead wrong, even in your question. You must have faith alone!” But of course He didn’t say that. Rather, He said, “If you would enter life, keep the commandments” (19:17); that is, works, without mentioning faith.
*
Then the ruler answered, “All these I have observed; what do I still lack?” (19:20). And again, if Protestantism is right, Jesus had a second chance to affirm, “you must believe in Me with faith alone to attain eternal life.” But He again chose to answer like a Catholic and recommended another meritorious work: “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven . . .” (19:21). So was Jesus wrong (because He didn’t “distinguish the Law from the Gospel”); or is Melanchthon wrong? The answer is a no-brainer.
*
The young man went away and Jesus observed, “it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. . . . it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle . . .” (19:23-24). Why is it so “hard”? It sure isn’t hard because he didn’t exercise the faith that Jesus never recommended. It’s “hard” because the work that was required to attain salvation (giving away all his possessions) is hard. And this is supposed to prove “faith alone” and disprove Catholic teaching? In what universe?
*
The Law requires complete obedience, and it promises life on the condition of complete obedience, as it has been said, “This do and you shall live,” Gal. 3:12. But it is evident that no one satisfies the law of God, as Paul clearly testifies in Romans 7 and 8. (p. 112)
*
But Jesus wasn’t talking about the Law in His second reply. Nothing in the Law that I’m aware of requires a person to give up all their possessions in order to be saved. This was a thing that the rich young ruler had to do because he had made money his idol (i.e., He had raised it above God in his affections). All he had to do was give it up to have eternal life. But easier said than done . . . In any event, that wasn’t keeping the whole Law to be saved. Rather, it was obediently doing one meritorious work that would accomplish it. That’s according to the express word of Our Lord and Savior and Redeemer Jesus Christ. Who are we to disagree with Him?
*
Therefore we must compare the passages under discussion here with other statements which properly apply to the Gospel. Rom. 6:23, “The gift of God is eternal life through Christ.” And John 6:40, “This is the will of Him who sent Me that everyone who believes in the Son shall have eternal life.” (p. 112)
*
Then why didn’t Jesus tell him, for heaven’s sake (pun half-intended), that very thing, instead of talking about commandments and meritorious works for salvation? Why? Obviously, faith alone can’t be the truth — faith in Jesus is fine — , because if it were in fact the only way to obtain salvation and heaven, Jesus would have absolutely had to say so when directly asked about that very thing. But He didn’t; therefore, “faith alone” collapses in a heap and is a false, unbiblical doctrine, foreign and unknown to Jesus Himself.
*
God wills for the sake of His Son to receive us and to make us heirs of eternal life, and this takes place through faith. (p. 112)
*
It was through (implied existing) faith and definitely also works in the case of the rich young ruler: confirmed by Jesus. “Faith alone” is deader than a doornail after reading and pondering this passage for about 30 seconds.
*
And when we are received, then the new light and the new obedience do begin which are in agreement with the law of God. (p. 112)
*
But the order was the other way around in this story. The ruler had to be obedient to Jesus’ direct command first, and then he would be “received”: all the way to heaven.
*
Therefore to all the words of the Law add the Gospel. “If you want to enter into life, keep the commandments,” that is, according to the voice of the Gospel or according to the spirit which the Gospel adds. You cannot begin to love without a knowledge of Christ and without the Holy Spirit. (p. 112)
*
But that’s not what the text says, and is purely wrongheaded eisegesis: rather pathetically and desperately imposed on the text from the “outside.”
*
Nor does our obedience please God because it satisfies the Law, but on account of the Mediator, . . . (p. 112)
*
Yes, in this case, Jesus told him what to do to attain eternal life: keep commandments and sell all that he owned. That would have saved him; not a word about faith or belief in Jesus. That doesn’t mean those things are denied, but it does mean that works can’t be excluded from the overall equation of salvation. Jesus seemed to think that they were supremely, crucially important, just as He did in Matthew 25 (the sheep and goats passage), where He mentioned works as being the direct cause of eternal life.
*
***
*
Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 4,800+ free online articles or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
Photo credit: Portrait of Philipp Melanchthon (1537), by Lucas Cranach the Elder (1472-1553) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
*
Summary: Replies to Philip Melanchthon, including James’ refutation of “faith alone”, faith without love is dead, too, love and justification, Jesus denies faith alone (the rich young ruler).
Trent on “Faith” / Meritorious Works / “Trust” in God / How the Error of “Faith Alone” Originated / Mortal Sin / “Faith” in James
Photo credit: Portrait of Philipp Melanchthon (1564), by the Workshop of Lucas Cranach the Younger (1515-1586) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
Philip Melanchthon (1497-1560) was the founder of Protestantism: Martin Luther’s best friend, co-reformer, and successor as the leader of Lutheranism. Encyclopaedia Britannica (“Philipp Melanchthon“) states that “Melanchthon . . . in 1521 published the Loci communes rerum theologicarum (‘Theological Commonplaces’), the first systematic treatment of Reformation thought.” It’s considered the initiatory work in the Lutheran scholastic tradition. Modified editions appeared in 1535, 1543 and 1559.
Martin Luther wrote, “No better book has been written after the Holy Scriptures than Philip’s. He expresses himself more concisely than I do when he argues and instructs. I’m garrulous and more rhetorical” (Table-Talk, 1543; in Luther’s Works, Vol. 54, 439-440). Many think that this volume was the reason why Luther never wrote his own work of systematic theology. Melanchthon at length departed from Luther in some ways; most notably, in his denial of the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist, by the time of the 1543 edition, and on the question of free will.
Luther, who had some violent disagreements with him, never criticized him publicly and never really broke with him. In fact, the verdict of history is that Luther was kinder to Melanchthon than Melanchthon was to Luther. . . . Most Lutherans in America up to the present time have been critical of him, including Schmauck, Neve, Bente, Pelikan, and many others, although that attitude is changing somewhat. (p. 7)
*
Melanchthon was a prodigy. He entered Heidelberg University at twelve and received his bachelor’s degree at 14. He moved on to Tubingen, where he earned the master’s degree at 17, . . . He never received the doctorate and was never ordained into the ministry. He never preached from the pulpit, although he had much to do with the development of the study of oratory and homiletics. He received an appointment to teach at the newly established University of Wittenberg in 1518. . . . He remained at Wittenberg the rest of his life . . . differences [with Luther] appear as early as 1530, . . . and become more evident as the years roll on. (p. 8)
See also my introductory post for this series on Facebook, which highlights his historically brand-new position of imputed justification (sola fide). For other installments of this series, see my Lutheranism web page, second section: “Replies to Philip Melanchthon’s Loci Communes.” Melanchthon’s words will be in blue. I use RSV for biblical citations.
***
Rom. 3:31, “We establish the Law through faith.” This is a very brief statement, but it teaches exactly what we are saying, that obedience cannot be begun in us, nor does it please God unless faith is added which determines that the person and the beginning obedience are both pleasing to God for the sake of the Mediator. (p. 102)
*
And we say that faith must also be added, . . . we . . . want to add the faith which attributes His honor to Christ . . . (p. 107)
*
We agree (faith comes through divine grace: see Chapter VI below). Trent’s decrees and canons on justification (Sixth Session: 13 January 1547) mention “faith” 44 times. Here are some of them:
CHAPTER II. On the dispensation and mystery of Christ’s advent. Whence it came to pass, that the heavenly Father, the father of mercies and the God of all comfort, when that blessed fulness of the time was come, sent unto men, Jesus Christ, His own Son-who had been, both before the Law, and during the time of the Law, to many of the holy fathers announced and promised-that He might both redeem the Jews who were under the Law, and that the Gentiles, who followed not after justice, might attain to justice, and that all men might receive the adoption of sons. Him God hath proposed as a propitiator, through faithin his blood, for our sins, and not for our sins only, but also for those of the whole world.
*
CHAPTER VI. The manner of Preparation. Now they (adults) are disposed unto the said justice, when, excited and assisted by divine grace, conceiving faith by hearing, they are freely moved towards God, believing those things to be true which God has revealed and promised,-and this especially, that God justifies the impious by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; . . .
*
CHAPTER VII. What the justification of the impious is, and what are the causes thereof. . . . the meritorious cause [of justification] is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father; the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified; . . . man, through Jesus Christ, in whom he is ingrafted, receives, in the said justification, together with the remission of sins, all these (gifts) infused at once, faith, hope, and charity. For faith, unless hope and charity be added thereto, neither unites man perfectly with Christ, nor makes him a living member of His body. For which reason it is most truly said, that Faith without works is dead and profitless; and, In Christ Jesus neither circumcision, availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by charity.
*
CHAPTER VIII. In what manner it is to be understood, that the impious is justified by faith, and gratuitously. And whereas the Apostle saith, that man is justified by faith and freely, those words are to be understood in that sense which the perpetual consent of the Catholic Church hath held and expressed; to wit, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all Justification; without which it is impossible to please God, and to come unto the fellowship of His sons: but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace.
The council goes on, of course, to refute the false and unbiblical doctrine of “faith alone”: using that exact phrase six times: in Chap. IX, Chap. XI (twice), Canon IX, Canon XIV, and Canon XXIX.
*
We shall add testimonies which clearly tell us that the works of the saints or their beginning obedience are pleasing to God. From these passages we surely are aroused to a zeal for well doing, and at the same time we instruct ourselves in regard to the immeasurable mercy of God who not only approves of our defective obedience but even adorns it with honor and rewards. (p. 102)
Therefore our whole life must be directed to honoring God, to showing what we profess, and to adorning the Gospel, as the passage says, “Let your light shine,” Matt. 5:16. (p. 102)
*
Amen!
*
Then this story particularly [the thief on the cross] teaches us that this is truly the meaning of the Gospel, that we are accepted by faith for the sake of the Son of God, even if we do not supply the necessary merits. (p. 103)
*
The thief on the cross couldn’t perform any good works, so he wasn’t required by God to do them. It doesn’t follow that meritorious works are thus excluded altogether because of one exceptional situation. Melanchthon himself acknowledged that the thief “wants to obey God” (my italics) and “perceives that we must be willing to obey God” (p. 103). The Bible teaches at least thirty-two times that works and sanctification are direct contributing (or even sole mentioned) causes of salvation (see my paper, Salvation Via Sanctification & Merit). That‘s the biblical “norm”; not the thief on the cross. Melanchthon seems to think that one verse proves his novel doctrine of “faith alone”, despite the fact that at least 32 refute it.
*
Faith that it is not merely the knowledge of the facts, but a trust which seeks eternal life from the Son. (p. 103)
God forbid that a Christian should either trust or glory in himself, and not in the Lord, . . . (Chap. XVI)
If any one saith, that Christ Jesus was given of God to men, as a redeemer in whom to trust, and not also as a legislator whom to obey; let him be anathema. (Canon XXI)
Note that Canon XXI is not denying that trust in God is necessary, but rather, trust that excludes obedience. (i.e., a false and unbiblical dichotomy).
*
There is the necessity for retaining our faith, be cause the Holy Spirit is driven out and grieved when we permit sins against conscience. Thus it clearly says in 1 John 3:7-8, “Let no one deceive you; he who commits sin is of the devil.” And Rom. 8:13, “If you put to death the deeds of the flesh, you will live; if you live according to the flesh, you shall die.” That faith is cut off through sinful works is witnessed by this statement of Paul in 1 Tim. 5:8, “If a person does not provide for his own, especially those of his own house, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” (p. 103)
*
It seems to me that if sins cut one off from salvation, then righteous, meritorious good works play a necessary role in achieving salvation. The second thing is the converse of the first. Yet Protestants oddly want to deny this.
*
In those who have been reconciled, after conversion, their good works, since they are pleasing by faith for the sake of the Mediator, as we have said, do merit spiritual and physical rewards in this life and after this life, as the parable of the talents in Matthew 25 clearly shows, v. 29, “To him who has shall be given ..and in 1 Tim. 4:8, “Godliness … has promise of this present life and of the life to come”; cf. Mark 10:30; Matt. 10:42; Luke 6:38; Ex. 20:12; Is. 33:16; 58:10-11. Finally Scripture is full of promises of this kind concerning both spiritual and physical rewards; . . . Individuals cannot keep their faith without practicing it . . .
*
Therefore we must learn that there is a need for both kinds of good works and that the rewards have not been promised by God in vain, but there is the need for constant practicing of our faith, that it may grow and that we may labor more diligently even though we are undeserving of the rewards.(p. 105)
*
In order that faith may be kept in trim and grow, God has set forth many different kinds of works and He has added promises of aid and reward, . . . we must fight against this lack of trust on our part and do the works which have been commanded; . . . (p. 105)
*
Again, Melanchthon proves that merit and “faith + works” is a biblical doctrine. But what Melanchthon doesn’t do is show that grace-produced meritorious works done in faith play a direct role in salvation, as I showed in my paper linked above, giving 32 examples and 46 additional ones about merit per se. Thus he is guilty of presenting an incomplete or partial, selective truth. He denies the connection to salvation in a subtle way (perhaps realizing how radical it is):
*
But although it is necessary that there be a beginning of the new life, as Paul says in 2 Cor. 5:2-3, “We desire to be clothed upon with new clothing, so that we not be found naked,” yet our heart must always recognize what the psalmist says, Ps. 143:2, “In Your sight shall no flesh be justified”; Ps. 19:12, “Who can understand his sins?” Our heart must know that our virtues are not the price of our eternal life, . . . Nor can faith
rely on two things, the Mediator and our merits, . . . (p. 106)
*
In the second (1535) edition of Loci Communes, eight years previously (and a full eighteen years after the Protestant Revolution began), Melanchthon had actually asserted the biblical, traditional, and Catholic view that [grace-enabled, faith-accompanied] “good works are necessary for salvation” and indeed, even the “sine qua non [“essential condition”] for salvation.” Luther vigorously criticized this, and Melanchthon changed his language, and in his third edition, disconnected salvation from good works altogether. That was the radical and heretical innovation. He had initially gotten it right, but Luther’s error prevailed. And so it has been ever since in Protestantism: “faith alone” triumphant. Our separated brethren decided to go against the ancient wise advice of Solomon: “Remove not the ancient landmark which your fathers have set” (Prov 22:28; cf. 23:10; Hos 5:10).
*
Although we have said that sins remain in the regenerate, it is still necessary that we deal with the difference among sins. For it is a certainty that those who fall into sins which are against conscience do not remain in grace, do not keep their faith, their righteousness, or the Holy Spirit; and faith cannot stand with evil intentions in the face of conscience, that is, faith which is confidence in our acceptance by God. For these desires are absolutely opposed to one another, and true prayer cannot exist with a bad conscience which flees from God, as it says in 1 John 3:21, “If our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence toward God.”
*
Therefore we must retain the rule that it is necessary in those who have been reconciled that there be this righteousness of a good conscience, as it says in 1 Tim. 1:5, “The sum of the commandment is love out of a pure heart, of a good conscience, and of genuine faith. . . . many passages testify that those who allow themselves to sin against conscience are cut off from grace and drive out faith and the Holy Spirit, and be come guilty of the wrath of God and eternal punishments. For example, Gal. 5:19-21, “The works of the flesh are manifest: adultery, fornication, uncleanness … idolatry … they who do such things shall not possess the kingdom of God.” He is speaking of manifest works which are done against our conscience. 1 Cor. 6:9-10, “Do not make any mistake: neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers… shall inherit the kingdom of God.” (p. 106; my italics)
*
Here, Melanchthon — blessedly — correctly espouses the distinction between venial and mortal sins: the latter gravely endangering one’s salvation. One can lose grace and salvation, and fall away (over against Calvinism). Again, by analogy or parallelism, if those guilty of serious sin lose their salvation, then those who do the opposite thing and perform righteous works inherit salvation, by means of those works, necessarily and always conjoined with grace and faith. Wouldn’t that seem to logically follow? I think so, myself.
Thus, the actual logical result of what Melanchthon is saying here is “faith + works” as opposed to faith alone. As so often in Protestantism, there is incoherence and even self-contradiction, without this being realized. We’re often blind to our own errors, as opposed to being consciously aware of them.
When sin takes control it brings with it all kinds of troubles and the wrath of God and eternal death. On the other hand, when sin does not reign over us, the godly keep the righteousness and faith which have been given to them, and thus Paul can say, “If by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the flesh, you shall live.” (p. 107).
Melanchthon basically sums up the Catholic argument, not seeming to be aware of the implications.
Yet without cause they so savagely attack the concept that has been set forth in our churches regarding justification, which undoubtedly is the very essence of the Gospel and the consensus of the holy patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and all godly people in all ages who have brought light to this subject. (p. 107)
“Faith alone” was not the consensus of prior history at all. What was taught by the apostles in the Bible and by the fathers was initial (infused / imparted) justification by faith through grace, which includes in an organic way, sanctification and good works. Melanchthon radically separated sanctification from justification. That was the primary error.
All people have believed that there must be in us repentance and that good works must follow, . . . (p. 107)
Indeed.
They say nothing about the Mediator, the promises, the Gospel, of faith or trust in the Mediator; . . . they command us to destroy
the Gospel and the promise and to bury Christ. (p. 108)
Nonsense. I have shown that this is a lie in my citations from Trent. But such a claim is ridiculous on its face even before any citations are produced. Anyone who knows anything at all about doctrinal history knows that. So why did Melanchthon — a very educated man — assert such a ludicrous lie, is the question? And this is what Catholics have had to deal with for over 500 years. The caricatures and distortions never end.
[citing allegedly Catholic views] We are not justified by faith. (p. 108)
That’s not our view. We certainly are justified by faith — even faith alone at first — but not by faith alone after we are regenerated. The story of Abraham’s justification demonstrates how it is both faith and works that are in play (“faith without works is dead” after all: says James), and that we must maintain our justification in cooperation with God, just as we maintain our status of being in His grace and salvation, as Melanchthon himself concedes.
Paul says in Rom. 3:28 that we “are justified by faith,” . . . (p. 108)
Yes he does, and he also states in the same letter:
Romans 2:6-10 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; [8] but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. [9] There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, [10] but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.
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 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 8:17 . . . heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.
All of these passages absolutely pulverize “faith alone”: especially Romans 2:13 (and all from just this one epistle). They’re perfectly consistent with Romans 3:28: logically, and in Catholic theology. But Protestant theology cannot explain the four passages above, in a way that is consistent with its false “faith alone” soteriology. Catholic theology incorporates and harmonizes all of Scripture. Protestant theology tends to pick and choose a few passages that appear prima facie to support its view, or express a partial truth, taken for a whole truth, and ignore many more.
The word “faith” signifies knowledge in the mind and an assent to the promise concerning Christ, and in the will a trust by which the will desires and receives the offered mercy and rests in it. (p. 108)
The Catholic Church doesn’t disagree with this, as far as it goes. The Catechism of the Catholic Church has several passages that incorporate “trust” in conjunction with faith. Here are twelve:
154 Believing is possible only by grace and the interior helps of the Holy Spirit. But it is no less true that believing is an authentically human act. Trusting in God and cleaving to the truths he has revealed is contrary neither to human freedom nor to human reason. Even in human relations it is not contrary to our dignity to believe what other persons tell us about themselves and their intentions, or to trust their promises (for example, when a man and a woman marry) to share a communion of life with one another. If this is so, still less is it contrary to our dignity to “yield by faith the full submission of… intellect and will to God who reveals”, and to share in an interior communion with him.
215 . . . This is why one can abandon oneself in full trust to the truth and faithfulness of his word in all things. . . .
1062 In Hebrew, amen comes from the same root as the word “believe.” This root expresses solidity, trustworthiness, faithfulness. And so we can understand why “Amen” may express both God’s faithfulness towards us and our trust in him.
1520 . . . This grace is a gift of the Holy Spirit, who renews trust and faithin God . . .
1817 Hope is the theological virtue by which we desire the kingdom of heaven and eternal life as our happiness, placing our trust in Christ’s promises and relying not on our own strength, but on the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit. . . .
2005 Since it belongs to the supernatural order, grace escapes our experience and cannot be known except by faith. We cannot therefore rely on our feelings or our works to conclude that we are justified and saved. However, according to the Lord’s words “Thus you will know them by their fruits”- reflection on God’s blessings in our life and in the lives of the saints offers us a guarantee that grace is at work in us and spurs us on to an ever greater faith and an attitude of trustful poverty.
2579 . . . His [David’s] prayer, the prayer of God’s Anointed, is a faithful adherence to the divine promise and expresses a loving and joyful trust in God, . . .
2592 The prayer of Abraham and Jacob is presented as a battle of faith marked by trust in God’s faithfulness and by certitude in the victory promised to perseverance.
2738 The revelation of prayer in the economy of salvation teaches us that faith rests on God’s action in history. Our filial trust is enkindled by his supreme act: the Passion and Resurrection of his Son. . . .
2742 . . . Against our dullness and laziness, the battle of prayer is that of humble, trusting, and persevering love. This love opens our hearts to three enlightening and life-giving facts of faith about prayer.
2797 Simple and faithful trust, humble and joyous assurance are the proper dispositions for one who prays the Our Father.
2837 “Daily” (epiousios) occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. Taken in a temporal sense, this word is a pedagogical repetition of “this day,” to confirm us in trust “without reservation.” . . .
I wrote two articles about our trust in God, and related concepts:
Therefore faith is not only a knowledge but that trust, as we have said, by which the promise is laid hold upon . . . (p. 108)
Trust is an essential part of the whole equation of faith and discipleship. This is nothing new. The Catholic Church understood this long before Melanchthon existed (because it’s in the Bible: 109 times in the Protestant OT, and 13 times in the NT), and continues to do so, to this day. Oftentimes, Catholics also think of “trust” as a synonym of “hope.” In any event, we don’t exclude it, as Melanchthon incorrectly implies, and Romans 4:5 (“And to one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness”) makes the most direct one-to-one equation of faith and trust.
No one can fail to see how absurd a notion it would be if a person should believe regarding such passages that faith means nothing else than the kind of knowledge the devil has. . . . it is easy for a sane man to understand that the faith of the church which calls upon God is not like the
faith of the devil who flees from Him. (pp. 108-109)
We fully agree, and reply that what is also absurd to pretend that the Catholic Church has ever taught such a ridiculous thing. If it did, Melanchthon could easily simply cite a proof, couldn’t he? But he never does . . .
Our love does not satisfy the law of God, . . . (p. 110)
That’s funny. St. Paul said that it did:
Romans 13:8-10 . . . he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. [9] The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this sentence, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” [10] Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
James 2:24, “You see, therefore, that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” I reply without any sophistry: It is evident that “faith” in this passage in James refers to the knowledge of the historical facts such as the damned also possess. For he says, v. 19, “The devils believe and tremble.” Furthermore it must be confessed, and we do clearly confess, that a man is not righteous by this knowledge. But Paul, when he is speaking of faith, understands confidence in God’s mercy which relies on the Mediator and for His sake receives reconciliation. Therefore we must understand “faith” in one sense in Paul, when he says in Rom. 10:10, “With the heart man believes unto righteousness,” and in another way in James 2:19, . . . (p. 111)
This is beyond silly. James 2:219 doesn’t even contain the word, “faith.” Rather, it’s “believe.” Secondly, several times throughout the book of James, “faith” is used in the way that Melanchthon states that Paul used it:
James 1:3 for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness.
James 1:6 But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind.
James 2:5 . . . Has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which he has promised to those who love him?
James 5:15 and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.
Moreover, when James is writing about how faith and works must be hand-in-hand (2:14-26), “faith” must be used in Melanchthon’s sense, rather than “belief” or “assent” because, what sense does it make to say, “my works will show you my faith” (2:18) if “faith” there means “belief”? It makes none. Technically, one can’t prove what they believe by what they do. If I think the moon is round or pumpkins are orange, what work can I do to demonstrate that I believe those things? Thus, James’ use of “faith” in the sense of belief one time proves northing about it’s use in the entire book. But there’s your tiresome Protestant cherry-picking again. Melanchthon analyzes on a surfacey, superficial level; I go much deeper and do a proper exegetical analysis.
*
***
*
Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 4,800+ free online articles or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
Photo credit: Portrait of Philipp Melanchthon (1564), by the Workshop of Lucas Cranach the Younger (1515-1586) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
*
Summary: Analysis of Melanchthon’s Loci Communes, including Trent on “faith”, merit, “trust” in God, how the error of “faith alone” was established, mortal sin, and “faith” in James.
“Working Together” with God / Human Striving & Merit / Tridentine Soteriology / David’s & Paul’s Godly “Boasting” / Regenerate Sinners / Romans 7 & 8 & Sin / God is Pleased by Our Meritorious Acts / Colossians 1:28: Imputed Justification?
Photo credit: Philip Melanchthon (1497-1560): leader of Lutheranism after Luther’s death; 1532 portrait by Lucas Cranach the Elder (1472-1553) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
Philip Melanchthon (1497-1560) was the founder of Protestantism: Martin Luther’s best friend, co-reformer, and successor as the leader of Lutheranism. Encyclopaedia Britannica (“Philipp Melanchthon“) states that “Melanchthon . . . in 1521 published the Loci communes rerum theologicarum (‘Theological Commonplaces’), the first systematic treatment of Reformation thought.” It’s considered the initiatory work in the Lutheran scholastic tradition. Modified editions appeared in 1535, 1543 and 1559.
*
Martin Luther wrote, “No better book has been written after the Holy Scriptures than Philip’s. He expresses himself more concisely than I do when he argues and instructs. I’m garrulous and more rhetorical” (Table-Talk, 1543; in Luther’s Works, Vol. 54, 439-440). Many think that this volume was the reason why Luther never wrote his own work of systematic theology. Melanchthon at length departed from Luther in some ways; most notably, in his denial of the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist, by the time of the 1543 edition, and on the question of free will.
Luther, who had some violent disagreements with him, never criticized him publicly and never really broke with him. In fact, the verdict of history is that Luther was kinder to Melanchthon than Melanchthon was to Luther. . . . Most Lutherans in America up to the present time have been critical of him, including Schmauck, Neve, Bente, Pelikan, and many others, although that attitude is changing somewhat. (p. 7)
*
Melanchthon was a prodigy. He entered Heidelberg University at twelve and received his bachelor’s degree at 14. He moved on to Tubingen, where he earned the master’s degree at 17, . . . He never received the doctorate and was never ordained into the ministry. He never preached from the pulpit, although he had much to do with the development of the study of oratory and homiletics. He received an appointment to teach at the newly established University of Wittenberg in 1518. . . . He remained at Wittenberg the rest of his life . . . differences [with Luther] appear as early as 1530, . . . and become more evident as the years roll on. (p. 8)
See also my introductory post for this series on Facebook, which highlights his historically brand-new position of imputed justification (sola fide). For other installments of this series, see my Lutheranism web page, second section: “Replies to Philip Melanchthon’s Loci Communes.” Melanchthon’s words will be in blue. I use RSV for biblical citations.
***
I want to say clearly and plainly that our obedience, that is, the righteousness of a good conscience or of the good works which God has commanded us, must necessarily follow our reconciliation. (p. 97)
*
That’s what everyone agrees on: the true regenerated Christian with authentic faith must do grace-enabled good works. The controversy comes over whether they are meritorious, and whether sanctification is an organic part of justification, rather than an abstractly separate category.
*
Then there is comfort in the fact that he says that God has prepared before hand these good works in the church [Eph 2:10], just as He prepared beforehand in Samuel, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and others the marvelous works through which He both calls, governs, and preserves His church; and as He says in another place, “Strengthen, O God, that which You have wrought in us,” Ps. 68[:28]. (p. 97)
*
Exactly. They are not exclusively our works. They are caused by God’s grace and in His will. But they are also ours at the same time. It’s the paradoxical, biblical “both/and” rather than “either/or”:
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 3:9 For we are God’s fellow workers . . .
*
2 Corinthians 6:1 Working together with him, . . .
*
Philippians 2:13 for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
*
Colossians 1:29 . . . I toil, striving with all the energy which he mightily inspires within me.
*
Mark 16:20 And they went forth and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them . . .
The adversaries want to appear to be treating the doctrine of works as something very important, although they actually are speaking only of external hypocrisy or human ceremonies. But they do not know the works of the First Table and they bury the real source of good works. They say nothing about faith which is trust in the mercy and the free reconciliation of God, nor of the necessity of praying to Him in all situations. And when this faith is taken away then doubt prevails which either despises God or flees His wrath and does not call upon Him. (p. 97)
*
Now (after initial encouraging agreement) we see the usual inane caricatures of Catholicism. If one feels compelled to lie about one’s theological opponents in order to set forth a supposedly superior, more biblical theology, something is surely awry. It bespeaks a lack of confidence in one’s own beliefs. I, on the other hand, don’t have to misrepresent and distort Melanchthon’s Lutheran beliefs. I have no need or desire whatsoever to do that: with him or anyone else.
*
I want my readers to know exactly what others believe, and why they do. Towards that end, I present their good-faith, sincerely held positions in their own words and then proceed to show why I believe they are in error, based on Holy Scripture. But Melanchthon uses the age-old method of Protestant polemics against Catholicism (something Luther was a “master” at): present a straw man of what we supposedly believe in his words rather than actually citing a Catholic source and letting us speak for ourselves.
*
I have often said that we must not indulge in the idle human notion that we can govern our outward behavior by human diligence and human powers . . . (p. 98)
*
Really? We can and should do so after we are regenerated and justified initially (thus working with God, per the above passages):
Philippians 2:12 . . . work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;
*
1 Timothy 5:22 . . . keep yourself pure.
*
2 Timothy 2:15, 21 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, . . . [21] 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.
*
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;
*
Jude 20-21 But you, beloved, build yourselves up on your most holy faith; pray in the Holy Spirit; [21] keep yourselves in the love of God;
It is evident that godly minds are tormented and also hopeful that their obedience may be pleasing to God, but in this terrible weakness of ours they see that our obedience is crippled, impeded, imperfect, corrupt, . . . (p. 99)
Sometimes it is (we being fallen human beings who fail even after regeneration); most times it is not, if we are being obedient (the very act of which indicates a preceding grace). The seven representative passages above show not the slightest hint of the efforts and works done being “crippled, impeded, imperfect, corrupt.” That’s simply Protestant “faith alone”: being improperly superimposed onto the Bible. I submit that Melanchthon’s and Protestants’ prior presuppositions or worldview trump what the Bible actually teaches (which I think I am showing as I move along).
The hypocrites think that they do satisfy the Law, that they are righteous, that is, that they have been accepted by God because of their own worthiness or their fulfillment of the Law, as the Pharisee says in Luke 18:9-12. (p. 99)
That’s supposedly us dumb, deluded Catholics, of course! This is the old tired caricature of Catholicism as works-salvation (a thing we had roundly condemned 1100 years before Melanchthon): equating it with the Pharisees and Judaizers. The silliness and wrongheadedness of this charge — in terms of what Catholics actually teach and believe and seek to practice — is seen in the Decree on Justification from the Council of Trent, from its Sixth Session on 13 January 1547: less than four years after the third edition of Loci Communes that I am critiquing, was published, and thirteen years before Melanchthon died:
CHAPTER I. On the Inability of Nature and of the Law to justify man.
The holy Synod declares first, that, for the correct and sound understanding of the doctrine of Justification, it is necessary that each one recognise and confess, that, whereas all men had lost their innocence in the prevarication of Adam-having become unclean, and, as the apostle says, by nature children of wrath, as (this Synod) has set forth in the decree on original sin,-they were so far the servants of sin, and under the power of the devil and of death, that not the Gentiles only by the force of nature, but not even the Jews by the very letter itself of the law of Moses, were able to be liberated, or to arise, therefrom; although free will, attenuated as it was in its powers, and bent down, was by no means extinguished in them.
Thus we see that actual magisterial Church teaching, reiterated and promulgated during Melanchthon’s lifetime, is the polar opposite of his ridiculous caricature (that is still widely used to this day). The first three canons on justification from the same document, are so in line with Protestant teaching, that John Calvin, in his work, Acts of the Council of Trent with the Antidote (21 November 1547) — which I wrote about it in one article –, completely agreed with them and offered no further comment (writing, “To Canons 1, 2, and 3:, I say, Amen.”):
CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.
CANON II.-If any one saith, that the grace of God, through Jesus Christ, is given only for this, that man may be able more easily to live justly, and to merit eternal life, as if, by free will without grace, he were able to do both, though hardly indeed and with difficulty; let him be anathema.
CANON III.-If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.
Here are some more good ones that any Protestant ought to readily agree with:
CANON X.-If any one saith, that men are just without the justice of Christ, whereby He merited for us to be justified; or that it is by that justice itself that they are formally just; let him be anathema.
CHAPTER V. On the necessity, in adults, of preparation for Justification, and whence it proceeds.
. . . the beginning of the said justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God through Jesus Christ . . . without any merits existing on their parts . . . yet is he not able, by his own free-will, without the grace of God, to move himself into justice in His sight . . .
CHAPTER VIII. In what manner it is to be understood, that the impious is justified by faith, and gratuitously.
. . . none of those things which precede justification — whether faith or works — merit the grace itself of justification. For if it be a grace, it is not now by works; otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace.
There are always people like this who admire their own virtues, who give long tributes to their own wisdom and righteousness, especially in secondary matters which are showy, which they think they can govern by their own ideas and which they choose to accept as the divinely given fruits of their own virtues and diligence, . . . (p. 99)
This is the picture which many hypocrites project, and there are not a few who are like this, self-confident, pleased with them selves because of their gifts, applauding their own wisdom, . . . (p. 100)
I guess he is talking about David and Paul, too:
1 Samuel 26:23 [David] The LORD rewards every man for his righteousness and his faithfulness; . . .
2 Samuel 22:21-25 [David] The LORD rewarded me according to my righteousness; according to the cleanness of my hands he recompensed me. [22] For I have kept the ways of the LORD, and have not wickedly departed from my God.
Romans 15:17 . . . In Christ Jesus, then, I have reason to be proud of my work for God.
2 Timothy 4:6-8 For I am already on the point of being sacrificed; the time of my departure has come. [7] 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, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that Day, . . .
***
“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”!If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,800+ articles, please follow my blog by signing up (with your email address) on the sidebar to the right (you may have to scroll down a bit), above where there is an icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. My blog was rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT: endorsed by influential Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Please also consider following me on Twitter / X and purchasing one or more of my 55 books. All of this helps me get more exposure, and (however little!) more income for my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!
***
In fact, St. Paul was in several instances in his letters, given to long glowing descriptions of his own [God-enabled] righteous works and sanctity (I guess Melanchthon would consign him to the proud, arrogant, Pharisee-types, too, huh?):
2 Corinthians 11:5-30 I think that I am not in the least inferior to these superlative apostles. [6] Even if I am unskilled in speaking, I am not in knowledge; in every way we have made this plain to you in all things. [7] Did I commit a sin in abasing myself so that you might be exalted, because I preached God’s gospel without cost to you? [8] I robbed other churches by accepting support from them in order to serve you. [9] And when I was with you and was in want, I did not burden any one, for my needs were supplied by the brethren who came from Macedo’nia. So I refrained and will refrain from burdening you in any way. [10] As the truth of Christ is in me, this boast of mine shall not be silenced in the regions of Acha’ia. [11] And why? Because I do not love you? God knows I do! [12] And what I do I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do. [13] For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. [14] And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. [15] So it is not strange if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds. [16] I repeat, let no one think me foolish; but even if you do, accept me as a fool, so that I too may boast a little. [17] (What I am saying I say not with the Lord’s authority but as a fool, in this boastful confidence; [18] since many boast of worldly things, I too will boast.) [19] For you gladly bear with fools, being wise yourselves! [20] For you bear it if a man makes slaves of you, or preys upon you, or takes advantage of you, or puts on airs, or strikes you in the face. [21] To my shame, I must say, we were too weak for that! But whatever any one dares to boast of — I am speaking as a fool — I also dare to boast of that. [22] Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they descendants of Abraham? So am I. [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. [24] Five times I have received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. [25] Three times I have been beaten with rods; once I was stoned. Three times I have been shipwrecked; a night and a day I have been adrift at sea; [26] on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brethren; [27] in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure. [28] And, apart from other things, there is the daily pressure upon me of my anxiety for all the churches. [29] Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is made to fall, and I am not indignant? [30] If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness.
1 Corinthians 9:14-19 In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel. [15] But I have made no use of any of these rights, nor am I writing this to secure any such provision. For I would rather die than have any one deprive me of my ground for boasting. [16] For if I preach the gospel, that gives me no ground for boasting. For necessity is laid upon me. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! [17] For if I do this of my own will, I have a reward; but if not of my own will, I am entrusted with a commission. [18] What then is my reward? Just this: that in my preaching I may make the gospel free of charge, not making full use of my right in the gospel. [19] For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, that I might win the more.
2 Corinthians 1:5-14 For as we share abundantly in Christ’s sufferings, so through Christ we share abundantly in comfort too. [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. [7] Our hope for you is unshaken; for we know that as you share in our sufferings, you will also share in our comfort. [8] For we do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, of the affliction we experienced in Asia; for we were so utterly, unbearably crushed that we despaired of life itself. [9] Why, we felt that we had received the sentence of death; but that was to make us rely not on ourselves but on God who raises the dead; [10] he delivered us from so deadly a peril, and he will deliver us; on him we have set our hope that he will deliver us again. [11] You also must help us by prayer, so that many will give thanks on our behalf for the blessing granted us in answer to many prayers. [12] For our boast is this, the testimony of our conscience that we have behaved in the world, and still more toward you, with holiness and godly sincerity, not by earthly wisdom but by the grace of God. [13] For we write you nothing but what you can read and understand; I hope you will understand fully, [14] as you have understood in part, that you can be proud of us as we can be of you, on the day of the Lord Jesus.
Colossians 1:24-28 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church, [25] of which I became a minister according to the divine office which was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known, [26] the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now made manifest to his saints. [27] To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. [28] Him we proclaim, . . .
Yes, of course in 2 Corinthians 11, it is partly sarcastic (this boast of mine”; “I am talking like a madman” etc.), but he goes on and on, and sarcasm (in Paul or Jesus or anyone else who uses it) always has an underlying serious point to make. If indeed, Paul could take no credit at all for any or all of this (the Protestant denial of merit), then the whole discourse is most improper and inappropriate. Moreover, he also uses “boast” in a totally non-sarcastic way in 1 Corinthians 9 and 2 Corinthians 1.
Therefore they tout themselves above others because of their wisdom and righteousness, as Nebuchadnezzar did, . . . (p. 99)
Paul certainly did so above. He had none of Luther’s existential angst and cyclical insecurity about his standing before God. Melanchthon, a timid, nervous type to begin with, seems to have inherited that from Luther. Unfortunately, they both passed on their personal insecurities and struggles into mainstream Protestant soteriology (theology of salvation), so that they became institutionalized. Personally, I suspect that it’s more psychological stuff than theological or biblical . . .
But even before psychology enters in, the root of it is arguably the Protestant leading trait of creating illogical “either/or” false dichotomies. Louis Bouyer, a Lutheran who became a Catholic, wrote an entire brilliant book about this, called The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism. I recommend it more highly than any other book, for Catholics desiring to understand the premises and presuppositions of Protestantism.
Likewise Saul believed that the kingdom of Israel had been established by his power, although he should have known that both this power and the successes were blessings from God, and that he could not have accomplished or ruled over such things by himself, . . . (p. 100)
That’s exactly my point: both as regards biblical teaching and the fact that Catholics agree with it in this respect and every other. Protestants aren’t the only ones who teach salvation by grace alone, God’s providence and sovereignty, predestination, election, the wrongness of works-salvation, etc. This may come as a shock to many, but so be it. I’m here to educate and proclaim what I strongly believe to be the truth, not please (i.e., when the two differ from each other).
But first of all we must establish this point: Although in the regenerate there must be a beginning of obedience and the righteousness of a good conscience, yet sins still remain in them, that is to say, the disease which is born in us, the doubts, the ignorance of many things; or in other words, that they do not fear God as they ought nor burn with love toward Him as the Law demands. (p. 100)
That’s self-evident in the Bible, and the Catholic Church had always taught it, so I fail to see why Melanchthon thought he needed to “establish” it (with whom?: biblical illiterates or completely uncatechized folks?). Odd . . . :
Psalm 130:3-4 If thou, O LORD, shouldst mark iniquities, Lord, who could stand? [4] But there is forgiveness with thee, . . . (130:3 was cited by Melanchthon on p. 101; mistakenly identified as “103:3” by either him or translator Preuss)
Matthew 6:14-15 For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; [15] but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
John 8:7 . . . “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.”
James 5:15-16 . . . if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. [16] Therefore confess your sins to one another, . . .
1 John 1:8-10 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. [9] If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. [10] If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. (1:8 was cited by Melanchthon later on the same page: 100).
1 John 2:1 My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;
The monks even teach that these doubts concerning providence, the wrath of God, His mercy, our wicked desires, unless there is consent to them, are not sins; . . . (p. 100)
. . . sin remains in this mortal nature of ours. (p. 100)
No one is disagreeing, so again, I don’t know who it is that Melanchthon fancies would disagree with this. Catholics simply say that one can become holier and holier and more righteous over time, by God’s grace and our resolve, discipline, and free will choices. Theoretically, we could arrive at a sinless state of being, but as we all know, it virtually never happens. We all strive, or should at least desire to strive, with God’s help, to live as free from sin as we can. At the moment of baptism, we are at least momentarily sinless, since all of our old sins have been forgiven and we have been regenerated and born again.
Rom. 7:23, “I see another law at work in my members waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner to the law of sin which is in my members.” Now, although the sophists get around this passage and say that . . . here the word refers to . . . the tendency to sin which has come from the fall of our first parents [concupiscence], yet Paul himself refutes this sophistry in his definition of sin itself, when he says that it is an evil in our members which is at war with the law of God.
Furthermore, we have discussed in regard to this article whether the wickedness which remains in our nature is something which is in conflict with the law of God. Human judgment excuses this corruption, but Paul uses very graphic words to describe this terrible thing. He says that the corruption is at war in his members, that it is viciously contending against the law of his mind, confirming his carnal security or his righteous ness which is at odds with God, filling his mind with pride in his own virtues and arrogance, kindling lusts, hatred, desire for revenge, and urging him to seek for bidden help; and finally it takes him captive, because it overthrows the antagonisms of his mind by fears and brings him to the point of despair, so that he flees from God. aw at work in my members waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner to the law of sin which is in my members.” Now, although the sophists get around this passage and say that there has been a shift in the word “sin,” and that here the word refers to “the punishment of sin,” the tendency to sin which has come from the fall of our first parents, yet Paul himself refutes this sophistry in his definition of sin itself, when he says that it is an evil in our members which is at war with the law of God. (p. 100)
It is characteristic of this and the following paragraph, 13–25, that St Paul argues in the first person. The natural conclusion is that he relates his own experience. On the other hand, to argue from a purely individual experience is out of place in such a general discussion as is developed in Rom. This forces upon us the further conclusion that Paul regarded his own experience in this case as typical. And since he speaks in the past, obviously referring to the time before baptism, it can be further described as typical of the pre-Christian time. Then the question arises whether it is to be considered as a typical experience of Israelites and Gentiles alike or only of the former. The answers differ. All who limit the theme of Rom 7 to a discussion on the Mosaic Law must limit the typical value of Paul’s experience accordingly because it is the basis of the whole argument. On the other hand, Rom is addressed to a Christian community consisting of former Israelites as well as of former Gentiles (cf. 1:18–3, 20) and there is no evidence that in our chapter Paul is speaking to the former Israelites only. In view of the addressees, therefore, it seems more natural to think that he looked upon his own experience in the matter as generally typical of the time before becoming a Christian without distinguishing between former Israelites and Gentiles.
The law of which St Paul speaks here has been identified with the natural moral law, the Mosaic Law, and both together. The last is the most satisfactory answer. That he foremost had the Mosaic Law in mind follows from the fact that he speaks in the first person. At the same time he must have included the natural moral law because of the former Gentiles among his readers. The simplest solution therefore is to take the law here as the Mosaic Law but as typical of the natural moral law in the same sense as the first person in this description is meant to be typical of man in general, Israelite and Gentile alike. This wider interpretation of ‘law’ is not contradicted by the commandment ‘Thou shalt not covet’, 7. No doubt this is a quotation from the Decalogue. But the quotation is so free (cf. Ex 20:17; Deut 5:21) that it fits the natural moral law as well. Nor can it be urged against this explanation that it entails the abrogation of the natural law which is clearly against Christian doctrine. The point of the whole chapter is not the abrogation of the law, but ‘who is to be given first place’, Christ or — as it has been heretofore — the law? . . .
Modern commentators agree that both context and contents point decisively to the time before conversion. It is the characteristic experience of the soul before conversion to the Christian faith to be ‘sold under sin’, 14, and to be unable to carry out its higher aspirations, 15, 18, 23, 25b. To regard this experience as remaining after conversion is against the whole line of the argument, cf. 6:6, 9, 12–14, 17, 22; 7:6; 8; and also against all the moral exhortations in St Paul’s epistle. Nor is it necessary to understand the picture as a reflexion of the Apostle’s own state of soul when writing because he uses the present tense. There is no reason against taking this as an historic or graphic present to denote what is past, so that there is no real change of tense between 7–12 and 13–25. (my italics)
Romans 8 is Paul’s “treatise” on what the spiritual life is like after regeneration. Paul didn’t have two personalities. Nor was he self-contradictory. The topic of Romans 7 is the pre-regenerate or pagan / carnal life, whereas Romans 8 is about the Christian life, which he was experiencing (and all of us can, too):
Romans 8:1-3, 6 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. [2] For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death. [3] For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: . . . [6] To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace.
Romans 8:26-28 Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with sighs too deep for words. [27] And he who searches the hearts of men knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. [28] We know that in everything God works for good with those who love him, who are called according to his purpose. (8:28 is my favorite verse in the Bible).
Romans 8:37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us.
Melanchthon, on the other hand, wants to take Romans 7 as descriptive of the life of every Christian (even Paul’s!): supposedly miserably and utterly unable to overcome sin, as if there were no Romans 8 to follow it and provide the solution to Paul’s rhetorical spiritual dilemma, laid out in chapter 7. It’s classic isolated proof-texting, which is sadly common in Protestant theology and apologetics, especially when deliberately trying to refute Catholicism. St. Paul in Romans 8 isn’t arguing that we are beyond sin (as if it poses no difficulties at all), but rather, that we can always conquer it, provided we cooperate with God the Holy Spirit, Who lives within us (8:9-11; cf. John 14-16). That’s why it’s such a jubilant, triumphalistic, joyous, sunny chapter.
This gets to the heart of the “Reformation” debate over justification: does it actually change us for the better (Catholicism), or is it a mere declaration, with any actual righteousness neatly separated into a separate non-salvific “box” of sanctification (Protestantism)? As Protestant scholars like Alister McGrath and Norman Geisler tell us, the latter notion wasn’t taught by the Church fathers (especially not by St. Augustine), and Melanchthon introduced it fifteen centuries after Christ; in effect making out that no one had ever understood this until he did. I also add that our view has the support of the Bible, as I think I have demonstrated here and in scores and scores of other articles collected on my Salvation, Justification, & “Faith Alone” web page (see especially the first section). I habitually provide much more biblical argumentation than my theological opponents do. Melanchthon is no exception.
Therefore, although sins are present with us and the godly to some degree recognize the wrath of God, yet they believe that they are pleasing to God because of His promised mercy, and they sustain themselves with this comfort, as Ps. 33:20 ff. says, “My soul sustains itself in His Word … my soul hopes in the Lord, for with the Lord there is mercy”; Ps. 32:5-6, . . . (p. 101; he provides several more biblical examples of that)
That’s necessary, given our fallen nature prior to regeneration, but in the Bible there are also many examples of God being “pleased” because of what regenerate believers obediently do in His power and grace (which is precisely why He rewards us for same, which is Catholic merit: vigorously and categorically denied by Protestantism). Yet here it is massively in the Bible (“ya pays yer money and ya makes yer choice”):
Genesis 18:19 I have chosen him, that he may charge his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing righteousness and justice; so that the LORD may bring to Abraham what he has promised him.
Genesis 22:16-17 “By myself I have sworn, says the LORD, because you have done this, and have not withheld your son, your only son, [17] I will indeed bless you, and I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore. . . .
1 Samuel 26:23 The LORD rewards every man for his righteousness and his faithfulness; . . .
2 Samuel 22:21-25 The LORD rewarded me according to my righteousness; according to the cleanness of my hands he recompensed me. [22] For I have kept the ways of the LORD, and have not wickedly departed from my God. [23] For all his ordinances were before me, and from his statutes I did not turn aside. [24] I was blameless before him, and I kept myself from guilt. [25] Therefore the LORD has recompensed me according to my righteousness, according to my cleanness in his sight. (cf. Ps 18:20-23)
1 Kings 3:9-14 Give thy servant therefore an understanding mind to govern thy people, that I may discern between good and evil; for who is able to govern this thy great people?” [10] It pleased the Lord that Solomon had asked this. [11] And God said to him, “Because you have asked this, and have not asked for yourself long life or riches or the life of your enemies, but have asked for yourself understanding to discern what is right, [12] behold, I now do according to your word. Behold, I give you a wise and discerning mind, so that none like you has been before you and none like you shall arise after you. [13] I give you also what you have not asked, both riches and honor, so that no other king shall compare with you, all your days. [14] And if you will walk in my ways, keeping my statutes and my commandments, as your father David walked, then I will lengthen your days.”
Proverbs 15:26 The thoughts of the wicked are an abomination to the LORD, the words of the pure are pleasing to him.
Jeremiah 31:16 . . . your work shall be rewarded, says the LORD, . . .
Jeremiah 32:19 great in counsel and mighty in deed; whose eyes are open to all the ways of men, rewarding every man according to his ways and according to the fruit of his doings;
Haggai 1:8 Go up to the hills and bring wood and build the house, that I may take pleasure in it and that I may appear in my glory, says the LORD.
Matthew 6:3-4 But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, [4] so that your alms may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you. . . . (cf. 6:6, 17-18, 20)
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, [30] who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, . . .
Ephesians 5:10 and try to learn what is pleasing to the Lord. (cf. Phil 2:13)
Ephesians 6:8 knowing that whatever good any one does, he will receive the same again from the Lord, . . .
Philippians 4:18 I have received full payment, and more; I am filled, having received from Epaphrodi’tus the gifts you sent, a fragrant offering, a sacrifice acceptable and pleasing to God.
Colossians 1:10 to lead a life worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, . . .
Colossians 3:20 Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord.
1 Thessalonians 2:4 but just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not to please men, but to please God who tests our hearts.
1 Thessalonians 4:1 Finally, brethren, we beseech and exhort you in the Lord Jesus, that as you learned from us how you ought to live and to please God, just as you are doing, you do so more and more.
Hebrews 13:16 Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God.
1 John 3:22 and we receive from him whatever we ask, because we keep his commandments and do what pleases him.
Daniel teaches the same thing for which Paul so copiously contends, when he says that we understand that the nature of man is wicked and does not satisfy the Law, but that we are accepted by God through His mercy for the sake of the promised Lord. (p. 101)
That’s only part of the whole picture, as I just proved. Melanchthon, in classic Protestant style, completely ignores a prominent biblical motif, while pretending that the partial truth he presents is the whole picture. There is a reason why we swear in courts to tell “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” Later, Melanchthon acknowledges that we can do things that are pleasing to God:
It is necessary to possess the good righteousness of a good conscience and to know how it pleases God. . . . obedience is pleasing to God, . . . (pp. 101-102)
But he can’t admit that this is essentially the same thing as what Catholics call merit, because Luther and Protestantism arbitrarily, irrationally, and unbiblically decided that it doesn’t exist. In another paper, I provided 46 biblical passages proving that it does.
In 1 Cor. 1:31, “He who glories, let him glory in the Lord,” that is, we cannot be glorified or exalted because we are without sin, but we glory in the Lord, that is to say, in the Lord who promises us mercy. (p. 101)
This is another partial truth. Many biblical passages (I found 26 myself) teach that God shares His glory with us. Why is it that Melanchthon, a Bible scholar, didn’t know this; nor does he seem familiar with many other biblical themes I am pointing out? Or did he indeed know, but wanted to conceal them and engage in consciously selective presentation?
In Col. 1:28 it says, “You are presented perfect in Christ Jesus,” that is, even if the regenerate do not yet fulfill the Law, yet they are righteous and pleasing to God for the sake of His Son. Here we should confess and celebrate the fulness of the mercy of God, that in those who have been reconciled, this obedience which is incomplete, imperfect, unclean, and corrupted by many wicked desires, is still accepted by God, not in deed because of the worth of our virtues but because of the Son of God, Rom. 6:14, “You are not under the Law but under grace.” (p. 102)
Melanchthon seeks to force-fit this verse into Protestant forensic, external, imputed justification. To do so, he made out that it is referring to a completed event. But my RSV reads, “that we may present every man mature in Christ.” Then Paul immediately adds, “For this I toil, . . . (1:29). How can he “toil” for a thing that is, by definition, God’s work alone? “May” is present in virtually every English translation of Colossians 1:28. But in any event (whatever the Greek tense is), Paul couldn’t “toil” for imputed justification (even in the temporary sense in which Catholics accept it). He would have nothing to do with it.
Paul also expressly denies what Melanchthon seeks to assert: “Not that I . . . am already perfect . . . I press on toward the goal . . .” (Phil 3:12, 14). This is the Catholic striving for actual holiness, not a one-time instant declaration that we are holy in God’s sight, when in fact we aren’t. Forgiveness of sins and reconciliation — which we receive in baptism and initial justification — are not the same thing as being perfectly holy: although we temporarily are that after baptism until the next sin we commit. Catholic and Protestantism happily “meet” in what we call initial justification, but then it immediately diverges again when it comes to considering what happens after that, for the rest of the person’s life.
*
***
*
Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 4,800+ free online articles or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
Photo credit: Philip Melanchthon (1497-1560): leader of Lutheranism after Luther’s death; 1532 portrait by Lucas Cranach the Elder (1472-1553) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
*
Summary: Topics covered incl. “working with God”, merit, Tridentine soteriology, Paul’s “boasting”, Rom 7 & 8 & the Spiritual Life, Col 1:28 and imputed justification, and pleasing God.
I didn’t find Christ in Catholicism . . . I lost the forest (the big picture of Christ) for a lot of unnecessary trees that were not scripturally grounded. Part of this . . . was due to some non-scriptural and even (in some cases) anti-scriptural doctrines that undermine the role and significance of Christ. I would love to come back to a purified Catholicism more in keeping with a biblical witness. The excessive adulation of Mary, which at times seems to me to come close to elevating her to the godhead (like a replacement consort for Yahweh in lieu of Asherah), is one such obstacle.
After I had made five in-depth responses to him, Dr. Gagnon replied (just for the record) in a thread on another Facebook page, on 9-17-24, underneath my links to all five: “like your other one, it is an amateurish piece.” This is his silly and arrogant way of dismissing my critiques in one fell swoop. I had informed him that I had over twenty “officially published books” [22, to be exact] and yet he replied that he didn’t know “whether” they were “self-published or with a vanity press or a reputable press.”
His words will be in blue. I use RSV for biblical citations.
*****
I’m responding to a post on his Facebook page, dated 8-20-24, devoted to massively criticizing alleged idolatrous utterances in the Catholic papal document, Ubi Primum (On the Immaculate Conception), from Blessed Pope Pius IX, issued on 2 February 1849. The post was “with” Jerry Walls: another vocal critic of Catholicism (whom I’ve critiqued many times), who misguidedly pontificates in the combox (8-20-24): “It’s certainly easy to see why lay RCs actually worship Mary and have no qualms at all in doing so.”
Before I start analyzing point-by-point, some preliminary general observations need to be made, in order for readers to properly understand the Catholic worldview, Catholic Mariology, and my own responses. Every worldview has basic premises and presuppositions, and when speaking to others in the same group, it’s not necessary — and would be foolish and tedious — to reiterate in every other sentence (in writing), or every two minutes (if speaking) what those are. So, for example, all educated Protestant discussions presuppose the self-defined “two pillars of the Reformation”: sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone as the rule of faith) and sola fide (faith alone as the fundamental soteriology or theology of salvation and justification). Many other propositions flow from these assumed, ingrained presuppositions. They need not be repeated over and over.
Catholics are no different. We have a highly developed devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, whereas Protestantism today has virtually none to speak of; only minimal lip service: mostly at Christmas, where they even habitually set up statues [gasp!] of Mary and St. Joseph, and temporarily forget that — according to their own theology — this is an outrageous practice. When it comes to Mary, Catholics will speak in language — developed over many centuries — that to Protestant ears unfamiliar with it will automatically sound “idolatrous” at worst and extremely “excessive” at best. Because Protestantism essentially ditched the doctrine of the communion of saints, it can’t comprehend any veneration — not worship! — at all towards anyone but God. And so any such devotion sounds horrifying and blasphemous to them.
I’ve defended such “flowery” Marian Catholic language and expressiveness many times. Fortunately, the person perhaps most excoriated in this regard, St. Alphonsus de Liguori, author of The Glories of Mary (which I defended 22 years ago), often does explain in his book, the presuppositions about our Lord Jesus that any informed Catholic always takes for granted when writing or talking (or thinking) about the Blessed Virgin Mary. But Protestants often seem unaware of these initial premises, so they mistakenly assume — in their lack of knowledge of Catholicism — that Marian devotion in its essence is somehow deliberately attempting to denigrate Jesus or set up an idol in competition with Him. Hence, the problem of communication and one group hugely misunderstanding another. The problem isn’t supposed idolatry, but the ignorance of the accuser. I wrote in my paper defending St. Alphonsus:
In order to properly understand the overall framework of the thoughts and ideas and doctrines expressed in this book, we must examine what St. Alphonsus has to say about the relationship of Mary to God the Father and God the Son, Jesus, since this is [Protestants’] primary and most impassioned charge: that she supposedly usurps and overthrows God’s prerogatives and unique position of supreme honor and glory, in Catholic theology, and attains some sort of divine or quasi-divine or semi-divine status (which would, indeed, be blasphemous and grossly heretical). Nothing could be further from the truth, and this is all expressed in the book itself.
Now here is what St. Alphonsus also wrote in this book so hated by Protestant critics of Catholic Mariology. All excerpts are taken from The Glories of Mary, by St. Alphonsus de Liguori — a Doctor of the Catholic Church –, edited by Rev. Eugene Grimm, Two Volumes in One, Fourth Reprint Revised, Brooklyn: Redemptorist Fathers, 1931:
[citing another in agreement] “His divine Son paid and offered the superabundant price of his precious blood in which alone is our salvation, life, and resurrection.” (“To the Reader,” p. 26)
Jesus our Redeemer, with an excess of mercy and love, came to restore this life by his own death on the cross . . . by reconciling us with God he made himself the Father of souls in the law of grace . . . (p. 47)
In us she beholds that which has been purchased at the price of the death of Jesus Christ . . . Mary well knows that her Son came into the world only to save us poor creatures . . . (pp. 60-61)
“Either pity me,” will I say with the devout St. Anselm, “O my Jesus, and forgive me, and do thou pity me, my Mother Mary, by interceding for me” . . . my Jesus, forgive me; My Mother Mary, help me. (p. 79)
We know that Jesus Christ is our only Saviour, and that he alone by his merits has obtained and obtains salvation for us . . . (p. 137)
The price of my salvation is already paid; my Saviour has already shed his blood, which suffices to save an infinity of worlds. This blood has only to be applied even to such a one as I am. And that is thy office, O Blessed Virgin. (pp. 140-141)
No one denies that Jesus Christ is our only mediator of justice, and that he by his merits has obtained our reconciliation with God . . . St. Bernard says, “Let us not imagine that we obscure the glory of the Son by the great praise we lavish on the mother; for the more she is honored, the greater is the glory of her Son.” (p. 153)
It is one thing to say that God cannot, and another that he will not, grant graces without the intercession of Mary. We willingly admit that God is the source of every good, and the absolute master of all graces; and that Mary is only a pure creature, who receives whatever she obtains as a pure favor from God . . . We most readily admit that Jesus Christ is the only Mediator of justice . . . and that by his merits he obtains us all graces and salvation; . . . (pp. 156-157)
St. Bonaventure: “As the moon, which stands between the sun and the earth, transmits to this latter whatever it receives from the former, so does Mary pour out upon us who are in this world the heavenly graces that she receives from the divine sun of justice” . . . it is our Lord, as in the head, from which the vital spirits (that is, divine help to obtain eternal salvation) flow into us, who are the members of the mystical body . . . (pp. 159-160)
. . . the mediation of Christ alone is absolutely necessary; . . . (p. 162)
Whoever places his confidence in a creature independently of God, he certainly is cursed by God; for God is the only source and dispenser of every good, and the creature without God is nothing, and can give nothing. But if our Lord has so disposed it, . . . (p. 174)
Jesus now in heaven sits at the right hand of the Father . . . He has supreme dominion over all, and also over Mary . . . (p. 179)
“Be comforted, O unfortunate soul, who hast lost thy God,” says St. Bernard; “thy Lord himself has provided thee with a mediator, and this is his Son Jesus, who can obtain for thee all that thou desirest. He has given thee Jesus for a mediator; and what is there that such a son cannot obtain from the Father?”
. . . If your fear arises from having offended God, know that Jesus has fastened all your sins on the cross with his own lacerated hands, and having satisfied divine justice for them by his death, he has already effaced them from your souls . . . ” . . . What do you fear, O ye of little faith? . . . But if by chance,” adds the saint, “thou fearest to have recourse to Jesus Christ because the majesty of God in him overawes thee — for though he became man, he did not cease to be God — and thou desirest another advocate with this divine mediator, go to Mary, for she will intercede for thee with the Son, who will most certainly hear her; and then he will intercede with the Father, who can deny nothing to such a son.” (pp. 200-201)
Does this sound like the Catholic Church places Mary “above God,” or that she “can manipulate God,” or “can get things for Catholics from God the Father that Jesus can’t”? Hardly. The truth of the matter is plain to see. Protestants believe — based on their own theological and hermeneutical presuppositions (themselves not above all critique) — that the notion of Mediatrix is thoroughly unbiblical, and in fact, untrue. But they can’t prove that the Catholic system teaches it in such a way that God is lowered and Mary raised to a goddess-like status. That simply isn’t true, and even in the very book which is “notorious” in anti-Catholic circles for the most allegedly “extreme” remarks about Mary, we find many statements such as the above.
Now I’ll examine what it is that Dr. Gagnon objects to as allegedly “idolatrous” in Ubi Primum.
To my Catholic friends: I ask you in all seriousness, you don’t find it a tad excessive, bordering on worship, to speak of Mary as:
*The one to whom we pledge a “devotion” so great that “nothing has ever been closer to our heart”
*
None of it is worship or adoration. None of it detracts from God. It’s veneration, which has a biblical basis. Also, there is much flowery language: familiar to just about anyone who has had a sweetheart or spouse. We’ll say “I adore you” or “I’ll do anything for you.” “You are my everything” etc. And so Catholics will say very strong things like that to or about Mary, the highest creature God ever made, and the Mother of God the Son. Martin Luther, in his Commentary on the Magnificat (March 1521) understood devotion to and praise of Mary:
She became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man’s understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child. She herself is unable to find a name for this work, it is too exceeding great; all she can do is break out in the fervent cry, are great things,” impossible to describe or define. Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God. No one can say anything greater of her or to her, though he had as many tongues as there are leaves on the trees, or grass in the fields, or stars in the sky, or sand by the sea. It needs to be pondered in the heart, what it means to be the Mother of God. . . . she was without sin . . . (Luther’s Works, Vol. 21, 326-327)
***
“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”!If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,800+ articles, please follow my blog by signing up (with your email address) on the sidebar to the right (you may have to scroll down a bit), above where there is an icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. My blog was rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT: endorsed by influential Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Please also consider following me on Twitter / X and purchasing one or more of my 55 books. All of this helps me get more exposure, and (however little!) more income for my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!
***
*The one to whom “glory” should “redound” in “everything” we do
*
Peter states that our “faith . . . may redound to praise and glory and honor” (1 Pet 1:7). There are many passages in the Bible about human beings receiving glory, by God’s design. Jesus said, “The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them” (Jn 17:22). Paul wrote, “we all, . . . beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another” (2 Cor 3:18) and “God . . . calls you into his own kingdom and glory” (1 Thess 2:12) and “he called you . . . so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Thess 2:14). Peter proclaimed: “the spirit of glory and of God rests upon you” (1 Pet 4:14) and that God “called us to his own glory” (2 Pet 1:3). So Mary gets a lot of glory? Of course! Any of us can and should, and she was the Mother of God, after all. What better creature to receive lots of glory?
*
*The one to whom we should “always endeavor to do everything that would … promote her honor and encourage devotion to her”
*
The Bible either permits honor of persons or not. Of course it does. So it’s only a matter of degree. Protestants assume that this detracts from the honor of God, but it doesn’t. That doesn’t follow inexorably or logically. It’s just an old tired Protestant “either/or” false dichotomy. If it did, God wouldn’t have permitted us to honor other creatures. “Honor” appears 69 times in the NT in RSV. Many are referring to God, but many times it also refers to people. We’re to honor our parents (Mt 15:4) and prophets (Mk 6:4) and the humble (Lk 14:10).
*
God the Father honors those who follow His Son (Jn 12:26); “every one who does good” receives both “glory and honor” (Rom 2:10), other Christians are to be honored (Rom 12:10), and wives (1 Thess 4:4) and widows (1 Tim 5:3) and elders in the church (1 Tim 5:17) and “all men” (1 Pet 2:17) and the emperor (1 Pet 2:17). We honor Mary because God desires that (“all generations will call me blessed”: Lk 1:48; “Blessed are you among women”: Lk 1:42; “the mother of my Lord”: Lk 1:43). Even the angel Gabriel said “Hail Mary” to her (Lk 1:28).
*
*The one in whom we should have “great trust”
*
If God so ordains it, yes. Paul wrote that “servants of Christ” ought to be “trustworthy” (1 Cor 4:1-2). Paul described himself in the same way (1 Cor 7:25). We trust that Mary can aid us with her singularly powerful intercession, according to the very strong biblical motif of the prayers of the righteous availing much. The Mother of God, whom we believe to be without sin, certainly qualifies as one we can particularly trust.
*
*The one whose “merits” are a “resplendent glory … far exceeding all the choirs of angels”
*
Because she was sinless and immaculate, that’s true, and after all, Paul wrote, “Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? . . . Do you not know that we are to judge angels?” (1 Cor 6:2-3). God “rewards” the faithful who “seek him” (Heb 11:6). Mary did this more than any other creature who ever lived. None of this is idolatry in the slightest. Your God is too small (to use an old book title, from J. B. Phillips). God isn’t threatened by His creatures receiving honor and merit and glory. It’s His will and design.
*
* The one whom God has “elevated to the very steps of his throne” (presumably along with Jesus at God’s right hand)
*
The steps to a throne are not the throne itself. Revelation 4:4 states: “Round the throne were twenty-four thrones, and seated on the thrones were twenty-four elders” (cf. 5:11; 11:16; 14:3). Revelation 5:6 even says that Jesus was “standing” near the Father’s throne, “among the elders” and 5:11 says that “thousands of thousands” of “angels” are also there (cf. 7:11, 15). Then we see “a great multitude which no man could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne” (Rev 7:9) and “harpers playing on their harps . . . before the throne” (Rev 14:2-3) and “the dead, great and small, . . . before the throne” (Rev 20:12).
*
Does that make all of them equal to him, too? Was St. John trying to convey idolatry? I don’t think so. But if someone wants to insist that everyone who gets close to God’s throne is equal to God, or that it is idolatry to take any note of them, then the 24 elders and all the rest must be equal to God, in that tunnel vision mentality, since they’re right there with Jesus. That’s absurd; therefore, the whole notion is, by reductio ad absurdum. We have hundreds of thousands of creatures before God’s throne, right in the Bible, but Mary somehow can’t be? It’s ludicrous and most unbiblical.
*
*The one whose “foot has crushed the head of Satan” (I thought that was Jesus’ job)
*
This probably refers to Genesis 3:15, which was mistakenly translated as “she” by a later copyist of the Vulgate, and thus was thought to refer to Mary, the “second Eve” (e.g., by Augustine, Ambrose, Gregory the Great, and others). Dom Bernard Orchard’s Catholic Commentary of 1953 noted that St. Jerome cited the passage in another work with the masculine pronoun, thus showing that the error was from a later copyist, not from him. Moreover, many manuscripts of the Vulgate have ipse rather than ipsa (feminine). Barnes’ Notes on the Bibleconcurs with this judgment:
The Vulgate also, in what was probably the genuine reading, “ipse” (he himself) points to the same meaning. The reading “ipsa” (she herself) is inconsistent with the gender of the Hebrew verb, and with that of the corresponding pronoun in the second clause (his), and is therefore clearly an error of the transcriber.
The Catholic Church doesn’t claim that every pope must be a first-rate exegete or translator of the Bible. Protestants acknowledge certain Bible passages that are of questionable authenticity, too. These things happen. But — that said — one can also say that Mary made this crushing possible by bearing the Messiah and Savior of the world. That was her contribution to the way being made for mankind to be saved. She was a key participant in God’s plan for salvation.
*
*The sole mediator “set up between Christ and His Church” (I thought there was just one mediator between God and humans)
*
The role of Mediatrix is secondary and non-essential. We believe that this was the arrangement that God set up. There is much indication of secondary conduits of grace in the Bible. God clearly uses many human beings as mediators. We pray for each other. Moses interceded and “atoned” for the Jews in the wilderness, and God decided not to destroy them (Ex 32:30). If Moses could successfully intercede on behalf of an entire sinful and disobedient group, and if Abraham’s prayer could spare his nephew Lot (and potentially Sodom and Gomorrah also, if enough righteous men had been found there: Genesis 18:20-32), why is it so remarkable that God would choose to involve Mary in intercession and distribution of graces to an entire sinful and disobedient group (mankind)?
*
If one thing can occur, so can the other (so one might make a biblical argument from analogy). Paul states that he can help “save” people (1 Cor 9:22) and refers to his “stewardship of God’s grace” (Eph 3:2; cf. 2 Cor 4:15). Peter says that we can all do that for each other (1 Pet 4:10). Paul informs Timothy that he can “save” both himself and his “hearers” (1 Tim 4:16; cf. 1 Cor 7:16; James 5:20; 1 Pet 3:1), and teaches that God uses preaching and spouses to save people (1 Cor 1:21; 7:16; cf. 1 Pet 3:1). James says that we can help convert others (Jas 5:19-20).
*
God can do whatever He wants! It is written in the Psalms and prophets that God could raise up a rock or a tree to sing His praises, if stubborn men refuse to do so. God used a donkey (Balaam’s ass) to speak and express His will once. He appeared in a burning bush and in a cloud. He chose to come to earth as a baby! Why should anything He does or chooses to do surprise us, or make us wonder in befuddlement? The ending of Job makes this clear enough. His thoughts are as far above ours as the stars are above the earth (Isaiah 55:8-9). None of this Catholic belief is in conflict with biblical teaching; though it’s not explicitly taught. It’s in harmony with what we know.
*
*The one who “always has delivered the Christian people from their greatest calamities and … all their enemies, ever rescuing them”
*
*The one who is “the foundation of all our confidence”
*
These go back to the principle of the righteous person’s prayers having great power. If indeed Mary was the most holy person, her prayers would have the most power, based on what James taught, just as Moses, Abraham, Samuel, Daniel, and other holy people bailed out the ancient Israelites over and over again.
*
*The one who, “through her efficacious intercession with God,” delivers “her children” even from “the punishments of God’s anger”
*
Oh, you mean like Moses did?:
Numbers 11:1-2 And the people complained in the hearing of the LORD about their misfortunes; and when the LORD heard it, his anger was kindled, and the fire of the LORD burned among them, and consumed some outlying parts of the camp. [2] Then the people cried to Moses; and Moses prayed to the LORD, and the fire abated.
*
Numbers 14:17-20 And now, I pray thee, let the power of the LORD be great as thou hast promised, saying, [18] `The LORD is slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love, forgiving iniquity and transgression, but he will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of fathers upon children, upon the third and upon the fourth generation.’ [19] Pardon the iniquity of this people, I pray thee, according to the greatness of thy steadfast love, and according as thou hast forgiven this people, from Egypt even until now.” [20] Then the LORD said, “I have pardoned, according to your word;
If Moses already did it, why is it unthinkable that Mary could do the same?
*
*The one to whom “God has committed the treasury of all good things”
*
God can do that; no problem. Do Protestants wish to argue that God couldn’t possibly do it? He delegates tasks to human beings all the time. Nothing in this (as with everything else here) is contrary to the teachings of Scripture. It’s not proven from Scripture, either, but it’s not contradictory to it, and so can’t be ruled out as a possibility.
*
*The one through whom is “obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation … everything”
*
As the pope explained in the next sentence: “For this is His will, that we obtain everything through [not, by, or from] Mary.” I can think of analogies. God seemed to do virtually everything through Moses when he was around, and through Peter, when he led the early Church, and Paul when he was at the forefront of evangelism to the Gentiles. If God chooses to use Mary to extend His grace and salvation, who are we to object? So critics say it’s not spelled out in the Bible? Neither are sola Scriptura or sola fide (and both are contradicted numerous times). The New Testament canon is not in the Bible anywhere, yet it’s believed. So we don’t buy this line that everything Protestants believe is explicit in the Bible. That has never been true.
*
To which I say: What’s left for Jesus in terms of adoration, devotion, and functions?
*
Everything that was there all along, as St. Alphonsus constantly reiterated: as documented above. Protestants simply can’t see past their relentless false dichotomies. Catholics have much more faith, and reason, and we worship a bigger God, Who can and does use His creatures in extraordinary ways.
*
I thought our greatest devotion should be to Jesus.
*
Of course. That’s why St. Alphonsus wrote about Jesus’ “precious blood in which alone is our salvation, life, and resurrection” and that “Jesus our Redeemer” was the one Who “came into the world only to save us poor creatures” and that “Jesus Christ is our only Saviour, and that he alone by his merits has obtained and obtains salvation for us” and that Jesus’ blood “suffices to save an infinity of worlds” and that “No one denies that Jesus Christ is our only mediator of justice, and that he by his merits has obtained our reconciliation with God” and that “God is the source of every good, and the absolute master of all graces; and that Mary is only a pure creature, who receives whatever she obtains as a pure favor from God” and that “He has supreme dominion over all, and also over Mary.”
*
And this is the book usually considered the most outrageously “idolatrous.” It has a Christology identical to that of Protestantism. Blessed Pope Pius IX was speaking in a way similar to St. Alphonsus. I have defended other commonly trashed Marian devotees and devotions as well:
That he is the object of our great trust. That it is his glory that we should most seek. That he is the foundation of our every confidence. That it is he who has rescued us from all our troubles and punishments. That he was the one who crushed Satan’s head. That he was the sole mediator between God and his church. That in him is found the treasury of all good things. That it is his efficacious intercession at God’s right hand that achieves our deliverance. That it is through him that we have obtained salvation.
*
Indeed: as the quotes I just gave and many more assert.
*
You really don’t find this excessive, a swallowing up of everything that the NT witness attributes to Jesus?
*
Not at all, if it is actually understood. That’s the key. Not a single prerogative of Jesus is removed by veneration of Mary and God’s use of her to distribute His self-originated grace, by His plan. We already know from the Bible that God does many amazing things with human beings, that might seem at first glance to be idolatrous also, or to blur the line between man and God. St. Paul implies that believers even while on the earth can achieve “the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding” (Col 1:9) and can obtain “all the riches of assured understanding and the knowledge of God’s mystery, of Christ” (Col 1:10).
*
And they “shall be like” Jesus (1 Jn 3:2) and fully “united to the Lord” and “one spirit with him” (1 Cor 6:17). Saints in heaven will be “filled with all the fulness of God” (Eph 3:19) and “the fulness of Christ” (Eph 4:13) and will be fully “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet 1:4) and totally free of and from sin (Rev 19:8; 21:8, 27; 22:14-15).
*
We’re “equal to” angels after death, according to Jesus (Lk 20:36), and “like angels” (Mt 22:30; Mk 12:25). Moreover, there is the whole theology of God indwelling us. We’re described as “God’s temple” (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:22). God “will live in” us (2 Cor 6:16). He’s “in” us (1 Jn 3:24; 4:4). God “abides in” us (1 Jn 3:24; 4:12-13, 15-16). Jesus abides in us (Jn 6:56; 15:4), and He is “in” us (Jn 14:20; 17:23; Rom 8:10; Col 1:27). He dwells in our “hearts” (Eph 3:17). The Holy Spirit is “within” us (Ezek 37:14). He’s “with” us (Jn 14:16), “dwells” “in” or “with” us (Jn 14:17; Rom 8:9, 11; 1 Cor 3:16), and is in our “hearts” (2 Cor 1:22; 3:3; Gal 4:6). As Jesus noted, the Law even described human beings as “gods” (Jn 10:33-36).
*
If all that can occur and is explicitly laid out in Holy Scripture, and doesn’t interfere with God’s utter transcendence, then I submit that our Marian doctrines — consistent with all of the realities above — do nothing at all to undermine God, either. It’s only erroneously thought that they do because almost all of the Protestants who protest the loudest don’t make any effort to try to understand these many factors that I have addressed, within the overall context of Catholic theology.
*
And such loud critics could hardly comprehend these things even if (and it’s a huge “if”!) they were willing to do so: having discarded not only virtually all of Mariology, but also the entire communion of saints over 500 years ago now, so that they think very differently from even the first Protestant leaders. Martin Luther, for example, believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary; even her virginity in partu (a physical virgin during Jesus’ birth], used the phrase, “Mother of God” and accepted some form of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption his entire life: so Lutheran scholars inform us. How scandalously “Catholic” of him!
*
I welcome any corrections from my FB Catholic friends if I am misreading these encyclicals . . .
*
Glad to provide that service!
*
I think I may have been a little naive about the possibility of having differing opinions about Mariology from the standpoint of official Catholic teaching.
*
This goes to show that Dr. Gagnon is inadequately acquainted and informed, not only with regard to Catholic Mariology, but also the practice of issuing anathemas. In a recent paper in reply to Reformed Baptist Gavin Ortlund, I made an extended argument showing that Protestants do essentially the same thing. For example, Martin Luther wrote in July 1522:
I now let you know that from now on 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, in Luther’s Works, Vol. 39; citation from pp. 248-249, my italics; see much more along these lines from Luther).
I also observed:
Luther casually assumed that Protestant opponents of his like Zwingli, who denied the Real Presence in the Eucharist, were likely damned as a result. Luther and Calvin and Melanchthon approved of drowning Anabaptists as heretics and seditious persons because they believed in adult baptism. Thus they would have approved of Gavin Ortlund and James White (and myself, earlier in life) being executed. The early Protestants were extremely intolerant of each other, with many mutual anathemas exchanged. I could go on at great length about this, but I think my point of comparison and double standards is sufficiently established. If one wants to go after a specific aspect of Catholicism that also occurs in Protestantism, then the criticism ought to be fair and across the board, not cynically selective and one-sided, as if only Catholics ever do this.
Dr. Gagnon made more observations in the lively combox:
*
This is the kind of adulation that borders on, if not actually already enters into, worship. Worship consists of giving supreme honor to another. All of these statements sure sound like giving supreme honor to Mary, the kind of honor that in the throne room of God in the Book of Revelation is reserved for God and the Lamb of God. Mary is not even mentioned in those throne room scenes, to say nothing of being the object of devotion and praise.
*
The language of complete devotion and glory, the functions, and privileges most certainly encroaches on the realm of Christ. It is a Mary cult, it seems to me. You should go all the way and make her the co-redemptrix and mediatrix of graces, for that is where this all leads.
*
Yes, we do do that. I have defended it many times from the Bible and Church history:
Mary Mediatrix and the Church Fathers (+ Documentation That James White Accepts the Scholarship of the Protestant Church Historians I Cite [J. N. D. Kelly and Philip Schaff] ) [9-7-05]
This goes well beyond your rationalizing it away. The words in this papal encyclical represent a Mary Cult pure and simple. This is not an extemporaneous moment of getting carried away. It should be offensive to anyone who embraces the singular exaltation of Christ in the NT. This was not some kid off the street using this language. It was the Pope in an encyclical preparatory to another encyclical declaring loss of salvation for anyone who did not embrace the dogma of the Immaculate Reception. That so many of my Catholic FB friends do not denounce it is concerning. This is not about “really loving Jesus’ mama.” It is about arrogating to her devotion, honor, glory, privileges, and functions that in the NT witness are reserved exclusively for Jesus.
*
Mary is perhaps the greatest of all female disciples in being honored to bear the Son of God and be the mother of the Messiah. But her role beyond that is virtually non-existent in the rest of the NT canon. She certainly does not exercise any of the prerogatives of the Messiah, or intercession, or cultic devotion. It is not vitriol toward Mary but rightly biblically based critique of the misappropriation of Mary as an object of devotion that rivals or surpasses Christ (read the papal encyclical above regarding what is said about Mary); and all the made-up doctrine that has no basis in first-century Christianity and the Scriptures that is then used to exclude others from the Kingdom who don’t share these unbiblical views of Mary.
*
There is no way that Jesus or the apostles in the NT would have supported such a Mary cult. They certainly could have promoted it, if they had wished to do so.
*
Pretty much all of it is over the top. But at least I found one reasonable Catholic who thinks “some of this is over the top.”
*
*
***
*
Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 4,800+ free online articles or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
Photo credit: The Ghent Altarpiece: Virgin Mary (detail; bet. 1426-1429), by Jan van Eyck (c. 1390-1441) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
Summary: Protestant NT scholar Robert Gagnon made the accusation that Blessed Pope Pius IX engaged in massive idolatry (Mariolatry) in his 1849 decree, Ubi Primum. I defend it.
Its “Late” Development / Two 4th Century Witnesses / Protestant Commentators on Revelation 12 / Biblical Arguments
Photo credit: Madonna in Glory (c. 1670), by Carlo Dolci (1616-1686) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
Dr. Gavin Ortlund is a Reformed Baptist author, speaker, pastor, scholar, and apologist for the Christian faith. He has a Ph.D. from Fuller Theological Seminary in historical theology, and an M.Div from Covenant Theological Seminary. Gavin is the author of seven books as well as numerous academic and popular articles. For a list of publications, see his CV. He runs the very popular YouTube channel Truth Unites, which seeks to provide an “irenic” voice on theology, apologetics, and the Christian life. See also his website, Truth Unites and his blog.
In my opinion, he is currently the best and most influential popular-level Protestant apologist (see my high praise), who (especially) interacts with and offers thoughtful critiques of Catholic positions, from a refreshing ecumenical (not anti-Catholic), but nevertheless solidly Protestant perspective. That’s what I want to interact with, so I have issued many replies to Gavin and will continue to do so. I use RSV for all Bible passages unless otherwise specified.
*
This is my 31st reply to his material. He has made just one lengthy and substantial reply to my critiques thus far. Why is that? His own explanation is simply lack of time. He wrote on my Facebook page on 17 April 2024: “Dave, thanks for engaging my stuff. People often ask to dialogue or engage and then are disappointed when I decline. Unfortunately I have to say no to most things. . . . if you are expecting regular responses, I’m afraid that is not realistic right now.” Again, on 23 August 2024 he commented on my Facebook page: “thanks for your engagement here. [I’m] grateful you give my work so much attention, and I only apologize [that] I’m not able to respond more. I think in the past I’ve explained a little bit about why.”
*
All of my replies to Gavin are collected on the top of my Calvinism & General Protestantism web page in the section, “Replies to Reformed Baptist Gavin Ortlund.” Gavin’s words will be in blue.
*****
This is my response to Gavin’s video, “Why Mary’s Assumption Is Indefensible” (8-17-23), which at the time of this writing has garnered 59,182 views and 3,069 comments. I think it deserves a solid reply from a Catholic apologist. Glad to do it!
*
1:12 I think Trent [Horn] is a good apologist and I enjoy engaging his work. . . . I’m happy to dialogue with him on this too if he wants
*
He is a good apologist. I hope that one day Gavin will “enjoy engaging”my work as well. I don’t think it’s that bad, if I do say so myself. At the very least, I think I offer significant food for thought, if nothing else, and agree or disagree. As the old saying goes, “you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.”
*
1:18 now I’ve done other videos on this topic, but this one will be the most updated the most thorough. I put a lot of work into it. Some of this information I’m not aware is out there available elsewhere so I hope this will really be helpful . . . I think this will be one of my more important videos
*
That’s what I like to interact with: his best shot at this topic.
*
1:54 I know that hearing your beliefs criticized can be uncomfortable and even painful I know what that’s like
*
Indeed. Maybe I’m weird, but I find it fun because it’s challenging, thought-provoking, and keeps us honest. As an apologist, it almost always stimulates new arguments in me, if I don’t concede the point (as I have many times). Dialogue helps us respect and understand each other a lot better, even if no one is dissuaded from their position, and that’s a good thing.
*
2:19 this is not a game; this is not just an intellectual exercise, and when we treat it like that it becomes ugly and cruel and it can destroy people. We’ve all seen people destroyed by the ugliness of apologetics and how that can go
*
Very true. I agree 100%. But I am quick to add that we also see millions of souls destroyed because they didn’t care about apologetics at all, or about how to integrate faith and reason, or about knowing why they believe what they say they already believe or want to believe or better understand, as the case may be. We must do apologetics with gentleness and love (1 Pet 3:15) or it’s worthless. Gavin is an excellent role model in that respect, and I always strive to do the same. I’m sure I don’t always succeed, but it’s my constant goal and vision, and has been since I began serious apologetics in 1981.
*
2:37 you should never cause any more pain than is necessary. Some pain and discomfort is inevitable when two different ideologies clash. It’s uncomfortable, it’s awkward, it’s hard, it’s frustrating at times, it’s jarring. So that’s just inevitable to some extent.
*
Indeed it is. It can also be fun and stimulating if we maintain an open mind and the proper humility. But in my experience, unfortunately most people don’t like to be disagreed with or challenged in any way, and very few have any interest in true dialogue.
*
4:04 I do I feel that love for these other traditions — for the people in them — but we should not hold back from contending for truth and seeking the truth with all of our heart
*
Amen; I do, too, and I agree. Seek the truth. My old Protestant campus ministry was called True Truth Ministries: from a phrase in Francis Schaeffer, whom Gavin mentioned and cited. I have immense respect for Protestants (many dear friends) and Protestantism, as I have stated and written about many times. And I have honest disagreements with them. The two are not mutually exclusive at all. In this seeking of truth, folks will continue to honestly disagree in good faith, and we mustn’t demonize them when they do.
*
4:17 I think the evidence against the Assumption of Mary is overwhelming. It gives every indication of being a post-apostolic accretion that seems to originate in heterodox groups and only slowly worms its way into the doctrine and piety and liturgy of the church over the course of many centuries, as we shall see. And yet it has been made by several churches into an obligatory irreformable part of the Christian faith
*
We say in reply that it can be grounded in the Bible — not explicitly proven, but shown to be harmonious with it, and even indicated in some ways. Protestants always seem to demand explicit proof of any doctrine, yet there is none at all for the canon of New Testament Scripture, and even historically it was only known in its complete form no earlier than 367 (in St. Athanasius). There is no explicit proof for sola Scriptura, as some Protestants are willing to admit (notably, recently, Gavin’s friend, the Lutheran apologist Jordan Cooper). It must be deduced from Scripture, just as the Assumption is. Lastly, Scripture never states that all doctrines must be explicitly proven from the Bible, and it does indicate an authoritative, doctrine-affirming Church and tradition.
*
I went through this business of doctrines being “an obligatory irreformable part of the Christian faith” in my last article: a reply to Gavin’s video on Mary’s Immaculate Conception, and noted several instances of Protestants making these demands, just as Catholics do (reading people out of Christianity if they disagree). So let’s have no more double standards. It gets very wearisome. I will point them out as I run across them, every time. That doesn’t help me be more popular or loved by one and all (Jesus said we inevitably wouldn’t be, anyway, if we truly follow Him), but it does keep me honest and truthful.
*
6:27 I’ve said this several times: it represents an area where our traditions (Protestant and Roman Catholic) are drifting further apart, and the same is true for the Immaculate Conception.
*
That’s largely true, but I would note in an ecumenical way that even Martin Luther accepted the truthfulness of the Immaculate Conception earlier in his life (up till at least 1527) — many Lutheran and other non-Catholic scholars verify this — and accepted an only slightly modified view of it for the rest of his life. I recently also wrote about Luther’s seeming lifelong personal acceptance of Mary’s Assumption. If he could do those things as the founder of Protestantism, perhaps there is more common ground, even with regard to these vexed issues, than either side usually realizes.
*
7:54 if something is declared as an infallible dogma, then that sets the stakes pretty high and it’s totally appropriate to give it some critical reflection
*
Absolutely, Bring it on. And we will defend Catholic dogmas (and return the favor and criticize what we believe to be false and unbiblical Protestant doctrines). Unfortunately, after we apologists and theologians do that, the dialogue usually ends and our critics disappear or discover that they have many more important things to do instead. To me, that’s when serious, constructive should begin: after both sides go “one round.” The second round and further rounds are what are most interesting and fun. But sadly, very very few are ever willing to pursue anything that far.
*
8:18 anathemas are not wrong in principle; anathemas are biblical (Galatians 1 or 1 Corinthians 16:22).
*
I made this point in my last article, too. Glad to see that Gavin agrees and notes this. I don’t see how he or any Christians who believes in biblical inspiration could disagree. Paul is very clear about it.
*
9:54 it appears to be something close to a scholarly consensus that the Assumption of Mary only comes into the church in the late 5th Century between 450 and 500.
*
In terms of being widespread or mentioned very much, I agree. And why was that? I would say that the slow development of Mariology was no different than many other doctrines where both sides agree (such as the creed and the canon and trinitarianism), per St. John Henry Newman’s historical analysis:
It is a less difficulty that the Papal supremacy was not formally acknowledged in the second century, than that there was no formal acknowledgment on the part of the Church of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity till the fourth. No doctrine is defined till it is violated. . . . If the Imperial Power checked the development of Councils, it availed also for keeping back the power of the Papacy. The Creed, the Canon, in like manner, both remained undefined. The Creed, the Canon, the Papacy, Ecumenical Councils, all began to form, as soon as the Empire relaxed its tyrannous oppression of the Church. (Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, 1845; revised 1878; Part I: ch. 4, sec. 3)
Newman in this same classic work gave the analogous example of original sin (accepted by Protestants and Catholics alike) as another slow-developing doctrine:
(2.) Original Sin
I have already remarked upon the historical fact, that the recognition of Original Sin, considered as the consequence of Adam’s fall, was, both as regards general acceptance and accurate understanding, a gradual process, not completed till the time of Augustine and Pelagius. St. Chrysostom lived close up to that date, but there are passages in his works, often quoted, which we should not expect to find worded as they stand, if they had been written fifty years later. It is commonly, and reasonably, said in explanation, that the fatalism, so prevalent in various shapes pagan and heretical, in the first centuries, was an obstacle to an accurate apprehension of the consequences of the fall, as the presence of the existing {127} idolatry was to the use of images. If this be so, we have here an instance of a doctrine held back for a time by circumstances, yet in the event forcing its way into its normal shape, and at length authoritatively fixed in it, that is, of a doctrine held implicitly, then asserting itself, and at length fully developed. (Ibid., Part I: ch. 4, sec. 1, 2)
Then he gave his opinion as to why Marian doctrines developed relatively late:
I have said that there was in the first ages no public and ecclesiastical recognition of the place which St. Mary holds in the Economy of grace; this was reserved for the fifth century, as the definition of our Lord’s proper Divinity had been the work of the fourth. There was a controversy contemporary with those already mentioned, I mean the Nestorian, which brought out the complement of the development, to which they had been subservient; and which, if I may so speak, supplied the subject of that august proposition of which Arianism had provided the predicate. In order to do honour to Christ, in order to defend the true doctrine of the Incarnation, in order to secure a right faith in the manhood of the Eternal Son, the Council of Ephesus determined the Blessed Virgin to be the Mother of God. Thus all heresies of that day, though opposite to each other, tended in a most wonderful way to her exaltation; and the School of Antioch, the fountain of primitive rationalism, led the Church to determine first the conceivable greatness of a creature, and then the incommunicable dignity of the Blessed Virgin. (Ibid., Part I: ch. 4, sec. 2, 10)
The title of theotokos, or “Mother of God,” — which Gavin agrees with and doesn’t make an issue of — was declared in 431 at the Council of Ephesus. So that was only 19 years before he says the doctrine of the Assumption started coming more into focus. The Two Natures of Christ, of course, were formulated also at this time, at the Council of Chalcedon in 451.
11:37 I reference scholars who say that, to invite people to see, because I don’t think people understand how big of a problem this dogma is. I don’t think they get how serious the problems are so I’m quoting these scholars to try to encourage people to look at what they’re willing to concede
It’s no more of a “problem” than are all the other doctrines (where we agree) — like the canon, the creed, original sin, trinitarianism, Two Natures of Christ, the personhood and Deity of the Holy Spirit, the dogma of theotokos –, that started rapidly developing in roughly the same time frame. It’s a non-issue, as Newman amply and ably explained.
***
“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,800+ articles, please follow my blog by signing up (with your email address) on the sidebar to the right (you may have to scroll down a bit), above where there is an icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. My blog was rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT: endorsed by influential Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Please also consider following me on Twitter / X and purchasing one or more of my 55 books. All of this helps me get more exposure, and (however little!) more income for my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!
***
13:34 Epiphanius [c. 310–320 – 403] says nothing about a bodily assumption to heaven. That has to be read into the text.
Not at all. I just wrote about this topic about five weeks ago on my Facebook page. He wrote:
And if I should say anything more in her praise, [she is] like Elijah, who was virgin from his mother’s womb, always remained so, and was taken up and has not seen death.” (Panarion, c. 378; “Against Collyridians”: from section 79 of The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis Books II and III. De Fide, second revised version, translated by Frank Williams, Boston: Brill, 2013, p. 641; my italics)
“Taken up” pretty obviously refers to her Assumption. And this was written about 72 years before Gavin claimed “the Assumption of Mary. . . comes into the church” (i.e., after 450). Even the canon of the New Testament had not yet been defined at that time. St. Athanasius was the first to name all 27 books in one place only about eleven years earlier. So, the Assumption is a “late doctrine”? Yes, provided we also say the same about many other far less controversial doctrines. But here, Gavin was unaware that Epiphanius expressly asserted Mary’s Assumption. Tim Staples (whose book on Mary Gavin mentioned), observed:
St. Epiphanius clearly indicates his personal agreement with the idea that Mary was assumed into heaven without ever having died. He will elsewhere clarify the fact that he is not certain, and no one is, at least not definitively so, about whether or not she died. But he never says the same about the Assumption itself. That did not seem to be in doubt. By comparing her to Elijah he indicates that she was taken up bodily just as the Church continues to teach 1,600 years later.
Looks pretty straightforward to me. I don’t know why Gavin has such a hard time seeing that he affirmed the Assumption of Mary. “Taken up” can only mean so many things, and if it is directly compared to Elijah, it’s definitely an Assumption up into heaven. Elijah did so in his body as well. He comes back to the topic later in his video, so we’ll see what he says (I am answering as I read the transcript, per my usual custom).
* Tim Staples brings up another fourth-century reference:
According to Fr. [Michael] O’Carroll (in his [2000] book, Theotokos: A Theological Encyclopedia of the Blessed Virgin Mary, 388), we now have what some believe to be a fourth-century homily on the prophet Simeon and the Blessed Virgin Mary by Timothy, a priest of Jerusalem, which asserts Mary is “immortal to the present time through him who had his abode in her and who assumed and raised her above the higher regions.”
Gavin then claims (15:39) that Isidore of Seville (c. 560 –636) is the next patristic witness to the Assumption. He overlooked Gregory of Tours, who wrote a little earlier:
The Apostles took up her body on a bier and placed it in a tomb; and they guarded it, expecting the Lord to come. And behold, again the Lord stood by them; and the holy body having been received, He commanded that it be taken in a cloud into paradise: where now, rejoined to the soul, [Mary] rejoices with the Lord’s chosen ones . . . (Eight Books of Miracles, 1:4; between 575-593; see others from after that time)
21:06 the Assumption gets traction within the church in the late 5th century. The book of Mary’s Repose is a Gnostic legend. This is the first text where you ever have a bodily assumption[of] Mary.
I have shown that this occurred about a hundred years earlier with Epiphanius and Timothy, a priest of Jerusalem (orthodox sources: not heretics).
Gavin gets back to Epiphanius (41:13) and attempts to make contextual arguments against his assertion that she was bodily assumed. I just don’t see it. Maybe I’m dense (who knows?). Readers may consult the text, that I link to (go to p. 641 and read all the context you like). I don’t see how the portion I cited doesn’t mean her Assumption.
44:35 the woman in Revelation 12 is not Mary
I have contended that the text has a dual application: to Mary and to the Church; most obviously referring to Mary in verse 5: “she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne”. It’s pretty difficult not to apply that to Mary, since her Son is so obviously the Messiah, Jesus. See, for example:
Revelation 19:11-16 Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! He who sat upon it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. [12] His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems; and he has a name inscribed which no one knows but himself. [13] He is clad in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. [14] And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, followed him on white horses. [15] From his mouth issues a sharp sword with which to smite the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron; he will tread the wine press of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. [16] On his robe and on his thigh he has a name inscribed, King of kings and Lord of lords. (cf. Ps 2:7-9)
So who is Jesus’ mother? Obviously, Mary of Nazareth. It can’t be, figuratively the Church, because Jesus established the Church (Matthew 16). It didn’t give birth to Him. The Bible never uses a terminology of Jesus being a “child” (Rev 12:5) of the Church. He is the child of God the Father (His Divine Nature) and of Mary (as a person with both a Divine and human nature). The Church is “of Christ”; Christ is not “of the Church”; let alone its “child.” Those categories are biblically ludicrous and indeed almost blasphemous. Only Jesus is connected directly with that, because He is God. Revelation 7:17 refers to “the Lamb in the midst of the throne.” Revelation 21: 1 and 3 reference “the throne of God and of the Lamb.” Compare Matthew 19:28; 25:31; Hebrews 1:8.
But Gavin says no; so how would he overcome this evidence? St. Cardinal Newman wrote:
What I would maintain is this, that the Holy Apostle would not have spoken of the Church under this particular image, unless there had existed a blessed Virgin Mary, who was exalted on high and the object of veneration to all the faithful. No one doubts that the “man-child” spoken of is an allusion to our Lord; why then is not “the Woman” an allusion to his mother? (“Letter to Pusey,” in Difficulties of Anglicans, Vol. 2, 1875)
And if it is Mary in this passage (as well as the Church), then we have an indication of both her veneration and glorification in heaven, akin to the Assumption. Many classic Protestant commentators agree regarding Revelation 12:5, too. Baptist A. T. Robertson (Word Pictures in the New Testament – six volumes), says of Rev. 12:5: “There is here, of course, direct reference to the birth of Jesus from Mary”. Eerdmans Bible Commentary likewise states: “the ‘catching up’ is sufficiently similar to the victorious ascension of Jesus to make plain its real meaning in this context.” Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary states: “rod of iron . . . ch. 2:27; Psalm 2:9, which passages prove the Lord Jesus to be meant. Any interpretation which ignores this must be wrong.” It also notes the reference to the ascension.
Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers states: “There can be no doubt that this man child is Christ. The combination of features is too distinct to admit of doubt, it is the one who will feed His flock like a shepherd (Isaiah 40:12), who is to have, not His own people, but all nations as His inheritance (Psalm 2:7-9), and whose rule over them is to be supreme and irresistible.”
*
Meyer’s NT Commentary: “These words taken from Psalm 2:9 (LXX.), which are referred also to Christ in Revelation 19:15, make it indubitable that the child born of the woman is the Messiah; but the designation of Christ by these words of the Messianic Psalm is in this passage the most appropriate and significant, since the fact is made prominent that this child just born is the one who with irresistible power will visit in judgment the antichristian heathen.”
Pulpit Commentary: “This reference and Psalm 2:9 leave no doubt as to the identification of the man child. It is Christ who is intended. The same expression is used of him in Revelation 19, where he is definitely called the “Word of God.” And her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne. The sentence seems plainly to refer to the ascension of Christ and his subsequent abiding in heaven, from whence he rules all nations.”
Coffman’s Commentaries on the Bible: “These two clauses open and close this verse; and the whole biography of the earthy life, ministry, death, burial, and resurrection of the Son of God is here compressed into nineteen words! The critics have really had a fit about this. Some have even denied that the birth of Christ is mentioned here. . . . Despite such views, the pregnant woman, the travailing in birth, and the delivery of a man child in this passage can mean nothing else except the birth of Christ; and the compression of Jesus’ whole biography into such a short space is perfectly in harmony with what the author did by presenting the entire Old Testament history in a single verse (Revelation 12:4). To suppose that the birth is not included here would make the passage mean that the woman brought forth his death and resurrection; because the emphatic statements of her pregnancy and her being delivered clearly makes her the achiever of whatever happened in Revelation 12:5. This therefore has to be a reference to Jesus’ physical birth in Bethlehem.”
47:21 even if Revelation 12 was about Mary it simply says nothing about a bodily assumption
We’re not claiming that it is an explicit description of the Assumption; only that it is consistent with an assumed Mary exalted in terms of veneration, in heaven. Gavin flat-out denied that Mary was referred to, and I submit that that is impossible to do in light of verse 5.
47:28 the woman is seen in heaven in verse 1 prior to all of the events of the chapter; prior to the birth of the Messiah in verse 5 prior to her flight . . .
Verse 2 states: “she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth.” This is referring back to the woman in verse 1: “a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.” Then verse 5 clearly is talking about the same person: “she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne.” Therefore, Mary is the woman of Revelation 12, at least in these passages (most relevant to our topic). Other parts apply to the Church.
47:45 all of that is subsequent to the initial vision of her in heaven, so the idea that Mary was bodily assumed to Heaven at the end of her life after these events happened is completely foreign to the passage
As I just showed, the person in verses 1, 2, and 5 must be the same person, if words and grammar and logic mean anything at all.
As Gavin mostly did in his video on the Immaculate Conception (which I also critiqued), he completely ignored Catholic biblical argumentation regarding the Assumption. Now, maybe he intended for this to simply address historical questions. That’s fine. But his title was, “Why Mary’s Assumption Is Indefensible,” and it’s certainly defensible from the Bible. I will present the main lines of that argument now, in conclusion, since Gavin ignored it.
Christians already believed in extraordinary non-death departures from this life in the case of Enoch (Heb 11:5; cf. Gen 5:24), Elijah (2 Ki 2:1,11), and many during the Second Coming (1 Thess 4:15-17), and also similar dramatic “going-up-to-heaven” events after having died, in the case of the two witnesses of Revelation (11:7-12) and our Lord Jesus Himself. And we have St. Paul reporting that he went up to heaven before he died (2 Cor 12:1-4): possibly in his body; possibly not (12:3), and St. John also seems to be in heaven witnessing many things (the entire book of Revelation). That’s seven biblical analogies to Mary’s Assumption, to one degree or another!
The Church hasn’t declared whether Mary died or not. All of these events occur by virtue of the power of God, not the intrinsic ability of the persons. Jesus ascended by His own power, but the Blessed Virgin Mary was assumed by the power of her Son Jesus’ victory over death. Hers was an “immediate resurrection.” One day all who are saved will be bodily resurrected. Mary was the first after the Resurrection: quite appropriately (and even, I submit, “expected”), since she was Jesus’ own Mother.
Catholics believe that all Catholic and Christian doctrines must be in harmony with Scripture; must not contradict it; also, that some doctrines are able to be supported only indirectly, implicitly, or by deduction from other related Bible passages. All Catholic doctrines have scriptural support in some sense (this is my main specialty as an apologist). We also believe in Sacred Tradition: itself always in harmony with Scripture. Sometimes (as in the present case), a doctrine is “stronger” in Tradition.
I agree that there is no direct “proof” of Mary’s Assumption in Scripture. But there is strong deductive and analogical evidence (the analogous examples of “going directly up to heaven” events, shown above). The deductive argument has to do with the “consequences” of Mary’s Immaculate Conception: a doctrine more directly indicated in Scripture (e.g., Lk 1:28). Bodily death and decay are the result of sin and the fall of man (Gen 3:16-19; Ps 16:10). An absence of actual and original sin would allow for instant bodily resurrection.
It’s as if Mary goes back to before the fall (for this reason the Church fathers call her the “New Eve”). Scripture tells us the consequences of original sin; these would then be reversed by Mary not being subject to either original sin or the results. If one is completely without sin, this arguably includes original sin, and without original sin, there is no decay; ergo, the Assumption follows as a matter of course.
Biblically speaking (if not according to strict logic), I don’t think there is anything that could cause death + bodily corruption other than original sin. In other words, we are in a supernatural / spiritual realm in the Bible that is only taught to us through revelation. In that “world” of thinking, it seems to me that there is a one-to-one relation:
1) Original sin ——> bodily corruption + spiritual death.
2) Removal of original sin, or a case where original sin never occurred —–> no spiritual death and no bodily corruption.
Jesus’ Resurrection makes possible universal resurrection (1 Cor 15:13, 16), and redemption of our bodies as well as souls (1 Cor 15:20-23). Mary’s Assumption is the “first fruits,” sign, and type of the general resurrection of all (created) mankind; she exemplifies the age in which death and sin are conquered once and for all (1 Cor 15:26).
1 Corinthians 15:17-26 (RSV) If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied. But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death.
What better person to follow Jesus in resurrection than His own mother, who made the way of salvation possible at the Annunciation? Though this is no ironclad proof, on the other hand, it is a very plausible scenario, and contradicts nothing in the Bible.
Protestant apologist Norman Geisler admits:
[T]he Bible does teach implicitly and logically, if not formally and explicitly, that the Bible alone is the only infallible basis for faith and practice. (Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, co-author, Ralph E. Mackenzie, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1995, 184; emphases added)
He denies that there is either “formal” or “explicit” biblical proof for this foundation of Protestant theology and its very rule of faith. So if even sola Scriptura lacks this sort of biblical proof (and I would also deny that one can find even implicit or logical proof for it in Scripture), why is it required of Catholics to provide more for a doctrine like the Assumption? There are such things as “implicit” and deductive proofs from Scripture or at least indications. Nothing in Scripture contradicts the possibility of Mary being assumed into heaven (and many parallels show it to be entirely possible and plausible).
As with Mary’s Immaculate Conception, Catholics believe that this event was “fitting” and proper, as opposed to being intrinsically necessary. The word “fitting” is used seven times in the proclamation of her Assumption as a dogma in 1950. St. Cardinal Newman makes an extended argument for Mary’s Assumption from “fittingness”:
It was surely fitting then, it was becoming, that she should be taken up into heaven and not lie in the grave till Christ’s second coming, who had passed a life of sanctity and of miracle such as hers. . . . Who can conceive, my brethren, that God should so repay the debt, which He condescended to owe to His Mother, for the elements of His human body, as to allow the flesh and blood from which it was taken to moulder in the grave? . . . Why should she share the curse of Adam, who had no share in his fall? “Dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return,” was the sentence upon sin; she then, who was not a sinner, fitly never saw corruption. She died, then, as we hold, because even our Lord and Saviour died . . . by the grace of Christ which in her had anticipated sin, which had filled her with light, which had purified her flesh from all defilement, she was also saved from disease and malady, and all that weakens and decays the bodily frame. Original sin had not been found in her . . . If the Mother of Emmanuel ought to be the first of creatures in sanctity and in beauty; if it became her to be free from all sin from the very first, and from the moment she received her first grace to begin to merit more; and if such as was her beginning, such was her end, her conception immaculate and her death an assumption . . . (Discourses Addressed to Mixed Congregations [1849; London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1906), Discourse 18: “On the Fitness of the Glories of Mary”)
Protestant anti-Catholic apologist Jason Engwer, who runs the Triablogue site, took some potshots against the Assumption of Mary in his article, Luke Against Roman Catholic Mariology (10-24-21). I counter with similar arguments, using his incessantly skeptical, cynical methodology (two can play at this game). Jason wrote:
Similarly, she’s mentioned in Acts 1:14, but not in the three decades of church history narrated afterward. No assumption of Mary is mentioned either. . . . if she died within the history covered by the document, especially if she died earlier rather than later, why is there no mention of an assumption? . . .
Luke’s writings can be an important part of a cumulative argument when considering an issue like the assumption of Mary. The more sources we have that show interest in relevant subjects, yet don’t mention an assumption of Mary, the less likely it is that she was assumed (e.g., Luke’s failure to mention an assumption despite multiple references to Jesus’ ascension, . . .) . . . Luke is the sort of author who would have been in an unusually good position to have referred to an assumption if one had occurred.
Applying the technique of analogical argument, I countered this, bringing about what is known in logic as a reductio ad absurdum (reduction to absurdity):
Matthew’s and John’s Gospels can be an important part of a cumulative argument when considering an issue like the ascension of Jesus. The more sources we have that show interest in relevant subjects, yet don’t mention an ascension of Jesus, the less likely it is that He ascended to heaven (e.g., Matthew’s and John’s failure to mention His ascension . . .) . . . Matthew and John are the sorts of authors who would have been in an unusually good position to have referred to His ascension if it had occurred. They wrote a lot in relevant contexts, including a substantial amount about Jesus, . . .
By the way, the book of Acts “is usually dated to around 80–90 AD, although some scholars suggest 90–110”: according to Wikipedia. St. Paul’s death, according to the Wikipedia article about him, “is believed to have occurred after the Great Fire of Rome in July 64, but before the last year of Nero’s reign, in 68.” St. Peter’s death, in the article devoted to him –according to “Early Church tradition” was “at the time of the Great Fire of Rome in the year 64.” Yet neither event is mentioned in the book of Acts.
No martyrdoms of St. Paul or St. Peter are mentioned [in Acts] either. . . . if they died within the history covered by the document, especially if they died earlier rather than later, why is there no mention of their martyrdoms? . . . Luke’s writings can be an important part of a cumulative argument when considering an issue like the martyrdoms of St. Paul and St. Peter. The more sources we have that show interest in relevant subjects, yet don’t mention martyrdoms of St. Paul and St. Peter, the less likely it is that they were martyred (e.g., Luke’s failure to mention martyrdoms of St. Paul and St. Peter . . .) . . . Luke is the sort of author who would have been in an unusually good position to have referred to the martyrdoms of St. Paul and St. Peter if they had occurred. He wrote a lot in relevant contexts, including a substantial amount about St. Paul and St. Peter, . . .
Mark’s and John’s Gospels can be an important part of a cumulative argument when considering an issue like the virgin birth in Bethlehem of Jesus. The more sources we have that show interest in relevant subjects, yet don’t mention the virgin birth in Bethlehem of Jesus, the less likely it is that He was born of a virgin in Bethlehem (e.g., Mark’s and John’s failure to mention His virgin birth in Bethlehem, and Mark’s failure to mention Bethlehem at all in his entire Gospel . . .) . . . Mark and John are the sorts of author who would have been in an unusually good position to have referred to the virgin birth in Bethlehem of Jesus if it had occurred. They wrote a lot in relevant contexts, including a substantial amount about Jesus, . . .
Matthew’s and Mark’s and Luke’s Gospels can be an important part of a cumulative argument when considering an issue like the raising of Lazarus from the dead by Jesus. The more sources we have that show interest in relevant subjects, yet don’t mention the raising of Lazarus, the less likely it is that Lazarus was raised by Jesus (e.g., Matthew’s and Mark’s and Luke’s failure to mention His being raised from the dead by Jesus . . .) . . . Matthew, Mark, and Luke are the sorts of authors who would have been in an unusually good position to have referred to the raising of Lazarus from the dead by Jesus if it had occurred. They wrote a lot in relevant contexts, including a substantial amount about Jesus, . . .
Etc., etc. One gets the analogical / satirical point by now . . . Folks don’t always mention every particular thing.
*
***
*
Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 4,800+ free online articles or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
Photo credit: Madonna in Glory (c. 1670), by Carlo Dolci (1616-1686) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
Summary: I respond to a video by Reformed Baptist apologist Gavin Ortlund, explaining why Protestants reject the Assumption of Mary. Unlike him, I discuss relevant Scripture, too.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In