2024-11-19T20:41:52-04:00

+ Catalogue of Sixty Traits That Apostates Formerly Possessed When They Were in God’s Good Graces

Photo credit: cover of my book. published by Logos / Faithlife / Verbum in March 2012.

[all passages from RSV. Many “thanks” to the good old reference work, Nave’s Topical Bible (1897). Nave (1841-1917) was a Methodist, so he agreed — as an Arminian / Wesleyan — that one could fall away from faith; hence, he didn’t overlook that teaching in his Bible references]

*****

Leviticus 26:15 . . . you spurn my statutes, . . . you will not do all my commandments, but break my covenant,

Numbers 14:22-23 none of the men who have seen my glory and my signs which I wrought in Egypt and in the wilderness, and yet have put me to the proof these ten times and have not hearkened to my voice, [23] shall see the land which I swore to give to their fathers; and none of those who despised me shall see it.

Deuteronomy 4:9 “Only take heed, and keep your soul diligently, lest you forget the things which your eyes have seen, and lest they depart from your heart . . .”

Deuteronomy 8:11 “Take heed lest you forget the LORD your God, by not keeping his commandments and his ordinances and his statutes, . . .”

Deuteronomy 8:19 And if you forget the LORD your God and go after other gods and serve them and worship them, I solemnly warn you this day that you shall surely perish.

Deuteronomy 29:18 Beware lest there be among you a man or woman or family or tribe, whose heart turns away this day from the LORD our God to go and serve the gods of those nations; lest there be among you a root bearing poisonous and bitter fruit,

Deuteronomy 29:25-26 . . . they forsook the covenant of the LORD, the God of their fathers, which he made with them when he brought them out of the land of Egypt, [26] and went and served other gods and worshiped them . . .

Deuteronomy 31:16 . . . this people will rise and play the harlot after the strange gods of the land, where they go to be among them, and they will forsake me and break my covenant which I have made with them.

Deuteronomy 31:29 For I know that after my death you will surely act corruptly, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and in the days to come evil will befall you, because you will do what is evil in the sight of the LORD, provoking him to anger through the work of your hands.

Deuteronomy 32:15 . . . he forsook God who made him, and scoffed at the Rock of his salvation.

1 Samuel 15:11 . . . Saul . . . has turned back from following me . . .

1 Samuel 15:23 “. . . Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, he has also rejected you from being king.”

1 Samuel 15:26 And Samuel said to Saul, “I will not return with you; for you have rejected the word of the LORD, and the LORD has rejected you from being king over Israel.” (cf. 16:1)

1 Samuel 16:14 Now the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD tormented him.

1 Samuel 18:12 Saul was afraid of David, because the LORD was with him but had departed from Saul.

1 Kings 11:4-6, 9-10  For when Solomon was old his wives turned away his heart after other gods; and his heart was not wholly true to the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father. [5] For Solomon went after Ash’toreth the goddess of the Sido’nians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. [6] So Solomon did what was evil in the sight of the LORD, and did not wholly follow the LORD, as David his father had done. . . . [9] And the LORD was angry with Solomon, because his heart had turned away from the LORD, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice, [10] and had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods; but he did not keep what the LORD commanded.

1 Kings 11:33 . . . he has forsaken me, and worshiped Ash’toreth the goddess of the Sido’nians, Chemosh the god of Moab, and Milcom the god of the Ammonites, and has not walked in my ways, doing what is right in my sight and keeping my statutes and my ordinances, as David his father did.

2 Kings 18:12 . . . they did not obey the voice of the LORD their God but transgressed his covenant, even all that Moses the servant of the LORD commanded; they neither listened nor obeyed.

2 Kings 21:22 he forsook the LORD, the God of his fathers, and did not walk in the way of the LORD.

1 Chronicles 28:9 . . . if you forsake him, he will cast you off for ever.

2 Chronicles 12:1-2 When the rule of Rehobo’am was established and was strong, he forsook the law of the LORD, and all Israel with him.[2] In the fifth year of King Rehobo’am, because they had been unfaithful to the LORD, Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem

2 Chronicles 13:11 . . . we keep the charge of the LORD our God, but you have forsaken him.

2 Chronicles 15:1-2 The Spirit of God came upon Azari’ah the son of Oded, [2] and he went out to meet Asa, and said to him, “Hear me, Asa, and all Judah and Benjamin: The LORD is with you, while you are with him. If you seek him, he will be found by you, but if you forsake him, he will forsake you.

2 Chronicles 24:24 . . . they had forsaken the LORD, the God of their fathers. . . . (cf. 24:20)

2 Chronicles 25:1-2, 14, 27 Amazi’ah was twenty-five years old when he began to reign, . . . [2] And he did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, yet not with a blameless heart. [14] After Amazi’ah came from the slaughter of the E’domites, he brought the gods of the men of Se’ir, and set them up as his gods, and worshiped them, making offerings to them. . . . [27] . . . he turned away from the LORD . . .

2 Chronicles 26:4-5, 16, 20-21 And he did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, according to all that his father Amazi’ah had done. [5] He set himself to seek God in the days of Zechari’ah, who instructed him in the fear of God; and as long as he sought the LORD, God made him prosper.  . . . [16] But when he was strong he grew proud, to his destruction. For he was false to the LORD his God, and entered the temple of the LORD to burn incense on the altar of incense. . . . [20] And Azari’ah the chief priest, and all the priests, looked at him, and behold, he was leprous in his forehead! And they thrust him out quickly, and he himself hastened to go out, because the LORD had smitten him. [21] And King Uzzi’ah was a leper to the day of his death, and being a leper dwelt in a separate house, for he was excluded from the house of the LORD. And Jotham his son was over the king’s household, governing the people of the land.

2 Chronicles 29:6, 8 For our fathers have been unfaithful and have done what was evil in the sight of the LORD our God; they have forsaken him, and have turned away their faces from the habitation of the LORD, and turned their backs. . . . [8] Therefore the wrath of the LORD came on Judah and Jerusalem, and he has made them an object of horror, of astonishment, and of hissing, as you see with your own eyes.

Ezra 8:22 . . . “The hand of our God is for good upon all that seek him, and the power of his wrath is against all that forsake him.”

Nehemiah 9:26-27 “Nevertheless they were disobedient and rebelled against thee and cast thy law behind their back and killed thy prophets, who had warned them in order to turn them back to thee, and they committed great blasphemies. [27] Therefore thou didst give them into the hand of their enemies, . . .

Job 34:26-27 He strikes them for their wickedness in the sight of men, [27] because they turned aside from following him, and had no regard for any of his ways,

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

Psalm 78:10-11 They did not keep God’s covenant, but refused to walk according to his law. [11] They forgot what he had done, and the miracles that he had shown them.

Psalm 78:40-42 How often they rebelled against him in the wilderness and grieved him in the desert! [41] They tested him again and again, and provoked the Holy One of Israel. [42] They did not keep in mind his power, or the day when he redeemed them from the foe;

Psalm 78:56-57 Yet they tested and rebelled against the Most High God, and did not observe his testimonies, [57] but turned away and acted treacherously like their fathers; they twisted like a deceitful bow.

Proverbs 2:17, 19 who forsakes the companion of her youth and forgets the covenant of her God; . . . [19] none who go to her come back nor do they regain the paths of life.

Isaiah 1:4 Ah, sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, offspring of evildoers, sons who deal corruptly! They have forsaken the LORD, they have despised the Holy One of Israel, they are utterly estranged.

Isaiah 1:28 But rebels and sinners shall be destroyed together, and those who forsake the LORD shall be consumed.

Isaiah 5:24-25 they have rejected the law of the LORD of hosts, and have despised the word of the Holy One of Israel. [25] Therefore the anger of the LORD was kindled against his people, . . .

Isaiah 17:10 For you have forgotten the God of your salvation, and have not remembered the Rock of your refuge; . . .

Isaiah 24:5 . . . they have transgressed the laws, violated the statutes, broken the everlasting covenant.

Isaiah 31:6 Turn to him from whom you have deeply revolted, O people of Israel.

Isaiah 65:11 . . . you who forsake the LORD, . . .

***

“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,900+ articles, please follow my blog by signing up (with your email address) on the sidebar to the right (you may have to scroll down a bit), above where there is an icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. My blog was rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT: endorsed by influential Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Actually, I partner with Kenny Burchard on the YouTube channel, Catholic Bible Highlights. Please subscribe there, too! Please also consider following me on Twitter / X and purchasing one or more of my 55 books. All of this helps me get more exposure, and (however little!) more income for my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!

***

Jeremiah 2:11, 13  Has a nation changed its gods, even though they are no gods? But my people have changed their glory for that which does not profit. [13] . . . they have forsaken me, . . . (cf. 2:17, 19)

Jeremiah 2:27 . . . they have turned their back to me, . . . (cf. 2:32)

Jeremiah 3:6 The LORD said to me in the days of King Josi’ah: “Have you seen what she did, that faithless one, Israel, how she went up on every high hill and under every green tree, and there played the harlot?” (cf. 3:20, 22)

Jeremiah 3:13 . . . you rebelled against the LORD your God . . .

Jeremiah 3:21 . . . they have perverted their way, they have forgotten the LORD their God.

Jeremiah 5:19 . . . you have forsaken me and served foreign gods . . .

Jeremiah 5:23 But this people has a stubborn and rebellious heart; they have turned aside and gone away.

Jeremiah 8:5-6 Why then has this people turned away in perpetual backsliding? They hold fast to deceit, they refuse to return. [6] I have given heed and listened, but they have not spoken aright; no man repents of his wickedness, . . .

Jeremiah 11:9-11 Again the LORD said to me, “There is revolt among the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. [10] They have turned back to the iniquities of their forefathers, who refused to hear my words; they have gone after other gods to serve them; the house of Israel and the house of Judah have broken my covenant which I made with their fathers. [11] Therefore, thus says the LORD, Behold, I am bringing evil upon them which they cannot escape; though they cry to me, I will not listen to them.

Jeremiah 11:16-17 The LORD once called you, ‘A green olive tree, fair with goodly fruit’; but with the roar of a great tempest he will set fire to it, and its branches will be consumed. [17] The LORD of hosts, who planted you, has pronounced evil against you, because of the evil which the house of Israel and the house of Judah have done, provoking me to anger by burning incense to Ba’al.”

Jeremiah 13:25 . . . you have forgotten me and trusted in lies.

Jeremiah 17:5 Thus says the LORD: “Cursed is the man . . . whose heart turns away from the LORD.”

Jeremiah 17:13 O LORD, the hope of Israel, all who forsake thee shall be put to shame; those who turn away from thee shall be written in the earth, for they have forsaken the LORD, the fountain of living water.

Jeremiah 18:15 . . . my people have forgotten me, they burn incense to false gods . . .

Jeremiah 19:4 . . . the people have forsaken me, and have profaned this place by burning incense in it to other gods . . .

Jeremiah 50:6 “My people have been lost sheep; their shepherds have led them astray, turning them away on the mountains; from mountain to hill they have gone, they have forgotten their fold.”

Ezekiel 2:3-4 And he said to me, “Son of man, I send you to the people of Israel, to a nation of rebels, who have rebelled against me; they and their fathers have transgressed against me to this very day. [4] The people also are impudent and stubborn: . . . (cf. 2:5-8)

Ezekiel 3:20 Again, if a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and I lay a stumbling block before him, he shall die; because you have not warned him, he shall die for his sin, and his righteous deeds which he has done shall not be remembered . . .

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

Ezekiel 23:35 . . . thus says the Lord GOD: . . . you have forgotten me and cast me behind your back . . .

Ezekiel 33:12 And you, son of man, say to your people, The righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him when he transgresses; and as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall by it when he turns from his wickedness; and the righteous shall not be able to live by his righteousness when he sins.

Ezekiel 33:18 When the righteous turns from his righteousness, and commits iniquity, he shall die for it.

Hosea 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; because you have rejected knowledge, I reject you from being a priest to me. And since you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children.

Hosea 6:7 . . . they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me.

Hosea 8:14 . . . Israel has forgotten his Maker . . .

Hosea 9:1 . . . you have played the harlot, forsaking your God. . . .

Hosea 11:7 My people are bent on turning away from me; . . .

Hosea 13:16 Sama’ria shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God . . .

Hosea 14:1 Return, O Israel, to the LORD your God, for you have stumbled because of your iniquity.

Amos 2:4 . . . they have rejected the law of the LORD, and have not kept his statutes, but their lies have led them astray, . . .

Zephaniah 1:4, 6 “I will stretch out my hand against Judah, and against all the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and I will cut off from this place the remnant of Ba’al . . . [6] those who have turned back from following the LORD, . . .

Malachi 3:7 From the days of your fathers you have turned aside from my statutes and have not kept them. Return to me, and I will return to you, says the LORD of hosts. But you say, ‘How shall we return?’

***

Matthew 5:13 You are the salt of the earth; but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trodden under foot by men.

Matthew 24:10-13 And then many will fall away, . . . [11] And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. [12] And because wickedness is multiplied, most men’s love will grow cold. [13] But he who endures to the end will be saved. (cf. 10:22)

Luke 8:13-14 And the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear the word, receive it with joy; but these have no root, they believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away. [14] And as for what fell among the thorns, they are those who hear, but as they go on their way they are choked by the cares and riches and pleasures of life, and their fruit does not mature.

Luke 9:62 Jesus said to him, “No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God.”

Luke 22:31-32 “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, [32] but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.”

John 6:66 After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.

John 15:1-2 “I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. [2] Every branch of mine that bears no fruit, he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit.

John 16:1 I have said all this to you to keep you from falling away.

Acts 7:39 Our fathers refused to obey him, but thrust him aside, . . .

Acts 11:23 . . . he exhorted them all to remain faithful to the Lord with steadfast purpose;

Romans 11:20-22 . . . They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast only through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe. [21] For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. [22] Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off.

Romans 14:4 . . . It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Master is able to make him stand.

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

1 Corinthians 10:5-6 Nevertheless with most of them God was not pleased; for they were overthrown in the wilderness. [6] Now these things are warnings for us, not to desire evil as they did.

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

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

2 Corinthians 1:24 . . . you stand firm in your faith.

2 Corinthians 12:20 For I fear that perhaps I may come and find you not what I wish . . .

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

Galatians 1:6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel

Galatians 3:1-4 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? [2] Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law, or by hearing with faith? [3] Are you so foolish? Having begun with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh? [4] Did you experience so many things in vain? — if it really is in vain.

Galatians 4:9 but now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and beggarly elemental spirits, whose slaves you want to be once more?

Galatians 5:1 . . . stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery . . .

Galatians 5:4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

Galatians 5:7 You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth?

Galatians 5:19-21 Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, [20] idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit, [21] envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Ephesians 5:5-6 Be sure of this, that no fornicator or impure man, or one who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. [6] Let no one deceive you with empty words, for it is because of these things that the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.

Ephesians 6:10-13 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. [11] Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. [12] For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. [13] Therefore take the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

Ephesians 6:18 Pray at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints,

Philippians 3:11-13 that if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. [12] Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. [13] Brethren, I do not consider that I have made it my own; . . .

Colossians 1:22-23 he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him, [23] provided that you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel which you heard, . . .

2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come, unless the rebellion [KJV: “a falling away”] comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of perdition,

1 Timothy 1:19 . . . By rejecting conscience, certain persons have made shipwreck of their faith,

1 Timothy 2:15 Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

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

1 Timothy 5:8 If any one does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his own family, he has disowned the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

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

1 Timothy 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evils; it is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced their hearts with many pangs.

2 Timothy 1:14 guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.

2 Timothy 1:15 You are aware that all who are in Asia turned away from me, and among them Phy’gelus and Hermog’enes.

2 Timothy 2:12 . . . if we deny him, he also will deny us;

2 Timothy 2:16-18 Avoid such godless chatter, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, [17] and their talk will eat its way like gangrene. Among them are Hymenae’us and Phile’tus, [18] who have swerved from the truth by holding that the resurrection is past already. They are upsetting the faith of some.

2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, [4] and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths.

2 Timothy 4:7-8 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. [8] Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that Day, and not only to me but also to all who have loved his appearing.

Hebrews 2:1 Therefore we must pay the closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it.

Hebrews 3:6 And we are his house if we hold fast our confidence and pride in our hope.

Hebrews 3:12 Take care, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God.

Hebrews 3:13 But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called “today,” that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.

Hebrews 3:14 For we share in Christ, if only we hold our first confidence firm to the end,

Hebrews 3:15 . . . it is said, “Today, when you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion.”

Hebrews 3:18-19 And to whom did he swear that they should never enter his rest, but to those who were disobedient? [19] So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief.

Hebrews 4:1 Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest remains, let us fear lest any of you be judged to have failed to reach it.

Hebrews 4:5-6 And again in this place he said, “They shall never enter my rest.” [6] Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience,

Hebrews 4:11 Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, that no one fall by the same sort of disobedience.

Hebrews 6:4-6 For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, [5] and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, [6] if they then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt.

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

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

Hebrews 10:26-29 For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, [27] but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries. [28] A man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses. [29] How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace?

Hebrews 10:36 For you have need of endurance, so that you may do the will of God and receive what is promised.

Hebrews 10:38-39 “but my righteous one shall live by faith, and if he shrinks back, my soul has no pleasure in him.” [39] But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and keep their souls.

Hebrews 12:15-16 See to it that no one fail to obtain the grace of God; that no “root of bitterness” spring up and cause trouble, and by it the many become defiled; [16] that no one be immoral or irreligious like Esau, who sold his birthright for a single meal.

Hebrews 13:9 Do not be led away by diverse and strange teachings; for it is well that the heart be strengthened by grace, . . .

James 1:14-15  but each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. [15] Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin; and sin when it is full-grown brings forth death.

1 Peter 1:14 As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance,

1 Peter 1:17 And if you invoke as Father him who judges each one impartially according to his deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile.

1 Peter 5:8-9 Be sober, be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking some one to devour. [9] Resist him, firm in your faith, . . .

2 Peter 2:15 Forsaking the right way they have gone astray; they have followed the way of Balaam, the son of Be’or, who loved gain from wrongdoing,

2 Peter 2:17-22 These are waterless springs and mists driven by a storm; for them the nether gloom of darkness has been reserved. [18] For, uttering loud boasts of folly, they entice with licentious passions of the flesh men who have barely escaped from those who live in error. [19] They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption; for whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved. [20] For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overpowered, the last state has become worse for them than the first. [21] For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. [22] It has happened to them according to the true proverb, The dog turns back to his own vomit, and the sow is washed only to wallow in the mire.

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

2 John 7-9 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, men who will not acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh; such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist. [8] Look to yourselves, that you may not lose what you have worked for, but may win a full reward. [9] Any one who goes ahead and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God; he who abides in the doctrine has both the Father and the Son.

Revelation 2:4-5 But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first. [5] Remember then from what you have fallen, repent and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.

Revelation 2:10 Do not fear what you are about to suffer. Behold, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and for ten days you will have tribulation. Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life.

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

Revelation 3:5 He who conquers shall be clad thus in white garments, and I will not blot his name out of the book of life; I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels.

Revelation 3:11-12 I am coming soon; hold fast what you have, so that no one may seize your crown. [12] He who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God . . .

Revelation 3:16 So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth.

***

Calvinists and folks who believe in eternal security will argue that the people described above were never Christians. But the language used rules that out. Now that we have compiled 150 passages that reference actual apostasy or warn against it, we can see the strong cumulative force of this sub-argument. Here is a complete catalogue of sixty descriptions of the former state of apostates, that they rejected; what they possessed when they were in the good graces of God and fit for ultimate salvation and eternal life in heaven if they were to die:

keeping his commandments and his ordinances and his statutes (Dt 8:11; 1 Sam 11:33)

heart turned [to] the LORD (Dt 29:18; 1 Kgs 11:9; Jer 17:5)

[kept/ followed] the covenant of the LORD (Dt 29:25; 31:16; Ps 78:10; Prov 2:17; Is 24:5; Hos 6:7)

[kept] the way which [God] commanded (Dt 31:29, 1 Kgs 11:10)

following [God] (1 Sam 15:11; Job 34:27)

[possessing the] Spirit of the LORD / Holy Spirit (1 Sam 16:14; Ps 51:11; Gal 3:2-3; Heb 6:4)

[accepted / listened to] the word of the LORD (1 Sam 15:23, 26; Is 5:24)

with the LORD (1 Sam 18:12)

heart wholly true to the LORD (1 Kgs 11:4)

wholly follow[ed] the LORD (1 Kgs 11:6)

walked in [God’s] ways (1 Kgs 11:33; 2 Kgs 21:22)

[did] what is right in [God’s] sight (1 Kgs 11:33)

obey[ed] the voice of the LORD their God [and kept] his covenant (2 Kgs 18:12)

listened [and] obeyed [God] (2 Kgs 18:12)

[followed] the law[s] of the LORD (2 Chr 12:1; Neh 9:26; Is 5:24; 24:5; Hos 4:6; Amos 2:4)

faithful to the LORD (2 Chr 12:2; 29:6; Jer 3:6; Hos 6:7; 2 Cor 13:5; Gal 3:2; Heb 10:39; Rev 2:10)

[kept] the charge of the LORD (2 Chr 13:11)

he did what was right in the eyes of the LORD (2 Chr 25:2; 26:4)

set himself to seek God (2 Chr 26:5)

sought the LORD (2 Chr 26:5; Ezra 8:22)

turned their faces [to] the habitation of the LORD (2 Chr 29:6)

obeyed / obedient (Neh 9:26; Acts 7:39; Heb 3:18; 4:6, 11; 1 Pet 1:14)

had regard for [God’s] ways (Job 34:27)

[in God’s] presence (Ps 51:11)

walk[ed] according to his law (Ps 78:10)

[remembered] what [God] had done (Ps 78:11)

observe[d] [God’s] testimonies (Ps 78:56)

[remembered] the God of [their] salvation (Is 17:10)

remembered the Rock of [their] refuge (Is 17:10)

[obeyed / kept] the statutes (Is 24:5; Amos 2:4; Mal 3:7)

a righteous man turns away from his righteousness (Ezek 18:24; 33:12, 18)

[performed] righteous deeds (Ezek 18:24)

turn[ed] [to God] (Hos 11:7)

the salt of the earth (Mt 5:13)

when they hear the word, receive it with joy (Lk 8:13)

disciples . . . went about with [Jesus] (Jn 6:66)

belief [and] faith (Rom 11:20; Heb 3:12, 19)

continue in his kindness (Rom 11:22)

[accepted / followed the] gospel (Gal 1:6)

c[a]me to know God (Gal 4:9)

known by God (Gal 4:9)

[in] Christ (Gal 5:4)

[in a state of] grace (Gal 5:4; Heb 12:15; 13:9)

running well (Gal 5:7)

obeying the truth (Gal 5:7; 2 Tim 4:4)

[following] conscience (1 Tim 1:19)

enlightened (Heb 6:4)

who have tasted the heavenly gift (Heb 6:4)

tasted the goodness of the word of God (Heb 6:5)

tasted the powers of the age to come (Heb 6:5)

keep their souls (Heb 10:39)

[following] the right way (2 Pet 2:15)

hav[ing] escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (2 Pet 2:20)

known the way of righteousness (2 Pet 2:21)

[following] the holy commandment (2 Pet 2:21)

love [of God] (Rev 2:4)

do[ing] [of good] works (Rev 2:5)

Remember then what you received and heard; keep that, and repent (Rev 3:3)

hold fast what you have (Rev 3:11)

hot [rather than] lukewarm (Rev 3:16)

*
***
*
Practical Matters:  I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 4,900+ free online articles or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

*
***
*

Photo credit: cover of my book. published by Logos / Faithlife / Verbum in March 2012 [see book and purchase information].

Summary: Compilation of 150 Bible passages (Protestant Old Testament: 74 / New Testament: 76) that warn about the possibility of falling away from salvation and God’s grace (apostasy).

2024-10-23T14:15:08-04:00

Matthew 7:16-21; 10:22; 16:27 

Photo credit: John Calvin: unknown 16th century portrait [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

On 10-8-24, I published my article, Bible vs. “Faith Alone”: 100 Proofs (100 Bible Passages On Catholic Justification, Sanctification, and Faith + Works [from 22 out of 27 NT Books]: All Disproving Protestant “Faith Alone” Soteriology). Later, I got the idea of inquiring as to how John Calvin (1509-1564), one of the two the most influential founders of Protestantism, along with Martin Luther, would react to these passages in his Commentaries (and then offering my rebuttals). My approach here will be the same as in my book, The Catholic Verses: 95 Bible Passages That Confound Protestants (Aug. 2004). I explain my method in that book’s Introduction:

I shall now proceed to offer a critique of common Protestant attempts to ignore, explain away, rationalize, wish away, overpolemicize, minimize, de-emphasize, evade clear consequences of, or special plead with regard to “the Catholic Verses”: ninety-five biblical passages that provide the foundation for Catholicism’s most distinctive doctrines. . . .

I will assert – with all due respect and, I hope, with a minimum of “triumphalism” — the ultimate incoherence, inadequacy, inconsistency, or exegetical and theological implausibility of the Protestant interpretations, and will submit the Catholic views as exegetically and logically superior alternatives.

The dates of Calvin’s various Commentaries are as follows:

1540 Romans
1548 All the Epistles of Paul
1551 Hebrews, and the Epistles of Peter, John, Jude, and James
1551 Isaiah
1552 Acts of the Apostles
1554 Genesis
1557 Psalms
1557 Hosea
1559 Twelve Minor Prophets
1561 Daniel
1562 Joshua
1563 Harmony of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy
1563 Jeremiah
1563 Harmony of Three Gospels and Commentary on St John

I use RSV for biblical citations. Calvin’s words will be in blue.

A complete listing of this series will be on my web page, John Calvin: Catholic Appraisal, under the subtitle: “Bible vs. ‘Faith Alone’ vs. John Calvin”.

*****

Matthew 7:16, 18-21 You will know them by their fruits . . . [18] A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. [19] Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. [20] Thus you will know them by their fruits. [21] Not every one who says to me, “Lord, Lord,” shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. . . .

Calvin pretty much misses the entire point of the passage, refuses to make specific comment on verses 18-21 (passes right over them) and instead decides to make his commentary an anti-Catholic rant:

If, for example, we place before our minds what Paul requires in bishops, (1 Timothy 3:1; Titus 1:6-9,) that description will be sufficient of itself to condemn the whole mass of Popery: for the Popish priests seem as if they purposely intended to present an opposite picture. 

If one can’t provide a rational, sensible counter-reply, then one can always ignore! It’s the standard practice of Protestant apologists online, who only rarely engage in point-by-point dialogue with Catholic apologists. They are especially reluctant to do so in direct proportion to how much Scripture the Catholic offers in favor of their views and against the Protestant ones. Oh, the ironies . . .

Meanwhile, Jesus clearly, undeniably teaches here that works are one of the things that are absolutely essential to salvation, since the ones who don’t do them end up in hell (“fire”: following the agricultural analogies) and can’t go to heaven. I think this ought to have been directly addressed by Calvin, who was duty-bound to explain — to exhibit the courage of his convictions — how this can possible be squared with “faith alone.”

***

“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,800+ articles, please follow my blog by signing up (with your email address) on the sidebar to the right (you may have to scroll down a bit), above where there is an icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. My blog was rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT: endorsed by influential Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Actually, I partner with Kenny Burchard on the YouTube channel, Catholic Bible Highlights. Please subscribe there, too! Please also consider following me on Twitter / X and purchasing one or more of my 55 books. All of this helps me get more exposure, and (however little!) more income for my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!

***

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

Here, Calvin is brief. I cite his entire commentary:

This single promise ought sufficiently to support the minds of the godly, though the whole world should rise against them: for they are assured that the result will be prosperous and happy. If those who fight under earthly commanders, and are uncertain as to the issue of the battle, are carried forward even to death by steadiness of purpose, shall those who are certain of victory hesitate to abide by the cause of Christ to the very last?

It’s simply wrongheaded. This is not primarily a promise. Rather, it’s an exhortation to be vigilant. Nor is it an instance of assurance, for no one knows the future; hence, we don’t know with absolute certainly if we will endure to the end. St. Paul certainly exhibited no such faux-certainty, even about his own final state in the afterlife:

Philippians 3:10-14, 16 that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, [11] that if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. [12] Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make it my own, . . . [13] Brethren, I do not consider that I have made it my own; . . . [14] I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. . . . [16] Only let us hold true to what we have attained.

Elsewhere, St. Paul is very clear and direct:

1 Corinthians 9:25-27 Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. [26] Well, I do not run aimlessly, I do not box as one beating the air; [27] but I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.

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

St. Peter casually assumes the possibility of falling away from grace and salvation. We don’t allow that to happen by engaging in numerous good works:

2 Peter 1:5-7, 10-11 For this very reason make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, [6] and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, [7] and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. . . . [10] Therefore, brethren, be the more zealous to confirm your call and election, for if you do this you will never fall; [11] so there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Likewise, St. John:

2 John 1:8 Look to yourselves, that you may not lose what you have worked for, but may win a full reward.

In the context of the parallel verse in Matthew 24:13, Jesus taught:

Matthew 24:4-5 . . . “Take heed that no one leads you astray. [5] For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray.”

Why is He warning His disciples about a thing that supposedly can’t happen? Who knows? Calvin’s theology requires him to believe in the unbiblical notion of believers being eternally secure (irresistible grace). Similarly, Jesus stated:

Luke 21:8, 34-36 “Take heed that you are not led astray; . . . [34] But take heed to yourselves lest your hearts be weighed down with dissipation and drunkenness and cares of this life, and that day come upon you suddenly like a snare; [35] for it will come upon all who dwell upon the face of the whole earth. [36] But watch at all times, praying that you may have strength to escape all these things that will take place, and to stand before the Son of man.”

Again, Jesus says:

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

In Revelation 2:10, Jesus says, “Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life.” It seems to me that if Calvin’s doctrine were true, He would have said something like, “you will be faithful unto death, at which time I will give you the crown of life.” But instead, the reward comes as a result of our faithful works and endurance. As always, it’s “both/and”: God’s grace enabling us to do good works, which He in turn rewards. But our works can’t be left out of it, as of no relevance whatsoever, and that’s what Calvin futilely attempts to do, because he is beholden to a false tradition of men, rather than to the Bible in this instance.

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

The reward of works has been treated by me as fully as was necessary under another passage.

The editor thinks that Calvin refers to his commentary on John 4:36. It’s a good verse that I could and should have included among my one hundred Bible proofs against “faith alone“. So let’s take a look at that:

John 4:36-38 He who reaps receives wages, and gathers fruit for eternal life, so that sower and reaper may rejoice together. [37] For here the saying holds true, ‘One sows and another reaps.’ [38] I sent you to reap that for which you did not labor; others have labored, and you have entered into their labor.”

How diligently we ought to devote ourselves to the work of God, he proves by another argument; namely, because a large and most excellent reward is reserved for our labor; for he promises that there will be fruit, and fruit not corruptible or fading. 

Yes, and it is rewards for our work, including “for eternal life.” This is the whole point, and key to Protestant-Catholic soteriological disagreements.

And certainly both considerations ought greatly to encourage the ministers of the word, that they may never sink under the toil, when they hear that a crown of glory is prepared for them in heaven, and know that the fruit of their harvest will not only be precious in the sight of God, but will also be eternal.

This is better. Calvin virtually stumbles upon the Catholic view, almost despite himself. The fruit and the reward are “eternal.” I don’t see how that is essentially different from saying that “good works help bring about eternal life, along with grace and faith.” If B is a reward for A, then by the same token, we can also say that A (partially or wholly) caused B.

It is for this purpose that Scripture everywhere mentions reward, and not for the purpose of leading us to judge from it as to the merits of works; for which of us, if we come to a reckoning, will not be found more worthy of being punished for slothfulness than of being rewarded for diligence? 

Note how Calvin takes a swipe at merit (and the God-enabled good works that bring it about), but that’s abundantly proven in Scripture as well. He offers no immediate Scriptures to justify his hostility to merit. I provide fifty that establish it beyond any doubt.

To the best laborers nothing else will be left than to approach to God in all humility to implore forgiveness. 

That’s easy to say, but it’s not what the Bible teaches. It regularly asserts that works are one of the three things (along with grace and faith) directly involved in the causation of salvation.

But the Lord, who acts towards us with the kindness of a father, in order to correct our sloth, and to encourage us who would otherwise be dismayed, deigns to bestow upon us an undeserved reward.

But again, it’s deserved in terms of our having truly earned the reward by our works. That’s not just me making a bald claim (as Calvin often does); it’s at least a hundred Bible passages saying so. I didn’t write the Bible or determine my theology; I simply follow it wherever it leads me. It’s why there are many passages in the Bible in which a person (prominently, St. Paul) is “proud” about his work for God, and boasts about it. This sense of deserving reward would make no sense whatever if merit weren’t true, and if Calvin’s “faith alone” was true doctrine.

This is so far from overturning justification by faith that it rather confirms it. For, in the first place, how comes it that God finds in us any thing to reward, but because He has bestowed it upon us by his Spirit? 

Yes, He rewards His own gifts, as St. Augustine noted. It doesn’t follow, however, that we did nothing, or that we get no credit. “Both/and.” God makes our works His. Both things are true. I provided seven Bible passages proving that in my previous installment (see especially 1 Cor 15:10, 58 and Phil 2:12-13).

Secondly, how comes it that God confers so great honor on imperfect and sinful works but because, after having by free grace reconciled us to himself, He accepts our works without any regard to merit, by not imputing the sins which cleave to them? 

This is not an argument; it’s a false assumption. The Bible never teaches that every single work is imperfect and sinful, nor that God supposedly doesn’t impute these “sins” that “cleave” to them: as Calvin mistakenly believes. God thinks they are altogether good enough to not only receive merit but also to help bring about salvation. I have brought forth 150 Bible passages to prove it. I need not keep citing them. Readers may follow the links. And we are going through many of those now, in the effort to reveal how pitifully Calvin tries to systematically — and unsuccessfully — skirt around them. Sadly, it’s what almost all Protestant apologists have done for over 500 years, when it comes to actually grappling with Catholic biblical arguments (which they avoid like the plague but occasionally descend to trying to refute).

But, in order that this passage may be properly understood, we must comprehend the contrast between sowing and reaping The sowing was the doctrine of the Law and the Prophets; for at that time the seed thrown into the soil remained, as it were, in the blade; but the doctrine of the Gospel, which brings men to proper maturity, is on that account justly compared to the harvest. For the Law was very far from that perfection which has at length been exhibited to us in Christ. 

This lame defense of faith alone might have worked (at least prima facie), except that the Bible contradicts it, by placing sowing and reaping together:

1 Corinthians 9:9-11 For it is written in the law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned? [10] Does he not speak entirely for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of a share in the crop. [11] If we have sown spiritual good among you, is it too much if we reap your material benefits?

2 Corinthians 9:6, 10 The point is this: he who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. . . . [10] He who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will supply and multiply your resources and increase the harvest of your righteousness.

Galatians 6:7-8 Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. [8] For he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption; but he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.

God doesn’t denigrate sowing, by equating it with antiquated law, as Calvin does; especially in these words:

as that seed was degenerated from the very root, and as the corn which could spring from it, though not good or natural, was choked by a huge mass of errors, it is unreasonable to suppose that such destructive corruption is compared to sowing

Now I return to Calvin’s commentary on Matthew 16:27:

When a reward is promised to good works, their merit is not contrasted with the justification which is freely bestowed on us through faith; nor is it pointed out as the cause of our salvation, but is only held out to excite believers to aim at doing what is right, by assuring them that their labor will not be lost.

If that were indeed true, then Calvin would and should have refuted all of these “Catholic verses” that I produce: showing exactly why and how they don’t refute faith alone (and provide us with many other verses that uphold that novel doctrine). But as we see, he doesn’t come within a million miles of doing so.

God, of his own good pleasure, bestows on our works a reward which we did not deserve.

The Bible says that they are worthy. That’s why Paul stated that he was “proud” of his own works, and boasted about them, and boasted about works of his followers, too. If we want to find the notion of works “deserving” reward, we can find that, too:

Matthew 10:10 . . . the laborer deserves his food.

Luke 10:7 . . . the laborer deserves his wages . . .

These two passages refer to the disciples going out and evangelizing and performing miracles.

1 Timothy 5:18 for the scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”

Revelation 2:23 . . . I will give to each of you as your works deserve.

Scripture knows nothing of the false doctrine of every good work inevitably being tainted by sin and corruption. God gives rewards that we have merited and deserve. Calvin gets it exactly backwards.

*

***
*
Practical Matters:  I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 4,800+ free online articles or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

*
***
*

Photo credit: John Calvin: unknown 16th century portrait [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: One of a series examining how John Calvin (1509-1564) exegeted biblical passages in his Commentaries that (in my opinion) refute the novel Protestant doctrine of “faith alone”.

2024-09-20T12:06:18-04:00

Photo credit: Simeon the Righteous (1830s-1840s), by Alexey Yegorov (c. 1776-1851) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon (see his Facebook page; public posts) is a Visiting Scholar in Biblical Studies at Wesley Biblical Seminary; formerly Professor of Biblical Studies at Houston Christian University and Associate Professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. He obtained a Master of Theological Studies (MTS): Biblical Studies degree from Harvard Divinity School and a (Ph.D.) in New Testament Studies, magna cum laude, from Princeton Theological Seminary. Dr. Gagnon grew up Catholic, and he wrote on 8-17-24:

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 (one of many such potshots) 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.”

This is my eighth reply to Dr. Gagnon (see them listed under his name on my Anti-Catholicism page): seven of them having to do with the Blessed Virgin Mary. He has responded once thus far.

His words will be in blue. I use RSV for biblical citations.

*****

Dr. Gagnon’s blasphemous rant in this public Facebook post dated 9-19-24, (in Scripture, one can blaspheme persons and holy things beyond only God) proves, almost better than anything I have ever seen, that the anti-Marianism of those who vigorously contend against the Catholic Church — with abundant insults, is too often not just a matter of an emotionless, objective opposing of what they perceive as “excesses” beyond the explicit biblical account.

To the contrary; here and in the treatments of many other Protestants, we sadly observe a truly irrationalalmost merely carnal or “unspiritual” (see 1 Cor 2:10-16) hostility and prejudice towards the Blessed Virgin Mary. No doubt is is to a large extent, in pitiful overreaction to our great devotion to and love for her, and it blatantly contradicts what we absolutely do know from Holy Scripture. Here is what he wrote (I have highlighted in green and italics and bolding the words “believe” and “faith”):

There is no clear indication of Mary coming to faith in Christ. It is not said that she “believed in Jesus,” nor that she gave any testimony that caused others to believe in him. Yes, Mary has faith to believe that Jesus can turn water into wine (2:3, 5), but that is no more than shallow sign faith from the perspective of the Fourth Evangelist. Remember that there is no virgin birth story in John’s Gospel. In the Prologue’s treatment of the incarnation of the Logos, Mary is left completely out of the picture. So there is no story preceding 2:1-12 that would give the reader any expectation of Mary’s positive significance. The story presumes only that “the mother of Jesus” (note that the Fourth Evangelist never even uses her proper name) [he never refers to his own name, either; using, rather, the “disciple whom Jesus loved” (13:23; 20:2; 21:7, 20). This is his style. Gagnon himself refers several times to “the beloved disciple” in this same piece] believes that Jesus can do miracles. She persists in that belief after Jesus’ rebuke in 2:4 when she says to the waiters “whatever he says to you, do” (2:5). But that command by Mary, even if more open-ended, does not indicate deep sign faith, but continues only with a faith that believes Jesus can accomplish the mundane task of changing water to wine.  Mary thereafter is no longer mentioned in the story. . . . 

One could contend, I suppose, that there was no reason to report that Mary also “believed in him” because she already did. The problem with that view is that Jesus’ statement in 2:4 indicates that whatever kind of faith she had prior to his statement was shallow sign faith, faith to believe that Jesus could provide for earthly needs but nothing more. Mary’s response in 2:5 also seems to persist with the same kind of faith that she had before the rebuke. And, again, there is no statement of greater transformation at the end of the story, unlike the stories of the Samaritan woman and the royal official in ch. 4. She is not even mentioned in the story after 2:5.

She appears to be more like Nicodemus in ch. 3 than the Samaritan woman and the royal official in ch. 4. Nicodemus remains in shallow sign faith from start to finish of the Gospel. . . . 

Jesus’ mother is mute in 19:25-27 [while she is watching her Son being horribly tortured to death]. There is no expression of faith coming from her. . . . 

At the cross and up till the revelation of the risen Christ, all she believes is that Jesus’ crucifixion is a terrible tragedy. There is no reason to think that Jesus’ mother believed anything different than Mary Magdalene at the foot of the cross. Neither John 2:5 nor John 19:25-27 provides any evidence that Mary has moved beyond shallow sign-faith and understood the cross to be Jesus’ “hour of glorification.” She is there at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry (but goes unmentioned as regards a virgin birth), where she shows shallow sign faith, and she is there at the cross (with others), where again there is no indication of movement beyond a shallow sign faith, filled with grief and incomprehension.
***

“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!

***

Imagine thinking that the Blessed Virgin Mary: whom the angel Gabriel called “full of grace” (yes he did; there are failed arguments about that bandied about as well, that I have addressed), and who was “blessed among women”; whom all generations would call “blessed”; the Mother of God, who spent some thirty years with Jesus before anyone else knew about Him; i.e., ten times longer than anyone else, is not even a believer in Jesus??!! Gagnon would have us believe that God (Who knows everything, including the future) would choose a woman to be the Mother of God who wouldn’t even understand, let alone believe, what the angel Gabriel told her at the Annunciation, and who wouldn’t comprehend or believe Who Jesus was over His entire life?!

We’re to think that is supposedly a plausible conclusion that makes any sense at all? In fact, the biblical account in this regard that I will present below (all of which Gagnon totally ignores in his pathetic litany of “disproofs”) is very clear: so much so that I submit it could hardly be any more so. The angel Gabriel told Mary at the Annunciation:

Luke 1:30-33 . . . “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. [31] And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. [32] He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, [33] and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.” [34] And Mary said to the angel, “How shall this be, since I have no husband?” [35] And the angel said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.

Any Jew who knew anything at all would know that this was clearly the Messiah Whom she was to bear, and the “Son of God” language, which the Pharisees took to be blasphemy because they understood that it meant being equal to God the Father (Jn 5 and 10), also indicates His divinity and Godhood.

Her cousin Elizabeth proclaimed, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Lk 1:42-43). Mary (as far as we know from the text) doesn’t rebuke this, or ask, “what are you talking about?!” She accepts it as truth. She believes in the “Lord” Who is her Son. Mary’s “Magnificat” (Lk 1:46-55) shows that Mary is well-acquainted with Old Testament theology and expression. In fact, it is “based largely on Hannah’s prayer in 1 Sam. 2.1-10”: as the notes in my RSV observe. She knew enough to have certainly understood the messianic allusions in Gabriel’s and Elizabeth’s words to her.

Mary may have been present at John the Baptist’s circumcision (Lk 1:59 ff.) since Elizabeth was her cousin and she knew her well (e.g., she stayed with her for three months: Lk 1:56). If so, on that occasion, John’s father Zechariah “was filled with the Holy Spirit, and prophesied” (Lk 1:67), saying,

Luke 1:76-79 And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High; for you will go before the Lord to prepare his ways, [77] to give knowledge of salvation to his people in the forgiveness of their sins, [78] through the tender mercy of our God, when the day shall dawn upon us from on high [79] to give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace.”

This is referring to the same “Lord” (Jesus) Whom his wife Elizabeth told Mary she was the mother of (1:43). Then when they presented Jesus in Jerusalem in the purification rite, Mary and Joseph encountered Simeon:

Luke 2:25-35 Now there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon, and this man was righteous and devout, looking for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him. [26] And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he should not see death before he had seen the Lord’s Christ. [27] And inspired by the Spirit he came into the temple; and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him according to the custom of the law, [28] he took him up in his arms and blessed God and said, [29] “Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word; [30] for mine eyes have seen thy salvation [31] which thou hast prepared in the presence of all peoples, [32] a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and for glory to thy people Israel.” [33] And his father and his mother marveled at what was said about him; [34] and Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, “Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is spoken against [35] (and a sword will pierce through your own soul also), that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed.”

This is pure messianic language as well. Mary and Joseph “marveled” at it. I suppose Dr. Gagnon in his anti-Mary zeal, would immediately think this was oppositional astonishment and disbelief, but that doesn’t follow. They were, I think, simply amazed that the man knew these things that they already knew about Jesus.

Furthermore, Mary might have been present at Jesus’ baptism (or heard about it), in which God the Father spoke from heaven: “Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased.” (Lk 3:22). An “angel of the Lord” told Joseph in a dream Who Jesus was (“. . . that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit; she will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”: Mt 1:20-21). Would Joseph not have shared the content of that dream with Mary? Then they either believed it or not. Angels told both Mary and Joseph Who Jesus was. Elizabeth, Zechariah, and Simeon all confirmed it while Jesus was still very young.

We have one more piece of strong evidence: the three wise men visited Jesus, with Mary present (thought to be when He was about two years old). The text says, “going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him” (Mt 2:11). Again, we see no protest from Mary along the lines of, “what are you doing?! You can’t worship a mere man!”

We have all of this explicit data, yet we are to believe Dr. Gagnon’s blasphemous view that Mary believed none of it, and wasn’t a “believer” in Jesus? (“There is no clear indication of Mary coming to faith in Christ.”). If you believe that, come see me. I have some oceanfront property in Kansas to sell you.

Photo credit: Simeon the Righteous (1830s-1840s), by Alexey Yegorov (c. 1776-1851) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: NT scholar Robert Gagnon remarkably thinks that Mary wasn’t a believer in Jesus, through His entire life. I detail lots of Scripture that proves otherwise (all ignored by him).

2024-09-17T23:46:38-04:00

Photo credit: Saint Raphael Catholic Church (Springfield, Ohio) – stained glass, Wedding at Cana – detail (Nheyob: 11-22-14) [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license]

Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon (see his Facebook page; public posts) is a Visiting Scholar in Biblical Studies at Wesley Biblical Seminary; formerly Professor of Biblical Studies at Houston Christian University and Associate Professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. He obtained a Master of Theological Studies (MTS): Biblical Studies degree from Harvard Divinity School and a (Ph.D.) in New Testament Studies, magna cum laude, from Princeton Theological Seminary. Dr. Gagnon grew up Catholic, and he wrote on 8-17-24:

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. His article is cited in its entirety. I use RSV for biblical citations.

*****

I’m responding to a public post on his Facebook page, dated 8-17-24.

Another text that Catholics and Orthodox persons cite to elevate Mary in Scripture is the wedding in Cana in John 2:1-11. Yet they don’t realize that in this passage Jesus rebukes his mother.
*
The argument is that Mary “becomes the only person ever to tell Jesus what to do and he (somewhat grudgingly) does it” (as a respected Catholic FB friend put it). Actually, many people requested healings from Jesus with polite imperatives. Mary merely hinted to Jesus that something should be done about the depletion of wine: “They do not have wine” (v. 3).
*
Jesus then responds with a curt “What to me and to you, woman? My hour has not yet come” (v. 4). There are 3 parts to this response, the question (“What to me and to you?”), the address of his mother (“woman”), and the disclaiming assertion. We will now look at each element in turn.
*
First, the question “What to me and to you?” (Gk. ti emoi kai soi) is a Semitic idiom (Heb. mah-lî ve-lak) found in the OT in Judg 11:12; 2 Sam 16:10; 19:22; 1 Kgs 17:18; 2 Kgs 3:13; 2 Chron 35:21. In the NT the phrase appears elsewhere as a word by demoniacs to Jesus (Mark 1:24; 5:7). Minimally the phrase refers to a complete disjunction of interests. Mostly the phrase is used in situations of opposition and hostility as an adversarial formula. One can paraphrase as: “What have I done to you that you should do this to me?”
*
The phrase functions in John 2:4 as the Johannine equivalent of the rebuke uttered by Jesus in Mark’s Gospel to Simon (Peter) for expressing opposition to his divine fate to suffer and die for the sins of the world: “Get behind me, Satan (adversary)!”
*
Second, Jesus follows this adversarial formula with the distancing address of “woman” rather than “mother.” This address is reminiscent of the Jesus saying in Mark 3:33-35, where Jesus responds to his mother and brothers coming to “restrain him” as a result of hearing that Jesus was out of his mind (3:21 31): “Who is my mother…? … Whoever does the will of God, this is … my mother.” In that saying Jesus discounts any privileged place to Mary, who appears to be doing the bidding of the scribes and Pharisees.
*
This is an inaccurate (and I dare say, even cynical) exegesis, as I have written about many times:
*
*
*
*
On Whether Jesus’ “Brothers” Were “Unbelievers” [National Catholic Register, 6-11-20]
*
***

“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!

***

Here in John 2:4, the address “woman” rejects any special position of his mother because at this moment her mind is set on earthly things rather than heavenly things, thinking in the realm of flesh rather than Spirit, and operating “from below” rather than “from above” (see John 3:31). She is at this moment to Jesus no more than any other “woman.”
*
Third, Jesus adds a disclaiming assertion: “My hour has not yet come,” meaning that Jesus did not come into the world for the trivial task of resupplying a wedding with wine, but rather (given the larger context of the Fourth Gospel) to make amends for the sins of the world at the cross. Jesus’ word to Mary is a rebuke.
*
Many (including yours truly) think that this response by Jesus to his mother represents redaction (editing) by the Fourth Evangelist into a preexisting “signs source” story. The abrupt redaction (remove the saying and the preceding and following texts flow more smoothly) underscores the deficiency of sign faith that does not tie Jesus’ activity to his being “lifted up” or “exalted” on the cross, and that does not arrive at a larger identity of Jesus as the Life and Light of the world.
*
Mary does not interact with Jesus’ sharp rebuke (again, suggesting that it was added by the Fourth Evangelist into a pre-existing story). Instead, “his mother says to the servants (attending table), ‘Whatever he says to you, do'” (v. 5). In a sense, it is to her credit that she instructs others to obey her son. But she is still thinking in earthly, fleshly terms “from below,” still more concerned with the literal wine shortage at the wedding in Cana.
*
In the end Jesus does turn the water into wine, but for a deeper purpose, to “reveal his glory” (v. 10, much as Yahweh “revealed his glory” to Israel in the Mount Sinai light show). Jesus perhaps does this particular “sign” to illustrate that he is the Best Wine at the wedding banquet of the Lamb and his church.
*
In this story, Mary doesn’t come out looking so good. Her remark to Jesus, “They do not have wine,” remains on a literal level, whereas Jesus is thinking of the symbolic absence of messianic wine in an Israel that is hostile to the sending of God’s Son into the world. Her remark, far from being praised, is rebuked.
*
Addendum:
*
Those who read Jesus’ address to his mother “woman” as a mark of treating Mary as a New Eve are reading out of context.
“What to me and to you” preceding “woman” is clearly a rebuke, not a praise. It is similar to Jesus’ rebuke of Peter, calling him “adversary” (Satan). “Woman” designates that by virtue of her worldly misunderstanding of his mission she has become for him like any other woman who is not his mother.
*
The interpretation that I offer of “woman” also fits Jesus’ disregard of Mary’s special status as mother of the Messiah when she gives into worldly thinking and behavior in Mark 3:31-35. When she with her other sons goes to “restrain” Jesus because of reports that he is out of his mind, Jesus gives his famous “Who is my mother?” Biological family kinship is meaningless when one deviates from the will of God, especially as regards Jesus’ mission.
*
The most natural reading is the one that I put forward. When a son addresses his mother as “woman,” one doesn’t think: Oh, he is thinking of her as a new Eve! One thinks rather: My goodness, he is treating his own mother as if she were not his mother, as if she were a woman like any other woman to him.
*

Here again we observe the old, tired, fundamentally silly argument that Jesus was supposedly disrespectful of His mother. This silly trifle was disposed of by Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin, citing three Protestant commentators:

The Protestant commentator William Barclay writes:

“The word Woman (gynai) is also misleading. It sounds to us very rough and abrupt. But it is the same word as Jesus used on the Cross to address Mary as he left her to the care of John (John 19:26). In Homer it is the title by which Odysseus addresses Penelope, his well-loved wife. It is the title by which Augustus, the Roman Emperor, addressed Cleopatra, the famous Egyptian queen. So far from being a rough and discourteous way of address, it was a title of respect. We have no way of speaking in English which exactly renders it; but it is better to translate it Lady which gives at least the courtesy in it” (The Gospel of John, revised edition, vol. 1, p. 98).

Similarly, the Protestant Expositor’s Bible Commentary, published by Zondervan, states:

Jesus’ reply to Mary was not so abrupt as it seems. ‘Woman’ (gynai) was a polite form of address. Jesus used it when he spoke to his mother from the cross (19:26) and also when he spoke to Mary Magdalene after the Resurrection (20:15)” (vol. 9, p. 42).

Even the Fundamentalist Wycliff Bible Commentary put out by Moody Press acknowledges in its comment on this verse, “In his reply, the use of ‘Woman’ does not involve disrespect (cf. 19:26)” (p. 1076).

Akin concludes:

The fact it is not a title of disrespect should be obvious from the fact that Jesus, as an obedient Son who fulfilled the Torah perfectly, would never have spoken irreverently to his mother. His perfect fulfillment of the Torah includes a perfect fulfillment of the command, “Honor your father and mother,” which in the literal Hebrew is “Glorify your father and mother.” . . . To publicly speak irreverently of his mother is something that Jesus would never have been able to countenance. Actually, the way Jesus is using the term — at the two key junctures in John’s Gospel where Mary appears — is symbolic and emblematic of her role in redemptive history. Whereas Eve was the First Woman, Mary is the Second Woman, just as Adam was the First Man and Jesus was the Second Man (1 Cor. 15:47).

Did Jesus “rebuke” His mother at this wedding? No: . . . The Navarre Bible explains the passage:

The sentence rendered “What have you to do with me?” (RSV) is the subject of a note in RSVCE which says “while this expression always implies a divergence of view, the precise meaning is to be determined by the context, which here shows that it is not an unqualified rebuttal, still less a rebuke.” The Navarre Spanish is the equivalent of “What has it to do with you and me?”] The sentence “What has it to do with you and me?” is an oriental way of speaking which can have different nuances. Jesus’ reply seems to indicate that although in principle it was not part of God’s plan for him to use his power to solve the problem the wedding-feast had run into, our Lady’s request moves him to do precisely that. Also, one could surmise that God’s plan envisaged that Jesus should work the miracle at his Mother’s request. In any event, God willed that the Revelation of the New Testament should include this important teaching: so influential is our Lady’s intercession that God will listen to all petitions made through her; which is why Christian piety, with theological accuracy, has called our Lady “supplicant omnipotence.”

Dom Bernard Orchard’s 1953 Catholic Commentary adds more insightful interpretation:

Concerning the second: the Master’s question which literally reads: ‘What to me and to thee?’ has to be understood from biblical and not modern usage. Therefore it does not mean: ‘What concern is it of ours?’ or ‘There is no need for you to tell me’. In all the biblical passages where it occurs, Jg 11:12; 2 Kg 16:10, 19:22; 4 Kg 3:13; 2 Par 35:21; Mt 8:29; Mk 1:24, the phrase signifies, according to circumstances, a great or lesser divergence of viewpoint between the two parties concerned. In 2 Kg 16:10 it means total dissent; in Jg 11:12 it voices a complaint against an invader. In our passage, also, divergence must be admitted. In a sense our Lord’s answer is a refusal, but not an absolute refusal, rather, a refusal ad mentem, as a Roman Congregation would say, and the Blessed Virgin understood her Son’s mind from the tone of his voice. His first public miracle belonged to the divine programme of his Messianic mission into which flesh and blood could not enter. His answer is therefore an assertion of independence of his Mother, similar to the word he spoke in the temple about his Father’s business. The Blessed Virgin’s subsequent action shows that the tone of our Lord’s protest on this occasion was neither a curt nor an unqualified refusal.

Barnes’ Notes on the Bible also dissents from Dr. Gagnon’s harsh take (though suggesting a “mild reproof”):

What have I to do with thee? – See the notes at Matthew 8:29. This expression is sometimes used to denote indignation or contempt. See Judges 11:122 Samuel 16:101 Kings 17:18. But it is not probable that it denoted either in this place; if it did, it was a mild reproof of Mary for attempting to control or direct him in his power of working miracles. Most of the ancients supposed this to be the intention of Jesus. The words sound to us harsh, but they might have been spoken in a tender manner, and not have been intended as a reproof. It is clear that he did not intend to refuse to provide wine, but only to delay it a little; and the design was, therefore, to compose the anxiety of Mary, and to prevent her being solicitous about it. It may, then, be thus expressed: “My mother, be not anxious. To you and to me this should not be a matter of solicitude. The proper time of my interfering has not yet come. When that is come I will furnish a supply, and in the meantime neither you nor I should be solicitous.” Thus understood, it is so far from being a “harsh reproof,” that it was a mild exhortation for her to dismiss her fears and to put proper trust in him.

It all comes down to language, culture, idiom, context. But doesn’t Jesus’ fulfillment of His mother’s request for more wine (by performing a miracle — His first recorded one — to provide more) suggest that He didn’t intend to rebuke her in the first place? He did what she requested. One would think so, it seems to me. Much ado about nothing . . .

*

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

*
***
*

Photo credit: Saint Raphael Catholic Church (Springfield, Ohio) – stained glass, Wedding at Cana – detail (Nheyob11-22-14) [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license]

Summary: Protestant NT scholar Robert Gagnon insists that Jesus rebuked His mother Mary several times in Scripture. I reply regarding the wedding at Cana incident & His use of “Woman.”

2024-08-23T12:55:47-04:00

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.”
*
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges: “This designation of the Son proves beyond question who He is, see Revelation 2:27 as proving, if there could be any doubt about it, how Psalm 2:9 is understood in this book.”
*
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.”

Richard Lenski also agrees.

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

*
***
*

Photo credit: 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.

2024-08-06T10:53:59-04:00

Photo Credit: Assumption of the Virgin (1526-1529), by Andrea del Sarto (1486-1530) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

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

***

This is a reply to anti-Catholic Reformed Protestant polemicist James Swan’s article, “Martin Luther and Mary’s Assumption” (12-18-06). His words will be in blue; Luther’s in green.

Here’s another one of those “Martin Luther was devoted to Mary” quotes. This time, Luther is said to believe in Mary’s assumption.

Well, yes. Lutheran scholars agree that he did, as I will document.

William J. Cole did not have anything to do with the Weimar edition of Luther’s Works.

Since it was compiled either before he was born or when he was very young, that would follow, yes.

He was a Roman Catholic scholar who wrote an article on Luther’s Mariology many years ago. . . . The quote is originally from WA 10(3), 268,13 to 269. The translation utilized is from Cole’s old article from 1970, “Was Luther a Devotee of Mary?” [Marian Studies XXI].

Yep. I put it online (probably the first person to do so). And that’s where I got it. There is nothing improper in this. A secondary scholarly source can be used if he or she cites a primary source. That’s what Cole did. Nor does a person have to read the original in a different language in order to cite a secondary source citing it in English. Swan — who knows why? — has this ludicrous notion in his head that this is what is required of everyone.

The quote is from Luther’s sermon of August 15, 1522. Cole mentions it was the last time Luther preached on the Feast of the Assumption, which should tip us all off on where Luther was heading with his “Mariology” (recall, Luther lived till 1546, thus this comment comes very early in his “Reformation.”). Cole quotes Luther as saying,

“There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know. And since the Holy Spirit has told us nothing about it, we can make of it no article of faith.” [note from 8-2-24: actually, these are not Luther’s words; see the Addendum at the end]

Now, one could say here that Luther leaves the door open for Mary’s assumption. Perhaps he did in 1522. . . . Here we find Luther living up to “Sola Scriptura.” One is not [to] believe in the Assumption. 

Not all Lutheran historians or other scholars would agree with Swan that Luther always thought his followers should “not believe in the Assumption.” Lutheran scholar Eric W. Gritsch, who was a major translator in the English set, Luther’s Works (edited by Jaroslav Pelikan), observed:

Luther affirmed Mary’s assumption into heaven but did not consider it to be of benefit to others or accomplished in any special way. (in The One Mediator, the Saints, and Mary, Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VIII, edited by H. George Anderson, J. Francis Stafford, Joseph A. Burgess, Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press, 1992, 241; footnote 44; p. 382: “Sermon on the Festival of the Assumption, August 15, 1522. WA 10/3:269.12-13. Sermon on the Festival of the Visitation . . . August 15, 1522. WA 52:681.27-31.”; my bolded emphasis)

In the same book, twelve Lutheran and ten Catholic scholars participated. Their “Common Statement” (a sort of creed-like formulation agreed-upon by all) yielded some very interesting conclusions indeed:

(89) Luther preached on the Assumption . . . There were early Lutheran pastors who affirmed the Assumption as both evangelical and Lutheran.

(101) From the Lutheran side, one may recall the honor and devotion paid to the Mother of God by Luther himself, including his own attitude to the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, which he accepted in some form. (p. 55; my bolded emphasis)

Luther signed an August 19, 1527 letter to Georg Spalatin in the following (very “unProtestant”) manner:

Yours, Monday after the Assumption of Mary, 1527. Martin Luther. (in Luther: Letters of Spiritual Counsel, edited and translated by Theodore G. Tappert, Vancouver: Regent College Publishing, 2003, 230)

He did the same eight years later, in a letter dated “the Friday after the Assumption of Mary 1535” (letter to Elector John Frederick, 20 August 1535, referenced in Luther’s Works, Vol. 2, p. 21, footnote 31).

It is not to be an article of faith.

Luther did state that. But that’s a separate issue from whether he believed it at that time.

Interestingly, Cole goes on to point out that Luther “used strong language….for the elimination of the Assumption as an aspect of the ‘hypocritical church’,” particularly in celebrating a feast for it. Cole cites Luther as saying in 1544:

“The feast of the Assumption is totally papist, full of idolatry and without foundation in the Scriptures. But we, even though Mary has gone to heaven, should not bother how she went there. We will not invoke her as our special advocate as the Pope teaches. The pope takes away the honor due to the Ascension of our Lord, Christ, with the result that he has made the mother like her Son in all things.”

Even this doesn’t particular quotation necessarily require that Luther himself gave up all belief in Mary’s Assumption, since he was discussing not the thing itself, but how the feast celebrating it was conducted in the Catholic Church (thus, he referred to invoking her, etc., which has nothing directly to do with the doctrine itself).

In fairness to the work of William Cole, Cole doesn’t take a stance one way or the other if Luther ever held to the doctrine of Mary’s Assumption. He simply says that for Luther the Assumption was of “little importance…” and Luther never explicitly “denied” it either.

Swan (the world’s greatest expert on how to make a citation) gets this wrong, too, and he refutes himself in his later article, “Revisiting Luther on the Assumption of Mary” (5-24-16). He himself quotes Cole from the same article, where Cole certainly did take a “stance“:

For Luther the Assumption seems not to be so much a matter of doubt as of little importance and this is perhaps the reason, as Max Thurian affirms, that Luther did not pronounce clearly on the subject, but was content simply to affirm it.

“Affirm” means holding a belief. This ain’t rocket science. Cole thought that Luther affirmed Mary’s Assumption. But for some strange reason, Swan thinks he didn’t. The well-known Luther scholar Eric Gritsch also thought he did (“Luther affirmed Mary’s assumption into heaven”), as did the twelve Lutheran scholars in the ecumenical book mentioned above (“he accepted [Mary’s Assumption”] in some form”).
*
So who are we supposed to believe on this score?: a self-appointed Luther “expert” and anti-Catholic Protestant apologist with a philosophy degree and no published books, or a guy who helped translate the materials in the 55-volume standard set, Luther’s Works, along with twelve other Lutheran scholars, who all agree that Luther believed in it? They didn’t even say that he stopped doing so. Maybe he did. But they didn’t seem to think so, or else — it seems to me — they could and would have mentioned that.
*
It is simply the case that people in the Bible died. Scripture doesn’t tell us how many of them died. On Roman Catholic logic, one might as well suggest all the biblical characters that did not have their deaths mentioned were assumed into Heaven…or, one can simply cease and desist from sophistry.
*
Yeah, most people die a normal death; no argument there! But in Scripture there are extraordinary departures from this life, too, and Catholics are saying that if these parallels exist in Scripture, that it can’t be absolutely ruled out that Mary’s departure was of the same or similar nature. It’s a possibility, in other words: one that is in harmony with other events in the Bible. It’s not unbiblical. But it is speculative, with regard to the biblical data with respect to Mary. I think a theological / biblical case can be made for it.
*
If indeed Mary was free from sin, then it follows that she would not undergo the decay of death, which was the penalty for sin (Gen 3:16-19). But for the fall of man, no one would have died. Mary is the exception, for very good reason, and the forerunner of the resurrection that all who are saved will experience (1 Cor 15:12-23; cf. Mt 27:52-53).
*
This in turn is based on a prior acceptance of her Immaculate Conception, which can largely be argued from the Bible as well. We have 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): none of whom died before they were taken up into heaven. We also have in the Bible 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. Catholics are free to believe that Mary died or that she didn’t die (the dogma allows either scenario). Either way, there are scriptural parallels.
*
Swan goes on to make a more in-depth case in his follow-up article on this topic (mentioned above). Let’s see what he comes up with there:
*
Citing Luther’s 1522 sermon on the feast of the Assumption, Swan opines, “A careful reader will notice nowhere in this context does Luther admit to believing in the Assumption of Mary, . . .  There is no Luther-an affirmation of the Assumption here.” I see. Why, then, does Gritsch think that this same sermon is evidence for his affirmation of the doctrine? After all, he cited it in his footnote when he wrote, “Luther affirmed Mary’s assumption into heaven.” He also cited his “Sermon on the Festival of the Visitation” from the same date. I tried unsuccessfully to find this latter sermon online. Swan cites a partial citation and translation of it, after making the point that he believes Gritsch got the date wrong:
*
It was preached in 1532 (see WA 52, XXIV). . . . Eric Gritsch actually places the preaching of this sermon in 1522, . . . but this is an error. 
*
Swan then cites a portion of this 1532 sermon (source: Susan C. Karant-Nunn and Merry E. Wiesner-Hanks  Luther on Women: A Sourcebook; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003, pp. 46-47). The relevant portion is: “We however, even if she has already gone to heaven, cannot enjoy her ascension, and should not for that reason call to her or to take comfort in her intercession.” So Luther affirms her Assumption (casually assumes it) in 1532, and this is one of two reasons that Gritsch gives for asserting that he held the doctrine. I love facts!
*
Swan cites the Catholic William Cole, who correctly observed:
In summary, we can see that if the Feast is rejected, it is for reasons extraneous to the fact itself, which Luther never denied. Essentially, as Luther himself said in the same sermon the reason he does not celebrate it, “although she has gone to heaven” is that he sees it is a source of justifying invocation to Mary.
Bingo! (to use some Catholic lingo there . . . )
*
Once again, we see here that Cole simply assumes what he’s never proved, that Luther accepted the Assumption of Mary.
*
Before, Swan claimed that he took no stand either way. Now he is bashing him for supposedly assuming without proof. Swan himself (thankfully) provided more context for the second 1532 sermon, that Gritsch cited as evidence. Luther assumes her “ascension.” 
*
Cole’s “benign interpretation” is a malignant interpretation of the context. Luther says there’s nothing in Scripture about it, and because of that, her ascension into heaven is not to be celebrated.
*
Again, those are two different things. We can believe in a doctrine, while not thinking a celebration of it is required or pious. And Luther explained in both 1532 and in 1544 that what he objects to is invocation of Mary in the context of the feast. So he wanted to ditch the feast, not the Assumption itself. He says there is nothing in Scripture about it, yet still believes it, so it has to be on the authority of Church and tradition, doesn’t it? In so doing, he makes a temporary exception to sola Scriptura, his rule of faith. And that is fascinating, too.
*
***
*
This though has not stopped some of Rome’s scholars from saying this [1522] sermon serves as proof that Luther believed in the Assumption of Mary.
*
Nor has it stopped Lutheran Eric Gritsch and twelve other prominent Lutheran scholars from believing that he held to the Assumption, based in part on this sermon. Swan actually deals with Gritsch’s statement, and spins it more wildly than a tornado:
*
Gritsch’s main proof? This 1522 sermon. Keep your eye on the ball again. Notice how careful Gritsch is: Luther is said to affirm Mary’s Assumption into heaven but it was not “accomplished in any special way.” In this brief synopsis offered by Gritsch, he appears to redefine what it means to be “Assumed” into heaven. What he gives with one hand, he takes away with the other, for being Assumed into heaven by its very nature is a special way of arriving in heaven!
*
Well, I would say that Luther says many silly and/or self-contradictory things. Nothing new there. In any event, Gritsch says that he affirmed the Assumption. Period. End of story. So it ain’t just us lowly “Romanists” who believe this out of our alleged desire to systematically lie and pretend, etc.
*
Many years ago now these irresponsible conclusions from Cole and O’Meara were taken by Rome’s cyber-apologists and plastered all over the Internet.
*
Swan just can’t stop with this idiocy. It’s in his anti-Catholic blood, I guess. Many Lutheran scholars agree with this conclusion! At least he acknowledged that Gritsch did so. Miracles never cease . . .
*
Why would these pop-apologists be so interested in Luther believing in Mary’s Assumption?
*
Presumably for some of the same reasons I do:
1) We are interested in Christian history, including the founder of Protestantism (who is an extremely fascinating figure). I’ve always loved history in general, and it’s much more interesting to me than fiction. Anomalies like this are interesting and educational by nature.
*
2) We would make the point that if a person committed to sola Scriptura believed in the Assumption, then it must be based in some fashion (assuming internal consistency) on the Bible, since these people reject authoritative apostolic tradition and an infallible Church.
*
3) If the founder of Protestantism believes in a Catholic “distinctive” then it’s no longer in fact exclusively a Catholic distinctive, is it?
*
4) We rejoice in any agreement from our Protestant separated brethren, since it means that we have that much more in common than we already do (which is quite a bit) and are more unified.
From how I’ve encountered these people, the motivation seems to be to cause dissonance in the minds of non-Roman Catholics.
*
Case in point. But what Protestants think of these facts that they are rarely told in their own circles is up to them. To me they are at bottom interesting facts, and I always seek facts and truth rather that fables and lies. They are what they are.
*
First,  Luther believed in sola scriptura, but look: he also adheres to our Mariology. 
*
That corresponds to my point #2 above. Kudos!
*
Second, Roman Catholics are typically fairly critical of Martin Luther. But when it comes to the topic of Mary, Luther becomes the staunch supporter of Mary; a leader that all contemporary Protestants should learn a great lesson in Mariology from.
*
We disagree with some of his teachings and agree with others. DUH! Like this is some big revelation or shocking thing? We write about disagreements because that is apologetics and comparative theology. We write about agreements for the sake of more unity and mutual understanding (#3 and #4 above). We’re not as far apart as we thought . . .
*
ADDENDUM and CORRECTION (8-2-24)
*
Swan wrote an additional article on this topic, entitled, “Another Fake Luther Quote Cited by Catholics Exposed: “There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know”” (8-1-24). He obviously had read this article of mine and is responding, but in keeping with his usual silly game, he pretends that it has nothing to do with me, and never mentions my name. He does manage, however, to provide one helpful bit of research (even an unplugged clock is correct twice a day, after all!):
Luther did not write the exact quote Roman Catholics say he did. Rather, the quote is not from Luther, but from William Tappolet, author of the book, Das Marienlob der Reformatoren [The Marian Praise of the Reformers, from 1962]. The quote is actually Tappolet summarizing his personal view of Luther on the Assumption, or rather, providing a summary of (what he thinks is) Luther’s view. Then he cites Luther’s sermon for proof  . . . 

True to form, he proceeded to mock Catholic apologists (and if you know my ludicrous 20-year history with him, he especially had me in mind):

I suspect now may occur, at least on some Roman Catholic webpages, the disappearing Luther quote act, which has different variations.
*
Drumroll please.
*
Edited. Poof! Gone.
 *
Or: Nope, we never cited this as a Luther quote. See.. it’s not on our webpage anymore, so it never happened.
*
Or: the documentation will be fixed: yep, we’re just great Roman Catholic researchers that figured out all of this stuff on our own

In fact, I am not like James Swan at all: a person who seems to never be able to admit that he ever made an error in his research (at least not if I or any dreaded, despised Catholic had pointed it out). I have done none of these things. I accept the fact that he discovered an error that the Catholic William Cole made in an article that I cited. The original disproven “citation” remains above (with a note to this Addendum), and now I issue a retraction (which I will also announce on my blog). What Swan in his triumphant and arrogant correction, however, doesn’t appear to realize is that he had done the same thing that I did: accepted Cole’s “quotation” as genuine.

The mockery in his article title lands on top of his head as well. After all, he had cited Cole with some of the context surrounding the alleged Luther quote in another article of his on the same topic, dated 5-24-16, without renouncing it as a “fake Luther quote.” So obviously, he hadn’t checked the original primary source to verify it at that time; i.e., the thing that he is always chiding Catholic apologists for not doing: he expects us to look up every original Luther source in German. He wrote in his recent article:
There’s nothing necessarily wrong with citing Cole, I’ve found useful information in his article. However, there is something wrong with not checking his references! Almost anyone can do this now. No excuses Roman Catholic apologists! Do your homework!

Again, he hadn’t done that himself in 2016, so his childish lecturing again merely exposes his own hypocrisy and shoddy research (just as bad as he claims ours is, if not worse, because of his constant self-absorbed and deluded claims of intellectual superiority). As I documented above, in his article on the topic almost ten years before that, dated 12-18-06, he is just as sure of the genuineness of the Cole “citation” of Luther as any Catholic:

The quote is from Luther’s sermon of August 15, 1522. Cole mentions it was the last time Luther preached on the Feast of the Assumption,. . . Cole quotes Luther . . . Now, one could say here that Luther leaves the door open for Mary’s assumption. Perhaps he did in 1522. . . .

No ultra-enlightened, academic skepticism here, is there? For over eighteen years, then, Swan didn’t do what he blamed us for not doing, until the light bulb went off in his head and he finally proclaimed in his article yesterday, “I have solved this mystery!” 

Now, having acknowledged my own mistake (and you notice that Swan is utterly, blissfully unaware of his same 18-year mistake), I hasten to add that it doesn’t change my argument in the slightest, because, as Swan noted, Tappolet was summarizing the Marian statements of Luther in his sermon on the Feast of the Assumption, on 15 August 1522. Swan was kind enough to provide an English translation of its introduction in his earlier article (I’ve italicized the most relevant portions):

Today the festival of our dear lady, the mother of God, is observed to celebrate her death and departure above. But how little this Gospel corresponds with this is plain. For this Gospel tells us nothing about Mary being in heaven. And even if one could draw from this text every detail about what it is like for a saint to be in heaven, it would be of little use. It is enough that we know that departed saints live in God, as Christ concludes in Matthew [Matthew 22] based on the passage in Exodus [Exodus 4] where God says to Moses, “I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob,” that God is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living.

These passages sufficiently prove that they live. But we should not try to figure out what their life is like up there for it is not necessary for us to know. It is also not necessary to discover it. Reason is incapable of it. Some great masters have understanding about some things and yet not about this. For there are three states of life. First, as a child lays in his crib he lives in God but hardly perceives it. Second, when we sleep we also are alive and are scarcely aware of it. Thirdly, when we definitely are aware and experience that we are living, even then we don’t know how.

Now since here on earth God deals with us in this meager prison (that is barely half a life), in such a way that we barely perceive how we live here, how much more can He give life in heaven where it is spacious and where is true life. So we cannot set up any definite limits or establish a rule as to how the saints live there since even here dreaming and crazy people live, but we can’t imagine how. It is enough to know that they live. But it is not necessary for us to know what that life is like. That is why I have always said that our faith always must rest upon what is known. We do not make articles of faith out of what doesn’t rest squarely on Scriptures, else we would daily make up new articles of faith. For this reason, those things that are necessary to believe which you must always preserve, which Scripture clearly reveals, are to be markedly distinguished from everything else. For faith must not build itself upon what Scripture does not clearly prove. So since the Scripture clearly says here that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and all believers live, then it is necessary for you to believe that the mother of God lives. You can leave it in our gracious God’s hands what that life is like. Enough said about this festival. We will say something about the Gospel. (Festival Sermons of Martin Luther, Michigan: Mark V Publications, 2005, pp. 145-146)

As I showed above, Luther casually assumed Mary’s “ascension” in a 1532 sermon. Swan, as always, makes out that Catholics (never Protestants!) are overzealously rationalizing and engaging in dishonest, deceitful historical revisionism as to Luther’s Mariology. But of course, what he needs to adequately explain is how Lutheran scholar Eric Gritsch could read the same sermon, along with the 1532 sermon above, and cite both of them as the basis of his statement that “Luther affirmed Mary’s assumption into heaven”.
*
Nor has Swan explained how twelve other Luther scholars could write that Luther “accepted” Mary’s Assumption “in some form.” Note that they don’t assert that he ceased believing in it. So it’s not just Catholics who think he affirmed the Assumption (however “minimally” it may have been) his entire life; and this shows that our arguments don’t simply flow from our natural Catholic bias. They’re in line with serious Lutheran Luther scholarship.
*
Yet Swan, the amateur blogger and self-proclaimed expert on Luther, with no published books of theology, apparently thinking himself superior to all these Lutheran scholars, blithely barges ahead, writing in his recent article:
The obvious question remains… does the Luther sermon Cole and Tappolet cite prove Luther believed in the Bodily Assumption of Mary? I’ve been over that before also. Read the context for yourself, either by visiting my old blog entry, Baseley’s English rendering of the sermon from Festival Sermons of Martin Luther, or the German text. The Bodily Assumption of Mary is being read into the context by Roman Catholics. A careful reader will notice nowhere in the context does Luther admit to believing in the Assumption of Mary, . . . In this brief synopsis offered by Gritsch, he appears to redefine what it means to be “Assumed” into heaven. 

Yet Gritsch and the other Lutheran scholars think that Luther did believe in the Assumption, based on these two sermons. Who to believe? Will we accept the word of a notoriously sloppy and dishonest, relentlessly sophomoric anti-Catholic blogger like James Swan, even when it expressly contradicts Lutheran scholars (including one major translator of his works in English) in matters of what Luther believed? I will accept the conclusions of the Lutheran scholars and experts on Luther, thank you. Swan is playing the sophist’s game, as usual. Avoid people who do that like the plague! I certainly would utterly ignore Swan and his vapid antics, too, if it weren’t for my duty as an apologist to expose and refute his special pleading nonsense, lest folks be led astray by it.

*
***

*
Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,800+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

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

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

Photo Credit: Assumption of the Virgin (1526-1529), by Andrea del Sarto (1486-1530) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: Anti-Catholic Protestant polemicist James Swan tries his hardest to prove that Luther rejected Mary’s Assumption, but infinitely more qualified Lutheran scholars disagree.

2024-06-10T13:49:09-04:00

Photo credit: Lucas Cranach the Elder, Madonna under the fir tree (1509) [pubic domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

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

***

Here are two lengthy excerpts from Luther’s writings in which he expresses his agreement — along with virtually all of the early Protestant leaders — with the biblical, traditional, patristic, and Catholic belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Greater context for the key statements has been kindly provided by the anti-Catholic polemicist and self-proclaimed expert on Luther, James Swan (thanks much!). None of the bolding is in Luther’s original.

The devil is doing his worst against this article of the divinity and the humanity of Christ, which he finds intolerable. Christ must be true God, in accord with the powerful testimony of Scripture and particularly of St. Paul, who declares that in Him the whole fullness of the Deity dwells bodily (Col. 2:9); otherwise we are damned forever. But in His humanity He must also be a true and natural son of the Virgin Mary, from whom He inherited flesh and blood as any other child does from its mother. He was conceived of the Holy Spirit, who came upon her and overshadowed her with the power of the Most High, according to Luke 1:35. However, Mary, the pure virgin, had to contribute of her seed and of the natural blood that coursed from her heart. From her He derived everything, except sin, that a child naturally and normally receives from its mother. This we must believe if we are not to be lost. If, as the Manichaeans allege, He is not a real and natural man, born of Mary, then He is not of our flesh and blood. Then He has nothing in common with us; then we can derive no comfort from Him. However, we do not let ourselves be troubled by the blasphemies which the devil, through the mouths of his lying servants, speaks against Christ the Lord—now against His divinity, now against His humanity—and by the attacks which he then makes against Christ’s office and work. But we cling to the Scriptures of the prophets and apostles, who spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21). Their testimony about Christ is clear. He is our Brother; we are members of His body, flesh and bone of His flesh and bone. According to His humanity, He, Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb (of which Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to her in Luke 1:42: “Blessed is the fruit of your womb!”). This was without the co-operation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that. Everything else that a mother imparts to a child was imparted by Mary, the mother of God’s eternal Son. Even the milk He sucked had no other source than the breasts of this holy and pure mother. (1st Sermon on the Gospel of John, July 1537, in Luther’s Works, vol. 22, 23-24)

Now the question may occupy us how Christ could have brothers, since He was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him. Some say that Joseph had been married before his marriage to Mary, and that the children of this first wife were later called Christ’s brothers. Others say that Joseph had another wife simultaneously with Mary, for it was permissible for the Jews to have two wives. In the Book of Ruth we hear that a poor daughter was often left on the shelf (Ruth 3:10 ff.). This displeased God; therefore He commanded that such daughters be provided for. Thus it became incumbent upon the nearest relative or friend to marry such a poor orphan girl. Mary, too, was a poor little orphan, whom Joseph was obligated to marry. She was so poor that no one else wanted her. Any children born to Joseph by other wives would have been half brothers of Christ. This is the explanation offered by some. But I am inclined to agree with those who declare that “brothers” really means “cousins” here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. Be that as it may, it matters little. It neither adds to nor detracts from faith. It is immaterial whether these men were Christ’s cousins or His brothers begotten by Joseph. In any event, they moved to Capernaum with Christ, where they took charge of the parish. We may infer from this text that they were a poor little group. After Joseph’s death they probably found it impossible to support themselves in Nazareth and for this reason left and moved to Capernaum. But just how and why this happened is a moot question. Christ was born in Bethlehem and reared in Nazareth, and now He is residing as a pastor in Capernaum. This town is His parish. He chose it as the place where He was to reside as bishop and as burgher, just as our pastor dwells here and is our bishop. Christ did not remain in Capernaum permanently. No, He wandered about. He returned to Nazareth and journeyed through all of Galilee, preaching and performing miracles; and then He would return to His abode in Capernaum. The other prophets did the same. Samuel lived in Ramah, and from there he “went on a circuit” to preach in the adjacent countryside (1 Sam. 7:16–17). (16th Sermon on the Gospel of John, January 1538, in Luther’s Works, vol. 22, 214-215)

Luther also stated that Mary “was a virgin before and at the birth of Christ” (That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew, May 1523, in Luther’s Works, vol. 45, 206).  This is the miraculous in partu birth of Christ, in which the birth was completely miraculous, and not natural childbirth by the usual physical, biological process.  For more on this, see my article, Luther & Mary’s Virginity During Childbirth (The Miraculous Birth of Jesus [“in Partu”] Without Pain) [10-12-11; additions on 9-19-15].

As an extra bonus, here are some remarks by Luther concerning Mary being the Mother of God:

We must hold to this faith in opposition to the heretics. The Turk contends that Mary was not the mother of the Son of God. The Nestorians said that Mary was not the mother of God but only of the man Jesus, who by nature was only her son. They made two sons out of one. But there is only one Son; and yet there are two natures, which gave Mary the right to say: “This Son Jesus, whom I bore and suckled on my breasts, is the eternal God, born of the Father in eternity, and also my Son.” And God says likewise: “Mary’s Son is My only Son.” Thus Mary is the mother of God. And Christ, together with God the Father and the Holy Spirit, is very God from eternity who became man in time. So God the Father does not have a son apart from Mary’s, nor does Mary have a son apart from God the Father’s. This is the foundation on which our faith rests: that Jesus Christ has two natures even though He is one indivisible Person. There are not two sons and two persons; there is one Son and one Person. (27th Sermon on the Gospel of John, in Luther’s Works, vol. 22, 323-324)

*

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

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

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

Photo credit: Lucas Cranach the Elder, Madonna under the fir tree (1509) [pubic domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: Martin Luther believed in the biblical, patristic, and Catholic doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity, including during Jesus’ miraculous birth (i.e., an intact hymen).

2024-06-04T17:44:13-04:00

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

Johann Eck (1486-1543) was a German Catholic theologian, who was arguably one of Martin Luther’s two most important and formidable debate opponents, along with Erasmus (I’ve compiled several of his devastating replies to Luther as well). He was ordained as a priest in 1508 and in 1510 was installed as a professor of theology at the University of Ingolstadt in Bavaria: which lasted for thirty years. He mastered both Greek and Hebrew and had a prodigious memory, boundless energy, and very considerable debating skills. He famously engaged Luther for eighteen days in the Leipzig Disputation of July 1519.

Eck’s argumentation might be said to be one of the quintessential examples of the Catholic theological and polemical response to the Protestant Revolt up to the opening of  the Council of Trent in 1545. This is one of many excerpts from his best-known and principal volume, Enchiridion of Commonplaces Against Luther and Other Enemies of the Church. It first appeared in 1529 and eventually went through 91 editions. I will be using a later edition from 1541 (translated by Ford Lewis Battles, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1979; now in the public domain).

Eck’s words will be in black; my interjections in blue, and citations from Luther and other famous Protestants in green. I use RSV for scriptural citations.

***

The Saints as friends of God ought to be implored to intercede for us, and although the Saints are not to be worshiped with latria, because this is owed to God alone, yet they are to be venerated with dulia. John 12:26: “If any man minister to me, him will my Father who is in heaven honor.” If therefore God honors the saints why should we not honor the saints? “So long as you do this to one of the least of these my brothers, you have done it unto me” [Mt 25:40]. Therefore honor shown to the saints is shown to God.

“But to me thy friends, 0 God, are made exceedingly honorable; their principality is exceedingly strengthened” [Ps 139:17].

“If Moses and Samuel shall stand before me, my soul is towards this people” [Jer 15:1]. . . . There Jeremiah is manifestly hinting that the saints pray for the people.

“Call now if there be any that will answer you, and turn to someone of the saints” [Job 5:1]. These words, indeed, although Eliphaz the Temanite spoke them to Job, yet Job did not rebuke them, but received them as the salutary advice of a friend. Thus also Elihu said: “If there shall be an angel speaking for him, one among like ones, to declare man’s uprightness, he (that is, God) shall have mercy on him, and shall say: Deliver him, that he may not go down to corruption, I have found wherein I may be merciful to him” [Job 33:23f].

“Go to my servant Job, and offer for yourselves a holocaust. . . his face I shall accept, that folly may not be imputed to you . . .” [Job 42:8]. And later: “The Lord also was turned toward the penance of Job, when the latter prayed for his friends [Job 42:10].

Jacob said: “. . . and let my name be called upon them, and the names of my fathers Abraham, and Isaac . . .” [Gen 48:16].

Moses said to him: “Let thy anger cease, and be appeased upon the wickedness of thy people. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel … to whom thou swarest by thy own self, saying: I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven” etc. [Ex 32:12f]. And there follows: “The Lord was appeased upon the wickedness of his people” [cf. Ex 32:14]. Azarias in the fiery furnace prayed, saying: “Deliver us not up for ever . . . for thy name’s sake, and abolish not thy covenant. And take not away thy mercy from us for the sake of Abraham thy beloved, and Isaac thy servant, and Israel thy holy one, to whom thou hast spoken, promising that thou wouldst multiply their seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand that is on the sea shore” [Dan 3:34-35]. And he was freed with his companions from the fiery furnace.

“O Lord Almighty, God of Israel, hear now the prayer of the dead of Israel and their sons who have sinned before thee” [Bar 4 3:4], etc.

“Judas Maccabeus saw Onias extending his hands to pray for the people of the Jews; after this he saw another man wonderful in age and glory, concerning whom Onias said: he is the lover of the brethren and of the people of Israel, who prays much for the people and the whole holy city, Jeremiah, the prophet of God” [2 Macc 15:12-14].

If the fathers of the Old Testament in limbo, not yet blessed with the clear vision of the divine countenance, were praying for their own, how much more are the saints in eternal blessedness contemplating ceaselessly God face to face, to be believed to be praying for us.

“In as much as you have done to one of the least, my brothers, you have done it unto me” [Mt 25:45]. Therefore if honor is shown to the saints, honor will be shown to God.

“For this every saint will pray to thee in a suitable time” [Ps 37:6]. The Hebrews read “every merciful one”: the blessed moreover are saints and merciful.

Absalom, reconciled to his father yet for two years stopping in Jerusalem, did not see the face of his father [2 K 14:24ff]. Thus the sinner reconciled to God does not immediately present himself to God, but through mediators and intercessors.

Solomon ordered a throne to be placed for his mother next to his own [1 K 2:19]. The true peacemaking Solomon, Christ, honoring his mother, does the same thing. . . .

All honor which we direct to the divine Virgin redounds to Christ, Son of God and of the Virgin: we honor the Virgin as mother in the Son, and the Son in the Virgin mother.  . . .

The angels pray for us: “The angel of the Lord shall encamp round about them that fear him, and shall deliver them” [Ps 34:8].

“For he has given his angels charge over you, to guard your ways” [Ps 91:11].

The angel prays for the Jewish people: “0 Lord of hosts, how long wilt thou not have mercy on Jerusalem, and on the cities of Judah, with which thou hast been angry? . . . And the Lord answered the angel . . . good, comfortable words” [Zech 1:12f].

“The four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials, full of odors, which are the prayers of the saints” [Rev 5:8]. ” . . . the angel stood before the altar, having a golden censer, and there was given to him much incense, that he should offer of the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar, which is before the throne of God. And the smoke of the incense from the prayers of the saints ascended up before God from the hand of the angel” [Rev 8:3f].

“Are they not all ministering spirits, sent to minister for them, who shall receive the inheritances of salvation?” [Heb 1:14]. Therefore angels support us: why then is it not permitted to call upon their support [suffragia] and ministry?

And the same reason applies to the saints as to the angels whose equals they are in the kingdom of heaven [Lk 20:36; Mt 22:30; Mk 12:25].

“No word overcame him (Elisha), and after death his body prophesied; in his life he did great wonders, and in death he wrought miracles” [Ecclus 38:14f].

1. Christ intercedes for us according to his humanity before God the Father. “For Christ Jesus makes intercession for us” [cf. Heb 7:25].

“Jesus has an everlasting priesthood, whereby he is able also to save forever, those who come to God by him, always living to make intercession for us” [Heb 7:24f].

“But if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the just: and he is our propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world” [1 Jn 2:1f].

If therefore Christ as head prays for us, why not also the saints his members, (who conform themselves to Christ) asking with him[?] . . . 

If the living pray for one another, why do the blessed dead not also do this, who are more perfect in charity and more powerful with God and purer in mind? . . . God wills to be called upon through his saints, “I sought among them for a man who might set up a hedge and stand in a gap before me in favor of the land, that I might not destroy it, and I found none” [Ez 22:30].

[Objection] Christ alone, God, is to be called on because he alone is sufficient. He alone is most generous and most merciful, loving us more than all saints do. “If you ask the Father anything in my name, he will give it you” [Jn 16:23]. “Ask and you shall receive; seek and you shall find” [Lk 11:9]. “All things whatever you shall ask in prayer, believing, you shall receive” [Mt 21:22]. “Let us go therefore with confidence to the throne of his grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace in seasonable aid” [Heb 4:16].

[Reply] We confess that what is to be prayed for is to be prayed in the name of Jesus, is to be prayed for with assurance, yet that does not exclude the saints, because also through the saints as members we pray in the name of Jesus their head. Hence the Church concludes that the collects of the saints are through Christ our Lord. And although God is best and most merciful, yet he is also most orderly, disposes all things sweetly, and draws the lower things through the middle things to the higher things, as Dionysius says.

[Objection] “There is one mediator of God and men, Christ Jesus” [1 Tim 2:5]. Why then do we want to make from among the saints
more mediators?

[Reply] There is one mediator of redemption, Jesus Christ, because he alone has redeemed the human race; there is no other name under heaven in whom we are to be saved, but there are very many mediators of intercession. Therefore there is one mediator through redemption, just as also there is one savior. For he alone is the good shepherd who has given his life as redemption for many. But there are many mediators through intercession, just as also Scripture mentions very many saviors. Moses says “I was the mediator and stood between the Lord and you” [Deut 5:5]. “Likewise he raised them up a savior [RSV: “deliverer”]  Othoniel” [Judges 3:9]. . . .

***

We honor, venerate, invoke . . . God and His saints, yet in an unequal manner. Him (because He is first and beginning of being and conserving and governing for all, and alone gives grace and glory) we worship with latria, which is owed to Him alone in accordance with the Scripture: “You shall adore the Lord your God, and Him alone you shall serve” (Dt 6:13; Mt 4:10). And again: “To God alone be honor and glory” (1 Tim 1:17).

And with this adoration Mordecai would not adore Haman, fearing lest he might transfer to a man the honor owed to God (Esther 3:2). And the angel forbade John from wanting to worship him (Rev 22:8 f). The saints as intercessors and patrons, not as conferers of grace and glory, but (by their merits and prayers) as obtainers of requests with God, and thus far beneath God, we venerate, honor, and invoke with dulia. (which is shown to excellent creatures as a sign of reverence) but the Virgin, bearer of God, by hyperdulia. . . .

In the litany the Church teaches the difference between the invocation or adoration of God and of the saints, where first of all the Holy Trinity is invoked under the distinction of persons and the unity of essence, to have mercy upon us. Then the intercession of the saints is implored, to pray for us. Finally, the litany returns to God that He may deign to hearken to us while the saints are praying together with us, may free us from evil, grant us grace, and bestow eternal life. The Church observes a similar form of prayer in the . . . “collects” which are said on the festivals of the saints, where we implore divine clemency through the merits and intercessions of the saints. It concludes with: “Through our Lord Jesus Christ, who with thee lives and reigns” etc.

The invocation of the saints is not explicitly enjoined in the Scriptures. Not in the Old Testament: where the people had otherwise slipped into idolatry, and the fathers were in limbo, not yet blessed. “Abraham has not known us’, and Israel was ignorant of us” (Is 63:16). Under the Gospel too there was no precept, lest the Gentiles being converted might believe themselves once more led back into the cult of those born of earth, so they would have worshiped (according to the old custom) the saints not as patrons, but as gods: just as they wanted at Lycaonia to sacrifice to Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14:10). Now if the Apostles and Evangelists had taught that the saints were to be venerated, they would have been blamed for arrogance, as if they themselves had sought that glory after death. Therefore he would not teach by express scriptures the veneration of saints, . . .

*

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

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

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

Photo credit: Transfiguration of Jesus [Elijah and Moses also appearing], by Carl Heinrich Bloch (1834-1890) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: One of a series of posts documenting the Catholic apologetics efforts of Johann Eck (1486-1543) against Protestantism. This entry addresses veneration of saints.

2024-06-04T17:46:33-04:00

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

Johann Eck (1486-1543) was a German Catholic theologian, who was arguably one of Martin Luther’s two most important and formidable debate opponents, along with Erasmus (I’ve compiled several of his devastating replies to Luther as well). He was ordained as a priest in 1508 and in 1510 was installed as a professor of theology at the University of Ingolstadt in Bavaria: which lasted for thirty years. He mastered both Greek and Hebrew and had a prodigious memory, boundless energy, and very considerable debating skills. He famously engaged Luther for eighteen days in the Leipzig Disputation of July 1519.

Eck’s argumentation might be said to be one of the quintessential examples of the Catholic theological and polemical response to the Protestant Revolt up to the opening of  the Council of Trent in 1545. This is one of many excerpts from his best-known and principal volume, Enchiridion of Commonplaces Against Luther and Other Enemies of the Church. It first appeared in 1529 and eventually went through 91 editions. I will be using a later edition from 1541 (translated by Ford Lewis Battles, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1979; now in the public domain).

Eck’s words will be in black; my interjections in blue, and citations from Luther and other famous Protestants in green. I use RSV for scriptural citations.

***

Axiom 1: After guilt has been forgiven through contrition and absolution, the penitent ought to make satisfaction for penalty.

Adam doubtless was repentant after guilt, yet at that point he was not threatened with a penalty by God. “In whatever day you shall eat of it, you shall die the death” [Gen 2:17]. Indeed after his transgression of the divine commandment, God added over and above the threatened penalty of death something else, saying to Adam: “Because you have hearkened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat, cursed is the earth in your work; with labor and toil shall you eat thereof all the days of your life. Thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to you; and you shall eat the herbs of the earth. In the sweat of your face shall you eat bread until you return to earth out of which you were taken, for dust you are, and into dust you shall return” [Gen 3:17-19].

“To the woman also he said: I will multiply your sorrow and your conception; in sorrow shall you bring forth children, and you shall be under your husband’s power,” [Gen 3:16] etc. And just as all of us have sinned in Adam so all of us die in him [cf Rom 5:12], also with the guilt of original sin, for which death and the other penalties were inflicted, remitted in baptism.

“David, after having committed adultery and murder, repentant, said to Nathan: ‘I have sinned against the Lord.’ And Nathan said to him: ‘The Lord also has put away your sin'” [2 K 12:13]. Now sin is put away, not in order to put away guilt, but for penalty. . . .

And there are many other examples, which point out and prove the same thing: Miriam, Moses’ sister, after her guilt in murmuring against Moses was forgiven, was stricken with leprosy; nor on that very spot when Moses prayed to the Lord for her that she might be healed, was she cleansed, but when the Lord commanded that for seven days, as a penalty for her sin, she be excluded from the camp, for that time the leprosy remained [Num 12:10-15].

God foretold that Moses and Aaron would not enter or lead the Israelite people into the promised land, on account of the sin of disbelief at the water of contradiction [Num 20:24] although doubtless this sin was forgiven these holy men. Joseph’s brothers confessed that they had justly suffered for their misdeed committed against their brother, “saying among themselves: We have deservedly suffered, because we have sinned against our brother,” etc. [Gen 42:21], Eli, because he reproved the sins of his sons less than he ought, “fell from his stool backwards and broke his neck, and died” [1 Kings 4:18]. David’s guilt, incurred by taking a census of the people, although forgiven him by the mercy of God for which he prayed, was attended by a very savage pestilence. He, being penitent, and commanded by the prophet, Gad, to make satisfaction, erected an altar and made an offering of fifty shekels [2 Sam 24:10ff; cf 1 Chr 21:7ff],

The Ninevites fasted and covered themselves with sackcloth, etc. [Jonah 3:5]. “Ahab . . . fasted, covered himself with goat’s hair, slept in sackcloth, walked with his head bowed down and placated the Lord” [1 K 21:27]. “If that nation shall repent of their evil, I also will repent of the evil that I have thought to do to them” [Jer 18:8].

According to the measure of the sin shall the measure also of the stripes be” [Deut 25:2].

“As much as she has glorified herself and lived in delicacies, so much torment and sorrow give to her” [Rev 18:7].

“Be not without fear about sin forgiven and say not: The mercy of the Lord is great, he will have mercy on the multitude of my sins” [Ecclus 5:5f].

Christ said to the cured paralytic who had been in his infirmity for thirty-eight years: “Behold, you have been made whole. Now sin no more, lest anything worse come upon you” [Jn 5:14]. In this Jesus manifestly hints that this infirmity lasting so many years was inflicted as a penalty for a sin long ago (something by no means incredible) wiped out through the patience of the infirm man and the mercy of God.

Axiom 2: Works of Satisfaction, pure prayer, fasting, alms, [and the restitution which is] enjoined upon the confessant, pertain to the sacrament of penance: these one manifestly comes upon from the Holy Scriptures.

In Leviticus [c. 4, 5, 6] the Lord commands various sacrifices to be offered for the various sins of priest, leader and people.

“Turn to me with your whole heart, in fasting and weeping” [Joel 2:12]. Daniel advised Nebuchadnezzar: “Make recompense for your sins with alms, and your iniquities with merciful acts toward the poor” [Dan 4:24].

The Ninevites repentant at the preaching of Jonah,” . . . putting on sackcloth, fasted together with their animals, and praying, cried out to the Lord . . . And God saw their works . . . and had mercy upon them” [Jonah 5:5, 10]. Our Savior Christ, praising them, prefers them to the unrepentant Jews, saying: “The men of Nineveh shall rise in the judgment with this generation, (that is, of those obstinate ones not making satisfaction for their sins) and shall condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah …” [Lk 11:32].

John the Baptist urged the people saying: “Bring forth fruits worthy of penance” [Lk 3:8]. Christ upbraided the cities in which very many miracles, were done because they had not repented: “Woe to you, Corozaim Woe to you Bethsaida, for if in Tyre and Sidon had been wrought the miracles that have been wrought in you they had long ago done penance in sackcloth and ashes” [Mt 11:21].

“Unless you do penance, you shall all likewise perish,” just as “those eighteen upon whom the tower fell in Siloe and killed them” [Lk 13:4f]. “In all things let us exhibit ourselves as the ministers of God, in much fasting,” etc. [2 Cor 6:4]. Therefore it is clear that satisfaction is truly necessary for the penitent. [This also is effectively proved by the same scriptures by which Luther in vain tries to disprove it.]

[Objection] John the Baptist, sent to preach repentance, taught only the observance of God’s commandments, saying: “Do nothing more than that which is appointed you” [Lk 3:13], making no mention of satisfaction.
*
[Reply] First of all we deny that John did not teach satisfaction. Surely he enjoined alms which pertain to satisfaction, saying, He who has two coats, let him give to him who has none and he who has food, let him do in like manner” [Lk 3:11]. Indeed those baptized by John confess their sins that according to the quality of the sins penance might be determined for them. Hence he taught, bring forth fruits worthy of penance which fruits arise through works of satisfaction. John did not preach mere repentance but a baptism of repentance, not his own, but of Christ for the remission of sins. Therefore he was not obligated to make more express mention of satisfaction to those baptized by him and those thereafter to be baptized by the baptism of Christ (in which at the same time both guilt and penalty are remitted).

[Objection] Micah says: “I will show you, 0 man, what is good, and what the Lord requires of you: Verily, to do judgment, and to love mercy, and to walk carefully with your God,” etc. [Mic 6:8]. And he corroborates this, because the Prophet here makes fun of those who wish to make satisfaction through works, saying: “What shall I offer to the Lord that is worthy? . . . Shall I offer holocausts unto him, and yearling calves? Can the Lord be appeased with thousands of rams, or with many thousands of he-goats?” etc. [Mic 6:6f] . As if he did not say this.

[Reply] Micah in these words does not exclude but rather includes works of satisfaction. That is, by judgment is understood the severe condemnation of oneself, through loving mercy, through exercising works of alms and piety out of love for the poor, and through walking carefully with God, the observance of divine commandments. Augustine agrees, saying: “In this repentance each one ought to exercise greater severity in himself in order that having been judged by himself he may not be judged by the Lord; so speaks the Apostle [1 Cor 11:31f]” (De Poenitentlae Medicina, c. 2].
*
Nor does Micah make fun of those who wish to make satisfaction to God through good works, but he means that sacrifices and holocausts of animals were not sufficient nor did they avail for the wiping out of sins. “For it is impossible with the blood of goats and bullocks sin should be taken away” [Heb 10:4]. And in themselves these were not pleasing or acceptable to God. For through the prophet he says “I desire not holocausts of rams and of bullocks and blood of calves and lambs” [Is 1:11]. Yet he wished and indeed commanded these things to be offered to him also for sins, not because these sacrifices themselves cleansed from sins, but because certain ones served as witnesses to the faith concerning Christ who was to suffer, which cleansed from sins. And the law itself hints at this from the manner of speaking, for it says that in the offering of victims for sin the priest will pray for it and it will be forgiven him as if the sin were forgiven, not from the force of the sacrifices, but from the faith and devotion of those making the offering.
*
[Objection] Christ by his passion and death made satisfaction for our sins. Yet the passion of Christ was sufficient not only for removing sins, but also for wiping out punishments. “For he has borne our infirmities,” says the prophet, “and carried our sorrows” [Is 53:4]. Therefore, etc.
*
[Reply] The passion of Christ is sufficient to remove all guilt of punishment not only eternal but also temporal and according to the mode whereby man participates in the power of Christ’s passion and receives also absolution from the guilt of punishment.
*
Moreover in baptism man participates totally in the power of Christ s passion (as through water and the Holy Spirit having died together with Christ to sin, and in him regenerated to new life). And for that reason in baptism man obtains remission of all guilt of punishment, but in penance man obtains the power of Christ’s passion according to the mode of his very own acts which are the matter of penance. Hence the Apostle urges the penitent ones saying: “For as you have yielded your members to serve uncleanness and iniquity, unto iniquity, so now yield your members to serve justice unto sanctification” [Rom 6:19]. And the prophet says: “For as it was your mind to go astray from God, so when you return again you shall seek him ten times as much” [Bar 4:28], And for this reason, not immediately through the first act of penitence whereby blame is remitted, is the guilt of punishment released. But you complete all the parts of penance. Yet we admit how much contrition anyone can have in order to wipe away at one and the same time all blame and punishment. But this, as yet given to few, is not certain to whom it is given.
*
It is to be said that God perfectly cures the whole man. Moreover sometimes he did this suddenly as when he restored Peter’s mother-in-law immediately to perfect health [Lk 4:38f]. But sometimes he did so consecutively as for example, the blind man enlightened by the Lord was first restored to imperfect vision whereupon he said: “I see men walking like trees,” then he was perfectly restored so that he saw all things clearly [Mk 8:24]. And thus also he nevertheless spiritually converts the heart of men with such great agitation, that suddenly it perfectly achieves spiritual health, not only with guilt forgiven, but with all the rest of sin removed, as is clear concerning Mary Magdalene [Lk 7:7]. He previously forgives guilt through operating grace and afterwards through cooperating grace he removes in succession the guilt of the penalty and the other remnants of sins. It. does not come about therefore from Christ’s act that when guilt is forgiven, at the same time all punishment is forgiven, but rather the contrary, etc.
*
*

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

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

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

Photo credit: painting on the “Reconciliation” page for St. Helena Catholic Church, Amite, Louisiana.

Summary: One of a series of posts documenting the Catholic apologetics efforts of Johann Eck (1486-1543) against various Protestants. This entry addresses satisfaction.

2024-05-29T14:53:55-04:00

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

***

Johann Eck (1486-1543) was a German Catholic theologian, who was arguably one of Martin Luther’s two most important and formidable debate opponents, along with Erasmus (I’ve compiled several of his devastating replies to Luther as well). He was ordained as a priest in 1508 and in 1510 was installed as a professor of theology at the University of Ingolstadt in Bavaria: which lasted for thirty years. He mastered both Greek and Hebrew and had a prodigious memory, boundless energy, and very considerable debating skills. He famously engaged Luther for eighteen days in the Leipzig Disputation of July 1519.

Eck’s argumentation might be said to be one of the quintessential examples of the Catholic theological and polemical response to the Protestant Revolt up to the opening of  the Council of Trent in 1545. This is one of many excerpts from his best-known and principal volume, Enchiridion of Commonplaces Against Luther and Other Enemies of the Church. It first appeared in 1529 and eventually went through 91 editions. I will be using a later edition from 1541 (translated by Ford Lewis Battles, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1979; now in the public domain).

Eck’s words will be in black; my interjections in blue, and citations from Luther and other famous Protestants in green. Line breaks imply breaks in the text. I use RSV for scriptural citations.

***

St. Paul gives thanks to God in his prayers, 0 Most Reverend Father and Prince, when he hears of the charity of Philemon and of the faith which he had in the Lord Jesus, and toward all his saints [Philemon v. 4-5]. [“I thank my God always when I remember you in my prayers, because I hear of your love and of the faith which you have toward the Lord Jesus and all the saints”], For Paul, supremely conscious of the secrets of God, had an insight that the faith of any man shines before God when he strives to conform it as much as possible to the saints and friends of God, just as Israel believed not only the Lord but also Moses his servant [Ex 14:31]. [“. . . and they believed in the LORD and in his servant Moses.”] And all good and sincere men have earnestly distinguished themselves from the time of Christ’s passion even to the present day, but not more than befits wise men [Rom 12:16]. [“Live in harmony with one another; do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly; never be conceited.”] But those who (neglecting this Apostolic rule) “have walked in wonderful things above themselves” [Ps 130:1] [“O LORD, my heart is not lifted up, my eyes are not raised too high; I do not occupy myself with things too great and too marvelous for me.”] and exalted themselves as Lucifer and the noonday demon [cf. Ps 91:6], unwilling to believe in the saints of God, are deceived, and have been given over to the precipice of errors, while they are not afraid to despoil those ancient apostolic men, remarkable in learning, eminent in moral character, notable in authority, and famous for miracles. . . . he who is not convinced by the harmony of the succession of holy fathers in the Church, by the profession and unanimous verdict of councils, must with insolent and proud rashness dash headlong into all sorts of abominable errors. Luther preferred to follow this insane and mad rashness, with his confederates, rather than piously believe, with Philemon, in the saints of God, and the rule of faith which the whole Church observes. For with perverse will he murmurs against the ministers of God, the most holy fathers, and the whole Church, putting his own judgment (0 utterly blind pride of the vainest of men!) ahead of all the foremost men of the Church. 

So, for example, Luther wrote:

Therefore, 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. For there has been enough foolish humility now for the third time at Worms, and it has not helped. Instead, I shall let myself be heard and, as St. Peter teaches, give an explanation and defense of my teaching to all the world – I Pet. 3:15. I shall not have it judged by any man, not even by any angel. For since I am certain of it, I shall be your judge and even the angels’ judge through this teaching (as St. Paul says [I Cor. 6:3 ]) so that whoever does not accept my teaching may not be saved – for it is God’s and not mine. Therefore, my judgment is also not mine but God’s. (Against the Spiritual Estate of the Pope and the Bishops Falsely So-Called, July 1522; from Luther’s Works, vol. 39, 248-249) 

But he didn’t disregard all of tradition, by any means. As usual, he was a “mixed bag”:

He [Karlstadt] would like with such smoke and mist to obscure altogether the sun and light of the gospel and the main articles of Christianity, so that the world might forget everything that we have hitherto taught. (Letter to the Christians at Strassburg in Opposition to the Fanatic Spirit, Dec. 1524, tr. Conrad Bergendoff; in LW, v. 40)

The amazing thing, meanwhile, is that of all the fathers, as many as you can name, not one has ever spoken about the sacrament [of the Eucharist] as these fanatics do. . . . Certainly among so many fathers and so many writings a negative argument should have turned up at least once, as happens in other articles; but actually they all stand uniformly and consistently on the affirmative side. (That These Words of Christ, This Is My Body, etc., Still Stand Firm Against the Fanatics, March 1527, tr. Robert H. Fischer; in LW, v. 37)

Since our baptizing has been thus from the beginning of Christianity and the custom has been to baptize children, . . . if we are going to change or do away with customs that are traditional, it is necessary to prove convincingly that these are contrary to the Word of God. (Concerning Rebaptism, Jan. 1528, tr. Conrad Bergendoff; in LW, v. 40)

[T]he Anabaptists proceed dangerously in everything. Not only are they not sure of themselves but also they act contrary to accepted tradition . . . (Ibid.)

[I]f the first, or child, baptism were not right, it would follow that for more than a thousand years there was no baptism or any Christendom, which is impossible. For in that case the article of the creed, I believe in one holy Christian church, would be false. . . . If this baptism is wrong then for that long period Christendom would have been without baptism, and if it were without baptism it would not be Christendom. . . . But the fact that child baptism has spread throughout all the Christian world to this day gives rise to no probability that it is wrong, but rather to a strong indication that it is right. (Ibid.)

Further, it is dangerous to accept such new teaching [a merely symbolic Eucharist] in contrast to lucid and open texts and the clear words of Christ, and to abandon this old belief (which from the beginning till now has been maintained in all of Christendom) on the basis of such poor [Scripture] passages and thoughts as [our opponents] have thus far brought forth . . . (Letters II, ed. and tr. Gottfried G. Krodel; to Landgrave Philip of Hesse, 20 May 1530; in LW, v. 49)

[Y]ou would be troubled not only for the sake of your soul, which would be damned thereby, but for the sake of the whole Christian Church, for if you allow any to teach against the long and unanimously held doctrine of the Church when you can prevent it, it may well be called an unbearable burden to conscience. . . .  For we must not trifle with the articles of faith so long and unanimously held by Christendom, . . . (To Duke Albert of Prussia, Feb. or early March 1532)

See also my articles, and book:

Martin Luther’s Remarkably “Pro-Tradition” Strain of Thought [1-18-08]

The “Catholic-Sounding” Luther: 25 Examples [6-16-08]

Martin Luther: Catholicism is Christian [6-12-13]

Top Ten Remarkable “Catholic” Beliefs of Martin Luther [1-19-15]

The “Catholic” Luther : An Ecumenical Collection of His “Traditional” Utterances (Dec. 2014, 166 pages)

Luther had, however, rejected at least fifty Catholic doctrines or practices by 1520, before he was excommunicated (as I have documented form his own words). Like I said: “mixed bag.”

***

Christ did not write any book, nor did He bid the disciples or apostles to write one, yet He gave many precepts concerning the Church; hence when about to send apostles out to plant the Church, He did not say, “Go write,” but “Go into the whole world and preach the Gospel to every creature” [Mt. 24:14], Therefore the law was written on tablets of stone, but the Gospel on hearts. “Since you are a letter of Christ, sent out by us, and written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not in tablets of stone, but in the physical tablets of the heart” [2 Cor 3:3].

Thus the apostles without the Scripture of the New Testament chose Matthias [Acts 1:22ff], ordained seven deacons [Acts 6:3]; Peter caused Ananias and Sapphira to die [Acts 5:1ff]. Even though the apostles were very diligent in sowing the Word of God, yet very few things are found written by them. It follows logically that they taught many more things than they wrote; the things taught have equal authority with the things written.

Let the objection immediately be raised against him: how does he know that these Scriptures are canonical except from the Church, for why does he believe the Gospel of Mark, who did not see Christ, to be canonical, and not the Gospel of Nicodemus, who saw and heard Christ, as John testifies [Jn 3:1ff]? So why has the Gospel of Luke the disciple been received, and the Gospel of Bartholomew the apostle been rejected, unless we humbly confess the authority of the Church with the Blessed Augustine, something Luther sometimes taught, that the Church could judge concerning the Scriptures.

Hence, Augustine, Against the Epistle Called Fundamental, 5.6 [PL 42.176]: “I would not have believed the Gospel unless the authority of the Church had moved me to do so.”

Luther largely agreed, at least in this statement:

St. Paul says in Rom. 1, 2, that the Gospel was promised afore in the Holy Scriptures, but it was not preached orally and publicly until Christ came and sent out his apostles. Therefore the church is a mouth-house, not a pen-house, for since Christ’s advent that Gospel is preached orally which before was hidden in written books. It is the way of the Gospel and of the New Testament that it is to be preached and discussed orally with a living voice. Christ himself wrote nothing, nor did he give command to write, but to preach orally. Thus the apostles were not sent out until Christ came to his mouth-house, that is, until the time had come to preach orally and to bring the Gospel from dead writing and pen-work to the living voice and mouth. (Sermon for the First Sunday in Advent; Matthew 21:1-9, 1521)

i. Scripture teaches: “Remember to hallow the Sabbath day; six days shall you labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath day of the Lord your God,” etc. [Ex 20:8ff] Yet the Church has changed the Sabbath into Sunday on its own authority, on which you have no Scripture.

ii. Christ said to His disciples on the mountain: “I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it” [Matt 5:17]. And yet the Church of the apostles in council [Acts 15] boldly made pronouncement on the cessation of legal matters. . . .

iv. Scripture is defined in the council: “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” [Acts 15:28] etc., “that you should abstain from sacrifices offered to idols, and blood and things strangled [v. 29]. This matter, so clearly defined and expressed, the Church by her authority changed, because she uses both blood and strangled meat. . . .

“And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension against them, the brethren decided that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to the apostles and presbyters in Jerusalem about this question” [Acts 15:2] . . . And what was the Church? Not the whole congregation, but they went up to the apostles and presbyters who represented the Church.

See the Related Materials:

Part IV: Erasmus’ Hyperaspistes (1526): Luther’s Anti-Traditional Elements

Part VI: Erasmus’ Hyperaspistes (1526): Sola Scriptura and Perspicuity of Scripture

*

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

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

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

Photo credit: A lovely visual of biblical “tradition”: Torah scrolls at Middle Street Synagogue, Brighton, England. Photograph by “The Voice of Hassocks” (5-5-13) [Wikimedia Commons /  Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication]

Summary: One of a series of posts documenting the Catholic apologetics efforts of Johann Eck (1486-1543) against various Protestants. This installment addresses tradition.

Follow Us!



Browse Our Archives