2024-03-05T13:23:19-04:00

Last updated on: March 5, 2024 at 1:23 pm   By
0 Comments

+ Catholic Exegesis Regarding St. Paul’s Specific Meaning of “Works” in Romans 4

Rev. Dr. Jordan B. Cooper is a Lutheran pastor, adjunct professor of Systematic Theology, Executive Director of the popular Just & Sinner YouTube channel, and the President of the American Lutheran Theological Seminary (which holds to a doctrinally traditional Lutheranism, similar to the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod). He has authored several books, as well as theological articles in a variety of publications. All my Bible citations are from RSV, unless otherwise indicated. Jordan’s words will be in blue.

This is my 6th reply to Jordan (many more to come, because I want to interact with the best, most informed Protestant opponents). All of these respectful critiques can be found in the “Replies to Lutheran Theologian / Apologist Jordan Cooper” section on the top of my Lutheranism web page.

*****

This is a response to one portion of Jordan’s YouTube video, “A Lutheran (Jordan B. Cooper) and Roman Catholic (Rob Koons) Debate Romans 4” (12-11-23).

Romans 4:2-9, 13-16, 20-22 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. [3] For what does the scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” [4] Now to one who works, his wages are not reckoned as a gift but as his due. [5] And to one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness. [6] So also David pronounces a blessing upon the man to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works: [7] “Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; [8] blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not reckon his sin.” [9] Is this blessing pronounced only upon the circumcised, or also upon the uncircumcised? We say that faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness. . . . [13] The promise to Abraham and his descendants, that they should inherit the world, did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. [14] If it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. [15] For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression. [16] That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his descendants — not only to the adherents of the law but also to those who share the faith of Abraham, for he is the father of us all, . . . [20] No distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, [21] fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. [22] That is why his faith was “reckoned to him as righteousness.”

0:11 I always go to Romans 4, but there’s a reason for that. Romans 4 in particular does speak about the fact that Abraham is one who is not working; he does not work, and we even have the entire narrative that stands behind the Abrahamic promise, and in that narrative Abraham is literally put asleep when God makes this covenant with Abraham. So God is the one making the covenant. It is the model of what we call a suzerainty treaty, where God is essentially saying that he is fulfilling the terms of the covenant himself, which I would argue is very different from what we see in, for example, the Mosaic administration when we have the people saying “all of this we will do.” Abraham’s asleep; God makes the promises and Abraham trusts that God is going to do what God says he’s going to do. And that’s what we have [in] that text in Genesis 15:6: that Abraham believed, and it was credited him as righteousness, and in that context I would say that also gives us a really strong picture of what faith is, as something beyond historical knowledge. . . . even the example that Paul gives in Romans 4 is [that] he believes God’s promise to give him a son. The picture seems to be something beyond what we would call historical faith and it’s not love either . . . 

I think that Paul’s use of “work[s]” in Romans 4 is referring to what Anglican theologian N. T. Wright describes as “badges of Jewish membership (Sabbath, dietary laws, circumcision)” which separated Jews from Gentiles in his time. Wright contends that Paul’s topic in Romans 4 is not so much inclusion of the Gentiles, but rather, what caused Gentile Christians to wrongly exclude ethnic Jews from the Christian community. Wright thus interprets Romans 4:2 as meaning that Abraham was not justified by the “works” of Sabbath, dietary laws, circumcision, etc., and that Paul is making an argument for the primacy of faith, which transcends even adherence to the Mosaic Law.

Faith is regarded as superior to Mosaic Law, not to good works per se (as Protestants routinely misinterpret such passages in Paul). Accordingly, Paul contends that God’s blessings and forgiveness extends to the uncircumcised as well; that “faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness” (4:9) “before he was circumcised” (4:10), making him “the father of all who believe without being circumcised” (4:11) and also of the “circumcised” who “follow the example of the faith which our father Abraham had before he was circumcised” (4:12). This is what the passage is about: faith in Jesus and belief in God’s grace over against observance of ritual Jewish laws (insofar as certain folks wanted to pit them against each other).

In five other passages: Romans 3:20 [cf. similar notions in 3:27-28; 9:31-32; 11:6; 2 Tim 1:9] and Galatians 2:16; 3:2, 5, 10, Paul uses the phrase “works of the law” in the same sense as he uses “works” in Romans 4, and with regard to the initial justification by faith alone (which Catholics do agree with, over against Pelagianism). In other words, we should strive to understand Paul’s overall message, by comparing relevant passages with each other and harmonizing them. Paul uses “works” or equivalent ideas in a positive, Catholic sense in several other passages:

Romans 2:6-8, 10, 13 For he will render to every man according to his works: [7] to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; [8] but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. . . . [10] . . . glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, . . . [13] For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

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

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

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

All this being understood, we then realize that since Paul is not against all works whatsoever in Romans 4, therefore he is not against the notion of Abraham being justified by works as well as faith. He just happens to be addressing faith only in this passage because he is contending that faith has a primacy over OT Law, which in turn allows for the full inclusion of the Gentiles into the new Church. So now we must examine more closely the issue of Abraham’s justification, which was originally presented in Genesis chapters 12, 15, 18, 22, and 26. Let’s consider each in turn, and how they are interpreted in the NT.

In Genesis 12, God told Abraham to leave his home and trust him for the future, and he was obedient (see Heb 11:8) and did so (a work): Abraham “went, as the LORD told him” (12:4). That was a good work of obedience, and as a result, God blessed him greatly: “I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great . . . by you all the families of the earth shall bless themselves” (12:2-3). Then he “built” two altars “to the Lord” (good works again): 12:7-8. Faith is never mentioned in the chapter (nor does “believe” appear). I would say that Abraham clearly exercised faith, and believed when he obeyed God’s instructions. But it seems to me that if the point of the narrative is to highlight faith as opposed to works, it’s odd that Abraham’s work (that he went where God told Him to go) is mentioned and commended, but not his faith.

What does Genesis 12 teach about Abraham’s justification, then? Do Protestants wish to argue that God said all this (in 12:2-3) about and to an unregenerate, unjustified, “totally depraved” heathen? That makes no sense. Whether Paul uses the term justification for Genesis 12 or not, does not determine what is being described in Genesis 12. This is an important factor to consider. The argument about Abraham and justification is a deductive one, incorporating systematic theology. It doesn’t only look for the words, “justification” or “justified.” The word “Trinity” isn’t in the Bible, either. It doesn’t follow that the doctrine is absent. Concepts are present in texts as well as words. The question is whether Genesis 12 describes a justified man who possesses faith or not. I say it clearly does do so. Therefore, Abraham must have been justified by then.

If it’s denied that Genesis 12 is about Abraham’s justification, then it has to be explained how Hebrews 11:8 describes it as Abraham exercising faith. This must be justification in the Protestant sense because unregenerate or “totally depraved” man cannot have or exercise true faith. Hebrews 11 is about the heroes of the faith. Faith is described as leading to men receiving God’s “divine approval” (11:2), which sounds a lot like justification to me. Abel “received approval as righteous” (11:4). Enoch is described as “having pleased God” (11:5). Noah “became an heir of the righteousness which comes by faith” (11:7).

Then Abraham is mentioned. The overall thought is obviously the same as what came before. Works with regard to Abraham are mentioned by the text asserting, “By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place which he was to receive as an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was to go” (11:8) and “By faith he sojourned in the land of promise . . .” (11:9) and “By faith Abraham . . . offered up Isaac” (11:17). The Bible also refers twice to “the obedience of faith” (Rom 1:5; 16:26) and twice to “work of faith” (1 Thess 1:3; 2 Thess 1:11). Works are always present where true faith exists.
*
In Genesis 12 (in light of Hebrews 11), Abraham is clearly justified by both faith and works. He had the faith to believe God, and he obeyed Him (a work). We can say that Abraham’s good works flowed from and were intrinsic to, his faith. None of this poses any problem for the Catholic view. But it’s a huge problem for the Protestant view, since it can only accept justification by faith and not by works.
*
In Genesis 15:6 Abraham was justified as a result of having “believed the Lord.” The word “justification” doesn’t appear there, but it does in Romans 4, where Paul offers an extensive interpretation of Genesis 15, as we’ve seen above. James 2:20-26 refers back to Genesis 15:6 (as well as Genesis 22), and gives an explicit interpretation of the Old Testament passage, by stating, “and the scripture was fulfilled which says, . . .” (2:23, RSV, as throughout). The previous three verses in James were all about justification, faith, and works, all tied in together, and this is what James says “fulfilled” Genesis 15:6. The next verse then condemns Protestant soteriology by disagreeing with the notion of “faith alone” in the clearest way imaginable.
*
James 2 is usually interpreted by Protestants as a teaching on sanctification, but that is not what the passage says. It mentions “justified” (dikaioo: Strong’s word #1344) three times (2:21, 24-25): the same Greek word used in Romans 4:2, as well as 2:13; 3:20, 24, 28; 5:1, 9; 8:30; 1 Corinthians 6:11; Galatians 2:16-17; 3:11, 24; 5:4; and Titus 3:7. If James actually meant sanctification, on the other hand, he could have used one of two Greek words (hagiazo / hagiasmos: Strong’s #37-38) that appear (together) 38 times in the New Testament (the majority of times by Paul himself).
*
God reiterates that works are central to Abraham’s justification (and anyone’s) — without faith or belief being mentioned — in Genesis 18:
Genesis 18:17-19 The LORD said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do, [18] seeing that Abraham shall become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall bless themselves by him? [19] No, for I have chosen him, that he may charge his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing righteousness and justice; so that the LORD may bring to Abraham what he has promised him.”
After Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son Isaac, God said:
Genesis 22:16-18 . . . “By myself I have sworn, says the LORD, because you have done this, and have not withheld your son, your only son, [17] I will indeed bless you, and I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore. And your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies, [18] and by your descendants shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves, because you have obeyed my voice.”
Note how this talks about works and not faith (though I would say faith was certainly and obviously involved). But works cannot be separated from faith. It’s firmly established in Genesis 22 that it was a work of Abraham that brought about God’s renewed covenant with him. Knowing this, James simply called it what it was, using different but conceptually equivalent terminology:
James 2:21-24 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? [22] You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, [23] and the scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”; and he was called the friend of God. [24] You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

James — take note — doesn’t deny that Abraham also had faith, which was part of his justification as well (2:18, 20, 22-24, 26). We already knew Abraham was justified by a work in Genesis 22 because God rewarded him for something he had “done” and because he “obeyed” him. God repeats the same sort of thing again, in speaking to Isaac:

Genesis 26:3-5 “Sojourn in this land, and I will be with you, and will bless you; for to you and to your descendants I will give all these lands, and I will fulfil the oath which I swore to Abraham your father. [4] I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven, and will give to your descendants all these lands; and by your descendants all the nations of the earth shall bless themselves: [5] because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.”
The great faithfulness of Abraham is predominantly highlighted in the New Testament (Rom 4; Gal 3; Heb 11), without ignoring the fact that works also played a key role in Abraham’s justification (James 2). Scripture asserts that Abraham, Phinehas (Num 25:11-13), Rahab (Jas 2:25), Abel, and Noah were all justified by works. These three incidents in Abraham’s life (Genesis 12, 15, and 22) reveal initial justification and two instances of its renewal or reiteration, by both faith and works.
*
Our Protestant brethren say that one is justified by faith once for all and not at all by works. We say that initial justification is monergistic and by faith only, but ongoing justification is by faith + works. The Bible backs this up, as I have shown from the example of Abraham. Initial justification can be described as being “justified” just as we say of someone who got their license to drive a car for the first time: “she got her license.” But it has to be renewed (every four years in the US). So we “get” it more than once. We can also lose it due to drunk driving or excessive traffic violations (breaking of the law being similar to sins), and get it back again. The Catholic view of justification is somewhat analogous to this. If one can fall away from salvation and lose entrance to heaven, one can certainly lose justification, if they reject it and don’t follow God’s commandments.
*

***

*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ 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 Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

*

***

Photo credit: Sacrifice of Isaac (1635), by Rembrandt (1606-1669) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: Jordan Cooper argues that Abraham’s justification (per Romans 4) was only by faith. I disagree & analyze Genesis 12, 15, 18, 22, & 26, & related Hebrews 11 & James 2.

2024-03-05T13:23:44-04:00

Last updated on: March 5, 2024 at 1:23 pm   By
0 Comments

+ Concupiscence: St. Ambrose’s and St. Augustine’s Views 

Rev. Dr. Jordan B. Cooper is a Lutheran pastor, adjunct professor of Systematic Theology, Executive Director of the popular Just & Sinner YouTube channel, and the President of the American Lutheran Theological Seminary (which holds to a doctrinally traditional Lutheranism, similar to the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod). He has authored several books, as well as theological articles in a variety of publications. All my Bible citations are from RSV, unless otherwise indicated. Jordan’s words will be in blue.

This is my 5th reply to Jordan (many more to come, because I want to interact with the best, most informed Protestant opponents). All of these respectful critiques can be found in the “Replies to Lutheran Theologian / Apologist Jordan Cooper” section on the top of my Lutheranism web page.

*****

See Part One: Faith Alone in the Early Church Fathers? (vs. Jordan Cooper) — Includes Clement of Rome (d. c. 101) & Polycarp (d. 155) vs. Faith Alone [2-28-24]

***

This is a response to Jordan’s YouTube video, “Sola Fide in the Church Fathers Part 2: Ambrose (A Classic J&S Episode)” (2-24-22). Originally (I assume) this talk was published around 3-27-19.

0:35 On the previous program I discussed sola fide in the Church fathers, basically trying to interact with the common Roman Catholic argument that sola fide is a theological novum, so the notion of justification by faith alone . . . it’s a common Roman Catholic claim that . . .  it shows up later in history, and you can’t find it in the Church fathers at all. [They say that] Luther basically invents this brand new idea. This especially shows up in a lot of popular Roman Catholic polemics online, and I’ve made the claim that that’s simply not the case and that we can find instances of sola fide or various Protestant aspects of justification in the Church fathers.

As I noted last time, this claim about the absence profound of sola fide is by no means confined to “Roman Catholic polemicists.” In my previous critique I cited three well-known Protestant scholars, who all expressed basically the same thing (and they can’t be accused of Catholic bias). Alister McGrath, author of  Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification (1986; 4th ed., 2020) and similar books such as Historical Theology: An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought (3rd ed., 2022) and The Nature of Christian Doctrine: Its Origins, Development, and Function (2024), stated that sola fide, as newly formulated — not by Luther but by his successor, Philip Melanchthon –, was “a complete break with the teaching of the church up to that point.”

That’s his informed scholarly opinion. He knows far more than I ever will about the subject. I’m simply repeating and agreeing with his judgment, based on his status and everything I’ve seen myself along these lines, over 33 years of Catholic apologetics research. He agrees with the break, as a good Protestant, but he doesn’t try to deny that it was, historically speaking, a break. He was the one, incidentally, who — three times — called sola fide a “theological novum” (in the 2nd edition of Iustitia Dei in 1998, pp. 180, 184, 187)  I also cited Philip Schaff, author of the multi-volume History of the Christian Church and editor of the famous 38-volume set of the Church fathers (that I regularly cite from, since it is online now).

I almost bought that set in hardcover so many times over the last 25 years! Schaff stated that “If any one expects to find in this period [100-325], or in any of the church fathers, Augustin himself not excepted, the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone, . . . he will be greatly disappointed.” Jordan Cooper disagrees with these three scholars (Norman Geisler was the third) as to the history. I don’t think he proved at all that Clement of Rome or Polycarp believed in sola fide, in his previous attempt (see my reply), and we will now examine his argument that St. Ambrose was supposedly a good “proto-Protestant” in soteriological matters too.

3:21 It’s not good to just take isolated statements of fathers apart from their whole body of work.

I heartily agree! I just as strongly disagree that supposedly only Catholic and Orthodox ever do this. Protestant polemicists do quite a bit too. I know; I’ve repeatedly interacted online with these sorts of effort since 1997, and one can read all those exchanges on my extensive Fathers of the Church web page.

7:56 The first of those fathers that I want to look at is St. Ambrose, and I just want to go through and examine some of the quotes that you find in his writings.

I’m delighted to join him on this journey. Jordan agrees with me that we need to look at an author’s entire corpus, or at least as many books as we can access (I have limited resources to buy rare books with; so thank the Lord for the thousands of online books!).

8:26 Ambrose is actually cited in the Augsburg Confession as an early testament to this notion of justification by faith alone . . . I think that Ambrose in the vast scope of his writings clearly at least in some places teaches something very much like that. 

Interesting.

9:25 In his treatise on Jacob and the Happy Life he says “don’t you know that the guilt of Adam and Eve sold you into servitude? Don’t you know that Christ did not buy you but bought you back?” Those kinds of statements are all over the place, that . . . Adam’s guilt actually brings us into slavery and brings us death. There is an emphasis on guilt especially coming from Adam . . .

For a fuller quotation of this work, On Jacob and the Happy Life, see Jordan’s article, “St. Ambrose On Law And Gospel” (Just and Sinner, 6-3-14).

The Council of Trent stated in its Decree Concerning Original Sin in its Session 5 on June 17, 1546, four months after Luther’s death, in section 2, that “this sin of Adam” was “taken away” by “the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, sanctification, and redemption” and that  this was “applied, both to adults and to infants, by the sacrament of baptism.”

So why does Jordan bring up this particular thing in the context of discussing sola fide? It’s because Lutherans and the early Protestants generally, erroneously believed that concupiscence (desire to or tendency towards sin) was itself a sin and a remnant of the guilt that we inherited from Adam. Trent condemned this opinion in section 5 of the same decree:

If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only raised, or not imputed; let him be anathema. For, in those who are born again, there is nothing that God hates; because, There is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death; who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man, and putting on the new who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, harmless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; so that there is nothing whatever to retard their entrance into heaven. . . .

Jordan provides an extended argument from a treatise by Ambrose that I can’t access, in which the Church father asserts that concupiscence is itself sin. Jordan then insinuates that Ambrose held to one tenet of the many involved in the “Reformation” belief in sola fide (more to do with the nature and results of original sin than with justification per se). If he is correct in his assessment (but maybe he isn’t; see more on this below), then Catholics would say that Ambrose got this teaching wrong. The Catholic Church followed St. Augustine in this respect:

Chapter 25 [XXIII.]— Concupiscence in the Regenerate Without Consent is Not Sin; In What Sense Concupiscence is Called Sin.

Now this concupiscence, this law of sin which dwells in our members, to which the law of righteousness forbids allegiance, saying in the words of the apostle, Let not sin, therefore, reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in the lusts thereof; neither yield your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: Romans 6:12-13 — this concupiscence, I say, which is cleansed only by the sacrament of regeneration, does undoubtedly, by means of natural birth, pass on the bond of sin to a man’s posterity, unless they are themselves loosed from it by regeneration. In the case, however, of the regenerate, concupiscence is not itself sin any longer, whenever they do not consent to it for illicit works, and when the members are not applied by the presiding mind to perpetrate such deeds. So that, if what is enjoined in one passage, You shall not covet, is not kept, that at any rate is observed which is commanded in another place, You shall not go after your concupiscences. [Sirach 18:30] Inasmuch, however, as by a certain manner of speech it is called sin, since it arose from sin, and, when it has the upper hand, produces sin, the guilt of it prevails in the natural man; but this guilt, by Christ’s grace through the remission of all sins, is not suffered to prevail in the regenerate man, if he does not yield obedience to it whenever it urges him to the commission of evil. As arising from sin, it is, I say, called sin, although in the regenerate it is not actually sin; and it has this designation applied to it, just as speech which the tongue produces is itself called  tongue; and just as the word  hand is used in the sense of writing, which the hand produces. In the same way concupiscence is called sin, as producing sin when it conquers the will: so to cold and frost the epithet  sluggish is given; not as arising from, but as productive of, sluggishness; benumbing us, in fact. (On Marriage and Concupiscence, Book I, ch. 25)

He states again in chapter 27: “carnal concupiscence . . . is no longer accounted sin in the regenerate . . .” And again in chapter 28: “Carnal concupiscence is remitted, indeed, in baptism; not so that it is put out of existence, but so that it is not to be imputed for sin.” And in chapter 29: “In the case, then, of those persons who are born again in Christ, when they receive an entire remission of all their sins, it is of course necessary that the guilt also of the still indwelling concupiscence should be remitted, in order that (as I said) it should not be imputed to them for sin.” Then he provides a thoroughly Catholic interpretation of Romans 7 and 8:

Chapter 36.— Even Now While We Still Have Concupiscence We May Be Safe in Christ.

But the apostle pursues the subject, and says, So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin; [Romans 7:25] which must be thus understood: With my mind I serve the law of God, by refusing my consent to the law of sin; with my flesh, however, I serve the law of sin, by having the desires of sin, from which I am not yet entirely freed, although I yield them no assent. Then let us observe carefully what he has said after all the above: There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus. [Romans 8:1] Even now, says he, when the law in my members keeps up its warfare against the law of my mind, and retains in captivity somewhat in the body of this death, there is no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus. And listen why: For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus, says he, has made me free from the law of sin and death. [Romans 8:2] How made me free, except by abolishing its sentence of guilt by the remission of all my sins; so that, though it still remains, only daily lessening more and more, it is nevertheless not imputed to me as sin?

If Jordan’s take of St. Ambrose’s view is correct, Lutheranism followed his rather than St. Augustine’s view with regard to the nature of concupiscence). In any event, this is not all that is involved in the discussion of “faith alone.” It’s only indirectly or partially related, so that I don’t think it’s accurate to say that “St. Ambrose held to justification by faith alone” on the basis of this single (suggested) consideration. One’s opinion on the nature of concupiscence simply isn’t the equivalent of “justification by faith alone.”

But did Ambrose really hold this view (never forsaking it)? Anglican patristic scholar J. N. D. Kelly suggests that he either changed his mind or contradicted himself, as to the presence of guilt from original sin after baptism. Kelly writes:

The second of Ambrose’s texts cited above [On the Death of Satyrus, Book II, 6] suggests that the race is infected with Adam’s actual guilt. His more general doctrine, however, is that, while the corrupting force of sin is transmitted, the guilt attaches to Adam himself, not to us. . . . But our personal (propria) sins are to be contrasted with those we inherit (haereditaria); baptism removes the former, but the rite of washing of feet the latter. (Early Christian Doctrines, San Francisco: Harper, revised edition of 1978, 354-355)

The (perhaps surprising) foot-washing element was expressed by Ambrose in his treatise, On the Mysteries (ch. 6, 32):

Peter was clean, but he must wash his feet, for he had sin by succession from the first man, when the serpent overthrew him and persuaded him to sin. His feet were therefore washed, that hereditary sins might be done away, for our own sins are remitted through baptism.

Kelly continues:

This hereditary sin, he argues elsewhere [Enarr. in ps. 48. 9], is a wound which makes us stumble, but need cause us no anxiety at the day of judgment; we shall only be punished then for our personal sins. . . . It is clear that he envisages the inherited corruption as a congenital propensity to sin (the phrase he uses is lubricum delinquendi) rather than as a positive guilt. (Ibid., 355)

And this is identical to Catholic teaching on concupiscence. In Jordan’s citation of Ambrose’s book, On Jacob and the Happy Life, in his related article, he cites him as stating, “I became aware that concupiscence was sin,” in the midst of an apparent extended citation of St. Paul in Romans 7. He cites it again at 15:35 in his video. As far as I can tell, Ambrose might have been citing or reflecting Romans 7:8, which in KJV reads, “But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.” Jordan said:

16:05 He says even the desire for sin is itself sin, and this is his interpretation of a passage like Romans 7, where Paul speaks about his understanding his knowledge of sin and what sin is. . . . at the time of the Reformation, Martin Luther claimed concupiscence was sin. The Roman church said no, the desire for sin is not itself sin; it’s only the actual act that flows out of that, that is willing, that is sin, and Martin Luther had a much broader understanding of what constitutes sin and the sin nature than Rome did. . . . there are a lot of hints here that Ambrose would take the position that Luther does, that even the desire for sin itself is sin.

The word concupiscence appears three times in the NT in the KJV. It doesn’t appear at all in the RSV New Testament, which translates Romans 7:8 as “But sin, finding opportunity in the commandment, wrought in me all kinds of covetousness. Apart from the law sin lies dead.” The Greek word is epithumia (Strong’s word #1939: see its use and translation in English Bibles). But Jordan himself also wrote about St. Ambrose: “a lot of his interpretations are a little strange and he isn’t always consistent or on track with what the [biblical] text actually says; he often goes on tangents about whatever he really feels like teaching.” (13:02). Maybe so in the above instance . . . 

If St. Ambrose denied what is the Catholic teaching on concupiscence, expressed by St. Augustine and the Council of Trent, he only did so in some but not all of his writing, and/or contradicted himself, or else thought twice about his original position and (from a Catholic perspective) corrected it.

On a web page from the Lutheran site, Fourth Century Christianity, that provides the “approximate chronological order” of Ambrose’s writings, we find that On Jacob and the Happy Life, was written in 386-388. On the Death of Satyrus dates from 379. On the Mysteries is from c. 387. Explanations of Twelve Psalms of David, cited by Kelly, where Ambrose expresses Catholic views, is the last dated work on this list; described as “Later career to death (unfinished).” So it looks like Ambrose held a more “proto-Protestant” view earlier on (379), then perhaps wavered or was unsure (386-388), and eventually settled on the Catholic view (by the time of his death in 397). The position Kelly describes is the one he held at the end of his life. This is what we can learn by examining the matter more closely.

Jordan continues on, up to the 36 minute mark, talking about this one work, On Jacob and the Happy Life, which doesn’t appear to be online, so I can’t analyze contextual elements or the entire work. Then he moves on to a “treatise on Joseph” (36:12) which is also — far as I can tell —  unavailable online. And he discusses matters concerning our redemption and justification through Christ’s death on the cross, which likely are no different from what Catholics believe (though many Lutherans wrongly think that we are different), and only indirectly related, at best, to the topic of justification by faith alone.

The latter concept primarily has to do with the issue of the relation of faith and works, and whether sanctification is a fundamentally different category from justification: under which non-salvific works are categorized (in a way that the Bible never does). I waited for Jordan to get to those central disputes, as I went through his tape, but it turns out that he never did.

38:48 Saint Ambrose has a stronger view of original sin than a lot of the other church fathers do . . . 

Or maybe it turned out that by the end of his life he didn’t, which was what my citation of J. N. D. Kelly was related to. It looks to me that St. Ambrose, in the final analysis, did not hold to total depravity or to the notion of a “sin nature.” So Kelly says about his fully developed view (see above): “It is clear that he envisages the inherited corruption as a congenital propensity to sin.” That’s what Catholics say: concupiscence.

Then he goes onto a discussion of Eastern Orthodoxy. He never even discusses the central question of faith and works, in a video entitled, “Sola Fide in the Church Fathers Part 2: Ambrose.” I think it’s a misnomer! He talked only about original sin and concupiscence, from basically just one work, and even then, arguably proved little or nothing, even about that specific topic, in light  of Kelly’s conclusions on the general matter. Jordan virtually admitted this himself:

41:32 Oh my gosh, I didn’t get through anything that I wanted to. I went through one book of Ambrose and just grabbed quotes. I know I’m going really slow through this, but maybe this is what we need to do to show that we can do more than just quote mining from various books.

What he derisively calls merely “quote mining” is in fact what is necessary to do: locate relevant quotations from a father in order to determine his overall teaching on a given theological matter. This is precisely what we do in systematic theology, pertaining to Bible quotes. We collect relevant ones on a topic (say, original sin) and go from there, to determine what the Bible teaches about it. The more context the better (I’m all for that). Jordan is concerned about context, as he should be. I am, too, having seen what my Protestant debate opponents have too often done with context, regarding both the Bible and the fathers. But Jordan insinuates that Catholics (especially popular so-called “polemicists” like me) have a strong tendency to collect patristic quotes that are highly selective and out-of-context, etc. Some do, no doubt, and some don’t. Like most things, it’s a mixed bag and we can only examine what each individual writer does.

41:48 I do want to say for someone who’s listening to this and is Roman Catholic, I know the immediate response, especially for someone who has the volume is that, well, Ambrose also . . .  says some things that may not appear as Lutheran or Protestant as the statements you read and that’s true . . . 

Wouldn’t it be only fair and thorough to examine those as well, rather than only the “Lutheran”-sounding ones? I have dealt with these highly selective citations in depth in this reply. Jordan needs to do the same with the more “Catholic” statements of Ambrose. But he winds up — nothing personal! — doing largely the same thing that he claims here and in other videos, that Catholics and Orthodox do: pick out only portions from the fathers or one father that seem to support their case and ignore ones that don’t appear to do so.

St. Ambrose thinks that works indeed play a role in determining whether we are saved or not:

The deserts of each one of us are suspended in the balance, which a little weight either of good works or of degenerate conduct sways this way or that; if the evil preponderate, woe is me! if the good, pardon is at hand. For no man is free from sin; but where good preponderates, the evil flies up, is overshadowed, and covered. Wherefore in the Day of judgement our works will either succour us, or will sink us into the deep, weighed down as with a millstone. . . . Wherefore exhort the people of God to trust rather in the Lord, to abound in the riches of simplicity, wherein they may walk without snare and without hindrance. (Letter II: To Constantius, a Bishop; from The Letters of S. Ambrose, Oxford: 1881; my italics)

This entirely lines up with biblical accounts of the Day of Judgment. I’ve found fifty biblical passages, all of which make works — not  antithetical to faith — extremely important as to salvation (only one mentioned faith alongside works). This is clearly contrary to justification by faith alone, in which we stand before God when being judged in the end and can or will say, “all my sins were covered by Christ’s imputed justification, so I’m saved; works have nothing to do with it!”

But Ambrose, who had a very different outlook, highlights works, works, works at the judgment. Why? It’s because it’s entirely biblical, especially regarding the Last Judgment, as I showed. Ambrose simply mirrors an overwhelming teaching of Holy Scripture. He makes the same point in an even more direct and undeniable way elsewhere (that couldn’t be more contrary to faith alone than it is):

If thou clothe the naked, thou clothest thyself with righteousness; if thou bring the stranger under thy roof, if thou support the needy, he procures for thee the friendship of the saints and eternal habitations. That is no small recompense. Thou sowest earthly things and receivest heavenly. . . . Clearly blessed is he from whose house a poor man has never gone with empty hand. Nor again is any one more blessed than he who is sensible of the needs of the poor, and the hardships of the weak and helpless. In the day of judgment he will receive salvation from the Lord, Whom he will have as his debtor for the mercy he has shown. (On the Duties of the Clergy, Book I, 11, 39; my italics)

But the sacred Scriptures say that eternal life rests on a knowledge of divine things and on the fruit of good works. The Gospel bears witness to both these statements. For the Lord Jesus spoke thus of knowledge: This is eternal life, to know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ Whom You have sent. [John 17:3] About works He gives this answer: Every one that has forsaken house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for My Name’s sake, shall receive an hundred-fold, and shall inherit everlasting life. [Matthew 19:29]

He has further also in the same psalm stated of good works, that they gain for an upright man the gift of eternal life. He speaks thus: Blessed is the man that shows pity and lends, he will guide his affairs with discretion, surely he shall not be moved for ever, the righteous shall be in everlasting remembrance. And further: He has dispersed, he has given to the poor, his justice endures forever. (Ibid., Book II, 2, 5 and 6; my italics; Psalm 37:28 states: “he will not forsake his saints. The righteous shall be preserved for ever”: RSV)

In the faith alone view, such works are considered, in the end, optional, as to salvation. For Ambrose (and for Jesus, too, as we see above), they literally help bring about salvation  (a direct relation). This is the Catholic view whereby sanctification is not separated from justification; nor works from faith. It’s not works-salvation (Pelagianism). It’s a centrality of works that necessarily flow from grace-produced and grace-enabled faith and justification, per the Bible (again, see my fifty proofs above). Ambrose refuses to separate works from faith, or vice versa:

Faith, then, has [the promise of] eternal life, for it is a good foundation. Good works, too, have the same, for an upright man is tested by his words and acts. For if a man is always busy talking and yet is slow to act, he shows by his acts how worthless his knowledge is: besides it is much worse to know what one ought to do, and yet not to do what one has learned should be done. On the other hand, to be active in good works and unfaithful at heart is as idle as though one wanted to raise a beautiful and lofty dome upon a bad foundation. The higher one builds, the greater is the fall; for without the protection of faith good works cannot stand. A treacherous anchorage in a harbour perforates a ship, and a sandy bottom quickly gives way and cannot bear the weight of the building placed upon it. There then will be found the fullness of reward, where the virtues are perfect, and where there is a reasonable agreement between words and acts. (Ibid., Book II, 2, 7; my italics)

That is not teaching faith alone and the Protestant view, folks. He reiterates the point again (repetition being a great teacher): “the blessedness of eternal life is the reward for good works” (Book II, 3, 9). Likewise, Ambrose states:

But what does it profit me, if God Himself knows all my hairs? That rather abounds and profits me, if the watchful witness of good works reward me with the gift of eternal life. (On the Holy Spirit, Book II, Introduction, 16)

. . . the resurrection brings with it either the reward of good works, or the punishment of wicked ones . . . (On the Death of Satyrus, Book II, 52)

You did not dedicate yourself to the Lord on purpose to make your family rich, but that you might win eternal life by the fruit of good works, and atone for your sins by showing mercy. . . . They attempt to take away the fruits of your life, and think they are acting rightly. And one accuses you because you have not made him rich, when all the time he wished to cheat you of the reward of eternal life. (On the Duties of the Clergy, Book I, ch. 30, 150)

Therefore, St. Ambrose did not believe in justification by faith alone. Protestant historian Philip Schaff describes the “Reformation” doctrine:

[I]t is the righteousness which God freely gives in Christ to those who believe in him. Righteousness is not to be acquired by man through his own exertions and merits; it is complete and perfect in Christ, and all the sinner has to do is to accept it from Him as a free gift. Justification is that judicial act of God whereby he acquits the sinner of guilt and clothes him with the righteousness of Christ on the sole condition of personal faith which apprehends and appropriates Christ and shows its life and power by good works, as a good tree bringing forth good fruits.

The Pauline doctrine of justification as set forth in the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians, had never before been clearly and fully understood, not even by Augustin and Bernard, who confound justification with sanctification. Herein lies the difference between the Catholic and the Protestant conception. In the Catholic system justification (dikaivwsi) is a gradual process conditioned by faith and good works; in the Protestant system it is a single act of God, followed by sanctification. It is based upon the merits of Christ, conditioned by faith, and manifested by good works. (History of the Christian Church, vol. 7, § 23. “The Victory of Justifying Faith”)

Ambrose clearly doesn’t believe the above, which is proven in how he repeatedly states that works play an important role in eschatological salvation (at the last judgment). To sum up, Tim A. Troutman observed in his article, “St. Ambrose on Sola Fide” (Called to Communion, 9-16-19):

St. Ambrose speaks at length about the necessary and primary role of faith in salvation. This should not be surprising since almost all of the Church fathers did the same thing and so do the Scriptures. But the doctrine of sola fide, as condemned by the Catholic Church, is not that faith is primary in salvation but that faith is the only contributing cause of salvation (to the arbitrary exclusion of other causes). I say arbitrary because they who hold it affirm its exclusion of works of charity, . . .

Troutman cited the following (very unProtestant) passage from Ambrose:

But the apostles, having this baptism according to the direction of Christ, taught repentance, promised forgiveness, and remitted guilt, as David taught when he said: Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord has not imputed sin. He calls each blessed, both him whose sins are remitted by the font, and him whose sin is covered by good works. For he who repents ought not only to wash away his sin by his tears, but also to cover and hide his former transgressions by amended deeds, that sin may not be imputed to him. (Concerning Repentance, Book II, 5, 35)

Educated Protestants could and would never frame the issue in the way that Ambrose does in all these excerpts that I have produced. Conclusion?: his views are harmonious with Catholic soteriology and not the Protestant soteriology of justification by faith alone.

*

***

*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ 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 Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

*

***

Photo credit: St Ambrose, by Matthias Stom (fl. 1615-1649) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: Lutheran apologist Jordan Cooper claimed that St. Ambrose taught “faith alone” (citing one work). I offer a counter-explanation & many other counter-evidences.

2024-03-05T13:24:11-04:00

Last updated on: March 5, 2024 at 1:24 pm   By
0 Comments

Includes Clement of Rome (d. c. 101) & Polycarp (d. 155) vs. Faith Alone

Rev. Dr. Jordan B. Cooper is a Lutheran pastor, adjunct professor of Systematic Theology, Executive Director of the popular Just & Sinner YouTube channel, and the President of the American Lutheran Theological Seminary (which holds to a doctrinally traditional Lutheranism, similar to the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod). He has authored several books, as well as theological articles in a variety of publications. All my Bible citations are from RSV, unless otherwise indicated. Jordan’s words will be in blue.

This is my 4th reply to Jordan (many more to come, because I want to interact with the best, most informed Protestant opponents). All of these respectful critiques can be found in the “Replies to Lutheran Theologian / Apologist Jordan Cooper” section on the top of my Lutheranism web page.

*****

This is a response to Jordan’s YouTube video, “Sola Fide in the Church Fathers” (3-27-19).

6:54 Let’s talk about the question of the unanimity of the fathers. This is important because when you read a lot of especially popular level Roman Catholic polemics or Eastern Orthodox polemics, you get this idea that there is this unanimous consensus of the fathers on all of these various doctrinal topics.

First of all, “unanimous” in this sense doesn’t mean “absolutely every” but a “strong consensus.” See my article: “Unanimous Consent” of Church Fathers: Not Literally All (Does the Phrase “Unanimous Consent of the Fathers” Allow Any Exceptions?) [4-29-08; revised on 10-22-18]. Nor is it just Catholic and Orthodox “polemics” as to faith alone. It’s also the opinion of three well-known Protestant apologists and scholars:

Whereas Augustine taught that the sinner is made righteous in justification, Melanchthon taught that he is counted as righteous or pronounced to be righteous. For Augustine, ‘justifying righteousness’ is imparted; for Melanchthon, it is imputed in the sense of being declared or pronounced to be righteous. Melanchthon drew a sharp distinction between the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous, designating the former ‘justification’ and the latter ‘sanctification’ or ‘regeneration.’ For Augustine, these were simply different aspects of the same thing . . .

The importance of this development lies in the fact that it marks a complete break with the teaching of the church up to that point. From the time of Augustine onwards, justification had always been understood to refer to both the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous. . . .

The Council of Trent . . . reaffirmed the views of Augustine on the nature of justification . . . the concept of forensic justification actually represents a development in Luther’s thought . . . . Trent maintained the medieval tradition, stretching back to Augustine, which saw justification as comprising both an event and a process . . . (Alister McGrath, Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 2nd edition, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1993, 108-109, 115; my italics)

For Augustine, justification included both the beginnings of one’s righteousness before God and its subsequent perfection — the event and the process. What later became the Reformation concept of ‘sanctification’ then is effectively subsumed under the aegis of justification. Although he believed that God initiated the salvation process, it is incorrect to say that Augustine held to the concept of ‘forensic’ justification. This understanding of justification is a later development of the Reformation . . .

Before Luther, the standard Augustinian position on justification stressed intrinsic justification. Intrinsic justification argues that the believer is made righteous by God’s grace, as compared to extrinsic justification, by which a sinner is forensically declared righteous (at best, a subterranean strain in pre-Reformation Christendom). With Luther the situation changed dramatically . . .

. . . one can be saved without believing that imputed righteousness (or forensic justification) is an essential part of the true gospel. Otherwise, few people were saved between the time of the apostle Paul and the Reformation, since scarcely anyone taught imputed righteousness (or forensic justification) during that period! . . . . . (Norman Geisler, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, with Ralph E. MacKenzie, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1995, 502, 85, 222; my italics)

If any one expects to find in this period [100-325], or in any of the church fathers, Augustin himself not excepted, the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone, . . . he will be greatly disappointed . . . Paul’s doctrine of justification, except perhaps in Clement of Rome, who joins it with the doctrine of James, is left very much out of view, and awaits the age of the Reformation to be more thoroughly established and understood. (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 2, 588-589)

They said it, not me! My question for Jordan would be: how does he explain the sweeping nature of these comments? If they are wrong, how could they be so dramatically wrong? What is it that they are seeing in the fathers that he is not seeing? Catholics have been saying this all along. It’s nothing new to us. Glad to see that some prominent Protestants are now frankly and candidly admitting it.

8:10 we’ve always had this this issue that we haven’t looked at the fathers in terms of their actual context. We haven’t looked at the totality of their writings.

How are Geisler’s and McGrath’s and Schaff’s statements explained then? McGrath is the author of such books as Historical Theology: An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought (3rd ed., 2022), The Nature of Christian Doctrine: Its Origins, Development, and Function (2024), and (especially) Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification (1986; 4th ed., 2020) “the leading reference work on the subject.” McGrath thinks the doctrine of justification was established by the time of St. Augustine (including his own view), and didn’t change until Philip Melanchthon (not even with Luther), “as a complete break.”

One, then, might try to argue that the pre-Augustinian fathers thought differently. Geisler says this is true from the time of Paul to Luther, which takes it back almost 400 more years. How can this be if this sort of generalization is only made by Catholic “polemicists” on a mere “popular level”? Jordan noted later in this video (at 29:13) that in McGrath’s book Iustitia Dei “the whole pre-Augustinian era is basically ignored . . . he kind of skips over the whole era.”

McGrath thought the medieval soteriological tradition was wrong in following Augustine, but, as Michael P. Barber noted, in the fourth edition of his book Iustitia Dei he made a significant admission:

It has become a commonplace in some quarters to suggest that the dik group of terms–particularly the verb dikaioo, “to justify”–are naturally translated as being “treated as righteous” or “reckoned as righteous”, and that Paul’s Greek-speaking readers would have understood him in this way. This may be true at the purely linguistic level; however, the Greek Christian preoccupation with the strongly transformative soteriological metaphor of deification appears to have led to justification being treated in a factitive sense. This is not, however, to be seen as a conceptual imposition on Pauline thought, but rather a discernment of this aspect of his soteriological narrative. . . . Chrysostom’s account affirms the declaration or manifestation (endeixeis) of God’s own righteousness with its actualisation in the transformation of the nature of humanity. (pp. 36-37)

See also, “Alister McGrath’s Conversion on Justification,” Bryan Cross, Called to Communion, 5-5-20 and “Ligon Duncan’s ‘Did the Fathers Know the Gospel?’ “ (Bryan Cross, 7-17-10).

8:49  there are certainly areas where the fathers as a whole are in agreement.

And we think this topic is one of them. Jordan notes that belief in baptismal regeneration and real presence in the Eucharist are two issues where the fathers achieved a “pretty unanimous consensus” (10:59). We agree!

12:08  this is an issue where we do have differences of opinion and we have certain fathers that say certain things [and] other fathers that say other things and trying to kind of tease out what Paul is talking about in Romans and Galatians and Ephesians when he speaks about faith and when he speaks about works and justification by faith, not by works; trying to formulate and figure out how all of those things work together. The fathers do come to some different conclusions in how they understand those texts, so you’re not going to read the fathers and say, “oh look they’re all Lutheran”; you’re also not going to read the father’s and say “oh look they’re all Roman Catholics” or “oh they’re all Eastern Orthodox.”

Well, further below we will be examining some of the earliest Church fathers to see if they believed in a Lutheran / Calvinist / “Reformation”-type “faith alone” soteriology. Sneak preview: they don’t.

12:52 We have to let the fathers be the fathers. We can’t shoehorn the fathers into our own traditions, and I think this is what the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic traditions are often forced to do, because they claim to be the tradition that is consistent with the teachings of the church fathers. Often they try to kind of force this unanimity among the fathers, and I think for that reason they can’t read them consistently in terms of what those figures actually really believed. They can’t read them without bias toward a belief that they already are coming to those texts — which is, “those fathers believed all the same things that we do today.”

Of course (I think it’s obvious), bias about the views of the Church fathers is not by any stretch of the imagination confined to Orthodox and Catholics. I’ve written many times about this. For example:

*
*
*
Moreover, Lutheran and Reformed Protestants try to claim that their views are closer to the fathers than ours and seek to show that there was patristic consensus on several issues that suggests their view over against ours. This very effort from Jordan is an example of Protestants doing that, just as Catholics and Orthodox do. All sides must guard against making overly selective and one-sided patristic citations, just as they need to avoid doing the same thing with scriptural references.
*
21:18 is there any doctrine of justification by faith alone in the fathers? My answer is, yes we can definitely find a testimony of justification by faith alone in the church fathers. It’s not unanimous; it’s not universal but it is there.
*
The examples from Polycarp and Clement of Rome that he submits do not prove his case. They support our position, as I will demonstrate below.
*
24:21 they’re not debating the doctrine of justification or having these doctrinal formulations of justification. They’re not going to be as careful on that issue because that’s not what they’re talking about; that’s not what they’re thinking about. They want to define who is Jesus . . . how do we deal with this Gnostic threat . . . those things don’t get clarified really until the time of Augustine.
*
Agreed.
*
29:53 Augustine definitely does not see the term justification as a legal term . . . he really sees it as a making righteous instead of a declaring to be righteous legally.
*
I agree again.
*
30:25 Augustine does see justification as a “making righteous” [but] that doesn’t mean Augustine is totally wrong on justification. I think just in terms of all the major points of salvation by grace not by works, the fact that righteousness is a gift of God: all of these things are very clearly similar to to the doctrine of justification that you find in Luther.
*
St. Augustine believed in merit and meritorious works. I have three-and-a-half pages on this in my book, The Quotable Augustine (2012). The Augsburg Confession (Article 20: Of Good Works) states:
Whoever, therefore, trusts that by works he merits grace, despises the merit and grace of Christ, and seeks a way to God without Christ, by human strength, . . . [9]
For St. Augustine, grace and merit are not antithetical to each other. Merit is “God crowning His own gifts.” But it’s ours, too, because we make it ours. I add that I have found fifty Bible passages where, in the context of the Last Judgment, works are mentioned in every case, as a crucial part of salvation, and faith only once (in conjunction with works). I don’t deny that faith is crucial, too. I am merely noting that the emphases here do not comport with the Protestant emphasis on faith over against works, as entirely prominent. Catholics believe that good works must necessarily flow from God’s grace preceding them. We merely cooperate. But the works become truly our own, too. We’re not advocating Semi-Pelagianism, yet we’re falsely accused of it in the Book of Concord. In the areas where Augustine agrees with Luther (sola gratia, etc.), so does the Catholic Church.
*
39:42 there are some citations in the earliest fathers that I think do point toward an understanding of justification by faith alone; again not all of the Apostolic fathers.
*
St. Polycarp was a very early Church father, and he makes it very clear that he believes in the Catholic view of justification by grace alone through faith, with the necessary addition of meritorious good works: without which faith is dead, and salvation unattainable:

But He who raised Him up from the dead will raise us up also, if we do His will, and walk in His commandments, and love what He loved, keeping ourselves from all unrighteousness, covetousness, love of money, evil speaking, false witness; not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing, or blow for blow, or cursing for cursing, but being mindful of what the Lord said in His teaching: Judge not, that you be not judged; forgive, and it shall be forgiven unto you; be merciful, that you may obtain mercy; with what measure you measure, it shall be measured to you again; and once more, “Blessed are the poor, and those that are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of God.” [Epistle to the Philippians, chapter 2; added verse numbers removed, but he cites five passages in this section; my italics and bolding]

This is extraordinary! Note the bolded “if.” Our resurrection (which means salvation, since only the saved will be resurrected to glory) is conditional upon doing various works. God will “raise us up” if we “do His will” (a work, especially indicated by the “do”), if we “walk in His commandments” (several works), and if we avoid nine different sins: the avoidance of which amounts to meritorious action and behavior. That’s at least eleven things that are necessary in order for us to be saved and resurrected, followed by five more things that are opportunities for meritorious actions leading (in faith and grace) to salvation.

If St. Polycarp in fact thought like a Protestant (in this regard of salvation), this section would have been much shorter. He would have written something like, “But He who raised Him up from the dead will raise us up also, if we believe in Him in faith alone.” All of the rest would have been relegated to a good and praiseworthy, yet optional sanctification: not related to salvation at all. But Polycarp makes our resurrection conditional upon doing all these good works and behaving the right (Christlike) way. It’s very Catholic and exceedingly unlike Protestantism.

Now, Jordan highlights the fact that Polycarp also wrote about justification by faith. In chapter 1 he states, “knowing that ‘by grace you are saved, not of works,” [Eph 2:8-9] but by the will of God through Jesus Christ” and in chapter 12 he refers to belief in Jesus Christ. Indeed, we must have faith and we aren’t saved by self-generated works. Catholics don’t believe in Pelagianism, or “works-salvation.” We believe in justification through God’s grace by faith (in its initial stage, monergistic): a faith that inherently entails good works, by its very nature, as James teaches — and actually Paul, too, if one looks close enough. These are the good works we are talking about. And Polycarp agrees, for in chapter 1 he also commends the Philippians and remarks that “you have followed the example of true love” and “because the strong root of your faith, . . . endures even until now, and brings forth fruit to our Lord Jesus Christ, . . .”

Catholics can easily harmonize works like these into a schema of justification by grace through faith (which by nature includes works); no problem! But Protestants usually try to highlight the faith part, while ignoring or de-emphasizing the equally biblical works-that-inevitably-flow-from-faith part of the equation. And it’s because they have formally separated faith and works and have (contrary to previous Christian teaching) stuck good works in the separate category of non-salvific, non-meritorious sanctification.

Polycarp expresses the same Catholic soteriology in chapter 3: “For if any one be inwardly possessed of these graces, he has fulfilled the command of righteousness, since he that has love is far from all sin.” And in chapter 4: “let us teach, first of all, ourselves to walk in the commandments of the Lord. Next, [teach] your wives [to walk] in the faith given to them.” And in chapters 5, 9, 10, and 12, he’s also far from any notion of “faith alone”:

[W]e ought to walk worthy of His commandment and glory. . . . If we please Him in this present world, we shall receive also the future world, according as He has promised to us that He will raise us again from the dead, and that if we live worthily of Him, we shall also reign together with Him, [2 Tim 2:12] provided only we believe. . . .  neither fornicators, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, shall inherit the kingdom of God, [1 Corinthians 6:9-10]. [5]

I exhort you all, therefore, to yield obedience to the word of righteousness, and to exercise all patience, such as you have seen [set] before your eyes, not only in the case of the blessed Ignatius, and Zosimus, and Rufus, but also in others among yourselves, and in Paul himself, and the rest of the apostles. [This do] in the assurance that all these have not run [Phil 2:16; Gal 2:2] in vain, but in faith and righteousness, and that they are [now] in their due place in the presence of the Lord, with whom also they suffered. [9]

When you can do good, defer it not, because alms delivers from death. [Tobit 4:10; 12:9] [10]

But may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ Himself, who is the Son of God, and our everlasting High Priest, build you up in faith and truth, and in all meekness, gentleness, patience, long-suffering, forbearance, and purity; and may He bestow on you a lot and portion among His saints, and on us with you . . . [12]

Jordan brings up St. Clement of Rome and his Letter to the Corinthians. The same “faith and works” dynamic that we see in Polycarp very much applies to him, too. In chapter 30 he writes:

Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, being justified by our works, and not our words.
In the next chapter he wrote about Abraham:
For what reason was our father Abraham blessed? Was it not because he wrought righteousness and truth through faith?
Clement teaches justification by faith in chapter 32. We totally agree, as to initial justification. We simply believe that good works (which are meritorious) are necessary after initial justification. But in talking about salvation, it’s clear that he thinks that faith and works are both required, not only faith:
For, as God lives, and as the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost live — both the faith and hope of the elect, he who in lowliness of mind, . . . has observed the ordinances and appointments given by God— the same shall obtain a place and name in the number of those who are being saved through Jesus Christ, . . . [58]
And again: “On account of her faith and hospitality, Rahab the harlot was saved” (chapter 12), and: “He [Abraham], in the exercise of obedience, went out from his own country, and from his kindred, and from his father’s house, in order that, by forsaking a small territory, and a weak family, and an insignificant house, he might inherit the promises of God. . . . On account of his faith and hospitality, a son was given him [Abraham] in his old age” (chapter 10), and: “On account of his hospitality and godliness, Lot was saved out of Sodom” (chapter 11), and: “It is requisite, therefore, that we be prompt in the practice of well-doing; for of Him are all things. And thus He forewarns us: ‘Behold, the Lord [comes], and His reward is before His face, to render to every man according to his work.'” (chapter 34). See the theme and common thread there? He’s very explicit about the crucial role of works and merit in chapters 21 and 35:
Take heed, beloved, lest His many kindnesses lead to the condemnation of us all. [For thus it must be] unless we walk worthy of Him, and with one mind do those things which are good and well-pleasing in His sight. . . . Let us reverence the Lord Jesus Christ, whose blood was given for us; let us esteem those who have the rule over us; let us honour the aged among us; let us train up the young men in the fear of God; let us direct our wives to that which is good. Let them exhibit the lovely habit of purity [in all their conduct]; let them show forth the sincere disposition of meekness; let them make manifest the command which they have of their tongue, by their manner of speaking; let them display their love, not by preferring one to another, but by showing equal affection to all that piously fear God. Let your children be partakers of true Christian training; let them learn of how great avail humility is with God — how much the spirit of pure affection can prevail with Him — how excellent and great His fear is, and how it saves all those who walk in it with a pure mind. [my italics]
*
Let us therefore earnestly strive to be found in the number of those that wait for Him, in order that we may share in His promised gifts. But how, beloved, shall this be done? If our understanding be fixed by faith towards God; if we earnestly seek the things which are pleasing and acceptable to Him; if we do the things which are in harmony with His blameless will; and if we follow the way of truth, casting away from us all unrighteousness and iniquity, along with all covetousness, strife, evil practices, deceit, whispering, and evil-speaking, all hatred of God, pride and haughtiness, vain glory and ambition. [my bolding and italics]
All of this is thoroughly Catholic soteriology. Jordan refers to Clement’s statement about Abraham in chapter 31: “For what reason was our father Abraham blessed? Was it not because he wrought righteousness and truth through faith?” Yes, Abraham had faith. He’s the father of faith. He’s renowned for that. But he also had works. Jordan didn’t mention another instance (one of just three) where Abraham is mentioned, in chapter 10: “He, in the exercise of obedience, went out from his own country, . . . in order that, . . . he might inherit the promises of God.” That’s talking about works. One passage is about his faith, another about his works. Faith and works . . . We can’t only mention one and ignore the other. Jordan notes that Clement was referring to Romans 4, which is about Abraham’s faith. But James 2:21-24 is also in the Bible:
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? [22] You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, [23] and the scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”; and he was called the friend of God. [24] You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
James directly ties the “reckoned as righteous” passage to Abraham’s work of being willing to sacrifice Isaac, which “fulfilled” the other passage. It’s not just faith. It’s faith that inherently, organically includes works, which “complete” faith. Genesis also makes it clear that Abraham’s obedience was central to God’s covenant with him:
Genesis 22:15-18 And the angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time from heaven,  [16] and said, “By myself I have sworn, says the LORD, because you have done this, and have not withheld your son, your only son, [17] I will indeed bless you, and I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore. And your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies, [18] and by your descendants shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves, because you have obeyed my voice.”
Catholics joyfully agree that Abraham had extraordinary faith. But we don’t ignore the role that his works and obedience played in his being so honored by God, and saved. The author of Hebrews also mentions Abraham’s works. He ties it together with his faith, even in the famous “faith chapter”: “By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place which he was to receive as an inheritance . . .” (11:8).
*
For more on Abraham’s justification, see: Abraham: Justified Twice by Works & Once by Faith [8-30-23].
*
Jordan brings up The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus, written by “a disciple of the Apostles” (chapter 11). He says:
*
41:15 the Epistle to Diognetus is an anonymous book that is probably the best of all of them. It’s a fantastic work. First Clement is wonderful too. Those are the two that are really, I think, the most significant in terms of their evidence for justification.
*
This eloquent work approaches justification much as Paul does (and as Catholics do, rightly understood). He writes about initial monergistic justification — which we Catholics fully accept! But — again like Paul and Catholics —  he doesn’t formally separate works from faith as Protestants do, and writes: “. . . to whom He sent His only-begotten Son, to whom He has promised a kingdom in heaven, and will give it to those who have loved Him” (chapter 10). He continues:
Or, how will you love Him who has first so loved you? And if you love Him, you will be an imitator of His kindness. And do not wonder that a man may become an imitator of God. He can, if he is willing. For it is not by ruling over his neighbours, or by seeking to hold the supremacy over those that are weaker, or by being rich, and showing violence towards those that are inferior, that happiness is found; nor can any one by these things become an imitator of God. But these things do not at all constitute His majesty. On the contrary he who takes upon himself the burden of his neighbour; he who, in whatsoever respect he may be superior, is ready to benefit another who is deficient; he who, whatsoever things he has received from God, by distributing these to the needy, becomes a god to those who receive [his benefits]: he is an imitator of God. [chapter 10]
 And he writes along these lines in chapter 12:
When you have read and carefully listened to these things, you shall know what God bestows on such as rightly love Him, being made [as you are] a paradise of delight, presenting in yourselves a tree bearing all kinds of produce and flourishing well, being adorned with various fruits.
Once again, I see nothing whatsoever in this work that contradicts Catholic soteriology. But it seems to have some elements (above) that contradict Lutheran soteriology. It is what it is. I’m simply describing the nature of the work. And I submit that the same thing applies to St. Clement and St. Polycarp.
*
*

***

*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ 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 Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

*

***

Photo credit: see book and purchase information for this volume of mine, from 2007.

Summary: Lutheran apologist Jordan Cooper claims that some of the early apostolic Church fathers taught faith alone. I show that Clement & Polycarp do not do so at all.

2024-02-13T14:43:47-04:00

Last updated on: February 13, 2024 at 2:43 pm   By
0 Comments

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, 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 done many replies to Gavin and will continue to do so. His words will be in blue. I use RSV for all Bible passages unless otherwise specified.

All of my replies to Gavin are collected in one place on my Calvinism & General Protestantism web page, near the top in the section, “Replies to Reformed Baptist Gavin Ortlund.”

This is my 19th reply to his material.

*****

This is a response to portions in Gavin’s video, “Response to George Farmer and Allie Beth Stuckey on Catholicism Vs. Protestantism” (5-8-23)

4:07 the whole appeal of Protestantism was a return and retrieval of practices of the early church.

4:18 I often recommend some of these classical treatments of Protestantism, like John Jewell and the Anglican tradition, Martin Chemnitz in the Lutheran tradition, Francis Turretin in the Reformed tradition. All of them are arguing from the church fathers. Here’s how [John] Calvin again put it in a 1539 dispute he had with a Catholic theologian [probably Cardinal Sadoleto]:

Our agreement with antiquity is far greater than yours, but all that we have attempted has been to renew the ancient form of the church that existed in the age of Chrysostom and Basil among the Greeks and of Cyprian, Ambrose, and Augustine among the Latins.

Pause the video and read that quote ten times. It’s an astonishing claim. What he’s saying is all Protestantism is, is a return to the third, fourth, fifth centuries.

That’s the “Protestant myth of Church history”  that I’ve refuted — with tons of facts — times without number. Protestantism says that its two “pillars” are sola Scriptura (“Scripture alone” as the final and infallible authority in Christianity) and sola fide (“faith alone” as the way of being saved and extrinsic, imputed justification).

Let’s look at the second thing first. Did Protestantism simply revive or retrieve what was believed and practiced in the early Church? No. I call as my witnesses, Protestant scholars Alister McGrath and Norman Geisler. I cite both from books where they defend Protestantism over Catholicism. They have no gripe against their own views and obviously can’t be accused of bias. So what do they say about this topic? First, the late great Norman Geisler:

For Augustine, justification included both the beginnings of one’s righteousness before God and its subsequent perfection — the event and the process. What later became the Reformation concept of ‘sanctification’ then is effectively subsumed under the aegis of justification. Although he believed that God initiated the salvation process, it is incorrect to say that Augustine held to the concept of ‘forensic’ justification. This understanding of justification is a later development of the Reformation . . .

Before Luther, the standard Augustinian position on justification stressed intrinsic justification. Intrinsic justification argues that the believer is made righteous by God’s grace, as compared to extrinsic justification, by which a sinner is forensically declared righteous (at best, a subterranean strain in pre-Reformation Christendom). With Luther the situation changed dramatically . . .

. . . one can be saved without believing that imputed righteousness (or forensic justification) is an essential part of the true gospel. Otherwise, few people were saved between the time of the apostle Paul and the Reformation, since scarcely anyone taught imputed righteousness (or forensic justification) during that period! . . . . . (Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, with Ralph E. MacKenzie, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1995, 502, 85, 222)

This spectacularly confirms that sola fide was a novelty and corruption (I don’t see how it can even be a “later development” as Geisler described it), and that infused, intrinsic justification was the ongoing tradition, and that of St. Augustine, supposedly the great forerunner of Luther’s “faith alone.” If there is any “development” of Augustine’s and the Church fathers’ well-nigh unanimous view, it is in Catholicism, since imputed justification was a late-arriving doctrinal novelty of the 16th century. The renowned Protestant scholar Alister McGrath makes virtually the same point:

Whereas Augustine taught that the sinner is made righteous in justification, Melanchthon taught that he is counted as righteous or pronounced to be righteous. For Augustine, ‘justifying righteousness’ is imparted; for Melanchthon, it is imputed in the sense of being declared or pronounced to be righteous. Melanchthon drew a sharp distinction between the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous, designating the former ‘justification’ and the latter ‘sanctification’ or ‘regeneration.’ For Augustine, these were simply different aspects of the same thing . . .

The importance of this development lies in the fact that it marks a complete break with the teaching of the church up to that point. From the time of Augustine onwards, justification had always been understood to refer to both the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous. . . .

The Council of Trent . . . reaffirmed the views of Augustine on the nature of justification . . . the concept of forensic justification actually represents a development in Luther’s thought . . . .

Trent maintained the medieval tradition, stretching back to Augustine, which saw justification as comprising both an event and a process . . . (Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 2nd edition, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1993, 108-109, 115; my italics and bolding)

A “complete break” is simply not a consistent development of doctrine. Therefore, it can’t be said — i.e., if these men are to be believed — that sola fide brought back what was widely believed in the early period of Church history. It wasn’t taught then, and one need not merely take my word for it. Here we have two eminent Protestant scholars and apologists freely admitting that it wasn’t. They are simply recording the actual facts of the matter.

Thank you, Dr. Geisler and Dr. McGrath. You make my work as a Catholic apologist a  lot easier: especially my analysis of the actual historical development of soteriology. Quotations like these save me literally days and days of work. Gavin likes to cite Catholic scholars who disagree with Catholic magisterial teaching. Very well, then, by the same token, I cite Protestant scholars who disagree with certain widespread “Protestant myths” of Church history. Goose and gander . . .

5:48 Protestants just try to be honest about the messiness of history, but they said — and this is the common claim — that on the main issues of dispute, certainly on a greater number of issues the church fathers supported the Protestant position.

Again, I have concentrated on the two pillars of the so-called Protestant “Reformation” (sola Scriptura and sola fide): the very things that Protestants believe are particularly important and crucial, and where they think they are considerably more biblical and “patristic” than Catholics. Let’s switch over to sola Scriptura now. I’ve written more about it — including two books [one / two] — than about any other topic, in my 4,500+ articles and 55 books. And I’ve done more patristic research about it than any other topic.

If we examine the fathers that John Calvin mentioned above, and what they thought about the issue of the rule of faith (the relationship of Bible, tradition, and the Church), we see that they did not believe in sola Scriptura at all. I’ve written about all of them in this respect:

St. John Chrysostom (d. 407) vs. Sola Scriptura as the Rule of Faith [8-1-03]

Chrysostom & Irenaeus: Sola Scripturists? (vs. David T. King) [4-20-07]

Dialogue on St. John Chrysostom & Sola Scriptura (Includes a Discussion of the Proper Definition of Sola Scriptura) [2-23-21]

Highlight:

“So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by Epistle of ours.” Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther. (On Second Thessalonians, Homily IV)

**

Basil the Great (d. 379) vs. Sola Scriptura as the Rule of Faith [8-1-03]

David T. King and William Webster: Out-of-Context or Hyper-Selective Quotations from the Church Fathers on Christian Authority: Part II: St. Basil the Great [11-11-13]

Vs. James White #16: St. Basil Held to Sola Scriptura? [11-19-19]

Self-Interpreting Bible & Protestant Chaos (vs. Turretin): Including Documentation that St. Basil the Great — Contrary to Turretin’s Claim — Did Not Believe in Sola Scriptura [8-29-22]

Highlight:

[Y]ou should confess the faith put forth by our Fathers once assembled at Nicæa, that you should not omit any one of its propositions, but bear in mind that the three hundred and eighteen who met together without strife did not speak without the operation of the Holy Ghost, . . .  (Letter No. 114 to Cyriacus, at Tarsus; NPNF2-8)

**

Lutheran Chemnitz: Errors Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura (including analysis of Jerome, Augustine, Origen, Epiphanius, Ambrose, Lactantius, Athanasius, and Cyprian) [8-31-07]

Cyprian (c. 210-258) vs. Sola Scriptura [12-23-21]

Highlights:

Peter, upon whom by the same Lord the Church had been built, . . . (Epistle 54: To Cornelius, 7)

After such things as these, moreover, they still dare — a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics— to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access. (Epistle 54: To Cornelius, 14)

**

St. Ambrose (c. 340-397) vs. Sola Scriptura [12-18-21]

Highlight:

He said to Peter: I have prayed for you, that your faith fail not. Luke 22:32 To the same Apostle, again, when on a former occasion he said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God, He made answer: You are Peter, and upon this Rock will I build My Church, and I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 16:18 Could He not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on His own authority, He gave the kingdom, whom He called the Rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church? (Exposition of the Christian Faith, Bk. IV, chapter 5, section 57)

**

St. Augustine (d. 430) vs. Sola Scriptura as the Rule of Faith [8-1-03]

Augustine & Sola Scriptura (vs. Gavin Ortlund) [4-28-22]

Augustine & Sola Scriptura, Pt. 2 (vs. Gavin Ortlund) [4-29-22]

Reply to a “Reformation Day” Lutheran Sermon [Vs. Nathan Rinne] (Including St. Augustine’s View on the Rule of Faith & the Perspicuity of Scripture; Luther & Lutherans’ Belief in Falling Away) [10-31-23]

Highlights:

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

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

**

On my Fathers of the Church web page I have collected dozens of articles on the Church fathers’ rejection of sola Scriptura. See the section: “Bible / Tradition / Sola Scriptura / Perspicuity / Rule of Faith.” It’s easy to show that the Church fathers held an entirely “Catholic” view of the rule of faith. I cite three prominent Protestant Church historians, summing up the views of the Church fathers:

As regards the pre-Augustinian Church, there is in our time a striking convergence of scholarly opinion that Scripture and Tradition are for the early Church in no sense mutually exclusive: kerygma, Scripture and Tradition coincide entirely. The Church preaches the kerygma which is to be found in toto in written form in the canonical books.

The Tradition is not understood as an addition to the kerygma contained in Scripture but as the handing down of that same kerygma in living form: in other words everything is to be found in Scripture and at the same time everything is in the living Tradition.

It is in the living, visible Body of Christ, inspired and vivified by the operation of the Holy Spirit, that Scripture and Tradition coinhere . . . Both Scripture and Tradition issue from the same source: the Word of God, Revelation . . . Only within the Church can this kerygma be handed down undefiled . . . (Heiko Oberman, The Harvest of Medieval Theology, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, revised, 1967, 366-367)

It should be unnecessary to accumulate further evidence. Throughout the whole period Scripture and tradition ranked as complementary authorities, media different in form but coincident in content. To inquire which counted as superior or more ultimate is to pose the question in misleading terms. If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the surest clue to its interpretation, for in tradition the Church retained, as a legacy from the apostles which was embedded in all the organs of her institutional life, an unerring grasp of the real purport and meaning of the revelation to which Scripture and tradition alike bore witness. (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, San Francisco: Harper & Row, fifth revised edition, 1978, 47-48)

In the substance of its doctrine this apostolic tradition agrees with the holy scriptures, and though derived, as to its form, from the oral preaching of the apostles, is really, as to its contents, one and the same with those apostolic writings. In this view the apparent contradictions of the earlier fathers, in ascribing the highest authority to both scripture and tradition in matters of faith, resolve themselves. It is one and the same gospel which the apostles preached with their lips, and then laid down in their writings, and which the church faithfully hands down by word and writing from one generation to another. (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 2 [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1966, from the fifth revised edition of 1910], Chapter XII, section 139, “Catholic Tradition,” p. 528)

I’ve done some research involving the Church fathers and faith / salvation / soteriological issues, too:
*
*

***

*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ 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 Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

*

***

Photo credit: my 2012 book (see info. and purchase information)

Summary: Gavin Ortlund claimed that Protestants are closer to early Church teachings. I cite five Protestant scholars who show that the fathers rejected Bible Alone & Faith Alone.

2023-12-11T14:00:52-04:00

Last updated on: December 11, 2023 at 2:00 pm   By
0 Comments

Chapter 14 (pp. 401-426) of my book, Bible Truths for Catholic Truths: A Source Book for Apologists and Inquirers (Manchester, New Hampshire: Sophia Institute Press, 2009); the paperback is now out-of-print. This book could also be known as Dave’s Topical Bible, and contains 2,051 Bible passages, categorized under 115 thematic headings. I am now offering it online for free.
*
In these blog posts I use — for readers’ convenience — the original RSV of the manuscript (© 1971 by Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America), rather than KJV, which was mostly used in the paperback, due to copyright law. This book is all Bible, except for a few (indented) clarifying comments here and there. Subtitles sometimes differ from the published version. They are my own original titles.

*****

THE SACRAMENT OF MATRIMONY / ANALOGY TO CHRIST AND THE CHURCH

Genesis 1:26-28 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.”

Genesis 2:18-25 Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper fit for him. So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed. 

The Song of Solomon  (the entire book is regarded by most commentators as a parable of God and His Church).

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

Isaiah 62:4-5 You shall no more be termed Forsaken, and your land shall no more be termed Desolate; but you shall be called My delight is in her, and your land Married; for the LORD delights in you, and your land shall be married. For as a young man marries a virgin, so shall your sons marry you, and as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, so shall your God rejoice over you.

Jeremiah 2:2 Go and proclaim in the hearing of Jerusalem, Thus says the LORD, I remember the devotion of your youth, your love as a bride, how you followed me in the wilderness, in a land not sown.

Jeremiah 2:32 Can a maiden forget her ornaments, or a bride her attire? Yet my people have forgotten me days without number.

Matthew 25:10 And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the marriage feast; and the door was shut.

Luke 5:34 And Jesus said to them, “Can you make wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them?” (cf. Mk 2:19-20; Mt 9:15; Jn 2:1-11)

Luke 12:36 and be like men who are waiting for their master to come home from the marriage feast, so that they may open to him at once when he comes and knocks.

John 3:27-29 John answered, “No one can receive anything except what is given him from heaven. You yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but I have been sent before him. He who has the bride is the bridegroom; the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom’s voice; therefore this joy of mine is now full.”

1 Corinthians 7:2, 7, 17 But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. . . . each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. . . . Only, let every one lead the life which the Lord has assigned to him, and in which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches.

1 Corinthians 7:38  So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better.

2 Corinthians 11:2 I feel a divine jealousy for you, for I betrothed you to Christ to present you as a pure bride to her one husband.

Ephesians 5:22-32 Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. This mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church; (cf. 1 Pet 3:1-9)

1 Timothy 4:1-3 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, through the pretensions of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage . . .

Revelation 19:7-9 Let us rejoice and exult and give him the glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his Bride has made herself ready; it was granted her to be clothed with fine linen, bright and pure — for the fine linen is the righteous deeds of the saints. And the angel said to me, “Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.” And he said to me, “These are true words of God.”

Revelation 21:2, 9 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband; . . .Then came one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues, and spoke to me, saying, “Come, I will show you the Bride, the wife of the Lamb.”

Revelation 22:17 The Spirit and the Bride say, “Come.” And let him who hears say, “Come.” And let him who is thirsty come, let him who desires take the water of life without price. 

DIVORCE AND THE INDISSOLUBILITY OF MARRIAGE 

Exodus 20:14 You shall not commit adultery. (cf. Deut 5:18; Lev 20:10; Mt 19:18; Mk 10:19; Lk 18:20; Rom 13:9; James 2:11)

Proverbs 6:32 He who commits adultery has no sense; he who does it destroys himself. (cf. 6:26; 30:20)

Jeremiah 3:1 If a man divorces his wife and she goes from him and becomes another man’s wife, will he return to her? Would not that land be greatly polluted? . . .

Jeremiah 7:9 Will you steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, burn incense to Ba’al, and go after other gods that you have not known, (cf. 9:2)

Ezekiel 44:22 They shall not marry a widow, or a divorced woman, but only a virgin of the stock of the house of Israel, or a widow who is the widow of a priest.

Hosea 4:14 I will not punish your daughters when they play the harlot, nor your brides when they commit adultery; for the men themselves go aside with harlots, and sacrifice with cult prostitutes, and a people without understanding shall come to ruin.

Malachi 2:16 For I hate divorce, says the LORD the God of Israel, and covering one’s garment with violence, says the LORD of hosts. So take heed to yourselves and do not be faithless.

Malachi 3:5 Then I will draw near to you for judgment; I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, against the adulterers, against those who swear falsely, against those who oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow and the orphan, against those who thrust aside the sojourner, and do not fear me, says the LORD of hosts.

Wisdom 14:26 confusion over what is good, forgetfulness of favors, pollution of souls, sex perversion, disorder in marriage, adultery, and debauchery.

Sirach 23:23 For first of all, she has disobeyed the law of the Most High; second, she has committed an offense against her husband; and third, she has committed adultery through harlotry and brought forth children by another man. (cf. 25:2)

Matthew 5:27-28 You have heard that it was said, “You shall not commit adultery.” But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Matthew 5:31-32 It was also said, “Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.” But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Matthew 15:19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander.

Matthew 19:3-11 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” He said to them, “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery.” The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.” But he said to them, “Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given.”

The Greek word for unchastity in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 is porneia: defined in standard Greek lexicons as “unlawful sexual intercourse.” Jesus is contrasting a true marriage, with a cohabitation, concubinage or some other illicit union (cf. 1 Corinthians 5:1). If there is not truly a marriage present, then a separation can take place, but it is no “divorce” because it was no marriage to begin with.

These passages can’t be used to justify divorce as a result of an occurrence of adultery of the partner, because the usual Greek word for adultery (moicheia) is not used, as it is in many other places (thirty-five times in one of its forms).

The Greek word porneia and its cognates are never translated in the KJV New Testament as “adultery” but as “fornication” or “fornicator” (thirty-nine times), “harlot” (eight times), “whore” (four), and “whoremonger” (five). Likewise, every variant of the English fornication in the KJV is always a translation of some form of porneia.

The same holds true for adultery and its variants; they are always translations of some form of moicheia (and these are never translated as anything other than “adultery”). We also find the two Greek words distinguished from each other in the same verse (Mt. 5:19; Mk 7:21; Gal. 5:19).

Mark 10:2-12 And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to put her away.” But Jesus said to them, “For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

Luke 16:18 Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

Romans 2:22 You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?

Romans 7:1-3 Do you not know, brethren — for I am speaking to those who know the law — that the law is binding on a person only during his life? Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies she is discharged from the law concerning the husband. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.

1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts,

1 Corinthians 7:3-5, 10-15 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does. Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control. . . . To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband) — and that the husband should not divorce his wife. To the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is they are holy. But if the unbelieving partner desires to separate, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. For God has called us to peace.

1 Corinthians 7:27, 39 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. . . . A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. If the husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.

Hebrews 13:4  Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled; for God will judge the immoral and adulterous.

2 Peter 2:14 They have eyes full of adultery, insatiable for sin. They entice unsteady souls. They have hearts trained in greed. Accursed children! 

PREMARITAL SEX AND COHABITATION 

Exodus 22:16 If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall give the marriage present for her, and make her his wife.

Leviticus 21:13-15 And he shall take a wife in her virginity. A widow, or one divorced, or a woman who has been defiled, or a harlot, these he shall not marry; but he shall take to wife a virgin of his own people, that he may not profane his children among his people; for I am the LORD who sanctify him.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her; he may not put her away all his days.

Hosea 4:14 I will not punish your daughters when they play the harlot, nor your brides when they commit adultery; for the men themselves go aside with harlots, and sacrifice with cult prostitutes, and a people without understanding shall come to ruin.

Sirach 23:17-19 To a fornicator all bread tastes sweet; he will never cease until he dies. A man who breaks his marriage vows says to himself, “Who sees me? Darkness surrounds me, and the walls hide me, and no one sees me. Why should I fear? The Most High will not take notice of my sins.” His fear is confined to the eyes of men, and he does not realize that the eyes of the Lord are ten thousand times brighter than the sun; they look upon all the ways of men, and perceive even the hidden places.

Mark 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, fornication, theft, murder, adultery,

1 Corinthians 6:18  Shun immorality. Every other sin which a man commits is outside the body; but the immoral man sins against his own body.

1 Corinthians 7:1-2, 9 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote. It is well for a man not to touch a woman. But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. . . . But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.

1 Corinthians 7:36 If any one thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry — it is no sin.

1 Corinthians 10:8 We must not indulge in immorality as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in a single day.

2 Corinthians 12:21 I fear that when I come again my God may humble me before you, and I may have to mourn over many of those who sinned before and have not repented of the impurity, immorality, and licentiousness which they have practiced.

Galatians 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness,

Ephesians 5:3, 5 But fornication and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is fitting among saints. 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.

Colossians 3:5 Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: fornication, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.

1 Timothy 1:10 immoral persons, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,

Jude 1:7 just as Sodom and Gomor’rah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

Revelation 9:21 nor did they repent of their murders or their sorceries or their immorality or their thefts.

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

Revelation 22:15 Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and every one who loves and practices falsehood.

ANNULMENTS

An annulment is not a “Catholic divorce.” It’s a declaration by the Church that a valid, sacramental marriage was never present (because several necessary conditions were not met: for example, insufficiently free will, truthfulness of both parties, mental health, deliberate decision not to bear children, etc.). A similar distinction is found in civil law in many countries. The Old Testament dichotomy between a concubine and a wife is similar to the distinction between civil and sacramental marriage:

Genesis 21:10, 14 So she said to Abraham, “Cast out this slave woman with her son; for the son of this slave woman shall not be heir with my son Isaac.” . . . So Abraham rose early in the morning, and took bread and a skin of water, and gave it to Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, along with the child, and sent her away. . . .

Judges 8:31 And his concubine who was in Shechem also bore him a son, . . .

Likewise, in Ezra, we read that many Israelites “sent away” the “foreign women” they had married, not simply because they were foreigners, but because they caused them to become corrupted by false religions and idolatry. This was essentially an annulment, as opposed to a divorce:

Ezra 9:14 shall we break thy commandments again and intermarry with the peoples who practice these abominations? . . . (cf. 9:1-2)

Ezra 10:2-3, 10-14, 19 . . . We have broken faith with our God and have married foreign women from the peoples of the land, but even now there is hope for Israel in spite of this. Therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all these wives and their children, according to the counsel of my lord and of those who tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law. . . . And Ezra the priest stood up and said to them, “You have trespassed and married foreign women, and so increased the guilt of Israel. Now then make confession to the LORD the God of your fathers, and do his will; separate yourselves from the peoples of the land and from the foreign wives.” Then all the assembly answered with a loud voice, “It is so; we must do as you have said. . . . we have greatly transgressed in this matter. Let our officials stand for the whole assembly; let all in our cities who have taken foreign wives come at appointed times, and with them the elders and judges of every city, till the fierce wrath of our God over this matter be averted from us.” . . . They pledged themselves to put away their wives, and their guilt offering was a ram of the flock for their guilt.

Nehemiah 13:26-27 Did not Solomon king of Israel sin on account of such women? Among the many nations there was no king like him, and he was beloved by his God, and God made him king over all Israel; nevertheless foreign women made even him to sin. Shall we then listen to you and do all this great evil and act treacherously against our God by marrying foreign women?

Matthew 5:32 But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Matthew 19:9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery.

The preceding two verses also apply to annulment situations, insofar as it is determined that a marriage never existed, and it was a state of immoral fornication instead; thus making it a situation having nothing to do with divorce, since no true sacramental marriage is involved. One can even become “one flesh” with a prostitute (1 Corinthians 6:16), but obviously that does not constitute a marriage, let alone a sacramental one.

1 Corinthians 7:15 But if the unbelieving partner desires to separate, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. For God has called us to peace.

The “Pauline privilege” is an example of a situation that precisely fits a certain type of annulment (and the Church has always accepted it because it is so clearly taught in Holy Scripture, here).

HOMOSEXUALITY

Genesis 19:4-7 But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; and they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.” Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, and said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly.”

Leviticus 18:20-30 And you shall not lie carnally with your neighbor’s wife, and defile yourself with her. You shall not give any of your children to devote them by fire to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the LORD. You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. And you shall not lie with any beast and defile yourself with it, neither shall any woman give herself to a beast to lie with it: it is perversion. “Do not defile yourselves by any of these things, for by all these the nations I am casting out before you defiled themselves; and the land became defiled, so that I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. But you shall keep my statutes and my ordinances and do none of these abominations, either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you (for all of these abominations the men of the land did, who were before you, so that the land became defiled); lest the land vomit you out, when you defile it, as it vomited out the nation that was before you. For whoever shall do any of these abominations, the persons that do them shall be cut off from among their people. So keep my charge never to practice any of these abominable customs which were practiced before you, and never to defile yourselves by them: I am the LORD your God.” 

Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.

Deuteronomy 23:17 There shall be no cult prostitute of the daughters of Israel, neither shall there be a cult prostitute of the sons of Israel.

Judges 19:22-23 . . . behold, the men of the city, base fellows, beset the house round about, beating on the door; and they said to the old man, the master of the house, “Bring out the man who came into your house, that we may know him.” And the man, the master of the house, went out to them and said to them, “No, my brethren, do not act so wickedly; seeing that this man has come into my house, do not do this vile thing.”

1 Kings 14:24 and there were also male cult prostitutes in the land. They did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD drove out before the people of Israel.

1 Kings 15:11-12 And Asa did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, as David his father had done. He put away the male cult prostitutes out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made. (cf. 2 Ki 23:7)

1 Kings 22:42-43, 46 Jehosh’aphat was thirty-five years old when he began to reign, . . . He walked in all the way of Asa his father; he did not turn aside from it, doing what was right in the sight of the LORD; yet the high places were not taken away, and the people still sacrificed and burned incense on the high places. . . . And the remnant of the male cult prostitutes who remained in the days of his father Asa, he exterminated from the land.

Romans 1:24-27 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

1 Timothy 1:8-11 Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, immoral persons, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

2 Peter 2:4-8 For if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of nether gloom to be kept until the judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven other persons, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomor’rah to ashes he condemned them to extinction and made them an example to those who were to be ungodly; and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the licentiousness of the wicked (for by what that righteous man saw and heard as he lived among them, he was vexed in his righteous soul day after day with their lawless deeds),

Jude 1:7: just as Sodom and Gomor’rah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

God doesn’t change. If He states that something is sinful and never permissible, then that prohibition applies at all times. Secondly, it isn’t true that the Bible only condemns homosexual rape and not such acts by mutual consent (as is often argued today). Most of the passages above (more than enough!) condemn consensual homosexual acts. Jude 7 mentions “unnatural lust” and 2 Peter 2:4-10 states similarly. Therefore, this objection collapses.

As for the desire itself, Catholics don’t believe it is inherently sinful, as long as it isn’t acted upon (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2358-59), just as heterosexual lust, fornication, and adultery must be rejected in the will, by God’s grace, in order to avoid sin. Everyone has more than enough temptations to resist and overcome.

St. Paul in Romans 1 makes an explicit argument against homosexuality, as an unnatural practice; he also presents a similar argument in 1 Corinthians 6:12-20, by stating that excessive appetite for sex (and also food?) amounts to being “enslaved” (6:12). There is a created reality and natural order beyond mere physical pleasure, which must not be violated. Certain things are wrong by their very nature. Sex outside of marriage — whether heterosexual or homosexual — belongs to that category (6:18-20). Paul casually assumes that sodomy is intrinsically wrong in 1 Timothy 1:8-11, as he does in Romans 1:24-27: “dishonorable passions,” “unnatural [relations],” “men committing shameless acts with men,” etc.

There is also indirect indication of Jesus’ acceptance of the traditional Jewish prohibition of homosexual acts, or sodomy, in His approval of the judgment of Sodom (Mt 10:15; 11:23-24; Lk 10:12; 17:29). And what did Jesus think of the Mosaic Law?:

Matthew 5:17-19 Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (cf. Mt 7:12; 22:40; Lk 16:17)

Matthew 23:2-3 The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. (cf. Mt 23:23)

Jesus observed the Law in its entirety. He worshiped in synagogues and the Temple; He observed the Jewish feasts (the Last Supper was a Passover dinner: Mt 26:17-19; Mk 14:12-16; Lk 22:7-15). He casually made reference to the authority of Moses over His own disciples (Mt 8:4; Mk 1:44; 7:8-13; Lk 16:31; 24:44; Jn 5:46; 7:19-23). There is no indication that He disputed any of these received laws. Therefore, He accepted as part of the whole, the injunctions against homosexual acts.

CONTRACEPTION

Genesis 38:8-10 Then Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.” But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD, and he slew him also.

This involved what is known as the “levirate law”: the duty to produce offspring with the wife of a dead brother. But this is not why God killed Onan, since the penalty for that was public humiliation and shunning, not death (Deut 25:5-10). Context also supports this interpretation, since immediately after this (Gen. 38:11-26), is the story of Onan’s father Judah refusing to enforce the law and allow his other son, Shelah to produce a child with Tamar, his daughter-in-law. He was afraid that Shelah would be killed like Onan and his other wicked son, Er (38:7, 11). Judah acknowledges his sin in 38:26: “She is more righteous than I, inasmuch as I did not give her to my son Shelah.” He wasn’t killed, so it is unreasonable to contend that Onan was judged and killed by God for the very same sin that Judah committed (in the same passage). Onan was judged for contraception (sex with the deliberate intent to unnaturally prevent procreation).

There are a host of other biblical passages which exalt fertility and the blessing of many children, and the curse of none. Married couples are to “be fruitful and multiply”; this is a blessing:

Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, . . .” (cf. 9:1,7)

Genesis 28:3 God Almighty bless you and make you fruitful and multiply you, that you may become a company of peoples.

Genesis 35:11 And God said to him, “I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall come from you, and kings shall spring from you.” (cf. Dan 3:35-36)

Deuteronomy 7:13-14 he will love you, bless you, and multiply you; he will also bless the fruit of your body and the fruit of your ground, your grain and your wine and your oil, the increase of your cattle and the young of your flock, in the land which he swore to your fathers to give you. You shall be blessed above all peoples; there shall not be male or female barren among you, or among your cattle.

Psalm 107:38 By his blessing they multiply greatly; . . . (cf. Is 48:18-19; Jer 29:6; 30:19-20; 33:22; Ezek 36:10-12; Bar 2:34)

Psalm 115:14 May the LORD give you increase, you and your children! (cf. 105:24)

Psalm 128:3-4 Your wife will be like a fruitful vine within your house; your children will be like olive shoots around your table. Lo, thus shall the man be blessed who fears the LORD.

Proverbs 17:6 Grandchildren are the crown of the aged, and the glory of sons is their fathers. (cf. 11:30; Sir 44:13, 21)

Barrenness is contrary to blessing and “glory”:

Exodus 23:25-26 You shall serve the LORD your God, and I will bless your bread and your water; and I will take sickness away from the midst of you. None shall cast her young or be barren in your land; . . .

Jeremiah 18:21 Therefore deliver up their children to famine; give them over to the power of the sword, let their wives become childless and widowed. . . .

Hosea 9:11 E’phraim’s glory shall fly away like a bird — no birth, no pregnancy, no conception!

Procreation is central to marriage:

Malachi 2:14-15 You ask, “Why does he not?” Because the LORD was witness to the covenant between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. Has not the one God made and sustained for us the spirit of life? And what does he desire? Godly offspring. So take heed to yourselves, and let none be faithless to the wife of his youth.

Childbearing is so sacred that women are even said to be “saved” by it:

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

It is God Who opens and closes wombs and causes a conception to occur:

Genesis 20:17-18 Then Abraham prayed to God; and God healed Abim’elech, and also healed his wife and female slaves so that they bore children. For the LORD had closed all the wombs of the house of Abim’elech because of Sarah, Abraham’s wife.

Genesis 29:31 When the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb; but Rachel was barren.

Genesis 30:2, 22-24 Jacob’s anger was kindled against Rachel, and he said, “Am I in the place of God, who has withheld from you the fruit of the womb?” . . . Then God remembered Rachel, and God hearkened to her and opened her womb. She conceived and bore a son, and said, “God has taken away my reproach”; and she called his name Joseph, saying, “May the LORD add to me another son!”

Exodus 1:21 And because the midwives feared God he gave them families.

Joshua 24:3 Then I took your father Abraham from beyond the River and led him through all the land of Canaan, and made his offspring many. I gave him Isaac;

Ruth 4:13 So Bo’az took Ruth and she became his wife; and he went in to her, and the LORD gave her conception, and she bore a son.

1 Samuel 1:5 and, although he loved Hannah, he would give Hannah only one portion, because the LORD had closed her womb.

Job 10:8, 11 Thy hands fashioned and made me; and now thou dost turn about and destroy me. . . . Thou didst clothe me with skin and flesh, and knit me together with bones and sinews. (cf. 12:10)

Job 31:15 Did not he who made me in the womb make him? And did not one fashion us in the womb?

Psalm 113:9 He gives the barren woman a home, making her the joyous mother of children. Praise the LORD!

Ecclesiastes 11:5 As you do not know how the spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a woman with child, so you do not know the work of God who makes everything.

Isaiah 44:2 Thus says the LORD who made you, who formed you from the womb and will help you: . . . (cf. 44:24; 54:1-3; Ezek 36:37; 2 Mac 7:22-23)

Children are a gift from God and a blessing:

Genesis 17:16, 20 I will bless her, and moreover I will give you a son by her; I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of peoples shall come from her . . . As for Ish’mael, I have heard you; behold, I will bless him and make him fruitful and multiply him exceedingly; he shall be the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation. (cf. Deut 30:9, 15-16; Is 51:2)

Genesis 29:32-33 And Leah conceived and bore a son, and she called his name Reuben; for she said, “Because the LORD has looked upon my affliction; surely now my husband will love me.” She conceived again and bore a son, and said, “Because the LORD has heard that I am hated, he has given me this son also”; and she called his name Simeon.

Genesis 33:5 And when Esau raised his eyes and saw the women and children, he said, “Who are these with you?” Jacob said, “The children whom God has graciously given your servant.”

1 Chronicles 25:5 “All these were the sons of Heman the king’s seer, according to the promise of God to exalt him; for God had given Heman fourteen sons and three daughters.”

Psalm 127:3-5 Lo, sons are a heritage from the LORD, the fruit of the womb a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the sons of one’s youth. Happy is the man who has his quiver full of them! . . . (cf. 72:16; 113:9)

Tobit 4:12 . . . Remember, my son, that Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, our fathers of old, all took wives from among their brethren. They were blessed in their children, and their posterity will inherit the land. (cf. Sir 25:7)

*

*****
*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ 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 Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!
*
***

Photo Credit: OlcayErtem (9-7-21) [Pixabay / Pixabay Content License]

***

Summary: Ch. 14 of my book, Bible Truths for Catholic Truths: A Source Book for Apologists and Inquirers (Manchester, New Hampshire: Sophia Institute Press, 2009)

2023-10-06T01:00:25-04:00

Last updated on: October 6, 2023 at 1:00 am   By
0 Comments
***
Brazilian Protestant Juan Roberto de Oliveira is the author of the book, Nenhum Caminho Leva a Roma: O pecurso até o protestantismo [No Road Leads to Rome: The Path to Protestantism]. It has no date or publisher listed. But it was “recently released.” He’s a “law graduate” and is active on Twitter (now “X”) and, especially, Instagram. When I informed Juan of my replies, he quickly wrote on Twitter: “I’ll be rebutting your rebuttals.” I wish him all the best in that endeavor. If anyone discovers that he has ever answered any of my critiques, please let me know.
*
His words will be in blue. Translations from the Portugese of his book will be made with Google Translate (with an occasional additional modification). I will use RSV for Bible translations.
*
Just as I finished my tenth installment (10-5-23), Fraternidade Newman Brasil [Newman Brazil Fraternity] published a devastatingly comprehensive (and shocking) expose entitled “Apologética da Desonestidade: Evidências de Plágio e outras Trapaças no Livro do Protestante Juan Roberto Oliveira” [Apologetics of Dishonesty: Evidence of Plagiarism and other Cheating in the Book of Protestant Juan Roberto Oliveira].
*
In light of this new information, this will be my last critique. It’s a shame, because I was enjoying myself so much, and I felt that I came up with some fresh arguments, but this book deserves no further response. It was already a very weak, poor volume (desperately in need of an editor), even if these factors weren’t in play. What I have written thus far has, in my opinion, value in and of itself, as a ten-part Catholic apologetics “course.” So it wasn’t a waste of time at all. But no more. I’m only interested in responding to serious, adequately researched, honest apologetics.
*
*****

Sola Scriptura is a theological principle that is based on the belief that The Bible is the only final and infallible authority for Christian faith and practice. . . . the Bible is the supreme source of authority in matters of faith and morals, above traditions, church teachings or human opinions. . . . the norm by which all other authorities must be evaluated. (p. 42)

We agree on the definition. We disagree on whether it is a true or false and biblically supported viewpoint.

[A]ny teaching or tradition that does not conform to the Scriptures must be rejected. (p. 42)

What cannot be tradition is anything that is in conflict with the scriptures. (p. 43)

Catholics wholeheartedly agree. That’s why we are so opposed to several Protestant man-made doctrines; “traditions of men”: because they are contrary to Holy Scripture. Nothing personal against them; we’re just trying to be consistently “biblical.” We must, however, define what we mean by “biblical”. Catholics mean by that, that every doctrine must be in harmony with Scripture and not contrary to it. Protestants often mean by the word, “explicitly mentioned in Scripture.” We agree with Martin Luther, when he wrote that “what is not against the Scriptures is for the Scriptures and the Scriptures are for it” (Letter to Philip Melanchthon, 13 January 1522). I wrote in my article, “Explicit” Bible Proofs & Protestant Double Standards [2-12-16; with a little added presently]:

A doctrine can be “biblical” without explicit mention in the Bible. Some things are implicit / indirect only, or logically deduced from other more explicit passages. Some doctrines, including many distinctively Protestant ones, are arguably not in the Bible at all. The New Testament never mentions an “altar call”. It never has the typical “sinner’s prayer” of evangelicals. It doesn’t mention church buildings. It never uses the frequently mentioned evangelical terminology of “personal relationship with Jesus.” It never lists its own books (the biblical canon comes from the authority and proclamations of the Catholic Church and tradition). It never teaches sola Scriptura, or the concept that the Bible is the only infallible source of authority. Yet –oddly enough and passing strange —  this is one of the very “pillars” of the Protestant worldview.

Other beliefs or practices not explicitly mentioned in the Bible are Bible studies, grape juice as an element to be consecrated for communion (rather than wine), “asking Jesus into one’s heart,” a “body of believers,” Scripture interpreting Scripture (the more clear helping to understand the less clear), agreeing on “essential” or “primary” doctrines and permitted relativism regarding “non-essential” or “secondary” doctrines, denominations (vs. the biblical “one Church”). Of course, this very idea that one must find explicit biblical proof for every doctrine or it can’t / mustn’t be believed (even with high selectivity or rank inconsistency) is not found in the Bible anywhere, either. It’s (irony of all ironies!) a mere tradition of men.

Some popular Protestant (and also often Catholic) words or phrases  that do not appear in the Bible are rapture, invisible church, incarnation, virgin birth, holy communion, Lord’s prayer, Bible, original sin, fall of man, theology, go[ing] to church, grace alone, [total] depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, perseverance of the saints, spirituality, Scripture alone, pray for guidance, pray for direction, spiritual warfare, and sin nature. Faith alone only appears once:

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

Protestants manage to believe all these things (or use these words) with no problem whatever. Why? Or, more specifically, why do they believe these things, which are absent from or non-explicit in the Bible, while giving Catholics misery for similar things, or else doctrines and practices with far more indication of various sorts than the things above, that Protestants accept? Why the double standard? Or is it just that the Protestants who sling these sorts of “arguments” about never think about them very deeply, or have never met a Catholic who can show that they are very weak arguments indeed?

Sorry to get so in-depth about this, but the above clarifications are supremely important to keep in mind as we proceed with this vexed and vastly misunderstood topic.

We have the famous verse that Catholics love to use to extol tradition, which is in 2 Thessalonians 2.15: “So, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, whether by word or by letter.” But this spoken tradition was the teachings contained in the letters from the apostles, and when not, the apostles did not introduce innovations. (pp. 42-43)

Now here is a classic / “textbook” example of utterly wrongheaded and unbiblical Protestant tradition. What Juan is attempting to argue is absolutely absent from Holy Scripture. Nowhere does it ever claim that when “tradition” is mentioned, it can only refer to teachings in other portions of the Bible (which at the time were not even finally determined yet) and can never be anything beyond those (while still in harmony with them). It’s a very silly, confused, unsupported claim, and its simply assumed without no basis for doing so. This is the notion that Protestants call “inscripturation.” It was explained at length by the late Protestant apologist Norman Geisler, writing with Ralph MacKenzie, in the article, “A Defense of Sola Scriptura” (Christian Research Institute, 4-8-09; my italics):

It is not legitimate to appeal to any oral revelation in New Testament times as proof that nonbiblical infallible authority is in existence today. …

Since the death of the apostles the only apostolic authority we have is the inspired record of their teaching in the New Testament. That is, all apostolic tradition (teaching) on faith and practice is in the New Testament. … all apostolic teaching that God deemed necessary for the faith and practice (morals) of the church was preserved (2 Timothy 3:15-17). …

There is not a shred of evidence that any of the revelation God gave them to express was not inscripturated by them in the only books — the inspired books of the New Testament — that they left for the church.

I wrote about it in National Catholic Register (3-15-21):

Protestants have to believe something akin to this notion, because of their aversion to extrabiblical (yet harmonious with Scripture) authoritative, binding tradition. They agree that what apostles taught was binding, but they fail to see that some of that teaching wouldn’t be recorded in Scripture. The Bible itself teaches us that there are such teachings and deeds not recorded in it (John 20:30, 21:25, Acts 1:2-3, Luke 24:15-16,25-27). The logic is simple:

Apostles’ teaching was authoritative and binding (i.e., for all practical purposes, “infallible”). Some of that teaching was recorded in Scripture, but some was not. The folks who heard their teaching were bound to it whether it was later “inscripturated” or not. If they were so bound, it stands to reason that we could and should be, also. Scripture itself does not rule out the presence of an authoritative oral tradition, not recorded in words. Paul refers more than once to a non-written tradition (e.g., 2 Timothy 1:13-14, 2:2).

When Paul was preaching he did so authoritatively, as an apostle. Not everything he said was later included in the Bible; therefore it was not all inspired (he was no walking Bible-machine any more than Jesus was). But he was an authority, and acted consciously upon this authority. Inscripturation teaches that anything not recorded in Scripture could not have been passed down by Paul: a contention that is absurd on its face.

As an example of a Protestant who accepts the binding, infallible nature of a teaching even if it isn’t taught in the Bible, I submit Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism. He wrote a letter [regarding infant baptism] to Albrecht (or Albert), Margrave of Brandenburg and Duke of Prussia, dated April 1532 by some and February or early March by others. The well-known Luther biographer Roland H. Bainton cites the following portion of it:

This testimony of the universal holy Christian Church, even if we had nothing else, would be a sufficient warrant for holding this article [on the sacrament] and refusing to suffer or listen to a sectary, for it is dangerous and fearful to hear or believe anything against the unanimous testimony, belief, and teaching of the universal holy Christian churches, unanimously held in all the world from the beginning until now over fifteen hundred years. (Studies on the Reformation, Boston: Beacon Press, 1963, p. 26; primary source: WA [Werke, Weimar edition in German], Vol. XXX, 552; my italics)

St. Augustine had taught the same 1100 years earlier:

As to those other things which we hold on the authority, not of Scripture, but of tradition, and which are observed throughout the whole world, it may be understood that they are held as approved and instituted either by the apostles themselves, or by plenary Councils, whose authority in the Church is most useful, . . . For often have I perceived, with extreme sorrow, many disquietudes caused to weak brethren by the contentious pertinacity . . . of some who, in matters of this kind, which do not admit of final decision by the authority of Holy Scripture, or by the tradition of the universal Church. (Letter to Januarius, 54, 1, 1; 54, 2, 3)

Since Old Testament times we see God preserving his word through of writing. This is why the Bible often uses the expression “it is written”, 31 times in the Old Testament and 78 times in the New Testament. God said it in Isaiah 30:8: “Go now, write this on a tablet before them and record it in a book; so that it may remain until the last day, forever and ever perpetually.” The way God uses to preserve his word throughout the ages centuries is not through word of mouth, it is through writing. (p. 43)

God does primarily use writing, but it’s not all He uses, and the Bible bears witness to oral tradition as well:

Biblical Evidence for Apostolic Oral Tradition [2-20-09]

Biblical Evidence for the Oral Torah & Oral Apostolic Tradition [10-18-11]

Anglican Newman on Oral & Written Apostolic Tradition [10-12-19]

Oral Tradition According to Great Historic Apologists [10-18-19]

In the Bible, “Word of God” Usually Means Oral Proclamation [National Catholic Register, 12-17-19]

Jesus the “Nazarene”: Did Matthew Make Up a “Prophecy”? (Reply to Jonathan M. S. Pearce from the Blog, A Tippling Philosopher / Oral Traditions and Possible Lost Old Testament Books Referred to in the Bible) [12-17-20]

Oral Tradition: More Biblical (Pauline) Evidence (. . . and an Examination of the False and Unbiblical Protestant Supposed Refutation of “Inscripturation”) [2-27-21]

Authoritative Non-Biblical Oral Proclamation from a Prophet (Not an Apostle) Led by the Holy Spirit, After the Day of Pentecost [Facebook, 4-1-21]

In the Torah (first five books of the OT), nothing can be found in Mosaic Law forbidding the carrying of objects from one’s house on the Sabbath. Yet according to the prophet Jeremiah, God willed that Jerusalem be destroyed for not abiding by this oral tradition and command:

Jeremiah 17:21-22, 27 Thus says the LORD: Take heed for the sake of your lives, and do not bear a burden on the sabbath day or bring it in by the gates of Jerusalem. [22] And do not carry a burden out of your houses on the sabbath or do any work, but keep the sabbath day holy, as I commanded your fathers. . . . [27] But if you do not listen to me, to keep the sabbath day holy, and not to bear a burden and enter by the gates of Jerusalem on the sabbath day, then I will kindle a fire in its gates, and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem and shall not be quenched.

Thus, the written revelation of the Old Testament referred to the oral Torah, given to Moses (according to Jewish tradition) on Mt. Sinai at the same time he received the written Law. It even says that God “commanded” this stipulation for the Sabbath. Since it isn’t found in the written Torah, then it had to come from the authoritative oral Torah.

Surprisingly enough, the written Torah never specifies that Jerusalem would be the central place of worship, or that a temple was to be built there (neither the words “temple” — in this sense — nor “Jerusalem” ever appears in the Pentateuch or Torah: first five books of the Bible). It’s never taught in the Torah that a permanent temple would replace the tabernacle (extensively dealt with in the Torah) as the central place of worship. If God didn’t authoritatively reveal His plan concerning a future temple to Moses, then all of the sacrificial worship of Israel from the time of Solomon was invalid. Therefore, the command had to be in the oral Torah.

The Jerusalem Council issued four commands to Gentile believers. Three dealt with food (Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25), and two of those derived from the oral Torah (written down much later): namely, not to eat things sacrificed to idols (Mishnah Avodah Zorah 2:3) or things strangled (Mishnah Chullin 1:2). The written Torah doesn’t prohibit either, yet Jesus strongly condemns Pergamum and Thyatira for not observing their ban (Rev 2:14, 20).

John Chrysostom exhorted his congregation not to seek any other teaching than the oracles of God, as everything that was needed could be extracted directly and clearly from the Bible. (p. 59)

That’s untrue. He also wrote:

Not by letters alone did Paul instruct his disciple in his duty, but before by words also which he shows, both in many other passages, as where he says, “whether by word or our Epistle” (2 Thess. ii. 15.), and especially here. Let us not therefore suppose that anything relating to doctrine was spoken imperfectly. For many things he delivered to him without writing. Of these therefore he reminds him, when he says, “Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me.” (Homily III on 2 Timothy – on 2 Tim 1:13-18)

“That ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you.” It appears then that he used at that time to deliver many things also not in writing, which he shows too in many other places. But at that time he only delivered them, whereas now he adds an explanation of their reason: thus both rendering the one sort, the obedient, more steadfast, and pulling down the others’ pride, who oppose themselves. (Homily XXVI on 1 Corinthians; commenting on 1 Corinthians 11:2)

“So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by Epistle of ours.”Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther. Here he shows that there were many who were shaken. (On Second Thessalonians, Homily IV)

Chrysostom even appeals to an apostolic unwritten tradition of intercessory prayers for the dead:

Not in vain did the Apostles order that remembrance should be made of the dead in the dreadful Mysteries. They know that great gain resulteth to them, great benefit; for when the whole people stands with uplifted hands, a priestly assembly, and that awful Sacrifice lies displayed, how shall we not prevail with God by our entreaties for them? And this we do for those who have departed in faith, . . . (On Philippians, Homily 3)

Concerning the “sacred writers,” St. John Chrysostom commented:

. . . it was no object with them to be writers of books: in fact, there are many things which they have delivered by unwritten tradition. (On Acts of the Apostles, Homily 1)

In St. Paul’s epistles tradition, gospel, and word of God are synonymous concepts. They’re all predominantly oral, not written, and are referred to as being “delivered” and “received”:

1 Corinthians 11:2  . . . maintain the traditions . .  . . even as I have delivered them to you.

2 Thessalonians 2:15  . . . hold to the traditions . . . .  taught . . . by word of mouth or by letter.

2 Thessalonians 3:6  . . . the tradition that you received from us.

1 Corinthians 15:1  . . . the gospel, which you received . . .

Galatians 1:9  . . . the gospel . . . which you received.

1 Thessalonians 2:9  . . . we preached to you the gospel of God.

1 Thessalonians 2:13  . . . you received the word of God, which you heard from us, . . . (cf. Acts 8:14)

Athanasius wrote that “the holy Scriptures and inspired were completely sufficient to proclaim the truth.” (p. 59)

Of course they are. But Athanasius did not hold to sola Scriptura. St. Athanasius affirmed infallible Church and conciliar pronouncements, the Catholic rule of faith, and the binding, infallible nature of doctrines received through apostolic succession and apostolic tradition (all expressly contrary to sola Scriptura):

But the word of the Lord which came through the ecumenical Synod at Nicea, abides forever. (Ad Afros Epistola Synodica2; in NPNF2, IV:489)

But let the Faith confessed by the Fathers at Nicæa alone hold good among you, at which all the fathers, including those of the men who now are fighting against it, were present, as we said above, and signed: in order that of us too the Apostle may say, ‘Now I praise you that you remember me in all things, and as I handed the traditions to you, so hold them fast 1 Corinthians 11:2.’ (Ad Afros Epistola Synodica10)

For had they believed aright, they would have been satisfied with the confession put forth at Nicæa by the whole Ecumenical Council; . . . Observe how entirely they disregard the truth, and how everything they say and do is for the sake of the Arian heresy. For in that they dare to question those sound definitions of the faith, and take upon themselves to produce others contrary to them, what else do they but accuse the Fathers, and stand up in defense of that heresy which they opposed and protested against? (Ad Episcopos Aegypti et Libyae, 5)

Who, then, that has any real regard for truth, will be willing to suffer these men any longer? Who will not justly reject their writing? Who will not denounce their audacity, that being but few in number, they would have their decisions to prevail over everything, and as desiring the supremacy of their own meetings, held in corners and suspicious in their circumstances, would forcibly cancel the decrees of an uncorrupt, pure, and Ecumenical Council? (Ad Episcopos Aegypti et Libyae, 7)

It is enough merely to answer such things as follows: we are content with the fact that this is not the teaching of the Catholic Church, nor did the fathers hold this. (Letter No. 59 to Epictetus, 3)

What defect of teaching was there for religious truth in the Catholic Church . . .? (De Synodis, I, 3)

But ye are blessed, who by faith are in the Church, dwell upon the foundations of the faith, and have full satisfaction, even the highest degree of faith which remains among you unshaken. For it has come down to you from Apostolic tradition, . . . (Fragment from Letter No. 29 [Migne, xxvi, p. 1189] )

St. Athanasius makes it very clear that Paul made a distinction between man-made, merely human traditions, and apostolic tradition and succession: classifying the latter as a good and necessary thing:

6.  . . . Therefore Paul justly praises the Corinthians [1 Corinthians 11:2], because their opinions were in accordance with his traditions. And the Lord most righteously reproved the Jews, saying, ‘Wherefore do you also transgress the commandments of God on account of your traditions [Matthew 15:3].’ For they changed the commandments they received from God after their own understanding, preferring to observe the traditions of men. And about these, a little after, the blessed Paul again gave directions to the Galatians who were in danger thereof, writing to them, ‘If any man preach to you anything else than that you have received, let him be accursed [Galatians 1:9].’

7. For there is no fellowship whatever between the words of the saints and the fancies of human invention; for the saints are the ministers of the truth, preaching the kingdom of heaven, but those who are borne in the opposite direction have nothing better than to eat, and think their end is that they shall cease to be, and they say, ‘Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die [Isaiah 22:13].’ Therefore blessed Luke reproves the inventions of men, and hands down the narrations of the saints, saying in the beginning of the Gospel, ‘Since many have presumed to write narrations of those events of which we are assured, as those who from the beginning were witnesses and ministers of the Word have delivered to us; it has seemed good to me also, who have adhered to them all from the first, to write correctly in order to you, O excellent Theophilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things in which you have been instructed [Luke 1:1].’ For as each of the saints has received, that they impart without alteration, for the confirmation of the doctrine of the mysteries. Of these the (divine) word would have us disciples, and these should of right be our teachers, and to them only is it necessary to give heed, for of them only is ‘the word faithful and worthy of all acceptation [1 Timothy 1:15];’ these not being disciples because they heard from others, but being eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word, that which they had heard from Him have they handed down. (Festal Letter No. 2, 6-7; my bolding)

Juan presents partial truths; I present the whole truth. Let the reader decide where the truth resides. Athanasius is expressly stating that he passes down the tradition that he received from men who knew and learned from the apostles and writers of the Bible. That’s apostolic tradition!

Athanasius offered a magnificent description of conciliar infallibility and the Catholic rule of faith, including apostolic succession (even including, for good measure, the authority of the pope):

The letters are sufficient which were written by our beloved fellow-minister Damasus, bishop of the Great Rome, and the large number of bishops who assembled along with him; and equally so are those of the other synods which were held, both in Gaul and in Italy, concerning the sound Faith which Christ gave us, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers, who met at Nicæa from all this world of ours, have handed down. For so great a stir was made at that time about the Arian heresy, in order that they who had fallen into it might be reclaimed, while its inventors might be made manifest. . . . they were not afraid of God, who says, ‘Remove not the eternal boundaries which your fathers placed [Proverbs 22:28],’ and ‘He that speaks against father or mother, let him die the death [Exodus 21:17]:’ they were not in awe of their fathers, who enjoined that they who hold the opposite of their confession should be anathema. (Ad Afros Epistola Synodica 1; my bolding)

He taught that the Council of Nicaea was in line with apostolic succession as well as Scripture:

For that of Nicæa is sufficient, agreeing as it does with the ancient bishops also, in which too their fathers signed, whom they ought to respect, on pain of being thought anything but Christians. But if even after such proofs, and after the testimony of the ancient bishops, and the signature of their own Fathers, they pretend as if in ignorance to be alarmed at the phrase ‘coessential,’ . . . (Ad Afros Epistola Synodica 9)

Cyril of Jerusalem argued that “in the divine and saving principles of faith, no doctrine, however common, can be taught without the support of the divine Scriptures.” (p. 59)

That’s fine; we agree with that. But did Cyril believe in sola Scriptura? Absolutely not. He refers to the passing-on of apostolic tradition:

And now, brethren beloved, the word of instruction exhorts you all, to prepare your souls for the reception of the heavenly gifts. As regards the Holy and Apostolic Faith delivered to you to profess, we have spoken through the grace of the Lord as many Lectures, as was possible,. . . (XVIII:32)

He regards the Church as the determinant of orthodoxy, insofar as what it holds, is apostolic Christianity:

And to be brief, let us neither separate them, nor make a confusion : neither say thou ever that the Son is foreign to the Father, nor admit those who say that the Father is at one time Father, and at another Son: for these are strange and impious statements, and not the doctrines of the Church. (XI:18)

And formerly the heretics were manifest; but now the Church is filled with heretics in disguise. For men have fallen away from the truth, and have itching ears. [2 Tim 4:3] Is it a plausible discourse? All listen to it gladly. Is it a word of correction? All turn away from it. Most have departed from right words, and rather choose the evil, than desire the good. This therefore is the falling away, and the enemy is soon to be looked for: and meanwhile he has in part begun to send forth his own forerunners , that he may then come prepared upon the prey. Look therefore to yourself, O man, and make safe your soul. The Church now charges you before the Living God; she declares to you the things concerning Antichrist before they arrive. Whether they will happen in your time we know not, or whether they will happen after you we know not; but it is well that, knowing these things, you should make yourself secure beforehand. (XV:9)

[T]he Catholic Church guarding you beforehand has delivered to you in the profession of the faith,  . . . (XVII:3)

He speaks in terms of the Catholic “three-legged stool” rule of faith: tradition, Church, and Scripture: all harmonious:

But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to you by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures. For since all cannot read the Scriptures, some being hindered as to the knowledge of them by want of learning, and others by a want of leisure, in order that the soul may not perish from ignorance, we comprise the whole doctrine of the Faith in a few lines. This summary I wish you both to commit to memory when I recite it , and to rehearse it with all diligence among yourselves, not writing it out on paper , but engraving it by the memory upon your heart , taking care while you rehearse it that no Catechumen chance to overhear the things which have been delivered to you. . . . for the present listen while I simply say the Creed , and commit it to memory; but at the proper season expect the confirmation out of Holy Scripture of each part of the contents. For the articles of the Faith were not composed as seemed good to men; but the most important points collected out of all the Scripture make up one complete teaching of the Faith. And just as the mustard seed in one small grain contains many branches, so also this Faith has embraced in few words all the knowledge of godliness in the Old and New Testaments. Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which you now receive, and write them on the table of your heart.

Guard them with reverence, lest per chance the enemy despoil any who have grown slack; or lest some heretic pervert any of the truths delivered to you. For faith is like putting money into the bank , even as we have now done; but from you God requires the accounts of the deposit. I charge you, as the Apostle says, before God, who quickens all things, and Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed the good confession, that you keep this faith which is committed to you, without spot, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ. (V: 12-13)

*
***
*
Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-three books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!
*
***
*

Summary: I refute Juan Oliveira’s weak “proofs” for sola Scriptura as the rule of faith, from the Bible & from the Church fathers (Athanasius, Chrysostom, & Cyril of Jerusalem).

2023-09-04T12:12:06-04:00

Last updated on: September 4, 2023 at 12:12 pm   By
0 Comments

. . . Highlighting the Discourse at the Last Supper and Sermon on the Mount

[excerpt from one of my replies to Brazilian Calvinist Francisco Tourinho on the vexed issue of justification. His words will be in blue]

*****

The Lord Jesus does not mention any work for those who have actually been saved, but only faith. . . . . . . The right question is, When were works cited as meritorious or as the cause of salvation during Christ’s ministry? Answer: NEVER.
*
That’s simply false, and rather spectacularly so. Jesus spoke the following words to His disciples, who were presumably saved (minus Judas):
*
John 14:12 (RSV) . . . he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father.
*
John 14:15 If you love me, you will keep my commandments.
*
John 14:21 He who has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me; and he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him. [here, the questions of who loves Jesus, and even the indwelling (cf. 16:7, 13) are dependent upon not just faith, but on whether one keeps the commandments]
*
John 15:4-6, 8 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. [5] I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. [6] If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned. . . . [8] By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be my disciples. [“fruit” is, of course, good works]
*
John 15:10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love . . . [note the conditional, implying a state of affairs where they could cease abiding in His love, and being justified and eschatologically saved. Judas was, in fact, an example of this happening (see 17:12). Jesus alluded to such a possibility also when He said, “I have said all this to you to keep you from falling away”: 16:1]
*
John 15:12 This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. (cf. 15:17)
*
John 15:14 You are my friends if you do what I command you.
*
To be sure, in the same discourse at the Last Supper (John 14-17), Jesus also said “believe also in me” (14:1; cf. 16:27, 30-31; 17:8), but eleven verses later, He coupled this belief with inexorable good works: “he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father” (14:12). So again, Francisco’s “universal negative” (and his overall soteriology) is shown to be incorrect. I think he could have figured this out without my help, but he went ahead and made the statement. I’m delighted to have the opportunity to be able to refute it from Jesus’ own words. Moreover, Jesus, in praying to the Father at the Last Supper, says, “they have kept thy word” (17:6).
*
Mr. Armstrong did not understand that Christ knew the rich young man’s heart, and knew that he was possessed of the Pharisaic spirit of good works. Jesus challenges him, showing him his inability to be saved through good works.
*
This is the very opposite of what the passage teaches. Asked by the rich young ruler how he could attain eternal life, Jesus’ answer was two kinds of works: keeping the commandments (Mt 19:17) and giving all his money to the poor (Mt 19:21). He said not a word about faith, let alone, faith alone. This was how he would be saved; clear as day! Then Francisco comes along and says (in direct opposition to what Jesus stated) that the passage supposedly teaches the “inability to be saved through good works.” Wow! Such brazen opposition to Jesus’ plain teaching is downright frightening and even close to blasphemous.
*
It’s fascinating, also, in light of what I have just shown from the Last Supper Discourse, that Jesus says the same thing to His disciples, in His last major teaching to them (i.e., that we know of) before He was crucified. They had already given up “everything” to follow Him (Mt 19:27), so He didn’t need to mention that. But He told them no less than six times (14:15, 21; 15:10, 12, 14, 17) to keep His commandments. Talk about “repetition” being a good teacher! Therefore, He taught the same thing to both non-believers and believers / followers. He also said to the masses in His Sermon on the Mount:
*
Matthew 5:16-20 “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven. [17] Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. [18] For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. [19] Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. [20] For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”
*
On the other hand, He never mentions belief in Him during the Sermon, or faith, excepting His statement, “O men of little faith” (6:30). But there are all kinds of works mentioned and urged. Jesus showed Himself to be quite the “legalistic, Pharisaical ‘Catholic'” didn’t He?!
*
He pulled the same stunt at the Final Judgment in Matthew 25: talking only about works and never about faith in Him, when the biblical text is specifically teaching how one enters into heaven. As I’ve said many times, Jesus would have flunked out of any Protestant seminary, with His worst grades achieved in classes on soteriology (D at best, but more likely an E).
*
***
Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,300+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-three books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

Photo credit: Christ Carrying the Cross, by Anthony van Dyck (1599-1641) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: It’s very noteworthy how Jesus, again & again, emphasizes that good works are meritorious & salvific: quite contrary to the Protestant soteriology of justification.
2023-10-02T22:41:18-04:00

Last updated on: October 2, 2023 at 10:41 pm   By
0 Comments
Our Protestant brethren say that one is justified by faith once for all and not at all by works. We say that initial justification is monergistic and by faith only, but ongoing justification is by faith + works. The Bible backs this up, as I shall now show from the example of Abraham.
*
Initial justification can be described as being “justified” just as we say of someone who got their license to drive a car for the first time: “she got her license.” But it has to be renewed (every four years in the US). So we “get” it more than once. We can also lose it due to drunk driving or excessive traffic violations (breaking of the law being similar to sins), and get it back again.
*
James 2:20-26 refers back to Genesis 15:6 (as well as Genesis 22), and gives an explicit interpretation of the Old Testament passage, by stating, “and the scripture was fulfilled which says, . . .” (2:23, RSV, as throughout). The previous three verses were all about justification, faith, and works, all tied in together, and this is what James says “fulfilled” Genesis 15:6. The next verse then condemns Protestant soteriology by disagreeing the notion of “faith alone” in the clearest way imaginable. Moreover, Nehemiah 9:8 states, “thou didst find his heart faithful before thee, and didst make with him the covenant to give to his descendants the land of the Canaanite . . .”
*
James 2 is usually applied by Protestants to sanctification, but that is not what the passage says. It mentions “justified” (dikaioo: Strong’s word #1344) three times (2:21, 24-25): the same Greek word used in Romans 4:2, as well as 2:13; 3:20, 24, 28; 5:1, 9; 8:30; 1 Corinthians 6:11; Galatians 2:16-17; 3:11, 24; 5:4; and Titus 3:7. If James actually meant sanctification, on the other hand, he could have used one of two Greek words (hagiazo / hagiasmos: Strong’s #37-38) that appear (together) 38 times in the New Testament (the majority of times by Paul himself).
*
The Catholic position is that justification is ongoing, and can be by faith or by faith + works (where works are mentioned as the cause, while assuming the presence of faith also). As Jimmy Akin has convincingly argued, Abraham was justified in Genesis 12, again in Genesis 15, and in Genesis 22, “by works.” Genesis 12 is really by faith and works together. God told him to leave his home and trust him for the future, and he did so (a work): “So Abram went, as the LORD had told him” (12:4). Then he built two altars to the Lord (good works again): 12:7-8.
*
Hebrews states that “By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place which he was to receive as an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was to go” (11:8), so it was faith and works. Abraham had the faith to believe God (faith), and he obeyed Him (a work). Genesis 15 describes justification by faith, and Genesis 22, justification by works. Both/and.
*
We can say that Abraham’s good works flowed from and were intrinsic to, his faith. None of this poses any problem for the Catholic view. But it’s a huge problem for the Protestant view, since it can only accept justification by faith and not by works, and because these three incidents in Abraham’s life reveal three instances of justification, by both faith and works.
*
If it’s denied that Genesis 12 is a justification, then it has to be explained how Hebrews 11:8 describes it as Abraham exercising faith. This must be justification in the Reformed sense because totally depraved man (the “T” in “TULIP”) cannot have or exercise true faith. So Abraham was justified then, and again three chapters later (the one Paul takes note of, and Protestants, in an exclusive sense) and again by works seven chapters after that. Extremely unProtestant!
*
Hebrews 11 is about the heroes of the faith. Faith is described as leading to men receiving God’s “divine approval” (11:2), which sounds a lot like justification to me. Abel “received approval as righteous” (11:4). Enoch is described as “having pleased God” (11:5). Noah “became an heir of the righteousness which comes by faith” (11:7).
*
Then Abraham is mentioned. The overall thought is obviously the same as what came before. Works with regard to Abraham, are mentioned by the text asserting, “By faith Abraham obeyed” (11:8) and “By faith he sojourned in the land of promise . . .” (11:9) and “By faith Abraham . . . offered up Isaac” (11:17). The Bible also refers twice to “the obedience of faith” (Rom 1:5; 16:26) and twice to “work of faith” (1 Thess 1:3; 2 Thess 1:11). Works are always present where true faith exists.
*
Whether Paul uses the term justification for Genesis 12 or not, does not determine what is being described in Genesis 12. This is an important factor to consider. The argument about Abraham and justification is a deductive one, incorporating systematic theology. It doesn’t only look for the words, “justification” or “justified.” The word “Trinity” isn’t in the Bible, either. It doesn’t follow that the doctrine is absent. Concepts are present in texts as well as words. The question is whether Genesis 12 describes a justified man who possesses faith or not. I say it clearly does do so. Therefore, Abraham must have been justified by then.
*
What does Genesis 12 teach about Abraham’s justification? Well, God says to him, “I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great . . . by you all the families of the earth shall bless themselves” (12:2-3). Do Protestants wish to argue that God said all this about and to an unregenerate, unjustified, “totally depraved” heathen? That makes no sense.
*
In Genesis 12, Abraham was obedient and “went, as the LORD told him” (12:4). That was a good work of obedience, and as a result, God blessed him greatly (12:2-3). Faith is never mentioned in the chapter. I would say that Abraham clearly exercised it when he obeyed God’s instructions. But it seems to me that if the point of the narrative is to highlight faith as opposed to works, it’s odd that Abraham’s work is mentioned and commended, but not his faith.
*
In Genesis 15:6 Abraham was justified as a result of having “believed the Lord.” “Justification” doesn’t appear there, but it does in Romans 4, where Paul offers an extensive interpretation of Genesis 15:6. Just as Paul does, so does James offer an authoritative interpretation of the events recorded in Genesis 22. Abraham was in the process of performing another work of obedience (sacrificing his son, per God’s command).
*
Paul uses the example of Abraham in Romans 4, in emphasizing faith, over against the Jewish works of circumcision as a supposed means of faith and justification (hence, he mentions circumcision in 4:9-12, and salvation to the Gentiles as well as Jews in 4:13-18).
*
The Bible states in context (God speaking through the angel of the LORD), “because you have done this . . . I will indeed bless you, and I will multiply your descendants . . . because you have obeyed my voice” (Gen 22:16-18). Thus, it’s firmly established in Genesis 22 that it was a work of Abraham that brought about God’s renewed covenant with him.
*
Knowing this, James simply called it what it was:, using different but conceptually equivalent terminology:
*
James 2:21-24 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? [22] You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, [23] and the scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”; and he was called the friend of God. [24] You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
*
James — take note — doesn’t deny that Abraham also had faith, which was part of his justification as well (2:18, 20, 22-24, 26). We already knew Abraham was justified by a work in Genesis 22 because God rewarded him for something he had “done” and because he “obeyed” him.
*
Also, God reiterates that works are central to Abraham’s justification (and anyone’s) — without faith or belief being mentioned — in Genesis 18:
Genesis 18:17-19 The LORD said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do, [18] seeing that Abraham shall become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall bless themselves by him? [19] No, for I have chosen him, that he may charge his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing righteousness and justice; so that the LORD may bring to Abraham what he has promised him.”
God repeats the same sort of thing again, in speaking to Isaac:
Genesis 26:3-5 “Sojourn in this land, and I will be with you, and will bless you; for to you and to your descendants I will give all these lands, and I will fulfil the oath which I swore to Abraham your father. [4] I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven, and will give to your descendants all these lands; and by your descendants all the nations of the earth shall bless themselves: [5] because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.”
It’s interesting that Genesis never mentions the “faith” of Abraham (at least in terms of using that word), even though he is considered the exemplar and “father” of monotheistic faith. But it does mention plenty of his works. Nor does the entire Protestant Old Testament do so. But in the Deuterocanon it states:
*
1 Maccabees 2:52 Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness?
*
2 Maccabees 1:2 May God do good to you, and may he remember his covenant with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, his faithful servants.
*
The great faithfulness of Abraham is predominantly highlighted in the New Testament (Rom 4; Gal 3; Heb 11; Jas 2), which doesn’t ignore the fact that works also played a key role in Abraham’s justification. Scripture asserts that Abraham, Phinehas (Num 25:11-13), Rahab (Jas 2:25), Abel, and Noah were all justified by works.
*

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,300+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-three books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

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

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

***

Photo credit: Sacrifice of Isaac (1635), by Rembrandt (1606-1669) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: Abraham is shown in the Bible to have been justified on three separate occasions, & by works, as well as by faith, even before we consider the data in James.

2023-07-03T18:42:54-04:00

Last updated on: July 3, 2023 at 6:42 pm   By
0 Comments

Jim Anderson appears to be a Presbyterian, and is a former Catholic anti-Catholic. The following exchange occurred on a public Facebook page, below a shared meme that I had posted, regarding Catholic liturgy. Jim’s words will be in blue. This is a continuation of the exchange: Dialogue on Meritorious Works & the Gospel (6-30-23).

*****

Dave, speaking to yourself is not a good sign. Please lose the extreme arrogance, and note that I said that I don’t hang around on Facebook waiting for people to comment, but have other priorities.
*
Dave, you spent a lot of time throwing out a lot of comments, and links, likely none of which I will go to, since I have read practically every argument that official or unofficial Catholicism makes, but since you seem so focused on selling everything (per Matthew 10), we can remain there if you prefer. You said that it doesn’t apply to you (a “special situation”) and you haven’t sold everything.
*
You’re not the only one I’m writing to. I take the opportunity to educate the public about these matters. Others may choose to read what you ignore, since you [choke] already know everything about Catholicism and all of the arguments that her defenders make. That being the case, why is it I have to ask you three times to answer simple questions about one Bible scene?

*
Dave, do you think that Jesus was using the “sell everything” as a general requirement for salvation, or a specific test of the young rule? If the former, you are doomed, by your own admission, since you haven’t sold everything.

*
I already answered that above (twice):
*
1) “I never asserted that selling all of one’s possessions is required of *everyone*. You have simply erroneously projected that onto me and (possibly) the Catholic position. The parable of the talents and many other passages contradict such an assertion. So, nice try. Jesus told this one person that a work was required for his salvation. How can this be? How does it square with your unbiblical, extreme ‘absolutely no works or merit’ position?”
2) “Note that this isn’t required of every man to do. It’s not a general rule of Christianity. But for the rich young ruler, it was an absolute necessity. Most commentators think that it was because the ruler had made money his idol, putting it above God in his allegiance. That’s why he had to part with it; so that God would occupy the highest place in his life. In any event, it is a requirement for his salvation. Once again, it is a good work that is made central.”
*
If the latter, then one cannot then generalize that works are needed for salvation, as Pelagius and the Catholic catechism said.
*
Already answered that, too, twice:
*
1) “If you say, then, that this passage is irrelevant for all people, since it was a unique situation, then I counter with Matthew 25 (already presented) which has to do with all of us at the Judgment, and with 48 other passages regarding works and their relation to salvation.”
[Note: I highlighted and cited at length Matthew 25 in particular and several others from my list of 50]
*
2) “This is also notable in illustrating that salvation is not a cookie-cutter matter. What is required for one person (in terms of works that exhibit faith) may not be for the next.”
*
The fact that you weren’t aware that I had answered these questions, proves that you’re not even reading my comments. This is a constant annoyance in “dialogues” with anti-Catholics as well. One gives a reply and it’s like it doesn’t even register and one is forced to repeat what was already stated: making for tedium for poor, unfortunate readers. The other tactic is attempting to switch the topic, in order to evade difficult topics.
*
If the latter, then one cannot then generalize that works are needed for salvation, as Pelagius and the Catholic catechism said. And, do you notice the “follow me” at the end of all that?
*
There is indeed a consistent message of salvation that Jesus taught. He is God. He came down from heaven. He is the Messiah, prophesied in the writings of old, the word of God, throughout history. And He emphasized, over and over and over, that one must believe in Him to be saved. Belief. True, sincere, total belief. That’s more than the demons, who only believed that He was God. One must believe that He is the Heir of all things, the One through Whom the world was created, the Exact imprint of God’s nature, the perfect High Priest, the Messiah, the only One who can forgive sins, by His perfect sacrifice on the cross, accomplished in history (“once for all”). Completely done, and wholly sufficient. You said you have questions. They tend to get buried in your many posts, so please kindly ask them again, numbering them, and not posting dozens of unrelated or repetitive comments that get things lost. Thanks.
*
What are your questions? Number them. I am happy to continue on the topics you present, which are contradictory in your own opinion, but you seem insistent on the questions you have, so please present them clearly, numbered.
*
For the fourth time:
*
When Jesus said, and advised, “You lack one thing; go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me” (Mk 10:21), was that 1) salvific, and 2) a [good] work, and 3) a meritorious work? Do you need it in all caps? What is this, The Twilight Zone?
*
Dave, thanks for clearly asking the questions so it is clear. I will bypass the snark, because that’s just how Catholics are.
*
What you see as “snark” is a semi-humorous barb on my part due to the frustration of having to repeat something four times, that was perfectly clear the first time. It’s absurd. Once should be enough. You clearly attempted to avoid the questions, so I kept asking until you answered, because I don’t play games in discussions. If you want to have a serious discussion, great; then respond to provocative questions coming from your dialogical opponent (just as I have to yours: at great length), rather than seek to evade, change the subject, and insult: all of which you have tried without success, because none of that works with me.
*
Of course, I recognize that you ask them not because you actually want to know the answers, but to take whatever I say, disagree with it, and make some sort of Catholic point. So, just be up front and make that point now, if you would be so kind.
*
I converted from evangelicalism to Catholicism and have undergone several other major conversions in my life. I am always open to being convinced and to changing my mind. What I asked were socratic questions (something Jesus often did, too), that flowed from your denial that this passage teaches Catholic soteriology. If you want to take a position I consider unwarranted, and discuss it with me, then expect to be grilled and questioned. I’m an apologist. You’ll have to defend it. If that’s not to your liking, just say so and we’re done. “If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.” You came on like gangbusters at the beginning, so I figured that you could take it.
*
Here are the answers for your questions.
*
“When Jesus said, and advised, “You lack one thing; go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me” (Mt 10:21), was that 1) salvific?
*
No, of course not. Man cannot absolve the debt of sin that he was born with my simply selling material things. Jesus in this passage was testing the man’s belief, his commitment. You yourself said that this wasn’t salvific. There aren’t 100 different gospels, different paths to salvation. There is but one, so Jesus did not teach that this work saves this person, but not others.
*
It was certainly, undeniably salvific. Remember, the exchange started with the man asking Jesus: “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” (Mk 10:17). That’s what it’s all about. Since that “sets the scene,” therefore, how Jesus answers must necessarily have to do with what we do that merits eternal life and eschatological salvation.
*
You say that Jesus “was testing the man’s belief, his commitment.” Yes, of course He was. He said that he had to give away all that he owned in order to be saved. That was the test, and the answer to his question. It’s clear that grace enabled him to keep the commandments (as Jesus inquired about). It’s equally clear that the man had faith, since he had observed all the commandments since his youth. He was following God and His commandments.
*
What remained was his idolatry to money: the besetting sin of rich and wealthy people. He couldn’t be saved and still have something in his heart that he placed above allegiance to God. And how would he rectify that? It wasn’t by kneeling and saying the sinner’s prayer, and telling Jesus how great and wonderful He was.
*
That didn’t cut it, since Jesus said, “Why do you call me `Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I tell you?” (Lk 6:46). So this was an instance of Jesus telling a person to do something, and to do a thing that would be a requirement for him to be saved. If he does the good work, he’ll be saved, because Jesus said the result of doing so was that he “will have treasure in heaven.” This was the one thing he lacked, according to Jesus; so he had to do it. Therefore, it was a required good work, without which he could not and would not be saved or enter heaven.
“and 2) a [good] work?”
*
It depends on your definition of “good” and that’s not hedging, it’s acknowledging that what God defines as “good” may be different than how men define it. You know this, so hopefully there is no controversy here. Giving help to the poor is a good thing. 
*
Well, that is easily answered in this instance because Jesus defined the thing as the work or action that would allow this man to go to heaven and be saved. Therefore, it must be “good” because certainly a bad work or action (a sin) could not fill that function. So this is a no-brainer. Of course it is a good work, according to God the Son.
*
Your problem and dilemma is that you maintain the standard Calvinist- or Baptist- or evangelical-type position that works have absolutely nothing to do with salvation. But the Bible and Jesus assert that they have a necessary connection, alongside (always) faith and grace. They can’t be removed from the equation. I have collected 50 passages that prove this undeniable connection with regard to going to heaven, and fifty more from Paul alone that teach the intrinsic harmony and togetherness of faith, grace, and works. You can try to ignore and dismiss and rationalize all that away but it’s just not possible.
*
“and 3) a meritorious work?”
*
Not for salvation, no.
*
It’s impossible to assert that because it is directly contrary to what Jesus taught: that this work would be what allowed the man to be saved, alongside his faith and God’s enabling grace that lies behind any and every good thing we do.
*
But, whether for the saved believer, or the unsaved and condemned person, works are “rewarded”. The saved believer receives crowns in heaven based on his or her works, but that is after they are saved.
*
The unsaved, condemned person gets their “reward” that all deserve at birth: an eternity in hell, regardless of whether they give to the poor all their lives. Good works, the ones that are worthy and obedient to God, are those that are done by the saved believer. Ephesians 2:10, but there are lots of teachings on this. This answers your questions fully, and completely.
*
We do indeed receive differential rewards in heaven. Both sides agree about that. But that’s not what is in play here. The question was how a man can attain heaven, not just rewards in heaven. Jesus’ answer proved that the man would be in heaven if he did the required work. It’s a compelling proof of Catholic soteriology and an unanswerable disproof of Protestant soteriology.
*
Jesus didn’t say that the ruler was already saved and that he’d get more crowns in heaven by giving away his riches. He said that doing so would be the immediate or last thing that saved him, per the original inquiry of how to be saved. You’re simply projecting Protestant traditions of men onto the passage when they aren’t there at all. That’s eisegesis, not exegesis.
*
How would a Catholic properly, biblically answer the unbiblical, sloganistic questions of certain evangelical Protestants, like Presbyterian Matt Slick, who runs the CARM website? He asked me: “If you were to die tonight and face judgment and God were to ask you why He should let you into heaven, what would you tell Him? Just curious.”
*
He’s completely well-intentioned and has the highest motivations. He desires that folks should be saved. But he is dead wrong in his assumptions, when they are weighed against the overwhelming, (far as I can tell) unanimous biblical record. Our answer to his question and to God when we stand before Him, could incorporate any one or all of the following 50 responses: all perfectly biblical, and many right from the words of God Himself:
*
1) I am characterized by righteousness.
2) I have integrity.
3) I’m not wicked.
4) I’m upright in heart.
5) I’ve done good deeds.
6) I have good ways.
7) I’m not committing abominations.
8 ) I have good conduct.
9) I’m not angry with my brother.
10) I’m not insulting my brother.
11) I’m not calling someone a fool.
12) I have good fruits.
13) I do the will of God.
14) I hear Jesus’ words and do them.
15) I endured to the end.
16) I fed the hungry.
17) I provided drink to the thirsty.
18) I clothed the naked.
19) I welcomed strangers.
20) I visited the sick.
21) I visited prisoners.
22) I invited the poor and the maimed to my feast.
23) I’m not weighed down with dissipation.
24) I’m not weighed down with drunkenness.
25) I’m not weighed down with the cares of this life.
26) I’m not ungodly.
27) I don’t suppress the truth.
28) I’ve done good works.
29) I obeyed the truth.
30) I’m not doing evil.
31) I have been a “doer of the law.”
32) I’ve been a good laborer and fellow worker with God.
33) I’m unblameable in holiness.
34) I’ve been wholly sanctified.
35) My spirit and soul and body are sound and blameless.
36) I know God.
37) I’ve obeyed the gospel.
38) I’ve shared Christ’s sufferings.
39) I’m without spot or blemish.
40) I’ve repented.
41) I’m not a coward.
42) I’m not faithless.
43) I’m not polluted.
44) I’m not a murderer.
45) I’m not a fornicator.
46) I’m not a sorcerer.
47) I’m not an idolater.
48) I’m not a liar.
49) I invited the lame to my feast.
50) I invited the blind to my feast.

*

I understand your position. You believe that Jesus gave perhaps many different paths to heaven, since when questioned, you acknowledged that you did not, in fact, sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor. You think that that means to salvation was just for one man. So, since I have accurately answered your questions (you disagree, but that only makes it a disagreement), please answer an important one for me.
So, since the entire bible is arguably contemporaneous, is there any message for the unsaved today that is the one gospel, the one path to salvation? And if so, what is it, in succinct terms?
*
The gospel:
*
Romans 1:16-17 For I am not ashamed of the gospel: it is the power of God for salvation to every one who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. [17] For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, “He who through faith is righteous shall live.”
*
Paul cites Habakkuk 2:4: “Behold, he whose soul is not upright in him shall fail, but the righteous shall live by his faith.”
*
So this is faith and works, that go hand in hand, as in 99 other passages I have documented. Paul happens not to mention grace here, but of course he often does; for example, here is Paul discussing both grace and faith for justification and salvation:
*
Romans 3:24-26 they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, [25] whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins; [26] it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies him who has faith in Jesus.
*
But in the chapter before he also stressed works as part of the equation:
*
Romans 2:13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.
*
So, as I have reiterated again and again, for Paul, salvation is by grace, through faith, which by its very nature is manifested and worked-through by good works, that proceed from this same grace and faith. All of his passages considered together undeniably teach this combination, not faith alone.
*
And of course Jesus agrees with this. He talks about faith in Him, and also many times about works being required for salvation. He doesn’t mention grace, but John 1:16-17 states: “And from his fulness have we all received, grace upon grace. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.”
*
You said something very profound, perhaps unintentionally:
*
So, as I have reiterated again and again, for Paul, salvation is by grace, through faith, which by its very nature is manifested and worked-through by good works, that proceed from this same grace and faith.
*
Yes, salvation is by faith, belief, in Christ alone and His perfect sacrifice on the cross. That saving faith, which is given by God’s grace and not merited, is manifested in the fruits of salvation, which is works. Thank you. You have now stated biblical doctrine on salvation, though you don’t recognize the many texts that you are told mean that you can earn salvation, but are actually a description of the saved believer. The entire book of 1 John, for example, tells the saved believer of his or her assurance, and what they now have, but it also serves as a test for unbelievers.

*

You still don’t understand our view (or the biblical one). Don’t feel bad. Many many Protestants do not, because they’ve been taught so many caricatures and twisted versions of Catholic soteriology. It’s grace + faith, and an intrinsic and inevitable part of genuine faith — without which it is “dead” — is works. In that specific sense, these good works proceeding from both grace and faith are meritorious and necessary in the overall scenario of how one is saved and goes to heaven.
*
I have not stated Protestant soteriological doctrine (that I used to believe as strongly as you do). You mistakenly think I stumbled into it because you don’t grasp the Catholic position on these matters, and you think I don’t understand yours. In fact I understand it way better than you do because I was an evangelical Protestant, too, was an apologist then as well, and have studied all sides of this issue for the past 32 years as a Catholic, and had innumerable debates and written books about it.
*
Protestants separate good works into a separate, optional category, under the name of “sanctification” and claim that — while they are praiseworthy and important and ought to be present — they have nothing whatsoever to do with salvation. And they claim that they are done in gratitude to God for a salvation already attained (faith alone / imputed / extrinsic justification). You know the playbook and the talking points well, and have stated them in a textbook manner. There was no need because I already know what Protestants teach about it.
*
My 100 passages, which you still blow over and don’t seriously consider, are not saying that. They tie works directly in as one necessary cause of salvation, alongside grace and faith. They don’t make works optional in the question of salvation. I showed, for example, that in the rich young ruler scene, the man’s salvation was directly dependent on whether he gave up his riches, which is a good and meritorious work (all of which you have irrationally denied), not simply mental acceptance of a doctrine in his head. The NT isn’t Protestant. Jesus and Paul would flunk out of Protestant seminaries.
*
The rich young ruler is a quintessential example of what I’m talking about (that’s why it’s such a superb, unanswerable Catholic argument). He was saved by grace, through faith (he kept the commandments — works again — because he was faithful), and this faith would have also expressed its authenticity in an act of giving up his possessions (had he actually chosen that course), which would prove that he is no longer making riches his idol, and this would then allow him to go to heaven. It was the only thing he lacked, said Jesus.
*
An “optional” thing is not described as a thing that one “lacks.” If I had chocolate ice cream for lunch, Jesus wouldn’t have told me, “one thing you lack: you didn’t have vanilla ice cream for lunch.” That’s absurd because one doesn’t talk like that about optional choices.
*
In case anyone missed the point (and you did), Jesus states again that the whole thing had to do with how one is saved and how one goes to heaven:
*
Mark 10:23-25 And Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it will be for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God!” [24] And the disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said to them again, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! [25] It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
*
In other words, He was expanding upon the meaning of what just happened. The rich young ruler asked how he could go to heaven. Jesus told him how (do a good work proving that he had forsaken idolatry) and the man refused. So Jesus commented how hard it was for rich people to go to heaven. This one declined his chance to do so by not following Jesus’ advice.
*
Yet you sit there and pretend that it has nothing to do with his salvation; only his rewards in heaven. Those notions are not in the text at all. If in fact they were, Jesus would have said, instead, something like, “How hard it will be for those who have riches to receive great rewards in heaven. It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to receive great rewards in heaven.”
*
The entire scene would have read vastly differently if Jesus taught faith alone like Protestants do. He would have simply told the man to have faith in Him, and never would have mentioned the commandments or giving away his riches, just like you would likely never talk that way out on the street witnessing and sharing the gospel (as I have done hundreds of times).
*
It’s extraordinarily clear what was going on there and what it means for soteriology. Only those who already irrationally, inconsistently hold to an unbiblical tradition of men fail to see it, because they refuse to see it. Jesus talked about this sort of thing:
*
John 9:40-41 Some of the Pharisees near him heard this, and they said to him, “Are we also blind?” [41] Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, `We see,’ your guilt remains.

*

Concerning your list, all of which are things that were contemporaneous to Jesus’ teaching, and while I believe that the bible is meant to everyone today, your hermeneutic may dispute that.
*
Dave, this is not a snark, or humorous in any way, but your list uses the word “I” in each and every reason that you provide. According to you, your salvation is earned, merited by you. I would humbly submit that your works cannot erase the sin debt that you were born with, and which you earn every day. God is holy. You are not, and thus deserving of an eternity in hell as punishment….just like each and every created human who ever lived, myself included.
*
There is a consistent teaching by Jesus Christ that tells us how we can be reconciled with God, and avoid the eternity of excruciating punishment in hell that we deserve. It is not clear that you know it. It is belief in Him alone, and in His “once for all” perfect sacrifice on the cross.
*
2 Cor 5:21
John 6:37-44 (all of John 6, actually)
Romans 5:1-3
Ephesians 2:1-10
Titus 3:3-7
1 John 5:13

*

Once again, you miss the context and the point I was making by ignoring crucial points and distinctions, in your rush to “prove” that I and Catholics supposedly believe in a works salvation, that we deny. This is always how anti-Catholics argue, because they are ignorant regarding this matter and blissfully unaware of it.
*
I was initially responding to the classic Protestant evangelistic query (often expressed to Catholics). In this case, I cited the actual words to me, of Presbyterian anti-Catholic apologist Matt Slick of CARM: “If you were to die tonight and face judgment and God were to ask you why He should let you into heaven, what would you tell Him? Just curious.”
*
This is why all my answers begin with “I”. I just didn’t say “because” in every one. In other words, instead of answering “Because I did work x and work y,” etc. I just said, “I did x,” “I did y,” etc. In doing so I was citing Scripture directly in every case (50 of ’em), in order to illustrate how the Bible actually answers this question. It turned out to be quite differently from what Slick and Protestants would have predicted.
*
But Catholics don’t believe in salvation by works alone. We believe in the combination of grace-faith-meritorious works that always proceed from grace and genuine faith, as I have explained, and will not bother doing so again. That is not Pelagianism. And if you can’t figure out what the difference is, that fault lies with you, not with us. You’re blinded by your false and unbiblical “either/or” premises. We explain it till we’re blue in the face. I have at least forty articles just on this point alone, if you want to get up to speed.
*
But you have already said you won’t read my links, because you know everything about us, so . . . “You can lead the horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.”
*
You do not understand our teaching. I’ve never once met an anti-Catholic in 32 years who did. You are woefully in error about what we actually teach.
*
If anyone wants to understand Catholic soteriology, I have made it easy for you:
I trust, if you are hermeneutically consistent, that you have sold all your possessions.
*
I’ve never been wealthy, and never will be (as first a Protestant evangelist and a full-time Catholic apologist since 2001). Therefore, riches have never been my idol, so I don’t have to get rid of everything I own in order to get my priorities straight. I have many other sins God is working on, but temptation to great riches and making them my idol has never been a problem. If it were, God would require that of me, too, since Jesus said idolaters would not go to heaven (Rev 22:15; cf. 21:8).
*
And Jesus taught (see John 6) that it is belief in Him alone that saves. “Repent and believe” is the gospel message. What is the will of the Father? John 6:40. Who is saved? John 6:37-39. Can there is assurance of salvation? Same verses.
*
Jesus taught that belief in Him saved, if it is coupled with good works (which He referred to, I believe, more times than to faith). Both are the products of God’s grace. You keep bringing up John 6. I don’t know why. It teaches that reception of the Body and Blood of Jesus (transubstantiation) in the Holy Eucharist will save one:
*
John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.
*
John 6:53-58 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; [54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. [55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. [56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. [57] As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. [58] This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.
*
Because “Many of his disciples” thought that this was “a hard saying”(6:60), they “drew back and no longer went about with him” (6:66: quite appropriately). It’s the only time in the NT besides Judas that a disciple was said to forsake Him, and it was because of the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist: and so many folks today disbelieve in this express teaching, and thus possibly endanger their salvation. You’ll say it’s all merely symbolic talk. Nonsense. See my articles:
*
John 6: Literal Eucharist Interpretation (Analogical Cross-Referencing and Insufficient Counter-Arguments) [8-15-09]
*
John 6, the Eucharist, & Parables (Dialogue) [8-16-09]
*
John 6 & Lack of Faith in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist as a Parallel to Doubting Disciples [2-14-11]
*
Is John 6 About Holy Communion?: A Brief Summary for Those Who Deny the Eucharistic Connection Altogether [3-2-16]
*
Vs. James White #5: Real Eucharistic Presence or Symbolism? [9-20-19]
*
Apostasy of Disciples (Jn 6:66) & Protestant Commentaries [1-28-21]
*
Was Jesus Unclear in John 6 (Eucharist)? (vs. Jason Engwer) [11-16-21]
*
These are all listed on My Eucharist web page.
*
You’re not grappling with the many relevant Bible passages I brought up, which has universally been the case with any Protestant who interacts at all with this reasoning, for fifteen years now, so we’re done here.
*
Dialogue isn’t just one person presenting their view, and the other presenting theirs, and never the twain shall meet, and ships passing in the night. No; it’s interacting directly with the opponent’s arguments and arguing for another position that is sincerely believed to be superior. I don’t do a one-way / double standard routine, where I interact with all of my opponent’s arguments, but they ultimately ignore mine (or give one answer and refuse to address my counter-replies, as you did). I don’t have time for much of that. But I’ll do it for a short time, for teaching purposes.
*
You refuse to do a true dialogue, so I have invested enough energy into this, and it’s time to move on. It did at least result in two helpful educational dialogues for my blog. I heartily thank you for that. I’ve come up with some new fresh biblical and logical arguments, too, which is a good thing, and they came about as a result of your intransigence and profound lack of understanding of Catholicism.
*
God bless you.
*
Last thing:
*
You seem tied up in wealth as preventing salvation. God never once teaches that the wealthy cannot enter heaven.
*
1. I’m “tied up” with it in exactly the same sense that Jesus was: it’s evil and will lead to hell if it becomes an idol.
*
2. I never said that no rich man can enter heaven. I have made the previous point, and say that it is “difficult” for that to happen, precisely as Jesus stated.
*
I wrote on July 1, 2014 in the first comment under my own Facebook post:
*
Wealth is not bad in and of itself. Abraham and Solomon were wealthy; Jesus was buried in a rich man’s tomb. Greed, materialism, using and abusing the poor because of great wealth, and idolatry of money are bad.
*
Related Reading
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Grace, Faith, Works, & Judgment: A Scriptural Exposition [12-16-09; reformulated & abridged on 3-15-17]

Bible on Participation in Our Own Salvation (Always Enabled by God’s Grace)[1-3-10]

Monergism in Initial Justification is Catholic Doctrine [1-7-10]

Justification: Not by Faith Alone, & Ongoing (Romans 4, James 2, and Abraham’s Multiple Justifications) [10-15-11]

Catholic & Calvinist Agreement on Justification & Works [2012]

Scripture on Being Co-Workers with God for Salvation [2013]

New Testament Epistles on Bringing About Further Sanctification and Even Salvation By Our Own Actions [7-2-13]

Dialogue on Faith and Works and the Relation of Each to the Final Judgment (vs. Bethany Kerr) [10-10-13]

“Catholic Justification” in James & Romans [11-18-15]

Philippians 2:12 & “Work[ing] Out” One’s Salvation [1-26-16]

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,300+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-three books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

Photo credit: Christ and the Rich Young Ruler (1889), by Heinrich Hofmann (1824-1911) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: Further exchanges with an anti-Catholic regarding meritorious works and the gospel, the rich young ruler, and about how Jesus Himself said we could be saved.

2023-07-03T18:38:58-04:00

Last updated on: July 3, 2023 at 6:38 pm   By
0 Comments

Jim Anderson appears to be a Presbyterian, and is an anti-Catholic. The following exchange occurred on a public Facebook page, below a shared meme that I had shared, regarding Catholic liturgy. Jim’s words will be in blue.

*****

How one holds one’s hands during prayer is wholly irrelevant. It is what is in one’s heart that matters. Armstrong seems to be tied up in religious rituals, but he may not realize he is seriously misleading earnest Catholics into thinking these things are important. Note how the Catholic church is micromanaging how people use their hands during the religious worship service, rather than focusing on actually teaching the word of God and pointing all members to Christ alone for salvation. Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, Ken. Seriously, you don’t buy into this, do you?
*
Typical either/or false dichotomy nonsense. If we care about structure and order in liturgy we must be inexorably opposed to the Bible and salvation. I say that God takes all things seriously, and that includes how we worship. Virtually every Christian group has some kind of rules for worship. We couldn’t show up naked, could we? I use an extreme example to illustrate the fact that rules are present, virtually everywhere.
*
There is a regulative principle, that says that we should worship God in the manner in which He wants to be worshipped. That guideline is scripture. Catholics are free to move their hands in circles during certain parts of the “mass” if they want. Catholicism is a religion that is very full of ritual, and fairly short on scriptural theology.
*
Dave, what I object to is the misleading of Catholics by meaningless rituals (“hold your hands exactly this way”) that they infer will make them more holy. Sit, stand, kneel. I have been to thousands of masses and know it well. And yet, there are very few Catholics who could summarize the gospel. Why is that?
*
I have a deep love for Catholics, having been raised on, and do not want to see any of them lost for eternity. And yet, it is possible (I am not the Judge, God is) that most actually are headed there.
*
*
*
*
*
Bible on Wholehearted Formal Worship [6-4-07; revised and expanded 1-22-16]
*
You’re providing a bit of a strawman here. Please focus on the topic if you would care to comment.
*
But, that being said, I will absolutely stand by the fact that Catholics are not taught the gospel, and I am not referring to the four books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (which are often referred to as “the gospels”) but to the message of salvation. See Romans 1:16 for one mention of it.
*
This is not a criticism of Catholics, who are earnestly seeking God for the most part, and want to be closer to God. This is an indictment of official Catholicism, which misleads Catholics at almost every turn. I love Catholics, including Ken [Litchfield], and would hate to see any lost for eternity. And yet, it is possible that most will be.
*
*
*
*
*
*
The “what is the gospel” article is extremely poor exposition of scripture, though faithful to official Catholic teaching.
*
No need to keep flogging bad theology, Dave. I am already familiar with it. But, if you want to know what the gospel is, in the word of God, and not disparate, cherry-picked and out of context verses, see Ephesians 2:1-10 as one great summary. Titus 3:3-7 is another, with Romans (really, the entire book) 3:21-26 being yet another.
*
One overriding principle throughout scripture is that salvation is solely through the grace of God. We see that in numerous texts, and I am certain you will agree. Yet, Catholicism denies this, since it claims that the human ritual of water baptism forgives sins, that individuals can merit part of their salvation (CCC 2027), that the “mass” is an actual sacrifice and forgives sins, and the membership in the Catholic church is required for salvation, though it speaks out of both sides of its mouth a bit on this and others.
*
Do you want to know how you can be saved from what each one of us created humans, including you, so richly deserve, which is an eternity in hell?
*
Let’s cut through the crap and your obnoxious spiritual pride. Tell me (big Bible expert): What was the gospel and way to get saved according to Jesus, when he talked to the rich young ruler, after he asked Him, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” (Mk 10:17, RSV).
*
Wow, Dave. I guess I have touched a nerve to warrant such vitriol. I have never gotten personal with you, but you are now reflecting a behavior that is far too typical of Catholics for some reason.
*
But, to the text, which is far more important. You asked about Mark 10:17. Let’s take a look at the extended thought for context:
*
Mark 10:17-27 [unspecified translation] “17 As He was setting out on a journey, a man ran up to Him and knelt before Him, and asked Him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do so that I may inherit eternal life?” 18 But Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone. 19 You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not give false testimony, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.’” 20 And he said to Him, “Teacher, I have kept all these things from my youth.” 21 Looking at him, Jesus showed love to him and said to him, “One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” 22 But he [i]was deeply dismayed by [j]these words, and he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property. 23 And Jesus, looking around, *said to His disciples, “How hard it will be for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God!” 24 And the disciples were amazed at His words. But Jesus responded again and *said to them, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” 26 And they were even more astonished, and said to Him, “[k]Then who can be saved?” 27 Looking at them, Jesus *said, “With people it is impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God.””
*
Jesus makes the strong point here which is obvious and consistent, that man cannot merit salvation. This may not seem intuitive at first, but Jesus speaks of the law. The man says, well I obey the law. Of course he does not, perfectly, and is therefore worthy of condemnation. Jesus illustrates this man’s unbelief by giving him a command he doesn’t want to follow: sell everything and follow Jesus. “Follow Jesus” here is the continual and emphatic teaching of Jesus: for salvation, believe in Him. The entire chapter of John 6 is this message: HE is God, believe in Him.
*
The remainder of the text from Mark 10 only emphasizes the fact that the efforts of man (do good works, sell your possessions, follow the law) can never merit one salvation. Salvation comes only from God, by His grace, because of His mercy, to demonstrate His glory, through Christ alone, by faith alone.
*
You distort what Jesus actually said, which was, “You lack one thing; go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” (Mk 10:21). In other words, if the person did this particular work (selling all he had and giving to the poor) he would be saved (since Jesus said he would be in heaven). That is a work flowing from faith, and it’s merit. You lied earlier and said that man can do no work or merit that will help him attain salvation.
*
The biblical and Catholic teaching is that we are saved by grace through faith, which necessarily includes works, since James says “faith without works is dead”). Accordingly, when the Bible discusses how we are saved and how we get into heaven, it mentions works in fifty passages. In just one of them is faith mentioned, and it’s not “alone”; works are also mentioned:
*
*
See also the related:
*
St. Paul on Grace, Faith, & Works (50 Passages) [8-6-08]
*
The rest of Mark 10 doesn’t teach the unbiblical tradition of men, “faith alone,” either. In fact, Jesus mentions more works (as an outgrowth of saving faith) as the way to be saved:
*
Mark 10:28-30 Peter began to say to him, “Lo, we have left everything and followed you.” [29] Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, [30] who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life.
*
More merit and works and heroic self-sacrifice (leaving families and properties), in other words: the very things that you falsely claim have nothing to do with salvation at all. I’ll go with what Jesus said, thank you: not what you say, in instances where it contradicts Our Lord and Savior.

*

Matthew 25 is another passage where Jesus explains how one achieves salvation and eternal life and entrance into heaven. “Faith alone” is never mentioned, though I would say faith is part of the equation, based on many other passages. It’s all merit and works that are mentioned, for some odd reason (no evangelical I know would explain it as Jesus did):
*
Matthew 25:31-36, 41-46 (RSV) “When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. [32] Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, [33] and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. [34] Then the King will say to those at his right hand, `Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; [35] for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, [36] I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ . . . [41] Then he will say to those at his left hand, `Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; [42] for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, [43] I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ [44] Then they also will answer, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?’ [45] Then he will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.’ [46] And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

*

So, in your view, if someone sells everything they have and gives it to the poor, they are saved? No, that is incorrect. You missed the point of this story, Dave.
*
That’s what Jesus said would be the case, when a person asked Him, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” He advised him to do a meritorious work: which, above, you denied had anything to do with salvation.
*
And would you like to understand James 2 better, since you do not do so now?
*
I’ve written about it many times, including in debate with James White. But we will not move away from this passage, which is the constant anti-Catholic method when they have no answer to a Catholic argument: ignore it and quickly move to something else. That’s child’s play. I’m interested in serious exegesis.
*
Titus 3:5. You are quite welcome.
*
Titus 3:5 (RSV) he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit,
*
Yes, this is teaching salvation by grace alone, which Catholics fully accept. We condemned Pelagianism (salvation by works) long ago. But that’s different from works flowing out of the intrinsic nature faith. Paul is denying works salvation (i.e., works without faith or grace as a supposed cause of salvation). He writes many times about meritorious good works (soaked in grace, and done with faith) as part of salvation (see the collection of 50 of his passages that I linked to above).
*
Moreover, here he teaches baptismal regeneration for salvation as well, as he did in two other passages, too:
*
Romans 6:3-4 “Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.”
*
1 Corinthians 6:11 “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.”
*
Moreover, he accepted the word of Ananias about his own baptism:
*
Acts 22:16 “And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.”
*
what could you possibly do for God that He needs?
*
God, of course, doesn’t “need” anything. He tells is what we need to do in order to be saved.
*
All your righteous works are like used tampons (Isaiah 64:6).
*
Isaiah 64:6 is about one particular instance in time where the Israelites had become corrupt. It’s not saying that all works whatsoever are worthless. That’s eisegesis. God explained how all this works in Isaiah 1:
*
Isaiah 1:4, 13-19 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. . . . [13] Bring no more vain offerings; incense is an abomination to me. New moon and sabbath and the calling of assemblies — I cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly. [14] Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hates; they have become a burden to me, I am weary of bearing them. [15] When you spread forth your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood. [16] Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your doings from before my eyes; cease to do evil, [17] learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; defend the fatherless, plead for the widow. [18] “Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool. [19] If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land;
*
Once again, the solution includes meritorious works (“learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; defend the fatherless, plead for the widow.”). But it’s certainly not asserting that all works whatsoever are worthless and like menstrual rags. God was saying through Isaiah that when His people forsake Him and do evil, that even their ostensibly good works and acts of worship are unacceptable to Him. They must change their heart and do good works to get right with Him again.
*
Later in the book, the example of Hezekiah again illustrates the biblical, Catholic principle of faith and works operating together:
*
Isaiah 38:1-6 In those days Hezeki’ah became sick and was at the point of death. And Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz came to him, and said to him, “Thus says the LORD: Set your house in order; for you shall die, you shall not recover.” [2] Then Hezeki’ah turned his face to the wall, and prayed to the LORD, [3] and said, “Remember now, O LORD, I beseech thee, how I have walked before thee in faithfulness and with a whole heart, and have done what is good in thy sight.” And Hezeki’ah wept bitterly. [4] Then the word of the LORD came to Isaiah: [5] “Go and say to Hezeki’ah, Thus says the LORD, the God of David your father: I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; behold, I will add fifteen years to your life. [6] I will deliver you and this city out of the hand of the king of Assyria, and defend this city.
*
“Done what is good” is part of Hezekiah’s repentance. Meritorious works can’t be separated. God didn’t tell him that His “righteous deeds are like a polluted garment” (Is 64:6). This is my point. You have taken a passage about one particular situation and made it universal, when in fact, such a reading contradicts hundreds of other Bible passages. Isaiah 64:6 must be understood in light of contextual passages like “We have become like those over whom thou hast never ruled, . . .” (63:19) and “in our sins we have been a long time” (64:5) and “There is no one that calls upon thy name” (64:7).
*
Do you want to discuss James 2? I will, if you only agree to be polite (it is necessary to remind Catholics of this) and stay with scripture. I will share some reading material for you, as you have done with me. Sound teaching on James 2.
*
Does James 2:24 refute the doctrine of justification by faith alone? (Stephen Nichols, Steven Lawson, and Burk Parsons; answers given during our A Continuing Reformation: Pittsburgh 2021 Conference).
*
How can you believe in salvation by faith alone when the only occurrence of “faith alone” in the Bible (James 2:24) says that salvation is not by faith alone? (Got Questions)
*
My writings on James (which refute what you posted above):
*
Justification in James: Dialogue [5-8-02]
*
“Catholic Justification” in James & Romans [11-18-15]
*
Reply to James White’s Exegesis of James 2 in Chapter 20 of His Book, The God Who Justifies [10-9-13]
*
Luther, James, Faith & Works: Additional Relevant Data [3-7-23]
*
I don’t hang around on Facebook all day, so may not respond quickly, but please provide your reasoned thoughts based on the articles that I provided. You can disagree, but only from contextual scripture.
*
I have to eat a late breakfast [it was 10:30]. I’ll be back to continue in about ten minutes . . .
*
I brought up the rich young ruler, which is directly relevant to your claims that all works have nothing whatsoever to do with salvation. I will not follow a rabbit trail that you want to use in order to get out of being embarrassed about your botched eisegesis of the rich young ruler passage. You have to directly address it. I’ve written about everything you can bring up, believe me, in my more than 4,300 articles and 53 books, written over 42 years.
*
So, getting back to the topic that we were talking about (before you become too busy and have to leave): When Jesus said, and advised, “You lack one thing; go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me” (Mk 10:21), was that 1) salvific, and 2) a [good] work, and 3) a meritorious work?
*
So you’re already gone, huh? What is the estimated time that you will be able to come back and answer my three questions about the rich young ruler passage? [his last reply was 35 minutes earlier, as of the time of this comment on Facebook; it was two hours and 34 minutes at the time I was compiling this blog article]
*
My mistake was going to eat breakfast. That gave Jim an excuse to split and get off of the hot seat. I had to eat breakfast when I did because I have low blood sugar (and it was 10:30). Oh well. Maybe Jim will return. In the meantime, this will be an excellent new dialogue for my blog. It’s all public material!
*
Interesting that you push this so hard [cites my three questions to him]. Dave, if this is a deep-seated belief of yours, and I assume that you seek eternal life, have you in fact sold all your worldly possessions and given them to the poor? And if not, why not?
*
Glad to see that you decided to continue! Don’t evade. It makes you look foolish. How do you answer my three questions? I never asserted that selling all of one’s possessions is required of everyone. You have simply erroneously projected that onto me and (possibly) the Catholic position. The parable of the talents and many other passages contradict such an assertion. So, nice try.
*
Jesus told this one person that a work was required for his salvation. How can this be? How does it square with your unbiblical, extreme “absolutely no works or merit” position?
*
If you say, then, that this passage is irrelevant for all people, since it was a unique situation, then I counter with Matthew 25 (already presented) which has to do with all of us at the Judgment, and with 48 other passages regarding works and their relation to salvation.
*
You need to answer my three questions or concede the argument, in which case it seems to me that your soteriology would be in crisis (the very reason, I suspect, why you have refused to answer thus far: the stakes are very high!).
*
See also the related articles:
*
*
*
I’m gettin’ lonely again, talking to the wind . . . oh well. Jim needs time to ponder a lot more Scripture than he is accustomed to thinking about. Once the Protestant gets out of the tired, silly routine of his leaders pre-selecting for him what Bible passages to consider (and ignoring 4-5 times or more additional related passages), then it’s a whole new ballgame.
*
See also the continuation of this discussion: Dialogue: Rich Young Ruler, Works, & Salvation [7-3-23]

***
*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,300+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-three books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

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

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

***

Photo credit: Christ and the Rich Young Ruler (1889), by Heinrich Hofmann (1824-1911) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: Substantive exchange with an anti-Catholic regarding whether meritorious works & the gospel are closely related, & about how Jesus Himself said we were saved.

Follow Us!
Browse Our Archives
TRENDING AT PATHEOS Family
"The Plates of Gardner"
Vs. Geisler on Catholicism #10: “Faith Alone” 2
It's Time For The Church To Wake Up...
An Application of Ockham's Razor to Apologetic Motivations
Disability Pride Month: Welcome to the King's Table!
Vs. Geisler on Catholicism #9: "Faith Alone" 1
view all Family blogs