February 29, 2024

February 29, 2024 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: apologistdave@gmail.com. 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.

February 28, 2024

February 28, 2024 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: apologistdave@gmail.com. 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.

February 27, 2024

February 27, 2024 By
0 Comments

+ Does the New Testament Present an Ecclesiology of “The Church”?

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 issued many replies to Gavin and will continue to do so. 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.” Gavin’s words will be in blue.

This is my 24th reply to his material.

*****

I am responding to one of the central claims made in Gavin’s video, “Which Denomination Should You Choose?” (3-17-23). To anticipate one objection: I’m not seeking to be “triumphalistic” or arrogant in defending Catholic claims or critiquing Protestant ones. Everyone (and that includes Catholics!) defends their own view, whatever it is; they may change later, but they are defending one particular thing at any given point of time. I’m seeking to be, rather, “biblical”: as I always try to be in these disputes.

So I will bring a lot of the New Testament to the table and wonder aloud how Protestants interpret and apply these passages; challenge them a bit. I love to be challenged, myself. Catholics interpret the Bible regarding these matters in a certain way and so do Protestants. We ought to and can discuss them as brethren in Christ, and let folks decide — as best we can, hopefully led by the Holy Spirit’s guidance — what the Bible actually teaches in matters of ecclesiology. But we need to have this important discussion.

0:00 one of the questions I get very frequently is, “suppose I’m convinced of Protestantism; which particular denomination should I choose and how do I know in which particular local church?”

This is a very important question, because if we seek Christian truth, we want all of it that we can get, and since Protestant denominations contradict each other in literally hundreds of ways, it follows logically that someone is wrong in those instances (teaching falsehood) and that different denominations represent different degrees of biblical truth.  Protestantism by nature is not one unified whole, but an amalgam of mutually contradictory systems, that have no way of unifying, because of how they have defined authority and the seeking of Christian, biblical truth.

Of course, there is quite bit of common ground among Protestants, too, but what they have in common tends to be also what Protestants share in common with Catholics (trinitarianism, salvation by grace and so forth). The fact remains that they still massively contradict one another. I submit that this is neither a desirable state of affairs nor biblical.

0:24 [the] first [thing] is to realize that the stakes are not as high in choosing between two Protestant traditions, because the Protestant traditions recognize [that] the church does not begin and end with them. We’re not saying we’re the one true church, so if you make the wrong decision, . . . let’s say you become Anglican and you should have been Presbyterian, or you become Presbyterian and you should have been Methodist or something like this, the difference will not be that you’re not in the one true Church.

The problem with this is that the Bible doesn’t seem to ever teach that all this error can be present among Christians, and that it’s fine and dandy and of no concern (even encouraged). I mentioned in another reply recently that the NT mentions the phrase “the truth” 70 times. It’s presupposing that this entity called “the truth” is out there and can be identified. It does not teach (as far as I can tell) that everyone must somehow grasp for the highest degree of truth they can find (in their subjective, fallible judgment) in one given assembly of several thousand Protestant choices: all of which massively contradict the other groups.

The New Testament (St. Paul) refers to “one faith” (Eph 4:5). Jesus prayed three times during the Last Supper that Christians “may [all] be one” (Jn 17:11, 21-22). And what did He mean by that? Would it include massive doctrinal self-contradiction, as we find in Protestantism? It seems not, since Jesus defines this oneness as being “one, even as we are one” (Jn 17:11, 22) and “one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee” (Jn 17:21) and “perfectly one” (Jn 17:23). This is the oneness and unity that God the Father and God the Son enjoy. Do they disagree with each other? Never.  See, for one example of many, John 8:28-29: “. . . I do nothing on my own authority but speak thus as the Father taught me. And he who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what is pleasing to him.”

It seems to me that Gavin and Protestantism generally deny that this question of doctrinal and moral unity (including an institution to support such unity) is supremely important. They have given up on seeking it. They take a pass, so to speak. I submit that the New Testament assumes or presupposes that “the one true Church” is a discernible, objective fact (the very thing that Gavin says is not the case with any given Protestant denomination). Protestants act as if the very search for the one Church is impossible; it can’t be found. Otherwise they would identify it (as Catholics and Orthodox do), instead of being quick to deny that they even claim such a thing.

How is it, then, that Protestants can think that this matter is so unimportant that Gavin flat-out denies its crucial and non-optional nature by stating, “We’re not saying we’re the one true church”? This is “The Protestant ‘Non-Quest’ for Certainty”, as I have called it.

The New Testament appears to me to take a very different view. If we look up the phrase “the church” we find that it occurs 91 times in the NT. But most of these refer to a local congregation; we also find the term, “churches” (e.g., Acts 15:41; Rom 16:4 and 33 other times). But in the following 21 passages, it seems clear to me that “the church” or “church” refers — as determined by context —  to the one true Church:

Matthew 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.

Acts 5:11 And great fear came upon the whole church, . . .

Acts 20:28 Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son.

1 Corinthians 10:32 Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God,

1 Corinthians 11:22 . . . the church of God . . .

1 Corinthians 12:28 And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues.

1 Corinthians 15:9 . . . I persecuted the church of God. (same phrase at Gal 1:13)

Ephesians 1:22-23 and he has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church, [23] which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all.

Ephesians 3:10 that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places.

Ephesians 3:21 to him be glory in the church . . .

Ephesians 5:23-25 . . . Christ is the head of the church, his body . . . [24] . . . the church is subject to Christ . . . [25] Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,

Ephesians 5:27, 29, 32 [“the church” appears three times]

Philippians 3:6 . . . [Paul was] a persecutor of the church . . .

Colossians 1:18 He is the head of the body, the church . . .

Colossians 1:24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church,

1 Timothy 3:15 . . . the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

What does the Protestant do with that data? Well, usually they reply (I used to argue this myself in my Protestant days) that they have a general doctrinal unity, and allow differences on what they call “secondary doctrines” (another notion difficult if not impossible to find in the NT). Jesus urged us to “observe all that I have commanded you” (Mt 28:19), without distinguishing between lesser and more central doctrines. The Protestant “solution” for ecclesiology seems, with all due respect, biblically implausible, in light of the fact that in 295 Bible passages (that I have collected in one of my books) notions like “the faith” and “the truth” and “the doctrine” and “teaching” and “the message” are presented as all essentially synonymous.

In other words, again, the “one faith” (Eph 4:5) is assumed in the NT to be an objective entity — a unified body of teaching or “apostolic deposit” that can be identified. It certainly can be on the local level, but it also can be on a churchwide level, such as at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15), which made a decree, led by St. Peter and St. James, and by the Holy Spirit (hence, infallible), that applied to the entire Church (very much like later ecumenical councils). Hence, the Apostle Paul shared the decree as binding to local churches all through Asia Minor (Turkey; see Acts 16:4).

We see all this Bible above, yet Gavin describes quintessential Protestant ecclesiology as: “We’re not saying we’re the one true church.” Why, then, I ask in all sincerity (trying to understand this), would anyone want to join one mere denomination, which is (by its own self-description) not the one true Church: the one that Jesus Himself set up, with one of His disciples, Peter, as the leader (the pope?), and the other disciples as, in effect, bishops  (Mt 16:18)? How can this one true Church be said to be “the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15) if all it is, is a confusingly self-contradictory collection of thousands of individual denominations?

These inherently entail many hundreds of internal contradictions, and hence, inevitably, doctrinal errors all over the place, even if we can’t immediately determine which denomination is wrong, in terms of doctrine, when it contradicts another, and many others. But we know there are many errors in Protestantism (literally hundreds) by virtue of the nature of a logical contradiction. When two denominations contradict on some point of theology, both can’t be right. At least one is necessarily wrong, and both may be wrong. Error is present, in any event. This must be the case if we accept the laws of logic and of contradiction.

How does this state of affairs bring about the extraordinary oneness — including profound doctrinal agreement — that Jesus prayed for: like the Father and the Son being one? We Catholics contend that the Bible teaches that there is one Church only, with one truth and one unified apostolic tradition (granted, then we must determine how to find it in today’s world). Doctrinal contradiction of any sort is absolutely at odds with biblical teaching, which repeatedly urges unity and forbids divisions of any kind among Christians. Our Lord Jesus viewed His Church as being “one flock” (Jn. 10:16). St. Luke described the earliest Christians as being “of one heart and soul” (Acts 4:32). Luke 2:42 casually mentions “the apostles’ teaching” without any hint that there were competing interpretations of it, or variations of the teaching. St. Peter warned about “false teachers” among Christians, who would “secretly bring in destructive heresies,” which go against “the way of truth” (2 Pet. 2:1-2).

St. Paul, above all, repeatedly condemns “dissensions” (Rom 16:17), “quarreling” (1 Cor 1:11), “jealousy and strife” (1 Cor 3:3), “divisions” and “factions” (1 Cor 11:18-19), “discord” (1 Cor 12:25), “enmity” and “party spirit” (Gal 5:20), and calls for Christians to be “united in the same mind and the same judgment” (1 Cor 1:10; cf. Phil 2:2). He expressly condemns party affiliations associated with persons (1 Cor 1:12-13: “Is Christ divided?”; cf. 3:4-7).

He regards Christian tradition as of one piece; not an amalgam of permissible competing theories: “the tradition that you received from us” (2 Thess 3:6); “the truth which has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit” (2 Tim 1:14); “the doctrine which you have been taught” (Rom 16:17); “being in full accord and of one mind” (Phil 2:2); “stand firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel” (Phil 1:27). He, like Jesus, ties doctrinal unity together with the one God: “. . . maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, . . . one Lord, one faith, one baptism, . . .” (Eph 4:3-5). His strong and certain teaching on this topic is well summed up in the following two passages:

1 Timothy 6:3-5 If any one teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching which accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit, he knows nothing; he has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions, and wrangling among men who are depraved in mind and bereft of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain.

Titus 3:9-11 But avoid stupid controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels over the law, for they are unprofitable and futile. As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.

Protestant theologian H. Richard Niebuhr (1894-1962) wrote:

Denominationalism thus represents the moral failure of Christianity. And unless the ethics of brotherhood can gain the victory over this divisiveness within the body of Christ it is useless to expect it to be victorious in the world. But before the church can hope to overcome its fatal division it must learn to recognize and to acknowledge the secular character of its denominationalism. (The Social Sources of Denominationalism, New York: The World Publishing Co. / Meridian Books, 1957; originally 1929, 25)

That’s what a famous Protestant theologian wrote, mind you. It’s arguably far more critical than anything I have written above. But I fully agree that Protestants have to grapple with the question of denominationalism, which is extraordinarily difficult to justify based on biblical teaching. I freely admitted this when I was a Protestant, too, by the way. I thought it was scandalous and that it made evangelism very difficult to undertake, seeing that Christians disagreed about so much. I didn’t have a definitive “answer” to that (other than that sin brought about seemingly unsolvable division). My solution in the long run was to accept that the Catholic option made more biblical and historical sense: that it tied everything together in a way that no Protestant option could or ever would.

*

***

*

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: apologistdave@gmail.com. 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.

Summary: Protestant apologist Gavin Ortlund notes that Protestants are “not saying we’re the one true church.” I reply that the Bible makes it impossible to avoid this issue.

February 27, 2024

February 27, 2024 By
0 Comments

1 Corinthians 3:12-15 (RSV) Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw — [13] each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. [14] If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. [15] If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

Reformed Baptist apologist James White recently engaged in a debate with Catholic apologist Trent Horn, on the topic of purgatory (2-17-24). In his usual “post-mortem” remarks on that exchange: a Dividing Line episode called “Road Trip Morning Dividing Line” (2-22-24), White stated at 37:35:

One of the glaring errors in Rome’s abuse of 1 Corinthians chapter 3 is the fact that “the day will show it.” In Paul’s language there the day is obviously the day of the Lord. It’s the final day of of judgment, but Purgatory doesn’t take place [on] the final day of judgment. Purgatory takes place before then; it takes place as soon as someone dies, and so how can that be relevant . . .?

Well, White assumes that it is the Day of the Lord; i.e., the final judgment, occurring shortly after the Second Coming. But not all Protestant commentators or biblical linguistic scholars agree with that, by any stretch.

Benson Commentary states that “especially the day of final judgment, the great day of the Lord, is here intended,” but it also includes other strains of meaning here that might be seen to include a time other than the day of judgment:

Perhaps, 1st, η ημερα δηλωσει, might be rendered, time will declare it; for time, generally a little time, manifests whether a minister’s doctrine be Scriptural and sound, and his converts genuine or not. If his preaching produce no saving effect upon his hearers, if none of them are reformed in their manners, and renewed in their hearts; if none of them are turned from sin to righteousness, and made new creatures in Christ Jesus, there is reason to suspect the doctrine delivered to them is not of the right kind, and therefore is not owned of God. 2d, The expression means, The day of trial shall declare it; (see 1 Peter 4:12 [“do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal which comes upon you to prove you”]) for a day of trial is wont to follow a day of merciful visitation; . . .

Barnes’ Notes on the Bible similarly observes:

Perhaps the word “day” here may mean time in general, as we say, “time will show” – and as the Latin adage says, dies docebit; but it is more natural to refer it to the Day of Judgment.

Matthew Poole’s Commentary is even more “broad-minded”:

For the day shall declare it: what day shall declare it is not so steadily agreed by interpreters. Some by a day here understand a long time, in process of time it shall be declared; . . . Others understand it of a day of adversity and great affliction, the day of God’s vengeance; . . . Others understand by the day here mentioned, the day of judgment, which is indeed often called the day of the Lord, 1 Corinthians 1:8, and described by fire, Joel 2:3 2 Thessalonians 1:8 2 Peter 3:10; but this text saith not the day of the Lord, but only the day.

Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible states:

for the day shall declare it; meaning not the day of judgment, though that is often called the day, or that day, and will be attended with fire, and in it all secrets shall be made manifest; but the apostle intends a discovery that will be made of doctrines in this world, before that time comes: wherefore this day rather designs a day of tribulation; as of persecution, which tries men’s principles, whether they are solid or not; and of error and heresy, when men are put upon a re-examination of their doctrines, whereby persons and truths that are approved are made manifest . . .

Meyer’s NT Commentary holds that it refers to the day of judgment, but notes that there are other opinions, too:

The following expositions are alien to the succeeding context: of time in general (. . . —so Grotius, Wolf, Wetstein, Stolz, Rosenmüller, Flatt, and others); or of the time of clear knowledge of the gospel (Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Vorstius) . . .

Henry Alford, in his Greek Testament Critical Exegetical Commentary, also thinks it is judgment day, but notes differing views among commentators:

(1) ‘the day of the destruction of Jerusalem,’ which shall shew the vanity of Judaizing doctrines: so Hammond (but not clearly nor exclusively), Lightfoot., Schöttg., . . . (2) ‘the lapse of time,’ as in the proverb, ‘dies docebit;’—so Grot., Wolf, Mosheim, Rosenm., . . . (3) ‘the light of day,’ i.e. of clear knowledge, as opposed to the present time of obscurity and night: so Calvin, Beza, Erasmus . . . (4) ‘the day of tribulation:’—so Augustine, . . .

Obviously, then, there is not one sole interpretation held by one and all, as White seems to casually assume. White’s take is the leading one among Protestants, but not the only one; so it’s not written in stone like the Ten Commandments. The Catholic Navarre Commentary states:

Although St. Paul does not make explicit mention of any judgment but this Last Judgment when Jesus “shall come to judge the living and the dead” (Apostle’s Creed), obviously — as the Church has always believed — there is also a judgment “immediately after death” (Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus, Dz-Sch, 1000). It is described as the “particular” or individual judgment because “when each one of us departs this life, he is instantly placed before the judgment seat of God, where all that he has ever done or spoken or thought during life shall be subjected to the most rigid scrutiny” (St. Pius V Catechism, I, 8, 3).

The Catholic Encyclopedia (“Particular Judgment”) explains this doctrine:

Existence of particular judgment proved from Scripture

Ecclesiastes 11:9; 12:1 sq.; and Hebrews 9:27, are sometimes quoted in proof of the particular judgment, but though these passages speak of a judgment after death, neither the context nor the force of the words proves that the sacred writer had in mind a judgment distinct from that at the end of the world. The Scriptural arguments in defence of the particular judgment must be indirect. There is no text of which we can certainly say that it expressly affirms this dogma but there are several which teach an immediate retribution after death and thereby clearly imply a particular judgment. Christ represents Lazarus and Dives [Luke 16:19 ff.] as receiving their respective rewards immediately after death. They have always been regarded as types of the just man and the sinner. To the penitent thief it was promised that his soul instantly on leaving the body would be in the state of the blessed: “This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise” (Luke 23:43). St. Paul (2 Corinthians 5) longs to be absent from the body that he may be present to the Lord, evidently understanding death to be the entrance into his reward (cf. Philemon 1:21 sq.). Ecclesiasticus 11:28-29 speaks of a retribution at the hour of death, but it may refer to a temporal punishment, such as sudden death in the midst of prosperity, the evil remembrance that survives the wicked or the misfortunes of their children. However, the other texts that have been quoted are sufficient to establish the strict conformity of the doctrine with Scripture teaching. (Cf. Acts 1:25; Apocalypse 20:4-6, 12-14).

[Dave: Luke 16:25 But Abraham said, `Son, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Laz’arus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish.

2 Corinthians 5:8, 10 We are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord. . . . [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.

Revelation 20:4 Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom judgment was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Jesus and for the word of God, and who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life, and reigned with Christ a thousand years. (this was before the “great white throne” judgment on Judgment Day: see Rev 20:7, 11-15) ]

Patristic testimony regarding particular judgment

St. Augustine witnesses clearly and emphatically to this faith of the early Church. Writing to the presbyter Peter, he criticizes the works of Vincentius Victor on the soul, pointing out that they contain nothing except what is vain or erroneous or mere commonplace, familiar to all Catholics. As an instance of the last, he cites Victor’s interpretation of the parable of Lazarus and Dives. He writes:

For with respect to that which he [Victor] most correctly and very soundly holds, namely, that souls are judged when they depart from the body, before they come to that judgment which must be passed on them when reunited to the body and are tormented or glorified in that same flesh which they here inhabited — was that a matter of which you (Peter) were unaware? Who is so obstinate against the Gospel as not to perceive those things in the parable of that poor man carried after death to Abraham’s bosom and of the rich man whose torments are set before us? (De anima et ejus origine, 11, n.8.)

In the sermons of the Fathers occur graphic descriptions of the particular judgment (cf. S. Ephraem, “Sermo de secundo Adventu”; “Sermo in eos qui in Christo obdormiunt”).

St. Paul writes that “we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God . . . each of us shall give account of himself to God” (Rom 14:10, 12).

See also, Wikipedia, “Particular Judgment,” which provides scriptural and patristic indications.

Related Reading 

*
*
*

***

*

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: apologistdave@gmail.com. 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: YouTube image from “Gold Refined by Fire Pt. 2” (April 16, 2023); The LifeMission Channel.

Summary: Baptist apologist James White argues that “the Day” in 1 Corinthians 3:13 refers to the Day of the Lord (the Last Judgment). I argue that it’s the particular judgment.

February 26, 2024

February 26, 2024 By
0 Comments

+ a “New” Argument on How Protestant “Faith Alone” Helps Prove the Absolute Necessity of Purgation After Death

I just watched the James White – Trent Horn debate about purgatory (2-17-24). I believe it is the only debate including White that I have ever watched in its entirety since I started interacting with him way back in 1995.

In his closing statement at 2:19:38, White stated: “you won’t find the term ‘purgatory’ in here [he held a Bible when saying this]; you did not find anything about temporal punishments in here . . . every time Trent went there, he’s quoting from the universal catechism, he’s quoting from a pope that lived 2,000 years after the birth of Christ. This truly is the issue . . .”

First of all, terms for doctrines considered in and of themselves are irrelevant. The terms original sin, Trinity, incarnation, justification by faith alone, and virgin birth don’t appear in the Bible, either, as White is undoubtedly well aware. And the only time “faith alone” appears it is condemned as a falsehood (in James 2:24), and additionally, the concept is condemned in other words, eight more times in context (2:14, 17-18, 20-22, 25-26). That doesn’t stop White from believing in the unbiblical doctrine of faith alone, does it? And there are scores more verses against faith alone. So this was simply a piece of sophistry.

Trent didn’t have time to cover this particular matter (one can’t do everything in a time-managed debate, and he did great), but I can easily show that temporal punishment is definitely taught in Holy Scripture. In fact, in an article I wrote just eight days ago, I demonstrated this very thing. I’ll add much more biblical evidence presently, too. So I thank James White for providing this opportunity to elaborate — more than I ever have — upon an explicitly biblical doctrine that is an important premise of the doctrine of purgatory. If he hadn’t made this denial, I wouldn’t be writing this. Blatant theological error brings about more apologetics and deeper analyses, as St. Augustine observed.

When Moses’ sister Miriam “spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married” (Num 12:1, RSV), God punished her with leprosy (12:6-10). That’s a temporal punishment for sin (not damnation). But it was not permanent, because Moses prayed for her to be healed (12:13), and she was after a time. This was literally Moses praying for an indulgence. The text implies that the leprosy wasn’t permanent as a result of the prayer. An indulgence simply mean a remission or relaxation of the temporal penalties for sin.

On several occasions, Moses atoned for his people and brought about an indulgence, so that they were not being punished for one of many sins of theirs (Ex 32:30-32; Num 14:19-23). In the latter case, God pardoned the iniquity of the Hebrews because Moses prayed for them. In Numbers 16:46-48, Moses and Aaron stopped a plague. That was an indulgence too, and the plague was a temporal punishment for sin. Phinehas, a priest, “turned back” God’s “wrath” (Num 25:6-13). The bronze serpent in the wilderness was an indulgence granted by God (Num 21:4-9). But a significant penance or temporal punishment for the sin of the rebellious Hebrews in the desert remained: they could not enter the Promised Land:

Numbers 14:26-37 And the LORD said to Moses and to Aaron, [27] “How long shall this wicked congregation murmur against me? I have heard the murmurings of the people of Israel, which they murmur against me. [28] Say to them, `As I live,’ says the LORD, `what you have said in my hearing I will do to you: [29] your dead bodies shall fall in this wilderness; and of all your number, numbered from twenty years old and upward, who have murmured against me, [30] not one shall come into the land where I swore that I would make you dwell, except Caleb the son of Jephun’neh and Joshua the son of Nun. [31] But your little ones, who you said would become a prey, I will bring in, and they shall know the land which you have despised. [32] But as for you, your dead bodies shall fall in this wilderness. [33] And your children shall be shepherds in the wilderness forty years, and shall suffer for your faithlessness, until the last of your dead bodies lies in the wilderness. [34] According to the number of the days in which you spied out the land, forty days, for every day a year, you shall bear your iniquity, forty years, and you shall know my displeasure.’ [35] I, the LORD, have spoken; surely this will I do to all this wicked congregation that are gathered together against me: in this wilderness they shall come to a full end, and there they shall die.” [36] And the men whom Moses sent to spy out the land, and who returned and made all the congregation to murmur against him by bringing up an evil report against the land, [37] the men who brought up an evil report of the land, died by plague before the LORD. (cf. 32:13; Josh 5:6)

Moses himself was temporally punished for sin: God didn’t allow him to enter the Promised Land, either (and this is well-known to Bible students):

Numbers 27:12-14 The LORD said to Moses, “Go up into this mountain of Ab’arim, and see the land which I have given to the people of Israel. [13] And when you have seen it, you also shall be gathered to your people, as your brother Aaron was gathered, [14] because you rebelled against my word in the wilderness of Zin during the strife of the congregation, to sanctify me at the waters before their eyes.” (These are the waters of Mer’ibah of Kadesh in the wilderness of Zin.)

In the book of Judges we find the same dynamic again:

Judges 13:1 And the people of Israel again did what was evil in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD gave them into the hand of the Philistines for forty years.

Temporal punishment for sin occurred in the Bible as early as Cain (for murdering his brother Abel):

Genesis 4:10-15 And the LORD said, “What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to me from the ground. [11] And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. [12] When you till the ground, it shall no longer yield to you its strength; you shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth.” [13] Cain said to the LORD, “My punishment is greater than I can bear. [14] Behold, thou hast driven me this day away from the ground; and from thy face I shall be hidden; and I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will slay me.” [15] Then the LORD said to him, “Not so! If any one slays Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.” And the LORD put a mark on Cain, lest any who came upon him should kill him.

Note that the temporal punishment had a prescribed limit: Cain was punished with being “a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth” but God wouldn’t allow anyone to kill him. This was the purpose of the “mark” of Cain. It verifies the notion of temporal punishment. Since White is so big on demanding particular words to describe biblical concepts that are clearly present, here (fulfilling his demand or request) is a passage where God [temporally] “punish[es]” a king:

Isaiah 10:12 When the Lord has finished all his work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem he will punish the arrogant boasting of the king of Assyria and his haughty pride.

And what was the punishment?: “the Lord, the LORD of hosts, will send wasting sickness among his stout warriors” (Is 10:16). If someone thinks this is unfair, I would note that God repeatedly temporarily judged His own chosen people, Israel. One example among countless ones occurs in this same chapter (along with an “indulgence” from God: the relaxing of the punishment):

Isaiah 10:24-27 Therefore thus says the Lord, the LORD of hosts: “O my people, who dwell in Zion, be not afraid of the Assyrians when they smite with the rod and lift up their staff against you as the Egyptians did. [25] For in a very little while my indignation will come to an end, and my anger will be directed to their destruction. [26] And the LORD of hosts will wield against them a scourge, as when he smote Mid’ian at the rock of Oreb; and his rod will be over the sea, and he will lift it as he did in Egypt. [27] And in that day his burden will depart from your shoulder, and his yoke will be destroyed from your neck.”

Here’s another passage where God “punishes” in a temporal sense (not eternally):

Isaiah 30:31-32 The Assyrians will be terror-stricken at the voice of the LORD, when he smites with his rod. [32] And every stroke of the staff of punishment which the LORD lays upon them will be to the sound of timbrels and lyres; battling with brandished arm he will fight with them.

Here’s an example where God temporally punished the people of Jerusalem (Jer 5:1), because they didn’t do justice or seek truth (5:1), refused to repent (5:3), committed many ” transgressions” and “apostasies” (5:6), forsook God, followed false gods, and committed adultery (5:7-8). As a result, God says this:

Jeremiah 5:9 Shall I not punish them for these things? says the LORD; and shall I not avenge myself on a nation such as this?

It’s punishment (the word is there, if White irrationally demands that) and it’s temporal, too, because, again, as every Bible student knows, God kept restoring Israel over and over after He punished them. The book of Jeremiah frequently states that God will “punish” Israel for her rebellion (6:15; 8:12; 9:9, 25; 11:22; 21:14). In the same book, God temporarily punishes the Israelites by allowing the Babylonians to conquer and destroy Jerusalem:

Jeremiah 32:28-36 Therefore, thus says the LORD: Behold, I am giving this city into the hands of the Chalde’ans and into the hand of Nebuchadrez’zar king of Babylon, and he shall take it. [29] The Chalde’ans who are fighting against this city shall come and set this city on fire, and burn it, with the houses on whose roofs incense has been offered to Ba’al and drink offerings have been poured out to other gods, to provoke me to anger. [30] For the sons of Israel and the sons of Judah have done nothing but evil in my sight from their youth; the sons of Israel have done nothing but provoke me to anger by the work of their hands, says the LORD. [31] This city has aroused my anger and wrath, from the day it was built to this day, so that I will remove it from my sight [32] because of all the evil of the sons of Israel and the sons of Judah which they did to provoke me to anger — their kings and their princes, their priests and their prophets, the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. [33] They have turned to me their back and not their face; and though I have taught them persistently they have not listened to receive instruction. [34] They set up their abominations in the house which is called by my name, to defile it. [35] They built the high places of Ba’al in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to offer up their sons and daughters to Molech, though I did not command them, nor did it enter into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin. [36] “Now therefore thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, concerning this city of which you say, `It is given into the hand of the king of Babylon by sword, by famine, and by pestilence’:

But after God temporally punishes Israel, the book then immediately describes how they will be pardoned (God offering in effect an indulgence):

Jeremiah 32:37-42 Behold, I will gather them from all the countries to which I drove them in my anger and my wrath and in great indignation; I will bring them back to this place, and I will make them dwell in safety. [38] And they shall be my people, and I will be their God. [39] I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me for ever, for their own good and the good of their children after them. [40] I will make with them an everlasting covenant, that I will not turn away from doing good to them; and I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me. [41] I will rejoice in doing them good, and I will plant them in this land in faithfulness, with all my heart and all my soul. [42] “For thus says the LORD: Just as I have brought all this great evil upon this people, so I will bring upon them all the good that I promise them.

In the chapter preceding, Jeremiah wrote magnificently about the new covenant itself:

Jeremiah 31:31-34 “Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, [32] not like the covenant which I made with their fathers when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant which they broke, though I was their husband, says the LORD. [33] But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. [34] And no longer shall each man teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, `Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”

King David wasn’t punished by death due to his sins of murder and adultery (as Saul was for his sins), but he still had a terrible temporal punishment to pay: his son was to die (2 Sam 12:13-14). In other words, part of his punishment was remitted (indulgence) but not all. Now, since up to now I have only provided Old Testament prooftexts, I can imagine that some Protestants might demand that I provide NT texts, too. I’m happy to oblige such requests. It’s in the New Testament, too, folks:

St. Paul pointedly noted that those who received the Holy Eucharist in an “unworthy manner” were “guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Cor 11:27). That’s the serious sin. And he goes on to say that “many” of them received a temporal punishment as a result: “That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.” Paul describes this punishment as being “chastened” (11:32). He had stated in 1 Corinthians 5:5: “deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved” (cf. 5:1-4). Penance or punishment of this sort exhibits God’s holiness and just nature, whereas forgiveness and indulgences extend His lovingkindness and mercy.

And so, accordingly, St. Paul offered an indulgence or relaxation of the temporal punishment for sin to the same person (see 2 Cor 2:6-11). Paul even uses the word “punishment” to describe the former penitential chastisement, in 2 Corinthians 2:6, and says that it is “enough” and urges the Corinthians to “forgive and comfort him . . . reaffirm your love for him” (the indulgence). This is not simply implicit or indirect proof. It’s explicit New Testament proof for both temporal punishment and indulgences.

Even James White mentioned, I believe, Hebrews 12 in the debate, and acknowledged that there is such a thing as divine chastisement. What he seems unaware of, though, is the fact that this chastisement is equated with (temporal) punishment:

Hebrews 12:5-11 And have you forgotten the exhortation which addresses you as sons? — “My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor lose courage when you are punished by him. [6] For the Lord disciplines him whom he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives.” [7] It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? [8] If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. [9] Besides this, we have had earthly fathers to discipline us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live? [10] For they disciplined us for a short time at their pleasure, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. [11] For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant; later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.

Therefore, we have in this passage divine punishment for sin, for our own good (including the word, “punished”), and it is described as temporal or temporary (these words come from the same root): in the words “for a short time” and “For the moment” and “later” [it “yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness”]. St. Peter even noted that God uses emperors and governors as His agents of temporal punishment (“sent by him”), for our good:

1 Peter 2:13-14 Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, [14] or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right.

One might wonder if James White is reading the same Bible that we read (save for the seven disputed books). How can he possibly miss all of this? It’s amazing and befuddling. But alas, he is reading and studying the same Bible, but he is selecting what he wants to see in it and overlooking things in the Bible that go against his prior theology. Because of this strong bias, he is apparently blind to this clear, undeniable evidence of temporal punishment in the Bible (likely because it is so in line with the concept of purgatory; and therefore must be minimized or dismissed altogether). Never ever underestimate the power and influence of bias (up to / possibly including downright hostile prejudice) on a mind.

All that he or anyone needs to know in order to accept this claim about temporal punishment for sin was how God dealt with the Hebrews / Israelites / Jews throughout the Old Testament: something readily known by anyone familiar with the Old Testament at all. They were punished over and over — by God — for their sins. But then God would heal and bless them after a time. That virtually sums up the entire Old Testament. It’s as obvious as the nose (or smirk) on White’s face. We Catholics accept and follow all of the Bible. Lastly, divine chastisement is all over Holy Scripture, and is the same notion as temporal punishment, whether the word “punish” is present or not:

Scripture refers to a purging fire in many places besides 1 Corinthians 3: whatever “shall pass through the fire” will be made “clean” (Num 31:23); “Out of heaven he let you hear his voice, that he might discipline you; and on earth he let you see his great fire, and you heard his words out of the midst of the fire” (Dt 4:36); “we went through fire” (Ps 66:12); “do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal which comes upon you to prove you” (1 Pet 4:12); We also see passages about the “baptism of fire” (Mt 3:11; Mk 10:38-39; Lk 3:16; 12:50).

The Bible makes frequent use also of the metaphor of various metals being refined (in a fire): “when he has tried me, I shall come forth as gold” (Job 23:10); “thou, O God, hast tested us; thou hast tried us as silver is tried” (Ps 66:10); “The crucible is for silver, and the furnace is for gold, and the LORD tries hearts” (Prov 17:3); “I will turn my hand against you and will smelt away your dross as with lye and remove all your alloy” (Is 1:25); “I have refined you, . . . I have tried you in the furnace of affliction” (Is 48:10); “I will refine them and test them” (Jer 9:7); “I will put this third into the fire, and refine them as one refines silver, and test them as gold is tested” (Zech 13:9);  “he is like a refiner’s fire, and like fullers’ soap; he will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, and he will purify the sons of Levi, and refine them like gold and silver” (Mal 3:2-3); “. . . your faith, more precious than gold which though perishable is tested by fire” (1 Pet 1:6-7).

God cleansing or washing us is another common biblical theme: “Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin! . . . Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean” (Ps 51:2, 7); “Blows that wound cleanse away evil; strokes make clean the innermost parts” (Prov 20:30; cf. 30:12); “the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion and cleansed the bloodstains of Jerusalem from its midst by a spirit of judgment and by a spirit of burning” (Is 4:4);  “I will cleanse them from all the guilt of their sin against me” (Jer 33:8); “I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses” (Ezek 36:25); “cleanse them from sin and uncleanness” (Zech 13:1);  “our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water” (Heb 10:22); “he was cleansed from his old sins” (2 Pet 1:9); “the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin” (1 John 1:7).

Divine “chastisement” is taught clearly in several passages; for example, “as a man disciplines his son, the LORD your God disciplines you” (Dt 8:5); “do not despise the LORD’s discipline or be weary of his reproof,” (Prov 3:11); “I will chasten you in just measure” (Jer 30:11); “God who tests our hearts” (1 Thess 2:4).

These passages describe the presuppositional notions that lie behind the apostolic and Catholic doctrine of purgatory (methods of how God works, so to speak). Purgatory is “written all over” them. I once didn’t make the connection of what seems so obvious to me now. I think there are many who (like myself) may be able to be persuaded to see that the Bible is far more “Catholic” than they had ever imagined.

**

I had completed this paper (so I thought) and went to eat dinner, and during my meal I thought of another counter-reply to White (I love these “light bulb” moments!). Trent got White to agree during the cross-examination period that the sinner at death likely still has sin in his soul (which is a no-brainer anyway). Protestants and Catholics agree, I’m happy to report, that actual sin will not be allowed into heaven (Rev 21:27: “nothing unclean shall enter it”), and White readily agreed with that, too, so that something must necessarily change before we enter heaven.

For many years I have made a “nutshell” argument for purgatory on this very basis, noting that Protestants believe that the dead saved / elect person “will be instantly zapped” by God to make him or her sinless and ready for heaven, whereas we Catholics simply think it’ll take a bit longer. The difference can then be seen as one mainly of mere duration rather than of essence. When pressed on this, however, White — predictably —  appealed or reverted back to the Protestant “pillar” of faith alone, stating in one way or another that Jesus took care of all that at the cross.

But this leads to an internal problem (and this is the insight / argument that came to me at dinner). Protestants themselves, as part of their “faith alone / extrinsic / imputed justification” doctrine separate sanctification from justification. In doing this, by the way, they departed from all previous Christian soteriological tradition (hence, Protestant scholars Alister McGrath and Norman Geisler honestly admitted that this doctrine was virtually nonexistent between the time of the Bible and Luther). And — some more trivia — it wasn’t even Martin Luther who definitively did this. It was his successor, Philip Melanchthon: so the scholars tell us.

Since they separate the two things, actual sin and its removal are placed in the category of sanctification, which (in their view) is a process and lifelong, and not directly tied to salvation, whereas justification by faith alone is believed to be a one-time event (and for Calvinists, irreversible), in which God declares us totally righteous, even though in actuality we aren’t (i.e., we still commit actual sins). It follows from this that sanctification will not be completed (for virtually all of us, I submit) at the time of death.

If that’s true, then it means that — necessarily — God must do something about that, so that we can enter heaven. We can no longer do anything about it at death because “our time is up” (Heb 9:27: “it is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment”). So God, after our death, must purge us of sins that were not utterly removed — even going by the Protestant conception of justification by faith alone. Thus, the very essence of purgatory can be proven by Protestantism’s own soteriological premises and beliefs.

White refused to admit that God had to do anything after our death to make us worthy to enter heaven (per Rev 21:27). And I think he did that because he’s sharp enough to know that if he had recognized that point, the “game” would have been over, biblically speaking. He would have conceded the most basic and important premise behind the biblical and historical belief of purgatory. It turns out, then, that the logical ramifications of one Bible verse (Rev 21:27) lead inexorably to purgatory in some sense. At the very least it establishes the most essential and central premise behind the Catholic (and I say biblical) doctrine of purgatory.

**

Related Reading

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

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

Vs. James White #11: Biblical Evidence for Indulgences [11-15-19]

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

*

***

*

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: apologistdave@gmail.com. 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: [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: Baptist apologist James White made a major error in a recent oral debate on purgatory: he claimed that temporal punishment is nowhere in the Bible. Dead wrong!

February 22, 2024

February 22, 2024 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 21st reply to his material.

*****

This is a response to Gavin’s video, Why Do Protestants Convert? With Brad Littlejohn and Chris Castaldo (1-22-24), devoted to discussing the book of the same title with its two co-authors. Brad’s words will be in green; Chris’s in purple.

Gavin endorsed the book written by his two guests, writing (in a screenshot in this video at 0:46), “They do not trivialize, oversimplify, or condescend to this phenomenon. On the contrary, they take it with the utmost seriousness and show it must not be dismissed.”

1:31 it’s not condescending; it doesn’t psychoanalyze people, but it gives some plausible reasons and then helps us respond, and a lot of that is going to be on us as Protestants to reform our own practice where we need to according to the Scripture. 

I deeply appreciate this approach, as a convert myself (1990). I have replied to many critiques of my own conversion or those of others (see my web page devoted to Catholic converts and conversion). Almost invariably, they were condescending, insulting, blatantly prejudiced, fact-challenged, unserious, etc., whereas I have written articles like, “Gratefulness for My Evangelical Protestant Background” [3-18-08] and “My Respect for Protestants / Catholic Ecumenical Principles” [2001; addendum: 1-8-03].

What was attacked the most, if memory serves, were the motives of converts like myself. I would say that the vast majority of those sorts of supposedly “mind-reading” attacks come from anti-Catholics: folks who don’t consider Catholics Christians at all. Therefore, for Protestants to become Catholics is the same to these folks as apostasy: leaving the faith altogether. And of course they can’t look favorably on that, and so anything goes when they analyze someone who made that change. We must be the scum of the earth.

Gavin is not an anti-Catholic, and it appears that his two guests are not, either (they’re all scholars), and they lack the ubiquitous hostility, inevitably leading to irrationality and unfruitful discussion. It becomes a conversation between brothers and sisters in Christ (and if Gavin responds to this, it will continue in the same manner. I’m delighted to have the opportunity to join that sort of discussion. Praise God that it exists. It’s been a long time coming online . . .

1:08 there’s a trend toward that right now [Protestants converting to Catholicism or Orthodoxy]. This is a phenomenon that needs to be interpreted . . . 

It’s fascinating to see such a statement from a Protestant, and it will be intensely interesting to me to see how they talk about the causes for this. From where I sit, I would say (predictably) that there is movement because we believe that we have the fullness of Christian truth. It’s not going from evil to good (the anti-Protestant mentality) or from light to darkness (the anti-Catholic mentality), but to what one feels is a fuller, more complete and history-based version of Christianity, without necessarily decrying what one has already learned and gained in Protestantism. Likewise, former Catholic Protestants say that they found things that they believed to be absent in Catholicism and that they chose the path that they felt had relatively more Christian truth in it.

I (like very many Catholic converts) saw my conversion as going from “very good” to “best.” I sincerely thank God every day for what I learned in evangelical Protestant circles. It was almost all very good. I have a deep respect and affection for my Protestant brothers and sisters. I simply discovered that there was more to Christianity, and I wanted that. I wanted all I could get. I viewed it as part of loving God with all of my heart, soul, strength, and mind. Both sides agree that we all have to follow our own consciences and best lights. We need to assume that “the other guy” is doing that, too.

3:47 I’ve just found that a lot of Protestants assume Protestantism and don’t necessarily have good reflection about why they are a Protestant.

This is the overwhelming tendency on both sides (though I would say that Catholics, sadly, tend to be far more ignorant in this regard than Protestants), and many depart one belief-system for another as a result of rejecting straw men or not being aware of the resources and thought available, whereby they may have reconsidered conversion. To put it more bluntly, ignorance is at a premium among Christians as a whole, and the apologist for Christianity in general or for a particular Christian belief-system, provide reasons for why we believe what we believe. That’s where there is a need for adequate education all-around, and apologists can offer some input and help.

10:20  one of the things I appreciated about your book is, you guys aren’t sort of psychoanalyzing people at an individual level, where you’re saying, “we know someone’s motives.” We don’t know people’s motives. We can’t read someone’s heart at an individual level. We’re going to leave those judgments to God. . . . you hear these silly things too of like, “oh they’re doing it for the money . . .” 

Amen and bravo! I make a great effort in my apologetics to try to never do that. If I disagree with someone, I’ll give the theological, historical, apologetic reasons why I do, with all due respect, and minus a sense of “you’re a moron because you believe so-and-so” or “you’re being deliberately dishonest,” etc. I sometimes can be very passionate, but it’s never personal; it’s not seeking to attack persons and motives; only their beliefs that I have honest disagreements with.

One person (a famous Protestant apologist who shall remain unnamed), was at first absolutely convinced that I converted out of stupefying ignorance of Protestant theology. I was dumber than a doornail, and dumb people do a lot of dumb things. Then I produced a list of Protestant books that I had read (most of which were or still are in my own personal library). Without missing a beat, he then stated that my case was one of “knowing deception.” If I wasn’t ignorant, than I just had to be an evil person and a deceiver. There couldn’t possibly be a praiseworthy or spiritual or truly Christian motive or reasoning: not when a Protestant goes Catholic. I can’t describe how refreshing it is to se an analysis that is not typified by that sort of disdainful slop. We can agree on a lot of non-theological things in this discussion.

14:18 we’re all interested in . . . explaining Protestant beliefs, defending Protestant beliefs, trying to remove caricatures from Protestant beliefs that are very common . . .

And I do the same on my end as a catholic apologist. Defeating misinformation and miscomprehensions or distortions is a net gain for everyone. My goal is not only to explain and defend authentic Catholicism, but also to explain authentic Protestantism, and to  oppose distortions and falsehoods about it, which do not help Catholics make their case. We must all do our best to be absolutely honest and accurate. There is an old adage in middle school debate teams, that one must know the view of one’s opponent even better than they know it themselves.

14:30 in your discussion of the theology of conversions you discuss the quest for certainty . . . I do suspect that this is commonly out there and I do see this a lot especially right now in our world, where there’s so much uncertainty and anxiety. I sometimes think people are looking to a church tradition to meet this particular need in the heart for certainty. 

This is a common “psychological / epistemological” sort of analysis often made of the Catholic convert. I think it is more correct to say that many of us simply thought that we were searching for more Christian truth and found it: a bit like the pearl of great price in the Bible. The Catholic contends that in the NT (especially Paul’s letters) “truth” is greatly emphasized. The phrase “the truth” appears in the NT 70 times. I have collected 295 Bible passages about notions like “the faith” and “the truth” and “the doctrine” and “teaching” and “the message”: all essentially synonymous.

We object to Protestantism relegating whole areas of theology (notably, baptism and the Eucharist or Lord’s Supper) and ecclesiology to the individual’s arbitrary choice, as if views that contradict each other are fine and dandy, leading inevitably to a sort of doctrinal relativism and institutional chaos, which is reflected in ever-proliferating Protestant denominations. This appears to us to run counter to what one might call “the spirit of certainty and truth” that seems to be presupposed in the NT. And perhaps this is what many Catholic converts sense and no longer agree with. The “quest for certainty” analysis of Catholic converts continues, but I submit that the table can be turned, and objections made to “the quest for uncertainty” or the “non-quest for certainty” that prevails in Protestantism as a whole. I have written about it several times:

The Protestant “Non-Quest” for Certainty [3-15-06; abridged and links added on 7-12-20]

Glorying in Uncertainty in Modern Protestantism (Dialogue with a Calvinist) [11-11-09]

Radically Unbiblical Protestant “Quest for Uncertainty” [2-12-14]

Gavin seems to agree with my pint to some extent when he states at 15:09: “I really do believe the Holy Spirit has a ministry of assurance to the human heart through faith in Christ, and He communicates a powerful sense of assurance to our heart . . .” He may be talking only about assurance of salvation; maybe not. But we would apply this to all Christian doctrines, according to Jesus’ teaching that the Holy Spirit “will teach you all things” (Jn 14:26) and “guide you into all the truth” (Jn 16:13). St. Paul referred to “words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit” (1 Cor 2:13) and he also wrote: “guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us” (2 Tim 1:14).

16:50 you know I follow [Fr.] James Martin on Twitter X, whose feed is clad in rainbows, and I also follow Robbie George who is a champion for conservative conviction. Both of them insist on the magisterium who is right. In other words, it seems like there the magisterium itself needs to be interpreted and there you will have different understandings, different conclusions among Catholics.

This is easily answered. Everyone pretty much knows (i.e., both those who agree and disagree with it) that the Catholic Church teaches that homosexual sexual acts are “intrinsically disordered” and “contrary to the natural law.” Here is what the  Catechism states:

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

There is no dispute whatsoever about this. Fr. James Martin, like all theological liberals, simply wants to change Church teaching on it, but there is no sign whatsoever of that happening. To observe those sorts of compromising changes (and sanction of serious sin), we must look at hundreds of Protestant denominations who now see nothing wrong whatsoever with same-sex so-called “marriage”. Fr. Martin wants to change the Catholic view of marriage because he doesn’t agree with it. He picks and chooses what he will believe in Catholic teaching. And he questions the Bible itself. Hence he wrote on 23 October 2019 on his Twitter page: “Where the Bible mentions [same-sex sexual] behavior at all, it clearly condemns it. I freely grant that. The issue is precisely whether the biblical judgment is correct.”

This is the very quintessence of theological liberalism (with whom both Protestants and Catholics are “blessed”). They start by attacking the Bible. Then they will attack the Christian traditions that they claim to be part of. The problem, in other words, is not with the Catholic magisterium, which is quite clear and unequivocal on this issue. The problem is with the flawed methodologies of religiously dissident, heterodox theological liberals. Let’s place the blame where it squarely lies.

This is a variation of another common argument against Catholic authority, which has been called “the infallibility regress.” It, too, fails, as I think I demonstrate in several papers (the above example is a classic case of it failing):

Church Authority & Certainty (The “Infallibility Regress”) [July 2000; some revisions on 12-8-11]

Ecclesiological Certainty (?) & the “Infallibility Regress” [5-22-03 and 10-7-08]

Does Church Infallibility Require Infallible Catholics? [6-8-10]

“How Can we Find a List of Infallible Catholic Doctrines?” [12-15-18]

22:55 any spectrum of opinions that you can find within Protestantism, you can basically find the same spectrum of opinions within Roman Catholicism.

See my papers:

Have Heterodox Catholics Overthrown Official Doctrine? (vs. Eric Svendsen, James White, Phillip Johnson, & Andrew Webb) [6-3-96]
*
The essential difference here is that Protestantism institutionalizes sin on a massive basis, whereas Catholic liberals are in opposition to their own Church’s teachings. Most of the Lutheran and Presbyterian denominations and the Anglicans and Episcopalians and Methodists now accept same-sex “marriage” and abortion as perfectly moral acts. They didn’t used to.  They changed and started calling good what they formerly regarded as evil. That’s not following the Bible and apostles and Church fathers. Catholicism, meanwhile, continues teaching that both are immoral, just as it always has, following the Bible and apostles and Church fathers.
*
This was a major reason why I became a Catholic. It wasn’t a “quest for certainty” so much as it was a “quest for which Church body had continued adhering to — or at least came the closest to — biblical and apostolic teaching as always previously understood.” Orthodoxy came close, but it caved on divorce and contraception: both disallowed in the early Church (and I would say, the Bible also). All Christians thought contraception was gravely evil until 1930, when the Anglicans said it was okay in “hard cases” only. The essential difference here between Catholicism and everyone else is obvious. And this can adequately account for many Protestants deciding to become Catholics, on the basis of moral theology. I submit that it’s a perfectly legitimate and understandable reason.
*
21:51  you can drive down Main Street and have a Presbyterian church and an Anglican church and a Bible church and a Methodist Church and inasmuch as they all maintain the gospel of scripture they enjoy true unity. . . . 
*
But of course they don’t do that. Three of the four redefine marriage to include two of the same sex getting married, and sodomy as perfectly acceptable, moral sexual practice. The fourth doesn’t. In that respect, the Bible church has maintained tradition and the other three have not. They have caved into modern secularism and the sexual revolution. They have conformed to the world (whereas Paul said that we should not do that). Same thing with abortion. Redefining what a human being is and what marriage is, is not in harmony with the Christian gospel; sorry. So where he refers to supposed Protestant “unity”; in fact it is not unified.
*
Nor do these denominations even agree on a thing even as basic as baptism. Three of the four practice infant baptism, the fourth, adult believer’s baptism. One of them thinks baptism regenerates a person; the other three disagree. They essentially disagree on the nature of the Lord’s Supper. One of them — or at least sub-groups of Anglicanism — holds that the real presence of Jesus’ body occurs in the Holy Eucharist. The other three deny it. And so forth and so on. But we are told that they have “unity” . . .
*

45:43 I cannot name a single — not one — Church Father who said there are seven sacraments; not a single one you can find. Some will say there are more than two or use the word sacrament more broadly, but never seven to my awareness. And I’ve not found anybody who’s pushed

And why did John Calvin state in 1559 in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, that “laying on of hands” was “a sacrament in true and legitimate ordination” (Book IV, 19:31)? All of a sudden things aren’t so crystal clear, according to the two most important early Protestant leaders, and even the book of Lutheran confessions.
*

***

*

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: apologistdave@gmail.com. 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: cover of the book, Why Do Protestants Convert?, by Brad Littlejohn and Chris Castaldo, from its Amazon book page.

Summary: I discuss with Gavin Ortlund & two others several aspects of the process of conversion from Protestant to Catholic, agreeing in some ways & disagreeing in others.

February 16, 2024

February 16, 2024 By
0 Comments

Of the famous 95 Theses of Martin Luther, posted in Wittenberg, Germany (Saxony) on 31 October 1517, 47 were devoted to indulgences. The word indulgence[s] appears 41 times in 39 of the theses, while another six of the propositions (#27-28, 35, 82, 84, 86) were undeniably focused on the concept. Several others were arguably or partially or indirectly referencing indulgences as well.

First, let’s step back and define our term. The Catholic concept of the indulgence is simple: it means a remission or relaxation of the temporal penalties for sin. It’s not “indulgence” of sin. It’s not purportedly offering salvation (let alone for money) or even absolution. It lessens temporal penances and punishments. Catholics believe that penances could be imposed for sin, and find a biblical basis for that in the concept of priests “binding” sinners, found in Matthew 16:19 and 18:18 (with “loosing” referring to the absolving of sins, or absolution). Furthermore, we find St. Paul literally granting an indulgence in 2 Corinthians 2:6-11, after having imposed penances (1 Cor 5:3-5). Therefore — no doubt to the surprise of Protestants — , it’s an explicit biblical doctrine.

Is temporal penance or punishment for sin (the premise or presupposition for an indulgence) itself a biblical doctrine? These verses suggest that, and also several actions of God Himself. For example, when Moses’ sister Miriam “spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married” (Num 12:1), God punished her with leprosy (12:6-10). That’s a temporal punishment for sin (not damnation). But it was not permanent, because Moses prayed for her to be healed (12:13). This was literally Moses praying for an indulgence. The text implies that the leprosy wasn’t permanent as a result of the prayer.

On several occasions, Moses atoned and brought about an indulgence, in terms of his people not being punished for some sin of theirs (Ex 32:30-32; Num 14:19-23). In the latter case, God pardoned the iniquity of the Hebrews because Moses prayed for them, but some penance or penalty for their sin remained: they could not enter the Promised Land. In Numbers 16:46-48, Moses and Aaron stopped a plague. That was an indulgence too. Phinehas, a priest, “turned back” God’s “wrath” (Num 25:6-13). The bronze serpent in the wilderness was an indulgence granted by God (Num 21:4-9). King David wasn’t punished by death due to his sins of murder and adultery, but he still had a terrible penalty to pay: his son was to die (2 Sam 12:13-14). In other words, part of his punishment was remitted (indulgence) but not all.

In more New Testament evidence of temporal punishment, we have St. Paul pointedly noting that those who received the Holy Eucharist in an “unworthy manner” were “guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Cor 11:27). That’s the serious sin. And he goes on to say that “many” of them received a temporary or permanent punishment as a result: “That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.” Paul describes this punishment as being “chastened” (11:32). He had stated in 1 Corinthians 5:5: “deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved.” Penance or punishment of this sort exhibits God’s holiness and just nature, whereas forgiveness and indulgences extend His lovingkindness and mercy.

I’d like to give Martin Luther credit (yes; when he is right, he is really right, and we Catholics rejoice in it!) for both correctly understanding the true nature of indulgences and criticizing the lamentable excesses that occurred in the late Middle Ages. Here are seven examples of his correct understanding of their nature:

21) Thus those indulgence preachers are in error who say that a man is absolved from every penalty and saved by papal indulgences.

27) They preach only human doctrines who say that as soon as the money clinks into the money chest, the soul flies out of purgatory.

32) Those who believe that they can be certain of their salvation because they have indulgence letters will be eternally damned, together with their teachers. [half-correct: the first part is, but not the second; this is not an inherently or objectively damnable sin; it’s ignorance and foolish presumption]

34) For the graces of indulgences are concerned only with the penalties of sacramental satisfaction established by man.

35) They who teach that contrition is not necessary on the part of those who intend to buy souls out of purgatory or to buy confessional privileges preach unchristian doctrine.

44) Because love grows by works of love, man thereby becomes better. Man does not, however, become better by means of indulgences but is merely freed from penalties.

75) To consider papal indulgences so great that they could absolve a man even if he had done the impossible and had violated the mother of God is madness.

76) We say on the contrary that papal indulgences cannot remove the very least of venial sins as far as guilt is concerned.

Luther correctly condemns (in #27 and #35 above and in the theses listed below) abuses and corruption and greed that became widely present in the selling of indulgences, and alludes to “certain hawkers of indulgences” who “cajole money” (#51):

28) It is certain that when money clinks in the money chest, greed and avarice can be increased; but when the church intercedes, the result is in the hands of God alone.

82) Such as: “Why does not the pope empty purgatory for the sake of holy love and the dire need of the souls that are there if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a church?” The former reason would be most just; the latter is most trivial.

84) Again, “What is this new piety of God and the pope that for a consideration of money they permit a man who is impious and their enemy to buy out of purgatory the pious soul of a friend of God and do not rather, because of the need of that pious and beloved soul, free it for pure love’s sake?”

In 1567, fifty years after the 95 Theses, Pope St. Pius V (a Dominican reformer-pope; r. 1566-1572) forbade tying indulgences to any financial act, even to the giving of alms. Note that this is no reversal of dogma. The Church maintains the doctrine itself because it’s biblical. But selling indulgences became so rife with corruption that it was deemed prudential by a pope to eliminate them altogether.

As an analogy, consider alcoholic drinks. They are not wrong in and of themselves, but there is a sense in which a total ban on them (prohibition, as it were) would accomplish a great deal of good and prevent many deaths or instances of ruined health, car accidents, wrecked marriages and family relations, poor work performance, etc. Alcoholism and specific instances of drunkenness are the excess or “corruption” of a thing (wine and other alcoholic drinks) not in and of itself sinful. Likewise with the selling of indulgences. Even selling them in and of itself was not inherently sinful; only abuses of the practice of selling were.

***

I’d like to now offer an abridged version of the online Catholic Encyclopedia article, “Indulgences” (by William Kent, 1910). I found it very educational and helpful (I learned a ton of things), and so I wanted to pass it on to readers in perhaps a more “digestible” form. I won’t bother with ellipses (. . .) every time I abridge. I added one important scriptural “footnote” in brackets.

***

The word indulgence (Latin indulgentia, from indulgeo, to be kind or tender) originally meant kindness or favor; in post-classic Latin it came to mean the remission of a tax or debt. In Roman law and in the Vulgate of the Old Testament (Isaiah 61:1) it was used to express release from captivity or punishment. In theological language also the word is sometimes employed in its primary sense to signify the kindness and mercy of God. But in the special sense in which it is here considered, an indulgence is a remission of the temporal punishment due to sin, the guilt of which has been forgiven. Among the equivalent terms used in antiquity were pax, remissio, donatio, condonatio.

To facilitate explanation, it may be well to state what an indulgence is not. It is not a permission to commit sin, nor a pardon of future sin; neither could be granted by any power. It is not the forgiveness of the guilt of sin; it supposes that the sin has already been forgiven. It is not an exemption from any law or duty, and much less from the obligation consequent on certain kinds of sin, e.g., restitution; on the contrary, it means a more complete payment of the debt which the sinner owes to God. It does not confer immunity from temptation or remove the possibility of subsequent lapses into sin. Least of all is an indulgence the purchase of a pardon which secures the buyer’s salvation or releases the soul of another from Purgatory. The absurdity of such notions must be obvious to any one who forms a correct idea of what the Catholic Church really teaches on this subject.

An indulgence is the extra-sacramental remission of the temporal punishment due, in God’s justice, to sin that has been forgiven, which remission is granted by the Church in the exercise of the power of the keys, through the application of the superabundant merits of Christ and of the saints, and for some just and reasonable motive. Regarding this definition, the following points are to be noted:

  • In the Sacrament of Baptism not only is the guilt of sin remitted, but also all the penalties attached to sin. In the Sacrament of Penance the guilt of sin is removed, and with it the eternal punishment due to mortal sin; but there still remains the temporal punishment required by Divine justice, and this requirement must be fulfilled either in the present life or in the world to come, i.e., in Purgatory. An indulgence offers the penitent sinner the means of discharging this debt during his life on earth.
  • . . . sin is fully pardoned, i.e. its effects entirely obliterated, only when complete reparation, and consequently release from penalty as well as from guilt, has been made. . . .
  • The satisfaction, usually called the “penance”, imposed by the confessor when he gives absolution is an integral part of the Sacrament of Penance; an indulgence is extra-sacramental; it presupposes the effects obtained by confession, contrition, and sacramental satisfaction.
  • St. Thomas says (Supplement.25.1 ad 2um), “He who gains indulgences is not thereby released outright from what he owes as penalty, but is provided with the means of paying it.” The Church therefore neither leaves the penitent helplessly in debt nor acquits him of all further accounting; she enables him to meet his obligations.

By a plenary indulgence is meant the remission of the entire temporal punishment due to sin so that no further expiation is required in Purgatory. A partial indulgence commutes only a certain portion of the penalty; and this portion is determined in accordance with the penitential discipline of the early Church. Some indulgences are granted in behalf of the living only, while others may be applied in behalf of the souls departed. The pope, as supreme head of the Church on earth, can grant all kinds of indulgences to any and all of the faithful; and he alone can grant plenary indulgences.

The mere fact that the Church proclaims an indulgence does not imply that it can be gained without effort on the part of the faithful. From what has been said above, it is clear that the recipient must be free from the guilt of mortal sin. Furthermore, for plenary indulgences, confession and Communion are usually required, while for partial indulgences, though confession is not obligatory, the formula corde saltem contrito, i.e. “at least with a contrite heart”, is the customary prescription. It is also necessary to have the intention, at least habitual, of gaining the indulgence. Finally, from the nature of the case, it is obvious that one must perform the good works — prayers, alms deeds, visits to a church, etc. — which are prescribed in the granting of an indulgence.

The Council of Trent (Sess, XXV, 3-4, Dec., 1563) declared: “Since the power of granting indulgences has been given to the Church by Christ, and since the Church from the earliest times has made use of this Divinely given power, the holy synod teaches and ordains that the use of indulgences, as most salutary to Christians and as approved by the authority of the councils, shall be retained in the Church; and it further pronounces anathema against those who either declare that indulgences are useless or deny that the Church has the power to grant them (Enchridion, 989). It is therefore of faith (de fide)

  • that the Church has received from Christ the power to grant indulgences, and
  • that the use of indulgences is salutary for the faithful.

An essential element in indulgences is the application to one person of the satisfaction performed by others. This transfer is based on three things: the Communion of Saints, the principle of vicarious satisfaction, and the Treasury of the Church.

“We being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another” (Romans 12:5). As each organ shares in the life of the whole body, so does each of the faithful profit by the prayers and good works of all the rest—a benefit which accrues, in the first instance, to those who are in the state of grace, but also, though less fully, to the sinful members.

Each good action of the just man possesses a double value: that of merit and that of satisfaction, or expiation. Merit is personal, and therefore it cannot be transferred; but satisfaction can be applied to others, as St. Paul writes to the Colossians (1:24) of his own works: “Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the Church.”

[Dave: we could also add:

2 Corinthians 12:15 (RSV): “I will most gladly spend and be spent for your souls. . . .”;

2 Timothy 4:6: “For I am already on the point of being sacrificed . . .”;

Romans 12:1: “. . . present your bodies as a living sacrifice . . .”;

2 Corinthians 1:6: “If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation . . .”;

2 Timothy 2:9-10: “the gospel for which I am suffering . . . I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain salvation in Christ Jesus with its eternal glory”;

Philippians 1:7: “. . . you are all partakers with me of grace, both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel”;

2 Corinthians 4:8-10, 15: “We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying in the body the death of Jesus . . . For it is all for your sake, so that as grace extends to more and more people it may increase thanksgiving, to the glory of God”;

Deuteronomy 9:18: “Then I lay prostrate before the LORD as before, forty days and forty nights; I neither ate bread nor drank water, because of all the sin which you had committed, . . .”

Psalm 35:13: “But I, when they were sick — I wore sackcloth, I afflicted myself with fasting”;

Ezekiel 4:4: “Then lie upon your left side, and I will lay the punishment of the house of Israel upon you; for the number of the days that you lie upon it, you shall bear their punishment.”]

Christ, as St. John declares in his First Epistle (2:2), “is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.” Since the satisfaction of Christ is infinite, it constitutes an inexhaustible fund which is more than sufficient to cover the indebtedness contracted by sin, Besides, there are the satisfactory works of the Blessed Virgin Mary undiminished by any penalty due to sin, and the virtues, penances, and sufferings of the saints vastly exceeding any temporal punishment which these servants of God might have incurred. These are added to the treasury of the Church as a secondary deposit, not independent of, but rather acquired through, the merits of Christ.

As Aquinas declares (Quodlib., II, q. vii, art. 16): “All the saints intended that whatever they did or suffered for God’s sake should be profitable not only to themselves but to the whole Church.” And he further points out (Contra Gent., III, 158) that what one endures for another being a work of love, is more acceptable as satisfaction in God’s sight than what one suffers on one’s own account, since this is a matter of necessity.

According to Catholic doctrine, the source of indulgences is constituted by the merits of Christ and the saints. This treasury is left to the keeping, not of the individual Christian, but of the Church. Consequently, to make it available for the faithful, there is required an exercise of authority, which alone can determine in what way, on what terms, and to what extent, indulgences may be granted.

Once it is admitted that Christ left the Church the power to forgive sins, the power of granting indulgences is logically inferred. Since the sacramental forgiveness of sin extends both to the guilt and to the eternal punishment, it plainly follows that the Church can also free the penitent from the lesser or temporal penalty. This becomes clearer, however, when we consider the amplitude of the power granted to Peter (Matthew 16:19): “I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” (Cf. Matthew 18:18, where like power is conferred on all the Apostles.) No limit is placed upon this power of loosing, “the power of the keys”, as it is called; it must, therefore, extend to any and all bonds contracted by sin, including the penalty no less than the guilt.

When the Church, therefore, by an indulgence, remits this penalty, her action, according to the declaration of Christ, is ratified in heaven. That this power, as the Council of Trent affirms, was exercised from the earliest times, is shown by St. Paul’s words (2 Corinthians 2:5-10) in which he deals with the case of the incest man of Corinth. The sinner had been excluded by St. Paul’s order from the company of the faithful, but had truly repented. Hence the Apostle judges that to such a one “this rebuke is sufficient that is given by many” and adds: “To whom you have pardoned any thing, I also. For what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned anything, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ.” St. Paul had bound the guilty one in the fetters of excommunication; he now releases the penitent from this punishment by an exercise of his authority — “in the person of Christ.” Here we have all the essentials of an indulgence.

Among the works of charity which were furthered by indulgences, the hospital held a prominent place. Lea in his “History of Confession and Indulgences” (III, 189) mentions only the hospital of Santo Spirito in Rome, while another Protestant writer, Uhlhorn states that “one cannot go through the archives of any hospital without finding numerous letters of indulgence”. The one at Halberstadt in 1284 had no less than fourteen such grants, each giving an indulgence of forty days. The hospitals at Lucerne, Rothenberg, Rostock, and Augsburg enjoyed similar privileges.

It may seem strange that the doctrine of indulgences should have proved such a stumbling-block, and excited so much prejudice and opposition. But the explanation of this may be found in the abuses which unhappily have been associated with what is in itself a salutary practice. In this respect of course indulgences are not exceptional: no institution, however holy, has entirely escaped abuse through the malice or unworthiness of man. And, as God’s forbearance is constantly abused by those who relapse into sin, it is not surprising that the offer of pardon in the form of an indulgence should have led to evil practices.

These again have been in a special way the object of attack because, doubtless, of their connection with Luther’s revolt. On the other hand, it should not be forgotten that the Church, while holding fast to the principle and intrinsic value of indulgences, has repeatedly condemned their misuse: in fact, it is often from the severity of her condemnation that we learn how grave the abuses were.

Boniface IX, writing to the Bishop of Ferrara in 1392, condemns the practice of certain religious who falsely claimed that they were authorized by the pope to forgive all sorts of sins, and exacted money from the simple-minded among the faithful by promising them perpetual happiness in this world and eternal glory in the next. When Henry, Archbishop of Canterbury, attempted in 1420 to give a plenary indulgence in the form of the Roman Jubilee, he was severely reprimanded by Martin V, who characterized his action as “unheard-of presumption and sacrilegious audacity”.

In 1450 Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, Apostolic Legate to Germany, found some preachers asserting that indulgences released from the guilt of sin as well as from the punishment. This error, due to a misunderstanding of the words “a culpa et a poena”, the cardinal condemned at the Council of Magdeburg. Finally, Sixtus IV in 1478, lest the idea of gaining indulgences should prove an incentive to sin, reserved for the judgment of the Holy See a large number of cases in which faculties had formerly been granted to confessors (Extrav. Com., tit. de poen. et remiss.).

These measures show plainly that the Church long before the Reformation, not only recognized the existence of abuses, but also used her authority to correct them.

In spite of all this, disorders continued and furnished the pretext for attacks directed against the doctrine itself, no less than against the practice of indulgences. Here, as in so many other matters, the love of money was the chief root of the evil: indulgences were employed by mercenary ecclesiastics as a means of pecuniary gain. Leaving the details concerning this traffic to a subsequent article, it may suffice for the present to note that the doctrine itself has no natural or necessary connection with pecuniary profit, as is evident from the fact that the abundant indulgences of the present day are free from this evil association: the only conditions required are the saying of certain prayers or the performance of some good work or some practice of piety.

Again, it is easy to see how abuses crept in. Among the good works which might be encouraged by being made the condition of an indulgence, alms giving would naturally hold a conspicuous place, while men would be induced by the same means to contribute to some pious cause such as the building of churches, the endowment of hospitals, or the organization of a crusade.

It is well to observe that in these purposes there is nothing essentially evil. To give money to God or to the poor is a praiseworthy act, and, when it is done from right motives, it will surely not go unrewarded. Looked at in this light, it might well seem a suitable condition for gaining the spiritual benefit of an indulgence. Yet, however innocent in itself, this practice was fraught with grave danger, and soon became a fruitful source of evil. On the one hand there was the danger that the payment might be regarded as the price of the indulgence, and that those who sought to gain it might lose sight of the more important conditions.

On the other hand, those who granted indulgences might be tempted to make them a means of raising money: and, even where the rulers of the Church were free from blame in this matter, there was room for corruption in their officials and agents, or among the popular preachers of indulgences. This class has happily disappeared, but the type has been preserved in Chaucer’s “Pardoner”, with his bogus relics and indulgences.

While it cannot be denied that these abuses were widespread, it should also be noted that, even when corruption was at its worst, these spiritual grants were being properly used by sincere Christians, who sought them in the right spirit, and by priests and preachers, who took care to insist on the need of true repentance. It is therefore not difficult to understand why the Church, instead of abolishing the practice of indulgences, aimed rather at strengthening it by eliminating the evil elements.

The Council of Trent in its decree “On Indulgences” (Sess. XXV) declares: “In granting indulgences the Council desires that moderation be observed in accordance with the ancient approved custom of the Church, lest through excessive ease ecclesiastical discipline be weakened; and further, seeking to correct the abuses that have crept in . . . it decrees that all criminal gain therewith connected shall be entirely done away with as a source of grievous abuse among the Christian people; and as to other disorders arising from superstition, ignorance, irreverence, or any cause whatsoever–since these, on account of the widespread corruption, cannot be removed by special prohibitions—the Council lays upon each bishop the duty of finding out such abuses as exist in his own diocese, of bringing them before the next provincial synod, and of reporting them, with the assent of the other bishops, to the Roman Pontiff, by whose authority and prudence measures will be taken for the welfare of the Church at large, so that the benefit of indulgences may be bestowed on all the faithful by means at once pious, holy, and free from corruption.”

After deploring the fact that, in spite of the remedies prescribed by earlier councils, the traders (quaestores) in indulgences continued their nefarious practice to the great scandal of the faithful, the council ordained that the name and method of these quaestores should be entirely abolished, and that indulgences and other spiritual favors of which the faithful ought not to be deprived should be published by the bishops and bestowed gratuitously, so that all might at length understand that these heavenly treasures were dispensed for the sake of piety and not of lucre (Sess. XXI, c. ix). In 1567 St. Pius V canceled all grants of indulgences involving any fees or other financial transactions.

One of the worst abuses was that of inventing or falsifying grants of indulgence. Previous to the Reformation, such practices abounded and called out severe pronouncements by ecclesiastical authority, especially by the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215) and that of Vienne (1311). After the Council of Trent the most important measure taken to prevent such frauds was the establishment of the Congregation of Indulgences. A special commission of cardinals served under Clement VIII and Paul V, regulating all matters pertaining to indulgences. The Congregation of Indulgences was definitively established by Clement IX in 1669 and reorganized by Clement XI in 1710. It has rendered efficient service by deciding various questions relative to the granting of indulgences and by its publications.

Lea (History, etc., III, 446) somewhat reluctantly acknowledges that “with the decline in the financial possibilities of the system, indulgences have greatly multiplied as an incentive to spiritual exercises, and they can thus be so easily obtained that there is no danger of the recurrence of the old abuses, even if the finer sense of fitness, characteristic of modern times, on the part of both prelates and people, did not deter the attempt.”

The full significance, however, of this “multiplication” lies in the fact that the Church, by rooting out abuses, has shown the rigor of her spiritual life. She has maintained the practice of indulgences, because, when these are used in accordance with what she prescribes, they strengthen the spiritual life by inducing the faithful to approach the sacraments and to purify their consciences of sin. And further, they encourage the performance, in a truly religious spirit, of works that redound, not alone to the welfare of the individual, but also to God’s glory and to the service of the neighbor.

***

Related Reading

*
*
*
*
*
Myths and Facts Regarding Tetzel and Indulgences [11-25-16; published in Catholic Herald]
*
The Biblical Roots and History of Indulgences [National Catholic Register, 5-25-18]
*
*
*

***

*

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: apologistdave@gmail.com. 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: Posthumous Portrait of Martin Luther as an Augustinian Monk (after 1546), from the workshop of Lucas Cranach the Elder (1472-1553) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: I note how Luther got most things right about indulgences in 1517, briefly explain the concept & provide an abridgment of the related Catholic Encyclopedia article.

February 16, 2024

February 16, 2024 By
0 Comments

+ Bible Passages On the Organic Relationship of Faith, Works, Grace, Obedience, & Salvation

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 20th reply to his material.

*****

This is a response to a statement in Gavin’s video, “Why Reformation Was Needed” (10-20-23). He stated at 38:10: “when you die and you stand before God he will say to you ‘righteous in my sight’ because you are clothed in the righteousness of Christ.” 

Protestants frequently preach about “if you die tonight and Jesus asks you why you should be saved and allowed into heaven, what will you say?” and what Jesus supposedly says to the elect believer who is proclaimed to be saved once and for all at the Last Judgment (“eschatological salvation”).

Ironically (and even remarkably, given this background),when I looked into this, I discovered that Jesus never says any such thing. What Gavin states here is technically not biblical (in terms of Jesus saying it at that time). Jesus doesn’t say that on the Last Day to the elect about to enter heaven. But first, let me respond to what Gavin did claim.

To be sure, there is indeed a scriptural motif of being “clothed” in His righteousness. That’s justification by faith, and Catholics agree with it. What we disagree with is the notion of faith alone, completely and categorically separated from works, which James — in line with the entire Bible — says is an essential, intertwined aspect or characteristic of this faith (“faith without works is dead”). And when we look at one passage that describes the process of being “clothed” this is what we find:

Ephesians 6:5-8, 11, 13-17 Slaves, be obedient to those who are your earthly masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as to Christ; [6] not in the way of eye-service, as men-pleasers, but as servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, [7] rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to men, [8] knowing that whatever good any one does, he will receive the same again from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free. . . . [11] Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.  . . . [13] Therefore take the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. [14] Stand therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, [15] and having shod your feet with the equipment of the gospel of peace; [16] besides all these, taking the shield of faith, with which you can quench all the flaming darts of the evil one. [17] And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

Note first of all that faith is not alone at all. Paul even states, almost nonchalantly, “besides all these [including righteousness], taking the shield of faith . . .” This is not merely God declaring us righteous (imputed righteousness). St. Paul doesn’t describe our relationship with righteousness as being granted by mere declaration (with us being totally passive); on the contrary, we have to do all sorts of good works and make the effort to be righteous and to receive God’s grace, justification, and salvation.

And so we see above in the highlighted green texts, how much human effort is made in the whole process. In this passage, God doesn’t “clothe” us with the “armor of God”; rather, we “put [it] on” and “take” it. We “put on the breastplate of righteousness”; we “shod” our “feet” with the “gospel” and we take the shield of faith (which — again — is not alone). It’s the language of human action; not passivity. The acquisition of these “clothing” items is surrounded by all these works and actions, precisely as James highlights in his epistle, and as Isaiah also does (as we will see below).

All of this involves our actions; it’s not merely a proclamation that a second ago we were lost, and now we’re saved because God did all these things. It’s entirely originated and enabled by His grace, to be sure (Catholics believe in sola gratia, too), but not without our participation through works enabled by His grace. That’s the true biblical gospel of salvation; not “faith alone.” Gavin in this five-minute video presents at the end what he construes to be the biblical gospel of salvation. I am now doing so in a little more depth, from a Catholic — and I contend, even more deeply biblical — perspective. 

Calvinist Randall Van Meggelen, in an article about being “clothed in righteousness,” offered two Bible passages that most closely resemble that phrase: Isaiah 1:18 and 61:10. I love the book of Isaiah. It’s always been my favorite Old Testament book. What’s interesting, again, is how much the notion of being “clothed” or “covered” in the first passage, is literally surrounded by good works that seem to play a crucial and necessary causal role in bringing about this state of affairs. Once again, the Catholic view is much more supported than the Protestant “faith alone” outlook, and we don’t have to ignore the actual context:

Isaiah 1:16-20 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; [20] But if you refuse and rebel, you shall be devoured by the sword; for the mouth of the LORD has spoken.”

Clearly, works cannot possibly be separated from the blessing of justification and forgiveness. They partially bring about the result of God’s grace working together with our participatory action and obedience: our sins being “white as snow”; that is, forgiven. God lists no less than nine good works in Isaiah 1:16. It’s certainly strongly implied that if one does all those good works, then their sins will be made “white as snow.” Then God reiterates “If you are willing and obedient” you get the reward, and that, conversely, if we “refuse and rebel” we don’t get it. It’s a conditional promise, which is very typical in the Old Testament period.

Whereas Isaiah 1:16-20 emphasizes our part in the process of salvation, Isaiah 61:10 is more about God’s grace and the justification He blesses us with:

Isaiah 60:10 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.

Both things are true, and must be accepted together, in harmony. We can’t simply pull out texts that teach one side of the equation, and ignore the other biblical side of it. Isaiah 60 still mentions good works, too. We are to “bind up the brokenhearted” and open “the prison to those who are bound” and “comfort all who mourn” (60:1-2), and work for “justice” (60:8).

I wrote a paper entitled, “Isaiah’s Catholic & UnProtestant Soteriology” [8-1-23]. In it, I highlighted 26 passages (with many additional cross-references), where Catholics and Protestants fully agree, as to their meaning. Then I noted 19 others where Isaiah teaches a Catholic “faith without works is dead” soteriology. I have made similar analyses of the book of Jeremiah and the books of the twelve minor prophets.

But now we go back to the original topic, and what I allude to in the title of this article. What does the Bible teach us about what Jesus actually says to His elect on the Last Day when they stand before Him? Gavin claimed that He will say, “righteous in my sight” and that He will do so because we “are clothed in the righteousness of Christ.” The elect certainly will be clothed in Christ’s righteousness and justified due to His death on the cross on our behalf. All agree with that. I’m not disagreeing with it.

My point is that this is not what Jesus says, according to what we know, based on God’s inspired revelation, the Bible. And I am protesting that Gavin completely removes the central role of our works in the whole scenario. That’s not just my Catholic bias. It’s Holy Scripture. I found no less than fifty passages proving it. Of the fifty passages, only one mentions faith at all (Rev 21:8 refers to the “faithless” who will be damned, alongside the absence of good works). The most directly relevant passage, where we find the answer to the question, is the following:

Matthew 25:31-36 “When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. [32] Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, [33] and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. [34] Then the King will say to those at his right hand, `Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; [35] for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, [36] I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’

We see not a word about faith or being clothed in righteousness here. According to our Lord Jesus, they are saved and will enter into heaven because they did six listed good works. This is what Jesus actually says on the Last Day to the elect. It’s not a mere projection of distinctive (and unbiblical) Protestant soteriology of faith alone. If we know what He says on the Last Day, from the Bible, we do! A=A. We need not speculate any further about it. It’s biblically settled beyond any discussion. Here’s the second most relevant passage about what Jesus actually says:

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

Jesus says many other things along the same lines, that express the same idea, regarding how one is saved in the end. In the parable of the talents (i.e., coins, not abilities), in Matthew 25:14-30, right before the primary passage on this topic above, the saved person did a work of increasing the talents, and so Jesus says to him, “Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a little, I will set you over much; enter into the joy of your master.” In Matthew 7:16-27, Jesus likewise states about he ones who are saved: “You will know them by their fruits” and “Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.”

The saved person is the one “who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” and Jesus reiterates: “Every one then who hears these words of mine, and does them will be like a wise man who built his house upon the rock.” Jesus talks about what He will do on the Last Day, as well as what He will say: “the Son of man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay every man for what he has done” (Mt 16:27).

Similarly, He said that “every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire” (Lk 3:9; cf. Mt 3:10; 7:19). Jesus says that He has “authority to execute judgment ” and that “those who have done good” will gain “the resurrection of life” and that “those who have done evil” will incur “the resurrection of judgment” (Jn 5:26-29).

This is just from Jesus. There are many more passages with the same teaching (fifty in all) from the Old Testament and the epistles. All of it is completely harmonious with Catholic soteriology, and in conflict with Protestant “faith alone” soteriology. Protestants, if they are being honest with themselves, and seeking to be “biblical” (as they always claim they are doing, and that we Catholics are supposedly not doing) need to grapple with these passages that sure seem to be in conflict with their beliefs. I issue the challenge, with all due respect to my esteemed and respected Protestant brethren in Christ.

**

See some additional related thoughts of mine and discussion with a Protestant friend on my Facebook page.

*

***

*

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: apologistdave@gmail.com. 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: Kahunapule Michael Johnson (1-22-16) [Flickr / CC BY-SA 2.0 DEED license]

Summary: The Bible doesn’t verify that Jesus will say “righteous in my sight” to the elect. It does indicate in several places that He talks solely about good works on the Last Day.

 

 

February 15, 2024

February 15, 2024 By
0 Comments
[response to an evangelical Christian (one whom I like a lot) who has rejected the doctrine of hell and who thinks that the OT God was mean and evil and fundamentally different from Jesus. See the first part of my reply on Facebook: “Angry” OT God “vs.” “Meek and Mild” Jesus?]
*
I think this line of thought you are expressing will entail many serious difficulties. The apologist’s job is to tackle tough questions, and I have some more thoughts.
*
As I alluded to, Jesus and God the Father are one, as Jesus Himself says. There is no separation between them at all. They always agree. To deny that would be to call into question the Holy Trinity, which has always been a central doctrine for all Christians. If someone denies that, they have always been considered non-Christians or heretics (e.g., Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Unitarians).
*
Secondly, it’s a dangerous principle and road to go down if we start deciding that certain things are too difficult to accept, so that we decide to reject them. This means that we have questioned the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture.
*
There are many things that are very difficult for us to understand. A friend of mine just lost his one-year-old son to a rare form of cancer. I don’t understand that. I don’t understand hell or God’s eternity or omnipresence or timelessness or how we can have free will and still be predestined to heaven (those who are in the elect).
*
If we start questioning the inspiration of Holy Scripture, anything then becomes possible, and people who went down that road claim to be Christians and yet think abortion is fine and dandy, and same-sex “marriage” and fornication, and a host of other things.
*
The Old Testament God was a loving God, just as Jesus (God the Son) is a loving God. I just reposted yesterday an article of mine entitled, “God’s ‘Valentine’: His Love, Mercy, & Compassion.” All it is, is Scripture, and about half of it came from the OT.
*
Excerpts:
*
Psalm 103:3-5 (RSV) who forgives all your iniquity, who heals all your diseases, [4] who redeems your life from the Pit, who crowns you with steadfast love and mercy, [5] who satisfies you with good as long as you live so that your youth is renewed like the eagle’s.
*
Isaiah 43:4 . . . you are precious in my eyes, and honored, and I love you, . . .
*
Isaiah 49:15-16 Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should have no compassion on the son of her womb? Even these may forget, yet I will not forget you. [16] Behold, I have graven you on the palms of my hands; . . .
*
Isaiah 54:10 For the mountains may depart and the hills be removed, but my steadfast love shall not depart from you, and my covenant of peace shall not be removed, says the LORD, who has compassion on you.
*
Isaiah 62:4-5 . . . the LORD delights in you . . . [5] . . . as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, so shall your God rejoice over you.
*
Isaiah 66:13 As one whom his mother comforts, so I will comfort you; you shall be comforted in Jerusalem.
*
Jesus didn’t reject the Law at all. He said:
*
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. [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.
*
Jesus followed OT law to the letter, including observance of all of the Jewish holy days and various commands.
*
As for the doctrine of hell, the Bible records Jesus saying much more about it than He did about heaven. See my article: “Biblical Evidence for an Eternal Hell.”
*
Again, if we start picking-and-choosing what we will accept in the Bible, based on our own feelings and questions, and even do that with Jesus Himself, there is no end to it.
*
Rather than question the Bible and Jesus, I think it would be more fruitful for you to question your “fundamentalist religious background” which taught you false ideas that you have struggled with, and which have led you in the long run to start rejecting biblical doctrines.
*
This is very common, too. I can’t tell you how many of the atheists I have interacted with, report that they had a fundamentalist background. Invariably, they think that Christianity teaches a host of things that it doesn’t teach, and I try to explain that to them: that they rejected a straw man, not actual Christianity, beyond the narrow fundamentalism (similar to Pharisaism). That’s where the errors lie and where they arose, looks like to me.
*
I think you are aware of how dangerous this view is, even though you have decided to adopt it. If we start saying that this and that are wrong in the Bible, how does it ever end? You have made yourself the arbiter of God’s revelation, rather than accepting it in faith. Now, whether you are right or wrong in that, I think you have to admit that it is a subjective and arbitrary point of view, which could literally go anywhere.
*
How do you know that you won’t become one of those atheists who maybe started questioning hell at first, or another difficult doctrine, then got rid of it, and it was only the first of many rejections, leading ultimately to atheism?
*
If you say that hell is nonexistent and that the “OT God” is different, this hearkens back to the old heresies of dualism and gnosticism, where you have a good God and an evil counter-god. It’s very dangerous territory. And you would be flat-out denying Jesus’ teaching.
*
All you can do at that point is start denying that Jesus’ teaching really is His. In this view, when you disagree with something, you say that Jesus didn’t really say it. If you go that route, you’d probably leave the Christian faith within a year, because that’s how all apostasy and atheism begins, if the person began as some sort of Christian.
*
There are views that simply assert annihilationism and soul sleep, without denying other Christian doctrines, like Seventh-Day Adventism, but you have already gone farther than they do, by separating Jesus from God the Father.
*
I think the fundamental error in this approach is what I would call “hyper-rationalism.” Every atheist thinks like that. I know, because I have spent many thousands of hours interacting with them, and my book about biblical archaeology [The Word Set in Stone: How Archaeology, Science, and History Back Up the Bible] was a direct result of that.
*
That book, by the way, provides strong independent evidence that the Bible is inspired revelation. Most of it is about the OT too. I’ll send you a free pdf copy in a PM.
*
[The OT] God is following His own laws and His nature of being love itself. We follow His example if we, for example, shoot a terrorist who is holding fifty children hostage, threatening to kill them. That’s an act of love and simultaneously acting as God’s agent of justice, on behalf of the children.
*
If the Israeli Army kills Hamas terrorists: the ones who beheaded children and tortured, raped, and murdered women, it’s the same thing. It’s loving with regard to the rest of the Israeli population who might be treated in the same way, and an act of judgment towards unrepentant murderers and evil people.
*
God was very strict in the OT because He had to be. He was trying to illustrate the reality of sin and how it separates a person from God. So there was capital punishment. It doesn’t follow, however, that everyone who was executed is lost for eternity. If many of them went to heaven, they have all eternity in happiness and bliss, compared to one second when they were punished with death. That changes everything.
*
God judged Sodom and Gomorrah. Jesus alluded to that. He agreed with it. You might recall how Abraham pled with God if there were just ten righteous people in the cities, to not judge them. But there weren’t. That sin had gotten to the point of no return. That’s why God judged.
*
There is judgment in the NT In Acts 5, Ananias and Sapphira were killed for holding back some of their profits, after they donated to the apostles. It seems harsh, but there it is. Do you rip that page out of the Bible because it’s difficult to understand? I don’t. I say, “God knows much more about their hearts and motives than I do. God knows what He is doing.”
*
There was that man who died because he tried to stop the ark of the covenant from tipping over. God was showing how holy the item was. Was that man damned for all eternity? I highly doubt it.
*
Essentially your view boils down to a denial that God can justly judge sin. That’s the road to ethical relativism and subjectivism. You don’t want to go down that road. You need to seriously re-think all this.
*
Jesus didn’t call the OT God a “murderer.”
*
John 8:38-45 I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father.” [39] They answered him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would do what Abraham did, [40] but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth which I heard from God; this is not what Abraham did. [41] You do what your father did.” They said to him, “We were not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.” [42] Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. [43] Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. [44] You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. [45] But, because I tell the truth, you do not believe me.
*
The “murderer” there is the devil (“You are of your father the devil,. . . He was a murderer from the beginning.”). Jesus contrasts His Father with the devil, who is the Pharisees’ father, in the passage. You seem to have completely ignored the context. Are you reading materials that are teaching you these unbiblical doctrines?
*
We’re limited by the fact that we are finite creatures and not God. God knows everything. A creature cannot know everything, because then he or she would be God, and we’re not. We have limitations. That’s what faith is about. We accept things that we don’t fully understand, based on what we do know. And in fact all fields of knowledge entail that. They all have unproved premises and conclusions that follow from data that are not airtight or absolutely undeniable. We exercise a sort of “faith” to believe in them.
*
We’re not penalized for not understanding. We’re judged based on what we know and our level of intent, just as in secular law different penalties are applied, so that a “crime of passion” or one done in temporary insanity is penalized a lot less than premeditated murder, that was planned for months.
*
The Bible has a lot about degrees of culpability and ignorance and how they cause us to be judged less than we otherwise would have been. See, e.g.,:
*
Luke 12:47-48 And that servant who knew his master’s will, but did not make ready or act according to his will, shall receive a severe beating. But he who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, shall receive a light beating. Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required; and of him to whom men commit much they will demand the more.
*
Luke 23:34 And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” . . .
*
John 9:41 Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains.”
*
John 19:11 . . . he who delivered me to you has the greater sin.
*
Acts 17:30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all men everywhere to repent,
*
Romans 3:25 . . . This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins;
*
1 Timothy 1:13 though I formerly blasphemed and persecuted and insulted him; but I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief.
*
Hebrews 10:26 For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,
*
James 3:1 Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, for you know that we who teach shall be judged with greater strictness.
**
I don’t know why hell is eternal, but I know that it’s just punishment, because I know that God is both just and loving, in what He has revealed about Himself. Jesus is both. He judges and kills millions on the Last Day (Rev 19:11-21). That’s in the Bible.
*
I guess you could be like Thomas Jefferson (a Unitarian) and take scissors to the Bible and cut out everything that is not to your liking. He tried to remove every miracle, since he didn’t believe in them. Problem is, Jesus; death on the cross for our salvation is also a miracle. So much for Christianity as related to Jefferson!
*
I have also written a book in which I refute 191 alleged “contradictions” in the Bible: Inspired!: 191 Supposed Biblical Contradictions Resolved (June 2023). It’s totally free online at this link.
*
Can God judge His creation or not? If not, on what basis do you claim such a thing? And the consequences of such an uninvolved, unloving (yes, unloving) God would be too horrible to contemplate. God only judges after making any and every effort to reach unrepentant people. He would have not judged and destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah if they had even ten righteous people, as the Bible says. But they didn’t. That was the whole point. They were beyond redemption because they chose to be. The few righteous people that were there (Lot and his family) were allowed to escape. That’s God.
*
We presuppose that judgment is a good thing in every law that we pass and every penalty for not abiding by them. Imagine a nation in which there were no penalties for murder and rape (even one with no traffic laws)! That’s loving; that’s just? Of course it isn’t. The laws are made out of love and concern for people. If we don’t judge lawbreakers, all the law-abiding people suffer for it.
*
What G. K. Chesterton wrote about tradition also applies to God’s laws. He compared tradition to a fence around a field that sits on top of a hill that has dangerous drop-off cliffs on all sides. When the fence is there, the children play completely free of all worries about falling off the edge. They’re free! But if it isn’t there they aren’t free at all. Every second, they are worried about falling off the edge and being killed and they can’t enjoy life and be carefree children.
*
If I punish a child severely because he or she ran into the street without looking or went into a car with a stranger, is that a loving act or a selfish, immoral act? Is it necessary? Of course it is. Failing that, the child may actually get killed or abducted and sold into child trafficking. That isn’t a very loving parent, is it? Likewise, God punishes and chastises us for our own good, as the Bible states several times (many times in the NT, since you seem to now think that the OT is so wicked). It’s made necessary by original sin and our rebellion against Him.
*
Lot was relatively righteous, compared to the others. He offered the daughter in order that the evil men wouldn’t try to rape the angels that were visiting him. I’m not saying it was right, but this was a very early period in salvation history. If he had been more morally advanced, he would and should have said, “take me rather than abuse these angels.”
*
According to your logic, God should have killed David after he arranged to have a man killed in battle so he could take his wife. But He didn’t. Instead, He had already made an eternal covenant with him, knowing that he would commit this sin (and would sincerely repent of it), just as He called Paul to be a great apostle, knowing that he was going to persecute and kill who knows how many Christians.
*
Imagine hiring a pastor who had killed 75 Christians in his past! But God did much more than that with Paul. He went on to be the greatest evangelist of all time and write much of the NT. And David was the prototype of the Messiah, Jesus, and God said he was a man after his own heart (though He knew from all eternity that he would be a murderer and an adulterer).
*
Hell has no redemptive purpose. I deny the premise behind your question. It’s the final place for people who utterly reject God. It’s existence utterly without God. The people who will be there chose it. No one is predestined to go there from all eternity, by God’s decree (this is a most unbiblical falsehood of Calvinism). That would be extremely unjust; I agree. I don’t know why it’s eternal and so severe, but again, I know that it must be a just and somehow necessary punishment, because I know God’s character, from His revelation and indeed from His dealings with me as I have sought to be His disciple, lo these past 47 years.
*
We can’t possibly understand all His teachings. We should fully expect not to, just as a two-year-old child can’t understand quantum mechanics or advanced engineering. Who are we to say we know better than God? That was Satan’s first lie, that brought about the fall of man. “I know better than God.” Eve bought that lie and sold it to Adam, who was also foolish and rebellious enough to buy it.
*
It sounds to me that it may very well be that you were severely abused in some manner in the past, either by parents or someone in authority over you, and that you are now trying to blame God for that, or equate him with your abuser, as if He is the Cosmic Abuser. He’s not. He’s not at all like whoever abused you: if indeed that is what happened. God didn’t cause it. He doesn’t agree with it. He loves you. He wants to heal you. He suffered unimaginably and died for you, and would have if you were the only person He ever created. God doesn’t cause evil. He overcomes it and is the solution for it. He brings joy and peace, not misery and hopelessness.
*
It’s very common to project human abusers onto God. It starts forming a person’s conception of God. You stated that this goes way back in your thinking. In fact, it’s known that many famous atheists projected their terrible relationship with their fathers onto God, and eventually rejected Him and became atheists. I have written about that.
*
You’re on that road now, Bethany, at least potentially, and it breaks my heart to see it. We are trying to warn you because we love you. As an apologist for 43 years I have seen this progression many times. I know where it leads. It doesn’t prove you will become an atheist, but we do know that the beginning of the journey of millions of atheists out of Christianity began in this way. That’s simply a fact. And it should give you the greatest pause, and cause you to seriously think about where this sort of thinking ends or could very well end.
*
I don’t gain anything by telling you this. You may reject me. I have no motivation other than love. I tell you because I love you as a sister in Christ and because falsehood doesn’t help anyone. The devil wants you. He wants your family. And he starts doing that by getting you to doubt the Bible and God. You’re even directly rejecting the words of Jesus, Who taught the doctrine of hell.
*
As I said, that was the first sin that caused the downfall of Adam and Eve and all of humanity. “We know better than God.” He told us to do x, but we know that that was wrong advice, that we can dissent from, and that the devil knows better than God.” I can’t imagine anything more groundless and foolish than that. He’s after you because you are a precious child of God: one who has eloquently shared His truth with others, and who has been an admirable witness for perseverance through health problems. Don’t let him do it!
*
The Bible has to be properly interpreted. If you try to do that all on your own, you can possibly adopt one of thousands of errors. Authorities in the Christian life exist for a reason. They are to guide us. That’s true in your Protestant tradition just as it is in Catholicism. It’s a different principle in some ways, but there are still authorities and guidance. It’s not just “the Bible, the Holy Spirit, and me.” Protestants have confessions and creeds that they go by: that offer interpretations of the Bible. And they have histories of what they have believed. The theological liberal simply ignores all that.
*
You are reading something that is causing some rather radical doubts. Your question about David and the census [i.e., who inspired him: God or Satan?] ultimately comes straight from either atheism or extreme biblical skepticism, that is passed down for centuries in some cases. It’s very unlikely that a Christian reading the Bible would ever come up with that. And it’s explainable (I provided you two articles that did so). It need not give anyone any pause.
*
We’ve already seen how your own interpretation led you to believe that Jesus was condemning His own Father as a “murder” and a “liar” when the passage clearly stated that Jesus was referring to Satan, and was contrasting him with God the Father, with Whom He was one (Jn 10:30: two chapters later). If that’s an example of your “new” approach to the Bible — nothing personal! — , I’d hate to see others.
*
Something you are reading is leading you far astray. If you think these sources are “objective” and are merely calling things as they see them, you’re wrong. They are hostile to Christianity and the Bible. They have an agenda. You need to read books like mine about biblical archaeology and refutations of alleged biblical “contradictions” (both written from a general Christian, not specifically Catholic perspective) so you can strengthen your faith, and be confident in it, rather than have it slowly but surely shattered by irrational skepticism and hyper-rationalism.
*
G. K. Chesterton noted how the problem with a madman is not that he has no reason, but that he has nothing but reason. That’s atheism in a nutshell, and I hate to say it, but in what you are expressing in this thread, you are thinking very much as they do. Believe me, I know. I devoted an entire year of work a few years ago, just interacting with atheists. And I had done a lot before that, including in person. I know how they think and reason.
*
I am trying to help you heal from whatever you experienced by driving home the point that going after the Bible and God and pretending that they are what they are not are not the solution to anything. That will make you more miserable. You’re blaming God for what people did. He is not them. He doesn’t approve of any such abuse. Your indignation is misplaced. Be angry at the abusers (and also forgive them, lest you be destroyed in bitterness). Don’t take it out on God or project these sins onto Him. That’s the very last thing that will help you because you are making the all-loving God evil. If that’s not a key step to misery and hopelessness and atheism, I don’t know anything at all.
*
My replies and reasoning here have nothing to do with Catholic authority. You are radical by your own Protestant standards. No Protestant denomination teaches that the OT God is evil and the equivalent of Satan. That hearkens back to ancient heresies; particularly gnosticism. None teach (that I am aware of) that Jesus called God the Father a “murderer” and a “liar” in John 8. If you ever see such a commentary, please direct me to it.
*
Neither of my books I directed you to are “Catholic books.” They defend things that Protestants and Catholics have in common: biblical historical accuracy, self-consistency, infallibility, and inspiration. I’m trying to directly help all Christians with those books, to be more confident in the Bible and their faith. I’m not trying to defend Catholicism. I do that in most of my other books!
*
Not all of the Pharisees were bad. Jesus Himself followed pharisaical teachings because that was the mainstream. He was accusing some of them of rank hypocrisy. Elsewhere he even told His disciples to follow their teachings, but not their hypocrisy:
*
Matthew 23:1-3 Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, [2] “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; [3] so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.
*
Paul called himself a Pharisee (as a Christian) twice (Acts 23:6; 26:5). You have not shown how your interpretation of John 8 can withstand scrutiny. If you think it’s so obvious and compelling, by all means respond to my critique. You’re now appealing to your own ability to interpret Holy Scripture in a way superior to every Protestant tradition I am aware of (and Orthodox and Catholic), so, that being the case, defend it over against critique.
*
Or you can start claiming that you have secret esoteric knowledge that very few mortals will ever understand, bound as we are by corrupt human traditions. That’s what the ancient gnostics did and what their current followers do, and that is the path you are on. It’s frightening and chilling.
*
So up till recently you attended a church where the leader[s] and other congregants despised you, showed no love, and repeatedly said you were “vile or wretched”? If so, it took you this long to figure out that that wasn’t Christianity? And now you reject all of Protestantism, as if all of it is like that? If that is the nature of the place you worshiped, it is not Christianity. It may have been doctrinally, but not in essence, because Christians must love as Jesus loved us.
*
I worshiped in about ten different Protestant settings in my 13 years as an evangelical, and none of them were remotely like what you describe. I am extremely thankful for all that I learned in all of them. I use that knowledge every day in my work. Yet you seem to think you have to leave Protestantism or “Bible Christianity” or whatever you wish to call it, because of your horrible experiences?
*
You’ve clearly been traumatized and it is affecting your thinking. When I debated you years ago I had every impression that you were a thoughtful, happy, informed Protestant. It’s hard for me to believe that all of that was worthless in your past.
*
You say you are no longer Protestant. I will happily and zealously defend my Protestant brethren against this insinuation that all they are, are abusers. That’s just not reality. There are bad apples everywhere, but that’s just it; the bad apples are the exception, in Christian circles.
*
What I call you now is a hurting, traumatized person. That’s what needs to be addressed. You need to identify exactly who did this to you (it’s not all Christians everywhere), heal, forgive them, and move on with your life. Radical skepticism and supposed “freedom” to believe whatever you want is not the solution. I tell you this out of love (and thank you for accepting my stated motivations).
*
You have simply discovered the true God. What you describe as what you used to believe certainly wasn’t the God I know and love: the God of the Bible.
*
I will stop now. Others who know you in person and much better than I do are in a far better place to dialogue and interact with what you are saying. I hope my books and other articles are helpful to you. God bless you with all good things. I’m always here if you want to “talk” with me.
*

*
***

*

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: apologistdave@gmail.com. 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 2023 book (see info. and purchase information)

Summary: My response to a friend who believes that the OT God is evil & different from Jesus, & that hell is an unjust doctrine. I warned her of the likely dire consequences.

February 9, 2024

February 9, 2024 By
0 Comments

+ How Early Protestants Widely Damned Other Protestants Who Held Different Theological Views

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 made many replies to Gavin and will continue to do so. His words will be in blue.

*****

This is a response to one erroneous statement in Gavin’s video, “The 5 Minute Case for Protestantism” (6-8-23).

0:39 Throughout the medieval era, pretty much all the Roman Catholics think that the non-Catholics are damned . . . and those views find their way into the highest levels of magisterial teaching.
*
Gavin doesn’t delve further into why he thinks that this is the case. Obviously, he can’t get into much depth in a mere summary-type five-minute video. But almost certainly what he has in mind in asserting this, are three medieval Catholic magisterial statements: the Fourth Lateran Council (chapter 1: “The Catholic Faith”, 1215; Denzinger [DS] 802), the papal bull, Unam Sanctam (Pope Boniface VIII, 1302; DS 870, 875) and Cantate Domine: Decree for the Jacobites (Council of Florence, 1441; DS 1351). Here are the most relevant statements from them (I utilize the latest 2012 translation and edition of Denzinger’s Enchiridion symbolorum):
There is indeed one universal church of the faithful outside of which no one at all is saved, . . .
*
The sacrament of baptism (which is celebrated in water at the invocation of God and of the undivided Trinity, that is, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) conduces to the salvation of children as well as of adults when duly conferred by anyone according to the Church’s form. If someone falls into sin after having received baptism, he or she can always be restored through true penitence. For not only virgins and the continent but also married persons find favour with God by right faith and good actions and deserve to attain to eternal blessedness. (Fourth Lateran Council, chapter 1: “The Catholic Faith”; pp. 266-267)
*
That there is only one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church we are compelled by faith’s urging to believe and hold, and we firmly believe in her firmly and sincerely her outside of whom there is neither salvation nor remission of sins . . . and she represents the one mystical body. . . .
*
[W]e declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. (Unam Sanctam, pp. 286-287)
*
She firmly believes, professes, and preaches that “none of those who are outside of the Catholic Church, not only pagans,” but also Jews, heretics, and schismatics, can become sharers in eternal life, but they will go into the eternal fire “that was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Mt 25:41] unless, before the end of their life, they are joined to her. And the unity of the Church’s body is of such great importance that the Church’s sacraments are beneficial toward salvation only for those who remain within her, and [only for them] do fasts, almsgiving, and other acts of piety and exercises of Christian discipline bring forth eternal rewards. “No one can be saved, no matter how many alms he has given, and even if he sheds his blood for the name of Christ, unless he remains in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” (Council of Florence, Cantate Domino; the two non-scriptural citations come from Fulgentius of Ruspe [462 or 467 to 527 or 533]; pp. 348-349)
The difficulty entailed here is to understand exactly what these statements mean. Protestants very widely interpret them as teaching that no one who is formally a member of the Catholic Church can be saved. As we have seen above, Gavin thinks that the medieval Catholic Church taught that anyone who was not a card-carrying, Mass-attending Catholic was hellbound.
*
These decrees do not teach that, and I will explain, with the aid of some great citations, exactly how and why they don’t, based on analysis of the texts themselves and also of the Catholic Church’s teaching about what the sacrament of baptism brings about and when and where it is valid. The latter teaching, especially, absolutely, undeniably refutes Gavin’s wrong interpretation of how medieval Catholics viewed this issue.
*
Catholic apologist Joe Heschmeyer, in a superb trilogy of articles on this general question, lays out the rationale for the Catholic viewpoint, and proves that it’s not “hyper-exclusive”: as the caricature of it would hold:
*
1) We believe that there are those who are members of His Body who don’t know it. We know, for example, that there were plenty of righteous folks saved before Christ came into the world. These people didn’t know who Jesus Christ was, by that name. . . .
*

2) Some might even expressly deny being members of His Body, out of confusion and forgivable error, and still be part of the Body. St. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 12:15-16, says as much:

If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body.

The other criticism is that this theory is some sort of clever ruse to get out of the seemingly plain language of Unam Sanctum. It’s not. At the same time things like the bull of Unam Sanctum were being promulgated, the papacy recognized the validity of the Eastern Orthodox sacraments (as it always has, even when the mutual excommunications were in place). Where there are valid sacraments, there is the Church. So even though the Eastern Orthodox weren’t, and aren’t, in full Communion, they’re in some sort of Communion sufficient enough to have valid sacraments, and to receive the Eucharist at Mass should they so desire. (“Is There Salvation Outside of the Church? And Other Questions.,” Shameless Popery, 6-4-10)
Already, then, we see that Gavin cannot possibly be correct in claiming that medieval Catholics thought all non-Catholics were damned, and that this was taught at the highest levels of Church authority. Valid sacraments give grace, and baptism in particular confers regeneration and the Holy Spirit, and regenerate, Spirit-indwelt persons cannot possibly be said to be outside of either salvation or the Church. Since the Catholic Church always acknowledged the validity of all seven Orthodox sacraments, no one can say that she regarded all of them (at any time) as damned and beyond the hope of salvation. The same applies to Protestants with regard to baptism, as we shall see. Heschmeyer continues, in a second article:
*
The best example of the Church simultaneously acknowledging that She is a visible, structured society and that some outside Her physical bounds will be saved is at the Fourth Council of Lateran in 1215 A.D. Her focus there was very much on the Eastern Orthodox, . . .
*
She is describing a visible and organized Church, with an earthly head, the Roman Pontiff (Canon 5), outside of which there is no salvation (Canon 1). Yet she is simultaneously acknowledging that the disobedient Eastern Orthodox are still validly priests, and still validly offer the Eucharist (Canon 4). . . .
*
And, of course, they have valid Baptism. The sacrament of Baptism is even more expansive than the sacrament of the Eucharist, in that anyone can offer it, provided they do so faithfully and correctly (Canon 1). And this sacrament leads to salvation. So without question, the Eastern Orthodox may be saved. . . .
*
The Fourth Lateran Council is important, because it expresses simultaneously that there is no salvation outside of the visible Church, and that some are saved who are not visibly within the Church. Most papal documents and Patristic writings address only one or the other, and thus look like contradictions. . . .
*
There are two Church documents, both likely infallible, which are frequently misrepresented in the context of this discussion. The first is the papal bull Unam Sanctam (1302), which declares the same thing that the Fourth Lateran Council declared, but more forcefully: “Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. ” This statement is easily the most controversial on the subject, since Protestants and Orthodox don’t think they’re subject to the Roman Pontiff. But those who are saved are subject nonetheless. The most direct way of showing this is through logic:
*
  1. Everyone who is saved, is saved through Christ and His Church, whether they know it or not.
  2. Everyone who is saved is saved during this lifetime – there are no second-chances in the afterlife.
  3. The head of the Church on Earth is the Roman Pontiff.
  4. Therefore, everyone saved is saved by spiritual membership in the Church Militant, in which they are subject to the Pope. . . .
*
The pope isn’t saying that every saved person is knowingly subject to the Roman Pontiff, or even aware of who he is. . . .
*
It isn’t necessary to salvation to be juridically connected to the Church. (“Salvation Outside of the Church,” Shameless Popery, 8-12-10)
And in his three third article, Heschmeyer writes:
*

The Church has always held both: (1) that the Church is an indispensable part of salvation, such that you cannot be saved without Her (since Christ has but one Body and one Bride); and (2) that some will be saved without express membership in the Church. The teachings are in seeming tension (just as “One God,” and “Three Persons” are in seeming tension), but they don’t contradict. . . . This isn’t some new modern teaching: in the earlier, more exhaustive post, I quoted St. Justin Martyr, who spoke of how Socrates seemed an atheist to his peers, but was spiritually a follower of the Christ he didn’t know by Name. So this isn’t a “development” at all: it’s the clear teaching of Tradition. It’s only a contradiction if you claim that visible union is required, which . . . the Church doesn’t (and in fact, condemns as heresy). (“Why Mathison is Wrong on Salvation Outside the Church,” Shameless Popery, 8-17-10)

It may surprise some Protestants to learn that this notion of the Church as the mother of salvation; as necessary for salvation, by God’s design, is not confined to Catholic thinking. The Reformed Baptist evangelist Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892) was as Protestant as can be, and he stated in a sermon:
*
The Church is a mother because it is her privilege to bring forth into the world the spiritual children of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Church is left in the world still that she may bring out the rest of God’s elect that are still hidden in the caverns and strongholds of sin. If God had willed it, he might have brought out all his children by the mere effort of his own power, without the use of any instrumentality. He might have sent his grace into each individual heart in some such miraculous manner as he did into the heart of Saul, when he was going toward Damascus; but he hath not chosen to do so. He, who hath taken the Church to be his spouse and his bride, has chosen to bring men to himself by means; and thus it is, through God’s using the Church, her ministers, her children, her works, her sufferings, her prayers, — through making these the means of the increase of his spiritual kingdom, she proves her right to take to herself the title of mother. (“The Church a Mother,” April 8, 1860, from Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Volume 48)
*
Now, of course, as a Protestant, Spurgeon would define “the Church” differently, and certainly he denied that it subsisted in the Catholic Church; he takes shots at the Catholic Church in this very sermon, but the point is that he accepted the general notion, and he did so because it’s grounded in Holy Scripture. He based this sermon on Isaiah 49:20-21. Nor was he alone in thinking this. The founder of Protestantism, Martin Luther, stated:
*
Outside this Christian Church there is no salvation or forgiveness of sins, but everlasting death and damnation. (Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper, Feb. 1528, Luther’s Works, Vol. 37, 368)
*
[O]utside the Christian church there is no truth, no Christ, no salvation. (The Gospel for the Early Christmas Service, 1522, Luther’s Works, Vol. 52, 40)
*
Likewise, John Calvin, the most important figure in early Protestantism after Luther, wrote:
*
[B]eyond the pale of the Church no forgiveness of sins, no salvation, can be hoped for, as Isaiah and Joel testify (Isa. 37:32; Joel 2:32). . . . the abandonment of the Church is always fatal. (Institutes of the Christian Religion, IV, 1:4)
*
[T]he Lord has not promised his mercy save in the communion of saints. (Ibid., IV, 1:20)
*

Now I’d like to make a second argument that stands alongside the first. Catholics believe that anyone baptized in a trinitarian formula, by anyone who intends what the Catholic Church does in its sacrament of baptism is regenerated, receives a host of spiritual benefits, and is, therefore, a member of the Body of Christ, and will be saved, short of lapsing into unrepentant and unconfessed mortal sin. This, too, undeniable, and it utterly refutes Gavin’s false claim, seen at the top of this article. The best summary I have seen of the spiritual benefits of baptism is this piece from my mentor, Servant of God, Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.:

BAPTISMAL GRACES

The supernatural effects of the sacrament of baptism. They are: 1. removal of all guilt of sin, original and personal; 2. removal of all punishment due to sin, temporal and eternal; 3. infusion of sanctifying grace along with the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit; 4. incorporation into Christ; and 5. entrance into the Mystical Body, which is the Catholic Church; 6. imprinting of the baptismal character, which enables a person to receive the other sacraments, to participate in the priesthood of Christ through the sacred liturgy, and to grow in the likeness of Christ through personal sanctification. Baptism does not remove two effects of original sin, namely concupiscence and bodily mortality. However, it does enable a Christian to be sanctified by his struggle with concupiscence and gives him the title to rising in a glorified body on the last day. (Modern Catholic Dictionary [Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Co., 1980], “Baptismal Graces,” 53)

All of this, leading to salvation itself, is what the Catholic Church claims is true of all validly baptized Protestants and Orthodox (just as it is of Catholics). And it did so in the Middle Ages at least as early as 1230 years before Trent, which again reiterated the teaching in its Decree on Sacraments; On Baptism; Canon IV: “If any one saith, that the baptism which is even given by heretics in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, with the intention of doing what the Church doth, is not true baptism; let him be anathema.” (7th Session, March 1547). But the general teaching was in place long before that. By this reasoning, St. Augustine opposed the “rebaptism” of schismatic Donatists who returned to the Catholic Church. In 256, 1261 years before the advent of Protestantism and 1289 years before the Council of Trent began, Pope Stephen I  wrote a letter to the bishops of Asia Minor (Bishop Firmilian of Caesarea / Cappadocia reported his words):

Stephen and those who agree with him contend that the forgiveness of sins and the second birth [regeneration] can also be obtained in the baptism of the heretics, . . . (DS 111, p. 46)
Likewise, the First Synod of Arles, in 314 declared in its Canon 9(8) concerning “Baptism of Heretics”:
[I]f anyone comes into the Church from  heresy, he should be questioned on the profession of faith, and if it be determined that he has been baptized in [the name of] the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, only hands should be imposed on him, so that he may receive the Holy Spirit . . . (DS 123, p. 50)
Pope Anastasius II, in his letter Exordium pontificatus mei to Emperor Anastasius I, from 496, over a thousand years before Protestantism began, affirmed the validity of schismatic baptism:
According to the most sacred custom of the Catholic Church, no share in the injury from the name of Acacius [Patriarch of Constantinople, who initiated the Acacian schism of 484-519] should attach to any of those whom Acacius the schismatic bishop has baptized, . . . lest perchance the grace of the sacrament seem less powerful . . . For baptism . . . even if administered by an adulterer or by a thief accomplishes its purpose by undiminished reception . . . (DS 356, p. 127)
Thus, we know that by this time the Catholic Church acknowledged the validity of both schismatic and heretical trinitarian baptism. I have cited only the highest, “magisterial” Catholic sources, right from Denzinger. These people had been regenerated and received many other spiritual benefits, before they became Catholics. That really settles the argument in and of itself. Gavin is wrong in his assertion: dead wrong. The Catholic Church considered Protestants schismatics and heretics insofar as they disagreed with Church doctrines, but she knew that they baptized with a trinitarian formula, and so they were Christians.
*
Luther and Calvin never got “rebaptized” when they no longer believed in the uniqueness and singularity of the Catholic Church, because they thought Catholic baptism was valid. Likewise, the Catholic Church accepted Protestant baptism in principle, as early as the year 256. Protestants could be Christians (so Catholics thought before Trent, and which was reiterated there in 1547, a year after Luther died and during Calvin’s and Melanchthon’s lifetime), and Christians in good standing were not regarded as automatically, inevitably damned. They are part of the Body of Christ. The whole thing is a bum rap.
*
The Synod of Guastalla on October 22, 1106, made a similar pronouncement regarding the ordination (i.e., another sacrament) of bishops in the “Teutonic kingdom” that had been “separated for the unity of the Apostolic See.” Comparing the situation to “the Novationists, the Donatists, and other heretics” of the past, it decreed that “we receive in the episcopal office the bishops of the above-mentioned kingdom who were ordained in schism . . .” (DS 705, pp. 238-239; cf. DS 912 from 1318, p. 292).
*
There is nothing left to prove in this respect. Gavin’s statement has been utterly refuted. It’s a falsehood. Nothing personal! I like Gavin, but he simply didn’t have enough knowledge to properly make the statement that he made. If he reads this article, however, he will, and he would then be duty-bound to retract it as a misrepresentation of medieval Catholic teaching. He has repeatedly stated in his videos that all Christians ought to do their best to accurately present the teachings of other Christians with whom they disagree. Heaven knows, there is more than enough of failing to do that on both sides. Here is his chance to follow his own worthy admonition.
*
But there is also a flip side to this. Gavin implied that Catholics were the only ones who routinely damned entire classes of other Christians, and that Protestants were blissfully free of such shortcomings. I have shown that this is not true of the Catholic Church, but I shall now proceed to show that it was true of prominent early Protestants. In other words, the historical facts are the very opposite of the way that Gavin described them.
*
Gavin himself showed in this same video that Luther and Calvin regarded Catholics as Christians. What he didn’t show is what the earliest Protestants thought about each other. If we’re looking for instances of one brand of Christian damning another and reading him or his sect out of the Christian faith, that’s where we look.
*
Martin Luther’s utter disdain for the “sacramentarians”: people who denied the Real Presence in the Eucharist: folks like Zwingli and Oecolampadius and Karlstadt, is well known. He thought they were damned. What’s not as well known is that these Swiss “reformers” (along with comrade Martin Bucer) apparently had denied that Luther and his Lutheran comrades were Christians before Luther had made his negative judgment on them. I found this in footnotes in Luther’s Works (LW) to Luther’s treatise, That These Words of Christ, “This is My Body,” Etc., Still Stand Firm Against the Fanatics (published in English translation in Vol. 37, p. 13 ff.; dated March 1527). The editors documented these charges to substantiate and give background to Luther’s descriptions of their opinions of him, and of Lutherans, in the text. For example:

Since they regard us as “un-Christians” whom the Spirit of God has forsaken . . . (LW, 37, 21)

Besides, we godless and unforbearing “un-Christians” must put up with having these holy and moderate teachers revile us as idolaters and having our God called the baked God, the edible and potable God, the bread-God, the wine-God, and ourselves called God-forsaken Christians and such names. This altogether venomous, devilish abuse exceeds all bounds. Now a person would rather be upbraided for being full of devils than have a “baked God.” (37, 22)

Since we “un-Christians” and unforbearing heathen, I say, must suffer such horrible slander and shameful vilification from them, they, as the holy Christians . . . they regard me as full of devils. (37, 23)

The footnotes document these charges:

19 Oecolampadius: “If the real, true Spirit of God has not forsaken you now . . .” Reasonable Answer. St. L. 20, 599. He frequently applied Gal. 4:9 to his adversaries: “They turn back from Christ to the [weak and beggarly] elements.” Apologetics, 1526 M 7 f. Zwingli wrote on April 5, 1525, that his adversaries in the Lord’s supper controversy “are not led by the same Spirit.” C.R. 95, 317. Bucer: “Let Luther acknowledge that he is being led by a spirit far different from that of Christ.” Preface, 1527. St. L. 17, 1601. Luther and his party are frequently admonished to pray for God’s Spirit (cf. Bucer, ibid.), which the Swiss and Strassburgers claim has been revealed to them. Oecolampadius, Apologetics, H 4; Bucer, Apology, 1526, 35). See Luther’s Letter to Spalatin, March 27, 1526, . . . (37, 21)

24 Zwingli compared “worshiping the consecrated bread” with the worship of the golden calf at Dan (I Kings 12:28 f.). Letter to Matthew Alber, published 1525. C.R. 90, 342; St. L. 17, 1520. He ridiculed the Lutherans’ “edible, impanated, baked, roasted, ground-up God.” Reply to Urban Rhegius. C.R. 91, 934. Oecolampadius defended the epithet, “eaters of God’s flesh and drinkers of God’s blood,” in Reasonable Answer. St. L. 20, 588. Cf. Luther’s Letter to Gregory Casel, November 1525. (37, 22)

So here we have the surreal spectacle of these so-called “reformers” Zwingli, Bucer, and Oecolampadius, classifying Luther, the founder of Protestantism, and Lutherans, within four years of the Diet of Worms, as non-Christians. And this is the unifying force of Christianity, over against Catholicism? Luther returned the favor (Catholics admire and applaud his efforts to defend the Real Presence in the Eucharist in this treatise):

Our adversary says that mere bread and wine are present, not the body and blood of the Lord. If they believe and teach wrongly here, then they blaspheme God and are giving the lie to the Holy Spirit, betray Christ, and seduce the world. One side must be of the devil, and God’s enemy. There is no middle ground. . . . These fanatics demonstrate forthrightly that they regard the words and works of Christ as nothing but human prattle . . . (LW, vol. 37, 36)

[W]e intend to shun, condemn, and censure them, as idolaters, corrupters of God’s Word, blasphemers, and liars . . . (37, 27)

[W]hat shall I say of the outrageous audacity of this hellish Satan [Oecolampadius]? (37, 127)

[H]e who deliberately denies, blasphemes, and desecrates Christ in one subject or article cannot correctly teach or honor him at any other point; it is sheer hypocrisy and deception, . . . one either loses Christ completely, or has him completely. (37, 131)

In his work, Brief Confession Concerning the Holy Sacrament, written in September 1544, Luther calls Zwingli, Karlstadt, Oecolampadius, and Caspar Schwenkfeld (on whose name Luther does a play on words throughout his tract, making it mean “Stinkfield”) -– and by implication those who believe as they do — an “accursed faction of fanatics, Zwinglians and the like” (LW, 38, 287), who adhere to a “blasphemous  and deceitful heresy” (38, 288), “murderers of souls” (38, 296), who “possess a bedeviled, thoroughly bedeviled, hyper-bedeviled heart and lying tongue” (38, 296), and who “have incurred their penalty and are committing ‘sin which is mortal’,” (38, 296), “blasphemers and enemies of Christ” (38, 302), and “God’s and our condemned enemies” (38, 316). He described Zwingli as a “full-blown heathen” (38, 290), and wrote: “I am certain that Zwingli, as his last book testifies, died in a great many sins and in blasphemy of God” (38, 302-303).

Luther felt that he was duty-bound to separate himself from them: “I must leave them to their devices and avoid them as the ‘self-condemned’ [auto-katakritos, Titus 3:11] who knowingly and intentionally want to be condemned. I must not have any kind of fellowship with any of them . . .” (38, 304);  “I would have to condemn myself into the abyss of hell together with them if I should make common cause with them or have fellowship with them . . .” (38, 305).

But John Calvin, in his Letter to the Pastors of  Zurich, Berne, Basle, etc. (28 November 1554), thought that Zwingli and Oecolampadius were “two excellent doctors, . . . who were known to be faithful servants of Jesus Christ.”

I’ve written recently again about how both Lutherans and Calvinists persecuted their fellow Protestant Anabaptists to the death, for holding to adult believer’s baptism and other doctrines that they disagreed with.

One might think that the John Calvin and his Calvinists only went after the Catholic Mass as rank idolatry. One would be wrong if so. They also attacked Lutherans as idolaters. Hence, John Calvin (1509-1564) wrote to Bucer:

In their madness they even drew idolatry after them. For what else is the adorable sacrament of Luther but an idol set up in the temple of God? (Letter to Martin Bucer, June 1549; in Jules Bonnet, editor, John Calvin: Selected Works of John Calvin: Tracts and Letters: Letters, Part 2, 1545-1553, volume 5 of 7; translated by David Constable; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983; reproduction of Letters of John Calvin, volume II [Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1858], p. 234)

Calvin wrote to Philipp Melanchthon (1497-1560): Luther’s right-hand man and successor on 28  November 1552, summing up the scandalous Protestant chaos:

But it greatly concerns us to cherish faithfully and constantly to the end the friendship which God has sanctified by the authority of his own name, seeing that herein is involved either great advantage or great loss even to the whole Church. For you see how the eyes of many are turned upon us, so that the wicked take occasion from our dissensions to speak evil, and the weak are only perplexed by our unintelligible disputations. Nor in truth, is it of little importance to prevent the suspicion of any difference having arisen between us from being handed down in any way to posterity; for it is worse than absurd that parties should be found disagreeing on the very principles, after we have been compelled to make our departure from the world.  . . .

And surely it is indicative of a marvellous and monstrous insensibility, that we so readily set at nought that sacred unanimity, by which we ought to be bringing back into the world the angels of heaven. Meanwhile, Satan is busy scattering here and there the seeds of discord, and our folly is made to supply much material. At length he has discovered fans of his own, for fanning into a flame the fires of discord. I shall refer to what happened to us in this Church, causing extreme pain to all the godly; and now a whole year has elapsed since we were engaged in these conflicts. . . (Selected Works of John Calvin: Tracts and Letters: Letters, Part 2, 1545-1553, vol. 5 of 7; edited by Jules Bonnet, translated by David Constable; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House [Protestant publisher], 1983, 454 pages; reproduction of Letters of John Calvin, vol. 2 (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1858; the letter in question is numbered as CCCV [305] and is found on pp. 375-381; the portion above is from pp. 376-377).

Melanchthon wrote (educated guess) in the next month:

If my eyes were a fountain of tears, as rich as the waters of the river Elbe, I could not sufficiently express my sorrow over the divisions and distractions of Christendom. (from: The New American Cyclopaedia, edited by George Ripley and Charles Anderson Dana, New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1861, Vol. 11, “Melanchthon,” p. 361; primary source: Epistles, Book 4, epistle 100 [Dec. 1552?]; see the same exact quote in The Unitarian Review of 1874, pp. 450-451 and American Presbyterian Review, Vol. 1, 1869, pp. 248-249)

In a letter to William Farel in August, 1557, Calvin opines:

With regard to [Joachim] Westphal [a Lutheran] and the rest, it was difficult to follow your advice and be calm. You call those “brothers,” who, if that name be offered to them by us, do not only reject, but execrate it. And how ridiculous should we appear in bandying the name of brother with those who look upon us as the worst of heretics!

And in another to Bullinger about the same time we find:

You shall judge how dexterously I have treated the Saxons. . . . I know that I shall excite the hatred of them all . . . I have, indeed, not hesitated cheerfully and fearlessly to provoke the fury of those beasts against me, because I am confident that it will be pleasing to God! (this letter and the above from Thomas Henry Dyer, The Life of John Calvin, New York: Harper & Brothers, 1850, pp. 336-337)

In the year before he died, Calvin described Lutheranism as an “evil”:

I am carefully on the watch that Lutheranism gain no ground, nor be introduced into France. The best means, believe me, for checking the evil would be that confession written by me . . . (Letter to Heinrich Bullinger, 2 July 1563, in John Dillenberger, editor, John Calvin: Selections From His Writings, Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Co. [Anchor Books], 1971, 76)

Then of course, there were the never-ending battles in Protestantism between Calvinists and Arminians, which continue to this day. This was not — and is not — just a friendly gentleman’s agreement. In the Synod of Dort in the Netherlands in 1618-1619, the Arminians were declared to be heretics because they disagreed with the specifically Calvinist doctrines, such as “TULIP”: the Five Points of Calvinism. Lest someone think that this was not an accusation of heresy (with the implication that Arminians were not Christians at all), here is how the Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics website summed up the verdict of the synod:

Dordt stated that in reaction to the Arminian and Remonstrant Articles and Opinions, that Arminius and the Remonstrants, “summon back from hell the Pelagian error.”[1] They said that Arminianism “deceive(s) the simple,”[2] “is an invention of the human brain,”[3] is a “pernicious error,”[4] “smacks of Pelagius,”[5] “runs counter to the entire Scripture,”[6] is “gross error,”[7] “militate(s) against the experience of the saints and is contrary to Scripture,”[8] “contradict(s) Scripture,”[9] “attempt(s) to give the people the deadly poison of Pelagianism,”[10] “contradict(s) the apostle” and “contradict(s) the Savior,”[11] “is an insult to the wisdom of God,”[12] “is opposed to the plain testimonies of Scripture,”[13] “is a teaching that is entirely Pelagian and contrary to the whole of Scripture.”[14] Christians should know that “the early church already condemned this doctrine long ago in the Pelagians,”[15] “is obviously Pelagian,”[16] and “nullifies the very grace of justification and regeneration.”[17]

The orthodox professors, theologians, and ministers of Holland and England sought incessantly to suppress the teaching of the Arminians and to prohibit the exercise of that faith which they were firm in condemning as heretical. This they were able to do quite effectively by the convening of the Synod of Dort. Arminianism, for these reasons, has always been viewed as not only error, but heresy.

[1] Canon 2 Article 3

[2] Canon 1 Article 1

[3] Canon 1 Article 2

[4] Canon 1 Article 3

[5] Canon 1 Article 4

[6] Canon 1 Article 5 and Canon 3 Article 4

[7] Canon 1 Article 6

[8] Canon 2 Article 1

[9] Canon 2 Article 4

[10] Canon 2 Article 6

[11] Canon 2 Article 7

[12] Canon 3 Article 1

[13] Canon 4 Article 4

[14] Canon 3 Article 7

[15] Canon 3 Article 9

[16] Canon 5 Article 2

[17] Canon 5 Article 3 (from: “The Synod of Dordt Condemned Arminianism as Heresy,” C. Matthew McMahon, May 8, 2020)

Since the great majority of even Protestantism today is not Calvinist, and Protestantism is a minority among all Christians, in effect these decrees define the vast majority of Christians today and all through history as Pelagian heretics.

If all of this division, rancor, and chaos (that caused Luther, Melanchthon, and Calvin no end of personal anguish and agony, by their own frequent reports) is supposedly blessed Christian unity, and the highest, most spiritual expression of the catholicity of Christianity, and evidence of the sublimity of the Protestant “reform” as morally and biblically superior to what came before, I’ll most gladly remain a Catholic, thank you.

*

Related Reading
*

Is There Salvation Outside the Catholic Church? (1893 book by Catholic theologian Jean Vincent Bainvel, S.J. [1858-1937], professor of fundamental theology at the Institut Catholique de Paris). Read online for free.

Is There Salvation Outside the Church? (Fr. William G. Most) [Catholic Culture, 1988]

*
Anathemas of Trent & Excommunication: An Explanation [5-20-03, incorporating portions from 1996 and 1998; abridged on 7-30-18]
*
*
*
ADDENDUM
*
See Gavin’s brief comments on this article and my replies, at the cross-posting on my Facebook page.
*
Gavin then made basically the same argument in response that he made on my Facebook page, in a portion of his video, “Does Eastern Orthodoxy Have the ‘Fullness of the Faith?'” (2-10-24). The relevant portion is from 16:35 to 21:00, where he brings up my reply. It can be selected in the combox “index.”
*
ADDENDUM 2
*
Gavin claimed, “Throughout the medieval era, pretty much all the Roman Catholics think that the non-Catholics are damned . . . and those views find their way into the highest levels of magisterial teaching.”
*
The following information, if correct, directly contradicts this assertion, with regard to most of Orthodoxy:

Rome excommunicated [in 1054] Patriarch Michael Cerularius of Constantinople and all of his immediate clergy. It did not excommunicate the emperor, or the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, or Jerusalem, or the bishops of any of the other Eastern churches (especially not in the Slavonic north or Russia). Nor did the Slavs or any of the other patriarchs ever excommunicate Rome. So, strictly speaking, Romans are still technically in communion with most of the Eastern Orthodox Church. And this is especially true because we formally healed the schism at Lyon II in 1274 and at Ferrara-Florence in 1439. Our present schism dates from 1472, when the Greeks renounced the union of Ferrara-Florence — something the Slavic Churches never formally did. Also, in 1965, Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople and Pope Paul VI nullified the excommunications from 1472, which means that Romans are now technically in communion with Constantinople itself though most Greeks do not recognize this. But, technically, there is no reason why we should not be in full communion today. (Mark Bonocore, “The split of 1054 between the Orthodox and Catholics,” Catholic Bridge, no date)

Among the obstacles along the road of the development of these fraternal relations of confidence and esteem, there is the memory of the decisions, actions and painful incidents which in 1054 resulted in the sentence of excommunication leveled against the Patriarch Michael Cerularius and two other persons by the legate of the Roman See under the leadership of Cardinal Humbertus, legates who then became the object of a similar sentence pronounced by the patriarch and the Synod of Constantinople.

Thus it is important to recognize the excesses which accompanied them and later led to consequences which, insofar as we can judge, went much further than their authors had intended and foreseen. They had directed their censures against the persons concerned and not the Churches. These censures were not intended to break ecclesiastical communion between the Sees of Rome and Constantinople.

It follows that there was no formal schism between Rome and most of Eastern Orthodoxy (excepting perhaps Constantinople) from 1054 until 1472, when the Greeks only (not the Slavic Orthodox, including Russia) renounced the ecumenical union of the Council of Ferrara-Florence. So for those 418 years, most self-described Orthodox Christians were actually / canonically / technically part of the Catholic Church (at least in our eyes), and hence, not regarded as damned en masse, as Gavin claimed. That’s the medieval era. Many individual Orthodox may have denied the validity of our sacraments and denied that we are part of the One True Church (that they think is the 17 or so Orthodox churches), as many continue to do today, but we don’t return that favor. And Gavin’s critique was directed at Catholicism.
*
ADDENDUM 3
*
The seemingly “exclusive” words of Council of Ferrara-Florence, Cantate Domino (1441) have to be interpreted in light of the Bull of Union with the Armenians, from Session 8 (22 November 1439). It refers to “those signed with the seal of Christ” and “the whole Christian people” who ought to “rest and rejoice together in mutual peace and brotherly love.” It refers to the negotiation of a formal union with the Armenians:
*
. . . closely inquiring of them about their faith in respect of the unity of the divine essence and the Trinity of divine persons, also about the humanity of our lord Jesus Christ, the seven sacraments of the church and other points concerning the orthodox faith and the rites of the universal church.
*
This was done “so that in future there could be no doubt about the truth of the faith of the Armenians . . .” The document then goes into a description of the seven sacraments. First, baptism:
*
Holy baptism holds the first place among all the sacraments, for it is the gate of the spiritual life; through it we become members of Christ and of the body of the church. . . . The minister of this sacrament is a priest, who is empowered to baptize in virtue of his office. But in case of necessity not only a priest or a deacon, but even a lay man or a woman, even a pagan and a heretic, can baptize provided he or she uses the form of the church and intends to do what the church does. The effect of this sacrament is the remission of all original and actual guilt, also of all penalty that is owed for that guilt. Hence no satisfaction for past sins is to be imposed on the baptized, but those who die before they incur any guilt go straight to the kingdom of heaven and the vision of God. [my italics and bolding]
*
Note the language of universality and valid sacraments outside formal membership in the Catholic Church, in its treatment of the Holy Eucharist:

Since, therefore, both the holy Roman church taught by the most blessed apostles Peter and Paul and the other churches of Latins and Greeks, in which the lights of all sanctity and doctrine have shone brightly, have behaved in this way from the very beginning of the growing church and still do so, it seems very unfitting that any other region should differ from this universal and reasonable observance. We decree, therefore, that the Armenians should conform themselves with the whole Christian world and that their priests shall mix a little water with the wine in the oblation of the chalice, as has been said. The form of this sacrament are the words of the Saviour with which he effected this sacrament. A priest speaking in the person of Christ effects this sacrament. For, in virtue of those words, the substance of bread is changed into the body of Christ and the substance of wine into his blood. . . . The effect of this sacrament, which is produced in the soul of one who receives it worthily, is the union of him or her with Christ. Since by grace a person is incorporated in Christ and is united with his members, the consequence is that grace is increased by this sacrament in those who receive it worthily, and that every effect that material food and drink produce for corporal life — sustaining, increasing, repairing and delighting — this sacrament works for spiritual life. For in it, as Pope Urban said, we recall the gracious memory of our Saviour, we are withdrawn from evil, we are strengthened in good and we receive an increase of virtues and graces. [my italics and bolding]
*

In discussing feast days, the document again refers to “all other churches among Latins and Greeks” which celebrate “the rites of Christians.” It was obvious that the Catholic Church presupposed that these Eastern churches not in formal communion with her, were Christians, who possessed seven sacraments, including valid priests, baptism, and the Holy Eucharist. They already were implicitly part of the true Church and the Body of Christ, by virtue of baptism and the Eucharist. This was true even if they didn’t formally join with the Roman See, which is proven by the very language employed. Here’s how the logic works:

1) Eastern non-Latin or non-Catholic Christians possessed seven valid sacraments, including ordination.

2) These were Christian churches “in which the lights of all sanctity and doctrine have shone brightly.” This is hardly language of those thought to be automatically damned en masse, simply because they aren’t formally Catholics in communion with and obedient to Rome.

3) Baptism performed by them (and indeed, even performed by “a pagan and a heretic”) causes the recipients to “become members of Christ and of the body of the church.” For this reason, the Catholic Church didn’t “rebaptize” Donatists who returned to the Church (way back in Augustine’s time) or Orthodox who became Catholic.

4) The effect of receiving the Holy Eucharist, consecrated through the hands of a validly ordained Eastern priest, is “the union of him or her with Christ” and causes them to be “incorporated in Christ” and “united with his members.” The “sacrament works for spiritual life.”

The above propositions can easily be harmonized with the phrase “remains in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church” from Cantate Domino, two years later. There is a sacramental, mystical, spiritual sense of being “Catholic” or being part of the “Body of Christ” that goes beyond merely formal membership, according to the clear words of this ecumenical council. Catholics, therefore, can’t be accused of anachronistically “projecting back” onto Cantate Domino the thoughts of Vatican II or even those of Trent, because the above conciliar language is from the same council, two years earlier. This means that Cantate Domino can and may be interpreted within the larger context of these earlier — equally magisterial — statements, and harmonized with them, just as we interpret less clear passages of Holy Scripture with the aid of clearer related passages.

Now, it turns out that the Armenians rejected this ostensibly achieved union in their Armenian Synod of 1441, as someone noted, with great detail, in The Byzantine Forum. He stated that “the Armenians were never in communion with Rome” nor with “anyone” else. The only other time they even negotiated for it was with Constantinople (only to be rejected in a synod in 1179). The post was written in 2001. Perhaps some ecumenical developments have occurred since. But in any event, none of that has any bearing whatever on either my present argument or the Catholic position. We regarded them as Christians, with valid sacraments and true grace imparted by them, whether formally in union with Rome or not.

And this runs contrary to Gavin’s statement that I was contesting in this article: “Throughout the medieval era, pretty much all the Roman Catholics think that the non-Catholics are damned . . . and those views find their way into the highest levels of magisterial teaching.”

*

***

*

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: apologistdave@gmail.com. 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: The Marburg Colloquy, 1529 (1867), by August Noack (1822-1905). Here, Luther wrangled with Zwingli and defended the Real presence in the Holy Eucharist [Flickr / CC BY-SA 2.0 DEED license]

Summary: Gavin Ortlund claimed that medieval magisterial Catholicism thought all non-Catholics were hellbound. I refute that & show how early Protestants damned each other.

Follow Us!
OTHER RELATED CONTENT
1
We Should Take Hell Seriously
A Little Bit of Nothing
2
6 Things You Can Actually Do...
Beloved
3
What Religion Does Taylor Swift Practice?
Sticking the Corners
4
Missouri Executioners: A Warning of Justice...
Jeff Hood
Browse Our Archives
TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
Secularism and the Death of Dialogue
Sensus Fidei: Do the Faithful Share in Infallibility?
The Temple Veil
Pentecost And The Fall
A Concert, a Dance, and Christianity
The BiMillennium of the Catholic Church - An...
view all Catholic blogs