Catholic & Calvinist Agreement on Justification & Works

Last updated on: September 2, 2020 at 12:14 pm By Dave Armstrong

All of the following words (minus the section titles) are from one of the most prominent of the early Protestant leaders: John Calvin (1509-1564), from his Institutes of the Christian Religion. I utilize the public domain translation of Henry Beveridge, dated 1845, from the 1559 edition in Latin; available online. This is taken from my book, A Biblical Critique of Calvinism (2012 book: 178 pages), from the final section: “Appendix of Areas of Calvinist-Catholic Agreement.”

*****

Antinomianism; Cheap Grace

This is the place to address those who, having nothing of Christ but the name and sign, would yet be called Christians. How dare they boast of this sacred name? None have intercourse with Christ but those who have acquired the true knowledge of him from the Gospel. The Apostle denies that any man truly has learned Christ who has not learned to put off “the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, and put on Christ,” (Eph. 4:22). They are convicted, therefore, of falsely and unjustly pretending a knowledge of Christ, whatever be the volubility and eloquence with which they can talk of the Gospel. Doctrine is not an affair of the tongue, but of the life; is not apprehended by the intellect and memory merely, like other branches of learning; but is received only when it possesses the whole soul, and finds its seat and habitation in the inmost recesses of the heart. Let them, therefore, either cease to insult God, by boasting that they are what they are not, or let them show themselves not unworthy disciples of their divine Master. To doctrine in which our religion is contained we have given the first place, since by it our salvation commences; but it must be transfused into the breast, and pass into the conduct, and so transform us into itself, as not to prove unfruitful. If philosophers are justly offended, and banish from their company with disgrace those who, while professing an art which ought to be the mistress of their conduct, convert it into mere loquacious sophistry, with how much better reason shall we detest those flimsy sophists who are contented to let the Gospel play upon their lips, when, from its efficacy, it ought to penetrate the inmost affections of the heart, fix its seat in the soul, and pervade the whole man a hundred times more than the frigid discourses of philosophers? (III, 6:4)

Discipleship

I insist not that the life of the Christian shall breathe nothing but the perfect Gospel, though this is to be desired, and ought to be attempted. I insist not so strictly on evangelical perfection, as to refuse to acknowledge as a Christian any man who has not attained it. In this way all would be excluded from the Church, since there is no man who is not far removed from this perfection, while many, who have made but little progress, would be undeservedly rejected. What then? Let us set this before our eye as the end at which we ought constantly to aim. Let it be regarded as the goal towards which we are to run. For you cannot divide the matter with God, undertaking part of what his word enjoins, and omitting part at pleasure. For, in the first place, God uniformly recommends integrity as the principal part of his worship, meaning by integrity real singleness of mind, devoid of gloss and fiction, and to this is opposed a double mind; as if it had been said, that the spiritual commencement of a good life is when the internal affections are sincerely devoted to God, in the cultivation of holiness and justice. But seeing that, in this earthly prison of the body, no man is supplied with strength sufficient to hasten in his course with due alacrity, while the greater number are so oppressed with weakness, that hesitating, and halting, and even crawling on the ground, they make little progress, let every one of us go as far as his humble ability enables him, and prosecute the journey once begun. No one will travel so badly as not daily to make some degree of progress. This, therefore, let us never cease to do, that we may daily advance in the way of the Lord; and let us not despair because of the slender measure of success. How little soever the success may correspond with our wish, our labour is not lost when to-day is better than yesterday, provided with true singleness of mind we keep our aim, and aspire to the goal, not speaking flattering things to ourselves, nor indulging our vices, but making it our constant endeavour to become better, until we attain to goodness itself. If during the whole course of our life we seek and follow, we shall at length attain it, when relieved from the infirmity of flesh we are admitted to full fellowship with God. (III, 6:5)

Faith and Works are Both Necessary in the Christian Life

. . . the faith by which alone, through the mercy of God, we obtain free justification, is not destitute of good works . . . (III, 11:1)

We dream not of a faith which is devoid of good works, nor of a justification which can exist without them . . . This faith, however, you cannot apprehend without at the same time apprehending sanctification; for Christ “is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption,” (1 Cor. 1:30). Christ, therefore, justifies no man without also sanctifying him. These blessings are conjoined by a perpetual and inseparable tie. Those whom he enlightens by his wisdom he redeems; whom he redeems he justifies; whom he justifies he sanctifies. But as the question relates only to justification and sanctification, to them let us confine ourselves. Though we distinguish between them, they are both inseparably comprehended in Christ. Would ye then obtain justification in Christ? You must previously possess Christ. But you cannot possess him without being made a partaker of his sanctification: for Christ cannot be divided. Since the Lord, therefore, does not grant us the enjoyment of these blessings without bestowing himself, he bestows both at once but never the one without the other. Thus it appears how true it is that we are justified not without, and yet not by works, since in the participation of Christ, by which we are justified, is contained not less sanctification than justification. (III, 16:1)

I think we have already put it out of the power of our calumniators to treat us as if we were the enemies of good works—justification being denied to works not in order that no good works may be done or that those which are done may be denied to be good; but only that we may not trust or glory in them, or ascribe salvation to them. (III, 17:1)

And as Paul contends that men are justified without the aid of works, so James will not allow any to be regarded as justified who are destitute of good works. . . . an empty phantom of faith does not justify, and . . . the believer, not contented with such an imagination, manifests his justification by good works. (III, 17:12)

Grace Alone; Initial Justification

Scripture, when it treats of justification by faith, leads us in a very different direction. Turning away our view from our own works, it bids us look only to the mercy of God and the perfection of Christ. The order of justification which it sets before us is this: first, God of his mere gratuitous goodness is pleased to embrace the sinner, in whom he sees nothing that can move him to mercy but wretchedness, because he sees him altogether naked and destitute of good works. He, therefore, seeks the cause of kindness in himself, that thus he may affect the sinner by a sense of his goodness, and induce him, in distrust of his own works, to cast himself entirely upon his mercy for salvation. This is the meaning of faith by which the sinner comes into the possession of salvation, when, according to the doctrine of the Gospel, he perceives that he is reconciled by God; when, by the intercession of Christ, he obtains the pardon of his sins, and is justified . . . (III, 11:16)

There is no controversy between us and the sounder Schoolmen as to the beginning of justification. They admit that the sinner, freely delivered from condemnation, obtains justification, and that by forgiveness of sins . . . (III, 14:11)

Grace: Greater Degree or Measure of

we must hold that the Lord, while he daily enriches his servants, and loads them with new gifts of his grace, because he approves of and takes pleasure in the work which he has begun, finds that in them which he may follow up with larger measures of grace. To this effect are the sentences, “To him that has shall be given.” “Well done, good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things,” (Mt. 25:21, 23, 29; Luke 19:17, 26). . . . I admit, then, that believers may expect as a blessing from God, that the better the use they make of previous, the larger the supplies they will receive of future grace; but I say that even this use is of the Lord, and that this remuneration is bestowed freely of mere good will. (II, 3:11)

Grace: Synergy; Free Cooperation with God’s Grace

Meanwhile, we deny not the truth of Augustine’s doctrine, that the will is not destroyed, but rather repaired, by grace—the two things being perfectly consistent—viz. that the human will may be said to be renewed when its vitiosity and perverseness being corrected, it is conformed to the true standard of righteousness . . . There is nothing then to prevent us from saying, that our will does what the Spirit does in us, although the will contributes nothing of itself apart from grace. . . . though every thing good in the will is entirely derived from the influence of the Spirit, yet, because we have naturally an innate power of willing, we are not improperly said to do the things of which God claims for himself all the praise; first, because every thing which his kindness produces in us is our own (only we must understand that it is not of ourselves); and, secondly, because it is our mind, our will, our study which are guided by him to what is good. (II, 5:15)

Justification and Sanctification: Closely Allied

. . . Christ cannot be divided into parts, so the two things, justification and sanctification, which we perceive to be united together in him, are inseparable. Whomsoever, therefore, God receives into his favor, he presents with the Spirit of adoption, whose agency forms them anew into his image. But if the brightness of the sun cannot be separated from its heat, are we therefore to say, that the earth is warmed by light and illumined by heat? Nothing can be more apposite to the matter in hand than this simile. The sun by its heat quickens and fertilizes the earth; by its rays enlightens and illumines it. Here is a mutual and undivided connection, and yet reason itself prohibits us from transferring the peculiar properties of the one to the other. . . . those whom God freely regards as righteous, he in fact renews to the cultivation of righteousness, . . . Scriptures while combining both, classes them separately, that it may the better display the manifold grace of God. (III, 11:6)

Law of Moses: not Abrogated or Abolished

When the Lord declares, that he came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfil (Mt. 5:17); that until heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or little shall remain unfulfilled; he shows that his advent was not to derogate, in any degree, from the observance of the Law. And justly, since the very end of his coming was to remedy the transgression of the Law. Therefore, the doctrine of the Law has not been infringed by Christ, but remains, that, by teaching, admonishing, rebuking, and correcting, it may fit and prepare us for every good work. (II, 7:14)

Sanctification

For if we have true fellowship in his death, our old man is crucified by his power, and the body of sin becomes dead, so that the corruption of our original nature is never again in full vigor (Rom. 6:5, 6). If we are partakers in his resurrection, we are raised up by means of it to newness of life, which conforms us to the righteousness of God. In one word, then, by repentance I understand regeneration, the only aim of which is to form in us anew the image of God, which was sullied, and all but effaced by the transgression of Adam. So the Apostle teaches when he says, “We all with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, as by the Spirit of the Lord.” Again, “Be renewed in the spirit of your minds” and “put ye on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.” Again, “Put ye on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him.” Accordingly through the blessing of Christ we are renewed by that regeneration into the righteousness of God from which we had fallen through Adam, the Lord being pleased in this manner to restore the integrity of all whom he appoints to the inheritance of life. This renewal, indeed, is not accomplished in a moment, a day, or a year, but by uninterrupted, sometimes even by slow progress God abolishes the remains of carnal corruption in his elect, cleanses them from pollution, and consecrates them as his temples, restoring all their inclinations to real purity, so that during their whole lives they may practice repentance, and know that death is the only termination to this warfare. The greater is the effrontery of an impure raver and apostate, named Staphylus, who pretends that I confound the condition of the present life with the celestial glory, when, after Paul, I make the image of God to consist in righteousness and true holiness; as if in every definition it were not necessary to take the thing defined in its integrity and perfection. It is not denied that there is room for improvement; but what I maintain is, that the nearer any one approaches in resemblance to God, the more does the image of God appear in him. That believers may attain to it, God assigns repentance as the goal towards which they must keep running during the whole course of their lives. (III, 3:9)

The Scripture system of which we speak aims chiefly at two objects. The former is, that the love of righteousness, to which we are by no means naturally inclined, may be instilled and implanted into our minds. The latter is to prescribe a rule which will prevent us while in the pursuit of righteousness from going astray. It has numerous admirable methods of recommending righteousness. Many have been already pointed out in different parts of this work; but we shall here also briefly advert to some of them. With what better foundation can it begin than by reminding us that we must be holy, because “God is holy?” (Lev. 19:1; 1 Pet. 1:16). For when we were scattered abroad like lost sheep, wandering through the labyrinth of this world, he brought us back again to his own fold. When mention is made of our union with God, let us remember that holiness must be the bond; not that by the merit of holiness we come into communion with him (we ought rather first to cleave to him, in order that, pervaded with his holiness, we may follow whither he calls), but because it greatly concerns his glory not to have any fellowship with wickedness and impurity. Wherefore he tells us that this is the end of our calling, the end to which we ought ever to have respect, if we would answer the call of God. For to what end were we rescued from the iniquity and pollution of the world into which we were plunged, if we allow ourselves, during our whole lives, to wallow in them? Besides, we are at the same time admonished, that if we would be regarded as the Lord’s people, we must inhabit the holy city Jerusalem (Isaiah rev. 8, et alibi); which, as he hath consecrated it to himself, it were impious for its inhabitants to profane by impurity. Hence the expressions, “Who shall abide in thy tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy holy hill? He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness,” (Ps. 15:1, 2; 24:3, 4); for the sanctuary in which he dwells certainly ought not to be like an unclean stall. (III, 6:2)

If the Lord adopts us for his sons on the condition that our life be a representation of Christ, the bond of our adoption,—then, unless we dedicate and devote ourselves to righteousness, we not only, with the utmost perfidy, revolt from our Creator, but also abjure the Saviour himself. Then, from an enumeration of all the blessings of God, and each part of our salvation, it finds materials for exhortation. Ever since God exhibited himself to us as a Father, we must be convicted of extreme ingratitude if we do not in turn exhibit ourselves as his sons. Ever since Christ purified us by the laver of his blood, and communicated this purification by baptism, it would ill become us to be defiled with new pollution. Ever since he ingrafted us into his body, we, who are his members, should anxiously beware of contracting any stain or taint. Ever since he who is our head ascended to heaven, it is befitting in us to withdraw our affections from the earth, and with our whole soul aspire to heaven. Ever since the Holy Spirit dedicated us as temples to the Lord, we should make it our endeavour to show forth the glory of God, and guard against being profaned by the defilement of sin. Ever since our soul and body were destined to heavenly incorruptibility and an unfading crown, we should earnestly strive to keep them pure and uncorrupted against the day of the Lord. (III, 6:3)

For we deny not that God by his Spirit forms us anew to holiness and righteousness of life . . . (III, 11:12)

Theosis; Divinization

Christ by justifying us becomes ours by an essential union, . . . the essence of the divine nature is diffused into us . . . (III, 11:6)

***

Photo credit: Portrait of Jean Calvin, by Titian (1490-1576) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Mortal and Venial Sin (vs. Calvin #56)

Last updated on: August 20, 2020 at 11:21 am By Dave Armstrong

This is an installment of a series of replies (see the Introduction and Master List) to much of Book IV (Of the Holy Catholic Church) — and some of Book III — of Institutes of the Christian Religion, by early Protestant leader John Calvin (1509-1564). I utilize the public domain translation of Henry Beveridge, dated 1845, from the 1559 edition in Latin; available online. Calvin’s words will be in blue. All biblical citations (in my portions) will be from RSV unless otherwise noted.

Defense of Bible Passages vs. Eternal Security & Faith Alone

Last updated on: August 12, 2020 at 11:22 am By Dave Armstrong

vs. Anti-Catholic Protestant Apologist Jason Engwer

Jason wrote an article (late 90s) entitled, “A Response to Passages of Scripture Often Cited in Opposition to Salvation Through Faith Alone and Eternal Security.” In it he critiques the passages from theological opponents that (in our opinion) prove eternal security to be a false doctrine. E for effort and a certain sort of sophistical cleverness, but ultimately his reasoning fails, as always, when he attempts to war against Catholicism. This is my counter-reply. His words will be in blue. I will post the entire Bible passages (not included in his article) in black, indented (RSV).

*****

Matthew 7:21-23 – These people were never saved. Jesus says that He never knew them. They couldn’t have lost a salvation they didn’t have.

“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. [22] 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?’ [23] And then will I declare to them, `I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.’

The main point is that those who claim the name of Christ but don’t follow His commands (i.e., do good works) — combined with faith by His grace — are not and cannot be saved. He condemns falsely claimed works but at the same time affirms good works (“does the will of my Father”); i.e., doing as well as merely saying words. There are indeed certain folks that He never knew, that were never saved or in His good graces at any time (just as in the parable of the sower). But this doesn’t (logically or theologically) rule out another category of those who were in such a good state and forsook it.

The context provides further insight. In 7:15-20, Jesus warns against false prophets. How do we know they are false? “By their fruits” (7:16, 20): again, good works as the manifestation of genuine faith. In 7:24-27 He makes the analogy of building a house on a foundation of rock rather than sand. “House” in this analogy is salvation. The house built on rock stands; i.e., the salvation is genuine and permanent. But the house built on sand “fell; and great was the fall of it” (7:27). It seems clear to me that the house falling, by analogy, refers to falling away from salvation. The man once “had” the house, then he no longer did. Therefore, Jesus refutes eternal security.

Matthew 25:31-46 – Jesus doesn’t say that these people were saved through works. The works of the sheep reflect a regenerated heart (2 Corinthians 5:17), and are the result of salvation (Ephesians 2:10), but they aren’t the means of salvation (Ephesians 2:8-9). The sheep became sheep through faith (Acts 15:9), then behaved as sheep. There are lost people who feed the hungry, visit people in prison, etc. And there are saved people who don’t do any of that (Luke 23:39-43, 1 Corinthians 3:15). What Jesus is addressing in Matthew 25 is the general contrast between the lives of the regenerate and the lives of the unregenerate at the time of His second coming. He’s not teaching salvation through works.

“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.’ [37] Then the righteous will answer him, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? [38] And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? [39] And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?’ [40] And the King will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.’ [41] Then he will say to those at his left hand, `Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; [42] for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, [43] I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ [44] Then they also will answer, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?’ [45] Then he will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.’ [46] And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

We agree that He’s not teaching salvation by works, which is the heresy of Pelagianism. But He is teaching salvation that cannot be obtained without good works (enabled and wrought always in His grace). The ultimate means of salvation are, of course, Jesus’ death on the cross and God’s grace, sufficient to reconcile us with Him. We agree again with our Protestant brethren about that. The passage is remarkable in that it never mentions faith in Jesus as the sole (?) key to salvation. And that’s because the strict (almost or sometimes actually antinomian) “faith alone” position is not biblical at all.

The key to interpreting the above passage is the word “for” in both verses 35 and 42. Jesus is saying, in effect, “you are saved and will go to heaven [or hell], for you did these good works: x, y, z [or did not do them].” He makes it a directly causal relationship. “For” can only plausibly be interpreted, I submit, by giving it the meaning of “because.” In other words, in the overall context of biblical soteriology, it means, “you proved that you have a genuine faith by your good works; therefore you are rewarded with eternal life.”

Luke 18:18-25 – Jesus had just taught salvation apart from works (Luke 18:10-14). He doesn’t contradict Himself in the conversation that follows with the rich young ruler. To the contrary, the conversation is a further illustration of what Jesus had taught in verses 10-14. The rich young ruler, like the Pharisee mentioned a few verses earlier, expected to be saved through works. He thought he had kept all of God’s commandments throughout his life (Luke 18:21), though he obviously hadn’t (Romans 3:9-23). As Jesus told him, only God is good (Luke 18:19). Since this man thought that he was good enough to attain eternal life through works, however, Jesus revealed the man’s imperfection by commanding him to do a work that he then refused to do (Luke 18:22-23). The disciples asked who, then, could be saved (Luke 18:26). If the rich young ruler couldn’t be saved, despite claiming to have kept all of God’s commandments throughout his life, how could anybody be saved? Jesus explains that what’s impossible with men is possible with God (Luke 18:27). He was reaffirming what He had taught in verses 10-14. God justifies the ungodly (Romans 4:5-6). A tax collector who relies only on the mercy of God is saved, while a Pharisee and a rich young ruler who try to attain eternal life through works are lost (Romans 9:30-10:4). Rather than supporting salvation through works, the conversation with the rich young ruler is more evidence of the hopelessness of trying to be saved through works. To be saved through works, a person would have to perfectly fulfill God’s laws for all of his life (Galatians 3:10, James 2:10), and nobody does that (Romans 3:9-23, Galatians 3:22, James 3:2). Only Christ perfectly obeyed God throughout His life. Only Christ is good (Luke 18:19). Only His righteousness, accepted as a free gift through faith, apart from works (Romans 3:21-24, 4:5-6, 5:16-17), can justify.

[rich young ruler story] And a ruler asked him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” [19] And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. [20] You know the commandments: `Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother.'” [21] And he said, “All these I have observed from my youth.” [22] And when Jesus heard it, he said to him, “One thing you still lack. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” [23] But when he heard this he became sad, for he was very rich. [24] Jesus looking at him said, “How hard it is for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God! [25] For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

I love this example, because it totally goes against Protestant soteriology, as I have written about (in fact, two times). Jesus wasn’t condemning works per se in 18:10-14, but rather, pride in works or self-righteousness, which was the Pharisees’ main fault. Jason simply reads that into it (eisegesis), because it’s what he wants to see, according to his mistaken theology in this respect. Jesus didn’t run down good works (“commandments”) at all. He was directly asked how one obtains eternal life. So what does He mention first? Faith alone? Nope: He inquires as to whether he kept the commandments. Jesus’ answer is more straightforward and explicit in the version in Matthew (“If you would enter life, keep the commandments”: 19:17). That was His first answer as to how a human being can be saved.

Jason contradicts himself by saying, “Since this man thought that he was good enough to attain eternal life through works, however, Jesus revealed the man’s imperfection by commanding him to do a work . . .” If the ruler thought that works saved him, why didn’t Jesus start talking about faith, rather than another work? It makes no sense. The whole passage only makes sense within a Catholic or Orthodox paradigm. This particular person (not all rich people) idolized his riches; therefore it was necessary for him not just to have faith, but additionally to yield up his idolatry and to give up his riches.

No one denies that we can’t save ourselves (contra Pelagianism again). Jesus, in saying, “”What is impossible with men is possible with God” (18:27) is simply noting that God’s grace can make all kinds of “impossible” things possible. That’s not running down works, but rather, asserting God’s providence and power. Jesus didn’t say “a Pharisee and a rich young ruler who try to attain eternal life through works are lost”. That’s putting words in His mouth. To the contrary, Jesus asserted that if the ruler sold all he had, he would ” have treasure in heaven” (meaning that he would be saved, which is proven by his being in heaven at all). And remember, the original question was, “what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus’ answer was, 1) keep the commandments, and 2) sell all that you have (two instances of good works). The word “faith” is never mentioned.

Moreover, Jesus again emphasizes the necessity of good works in the following passage: “Truly, I say to you, there is no man who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, [30] who will not receive manifold more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life” (18:29-30). They did stuff and received eternal life because they did it. Again, I think grace and faith are implied and are present in the whole equation, based on many other passages, but the works clearly play a key and indispensable role, too. It’s not “salvation by works” but rather, “salvation by grace and faith, which inevitably manifests itself through required good works.” That is the biblical, Pauline, and Catholic position (summarized).

Romans 2:7 – Those who perfectly fulfill God’s laws will live eternally, as Paul explains. However, he goes on in chapter 3 to explain that nobody lives up to that standard. Everybody falls short (Romans 3:9-23). As he writes in Galatians 3:22, all men have been shut up under sin. God’s laws are meant to be a tutor to lead us to salvation through faith in Christ (Galatians 3:21-25). Those who try to attain eternal life by following all of God’s laws will fail, and they’ll be rejecting the perfect righteousness of Christ in favor of their own imperfect righteousness (Jeremiah 23:6, Romans 9:30-10:4, Philippians 3:9). As Paul explains in Romans 2:12, everybody who sins is lost. And nobody is without sin. This is why those who are saved must be saved by grace (Romans 4:4, 4:16) as a free gift (Romans 3:24, 5:16-17, 6:23), not as a reward attained through works. Anybody who is so deceived as to think that he’s living up to the standards of Romans 2 should go on to chapter 3 to be undeceived.

to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;

Once again, “well-doing” is directly tied to “eternal life.” How could it be any more clear than that: that faith alone is nonsense, and manifestly unbiblical? I have found no less than fifty biblical instances of this same dynamic. As fully expected, Jason skips over 2:13: ” For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified,” and 2:6: “For he will render to every man according to his works:” because they don’t fit very well at all into Protestant theology and false traditions. 2:8 notes that “there will be wrath and fury” for those who “do not obey the truth” (not just refuse to believe it in their head). 2:9 tells us that “every human being who does evil” will suffer (perhaps implied damnation?), while God honors “every one who does good” (2:10).

It’s works works works all through the passage. Jason blithely ignores and passes over this, which is his classic methodology: simply ignore what you can’t explain as if it wasn’t there. But it is there, and it’s there for a reason. All he can do is play “Bible hopscotch” and bring in many other passages (“pet” Protestant verses), rather than honestly address the one passage before him at the moment. When he does make arguments, it’s a non sequitur, because we already agree with him that works alone salvation is every bit as false as faith alone salvation.

Romans 11:22 – The context is a discussion of Jews and Gentiles in the plan of God. Paul isn’t saying that individual Christians can lose their salvation. That would contradict what Paul says repeatedly elsewhere, including in Romans (Romans 5:9, 8:30). Paul is referring to the Gentiles as a group. They could fall out of God’s favor, just as the Jews had.

Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off.

I agree that he is talking primarily about groups (Jews and Gentiles) and “communal salvation,” so to speak, and that this is by no means a strong argument against eternal security of individuals. That said, it’s still, nonetheless, the same general notion that groups (like individuals) can possess salvation and then lose it (“those who have fallen” / “cut off”). It’s not instant (as shown by the words, “provided you continue . . .”). The passage is also reminiscent of Jesus’ sayings about individuals who will be “cut down” and damned if they fail to produce “fruit”:

Matthew 3:10 Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. (cf. Lk 3:9, exactly the same)

Matthew 7:19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

1 Corinthians 9:24-27 – Paul is discussing rewards and setting an example for others to follow. He’s not discussing how to attain eternal life. As he explained earlier in the epistle (1 Corinthians 3:11-15), how a Christian lives his life will determine rewards in Heaven, but not entrance to Heaven. Paul was sure of his own future in Heaven (Romans 5:9, 2 Corinthians 5:1-8, Philippians 1:21-23, 3:20-21, 1 Thessalonians 4:16-18, 2 Timothy 4:18), and he was also sure that the Corinthian believers would always be saved (1 Corinthians 1:8). To assume that Paul is referring to attaining eternal life in 1 Corinthians 9:24-27 is speculative, and is contrary to other passages of scripture.

Do you not know that in a race all the runners compete, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it. [25] Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. [26] Well, I do not run aimlessly, I do not box as one beating the air; [27] but I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.

Jason claims, “He’s not discussing how to attain eternal life.” This is untrue. He refers to an “imperishable” wreath. That’s eternal life, that never ends, or at the very least, eternal rewards that come as a result of having been saved. Being “disqualified” is a rather obvious reference to possible loss of salvation, if we don’t persevere. Salvation is also evident in context, with references to winning men (i.e., playing an instrumental role in helping them to become saved: five times in 9:19-22). He refers to preaching the “gospel” (9:14, 16, 18, 23). That has to do with salvation, folks. No Protestant can deny it. And he writes, “that I might by all means save some” (9:22). It’s all salvation. And it can be lost: so teaches St. Paul: the greatest evangelist of all time.

Romans 5:9 and its surrounding context is a general statement about salvation, as opposed to being about Paul’s own salvation. 2 Corinthians 5:1-8 is of a similar nature. And the context includes reference to altogether necessary works (as always in Paul): “we make it our aim to please him” (5:9), “so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body” (5:10). Paul writes in Philippians 1:20: “it is my eager expectation and hope that I shall not be at all ashamed . . .” That’s not absolute assurance. The word “hope” is about things not yet surely or certainly attained. If I say that “I hope to get a ten-speed for Christmas” I don’t have absolute assurance that I will. See Paul’s many other uses of the word “hope.”

Philippians 3:20-21 is another general soteriological statement, not a personal one only about Paul, as is 1 Thessalonians 4:16-18. 2 Timothy 4:18 is about as good a proof as the eternal security proponent can submit, but I would say that it’s written by Paul just before the end of his life, so he can be fairly assured that he will be saved, as an apostle. That’s a lot different from a 20-year-old claiming that he will always persevere and never ever fall away from the faith. He or she simply can’t say that because they don’t know the future. An apostle near the end of his life is a whole different ballgame. 1 Corinthians 1:8 is another general statement about an entire church, not each and every individual in it. It has to be understood in conjunction with 1 Corinthians 10:12, about individuals: “Therefore let any one who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.”

Galatians 5:19-21 – Paul is addressing the general differences between the unregenerate life and the regenerate life. Not all unbelievers bear all of the fruit of the flesh that Paul mentions, and not all believers bear all of the fruit of the Spirit that Paul mentions. Paul is addressing lifestyles, not individual actions that would cause a Christian to lose salvation. The same is true of similar passages (1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Ephesians 5:5-6). Paul is describing the lifestyle of the unregenerate, and is telling believers not to partake of that fruit of the flesh (1 Corinthians 6:11, Ephesians 5:7). The unregenerate who practice such things as a lifestyle are proving that they’re lost. Paul isn’t saying that a Christian who sometimes commits some of those sins will lose his salvation. To the contrary, the list in Galatians 5, for example, includes just about every sin that can be committed, if not every sin. If Galatians 5 was teaching that Christians would lose their salvation by committing those sins, then salvation would be lost every time a sin is committed. But Christians can sin, yet still be saved. 1 Corinthians 3:1-3, for example, tells us that the Corinthians were committing some of the sins listed in Galatians 5, yet they were still saved. They were “babes in Christ”, but were in Christ nonetheless.

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

Why warn them about the possibility of not “inherit[ing] the kingdom of God” if they are in no danger whatsoever of losing it? That makes no sense. I do agree that this is addressing lifestyles in general terms. But then, why does Paul use the word “warn” if it didn’t also apply to real potential danger in the spiritual lives of his Galatian recipients? The early part of the chapter makes it crystal clear that a Christian can fall away from the faith:

Galatians 5:1-2, 4 For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. . . . [3] I testify again to every man who receives circumcision that he is bound to keep the whole law. [4] You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

How does Jason deal with that data? Well, true to form, he doesn’t. He simply ignores it and plays Bible hopscotch again. But in order to be honest with the text, he can’t run from it and only pick and choose what he likes. He brings up Ephesians 5:5-6:

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

Yeah, I agree that it is a “general” observation. But (precisely as in Gal 5:19-21), Paul makes also a direct connection to the Ephesians, whom he addresses collectively as “the saints who are also faithful in Christ Jesus” (1:1):

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

In other words, he says that [habitual / “lifestyle”] fornication can lead one to hell (general statement), but he also warns the Ephesian Christians not to fall into the sin. If they do — the implication is clear — they put themselves in danger of damnation. I don’t see how all of this data taken together can have any other plausible interpretation. Jason remarks, “If Galatians 5 was teaching that Christians would lose their salvation by committing those sins, then salvation would be lost every time a sin is committed.”

But that’s not the point. The point is that even Christians can fall and descend into habitual / lifestyle sin (we’re not talking about momentary lapses; repented of), and that if they do, they are in just as much danger of hell as the ones who never were Christians; maybe more so, on the biblical principle of “Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required” (Lk 12:48).

Philippians 2:12 – The context is about trials in the Christian life, so Paul may not even be referring to salvation of the soul. Even if he is referring to the attaining of eternal life, Paul tells the Philippians to work out their salvation, not to work for their salvation. Works are the fruit of salvation (Ephesians 2:10), not the means of attaining it (Ephesians 2:8-9). Why does Paul refer to fear and trembling, then? Even for those who are already saved, standing before God is a fearful thing (2 Corinthians 5:10-11). Works aren’t a means of salvation, but we are accountable to God for the works we do after salvation (1 Corinthians 3:11-15).

Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;

Quite obviously, salvation is a persevering process, involving our cooperation with God’s grace and possible loss. Jason can try to spin and obfuscate the clear meaning all he likes, but he won’t succeed. He plays the sophist by Clintonian-like parsing words (“out” and “for”), but how could, for example, St. Peter say, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation” (Acts 2:40), or write elsewhere, “so that some [husbands], though they do not obey the word, may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives” (1 Pet 3:1)? There is obviously profound human cooperation with God and good works in all these instances.

Paul isn’t talking about merely standing before God and being understandably awed and scared, but about “salvation,” which is why he used the word. Duh! This ain’t rocket science.

Philippians 3:10-12 – Paul is referring to persevering in the Christian life. He just explained that he was relying on the righteousness of Christ given through faith (Philippians 3:9), not a righteousness of his own. He goes on to refer to his and his readers’ future in Heaven (Philippians 3:20-21). He commented earlier that he would go to be with Christ when he died (Philippians 1:21-23). It’s untenable to argue that, in the midst of all of this, Paul was teaching salvation through works in Philippians 3:10-12. That would be a contradiction of what he had just written about being justified by a righteousness not his own. It would be a contradiction of his repeated references to being sure of his future in Heaven. The resurrection he speaks of attaining in verse 11 probably is a reference to Christ’s resurrection power, as mentioned in verse 10. He can’t be referring to attaining eternal life through works, since he explains in 1:21-23 and 3:20-21 that he’s already sure of his future in Heaven. In other words, Paul seems to be referring in 3:11 to living as victoriously as Christ had lived. It’s a continuation of what he referred to in verse 10. The resurrection was the crowning achievement of Christ’s life, and Paul hadn’t yet attained to that perfection (Philippians 3:12). What Paul was working for was the “upward call of God in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 3:14). Paul is addressing sanctification in Philippians 3:10-12, not justification. He’s addressing perseverance in the Christian life, not how to attain salvation.

that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, [11] that if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. [12] Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own.

How can it be merely “persevering in the Christian life” when Paul makes reference to becoming like Jesus in “death” and “the resurrection from the dead”? Jason becomes flat-out desperate to vainly explain away clear meanings. Yes, of course salvation is through “faith” and not the “law” (3:9). Once again, Jason wars against straw men, but it’s par for the course in these discussions (to the endless frustration of the Catholic participant, including myself). On the other hand, works are fully in view as part of the whole package (“I have suffered the loss of all things, . . . in order that I may gain Christ”: 3:8 / “straining forward”: 3:13 / “I press on toward the goal”: 3:14 / “What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do”: 4:9). The word “faith” (as opposed to “the faith”: which means doctrines: see 1:5), appears only four times in Paul’s entire epistle.

As I wrote above, “Philippians 3:20-21 is another general soteriological statement, not a personal one only about Paul.” It’s true (and I freely grant it) that 1:21-23 does indeed sound very assured (and there are several other passages like that), but the thing is, we can’t just collect Bible passages that “sound” like one thing and ignore others that are of a different nature. We have to incorporate all of them into a harmonious whole. I think Catholic theology (with its “both/and” outlook) quite adequately does that, whereas Protestant theology (more “either/or” in nature and filled with false dichotomies) is incoherent and full of holes, due largely to its tendency to deliberately (almost cynically) avoid large portions of Scripture: “pegs” that don’t fit into the Protestant “hole.”

Once again, Jason special pleads at the end. Paul is simply not talking about sanctification, but rather, eschatological salvation, because the words “death” and “the resurrection from the dead” can only refer to that and have nothing to do with earthly sanctification. To make it even more obvious, what he is talking about, so that no one can misunderstand it, Paul ends the chapter by writing, “. . . our commonwealth is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will change our lowly body to be like his glorious body . . .” (3:20-21). How this somehow only refers to sanctification on earth, as opposed to salvation in heaven, Jason would have to explain, and he’s not likely to ever reply to this paper. One can only stretch things so far without becoming absurd.

Hebrews 6:4-6 – If salvation could be lost, if Christ’s sacrifice wasn’t enough to atone for all sins, there would be no possibility of being saved a second time (Hebrews 6:6). Some people were considering a return to the animal sacrifices of the old covenant, but if Christ’s sacrifice wasn’t enough to atone for all sins, no other sacrifice would be enough either. Rather than contradicting eternal security, Hebrews 6:4-6 affirms it. Christ’s work is sufficient to atone for all sins. People cannot be repeatedly lost and saved. They’re either saved once and forever or they aren’t saved at all. In verse 9, not falling away is described as a “thing that accompanies salvation”, once again affirming eternal security. “Though we thus speak” in verse 9 is a reference to verses 4-6 having been hypothetical. Nobody actually loses salvation. The point is that if salvation wasn’t secure in Christ, it wouldn’t be secure anywhere. Looking for salvation in a return to animal sacrifices is hopeless, as is looking for salvation through works.

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

Now we’re onto some of the very best texts against eternal security, in Hebrews. Jason starts out with Protestant platitudes. This passage is referring to (as I see it, anyway), blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which is indeed unforgivable; but that doesn’t cover all cases of apostasy. Other cases may involve a person returning to the faith. Jason tries to pretend that the passage is merely rhetorical or hypothetical. I don’t see that it reads that way at all. It’s talking about real people: “those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit” and it refers to them literally committing what we are saying is a real and distinct (and terrifying) potentiality: “they then commit apostasy.”

There is occasionally hypothetical rhetoric in Scripture. Perhaps the most famous example is the following passage from St. Paul:

1 Corinthians 15:12-20 Now if Christ is preached as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? [13] But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; [14] if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. [15] We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. [16] For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised. [17] If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. [18] Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. [19] If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied. [20] But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep.

Note that the logical structure is of this form:

“If x isn’t true, neither is y; if y is untrue, then so is z.” (15:13-14 and repeated in 15:16-17)

“If x is untrue, we are of all men most to be pitied.” (15:19)

“But in fact, x is true, and therefore, so are y and z.” (15:20)

Paul makes very clear (leaving no doubt) what he is doing, by saying “if there is . . . ” and using the word “if” over and over, signifying a hypothetical word-picture. But then he counters that by saying “in fact” in verse 20. Hebrews 6:4-6 is not at all like that. It has neither the required structure nor all the “ifs” to suggest that it is merely hypothetical. Jason is special pleading once again. He’s trying his best, but as the old saying would have it: “you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.”

To top it off, the writer once again shows that works and perseverance (as opposed to instant assurance) are always part of the overall picture:

Hebrews 6:10-12 For God is not so unjust as to overlook your work and the love which you showed for his sake in serving the saints, as you still do. [11] And we desire each one of you to show the same earnestness in realizing the full assurance of hope until the end, [12] so that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises.

Hebrews 10:26-31 – God disciplines His children (1 Corinthians 11:29-32, Hebrews 12:6-7). Despite what some people assume when reading this passage, the people being addressed are not people who lost their salvation, but rather they’re God’s people (Hebrews 10:30). Hebrews 10:39, like Hebrews 6:9, once again suggests that not falling away is a thing that accompanies salvation. Those who are saved remain saved (1 John 2:19). Those who are justified are also glorified (Romans 8:30). Nobody is justified, then goes to Hell. Hebrews 10:26-31 may be only a hypothetical, like Hebrews 6:4-6, but even if not, verse 30 explains that the passage is about God’s people being disciplined, not a lost sinner going to Hell.

Hebrews 10:26-31 For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, [27] but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries. [28] A man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses. [29] How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace? [30] For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” [31] It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Jason engages in the worst kind of eisegesis: almost utterly ignoring the plain intent of the text itself. He pretends that it is about mere discipline of children who can never lose their salvation. That’s certainly not how it reads. It refers to a “fury of fire” and people who have “spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace”. Somehow all is fine and they are still saved after all that. Failing any plausible, feasible eternal security interpretation of the text, Jason, as is his wont, wanders off into many other passages, thinking that this gives him the appearance of strength of argument, where there is none. Each one has to be examined on its own, as in his other uses of this technique above.

Context reveals that it is not as Jason makes out. A “full assurance of faith” is referred to in 10:22, but then in the next verse we are told that we must “hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering.” Again, if wavering or falling is impossible from the outset and poses no danger, then why is it mentioned at all? Works are urged in 10:24: “and let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works,”. The same indications of possible falling away occur after our passage above:

Hebrews 10:35-36, 38-39 Therefore do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. [36] For you have need of endurance, so that you may do the will of God and receive what is promised. . . . ” . . . [38] but my righteous one shall live by faith, and if he shrinks back, my soul has no pleasure in him.” [39] But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and keep their souls.

One doesn’t talk about a group of people who commit terrible sins and lose the faith, if indeed it’s not possible in the first place. It would be like saying, “We are not of those who can swim from Boston to the coast of Spain . . . ” If something is utterly impossible, it makes no sense to mention it.

1 John 2:19 (“They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us . . .”) is merely declaring that folks who leave a Christian group are not “of” it: which is common sense and a truism. It has no direct bearing on the eternal security debate. Romans 8:30 is about the predestination of the elect, which Catholics fully agree with, so it’s a moot point, not having to do with the question at hand.

James 2:14-26 – As James explains in 2:8-12, people would have to live perfectly, obeying all of God’s laws (James 2:10), in order to be saved through works. Instead of trusting in a law of works, we have to trust in a law of liberty (James 2:12). Does James go on to contradict himself later in the chapter? No, he doesn’t. He’s addressing the evidence of saving faith (James 2:14) and justification before men (James 2:18). Faith without works is dead in the sense that true faith results in works. James can’t be saying that faith without works is dead in the sense that people aren’t saved until after working. If he was saying that, he would be contradicting what he wrote in 2:8-12, and he would be contradicting Mark 2:5, Luke 7:50, Luke 17:19, Luke 18:10-14, and other passages in which people are saved through faith alone. Abraham was justified before God when he believed (Romans 4:10-11), not when he later did works as a result of his faith (Romans 4:2). However, Abraham was justified before men (James 2:18) not through faith alone, but through works (James 2:21-24). Paul and James aren’t addressing the same issue. Paul is saying that we’re justified before God through faith alone. James is saying that saving faith is evidenced by works, which justify us in the sense that they prove that our faith is true. James agrees with Paul that people are saved through faith, not works, but James is addressing the contrast between true faith and false faith. That’s why he asks in verse 14, “Can that faith save him?” The question assumes that people are saved through faith. James wouldn’t be addressing the type of faith that saves if faith didn’t save. People are saved through faith while ungodly and not working (Romans 4:5-6), then they produce fruit as new creations (2 Corinthians 5:17). The fruit justifies the believer before men (James 2:18), just as wisdom is justified by her children (Luke 7:35).

What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? [15] If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, [16] and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? [17] So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. [18] But some one will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith. [19] You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe — and shudder. [20] Do you want to be shown, you shallow man, that faith apart from works is barren? [21] 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. [25] And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? [26] For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.

Jason starts out with the usual straw man canard about his opponents supposedly being advocates of salvation by works. He just doesn’t get it (poor fellow). His bondage to Protestant hyper-rationalistic and very unbiblical “either/or” reasoning causes him to be out to sea in these matters. He is unable to comprehend the biblical / Hebraic paradoxical and “both/and” approach. As this paper is already very long (more than 7000 words), I’ll refer the reader to my exposition of the passage elsewhere:

Justification in James: Dialogue [5-8-02]

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

Reply to James White’s Exegesis of James 2 in Chapter 20 of His Book, The God Who Justifies [10-9-13]

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

2 Peter 2:20 – In 2 Peter 1:3, Peter refers to true knowledge of Christ. The knowledge of the false teachers in 2 Peter 2:20 apparently isn’t a saving knowledge. These people were dogs and pigs all along, and they proved it by returning to the vomit and mire (2 Peter 2:22). They were headed for Hell all along (2 Peter 2:3, 2:9).

For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overpowered, the last state has become worse for them than the first.

This is one of the very best indications of Catholic soteriology and the possibility of apostasy. Jason utilizes the time-honored technique of redefining words, in order to bolster his erroneous views. “knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” is not a saving knowledge, you see. It’s just head knowledge. The problem with that is the preceding clause: “they have escaped the defilements of the world through . . . ” Only God’s grace offers such an escape. So they were indeed in God’s graces (as Catholics would say), or “saved” (as Protestants would describe it).

Moreover, 2 Peter 1:3, that he brings up, uses the same word “knowledge” (the same Greek word, epignosis) in (undeniably) the sense of saving knowledge (thus Jason futilely tries to draw a distinction without a difference). St. Peter uses this Greek word repeatedly in this sense:

2 Peter 1:2 May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.

2 Peter 1:8 For if these things are yours and abound, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The same word is used four times, yet in one instance, Jason arbitrarily redefines it because it doesn’t fit his preconceived false theology. It’s classic, notorious eisegesis. St. Paul also uses the same word, epignosis, in the same sense, 13 times (Rom 10:2; Eph 1:17; 4:13; Phil 1:9; Col 1:9-10; 2:2; 3:10; 1 Tim 2:4; 2:25; 3:7; Titus 1:1; Philem 6), and never for mere head (non-saving) knowledge. Jason’s case here is nonexistent and utterly untenable.

He also gives us circular reasoning: because they returned (returned?) to the mire, they never were saved. In other words, he assumes what he needs to prove. He appeals to 2 Peter 2:22 (“The dog turns back to his own vomit”), thinking that this proves they always were outside regeneration and salvation, but it’s contradicted by the verse right before it, that Jason (what a surprise!) ignores: “For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them.”

1 John 5:16-17 – Since John recommends praying for the life of those who commit a sin not leading to death, he must be referring to physical life and death, not spiritual life and death. Otherwise, why pray for the life of a person whose sin doesn’t lead to death? Apparently, John is referring to people who are ill. If they’re dying as a result of a sin, then don’t pray for them. God sometimes disciplines Christians with death (Acts 5:1-10, 1 Corinthians 11:29-32). If their illness is not a result of their sin, however, then pray for them to recover.

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

This where Catholics derive the notion of mortal and venial sins. It wasn’t pulled out of a hat by some pope in AD 865. “Life” can be used to refer to both physical and spiritual life in the Bible. It’s obviously the latter in this passage since the guy’s walking around and committing a venial sin and someone prays and God gives him “life.” He already has physical life, so it must mean more grace in the spiritual life. But somehow (don’t ask me how) Jason manages to get it backwards. The context (1 Jn 5:11-13) refers to “life” in Jesus three times and “eternal life” twice. It couldn’t be more clear than it is.

Then he goes into a rabbit trail of the passage supposedly referring to illness, when there is no such indication. It’s yet another desperate, failed attempt to explain away a clear text that supports Catholic positions and refutes Protestant ones.

Revelation 20:13 – This is the judgment of the unregenerate. While Christians are not under any law of works (Romans 6:14, Galatians 3:21-25, James 2:12), unbelievers are judged according to the laws of God. They’re all condemned, and are sent to Hell (Revelation 20:14). John goes on to repeatedly refer to eternal life as a free gift, not something that’s worked for (Revelation 21:6, 22:17). Revelation 20:13 is about the condemnation of the unregenerate, who didn’t accept eternal life in Christ as a free gift. They’re judged by a law of works, while Christians are under grace (Romans 6:14) and are judged by a law of liberty (James 2:12).

And the sea gave up the dead in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead in them, and all were judged by what they had done.

Works again! I refer the reader again to my compilation of 50 biblical passages where works are presented as central in the area of the final judgment and who is saved and who is condemned. The passage doesn’t say that only unbelievers and the damned are judged this way. That is simply Jason superimposing his false tradition onto it. The text says that “all were judged by what they had done.” Hades contained both good and evil people, as we learn from Luke 16: Jesus’ tale (not parable) of Lazarus and the rich man. This is what Ephesians 4:8-10 refers to: Jesus went to Sheol / Hades in “the lower parts of the earth” and “led a host of captives”. That can’t refer to the damned. So Jason’s view is decisively refuted twice. The passage means what it says: “all” were judged, and once again, as so often, the central criterion (though not excluding faith) was good works.

Case closed.

***

Photo credit: Abraham’s Parting from the Family of Lot, by Jan Victors (1619-1676) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Apologetics = Anti-Faith or Absolute “Certainty”?

Last updated on: July 5, 2020 at 1:32 pm By Dave Armstrong

Or, “Does Christianity Reduce to Mere Philosophy or Rationalism?”

There seems to be some erroneous — sometimes almost obsessive — thought around in certain circles (roughly speaking: liberal Catholic ones) that apologetics is supposedly about the obtaining of absolute certainty through reason alone, as if faith has little or nothing to do with it. This is flat-out absurd and is a glaring falsehood (I carefully refrained from using the word “lie” because people get all on their ear).

I’ve been doing apologetics for 39 years now — the first nine as an evangelical Protestant — and have been a published apologist for 27 years and published author in the field (four bestsellers and over twenty “officially” published books) for 18 years. I’ve never seen anyone, to my recollection, who was an actual credentialed apologist (not just a guy with a blog who calls himself one after maybe reading one book), who was stupid and philosophically (or theologically) naive enough to teach such a view.

Even St. Thomas Aquinas: often the whipping-boy for those who foolishly think he taught some kind of “hyper-rationalism”, was clearly a proponent of faith and reason. His project was about a synthesis of orthodox Catholic faith with Aristotelian philosophy, which had been recently revived in 13th-century Europe.

Yet there is this thinking that apologists somehow delusionally pretend that hyper-rationalism is “the way” and that “certitude” is placed higher than God Himself; “absolute certainty” is the idol in their hearts and minds, that faith plays so little of a role in their view that they are actually not far from atheism. Rather than “faith alone” the motto is “reason alone” (so we are told). Those are the stereotypes.

Now I shall proceed to show what orthodox Catholic apologists (folks who actually accept the Catholic faith in its entirety) actually believe and teach: using my own example, since I think I am a rather typical one and in the “mainstream” and have perhaps written more on the topic than any other Catholic apologist operating today (2965 blog articles and 50 books). The following are all excerpts from my writings, with the original date and a link.

*****

And yes, it requires faith, like all Christian beliefs (which, in turn, requires enabling grace). No one denies that. [1997]

It is only the deliberate attempt to denigrate the reasoning process, or the intellect, or mental effort, or “philosophy,” or logic, which undermines what is clearly a biblical viewpoint and creates a false and unbiblical dichotomy between reason and faith. I could go on and on about this, . . . [3-20-99]

Believing Christians and Jews have always possessed “certainty” (I recommend St. John Henry Newman’s Grammar of Assent in this regard [extremely heavy reading: be forewarned] ). It is a rational faith, backed up by eyewitness testimony and historical evidences, and the history of doctrine. It is not mere hyper-rationalistic, Enlightenment-inspired philosophy, . . . No one is saying (or should say) that there is an absolute certainty in a strict philosophical sense . . . [July 2000]

[T]he atheist often demands absolute proof for the Bible’s claims before granting that the Christian has any basis for placing faith in it, that it is God’s inspired word. How an atheist regards any other work as true or false involves largely the same processes, with faith (or, trust, extrapolation, inductive leaps) added onto them. [11-13-02]

Christianity is not philosophy. It may be consistent with true philosophy, and not irrational or incoherent at all (I certainly believe so), but it is something different from philosophy per se. Philosophy simply does not constitute the sum of all knowledge. [3-10-03]

We deny “blind submission” and hold that one can have a reasonable faith and belief that God guides His one true Church. We believe that the one Church which He guides is the Catholic Church. [4-10-03]

When it comes to things like conversion (to Christ or to another faith community) it really comes down to faith. This is how conversion works. We are not computers or machines. We are whole people. Christianity is a faith, and requires faith to adopt (in whatever one of its brands). There is no avoiding this. One can never absolutely prove their system. That is not only true for Christianity but for any thought-system, in my opinion. Faith is also a gift from God and is only received through grace (contra Pelagianism and a religion of works). I think there is a concept of a “reasonable faith” and I certainly seek to follow reason at every turn, because I don’t see that “irrational faith” does anyone any good. A lack of reason can be as harmful as a lack of faith. Some people seem to think that Christianity and personal Christian faith are almost strictly matters of rationalism and making selections, much as one chooses a pair of shoes or what website to visit. This is sheer nonsense. They reduce Christianity to philosophy at various important points, which, to me, smacks of the Enlightenment and a sort of religion possessed by people like Jefferson or Voltaire. [5-13-03]

One ought to always have a reasonable faith, supported by as much evidence as one can find (I thoroughly oppose fideism or “pietism” — which attempt to remove reason from the equation). We accept in faith what appears most plausible and likely to be true from our reasoning and examination of competing hypotheses and worldviews. We are intellectually “duty-bound” to embrace the outlook that has been demonstrated (to our own satisfaction, anyway) to be superior to another competing view. Is that absolute proof? No, of course not. I think “absolute proof” in a strict, rigorous philosophical sense is unable to be obtained about virtually anything. But one accepts Catholicism in and with faith, based on interior witness of the Holy Spirit and outward witness of facts and reason and history; much like one accepts Christianity in general or how the early disciples accepted the Resurrection and the claims of Jesus. [4-25-04]

It requires faith to believe that God will guide His one true Church and preserve it from error, but it is a faith based on what we are taught in the divine revelation, and from Jesus Himself (which is sufficient for me). [6-23-05]

In any event, it requires faith to believe that the Church speaks authoritatively and can be trusted for its theological judgments. You’ll never be able to prove that in an “airtight” sense. [5-18-06]

The same God also revealed that He often refuses to give a sign if the purpose is as some sort of “test.” He wants you to have faith in Him without some absolute proof, just as you have “faith” (i.e., assent without absolute proof) in any number of things that you don’t fully understand. So, e.g., Jesus appeared to “Doubting Thomas” after His resurrection, to “prove Himself.” Yet at the same time, He said, “Blessed are those who have not seen, yet believe” (John 20:29). There is more than enough evidence out there to support belief as rational and worthy of allegiance. But God will not be tested in the way that you seem to demand. This is a common biblical motif. [10-11-06]

The fact is, that any Christian position requires faith, for the simple reason that Christianity is not merely a philosophy, or exercise in epistemology. [James] White’s view requires faith; so does the Catholic outlook. One exercises faith in the Catholic Church being what it claims to be: the One True Church, uniquely guided and led by the Holy Spirit, with infallible teaching. Hopefully, one can give cogent reasons for why this faith is reasonable, but it is still faith in the end: reasonable, not blind. [9-4-07]

Christianity is not philosophy. One cannot achieve airtight, mathematical certainty in matters of faith. . . . It requires faith to believe this, and that is what a Catholic does: we have faith that this Church can exist and that it can be identified and located. We don’t say this rests on our own individual choice. It is already there; like “stumbling upon” the Pacific Ocean or Mt. Everest. We don’t determine whether the thing exists or not. And we must believe it is what it claims to be by faith, absolutely. Why should that surprise anyone except a person who thinks that Christianity is determined purely by arbitrary choice and rationalism without faith? That is no longer simply philosophy or subjective preference, as if Christianity were reduced to Philosophy 0101 (where someone might prefer Kierkegaaard to Kant) or the selection of a flavor of ice cream. [10-7-08]

[O]ne can have a very high degree of moral assurance, and trust in God’s mercy. St. Paul shows this. He doesn’t appear worried at all about his salvation, but on the other hand, he doesn’t make out that he is absolutely assured of it and has no need of persevering. He can’t “coast.” The only thing a Catholic must absolutely avoid in order to not be damned is a subjective commission of mortal sin that is unrepented of. [10-21-08]

Christianity is not philosophy: it is a religious faith. It is not contrary to reason, but it does go beyond it. [1-2-09]

Faith by definition means a thing that falls short of absolute proof. I don’t see how Catholics and Protestants differ all that much in this respect. We have faith in things. I think it is a reasonable faith and not contrary to reason, but it is still faith, and faith is not identical to reason . . . this whole discussion of epistemology might be fun and interesting, but again, it overlooks the fact that faith (including Catholic faith) is not philosophy . . . [11-11-09]

I was saying (a variant of what I have stated 100 times on my blog, though I could have stated it more precisely) that religion is not philosophy; Christianity is not philosophy. It can’t be reduced to that. It requires faith. [6-5-10]

This is a mentality of reducing Christianity to mere philosophy rather than a religion and spiritual outlook that requires faith and incorporates innate and intuitive knowledge that God grants to us through the Holy Spirit and His grace. . . . This sort of thinking is post-Enlightenment hyper-rationalism. It certainly isn’t a biblical outlook. [6-8-10]

There are serious lessons to be learned here: along the lines of having an informed, reasonable faith (complete with apologetic knowledge as necessary), and of yielding up our private judgment and personal inclinations to a God and a Church much higher than ourselves. Faith comes ultimately by God’s grace and His grace alone: not our own semi-understandings. Christianity is not “blind faith”; it is a reasonable faith. But there is such a thing as allegiance and obedience to Christian authority, too. When reason is separated from faith or (on a personal level) never was part of it, “faith” (or the unreasonable facsimile thereof) is empty and open to Satanic and cultural attack, and we are tossed to and fro by the winds and the waves: a cork on the ocean of our decadent, corrupt, increasingly secularist and hedonistic culture. [8-9-10]

“Evidence” is not used in this sense to mean “absolute proof.” A hundred times in my writings, I’ve stated that the Catholic notion of “biblical evidence” is not absolute proof, but rather, consistency and harmony with Scripture and a given doctrine, including implicit and indirect, deductive indications. [9-20-11]

My conversion, then, in summary (considered apart from God’s grace; I am talking specifically about my thought processes), was a combination of the cumulative effect of three different “strands” of evidences (contraception, development of doctrine, and the Catholic perspective on the “Reformation”): all pointing in the same direction. This was perfectly consistent (epistemologically) with my apologetic outlook that I had developed over nine years: the idea of cumulative probability or what might be called “plausibility structures.” [2013]

If we have all faith and no reason, that is fideism, which leads to many bad things. If we go to the other extreme and place reason above faith, then we have positivism and hyper-rationalism (the roots of theological liberalism, or sometimes rigorist schism, the radical Catholic reactionary outlook, and many heretical sects which deny the Holy Trinity, etc.), leading to the loss of supernatural faith if unchecked. The balance is a reasonable faith: with faith higher than reason, but a faith that is always in harmony with reason, inasmuch as it is possible, given the inherent limitations of reason. [12-28-13]

We believe in faith first; we don’t have to “solve every problem” before we believe. That’s not Christian faith, given by God’s grace, but man-centered rationalism. There are always “difficulties” and “problems” in any large system of thought. That doesn’t prevent people from believing in the tenets of same. This includes physical science, where there are a host of things that remain unexplained (e.g., what caused the Big Bang; whether light is a particle or a wave, how life began, the complete lack of evidence for life anywhere else, etc.). People don’t disbelieve in the Big Bang because we can’t explain everything about it. Likewise with Catholic dogma. If even science requires faith and axiomatic presuppositions, how much more, religious faith, which is not identical to philosophy or reason in the first place? . . . All of this requires faith, and faith comes through grace accepted in free will. . . . We’d all be in very rough shape if our personal “epistemology” required us to know every jot and tittle of everything before we could believe it. Most things we do or believe in life we don’t fully understand at all. [July 2015]

Christianity requires faith. It’s not philosophy. We accept many things that we don’t fully understand. People do that in many areas of life every day. [10-8-15]

An intelligent Christian position doesn’t maintain “absolute knowledge” but rather, a reasonable faith in God, or belief in Him, that is made very plausible and likely to be true, by arguments such as these, which indeed provide evidence. [10-29-15]

I don’t think any [theistic arguments] provide absolute proof (but I think absolute proof is difficult to attain in any field of knowledge, so no biggie). But that’s not to say the weaker ones fail. My own view for many years now (at least 30) is that the strength of the overall argument for theism and Christianity is in a cumulative sense, adding up to very strong plausibility (like many strands becoming a very strong rope), seeing that all the arguments point in the same direction. [11-6-15]

Like all arguments from analogy, it is one of plausibility, not one of intended “absolute proof.” In fact, I think all the arguments for God are of the same nature. [11-10-15]

Well, it’s a mixture: faith and reason. The appeal to Church history or tradition also requires faith, but it is a reasonable faith, able to be substantiated historiographically. [5-6-16]

The (philosophical-type) believer approaches it from common sense: “If there is such a thing as a God with omni- qualities a, b, c, what would we reasonably expect to see in a man Who claims to be that God in the flesh? What kind of things could or would He do [not absolutely demonstrate according to some philosophical standard] in order for us to credibly, plausibly believe His extraordinary claims?” And when we see Jesus (assuming the accuracy of the accounts on other rational bases, as we do), we see exactly what we would reasonably expect: He heals, He raises the dead; He raises Himself. He calms the sea and walks on water. He has extraordinary knowledge; He predicts the future, etc. It’s more than enough for us to say, in faith: “He’s God.” [5-22-18]

My Opinion on “Proofs for God’s Existence” Summarized in Two Sentences

My view remains what it has been for many years: nothing strictly / absolutely “proves” God’s existence. But . . . I think His existence is exponentially more probable and plausible than atheism, based on the cumulative effect of a multitude of good and different types of (rational) theistic arguments, and the utter implausibility, incoherence, irrationality, and unacceptable level of blind faith of alternatives. [6-18-18]

There are many things we don’t know with absolute certainty (in fact, almost all things, if we want to be strictly philosophical). Catholics believe in a very high degree of “moral assurance” of salvation, but not absolute certainty of salvation. [7-22-18]

It is [an act of faith] insofar as one accepts the possibility of the miraculous and that which cannot be absolutely proven. Since there are many things that can’t be absolutely proven, I don’t think it’s too much of a big deal. [3-27-19]

I would say that, ultimately, God’s existence is not an empirical question, if by that one means, “Can God be proven by empirical arguments such as the cosmological and teleological arguments?” I don’t think that absolute proof is possible, as I have already stated. But those two arguments are still relevant to the discussion; they touch on empirical things, and I think they establish that God’s existence is more likely than not (because they “fit” much better with a theistic world than they do with an atheist world). . . . So does this [Romans 1:19-20] prove that there is a God by rigid philosophical standards? No. But of course, very few things at all can be proven, if we’re gonna play that skeptical “game.” . . . The atheist “explanation” of the existence of the universe is incoherent and implausible, according to what we know from science; the Christian view is plausible and makes perfect sense, even if it is not ironclad proof. Thus, I would say that for one who likes science and interprets the physical world by means of it, theism is the more plausible and believable meta-interpretation or framework. [5-27-19]

What you bring up is something different: “why believe that God is immutable?” I agree with you (I think): this is a teaching that comes from revelation, and Christians accept it on faith on that basis. . . . Is that absolute proof? No. Very few things can be absolutely proven and almost every belief entails unprovable axioms to get off the ground. Christians believe it in faith, based on revelation. And if we do philosophy we think it is reasonable on that basis as well. [7-26-19]

Cardinal Newman’s Philosophical & Epistemological Commitments [10-19-04]

Pascal, Kreeft, & Kierkegaard on Persuasion & Apologetics [9-2-05]

Dialogue with an Agnostic: God as a “Properly Basic Belief” [10-5-15]

The Certitude of Faith According to Cardinal Newman [9-30-08]

Dialogue on Reason & Faith, w Theological Liberal [1-19-10]

Non-Empirical “Basic” Warrant for Theism & Christianity [10-15-15]

Atheist Demands for “Empirical” Proofs of God [10-27-15]

Dialogue: Religious Epistemology (with an Agnostic) [11-17-15]

Implicit (Extra-Empirical) Faith, According to John Henry Newman [12-18-15]

On Mystery & Reason in Theology [4-5-16]

Analogical Reasoning, and Reasoning from Plausibility [5-27-17]

Argument for God from Desire: Atheist-Christian Dialogue [8-7-17]

Dialogue: Has God Demonstrated His Existence (Romans 1)? [9-1-18]

Theistic Argument from Longing or Beauty, & Einstein [3-27-08; rev. 3-14-19]

Apologetics: Be-All & End-All of the Catholic Faith? NO!!! [7-1-19]

***

Photo credit: St. John Henry Cardinal Newman (my “theological hero”) in 1866: four years before his seminal work of philosophy of religion, An Essay in Aid of the Grammar of Assent [public domain]

***

Did Jesus Minister Exclusively to Jews and not Gentiles?

Last updated on: July 6, 2020 at 4:49 pm By Dave Armstrong

Some Catholic liberals argue that the following famous “missionary / evangelism” passage refers only to Jews among all the nations. This is sheer nonsense. Here is the passage:

Matthew 28:19 (RSV) Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Now what does the Greek say? Is this solely about Jews, as is absurdly claimed? Word Pictures in the New Testament, by A. T. Robertson states for this passage: “All the nations (παντα τα ετνη — panta ta ethnē). Not just the Jews scattered among the Gentiles, but the Gentiles themselves in every land.”

Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (“Little Kittel”) states that “In some 100 passages, ethnē is undoubtedly a technical term for the Gentiles as distinct from Jews or Christians” (p. 201). There is nothing whatsoever in the passage indicating that Jesus was referring only to Jews in foreign nations: to be evangelized.

We’re told that “the Jesus of Matthew” is utterly unconcerned with non-Jews (Gentiles). This is an equally ludicrous opinion. A clear instance in Matthew of Jesus’ outreach beyond the Jews is His interaction with the Roman centurion:

Matthew 8:5-13 As he entered Caper’na-um, a centurion came forward to him, beseeching him [6] and saying, “Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, in terrible distress.” [7] And he said to him, “I will come and heal him.” [8] But the centurion answered him, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; but only say the word, and my servant will be healed. [9] For I am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to one, `Go,’ and he goes, and to another, `Come,’ and he comes, and to my slave, `Do this,’ and he does it.” [10] When Jesus heard him, he marveled, and said to those who followed him, “Truly, I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such faith. [11] I tell you, many will come from east and west and sit at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, [12] while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.” [13] And to the centurion Jesus said, “Go; be it done for you as you have believed.” And the servant was healed at that very moment.

Note how Jesus not only readily healed the Roman centurion’s servant (8:7, 13), but also “marveled” at his faith and commended it as superior to the faith of anyone “in Israel” (8:10). And that led Him to observe that many Gentiles will be saved, whereas many Jews will not be saved (8:11-12). If this is supposedly a “Jewish only” view (“Gentiles need not apply”), it sure is the weirdest, most confusing way imaginable to express it.

A second counter-example is from the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus told His followers, “You are the light of the world” (Matthew 5:14).

A third example is the parable of the weeds, which showed a universal mission field fifteen chapters before Matthew 28: “He who sows the good seed is the Son of man; [38] the field is the world, and the good seed means the sons of the kingdom; . . .” (13:37-38).

A fourth example is Jesus healing the daughter of the Syrophoenician woman (of demon possession):

Matthew 15:28 Then Jesus answered her, “O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed instantly.

As a fifth example, Matthew seems to not be aware of his own supposed “Jews only Jesus” since he applies an Old Testament passage about outreach to Gentiles directly to Jesus as the Servant and Messiah:

Matthew 12:15-21 Jesus, aware of this, withdrew from there. And many followed him, and he healed them all, [16] and ordered them not to make him known. [17] This was to fulfil what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah: [18] “Behold, my servant whom I have chosen, my beloved with whom my soul is well pleased. I will put my Spirit upon him, and he shall proclaim justice to the Gentiles. [19] He will not wrangle or cry aloud, nor will any one hear his voice in the streets; [20] he will not break a bruised reed or quench a smoldering wick, till he brings justice to victory; [21] and in his name will the Gentiles hope.”

A sixth counter-example is Jesus telling the Jewish “chief priests and scribes” (Mt 21:15) and “Pharisees” (21:45) that righteous Gentiles will enter the kingdom before self-righteous Jews (like them):

Matthew 21:31b-32 “Truly, I say to you, the tax collectors and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you. [32] For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the harlots believed him; and even when you saw it, you did not afterward repent and believe him.

Matthew 21:42-43, 45 Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the scriptures: `The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner; this was the Lord’s doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes’? [43] Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing the fruits of it.” [45] When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they perceived that he was speaking about them.

A seventh example is Jesus earlier echoing His message of the Great Commission (Mt 28:19-20):

Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached throughout the whole world, as a testimony to all nations; and then the end will come. (cf. Mk 13:10; Lk 24:47)

The same view is also supposedly apparent in the Gospel of Luke as well. Really? That’s news to me. We must read different Bibles. Folks who argue in this fashion must not have read (or understood) Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:29-37). The whole point of it was to show that Samaritans were truly neighbors to Jews if they helped them, as the man did in the parable. In 2014, I drove on the road (from Jerusalem to Jericho) which was the setting of this parable.

Secondly, Luke records Simeon saying about Jesus:

Luke 2:30-32 for mine eyes have seen thy salvation [31] which thou hast prepared in the presence of all peoples, [32] a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and for glory to thy people Israel.”

Thirdly, Jesus healed yet another foreigner: a Samaritan man, commending his faith:

Luke 17:12-19 And as he entered a village, he was met by ten lepers, who stood at a distance [13] and lifted up their voices and said, “Jesus, Master, have mercy on us.” [14] When he saw them he said to them, “Go and show yourselves to the priests.” And as they went they were cleansed. [15] Then one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, praising God with a loud voice; [16] and he fell on his face at Jesus’ feet, giving him thanks. Now he was a Samaritan. [17] Then said Jesus, “Were not ten cleansed? Where are the nine? [18] Was no one found to return and give praise to God except this foreigner?” [19] And he said to him, “Rise and go your way; your faith has made you well.”

Fourthly, Jesus specifically went to the land of the Gadarenes or Gerasenes, east of the Sea of Galilee, to minister to them (I was there, too). This was where Jesus sent the demons into the pigs, and it appears in all three synoptic Gospels (Mk 5:1-20; Lk 8:26-39; Mt 8:28-34). Wikipedia, in its article on the region, states:

The name is derived from either a lakeside village, Gergesa, the next larger city, Gadara, or the best-known city in the region, Gerasa. . . . They were both Gentile cities filled with citizens who were culturally more Greek than Semitic; this would account for the pigs in the biblical account.

As anyone can see, the evidence in the Bible against this ridiculous critique is abundant and undeniable. Jesus never says (nor does the entire New Testament ever say) that He came to “save Israel” or be the “savior of Israel.” Anyone who doesn’t believe me can do a word search (here’s the tool to do it). Verify it yourself. He only claims to be the “Messiah” of Israel (Jn 4:25-26): which is a different thing. When Jesus says who it is that He came to save (i.e., provided they are willing), He states explicitly that He came “to save the lost” (Lk 19:10) and “to save the world” (Jn 12:47).

Likewise, St. Paul states that “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners” (1 Timothy 1:15). Last I checked, sinful human beings were not confined solely to the class of Jews or Israelis.

Lastly, if we look at the Gospel of John, we observe Jesus’ interaction with the Samaritan woman at the well (Jn 4:5-29), which perfectly illustrates His “inclusive” view. Here He not only ministered to her with great compassion, but noted at the end that salvation was to extend to the non-Jewish Gentiles as well: “salvation is from the Jews. But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for such the Father seeks to worship him” (4:22b-23).

This outlandish insinuation that Jesus somehow didn’t want to help or heal anyone but his own Hebrews / Jews, simply doesn’t hold water. People who think like this appear unwilling to crack open a biblical concordance and look up passages relevant to these dubious claims.

***

Photo credit: Christ and the Centurion (c. 1575), by Paolo Veronese (1528-1588) and his workshop [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Papias (c. 60-c. 130) & the Rule of Faith (vs. Jason Engwer)

Last updated on: June 5, 2020 at 12:58 pm By Dave Armstrong

[originally posted on 1-18-10]

***

This is a follow-up discussion (Round Two) to my previous four-part critique of a post by Jason Engwer. Jason is now starting to counter-reply, with preliminary remarks and the beginning of more substantive response, in his latest post, Papias, Apostolic Succession, Oral Tradition, And “Relativism”. Near the end I also reply to his article, “Where Are ‘Apostolic Succession’ And ‘Authoritative Tradition’ In Papias?”. His words will be in blue. Past comments of mine that he cites will be in green.

***

Yesterday, I posted some introductory remarks [link] about a series of posts by Dave Armstrong that was written in response to an article I posted in 2008. What I want to do today is address some comments Dave made about one church father in particular, Papias. I do so for a few reasons. For one thing, it was in response to something I said about Papias that Dave issued some of his harshest criticism.

True.

And some of his other comments about Papias are relevant to his claims to “copiously document everything” and his objection that I’m not offering enough documentation for my own views. His comments on Papias also illustrate just how misleading it can be to use terms like “apostolic succession” and “oral tradition” to describe the views of a father.

Well, we’ll see about that as we go along.

In the course of his series of posts responding to me, Dave repeatedly accuses me of “relativism”.

That’s because his position on this business of the rule of faith in the fathers entails it, as I will be happy to elaborate upon and clarify. I don’t make any serious charge lightly, and readers may rest assured that when I do, that I have very good reason to do so: a rationale that I can surely defend against scrutiny and/or protest (as indeed I am doing presently).

I said that if I were in the position of somebody like Papias, I wouldn’t adhere to sola scriptura. I went on to comment that “If sola scriptura had been widely or universally rejected early on, it wouldn’t follow that it couldn’t be appropriate later, under different circumstances.” Dave responded:

And he is employing the typical Protestant theological relativism or doctrinal minimalism….After having expended tons of energy and hours sophistically defending Protestantism and revising history to make it appear that it is not fatal to Protestant claims (which is a heroic feat: to engage at length in such a profoundly desperate cause), now, alas, Jason comes to his senses and jumps on the bandwagon of fashionable Protestant minimalism, relativism, and the fetish for uncertainty. He resides, after all, in the ‘much different position’ of the 21st century. He knows better than those old fuddy-duds 1500 years ago. What do they know, anyway?…Why are we having this discussion at all, then, if it doesn’t matter a hill of beans what the fathers en masse thought?

What Dave claims I “now” believe is what I had been saying for years, long before I wrote my article in 2008.

That comes as no surprise. But my “now” was primarily intended in a rhetorical / logical sense, not a chronological one, anyway. But in a larger sense it is part of Jason’s overall approach (which is not without self-contradiction, which I was partially alluding to there): what I call the “slippery fish” or “floating ducks at the carnival sideshow” approach. Protestants of a certain type (nebulous evangelicals, primarily: I still have no idea even what denomination Jason attends; perhaps he will be so kind as to inform me) reserve the right to criticize Catholicism endlessly; yet if we dare to dispute their arguments and ask if they have anything superior to offer, it’s often the moving or unknown target runaround. Or there is the retreat into obfuscation: Jason’s own specialty.

First, we hear from these circles that the fathers believe in sola Scriptura, period (I will have more on this below). Then we are blessed with a more clever, subtle argument: that they didn’t believe in sola Scriptura per se, but that, nevertheless, what they did believe (whatever it was, in many variations), is definitely closer to Protestantism than to Catholicism. This has been Jason’s general approach through the years, as I understand it. Now we enter into a third phase, so to speak: the fathers didn’t always believe in sola Scriptura, but it doesn’t matter, because times were different, then, and different times demand a changing rule of faith. The moving target . . .

And I didn’t say or suggest that “it doesn’t matter a hill of beans what the fathers en masse thought”.

Mostly what matters to Jason is how he can poke holes in what he (sometimes falsely) believes to be Catholic belief.

Anybody who has read much of what I’ve written regarding the church fathers and other sources of the patristic era ought to know that I don’t suggest that they’re “old fuddy-duds” whose beliefs “don’t matter a hill of beans”.

He picks and chooses what he thinks will hurt the Catholic historical case. Jason’s method is nothing if it is not that. But he’s highly selective and the “grid” that he tries to fit all of this data into is incoherent and changes to suit his polemical needs at any given moment.

My point with regard to Papias, which I’ve explained often, is that God provides His people with different modes of revelation at different times in history, and there are transitional phases between such periods. For example, Adam and Eve had a form of direct communication with God that most people in human history haven’t had. When Jesus walked the earth, people would receive ongoing revelation from Him, and could ask Him questions, for example, in a manner not available to people who lived in earlier or later generations. When Joseph and Mary could speak with Jesus during His childhood and early adulthood, but the authority structure of the New Testament church didn’t yet exist, a Catholic wouldn’t expect Joseph and Mary to follow the same rule of faith they had followed prior to Jesus’ incarnation or would be expected to follow after the establishment of the Catholic hierarchy.

Catholics agree with many, if not all of these points. But how Jason goes on to apply this in his analysis will eventually involve a self-contradiction that isn’t present in the Catholic view of history and development of doctrine.

Catholicism doesn’t claim to have preserved every word Jesus spoke or everything said by every apostle. A person living in the early second century, for example, could remember what he had heard the apostle John teach about eschatology and follow that teaching, even if it wasn’t recorded in scripture or taught by means of papal infallibility, an ecumenical council, or some other such entity the average modern Catholic would look to.

Of course. Both sides agree on that.

Because of the nature of historical revelation in Christianity (and in Judaism), there isn’t any one rule of faith that’s followed throughout history. And different individuals and groups will transition from one rule of faith to another at different times and in different ways.

This is where the differences emerge. Catholics believe there was one rule of faith that consistently developed. It is what we call the “three-legged stool”: Scripture-Church-Tradition (as passed down by apostolic succession). There is a great deal of development that takes place over time: especially when we are looking at the earliest fathers (Papias lived from c. 60 to 130, so he was actually in the apostolic period for a good half of his life). But the rule of faith did not change into anything substantially or essentially different.

Papias had the Scripture of the Old Testament and he even had much of the New Testament even at that early stage, as the Gospels and Paul’s letters were widely accepted as canonical, very early on. Therefore, Papias could indeed have lived by sola Scriptura as the rule of faith. There is no compelling reason to think that he could not have done so, simply due to his living in a very early period of Christian history.

The position that Jason is staking out: that Papias wouldn’t have lived by sola Scriptura, and indeed, that he didn’t have to, for the Protestant historical position to make sense, entails not a consistent development, but an essential break: there was one rule of faith in the earliest periods, and then suddenly, with the fully developed canon of Scripture, another one henceforth.

Needless to say, this is merely yet another arbitrary Protestant tradition: a tradition of men: just as sola Scriptura itself is. There is nothing in the Bible itself about such a supposed sea change. The Bible teaches neither sola Scriptura, nor this view of tradition at first, and then sola Scriptura after the Bible. But these are cherished Protestant myths, despite being absent altogether in Holy Scripture.

These complexities can be made to seem less significant by making vague references to “oral tradition” or “the word of God”, for example, but the fact remains that what such terms are describing changes to a large extent over time and from one individual or group to another.

There are complexities in individuals and exceptions to the rule (of faith), but there is also a broad consensus to be observed and traced through history, as we see with all true doctrines. Jason wants to assert both a radical change and the absence of a consensus. At the same time he denies the interconnectedness of all these related concepts having to do with authority, as I have noted in my previous critique.

In any event, he dissents from some of the allegedly best lights in Protestant research about the rule of faith in the fathers; for example, the trilogy of books about sola Scriptura by David T. King and William Webster (Vol. I (King) / Vol. II (Webster) / Vol. III (King and Webster), where it is stated:

The patristic evidence for sola Scriptura is, we believe, an overwhelming indictment against the claims of the Roman communion.
(Vol. I, 266)

Such statements manifest an ignorance of the patristic and medieval perspective on the authority of Scripture. Scripture alone as the infallible rule for the ongoing life and faith of the Church was the universal belief and practice of the Church of the patristic and medieval ages. (Vol. II, 84-85)

When they [the Church Fathers] are allowed to speak for themselves it becomes clear that they universally taught sola Scriptura in the fullest sense of the term embracing both the material and formal sufficiency of Scripture. (Vol. III, 9)

Sales pitches for the trilogy on a major Reformed booksite (Monergism Books) echo these historically absurd assertions:

It reveals that the leading Church fathers’ view of the authority and finality of the written Word of God was as lofty as that of any Protestant Reformer. In effect, Webster and King have demonstrated that sola Scriptura was the rule of faith in the early church.

–Dr. John MacArthur, Pastor/Teacher of Grace Community Church, Sun Valley, CA

William Webster and David King have hit the bull’s eye repeatedly and with great force in their treatment of sola Scriptura. The exegetical material sets forth a formidable biblical foundation for this claim of exclusivity and the historical argument illustrates how the early church believed it and traces the circuitous path by which Roman Catholicism came to place tradition alongside Scripture as a source, or deposit, of authoritative revelation.

–Dr. Tom Nettles, Professor of Historical Theology, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY

(on the book page for Vol. I)

[Description]: In this Volume, William Webster addresses the common historical arguments against sola Scriptura, demonstrating that the principle is, in fact, eminently historical, finding support in ‘the unanimous consent of the fathers.’

The authors show, with painstaking thoroughness, that sola Scriptura is the teaching of the Bible itself and was central in the belief and practice of the early church, as exemplified in history and the writings of the Fathers.

–Edward Donnelly, Minister of Trinity Reformed Presbyterian Church, Newtownabbey, and Professor of New Testament at Reformed Theological College, Belfast, Northern Ireland

King and Webster have utterly destroyed that position by showing that the consent of the fathers teaches the doctrine of sola Scriptura.

–Jay Adams, co-pastor of The Harrison Bridge Road A.R.P. Church in Simpsonville, South Carolina, founder of the Christian Counseling and Educational Foundation of Laverock, Pennsylvania

In painstaking detail, Webster and King systematically dismantle the unbiblical and ahistorical assertions made by modern Roman Catholic apologists who all too often rely on eisegetical interpretations of the Bible and ‘cut and paste’ patrology.

–Eric Svendsen, Professor of Biblical Studies at Columbia Evangelical Seminary

[The Forewords of this volume (II) and Vol. I were written by James White]

(on the book page for Vol. II)

[Description]: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the principle is illegitimate because, she claims, it is unhistorical. By this she means that sola Scriptura is a theological novelty in that it supposedly has no support in the teaching of the early Church. Roman apologists charge that the teaching on Scripture promoted by the Reformers introduced a false dichotomy between the Church and Scripture which elevated Scripture to a place of authority unheard of in the early Church. The Church of Rome insists that the early Church fathers, while fully endorsing the full inspiration of the Old and New Testaments, did not believe in sola Scriptura. . . .

The documentation provided reveals in the clearest possible terms the Church fathers’ belief in the material and formal sufficiency of Scripture. By material sufficiency we mean that all that is necessary to be believed for faith and morals is revealed in Scripture. Formal sufficiency means that all that is necessary for faith and morals is clearly revealed in Scripture, so that an individual, by the enablement of the Holy Spirit alone, can understand the essentials of salvation and the Christian life. Page after page gives eloquent testimony to the supreme authority that Scripture held in the life of the early Church and serves as a much needed corrective to Rome’s misrepresentation of the Church fathers and her denigration of the sufficiency and final authority of Scripture.

(for the book page of Vol. III)

This is the standard anti-Catholic-type boilerplate rhetoric about sola Scriptura and the fathers. At least it is consistent (consistently wrong). But Jason dissents from his colleagues and wants to play the game of having a relativistic rule of faith: not in play from the beginning of Christianity, but only set in motion later. This allows him to play the further game of denying that Papias’ views are consistent with Catholic dogma and our rule of faith, while not having any responsibility of showing that it is consistent with a Protestant view.

He always has that “out” (which is rather standard Protestant anti-Catholic apologetics): “but that ain’t me / us.” It’s like a wax nose that can be molded to any whim or desire. Papias ain’t Protestant but (and here is the important part) he certainly ain’t Catholic (!!!) — so sez Jason Engwer. Yet I have shown (and will continue to demonstrate) that his views are perfectly consistent with the Catholic rule of faith, taking into account that he is very early in history, so that we don’t see full-fledged Catholicism. We see a primitive Catholic rule of faith: precisely as we would and should suspect.

Jason thinks he contradicts our view because (as I discussed in my Introduction to the previous four-part series) he expects to see the Catholic rule of faith explicitly in place in the first and second century: whereas our view of development, by definition, does not entail, let alone require this. Thus, he imposes a Protestant conception of “fully-formed from the outset” that he doesn’t even accept himself, onto the Catholic claim.

I could agree with the vague assertion that we’re to always follow “the word of God” as our rule of faith, for instance, but that meant significantly different things for Adam than it did for David, for Mary than it did for Ignatius of Antioch, for Papias than it does for Dave Armstrong, etc.

It depends on what one means by different: different in particulars; different in time-frames (David had no NT or revelation of Jesus); difference in amount of development, etc. What was in common was that all accepted “the word of God” (both written and oral) as normative for the Christian faith, but not in the sense of sola Scriptura.

To accuse me of “relativism”, “minimalism”, and such, because I’ve made distinctions like the ones outlined above, is unreasonable and highly misleading. The average reader of Dave’s blog probably doesn’t know much about me, and using terms like “relativism”, “minimalism”, and “fetish for uncertainty” doesn’t leave people with an accurate impression of what a conservative Evangelical like me believes.

Jason can hem and haw all he likes. The fact remains that he has expressly denied that Papias would have believed in sola Scriptura. But the standard anti-Catholic historical argumentation is what I have documented: “Scripture alone as the infallible rule for the ongoing life and faith of the Church was the universal belief and practice of the Church of the patristic and medieval ages” (William Webster); “they universally taught sola Scriptura . . . embracing . . . formal sufficiency of Scripture” (David T. King and William Webster). So which will it be? There are three positions to choose from:

1) Papias was one of the fathers who “universally” held to sola Scriptura.

2) Papias didn’t hold to sola Scriptura, but also didn’t espouse a rule of faith consistent with Catholicism.

3) Papias didn’t embrace sola Scriptura, and his rule of faith was consistent with Catholicism.

#1 is the standard boilerplate anti-Catholic Protestant position, as I have shown above. #2 is Jason’s pick-and-choose “cafeteria patristic” view, that contradicts #1. #3 is my view and the Catholic view.

In some other comments about Papias, Dave writes:

Jason will have to make his argument from Papias, whatever it is. J. N. D. Kelly says little about him, but what he does mention is no indication of sola Scriptura…When we go to Eusebius (III, 39) to see what exactly Papias stated, we find an explicit espousal of apostolic succession and authoritative tradition. He even contrasts oral tradition to written (as superior): ‘I did not think that what was to be gotten from the books would profit me as much as what came from the living and abiding voice’ (III, 39, 4).

I didn’t cite Papias as an advocate of sola scriptura.

Exactly. From what we can tell, James White wouldn’t say that. Webster and King and Svendsen and John MacArthur wouldn’t. Why is it, then, that they aren’t out there correcting Jason? He disagrees with them (Papias doesn’t teach sola Scriptura) just as much as he does with me (Papias doesn’t hold to a primitive version of the historic Catholic rule of faith; he contradicts that). He’s betwixt and between. He needs to go back to King’s and White’s and Webster’s books to get up to speed and get his evangelical anti-Catholic act together.

I didn’t cite Papias as an advocate of sola scriptura. And we have much more information on Papias than what Eusebius provides. See here.

Thanks for the great link.

I referred to Richard Bauckham’s treatment of Papias in Jesus And The Eyewitnesses (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2006). See, particularly, pp. 21-38. Bauckham goes into far more depth than J.N.D. Kelly did in the work Dave is citing.

Cool. And what position did he take, choosing from #1, #2, and #3 above? I was able to read pp. 21-38 on Amazon, and discovered that Bauckham tries to make a big deal of the distinction between oral history and oral tradition, with the former directly relying on eyewitness accounts (of the sort that Papias tried to collect). Bauckham’s stance, then, is a subtler version of #2. He seems to be trying (by repeated, almost mantra-like emphasis) to undermine a Catholic notion of oral tradition without saying so in so many words.

But he doesn’t prove at all that Papias’ approach is inconsistent with the Catholic three-legged stool rule of faith. Of course we would expect Papias to seek eyewitness accounts, since he lived so early. How in the world that is construed as somehow contrary to Catholic tradition is, I confess, beyond me. The following distinctions must be made and understood:

View of Tradition I:

I. 1) Legitimate tradition relies on eyewitness testimony only.

I. 2) Once the eyewitnesses die, then there is no longer true [binding] tradition to speak of.

View of Tradition II:

II. 1) Legitimate tradition relies primarily on eyewitness testimony where it is available.

II. 2) Legitimate tradition after eyewitness testimony is no longer available continues to be valid by means of [Holy Spirit-guided] unbroken [apostolic] succession, so that the truths originated by eyewitnesses continue on through history.

Jason and Bauckham appear to be asserting I. 1. But I. 2 does not necessarily follow from what we know of Papias’ views. We know that he collected eyewitness testimony. We don’t know that he would say that was the only tradition that was legitimate. In other words, it is the claim of exclusivity that involves the prior assumption brought to the facts. The Catholic view is Tradition II, which is perfectly consistent with what we know of Papias, or at the very least not ruled out by what we know of him.

The biggest problem with Tradition I is that it is not biblical. It contradicts what the Bible teaches. St. Paul, after all, was not an eyewitness of the life of Jesus (though he did have a post-Resurrection encounter with him that remains possible to this day). Yet he feels that he can authoritatively pass on Christian apostolic traditions (1 Cor 11:2, 23; 15:3; 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6, 14). Thus, whoever learned Christian truths from St. Paul did not receive them from an eyewitness. Paul had to talk to someone like Peter to get firsthand accounts (or Bauckham’s “oral history”).

He was passing on what he himself had “received” from yet another source (1 Cor 11:23; 15:3; Phil 4:9; 1 Thess 2:13). He even specifically instructs Timothy to pass on his (oral) traditions to “faithful men,” who in turn can pass them on to others (2 Tim 2:2). So just from this verse we see four generations of a passed-on tradition (Paul: the second generation, Timothy, and those whom Timothy teaches). This tradition is not even necessarily written by Paul or anyone else (Rom 10:8; Eph 1:13; 1 Thess 2:13; 2 Thess 2:15; 2 Tim 1:13-14; cf. Heb 13:7; 1 Pet 1:25). There is no indication that the chain is supposed to end somewhere down the line.

Secondly, even Papias, according to Eusebius, didn’t claim to talk to the apostles, but only to their friends:

2. But Papias himself in the preface to his discourses by no means declares that he was himself a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles, but he shows by the words which he uses that he received the doctrines of the faith from those who were their friends.

7. And Papias, of whom we are now speaking, confesses that he received the words of the apostles from those that followed them, . . . (Ecclesiastical History, III, 39, 4)

That makes Papias a third-hand witness; not even second-hand (someone who talked to apostles).

Contrary to what Dave claims, there is no “explicit espousal of apostolic succession” in Papias. And the “living and abiding voice” Papias refers to is a reference to proximate and early testimony that was soon going to die out.

This doesn’t rule out apostolic succession; to the contrary, it is a perfect example of it. He talked to people who knew the apostles. His testimony was third-hand. He “received the doctrines of the faith from those who were their [the apostles’] friends.” What is that if not succession? It is more or less independent of Scripture. Papias’ rule of faith was:

Apostles and apostolic doctrine —> friends of the apostles —> Papias

But the Protestant methodology and rule of faith is:

Apostles and apostolic doctrine —> Scripture —> Papias and everyone else

The theme Papias is referring to is taken from, among other sources, the historiography of his day. As Bauckham notes, Jerome’s rendering of the passage in Papias indicates that he understood Papias as Bauckham does (pp. 27-28).

He says that Jerome understood Papias as referring to access to living witnesses as his preferred mode of collecting information. But as I have already shown, I think, this in no way is inconsistent with Catholic tradition. It’s plain common sense. What Jason doesn’t mention, however, is Bauckham’s observation right after citing Jerome, translating Papias:

Jerome here seems to take Papias to mean that he preferred the oral communication of eyewitnesses to the written records of their testimony in the Gospels. (p. 28)

And that sounds distinctly unProtestant and contrary to sola Scriptura, doesn’t it? If we’re gonna mention one aspect of St. Jerome’s thought (even if it is falsely thought to bolster some anti-Catholic line of reasoning), why not the other also, even if it doesn’t fit in with the game plan? Get the whole picture, in other words.

Here are some of Bauckham’s comments on the subject:

Against a historiographic background, what Papias thinks preferable to books is not oral tradition as such but access, while they are still alive, to those who were direct participants in the historical events – in this case ‘the disciples of the Lord.’ He is portraying his inquiries on the model of those made by historians, appealing to historiographic ‘best practice’ (even if many historians actually made much more use of written sources than their theory professed)….What is most important for our purposes is that, when Papias speaks of ‘a living and abiding voice,’ he is not speaking metaphorically of the ‘voice’ of oral tradition, as many scholars have supposed. He speaks quite literally of the voice of an informant – someone who has personal memories of the words and deeds of Jesus and is still alive….Papias was clearly not interested in tapping the collective memory as such. He did not think, apparently, of recording the Gospel traditions as they were recited regularly in his own church community. Even in Hierapolis it was on his personal contact with the daughters of Philip that he set store. What mattered to Papias, as a collector and would-be recorder of Gospel traditions, was that there were eyewitnesses, some still around, and access to them through brief and verifiable channels of named informants. (pp. 24, 27, 34)

Again, the trouble with this is that Eusebius specifically says (twice) that Papias only knew friends of the apostles: not they themselves. So one of is key premises is unfactual. And then we have Paul espousing authoritative fourth-hand tradition in Scripture. In any event, Bauckham appears to contradict himself:

Bauckham I: “what Papias thinks preferable to books is not oral tradition as such but access, while they are still alive, to those who were direct participants in the historical events – in this case ‘the disciples of the Lord.’ . . . when Papias speaks of ‘a living and abiding voice,’ he . . . speaks quite literally of the voice of an informant – someone who has personal memories of the words and deeds of Jesus and is still alive . . . ”

Bauckham II: “Even in Hierapolis it was on his personal contact with the daughters of Philip that he set store. What mattered to Papias, as a collector and would-be recorder of Gospel traditions, was that there were eyewitnesses, some still around, and access to them through brief and verifiable channels of named informants.”

Which is it?: Eyewitnesses or those who knew eyewitnesses? Once one starts going down the chain to third-hand, fourth-hand or later generations of witnesses, one is squarely within oral tradition. It’s something other than eyewitness testimony. Protestants have been rejecting, for example, St. Ignatius, as too “Catholic” (therefore corrupt), for centuries. They thought the books with his name weren’t even authentic for a long time, till they were indisputably proved to be so. Now they are authentic, but still disliked by Protestants because they are already thoroughly Catholic.

In other words, the traditions that he teaches are rejected, no matter how proximate they are to the apostles. St. Ignatius (c. 35 – c. 110) was born a generation earlier than Papias. He may possibly have known St. John, or known of him through St. Polycarp (c. 69 – c. 155). But does that impress Protestants? No; not if they are intent on rejecting any doctrine that has the slightest “Catholic” flavor in it. Anti-Catholicism is the driving force: not some great goal of getting close to apostles via those who talked to them or to those who knew them.

Bauckham goes into much more detail than what I’ve quoted above. He gives examples of Polybius, Josephus, Galen, and other sources using terminology and arguments similar to those of Papias. He emphasizes that Papias is appealing to something more evidentially valuable than, and distinct from, “cross-generational” tradition (p. 37).

It is more valuable, in evidential or strictly historiographical terms. But this is no argument against Catholic tradition. It simply notes one special, early form of apostolic tradition.

As he notes, the sources Papias was referring to were dying out and only available for a “brief” time. The historiography of Papias’ day, from which he was drawing, was interested in early oral tradition, the sort we would call the testimony of eyewitnesses and contemporaries, not an oral tradition three hundred, a thousand, or two thousand years later. He got it from individuals and his own interpretation of their testimony, not mediated through an infallible church hierarchy centered in Rome. It wasn’t the sort of oral tradition Roman Catholicism appeals to.

Sure it was. This is apostolic tradition. Much ado about nothing . . . Jason will try to kill it off by his “death by a thousand qualifications” methodology, but it won’t fly. Nothing here (in the case of Papias) causes our view any problems whatsoever. The only problems are whether (in the Protestant paradigms) one wants to claim Papias as one of the fathers who supposedly “universally” believed in sola Scriptura, or to deny that he did so, as Jason does. The contradiction arises in Protestant ranks, not between Papias and Catholic tradition.

Modern Catholics aren’t hearing or interviewing the apostle John, Aristion, or the daughters of Philip and expecting such testimony to soon die out.

Thanks for that valuable information.

That’s not their notion of oral tradition.

It’s perfectly consistent with our notion, and we continue to think oral tradition is authoritative, whereas Protestants have ditched it: in direct contrast to what the fathers thought about such things.

And it won’t be sufficient for Dave to say that he doesn’t object to that other type of oral tradition that we find in Papias.

It will do just fine!

He’s accused me of “relativism” for making such distinctions.

No. Jason was accused of that because he arbitrarily decides that sola Scriptura kicks in later on and not from the first (itself a wacky Protestant tradition, and not biblical at all). He has a “jerky,” inconsistent view of Church history. But the Catholic view is a smooth line of development.

(It’s not as though Papias would disregard what he learned about a teaching of Jesus or the apostle John, for example, until it was promulgated in the form of something like papal infallibility or an ecumenical council.

Exactly. More truisms . . .

Rather, the oral tradition Papias appeals to makes him the sort of transitional figure I referred to above. He didn’t follow sola scriptura, but he didn’t follow the Catholic rule of faith either.)

He followed the latter in a primitive form. What he believed is no different in essence from what Catholics have believed all along, and from what I believe myself, as an orthodox Catholic. But it’s sure different from what Protestants and Jason believe. Even he concedes that, and is half-right, at least.

And Dave’s appeal to “oral tradition” in a dispute with an Evangelical is most naturally taken to refer to the common Catholic concept of oral tradition, not the form of it described by Bauckham.

Which is a species of ours . . .

If Dave agreed all along that Papias’ oral tradition was of the sort Bauckham describes, then why did he even bring up the subject?

My goal was to show that Papias is not a counter-example to Catholic tradition. I think I have succeeded in showing that, if I do say so.

It’s at least misleading to refer to Papias’ view as “oral tradition” in such an unqualified way in a dispute with an Evangelical.

One doesn’t have to go through every fine point and distinction at any given time. There is an oral element here that is different from sola Scriptura. The Jason method won’t work (i.e., note any distinction or exception whatever to be found, and then thrown that in the Catholic’s face as a supposed disproof). It hasn’t worked in the past, and it is failing again now.

How many of Papias’ oral traditions, such as his premillennialism, does Dave agree with?

I don’t believe in that (used to), but the Catholic Church has not proclaimed many eschatological beliefs as dogma. Our position is not to uncritically accept any given father’s view on anything, but to look at the consensus.

In response to my citation of Bauckham in my article in 2008, Dave wrote:

I’m not gonna go read all that. I’ve spent enough time on this as it is. Whatever Jason’s argument is involving Papias, can be presented anew, if he thinks it is worthwhile to consider.

The point being that if Jason wants to drop scholars’ names, then he can at least cite some of it rather than making his readers go look up everything. He didn’t even link to the Amazon book, where, fortunately, I could read the section he referenced. He cites it now; but that bolsters my point. He could have done that before, rather than just dropping names.

Yet, in his articles responding to me he frequently links us to other articles he’s written, without “presenting anew” what he said previously.

I didn’t know it was too hard for Jason to click on a mouse (take all of a third of a second to do that “work”) or to do a simple word search within articles. I am providing instant access to support for some point I am making if I cite past articles and link to them.

***

[Part II]

Catholics believe there was one rule of faith that consistently developed. It is what we call the ‘three-legged stool’: Scripture-Church-Tradition (as passed down by apostolic succession).

When Papias spoke with the daughters of Philip (Eusebius, Church History, 3:39), for example, were they giving him information by means of “apostolic succession”?

I would think that was a manifestation of it, yes: transmission of firsthand apostolic information through another party (in this case, daughters of an apostle).

Dave hasn’t given us any reason to think that Papias attained his oral tradition by that means.

What means? If he was talking to Philip’s daughters, that was part of the tradition. What else would it be? Homer’s Odyssey? Betting on chariot races? It’s primitive Christian apostolic tradition being passed down: “delivered” and “received,” just as St. Paul uses those terms. Jason can’t get out of the obvious fact by nitpicking and doing the “death by a thousand qualifications” game that he has honed to a fine art.

To the contrary, as Richard Bauckham documents in his book I cited earlier, Papias refers to the sort of investigation of early sources that was common in the historiography of his day, and we don’t assume the involvement of apostolic succession when other ancient sources appeal to that concept.

The two are not mutually exclusive at all. Now, routine historiographical investigation (because of historical proximity to the apostles), is pit against tradition, as if one rules out the other. The NT is good history; it is also good tradition. The twain shall meet: believe it or not.

Why should we even think that what Papias was addressing was a rule of faith?

He demonstrated the rule of faith in how he approached all these matters. This is how he lived his Christianity: his standard of authority. That’s the rule of faith. Nothing about Scripture Alone here: even Jason admits that, because he accepts a “herky-jerky” notion of the rule of faith being one thing early on and then magically transforming into something else later on. That’s not development; it is reversal: the very opposite of development.

When he attained information about a resurrection or some other miracle that occurred, for example, why should we conclude that such oral tradition became part of Papias’ rule of faith once he attained it?

Why should any Christian believe anything that he hears (from the Bible or whatever)? Why should Papias believe Philip’s daughters or other close associates of the apostles? Why should Jason question everything to death? Why can’t he simply accept these things in faith? Why does he have to play around with every father he can find, to somehow make them out to be hostile to Catholicism (if not quite amenable to Protestantism)? Why can’t he see the forest for the trees?

Why does he keep arguing about Papias, when even he admits that he didn’t abide by sola Scriptura? Why doesn’t he then explain why the rule of faith supposedly changed? Why doesn’t he show us from Scripture that it was to change later on? If he can’t do that, then why does he believe it? Would it not, then, be a mere tradition of men? If Protestants can arbitrarily believe in extrabiblical traditions of men, then why do they give Catholics a hard time for believing traditions that are documented in the Bible itself?

See, I can play Jason’s “ask 1000 questions routine: to muddy the whole thing up beyond all hope of resolution” game. I came up with twelve rapid-fire questions. I’m proud of myself! It’s kind o’ fun, actually, but you do have to type quite a bit and strain your brain to come up with a new hundred questions for any given topic at hand, so that nothing can ever be concluded, as to any given Church father believing anything. Of course I rhetorically exaggerate, but I trust that those who have been following this, get my drift.

Cardinal Newman himself describes Jason’s overly skeptical methodology, hitting the nail on the head:

It seems to me to take the true and the normal way of meeting the infidelity of the age, by referring to Our Lord’s Person and Character as exhibited in the Gospels. Philip said to Nathanael “Come and see”—that is just what the present free thinkers will not allow men to do. They perplex and bewilder them with previous questions, to hinder them falling under the legitimate rhetoric of His Divine Life, of His sacred words and acts. They say: “There is no truth because there are so many opinions,” or “How do you know that the Gospels are authentic?” “How do you account for Papias not mentioning the fourth Gospel?” or “How can you believe that punishment is eternal?” or, “Why is there no stronger proof of the Resurrection?” With this multitude of questions in detail, they block the way between the soul and its Saviour, and will not let it “Come and see.” (Letter of 11 January 1873, in Wilfred Ward’s The Life of John Henry Cardinal Newman, Vol. II, chapter 31, p. 393)

I’m not saying Jason is skeptical of Jesus. It’s an analogical point. He applies the same method that the skeptics Newman describes, use: only applied to patristic questions.

Some of his oral traditions would be part of his rule of faith, but not all of them.

Probably so (but this is self-evident). I didn’t see anyone (let alone myself) making a literal list of what is and what isn’t.

Dave is appealing to what Papias said about oral tradition in general, but Catholicism doesn’t teach that all oral tradition within Papias’ historiographic framework is part of the rule of faith.

Correct. All we’re saying is that his methodology does not fit into the Protestant rule of faith. Why is this still being discussed when Jason has already conceded that, and has moved on to another tack in trying to account for that fact?

When Papias uses the historiographic language of his day to refer to oral tradition, including traditions that wouldn’t be part of a Christian rule of faith and premillennial traditions, for example, it’s misleading for Dave to cite Papias’ comments as a reference to his rule of faith and claim that he agreed with Catholicism.

At this early stage, there will be anomalies and vague things. Newman’s theory incorporates those elements within itself. Hence he writes in his Essay on Development of the “Fifth Note of a True Development—Anticipation of Its Future”:

It has been set down above as a fifth argument in favour of the fidelity of developments, ethical or political, if the doctrine from which they have proceeded has, in any early stage of its history, given indications of those opinions and practices in which it has ended. Supposing then the so-called Catholic doctrines and practices are true and legitimate developments, and not corruptions, we may expect from the force of logic to find instances of them in the first centuries. And this I conceive to be the case: the records indeed of those times are scanty, and we have little means of determining what daily Christian life then was: we know little of the thoughts, and the prayers, and the meditations, and the discourses of the early disciples of Christ, at a time when these professed developments were not recognized and duly located in the theological system; yet it appears, even from what remains, that the atmosphere of the Church was, as it were, charged with them from the first, and delivered itself of them from time to time, in this way or that, in various places and persons, as occasion elicited them, testifying the presence of a vast body of thought within it, which one day would take shape and position.

We find exactly this sort of thing in Papias. His view is consistent with a Catholic one, that would be far more developed as time proceeded; but not consistent with the Protestant sola Scriptura.

Therefore, Papias could indeed have lived by sola Scriptura as the rule of faith. There is no compelling reason to think that he could not have done so, simply due to his living in a very early period of Christian history.

The question is whether he should have, and I’m not aware of any reason why an adherent of sola scriptura ought to think so.

How about the existence of the Old Testament? Or is that no longer considered Scripture by Protestants these days, or adherents of sola Scriptura. We’ll have to start calling it sola NT, huh? How about the Gospels and most of Paul’s letters, which were accepted as canonical very early: well within Papias’ lifetime?

Papias was at least a contemporary of the apostles, and, as I’ll discuss in more depth below, most likely was a disciple of one of the apostles as well.

That’s not what Eusebius stated. But even if he was, no problem whatever, because I showed (following Eusebius’ account) how he also accepted tradition from secondhand witnesses, and that St. Paul refers to fourth-hand reception of apostolic tradition. But of course, that is a part of my paper that Jason conveniently overlooked, per his standard modus operandi of high (and very careful) selectivity in response. We mustn’t get too biblical in our analyses, after all. You, the reader, don’t have to ignore the Bible, and can incorporate actual relevant biblical data into your informed opinion.

But Jason dissents from his colleagues and wants to play the game of having a relativistic rule of faith: not in play from the beginning of Christianity, but only set in motion later. This allows him to play the further game of denying that Papias’ views are consistent with Catholic dogma and our rule of faith, while not having any responsibility of showing that it is consistent with a Protestant view.

Dave keeps accusing me of “playing games”, being “relativistic”, etc. without justifying those charges.

Right. I gave an elaborate argument, point-by-point, just as I am doing now.

The fact that my view allows me to point to inconsistencies between Papias and Catholicism without having to argue that Papias adhered to sola scriptura doesn’t prove that my view is wrong.

That’s right, but Jason has failed in his attempt to prove that anything in Papias is fundamentally at odds with the Catholic view on the rule of faith. Where has he done this? It just isn’t there. I haven’t seen it. Maybe Jason will travel to Israel and find a new stone tablet that seals his case: primary evidence. Anything is possible. I’d urge him to keep optimistic and not to despair: something, somewhere may prove his anti-Catholic case vis-a-vis Papias once and for all. I won’t hold my breath waiting for it, though . . .

I’ve given examples of other transitional phases in history, during which the rule of faith changed for individuals or groups. Dave said that he agreed with “many, if not all of these points”, but then accused me of “relativism” and such when I applied the same sort of reasoning to Papias. Why?

I don’t know. I’d have to go back and see what I said, in context. I’m too lazy to do that (doin’ enough work as it is). But I know that I already adequately explained it, so I recommend that he go read it again (so that he doesn’t need to ask me what I meant).

What was in common was that all accepted ‘the word of God’ (both written and oral) as normative for the Christian faith, but not in the sense of sola Scriptura.

To say that everybody from Adam to Mary to Papias to Dave Armstrong followed the same rule of faith, defined vaguely as “the word of God”, is to appeal to something different than the “Scripture-Church-Tradition (as passed down by apostolic succession)” that Dave referenced earlier.

Here we go with the word games . . . As Ronald Reagan famously said to Jimmy Carter, “there you go again . . .” I was referring, of course, to the Christian era, not Adam and Eve, etc.

Adam and Eve didn’t have scripture or a magisterium.

Very good observation, Jason! But who needs apostles or Scripture, anyway, when you’re able to talk directly to God?

Even under Dave’s view, a change eventually occurred in which the word of God was communicated by a means not previously used. The sort of direct communication God had with Adam isn’t part of the average Catholic’s rule of faith today.

Exactly. What this has to do with anything is beyond me, I confess.

A Protestant could say that the rule of faith has always been “the word of God”, and thus claim consistency in the same sort of vague manner in which Dave is claiming it.

No, because Protestants tend to collapse “word of God” to Scripture alone, when in fact, in Scripture, it refers, many more times, to oral proclamation. This is the whole point: Scripture all over the place refers to an authoritative tradition and an authoritative Church. Scripture doesn’t teach that it alone is the infallible authority. Sola Scriptura ain’t biblical.

He seems to be trying (by repeated, almost mantra-like emphasis) to undermine a Catholic notion of oral tradition without saying so in so many words.

I don’t know how familiar Dave is with Richard Bauckham and his work. Bauckham isn’t interacting with Catholicism in the passage of his book that I cited. As far as I recall, he never even mentions Catholicism anywhere in the book, at least not in any significant way. Bauckham is a New Testament scholar interacting primarily with other New Testament scholars and scholars of other relevant fields.

Great. I interacted with his arguments, and saw some inconsistencies in them. Implicitly he is opposing, in a way, those Christian traditions that stress tradition, in his pitting of oral history against oral tradition, as I already noted. I say it is “both/and” — not “either/or.”

How in the world that is construed as somehow contrary to Catholic tradition is, I confess, beyond me.

Papias’ position wouldn’t have to be contrary to the Catholic position in order to be different than it. If Papias can take a transitional role under the Catholic view, in which he attains his rule of faith partly by means of the historical investigation he describes, then why can’t he take a transitional role under a Protestant view?

His position shows no semblance of a Protestant view in the first place, but it is not at all contrary, or even different from the Catholic view. It’s simply a primitive Catholic rule of faith: exhibiting exactly what we would expect to see under the assumption of Newmanian, Vincentian development.

We know that he collected eyewitness testimony. We don’t know that he would say that was the only tradition that was legitimate.

I didn’t claim that we know the latter. Remember, Dave is the one who claims that Papias was a Catholic, cited him in support of “oral tradition” (in a dispute with an Evangelical and without further qualification), etc.

Until we see anything that suggests otherwise, which we haven’t, that is a perfectly solid position to take.

His testimony was third-hand. He ‘he received the doctrines of the faith from those who were their [the apostles’] friends.’ What is that if not succession?

Why should we define apostolic succession so vaguely as to include “the apostles’ friends”? In the same passage of Eusebius Dave is citing, Papias is quoted referring to these people as “followers” of the apostles. Many people, including individuals outside of a church hierarchy, can be considered friends or followers of the apostles. And, as I said above, the historiographic concept Papias is appealing to doesn’t limit itself to apostolic successors or an equivalent category in its normal usage. Why think, then, that the concept has such a meaning when Papias uses it?

How is what he did contrary to apostolic succession? It isn’t at all. Papias was a bishop, who received Christian tradition from friends or relatives of the apostles. This ain’t rocket science. There is nothing complicated about it: much as Jason wants to obfuscate.

Dave originally claimed that “we find an explicit espousal of apostolic succession” in Papias. He still hasn’t documented that assertion.

Of course I have. This is another annoying constant in debates with anti-Catholics: one is forced to simply repeat things three, four, five times or more, because the anti-Catholic seems unable to process them, even after five times. It’s as if one is writing to the wind. Three strikes and you’re out.

Again, the trouble with this is that Eusebius specifically says (twice) that Papias only knew friends of the apostles: not they themselves. So one of [Bauckham’s] key premises is unfactual.

Dave makes that point repeatedly in his article. But Richard Bauckham argues against Eusebius’ position elsewhere in the book I’ve cited. I’ve argued against Eusebius’ conclusion as well. See, for example, here.

Earlier, I cited an online collection of fragments by and about Papias. Eusebius’ dubious argument that Papias wasn’t a disciple of any of the apostles is contradicted by multiple other sources, including Irenaeus more than a century earlier (a man who had met Polycarp, another disciple of John). Some of the sources who commented on Papias when his writings were still extant said that he was even a (or the) secretary who wrote the fourth gospel at John’s dictation. Eusebius wasn’t even consistent with himself on the issue of whether Papias had been taught by John. See the citation from Eusebius’ Chronicon on the web page linked above. The only source I’m aware of who denied Papias’ status as a disciple of the apostles, Eusebius, wasn’t even consistent on the issue. The evidence suggests that Papias was a disciple of the apostle John.

Fair enough. But if we grant this, of course it has no effect on my position: that his views are consistent with the Catholic rule of faith. Either way, it works the same: if he knew the apostles, it was apostolic succession (just more directly). If he didn’t, it was still apostolic succession, since that is an ongoing phenomenon. Moreover, as I reiterated again above, Paul refers to apostolic succession from fourth-hand sources. So it is valid apart from necessarily knowing an apostle personally. And knowing one does not, therefore, rule out apostolic succession. It is completely harmonious with it.

Bauckham appears to contradict himself…Which is it?: Eyewitnesses or those who knew eyewitnesses? Once one starts going down the chain to third-hand, fourth-hand or later generations of witnesses, one is squarely within oral tradition. It’s something other than eyewitness testimony.

No, Bauckham explains, in the section of his book I cited, that though eyewitnesses were the primary source of interest, other early sources were involved as well. Even if you disagree with the historiographic standard in question, the fact remains that Papias was appealing to that standard. It involved witnesses who would quickly die out rather than going into the “fourth-hand or later generations” Dave refers to. Even apart from that ancient historiographic standard, it makes sense to differentiate between a source who’s one step removed and other sources who are five, twenty, or a thousand steps removed.

St. Paul didn’t think so, as I have shown: not in terms of accurate transmission of apostolic tradition.

We don’t place all non-eyewitnesses in the same category without making any distinctions. Why are we today so focused on the writings of men like Tertullian and John Chrysostom rather than modern oral traditions about them?

We go back as far as we can, and we do make judgments as to relative trustworthiness of sources.

In other words, the traditions that he [Ignatius] teaches are rejected, no matter how proximate they are to the apostles.

Like Dave’s rejection of Papias’ premillennial tradition, the soteriological tradition of Hermas (his belief in limited repentance), etc.?

What St. Ignatius taught (real presence, episcopacy, etc.) was universal in the early Church, unlike the two things above. Huge, essential difference, but nice try, Jason. The arguments get increasingly desperate. My friend, Jonathan Prejean, made a great comment today on another blog, that has relevance here:

What I would find far more troubling, were I a Protestant, is the new patristics scholarship of the last 40 years, which convincingly demonstrates that, while giving nominal adherence to the ecumencial creeds, Protestants have done so according to the same defective interpretation as the heretics. The modest claims of papal authority, which in any case are not refuted by what you cited (and I’ve read them), are trivial compared to the fact that the Protestant account of salvation and grace is fundamentally opposed to the Christian account of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. The physical presence (i.e., real presence according to nature) of God in the Church and its necessity for salvation is unanimously agreed by all Catholic and Orthodox Christians, echoing St. Cyril of Alexandria, the great “Seal of the Fathers.” Yet Protestants deny it, making the spiritual resemblance to God merely moral (hence, imputed justification) and not physical.

That’s a Nestorian account of salvation, plain and simple. And the historical evidence about the heterodoxy of Nestorianism has been piling up over the last couple of decades (see, e.g., J.A. McGuckin, Paul Clayton) after some scholarship suggesting that Nestorius might have been orthodox (mostly based on Nestorius’s own erroneous claims; see, e.g., F. Loofs), and therefore, that Calvin’s identical beliefs might have been as well. But that has been crushed even more convincingly than the admittedly excessive claims of some Catholics about papal infallibility, and it is a much more serious error in any case. This is why I stopped even bothering with these debates, at least until I saw David [Waltz] wavering, because Newman’s prophetic words about being “deep in history” were absolutely vindicated by the neo-patristic scholarship. Protestants today have no hope of being orthodox in the historical sense; they have to redefine orthodoxy to be broad enough to include what they believe (see, e.g., D.H. Williams).

St. Ignatius (c. 35 – c. 110) was born a generation earlier than Papias. He may possibly have known St. John, or known of him through St. Polycarp (c. 69 – c. 155). But does that impress Protestants? No; not if they are intent on rejecting any doctrine that has the slightest ‘Catholic’ flavor in it.

Ignatius’ earliness is significant to me. I often cite him and often refer to the significance of his earliness. But I prefer the more accurate interpretation of Ignatius offered by an Ignatian scholar like Allen Brent to the interpretation of somebody like Dave Armstrong.

Great. J. N. D. Kelly (also an Anglican patristics scholar) thought that St. Ignatius “seems to suggest that the Roman church occupies a special position” (Early Christian Doctrines, 1978, 191). Brent writes (cited by Jason in his linked previous paper):

Ignatius doesn’t make any reference to apostolic succession as later defined by men like Irenaeus and Cyprian and by groups like Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

This is exactly what we would expect under a thesis of development. Obviously he wouldn’t write as explicitly about apostolic succession as it was “later defined.” This poses no difficulty for us whatever. It is only a difficulty if one (as Jason habitually does) constructs a straw man of what Catholic development in the late first and early second century supposedly was (far more developed than we should reasonably expect).

The primitive state of development that we expect to find in St. Ignatius is reflected in a Brent remark such as “The low Trinitarianism in Ignatius’ letters supports an early date.” He also had a “low ecclesiology” because he was so early. But even Jason agrees (in the same former post) that St. Ignatius already in his time had a rather robust Catholic ecclesiology:

I agree with Brent that Ignatius seems to have been trying to convince other churches to adopt or retain his preferred form of church order, involving a monarchical episcopate, thus explaining why he mentions the subject so much in his letters. However, I suspect that the monarchical episcopate was already more widespread than Brent suggests. The truth probably is somewhere between Brent’s concept of Ignatius as an innovator and the view that all of the early churches had a monarchical episcopate all along. (Brent prefers not to use the term “monarchical episcopate” when discussing Ignatius’ view, but I’m using it in a broad sense, which I think is more common, to refer to having a single bishop who leads the remainder of the church hierarchy.)

Catholics “ditched” the approach of Papias long ago. They don’t appeal to an oral tradition attained by means of historical investigation,

It’s tough to meet associates of the apostles these days; sorry, Jason. If he builds me a time machine, I’d be more than happy to go talk to them. Probably couldn’t afford a ticket, though . . .

without the mediation of the Catholic hierarchy acting in its infallible capacity, and they don’t think that their oral tradition is soon going to die out, as Papias’ “living and abiding voice” was about to.

The tradition continues being accurately transmitted after the eyewitnesses die out, as St. Paul believed. That’s sufficient for me. Jason prefers Brent to me; I prefer St. Paul’s opinion on tradition and succession to his.

My goal was to show that Papias is not a counter-example to Catholic tradition.

No, Dave went further than that. He said that we find in Papias “an explicit espousal of apostolic succession and authoritative tradition”. He also refers to the fathers in general as Catholic, which presumably would include Papias.

Yes on both counts, as explained. But the word “explicit” was relative insofar as someone that early can only be so explicit. “Direct” would have been a better term to use in retrospect, because of the meaning of “explicit” in discussions having to do with development of doctrine. I trusted that readers acquainted with the broad parameters of the discussion would understand that, but sure enough, Jason didn’t, and so keeps trying to make hay over this non-issue. No doubt he will classify this very paragraph as special pleading or sophistry, but most readers will understand that it is simply clarification of a phrase used.

I don’t believe in that [premillennialism] (used to), but the Catholic Church has not proclaimed many eschatological beliefs as dogma. Our position is not to uncritically accept any given father’s view on anything, but to look at the consensus.

If Dave doesn’t accept Papias’ premillennial oral traditions, and he’s identifying Papias’ oral traditions as part of the rule of faith followed by Papias, then it follows that Papias’ rule of faith involved a doctrine that Dave rejects.

But since that particular belief isn’t a dogmatic one in the first place, it is quite irrelevant. No Catholic is obliged to believe it, or much of anything else in eschatology, as I understand. No one is saying that any given father is infallible, so if he is wrong on that one item, this causes no problem to our view.

Was premillennialism part of the rule of faith in Papias’ generation, but not today? Did Papias follow a different rule of faith than others in his generation? Would that qualify as “relativism”?

He got some things wrong. So what? One could collect a huge bucket of seaweed and other marine items from the sea and discover that a pearl was also part of the collection. The pearl is “transmitted” along with the rest. Not everything in the bucket is equally valuable. Again, this is no problem for us whatever. The real problem is Protestant rejection of beliefs virtually universally held by the fathers, such as, for example, the real presence or baptismal regeneration.

If Dave wants to argue that he wasn’t referring to Papias’ rule of faith when he made comments about “authoritative tradition” and “oral tradition” in Papias, then what’s the relevance of such fallible tradition that’s outside of a rule of faith? As I said before, that sort of “authoritative tradition” and “oral tradition” isn’t what people normally have in mind when Catholics and Evangelicals are having a discussion like the current one, so Dave’s comments were at least misleading.

Since we don’t hold individual fathers to be infallible, this is much ado about nothing.

And Papias thought he got his premillennialism from the apostles. It was apostolic tradition to him. It’s not to Dave.

The Church in due course makes all sorts of judgments as to what is authentic tradition and what isn’t. Jason knows this, but he mistakenly thinks he has scored some sort of point here, so he runs with that ball.

How does one see a Catholic concept of apostolic succession in a phrase like “the apostles’ friends” or a Catholic concept of oral tradition in a historiographic phrase like “living and abiding voice”? In much the same way one sees everything from papal infallibility to a bodily assumption of Mary in scripture and an acorn of Catholicism in the writings of the church fathers.

I have done my best to explain. I trust that open-minded readers can be persuaded of some things, and that my efforts are not in vain, in that sense.

Jason Engwer has made a third response dealing with Papias: about whom we know very little. He basically rehashes the same old arguments again, thinking that this somehow makes them less weak and ineffectual than they were before.

***

Photo credit: Mosaic, c. 1000, in St. Sophia of Kyiv. From the left: Epiphanius of Salamis, Clement of Rome, Gregory the Theologian, St. Nicholas the Wonderworker and Archdeacon Stephen. [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Baptismal Regeneration and Justification (vs. Jason Engwer)

Last updated on: June 4, 2020 at 2:27 pm By Dave Armstrong

This is my reply to Jason Engwer’s article, “Baptismal Justification” (12-20-09), which was a portion of a larger discussion he was having with Catholic apologist Bryan Cross. His words will be in blue.

***

As an introductory statement, I would emphasize that the Bible and Catholicism teach both justification by grace through faith and baptismal regeneration (including normative infant baptism). The two notions and events are harmonious. But they can be discussed by themselves. Often (if not most times), the Bible will mention one without the other. But it doesn’t follow that every mention of one without the other implies some sort of contradiction. It does not, because both are asserted in inspired Scripture. I agree that many mentions of something constitute good biblical evidence for it (I presuppose this in many of my own articles, in citing a lot of Bible passages); however, there are things that are mentioned a lot less in the Bible that remain just as true as the frequently mentioned doctrines.

The examples of this that I usually point out are the virgin birth and original sin. Both are firmly believed by virtually all Christian believers: Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox: yet they are mentioned (especially in the case of original sin) fairly few times. Moreover, there is an example of a firmly and universally held doctrine (apart from seven disputed books pout of 73) that is absolutely absent from Holy Scripture: the canon of the Bible: which was ultimately determined and decreed by Church authority and apostolic tradition.

Bottom line: assertion of either aspects of baptism or justification, without mentioning the other doctrine, does not imply a negation of the other. and if and when Jason argues in such a fashion, he will be engaging in logical fallacy and inadequate biblical exegesis and hermeneutics. The task of the fair and open biblical exegete is to incorporate all of the data regarding justification and baptism into a harmonious whole. As one would expect, I think the Catholic view does that. And there are two passages in Paul that explicitly link baptism and justification.

Below is a portion of my latest response, relevant to the subject of attaining justification through baptism. . . .

Paul, James, and other New Testament authors suggest continuity between justification through faith in the Old Testament era and justification through faith in the New Testament era.

Indeed they do. But baptism was prefigured by circumcision. I summarized the biblical data on that analogy in my paper, Infant Baptism: A Fictional Dialogue

Paul in Colossians 2:11-13 makes a connection between baptism and circumcision. Israel was the church before Christ (Acts 7:38; Romans 9:4). Circumcision, given to 8-day-old boys, was the seal of the covenant God made with Abraham, which applies to us also (Galatians 3:14, 29). It was a sign of repentance and future faith (Romans 4:11). Infants were just as much a part of the covenant as adults (Genesis 17:7; Deuteronomy 29:10-12, cf. Matthew 19:14). Likewise, baptism is the seal of the New Covenant in Christ. It signifies cleansing from sin, just as circumcision did (Deuteronomy 10:16; 30:6; Jeremiah 4:4; 9:25; Romans 2:28-29; Philippians 3:3).

I also have an article about John Calvin commenting at length about Paul’s circumcision-baptism analogy.

But works of faith come later than faith. Genesis 15:6 is about a faith that would result in works, but the works come after the faith.

We fully agree, which is why we speak of initial justification, by faith. I’ve even written a post entitled, Monergism in Initial Justification is Catholic Doctrine. So this notion doesn’t contradict Catholic soteriology or theology in general.

When somebody trusts God in response to a promise God makes, as in Genesis 15, that’s faith in the heart (as in Acts 15:7-11 and Romans 10:10), not faith accompanied by an outer manifestation like baptism.

Now here is where Jason attempts to illogically separate such justification from an equally necessary and regenerative baptism. Acts 15:7-11 is the account St. Peter at the Jerusalem Council talking about how he had observed Gentiles receive the Holy Spirit (15:8) and have their hearts “cleansed . . . by faith” (15:9). But there is no reason to believe that he would separate baptism from that, simply because he doesn’t mention it here. How do we know that? Well, we know from looking at actual instances of reception of the Holy Spirit in which Peter was present.

In Acts 2, it is the Day of Pentecost and the disciples receive the Holy Spirit and are indwelt by Him (2:1-4). As a result, St. Peter gives the first Christian sermon, explaining what had happened, and presents the gospel (2:14-36). When he is done, the Bible says that “they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, ‘Brethren, what shall we do?”‘ (2:37; RSV, as throughout). And here is how Peter responds:

Acts 2:38-41 . . . “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. [39] For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.” [40] And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” [41] So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

Thus, the very first act or “work” that those who have accepted the gospel by grace through faith is to get baptized. And this baptism is “for the forgiveness of your sins” and its result will be receiving “the gift of the Holy Spirit.” And it is intended for all believers, and for their “children” (infant baptism). Lastly, getting baptized is, according to Peter and inspired Scripture, “Sav[ing] yourselves from this crooked generation.” I don’t know how the Bible could be more explicit in describing baptismal regeneration and its actual necessity, either at the beginning of an adult convert’s Christian life or for an infant who is the child of Christians. Everything is here: repentance, forgiveness of sins, the indwelling Holy Spirit, salvation, and the idea that baptism formally adds one to the Church.

When Peter observes the Holy Spirit falling upon Gentiles, too, he acts in exactly the same fashion:

Acts 10:44-48 While Peter was still saying this, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. [45] And the believers from among the circumcised who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. [46] For they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, [47] “Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” [48] And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

When St. Paul converted, it was precisely the same state of affairs again:

Acts 9:17-18 So Anani’as departed and entered the house. And laying his hands on him he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came, has sent me that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” [18] And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized,

Acts 22:11-16 And when I could not see because of the brightness of that light, I was led by the hand by those who were with me, and came into Damascus. [12] “And one Anani’as, a devout man according to the law, well spoken of by all the Jews who lived there, [13] came to me, and standing by me said to me, `Brother Saul, receive your sight.’ And in that very hour I received my sight and saw him. [14] And he said, `The God of our fathers appointed you to know his will, to see the Just One and to hear a voice from his mouth; [15] for you will be a witness for him to all men of what you have seen and heard. [16] And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’

Note that his sins were not yet “washed away” when he first converted and saw Jesus. That only came with baptism, just as was the case in Acts 2:38, 40.

Obviously, then, for Peter and Paul, baptism (i.e., for adult converts accepting Christianity for the first time) goes along with — at the same time — repentance, belief in the gospel and justification by faith. How is it, then, that Jason can claim the exact opposite: that it’s “not faith accompanied by an outer manifestation like baptism”? Well, he does so by highlighting certain passages while ignoring other relevant ones, and playing the usual Protestant unbiblical and illogical “either / or” game. The Bible teaches both things; he contends in futility that it teaches only one of them.

It isn’t the case that the chronological order is always the same (baptism —> reception of the Holy Spirit or reception of the Holy Spirit —> baptism), but rather, that they are, broadly speaking, together in time. That is the constant. The ancient Hebrews didn’t view chronology like we do. One being accompanied by the other (whether technically before or after) is the essence of the thing, rather than one being slightly before the other. That’s what Scripture teaches, whether Jason and other Protestants care for it or not.

There isn’t a single individual who’s described as coming to faith, but having to wait until baptism to be justified. Nor is there any individual who’s described as only having a lesser, unjustifying faith prior to baptism or not having faith at all until baptism. Rather, we repeatedly see people justified as soon as they believe, prior to or without baptism.

I just provided several counter-examples. In Acts 2, the sequence was repentance, then baptism, which brings forgiveness of sins, the Holy Spirit, salvation, and entrance into the kingdom (i.e., the Church). One can hardly be “justified” without all those things or have a greater faith before baptism (given this description). Therefore, baptism is what immediately caused it. When Paul was baptized, according to his own interpretation, his sins were washed away as a result.

So how could he be justified (before baptism), seeing that his sins weren’t even forgiven and washed away and he wasn’t “saved” yet? He could not, since forgiveness of sins and salvation / regeneration are essential to the notion of justification. And an infant can have no conscious, “personal” faith at all prior to baptism or even after. Yet the Bible teaches infant baptism. Other passages on baptismal regeneration reinforce this point:

Mark 16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

John 3:5 Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, unless a man is born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. (cf. 3:3: “unless a man is born again …”)

Romans 6:3-5 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? [4] We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. [5] For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.

Titus 3:5 he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit,

1 Peter 3:20-21 . . . during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. [21] Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, . . .

We see from this additional relevant biblical data that a person is “saved” by baptism; it’s how he can “enter the kingdom of God” and be “born again”; it allows the baptized person to “walk in newness of life” and be united with Jesus in His Resurrection. It brings about “regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit.” I fail to see what else is required to prove the point! Is this not overwhelming evidence for the Catholic view (and Orthodox and Anglican and Lutheran and the view of other Protestant groups that believe in baptismal regeneration)? Yet Jason wants to argue that justification is before baptism. It makes no sense whatsoever. It’s exactly the opposite of the biblical presentation on these matters.

I just discovered some very exciting arguments for baptismal regeneration tonight (I don’t know how I’ve missed this, all this time, but I’m always learning), from my friend David Palm, who wrote on my Facebook page:

I remember when I was not-yet-converted and was scratching my head about this whole baptism and justification connection that the Council of Trent made. Trent references Romans 6:7, so I went and read it in the Greek and was absolutely gobsmacked. Romans 6:7 in English is often translated along the lines of, “For he who has died is freed from sin” (RSVCE). But in Greek it says, “ὁ γὰρ ἀποθανὼν δεδικαίωται ἀπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας.” That word “δεδικαίωται”, is a form of the verb “to justify”, the very same verb used in the more prominent passages in Rom 3 and 4. So more literally it would be (in the context), “For he who has died [in Christ, in baptism] has been justified from sin….”

I was curious to see if there were translations that reflected this. There aren’t many, but I found a few (including several quite old ones):

ASV for he that hath died is justified from sin.

Darby For he that has died is justified from sin.

Douay-Rheims For he that is dead is justified from sin.

Tyndale For he that is dead is justified from sin. [Old English spelling modified]

Wycliffe For he that is dead [to sin], is justified from sin.

Wuest for the one who died once for all stands in the position of a permanent relationship of freedom from the sinful nature.

ASV is the most surprising, since it was the American revision of the King James Version: produced in 1901. Strong’s Concordance lists the word here as dikaioo (#1344). Knowing that, we can trace its use in other passages, as David suggests above. It occurs 14 more times in Romans alone and 12 times in other Pauline epistles. Here are the most notable instances:

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

Romans 3:23-25 since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, [24] they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, [25] whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. . . .

Romans 3:26 . . . he justifies him who has faith in Jesus.

Romans 3:28 For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.

Romans 3:30 . . . he will justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised through their faith.

Romans 4:5 And to one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness.

Romans 5:1 Therefore, since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Romans 5:9 Since, therefore, we are now justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.

Galatians 2:16 . . . in order to be justified by faith in Christ . . .

Galatians 3:24 So that the law was our custodian until Christ came, that we might be justified by faith.

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

Apologists, theologians, and avid Bible readers are well familiar with Paul’s theme of being justified by grace (Rom 3:24; Titus 3:7) and by faith (most of the other passages above). But in Romans 2:13, Paul applies the term not to either grace or faith, but to “doers of the law.” James uses the word (in a way that gave Luther fits) in relation to Abraham and Rahab being “justified by works” (Jas 2:21, 24-25).

But now we also see that St. Paul teaches that the baptized person is “justified from sin” (Rom 6:7). This pretty much dramatically shoots down Jason’s entire attempt to separate baptism from justification / regeneration. The entire chapter of Romans 6 is now seen in an exciting light in reference to baptism and its profound spiritual power. Paul creates an analogy between our baptism and Jesus’ death (6:3-6). Then we have the bombshell verse of 6:7, which directly applies justification to baptism.

The rest of the chapter, in light of the stage that Paul has set, is filled with proof texts for baptismal regeneration. Because of our baptism / “death” we are now “dead to sin and alive to God” (6:11). Thus, sanctification seems intimately tied in with the justification and regeneration that baptism has brought about (a very Catholic and unProtestant view indeed).

Perhaps this is some of what St. Paul means by saying, “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal 3:27; cf. Rom 13:14), and also his terminology of “put on the new nature” (Eph 4:24; Col 3:10), and “if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come” (2 Cor 5:17), and “the new life of the Spirit” (Rom 7:6): not to mention several other verses about the indwelling Holy Spirit.

As a result of this baptism, sin is no longer to “reign” over us or have “dominion” (Rom 6:12-15), leading to “righteousness for sanctification” (6:19). We’re no longer “slaves to sin” (6:16-18, 20). Now as a result of baptismal regeneration, we’ve been “set free from sin” with “the return” being “sanctification and its end, eternal life” (6:18, 22).

Wow! Hard to argue against all that! It’s baptismal regeneration, justification, sanctification, and salvation all in one fell swoop: in one chapter of Paul: supposedly the great “Protestant” apostle and alleged herald of justification by faith alone.

It’s not as though people like Cornelius and the Galatians didn’t have access to baptism,

In the passage about Cornelius, Peter preaches, and then Cornelius, along with other Gentiles who receive the Spirit are baptized (Acts 10:44-48). So this is more evidence of the Catholic position, not Jason’s. We know what Paul and Peter thought baptism did: not from this particular passage, but others, that have to be considered along with Acts 10.

It would make no sense to dismiss a passage like Luke 18:10-14, Acts 19:2, or Romans 10:10 as an exception to the rule. Justification upon believing response to the gospel, prior to baptism, is the rule, not the exception.

In Luke 18:10-14, we hear of the righteous man who was “justified”because he exhibited genuine repentance and humility. This doesn’t prove that he would not also have to be baptized (see my logical point in the introduction). The same Jesus Who taught this in a story, also said:

Matthew 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

After we preach and make disciples and bring about new converts and believers by the power of the Holy Spirit, we baptize them. The disciples were already baptizing others, early in Jesus’ ministry: thus we can assume that they must have themselves been baptized, in order to baptize others, but it wasn’t by Jesus (John 4:2).

Acts 19:1-6 While Apol’los was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. [2] And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have never even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” [3] And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.” [4] And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” [5] On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. [6] And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.

It’s the same again here: some disciples were found who had been baptized by John the Baptist. But then they were baptized in the name of Jesus and after that, they received the Holy Spirit. Apparently, then, Jason manages to believe (I know not how) in a justification without the Holy Spirit.

Romans 10:10 For man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved.

This refers to justification, but the same Paul makes it clear that baptism is also an essential part of the overall equation, in Romans 6:3-5 and Titus 3:5 (seen above). So it’s not “either/or” but “both/and.” I have repeatedly shown how the two can go hand-in-hand and be perfectly harmonious. This is what the Bible teaches. So why does Jason keep trying to separate them? Well, because he is engaged in systematic eisegesis: reading into the Bible and apostolic Christianity what isn’t there. And he is engaging in the typical and distressingly common Protestant false dichotomy.

Mark 16:16 is an extra-Biblical source. It has some significance as an early text, but the readers should keep in mind that it’s an extra-Biblical text. The authentic gospel of Mark says nothing of baptismal justification. (Similarly, the authentic letters of Ignatius of Antioch say nothing of it. The inauthentic longer versions of his letters, on the other hand, include reference to the concept.)

There are many excellent and compelling arguments for Mark 16:9-20 being part of Scripture. But even if it isn’t, there are plenty more passages teaching baptismal regeneration that Jason can’t dismiss.

You’ve made no attempt to explain the large number of Biblical examples of justification apart from baptism that I cited earlier. As I said, such passages have moved many advocates of baptismal justification to argue that baptism didn’t become a requirement (in normative cases) until after Jesus’ public ministry. . . . John refers to justification through faith many times (1:12, 3:15-16, 3:18, 3:36, 5:24, 6:35, 6:40, 6:47, 7:38-39, 11:25-26, etc.), and baptismal justification is alleged to be referred to only once, in 3:5.

As explained in the introduction, mentions of justification that do not also mention baptism, don’t wipe out all the passages that teach required baptism as an essential component of Christian discipleship and justification itself (which Paul literally asserts in Romans 6:7). It’s simply not a disproof. The Bible has to be interpreted as a harmonious whole, since it is inspired revelation, and Jason cannot ignore this massive biblical evidence regarding baptism. How very odd, if Jason is correct, that the very first thing Jesus did when He commenced His public ministry, was to be baptized as an example.

And the immediate precursor and proclaimer of the arrival of Jesus the Messiah: John the Baptist, was primarily one who baptized (as we see in his very title): which prophets had never done before. Then we see Jesus’ disciples baptizing (Jn 4:2), and His command. shortly before ascending, that mentioned baptism in conjunction with making disciples (Mt 28:19). After the Day of Pentecost and the first Christian sermon of the new covenant, Peter immediately calls for a mass baptism: precisely as Jesus said His disciples should do: preach and baptize. Jason’s inability to grasp the significance of all this is like a person looking all over the sky at high noon on a clear summer day and not being able to find the sun.

Most likely, Acts 2:38 has a meaning similar to Matthew 3:11. The people in Matthew 3 weren’t being baptized to attain repentance. Rather, they were repenting, then being baptized on the basis of that repentance. Not only would it be irrational to think that unrepentant people would be baptized in order to attain repentance, but Josephus specifically tells us that John’s baptism was for people who had already repented (Antiquities Of The Jews, 18:5:2).

Of course, this was the order (repentance, then baptism, which “seals” it), as indicated in Mark 1:5: “they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins” (cf. Mt 3:6). John’s words, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Mt 3:2), imply — it seems to me — a repentance, followed by baptism: rather like a Protestant altar call, where the person repents, then goes up to the altar in a ritual gesture of public proclamation of newfound faith. In Catholicism, the equivalent would be reception into the Church at Easter, followed by baptism, for those who had never been baptized. When I was received, I was conditionally baptized, just in case my previous one (as a Methodist infant in 1958) was invalid for some reason.

Acts 2:38 is the same order: “Repent, and be baptized.” And it was the same for St. Paul. He repented and stopped warring against Jesus Christ and His Body, and then he was baptized.

Given the availability of such a reasonable understanding of Acts 2:38 (one similar to how we all read Matthew 3:11), it wouldn’t make sense to adopt some other view of the passage that would be so inconsistent with what Luke says elsewhere and what other Biblical authors say (documented above).

Jason seems to think that repentance is the same thing as justification, but it’s not. It’s only the first step towards justification and regeneration. Hence we see a verse like this:

Mark 1:4 John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. (cf. Lk 3:3)

The people in John’s baptisms would repent and confess, then get baptized, which would bring the forgiveness (which is the justification: at least by analogy to later Christian baptism). The Apostle Paul taught that the two are not identical:

2 Corinthians 7:10 For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation . . .

1 Peter 3:21 is a passage addressed to Christians in the context of discussing sanctification. Baptism saves in that sense, not in the sense of justification. Like the baptism of John the Baptist, Christian baptism doesn’t remove the filth of sin (1 Peter 3:21). Instead, it’s a public pledge made to God that commits Christians, like those to whom Peter is writing, to faithfulness to God in their present experience of persecution.

The preceding context shows that Peter is talking about unbelievers being saved by baptism:

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit;

Peter goes on to make a parable-like comparison: during the Flood, “eight persons, were saved through water” (3:20). Then he says, “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you” (3:21). “Salvation” in the Old Testament generally meant “saved from death” or from “enemies” (who often would bring death). In the New Testament it means being rescued from eternal death or spiritual death. So it’s a clear-cut analogy: eight people were saved from physical death “through water” on Noah’s ark. Now, by analogy, we are saved through the waters of baptism, which “correspond” to the waters of the Flood.

If baptism were intended as some sort of “pledge of faithfulness,” Scripture would say so. Instead, it is repeatedly referred to (including in key passages by Peter himself) as bringing salvation, regeneration, the Holy Spirit, and justification itself (Rom 6:7). Jason is simply doing more desperate eisegesis. It doesn’t fly. His view is neither biblically plausible nor self-consistent.

Acts 19:2 only mentions faith.

That’s right, but it’s just one verse. The original New Testament did not even have verses. When we consider context, the discussion immediately turns to baptism (19:3-4), then the people get baptized (19:5), which results in the reception of the Holy Spirit (19:6). Jason simply repeating that Acts 19:2 only mentions faith over and over proves or resolves absolutely nothing, as to the present dispute.

If you want us to believe that Galatians 3:2, Ephesians 1:13-14, and other passages are including baptism when they refer to faith, you need to argue for that position rather than just asserting it. . . . We don’t begin with a default assumption that references to belief include baptism. If you want baptism included, you carry the burden of proof.

As explained, they don’t have to mention baptism because it’s mentioned (and very prominently in the whole scheme of salvation) in many other places. Not everything has to be noted in any one particular passage. But St. Paul does put both things (and sanctification) in one verse:

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

If Paul can put them together in that passage, then it follows that he could very well be presupposing this in other passages, and he also connects them in Romans 6:4-5, where he directly connects baptism with waling “in newness of life” and being “united” to Christ: both of which — I submit — are essentially synonyms of justification; and above all in Romans 6:7, where st. Paul leaves no room for doubt.

It’s not just a matter of faith coming before baptism. Rather, justification does as well. Cornelius’ example and Paul’s assumed soteriology in Acts 19:2 involve the reception of the Spirit, the seal of adoption and justification, at the time of faith and prior to baptism.

I don’t know why Jason can’t see the sequence of events around Acts 19:2. It’s not rocket science. These people did not have the Spirit prior to baptism. It says that they were “disciples” (19:1) and “believed (19:2). But so were the original twelve disciples, and they did not have the Holy Spirit till a post-Resurrection appearance of Jesus (John 20:22). The text says that they were baptized, Paul laid his hands on them, and then “the Holy Spirit came on them” (Acts 19:4-5). What is so hard to grasp about the chronology there? How is it that Jason gets it dead wrong? I find it perplexing, even given the usual, expected Protestant bias.

That’s why the Christians in Jerusalem, after hearing Peter mention Cornelius’ reception of the Spirit without any mention of his baptism, respond by saying that Cornelius had been given eternal life (Acts 11:18).

He doesn’t have to mention that they were baptized. In terms of Bible readers, that was already in the text at 10:47-48: just ten verses before. So Peter didn’t happen to mention Cornelius’ and the others’ baptism; so what? Paul certainly mentioned his own when he recounted his conversion story, and said that the effect of it was to “wash away [his] sins” (Acts 22:16). So one apostle (by far the favorite of Protestants) mentioned it and the other didn’t (but talks explicitly about it elsewhere). It’s a wash, and of no particular significance for determining the correct theology of baptism and justification.

Moreover, if we want to talk about what gives eternal life, Jesus explicitly said also that it was receiving His Body and Blood in Holy Communion:

John 6:48-51 I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

John 6:53-58 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”

This is extremely plain and clear, yet I don’t see Jason going around teaching that “the Bible says very plainly that the Eucharist gives eternal life.” He doesn’t even believe it. Nor does he believe the many passages clearly proclaiming that baptism regenerates and gives salvation. All he seems to care about are the ones that talk only about justification. He thinks — for some unknown reason — that he can avoid and ignore all of this additional relevant biblical revelation about salvation because it doesn’t harmonize with his man-made theology: devised in the 16th century after Jesus. But if he wants baptism and justification directly tied together, then we have Romans 6:7 and 1 Corinthians 6:11.

Peter goes on to use Cornelius as an example of a person whose heart had been cleansed through faith, demonstrated by his reception of the Spirit (Acts 15:7-11). Peter says nothing of baptism in that context, and the reception of the Spirit that confirmed Cornelius’ justification occurred prior to his baptism. Besides, reception of the Spirit is normally associated with the beginning of the Christian life, so the description of what happened in Acts 10:44-46 would be sufficient to support my conclusion even if we didn’t have the further confirmation in Acts 11 and Acts 15.

Sometimes this is the case, and it is an “anomaly” from the usual sequence: which we see in Acts 2 and Acts 19:1-6 and among the original twelve disciples, who were first baptized and later filled with the Spirit, and St. Paul, whose sins were forgiven by baptism. Yet, baptism was still associated with it in the same passage. It wasn’t absent, let alone irrelevant. Whatever spiritual benefit accrued from having the Holy Spirit still needed to be supplemented by baptism, which the same Peter said was instrumental for forgiveness, salvation, and inclusion in the Church, the Body of Christ.

But the Holy Spirit could not have been the end-all and be-all of justification and salvation, since the disciples were healing and raising the dead and casting out demons even before they received Him (Mt 10:8; Lk 10:17). Even in the Old Testament, the prophet Micah said that he was “filled with power, with the Spirit of the LORD” (Mic 3:8) and King David, the “man after” God’s “own heart” (1 Sam 13:14) cried out to God after he had sinned, “Cast me not away from thy presence, and take not thy holy Spirit from me” (Ps 51:11). God said about the prophet Jeremiah: “before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet” (Jer 1:5).

Noah clearly had an extra measure of grace and “was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God” (Gen 6:9). Enoch also “walked with God” (Gen 5:24) and the New Testament says that he “pleased God” (Heb 11:5), as one of the heroes of faith. Job was described as “blameless and upright, one who feared God, and turned away from evil” (Job 1:1). The extraordinary faith and obedience of Abraham and Joseph and the prophets is well known. God also expressed such an internal divine presence, I believe, in talking about transforming people’s hearts:

Deuteronomy 30:6 And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.

Jeremiah 24:7 I will give them a heart to know that I am the LORD; and they shall be my people and I will be their God, for they shall return to me with their whole heart.

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

Jeremiah 32:40 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.

Ezekiel 11:19 And I will give them one heart, and put a new spirit within them; I will take the stony heart out of their flesh and give them a heart of flesh, (cf. 18:31: ” get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit!”)

In this sense, selective, anomalous instances of people receiving the Holy Spirit before baptism are not much greater than (perhaps even lesser than) these instances of old covenant “heart renewal” so to speak.

***

Related Reading

Born Again: Baptism in the Early Fathers (Evangelical Catholic Apologetics)

Church Fathers on Baptism (Armchair Theologian; Lutheran site)

The Church Fathers on Baptismal Regeneration (Bryan Cross, Called to Communion)

***

Photo credit: Vision of Cornelius the Centurion (1664), by Gerbrand van den Eeckhout (1621-1674) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Anti-Catholic Double Standards on Self-Published Books

Last updated on: April 21, 2020 at 1:16 pm By Dave Armstrong

James Swan and His Love of the Ridiculous Self-Published Books of David T. King and William Webster

My best-selling book (one of four) with Sophia Institute Press (2007). See book and purchase information.

*****

James Swan is a Reformed Protestant anti-Catholic polemicist, who runs a website called (well, at least affectionately by myself and some of my readers) Boors All. I won’t tax the patience of readers with our past history. Suffice it to say that the man despises me. He plays games with my papers and books; for example, writing “book reviews” without mentioning that I am the author of the book.

His goal is always to put me down as someone not to be taken seriously, and as an utterly incompetent researcher (and he has also often classified me as mentally ill, just for the record). It’s all personal attack. I long ago tired of documenting in any systematic way his 1001 lies about myself personally or my research, but in this paper I would like to simply document one particular double standard that often occurs on his blog. Double standards often typify anti-Catholic treatments of Catholics.

In a recent paper Swan (words in blue below) noted one of my books, without mentioning my name as the author (pretty odd stuff):

As far as I can tell, the quote was taken from the self-published Lulu book, Martin Luther: Catholic Critical Analysis and Praise, page 44. . . . If the person using this quote actually checked the documentation given in this self-published book, he would’ve realized “Ibid., from: O’Connor, 15” was barely helpful as a reference. Even the “O’Connor, 15” part was wrong.

Well, folks, I must confess to an outrageous error that Swan managed to identify: I incorrectly listed a page 15 in my source, when in fact, the material in question was actually on page 20 (as in my original 1991 handwritten research notes: I just checked). I repent in dust and ashes and renounce my entire corpus of apologetics books, since this horrific, inexcusable error has destroyed my competence. It was a nice run, but it’s over now . . .

Seriously, though, I want to concentrate on Swan’s cynical practice of identifying my books as “self-published.” Never mind that I have six books “officially” published by three different Catholic publishers, with a fourth (100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura) to be published soon by a fourth major Catholic publisher: Catholic Answers [note: the total as of April 2020 is twenty-two books with five Catholic publishers and two Protestant ones]. Several of my books, for that matter, are also carried in important theological and municipal libraries (including many Protestant ones). None of that matters in Swan’s mind. He only wants to note others of my books that I put out on my own, and never misses a chance to describe them as “self-published.”

He makes a big deal about that, as an indication that my work is of no significance whatever, because it is merely “self-published.” He also fails to see the highly amusing hyper-irony that every time he states this, it is on his own “self-published” and non-supervised blog [and to my knowledge has never had a book published by a publisher]. The man couldn’t get anything officially published to save his life, yet he mocks me as “self-published” when he knows full well that I have several books (six) published by real live publishers, with real live, breathing editors, managing boards of real people, etc. Here is a second example:

On page 122 of a self-published book, Martin Luther: Catholic Critical Analysis and Praise (2008), a Catholic apologist documents the quote as: . . . In the Catholic apologist’s case, his book on Luther is self-published, . . . (10-12-08)

He does the same to other authors: several of them Protestant, but not Calvinist, and so subject to his belittling (examples: one / two / three / four / five). Oddly enough, however, Swan has an extremely high opinion of a three-volume work by anti-Catholic comrades William Webster and David T. King:

Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, Volume I: A Biblical Defense of the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura (King)

Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, Volume II: An Historical Defense of the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura (Webster)

Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, Volume III: The Writings of the Church Fathers Affirming the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura (Webster and King)

I say “oddly enough” because these were put out by “Christian Resources, Inc.” Ever heard of that outfit? I didn’t think so. I demonstrated in a paper over two years ago that this “publisher” was run by Webster himself. It’s self-publishing, folks. Anyone can print their own book if they like and put it out. It’s easy to do today.

Knowing this, why is it, then, that when Swan exalts these works (as he often has and continues to do) he never ever ever (far as I can tell from searching his site) mentions that they are “self-published”? Why in the world would that be? Maybe you can write to him and ask. I can’t, because he has told me he blocks my e-mails, and I’m banned from his blog as well. Here are examples:

As a token of appreciation for your comments on this blog, i’d like to send you David King’s book: Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith (Volume I) (9-7-06)

I cited this quote from David T. King, Holy Scripture: The Ground And Pillar Of Our Faith Volume 1 (WA: Christian Resources Inc, 2001), 224]. (10-23-06)

[two citations] (10-24-06)

As David King points out in his book Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, . . . (7-26-07)

For a detailed look at this argument see: David King, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith (WA: Christian Resources inc, 2001) p.130-136. (7-31-07)

For an extended treatment of this quote by Basil, see William Webster, Holy Scripture, the Ground and Pillar of Our Faith (Battle Ground: Christian Resources, 2001), Vol. 2, pp. 142ff. (8-10-07)

For an excellent compilation of quotes of the Church fathers teaching on the primacy, sufficiency and ultimate authority of Scripture, get a copy of Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol III – The Writings of the Church Fathers Affirming the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura. (12-30-07)

I would also be interested in knowing if you’ve read Dr. White’s Roman Catholic Controversy, Webster/King’s Holy Scripture: The ground and Pillar of Our Faith (3 vols), and Svendsen’s Who is My Mother? If not, you really should get some of these books before making your final decision. (1-19-09)

For an excellent compilation of quotes of the Church fathers teaching on the primacy, sufficiency and ultimate authority of Scripture, get a copy of Holy Scripture:The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol III – The Writings of the Church Fathers Affirming the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura. (7-7-09)

Here’s reason number #986 why I keep the book Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Volume One on my desk. (4-5-10)

[three citations] (7-31-10)

You get the idea. Never a word about these volumes being self-published. They’re right up there next to the Bible in importance and near-inspired nature. The original page of the publisher, “Christian Resources” — where I documented that Webster was the director and founder is no longer online. But a current “Contact Info.” page leads right to Webster’s e-mail address. If there is any doubt that this is not a traditional publisher, but a glorified, slickly disguised self-publishing operation, the Book Printing page outlines how anyone can pay to get a book printed:

The price depends on the size of the book. As an example, the price for producing a paperback book, 80 pages in length, 5 1/2″ x 8 1/2″ in size would be approximately $4.50 per book. The customer would be responsible for shipping costs.

If you have interest in having a book printed please contact Bill Webster for an estimate

How Christian and democratic of William: anyone can get a book published at good ol’ Christian Resources. Even Swan could put out a book if he likes, filled with his relentlessly profound pearls of wisdom! Well, anyone but a Catholic, of course . . .

Through the marvel of Internet Archive, it was easy enough to establish that Webster runs this outfit:

Christian Resources is a non-profit teaching, apologetics and publishing ministry dealing with issues related to Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, the Gospel, Church history and the Christian life. The ministry is dedicated to the teaching and proclamation of the Gospel, a biblical and historical defense of the teachings of the Reformation and the discipling of believers in their Christian walk.

The Director and Founder of Christian Resources is William Webster (home page, scanned on 9 February 2005; link now defunct)

Clicking on the category, “Books” on the same page above, we find the “hit” of this self-publishing juggernaut of Christian truth, the three-volume series I have been mentioning above.

Gotta love those incessant anti-Catholic ethical double standards . . .

***

David T. King and William Webster: Out-of-Context or Hyper-Selective Quotations from the Church Fathers on Christian Authority: Introduction to the Series [11-8-13]

David T. King and William Webster: Out-of-Context or Hyper-Selective Quotations from the Church Fathers on Christian Authority: Part I: St. Cyril of Jerusalem [11-9-13]

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

***

(originally posted on 8-1-11)

***

Dietrich von Hildebrand & Legitimate Traditionalism

Last updated on: April 18, 2020 at 11:00 am By Dave Armstrong

(originally uploaded on 27 February 2002; terminology and a few other minor things revised on 4-18-20)

[Dietrich von Hildebrand’s words will be in blue]

***

I immediately ask three primary questions of anyone who calls himself a Catholic “traditionalist”:

1. What do you think of the Novus Ordo [ordinary form] Mass?
2. What do you think of Vatican II?
3. What do you think of Pope John Paul II?

Unfortunately I do think that self-described “traditionalists” — who are actually what I call radical Catholic reactionaries or reactionaries: over against legitimate “traditionalists” — often want to play a sort of sub-conscious “game” of (in effect, or logical reduction of their position) seeing how close they can get to the “edge” (schism) without going over it (like a wobbly tightrope walker).

What I call a “quasi-schismatic mentality” allows one to criticize pope, Mass, and Council alike all day long, with never-ending moaning and groaning and breast-beating, sometimes in conspiratorial, apocalyptic, Chicken Little proportions. I don’t think that is very helpful for the life of the Church, and in some respects, in my opinion, it is as bad or worse than being a schismatic, for it is still within the Church, adversely affecting the faith and outlook of others.

In other words, I think there is a strong attitudinal element or tendency, akin to that found in other points of view, such as anti-Catholic Protestantism or “Catholic” theological liberalism. One can see no good in the pope, or no bad, or one can take a middle position (which I would call orthodoxy and being a faithful, obedient Catholic), where the pope’s words and actions are accorded the immense respect and reverence appropriate to his exalted office, but where aspects of prudence or particular errors might be pointed out (as, e.g., in Luther’s very early rhetoric). It seems that the reactionaries want to make out like those of us who disagree with them are ultramontantanists: who think the choice of socks the pope wears every day is an ex cathedra doctrine.

This is silly and ludicrous. I have had on my site for several years a paper about “Laymen Rebuking the Pope.” This can occur and has occurred (most notably by saints like St. Francis, St. Dominic, or St. Catherine of Siena). My point is only that it would and should be a relatively rare thing. It is not normative or appropriate for a Catholic to go on and on about the pope. It’s usually bad form and highly presumptuous. There have been “bad popes,” of course, but John Paul II is not one of them.

So there is the “attitudinal problem” and the “factual problem” of determining whether Pope John Paul II is some raving heretic, or going senile, or lax on doctrine and discipline, etc. I believe he is one of the greatest popes ever, and on that basis in particular, I take a very dim view of all the hyper-criticism taking place about the ecumenical gathering at Assisi and what-not, not on the fatuous, wrongheaded basis that no pope can ever be criticized. But that is a convenient caricature for many reactionaries to construct, so they milk it for all it’s worth.

This goes beyond mere legal, canon law sorts of issues (I’m always one to get down to root causes and premises of viewpoints). I freely acknowledge that one can criticize a pope, if indeed sufficiently serious due cause exists. The problem here is to determine if that is presently the case. I see it as almost self-evident that it is not the case; many quasi-schismatic reactionaries take the opposite view. How Catholics seemingly so similar in outlook on many points of theology and morality can diverge so wildly as to the stature of this present pope is what is both interesting and distressing to ponder.

Reactionaryism often devolves into a “tightrope complex.” I think reactionaries want it both ways. They see the insuperable logical difficulties and the implications for indefectibility of denying the Novus Ordo Mass’s validity, yet they despise it (or what they think it is, in many cases) so much that they heap scorn upon it day and night, while always being able to retreat under the “safety cover” of acceptance of its validity, in the event of being called on their derision of it by someone like me.

But I find that, oftentimes, abuses contrary to the rubrics are what are called into question (i.e., almost throwing the baby out with the bath water). Reactionaries will often ask: “Is this Mass [the way it is often conducted today] the Mass of the ages?” Well, no, it isn’t, in many ways. When Masses are filled with abuses they aren’t (in a technical, non-canonical sense) even the Novus Ordo Mass — if nonsense is introduced into them which hasn’t been sanctioned by the Church. I feel very strongly about abuses, piety, and reverence, too, which is why I have attended Latin Mass (Novus Ordo) at an impeccably liturgically orthodox parish for more than eleven years now.

Or reactionaries will say the current Mass is a “serious break.” But why would that not imply (applying common sense) that it was invalid? Wouldn’t invalidity be an inherent part of a “serious” break? On the other hand, if it is a legitimate development, then it cannot be a serious break, it would seem to me. In other words, one might apply the Newmanian categories of development vs. corruption.

But, as always, it seems that the reactionaries want it both ways. They want to habitually treat it like a corruption, yet retreat behind validity when it suits their purpose, and speak of “technical validity.” This sort of “Catholic no-man’s land” or “neither fish nor fowl” is what drives critics like myself crazy in our dialogues on the general subject with reactionaries, who combine Protestant private judgment and the liberal pick-and-choose mentality in a Catholic guise, in the name of “tradition.”

If the Novus Ordo Mass is not a “serious deformation,” then it is valid, and in the most important sense, the same Mass. After all, our Lord Jesus is present body, blood, soul, and divinity. How, then, can a Mass where our Lord is substantially present be a “serious deformation” or “serious break” or fundamentally “impious” (another common charge)? Let’s get our priorities straight here. If someone simply says (as I do, to almost as great an extent) that they like the more traditional forms of worship, and the Latin Tridentine Mass, that would be fine with the Church. But so often reactionaries have to run down the Mass they don’t attend. Live and let live. If those at the Mass they detest receive Jesus, and the ineffable graces of the Holy Eucharist, I say, “more power to them.”

And of course most reactionaries acknowledge Pope John Paul II as a valid pope, if asked. Yet if he is not given the respect and reverence proper to the office, then that is scarcely different from saying that the Archbishop of Canterbury is who he is. It’s not saying much, when we look at what reactionaries do habitually say about the Holy Father.

Likewise with Vatican II. It’s the same old equivocation: wanting to have it both ways, with the constant charges that the Council’s documents are “ambiguous,” or shot-through with “novel” modernism or Protestant or secularist thought, or that it was merely a pastoral, therefore not binding on the faithful. I think there is an insuperable inner tension in this position, as in Protestantism or theological liberalism. I have found more than enough material in my discussions on the subject to show that the Council’s teachings are binding on the faithful, whether or not they are infallible.

I don’t claim to know all the ins and outs of that very complicated canon law discussion. The faithful are not expected to know all that stuff. They are expected to accept the teachings of the Church at the highest level and give assent to them: internally as well as externally. I am not just an apologist. I am also one of the faithful. It seems to me that acknowledging the binding character of the Council would end many of the severe criticisms of the decrees on Ecumenism and other religions, religious freedom, etc. “Authoritative” ought to be sufficient to shut the mouths of dissenting Catholics. But it is not. And that is another instance of the inherent equivocations of the reactionary position.

Who determines what is “novel” anyway? The pope and the bishops, or reactionaries? How is reactionary dissent and selectivity of what they will follow different from what Luther maintained in 1517 and (especially) 1521? He wanted to stand there and say he knew better than the Church, and it was “self-evident,” etc. that the Church was wrong in this and that teaching. Reactionaries vainly think that they can determine what is a legitimate development, apart from the mind of the Church and the official pronouncements of the Magisterium? Curious . . .

Likewise, Luther thought that merit and purgatory and the Sacrifice of the Mass were not legitimate developments of soteriology, prayers for the dead, and the Real Presence. The Church determines these things, not individuals. If the individual wants to dissent, then that is liberal cafeteria Catholicism and Protestant private judgment rearing their ugly heads again. I’m not saying (don’t get me wrong) that reactionaries are consciously taking this approach in those terms; what I am saying is that is what it boils down to, closely-scrutinized.

William Marshner of Christendom College, wrote:

At the same time, however, I join with all other theologians in saying that the new ground [on religious liberty] is non-infallible teaching. So when I say that the possibility exists that Vatican II is wrong on one or more crucial points of Dignitatis Humanae, I do not simply mean that the Council’s policy may prove unfruitful. I mean to signal a possibility that the Council’s teaching is false.

But may a Catholic theologian admit that such a possibility exists? Of course he may. The decree Dignitatis Humanae is a non-infallible document, and the teaching which it presents is admitted to be a ‘new development’, hence not something which is already acknowledged dogma ex magisterio ordinario. Therefore the kind of religious assent which Catholics owe to that teaching is the kind of assent which does not exclude the logical possibility that the teaching is wrong; rather our assent excludes any probability that the teaching is wrong” (Faith and Reason, Fall 1983)

What I get out of this is that we give our assent, whether the Church changes its opinion later or not. The “probability” is that the teaching is correct. But is that how reactionaries treat it? Of course not. We have fools like one person from The Remnant who went to the Ecumenical Gathering at Assisi as a reporter to heap scorn upon the proceedings and present it according to his warped, preconceived (false) notions of its intent and goal and underlying impulses. He is not giving an “assent” which “excludes any probability that the teaching is wrong.” He’s no different in this respect than any anti-Catholic Protestant polemicist who wouldn’t know true Catholic ecumenism from a hole in the ground.

I think there is a strong critique of reactionaryism which doesn’t rest on canon law intricacies. I believe I have been making it these past few years. Not every one (to greatly understate it) is a canonist or liturgist. Those things don’t particularly interest me. But I think a strong case can be made without relying on those areas and all that they entail. And that case is based on an examination of the underlying premises of the reactionary position and “mental predisposition” before one even gets to the technical minutiae of canon law and liturgical rubrics.

I question whether reactionaries even understand what legitimate Catholic ecumenism is. They must first understand that to even have an opposing position (which is itself highly imprudent, as a Catholic must give assent to the Church’s teaching). What I hear is the constant vapid equation of ecumenism with indifferentism. As the latter is clearly rejected by the Church, the criticism collapses as irrelevant; a non sequitur. Yet it is constantly made. To me that suggests that the real problem is in the prior attitude of the reactionary and his fallacies and Protestant-like false dichotomies, not in the teaching itself, since the very thing harped on is already dealt with in the documents themselves.

Reactionaries see in documents of Vatican II and papal and Church actions what they want to see. What they miss is the responsibility to give assent to what the pope (and the Council) is teaching. How is this approach a whit different from the dissent of the liberal theologians on Humanae Vitae (which they argued wasn’t infallible; therefore, not binding) or the Protestant protestations of Luther and his legatees for the last 500 years?

Why should I think any given reactionary’s opinion carries more weight than John Paul II’s in the first place? The very premise is ludicrous. I’m supposed to sit here and think, “hmmmm, lessee, on one hand I have reactionary person X’s and The Remnant’s and reactionary person Y’s and reactionary person Z’s opinions; on the other I have an Ecumenical Council, the Holy Father, and Cardinal Ratzinger, etc. Which shall I prefer??????” How can reactionaries explain to me how the very scenario which their opinions entail (in effect, offering such a “choice”) is not absolutely ridiculous and thoroughly un-Catholic from the get-go?

I think reactionaries have insuperable difficulties, and that they are thinking like Protestants in some key ways having to do with private judgment and authority, and like liberal theologians in some ways as well. Many may have converted from either Protestantism or liberal “cafeteria” Catholicism, and have brought certain ways of thought from those belief-systems with them into so-called Catholic reactionaryism. They can still attend the Tridentine Mass, as long as it is approved. That’s fine. No one has a problem with that. I consider myself a true Catholic traditionalist because I absolutely detest theological liberalism and liturgical and architectural compromise and mediocrity.

I was given the following citation from the great Catholic writer Dietrich von Hildebrand:

When the pope speaks ex cathedra on faith or morals, then unconditional acceptance and submission is required of every Catholic. But it is false to extend this loyalty to encyclicals in which new theses are proposed. (The Devastated Vineyard, Harrison, New York: Roman Catholic Books, rep. 1985 [orig. 1973], 246)

In context, however, von Hildebrand goes on to give an example of what might be dissented against: matters of a “corporate state,” e.g., where Pope Pius XI’s Quadragesimo Anno “differs on sociological questions with encyclicals of Paul VI” (p. 247). Hardly the usual reactionary concern . . . And then what does the great von Hildebrand (whose wife Alice I have had the pleasure to meet) say, immediately after those words?:

But when it is a question of . . . the introduction of a new missal, or the rearrangement of the Church calendar, or the new rubrics for the liturgy, then our obedience (as Vatican I declares [79]), but by no means our agreement is required. (Ibid., 247)

In footnote 79 (p. 254) he goes on:

The duty of this obedience is made clear by the dogmatic constitution Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I: ‘ . . . Regarding this jurisdiction the shepherds of whatever rite and dignity, and the faithful individually and collectively, are bound by the duty of hierarchical submission and sincere obedience. And this holds not only for matters relating to faith and morals, but also to matters pertaining to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the whole world.’ (Ch. 3; Denz. 1827).

In the same book (written at the very high-water mark of the Liberal Revolution: 1973), in a chapter entitled “Dawn,” von Hildebrand notes hopeful signs:

But the situation has also changed inasmuch as the opposition to this devastation has greatly increased, and many voices are being raised in defense of orthodoxy. Indeed, we see an unmistakeable wave of awakening, of protest against heresies. (Ibid., 102)

After listing many hopeful signs, he declares:

This is all a great consolation, and it is especially a hope for the future. This is real progress . . . (Ibid., 103)

Not only that, he also (in very un-reactionary fashion) praises actions of the Hierarchy of the Church: the Third Roman Synod of 1971, which he describes as a “successful opposition to the destructive tendencies of the modern ‘reformers'” in response to “the unambiguous position of the Holy Father.” (p. 103). Then he mentions approvingly two documents from the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in 1972 and 1973, the second of which condemned Hans Kung’s errors on infallibility (p. 105). Then he says, “I would like to conclude these signs of hope with the words of the Holy Father . . . “ [from an audience on 19 January 1972], and quotes Pope Paul VI at length on pages 105-106. Furthermore, even after severe criticisms of the Novus Ordo Mass, he states:

And it goes without saying that it would also be completely wrong to disobey any of the rulings of the Holy Father regarding the Novus Ordo and the Tridentine liturgy (cf. the passage from Vatican I I quoted in footnote 78-a, regarding the obedience which Catholics owe the Pope even in those practical matters where they are entitled to disagree with the judgment of the Pope). (Ibid., 73-74).

So much for the reactionaries’ claiming of Dietrich von Hildebrand. He doesn’t talk like reactionaries of today, who go directly after Blessed John Paul II and make no bones about it. If indeed Ven. Pope Paul VI was so incompetent and compromised, and presided over the virtual destruction of the Church (as many reactionaries would have it), why doesn’t von Hildebrand seem to notice that? Well, because his outlook is precisely like mine, and us so-called “Neo-Conservatives” or “Neo-Catholics” (i.e., the simply orthodox) and most unlike the current so-called reactionary zeitgeist.

Moreover, traditionalist Dietrich von Hildebrand doesn’t trash Vatican II, which is currently being touted as the very “source” of the problems (as opposed to the hijacking of it by the liberals, which is the compromised position, we are told, of the “Neo-Catholics”). In his earlier book, Trojan Horse in the City of God (Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1967), von Hildebrand writes, at the beginning of Chapter One (p. 3):

When one reads the luminous encyclical Ecclesiam Suam of Pope Paul VI or the magnificent Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of the Fathers of the Council, one cannot but realize the greatness of the Second Vatican Council . . . Indeed, it would be difficult to conceive a greater contrast that that existing between the official documents of Vatican II and the superficial, insipid pronouncements of various theologian and laymen that have been breaking out everywhere like some infectious disease. On the one side, we find the true spirit of Christ, the authentic voice of the Church; we find texts that in both form and content breathe a glorious supernatural atmosphere [hmmmm: no hint of modernist co-opting of the Council and “ambiguity” in this description]. On the other side, we find a depressing secularization, a complete loss of the sensus supranaturalis, a morass of confusion.

He speaks of “The distortion of the authentic nature of the Council that this epidemic of theological dilettantism produces . . . ” (pp. 3-4). He goes on:

[T]here is a third choice, which welcomes the official decisions of the Vatican Council, but at the same time emphatically rejects the secularizing interpretations given them by many so-called progressive theologians and laymen. This third choice is based on unshakable faith in Christ and in the infallible magisterium of His Holy Church . . . This is simply the Catholic position . . . It should be clear that this third response to the contemporary crisis in the Church is not timidly compromising, but consistent and forthright . . . .

The response we have been describing involves grave concern and apprehension over the present invasion of the life of the Church by secularism. It considers the present crisis the most serious one in the entire history of the Church [as I often heard the late Fr. John A. Hardon say]. Yet it is full of hope that the Church will triumph, because our Lord Himself has said: ‘And the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.’ (Ibid., 5-7)

Again, this is precisely my position. But things in the reactionary camp have moved radically to the right since 1967 (sort of a parallel to the most exclusivistic form of Protestant Fundamentalism). Now the Council is not dead-set against the liberals, nor does it represent “the true spirit of Christ, the authentic voice of the Church.” Rather, it is itself liberal, and the root of the problem (at least in large part)!!! It is “ambiguous” and shot-through with “modernist” theology. How different from the position of Catholic traditionalist von Hildebrand! Now his own thought on the matter has “evolved” into the following twisted, distorted caricature of orthodox Catholicism, under the pretense of Catholic reactionaryism:

There is the reactionary choice, which incessantly questions the official decisions of the Vatican Council, and at the same time emphatically rejects the alleged ‘orthodox’ interpretations given them by many so-called ‘conservative’ theologians and laymen. This reactionary choice is based on unshakable faith in Christ and in the infallible magisterium of His Holy Church, as interpreted by popes from Pius XII back and [in the final analysis] ourselves . . .

Now von Hildebrand, myself, and all doctrinally and morally orthodox Catholics (and/or traditionalists) who don’t follow the reactionary line are branded as compromising “Neo-Conservatives” or “Neo-Catholics”, in cahoots with the very folks we claim to decry. We are told that we distort the true meaning of the Council, which is liberal and modernist, and we put our heads in the sand with regard to the “self-evident” travesties of the Holy Father (whom they can no longer even respect, let alone trust), and all the myriad difficulties with the New Mass. As far as I can tell, von Hildebrand was a severe critic of the liturgical changes (without at all denying validity), and believed they could be rectified (as I do), but didn’t go after the Council or the pope at all.

Now, however, it is quite fashionable in reactionary circles to go after all three (while carefully avoiding stepping over the razor-thin line of invalidity). And that is how error (i.e., corruption) develops over time: a classic case. In my opinion, there is no clear logical or ecclesiological stopping-point or major difference in attitude, approach, and mentality, between these positions and those of schismatics or sedevacantism (it is a slippery slope). There is a significant difference of degree, but (arguably) not of bottom-line essence.

Now, perhaps reactionaries would argue, “well, if Dietrich von Hildebrand were alive today, he would be as vocal a critic of John Paul II as we are . . . ” Maybe, but we can judge his response by that of his widow, Alice von Hildebrand, a great thinker and faithful Catholic in her own right, who seems to have no problem with the Holy Father (nor with ecumenism):

Joanna Bratten’s article “Pluralism and Orthodoxy” calls for comments. I shall limit myself to her problem of balancing the acceptance of other religions while upholding her faith as being absolute Truth.

The first thing I would like to challenge is her claim that we should accept other religions. No one is required to do so. Ecumenism does not mean to “accept other religions” – far from it – but to have a loving and reverent attitude toward those who do not benefit from the fullness of revealed Truth. It challenges us to rejoice over every bit of truth we discover in them, but we should never accept what is false or partially false . . .

Alas, very few men can resist the Zeitgeist. Since Luther, the only concern of most people seems to be the question of salvation. All of us have heard the question “are you saved?”. If the answer is in the affirmative, people are satisfied that nothing more is needed.

What is sadly neglected is the question of truth. The primary end of man is not salvation but the glorification of God, and God can only be glorified “in the spirit and in Truth.” What is totally overlooked in our subjectivistic and relativistic society is that every untruth (particularly when it refers to matters of supreme importance, such as the nature of God) creates a metaphysical dissonance, and a discordance in the symphony of the universe. Plato has seen this; my late husband has underlined it repeatedly, and John Paul II has highlighted it magnificently in Veritatis Splendor. To deny that God is a Trinity, that Christ is God, that He alone is the Savior of the world must make the Angels weep, even though these terrible errors are held by people who are victims of invincible ignorance. Christ commanded us to spread His Truth (for He alone is the Truth) to the whole world. It is a duty of charity, and charity suffers no exception. (Article, “Charity requires us to proclaim the fullness of Truth,” in the University Concourse of the Franciscan University of Steubenville)

I would note that the so-called “traditionalists” of 1870, such as the excommunicate Old Catholic historian Dollinger, thought the definition of papal infallibility was a “novelty” contrary to past teaching. On the other end of the spectrum were the ultramontanists. But the Church, as always, guided by the Holy Spirit, came down with a reasonable middle position. Likewise, with Vatican II.

Vatican II stated that the Latin ought to be maintained. That it was not, was the fault of bishops, not the pope. As for the change in fasting and other penitential practices (another common complaint), in former times there were things like public whippings (even of kings in some instances), public confession of serious sins and so forth. In Ireland they climb up mountains on their knees. The people of that time (or the more devout Irish) could just as well argue that the entire 20th century (if not the whole period after Trent) was extremely lax in such matters. Obviously, these things can be changed and differ somewhat according to culture and time. The Church has every right and prerogative to modify them as She pleases.

The Church can modify the Church calendar. I don’t see that as a “biggie” at all. I largely agree with reactionary and also legitimate “traditionalist” concerns about communion in the hand. I think allowing it was imprudent, and played into the hand of the liberals (though I don’t deny that the Church has every right to allow it, and I don’t think it is necessarily harmful to piety. I think that in fact it often is, however, due to other factors). At my parish we have an altar rail and 95% of the communicants receive on the tongue. We never have altar girls, either.

As for the never-ending trashing of the critics of the Assisi I and II Ecumenical Gatherings, they need to show from actual proclamations by the pope and other Catholics, that the faith and Vatican II-type ecumenism was compromised. Instead I see a bunch of hysterical alarmism that presupposes certain fears and suspicions from the outset and then interprets the proceedings accordingly. This is singularly unimpressive and unpersuasive.

Then again, just because something is fairly new (say, altar girls) does not mean it is necessarily hostile to previous tradition or Tradition. Altar girls is the perfect example. I don’t like it much because it is a way that the liberals can further their nefarious ends by using it as a sort of “link” to female “priests.” As I thoroughly despise liberalism and all such schemes, I don’t want to be around this, and I am not. But in and of itself, I can’t see how it is intrinsically evil (and in fact, no doubt a pious practice for most of the girls involved).

I have heard that the pope allowed it, while at the same time making sure to reiterate, in the strongest terms, that there would not ever be such a thing as a female Catholic priest, as a matter of unchanging Catholic law. In that sense, I think it was strategically ingenious, given the situation that the pope finds himself in, with liberals in control of so many Catholic institutions and parishes.

We mustn’t condemn all “change” per se, without examining the merits and demerits of each change. It strikes me as simply a knee-jerk reactionary impulse: “change is bad.” Well, lots of folks thought that every “change” made at each and every Ecumenical Council was “bad.” The Nestorians didn’t like Ephesus; the Arians despised Nicaea; the Monophysites didn’t like Chalcedon. And now the reactionaries (like the Old Catholics at Vatican I) don’t like Vatican II and certain “changes” put into practice in accord with its general emphases.

As I said, I think some good critiques can be made, but the usual reactionaries case goes too far. But what about “changes” like the Catechism and the wave of converts and the flourishing of apologetics, or the significant rise in vocations in various quarters, or EWTN, or the strong trend of orthodoxy of young seminarians? Do reactionaries like those changes, or must they always just see all this negative stuff (much of which is arguably not negative)?

I think the reactionary approach becomes a lot like fundamentalist legalism: “you can’t dance, drink, or chew, or associate with those who do.” “You can’t show any appreciation for any aspect of truth present in other religions, lest you become an indifferentist” (or cause others to stumble and think you are, even if you are not). One doesn’t have to make such choices, because they are false dilemmas.

Reactionaries tell us that many of the faithful are confused by things like Assisi I and II and the Pope kissing the Koran, etc. But lots of things in Catholicism are confusing, as it is on a very high level, spiritually and intellectually. The Trinity is very confusing. The hearers of Jesus’ discourse from John 6 were very confused, too, including virtually all the disciples. So what? Luther was very confused about the biblical symbiotic relationship between faith and works. Ignorance is changed by education, not sugar-coating possibly difficult-to-understand teachings and actions. To me the complexity and depth of the Catholic Church is its unique glory, and a major reason I am here. The deepest spiritual and theological truths aren’t all that simple.

But Remnant-style lamentations about the state of the Church are scandalous and highly imprudent. Even if some of their analyses are correct, it is not right to air dirty laundry in public, just as it is highly inappropriate for a married couple to argue about their personal problems in a public restaurant.

Some presuppositions of reactionaries that I wonder a lot about are:

1. Whether they can differentiate Vatican II-type ecumenism from indifferentism. If they equate the two, what supporting documentation from official Church teaching can they produce?

2. What makes reactionaries think that they can ascertain that John Paul II is some sort of closet liberal (as often insinuated), on the basis of his actions which they consider imprudent to the point of laxity, compromise, and irresponsibility, or negligence with regard to the disciplining of liberal dissenters? If he is merely imprudent in some instances, then that alone is not a basis for saying he is no longer trustworthy.

On the other hand, if some reactionaries think he actually is a modernist (if that is their explanation of his actions), that needs to be established from documentation of his words (and — most importantly — his words in their proper context. Our reactionary friends have become quite adept at “proof-texting” out of context from the pope, to “prove” some negative, cynical point they wish to make; quite as “good” as fundamentalist Protestants are, with their anti-Catholic biblical “proof-texting”).

3. What makes reactionaries think that they know more about prudence itself, for that matter, and all the intricacies of the internal working of the Church and its problems, than does the pope, whose job it is to preside over the Church (so that they can sit and analyze why he does what he does, giving a negative slant to it, according to their own preferences)? This is a prime example of a certain outrageous presumption which lies behind all so-called reactionaryism, in my opinion. I freely grant that this is often not the conscious intent of such criticism, but it still stinks to high heaven when analyzed closely for the rank presumptuousness that it is, objectively speaking.

Of course, prudence itself (by its very nature) is the sort of thing where good men can differ in the first place, so it would be rather difficult to obtain agreement of all on any particular instance of it. Thus I don’t think it can be deemed determinative in an examination of someone’s Catholic orthodoxy or lack thereof. It could be introduced as an aspect of an overall picture, but not all by itself, or as the primary factor. I agree that any pope (or any saint) might be imprudent, rarely or often, just as a pope could conceivably be a heretic. That is not at issue (at least not in my case). But the stance that the average Catholic routinely takes towards the leader of their faith, and successor to Peter, is the highest level of respect and deference.

But faith and trust in the integrity and holiness of Pope John Paul II shouldn’t be confused with reasons given for his “misunderstood” actions, in particular instances. I admire John Paul II; he is my hero as well as my Pontiff. That doesn’t mean I can’t give reasons for why I defend him against whatever charges “traditionalists” wish to throw at him. The two things don’t exclude each other. The circularity is much more on the reactionary‘s side, as far as I am concerned.

They have assumed that the Holy Father is now untrustworthy and perpetually suspect, and that anything he does which hits the usual reactionary hot buttons” is proof positive that he is deficient. Most people simply fit new ideas into their existing framework or paradigm (things are “plausible” to them to the extent that they mesh with their current opinions). Reactionaries and their critics such as myself both do this. Everyone does.

We need not assert that any given reactionary is in bad faith. Rather, I would point out a certain inability of the reactionary to view things from another presuppositional framework. One can have an opinion that someone is behaviorally or theologically deficient in terms of the outlook of a faithful and obedient orthodox Catholic, yet still have the ability to view things from within their paradigm and critique it within its own logic. Both sides of this debate need to work on this ability. Generally I presume that error stems from deficient thinking, at least where the persons involved are otherwise very decent folk.

***

Photo credit: Dietrich von Hildebrand (1889–1977), German Roman Catholic philosopher and theologian [public domain / Wikipedia]

***

God Wills to Heal Everyone Through Faith or By Request?

Last updated on: March 25, 2020 at 10:18 am By Dave Armstrong

Biblical Refutation of “Hyperfaith” / “Name-It-Claim-It” Teaching

[Bible verses: New American Standard Bible (NASB) unless otherwise indicated]

* * * * *

1) Jesus: Illness Not Necessarily Due to Sin

John 9:2-3 His disciples asked Him, saying, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he should be born blind?” Jesus answered “It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents, but it was in order that the works of God might be displayed in him.”

2) Enduring Sickness and God Smiting With Disease

Proverbs 18:14 The spirit of a man can endure his sickness.

Why endure if God intended for us never to be sick? The Hebrew is machaleh, defined by Strong’s Concordance as “sickness, disease, infirmity” (word 4245), and by Gesenius’ Lexicon as “disease” also (word 4245). It occurs in 2 Chronicles 21:15, 18: “and you will suffer sickness, a disease of your bowels, until your bowels come out because of the sickness, day by day . . . So after all this the LORD smote him in his bowels with an incurable sickness.”

Here God gives a man a disease, which isn’t supposed to happen, according to this false teaching; only the devil is supposed to do that. But God is Judge: he can certainly give an illness to someone, just as He can kill them, if He should so choose, as He is our Creator, and life and death is in His hands.

3) The Apostle Paul Recommends Wine Instead of Healing

1 Timothy 5:23 Use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and frequent ailments.

Why didn’t Paul heal Timothy, or tell him he must be in sin, or that he lacks faith for healing?

4) No biblical passage teaches that Christians should never have illness.

5) Apostle Paul Again Unable to Heal

2 Timothy 4:20 Trophimus I left sick at Miletus.

Why couldn’t Paul heal Trophimus (or Timothy) if Jesus said His disciples would have the power to heal? Two reasons. There is a limitation on our powers, and God sometimes chooses not to heal, for reasons above our understanding.

6) No Death?

Consistent, so-called “faith” doctrine would mean that followers would never have to die! The person with enough “faith” could theoretically heal himself indefinitely. Yet, we know that this is obviously absurd. Everyone dies; and most people have some sickness from which they will die. Thus, for most people, there is one sickness of which they will never be healed — their last one. Death and sickness came about in the first place as a result of the fall. God decides ultimately when someone dies, and He decides whether to heal or not. But perfect health will not be achieved until the Kingdom arrives.

7) Prophet Daniel’s Lack of “Faith”

Daniel 8:27 Then I, Daniel, was exhausted and sick for days . . .

Another example of a saint without enough faith to be healed.

8) Prophet Elisha Also Succumbs to Faithlessness?

2 Kings 13:14 Elisha became sick with the illness of which he was to die.

This destroys the notion of the righteous (Elisha was God’s prophet) always dying of old age.

Exodus 4:11 And the Lord said to him, “who has made man’s mouth? Or who makes him dumb or deaf, or seeing or blind? Is it not I, the Lord?”

This verse simply should not exist if “faith” teachers are correct. They say that Satan produces all physical abnormalities, and that God wills for no one to have these defects. The above verse renders this belief biblically absurd and false.

10) Aging

Aging is itself a degenerative disease which is irreversible, constantly occurring and ultimately fatal. This is a medical and scientific fact, and one which contradicts the “faith” doctrine, which teaches attainable perfect health. Such a state is not possible for fallen man and fallen creation.

11) Mentioning False Teachers by Name

This finds biblical sanction in Paul’s writings. In 1 Timothy 1:20, he mentions Hymenaeus and Alexander in an unfavorable light. In 2 Timothy 2:17-18, he names Hymenaeus and Philetus, “men who have gone astray from the truth” . . . And in 2 Timothy 4:14, he writes, “Alexander the coppersmith did me much harm; the Lord will repay him according to his deeds.” Thus, one can rightly name false teachers such as Kenneth Hagin and Kenneth Copeland, for the sake of orthodoxy and true doctrine, and to prevent injury to souls.

12) Church History

No key figure in the history of the Church and Christianity has ever taught freedom from all disease as a result of the atonement, God being “bound,” our positive confession, etc.

13) Relation of Healing to Faith

We find that healing is sometimes related to faith and sometimes not, in the NT. Many scriptures can be found where Jesus says “Your faith has made you well” or some other similar phrase. But other passages don’t mention faith at all. Thus we cannot establish an absolute relation between faith and healing (or, conversely, a correlation between sin and sickness). These beliefs are not biblical, and are constructed by illogically reading into Holy Scripture what is not there. Let’s examine a few passages in this regard.

In Matthew 8:13, the centurion’s servant was healed with no mention of his faith whatsoever. Now, if one believes that the centurion’s faith brought about the healing and goes on to set up an ironclad rule or principle that faithful people can heal others with perhaps little or no faith, then Paul’s difficulty with Timothy and Trophimus needs to be explained (see numbers 3 and 5 above).

This is a strange dilemma indeed! In order to salvage the false doctrine, one is forced to conclude that Paul lacked adequate faith. In Matthew 8:14-15, Peter’s mother-in-law is healed with no mention of faith. When Jesus healed whole crowds of sick and disabled people, are we to believe that every single one of them had faith? Matthew 9:25: Jesus raises a girl from the dead (obviously it wasn’t her faith). Matthew 12:13: a man with a withered hand is healed, with no mention of faith. John 11:43-44: Lazarus is raised from the dead (clearly his faith had nothing to do with it, either). Numerous other examples could be cited.

14) Our Prayers and God’s Will

1 John 5:14 If we ask anything according to His will, he hears us.

1 John 3:22 and whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do the things that are pleasing in His sight.

James 4:3 You ask and do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, so that you may spend it on your pleasures.

We see, then, that our prayers are qualified by God’s will. He is sovereign; He knows what’s best for us. We cannot have whatever we ask, with no limitation. That is obviously not what verses saying “whatsoever you ask” mean. I cannot ask God to let me murder someone, because this is not His will. Therefore, we should pray whether a healing is in God’s will or not. It isn’t always His will: as has been shown above, and will be further substantiated below. Unlimited positive confession would lead to unmitigated personal selfishness. Thank God that He often refuses us!

15) St. Paul Can’t Heal One More Time! (Seems to be a Pattern)

Philippians 2:25-27 I thought it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother and fellow-worker and fellow-soldier . . . because he was longing for you all and was distressed because you had heard that he was sick. For indeed he was sick to the point of death, but God had mercy on him, and not on him only but also on me, lest I should have sorrow upon sorrow.

Paul again is unable to heal one of his associates. Why?

16) St. Paul’s Sufferings and Example for Us

Colossians 1:24 I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body (which is the church) in filling up that which is lacking in Christ’s afflictions.

The Greek for “afflictions” is thlipsis, which Strong’s Concordance (word 2347) defines as “pressure (literal or figurative).” W.E. Vine’s Expository Dictionary states under “affliction-thlipsis” for Colossians 1:24, “Afflictions of Christ from which his followers must not shrink, whether sufferings of body or mind.” Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the NT reiterates the same thing (p. 291 — word 2347). The same word is used referring to the distress of a woman in childbirth in John 16:21.

Paul’s mention of “flesh” would seem to indicate he is referring to physical distress. The Greek for “flesh” is “sarx”, and concerning its use in this verse, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon states, “the physical nature of man as subject to suffering” (word 456, p. 570). As a cross-reference, 1 Peter 4:1 is cited: “Therefore, since Christ has suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same purpose, because he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin.” Such physical suffering as part of God’s will is a constant theme in Paul’s writings:

2 Corinthians 4:10 (RSV) Always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies.

2 Corinthians 1:5-7 . . . the sufferings of Christ are ours in abundance . . . if we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation . . . patient enduring of the same sufferings which we also suffer . . . as you are sharers of our sufferings, so also you are sharers of our comfort.

Philippians 2:17 (RSV) Even if I am to be poured out as a libation upon the sacrificial offering of your faith, I am glad and rejoice with you all (cf. 2 Cor 6:4-10, 11:23-30).

Philippians 3:10 That I may know Him, and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death. (cf. Gal 2:20).

The Greek word for “fellowship” is koinonia, which means (as in the familiar usage), “participation, or sharing in something” (word 2842 – Strong and Thayer).

2 Timothy 4:6 (RSV) For I am already on the point of being sacrificed; the time of my departure has come (cf. Romans 12:1).

In 2 Timothy 4:6 and in Philippians 2:17, the Greek word for libation and sacrifice is spendomai. In the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament which was the Bible of the early Christians, this term is used with reference to the Messiah, Jesus, in Isaiah 53:12 (RSV) “. . . he poured out his soul to death . . .” It appears, then, that St. Paul is stressing a mystical, profound identification with Jesus even in His death — as also in 2 Corinthians 4:10 and Philippians 3:10 above, and Galatians 6:17: “. . . I bear on my body the brand-marks of Jesus.”

The “faith” teacher rather desperately retorts that this suffering was God’s will only for Paul and (especially) Jesus. Apart from the fact that this notion is clearly refuted already in the verses directly above and in #17 below, Paul himself directly contradicts it by urging us to imitate him, and in turn, imitate Christ (Whom he is imitating):

Philippians 3:17 Brethren, join in following my example, and observe those who walk according to the pattern you have in us.

The word for “following” is summimetes, which means “co-imitator” (Strong’s, Thayer, and Vine).

2 Thessalonians 3:7, 9 . . . you ought to follow our example . . . [we] offer ourselves as a model for you, that you might follow our example.

1 Corinthians 11:1 Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.

1 Thessalonians 1:6 You also became imitators of us and of the Lord, having received the word with much tribulation with the joy of the Holy Spirit (cf. Heb 6:12, James 5:10-11).

Galatians 4:12 I beg of you brethren, become as I am.

Philippians 4:9 The things you-have learned end received and heard and seen, practice these things; and the God of peace shall be with you.

1 Corinthians 4:11-16 To this present hour we are both hungry and thirsty, and are poorly clothed, and are roughly treated, and are homeless; and we toil, working with our own hands; when we are reviled, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure; when we are slandered, we try to conciliate; we have become as the scum of the world, the dregs of all things, even until now. I do not write these things to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. I exhort you therefore, be imitators of me.

2 Timothy 1:8 Join with me in suffering for the gospel according to the power of God.

2 Timothy 2:3 Suffer hardship with me, as a good soldier of Christ Jesus.

The Greek word for “imitator” here is mimetes (usually “follower” in KJV). Greek scholar W. E. Vine stresses that the tense of the verb in many instances of this word, is a continuous tense, meaning that “what we became at conversion we must diligently continue to be thereafter.”

17) Suffering (including sickness) is God’s Will for the Christian

Matthew 10:38 (RSV) And he who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.

Matthew 16:24 (RSV) Then Jesus told his disciples, “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me” (cf. Mark 8:34-35).

The disciple of Christ is called to suffer (Matthew 10:22, Mark 10:37-39, Luke 6:22, Acts 14:22, Romans 5:3-5, 2 Corinthians 12:7-10, Philippians 1:29, 1 Thessalonians 3:3, 2 Timothy 1:8, 2:3, 3:12, Hebrews 5:8, James 1:2-4,12, 1 Peter 1:6-7, 2:20-21, 4:12-19, Revelation 1:9). No biblically-informed Christian would dispute that. Controversy only arises over whether such sufferings can improve one’s estate vis-a-vis salvation, or help anyone else in the Body of Christ (see, e.g., Romans 15:1 and 1 Corinthians 12:24-26).

Romans 8:13, 17 (RSV) For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live . . . and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:31, 2 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Peter 4:1,13).

Furthermore, the Bible often stresses the painful experience of being corrected by God, as parents discipline their children (Leviticus 26:23-24, Deuteronomy 8:2, 5, 2 Samuel 7:14, Job 5:17-18, Psalm 89:30-34, 94:12, 103:9, 118:18, 119:67,71,75, Proverbs 3:11-12, Isaiah 48:10, Jeremiah 10:24, 30:11, 31:18, Zechariah 13:9, Malachi 3:3, 1 Corinthians 11:32, Hebrews 12:5-11, Revelation 3:19).

18) Chronically Ill Apostle Paul

2 Corinthians 1:8-10 . . . our affliction which came to us in Asia, that we were burdened excessively, beyond our strength, so that we despaired even of life, indeed, we had the sentence of death within ourselves in order that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God who raises the dead, who delivered us from so great a peril of death.

The Greek for “affliction” is thlipsis, discussed in #16. Whether the meaning here is physical or not is debatable, but either way, the “faith” teachers would have a difficult time fitting this passage into their doctrine, which maintains that “good” Christians (i.e., faithful and righteous ones, according to their warped definition of what “faith” is) don’t have afflictions of any sort.

19) St. Paul’s “Illness” or “Condition”

Galatians 4:12-14 I beg of you, brethren, become as I am, for I also have become as you are. You know that it was because of a bodily illness that I preached the gospel to you the first time, and that which was a trial to you in my bodily condition you did not despise or loathe, but you received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus Himself.

The Greek for “bodily illness” is astheneia: Strong’s Concordance (word 769) defines it as “feebleness (of body or mind): by implication, malady, frailty, disease, infirmity, sickness, weakness.” As for its use in this passage, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon: “feebleness of health, sickness” (word 769, p. 80). And indeed that meaning is quite abvious in all English translations. Here are some of these and their translations of both bolded phrases (20 total):

KJV / Wuest “infirmity of the flesh”
NIV / Moffatt / Williams “illness . . . illness”
RSV “bodily ailment . . . condition”
TEV (GNB) “sick . . . physical condition”
NEB “bodily illness . . . state of my poor body”
Phillips “physical illness . . . disease”
Living Bible “sick . . . sickness”
Jerusalem “illness . . . disease”
MLB “physical infirmity . . . physical condition”
Amplified “bodily ailment . . . physical condition”
New American Bible “bodily ailment . . . physical condition”
Barclay “illness . . . physical illness”
NKJV “physical infirmity”
Beck “sick . . . sick body”
NRSV “physical infirmity . . . condition”
REB “bodily illness . . . pjysical condition”
CEV “sick . . . illness”

Thus, Paul’s condition is beyond dispute. Its impossible to say his problem was not physical. Of course, the implication of all this is that Paul (again) could not heal himself. Yet his sickness didn’t hinder him from preaching the gospel. If we are supposed to “live above sickness,” then we have more faith than Paul, and perhaps should rewrite his books since we know so much more than he did.

Most “faith” churches would turn Paul from their door, reviling him for his lack of faith and appearance. There is some dispute as to the exact nature of Paul’s infirmity, but virtually all conservative biblical scholars agree that he suffered from some physical condition (and chronic at that). Let’s look at a sampling:

i) New Bible Commentary: either a recurrent illness (2 Cor 12:7) or a weakening disability, or malaria (Acts 13:13).
ii) New Catholic Commentary: possibly malaria; possible connection to Acts 13:13.

iii) New Layman’s Bible Commentary: some ailment.
iv) Matthew Henry’s Commentary: some infirmity.
v) Peake’s Commentary: connected with 2 Cor 12:7-10; possibly malaria, or eye disease.
vi) Pulpit Commentary: chronic sharp physical distress (2 Cor 12).
vii) Barne’s Notes: some bodily infimity (2 Cor 12).
viii) Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles: R.C.H. Lenski: illness, possibly malaria.
ix) Ramsay: malaria with severe headaches.
x) Daily Study Bible Series, William Barclay: likely malaria with severe headaches, same as 2 Cor 12.
xi) Tyndale NT Commentaries, Galatians (Alan Cole): “Paul was constantly plagued by ill health . . . Most scholars have taken ‘trial’ (v. 15) as being synonymous with Paul’s ‘thorn in the flesh’.”
xii) Zondervan Commentary, Galatians: J.B. Lightfoot: bodily ailment of some sort.
xiii) Expository Messages on Galatians, H.A. Ironside: “Paul was used of God to heal many sick people, but he never healed himself . . . He was a sick man for years as he preached the gospel.” Probably an affliction of the eyes.
xiv) The Gospel in Galatians, C. Norman Bartlett: Either ophthalmia or malaria. “It was probably the thorn in the flesh alluded to in 2 Cor 12.”
xv) Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary: Some bodily sickness. Probably the same as his “thorn in the flesh” (2 Cor 12).
xvi) Word Studies in the New Testament, Marvin R. Vincent: “Paul, in his first journey, was compelled by sickness to remain in Galatia . . . bodily infirmity.”
xvii) Word Pictures in the New Testament, A.T. Robertson: “. . . sickness of some kind whether it was eye trouble (4:15) which was a trial to them or . . . the thorn in the flesh (II Cor. 12:7) we do not know . . . illness and repulsive appearance . . . “

Note how many of these commentators connect this sickness with Paul’s “thorn in the flesh.” We will consider this passage next and seek the most reasonable interpretation of it.

20) St. Paul’s “Thorn in the Flesh”

2 Corinthians 12:7-10 To keep me from exalting myself, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to buffet me – to keep me from exalting myself! Concerning this, I entrusted the Lord three times that it might depart from me and He said, “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness.” Most gladly, therefore, I am will rather boast about my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may dwell in me. Therefore, I am well content with weaknesses, insults, distresses, persecutions, with difficulties,for Christ’s sake, for when I am weak, then I am strong.

Lets look at the original Greek and try to determine exactly what Paul is teaching. The word for “thorn” is skolops, and this is the only time it is used in the NT. Concerning it, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon states. “a pointed piece of wood, a pale, a stake; appears to indicate some constant bodily ailment or infirmity, which, even when Paul had been caught up in a trance to the third heaven, sternly admonished him that he still dwelt in a frail and mortal body” (word 4647, p. 579).

Vine’s Expository Dictionary states. “His language indicates that it was physical, painful, humiliating; it was also the effect of Divinely permitted Satanic antagonism; the verbs rendered “that I should (not) be exalted overmuch” and ‘to buffet’ are in the present tense, signifying recurrent action. Indicating a constantly repeated attack . . . What is stressed is not the metaphorical size, but acuteness of the suffering and its effects.” (see #2).

Furthermore, the “flesh” (Gk. sarx) is said to refer to the physical body in this context, according to Thayer: “The body . . . signifying the material or substance of the living body . . . 2 Cor 12:7″ (word 4561, p. 570). A.T. Robertson, in his Word Pictures in the New Testament, writes: “Certainly it was some physical malady that persisted.

All sorts of theories are held (malaria, eye-trouble, epilepsy, insomnia, migraine or sick-headache, etc.) . . . Each of us has some such splinter or thorn in the flesh, perhaps several at once . . . The messenger of Satan kept slapping Paul in the face and Paul now sees that it was God’s will for it to be so.” Marvin R. Vincent (Word Studies in the New Testament) concurs: “It was probably a bodily malady . . . Very plausible reasons are given in favor of both epilepsy and ophthalmia.”

The Greek word translated “weakness” three times is astheneia (see #19). Vine mentions the use of this Greek term in this passage, and defines its meaning as “weakness of the body . . . (2 Cor 12:4-10)” (listed under “Weakness”). It may be argued that Paul’s use of the word here is in a larger sense (i.e., taking in non-physical weakness also).

But it is quite often used in an obviously physical sense elsewhere in Scripture. Since “thorn in the flesh” (especially after examining the Greek) would appear to be a graphic description of physical pain, it is very likely that “weakness” includes physical suffering. Also, the equation of power with weakness in verses 9 and 10 would make more sense if the “weakness” was physical. Let’s look at some other uses of astheneia in Scripture:

Luke 1:11 A woman had a sickness caused by a spirit and she was bent double and could not straighten up at all.

John 5:5 A man who had been thirty-eight years in his sickness (vs. 8-9 indicate that he couldn’t
walk).

Luke 5:15 Great multitudes were . . . healed of their sicknesses.

Luke 8:2 Some women-who had been healed of evil spirits and sicknesses.

John 11:4 This sickness . . . (referring to Lazarus’ sickness).

Acts 28:9 The people who had diseases were coming to him and getting cured.

Luke 10:9 . . . heal those . . . who are sick . . .

Matthew 10:8 Heal the sick . . .

Matthew 6:2 . . . those who were sick.

Also, a closely related word, astheneo, from the same root, is very often used in Scripture referring to obviously physical infirmities. In John 5:3 it is translated in various Bible versions as “sick,” “impotent,” “invalids,” disabled,” “ailing,” or “infirm” (see also Mt 10:8, 25:36, Mk 6:56, John 4:46, 5:7, 6:2, 11:1-3,6, Acts 9:37, Phil 2:26-27, 2 Tim 4:20, James 5:14). A third related word, asthenes, is used in a physical sense in Mt 25:31, 43:44, Lk 10:9, Acts 4:9, 5:15-16.

Finally with regard to Paul’s “thorn,” we have the consensus of the overwhelming majority of conservative biblical scholars that it was some physical disease. Although they may disagree on the exact nature of the infirmity, there is a consensus that it was a physical infirmity:

i) New Bible Commentary: possibly malaria.
ii) New Laymans Bible Commentary: most probably ophthalmia or malaria. Possible connection to Gal 4:13-15, 6:11, Acts 13:3 and 23:5.
iii) Barne’s Notes: “Some infirmity of the flesh, some bodily affliction or calamity.” Connection to Gal 4:13-15.
iv) New Catholic Commentary: possibly a “chronic humiliating malady,” such as marsh fever (connection with 2 Cor 1:8 ff. and Gal 4:13-14).
v) Corinthian Letters of St. Paul, G. Campbell Morgan: Some type of physical affliction, for
sure.
vi) Daily Study Bible, 1 & 2 Corinthians, William Barclay: chronic attacks of a certain virulent malarial fever which was common in the eastern Mediterranean area. “By far the most likely thing.”
vii) Interpretation of 1 & 2 Corinthians, R.C.H. Lenski: some physical infirmity.
viii) Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary: some affliction causing acute pain (as “thorn” implies). Connection with Gal 4:13-14.
ix) Ramsay: recurring malarial fever.
x) Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary: Some physical ailment, which was painful and disfiguring; possibly ophthalmia.

The implications of all this for the “faith” adherent are (as is always the case with occurrence of disease in Scripture), are obvious: why couldn’t Paul heal himself if he could heal others (but not always: see #’s 3, 5 and 15)? The answer is obvious and occurs right in the passage. God didn’t will to heal him (“My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness”).

We have seen how the Greek word for “weakness, which God uses here, is used in Scripture and the overwhelming evidence is that Paul suffered from disease, with God’s approval. This destroys one of the “faith” doctrine’s chief beliefs: namely, that it is always God’s will to heal at all times.

21) The Case Of Job

The book of Job, rightly understood and interpreted, reads almost like a parable of the “faith movement”, and its refutation, for we find much here that cannot be explained by “faith” proponents. Some of the worst arguments in the “faith” literature are put forth in attempts to explain away Job and his sufferings. Lets look at some key verses of Job:

In verse 1:1, Job is described as “blameless, upright, fearing God, and turning away from evil.” In verse 1:8, the Lord Himself repeats these same words, in conversation with Satan, adding the phrase, “there is no one like him on the Earth.” After Job is afflicted with all the calamities described in 1:13-22, God still says the same thing about him that He said in 1:8, in verse 2:3 (adding, “And he still holds fast his integrity”). Note how God says in the same verse, “You incited me against him, to ruin him without cause.”

This is very important, because faith teachers would have us believe that Satan was solely responsible for Job’s troubles, while the Bible, on the other hand, tells us explicitly that God afflicted Job, using Satan as His agent (i.e., allowing him to do evil to Job). Note also, how God proclaims that even though Satan cited Him against Job, there was no cause for it. This wasn’t allowed to come upon Job because of some secret sin, or lack of faith, etc.

In this vein, Job 42:11 is quite instructive: “. . . all the evil that the Lord had brought on him.” What are “faith” teachers to do with this verse, and also Job 2:3? Thus, two false doctrines are exposed. “Faith” teachers tell us that the righteous should not suffer and be afflicted physically, and that Satan is the author of all diseases, which afflict believers only through lack of faith. Thus, they attribute Job’s problems to lack of faith, secret sin, and allowing Satan to “get in.” But the Bible tells us otherwise. Job was righteous because God said so (1:8 and 2:3) in no uncertain terms.

And his afflictions (both bodily and otherwise) were ultimately caused by God (Job 2:3 and 42:11. See also Exodus 4:11, under #9). They were God’s will. There is no indication that Job’s sufferings were a result of his shortcomings or lack of faith. That is pure speculative desperation on the “faith” teachers part, with no biblical basis. James even commends Job for his endurance (James 5:11; see also #28). This is strange indeed if we are to regard Job as an example of a lack of faith!

Job shows his understanding of God’s ways in verse 2:10: “Shall we indeed accept good from God and not accept adversity?” Now we will look at Job’s ‘comforters.’ We will see how they asserted that the righteous do not suffer, and that therefore, Job must have some sin which is causing his problems. They are exactly, uncannily, like “faith” followers today, who exude a decided lack of compassion toward the suffering because they regard them as second-class spiritual citizens (this is the strong tendency anyway, and the logical outcome of the doctrine).

But we will also see how God severely rebukes these “friends” at the end of the book, and asserts His sovereignty (i.e., “trust Me even though you may not understand some things such as adversity befalling the righteous.”).

Bildad says in verse 8:6: “If you are pure and upright, surely now He would rouse Himself for you and restore your righteous estate,” implying that Job was not righteous because God didn’t move immediately. Job, however, although the most righteous man on the earth, recognizes mans inherently sinful nature by saying: “How can a man be in the right before God?” (9:2). He is arguing that since no man is righteous, God’s dealings with men are based totally on His mercy, and not our supposed faith or righteousness.

The hyperfaith doctrine tends to make the Christian walk depend far more on our power and knowledge than on God’s mercy, sovereignty, and grace. Job’s comforters continue to make insinuations about Job’s supposed great sinfulness as the book goes on, getting worse as they go. “Is not your wickedness great, and your iniquities without end?” (22:5) And so it goes throughout the book.

Of course we know that these “friends” are dead wrong, because of God’s proclamations of Job’s righteousness at the beginning of the book, and His responses to them at the end of the book. Lets look now at God’s opinion of the discourse which is documented in the book of Job. “My wrath is kindled against you and against your two friends, because you have not spoken of me what is right as my servant Job has” (42:7). In verse 42:8, God refers to the friends’ “folly”.

God tells the three “comforters” that Job will pray for them after they offer up burnt offerings, thus vindicating Job and severely rebuking his self-righteous, supposedly “wise” friends. We find in conclusion, then, that the whole of the book of Job is contrary to the “faith” doctrine, and fatally destroys it. Many other biblical verses teach the same thing about God’s relation to evil and affliction:

Exodus 15:26 And He said, “If you will give earnest heed to the voice of the LORD your God, and do what is right in His sight, and give ear to His commandments, and keep all His statutes, I will put none of the diseases on you which I have put on the Egyptians; for I, the LORD, am your healer.”

Leviticus 26:15-16 if, instead, you reject My statutes, and if your soul abhors My ordinances so as not to carry out all My commandments, and so break My covenant, I, in turn, will do this to you: I will appoint over you a sudden terror, consumption and fever that shall waste away the eyes and cause the soul to pine away; also, you shall sow your seed uselessly, for your enemies shall eat it up.

Deuteronomy 7:15 And the LORD will remove from you all sickness . . . He will lay them on all who hate you.

Deuteronomy 28:61 Also every sickness and every plague which, not written in the book of this law, the LORD will bring on you until you are destroyed.

Judges 9:23 Then God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Schechem; and the men of Schechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech. (cf. Isaiah 19:1-4)

1 Samuel 16:14, 23 Now the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD terrorized him . . . the evil spirit from God came to Saul . . .

1 Samuel 18:10-11 . . . an evil spirit from God came mightily upon Saul, and he raved in the midst of the house, while David was playing the harp with his hand, as usual; and a spear was in Saul’s hand. And Saul hurled the spear for he thought, “I will pin David to the wall.” . . . (cf. 19:9-10: “evil spirit from the LORD”)

22) Jesus and the “Curse of the Law”

Galatians 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us, for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree.”

“Faith” teachers tell us that the “curse” referred to here is the curse of physical disease, but the context, and the examination of similar Pauline teachings elsewhere point to other conclusions. The whole context of Galatians 3:13 (all of chapter 3) is concerned with faith leading to righteousness, rather than works of the Law. Paul actually defines the “curse” being spoken of, in verse 3:10: “For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written – ‘Cursed is every one who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.’”

He goes on to assert, in verse 11, that no one is justified by the law. Thus, the curse of the Law is the fact that no one could ever get to heaven by means of it. Physical infirmities are nowhere spoken of. We are redeemed from hell by the work of Christ on the cross, as the profound statement of Galatians 3:13 tells us (see also Rom 7:6 and 8:1-3).

“Faith” teachers cross-reference Galatians 3:13 with Deuteronomy 28:15 ff. and tell us that Jesus Christ took upon Himself all the curses described there (so that we would never have them again). Beyond the considerations examined in #16, a simple examination of Deuteronomy 28 quickly reveals that this belief is totally absurd: The passage is a warning directed against the Jews alone. It doesn’t even apply to Gentiles!

But even if we did grant that the “curse” might apply to believers today, and that Christ took upon Himself all the curses mentioned, let’s follow this logic for the sake of argument and see what happens: Christ bore our mildew (v. 22), our droughts (v. 24), our battles (v. 25), our madness (v. 28), our adultery (v. 30), our bad crops (v. 39), our being scattered among all peoples (obviously referring to the Jews alone — v. 64), etc., etc.

There is no connection between Galatians 3:13 and Deuteronomy 28, and nothing in Galatians 3 to make us believe that we would be delivered from physical disease. Disease cannot cease yet, because we are still under the curse of the Fall. Thus, Paul says, “We ourselves grown within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body” (Rom 8:23) after speaking of the travail of all creation in the previous three verses.

This curse continues until the time of the New Heaven and Earth, because in Revelation 22:3, we are informed, “There shall no longer be any curse.” Pain and suffering will end at that time (Rev 21:4), not in the present age, as “faith” teachers would like to believe. For now, we are to suffer with Christ, rather than seek to avoid suffering in some ersatz notion of “faith”: 1 Peter 4:12-13: “Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal among you, which comes upon you for your testing, as though some strange thing were happening to you, but to the degree that you share the sufferings of Christ, keep on rejoicing, so that also at the revelation or His glory, you may rejoice with exultation.”

23) Jesus Didn’t Heal Everybody All The Time

At the pool of Bethesda (John 5:1-9), John mentioned “a multitude of those who were sick, blind, lame, and withered” (v. 3). Yet when Jesus passed by, he only healed just one lame man (5:5-9). In Mark 1:32-34, we are informed that people “began bringing to Him all who were ill and those who were demon-possessed,” but it doesn’t say that all were healed; rather, “He healed many . . . and cast out many demons.” If Jesus wanted to heal absolutely everyone in the whole country, He could have easily done so, just as He healed the centurion’s servant at a distance (Mt 8:13).

All He had to do was say the word. And again, these healings are not (as far as we can determine from the text, at any rate) tied to faith, so that those who lacked faith did not get healed (as hyperfaith doctrine holds). So if folks like Kenneth Hagin and Kenneth Copeland are indeed gifted with the marvelous power to heal everyone, what in the world stops them from visiting every hospital in the world and clearing them out? After all, they think it is God’s will that no one should be sick, and that they have the power to heal by their own supposed extraordinary “faith.”

24) The Gift Of Healing

1 Corinthians 12:9 mentions the “gifts of healing,” among the listing of many spiritual gifts. Then 1 Corinthians 12:11 states, “one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills.” Thus we see that healings are not earned by our faith (a doctrine of works, or the ancient heresy of Pelagianism), but rather, bestowed upon us by God as a gift, when and as He wills. This is distinctly different from having a divine “right” or “privilege” to be healed by God.

25) Is Healing Part of the Atonement (Isaiah 53)?

Isaiah 53:4-5 (4a and 5b) Surely our griefs (or, sicknesses) He bore, and our sorrows He carried . . . By His scourging we are healed.

As for Isaiah 53:5, the Hebrew word for “healed” is rapha. This word is by no means restricted to physical healing of our bodies. Here are some examples of its use in different senses:

2 Kings 2:21 I have purified these waters.

Jeremiah 51:9 We applied healing to Babylon.

Jeremiah 6:14 They have healed the wound of my people. (figurative)

Hosea 7:1 When I would heal Israel . . .

2 Chronicles 7:14 I will . . . heal their land.

2 Chronicles 30:20 The Lord heard Hezekiah and hea1ed the people. (used in the sense of “pardon” — see verses 18 and 19)

Jeremiah 3:22 I will heal your faithlessness.

Further uses of this word can be found with the aid of a concordance. Because the word can mean different things, it is essential to arrive at its meaning through context. We cannot lift it out of its surrounding passage, as if each verse (in this case, one-fourth of a verse) exists in a vacuum. And the context (53:5-6 in particular) is undeniably directed toward the atonement for sin, not toward a doctrine of physical healing per se. Verse 5 mentions our “transgressions, iniquities,” and “well-being” — all non-physical concepts.

Verse 6, right after the phrase in question reads, “All of us like sheep have gone astray,” and mentions our “iniquity” falling on Jesus. Verse 8 mentions our “transgression”, verse 11 mentions our justification and “iniquities,” and verse 12 (the last in the chapter) states, “He Himself bore the sin of many.”

Thus, since the whole passage concentrates on the atonement for sin, and since the word for “healed” can mean “pardon” or spiritual transformation, it is logical to interpret the phrase in question as “by His stripes we are saved.” This is more natural than forcing “heal” to be restricted to physical healing. In any case, there is no place for dogmatism on the part of “faith” teachers as to the meaning of rapha here. Furthermore, the chapter makes use of poetic synonymous parallelism.

For instance, Christ is compared to a “tender shoot” in verse 2, and to a “lamb” and a “sheep” in verse 7, while we are referred to as “sheep gone astray” in verse 6. Similarly, “healed” in this passage may simply be a poetic way of saying that our sins are forgiven (such as in 2 Chronicles 30:20 above). And the great Hebrew scholars agree that the meaning intended is indeed as I have argued. Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon, a standard reference source, notes concerning Isaiah 53:5: “There was healing to us, i.e. God pardoned us” (word 7495, p. 776).

Moreover, the “faith” exegesis of this passage flies in the face of other biblical admonitions to suffer along with Jesus: 1 Peter 2:21: “Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps.” Ephesians 5:1: “Be imitators of God.” The doctrine of Christ suffering so that we would not nave to is simply not biblical, as these verses demonstrate. The only thing we don’t have to go through as a result of Christ’s death for us is a life of despair on earth without God and an eternity in hell apart from Him.

26) New Testament Interpretation of the “Healing” of Isaiah 53

1 Peter 2:24 He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness, for by His wounds you were healed.

The Greek word for “healed” is iaomai, which, like its Hebrew counterpart, rapha, is not restricted to physical healing of the body in Scripture. For instance, both Matthew 13:15, John 12:40, and Acts 28:27 all quote from Isaiah 6:10. John reads, “He has blinded their eyes, and He hardened their hearts, lest they . . . be converted and I heal them.” Rapha is used for “heal” in Isaiah 6:10. And in all three of these NT quotations of that verse, iaomai is used.

Thus, it can mean spiritual transformation as well as physical healing, since the Isaiah passage is referring to a spiritual, not physical, change. Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon states about these passages, as well as 1 Pet 2.24, “To make whole, i.e., — to free from errors and sins, to bring about one’s salvation” (word 2390, p. 296). W.E. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words agrees: “Figuratively, of spiritual healing . . . 1 Pet 2:24” (and the other three passages, listed under “Heal”, #2).

As for the context, we find, just as in Isaiah 53, that it is most surely dealing with salvation. The larger passage encourages believers to endure hardship and persecution. Verse 21 exhorts us to suffer like Christ, who is our example, while verses 19 and 20 commend those who patiently endure unjust suffering. If physical healing was referred to, it is in a strange place, since the the emphasis of the passage is not deliverance from trials, but the endurance of them.

The first part of 1 Peter 2:24 is quite obviously talking about Jesus bearing our sins, not our diseases. Note the connecting word “for.” And immediately after the phrase about healing, Peter mentions (like Isaiah) our straying like sheep, and our return to our “Shepherd” and “Guardian” of our souls. Again, since the whole surrounding context is indisputably concerned with salvation, and since the Greek word for “heal” is not restricted to a physical sense, it is much more reasonable to interpret the phrase as referring to salvation, and not to physical healing.

Even the tense (“you were healed”) makes more sense if it refers to salvation. since healing (even among “faith” proponents) is still taking place in the present. Why would Peter quote a phrase having to do with physical healing, if it had nothing to do with the rest of the passage he was writing? His use of the quote leads one to strongly believe that the original Hebrew in Isaiah was dealing with the solution for sin, not disease.

Greek scholar Gerhard Kittel, in his standard, highly-regarded work Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, takes the same view of the use of iaomai in these verses: “The figurative use . . . occurs in the NT only in OT quotations (except in Heb. 12:13). Thus the warning of Acts 28:27 quotes Is. 6:10 and 1 Peter quotes Is. 53:5. In both instances the reference is to restoration through forgiveness and the resultant saving benefits” (abridged, one-volume edition: p. 348).

27) Excesses and Harmful Logical Outcomes Of The Faith Doctrine

Many are the problems brought on by the unbiblical hyperfaith doctrine. We shall now examine how deadly and dangerous this false doctrine is (like all false teachings). If left unchecked, it will destroy the spiritual well-being of many in the Body of Christ. Therefore, it should concern Christians that such a doctrine is gaining ground and stifling the joyful lives of Christians. We must speak out with gentleness, love and forcefulness, lest more lives get caught in this clever web of deceptive teaching.

There are at least seven distinct dangers of this movement, all of which make perfect logical sense (a reductio ad absurdum) once one has accepted the teachings. All have already been manifested, and likely will increase in the days ahead unless we speak out now, with compassion and concern,

i) “Enough Faith” Paradox When physical healing is considered as part of the atonement right along with salvation, and both are attained through “mustering” enough faith, then we must logically assume that the one who “hasn’t got enough faith to be healed” (even a “faith” proponent, though they will deny it) must be in an overall lousy spiritual state and not right with God. This breeds an unhealthy and unethical judgmentalism, and on grounds which are themselves false and unbiblical.

ii) Disenchantment Inevitably, sooner or later, even the so-called “faith” follower will not be healed of something, because this is simply how God operates. He doesn’t always heal miraculously (in fact, He does so rarely). Now when this happens, the person may choose to blame God and fall away from the Lord, out of disenchantment (for the Christian walk didn’t turn out to be all peaches and cream, as they had been told). When this happens, those who taught him or her the false “faith” principles are directly responsible for that persons soul (and of course this is a very serious thing – not to be taken lightly — see James 3:1).

Or, the person may continue on in the Christian life, but with excessive self-condemnation. This person considers himself or herself a spiritual failure and second-class Christian because he or she couldn’t even have enough faith to receive what is supposedly every Christian’s right and privilege: perfect health at all times. This person will never have a victorious and joyful walk with the Lord until he or she is informed of the falsity of the “faith” doctrine. Then, liberation occurs because blame and guilt disappear.

iii) Spiritual Arrogance and Self-Righteousness Directly tied to the last problem is the one of spiritual arrogance. Those who have supposedly attained this wonderful “knowledge” of God’s principles, etc. (dangerously similar to the ancient heresy of Gnosticism) will inevitably look down on those who are having problems in their life, such as the theoretical person just mentioned. Thus, we will have a “distinction” between the “spiritual elite” (who “have it”) and the less fortunate who have not “arrived” yet (due, of course, we are told, to “secret sin” in every case).

Indeed, anyone who does not accept the “faith” teaching is looked down on, and, in extreme cases, despised. Such attitudes, are extremely disruptive of unity in the Body of Christ, in addition to being sinful and wrong in and of themselves. The more one stays in the “faith” movement, the more one tends to develop (or will be pressured to develop) a self-righteous, superiority complex much like that of the Pharisees. It all follows logically from the doctrine.

iv) Lack of Compassion For The Suffering Along with arrogance comes a related lack of compassion. Since blame must be attached to the person who isn’t “prosperous” and/or “healthy,” it is much easier to avoid having any concern, compassion or love for the suffering, than it would be if their suffering was seen not to be their fault. Thus, we witness heartbreaking scenes of those suffering (whether from cancer or emotional hurt or whatever) being accused coldly of “not having enough faith” rather than being consoled and comforted.

Surely the wrongness of this callousness is apparent. Aside from countless commands that we love one another, we are also told by God to “weep with those who weep.” “Faith” doctrine (logically) is diametrically opposed to that end, because it counters the action of love by always placing the blame on the sufferer.

Since time began, the poor, for instance, have always been considered lazy, sinful, or in some other way responsible for their condition, so that compassionate action to help them could be avoided and rationalized away. Now, the “faith” doctrine extends this cold unconcern to those who suffer in any way (financially, emotionally, spiritually, or physically).

I’m not claiming that all followers of the “prosperity” doctrine act this way (I know myself from firsthand experience that this is not true), just that such behavior is entirely consistent with and tends to flow in a diabolical consistent logic from the doctrine, since people are sinners and often succumb to judgmentalism and spiritual arrogance.

The follower of the “faith” movement may, for example, assist another follower (i.e. financially) while he is yet trying to mature into the teachings. The attitude remains that this is a necessary situation only because the newer or less mature follower hasn’t come to a real knowledge of “faith” yet. However, it is always thought that this will not be necessary when the less mature follower “grows” in the Lord and is able to rely on Him in all situations.

v) Self-Delusions One might wonder how a “faith” follower explains away his own disease, broken bone, infection, or any other abnormality. Incredible as it may seem, when such a problem strikes the faithful, he or she simply “claims” their God-given right to be healed, and maintains that the healing has occurred, whether or not the symptoms are present! I once met a girl who said her broken leg was healed even though she couldn’t walk normally across the room!

This type of ultra-irrational thinking is no different than a member of the Christian Science sect claiming that disease is nonexistent. Such behavior, however, laughable as it might be in many cases, could easily lead to tragedy. Envision a person who has fainting spells, for example, denying this, then driving a car, fainting, and killing a carload of people as a result; or a person with a heart condition denying that and over-exerting himself to the point of a fatal heart attack.

We need to condemn absolutely such delusion as this as extremely dangerous. Not only is it harmful to the person who believes it, but also possibly, to others as well, as we’ve seen. Then there is the aspect of “positive confession. versus negative confession — presumably where this delusion stems from, Because “faith” followers are taught that words can create realities, they are discouraged from saying anything negative.

This takes in emotional and spiritual elements as well as physical. Obviously the denial of all negative aspects in our lives will lead to lying, which, of course, can never be condoned if the Bible is to be followed seriously. Any doctrine leading to sin must be false.

Perhaps confessing sins to one another, or to a priest, or to God, is also a “negative confession” (following this mentality). Are we to go against the biblical command to confess sins? Of course, the more this unbiblical and arrogant, silly mindset manifests itself, the more the world will laugh at and dismiss Christians as utter fools (with good reason).

Perhaps this is one of the greatest tragedies, since Christians are called to be Christ’s ambassadors, and we are to reflect the nature of God. We need to show the world that Christianity is not self-delusion and self-righteousness, but rather, a balanced walk with Jesus, including difficult as well
as joyful times.

vi) Death Due To Ignorance The denial of the existence of a physical problem and/or the “certainty” of a healing, can cause, tragically, the unnecessary death of children. Everyone has read in the newspapers about parents “standing in faith” and refusing medication for their children, which, in some cases will lead to the death of a child. This is the ultimate tragedy of a perverted doctrine of faith and healing.

Whether the parents love the child or not (and they usually do, which is the irony), they, will be no less accountable for his or her death than someone who has an abortion. We are called to understand what the Bible teaches, and it does not teach a view of faith which can lead to such events as these.

vii) The Bondage Of Works-Legalism Nearly everything which is false in the “faith” doctrine is oriented towards a legalistic walk of works, in opposition to the biblical teaching of Grace Alone (which, by the way, Catholics adhere to as much as Protestants, over against the ancient heresy of Pelagianism). Healings and blessings are approached on the basis of how much faith we can generate of our own accord. If a person doesn’t live up to what he or she is “supposed to,” they condemn themselves, and are blamed, condemned, and looked down on by other “faith” proponents.

Thus, followers are in a bondage of trying to earn everything God gives to us, the same bondage which Jesus broke by dying for us, and enabling God to freely bestow blessings upon us according to His grace. If God didn’t heal someone, it wasn’t His will, and there is no reason to blame the person who wasn’t healed. Fear is produced in both the successful and unsuccessful followers. The prosperous fear they may fail to live up to prosperity standard in the future, and the unsuccessful fear the condemnation of the spiritual elite.

For the “faith” proponent, everything is black and white, and easily explained. If someone prospers, it’s because they have attained the secret knowledge, unlocked from its mysteriousness by Copeland and Hagin — they have earned it, while those who struggle are being penalized for their lack of faith and secret sin. How vastly different from the biblical picture of the Apostle Paul and a righteous man like Job! The Bible teaches that we’re all sinners and that all good things are undeserved gifts from God (see 1 Corinthians 4:6-8).

28) The Suffering of a Christian (Or, Bible Verses We Like To Forget)

Acts 5:41 They went on their way from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they had been considered worthy to suffer shame for His name.

Acts 14:22 Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God.

The Greek for “tribulation” is thlipsis. See #16 & #18.

Romans 5:3-5 We also exult in our tribulations, knowing that tribulation brings about perseverance . . . proven character . . . hope, and hope does not disappoint . . .

Philippians 1:29 For to you it has been granted for Christ’s sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake.

The Greek for “suffer” is pascho, and, concerning its appearance in this verse, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon states: “In a bad sense, of misfortunes, to suffer, to undergo evils, to be afflicted.” (word 3952, p. 494).

Philippians 3:8 I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish in order that I may gain Christ.

1 Thessalonians 3:3 . . . so that no man may be disturbed by these afflictions for you yourselves know that we have been destined for this.

Hebrews 5:8 Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered.

Hebrews 12:6, 11 For those whom the Lord loves He disciplines, and He scourges every son who He receives. All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful, yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness.

James 1:2-4 Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance. And let endurance have its perfect result, that you may be perfect and complete lacking nothing.

James 5:10-11 As an example, brethren, of suffering and patience, take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord. Behold, we count those blessed who endured. You have heard of the endurance of Job and have seen the outcome of the Lords dealings, that the Lord is full of compassion and is merciful.

2 Timothy 3:12 All who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.

1 Peter 4:16, 19 If anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not feel ashamed, but in that name let him glorify God. Let those also who suffer according to the will of God entrust their souls to a faithful creator in doing what is right.

29) God’s Opinion of the Hyperfaith / “Name-it-and-Claim-it” Doctrine

1 Timothy 6:3-5 If anyone advocates a different doctrine, and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine leading to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing, but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain.

2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths.

Romans 16:17-18 Keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them. For such men are slaves not of our Lord Christ but of their own appetites, and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting.

Ephesians 4:14 We are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming.

Colossians 2:4, 8 I say this in order that no one may delude you with persuasive argument . . . see to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. (cf. Titus 1:8-16, 1 Tim 4:11-15, and Gal 1:8)

30) Afterword

Although my application of the above Pauline condemnations to the so-called “faith” teaching may sound harsh and condemning, I do not wish to condemn individual persons, and this is not my intention. I do intend, however, to condemn the doctrine of which this paper is a refutation. God tells us to speak out against false doctrine, but not to condemn people. I can’t judge the hearts of anyone embroiled in this movement, and chances are my heart is as full of evil as theirs (Jeremiah 17:9). But I do strongly believe that the “faith” doctrine is false, and I’ve just given 30 major biblically saturated arguments (and numerous sub-arguments) against it.

And I absolutely believe in divine healing myself (I mention this because this accusation is almost always brought against any critic of the “faith” teaching), and I was healed of chronic depression in 1977. I believe in divine healing because 1) The Bible teaches it, and, 2) I’ve seen it many times. But God heals when and if He so desires. We have seen enough biblical evidence above to place that fact, and many other related facts, beyond dispute.

***

(originally written in 1982 and somewhat revised and expanded on 5 July 2002)

Photo credit: God the Father: woodcut by Julius Schnorr von Carolsfeld (1794-1872) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***