Pearce’s Potshots #11: 28 Defenses of Jesus’ Nativity

Last updated on: January 9, 2021 at 2:12 pm By Dave Armstrong

Featuring Confirmatory Historical Tidbits About the Magi and Herod the Great

Atheist anti-theist Jonathan M. S. Pearce’s “About” page states: “Pearce is a philosopher, author, blogger, public speaker and teacher from Hampshire in the UK. He specialises in philosophy of religion, but likes to turn his hand to science, psychology, politics and anything involved in investigating reality.” His words will be in blue.

*****

I am replying to Jonathan’s article, “Mental Contortions Required of Christians to Believe the Nativity Accounts” (12-23-19). Although he likely has made each argument in his book on the Nativity and elsewhere, nevertheless, this particular article is in the form of a “gish gallop”: an unsavory argumentative technique or strategy often decried by atheists. Wikipedia explains:

The Gish gallop is a term for an eristic technique in which a debater attempts to overwhelm an opponent by excessive number of arguments, without regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments. The term was coined by Eugenie Scott; . . . It is similar to a methodology used in formal debate called spreading. . . .

During a Gish gallop, a debater confronts an opponent with a rapid series of many specious arguments, half-truths, and misrepresentations in a short space of time, which makes it impossible for the opponent to refute all of them within the format of a formal debate. In practice, each point raised by the “Gish galloper” takes considerably more time to refute or fact-check than it did to state in the first place.

This is not a formal debate, with timing and structure, etc., so I can take all the time I like to refute each point, but the technique itself remains dubious. It was disparaged on Jonathan’s blog by fellow blogger there, Aaron Adair (3-8-13):

. . . putting out a large number of statements in quick succession that his opponent almost certainly could not refute in the time allotted. This has become known as the Gish Gallop, and it has been noted as a technique used by others in a debate: throw out many arguments, your opponents will be able to deal with only so many and not adequately, and you can claim one of your un-refuted arguments stands and that means you are right.

So — again — this is not a formal debate, and Jonathan has written about this stuff elsewhere and can theoretically defend any of those arguments against criticism (I’m not denying that he has done so or that he would be willing to do so). But this paper of his uses the technique. If a Christian did this in any major atheist forum we would be laughed to scorn and mocked (we always are anyway in those places).

I should note, however, that the delightful, informative RationalWiki page, “Gish Gallop” by no means confines the tactic to oral, formal debate. It refers to readers and written exchanges several times, and even includes an entire section called “in written debate”.

Jonathan throws out no less than 28 objections to the biblical Nativity narratives in Matthew and Luke: most only one-sentence long. I’ll play along and make (mostly) short replies (as my time is not unlimited) or provide a relevant link: as I have written quite a bit about Christmas controversies with atheists as well.

As I write, there are still three of my recent papers in reply to Jonathan that he has chosen thus far not to reply to:

Dual Fulfillment of Prophecy & the Virgin Birth (vs. JMS Pearce) [12-18-20]

Demons, Gadara, & Biblical Numbers (vs. JMS Pearce) [12-18-20]

Jesus the “Nazarene” Redux (vs. Jonathan M. S. Pearce) [12-19-20]

I think there are several older critiques of mine from 2017 that he has not replied to, either. I have offered ten critiques of his material altogether, not including this one. I hope he has not now decided to take the “flee for the hills” / “hear no evil” approach of his fellow anti-theist atheists Dr. David Madison (whom I’ve refuted 44 times with no reply), Bob Seidensticker (69 times without any peep back), and John Loftus (10 critiques of his “magnum opus” book, which he has utterly ignored). If he decides to go this route, I will continue critiquing his material, as I desire. No skin off my back. His choice . . .

Suffice to say that, in order for the Christian to harmoniously believe the Nativity accounts, they have to jump through some seriously demanding hoops. In my humble opinion, there is no satisfactory way that they can coherently harmonise these contradictory accounts found in only two of the Gospels.

The situation is this. I maintain that, to hold to the notion that the accounts are historical, one has to mentally gerrymander to the extreme. . . .

In my book,The Nativity: A Critical Examination, I think I give ample evidence that allows one to conclude that the historicity of the nativity accounts is sorely and surely challenged. All of the aspects and claims, that is. There are problems, for sure, if one accepts that some claims are false but others are true. But the simple fact of the matter is that all of the claims are highly questionable.

Here are the hoops that a Christian must jump through. They are flaming hoops, and the Christian can do nothing to avoid being burnt, it seems.

[in my replies below, I have added numbers to his gish gallop claims. His original words didn’t have the numbers; it had bullet points]

In order for the Christian who believes that both accounts are factually true to uphold that faithful decree, the following steps must take place. The believer must:

1) Special plead that the virgin birth motif is actually true for Christianity but is false for all other religions and myths that claim similarly.

This is true, but it is neither special pleading nor, I contend, controversial at all. Exclusive claims that logically rule out other competing contradictory claims are made in all belief-systems. It’s foolish and irrelevant to single out Christianity for doing this, as if it is objectionable in and of itself. For example, the current consensus in scientific cosmology / astronomy is that the universe had a beginning and that it is not eternal or without a beginning. There were scientists who resisted this for decades (even Einstein did for a time), until the Big Bang Theory became consensus in the 1960s (or 70s at the latest).

There are atheists who resist it today, and argue for a cyclical universe or “multiverse” (minus any compelling evidence). And there are various religious beliefs as to how the universe began. Of course, the Christian view is completely harmonious with the Big Bang. The universe began out of nothing, or ex nihilo, as the old theological phrase had it. Current science and Christianity teach this (though we add God in there as the cause of the Big Bang and science precludes that in its current methodological naturalism). So much the worse for those who disagree (as far as the Big Bang and the beginning of the universe). They’re wrong.

2) Deny that “virgin” is a mistranslation.

It’s not. I have dealt with this issue twice: both in response to Jonathan. He hasn’t replied to the second paper yet:

Reply to Atheist Jonathan MS Pearce: “Mistranslation” of “Virgin”? (Isaiah 7:14) (with Glenn Miller) [7-26-17]

Dual Fulfillment of Prophecy & the Virgin Birth (vs. JMS Pearce) [12-18-20]

3) Give a plausible explanation of from whence the male genome of Jesus came from and how this allowed him to be “fully man”.

It was (obviously, in Christian belief) a miraculous intervention of God. It can’t be explained naturally, by the nature of the case. Now, of course, for an atheist who denies that both God and miracles exist, it’ll be implausible (what else is new?). But that doesn’t prove that it’s untrue. If one offers rational evidences for God’s existence and also of miracles, then it’s entirely possible and able to be believed in by rational thinkers, as an actual event, as God’s revelation claims.

4) Be able to render the two genealogies fully coherent without the explanation being contrived or ad hoc.

I did that, 3 1/2 years ago:

Reply to Atheist Jonathan MS Pearce: “Contradictory” Genealogies of Christ? [7-27-17]

Atheists are fond of saying that everything we offer by way of evidence is “ridiculous” (on a kind day), or “ad hoc” or “implausible” or “special pleading.” And they do because of what I mentioned above: they deny the necessary presuppositions of God’s existence and (flowing from that) therefore the possibility and/or factuality of miracles and the supernatural. Once having denied the possibility or actuality of those two things, then of course they will immediately dismiss all Christian explanations as ad hoc or “implausible” etc.

It’s a way of trying to look impressive without offering any further arguments. But they have to deny such things, according to their atheist dogmas that literally disallow them from believing in anything that is inconsistent with atheism, or even to entertain a theoretical possibility.

5) Believe that the genealogies are bona fide and not just tools to try to prove Jesus’ Davidic and Messianic prophecy-fulfilling heritage.

This cynical sentiment simply flows from atheist hostility and bigotry against the Bible, Bible-writers, and Christians. Christians aren’t obliged to factor that into any of our apologetics or beliefs. We take the Bible at face value, just as we would any other such literature, rather than starting out inveterately hostile to it. That’s not an objective, scholarly approach. Besides, the Bible has had a mountain of evidence from history and archaeology that shows again and again that it is trustworthy in the details that it provides; therefore, can be trusted as a source. Those sots of independent verifications bolster our faith that the Bible is God’s revelation to humankind.

6) Be able to explain the inconsistency of the two accounts in contradicting each other as to where Joseph lived before the birth (without the explanation being contrived or ad hoc).

See:

Reply to Atheist Jonathan MS Pearce: Bethlehem & Nazareth “Contradictions” (Including Extensive Exegetical Analysis of Micah 5:2) [7-28-17]

7) Believe that a client kingdom under Herod could and would order a census under Roman diktat. This would be the only time in history this would have happened.

8) Find it plausible that people would return, and find precedent for other occurrences of people returning, to their ancestral homes for a census (at an arbitrary number of generations before: 41).

9) Give a probable explanation as to how a Galilean man was needed at a census in another judicial area.

10) Give a plausible reason as to why Mary was required at the census (by the censors or by Joseph).

11) Give a plausible explanation as to why Mary would make that 80 mile journey on donkey or on foot whilst heavily pregnant, and why Joseph would be happy to let her do that.

See:

The Census, Jesus’ Birth in Bethlehem, & History [2-3-11]

Reply to Atheist Jonathan MS Pearce: Herod’s Death & Alleged “Contradictions” (with Jimmy Akin) [7-25-17]

12) Believe that Joseph could afford to take anywhere from a month to two years off work.

This is a foolish query. If necessary, he could save up for “off” months just as virtually all farmers and teachers do. Is that so inconceivable? Or, as a carpenter and likely stone mason as well, he had a skill that was “portable”: so that he could pick up odd jobs while traveling. This is the kind of stuff which vanishes as a supposed “difficulty” with just a moment or two of unbiased, objective thought.

13) Believe that, despite archaeological evidence, Nazareth existed as a proper settlement at the time of Jesus’ birth.

I don’t know what “archaeological evidence” Jonathan is referring to, but there is more than enough to establish the existence of Nazareth as a town during the time of Jesus’ birth and infancy. I already recounted it in a recent reply to Jonathan:

[T]he archaeological investigation revealed that in Nazareth itself, in the middle of the first century AD, anti-Roman rebels created a sizeable network of underground hiding places and tunnels underneath the town – big enough to shelter at least 100 people. . . .

The new archaeological investigation – the largest ever carried out into Roman period Nazareth – has revealed that Jesus’s hometown is likely to have been considerably bigger than previously thought. It probably had a population of up to 1,000 (rather than just being a small-to-medium sized village of 100-500, as previously thought).

“Our new investigation has transformed archaeological knowledge of Roman Nazareth,” said Dr Dark, who has just published the results of his research in a new book Roman-Period and Byzantine Nazareth and its Hinterland. . . .

The newly emerging picture of Roman-period Nazareth as a place of substantial religiosity does, however, resonate not only with the emergence of its most famous son, Jesus, but also with the fact that, in the mid-first or second century, it was chosen as the official residence of one of the high priests of the by-then-destroyed Temple in Jerusalem, when all 24 of those Jewish religious leaders were driven into exile in Galilee. (“New archaeological evidence from Nazareth reveals religious and political environment in era of Jesus”, David Keys, Independent, 4-17-20)

See also: “Did First-Century Nazareth Exist?” (Bryan Windle, Bible Archaeology Report, 8-9-18; cf. several related articles from a Google search). Did it exist before Jesus’ time? It looks like it did:

The Franciscan priest Bellarmino Bagatti, “Director of Christian Archaeology”, carried out extensive excavation of this “Venerated Area” from 1955 to 1965. Fr. Bagatti uncovered pottery dating from the Middle Bronze Age (2200 to 1500 BC) and ceramics, silos and grinding mills from the Iron Age (1500 to 586 BC) which indicated substantial settlement in the Nazareth basin at that time. (Wikipedia, “Nazareth”)

That’s science. Jonathan has to grapple with the actual findings and not just sit back and deny that there are any such. As it is, that was from one of my reply-papers that he has not found time to reply to these past 19 days (while replying to many others). Maybe he will in due course, since it was during the holidays.

14) Believe that the prophecies referred to Nazareth and not something else.

They do, but they were not from the Old Testament. See:

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

Jesus the “Nazarene” Redux (vs. Jonathan M. S. Pearce) [12-19-20]

15) Believe that the magi were not simply a theological tool derived from the Book of Daniel.

This is a variation of the undue cynicism which I skewered in my reply to #5 above. As such, it can be dismissed as a non sequitur. That said (in principled protest), the factuality of these accounts is completely plausible based on what we know from secular historiography: that there was a group called the Magi, who were were originally a Median (northwest Persian) tribe (Herodotus [Hist.] i.101). They performed priestly functions, perhaps due to Zoroaster possibly having belonged to the tribe (or belief that he did), and studied astronomy and astrology: in part likely learned from Babylon.

Historians note that in Yemen, for example, there were kings who adhered to Judaism from about 120 B.C. to the sixth century A.D. Possibly, then, the wise men were Jewish or at least were strongly influenced by Jews.

If Jonathan or those who think like he does don’t want to take my word for it, then perhaps they will be persuaded by the Encyclopaedia Britannica:

Magus, plural Magi, member of an ancient Persian clan specializing in cultic activities. The name is the Latinized form of magoi (e.g., in Herodotus 1:101), the ancient Greek transliteration of the Iranian original. From it the word magic is derived.

It is disputed whether the magi were from the beginning followers of Zoroaster and his first propagandists. They do not appear as such in the trilingual inscription of Bīsitūn, in which Darius the Great describes his speedy and final triumph over the magi who had revolted against his rule (522 BC). Rather it appears that they constituted a priesthood serving several religions. The magi were a priestly caste during the Seleucid [312-63 BC], Parthian [247 BC-224 AD], and Sāsānian [224-651 AD] periods; later parts of the Avesta, such as the ritualistic sections of the Vidēvdāt (Vendidad), probably derive from them. From the 1st century AD onward the word in its Syriac form (magusai) was applied to magicians and soothsayers, chiefly from Babylonia, with a reputation for the most varied forms of wisdom. As long as the Persian empire lasted there was always a distinction between the Persian magi, who were credited with profound and extraordinary religious knowledge, and the Babylonian magi, who were often considered to be outright imposters. (“Magus: Persian priesthood”)

A visit by such men to the west, based on astrological-type beliefs and star-gazing, using the route through the Fertile Crescent around the Arabian and Syrian deserts that has been taken for many centuries by the Royal Road and the King’s Highway and the Silk Road (as I have recently written about, not in reply to Jonathan) is completely plausible. There is no good reason to doubt the biblical account. Nothing in it (rightly understood in light of the many biblical genres) rings immediately untrue or questionable. Jonathan mentions the book of Daniel. Yeah: that’s accurate, too, as we know that the Magi were in Babylonia at that time as well, as the cited encyclopedia entry above alludes to.

16) Believe that Herod (and his scribes and priests) was not acting entirely out of character and implausibly in not knowing the prophecies predicting Jesus, and not accompanying the magi three hours down the road.

The second thing we can only speculate about, but if the Bible shows itself trustworthy again and again in a host of ways: confirmed by secular archaeology and historiography, then we can trust it regarding such an obscure item that it casually refers to. As to the first question: is it impossible that Herod might not know the prophecy of Micah 5:2? Not at all. He was a very secularized Jew, as a Jewish scholarly article noted:

In his recent book The Herodian Dynasty, Nikos Kokkinos portrayed Herod as Hellenized Phoenician whose Jewishness was superficial, resulting from the conversion of Idumaea by John Hyrcanus . . . Herod’s departure form the Jewish ethos is manifested by his own deeds contrary to Jewish laws and customs as well as his strong cultural inclination toward Rome. . . .

This impression is nurtured mainly by Josephus’s accounts. (“Herod’s Jewish Ideology Facing Romanization: On Intermarriage, Ritual Baths, and Speeches”, Eyal Regev, The Jewish Quarterly Review, Vol. 100, No. 2, Spring 2010)

That doesn’t strike me (to put it mildly) as the type of Jew who would be all that familiar with a messianic prophecy like Micah 5:2. Maybe he was. But if so, this has to be shown by some convincing argument. The above — as far as it goes (I couldn’t access the entire article) — certainly doesn’t suggest a high likelihood that he would have been. Matthew 2:4 (RSV) states: “assembling all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born.”

In light of the above information, I don’t find it implausible at all that he didn’t know this. And not knowing it, he did the logical thing a secular Jew would do: ask the religious Jews (priests) in his court circle about it (just as irreligious Jews today would ask a rabbi about some point of Judaism). It’s completely plausible. Yet Jonathan assumes it isn’t. I wonder why? Maybe because he “has to” be skeptical about everything in Scripture, even when there is no clear reason to be?

17) Believe that the magi weren’t also merely a mechanism to supply Herod with an opportunity to get involved in the story and thus fulfil even more prophecies.

18) Believe that the magi were also not a reinterpretation of the Balaam narrative from the Old Testament, despite there being clear evidence to the contrary.

These two represent more of the merely assumed bald speculation and silly undue cynicism against the biblical text (see my answers to #5 and #15 above). It deserves no more serious consideration. I refuse to play these games with atheists. The burden of proof for such hyper-skeptical / hostile claims is on them, not us.

19) Believe that a star could lead some magi from the East to Jerusalem and then to Bethlehem where it rested over an individual house and not be noted by anyone else in the world.

I delved into all this in great detail in the last three weeks:

Star of Bethlehem, Astronomy, Wise Men, & Josephus (Amazing Astronomically Verified Data in Relation to the Journey of the Wise Men & Jesus’ Birth & Infancy) [12-14-20]

Timeline: Star of Bethlehem, Herod’s Death, & Jesus’ Birth (Chronology of Harmonious Data from History, Archaeology, the Bible, and Astronomy) [12-15-20]

Star of Bethlehem: Refuting Silly Atheist Objections [12-26-20]

Route Taken by the Magi: Educated Guess [12-28-20]

Star of Bethlehem: More Silly Atheist “Objections” [12-29-20]

How Do We Understand the Star of Bethlehem Coming to “Rest Over the Place Where the Child Was”? [Facebook, 12-29-20]

20) Believe that the shepherds were not merely midrashic and theological tools used by Luke.

Yet more higher critical hogwash. See my replies to #5, #15, and #18 above. There is no solid reason to doubt this story, either. I recently wrote about one related question: the time of the year with regard to shepherding sheep near Bethlehem:

Jesus’ December Birth & Grazing Sheep in Bethlehem (Is a December 25th Birthdate of Jesus Impossible or Unlikely Because Sheep Can’t Take the Cold?) [12-26-20]

21) Believe that there is (and provide it) a reasonable explanation as to why each Gospel provides different first witnesses (shepherds and magi) without any mention of the other witnesses.

Because I know of no such literary requirement (let alone logical or moral obligation) for each narrator of roughly the same story to include every and all details that the other narrators may have included. The fact that they emphasize different things and omit details that the others include is strong confirmation of authenticity from all four sources.

But there is a factual error here, too: Jesus was a toddler when the wise men visited (based on the Greek word used to describe Him). This didn’t occur at the same time as the birth and the visit of the shepherds. This is what Christians believe, based on the biblical text (which is one reason why our feast of epiphany is on a different day from Christmas: usually on or around January 6th).

Therefore, the wise men are not possible “first witnesses” and there is no conflict in the first place. The text doesn’t claim they were the first to visit Jesus. It’s simply another manufactured pseudo-“contradiction” from our friends, the atheists, who seem to make it their life’s goal to violate (or not comprehend?) elementary-level logic as often as they can.

22) Believe that, despite an absence of evidence and the realisation that it is clearly a remodelling of an Old Testament narrative, the Massacre of the Innocents actually happened.

See my replies to #5, #15, #18, and #20 above.

23) Believe that Herod would care enough about his rule long after his death to chase after a baby and murder many other innocent babies, a notion that runs contrary to evidence.

It’s perfectly in character for a tyrant who murdered two possible royal rivals (see the citation below). Herod was no choirboy. According to one secular source:

The first 12 years of Herod’s reign (37-25 BCE) saw the consolidation of his power. He built fortifications in Jerusalem, Samaria and at Masada, silenced all opposition to his rule and eliminated his Hasmonean rivals, Aristobulus and Hyrcanus II, the brother and the grandfather of his second wife, Mariamme. The former drowned in an arranged swimming pool accident and the latter was strangled.

Mariamme met a bitter end as well, and was executed (a la Anne Boleyn, for “adultery”) in 29 BC. So could Herod conceivably kill a bunch of young infants, out of jealousy over a possible kingly rival? Yes; it’s totally in character. No problem!

The above information was drawn from the record of two prominent historians:

Our chief informant is the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (37-c.100CE), who devoted most of Book I of his Jewish War and Books XIV to XVII of Jewish Antiquities to the life and times of Herod. Josephus uses as his main source the universal history of Nicolaus of Damascus, the well-informed teacher, adviser and ambassador of Herod.

24) Believe that God would allow other innocent babies to die as a result of the birth of Jesus.

This is not the place to enter into a full-fledged Christian explanation of the problem of evil. God grants free will. Otherwise we would be robots (and then this dialogue wouldn’t exist, because in that scenario God simply wouldn’t allow dumbfounded, groundless atheist opinions, and Jonathan would be a Christian because God willed and predestined it to be so, wholly apart from Jonathan’s free will which, of course, wouldn’t exist).

Most evil that human beings commit can at least be partially stopped by other human beings. But we refuse to do so before it’s too late. One man, Winston Churchill, warned for years in the 1930s about the German build-up of military might. No one listened to him. If they had, World War II (at least in Europe) could very well have been prevented.

Instead, it happened out of human irresponsibility and a head-in-the-sand mentality (President Kennedy wrote about this in his book, Why England Slept). And then after it did, one of the most popular arguments from atheists was: “why did God allow the Holocaust?” He allowed it, because He doesn’t control us like puppets, but it’s not His fault. It’s the fault of human beings who could have prevented it, but were too naive and stupid and negligent to do so. And so, when human beings fail miserably, what do they do? Blame other human beings or blame God . . . That’s the fool’s way out every time.

25) Believe that the Flight to and from Egypt was not just a remodelling of an Old Testament narrative in order to give Jesus theological gravitas.

See my replies to #5, #15, #18, #20, and #22 above.
*

26) Give a plausible explanation as to why the two accounts contradict each other so obviously as to where Jesus and family went after his birth.

Did that:

The Census, Jesus’ Birth in Bethlehem, & History [2-3-11]

Reply to Atheist Jonathan MS Pearce: Bethlehem & Nazareth “Contradictions” (Including Extensive Exegetical Analysis of Micah 5:2) [7-28-17]

27) Explain the disappearance of the shepherds and magi, who had seen the most incredible sights of their lives, and why they are never heard from again despite being the perfect spokespeople for this newfound religion.

Why should they necessarily be heard from again? On what grounds? The Magi in particular simply returned to their distant home shortly afterwards (Mt 12:12). What were they supposed to do? Make a phone call? Have a Zoom conference to communicate their thoughts on the whole thing? It’s simply a trumped-up difficulty that is none at all. And it deserves no more consideration than to state its essential silliness (with some flabbergasted humor).

28) Provide a plausible explanation as to why Jesus’ own family did not think he was the Messiah, given the events of the nativity accounts.

There is no reason to believe that Mary and Joseph didn’t know this all along. As for His extended family, see:

Jesus’ “Brothers” Were “Unbelievers”? (Jason also claims that “Mary believed in Jesus,” but wavered, and had a “sort of inconsistent faith”) (vs. Jason Engwer) [5-27-20]

Did the Blessed Virgin Mary Think Jesus Was Nuts? [7-2-20]

Seidensticker Folly #50: Mary Thought Jesus Was Crazy? (And Does the Gospel of Mark Radically Differ from the Other Gospels in the “Family vs. Following Jesus” Aspect?) [9-8-20]

Once the believer in the accuracy of these accounts can do all of the above, in a plausible and probable manner, then they can rationally hold that belief.

I’ve done so, and so I can rationally hold that belief (i.e., by the criterion of Jonathan’s internally contradictory and incoherent standards).

I would contest that it is rationally possible to ever hold such a belief.

I would contend that my (and many others’) replies to his objections render them null and void and of no impact or import. If Jonathan disagrees, then let him counter-reply.

. . . it has been shown that every single claim can be soundly doubted under critical examination . . .

Hogwash!

[W]e have no real evidence for the claims that Jesus is the Messiah and is derived from Messianic and Davidic heritage.

The Messiah: Jewish / Old Testament Conceptions [1982; revised somewhat on 2-19-00]

Isaiah 53: Ancient & Medieval Jewish Messianic Interpretation [1982; revised 9-14-01]

Isaiah 53: Jewish-Christian Dialogue: Is the “Servant” the Messiah (Jesus) or Collective Israel? (vs. Ari G. [Orthodox] ) [9-14-01, with incorporation of much research from 1982]

Psalm 110: Examples of Jewish Commentators Who Regard it as Messianic / Reply to Rabbi Tovia Singer’s Charges of Christian “Tampering” with the Text [9-14-01]

Reply to Atheist on “Fabricated” OT Messianic Prophecies (ProfMTH”‘s Video Jesus Was Not the Messiah – Pt. I) [7-1-10]

Reply to Atheist on Isaiah 53 & “Dishonest” Christians [7-2-10]

Reply to Atheist on Messianic Prophecies (Zech 13:6, Ps 22) [7-3-10]

Isaiah Foretells the Gospel & the Suffering Messiah [8-20-19]

Next question?

***

Photo credit: cocoparisienne (9-15-16) [Pixabay / Pixabay License]

***

Seidensticker Folly #58: Jesus Erred on Time of 2nd Coming?

Last updated on: October 20, 2020 at 10:09 am By Dave Armstrong

with David Palm

Atheist and anti-theist Bob Seidensticker, who was “raised Presbyterian”, runs the influential Cross Examined blog. He asked me there, on 8-11-18: “I’ve got 1000+ posts here attacking your worldview. You just going to let that stand? Or could you present a helpful new perspective that I’ve ignored on one or two of those posts?” He added in June 2017 in a combox: “If I’ve misunderstood the Christian position or Christian arguments, point that out. Show me where I’ve mischaracterized them.” Delighted to oblige his wishes . . .

Bob (for the record) virtually begged and pleaded with me to dialogue with him in May 2018, via email. But by 10-3-18, following massive, childish name-calling attacks against me, encouraged by Bob on his blog, he banned me from commenting there. I also banned him for violation of my rules for discussion, but (unlike him) provided detailed reasons for why it was justified.

Bob’s cowardly hypocrisy knows no bounds. On 6-30-19, he was chiding someone for something very much like he himself: “Spoken like a true weasel trying to run away from a previous argument. You know, you could just say, ‘Let me retract my previous statement of X’ or something like that.” Yeah, Bob could! He still hasn’t yet uttered one peep in reply to — now — 57 of my critiques of his atrocious reasoning.

Bible-Basher Bob reiterated and rationalized his intellectual cowardice yet again on 10-17-20: “Every engagement with him devolves into pointlessness. I don’t believe I’ve ever learned anything from him. But if you find a compelling argument of his, summarize it for us.” And again the next day: “He has certainly not earned a spot in my heart, so I will pass on funding his evidence-free project. Like you, I also find that he’s frustrating to talk with. Again, I evaluate such conversations as useful if I can learn something–find a mistake in my argument, uncover an error I made in Christians’ worldview, and so on. Dave is good at bluster, and that’s about it.”

Bible-Basher Bob’s words will be in blue. To find these posts, follow this link: “Seidensticker Folly #” or see all of them linked under his own section on my Atheism page.

*****

Bob writes in his article, “Top 20 Most Damning Bible Contradictions (3 of 4)” (10-24-18):

Jesus should’ve returned already.

Jesus promised to return within the lifetimes of those listening to him. This Apocalyptic message (Apocalypticism claims that the end times are very close) is found in the three synoptic gospels. It takes a passage in Isaiah 13 that predicts calamity for Babylon—that the sun and moon will darken and the stars will fall—and repurposes it as a prediction of the end. It also predicts:

[All people on earth will] see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds. (Matthew 24:30–31)

The prediction ends saying that this will all happen soon.

This generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened (Matthew 24:34).

Let me emphasize those two points: “these things” will happen soon (within months or years, not centuries), and “these things” are obvious and world-destroyingly calamitous. The popular Christian response that this referred to the fall of the Temple won’t fly.

Earlier in the same gospel, we find other references to the imminent coming of the Son of Man:

When you are persecuted in one place [as you spread the gospel], flee to another. Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes. (Matthew 10:23)

Some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom (Matthew 16:28).

It’s been a lot longer than one generation. Jesus made a mistake.

I’ve already covered this general topic at least three times: including twice with other Bible-Bashing atheists or agnostics:

Debate with an Agnostic on the Meaning of “Last Days” and Whether the Author of Hebrews Was a False Prophet (9-13-06)

“The Last Days”: Meaning in Hebrew, Biblical Thought [12-5-08]

Dr. David Madison vs. Jesus #3: Nature & Time of 2nd Coming [8-3-19]

But I was just made aware of an online copy of a master’s thesis on this topic by a friend of mine, David Palm, entitled “The Signs of His Coming”: for Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois (1993). He wrote it as an evangelical Protestant, later became a Catholic, and recently noted that he would change nothing in it. I thought it would be very instructive to delve into that to give more thorough and researched answers to Bob’s cynically skeptical assertions above. Palm summarizes (his words in green henceforth):

Our view is that the predictions of Mark 13:5-29 [parallel passage to Matthew 24] depict events leading up to and surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and not some mixture of Jerusalem’s demise and the parousia . 4 Instead of mingling the destruction of the Temple and the parousia in his answer to the disciple’s query, Jesus clearly demarcates the two. Verses 5-29 concern the events leading up to the Jewish War, culminating in the destruction of the Temple. Jesus declares that, “this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened” (v.30). But then, switching topics to discuss the time of his parousia he states, “No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” (v.32). The disciples are told to watch diligently for this event because, unlike the fall of Jerusalem, it may be a long time in coming and will not be accompanied by such remarkable signs. Thus the two events, which were mingled in the disciple’s minds, are separated and expounded individually by Jesus. (pp. 4-6)

Palm finds clues in the text of an interpretation other than the end times:

[W]hy would the elect need to be concerned to flee to the mountains [Mt 24:16; Mk 13:14] if the parousia and the end of time were to occur “immediately” after that tribulation [Mt 24:29-31; Mk 13:24-26]? And why would it matter if their flight was in the winter, if their ultimate deliverance was so close at hand [Mt 24:20; Mk 13:18]? . . . In the same vein, the statement that, “those will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning . . . and never to be equaled again,” (v.19) [Mt 24:21] may be somewhat hyperbolic if applied to the Jewish War, but makes little sense if applied to a final catastrophe that precedes the end of the world. If some Great Tribulation at the end of history is portrayed here, then it goes without saying that its severity will not be equaled again. (pp. 14-15)

Another significant change in the text, Palm argues (p. 28), is in the switch from the terminology of “those days” (Mt 24:19, 22 [2], 29; Mk 13:17, 19, 24, RSV) — i.e., plural –or “days” (Mk 13:20 [2]) to “that day” or “day” (Mt 24:36, 42, 50; Mk 13:32): the latter referring to the last day or the final judgment. Palm adds:

Jesus had already spoken of “that day” in connection with the universal day of judgment at the end of all things (Matt 7:22; 11:22). 48 It seems likely that he is speaking of that same event here. This is borne out further by Matthew’s insertion of the parables of the talents (25:14-30) and of the sheep and goats (25:31-46) with their depiction of eternal punishment. (p. 29)

The two separate sections of the discourse differ in how events (or lack thereof) are described:

There is no set time frame, such as one generation, in which this will take place; instead, “not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father knows the time,” (v.32) and, “you do not know when that time will come” (v.33). They need to “stay alert ” (vv.33) and “keep watch” (v.35), presumably because the long delay and lack of signs could cause them to become lackadaisical in their faith. The first section is dominated by signs that the disciples are to look for and act upon, because all will certainly take place very shortly. The second section, on the other hand, assumes that there may be a long delay before the Lord’s coming. The disciples are told that patient watchfulness is paramount, “because you do not know when the owner of the house will come back—whether in the evening, or at midnight, or when the rooster crows, or at dawn” (v.35). The parousia will not be preceded by signs as will the destruction of Jerusalem. There is no corollary in this section to the parable of the fig tree. Whereas earlier the disciples are bidden to look around and see the wars, earthquakes, famines, persecution, spread of the gospel and finally the abomination of desolation, which all point to Jerusalem’s imminent downfall, here they are given no signs that will evidence the parousia but are instead told only to “watch” (vv.34-35). The Master can come back at any time and if his servants are not looking for him they will be caught unaware (v.36). Whereas Jesus tells them “everything ahead of time” (v.23) about the fall of Jerusalem he gives them no details at all about what signs might precede his parousia. (pp. 29-30)

Matthew has made all of this even more explicit by including a number of parables to heighten the contrast between the soon-coming destruction of Jerusalem and the potentially distant parousia. The second section depicts an almost tranquil scene. Life continues normally—with people “eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage” (24:38), tending their fields and caring for their households (vv.40-41)—right up to the time when they are “taken”. All of this is in contrast to the time preceding the fall of Jerusalem in which the peace is shattered by calamitous events: wars, famines, earthquakes, persecution and a “great tribulation”. And while there will be ample time for some to flee to the mountains before Jerusalem’s downfall (v.16), the people in the latter section are taken totally by surprise, for the Son of Man comes like a “thief” (v.43), 49 Again, there is no fixing of a time frame such as “this generation” in which the parousia must take place. Rather, the parable of the two servants shows that a long delay is anticipated, for the wicked servant schemes to himself, “My master is staying away a long time” (v.48). The parable of the ten virgins (25:1-13) again highlights the possibility of long delay. Both the “wise” and “foolish” virgins fall asleep because “the bridegroom was a long time coming” (v.5) . The same is true of the parable of the talents (25:14-30); the master returns after a “long time” (v.19). So we find that while a transition between the near and distant future in vv.5-31 does not readily present itself, we find just such a transition in v.32ff. All of the material that follows assumes that the parousia may be far in the future. (pp. 30-32)

Palm cites Old Testament analogies of the mingling of historical, place-bound events and the last day:

[W]e again see imagery of almost cosmic proportions attached to events that occur within history. In an oracle concerning judgment on Nineveh (ca. 615 B.C.), Nahum says:

The Lord is slow to anger and great in power; the Lord will not leave the guilty unpunished. His way is in the whirlwind and the storm, and clouds are the dust of his feet. He rebukes the sea and dries it up; he makes all the rivers run dry. Bashan and Carmel wither and the blossoms of Lebanon fade. The mountains quake before him and the hills melt away. The earth trembles at his presence, the world and all who live in it. Who can withstand his indignation? Who can endure his fierce anger? His wrath is poured out like fire; the rocks are shattered before him. [Nahum 1:2-6]

Micah says of God’s coming in judgment against Samaria and Jerusalem (ca. 722 and 701 B.C.):

Look! The Lord is coming from his dwelling place; he comes down and treads the high places of the earth. The mountains melt beneath him and the valleys split apart, like wax before the fire, like water rushing down a slope. [Micah 1:3-4]

In both of these passages we have a blend of the universal and the local. Nahum states that “the earth and all who live in it” tremble when the Lord comes in judgment (1:5), and yet the oracle is very specifically confined to Nineveh (cf. 1:1, 8, 11, 14). And Micah calls all the nations of the earth to account (1:2), even though God’s vengeance is relegated in this instance to Judea and Samaria (1: 5-6). (pp. 57-58)

In Ezekiel political upheaval and impending judgment is portrayed as signs among the heavenly bodies:

When I snuff you out, I will cover the heavens and darken their stars. I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon will not give its light. All the shining lights in the heavens I will darken over you; I will bring darkness over your land, declares the Sovereign Lord. [Ezek 32:7-8]

We see in the passages cited above evidence that descriptions of celestial signs are not found exclusively in passages that deal with universal disaster. Rather, it appears that the ancient Hebrew used such phrases idiomatically, much as we might speak of a particularly bad event in our life as a time when “the world came to an end,” or when “my world came crashing down,” or perhaps as “a dark, dark day.” (pp. 58-59)

In several places, a judgment on Israel, and specifically the destruction of Jerusalem, is described as if it were the destruction of the whole world. For instance, Deut 32:22 says, “For a fire has been kindled by my wrath, one that burns to the realm of death below. It will devour the earth and its harvests and set afire the foundations of the mountains.” Here the judgment that will fall on Israel if she forsakes the Covenant is depicted as engulfing the entire earth. (pp. 59-60)

In Mark 13:24-27, Jesus uses language replete with references to the Old Testament prophets. Although the majority of scholars have concluded that his statements must be taken literally, we believe that the evidence cited above demonstrates that it was common for the Hebrew prophets to speak of calamitous events within history using the language of cosmic doom. Thus, it seems entirely reasonable that Jesus also could speak of an event as monumental as the fall of Jerusalem using the extravagant imagery of the prophets, without intending his words to be interpreted literally. And the context of the Olivet Discourse seems to bear out our conclusion that the parousia is not in view until Mark 13:32. (p. 73)

Palm notes how “cosmic events” were often used symbolically to denote the fall of cities or nations in the Old Testament:

[T]his language in its original Old Testament context refers not to actual astronomical phenomena that signal the end of the world, but to the fall of nations within history. It is probably safe to say that the authors never intended their language to be taken in a strictly literal sense. The sun, moon, and stars symbolize what is immovable and steadfast; when they are darkened or cast down it symbolizes great change and upheaval. In the Old Testament it is the kind of language used first and foremost to refer to the downfall of nations: Babylon (Isa 13:10), Edom (Isa 34:4), Egypt (Ezek 32:7), and Israel (Jer 4:23; Joel 2:10; Mic 3:6). Thus, its application is primarily to the political, not the astronomical, sphere. Luke adds that in addition to, “signs in the sun, moon and stars” the nations of the earth, “will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea” (Luke 21:25). . . . But the background to this verse, Isa 17:12, says, “Oh, the raging of many nations—they rage like the raging sea! Oh the uproar of the peoples—they roar like the roaring of great waters!” It seems clear that here the churning of the ocean is an apocalyptic symbol for national upheaval. . . .

We contend, then, that the darkening of sun and moon, and falling of the stars have nothing to do with literal disturbances of the heavenly bodies but rather is a metaphorical way of describing the fall of a nation. (pp. 105-106)

Palm tackles a passage that atheists and pother biblical skeptics feel to be an ironclad proof that He made an error:

Jesus solemnly affirms that, “this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.” We have already responded to the many different ways that exegetes have attempted to evade the force of this verse. But we believe that the intent is clear. Jesus expected the whole of what he had predicted prior to this verse to take place within the lifetimes of his contemporaries. This verse sets the definitive terminus ad queum for the events described, including the coming of the Son of man on the clouds. But it is important to note that our view in no way assumes that there is no future parousia presented in the Olivet Discourse.

As we have argued at length above, Jesus addresses two subjects in the Olivet Discourse; the fall of Jerusalem and his Second Coming. But he does so separately. “But of that day or that hour no one knows” (Mark 13:32; RSV) . With this statement we believe Jesus introduces a new topic, his parousia at the end of history. Matthew expands this material (Matt 24:36ff.) and in doing so makes more clear the contrast. The fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the Temple will be preceded by clearly visible signs and will take place within the lifetimes of the disciples. The parousia, on the other hand, will come like a thief, completely unannounced, and may be a long time in the future. (pp. 131-132)

It’s clear, then, I submit, that the interpretation of these passages is not nearly as simple as Bob the Bible-Basher makes out.

Matthew 10:23 (RSV) When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next; for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel, before the Son of man comes.

Bob highlights this passage as supposedly referring to the Second Coming of Jesus very soon: in the disciples’ lifetime? But is that necessarily the meaning here? The entire context of the saying (chapter 10) is not about the last days: it is about the present age. There is nothing whatsoever about Jesus coming, nothing about seeing “the sign of the Son of man in heaven” or “the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory” (Mt 24:30).

Moreover, there are different senses of Jesus “coming” to the disciples. Jesus stated at the Last Supper:

John 14:18-19, 28 “I will not leave you desolate; I will come to you. [19] Yet a little while, and the world will see me no more, but you will see me; because I live, you will live also. . . . [28] You heard me say to you, `I go away, and I will come to you.’ . . .

What happened in “a little while” was that Jesus was resurrected and came to, or appeared to the disciples: which was indeed during the time that they were still evangelizing in the towns of Israel. Thus, in the same book, a post-Resurrection appearance of Jesus to the disciples is recounted (Jn 19:20-23) and the word “came” is used to describe it: “Now Thomas, one of the twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came” (Jn 20:24). We see the same terminology again, two verses later:

John 20:26 Eight days later, his disciples were again in the house, and Thomas was with them. The doors were shut, but Jesus came and stood among them, and said, “Peace be with you.”

A similar reference appears also in Matthew, referring to another post-Resurrection appearance of Jesus: “And Jesus came . . .” (Mt 28:18).

Matthew 16:28 Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

This is another alleged “problem verse” that Bob submits as proof that Jesus was wrong, and in error (a thing that Christians believe is not possible). Presbyterian Bible scholar Keith Mathison offers a plausible explanation of it:

In order to come to an understanding of this saying, we must again be reminded that when Jesus speaks of the “coming of the Son of Man,” he is purposefully alluding to Daniel 7:13–14. And again we must recall that the coming of the Son of Man in Daniel 7 is set within a judgment scene before the throne of God (cf. Dan. 7:9–10). Unlike the saying in Matthew 10:23, the saying in 16:28 is found in the immediate context of words regarding judgment (v. 27). The point that Jesus is making when he says that there are some standing here who will not die before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom is that there are some to whom he is speaking who will not die before the prophecy of Daniel 7 is fulfilled, in other words, before Jesus receives the kingdom from his Father.

A comparison of Matthew 16:28 with its parallels in Mark 9:1 and Luke 9:27 lends support to this interpretation. All three sayings are set within the same context immediately before the Transfiguration, yet whereas Matthew speaks of some living long enough to see the coming of the Son of Man, Mark and Luke speak of some living long enough to see the coming of the kingdom of God. The “coming of the Son of Man” then is simply another way of saying “the coming of the kingdom of God.” It is the assumption that the words “coming of the Son of Man” must mean “Second Coming” that has caused much of the confusion. Once we realize that Jesus is simply using a phrase from Daniel 7 to allude to the whole prophecy, texts such as Matthew 16:28 are much more readily understood. Jesus was not predicting that his Second Coming would occur within the lifetime of some of his hearers. He wasn’t speaking of the Second Coming at all.^v He was referring to the fulfillment of Daniel 7, his reception of the kingdom from the Father, and this was fulfilled within the lifetime of some of his hearers (cf. Matt. 28:18). (“Some Standing Here Will Not Taste Death — The Unfolding of Biblical Eschatology,” Ligonier Ministries, 5-14-12)

Of course, such extensive cross-referencing, exegesis, and systematic theology is far beyond Bible-Bashing Bob’s capacity to grasp: which shortcoming has been glaringly obvious throughout these 58 refutations of his critical assertions.

But that is no skin off of our backs. His ignorance and ridiculous, foolish presumption of “knowledge of the Bible and Christianity” doesn’t change the fact that there are students of the Bible who have an infinitely deeper and more accurate comprehension of the Bible than Bob does.

***

Photo credit: Daniel Arrhakis, Jesus – The Second Coming (2018) [Flickr / CC BY-NC 2.0 license]

***

Loftus Atheist Error #3: Scientism & a “Better [Pascal’s] Wager”

Last updated on: September 8, 2019 at 3:45 pm By Dave Armstrong

I first ran across former Christian minister and atheist John W. Loftus back in 2006. We dialogued about the problem of evil, and whether God was in time. During that period I also replied to an online version of his deconversion: which (like my arguments about God and time) he didn’t care for at all. I’ve critiqued many atheist deconversion stories, and maintain a very extensive web page about atheism. In 2007 I critiqued his “Outsider Test of Faith” series: to which he gave no response. Loftus’ biggest objection to my critique of his descent into atheism was that I responded to what he called a “brief testimony.” He wrote in December 2006 (his words in blue henceforth):

Deconversion stories are piecemeal. They cannot give a full explanation for why someone left the faith. They only give hints at why they left the faith. It requires writing a whole book about why someone left the faith to understand why they did, and few people do that. I did. If you truly want to critique my deconversion story then critique my book. . . . I challenge you to really critique the one deconversion story that has been published in a book. . . . Do you accept my challenge?

I declined at that time, mainly (but not solely) for the following stated reason:

If you send me your book in an e-file for free, I’d be more than happy to critique it. I won’t buy it, and I refuse to type long portions of it when it is possible to cut-and-paste. That is an important factor since my methodology is Socratic and point-by-point. . . . You railed against that, saying that it was a “handout.” I responded that you could have any of my (14 completed) books in e-book form for free.

Throughout August 2019, I critiqued Dr. David Madison, a prominent contributor to Loftus’ website, Debunking Christianity, no less than 35 times. As of this writing, they remain completely unanswered. I was simply providing (as a courtesy) links to my critiques underneath each article of Dr. Madison’s, till Loftus decided I couldn’t do that (after having claimed that I “hate” atheists and indeed, everyone I disagree with). I replied at length regarding his censorship on his website. Loftus’ explanation for the complete non-reply to my 35 critiques was this: “We know we can respond. It’s just that we don’t have the time to do so. Plus, it’s pretty clear our time would be better spent doing something else than wrestling in the mud with you.” He also claimed that Dr. Madison was “planning to write something about one or more of these links in the near future.” Meanwhile, I discovered that Dr. Madison wrote glowingly about Loftus on 1-23-17:

When the history of Christianity’s demise is written (it will fade eventually away, as do all religions), your name will feature prominently as one who helped bring the world to its senses. Your legacy is secure and is much appreciated.

This was underneath an article where Loftus claimed: “I’ve kicked this dead rodent of the Christian faith into a lifeless blob so many times there is nothing left of it.” I hadn’t realized that Loftus had single-handedly managed to accomplish the stupendous feat of vanquishing the Hideous Beast of Christianity (something the Roman Empire, Muslims, Communists, and many others all miserably failed to do). Loftus waxed humbly and modestly ten days later: “I cannot resist the supposition that my books are among the best. . . . Every one of my books is unique, doing what few other atheist books have done, if any of them.”

These last three cited statements put me “over the edge” and I decided to buy a used copy of his book, Why I Became an Atheist (revised version, 2012, 536 pages) and critique it, as he wanted me to do in 2006. Moreover, on 8-27-07 he made a blanket challenge about the original version of this book: “I challenge someone to try this with my book. I might learn a few things, and that’s always a goal of mine. Pick it up and deal with as many arguments in it that you can. Deal with them all if you can.” His wish is granted (I think he will at length regret it), and this will be my primary project (as a professional apologist) in the coming weeks and probably months.

Despite all his confident bluster, I fully expect him to ignore my critiques. It’s what he’s always done with me (along with endless personal insults). I’m well used to empty (direct) challenges from atheists, based on my experience with Madison and “Bible Basher” Bob Seidensticker, who also has ignored 35 of my critiques (that he requested I do). If Loftus (for a change) decides to actually defend his views, I’m here; always have been. And I won’t flee for the hills, like atheists habitually do, when faced with substantive criticism.

The words of John Loftus will be in blue.

*****

John Loftus’ chapter 2 is entitled, “Faith, Reason, and My Approach to Christianity” (pp. 39-63).

It’s well beyond my purview and purpose in these critiques to tackle all of the various brands of philosophy of religion and strains and varieties of Christian apologetics. Reasonable Christians (and atheists) can differ in good faith about their relative strengths and weaknesses.

So I’ll confine myself to what I think are outright misunderstandings of misrepresentations of Christian views: particularly as expressed in inspired Scripture. I agree with Loftus when he writes (p. 44): “I understand these are complex issues, which unfortunately, I can’t devote the needed space to . . .” He knows that this is a “large and lumpy” area of thinking; so do I.

I maintain a very extensive Philosophy, Science & Christianity web page, if readers want to see how I argue various positions, and how I come down on all the internal differences about how to defend Christianity and larger theism. I summed up on Facebook — in a very “nutshell” way — my overall philosophy of religion:

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.

In my first installment, I noted how Loftus stated that “I present a cumulative case argument against Christianity. . . . I consider this book to be one single argument against Christianity, and as such it should be evaluated as a whole.” (p. 15; his italics)

I replied:

That’s exactly how I view my body of apologetics (50 books and over 2500 blog articles) in favor of Christianity and (in particular) the collection of diverse argumentation I have set forth in critique of atheism.

Just as Loftus considers his overall case against Christianity long and multi-faceted and complex (laid out in “one single argument” in a densely argued 536-page book); likewise, I consider my case for Christianity and against atheism to be very multi-faceted and complex and only able to be fully understood with very extensive reading of my 2500+ articles and 50 books (not all, of course, but quite a few!).

What our views have in common is that we both regard them as “a cumulative case.” There is no one single argument on either side (I think he’d agree, as I’m pretty sure would most atheists and apologists and philosophers of religion) that is a “knockout punch”. Loftus agrees, on page 54:

When it comes to Christian apologetics, the best approach seems to be the cumulative case method of the late Paul D. Feinberg . . . This best explains why there is no single apologetical approach that will cause people to convert, and it bets explains why there is no silver bullet argument that will convince believing Christians to abandon their faith.

***

Scientific evidence, the evidence of the senses, and reasoning based on this evidence is what counts. (p. 44)

[W]hen I came to see things differently, sufficient evidence derived from science-based reasoning became the only game in town, so to speak, . . . the scientific method is the best (and probably the only) reliable guide we have for gaining the truth . . . (p. 57)

Here is where Loftus runs into what I consider to be insuperable problems, and self-refuting tenets. What he just described is empiricism, which is the philosophical outlook that senses and observations of physical things allow us to discover facts and truth. It’s fine as far as it goes (it’s the fundamental basis of science), but it just doesn’t go far enough or explain everything. There are many different ways of knowing (even mathematics and logic: both basic building-blocks of science, are axiomatic and non-empirical). We readily observe that this very sentence from Loftus is self-defeating:

1) He makes an epistemological statement about “what counts” [strongly implied, all that counts] in determining truth.

2) This very statement is not empirical. It is strictly philosophical, or metaphysical: about the relative value or worth of empiricism.

3) But if empirical observations are all that we can trust, and all that “count”, then his sentence has to be discounted, since it is not an empirical observation.

4) Ergo, it is self-defeating and self-refuting.

I’ve dealt with this false, misguided, tunnel vision “science only” or “scientism” mentality (very common in atheism) many times and from many different angles:

Atheist Myths: “Christianity vs. Science & Reason” (vs. “drunkentune”) [1-3-07]

Reply to Atheist Scientist Jerry Coyne: Are Science and Religion Utterly Incompatible? [7-13-10]

Christianity: Crucial to the Origin of Science [8-1-10]

Christians or Theists Founded 115 Scientific Fields [8-20-10]

Simultaneously Dumb & Smart Christians, Atheists, & Scientists [10-9-15]

Is Christianity Unfalsifiable? Is Empiricism the Only True Knowledge? [5-6-17]

Science, Logic, & Math Start with Unfalsifiable Axioms [1-6-18]

Science: “only discipline that tells us new things about reality” [???]: Scientism or Near-Scientism as a Very Common Shortcoming of Atheist Epistemology [8-9-18]

Rebuttal of Seidensticker’s Anti-Christian Science “History” [8-11-18]

Exclusive Empirical Epistemology?: Dialogue w Atheist [2-25-19]

Dialogue with Atheist: Are Christians “Unscientific”? [5-27-19]

I have never thought that Pascal’s wager was a particularly strong argument: if an argument at all. But it is a clever thought experiment and something to definitely seriously consider. Again, this is beyond the purview of my purposes, so I’ll pass. Though I love Pascal (and Alvin Plantinga, Kierkegaard, William Lane Craig, the Late Norman Geisler, gary Habermas, and others he mentions in this chapter), I’m not here to defend every school and argument of the entire history of apologetics. I’m already devoting what will be many hundreds of hours to this long project. My purpose is to critique errors I see in Loftus’ own views, per my titles: “Loftus Atheist Error # . . .”

On pages 50-51, Loftus develops an interesting (though thoroughly fallacious and weak) “New and Better Kind of Wager.” He reasons that it would be a better state of affairs if God asked us “if we want to be born, knowing the risks involved”: including the calculus and consideration of a possibility of ending up in an eternal hell. “Why wouldn’t God give us a choice in the matter? It seems unethical for him not to do so . . . If I were given the choice, I would simply say, ‘No, count me out! Put me out of existence now.’ “

This stimulates several responses in my mind (which is a major reason why I absolutely love dialogue and back-and-forth discussion: because it can do that):

1) I think it’s foolish to imagine and posit that he himself and many or most people would choose to be annihilated rather than to live a life on the earth. There is no good reason to believe this, that I can see. It’s essentially the view that we would all commit suicide, given the choice in the beginning: except that it would be an assisted suicide, with God’s help. I see no indication — by analogy of how relatively few people commit suicide in this world — that many folks would make this choice.

And if Loftus would have done so, then, by his own reasoning (and a reductio ad absurdum) he would have to argue that people (including he himself) should kill themselves today (if they thought there was a God and a hell, or even that both might exist), since the potentialities and hypotheticals remain the same. Atheist or no, the great bulk of people in the world are simply not that hopeless and nihilistic. Of course, Loftus doesn’t believe in God, and all of this is a mere hypothetical and mind game. But he is attempting to make a reasoned argument against the biblical God, and this doesn’t succeed in that purpose at all.

2) I note in passing (consider this a “footnote”) that it is highly ironic that a person who believes in legal abortion is making an argument that all of us: at the beginning of our existence, should be asked whether we want to live or not. To be consistent, the one who is pro-abortion and who has an abortion, would contradict this: all the more so in the atheist’s case, since they eliminate the only life that baby will ever have (there being no afterlife). If Loftus thinks “it seems unethical for him [God] not to do so” I don’t see how he can possibly favor legal abortion, since it is radically anti-choice for the baby about to be killed (and in atheist metaphysics and ontology, annihilated and made nonexistent forever).

3) I submit that it is absurd for God to ask a question of a human baby (which would presuppose that God temporarily gave them a mind that could reason enough to even have such a momentous discussion) about these things, when there are so many unknown factors. Obviously, in Christian belief, God is omniscient, and He deems it a good thing for human beings to “be fruitful and multiply.” For God, and for us Christians and pro-lifers, who consider life infinitely valuable and priceless, the very scenario is meaningless. Of course, life and creation as a whole is good and wonderful, and it is better to exist than not to. This is virtually self-evident for all who haven’t committed suicide, and the extremely strong instinct to preserve our own lives is evidence of it as well.

4) In making his argument, Loftus smuggles in many notions that are false premises, to start with: thus making his conclusion erroneous or at the very least, dubious and indefensible.

a) He says “we might not be raised in the right Christian family and might therefore be sent to hell because of it.” This is silly, simplistic argumentation. Granted, we all can have good or bad influences in many ways, that was beyond our choice. But in the end, the biblical view is that each individual is given enough grace and power to be saved, if they make that choice, and that each will be individually responsible:

Ezekiel 33:17-20 (RSV) “Yet your people say, `The way of the Lord is not just’; when it is their own way that is not just. [18] When the righteous turns from his righteousness, and commits iniquity, he shall die for it. [19] And when the wicked turns from his wickedness, and does what is lawful and right, he shall live by it. [20] Yet you say, `The way of the Lord is not just.’ O house of Israel, I will judge each of you according to his ways.”

*

Romans 14:10-12 Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God; [11] for it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall give praise to God.” [12] So each of us shall give account of himself to God.

We’re not sent to hell, so much as we choose to go there, by rejecting God’s free offer of grace for salvation and eternal life in heavenly bliss:

Joshua 24:15 And if you be unwilling to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell; but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.”

b) [T]he odds, according to most evangelicals anyway, are that most of the people who are born in this world will end up in hell.

First of all, Christian theology is not determined by a head count of evangelicals, but by Scripture and unbroken apostolic tradition, passed down. Appealing to what evangelicals think is silly on two levels: 1) it’s the genetic fallacy, and 2) evangelicals are only a portion of Protestants, who are a small minority of all Christians, now and through history (they didn’t even exist until the 16th century).

Secondly, the mainstream Christian position is that we simply don’t know how many end up in heaven and hell, proportionately. Jesus said:

Matthew 7:13-14 “Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. [14] For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few.

*

Luke 18:8 “. . . when the Son of man comes, will he find faith on earth?”

On the other hand, in a recent argument that I came up with myself, I examined two of Jesus’ parables, which were about salvation and damnation, to see if they provided any clues about this, in a reply to atheist David Madison:

In the next chapter we have the great scene of the separation of the sheep and goats at the last judgment (Matthew 25:31-46). . . . No indication in this text is given of relative numbers of the saved and the damned. In two of His parables nearby, however, He does give indication. . . .

*

In the parable of the ten maidens with lamps (Matthew 25:1-13), five were foolish and were damned (“the door was shut . . . I do not know you”: 25:10, 12) and five were wise and received eternal life (“went in with him to the marriage feast”: 25:10). . . . It’s a 50-50 proposition.

*

The parable of the talents follows (25:14-30). Here, there are three servants, who are given five talents, two talents, and one talent [a form of money], respectively. The ones who are saved are the first two (“enter into the joy of your master”: 25:21, 23), while the servant with one talent, who did nothing with it, was damned (“cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness”: 25:30). So this parable suggests a 67% rate of final salvation and a 33% rate of damnation.

Moreover, St. Paul expressly taught that even those who have not heard the gospel or Christian message could be saved, based on what they know (thus leaving open a wide potential for salvation indeed):

Romans 2:13-16 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. [14] When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. [15] They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them [16] on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

Bottom line: we just don’t know for sure, but we know that there is grace for all and that there is significant indication that a huge proportionate number will attain heaven. In the end, each of us has to live our life and be judged as to how well we have done, by others, and by God.

c) “God should already know what the odds are and not choose that risk for us.”

This is what free will entails. God gives us all a choice: to follow Him and His moral laws or reject Him and go our own way. He can’t reasonably be blamed if we deliberately reject Him, in our free will. He thought that was better than a bunch of robots who could do not other than what He programmed them to do at every instant. I totally agree! I want free will to choose as I wish; not to have no choice and be totally controlled.

d) “And yet here I am, without any choice in the matter apparently condemned to hell.”

He is not “condemned to hell” at all. He has a free will and choice to repent and become a Christian again, and get on the road to salvation. What he says may be the Calvinist view, but of course they are a minority of a minority (with very few remaining adherents today), and not the be-all of Christianity. They believe in predestination to hell; virtually all other Christians today and throughout history do not. But even John Calvin stated that no one could know for sure who was among the elect. So Calvinists and fundamentalists can’t say John he is definitely hellbound, nor can I, nor can anyone else or he himself. If he repents, he can be reasonably assured that he is heaven-bound, provided he stays the course.

None of us could decide to be born into this earthly life (many now are prevented by abortion and infanticide from even having this life, whether they would have wanted to or not). Sorry, John: your parents thought your existence was a good thing. But we have a full choice as to where we decide to spend eternity., which is far, far more important if indeed we do have an eternal existence, since if that is the case, this life represents only an infinitesimally small portion of our entire existence (like one atom compared to the entire universe):

Psalms 39:4-5 “LORD, let me know my end, and what is the measure of my days; let me know how fleeting my life is! [5] Behold, thou hast made my days a few handbreadths, and my lifetime is as nothing in thy sight. Surely every man stands as a mere breath! . . .” (cf. 39:11)

Psalms 144:4 Man is like a breath, his days are like a passing shadow. (cf. 78:39)

James 4:14 . . . What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes.

***

Loftus argues (pp. 59-60) that the Israelite worldview prior to the exile to Babylon (after the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 586 BC) was polytheistic (just as neighboring cultures’ religious view was). Well, duh! This is why God judged them (through Nebuchadnezzar) in the first place: precisely because they had forsaken Him, and monotheism, and adopted polytheism and idolatry: directly and deliberately against what He had urged and commanded them to do, for their own good.

This was the prophet Jeremiah’s message of warning prior to the Babylonian exile:

Jeremiah 1:15-16 For, lo, I am calling all the tribes of the kingdoms of the north, says the LORD; and they shall come and every one shall set his throne at the entrance of the gates of Jerusalem, against all its walls round about, and against all the cities of Judah. [16] And I will utter my judgments against them, for all their wickedness in forsaking me; they have burned incense to other gods, and worshiped the works of their own hands.

Jeremiah 7:9-15 Will you steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, burn incense to Ba’al, and go after other gods that you have not known, [10] and then come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, `We are delivered!’ — only to go on doing all these abominations? [11] Has this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes? Behold, I myself have seen it, says the LORD. [12] Go now to my place that was in Shiloh, where I made my name dwell at first, and see what I did to it for the wickedness of my people Israel. [13] And now, because you have done all these things, says the LORD, and when I spoke to you persistently you did not listen, and when I called you, you did not answer, [14] therefore I will do to the house which is called by my name, and in which you trust, and to the place which I gave to you and to your fathers, as I did to Shiloh. [15] And I will cast you out of my sight, as I cast out all your kinsmen, all the offspring of E’phraim.

Jeremiah 11:9-13 Again the LORD said to me, “There is revolt among the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. [10] They have turned back to the iniquities of their forefathers, who refused to hear my words; they have gone after other gods to serve them; the house of Israel and the house of Judah have broken my covenant which I made with their fathers. [11] Therefore, thus says the LORD, Behold, I am bringing evil upon them which they cannot escape; though they cry to me, I will not listen to them. [12] Then the cities of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem will go and cry to the gods to whom they burn incense, but they cannot save them in the time of their trouble. [13] For your gods have become as many as your cities, O Judah; and as many as the streets of Jerusalem are the altars you have set up to shame, altars to burn incense to Ba’al. (cf. 13:10; 16:11-13; 19:1-9; 22:8-9; 35:15; 44:2-6, 15-17)

God allowed the temple to be destroyed because He had had enough of the disobedience and idolatrous compromises and hypocrisy and empty worship of too many of the Jews who worshiped there. They had to learn the hard way (so often sadly true of human beings and whole cultures), and so off they went in slavery to Babylon.

But alas, here comes Loftus “informing”us that the 6th century BC Israelites were polytheistic, as were their neighbors, as if this is some startling new insight unknown to Christians (or Jews)? It’s almost comical. It doesn’t follow at all that the actual teachings preserved in the Old Testament and the very rich Jewish oral tradition were not known and taught back then (which is, no doubt, what Loftus is driving at or insinuating). They were, but they were rejected and not followed.

This, in fact, is the central theme of the entire Old Testament: the continual straying of the Jews, followed by judgment and renewal, and then cycling toward to rebellion again. It was still happening in the New Testament when most of the Jews rejected Jesus, Who was indeed their expected Messiah.

So how is it that this supposedly casts doubt on the Bible: when it is teaching exactly the same thing? I hope that Loftus will explain this if he ever interacts with these series of critiques of his book. I’ve dealt with this nonsense that the earliest “formal” Jewish belief (not what was always practiced) in the times of Abraham, Moses, and even into David’s time (1000 BC) was in fact, polytheistic, in two replies to atheist Bob Seidensticker:

Seidensticker Folly #19: Torah & OT Teach Polytheism? [9-18-18]
*

Seidensticker Folly #20: An Evolving God in the OT? (God’s Omnipotence, Omniscience, & Omnipresence in Early Bible Books & Ancient Jewish Understanding) [9-18-18]

In every case when it comes to my reasons for adopting my skeptical presumption, the Christian response is pretty much the same. Christians must continually retreat to the position that what they believe is “possible,” or that it’s “not impossible.” (p. 62)

[W]e want to know what is probable, not what is possible . . . Probability is what matters. (p. 63)

As I’ve already stated above, this is not my view at all. I’ll repeat my view again:

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.

One sees nothing of “possible” or “not impossible” here. I’m arguing from accumulation of various arguments and probability (exactly as Loftus advocates) and also plausibility.

***

Photo credit: John Loftus at SASHAcon 2016 at the University of Missouri; Mark Schierbecker (3-19-16) [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license]

***

Protestant Inquisitions: “Reformation” Intolerance & Persecution

Last updated on: November 22, 2021 at 4:01 pm By Dave Armstrong

(originally written in 1991. Revised: 10-31-03 and 3-7-07. Greatly abridged and re-typeset on 9-14-17)

* * * * *

Disclaimer and statement of intent: Unfortunately, the religious “scandal score” needs to be evened up now and then, and the lesser-known “skeletons in the closet” need to be rescued from obscurity, surveyed, and exposed. I take no pleasure in “dredging up” these unsavory occurrences, but it is necessary for honest, fair historical appraisal. This does not mean that I have forsaken ecumenism, or that I wish to bash Protestants, or that I deny corresponding Catholic shortcomings.
Historical facts are what they are, and most Protestants (and Catholics) are unaware of the following historical events and beliefs (while, on the other hand, one always hears about the embarrassing and scandalous Catholic stuff — and not often very accurately or fairly at that). If (as I suspect might often be the case) readers are shocked or surprised by the very title of this paper, this would be a case in point, and justification enough for my purposes of education.
Even James Swan, an anti-Catholic Reformed Protestant polemicist and controversialist, who has often incompetently and unfairly savaged my research on early Protestantism, freely admits:
***“[T]here is a sense in which I’m sympathetic to the defenders of Rome who put forth the Tu quoque argument that Protestants have also committed atrocities, so bringing up Rome’s past sins isn’t a logically compelling argument against her . This is why I rarely have written against Rome by pointing out her moral evils.” (on his website, 9-9-17) He also writes of Hartmann Grisar, the Jesuit Luther biographer whom I cite a lot below: “I have found him to be mostly reliable with his citations.” (2-7-07)

***

With that end and stated outlook in mind, I offer this copiously researched treatise, with all due respect to my Protestant brethren, yet not without some remaining trepidation.* * * * *CONTENTS

I. PROTESTANT INTOLERANCE: AN OVERVIEW

II. PLUNDER AS AN AGENT OF RELIGIOUS REVOLUTION

III. SYSTEMATIC SUPPRESSION OF CATHOLICISM

IV. PROTESTANT CENSORSHIP

BIBLIOGRAPHY

* * * * *

[Citations will refer to authors in the bibliography; any additional information will appear right after the citation; all material is quotations, unless otherwise noted (“Armstrong”)]

***

[P = Protestant scholar / S = secularist / non-religious scholar; otherwise, Catholics]

***

I. PROTESTANT INTOLERANCE: AN OVERVIEW***Historically nothing is more incorrect than the assertion that the Reformation was a movement in favour of intellectual freedom. The exact contrary is the truth. For themselves, it is true, Lutherans and Calvinists claimed liberty of conscience . . . but to grant it to others never occurred to them so long as they were the stronger side. The complete extirpation of the Catholic Church, and in fact of everything that stood in their way, was regarded by the reformers as something entirely natural. (in Grisar, VI, 268-269; Johann von Dollinger, Kirche und Kirchen, 1861, 68)

If any one still harbors the traditional prejudice that the early Protestants were more liberal, he must be undeceived. Save for a few splendid sayings of Luther, confined to the early years when he was powerless, there is hardly anything to be found among the leading reformers in favor of freedom of conscience. As soon as they had the power to persecute they did. (Preserved Smith [S], 177)

The Reformers themselves . . . e.g., Luther, Beza, and especially Calvin, were as intolerant to dissentients as the Roman Catholic Church. (Cross, Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church [P], 1383)

Protestants . . . read blood-curdling stories of the Inquisition and of atrocities committed by Catholics, but what does the average Protestant know of Protestant atrocities in the centuries succeeding the Reformation? Nothing, unless he makes a special study of the subject . . . Yet they are perfectly well known to every scholar . . .

Now granting for the sake of argument, that all that is usually said of Catholic persecutions is true, the fact remains that Protestants, as such, have no right to denounce them, as if such deeds were characteristic of Catholics only. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones . . . It is unquestionable . . . that the champions of Protestantism – Luther, Calvin, Beza, Knox, Cranmer and Ridley — advocated the right of the civil authorities to punish the ‘crime’ of heresy . . . Rousseau says truly: “The Reformation was intolerant from its cradle, and its authors were universal persecutors . . .” Auguste Comte also writes: “The intolerance of Protestantism was certainly not less tyrannical than that with which Catholicism is so much reproached.” (Philosophie Positive, IV, 51)

What makes, however, Protestant persecutions specially revolting is the fact that they were absolutely inconsistent with the primary doctrine of Protestantism — the right of private judgment in matters of religious belief! Nothing can be more illogical than at one moment to assert that one may interpret the Bible to suit himself, and at the next to torture and kill him for having done so! . . .

At all events, the argument that the persecutions for heresy, perpetrated by the Catholics, constitute a reason why one should not enter the Catholic Church, has not a particle more force than a similar argument would have against one’s entering the Protestant Church. In both there have been those deserving of blame in this respect, and what applies to one applies also to the other. (Stoddard, 204-205, 209-210)

The ablest defence of persecution during the 17th century came from the Scottish Presbyterian Samuel Rutherford (A Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty Of Conscience, 1649). (Chadwick [P], 403)

In England the advocates of religious toleration long continued to be in a minority, but it was . . . defended by J. Milton in his Areopagitica [1644] (to the exclusion, however of RCs) . . . It virtually became the policy of the state by the Act of Toleration (q.v.) of 1689, which excluded only RCs and Unitarians. In the same year Locke published his first Letter concerning Toleration, to be followed by three others, denying the state all right of interference in religious matters and demanding toleration for all except RCs and atheists. (Cross, Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church [P], 1383-1384)

Often the resistance to tyranny and the demand for religious freedom are combined, as in the Puritan revolution in England; and the victors, having achieved supremacy, then set up a new tyranny and a fresh intolerance. (Harkness [P], 222)

Multitudes of Non-Conformists fled from Ireland and England to America; . . . What is amazing is the fact that, after such experiences, those fugitives did not learn the lesson of toleration, and did not grant to those who differed . . . freedom . . . When they found themselves in a position to persecute, they tried to outdo what they had endured . . . Among those whom they attacked was . . . the Society of Friends, otherwise known as Quakers. (Stoddard, 207)

In Massachusetts, for successive convictions, a Quaker would suffer the loss of one ear and then the other, the boring of the tongue with a hot iron, and sometimes eventually death. In Boston three Quaker men and one woman were hanged. Baptist Roger Williams was banished from Massachusetts in 1635 and founded tolerant Rhode Island (Stoddard, 208).

To his credit, he remained tolerant, an exception to the rule, as was William Penn, who was persecuted by Protestants in England and founded the tolerant colony of Pennsylvania. Quakerism (Penn’s faith) has an honorable record of tolerance since, — like its predecessor Anabaptism –, it is one of the most subjective and individualistic of Protestant sects, and eschews association with the “world” (governments, the military, etc.), whence lies the power necessary to persecute. Thus, Quakers were in the forefront of the abolition movement in America in the first half of the 19th century. (Armstrong)

In the 17th century the most notable instances of practical toleration were the colonies of Maryland, founded by Lord Baltimore in 1632 for persecuted Catholics, which offered asylum also to Protestants, and of Rhode Island, founded by Roger Williams. (Cross, Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church [P], 1383)

Baltimore . . . welcomed, among other English people, even the Catholic-hating Puritans . . . In January of 1691 . . . the new regime brought hard times for Catholics as the Protestants closed their church, forbade them to teach in public . . . but . . . the little outpost of practical Catholic tolerance had left its mark of promise on the land. (Martin Marty [P], Pilgrims in Their Own Land: 500 Years of Religion in America, New York: Penguin, 1984, 83, 85-86)

Lord Baltimore allowed several hundred Puritans, unwelcome in Episcopalian Virginia, to enter Maryland in 1648. (Armstrong, see Ellis, below, p. 37)

For the first time in history . . . all churches would be tolerated, and . . . none would be the agent of the government . . . Catholics and Protestants side by side on terms of equality and toleration unknown in the mother country . . . The effort proved vain; for . . . the Puritan element . . . October, 1654, repealed the Act of Toleration and outlawed the Catholics . . . condemning ten of them to death, four of whom were executed . . . From . . . 1718 down to the outbreak of the Revolution, the Catholics of Maryland were cut off from all participation in public life, to say nothing of the enactments against their religious services and . . . schools for Catholic instruction . . . During the half-century the Catholics had governed Maryland they had not been guilty of a single act of religious oppression. (John Tracy Ellis, American Catholicism, Garden City, New York: Doubleday Image, 1956, 36, 38-39)

Stories of Protestant intolerance in America prior to 1789 could be multiplied indefinitely. Jefferson and Madison, in pushing for complete religious freedom, were reacting primarily to these inter-Protestant wars for dominance, not the squabbles of post-Reformation Europe. Here we are concerned with the immediate era of the Protestant Revolution — roughly 1517 to 1600, so the above anecdotes will have to suffice as altogether typical examples. (Armstrong)

The principle which the Reformation had upheld in the youth of its rebellion — the right of private judgment — was as completely rejected by the Protestant leaders as by the Catholics . . . Toleration was now definitely less after the Reformation than before it. (Durant [S], 456; referring to the year 1555)

Melanchthon accepted the chairmanship of the secular inquisition that suppressed the Anabaptists in Germany with imprisonment or death. . . . he was convinced that God had destined all Anabaptists to hell. (Durant [S], 423)

A regular inquisition was set up in Saxony, with Melanchthon on the bench, and under it many persons were punished, some with death, some with life imprisonment, and some with exile. (Smith [S], 177)

The persecution of the Anabaptists began in Zurich . . . The penalties enjoined by the Town Council of Zurich were ‘drowning, burning, or beheading,’ according as it seemed advisable . . . ‘It is our will,’ the Council proclaimed, ‘that wherever they be found, whether singly or in companies, they shall be drowned to death, and that none of them shall be spared.’ (Janssen, V, 153-157)

In his Dialogues of 1535, Bucer called on governments to exterminate by fire and sword all professing a false religion, and even their wives, children and cattle. (Armstrong; Janssen, V, 367-368, 290-291)

His [John Knox’s] conviction . . . harked back to the darkest practices of the Inquisition . . . Every heretic was to be put to death, and cities predominantly heretical were to be smitten with the sword and utterly destroyed: “To the carnal man this may appear a . . . severe judgment . . . Yet we find no exception, but all are appointed to the cruel death. But in such cases God wills that all . . . desist from reasoning when commandment is given to execute his judgments.” (Durant [S], 614; citing Edwin Muir, John Knox, London: 1920, 142)

[Queen] Elizabeth . . . is on record for the burning of two Dutch Anabaptists in 1575. (Hughes, 143)

An English Servetus could have been burned under Elizabeth, and, in fact, in 1589 she burned an Arian. (Hughes, 274)

In the preface to the Institutes he [John Calvin] admitted the right of the government to put heretics to death . . . He thought that Christians should hate the enemies of God . . . Those who defended heretics . . . should be equally punished. (Smith [S], 178)

[During Calvin’s reign in Geneva, between 1542 and 1546] “58 persons were put to death for heresy.” (Durant [S], 473)

Melanchthon, in a letter to Calvin and Bullinger, gave ‘thanks to the Son of God’ . . . and called the burning [of Michael Servetus] ‘a pious and memorable example to all posterity.’ Bucer declared from his pulpit in Strasbourg that Servetus had deserved to be disemboweled and torn to pieces. Bullinger, generally humane, agreed that civil magistrates must punish blasphemy with death. (Durant [S], 484)

Persecution, including death penalties for heresy, is not just a Catholic failing. It is clearly also a Protestant one, and a general “blind spot” of the Middle Ages, much like abortion is in our own supposedly “enlightened” age. Furthermore, it is an outright lie to assert that Protestantism in its initial appearance, advocated tolerance. The evidence thus far presented refutes this notion beyond any reasonable doubt. (Armstrong)

II. PLUNDER AS AN AGENT OF RELIGIOUS REVOLUTION***There came – round about 1536-40 — a change . . . The temptation to loot Church property and the habit of doing so had appeared and was growing; and this rapidly created a vested interest in promoting the change of religion. Those who attacked Catholic doctrine, as, for instance, in the matters of celibacy in the monastic orders . . . opened the door for the seizure of the enormous clerical endowments . . . by the Princes . . . The property of convents and monasteries passed wholesale to the looters over great areas of Christendom: Scandinavia, the British Isles, the Northern Netherlands, much of the Germanies and many of the Swiss Cantons. The endowments of hospitals, colleges, schools, guilds, were largely though not wholly seized . . . Such an economic change in so short a time our civilization had never seen . . . The new adventurers and the older gentry who had so suddenly enriched themselves, saw, in the return of Catholicism, peril to their immense new fortunes. (Belloc, 9-10)

The cities found Protestantism profitable . . . for a slight alteration in their theological garb they escaped from episcopal taxes and courts, and could appropriate pleasant parcels of ecclesiastical property . . . The princes . . . could be spiritual as well as temporal lords, and all the wealth of the Church could be theirs . . . The Lutheran princes suppressed all monasteries in their territory except a few whose inmates had embraced the Protestant faith. (Durant [S], 438-439)

In Sweden Gustavus Vasa deprived the Church of all its landed properties . . . The proportion of land held by the crown increased during his reign from 5.5% to 28%: that of the Church from 21% to nil. (Dickens [P], 191)

The great Scottish nobles . . . supported the religious revolution because it gave them the power to loot the Church and the monarchy wholesale. (Belloc, 112)

This certainly is a fine turn of affairs, if property is wickedly taken away from priests so that soldiers may make use of it in worse fashion; and the latter squander their own wealth, and sometimes that of others, so that no one benefits. (Erasmus, 157)

III. SYSTEMATIC SUPPRESSION OF CATHOLICISM***The presence at sermons [in Zwingli’s Zurich] . . . was enjoined under pain of punishment; all teaching and church worship that deviated from the prescribed regulations was punishable. Even outside the district of Zurich the clergy were not allowed to read Mass or the laity to attend. And it was actually forbidden, ‘under pain of severe punishment, to keep pictures and images even in private houses’ . . . The example of Zurich was followed by other Swiss Cantons. (Janssen, V, 134-135)

The Mass was abolished in Zurich in 1525. (Armstrong; Dickens, 117)

William Farel, who preceded Calvin in Geneva, helped to abolish the Mass in August, 1535, seize all the churches, and close its four monasteries and nunnery. (Harkness [P], 8)

His [Farel’s] sermons in St. Peter’s were the occasion of riots; statues were smashed, pictures destroyed, and the treasures of the church, to the amount of 10,000 crowns, disappeared. (Hughes, 226-227)

Martin Bucer . . . though anxious to be regarded as considerate and peaceable . . . advocated quite openly ‘the power of the authorities over consciences’. He never rested until, in 1537 . . . he brought about the entire suppression of the Mass at Augsburg. At his instigation, many fine paintings, monuments and ancient works of art in the churches were wantonly torn, broken and smashed. Whoever refused to submit and attend public worship was obliged within eight days to quit the city boundaries. Catholic citizens were forbidden under severe penalties to attend Catholic worship elsewhere . . . In other . . . cities Bucer acted with no less violence and intolerance, for instance, at Ulm, where he supported Oecolampadius . . . in 1531, and at Strasburg . . . Here, in 1529, after the Town-Council had prohibited Catholic worship, the Councillors were requested by the preachers to help fill the empty churches by issuing regulations prescribing attendance at the sermons. (Grisar, VI, 277-278)

In 1529 the Council of Strassburg also ordered the breaking in pieces of all remaining altars, images and crosses, and several churches and convents were destroyed (Janssen, V, 143-144).

Similar events transpired also in Frankfurt-am-Main (Durant [S], 424).

At a religious convention at Hamburg in April, 1535 the Lutheran towns of Lubeck, Bremen, Hamburg, Luneburg, Stralsund, Rostock and Wismar all voted to hang Anabaptists and flog Catholics and Zwinglians before banishing them (Janssen, V, 481).

Luther’s home territory of Saxony had instituted banishment for Catholics in 1527 (Grisar, VI, 241-242). (Armstrong)

In 1522 a rabble forced its way into the church at Wittenberg, on the doors of which Luther had nailed his theses, destroyed all its altars and statues, and . . . drove out the clergy. In Rotenburg also, in 1525, the figure of Christ was decapitated . . . On the 9th of February, 1529, everything previously revered in the fine old cathedral of Basle, Switzerland, was destroyed . . . Such instances of brutality and fanaticism could be cited by scores. (Stoddard, 94)

[In] Constance, on March 10, 1528, the Catholic faith was altogether interdicted . . . by the Council . . . ‘There are no rights whatever beyond those laid down in the Gospel as it is now understood’ . . . Altars were smashed . . . organs were removed as being works of idolatry . . . church treasures were to be sent to the mint. (Janssen, V, 146)

[In John Knox’s Scotland] It was . . . forbidden to say Mass or to be present at Mass, with the punishment for a first offence of loss of all goods and a flogging; for the second offence, banishment; for the third, death. (Hughes, 300)

The Protestant states did not question that teachers of disapproved doctrines should be prevented from preaching. (Chadwick [P], 398)

IV. PROTESTANT CENSORSHIP
The early Protestants were not the champions of free speech and freedom of the press, either, as we are led to believe, any more than they were for freedom of religion or assembly — not by a long shot. Suppression of the Mass and forced Church attendance by civil law are examples of this intolerance regarding freedom of thought and action. (Armstrong)

With isolated exceptions . . . we find everywhere the opinions which are exactly in harmony with those of the territorial prince of the day, striving their utmost to suppress all differing views. The theory of the absolute Church authority of the secular powers was in itself enough to make a system of tolerance impossible on the Protestant side . . . From the very first religious life among the Protestants was influenced by the hopeless contradiction that on the one hand Luther imposed it as a sacred duty on every individual, in all matters of faith, to set aside every authority, above all that of the Church, and to follow only his own judgment, while on the other hand the reformed theologians gave the secular princes power over the religion of their land and subjects . . . ‘Luther never attempted to solve this contradiction. In practice he was content that the princes should have supreme control over religion, doctrine and Church, and that it was their right and their duty to suppress every religious creed which differed from their own.’ (Janssen, XIV, 230-231; citing Johann von Dollinger: Kirche und Kirchen, 1861, 52 ff.)

The Corpus doctrinae of Melanchthon had passed muster for a long time in Saxony, but on the occasion of the crypto-Calvinistic controversies the Elector Augustus forbade the work being printed . . .; the press control, which Melanchthon had advocated against others, now hit him himself. (Janssen, XIV, 506)

In the Protestant towns numbers of preachers bestirred themselves zealously with the help of the municipal authorities to suppress the writings of all opposing parties. ‘When first Luther began to write books, it was said,’ so Frederick Staphylus recalled to mind (1560), ‘that it would be contrary to Christian freedom if the Christian folk and the common people were not allowed to read all sorts of books. Now, however . . . the Lutherans themselves are . . . forbidding the purchase and reading of the books of their opponents, and of apostate members and sects.’ (Janssen, XIV, 506-507)

Luther . . . set his pen in motion concerning this Catholic translation of the Bible. ‘The freedom of the Word,’ which he claimed for himself, was not to be accorded to his opponent Emser . . . When . . . he learnt that Emser’s translation . . . was to be printed . . . at Rostock, he not only appealed himself to his follower, Duke Henry of Mecklenburg, with the request that ‘for the glory of the evangel of Christ and the salvation of all souls’ he would put a stop to this printing, but he also worked on the councillors of the Elector of Saxony to support his action. He denied the right and the power of the Catholic authorities to inhibit his books; on the other hand he invoked the arm of the secular authorities against all writings that were displeasing to him. (Janssen, XIV, 503-504)

When the controversy on the Lord’s Supper was started at Wittenberg, the utmost precautions were taken to suppress the writings of the Swiss Reformed theologians and of the German preachers who shared the latter’s views. At the instigation of Luther and Melanchthon there was issued, in 1528, by the Elector John of Saxony, an edict to the following effect: “Books and pamphlets (of the Anabaptists, Sacramentarians, etc.) must not be allowed to be bought or sold or read . . . also those who are aware of such breaches of the orders laid down herein, and do not give information, shall be punished by loss of life and property.” (Armstrong; Janssen, XIV, 232-233; BR, IV, 549)

Melanchthon demanded in the most severe and comprehensive manner the censure and suppression of all books that were hindering to Lutheran teaching. The writings of Zwingli and the Zwinglians were placed formally on the Index at Wittenberg. (Armstrong; Janssen, XIV, 504; cf. Durant [S], 424)

At Strassburg Catholic writings were suppressed as early as 1524 . . . The Council at Frankfort-on-the-Main exercised . . . strict censorship . . . At Rostock, in 1532, the printer of the Brethren of the Common Life was sent to prison, because he had used his printing press to the disadvantage of Protestantism. (Janssen, XIV, 502)

BIBLIOGRAPHY
[P = Protestant work / S = secular work / C = Catholic]

BR = Bretschneider, editor, Corpus Reformation, Halle, 1846.

Hilaire Belloc (C), Characters of the Reformation, Garden City, New York: Doubleday Image, 1958.

Owen Chadwick (P), The Reformation, New York: Penguin, revised edition, 1972.

F. L. Cross & E. A. Livingstone, editors (P), The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2nd edition, 1983.

A. G. Dickens (P), Reformation and Society in 16th-Century Europe, London: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1966.

Will Durant (S), The Reformation, (volume 6 of 10-volume The Story of Civilization, 1967), New York: Simon & Schuster, 1957.

Desiderius Erasmus (C), Christian Humanism and the Reformation, (selections from Erasmus), edited and translated by John C. Olin, New York: Harper & Row, 1965 (originally 1515-34).

Hartmann Grisar, S. J. (C), Luther, translated by E. M. Lamond, edited by Luigi Cappadelta, six volumes, London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1917. [available online]

Georgia Harkness (P), John Calvin: The Man and His Ethics, New York: Abingdon Press, 1931.

Philip Hughes (C), A Popular History of the Reformation, Garden City, New York: Doubleday Image, 1957.

Johannes Janssen (C), History of the German People From the Close of the Middle Ages, 16 volumes, translated by A. M. Christie, St. Louis: B. Herder, 1910 (originally 1891). [available online]

Preserved Smith (S), The Social Background of the Reformation, New York: Collier Books, 1962 (2nd part of author’s The Age of the Reformation, New York: 1920).

John L. Stoddard (C), Rebuilding a Lost Faith, New York: P. J. Kenedy & Sons, 1922.

***

Luther Favored the Death Penalty for Anabaptists

Reply to Reformed Luther Apologist James Swan’s Request for Documentation of Executions of Anabaptists Sanctioned by Luther, in the 1530s

Luther’s Inflammatory Rhetoric & the Peasants’ Revolt (1524-1525)

Was Luther “Bloodthirsty” & Violent? (James Swan & I Agree!)

Luther Film (2003): Detailed Catholic Critique

Zwingli, Bucer, Oecolampadius: Luther & Lutherans Not Christians

Philip Melanchthon: Death for Denying the Real Presence (He Later Denied the Real Presence Himself)

John Calvin: Capital Punishment for “Heretics” (Anabaptists, Etc.)

John Calvin: Torment of an Inept Execution “Special Will of God”

Calvin the “Destroyer” of Servetus: James Swan Misses Forest for Trees

Calvin Supports Death Penalty for Heresy After Servetus

Early Protestant “Unity”: Calvin vs. Westphal vs. Luther

444 Irish Catholic Martyrs & Heroic Confessors

“Reformation” Theft of Thousands of Catholic Churches

16th Century Theft of Church Properties (vs. Lutheran Historian)

Dialogue on Jihadist & 16th Century Calvinist Iconoclasm (vs. David Scott)

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 3,900+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

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

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

***

Photo credit: Zürich-Schipfe quarter : Memorial plate for the Anabaptists, murdered in early 16th century by the Zürich city government: “Here in the middle of the River Limmat from a fishing platform were drowned Felix Manz and five other Anabaptists during the Reformation of 1527 to 1532. Hans Landis, the last Anabaptist, was executed in Zurich during 1614.” Photo by Roland zh (4-10-10) [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license]

***

Jews, Judaism, and the Old Testament (Index Page)

Last updated on: June 20, 2025 at 11:15 am By Dave Armstrong

Footsteps that Echo Forever: My Holy Land Pilgrimage(Nov. 2014, 165 pages)

[click on the book title for book and purchase info.]

[cover photograph taken by Margie Prox Sindelar in Caesarea Philippi (Mt 16), on 23 October 2014]

*****

TABLE OF CONTENTS

***

I. DIALOGUES WITH JEWISH APOLOGIST MICHAEL J. ALTER ON JESUS’ RESURRECTION AND ALLEGED NEW TESTAMENT “CONTRADICTIONS”

II. THE MESSIAH IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

III. RELATIONSHIP OF OLD AND NEW COVENANTS / JEWS AND CHRISTIANS / DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE: JUDAISM TO CHRISTIANITY

IV. MY PILGRIMAGE TO ISRAEL (2014)

V. GENESIS

VI. ADAM AND EVE AND CAIN / GARDEN OF EDEN

VII. NOAH AND THE FLOOD

VIII. ABRAHAM, ISAAC, JACOB, AND JOSEPH (PATRIARCHS) / HEBREW BONDAGE IN EGYPT

IX. MOSES AND THE EXODUS

X. JOSHUA AND THE CONQUEST OF CANAAN / SAMSON / ERA OF THE JUDGES

XI. SAUL, DAVID, AND SOLOMON / KINGDOMS OF JUDAH AND ISRAEL

XII. EZRA, NEHEMIAH, AND JOB

XIII. ANCIENT ISRAEL’S ENEMIES

XIV. THE PROPHETS

XV. OLD TESTAMENT: DOCTRINE OF GOD / YHWH

XVI. OLD TESTAMENT: GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS

XVII. ISRAEL AND THE PALESTINIANS

***

I. DIALOGUES WITH JEWISH APOLOGIST MICHAEL J. ALTER ON JESUS’ RESURRECTION AND ALLEGED NEW TESTAMENT “CONTRADICTIONS”

Resurrection Debate #1: Preliminaries & Premises [4-16-21]

Resurrection Debate #2: Date of Jesus’ Death . . . Including the Analogy of Historical Skepticism Against Many Renowned Persons from the Hebrew Bible [4-17-21]

Resurrection Debate #3: Did Jesus Publicly Claim to Be the Messiah? [4-19-21]

Resurrection Debate #4: No “Leafy Branches” on Palm Sunday? [4-19-21]

Resurrection (?) #5: Did Jesus Claim to be Our Savior? [4-20-21]

Resurrection (?) #6: “Three Days and Three Nights” [4-21-21]

Resurrection (?) #7: Crucified Thieves Taunting Jesus [4-21-21]

Resurrection (?) #8: Disciples Forsaking Jesus [4-23-21]

Resurrection (?) #9: The Women at the Crucifixion [4-23-21]

Resurrection (?) #10: “Blood & Water” & Medical Science [4-25-21]
*

Resurrection #11: “All the Council” / Joseph of Arimathea? [4-25-21]

Resurrection #12: Who Buried Jesus? [4-26-21]

Resurrection #13: Guards at the Tomb & Historiography [4-27-21]

Resurrection #14: When Was the Stone Rolled Away? [4-27-21]

Resurrection #15: Luke & Jesus’ Galilee Appearances [4-28-21]

Resurrection #16: Peter & John at the Empty Tomb [4-28-21]
*

Resurrection #17: Women Who Saw the Risen Jesus [4-29-21]

Resurrection #18: “Touch Me Not” & Mary Magdalene [4-29-21]

Resurrection #19: When Was Judas Paid? [4-30-21]

Resurrection #20: Motivation of Judas’ Betrayal [4-30-21]

Resurrection #21: Chronology of Judas’ Evil Plans [5-1-21]

Resurrection #22: Did Judas Repent Or Not? [5-2-21]

Resurrection #23: How Did Judas Die? [5-3-21]

Resurrection #24: Judas & the Potter’s Field [5-3-21]

Resurrection #25: NT Writers: Unethical Mythmakers? [5-4-21]

Resurrection #26: “Twelve” or Eleven Disciples? [5-4-21]

Resurrection #27: Jesus’ View of Unbelief & Evidence [5-5-21]

Resurrection #28: Remission of Sins “Contradictions”? [5-5-21]

Resurrection #29: Supposed Absence of the Ascension [5-6-21]

II. THE MESSIAH IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

The Messiah: Jewish / Old Testament Conceptions [1982; revised somewhat on 2-19-00]

Isaiah 53: Ancient & Medieval Jewish Messianic Interpretation [1982; revised 9-14-01]

Isaiah 53: Jewish-Christian Dialogue: Is the “Servant” the Messiah (Jesus) or Collective Israel? (vs. Ari G. [Orthodox] ) [9-14-01, with incorporation of much research from 1982]

Psalm 110: Examples of Jewish Commentators Who Regard it as Messianic / Reply to Rabbi Tovia Singer’s Charges of Christian “Tampering” with the Text [9-14-01]

Reply to Atheist on “Fabricated” OT Messianic Prophecies (ProfMTH”‘s Video Jesus Was Not the Messiah – Pt. I) [7-1-10]
*

Reply to Atheist on Isaiah 53 & “Dishonest” Christians [7-2-10]

Reply to Atheist on Messianic Prophecies (Zech 13:6, Ps 22) [7-3-10]

Caiaphas’ Unjust Accusation of Jesus as a Blasphemer [8-2-19]

Isaiah Foretells the Gospel & the Suffering Messiah [8-20-19]

Dialogue: Institutional Jewish Opposition to Jesus (Was it Based on His Claim to be the Messiah, or Because He Also Claimed to be God? Also, Further Discussion on Mary’s Knowledge — or Lack Thereof — of His Divinity) [11-23-21]

III. RELATIONSHIP OF OLD AND NEW COVENANTS / JEWS AND CHRISTIANS / DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE: JUDAISM TO CHRISTIANITY

Sola Scriptura, the Old Testament, and Ancient Jewish Practice [1999]

Rabbinic Credentials of Jesus and St. Paul: Jewish-Christian Dialogue on Authority (vs. Ari G.) [9-14-01]

“Moses’ Seat” and Jesus vs. Sola Scriptura (vs. James White) [12-27-03]

Jewish and Old Testament Views of Hell and Eternal Punishment [4-14-04]
*

Refutation of James White: Moses’ Seat, the Bible, and Tradition (Introduction: #1) (+Part II | Part III | Part IV | Part V | Part VI) [5-12-05]
*

Levites and the Old Covenant System vs. Sola Scriptura [4-9-06]

OT Levites & Priests: Closer to Sola Scriptura or Catholicism? [4-9-06]

Old Testament Analogies to the Catholic Rule of Faith and Binding Authority / Disanalogies to Sola Scriptura [4-9-06]

Cardinal Newman: “The Principle of Continuity between the Jewish and Christian Churches” (Catholic Authority) [4-9-06; posted to Facebook on 2-15-17]

“High Places” in the OT: Were They Always Wicked? [4-9-06]

Apostles and Synagogue and Temple Worship [3-25-07; slight editing and minor additions on 8-8-16]

Were the “Judaizers” Jewish Christians (“Messianic Jews”)? [6-7-07]

Jesus the Jew / Jewish Law and the New Testament [12-4-07]

Christianity & Judaism, Messianic Jews, & Jewish Converts [12-4-07]

Anti-Semitism in the Church Fathers and Catholic History: Resources and Recent Catholic Repentance [7-7-08]

Judaism and Christianity: Profound Closeness in the New Testament [1-2-09]

Passover in Judaism & a Mass that Transcends Time (“Past Events Become Present Today”/ Survey of “Remember” in Scripture) [7-7-09]

Judaizers: “Proto-Catholics”? (Alleged Works-Salvation) [12-14-09]

Tonsure, Holy Oil, and “Judaizing”? (vs. Calvin #54) [12-22-09]

Reply to Atheist on “Fabricated” OT Messianic Prophecies (ProfMTH”‘s Video Jesus Was Not the Messiah – Pt. I) [7-1-10]

Reply to Atheist on Isaiah 53 & “Dishonest” Christians [7-2-10]

Reply to Atheist on Messianic Prophecies (Zech 13:6, Ps 22) [7-3-10]

Jewish 1st Century Belief in Purgatory (Paul Hoffer) [9-20-11]
*

Masturbation Reference in Sermon on the Mount? (Striking Talmudic Parallels) [10-18-11]

Biblical Evidence for the Oral Torah (Hence, by Analogy, Oral Apostolic Tradition) [10-18-11]

“Leaven” of the Pharisees: Hypocrisy or False Doctrine? [11-3-11]

Dialogue with a Lutheran on Ecclesiology & Old Testament Indefectibility Analogies [11-22-11]

New Testament on the Jewish Background of Christianity [2013]
*

“Shake the Dust Off of Your Feet”: Mean? [10-4-14]

Jesus Celebrated Hanukkah (John 10:22-23), Which in Turn Was Derived from the Deuterocanon (So-Called “Apocrypha”) [3-13-17]

Temple Sacrifice & Offerings Sanctioned by Jesus & Apostles (and Practiced by St. Paul, St. Peter, and St. John After the Death of Jesus) [4-13-17]

Why is Melchizedek So Important? [National Catholic Register, 1-15-18]
*

Caiaphas’ Unjust Accusation of Jesus as a Blasphemer [8-2-19]

Madison vs. Jesus #12: Discipleship & Jewish Burial Customs [8-8-19]

Why Jesus Was So Unpopular (Parallel with Socrates) [8-17-19]

Old Testament Sacrifices: Killing Animals to be Saved? [8-17-19]

“Spiritual” Kingdom of God: Old Testament Precursors [8-18-19]

Salvation and Eternal Afterlife in the Old Testament [8-31-19]

Salvation and Immortality Are Not Just New Testament Ideas [National Catholic Register, 9-23-19]

Did Jesus Heal and Preach to Only Jews? No! [National Catholic Register, 7-19-20]

“Difficulty” in Understanding the Bible: Hebrew Cultural Factors [2-5-21]

Pearce’s Potshots #15: Gospel of Matthew vs. Gospel of Mark? [2-7-21]

Groundless Gospel of Mark Bashing Systematically Refuted (vs. Vexen Crabtree) [2-9-21]

Bp. Barron’s Word on Fire Bible (The Pentateuch) [7-6-23]

Reply #1 to J. Oliveira: Jesus & Extrabiblical Tradition [9-27-23]
*

601+ Bible Passages Disprove Sola Scriptura (Featuring an Emphasis on the Scriptural Data Regarding the Strong Influence of Jewish Tradition in Early Christianity) [1-6-25]

From Moses to the Messiah: Oral Tradition Heard in Jesus’ Teachings [National Catholic Register, 1-26-25]

The Jewish Roots of Christianity: How Jesus and the Apostles Kept the Law [National Catholic Register, 2-15-25]

Was St. Paul Still a Pharisee After His Conversion? [3-15-25]
*

IV. MY PILGRIMAGE TO ISRAEL (2014)

“’Bethany Beyond the Jordan’: History, Archaeology and the Location of Jesus’ Baptism on the East Side of the Jordan” [8-11-14]

Archaeology: Jesus’ Crucifixion, Tomb, & the Via Dolorosa [9-18-14]

Introduction to Footsteps That Echo Forever: Anticipating & Reflecting Upon a Holy Land Pilgrimage [8-11-14]

Archaeology & St. Peter’s House in Capernaum [9-23-14]

Visiting the Mount of Transfiguration & Nazareth [10-20-14]

My Holy Land Journal: Church of the Holy Sepulchre [10-26-14]

Walking Where Jesus Walked [10-31-14]

Sermon on the Mount: Striking Topographical Facts [Nov. 2014]

Visiting Golgotha: A Sublimely Moving Spiritual Experience [Nov. 2014]

Books by Dave Armstrong: Footsteps that Echo Forever: My Holy Land Pilgrimage [11-8-14]

Description of My Book: Footsteps That Echo Forever: My Holy Land Pilgrimage [Nov. 2014]

Signs in Jerusalem: How God Can Speak to You Through ‘Coincidence’ [my visit to the Pool of Siloam, Seton Magazine, 12-17-14]

I Was Blessed to Visit Bethlehem in 2014. What Joy! [National Catholic Register, 12-31-17; originally 12-26-14]

Visiting Golgotha in Jerusalem is a Sublime Experience [National Catholic Register, 3-21-18]

My visit to the Holy Land in 2014 and my book chronicling it, Footsteps That Echo Forever [35-minute interview with John Benko on The 4 Persons Podcast, 20 March 2025]
*

V. GENESIS

Biblical Flat Earth (?) Cosmology: Dialogue w Atheist (vs. Matthew Green) [9-11-06]

Flat Earth: Biblical Teaching? (vs. Ed Babinski) [9-17-06]

Sodom & Gomorrah & Archaeology: North of the Dead Sea? [10-9-14]

Genesis Contradictory (?) Creation Accounts & Hebrew Time: +Refutation of a Clueless Atheist “Biblical Contradiction” [5-11-17]

The Genesis Creation Accounts and Hebrew Time [National Catholic Register, 7-2-17]

Modernism vs. History in Genesis & Biblical Inspiration [7-23-18]

Seidensticker Folly #14: Something Rather Than Nothing [9-3-18]

Orthodox Interpretation of Genesis and the Serpent [National Catholic Register, 11-19-18]

Scripture, Science, Genesis, & Evolutionary Theory: Mini-Dialogue with an Atheist [8-14-18; rev. 2-18-19]

Seidensticker Folly #38: Eternal Universe vs. an Eternal God [4-16-20]

Ward’s Whoppers #1-3: Genesis 1 vs. 2 (Creation) [5-17-20]

Ward’s Whoppers #4: Which Tree Fruit In Eden to Eat? [5-17-20]

Seidensticker Folly #42: Creation “Ex Nihilo” [8-28-20]

Pearce’s Potshots #39: Ignoring Chiastic Literary Genre in Genesis [7-5-21]

969-Year-Old Methuselah (?) & Genesis Numbers [7-12-21]

Seidensticker Folly #73: Philosophy & “Who Created God?” [7-12-21]

Genesis 10 “Table of Nations”: Authentic History [8-25-21]

Pearce’s Potshots #54: Tower of Babel; Who’s the “Idiot”? [11-24-21]

Table of Nations (Gen 10), Interpretation, & History [11-27-21]

Sodom Obliterated (Chapter Four from my book, The Word Set in Stone: How Archaeology, Science, and History Back up the Bible) [1-26-23]

The Tower of Babel, Archaeology, & Linguistics [4-13-23]

Linguistic Confusion and the Tower of Babel [National Catholic Register, 6-21-22]

Tower of Babel: Dialogue with a Linguist [6-26-23]

Tower of Babel & Linguistic Confusion: Possible Anthropological Explanation [Catholic365, 12-7-23]
*

VI. ADAM AND EVE AND CAIN / GARDEN OF EDEN

Adam & Eve, Cain, Abel, & Noah: Historical Figures [2-20-08]

Historicity of Adam and Eve [9-23-11; rev. 1-6-22]

Defending the Literal, Historical Adam of the Genesis Account (vs. Catholic Eric S. Giunta) [9-25-11]

“Where Did Cain Get His Wife?” [3-7-13]

Adam & Eve of Genesis: Historical & the Primal Human Pair [11-28-13]

Adam & Eve & Original Sin: Disproven by Science? [9-7-15]

Only Ignoramuses Believe in Adam & Eve? [9-9-15]

Dialogue on How Cain Found a Wife [6-22-18]

DOCUMENTARY: Science & the Search for the Garden of Eden [see also the written transcript] [Lux Veritatis, 5-10-25]

VII. NOAH AND THE FLOOD

Old Earth, Flood Geology, Local Flood, & Uniformitarianism (vs. Kevin Rice) [5-25-04; many defunct links removed and new ones added: 5-10-17]

Adam & Eve, Cain, Abel, & Noah: Historical Figures [2-20-08]

Noah’s Flood and Catholicism: Important Basic Facts [8-18-15]

Do Carnivores on the Ark Disprove Christianity? [9-10-15]

New Testament Evidence for Noah’s Existence [National Catholic Register, 3-11-18]

Seidensticker Folly #49: Noah & 2 or 7 Pairs of Animals [9-7-20]

Pearce’s Potshots #36: Noah’s Flood: 40 or 150 Days or Neither? [7-1-21]

Pearce’s Potshots #37: Length of Noah’s Flood Redux [7-2-21]

Local Flood & Atheist Ignorance of Christian Thought [7-2-21]

Pearce’s Potshots #38: Chiasmus & “Redundancy” in Flood Stories (Also, a Summary Statement on Catholics and the Documentary Hypothesis) [7-4-21]

Local Mesopotamian Flood: An Apologia [7-9-21]

Pearce’s Potshots #47: Mockery of a Local Flood (+ Striking Analogies Between the Biblical Flood and the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927) [9-30-21]

Pearce’s Potshots #48: Flood of Irrationality & Cowardice [10-1-21]

Noah’s Flood: Not Anthropologically Universal + Miscellany [10-5-21]

Debate: Historical Local Flood & Biblical Hyperbole [11-12-21]

Pearce Pablum #72: Flood: 25 Criticisms & Non Sequiturs [3-8-22]

Noah’s Ark: Josephus, Earlier Historians, & Church Fathers (Early Witnesses of the Ark Resting on Jabel [Mt.] Judi) [3-16-22]

Biblical Size of Noah’s Ark: Literal or Symbolic? [3-16-22]

Atheist Jonathan MS Pearce’s Straw Man Global Flood [8-30-22]

VIII. ABRAHAM, ISAAC, JACOB, AND JOSEPH (PATRIARCHS) / HEBREW BONDAGE IN EGYPT

Isaac and Abraham’s Agony: Dialogue with Agnostic [June 1999]

Why is Melchizedek So Important? [National Catholic Register, 1-15-18]

Ward’s Whoppers #5: Isaac: Abraham’s “Only” Son? [5-18-20]

Pearce’s Potshots #28: Pharaoh Didn’t Know Joseph?! [5-26-21]

Genesis, Joseph, Archaeology, & Biblical Accuracy (+ A Brief Survey of Evidence for “The King’s Highway” in Jordan in the Bronze Age: Prior to 1000 BC) [6-8-21]

Abraham, Warring Kings of Genesis 14, & History [7-31-21]

Ehrman Errors #1: Philistines, Beersheba, Bible Accuracy [3-18-22]

Sodom Obliterated (Chapter Four from my book, The Word Set in Stone: How Archaeology, Science, and History Back up the Bible) [1-26-23]

Egyptian Proof of Hebrew Slaves During Jacob’s Time [2-17-23]

Walking the Journey of Abraham (Chapter Three from my book, The Word Set in Stone: How Archaeology, Science, and History Back up the Bible) [3-2-23]

Evidence for Hebrews / Semites in Egypt: 2000-1200 B.C. [5-3-23]
*

Biblical Hebrew Names with an Egyptian Etymology [5-9-23]

Abraham: Justified Twice by Works & Once by Faith [8-30-23]

Abraham and Ongoing Justification by Faith and Works [National Catholic Register, 9-19-23]
*

Abraham’s Justification By Faith & Works (vs. Jordan Cooper) + Catholic Exegesis Regarding St. Paul’s Specific Meaning of “Works” in Romans 4 [3-1-24]

IX. MOSES AND THE EXODUS

Documentary Theory of Biblical Authorship (JEPD): Dialogue [2-12-04]

Reply to a Calvinist: Hardening of Pharaoh’s Heart (vs. Colin Smith) [10-14-06]

Did Moses (and God) Sin In Judging the Midianites (Numbers 31)? [5-21-08]

Righteous and Sinful Anger in Moses: Smashing the Tablets and the Rock at Meribah [5-22-08]

God “Hardening Hearts”: How Do We Interpret That? [12-18-08; expanded on 1-4-17]

Documentary Theory (Pentateuch): Critical Articles [6-21-10]

The Bronze Serpent: Example of Proper Use of Images [Feb. 2012]

Patterns of Evidence: Exodus: Superb Pop Archaeology [12-23-15]

Seidensticker Folly #5: Has Archaeology Disproven the Exodus? [8-15-18]

Seidensticker Folly #16: Two Sets of Ten Commandments? [9-10-18]

Seidensticker Folly #19: Torah & OT Teach Polytheism? [9-18-18]

C. S. Lewis Roundly Mocked the Documentary Hypothesis [10-6-19]

Ward’s Whoppers #7-8: “God of Abraham…” / Passover [5-18-20]

Ward’s Whoppers #9-10: Parting the Red Sea / “Foreigners” [5-18-20]

Ward’s Whoppers #11-12: Ten Commandments Issues [5-19-20]

Moses & Aaron & Their Staff(s): Biblical Contradictions? (vs. Dr. Steven DiMattei) [11-21-20]

Golden Calf & Cherubim: Biblical Contradiction? (vs. Dr. Steven DiMattei) [11-23-20]

A Bible Puzzle About the Staff of Moses and Aaron [National Catholic Register, 1-14-21]

Pearce’s Potshots #30: Passover Disproves God’s Omniscience? [5-27-21]

Pearce’s Potshots #33: No Philistines in Moses’ Time? [6-3-21]

Did Moses Exist? No Absolute Proof, But Strong Evidence (Pearce’s Potshots #35, in Which Our Brave Hero Classifies Moses as “a Mythological Figure” and I Reply!) [6-14-21]

Using the Bible to Debunk the Bible Debunkers (Is the Mention of ‘Pitch’ in Exodus an Anachronism?) [National Catholic Register, 6-30-21]

Pearce’s Potshots #38: Chiasmus & “Redundancy” in Flood Stories (Also, a Summary Statement on Catholics and the Documentary Hypothesis) [7-4-21]

Archaeology, Ancient Hebrew, & a Written Pentateuch (+ a Plausible Scenario for Moses Gaining Knowledge of Hittite Legal Treaties in His Egyptian Official Duties) [7-31-21]

In Search of the Real Mt. Sinai (Fascinating Topographical and Biblical Factors Closely Examined) [8-16-21]

Acacia, Ark of the Covenant, & Biblical Accuracy [8-24-21]

The Tabernacle: Egyptian & Near Eastern Precursors (Archaeology Entirely Backs Up the Extraordinary Accuracy of Holy Scripture Yet Again) [9-8-21]

Science, Hebrews and a Bevy of Quail [National Catholic Register, 11-14-21]

Pearce Pablum #68: “Thou Shalt Not Kill” [Murder] [3-2-22]

A Pharaoh’s Death (Ex 2:23) & Exodus Chronology [7-27-22]

Fascinating Biblical Considerations About Mount Sinai [National Catholic Register, 11-23-22]

Does the Pentateuch Claim to be Inspired Revelation? + Do the Several Third-Person References to Moses in the Pentateuch Prove That He Didn’t Write It? [12-14-22]

Moses Wrote the Torah: 50 External Evidences (Reply to Atheist “Lex Lata”) [12-14-22]

When Was the Exodus: 15th or 13th Century B.C.? [4-15-23]

Manna: Possibly a Natural Phenomenon? [5-5-23]

Did the Hebrews Cross the Red Sea or the “Reed Sea”?: And Which Specific Body of Water Did They Cross, According to the Combined Deductions and Determinations of the Bible and Archaeology? [5-9-23]

Moses, Eyewitnesses, & 1st-Person Torah References [12-15-22; slightly revised on 8-7-23]

Two Quick Old Testament Proofs for the Oral Torah [Catholic365, 11-8-23]
*

Moses, Science, and Water from Rocks [Catholic365, 11-18-23]
*

Moses & Water From Rocks: A Closer Look [1-7-24]

Why Did God Get Angry at Moses for Striking the Rock? [National Catholic Register, 2-3-24]
*

In Search of the Biblical Mt. Sinai [6-18-25]
*

Parting of the Red Sea: Wind, Tides or Miracle? [National Catholic Register, 6-19-25]

*
X. JOSHUA AND THE CONQUEST OF CANAAN / SAMSON / ERA OF THE JUDGES

Pearce’s Potshots #32: No Evidence for Joshua’s Conquest? [5-28-21]

What Archaeology Tells Us About Joshua’s Conquest [National Catholic Register, 7-8-21]

Jericho and Archaeology — Disproof of the Bible? (Here is one possible explanation for the high level of erosion in Jericho) [National Catholic Register, 9-26-21]

Ehrman Errors #5: Hazor Battles “Contradictions”? (Including Possible Archaeological Evidence for the Battle of Deborah in Judges 4) [3-23-22]

Ehrman Errors #6: Joshua’s Conquest & Science [3-23-22]

Archaeology & Judges-Era Lead & Tin Trade [1-26-23]

Samson’s Death-Scene: Archaeological Confirmation [3-27-23]
*

Did Samson Really Destroy the Philistine Temple With His Bare Hands? [National Catholic Register, 4-28-23]

Joshua’s Conquest: Rapid, Always Violent, & Total? [5-1-23]
*
Jericho: Did the Walls Collapse Due to Resonance? [5-1-23]

What Made the Walls of Jericho Fall? [National Catholic Register, 5-20-23]

Archaeology and Samson’s Death-Scene [Catholic365, 12-8-23]

Jericho & Archaeology: Replies To Atheists [12-30-23]
*

Samson’s Death-Story & Secular Archaeology [6-19-25]
*

XI. SAUL, DAVID, AND SOLOMON / KINGDOMS OF JUDAH AND ISRAEL

“Why Did God Kill 70,000 Israelites for David’s Sin?” [4-13-20]

Ward’s Whoppers #13: How Did David Kill Goliath? [5-19-20]

Rarity of Non-Biblical Mentions of King David Explained [9-16-21]

King Hezekiah: Exciting New Archaeological Findings [12-13-22]
*

Archaeology & Solomon’s Temple-Period Ivory [1-28-23]

Archaeology & King Rehoboam’s Wall in Lachish [1-31-23]

Archaeology Confirms Dates of Five Biblical Battles: Battles at Beth She’an (c. 926 BC), Beth Shemesh (c. 790 BC), Bethsaida & Kinneret (732 BC), and Lachish (701 BC) [2-6-23]

King David: from “Myth” to History (excerpt from my 2023 book, The Word Set in Stone: How Archaeology, Science, and History Back Up the Bible) [3-14-23]
*

King Solomon’s “Mines” & Archaeological Evidence [3-24-23]
*

Ziklag (David’s Refuge from Saul) & Archaeology [3-29-23]
*

Archaeology & First-Temple Period Bethlehem [4-6-23]
*

King Ahab, Queen Jezebel, & Archaeology [4-7-23]
*

Fall of Jerusalem (586 B.C.), Archaeology, & Biblical Accuracy [4-10-23]

Assyrian King Sennacherib, the Bible, & Archaeology [4-17-23]

Archaeology & Ten (More) Kings of Judah & Israel [4-20-23]
*

Solomon’s “Impossible” (?) Wealth & Archaeology [4-25-23]
*

Solomon’s Temple and its Archaeological Analogies (Also, Parallels to Solomon’s Palace) [4-25-23]

The Queen of Sheba, Solomon, & Archaeology [4-27-23]
*

Archaeology, Solomon and the Queen of Sheba [National Catholic Register, 6-2-23]

Archaeology and King Solomon’s Mines [National Catholic Register, 6-29-23]

Was King David Mythical or Historical? [National Catholic Register, 7-24-23]
*

Solomon’s Rebuilding Of Gezer & Archaeology [4-24-24]
*

Hazael’s Sack of Gath (2 Kgs 12:17) & Archaeology (+ Scientific Corroboration of the Biblical Data Regarding Kiln-Baked Bricks) [4-24-24]
*

VIDEO: How Tall Was Goliath? The Truth Revealed! [Lux Veritatis, 6-10-25]

XII. EZRA, NEHEMIAH, AND JOB

Ezra: Archaeological & Historical Corroboration [3-31-23]
*
Nehemiah: Archaeological & Historical Corroboration [3-31-23]

Book of Job, Archaeology, History, & Geography [4-1-23]

Archaeology Supports the Book of Nehemiah [National Catholic Register, 11-30-23]

XIII. ANCIENT ISRAEL’S ENEMIES

“How Can God Order the Massacre of Innocents?” (Amalekites, etc.) [11-10-07]

Did Moses (and God) Sin In Judging the Midianites (Numbers 31)? [5-21-08]

“Higher” Hapless Haranguing of Hypothetical Hittites (19th C.) [10-21-11; abridged 7-7-20]

Ward’s Whoppers #13: How Did David Kill Goliath? [5-19-20]

“Love Your Enemies”: Old Testament Teaching Too? [9-7-20]

Pearce’s Potshots #33: No Philistines in Moses’ Time? [6-3-21]

Arameans, Amorites, and Archaeological Accuracy [6-8-21]

Edomites: Archaeology Confirms the Bible (As Always) [6-10-21]

Moses, Kadesh, Negev, Bronze Age, & Archaeology [6-10-21]

Goliath’s Height: Six Feet 9 Inches, 7 Feet 8, or 9 Feet 9? [7-4-21]

Pearce’s Potshots #41: 13th c. BC Canaanite Iron Chariots [7-16-21]

Pearce’s Potshots #42: 12th c. BC Moabite & Ammonite Kings (The Broad Definition of “King” in the Ancient Near East, + Biblical Use of “Chiefs of Edom”) [7-19-21]

How Tall Was Goliath? [National Catholic Register, 8-30-21]

XIV. THE PROPHETS

Dialogue w Agnostic on Elijah & John the Baptist [9-24-06]

Catholics and the Historicity of Jonah the Prophet [6-27-08]

Loftus Atheist Error #10: Prophet Jeremiah vs. Mosaic Law? [9-11-19]

Prophet Elisha and Archaeology [4-4-22]

Prophet Elijah and Archaeology [4-13-22]

Is There Any Archaeological Support for the Prophet Daniel? [National Catholic Register, 4-25-22]

Daniel & the Lion’s Den & History [3-11-23]

Was Jonah in the Belly of a Whale? Yes, But . . . [3-27-23]
*

Did God Raise Jonah from the Dead? [National Catholic Register, 4-20-23]

Jeremiah’s Catholic & Very UnProtestant Soteriology [7-31-23]
*

Isaiah’s Catholic & UnProtestant Soteriology [8-1-23]
*

Minor Prophets: Their Theology of Salvation [8-2-23]
*

The Prophet Jeremiah Explains the Catholic Teaching on Salvation [National Catholic Register, 8-17-23]

The Prophet Isaiah Explains How God Saves Us [National Catholic Register, 8-30-23]
*

Nebuchadnezzar As A Cow: Curable Or Not? [12-31-23]
*

XV. OLD TESTAMENT: DOCTRINE OF GOD / YHWH

Seidensticker Folly #19: Torah & OT Teach Polytheism? [9-18-18]

Seidensticker Folly #20: An Evolving God in the OT? (God’s Omnipotence, Omniscience, & Omnipresence in Early Bible Books & Ancient Jewish Understanding) [9-18-18]

Loftus Atheist Error #8: Ancient Jews, “Body” of God, & Polytheism [9-10-19]

Do the OT & NT Teach Polytheism or Henotheism? [7-1-20]

Seidensticker Folly #70: Biblical “Henotheism” [?] Redux [1-31-21]

XVI. OLD TESTAMENT: GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS

FEATURED: Bible & Archaeology / Bible & Science (A Collection) [6-30-21]

FEATURED: OT & Archaeology: 25 Fascinating Confirmations (From Noah to Joshua”: the Hebrew Scripture is Extraordinarily Accurate & True to History) [9-21-21]

Judgment of Nations: A Collection of Biblical Passages [9-21-01]

Judgment of Nations: Biblical Commentary and Reflections [9-21-01]

Why Did God Kill Onan? (The Bible on Contraception) [2-9-04]

Dialogue: Why Did God Kill Onan? (Contraception) [2-13-04]

God’s Judgment of Humans (Sometimes, Entire Nations) [2-16-07]

Did God Command Jephthah to Burn His Daughter? [6-8-09]

God’s “Punishing” of Descendants: Unjust? [7-8-10]

Israel as God’s Agent of Judgment [9-28-14]

Does God Ever Judge People by Sending Disease? [10-30-17]

Seidensticker Folly #10: Slavery in the Old Testament [8-20-18]

Seidensticker Folly #12: God Likes Child Sacrifice? Huh?! [8-21-18]

Seidensticker Folly #17: “to the third and fourth generations”? [9-11-18]

Does God Punish to the Fourth Generation? [National Catholic Register, 10-1-18]

Did God Immorally “Murder” King David’s Innocent Child? (God’s Providence and Permissive Will, and Hebrew Non-Literal Anthropomorphism) [5-6-19]

Old Testament Sacrifices: Killing Animals to be Saved? [8-17-19]

David Madison vs. Paul and Romans #9: Chapter 9 (“Hardening Hearts” and Hebrew “Block Logic”) [8-30-19]

Salvation and Eternal Afterlife in the Old Testament [8-31-19]

Loftus Atheist Error #9: Bible Espouses Mythical Animals? [9-10-19]

Salvation and Immortality Are Not Just New Testament Ideas [National Catholic Register, 9-23-19]

The Bible and Mythical Animals[National Catholic Register, 10-9-19]

The Bible is Not “Anti-Scientific,” as Skeptics Claim [National Catholic Register, 10-23-19]

“Why Did God Kill 70,000 Israelites for David’s Sin?” [4-13-20]

Ward’s Whoppers #14: Who Caused Job’s Suffering? [5-20-20]

Ward’s Whoppers #17-21: Proverbs Allow of Exceptions [5-21-20]

Seidensticker Folly #54: “Neighbor” in OT = Jews Only? [9-12-20]

Dialogue: Purgatory & 2 Maccabees 12:39-45 [11-8-20]

God in Heaven & in His Temple: Contradiction? (vs. Dr. Steven DiMattei) [11-23-20]

Dual Fulfillment of Prophecy & the Virgin Birth (vs. JMS Pearce) [12-18-20]

Pearce’s Potshots #27: Anachronistic “Israelites”? [5-25-21]

Camels Help Bible Readers Get Over the Hump of Bible Skepticism [National Catholic Register, 7-21-21]

Archaeology, Ancient Hebrew, & a Written Pentateuch (+ a Plausible Scenario for Moses Gaining Knowledge of Hittite Legal Treaties in His Egyptian Official Duties) [7-31-21]

Archaeology: Biblical Maximalism vs. Minimalism (+ Dates of the Patriarchs and Other Major Events and People in the Old Testament) [9-9-21]

Pearce’s Potshots #55: “3” in the Bible & Literature [12-1-21]

Pearce’s Potshots #67: Camels Make an Ass of a Man [3-1-22]

Timeline of the Patriarchs: A Summary [Facebook, 9-28-22]

Books by Dave Armstrong: The Word Set in Stone: How Archaeology, Science, and History Back Up the Bible [1-24-23]

Introduction for My Book: The Word Set in Stone: How Archaeology, Science, and History Back up the Bible + Near Eastern Archaeological Periods and Timeline of the Patriarchs [1-24-23]

Archaeology & a Proto-Hebrew Language in 1800 BC [1-31-23]

15 Archaeological Proofs of Old Testament Accuracy (short summary points from the book, The Word Set in Stone) [National Catholic Register, 3-23-23]

The Word Set in Stone: “Volume Two”: More Evidence of Archaeology, Science, and History Backing Up the Bible (free book with 100 sections) [5-25-23]

Bp. Barron’s Word on Fire Bible (The Pentateuch) [7-6-23]

Book of Judith: History, Allegory, Or Aspects of Both? [Facebook, 11-10-23]

XVII. ISRAEL AND THE PALESTINIANS

Discussion on Israeli-Gaza Strip Conflict of July 2014 [Facebook, 7-23-14]

Dialogue on Israeli-Palestinian Relations [with Alex Brittain, Facebook, 3-18-15]

*
***
*

Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them. If you believe my full-time apostolate is worth supporting, please seriously consider a much-needed monthly or one-time financial contribution. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV).

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle and 100% tax-deductible donations if desired), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information.

You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my two YouTube channels, Catholic Bible Highlights and Lux Veritatis (featuring documentaries), where I partner with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos), and/or by signing up to receive notice for new articles on this blog. Just type your email address on the sidebar to the right (scroll down quite a bit), where you see, “Sign Me Up!” Thanks a million!

***

Last updated on 20 June 2025

Salvation, Justification, & “Faith Alone” (Index Page)

Last updated on: June 26, 2025 at 10:28 am By Dave Armstrong

(October 2010, 187 pages)

[much more book information and purchase options]

***** Catholic Salvation: 1871 Bible Passages [12-27-24] *****

*****

TABLE OF CONTENTS

***

I. GENERAL (CATHOLIC SOTERIOLOGY) / INFUSED JUSTIFICATION

II. “FAITH ALONE” / FAITH AND WORKS

III. SANCTIFICATION

IV. THEOSIS / DIVINIZATION / DEIFICATION

V. PRAYER

VI. SIN / MORTAL AND VENIAL SIN

VII. ASSURANCE OF SALVATION / ETERNAL SECURITY / FALLING AWAY / APOSTASY / EXAMINATION OF CONSCIENCE

VIII. PREDESTINATION / GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY / PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS

IX. LIMITED VS. UNIVERSAL ATONEMENT

X. ERROR OF UNIVERSALISM

XI. THE GOSPEL, DISCIPLESHIP, REVIVAL, “RELIGION”, “PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH JESUS”

XII. GRACE, IRRESISTIBLE GRACE, CATHOLIC ANTI-PELAGIANISM, AND SYNERGISM

XIII. MERIT AND REWARDS / HOLY AND RIGHTEOUS PEOPLE

XIV. ORIGINAL SIN AND TOTAL DEPRAVITY

***

I. GENERAL (CATHOLIC SOTERIOLOGY) / INFUSED JUSTIFICATION

Joe Hardhat, the Quintessential Catholic: On Justification [cartoon tract with Dan Grajek, early 90s]

Justification: Classic Catholic & Protestant Reflections [1994]

Fictional Dialogue: Justification & Salvation [1995]

Salvation and Justification in the Gospels and Acts [21 passages] [1996]

Trent Doesn’t Utterly Exclude Imputation (Kenneth Howell) [July 1996]

Dialogue w Baptist on Romans 1:1-3 & Justification [January 1997; revised 8-11-00]

Reply to Atheist Queries Re God (Esp. Trinity & Salvation) [late April 2001]

Council of Trent: Canons on Justification (with a handy summary of Tridentine soteriology) [12-29-03]

“Catholicism Refuted”? (Kevin Cauley): Pt. V: Salvation (+ Purgatory Again) [12-11-04]

Catholics’ Underemphasis on Justification by Faith [3-30-06]

Ecumenical Dialogue: Protestant & Catholic Soteriology [7-8-07]

Comparative Soteriology (Salvation): A Handy Chart [7-19-08]

The Theology of Salvation (+ Pt. 2): chapter four (pp. 161-235) of my 2009 book, Bible Truths for Catholic Truths: A Source Book for Apologists and Inquirers [10-17-23]

Salvation is a Process & Not Instantaneously Assured [2009]

Bible on the Nature of Saving Faith (Including Assent, Trust, Hope, Works, Obedience, and Sanctification) [380 passages] [1-21-10]

Biblical “Power”: Proof of Infused (Catholic) Justification [12 passages] [3-14-11]

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

Various Thoughts on Salvation “Outside” the Church [2012]

St. Paul’s Use of the Term “Gift” & Infused Justification [19 passages] [2013]

Salvation: By Grace Alone, Not Faith Alone or Works [19 passages] [2013]

Our Prayers and Souls Ending Up in Heaven or Hell [3-26-14]

St. Peter Sinking (Faith & Jesus’ Expectations) [8-11-14]

Salvation, Eternal Security, & Grace: Dialogue w Bethany Kerr [4-13-15]

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

Catholicism = “False Gospel”?: Exchange with Anti-Catholic [3-18-17]

Is God Alone Holy, According to Scripture? Or Can We Be Too? [5-3-17]

Why Desire Salvation?”: Reply to a Non-Christian Inquirer [National Catholic Register, 7-7-17]

“The Lord Helps Those Who Help Themselves” [National Catholic Register, 7-19-17]

Biblical Evidence for Salvation as a Process [National Catholic Register, 8-4-17]

Biblical Evidence for Catholic Justification [National Catholic Register, 11-2-17]

Seidensticker Folly #29: Repentance: Part of Salvation [10-26-18]

Salvation and Eternal Afterlife in the Old Testament [26 passages] [8-31-19]

Salvation and Immortality Are Not Just New Testament Ideas [National Catholic Register, 9-23-19]

Weekly Mass Attenders Can Still End Up in Hell? Yes! (Attending Mass — Even for an Entire Lifetime — Doesn’t Excuse Us from the Moral Requirements of Christianity, Including Confession of Sin [1-24-20]

Dialogue: Galatians 3 & Justification (vs. Jason Engwer) [5-29-20]

Baptismal Regeneration and Justification (vs. Jason Engwer) [6-4-20]

The Bible Makes It Clear: Religion Means Relationship With God (and good works) [National Catholic Register, 6-18-21]

Ehrman Errors #3: Jesus vs. Paul on Salvation? [3-22-22]

Justification: A Catholic Perspective (vs. Francisco Tourinho) [6-22-22]

Reply to Francisco Tourinho on Justification: Round 2 (Pt. 1) [+ Part 2] [+ Part 3] [7-19-22]

Ongoing Justification and the Indwelling Holy Spirit [National Catholic Register, 8-1-22]

The Great Justification Debate [with Francisco Tourinho] (Waitin’ . . .) [Facebook, 8-22-22]

Biblical Justification: vs. Francisco Tourinho (Round 3, Pt. 1) [10-20-22]

Peter and Paul Distorts Peter’s Life & Paul’s Teaching [2-25-23]

Jeremiah’s Catholic & Very UnProtestant Soteriology [44 passages] [7-31-23]

Isaiah’s Catholic & UnProtestant Soteriology [45 passages] [8-1-23]
*

Minor Prophets: Their Theology of Salvation [107 passages] [8-2-23]

The Prophet Jeremiah Explains the Catholic Teaching on Salvation [National Catholic Register, 8-17-23]

Justification: vs. Francisco Tourinho (Round 3, Pt. 2) [8-23-23]

Justification: vs. Francisco Tourinho (Rd. 3, Pt. 3) [8-30-23]

Abraham: Justified Twice by Works & Once by Faith [8-30-23]

Justification in the Book of James (Different from Paul?) [8-30-23]

The Prophet Isaiah Explains How God Saves Us [National Catholic Register, 8-30-23]

Abraham and Ongoing Justification by Faith and Works [National Catholic Register, 9-19-23]

Rescuing Romans from Martin Foord [9-22-23]

Justification is Ongoing, By Analogy Like Salvation (As Ten NT Passages Assert) [Facebook, 9-22-23]

Reply to Jason Engwer on Justification [9-23-23]

Abraham’s Multiple Justifications by Works & Faith: Quick Summary of Biblical Proofs [Facebook, 10-4-23]

Last Day: What Jesus Says To The Elect (Vs. Gavin Ortlund) + Bible Passages On the Organic Relationship of Faith, Works, Grace, Obedience, & Salvation [2-16-24]

Justification: Reply to Jordan Cooper (Highlighting Love as the Fulfilling of the Law & Commandments, in Relation to Justification & Salvation) [4-23-24]

Augsburg Confession Dialogues: Justification [5-3-24]

Grace-Caused Faith is Catholic Teaching, Too! (Please, Someone Tell James Swan and Get Him Up to Speed) [6-12-24]

Millions of Christians Think Baptism Is Unrelated to Justification — Here’s Why They’re Wrong [National Catholic Register, 6-22-24]

Catholic Soteriology (Theology of Salvation) in a Nutshell [Facebook, 9-23-24]

Salvation as a Process: 75 NT Passages [11-16-24]

Catholic Salvation: 1871 Bible Passages [12-27-24]

Works & Sanctification Partly Cause Salvation: 34 Passages [1-30-25]

The “Three-Legged Stool” of Salvation (Catholic Soteriology Briefly Explained) [Facebook, 2-13-25]

Hold Fast to Hope: A Biblical Guide to Confidence in Salvation [National Catholic Register, 2-27-25]

VIDEO: NO! Jesus and Paul never taught “FAITH ALONE” [20+ Bible Verses] [with Kenny Burchard at Catholic Bible Highlights, 3-14-25]

VIDEO: What The Bible REALLY Says About Faith and Good Works [20+ Bible Verses; Part 2] [with Kenny Burchard at Catholic Bible Highlights, 3-27-25]

II. “FAITH ALONE” / FAITH AND WORKS

Justification: Faith Apart From Works is Barren [4-4-94; rev. 1996]

“Doing Something” for Salvation: Dialogue w Evangelical [1996]

Faith Alone & Original Sin: Reply to Smalcald Articles [1-30-01]

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

“If You Died Tonight”: Debate w Matt Slick of CARM [5-22-03]

Initial Justification & “Faith Alone”: Harmonious? [5-3-04]

Faith & Works: Oil & Water or Two Sides of a Coin? [2004]

Paul vs. Calvin: “Doers of the Law” Will be Justified [2004]

Luther’s “Snow-Covered Dunghill” (Myth?) [10-5-05]

John Wesley (Founder of Methodism), Denied “Faith Alone”? [10-20-05]

Luther’s Projection of His Depression & Crises Onto St. Paul [6-1-06]

Dialogue on Luther’s “Getting to a Gracious God” (vs. Lutheran historian “CPA”) [6-4-06]

Alister McGrath on the Protestant Innovation (Corruption?) of Imputed Justification [Facebook, 8-28-06]

Dialogue w Three Lutherans on Justification & Salvation [2-1-07]

Final Judgment & Works (Not Faith): 50 Passages [2-10-08]

Catholic-Protestant Common Ground (Esp. Re Good Works) [4-8-08]

“Working Out” Salvation & Protestant Soteriology (vs. Ken Temple) [4-9-08]

Martin Luther: Good Works Prove Authentic Faith [4-16-08]

St. Paul on Grace, Faith, & Works (50 Passages) [8-6-08]

John Calvin: Good Works Manifest True Saving Faith [9-4-08]

Original Sin, Imputation, & Baptism (vs. Calvin #40) [11-17-09]

Bible on Faith, Works, and Judgment (vs. Jason Engwer) [12-16-09]

Grace, Faith, Works, & Judgment: A Scriptural Exposition [12-16-09; reformulated & abridged on 3-15-17]

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

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

Martin Luther: Faith Alone is Not Lawless Antinomianism [2-28-10]

Catholics & Justification by Faith Alone : Is There a Sense in Which Catholics Can Accept “Faith Alone” and/or Imputed Justification (with Proper Biblical Qualifications)? [9-28-10]

Dialogue with a Lutheran: Salvation & Miscellany [10-14-11]

“Leaven” of the Pharisees: Hypocrisy or False Doctrine? (vs. Lutheran Nathan Rinne) [11-3-11]

The “Obedience of Faith” in Paul and its Soteriological Implications (Justification and Denial of “Faith Alone”) [from Ferdinand Prat, S. J.; Facebook, 2-1-12]

Can Only Regenerate Men Perform Truly Good Works? (vs. John Calvin) [Oct. 2012]

Catholic & Calvinist Agreement on Justification & Works [2012]

Scripture on Being Co-Workers with God for Salvation [72 passages] [2013]

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

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

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

Final Judgment Always Has to Do with Works and Never with “Faith Alone” [9-5-14]

Jesus vs. “Faith Alone” (Rich Young Ruler) [10-12-15]

Dialogue: Rich Young Ruler & Good Works [10-14-15]

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

Final Judgment is Not a Matter of “Faith Alone” At All [National Catholic Register, 10-7-16]

Reply to a Calvinist on Faith Alone and Works [of God Only?] [4-4-17]

Debate with a Lutheran Pastor on Faith and Works [5-4-17]

Catholics and Protestants Agree on Grace Alone and the Necessity of the Presence of Good Works in Regenerate and Ultimately Saved Persons; Disagree on Faith Alone [5-4-17]

How Are We Saved? Faith Alone? Or the Way Jesus Taught? [National Catholic Register, 5-11-17]

Armstrong vs. Collins & Walls #8: Heretical Tobit? (Alms & Salvation) [10-20-17]

Armstrong vs. Collins & Walls #12: Salvation (Soteriology) [10-22-17]

“Faith and Works”: Unbiblical, Semi-Pelagian Terminology? [11-4-17]

Seidensticker Folly #22: Contradiction? Saved by Faith or Works? [10-1-18]

“Faith Alone”?: Quick & Decisive Biblical Refutation [1-8-19]

“Faith Alone” & Salvation: Dialogue w Lutheran Pastor (vs. Rev. Ken Howes) [2-18-19]

Calvinist Origin of Luther’s (?) “Snow-Covered Dunghill”? [5-14-19]

‘Doers of the Law’ Are Justified, Says St. Paul [National Catholic Register, 5-22-19]

Jesus on Salvation: Works, Merit and Sacrifice [National Catholic Register, 7-28-19]

Jesus: Faith + Works (Not Faith Alone) Leads to Salvation [8-1-19]

Old Testament Sacrifices: Killing Animals to be Saved? [8-17-19]

David Madison vs. Paul and Romans #3: Chapter 3 (Pauline / Biblical Soteriology: Faith and Works, Grace and Merit / Hyperbole [“No one is good”]) [8-27-19]

Vs. James White #6: Faith & Works, and First John [11-11-19]

First John, Faith and Works, and Falling Away [National Catholic Register, 11-24-19]

Good Works and Men, God’s Grace, and Regeneration (vs. John Calvin) [National Catholic Register, 8-6-20]

Defense of Bible Passages vs. Eternal Security & Faith Alone (vs. Jason Engwer) [8-12-20]

Banzoli’s 45 “Faith Alone” Passages; My 200 Biblical Disproofs [6-16-22]

What the Bible Says About Justification by Faith and Works [National Catholic Register, 7-27-22]

Luther’s Translation of “Faith Alone” in Romans 3:28 (Also: Did “Early Erasmus” Agree with Luther?) [12-7-22]

Luther, James, Faith & Works: Additional Relevant Data [3-7-23]

“All Our Righteousnesses Are As Filthy Rags” (Is 64:6, KJV): Does Isaiah 64:6 (“even our best actions are filthy through and through”: GNB) Prove That All Works Whatsoever, Done by Regenerated Persons in Faith and By Grace, Are Absolutely Worthless? [6-30-23]

Dialogue on Meritorious Works & the Gospel [6-30-23]

Dialogue: Rich Young Ruler, Works, & Salvation [7-3-23]

Jesus: Good Works are Meritorious & Salvific: Highlighting the Discourse at the Last Supper and Sermon on the Mount [9-4-23]

The Classic Catholic-Protestant Debate on “Faith Alone” (Sola Fide) in a Nutshell [Facebook, 9-23-23]

Why the Apostles Would Have Flunked Out of Protestant Seminary (original title: “Meritorious and Salvific Works According to Jesus”) [National Catholic Register, 9-28-23]

Bible: Salvation is Not by Works Alone (Pelagianism) [Facebook, 10-17-23]

“Catholic Verses” #2: Jerusalem Council (Also: the Ten Commandments in the New Covenant; Church Fathers On the Binding Nature of the Council of Nicaea) [10-25-23]

Sola Fide (Faith Alone) Nonexistent Before the Protestant Revolt in 1517 (Geisler & McGrath) [Catholic365, 10-31-23]

Abraham’s Justification By Faith & Works (vs. Jordan Cooper) + Catholic Exegesis Regarding St. Paul’s Specific Meaning of “Works” in Romans 4 [3-1-24]

Luther’s “Tower” Justification Idea & Catholicism + Early Catholic Church & St. Thomas Aquinas on Grace Alone (Contra Pelagianism) & Justification [5-28-24]

Eck vs. Protestantism Chronicles: Good Works [5-31-24]

Works & Salvation: Luther vs. Scripture [7-4-24]

Bible vs. Faith Alone: 2 Thessalonians 2:13 [7-15-24]

Bible vs. Faith Alone: Romans 6:22 [7-15-24]

Bible vs. Faith Alone: Acts 26:18 [7-18-24]

Bible vs. Faith Alone: Acts 15:9 [7-19-24]

Quick, Decisive Refutation of “Faith Alone” from Jesus, Paul, and James [Facebook, 8-15-24]

Meaning of “Live By Faith” (Hab 2:4, Rom 1:17, Etc.) [8-16-24]

Reply to Melanchthon: Justification #1 (Moral Assurance of Salvation / Examination of Conscience / Bible On Apostasy / Initial Justification & Faith Alone) [8-29-24]

Reply to Melanchthon: Justification #2: Good Works 1 (“Working Together” with God / Human Striving & Merit / Tridentine Soteriology / David’s & Paul’s Godly “Boasting” / Regenerate Sinners / Romans 7 & 8 & Sin / God is Pleased by Our Meritorious Acts / Colossians 1:28: Imputed Justification?) [8-31-24]

Reply to Melanchthon: Justification #3: Good Works 2 (Trent on “Faith” / Meritorious Works / “Trust” in God / How the Error of “Faith Alone” Originated / Mortal Sin / “Faith” in James) [9-3-24]

Philip Melanchthon in Effect Fights with Jesus Over Faith Alone (Rich Young Ruler Passage) [Facebook, 9-4-24]

Reply to Melanchthon: Justification #4: Good Works 3 (James Refutes Faith Alone / Faith Without Love is Dead, Too / Love & Justification / Jesus Denies Faith Alone: Rich Young Ruler) [9-5-24]

Reply to Melanchthon: Justification #5: Good Works 4 (Isaiah vs. Protestant Soteriology / Absolution, Love, & Remission of Sins / Was Mary Who Wiped Jesus’ Feet with Her Hair, a Believer When She Did So? / Good Works of the Regenerate Rewarded with Heaven) [9-6-24]

Jesus vs. “Faith Alone”: Quick Handy Summary [Facebook, 9-24-24]

Sanctification and Works Are Tied to Salvation [National Catholic Register, 9-26-24]

Salvation Caused by Actions: 80 Bible Passages (. . . Proving That “Faith Alone” is a False Doctrine) [10-5-24]

VIDEO: Can I be saved by “Faith Alone”??? [30+ Verses to Highlight!!] [Kenny Burchard, utilizing my biblical research, 10-6-24]

Bible vs. “Faith Alone”: 100 Proofs (100 Bible Passages On Catholic Justification, Sanctification, and Faith + Works [from 22 out of 27 NT Books]: All Disproving Protestant “Faith Alone” Soteriology) [8-26-24; revised and expanded on 9-10-24, 10-4-24, and 10-8-24]

Reply to a Protestant on “Faith Alone” [10-9-24]
*

Bible on Faith / Belief, etc. “Alone” [?] for Salvation (Fifty Bible Passages Stress Faith or Belief, Regarding the Question of Salvation, Compared to a Hundred that Emphasize or Highlight Works: Flowing from God’s Grace Through Our Faith. Who Woulda Thunk it?!) [10-11-24]
*

VIDEO: Sharing the Gospel with non-Catholics and non-Christians [Kenny Burchard, utilizing my biblical research, 10-16-24]

Reply to Calvin’s Antidote to Trent on Justification (Highlighting “Working Together with God” and Our Grounds for “Boasting” and “Pride” in the Meritorious Work We and Other Christians Do for the Sake of God and Evangelism) [+ Part II] [10-17-24]
*

Bible vs. “Faith Alone” vs. John Calvin #1 (Psalm 7:10; Isaiah 1:27; 26:2; 32:17; 33:15-16; 48:18-19; 56:1) [10-22-24]
*

Bible vs. “Faith Alone” vs. John Calvin #2 (Matthew 7:16-21; 10:22; 16:27) [10-23-24]

Bible vs. “Faith Alone” vs. John Calvin #3 (Matthew 19:16-21: Rich Young Ruler) [10-24-24]

Bible vs. “Faith Alone” vs. John Calvin #4 (Matthew 19:29; 25:34-46; Mark 16:16; Luke 6:35; Acts 10:34-35) [11-19-24]

Faith Alone? 80 Bible Verses Say Otherwise [National Catholic Register, 10-31-24]

Bible vs. “Faith Alone” vs. John Calvin #5 (Acts 26:18; Romans 2:6-10, 13; 6:22; 8:13, 17; 10:16; Hebrews 11:8-9) [12-4-24]

VIDEO: NO! Jesus and Paul never taught “FAITH ALONE” [20+ Bible Verses] [with Kenny Burchard at Catholic Bible Highlights, 3-14-25]

VIDEO: What The Bible REALLY Says About Faith and Good Works [20+ Bible Verses; Part 2] [with Kenny Burchard at Catholic Bible Highlights, 3-27-25]

New Perspective on Paul: Exegesis of “Works of the Law” (Does “Works of the Law” Refer to All Good Works Whatsoever?) [4-4-25]

Reply to Typical Protestant Polemics Regarding “Faith Alone” [Facebook, 5-17-25]

Zwingli vs. John the Baptist & Baptism Re Salvation [6-23-25]
*

III. SANCTIFICATION

St. Paul on Justification, Sanctification, & Salvation [1996]

“All Have Sinned” vs. a Sinless, Immaculate Mary? [1996; revised and posted at National Catholic Register on 12-11-17]

Catholic Bible Verses on Sanctification and Merit [12-20-07]

Martin Luther : Strong Elements in His Thinking of Theosis & Sanctification Linked to Justification [11-23-09]

Jesus Associates Works, Merit, & Heroic Sacrifice w Salvation [11-10-18]

Absolution, Sanctification, & Forgiveness: Reply to Calvin #7 [12-19-18]

Random Thoughts on Justification and Sanctification [Facebook, 6-20-22]

Sanctification: Part & Parcel of Salvation? (vs. Calvin #64) [3-9-23]

Sinless Creatures in the Bible: Actual & Potential (Including a Listing of Many Biblical Passages About Sin, Holiness, Blamelessness, Righteousness, Godliness, Perfection, and Sanctity) [10-20-22; greatly expanded on 7-27-23]

Vs. Turretin #10: Sanctification [5-7-24]

Five Bible Passages That Directly Connect Sanctification with Either Salvation or Faith: Expressly Contrary to “Faith Alone” [Facebook, 7-14-24]

“Blameless” & “Pure” in the Bible (Sinless?): 40 Passages [12-12-24]

Transformation of Believers in the NT: 150 Passages (Regeneration is Only the Beginning . . .) [12-16-24]
*

Is it Possible to Perfectly Keep the Law? [National Catholic Register, 12-31-24]
*

Vs. Lutheran Johann Hülsemann: Sanctification [1-13-25]

IV. THEOSIS / DIVINIZATION / DEIFICATION

Theosis and the Exalted Virgin Mary [7-11-04]

Martin Luther : Strong Elements in His Thinking of Theosis & Sanctification Linked to Justification [11-23-09]

“In Him” An Expression of the Oneness of Theosis? [3-13-14]

Theosis / Deification / Divinization in Western Spirituality [2015]

Vs. Pasqualucci Re Vatican II #1: Gaudium et Spes (Incarnation) [7-11-19]

Banzoli’s 45 “Faith Alone” Passages; My 200 Biblical Disproofs [6-16-22]

V. PRAYER

Prayer for the Dead & Retroactive Prayer (Luther & Protestants) [3-22-05]
*

“The Prayer of a Righteous Man Availeth Much” (James 5:16: KJV): What Does It Mean? Dialogue with a Lutheran (vs. Stuart Floyd) [6-8-05]

Prayer to Jesus Alone Documented in the New Testament [6-7-08]
*

Biblical Evidence: Formal Prayer Isn’t “Vain Repetition” [2009]
*

Biblical Evidence for Prayers of the Righteous Having More Power [3-23-11]

Should We Pray for “All Men” (1 Tim 2:1) or Not? (Bible and Calvin Say Yes; Anti-Catholic Calvinist Ron Van Brenk Sez No) [11-16-11]

Our Prayers and Souls Ending Up in Heaven or Hell [3-26-14]
*

Great Catholic Mystics on the “Dark Night of the Soul” [2014]

Limited Atonement, Free Will, & Failed Prayers of Jesus [7-18-14]
*

The Unanswered Prayers of Jesus & Our Free Will [2015]

The Nature & Function of Prayer: Reply to Two Atheists [8-14-18]

Seidensticker Folly #7: No Conditional Prayer in Scripture? [8-16-18]
*

Should We Pray for All People or Not (1 John 5:16)? [9-5-18]

Biblical Prayer is Conditional, Not Solely Based on Faith [National Catholic Register, 10-9-18]

We Can’t Demand That God Directly Communicate to Us or Answer Prayer Exactly as We Want Him to (and God’s non-answer is no reason to leave the faith) [blog combox, 2-23-19]
*

Why the Bible Says the Prayers of Holy People Are More Powerful [National Catholic Register, 3-19-19]

Can the Prayers of Jesus Go Unanswered? [National Catholic Register, 6-10-19]

Madison vs. Jesus #10: Universal Answered Prayer & Healing? [8-7-19]

Pearce’s Potshots #61: The Rationale for Prayer [2-5-22]

Review of God Loves the Autistic Mind (Fr. Matthew P. Schneider) [7-26-22]

Bible on Praying Straight to God (vs. Lucas Banzoli) [9-21-22]

Reply to Banzoli’s “Questions for Catholics About Prayer…” [9-23-22]

Bible on the Power of Prayers of the Righteous [11-16-22]

5 Replies to Questions About Catholic (and Biblical) Prayer [National Catholic Register, 11-30-22]

Is All Prayer Necessarily Worship? (vs. Jordan Cooper): Including the Non-Worship Biblical Usage of “I Pray You” (RSV) / “I Pray Thee” (KJV) [3-20-24]

Saints Can Hear “Millions” Of Prayers? (Vs. Jordan Cooper): Including a Summary of the Extraordinary, Unfathomable Characteristics of Redeemed Human Beings in Heaven [3-20-24]

Bible on Seeking Exceptionally Righteous Intercessors (vs. Dr. Lydia McGrew) [11-9-24]
*

VI. SIN / MORTAL AND VENIAL SIN

Mortal vs. Venial Sin: Biblical? [1997]

Mortal & Venial Sin: Strong Biblical Support [4-1-06]
*

Dialogue on Mortal & Venial Sin [4-14-06]

Blaise Pascal on Ridicule and Sarcasm Regarding Sin and Folly [12-29-11]

Mortal and Venial Sin (vs. Calvin #56) [2012]

Does God “Want” Men to Sin? Does He “Ordain” Sin? [2-17-10 and 3-16-17]

Martin Luther and Lutherans on Mortal & Venial Sins [10-30-17]

What the Bible Says on Degrees of Sin and Mortal Sin [National Catholic Register, 7-6-18]

“Hate the Sin, Love the Sinner”: Biblical & Christlike? [8-21-18]

Should We Pray for All People or Not (1 John 5:16)? [9-5-18]

Vs. James White #8: St. Basil on Mortal & Venial Sin [11-13-19]

“Hate the Sin, Love the Sinner” — Quite Biblical! [National Catholic Register, 1-29-20]

Mortal & Venial Sin: Proof from “Unwitting” Passages [10-26-21]

Question on Whether Ignorance of Mortal Sin is a Good Thing [Facebook, 7-8-23]

“Catholic Verses” #4: Sinners in the Church (Including the Biblical Conception of “Saints” and “Sinners”) [10-26-23]

Bible On Mortal & Venial Sin (vs. Anglican Stearns #5) [31 passages] [3-20-25]

VIDEO: Can some sins cause you to LOSE your salvation? (Mortal & Venial Sin) [Dave Armstrong & Kenny Burchard at Catholic Bible Highlights, 4-5-25]

VII. ASSURANCE OF SALVATION / ETERNAL SECURITY / FALLING AWAY / APOSTASY / EXAMINATION OF CONSCIENCE

Luther and the Origin & Nature of “Instant” Salvation [1991]
*

Assurance of Instant Salvation? / Apostasy / Falling Away (Bible passages) [c. 2000]

“Certainty” of Eternal Life? (1 Jn 5:13 & Jn 5:24) [5-8-02]

St. Paul on Falling Away from Grace and Salvation [2004]

Dialogue on Luther’s “Getting to a Gracious God” (vs. Lutheran historian “CPA”) [6-4-06]

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

Examination of Conscience: Biblical (Pauline) Evidence [7-14-08]
*

Bible on the Moral Assurance of Salvation (Persevering in Faith, with Hope) [10-21-08]

Dialogue with a Calvinist Regarding Falling Away from Grace or Salvation [7-28-09]

Baptism, Regeneration, Assurance? of Salvation (vs. Calvin #39) [11-16-09]

St. Paul: Two-Faced Re Unbelief? (Romans 1 “vs.” Epistles) [7-5-10]

Novelist Anne Rice’s Deconversion: Straw Men & “Baby / Bathwater” (conversion to humanism but not atheism) [7-30-10 and 8-9-10]

Absolute Assurance of Salvation?: Debunking “Prooftexts” [Oct. 2010]

Salvation, Eternal Security, & Grace: Dialogue w Bethany Kerr [4-13-15]

“Once Saved, Always Saved”: Is it Biblical? Antinomian? [8-18-15]

My “Review” of Martin Scorsese’s Silence (+ Facebook Discussion #1 / Facebook Discussion #2) [1-13-17]

Some Nagging Questions About Scorsese’s Silence [National Catholic Register, 2-19-17]

Seidensticker Folly #3: Falsehoods About God & Free Will [8-14-18]

Should We Pray for All People or Not (1 John 5:16)? [9-5-18]

Madison vs. Jesus #7: God Prohibits Some Folks’ Repentance? [8-6-19]

Vs. James White #4: Eternal Security of Believers? [9-19-19]

Vs. James White #7: My Refutations of Calvinism & His Non-Replies [11-12-19]

Reply to Protestant Challenges Re Eternal Security (vs. Jason Engwer) [7-26-20]

Defense of Bible Passages vs. Eternal Security & Faith Alone (vs. Jason Engwer) [8-12-20]

The Bible is Clear: ‘Eternal Security’ is a Manmade Doctrine [National Catholic Register, 8-17-20]

Eternal Security vs. the Bible [National Catholic Register, 8-23-20]

Seidensticker Folly #64: A Saved Dahmer & Damned Anne Frank? [11-24-20]

Perseverance of the Saints: Reply to a Calvinist [5-17-21]

Westminster vs. Bible #1: Assurance of Salvation [5-19-21]

Is True Faith Always Permanent? (vs. Calvin #62) [3-7-23]

No “Eternal Security” in 1 and 2 Timothy (Contra Jason Engwer) [Facebook, 9-25-23]

Reply to Jason Engwer Re Eternal Security [9-26-23]

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

VIDEO: Can Catholics even know if they’re saved? [Kenny Burchard, utilizing my Bible research, 9-19-24]

Debate: Catholic Assurance of Salvation [10-1-24]

What the Bible Says About Moral Assurance of Salvation [National Catholic Register, 11-13-24]

Falling Away (Apostasy): 150 Biblical Passages (+ Catalogue of Sixty Traits That Apostates Formerly Possessed When They Were in God’s Good Graces) [11-19-24]

VIDEO: “Once Saved Always Saved” REFUTED! – [20+verses] [Dave Armstrong & Kenny Burchard at Catholic Bible Highlights, 11-22-24]

Why Examination of Conscience Is Biblical [National Catholic Register, 11-25-24]

Biblical “Hope” & Catholic Moral Assurance of Salvation [2-11-25]

VIII. PREDESTINATION / GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY / PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS

Catholic Teaching: Predestination of the Elect (Ludwig Ott) [1996]
*

Dialogue on God’s Middle Knowledge & Foreknowledge (vs. Dr. Alexander Pruss) [1997]

Calvin: Only God Knows Who is Elect [1-5-06]

Dialogue on Molinism and on How God Predestines (+ Part II) [4-15-06 and 4-24-06]
*

Predestination & the Ingenious “Solution” of Fr. Most [4-22-06]

Dialogue: Molinism & How God Predestines (Pt. III) (+ Pt. IV) [5-2-06 and 5-14-06]
*

Do Catholics Believe in Predestination? Yes! But . . . [8-29-06]
*

Reply to a Calvinist: Hardening of Pharaoh’s Heart (vs. Colin Smith) [10-14-06]
*

Catholic Predestination, Molinism, & Thomism in a Nutshell [3-27-08]

Luther: God Predestines Reprobation of the Damned [2-27-10]

Dialogue: Double Predestination, Total Depravity, & Limited Atonement [4-14-10]

Bible vs. Double Predestination (No Reprobate Parallels) [4-22-10]

Romans 9: Plausible Non-Calvinist Interpretation [4-22-10]

God’s “Punishing” of Descendants: Unjust? [7-8-10]

Fallen-Away Catholics: They Never Were in the Fold? [Facebook, 10-27-16]

God “Hardening Hearts”: How Do We Interpret That? [12-18-08; expanded on 1-4-17]

“Reply to Calvin” #1: The Elect [3-3-17]

“Reply to Calvin” #3: Synergism, Grace Alone, & the Elect [4-3-17]

Luther (Unlike Lutheranism) Taught Double Predestination [1-11-18]

Predestination and Salvation: Q & A with an Atheist [7-24-18]

Predestination Mysteries: Dialogue with an Atheist [7-24-18]

Predestination to Hell? (vs. Calvin #61) [1-20-21]

Perseverance of the Saints: Reply to a Calvinist [5-17-21]

IX. LIMITED VS. UNIVERSAL ATONEMENT

Gospel = Total Depravity, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace? [4-6-10]
*

Dialogue: Double Predestination, Total Depravity, & Limited Atonement [4-14-10]

Bible vs. the Reformed Doctrine of Limited Atonement [2010]

Limited Atonement, Free Will, & Failed Prayers of Jesus [7-18-14]
*

Limited Atonement Refuted? (John 12:32) [10-19-15]

Dialogue: Does the Bible Teach Limited Atonement? [2-23-19]

Calvinist Hems and Haws with Regard to Answering My Biblical Refutation of Limited Atonement, Then Flatly Refuses [Facebook, 2-26-19]

There Never Will Be a Single Human Being for Whom Christ Did Not Suffer [National Catholic Register, 4-28-21]

Limited Atonement: Refutation of James White [9-1-21]

Biblical Reasons Why Catholics Don’t Believe in ‘Limited Atonement’ [National Catholic Register, 10-27-21]

More Biblical Reasons Why Catholics Don’t Believe in ‘Limited Atonement’ [National Catholic Register, 10-30-21]

John Calvin: God Hates Sinners / God: I Love All People and Desire That None Perish [Facebook, 11-19-24]

Limited Atonement Biblical Arguments Refuted (33 NT Passages Against Limited Atonement and in Favor of Universal Atonement) [11-21-24]

X. ERROR OF UNIVERSALISM

*
Dialogue on Hell & the “Possibility” of Universalism [May 2004]
*

Biblical Annihilationism or Universalism? (w Atheist Ted Drange) [9-30-06]
*

Did Pope St. John Paul II Teach Universalism? [4-26-11]

Did Julian of Norwich Teach Universalism & Deny Hell? [3-24-14]

Analysis of “Hoping All Will be Saved” / “…Hell is Empty” [8-20-15]

Book of Revelation Annihilates Universalism [8-31-15]

Argument for How Many Are Saved, Based on Two of Jesus’ Parables [Facebook, 1-27-24]

Wishing & Desiring For All To Be Saved, Like God Does [1-29-24]
*

We Desire That All Be Saved — But Only in the Way God Desires It [National Catholic Register, 2-28-24]

XI. THE GOSPEL, DISCIPLESHIP, REVIVAL, “RELIGION”, “PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH JESUS”

New Testament Passages on Love: A Collection [3-16-81; rev. 10-3-21]

“In You I Hope” (Poem of Mine from 1982) [about trusting God and waiting on Him with confidence]

Good News: Evangelical & Catholic Gospel Presented [June 1982; rev. 7-17-02]
*

Gospel: Defined by the Earliest Christian Preaching [January 1988; rev. 7-8-02]
*

What is the Gospel? Catholic-Protestant Agreement [12-3-96 and 1-4-97]

Galatians and the Gospel: Dialogue with a Calvinist [1997]
*

Do Catholics & the Catholic Church Preach the Gospel? [2002]

Catholics Never Hear About the Gospel or Jesus at Mass? [6-4-07]

“Knowing Jesus as we Ought to”: A Catholic Perspective [7-10-09]

“Why Desire Salvation?” Reply to a Non-Christian Inquirer [12-7-09]

Trusting God as an Element of Faith & Discipleship [1-8-10]
*

Gospel = Total Depravity, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace? [4-6-10]
*

Loving Ourselves (Since God Loves Us So Much!) [4-26-10]

Dialogue: Definition of “Christian” (vs. Reformed Pastor) (+ Did Trent Anathematize all Protestants?) [6-5-10]

“The Harvest is Ready”: Tips on Catholic Evangelism [7-21-10]

God’s “Valentine”: His Love, Mercy, & Compassion [2-13-11]

Great Catholic Mystics on the “Dark Night of the Soul” [2014]

“Shake the Dust Off of Your Feet”: Mean? [10-4-14]

Was Jesus “Spiteful” When He Said, “Shake the Dust Off of Your Feet”? [8-13-15]

“Personal Relationship with Jesus”: Good Catholic Phrase? and Practice? [8-15-15]

“Personal Relationship” vs. “Join the One Church”? [2-3-16]

Dialogue: Pope Francis Doesn’t Evangelize? (and on the Nature of Dialogue vs. (?) the Gospel; with a Traditionalist) [4-29-16]

Gandhi on Christian Hypocrisy: Some Truth But More Falsehoods [Facebook, 11-12-16]

Christianity = Love (Orthopraxy) + Correct Doctrine (Mormonism?) [1-16-17]

Catholicism = “False Gospel”?: Exchange with Anti-Catholic [3-18-17]

“The Harvest is Ready”: 14 Tips for Catholic Evangelism [National Catholic Register, 7-12-17]
*

Thankfulness as Our Model in Holy Scripture [11-23-17]
*

“Personal Relationship with Jesus” — A Catholic Concept? [National Catholic Register, 2-19-18]

Christianity, Depression, Peace, Comfort, Hope, & Joy [6-9-18]
*

Swearing and Sharing the Faith Don’t Mix Very Well! [National Catholic Register, 7-16-18]

Some Thoughts on Evangelism and Being “Hated by All” [National Catholic Register, 7-20-18]

Seidensticker Folly #30: Small vs. Great Commission? [10-26-18]
*

Biblical Evidence: Personal Relationship with Jesus [14 passages] [2013; expanded on 1-18-19]
*

“Spiritual” Kingdom of God: Old Testament Precursors [8-18-19]

Isaiah Foretells the Gospel & the Suffering Messiah [8-20-19]

Salvation and Eternal Afterlife in the Old Testament [26 passages] [8-31-19]

C. S. Lewis: A Life of Extraordinary Charity & Selflessness [10-21-19]

Is Pope Francis Against Apologetics & Defending the Faith? [11-26-19]

Debate: Pope Francis on Doctrine, Truth, & Evangelizing (vs. Dr. Eduardo Echeverria) [12-16-19]
*

Estranged Friendships: Lessons from Kobe Bryant’s Death (Don’t Put Off What Needs to be Done Now; What is Right to Do) [1-29-20]
*

Dialogue: the Relation of Christian Apologetics & Testimony [1-31-20]

Lessons in Reconciliation from Kobe Bryant and Magic Johnson [National Catholic Register, 2-10-20]

Question from Inquiring Atheist: “Why Were the Incarnation and Atonement Necessary?” [Facebook, 3-23-20]

“God Provides”: Another Recent Example of a Thousand in My Life [Facebook, 3-31-20]

Abp. Viganò Whopper #289: Pope Forbids All Evangelism (?) [4-8-20]

Pope, Peter, & Paul: Evangelize; Don’t Proselytize [4-28-20]

Pope Francis vs. the Gospel? Outrageous & Absurd Lies! (Anti-Catholic Protestant James White and Catholic Reactionary Steve Skojec Echo Each Other’s Gigantic Whoppers) [5-26-20]

On Whether Jesus’ “Brothers” Were “Unbelievers” [National Catholic Register, 6-11-20]

“Love Your Enemies”: Old Testament Teaching Too? [9-7-20]

Seidensticker Folly #54: “Neighbor” in OT = Jews Only? [9-12-20]

Dialogue on Biblical Views Re Following Jesus & Riches (vs. Dr. Steven DiMattei) [11-21-20]

John Lennon: Christian Right Before His Death? [3-27-07; rev. 12-8-20]

Who Must Renounce All Possessions to Follow Jesus? [National Catholic Register, 1-21-21]

Is “Religion” Against “Relationship” in Scripture? [5-31-21]

The Bible Makes It Clear: Religion Means Relationship With God [National Catholic Register, 6-18-21]

God’s “Fellow Workers” Help Spread Salvation & Grace (We “Impart Grace”, “Save” Others, Win Souls, Help Them “Obtain Salvation”, Etc., In Our “Work of the Lord”) [55 passages] [10-29-21]

Explicit Biblical Instruction on Saving Souls [1-24-22]

Seidensticker Folly #77: Free Will & the Bible [1-25-22]

Explicit Biblical Instruction on Saving Souls [National Catholic Register, 2-28-22]

C.S. Lewis vs. the Bible & Newman Re “Religion” [8-19-22]

What Percentage of Human Beings Will Be Saved (i.e., Will Make it to Heaven)? Two Parables Possibly Provide Clues [Facebook, 10-18-22]

“Asbury Revival”: So Far So Good, But Be Watchful [2-20-23]

Asbury Revival & My Many Predictions of Revival Since 2000 [2-23-23]
*

“Jesus Revolution” Film & the Sacrament of Baptism [3-1-23]

Which is Greater?: Love or Faith? [Facebook, 3-20-23]
*

Is it Biblical to Say That We Are Saved & Redeemed by Jesus’ Blood? [Facebook, 6-6-23]

Dialogue on Meritorious Works & the Gospel [6-30-23]

“Catholic Verses” #1: 1 Tim 3:15 (Church) (Also, the Biblical Definition of the Gospel) [10-24-23]

Biblical “Gospel” 0101 [Facebook, 10-24-23]
*

James Swan & His Standard Anti-Catholic Erroneous and Unbiblical Definition of the “Gospel” [Facebook, 6-16-24]

Must the Gospel be Preached at Every Time & Place? (The Latest Bum Rap Against Pope Francis) [9-20-24]

VIDEO: How Catholics Get Saved [by Kenny Burchard at Catholic Bible Highlights, utilizing my biblical research, 10-12-24]

What is the Gospel? (The Actual Biblical Definition) [Facebook, 11-23-24]
*

XII. GRACE, IRRESISTIBLE GRACE, CATHOLIC ANTI-PELAGIANISM, AND SYNERGISM

Dialogue on Grace (vs. Anti-Catholic Phil Johnson) [1996]
*

Romans 2-4 & “Works of the Law”: Patristic Interpretation [2-16-01]
*

Man’s Grace-Enabled Cooperation w God (1 Cor 3:9) [5-8-02]
*

Salvation by Works in the Catholic Catechism? [5-8-02]

Semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism: An Introduction [1997 and 12-4-02]
*

John Calvin Misunderstood Trent’s Doctrine of Grace [2-28-03]
*

“The Prayer of a Righteous Man Availeth Much” (Jas 5:16: KJV) [6-8-05]

Dialogue w Three Lutherans on Justification & Salvation [2-1-07]
*

Distribution of Divine Graces by Mary & Other Human Beings [5-23-07]
*

My Daughter (at 5) on Heaven & Salvation [5-24-07]

Were the “Judaizers” Jewish Christians (“Messianic Jews”)? [6-7-07]

Merit and Cooperating with God for Salvation [7-8-07]
*

Ecumenical Dialogue: Protestant & Catholic Soteriology [7-8-07]

Catholic Bible Verses on Sanctification and Merit [12-20-07]
*

Will We See Our Pets in Heaven? [3-12-08]

“One Mediator” (1 Tim 2:5) vs. All Human Mediation? [10-14-08]

Grace Alone: Perfectly Acceptable Catholic Teaching [2-3-09]

Merit & Human Cooperation with God (vs. Calvin #35) [10-19-09]

Judaizers: “Proto-Catholics”? (Alleged Works-Salvation) [12-14-09]

Bible: Some Sins More Serious Than Others [2009]

Bible: God Shares Glory with His Creatures [1-3-10]

Gospel = Total Depravity, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace? [4-6-10]
*

Calvinist Irresistible Grace vs. the Bible [October 2010]

Biblical Evidence: Prayers of Righteous Have More Power [3-23-11]

Indulgences & Distribution of Grace (vs. Calvin #58) [2012]

Calvinist Irresistible Grace: Biblical? [2013]

Scripture on Being Co-Workers with God for Salvation [72 passages] [2013]

Salvation, Eternal Security, & Grace: Dialogue w Bethany Kerr [4-13-15]
*

Are Folks in Hell Because We Didn’t Pray Enough? [8-19-15]

John Calvin: All Fathers But One Wrong Regarding Free Will [8-22-15]

Grace Alone: Biblical & Catholic Teaching [12-1-15]

“No Ritual Can Make One’s Heart Right with Jesus”. False! [2-12-16]

“Reply to Calvin” #3: Synergism, Grace Alone, & the Elect [4-3-17]

Reply to a Calvinist on Faith Alone and Works [of God Only?] [4-4-17]

Catholics and Protestants Agree on Grace Alone and the Necessity of the Presence of Good Works in Regenerate and Ultimately Saved Persons; Disagree on Faith Alone [5-4-17]

Degrees of Grace / Quantifiable Differences in Grace [5-4-17]
*

Is Grace Alone (Sola Gratia) Also Catholic Teaching? [National Catholic Register, 2-5-18]

Seidensticker Folly #29: Repentance: Part of Salvation [10-26-18]
*

Does God Use Even Lowly Apologists to Help Save Folks? (Reply to False Caricatures of Apologists Over Against Documented Biblical Views) [10-28-21]

Semi-Pelagianism & Catholicism (vs. Francisco Tourinho) [8-5-22]

No Secondary or “Mini” Mediators of Grace and Salvation? Think Again [Facebook, 3-22-23]
*

XIII. MERIT AND REWARDS / HOLY AND RIGHTEOUS PEOPLE

Catholic Merit vs. Distorted Caricatures (James McCarthy) [1997]
*

Merit: Dialogue w Two Protestants on Catholic Soteriology [4-2-06]

Does Catholic Merit = “Works Salvation”? [2007]

Merit and Cooperating with God for Salvation [7-8-07]
*

Catholic Bible Verses on Sanctification and Merit [12-20-07]
*

Merit: Clarification of the Catholic Doctrine: Condign and Congruous Merit, Prevenient Grace, Etc. [2-2-09]

Our Merit is Based on Our Response to God’s Grace [2009]

Merit & Human Cooperation with God (vs. Calvin #35) [10-19-09]

Indulgences & Distribution of Grace (vs. Calvin #58) [2012]

Scripture on Being Co-Workers with God for Salvation [72 passages] [2013]

Does Pope Francis Deny the Catholic Doctrine of Merit? No [7-1-19]

Lucas Banzoli’s Mindless Denigration of an Imagined “Mary” (Including Extensive Biblical Analyses of Exceptionally “Righteous” and “Holy” People, and Merit) [9-11-22]

The Bible Is Clear: Some Holy People Are Holier Than Others [National Catholic Register, 9-19-22]

Dialogue on Meritorious Works & the Gospel [6-30-23]

24 Biblical Passages on Meritorious Works [National Catholic Register, 9-30-24]

Meritorious Works: 50 Biblical Proofs (Bible Passages On God’s Rewarding and Being Pleased by Grace-Originated Meritorious Works of the Regenerate) [10-4-24]

Explicit Biblical Argument for Merit: St. Paul’s “Boasting” and “Pride” in the Work He and Other Christians Do for the Sake of God and Evangelism [Facebook, 10-12-24]
*

Merit in a Nutshell [Facebook, 10-24-24]
*

Perfectly Keeping the Law: 15 Bible Passages [12-12-24]
*

Zwingli’s Blindness Regarding Biblical Merit / The Ten Clearest Biblical Passages on Merit [Facebook, 6-26-25]
*

XIV. ORIGINAL SIN AND TOTAL DEPRAVITY

Calvinist Total Depravity vs. Catholic Concupiscence [1996]
*

Judgment of Nations: A Collection of Biblical Passages [9-21-01]

Judgment of Nations: Biblical Commentary and Reflections [9-21-01]
*

Faith Alone & Original Sin: Reply to Smalcald Articles [1-30-01]
*

Biblical Evidence for Original Sin [6-26-02]

Protestant “Reformer” Zwingli Denied Original Sin [5-27-06]

God’s Judgment of Humans (Sometimes, Entire Nations) [2-16-07]

Total Depravity: Reply to James White: Calvinism and Romans 3:10-11 (“None is Righteous . . . No One Seeks For God”) [4-15-07]
*

Calvinist Total Depravity: Does Romans 1 Apply to All Men? [4-10-08]
*

Dialogue: Original Sin, Jesus, & Mary’s Immaculate Conception [9-4-08]
*

2nd Council of Orange: Sola Gratia vs. Total Depravity [1-5-09]
*

Original Sin, Imputation, & Baptism (vs. Calvin #40) [11-17-09]
*

Gospel = Total Depravity, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace? [4-6-10]
*

Dialogue: Double Predestination, Total Depravity, & Limited Atonement [4-14-10]

Bible vs. the Reformed Doctrine of Total Depravity [2010]

Historicity of Adam and Eve [9-23-11; rev. 1-6-22]

St. Francis de Sales: Bible vs. Total Depravity + Biblical Evidence for the Indefectibility of the Church (from the Psalms) [11-24-11]

Total Depravity & the Evil of the Non-Elect (vs. John Calvin) [10-12-12]

Adam & Eve of Genesis: Historical & the Primal Human Pair [11-28-13]

St. Augustine, Calvin, & Calvinists Regarding Total Depravity [1-7-14]

Group Discussion on Eastern vs. Western Conceptions of Original Sin (with Eastern Catholics and Orthodox) (+ discussion on a second continuing Facebook thread) [Facebook, 6-28-14]
*

Salvation, Eternal Security, & Grace: Dialogue w Bethany Kerr [4-13-15]
*

Gandhi on Christian Hypocrisy: Some Truth But More Falsehoods [Facebook, 11-12-16]

Is God Alone Holy, According to Scripture? Or Can We Be Too? [5-3-17]

Does God Ever Judge People by Sending Disease? [10-30-17]

G. K. Chesterton on Original Sin [Facebook, 11-23-19]

Jesus vs. James White on Who Can be Saved [10-12-21]

Could Jesus Have Possibly Inherited Original Sin? (Was Mary’s Immaculate Conception Necessary to Prevent Such a Scenario, or Only “Fitting”? Jesus’ Two Natures & Impeccability) [11-11-21]

Augsburg Confession Dialogues: God / Original Sin (Agreement Regarding God’s Nature, But Differences Concerning the Rule of Faith & Concupiscence) [5-2-24]

John Calvin: God Hates Sinners / God: I Love All People and Desire That None Perish [Facebook, 11-19-24]

Zwingli’s Watered-Down Original Sin and Rejection of Baptismal Regeneration as its Antidote [6-24-25]
*

***

Last updated on 26 June 2025

***