2024-05-27T14:19:23-04:00

Last updated on: May 27, 2024 at 2:19 pm   By
0 Comments
“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,600+ articles, please follow this blog by signing up (with your email address) on the sidebar to the right (you may have to scroll down a bit), above where there is an icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. Please also consider following me on Twitter / X and purchasing one or more of my 55 books. All of this helps me get more exposure, and (however little!) more income for my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!
***

Collin Brooks runs a YouTube page devoted to defending Reformed Protestant theology and critiquing Catholicism and Orthodoxy. His words will be in blue.

***

I will be critiquing his video, “John 6 Does NOT Support Roman Catholicism” (4-19-24). He’s one of the very few Protestant apologists on YouTube who has ever responded back to my critiques, so perhaps he will again! In the meantime (whatever he chooses to do), the topic is of great interest to me and I have addressed it several times.

0:51  I want to provide additional reasons for the bread of life discourse being antithetical to Roman Catholic theology, includ[ing] the fact that it’s supposed to be read metaphorically.

The first part is metaphorical, but the second part is not. That’s probably where a lot of Protestant confusion originates. The following portion is among the literal sections:

John 6:53-56 (RSV) So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; [54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. [55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. [56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

2:33 Jesus tells us ad nauseam that we have to perform both of these acts to be saved. Both of them must be done for eternal life. We must eat his flesh and drink his blood. Now, why is that a problem for Roman Catholicism? [It’s] because they don’t drink the blood. This debate [is] called the communion in both kinds debate. Rome does not practice communion in both kinds.
*
Well, actually we do. The practice of how to receive communion is not a dogma. It’s a discipline (which can change). Since the time of Vatican II in the 60s, it was decided to make the cup available to the laity at Mass, and in most parishes this is the practice. But for a long time it was not allowed, for perfectly reasons which I have explained:
*
*
The Host and Chalice Both Contain Christ’s Body and Blood [National Catholic Register, 12-10-19]
*
The other answer to this critique is that Jesus is fully contained in both the consecrated wafer and the consecrated wine, because He can’t be divided. This isn’t just “Catholic rationalizing” or Aristotelianism or some such. It’s expressly biblical, from the Apostle Paul:
*
1 Corinthians 11:27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.

Note the bolded and italicized “or” and “and.” The way that Paul phrases this proves that he believes that the Body and Blood are present in both species. It’s all in the word “or”. The logic and grammar require it, so that the above can also be expressed in the following two propositions:

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.

Whoever, therefore, drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.

With this additional scriptural knowledge, Collin’s argument above completely collapses, since receiving either kind is both eating and drinking, because both are the whole Christ (the above Scripture also being an excellent biblical proof for the Real Presence itself and for transubstantiation). It’s for this very reason, and also hygienic considerations, that I myself always receive the host alone. The only exceptions were when I was received into the Church in 1991, one time when the priest ran out of consecrated hosts, and at a few Byzantine or other Eastern Catholic Masses (more on that below).

2:59 if you’re not a Roman Catholic you should know that in the Roman Catholic Church you do not ever drink the blood of Christ. They do
*
3:21 Rome decided they know better than the gospels. They know better than the early church. They’re not going to let people drink anymore.
*
It’s Protestantism, I submit, that claims to know better than the Bible and early Church, insofar as the vast majority of Protestants don’t believe in the Real Presence that was taught by the Bible and the Church fathers. Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism, believed in a slightly weakened form of the Real Presence, in which the body and blood of Christ are present together with the bread and the wine, and he made excellent exegetical arguments in favor of it, over against Zwingli, whom he regarded as damned.
*
4:43 it’s possible that there are some different rites, [that] there are some traditions and churches that are in union with Rome but [have] a different liturgy, and they do drink of the cup, so I don’t know enough to know that one way or the other.
*
It would be good to study up more on these matters before making a video about it. In debate teams in middle school, the first thing that is learned is to know and understand the view one is opposing at least as thoroughly as those who hold it. Eastern Catholics usually receive Holy Communion by intinction. The Wikipedia article explains:
*
Intinction is the Eucharistic practice of partly dipping the consecrated bread, or host, into the consecrated wine before consumption by the communicant. . . .
*
It is one of the four ways approved in the Latin liturgical rites of the Catholic Church for administering Holy Communion under the form of wine as well as of bread: “The norms of the Roman Missal admit the principle that in cases where Communion is administered under both kinds, ‘the Blood of the Lord may be received either by drinking from the chalice directly, or by intinction, or by means of a tube or a spoon’ (General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 245). . . .
*
Some of the Byzantine-rite Eastern Catholic Churches in communion with the Church of Rome adopted intinction during the early 20th century, dividing the bread into pieces long enough to be partially dipped in the consecrated wine and placed on the communicant’s tongue. This is the practice at least of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church and the Greek Byzantine Catholic Church.
*
Some Eastern Catholic Churches (for instance, the Ethiopic Rite Catholics of Ethiopia and Eritrea) have adopted the use of unleavened bread, justifying it by reference to the ancient Jewish practice of using only unleavened bread at Passover meals, and give Communion by intinction.
I myself have received Holy Communion in this fashion on a few occasions.
*
5:10 for the vast majority of Roman Catholics, they do not drink 
*
This is simply not true, as explained.
*
5:17 which means that they either don’t take John 6 literally or seriously, and I don’t know which one, but either way it’s inconsistent and it’s a problem for them
*
Not in the slightest. Collin presents a false dilemma. These aren’t the only choices. We can take the latter part of John 6 literally (as we do), but we interpret it in light of 1 Corinthians 11:27 (seen above). All relevant Scripture must be taken into account.
*
5:30 another problem is eating and drinking save 
*
I’ve already been through this. What the real problem is here, is the Protestant disbelief in the salvific power of the Holy Eucharist. We believe in that, based mainly on John 6; they do not.
*
7:56 Rome doesn’t practice paedo-communion [infant communion] 
*
Eastern Catholics are as Catholic as anyone else and many of them (if not all) practice this.
*
9:02  Rome teaches even an adult is is saved by baptism so when it comes to every single human being you’re actually saved well before you eat the body of Christ
*
Baptism brings about regeneration in our view; not a once-for-all salvation that can never be lost. Collin is describing something much more akin to the Lutheran view of baptism, and the reformed view of instance salvation that can never be lost, rather than the Catholic position. But then a little later he does more accurately express our true view.
*
10:20 here’s the ironic thing: literally in Roman Catholicism you’re not even allowed to go to mass if you’re in a state of mortal sin
*
False. Anyone can attend a Catholic Mass. To receive Holy Communion one must be a professed Catholic (which includes baptism, and that includes, incidentally, Protestant baptism). What a novelty! One must actually believe in the Holy Eucharist and the doctrine of the church in which it is received before partaking!
*
10:27 if you’ve not been baptized or if you’ve not gone to confession you are not permitted to the Lord’s Supper. In other words you have to be saved before you eat Jesus’s body and blood . . . 
*
Once again, Collin is confused. Catholics don’t believe in instant, once-for-all salvation, because it’s not biblical. Neither baptism nor the Eucharist nor a profession of faith in Jesus Christ bring that about. One must persevere. What these sacraments and professions do is put us in good graces with God and out of mortal sin that separates us from Him, and in a good spiritual state in which we possess a moral assurance of salvation.
*
11:40 historically, the Eucharist hasn’t been established at this point in time when Jesus is actually preaching the bread of life discourse to the people, telling them to eat and be saved . . . which means Jesus would be giving them a false hope. . . . the Eucharist had not been established yet so that cannot be what Jesus is talking about
*
I deny the hidden premise. It didn’t have to be established yet. He is in effect explaining what it would mean when it was instituted as the central rite of Christian worship. Jesus talked similarly regarding the indwelling Holy Spirit that was yet to come (it occurred on Pentecost):
*
John 16:7-8, 13-14 Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. [8] And when he comes, he will convince the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: . . . [13] When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. [14] He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
13:30 throughout the bread of life discourse Jesus utilizes metaphors that we all agree on. Everybody agrees that there is metaphoric language all throughout the bread of life discourse
*
We agree that it is metaphorical from 6:1-52. But from 6:53-71 it’s literal.
*
15:42 our physical hunger is representing a spiritual hunger; our physical thirst is representing a kind of spiritual thirst
*
Yes, that’s in the first section which is metaphorical. I explain why we believe the second part is literal in several articles:

*

*
*
*
*

*

*

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

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

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

Photo credit: photograph by SunflowerGUY (February 2018) [Pixabay / CC0 Creative Commons license]

Summary: Reply to several weak arguments from Reformed Protestant apologist Collin Brooks defending his false contention that John 6 is not describing the Real Presence.

2024-05-27T10:39:27-04:00

Last updated on: May 27, 2024 at 10:39 am   By
0 Comments

No photo description available.

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

***

[modified slightly from an article of mine originally posted on 19 March 2002; all sources cited are Protestant]

***

1. In the four centuries previous to Christ, “it cannot be proved that there was already a complete Canon” (The New Bible Dictionary; also, F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture).
*
2. There was no Jewish “synod of Jamnia” per se, but rather a series of scholarly discussions, from the period of 70-100 AD, and even these did not finally settle the issue of the OT canon (The New Bible Dictionary; Norman Geisler, From God to Us: How we Got our Bible; Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church; Bruce, ibid.).
*
3. These discussions were still dealing with the disputed canonicity of books like Esther, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, and even Ezekiel after the death of Jesus and after most or all of the New Testament was completed (The New Bible Dictionary). So Paul and Jesus (or any New Testament writer) could hardly have assumed a commonly accepted Old Testament canon before this time.
*
4. The Jewish historian Josephus “also uses books which we count among the Apocrypha, e.g. 1 Esdras and the additions to Esther.” (The New Bible Dictionary).
*
5. The Jews of the Dispersion (particularly the Alexandrian, Greek-speaking Jews) regarded several additional Greek books as equally inspired, — i.e., the so-called Apocrypha. (Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church).
*
6. “During the first three centuries these were regularly used also in the Church . . . St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, and others placed them on the same footing as the other OT books.” (Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church).
*
7. The Septuagint (LXX), incorporated all of the so-called “Apocryphal” books except 2 Esdras, and they were in no way differentiated from the other Books of the OT. (Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church).
*
8. “Christians . . . at first received all the Books of the Septuagint equally as Scripture . . . Down to the 4th cent. the Church generally accepted all the Books of the Septuagint as canonical. Gk. and Lat. Fathers alike (e.g., Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian) cite both classes of Books without distinction . . . with a few exceptions (e.g., Hilary, Rufinus), Western writers (esp. Augustine) continued to consider all as equally canonical . . . [the “Apocrypha” was] read as Scripture by the pre-Nicene Church and many post-Nicene Fathers . . . ” (Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church).
*
9. “In the 4th cent., however, many Gk. Fathers. . . came to recognize a distinction between those canonical in Heb. and the rest, though the latter were still customarily cited as Scripture.” (Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church).
*
10. “Luther, however, included the Apocrypha (except 1 and 2 Esd.) as an appendix to his translation of the Bible (1534), and in his preface allowed them to be ‘useful and good to be read'” (Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church).
*
11. “The NT writers commonly quoted the OT Books from [the Septuagint] . . . In post-NT times, the Christian Fathers down to the later 4th cent. almost all regarded the LXX as the standard form of the OT.” (Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church).
*
12. “We cannot say with absolute certainty, for example, if Paul treated Esther or the Song of Solomon [elsewhere Bruce adds Ecclesiastes] as scripture any more than we can say if those books belonged to the Bible which Jesus knew and used.” (Bruce, ibid.).
*
13. According to “The Nestle-Aland edition of the Greek New Testament (1979)” Jude 14 ff. is “a straight quotation . . . from the apocalyptic book of Enoch (1 Enoch 1:9).” (Bruce, ibid.).
*
14. “Several quotations in the New Testament . . . are introduced as though they were taken from holy scripture, but their source can no longer be identified. For instance, the words ‘He shall be called a Nazarene’, quoted in Matthew 2:23 as ‘what was spoken by the prophets’, . . . John 7:38 . . . is introduced by the words ‘as the scripture has said’ – but which scripture is referred to? . . . there can be no certainty . . . 1 Corinthians 2:9, . . . James 4:5 . . .” (Bruce, ibid.).
*
15. The Dead Sea Scrolls from the Qumran community revealed that they did not have Esther included in their canon. (Bruce, ibid.).
*
16. As for “Tobit, Jubilees and Enoch, fragments of which were also found at Qumran? . . . were they reckoned canonical by the Qumran community? There is no evidence which would justify the answer ‘Yes’; on the other hand, we do not know enough to return the answer ‘No’.” (Bruce, ibid.).
*
17. “As Athanasius includes Baruch and the ‘Letter of Jeremiah’ . . . so he probably includes the Greek additions to Daniel in the canonical book of that name . . .” (Bruce, ibid.).
*
18. St. Athanasius excludes Esther from the canon. (Bruce, ibid.).
*
19. “In practice Athanasius appears to have paid little attention to the formal distinction between those books which he listed in the canon and those which were suitable for the instruction of new Christians [he cites Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, and Tobit] . . . and quoted from them freely, often with the same introductory formulae – ‘as it is written’, ‘as the scripture says’, etc.” (Bruce, ibid.).
*
20. The Councils of Hippo in 393 (“along the lines approved by Augustine”) and the Third Council of Carthage in 397: . . . appear to have been the first church councils to make a formal pronouncement on the canon . . .” (Bruce, ibid.).
*
21. The Councils of Hippo in 393 and the Carthage in 397 “simply endorsed what had become the general consensus of the churches in the west and of the greater part of the east . . .” (Bruce, ibid.).
*
22. Yet Hippo and Carthage, along with “The Sixth Council of Carthage (419)” included “the apocryphal books.” (Bruce, ibid.).
*
23. “Throughout the following centuries most users of the Bible made no distinction between the apocryphal books and the others: all alike were handed down as part of the Vulgate . . .” (Bruce, ibid.).
*
24. “Differences of opinion also are recorded among the tannaim (rabbinical scholars of tradition who compiled the Mishna, or Oral Law) and amoraim (who created the Talmud, or Gemara) about the canonical status of Proverbs, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, and Esther.” (Encyclopedia Britannica)
*
25. “All this indicates a prolonged state of fluidity in respect of the canonization of the Ketuvim [“the Writings”]. A synod at Jabneh (c. 100 CE) seems to have ruled on the matter, but it took a generation or two before their decisions came to be unanimously accepted and the Ketuvim regarded as being definitively closed.” (Encyclopedia Britannica)
*
26. “A council probably held at Rome in 382 under St. Damasus gave a complete list of the canonical books of both the Old Testament . . . which is identical with the list given at Trent.” (The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church)
*
27. “This canon [of Carthage] remained undisturbed till the sixteenth century, and was sanctioned by the council of Trent at its fourth session.” (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church).
*
More In-Depth Reading On This Topic
*
*
*
*
Development of the Biblical Canon: Protestant Difficulties [2-26-02 and 3-19-02, abridged with slight revisions and additions on 7-19-18]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
How to Defend the Deuterocanon (or ‘Apocrypha’) [National Catholic Register, 3-12-17]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Summary: I provide the Catholic case for the deuterocanonical books (called the “Apocrypha” by Protestants) being part of Holy Scripture, using only Protestant sources.

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

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

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

2024-02-16T18:01:50-04:00

Last updated on: February 16, 2024 at 6:01 pm   By
0 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dave: we could also add:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

Related Reading

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

***

*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

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

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

*

***

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

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

2024-02-12T13:47:07-04:00

Last updated on: February 12, 2024 at 1:47 pm   By
0 Comments

Including the Biblical Case for Prophets as Inspired and Infallible Authorities Besides Holy Scripture

Gavin Ortlund is a Reformed Baptist author, speaker, pastor, and apologist for the Christian faith. He has a Ph.D. from Fuller Theological Seminary in historical theology, and an M.Div from Covenant Theological Seminary. Gavin is the author of seven books as well as numerous academic and popular articles. For a list of publications, see his CV. He runs the YouTube channel Truth Unites, which seeks to provide an “irenic” voice on theology, apologetics, and the Christian life. See also his website, Truth Unites and his blog. His words will be in blue. I use RSV for Bible passages.

*****

I’m responding to Gavin’s video, “Sola Scriptura Defended in 6 Minutes” (1-17-24).

Sola Scriptura means that Scripture is the Church’s only infallible rule. It doesn’t mean that Scripture is the only authority.

This is the standard Protestant definition and one that many Catholics don’t understand. Even some Catholic apologists don’t; for example, John Martignoni. In his case, I myself (as the editor of many of these particular tracts) tried to correct him by noting that the definition is as Gavin states here, but to no avail. In his tract, “The Bible Alone?” (St. Paul Street Evangelization), John wrote about sola Scriptura:  “Many Christians believe that the Bible, and the Bible alone, is the sole authority, or the sole rule of faith, that one needs in order to know what is and is not authentic Christian teaching and practice. . . . nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Bible should be used by Christians as the sole authority . . .” He never mentions the words infallible or infallibility, which are an essential part of the actual definition, as Protestants understand it to be.

Sola Scriptura simply means that popes, councils, and other post-apostolic organs of the church are fallible.

I submit that sola Scriptura is not in the Bible, and is not an accurate statement of what the Bible teaches. It’s a Protestant “tradition of men” (Mk 7:8). Therefore, by Gavin’s and Protestantism’s own criteria, it itself is fallible. If that’s the case, then anyone can dissent against it and disbelieve it. The Bible teaches the infallibility of the Church (1 Tim 3:15; see my detailed argument about that) and of the Jerusalem council, in which the decree made was described as being verified by the Holy Spirit Himself: “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” (Acts 15:28). That is virtual inspiration; it is at the very least certainly infallible, since God agreed with it. Right off the bat, then, sola Scriptura is ruled out as a rule of faith by the Bible itself. It’s not only shown to be fallible, but contrary to inspired Scripture. Moreover, logically speaking, it’s self-defeating and viciously circular.

Gavin then argues that Scripture is “ontologically unique” because it is the “inspired Word of God.” The Bible is certainly unique, and Catholics wholeheartedly agree. But sola Scriptura doesn’t inexorably follow from this fact alone, because, as I just demonstrated, this same Bible teaches the infallibility of Church and of the one Church council that we have recorded in the Bible: in Jerusalem. Therefore, the Bible is not the only infallible authority according to the Bible. It only is according to extrabiblical — and therefore fallible and arbitrary — Protestant tradition

Prophets in the Old Testament are another example of infallible authorities. They were not simply “walking Bibles.” They said many things that were not recorded in the Bible, but were still from God, and as such, effectively inspired. So, for example, the prophet Samuel told Saul that he would “make known” to him “the word of God” (1 Sam 9:27). It was written that “the word of God came to Shemaiah the man of God” (1 Kgs 12:22). “The Word of the LORD” appears 243 times in the Protestant Old Testament (RSV); mostly coming through men. For example:

Genesis 15:1 . . . the word of the LORD came to Abram in a vision . . .

Numbers 3:16 So Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD, as he was commanded.

1 Samuel 3:21 . . . the LORD revealed himself to Samuel at Shiloh by the word of the LORD.

2 Samuel 7:4 But that same night the word of the LORD came to Nathan,

2 Samuel 24:11 . . .  the word of the LORD came to the prophet Gad, David’s seer . . .

1 Kings 6:11 Now the word of the LORD came to Solomon,

1 Kings 14:18 . . . the word of the LORD, which he spoke by his servant Ahijah the prophet.

1 Kings 18:1 . . . the word of the LORD came to Elijah, . . .

2 Kings 20:19 Then said Hezekiah to Isaiah, “The word of the LORD which you have spoken is good.” . . .

2 Chronicles 36:21 to fulfil the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah . . .

Etc., etc. . . .

The prophet Ezekiel wrote down the phrase, “the word of the LORD came to me” 49 times.

Nor is this only in the Old Testament. Prophets still exist in the New Testament, too, such as the “prophetess” Anna (Lk 2:36). St. Luke again wrote: “Now in these days prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. And one of them named Agabus stood up and foretold by the Spirit that there would be a great famine over all the world; and this took place in the days of Claudius” (Acts 11:27-28; cf. 21:10-11, where he predicts Paul’s captivity, prefacing his words with “Thus says the Holy Spirit, . . .”). Luke almost casually mentions the fact that “in the church at Antioch there were prophets . . ” (Acts 13:1) and that “Judas and Silas . . . were themselves prophets” (Acts 15:32).

St. Paul includes “prophets” —  whom “God has appointed in the church” — as one of the Church offices (1 Cor 12:28-29; 14:29, 32, 37; Eph 4:11), and refers to “prophesy[ing]” (1 Cor 14:1, 3-5, 24, 31, 39) and “prophecy” (1 Cor 14:6, 22). Paul even wrote that “the mystery of Christ, . . . has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit” (Eph 3:4-5) and noted the “prophetic utterances” that accompanied the ordination of Timothy (1 Tim 1:18; 4:14). Philip the evangelist “had four unmarried daughters, who prophesied” (Acts 21:8-9).

Therefore, there are many examples of infallible and virtually inspired revelation in both Testaments that are distinct from Holy Scripture itself. Whatever of  it was recorded, would be part of Scripture, but of course there was a lot that wasn’t recorded. It still had the same ontological essence nonetheless (just as Jesus’ hundreds of thousands of words to His family or disciples that are unrecorded, remained inspired and infallible). And all of this disproves sola Scriptura, as classically formulated, because it claims that only Scripture is infallible (let alone inspired). The “word of the LORD” given to a prophet is just as “God-breathed” (the literal meaning of “inspiration”) as Scripture, because it comes straight from God, as Scripture does.

It sure takes a lot more than six minutes to go through the literally scores of biblical arguments against sola Scriptura. Refuting falsehood always takes a lot more words than the assertion of it does. But I’m trying to be as brief as I can be.

Ironically, Gavin cites 2 Peter 1:21 as evidence of the unique inspiration of Scripture. Yet this very passage is about prophets (!): “because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” I’ve just shown how prophets (including prophets after Pentecost) are inspired, too, on the same basis, and that the first Christian council was inspired, since the Holy Spirit agreed with it (Acts 15:28). The first pope, Peter, even made an infallible declaration in the council (Acts 15:7-11) that was crucial in its determination.

This in turn was largely based on a “vision” (Acts 10:17) that God gave to Peter (Acts 10:11-16), while he was in a “trance” (Acts 10:10). Peter was at first “perplexed” by it (10:17), but then God showed him the meaning by sending to him the Gentile centurion, Cornelius (Acts 10:25 ff.), to whom He had communicated by an angel (10:22, 30-32). The larger point is that so much of this had nothing directly to do with Scripture at all. Yet it was infallible (and arguably inspired as well).

So what Gavin believes to be a prooftext for sola Scriptura actually blatantly contradicts it, at least in part. Peter also mentions “no prophecy of scripture” in 1:20. But the “prophetic word” (1:19) and “prophecy” (1:21) are categories that clearly go beyond Scripture, as the Bible itself testifies.

Scripture is divine speech, or the words of God.

Absolutely. But this “proves too much” since the same thing occurs in God’s communication to prophets or to others through visions and direct encounters. In other words, it goes far beyond only Holy Scripture. Moreover, when Jesus was talking to His disciples about future persecution, He said, “do not be anxious how or what you are to answer or what you are to say; for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say” (Lk 12:11-12). Mark in his parallel passage puts it even more strongly: “it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit” (Mk 13:11). Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist “was filled with the Holy Spirit, and prophesied” (Lk 1:67). Simeon also had a close relationship with the Holy Spirit (Lk 2:25-26).

Now, if the Holy Spirit can talk to Jesus’ disciples in that way (and by extension possibly to any follower of Christ), or literally talk through them, is that, too, “divine speech”? Is it “the words of God”? Since the Holy Spirit is God, the answer must be yes. But again, that’s not Scripture. Paul also refers to two spiritual gifts that seem to involve direct communication from God to human beings: “To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. To one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit” (1 Cor 12:7-8). Here again God the Holy Spirit is communicating to persons. Is that “inspired”? Is it “divine speech” and “the words of God”? It seems to me that all words that authentically come from God must be so.

So Scripture — though amazing and extraordinary and the greatest revelation, as all Christians agree it is — is not as unique as Gavin makes out. It shares some characteristics — inspiration and revelation — with non-biblical things like prophecy and words of knowledge and wisdom.

I’ve only gotten through two minutes of the video!

Gavin cites Romans 3:2 as a self-description of Scripture in the Bible: “the oracles of God.” Once again, prophecies and visions and other direct communications between God and man also are that. So Romans 3:2 can’t and doesn’t prove sola Scriptura. This is how it always goes when Protestants try to prove it from Scripture. It’s always doomed to failure. Catholics always have a superior explanation of all of the factors brought to the table, considered together in a harmonious whole.

This explains why Scripture is infallible, or as Jesus puts it, it cannot be broken” [Jn 10:35].

Of course Gavin is contending that only Scripture can have that characteristic. But in fact, so can these other things I have detailed. When the apostles and elders at the Jerusalem Council stated that “it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” that was equally as infallible. When Paul in the Bible states about the Church, that it’s “the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15), that is clearly infallible as well. When Agabus in the NT prophesied that a famine would come, and it did, that was infallible before it was recorded in the Bible, and it was verified by its coming to pass. It was no different from the state of affairs in the Old Testament:

Deuteronomy 8:20-22 But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.’ [21] And if you say in your heart, `How may we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?’ — [22] when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously, you need not be afraid of him.

If the prophet’s prediction was proven to be wrong in the old covenant, he was killed. He had better be infallible, then. His life depended upon it.

God is infallible, and Scripture is God’s speech.

And several other things besides Scripture also entail God speaking, as shown. Gavin could have figured this out. He’s a very sharp guy. But he doesn’t because he is overly biased by this false tradition and erroneous premise of sola Scriptura. Protestants repeat it ad nauseam without properly scrutinizing it by that same Scripture.

As Scripture is unique in its nature, so it is correspondingly unique in its authority.

This is untrue. I have already shown several instances of infallible extrabiblical authority. And I relentlessly used the Bible itself to do this, just as I did in my book, 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura (Catholic Answers Press: May 2012).

Gavin says we must test non-biblical teachings by the Bible. Sure; I do that every day. I’m doing it right now. That’s not the same thing as sola Scriptura. The early Christians didn’t simply use a biblical prooftext to solve every problem that came up. They called a council (Acts 15) and worked through it. And then the council, led by the pope and the Holy Spirit, made an authoritative pronouncement.

About this, Luke recorded that Paul and Timothy “went on their way through the cities” and “delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4). These cities were in Asia Minor (Turkey): many hundreds of miles away. So we see that it was not simply local jurisdiction in play, but a seemingly universal decree for all Christians everywhere. That’s infallible conciliar and ecclesial authority, folks. There is no way out of it. And this — among many many other things — demolishes sola Scriptura.

God’s speech has greater authority than other speech.

Exactly! I totally agree. But I see many incidences of God’s speech outside of the Bible alone. Gavin seems to be blind to those; not even aware that he is virtually self-refuting as he goes along making his presentation.

In the New Testament there is not even a hint of any post-apostolic infallible entities in the Church,

Untrue. The Jerusalem Council was infallible, since the Holy Spirit led it. The entire Church was and is, according to Paul (1 Tim 3:15). Agabus’ prophecy about the famine was infallible. Utterances of other prophets, insofar as God gave them a word (which He does by the definition of a prophet), were infallible. Peter’s vision was infallible (so was Paul’s when he was taken up to heaven). Even the Jewish high priest Caiaphas, who persecuted Jesus, uttered a true and infallible prophecy, according to St. John:

John 11:49-52 But one of them, Ca’iaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all; [50] you do not understand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish.” [51] He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation, [52] and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.

Etc., etc. How are any of those things not infallible? That’s plenty of hints that Gavin claim don’t exist at all.

. . . despite the fact that we have so much detailed information about the offices and nature of the Church.

While he was stating this, Ephesians 4:11-13 and 1 Corinthians 12:28, both of which included “prophets” as one such office of the Church, flashed onto the screen. So again he was refuting himself and didn’t even know that he was doing so. Then he claims that the early Church wasn’t aware of any non-biblical infallible authority, and cites (who else?) St. Augustine praising Scripture, as if he advocated sola Scriptura. He did not at all, as I have proven many times, including in debate with Gavin himself (my only reply to his material so far — some ten times — that he actually responded to):

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

Early Development of the Papacy: Random Reflections (includes St. Augustine’s views) [2-26-02]

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

Bible and Tradition Issues: Reply to a “Bible Christian” Inquirer (Particularly Regarding St. Augustine’s Position) [3-1-07]

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]

It’s only much later in Church history that such an idea develops, and when it does come in, it frankly doesn’t have a good track record.

This is massively, absurdly untrue. It couldn’t be further from the truth. I have studied the Church fathers’ view with regard to this matter of the rule of faith more than anything else I have researched in terms of patrology. Examine for yourself, what they believed (I have saved you many hundreds of hours of research):

*
Church Fathers and Sola Scriptura [originally July 2003; somewhat modified condensation: 4-5-17]
*
Debate: Church Fathers & Sola Scriptura (vs. Jason Engwer) [8-1-03]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Chrysostom & Irenaeus: Sola Scripturists? (vs. David T. King) [4-20-07]
*
*
*
*
*
Papias (c. 60-c. 130) & the Rule of Faith (vs. Jason Engwer) [1-18-10]
*
*
*
*

Gregory the Great vs. Sola Scriptura as the Rule of Faith [3-1-21]

Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444) vs. Sola Scriptura as the Rule of Faith [3-1-21]

Rufinus (d. 411) vs. Sola Scriptura as the Rule of Faith [3-2-21]

John Cassian (d. 435) vs. Sola Scriptura [3-3-21]

Origen & the Rule of Faith (vs. “Turretinfan”) [12-2-21]

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

Papias (c. 60-c. 130) vs. Sola Scriptura [12-19-21]

Clement of Rome (d. 99) vs. Sola Scriptura [12-20-21]

Ignatius of Antioch (d. c. 117) vs. Sola Scriptura [12-21-21]

Polycarp (69-155) vs. Sola Scriptura [12-21-21]

Tertullian (c. 155-c. 220) vs. Sola Scriptura [12-23-21]

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

Church Fathers vs. Sola Scriptura (Compendium) [12-26-21]

Banzoli Sez Origen & Tertullian are Sola Scripturists [5-31-22]

Justin Martyr & Sola Scriptura (vs. Lucas Banzoli) [6-1-22]

A Lot of Patristic Problems with Sola Scriptura [Facebook, 8-17-22]

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

Did Athanasius Accept Sola Scriptura? (vs. Bruno Lima) [10-14-22]

St. Athanasius Was Catholic — He Knew Sola Scriptura Was False [National Catholic Register, 10-20-22]

St. Ignatius, Bishops, & the Rule of Faith (vs. T.F. Kauffman) [7-14-23]

“Catholic Verses” #3: Tradition, Pt. 1 (Including the Church Fathers’ Opinion Regarding Authoritative Apostolic Oral Tradition) [10-26-23]

St. Jerome, Papacy, & Succession (Vs. Gavin Ortlund) [1-20-24]

Ignatius Of Antioch On Monarchical Bishops [1-25-24]

*

***

*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

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

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

*

***

Photo credit: geralt (5-2-17) [Pixabay / Pixabay Content License]

Summary: Reformed Baptist Gavin Ortlund makes his six-minute case for sola Scriptura as the rule of faith. I absolutely demolish it, with relentless, numerous biblical arguments.

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

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

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

*****

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

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

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

*

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

*

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

*

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

*

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

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

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

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

Catholic & Calvinist Agreement on Justification & Works [2012]

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

***

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

***

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

2023-06-01T14:23:46-04:00

Last updated on: June 1, 2023 at 2:23 pm   By
0 Comments

Jewish Canon Not Closed in 1st C.; Catholic Canon & Protestant Criticisms; “Fallible List of Infallible Books”

The late Steve Hays (1959-2020) was a Calvinist (and anti-Catholic) apologist, who was very active on his blog, called Triablogue (now continued by Jason Engwer). His 695-page self-published book, Catholicism — a collection of articles from his site — has graciously been made available for free. On 9 September 2006, Hays was quite — almost extraordinarily — charitable towards me. He wrote then:

I don’t think I’ve ever accused him of being a traitor or apostate or infidel. . . . I have nothing to say, one way or the other, regarding his state of grace. But his sincerity is unquestionable. I also don’t dislike him. . . . I don’t think there’s anything malicious about Armstrong—unlike some people who come to mind. In addition, I don’t think I’ve ever said he was unintelligent. For the record, it’s obvious that Armstrong has a quick, nimble mind. 

Two-and-a-half years later, starting in April 2009 and up through December 2011 (in the following quotations) his opinion radically changed, and he claimed that I have “an evil character,” am “actually evil,” “ego-maniac, narcissist,” “idolater,” “self-idolater,” “hack who pretends to be a professional apologist,” given to “chicanery,” one who doesn’t “do any real research,” “a stalwart enemy of the faith . . .  no better than [the atheists] Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens,” with an intent to “destroy faith in God’s word,” “schizophrenic,” “emotionally unhinged,” one who “doesn’t trust in the merit of Christ alone for salvation,” “has no peace of mind,” “a bipolar solipsist,” “split-personality,” and a “bad” man. He wasn’t one to mince words! See more gory details.

I feel no need whatsoever to reciprocate these silly and sinful insults. I just wanted the record to be known. I’ve always maintained that Hays was a very intelligent man, but habitually a sophist in methodology; sincere and well-meaning, but tragically and systematically wrong and misguided regarding Catholicism. That’s what I’m addressing, not the state of his heart and soul (let alone his eternal destiny). It’s a theological discussion. This is one of many planned critiques of his book (see my reasons why I decided to do this). Rather than list them all here, interested readers are directed to the “Steve Hays” section of my Anti-Catholicism web page, where they will all be listed. My Bible citations are from the RSV. Steve’s words will be in blue.

*****

[Chapter 8: Canonics]

The canon question

[T]he OT didn’t need to be formally canonized. The cutoff was the intertestamental period. You might say the scriptures are canonical by default. The end of public revelation marks the end of the canon. The termination of prophecy terminated the canon. [p. 377]

[M]any scholars think the OT canon was settled long before the Christian era. [p. 382]

In fact, according to prominent Protestant scholars and reference sources, the Jewish canon was not closed when the NT was written:

It is clear that in those days the Jews had holy books to which they attached authority. It cannot be proved that there was already a complete Canon, although the expression ‘the holy books’ (1 Macc. 12:9) may point in that direction. (The New Bible Dictionary, ed. J. D. Douglas, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1962 ed., 190, “Canon of the Old Testament”)

More than once the suggestion has been made that the synod of Jabneh or Jamnia, said to have been held about AD 90, closed the Canon of the Old Testament and fixed the limits of the Canon. To speak about the ‘synod of Jamnia’ at all, however, is to beg the question . . . It is true, certainly, that in the teaching-house of Jamnia, about AD 70-100, certain discussions were held, and certain decisions were made concerning some books of the Old Testament; but similar discussions were held both before and after that period . . . We may presume that the twenty-two books mentioned by Josephus are identical with the thirty-nine books of which the Old Testament consists according to our reckoning . . . For the sake of completeness we must observe that Josephus also uses books which we count among the Apocrypha, e.g. 1 Esdras and the additions to Esther . . . (Ibid., 191)

The so-called Council of Jamnia (c. A.D. 90), at which time this third section of writings is alleged to have been canonized, has not been explored. There was no council held with authority for Judaism. It was only a gathering of scholars. This being the case, there was no authorized body present to make or recognize the canon. Hence, no canonization took place at Jamnia. (Norman Geisler, From God to Us: How we Got our Bible, co-author William E. Nix, Chicago: Moody Press, 1974, 84)

The Jews of the Dispersion regarded several additional Greek books as equally inspired, viz. most of the Books printed in the AV and RV among the Apocrypha. During the first three centuries these were regularly used also in the Church . . . St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, and others placed them on the same footing as the other OT books. (Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Oxford University Press, ed. F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone, 1989, 232, “Canon of Scripture”)

It is probably unwise to talk as if there was a Council or Synod of Jamnia which laid down the limits of the Old Testament canon . . .A common, and not unreasonable, account of the formation of the Old Testament canon is that it took shape in three stages . . . The Law was first canonized (early in the period after the return from the Babylonian exile), the Prophets next (late in the third century BC) . . . the third division, the Writings . . . remained open until the end of the first century AD, when it was ‘closed’ at Jamnia. But it must be pointed out that, for all its attractiveness, this account is completely hypothetical: there is no evidence for it, either in the Old Testament itself or elsewhere. We have evidence in the Old Testament of the public recognition of scripture as conveying the word of God, but that is not the same thing as canonization. (F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1988, 34, 36)

Hays describes F. F. Bruce as “a renowned NT scholar” (p. 382).

St. Athanasius was the first Church Father to list the 27 New Testament books as we have them today, and no others, as canonical, in 367. What is not often mentioned by Protestant apologists, however, is the fact that when he listed the Old Testament books, they were not identical to the Protestant 39:

As Athanasius includes Baruch and the ‘Letter of Jeremiah’ . . . so he probably includes the Greek additions to Daniel in the canonical book of that name, and the additions to Esther in the book of that name which he recommends for reading in the church, . . . Only those works which belong to the Hebrew Bible (apart from Esther) are worthy of inclusion in the canon (the additions to Jeremiah and Daniel make no appreciable difference to this principle . . . In practice Athanasius appears to have paid little attention to the formal distinction between those books which he listed in the canon and those which were suitable for the instruction of new Christians [he cites Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, and Tobit] . . . and quoted from them freely, often with the same introductory formulae – ‘as it is written’, ‘as the scripture says’, etc. [footnote 46: He does not say in so many words why Esther is not included in the canon . . . ] (Bruce, ibid., 79-80)

For much more along these lines, see:

Development of Doctrine: Esp. the Canon (vs. Jason Engwer) [19 March 2002; most in-depth]

“Apocrypha”: Why It’s Part of the Bible [1994]

“Apocrypha”: Historical Case for Canonicity [1996]

Dialogue on Doctrinal Development (Papacy & NT Canon) (vs. Jason Engwer) [2-26-02]

Development of the Biblical Canon: Protestant Difficulties [2-26-02 and 3-19-02, abridged with slight revisions and additions on 7-19-18]

The “Apocrypha”: Reply to Dr. Ankerberg & Dr. Weldon [12-8-04]

Church Authority & the Canon (vs. Calvin #59) [2012]

Why Seven More Books in Catholic Bibles? [9-14-15]

How to Defend the Deuterocanon (or ‘Apocrypha’) [National Catholic Register, 3-12-17]

Vs. James White #10: Arbitrary Tradition Re the Canon [11-14-19]

Vs. James White #15: Canon & “Catholic” Traditions [11-18-19]

Hays objected that a Catholic mentioned the councils of Hippo and Carthage as evidence for the Catholic canon:

Even on Catholic grounds, they’re not infallible. They don’t presume to speak to or for the universal church. [p. 390]

The Church councils at Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419) listed the deuterocanonical (so-called “apocryphal”) books as Scripture. F. F. Bruce stated:

Augustine’s ruling supplied a powerful precedent for the western church from his own day to the Reformation and beyond . . . they did not impose any innovation on the churches; they simply endorsed what had become the general consensus of the churches of the west and of the greater part of the east. (Ibid., 97)

Pope Innocent I concurred with and sanctioned the canonical ruling of the above councils (Letter to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse) in 405 (mentioned by Bruce, ibid., 97). Here is that letter:

Which books really are received in the canon, this brief addition shows. These therefore are the things of which you desired to be informed. Five books of Moses, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, and Joshua the son of Nun, and Judges, and the four books of Kings [i.e., 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings] together with Ruth, sixteen books of the Prophets, five books of Solomon, [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom of Solomon, and Ecclesiasticus] and the Psalms. Also of the historical books, one book of Job, one of Tobit, one of Esther, one of Judith, two of Maccabees, two of Ezra [i.e., Ezra and Nehemiah], two of Chronicles. And of the New Testament: of the Gospels four. Epistles of the apostle Paul fourteen [including Hebrews].  Epistles of John three. Epistles of Peter two. Epistle of Jude. Epistle of James. Acts of the Apostles. John’s Apocalypse. But the rest of the books, which appear under the name of Matthias or of James the Less, or under the name of Peter and John (which were written by a certain Leucius), or under the name of Andrew (which were written by the philosophers Xenocharides and Leonidas), or under the name of Thomas, and whatever others there may be, you should know they are not only to be rejected but also condemned.

The pope’s definitive statement makes it magisterial and applicable to the universal Catholic Church (reiterated again in the ecumenical council of Trent). The canon had never been seriously challenged until the onset of Protestantism. Hays appears to be unaware of Pope Innocent I’s letter and its implications, since neither “Innocent I,” nor “Exsuperius,” nor the year “405” ever appear in his 695-page book.

In any event, these are the decrees that outlined and verified which books were canonical, and they included the deuterocanon. Protestants haven’t come up with anything comparable in this general patristic time period, so usually what they do is bring up critic of the deuterocanon, St. Jerome ad nauseam. But that doesn’t go very far, because they themselves don’t regard the fathers as authoritative, as Hays has repeated over and over in his book, and Catholics don’t think one father’s views are magisterial or conclusive, either. So we’re left with the councils of Hippo and Carthage and Pope Innocent I’s letter from AD 405.

The internal evidence for the canon is infallible. The self-witness of Scripture is infallible. That may not suffice to cover the entire canon, but it’s infallible with respect to what is covered. [p. 391]

The very essence of the “problem” of determining the canon is to determine all of it. So what good is a position that “may not suffice to cover the entire canon”? It is little help at all. It only confirms (assuming this criterion is effective and definitive) some of the books. The Catholic pronouncements of the patristic period covered all of the Bible. I find this to be remarkably shoddy and insufficient argumentation. It seems that Hays himself should have recognized that, but he doesn’t seem to have been aware of the serious methodological flaw in his approach. See my papers:

Are All Bible Books Self-Evidently Inspired? [6-19-06]

Are All the Biblical Books Self-Evidently Canonical? [6-22-06]

Bible: Completely Self-Authenticating, So that Anyone Could Come up with the Complete Canon without Formal Church Proclamations? (vs. Wm. Whitaker) [July 2012]

[E]ven if the process by which evangelicals arrive at the canon is fallible, if God intends for evangelicals to discover the true canon by such means, the conclusion can be fully warranted despite the fallibility of the methods. [p. 392]

Of course (God can do whatever he wants, so this is theoretically possible), but again, the problem is that there is no objective, determinative, non-subjective way to prove whether God has done that. It’s not an argument. It’s merely an assertion of a possible action of God. So the Protestant is inevitably left with his mere fallible process to determine the canon. Catholics, on the other hand, have infallible papal authority and the magisterium to lay the matter to rest for good. And that is how God intended it to be. We know this by the constant (inspired, inerrant) biblical motifs of truth, certainty, etc., that I discussed earlier in this series.

That being the case, I submit that God would surely (it seems to me) want the contents of the biblical canon of inspired revelation to be among this category of certain and truthful things (which includes all major Christian beliefs). He chose not to settle the question in the Bible itself, and instead allowed men in the Church to take over 350 years to iron it out (which is still a lot less time than the Church took to fully develop trinitarianism and Christology).

But suppose, for argument’s sake, that the Protestant canon might be mistaken in some particulars. If we’re doing the best we can with the information God has put at our disposal, that’s an innocent mistake. Unless God will punish us for error through no fault of our own, what’s the big deal? [p. 392]

Suppose for argument’s sake that the Protestant canon might mistakenly include a book that ought to be excluded or exclude a book that ought to be included. Suppose it isn’t possible to be certain. But if we’re mistaken through no fault of our own, because the evidence is inconclusive, is that something we should fret over? Unless God is going to punish Christians for unavoidable mistakes, how is that our responsibility? [p. 397]

The “big deal” and the thing that a conscientious Protestant ought to “fret over” would be yet more falsehood incipient in Protestantism. God doesn’t like falsehood (that’s crystal-clear throughout the Bible), and Satan is the father of lies.  If a well-meaning, well-intended Christian mistakenly thinks a book is inspired revelation and in fact it isn’t, then he or she may draw theology from it that is false. This process could easily and quickly “snowball” to the extent that someone has the canon wrong. It’s obviously not a good thing, and I believe that if Hays had thought about it more deeply and for a longer time, he would have eventually agreed with this point.

Canon revisited

What, exactly, is the nature of the Catholic claim? Is it an ontological claim regarding the nature of Scripture? Is the claim that there’s no intrinsic difference between what counts as Scripture and what doesn’t? Is it that an ecumenical council could just as well vote the Gospel of John out of the canon and vote the Gospel of Thomas into the canon? Does it come down to raw, arbitrary ecclesiastical authority? [p. 396]

None of the above. The Protestant position (so they tell us) makes more sense because it places churches and traditions beneath Scripture. This seems obvious because the Bible is inspired and infallible, and men and traditions (which make up churches) are fallible and quite prone to error. So how can it be otherwise? It doesn’t follow at all, however, that Catholics are placing Church above Scripture, in simply pointing out that human authority was needed in order to determine the canon. An analogy or comparison might be in order, to further explain this.

All (i.e., serious, observant Christian believers of all stripes, not “pick-and-choose” / intellectually dishonest theological liberals) agree that the Bible must be properly interpreted. Protestants, to their credit, place a huge emphasis on learning to study the Bible wisely and intelligently (the sciences of exegesis and hermeneutics). Just because learning and study are needed to correctly read the Bible and to attain to truth in theology, doesn’t mean that, therefore, the Bible did not already contain truth, or that human interpretation is “higher” than “God-breathed” biblical inspiration.

Likewise, it was necessary for human church councils to decide on the specific books that were to be included in the biblical canon. This doesn’t imply in the least that the councils (let alone the Church) are “above” Scripture, any more than a Christian communion authoritatively declaring in its creed that Jesus is God in the flesh, makes them “higher” than He is, or superior.

Proclamation of an existing reality has nothing to do with some supposed “superiority” of category. Both the Bible and theological truth remain what they are at all times. But God is able to (and indeed does) protect human beings from error insofar as they make binding claims about the biblical canon. Catholics believe that God (the Holy Spirit: John 14-16) willed to protect the Catholic Church from error, and that He is certainly capable of doing so, because He can do anything. In conclusion, here are the Catholic magisterial documents having to do with this question:

First Vatican Council (1870): These the Church holds to be sacred and canonical; not because, having been carefully composed by mere human industry, they were afterward approved by her authority; not because they contain revelation, with no admixture of error; but because, having been written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author, and have been delivered as such to the Church herself. (Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, chapter II; emphasis added)

Second Vatican Council (1962-1965): The divinely-revealed realities which are contained and presented in the text of sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For Holy Mother Church relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that they were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (cf. Jn. 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:19-21; 3:15-16), they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself. (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation [Dei Verbum], Chapter III, 11; emphasis added)

I don’t think I’ve ever come across a Protestant apologist who is aware of the two conciliar statements above, and includes consideration of them in his criticism of the Catholic Church regarding the canon. As a result, we get the wild charges and speculations (like those of Hays above) about what the Catholic Church supposedly thinks about Holy Scripture, and how we allegedly place the Church above Scripture.

Is it an epistemological argument regarding the certainty or uncertainty of the canon? [p. 396]

That’s a fairly accurate description of our view of the canon, yes.  It’s both epistemological and also pragmatic and practical for the Christian life of discipleship. The Christian (rather obviously, I think) must know which books are in the Bible, so he or she can attribute to them the sublime authority of inspiration, and, conversely, not wrongly attribute to non-canonical books the characteristic of divine inspiration.

It’s just a historical accident that Trent canonized some intertestamental books rather than others. [p. 396]

Nonsense. This is more desperate argumentation. Even the non-Catholic Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church disagrees with this ludicrous characterization of the relevant historical data:

In the Septuagint (LXX), which incorporated all [of the so-called “Apocryphal” books] except 2 Esdras, they were in no way differentiated from the other Books of the OT . . . Christians . . . at first received all the Books of the Septuagint equally as Scripture . . . Down to the 4th cent. the Church generally accepted all the Books of the Septuagint as canonical. Gk. and Lat. Fathers alike (e.g., Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian) cite both classes of Books without distinction. In the 4th cent., however, many Gk. Fathers (e.g. Eusebius, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Gregory of Nazianzus) came to recognize a distinction between those canonical in Heb. and the rest, though the latter were still customarily cited as Scripture. St. Jerome . . . accepted this distinction, and introduced the term ‘apocrypha’ for the latter class . . . But with a few exceptions (e.g., Hilary, Rufinus), Western writers (esp. Augustine) continued to consider all as equally canonical . . . (Oxford University Press, ed. F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone, 1989,  70-71, “The Apocrypha”)

The early Christian Church inherited the LXX, and the NT writers commonly quoted the OT Books from it . . . In post-NT times, the Christian Fathers down to the later 4th cent. almost all regarded the LXX as the standard form of the OT and seldom referred to the Hebrew. (Ibid., 1260, “The Septuagint [‘LXX’]” )

That’s not “historical accident”; that’s consensus in the crucial early centuries of the Church. Trent simply reiterated what had been decided between AD 393 and 405. And they did because of (as usual) opposition to what had already been held just a bit less definitively (Protestants introducing novel ideas about the biblical canon).

Is the canon a fallible list of infallible books?

Hays cites (on p. 399) a rather famous (and intellectually honest!) quotation from the late Presbyterian theologian, R. C. Sproul: “The historic Protestant position shared by Lutherans, Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and so on, has been that the canon of Scripture is a fallible collection of infallible books.”

I believe this distinction originated with Sproul’s mentor, John Gerstner, which Sproul popularized. But it’s unclear what that distinction really means. If each and every book in the collection is infallible, then in what sense is the collection still fallible? [p. 399]

All agree that the books (whichever ones they are) that are actually canonical / biblical are infallible, as well as inspired (a much higher quality). What Sproul highlighted was that the means by which the Protestant determines the canon (having rejected the Catholic solution and authority) is itself a fallible process, and one not properly categorized under sola Scriptura: the Protestant rule of faith. It’s an exception to the rule of how Protestants determine things, in other words. Hays himself recognized this earlier in his book.

Is the canon said to be fallible because the evidence for the canon, while adequate, is less than conclusive or rationally compelling? Or is the canon said to be fallible because any uninspired human judgment is fallible no matter how conclusive the evidence? [p. 399]

Both, assuming the Protestant perspective on the rule of faith.

I think the Gerstner/Sproul formulation is too equivocal to be useful. [p. 400]

That’s fine and dandy for him, but he hasn’t shown it to be false. I say that Sproul and his mentor Gerstner were honestly grappling with the dilemma posed by the all-important Protestant adoption of sola Scriptura, while Hays had his head in the sand, trying to pretend that it wasn’t a dilemma at all. Wishing an internal difficulty away isn’t a solution.

Suppose the church gave us the Bible?

We don’t accept the Tridentine canon of the OT. [p. 401]

But the early Church by and large did. I’ll accept their collective judgment over that of Protestants 1100 years later, thank you.

The ancient church disagreed on the scope of the OT canon. [p. 401]

Not nearly as much as Hays thinks (and as I’ve backed up with Protestant scholars). As I already noted, even the great F. F. Bruce agreed that the councils at Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419), following St. Augustine (Protestants’ favorite Church father, by far) “did not impose any innovation on the churches; they simply endorsed what had become the general consensus of the churches of the west and of the greater part of the east. (Ibid., 97). “Consensus” means “consensus” (general and significant and widespread — though not unanimous — agreement. It’s Bruce who asserted this, not myself: the despised, lowly Catholic apologist.

So even assuming, for discussion purposes, that God supernaturally guided the ancient church to give Christians the right Bible, this carries no presumption that God supernaturally guides the church in other respects, or that God continuously guides the church. [p. 401]

That’s right (logically, albeit assuming Protestant ecclesiological presuppositions), but it’s an odd and implausible scenario: God guiding a Church only once and never at any other time. I think Sproul had realized its implausibility also, which is why this troubled him. It made little sense. The very notion smacks of desperation to uphold a system — sola Scriptura — that was already as leaky as a bucket with a hundred holes (see my book about it).

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,300+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-one 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: The Whore of Babylon (workshop of Lucas Cranach): colorized illustration from Martin Luther’s 1534 translation of the Bible [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: The late Steve Hays was a Calvinist and anti-Catholic writer and apologist. This is one of my many critiques of Hays’ “Catholicism”: a 695-page self-published volume.

2023-05-18T14:34:49-04:00

Last updated on: May 18, 2023 at 2:34 pm   By
0 Comments

Rule of Faith; Catholic Mariology 

The late Steve Hays (1959-2020) was a Calvinist (and anti-Catholic) apologist, who was very active on his blog, called Triablogue (now continued by Jason Engwer). His 695-page self-published book, Catholicism — a collection of articles from his site — has graciously been made available for free. On 9 September 2006, knowing full well my history of being condemned and vilified by other anti-Catholics (and his buddies) like James White, Eric Svendsen, and James Swan, Hays was quite — almost extraordinarily — charitable towards me. He wrote then:

I don’t think I’ve ever accused him of being a traitor or apostate or infidel. . . . I have nothing to say, one way or the other, regarding his state of grace. But his sincerity is unquestionable. I also don’t dislike him. . . . I don’t think there’s anything malicious about Armstrong—unlike some people who come to mind. In addition, I don’t think I’ve ever said he was unintelligent. For the record, it’s obvious that Armstrong has a quick, nimble mind. . . . The term “apostasy” carries with it a heavy presumption that the apostate is a hell-bound reprobate. I think it’s unwarranted to assume that all Catholics or converts to Catholicism are damned.

Two-and-a-half years later, starting in April 2009 and up through December 2011 (in the following quotations) his opinion radically changed, and he claimed that I have “an evil character,” am “actually evil,” “ego-maniac, narcissist,” “idolater,” “self-idolater,” “hack who pretends to be a professional apologist,” given to “chicanery,” one who doesn’t “do any real research,” “a stalwart enemy of the faith . . .  no better than [the atheists] Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens,” with an intent to “destroy faith in God’s word,” “schizophrenic,” “emotionally unhinged,” one who “doesn’t trust in the merit of Christ alone for salvation,” “has no peace of mind,” “a bipolar solipsist,” “split-personality,” and a “bad” man. He wasn’t one to mince words! See more gory details.

I feel no need whatsoever to reciprocate these silly and sinful insults. I just wanted the record to be known. I’ve always maintained that Hays was a very intelligent man, but habitually a sophist in methodology; sincere and well-meaning, but tragically and systematically wrong and misguided regarding Catholicism. That’s what I’m addressing, not the state of his heart and soul (let alone his eternal destiny). It’s a theological discussion. This is one of many planned critiques of his book (see my reasons why I decided to do this). Rather than list them all here, interested readers are directed to the “Steve Hays” section of my Anti-Catholicism web page, where they will all be listed. My Bible citations are from the RSV. Steve’s words will be in blue.

*****

[Chapter 2: Exposition]

Catholicism in the dock, part 2

Why . . .  even bother with the text of Scripture when the Catholic distinctive[s] derive, not from Scripture, but from church fathers, church councils, &c? Scripture doesn’t contain the specific claims of developed Catholic theology. [p. 74]

He’s assuming what he needs to prove: “begging the question” or petitio principii fallacy.  On the other hand, I deny his false premise: why does he think everything has to come from Scripture, or perhaps (qualifying a bit) explicitly therefrom? Where in the Bible does it teach that this is a requirement? If it’s not taught in Scripture, it’s merely a Protestant extrabiblical tradition. And if that is the case, by Protestant criteria it can’t be infallible; therefore no one is bound to accept it. But Hays is freed from all of this consideration of reason. He simply accepts with blind faith and a complete arbitrariness the notion that “every Christian truth must be laid out in the Bible.”

It’s also a truism that Scripture doesn’t lay out claims of a theology that has undergone up to 1950 years of development. How could it? It can, however, contain the more primitive versions and the essence of doctrines that later came to be more or less fully understood. Even the Holy Trinity and divinity of Jesus, which are very well expressed in the Bible, nevertheless took 500 years to fully develop (as most Protestant Church historians would agree).

That’s why he must supplement the sacred text with extrabiblical texts that do. [p. 74]

Just as Protestants accept many extrabiblical tenets and doctrines. I just explained one of them above. Sola Scriptura, sola fide, and the canon of the New Testament are other ones.

But in that event it’s the extrabiblical texts that actually teach Catholic distinctive. [p. 74]

In my 33 years of Catholic apologetics, I have been able to find, fairly easily, biblical justification for every single Catholic doctrine. It’s one of the major themes of my apostolate, and probably what I am most known for. In those same 33 years, I have yet to see biblical justification for Sola Scriptura and sola fide: the two “pillars” of the so-called Protestant Reformation. In those instances, Protestants simply accept an unbiblical tradition and labor under the illusion that they are taught in the Bible (“somewhere,” as it were). The usual falsehoods employed are equating material and formal sufficiency of the Bible, and equating salvation by grace alone with salvation by faith alone. Lately, I’ve noticed Protestant apologists refreshingly conceding that sola Scriptura is not taught in the Bible itself:

I don’t think the Bible directly, explicitly teaches sola scriptura. Rather, I think sola scriptura is an implication of Biblical teaching. . . . I don’t think 2 Timothy 3:15-17 is saying that Timothy or anybody else at that time should have abided by sola scriptura. Rather, when we combine 2 Timothy 3 with what other sources tell us about scripture and what we know about other factors involved (e.g., ecclesiology), we arrive at the conclusion of sola scriptura.” (Jason Engwer, “How To Argue For Sola Scriptura,” 1-10-18)

I think the question that we have is: do we have to find a particular Scripture that says Scripture is the only authority? And I just don’t think we have to. We don’t. There’s nothing in — you can’t find — in any of Paul’s letters, for example, . . . “by the way, Scripture is the only authority and traditions are not an authority and there is no magisterium that is given some kind of infallible authority to pass on infallible teachings.” (Jordan Cooper, “A Defense of Sola Scriptura“, 3-12-19; from 1:39 to 2:14 on the video)

At best, the biblical texts are merely consistent with subsequent developments, without affirming or entailing subsequent developments. [p. 74]

That’s perfectly consistent with the nature of development of doctrine. Once again, Hays shows that he doesn’t understand the basic definition of development of doctrine. He thinks it is evolution of dogma: a false belief that the Catholic Church has roundly condemned.

But that means they’re consistent with disaffirming subsequent developments. They’re consistent with more than one theological trajectory. [p. 74]

Theoretically, before the fact, yes. But in actuality, after the fact and in retrospect, no.

There’s a sense in which you could say Mary is the new Eve. By the same token, there’s a sense in which you could say Noah’s wife is the new Eve. [p. 75]

I don’t see how. Noah’s wife didn’t say “yes” in a way that Mary’s “yes” reversed the “no” of Eve. There is simply no analogy there. Nor did Noah’s wife bear the incarnate God, which is the whole point of why Mary was greeted by an angel, who said, “Hail, full of grace” and informed Mary that she would bear God the Son. No one claims that Noah’s wife was sinless, either, which was “fitting” for the Mother of God the Son.

A sense in which Noah is the new Adam . . . [p. 75]

There is no such sense, seeing in this case that Holy Scripture itself calls Jesus Christ the “last Adam” (1 Cor 15:45; cf. the parallelism of 15:22). That’s not even deductive. It flat-out states it.

[T]hat illustrates the risks and limitations of these facile parallels. [p. 75]

His example of Noah as the second Adam certainly is quite “facile.” Even if it was an intended reductio ad absurdum, it was dumb ,because it completely overlooked the refuting passages of 1 Corinthians 15:22, 45. But the “new Eve” motif goes back to at least St. Irenaeus in the second century.

[Pious Catholics are intoxicated by the idea of Catholicism. Swept away by appealing ideas. (Appealing to them.) [p. 75]

As if zealous Protestants are not intoxicated with the “idea” of Protestantism? Well-known Protestant historian Alister McGrath wrote a book entitled, Christianity’s Dangerous Idea: The Protestant Revolution (2007). The blurb on the Google Books page gushes: “The radical idea that individuals could interpret the Bible for themselves spawned a revolution that is still being played out on the world stage today.”

There’s nothing in the Gospels about Mary interceding for sinners. [p. 76]

She intervened, on behalf of the hosts of the wedding reception, for Jesus to miraculously make wine. That’s fairly analogous to intercession. Even Hays state on page 77, half-conceding this very point, that Mary’s intervention “precipitated a public miracle, thereby initiating his ministry, . . .”

Here’s we see the process of legendary embellishment right before our eyes. Notice that [the Catholic] argument [regarding Luke 1:28 and “full of grace” is explicitly dependent on the wording, not of the original text of Luke, but the Vulgate. He’s not even conscious of the problem when he departs from the Greek text to draw his inference from a nuance in the Latin translation that can’t be traced back to the text that Luke actually wrote. That’s not what it means in the Greek–or even the Latin. [p. 76]

I already dealt with this at considerable length in Reply #7 (Hays is dead wrong) but here’s a little more. I cited the linguistic scholars Blass and DeBrunner (Greek Grammar of the New Testament) [pp. 166, 175], and H. W. Smyth (Greek Grammar — Harvard Univ. Press, 1968) in footnote number 188 in my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (2003, Sophia Institute Press, page 178). I wrote on the latter page: “It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds [footnote], to paraphrase kecharitomene as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace.” That’s based on Smyth describing kecharitomene as a perfect passive participle, that shows a “completed action with permanent result” and denotes continuance of a completed action (pp. 108-109, section 1852:b).

If you identify Mary as the referent in Rev 12 because she’s the biological mother of Jesus, then you can’t suddenly drop that principle and say she’s the metaphorical mother of Christians, or a symbol of the church. For if the depiction is metaphorical, then you can’t infer that the referent is the mother of Jesus because Mary is his biological mother. The interpretation needs to be consistently literal or consistently figurative on the same plane. The referents must operate on the same level of literality or figurality. If the woman is figuratively the Church, then the manchild can’t literally be Jesus. In this passage, Mary doesn’t personify the church. Rather, the church/Israel is personified by a woman. In the OT, Israel is personified as a mother in labor. [pp. 77-78]

There is no inviolable hermeneutical rule, let alone scriptural prohibition of possible multiple meanings or applications of prophetic-type biblical literature, as I have written about. I explained it to an atheist. I wouldn’t have thought it would be necessary to have to point this out to an educated Calvinist apologist. As for the exegesis of Revelation 12, I have dealt with it many times:

Virgin Mary: Woman of Revelation 12? [4-1-09]

Dialogue on the Woman of Revelation 12 (Mary?) [8-16-11]

Blessed Virgin Mary & Revelation 12: Debate with a Protestant [5-28-12]

Vs. James White #12: Mary the Woman of Revelation 12 [11-7-19]

The Queen Mother & the Bible (vs. James White) [10-8-21]

Although the passage alludes in part to Gen 3, the serpentine/dragonesque imagery also derives from passages in Isaiah and the Psalter regarding the Red Sea crossing (e.g. Ps 74:13-14; Isa 27:1). So that’s not just about Eve, but Israel and the Exodus. [p. 78]

No one denied that it did. It has multiple applications, like many — if not most — prophecies do.

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,200+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-one 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: The Whore of Babylon (workshop of Lucas Cranach): colorized illustration from Martin Luther’s 1534 translation of the Bible [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: The late Steve Hays was a Calvinist and anti-Catholic writer and apologist. This is one of my many critiques of Hays’ “Catholicism”: a 695-page self-published volume.

2023-02-21T15:56:24-04:00

Last updated on: February 21, 2023 at 3:56 pm   By

Including Extensive Biblical Analyses of Exceptionally “Righteous” and “Holy” People, and Merit

Lucas Banzoli is a very active Brazilian anti-Catholic polemicist, who holds to basically a Seventh-Day Adventist theology, whereby there is no such thing as a soul that consciously exists outside of a body, and no hell (soul sleep and annihilationism). This leads him to a Christology which is deficient and heterodox in terms of Christ’s human nature after His death. He has a Master’s degree in theology, a degree and postgraduate work in history, a license in letters, and is a history teacher, author of 25 books, as well as blogmaster (but now inactive) for six blogs. He’s active on YouTube.

This is my 22nd refutation of articles written by Lucas Banzoli. As of yet, I haven’t received a single word in reply to any of them (or if Banzoli has replied to anything, anywhere, he certainly hasn’t informed me of it). Readers may decide for themselves why that is the case. His words will be in blue. I use RSV for the Bible passages unless otherwise indicated.

*****

I’m replying to Lucas’ article, “Maria era uma mulher qualquer?” [Was Mary just any woman?] (3-24-17).

[In another “closely related” article] I unmask the Catholic trick that consists of saying that we “hate Mary” just because we don’t believe in the ridiculous and late Marian dogmas invented by Rome.

I chose my title very carefully. I didn’t (and don’t) claim that Protestants “hate” Mary. Nor do I think that most Catholics believe this (though there certainly are some). I contend that they simply don’t understand the importance and crucial nature of Mariology in the overall framework of Christianity. They haven’t been properly taught. Their theological formation was deficient and insufficient. They have become spiritually impoverished or stunted. This wasn’t true — I’m delighted to report — of the original Protestants. It crept in later, as a result of the corrosion of early manifestations of cynical, skeptical theological liberalism.

Accordingly, I chose the word “denigration” to describe Lucas’ stated opinions. He regards the Blessed Virgin Mary as far “lower” in significance and holiness than she actually is. Although he does (happily) concede several points about her blessedness (even singular blessedness), due to her being the mother of Jesus, He doesn’t present her as the Bible does (sinless). And he takes a few classic supposed “anti-Mary” texts and distorts them in order to try to make this failed, miserable case for Mary’s “ordinariness.” I also describe his pathetic effort as “mindless” because it’s literally groundless and unbiblical, as I will show. It has no substance. It’s simply spiritual ignorance.

So: “hatred”? No. I don’t claim that Protestants (generalizing) hate Mary. But rank ignorance of both the Bible and traditional Catholic and Orthodox and early Protestant Mariology? Yes! Absolutely . . .

In the present article I will dismantle another papist charge, that we assert that Mary was “an ordinary woman.”

That is, in fact (much as he denies it) the conclusion that Lucas argues for in this article.

Usually this accusation is the fruit of a straw man created in debates where the Protestant debater didn’t say anything about it. For example, this occurs when an evangelical claims that Mary was a human being and not a goddess, and then the enraged, teeth-baring papist hurls abuse at the believer and accuses him of saying that Mary was “an ordinary woman.”

I can see why a “papist” might very well react that way, since the premise contains a lie: that is, that we supposedly regard or classify Mary as a “goddess.” That’s a notion smuggled in from Greek or Roman pagan religion and mythology. Catholics regard Mary as God’s greatest creature and the holiest created human being, because God chose her to bear the incarnate God: Jesus. Protestants like Lucas simply collapse that into the category of “goddess” because they seem constitutionally unable to grasp the fact that different folks have different levels of holiness; therefore, that there can be a “holiest” among those who are exceptionally holy, and can do that without becoming God, and remaining quite human.

That’s high and exalted indeed, and worthy of honor and reverence (not worship or adoration), but it has nothing to do with being an alleged  “goddess.” If in fact Catholics believed that Mary was a “goddess” then surely the term would appear in official [magisterial] Catholic documents somewhere. But of course it does not. If Lucas or any Protestant denies that, let them produce the documented evidence. “Put up or shut up!” Best wishes in that endeavor!

Mary was simply exceptionally holy: so much so that she was holier than any other created human being: and that as a result of God performing a special miracle of removing original sin from her at conception. Most Protestants don’t or can’t or won’t accept that, since they have this mistaken and unscriptural idea that all human beings are more or less the same, and exhibit no differences of degree of holiness and righteousness (which ties directly into their denial of merit). The Bible doesn’t teach that, but Protestant extra-biblical tradition unfortunately does.

But after all: was Mary just any woman? My answer is: Yes. And not. Let me explain. The crucial point behind this accusation is not in Mary, but in “any”. The “any” is the emphasis of the sentence. So, it is first necessary to define what “any” is, what the debater understands by the term. When a Protestant claims that Mary was an “any woman”, he is not saying that Mary was an ordinary, despicable or insignificant woman, as the Catholic debater purposely distorts the term. He is merely maintaining that Mary was not “more” a woman than other women, that is, that she was only a woman and not a goddess or demigoddess, as Catholics think.

That is, the “any” is not in a pejorative sense, it is not diminishing the person of Mary; it is simply emphasizing that she was as human as any other woman. In the Bible, all women were created equally in the image and likeness of God as His creatures.

Since we have no disagreement with this whatsoever (as far as it goes), it’s a non sequitur (irrelevant). Lucas again constructs a straw man and knocks it down: impressing no one but those as profoundly ignorant about these matters as he is.

All human beings are of equal value before God, and if anyone denies this, he will descend to Nazi thinking, that held that there were superior and inferior types of people. God loves all men and women equally, regardless of race, nation, age, or role in life.

Of course He does. The marvel here is that Lucas thinks Catholics would deny this. More rank ignorance on display . . .

If a viewpoint strays from this understanding, it’s not Christianity: it’s idolatry, when one human being is placed above all others, sometimes even sharing the focus with God.

Again, the Bible refers to holy people: ones who are holier than others. Therefore, in that scenario there can be one person who is in fact, holier than all other created people: up to and including sinlessness. This person we Catholics believe to be the Blessed Virgin Mary. Let’s take a step back and first establish the premise that Lucas appears to deny: that there are differences in holiness among human beings.

James 5:16-18 . . . The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects. [17] Eli’jah was a man of like nature with ourselves and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth. [18] Then he prayed again and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth its fruit.

It’s all right there. The prophet Elijah was just a person like all the rest of us, with a “like nature” (just as was true of Mary also), but he was exceptionally righteous, and here we learn that the prayer of such a person has more powerful effects than that of a less holy person. See a similar verse:

1 Peter 3:12 For the eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous, and his ears are open to their prayer.

The Bible teaches that grace is given in different degrees to different people. See my paper, Degrees of Grace / Quantifiable Differences in Grace [5-4-17].

The description “more righteous” appears four times in the Old Testament. “Righteous man” appears 22 times in the Old Testament, and “good man” seven times. Job is described as “blameless and upright, one who feared God, and turned away from evil” (Job 1:1; cf. 1:8; 2:3). The phrase “blameless man” also appears in 2 Samuel 22:26; Psalms 18:25 and 37:37. “Holy man” occurs in 2 Kings 4:9, in reference to the prophet Elisha.

The notion of merit is entirely biblical:

Catholic Merit vs. Distorted Caricatures (James McCarthy) [1997]

Merit and Cooperating with God for Salvation [7-8-07]

Catholic Bible Verses on Sanctification and Merit [12-20-07]

Our Merit is Based on Our Response to God’s Grace [2009]

Merit & Human Cooperation with God (vs. Calvin #35) [10-19-09]

Jesus Associates Works, Merit, & Heroic Sacrifice w Salvation [11-10-18]

Protestants agree with us that there are differential rewards in heaven. Why would that be? Well, it’s (I think rather obviously) because of different attainments of merit and righteousness in this life: all by God’s grace, I hasten to add (like all good things); but we have to cooperate with our free will and in doing so, we gain merit and more rewards in heaven.

Hebrews 11 is a chapter devoted to “the heroes of faith.” Are we to believe that none of the people mentioned were worthy of such scriptural honor; that they were no higher in righteousness than Joe Blow Protestant sitting in a Bible study on Wednesday night?

There is absolutely such a thing in the New Testament as a “righteous / holy person”: usually meaning in context that he or she is relatively more righteous or holy than other persons:

Matthew 10:41 . . . he who receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward.

Matthew 13:17 Truly, I say to you, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.

Matthew 21:32 For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, . . .

Matthew 23:35 that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechari’ah the son of Barachi’ah, . . .

Mark 6:20 for Herod feared John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, . . .

Luke 1:5-6 In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechari’ah, of the division of Abi’jah; and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. [6] And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

Luke 1:70 as he spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old,

Luke 1:74-75 to grant us that we, being delivered from the hand of our enemies, might serve him without fear, [75] in holiness and righteousness before him all the days of our life.

Luke 2:25 Now there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon, and this man was righteous and devout,

Luke 23:50 Now there was a man named Joseph from the Jewish town of Arimathe’a. He was a member of the council, a good and righteous man,

Romans 6:13 Do not yield your members to sin as instruments of wickedness, but yield yourselves to God as men who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments of righteousness.

Romans 6:19 . . . yield your members to righteousness for sanctification.

2 Corinthians 9:10 He who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will supply and multiply your resources and increase the harvest of your righteousness.

Ephesians 1:4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.

Ephesians 3:5 . . . his holy apostles and prophets . . .

Ephesians 4:24 and put on the new nature, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.

Philippians 1:11 filled with the fruits of righteousness . . .

Colossians 3:12 Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassion, kindness, lowliness, meekness, and patience,

1 Thessalonians 2:10 You are witnesses, and God also, how holy and righteous and blameless was our behavior to you believers;

1 Timothy 6:11 But as for you, man of God, shun all this; aim at righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness. (cf. 2 Tim 2:22)

Titus 1:8 but hospitable, a lover of goodness, master of himself, upright, holy, and self-controlled;

1 Peter 1:15-16 but as he who called you is holy, be holy yourselves in all your conduct; [16] since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.”

1 Peter 3:5 . . . the holy women who hoped in God . . .

2 Peter 2:5 . . . Noah, a herald of righteousness . . .

2 Peter 2:7-8 . . . righteous Lot . . . [8] (for by what that righteous man saw and heard as he lived among them, he was vexed in his righteous soul day after day with their lawless deeds),

2 Peter 3:2 . . . the holy prophets . . .

1 John 3:7 . . . He who does right is righteous, as he is righteous.

1 John 3:12 and not be like Cain who was of the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own deeds were evil and his brother’s righteous.

Revelation 22:11 Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy.

sometimes even sharing the focus with God.

That happens several times in Holy Scripture. It’s nothing unusual or controversial:

Mark 16:20 And they went forth and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them . . .

Romans 15:17-18  In Christ Jesus, then, I have reason to be proud of my work for God. [18] For I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has wrought through me to win obedience from the Gentiles, by word and deed,

1 Corinthians 3:9 . . . we are God’s fellow workers . . . (KJV: “labourers together with God”)

1 Corinthians 15:10  But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me.

1 Corinthians 15:58  Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain.

2 Corinthians 6:1 Working together with him, then, we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain.

2 Corinthians 13:3 . . . Christ is speaking in me . . .

Galatians 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; . . .

Philippians 2:13 for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

God even shares His glory with human beings, as I have documented.

Once a woman in the crowd said to Jesus: “Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that you sucked!” (Luke 11:27) What did Jesus answer? If he were Catholic, we would know very well what the answer would be, and he would exalt Mary even more. But his reply was: “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!” (Luke 11:28) Note that Luke, the evangelist, introduces Jesus’ answer with a “But“, to make it clear that he was contradicting what the woman said. And when he quotes Jesus’ answer, he starts with a “Before”, placing anyone who hears the word of God as blessed before Mary.

I’m not sure where Lucas sees “before.”

That woman in the crowd thought Mary was special and more important than all the others for giving birth to Jesus – this is exactly the same Catholic argument! – but Jesus contradicts it and puts anyone who keeps the word of God above it.

Jesus wasn’t denying that His mother was blessed, but instead, affirming it and moving on to make a more general point (which would likely include Mary as well: as the exemplar of a general description of holiness). This is scarcely a case illustrating “Catholicism gone awry.” In fact, it is no problem at all (none, whatsoever), rightly understood. Jesus affirms His mother and her holiness, and goes on to make another point, just as he did in several other similar passages. He was referring to Mary, too, when he was extolling those who “hear the word of God and obey it” (Phillips). The Catholic Encyclopedia (in its article: “The Blessed Virgin Mary”) comments on this passage:

At first sight, it seems that Jesus Himself depreciated the dignity of His Blessed Mother. . . .

In reality, Jesus . . . places the bond that unites the soul with God above the natural bond of parentage which unites the Mother of God with her Divine Son. The latter dignity is not belittled; as men naturally appreciate it more easily, it is employed by Our Lord as a means to make known the real value of holiness. Jesus, therefore, really, praises His mother in a most emphatic way; for she excelled the rest of men in holiness not less than in dignity. . . .

Think for a moment of the implications of the interpretation whereby Jesus would be denying that Mary was blessed. Really? This is not just a question of allegedly “excessive” Catholic Marian veneration, but of clear biblical texts.

This is about a woman who was hailed by the angel Gabriel (what other human being is treated this way by an angel?), twice called “blessed” by Elizabeth (mother of John the Baptist: Lk 1:42, 45), precisely because she was the Mother of God the Son and believed the angel when she was informed of this. Mary herself says in reply: “henceforth all generations will call me blessed” (Lk 1:48). And of course, Catholics do that and almost all Protestants do not. We fulfill the prophecy.

In other words, if Mary was blessed, it was for keeping the Word of God, and therefore being as blessed as any other person who also keeps the Word, and not in a privileged and superior way just because she was his mother. That’s a harsh message, it’s true.

It’s “both/and”; not “either/or” as in the frequent unbiblical “dichotomous” Protestant mentality. Mary kept the Word so well that she was sinless. Who can keep it better than that? But she was privileged, too, by being the mother of God incarnate: an absolutely unique human accomplishment. One either grasps the sublime wonder and marvel of this or they do not. This is what I was referring to earlier, in describing many Protestants as having a “theological formation” that was “deficient and insufficient” and “spiritually impoverished or stunted” and suffering from “spiritual ignorance” and a sad state of being “oblivious to self-evident spiritual reality and manifest biblical teachings.”

Martin Luther didn’t suffer from these shortcomings at all. He “got it”: in a way that Lucas seems literally unable to comprehend:

She became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man’s understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child . . . Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God . . . None can say of her nor announce to her greater things, even though he had as many tongues as the earth possesses flowers and blades of grass: the sky, stars; and the sea, grains of sand. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God. (Commentary on the Magnificat, 1521; Luther’s Works, Vol. XXI, 326)

That is the main consideration of Mary’s uniqueness. She was the Mother of God [the Son]. No one else was or is. No one had the unfathomable honor and privilege of not only bearing the Incarnate God for nine months, but living with Him and raising Him for thirty years, when the rest of the world knew Him not (they only had three years to do so). Mary thus had intimate connection with Jesus for ten times more years than anyone else, other than St. Joseph. Is that not amazingly unique as well, and anything but “ordinary”?

When I was a Protestant, I “got this” too. I believed that Mary was the greatest human being ever created. And why? Because she bore Jesus, and was so holy and humble, and appeared to be the first Christian in the new covenant (though I would have denied that she was sinless).

Lucas, in a related article, concedes this point (though it seems almost self-contradictory, given his overall argument):

Mary being the mother of Jesus, the Son of God is more than enough to consider her truly blessed and graced, as the Bible says of her. Although the Bible says that Mary was blessed among women, I affirm without hesitation that she was more blessed than all women as well, because of this unique and singular fact.

Secondly, she was full of grace (and called that by the angel Gabriel); that is, sinless: which is consistent with her Immaculate Conception. I explained how this follows, from Luke 1:28, in many articles:

Luke 1:28 (“Full of Grace”) & Immaculate Conception [2004]

The Bible: Mary Was Without Sin [4-1-09]

Mary’s Immaculate Conception: A Biblical Argument [2010]

Annunciation: Was Mary Already Sublimely Graced? [10-8-11]

Biblical Support for Mary’s Immaculate Conception [National Catholic Register, 10-29-18]

A “Biblical” Immaculate Conception? (vs. James White) [8-27-21]

Lucas agrees in his related article, that Mary was “full of grace”:

The Bible also says that Mary was “graced” or “full of grace” (depending on the controversial translation of kecharitomene), and we agree: [cites Luke 1:28-30] . . .

And while the most likely translation of kecharitomene is “graced” rather than “full of grace”, I believe without a doubt that Mary was “full of grace” as well. And that’s no retreat. I already wrote an article stating this on September 7, 2012 . . . 

Interestingly, the translation he used for Luke 1:30 is translated into English by Google: “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have been graced by God!” [Portugese: “Não tenha medo, Maria; você foi agraciada por Deus!”] This is a good rendering, because the Greek word is “grace” [charin / χάριν: Strong’s word #5485]. Many translations use “favor with God” here but “graced by God” is perfectly apt and proper. NASB translates charin as “grace” 122 times (78%) out of 156 appearances. Some non-Catholic English translations of Luke 1:30 are similar:

Amplified Bible, Classic (AMPC) you have found grace (free, spontaneous, absolute favor and loving-kindness) with God.

NEB + REB God has been gracious to you.

Expanded Bible (EXB) God has shown you his grace [ you have found favor/grace with God].

Jubilee Bible 2000 (JUB) thou hast found grace with God.

New Century Version (NCV) God has shown you his grace.

New Matthew Bible (NMB) you have found grace with God.

Wycliffe Bible (WYC) thou hast found grace with God.

Lamsa You have found grace with God.

Thirdly, she was called “blessed” in an extraordinary way, and precisely because she was the mother of Jesus:

Luke 1:41-48 And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit [42] and she exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! [43] And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? [44] For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the babe in my womb leaped for joy. [45] And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfilment of what was spoken to her from the Lord.” [46] And Mary said, “My soul magnifies the Lord, [47] and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, [48] for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden. For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed;

That’s biblical teaching. Lucas, in his related article, to his credit, again agrees:

We evangelical Christians have absolutely no problem or hesitation in asserting about Mary what the Bible actually says she was. The Bible says that Mary was blessed among women, and we agree [cites Luke 1:42] . . .

The Bible says that Mary would be called “blessed” through all generations, and we agree, and we consider Mary certainly very blessed: [cites Luke 1:46-49]

That’s all great. I would simply note that if Lucas agrees with Scripture that Mary was “blessed among women” and “certainly very blessed”, then why doesn’t he call her what we call her: “the Blessed Virgin Mary”? Catholics literally do what the Bible predicts: we call her “Blessed”: precisely as the Bible says would happen in “all generations.”

Fourthly, Catholic belief in her Immaculate Conception finds strong analogies to the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, and John the Baptist, and to the Apostle Paul:

Isaiah 49:1, 5 . . . The LORD called me from the womb, . . . [5] And now the LORD says, who formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob back to him, and that Israel might be gathered to him, for I am honored in the eyes of the LORD, and my God has become my strength –

Jeremiah 1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.” (KJV: “sanctified thee”)

Luke 1:15 for he will be great before the Lord, and he shall drink no wine nor strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.

Galatians 1:15 . . . he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace,

Fifth, we have the data from Revelation 12, which is about Mary and illustrates a strong heavenly exaltation and veneration of Mary:

Virgin Mary: Woman of Revelation 12? [4-1-09]

Dialogue on the Woman of Revelation 12 (Mary?) [8-16-11]

Blessed Virgin Mary & Revelation 12: Debate with a Protestant [5-28-12]

Defending Mary (Revelation 12 & Her Assumption) [5-28-12]

Vs. James White #12: Mary the Woman of Revelation 12 [11-7-19]

Is Our Lady the Woman of Revelation 12? [National Catholic Register, 11-27-19]

It is an affront to the ears of the most fanatical Catholics, who unduly exalt Mary with exactly the same argument used by the woman in the crowd whom Jesus antagonized. But it’s the truth, whatever the cost: Jesus doesn’t put Mary on a pedestal because she was his mother. The “pedestal” is to guard the Word of God, and in this all those who practice are together.

We venerate Mary for the above reasons: all eminently biblical. Period. It’s the Bible that “put Mary on a pedestal.” Lucas’ real beef is with Holy Scripture. Because of that, we follow that example, since we desire to ground all of our beliefs (or to have them be in harmony with) in the biblical revelation.

Another text where this thought becomes even clearer is in Mark 3:32-35, which says:

“And a crowd was sitting about him; and they said to him, “Your mother and your brothers are outside, asking for you.” [33] And he replied, “Who are my mother and my brothers?” [34] And looking around on those who sat about him, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! [35] Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother.””

Here Jesus not only privileges his spiritual family over his natural family – and explicitly includes his mother in this set – but also uses the term “any”, so oppressive to the Tridentines. Yes, what Jesus was saying is that anyone [“whoever”] who does the will of God is your brother, sister and mother. If Jesus says anyone can be like Mary if they do God’s will, then Mary is like anyone who does God’s will. This is simple and basic logic. Spiritually speaking, Mary was an “any” woman, equal to all others who did the will of God.

This is not belittling Mary, but elevating all others in equal dignity.

I dealt with this groundless objection, too, at length: “Who is My Mother?”: Beginning of “Familial Church” [8-26-19]. Here are some highlights:

James Spencer Northcote comments . . .:

. . . nor can it be necessary to point out to anyone who is familiar with the Gospels, how common a thing it was with our Blessed Lord to direct His answers not so much to the questions that had been put forward, as to the inward thoughts and motives of those who put them; how sometimes He set aside the question altogether as though he had not heard it, yet proceeded to make it the occasion of imparting some general lesson which it suggested. This is precisely what He does now. . . .

Jesus took this opportunity to show that He regarded all of His followers (in what would become the Christian Church) as family. Similarly, He told His disciples, “I have called you friends” (Jn 15:15).It doesn’t follow that this is “a rebuff of this kin” (i.e., his immediate family). He simply moved from literal talk of families to a larger conception and vision of families as those who do “the will of God.” Thus, Jesus habitually used “brethren” to describe those who were not His immediate family: [I cite six examples] . . .

It’s not a rebuff of His mother and father and half-brothers and/or cousins . . . it’s simply the beginning of the Body of Christ, and the Christian Church being regarded as one large, extended family.

None of this has any bearing on the spiritual status of Mary. It’s simply Jesus “expanding the circle” of Christian believers, so to speak. Protestants like Lucas see this as an alleged denigration of Mary because they are already predisposed to do so before they read the text. Such a view is not inherently in the text.

In the mind of the Catholic apologist, Mary can only be honored if she demeans everyone else.

No informed apologist ever said any such thing. It’s absurd. But there can (indeed must be) be a human being who is holier than anyone else, just as there are people who can play basketball better than anyone else, or run faster, or understand mathematics better than anyone, etc. So there is the holiest person. Catholics say — based on the Bible and unbroken Sacred Tradition — that this person is the Blessed Virgin Mary.

In the Bible, Mary is in the same group as others who seek God, not because she is despicable, but because others are just as important as she is spiritually before God.

That’s simply not true, as I have just demonstrated in fine different ways in the Bible (and by dismantling his alleged biblical disproofs). It’s what Protestants like Lucas wish or wrongly imagine to be true, despite the Bible.

While the Catholic demeans everyone to elevate Mary in an idolatrous way,

We do no such thing. We simply say she was sinless and God’s greatest creature (which someone logically has to be; for example, maybe a Protestant would say this person was St. Paul). And we don’t make an idol of her because we don’t worship or adore her as a goddess. We venerate and honor her, which is a perfectly biblical thing:

The Imitation of St. Paul & the Veneration of Saints [2004]

Bible on Veneration of Saints & Angels: John Calvin’s Antipathy to Veneration of Saints and Angels vs. Explicit Biblical Evidences of Same [10-1-12]

Biblical Evidence for Veneration of Saints [2013]

Veneration of Saints: God “In” and “Through” St. Paul [5-7-13; slightly expanded on 5-17-21]

Veneration of & Bowing Before an Angel (Joshua 5:13-15) [9-7-13]

Venerating & Bowing Before Angels & Men: Biblical? [11-10-14]

New (?) Analogical Biblical Argument for Veneration of the Saints and Angels from the Prohibition of Blasphemy of the Same  [8-8-15]

Veneration of Human Beings: Seven Biblical Examples (Apostles Paul and Silas, Kings David and Saul, Prophets Daniel and Samuel, Patriarch Joseph) [3-4-19]

Angel Gabriel’s “Hail” (Lk 1:28): Veneration of Mary? [3-8-19]

Imitating Paul & Saints: Biblical Argument for Veneration [10-29-21]

Elizabeth’s Veneration of God-Blessed Mary [12-2-21]

the Bible elevates everyone, without exception, who does God’s will, in God’s eyes.

Yes it does. That is the basis of merit: human beings accept God’s grace and act upon it,: thereby receiving merit.

It doesn’t exalt one to debase the others; it exalts others by making everyone equal under the mercy and love of God.

God loves everyone equally, and desires that all be saved (they are not because so many reject God’s free offer of grace), but they are not equally holy or meritorious, and do not even receive equal measures of grace, as massively shown above.

. . . all this just to solely extol Mary to the detriment of all others. If that isn’t misogyny and idolatry of the highest degree, I don’t know what is.

What an odd claim, seeing that Catholics have many female saints whom we venerate, and have proclaimed four Doctors of the Church: St. Teresa of Avila (1515-1582), St. Catherine of Siena (1347-1380), St. Therese of Lisieux (1873-1897), and St. Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179). Doctors of the Church are “saints whose writing or preaching is outstanding for guiding the faithful in all periods of the Church’s history” (Fr. John A. Hardon, SJ, Modern Catholic Dictionary).

The rest of this article that I have not directly responded to is either reiteration, or just plain stupid and silly and more straw men: ideas and opinions that never arose in any pious and educated Catholic mind. I didn’t have the patience to deal with all of it; but the heart and essence of Lucas’ argument has been dealt with and thoroughly refuted, and this article is over 5,000 words as it is.

Please keep praying for my patience, dear Catholic readers. I’ll need it as I continue to wallow through the outrageous and noxious, odious muck of Lucas’ anti-Catholic articles. The most insufferable of them all is when he battles against what he falsely imagines to be Catholic Mariology and what he wrongly believes about the Blessed Virgin Mary herself.

But someone has to refute this blasphemous slop, so here I am — only by God’s grace — engaging in that task.

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ 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: Istanbul: Chora Church Museum (Kariye Cami). Nartex. A mosaic showing the Virgin Mary beside Jesus. Photograph by Giovanni Dall’Orto, May 29, 2006. Released into public domain by the photographer [Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: Brazilian Protestant apologist Lucas Banzoli engages in mindless denigration of an imagined “Mary” by not comprehending what it means to be the Mother of Jesus.

2021-11-16T16:30:16-04:00

Last updated on: November 16, 2021 at 4:30 pm   By

Jason Engwer is a Protestant and anti-Catholic apologist, who runs the Tribalblogue site. I am responding to his article, If Jesus was teaching a physical presence in the eucharist, why didn’t he explain it better? (11-11-21). His words will be in blue.

*****

John 6:47-66 (RSV) “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. [48] I am the bread of life. [49] Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. [50] This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. [51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.” [52] The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” [53] So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; [54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. [55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. [56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. [57] As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. [58] This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.” [59] This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caper’na-um. [60] Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” [61] But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? [62] Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? [63] It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. [64] But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him. [65] And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”[66] After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.

Advocates of a physical presence of Christ in the eucharist often suggest that he couldn’t have made the concept much clearer than he did, that he should have made some other view of the eucharist clearer if he had some other view in mind, and so forth.

Yes we do, and for very good reason, as I shall show.

For example, we’ll be asked what could be clearer than what Jesus said in John 6. Or if Jesus wasn’t teaching a physical eucharistic presence there, then why didn’t he clarify that fact, especially after people expressed their opposition to such an interpretation of his comments (6:52, 6:60) and some abandoned him (6:66)? 

Good question! Why didn’t He? Certainly Jesus wouldn’t have let disciples wander off and stop following Him based on a mere misunderstanding. But the thing is He knew their hearts, and He knew it wasn’t misunderstanding. It was flat-out rebellion and rejection of His teaching. He also knew that wrangling with them further would accomplish exactly nothing.

Or what could be clearer than Jesus’ words at the Last Supper? And so on.

Indeed. Luther thought they were absolutely plain and clear and marveled at how Zwingli (the first modern “low church” Protestant) could try to rationalize and spiritualize them away.

It should be noted that the claim that Jesus didn’t clarify himself in John 6 needs to be argued, not just asserted.

I’ve done so many times:

*
*
*
*
Transubstantiation, John 6, Faith and Rebellion [National Catholic Register, 12-3-17]
*
*
*
*
I would reply to Jason that Protestants need to interact with the sorts of arguments that I provide above (and will again presently) and not pretend that they don’t exist or that they don’t pose a problem for their historically novel views.
*
Why think that comments like those in 6:35 . . . aren’t meant to clarify that he wasn’t referring to physically eating his body?

John 6:35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.

Catholics and other believers in the Real Substantial Bodily Presence think that He was only making typical Hebrew analogy / prototype in the early part of John 6, drawing a parallel to the ancient Hebrews being sustained by manna. Knowing that His responders would bring up manna, He said:

Jesus 6:26-27 . . . “Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. [27] Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of man will give to you; for on him has God the Father set his seal.”

Protestants like Jason will argue that the analogy is as follows:

1) Physical bread (and later reference to manna: 6:49-51) that sustains our physical bodies.

2) Spiritual food (belief in Jesus) sustaining and saving our souls and leading to eternal life.

So in this view it is a physical food with physical effect compared to (as opposites of a sort) to non-physical belief with a spiritual effect of eternal life. But the defender of substantial presence interprets it as follows:

1) Physical bread (and later reference to manna: 6:49-51) that sustains our physical bodies.

2) Spiritual (but also sacramentally physical) food (the body of Jesus) sustaining and saving our souls and leading to eternal life.

We deny that statements such as those by Jesus in 6:27 and 6:35 are merely symbolic. And why do we think that? Context is a key factor in determining the meaning, as always in Scripture. Jesus makes it abundantly clear what He means by “food” later on in His discourse:

John 6:55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

He is equally clear that He is referring to eating, not merely believing in Him (which is also a necessity). First, He emphasizes belief and faith in Him, and “coming” to Him (6:29, 35-36, 40, 44-45, 47, and reiterated in 6:64-65). John 6:27, with its reference to “food” was a “preview”, so to speak, of what is to come. Then in John 6:50-58 He starts speaking specifically about eating His flesh and not just believing in Him, and mentions “eat[s]” seven times and “drink[s]” four times in eight verses where He is speaking, with 6:55 (above) also referring again to “food”: for a total of twelve references to eating and drinking in eight verses. This is why we believe it has a physical element as well as non-physical:

John 6:50-58 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. [51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.” [52] The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” [53] So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; [54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. [55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. [56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. [57] As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. [58] This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”

Additionally, He refers (as the referent of what we are to eat and drink) to His “flesh” five times, His “blood” four times, “bread” (referring to Himself) six times, and “eats me” once (6:57). That’s sixteen more references to eating (Him) in these eight verses for a grand total of 28 references to eating and drinking His flesh and blood in eight verses (an average of 3.5 times per verse). To remove all doubt, He equates the “living bread” with His “flesh” in 6:51. What more does one need to be persuaded, pray tell? It couldn’t have been made any more clear than it is.

Why think that comments like those in . . . 6:63 aren’t meant to clarify that he wasn’t referring to physically eating his body?

John 6:63 It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

Jason wants to claim that Jesus’ contrast of “flesh” and “spirit” in 6:63 establishes the symbolic and metaphorical nature of the whole discourse. But when the words “flesh” and “spirit” are opposed to each other in the New Testament, it is always a figurative use, in the sense of sinful human nature (“flesh”) contrasted with humanity enriched by God’s grace (“spirit”):

Matthew 26:41 Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” 

Romans 7:5-6, 25 While we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. [6] But now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit. . . . [25] Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I of myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin. 

Romans 8:1-14 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. [2] For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death. [3] For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, [4] in order that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. [5] For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. [6] To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. [7] For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, indeed it cannot; [8] and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. [9] But you are not in the flesh, you are in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Any one who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. [10] But if Christ is in you, although your bodies are dead because of sin, your spirits are alive because of righteousness. [11] If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit which dwells in you. [12] So then, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh — [13] for if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live. [14] For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

1 Corinthians 5:5 you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
 
Galatians 3:3 Are you so foolish? Having begun with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh? 
 
Galatians 4:29 But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now.
 
Galatians 5:13-26 For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be servants of one another. [14] For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” [15] But if you bite and devour one another take heed that you are not consumed by one another. [16] But I say, walk by the Spirit, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh. [17] For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh; for these are opposed to each other, to prevent you from doing what you would. [18] But if you are led by the Spirit you are not under the law. [19] Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, [20] idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit, [21] envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. [22] But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, [23] gentleness, self-control; against such there is no law. [24] And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. [25] If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit. [26] Let us have no self-conceit, no provoking of one another, no envy of one another.
 
1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit;
 
1 Peter 4:6 For this is why the gospel was preached even to the dead, that though judged in the flesh like men, they might live in the spirit like God.
In other words, Jesus is saying that His words can only be received by men endowed with supernatural grace. Those who interpret them in a wooden, carnal way — equating His teaching here with a sort of gross cannibalism — (or with a merely natural human understanding; see, e.g., Matthew 16:17 for a clear example of this meaning) are way off the mark. He wasn’t referring to the Eucharist, but rather to “the words that I have spoken”. “Spirit and life” refers back to His references to spiritual and eternal life as a result of partaking of the Eucharist (6:50-51, 53-54, 56-58).
*
If we’re told that coming to him and believing in him satisfy our hunger and thirst (6:35), then we have been given a clarification that something other than consuming the eucharistic elements is in view.
*
As I’ve just shown, it’s a scenario of “both/and” rather than the typically Protestant “either/or” and false dichotomies outlook. Jesus stressed belief and faith and first and then moved on to eucharistic realism, in ultra-graphic and unmistakable terms. Jason and those who think like him want to completely ignore and rationalize away this second aspect of the discourse. It won’t do, The biblical data is too strong.
*
Similarly, when Jesus says in verse 63 that the flesh profits nothing, which is reminiscent of his discouragement of seeking physical food earlier (verses 26-29), that’s more naturally taken as a clarification that he’s not referring to eating his flesh physically.
*
This doesn’t fly, either because the discourse moves along into different territory, which is why the latter parts cannot be explained solely by the earlier parts. “Flesh” in 6:63 has an entirely different meaning, as shown.
*
You could take “flesh” to be a reference to human fallenness or sinfulness, and thereby reconcile Jesus’ comments with a physical presence in the eucharist, but that’s a less natural way to take the phrase in its context. The nearby context is more focused on flesh in the sense of Jesus’ body, and it’s not as though Jesus’ critics were arguing that human fallenness or sinfulness is profitable. So, Jesus’ comment in 6:63 is more relevant, and therefore makes more sense, under my view.
*
I would argue precisely the opposite. Jesus makes it crystal clear again what He means in 6:63 by saying, “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail.” This is precisely the contrast between spirit and the carnal flesh that is seen in all the cross-references I provided. Then He says, “the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”
*
In other words, He is contrasting His spiritually discerned words to those that come from the flesh or the carnal mind. He’s not contrasting His words to His own flesh. That would be absurd, seeing that He said over and over (6:50-51, 53-54, 57-58) that eating His flesh and drinking His blood was the way to eternal life (that’s hardly the meaning of “carnal” flesh that He refers to in 6:63). Jason is out to sea, exegetically speaking. His view would lead to a ridiculous state of affairs whereby Jesus refers six times in eight verses to eating His flesh, which then gives eternal life; then He turns around in 6:63 and supposedly means that His flesh “is of no avail.” That’s ludicrous and absurd; literally nonsense and viciously self-contradictory.
*
If some people were inattentive to what he was saying or misrepresented it, that doesn’t change the fact that Jesus did provide clarification. 
*
Yes He did; and every bit of it favors the Real Substantial Presence position, not mere eucharistic symbolism.
*
And since verse 66 is often cited in this context, we need to keep in mind that those comments are made just after Jesus’ remarks in verses 61-65, which aren’t about a physical presence in the eucharist even if we assume that he’s referring to a physical presence earlier in the passage.
*
Verse 61 refers to what was just said, and the reaction to it. Jesus repeatedly referred to eating His flesh as the means of eternal life (6:50-58). We know how many hearers reacted: “The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’ ” (6:52). Jesus rhetorically “digs in” and reiterates even more so. He doesn’t stop and say, “wait, guys, you didn’t get what I was just saying. Let me explain . . .” Then we have 6:60: “Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?'” Then He rebukes the ones who reject His teaching: “Do you take offense at this?” (6:61).
*
Then He said “there are some of you that do not believe” (6:64). They had rejected the Real Substantial Presence. Then follows one of the saddest verses in the Bible: “After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him” (6:66). Why didn’t Jesus tell them that they had misunderstood His meaning, if that were the case (and He knew all things so He would have known what they were thinking)? He certainly would have done so. The fact that He didn’t absolutely proves that they had understood His meaning and rejected it.
*
Verse 66 could be referring back to Jesus’ earlier comments, in part or in whole, but it need not be, and it’s more naturally taken as referring to the closer context of verses 61-65.
*
We know from 6:52 and 6:60 (and Jesus’ reaction in 6:61) exactly what was being objected to. And it did refer back to Jesus’ eucharistic teaching.
*
Aside from all of that, notice that if Jesus was teaching a physical presence in the eucharist, we’d expect more clarification. The eucharist not only wasn’t being practiced yet at that time, but also hadn’t even been explained in anticipation of a future practice. We don’t see somebody like Peter or John asking Jesus for clarification about the means by which they’d consume his body, which is a clarification we’d expect them to want if they took him the way advocates of a physical presence in the eucharist are suggesting. We don’t see them asking how his body could provide enough for every one of his followers to eat and drink, given the physical attributes of Jesus’ body and how many followers the Messiah was expected to have. We don’t see Jesus’ disciples trying to bite off portions of his body, only to have it explained to them that they should only eat his flesh and drink his blood in the context of the eucharist. Instead, the disciples seem to take his comments much as they took similarly strong, but nonliteral language elsewhere (e.g., tearing out your eye that leads to sin, cutting off your hand that leads to sin, taking up your cross to follow him). We don’t see the disciples asking how they can have spiritual life, as Jesus has told them they do (e.g., verse 70), when they haven’t physically eaten his flesh and drunk his blood yet. 
*
They simply had faith (“Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed”: 6:68-69). That alone doesn’t tell us what it is that they believed. We only know for sure what the ones who disbelieved were rejecting. Christians often have faith in things that we don’t fully understand (and in many cases, can’t fully understand). Jesus often noted hardness of heart leading to unbelief (Mt 13:13, 19; Lk 5:21-22; Jn 8:27, 43-47; 12:37-40). If Jason wants to address the issue of when Jesus would explain and not explain, and why, I am happy to do that. Let’s delve into it! Here, as everywhere it only helps the Catholic case and devastates the “low church” Protestant anti-Real Presence position.
*
In many other places in Scripture, Jesus explains His meaning when someone merely is uncomprehending (as opposed to willfully disbelieving). A typical example of this occurs in John 3:1-15: the incident with Nicodemus regarding the meaning of “born again”. Nicodemus asks: “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” (3:4). Jesus explains His meaning (3:5-8). Nicodemus, still baffled, again asks: “How can this be?” (3:9). Jesus replied: “Are you a teacher of Israel, and yet you do not understand this?” (3:10) and then proceeds to explain some more (3:11-15). He explained because He knew that Nicodemus was truly seeking.
*
When someone wasn’t seeking or open in their spirit, He usually (if not always) would not do so, as in John 6. Here are further examples:

Matthew 13:36, 51 And his disciples came to him, saying, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field.” . . . [51] “Have you understood all this?” They said to him, “Yes.”

Matthew 15:10-20 And he called the people to him and said to them, “Hear and understand: [11] not what goes into the mouth defiles a man, but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man.” [12] Then the disciples came and said to him, “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?” [13] He answered, “Every plant which my heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up. [14] Let them alone; they are blind guides. And if a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” [15] But Peter said to him, “Explain the parable to us.” [16] And he said, “Are you also still without understanding? [17] Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach, and so passes on? [18] But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a man. [19] For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. [20] These are what defile a man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man.” (cf. Mk 7:17-18)

Matthew 16:5-12 When the disciples reached the other side, they had forgotten to bring any bread. [6] Jesus said to them, “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sad’ducees.” [7] And they discussed it among themselves, saying, “We brought no bread.” [8] But Jesus, aware of this, said, “O men of little faith, why do you discuss among yourselves the fact that you have no bread? [9] Do you not yet perceive? Do you not remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets you gathered? [10] Or the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets you gathered? [11] How is it that you fail to perceive that I did not speak about bread? Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sad’ducees.” [12] Then they understood that he did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sad’ducees.

Matthew 17:9-13 And as they were coming down the mountain, Jesus commanded them, “Tell no one the vision, until the Son of man is raised from the dead.” [10] And the disciples asked him, “Then why do the scribes say that first Eli’jah must come?” [11] He replied, “Eli’jah does come, and he is to restore all things; [12] but I tell you that Eli’jah has already come, and they did not know him, but did to him whatever they pleased. So also the Son of man will suffer at their hands.” [13] Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them of John the Baptist.

Matthew 19:24-26 “Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” [25] When the disciples heard this they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?” [26] But Jesus looked at them and said to them, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

Mark 4:33-34 With many such parables he spoke the word to them, as they were able to hear it; [34] he did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything.

Therefore, He would have in John 6 if a misunderstanding were involved, rather than a hardhearted disbelief, brought on by the influence of Satan.

Luke 8:9-11 And when his disciples asked him what this parable meant, [10] he said, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God; but for others they are in parables, so that seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand. [11] Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.”

Jesus continued explaining in 8:12-15.

Luke 9:46-48 And an argument arose among them as to which of them was the greatest. [47] But when Jesus perceived the thought of their hearts, he took a child and put him by his side, [48] and said to them, “Whoever receives this child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me; for he who is least among you all is the one who is great.”

Luke 24:13-27 That very day two of them were going to a village named Emma’us, about seven miles from Jerusalem, [14] and talking with each other about all these things that had happened. [15] While they were talking and discussing together, Jesus himself drew near and went with them. [16] But their eyes were kept from recognizing him. [17] And he said to them, “What is this conversation which you are holding with each other as you walk?” And they stood still, looking sad. [18] Then one of them, named Cle’opas, answered him, “Are you the only visitor to Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days?” [19] And he said to them, “What things?” And they said to him, “Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, [20] and how our chief priests and rulers delivered him up to be condemned to death, and crucified him. [21] But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel. Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since this happened. [22] Moreover, some women of our company amazed us. They were at the tomb early in the morning [23] and did not find his body; and they came back saying that they had even seen a vision of angels, who said that he was alive. [24] Some of those who were with us went to the tomb, and found it just as the women had said; but him they did not see.” [25] And he said to them, “O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! [26] Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” [27] And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

John 4:31-34 Meanwhile the disciples besought him, saying, “Rabbi, eat.” [32] But he said to them, “I have food to eat of which you do not know.” [33] So the disciples said to one another, “Has any one brought him food?” [34] Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of him who sent me, and to accomplish his work.”

John 8:21-32 Again he said to them, “I go away, and you will seek me and die in your sin; where I am going, you cannot come.” [22] Then said the Jews, “Will he kill himself, since he says, ‘Where I am going, you cannot come’?” [23] He said to them, “You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world. [24] I told you that you would die in your sins, for you will die in your sins unless you believe that I am he.” [25] They said to him, “Who are you?” Jesus said to them, “Even what I have told you from the beginning. [26] I have much to say about you and much to judge; but he who sent me is true, and I declare to the world what I have heard from him.” [27] They did not understand that he spoke to them of the Father. [28] So Jesus said, “When you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own authority but speak thus as the Father taught me. [29] And he who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what is pleasing to him.” [30] As he spoke thus, many believed in him. [31] Jesus then said to the Jews who had believed in him, “If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples, [32] and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”

In this instance, Jesus explained because He knew (in His omniscience) that some of the hearers would believe in Him, while others would not.

If verse 53 meant that you had to have eaten Jesus’ flesh and drunk his blood physically in order to have spiritual life, then where’s the request for clarification from his disciples, and where did Jesus clarify that people could have spiritual life prior to the institution of the eucharist and that people could have spiritual life afterward without consuming a eucharistic physical presence (e.g., Protestants)? If coming to Jesus and believing in him is enough to satisfy your hunger and thirst (verse 35), then how can you not have spiritual life until you physically consume Jesus’ body in the eucharist (verse 53)? A metaphorical reading of John 6 makes more sense of the text and context and involves less of a need for clarification than the alternative.
*
As explained, Jesus developed His teaching in the course of His words recorded in John 6. He started with more familiar Jewish terms of expression and then went on to the “new and unusual” eucharistic teachings, which certainly would have been hard to grasp by all the hearers at the time. Their choice was (as always) to have faith in Jesus and believe in Him, no matter how difficult and inexplicable His teachings were.
*
If Jesus’ body was physically present in multiple locations simultaneously, sort of like the reports of bilocation we read about in the paranormal literature, that sort of scenario would require more clarification than a nonliteral interpretation of Jesus’ words would.
*
Not necessarily. After all, He went through walls after He had risen, and He didn’t take the time to explain that:
John 20:19 On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them . . .
He simply didn’t explain His miracles. He never explained how He could walk on water or still the winds or be transfigured or know people’s private thoughts, or raise people from the dead (He merely said that His disciples would be able to do the same). So why should He explain all the ins and outs of the Eucharist? This may have been the first time He addressed the topic at all.
*
We also don’t know if there were possibly numerous instances of His explaining it that are not recorded in Scripture. Mark 4:34 states: “privately to his own disciples he explained everything.” Imagine all the nights He spent talking to the disciples! The volume of those words would be hundreds of times longer than the content of the New Testament (which could be read in one or two nights).
*
Since Jesus was physically beside his disciples, handling the eucharistic elements, how could those eucharistic elements be his body?
*
In miraculous phenomena, all sorts of things are possible, by the very definition of “miracle” or “supernatural.” No problem! If we want deep mysteries, all kinds are believed by all Christians together. How could God never have a beginning? How can He be everywhere and know everything? How can He be outside of time? Why should the Eucharist be different?
*
And what about the fact that the communion elements still look, feel, smell, and taste like bread and wine, not flesh and blood? Wouldn’t that need clarification from Jesus and his earliest followers writing in the New Testament? And what precedent do we have for an alleged miracle like transubstantiation? When Jesus did something like change the water into wine at the wedding in Cana in John 2 (which isn’t far from John 6), did the material in the pots still look, feel, smell, and taste like water? Did he change water into wine under the appearance of its remaining water? I’m not aware of any precedent for performing a miracle that’s supposed to involve a physical transformation, yet doesn’t involve any physical evidence of such a transformation.
*
It may not be exactly analogous (though who says it must be?), but there are many odd and weird and unpredictable manifestations of God throughout the Bible. How about the pillars of cloud and fire?:

Exodus 33:8-10 Whenever Moses went out to the tent, all the people rose up, and every man stood at his tent door, and looked after Moses, until he had gone into the tent. [9] When Moses entered the tent, the pillar of cloud would descend and stand at the door of the tent, and the LORD would speak with Moses. [10] And when all the people saw the pillar of cloud standing at the door of the tent, all the people would rise up and worship, every man at his tent door.

Exodus 13:21 And the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of cloud to lead them along the way, and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light, that they might travel by day and by night; (cf. 14:24; Num 14:14; Neh 9:12, 19)

Note that the pillars of cloud and fire were:

1) creations (water, if a literal cloud, and fire);

2) visual, hence an image;

and

3) thought to directly represent God Himself.

It’s also a supernatural manifestation. Moreover, we have the burning bush (Ex 3:2-6), which is not only fire, but also called an “angel of the Lord” (Ex 3:2), yet also “God” (3:4, 6, 11, 13-16, 18; 4:5, 7-8) and “the LORD” (3:7, 16, 18; 4:2, 4-6, 10-11, 14) interchangeably. An angel is a creation (as is fire and cloud); yet God chose to use a created being and inanimate objects to visibly represent Him. Several similar instances occur in the Old Testament. Moreover, the Jews “worshiped” fire as representative of God in the following passage, and God is otherwise spoken as being “in” fire:

2 Chronicles 7:1-4 When Solomon had ended his prayer, fire came down from heaven and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices, and the glory of the LORD filled the temple. [2] And the priests could not enter the house of the LORD, because the glory of the LORD filled the LORD’s house. [3] When all the children of Israel saw the fire come down and the glory of the LORD upon the temple, they bowed down with their faces to the earth on the pavement, and worshiped and gave thanks to the LORD, saying, “For he is good, for his steadfast love endures for ever.” [4] Then the king and all the people offered sacrifice before the LORD.

Exodus 19:18 And Mount Sinai was wrapped in smoke, because the LORD descended upon it in fire; . . .

Does Jason want more “weird” and inexplicable stuff? It continues in the New Testament. How can we be the Body of Christ (Rom 7:4; 1 Cor 12:27; Eph 1:22-23; 4:12; 5:30; Col 1:24)? When St. Paul was converted to Christ, Jesus said to him, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting” (Acts 9:5). This couldn’t literally refer to Jesus the Divine Person since He had already ascended to heaven (Acts 1:9-11). Rather, Jesus meant that Christ’s Church really was His Body, whom Paul (Saul) was persecuting (Acts 8:1, 3, 9:1-2).

What does Paul mean by “carrying in the body the death of Jesus” (2 Cor 4:10),  or “in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions” (Col 1:24)? There is plenty of mystery to go around, and it is usually not clarified or explained at length. Yet Jason demands that the Eucharist has to be a unique case, with the supposed necessity extensive explanations given at every turn. This is unreasonable and unbiblical.

***

Practical Matters: if any of my 3,850+ free online articles and 50 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, and/or if you believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. 1 December 2021 will be my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022, the 25th anniversary of my blog.
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. “Catholic Used Book Service” (which might be mentioned in conjunction with my address on PayPal) 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: Jesus Teaches the People by the Sea, by James Tissot (1836-1902)[public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: I critically and systematically examine various skeptical / “exegetical” arguments made by anti-Catholic polemicist Jason Engwer, regarding John 6 (Eucharist).

2021-10-26T10:56:28-04:00

Last updated on: October 26, 2021 at 10:56 am   By

Numbers 15:27-31 (RSV)  “If one person sins unwittingly, he shall offer a female goat a year old for a sin offering. [28] And the priest shall make atonement before the LORD for the person who commits an error, when he sins unwittingly, to make atonement for him; and he shall be forgiven. [29] You shall have one law for him who does anything unwittingly, for him who is native among the people of Israel, and for the stranger who sojourns among them. [30] But the person who does anything with a high hand, whether he is native or a sojourner, reviles the LORD, and that person shall be cut off from among his people. [31] Because he has despised the word of the LORD, and has broken his commandment, that person shall be utterly cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him.”

Leviticus 18:26, 29 But you shall keep my statutes and my ordinances and do none of these abominations, . . . [29] For whoever shall do any of these abominations, the persons that do them shall be cut off from among their people.

Ezekiel 45:20 You shall do the same on the seventh day of the month for any one who has sinned through error or ignorance; so you shall make atonement for the temple. (cf. Acts 3:17; 17:30; Rom 10:3; 1 Tim 1:13; 1 Pet 1:14)

Luke 23:34 And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” . . .

Hebrews 10:26 For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,

Confession and penance are also alluded to:

Leviticus 5:5, 16-18 When a man is guilty in any of these, he shall confess the sin he has committed, . . . [16] He shall also make restitution for what he has done . . . [17] If any one sins, doing any of the things which the LORD has commanded not to be done, though he does not know it, yet he is guilty and shall bear his iniquity. [18] He shall bring to the priest a ram without blemish out of the flock, valued by you at the price for a guilt offering, and the priest shall make atonement for him for the error which he committed unwittingly, and he shall be forgiven.

Numbers 5:7 he shall confess his sin which he has committed; and he shall make full restitution for his wrong, adding a fifth to it, and giving it to him to whom he did the wrong.

The Bible plainly teaches that there is such a thing as a mortal sin (1 John 5:16-17), and often refers to lesser and greater sins, thus supporting Catholic theology. People are not always completely aware that certain acts or thoughts are sinful. In Catholic theology, in order to commit a grave, or mortal sin, where one ceases to be in a state of grace and is literally in potential, but real danger of hellfire, three requirements are necessary: 1) it must be a very serious matter, 2) the sinner has to have sufficiently reflected on, or had adequate knowledge of the sin, and 3) he must have fully consented in his will.

The above distinction between “unwitting sin” or “error” committed by a person who “does not know” is distinguished from sin “with a high hand”: done by person who “reviles the LORD”, and “has despised the word of the LORD”. This scenario is precisely analogous to the Catholic notion, insofar as the more serious sin caused the person to be “cut off” from the congregation of Israel: the usual OT concrete expression of what in Catholicism is understood in the spiritual sense as being cut off from God’s grace and communion with Him (and possibly from salvation and heaven in the long run).

Many other passages express the same notions, referring to sins committed “unwittingly” (Lev 4:2, 13, 22, 27; Lev 5:15, 18; 22:14; Num 15:24, 27-29; Josh 20:3, 5; Tobit 3:3) which are “forgiven” (Lev 4:20, 26, 31, 35; 5:10, 16, 18; Num 15:25-26, 28) through the usual processes of priestly sacrifice and atonement, based on the Law of Moses.

***

Related Reading

Mortal vs. Venial Sin: Biblical? [1997]

Mortal & Venial Sin: Strong Biblical Support [4-1-06]

Dialogue on Mortal & Venial Sin [4-14-06]

Mortal and Venial Sin (vs. Calvin #56) [2012]

What the Bible Says on Degrees of Sin and Mortal Sin [National Catholic Register, 7-6-18]

Vs. James White #8: St. Basil on Mortal & Venial Sin [11-13-19]

***

Photo credit: P.poschadel (8-9-13). Confessional [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, 2.5 Generic, 2.0 Generic and 1.0 Generic license]

***

Summary: The Old Testament has several striking passages (especially Numbers 15:27-31), indicative of the Catholic & New Testament distinction between mortal & venial sin.

Follow Us!
Browse Our Archives
TRENDING AT PATHEOS Family
Watch: 'Superman' Trailer Features Hope, Idealism
Of Heavenly Councils and Heavenly Books
Mama’s Life Lessons Still Guide Generations
The Ocean and the Palm: Rediscovering Our Divine...
What We Do Now
In Londinium
view all Family blogs