50 OT Messianic Prophecies Fulfilled by Jesus[initial research from 1982; slightly revised in 1997; revised and reformatted for RSV edition in 2012; separated from the larger article on 11-26-24]
Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them. If you believe my full-time apostolate is worth supporting, please seriously consider a much-needed monthly or one-time financial contribution. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV).
You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my YouTube channel, Catholic Bible Highlights, where I partner with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos), and/or by signing up to receive notice for new articles on this blog. Just type your email address on the sidebar to the right (scroll down quite a bit), where you see, “Sign Me Up!” Thanks a million!
Summary: Compilation of my own articles that feature a large number of arguments (e.g., “Bible vs. ‘Faith Alone’: 100 Proofs”), including also a few books and one bestselling pamphlet.
William Weedon has served as a parish pastor for 26 years and served as Director of Worship and Chaplain for the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod from 2012-2019 (a traditional Lutheran communion for which I have a great respect). He is the author of the books Celebrating the Saints, Thank, Praise, Serve and Obey and See My Savior’s Hands. Pastor Weedon holds a Master of Divinity and a Master of Sacred Theology degree from Concordia Seminary, St. Louis.
His words will be in blue.
*****
6:37 you can see why Lutherans would be more inclined toward Orthodoxy maybe than toward Rome. You don’t have indulgences
. . . which has an explicit biblical basis and a history that has often been distorted by Protestants for polemical purposes, or out of sheer lack of knowledge.
you don’t have Purgatory
. . . which has at least 110 Bible passages pointing to, and in complete harmony with essential aspects of it . . .
you don’t have any of the the weird stuff that uh that Lutheran struggled with across across the centuries with with Rome
“Weird” is often in the eye of the beholder and works both ways.
7:28 Orthodoxy has a perfect solution to this . . . the church can’t be wrong and therefore if we’ve been teaching this for any number of years it’s got to be the truth of God and you just need to learn to submit to that; you know that’s the way to go
Lutherans are bound to the teachings of their own confessions: compiled in the Book of Concord. It’s not that different. But Orthodoxy and Catholicism can trace themselves back to the early Church and Jesus Christ, whereas Lutheranism only goes back to Martin Luther in the 16th century. Our views are both more coherent and consistent. Lutheranism tries to establish itself as uniquely consistent with patristic teachings, but fails every time, excepting cases where it already agrees with Catholicism or Orthodoxy (e.g., regarding baptismal regeneration or the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist). I’ve documented this many times in my own research.
8:02 He cites a typical “flowery” Marian prayer from the Orthodox. I have dealt with this many times, in terms of similar Catholic language of veneration and intercession:
8:51 they’ll always say, “hey we ask fellow Christians here on earth to pray for us.” I don’t ask a fellow Christian here on earth to grant me tears of repentance
We obviously ask other believers to pray to God that we would be granted tears of repentance by God’s grace. It’s the same with Mary, just on a larger scale, because she was so honored by God to be the mother of Jesus.
8:56 I don’t ask them to to grant me mercy . . . I just can’t square [that] with the Bible
Then why did the rich man in Hades, say, “Father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame” (Lk 16:24, RSV)? That was recounted in a story (not a parable) by Jesus Himself. The rich man petitioned Abraham in three different ways. Abraham never told him that he mustn’t do so; only that the answer to his requests was no: just as God sometimes doesn’t answer our prayers. Then we are told that this is merely a parable. Even if it were, Jesus couldn’t teach theological falsehood in it. Or we’re told that this doesn’t “count” because it’s after death. That’s irrelevant, too, because if it is intrinsically impermissible to make petitions of anyone besides God, that would hold in Hades as well as on earth, and Jesus couldn’t and wouldn’t affirm the practice.
13:29 you cannot start reading the early church fathers before you encounter what a big deal the mass or The Divine Liturgy [is]: what we Lutherans often call the common service or the Divine service. It confronts you all over the place, right away. It’s there already [in] 150 AD. Read St Justin Martyr’s first apology and you you can clearly recognize, “that’s the same service we use.”
Lutherans thankfully retain the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist (though not transubstantiation), but they ditched the belief in the eucharistic sacrifice of the Mass, which the Church fathers believed in. So they aren’t following the fathers with regard to the essence of the Mass: that Jesus’ one-time sacrifice on the cross is made supernaturally present to us. See:
“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,900+ articles, please follow my 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. My blog was rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT: endorsed by influential Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Actually, I partner with Kenny Burchard on the YouTube channel, Catholic Bible Highlights. Please subscribe there, too! 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!
***
Pr. Weedon brought up St. Justin Martyr. Was he a good proto-Lutheran? Hardly. J. N. D. Kelly is a very well-known Anglican church historian. Here’s what he believes about Justin’s views:
Justin speaks [Dialogue with Trypho, 117, 1] of ‘all the sacrifices in this name which Jesus appointed to be performed, viz. in the eucharist of the bread and the cup, . . .’. Not only here but elsewhere [Ib., 41, 3] too, he identifies ‘ the bread of the eucharist, and the cup likewise of the eucharist’, with the sacrifice foretold by Malachi. (Early Christian Doctrines, HarperSanFrancisco, revised edition of 1978, p. 196)
Here are the two passages from St. Justin Martyr referred to:
Accordingly, God, anticipating all the sacrifices which we offer through this name, and which Jesus the Christ enjoined us to offer, i.e., in the Eucharist of the bread and the cup, and which are presented by Christians in all places throughout the world, bears witness that they are well-pleasing to Him. But He utterly rejects those presented by you and by those priests of yours, saying, ‘And I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands; for from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is glorified among the Gentiles (He says); but you profane it.’ Malachi 1:10-12 (Dialogue with Trypho, 117, 1)
Hence God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord; and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands: for, from the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same, My name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure offering: for My name is great among the Gentiles, says the Lord: but you profane it.’ Malachi 1:10-12 [So] He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us, who in every place offer sacrifices to Him, i.e., the bread of the Eucharist, and also the cup of the Eucharist, affirming both that we glorify His name, and that you profane [it]. (Dialogue with Trypho, 41, 3)
Kelly continues his lengthy commentary on Justin’s views:
It was natural for early Christians to think of the eucharist as a sacrifice. The fulfilment of prophecy demanded a solemn Christian offering, and the rite itself was wrapped in the sacrificial atmosphere with which our Lord invested the Last Supper. The words of institution, ‘Do this’, must have been charged with sacrificial overtones for second-century ears; Justin at any rate understood [1 apol. 66, 3; cf. dial. 41, 1] them to mean, ‘Offer this’. . . . Justin . . . makes it plain [Dial. 41, 3] that the bread and wine themselves were the ‘pure offering’ foretold by Malachi. Even if he holds [Ib., 117, 2] that ‘prayers and thanksgivings’ are the only God-pleasing sacrifices, we must remember that he uses [1 apol. 65, 3-5] the term ‘thanksgiving’ as technically equivalent to ‘the eucharistized bread and wine’. The bread and wine, moreover, are offered ‘for a memorial of the passion’, a phrase which in view of his identification of them with the Lord’s body and blood implies much more than an act of purely spiritual recollection. Altogether it would seem that, while his language is not fully explicit, Justin is feeling his way to the conception of the eucharist as the offering of the Saviour’s passion. (Kelly, ibid., pp. 196-197)
F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone, editors, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Oxford Univ. Press, 2nd edition, 1983, 475-476, 1221, wrote:
It was also widely held from the first that the Eucharist is in some sense a sacrifice, though here again definition was gradual. The suggestion of sacrifice is contained in much of the NT language . . . the words of institution, ‘covenant,’ ‘memorial,’ ‘poured out,’ all have sacrificial associations. In early post-NT times the constant repudiation of carnal sacrifice and emphasis on life and prayer at Christian worship did not hinder the Eucharist from being described as a sacrifice from the first . . .
From early times the Eucharistic offering was called a sacrifice in virtue of its immediate relation to the sacrifice of Christ.
Jaroslav Pelikan [Lutheran at the time of this writing, and later Orthodox], The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1971, 146-147, 166-168, 170, 236-237:
By the date of the Didache [anywhere from about 60 to 160, depending on the scholar]. . . the application of the term ‘sacrifice’ to the Eucharist seems to have been quite natural, together with the identification of the Christian Eucharist as the ‘pure offering’ commanded in Malachi 1:11 . . .
The Christian liturgies were already using similar language about the offering of the prayers, the gifts, and the lives of the worshipers, and probably also about the offering of the sacrifice of the Mass, so that the sacrificial interpretation of the death of Christ never lacked a liturgical frame of reference . . .
. . . it does seem ‘express and clear’ that no orthodox father of the second or third century of whom we have record declared the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist to be no more than symbolic (although Clement and Origen came close to doing so) or specified a process of substantial change by which the presence was effected (although Ignatius and Justin came close to doing so). Within the limits of those excluded extremes was the doctrine of the real presence . . .
Liturgical evidence suggests an understanding of the Eucharist as a sacrifice, whose relation to the sacrifices of the Old Testament was one of archetype to type, and whose relation to the sacrifice of Calvary was one of ‘re-presentation,’ just as the bread of the Eucharist ‘re-presented’ the body of Christ . . .
As John Adams once said, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
15:23 our Lutheran liturgy really is overwhelmingly the same heritage
It’s not, because it denies the very essence of the Mass: the eucharistic sacrifice.
15:28 Luther and the reformers were anything but revolutionaries on this question
Really? In 1525, Luther wrote his treatise, The Abomination of the Secret Mass (found in Luther’s Works, vol. 36, pp. 311-328). In it he calls the Catholic Mass “disgraceful,” “abominable,” “idolatries” (all on p. 311), “shameful,” “plague,” “deliberate blasphemies” (p. 312), “insults God,” “they deny God and insult the sacrifice that Christ has made and disgrace his blood” (p. 313), “the blasphemy is so great that it must simply wait for eternal hell-fire” (p. 320), etc. ad nauseam.
All through the diatribe he shows himself perfectly ignorant of the fact that we hold that it is a supernatural re-presentation of the one true Sacrifice on Calvary, not a repeated sacrifice (e.g., “they . . . offer him up more than a hundred thousand times throughout the world. They thereby deny . . . that Christ . . . has died and risen again”: p. 320). This is elementary, and was explained long since in the Church fathers. But once Luther got on his soap box, mere things like accuracy and fairness to opponents always quickly went by the wayside.
But he was undeniably a liturgical revolutionary because he “gutted” the Mass of its most essential element. In no way can he be viewed as consistently following the liturgical understanding of the Church fathers.
15:34 they kept whatever they could from the ancient tradition that was not contrary to the Bible
Ah, so now it’s at least qualified.
16:28 our churches are falsely accused of abolishing the mass
The problem is that if one omits what is essential and “non-negotiable” / “non-optional” in an ancient view, one can’t be said to be continuing the same ancient view, or call it their “heritage.” It’s a basic question of both fact and logical consistency. Catholicism and Orthodoxy continue what the fathers believed about liturgy. Lutheranism does not, nor does any form of Protestantism, save for possibly a few Anglo-Catholics.
17:29 in a Lutheran Church . . . the historic liturgy is being used
It certainly is not, with all due respect. It’s “historic” only back to Luther’s time. The Church fathers wouldn’t recognize it. They would say it is gutted, as we do.
35:55 Lutherans do teach that there is a sacrifice in the Eucharist. The sacrifice is a noun, not a verb. The sacrifice is the body and the blood which Christ once offered on the tree, [which] he now reaches to you to seal that salvation to you, so that you might know that your sins are forgiven, and that that sacrifice was offered on your behalf. He continually gives it to you
*
That’s exactly what we believe: so far . . .
*
36:26 we do not offer it up to him that is a big difference in perspective
The Council of Trent, in its Doctrine on the Sacrifice of the Mass (September 17, 1562), explains why we do:
He offered up to God the Father His own Body and Blood under the species of bread and wine . . . and by those words, “Do this in commemoration of me” (1 Cor. 11:24), He commanded them and their successors in the priesthood to offer them . . .
And this is indeed that clean oblation, which cannot be defiled by any unworthiness or malice of those that offer it; which the Lord foretold by Malachi was to be offered in every place, clean to his name (Mal. 1:11) . . . This, in fine, is that oblation which was prefigured by various types of sacrifices (Gen. 4:4; 8:20, etc.), during the period of nature and of the law; inasmuch as it comprises all the good things signified by those sacrifices, as being the consummation and perfection of them all.
We’re following the example of Our Lord at the Last Supper, as set down in inspired revelation. For more on this, see;
39:05 this sacrifice once offered on the cross takes place continually in an unseen fashion in heaven
Catholics believe that in the Mass we are supernaturally included in this offering.
39:11 by way of commemoration when Christ offers to his father on our behalf his suffering
It’s not merely commemoration if we are supernaturally transported back to Calvary and Jesus’ suffering and death on the cross. In Revelation 5:6, St. John saw Jesus in a way that is very much like the Sacrifice of the Mass: “I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain.” Yet in 5:9 and 5:12 the text notes that Jesus “wast slain” and “was slain.” And we all know that Jesus rose from the dead and was resurrected. So the Bible teaches that there is a quality of the Mass and Jesus’ one-time sacrifice that transcends time. “Lamb” referring to Jesus occurs 28 times in the book of Revelation in RSV.
39:23 this is the unbloody sacrifice which is carried out in heaven
But it’s not unbloody because it is the one sacrifice that occurred in time in Jerusalem, and this is more or less proven by Revelation 5:6. At the very least, that passage is perfectly consistent with what we say about the Mass: especially since it occurs in the context of a massive worship service in heaven.
39:37 If we view the matter from the material standpoint the sacrifice in the Eucharist is numerically the same as the sacrifice that took place on the cross
Exactly! Now if Lutherans could only figure out that we agree on this point!
44:13 when we read the fathers, number one,we don’t burden them with infallibility. There’s going to be stuff in the fathers that they get wrong and we know that . . . the fathers are not the inspired and inherent scriptures
So do we. We don’t believe that the Church fathers collectively or individually are infallible. We think the Church and the pope are granted that gift, in carefully specified circumstances. What we look to is patristic consensus on issues, which we believe indicates or exhibits the scope and nature of the apostolic tradition that was passed down. We don’t even hold that St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas were infallible.
*
***
* Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 4,900+ free online articles 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.
I critique Luther pastor Will Weedon’s rationale for remaining Lutheran, over against Catholicism. Highlights include the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Church fathers.
Photo credit: Historical mixed media figure of John Calvin produced by artist/historian George S. Stuart and photographed by Peter d’Aprix: from the George S. Stuart Gallery of Historical Figures archive [Wikimedia Commons / Creative CommonsAttribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license]
This is a reply to John Calvin’s Acts of the Council of Trent with the Antidote (Nov. 1547), specifically his comments on the Sixth Session of the Council of Trent (Jan. 1547), regarding justification. The online treatise is taken from Selected Works of John Calvin: Tracts and Letters, Vol. 3: Tracts, Part 3; edited and translated by Henry Beveridge (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1851). I have a hardcover copy of this volume in my own library: a reprint from Baker Book House (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1983).
John Calvin’s words will be in blue; citations from Trent in green. I use RSV for biblical citations.
It was indeed an absurd dream, but they are still more grossly absurd when they give it as their opinion, that none of all the things which precede Justification, whether faith or works, merit it. What works antecedent to Justification are they here imagining? What kind of order is this in which the fruit is antecedent in time to the root? In one word, that pious readers may understand how great progress has been made in securing purity of doctrine, the monks dunned into the ears of the reverend Fathers, whose part was to nod assent, this old song, that good works which precede justification are not meritorious of eternal salvation, but preparatory only. If any works precede faith, they should also be taken into account. But there is no merit, because there are no works; for if men inquire into their works, they will find only evil works.
Posterity will scarcely believe that the Papacy had fallen into such a stupor as to imagine the possibility of any work antecedent to justification, even though they denied it to be meritorious of so great a blessing! For what can come from man until he is born again by the Spirit of God?
Such works as repentance, any good thing that they do, by prevenient grace, the sort of general theistic belief that Paul refers to in Romans 1:20: “Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.” Or, “the law written upon their hearts”:
Romans 2:13-16 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. [14] When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. [15] They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them [16] on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
Or the virtuous pagan beliefs that Paul built upon in Athens, to preach the gospel:
Acts 17:22-23, 27-28 . . . “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. [23] For as I passed along, and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, ‘To an unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. . . . [27] . . . he is not far from each one of us, [28] for `In him we live and move and have our being’; as even some of your poets have said, `For we are indeed his offspring.’
Or the faith of the Roman centurion who came to Jesus, at whom Jesus “marveled” and said, “I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith” (Lk 7:9). Calvin believes in total depravity; i.e., that human beings can do no good whatsoever before they are regenerated, and that even ostensibly good actions are inevitably tainted by evil in some fashion. But the anonymous psalmist in 112:5-6 refers to the “righteous” (Heb. tob), as does the book of Proverbs repeatedly: using the words “righteous” or “good” (11:23; 12:2; 13:22; 14:14, 19), using the same word, tob, which appears in Psalm 14:2-3. References to righteous men are innumerable (e.g., Job 17:9; 22:19; Ps 5:12; 32:11; 34:15; 37:16, 32; Mt 9:13; 13:17; 25:37, 46; Rom 5:19; Heb 11:4; Jas 5:16; 1 Pet 3:12; 4:18, etc.). See my articles:
Very different is the reasoning of Paul. He exhorts the Ephesians to remember (Ephesians 2) that they were saved by grace, not by themselves nor by their own works.
We don’t deny that, so it’s a moot point or a non sequitur.
***
“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”!If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,800+ articles, please follow my 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. My blog was rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT: endorsed by influential Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. 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!
***
Scripture, . . . opposes faith to works . . .
Really?:
Matthew 7:21 Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. . . .
Matthew 19:16-17, 20-21 And behold, one came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?” [17] And he said to him, “. . . If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” . . . [20] The young man said to him, “All these I have observed; what do I still lack?” [21] Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”
Matthew 19:29 And every one who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life. (cf. Mk 10:29-30)
Luke 3:9 (+ Mt 3:10; 7:19) . . . every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
John 5:28-29 . . . all who are in the tombs will hear his voice [29] and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.
Romans 1:5, 17 through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations, . . . [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.” (cf. Acts 6:7)
Romans 2:13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.
Romans 16:26 . . . the obedience of faith
Galatians 5:6 . . . faith working through love.
1 Thessalonians 1:3 . . . your work of faith . . .
2 Thessalonians 1:11 . . . work of faith by his power,
Hebrews 11:8 By faith Abraham obeyed . . .
James 2:14, 17, 20-22, 24, 26 What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? . . . [17] So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. . . . [20] . . . faith apart from works is barren . . . [21] Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? [22] You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, . . . [24] You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. . . . [26] . . . faith apart from works is dead.
In the tenth chapter, they inveigh against what they call The Vain Confidence of Heretics. This consists, according to their definition, in our holding it as certain that our sins are forgiven, and resting in this certainty. But if such certainty makes heretics, where will be the happiness which David extols? (Psalm 32) Nay, where will be the peace of which Paul discourses in the fifth chapter to the Romans, if we rest in anything but the good-will of God?
Where, then, is that boldness of which Paul elsewhere speaks, (Ephesians 3:12,) that access with confidence to the Father through faith in Christ? . . . Nay, they overthrow all true prayer to God, when they keep pious minds suspended by fear which alone shuts the door of access against us. “He who doubts,” says James, (James 1:6) “is like a wave of the sea driven by the wind.” Let not such think that they shall obtain anything of the Lord. “Let him who would pray effectually not doubt.” Attend to the antithesis between faith and doubt, plainly intimating that faith is destroyed as soon as certainty is taken away.
*
We do have that access, but it’s not the same as absolute assurance of eschatological salvation. St. Paul also warned:
1 Corinthians 9:27 I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.
1 Corinthians 10:12 Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.
Galatians 5:1 For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.
Galatians 5:4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.
Philippians 3:8-14 Indeed I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as refuse, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own, based on law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith; that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Brethren, I do not consider that I have made it my own; but one thing I do, forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.
1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons.
But that the whole of their theology may be more manifest to my readers, let them weigh the words which follow under the same head. It ought not to be asserted, they say, that those who have been truly justified ought to entertain an unhesitating doubt that they are justified.
That’s not our teaching, which is thoroughly based on Paul’s. We simply deny absolute certainty of the future, including that of our attainment of heaven. This doesn’t equate to constant, anxious doubt, which is merely Calvin’s “either/or” self-delusion. It’s simply the acknowledgment of the obvious reality that we don’t know the future, and that we can possibly fall away from faith. Calvin, of course, denies that it’s possible to fall away, which is equally unbiblical, per the above articles. So each unbiblical error of his is compounded upon others, leading him further and further away from the Bible itself: all the while making the same accusation towards us, of the very thing he is doing..
I am ashamed to debate the matter, as if it were doubtful, with men who call themselves Christians. The doctrine of Scripture is clear. “We know,” says John, (1 John 4:6,) “that we are the children of God.”
Indeed, but how does John say that we know this?:
1 John 2:3-5 And by this we may be sure that we know him, if we keep his commandments. [4] He who says “I know him” but disobeys his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him; [5] but whoever keeps his word, in him truly love for God is perfected. By this we may be sure that we are in him:
1 John 3:24 All who keep his commandments abide in him, and he in them. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit which he has given us.
He doesn’t teach, “we’re absolutely sure because we have faith!” He wasn’t a Calvinist and would have — along with Paul and James and Peter — flunked out of their seminaries. Rather, good works and obeying commandments are how we know, and “knowing” doesn’t mean that it is for all time, into eternity. We can know in the present, because we’re in the present and there is no required speculation about what is to come. That’s Paul’s and John’s teaching. That’s why Paul refers to “lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified” (1 Cor 9:27) and “let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall” (1 Cor 10:12) and “if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make it my own. Brethren, I do not consider that I have made it my own . . . ” (Phil 3:11-13).
And, indeed, they are ignorant of the whole nature of faith who mingle doubt with it.
Again; it’s not doubt per se; rather, it’s a common sense acknowledgment that we don’t know the future. Jesus said, “he who endures to the end will be saved” (Mt 10:22). We don’t know that we’ll do that. But we have a strong faith that God’s enabling power will give us the strength and perseverance to do that, provided we are willing the whole way and don’t “fall away” (Gal 5:4; cf. Mt 13:6-7: parable of the sower). Paul condemns doubt (Rom 14:23), but he still warns about a possible falling away, if one isn’t vigilant and doesn’t “press on” like he does, or as James describes: “he who . . . perseveres, being no hearer that forgets but a doer that acts, he shall be blessed in his doing” (Jas 1:25).
*
***
*
Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 4,800+ free online articles 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.
Summary: Part II of my critical examination of John Calvin’s 1547 treatise, “Acts of the Council of Trent with the Antidote”: regarding the issue of justification by faith, and salvation.
Highlighting “Working Together with God” and Our Grounds for “Boasting” and “Pride” in the Meritorious Work We and Other Christians Do for the Sake of God and Evangelism
Photo credit: Historical mixed media figure of John Calvin produced by artist/historian George S. Stuart and photographed by Peter d’Aprix: from the George S. Stuart Gallery of Historical Figures archive [Wikimedia Commons / Creative CommonsAttribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license]
This is a reply to John Calvin’s Acts of the Council of Trent with the Antidote (Nov. 1547), specifically his comments on the Sixth Session of the Council of Trent (Jan. 1547), regarding justification. The online treatise is taken from Selected Works of John Calvin: Tracts and Letters, Vol. 3: Tracts, Part 3; edited and translated by Henry Beveridge (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1851). I have a hardcover copy of this volume in my own library: a reprint from Baker Book House (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1983).
John Calvin’s words will be in blue; citations from Trent in green. I use RSV for biblical citations.
The doctrine of man’s Justification would be easily explained, did not the false opinions by which the minds of men are preoccupied, spread darkness over the clear light.
I totally agree!; totally disagree, however, as to the theological system inside which, and because of which most of these errors are found.
The principal cause of obscurity, however, is, that we are with the greatest difficulty induced to leave the glory of righteousness entire to God alone. For we always desire to be somewhat, and such is our folly, we even think we are. As this pride was innate in man from the first, so it opened a door for Satan to imbue them with many impious and vicious conceits with which we have this day to contend. And in all ages there have been sophists exercising their pen in extolling human righteousness, as they knew it would be popular.
First of all, God massively shares His glory with us, as I have amply proven from Scripture. Secondly, Calvin, exhibiting his typical unbiblical “either/or” error of thought, doesn’t grasp that the good works that regenerated, initially justified believers do are simultaneously God’s own. Therefore, He gets ultimate credit for them, while at the same time they are truly our own, too. That’s the biblical, Hebraic “both/and” outlook on life and theology. Many Bible passages teach this:
Mark 16:20 And they went forth and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by the signs that attended it. Amen.
Romans 15:17-19 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, [19] by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Holy Spirit, . . .
1 Corinthians 3:9 For we are God’s fellow workers . . .
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. (cf. 15:58)
2 Corinthians 6:1 Working together with him, . . .
Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
Philippians 2:12-13 . . . work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; [13] for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure. (cf. Titus 3:5-8)
This cooperation with God can also make us actually righteous (infused justification), by His grace, provided we are willing to cooperate:
Romans 2:13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.
Romans 3:22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. . . .
2 Corinthians 5:21 . . . in him we might become the righteousness of God.
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 4:24 and put on the new nature, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.
Philippians 1:9-11 And it is my prayer that your love may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment, [10] so that you may approve what is excellent, and may be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, [11] filled with the fruits of righteousness which come through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God.
Philippians 3:8-9 . . . For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as refuse, in order that I may gain Christ
[9] and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own, based on law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith;
What I find so remarkable is that a man as theologically educated as Calvin can miss so much Scripture! I just cited fourteen passages. Who’s more biblical here? But Calvin chooses to simply ramble on, giving his opinions while ignoring what inspired revelation actually teaches about the same topics. He does this — quite annoyingly — in much of his Antidote. I prefer to concentrate, thank you, on what Sacred Scripture teaches, not men’s minds (however “brilliant”) without immediate recourse to same. We all have to be grounded in the Bible, not our own thoughts, which too often wander from that reliable, never-failing standard.
When by the singular kindness of God, the impiety of Pelagius was repudiated with the common consent of the ancient Church, they no longer dared to talk so pertly of human merit.
Human merit, necessarily brought about by God’s grace (God crowning His own gifts,” as St. Augustine described it) is not Pelagian works-salvation. This is the obnoxious fallacy always spouted by Calvin, and his Calvinist followers, and many other Protestants. If such works are simultaneously God’s and our own (1 Cor 15:10 above), totally enabled by Him from the outset, that’s not mere human works. The Bible teaches that meritorious works are good and required. I found 38 Bible passages that teach this. If Calvin wants to disbelieve that much Scripture, then he needs to refute all of it and prove that they don’t mean what they sure appear to mean, and find other ones that teach otherwise. But I’m sure he won’t do that. I’ve replied to him so many times I know how he operates by now.
Trent in its Chapter XVI on Justification, stated that “Jesus Christ Himself continually infuses his virtue into the said justified,-as the head into the members, and the vine into the branches,-and this virtue always precedes and accompanies and follows their good works, which without it could not in any wise be pleasing and meritorious before God . . .God forbid that a Christian should either trust or glory in himself, and not in the Lord, whose bounty towards all men is so great, that He will have the things which are His own gifts be their merits.” Canon XXXII reiterates that “the good works” of the justified person are those “which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ.” Both/and.
They, however, devised a middle way, by which they might not give God the whole in justification, and yet give something.
We didn’t “devise” anything. We follow what St. Paul taught in the above six passages. What’s “devised” is Calvin’s rejection of clear biblical teaching.
Nay, their definition at length contains nothing else than the trite dogma of the schools: that men are justified partly by the grace of God and partly by their own works; thus only showing themselves somewhat more modest than Pelagius was.
It’s not either/or in this sense, because our works are at the same time, God’s (working with us, through grace [1 Cor 15:10], and power [Phil 2:13]). Calvin vainly tries to pretend that we teach that they are wholly and only our own works and divorced from the necessary connection to God’s 100% causal grace. We simply cooperate with Him. That can’t possibly be Pelagianism. Nor is it Semi-Pelagianism. But Protestants — stuck in the “either/or” hyper-rationalistic rut, have been falsely accusing us of those heresies for over 500 years, and, sadly, it won’t ever stop. Wikipedia, citing the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, states:
A distinction is made between the beginning of faith and the increase of faith. Semi-Pelagian thought teaches that the latter half – growing in faith – is the work of God, while the beginning of faith is an act of free will, with grace supervening only later.
That’s emphatically not Catholic teaching, and this was made clear in Canons I-III of the Sixth Session:
CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.
CANON II.-If any one saith, that the grace of God, through Jesus Christ, is given only for this, that man may be able more easily to live justly, and to merit eternal life, as if, by free will without grace, he were able to do both, though hardly indeed and with difficulty; let him be anathema.
CANON III.-If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.
Later on in his reply, Calvin offers a rare note of agreement, in stating, “To Canons 1, 2, and 3:, I say, Amen.” So he reads those and agrees. But they clearly teach that we reject both Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism. Yet nevertheless, here he is accusing us of these heresies, anyway, either contradicting himself or showing that he has gotten the definitions of those heresies wrong. It’s one or the other. That said, justification by works (alongside faith and grace) is biblical teaching, too:
Genesis 18:19 I have chosen him [Abraham], that he may charge his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing righteousness and justice; so that the LORD may bring to Abraham what he has promised him.
Romans 2:7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life
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.
James 2:24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
they certainly understand that the human will has still some power left to choose good. . . . let them say whether he who makes us to be willing simply assists the will.
The regenerate, grace-enabled will can choose good, but not the unregenerate will, per Canons I-III above. Calvin confuses the two categories. That’s where he goes astray and starts misrepresenting Catholic theology. Alas, his prodigious powers of rationality fail him. Moreover, Trent’s Chapter V on Justification is quite plain when it declares that unregenerate man is “not able, by his own free will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in His sight.”
For if the will were wholly depraved, its health would not only be impaired but lost until it were renewed.
Total depravity is not required here; only an inability to save ourselves without God’s grace. It doesn’t thereby follow that we were maximally wicked through and through, in every conceivable way, as a result of the Fall and original sin. See my articles:
Paul claims the whole work for God; they ascribe nothing to him but a little help.
This distorts the Catholic view, as shown. It’s an outrageous caricature.
Is this the doctrine delivered by Augustine, when he says, “Men labor to find in our will some good thing of our own not given us of God; what they can find I know not?” (Aug. Lib. de Precator. Merit. et Remiss. 2.)
Exactly. Chapter XVI on Justification teaches the same: “Jesus Christ Himself continually infuses his virtue into the said justified,-as the head into the members, and the vine into the branches,-and this virtue always precedes and accompanies and follows their good works, which without it could not in any wise be pleasing and meritorious before God”. Canon IV teaches that our “free will” is “moved and excited by God.”
Moreover, God promises not to act so that we may be able to will well, but to make us will well.
Yep; that is stated in Philippians 2:13, that I cited above. Two sentences later, Calvin sites it. I am answering as I read, which is my custom in these dialogues.
The hallucination of these Fathers is in dreaming that we are offered a movement which leaves us an intermediate choice, while they never think of that effectual working by which the heart of man is renewed from pravity to rectitude.
Catholics believe in the predestination of the elect, just as Calvinists and other Protestants do. What we deny over against Calvinists (in this instance, in agreement with most Protestants) is predestination to hell.
***
“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,800+ articles, please follow my 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. My blog was rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT: endorsed by influential Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. 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!
***
What then, you will ask, does Augustine mean when he speaks of the freedom of the will? Just what he so often repeats, that men are not forced by the grace of God against their will, but ruled voluntarily, so as to obey and follow of their own accord, and this because their will from being bad is turned to good. Hence he says, “We therefore will, but God works in us also to will. We work, but God causes us also to work.” Again, “The good which we possess not without our own will we should never possess unless he worked in us also to will.” Again, “It is certain that we will when we are willing, but he makes us to be willing. It is certain that we do when we do, but he makes us to do by affording most effectual strength to the will.”
This is exactly Catholic teaching, as shown in the citations from Trent above, and in the Scriptures I produced, that we fully believe in.
The whole may be thus summed up — Their error consists in sharing the work between God and ourselves, so as to transfer to ourselves the obedience of a pious will in assenting to divine grace, whereas this is the proper work of God himself.
Again, Calvin badly distorts our teaching. Canons I-III obviously agree with this and Calvin agreed with them, so he is again fighting with other statements he has made, which were accurate as to our view.
“He made him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might be the righteousness of God in him.” (2 Corinthians 5:19.)
Can anything be clearer than that we are regarded as righteous in the sight of God, because our sins have been expiated by Christ, and no longer hold us under liability?
Calvin wants to make out that this is merely imputed, declared, forensic righteousness, but that is not at all certain in the text itself. Two chapters later, Paul writes quite like a Catholic who believes in infused justification and sanctification as part and parcel of it:
2 Corinthians 7:1 Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, and make holiness perfect in the fear of God. (cf. Jas 4:8)
This is not merely declaring that we are cleansed, but actual cleansing. Immediately before this passage (and the original NT had no chapters and verses) we find the following:
2 Corinthians 6:14-17 Do not be mismated with unbelievers. For what partnership have righteousness and iniquity? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? [15] What accord has Christ with Be’lial? Or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? [16] What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, “I will live in them and move among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. [17] Therefore come out from them, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch nothing unclean; . . .
St. Peter adds:
1 Peter 1:14-16, 22 As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, [15] 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.” . . . [22] Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere love of the brethren, love one another earnestly from the heart.
2 Peter 3:11. . . what sort of persons ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness,
It is not to be denied, however, that the two things, Justification and Sanctification, are constantly conjoined and cohere; but from this it is erroneously inferred that they are one and the same. For example: — The light of the sun, though never unaccompanied with heat, is not to be considered heat. Where is the man so undiscerning as not to distinguish the one from the other? We acknowledge, then, that as soon as any one is justified, renewal also necessarily follows: and there is no dispute as to whether or not Christ sanctifies all whom he justifies. It were to rend the gospel, and divide Christ himself, to attempt to separate the righteousness which we obtain by faith from repentance.
This section is good!
The whole dispute is as to The Cause of Justification. The Fathers of Trent pretend that it is twofold, as if we were justified partly by forgiveness of sins and partly by spiritual regeneration; or, to express their view in other words, as if our righteousness were composed partly of imputation, partly of quality. I maintain that it is one, and simple, and is wholly included in the gratuitous acceptance of God. I besides hold that it is without us, because we are righteous in Christ only. Let them produce evidence from Scripture, if they have any, to convince us of their doctrine.
While I admit that we are never received into the favor of God without being at the same time regenerated to holiness of life, [I] contend that it is false to say that any part of righteousness (justification) consists in quality, or in the habit which resides in us, and that we are righteous (justified) only by gratuitous acceptance. . . .
For however small the portion attributed to our work, to that extent faith will waver, and our whole salvation be endangered.
Paul did write the following:
1 Thessalonians 3:12-13 . . . may the Lord make you increase and abound in love to one another and to all men, as we do to you, [13] so that he may establish your hearts unblamable in holiness before our God and Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his saints.
Once again, it’s all from God’s grace, and at the same time we participate and cooperate and in so doing, obtain merit: just as in Catholicism. When we love other people, that’s a good work; something we do, and it’s not just a matter of robots doing what they must do, at God’s command. Hence, St. Paul could write, “I have reason to be proud of my work for God” (Rom 15:17). Paul mentions this theme of being “proud” or being able to “boast” about himself and his work five more times:
2 Corinthians 1:12, 14 For our boast is this, the testimony of our conscience that we have behaved in the world, . . . [14] . . . you can be proud of us as we can be of you . . .
2 Corinthians 5:12 . . . giving you cause to be proud of us, . . .
2 Corinthians 10:8, 13 For even if I boast a little too much of our authority, which the Lord gave for building you up and not for destroying you, I shall not be put to shame. . . . [13] But we will not boast beyond limit, . . .
2 Corinthians 11:10, 12 As the truth of Christ is in me, this boast of mine shall not be silenced in the regions of Acha’ia. . . . [12] And what I do I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do. (he continues in a sarcastic sense, in verses 16-18, 21, 30)
Philippians 2:16 holding fast the word of life, so that in the day of Christ I may be proud that I did not run in vain or labor in vain.
And he’s proud of other Christians who are being good disciples, too; he never writes anything remotely like the Calvinist mentality of “God did absolutely everything and we did nothing meritorious, because everything we do is worthless and hopelessly sinful!” Rather, he writes as follows, in nine passages:
1 Corinthians 9:15-18 . . . I would rather die than have any one deprive me of my ground for boasting. [16] For if I preach the gospel, that gives me no ground for boasting. For necessity is laid upon me. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! [17] For if I do this of my own will, I have a reward; but if not of my own will, I am entrusted with a commission. [18] What then is my reward? Just this: that in my preaching I may make the gospel free of charge, not making full use of my right in the gospel.
1 Corinthians 15:31 . . . my pride in you which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord . . .
2 Corinthians 7:4, 14 I have great confidence in you; I have great pride in you; . . . [14] For if I have expressed to him some pride in you, I was not put to shame; but just as everything we said to you was true, so our boasting before Titus has proved true.
2 Corinthians 8:24 So give proof, before the churches, of your love and of our boasting about you to these men.
2 Corinthians 9:2-3 for I know your readiness, of which I boast about you to the people of Macedo’nia, saying that Acha’ia has been ready since last year; and your zeal has stirred up most of them. [3] But I am sending the brethren so that our boasting about you may not prove vain in this case, so that you may be ready, as I said you would be;
2 Corinthians 12:5 On behalf of this man I will boast, . . .
Galatians 6:4 But let each one test his own work, and then his reason to boast will be in himself alone and not in his neighbor.
1 Thessalonians 2:19 For what is our hope or joy or crown of boasting before our Lord Jesus at his coming? Is it not you?
2 Thessalonians 1:4 Therefore we ourselves boast of you in the churches of God for your steadfastness and faith in all your persecutions and in the afflictions which you are enduring.
Having expressed all that praise of and pride in his own work and that of other Christians, Paul grounds it in the following six passages, in God’s enabling grace, as always:
Romans 11:18 . . . If you do boast, remember it is not you that support the root, but the root that supports you.
1 Corinthians 1:29, 31 so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. . . . [31] therefore, as it is written, “Let him who boasts, boast of the Lord.”
1 Corinthians 3:21 So let no one boast of men. . . .
1 Corinthians 4:7 . . . What have you that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if it were not a gift?
2 Corinthians 10:17-18 “Let him who boasts, boast of the Lord.” [18] For it is not the man who commends himself that is accepted, but the man whom the Lord commends.
2 Corinthians 12:5-6, 9 . . . on my own behalf I will not boast, except of my weaknesses. [6] Though if I wish to boast, I shall not be a fool, for I shall be speaking the truth. But I refrain from it, so that no one may think more of me than he sees in me or hears from me. . . . [9] but he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” I will all the more gladly boast of my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
Both things are simultaneously true: we can boast of our good works (imitating Paul as our model, as he says several times that we ought to do), and we can and must give God the ultimate credit for them. I try to make a regular habit of saying, “all glory to God” when someone compliments my work. But I say “thanks” too. I don’t pretend that I did nothing at all. I did do something! And God at the same time did it through me.
But for Calvin and Calvinists, all of this is unsavory bragging, making man higher than he is in the scheme of things, and a usurpation of God’s glory and grace: praising men at the expense of God (as if this is godless Pelagianism). They’re dead wrong. The Bible roundly refutes them, as we see in the many Bible passages I provided above.
John Calvin is so brazen and carnal in his thought, as to actually blaspheme Jesus Christ Himself, when he, in effect, mocks and rejects His answer to the rich young ruler:
It were long and troublesome to note every blunder, but there is one too important to be omitted. They add, “that when catechumens ask faith from the Church, the answer is, “If you will enter into life, keep the commandments.’” (Matthew 19:17.) Wo to their catechumens, if so hard a condition is laid upon them! For what else is this but to lay them under an eternal curse, since they acknowledge with Paul, that all are under the curse who are subject to the law? (Galatians 3:10.) But they have the authority of Christ! I wish they would observe to what intent Christ thus spake. This can only be ascertained from the context, and the character of the persons. He to whom Christ replies had asked, What must I do to have eternal life? Assuredly, whosoever wishes to merit life by works, has a rule prescribed to him by the law, “This do, and thou shalt live.” But attention must be paid to the object of this as intimated by Paul, viz., that man experiencing his powers, or rather convinced of his powerlessness, may lay aside his pride, and flee all naked to Christ. There is no room for the righteousness of faith until we have discovered that it is in vain that salvation is promised us by the law. . . . so preposterous are the Fathers of Trent, that while it is the office of Moses to lead us by the hand to Christ, (Galatians 3:24,) they lead us away from the grace of Christ to Moses.
Note the outrageous implications of this supposed “exegesis” of the passage (which is really eisegesis: reading into it what isn’t there). He cites Catholics giving catechumens the very words of Christ from Matthew 19:17 and then has the audacity to describe this as “what else is this but to lay them under an eternal curse . . .?”!!! Calvin acts as if the ruler is a special case, bound to the Law alone. But the passage need not read that way at all. It’s a generic question that he asked (“What must I do to have eternal life?”).
If Calvin and Protestantism and “faith alone” are correct, Jesus would certainly have had to say something very much like, “Why do you ask me about doing something to obtain eternal life? You can’t do anything. All you need to do is have faith in Me.” But of course in reality, Jesus’ answer was to keep the commandments. That was how to be saved and attain to eternal life in heaven. Once the man said that he had done that, then Jesus said he also had to give away all of his possessions: a thing not required in the Law of Moses, as far as I understand it; so Calvin’s recourse to the dreaded “law” as the explanation of all here, falls flat.
Calvin then has the gall to try to pit blasphemously St. Paul against Jesus. But Paul taught the same: following the commandments is simply acting in love, which sums up and fulfills all of God’s laws (Rom 13:8-10; cf. Gal 5:14). Then in context he proclaimed, “salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed” (13:11). The commandments and love, therefore, cannot be formally separated from justification and salvation, as Protestants sadly believe. St. John agrees with Jesus and Paul, too:
1 John 2:3-5 And by this we may be sure that we know him, if we keep his commandments. [4] He who says “I know him” but disobeys his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him; [5] but whoever keeps his word, in him truly love for God is perfected. By this we may be sure that we are in him:
1 John 3:24 All who keep his commandments abide in him, and he in them. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit which he has given us.
Revelation 14:12-13 Here is a call for the endurance of the saints, those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. [13] And I heard a voice from heaven saying, “Write this: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord henceforth.” “Blessed indeed,” says the Spirit, “that they may rest from their labors, for their deeds follow them!”
Even back in the book of Genesis, before the Mosaic Law had been given to Moses on Mt. Sinai, the same teaching is present, in what God said to Isaac:
Genesis 26:3-5 . . . “I will fulfil the oath which I swore to Abraham your father. [4] I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven, and will give to your descendants all these lands; and by your descendants all the nations of the earth shall bless themselves: [5] because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.”
St. James comments on Abraham:
James 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?
Lest they should not be liberal enough in preaching up the powers of man, they again repeat, under this head, that the Spirit of God acts in us according to the proper disposedness and co-operation of each. What disposedness, pray, will the Spirit of God find in stony hearts? Are they not ashamed to feign a disposedness, when the Spirit himself uniformly declares in Scripture that all things are contrary? For the commencement of grace is to make those willing who were unwilling, and therefore repugnant; so that faith, as well in its beginnings as its increase, even to its final perfection, is the gift of God;
This is exactly what Trent in its Sixth Session taught:
CANON III.-If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.
Calvin ends up preaching to the choir. As I have already noted, he is on record agreeing with the first three canons on justification. So why does he continue to quixotically argue as if we didn’t believe what we clearly do, and which he himself agreed with?
“God hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings, according as he hath chosen us in Christ, according to the good pleasure of his will.” (Ephesians 1:3.)
By these words he certainly restrains us, while receiving so great a blessing from God, from glorying in the decision of our will, as Augustine again says. (Ibid. c. 8.) This which man ought to receive as at the hands of God, is he to oppose to him as a merit of his own?
I have shown how Paul constantly boasted in his accomplishments and those of others; while giving God all the glory. It’s not contradictory; it’s not opposition to God. Rather, it’s the biblical and Hebraic “both/and” outlook, which Calvin is too rationalistic and caught up in men’s philosophies and traditions to grasp. It’s sad, since it is repeated and explicit biblical teaching. As for “glorying,” St. Paul even wrote, utterly contrary to Calvin’s argument above: “to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life . . . glory and honor and peace for every one who does good” (Rom 2:7, 10) and “we rejoice in our hope of sharing the glory of God” (Rom 5:2).
We are justified freely, they say, because no works which precede justification merit it. But when Paul takes away all ground of glorying from Abraham, on the ground that faith was imputed to him for righteousness, he immediately subjoins by way of proof — where works are, there a due reward is paid, whereas what is given to faith is gratuitous. Let us observe that he is, speaking of the holy Patriarch. Paul affirms, that at the time when he renounced the world to devote himself entirely to God, he was not justified by any works. If these spurious Fathers object, that it was then only he began to be justified, the quibble is plainly refuted by the context of the Sacred History. He had for many years exercised himself in daily prayer to God, and he had constantly followed the call of God, wherein was contained the promise of eternal life. Must they not therefore be thrice blind who see no gratuitous righteousness of God, except in the very vestibule, and think that the merit of works pervades the edifice? But it is proper to attend to the gloss by which they attempt to cloak this gross impiety, viz., that in this way they satisfy the Apostle’s sentiment,
“If it be of grace, then it is no more of works.” (Romans 11:5)
Abraham was justified both by faith and works, as I have written about at length: Abraham: Justified Twice by Works & Once by Faith [8-30-23]. Even Calvin wrote, “He had for many years exercised himself in daily prayer to God, and he had constantly followed the call of God, wherein was contained the promise of eternal life.” That is, of course, two works; rewarded by eternal life, so Calvin backs into Catholic teaching; seemingly not being aware of it. But we have seen that he is no stranger to not infrequent self-contradiction.
Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 4,800+ free online articles 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.
Summary: Part I of my critical examination of John Calvin’s 1547 treatise, “Acts of the Council of Trent with the Antidote”: regarding the issue of justification by faith, and salvation.
. . . Proving That “Faith Alone” is a False Doctrine
Photo credit: self-designed cover of my 2013 book, Revelation! 1001 Bible Answers to Theological Topics.
[Bible passages: RSV]
1. The “doers of the law . . . will be justified” (Rom 2:13).
2. The “end” of “sanctification” is “eternal life” (Rom 6:22).
3. We should “abound in love to one another and to all men” in order for God to “establish” our “hearts unblamable in holiness” before Him (1 Thess 3:12-13).
4. We’re “saved, through sanctification by the Spirit” (2 Thess 2:13; cf. Heb 9:14; 10:10, 14).
5. “God . . . saves the upright in heart” (Ps 7:10).
6. If we “repent,” we’ll “be redeemed . . . by righteousness” (Is 1:27).
7. The “righteous” will be saved (Is 26:2).
8. Salvation is the “effect” and “result” of “righteousness” (Is 32:17).
9. “He who walks righteously” will be saved (Is 33:15).
10. “He who . . . speaks uprightly” will be saved (Is 33:15).
11. Those who “hearkened to” God’s “commandments” were saved (Is 48:18).
12. Those who “keep justice” will be saved (Is 56:1).
13. Those who “do righteousness” will be saved (Is 56:1).
14. The “righteous man . . . enters into peace” (Is 57:1-2).
15. Those “who walk in their uprightness” are saved (Is 57:2).
16. “According to their deeds, so will he repay, . . .” (Is 59:18).
17. If we “ask for the ancient paths, where the good way is; and walk in it” then we’ll “find rest for” our “souls” and be saved (Jer 6:16).
18. God commands us to “Obey my voice” in order to be saved (Jer 7:23).
19. God commands us to “walk in all the way that I command you” in order to be saved (Jer 7:23).
20. God will “give to every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his doings” (Jer 17:10).
21. If we “do justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed” we’ll be saved (Jer 22:3; cf. 21:12).
22. If we “judge the cause of the poor and needy” we’ll be saved (Jer 22:16).
23. If we “obey the voice of the LORD” we’ll be saved (Jer 26:13).
24. “in accordance with their conduct and their deeds I judged them” (Ezek 36:19).
25. “I will . . . requite them for their deeds” (Hos 4:9).
***
“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,800+ articles, please follow my 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. My blog was rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT: endorsed by influential Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. 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!
***
26. “Seek good, . . . that you may live” (Amos 5:14).
27. “As you have done, it shall be done to you, your deeds shall return on your own head” (Obad 1:15).
28. “A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits” (Mt 7:18-20).
29. “Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Mt 7:21).
30. “For the Son of man . . . will repay every man for what he has done” (Mt 16:27).
31. “And behold, one came up to him, saying, ‘Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?’ And he said to him, “. . . If you would enter life, keep the commandments” (Mt 19:16-17).
32. “And every one who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will . . . inherit eternal life” (Mt 19:29 + Mk 10:29-30 + Lk 18:26-30).
33. “Come, . . . inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food . . . And they will go away . . . into eternal life.” (Mt 25:34-35, 46).
34. “Come, . . . inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for . . . I was thirsty and you gave me drink. . . And they will go away . . . into eternal life.” (Mt 25:34-35, 46).
35. “Come, . . . inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for . . . I was a stranger and you welcomed me. . . And they will go away . . . into eternal life.” (Mt 25:34-35, 46).
36. “every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire” (Lk 3:9 + Mt 3:10; 7:19).
37. “love your enemies, . . . and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High” (Lk 6:35).
38. “do good, . . . and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High” (Lk 6:35).
39. “lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High” (Lk 6:35).
40. We must “obey the Son” in order to have “eternal life” (Jn 3:36).
41. “all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, . . .” (Jn 5:28-29).
42. “Every branch of mine that bears no fruit, he takes away, . . . He who abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth . . . and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned. . . . bear much fruit, and so prove to be my disciples” (Jn 15:2, 5-6, 8).
43. “in every nation any one who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him” (Acts 10:35).
44. “he will render to every man according to his works” (Rom 2:6).
45. Those who engage in “well-doing” will be given “eternal life” (Rom 2:7).
46. “every one who does good” will be rewarded with “glory and honor and immortality” (Rom 2:7, 10).
47. “. . . heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him” (Rom 8:17).
48. “salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed. . . let us conduct ourselves becomingly” (Rom 13:11, 13).
49. “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phil 2:12-13).
50. “Do all things without grumbling or questioning, that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish” (Phil 2:14-15).
51. St. Paul wrote that he had “suffered the loss of all things, . . . in order that I may gain Christ” (Phil 3:8; cf. Mt 19:21).
52. Paul was willing to “share” in the “sufferings” of Jesus “that if possible” he could “attain the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained this . . .” (Phil 3:10-12).
53. Paul thought that those who “labored side by side with me in the gospel” were saved (those whose “names are in the book of life”) (Phil 4:3).
54. “work heartily, as serving the Lord and not men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward” (Col 3:23-24).
55. “remembering before our God and Father your work of faith and labor of love . . . For we know, brethren beloved by God, that he has chosen you” (1 Thess 1:3-4).
56. “put on the breastplate of faith and love, . . . For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thess 5:8-9).
57. “inflicting vengeance upon . . . those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. . . . To this end we always pray for you, that our God may make you worthy of his call, and may fulfil every good resolve and work of faith by his power” (2 Thess 1:8, 11).
58. “Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in . . . love and holiness, with modesty” (1 Tim 2:15).
59. “set the believers an example in speech and conduct, in love, in faith, in purity. . . . attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. . . . Practice these duties, devote yourself to them, . . . for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers” (1 Tim 4:12-13, 15-16).
60. “aim at righteousness, godliness, . . . love, steadfastness, gentleness. . . . take hold of the eternal life to which you were called” (1 Tim 6:11-12).
61. “keep the commandment unstained and free from reproach . . . They are to do good, to be rich in good deeds, liberal and generous, thus laying up for themselves a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of the life which is life indeed” (1 Tim 6:14, 18-19).
62. “he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him” (Heb 5:9).
63. “let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, . . . you have need of endurance, so that you may do the will of God and receive what is promised” (Heb 10:24, 36).
64. What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? . . . So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. . . . faith apart from works is barren . . . You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, . . . You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. . . . faith apart from works is dead” (James 2:14, 17, 20, 22, 24, 26; this is the only time “faith alone” appears in the Bible, and this entire chapter directly refutes the doctrine over and over).
65. “chosen and destined by God the Father and sanctified by the Spirit for obedience to Jesus Christ” (1 Pet 1:2).
66. “if you invoke as Father him who judges each one impartially according to his deeds, conduct yourselves with fear . . . Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth . . . love one another earnestly from the heart” (1 Pet 1:17, 22).
67. But “rejoice in so far as you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed” (1 Pet 4:13).
68. “make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue . . . so there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom” (2 Pet 1:5, 11).
69. “make every effort to supplement your faith with . . . self-control . . . so there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom”(2 Pet 1:5-6, 11).
70. “make every effort to supplement your faith with . . . godliness. . . so there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom” (2 Pet 1:5-6, 11).
71. “make every effort to supplement your faith with . . . love . . . so there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom” (2 Pet 1:5. 7, 11).
72. “what sort of persons ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, . . . Therefore, beloved, since you wait for these, be zealous to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace” (2 Pet 3:11-12, 14).
73.”And by this we may be sure that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He who says “I know him” but disobeys his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him” (1 Jn 2:3-4; cf. 3:24).
74. “keep yourselves in the love of God; wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life” (Jude 21).
75. “Remember then from what you have fallen, repent and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent” (Rev 2:5).
76. “the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and for ten days you will have tribulation. Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life” (Rev 2:10).
77. “I know your works, your love and faith and service and patient endurance, and that your latter works exceed the first. . . . [23] . . . I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you as your works deserve . . . He who conquers and who keeps my works until the end, I will give him power over the nations” (Rev 2:19, 23, 26).
78. “they shall walk with me in white, for they are worthy. He who conquers shall be clad thus in white garments, and I will not blot his name out of the book of life” (Rev 3:4-5).
79. “Here is a call for the endurance of the saints, those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. [13] And I heard a voice from heaven saying, ‘Write this: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord henceforth.’ ‘Blessed indeed,’ says the Spirit, ‘that they may rest from their labors, for their deeds follow them!’ “(Rev 14:12-13).
80. “And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, by what they had done. [13] . . . and all were judged by what they had done” (Rev 20:12-13).
Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 4,800+ free online articles 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.
Summary: Compilation of 80 biblical passages in which a good work or action or deed is said to be one of the direct causes of salvation: all contrary to Protestant “faith alone” soteriology.
Photo credit: self-designed book cover of my own self-published book.
This exchange occurred in the combox of a video by Kenny Burchard, “No Tradition? Fine. NO CHRISTIANITY!” (Catholic Bible Highlights, 9-22-24). I provide the biblical research for this series. Our Protestant friend’s words will be in blue. I have cited all of them. I use RSV for Bible citations.
*****
Traditions are fine as all denominations have them. However, traditions should never add, alter, or delete anything from Scripture.
Traditions can be recorded in writing as well as being orally passed on. There isn’t any distinction on how these are transmitted. Traditions can be transmitted initially in writing and then orally taught; especially for those individuals who were illiterate in ancient times.
Paul wrote letters to certain churches and asked that they pass those writings on to other churches. Also, much of the New Testament writings were in use and recognized as biblical Scripture centuries before the Counsel of Trent formally recognized the Canon. (See Muratorian Fragment, a late 2nd-century-ce fragment of a Latin list of New Testament writings then regarded by Christians as canonical (scripturally authoritative).
Regarding oral Apostolic traditions, you spoke of these traditions without specifically identifying or listing what these traditions are. Which apostle or apostles passed down a specific tradition, and how do we know this? Are there any words of Christ passed on in any oral tradition that were not recorded in Scripture?
***
“traditions should never add, alter, or delete anything from Scripture.”
I agree. Sola Scriptura and sola fide aren’t taught in Scripture (which Protestants always demand) and contradict it. Things like the Immaculate Conception and Bodily Assumption of Mary aren’t explicit in Scripture, but are in harmony with it.
Of course, large parts of the biblical canon were recognized long before Trent, but there were still some serious disagreements right up to the time of the councils of Carthage and Hippo in the 390s. After that, the NT canon remained essentially up until Trent and the Protestant late tradition of decanonizing seven books. See my article: The New Testament Canon is a “Late” Doctrine.
“Which apostle or apostles passed down a specific tradition, and how do we know this?”
We can know some things; e.g., the perpetual virginity of Mary, from early tradition, in addition to biblical indications. I’ve written about that particular topic a lot. Also, episcopacy and hierarchical Church government is written about very early, by people like St. Ignatius of Antioch and Pope St. Clement of Rome. The belief in infant baptism is not explicit in Scripture (though I would argue that it is strongly implicit). St. Augustine and Martin Luther both talk about how it was a tradition passed down, and as such cannot be doubted. This was a major reason why Luther favored capital punishment for Anabaptists.
“Are there any words of Christ passed on in any oral tradition that were not recorded in Scripture?”
Not that I know of. But that doesn’t mean that they didn’t exist and were later lost to history. For example, in Mark 6:34 (RSV) it says, “He began to teach them many things.” But none are recorded in the larger passage. So it’s quite possible that some of that may not be explicit biblical teaching, but one or more of the disciples could have passed it along.
In short, it does not appear you can answer my question regarding Apostolic traditions.
The difference here is that I know the writings of Scripture to be true and authoritative; as it is the inspired word of God. There is nothing that compares! I can see them, touch them, and read them. Regarding Apostolic traditions, I can neither see, touch nor read them. And unfortunately, whether any of those traditions are true or not, there is simply no way to verify their source or authenticity. How can they possibly be equal to Scripture?
Anything can be said to be an Apostolic tradition … such as the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary. However, these traditions are nowhere to be found in Scripture, nor are they in harmony with Scripture. (The same is true for purgatory)
Sola Scriptura, as you know, means that Scripture is the final authority; not the only authority. As stated above, it is the inspired word of God. This is the very nature and purpose of Scripture. If you must have this spelled out for you in Scripture before you will understand and accept this truth, you are missing the meaning and purpose of Scripture. It is God’s word to us! As I stated in my initial post, you can have traditions, but they cannot add, delete or alter Scripture in any way. (Galatians 1)
You stated that Sola Fide isn’t taught in Scripture. I must disagree. Sola Fide or faith alone is taught throughout Scripture. You are saved by faith in Jesus Christ. That is the message of Scripture. There are numerous, numerous writings that teach this. Please do not belittle Scripture. (If you want to discuss James 2:24, we can do that.)
You also stated there were some serious disagreements by church leaders regarding some areas of the Canon prior to the Councils. That may be true to a point, but the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the New Testament was in fact recognized as Canon, used, studied and shared by the early churches well before the 390’s. (That’s a long time!) Also, I would argue, the writings of the New Testament became Scripture the moment they were written. They are God breathed and really did not need the blessings of man to make them so. The Councils did not make the Canon. God did! The Councils, after almost 400 years, finally recognized them as such.
Also, I believe the Old Testament Canon was pretty much set in stone by the Jews well before the time of Christ. It did not include ” the Protestant late tradition of decanonizing (these) seven books” . As you are assuredly well aware, the Jewish people did not recognize these books for a variety of reasons and none of these books were ever quoted by Jesus.
I do not mean to sound to argumentative. I can get a little fired up at times. However, I must also follow God’s word and only God’s word. If you can provide irrefutable evidence regarding any Apostolic tradition as being from an actual apostle and is a truth not already recorded, whole or in part, in the New Testament, I could possibly agree with it. But until then I’ll stay with Sola Scriptura.
Thanks for your time and discussion.
***
“In short, it does not appear you can answer my question regarding Apostolic traditions.”
I answered in part, and I will further answer presently.
“The difference here is that I know the writings of Scripture to be true and authoritative; as it is the inspired word of God.”
So do we. That’s no difference. The difference is when Protestants made it the sole infallible authority, which Scripture itself never teaches. Kenny’s latest video (uploaded this day, as I write) addresses this.
“There is nothing that compares! I can see them, touch them, and read them.”
Scripture is very unique. But it doesn’t follow that, just because only the Bible is inspired (i.e., in terms of a written document), that tradition and Church can’t be infallible (a lesser gift). We contend that the Bible teaches both of those things, too. But there is also inspiration beyond the Bible: the prophets spoke God’s inspired word, and the NT teaches that the office of prophet continued in the Church (whenever God speaks through anyone in a prophetic manner, it’s inspired). See my article: Reply To Gavin Ortlund’s 6-Minute Sola Scriptura Defense (Including the Biblical Case for Prophets as Inspired and Infallible Authorities Besides Holy Scripture) [1-26-24].
“Regarding Apostolic traditions, I can neither see, touch nor read them. And unfortunately, whether any of those traditions are true or not, there is simply no way to verify their source or authenticity. How can they possibly be equal to Scripture?”
Again, they are equal in terms of possessing authority, because inspired Scripture says that they are (as a general proposition). The Church, as the guardian of both Sacred Scripture and sacred apostolic tradition, proclaims and verifies specifically which are authentic and which aren’t. Even Protestants were forced to fall back on infallible, authoritative Church teaching when it came to the canon of the Bible. The Bible teaches the infallibility of the Church: 1 Timothy 3:15 = Church Infallibility (vs. Steve Hays) [5-14-20].
“As stated above, it is the inspired word of God. This is the very nature and purpose of Scripture.”
No need to reiterate what Catholics have believed from the beginning. You received Scripture from us, historically speaking. Even Luther gave the Catholic Church great credit for that.
“If you must have this spelled out for you in Scripture before you will understand and accept this truth, you are missing the meaning and purpose of Scripture.”
Again, this is not at issue. But for some inexplicable reason, you seem to think that it is. We need not spend valuable time arguing about commonly held premises and beliefs.
“It is God’s word to us!”
Yes it is! Prophets’ words are also God’s words to us. The phrase “word of the LORD” appears 243 times in the Protestant OT (RSV) and in many (maybe even most) instances it is referring to the words of prophets, not the Bible. In 101 of those instances, it reads, “the word of the LORD came to [so-and-so]”: i.e., that it was a direct revelation to a person, as opposed to Scripture.
“As I stated in my initial post, you can have traditions, but they cannot add, delete or alter Scripture in any way. (Galatians 1)”
Of course they can’t add to Scripture or “delete” it or alter it because they are not Scripture, so by definition . . . Once again, sacred apostolic tradition is authoritative and infallible (when deemed to be so by the Church) but not inspired. It’s not Scripture, but it’s always in harmony with what Scripture teaches. For example, the Bodily Assumption is not contradictory to anything we have in Scripture. We know it’s entirely possible because we have examples of other bodily assumptions to heaven, such as Elijah (many think, also Enoch) and those who will rise up to meet Jesus in the air when He returns.
A sinless person or the larger category of a sinless creature is not inconceivable because Adam and Eve were sinless before the fall, and the unfallen angels have always been sinless and always will be. Being in harmony with the Bible is different from being explicitly proven in the Bible.
“You stated that Sola Fide isn’t taught in Scripture. I must disagree. Sola Fide or faith alone is taught throughout Scripture. You are saved by faith in Jesus Christ. That is the message of Scripture. There are numerous, numerous writings that teach this.”
“Please do not belittle Scripture. (If you want to discuss James 2:24, we can do that.)”
It’s hardly belittling Scripture if I can offer up 78 Bible passages that refute faith alone. It would seem, rather, that Protestants are ignoring a great deal of Scripture that contradicts their false doctrine of “faith alone.” Ignoring that much Scripture is belittling it, if anything is. I’ve discussed James 2 many times; e.g., Reply to James White’s Exegesis of James 2 in Chapter 20 of His Book, The God Who Justifies [10-9-13].
“You also stated there were some serious disagreements by church leaders regarding some areas of the Canon prior to the Councils. That may be true to a point, but the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the New Testament was in fact recognized as Canon, used, studied and shared by the early churches well before the 390’s. (That’s a long time!)”
“Also, I would argue, the writings of the New Testament became Scripture the moment they were written. They are God breathed and really did not need the blessings of man to make them so. The Councils did not make the Canon. God did! The Councils, after almost 400 years, finally recognized them as such.”
“Also, I believe the Old Testament Canon was pretty much set in stone by the Jews well before the time of Christ. It did not include “the Protestant late tradition of decanonizing (these) seven books”. As you are assuredly well aware, the Jewish people did not recognize these books for a variety of reasons and none of these books were ever quoted by Jesus.”
“I do not mean to sound to argumentative. I can get a little fired up at times.”
No problem! I love debate. I so rarely find Protestants willing to debate, so it’s a real pleasure.
“However, I must also follow God’s word and only God’s word.”
The Bible teaches an authoritative tradition and Church in addition to itself. The “three-legged stool” rule of faith is an explicitly biblical doctrine.
“If you can provide irrefutable evidence regarding any Apostolic tradition as being from an actual apostle and is a truth not already recorded, whole or in part, in the New Testament, I could possibly agree with it. But until then I’ll stay with Sola Scriptura.”
That’s an arbitrary demand, which is not in the Bible; so it’s simply a tradition of man that you have adopted. As such, it’s neither infallible nor even authoritative; therefore there is no reason for anyone to follow it. Nor is “inscripturation” a biblical concept. It’s a Protestant tradition of men, just as sola fide and sola Scriptura are.
“Thanks for your time and discussion.”
Thank you, too. I had a lot of fun. And I hope the dialogue will continue!
*
***
*
Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 4,800+ free online articles 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.
Photo credit:self-designed book cover of my own self-published book. [see link for much book info. and all purchase options]
Summary: In-depth reply to a Protestant in which I discuss many biblical passages proving that the rule of faith, as described in the Bible itself, is Bible-Tradition-Church, not sola Scriptura.
Photo credit: Billy Graham, preaching in Düsseldorf, Germany (21 June 1954); photo by Hans Lachmann [Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Germany license / Bundesarchiv, Bild 194-0798-41 / Lachmann, Hans / CC-BY-SA 3.0 / Wikimedia Commons]The latest “pope controversy” is the accusation that he supposedly thinks all religions are exactly the same (indifferentism). I have deliberately stayed out of it (see a great defense of him by Pedro Gabriel and many related resources below at the end). But I want to say a few words about a related presuppositional issue, per my title. I’m being like one of my heroes, Socrates: he always went right to the premise. Peter Kwasniewski, a radical Catholic reactionary who despises Pope Francis, wrote on his public Facebook page on 9-19-24 (I reproduce it in its entirety; his words in blue):
One of the dumbest takes on the pope in Singapore is when some folks said: “He’s just imitating what Paul did in the Areopagus, when he preached to the pagans about the ‘unknown god.'” *
But St. Paul precisely preached the GOSPEL to these pagans.
* “Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: ‘People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you.'” (Acts 17:22-23)
* He goes on to preach about creation and providence, then condemns idolatry, and finally introduces the final judgment and the resurrection of Jesus. Some sneer at him, while others want to hear more. This is how an apostle behaves: he speaks persuasively on common ground but moves to the Christian message, regardless of whether it will be well-received or not. We see this with all the great missionaries — just think of the Japanese, Vietnamese, and French Canadian martyrs. They preached to the curious and to the hostile, and took what was coming to them.
* Imagine if Paul had said: “You worship an unknown God. We too worship the same God. We’re all speaking different languages of religion, on the path to God together. God bless you. See you later!” I don’t think we’d be venerating him today as the Apostle to the Gentiles!
*
None of this baloney about Pope Francis imitating Paul. In his personal fallible views and prudential actions, he is, if anything, an anti-Paul, an anti-Peter, an anti-apostle, an inverter and subverter of the mission entrusted to the Church.
*
***
“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”!If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,800+ articles, please follow my 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. My blog was rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT: endorsed by influential Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. 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!
***
So there is no conceivable permissible situation where one could lay the groundwork with unbelievers (e.g., St. Paul, in Acts 17:22-23a) without also at that particular time evangelizing (Paul in Acts 17:23b-31)? Even while evangelizing, Paul cited two Greek pagans (17:28). Is it not ever possible that we might not immediately — exercising a prudential judgment — go on to the gospel with some folks, since we have to do more “preliminary spade work”?
The same Paul said, “I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some” (1 Cor 9:22, RSV). Part of that is to talk to them in their own language and within their present understanding. Then we can preach the gospel. My point is that it doesn’t necessarily all have to be at once. We have to be wise in approaching folks according to what they can understand and handle.
Jesus seemed to teach the same principle or technique that I am suggesting:
Matthew 13:10-13 Then the disciples came and said to him, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” [11] And he answered them, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. [12] For to him who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. [13] This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.
So Jesus didn’t preach the gospel directly here, even to “great crowds”. In the parallel account in Mark, it’s even more explicit and “exclusionary”:
Mark 4:10-12 And when he was alone, those who were about him with the twelve asked him concerning the parables. [11] And he said to them, “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables; [12] so that they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand; lest they should turn again, and be forgiven.”
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.
As far as I am concerned, this blows away any necessary requirement that we must immediately preach the gospel to everyone at all times. Jesus didn’t. And that’s quite enough for me. Why isn’t it for Peter Kwasniewski? Even among Christians, Paul recognized the same general principle: that there were vastly different levels of understanding, and so different treatment was accordingly required:
1 Corinthians 3:1-2 But I, brethren, could not address you as spiritual men, but as men of the flesh, as babes in Christ. [2] I fed you with milk, not solid food; for you were not ready for it; and even yet you are not ready,
The author of Hebrews does the same:
Hebrews 5:12-14 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need some one to teach you again the first principles of God’s word. You need milk, not solid food; [13] for every one who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a child. [14] But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their faculties trained by practice to distinguish good from evil.
I’m not even maintaining that the pope was consciously dong this. But I am disagreeing with Peter’s premise above and saying that this practice is perfectly biblical and wise. I do also know — contrary to the mountain of contrary lies — that Pope Francis thinks evangelism and apologetics are fine and dandy. I’ve documented this myself, ten times:
You won’t find anyone in the Old or New Testaments saying that there are many legitimate paths to God and that different religions are like different languages. Your article is like someone fixating on the toes of a dinosaur instead of its teeth.
*
Nevertheless it tackles a premise that you assume, which is altogether debatable. But as to your point now, Paul indeed did something at least somewhat like this, because he commended the Athenians for worshiping an unknown God. Then he contended that the true Christian God is the one they are actually worshiping and cited two pagan Greeks towards that end.
*
It follows, then, that he saw the pagan religious beliefs as containing enough truth for him to establish common ground and lead them to the gospel. So they did have some legitimate pathways to God, in some sense, per Paul’s very methodology.
*
You say that the pope didn’t do the gospel part. That’s what my paper dealt with: does one have to always do that, in every discussion? Clearly not, I say. Even Jesus didn’t do that, and He and St. Paul are my models and examples, not all of you pope-bashers and nattering nabobs of negativism.
*
I don’t view the Paul analogy as “dumb” at all. I think it’s a close enough analogy and of significant relevance to this discussion (speaking as one who loves Paul and analogical arguments alike, and who has pondered and thought through evangelistic techniques for over 40 years).
*
Paul was preaching to the Athenians [Acts 17], who believed in paganism: a view that had many precursors to Christianity, as Chesterton noted at length in his masterpiece, The Everlasting Man, and as C. S. Lewis and many others have noted. So that “bridge” was more immediately fruitful; therefore, Paul could immediately move to the Christian message.
*
With eastern religions (the pope was in Singapore, which is 31% Buddhist), there are a lot fewer shared premises, so evangelism is considerably more difficult. That could explain why the pope didn’t launch into a direct gospel presentation. I would have done the same. My approach since the beginning, going back to my Protestant missionary days was to take it slow and establish common ground and friendly relations before ever getting directly to the gospel.
*
We’re also in a post-Christian era, in many countries, as opposed to being pre-Christian, which makes a different. Christianity is no longer “new and exciting” in the eyes of many but “old and refuted.” I agree with Chesterton (I edited a book of his quotations, published by TAN): “Christianity has not been trued and found wanting. It’s been found difficult and left untried.”
*
***
*
Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 4,800+ free online articles 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.
Summary: Peter Kwasniewski seems to assume that one must preach the gospel at all times, minus any preliminary or preparatory work. Jesus, Paul, and the author of Hebrews don’t agree!
Why I Cited Protestant Scholars Who Believe that Jesus Thought Peter Himself was the “Rock”
Photo credit: cover of the Spanish-language book, ¿Cuál Es La Iglesia Verdadera?: Una Respuesta Evangélica A Las Pretensiones De La Iglesia De Roma from its Amazon page. Copyright by ibukku, LLC (June 5, 2024).
In chapter 3, “The Papacy and the History of the Church”, by Edgar Treviño, one of my statements was cited and its meaning and intent completely misrepresented in an embarrassing and inexcusable way, in a subsection entitled, “Do Protestant Scholars Support the Papacy in Matthew 16:18?” The author’s goal (typical of anti-Catholics’ modus operandi) was to make me — and the point I was making here — look ridiculous. In order to try to accomplish that, he had to create a caricature of my actual argument. In actuality, he has proven himself to be ridiculous, and manifested to one and all his inability to comprehend rather simple logic and straightforward reasoning.
Treviño’s words will be in blue. I used Google Translate to render the Spanish into English (excepting the citation from my book).
*****
I will concern myself in this article only with the portion that cited me and misrepresented my argument. It’s a case study in either 1) deliberate dishonesty in anti-Catholic argumentation, or 2) extraordinary incompetence and shoddy so-called “reasoning” and research ability in anti-Catholic polemics. Take your pick.
Roman Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong wrote:
Many prominent Protestant scholars and exegetes have agreed that Peter is the “rock” in Matthew 16:18;these include Alford, Broadus, Keil, Kittel, Cullmann, Albright, Robert McAfee Brown, and, most recently, respected Evangelical commentators R. T. France and D. A. Carson.(citation from my 2003 book,A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, p. 219; see alsothe entire chapter, available online for free, with the full documentation of the sources)
He did accurately cite me (thank you for small favors). But it’s his misinterpretation of my argument that is problematic and ludicrous.
And what good does it do Armstrong that these Protestant scholars interpret Peter as the “rock” of Matthew 16:18?It does him no good, because they do not believe in the papacy, in fact, they say that even if Peter was the “rock” in Matthew 16:18, that is no basis for the papacy.
It’s irrelevant whether they believe in the papacy or not (of course they don’t: being Protestant), because that isn’t why I cited them. I did precisely because they do not believe in the papacy. It’s the argumentative technique of the “hostile witness.” In other words, the reasoning runs as follows: “even several reputable, scholarly Protestants who disbelieve in the papacy agree with a key premise in the Catholic defense of Petrine primacy and the papacy that developed from it: i.e., that Jesus regarded Peter as “the Rock” in Matthew 16:18, not merely Peter’s confession or He (Christ) Himself” (the two standard views of almost all Protestants these past 500 years).
If one cites a dialogical / theological opponent in agreement regarding one important premise for a notion that he or she disagrees with, that is a very strong argument, with much force. If a Catholic cites other Catholics, the Protestant simply dismisses them as biased and partisan. But if their own Protestant scholars are cited, then they must stand up and take notice, if they are honest and seekers of truth. Protestant scholars, in other words, can’t be accused of partisan bias when they agree with some Catholic premise (as opposed to a Catholic belief).
Protestant apologists use the same technique all the time. I’ve personally observed this thousands of times, in my 34 years of doing Catholic apologetics. They will cite Catholic scholars in order to oppose some Catholic doctrine or premise of same. But Protestants usually cite liberal, nominal Catholic scholars, who barely even accept all that the Catholic Church teaches. I don’t have to do that. I cited solid, respectable Protestant scholars.
I searched the term,“Erudito católico romano”[Roman Catholic scholar”] in the book, and it appeared 14 times. The various co-authors cited Catholics such as Eamon Duffy, Robert B. Eno, Xabier Pikaza, Pierre Batiffol, [theological liberal] Raymond E. Brown (2), [theological liberal] Richard McBrien, Antonio Royo Marín, Yves Congar, and [orthodox] Ludwig Ott (3).
This is exactly the same sort of reasoning that I utilized. Yet when I do it, Treviño claims that it is irrelevant and ineffective. Well, then, when his co-authors do the same thing, it must be irrelevant and ineffective for them, too. Since he surely would reject that, his clueless pseudo-argument against me collapses, byreductio ad absurdum(there’s another form of argument for you), since his own colleagues use the same method.
Armstrong is not proving the papacy in Matthew 16:18 by quoting Protestant scholars.
I never claimed that I was doing that or seeking to do it. I agree! In my book, in the passage cited, I stated, “Many prominent Protestant scholars and exegetes have agreed that Peter is the “rock” in Matthew 16:18 . . .” I did not state, or argue, “Many prominent Protestant scholars and exegetes have agreed that the papacy is proven by Matthew 16:18.” Reading Treviño, one would think that I had stated the latter, not the former. But I was arguing that important Protestant scholars agreed with one particular argument for the papacy that Catholics have made for many centuries.
The first thing one learns in debate club in middle school is to understand one’s debate opponent’s views at least as well as they do themselves. Treviño miserably fails that test. He has no idea what I was even contending for, and seems unfamiliar with a type of argumentation that is very commonly used, and was in the very book he was part of: about a dozen times.
***
“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,800+ articles, please follow my 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. My blog was rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT: endorsed by influential Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. 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!
***
On the contrary, Dave Armstrong also makes the same mistake as other Catholic apologists, by quoting half-baked Protestant scholars who say that Peter is the “rock” in Matthew 16:18.
This is where Treviño makes an even bigger fool of himself. He not only astonishingly misrepresents what I was arguing, but then goes on to insult the Protestant scholars that I cited; thus proving how unaware he is even of his own broad theological heritage and Protestant tradition. I was already familiar with most of them as a Protestant (prior to 1990). Let me do a brief survey of them, for his sake, and that of any other Protestants who believe that I cited “half-baked” Protestant scholars to make my argument (information mostly from Wikipedia articles):
Henry Alford(1810-1871) was an English Anglican churchman, theologian, textual critic, scholar, poet, hymnodist, and writer. His chief fame rests on his monumental edition of the New Testament in Greek (8 vols.), written from 1841 to 1861 [see volumesone, two, three, four]. In this work he first brought before English students a careful collation of the readings of the chief manuscripts and the researches of the ripest continental scholarship of his day. Philological rather than theological in character, it marked an epochal change from the old homiletic commentary, and through more recent research, patristic and papyral, largely changed the method of New Testamentexegesis.Seemany of his other worksas well.
Carl Friedrich Keil (1807-1888) was a conservative German Lutheran Old Testament commentator. Keil was appointed to the theological faculty of Dorpat in Estonia where he taught Bible, New Testament exegesis, and Oriental languages. Keil was a conservative critic who reacted strongly against the scientific biblical criticism of his day. He strongly supported Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. He maintained the validity of the historico-critical investigation of the Bible only if it proved the existence of New Testament revelation in the Scriptures. To this aim he edited (withFranz Delitzsch) his principal work, a commentary on the Bible, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, 5 vols., 1872–77;available online). The work remains his most enduring contribution to biblical studies.
Gerhard Kittel (1888-1948), Lutheran author, with Gerhard Friedrich, of the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament(ten volumes, and also aone-volume edition; my own copy sits a foot away from me as I write).It’s considered by many scholars to be the best New Testament dictionary ever compiled. Mediating between ordinary lexicography and the specific task of exposition, TDNT treats more than 2,300 theologically significant New Testament words, including the more important prepositions and numbers as well as many proper names from the Old Testament.
Oscar Cullmann (1902-1999) was a French Lutheran theologian and ecumenist. In 1930, he was awarded a full professorship of New Testament. From 1936, he also taught the history of the early church. In 1938, he began teaching both subjects at Basel Reformed Seminary. In 1948 Cullmann accepted a position teaching theology in Paris at the Sorbonne while he continued at Basel. See his many writings.
William Foxwell Albright (1891-1971), a Methodist, was an American archaeologist, biblical scholar, and philologist. He is considered “one of the twentieth century’s most influential American biblical scholars”, having become known to the public in 1948 for his role in the authentication of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Albright was a leading theorist and practitioner of biblical archaeology, and is regarded as the founder of the biblical archaeology movement. He served as the W. W. Spence Professor of Semitic Languages at Johns Hopkins University from 1930 to 1958 and was the Director of the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem for several terms between 1922 and 1936. Albright’s work has had a lasting impact on the understanding of ancient Near Eastern history and the historicity of the Bible. See hismany works.
Robert McAfee Brown(1920–2001) was an AmericanPresbyterian minister, theologian, and ecumenist. He studied at the University of Oxford before completing a doctorate in the philosophy of religion at Columbia University in 1951. He was appointed as Professor of Religion at Stanford University in 1962. Seehis many books.
Richard Thomas (R. T.) France(1938–2012) was a New Testament scholar and evangelical Anglican cleric. He was Principal of Wycliffe Hall, Oxford, from 1989 to 1995. He also worked for theLondon School of Theology. He was known as one of the best exegetes and commentators on the New Testament. See hismany commentaries.
Donald Arthur (D. A.) Carson(born December 21, 1946) is a Canadian evangelical theologian. He is a Distinguished Emeritus Professor of New Testament atTrinity Evangelical Divinity Schooland president and co-founder of the Gospel Coalition. He has written or edited about sixty books (or more) and served as president of the Evangelical Theological Societyin 2022. Carson has been described as doing “the most seminal New Testament work by contemporary evangelicals” and as “one of the last great Renaissance men in evangelical biblical scholarship.” He has written on a wide range of topics including New Testament, hermeneutics, biblical theology, the Greek New Testament, the use of the Old Testament in the New, and more. He obtained a Doctor of Philosophy in New Testament from the University of Cambridge in 1975. He hasauthored and edited over 60 books.
And these were just scholars that I had mentioned in this regard 28 years ago, in my first book, completed in 1996. Since then, I have found at least twentymore prominent Protestant exegetes and reference works (making it a total of 29) who also held that Peter himself (not his confession) was the Rock:
New Bible Dictionary, Word Studies in the New Testament (Marvin Vincent), Wycliffe Bible Commentary, New Bible Commentary, Eerdmans Bible Commentary, Herman N. Ridderbos, Albert Barnes, David Hill, M. Eugene Boring, William Hendriksen, Peake’s Commentary, Gerhard Maier, J. Knox Chamblin, Craig L. Blomberg, William E. McCumber, Donald A. Hagner, Philip Schaff, Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 8, The Layman’s Bible Commentary, Encyclopaedia Britannica (1985; article by D. W. O’Connor, a Protestant), and Richard Baumann. For much more on this, see my article,Peter the Rock: Only a Catholic View? (vs. James White) [Includes Documentation of 14 Church Fathers Who Thought Peter Was the Rock] [5-11-24].
Now, if Treviño — in his infinite knowledge of Protestant scholarship — wishes to contend that all of these scholars and reputable reference works are also“half-baked” he is free, of course, to do so, but it will obliterate any shred of intellectual credibility he still has left. I think he should admit that he has no idea what he is talking about and instantly retire from pretending to engage in Protestant apologetics, in order to save himself from future embarrassing refutations such as this one. I feel bad for my Protestant brothers and sisters! Treviño — like anti-Catholics generally speaking — doesn’t represent the thought of serious Protestant exegetes and scholars.
Armstrong does not cite the conclusions of the Protestant scholars he cites, and they are very important, because their conclusions contradict what Armstrong believes about Matthew 16:18 and the papacy, and the interpretation of Peter being the “rock” according to what these Protestant scholars say about Matthew 16:18.These Protestant scholars do not connect Matthew 16:18 with the belief of the papacy (Armstrong does).
As explained, this is completely irrelevant to my argument (what is known in logic as a non sequitur). It’s understood and assumed going in that they reject the papacy and papal ecclesiology, by definition (as Protestants).
It is like trying to go 100 kilometers in a car that has little gasoline, and can only go 50 kilometers.Armstrong falls into the “non sequitur fallacy”, the conclusion does not follow from the premise.
*
This is sheer nonsense, since Treviño never even understood the nature of my argument in the first place, and so has been engaging in “straw man” tactics and caricature. Again (repetition being a good teacher), I wasn’t seeking to prove that they believed in the papacy itself, but rather, that they believed in an important premise of Catholic argumentation for the papacy: that Jesus regarded Peter Himself as the “Rock” upon which He would build His Church. To “Catholic ears” that is very “papal” indeed, however Protestants conceptualize it.
*
And many Protestants have made profound statements about the degree of Peter’s authority, too, based on Jesus having given him “the keys of the kingdom.” The argument for Petrine primacy and the papacy, based on the Bible, is a cumulative one, as I have often noted: made up of many strands that we believe all point in the direction of the papacy as a divinely instituted office in the Church. I wrote over 22 years ago, for example:
The case for the papacy is a cumulative argument. As such, showing that the consensus today is that Peter was the Rock is one aspect of that. It isn’t the whole ball of wax. We also show what was meant by having the keys of the kingdom, etc. We support our positions one-by-one and then conclude that the evidence is strong. (2-26-02)
* It is a “cumulative” argument. One doesn’t expect that all individual pieces of such an argument are “airtight” or conclusive in and of themselves, in isolation, by the nature of the case. I certainly don’t do so. . . . all the various evidences become strong only as they are considered together (like many weak strands of twine which become a strong rope when they are woven together). . . . all the various evidences become strong only as they are considered together (like many weak strands of twine which become a strong rope when they are woven together). (3-14-02)
I have refuted Banzoli’s writings66 times. From 25 May until 12 November 2022 he wrote notone singleword in reply, claiming that my articles were “without exception poor, superficial and weak” and that “only a severely cognitively impaired person” would take them “seriously.” Nevertheless, he found them so “entertaining” that after almost six months of inaction he resolved to “make a point of rebutting” them “one by one”; this effort being his “new favorite sport.” He has replied to me16 times(the last onedated 2-20-23). My replies can be found under his name on myAnti-Catholicism page.
*
When Roman Catholic apologists cite lists of Protestant scholars who say that Peter is the “rock” it does not prove their point, because these Protestant scholars do not believe in the Roman Catholic interpretation. To give the appearance that these Protestants support the Roman Catholic interpretation is either a failure to read the citations or intentionally omitting the full citations of these Protestant scholars and their interpretation of Matthew 16:18.
*
Merely repeating lies or falsehoods make them no more true or less false than they were the first time they were brought up. All Treviño does is spew out this stupid, clueless “reply” over and over; never understanding the nature of my argument. It’s astonishing to behold, and should be embarrassing and scandalous to all who read it. These Protestant scholars are following the interpretation (i.e., in terms of Peter being the Rock, not a pope) of at least 14 Church fathers that I have found:
*
Tertullian, writing around 200-220, stated that “Peter . . . is called the Rock whereon the Church was to be built” (Prescription against Heretics, 22).
Origen writing around 230-250, called Peter “that great foundation of the Church, and most solid rock, upon which Christ founded the Church” (In Exod. Hom. v. n. 4, tom. ii) and “Upon him (Peter) . . . the Church was founded” (In Epist. ad Rom. lib. v. c. 10, tom. iv) and “Peter upon whom is built Christ’s Church” (T. iv. In Joan. Tom. v.).
St. Cyprian, c. 246, wrote about “Peter, upon whom by the same Lord the Church had been built” (Epistle 54 to Cornelius, 7).
Firmilian, c. 254, wrote about “one Church, which was once first established by Christ on a Rock” (Inter Ep. S. Cyp. Ep. lxxv).
Aphraates (c. 336) stated that “the Lord . . . set him up as the foundation, called him the rock and structure of the Church” (Homily 7:15, De Paenitentibus).
St. Ephraem (c. 350-370) called Peter “the foundation of the holy Church” (Homilies 4:1).
St. Hilary of Poitiers in 360 held that Peter was “the foundation-stone of the Church” (On the Trinity, Bk. VI, 20).
St. Gregory of Nazianzen (370) stated that Peter “is entrusted with the Foundations of the Church” (T. i. or. xxxii. n. 18).
St. Gregory of Nyssa (371) wrote that Peter was “the Head of the Apostles . . . (upon him) is the Church of God firmly established. . . . that unbroken and most firm Rock upon which the Lord built His Church” (Alt. Or. De S. Steph.).
St. Basil the Great (371) stated that Peter “received on himself the building of the Church” (Adversus Eunomius 2:4).
St. Epiphanius (c. 385): “upon which (Rock) the Church is in every way built . . . Foundation of the house of God” (Adv. Haeres.).
St. Ambrose (c. 385-389): “whom when He styles a Rock, He pointed out the Foundation of the Church” (T. ii. l. iv. De Fide, c. v. n. 56).
St. John Chrysostom (c. 387): “Head or Crown of the Apostles, the First in the Church . . . that unbroken Rock, that firm Foundation, the Great Apostle, the First of the disciples” (T. ii. Hom. iii. de Paenit. n. 4).
St. Jerome (385): “Peter, upon whom the Lord has founded the Church” (Letters 41, 2).
ADDENDUM
Treviño made a “reply”on 8 October 2024. I read about six paragraphs, which consisted solely of juvenile insults, before giving up. I don’t waste my time interacting with fools and idiots who can only insult and lie about their opponents (“He is afraid of the truth, and that bothers him greatly” etc. ad nauseam); offering no rational thoughts. Life is too short. I interacted with the book portion, following Solomon’s advice: “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes” (Prov 26:5). But now is the time to apply his equally sage advice, “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself” (26:4).
***
*
Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 4,800+ free online articles 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.
Summary: Edgar Treviño, in Which Is the True Church?: An Evangelical Response to the Claims of the Church of Rome (2024), utterly misrepresents my argument about Peter the Rock.
Including Analysis of Catholic Anathemas in Dogmatic Statements / Development of Doctrine and Mary
Photo credit: cover of my 2010 book, “The Catholic Mary”: Quite Contrary to the Bible?
Dr. Gavin Ortlund is a Reformed Baptist author, speaker, pastor, scholar, and apologist for the Christian faith. He has a Ph.D. from Fuller Theological Seminary in historical theology, and an M.Div from Covenant Theological Seminary. Gavin is the author of seven books as well as numerous academic and popular articles. For a list of publications, see his CV. He runs the very popular YouTube channel Truth Unites, which seeks to provide an “irenic” voice on theology, apologetics, and the Christian life. See also his website, Truth Unites and his blog.
In my opinion, he is currently the best and most influential popular-level Protestant apologist (see my high praise), who (especially) interacts with and offers thoughtful critiques of Catholic positions, from a refreshing ecumenical (not anti-Catholic), but nevertheless solidly Protestant perspective. That’s what I want to interact with, so I have issued many replies to Gavin and will continue to do so. I use RSV for all Bible passages unless otherwise specified.
*
All of my replies to Gavin are collected on the top of my Calvinism & General Protestantism web page in the section, “Replies to Reformed Baptist Gavin Ortlund.” Gavin’s words will be in blue.
*
This is my 3oth reply to his material. He has made just one lengthy and substantial reply to my critiques thus far. Why is that? His own explanation is simply lack of time. He wrote on my Facebook page on 17 April 2024: “Dave, thanks for engaging my stuff. People often ask to dialogue or engage and then are disappointed when I decline. Unfortunately I have to say no to most things. . . . if you are expecting regular responses, I’m afraid that is not realistic right now.” Again, on 23 August 2024 he commented on my Facebook page: “thanks for your engagement here. [I’m] grateful you give my work so much attention, and I only apologize [that] I’m not able to respond more. I think in the past I’ve explained a little bit about why.”
*
*****
This is my response to Gavin’s video, “The Immaculate Conception: A Protestant Evaluation” (8-30-23), which at the time of this writing has garnered 31,947 views and 1,742 comments. I think it deserves an in-depth Catholic reply, but likely far less people will ever see this, because we’re now in the age of videos. Oh well. Truth is truth, I say, and if I convince even one person, and educate many more than that, it’s well worth my time and effort.
*
The disciples turned the world upside down, preaching their gospel message, before the Internet, TV, radio, or mass production of books. Whatever written materials existed were not mass-produced, and few could afford them, and relatively few were literate. But eventually we had the written Bible, read by billions of people. So I think that writing isn’t obsolete yet, regardless of how many people still choose to read as opposed to (or in addition to) listening to lectures that almost always have far less substance content than corresponding written material.
*
0:13 [This is] basically a very brief overview of an explanation of a Protestant concern and position about the Immaculate Conception, then we can follow up and do more thorough work at some point
*
Understood.
*
1:56 I’m going to be focusing upon the Roman Catholic dogma
*
Good.
*
3:08 the first thing that I want to say right out of the gate is that in allowing that Mary was not morally perfect, we are not dishonoring her. On the contrary, the biblical portrait of Mary is as a godly and courageous person, so we should speak well of her. We should seek to emulate her faith. She’s one of the great heroes of Christianity, so God bless her.
*
This is understood, too. It’s close to what I would have said about Mary as an evangelical Protestant. I thought she was the greatest created person who ever lived, but just not sinless or immaculate. I respond to this by simply appealing to the Bible and also sacred tradition. Somehow, a lot of Church fathers believed that she was without sin, and this developed over time to including her lack of original sin, as well, which could only have been God’s doing in a special miraculous act at her conception.
*
Gavin then objects to Catholic dogmatic statements about Mary including anathemas and statements about believing in them in order to be a Christian. He writes:
*
4:20 people soften anathemas today and make them nicer than they were, but nonetheless it’s still clear, however you cash that out in terms of its application, that this is an obligatory part of Christianity. The Roman Catholic Church is making the Immaculate Conception of Mary an obligatory part of the Christian religion.
*
Ineffabilis Deus: Blessed Pope Pius IX’s proclamation of the dogma in 1854 indeed stated:
Hence, if anyone shall dare — which God forbid! — to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he thinks in his heart.
I can see how that wouldn’t sit well with Protestants, but this is a biblical model, as I have written about: Bible on Authority to Anathematize & Excommunicate [August 2009]. St. Paul wrote, “even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed” (Gal 1:8). See, for example, the article, “Anathema” in Easton’s Bible Dictionary. Our position on this also needs to be much better understood:
Moreover, we’re not the only ones who do this. Protestants do, too, all the time. We have a multitude of extraordinarily dogmatic statements from Luther and Calvin, anathematizing all who disagree (fellow Protestants and Catholics alike) with their own judgments (on entirely arbitrary grounds). For example, Martin Luther wrote in July 1522:
I now let you know that from now on I shall no longer do you the honor of allowing you – or even an angel from heaven – to judge my teaching or to examine it. . . . I shall not have it judged by any man, not even by any angel. For since I am certain of it, I shall be your judge and even the angels’ judge through this teaching (as St. Paul says [I Cor. 6:3 ]) so that whoever does not accept my teaching may not be saved – for it is God’s and not mine. Therefore, my judgment is also not mine but God’s. (Against the Spiritual Estate of the Pope and the Bishops Falsely So-Called, in Luther’s Works, Vol. 39; citation from pp. 248-249, my italics; see much more along these lines from Luther).
One of the classic expositions of Calvinism was that set out by the Synod of Dort (1618-1619). In its “Conclusion: Rejection of False Accusations,” the Synod declares, against Protestant Arminian Christians:
. . . the Synod earnestly warns the false accusers themselves to consider how heavy a judgment of God awaits those who give false testimony against so many churches and their confessions, trouble the consciences of the weak, and seek to prejudice the minds of many against the fellowship of true believers.
Note that this is entirely a dispute amongst Protestants. The great majority of Protestants today are Arminian, not Calvinist. They are all condemned by the rhetoric at Dort, and essentially read out of the Christian faith. Catholic dogmatic authority asserts that a person who rejects the Immaculate Conception has been “condemned by his own judgment” and has “suffered shipwreck in the faith.” Calvinist dogmatic authority asserts that people who reject predestination to hell of the reprobate and other tenets of five-point Calvinism (which multiple millions of Protestants reject), are “wicked, impure, and unstable” and do so “to their own ruin.” They are “false accusers” who will be subject to a “heavy judgment of God” if they continue in their ways (Article 6 of Dort).
*
What’s the difference? In both cases, a teaching which is disagreed with by many many different kinds of Christians is made obligatory on followers of the professed faith, under penalty of the shipwreck of their faith or souls. So why do we always hear about Catholic anathemas, but rarely or never about Protestant ones? There are millions of anti-Catholic Protestants (and not a few Orthodox ones, too) who believe that Catholics aren’t Christians at all, and hellbound, if they accept all that the Catholic Church teaches. How is that not at least as offensive or objectionable in principles as Catholic anathemas?
*
Luther casually assumed that Protestant opponents of his like Zwingli, who denied the Real Presence in the Eucharist, were likely damned as a result. Luther and Calvin and Melanchthon approved of drowning Anabaptists as heretics and seditious persons because they believed in adult baptism. Thus they would have approved of Gavin Ortlund and James White (and myself, earlier in life) being executed. The early Protestants were extremely intolerant of each other, with many mutual anathemas exchanged. I could go on at great length about this, but I think my point of comparison and double standards is sufficiently established. If one wants to go after a specific aspect of Catholicism that also occurs in Protestantism, then the criticism ought to be fair and across the board, not cynically selective and one-sided, as if only Catholics ever do this.
*
So, to use Gavin’s own words, Calvinists made Calvinist soteriology “an obligatory part of the Christian religion”: on pain of being banished or losing one’s job as a pastor, etc. in the Netherlands in the 17th century. Luther made belief in the eucharistic Real Presence “an obligatory part of the Christian religion”: on pain of being read out of Christianity. Luther and Calvin made belief in infant baptism “an obligatory part of the Christian religion” on pain of losing one’s life by drowning: in mockery of believers’ adult baptism. Millions of anti-Catholics today require Catholics to believe like Protestants in many ways, as“an obligatory part of the Christian religion”: lest they be proclaimed out of the fold and damned and hellbound, as Pelagians, idolaters, etc., etc. (I’d love to have a dime for every time I’ve heard that myself).
*
In the Lutheran Apology of the Augsburg Confession, written in 1531 (Article XXIV: The Mass) it is stated:
In the papal realm the worship of Baal clings — namely, the abuse of the Mass . . . And it seems that this worship of Baal will endure together with the papal realm until Christ comes to judge and by the glory of his coming destroys the kingdom of Antichrist. Meanwhile all those who truly believe the Gospel should reject those wicked services invented against God’s command to obscure the glory of Christ and the righteousness of faith. (in The Book of Concord, translated and edited by Theodore Tappert, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House / Muhlenberg Press, 1959, 268)
Marvelously ecumenical, isn’t it? Goose and gander?
*
***
“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”!If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,800+ articles, please follow my 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. My blog was rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT: endorsed by influential Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. 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!
***
4:48 Protestants in our conscience have a concern about this. The concern is, basically, you can’t change Christianity. It’s a revealed religion. If the apostles had never heard of it, you can’t add it later on, and we think that that’s what’s going on here. We think that this wasn’t something the apostles or Mary herself ever had the foggiest notion of even imagining.
*
This is another double standard. No apostle knew what the canon of the New Testament was. They didn’t have “the foggiest notion” of that because the Bible doesn’t teach it anywhere, and the NT wasn’t even completed till the late first century, after almost all of them were dead. The first Church father to list all 27 NT books in one place was St. Athanasius in 367: more than 330 years after the death of Jesus. This isn’t even arguable. It’s a fact. Protestant scholars Alister McGrath and Norman Geisler both state that essentially “no one” believed in Protestant “faith alone” soteriology until Martin Luther, almost 1500 years after Christ. No apostle had “the foggiest notion” about Luther’s and Melanchthon’s novel, invented soteriology from the 16th century. I would say the same about sola Scriptura. The patristic consensus was that clear. Luther basically invented sola Scriptura when backed into a corner in a debate in 1519.
*
No one fully understood trinitarianism until the 7th century AD: the fine points of it took many centuries to develop and understand, with the heresies, Monophysitism and Monothelitism appearing relatively late in history and having to be opposed (as Arianism and Sabellianism had been opposed earlier). But development of doctrine is not essential change or “evolution.” It builds upon what exists. What exists in the Bible — the “kernel” or “germ” of the Immaculate Conception — is the sinlessness of Mary (where? I will show that in due course). St. John Henry Cardinal Newman wrote about its development:
As to the antiquity of the doctrine. In the first ages original sin was not. formally spoken of in contrast to actual. In the fourth century, Pelagius denied it, and was refuted and denounced by St Augustine. Not till the time of St Augustine could the question be mooted precisely whether our Lady was without original sin or not. Up to his time, and after his time, it was usual to say or to imply that Mary had nothing to do with sin, in vague terms. The earliest Fathers, St Justin, St Irenaeus etc. contrast her with Eve, while they contrast our Lord with Adam. In doing this – 1. they, sometimes imply, sometimes insist upon, the point that Eve sinned when tried, and Mary did not sin when tried; and 2. they say that, by not sinning, Mary had a real part in the work of redemption, in a way in which no other creature had a share. This does not go so far as actually to pronounce that she had the grace of God from the first moment of her existence, and never was under the power of original sin, but by comparing her with Eve, who was created of course without original sin, and by giving her so high an office, it implies it. Next, shortly after St Augustine, the 3rd General Council was held against Nestorius, and declared Mary to be the Mother of God. From this time the language of the Fathers is very strong, though vague, about her immaculateness. In the time of Mahomet the precise doctrine seems to have been taught in the East, for I think he mentions it in the Koran. In the middle ages, when everything was subjected to rigid examination of a reasoning character, the question was raised whether the doctrine was consistent with the Blessed Virgin’s having a human father and mother – and serious objections were felt to it on this score. Men defined the words ’Immaculate Conception’ differently from what I have done above, and in consequence denied it. St Bernard and St Thomas, in this way, were opposed to it, and the Dominicans. A long controversy ensued and a hot one – it lasted many centuries. At length, in our time, it has been defined in that sense in which I have explained the words above – a sense, which St Bernard, St Thomas, and the Dominicans did not deny. The same controversy about the sense of a word had occurred in the instance of the first General Council at Nicaea. The Nicene Creed uses the word ’Consubstantial’ to protect the doctrine of our Lord’s divinity against Arius, which the great Council of Antioch some 70 years before had repudiated as a symbol of heresy. In like manner great Saints have repudiated the words ’Immaculate Conception,’ from taking them in a different sense from that which the Church has accepted and sanctioned. (Letters & Diaries, Vol. 22; To Lady Chatterton, 2 Oct. 1865)
*
You will ask perhaps, ‘Why then was there so much controversy about the doctrine or about its definition?’ . . . I do not see any difficulty in the matter. From the beginning of the Church even good and holy men have got involved in controversies of words. . . . The devotion to her has gradually and slowly extended through the Church; the doctrine about her being always the same from the first. But the gradual growth of the devotion was a cause why that doctrine, in spite of its having been from the first, should have been but slowly recognised, slowly defined. . . . ‘The new devotion was first heard of in the ninth century.’ Suppose I say, ‘The new doctrine of our Lord’s immensity, contradicted by all the Ante-nicene Fathers, was first heard of in the creed of St Athanasius?’ or ‘The Filioque, protested against by the Orthodox Church to this day, was first heard of in the 7th Century?’ . . . we must recollect that there were at first mistakes among pious and holy men about the attributes of the Holy Spirit. . . . I fully grant that there is not that formal documentary evidence for the doctrine in question which there is for some other doctrines, but I maintain also that, from its character, it does not require it. (Letters & Diaries, Vol. 19; To Arthur Osborne Alleyne, 15 June 1860)
*
5:34 with the Immaculate Conception you can at least make a case for it inferentially from other things. So, for example, the typology with Mary and Eve. Mary is the new Eve; or with the Ark of the Covenant. Mary is the Ark of the Covenant or language throughout the church fathers of Mary as holy and pure and the model of virginity and so forth, especially spirals up in the 4th Century
*
True. And we can make a case from the meaning of the Greek in Luke 1:28 (the words of the angel to Mary at her Annunciation).
*
6:56 you have people saying Mary is a sinner and they’re saying it without any expectation of pushback, and it doesn’t occasion any controversy, and you get enough teachings like this, that does start to become more of a falsification of the idea
*
It’s true that many fathers thought that Mary sinned. The consensus is not virtually unanimous and overwhelming as in the case of, say, the Eucharist and baptism and the rule of faith and infused justification (Catholic soteriology) and many other things, but there was a strong consensus as to Mary’s sinlessness (free from actual sin). Some got it wrong and some got it right, which is true about a lot of topics and the Church fathers.
*
Gavin cites six Church fathers, saying that Mary sinned. This doesn’t disprove the doctrine. It only shows that the patristic consensus was less strong than for several other doctrines. Thus, there is no need for me to analyze all that because I concede the point in the first place, but then immediately note that it’s not decisive, anyway. Many other Church fathers affirmed her sinlessness, and there is a fairly strong biblical case to be made that she was sinless, which is consistent with her Immaculate Conception. The inspired Bible is what we all agree on. If a good case can be made there, then it meets these Protestant objections from certain Church fathers.
*
17:47 we all know people like Thomas Aquinas who rejected it
19:04 here is a doctrine that pretty clearly does not seem to be anywhere close to the apostles
*
In its fullness, it wasn’t (I agree), but neither were the canon of the NT, trinitarianism, etc. But the kernel is in the Bible, which means that it wasn’t totally foreign to the apostles, as I will shortly demonstrate. Gavin seems unaware of many of these arguments (beyond New Eve and Mary as the new ark), and since he has chosen not to interact with my critiques, he may very well continue to be in the dark, if indeed he isn’t familiar with those additional argument. And I think the biblical data is super-relevant to the question. It’s not merely a patristic / historical issue.
*
21:14 what is ultimately decisive for us is what is in the Holy Scripture, because we think that that is the uniquely infallible rule: the one that can’t err.
*
We agree that it can’t err. It’s what we have in common. This is why I make many biblical arguments for Mary’s Immaculate Conception (most supporting the kernel of sinlessness).
Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 4,800+ free online articles 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.
Photo credit: cover of my 2010 book, “The Catholic Mary”: Quite Contrary to the Bible?(see book and purchase information).
Summary: I respond to a video by Reformed Baptist apologist Gavin Ortlund, explaining why Protestants reject the Immaculate Conception of Mary. I discuss history and Scripture.
Including Documentation of Popes’ Massive Consultation with Bishops and Others Before Declaring Dogmas, and Particulars of the Voting at Vatican I
Photo credit: First Vatican Council, contemporary painting, c. 1870 [source] [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
Rev. Dr. Jordan B. Cooper is a Lutheran pastor, adjunct professor of Systematic Theology, Executive Director of the popular Just & SinnerYouTube channel, and the President of the American Lutheran Theological Seminary (which holds to a doctrinally traditional Lutheranism, similar to the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod). He has authored several books, as well as theological articles in a variety of publications. All my Bible citations are from RSV, unless otherwise indicated. Jordan’s words will be in blue.
This is my 18th reply to Jordan (many more to come, because I want to interact with the best, most informed Protestant opponents). All of these respectful critiques can be found in the “Replies to Jordan Cooper” section at the top of my Lutheranism web page. Thus far, he hasn’t responded to any of my critiques, for reasons that he explained on my Facebook page on 17 April 2024:
I appreciate your thoughtful engagement with my material. I also appreciate not being called “anti-Catholic,” as I am not. Unfortunately, it is just a matter of time that I am unable to interact with the many lengthy pieces you have put together. With teaching, writing, running a publishing house, podcasting, working at a seminary, and doing campus ministry, I have to prioritize, which often means not doing things that would be very much worthwhile simply for lack of time.
I appreciate the explanation and nevertheless sincerely hope that Dr. Cooper does have more time and desire to dialogue with me in the future. I think we could have some good and constructive — and civil – discussions. In the meantime, I will continue to try to write what he regards as “thoughtful” and “worthwhile” responses.
2:04 I would like to do something that is a little bit more in depth on the issue of of the papacy.
Good!
5:19 Rome really I think does stand or fall with this issue.
It’s certainly central, I agree, just as Protestantism stands or falls on sola Scriptura and sola fide (Bible Alone and Faith Alone): its two “pillars.”
5:32 if we’re really wrestling with Rome and the claims that Rome makes . . . if the pope really is the Vicar of Christ; if Jesus really did set him up as the head of the church then I’ll submit to him; I should, right? And and you should as well.
I couldn’t agree more!
6:44 I’ve looked at a number of sources . . . that I’m working my way through . . . some of them are those that are defenses of papal infallibility, others are critiques of papal infallibility and the critiques come from both Protestants as well as some of those within Rome or who left Rome to form the Old Catholic Church, so I’m trying to get a wide range of texts that are dealing with these questions.
I did exactly the same in 1990 (because this was my biggest objection to Rome; I despised infallibility), examining the excommunicated Dollinger’s objection to papal infallibility, George Salmon’s critiques, and Hans Kung’s, among others. Then I read St. Cardinal Newman on the other side and some other related materials. Perhaps Dr. Cooper will be willing to read some of my many articles devoted to the issue as well.
7:27 what I’m really trying to hone in on for this particular series is what were the actual claims that were being made at Vatican 1 and what were the arguments that were being produced at that time, because something that I have found within a lot of Roman Catholic apologetics is that the arguments made by apologists today seem to be significantly different in some areas than the arguments that were actually being made when certain things were declared Dogma.
There is more than one approach to anything. I concentrate on biblical proofs for infallibility (including massive corroboration from Protestant Bible scholars in various ways). But I’ve also gone into great depth regarding the historical arguments pro and con.
30:04 [Pope Pius IX] releases this document and this document is really essential for the dogma of papal infallibility, and that is Ineffabilis Deus in 1854. It is here that Pius IXth declares that the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Mother is a dogma . . . Pius IX is really using the dogma of infallibility in his action here, even before that particular dogma has yet been ratified at any council at all. You don’t really find anything like Ineffabilis Deus prior to this time. Popes certainly condemn people and condemn ideas but you don’t have such a direct declaration of a single pope outside of a council making such a clear dogmatic decree.
I don’t know how he can make that claim, when Protestants themselves are quite fond of bringing up Unam Sanctam: a Bull of Pope Boniface VIII from November 18, 1302. He starts by writing:
Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles [Sgs 6:8] proclaims: ‘One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her,‘ and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God [1 Cor 11:3]. In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism [Eph 4:5]. There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed.
We venerate this Church as one, the Lord having said by the mouth of the prophet: ‘Deliver, O God, my soul from the sword and my only one from the hand of the dog.’ [Ps 21:20] He has prayed for his soul, that is for himself, heart and body; and this body, that is to say, the Church, He has called one because of the unity of the Spouse, of the faith, of the sacraments, and of the charity of the Church. This is the tunic of the Lord, the seamless tunic, which was not rent but which was cast by lot [Jn 19:23- 24]. Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: ‘Feed my sheep‘ [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter].
And it ends like this:
This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven‘ etc., [Mt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1]. Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
This is almost precisely exactly what Jordan claimed no pope had stated before 1854, but here it is, 552 years earlier; 28 years after the previous council (2nd Lyons) and nine years before the next one (Vienne). Protestant apologists who critique our doctrine of “no salvation outside of the Church” — which is massively misunderstood, by the way — cite this document all the time. Jordan himself is certainly familiar with it. I again addressed these arguments six months ago, in replies to Jordan’s friend and fellow YouTube apologist, the Reformed Baptist Gavin Ortlund:
But Jordan also does well, I think, and is fair-minded in acknowledging that Pope Blessed Pius IX didn’t act alone at all; that in fact he massively consulted the world’s bishops before issuing his declaration (it was simply done informally, outside of an ecumenical council):
29:34 he writes Ubi Primum in 1849 where he is requesting responses from a a variety of bishops regarding certain some of these debated questions about about Mary . . . he’s relying on those bishops who are experts within theological fields, to get some input from them about this. and then he releases this document and this document is really essential for the dogma of papal infallibility. . . . to be clear he does come to this conclusion through the consultation of a variety of bishops, so he’s not just bringing this up out of nowhere.
Exactly! Protestant critics (I speak generally and more broadly now) can’t have it both ways: on the one hand claim that the pope is an autocrat who acts absolutely alone, like some sort of Christian dictator, and complain loudly about that, but then turn around and note (or be informed of) the actual fact that he always works in these sublime doctrinal matters with the bishops: particularly but not exclusively in ecumenical councils. And so we see this in Ubi Primum:
3. Moreover, Venerable Brethren, many of you have sent letters to Our Predecessor and to Us begging, with repeated insistence and redoubled enthusiasm, that We define as a dogma of the Catholic Church that the most blessed Virgin Mary was conceived immaculate and free in every way of all taint of original sin.
Nor do we lack today eminent theologians — men of intellectual brilliance, of virtue, of holiness and sound doctrine — who have so effectively explained this doctrine and so impressively expounded this proposition that many persons are now wondering why this honor has not already been accorded to the Blessed Virgin by the Church and the Apostolic See — an honor which the widespread piety of the Christian people so fervently desires to have accorded to the Most Holy Virgin by a solemn decree and by the authority of the Church and the Holy See.
4. Welcome indeed have such requests been to Us. They have filled Us with joy.. . .
5. . . . Accordingly, We have appointed certain priests of recognized piety and theological learning, as well as several cardinals of the Holy Roman Church who are renowned because of their ability, piety, wisdom, prudence, and knowledge of the things of God; and We have directed them to make, carefully and thoroughly, a most diligent examination into this most important matter and then provide Us with a complete report. Through such a procedure, We feel that We are following in the clearly marked footsteps of Our Predecessors and that We are emulating their example.
6. Wherefore, Venerable Brethren, We sent you this communication that We may effectively encourage your admirable devotion and your pastoral zeal and thus bring it about that each of you, in such manner as you will see fit, will arrange to have public prayers offered in your diocese for this intention: that the most merciful Father of all knowledge will deign to enlighten Us with the heavenly light of His Holy Spirit, so that in a matter of such moment We may proceed to do what will redound to the greater glory of His Holy Name, to the honor of the most Blessed Virgin, and to the profit of the Church Militant.
We eagerly desire, furthermore, that, as soon as possible, you apprise Us concerning the devotion which animates your clergy and your people regarding the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin and how ardently glows the desire that this doctrine be defined by the Apostolic See. And especially, Venerable Brethren, We wish to know what you yourselves, in your wise judgment, think and desire on this matter.
That’s Catholic ecclesiology (and a wonderfully balanced and practical thing it is): the pope is leader and head, but it doesn’t follow that he lords it over everyone. He works closely with the community: bishops, priests, and laypeople, just as Jesus said that the greatest would be the servant, and called His disciples His “friends.” Likewise, Peter, though the leader of the early Church (as established on many biblical grounds), referred to himself as “a fellow elder” (1 Pet 5:1). Blessed Pope Pius IX, in his Apostolic Constitution Ineffabilis Deus (8 December 1854), in which he defined ex cathedra the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, again highlighted this sought-after (overwhelming) consensus of the bishops:
[O]n February 2, 1849, we sent an Encyclical Letter from Gaeta to all our venerable brethren, the bishops of the Catholic world, that they should offer prayers to God and then tell us in writing what the piety and devotion of their faithful was in regard to the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God. . . .
We were certainly filled with the greatest consolation when the replies of our venerable brethren came to us. For, replying to us with a most enthusiastic joy, exultation and zeal, they not only again confirmed their own singular piety toward the Immaculate Conception of the most Blessed Virgin, and that of the secular and religious clergy and of the faithful, but with one voice they even entreated us to define our supreme judgment and authority the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin.
After consulting theologians Blessed Pope Pius IX consulted 603 bishops and 546 (91%) had responded affirmatively. Four or five thought it couldn’t be defined, 24 were “inopportunists” (i.e., believed that the time was not right, independently of the truth of the doctrine), and ten wanted a more indirect definition. That leaves only approximately eighteen (or 3%) who — I am assuming — opposed it altogether. So in fact he was acting quite collegially and not “autocratically” 16 years before the conciliar dogmatic definition of papal infallibility,
Ven. Pope Pius XII — following the lead of earlier popes — acted in precisely the same way when he dogmatically defined the Assumption at the highest level in 1950. According to Alan Schreck (Catholic and Christian, Ann Arbor, Michigan: Servant Books, 1984, 180):
In the hundred years before Pope Pius’ declaration, the popes had received petitions from 113 cardinals, 250 bishops, 32,000 priests and religious brothers, 50,000 religious women, and 8 million lay people, all requesting that the Assumption be recognized officially as a Catholic teaching.
That’s no “top-down dictatorship.” It’s anything but. It’s as “democratic” and “collegial” as anything to be found in Protestantism. So where’s the beef?
***
“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,800+ articles, please follow my 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. My blog was rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT: endorsed by influential Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. 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!
***
31:50 nothing has been quite so pointed in precisely this way and so he is using his own authority directly and singularly to simply say this is true and you are all bound to submit to it now.
In other words, just as Boniface VIII had done in 1302 . . . But the pope acts in harmony with prior tradition, theological speculation, and the massive consultation of bishops and others. That assuredly wasn’t the case with Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism. If one wants to see how he proclaimed his truths and bound people to them on pain of hell if they refused, I would highly recommend this excerpt:
I need not have any title and name to praise highly the word, office, and work which I have from God and which you blind blasphemers defile and persecute beyond measure. I trust my praise will overcome your defiling, . . . Therefore, I now let you know that from now on I shall no longer do you the honor of allowing you – or even an angel from heaven – to judge my teaching or to examine it. . . . Instead, I shall let myself be heard and, as St. Peter teaches, give an explanation and defense of my teaching to all the world – I Pet. 3:15. I shall not have it judged by any man, not even by any angel. For since I am certain of it, I shall be your judge and even the angels’ judge through this teaching (as St. Paul says [I Cor. 6:3 ]) so that whoever does not accept my teaching may not be saved – for it is God’s and not mine. Therefore, my judgment is also not mine but God’s. (Against the Spiritual Estate of the Pope and the Bishops Falsely So-Called, July 1522, in Luther’s Works, Vol. 39; except from pp. 248-249; see much more along these lines)
This is what I have called, semi-sarcastically, Luther’s “de facto infallibility” or his (absurdly) self-assumed status as a “super-duper pope.” Real popes, almost needless to add, don’t speak in this ultra-dogmatic, “my way or the highway” manner at all, as the above excerpts from Blessed Pope Pius IX abundantly prove. Later, I’m happy to add, his rhetoric cooled quite a bit, after the Peasants’ Revolt of 1525, and he made quite a few “traditional” statements that Catholics could wholly agree with. I compiled an entire book of those (see the Introduction).
32:18 he is exercising this pointed authority that moves beyond the way that popes have spoken in the past . . . he says “we declare, pronounce, and define”; this is unique; you don’t see this kind of language elsewhere.
No? I again remind Jordan of Unam Sanctam (cited above), where a pope wrote in 1302: “we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” This isn’t even as strong as what the Jerusalem Council, led by Pope Peter, declared: “it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church . . . it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord . . . it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit . . .” (Acts 15:22, 25, 28).
No less than St. Paul, with Timothy, then went all around Asia Minor (Turkey) and “delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4). That’s binding Church authority, led by a pope, in consultation with both bishops and priests (or pastors, if one prefers: “elder” or presbuteros in Greek), right in the Bible.
33:05 his is a dogmatic declaration which usually would be something that would arise out of of the council.
Usually, but not always. The pope always had authority to act on his own. He is not obliged to always consult others, but in fact, popes usually choose to do that, too, because the community and the tradition are intrinsically intertwined with any papal decision.
Jordan starts discussing the notion of (from our perspective, heretical) conciliarism: the idea that ecumenical councils were more authoritative than popes. This has never been Catholic teaching, or practice on any magisterial level. I have written about it several times. The following three articles from twenty years ago were in response to a very zealous Presbyterian apologist named Tim Enloe (no longer active online) who was very “big” on conciliarism as a supposed disproof of Catholic ecclesiology:
50:27 Those who break off and form the Old Catholic Church after Vatican 1 [thought it] . . . was really unjust that the pope essentially decided that he was going to call people that supported his cause and make them bishops and then give them a significant voice at this Council, even though they were not actually bishops in any real sense or a functional sense. Now this isn’t the first time that this kind of thing has happened but it happened, I believe, at least [according to] some of the claims of the critics is that this happened to a much greater degree here.
*
I’ll take his word for this. But assuming this is true, I would note two things:
*
1) This shows again that there was participation of those other than true bishops: laypeople, consultants, etc., which goes against the stereotype of the top-down autocrat. This was like the Jerusalem Council, which had apostles and elders. Jordan cites folks who left the Church and were disenchanted with the council because they disagreed with it (i.e., the were thinking like Protestants, as Luther did: councils can err). But it seems that this should make him happy: to discover that not just bishops were involved in the decision-making process.
*
2) We can look at the vote for papal infallibility that took place. Encyclopaedia Britannica (“First Vatican Council of Pius IX”) reports:
Pius intervened decisively to alter the procedure of the council on February 20, 1870, and again on April 29. The outcome was to postpone all deliberation except that upon infallibility. The decisive vote came on July 13 when 451 voted for it, 88 against it, and 62 in favour of some amendment. . . . the final definition was carried on July 18 by 533 votes to 2. Infallibility was confined to those occasions upon which the pope made pronouncements ex cathedra.
So even the initial vote of 601 participants was 75% in favor (451), with 62 (only 10%) in favor of amendment. Even if we discounted 120 whom Jordan (perhaps following the reasoning of disgruntled former Catholics like Dollinger) claims were mere hacks and bootlickers appointed by the pope because they agreed with him, it would still be 55% in favor. Those against (88) constituted only 15% of those who voted. That sounds like pretty strong consensus to me. The final vote was then 99.63% in favor. If we take away the “120” the vote would be 413 to 2. So how are they relevant at all to the final outcome? This is straining at gnats.
*
Compare that to the early Protestant colloquies, like Regensburg (1541) and Poissy (1561), where the participants could never bring themselves to any broad agreement at all. Luther and Melanchthon had already clashed miserably over the Real Presence in the Eucharist with Zwingli, Bucer, and Oecolampadius, in the Marburg Colloquy in October 1529. Protestants never healed their divisions, which have scandalously multiplied steadily from that time till ours.
*
Perhaps that’s one reason why Protestant apologists so often seek to find divisions and contradictions in our councils. They’ve never managed to have any significant and constructive councils in 500 years, and so they pick away at ours (almost as if they are jealous way down deep because they can’t manage — and never have managed — to come together and reach theological consensus?). Instead we have scandals like the United Methodist Church (that I grew up in) recently voting to allow practicing homosexual clergy, and all mainline Protestant denominations favoring abortion.
*
51:08 another critique that is is levied at the council is that Vatican 1 had a strongly disproportionate number of Italian bishops and the Italian
bishops were the biggest supporters of the papal state and were those who would have been most willing to affirm the the dogma of
infallibility and the bishops from those constitutional states England and the United States tended to be the most critical of the proposed dogma.
*
Really? With a final vote of 533 to 2 and an initial vote of 451 in favor, 62 partially in favor (combined would be 85% in favor in some form), 88 against (15%), for different reasons (see below), we’re quibbling about supposed undue influence of Italian bishops? I can’t find how many were there, but certainly this was a non-factor, given the overwhelming vote. The old Catholic Encyclopedia (“Vatican I”, 1912) wrote about the dissenters:
Shortly before the fourth public session a large number of the bishops of the minority left Rome with the permission of the directing officers of the council. They did not oppose the dogma of papal infallibility itself, but were against its definition as inopportune.
That’s not a theological disagreement, but one regarding the timing and prudence of declaring the dogma at that time. This was cardinal Newman’s position. He agreed with the doctrine (from long before the council, actually, as I have written about) but thought it was inopportune. But when he saw the definition, he was pleased with it and saw God’s providence at work. It’s also my position on declaring Mary Mediatrix of all graces. I think it’s too early, while I firmly believe in the doctrine and vigorously defend it as traditional and biblical. The old article continues, showing exactly who disagreed:
Only a few bishops appear to have had doubts as to the dogma itself. Both parties sought to gain the victory for their opinions. . . . Most of the German and Austro-Hungarian members of the council were against the definition, as well as nearly half of the American and about one-third of the French fathers. About 7 of the Italian bishops, 2 each of the English and Irish bishops, 3 bishops from British North America, and 1 Swiss bishop, Greith, belonged to the minority. While only a few Armenian bishops opposed the definition, most of the Chaldean and Greek Melchites sided with the minority. It had no opponents among the bishops from Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Holland, and Central and South America. The most prominent members of the minority from the United States were Archbishops Kenrick of St. Louis and Purcell of Cincinnati, and Bishop Vérot of St. Augustine; these were joined by Archbishop Connolly of Halifax, Nova Scotia. Prominent members of the majority were Archbishop Spalding of Baltimore, Bishops Williams of Boston, Wood of Philadelphia, and Conroy of Albany.
I would speculate, prima facie, that opposition may have been to some degree due to Protestant cultural and religious influence in Germany and America, and by theological liberalism in France. After all, bishops from countries that had never been Protestant, like Spain, Portugal, and nations in Central and South America, were unanimously in favor. Jordan claimed that English bishops were among “the most critical” due to coming from a “constitutional” nation. But in fact only two English bishops were opposed.
51:48 so the the criticism at the time is that essentially the pope stacked the deck with all the people that are going to agree with him and so he already made this decision. Infallibility is going to become a dogma of the church and in order to do that he basically decides that he needs to appoint those Bishops to make this decision who are going to affirm the decision that he has already made.
As shown, the overwhelming nature of the vote shows this to be a most inaccurate and cynical point of view. It just doesn’t fly. Virtually no one disagreed with the theological rationale. At least 60 who voted against it did so thinking it was not the right time (as opposed to it being a false doctrine). That’s a completely legitimate discussion to have, but it’s not theological or doctrinal. It’s about prudence and when to do what in the Church.
55:34 you have John Henry Newman who’s at least privately very skeptical of this dogma and does not want it to be declared dogma . . .
The latter is true but the former is absolutely not true, as I have meticulously documented from his own words. He believed in the doctrine even before he became a Catholic:
St. Cardinal Newman wrote in 1843, 27 years before the council and definition, two years before he even became a Catholic:
In June and July 1839, near four years ago, I read the Monophysite Controversy, and it made a deep impression on me, which I was not able to shake off, that the Pope had a certain gift of infallibility, and that communion with the See of Rome was the divinely intended means of grace and illumination. . . . Since that, all history, particularly that of Arianism, has appeared to me in a new light; confirmatory of the same doctrine. (Letter to John Keble, 4 May 1843; referring to his views in July 1839)
He made many such statements — including lots of private ones — prior to 1870:
As to the Infallibility of the Pope, I see nothing against it, or to dread in it,. . . (Letter to Edward B. Pusey, 17 November 1865)
*
As to writing a volume on the Pope’s infallibility, it never so much as entered into my thoughts. . . . And I should have nothing to say about it. I have ever thought it likely to be true, never thought it certain. I think too, its definition inexpedient and unlikely; but I should have no difficulty accepting it, were it made. And I don’t think my reason will ever go forward or backward in the matter. (Letter to William G. Ward, 18 February 1866)
*
Applying this principle to the Pope’s Infallibility, . . . I think there is a good deal of evidence, on the very surface of history and the Fathers in its favour. On the whole then I hold it; . . . (Letter to Edward B. Pusey, 23 March 1867)
*
I hold the Pope’s Infallibility, not as a dogma, but as a theological opinion; that is, not as a certainty, but as a probability. . . . To my mind the balance of probabilities is still in favour of it. There are vast difficulties, taking facts as they are, in the way of denying it. . . . Anyhow the doctrine of Papal Infallibility must be fenced round and limited by conditions. (Letter to Peter le Page Renouf, 21 June 1868)
Then when the dogma was promulgated, this is what Newman wrote about it:
I saw the new Definition yesterday, and am pleased at its moderation—that is, if the doctrine in question is to be defined at all. The terms are vague and comprehensive; and, personally, I have no difficulty in admitting it. (Letter to the Duke of Norfolk, ch. 8, 1875; Letter to Ambrose Phillipps de Lisle, 24 July 1870)
So much for the Newman mythology that is almost always part of Protestant analyses of this topic and Vatican I.
*
*
***
* Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 4,800+ free online articles 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.
Summary: Lutheran apologist Jordan Cooper makes an analysis of various aspects of Vatican I in 1870 and its declaration of the dogma of papal infallibility. I counter-respond with facts.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In