Reply to James White On Oral Tradition

Last updated on: May 13, 2024 at 5:07 pm By Dave Armstrong

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

***

I am responding to James White’s article, “A Response to David Palm’s Article on Oral Tradition from This Rock Magazine, May, 1995” (4-29-98). See David Palm’s entire article. His words will be in blue. My Bible citations are from the RSV.

Matthew 2:23 And he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, “He shall be called a Nazarene.”

Mr. Palm is quite correct when he says that it is difficult to determine the source of the quotation in Matthew 2:23. This is not the only passage that challenges us in regards to source material. However, to leap from a difficulty in identifying the Scriptural source to the existence of an undocumented and mysterious “oral tradition” is hardly the proper method of getting around a difficulty.

Why not? It’s certainly a plausible response to assert that — lacking any certain OT reference — that it could have come from an oral tradition. After all, the Jews believed in an oral Torah as well as a written one:

Biblical Evidence for the Oral Torah [10-18-11]

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

And there is plenty of NT data about oral tradition in early Christianity:

Biblical Evidence for Apostolic Oral Tradition [2-20-09]

Dialogue on Oral Tradition & Apostolic Succession (vs. John E. Taylor) [5-17-17]

Oral Tradition According to Great Historic Apologists [10-18-19]

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

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

Oral Tradition: More Biblical (Pauline) Evidence (. . . and an Examination of the False and Unbiblical Protestant Supposed Refutation of “Inscripturation”) [2-27-21]

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

While Mr. Palm says that all attempts to identify the Scriptural source of this passage fail, that is simply his own conclusion. Can he say with certainty that all of the suggested sources could not, in fact, provide a sufficient basis? And why should we believe that Mr. Palm’s leap into the undocumentable realm of “oral tradition” is any more solid than any of the suggestions that have been given for a Scriptural source? Can Mr. Palm show us any historical evidence to substantiate this “oral tradition” being in existence at this time?

This is a clever sleight-of-hand from White: typical of his relentless sophistry. Rather than argue for a particular take on the alleged OT pedigree of this verse, he ignores that necessary task and switches the emphasis over to Palm supposedly having to establish oral tradition itself. White’s first task is to blow Palm’s contention that there is no OT referent out of the water. That’s the easiest way to disprove it. But since White has nothing compelling (and even admits that the problem is “difficult”), he switches the topic, like all good sophists (and lawyers with bad cases) do. Be that as it may, I provide plenty of evidence for oral tradition in my links above.

Classic Protestant commentaries back up the notion that such a passage cannot be found in the OT:

Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers: No such words are to be found in the Old Testament.

Benson Commentary: As to the interpretations which refer this to Christ’s being called Netzer, the Branch, Isaiah 11:1; Jeremiah 23:5; or Nazir, one Separated, or, the Holy One, they all fail in this, that they give no account how this was fulfilled by Christ’s living at Nazareth, he being as much the Branch, the Holy One, when he was born at Bethlehem, and before he went to Nazareth, as after.

Barnes’ Notes on the Bible: The words here are not found in any of the books of the Old Testament, and there has been much difficulty in ascertaining the meaning of this passage.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary: The little town of Nazareth, [was] mentioned neither in the Old Testament nor in Josephus . . .

Matthew Poole’s Commentary: the . . . words of this verse afford as great difficulties as any other in holy writ. . . . there is no such saying in all the prophets. There is a strange variety of opinions as to these questions.

Meyer’s NT Commentary: . . . others (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Clericus, Grätz) regard the words as a quotation from a lost prophetical book.

Expositor’s Greek Testament: But what prophecy? The reference is vague, not to any particular prophet, but to the prophets in general. In no one place can any such statement be found. Some have suggested that it occurred in some prophetic book or oracle no longer extant.

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges: The meaning of this passage . . . for us it is involved in doubt.

Matthew 23:2-3 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; [3] so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.”

I have already massively refuted White concerning this topic:

“Moses’ Seat” & Jesus vs. Sola Scriptura [12-27-03]

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

1 Corinthians 10:4 . . . they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ.

Paul would certainly have been familiar with extra-scriptural traditions . . . Paul was likewise familiar with other Jewish works of literature, including works from the intertestamental period, and works that became a part of the Apocrypha. He was likewise familiar with Greek philosophy and mythology, and drew upon these sources as well. None of this is in dispute, of course.

Now there’s something we can agree on!

The question is, does Paul’s familiarity with such sources mean that they are divinely inspired, authoritative, and infallible? Take this passage from 1 Corinthians as an example. Surely Mr. Palm is not suggesting to us that Pseudo-Philo is providing us with an inerrant, infallible oral tradition that was passed down from Moses’ day, is he? . . . no one would seriously argue that the use of Greek philosophers means that such sources are infallible, inspired, or in any sense spiritually authoritative . . .

The source didn’t have to be inspired or infallible; nor is that Palm’s argument (he never used either word). Palm referred to possible “authoritative” oral tradition cited in the NT. But citing such information in the inspired NT would make it inspired, wouldn’t it? White’s polemical reply isn’t the relevant question. It’s just the usual White obfuscation and obscurantism. White has to explain what Paul is citing and why he would do it.

He does suggest one possibility: C. K. Barrett’s opinion that it may be a citation from the Jewish philosopher Philo or Pseudo-Philo. Palm had already suggested that in his article. Palm had already noted, “in rabbinic Tradition the rock actually followed them on their journey through the wilderness (See Tosefta Sukkah 3:11f.; Pseudo-Philo Biblical Antiquities 10:7). The former would be an oral tradition, later written down. Remember, the title of David Palm’s article was “Oral Tradition in the New Testament.” This is one example of that.

the mere fact that Paul makes reference to a Jewish idea that the rock in the wilderness was more than a mere rock hardly provides a basis for asserting that this is an inspired and infallible oral tradition that has been passed down outside of Scripture and is binding upon Christians today.

Again, White is out to sea. I reiterate that by including it in the inspired NT, the notion becomes inspired and authoritative, with the additional identification as Jesus Christ Himself. It didn’t have to be already inspired. This particular theology is binding, having been authoritatively noted by St. Paul in the inspired revelation of NT Scripture. But White wants to major on the minors and quibble about where it came from?

In fact, if Mr. Palm is defending the partim-partim view of traditional authority, is he really going to defend the idea that this tradition goes back to Moses?

It might in some less developed form. The Jews, after all, believed that Moses received an oral Torah on Mt. Sinai along with the written Law and Torah. White’s theology dogmatically — but arbitrarily — forbids such a notion from the outset. But there is nothing in the Bible to preclude its possibility. If White would claim otherwise, then let him produce such a biblical “proof.”

And if he defends the “material sufficiency” viewpoint,

Yes he would.

what does this passage provide him?

It provides an oral tradition in the NT: precisely the aim of his article. DUH!

Surely this “tradition” is not some Mosaic-interpretation of the Scriptures maintained within an “Old Testament magisterium.”

It has to come from somewhere. White hasn’t disproven the theory that it is in the Talmud, which was a later written version Jewish oral traditions. White simply plays the game of obfuscation and non sequiturs again.

1 Peter 3:19 in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison,

Palm suggests that the source for this may be “the extra-biblical book of 1 Enoch.” And so maybe it was. What does Bishop “Dr.” [???] White have to say about that? Because Palm also noted that many tie the verse to Genesis 6, he goes with that, while (predictably) mocking the possible extrabiblical source:

He has already acknowledged that Genesis 6 is the source of the nephilim concept, has he not? So what is being asserted when “Tradition” comes in here?

That there may be an additional source!

Is Mr. Palm asserting that this is an oral tradition that is inspired and infallible?

No (back to that again). White seems obsessed with this idea, that is completely irrelevant. Palm only used the word, “authoritative.”

From whence did this tradition arise?

That’s not strictly relevant, either. It’s an entirely separate discussion.

Or is Mr. Palm merely admitting that the inspired writers made reference to ideas, beliefs, and sources that were current in their day? Such an assertion is not argued by anyone.

Then why is White concerned about this article at all?

But neither is such an assertion relevant to substantiating the Roman Catholic concept of tradition, either as separate revelation or as interpretive grid.

It doesn’t have to be. There is a certain conceptual overlap:

Oral traditions in the NT

The Catholic belief in an apostolic oral tradition, passed down.

If the NT can be shown to espouse oral tradition in general, then it’s reasonable to posit that the specifically Catholic view of tradition is also harmonious with the NT. They need not be absolutely equivalent.

Is Mr. Palm saying that Peter embraced the book of 1 Enoch as an interpretive tradition of Genesis?

That seems to be a fair view of his take.

If so, does Mr. Palm likewise accept 1 Enoch as an interpretive grid, a “Tradition”?

Small-t tradition, not apostolic tradition or the apostolic deposit (of faith), which is the “big-T” tradition.

I will spare the reader citations from the book, as 99% of the work would not be accepted as having any authority interpretively by Roman Catholics or Protestants alike.

It doesn’t have to, in order for Peter to draw from the 1% that does have some significant truth. As I always say, even an unplugged clock gives the correct time (or “truth”) twice every day.

But is Mr. Palm saying that in this one instance Peter depended upon this extra-scriptural, divine, and authoritative source? Or is he simply stating that Peter is making reference to a common belief of the day that is also expressed in 1 Enoch, without making 1 Enoch, or the belief, authoritative?

The latter, it seems to me.

Remember, Mr. Palm’s “Tradition” includes, of necessity, purgatory, indulgences, Papal Infallibility, and a whole plethora of Marian doctrines.

He’s not trying to prove all that in this article; only that the NT has specimens derived from some sort of oral tradition.

Now I will only mention in passing that Mr. Palm’s reference to the early Father’s struggle against the heretics begs the issue. What was the rule of faith they used to refute the heretics? Mr. Palm’s infallible Roman Tradition? In no way. The “rule of faith” was far more simple, and was, in fact, derived from biblical sources, and is fully defendable from the Scriptures themselves. Hence, the idea that this rule of faith, this tradition, mentioned by men like Irenaeus, is in fact an extra-scriptural revelation, holds not the first drop of water.

The fathers also drew from extrabiblical traditions over against the heretics. Augustine gives the example of infant baptism (Luther refers back to that, too). I think infant baptism can be drawn from Scripture in many ways, but it’s mostly indirect, non-explicit, deductive arguments.

[Palm] A specific application of this is the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. The data of the New Testament concerning the “brothers and sisters” of Jesus are ambiguous by themselves, although I would argue that the biblical evidence leans toward the Catholic interpretation. But we have additional help in the form of the Traditions preserved in the early Church which say that Mary remained a virgin and bore no other children besides Jesus. So Tradition can sometimes serve as arbiter and interpreter in cases where the meaning of Scripture is unclear.

The student of Church history, having gotten back up off the floor upon reading that paragraph, has to simply respond, “Well then who decides from the many conflicting viewpoints found in the patristic sources what is and what is not Tradition??” It is well documented (in Kelly as well, no less!) that there were many conflicting viewpoints on this subject in the early Church. There was no unanimity of opinion, and the idea that one can trace a real “tradition” to the Apostles through the maze of differing opinions, and the deafening silence of the earliest period, requires a bright-eyed optimistic embrace of Roman authority rather than a critical historical realism.

Nonsense. The case from both the Bible and tradition had to be pretty strong in order for Luther, Calvin, and all of the major Protestant “reformers” to retain the traditional view. No Protestant has to get back up from the floor to follow the view of those two huge figures in the history of Protestantism. The differences were mostly over whether these “brothers” were Jesus’ cousins or step-brothers (from a former marriage of St. Joseph), but not about Mary’s perpetual virginity itself. I’ve written a ton about this. See the section on my Blessed Virgin Mary web page.

Mr. Palm says that Tradition can serve as an arbiter and interpreter in cases where the meaning of Scripture is unclear. Does that mean that he accepts everything that the early Church said about Scripture?

No, why would he have to do that? Exegesis develops, just as everything else does, and if some of those were non-magisterial statements, no Catholic is bound to those.

When interpreting the atonement, does he use Irenaeus’ “ransom to Satan theory” in his studies? If not, why not?

Because it wasn’t magisterial teaching. There are still some areas even today where the Catholic Church allows differing opinions (on the precise nature of predestination, for example).

Is it not painfully clear that what we really have is not “Tradition” at all, but Roman dogmatic authority masquerading under the historical title?

It’s clear as mud!

Such is surely the case.

Such is surely not the case.

Jude 9 But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, “The Lord rebuke you.”

Again, as in previous examples, Palm confuses the mere use of common beliefs of the day with the idea that an extra-biblical, inspired oral tradition exists that is authoritative and infallible.

Parts of it could be authoritative.

Just as Jude had no problems in referring to the story of Enoch’s prophecy in the same epistle, here too we have nothing more than what we would have today if the Bible were being written. If an apostle today were writing to believers, would he be forced to *not* make reference to popular works known to his audience?

That’s not what is going on in Jude 9. It’s a claim about an actual event involving Michael and the devil. The NT presents it as true; therefore, the tradition it came from had this truth, which was inherently authoritative because it was true.

In the same way, Mr. Palm errs in trying to substantiate Roman claims to “Tradition” on the basis of the familiarity of the Apostles with tradition (small “t”).

I don’t think he is dong that in the first place. He’s drawing a relevant analogy. Analogies are always ultimately imperfect. It’s a matter of degree.

While I was not in the room with Mr. Palm and his professor when they spoke of the NT and tradition (something made mention of earlier in Mr. Palm’s article), I truly doubt that the challenge of the professor was, “David, show me any place where the apostles showed any knowledge of extra-biblical literature, tradition, folklore, or belief.” I would imagine the professor said something like, “David, show me any place where the apostles identified extra-biblical tradition as divine, inspired, or in any way infallible.”

Again, White caricatures Palm’s argument by superimposing these charged words onto it, that Palm himself didn’t use. The word, “divine” never appears in the article, either. Palm wrote:

I believe that the passages that I cited demonstrate that the New Testament authors drew on oral Tradition as they expounded the Christian faith. This fact spells real trouble for any Christian who asserts that we must find all of our doctrine in written Scripture.

That’s the argument: not all of these alleged arguments from inspiration and infallibility, merely wishfully projected by White onto Palm’s article.

***

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

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

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

***

Photo credit: see book and purchase information for this book of mine.

Summary: I reply to anti-Catholic Baptist apologist James White’s weak & poorly argued critique of a 1995 article on oral tradition in the NT by Catholic apologist David Palm.

Vs. Turretin #10: Sanctification

Last updated on: May 7, 2024 at 3:42 pm By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

François Turretin (1623-1687) was a Genevan-Italian Reformed scholastic theologian and renowned defender of the Calvinistic (Reformed) orthodoxy represented by the Synod of Dort, and was one of the authors of the Helvetic Consensus (1675). He is generally considered to be the best Calvinist apologist besides John Calvin himself. His Institutes of Elenctic Theology (three volumes, Geneva, 1679–1685) used the scholastic method. “Elenctic” means “refuting an argument by proving the falsehood of its conclusion.” Turretin contended against the conflicting Christian perspectives of Catholicism and Arminianism. It was a popular textbook; notably at Princeton Theological Seminary, until it was replaced by Charles Hodge‘s Systematic Theology in the late 19th century. Turretin also greatly influenced the Puritans.

This is a reply to a portion of Institutes of Elenctic Theology (Vol. 2, 17th Topic: Sanctification and Good Works). I utilize the edition translated by George Musgrave Giger and edited by James T. Dennison, Jr. (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, Phillipsburg, New Jersey: 1992 / 1994 / 1997; 2320 pages). It uses the KJV for Bible verses. I will use RSV unless otherwise indicated. All installments of this series of replies can be found on my Calvinism & General Protestantism web page, under the category, “Replies to Francois Turretin (1632-1687).” Turretin’s words will be in blue.

***

First Question

What is sanctification and how is it distinguished from justification, yet inseparable from it?

I. As Christ was made to us of God righteousness and sanctification (1 Cor. 1:30)—not dividedly, but conjointly; not confusedly, but distinctly—so the benefit of sanctification immediately follows justification as inseparably connected with it, but yet really distinct from it.

Protestants (particularly Reformed ones) make a sharp distinction between justification and sanctification (whereas Catholics — following Holy Scripture — combine them). For Protestants, works of sanctification have — in the final analysis — nothing to do with salvation. They are done in thankfulness for a justification already attained. Thus, Turretin writes a bit later:

God makes us first new creatures by regeneration; then we show that we are regenerated by our new obedience (as these acts are distinguished in Eph. 2:10; Ezk. 36:26; Jer. 32:39). . . . The actual laying aside of vices and the correction of life and morals follow regeneration, as its proper effects (Gal. 5:22, 23; Col. 3:5). . . . Scripture has frequently distinguished these benefits (1 Cor. 1:30; 6:11; Tit. 3:5; Rev. 22:11).

But the formal separation is not a biblical distinction, as I will show again and again. Let’s look at the Bible passages Turretin sets forth as alleged proof of his view:

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.

This is itself doesn’t prove the formal separation of justification and sanctification. It is stating that the justified person or disciple of Christ will do good works. All agree on that. But it doesn’t establish Protestant soteriology. In the previous two verses, Paul wrote:

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God — [9] not because of works, lest any man should boast.

This is consistent with his overall teaching. See: St. Paul on Grace, Faith, & Works (50 Passages) [8-6-08]. When Paul writes that we’re “not” saved “because of works” (Eph 2:9), he is denying works salvation. But in Ephesians 2:10 he shows that works are part of the overall equation. They can’t save us by themselves, but neither can or does faith. They have to function together, with both being caused by God’s prior grace. Ephesians 2:8-10 presents the whole package, and it’s thoroughly Catholic. It’s our “three-legged stool” of salvation: grace, faith, and works.

Ezekiel 36:25-27 I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. [26] A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. [27] And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances.

Jeremiah 32:39-41 I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me for ever, for their own good and the good of their children after them. [40] I will make with them an everlasting covenant, that I will not turn away from doing good to them; and I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me. [41] I will rejoice in doing them good, and I will plant them in this land in faithfulness, with all my heart and all my soul.

Again, God cleanses us and indwells us, and we do good works. But this is completely harmonious with the Catholic view of an organic connection between justification and sanctification. It doesn’t prove the Protestant view over against ours. We would contend that the justified person does the good works precisely because of the prior organic connection.

Galatians 5:22-25 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, [23] gentleness, self-control; against such there is no law. [24] And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. [25] If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.

Colossians 3:1-2, 5 If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. [2] Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth. . . . [5] Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: fornication, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.

Paul is saying that those who have the Holy Spirit simply do these things. They flow from the nature of the indwelling Holy Spirit. This seems altogether organic and connected by nature. It’s a somewhat subtle distinction, but a real one. Of course, the good works are later in time than initial justification, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t intrinsically connected.

1 Corinthians 1:30 He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom, our righteousness and sanctification and redemption;

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

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

These are clear expressions of organic, intrinsic connection of justification and sanctification. It’s difficult to understand why anyone would think otherwise.

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

Paul reiterates that we are not saved by works alone and that God’s grace is the ultimate cause (cf. 2:11). But in the same letter he writes five times that good works are part of the whole package:

Titus 1:16 They profess to know God, but they deny him by their deeds; they are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good deed.

Titus 2:7 Show yourself in all respects a model of good deeds, and in your teaching show integrity, gravity,

Titus 2:14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds.

Titus 3:8 The saying is sure. I desire you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to apply themselves to good deeds; these are excellent and profitable to men.

Titus 3:14 And let our people learn to apply themselves to good deeds, so as to help cases of urgent need, and not to be unfruitful.

Nor could Paul so often have denied that we are justified by works if justification is the same as sanctification;

He could do so if what he meant in those “negative” passages was Jewish works of Mosaic Law, as the New Perspective on Paul (a Protestant school of thought) maintains.

The former [justification] consists in the judicial and forensic act of remission of sin and imputation of righteousness; the latter [sanctification] in the physical and moral act of the infusion of righteousness and internal renovation.

This plainly states the anti-traditional, innovative Protestant conception of sanctification: imputed justification and infused sanctification. Catholicism holds that both are infused.

sanctification is indeed begun in this life, but is perfected only in the other. . . . by degrees and successively.

If it’s perfected in the afterlife; indeed, even “by degrees and successively”: how is that to be distinguished from purgatory?

Although we think that these two benefits should be distinguished and never confounded, still they are so connected from the order of God and the nature of the thing that they should never be torn asunder.

This is the sense in which the two competing views are actually quite similar (almost merely abstractly or conceptually distinct), in terms of practical application to life. I have often noted this and rejoiced in it. I argue for the Catholic viewpoint, but at the same time recognize that the two views are very close to each other.

This is clearly evident even from this—that they are often set forth in one and the same word as when they are designated by the words “cleansing” and “purging” and “taking away,” not only in different places, but also in the same context (as Jn. 1:29, when “the Lamb of God” is said “to take away the sin of the world,” i.e., both by taking away its guilt and punishment by the merit of his blood and by taking away its pollution and taint by the efficacy of the Spirit; and in Rev. 1:5, Christ is said “to wash us from our sins,” both as to justification and as to sanctification; in which sense “the robes of believers” are said “to have been made white in the blood of Christ” [Rev. 7:14] . . . God joined these two benefits in the covenant of grace, since he promises that he will not remember our sins and that he will write his law in our hearts (Jer. 31:33, 34). Nor does the nature of God suffer this to be done otherwise. For since by justification we have a right to life (nor can anyone be admitted to communion with God without sanctification), it is necessary that he whom God justifies is also sanctified by him so as to be made fit for the possession of glory. Nay, he does not take away guilt by justification except to renew his own image in us by sanctification because holiness is the end of the covenant and of all its blessings (Lk. 1:68–75; Eph. 1:4).

Amen! Like I said, “close.”

The very faith by which we are justified demands this. For as it is the instrument of justification by receiving the righteousness of Christ, so it is the root and principle of sanctification, while it purges the heart and works through love (Gal. 5:6). Justification itself (which brings the remission of sins) does not carry with it the permission or license to sin (as the Epicureans hold), but ought to enkindle the desire of piety and the practice of holiness. With God, it is a propitiation that he may be feared (Ps. 130:4); speaks peace to his people that they may not turn again to folly (Ps. 85:8). Thus justification stands related to sanctification as the means to the end. And to this tends the whole economy of grace, which for no other reason has dawned upon us, unless “that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly” (Tit. 2:12).

More great thoughts, which Catholics wholly agree with.

Three opinions concerning the necessity of good works.

II. There are three principal opinions about the necessity of good works. First is that of those who (sinning in defect) deny it; such were formerly the Simonians and the modern Epicureans and Libertines, who make good works arbitrary and indifferent, which we may perform or omit at pleasure. The second is that of those who (sinning in excess) affirm and press the necessity of merit and causality; such were the ancient Pharisees and false apostles, who contended that works are necessary to justification. These are followed by the Romanists and Socinians of our day. The third is that of those who (holding the middle ground between these two extremes) neither simply deny, nor simply assert; yet they recognize a certain necessity for them against the Libertines, but uniformly reject the necessity of merit against the Romanists. This is the opinion of the orthodox.

This is trying to have it both ways. Are works necessary for salvation (alongside grace and faith) or not? Turretin opts for a supposed “middle ground” and a “certain necessity.” He (and Protestants en masse) can’t have it both ways. In order to maintain some sort of necessity for works, they go after merit. But it’s a distinction without a difference. I have collected fifty biblical passages directly tying good works to entrance into heaven and ultimate salvation. They simply can’t be interpreted as involving no merit whatsoever. If they weren’t meritorious whatsoever, then heaven couldn’t possibly be any kind of reward for doing them. Yet it is; so they are meritorious. It’s as simple as that. Here are some of them:

Matthew 7:19-21 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. [20] Thus you will know them by their fruits. [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 25:31-36 “When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. [32] Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, [33] and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. [34] Then the King will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; [35] for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, [36] I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’

Luke 3:9 (+ Mt 3:10; 7:19) Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

Luke 14:13-14 But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just.

John 5:26-29 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself, and has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of man. Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice 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 2:5-13 But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed. For he will render to every man according to his works: To those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honour and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality. All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

Hebrews 6:7-8 For land which has drunk the rain that often falls upon it, and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed; its end is to be burned.

1 Peter 1:17 . . . who judges each one impartially according to his deeds . . .

Revelation 2:5 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.

Revelation 20:11-13 Then I saw a great white throne and him who sat upon it; from his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Also another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, by what they had done. And the sea gave up the dead in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead in them, and all were judged by what they had done.

Revelation 22:12 Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense, to repay every one for what he has done.

Moreover, there are several biblical passages that tie salvation directly to sanctification, in a way contrary to the Protestants view of sanctification:

Acts 26:18 to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me. [Phillips: “made holy by their faith in me”] [cf. Acts 20:32; Jude 1]

This would appear to contradict a strict notion of sola fide, or faith alone: one of the two “pillars” of the so-called “Reformation”, because it connects sanctification directly to faith; indeed, it comes “by” faith. Here is another passage that connects sanctification with faith (traditionally associated with justification):

Acts 15:8-9 And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith.

The Greek word for “cleansed” used here is katharizo. It is used many times in the Gospels in reference to the cleansing of lepers (e.g., Mt 10:8; Lk 7:22). We see this dynamic also in Hebrews:

Hebrews 9:12-14 he entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the sprinkling of defiled persons with the blood of goats and bulls and with the ashes of a heifer sanctifies for the purification of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify your conscience from dead works to serve the living God. (cf. 1 John 1:7, 9: same word: katharizo)

Thus, the “eternal redemption” secured by Jesus Christ with “his own blood” leads inexorably to a purified conscience, and a new ability to serve God, just as flesh was purified by the old sacrificial system. Sanctification seems intimately connected to justification, or in any event, redemption. Perhaps the two clearest verses in the New Testament that directly connects sanctification to salvation itself, are these:

2 Thessalonians 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.

Romans 6:22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life.

The author of Hebrews maintains the same motif:

Hebrews 10:10 And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Hebrews 10:14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.

Hebrews 10:29 How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace?

Hebrews 13:12 So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood.

The following five passages also plainly teach the notion of meritorious works:

2 Timothy 2:15, 21-22 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. . . . If any one purifies himself from what is ignoble, then he will be a vessel for noble use, consecrated and useful to the master of the house, ready for any good work. So shun youthful passions and aim at righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call upon the Lord from a pure heart.

Hebrews 10:24 and let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works,

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

2 Peter 1:10 Therefore, brethren, be the more zealous to confirm your call and election, for if you do this you will never fall;

Jude 1:20-21 But you, beloved, build yourselves up on your most holy faith; pray in the Holy Spirit; keep yourselves in the love of God; wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.

“Perspicuous Apostolic Message”? (vs. Eric Svendsen)

Last updated on: April 22, 2024 at 5:22 pm By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

[originally compiled and posted on my website on 12 August 2000]

[Eric Svendsen’s words will be in blue; an anonymous Protestant’s in green]

The following series of dialogues took place on James White’s Sola Scriptura discussion list, from 21 May to 26 June 1996 (as such they are some of my very first debates / dialogues online: I started going online in March 1996). See a similar exchange with James White that took place at the same time. Eric Svendsen was a very prominent anti-Catholic polemicist; arguably second in influence only to James White, until he suddenly completely departed from the Internet in April 2010.

*****

“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,500+ articles, please follow this blog by signing up (w your email address) on the sidebar to the right, above where there is an icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. Please also consider following me on Twitter / X and purchasing one or more of my 55 books. All of this helps me get more exposure, and (however little!) more income for my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!

***

Eric Svendsen: 30 May 1996

Dave A. wrote:

What year did contraception become a sin, Dave?
*

It never did “become” a sin, since sin is sin, in God’s eyes. God is eternal; therefore contraception has been a sin for eternity (unless, as the Anglicans would have it, God – and hence Christianity – changed His mind in 1930).

So now, Dave, you would like us to have the courage of conviction to anathematize our brothers who disagree with us on all points of dogma. And once we do that, we will have earned your respect and praise for acting upon our conviction?!
*

I’m saying have the courage to take a stand. You’re courageous enough to bash the Catholic Church with impunity, but won’t even say that your fellow Protestants are wrong on something or other?! Your fathers Luther and Calvin did it; why not you? Or is it the case, rather, that God doesn’t care about truth when it comes to baptism, the Eucharist, ecclesiology, etc.? Is Protestantism thus reduced to an Orwellian “some doctrines are more true than others”? Besides, you can disagree but still be brothers in Christ. I’m doing that in this group. My Church does it officially with regard both to the Orthodox and Protestantism. The two aren’t mutually exclusive, you know.

I take it you finally see the force of my point that John 17 does not refer to doctrinal disagreement, but to oneness in love.
*

Guess again. I say it is primarily referring to love, but also secondarily to doctrine, because Scripture doesn’t separate the two, but holds them in unity (no pun intended).

No Dave, I am not going to anathematize a brother in Christ for believing wrongly on the issue of baptism or the Lord’s Supper. I will certainly disagree with him, and point out his error.

Maybe we’re not that far apart after all, then. But you miss the fact that I was asking for James White’s answer as to what the Apostles believed on my 18 points. The original context of my challenge was for James to define his own terms. His reluctance (and everyones’) is heartening to me at least to the extent that Protestants are squeamish about their own disunity, chaos, and relativism, as evidenced by the fear of dealing with it straight-on in answering a friendly Catholic critic. One tries to avoid dilemmas that might possibly be fatal to one’s position. Understandable. But I will not cease my probing, especially as long as you guys accuse or misunderstand my Church. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

It occurs to me that it is exceedingly strange for Protestants to relegate the Eucharist to relativism and relative insignificance, when our Lord (yes, ours, despite John MacArthur’s insistence that I worship a different one) made it a point of division Himself. John 6:66 tells us of “many of his disciples” forsaking Him. Now, if the Eucharist were just minutiae on the grand scale of matters theological, why didn’t Jesus beg and plead with these people to stay?

If your view is correct, it seems reasonable that Jesus should then have said, “Hey, don’t go: this isn’t a matter which should divide us – we agree that I am God. Who cares about what happens in the central act of Christian worship!” And we know also that Jesus said “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you” (Jn 6:53). But that’s “secondary,” “non-essential”? I’m sorry, but I can’t give my assent to such an incoherent and unbiblical viewpoint. Call me obtuse if you like.

And of course, Scripture intimately relates baptism with both repentance and salvation (for the latter, see e.g., Acts 2:38, 1 Pet 3:21, Mk 16:16, Rom 6:3-4, Acts 22:16, 1 Cor 6:11, Titus 3:5). But no matter, “us Protestants value a false, pick-and-choose unity rather than biblical truth.” Or so it seems to this observer, one who has lived a committed Christian life in both worlds. Now I will give you a multiple choice test. Please mark an “x” in the appropriate boxes (Protestants can have more than one right answer, Catholics only one):

YOU…..BIBLE …..APOSTLES…….CHURCH HISTORY
Belief in the Real Presence
Belief in the Eucharist
Belief in infant, regenerative baptism

Now, for your homework tonight, I’m asking you to explain why (if you differ from either the Bible, the Apostles, or the vast majority of Christians for 2000 years), your belief diverges from that of the others. In 500 words or less. Thank you. Protestants will be graded on a scale, so that most of them will get an “A” no matter what their answers are . . .

NOTE: I want all of you Protestants out there to take this test, not just Eric. You’ve ignored my questions long enough, and it is getting downright rude! [none answered]

But love covers over a multitude of sins, it does not quickly condemn (contra the historic practice of the Roman church).
*

What do you call Lutherans or Calvinists drowning and torturing Anabaptists – a quibble among family? How do you view the multitude of capital offenses for heresy in Protestant countries in the 16th and 17th centuries (is that “coercion”?). What about the thousands of “witches” who were put to death by Protestants (the Spanish Inquisition having condemned witch hunts as mass delusion)? Need I offer any more examples? But the wicked Catholic Church and its anathemas . . . How do we regard Protestants now (however one regards our views in days past when men still cared enough for religion to fight over it)? And how do many of you regard us (e.g., James White and Phillip Johnson, and you)? A bit hypocritical of you, wouldn’t you say, Eric? You ought to spread your moral outrage around a little more – shall we say indiscriminately.

Gee, I wonder if the Catholic “old man” has its share of these? Let’s see, at one time Catholics were killing and condemning to hell all Protestants who opposed Rome’s authority, denying them salvation. Now, suddenly, we are “means of salvation.”
*

Is this not a fine example of bigoted, foaming-at-the-mouth anti-Catholicism? “killing . . . all Protestants who opposed . . .”? We don’t condemn anybody to hell, not even Luther. This is not what “anathema” means, any more than it was when Paul used it. The Catholic Church doesn’t claim the authority to sentence people to hell. Last time I checked, that was God’s sole prerogative.

Who has compromised doctrine? Not I.
*

Good, then please give me your list of my 18 points, since you’re a good, “uncompromised” Protestant. That will be a wonderful start for the man on the street to ascertain apostolic and Christian truth. Real progress . . .

But if your suggestion is that I join the Catholic church for the sake of unity
*

We’re working on that. Rome wasn’t built in a day. :-)

– then, indeed, I would be compromising doctrine.
*

Certainly no more than you and yours are now! It’ll be a giant step up!

There certainly is virtue in unity of belief.
*

Now that is a true statement, provided the beliefs are true, of course.

But what you don’t seem to be grasping here is that it is no virtue to hold to uncompromised unity of belief if that belief is in error!
*

I agree 100%. Thus the question boils down to (as always): is what the Catholic Church teaches true or false? (and the same for Protestantism). But you (and James White) try to caricature my position as calling for a blind, absolute, clone-like unity (hence the Jehovah’s Witnesses comparison). Of course not, as this is clearly lunacy. My whole point in critiquing Protestant disunity is that that is clearly, unarguably against the biblical injunctions to be unified, of “one mind,” etc. Try as you may, neither you nor any Protestant can overcome the strength and validity of this objection to your position. That’s why I asked someone “what would convince you that your view is wrong: 240,000 sects?” (rather than 24,000). What does it take? How absurd and chaotic must things become before you start to question your first principles?
As the old pop song goes, “There, I’ve said it again.”

Anonymous Protestant on the List: 6 June 1996
*

Or is there a consistent double standard being played here? It seems as long as there is disagreement among Protestants, then sola Scriptura is a failure, but if there is disagreement among Catholics, there are only dissenters. The same standard you apply against the Protestant is even more so applied to you…with a 4×4. Sorry Dave, I can only see your argument as valid as long as it does not apply to you. If it is true, then your own argument condemns you.
*

I respectfully disagree. This is one where we will have to just agree to disagree. You guys don’t think my “perspicuity” argument applies to you, and us Catholics return the favor when you say liberals in our ranks cast doubt on our general position on authority/Tradition, etc. So what can you do? I’ve seen nothing to cause me to change my mind on this particular point thus far.

You place an infallible interpreter to explain an infallible authority (whichever you believe-partim-partim or material – I can never tell from one post to the next) and still end up with differing interpretations over what the infallible interpreter meant.
*

I stated that if one had a Bible on a desert isle, and that’s all he had, sure, he could be saved. But I also said that some Church or authority will be ordinarily necessary, so that, in the final analysis it is a moot point. I believe that all Catholic doctrines can be found in Scripture, either explicitly or implicitly or indirectly. If that is material sufficiency, then I am in that camp. But if it means that somehow the Church and Tradition are thereby taken out of the picture as not intrinsically necessary to Christianity, then I must dissent, because I don’t see that in Scripture (I believe sola Scriptura is self-defeating, in other words). Catholics regard Scripture as central, but not exclusive, with regard to authority and Tradition. Thus, to critique sola Scriptura does not at all imply a lessening of respect for the Bible, as has been implied in this group and elsewhere.

All in all, personally I see this “partim-partim” debate as boring and irrelevant (that’s not to say that others can legitimately think differently). I think we need to determine what Tradition(s) were in fact believed by Christians through history, and whether these can be found to possess a scriptural basis, and I consider Church history as evidence of God’s hand, working to sustain and protect His Church (however that is defined) from error. I approach these things (i.e., the sola Scriptura/Tradition debate) from an historical and pragmatic perspective (and of course, biblically, as do we all), rather than more philosophically. I’m all for philosophy, but since the nature of authority is a very practical matter, I think it is better to stick to a pragmatic method in this case.

Karl Keating.
*

Ha ha ha. I meant Protestant figure, of course. In any event, we can determine what our Church teaches by looking in the Church’s official documents. That’s the point I was making.

Eric Svendsen: 26 June 1996
*

But, ironically, you have succinctly and, no doubt, inadvertently described the Roman system in your very last sentence. Admittedly then, the Roman system has just as much chaos as does Protestantism (but this theme is perhaps more appropriately covered further down the road).
*

Aaargghhhh! :-( (exercising much self-restraint). I merely make one mini-argument in reply: if this is true, how is it that people in this group assume without question that Catholics believe certain things: e.g. (just recently), a very high regard for apostolic Tradition, apostolic succession, the Immaculate Conception, Assumption, and Perpetual Virginity of Mary, infused justification, baptismal regeneration, an ex opere operato notion of sacramentalism, papal infallibility, papal supremacy, etc.? On the other hand, there is no identifiable Protestant “position” other than C.S. Lewis’s “Mere Christianity,” which takes in Catholic and Orthodox theology anyhow, and so is not even distinctively Protestant. About all that “orthodox” evangelical Protestants agree on is sola Scriptura and an agreement that Catholicism must be wrong (and even a strict sola Scriptura view is questionable among Anglicans and many Lutherans).

They were in conflict with what mom actually said, in spite of the leprechaun in big brothers pocket that interpreted mom’s words otherwise.
*

According to which tradition: the Lutheran, Episcopalian, Methodist, Presbyterian, Reformed, Anabaptist, Church of Christ, independent pentecostal, non-denom, Baptist, Church of God, Mennonite, Quaker, United Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ, Assembly of God, Copelandites, self-described “Bible Christian,” or some other group of your choice, from among the multiple thousands, or simply your own “biblical” view?

If Paul teaches it directly from his mouth then, yes, that teaching is authoritative. If Paul verifies someone else who also teaches the same thing then, yes, that teaching is authoritative. But this is not to say that the oral tradition of that message is authoritative.
*

Do you positively assert that such a scenario is a priori impossible? If not, what would constitute adequate proof for you?

I teach communication skills to corporations for a living. One of the exercises I love to do to illustrate the ineffectiveness of a message that has gone through many hands is this: I whisper a sentence to one of the participants in the seminar, and then have that person whisper the same message to the person next to him, and that person in turn whispers the same message to the next person, and so on until the message has made its way around the room (approx. 30 people). Then I have the last person to receive the message stand and recite it – invariably to the roaring laughter of the rest of the class who cannot believe how much the sentence has changed in the process! (try it sometime). The simple fact is, we will botch up the message every time. That, my friends, is why God chose to commit the essential teachings to writing in the first place.

Yes, I’ve heard this. But using it to shore up sola Scriptura is a classic example of the fallacy behind Protestant presuppositional objections to Tradition: they assume that (Catholic) Tradition is merely human, and therefore subject to all the foibles of that weak vessel, whereas we assert that it is guided by the Holy Spirit and hand of God, in order to preserve it from error (by means of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church).

You assert that God could produce an infallible Bible by means of fallible, sinful (mostly Jewish) men (such as David, Matthew, Peter & Paul), and confirmed in its parameters also by fallible, sinful (Jewish and Catholic) men, and translated by fallible, sinful (mostly Catholic) men, and preserved for 1500 years before Protestantism was born by fallible, sinful (mostly Catholic and therefore apostate, according to James White) men, too. We contend that God can and does likewise create and sustain an infallible Church and Tradition, which is not a whit less credible or plausible.

As I’ve stated many times, we are discussing Christianity (which requires faith and a belief in the supernatural, God’s Providence, etc.), not epistemological philosophy. Ours is a faith position, but no more than yours (I would say less so). James argues like an atheist when he tries to pretend that our view is largely irrational blind “faith in Rome,” whereas Protestantism is altogether scriptural, reasonable, and not requiring faith in any institution outside one’s own radically individualistic, subjective, existential “certainty” (perhaps also, in his case, Calvin).

One must examine premises, and their relative merits. That’s why I like to dwell on the foundations of belief-systems, knowing that if they are found weak and crumbling, the superstructure resting upon them will necessarily collapse. The two pillars of Protestantism are sola Scriptura and sola fide. Like Samson, I pushed the two pillars down, and the house of Protestantism collapsed upon my head, killing me as a Protestant, but luckily, a coherent Christian alternative existed, so I was resurrected. :-)

***

Photo credit: Eric Svendsen, from the YouTube presentation, “The Covenant According to Rome” (10-30-14).

Summary: Mini-debate with prominent anti-Catholic polemicist Eric Svendsen, about the supposedly “perspicuous” (clear) apostolic message that Protestants can’t enumerate.

“Ecclesialism” vs. Sola Scriptura (vs. “The Other Paul”)

Last updated on: March 25, 2024 at 11:07 am By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

“The Other Paul” is an Australian Anglican in his 20s. He runs a ministry with the same name (see his YouTube channel and website). Paul’s particular areas of interest are “biblical exegesis and the first few centuries of early Church history,” but he also addresses “just about any other topic pertaining to Scripture or history.” He also frequently engages in ecumenical dialogue and debate with other Christian traditions, especially Catholics and Orthodox, and is working towards becoming an Anglican clergyman.

I use RSV for Bible verses unless otherwise indicated. Paul’s words will be in blue.

*****

“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you’ve received benefit from this or any of my 4,500+ articles, please follow this blog by signing up (email address) on the sidebar to the right, above the icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. Please also consider following me on Twitter / X and purchasing one or more of my 55 books. All of this helps me get more exposure and concretely supports my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!

*****

I am responding to the first portion of Paul’s video, “Ecclesialism – A Critique” (7-14-22).

3:21 With ecclesialism the definition is Scripture, sacred tradition, and the magisterium of the Church . . . [as] the sole infallible rules of faith.

This is correct. We like to call this the “three-legged-stool” concept of the rule of faith, and we submit that this is the view that the Bible teaches. In other words, in following it, we are being quite “biblical.”

3:47 The aim of it is that you can apply any argument of sola Scriptura to ecclesialism in order to see if the one making the argument for ecclesialism is actually being consistent.

Sounds fun! I’m game. Protestants need to get all the help they can get in defending the unbiblical tradition of men known as sola Scriptura, so if Paul has a new approach, more power to him, but I’m pretty sure that it’ll fail, alongside all of the other many failed and futile attempts to bolster up a falsehood. We’ll see! Dialogue and debate are what demonstrate if a position can hold up under scrutiny and close (or “cross-“) examination.

By the way, I call folks by the name that they wish to be known by, just as we do with personal names. The larger term is “Protestant” or one of its sub-groups (which for Paul is Anglicanism). So I call him by his own chosen name. “Romanist” or “papist” is not what any Catholic I know of wishes to be called, or has ever called themselves (other than in a sarcastic manner). We call ourselves “Catholics.” “Roman Catholicism” is tolerable (that’s a separate issue which can be discussed), but the Catholic Church is not only Roman. It also includes Eastern Catholics. What would they be called by someone like Paul? “Easternists”?

4:41 The point of it is simply to say, “look, you have not thought through your objection because it applies to you as well, so now that we have demonstrated that it does apply to your system, given how devoted you are to your system, maybe you will be compelled to exercise some more intellectual humility and charity in analyzing the argument before you apply it to another system.” So that’s the whole point of it: to basically force some introspection on critics from Rome and the East.

I’m willing to listen to any argument. This sounds interesting. If an argument overcomes my own, I grant its superiority, forfeit the argument, and change my mind (as I did in 1990, moving from Arminian evangelicalism to Catholicism). But if I determine that it fails in critiquing my view and establishing itself as superior, then I show why it does (here’s where apologetics comes in), and urge followers of it to adopt the Catholic view, until a better one is proven. And I do all that through use of the Bible, reason, and (if applicable) Church history.

As for “intellectual humility and charity,” well, that works both ways. Protestants have no monopoly on those characteristics. But it’s always charitable to show someone the error of their ways, in cases where they are in fact, in error. Falsehood never did anyone any good. So to persuade someone that they have been sold a bill of goods, or have false premises, leading to false conclusions, is always an act of charity and love. The person will be better off after realizing they have been in error, and having been shown a better way.

By the same token, if I am wrong and am shown that through reason and Scripture and historical argumentation, and have no refutation to offer, then I will change my mind (because I always want to follow truth, to the best of my abilities, with the illumination of God’s grace), as I did in 1990, and in 1977, when I went from practical atheist / occultic practitioner, to evangelical Christian. I’ve also changed my mind on many other social, moral, and political issues through the years. My most recent major change of mind was on the death penalty (in Dec. 2017): I’m now opposed to it.

5:21 So many people accept the same scriptures and yet they disagree on all manner of important things regarding Scripture.

Very true. It’s a shame.

7:15 This is a new argument. I do believe I’m genuinely breaking some new ground in this issue

We’ll see. I am answering as I read, as I always do with this sort of thing, and at this point I think I know the line of argument he will attempt to make. If I’m correct, I have already answered it many times, over some 28 years.

15:49 The disunity argument [is that] people who accept sola Scriptura disagree, therefore Scripture alone is insufficient as the sole infallible rule of faith.

It’s only one problem of many (I wrote a book called, 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura), but we don’t even have to frame this objection in that way. We can simply say, “the Protestant system by its very nature produces hundreds of competing sects. There is no such thing as denominationalism in the Bible; nor is there an acceptance of the hundreds of falsehoods necessarily present in Protestantism (contrary to the biblical notion of ‘one truth’), based on the law of contradiction.” It’s the denominationalism that is the unbiblical scandal; however it came about. Again, falsehood never helped anyone. It is massively present in Protestantism (wherever one may locate it), by virtue of the laws of contradictions and of logic. This is not a good thing. And it’s not a biblical thing. See my latest article on the topic.

16:45 you can point to any number of sedevacantists and the anti-pope sects in Roman Catholicism.

It’s clear to one and all that Catholicism is a system that has a pope and that he is the leader of the Church, who should be granted extraordinary reverence as such. That is the official teaching of the Catholic Church. The sedevacantists and the pope-bashers, therefore, are plainly not in line with the teachings of their own professed Church. They have rejected it, which is possible for anyone in any group: to be dissidents or heterodox (rebels or radicals), as defined by their own professed tradition.

With Protestantism it’s entirely different. Contradictions and differences of opinion are institutionalized. A Zwinglian who denies the Real Presence in the Eucharist is neither dissenting against his own Protestant sub-tradition, nor against Protestantism-at-large. He or she is allowed — indeed, encouraged! — to have this opinion, and it’s perfectly fine! That’s what they find in the Bible. But Lutherans or High Church Anglicans, who believe in the Real Presence, are perfectly in accord with Protestant principles, too. That’s what they find in the Bible. This is how the very core principles of Protestantism lead to ecclesial chaos and theological relativism.

Someone is necessarily wrong here: either the Zwinglian or the Lutherans + Anglicans. Either one is wrong or both are, but they can’t both be right, because the views can’t be harmonized. This is the fundamental difference. Everyone knows that the extremists on the far left and far right of the Catholic Church (i.e., individual Catholics) are out-of-sync with their own Church, and everyone knows what the Catholic Church teaches (a pope, who is to be reverenced). It’s not a one-to-one straight comparison.

18:44 So now since that is a comparable system to sola Scriptura, we can therefore see that there are numerous groups that accept ecclesialism as a system and yet they disagree on a lot, and therefore ecclesialism by the same token of the argument against unity, against sola Scriptura . . . is insufficient as a rule of faith.

It’s not at all. There is no equivalence, I I just showed. There is an essential difference. We can only go by what any given Christian group “officially” teaches: in the “books.” We can’t go by every wacko extremist who was once part of a group and left it; if not formally, then in spirit. And, sure enough, I did know where Paul was going with this. I have exposed its fallacies since at least 1996:

Dissident Catholics: Disproof of Catholic Doctrinal Unity? [6-3-96]

Have Heterodox Catholics Overthrown Official Doctrine? (vs. Eric Svendsen, James White, Phillip Johnson, & Andrew Webb) [6-3-96]

Dialogue on the Logic of Catholic Infallible Authority [6-4-96]

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

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

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

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

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

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

St. Paul: Orthodox Catholic or Theological Pluralist? [12-28-18]

Catholicism, Protestantism, and Theological Liberalism [Facebook, 7-28-22]

So, nothing new under the sun; but E for effort!

31:30 In their own paradigms the scale of the differences between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, even if they’re less in number, are orders of magnitude more serious because they involve anathema; they involve damnation, whereas even most very serious disagreements between mainstream Protestant dominations they don’t. [The] vast majority of us don’t consider each other to be damned for differences of opinion.

First of all, we don’t consider the Orthodox “damned”. We say that they possess seven valid sacraments; therefore, that they are brothers and sisters in Christ; part of the Body of Christ. That’s as far from “damned” as is imaginable. Protestants are also our brothers in Christ and in the Body of Christ, by virtue of a valid sacrament of baptism. The Council of Trent taught that. Some Orthodox (they have 17 competing jurisdictions) deny that we have valid sacraments or even grace, and some don’t. So they are a mixed bag.

Secondly, an anathema is not the same thing as being damned. See:

Anathemas of Trent & Excommunication: An Explanation [5-20-03, incorporating portions from 1996 and 1998; abridged on 7-30-18]

Only Catholics Issue Anathemas Against Dissenters? (vs. James White) [3-12-04]

Do Catholics Excommunicate People to Hell? [2007]

Bible on Authority to Anathematize & Excommunicate [2009]

Did Trent Anathematize All Protestants? + Dialogue on the Definition of “Christian” (Are Catholics Included?) [6-5-10]

Catholicism & Non-Catholic Salvation (Vs. Gavin Ortlund) + How Early Protestants Widely Damned Other Protestants Who Held Different Theological Views [2-9-24]

Thirdly, obviously, Protestants generally don’t anathematize other Protestants because they couldn’t care less that they disagree. It’s a matter of indifference among Protestants to disagree (therefore sanction falsehood) on a host of issues. They can’t even come to agreement on whether abortion is murder and whether marriage is between a man and a woman. Unless Paul’s church is one of the Anglican break-off groups, it accepts both things. Abortion is fine and dandy; so is active homosexual sex. So says official Anglicanism (the largest and longest-lasting version of it), supposedly in the name of Christianity and the Bible.

The video at this point became so rambling and incoherent that I couldn’t make out what he was arguing, and after about fifteen minutes of trying to, I gave up. I find it to be pretty much true across the board, that video presentations are far less coherent, sensible, and documented than written material. Form and structure are badly needed.

***

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

***

Photo credit: PIRO4D (8-1-16) [Pixabay / Pixabay Content License]

Summary: Anglican “The Other Paul” claims that Catholics are as divided as Protestants. I show how the principles are entirely different, & that Protestantism institutionalizes error.

Immaculate Conception & Luke 1:28 (vs. “The Other Paul”)

Last updated on: March 24, 2024 at 10:40 pm By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

I use RSV for Bible verses unless otherwise indicated. Paul’s words will be in blue.

*****

I am responding to Paul’s video, “Luke 1:28 & The Immaculate Conception – Papist Prooftexts” (12-22-20).

Paul is apparently responding to an article entitled, “The Meaning of Kecharitomene: Full of Grace (Luke 1:28)” by “pfairban”; posted on the Catholic-Convert.com discussion board (my good friend Steve Ray’s old forum). I’ve dealt with this topic in depth several times as well.

1:23 Luke 1:28 . . . [is] translated in the Douay-Rheims and other Catholic versions as “hail full of grace” or gratia plena in the Latin Vulgate.

This is (possibly) an insinuation of implied Catholic translation bias. Whether that is the case or not, not all Catholic versions have “full of grace” at Luke 1:20. The New American Bible (revised) doesn’t, and it’s the most widely used Catholic translation. Nor does the Jerusalem Bible, nor Kleist & Lilly. And here are eleven non-Catholic English translations (well, Wycliffe was Catholic by affiliation, but in many ways a forerunner of Protestantism) that do include it, or some wording with “grace”:

Amplified Bible (Classic Edition, 1954): Hail, O favored one [endued with grace]!

Jubilee Bible 2000: Hail, thou that art much graced

New Matthew Bible (2016): Hail, thou full of grace!

Wycliffe Bible (2001): Hail, full of grace

Tyndale Bible (1526): Hayle full of grace

Coverdale Bible (1535): Hayle thou full of grace

Berean Literal Bible: Greetings, you favored with grace!

Literal Emphasis Translation: Greetings, you favored with grace!

Aramaic Bible in Plain English: Peace to you, full of grace

Lamsa Bible: Peace be to you, O full of grace

Wycliffe Bible (1395): Heil, ful of grace

Granted, this is not the consensus translation, but it is a permissible translation, and I think the charge of “bias” is unwarranted, especially given what Baptist Greek scholar A. T. Roberts on wrote about it:

“Highly favoured” (kecharitomene). Perfect passive participle of charitoo and means endowed with grace (charis), enriched with grace as in Ephesians. 1:6, . . . The Vulgate gratiae plena “is right, if it means ‘full of grace which thou hast received’; wrong, if it means ‘full of grace which thou hast to bestow‘” (Plummer). (Word Pictures in the New Testament, Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930, 6 volumes, Vol. II, 13)

Likewise, Greek scholar Marvin Vincent noted that the literal meaning of kecharitomene is “endued with grace” (Word Studies in the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1946, four volumes, from 1887 edition [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons], Vol. I, 259). Well-known Protestant linguist W. E. Vine also concurs, and defines it as “to endue with Divine favour or grace” (An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Co., four volumes-in-one edition, 1940, Vol. II, 171). Vine also notes that charis can mean “a state of grace, e.g., Rom. 5:2; 1 Pet. 5:12; 2 Pet. 3:18” (Ibid., 170).

Even a severe critic of Catholicism like James White can’t avoid the fact that kecharitomene (however translated) cannot be divorced from the notion of grace, and stated that the term referred to “divine favor, that is, God’s grace” (The Roman Catholic Controversy, Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1996, 201). The question, then, seems to me to be, “why don’t more translations have full of grace or endued with grace?” Maybe because it sounds too Catholic? In other words, bias (if we want to go that route in discussing this) can work the other way around, too.

At 6:41 Paul makes a passing reference to “in anticipation of a Catholic apologist using their dictionary against us . . .” As anyone can see, I have cited three very prominent Protestant biblical linguists: three standard sources, as well as one of the leading critics of Catholicism today, James White, to show that the receiving of grace is the central theme in play in Luke 1:28, as well as ten non-Catholic Bible versions. I rarely cite Catholic sources when I am dialoguing with Protestants. I cite Scripture and their scholars.

7:30 I want to give you the exact references that you yourselves can follow up, so you too can actually be well-learned in these topics and not just rely on me as a secondary source.

I resonate with that approach, which is why I just used it.

8:07 I don’t want people just to follow me; I want people to learn how to do the stuff themselves. That’s my main purpose that’s why I’m doing all this.

This is an excellent apologetics method. I try to follow it myself, too. Whatever I’m arguing is backed up by Scripture, the Church fathers, or Christian scholars (usually Protestant).

At 10:31 Paul brings up the issue of Ephesians 1:6, which reads: “to the praise of his glorious grace which he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.” Anti-Catholic Protestant apologist Eric Svendsen wrote about the passage:

. . . charitoo . . . occurs in Eph. 1:6 where it is applied to all believers . . . Are we to conclude on this basis that all believers are without original sin? (Who is My Mother?, Amityville, New York: Calvary Press, 2001, 129)

Svendsen thinks this defeats the Catholic exegesis at Luke 1:28, but the variant of charitoo (grace) here is different (echaritosen). According to Marvin Vincent, the meaning is:

. . . not “endued us with grace,” nor “made us worthy of love,” but, as “grace – which he freely bestowed.” (Ibid., Vol. III, 365)

Vincent thus indicates different meanings for the word grace in Luke 1:28 and Ephesians 1:6. He holds to “endued with grace” as the meaning in Luke 1:28, so he expressly contrasts the meaning here with that passage. A.T. Robertson also defines the word in the same fashion, as “he freely bestowed” (Ibid., Vol. IV, 518). As for the grace bestowed here on all believers being parallel to the fullness of grace bestowed upon the Blessed Virgin Mary, this simply cannot logically be the case, once proper exegesis is undertaken. Apart from the different meanings of the specific word used, as shown, grace is possessed in different measure by different believers, as seen elsewhere in Scripture:

Acts 4:33 And with great power the apostles gave their Testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all.

Romans 5:20 Law came in, to increase the trespass; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,

Romans 6:1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?

Romans 12:3 For by the grace given to me I bid every one among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith which God has assigned him.

Ephesians 4:7 But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift.

James 4:6 But he gives more grace; therefore it says, “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.” (1 Pet 5:5 also cites this saying)

1 Peter 1:2 . . . May grace and peace be multiplied to you.

1 Peter 4:10 As each has received a gift, employ it for one another, as good stewards of God’s varied grace.

2 Peter 1:2 May grace and peace be multiplied to you . . .

2 Peter 3:18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

The “freely bestowed” grace of Ephesians 1:6, then, cannot possibly be considered the equivalent of that “fullness of grace” applied to Mary in Luke 1:28 because it refers to a huge group of people, with different gifts and various levels of grace bestowed, as the verses just cited show. Svendsen’s argument is as fallacious as the following analogy:

Suppose a group of Christian baseball players – some of the greatest and the least talented alike – prayed to God before a game:

“He destined us in love to be his ballplayers through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious gift of athletic ability and talents which he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.”

Obviously, God granted the talents and abilities of each ballplayer, in the sense of being Creator and source of all good things. But are these talents given in equal measure? Of course not (see especially Eph 4:7). Likewise, grace is given in different measure to believers. Therefore, Svendsen’s argument that Ephesians 1:6 is a direct parallel to Luke 1:28 collapses. The mass of Christian believers as a whole possess neither the same degree of grace nor of sanctity, and everyone knows this, from experience and revelation alike.

But Mary (as an individual person) was addressed in an extraordinary fashion by a title that, biblically, means the one so addressed is particularly exemplified by the characteristics of the title. Mary was “full of grace”; kecharitomene here takes on the significance of a noun. No attempt to downplay or diminish the significance of this will succeed. The meaning is all too clear. Svendsen points out that Luke 1:28 uses the perfect tense, whereas Ephesians 1:6 does not, and that Catholics might use this argument to bolster their case (since that indicates a difference between the two passages). But, he writes:

[T]his does not help their case since the perfect tense speaks only of the current state of the subject without reference to how long the subject has been in that state, or will be in that state. (Svendsen, ibid., 129)

11:17 kecharitomene means having been or have already been graced

Svendsen tries to show by cross-referencing and Greek grammar that Luke 1:28 is neither unique nor a support for Mary’s sinlessness and by extension, the Immaculate Conception. But the perfect stem of a Greek verb, denotes, according to Friedrich Blass and Albert DeBrunner, “continuance of a completed action” (Greek Grammar of the New Testament [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961], 66; my italics). Mary, therefore, continues afterward to be full of the grace she possessed at the time of the Annunciation. That cannot, of course, be said of all believers in Ephesians 1:6 in the same sense as in Luke 1:28, because of differences of levels of grace, as shown earlier.

23:08 He’s trying to use just the mere word and grammar . . . in the passage as proof that Mary was therefore purified of all original sin at her own conception.

Original sin is too technical of a concept for someone to believe that it is directly indicated in Luke 1:28. However, if indeed Mary was cleansed of all sin at her conception (as I will contend shortly, from the Bible), then original sin could arguably be part of that. being a species of sin, after all.

23:30 Luke 1:28 is . . . just as compatible with any Protestant understanding of that passage . . . Mary having been blessed or is blessed in this passage could simply refer to the fact that she was elected by God to carry the Savior.

It has a much more specific meaning, as I will shortly demonstrate.

23:57 [It] does not require us to add on to that the idea of sinlessness at her own conception . . . concepts which are totally foreign to this entire passage. You can’t get it from anywhere in there.

To the contrary, one can construct a strong biblical argument from analogy, for Mary’s sinlessness. For St. Paul, grace (charis) is the antithesis and “conqueror” of sin:

Romans 6:14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace. (cf. Rom 5:17, 20-21; 2 Cor 1:12; 2 Tim 1:9)

We are saved by grace, and grace alone:

Ephesians 2:8-10 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God – not because of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. (cf. Acts 15:11; Rom 3:24; 11:5; Eph 2:5; Titus 2:11; 3:7; 1 Pet 1:10)

Thus, the biblical argument outlined above proceeds as follows:

1. Grace saves us.

2. Grace gives us the power to be holy and righteous and without sin.

Therefore, for a person to be full of grace is both to be saved and to be completely, exceptionally holy. It’s a “zero-sum game”: the more grace one has, the less sin (remember the Bible passages above regarding degrees of sin). One might look at grace as water, and sin as the air in an empty glass (us). When you pour in the water (grace), the sin (air) is displaced. A full glass of water, therefore, contains no air (see also, similar zero-sum game concepts in 1 John 1:7, 9; 3:6, 9; 5:18). To be full of grace is to be devoid of sin. Thus we might re-apply the above two propositions:

1. To be full of the grace that saves is surely to be saved.

2. To be full of the grace that gives us the power to be holy, righteous, and without sin is to be fully without sin, by that same grace.

A deductive, biblical argument for the Immaculate Conception, with premises derived directly from Scripture, might look like this:

1. The Bible teaches that we are saved by God’s grace.

2. To be “full of” God’s grace, then, is to be saved.

3. Therefore, Mary is saved (Luke 1:28).

4. The Bible teaches that we need God’s grace to live a holy life, free from sin.

5. To be “full of” God’s grace is thus to be so holy that one is sinless.

6. Therefore, Mary is holy and sinless.

7. The essence of the Immaculate Conception is sinlessness.

8. Therefore, the Immaculate Conception, in its essence, can be directly deduced from Scripture.

The only way out of the logic would be to deny one of the two premises, and hold either that grace does not save or that grace is not that power which enables one to be sinless and holy. It is highly unlikely that any Protestant would take such a position, so the argument is a very strong one, because it proceeds upon their own premises.

In this fashion, the essence of the Immaculate Conception (i.e., the sinlessness of Mary) is proven from biblical principles and doctrines accepted by every orthodox Protestant. Certainly all mainstream Christians agree that grace is required both for salvation and to overcome sin. So in a sense my argument is only one of degree, deduced (almost by common sense, I would say) from notions that all Christians hold in common. It would be strange for a Protestant to underplay grace, when they are known for their constant emphasis on grace alone for salvation (an emphasis we fully agree with).

Protestants keep objecting that these Catholic beliefs are speculative; that is, that they go far beyond the biblical evidence. But once one delves deeply enough into Scripture and the meanings of the words of Scripture, they are not that speculative at all. Rather, it looks much more like Protestant theology has selectively trumpeted the power of grace when it applies to all the rest of us Christian believers, but downplayed it when it applies to the Blessed Virgin Mary. What we have, then, is not so much a matter of Catholics reading into Scripture, as Protestants, in effect, reading certain passages out of Scripture altogether (that is, ignoring their strong implications), because they do not fit in with their preconceived notions.

Paul talks primarily about the grammar of Luke 1:28 and kecharitomene, but he never touches upon any of these cross-references uses of grace and how it is in antithesis to sin, that I deal with.

What we have, then, I submit, is not so much a matter of Catholics reading into Scripture, as Protestants, in effect, reading certain passages out of Scripture altogether (that is, ignoring their strong implications), because they do not fit in with their preconceived notions (yet another instance of my general theme).

***

Photo credit: The Virgin and Child with an Angel (c. 1500), by Pietro Perugino (1448-1523) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: Anglican apologist, “The Other Paul” delves into deep grammatical waters regarding Luke 1:28. I make a counter-argument from the Bible & Protestant linguists.

Church Fathers & Images: NO Evidence? (Vs. Gavin Ortlund)

Last updated on: March 19, 2024 at 2:04 pm By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

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

In my opinion, he is currently the best and most influential popular-level Protestant apologist, who (especially) interacts with and offers thoughtful critiques of Catholic positions, from a refreshing ecumenical (not anti-Catholic), but nevertheless solidly Protestant perspective. That’s what I want to interact with, so I have 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 28th reply to his material.

*****

“Please Hit ‘Subscribe'”! If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,500+ articles, please follow this blog by signing up (w your email address) on the sidebar to the right, above where there is an icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. Please also consider following me on Twitter / X and purchasing one or more of my 55 books. All of this helps me get more exposure, and (however little!) more income for my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!

*****

I am responding to a video from Gavin in debate with Orthodox priest, Fr. Stephen de Young on images and the early Church’s view of them. A one-minute and eleven seconds portion of it was tweeted on Protestant Collin Brook’s page on March 16th. As I write this (10:16 PM ET on 3-17-24), the excerpt has 110,000 views, 260 likes, and 59 retweets. Baptist apologist James White retweeted it also on 3-16-24. Collin commented, “This part of [the] recent dialogue was savagery.” It will no longer be (if it ever was: meaning that Gavin supposedly mightily prevailed) after I get through with it.

All the evidence that we have favors the view that any sort of cultic use of images was resoundingly rejected by Christians for the first 500 years of Church history . . . it’s everybody; it’s everywhere. It’s resounding, it’s clear, it’s bright. . . . If there’s anything we know about the early Church, we know that’s not what was happening. That is as clear as anything about the early Church. Can you name any advocate of icon veneration before 500 AD, . . . [who] says anything remotely positive about it?

[NOTE: if you want to actually see the context and full discussion on icon veneration, rather than simply this supposedly “gotcha!” soundbite, the entire video is called “Sola Scriptura or Holy Tradition? w/ Dr. Gavin Ortlund And Fr. Stephen De Young” (3-15-24 on The Transfigured Life channel. The portion on icons runs from 1:06:12-1:34:35. So it was over 28 minutes in length, from which Collin Brooks chose 71 seconds (about 4.2% of the whole), pronouncing it “savagery.”]

Once again we observe the spectacle of a Protestant apologist making a universal negative claim. Gavin isn’t claiming that the evidence is scanty or a small minority etc. He implies that no one believed it for 500 years. So, to refute his insinuation, all one has to do is come up with one example. But we have many more than that:

Catholic Encyclopedia (“Veneration of Images”): That Christians from the very beginning adorned their catacombs with paintings of Christ, of the saints, of scenes from the Bible and allegorical groups is too obvious and too well known for it to be necessary to insist upon the fact. The catacombs are the cradle of all Christian art. Since their discovery in the sixteenth century — on 31 May, 1578, an accident revealed part of the catacomb in the Via Salaria — and the investigation of their contents that has gone on steadily ever since, we are able to reconstruct an exact idea of the paintings that adorned them. That the first Christians had any sort of prejudice against images, pictures, or statues is a myth (defended amongst others by Erasmus) that has been abundantly dispelled by all students of Christian archaeology. The idea that they must have feared the danger of idolatry among their new converts is disproved in the simplest way by the pictures even statues, that remain from the first centuries. . . . The Christian sarcophagi were ornamented with indifferent or symbolic designs — palms, peacocks, vines, with the chi-rho monogram (long before Constantine), with bas-reliefs of Christ as the Good Shepherd, or seated between figures of saints, and sometimes, as in the famous one of Julius Bassus with elaborate scenes from the New Testament. And the catacombs were covered with paintings. . . .

Scenes from the New Testament are very common too, the Nativity and arrival of the Wise Men, our Lord’s baptism, the miracle of the loaves and fishes, the marriage feast at Cana, Lazarus, and Christ teaching the Apostles. There are also purely typical figures, the woman praying with uplifted hands representing the Church, harts drinking from a fountain that springs from a chi-rho monogram, and sheep. And there are especially pictures of Christ as the Good Shepherd, as lawgiver, as a child in His mother’s arms, of His head alone in a circle, of our Lady alone, of St. Peter and St. Paul — pictures that are not scenes of historic events, but, like the statues in our modern churches, just memorials of Christ and His saints. . . .

In the catacombs there is little that can be described as sculpture; there are few statues for a very simple reason. Statues are much more difficult to make, and cost much more than wall-paintings. But there was no principle against them. Eusebius describes very ancient statues at Caesarea Philippi representing Christ and the woman He healed there (Church History VII.18; Matthew 9:20-2). The earliest sarcophagi had bas-reliefs. As soon as the Church came out of the catacombs, became richer, had no fear of persecution, the same people who had painted their caves began to make statues of the same subjects. The famous statue of the Good Shepherd in the Lateran Museum was made as early as the beginning of the third century, the statues of Hippolytus and of St. Peter date from the end of the same century. The principle was quite simple. The first Christians were accustomed to see statues of emperors, of pagan gods and heroes, as well as pagan wall-paintings. So they made paintings of their religion, and, as soon as they could afford them, statues of their Lord and of their heroes, without the remotest fear or suspicion of idolatry.

The idea that the Church of the first centuries was in any way prejudiced against pictures and statues is the most impossible fiction. After Constantine (306-37) there was of course an enormous development of every kind. Instead of burrowing catacombs Christians began to build splendid basilicas. They adorned them with costly mosaics, carving, and statues. But there was no new principle. The mosaics represented more artistically and richly the motives that had been painted on the walls of the old caves, the larger statues continue the tradition begun by carved sarcophagi and little lead and glass ornaments. From that time to the Iconoclast Persecution holy images are in possession all over the Christian world. St. Ambrose (d. 397) describes in a letter how St. Paul appeared to him one night, and he recognized him by the likeness to his pictures (Ep. ii, in P.L., XVII, 821). St. Augustine (d. 430) refers several times to pictures of our Lord and the saints in churches (e.g. “De cons. Evang.”, x in P.L., XXXIV, 1049; Reply to Faustus XXII.73); he says that some people even adore them (“De mor. eccl. cath.”, xxxiv, P.L., XXXII, 1342). St. Jerome (d. 420) also writes of pictures of the Apostles as well-known ornaments of churches (In Ionam, iv). St. Paulinus of Nola (d. 431) paid for mosaics representing Biblical scenes and saints in the churches of his city, and then wrote a poem describing them (P.L., LXI, 884). Gregory of Tours (d. 594) says that a Frankish lady, who built a church of St. Stephen, showed the artists who painted its walls how they should represent the saints out of a book (Hist. Franc., II, 17, P.L., LXXI, 215). In the East St. Basil (d. 379), preaching about St. Barlaam, calls upon painters to do the saint more honour by making pictures of him than he himself can do by words (“Or. in S. Barlaam”, in P.G., XXXI). St. Nilus in the fifth century blames a friend for wishing to decorate a church with profane ornaments, and exhorts him to replace these by scenes from Scripture (Epist. IV, 56). St. Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444) was so great a defender of icons that his opponents accused him of idolatry (for all this see Schwarzlose, “Der Bilderstreit” i, 3-15). . . .

Although representations of the Crucifixion do not occur till later, the cross, as the symbol of Christianity, dates from the very beginning. Justin Martyr (d. 165) describes it in a way that already implies its use as a symbol (Dialogue with Trypho 91). He says that the cross is providentially represented in every kind of natural object: the sails of a ship, a plough, tools, even the human body (Apol. I, 55). According to Tertullian (d. about 240), Christians were known as “worshippers of the cross” (Apol., xv). Both simple crosses and the chi-rho monogram are common ornaments of catacombs; combined with palm branches, lambs and other symbols they form an obvious symbol of Christ. After Constantine the cross, made splendid with gold and gems, was set up triumphantly as the standard of the conquering Faith. A late catacomb painting represents a cross richly jewelled and adorned with flowers. Constantine’s Labarum at the battle of the Milvian Bridge (312), and the story of the finding of the True Cross by St. Helen, gave a fresh impulse to its worship. It appears (without a figure) above the image of Christ in the apsidal mosaic of St. Pudentiana at Rome, in His nimbus constantly, in some prominent place on an altar or throne (as the symbol of Christ), in nearly all mosaics above the apse or in the chief place of the first basilicas (St. Paul at Rome, ibid., 183, St. Vitalis at Ravenna). In Galla Placidia’s chapel at Ravenna Christ (as the Good Shepherd with His sheep) holds a great cross in His left hand. The cross had a special place as an object of worship. It was the chief outward sign of the Faith, was treated with more reverence than any picture “worship of the cross” (staurolatreia) was a special thing distinct from image-worship, so that we find the milder Iconoclasts in after years making an exception for the cross, still treating it with reverence, while they destroyed pictures. A common argument of the imageworshippers to their opponents was that since the latter too worshipped the cross they were inconsistent in refusing to worship other images (see ICONOCLASM). . . .

The veneration of images

Distinct from the admission of images is the question of the way they are treated. What signs of reverence, if any, did the first Christians give to the images in their catacombs and churches? For the first period we have no information. There are so few references to images at all in the earliest Christian literature that we should hardly have suspected their ubiquitous presence were they not actually there in the catacombs as the most convincing argument. But these catacomb paintings tell us nothing about how they were treated. We may take it for granted, on the one hand, that the first Christians understood quite well that paintings may not have any share in the adoration due to God alone. Their monotheism, their insistence on the fact that they serve only one almighty unseen God, their horror of the idolatry of their neighbours, the torture and death that their martyrs suffered rather than lay a grain of incense before the statue of the emperor’s numen are enough to convince us that they were not setting up rows of idols of their own. On the other hand, the place of honour they give to their symbols and pictures, the care with which they decorate them argue that they treated representations of their most sacred beliefs with at least decent reverence. It is from this reverence that the whole tradition of venerating holy images gradually and naturally developed. After the time of Constantine it is still mainly by conjecture that we are able to deduce the way these images were treated. The etiquette of the Byzantine court gradually evolved elaborate forms of respect, not only for the person of Ceesar but even for his statues and symbols. Philostorgius (who was an Iconoclast long before the eighth century) says that in the fourth century the Christian Roman citizens in the East offered gifts, incense, and even prayers, to the statues of the emperor (Hist. eccl., II, 17). It would be natural that people who bowed to, kissed, incensed the imperial eagles and images of Caesar (with no suspicion of anything like idolatry), who paid elaborate reverence to an empty throne as his symbol, should give the same signs to the cross, the images of Christ, and the altar. So in the first Byzantine centuries there grew up traditions of respect that gradually became fixed, as does all ceremonial.

Hippolytus: And they make counterfeit images of Christ, alleging that these were in existence at the time (during which our Lord was on earth, and that they were fashioned) by Pilate. (The Refutation of All Heresies, 7.20)

Basil the Great: Worshipping as we do God of God, we both confess the distinction of the Persons, and at the same time abide by the Monarchy. We do not fritter away the theology in a divided plurality, because one Form, so to say, united in the invariableness of the Godhead, is beheld in God the Father, and in God the Only begotten. For the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son; since such as is the latter, such is the former, and such as is the former, such is the latter; and herein is the Unity. So that according to the distinction of Persons, both are one and one, and according to the community of Nature, one. How, then, if one and one, are there not two Gods? Because we speak of a king, and of the king’s image, and not of two kings. The majesty is not cloven in two, nor the glory divided. The sovereignty and authority over us is one, and so the doxology ascribed by us is not plural but one; because the honour paid to the image passes on to the prototype. Now what in the one case the image is by reason of imitation, that in the other case the Son is by nature; and as in works of art the likeness is dependent on the form, so in the case of the divine and uncompounded nature the union consists in the communion of the Godhead. (The Holy Spirit, ch. 18, sec. 45)

Methodius of Olympus (d. c. 311): The images of God’s angels, which are fashioned of gold, the principalities and powers, we make to His honour and glory. (From the Discourse on the Resurrection, Part 2)

John Chrysostom: And it became so frequent that this name [of St. Meletios] echoed around from every direction everywhere both in side streets and in the marketplace and in fields and on highways. But you didn’t experience so much just at the name, but even at the depiction of his body. At least, what you did with names, this you practiced, too, in the case of that man’s image. For truly, many carved that holy image on finger rings and on seals and on cups and on bedroom walls and all over the place so that one didn’t just hear that holy name, but also saw the depiction of his body all over the place and had a double consolation for his loss. (Homily in Praise of Saint Meletios)

Eusebius: For there stands upon an elevated stone, by the gates of her house, a brazen image of a woman kneeling, with her hands stretched out, as if she were praying. Opposite this is another upright image of a man, made of the same material, clothed decently in a double cloak, and extending his hand toward the woman. At his feet, beside the statue itself, is a certain strange plant, which climbs up to the hem of the brazen cloak, and is a remedy for all kinds of diseases. They say that this statue is an image of Jesus. It has remained to our day, so that we ourselves also saw it when we were staying in the city. Nor is it strange that those of the Gentiles who, of old, were benefited by our Savior, should have done such things, since we have learned also that the likenesses of his apostles Paul and Peter, and of Christ himself, are preserved in paintings, the ancients being accustomed, as it is likely, according to a habit of the Gentiles, to pay this kind of honor indiscriminately to those regarded by them as deliverers. (Church History, 7.18)

Theodoret: It is said that the man [St. Symeon] became so celebrated in the great city of Rome that at the entrance of all the workshops men have set up small representations of him, to provide thereby some protection and safety for themselves. (Life of St. Symeon the Stylite, 11)

Philip Schaff’s Summary: [T]he prejudices of the ante-Nicene period against images in painting or sculpture continued alive, through fear of approach to pagan idolatry, or of lowering Christianity into the province of sense. But generally the hostility was directed only against images of Christ; and from it, as Neander justly observes, we are by no means to infer the rejection of all representations of religious subjects; for images of Christ encounter objections peculiar to themselves. . . .

The prevalent spirit of the age already very decidedly favored this material representation as a powerful help to virtue and devotion, especially for the uneducated classes, whence the use of images, in fact, mainly proceeded. (History of the Christian Church, Vol. III: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity, New York: Scribner’s, 5th edition, 1910, reprinted by Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1974, 565, 566-567)

Now, I’d like to make a comparison between Catholic and Protestant patristic support. The whole point of Gavin’s claim in the video above is to make out that (paraphrasing) “here is this belief held by both Catholics and Orthodox that has absolutely no support from Church fathers in the first 500 years of the Church. How can that be?!” He assumes that this is a strong argument against us. In other words, we can say that there ought to be support in the fathers for any given theological belief that a Christian holds.

We agree with the previous sentence. I think I showed above that evidence for widespread use and veneration of images in the patristic era is not totally lacking. It’s surely and obviously less than that for many other doctrines, but it’s not nonexistent (and that was his claim, which is now decisively refuted), and there is also a line of argument — that is present but not developed in my defense — for why it is less prevalent.

Let’s assume for a moment — for the sake of argument — that it was totally absent, as Gavin claimed (“Can you name any advocate of icon veneration before 500 AD, . . . [who] says anything remotely positive about it?”). Even if that were actually true, the degree of patristic support for the Protestant is much, much less than it is for Catholicism. Veneration of images; even bowing before them, is also an explicit teaching of Holy Scripture, as I have massively demonstrated. See the section, “Veneration of Icons and Images (Including of God) / Statues / Holy Objects / Holy Days” on my Saints, Purgatory, & Penance web page.

But if we look at, for example, one of the two “pillars” of the “Protestant Reformation”: sola fide (faith alone), we find three well-known Protestant apologists and historians making summary statements about its utter lack of support among the Church fathers, and even up until the 16th century when Luther’s successor Philip Melanchthon pulled it out of a hat. First, I cite the late Protestant apologist Norman Geisler (who influenced my own apologetics outlook in many ways):

For Augustine, justification included both the beginnings of one’s righteousness before God and its subsequent perfection — the event and the process. What later became the Reformation concept of ‘sanctification’ then is effectively subsumed under the aegis of justification. Although he believed that God initiated the salvation process, it is incorrect to say that Augustine held to the concept of ‘forensic’ justification. This understanding of justification is a later development of the Reformation . . .

Before Luther, the standard Augustinian position on justification stressed intrinsic justification. Intrinsic justification argues that the believer is made righteous by God’s grace, as compared to extrinsic justification, by which a sinner is forensically declared righteous (at best, a subterranean strain in pre-Reformation Christendom). With Luther the situation changed dramatically . . .

. . . one can be saved without believing that imputed righteousness (or forensic justification) is an essential part of the true gospel. Otherwise, few people were saved between the time of the apostle Paul and the Reformation, since scarcely anyone taught imputed righteousness (or forensic justification) during that period! . . . . . (Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, with Ralph E. MacKenzie, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1995, 502, 85, 222; my italics and bolding)

The renowned Protestant scholar Alister McGrath makes virtually the same point:

Whereas Augustine taught that the sinner is made righteous in justification, Melanchthon taught that he is counted as righteous or pronounced to be righteous. For Augustine, ‘justifying righteousness’ is imparted; for Melanchthon, it is imputed in the sense of being declared or pronounced to be righteous. Melanchthon drew a sharp distinction between the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous, designating the former ‘justification’ and the latter ‘sanctification’ or ‘regeneration.’ For Augustine, these were simply different aspects of the same thing . . .

The importance of this development lies in the fact that it marks a complete break with the teaching of the church up to that point. From the time of Augustine onwards, justification had always been understood to refer to both the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous. . . .

The Council of Trent . . . reaffirmed the views of Augustine on the nature of justification . . . the concept of forensic justification actually represents a development in Luther’s thought . . . .

Trent maintained the medieval tradition, stretching back to Augustine, which saw justification as comprising both an event and a process . . . (Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 2nd edition, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1993, 108-109, 115; my italics and bolding)

And the great Protestant Church historian Philip Schaff concurred:

If any one expects to find in this period [100-325], or in any of the church fathers, Augustin himself not excepted, the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone, . . . he will be greatly disappointed . . . Paul’s doctrine of justification, except perhaps in Clement of Rome, who joins it with the doctrine of James, is left very much out of view, and awaits the age of the Reformation to be more thoroughly established and understood. (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 2, 588-589)

So two of the three are essentially saying that there is no support whatsoever for “faith alone” in the entire patristic period and indeed all the way up to even past Luther, to Melanchthon, when the novel innovation took place (Schaff’s statement addresses the period up to 325 AD). And this is — all agree — a central teaching, having to do with soteriology (the theology of salvation); how one is saved. If the alleged (but not actual) lack of patristic support for veneration of images is supposedly such a “victory” for Protestantism, why is not the actual lack of any patristic support for sola fide a strike against the Protestant worldview?

Goose and gander . . . I’ve done a lot less work on the soteriology of the Church fathers than I have about their rule of faith, but I plan on doing much more. For now, see what I have in the “Salvation / Justification / “Faith Alone” / Soteriology” section of my Fathers of the Church web page. Even so, I still have seventeen articles in that section, with many more to come. Stay tuned!

Moreover, I contend that interrelated notions of “faith alone” / extrinsic, imputed justification / the formal separation of justification and sanctification / denial of meritorious works are massively contradicted in the Bible as well, and aspects that are supported are those in which Catholics wholeheartedly agree with Protestants (initial monergistic justification, a denial of works-salvation or Pelagianism, sola gratia, etc.). See my debate with Brazilian Calvinist Francisco Tourinho on the topic, which is to be made into a book in Portugese, and is available for free on my blog: Justification: A Catholic Perspective (2023). See also scores of articles in the first (top) section of my Salvation, Justification, & “Faith Alone” web page.

The other self-described “pillar” of the Protestant Revolt is sola Scriptura. Protestants try very hard, but they have not, in my opinion (and I have studied this for many thousands of hours) established that any Church father actually held this viewpoint. I myself have documented how some 40 or so major Church fathers (yes, including the Protestant “hero” St. Augustine) in fact held views that expressly contradict sola Scriptura (see the “Bible / Tradition / Sola Scriptura / Perspicuity / Rule of Faith” section of my Fathers of the Church web page).

And if anyone wants to see how strong the alleged support for this novel doctrine is in Holy Scripture, well, I wrote an entire book demonstrating that there is none, entitled, 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura (2012). I also took on two men who are considered the best historical defenders of the false doctrine, in my book, Pillars of Sola Scriptura: Replies to Whitaker, Goode, & Biblical “Proofs” for “Bible Alone” (2012), and I’ve written more about this topic than anything else, among my 4,500+ articles. See sections III-V on my Bible, Tradition, Canon, & “Sola Scriptura” web page).

Thus, I strongly contend (and I can back it up) that both Protestant “pillars” have neither patristic nor biblical support. Perhaps this is why a very good Protestant apologist like Gavin Ortlund spends time making the now-falsified claim that there is no patristic evidence whatsoever for veneration of images, rather than trying to argue against the true and profound lack of same for the two “pillars” of the Protestant Reformation.

It’s a failed attempt, in other words, to “turn the tables” regarding the issue of patristic support (both sides claiming to have far more than the other). The famous statement of St. John Henry Cardinal Newman (that drives Protestants crazy) remains as true as ever: “to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.” I will do my best to, in effect, defend it by taking on specific instances of Protestants trying hard (E for effort and zeal!) but failing to show that his maxim is untrue.

Related Reading

Responding to Gavin Ortlund on Icon Veneration (Suan Sonna, 2023) [excellent, thorough 142-page rebuttal]

See Gavin’s brief response on my Facebook page.

***

Photo credit: sacred images on the walls of the 3rd-century Dura-Europos church in Syria [Summa Apologia]

Summary: Gavin Ortlund challenged: “Can you name any advocate of icon veneration before 500 AD?” I provide several examples from Church fathers and the catacombs.

Church Fathers & Sola Scriptura: Reply to James White Claims

Last updated on: March 16, 2024 at 9:39 am By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

Myths Regarding Cyprian, Augustine, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius

This is a reply to an old Dividing Line show from James White called, “The Early Church Fathers and Sola Scriptura” (12-11-98). Now that all these shows have written transcripts, I can interact with them, minus all the time-consuming tedium of searching and transcribing. Much more efficient . . . and tons of shows to pick from. White’s words will be in blue.

0:48 sola Scriptura, the idea that the scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the church . . .

Note this well. This is the standard Protestant definition. It follows logically from this statement that neither the Church nor ecumenical councils nor sacred tradition are, or can be infallible. Only one thing is infallible in Protestant belief: the Bible. Therefore, if a Church father claims that either the Church or ecumenical councils or sacred tradition is infallible, it follows inexorably that he cannot and does not adhere to sola Scriptura. Please keep that in mind as we proceed.

One more thing: simply noting that some father wrote about how the Bible is wonderful and inspired and good for theology and determining doctrine (which Catholics wholeheartedly agree with), etc. is not — repeat, NOT — enough to prove that a man believes in the rule of faith called sola Scriptura. But if I had a dime for every time I’ve observed Protestants indulge in this silly logical fallacy, I’d be richer than Elon Musk.

1:59 Well, if you are familiar with this area of discussion, maybe you’ve encountered some Roman Catholic apologetics’ writings, magazines like This Rock or Envoy Magazine or various and sundry books like Karl Keating’s Catholicism and Fundamentalism or Patrick Madrid’s Surprised by Truth [I had a chapter in that, recounting my conversion], books like that, you know that they like to cite the early fathers. Well, I like to cite the early fathers too.

Great! We’ll see what he comes up with, then. I guarantee — even before I see what he produces — that none of it will prove what he thinks it proves, because I’ve done more research on the rule of faith in the fathers than with any other topic I’ve looked into with regard to the fathers, and there is no proof at all — that I’ve ever seen — that any of them believed in sola Scriptura. It’s rather easy to prove this lack of belief in specific cases, and I will be doing that here.

2:23 Should be able to go toe -to -toe, quote-to -quote, with a Roman Catholic in regards to the beliefs of the early church? Well, the answer to that, I think, is no, if Protestantism, if my Reformed faith is something that was unknown and is in fact an innovation that only came about with Martin Luther, or the sharper folks would admit at least John Wycliffe and Jan Hus, or maybe even with people earlier than that. But if it’s an innovation, if it was not something that the early church believed, then I shouldn’t be able to go toe-to-toe, quote-to-quote, with a Roman Catholic. But the simple fact of the matter is we can.

He can try, but he cannot and will not succeed, as I will shortly prove. You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.

3:41 Just to give you an example, in the middle of the 3rd century, we have Cyprian, the Bishop of Carthage. . . . He wrote a letter to Pompey. He was specifically discussing issues in regards to the church, and he said:

Whence is this doctrine? Does it come from the authority of the Lord and of the gospel, or does it come from the commands and epistles of the apostles? For that those things must be done which are written, God testifies and commands when he says to Joshua, “The book of this law shall not depart of your mouth, that you may observe to do all the things which are written” [Josh 1:8]. If, therefore, it is either commanded in the gospel or contained in the epistles and the acts, then also this sacred doctrine must be observed.

I don’t know which translation this is from. I found the letter (White didn’t say which one it was). It’s his Epistle 73, section 2. I cite the Schaff versi0n, from the 38-volume set of the fathers. For some odd reason, White’s version has the word “doctrine” twice, where Schaff has “tradition.” Curious, huh? St. Cyprian holds that the Church is infallible and indefectible:

[T]he Church is thus divinely protected, and its unity and holiness is not constantly nor altogether corrupted by the obstinacy of perfidy and heretical wickedness. (Epistle 46: To Cornelius, 1)

[T]he Church does not depart from Christ; . . . (Epistle 68: To Florentius Pupianus, 8)

[T]he Church herself also is uncorrupted, . . . (Epistle 72: To Jubaianus, 11)

And he believed in an infallible, indefectible tradition, maintained by bishops:

[V]ery many of the bishops who are set over the churches of the Lord by divine condescension, throughout the whole world, maintain the plan of evangelical truth, and of the tradition of the Lord, and do not by human and novel institution depart from that which Christ our Master both prescribed and did; . . . if any one is still kept in this error, he may behold the light of truth, and return to the root and origin of the tradition of the Lord. (Epistle 62: To Caecilius, 1)

. . . God’s tradition . . . (Treatise I: On the Unity of the Church, 19 and Epistle 51: To Antonianus, 24)

. . . the divine tradition . . . (Epistle 41: To Cornelius, 1; Epistle 54: To Cornelius, 17; and Epistle 73: To Pompey, 11)

. . . the Lord’s tradition . . . (Epistle 62: To Caecilius, 17 and 19)

. . . the tradition of Jesus Christ the Lord and our God! (Epistle 73: To Pompey, 4)

. . . laying aside the errors of human dispute, we return with a sincere and religious faith to the evangelical authority and to the apostolic tradition, . . . (Epistle 72: To Jubaianus, 15)

Therefore, by the Protestant definition, he couldn’t possibly have held to sola Scriptura. Why couldn’t James White figure that out?

4:26 Notice then that Cyprian limits the scope of debate to that which is written, specifically to the scriptures themselves.

He does no such thing. To say, “x is an authority and it is in writing” is not the same thing as saying, “there is no other authority which is infallible like x is” or “there is no authority in Christianity that is not written.” What Cyprian wrote about Scripture is not proof that he held that it alone was infallible. Catholics agree with every word of what Cyprian said about the Bible in the citation White pulled up. There is no reason for us not to. He wasn’t asserting sola Scriptura. We need to know what he thought about authority outside of Scripture, and I just provided that. I considered Cyprian’s entire view, not just the portions where he writes about Holy Scripture, that might appear at first glance to assert a certain thing (out of wishful thinking), but in fact, actually do not do so at all.

At 4:54, White cites St. Augustine. Once again, he didn’t give the reference. I had to search it. It’s from Of the Good of Widowhood (2). He writes (and White quoted these portions):

what more can I teach you, than what we read in the Apostle? For holy Scripture sets a rule to our teaching, that we dare not be wise more than it behooves to be wise; . . . Be it not therefore for me to teach you any other thing, save to expound to you the words of the Teacher, . . .

White comments on this:

5:12 Now, obviously, when we hear such words as that, we recognize that specifically he is referring to the scriptures. And he says that the holy scripture fixes the rule for our doctrine. That’s extremely important because what is sola Scriptura? It says that the scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith. And here Augustine, referring to that very rule of faith, says that it is holy scripture that fixes the rule for our doctrine.

This passage doesn’t teach that “only holy Scripture sets a rule.” It teaches that “holy Scripture sets a rule.” The two are not identical. When will Protestant apologists ever grasp this? It’s not rocket science. It’s simple logic. Augustine didn’t say that the Bible was the “sole infallible rule.” That’s simply Protestant boilerplate rhetoric, from their playbook of slogans. The same Augustine also wrote:

My opinion therefore is, that wherever it is possible, all those things should be abolished without hesitation, which neither have warrant in Holy Scripture, nor are found to have been appointed by councils of bishops, nor are confirmed by the practice of the universal Church, . . . (Epistle 55 [19, 35] to Januarius)

Now all of a sudden, there is more than Scripture setting or fixing the rule of faith. He also mentions councils and Church tradition. Here are statements from St. Augustine, showing that he believed in an infallible and indefectible Church:

This same is the holy Church, the one Church, the true Church, the catholic Church, fighting against all heresies: fight, it can: be fought down, it cannot. . . . “The gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Sermon to Catechumens on the Creed, 14)

[T]hey introduced into their writings certain matters which are condemned at once by the catholic and apostolic rule of faith, and by sound doctrine. (Harmony of the Gospels, Bk. 1, ch. 1, 2)

It is plain, the faith admits it, the Catholic Church approves it, it is truth. (Sermons on the New Testament, 67, 6)

But those reasons which I have here given, I have either gathered from the authority of the church, according to the tradition of our forefathers, or from the testimony of the divine Scriptures, . . . No sober person will decide against reason, no Christian against the Scriptures, no peaceable person against the church. (On the Trinity, Bk 4, ch. 6, 10)

[T]hey admit the necessity of baptizing infants—finding themselves unable to contravene that authority of the universal Church, which has been unquestionably handed down by the Lord and His apostles . . . (On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins and on Infant Baptism, Bk. 1, 39 [XXVI] )

In the following passages, Augustine writes that infallible sacred tradition and ecumenical councils are also part of the rule of faith alongside the Bible:

As to those other things which we hold on the authority, not of Scripture, but of tradition, and which are observed throughout the whole world, it may be understood that they are held as approved and instituted either by the apostles themselves, or by plenary Councils, whose authority in the Church is most useful, . . . (Epistle 54 [1, 1]: to Januarius)

[H]e cannot quote a decisive passage on the subject from the Book of God; nor can he prove his opinion to be right by the unanimous voice of the universal Church . . .

[T]he question which you propose is not decided either by Scripture or by universal practice. (Epistle 54 to Januarius, 4, 5 and 5, 6)

. . . moved, not indeed by the authority of any plenary or even regionary Council, but by a mere epistolary correspondence, to think that they ought to adopt a custom which had no sanction from the ancient custom of the Church, and which was expressly forbidden by the most unanimous resolution of the Catholic world . . . (On Baptism, Bk. 3, 2, 2)

And this is the firm tradition of the universal Church, in respect of the baptism of infants . . . (On Baptism, Bk. 4, 23, 31)

[W]hat is held by the whole Church, . . . as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down by authority, . . . (On Baptism, Bk. 4, 24, 32)

Whence, however, was this derived, but from that primitive, as I suppose, and apostolic tradition, by which the Churches of Christ maintain it to be an inherent principle, that without baptism and partaking of the supper of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and everlasting life? So much also does Scripture testify, according to the words which we already quoted. (On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins and on Infant Bapt. Bk. 1, 34 [XXIV] )

The very sacraments indeed of the Church, which she administers with due ceremony, according to the authority of very ancient tradition . . . (On the Grace of Christ and on Original Sin, Bk. 2, 45)

And this custom, coming, I suppose, from tradition (like many other things which are held to have been handed down under their actual sanction, because they are preserved throughout the whole Church, though they are not found either in their letters, or in the Councils of their successors), . . . (On Baptism, Bk. 2, 7, 12)

For if none have baptism who entertain false views about God, it has been proved sufficiently, in my opinion, that this may happen even within the Church. “The apostles,” indeed, “gave no injunctions on the point;” but the custom, which is opposed to Cyprian, may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings. (On Baptism, Bk. 5, 23, 31)

Nor should we ourselves venture to assert anything of the kind, were we not supported by the unanimous authority of the whole Church, to which he himself [St. Cyprian] would unquestionably have yielded, if at that time the truth of this question [rebaptism] had been placed beyond dispute by the investigation and decree of a plenary Council. (On Baptism, Bk. 2, 4, 5)

[S]ubsequently that ancient custom was confirmed by the authority of a plenary Council . . . (On Baptism, Bk 4, 5, 8)

. . . sufficiently manifest to the pastors of the Catholic Church dispersed over the whole world, through whom the original custom was afterwards confirmed by the authority of a plenary Council . . . (On Baptism, Bk. 6, 1, 1)

And let any one, who is led by the past custom of the Church, and by the subsequent authority of a plenary Council, and by so many powerful proofs from holy Scripture, and by much evidence from Cyprian himself, and by the clear reasoning of truth, to understand that the baptism of Christ, consecrated in the words of the gospel, cannot be perverted by the error of any man on earth . . . (On Baptism, Bk. 5, 4, 4)

In light of this overwhelming evidence, we can safely say that St. Augustine rejected sola Scriptura. He clearly held to the Catholic “three-legged-stool” rule of faith (Bible-Tradition-Church). Again, is James White too lazy to do this research that I did? Or does he simply not care about presenting serious, verifiable research? He presented two or three (it was hard to tell), thinking it proved his assertion. I have provided twenty.

5:48 It’s interesting that when he wrote to Maximin the Arian, . . . he said, I must not press the authority of Nicaea against you, nor you that of Ariminum against me. I do not acknowledge the one as you do not the other, but let us come to ground that is common to both, the testimony of the holy scriptures. Notice here, even when faced with a council that Augustine would have considered to be authoritative, that Augustine would have considered to be accurate, that Augustine believed expressed the mind of the church. When talking with Maximin the Arian, he says, I can’t press the authority of that against you and you cannot press against me the authority of Ariminum, another church council that Augustine would have said did not in any way, shape or form express the mind of the church, that it did not in point of fact represent Christian orthodoxy, but you had dueling councils. You had councils that came to different conclusions. But the one thing that doesn’t come to different conclusions, Augustine says, is the testimony of the holy scriptures.

Of course he argued from Scripture with the Arian (just as I did forty years ago in my first major apologetics project, because they had that in common. I do exactly the same with Protestants, for the same reason. One starts with common ground that is agreed-upon in any constructive dialogue or debate. That doesn’t prove anything whatsoever about what one believes is authoritative outside Scripture. It’s simply a methodological choice, nothing more. White is smart enough to figure this out. Good grief!

7:53 He also says, neither dare one agree with Catholic bishops, if by chance they err in anything, with the result that their opinion is against the canonical scriptures of God. Catholic bishops may err, but the scriptures of God do not.

Individual bishops have no gift of infallibility at all, according to Catholicism. They only do in ecumenical council, and when the pope also agrees with their decisions. Decrees of individual bishops aren’t magisterial. So this is a non sequitur. It doesn’t prove at all that Augustine accepted sola Scriptura. He did not, as already proven above.

9:14 Another of the great early fathers was Basil of Caesarea, and he said the hearers taught in the scriptures ought to test what is said by teachers and accept that which agrees with the scriptures, but reject that which is foreign. Now notice what he says. The hearers taught in scriptures ought to test what is said by teachers. It sounds a little bit like private interpretation to me. That sounds like we have a responsibility to go to the ultimate rule of faith in scriptures to test what we are taught.

Of course they should do that. I won’t bother looking this up (no documentation given again) because it proves nothing whatsoever, anyway, as to sola Scriptura. I get so tired of explaining the obvious over and over again. White tries another one from Basil, where he says that Scripture should decide the issue between the two competing parties. But I don’t know who he was dialoguing with. If it was a non-Catholic heretic, then it would have been the same reasoning Augustine employed: find common ground and go from there. It proves nothing of Basil’s own view of the rule of faith. In fact, he believed in the infallibility, even the Bible-like inspiration, of the Council of Nicaea:

[Y]ou should confess the faith put forth by our Fathers once assembled at Nicæa, that you should not omit any one of its propositions, but bear in mind that the three hundred and eighteen who met together without strife did not speak without the operation of the Holy Ghost, . . . (Letter No. 114 to Cyriacus, at Tarsus)

St. Basil also fully accepted the infallible authority of sacred apostolic tradition (even “unwritten tradition”: twice!) and apostolic succession: both of which the so-called “reformers” ditched in the 16th century when they adopted the novel tradition of men, sola Scriptura:

Let us now investigate what are our common conceptions concerning the Spirit, as well those which have been gathered by us from Holy Scripture concerning It as those which we have received from the unwritten tradition of the Fathers. (The Holy Spirit, Ch. 9, 22)

The one aim of the whole band of opponents and enemies of sound doctrine [1 Timothy 1:10] is to shake down the foundation of the faith of Christ by levelling apostolic tradition with the ground, and utterly destroying it. So like the debtors — of course bona fide debtors — they clamour for written proof, and reject as worthless the unwritten tradition of the Fathers. But we will not slacken in our defense of the truth. (The Holy Spirit, Ch. 10, 25)

Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us in a mystery by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force. And these no one will gainsay — no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the institutions of the Church. . . . For were we to attempt to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in its very vitals; or, rather, should make our public definition a mere phrase and nothing more. For instance, to take the first and most general example, who is thence who has taught us in writing to sign with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? What writing has taught us to turn to the East at the prayer? Which of the saints has left us in writing the words of the invocation at the displaying of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing? For we are not, as is well known, content with what the apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in preface and conclusion we add other words as being of great importance to the validity of the ministry, and these we derive from unwritten teaching. Moreover we bless the water of baptism and the oil of the chrism, and besides this the catechumen who is being baptized. On what written authority do we do this? Is not our authority silent and mystical tradition? Nay, by what written word is the anointing of oil itself taught? And whence comes the custom of baptizing thrice? And as to the other customs of baptism from what Scripture do we derive the renunciation of Satan and his angels? Does not this come from that unpublished and secret teaching which our fathers guarded in a silence out of the reach of curious meddling and inquisitive investigation? Well had they learned the lesson that the awful dignity of the mysteries is best preserved by silence. What the uninitiated are not even allowed to look at was hardly likely to be publicly paraded about in written documents. . . . In the same manner the Apostles and Fathers who laid down laws for the Church from the beginning thus guarded the awful dignity of the mysteries in secrecy and silence, for what is bruited abroad random among the common folk is no mystery at all. This is the reason for our tradition of unwritten precepts and practices, that the knowledge of our dogmas may not become neglected and contemned by the multitude through familiarity. (The Holy Spirit, Ch. 27, 66)

In answer to the objection that the doxology in the form with the Spirit has no written authority, we maintain that if there is no other instance of that which is unwritten, then this must not be received. But if the greater number of our mysteries are admitted into our constitution without written authority, then, in company with the many others, let us receive this one. For I hold it apostolic to abide also by the unwritten traditions. I praise you, it is said, that you remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you; [1 Corinthians 11:2] and Hold fast the traditions which you have been taught whether by word, or our Epistle. [2 Thessalonians 2:15] One of these traditions is the practice which is now before us, which they who ordained from the beginning, rooted firmly in the churches, delivering it to their successors, and its use through long custom advances pace by pace with time. (The Holy Spirit, Ch. 29, 71)

[W]e too are undismayed at the cloud of our enemies, and, resting our hope on the aid of the Spirit, have, with all boldness, proclaimed the truth. Had I not so done, it would truly have been terrible that the blasphemers of the Spirit should so easily be emboldened in their attack upon true religion, and that we, with so mighty an ally and supporter at our side, should shrink from the service of that doctrine, which by the tradition of the Fathers has been preserved by an unbroken sequence of memory to our own day. (The Holy Spirit, Ch. 30, 79)

In our case, too, in addition to the open attack of the heretics, the Churches are reduced to utter helplessness by the war raging among those who are supposed to be orthodox. For all these reasons we do indeed desire your help, that, for the future all who confess the apostolic faith may put an end to the schisms which they have unhappily devised, and be reduced for the future to the authority of the Church; that so, once more, the body of Christ may be complete, restored to integrity with all its members. Thus we shall not only praise the blessings of others, which is all we can do now, but see our own Churches once more restored to their pristine boast of orthodoxy. For, truly, the boon given you by the Lord is fit subject for the highest congratulation, your power of discernment between the spurious and the genuine and pure, and your preaching the faith of the Fathers without any dissimulation. That faith we have received; that faith we know is stamped with the marks of the Apostles; to that faith we assent, as well as to all that was canonically and lawfully promulgated in the Synodical Letter. (Letter No. 92 to the Italians and Gauls, 3)

St. Basil mentions “tradition” 21 times in The Holy Spirit: “the tradition of their fathers” (7, 16); “the tradition of the Fathers” (7, 16); “Can I then, perverted by these men’s seductive words, abandon the tradition which guided me to the light . . .?” (10, 26); “For the tradition that has been given us by the quickening grace must remain for ever inviolate” (12, 28); “by the tradition of the divine knowledge the baptized may have their souls enlightened” (15, 35); “the unwritten traditions are so many” (27, 67); etc.

So we see that the highest reverence of Scripture can exist alongside with reverence for an ecumenical council which always operated with “the operation of the Holy Ghost” and that the same father thought that “not holding their declaration of more authority than one’s own opinion, is conduct worthy of blame.” And it can co-exist with a belief in the sublime authority of apostolic tradition and apostolic succession. As it was for Basil, so it is for Catholics, now, and from the beginning.

13:48 One of my favorite of the early fathers was John Chrysostom. And he said the following, quote:

but when scripture wants to teach us something like that, it interprets itself and does not permit the hearer to err. I therefore beg and entreat that we close our ears to all these things and follow the canon of the holy scripture exactly.

One would have to see what “like that” and “all these things” referred to by consulting context (of which we have none, above). Again, White provided no source and I refuse to do his work for him. It’s not my job to document his own quotations that he didn’t see fit to document, like any 9th-grader writing an essay would do. Needless to say, this doesn’t prove sola Scriptura. St. John Chrysostom accepted the authority of sacred tradition (even unwritten, oral tradition):

“So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by Epistle of ours.” Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther. Here he shows that there were many who were shaken. (On Second Thessalonians, Homily IV)

For, “remember,” he says, “the words of the Lord which he spake: It is more blessed to give than to receive.” (v. 35.) And where said He this? Perhaps the Apostles delivered it by unwritten tradition; or else it is plain from (recorded sayings, from) which one could infer it. (Homily XLV on Acts 20:32)

Not by letters alone did Paul instruct his disciple in his duty, but before by words also which he shows, both in many other passages, as where he says, “whether by word or our Epistle” (2 Thess. ii. 15.), and especially here. Let us not therefore suppose that anything relating to doctrine was spoken imperfectly. For many things he delivered to him without writing. Of these therefore he reminds him, when he says, “Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me.” (Homily III on 2 Timothy– on 2 Tim 1:13-18)

Note two things in particular in the last quotation: the corresponding relationship of 2 Thessalonians 2:15 (which the other citation was a comment upon) and the reference to “anything relating to doctrine.” This shows that he regarded 2 Thessalonians 2:15 (by direct reference: no speculation on our part) as dealing with doctrine and not just practice. And that is the key unlocking the question of what sort of tradition he was referring to in the other citation under examination. To me that settles the argument: St. John Chrysostom did not believe in sola Scriptura. Further contextual factors strengthen this conclusion. Right after this quotation, he wrote about the deposit of faith (or “apostles’ teaching”: Acts 2:42) — which is, of course, primarily doctrinal and theological — in relation to this passage:

After the manner of artists, I have impressed on you the image of virtue, fixing in your soul a sort of rule, and model, and outline of all things pleasing to God. These things then hold fast, and whether you are meditating any matter of faith or love, or of a sound mind, form from hence your ideas of them. It will not be necessary to have recourse to others for examples, when all has been deposited within yourself.

That good thing which was committed unto you keep,— how?— by the Holy Ghost which dwells in us. For it is not in the power of a human soul, when instructed with things so great, to be sufficient for the keeping of them. And why? Because there are many robbers, and thick darkness, and the devil still at hand to plot against us; and we know not what is the hour, what the occasion for him to set upon us. How then, he means, shall we be sufficient for the keeping of them? By the Holy Ghost; that is if we have the Spirit with us, if we do not expel grace, He will stand by us. For, Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman wakes but in vain. Psalm 127:1 This is our wall, this our castle, this our refuge. If therefore It dwells in us, and is Itself our guard, what need of the commandment? That we may hold It fast, may keep It, and not banish It by our evil deeds.

He comments in similar fashion on the related verse, 2 Thessalonians 2:15:

“So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by Epistle of ours.” Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther. Here he shows that there were many who were shaken. (On Second Thessalonians, Homily IV)

He even appeals to an apostolic unwritten tradition of intercessory prayers for the dead (mentioning also the Sacrifice of the Mass:

Mourn for those who have died in wealth, and did not from their wealth think of any solace for their soul, who had power to wash away their sins and would not. Let us all weep for these in private and in public, but with propriety, with gravity, not so as to make exhibitions of ourselves; . . . Let us weep for these; let us assist them according to our power; let us think of some assistance for them, small though it be, yet still let us assist them. How and in what way? By praying and entreating others to make prayers for them, by continually giving to the poor on their behalf.

. . . Not in vain did the Apostles order that remembrance should be made of the dead in the dreadful Mysteries. They know that great gain resulteth to them, great benefit; for when the whole people stands with uplifted hands, a priestly assembly, and that awful Sacrifice lies displayed, how shall we not prevail with God by our entreaties for them? And this we do for those who have departed in faith, . . .

[NPNF Editor’s note: “The reference doubtless is to the so-called ‘Apostolical Constitutions,’ which direct the observance of the Eucharist in commemoration of the departed”] (On Philippians, Homily 3)

Concerning the “sacred writers” he stated:

[I]t was no object with them to be writers of books: in fact, there are many things which they have delivered by unwritten tradition. (On Acts of the Apostles, Homily 1)

14:34 Cyril of Jerusalem wrote the following in his Catechetical Lectures; this would be in the fourth century:

In regard to the divine and holy mysteries of the faith, not the least part may be handed on without the holy scriptures. Do not be led astray by winning words and clever arguments. Even to me who tell you these things, do not give ready belief unless you receive from the holy scriptures the proof of the things which I announce. The salvation which we believe is not proved from clever reasoning, but from the holy scriptures. [Catechetical Lectures, 4, 17]

Cyril talks about the inspired authority of Scripture, as he should, and as we do, but he places it within the authoritative interpretation of Holy Mother Church. Hence, he wrote:

But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to thee by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures. For since all cannot read the Scriptures, some being hindered as to the knowledge of them by want of learning, and others by a want of leisure, in order that the soul may not perish from ignorance, we comprise the whole doctrine of the Faith in a few lines. . . . So for the present listen while I simply say the Creed, and commit it to memory; but at the proper season expect the confirmation out of Holy Scripture of each part of the contents. . . . Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your heart. Guard them with reverence, lest per chance the enemy despoil any who have grown slack; or lest some heretic pervert any of the truths delivered to you. (Catechetical Lectures 5:12-13)

He refers to “the tradition of the Church’s interpreters” (Catechetical Lectures 15:13). When Cyril refers to “proof” and “demonstration” from the Scriptures in 4:17, it depends what he means. If he means by that, “all doctrines to be believed are harmonious with Scripture, and must not contradict it,” this is simply material sufficiency and exactly what Catholics believe. If he means, “all doctrines to be believed must be explicitly explained and taught by Scripture and not derived primarily or in a binding fashion from the Church or tradition” then he would be espousing sola Scriptura.

But it’s not at all established that this is what he meant. It is established, on the other hand, that he accepted the binding authority of Church, tradition, and apostolic succession (“that apostolic and evangelic faith, which our fathers ever preserved and handed down to us as a pearl of great price”: To Celestine, Epistle 9).

The notion that all doctrines must be explicit in Scripture in order to be believed (and only binding if so), is simply not taught in the Bible; i.e., sola Scriptura is not taught in the Bible. An authoritative, binding Church and tradition certainly are taught in Scripture, and those two things expressly contradict sola Scriptura. Conclusion: neither the Bible nor St. Cyril of Jerusalem teach sola Scriptura. He refers to the passing-on of apostolic tradition:

And now, brethren beloved, the word of instruction exhorts you all, to prepare your souls for the reception of the heavenly gifts. As regards the Holy and Apostolic Faith delivered to you to profess, we have spoken through the grace of the Lord as many Lectures, as was possible,. . . (Catechetical Lectures 18, 32)

Make thou your fold with the sheep: flee from the wolves: depart not from the Church. . . . The truth of the Unity of God has been delivered to you: learn to distinguish the pastures of doctrine. (Catechetical Lectures 6, 36)

He speaks in terms of the Catholic “three-legged stool” rule of faith: tradition, Church, and Scripture: all harmonious:

But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to you by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures. For since all cannot read the Scriptures, some being hindered as to the knowledge of them by want of learning, and others by a want of leisure, in order that the soul may not perish from ignorance, we comprise the whole doctrine of the Faith in a few lines. This summary I wish you both to commit to memory when I recite it , and to rehearse it with all diligence among yourselves, not writing it out on paper , but engraving it by the memory upon your heart , taking care while you rehearse it that no Catechumen chance to overhear the things which have been delivered to you. . . . for the present listen while I simply say the Creed , and commit it to memory; but at the proper season expect the confirmation out of Holy Scripture of each part of the contents. For the articles of the Faith were not composed as seemed good to men; but the most important points collected out of all the Scripture make up one complete teaching of the Faith. And just as the mustard seed in one small grain contains many branches, so also this Faith has embraced in few words all the knowledge of godliness in the Old and New Testaments. Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which you now receive, and write them on the table of your heart.

Guard them with reverence, lest per chance the enemy despoil any who have grown slack; or lest some heretic pervert any of the truths delivered to you. For faith is like putting money into the bank , even as we have now done; but from you God requires the accounts of the deposit. I charge you, as the Apostle says, before God, who quickens all things, and Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed the good confession, that you keep this faith which is committed to you, without spot, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ. (Catechetical Lectures 5, 12-13 )

At every turn, then, we see that St. Cyril is thoroughly Catholic, and does not teach sola Scriptura.

White then — remarkably — proves that he doesn’t understand logic, nor how to properly analyze patristic statements that are contrary to sola Scriptura, and prove that the one who wrote them didn’t believe in it:

17:27 the first response I automatically get is, “yeah, but those guys believe things that you don’t. Okay, they did. What does that have to do with the issue at hand? Well, nothing at all.

It certainly does if they believe in infallible things other than Scripture, because every time that happens, it’s proof that they don’t adhere to sola Scriptura in its standard definition. But apparently that is too sophisticated for White to grasp. He did acknowledge, however, that St. Basil sometimes appealed to unwritten traditions, but then asserts that “he just was simply inconsistent . . . because all of us are inconsistent at some point or another” (18:52). He can’t admit that he denied sola Scriptura. That wouldn’t go with the plan. He is only willing to concede that he believed in it most of the time, but contradicted it some of the time, being human. He can’t fathom that he actually was consistent, and that he himself is the one stuck in the “either/or” trap of false dichotomies.

20:56 Augustine was inconsistent with himself.

Well of course. It could never be true in any conceivable universe that James White was inconsistent and wrong and confused, rather than Augustine! No! It’s not possible. Therefore, the fault here must lie with Augustine rather than with the venerable “Dr.” [???]-Bishop.

21:52 The simple fact of the matter remains, he made the statements he made, and if he had as Roman Catholics believe today, that the Scripture is simply part of sacred tradition, [which we don’t believe]

and that you need these oral traditions to buttress these things, then he wouldn’t have said the words that he said. He wouldn’t have made the statements that he made. And so, when we talk about the issue of sola Scriptura in the early church, sadly, I must report to you that the primary response that we get from Roman Catholic apologists is not a meaningful interaction with the passages.

He simply couldn’t have believed as a Catholic does, because he said things that White erroneously and foolishly, illogically believes are the equivalent of sola Scriptura. Therefore, the things I documented above, that prove that Augustine rejected sola Scriptura, are all fabricated and made up by myself or other “Romanists” / “papists.” Makes perfect sense, right? “Hear no evil, see no evil, read no evil . . .”

22:41 Most of the attempt fails, most of it is just simply to say, well, they couldn’t have meant that because they said this over here, and the idea of testing for consistency and listening to a passage in its own context, thrown out the window, no one really worries about that too much.

I have shown, contrary to this caricatured nonsense, that a father’s thought has to be considered as a whole. All of the men noted above were consistent in their rule of faith, which was the Catholic one. It’s all harmonious. White simply can’t accept that conclusion, and so he is blind to any evidence contrary to the myths that he holds in his head. Catholics don’t have to be blind and ultra-biased and hyper-selective with the Church fathers. It’s so obvious that they believed far more like us than like Protestantism that our work in this regard is rather easy.

Then he cites Athanasius and tries to play the game again. This reply is now over 7,000 words and I’m trying to finish it at 1:30 AM, so I’ll simply refer readers to my treatments of his views:

St. Athanasius’ Rule of Faith (NOT Sola Scriptura) [6-16-03]

Lutheran Chemnitz: Errors Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura (including analysis of Jerome, Augustine, Origen, Epiphanius, Ambrose, Lactantius, Athanasius, and Cyprian) [8-31-07]

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

NOTES: I call Mr. White a bishop because he informed me in a letter dated 10 January 2001 that he was a bishop: “I am an elder in the church: hence, I am a bishop, overseer, pastor, of a local body of believers”. So I have called him that ever since [see more material giving the background and rationale for this, based on White’s own stated beliefs]. As for his supposed doctorate (hence my quotation marks and question mark), see:

James White’s Bogus “Doctorate” Degree (vs. Mark Bainter) [9-16-04]

James White’s Bogus “Doctorate” Degree, Part II (vs. Jamin Hubner) [6-29-10]

James White Bogus “Doctorate” Issue Redux: Has No One Ever Interacted With His Self-Defense? / White Takes His Lumps from Baptist Peter Lumpkins [2-20-11]

Thus we have the double irony of his not wanting to be called what he claims he is (a bishop), while he falsely calls himself what he clearly isn’t (an academic “Doctor” with an authentic, earned doctorate degree).

***

Photo credit: see book and purchase information for this 2013 book of mine.

Summary: Anti-Catholic apologist James White dredges up the old, tired “proofs” that six Church fathers believed in sola Scriptura. I provide the full, honest picture of their views.

Origen & Interceding Saints & Angels (vs. Gavin Ortlund)

Last updated on: March 13, 2024 at 4:14 pm By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

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 26th reply to his material.

*****

I am responding to Gavin’s video, “Origen on Praying to Saints: FINAL Response to Joe Heschmeyer” (9-24-23). I haven’t listened to Joe Heschmeyer’s video[s] on this topic (I know he’s a great apologist) or Gavin’s past responses. I am only dealing with how Gavin argues in this video and making my own replies, and disagreeing with his conclusion. Besides, Gavin states (0:20), “I’m going to cast this video as a standalone as much as I can.”

Origen lived from c. 185 – c. 254. He’s a fairly early Church father.

0:31 I’m also happy to do a dialogue

Me too! I hope Gavin and is agreeable to more dialogues with me and finds more time to engage in them. I think I provide a lot of substance to grapple with (agree or disagree with me).

1:56 Neither Joe nor I are accusing each other of dishonesty, so just a friendly reminder for people following along: it’s often unhelpful to accuse the other side of dishonesty. Many times it might seem like that, but it’s not that, because we’re coming from a different paradigm and it’s really easy to misconstrue that. . . . It’s not helpful to go there. Let’s focus on the arguments; let’s assume the best motives . . . Joe is our fellow Christian, so let’s be kind and assume the best in the way we interact.

I agree wholeheartedly. Amen! I have sought to approach dialogue — and debate — with this mindset over my 43 years of doing apologetics and 33 as a Catholic: to always assume the best of the other guy; grant that he or she is approaching the topic with sincerity and good will and never try to second-guess motives or intentions, unless absolutely undeniable evidence comes out suggesting some sort of mischief. The key is to always remember that the other person is “coming from a different paradigm,” as Gavin notes. We all interpret things based on prior premises and presuppositions. Those have to be overthrown in order for us to think in different terms, and that is a long and complex process, if it is to happen at all.

That’s what dialogue is about. We scrutinize the other persons’ views and premises and we should also be willing to allow our views to be subject to such “cross-examination” as well. I have always thought that this should be a fun and enjoyable and challenging thing. I love it. Sometimes, we change our views as a result. I went from practical atheist and one fascinated with the occult, to evangelical Protestant (in 1977) and then later became a Catholic after a year of study and intense discussions (1990). Early n my life, I was nominally Methodist. I know that Gavin has moved from Presbyterian to Baptist (changing his view on baptism). So we have both changed our minds, and I think we are both willing to go wherever we think the truth leads. That’s what I have always sensed in Gavin, and why I have interacted with his materials. And of course he knows his stuff. He’s the perfect guy to dialogue with. When he states things like the above, he is doing his listeners a great service, and teaching them to act and think in a Christian manner.

2:59 I think Origen is being somewhat butchered and I think people just need to get a fuller picture . . . the big picture is [that] Origen never ever says [that] we can pray to the saints. He never gives any indication that we can talk to Christians in heaven.

We’ll see about that. In turn, I think Gavin may be ignoring or overlooking inexorable logical conclusions that flow from Origen’s words on the general topic. As in Bible interpretation, there are explicit statements and there are implicit ones, as well as plausible or sensible deductions from either kind of statement. Some Protestants (such as the Lutheran apologist Jordan Cooper) even admit that the scriptural evidence for something as central to Protestantism as sola Scriptura is not explicit, and only deduced indirectly. That same dynamic is in Origen’s teachings on prayer. Things can also be harmonious with and not contradictory to other things.

4:48 first of all [there is] the distinction between prayers FOR US vs, Prayers TO THEM; what I called in my last video the “arrow down” and the “arrow up” . . . two different things.

I agree. But what I will be doing is finding connections between the two and logical reductions which lead me to believe that Origen indeed held a Catholic view, though expressed in mostly implicit or “mild” — and less developed — ways.

Gavin says that Joe cited Anglican patristic historian J. N. D. Kelly and misconstrued what he stated about Origen and the saints. I cited him in this regard in my 2007 book, Catholic Church Fathers: Patristic and Scholarly Proofs:

A phenomenon of great significance in the patristic period was the rise and gradual development of veneration for the saints, more particularly for the Blessed Virgin Mary. . . . Earliest in the field was the cult of martyrs . . . At first it took the form of the reverent preservation of their relics and the annual celebration of their ‘birthday’. From this it was a short step, since they were now with Christ in glory, to seeking their help and prayers, and in the third century evidence for the belief in their intercessory power accumulates. In arguing for it Origen appealed to the communion of saints, advancing the view that the Church in heaven assists the Church on earth with its prayers. . . . By the middle of the same [4^th] century, according to Cyril of Jerusalem, the patriarchs, prophets, apostles and martyrs were commemorated in the liturgy ‘so that by their prayers and intercessions God may receive our supplications’. (Early Christian Doctrines, San Francisco: Harper & Row, fifth revised edition, 1978, 490)

Gavin puts up a shorter version of this in a screenshot at 5:53. There is some level of uncertainty above, as to what Kelly is referring to when he writes, “In arguing for it Origen . . .” Does “it” refer to “seeking their help and prayers” and to “belief in their intercessory power” or only to the latter (and if only the latter, does it automatically exclude the former?). I suppose reasonable people can disagree as to Kelly’s precise meaning. But that may be why Gavin and Joe disagreed about it.

6:17 the word it here in that final sentence . . . is referring to their intercessory power . . . it’s talking about the saints praying for us. The reference to seeking that comes earlier, and Kelly doesn’t make any claims about origin on that topic.

Maybe so. As expected, this is how Gavin interpreted the reference of the word “it.” As I said, it could go either way, so the dispute won’t be resolved with this quotation. Gavin and Joe go back and forth regarding Origen’s book, On Prayer. I wound up finding the same passage they discuss in a search, before I knew they brought it up. Gavin puts up a screenshot of part of it, at 8:51. Here is an excerpt from On Prayer, section VI: (I have highlighted with bolded text what particularly supports a Catholic understanding)

But these pray along with those who genuinely pray—not only the high priest but also the angels who “rejoice in heaven over one repenting sinner more than over ninety-nine righteous that need not repentance,” and also the souls of the saints already at rest. Two instances make this plain. The first is where Raphael offers their service to God for Tobit and Sarah. After both had prayed, the scripture says, “The prayer of both was heard before the presence of the great Raphael and he was sent to heal them both,” and Raphael himself, when explaining his angelic commission at God’s command to help them, says:

“Even now when you prayed, and Sarah your daughter-in-law, I brought the memorial of your prayer before the Holy One,” and shortly after, “I am Raphael, one of the Seven angels who present the prayers of saints and enter in before the glory of the Holy One. Thus, according to Raphael’s account at least, prayer with fasting and almsgiving and righteousness is a good thing.

The second instance is in the Books of the Maccabees where Jeremiah appears in exceeding “white haired glory” so that a wondrous and most majestic authority was about him, and stretches forth his right hand and delivers to Judas a golden sword, and there witnesses to him another saint already at rest saying, “This is he who prays much for the people and the sacred city, God’s prophet Jeremiah.” For it is absurd when knowledge, though manifested to the worthy through a mirror and in a riddle for the present, is then revealed face to face not to think that the like is true of all other excellences as well, that they who prepare in this life beforehand are made strictly perfect then. . . .

Suppose that a righteously minded physician is at the side of a sick man praying for health, with knowledge of the right mode of treatment for the disease about which the man is offering prayer. It is manifest that he will be moved to heal the suppliant, surmising, it may well be not idly, that God has had this very action in mind in answer to the prayer of the suppliant for release from the disease. Or suppose that a man of considerable means, who is generous, hears the prayer of a poor man offering intercession to God for his wants. It is plain that he, too, will fulfil the objects of the poor man’s prayer, becoming a minister of the fatherly counsel of Him who at the season of the prayer had brought together him who was to pray and him who was able to supply and by virtue of the rightness of his principles, incapable of overlooking one who has made that particular request.

As therefore we are not to believe that these events are fortuitous, when they take place because He who has numbered all the hairs of the head of saints, has aptly brought together at the season of the prayer the hearer who is to be minister of His benefaction to the suppliant and the man who has made his request in faith; so we may surmise that the presence of the angels who exercise oversight and ministry for God is sometimes brought into conjunction with a particular suppliant in order that they may join in breathing his petitions.

Nay more, beholding ever the face of the Father in heaven and looking on the Godhead of our Creator, the angel of each man, even of “little ones” within the church, both prays with us, and acts with us where possible, for the objects of our prayer.

Gavin rightly drew a distinction between our asking saints or angels to pray (invocation) and their praying for us in heaven, whether we ask or not (intercession). Above we see another important and relevant distinction drawn:

1. Saints in heaven praying for us, with no mention of whether we asked them to do so [the example of Jeremiah].

2. Saints or angels praying with us — being aware of our prayer as we make it. [angels, including Raphael, guardian angels, and analogous examples of the doctor and the generous man]

The first thing might include the second (it doesn’t logically exclude it), but we don’t have enough information to confirm the certainty of it. The second takes it further and includes the notion of simultaneous awareness of a prayer as it is being made. Now — here’s my main point — , I ask, what is the logical — or even conceptual — difference between someone knowing everything about our prayer and praying it with us to God, and our asking them to do the same? There is no essential difference. There is only a secondary difference. In both instances, the following things are present:

We pray x.
The departed saint or angel simultaneously prays x with us to God.
It’s God’s will for such a dynamic to be present. He wants the departed saint or angel to be involved with the process.

If the departed saint or angel knows exactly what we are praying and prays along with us to God, how is that different from our asking him, “please pray x to God for me”? It’s a distinction without an [essential] difference. The only difference at all — which is secondary to the main point — is how the departed saint or angel obtains the knowledge: 1) directly from us, or 2) directly from God, Who knows all things. This aspect is what is contrary to Protestantism’s stated view about prayer and what it excludes. Protestant Church historian Philp Schaff sums up the fact that such prayer “procedures” are contrary to Protestantism:

In the numerous memorial discourses of the fathers, the martyrs are loaded with eulogies, addressed as present, and besought for their protection. The universal tone of those productions is offensive to the Protestant taste, and can hardly be reconciled with evangelical ideas of the exclusive and all-sufficient mediation of Christ and of justification by pure grace without the merit of works. . . . The best church fathers, too, never separated the merits of the saints from the merits of Christ, but considered the former as flowing out of the latter. (History of the Christian Church, Vol. 3, chapter VII, section 84, 438)

He is fair to Catholics and the Church fathers, as usual, in the second part (which is why I love citing him), but — bottom line — invocation of saints is “offensive to the Protestant taste” and (according to that view) and contrary to “evangelical ideas of the exclusive and all-sufficient mediation of Christ and of justification by pure grace without the merit of works.” So the task for Gavin in claiming that Origen does not espouse this “offensive” view is to explain to all of us what logical difference exists between what Origen wrote above, and invocation of the saints and angels. I can find none, myself. Perhaps he can enlighten us otherwise.

9:15 you can’t just assume that because the saints and angels are attending the corporate worship of God’s people that therefore we should pray to them

We can assume that if departed saints and angels know absolutely everything about our prayer, even as we pray it, that we can ask them to pray the same prayer, because there is no essential difference. The essential thing is that they are involved in the process in the first place. If it’s God’s will that they act in such a way, I fail to see how it can be wrong for us to add the additional secondary element of asking or invoking them. After all, the rich man invoked Abraham and made requests of him, according to Jesus (Luke 16), and Abraham never said that he shouldn’t do so. Also, Lot invoked an angel with a prayer request (Gen 19:20) and received a positive reply to his request (19:21); see the entire passage: 19:13-21). Saul also makes a prayer request of Samuel, and Samuel doesn’t say he shouldn’t have; he simply gives a true prophecy of Saul’s death in battle the next day. Therefore, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with either sort of invocation, so that can’t be the objection. Yet for some reason, Protestants disagree with it:

[P]rayer is always to God in the Bible and never to any creature, even an angel. . . . God is the only proper object of our prayers, Nowhere in Scripture is a prayer of anyone on earth actually addressed to anyone but God. (Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, by Norman L. Geisler and Ralph E. Mackenzie, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1995, 349-350)

Similarly, Gavin states in his video, “Praying to the Saints: A Protestant Critique” (10-7-21):

The concern is that we should not pray directly to the saints, to ask for their intercession and other benefits from God, to obtain from them. [3:28]

I don’t think that this was a case of a good and apostolic practice that Jesus would want us to practice, that simply got taken too far. I think . . . that it’s a compromising with pagan practices that comes in in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries . . . [13:58]

Biblically, I am not aware of any compelling rationale for praying to the saints. There’s nothing clear and compelling. People try to derive it from various passages . . . Revelation 5:8, but none of these passages are actually talking about praying to the saints. [14:54]

10:31 Thus far in my study I cannot find anybody who affirms with Joe that Origen believed in actually praying to the saints. I don’t see that anywhere. It may be out there and I’ve just not found it.

I found one Charles Bigg (1840–1908), Anglican clergyman, theologian and church historian and Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History at the University of Oxford. He wrote in his book, The Christian Platonists of Alexandria (1886), commenting on the basis of Origen’s texts in On Prayer (IX-X), Contra Celsum (Book V, 4; VIII, 13, 26):

Prayer in the sense of supplication, to saints, . . . (Lom. xvii. 146), . . . Origen no doubt regarded this kind of prayer as lawfully offered to saints, whether on earth or in heaven. As regards the Angels see Contra Celsum, v. 4; viii. 57, but especially viii. 13, . . . In De Mart. 6, 7 . . . [the] language does not exclude prayer [to angels] provided that in prayer we do not confound these high servants of the Almighty with their Maker and Master. In this sense Origen may be said to pray to the guardian Angel of the newly baptized, In Ezech. Hom. i . 7 (Lom. xiv. 20) . . . (pp. 185)

12:43 my basic concern is I think Joe is reading Origen through a Roman Catholic lens. I really think that’s what’s happening [is] later ideas are being imported back onto Origen, that he had no awareness of.

And Dr. Bigg is reading him through an Anglican lens and agreeing with us. And Gavin has his Protestant lens firmly in place, too. We all have our presuppositions and these usually determine how we interpret and what we emphasize.

12:55 never in all his writings does Origen ever make any reference to praying to the saints in heaven or to angels.

Dr. Bigg stated that, “In this sense Origen may be said to pray to the guardian Angel of the newly baptized, In Ezech. Hom. i . 7.” In Contra Celsum, Book VIII, 64,Origen writes,

[W]hen we have the favour of God, we have also the good-will of all angels and spirits who are friends of God. For they know who are worthy of the divine approval, and they are not only well disposed to them, but they co-operate with them in their endeavours to please God: they seek His favour on their behalf; with their prayers they join their own prayers and intercessions for them. We may indeed boldly say, that men who aspire after better things have, when they pray to God, tens of thousands of sacred powers upon their side. These, even when not asked, pray with them, . . . (my bolding)

Here again is the theme of these saints and angels praying with (not just for) us, which Origen was more explicit about in the excepts I provided above, from On Prayer. But note especially, how Origen casually states: “These [departed saints and angels], even when not asked, pray with them . . .” The use of “even” shows that Origen assumes that it is also the case that they pray for us when asked; i.e., invoked. He assumes the possibility that they could be asked. But if they’re not asked, they still pray with us, anyway. If he thought that their being asked to intercede was terribly wrong (like Protestants), either — I submit — he wouldn’t have included that clause at all, or he would have in a way that made clear that he condemned it.

If I say, “my wife, even though I didn’t ask her to do so, made me a special lasagna dinner for my birthday,” I’m not also making the point that she wouldn’t do so if I had asked her to. Nor am I making the point that it would be wrong if I asked her. Likewise, Origen is in effect expressing the thought, “the saints and angels love us so much that they pray with us even when we don’t ask them to do so.” That presupposes that asking is morally the same as not asking. Either way, they pray with and for us to God. It’s the same essential thing, with no essential difference. Therefore, contra Gavin, Origen does indeed make reference to asking saints and angels to intercede. And if Dr. Bigg is correct, this is not the only place he does so.

25:38 stated plainly the gospel teaches us that Christ does not need to be appeased. The very one who will judge us is the one who is interceding for us according to Romans 8:34 . . . there is no more further appeasement that needs to be made. Christ is the one who has completely forgiven our sins. . . . these prayers like the prayer to Our Lady of Perpetual Help do give the overall impression that God is a little more distant . . .

Here Gavin is addressing the mentality (held by some less informed Catholics and even some Protestants) that we can’t go to Jesus in prayer because He’s so “angry” at us and far away from us. But that’s not the Catholic theological or spiritual rationale for asking saints and angels to pray, Rather, it’s because of the following passage:

James 5:14-18 Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; [15] and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. [16] Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects. [17] Eli’jah was a man of like nature with ourselves and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth. [18] Then he prayed again and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth its fruit.

The Bible affirms time and again that if we badly want an answer to prayer, — if we’re “spiritually wise” and know how much the Bible discusses this — we will go to the holiest person we know and request them to intercede on our behalf. It has nothing to do with how “accessible” or not Jesus is, and everything to do with how to be the most effective in prayer. All Catholic prayers are directed ultimately to God, either directly, or by means of an interceding intermediary more holy than ourselves. This was understood by the Bible writers and by the apostles and Church fathers, which is why the doctrine of invocation and intercession of the saints and angels came to be the dominant view (“universal” according to Schaff, after the early fourth century). But because Protestants do not — for whatever reason — understand this biblical motif, they threw it out on inadequate and unbiblical grounds, almost fifteen centuries after Christ.

29:16 as far as I’m aware the entire Christian tradition comes to say we can pray directly to the Son of God and the spirit of God

Of course we can. The point of this entire discussion is not to deny that at all. It’s to highlight the fact — based on massive biblical indication — that we can ask a holy person or angel (in heaven or on earth) to pray on our behalf, the same prayer that we could have prayed directly to God. The intent is the same, so is the ultimate recipient (God), but the effectiveness and likelihood of a positive answer to prayer is increased by bringing in the holy person. It’s an explicitly biblical doctrine.

29:27 Jesus himself said “you may ask me anything in my name and I will do it.”

Yep. But all prayers are qualified by 1 John 5:14: “if we ask anything according to his will he hears us,” and James 4:3: “You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly.” And the same Jesus told a (true, historical) story about a departed man asking Abraham to intercede for him. There is not the slightest hint in the story that anything about that is improper. And if it is, then Jesus is guilty of heresy, and no Christian wants that to be the logical reduction of his argument.

43:26 my argument is that praying to the saints is a gradual accretion

It was fully in place according to Schaff by the early 4th century, which was sooner than both the biblical canon and the full-blown doctrine of the Holy Trinity. And it was because it had a basis in the Bible. If I’m correct about Origen espousing it, this takes it back to the early 3rd century, and there are other indications that are earlier than that.

***

Photo credit: Jonund (9-1-14). The works of Origen in Latin [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license]

Summary: Based on a plausible interpretation of Origen’s words, I contend that he had a “Catholic” view of the intercession & also even the invocation of dead saints & of angels.

Temporal Punishment IS Biblical (James White Was Wrong)

Last updated on: February 27, 2024 at 10:12 am By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

Photo credit: [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

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

Last Day: What Jesus Says to the Elect (vs. Gavin Ortlund)

Last updated on: February 16, 2024 at 3:10 pm By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

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

In my opinion, he is currently the best and most influential popular-level Protestant apologist, who (especially) interacts with and offers thoughtful critiques of Catholic positions, from a refreshing ecumenical (not anti-Catholic), but nevertheless solidly Protestant perspective. That’s what I want to interact with, so I have done many replies to Gavin and will continue to do so. His words will be in blue. I use RSV for all Bible passages unless otherwise specified.

All of my replies to Gavin are collected in one place on my Calvinism & General Protestantism web page, near the top in the section, “Replies to Reformed Baptist Gavin Ortlund.”

This is my 20th reply to his material.

*****

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Isaiah 1:16-20 Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your doings from before my eyes; cease to do evil, [17] learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; defend the fatherless, plead for the widow. [18] “Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool. [19] If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land; [20] But if you refuse and rebel, you shall be devoured by the sword; for the mouth of the LORD has spoken.”

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

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

Isaiah 60:10 I will greatly rejoice in the LORD, my soul shall exult in my God; for he has clothed me with the garments of salvation, he has covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decks himself with a garland, and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

Photo credit: Kahunapule Michael Johnson (1-22-16) [Flickr / CC BY-SA 2.0 DEED license]

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