Treviño Misrepresents My “Peter the Rock” Argument

Last updated on: October 10, 2024 at 11:42 am By Dave Armstrong

Why I Cited Protestant Scholars Who Believe that Jesus Thought Peter Himself was the “Rock”

Photo credit: cover of the Spanish-language book, *¿Cuál Es La Iglesia Verdadera?: Una Respuesta Evangélica A Las Pretensiones De La Iglesia De Roma* from its Amazon page. Copyright by ibukku, LLC (June 5, 2024).

This is a reply to a portion of a book written in Spanish, entitled, ¿Cuál Es La Iglesia Verdadera?: Una Respuesta Evangélica A Las Pretensiones De La Iglesia De Roma [Which Is the True Church?: An Evangelical Response to the Claims of the Church of Rome] (self-published, 5 June 2024): a collection of polemical writings against Catholicism from nine anti-Catholics.

In chapter 3, “The Papacy and the History of the Church”, by Edgar Treviño, one of my statements was cited and its meaning and intent completely misrepresented in an embarrassing and inexcusable way, in a subsection entitled, “Do Protestant Scholars Support the Papacy in Matthew 16:18?” The author’s goal (typical of anti-Catholics’ modus operandi) was to make me — and the point I was making here — look ridiculous. In order to try to accomplish that, he had to create a caricature of my actual argument. In actuality, he has proven himself to be ridiculous, and manifested to one and all his inability to comprehend rather simple logic and straightforward reasoning.

Treviño’s words will be in blue. I used Google Translate to render the Spanish into English (excepting the citation from my book).

*****

I will concern myself in this article only with the portion that cited me and misrepresented my argument. It’s a case study in either 1) deliberate dishonesty in anti-Catholic argumentation, or 2) extraordinary incompetence and shoddy so-called “reasoning” and research ability in anti-Catholic polemics. Take your pick.

Roman Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong wrote:

Many prominent Protestant scholars and exegetes have agreed that Peter is the “rock” in Matthew 16:18; these include Alford, Broadus, Keil, Kittel, Cullmann, Albright, Robert McAfee Brown, and, most recently, respected Evangelical commentators R. T. France and D. A. Carson. (citation from my 2003 book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, p. 219; see also the entire chapter, available online for free, with the full documentation of the sources)

He did accurately cite me (thank you for small favors). But it’s his misinterpretation of my argument that is problematic and ludicrous.

And what good does it do Armstrong that these Protestant scholars interpret Peter as the “rock” of Matthew 16:18? It does him no good, because they do not believe in the papacy, in fact, they say that even if Peter was the “rock” in Matthew 16:18, that is no basis for the papacy.

It’s irrelevant whether they believe in the papacy or not (of course they don’t: being Protestant), because that isn’t why I cited them. I did precisely because they do not believe in the papacy. It’s the argumentative technique of the “hostile witness.” In other words, the reasoning runs as follows: “even several reputable, scholarly Protestants who disbelieve in the papacy agree with a key premise in the Catholic defense of Petrine primacy and the papacy that developed from it: i.e., that Jesus regarded Peter as “the Rock” in Matthew 16:18, not merely Peter’s confession or He (Christ) Himself” (the two standard views of almost all Protestants these past 500 years).

If one cites a dialogical / theological opponent in agreement regarding one important premise for a notion that he or she disagrees with, that is a very strong argument, with much force. If a Catholic cites other Catholics, the Protestant simply dismisses them as biased and partisan. But if their own Protestant scholars are cited, then they must stand up and take notice, if they are honest and seekers of truth. Protestant scholars, in other words, can’t be accused of partisan bias when they agree with some Catholic premise (as opposed to a Catholic belief).

Protestant apologists use the same technique all the time. I’ve personally observed this thousands of times, in my 34 years of doing Catholic apologetics. They will cite Catholic scholars in order to oppose some Catholic doctrine or premise of same. But Protestants usually cite liberal, nominal Catholic scholars, who barely even accept all that the Catholic Church teaches. I don’t have to do that. I cited solid, respectable Protestant scholars.

I searched the term, “Erudito católico romano” [Roman Catholic scholar”] in the book, and it appeared 14 times. The various co-authors cited Catholics such as Eamon Duffy, Robert B. Eno, Xabier Pikaza, Pierre Batiffol, [theological liberal] Raymond E. Brown (2), [theological liberal] Richard McBrien, Antonio Royo Marín, Yves Congar, and [orthodox] Ludwig Ott (3).

This is exactly the same sort of reasoning that I utilized. Yet when I do it, Treviño claims that it is irrelevant and ineffective. Well, then, when his co-authors do the same thing, it must be irrelevant and ineffective for them, too. Since he surely would reject that, his clueless pseudo-argument against me collapses, by reductio ad absurdum (there’s another form of argument for you), since his own colleagues use the same method.

Armstrong is not proving the papacy in Matthew 16:18 by quoting Protestant scholars.

I never claimed that I was doing that or seeking to do it. I agree! In my book, in the passage cited, I stated, “Many prominent Protestant scholars and exegetes have agreed that Peter is the “rock” in Matthew 16:18 . . .” I did not state, or argue, “Many prominent Protestant scholars and exegetes have agreed that the papacy is proven by Matthew 16:18.” Reading Treviño, one would think that I had stated the latter, not the former. But I was arguing that important Protestant scholars agreed with one particular argument for the papacy that Catholics have made for many centuries.

The first thing one learns in debate club in middle school is to understand one’s debate opponent’s views at least as well as they do themselves. Treviño miserably fails that test. He has no idea what I was even contending for, and seems unfamiliar with a type of argumentation that is very commonly used, and was in the very book he was part of: about a dozen times.

***

“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,800+ articles, please follow my blog by signing up (with your email address) on the sidebar to the right (you may have to scroll down a bit), above where there is an icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. My blog was rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT: endorsed by influential Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Please also consider following me on Twitter / X and purchasing one or more of my 55 books. All of this helps me get more exposure, and (however little!) more income for my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!

***

On the contrary, Dave Armstrong also makes the same mistake as other Catholic apologists, by quoting half-baked Protestant scholars who say that Peter is the “rock” in Matthew 16:18.

This is where Treviño makes an even bigger fool of himself. He not only astonishingly misrepresents what I was arguing, but then goes on to insult the Protestant scholars that I cited; thus proving how unaware he is even of his own broad theological heritage and Protestant tradition. I was already familiar with most of them as a Protestant (prior to 1990). Let me do a brief survey of them, for his sake, and that of any other Protestants who believe that I cited “half-baked” Protestant scholars to make my argument (information mostly from Wikipedia articles):

Henry Alford (1810-1871) was an English Anglican churchman, theologian, textual critic, scholar, poet, hymnodist, and writer. His chief fame rests on his monumental edition of the New Testament in Greek (8 vols.), written from 1841 to 1861 [see volumes one, two, three, four]. In this work he first brought before English students a careful collation of the readings of the chief manuscripts and the researches of the ripest continental scholarship of his day. Philological rather than theological in character, it marked an epochal change from the old homiletic commentary, and through more recent research, patristic and papyral, largely changed the method of New Testament exegesis. See many of his other works as well.

John Albert Broadus (1827-1895) was an American Baptist pastor and President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. His many writings include Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, A Harmony of the Gospels in the Revised Version, and Commentary on the Gospel of Mark (see many more). Charles Spurgeon called Broadus the “greatest of living preachers.” Church historian Albert Henry Newman called Broadus “perhaps the greatest preacher the Baptists have produced.”

Carl Friedrich Keil (1807-1888) was a conservative German Lutheran Old Testament commentator. Keil was appointed to the theological faculty of Dorpat in Estonia where he taught Bible, New Testament exegesis, and Oriental languages. Keil was a conservative critic who reacted strongly against the scientific biblical criticism of his day. He strongly supported Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. He maintained the validity of the historico-critical investigation of the Bible only if it proved the existence of New Testament revelation in the Scriptures. To this aim he edited (with Franz Delitzsch) his principal work, a commentary on the Bible, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, 5 vols., 1872–77; available online). The work remains his most enduring contribution to biblical studies.

Gerhard Kittel (1888-1948), Lutheran author, with Gerhard Friedrich, of the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (ten volumes, and also a one-volume edition; my own copy sits a foot away from me as I write). It’s considered by many scholars to be the best New Testament dictionary ever compiled. Mediating between ordinary lexicography and the specific task of exposition, TDNT treats more than 2,300 theologically significant New Testament words, including the more important prepositions and numbers as well as many proper names from the Old Testament.

Oscar Cullmann (1902-1999) was a French Lutheran theologian and ecumenist. In 1930, he was awarded a full professorship of New Testament. From 1936, he also taught the history of the early church. In 1938, he began teaching both subjects at Basel Reformed Seminary. In 1948 Cullmann accepted a position teaching theology in Paris at the Sorbonne while he continued at Basel. See his many writings.

William Foxwell Albright (1891-1971), a Methodist, was an American archaeologist, biblical scholar, and philologist. He is considered “one of the twentieth century’s most influential American biblical scholars”, having become known to the public in 1948 for his role in the authentication of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Albright was a leading theorist and practitioner of biblical archaeology, and is regarded as the founder of the biblical archaeology movement. He served as the W. W. Spence Professor of Semitic Languages at Johns Hopkins University from 1930 to 1958 and was the Director of the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem for several terms between 1922 and 1936. Albright’s work has had a lasting impact on the understanding of ancient Near Eastern history and the historicity of the Bible. See his many works.

Robert McAfee Brown (1920–2001) was an American Presbyterian minister, theologian, and ecumenist. He studied at the University of Oxford before completing a doctorate in the philosophy of religion at Columbia University in 1951. He was appointed as Professor of Religion at Stanford University in 1962. See his many books.

Richard Thomas (R. T.) France (1938–2012) was a New Testament scholar and evangelical Anglican cleric. He was Principal of Wycliffe Hall, Oxford, from 1989 to 1995. He also worked for the London School of Theology. He was known as one of the best exegetes and commentators on the New Testament. See his many commentaries.

Donald Arthur (D. A.) Carson (born December 21, 1946) is a Canadian evangelical theologian. He is a Distinguished Emeritus Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and president and co-founder of the Gospel Coalition. He has written or edited about sixty books (or more) and served as president of the Evangelical Theological Society in 2022. Carson has been described as doing “the most seminal New Testament work by contemporary evangelicals” and as “one of the last great Renaissance men in evangelical biblical scholarship.” He has written on a wide range of topics including New Testament, hermeneutics, biblical theology, the Greek New Testament, the use of the Old Testament in the New, and more. He obtained a Doctor of Philosophy in New Testament from the University of Cambridge in 1975. He has authored and edited over 60 books.

And these were just scholars that I had mentioned in this regard 28 years ago, in my first book, completed in 1996. Since then, I have found at least twenty more prominent Protestant exegetes and reference works (making it a total of 29) who also held that Peter himself (not his confession) was the Rock:

New Bible Dictionary, Word Studies in the New Testament (Marvin Vincent), Wycliffe Bible Commentary, New Bible Commentary, Eerdmans Bible Commentary, Herman N. Ridderbos, Albert Barnes, David Hill, M. Eugene Boring, William Hendriksen, Peake’s Commentary, Gerhard Maier, J. Knox Chamblin, Craig L. Blomberg, William E. McCumber, Donald A. Hagner, Philip Schaff, Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 8, The Layman’s Bible Commentary, Encyclopaedia Britannica (1985; article by D. W. O’Connor, a Protestant), and Richard Baumann. For much more on this, see my article, Peter the Rock: Only a Catholic View? (vs. James White) [Includes Documentation of 14 Church Fathers Who Thought Peter Was the Rock] [5-11-24].

Now, if Treviño — in his infinite knowledge of Protestant scholarship — wishes to contend that all of these scholars and reputable reference works are also “half-baked” he is free, of course, to do so, but it will obliterate any shred of intellectual credibility he still has left. I think he should admit that he has no idea what he is talking about and instantly retire from pretending to engage in Protestant apologetics, in order to save himself from future embarrassing refutations such as this one. I feel bad for my Protestant brothers and sisters! Treviño — like anti-Catholics generally speaking — doesn’t represent the thought of serious Protestant exegetes and scholars.

Armstrong does not cite the conclusions of the Protestant scholars he cites, and they are very important, because their conclusions contradict what Armstrong believes about Matthew 16:18 and the papacy, and the interpretation of Peter being the “rock” according to what these Protestant scholars say about Matthew 16:18. These Protestant scholars do not connect Matthew 16:18 with the belief of the papacy (Armstrong does).

As explained, this is completely irrelevant to my argument (what is known in logic as a non sequitur). It’s understood and assumed going in that they reject the papacy and papal ecclesiology, by definition (as Protestants).

It is like trying to go 100 kilometers in a car that has little gasoline, and can only go 50 kilometers. Armstrong falls into the “non sequitur fallacy”, the conclusion does not follow from the premise.

This is sheer nonsense, since Treviño never even understood the nature of my argument in the first place, and so has been engaging in “straw man” tactics and caricature. Again (repetition being a good teacher), I wasn’t seeking to prove that they believed in the papacy itself, but rather, that they believed in an important premise of Catholic argumentation for the papacy: that Jesus regarded Peter Himself as the “Rock” upon which He would build His Church. To “Catholic ears” that is very “papal” indeed, however Protestants conceptualize it.

And many Protestants have made profound statements about the degree of Peter’s authority, too, based on Jesus having given him “the keys of the kingdom.” The argument for Petrine primacy and the papacy, based on the Bible, is a cumulative one, as I have often noted: made up of many strands that we believe all point in the direction of the papacy as a divinely instituted office in the Church. I wrote over 22 years ago, for example:

The case for the papacy is a cumulative argument. As such, showing that the consensus today is that Peter was the Rock is one aspect of that. It isn’t the whole ball of wax. We also show what was meant by having the keys of the kingdom, etc. We support our positions one-by-one and then conclude that the evidence is strong. (2-26-02)

*
It is a “cumulative” argument. One doesn’t expect that all individual pieces of such an argument are “airtight” or conclusive in and of themselves, in isolation, by the nature of the case. I certainly don’t do so. . . . all the various evidences become strong only as they are considered together (like many weak strands of twine which become a strong rope when they are woven together). . . . all the various evidences become strong only as they are considered together (like many weak strands of twine which become a strong rope when they are woven together). (3-14-02)

See, for example, my fairly well-known piece, 50 New Testament Proofs for Petrine Primacy & the Papacy [1994] [+ French version] [+ Portugese version 1 / Portugese version 2], and also, Reply to Lucas Banzoli’s 205 Potshots at St. Peter, Part I (+ Part II, Part III, Part IV) [5-30-22]. Banzoli is one of the contributors to this book. See many more biblical and historical arguments for the papacy on my web page, The Papacy and Infallibility.

I have refuted Banzoli’s writings 66 times. From 25 May until 12 November 2022 he wrote not one single word in reply, claiming that my articles were “without exception poor, superficial and weak” and that “only a severely cognitively impaired person” would take them “seriously.” Nevertheless, he found them so “entertaining” that after almost six months of inaction he resolved to “make a point of rebutting” them “one by one”; this effort being his “new favorite sport.” He has replied to me 16 times (the last one dated 2-20-23). My replies can be found under his name on my Anti-Catholicism page.

*
When Roman Catholic apologists cite lists of Protestant scholars who say that Peter is the “rock” it does not prove their point, because these Protestant scholars do not believe in the Roman Catholic interpretation. To give the appearance that these Protestants support the Roman Catholic interpretation is either a failure to read the citations or intentionally omitting the full citations of these Protestant scholars and their interpretation of Matthew 16:18.

Merely repeating lies or falsehoods make them no more true or less false than they were the first time they were brought up. All Treviño does is spew out this stupid, clueless “reply” over and over; never understanding the nature of my argument. It’s astonishing to behold, and should be embarrassing and scandalous to all who read it. These Protestant scholars are following the interpretation (i.e., in terms of Peter being the Rock, not a pope) of at least 14 Church fathers that I have found:

Tertullian, writing around 200-220, stated that “Peter . . . is called the Rock whereon the Church was to be built” (Prescription against Heretics, 22).

Origen writing around 230-250, called Peter “that great foundation of the Church, and most solid rock, upon which Christ founded the Church” (In Exod. Hom. v. n. 4, tom. ii) and “Upon him (Peter) . . . the Church was founded” (In Epist. ad Rom. lib. v. c. 10, tom. iv) and “Peter upon whom is built Christ’s Church” (T. iv. In Joan. Tom. v.).

St. Cyprian, c. 246, wrote about “Peter, upon whom by the same Lord the Church had been built” (Epistle 54 to Cornelius, 7).

Firmilian, c. 254, wrote about “one Church, which was once first established by Christ on a Rock” (Inter Ep. S. Cyp. Ep. lxxv).

Aphraates (c. 336) stated that “the Lord . . . set him up as the foundation, called him the rock and structure of the Church” (Homily 7:15, De Paenitentibus).

St. Ephraem (c. 350-370) called Peter “the foundation of the holy Church” (Homilies 4:1).

St. Hilary of Poitiers in 360 held that Peter was “the foundation-stone of the Church” (On the Trinity, Bk. VI, 20).

St. Gregory of Nazianzen (370) stated that Peter “is entrusted with the Foundations of the Church” (T. i. or. xxxii. n. 18).

St. Gregory of Nyssa (371) wrote that Peter was “the Head of the Apostles . . . (upon him) is the Church of God firmly established. . . . that unbroken and most firm Rock upon which the Lord built His Church” (Alt. Or. De S. Steph.).

St. Basil the Great (371) stated that Peter “received on himself the building of the Church” (Adversus Eunomius 2:4).

St. Epiphanius (c. 385): “upon which (Rock) the Church is in every way built . . . Foundation of the house of God” (Adv. Haeres.).

St. Ambrose (c. 385-389): “whom when He styles a Rock, He pointed out the Foundation of the Church” (T. ii. l. iv. De Fide, c. v. n. 56).

St. John Chrysostom (c. 387): “Head or Crown of the Apostles, the First in the Church . . . that unbroken Rock, that firm Foundation, the Great Apostle, the First of the disciples” (T. ii. Hom. iii. de Paenit. n. 4).

St. Jerome (385): “Peter, upon whom the Lord has founded the Church” (Letters 41, 2).

ADDENDUM

Treviño made a “reply” on 8 October 2024. I read about six paragraphs, which consisted solely of juvenile insults, before giving up. I don’t waste my time interacting with fools and idiots who can only insult and lie about their opponents (“He is afraid of the truth, and that bothers him greatly” etc. ad nauseam); offering no rational thoughts. Life is too short. I interacted with the book portion, following Solomon’s advice: “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes” (Prov 26:5). But now is the time to apply his equally sage advice, “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself” (26:4).

***

Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 4,800+ free online articles or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

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

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: cover of the Spanish-language book, ¿Cuál Es La Iglesia Verdadera?: Una Respuesta Evangélica A Las Pretensiones De La Iglesia De Roma from its Amazon page. Copyright by ibukku, LLC (June 5, 2024).

Summary: Edgar Treviño, in Which Is the True Church?: An Evangelical Response to the Claims of the Church of Rome (2024), utterly misrepresents my argument about Peter the Rock.

Reply to a Protestant: Misc. Protestant Errors

Last updated on: August 17, 2024 at 6:25 pm By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

Includes Biblical Arguments for the Catholic Priesthood

Photo credit: cover of my 2003 book, Protestantism: Critical Reflections of an Ecumenical Catholic.

This discussion and dispute began with a meme that I put up. It stated (numbers added):

Protestantism:

[1] Where everyone is a priest except priests,

[2] Where everyone can bind and loose except bishops,

[3] Where you can command angels but not ask their help,

[4] Where you can talk to the devil but not to saints,

[5] Where everyone gets a crown except the Virgin Mary,

[6] Where everyone can interpret Scripture except the Church,

[7] Where every Church is a Church except the Church.

That caused a firestorm of controversy on one of my Facebook threads. The general tenor of the many Protestant critics who showed up was that I was either grossly ignorant of Protestantism, or deliberately dishonest. I contended that much of the furor, in my opinion, was based on a mistaken view of the sort of “literature” this was: proverbial, which allows of many exceptions. I replied to the most vociferous critic, Steve Gregg, a zealous preacher who emerged from the Jesus Movement of the early 70s, in my article, “Various Protestant Errors (Vs. Steve Gregg)” and made the following observation:

Now, posting a meme doesn’t necessarily mean that one agrees with every particular of it. And this is clearly a proverbial-type of meme, that would allow many exceptions (just as passages in the Book of Proverbs do). Moreover, with Protestantism one has to generalize, since there are so many divisions, but these observations are either broadly true or true of some and sometimes many Protestants, or else I wouldn’t have posted it. There can always be partial exceptions in an individual as well. . . .

It’s important to realize that the meme doesn’t necessarily have to mean that all Protestants believe all these things. . . . It’s implying (at least in my opinion and interpretation) that these beliefs can be or are found among Protestants.

To use an analogy, I could put up a meme about “The Democratic Party” and list seven things that some or many Democrats believe (free abortion and widespread illegal immigration and opposition to fossil fuels would be three examples). It wouldn’t follow that every Democrat believes all seven things; as Democrats (the men and women on the street; not just the politicians) are quite diverse as a group, just as Protestants are. But the generalizations would hold. Democrats are absolutely overwhelmingly in favor of legal abortion, etc. The fact that some aren’t doesn’t negate the legitimacy of the generalization. And the same applies to this meme. . . .

All of the points in the meme have been believed by Protestants; often, by many, and sometimes by very many.

Gregg soon imploded and launched an avalanche of personal attacks, after misinterpreting remarks I made about the behavior of the Protestants other than him in the thread (he took them all personally), as can be seen at the end of that article. With his departure, no other Protestant (of the many critics who chimed in) was willing to reply to my response-paper, save for one person whose demeanor had been cordial all along (h e wishes to remain anonymous). This is my reply to his comments in the original thread. His words will be in blue. Cited words from my reply-paper will be in green. I use RSV for Bible citations.

1. Recognizing special ministry roles (ones of authoritative leadership and otherwise) is not synonymous with “gap-bridging between God and man” priesthood. The sacramental “gatekeeping access to God” role Protestantism saw in Catholic “priesthood” is not parallel to those roles we see affirmed in the NT.

I agree; hence I wrote, “the universal priesthood of believers . . . is scriptural, and we also believe it. But we differ in thinking that there is an additional specific class of clergy called priests, . . . In other words, there are two senses of ‘priest’ in the Bible.” Thus, I was not arguing for equation, but rather, differentiation of two groups of people.

All the examples provided fail to establish NT priesthood. They establish ministerial roles (in general and various kinds), certainly, but not a “gatekeeping access to God” role typically referenced specifically as “priests.” It isn’t there. Bishops, overseers, shepherds, many terms are used for authoritative caretaking roles, but not priesthood. Jesus is the high priest, and we merely are kept in perpetual remembrance of his high priesthood.

I wrote: “The priesthood as we know it today is not a strong motif in the New Testament. But this can be explained in terms of development of doctrine: in the early days of Christianity some things were understood only in a very basic or skeletal sense.”

That said, I did offer arguments for the priesthood, particularly as presiding over the Mass (“Jesus entrusts to His disciples a remembrance of the central aspect of the liturgy or Mass (consecration of the bread and wine) at the Last Supper [(Lk. 22:19: ‘Do this in remembrance of me’]; Paul may also have presided over a Eucharist in Acts 20:11.” [“Paul had gone up and had broken bread and eaten”], even though that wasn’t the primary purpose of what I argued in my book (which was the differentiation of “priesthood of all believers” from priests in the Catholic sense). I addressed the “binding and loosing” aspect, which ties into confession and absolution (your “gatekeeping access to God” description), in replying to #2 in the meme. If you want “gatekeeping” you see that in this passage:

John 20:23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.

That’s “gatekeeping,” because, note that it’s talking about forgiving the sins of others in a general sense; that is, even if they have nothing to do with the person offering the forgiveness, or penance (“retained”). We see the Apostle Paul doing the same thing with regard to a serious sinner in the Corinthian congregation:

1 Corinthians 5:1-5 It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and of a kind that is not found even among pagans; for a man is living with his father’s wife. [2] And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you. [3] For though absent in body I am present in spirit, and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment [4] in the name of the Lord Jesus on the man who has done such a thing. When you are assembled, and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, [5] you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

This is an example of Paul “binding” (Mt 18:18) or “retaining” sins; i.e., imposing a penance for them. That’s the priestly function in the more specific Catholic sense. Then later he relaxes the punishment, which is the “loosing” function or forgiveness, and is actually an explicit example of what we call an indulgence (the relaxing or removal of temporal punishment for sin):

2 Corinthians 2:6-8, 10 For such a one this punishment [penance!] by the majority is enough; [7] so you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. [8] So I beg you to reaffirm your love for him. . . . [10] Any one whom you forgive, I also forgive. What I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ,

Note particularly verse 10: “Any one whom you forgive, I also forgive.” Paul is forgiving those who did him no (personal) wrong, and that’s because he is functioning as a priest and gatekeeper. He can formally pronounce either forgiveness or penance as a representative of God, and he did both. Paul casually assumes that priests are still operative under the new Christian covenant, by referring to the table of the Lord (or altar) and contrasting it with the table of demons, in a eucharistic context:

1 Corinthians 10:14-21 Therefore, my beloved, shun the worship of idols. [15] I speak as to sensible men; judge for yourselves what I say. [16] The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? [17] Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. [18] Consider the people of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar? [19] What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? [20] No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons. [21] You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. (cf. 9:13)

Paul is in this same priestly thought-world in another of his statements:

Romans 15:15-17 But on some points I have written to you very boldly by way of reminder, because of the grace given me by God [16] to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit. [17] In Christ Jesus, then, I have reason to be proud of my work for God.

He’s “offering” a “priestly service” to the Gentiles. The Greek word is hierourgeo. Strong’s Concordance defines it as “to be a temple-worker, i.e., officiate as a priest (fig.): — minister.” This classic (non-Catholic) reference work states: “to minister in the manner of a priest, minister in priestly service.” It also notes (from Joseph Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon) historical etymological definitions of “to be busied with sacred things; to be perform sacred rites” (from Philo), and “used esp. of persons sacrificing” (from Josephus).

Baptist Greek scholar A. T. Robertson, in his famous work, Word Pictures of the New Testament (Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, 1930; six volumes; under Romans 15:16; vol. 4, 520), provides the basic definition: “to work in sacred things, to minister as a priest.” Likewise, Marvin Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament (four volumes; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1887; reprinted: Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1946; vol. III, 174) states, for the same passage:

Ministering (ierourgounta). Only here in the New Testament. Lit., ministering as a priest.

Offering up (prosfora). Lit., the bringing to, i.e., to the altar. Compare doeth service, John xvi. 2.

Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament defines it as:

‘to perform sacred or sacrificial ministry.’ In Josephus and Philo it always means “to offer sacrifice” and often has no object. (hierourgia means “sacrifice” and hierourgema the “act of sacrifice.”)

None of these reference works are Catholic; thus, no charge of bias based on Catholic affiliation can be made against them. The bottom line is that Paul has called himself a priest – using two different terms.

We get the word liturgy from litourgos (Strong’s word #3011; cf. #3008, 3009, and 3010). Strong’s (word #3008: litourgeo) applies it to, among other things, “priests and Levites who were busied with the sacred rites in the tabernacle or the temple.”

Paul also casually assumes the continued existence of altars among Christians (1 Cor 10:14-21), and altars are mentioned in the New Testament in other places (apart from the many mentions of altars in heaven), as well:

Hebrews 13:9-12 Do not be led away by diverse and strange teachings; for it is well that the heart be strengthened by grace, not by foods, which have not benefited their adherents. [10] We have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat. [11] For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest as a sacrifice for sin are burned outside the camp. [12] So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood.

Therefore, if it is true that – as John Calvin argues in his Institutes: IV, 18:3 –: “the cross of Christ is overthrown the moment an altar is erected”, then the New Testament is against the cross. It’s much more likely that Calvin has misunderstood the passages above.

Priests dispense sacraments (1 Cor 4:1; Jas 5:14), including baptism (Mt 28:19; Acts 2:38, 41). A universal priesthood of “offering” (sacrifice) extending to “every place” in New Testament times is prophesied in Isaiah 66:18, 21 and Malachi 1:11.

***

2. If binding & loosing refers to excommunication and reconciliation, we see Paul prompting the Corinthian church to do so as a community rather than tasking a priest/pastor/elder to do so. This binding & loosing would be church-communal rather than limited to a few in authority.

Here you appear to be referring to the passages I brought up, above. What you overlook is the fact that Paul himself was functioning as the priest in that instance, and merely encouraging the assembly to follow-up on his instructions. Paul started the ball rolling, so to speak. Accordingly, he writes with “high” priestly, commanding authority: “Let him who has done this be removed from among you. . . . I have already pronounced judgment in the name of the Lord Jesus . . . you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved . . .” (1 Cor 5:2-3, 5).

Paul directed the whole thing: not the Corinthians themselves. He was the priest. He was doing “gatekeeping” — as you described it. Likewise, he led and guided the relaxation of the penance or indulgence, too (which directly contradicts your argument). He commands them and tells them what to do: “this punishment by the majority is enough; so you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him . . . I beg you to reaffirm your love for him. . . . Any one whom you forgive, I also forgive” (2 Cor 2:6-8, 10).

3. Word of Faith / “Prosperity Gospel” figureheads, while they exist, are dismissed by almost all Protestants with contempt as heretical false teachers.

I agree. As I noted, I rebuked these errors as a young apologist in 1982, and as a charismatic Protestant. But it hasn’t been established that this error occurs only among the “word of faith” extremists. And I can attest to the fact that this mentality is rampant in pentecostal circles. I attended Assemblies of God from 1982-1986 and I personally encountered or witnessed dozens of people talking this nonsense, even though AG doctrine was against it. In this meme, practices “on the ground” are being referred to, not just official doctrines.

So the whole “commanding angels” thing simply is not something to say “occurs in our ranks.”

Again, as I noted, there are over 644 million pentecostals or charismatics worldwide. It certainly does occur in your ranks. In five seconds I found this on an Assemblies of God site:

Mark 1:34 says, “He [Jesus] did not allow the demons to speak, because they knew Him” (NKJV). In Mark 5:8, He commands, “Come out of the man, unclean spirit!” This is why believers can take authority in Jesus’ name over demonic activity.

Assemblies of God is usually regarded as the largest pentecostal denomination. It has 68.5 million members, just 6.5 million less than Presbyterians and 11.5 million less than Lutherans and Methodists. Granted, this citation is about demons, but they are angels, too, after all (fallen angels). Other charismatic articles deny that this is the case; for example, “Can Christians Command Angels?” (Samantha Carpenter, CharismaNews, 5-19-21).

As I’ve reiterated over and over, I don’t believe that the meme was claiming that all Protestants believe any of these points: only that some or many do. If in fact the meme writer didn’t intend that understanding (maybe he or she didn’t), it’s still certainly my own view of the points in it. This particular item probably applies to the smallest number (as I already conceded), but it’s still not nonexistent.

You may as well be addressing JW or LDS as “a problem in Protestant ranks” as if it is something we can existentially eradicate any more than Catholicism can.

Those groups are non-trinitarian heresies and not Protestant at all (I wrote against JWs in the early 80s as an evangelical Protestant: it was one of my earliest apologetics projects). The “word of faith” theology and group of folks — bad and dangerous as the theology is — is not in that category at all. They are almost all trinitarian Protestant Christians; more comparable to a group like Seventh-Day Adventists, which contains significant departures from historic Protestantism (denial of hell and assertion of soul sleep), but is not out of the fold of Christianity. That was Walter Martin’s view (the cult expert, in his book, The Kingdom of the Cults) and is my own as well.

Alternatively, we could point at rogue Catholic bishops maintaining their positions on controversial matters as evidence Catholicism “has that in its ranks.” If that doesn’t count because it “isn’t condoned” or “they’ve been excommunicated anyway,” the same thing holds for how widely Protestants decry Word of Faith / Prosperity Gospel. Take a look at how everyone talks about Joel Osteen. We ostracize that entire way of thinking.

Yep. I have been very consistent and vocal in my view that the Catholic Church has mollycoddled and pampered and winked at theological liberals and wolves in sheep’s clothing in our ranks for sixty years. We’ve had hell to pay as a result, with the sex scandals (active homosexuals entering the priesthood with those views and practices) and widespread theological illiteracy. We have plenty of serious problems “on the ground” and in practice, just as you do.

That said, we have a means to correct people like this, by our unified theology (even if often we don’t do it), whereas Protestants can only correct folks in one particular denomination. And then the ones being censured can simply leave and form another denomination or go to another one more amenable to their views (many liberal Protestant denominations to choose from!).

The example of Lot isn’t even relevant, as Lot was APPROACHED BY an angel commanding him with a message from God, and Lot RESPONDED by appealing that delivered directive. Since God had explicitly used an intermediary, Lot was positioned to respond to that intermediary. This is unrelated to Christians spontaneously “reaching out” to aimlessly command random unknown angels.

I commend you for addressing the second part of #3: that Protestants don’t pray to angels. Virtually all of the critics consistently missed the aspect of “compare and contrast” in the seven points. That was the second most prevalent error after not understanding the nature of generalizations.

The question at hand here is whether Protestants believe that we can “ask”: angels for “help”; i.e., basically pray to them. And Protestants deny that we can do so. Therefore, I produced a clear biblical example of someone dong so in the Bible, and this being casually assumed (by Moses, who wrote it) to be altogether proper. For convenience’ sake, here is the passage again:

Genesis 19:15, 18-21 When morning dawned, the angels urged Lot, saying, “Arise, take your wife and your two daughters who are here, lest you be consumed in the punishment of the city.”. . . And Lot said to them, “Oh, no, my lords; behold, your servant has found favor in your sight, and you have shown me great kindness in saving my life; but I cannot flee to the hills, lest the disaster overtake me, and I die. Behold, yonder city is near enough to flee to, and it is a little one. Let me escape there — is it not a little one? — and my life will be saved!” He said to him, “Behold, I grant you this favor also, that I will not overthrow the city of which you have spoken.

Remember, the question is whether we can ask angels for help: to petition them. Standard Protestant theological says that we cannot do so: that we can’t invoke or ask for intercessory assistance either angels or dead human beings. But what you guys forbid is clearly taught here. Lot asks the angel if he can flee to a nearby city. The angel not only allows that, but also says that he won’t destroy the city (!) by “grant[ing]” the “favor” of not “overthrow[ing]” the city. That’s petition or prayer to an angel, which is utterly impermissible in Protestantism.

You use a rather desperate and irrelevant reply to try to escape this dilemma by noting that the angel approached him first; therefore, it is supposedly essentially different from prayer to an angel. But it’s not. Petitionary prayer is what it is, whether an angel or dead person approaches us or not, and Protestantism forbids it. The aspect of “approaching first” is a non-essential element of it; therefore it doesn’t overthrow the difficulty.

4. The rich man talking to Abraham is two physically-dead (but spiritually alive?) people talking, which is not comparable to one living and one dead person talking.

I’ve dealt with this objection countless times. The fact that the rich man was also dead is irrelevant with regard to the absolute Protestant prohibition of invoking anyone other than God. If that is accepted as a prior premise (as it is), then it matters not that a person who is dead in Hades is making the prayer petition to a man (Abraham in this case). He or she can’t do it, because it’s forbidden. The theology doesn’t suddenly change just because a person dies. And if it is forbidden, as Protestants claim, Abraham would have had to rebuke the rich man for making the petitions. But of course he didn’t, because it is biblically permissible.

And the denials aren’t “ain’t doing it as that is against God’s will.” Both requests are simply useless, one because it is impossible and the other because even if granted it would make no difference. If anything, it shows the total fruitlessness of engaging in it. There’s nothing to be accomplished from it. There’s an uncrossable gap involved AND we see an implication that intervention by a faithful comforted (and dead) believer would make zero difference.

All of that is irrelevant to the question at hand, too (what’s known as a non sequitur in logic). All that is relevant is whether Scripture sanctions prayer to a dead man. It does here, right from the lips of Jesus, and Abraham didn’t rebuke the prayer and say, “why are you asking me?! Don’t you know that you can only ask God to answer prayer requests?!” — which he would have to do if this tenet of Protestantism were true.

The same thing happens again when King Saul petitions the dead prophet Samuel. Samuel tells him that he is going to die in battle the next day, and offers no solace. What he didn’t do was rebuke Saul for offering an impermissible prayer. It all fits with Catholic theology and not at all with the Protestant outlook.

*
5. Weak and dodgy. Referring to Protestants saying Mary isn’t “the queen of heaven” — but ignoring the idea of all saints attaining crowns of victory & glory — is begging there to be a point. Even saying Rev 12 = Mary is just bad exegesis someone only engages in if they’re believing what someone else has told them is there.

This is the point (you verify it in this reply): which is that Protestants love talking about all the crowns believers get in heaven, while denying and warring against virtually any specific honor in Mary’s case as “Maryolatry.” Mary’s crown is referred to in Revelation 12 and Protestants typically deny that the passage is about Mary. But this is exegetically weak, anti-Marian bias.

There are many good reasons for believing that Revelation 12 has an application to Mary (it also has a dual application to the Church). Who else, after all, “brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne” (Rev 12:5)? The Church didn’t bring forth Jesus, since it was Jesus Who established the Church. I’ve made the exegetical case several times (here are five of those):

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

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

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

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

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

*
6. No, sola scriptura does not make the individual’s interpretive role absolute. Rather, it makes interdependent communal interpretation that much more crucial, as scripture still means what it means even if we misinterpret it. We remain accountable to scripture itself, not to our interpretation of it.

I’ll repeat what I stated last time, because you have not addressed it at all:

The individual (like Luther, who invented this!) can judge the institutional (Catholic / Orthodox) Church. That’s exactly what Luther did in 1521 at the Diet of Worms. He knew better than the entire unbroken 1500-year tradition of the Catholic Church.

Any Protestant — by the express principle of sola Scriptura — can dissent against his or her denomination, just as Luther did against the Catholic Church, simply by declaring what is dissented against as “unscriptural. And no Protestant can show that that is not what sola Scriptura logically boils down to. Therefore, in the final analysis, the individual indeed reigns supreme in Protestantism.

If this is denied, then Martin Luther’s very actions to start the whole thing would be nullified; thus discounting the entire Protestant “Reformation” and its initial rationale. You can talk a good game of limited denominational authority, but that only goes so far, when there are hundreds of other denominations to choose from if someone is censured.

With Catholicism, by contrast, nobody is accountable to scripture itself, but ONLY to what the Magisterium declares it to mean.

This is patently false, and is one of the most stubborn, intransigent Protestant myths about the Catholic Church. In fact, there are only seven (some think nine) passages out of the entire Bible where the Catholic Church requires only one interpretation. Beyond that, Catholics are as free as any other exegete to interpret Scripture on their own. See my article:

The Freedom of the Catholic Biblical Exegete / Interpreter + Bible Passages that the Church has Definitively Interpreted [9-14-03]

The Catholic Church, of course, wants that enterprise to be guided in an ultimate sense by the Church (orthodoxy), but that’s no different from every Protestant group offering Scriptures that mean a certain thing, and an overall theology (in creeds and confessions and membership statements), meant to guide its adherents. In other words, this is a wash and a non-issue. But it sounds really good as a potshot against the Big Bad Catholic Church, doesn’t it? If only it were true . . .
*

7. Hair-splitting. The passages referenced to not indicate the points being made. If the church means all who are in Christ, but some can fall away, then they are no longer part of the church as they are no longer in Christ.

Yes, when they fall away, they aren’t, but the problem is that no one can know for sure whether they will persevere till the end (or whether they themselves will). We don’t know the future. We’re not God. We know there is an elect (the eschatologically saved, who make it to heaven). But we can’t know with certainty which individuals are included in that category. And because of that, “bad” individuals, or [terrible] “sinners” are in the Church, and there is abundant biblical indication of that. I only gave a small amount of the proof to be had. I have much more that can be seen on my web page, Inquisition, Crusades, & “Catholic Scandals” (in the section, “Sinners in the Church”). I’ve written about the general topic at least eleven times.

Addressing churches in a way that condemns some of their “bewitched” beliefs is not a way of saying “you people who count / don’t count as part of the church.”

Exactly! That was my point. They are part of the Church, too.

And if Paul meant it that way in saying “to the churches,” he was failing to address them properly because if they were actually Church they’d be infallible.

I don’t follow this reasoning, and so won’t comment further on it.

“Churches” is interconnected local gatherings of believers,

No one denies that.

whereas “the church” [entire] is all global believers. Nothing you wrote overturns that.

Protestants deny an institutional, hierarchical, historically verified Church, which is impossible to do. You simply ignored the one compact argument I made for the institutional Church:

[T]he Jerusalem Council . . . was led by Peter and the bishop of Jerusalem, James, attended by Paul, and consisted of “apostles and elders.” It made a decree that was agreed with by the Holy Spirit (i.e., an infallible or even inspired one) — Acts 15:28 — , which was proclaimed by Paul far and wide as binding on Christians (Acts 16:4).

*

That’s undeniably an institutional Church, and one that produced infallible binding decrees in council: all of which is contrary to the beliefs of most Protestants. Sola Scriptura denies that councils can be infallible, but the Jerusalem Council was. You deny that the Church was an organization. Yet here it was. BIG discussion — and if you hang around, we can get into that in far more depth — , but that is my short, nutshell answer for now.

Steve Gregg — to whom I was replying there — chose not to stick around, choosing the path of emptyheaded and misdirected insults, so we couldn’t get into “far more depth” — beyond a “nutshell answer.” Maybe you will. I think this is a good dialogue and that we could have many more. What denomination do you attend, by the way? Are you a pastor or theological professor?

As to the basic question here, see my articles and dialogues:

Debate on the Nature of the Church and Catholicism (vs. Eric Svendsen) [7-5-96]

Visible, Hierarchical, Apostolic Church [1996]

The Nature of the Church: Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue [11-19-07]
*

Christian Ecclesiology: Dialogue with a Mennonite: Especially that of the Early Church, and the Jerusalem Council [5-30-12]

Biblical Evidence for Catholic Ecclesiological Claims [2013]

Bible on “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic” Church [2013]

Debunking the Mythical Invisible Church [9-14-15]

Belief in One True Church: Is it “Breathtakingly Arrogant”? [5-22-17]
*

Why Do Protestants Reject the Notion of “One True Church”? [5-24-17]

Dialogue on “Mere Christianity” and “The Church” [11-22-17]

Is the One True Church a Visible or Invisible Entity? [National Catholic Register, 9-12-18]
*

Dispute on “The Church” in the NT [12-30-21]

Reply to Hays’ “Catholicism” #11: Visible Church; Eucharist in Acts 2:42; Ever-Changing Catholicism? [5-22-23]

The Authority of the Catholic Church (+ Pt. 2): chapter two of my 2009 book, Bible Truths for Catholic Truths: A Source Book for Apologists and Inquirers [10-16-23]
*

Yes, Jesus Founded The Catholic Church (vs. Jordan Cooper) [3-6-24]

Thanks for the cordial discussion and God bless you.
*

***
*

*
***
*

Photo credit: cover of my 2003 book, Protestantism: Critical Reflections of an Ecumenical Catholic (see book and purchase information).

Summary: I reply to and interact with one Protestant who didn’t like a meme I put up which generalized about certain errors in Protestantism. I defend my position in depth.

John 6 & the Eucharist: Reply to Collin Brooks

Last updated on: May 27, 2024 at 2:19 pm By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

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

***

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

***

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

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

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

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

2:33 Jesus tells us ad nauseam that we have to perform both of these acts to be saved. Both of them must be done for eternal life. We must eat his flesh and drink his blood. Now, why is that a problem for Roman Catholicism? [It’s] because they don’t drink the blood. This debate [is] called the communion in both kinds debate. Rome does not practice communion in both kinds.

Well, actually we do. The practice of how to receive communion is not a dogma. It’s a discipline (which can change). Since the time of Vatican II in the 60s, it was decided to make the cup available to the laity at Mass, and in most parishes this is the practice. But for a long time it was not allowed, for perfectly reasons which I have explained:
*

Bible on Receiving One Species in Communion [3-11-08 and 6-24-11]
*

Does Communion in One Kind “Trivialize” the Sacrament? [1-31-12]
*

Chalice or Host Only Contain the Body & Blood of Christ (Reply to Two Direct Challenges from the Calvinist Anti-Catholic Sophist and Polemicist, “Turretinfan”) [11-21-19]

The Host and Chalice Both Contain Christ’s Body and Blood [National Catholic Register, 12-10-19]

Augsburg Confession Dialogues: Communion In One Kind [5-6-24]
*

The other answer to this critique is that Jesus is fully contained in both the consecrated wafer and the consecrated wine, because He can’t be divided. This isn’t just “Catholic rationalizing” or Aristotelianism or some such. It’s expressly biblical, from the Apostle Paul:

1 Corinthians 11:27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.

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

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

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

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

2:59 if you’re not a Roman Catholic you should know that in the Roman Catholic Church you do not ever drink the blood of Christ. They do

3:21 Rome decided they know better than the gospels. They know better than the early church. They’re not going to let people drink anymore.

It’s Protestantism, I submit, that claims to know better than the Bible and early Church, insofar as the vast majority of Protestants don’t believe in the Real Presence that was taught by the Bible and the Church fathers. Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism, believed in a slightly weakened form of the Real Presence, in which the body and blood of Christ are present together with the bread and the wine, and he made excellent exegetical arguments in favor of it, over against Zwingli, whom he regarded as damned.

4:43 it’s possible that there are some different rites, [that] there are some traditions and churches that are in union with Rome but [have] a different liturgy, and they do drink of the cup, so I don’t know enough to know that one way or the other.

It would be good to study up more on these matters before making a video about it. In debate teams in middle school, the first thing that is learned is to know and understand the view one is opposing at least as thoroughly as those who hold it. Eastern Catholics usually receive Holy Communion by intinction. The Wikipedia article explains:

Intinction is the Eucharistic practice of partly dipping the consecrated bread, or host, into the consecrated wine before consumption by the communicant. . . .

*

It is one of the four ways approved in the Latin liturgical rites of the Catholic Church for administering Holy Communion under the form of wine as well as of bread: “The norms of the Roman Missal admit the principle that in cases where Communion is administered under both kinds, ‘the Blood of the Lord may be received either by drinking from the chalice directly, or by intinction, or by means of a tube or a spoon’ (General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 245). . . .

*

Some of the Byzantine-rite Eastern Catholic Churches in communion with the Church of Rome adopted intinction during the early 20th century, dividing the bread into pieces long enough to be partially dipped in the consecrated wine and placed on the communicant’s tongue. This is the practice at least of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church and the Greek Byzantine Catholic Church.

*

Some Eastern Catholic Churches (for instance, the Ethiopic Rite Catholics of Ethiopia and Eritrea) have adopted the use of unleavened bread, justifying it by reference to the ancient Jewish practice of using only unleavened bread at Passover meals, and give Communion by intinction.

I myself have received Holy Communion in this fashion on a few occasions.

5:10 for the vast majority of Roman Catholics, they do not drink

This is simply not true, as explained.

5:17 which means that they either don’t take John 6 literally or seriously, and I don’t know which one, but either way it’s inconsistent and it’s a problem for them

Not in the slightest. Collin presents a false dilemma. These aren’t the only choices. We can take the latter part of John 6 literally (as we do), but we interpret it in light of 1 Corinthians 11:27 (seen above). All relevant Scripture must be taken into account.

5:30 another problem is eating and drinking save

I’ve already been through this. What the real problem is here, is the Protestant disbelief in the salvific power of the Holy Eucharist. We believe in that, based mainly on John 6; they do not.

7:56 Rome doesn’t practice paedo-communion [infant communion]

Eastern Catholics are as Catholic as anyone else and many of them (if not all) practice this.

9:02 Rome teaches even an adult is is saved by baptism so when it comes to every single human being you’re actually saved well before you eat the body of Christ

Baptism brings about regeneration in our view; not a once-for-all salvation that can never be lost. Collin is describing something much more akin to the Lutheran view of baptism, and the reformed view of instance salvation that can never be lost, rather than the Catholic position. But then a little later he does more accurately express our true view.

10:20 here’s the ironic thing: literally in Roman Catholicism you’re not even allowed to go to mass if you’re in a state of mortal sin

False. Anyone can attend a Catholic Mass. To receive Holy Communion one must be a professed Catholic (which includes baptism, and that includes, incidentally, Protestant baptism). What a novelty! One must actually believe in the Holy Eucharist and the doctrine of the church in which it is received before partaking!

10:27 if you’ve not been baptized or if you’ve not gone to confession you are not permitted to the Lord’s Supper. In other words you have to be saved before you eat Jesus’s body and blood . . .

Once again, Collin is confused. Catholics don’t believe in instant, once-for-all salvation, because it’s not biblical. Neither baptism nor the Eucharist nor a profession of faith in Jesus Christ bring that about. One must persevere. What these sacraments and professions do is put us in good graces with God and out of mortal sin that separates us from Him, and in a good spiritual state in which we possess a moral assurance of salvation.

11:40 historically, the Eucharist hasn’t been established at this point in time when Jesus is actually preaching the bread of life discourse to the people, telling them to eat and be saved . . . which means Jesus would be giving them a false hope. . . . the Eucharist had not been established yet so that cannot be what Jesus is talking about
*

I deny the hidden premise. It didn’t have to be established yet. He is in effect explaining what it would mean when it was instituted as the central rite of Christian worship. Jesus talked similarly regarding the indwelling Holy Spirit that was yet to come (it occurred on Pentecost):

John 16:7-8, 13-14 Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. [8] And when he comes, he will convince the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: . . . [13] When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. [14] He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

13:30 throughout the bread of life discourse Jesus utilizes metaphors that we all agree on. Everybody agrees that there is metaphoric language all throughout the bread of life discourse

We agree that it is metaphorical from 6:1-52. But from 6:53-71 it’s literal.

15:42 our physical hunger is representing a spiritual hunger; our physical thirst is representing a kind of spiritual thirst

Yes, that’s in the first section which is metaphorical. I explain why we believe the second part is literal in several articles:

Debate with a Protestant on John 6 & the Eucharist (vs. C. Michael Patton) [12-4-08]

John 6: Literal Eucharist Interpretation (Analogical Cross-Referencing and Insufficient Counter-Arguments) [8-15-09]

John 6, the Eucharist, & Parables (Dialogue) [8-16-09]

John 6 & Lack of Faith in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist as a Parallel to Doubting Disciples [2-14-11]

Is John 6 About Holy Communion?: A Brief Summary for Those Who Deny the Eucharistic Connection Altogether [3-2-16]

Transubstantiation, John 6, Faith and Rebellion [National Catholic Register, 12-3-17]
*

Did Jesus’ “Hard Saying” (Jn 6) Make Disciples Leave? [3-5-19]

Vs. James White #5: Real Eucharistic Presence or Symbolism? [9-20-19]

Apostasy of Disciples (Jn 6:66) & Protestant Commentaries [1-28-21]

Was Jesus Unclear in John 6 (Eucharist)? (vs. Jason Engwer) [11-16-21]

Was Jesus Unclear in John Chapter 6? [National Catholic Register, 1-25-22]

Implausibility of Non-Literal, Non-Eucharistic Exegesis of John 6 [Catholic 365, 11-3-23]

***
*
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.

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

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

The Deuterocanon: 27-Point Catholic Summary

Last updated on: May 27, 2024 at 10:39 am By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

***

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

***

1. In the four centuries previous to Christ, “it cannot be proved that there was already a complete Canon” (The New Bible Dictionary; also, F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture).
*

2. There was no Jewish “synod of Jamnia” per se, but rather a series of scholarly discussions, from the period of 70-100 AD, and even these did not finally settle the issue of the OT canon (The New Bible Dictionary; Norman Geisler, From God to Us: How we Got our Bible; Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church; Bruce, ibid.).

*
3. These discussions were still dealing with the disputed canonicity of books like Esther, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, and even Ezekiel after the death of Jesus and after most or all of the New Testament was completed (The New Bible Dictionary). So Paul and Jesus (or any New Testament writer) could hardly have assumed a commonly accepted Old Testament canon before this time.

*
4. The Jewish historian Josephus “also uses books which we count among the Apocrypha, e.g. 1 Esdras and the additions to Esther.” (The New Bible Dictionary).

*
5. The Jews of the Dispersion (particularly the Alexandrian, Greek-speaking Jews) regarded several additional Greek books as equally inspired, — i.e., the so-called Apocrypha. (Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church).

6. “During the first three centuries these were regularly used also in the Church . . . St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, and others placed them on the same footing as the other OT books.” (Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church).

7. The Septuagint (LXX), incorporated all of the so-called “Apocryphal” books except 2 Esdras, and they were in no way differentiated from the other Books of the OT. (Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church).

8. “Christians . . . at first received all the Books of the Septuagint equally as Scripture . . . Down to the 4th cent. the Church generally accepted all the Books of the Septuagint as canonical. Gk. and Lat. Fathers alike (e.g., Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian) cite both classes of Books without distinction . . . with a few exceptions (e.g., Hilary, Rufinus), Western writers (esp. Augustine) continued to consider all as equally canonical . . . [the “Apocrypha” was] read as Scripture by the pre-Nicene Church and many post-Nicene Fathers . . . ” (Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church).

9. “In the 4th cent., however, many Gk. Fathers. . . came to recognize a distinction between those canonical in Heb. and the rest, though the latter were still customarily cited as Scripture.” (Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church).

10. “Luther, however, included the Apocrypha (except 1 and 2 Esd.) as an appendix to his translation of the Bible (1534), and in his preface allowed them to be ‘useful and good to be read'” (Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church).

11. “The NT writers commonly quoted the OT Books from [the Septuagint] . . . In post-NT times, the Christian Fathers down to the later 4th cent. almost all regarded the LXX as the standard form of the OT.” (Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church).

12. “We cannot say with absolute certainty, for example, if Paul treated Esther or the Song of Solomon [elsewhere Bruce adds Ecclesiastes] as scripture any more than we can say if those books belonged to the Bible which Jesus knew and used.” (Bruce, ibid.).

13. According to “The Nestle-Aland edition of the Greek New Testament (1979)” Jude 14 ff. is “a straight quotation . . . from the apocalyptic book of Enoch (1 Enoch 1:9).” (Bruce, ibid.).

14. “Several quotations in the New Testament . . . are introduced as though they were taken from holy scripture, but their source can no longer be identified. For instance, the words ‘He shall be called a Nazarene’, quoted in Matthew 2:23 as ‘what was spoken by the prophets’, . . . John 7:38 . . . is introduced by the words ‘as the scripture has said’ – but which scripture is referred to? . . . there can be no certainty . . . 1 Corinthians 2:9, . . . James 4:5 . . .” (Bruce, ibid.).

15. The Dead Sea Scrolls from the Qumran community revealed that they did not have Esther included in their canon. (Bruce, ibid.).

16. As for “Tobit, Jubilees and Enoch, fragments of which were also found at Qumran? . . . were they reckoned canonical by the Qumran community? There is no evidence which would justify the answer ‘Yes’; on the other hand, we do not know enough to return the answer ‘No’.” (Bruce, ibid.).

17. “As Athanasius includes Baruch and the ‘Letter of Jeremiah’ . . . so he probably includes the Greek additions to Daniel in the canonical book of that name . . .” (Bruce, ibid.).

18. St. Athanasius excludes Esther from the canon. (Bruce, ibid.).

19. “In practice Athanasius appears to have paid little attention to the formal distinction between those books which he listed in the canon and those which were suitable for the instruction of new Christians [he cites Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, and Tobit] . . . and quoted from them freely, often with the same introductory formulae – ‘as it is written’, ‘as the scripture says’, etc.” (Bruce, ibid.).

20. The Councils of Hippo in 393 (“along the lines approved by Augustine”) and the Third Council of Carthage in 397: . . . appear to have been the first church councils to make a formal pronouncement on the canon . . .” (Bruce, ibid.).

21. The Councils of Hippo in 393 and the Carthage in 397 “simply endorsed what had become the general consensus of the churches in the west and of the greater part of the east . . .” (Bruce, ibid.).

22. Yet Hippo and Carthage, along with “The Sixth Council of Carthage (419)” included “the apocryphal books.” (Bruce, ibid.).

23. “Throughout the following centuries most users of the Bible made no distinction between the apocryphal books and the others: all alike were handed down as part of the Vulgate . . .” (Bruce, ibid.).

24. “Differences of opinion also are recorded among the tannaim (rabbinical scholars of tradition who compiled the Mishna, or Oral Law) and amoraim (who created the Talmud, or Gemara) about the canonical status of Proverbs, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, and Esther.” (Encyclopedia Britannica)

25. “All this indicates a prolonged state of fluidity in respect of the canonization of the Ketuvim [“the Writings”]. A synod at Jabneh (c. 100 CE) seems to have ruled on the matter, but it took a generation or two before their decisions came to be unanimously accepted and the Ketuvim regarded as being definitively closed.” (Encyclopedia Britannica)

26. “A council probably held at Rome in 382 under St. Damasus gave a complete list of the canonical books of both the Old Testament . . . which is identical with the list given at Trent.” (The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church)

27. “This canon [of Carthage] remained undisturbed till the sixteenth century, and was sanctioned by the council of Trent at its fourth session.” (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church).

More In-Depth Reading On This Topic

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

“Apocrypha”: Historical Case for Canonicity [1996]

Dialogue on Objections to the “Apocrypha” [1996]

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

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

Development of Doctrine: Esp. the Canon (vs. Jason Engwer) [3-19-02]

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

Deuterocanonical References (?) in the Gospels [7-13-05]

Deuterocanonical References (?): Acts-Ephesians [7-27-05]

Deuterocanonical References (?): Philippians-Revelation [8-10-05]

“The Deuterocanon Was Wrongly Added to the Bible!” [2007]

St. Jerome’s Deuterocanon “Anomalies” [11-27-07]

Calvin’s Citations of the “Apocrypha” [12-1-08]

Luther & the Deuterocanon (So-Called “Apocrypha”) [2014]

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

Esther: the Protestant Version Removes God [4-20-16]

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

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

Conundrum! Scripture Alone Cannot Establish the Biblical Canon [National Catholic Register, 5-15-17]

Armstrong vs. Collins & Walls #8: Heretical Tobit? (Alms & Salvation) [10-20-17]

Armstrong vs. Collins & Walls #9: “Apocrypha” (Jerome, Athanasius, Etc.) [10-21-17]

Rome, the Biblical Canon, & Tradition (vs. Turretinfan & James White) . . . Observed in the Views of John of Damascus (aka John Damascene: c. 676-749) [11-7-19]

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

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

Vs. J. Oliveira #7: Canon Fantasies [10-4-23]

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

Deuterocanon: Reply To Protestant Apologist Gavin Ortlund [2-26-24]
*

Summary: I provide the Catholic case for the deuterocanonical books (called the “Apocrypha” by Protestants) being part of Holy Scripture, using only Protestant sources.

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

Indulgences: Luther’s View & the Catholic Encyclopedia

Last updated on: February 16, 2024 at 6:01 pm By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dave: we could also add:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

Biblical Evidence for Indulgences [1996]

Indulgences & Distribution of Grace (vs. Calvin #58) [2012]

Catholic Indulgences: History & Myths [8-6-16]

Myths and Facts Regarding Tetzel and Indulgences [11-25-16; published in Catholic Herald]

The Biblical Roots and History of Indulgences [National Catholic Register, 5-25-18]
*

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

***

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

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

Reply to Gavin Ortlund’s 6-Minute Sola Scriptura Defense

Last updated on: February 12, 2024 at 1:47 pm By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

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

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

*****

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Etc., etc. . . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scripture is divine speech, or the words of God.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God’s speech has greater authority than other speech.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reply to a “Reformation Day” Lutheran Sermon [Vs. Nathan Rinne] (Including St. Augustine’s View on the Rule of Faith & the Perspicuity of Scripture; Luther & Lutherans’ Belief in Falling Away) [10-31-23]

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

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

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

Church Fathers and Sola Scriptura [originally July 2003; somewhat modified condensation: 4-5-17]
*

Debate: Church Fathers & Sola Scriptura (vs. Jason Engwer) [8-1-03]

Ten Church Fathers & Sola Scriptura: Reply to anti-Catholic Protestant apologist Jason Engwer’s Catholic But Not Roman Catholic Series on the Church Fathers [8-1-03]

Justin Martyr (d. c. 165) vs. Sola Scriptura [8-1-03]

Irenaeus (d. c. 200) vs. Sola Scriptura [8-1-03]
*

Clement of Alexandria (d. c. 215) vs. Sola Scriptura [8-1-03]
*

Hippolytus (d. c. 236) vs. Sola Scriptura as the Rule of Faith [8-1-03]
*

Dionysius (d. c. 264) vs. Sola Scriptura as the Rule of Faith [8-1-03]
*

Basil the Great (d. 379) vs. Sola Scriptura as the Rule of Faith [8-1-03]

Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386) vs. Sola Scriptura as the Rule of Faith [8-1-03]
*

St. John Chrysostom (d. 407) vs. Sola Scriptura as the Rule of Faith [8-1-03]

Theodoret (d. c. 458) vs. Sola Scriptura as the Rule of Faith [8-1-03]
*

Dialogue: Lutherans, Sola Scriptura, & the Church Fathers [5-29-05]

Gregory of Nyssa (d. c. 395) vs. Sola Scriptura as the Rule of Faith [2-6-07]

Chrysostom & Irenaeus: Sola Scripturists? (vs. David T. King) [4-20-07]
*

Lutheran Chemnitz Wrong Re Fathers & Sola Scriptura (mostly dealing with St. Irenaeus and Tertullian) [8-29-07]

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

Papias, Scripture, and Tradition (Round Two): Dialogue with Protestant Apologist Jason Engwer [1-14-10, at Internet Archive]

Catholic Development of Doctrine: A Defense (vs. Jason Engwer; Emphasis on the Canon of the Bible & Church Infallibility) (+ Pt. II / Pt. III / Pt. IV) [1-15-10]

Papias (c. 60-c. 130) & the Rule of Faith (vs. Jason Engwer) [1-18-10]

Dialogue with a Lutheran: Church Fathers & Sola Scriptura (vs. Nathan Rinne) [10-13-11]

Dialogue with a Lutheran: Rule of Faith / Fathers / Ecclesiology (vs. Nathan Rinne) [10-17-11]

Reply to William Whitaker’s Sola Scriptura Arguments (Absurd Alleged Biblical Indications Against Apostolic Tradition) [10-20-11]

Reply to a Lutheran on Tradition & the Patristic Rule of Faith [1-10-12; additions on 2-20-18]

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

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

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

Sola Scriptura, Cyril of Jerusalem, Logic, & Anti-Catholics [11-9-17]

Did I Take St. Irenaeus Out of Context (Rule of Faith)? [11-29-17]

Vs. James White #16: St. Basil Held to Sola Scriptura? [11-19-19]
*

Dialogue on St. John Chrysostom & Sola Scriptura (Includes a Discussion of the Proper Definition of Sola Scriptura) [2-23-21]

Gregory Nazianzen (d. 389) vs. Sola Scriptura as the Rule of Faith [2-25-21]

Hilary of Poitiers (d. 367) vs. Sola Scriptura as the Rule of Faith [2-26-21]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

“Catholic Verses” #8: Tradition, Pt. 3

Last updated on: November 1, 2023 at 2:40 pm By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

[see book and purchase information for The Catholic Verses]

“excatholic4christ” (Tom) was raised Catholic, lost his faith in high school, attended Mass for a while after he married and had children, and then “accepted Jesus Christ” as his Savior, leading to his sole attendance at an independent fundamental Baptist church for eight years. He claims that the “legalism” of this church and the fact that his “trust had been in men rather than God” caused him to “walk away from the Lord for 23 years.” He “returned to the Lord” in 2014. As of April 2020, Tom stated that he was “somewhere in the middle of the Calvinism-Arminianism debate,” but “closer to Calvinism.” I couldn’t determine his denomination. See Tom’s index of all of his replies. I will systematically refute them. His words will be in blue. When he cites my words, they will be in black. I use RSV, unless otherwise specified.

*****

This is a reply to Tom’s article, The Authority of Sacred Tradition? – Part 3 (10-1-18).

Citing the two passages below, Armstrong makes the case for “oral and extrabiblical tradition in the New Testament”:

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.’”

Matthew 23:1-3 “Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, ‘The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.’”

Beneath these two passages, Armstrong writes, “Catholics believe that the tradition found in the Bible also includes an oral component. The reference in Matthew 2:23 – “He shall be called a Nazarene” – cannot be found in the Old Testament, yet it was passed down by the prophets. Thus a prophecy, which is considered to be God’s Word was passed down orally rather than through Scripture. Likewise, Matthew 23:1-3: Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority, based on Moses’ seat, which phrase (or idea) cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is found in the (originally oral) Mishna, where a sort of teaching succession from Moses on down is taught. Thus, apostolic succession, whereby the Catholic Church, in its priests and bishops and popes, claims to be merely the custodian of an inherited apostolic Tradition, is also prefigured by Jewish oral tradition, as approved (at least partially) by Jesus himself.” – pp. 43-44.

There’s no doubt that Matthew 2:23, with its reference to a prophecy that the Messiah would be called a Nazarene, has its difficulties. Nowhere in the Old Testament is there such a recorded prophecy.

And with this statement, Tom concedes the entire argument (whether he realized it or not). He just admitted that what the inspired New Testament described as a saying “spoken by the prophets” (hence, “God’s Word” or “Word of the Lord” [used 243 times in the OT] in the larger sense), is absent from the Old Testament. Therefore, the only reasonable choice is that it is extrabiblical tradition, which began orally (“spoke”) and may have later been written down before the NT cited it. But Tom provides the usual “keep it in the Bible” explanation:

Messiah as the “shoot” or “branch” – The words for “branch/sprout” and “Nazareth” are extremely similar, in both Hebrew and Aramaic, hence Matthew could have been referring to such prophecies as Isaiah 11:1: “There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit.”

I addressed this explanation in the chapter, but Tom ignores anything but the “Catholic Verses” throughout his critiques. So he’s not really addressing (let alone refuting) my book; only relatively small portions of it. But some Catholic scholars (and an apologist I shall cite below) also argue that the saying is a summary of several prophetic utterances.

To claim that Matthew was referencing an unwritten, prophetic oral tradition as Armstrong does is fanciful speculation without any foundation whatsoever.

Not at all. It’s referred to as from the “prophets” (hence, a prophecy). And even Tom — following virtually all Protestant commentators — grants that it is not in the Old Testament. There are only so many choices left. As I showed in the same chapter, at the very least five other NT passages drew from “extrabiblical and oral tradition”:

1 Corinthians 10:4, where St. Paul refers to a rock which “followed” the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement, in the related passages about Moses striking the rock to produce water (Exod. 17:1-7; Num. 20:2-13). Rabbinic tradition, however, does.

1 Peter 3:19, where St. Peter describes Christ’s journey to Sheol/Hades (“he went and preached to the spirits in prison“), draws directly from the Jewish apocalyptic book 1 Enoch (12-16). Jude 14-15 directly quotes from 1 Enoch 1:9, and even states that Enoch prophesied.

Jude 9, which concerns a dispute between Michael the archangel and Satan over Moses’ body, cannot be paralleled in the Old Testament, and appears to be a recounting of an oral Jewish tradition.

In 2 Timothy 3:8, the reference to Jannes and Jambres cannot be found in the related Old Testament passage (Exod. 7:8 ff.).

James 5:17 mentions a lack of rain for three years, which is likewise absent from the relevant Old Testament passage in 1 Kings 17.

Since Jesus and the Apostles acknowledge authoritative Jewish oral tradition (in so doing, raising some of it literally to the level of written revelation), we are hardly at liberty to assert that it is altogether illegitimate. (p. 44)

If these passages all engaged in this practice, then it can’t be ruled out as a plausible interpretation, that St. Matthew did the same thing, in writing verse 2:23 of his Gospel. Bengel’s Gnomen, a classic Protestant commentator, offers some sensible thoughts on this verse:

Although at what time that prophet flourished by whom this prediction was uttered; whether the town of Nazareth, of which no other mention occurs in the Old Testament, was then of any account or not; whether that prophet was himself a Nazarene, and deposited this remarkable verse at Nazareth, or whether he left it to posterity, conveyed by word of mouth alone, or also committed to writing, whence St Matthew obtained it, who knows? . . .

And, rightly, many have long since denied that this verse exists in the Scriptures of the Old Testament. Its condition, therefore, is the same as that of the prophecy of Enoch, introduced at length by St Jude into the Scriptures of the New Testament, and thus stamped with the seal of inspiration; the same as that of the apothegm, which, though delivered by our Lord, does not occur in the Gospels, but is quoted by the mouth of St Paul, and the pen of St Luke, Acts 20:35. Nor have the Jews any ground of accusation, because anything is quoted in the New Testament which does not exist in the Old; for they relate many ancient things which equally are not to be found there. Where lay hid the Proverbs of Solomon from ch. Matthew 25:1; the prophecy of Azariah (2 Chronicles 15:2, etc.); the epistle of Elijah (2 Chronicles 21:12), until they were inserted in the books of the Old Testament, many ages after they were delivered? . . .

Those who interpret this important verse more vaguely, so as to make out that it is contained here or there in the Scriptures of the Old Testament, in truth take away one from the ancient prophecies; whereas those who consider . . . “He shall he called a Nazarene,” to have been expressly uttered of old, recognise a homogeneous portion of the entire testimony of prophecy, and thus in truth maintain the integrity and defend the simplicity of Scripture . . .

My friend, Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin (fascinating, insightful, and educational, as always) provides further possible explanations, in an article on Matthew 2:23:

What was Matthew quoting?

Was it a source that had been lost?

We know that there were many prophets in ancient Israel who genuinely spoke for God, even though their prophecies are not recorded in the Old Testament. 1 Kings even indicates that there were as many as a hundred prophets at once!

And Ahab called Obadi’ah, who was over the household. (Now Obadi’ah revered the LORD greatly; and when Jez’ebel cut off the prophets of the LORD, Obadi’ah took a hundred prophets and hid them by fifties in a cave, and fed them with bread and water) [1 Kings 18:3-4].

Could it be that some of this material was passed down in the form of oral tradition, and this is what Matthew was referring to?

Possibly, but there is another option . . .

Lost Books?

We even know that some of them wrote books, because the Old Testament refers to them. Consider these verses:

As for the events of King David’s reign, from beginning to end, they are written in the records of Samuel the seer, the records of Nathan the prophet and the records of Gad the seer [1 Chron. 29:29].

As for the other events of Solomon’s reign, from beginning to end, are they not written in the records of Nathan the prophet, in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite and in the visions of Iddo the seer concerning Jeroboam son of Nebat? [2 Chron. 9:29].

As for the events of Rehoboam’s reign, from beginning to end, are they not written in the records of Shemaiah the prophet and of Iddo the seer that deal with genealogies? There was continual warfare between Rehoboam and Jeroboam [2 Chron. 12:15].

The other events of Abijah’s reign, what he did and what he said, are written in the annotations of the prophet Iddo [2 Chron. 13:22].

These books apparently were around at the time Chronicles was written, but under God’s providence they did not become part of the canon of Scripture.

Why that was, and what the exact status of these books was, we cannot know. But the books apparently were known in antiquity.

Could Matthew have known them, or at least some of their contents, and could that have been the source he was referring to?

Possibly, . . . (“Did Matthew Invent A Prophecy About Jesus?,” National Catholic Register, 10-24-12; bolding his own)

His own opinion, however, is the following:

You’ll note that Matthew doesn’t attribute the statement about Jesus being called a Nazarene to a specific prophet. Instead, he says it was said “through the prophets” (Greek, dia ton propheton).

That suggests that he’s thinking of it more as a general theme in the prophets, not a specific passage, and that suggests that it would be better not to render it as a quotation.

Thus Bible scholars tend to take the passage not as a quotation but as a summary expressing a prophetic theme that could be found in more than one place. . . .

[T]he wordplay Matthew uses can be taken as a summary of what the prophets said regarding the Messiah. . . .

While it’s possible that Matthew was drawing on an oral tradition from the Old Testament prophets or that he was quoting a book by a prophet which God chose not to have in the canon, it’s more likely that he’s just summarizing a theme found in multiple prophets and noting that Jesus’ life story resonates with this theme and thus fulfills it.

The difference between Akin’s commentary and that of many classical Protestant commentators and Tom, is that Akin isn’t dogmatic about it. He allows more than one possibility, and he doesn’t rule out extrabiblical traditions and prophecies being involved. But Tom is dogmatic and anti-Catholic and pretends that anything extrabiblical being in play here is impossible, calling such opinions “fanciful speculation without any foundation whatsoever.”

In Matthew 23:1-3, the apostle refers to the scribes and Pharisees as sitting in “Moses’ seat” and Armstrong presents this statement as extra-Biblical revelation by which Jesus was recognizing the tradition/claims of the scribes and Pharisees to Mosaic succession. In contrast, evangelical Bible scholars suggest that “Moses’ seat” probably refers to the seat in the synagogue from which the Law (i.e., the writings of Moses) and the Prophets were read by the presiding rabbi. From this passage, Armstrong attempts to extrapolate parallel justifications for Roman Catholicism’s elaborate hierarchy and its claim to apostolic succession, but once again we find him grasping at straws. Jesus was simply encouraging his disciples and those in the crowd to listen to the Pharisaic rabbis’ readings of the Law and the Prophets, but not to follow their practices.

While Armstrong points to Matthew 2:23 and Matthew 23:1-3 as irrefutable “Catholic verses” and examples of Scripture-sanctioned oral and extra-Biblical traditions that set a precedent for Catholicism’s “Sacred Tradition,” we find instead that these verses do nothing of the sort.

My friend, Catholic apologist Steve Ray addressed Matthew 23:2 and “Moses’ Seat”:

[T]he Mishnah . . . is a compilation of Jewish tradition around the time of Christ. It could of course be dismissed because it was after the time of Christ, but it is certainly a good thermometer for Jewish thought, not just after Christ, but also during his time and earlier. It was an attempt to put down the traditions and teachings of the rabbis down through their past. The Mishnah states,

ABOT 1:1 A: Moses received Torah at Sinai and handed it on to Joshua, Joshua to elders, and elders to prophets. B And prophets handed it on to the men of the great assembly.

One cannot dismiss this out of hand because it was after the destruction of the Temple since the Targums and Mishnah [were] the effort of the post-Temple Jews to recall and document the earlier customs and traditions of the Jews.

There was always an office to go to inquire of God. It was always assumed this office as handed down in succession would speak the true word of God. (” ‘Chair of Moses – Chair of Peter’ – a lengthy debate,” Defenders of the Catholic Faith, Sep. 2022 [part 2 in a PDF file] )

This is a wonderful article from Steve, that gets into great depth, with plenty of documentation. Some argue that there was an actual seat, or more than one, referred to here; others that it is symbolic of a teaching office. But pretty much all agree (Tom didn’t render an opinion this time) that it’s not in the Old Testament. And that was my central point. It comes from an extrabiblical tradition, any way one looks at it.

Meyer’s NT Commentary opines that that the phrase “is intended as a figurative mode of describing the functions of one who ‘acts as a public teacher of the Mosaic law,’ in discharging which functions the teacher may be regarded as the representative and successor of Moses.”

Expositor’s Greek Testament states that it is “short for, on the seat of a teacher whose function it was to interpret the Mosaic Law. The Jews spoke of the teacher’s seat as we speak of a professor’s chair.”

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges says that the phrase means “i. e. succeed him as teachers. For sitting as the posture of a teacher cp. ch. Matthew 5:1 [‘. . . when he sat down his disciples came to him.’].”

Bengel’s Gnomen adds that it is “Representing Moses, reading and interpreting his law, and even urging more than he enjoined.”

Jonathan Andrew Brown (“The Seat of Moses,” Torah Apologetics, 3-22-16), states: “Think of it in modern terms. When there is an election in the United States, we say, “oh there are three senate seats that are up for re-election.” It is an idiomatic expression. It does not mean that the literal seat or chair of a certain senator is up for re-election, it means that the office or position of the senator is.”

Craig S. Keener thinks that it means “they have adopted the role of the law’s interpreters, since instructors sat to teach.” (Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1999, p. 541)

Related Reading

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

Pharisees, “Moses’ Seat”, Tradition & Catholicism [Dec. 2003 and May 2005; a condensed, re-edited, and mildly revised version: 5-1-22]

*
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]
*
*

***

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

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

***
*

Summary: Tom tries to besmirch tradition, regarding the terms “Nazarene” and “Moses’ Seat.” He fails abysmally to prove that there couldn’t possibly be an extrabiblical tradition.

Dialogue: Rich Young Ruler, Works, & Salvation

Last updated on: July 3, 2023 at 6:42 pm By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

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

*****

Dave, speaking to yourself is not a good sign. Please lose the extreme arrogance, and note that I said that I don’t hang around on Facebook waiting for people to comment, but have other priorities.
*

Dave, you spent a lot of time throwing out a lot of comments, and links, likely none of which I will go to, since I have read practically every argument that official or unofficial Catholicism makes, but since you seem so focused on selling everything (per Matthew 10), we can remain there if you prefer. You said that it doesn’t apply to you (a “special situation”) and you haven’t sold everything.

You’re not the only one I’m writing to. I take the opportunity to educate the public about these matters. Others may choose to read what you ignore, since you [choke] already know everything about Catholicism and all of the arguments that her defenders make. That being the case, why is it I have to ask you three times to answer simple questions about one Bible scene?

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

I already answered that above (twice):

1) “I never asserted that selling all of one’s possessions is required of *everyone*. You have simply erroneously projected that onto me and (possibly) the Catholic position. The parable of the talents and many other passages contradict such an assertion. So, nice try. Jesus told this one person that a work was required for his salvation. How can this be? How does it square with your unbiblical, extreme ‘absolutely no works or merit’ position?”

2) “Note that this isn’t required of every man to do. It’s not a general rule of Christianity. But for the rich young ruler, it was an absolute necessity. Most commentators think that it was because the ruler had made money his idol, putting it above God in his allegiance. That’s why he had to part with it; so that God would occupy the highest place in his life. In any event, it is a requirement for his salvation. Once again, it is a good work that is made central.”

If the latter, then one cannot then generalize that works are needed for salvation, as Pelagius and the Catholic catechism said.

Already answered that, too, twice:

1) “If you say, then, that this passage is irrelevant for all people, since it was a unique situation, then I counter with Matthew 25 (already presented) which has to do with all of us at the Judgment, and with 48 other passages regarding works and their relation to salvation.”

[Note: I highlighted and cited at length Matthew 25 in particular and several others from my list of 50]

*

2) “This is also notable in illustrating that salvation is not a cookie-cutter matter. What is required for one person (in terms of works that exhibit faith) may not be for the next.”

*
The fact that you weren’t aware that I had answered these questions, proves that you’re not even reading my comments. This is a constant annoyance in “dialogues” with anti-Catholics as well. One gives a reply and it’s like it doesn’t even register and one is forced to repeat what was already stated: making for tedium for poor, unfortunate readers. The other tactic is attempting to switch the topic, in order to evade difficult topics.

If the latter, then one cannot then generalize that works are needed for salvation, as Pelagius and the Catholic catechism said. And, do you notice the “follow me” at the end of all that?

*
There is indeed a consistent message of salvation that Jesus taught. He is God. He came down from heaven. He is the Messiah, prophesied in the writings of old, the word of God, throughout history. And He emphasized, over and over and over, that one must believe in Him to be saved. Belief. True, sincere, total belief. That’s more than the demons, who only believed that He was God. One must believe that He is the Heir of all things, the One through Whom the world was created, the Exact imprint of God’s nature, the perfect High Priest, the Messiah, the only One who can forgive sins, by His perfect sacrifice on the cross, accomplished in history (“once for all”). Completely done, and wholly sufficient. You said you have questions. They tend to get buried in your many posts, so please kindly ask them again, numbering them, and not posting dozens of unrelated or repetitive comments that get things lost. Thanks.

What are your questions? Number them. I am happy to continue on the topics you present, which are contradictory in your own opinion, but you seem insistent on the questions you have, so please present them clearly, numbered.

For the fourth time:
*

When Jesus said, and advised, “You lack one thing; go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me” (Mk 10:21), was that 1) salvific, and 2) a [good] work, and 3) a meritorious work? Do you need it in all caps? What is this, The Twilight Zone?
*

Dave, thanks for clearly asking the questions so it is clear. I will bypass the snark, because that’s just how Catholics are.

What you see as “snark” is a semi-humorous barb on my part due to the frustration of having to repeat something four times, that was perfectly clear the first time. It’s absurd. Once should be enough. You clearly attempted to avoid the questions, so I kept asking until you answered, because I don’t play games in discussions. If you want to have a serious discussion, great; then respond to provocative questions coming from your dialogical opponent (just as I have to yours: at great length), rather than seek to evade, change the subject, and insult: all of which you have tried without success, because none of that works with me.

Of course, I recognize that you ask them not because you actually want to know the answers, but to take whatever I say, disagree with it, and make some sort of Catholic point. So, just be up front and make that point now, if you would be so kind.

I converted from evangelicalism to Catholicism and have undergone several other major conversions in my life. I am always open to being convinced and to changing my mind. What I asked were socratic questions (something Jesus often did, too), that flowed from your denial that this passage teaches Catholic soteriology. If you want to take a position I consider unwarranted, and discuss it with me, then expect to be grilled and questioned. I’m an apologist. You’ll have to defend it. If that’s not to your liking, just say so and we’re done. “If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.” You came on like gangbusters at the beginning, so I figured that you could take it.

Here are the answers for your questions.

“When Jesus said, and advised, “You lack one thing; go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me” (Mt 10:21), was that 1) salvific?

No, of course not. Man cannot absolve the debt of sin that he was born with my simply selling material things. Jesus in this passage was testing the man’s belief, his commitment. You yourself said that this wasn’t salvific. There aren’t 100 different gospels, different paths to salvation. There is but one, so Jesus did not teach that this work saves this person, but not others.
*

It was certainly, undeniably salvific. Remember, the exchange started with the man asking Jesus: “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” (Mk 10:17). That’s what it’s all about. Since that “sets the scene,” therefore, how Jesus answers must necessarily have to do with what we do that merits eternal life and eschatological salvation.
*

You say that Jesus “was testing the man’s belief, his commitment.” Yes, of course He was. He said that he had to give away all that he owned in order to be saved. That was the test, and the answer to his question. It’s clear that grace enabled him to keep the commandments (as Jesus inquired about). It’s equally clear that the man had faith, since he had observed all the commandments since his youth. He was following God and His commandments.

*
What remained was his idolatry to money: the besetting sin of rich and wealthy people. He couldn’t be saved and still have something in his heart that he placed above allegiance to God. And how would he rectify that? It wasn’t by kneeling and saying the sinner’s prayer, and telling Jesus how great and wonderful He was.

*
That didn’t cut it, since Jesus said, “Why do you call me `Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I tell you?” (Lk 6:46). So this was an instance of Jesus telling a person to do something, and to do a thing that would be a requirement for him to be saved. If he does the good work, he’ll be saved, because Jesus said the result of doing so was that he “will have treasure in heaven.” This was the one thing he lacked, according to Jesus; so he had to do it. Therefore, it was a required good work, without which he could not and would not be saved or enter heaven.

“and 2) a [good] work?”

It depends on your definition of “good” and that’s not hedging, it’s acknowledging that what God defines as “good” may be different than how men define it. You know this, so hopefully there is no controversy here. Giving help to the poor is a good thing.

Well, that is easily answered in this instance because Jesus defined the thing as the work or action that would allow this man to go to heaven and be saved. Therefore, it must be “good” because certainly a bad work or action (a sin) could not fill that function. So this is a no-brainer. Of course it is a good work, according to God the Son.
*

Your problem and dilemma is that you maintain the standard Calvinist- or Baptist- or evangelical-type position that works have absolutely nothing to do with salvation. But the Bible and Jesus assert that they have a necessary connection, alongside (always) faith and grace. They can’t be removed from the equation. I have collected 50 passages that prove this undeniable connection with regard to going to heaven, and fifty more from Paul alone that teach the intrinsic harmony and togetherness of faith, grace, and works. You can try to ignore and dismiss and rationalize all that away but it’s just not possible.
*

“and 3) a meritorious work?”

Not for salvation, no.

It’s impossible to assert that because it is directly contrary to what Jesus taught: that this work would be what allowed the man to be saved, alongside his faith and God’s enabling grace that lies behind any and every good thing we do.

But, whether for the saved believer, or the unsaved and condemned person, works are “rewarded”. The saved believer receives crowns in heaven based on his or her works, but that is after they are saved.

The unsaved, condemned person gets their “reward” that all deserve at birth: an eternity in hell, regardless of whether they give to the poor all their lives. Good works, the ones that are worthy and obedient to God, are those that are done by the saved believer. Ephesians 2:10, but there are lots of teachings on this. This answers your questions fully, and completely.

We do indeed receive differential rewards in heaven. Both sides agree about that. But that’s not what is in play here. The question was how a man can attain heaven, not just rewards in heaven. Jesus’ answer proved that the man would be in heaven if he did the required work. It’s a compelling proof of Catholic soteriology and an unanswerable disproof of Protestant soteriology.
*

Jesus didn’t say that the ruler was already saved and that he’d get more crowns in heaven by giving away his riches. He said that doing so would be the immediate or last thing that saved him, per the original inquiry of how to be saved. You’re simply projecting Protestant traditions of men onto the passage when they aren’t there at all. That’s eisegesis, not exegesis.
*

How would a Catholic properly, biblically answer the unbiblical, sloganistic questions of certain evangelical Protestants, like Presbyterian Matt Slick, who runs the CARM website? He asked me: “If you were to die tonight and face judgment and God were to ask you why He should let you into heaven, what would you tell Him? Just curious.”
*

He’s completely well-intentioned and has the highest motivations. He desires that folks should be saved. But he is dead wrong in his assumptions, when they are weighed against the overwhelming, (far as I can tell) unanimous biblical record. Our answer to his question and to God when we stand before Him, could incorporate any one or all of the following 50 responses: all perfectly biblical, and many right from the words of God Himself:
*

1) I am characterized by righteousness.

2) I have integrity.

3) I’m not wicked.

4) I’m upright in heart.

5) I’ve done good deeds.

6) I have good ways.

7) I’m not committing abominations.

8 ) I have good conduct.

9) I’m not angry with my brother.

10) I’m not insulting my brother.

11) I’m not calling someone a fool.

12) I have good fruits.

13) I do the will of God.

14) I hear Jesus’ words and do them.

15) I endured to the end.

16) I fed the hungry.

17) I provided drink to the thirsty.

18) I clothed the naked.

19) I welcomed strangers.

20) I visited the sick.

21) I visited prisoners.

22) I invited the poor and the maimed to my feast.

23) I’m not weighed down with dissipation.

24) I’m not weighed down with drunkenness.

25) I’m not weighed down with the cares of this life.

26) I’m not ungodly.

27) I don’t suppress the truth.

28) I’ve done good works.

29) I obeyed the truth.

30) I’m not doing evil.

31) I have been a “doer of the law.”

32) I’ve been a good laborer and fellow worker with God.

33) I’m unblameable in holiness.

34) I’ve been wholly sanctified.

35) My spirit and soul and body are sound and blameless.

36) I know God.

37) I’ve obeyed the gospel.

38) I’ve shared Christ’s sufferings.

39) I’m without spot or blemish.

40) I’ve repented.

41) I’m not a coward.

42) I’m not faithless.

43) I’m not polluted.

44) I’m not a murderer.

45) I’m not a fornicator.

46) I’m not a sorcerer.

47) I’m not an idolater.

48) I’m not a liar.

49) I invited the lame to my feast.

50) I invited the blind to my feast.

I understand your position. You believe that Jesus gave perhaps many different paths to heaven, since when questioned, you acknowledged that you did not, in fact, sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor. You think that that means to salvation was just for one man. So, since I have accurately answered your questions (you disagree, but that only makes it a disagreement), please answer an important one for me.

So, since the entire bible is arguably contemporaneous, is there any message for the unsaved today that is the one gospel, the one path to salvation? And if so, what is it, in succinct terms?

The gospel:
*

Romans 1:16-17 For I am not ashamed of the gospel: it is the power of God for salvation to every one who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. [17] For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, “He who through faith is righteous shall live.”

Paul cites Habakkuk 2:4: “Behold, he whose soul is not upright in him shall fail, but the righteous shall live by his faith.”
*

So this is faith and works, that go hand in hand, as in 99 other passages I have documented. Paul happens not to mention grace here, but of course he often does; for example, here is Paul discussing both grace and faith for justification and salvation:

Romans 3:24-26 they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, [25] whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins; [26] it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies him who has faith in Jesus.

But in the chapter before he also stressed works as part of the equation:

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

So, as I have reiterated again and again, for Paul, salvation is by grace, through faith, which by its very nature is manifested and worked-through by good works, that proceed from this same grace and faith. All of his passages considered together undeniably teach this combination, not faith alone.
*

And of course Jesus agrees with this. He talks about faith in Him, and also many times about works being required for salvation. He doesn’t mention grace, but John 1:16-17 states: “And from his fulness have we all received, grace upon grace. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.”
*

You said something very profound, perhaps unintentionally:

So, as I have reiterated again and again, for Paul, salvation is by grace, through faith, which by its very nature is manifested and worked-through by good works, that proceed from this same grace and faith.

Yes, salvation is by faith, belief, in Christ alone and His perfect sacrifice on the cross. That saving faith, which is given by God’s grace and not merited, is manifested in the fruits of salvation, which is works. Thank you. You have now stated biblical doctrine on salvation, though you don’t recognize the many texts that you are told mean that you can earn salvation, but are actually a description of the saved believer. The entire book of 1 John, for example, tells the saved believer of his or her assurance, and what they now have, but it also serves as a test for unbelievers.

You still don’t understand our view (or the biblical one). Don’t feel bad. Many many Protestants do not, because they’ve been taught so many caricatures and twisted versions of Catholic soteriology. It’s grace + faith, and an intrinsic and inevitable part of genuine faith — without which it is “dead” — is works. In that specific sense, these good works proceeding from both grace and faith are meritorious and necessary in the overall scenario of how one is saved and goes to heaven.
*

I have not stated Protestant soteriological doctrine (that I used to believe as strongly as you do). You mistakenly think I stumbled into it because you don’t grasp the Catholic position on these matters, and you think I don’t understand yours. In fact I understand it way better than you do because I was an evangelical Protestant, too, was an apologist then as well, and have studied all sides of this issue for the past 32 years as a Catholic, and had innumerable debates and written books about it.
*

Protestants separate good works into a separate, optional category, under the name of “sanctification” and claim that — while they are praiseworthy and important and ought to be present — they have nothing whatsoever to do with salvation. And they claim that they are done in gratitude to God for a salvation already attained (faith alone / imputed / extrinsic justification). You know the playbook and the talking points well, and have stated them in a textbook manner. There was no need because I already know what Protestants teach about it.

*
My 100 passages, which you still blow over and don’t seriously consider, are not saying that. They tie works directly in as one necessary cause of salvation, alongside grace and faith. They don’t make works optional in the question of salvation. I showed, for example, that in the rich young ruler scene, the man’s salvation was directly dependent on whether he gave up his riches, which is a good and meritorious work (all of which you have irrationally denied), not simply mental acceptance of a doctrine in his head. The NT isn’t Protestant. Jesus and Paul would flunk out of Protestant seminaries.
*

The rich young ruler is a quintessential example of what I’m talking about (that’s why it’s such a superb, unanswerable Catholic argument). He was saved by grace, through faith (he kept the commandments — works again — because he was faithful), and this faith would have also expressed its authenticity in an act of giving up his possessions (had he actually chosen that course), which would prove that he is no longer making riches his idol, and this would then allow him to go to heaven. It was the only thing he lacked, said Jesus.
*
An “optional” thing is not described as a thing that one “lacks.” If I had chocolate ice cream for lunch, Jesus wouldn’t have told me, “one thing you lack: you didn’t have vanilla ice cream for lunch.” That’s absurd because one doesn’t talk like that about optional choices.
*

In case anyone missed the point (and you did), Jesus states again that the whole thing had to do with how one is saved and how one goes to heaven:

*
Mark 10:23-25 And Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it will be for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God!” [24] And the disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said to them again, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! [25] It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

In other words, He was expanding upon the meaning of what just happened. The rich young ruler asked how he could go to heaven. Jesus told him how (do a good work proving that he had forsaken idolatry) and the man refused. So Jesus commented how hard it was for rich people to go to heaven. This one declined his chance to do so by not following Jesus’ advice.
*

Yet you sit there and pretend that it has nothing to do with his salvation; only his rewards in heaven. Those notions are not in the text at all. If in fact they were, Jesus would have said, instead, something like, “How hard it will be for those who have riches to receive great rewards in heaven. It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to receive great rewards in heaven.”
*

The entire scene would have read vastly differently if Jesus taught faith alone like Protestants do. He would have simply told the man to have faith in Him, and never would have mentioned the commandments or giving away his riches, just like you would likely never talk that way out on the street witnessing and sharing the gospel (as I have done hundreds of times).

*
It’s extraordinarily clear what was going on there and what it means for soteriology. Only those who already irrationally, inconsistently hold to an unbiblical tradition of men fail to see it, because they refuse to see it. Jesus talked about this sort of thing:
*

John 9:40-41 Some of the Pharisees near him heard this, and they said to him, “Are we also blind?” [41] Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, `We see,’ your guilt remains.

Concerning your list, all of which are things that were contemporaneous to Jesus’ teaching, and while I believe that the bible is meant to everyone today, your hermeneutic may dispute that.
*

Dave, this is not a snark, or humorous in any way, but your list uses the word “I” in each and every reason that you provide. According to you, your salvation is earned, merited by you. I would humbly submit that your works cannot erase the sin debt that you were born with, and which you earn every day. God is holy. You are not, and thus deserving of an eternity in hell as punishment….just like each and every created human who ever lived, myself included.
*

There is a consistent teaching by Jesus Christ that tells us how we can be reconciled with God, and avoid the eternity of excruciating punishment in hell that we deserve. It is not clear that you know it. It is belief in Him alone, and in His “once for all” perfect sacrifice on the cross.

*
2 Cor 5:21

John 6:37-44 (all of John 6, actually)

Romans 5:1-3

Ephesians 2:1-10

Titus 3:3-7

1 John 5:13

Once again, you miss the context and the point I was making by ignoring crucial points and distinctions, in your rush to “prove” that I and Catholics supposedly believe in a works salvation, that we deny. This is always how anti-Catholics argue, because they are ignorant regarding this matter and blissfully unaware of it.
*

I was initially responding to the classic Protestant evangelistic query (often expressed to Catholics). In this case, I cited the actual words to me, of Presbyterian anti-Catholic apologist Matt Slick of CARM: “If you were to die tonight and face judgment and God were to ask you why He should let you into heaven, what would you tell Him? Just curious.”
*

This is why all my answers begin with “I”. I just didn’t say “because” in every one. In other words, instead of answering “Because I did work x and work y,” etc. I just said, “I did x,” “I did y,” etc. In doing so I was citing Scripture directly in every case (50 of ’em), in order to illustrate how the Bible actually answers this question. It turned out to be quite differently from what Slick and Protestants would have predicted.
*

But Catholics don’t believe in salvation by works alone. We believe in the combination of grace-faith-meritorious works that always proceed from grace and genuine faith, as I have explained, and will not bother doing so again. That is not Pelagianism. And if you can’t figure out what the difference is, that fault lies with you, not with us. You’re blinded by your false and unbiblical “either/or” premises. We explain it till we’re blue in the face. I have at least forty articles just on this point alone, if you want to get up to speed.
*

But you have already said you won’t read my links, because you know everything about us, so . . . “You can lead the horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.”
*

You do not understand our teaching. I’ve never once met an anti-Catholic in 32 years who did. You are woefully in error about what we actually teach.

*
If anyone wants to understand Catholic soteriology, I have made it easy for you:

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

I trust, if you are hermeneutically consistent, that you have sold all your possessions.
*

I’ve never been wealthy, and never will be (as first a Protestant evangelist and a full-time Catholic apologist since 2001). Therefore, riches have never been my idol, so I don’t have to get rid of everything I own in order to get my priorities straight. I have many other sins God is working on, but temptation to great riches and making them my idol has never been a problem. If it were, God would require that of me, too, since Jesus said idolaters would not go to heaven (Rev 22:15; cf. 21:8).
*

And Jesus taught (see John 6) that it is belief in Him alone that saves. “Repent and believe” is the gospel message. What is the will of the Father? John 6:40. Who is saved? John 6:37-39. Can there is assurance of salvation? Same verses.
*

Jesus taught that belief in Him saved, if it is coupled with good works (which He referred to, I believe, more times than to faith). Both are the products of God’s grace. You keep bringing up John 6. I don’t know why. It teaches that reception of the Body and Blood of Jesus (transubstantiation) in the Holy Eucharist will save one:
*

John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.

*

John 6:53-58 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; [54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. [55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. [56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. [57] As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. [58] This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.

*
Because “Many of his disciples” thought that this was “a hard saying”(6:60), they “drew back and no longer went about with him” (6:66: quite appropriately). It’s the only time in the NT besides Judas that a disciple was said to forsake Him, and it was because of the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist: and so many folks today disbelieve in this express teaching, and thus possibly endanger their salvation. You’ll say it’s all merely symbolic talk. Nonsense. See my articles:

John 6: Literal Eucharist Interpretation (Analogical Cross-Referencing and Insufficient Counter-Arguments) [8-15-09]

*

John 6, the Eucharist, & Parables (Dialogue) [8-16-09]

*

John 6 & Lack of Faith in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist as a Parallel to Doubting Disciples [2-14-11]

*

Is John 6 About Holy Communion?: A Brief Summary for Those Who Deny the Eucharistic Connection Altogether [3-2-16]

*

Vs. James White #5: Real Eucharistic Presence or Symbolism? [9-20-19]

*

Apostasy of Disciples (Jn 6:66) & Protestant Commentaries [1-28-21]

*

Was Jesus Unclear in John 6 (Eucharist)? (vs. Jason Engwer) [11-16-21]

*

These are all listed on My Eucharist web page.

You’re not grappling with the many relevant Bible passages I brought up, which has universally been the case with any Protestant who interacts at all with this reasoning, for fifteen years now, so we’re done here.
*

Dialogue isn’t just one person presenting their view, and the other presenting theirs, and never the twain shall meet, and ships passing in the night. No; it’s interacting directly with the opponent’s arguments and arguing for another position that is sincerely believed to be superior. I don’t do a one-way / double standard routine, where I interact with all of my opponent’s arguments, but they ultimately ignore mine (or give one answer and refuse to address my counter-replies, as you did). I don’t have time for much of that. But I’ll do it for a short time, for teaching purposes.

You refuse to do a true dialogue, so I have invested enough energy into this, and it’s time to move on. It did at least result in two helpful educational dialogues for my blog. I heartily thank you for that. I’ve come up with some new fresh biblical and logical arguments, too, which is a good thing, and they came about as a result of your intransigence and profound lack of understanding of Catholicism.

God bless you.
*

Last thing:
*

You seem tied up in wealth as preventing salvation. God never once teaches that the wealthy cannot enter heaven.
*

1. I’m “tied up” with it in exactly the same sense that Jesus was: it’s evil and will lead to hell if it becomes an idol.

*

2. I never said that no rich man can enter heaven. I have made the previous point, and say that it is “difficult” for that to happen, precisely as Jesus stated.

I wrote on July 1, 2014 in the first comment under my own Facebook post:

Wealth is not bad in and of itself. Abraham and Solomon were wealthy; Jesus was buried in a rich man’s tomb. Greed, materialism, using and abusing the poor because of great wealth, and idolatry of money are bad.

Dialogue: Rich Young Ruler & Good Works [10-14-15]

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

St. Paul on Justification, Sanctification, & Salvation [1996]

Paul vs. Calvin: “Doers of the Law” Will be Justified [2004]
Catholic-Protestant Common Ground (Esp. Re Good Works) [4-8-08]

“Working Out” Salvation & Protestant Soteriology (vs. Ken Temple) [4-9-08]

Catholics & Justification by Faith Alone : Is There a Sense in Which Catholics Can Accept “Faith Alone” and/or Imputed Justification (with Proper Biblical Qualifications)? [9-28-10]

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

Catholics and Protestants Agree on Grace Alone and the Necessity of the Presence of Good Works in Regenerate and Ultimately Saved Persons; Disagree on Faith Alone [5-4-17]

Debate with a Lutheran Pastor on Faith and Works [5-4-17]

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

Jesus: Faith + Works (Not Faith Alone) Leads to Salvation [8-1-19]
*

Defense of Bible Passages vs. Eternal Security & Faith Alone (vs. Jason Engwer) [8-12-20]

Banzoli’s 45 “Faith Alone” Passages; My 200 Biblical Disproofs [6-16-22]

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

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

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

Sanctification: Part & Parcel of Salvation? (vs. Calvin #64) [3-9-23]

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

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

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

Salvation is a Process & Not Instantaneously Assured [2009]
*

Grace, Faith, Works, & Judgment: A Scriptural Exposition [12-16-09; reformulated & abridged on 3-15-17]

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

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

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

Catholic & Calvinist Agreement on Justification & Works [2012]

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

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

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

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

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

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,300+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-three books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

***

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

***

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

Reply to Hays’ “Catholicism” #22

Last updated on: June 1, 2023 at 2:23 pm By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

*****

[Chapter 8: Canonics]

The canon question

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For much more along these lines, see:

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

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

“Apocrypha”: Historical Case for Canonicity [1996]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canon revisited

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is the canon a fallible list of infallible books?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suppose the church gave us the Bible?

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,300+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-one books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

***

Photo credit: The Whore of Babylon (workshop of Lucas Cranach): colorized illustration from Martin Luther’s 1534 translation of the Bible [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

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

Reply to Hays’ “Catholicism” #9

Last updated on: May 18, 2023 at 2:34 pm By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

Rule of Faith; Catholic Mariology

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

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

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

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

*****

[Chapter 2: Exposition]

Catholicism in the dock, part 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,200+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-one books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

***

Photo credit: The Whore of Babylon (workshop of Lucas Cranach): colorized illustration from Martin Luther’s 1534 translation of the Bible [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

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