Why Doesn’t Scripture Call Jesus an “Only Child”?

Last updated on: February 21, 2023 at 3:51 pm By Dave Armstrong

vs. Lucas Banzoli

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

The words of Lucas Banzoli will be in blue. I use RSV for the Bible passages unless otherwise indicated.

This is my 18th refutation of articles written by Lucas Banzoli. As of yet, I haven’t received a single word in reply to any of them (or if Banzoli has replied to anything, anywhere, he certainly hasn’t informed me of it). Readers may decide for themselves why that is the case.

*****

I’m replying to a portion of Lucas’ article, “E não a conheceu até que…” [“And knew her not until…” ] (8-16-12).

The fact that Matthew also adds that Mary gave birth to her “firstborn” (v. 25) also indicates that she had other children. Otherwise, he would simply have written that Jesus was his “only son”, as the Bible often states in other cases, where in fact there were no other brothers in the family. . ., as in the case of the widow of Nain, whose “only son” (Lk. 7:12) had died, and of the man who wanted to cast out the devil from his son, because he was his “only son” (Lk. 9:38).

Why is it not written in these cases that they were her firstborn sons? Because they were his only children. When someone was the first of other children of the same mother, it is common for the Bible to call “firstborn”; however, when he is not only the first but also the only one, the word often used is “only child”, . . .

This is a decent argument, and deserves a reply. I would note, however, that the phrase “only son” (applying to persons other than Jesus) occurs in the New Testament (in the RSV) only twice (Lk 7:12; Heb 11:17), while “only child” appears exactly once (Lk 9:38). This is why Lucas mentioned the two instances in Luke, because they are two out of only three total. For whatever reason, the New Testament uses these terms very rarely.

But I still grant that the argument carries some force, which is why I am writing about it. If Lucas asks me why it is that Jesus is never called an “only son”: a thing that would put this whole controversy to rest (which would have been a good thing!), I reply, “I have no idea.” We can’t figure everything out in the Bible or understand why some things are written and others are not written, which would clarify and put a lot of historic controversies to rest.

Yet our inability to fully understand is to be expected when we are talking about an inspired revelation that comes from an infinitely intelligent, omniscient God. So I don’t know, and I don’t have the slightest embarrassment or shame in admitting that. There are lots of things we don’t know about God, theology, and the Bible.

That said, the Catholic can still “turn the tables” on the Protestant and demonstrate by several solid analogies that this difficulty (of something not explicitly and clearly stated in the Bible that presumably or seemingly ought to be if a thing is true) is not unique to us. Protestants have several major ones of their own, along the same lines. If this factor is a “problem” for Catholics, so it also is for Protestants (and I say, in several far more problematic and more internally inconsistent ways).

The two “pillars” of the so-called Protestant “Reformation” are sola Scriptura (the Bible only as the only infallible rule of faith) and sola fide (justification by faith alone). Yet neither thing is explicitly spelled out in the Bible; not even close. Here is how three prominent modern-day Protestant apologists define sola Scriptura:

What Protestants mean by sola scriptura is that the Bible alone is the infallible written authority for faith and morals. (Evangelical Protestant Norman Geisler: Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1995, 178; co-author, Ralph E. Mackenzie)

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fidei, the infallible rule of faith for the Church. (Reformed Baptist James R. White: The Roman Catholic Controversy, Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1996, 59)

Scripture . . . is the only inspired and inherently infallible norm, and therefore Scripture is the only final authoritative norm. (Reformed Protestant Keith A. Mathison: The Shape of Sola Scriptura, Moscow, Idaho: Canon Press, 2001, 260)

See also various “classical” Protestant definitions: all consistent with the above. Such a thing is never remotely stated in the Bible. It doesn’t exist, period. I’ve written three books about the topic and I have sought for such a verse and asked every Protestant I debate with to come up with one. It’s not there. Even a prominent (and worthy and able) Protestant apologist like the Lutheran pastor Jordan Cooper recently freely conceded this point:

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.” It seems like a lot of Roman Catholic apologists think that for Protestants to defend their position, that they have to find a text that says that.” I think, more so, what we have to do is just speak about the unique authority of Scripture and the unique nature of Scripture, and just to say that Scripture does present itself as God-breathed. 2 Timothy 3:16 is kind of the famous text that says this . . . [1:39-2:35, in the video, “A Defense of Sola Scriptura“ (3-12-19)]

Does sola Scriptura have to be spelled out in the Bible in order for the view to be self-consistent and valid? Of course it does! I’ve laid out that rather straightforward and solid argument elsewhere. I recently expressed it in a nutshell, in a Facebook reply to another Protestant YouTube Apologist, Collin Brooks (modified slightly):

It’s my contention that sola Scriptura, by its very nature, must be able to be defended from Holy Scripture, or else it is viciously self-defeating, and a mere arbitrary tradition of men: as such, not worthy of allegiance, and of no compelling authority.

*

Protestants have, nevertheless, made it their formal rule of faith, without the grounding in Scripture that it must have in order to consistently be granted such an imposing epistemological status.

*

In my opinion, this must be done before the discussion can sensibly continue. Why do Protestants hold to sola Scriptura in the first place? It becomes an example of “the emperor is naked.” Protestants refuse to grapple with the shocking realization that it has no scriptural basis.

*

Whether or not any given Catholic can defend his own critiques of sola Scriptura and assertions of the infallibility of Church and Tradition or not (I think I can, if I do say so), it remains the burden of Protestantism and Protestant theologians and apologists to demonstrate how and why sola Scriptura is a biblically required doctrine, over against the constant Catholic apostolic tradition that directly contradicts it. And Catholics must press this point, because it’s so absolutely fundamental and necessary for Protestants to adequately explain their rule of faith in a non-self-contradictory manner.

I set forth the argument in much more depth in my article, Sola Scriptura: Self-Refuting? (vs. Steve Hays) [12-14-21]. But this seems not to give Protestants any pause at all. They are absolutely determined to hold on to this invented tradition of men (which suddenly appeared almost fifteen centuries after Christ), despite the fact that the Bible nowhere teaches it. They seem to be blissfully unaware of how viciously self-refuting and epistemologically ludicrous such a scenario is. This is a far greater difficulty for their view than the Bible never stating “Jesus was Mary’s only son” is for the belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity (because we have many other biblical arguments, whereas Protestants have none for the actual definition and concept of sola Scriptura).

The second Protestant pillar is sola fide. It, too, is not taught in the Bible, and in fact is expressly denied in at least two passages:

James 2:24 (RSV) You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

*

James 2:26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.

In a nutshell, as James 2:26 makes the most clear: faith, in order to be genuine, authentic faith, must have the aspect of works inherently connected with it; part and parcel of it; two sides of the same coin. Thus, good works become a crucial part of the process of salvation: not in and of or by themselves (which is the heresy of works-salvation or Pelagianism) but as inevitably a part of faith, by definition. That is the biblical and Catholic view.

But Protestants, despite not being able to identify any undeniable biblical teaching of faith alone, nevertheless irrationally and unbiblically insist that works have nothing whatsoever to do with salvation, and put them in a separate, non-salvific box of “sanctification.” For the Catholic, sanctification is organically part of justification. This, too, is a much greater difficulty for their view than the Bible never stating “Jesus was Mary’s only son” is for ours.

As a third argument, the Bible never lists the books of its own canon. Whether a book is canonical or not, cannot be determined by utilizing the Bible as the only infallible norm of faith. It is necessarily and inevitably dependent upon historic Catholic Church authority, which decreed which books were in the Bible in the late 4th century. This is an insuperable problem for Protestant authority and its rule of faith. It amounts to what the late Presbyterian theologian R. C. Sproul candidly described as a “fallible collection of infallible books.” But do Protestants as a whole care about this huge internal contradiction? No! They go on about their merry way, assuming that the canon is determined, and hardly ever considering how it was . . .

A fourth analogy is denominationalism, which is never taught in the Bible and is expressly contradicted whenever the New Testament refers to “the Church” or “the truth” or “the tradition” and whenever it condemns divisiveness and sectarianism (as it often does). As one aspect of this atrocious denominationalism, Protestants come up with the special pleading of supposed “primary and secondary doctrines”: with the first set required and the second up for grabs (thus allowing countless theological contradictions to exist; even encouraged!). But that, too, is nowhere found in the Bible. So we have an unbiblical tradition of men utilized for the sake of rationalizing the initial unbiblical tradition of men: and this from the folks who supposedly “always go by the Bible alone”: whereas we Catholics — so they never tire of telling us — supposedly look down on the Bible and Bible proofs.

A fifth thing I would bring up as an example of a theological doctrine only implicitly outlined in the Bible, is the divinity of the Holy Spirit. The Bible doesn’t state outright: “the Holy Spirit is God” or “the Holy Spirit is the third Person of the Holy Trinity” (“the word “trinity” never appears, either). I went through the argument forty years ago in my massive study of biblical trinitarianism: one of my first major apologetics projects. Probably the best argument for this is the following deductive one:

Acts 5:3-4 But Peter said, “Anani’as, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? [4] . . . You have not lied to men but to God.”

This works by the following logic:

1) Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit.

2) The same act of Ananias is also described as his having “lied to God.”
3) Therefore, the Holy Spirit is God.

That may not be readily apparent, and I think most people would miss it, if it wasn’t spelled out to them. I never thought of it myself until I first saw this explained.

So, as in all these cases, we have to ask, in our turning the tables analogical argument:

1) If sola Scriptura is true, why doesn’t the Bible simply state something akin to the classic Protestant definition? And, lacking that, why do Protestants accept it as Gospel Truth anyway and make their entire theology dependent on a thing never asserted in the Bible?

*

2) If sola fide is true, why doesn’t the Bible state something akin to the classic Protestant definition? And, lacking that, why do Protestants accept it as Gospel Truth anyway and make their entire soteriology dependent on a thing never stated in the Bible, and a thing the Bible condemns at least twice (James 2:24, 26)?

*

3) Why didn’t the Bible make it easy for all Christians and state which books are included in it? Instead, the Church had to go through a 400-year process to reach consensus, only to have Protestants decide to throw out (demote) seven Old Testament books 11oo years later, and we have been wrangling about which books are in the Bible ever since. All God had to do to prevent all that was provide a list that was itself inspired and infallible. But He chose not to. Why?

*

4) Why didn’t God state through His inspired revelation: the Bible, that denominations are fine and dandy and part His will for Christianity: with His blessing!? He chose not to. We say it is because the notion is against His will, since it’s condemned over and over in Scripture. Yet Protestants think they’re perfectly acceptable in the final analysis, since they have no way to prevent their proliferation, and so they simply don’t care that denominations are utterly absent from the Bible. Well, some do, but they’re helpless to do anything about it.

*

5) Why didn’t God make the divinity of the Holy Spirit clear in the Bible, or much more clear than He did?

Lots of things for our esteemed separated brethren to think about!

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

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

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

***

Photo credit: Virgin and Child with Four Angels, by Gerard David (c. 1450/1460-1523) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: Why doesn’t Scripture call Jesus an “only child”? Good question! I don’t know why. But I do know that there are at least five similar “problem areas” for Protestants, too.

“It’s Greek to Me”: Illuminating Exchange w Eric Svendsen

Last updated on: August 13, 2022 at 1:55 pm By Dave Armstrong

[originally posted on 10 January 2005, incorporating material from 5 June 2003]

A lamentable incident on a discussion board (one of many) revealed certain shortcomings in Dr. Eric Svendsen’s dialogical tactics. One anti-Catholic slanderer wrote on a large Catholic Discussion Board, in early October 2003:

It is true that I have taken Dave to task in the past for attempting, in his self-admitted near-total ignorance of the Greek language, to correct men who have studied Greek professionally for years as to their analysis of grammatical conventions and figures of speech and so forth, . . .

This is another falsehood that this person has been stating about me for about two years now. I have explained myself more than once, but to no avail. He keeps repeating this incident and putting his cynical slant on it. To hear him describe it, I do sound truly ridiculous and like some sort of arrogant know-it-all.

This is based on an actual dispute and ugly Internet exchange, but when one learns all of the facts, they gain an entirely different impression than the one left above. The last time he brought this up I was determined to retrieve the exchange to show people what had happened, but it was too old, and no longer online. The facts are these:

1. I was in a discussion (in January 2002) on this board with Dr. Eric Svendsen about Luke 1:28 and the meaning of kecharitomene (“full of grace” or “highly favored”). It was an argument about Mary’s Immaculate Conception (specifically, whether she was sinless). I cited Greek scholars in favor of the meaning of this phrase here as “completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace.”

The scholars were Blass and DeBrunner (Greek Grammar of the New Testament), and H. W. Smyth (Greek Grammar — Harvard Univ. Press, 1968). They are cited in footnote number 188 in my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (2003, Sophia Institute Press, page 178).

Svendsen said that he had heard of Blass and DeBrunner, but not Smyth. He proceeded to minimize Smyth’s importance and severely criticized me for trying to argue a point of Greek grammar with him (since he knows Greek).

2. I quickly proved (from extensive Internet searches) that Smyth was a very well-known Greek scholar, whose work is used in many important colleges for Greek courses. Now, the point was that Svendsen had hardly even heard of the guy (if at all) and wanted to pretend he was a nobody. That was shown to be clearly false. But what does that show about Svendsen’s attitude and competence in the field of Greek linguistics? When one acts like they know something that they don’t know (in this case, concerning the importance of Smyth), isn’t that at least pretentious?

3. Svendsen later found out (from James White, I think) that Smyth’s Grammar was for classical, not koine NT Greek. This he thought to be a knockout punch and proof of my ignorance and arrogance, in trying to delve into matters of Greek, where I knew nothing.

4. I publicly apologized to him on the board at that time, for some of my words and attitudes, and for questioning his abilities in Greek.

5. On the other hand, I also pointed out that the whole incident reflected much more badly on him, since (despite claiming to be an expert on Greek) he had mocked this important, well-known, prominent scholar and hadn’t even heard of him, and didn’t know that his widely-used work (which is even available online now) was for classical Greek in the first place. He was supposed to know this stuff, whereas I (as a non-scholar) had simply made an innocent mistake. And I apologized, whereas he did not.

6. The most amusing thing in all this was that Eric’s own research associate, Mike Taylor, was utilizing Smyth in some in-depth exegetical research he was doing concerning the Eucharist. So at the very same time I was being blasted as an ignoramus and pretender for merely citing Smyth, Eric’s own comrade was citing him! When I pointed out the incongruity and irony of this to both of them, needless to say I didn’t receive the warmest reception in world history.

Proof of Mike Taylor’s heavy use of H.W. Smyth, whom he used to support his contentions, can be found in a densely argued paper about the Eucharist and aspects of Greek grammar, entitled, “Sungenis and Taylor: An Exchange.” I have compiled below Mike Taylor’s citations of Smyth (with added bolding). Nowhere does he argue that Smyth is 1) unimportant as a Greek grammarian, or, 2) that he is absolutely irrelevant because his grammar is for classical rather than koine Greek.

It’s true that he does mention the classical vs. koine Greek distinction (#12, 14-15), and the implications of that with regard to using Smyth as an authority on the New Testament, but nowhere does he imply that Smyth has no bearing on New Testament grammar at all (let alone that he is a “nobody”). If he believed that, then he would have simply refused to engage the argument (classical Greek being irrelevant to it).

He even cites Smyth in support of the interpretation of NT passages (see #3 below). His comrade, Dr. Eric Svendsen, on the other hand, argued both points as proof of my gross incompetence as an apologist, since I had dared to cite Smyth in support of my exegesis of Luke 1:28:

1) I tracked down one of those grammarians (Smyth) who says no such thing, . . .

2) I looked in Smyth to see if I could find any evidence for your “special case” and simply found no such thing. So if it turns out that you were wrong about Smyth (and you are) then would I be wrong to wonder if you might be wrong about the other grammarians?

3) . . . this really isn’t the section of Smyth that is most relevant to the point in question. In the quote above, Smyth himself refers us to section 1872 (p. 419) wherein we read the following: 1872. “Participle (not in indirect discourse).–The participle, as a verbal adjective, is timeless. The tenses of the participle express only continuance, simple occurrence, and completion with permanent result. Whether the action expressed by the participle is antecedent, coincident, or subsequent to that of the leading verb (in any tense) depends on the context.” The key words here are the following: “not in indirect discourse,” (which would cover both Matthew 26:28 and Luke 22:19f); “in any tense” (which would cover the present indicative main verbs in both Matthew and Luke) and “depends on the context” . . .

4) Here is what Smyth says of the present participle in 1872a . . .

5) We’ve already seen Sungenis’ mishandling of Smyth. Why, then, should we simply take his word for it that Shanz is on his side?

6) But the rule you stated didn’t register for me, so I got out Smyth (which was my textbook at Harvard) and Wallace (the current “Bible” of NT grammars) and did some reading.

7) With that in mind, I went back to Smyth a second time to see if I could find any evidence for such a distinction. So far, no luck. Then I went to Zerwick to see what he says.

8) Essentially, Wallace is saying that the time reference for participles is usually determined by the main verb. This accords with what I learned in Greek class and with what I have read in Smyth and Zerwick.

9) Rather than admit that his Smyth quote really does not support his claims, he instead attempts to play off Smyth against Zerwick.

10) I would respectfully suggest that Mr. Sungenis is in no position to judge between the Zerwick and Smyth.

11) Mr. Sungenis’ attempt to pit Smyth against Zerwick is misguided. Mr. Sungenis rightly notes that Smyth claims that participles not in indirect discourse are “timeless.” Unfortunately, Mr. Sungenis neglects to mention the following: “Whether the action expressed by the participle is antecedent, coincident, or subsequent to that of the leading verb (in any tense) depends on the context” (Smyth: 1872, my emphasis). This is a crucial qualification. Would Zerwick disagree with Smyth on this point?

12) Right away, then, we see that a direct comparison of Smyth to Zerwick is invalid. Smyth’s grammar only deals with classical Greek, whereas Zerwick’s Biblical Greek concerns—you guessed it—Biblical Greek.

13) Second, in full agreement with Smyth, Zerwick states that the context shows the sense to be future.

14) Mr. Sungenis’ case is weakened somewhat by two factors: First, to the extent that he is basing his case on a Smyth, he weakens his case in that Smyth’s scope is classical Greek, not Koine. Second, the rules he had originally quoted from Smyth govern participles in indirect discourse, whereas the participles in question are in direct discourse.

15) There is therefore no fundamental disagreement here with Smyth, who in any case is dealing with classical Greek, not the Biblical Koine and its underlying Semitisms.

16) Does this not suggest that Sungenis was unaware of the fact that the present participle can be future no matter what the tense of the main verb (cf. Smyth 1872, p. 419)?

17) I went back to Smyth a second time to see if I could find any evidence for such a distinction.

Svendsen and I have never interacted in any substantive way since then. My calumnious detractor keeps bringing up this incident in order to “prove” something about me that is untrue. He never mentions, of course, my apology (because that would ruin the effectiveness of the slander; apart from showing that it is highly unethical), and he never gets into the gist of what actually occurred (because that would make Eric Svendsen look really bad, just as he did at the time).

I’ve repeatedly urged him to drop it and decided not to post the argument at the time (as an act of charity), but since he won’t let it drop, and keeps talking about this publicly, I must record the incident now, so it will be a matter of record.

It may seem to be a minor point, but when the incident is fully explained, people can see what I was getting at, and that I was perfectly justified in my observation; it wasn’t a case at all of trying to talk about something (on my own, without the aid of scholars) that I knew nothing about (Greek). If anything, Dr. Svendsen was the one who made statements he knew little or nothing about (about Smyth’s credentials and importance).

***

Summary: Anti-Catholic apologist Eric Svendsen & his buddies claimed that I pretended to know Greek grammar. The incident in question provides a very different picture.

Follies of Anti-Catholic Former Apologist Eric Svendsen

Last updated on: August 12, 2022 at 1:17 pm By Dave Armstrong

[originally posted on my blog on 25 April 2010; Eric Svendsen’s words will be in blue]

There was a time (the early years of the 21st century) when Eric Svendsen (of “NTRMin” fame), a former Catholic, was (by all appearances) the second most influential anti-Catholic to be found online, after Bishop “Dr.” [???] James White. I first ran across him in 1996 when I participated in an e-mail list discussion group on sola Scriptura, hosted by Bishop James White himself, that he was also part of. In those days, Eric and I could actually have a civil dialogue (!!!). I thought he was a friendly sort: a bit different from the typical and sadly numerous vitriolic, axe-to-grind, obnoxious, know-it-all (about Catholicism) anti-Catholics online.

But in time everything goes the way of the dinosaur, and our relations inevitably soured (because of his anti-Catholicism). I posted some of our dialogues from that time and place later, and he accused me of deliberately slanting them, to be biased and unfair to him. I offered to work with him to edit them whatever way he wished — trying to be as conciliatory and fair as I could — , but he refused.

Svendsen decided in the late 90s to cease debating Catholics in writing, and hence, refused my offer to take him on in such debate (which is ironic, since I am regularly mocked by anti-Catholics for my 2007 decision to cease trying to debate them any longer). He wrote on Steve Ray’s discussion board in December 2000: ” ‘no written debates’ became a personal policy for me a couple of years ago.

This was a matter of time stewardship for him, as he went on to explain (just as it largely is for me, too). This may also be the key to the demise of his website and blog (it would be my best guess as to his own reasoning). He’s a pastor of a church, after all, and I believe he has some sort of business that has brought him considerable wealth. Hence, he wrote in a letter to me, dated 1-13-01:

I do not think you’ve fairly considered all the things I do that prevent me from engaging in ongoing online discussions. Ministry comes first to me, but I have to choose my battles carefully and focus on those things that make the most efficient use of my time.

That’s a perfectly legitimate, sensible reason. Yet if we refuse to do oral debates with anti-Catholics (as I have always done for several good reasons: none of which include fear or inability on my part), we are always accused of concealing our “real” reasons for doing so. Hence, Eric had to cynically spin and wax condescendingly as follows in a piece from December 2000:

I think the general opposition to oral debates on the Roman Catholic side is not what you assert it is, Dave. I think rather it stems from the fact that Roman Catholics don’t fare well in that venue. . . . The real reason the Evangelical side fares better in these debates is because–surprise!–it is easier to fare better when you hold to a view that is actually supported by the evidence. It’s just that simple. In public debates, anti-Evangelical apologists end up spending their allotted time engaging in highly dubious exegesis that results in convoluted conclusions based on passages that are strung together in patchwork fashion. By the end of the debate, it becomes painfully obvious that they are promulgating untenable positions. Heck, If I had to do that, I wouldn’t want to debate publicly either!

Despite this stated antipathy to online discussions and debate, Svendsen — a year or two later — nevertheless opened up his NTRMin discussion board, called The Areopagus, claiming (on an old — also defunct — prominent Catholic discussion board) that it would be a place where free discussion took place, and no nonsense allowed (right . . .).

Within a few weeks it was the same old same old: massive double standards of what anti-Catholics could say, vs. what Catholics could utter; arbitrary bannings (myself being one, very quickly), absurd fact-challenged rantings from Eric and resident “enforcer” David T. King [the most foul-mouthed, uncharitable anti-Catholic I’ve ever encountered online, bar none]; very few actual dialogues, patronizing lectures, and so forth. When I and fellow Catholic apologist Scott Windsor were banned, Svendsen had the following to say:

We stopped interacting with them because trying to explain their errors to them became much like trying to explain physics to a five-year old. You can explain these things in vain only so many times before the principle of diminishing returns comes into play. (Areopagus, 3-22-04; link now defunct)

I observed Eric behaving in exactly the opposite way of his stated intentions of charitable, civil discourse, expressed to me in a relatively friendly, irenic letter (the last such one from him) of 1-13-01:

I would like to apologize to you for the way in which I communicated my disinterest in an online debate . . . my method of communicating all that to you was caustic and unbecoming a Christian apologist, and for that I apologize. I intend to treat my opponents fairly, and with respect and dignity, and to the extent that I failed to do that, I apologize.

The same goes for my dialog with Mark Shea . . . I came on strong because I felt he took some swipes at my credibility and capabilities as an apologist. In short, I felt he disrespected me . . . I would never dream of calling my opponent’s views “stupid” in a public forum . . . I think such terminology, if not an ad hominem attack, is nevertheless highly insulting. However, in spite of the extent to which Mark wishes to diminish me by labeling my views as “stupid,” I should have continued along the high road that I had been taking since I heard of his comments several months ago. Again, I apologize. From this point on I have resolved not to lower myself to be moved by that kind of insult.

Svendsen would never dream of calling someone “stupid” — that is, until 4-27-03 on his discussion board:

After a while one just gets tired of the stupidity of some people. Some people have emotionally hysterical fits when you tell them there is both an objective and a subjective element to determining the canon. Why? Well, because that makes it more difficult for them pin you against the wall with their grubby little hands so that they can do everything in their power to destroy you. That is, after all, why some on this board persist with the nonsense they do . . . They persist in taunting and flaunting and hounding that they weren’t satisfied with my answers; but neither one of them can make a simple case for their own views . . . To give them even more answers at this point would be to dignify their inane responses and to throw pearls before swine. I decline to do that.

Before we knew it, our hero was even condemning folks to hell and expressing wonderfully irenic, charitable sentiments like the following:

RC apologists will do or say just about anything–true or not–to advance their cause. They engage in the strategy of deception regularly. (Areopagus: 4-27-03)

[W]e have experience with those who use the “strategy of deceit” to mislead people down the road to a false gospel. (Areopagus: 6-4-03)

These perceptions are subjective, but I thought that Svendsen seemed to sour and take on a very bitter, angry, sourpuss persona over time. I think that some people are simply not cut out for Internet dialogue, or dialogue, period, with folks who are different from them. A certain cast of mind (presumably insecure in some fashion) has to demonize virtually all opponents. Unfortunately, anti-Catholic ideology accentuates these shortcomings, despite the fact that one can be fully opposed to Catholic doctrine without trashing and insulting individual Catholics. But such an unsavory attitude is very prevalent.

Apart from absurd, slanderous statements such as the above, Svendsen through the years has been given to ridiculous histrionics; the most famous and notorious being his ludicrous 1999 offer of $100,000 to anyone who could give proper answers to 18 of his “tough questions” for Catholics. To my knowledge, the $100,000 wasn’t delivered (my, what a shocking surprise!).

Eric later explained (with more spinning than a spinning wheel) that it was done in humor: the point being that Catholics can’t possibly answer these things, so that the money could be offered in the first place: there being no conceivable eventuality of any necessity to deliver it to dumb, dense Catholics who would never be able to reply. This stunt was pretty much the end of Svendsen’s credibility in the eyes of most Catholic apologists.

Another astonishing statement was when, on his discussion board on 17 January 2004, he described Catholics as:

. . . those who would raise Mary to the status of the Trinity and proclaim a false gospel that condemns.

Challenged by Reformed Protestant theologian Paul Owen to prove this absurd description, Eric retorted on 19 January 2004:

If what you mean by this is that you’ll find no official RC statement that says “we elevate Mary to the status of the Trinity,” then I’m happy to agree. Of course you’re not going to find anything as overt as that. What you’ll find instead is that Mary is [laundry list of Catholic titles for Mary given] . . . With titles like these, who in the world needs an explicit statement that Mary is on par with the Trinity?

Since Owen dared to disagree with Svendsen and defend the Catholic Church against ridiculous and utterly false charges, he had to be pilloried as a traitor to the cause. Thus, Dr. Owen — a fellow Protestant; even a Reformed one — was supposedly all of the following things, as stated by Eric Svendsen on his discussion board:

1) of questionable motivation.
2) of questionable adherence to Reformed Protestantism (“claims”).
3) has “no knowledge about that which he addresses.
4) is locked up in “an ivory tower.”
5) is insincere when he claims he wants to engage in discussion with different viewpoints.
6) dares to befriend a Catholic apologist!
7) “entertains idolatrous beliefs”.
8) rubs shoulders with “Judaizers”.
9) undermines “evangelistic efforts of others.”
10) is equivalent in character to Alexander the Coppersmith.
11) is “emotionally disturbed.”
12) is “extremely divisive.”
13) has “an unhealthy interest in quarrels.”
14) is a “cowardly antagonist.”
15) is obsessed with “slander” (of Svendsen).
16) wants to destroy ministries that proclaim the gospel.

So much for Svendsen’s stated intentions of 1-13-01:

I intend to treat my opponents fairly, and with respect and dignity, . . . I would never dream of calling my opponent’s views “stupid” in a public forum . . . I think such terminology, if not an ad hominem attack, is nevertheless highly insulting.

Even more unbelievable, perhaps, was his mocking of the looks of a theological opponent (yes, you read that right) — one who happens to be a medical doctor –, in a piece on his website [link now defunct] (around May 2004, I believe, since that was when I documented it):

I’ve included here a photo of Artie Sippo to help the reader get a sense of the situation. Artie’s physical appearance would be completely irrelevant were it not for his “brave” comments above. . . . [It] begins to make profound sense once we take into consideration his physical appearance. While it pains me to point this out, it’s entirely necessary in understanding Artie. Artie is a portly little fellow who somewhat resembles Radar O’Reilly on the hit TV series M.A.S.H. I have seen this phenomenon quite a bit on the Internet. Those who are the most bombastic, the most threatening, those who engage in the most swaggering and in the most bravado, and those who claim to be the “bravest” on the Internet, usually turn out to look a lot like Artie. My personal theory is that it’s an alter-ego issue. Men who share Artie’s physical traits were usually the victims of bullies in childhood. Now that Artie is grown up, he must redeem himself for having allowed bullies to push him around in school the way they did. He feels guilty and angry for not sticking up for himself then; and he has resolved that he will not allow it anymore. To compensate for being bullied, he has now become the bully. The Internet provides Artie with a faceless forum in which to swagger and threaten with impunity; in which to live his dream of being a real “macho-man,” completely without fear of the physical retribution he so dreaded as a child. In short, it gives him a chance to “get even” with his perceived superiors. What is so embarrassingly obvious is that someone who looks like Artie would never dare use words like “sissy boy,” “coward,” and “yellow” to another man’s face in a private room with no one else around—that would be far too harrowing an experience for him. But he is quite willing to do it from cyberspace where no harm can be done to him for spouting such nonsense. Artie Sippo is a very sick, very disturbed individual who is obviously still working through a good deal of baggage that he brought in from childhood. He is to be pitied, and I feel sorry for him. . . . Artie is portly little fellow, who bears an uncanny resemblance to . . . a well-known stuttering cartoon character (see his photo above).

How is that for uncharitable quack psychoanalysis? It is almost beyond rational comprehension, that this came from an educated man — indeed, a pastor — with at least one advanced degree in theology. But there it is. This is how low the man is willing to sink.

Another notable highlight in Eric’s Internet tenure was his National Enquirer-type spoof, primarily directed towards reactionary Catholic Robert Sungenis. Note the swipe at me on the bottom right (not my face there), and supposed association with CAI (a myth) and with Holocaust denial (an outrageous lie, of course). This was removed in fairly short order, but with neither a retraction nor an apology: public or private. Thanks to Internet Archive, we can preserve it in all its pathetic “glory”.

Svendsen mocked Blessed Pope John Paul II when he died, on his discussion board on 4-4-05, falsely claiming that he taught universalism and seriously questioning whether he went to heaven:

Don’t you know by now that the Evangelical way is to come to Christ by faith alone, give personal testimony that God and God alone saved you by his own grace and apart from any good thing you have done, insist in your testimony that you merely believed in Christ and trusted in him alone for your salvation, forsaking any good works as a means to your salvation—and then forget all that and confidently assert that the pope, who spouted Roman Catholic reliance on good works, baptism, the sacraments, Mary and the saints, and believed in a universalism, has “gone home to be with the Lord” and is now in heaven? What’s wrong with you anyway? It doesn’t have to be logical, as long as it sounds spiritual!

This is how anti-Catholics “argue,” folks. If their theological case is so superior (as they claim and brag about till the day is long), why is it that they have to resort to and soil themselves with such silly, juvenile behavior?

Eric Svendsen, like White, [the late] Steve Hays, “Turretinfan,” and other active online anti-Catholics, often exhibited a huge double standard, in objecting to our use of the (quite scholarly and common) term anti-Catholic, while at the same time using his own “anti” terms in the other direction. I documented his own rank hypocrisy on this score in June 2004 and again in June 2oo5.

To be fair, sometimes Eric Svendsen has been unfairly attacked by Catholics, too, and Catholic apologists. I defended him in the case of one attack that occurred on the Crowhill discussion board (run by Greg Krehbiel), in which it was denied that Eric believed in the Incarnation and the Trinity. It was said that he wasn’t a Christian at all.

And to his credit, Svendsen issued the following blanket apology, on 4-30-05 on his blog (“Towards Higher Ground”):

Waddling in the muck of Internet apologetics eventually takes its toll. I’m moving on to higher ground. While I’ll continue to point out the errors of errant theological systems (such as Roman Catholicism), as well as the mis-steps of certain evangelical leaders who seem to walk a bit too close to the edge of the heretical cliff, I am going to pass on the mud-wrestling challenges from Internet e-pologists. To that end, I have deleted a previous entry written in rash response to Dave Armstrong, to whom I apologize along with any others I may have mud-wrestled in the past. While I may continue to check in on their various blogs from time to time, any response to them will be a tempered and measured one.

I accepted the apology to me and apologized in turn for an error in characterizing certain of his remarks. But he never acknowledged my apology, and in the past had said — more than once — that my apologies are insincere.

It didn’t take long, unfortunately, for Svendsen to go against his newfound resolve. Exactly five days later he endorsed a fake blog that was purporting to be written by yours truly: a blog that engaged in wholesale lying, mockery, and smear tactics. He wrote on his discussion board:

[W]hile I don’t normally endorse anonymous blogs, the parady [sic] at the “I’m a Moron, But I Love Myself” blog captures the DA phenomenon exactly [smiley-face icon]. (Focusing on the Follies of Dave Armstrong, 5-4-05, 4:41 am)

I guess “narcissistic moron” is well within Svendsen’s self-imposed ethical restrictions as “a tempered and measured reply.” Wonders never cease. George Orwell’s “doublespeak” and “doublethink” live in all their glory, well past the year 1984! I observed on the same day:

Wow. So now we have observed the sad spectacle of one of the most well-known and influential Protestant anti-Catholic apologists endorsing a blatantly unethical (and probably illegal and legally actionable) attempt of using someone’s name under false pretenses on a fake blog, for the purpose of relentlessly lying about them and harming their reputation. What a world . . .

In the meantime, we’ll continue to chronicle the descent of mainstream anti-Catholic apologetics . . . into the abyss of wholesale smear campaigns and deliberate lying about those persons whom they theologically oppose.[the fake blog was removed by the end of the day on 4 May 2005]

The funniest incident between Eric and I came in January 2005. I had some technical problems for a few days, and he concluded that I had fled in terror from the Internet, cowering in fear from the prospect of daunting, invulnerable critiques from the likes of Bishop James White and himself. He wrote on his blog (original URL intact in the date):

It appears that direct and substantive critiques of his work have proved too much for Dave Armstrong. He has pulled the plug on his little blog experiment gone bad (Read). It seems Dr. White, in his critiques of Armstrong’s arguments that supposedly “confound Protestants,” ended up “confounding” Armstrong himself . . . Wasn’t it Dave Armstrong who criticized me for closing the comments section of my blog . . .? Wasn’t it Armstrong who criticized James White for not opening a comments section on his blog? . . . And now, as poetic justice would have it, Dave Armstrong is not merely closing the comments section of his apologetic blog–he’s getting out of the apologetic blog business entirely! Wow; bravo James [White]! If we had only known earlier that it would take only five consecutive exegetical critiques of Armstrong’s argument to shut him up (Tit 1:10-11), many would have done this a long time ago. Well done! : ) (1-4-05)

How ironic that here I am five years later standing over what may be the “grave” of his website and discussion board. Perhaps it is only a temporary glitch (or ditch, should I say?). I at least allow that to be a possibility (unlike his silly response when my blog went down for a day or two). In this instance, a fellow anti-Catholic and rapt admirer of Svendsen, James Swan has also announced their probable demise at the smear-fest site, Boor’s All, so it looks like it is indeed the case.

But (oddly enough) Svendsen had claimed he was done with Internet apologetics before: on 2 November 2005, on his blog. Perhaps this gives a clue why his sites are now down (possibly for good):

It’s Official

After more than a decade of being involved in Internet apologetics, I am packing it in. I guess I could blame it on the fifty-plus hours of work that I am putting in weekly. But it’s much more than that. My absence from this forum over the past few months (with only occasional exceptions) has given me a renewed sense of appreciation for the importance of doing ministry in and through the local church. The comparison between a focus on that kind of edifying ministry and a focus on constantly correcting the incorrigible and vitriolic pooling of ignorance that comes from self-styled “apologists,” each promoting his own version of a false gospel, is staggering; and it is something that no longer holds a modicum of attraction for me. I have recently been commissioned by the elders of my church to revamp the church’s educational program, and I am eager to get started on it. All the spare time I would otherwise have dedicated to Internet activity will be devoted to that task. I have enjoyed getting to know many, many fine people through this venue over the past decade, and I wish them well. The website, discussion forum, and blog will remain open, and will continue as always. It’s just that I won’t be contributing to it as I once did. I do not anticipate returning to this kind of venue in the future, though there is always that possibility. I would ask the friends of NTRMin.org to pray for me as I refocus on those things that are truly and biblically relevant.

Eric Svendsen has put out several anti-Catholic books with small publishers:

Evangelical Answers: A Critique of Current Roman Catholic Apologists (Reformation Press, 1999)

Who is My Mother? (Calvary Press: 2001)

Upon This Slippery Rock (Calvary Press: 2002)

Here are my own dialogues with and critiques of Eric Svendsen’s views:

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

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

Apostolic [Quasi-] Protestantism?: Dialogue with Eric Svendsen [6-26-96]

Debate on the Nature of the Church and Catholicism [7-5-96]

Dialogue on “Tradition” in the New Testament [1996]

Eric Svendsen: Catholics Raise Mary to the Holy Trinity [4-2-04]

Dave Armstrong Fan Club #2: Anti-Catholic Protestant Polemicist Eric “the Yellow” Svendsen [Facebook, 3-3-19]

Anti-Catholics everywhere are bemoaning Svendsen’s departure. They will be wearing black for the next week (perhaps mixed with sackcloth and ashes). I think they have it exactly backwards. Far from being a tragedy, this is great news for the anti-Catholic cause, since Svendsen was one of the most notorious examples of the “angry, irrational anti-Catholic.”

Hence, his Internet presence and his tirades and whoppers hindered the movement and caused many inquirers, no doubt, to look elsewhere, since they would have figured that the truth doesn’t need to be “defended” by such nefarious means. Eric was “bad PR,” in other words. His absence represents a net gain in that sense for anti-Catholicism.

But, rest assured, there are others to take his place and to exhibit the sneering, hissing mentality when any Catholic is within a country mile. So the proud tradition continues and Svendsen’s legacy is alive and well: perpetuated in his followers and his fan club. For those who want to continue to desecrate New Testament ethics and Christian unity: to trample upon the Golden Rule and the Royal Commandment alike, this is good news. For the rest of us, it is a disgrace.

Svendsen’s Real Clear Theology blog remains online: with the final post dated 12 April 2009. I may still refute some of his articles on his site, on boring days when I run out of stuff to do.

***

Here are some further clarifying comments of mine from the original combox discussion:

For the record, I do not myself claim that Svendsen cares nothing for the truth, is insincere, or that he preaches a false gospel (depends how “gospel” is defined, and I think I am going by the Bible there).

The gospel, for both Protestants and Catholics, is the incarnation, redeeming death on the cross, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus. It shouldn’t be a dividing point at all. We can agree on sola gratia and agree that semi-Pelagianism is heresy.

Defined correctly, Svendsen still holds to a saving gospel. He just gets particulars wrong of how that saving gospel is applied to us, and the more minute points. Many Calvinists make the mistake of collapsing the gospel to TULIP. But it doesn’t follow that they deny the gospel (the Good News) insofar as its actual definition, drawn from the Bible itself.

I think he has some false theology, based on false premises, and has often acted uncharitably, and has an anti-Catholic view that I consider intellectual suicide. But I don’t have to go this extra distance and start questioning the state of his soul.

I leave those kinds of ultra-uncharitable judgments to the anti-Catholics. I don’t think we gain anything by stooping down to that level of calumny of others. I would hope that we could be different and exercise as much charity as we can.

I also have never gotten involved in the heos hou dispute [a huge squabble with several Catholics lambasting Svendsen’s knowledge of Greek]. I’m strictly neutral. I figure that he is probably wrong — wouldn’t be a bit surprised if he was –, but I myself took no stand and it formed no part of my critique of him.

I also thought some of the criticisms of him during that went over the top, along the lines of what I am criticizing above.

***

Photo credit: Eric Svendsen’s book Evangelical Answers, from the Amazon book page.

***

Summary: Eric Svendsen was once the second most active and influential anti-Catholic Protestant polemicist online, after James White. But in 2010 he disappeared from the Net.

“Reformation” Anti-Catholic Theft: Apologetic “Blind Spot”?

Last updated on: August 5, 2022 at 1:20 pm By Dave Armstrong

[originally posted on my blog on 20 April 2008. See my original post, “Reformation” Theft of Thousands of Catholic Churches (4-12-08). This article was a response to critiques of that earlier article]

I wrote:

It’s been the standard response through the years of Protestants to play up and grossly exaggerate the sins of the Catholic Church to justify the sins of the Reformers.

I wasn’t “lambasting” the Reformers per se here, but rather, historical revisionism (“standard response through the years”) of Protestants, up to the present period.

At the same time, anti-Catholic Protestants so often want to rail about historic Catholic sins that no one denies. I don’t care if they do, one way or the other; let them rail against sin. I have no problem with it. Yet if anyone dares make a similar analysis of Protestant scandals and sins, we hear cries of “foul.” This is rather common (almost a knee-jerk reaction) among those who set out to defend historic Protestantism, if I do say so.

I would like to suggest to those who love to highlight historic Catholic sins, and educate folks about them, to not be so reticent about doing the same regarding Protestant historic sins. No one is gonna buy the scenario that only one side is guilty of these. As for the “Reformers” themselves playing up Catholic sin, there is simply no question about this. Martin Luther, in particular, is notorious for these sins of bearing false witness. Examples are innumerable, but here are just a few examples for good measure:

[T]he popes . . . are bitter enemies of the church . . . Pope, cardinals, bishops, not a soul of them has read the Bible; ’tis a book unknown to them. (#429, p. 243)

The pope and his crew are mere worshippers of idols, and servants of the devil. (#446, p. 249) (Table-Talk, translated by William Hazlitt, Philadelphia: The Lutheran Publication Society: n.d.)

The sum of it all is that pope, devil, and his church hate the estate of matrimony, as Daniel says [17:37]; therefore he wants to bring it into such disgrace that a married man cannot fill a priest’s office. That is as much as to say that marriage is harlotry, sin, impure, and rejected by God; and although they say, at the same time, that it is holy and a sacrament, that is a lie of their false hearts, for if they seriously considered it holy, and a sacrament, they would not forbid the priests to marry. Because they do forbid them, they must consider it unclean, and a sin, as they plainly say . . .

[T]he noises made by monks and nuns and priests are not prayers or praises to God. They do not understand it and learn nothing from it; they do it like hard labor, for the belly’s sake, and seek thereby no improvement of life, no progress in holiness, no doing of God’s will. (On the Councils and the Churches [1539], Part II. From: Works of Martin Luther, Philadelphia: A.J. Holman Co. & The Castle Press, 1931, Vol. 5. Translation by Charles M. Jacobs)

Reply to Francisco Tourinho on Justification: Round 2 (Pt. 1)

Last updated on: September 21, 2022 at 12:26 pm By Dave Armstrong

See: Part 2 / Part 3

Francisco Tourinho is a Brazilian Calvinist apologist. He described his theological credentials on my Facebook page:

I have the respect of the academic community for my articles published in peer review magazines, translation of unpublished classical works into Portuguese and also the production of a book in the year 2019 with more than 2000 copies sold (with no marketing). In addition I have higher education in physical education from Piauí State University and theology from the Assemblies of God Biblical Institute, am currently working towards a Masters from Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary, and did post-graduate work at Dom Bosco Catholic University. Also, I am a professor in the Reformed Scholasticism discipline at the Jonathan Edwards Seminary in the postgraduate course in Philosophical Theology. [edited slightly for more flowing English]

*****

This is my second reply to Francisco on this topic, in what is to be a series of theological debates on this controversial issue and likely others as well. I first responded to his article, A Justificação pela Fé na Perspectiva Protestante [Justification by Faith from a Protestant Perspective] [6-21-22], with Justification: A Catholic Perspective (vs. Francisco Tourinho) [6-22-22]. He counter-replied and began a second round, with his article, Justificação pela fé: perspectiva protestante (contra Armstrong) [Justification by Faith: Protestant Perspective (against Armstrong)] [6-27-22]. It was completed a day after I began a 20-day vacation; hence my seemingly “tardy” reply with this article, about three weeks after his.

I use Google Translate to render his Portugese text into English. Francisco’s words will be in blue. My words from my previous installment will be in green. We agreed in private discussions to both abide by the following terms for this series of debates (I wrote them; he agreed):

1) Stick solely to biblical arguments; exegesis, commentaries, systematic theology. Citing others is fine as long as it is on the biblical text or the doctrine being discussed.

*

2) Don’t mention Church history on either side, internal affairs and real or supposed scandals of the Catholic Church, denominations, etc.

*

3) Both of us should try to actually interact point-by-point rather than picking and choosing; a serious debate where all the opponent’s arguments are grappled with.

*

4) If the personal attacks start, the dialogue is immediately over. I can’t control what goes on on your Facebook page and network of buddies and fan club (and my Brazilian friends are pretty outspoken too!), but we can both control what goes into our written responses.

I will be paying close attention to see whether Francisco abides by these rules (especially #2 and #3). I have found, in my 32-year experience of interacting with Protestants, that — generally speaking, but very frequently — they (frustratingly!) avoid point-by-point interaction with Catholic arguments. If Francisco acts differently, then kudos and hats off to him. It would be a rare exception to the norm: at least in my own experience.

He agreed to these rules, so I will hold him to his word and point out if and when he departs from our agreed-to terms of debate. All of this is perfectly proper, according to longstanding debate procedure and “protocol”. If one agrees to certain rules, then they must observe them. Francisco did do so in the first round and several people on both sides praised our “joint” work in the first round (because it was on-topic, in-depth, and lacked any animosity or hostility). May these fruitful trends continue! By God’s grace and with the full consent of my own will, I want to abide by the terms, too.

***

In this article, I aim to respond to Mr Dave Armstrong in his first article against me.

In my first article, I intended to demonstrate that Scripture teaches justification by faith alone. This same faith is not dissociated from good works, but these are not the same things nor do they have the same end.

In reply Mr. Armstrong says that there is an initial justification, without works, and another justification that is done through faith and works.

Mr Armstrong begins his article by saying:

1) It strikes me as a distinction without a difference. Why go to the “trouble” of asserting that “only x justifies” while at the same time asserting, “y must always be with this x that alone justifies, lest x cease to truly be x“? I understand the fine distinctions drawn above: standard Protestant soteriology with which I am very familiar, but it still seems to me to be straining at gnats. If y (works) is always — and should always be — there with x (faith), then is there not a sense in which y has some connection with justification, too? And that relationship between the two things is what Catholics think James 2 is dealing with.

I shall argue that the Bible teaches an organic connection between faith and works: not merely an abstract “partnership” where “never the twain shall meet” in some respects. Two sides of a coin are also distinguishable from each other, but they both have to be there for the coin to be what it is, don’t they? We don’t say that “only one half of the coin bought the bubblegum in the machine.” We say that the coin (which contains two distinct sides by nature) bought the bubblegum.

I defended in my first article the distinction between justification and sanctification. The first is given by the imputation of Christ’s merits by faith alone, the second would be given by the practice of good works through grace; however, a distinction is not a separation, but also not an agglutination; it is possible to have a middle way. I cite an example in the order of faith: the Trinity. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are the same God, but I cannot say that the Father is the Son, nor that the Holy Spirit is the Father, nor can I say that the Father became incarnate only because the Lord Jesus says that “Whoever see me, see the Father; and how sayest thou, Show us the Father?” John 14:9, if Mr. Armstrong is correct in his example, for the simple fact that we cannot dissociate God the Son from God the Father; the relationship would be confused, which would impugn the Nicene Creed endorsed by both of us. Not even the offices are the same, although they are inseparable.

Mr. Armstrong also did not deal with my examples in the order of reason: Light and heat in the sun are so closely related as to be inseparable, yet only light illuminates and only heat warms. “For if the brightness of the sun cannot be separated from its heat, then shall we say that the earth is heated by its light, but that it is illuminated by its heat?” (Institutes 3.11.6) Again: just like the lung which alone is responsible for the strength of breathing, but would never work disconnected from other organs such as the liver and heart.

I think this is good analogical argument. Since this is one of my own favorite types of argument, I particularly appreciate it. I think it actually proves too much, though. If indeed, justification and sanctification are so organically related to each other, that Francisco, in order to defend Reformed soteriology, feels the need to compare them to the Father and Son, Who are “one” (John 10:30), and to the light and heat that come from the sun, then they are so closely connected that this seems to me almost a confirmation of the Catholic position, as I summarized it last time (green portion above).

Of course, Francisco — as a good Protestant — would vehemently deny that, but at the very least it again confirms that there is little practical difference between the two positions, as I alluded to last time. It’s almost as if there is little point in debating it. Why do we have to divide at all on this? We agree on so much, and on the essence of the matter, and disagree on so little (mostly abstract fine distinctions that do not affect day-to-day Christian life). In my opinion, sola Scriptura and the issue of the rule of faith involves a much starker contrast between the two competing views than this issue does. That’s why I have written much more — as an apologist — on the authority issue.

To succeed, Mr. Armstrong should directly quote and refute them, but instead he cited an external example that proves his point but does not represent the thesis I am defending.

The coin example just proves that there are distinctions that are just the same object viewed from different angles (as is the case with the biblical distinction between soul and spirit), but justification by faith and good works are not the same object viewed from different angles. Rather, they are two different objects that are closely associated.

The Protestant “closely associated” and the Catholic “organically connected” are not conceptually very far apart, are they? To use another analogy, a marriage is two people who are “closely associated”, but in a deeper, spiritual sense, the two become “one flesh”: as the Bible says, or, I submit, “organically connected”. We think that the most accurate and biblical description of the relationship of faith and works is the latter description, not the former.

That said, I kindly request that Mr. Armstrong provide the most accurate definition possible of what justification and sanctification are from his point of view.

I’m glad to do so. I shall quote my own words from my first published book and probably the book of mine that is most known: A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (completed in 1996; “officially” published in 2003 by Sophia Institute Press; the footnote numbers below are different from those in the published book):

Justification, according to Catholicism, is a true eradication of sin, a supernatural infusion of grace, and a renewal of the inner man. [1] The Catholic Church holds that true faith in Jesus Christ is not saving faith unless it bears fruit in good works, without which spiritual growth is impossible. [2] In this way, good works are necessary for salvation, and sanctification is not separated from justification. Rather, the two are intrinsically intertwined, as with the Bible and Tradition. [3]

Sanctification is the process of being made actually holy, not merely legally declared so. [4] It begins at Baptism, [5] is facilitated by means of prayer, acts of charity and the aid of sacraments, and is consummated upon entrance to Heaven and union with God. [6] . . .

Catholicism holds that a person cannot save himself by his own self-originated works. This is Catholic dogma, and always has been, notwithstanding any distortions of it by nominal and undereducated Catholics, or ill-informed anti-Catholic polemicists. Nor is anyone saved or redeemed by Mary or a pope or anyone else besides our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

On this particular matter there is no difference whatsoever between Catholic and Protestant. [7] The doctrine of “works-salvation,” often wrongly attributed to Catholicism, is a heresy known as Pelagianism, which was in fact roundly condemned by St. Augustine (354-430), the above-mentioned Council in 529, and the Council of Trent (Canon I on Justification, January 13, 1547). [pp. 25-27]

FOOTNOTES

[1] Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), Liguori, Missouri: Liguori Publications, 1994, #1987-1992; Council of Trent, Decree on Justification (DJ), chapters 7-8 (January 13, 1547). All Trent citations are from Dogmatic Canons and Decrees, Rockford, Illinois: TAN Books & Publishers, 1977 (orig. 1912); John A. Hardon, Pocket Catholic Dictionary (PCD), New York: Doubleday Image, 1980, 214-215. [The late Servant of God Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. — who knew me and received me into the Catholic Church — endorsed my book in its Foreword]

[2] CCC, #144-147, 2008-2009; Trent, DJ, chapters 11, 16; Hardon, PCD, 259.

[3] CCC, #1995; Trent, DJ, chapter 10, canons 24-26, 31.

[4] CCC, #1987, 1990, 2000.

[5] CCC, #1265-1266, 1987, 1992, 1997; Hardon, PCD, 39.

[6] CCC, #826, 1127, 1133, 2003, 2030, 2098; Hardon, PCD, 393.

[7] CCC, #613-614, 970, 2010-2011; Trent, DJ, chapters 5-6, canon 33. Previous citation from the 2nd Council of Orange (Canon 18) from Louis Bouyer, The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism, A. V. Littledale, trans. (London: Harvill Press, 1956), 68.

Even Mr. Armstrong admits that there is an initial justification that does not depend on good works, and that only at a second stage would these works contribute to justification, how can they be the same? Except if we think only of what Mr. Armstrong calls the second stage of justification, namely, its process.

So, to make the distinction between justification and sanctification even clearer according to the Protestant perspective, I explain:

Justification: It is distinguished in two: justification before God and justification before men.

Now, as to the last sentence: where is this distinction found in Holy Scripture? On what is it based?

The one justified before God, according to John Calvin, is he who, in the judgment of God, is not only considered righteous, but who was also accepted on account of his righteousness, because, as iniquity is an abomination in the sight of God, so the sinner he may find grace in his eyes, as a sinner, and for as long as he is thought to be. Hence, wherever there is sin, there is also manifested the wrath and vengeance of God. Therefore, the justified one is he who is not considered a sinner, but righteous, and by that title stands firm before the judgment seat of God, where all sinners prostrate themselves in disgrace. Likewise, if an innocent accused is brought before the tribunal of an impartial judge, after being tried according to his innocence, he is said to have been justified before the judge; so is he justified before God who, excluded from the number of sinners, has God as a witness and herald of his righteousness. (Institutes 3.11.2)

He is justified by works in whose life there will be found that purity and holiness that merits the testimony of justice before the throne of God, or who, by reason of the integrity of his works, can answer and satisfy him in the judgment. On the other hand, he will be justified by faith who, excluded from the righteousness of works, apprehends by faith the righteousness of Christ, clothed in which he appears before God not as a sinner, but, on the contrary, as righteous. Therefore, we interpret justification simply as the acceptance by which, received into his grace, God counts us righteous. And we say that it consists in the remission of sins and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. (Institutes 3.11.2)

I wanted to directly answer Francisco’s question about definitions of terms, which seem necessary. But now we are in danger of straying from the goal of sticking to the Bible and its exegesis, and commentary related to individual passages. I think it’s okay for purposes of definition (since the terms of debate, #1, did include: “Citing others is fine as long as it is on the biblical text or the doctrine being discussed), but no more than that. I cited (upon his request) the Catechism and Trent (but only indirectly in footnotes); Francisco cited John Calvin (which citations included no Bible verses).

Hopefully we will get right back to alleged scriptural proofs on both sides. Ultimately, we’re not here to determine what Trent or Calvin think, but what we each believe the Bible teaches, since we have total agreement on its inspired authority. Good and constructive debates must proceed upon common ground, before they go off into consideration of honest differences.

2) My second general initial reaction to a presentation like the above is to say that there is no practical difference whatsoever, or difference in the day-to-day lives of Christians, between what Francisco wrote above and how an observant Catholic lives his or her life. I often make this observation. Catholics and Protestants are in absolute agreement on two points:

A) Grace is the ultimate enabling cause of faith and justification and salvation (sola gratia);

*

and

*

B) Good works are absolutely necessary and non-optional in the Christian life as the proof or inevitable fruit of the authenticity of a genuine faith.

This being the case, I submit that there is a strong sense in which it seems futile and unnecessary to even dispute the fine points of whether justification and sanctification are together (Catholicism) or separate categories, with only justification directly tied to salvation (Protestantism). Why bother? The response and the result are the same: the faithful Christian who believed and appropriated God’s grace and justification proceeds to do good works: which, if absent, cast into serious doubt his or her position in relation to God, and faith.

I agree with Mr. Armstrong that Catholics and Protestants, especially the Reformed, whom I am advocating, agree on sentences A and B.

Good! Then why don’t both sides get on with their Christian lives of discipleship, do the good works that flow from [initial] justification, and stop arguing about things where we are in almost total [practical] agreement?

However, agreeing with a sentence is not always agreeing with its content. In sentence A, if the term justification does not have the same meaning for Catholics and Protestants, then we are not really in agreement, although it seems at first glance.

It’s agreement in the sense that both sides make faith and justification (however defined) wholly dependent upon God’s grace. The emphasis is on the primacy and centrality of grace (sola gratia): upon which we have total agreement, though we do indeed differ on some fine points beyond that.

My second opinion is that there is a difference in the everyday lives of people who really understand what is involved. I do not intend to be exhaustive in my explanatory statement right now, but I will do so later. If justification is a forensic statement in which the merits of Christ are all imputed to me through faith, then I can have peace with God, as Saint Paul says in Romans 5:1: “Justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ“. If Christ fulfilled the Law and also had perfect obedience, then his merits are perfect when imputed to me and I can therefore have peace with God – the just for the unjust. This peace will not be obtained if justification is a lifelong process, not without great difficulty.

St. Paul’s words below strongly imply that it is not a one-time deal, but a process, since he himself is not sure that he or anyone among his Christian acquaintances and friends and flock) have certainly or undoubtedly attained it:

Romans 8:13-17 (RSV) for if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live. [14] For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. [15] For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the spirit of sonship. When we cry, “Abba! Father!” [16] it is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God, [17] and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.

1 Corinthians 9:27 but I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.

1 Corinthians 10:12 Therefore let any one who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.

1 Corinthians 16:13 Be watchful, stand firm in your faith, be courageous, be strong.

2 Corinthians 1:24 . . . you stand firm in your faith.

2 Corinthians 13:5 Examine yourselves, to see whether you are holding to your faith. Test yourselves. Do you not realize that Jesus Christ is in you? — unless indeed you fail to meet the test!

Galatians 5:1 . . . stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery . . .

Philippians 2:12-13 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

Philippians 3:11-14 that if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. [12] Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. [13] Brethren, I do not consider that I have made it my own; but one thing I do, forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, [14] I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.

Philippians 4:1 . . . stand firm thus in the Lord . . .

Colossians 1:22-23 he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him, [23] provided that you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel which you heard, . . .

1 Timothy 4:16 Take heed to yourself and to your teaching: hold to that, for by so doing you will save . . . yourself . . .

When will I be righteous before God if my justification also depends on my good works?
*

Obviously, if you do meritorious good works (always in faith and enabled by grace) to His satisfaction. He’s a fair and merciful God.

*
How many good works will I have to do to be considered righteous before God?

Quite a few, according to the Bible, since I have found 50 Bible passages that directly tie works to the attainment of heaven. Faith is mentioned in only one of them, and even then, it’s not in the Protestant sense of “faith alone”. Revelation 21:8 includes the “faithless” among those who will be damned for eternity. Here they are (gotta love those Bible proofs!):

1 Samuel 28:16, 18 And Samuel said, “. . . the LORD has turned from you and become your enemy . . . [18] [b]ecause you did not obey the voice of the LORD, and did not carry out his fierce wrath against Am’alek . . .

2 Kings 22:13 (cf. 2 Chr 34:21) “. . . the wrath of the LORD that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not obeyed the words of this book, to do according to all that is written concerning us.”

Psalm 7:8-10 The LORD judges the peoples; judge me, O LORD, according to my righteousness and according to the integrity that is in me. O let the evil of the wicked come to an end, but establish thou the righteous, thou who triest the minds and hearts, thou righteous God. My shield is with God, who saves the upright in heart.

Psalm 58:11 Men will say, “Surely there is a reward for the righteous; surely there is a God who judges on earth.”

Ecclesiastes 12:14 For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil.

Isaiah 59:18 According to their deeds, so will he repay, wrath to his adversaries, requital to his enemies; . . .

Jeremiah 4:4 (cf. 21:12) Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, remove the foreskin of your hearts, O men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem; lest my wrath go forth like fire, and burn with none to quench it, because of the evil of your doings.”

Ezekiel 7:3 (cf. 7:8; 33:20) Now the end is upon you, and I will let loose my anger upon you, and will judge you according to your ways; and I will punish you for all your abominations.

Ezekiel 36:19 I scattered them among the nations, and they were dispersed through the countries; in accordance with their conduct and their deeds I judged them.

Micah 5:15 And in anger and wrath I will execute vengeance upon the nations that did not obey.

Zephaniah 2:3 Seek the LORD, all you humble of the land, who do his commands; seek righteousness, seek humility; perhaps you may be hidden on the day of the wrath of the LORD.

Matthew 5:22 But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, `You fool!’ shall be liable to the hell of fire.

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

Matthew 10:22 (cf. Mt 24:13; Mk 13:13) . . . But he who endures to the end will be saved.

Matthew 16:27 For the Son of man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay every man for what he has done.

Matthew 18:8-9 (cf. Mk 9:43; 9:47) And if your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better for you to enter life maimed or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire.

Matthew 25:14-30 “For it will be as when a man going on a journey called his servants and entrusted to them his property; to one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away. He who had received the five talents went at once and traded with them; and he made five talents more. So also, he who had the two talents made two talents more. But he who had received the one talent went and dug in the ground and hid his master’s money. Now after a long time the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them. And he who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five talents more, saying, ‘Master, you delivered to me five talents; here I have made five talents more.’ His master said to him, `Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a little, I will set you over much; enter into the joy of your master.’ And he also who had the two talents came forward, saying, `Master, you delivered to me two talents; here I have made two talents more.’ His master said to him, `Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a little, I will set you over much; enter into the joy of your master.’ He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, `Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not winnow; so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.’ But his master answered him, `You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sowed, and gather where I have not winnowed? Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. So take the talent from him, and give it to him who has the ten talents. For to every one who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.’

Matthew 25:31-46 “When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. Then the King will say to those at his right hand, `Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?’ And the King will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.’ Then he will say to those at his left hand, `Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?’ Then he will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.’ And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

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

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

Luke 21:34-36 “But take heed to yourselves lest your hearts be weighed down with dissipation and drunkenness and cares of this life, and that day come upon you suddenly like a snare; for it will come upon all who dwell upon the face of the whole earth. But watch at all times, praying that you may have strength to escape all these things that will take place, and to stand before the Son of man.

John 5:26-29 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself, and has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of man. Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth.

Romans 2:5-13 But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed. For he will render to every man according to his works: To those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honour and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality. All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

1 Corinthians 3:8-9 He who plants and he who waters are equal, and each shall receive his wages according to his labor. For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building.

2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body.

1 Thessalonians 3:12-13 . . . may the Lord make you increase and abound in love to one another and to all men, as we do to you, so that he may establish your hearts unblamable in holiness before our God and Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his saints.

1 Thessalonians 5:23 May the God of peace himself sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit and soul and body be kept sound and blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

2 Thessalonians 1:7-12 . . . when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance upon those who do not know God and upon those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at in all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed. To this end we always pray for you, that our God may make you worthy of his call, and may fulfil every good resolve and work of faith by his power, so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.

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

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

1 Peter 4:13 (cf. Rom 8:17) But rejoice in so far as you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed.

2 Peter 3:10-14 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and the works that are upon it will be burned up. Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of persons ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be kindled and dissolved, and the elements will melt with fire! But according to his promise we wait for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. Therefore, beloved, since you wait for these, be zealous to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace.

Jude 6-16 And the angels that did not keep their own position but left their proper dwelling have been kept by him in eternal chains in the nether gloom until the judgment of the great day; just as Sodom and Gomor’rah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. Yet in like manner these men in their dreamings defile the flesh, reject authority, and revile the glorious ones. But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, “The Lord rebuke you.” But these men revile whatever they do not understand, and by those things that they know by instinct as irrational animals do, they are destroyed. Woe to them! For they walk in the way of Cain, and abandon themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam’s error, and perish in Korah’s rebellion. These are blemishes on your love feasts, as they boldly carouse together, looking after themselves; waterless clouds, carried along by winds; fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted; wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame; wandering stars for whom the nether gloom of darkness has been reserved for ever. It was of these also that Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord came with his holy myriads, to execute judgment on all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness which they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” These are grumblers, malcontents, following their own passions, loud-mouthed boasters, flattering people to gain advantage.

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

Revelation 2:5 Remember then from what you have fallen, repent and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.

Revelation 2:23 . . . I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you as your works deserve.

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

Revelation 21:8 But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their lot shall be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death.

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

Therefore, in light of this survey of biblical statements on the topic, how would we properly, biblically answer the unbiblical, sloganistic question of certain evangelical Protestants?: “If you were to die tonight and God asked you why He should let you into heaven, what would you tell Him?” Our answer to his question could incorporate any one or all of the following 50 responses: all drawn from the Bible, all about works and righteousness, with only one that mentions faith at all, but not faith alone (#42):

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 unblamable in holiness.

34) I’ve been wholly sanctified.

35) My spirit and soul and body aresound 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.

St. James will say that “For whoever keeps the whole law and stumbles in one point is guilty of all. For whoever breaks one commandment of the law is guilty of breaking them all.” Tg [James] 2.10. When will I be righteous if one small sin makes me guilty of all? How many virtues do I have to develop? The truth is, if so, only those who reach absolute perfection can have peace with God; therefore, no one has peace with God. Who can say, “I am perfect before God”?

James 2:10 has to be interpreted and understood in light of related verses (cross-referencing and systematic theology). The Bible does not teach that all sins are absolutely equal. This is easy to prove. Francisco (and habitually, Protestants) go by one pet verse or a few highly selected, favored verses that appear at first glance (but not after deep analysis) to support their position. Catholics incorporate and follow the teachings of the Bible as a whole, and do not ignore dozens of passages because they go against preconceived positions (as Protestants so often do).

James 2:10 deals with man’s inability to keep the entire Law of God: a common theme in Scripture. James accepts differences in degrees of sin and righteousness elsewhere in the same letter: “we who teach shall be judged with a greater strictness” (3:1). In 1:12, the man who endures trial will receive a “crown of life.” In James 1:15 he states that “sin when it is full-grown brings forth death”.

Therefore, there must be sins that are not full-grown and do not bring about spiritual death. James also teaches that the “prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects” (5:16), which implies that there are relatively more righteous people, whom God honors more, by making their prayers more effective (he used the prophet Elijah as an example). If there is a lesser and greater righteousness, then there are lesser and greater sins also, because to be less righteous is to be more sinful, and vice versa.

Righteousness doesn’t derive from the law. It comes from God and His enabling grace, not written words on a page, however good and true they are. Galatians 3:21 states “if a law had been given which could make alive, then righteousness would indeed be by the law” (cf. 2:16-17,21; 5:4-6,14,18; Rom 3:21-22; 4:13; 9:30-32). Paul writes in Romans 10:3: “For, being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness.”

John Calvin teaches something quite different from the Bible, when he addresses James 2:10:

Even were it possible for us to perform works absolutely pure, yet one sin is sufficient to efface and extinguish all remembrance of former righteousness, as the prophet says (Ezek. 18:24). With this James agrees, “Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, is guilty of all,” (James 2:10). And since this mortal life is never entirely free from the taint of sin, whatever righteousness we could acquire would ever and anon be corrupted, overwhelmed, and destroyed, by subsequent sins, so that it could not stand the scrutiny of God, or be imputed to us for righteousness. (Institutes III, 14:10)

But the rule with regard to unrighteousness is very different. The adulterer or the thief is by one act guilty of death, because he offends against the majesty of God. The blunder of these arguers of ours lies here: they attend not to the words of James, “Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill,” &c. (James 2:10, 11). Therefore, it should not seem absurd when we say that death is the just recompense of every sin, because each sin merits the just indignation and vengeance of God. (Institutes III, 18:10)

It’s quite easy in context to see the error he commits with regard to Ezekiel 18. He states his interpretation of Ezekiel 18:24 as, “yet one sin is sufficient to efface and extinguish all remembrance of former righteousness.” But the prophet does not say any such thing! He is speaking generally and broadly of the sinners’ life vs. the life of the redeemed, righteous man. The verse (first part) states: “But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity and does the same abominable things that the wicked man does, shall he live?”

Notice that the sins are plural: not one little sin that supposedly undoes everything, as in Calvin’s schema. Ezekiel is teaching, in effect: “if you live in sin as the wicked and evil people do, you will [spiritually] die.” This is referring to people who give themselves totally over to sin (including mortal sins). These are what separate a person from God, not one white lie or lustful thought or stealing a cookie from the cookie jar.

Context makes this interpretation rather clear and obvious:

Ezekiel 18:5-13 If a man is righteous and does what is lawful and right — [6] if he does not eat upon the mountains or lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, does not defile his neighbor’s wife or approach a woman in her time of impurity, [7] does not oppress any one, but restores to the debtor his pledge, commits no robbery, gives his bread to the hungry and covers the naked with a garment, [8] does not lend at interest or take any increase, withholds his hand from iniquity, executes true justice between man and man, [9] walks in my statutes, and is careful to observe my ordinances — he is righteous, he shall surely live, says the Lord GOD. [10] If he begets a son who is a robber, a shedder of blood, [11] who does none of these duties, but eats upon the mountains, defiles his neighbor’s wife, [12] oppresses the poor and needy, commits robbery, does not restore the pledge, lifts up his eyes to the idols, commits abomination, [13] lends at interest, and takes increase; shall he then live? He shall not live. He has done all these abominable things; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon himself.

The prophet continues in the same vein in 18:14-23. This is not Calvin’s “one sin”; it’s a host of sins, a lifestyle: a life given over to wanton wickedness and unrighteousness. Then in 18:26 he reiterates: “When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, he shall die for it; for the iniquity which he has committed he shall die.” If that weren’t clear enough, he refers again to “all the transgressions” (18:28, 31) and “all your transgressions” (18:30).

Again, he is plainly not talking about merely one sin, however small, but rather, a commitment to give oneself over to sin. We know this from the context, because the meaning is spelled out very clearly, in the greatest detail. But it’s easy to jerk one verse out of context and pretend that it means something different. Calvin, from a Catholic perspective, incorrectly exegetes Scripture in order to bolster up a false tenet in his theology.

He does the same with James 2:10: “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it.” The fallacy here is the equation of keeping the law with all attempts to be moral and righteous whatever. The two are not identical. If they were, Paul would not have contrasted the law and grace, as he often does (e.g., Rom 5:20; 6:14-15; Gal 2:21; 5:4; cf. Jn 1:17). Calvin understands this distinction full well and teaches it himself. It’s elementary New Testament soteriology. Yet when it suits his purpose, all of that knowledge gets tossed out the window, and he engages in sophistry and eisegetes one verse to try to prove a false doctrine. This won’t do. One must be both consistent and honest in the interpretation of the Bible.

Here are passages that show the differences in seriousness of sins (i.e., some of them — mortal sins — can cause one to lose their good graces with God and even justification and/or salvation, while others — venial sins — do not do so):

1 John 5:16-17 If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. [17] All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.

1 John 5:16-17 expressly contradicts Protestant teaching on this. Protestants say (in stark contradiction of this passage) that “all sin leads to spiritual death,” and that all sins are equal in God’s eyes. Who am I to believe? The Apostle John is clearly making the distinctions we make with regard to degrees of sin (mortal vs. venial).

John 19:11 . . . he who delivered me to you has the greater sin.

People are not always completely aware that certain acts or thoughts are sinful. In Catholic and biblical theology, in order to commit a grave, or mortal sin, where one ceases to be in a state of grace and is literally in potential, but real danger of hellfire, three requirements are necessary: 1) it must be a very serious matter, 2) the sinner has to have sufficiently reflected on, or had adequate knowledge of the sin, and 3) he must have fully consented in his will. Scripture provides many indications of this difference in seriousness of sin, and in subjective guiltiness for it:

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

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

Luke 12:47-48 And that servant who knew his master’s will, but did not make ready or act according to his will, shall receive a severe beating. But he who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, shall receive a light beating. Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required; and of him to whom men commit much they will demand the more. (cf. Lev. 5:17, Lk. 23:34)

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

John 9:41 Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains.”

Acts 3:17 And now, brethren, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers.

Acts 17:30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all men everywhere to repent, (cf. Rom. 3:25)

1 Timothy 1:13 though I formerly blasphemed and persecuted and insulted him; but I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief.

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

1 Peter 1:14 As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance,

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

Lastly, there are several lists of sins that are said to bar one from heaven or “the kingdom of God”:

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, [10] nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Galatians 5:19-21 Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, [20] idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit, [21] envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Ephesians 5:5 Be sure of this, that no fornicator or impure man, or one who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

Revelation 21:8 But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their lot shall be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death.

Revelation 22:14-15 Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates. [15] Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and every one who loves and practices falsehood.

Thus, by immediate and undeniable implication, there are other lesser sins that do not do so.

In initial justification, as we call it, this is true. This is more common ground. It can’t be brought about by any work, because it is grace-originated, and God-originated (monergistic at this stage: to use a favorite Reformed term). But this is only the first stage.

Sincerely, I would like this distinction to become clearer and more precise: what does initial justification consist of? What is the second step? Are they two justifications or are they different views of the same justification?

Fernand Prat, S. J., a renowned biblical exegete and theologian, wrote:

Let us now return to Paul’s own declarations. That of the Epistle to the Romans is the simplest: ‘Man is justified by faith without the works of the Law.’ The requirement of the argument as well as the order of the sentence makes the emphasis fall on the last words of the statement which resolves itself into two propositions: ‘Man is justified without the works of the Law, independently of them’ — the principal proposition; ‘Man is justified by faith’ — an incidental proposition. It will be remarked that the Apostle here is not concerned with the part which works play after justification. They they are then necessary appears from his system of morals, and that they increase the justice already acquired follows from his principles; but in the controversy with the Judaizers the debate turns chiefly on first justification — namely, on the passage from the state of sin to that of grace. The works of the Law are neither the cause nor the essential condition, nor even, in themselves, the occasion of it; and according to the most elementary principles of the Pauline theology one could say as much of natural works done before justification, and with more reason. But note well that St. Paul does not say that faith is the only disposition required, and we know by other passages that it must be accompanied by two complementary sentiments: repentance for the past and acceptance of the divine will for the future. (The Theology of St. Paul, translated by John L. Stoddard, Westminster, Maryland: The Newman Bookshop, 1952, vol. 1 of 2, 175-176, bolded and italicized emphasis added in one place: “first”. Note that his phrase “first justification” is precisely synonymous with “initial justification.”)

John A. Hardon, S. J., uses similar terminology:

Adults are justified for the first time either by personal faith, sorrow for sin and baptism, or by the perfect love of God, which is at least an implicit baptism of desire. (Modern Catholic Dictionary, Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Co., 1980, “Justification, Theology of,” 302, italics added)

The “second step” is that grace-produced and “grace-soaked” good works become necessary alongside grace-produced and “grace-soaked” faith (see massive indications of that in my copious Scripture citations above).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church concurs:

2027 No one can merit the initial grace which is at the origin of conversion. . . . [my emphasis]

1987 The grace of the Holy Spirit has the power to justify us, that is, to cleanse us from our sins and to communicate to us “the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ” and through Baptism: . . .

1989 The first work of the grace of the Holy Spirit is conversion, effecting justification in accordance with Jesus’ proclamation at the beginning of the Gospel: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, thus accepting forgiveness and righteousness from on high. . . . [my emphasis]

1996 Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.

1998 This vocation to eternal life is supernatural. It depends entirely on God’s gratuitous initiative, for he alone can reveal and give himself. It surpasses the power of human intellect and will, as that of every other creature. [my emphasis]

1999 The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. . . .

2001 The preparation of man for the reception of grace is already a work of grace. This latter is needed to arouse and sustain our collaboration in justification through faith, and in sanctification through charity. God brings to completion in us what he has begun, . . .

2008 The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man’s free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man’s merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit. [my emphasis]

2022 The divine initiative in the work of grace precedes, prepares, and elicits the free response of man. Grace responds to the deepest yearnings of human freedom, calls freedom to cooperate with it, and perfects freedom. [my emphases]

Grace comes first, causing conversion. Man is “moved by grace.” At that point it is monergistic. Since most Catholics are baptized as infants, insofar as the infant is concerned, this justification and regeneration is completely monergistic: an action of God alone (cf. #1992, 2020). One could say others are standing in for the child — I believe that Reformed would agree — , but that is scarcely different from a Protestant praying that someone would be “saved / justified” — God uses human beings somewhere in the process.

The terminology of men “earning salvation” is false if by it we mean Pelagianism or works-salvation. But it’s true in terms of cooperative merit. God gives us the grace to participate and work together with Him. Merit is God crowning His own gifts, as Augustine says. He wants us to participate in the thing, but it is all by grace and never without it.

Entirely biblical . . .

Catholic convert Kenneth Howell even maintained in a penetrating, helpful article, that Trent didn’t utterly exclude imputation.

In the following segment we begin the biblical debate on the topic of Justification. I defended our confession based on the text of Romans 3:28 “We conclude therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law”.

Francisco then cites me at length, with regard to the phrase “works of the law” and how those Protestants who interpret it according to the “New perspective on Paul” view it.

The objection raised by Mr. Armstrong is unsuccessful because of the clear flaws of the New Perspective in Paul (NPP). Just for the sake of curiosity, Cornelius Lapide, at the time of the Reformation, also proposed the same distinction between works of the law and works that were not of the law, already being answered in his time.

Nothing new under the sun . . . Protestants are just now figuring out what Lapide knew 500 years ago. You’re slow, but at least some of you get it eventually. That’s good news! St. Augustine understood this, too, in AD 412, in his work, On the Spirit and the Letter:

For the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith, (Rom 9:30) — by obtaining it of God, not by assuming it of themselves. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. And why? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by works (Rom 9:31-32) — in other words, working it out as it were by themselves, not believing that it is God who works within them. For it is God which works in us both to will and to do of His own good pleasure. (Philippians 2:13) And hereby they stumbled at the stumbling-stone. (Rom 9:32) For what he said, not by faith, but as it were by works, (Rom 9:32) he most clearly explained in the following words: “They, being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believes.” (Rom 10:3-4) Then are we still in doubt what are those works of the law by which a man is not justified, if he believes them to be his own works, as it were, without the help and gift of God, which is by the faith of Jesus Christ? And do we suppose that they are circumcision and the other like ordinances, because some such things in other passages are read concerning these sacramental rites too? In this place, however, it is certainly not circumcision which they wanted to establish as their own righteousness, because God established this by prescribing it Himself. Nor is it possible for us to understand this statement, of those works concerning which the Lord says to them, You reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your own tradition; (Mark 7:9) because, as the apostle says, Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. (Rom 9:31) He did not say, Which followed after their own traditions, framing them and relying on them. This then is the sole distinction, that the very precept, “You shall not covet,” (Ex 20:17) and God’s other good and holy commandments, they attributed to themselves; whereas, that man may keep them, God must work in him through faith in Jesus Christ, who is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believes. (Rom 10:4) That is to say, every one who is incorporated into Him and made a member of His body, is able, by His giving the increase within, to work righteousness. It is of such a man’s works that Christ Himself has said, “Without me you can do nothing.” (John 15:5) (chapter 50)

See much more about St. Augustine’s views on “works of the law” in Bryan Cross’ article, “St. Augustine on Law and Grace” (Called to Communion, 7-16-10).

Mr. Armstrong’s opinion seems to make it clear that justification is also by works, works other than works of law such as Dietetic Laws, Circumcision, and Observance of Special Days.

It’s not my opinion; it is the biblical teaching (see my 50 proofs of that above). But we agree on initial justification, as I have now made abundantly clear.

I disagree with Rev Wright’s interpretation for several reasons:

1 – The text does not deal only with Jews, but with all humanity, since it says that:

Romans 3:26-31 [I have posted RSV] it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies him who has faith in Jesus. [27] Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On the principle of works? No, but on the principle of faith. [28] For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law. [29] Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, [30] since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised through their faith. [31] Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

Paul is here talking about initial justification, which is by grace and faith. The fact that he expands it to all of humanity does not wipe out the meaning of the works of law: which are the Jewish marks of identity. He couldn’t possibly mean all works (assuming the Bible is self-consistent and inspired) since many other times he extolls good works. Again, the Catholic takes all relevant passages into consideration, not just a few carefully selected ones that appear to support their position (but in fact do not, upon close inspection, as I am doing here). Here is St. Paul using works in an exemplary sense, and even tying them to salvation itself:

Romans 2:6-10 For he will render to every man according to his works: [7] to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; [8] but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. [9] There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, [10] but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.

2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body.

1 Thessalonians 3:12-13 . . . may the Lord make you increase and abound in love to one another and to all men, as we do to you, so that he may establish your hearts unblamable in holiness before our God and Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his saints.

2 Thessalonians 1:7-12 . . . when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance upon those who do not know God and upon those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at in all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed. To this end we always pray for you, that our God may make you worthy of his call, and may fulfil every good resolve and work of faith by his power, so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.

The text does not deal only with Jews, but with all men. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Why did everyone sin? For all have broken the law, for where there is no law there can be no transgression (Rom 4:15), and if there is no law today, then there is no sin either. Where there is sin, there is law. If there is sin today, it is because there is also law. The law lives on, judging everyone who does not believe in Christ. The law encompasses every good work, not only the observance of ceremonial or civil laws (dietary, circumcision and observance of special days), but mainly the moral law contained in the 10 Commandments. The moral law is of a natural nature and cannot be abolished. Paul certainly included the moral law among the works that could not justify—that is, all good works are included.

His last five words are an impossible conclusion due to the above passages in Paul, which hold that good works are essential, even unto salvation. I don’t believe the inspired Bible contradicts itself. Francisco, on the other hand, seems to have a low view of the Bible, so that it can contradict (hardly harmonious with the view that it is inspired / “God-breathed”). If not, then he needs to explain the four Pauline passages I produced above, and indeed all fifty related verses that I have brought forth.

Roman Catholic theology tends to make this interpretation that the text of the Letter to the Romans deals only with works of the law, but not with the “works of hope, fear and love”, which faith generates and produces, and which are under the faith as daughters under one mother, which is why they love the text of Galatians 5:6 so much. But St. Paul himself also calls these works works of the law: “Owe no man anything, except to love one another; because whoever loves others has fulfilled the law.” (Romans 13:8) For: Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is all summed up in this word: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Love does not harm others. So the fulfillment of the law is love. Romans 13:9,10

Romans 2:6-10 in and of itself decisively refutes this interpretation. “Roman Catholic theology” didn’t invent these notions. The Bible and particularly Paul did so. We merely follow their inspired guidance.

I believe that the heart of the matter has not been presented. Why are NPP’s and Mr. Armstrong’s objections unsuccessful? The answer lies in a point I already emphasized in the previous article: the objectivity and universality of justification found in Christ and justification by faith as justification by Christ-of-faith, which the NPP and Roman Catholics seem to be almost completely unaware of. The crucial point, in turn, is that, for Reformed Christians, the objectivity and universality of the extension of Christ’s work for the justification of the world requires that He Himself be present in the faith that receives justification. So “justification by faith alone” is not “justification by faith” in the sense that faith is an abstract saving entity. Faith is saving, but only as it aims at Christ, not by a power inherent in itself. Just as the Father can be called a savior, but not in the sense that Christ is. A person can have true faith in Allah and not be justified, because it is the object of faith that justifies, rather than faith itself. But if the object of our faith is Christ, and Christ has perfect righteousness, then in receiving him we also have perfect righteousness, and are therefore fully justified. No good works can merit Christ upon us, not even faith can merit Christ, for God does not justify us by the fact that we have faith, as if faith were the formal cause of justification, Christians do not become worthy of justification by having faith. , but we are accounted righteous on the basis of the righteousness of Christ which is imputed to us through faith. Faith is an instrumental cause only, not a formal cause of justification. Faith is like a pot full of gold, where the gold is Christ, surely the man who obtains the pot does not become rich by the pot, but by the treasure he carries.

Yes: all that is true of initial justification. But that justification can be lost. Of course, Reformed theology denies that it can ever be lost, once possessed by God’s express decree (“perseverance of the saints”: the “P” in “TULIP”; also “unconditional election” and “irresistible grace”: all of which I have refuted many times with copiously biblical argumentation). This is another grossly unbiblical doctrine that I have partially refuted above (and can produce many more passages that refute it, and devoted large portions in one of my books to this task). And in order to maintain initial justification, one must cooperate with this same grace and do good works. I’ve already shown that in my many Bible passages, while Francisco gives us just a few, wrongly interpreted and isolated from others on the same topic. That’s both lousy exegesis (indeed, it is eisegesis), and bad (or nonexistent) systematic theology. But, E for effort . . .

How are the Jews in this case? The central point that Paul deals with is the Jews’ disbelief in justification by Christ alone. They did not believe that Jesus was the Covenant par excellence. They did not believe that Jesus was Israel par excellence, they did not want to be justified by Christ alone. Something besides Christ was needed, which is why Paul speaks of the works of the law.

Exactly. These were portions of the Law by which some (many?) Jews thought granted them salvation. It’s a technical and specifically Jewish meaning, not a broad meaning extended to al good works whatsoever. If the latter notion is held, some hundred or more clear Bible verses have to be explained other than the way I and Catholics have interpreted them.

There is not even mention of a debate between works of the law and works that are not of the law, for the fulcrum was not this, but that Paul admonished them that nothing more was needed to be justified than faith! Paul means that Christ is sufficient.

It wouldn’t have crossed Paul’s mind to condemn all works as having any connection to salvation, since this is such a clear and constant teaching of Scripture, and his own teaching (my 50 passages plus more . . .). He need not mention a thing that he casually assumed any Christian with even minimal understanding already accepts as a truism (good works are necessary in the Christian life and for salvation: always in conjunction with grace and faith).

We have PEACE with God through faith in Christ Jesus (Rom 5:1). St. Paul affirms that there is no self-righteousness in his person, but the righteousness of Christ which comes by faith: And indeed I count all things loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord; for which I have suffered the loss of all these things, and count them as dross, that I may gain Christ, and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, namely, righteousness that comes from God by faith; Philippians 3:8,9.

None of that is in dispute. It applies to initial justification. Francisco can’t prevail in this debate simply by repeating Protestant (Reformed) talking points over and over. He will eventually have to grapple with my scores and scores of biblical passages brought to bear — i.e., opposing arguments — , and explain how they all fit into Protestant theology. He agreed to a biblical debate. I have given him tons of Bible to mull over and interpret according to his theological views. It’s my specialty in my apologetics. I have given him many more Bible passages in this installment, so that he truly has his work cut out for him, in having to abide by Debate Terms #3 (“Both of us should try to actually interact point-by-point rather than picking and choosing; a serious debate where all the opponent’s arguments are grappled with”).

But the greatest proof that Paul is speaking of all any work in the text of Romans 3:28 comes from Mr Armstrong’s own interpretation when he says:

In Catholicism (and I say, in the Bible, which is precisely why we believe this) they are organically connected to faith and justification and salvation; never alone; always with faith.

James 2:24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

The phrase “faith alone” appears exactly once in the RSV: in this verse. Justification by “faith alone” is expressly denied! This is one of three times (along with James 2:21 and 2:25 further below) that the Bible also expresses the notion of “justified by works” (in context, along with faith). Four other passages in James directly, expressly contradict “faith alone” but with different words:

James 2:14 What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?

James 2:17 So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.

James 2:20 Do you want to be shown, you shallow man, that faith apart from works is barren?

James 2:26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.

I don’t see how, but let’s hear Francisco out . . .

Follow the reasoning: according to Mr. Armstrong, St. James is teaching that works justify as long as they are not works of the law,

That’s not exactly my reasoning, which is that post-initial justification works originated by God in grace and cooperated with by a believer, are intrinsically part of faith, and that both together justify and sanctify. I put it all together in one of my books (Revelation!: 1001 Bible Answers to Theological Questions: 2013; verses KJV unless noted otherwise):

Salvation is Ultimately by Grace Alone

Where does it state that we are saved by grace alone?

2 Timothy 1:9 who saved us and called us with a holy calling, not in virtue of our works but in virtue of his own purpose and the grace which he gave us in Christ Jesus ages ago,

Are we justified by grace?

Romans 3:24 they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus,

Are we called by grace?

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

Does justification come through grace rather than law?

Galatians 2:21 I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification were through the law, then Christ died to no purpose.

Salvation is Not by Faith Alone

Where is the Protestant notion of faith alone (sola fide) denied?

James 2:22, 24 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works,… [24] You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Are works, in conjunction with faith, said to be necessary for salvation?

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.

Is faith alone described as insufficient for salvation?

James 2:14 What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?

Do we actually “work out” our salvation?

Philippians 2:12-13 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; [13] for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

Can we deny God and our faith in Him, by our deeds?

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

Do we have to obey Jesus, as well as have faith in Him, to be saved?

John 3:36 He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.

Is something more required for salvation than believing in and calling on Jesus’ name?

Matthew 7:21 Not every one who says to me, “Lord, Lord,” shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

Can we deceive ourselves by hearing the gospel message of salvation only, and not being “doers” of it?

James 1:22 But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.

Is obedience to Jesus directly tied to salvation (even without mentioning faith)?

Hebrews 5:9 and being made perfect he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him,

Salvation is Not by Works Alone (Pelagianism)

Where is it expressly stated that our works cannot save us?

Ephesians 2:8-10 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God — [9] not because of works, lest any man should boast. [10] For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. (cf. 2 Tim 1:9 above)

Is grace shown to be in contradistinction to works, in terms of salvation?

Romans 11:5-6 So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. [6] But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.

Grace + Faith + Works + Obedience = Salvation

Are grace, faith, and obedience ever linked together in one passage?

Romans 1:5 through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations,

Is obedience to the gospel important, as well as belief in the gospel?

Romans 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel; . . .

Are faith and obedience aligned?

Romans 16:26 but is now disclosed and through the prophetic writings is made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith —

Is there such a thing as a “work of faith”?

1 Thessalonians 1:3 remembering before our God and Father your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ.

because Mr. Armstrong denies that the works of the law can justify, since this was his defense to say that the text of Rom 3:28 did not teach justification by faith alone and the antithesis created by St. Paul was in relation to the works of the law that did not justify.

That’s correct. That is a technical meaning used by Paul, with a specific application to the Jews who sought to abide by the Mosaic Law.

The problem is that St. James was also talking about works of the law, for he says: For whoever obeys the whole law, but stumbles in one of its ordinances, is guilty of breaking it in its entirety. (James 2.10).

I’ve already dealt with James 2:10 at great length and in considerable depth, so I need not revisit that. But that is a question of observance of the whole law, not a belief that abiding by particular portions of it could bring about salvation. Thus, “apples and oranges . . .”

But it doesn’t end here. Saint Paul, after speaking about the relationship between justification by faith and works in Romans chapter 3, continues his argument in chapter 4, in which he quotes Abraham (Based on Genesis 15:6) as someone who was justified without works, but only by faith. Mr. Armstrong then remarks that these works were works of the law, not good works that are not of the law:

Paul uses the example of Abraham in Romans 4, in emphasizing faith, over against the Jewish works of circumcision as a supposed means of faith and justification (hence, he mentions circumcision in 4:9-12, and salvation to the Gentiles as well as Jews in 4:13-18). But this passage, too, goes back to the issue of “the works of the law.”

Francisco skipped over the very next portion, where I explained what I meant, by means of a citation of a Facebook friend of mine, “Adomnan.”

However, Mr. Armstrong, when interpreting the text of James, who is also interpreting the Abrahamic case, changes the speech:

James 2:20-26 also refers back to Genesis 15:6, and gives an explicit interpretation of the Old Testament passage, by stating, “and the scripture was fulfilled which says, . . .” (2:23). The previous three verses were all about justification, faith, and works, all tied in together, and this is what James says “fulfilled” Genesis 15:6. The next verse then condemns Protestant soteriology by disagreeing the notion of “faith alone” in the clearest way imaginable.

In the first moment, when dealing with the text of Rom 3.38 and Rom 4.5 that deal with the justification of Abraham, he says: Or, paraphrasing all Romans 4:5: “And to Abraham, before he had done any work of the Torah, but still believed in the One who regards the Gentiles as righteous, his belief was credited as an act of righteousness.” (quoting Adomnan.)

Here Francisco is desperately (and alas, unsuccessfully) trying to catch me in a self-contradiction, rather than interacting point-by-point with my given reasoning, which violates #3 of our Debate Terms. My argumentation was completely consistent. He hasn’t shown otherwise, and has ignored a key clarifying point, save for one passing reference.

That is, the text of Genesis 15.6, in the opinion of Mr. Armstrong, means that Abraham was not justified by the works of the Torah.

Of course not. That was the whole point of it: that he was a forerunner of justification by faith. But much more importantly: Abraham was not under Mosaic Law in the first place, since he lived several hundred years before Moses. Thus, my arguments about “works of the law” are utterly extraneous to anything concerning Abraham and his exercised faith. Francisco seems to overlook this super-relevant fact. In order to be bound to the law of Moses and “works of the law” therein, the Law of Moses had to first exist. And it didn’t in Abraham’s time.

But, curiously, according to the same Mr. Armstrong, St. James did not see works of the Torah in the text of Genesis 15.6, because according to Mr. Armstrong, St. James speaks of works that are not of the law and that justify. Mr. Armstrong will have to decide if the text referring to the justification of Abraham (Gen 15.6 quoted by Saint James and Saint Paul) deals with works of the Torah (which do not justify) or if they do not deal with works of the Torah (which justify), because contradicts itself in its interpretation.

Again, Genesis 15:6 can’t have anything to do with “works of the [Mosaic] law” (which is the Catholic and NPP view) because the Mosaic Law did not yet exist. Romans 4:3, 5, referring to Abraham (Gen 15:6) was Abraham’s second justification: “. . . ‘Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.’ . . . [5] And to one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness.” As Jimmy Akin argued (cited by me), he had also been spoken as having been justified in Genesis 12:1-4, when he was obedient to God’s instruction and left Haran.

We know this because Hebrews 11:8 states that Abraham had faith “when he was called to go out to the place he would afterward receive”. So that had to be justification by faith, according to Protestant belief. But then James 2 refers to a third justification of Abraham when he was willing to sacrifice Isaac:

James 2:21-24 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? [22] You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, [23] and the scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”; and he was called the friend of God. [24] You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

So we have Abraham being justified at least three times, according to the Bible. So much for the Protestant one-time justification that (in the Calvinist brand of soteriology) can never be lost, either. But none of my reference to Abraham (or that of James) has anything to do with the “works of the law” controversy. James never uses the phrase “works of the law” in his entire book. Nor does Paul in Romans 4, when he refers back to Abraham. So this entire line of reasoning from Francisco is null and void; a non sequitur.

In conclusion: when Mr. Armstrong addresses the text of Abraham in the letter to the Romans, he says that Paul said that Abraham was not justified by the works of the law.

Well, he wasn’t, because he was never under the Law. But that wasn’t the statement I made, which was, rather: “But this passage, too, goes back to the issue of ‘the works of the law.'” In other words, I was simply noting that the text had relevance in the overall discussion; not that it had to do with that particular issue. Francisco misunderstood that (which is easy to do in a complex discussion), and so his reply went off into an irrelevant direction. But I appreciate the opportunity that mistake of his gave me to further clarify for all readers: especially Protestant ones.

Then he said that St. James correctly interpreted this text.

Yes, so did Paul (it being inspired revelation in both cases).

But, according to Mr. Armstrong himself, St. James does not regard those works as works of the law.

Nor does Paul. The entire point about Abraham is that he was justified by faith: but at least three times: not once, as Protestants hold must have been the case. They have a huge problem in explaining this threefold justification of Abraham.

Mr. Armstrong uses the Abraham text quoted by Saint Paul to say that what was being referred to there are works of the law, and that Paul militated against the works of the Torah

I did not, as I have now explained. Francisco simply misunderstood my meaning. So he’s been “barking up the wrong tree” [an English idiom] all this time; meanwhile, he has not offered a plausible alternative to my actual argument.

and at the same time uses the interpretation of James that deals with the same text about Abraham to say that these good works are works that justify because they are not works of the law.

It’s not what I did at all, as explained.

***

With all the citing of Francisco’s words and my own (tedious but necessary as a great learning tool in the back-and-forth dialogue), I’m over 15,000 words at this point (about 52 pages, single-spaced, if printed): a very long blog post, so I will have to pause and make this a Part I. I’ll get to the second part first thing tomorrow morning.

***

Summary: Brazilian Protestant (Calvinist) apologist Francisco Tourinho defends Protestant justification and “faith alone”. I refute it with copious contrary biblical passages.

Material Sufficiency of Scripture & Anti-Catholic Sophistry

Last updated on: May 23, 2022 at 3:52 pm By Dave Armstrong

[book and purchase information]

Pedro França Gaião is, from what I can make out, a former Catholic, and now a Protestant. He is from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, and currently lives in Sioux City, Iowa. I was drawn into a lively discussion about sacred tradition and the old debate about one or two sources. This occurred in a lengthy thread on the Facebook page of my Brazilian Catholic friend, Leandro Cerqueira. Pedro is one of those delightful anti-Catholic polemicists who condescendingly assumes that he understands Catholic doctrine better than (educated) Catholics do themselves.

He had been writing on this topic of Bible and tradition and material sufficiency of Scripture on his (public) Facebook page prior to the free-for-all discussion that I eventually entered into. I will make preliminary observations, post the Facebook discussion and debate that occurred (including many additional present replies, in brackets).

Pedro’s words will be in blue. He is, of course, most welcome — along with anyone else who is civil and not a troll — to offer further replies in the combox underneath this blog post.

*****

Pedro made the following absurd comment on his own Facebook page:

The rise of the defense of Material Sufficiency by the enemies of Sola Scriptura is oddly a victory for Sola Scriptura and a general failure for the religions that opposed it. (5-19-22)

That will be mercilessly disposed of below. He took a potshot at me, personally, regarding my views on material sufficiency and also on Augustine’s views of images:

There is also the possibility that he is dishonest or really stupid. In one of his texts he defends that Augustine was an iconodula [one who accepts religious images] and in the other he says that he was an aniconist [iconoclast, or opposer of images as idolatrous] but that the doctrine had developed. Logic, there is no such thing. (5-19-22)

I have no idea where he is getting this from. He provides no link or even name of a writing where I supposedly stated such a ridiculous thing. St. Augustine does, however, change his mind at times, so there is some possibility that he did as regards images. But I could never say something as stupid and clueless as “the doctrine of images developed from it being idolatry to it’s being okay.” That completely perverts Newmanian development (the very thing that made me a Catholic), and so it’s utterly impossible that I ever argued in such a fashion since my conversion in 1990. Therefore, Pedro is distorting my words. In charity, I will assume it’s because he is incompetent in his research (at least where I am concerned) or ignorant, rather than deliberately lying.

I think I may have found the passage in my writing that Pedro is talking about. The following is from my article, “Veneration of Images, Iconoclasm, & Idolatry (An Exposition)” [11-15-02]. The words in brown are from Anglican Nonjuror Bishops in 1722:

To this we may add, that the Council of Constantinople held under Constantine Copronymus, against images, asserts that there was no prayer in the church service for consecrating images, a suggestion which the 2nd Council of Nicaea (i.e., the Seventh Ecumenical Council) does not deny. And St. Augustine, mentioning some superstitious Christians (for so he calls them), says he knew a great many who venerated images (August. De Moribus Eccl. Cath. cap. 34).

[Protestant patristics scholar Phillip] Schaff elaborates:

Even Augustine laments that among the rude Christian masses there are many image-worshippers, but counts such in the great number of those nominal Christians, to whom the essence of the Gospel is unknown. (History of the Christian Church, Vol. III: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity, New York: Scribner’s, 5th edition, 1910, reprinted by Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1974, 573)

This hardly proves that the practice [of veneration of images] was not widespread; only that among the ignorant abuses of it occurred, which is no news, but a self-evident truth which holds in all times and places. Elsewhere St. Augustine writes:

A Christian people celebrates together in religious solemnity the memorials of the martyrs, both to encourage their being imitated and so that it can share in their merits and be aided by their prayers. But it is done in such a way that our altars are not set up to any one of the martyrs, – although in their memory, – but to God Himself, the God of those martyrs. (Against Faustus the Manichaean, c. 400, 20-21, from William A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1979, vol. 3, 59] )

I looked up the section brought up above, from On the Morals of the Catholic Church (chapter 34). Here is what St. Augustine wrote:

75. Do not summon against me professors of the Christian name, who neither know nor give evidence of the power of their profession. Do not hunt up the numbers of ignorant people, who even in the true religion are superstitious, or are so given up to evil passions as to forget what they have promised to God. I know that there are many worshippers of tombs and pictures. I know that there are many who drink to great excess over the dead, and who, in the feasts which they make for corpses, bury themselves over the buried, and give to their gluttony and drunkenness the name of religion. . . .

76. My advice to you now is this: that you should at least desist from slandering the Catholic Church, by declaiming against the conduct of men whom the Church herself condemns, seeking daily to correct them as wicked children.

St. Augustine is condemning, of course, those “ignorant” professed Christians who adore or worship images (and tombs!) with an idolatrous devotion that belongs to God alone: which the Church condemns. He is not against the proper veneration of images, as the citation from Against Faustus shows. Augustine also wrote elsewhere:

But in regard to pictures and statues, and other works of this kind, which are intended as representations of things, nobody makes a mistake, especially if they are executed by skilled artists, but every one, as soon as he sees the likenesses, recognizes the things they are likenesses of. (On Christian Doctrine, Book II, ch. 25, sec. 39)

Typically of anti-Catholics, Pedro seems to be suffering from the self-delusion that material sufficiency of Scripture is somehow logically reduced to an adherence to sola Scriptura. It’s not at all. I had written just two articles on the topic (i.e., with “material sufficiency” in the title), but often mention material sufficiency in passing because of this canard from the anti-Catholics that it represents Catholics caving into a sola Scriptura mentality and departing from historic Catholicism. This is sheer nonsense. Here are those two efforts:

Mary’s Assumption vs. Material Sufficiency of Scripture? [4-22-07]

Material Sufficiency of Scripture is NOT Sola Scriptura [2009]

I made fun of this anti-Catholic foolishness of pretending that any Catholic who heavily cites the Bible must be a secret, subversive believer in sola Scriptura, in my partly tongue-in-cheek paper: Sola Scriptura: Church Fathers (?), & Myself (?), by Analogy [2-7-07]. See also the related: Biblical Argumentation: Same as Sola Scriptura? [10-7-03].

I do have, however, a section entitled, “Material and Formal Sufficiency of Scripture / Rule of Faith” on my Bible and Tradition web page. It lists 31 of my articles. Here are a few key portions of my 2009 paper above (itself largely drawn from books written in 2002 and 2003):

305. All who accept sola Scriptura believe in material sufficiency, but not vice versa. That’s the fallacy often present in these sorts of discussions.

307. Biblical statements about material sufficiency and inspiration of Scripture don’t prove either sola Scriptura or the formal sufficiency of Scripture.

308. If Catholics affirm the material sufficiency of Scripture, then it cannot be the case that “material sufficiency” is essentially a synonym for sola Scriptura.

311. All true Christian doctrines are either explicitly stated in the Bible, or able to be deduced from solid biblical evidences (i.e., I accept the material sufficiency of Scripture). In my opinion, sola Scriptura falls under neither category.

318. Materially sufficiency is the belief that all Christian doctrines can be found in Holy Scripture, either explicitly or implicitly, or deducible from the explicit testimony of Holy Scripture (Catholics fully agree with that). It does not mean that Scripture is the “only” source of doctrine (in a sense which excludes tradition and the Church). That is what formal sufficiency means.

319. I believe in the material sufficiency of Scripture myself, and this is an acceptable Catholic position. I deny that Scripture is formally sufficient as an authority over against apostolic succession, biblically consistent and biblically based Tradition, and the Church (however the latter is defined). I deny that Scripture itself teaches either formal sufficiency or sola Scriptura.

320. Material sufficiency of Scripture is the view that all Christian doctrines can be found in Scripture, explicitly or implicitly; fully developed or in kernel form. Catholics hold to this. Formal sufficiency of Scripture is the adoption of the principle of sola Scriptura as the Rule of Faith. Catholics deny that, and I say that the Fathers (being Catholics from an earlier, less theologically and ecclesiologically developed period) do as well.

321. Binding Church authority is a practical necessity, given the propensity of men to pervert the true apostolic Tradition as taught in Scripture, whether it is perspicuous or not. The fact remains that diverse interpretations arise, and a final authority outside of Scripture itself is needed in order to resolve those controversies. This does not imply in the least that Scripture itself (rightly understood) is not sufficient to overcome the errors. It is only formally insufficient by itself.

322. It is no novel thing for a Catholic (or someone who has a view similar to Catholics regarding the Rule of Faith) to compare Scripture with Scripture. I write entire books and dozens of papers where I consult Scripture Alone to make my arguments (precisely because I am arguing with Protestants and they don’t care what Catholic authorities state on a subject). It doesn’t follow that I have therefore adopted the Protestant Rule of Faith. This is extraordinarily weak argumentation (insofar as it can be called that at all).

323. I write entire books and huge papers citing nothing but Scripture. It doesn’t mean for a second that I don’t respect the binding authority of the Catholic Church or espouse sola Scriptura. St. Athanasius made some extensive biblical arguments. Great. Making such arguments, doing exegesis, extolling the Bible, reading the Bible, discussing it, praising it, etc., etc., etc., are all well and good (and Catholics agree wholeheartedly); none of these things, however, reduce to or logically necessitate adoption of sola Scriptura as a formal principle, hard as that is for some people to grasp.

325. Being “scriptural” and being in accordance with sola Scriptura are not one and the same. This is a clever sleight of hand often employed by Protestant apologists (akin to the fish not knowing that it is in water: to the Protestant, sola Scriptura is the water he lives in or the air he breathes; thus taken absolutely for granted), but it is a basic fallacy, according to Protestants’ own given definition of sola Scriptura, which is, broadly speaking, as follows:

Sola Scriptura: the belief that Scripture is the only final, infallible authority in matters of Christian doctrine.

*

For something to be “scriptural” or “biblical” on the other hand, is to be in accord with the following qualifications:

“Biblical” / “scriptural”: supported by Scripture directly or implicitly or by deduction from explicit or implicit biblical teaching; secondarily: not contradicting biblical teaching.

*

As we can see, the two things are quite different. This is how and why a Catholic can be entirely committed to explaining and defending Catholic doctrine from Holy Scripture (indeed, it is my apologetic specialty and the focus of most of my published books), while not adhering to sola Scriptura in the slightest. Protestants don’t have a monopoly on Scripture; nor is sola Scriptura necessary to thoroughly ground doctrines in Scripture. The Protestant merely assumes this (usually without argument) and goes on his merry way.

Pedro came onto my Facebook page, asking: “could you answer me a question on how Catholic Church view the issue of Material Sufficiency?” (5-21-22) I provided him with a link to my 2009 article (cited at length above) and also, Jimmy Akin’s excellent 2005 article, “The Complex Relationship between Scripture and Tradition.” I now cite highlights from the latter:

The relationship between Scripture and Tradition comes up regularly in contemporary Catholic apologetics. According to one Catholic view, Scripture and Tradition are two sources of revelation. Some divine truths are found in the Bible, while others are found in Tradition. This “two source” model has a long history, but it also has some difficulties. One is that there is considerable overlap between the two sources. . . .

Speaking of Scripture and Tradition as two sources could lead one to overlook this overlap, which is so considerable that some Catholics have pondered how much of the Protestant idea of sola scriptura a Catholic can agree with. Sola scriptura is understood in different ways among Protestants, but it is commonly taken to mean that the Bible contains all of the material needed to do theology. According to this theory, a theologian does not need to look to Tradition — or at least does not need to give Tradition an authoritative role.

This view is not acceptable to Catholics. As the Second Vatican Council stressed in its constitution Dei Verbum, “It is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws its certainty about everything that has been revealed. Therefore both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence” (DV 9).

One of the principal architects of Dei Verbum was the French theologian Yves Congar, who thought Catholics could acknowledge a substantial element of truth in sola scriptura.

He wrote that “we can admit sola scriptura in the sense of a material sufficiency of canonical Scripture. This means that Scripture contains, in one way or another, all truths necessary for salvation” (Tradition and Traditions, 410).

He encapsulated this idea with the slogan Totum in scriptura, totum in traditione (“All is in Scripture, all is in Tradition”), which he attributes to Cardinal Newman. According to this theory, Scripture and Tradition would not be two sources containing different material but two modes of transmitting the same deposit of faith. We might call it the “two modes” view as opposed to the “two source” view.

The decrees of Trent and Vatican II allow Catholics to hold the two-mode idea, but they do not require it. A Catholic is still free to hold the two-source view. . . .

One of the most accurate descriptions of the Catholic rule of faith and the view of the early Church that I’ve seen comes from Protestant historian Heiko Oberman:

As regards the pre-Augustinian Church, there is in our time a striking convergence of scholarly opinion that Scripture and Tradition are for the early Church in no sense mutually exclusive: kerygma, Scripture and Tradition coincide entirely. The Church preaches the kerygma which is to be found in toto in written form in the canonical books.

The Tradition is not understood as an addition to the kerygma contained in Scripture but as the handing down of that same kerygma in living form: in other words everything is to be found in Scripture and at the same time everything is in the living Tradition.

It is in the living, visible Body of Christ, inspired and vivified by the operation of the Holy Spirit, that Scripture and Tradition coinhere . . . Both Scripture and Tradition issue from the same source: the Word of God, Revelation . . . Only within the Church can this kerygma be handed down undefiled . . . (The Harvest of Medieval Theology, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, revised edition, 1967, 366-367)

Now — having done the preliminary work — onto the exchange with Pedro. I will offer some additional thoughts afterwards:

[A passage from my book, 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura was cited in Portugese in a screenshot (so I couldn’t translate it)]

I know what Armstrong is doing here, you probably don’t.

Who cited me and what was the claim made about my position? What do you mean by “I know what Armstrong is doing here”? (“Eu sei oq o Armstrong está fazendo aqui, você provavelmente não”).

[he never answered]

You’re gonna force me to go talk to him [i.e., myself], and he probably won’t text me back. . . . I don’t think he will answer.

I answered him within three hours on my Facebook page (I had been watching TV the previous few hours), and came into the big Facebook discussion where I engaged him, after being tagged and notified by PM.

The article by Akin explains [this overall issue] fully and my article has further thoughts. But the quick answer is no: Scripture and tradition were both part of the apostolic deposit, but this is not opposed at all to material sufficiency of Scripture; only formal sufficiency (sola Scriptura). Vatican II also referred to Bible and Tradition as the “twin fonts of the same divine wellspring.” A perfect description . . .

In fact that’s not what I was arguing about. My point is that Material Sufficiency is not a Catholic Dogma, an official position or the only position regarding Scripture and Tradition.

[correct; as Jimmy Akin noted]

I was arguing that material sufficiency, or One Source Theory or Totum-totum is a position formulated by Geiselman in the 50’s as an opposition to the Two Sources Theory. Leandro is denying Geiselman’s point that Bellarmine, Eck and other Catholic apologists were opposed to material sufficiency (he says all Catholics believe in both of them) and that Catholics believe generally in a definition of Two Source Theory and material sufficiency that work together instead of opposing views like Thomism and Molinism. I noticed you support material sufficiency in your book, but Leandro is arguing you supported the Two Source Theory together with material sufficiency. I was arguing you simply defended a single theory and not both of them, as you didn’t mention both.

Trent Horn in his book says those two theories are different, but many people in Brazil ignore that, since few people in Catholicism actually distinguish them, so they must either be complementary or [else] it’s generally [seen that] they were compatible.

[replying to others, referencing me] He didn’t solve anything. They didn’t ask him what was discussed.

[Pedro came to my Facebook page, specifically asking me about material sufficiency, not all this other business about one or two sources of tradition, etc. I responded in kind, there and in this group discussion]

Catholics are free to believe either. You are correct about that. In fact, almost all Catholics today believe in the material sufficiency of Scripture. The partim-partim polemic is largely an irrelevancy from the 16th century. It’s not either/or. Tradition is included in the deposit. But only Scripture is inspired, of course.

But both the Two Source Theory and the One Source Theory (Material Sufficiency) are different Views on Tradition and Scripture, Right? My point here, the main one at least, is that they are different and not “one and the same” or “they can be believed at the same time”.

[I didn’t directly answer because I felt that the linked Jimmy Akin article answered the question, but I do answer directly now: Yes. That said, I still think Pedro is confused about the relation of all these factors in the Catholic system, concerning Bible and tradition. I know that for sure because he made the erroneous statement on his own page: “The rise of the defense of Material Sufficiency by the enemies of Sola Scriptura is oddly a victory for Sola Scriptura“. This alone proves that he is way over his head in discussing this issue]

Your task is to get beyond all these side-trails and defend sola Scriptura from Holy Scripture. No Protestant has ever done it. I’ve written 3 1/2 books on the topic [one / two / three / four] and recently challenged five prominent Protestants on YouTube [one / two / three / four / five]. None were willing to even grapple with my arguments. But hey, maybe you’ll be the first, huh? The pioneer!

That’s another subject, [and] we could debate about it, of course. But the current issue is: Two Source Theory is a position, and Material Sufficiency is another position, an opposite position. Do you agree with that?

[present more direct answer: I agree that one- and two-source theories are competing theories (both allowed in Catholicism, with the former now the majority position), but I don’t think material sufficiency is somehow inexorably opposed to the necessary role of sacred tradition. It’s not at all]

I gave my main reply in the form of two articles: mine and Jimmy Akin’s. In a constructive discussion, you actually deal with the other guy’s answer; you don’t keep asking the same question. But in the end it’s a non-issue. The Catholic rule of faith is Bible-Tradition-Church. It’s a fully biblical position, whereas sola Scriptura is extra-biblical and unbiblical. It’s a tradition of men.

The real issue to discuss is whether tradition and Church can be infallible under certain conditions, or if only the Bible can ever be that. Catholics and Orthodox hold to the former; Protestants to the latter. But we can defend our view from Scripture and history; they cannot.

I think Pedro knows this, which would explain why he refuses to defend what he must: only Scripture is the infallible authority for Christian doctrine. I don’t blame him. I sure wouldn’t want to defend a position that has nothing at all going for it in the Bible (or Church history). It’s an impossible task.

When you can’t defend what you necessarily must for your system to exist in the first place, then you obfuscate and engage in obscurantism, to make an illusory appearance of strength where there is none. Every unscrupulous lawyer who has no case to make (no facts or evidence on his side) does this.

Nothing personal; it’s just the self-defeating nature of Protestantism. Pedro might be the smartest man in the world, but as the old saying goes, “you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s [pig’s] ear.”

The answer I expected is: Material Sufficiency is a position formulated to oppose the Two Source Theory and that both have different and opposite views on How Tradition and Scripture Works.

[present answer. Yes, they are two different views on a very complex, multi-faceted, and nuanced matter. Because it’s so complicated, both are allowed by the Church, just as Thomist and Molinist interpretations of predestination are both allowed, since predestination is one of the most difficult topics in theology and philosophy. My point, that I kept making in the exchange, was that anti-Catholic apologists use this non-issue as a ploy or cynical “gotcha!” tactic to avoid talking about the real bottom-line issue between Catholics and Protestants: sola Scriptura vs. a “three-legged stool” rule of faith. ]

I’m saying that because normal Catholics who read your book think you’re defending the Two Source Theory, while I noticed in that book you simply downplayed it while arguing for Material Sufficiency. Catholics in Brazil don’t care to teach those things because they “make weak faithful weaker”. I was inside this system. I know how it works. It’s a shame that you [wrote] all of this but couldn’t give direct answers that wouldn’t even be controversial to you as an apologist. It’s simply no monkey business, just helping Catholics to understand their doctrines correctly.

[present answer: What would we do without your kind, benevolent, wise assistance, Pedro? How would we ever come to understand our own doctrine without a former Catholic Protestant — who detests it — helpfully explaining it to us? (note: heavy sarcasm) ]

Once again: it’s a non-issue in the larger scheme of things. This is just a game that Protestant polemicists play, in order to avoid what they must do: defend sola Scriptura from Scripture. I’ve dealt with this for 27 years, starting with Bishop “Dr.” [???] James White: probably the leading Protestant debater of Catholics. You won’t come up with anything he hasn’t already dished out from the latrine, believe me. My answers are in the two articles I posted.

I wasn’t engaged in a three-day discussion on sola Scriptura, but on the poor [job] of Catholic apologists to actually teach their concepts.. . . I’m not saying sola Scriptura shouldn’t be discussed at all, but that this three-day discussion must be [re]solved, and [that] many Catholics have a hard time admitting they are wrong on their own views of their own religion.

[present answer: there is no “right or wrong” in the sense of what the Church requires concerning this matter, because both views are allowed. This is why it is an irrelevant issue (at least on the lay, popular level), and “beating a dead horse.” I simply noted that the majority view of both allowable positions is currently material sufficiency of Scripture and the one-source theory. I don’t think that came from the 1950s, as Pedro absurdly does. It’s in the Church fathers, arguably in Scripture itself, and was most notably refined and explained by St. John Henry Cardinal Newman in the 19th century]

I’m not running away from anything. Leandro Cerqueira was a mediator in my debate on sola Scriptura against a Catholic [who did] poorly. And yes, if you are so demanding [regarding] that, I could do the same with you on the YouTube. I challenged Scott Hahn before; it’s no big deal really. But I have to settle some things . . . before eventually discussing our differences.

[present answer. I do written debates — because I think they have far more substance and seriousness — , and am not on YouTube, as is fairly well-known, though lately I’ve been offering critiques of YouTube videos from Protestants. I’ve done more than 1000 debates of some sort over 25 years online, with almost every imaginable opposing position against Catholicism or Christianity in general. Nor have I been on many radio broadcasts or podcasts, though I have been interviewed on radio about 25 times since 1997. I’m not demanding anything. I simply said that your task is to prove sola Scriptura from the Bible. In my 31 years as a Catholic apologist, I’ve never seen any Protestant do this. I would be absolutely delighted to see you try to do that. And I guarantee that I will be able to refute whatever you come up with. That’s how supremely confident I am on that issue. I’ve written more about it than any other topic.]

I defend the “three-legged stool” rule of faith: Bible-Tradition-Church. This sufficiency stuff is just a side-trail to avoid defending sola Scriptura, which is why I have only two articles about it posted on my blog, out of more than 4,000 articles. You have one ultimate burden [as to Bible-Tradition issues] and one alone: defend sola Scriptura from Scripture. People ought to ignore you if you can’t do that and refuse to go on these wild goose chases with you. It simply strengthens your self-delusion if we do that.

In any of those articles do you say both theories are opposite and different? That’s the issue here.

[I haven’t written much at all about the one- or two-sources of tradition debate, for the very reasons I give here, so maybe not. But I have clarified in this present paper with additional answers that yes, they are two competing theories.]

“Material sufficiency” of Scripture is such a non-entity in the daily life of a Catholic, that the term never appears in the Catechism, which is our sure norm of faith. You can try to look it up in the Portugese version. It’s certainly not there in English: at least not those words.

I’m aware it doesn’t, such as [it doesn’t address] many other things. But if you are saying Catholicism has a position on what Tradition is, or the available positions, those should be made clear by anyone trying to attack Sola Scriptura. Most don’t already know sola Scriptura. If they don’t know what they are arguing, the debate level gets poor on the account of the Catholics.

[our view on tradition is made clear in Dei Verbum from the Vatican II documents, and in the Catechism. If someone wants abundant popular-level apologetics treatments, they can consult my three books or very extensive collection of articles on my Bible and Tradition web page. The debate over that is utterly irrelevant when it comes to the issue of sola Scriptura. Both views of the source[s] of tradition in Catholicism hold to an infallible tradition and Church under certain conditions. Sola Scriptura denies that. That is the relevant, live debate: not this side-trail.]

I agree that most Catholics and Protestants don’t understand the proper definition of sola Scriptura.

It’s not much of use if a Catholic reads your book and doesn’t fully understand what you are arguing.

[I’m known for being very clear in my explanations to the common man.]

As I said, discussion is not on sola Scriptura here; we were trying to end a misconception and that’s the sole reason we agreed to show to Catholics what an apologist will say to them regarding both positions (or more than the two). No need to bait me into asola Scriptura argument, especially because the Brazilians are not going to pick up a fight against me again.

[Challenging someone to exhibit the courage of their convictions is not“baiting.” It’s the thinking process for those who want to properly think through issues and examine both sides of debated matters, as opposed to being isolated in bubbles and echo chambers. I have no idea what is in the minds and hearts of Brazilian Catholics that you know. I suspect that you are exaggerating their fear of your intellectual prowess. But I am not the least bit scared of you: especially if we debate sola Scriptura. I have no idea who you are. But you seem to be a rather vocal and overconfident “big shot” among Brazilian Protestants (now living in good ol’ Protestant-dominated America).

I’m here waiting to see if you are willing to do that debate, and few things would give me more pleasure (since Protestants are so ultra-reluctant to take up this challenge). I’ve debated many people (many times) far more knowledgeable and experienced than you think you are. But if we do this, you’ll have to try to demonstrate the actual nature and definition of sola Scriptura from Scripture alone. You won’t be allowed to go down rabbit trials and obfuscate and desperately try to change the subject. No one ever gets away with playing those games with me]

I don’t know what the people here think in all particulars. It didn’t translate very well into English. I may [very well] disagree with some who believe I sided with them, in some specifics. I was asked to give my opinion as a professional apologist and I did. Jimmy Akin is one of the best Catholic apologists today. If you don’t accept his word for what our Church teaches, you won’t accept any Catholic’s, and will keep pretending that you know our doctrine better than we do ourselves. This is standard anti-Catholic Protestant polemicist method. It doesn’t fly.

I mentioned “material sufficiency” exactly once in my book (I did a search last night). If I recall correctly, it wasn’t even one of the 100 arguments. But I may have forgotten. But I do mention it in several of my articles, such as where I prove that Church Father X did not believe in sola Scriptura. Here is a search result for “material sufficiency” in my writings. There are quite a few mentions, but I think most are just passing references.

I read them in English. The problem is that I can actually understand what you were intending to say: you promoted Material Sufficiency and ignored Two Source Theory. But a common Catholic, who often have a bad basis on their own theology, will try to find the Second Theory in your book because they aren’t aware they are opposite. I mean, people here doesn’t even realized that when you dismissed the Two Source Theory as an outdated 16th century thing (Cathen would disagree badly), it’s because you don’t support Two Source Theory. That’s the point: have a clear position on the theories as opposed theories. If you don’t answer that, they will keep thinking they aren’t.

The issue is that many people are thinking that you supported Two Source Theory while saying you support one source Theory. And without a clear admission on the contrary they will keep thinking you do that.

[Once again, they oppose each other. DUH! And once again, it’s a rabbit trail and side issue, that anti-Catholics cynically utilize in order to avoid what the bottom-line issues are. The most fully developed Catholic views regarding tradition and revelation are found in Vatican II and popes after that, not in Trent.]

How long do you think asola Scriptura discussion with Armstrong takes? 5 minutes?

[Yeah, it would take that long if you got honest with yourself and admitted that the false tradition is never taught in Holy Scripture anywhere. Then you could concede and return to the Catholic faith. But if you want to pretend that it does appear in Scripture it could go on for a very long time, because I won’t run (like my Protestant opponents on this issue always have for 31 years now), unless it descends to merely personal insults, which I have no time for.]

He did it [bring up sola Scriptura] precisely so he doesn’t have to disauthorize the people here who defend what he clearly doesn’t defend.

[That’s a scurrilous lie. You can’t read my heart and know my motivations. I brought up sola Scriptura because I truly, sincerely believe that it’s the bottom-line issue to be discussed regarding authority (it’s not like that is a controversial position). And I think this “one vs. two” debate is a side-track and a way to avoid the difficulty of finding sola Scriptura anywhere in Holy Scripture. I can say this based on my long personal experience of having tried to debate the issue with Protestants for over 25 years and watching them always try to change the subject.]
*

Nonsense. I clearly said in one of my last comments, that it may be that I don’t totally agree on some things with some of the people who feel they are on my side in this discussion. I didn’t come here just to agree with existing friends. I came to present what I believe to be the teaching of the Church. This is what Catholic apologists do. That’s what you specifically asked me. Now you say I didn’t answer. That’s one of the oldest tricks in the book, too. When one disagrees with an answer, just claim that the other never answered . . .

[Pedro kept stating over and over that I didn’t answer his question specifically about whether the one-and two-source theory of tradition and revelation are “different” from each other. Of course they are different. What is this, kindergarten? I kept saying that I did answer by providing Jimmy Akin’s article, which presupposes throughout that the two theories are different and both fully allowed within Catholicism. He stated things like, “According to one [two-source] Catholic view, . . .”, “According to this theory, . . . We might call it the ‘two modes’ view as opposed to the ‘two source’ view.” He obviously is assuming they are different theories that compete with each other (two-source vs. two-mode). Therefore, I did answer his question by means of giving him Jimmy’s article, in agreement. But I also pretty much answered by saying at the time: “Catholics are free to believe either.”

In any event, Catholics being allowed to disagree on the precise relationship of Scripture and tradition is not broadly different from Protestants disagreeing with each other on things like baptism, Church government, and the Eucharist. But it is different in that we allow difference mainly on the most complicated issues of theology, like this one and predestination,. whereas Protestant theology is relativistic and allows differences on very major issues like baptism and the Eucharist. Remember, the early Lutherans and Calvinists both executed Anabaptists for believing in adult believer’s baptism. Luther’s successor Melanchthon advocated the death penalty for disbelief in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, then later stopped believing in it, himself. Needless to say he wasn’t executed . . .

There is no self-contradiction in our doing this. It’s simply an acknowledgment that complicated issues need not be defined; that allowable differences can exist and need not be acrimonious. We don’t form new denominations over such honest disagreements, as Protestants habitually do, because we believe there is one Church and ultimately one truth: not many hundreds of versions of each where ecclesiological chaos and doctrinal anarchy and relativism — with massive necessary contradictions and falsehood — rule the day.]

***

Summary: Brazilian former Catholic and anti-Catholic Protestant Pedro França Gaião brought up the issue of material sufficiency of Scripture & theories on tradition.

Reply to Baptist Gavin Ortlund’s Critique of Icons

Last updated on: May 19, 2022 at 4:17 pm By Dave Armstrong

Gavin Ortlund is an author, speaker, and apologist for the Christian faith, who serves as the senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai in Ojai, California. Gavin has a Ph.D. from Fuller Theological Seminary in historical theology, and an M.Div from Covenant Theological Seminary. He 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.

I greatly admire and appreciate Gavin’s ecumenical methodology, and viewpoint. It’s extremely refreshing to hear in this hyper-polarized age. He is an exemplary Christian role model of this open-minded, charitable approach. We all learn and “win” when good, constructive dialogue takes place. It’s never a “loss” to arrive at more truth or to recognize one’s own error.

*****

This is a reply to Gavin’s video, “Venerating Icons: A Protestant Critique” (9-4-21). Gavin’s words will be in blue.

Gavin provides much helpful irenic, explanatory material at the beginning: urging Protestants not to be quick to judge Orthodox (and/or Catholic) practices with regard to icons and images. Good for him for doing so. He’s obviously read quite a bit on the subject. I personally thank him for taking the time to do that.

He says that the Bible is very severe against idolatry (virtually above any other emphasis). Indeed it is. The great, incalculably grave and spiritually deadly sin of idolatry is putting anything else above God, or in His place. The question will be whether icons are essentially, intrinsically idols (I say no), or whether some folks distort their meaning and purpose and treat them like idols (certainly; error is always with us, and corrupts every good thing). We can’t say that icons are never idols in the heart of some who utilize them, because human beings always fall short of the ideal. But there is a biblical basis for icons, as I will show.

As I have said in past replies to Gavin (notable in my replies about the intercession of saints and relics), the Protestant tendency and “solution” is to get rid of anything that has ever become distorted in practice. And as I said, this is hardly practical or sensible, since the Bible would be the first thing to have to be discarded, following such a methodology. We don’t get rid of things that are corrupted. We reform erroneous and blasphemous, idolatrous practices and properly educate people. As the old saying goes, we mustn’t “throw the baby out with the bathwater.”

He mentions the prohibition of idolatrous images in the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:4-5; he later cited the similar passage Lev 26:1). The problem with Protestants and this, is that (too often, especially in the Calvinist tradition) they interpret it absolutely and with no sense of the many exceptions as to the use of images in worship and veneration, etc., also plainly sanctioned in the Old Testament. The temple and tabernacle had many images, for heaven’s sake, so this clearly was not an absolute prohibition. The ark of the covenant had images of angels on top of it. God commanded the construction (giving minute detail) of all three of those sacred things.

Let’s be very clear as to what constitutes an idol and what idolatry is. To be an idolater is fundamentally to put something in place of God. An animist who is truly worshiping a statue of wood or stone or amulet as God in and of itself (i.e., over against the true, one Creator God) is a true idolater.

As for the “graven image” of Exodus 20:4: what God was forbidding was idolatry: making a stone or block of wood God. The Jews were forbidden to have idols (like all their neighbors had), and God told them not to make an image of Him because He revealed Himself as a spirit. The KJV and RSV Bible versions use the term graven image at Exodus 20:4, but many of the more recent translations render the word as idol (e.g., NASB, NRSV, NIV, CEV).

Context makes it very clear that idolatry is being condemned. The next verse states: “You shall not bow down to them or worship them” (NIV, NRSV). In other words, mere blocks of stone or wood (“them”) are not to be worshiped, as that is gross idolatry, and the inanimate objects are not God. This does not absolutely preclude, however, the notion of an icon, where God is worshiped with the help of a visual aid.

Idolatry is a matter of disobedience in the heart towards the one true God.

The following passages bring out the distinction I am drawing:

Psalm 115:3-8 (RSV) Our God is in the heavens; he does whatever he pleases. [4] Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men’s hands. [5] They have mouths, but do not speak; eyes, but do not see. [6] They have ears, but do not hear; noses, but do not smell. [7] They have hands, but do not feel; feet, but do not walk; and they do not make a sound in their throat. [8] Those who make them are like them; so are all who trust in them. (cf. 135:15-18)

Isaiah 2:8 Their land is filled with idols; they bow down to the work of their hands, to what their own fingers have made.

Judith 8:18-20 For never in our generation, nor in these present days, has there been any tribe or family or people or city of ours which worshiped gods made with hands, as was done in days gone by — [19] and that was why our fathers were handed over to the sword, and to be plundered, and so they suffered a great catastrophe before our enemies. [20] But we know no other god but him, and therefore we hope that he will not disdain us or any of our nation.

Wisdom of Solomon 14:8 But the idol made with hands is accursed, and so is he who made it; because he did the work, and the perishable thing was named a god.

Acts 7:41 And they made a calf in those days, and offered a sacrifice to the idol and rejoiced in the works of their hands.

Acts 19:26 And you see and hear that not only at Ephesus but almost throughout all Asia this Paul has persuaded and turned away a considerable company of people, saying that gods made with hands are not gods. [stated by Demetrius, a craftsman in Ephesus who made idols and shrines: see 19:24-25]

Revelation 9:20 The rest of mankind, who were not killed by these plagues, did not repent of the works of their hands nor give up worshiping demons and idols of gold and silver and bronze and stone and wood, which cannot either see or hear or walk;

In other words, the prohibition was not of all images, but of images specifically intended to be idols: that is, worshiped instead of the one true God.

Gavin distinguishes between worshiping idols and venerating icons. But he stresses that there has been a constant danger or “temptation” throughout history of men making images into idols to worship and replace God with. Granted. I totally agree with that.

He says that in the first three hundred years o Church history, he knows of no practice of veneration of images, and much rhetoric against it. He cites Origen: “Being taught in the school of Jesus Christ, have rejected all images and statues.” Origen stated that Christians “avoid temples, altars, and images.” This comes from Against Celsus, Book VII, chapters 41 and 64. Origen was simply wrong. He has the same fallacious and unbiblical, hyper-legalistic reasoning that would surface again and again in the iconoclasts of the east, and in Calvinism and more radical Protestant sects in the 16th century.

Note how Origen includes temples and altars in the prohibition. I think the Bible and the apostles can show us the way here, in inspired Holy Scripture (certainly a higher authority than Origen, on his own). According to Acts 3:1 (right after the Day of Pentecost), “Peter and John were going up to the temple at the hour of prayer, the ninth hour.” A lame man saw “Peter and John about to go into the temple” (Acts 3:3). The notes in my RSV explain that the ninth hour was 3 PM “when sacrifice was offered with prayer (Ex 29.39; Lev. 6.20; Josephus, Ant. xiv.4.3).” So that is both temple and altar. Acts 2:46 described the early Christians as “day by day, attending the temple together.” St. Paul is still observing Jewish ritual at the temple long after his conversion to Christ:

Acts 21:6-7 Then Paul took the men, and the next day he purified himself with them and went into the temple, to give notice when the days of purification would be fulfilled and the offering presented for every one of them. [27] When the seven days were almost completed, the Jews from Asia, who had seen him in the temple, stirred up all the crowd, and laid hands on him,

Jesus assumed that His Jewish followers would still present offerings at the temple:

Matthew 5:23-24 So if you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, [24] leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.

Why does the book of Revelation repeatedly refer to an altar in heaven (6:9; 8:3, 5; 9:13; 11:1; 14:18; 16:7), if altars were supposedly to be banished in Christianity, according to Origen? Isn’t that odd? Images in worship are bad, and to be “rejected” and “avoided”? Origen seems to have almost been biblically illiterate. The ancient Jews worshiped God via images, and this is perfectly acceptable, as presented in the Old Testament:

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

Note that the pillar of cloud is:

1) a creation (water, if a literal cloud);

2) visual, hence an image;

and

3) thought to directly represent God Himself.

It’s also a supernatural manifestation, which is a major difference compared to any true idol made by the hands of men; but that would make no difference for those who mistakenly hold that any image whatsoever associated with God is impermissible. The problem comes when God Himself expressly sanctions such images, and worship in conjunction with them, as here.

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

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

The biblical evidence for physical objects as aids in worship is legion. Rather than cite all those, I’ll refer to my article that compiles many examples. See also further biblical evidence regarding candles, incense, and other such symbolism. I went through the many instances of bowing down to the ark of the covenant, the temple, Jerusalem, etc., in my reply to Gavin on relics, after he expressed an objection to Catholics bowing to them. So I need not repeat that here. The biblical data in this area is massive. But I suppose one might still ask: “Where do we find a physical object being venerated or shown honor, similar to an icon?” Here’s their answer:

Joshua 7:6-7 Then Joshua rent his clothes, and fell to the earth upon his face before the ark of the LORD until the evening, he and the elders of Israel; and they put dust upon their heads. [7] And Joshua said, “Alas, O Lord GOD, why hast thou brought this people over the Jordan at all, to give us into the hands of the Amorites, to destroy us? Would that we had been content to dwell beyond the Jordan!

Since there were carved cherubim (a type of angel) on top of the ark, we know that wherever there is bowing, prayer, and/or worship in Scripture, as related to the ark of the covenant either outside the temple or tabernacle, or in them, that statues (of cherubim / angels) were present. So this is a biblical apologia for the Catholic use of statues in devotion (see more on this). And this is also true of any bowing, prayer, and/or worship in or near the temple. That’s an awful lot of statuary or other images! Yet we are to believe that these most sacred acts of the ancient Jews were fundamentally idolatrous, and that anything even approximating these actions in Christianity is also idolatrous? It strains credulity to the breaking point.

There is also a biblical argument to be made for the use of crucifixes.

Moreover, we have the example of Moses’ bronze serpent. Protestants can and will rightly point out that it was later ordered to be destroyed. They’re exactly right. The righteous king of Judah, Hezekiah, did that. But let’s take a deeper look at that. It will be seen to support the Orthodox and Catholic view, not Protestant iconoclasm:

Numbers 21:6-9 Then the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people, so that many people of Israel died. [7] And the people came to Moses, and said, “We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD and against you; pray to the LORD, that he take away the serpents from us.” So Moses prayed for the people. [8] And the LORD said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and every one who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live.” [9] So Moses made a bronze serpent, and set it on a pole; and if a serpent bit any man, he would look at the bronze serpent and live.

2 Kings 18:4 He removed the high places, and broke the pillars, and cut down the Ashe’rah. And he broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until those days the people of Israel had burned incense to it; it was called Nehush’tan.

These passages teach us many things. Iconoclastic Calvinists (those who oppose all use of images whatever in Christian worship or piety) argue that they can never be used, and that their use always constitutes “idolatry” regardless of one’s intentions or inner state of mind. But these two Bible passages establish many “Catholic” elements (ones anathema to many Protestants):

1) The bronze serpent not only is a foreshadowing of Christ on the cross (John 3:14: “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up”), but also an instance of a “sacramental” aid: use of a physical thing in order to grant more grace or spiritual power or pardon. The people had to do something: look at the serpent — not merely abstractly believe that God would pardon them.

2) It shows, moreover, that visual aids in receiving pardon and life (by analogy, salvation) from God are perfectly permissible: indeed, expressly commanded by God in this instance.

3) Thus, there is an image that is not a ”graven image” — forbidden by the Ten Commandments. Not all images in spirituality and worship are bad and wicked by their mere existence, apart from how people use them.

4) 2 Kings 18:4 again reveals to us that it was not the image itself that was inherently wrong, but a corrupt use of it. The proper use was explained by God in the earlier passage. The improper, sinful, wicked use was burning incense to it, because that implies that it is an idol, with the power of God. It then replaces God in a way that it did not in its proper use and becomes an idol: precisely due to how people regard it: not in and of itself, by its own essence. This shows that idolatry is a matter of the intentions of the ones engaging in the sin.

5) The same principle is also illustrated by the temple itself: it was the house of God only so long as the Hebrews followed God’s commandments. Thus, three temples were built, and three were destroyed in judgment after the Jews had sunk into idolatry. The temples had ornate visual ornamentation, including large statues of cherubim and other paintings of symbols. Those were not idols as originally intended, but when the Jews went astray, the inner meaning of the temple was corrupted and God was all too willing to destroy His own “house.” Solomon’s temple (1 Kings 6:23-35) had been approved by God (“I have consecrated this house which you have built” — 1 Kings 9:3). The prophet Jeremiah expressly states this notion:

Jeremiah 7:3-14 Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, Amend your ways and your doings, and I will let you dwell in this place. [4] Do not trust in these deceptive words: `This is the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD.’ [5] “For if you truly amend your ways and your doings, if you truly execute justice one with another, [6] if you do not oppress the alien, the fatherless or the widow, or shed innocent blood in this place, and if you do not go after other gods to your own hurt, [7] then I will let you dwell in this place, in the land that I gave of old to your fathers for ever. [8] “Behold, you trust in deceptive words to no avail. [9] Will you steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, burn incense to Ba’al, and go after other gods that you have not known, [10] and then come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, `We are delivered!’ — only to go on doing all these abominations? [11] Has this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes? Behold, I myself have seen it, says the LORD. [12] Go now to my place that was in Shiloh, where I made my name dwell at first, and see what I did to it for the wickedness of my people Israel. [13] And now, because you have done all these things, says the LORD, and when I spoke to you persistently you did not listen, and when I called you, you did not answer, [14] therefore I will do to the house which is called by my name, and in which you trust, and to the place which I gave to you and to your fathers, as I did to Shiloh.

If my choice comes down to all of this Bible vs. Origen and some other Church fathers who simply didn’t understand the above teaching of the Bible, I go with the Bible (as I always do if there is a contrary choice to it).

You get this sense from a lot of these early Christians that there’s a very strong, almost allergic reaction to the surrounding pagan practices . . . [leading to] a wholesale rejection of icons. [12:32-51]

Well, that’s just it. The fathers who did this fell into the very human and unfortunately common reaction of going from one extreme (error) to the other extreme (also an error). They observed true pagan idolatry, by use of images, and so they concluded that all images are evil. That doesn’t follow. A corruption of a thing is not the thing itself.

Some Church fathers also had a tendency of reacting so strongly against pagan immoral sexuality, that they started thinking that moral, biblically mandated sexuality was evil or had some sort of “scandal” always attached to it, as if we should be ashamed of one of the great gifts that God gave us; as if all sexual desire must be sinful lust.

Gavin cites Lactantius, who stated that “there is no doubt that there is no religion where there is an image.” This is biblically illiterate as well. I would love to have him appear in my room and engage in dialogue with me about the proper interpretation of all the Bible passages I set forth above. I am going by biblical teaching. I think — with all due respect — he and Origen are reacting emotionally and going to extremes: making wicked what isn’t wicked at all, rightly understood and practiced. This is not good.

Gavin cites the Council of Elvira, from early in the 4th century in Spain (some — like Hefele — think it was in 306 AD). Its canon 36 stated: “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” One can always look deeper into things. The Catholic Encyclopedia article, “Council of Elvira” (1909), stated:

Canon xxxvi (placuit picturas in ecclesia esse non debere ne quod colitur et adoratur in parietibus depingatur) has often been urged against the veneration of images as practised in the Catholic Church. Binterim, De Rossi, and Hefele interpret this prohibition as directed against the use of images in overground churches only, lest the pagans should caricature sacred scenes and ideas; Von Funk, Termel, and Dom Leclerq opine that the council did not pronounce as to the liceity or non-liceity of the use of images, but as an administrative measure simply forbade them, lest new and weak converts from paganism should incur thereby any danger of relapse into idolatry, or be scandalized by certain superstitious excesses in no way approved by the ecclesiastical authority. . . . (See text and commentary in Hefele-Leclercq, “Hist. des Conciles.” [History of Church Councils] I, 212 sqq.)

If Gavin wants to argue that the general lack of sanction of images in the first three centuries of the Church is fatal to the notion, I would point out that many doctrines were pretty undeveloped at the same time. St. John Henry Cardinal Newman observed along these lines:

If the Imperial Power checked the development of Councils, it availed also for keeping back the power of the Papacy. The Creed, the Canon, in like manner, both remained undefined. The Creed, the Canon, the Papacy, Ecumenical Councils, all began to form, as soon as the Empire relaxed its tyrannous oppression of the Church. And as it was natural that her monarchical power should display itself when the Empire became Christian, so was it natural also that further developments of that power should take place when that Empire fell. (Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, 1878 edition, Univ. of Notre Dame Press, 1989, pp. 148-155; Part 1, Chapter 4, Section 3)

Gavin agrees with this to some extent, by saying: “With the conversion of Constantine, things change. A lot changes overnight” [14:39-14:45]. He agrees that in the fourth century, images start to appear in churches. But let’s briefly look at the development of the biblical canon in this early time period:

In the period up to 140, the Book of Acts was scarcely known or quoted. Quotations from the apostle Paul were rarely introduced as scriptural. The books of Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2, and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation were not considered to be part of the canon, and most of these books weren’t accepted by consensus as biblical until the end of the 4th century. In the period of 160-250, the Shepherd of Hermas was considered part of the New Testament by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, and Clement of Alexandria. Even in the early 5th century, 1 Clement and 2 Clement were included in the biblical manuscript: Codex Alexandrinus.

Is this information just my own “amateur” opinion, or gathered from Catholic apologists or official Catholic Church sources? No. It all came from solid Protestant scholarly reference works:

1) J. D. Douglas, editor, New Bible Dictionary, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1962 edition, 194-198.

2) F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone, editors, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2nd edition, 1983, 232, 300, 309-10, 626, 641, 724, 1049, 1069.

3) Norman L. Geisler & William E. Nix, From God to Us: How We Got Our Bible, Chicago: Moody Press, 1974, 109-12, 117-125.

If there was all this uncertainty about the Bible itself, why is it considered an issue that the veneration of images and icons was nowhere near fully developed in this same period? It’s ultimately a non-issue. But there is far more Scripture about images in worship than there is about the canon of Scripture. Peter calls Paul’s writings “Scripture” but, alas, he doesn’t say which ones.

Gavin notes that images are at first used as teaching aids, but not venerated. We would fully expect this. Development proceeds slowly. As things are thought about and pondered (and opposed), they start to develop more rapidly. But as I have shown, all the rationale needed was already present in the Bible. It was slowly realized and fully understood over time.

What I’m opposed to is venerating them [icons], and bowing down to them and things like that, and I think that that is wrong to do. [16:50-57]

I think Gavin would benefit by examining the scriptural arguments I have made above and to either accept that they provide a rationale for veneration of icons or to explain the passages otherwise than as I have, and as Catholics and Orthodox have through the centuries. Note that he thinks all such veneration is wrong. It’s not just a corrupt practice of veneration that he opposes. I don’t see that he would be able to also characterize all analogous instances of use of images and veneration in Scripture as likewise wrong. That’s his task and burden, and if we get to that, then this will truly be a serious and much more substantive, “meaty” exchange. I hope when he ends his sabbatical from social media in the month of May that he will take me up on this and several other recent critiques.

He mentions the argument from images in the Old Testament (one that I have made above), and adds: “No one was bowing down to or kissing the cherubim on the ark of the covenant.” [17:21-29] Joshua bowed before the ark, which included these cherubim:

Joshua 7:6-7 Then Joshua rent his clothes, and fell to the earth upon his face before the ark of the LORD until the evening, he and the elders of Israel; and they put dust upon their heads. [7] And Joshua said, [a prayer] . . .

The ark also included, in effect, relics: Aaron’s staff, the tablets of the Ten Commandments, and a golden urn with manna (Heb 9:4). To be by the ark was to “stand before the LORD to minister to him” (Dt 10:8; cf. 1 Ki 3:15; 8:5; 1 Chr 16:4; 2 Chr 5:6). The ark was so sacred because God was literally said to be there (as in the Holy Eucharist and consecrated hosts): especially between the two cherubim:

Exodus 25:22 There I will meet with you, and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim that are upon the ark of the testimony, I will speak with you of all that I will give you in commandment for the people of Israel. [carved statues on the ark of the covenant]

Exodus 30:6 And you shall put it before the veil that is by the ark of the testimony, before the mercy seat that is over the testimony, where I will meet with you. (cf. Lev 16:2) [mercy seat on the ark of the covenant]

Numbers 7:89 And when Moses went into the tent of meeting to speak with the LORD, he heard the voice speaking to him from above the mercy seat that was upon the ark of the testimony, from between the two cherubim; and it spoke to him. (cf. 1 Sam 4:4; 2 Sam 6:2; 2 Ki 19:15; 1 Chron 13:6; Ps 80:1; 99:1; Is 37:16; Ezek 10:4; Heb 9:5) [carved statues on the ark of the covenant]

Thus, when the high priest was praying directly to God or worshiping him next to the ark of the covenant, he would have been looking directly at the cherubim. How that is not veneration of an image at all or the “absence” of objects in worship, or idolatry, is, I confess, completely beyond my understanding.

I imagine they didn’t kiss the cherubim on the ark, based on the experience of Uzzah, who was instantly killed by God because he touched the ark to prevent it from falling down (2 Sam 6:1-7; 1 Chr 13:9-12). But Joshua bowed down before it and them, and prayed to God.

The Jews bowed down before the pillar of cloud, to worship God (Ex 33:8-10, cited above). That’s an image. They did the same with fire in the temple (2 Chr 7:1-4 above). If Gavin wants images in worship in the New Testament, I discussed those in my treatment of crucifixes and the Bible:

Revelation 5:6 And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders, I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, . . .

Why would God want St. John to see this scene, if indeed, Protestant reasoning in this regard is true? It doesn’t “fit.” St. John specifically sees a “Lamb . . . slain.” Also in the same context, Jesus is specifically worshiped as He is seen in this fashion:

Revelation 5:8-14 And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints; [9] and they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy art thou to take the scroll and to open its seals, for thou wast slain and by thy blood didst ransom men for God from every tribe and tongue and people and nation, [10] and hast made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on earth.” [11] Then I looked, and I heard around the throne and the living creatures and the elders the voice of many angels, numbering myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, [12] saying with a loud voice, “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!” [13] And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all therein, saying, “To him who sits upon the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might for ever and ever!” [14] And the four living creatures said, “Amen!” and the elders fell down and worshiped.

A crucifix is the same thing we see here: an image of Christ crucified, to help devotion and worship of that same Jesus. The prophet Isaiah had seen God in some sense long before the Jews had a widespread sense that the Messiah was God (so this is referring to God the Father):

Isaiah 6:1-7 In the year that King Uzzi’ah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and his train filled the temple. [2] Above him stood the seraphim; each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. [3] And one called to another and said: “Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory.” [4] And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the house was filled with smoke. [5] And I said: “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!” [6] Then flew one of the seraphim to me, having in his hand a burning coal which he had taken with tongs from the altar. [7] And he touched my mouth, and said: “Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin forgiven.”

As all who study Christian theology know, God the Father is an invisible Spirit. So if it was His will to be seen by any image, then veneration has a biblical basis. If the iconoclasts are right, it seems to me that God could have — and would have, in order to avoid the slightest confusion or danger of idolatry — simply refused to reveal Himself in any image whatever: not even the burning bush of pillar of cloud. But He didn’t do that with Isaiah, who reported: “I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne . . . my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!” That’s a very odd passage if in fact all images whatever in religion are a wicked, blasphemous, idolatrous thing.

The prophet Daniel had an even more explicit vision of God the Father. With Isaiah, God’s face was covered, but Daniel saw His “hair” (again, some sort of miraculous manifestation, because the Father is a Spirit):

Daniel 7:9 As I looked, thrones were placed and one that was ancient of days took his seat; his raiment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames, its wheels were burning fire.

The glorified Lord Jesus in heaven is described in a similar way, as seen by St. John:

Revelation 1:13-16 and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden girdle round his breast; [14] his head and his hair were white as white wool, white as snow; his eyes were like a flame of fire, [15] his feet were like burnished bronze, refined as in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of many waters; [16] in his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth issued a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining in full strength.

The equally invisible Holy Spirit was portrayed (by God’s express design) as a dove at Jesus’ baptism (see Mt 3:16; Mk 1:10; Lk 3:22; Jn 1:32). Likewise, God the Father on several occasions in the Old Testament presented Himself visually in the form of the “Angel of the Lord” or in what are known as “theophanies”. This being the case, icons or paintings of God the Father, though not literal to His nature, are permissible, since the Bible permits similar representations of the Father and the Holy Spirit (neither of Whom has a body or physicality).

I’m not aware of any examples of venerating a non-living object in Holy Scripture. [17:34-42].

I gave several above (some are “living” but they are images): the pillar of smoke or cloud, the fire in the temple, the burning bush, the tabernacle, temple, and the ark of the covenant (specifically the cherubim on top of it).

How do we know that venerating icons is not an innovation . . . a bad development: something that comes into the picture that is not apostolic practice, but it . . . idolatry creeping in. How do we know it is not that, since we don’t see this early on? [29:28-50]

From the Bible, of course. That’s why I have concentrated on that. Gavin gave his history, and then asked what he thinks is a central question. I have answered it with all the biblical material above. There is a right side and a wrong side with this issue and the Bible reveals which is which. And as always, the historic Church going all the way back (Catholicism and Orthodoxy) and virtually all Protestants, too, have recognized that images and even veneration of images (minus some of those Protestants) are biblically warranted and not inherently idolatrous.

The early Calvinists and other more radical Protestants (not the Lutherans) went around smashing statues of Christ, crucifixes; even going after organs and stained glass windows and bare crosses. They don’t do that anymore (if it is so wonderful and supposedly required, why not, I would ask?). But they were in the spirit of the equally crazed and deluded iconoclasts of the first millennium.

What is the basis in Scripture . . . for this distinction between veneration and worship? [31:05-13]

Thanks for the question! Glad to oblige. Catholic theology differentiates between the notions of dulia and latria; the second being adoration or divine worship. Are these terms biblical? Absolutely!: The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (2nd ed., edited by F. L. Cross & E. A. Livingstone, Oxford Univ. Press, 1983, 430, “Dulia”), states:

(Latinized form of Greek douleia, ‘service’). The reverence which, according to Orthodox and RC theology, may be paid to the saints, as contrasted with hyperdulia, which may be paid only to the Blessed Virgin Mary, and latria (Gk., latreia), which is reserved for God alone.

This is consistent with the Catholic understanding. This dictionary goes on to define latria as follows (p. 803):

As contrasted with dulia, that fullness of Divine worship which may be paid to God alone.

Douleia can also be located in Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, in volume 1, p. 139, under “Bondage,” and latreia in volume 3, p. 349, under “Service, Serving.” Douleia is Strong’s word #1397. It appears five times in the NT, and is translated “bondage” in the KJV (Rom 8:15,21; Gal 4:24, 5:1; Heb 2:15: none referring to God). Latreia is Strong’s word #2999. It appears 5 times in the NT, and is translated “service” or “divine service” in the KJV – in reference to God (Jn 16:2; Rom 9:4, 12:1; Heb 9:1,6). It appears 21 times in the NT.

So, as usual, so-called exclusively “Catholic” words are found to have a completely biblical basis, and to follow the distinction even present in the pre-biblical Greek etymology, since the Latin dulia and latria are directly derived from the Greek. As for the notion of veneration in general, I wrote in my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (pp. 103-104):

We honor the saints in heaven, who have more perfectly attained God’s likeness (2 Corinthians 3:18), strive to imitate them, and ask them for their efficacious prayers on our behalf and that of others. All honor ultimately goes back to God, whose graces are the source of all that is worthy of veneration in the saints . . . it is God Himself Whom we praise when we celebrate in music, painting, and poetry His flowers, stars, sunsets, bald eagles, forests, mountains, or oceans. It is the painter who receives the accolades when his masterpiece is praised; likewise God with His creation, including the saints.

. . . We address judges as “Your Honor” and are commanded by God to “honor” our mothers and fathers (Ephesians 6:2), widows (1 Timothy 5:3), Christian teachers (1 Timothy 5:17), wives (1 Peter 3:7), fellow Christians (1 Corinthians 12:12-26), and governing authorities (Romans 13:7, 1 Peter 2:17). A spirit of honoring those who are worthy of honor is to typify the Christian (Romans 12:10, 1 Peter 2:17).

. . . A sound biblical basis for the veneration of saints can be found in the Pauline passages where the Apostle exhorts his followers to “imitate” him (1 Corinthians 4:16, Philippians 3:17, 2 Thessalonians 3:7-9) as he, in turn, imitates Christ (1 Corinthians 11:1, 1 Thessalonians 1:6). Also, we are exhorted to honor and imitate the “heroes of the faith” in Hebrews 6:12 and chapter 11, and to take heart in the examples of the prophets and Job, who endured suffering (James 5:10-11).

Then Gavin complains about Nicaea II talking about icons providing salvation, propitiating God, etc. I discussed this issue at great length in my reply to Gavin on praying to saints. Go to my words, “Gavin cites the Cursus Honarum . . . ” to get right to the relevant section. All these things are applied to human beings (especially St. Paul) in Scripture. Icons simply represent saintly human beings who are in heaven. We can ask them to intercede and “obtain” (i.e., pray to God to obtain) good things.

St. Paul was a mediator of reconciliation and the gospel. He writes several times in his epistles about “saving” or “winning” people. There is a lot of material along these lines. See the link I provided above for a systematic presentation of it. I feel no “concern” whatever about things that are expressly biblical. This is how God planned things (who are we to second-guess Him?): He uses human beings to spread His grace, forgiveness, and yes, salvation (by His express design). Tons of Bible about all of this . . .

Veneration of Images, Iconoclasm, and Idolatry (An Exposition) [11-15-02]

“Catholicism Refuted” (?): “Father” / Purgatory / Statues / Confession (Pt. III) [12-11-04]

Bible on Holy Places & Things [1-8-08]

Martin Luther on Crucifixes, Images and Statues of Saints, and the Sign of the Cross [4-15-08]

Bible on Candles, Incense, & Symbolism for Prayer [2-16-09]

Dialogue on Sacramentalism, Holy Objects, and Relics [2-26-09]

Bible on Physical Objects as Aids in Worship [4-7-09]

Calvin, Zwingli, and Bullinger vs. Statues of Christ, Crucifixes, & Crosses [9-19-09]

Crucifixes: Abominable Idols or Devotional Aids? [11-10-09]

4th Century Icons of St. Peter and St. Paul Found in Rome [6-23-10; Facebook]

Biblical Evidence for Worship of God Via an Image [6-24-11]

Lutheran Philosopher Gottfried Leibniz on Non-Idolatrous Veneration and Pious, Devotional Use of Images [Facebook, 1-23-12]

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

“Graven Images”: Unbiblical Iconoclasm (vs. John Calvin) [Oct. 2012]

Biblical Idolatry: Authentic & Counterfeit Conceptions [2015]

Should God the Father be Visually Depicted in Paintings? [2015]

Worshiping God Through Images is Entirely Biblical [National Catholic Register, 12-23-16]
*

The Biblical Understanding of Holy Places and Things [National Catholic Register, 4-11-17]
*

How Protestant Nativity Scenes Proclaim Catholic Doctrine [12-15-13; expanded for publication at National Catholic Register: 12-17-17]

Dialogue on Worship of God Via Natural Images (vs. Jim Drickamer) [1-16-17]

Newsflash!: Catholicism Utterly Opposes Idolatry, Too [1-18-17]

“Armstrong vs. Geisler” #9: Images & Relics [3-2-17]

Statues in Relation to Bowing, Prayer, & Worship in Scripture [12-26-17]

Biblical Evidence for Veneration of Saints and Images [National Catholic Register, 10-23-18]
*

Crucifixes: Devotional Aids or Wicked Idols? [National Catholic Register, 1-15-20]Crucifixes & Worship Images: “New” (?) Biblical Arguments [1-18-20]

Was Moses’ Bronze Serpent an Idolatrous “Graven Image?” [National Catholic Register, 2-17-20]

St. Newman vs. Inconsistent Protestant Iconoclasts [3-21-20]

“Turretinfan” Calls a Statue of Jesus Christ an “Idol” (While His Buddy Bishop James White Praises the Statues of “Reformers” Calvin, Farel, Beza, and Knox) [6-8-10; rev. 6-24-20]

Is Worship of God Through an Image Biblical? (vs. Luke Wayne) [11-10-20]

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

Golden Calf Idolatry vs. Carved Cherubim on Ark of the Covenant [National Catholic Register, 1-7-21]

***

Photo credit: The Brazen Serpent, by James Tissot (1836-1902) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: Baptist pastor Gavin Ortlund presents the Protestant concern about the veneration of icons. I defend the practice with copious references from the Holy Bible.

Reply to Collin Brooks on Sola Scriptura

Last updated on: May 5, 2022 at 12:34 pm By Dave Armstrong

Collin Brooks runs the YouTube channel, Resisting the Winds: dedicated to helping Christians resist every wind and wave of false doctrine. “And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood,[e] to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes” (Ephesians 4:11-14).

*****

This is a reply to two of his videos: “Matt Fradd and Gary Machuta [sic] Did NOT Debunk Sola Scripture[sic]” (7-28-20) and “An Eastern Orthodox Priest on Sola Scriptura” (12-10-20). Collin’s words will be in blue.

Having debated this topic times without number, and having written the book, 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura (Catholic Answers, 2012), I am interested here, as always, to see what biblical passages are produced that supposedly prove sola Scriptura. I will focus in on that alone.

I would technically agree with the phrase, “the norm that sets all norms”, and all that’s saying is that, the doctrine of Scripture alone: at least one of its more important premises, is that Scripture is the highest authority in our life, not the only authority, but the highest authority, and because it’s the highest, that means all other authorities derive their authority from Scripture. So Scripture creates other authorities, and Scripture defines other authorities, and Scripture checks other authorities. [5:35-6:05]

The problem I have with this is that it doesn’t mention infallibility. Infallibility is a lesser characteristic than inspiration, which Scripture alone possesses. Catholics contend that there are carefully defined instances of the exercise of infallible authority other than Scripture: from the Church, sacred apostolic tradition, ecumenical councils, and popes. In other words, when sola Scriptura is defined in this way, as it usually is, it precludes the infallibility of these other entities. Therefore, if Scripture can be shown to teach the infallibility of anything other than Scripture, sola Scriptura is then shown to be a false doctrine.

Collin is fond of Reformed Baptist apologist James White. He cites two of his debates underneath this video. White defines sola Scriptura as I have described it:

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fidei, the infallible rule of faith for the Church. (The Roman Catholic Controversy, Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1996, 59; the original was all italics)

Reformed Protestant Keith A. Mathison concurs:

Scripture . . . is the only inspired and inherently infallible norm, and therefore Scripture is the only final authoritative norm. (The Shape of Sola Scriptura, Moscow, Idaho: Canon Press, 2001, 260)

So does the late Protestant apologist Norman Geisler:

What Protestants mean by sola scriptura is that the Bible alone is the infallible written authority for faith and morals. (Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1995, 178; co-author, Ralph E. Mackenzie)

Lutheran pastor Jordan Cooper agrees as well:

Sola Scriptura . . . recognizes that there are many authorities, but Scripture is the sole infallible authority, so Scripture has preference over all other authorities we might have. (“An Explanation of Sola Scriptura“, 3-11-19)

As does Baptist pastor Gavin Ortlund:

Sola Scriptura has always been maintained as the view that the Bible is the only infallible rule for theology. (“Sola Scriptura DEFENDED”, 12-15-20).

The above is the standard definition of sola Scriptura. Collin neglected to include the crucial variable of infallibility in it: which denies infallibility to anything else. No one is arguing that Scripture isn’t unique, the sole inspired revelation, the written Word of God or that it is materially sufficient. The relevant question in this debate is: “is Scripture the only infallible authority in Christian life and theology?” And secondly: where is such a doctrine taught in the Bible? If it’s not in the Bible, it is clearly false, because it’s a view that has to do fundamentally with the Bible. If it comes from outside the Bible, it would be self-contradictory and self-defeating.

Collin states that Gary Michuta’s definition of sola Scriptura is a “bad definition” [6:43-46]. I would argue that his definition was deficient, per the above. He then argues that Scripture is the only God-breathed, inspired document. But this is again beside the point of the dispute because no one is denying that. The debate takes place on the level of real or alleged infallibility. But Collin hasn’t even mentioned that word in the first seven-and-a-half minutes of his video.

Collin claims that Catholics say there are no longer apostles. Technically, yes. But we teach that the bishops are the successors of the apostles.

They [the Scriptures] don’t tell us where else God has spoken, outside of things that all of us, Catholics and Protestants alike, agree are gone. [9:02-9:10]

I disagree. The Bible twice teaches that there is such a thing as infallible Church authority. The Jerusalem Council, described in Acts 15 did precisely what Collin claims nothing but the Bible has the authority or capability to do. Apostles (including Paul, Peter, and James) and elders got together to resolve a controversy over the place and function of circumcision, which foods were clean, and in a broader sense, how much Mosaic Law would apply to Christians. Here’s what it decided:

Acts 15:28-29 (RSV) For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: [29] that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.

Here is the authority that this letter had, as seen in how Paul viewed it:

Acts 16:4 As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem.

This is the universal and authoritative (and in this case, infallible) Church. A decision reached at Jerusalem was regarded as binding and in effect, “infallible” and was to be observed not just locally, but by Christians all through Asia Minor (Turkey), where Paul was preaching. This is essentially the equivalent of an ecumenical council.

1 Timothy 3:15 . . . the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

This may not seem compelling at first: just seven words at the end. But I believe that if we analyze it more deeply and think through it, that it provides a rock-solid argument for the infallibility of the Church. Here’s how I myself did that in my book, 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura (pp. 104-107, #82):

Pillars and foundations support things and prevent them from collapsing. To be a “bulwark” of the truth, means to be a “safety net” against truth turning into falsity. If the Church could err, it could not be what Scripture says it is. God’s truth would be the house built on a foundation of sand in Jesus’ parable. For this passage of Scripture to be true, the Church could not err — it must be infallible. A similar passage may cast further light on 1 Timothy 3:15:

Ephesians 2:19-21 . . . you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, [20] built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, [21] in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord;

1 Timothy 3:15 defines “household of God” as “the church of the living God.” Therefore, we know that Ephesians 2:19-21 is also referring to the Church, even though that word is not present. Here the Church’s own “foundation” is “the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.” The foundation of the Church itself is Jesus and apostles and prophets.

Prophets spoke “in the name of the Lord” (1 Chron 21:19; 2 Chron 33:18; Jer 26:9), and commonly introduced their utterances with “thus says the Lord” (Is 10:24; Jer 4:3; 26:4; Ezek 13:8; Amos 3:11-12; and many more). They spoke the “word of the Lord” (Is 1:10; 38:4; Jer 1:2; 13:3, 8; 14:1; Ezek 13:1-2; Hos 1:1; Joel 1:1; Jon 1:1; Mic 1:1, et cetera). These communications cannot contain any untruths insofar as they truly originate from God, with the prophet serving as a spokesman or intermediary of God (Jer 2:2; 26:8; Ezek 11:5; Zech 1:6; and many more). Likewise, apostles proclaimed truth unmixed with error (1 Cor 2:7-13; 1 Tim 2:7; 2 Tim 1:11-14; 2 Pet 1:12-21).

Does this foundation have any faults or cracks? Since Jesus is the cornerstone, he can hardly be a faulty foundation. Neither can the apostles or prophets err when teaching the inspired gospel message or proclaiming God’s word. In the way that apostles and prophets are infallible, so is the Church set up by our Lord Jesus Christ. We ourselves (all Christians) are incorporated into the Church (following the metaphor), on top of the foundation.

1 Peter 2:4-9 Come to him, to that living stone, rejected by men but in God’s sight chosen and precious; [5] and like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. [6] For it stands in scripture: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and he who believes in him will not be put to shame.” [7] To you therefore who believe, he is precious, but for those who do not believe, “The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner,” [8] and “A stone that will make men stumble, a rock that will make them fall”; for they stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do. [9] But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. (cf. Isa 28:16)

Jesus is without fault or untruth, and he is the cornerstone of the Church. The Church is also more than once even identified with Jesus himself, by being called his “Body” (Acts 9:5 cf. with 22:4 and 26:11; 1 Cor 12:27; Eph 1:22-23; 4:12; 5:23, 30; Col 1:24). That the Church is so intimately connected with Jesus, who is infallible, is itself a strong argument that the Church is also infallible and without error.

Therefore, the Church is built on the foundation of Jesus (perfect in all knowledge), and the prophets and apostles (who spoke infallible truth, often recorded in inspired, infallible Scripture). Moreover, it is the very “Body of Christ.” It stands to reason that the Church herself is infallible, by the same token. In the Bible, nowhere is truth presented as anything less than pure truth, unmixed with error. That was certainly how Paul conceived his own “tradition” that he received and passed down.

Knowing what truth is, how can its own foundation or pillar be something less than total truth (since truth itself contains no falsehoods, untruths, lies, or errors)? It cannot. It is impossible. It is a straightforward matter of logic and plain observation. A stream cannot rise above its source. What is built upon a foundation cannot be greater than the foundation. If it were, the whole structure would collapse.

If an elephant stood on the shoulders of a man as its foundation, that foundation would collapse. The base of a skyscraper has to hold the weight above it. The foundations of a suspension bridge over a river have to be strong enough to support that bridge.

Therefore, we must conclude that if the Church is the foundation of truth, the Church must be infallible, since truth is infallible, and the foundation cannot be lesser than that which is built upon it. And since there is another infallible authority apart from Scripture, sola scriptura must be false.

Collin brings up the classic alleged prooftext for sola Scriptura:

2 Timothy 3:16-17 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, [17] that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

I would mention, in conjunction with this, Ephesians 4 (which Collin uses as a descriptive passage for his YouTube channel: see the introduction above):

Ephesians 4:11-16 And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, [12] to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, [13] until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; [14] so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. [15] Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, [16] from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every joint with which it is supplied, when each part is working properly, makes bodily growth and upbuilds itself in love.

More on this in a moment. First let’s hear what Collin has to say about 2 Timothy 3:16-17:

The Scriptures alone, the Scriptures by themselves, the Scriptures and nothing else added onto that, is all the pastor needs if he wants to know how to do every good work and teach people how to do every good work. [10:18-31]

This is untrue, and it is seen to be untrue in Ephesians 4. In Ephesians 4:11-15 the Christian believer is “equipped,” “built up,” brought into “unity and mature manhood,” “knowledge of Jesus,” “the fulness of Christ,” and even preserved from doctrinal confusion by means of the teaching function of the Church. This is a far stronger statement of the “perfecting” of the saints than 2 Timothy 3:16-17, yet it doesn’t even mention Scripture.

Therefore, the Protestant interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 proves too much, since if all nonscriptural elements are excluded in 2 Timothy, then, by analogy, Scripture would logically have to be excluded in Ephesians. It is far more reasonable to synthesize the two passages in an inclusive, complementary fashion, by recognizing that the mere absence of one or more elements in one passage does not mean that they are nonexistent. Thus, the Church and Scripture are both equally necessary and important for teaching. This is precisely the Catholic view. Neither passage is intended in an exclusive sense.

Collin mentions that the Bible equips Christians ” for every good work.” But according to this same Bible (from the same Apostle Paul) the Church does the same, according to Ephesians 4: “to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ.”

In any event, nothing in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 suggests that nothing is infallible besides Scripture, and it’s not a proof of sola Scriptura at all, as Baptist Gavin Ortlund, in his video cited above, conceded.

Collin notes that Catholics love to bring up the canon in critiquing sola Scriptura. I suppose they do. But it forms little or no part of my argument. This is my fourth critique of videos defending sola Scriptura and I haven’t used that argument in any of them. I would simply direct the reader to related papers of mine:

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

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

Were Apostles Always Aware of Writing Scripture? (6-29-06; abridged on 9-25-16)

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

Conundrum! Scripture Alone Cannot Establish the Biblical Canon [National Catholic Register, 5-16-17]

The New Testament Canon is a “Late” Doctrine [National Catholic Register, 1-22-18]

I think these are good and valid arguments (which is why I sometimes use them myself), but I prefer to make biblical arguments against sola Scriptura, which are quite sufficient in and of themselves to refute it.

The principle only applies once the apostles are gone and you have the Scriptures. [26:50-57]

This is what is called “inscripturation.” It’s another subset of sola Scriptura which is utterly unbiblical. Nothing in the Bible remotely suggests this. So it’s yet another tradition of men in effect raised to the level of dogma within Protestant thinking, with the pretense that it’s actually found in the Bible. It isn’t. Consequently, Collin offers us no biblical evidence that it is a biblical doctrine. So why do Protestants believe it, is the question? If they are so devoted to the Bible, and it only, as its norm and standard of faith and theology, why do they adhere to these doctrines that aren’t contained in it? It’s a very odd and curious phenomenon.

I dealt with this issue at extreme length in my article, Oral Tradition: More Biblical (Pauline) Evidence (. . . and an Examination of the False and Unbiblical Protestant Supposed Refutation of “Inscripturation”) [2-27-21]. Included in that was a reply in 2004 to James White. Here’s a portion of that:

White implicitly assumes here, as he often does, that everything the apostles taught was later doctrinally recorded in Scripture. This is his hidden premise (or it follows from his reasoning, whether he is aware of it or not). But this is a completely arbitrary assumption. Protestants have to believe something akin to this notion, because of their aversion to authoritative, binding tradition, but the notion itself is unbiblical. They agree that what apostles taught was binding, but they fail to see that some of that teaching would be “extrabiblical” (i.e., not recorded in Scripture). The Bible itself, however, teaches us that there are such teachings and deeds not recorded in it (Jn 20:30, 21:25, Acts 1:2-3, Lk 24:15-16,25-27). The logic is simple (at least when laid out for all to see):

1. Apostles’ teaching was authoritative and binding [i.e., for all practical purposes, “infallible”].
2. Some of that teaching was recorded in Scripture, but some was not.
3. The folks who heard their teaching were bound to it whether it was later “inscripturated” or not.
4. Therefore, early Christians were bound to “unbiblical” teachings or those not known to be “biblical” (as the Bible would not yet be canonized until more than three centuries later).
5. If they were so bound, it stands to reason that we could and should be, also.
6. Scripture itself does not rule out the presence of an authoritative oral tradition, not recorded in words. Paul refers more than once to a non-written tradition (e.g., 2 Tim 1:13-14, 2:2).
7. Scripture informs us that much more was taught by Jesus and apostles than what is recorded in it.
8. Scripture nowhere teaches that it is the sole rule of faith or that what is recorded in it about early Church history has no relevance to later Christians because this was the apostolic or “inscripturation” period. Those are all arbitrary, unbiblical traditions of men.

It appears that Collin offers no biblical proof — in this video — of sola Scriptura other than the abysmal failure of 2 Timothy 3:16-17, used for this purpose. If he did and I missed it, I would be happy to be directed to the place on the video where this occurred, and will add my answer to this reply.

***

Now I move onto the second video: “An Eastern Orthodox Priest on Sola Scriptura” (12-10-20). I will again seek to find any compelling biblical proof of sola Scriptura. Will Collin offer any? Here’s what he says, directly to this point:

We could go on and on, for a long time, proving sola Scriptura. [16:02-09]

Please do! I’ve been searching for 31 years in vain to find biblical proof for sola Scriptura, so I would love to hear all of these proofs, that are reputedly so numerous that they go “on and on, for a long time.”

However, I’m just gonna give a brief, very brief, one text citation. There’s lots of other texts we could go to. [16:09-16]

Drats! Here I thought we were gonna finally reach this ever-elusive treasure-trove of biblical texts proving what Protestants absolutely have to prove, but alas, in a 36-minute video, Collin chooses to present one, and very briefly at that. He seems to be unaware of what his own burden of proof is. Alright, let’s see what he has to offer. And of course [dramatic drumroll!] he trots out 2 Timothy 3. I’ve already dealt with that above.

So, with regard to what I was looking for, this is all Collin has to offer in this video. He says he could present many more, but chose not to. Therefore, I assume that he won’t do what he said he wouldn’t do, for the rest of the video, and thus, I stopped watching. Again, if he interacts with me, and informs me that he did make an additional biblical argument in the final 17 minutes of this tape, I’d be glad to interact with it.

***

Photo credit: Lawrie Cate (3-9-09) [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license]

***

Summary: Protestant apologist Collin Brooks defends sola Scriptura in two videos, but the only (old, tired) “proof” from the Bible that he can come up with is 2 Timothy 3:16.

Reply to Gavin Ortlund’s “Sola Scriptura Defended”

Last updated on: April 28, 2022 at 12:39 pm By Dave Armstrong

Gavin Ortlund is an author, speaker, and apologist for the Christian faith, who serves as the senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai in Ojai, California. Gavin has a Ph.D. from Fuller Theological Seminary in historical theology, and an M.Div from Covenant Theological Seminary. He 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.

*****

I will be interacting with Gavin’s video, “Sola Scriptura DEFENDED” (12-15-20). His words will be in blue, and I will include times from the video, for reference purposes.

First of all, I’d like to express rapt admiration and appreciation for the words Gavin spoke in the first part of this video, in which he describes his “irenic” (or what I often describe as “ecumenical”) approach, methodology, and viewpoint. It’s extremely refreshing to hear in this age which is so hyper-polarized. The theological world (to our shame) has, of course, been divided and polarized for many centuries.

There is an increasing need for Christians to talk to each other — really talk and communicate — and to exercise charity and do our best to understand our Christian brothers and sisters and not to misrepresent what they believe. If we can’t do that, we have no hope of getting our message out to the unbelieving, suffering, dying, despairing world.

I find Gavin to be an exemplary role model of this approach, and it is worlds apart from the anti-Catholic-type Protestants I have mostly dealt with these past 26 years I have been very active online. Personally, as an apologist since 1981, Gavin’s words were a great exhortation to humility and to offset the pride that — sadly — too often cripples apologetics efforts. I am humbled and challenged by them, to do better in this regard.

Apologetics can very quickly become “oppositional” and shot-through with hostility or passive aggression. It need not be so. So, again, I am deeply grateful for these words from Gavin and he has already gained my respect as a Christian role model in terms of how we must conduct ourselves during discussions, where we disagree with each other.

That said, I will respectfully disagree with him on the present topic, and no doubt many in the future, if we continue to interact. But it is from the perspective of “brother to brother” within the Body of Christ, in order to better understand and to learn from each other, as well as providing challenges when we think a brother or sister in the faith is wrong on a particular issue (along with a willingness to be challenged).

We all learn and we all “win” when good, constructive dialogue takes place. That has always been my view, and it’s why I love dialogue so much and have engaged in many hundreds of them through the years. I’m not perfect, and have often fallen short of these high ideals, but they are my ideals and goals and what I strive to attain, by God’s grace.

***

In order to offset the danger of non-Protestant caricaturing of the Protestant position, Gavin offers a “nuanced” definition of the perspicuity (“clearness”) of Scripture from the Westminster Confession (1.7). He importantly notes the “key point” that “the perspicuity of Scripture has to do with getting saved; it’s about understanding the message of salvation from the Scripture. It has never been understood to say that the Bible is perspicuous in general, in some unqualified sense.” [6:o5-7:11]

I totally concur with this, and am happy to pass it on to my Catholic readers, so that they don’t caricature the Protestant view. I confess, on my part, that I have myself not always noted in my apologetics the subtlety and nuanced nature of the Protestant understanding of perspicuity. As Gavin noted earlier in the video, both sides too often caricature the other (I’ve seen it many times in my apologetics discussions, so I am personally quite aware of this, and sometimes I fall into it as well), and that does no one any good. It’s unethical, it bears false witness, and it doesn’t advance constructive, helpful dialogue.

Sola Scriptura has always been maintained as the view that the Bible is the only infallible rule for theology. . . . There’s a big difference in saying that the Bible is the only source for theology, and saying the Bible is the only infallible source for theology. But I hear this over and over again . . . If you [Catholics and Orthodox] hear nothing else in this entire video, hear this: don’t say that Protestants believe that the Bible is all you have or all you need; it’s just you and your Bible and that’s it. Thoughtful Protestants have always understood that tradition has an important place . . . all we’re saying is the Bible is the final court of appeal. . . . Calvin and Luther affirmed the early ecumenical creeds and councils. Thoughtful Protestants recognize that there is oral tradition mentioned in the Bible. . . . The Scripture is is the final court of appeal: the norming norm that norms all other norms but is not normed itself. [7:11-9:35, my own bolding, to highlight his central point]

This is my understanding of what sola Scriptura means as well, and has been my working definition in my Catholic critiques of it these past 31 years. The words “only infallible rule” are key, because it qualifies an overly broad understanding, or one that has been the caricature used by too many critics of sola Scriptura. I have even gotten into some discussions with fellow Catholic apologists about the supreme importance of getting the definition right, and not caricaturing it.

Here’s a second objection, and that’s that sola Scriptura was not known to Church history, and it was invented by the Reformers. [he provides a video example of a Catholic arguing this point]. . . . I want to suggest that things are much more complicated than that. Actually, what you have is a development in the Church’s understanding of Scripture and tradition, . . . It took a long time to get to a fully articulated two-source view of divine revelation, where you’ve got Scripture and sacred tradition as this sort of two-pronged view of revelation. [9:33-11:13]

It should be noted that the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) disputes this “two-pronged” revelation in stating:

Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence. (Dei Verbum, 9; my bolding)

Note that tradition is not referred to as inspired. Only Scripture is.

When you go back to the Church fathers, what you see is a mixed record. But if you want to check out some pretty fascinating quotes, pick up this book, The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, by William Webster, and just read the first Appendix . . . a series of quotes from the Church fathers . . . There is, among the Church fathers, even while they are appealing to oral tradition as well, an awareness and a conviction . . . that there is a deposit of authoritative revelation in the Holy Scripture that possesses a kind of unparalleled authority. [11:13-12:18]

Respectfully, I have not observed, myself, after much related study, a “mixed record” in the Church fathers on the matter of the rule of faith (or with regard to whether any of them held to sola Scriptura). In my experience, they do not express the principle of sola Scriptura, as defined by Gavin above. We must also note that in saying that Scripture is the only infallible authority, one is at the same time necessarily denying that tradition or the Church can be infallible (even under carefully laid-out conditions).

So when I went and studied what many Church fathers thought on this issue, I looked up what they said about the authority of the Church, sacred tradition, ecumenical councils, and apostolic succession. And lo and behold, in every case I have thus far studied, infallible or sublime authority was granted to one of these four things. That being the case, it proved that the Church father in question did not (by definition) subscribe to sola Scriptura as the rule of faith. To see my evidence for this in each case, go to my Fathers of the Church web page, to the section: “BIBLE / TRADITION / APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION / SOLA SCRIPTURA / PERSPICUITY / RULE OF FAITH.”

As for William Webster, I have interacted more than once with his contra-Catholic assertions, and with the three-volume series of the Church fathers and sola Scriptura, co-written with David T. King. Again, I was very unimpressed with his research and points of view. See my articles:

William Webster’s Misunderstanding of Development of Doctrine [2000]

William Webster vs. Tradition, Development, & Truth [4-10-03]

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]

I informed Mr. Webster after my first critique of his work in 2000, and he said he would interact with it, but alas, he never has, these past 22 years.

Gavin cites passages from St. Basil the Great and St. Augustine. Both can be interpreted simply as recognitions of the supreme authority of Scripture as inspired revelation, and the need for all theology to be harmonious with Scripture. It doesn’t follow, however, that either Church father held to sola Scriptura. They did not, because they recognized non-Scriptural entities as also infallible authorities within the Christian rule of faith. I documented this — way back in 2003 — in Basil‘s and Augustine‘s cases, and showed how Webster and King were selectively citing Basil and citing him out of context, while (improperly and unhelpfully) ignoring what he said on these other issues.

Gavin continued to talk about the fathers’ view of Scripture without directly addressing the necessary corollary aspects of what they believed about the authority of the Church, sacred tradition, ecumenical councils, and apostolic succession. This is a common failing of Protestant “patristic apologetics” that I have observed again and again. If Gavin is drawing from William Webster (and he says he has only read one Appendix), assuredly, he is getting only one side of the story, because this is the consistent methodology of Webster and King: observed by myself and several other Catholic critics through the years. I think Gavin has shown that he is open to critiques, and hopefully, he will address this particular aspect — as a valid Catholic objection — in some sort of reply to this present article (especially since he has interacted with many other Catholic apologists; I simply concentrate on writing rather than videos).

I had a big written debate with Protestant apologist Jason Engwer at the large CARM forum in 2003 on the topic of the Church fathers and sola Scriptura (we’ve had many more interactions as well through the years), and he did precisely the same thing. I pointed this out over and over to no avail, and he departed before we even finished the debate.

That leads into the third objection, which is “Sola Scriptura is not in the Bible”. I hear this one all the time [provides a video example] . . . [It’s] a very common claim, and it’s certainly true that we don’t find any verses in the Bible that say, “Thus follows the relation of Scripture and tradition . . .” But then again there’s a lot of things that we would say are entailed by the Bible but aren’t spelled out in that sort of explicit, self-conscious way. I’d also admit that verses like 2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:20-21, and John 10:35 don’t in themselves get you to sola Scriptura, . . . but they don’t say that they’re the only thing that has that kind of authority . . . [directed to those who say sola Scriptura isn’t in the Bible]: would you interact with Matthew 15:1-9 more? [13:55-16:05]

I debated this passage and related ones having to do with the Pharisees and tradition at extreme length in 2003 and 2005, with Reformed Baptist apologist James White. Unfortunately, they are tainted with his virulent anti-Catholicism and personal attacks (and must be very tedious to read), but I did my best to plug away and offer my viewpoint, in-between all of that diversion:

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

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

He comments on Matthew 15 and noted that Scripture is set against the traditions of men. But the reply is that not all traditions are “of men” (i.e., opposed to God or sacred, divine tradition). Matthew 15 is setting Scripture up against these false traditions of men, not all tradition. I get into this aspect in my articles:

“Tradition” Isn’t a Dirty Word [late 90s; rev. 8-16-16]

Tradition is Not a Dirty Word — It’s a Great Gift [National Catholic Register, 4-24-17]

Dialogue on Tradition: Good or Bad, How Much?, Etc. [12-12-17]

Paul expressly points out that there are good and bad traditions:

Colossians 2:8 (RSV) See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ.

I would say that “tradition” is the unspoken meaning in the latter part of the passage. Paul refers to this positive tradition from Christ elsewhere:

1 Corinthians 11:2 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.

*

2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

*

2 Timothy 1:13-14 Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; [14] guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.

When all is said and done, I don’t see that sola Scriptura is taught in the Bible, and I think this is a huge internal logical conundrum for Protestants: especially in terms of formulating their rule of faith.

What Protestants have always said is that the Church didn’t give us the Bible; it recognized the Bible: and that is a meaningful distinction. [22:16-22:23]

I totally agree; so do (Gavin might be surprised to learn) Vatican I and Vatican II:

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 acknowledge that most Protestants don’t function with a very robust definition of sola Scriptura. Many function with what some people call solo Scriptura or nuda Scriptura: Scripture alone. . . . Protestants do value Church history insufficiently, and so if there is any blame for caricatures of sola Scriptura, a lot of it comes on us Protestants, because we don’t even understand what that doctrine means in many cases. [23:35-24:18]

This is true, and I appreciate Gavin humbly acknowledging it. It’s really a universal shortcoming: ignorance and theological undereducation abounds; insufficient learning or catechesis in all Christian traditions and communions. This is why good teaching and apologetics are so crucial. All Christians need to know not only what they believe, but why they believe it. Catholics, for our part — on the whole — , are woefully ignorant of the contents of Scripture, before we even get to doctrinal beliefs and the reasons why we believe what we do.

They are insufficiently catechized and abysmally ignorant of Scripture, and can therefore, learn quite a bit from Protestants on that score: who do value Scripture, as a rule, far more highly than Catholics do. I wrote about this in This Rock (the magazine of Catholic Answers) in 2004: ““Catholics Need to Read Their Bibles,” February 2004, 20-22. I wrote about it again for the National Catholic Register: “Why Are Catholics So Deficient in Bible-Reading?” [11-22-17]. So there are plenty of faults to go around.

The massive ignorance of the populace in all Christian communions is the reason why we can — in doing apologetics and debates — only compare the “books” of one view with the books (confessions, creeds, catechisms) of another. We can always find bad examples on all sides, but we can’t base any sort of argument on that. We have to know and consult the “official teachings” of any given group.

“A second acknowledgment I would make [is that] . . . the second century church didn’t look exactly like a Protestant church.” He goes on to note that in the early letters of Ignatius, episcopal government and a high view of the Eucharist are present. He admits: “that’s tough. That’s a fair challenge to me. . . . They do challenge me as a Baptist, and I’ll just admit it. . . . that’s a challenge to my perspective.” [24:18-25:50]

Again, kudos to Gavin for humbly making such a concession. In conclusion: for much more of why I think the lack of the teaching of sola Scriptura in the Bible is a big challenge for Protestants and very difficult to explain from their perspective, see my recent article, Is Sola Scriptura Biblical? (vs. Jordan B. Cooper) [4-25-22]. For further related reading, see my two books on the topic:

100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura (Catholic Answers: 10 May 2012, 135p)

Pillars of Sola Scriptura: Replies to Whitaker, Goode, & Biblical “Proofs” for “Bible Alone” (July 2012, 310p)

I thank Gavin very much for a very stimulating, enjoyable, ecumenical, and educational dialogue. I hope he responds back, so that we can continue the dialogue. If he does it in a video, that’s fine. I operate in the “written mode” only, but am happy to view videos and respond, just as I have done here.

***

Summary: Baptist pastor Gavin Ortlund ably presents a Protestant perspective on sola Scriptura. I agreed in several ways but then explained why Catholics disagree in others.

Reply to Jordan Cooper’s Rejection of the Papacy

Last updated on: April 25, 2022 at 2:36 pm By Dave Armstrong

Rev. Dr. Jordan B. Cooper is a Lutheran pastor, adjunct professor of Systematic Theology, Executive Director of the popular Just & Sinner YouTube channel, and the President of the American Lutheran Theological Seminary (which holds to a doctrinally traditional Lutheranism, similar to the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod). He has authored several books, as well as theological articles in a variety of publications.

*****

I will be responding to the first “papacy portion” of Jordan’s YouTube video, “Five Reasons I Am Not Roman Catholic” (1-27-19). When I cite his words directly, they will be in blue, and citations and descriptions of his arguments will be accompanied by the time in the video as well.

1) The Papacy. . . . The claims regarding the papacy I simply don’t see as historically verifiable, and I also do not see them exegetically. I don’t see them as being taught in Scripture. . . . Matthew 16 is the one that’s often pointed to. . . . Even if you are to argue that Peter is indeed the Rock, . . . that still does not prove that there is any truth to the claims about the successors of St. Peter. [1:08-2:32]

See my papers, for the general Catholic “Petrine” or “papal” argument from Scripture:

50 New Testament Proofs for Petrine Primacy & the Papacy [1994]

Primacy of St. Peter Verified by Protestant Scholars [1994]

Can Christ & Peter Both be “Rocks”? [4-21-22]

See also: “Protestant Scholars on Matthew 16:16-19” (Nicholas Hardesty) [9-4-06]

As to papal succession, most Christians agree that St. Peter was the leader of the early Church and the disciples: whether they believe he was a “pope” or not. It stands to reason, then, that there would continue to be a leader, just as there was a first President when the laws of the United States were established at the Constitutional Convention in 1787.

Why have one President and then cease to have one thereafter and let the executive branch of government exist without a leader? Everyone understands that there is then a succession of Presidents and that it doesn’t end with the first one and the prototype.

So why do people think so differently when it comes to Christianity, which is in need of a governing body and person at the top of the chain of authority, just as any effective organization whatever has? Catholics are, therefore, applying common sense: if this is how Jesus set up the government of His Church in the beginning, then it ought to continue in like fashion, in perpetuity.

If indeed an office of the pope was truly intended to be set up by Jesus, why in the world would anyone think it was solely for the lifetime of Peter and then it would vanish? The Church supposedly had a supervisor for ten, twenty years, but then never did again? That makes no sense. What would be the point?

When other offices are referred to in the Bible (excepting the apostles and perhaps prophets: but there is a biblical argument that bishops are the successors of the apostles), they were clearly regarded as permanent and ongoing (deacons, elders, pastors / priests / bishops). By analogy, then, it follows that this office is perpetual, just as the others are. It also makes sense to have a chief bishop.

Moreover, the very nature of the concept of office is that it is larger than one mere person who occupies it: even the first and most extraordinary one who does. It’s quite obvious that Jesus’ commissioning of Peter was the creation of a new office or position: having to do with the governance of the Church and jurisdiction and power.

Moreover, the consensus of Bible scholars today (including Protestants) is that the notion of “keys of the kingdom of heaven” given to Peter by Jesus (Mt 16:19) hearkens back to the Old Testament:

Isaiah 22:22-24 (RSV) And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. [23] And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father’s house. [24] And they will hang on him the whole weight of his father’s house, the offspring and issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons. (cf. 36:3, 22)

This was a supervisory office. The great Protestant Bible scholar, F. F. Bruce observed:

The keys of a royal or noble establishment were entrusted to the chief steward or majordomo; . . . About 700 B.C. an oracle from God announced that this authority in the royal palace in Jerusalem was to be conferred on a man called Eliakim . . . (Isa. 22:22). So in the new community which Jesus was about to build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward. (The Hard Sayings of Jesus, Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1983, 143-144)

If the direct analogy understood in the commission refers to an office itself inherently possessing succession, as a matter of historical fact (according to Old Testament scholars and ancient Near East historians), then it follows that the papacy also has succession as one of its inherent characteristics. This is purely logical and based on facts concerning the office that is the basis of the analogy. In that sense it is even explicit in Scripture.

Jordan then talked about how there are bishops in the NT and Church history, and that this is good. At that point, I ask again: why have leaders in local churches, but not one leader of the whole Church? Why have a leader of the disciples, but not a leader of the bishops, who were the successors of the disciples / apostles? I would say that in fact we observe Peter acting as such a leader of the Church throughout the first half of the book of Acts and in the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15).

We see him writing very much as a pope would write in his First Epistle, which was written from Rome in general homiletic, or “hortatory” fashion (though not to all Christian inhabitants of the known world, which is not required for my point to stand) as (according to Guthrie and The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary) a “circular letter” (much like a papal encyclical is today). In fact, if we look up encyclical in the dictionary, we find that it comes from the Latin encyclicus and the Greek enkyklios, meaning, literally, “in a circle, general, common, for general circulation.” The word encyclopedia is derived from the same root. Renowned Protestant Bible scholar J. B. Lightfoot comments on this passage as follows:

St. Peter, giving directions to the elders, claims a place among them. The title ‘fellow-presbyter,’ which he applies to himself, would doubtless recall to the memory of his readers the occasions when he himself had presided with the elders and guided their deliberations. (St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians, Lynn, Massachusett: Hendrickson Pub., 1982, 198; emphasis added)

Furthermore, we have St. Clement of Rome decidedly acting like a pope before 100 AD in his letter to the Corinthians:

Pope St. Clement of Rome & Papal Authority [7-28-21]

Is First Clement Non-Papal? (vs. Jason Engwer) [4-19-22]

Jordan argues that early Church documents don’t refer to a pope. For example, St. Ignatius of Antioch doesn’t seem to be aware of a pope. But he ignores the strong evidence of 1 Clement, which is very early as well. St. John Henry Cardinal Newman offers a cogent explanation as to why the papacy is rather subdued and manifest relatively less in the earlier centuries of the Church (and specifically a reason for Ignatius’ silence on the matter):

Let us see how, on the principles which I have been laying down and defending, the evidence lies for the Pope’s supremacy.

*

As to this doctrine the question is this, whether there was not from the first a certain element at work, or in existence, divinely sanctioned, which, for certain reasons, did not at once show itself upon the surface of ecclesiastical affairs, and of which events in the fourth century are the development; and whether the evidence of its existence and operation, which does occur in the earlier centuries, be it much or little, is not just such as ought to occur upon such an hypothesis.

*

For instance, it is true, St. Ignatius is silent in his Epistles on the subject of the Pope’s authority; but if in fact that authority could not be in active operation then, such silence is not so difficult to account for as the silence of Seneca or Plutarch about Christianity itself, or of Lucian about the Roman people. St. Ignatius directed his doctrine according to the need. While Apostles were on earth, there was the display neither of Bishop nor Pope; their power had no prominence, as being exercised by Apostles. In course of time, first the power of the Bishop displayed itself, and then the power of the Pope. . . .

*

St. Peter’s prerogative would remain a mere letter, till the complication of ecclesiastical matters became the cause of ascertaining it. While Christians were “of one heart and soul,” it would be suspended; love dispenses with laws . . .

*

When the Church, then, was thrown upon her own resources, first local disturbances gave exercise to Bishops, and next ecumenical disturbances gave exercise to Popes; and whether communion with the Pope was necessary for Catholicity would not and could not be debated till a suspension of that communion had actually occurred. It is not a greater difficulty that St. Ignatius does not write to the Asian Greeks about Popes, than that St. Paul does not write to the Corinthians about Bishops. And it is a less difficulty that the Papal supremacy was not formally acknowledged in the second century, than that there was no formal acknowledgment on the part of the Church of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity till the fourth. No doctrine is defined till it is violated . . .

*

Moreover, an international bond and a common authority could not be consolidated, were it ever so certainly provided, while persecutions lasted. If the Imperial Power checked the development of Councils, it availed also for keeping back the power of the Papacy. The Creed, the Canon, in like manner, both remained undefined. The Creed, the Canon, the Papacy, Ecumenical Councils, all began to form, as soon as the Empire relaxed its tyrannous oppression of the Church. And as it was natural that her monarchical power should display itself when the Empire became Christian, so was it natural also that further developments of that power should take place when that Empire fell. Moreover, when the power of the Holy See began to exert itself, disturbance and collision would be the necessary consequence . . . as St. Paul had to plead, nay, to strive for his apostolic authority, and enjoined St. Timothy, as Bishop of Ephesus, to let no man despise him: so Popes too have not therefore been ambitious because they did not establish their authority without a struggle. It was natural that Polycrates should oppose St. Victor; and natural too that St. Cyprian should both extol the See of St. Peter, yet resist it when he thought it went beyond its province . . .

*

On the whole, supposing the power to be divinely bestowed, yet in the first instance more or less dormant, a history could not be traced out more probable, more suitable to that hypothesis, than the actual course of the controversy which took place age after age upon the Papal supremacy.

*

It will be said that all this is a theory. Certainly it is: it is a theory to account for facts as they lie in the history, to account for so much being told us about the Papal authority in early times, and not more; a theory to reconcile what is and what is not recorded about it; and, which is the principal point, a theory to connect the words and acts of the Ante-nicene Church with that antecedent probability of a monarchical principle in the Divine Scheme, and that actual exemplification of it in the fourth century, which forms their presumptive interpretation. All depends on the strength of that presumption. Supposing there be otherwise good reason for saying that the Papal Supremacy is part of Christianity, there is nothing in the early history of the Church to contradict it . . .

*

Moreover, all this must be viewed in the light of the general probability, so much insisted on above, that doctrine cannot but develop as time proceeds and need arises, and that its developments are parts of the Divine system, and that therefore it is lawful, or rather necessary, to interpret the words and deeds of the earlier Church by the determinate teaching of the later. (Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, 1878 edition, Univ. of Notre Dame Press, 1989, pp. 148-155; Part 1, Chapter 4, Section 3)

And of course Catholics would ask Lutherans: there is no patristic evidence for sola Scriptura, sola fide (justification by faith alone), consubstantiation, or any number of other Lutheran doctrines that appeared suddenly in the 16th century (indeed, even by the time of the Diet of Worm in 1521). That doesn’t, however, make you stop believing in those doctrines? Why? Why the difference of principle with regard to the papacy, where there is actually more early evidence than for your Lutheran distinctives?

When you look at the earlier ecumenical councils, like the council of Nicaea [325], the bishop of Rome has no clear role there, not a strong one. It’s clear that the other bishops aren’t looking to Rome as the ultimate source of authority or truth. [4:28-4:43]

I debated this with Reformed anti-Catholic apologist James White way back in August 1997:

Pope Silvester and the Council of Nicaea (vs. James White)

See also the related: “Papal Authority at the Earliest Councils” (Fr. Brian Harrison, Catholic Answers, 1-1-91)

You see this going back to the book of Acts: the council of Jerusalem; it’s James who is really heading up that particular council, not Peter. [4:42-4:52]

I dealt with this question in my article, Did Peter or James Preside at the Jerusalem Council? (And Was it the Prototype of Ecumenical Councils or Merely a Local Synod?) [5-21-21]. Here’s the key portion:

From Acts 15, we learn that “after there was much debate, Peter rose” to address the assembly (15:7). The Bible records his speech, which goes on for five verses. Then it reports that “all the assembly kept silence” (15:12). Paul and Barnabas speak next, not making authoritative pronouncements, but confirming Peter’s exposition, speaking about “signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles” (15:12). Then when James speaks, he refers right back to what “Simeon [Peter] has related” (15:14). To me, this suggests that Peter’s talk was central and definitive. James speaking last could easily be explained by the fact that he was the bishop of Jerusalem and therefore the “host.”

St. Peter indeed had already received a relevant revelation, related to the council. God gave him a vision of the cleanness of all foods (contrary to the Jewish Law: see Acts 10:9-16). St. Peter is already learning about the relaxation of Jewish dietary laws, and is eating with uncircumcised men, and is ready to proclaim the gospel widely to the Gentiles (Acts 10 and 11).

This was the secondary decision of the Jerusalem Council, and Peter referred to his experiences with the Gentiles at the council (Acts 15:7-11). The council then decided — with regard to food –, to prohibit only that which “has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled” (15:29).

He notes that the Church fathers, by and large, do not interpret Matthew 16 in a papal manner, but this is not at all fatal to the Catholic claims (or even any sort of difficulty), per my reasoning in a recent reply to a Reformed Protestant: James Swan, St. Augustine & “This Rock” [4-19-22].

***

*
Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

***

Photo credit: Christ Handing the Keys to St. Peter (1481-1482), by Pietro Perugino (1448-1523) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: Response to Jordan Cooper’s rejection of the papacy, in his video, “Five Reasons I Am Not Roman Catholic”: showing his reasons to be weak & able to be refuted.