Irish Ecclesiastical Record vs. Anti-Catholic George Salmon, Pt. 1

Last updated on: March 16, 2023 at 7:44 pm By Dave Armstrong

The book, The Infallibility of the Church (1888) by Anglican anti-Catholic polemicist George Salmon (1819-1904), may be one of the most extensive and detailed — as well as influential — critiques of the Catholic Church ever written. But, as usual with these sorts of works, it’s abominably argued and relentlessly ignorant and/or dishonest, as the critique below will amply demonstrate and document.

The most influential and effective anti-Catholic Protestant polemicist today, “Dr” [???] James White, cites Salmon several times in his written materials, and regards his magnum opus as an “excellent” work. In a letter dated 2 November 1959, C. S. Lewis recommended the book to an inquirer who was “vexed” about papal infallibility. Russell P. Spittler, professor of New Testament at Fuller Theological Seminary, wrote that “From an evangelical standpoint,” the book “has been standard since first published in 1888” (Cults and Isms, Baker Book House, 1973, 117). Well-known Baptist apologist Edward James Carnell called it the “best answer to Roman Catholicism” in a 1959 book. I think we can safely say that it is widely admired among theological (as well as “emotional”) opponents of the Catholic Church.

Prominent Protestant apologist Norman Geisler and his co-author Ralph MacKenzie triumphantly but falsely claim, in a major critique of Catholicism, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1995, 206-207, 459), that Salmon’s book has “never really been answered by the Catholic Church,” and call it the “classic refutation of papal infallibility,” which also offers “a penetrating critique of Newman’s theory.”

Salmon’s tome, however, has been roundly refuted at least twice: first, by Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Murphy in The Irish Ecclesiastical Record (March / May / July / September / November 1901 and January / March 1902): a response (see the original sources) — which I’ve now transcribed almost in its totality — which was more than 73,000 words, or approximately 257 pages; secondly, by Bishop Basil Christopher Butler (1902-1986) in his book, The Church and Infallibility: A Reply to the Abridged ‘Salmon’ (1954, 230 pages). See all of these replies — and further ones that I make — listed under “George Salmon” on my Anti-Catholicism web page. But no Protestant can say that no Catholic has adequately addressed (and refuted) the egregious and ubiquitous errors in this pathetic book. And we’ll once again see how few (if any) Protestants dare to counter-reply to all these critiques.

*****

See other installments:

Irish Ecclesiastical Record vs. Anti-Catholic George Salmon, Pt. 2 . . . In Which Dr. Salmon Accuses Cardinal Newman of Lying Through His Teeth in His Essay on Development, & Dr. Murphy Magnificently Defends Infallibility and Doctrinal Development Against Gross Caricature [3-12-23]

Irish Ecclesiastical Record vs. Anti-Catholic George Salmon, Pt. 3 . . . In Which Our Sophist-Critic Massively Misrepresents Cardinal Newman and Utterly Misunderstands the Distinction Between Implicit and Explicit Faith [3-12-23]

Irish Ecclesiastical Record vs. Anti-Catholic George Salmon, Pt. 4 . . . in which Dr. Salmon Sadly Reveals Himself to be a Hyper-Rationalistic Pelagian Heretic, and Engages in Yet More Misrepresentation of Development of Doctrine and Cardinal Newman’s Statements and Positions [3-15-23]

Irish Ecclesiastical Record vs. Anti-Catholic George Salmon, Pt. 5: Private Judgment, the Rule of Faith, and Dr. Salmon’s Weak Fallible Protestant “Church”: Subject to the Whims of Individuals; Church Fathers Misquoted [3-15-23]

Irish Ecclesiastical Record vs. Anti-Catholic George Salmon, Pt. 6: The Innumerable Perils of Perspicuity of Scripture and Private Judgment [3-16-23]

Irish Ecclesiastical Record vs. Anti-Catholic George Salmon, Pt. 7 [3-16-23]

*****

Vol. IX: March 1901

Dr. Salmon’s ‘Infallibility’

Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Murphy, D.D.

[I have made a few paragraph breaks not found in the original. Citations in smaller font are instead indented, and all of Dr. Salmon’s words will be in blue]

There are Catholic theologians who maintain, and not without good reason, that it is a note of the true Church that she should be calumniated and persecuted. And her Divine Founder insinuated this very clearly when He said to His disciples: — ‘If you had been of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. [Jn 15:19] Very
early in the Church’s history she had bitter experience of the truth of these words; and every age of her existence supplies her with fresh experience of it.

But the shedding of Christian blood in hatred of Christian truth, has long since ceased to be fashionable, and if indulged in now, would, perhaps, call forth a protest from the Great Powers. The old hatred, however, finds expression still in a system of persecution, less openly cruel, but certainly more destructive of souls — the misrepresentation of Catholic doctrines and practices. Satan knows his enemy well, and in his warfare with the Church there is no truce. He gets his deputies to do his work, unceasingly, and by them no means are left untried to weaken or destroy the faith of those who are within the Church or to hinder those who are without from entering her fold.

Amongst the assailants of the Church, there are very many the vehemence of whose declamation is in precise proportion to their ignorance of the doctrines they condemn. Such persons cure rather objects for pity. They will not, of course, take the Church’s teaching from herself; for then it may not be so easy to refute it. They persistently attribute to her doctrines which she does not hold, and so they readily refute the phantoms of their own creation. They act just like those pagans of whom Tertullian said: ‘They are unwilling to hear, what, if heard, they could not condemn.’

And very often, too, the attack on the Church is made by men of undoubted ability, and of considerable acquirements, from whom, therefore, we should have expected accurate statements of our doctrines and intelligent treatment of the grounds on which these doctrines are held. And yet when we read their controversial works, we seek in vain for any of these qualities. They seem to understand the Church quite as little as the least educated of her assailants. The ability, the calmness, the spirit of dispassionate inquiry, which mark them in other departments of learning, seem to have completely abandoned them when they discuss the claims of the Catholic Church.

Dr. Salmon is a specimen of this class. He was known as a scientific scholar of some eminence. He is also the author of some articles in Dr. Smith’s Dictionaries, and of an Introduction to the New Testament, which is a useful compilation, though often disfigured by needless exhibitions of anticatholic bias. His book on Infallibility will bring him no laurels. Indeed, judged by this book, Dr. Salmon seems to be a ‘survival of the fittest’ to remind us of a time when no charge was too vile to be made against Catholics, and believed of them on mere assertion; and when no vindication, however conclusive, of Catholic doctrines and practices would obtain a hearing. The book consists of a series of lectures delivered in Trinity College, Dublin, to young men preparing for the ministry of the Protestant Church, and its aim is to show, that the claim to Infallibility made by the Catholic Church is groundless.

The present writer’s attention was called to Dr. Salmon’s book on its first appearance some years since, but it did not seem to him to call for serious theological treatment, because the reasoning was of such a kind, as could not deceive any educated Catholic, whilst the cost and bulk of the volume made it highly improbable that it would circulate amongst the uneducated, who alone could be affected by it. As however it is now certain that determined and persistent efforts have been made to circulate it amongst Protestants to confirm them in their prejudices against the Catholic Church, to shut out the light of truth from them, and as it has been used also in attempting to unsettle the faith of converts to Catholicism; and is, furthermore, the storehouse whence proselytising parsons and Church Mission agents get their stock-in-trade, it may be well to call attention to its contents.

Pere Hardouin is reported to have said to some friend who called him to task for his historical eccentricities: ‘Do you think that I have been rising all my life at four o’clock in the morning, merely to say what everyone has been saying before me?’ The learned Jesuit’s mantle has certainly not fallen on Dr, Salmon. No long vigils were needed for the composition of his book. He has said nothing in it that was not often said by others before him. He does not seem to understand — he certainly does not state correctly — the Catholic doctrine on infallibility; and he has said little against it, that was not said, with more force and better taste, by Dr. Whately and Dr. Todd. Indeed, he quotes several long passages from Dr, Whately’s Cautions for the Times without a syllable of change, and without the ceremony of an inverted comma. He draws largely on Usher and Chillingworth, and still more largely on Lesley and Littledale; he frequently adopts the reasonings and sometimes the words, of that theological luminary, Dr. Tresham Gregg.

His parade of erudition can deceive only the ignorant as to the very second-hand character of his book. He seldom ventures on a proof of any of his statements; no doubt, satisfied that his own assertion is a sufficient warrant of their truth. This, too, may have been the opinion of the students whom he lectured; but, after all, it is not fair to them to send them out into the world to carry on controversies with us, equipped only with the information supplied by Dr. Salmon. There are scattered through the book some smart sayings which may excite laughter amongst young men in a class-room, but do not help to prepare them for the more serious work that awaits them in the world abroad. Indeed, no fairly intelligent person can read through the lectures without feeling how little the students owe to their professor. Then, again, he frequently applies to us epithets, that are known to be insulting, and justifies himself by saying that he is speaking behind our backs. Well, this is all a matter of taste, and by all means let the Doctor indulge in this. It does us no harm.

He volunteers graciously to make us one liberal concession. He will call us ‘Roman Catholics’ if we call him and his brethren ‘Irish Catholics.’ Truth forbids us, however, to make the compromise, and the Doctor would not know himself under the new title. He openly, and, indeed, needlessly, proclaims himself a ‘Protestant’ (page 9); but by ‘Protestant’ he means ‘one who has examined into the Roman claims, and found reason to think them groundless’ (page 10). This qualification limits very considerably the number of Dr. Salmon’s co-religionists, and completely disposes of his claim to the title Catholic. And, though he is treating of an all-important subject, there is nothing in his book really deserving the name of argument — no sound reasoning, no dispassionate discussion, no elevating thought. ‘My own opinion is’; ‘For myself, I cannot admit’; ‘I will tell you what seems to me’; ‘My belief is’; ‘In my opinion’ — these are Dr. Salmon’s loci theologici.

The book teems with sinister insinuations against us, with misrepresentations of our doctrines and practices. It contains several statements regarding us that are made with reckless indifference to fact, and there is no relying on any of his quotations. Now, when a man like Dr. Salmon carries on the controversy against us in such a fashion, and trains his students to do in like manner, what are we to expect from controversialists of the Lavender Kidds’ school? We are to expect a perpetuation of that bigotry and intolerance of which Dr. Salmon’s university has been, and is, the stronghold; and Dr. Salmon and his friends are to expect that our bishops shall be incessant in their warnings to Catholic young men not to enter a university in which the ruling spirit is of such a kind.

Dr. Salmon devotes an introductory lecture to the ‘Controversy with Rome,’ and he deplores that in recent times it has lost much of its interest. This decline of interest he attributes to various causes. ‘Disestablishment,’ of course, is one, which means, no matter how artfully Dr. Salmon may seek to conceal it, the loss of the ‘loaves and fishes.’ Then there has been ‘a reaction against certain extreme anti-Romanist over-statements’ (page 2), which is Dr. Salmon’s nice name for the vile epithets applied to Catholics and Catholic doctrines by such pretty specimens of taste and truthfulness as Bale, and Fox, and Dopping. Then changes in Eucharistic doctrine and other High Church tendencies have had their influence on the decline of the controversy. And so, too, temptations to scepticism have made many weak-minded people ‘recoil towards Rome, under the idea that they would be safer’ (page 5). This, he tells us, has been the case with ‘a majority of the perverts which Rome has made in later years’ (page 5), including, of course, Cardinal Newman, and Cardinal Manning, and Dr. Ward. Well, if this disastrous indifference to ‘controversy with Rome’ is to continue, the fault shall not be Dr. Salmon’s, for he proceeds to exhort the future parsons to apply themselves zealously to its study. And, in order to stimulate them more effectually, he says: —

I am not ashamed of the object aimed at in the Roman Catholic controversy; I believe that the Church of Rome teaches false doctrine on many points which must be called important, if anything in religion can be called important. . . . I count it then a very good work to release a man from Roman bondage. [p. 6]

And he offers the old golden rule for disposing of Romanism: The Bible, and the Bible only. ‘Assuredly,’ he says, ‘if we desire to preserve our people from defection to Romanism there is no better safeguard than familiarity with Holy Scripture’ (page 11). And again: ‘I have said already that to an unlearned Christian familiarity with the Bible affords the best safeguard against Romanism’ (page 15). That is, put a confessedly difficult book into the hands of an ignorant man, and he is quite certain to interpret it aright! And so certain is the Doctor of the all-sufficiency of the Bible that he says: ‘I should be well pleased if our adversaries were content to fight the battle on that ground’ (page 11). He must have calculated confidently on the ignorance of his audience when he made this astounding statement. He quotes Bellarmine, Dr. Murray, and Perrone; and does he find them declining the battle on that chosen ground of his? And though he would chose Scripture as his battleground, he is himself very sparing in Scriptural quotations; and whenever he happens to quote Scripture, the text is thrown up like a rocket, and left to its fate, without an attempt to show how it applies.

Considering the tone of these lectures, it is an agreeable surprise to find him giving his students the following prudent advice: ‘You must be careful,’ he says, ‘also to distinguish the authorised teaching of the Roman Catholic Church from the unguarded statements of particular divines’ (page 13). And he also cautions them against taking at second-hand extracts from the Fathers.

I find that those who originally made extracts from the writings of the Fathers were more anxious to pick out some sentence in apparent contradiction with the views of their opponents, than to weigh dispassionately whether the question at issue in the modern controversy was at all present to the mind of the author whom they quote, or to search whether elsewhere in his writings passages may not be found bearing a different aspect. [p. 15]

It would have been well that he had confirmed his advice by his own example, but the book affords abundant proof that he has not done so. He devotes a great deal of his lectures to an attempt to identify the ‘statements of particular divines’ with ‘the authorised teaching of the Catholic Church.’ He labours to show that the Church is responsible for the statements made by St. Liguori in his Glories of Mary, and he states distinctly, ‘that the attempt made to release the Church from that responsibility is not successful’ (page 195). He labours to identify with the Church’s official teaching the arguments used by Dr. Milner on the Rule of Faith. He more than insinuates that the Church is to stand or fall with Cardinal Newman’s Essay on Development and Grammar of Assent. Again, the views of Gury, of Father Furniss, of the Abbe Louvet — and these, too, misrepresented — are set forth as the official teaching of the Church. But his transgressions in this department are venial, when compared with his quotations.

At page 20 he quotes ‘Dr. Milner and other controversialists,’ as saying of the Immaculate Conception, ‘that neither Scripture nor tradition contained anything on the subject.’ The ‘other controversialists’ are not named, but Dr. Milner, who is named, made no such statement, nor any statement from which it could be deduced. Towards the close of the thirteenth letter in the End of Controversy, Dr. Milner explains what Catholics mean by the Infallibility of the Church, and he adds: —

This definition furnishes answers to divers other objections and questions of Dr. P. The Church does not decide the controversy concerning the Conception of the Blessed Virgin, and several other disputed points, because she sees nothing absolutely clear and certain concerning them either in the written or unwritten word.

Now, in saying that the Church ‘sees nothing absolutely clear and certain,’ Dr. Milner clearly implies that the Church saw some grounds for deciding the controversy, though not absolutely clear and certain; but Dr. Salmon, to suit his own purposes, omits the important words ‘absolutely clear and certain,’ and informs his students, that, on the testimony of Dr. Milner, the Immaculate Conception had no foundation in Scripture or Tradition; and that, therefore, on the principle of Catholics themselves, the doctrine could not be defined at all! And this is the learned professor who assures his students, ‘Our object is not victory but truth!’ (page 13).

Again, in the same passage, page 20, in speaking of the definition of the Immaculate Conception, in A.D. 1854, Dr. Salmon says the ‘doctrine was declared to be the universal ancient tradition of the Church.’ Now the definition or declaration was made by Pius IX., and yet, in a note at page 270, the doctor tells us, ‘Pio Nono’s language was not, “Receive this because it has been held semper ubique ab omnibus, but because it is laid down now at Rome by me.” ’ No doubt the students who had heard the first version ridiculed as false in Dr. Salmon’s second lecture, and the contradictory version ridiculed as equally false in his fifteenth lecture, had forgotten their professor’s beautiful consistency, and had added both statements to their polemical stock-in-trade, their aim, of course, being ‘not victory but truth.’

Again, at page 58, he says of Cardinal Newman: ‘He taught that one must not expect certainty in the highest sense before conversion, “Faith must make a venture, and is rewarded by sight.” ’ The reference is to Loss and Gain and the words in the text are: ‘Faith ever begins with a venture, and is rewarded with sight.’ [Part 3, c.i.] This quotation is adduced to show that, according to Cardinal Newman, one must be always doubtful as to the validity of the claims of the Church to our submission. Dr. Salmon’s own version of the argument as given in the previous page (57) is: ‘You must accept, without the least doubt, the assertions of the Church of Rome, because it is an even chance that she may be infallible.’ The text from Loss and Gain is adduced to show that, according to Cardinal Newman, the above version of the Church’s claim is substantially correct.

Now the words quoted do not represent Cardinal Newman’s teaching at all. They are the words of Charles Reding, who is not yet a Catholic, and separated from this context they are grossly unfair, even to him. They are used by Reding in reply to a Protestant friend who is dissuading him from joining the Church, who tells him that he is under a delusion, and that he will find his mistake later on. Reding answers: ‘If I have good grounds for believing, to believe is a duty. God will take care of His own work. I shall not be abandoned in my utmost need. Faith ever begins with a venture, and is rewarded with sight.’ The words then, as used by Reding, distinctly contradict Dr. Salmon, for he maintains that one can have no good grounds for believing in the Church; whereas Reding clearly implies that he has good grounds. And Dr. Salmon takes as much of Reding’s statement as can be distorted, and gives this garbled text to his students as the clear testimony of Cardinal Newman against the claims of the Catholic Church, and his ‘object is not victory but truth.’

In the sixth chapter of the same Part 3, Dr. Salmon could have found, what he might, with some show of reason, have quoted as Cardinal Newman’s teaching. Reding on his way to London to be received into the Church, meets with a priest and gets into conversation with him on the subject of which his soul was full. He quotes some of the very statements made by Dr. Salmon: he finds himself unable though wishing to believe, for he has not evidence enough to subdue his reason: —

‘What is to make him believe?’ the priest says shortly but quietly: ‘What is to make him believe? the will, his will . . . the evidence is not at fault, all it requires is to be brought home and applied to the mind; if belief does not follow the fault lies with the will . . . Depend upon it there is quite evidence enough for a moral conviction, that the Catholic or Roman Church, and no other, is the voice of God. . . . I mean a conviction, and one only, steady, without rival conviction or even reasonable doubt; a conviction to this effect — the Roman Catholic Church is the one only voice of God, the one only way of salvation Certainty, in the highest sense [the certainty of faith], is the reward of those who, by an act of the will, and at the dictate of reason and prudence, embrace the truth when nature like a coward shrinks. You must make a venture. Faith is a venture before a man is a Catholic, it is a gift after it.’

Dr. Salmon is welcome to all the aid he can get from this, the real teaching of Cardinal Newman. In the face of such evidence of the cardinal’s teaching it needs a very strong imagination to quote him as admitting that there is neither reason, nor prudence, nor argument, guiding those who join the Church, ‘and that it is an even chance that she may be infallible.’ (page 57).

Now, when books that are accessible to all, are so misquoted— so misrepresented by Dr. Salmon— what confidence can we have in his quotations from works that are rare and accessible to few, such as the Fathers and obscure theologians? Let us see. At page 28 he says: —

The Roman Catholic advocates ceased to insist that the doctrines of the Church could be deduced from Scripture, but the theory of some early heretics, refuted by Irenaeus, was revived, namely, that the Bible does not contain the whole of God’s revelation, and that a body of traditional doctrine existed in the Church equally deserving of veneration.

And in proof of this he gives in a note the following quotation from St. Irenaeus: —

‘When they [the Valentinians] are confuted from the Scriptures they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures as if they were not correct, nor of authority; for that they are ambiguously worded, and that the truth cannot be discovered from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For they say that the truth was not delivered in writing but viva voce; wherefore Paul also declared: — “We speak wisdom among them that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world.” ’ [I. 3, c. 2]

And to make the analogy complete, Irenaeus goes on to complain that when the Church met these on their own ground of tradition, then they had recourse to a theory of development, claiming to be then in possession of purer doctrine than that which the Apostles had been content to teach.

This long extract fully illustrates the controversial tactics of Dr. Salmon. He tells his students that we have ‘ceased to insist’ on a doctrine which he knows we never held at all, and he tells them also that the doctrines which we do hold, and which are defined in the fourth session of the Council of Trent, is the same as that of the Valentinians, and is involved in the condemnation of these heretics by Irenaeus. We hold that all the revelation made to the Apostles was not committed to writing by them; that part of it remained unwritten, and was handed down by the Apostles to their successors, and remains in the custody of the Church as part of the deposit of faith. Was this the teaching of the Valentinians? Was this the doctrine condemned by Irenaeus?

Certainly not, and Dr. Salmon must be quite well aware of this. The Valentinians, like the Gnostics, ‘claim to have a secret tradition unknown to the Church at large. This would imply either that the Apostles did not know the whole truth, or that, knowing it, they did not communicate it to those whom they taught’ (page 150). The same tenets are attributed to them by Dr. Salmon at page 358, and again at page 381, where he states that the argument of St. Irenaeus were directed against that theory. Dr. Salmon then informs his students, in his second lecture, that the Catholic teaching was the Valentinian heresy, and was condemned by Irenaeus; but in his ninth, nineteenth, and twentieth lectures he admits that it was quite a different doctrine that was held by the Valentinians, and condemned by the saint. Clearly he had no fear that his students would detect his inconsistency or trouble themselves to test the quotation from Irenaeus; and he so manipulated the text as to conceal from them effectually what the saint really did condemn. He breaks off the quotation precisely when Irenaeus begins to explain his meaning, and instead of the words of the saint gives a gloss of his own which has not an atom of foundation in the text. Immediately after the words quoted by Dr. Salmon the text is: —

And this wisdom each one of them says is that which he finds in himself — a fiction, forsooth; so that properly, according to them, the truth is at one time in Valentinian, at another in Marcion, at another in Crinthus, and subsequently in Basilides, or in this or that disputant who can say nothing salutary. For each of them, in every sense wicked, is not ashamed to preach himself, thus corrupting the rule of truth. But when we challenge them to that tradition which is from the Apostles, which is held in the Church by the succession of presbyters, they reject tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser than the presbyters, and even than the Apostles, and have discovered the genuine truth — that the Apostles have mixed up legal observances with the Saviour’s words, . . . whilst they themselves know the hidden mystery with certainty and without mixture of error, which is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator in a most impudent manner. Hence it comes to pass that they neither agree with Scripture nor tradition.

And in the opening of the next chapter (3) the saint explains the apostolic tradition preserved in the various Churches, and witnessed to by the succession of bishops of each Church; and then he gives the Roman Church and its bishops as the great reliable witness of apostolic tradition for the whole Church. And, with this text before him, Dr. Salmon does not hesitate to tell his students that St. Irenaeus condemns the Catholic doctrine on tradition. No. St. Irenaeus is a most eloquent vindicator of Catholic tradition, whilst he condemns, in scathing terms, the impudent assumption by the Valentinians of superior, hidden knowledge, which is something very much akin to that gustus spiritualis which Dr. Salmon and his evangelical friends claim as their guide to the discovery of Biblical truth. The attempt, then, to make a pervert of St. Irenaeus, is a miserable failure, and, in making it, Dr. Salmon has shown a reckless indifference to the responsibilities of his position. He is training up young men to be controversialists, and is, by very questionable tactics, filling their minds with false views, which, when the day of trial comes, will expose them to certain defeat and to ridicule.

Those few specimens of Dr. Salmon’s quotations will give some idea of his reliability in that department, but before proceeding to deal with his theology it may be well to give a specimen of the spirit which he seeks to instil into his students. At page 11, he says: —

And assuredly if we desire to preserve our people from defection to Romanism, there is no better safeguard than familiarity with Holy Scripture. For example, the mere study of the character of our Blessed Lord, as recorded in the Gospel, is enough to dissipate the idea, that there can be others, more loving, more compassionate, or more ready to hear our prayers than He.

Here, now, is a statement as clear as it can be made by implication, that we hold that there are some — perhaps many — ‘ more loving, and more compassionate, more ready to hear our prayers,’ than our Blessed Redeemer is! Now, what are Dr. Salmon’s grounds for this monstrous insinuation? He has none. Impossible. He knows his students well; they are prepared to believe everything that is bad of Catholics. Their minds have been, from their earliest years, filled and saturated with anticatholic prejudices; and now their professor, with all the weight that years and experience, and a reputation for learning, can give to his teaching, levels at us the insinuation, Satanic in its character, that we believe there are others more kind and compassionate than our ever Blessed Redeemer.

If the young men who imbibe such teaching, bring to the discharge of their clerical duties charity, or liberality, or enlightenment, they certainly do not owe it to their professor. His lectures are teeming with all the time-worn calumnies against Catholics. He has a case to make, and is not scrupulous as to the manner of making it. He has a tradition to maintain, and his arguments in its favour are judiciously selected to suit the tastes and capacity of his hearers. Scripture, fathers, theologians are made to say precisely what the lecturer wishes them to say, and all the time the lecturer is a victim to his love of truth!

The specimens already given of Dr. Salmons controversial style would seem to dispense with the necessity of any detailed examination of his book. Can anything good come from Nazareth? And the examination is entered on, not for his sake, but for the sake of those who have been, or are likely to be, deceived by his statements. The headings of the several lectures give a very inadequate idea of the contents: they are full of repetitions, full of irrelevant matter; there is much declamation, and no logical order. It is, therefore, difficult so to systematize the matter as to bring it within reasonable compass for treatment, but it is hoped that nothing important will be over-looked.

Dr. Salmon is a firm believer in the all-sufficiency of the Bible. It is his supreme antidote to Romanism. He says: —

The first impression of one who has been brought up from childhood to know and value his Bible is, that there is no room for discussion as to the truth of the Roman Catholic doctrine. . . . And assuredly if we desire to preserve our people from defection to Romanism, there is no better safeguard than familiarity with Holy Scripture, . . . thus believing, as I do, that the Bible, not merely in single texts, but, in its whole spirit, is antagonistic to the Romish system. [p. 11]

I have already stated that to an unlearned Christian, familiarity with the Bible affords the best safeguard against Romanism. [p. 15]

Now, it is strange that so firm a believer in the all-sufficiency of Scripture should not be able to ‘cite Scripture to his purpose.’ ‘Neither,’ he says ‘shall I bring forward the statements of Scripture which bear witness to its own sufficiency’ (page 132). And, for the best of all reasons, because there are no such statements. And it would have been well for Dr. Salmon’s reputation if he had been equally economical in his quotations from the Fathers in favour of his pet theory. He informs his students, for instance, that they had the sanction of several of the most eminent Fathers for thinking that what was asserted, without the authority of Holy Scripture, might be ‘despised as freely as approved’ (page 29); the quotation is repeated at greater length at page 147. ‘This, because it has not authority from the Scriptures, is with the same easiness despised as approved.’

The quotation is from St. Jerome’s Commentary on the twenty-third chapter of St. Matthew, and is quite characteristic of Dr. Salmon. It is separated from its context and quoted to prove a doctrine which has not an atom of foundation in St. Jerome’s text. The saint is explaining the thirty-fifth verse in which the Scribes and Pharisees are charged, amongst other crimes, with the blood of ‘Zacharias the son of Barachias whom you killed between the temple and the altar,’ and he asks who is this Zacharias because he finds many of the name. He gives various opinions, one of them being that the Zacharias named was the father of John the Baptist. This opinion, he says, is grounded on ‘the ravings of some apocryphal writers’ who say that Zachary was killed because he foretold the coming of the Redeemer. St. Jerome rejects this opinion on the ground that it had no foundation in Scripture, whereas each of the other opinions had some.

He says: ‘You may as easily despise it as approve it.’ St. Jerome, then, consults the books of the Old Testament — the authentic Jewish record, in which genealogies were, as a rule, pretty fully recorded — to determine which of a certain number of Zacharias this was, who is mentioned by our Lord; and he rejects an opinion on the subject which has no foundation in that record, but rests solely on the ‘dreamings of apocryphal writers.’ Is Dr. Salmon prepared to reject anything not found in the Old Testament, for St. Jerome’s quotation will confine him to that? St Jerome searches the Old Testament to determine a certain historical fact, and from this Dr. Salmon argues that we must all search the Scripture, and Scripture only, to determine our faith. St. Jerome says: ‘You may despise or approve the ravings of some apocryphal writers,’ and hence Dr. Salmon informs his juvenile controversialists, ‘you must despise and reject apostolical tradition, and you have St, Jerome’s authority for doing so.’ From controversialists so trained, the Catholic Church has nothing to fear.

Two other quotations from St. Jerome are given in the the same page (147), and for the same purpose. ‘As we accept those things that are written, so we reject those things that are not written.’ The words of St. Jerome are: ‘As we do not deny those things that are written, so we reject those that are not written.’ This quotation is from St. Jerome’s letter against Helvidius who denied the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin, and who to prove his view appealed to St. Matt. i. 25: ‘And he knew her not till she brought forth her first son.’ Helvidius also appealed to the texts in which the ‘ brethren of the Lord’ are mentioned. He inferred from the texts that the Blessed Virgin did not continue a virgin; St. Jerome quotes a number of texts of similar construction to show that the inference was groundless. He quotes the texts of St. Matthew to prove that our Lord was born of a virgin — this is what the text does say. Helvidius relies on an inference from the text; that is, on what the text does not say. So also from the texts referring to the ‘brethren of the Lord.’

Helvidius infers that they were natural brothers, though the texts do not say so. St. Jerome proves from parallel texts that this inference is groundless. With this in his mind, St Jerome says: ‘Just as we do not deny the things that are written, so we reject the things that are not written; that God was born of a virgin we believe because we read it; that Mary ceased to be a virgin we do not believe because we do not read it.’ St. Jerome says then: ‘I accept what the texts state; I deny what they do not state.’ And this is the authority offered to his students by Dr. Salmon as a proof of the all-sufficiency of Scripture and as an argument against tradition! The Doctor did not tell his students that in this very letter against Helvidius St. Jerome actually appeals to tradition as a proof of the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin. After dealing with the arguments of Helvidius, St. Jerome says: —

But why am I dealing in trifles. . . . Can I not put before you the whole long line of ancient writers — Ignatius, Polycarp, lrenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men who have written volumes full of wisdom against Ebion and Valentinian, who hold this same opinion?

That the writer of this forcible and eloquent appeal to tradition, should be quoted against tradition, shows how applicable to Dr. Salmon are St. Jerome’s words immediately following the above quotation: ‘Which volumes if you had read you would know something better.’

The next text from St. Jerome is still more extraordinary in its application: ‘These things which they invent, as if by apostolic tradition, without the authority of Scripture, the sword of God smites’ (page 147). One can fancy the joyous amazement of the young theologians of Trinity, as they listened to this quotation. How they must have been shocked at the duplicity of Rome; but now her days were numbered; they must have felt that Dr. Salmon himself was the ‘pillar and the ground of truth.’ But, as in the other quotations, their professor was blindfolding them here again. The quotation is from St. Jerome’s Commentary on Aggeus, i, 11: ‘And I called for a drought upon the land, and upon the mountains, and upon the corn, and upon the wine, and upon the oil,’ etc.

The saint is explaining the woes threatened to the Jews for their neglect in not rebuilding the Temple. He says that instead of ‘drought ’ the Septuagint has ‘sword,’ whilst the Hebrew is ambiguous, inasmuch as the consonants in both words are the same, and only the vowel points would distinguish them. He proceeds to show how the ‘sword’ is used in Scripture as a symbol of the punishment of sinners. He then goes on to give a mystical explanation of the other words of the text. The mountains are those who rise up against the knowledge of God; the corn and wine and oil are the inducements held out by heretics to flatter those whom they deceive. The oil also, he says, represents the heavenly rewards promised by heretics.

And then comes the passage quoted by Dr. Salmon: ‘And other things, too, which without authority or testimony of Scripture, but as if by apostolic tradition, they, of their own accord, find out and invent, the sword of God smites.’ Now, clearly the things condemned here are grounded not on genuine apostolical tradition, but on traditions falsely called apostolical. The words used are reperiunt atque confingunt. The tradition, therefore, is spurious, a fiction, and not apostolical. And had Dr. Salmon continued his quotation for one other sentence, his students would have got specimens of the traditions falsely called apostolical. They were, among other things, certain extraordinary austerities, long fasts, vigils, mortifications, sleeping on the ground, etc., arising out of the example of Tatian in particular, de Tatiani radice crescentes.

St. Jerome, then, condemns fanatical practices which had no foundation on apostolical tradition, notwithstanding the pretensions of those who proclaimed them. And on the strength of this passage Dr. Salmon informs his students that St. Jerome condemns apostolic tradition, and maintains the ‘Bible and the Bible only,’ though, as already shown, the saint is a most eloquent and powerful advocate of tradition. To defend the Bible, and the Bible only, must, to Dr. Salmon’s mind, be a forlorn hope, when he has recourse to such arguments as these; and it is sad to see one in his position instilling such views into the minds of young men who are not likely to take the trouble of verifying his quotations. He is treating them badly. They came to him, it must be presumed, for knowledge, and he is making them more than ignorant. They ask him for bread, and he gives them a stone. In his first lecture he gave them a wise warning as to quotations from the Fathers, and in nearly every quotation in his book he does himself the very thing which he condemned.

Dr. Salmon gives at pages 119-121 a very long quotation from St. John Chrysostom on the reading of the Scriptures. It is very eloquent, very forcible, and very appropriate all through. But should another edition of Dr. Salmon’s book be called for, it is respectfully suggested that he should insert at full length the Encyclical of Leo XIII., On the Sacred Scriptures [1893]. He will find it as forcible, and certainly a far more able exhortation to the reading and study of Scripture, than anything he can find in St. Chrysostom. The quotation of the Encyclical would no doubt cause some murmurs in the class-room; and would be distasteful to many of his readers, as it would tend to disturb their settled conviction of the hostility of Catholics to the Bible; but such considerations should not weight with one whose ‘object is not victory but truth.’

But there is one brief quotation from St. Chrysostom at page 90 which merits a passing notice: ‘All things are plain and simple in the Holy Scriptures; all things necessary are evident.’ This is taken from St. Chrysostom’s Third Homily on the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians. The homily is a vigorous and eloquent attack on persons who decline to come to the church to hear the Scriptures read and explained. One of the excuses given for abstension from church was, that there was no sermon; and St. John asks what need is there of a sermon, ‘all things are plain and simple in Scripture.’ Now, St. Peter ought to be, at least, as good an authority on this matter as St. Chrysostom, and he very distinctly states that the Scriptures are not so ‘plain and simple,’ and that certain very serious consequences follow from the misinterpretation of them. Dr. Salmon agrees with St. Chrysostom, in holding that the Scriptures are very plain and simple, and such being the case, how does it happen that in a certain very plain passage of Scripture, St. Chrysostom finds the doctrine of the Real Presence, whilst in the very same passage Dr. Salmon finds the doctrine of the Beal Absence? If Dr. Salmon be right in his view, then St. Chrysostom is wanting either in intelligence or in honesty; whereas if St. Chrysostom be right, then Dr. Salmon is not so far-seeing as some people fancy, or not so zealous in his pursuit of Biblical truth.

The Doctor can maintain that St. Chrysostom is right, only by the humiliating confession that he is wrong himself. It may be too much to expect the Doctor to put the matter in this way to his juvenile theologians; but it is the true way to put it; and they would be all the better prepared for future contingencies, if they were told the truth, and nothing but the truth. Dr. Salmon says truly that St. Chrysostom was a most eloquent preacher, and such preachers are sometimes carried away by their eloquence into slight exaggerations. Of this we have a conspicuous instance in St. Chrysostom’s Seventeenth Homily on St. Matthew, where he distinctly condemns even a necessary oath. His words are: ‘But what if someone shall exact an oath, and shall impose a necessity for taking it?’ and he answers: ‘Let the fear of God weigh more with him than any necessity.’

Now this is clearly an exaggeration occurring in an eloquent invective against swearing; and the passage quoted by Dr. Salmon may be another instance of it. A few sentences lower down in Dr. Salmon’s quotation St. Chrysostom insists on the plainness of the historical portions of Scripture, and, perhaps, his general statement may be limited to such portions. But, at all events, in the very opening sentence of the next homily (IV.) he distinctly admits that St. Paul’s doctrine is obscure — a statement which no one, except for controversial purposes, would think of denying. And as Dr. Salmon himself says at page 124: ‘I suppose there is not one of them [Fathers] to whose opinion on all points we should like to pledge ourselves,’ he cannot deny the same liberty to others, especially in a case where the opinion is so notoriously opposed to facts. St. Athanasius, too, is put forward as a witness to the all-sufficiency of Scripture. He is quoted as saying: ‘The holy and inspired Scriptures are sufficient in themselves for the preaching of the truth.’ (page 154). This is from the Oratio Contra Gentes, and in its dexterous manipulation Dr. Salmon appears at his best. The text is: —

Sufficient indeed of themselves for indicating the truth, are both the sacred and inspired Scriptures, and the very many volumes written on the same matter by most holy teachers, which if one shall study, he will to some extent understand the sense of the Scriptures, and perhaps attain that knowledge which he desires.

The Oratio was addressed to Macarius, a learned man who seems to have asked St. Athanasius for an explanation of the Christian creed; and the saint tells him, that he may perhaps be able to get the knowledge he requires from Scripture interpreted by the writings of the Fathers — that is, from Scripture and tradition this learned man may, perhaps, be able to get what he is to believe. Dr. Salmon quietly suppresses the reference to the Fathers — tradition — and represents Athanasius as saying that the required knowledge can be got from Scripture alone. A learned man may get his faith from Scripture and tradition combined, according to Athanasius himself; therefore, argues Dr. Salmon, according to St. Athanasius even an ignorant man can get his creed from the Bible alone! Of course the students took the version of the Regius Professor, ‘and sure he is an honourable man.’

But all Dr. Salmon’s tall-talk about the Bible comes to a stand-still, when the plain question is put to him: How does he know that the Bible is the Word of God? — how does he know that the Bible is inspired? He is very indignant with Catholics for putting this question, and he frequently reproaches them with using ‘the infidel argument.’ But Catholics answer ‘the infidel argument,’ he cannot. St. Augustine put the answer tersely and truly when he said: ‘I would not believe the Gospels, unless the authority of the Church moved me to do so.’ Dr. Salmon does not believe in the authority of the Church, and cannot therefore give such an answer. He puts the Bible on a level with Livy or Tacitus, and there he must leave it. He cannot appropriate our conclusions without submitting to our arguments. This matter will come on for fuller treatment later on. But then Dr. Salmon ‘will argue still.’ The Church of Rome, he says, ‘is against the Scriptures because she feels the Scriptures are against her ’ (page 12); ‘The Church of Rome has very good reason to discourage Bible-reading by their people’ (page 123), etc. This is the old, old story, a thousand times refuted, contradicted by the most notorious facts of ecclesiastical history; and yet as often repeated with cool confidence by controversialists of the Dr. Salmon type.

In fact, the case against the Catholic Church is so clear to Dr. Salmon, that he does not see the necessity of adducing any proof. In a note at page 123, he says, ‘I have not troubled myself to give formal proof of the discouragement of Bible-reading by the modern Church of Rome,’ etc. But he quotes the Fourth Rule of the Index to show that we ‘are now often apt to be ashamed of this practice’ (note, p. 123). Considering the general character of Dr. Salmon’s quotations it would be idle to expect him ‘to be ashamed’ of the manner in which he has quoted this Rule. He omits from it a vitally important expression, and the omission enables him to completely misrepresent the object of the Church in making that Rule. The Rule is: ‘Since it is manifest from experience that if the Holy Scriptures in the vulgar tongue be permitted everywhere without distinction, owing to the rashness of men, more evil than good will arise from it,’ etc.

Now the expression, ‘on account of the rashness of men’ — ob hominum temeritatem — clearly gives the motives of the Church in making the law. Bad men abuse the best of God’s gifts, and the Church had abundant experience to convince her that bad men had abased the Bible in the vulgar tongue, and with this knowledge she seeks to check the abuse by permitting the Bible in the vulgar tongue to those only whose character is such that they are likely to be served and not injured by the concession. But Dr. Salmon omits the expression, ‘on account of the rashness of men,’ and leaves the future spiritual guides of Irish Protestants to infer that Catholics hold that the evils come from the Bible in itself, and not from the abuse of it by bad men. Now, to restrict the reading for the motive here openly alleged by the Church indicates a reverence for the Bible, and a desire to save souls from spiritual ruin; but to restrict it for the motive cleverly insinuated by Dr. Salmon indicates a fear and dislike of the Bible in itself — the false charge which Dr. Salmon labours to fasten on the Church, and which he regards so clear as not to need even an attempt at proof.

He quotes the Rule, he says, from Dr. Littledale. Surely he has the original in his own library, and he owed it to his own position as Regius Professor of Divinity, not to take his authority as second-hand, and that a hand so soiled as Dr. Littledale’s. Dr. Littledale wrote for the rabble, whose sole article of faith is hatred of the Catholic Church; but Dr. Salmon is lecturing young men of some education, training them to be controversialists, and yet he confirms them in their ignorance of the very doctrines they will have to assail. Dr. Salmon is notoriously wrong in his version of our theory and practice in this matter, and it is difficult to fancy him ignorant of either. The Fourth Rule of the Index, comes to Catholics as a law, made by competent authority — the Church — legislating for a good end, and within her own proper sphere. The law, therefore, is binding on them, and if they refuse to obey it, they render themselves indisposed for absolution, and the Church treats them as such.

There was no restriction made by the Church on the reading of the Scriptures until the sacred volume began to be abused. When corrupt translations of portions of it began to appear and to be abused, it became the clear duty of the Church to check the abuse, and to warn her children against taking in spiritual poison from a fancied source of life. Some such restrictions were made long before Luther’s time. But at that time the prevalence of corrupt translations, made in the interests of heresy, led to the legislation of the Fourth Rule of the Index; and no unprejudiced person can find, in that legislation, anything but a wise and necessary precaution against the gross and soul-destroying abuse of God’s Word. When the religious excitement of that time had somewhat abated, the law was modified by Pope Benedict XIV., and it has been still more modified in oar time by Pope Leo XIII. But Dr. Salmon may take it as a fact, that a Catholic is as free to read a Catholic vernacular Bible as he is to read his own. Bat it mast be a Catholic Bible, published under proper ecclesiastical sanction, and with explanatory notes from fathers or approved theologians.

Dr. Salmon then is completely wrong in his version of our theory, and is equally wrong as to our practice. If he ever happens to visit any of his Catholic neighbours he will find them possessed of a Catholic Bible, and quite unconscious of any prohibition as to its ase. He will find Catholic Bibles sold by all Catholic booksellers, and at a very reasonable price. If he consult some authority more reliable than Dr. Littledale he will find that for the past hundred years several very valuable editions of the Catholic Bible have been published, and circulated, without the slightest indication of opposition on the part of the ‘modern Church of Rome.’ And if for some time previous to that period he should find few Catholic Bibles in Ireland, Dr. Salmon cannot be ignorant of the cause. It was not ‘the discouragement of Bible-reading by the modem Church of Rome,’ (page 121), but the worse than pagan tyranny of the Church to which Dr. Salmon himself professes to belong. The spirit that inspired the Penal Laws against Catholics, and that regulated their administration was the spirit of the Protestant Church, and had its focus in Dr. Salmon’s own university; and it ill-becomes him to reproach us with the consequences of that degrading system.

Our schools were burned, our teachers hanged or exiled; no Catholic Bible, or other Catholic book could be published in the country, except by stealth, and at fearful risk to the publisher and possessor. The law aimed at making us unable to read, and left us nothing to read that was not anticatholic. Protestant education we could have got, and Protestant Bibles too, and we would be well paid for accepting them. But we spurned the bribe, we defied the laws, and kept the faith. These few plain well-known facts, entirely overlooked by Dr. Salmon, help to explain our practice as to Bible-reading, at a time not so long past as to have left no impression on Dr. Salmon’s memory. To the Catholic Church the sacred character of the Scriptures is a much more vital matter than it is to Dr. Salmon’s communion.

She has always cherished it with affection; she has preserved it for the long ages before Dr. Salmon’s Church came into existence. Her priests and her monks transcribed it, illustrated it, explained it. She is its sole legitimate interpreter now, as she has been since her foundation. Restriction she certainly has put on its reading, to ensure that it should not be abused; that it should be read with due reverence and with proper disposition. The Catholic Church will not permit ignorant men to dogmatise on the most sacred subjects, and to quote the Bible to confirm their ravings. The wisdom of her action in this matter is abundantly confirmed by the chaos existing in Dr. Salmon’s own communion, where unrestricted Bible-reading has given everyone a creed for himself — where ‘ orthodoxy is one’s own doxy and heterodoxy is everyone else’s doxy.’

Does Dr. Salmon think that the Bible is enhanced as a standard of truth by the profane brawlings of Salvationists and of Sunday street-preachers? Between the Protestantism of Lord Halifax or ‘Father’ Puller and the Protestantism of Dr. Salmon or Mr. Kensit, there are, no doubt, many shades of opinion, not in very exact harmony; but all alike, and with equal logic, spring from that principle which Dr. Salmon regards as the ‘best safeguard against Romanism’ (page 15)— and he might have added, with much more truth, as ‘the best safeguard against’ the possibility of ‘one fold and one shepherd.’ He admits ‘that the members of so many different sects each find in the Bible the doctrines they have been trained to expect to find there’ (page 110), and in this, as in other matters, ‘the tree is known by its fruit.’

Dr. Salmon thus is completely notoriously wrong, both as to our theory and practice as regards the reading of the Bible. But it would be unfair to him to pass over the following pretty specimen of his theological reasoning, in which he gives his students the key to our alleged hostility to the Bible: —

If you let people read the Bible, you cannot prevent them from reflecting on what they read. Suppose, for an example, a Roman Catholic reads the Bible: how can you be sure that he will not notice himself, or have it pointed out to him, that, whereas Pius IX. could not write a single Encyclical in which the name of the Virgin Mary did not occupy a prominent place, we have in the Bible twenty-one Apostolic letters, and her name does not occur in one of them. [p. 123]

And suppose that a Catholic does read the Bible, he finds it stated there that the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of God, full of grace, and blessed amongst women; and ‘how can you be sure that he will not notice himself or have it pointed out to him’ that in the whole course of the Bible no other creature is addressed in such language? May not a Catholic, then, infer from all this that the Blessed Virgin is more holy, more perfect, than other creatures, and therefore, entitled to some higher honour than they? And the silence of the twenty-one Apostolic letters does not in the slightest degree affect this inference. Therefore, the Catholic who reads the Bible actually finds in it the foundation of his devotion to the Blessed Mother of God. This must be disappointing to Dr. Salmon. But Dr. Salmon himself believes in the fallibility of the Church, in the all-sufficiency of Scripture, in justification by faith alone, and these doctrines ‘do not occur in one of the twenty-one Apostolic letters.’

Now, if he may believe those doctrines, notwithstanding the silence of the ‘twenty-one Apostolic letters,’ why should he make that silence an argument against Catholic devotion to the Blessed Virgin? Dr. Salmon knows quite well the occasional character of those Apostolic letters. Each was called forth by some special circumstances, and in none of them is there a cursus theologiae. The silence of such letters, then, is no argument against the honour given by Catholics to the Blessed Mother of God, and Dr. Salmon has gained nothing for his Bible-reading theory by casting his last stone at her. He probably thought the argument good enough for his students, and they, too, may have thought it a master-piece of logical acumen; but once they get into controversy with any well-educated Catholic, they are certain to be rudely awakened to the defective character of their early training, and made to feel that, instead of arguing against Catholic doctrines, they are simply beating the air.

***

Go to Part 2

***

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

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

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

***

Photo credit: George Salmon, from Cassell’s universal portrait gallery: no later than 1895 [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: Jeremiah Murphy, D.D. made a devastating reply to anti-Catholic George Salmon’s rantings in a multi-part review in The Irish Ecclesiastical Record in 1901-1902.

Elizabeth I and 512 Catholic Martyrs (vs. Lucas Banzoli)

Last updated on: March 5, 2023 at 3:42 pm By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

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 27 self-published books, as well as blogmaster for six blogs. He has many videos on YouTube.

This is my 65th refutation of Banzoli’s writings. From 25 May until 12 November 2022 he wrote not one single word in reply, claiming that my articles were “without exception poor, superficial and weak” and that “only a severely cognitively impaired person” would take them “seriously.” Nevertheless, he found them so “entertaining” that after almost six months of inaction he resolved to “make a point of rebutting” them “one by one”; this effort being his “new favorite sport.”

He has now replied to me 16 times (the last one dated 2-20-23). I disposed of the main themes of his numberless slanders in several Facebook posts under his name on my Anti-Catholicism page (where all my replies to him are listed). I shall try, by God’s grace, to ignore his innumerable insults henceforth, and heartily thank him for all these blessings and extra rewards in heaven (Matthew 5:11-12).

Google Translate is utilized to render Lucas’ Portugese into English. Occasionally I slightly modify clearly inadequate translations, so that his words will read more smoothly and meaningfully in English. I use the RSV for both my Bible citations and Banzoli’s. His words will be in blue.

*****

This is a reply to Lucas Banzoli’s article, “Refutando todas as calúnias católicas contra a rainha Isabel da Inglaterra” [Refuting all Catholic slanders against Queen Elizabeth of England] (4-13-18).

. . . the religious field, in which Elizabeth put an end to the terror spread by her late sister . . .

Elizabeth did not make any kind of radical Protestant or anti-Catholic monarch, much less a tyrant who forced conversions or killed in the name of the faith. In fact, a large part of her enormous popularity in England was precisely due to this moderation that always kept her away from any religious persecution along the lines of her bloodthirsty sister. . . .

Catholics, whether nobles or not, continued to exist throughout the entire Elizabethan period, but by the end of their rule “they hardly formed the twentieth part of the population” – even without any massacre, any auto-da -faith, no Inquisition and no obligation to stop being Catholic in order to stay alive. . . .

She was . . . not a violent, bloodthirsty or warlike queen, but exceptionally tolerant by the standards of the time, pacifist and religiously moderate, which won the loyalty and loyalty of even her most Catholic subjects. . . .

Elizabeth is accused of killing “hundreds of Catholics” over her 45 years of reign. In fact, a derisory number of Catholics were executed, equivalent to four for each year of reign [that would be 180], but none of them for “heresy” or for the “crime” of expressing their religious opinions. Instead, this number consists fundamentally of Jesuits sent to England on the specific mission of carrying out the “undertaking”, where Elizabeth would end up murdered and dethroned, and Mary Stuart would assume the crown in her place. . . .

In short, what is known to any historian or serious scholar is that Elizabeth did not persecute any Catholic for religious convictions, nor did she impose any opposition to freedom of conscience, things that the Queen, famous for her moderation, abhorred. All she did was punish some Jesuits infiltrated in England with the specific mission of conspiring, raising the country through rebellions and betrayals, inciting political sabotage and finally murdering her . . .

It is extremely important to note that during the entire first decade of her reign (i.e., the period before Pope Pius V’s Bull, the Northern Revolt, and the plots to assassinate the Queen) there was no death sentence in England. This fact is extremely significant, as it supports the historical fact that Elizabeth was not a religiously intolerant queen with an interest in punishing Catholics for the “crime” of heresy . . .

Mary reigned for five years and killed 300 Protestants for heresy, while Elizabeth reigned for ten years without condemning anyone to capital punishment, and when she began to condemn, she did so for high treason, not for doctrinal reasons. Isabel’s numbers point to 187 executions (123 of which were Jesuit “missionaries”) throughout her 45 years of reign, which is equivalent to four individuals per year . . .

Elizabeth’s England had no laws against heresy, no ecclesiastical courts judging people’s faith, no autos-da-fé, no public ceremonies for burning heretics, no restrictions on freedom of conscience, and no one was obligated ( although there was an incentive) to be a Protestant. What did exist, as everywhere else, was capital punishment (on the gallows or by decapitation) for those who committed the crime of high treason, in which the convicted Jesuits were, by far, the greatest professionals.

***

Well, we’ve had enough of lies and propaganda. Now how about historical truth, as best we can ascertain it? Banzolis view is that Bloody Queen Bess “reigned for ten years [1558-1568] without condemning anyone to capital punishment, and when she began to condemn, she did so for high treason, not for doctrinal reasons.” What I will proceed to massively demonstrate is that this is simply not true. The following is an abridged version of the documented information contained in 312 Catholic Martyrs & Confessors Under “Good Queen Bess” (Queen Elizabeth: r. 1558-1603) [2-8-08].

See that article for much fuller accounts. I will provide documentation of 512 Catholic martyrs under Bloody Queen Bess: the vast majority of them named. The former article didn’t provide links (usually from Catholic Encyclopedia or Wikipedia) about each martyr. They will be added below. The martyrs are listed chronologically by date of execution. Elizabeth ruled over the entirety of Ireland as well as England.

Queen Elizabeth is often regarded as a tolerant queen, yet during her reign (17 November 1558 – 24 March 1603), there were 302 executions –not counting ten executed members of the Northern Rising of 1569 — (most involving horrible prolonged tortures) or confessors’ deaths rotting away or starving to death or tortured to death in prisons for the “treasonous crime” of being Catholic. That is counting English victims only. But there were also about 210 Irish victims, for a grand total of at least 512 martyrs of the Catholic faith under “Good Queen Bess”. Henry VIII averaged about 16 executions or horrible starving deaths of Catholics a year, after he started murdering them in 1534.

Elizabeth averaged almost 12 per year for her entire 44 years and 4 months reign. Thus she showed herself on average to be about 75% as savage and vicious as her illustrious father, in terms of the frequency and rate of the butchery. After 1585 it was “treason” to be a priest and to set foot in England at all. Banzoli wants to make out that the charges of “treason” were only against wicked Catholics (mostly all the dreaded and despised Jesuit priests, of course) conspiring to murder their murderous queen. It’s simply not so. Keep reading if you doubt this. Facts have a marvelous ability to absolutely obliterate lies and myths.

Richard Coppinger: Benedictine. Died in prison in 1558.

Bishop Ralph Bayle: Died on 18 November 1559 in prison. He was one of eleven bishops whom Bloody Queen Bess deprived and left to die in prison.

Bishop Cuthbert Turnstall (or, Tunstall): Died on 18 November 1559 in prison.

Bishop Owen Oglethorpe: Died on 31 December 1559 in prison.

Thomas Slythurst: Priest. Died in the Tower of London, 1560.

Bishop John White: Died on 12 January, 1560 in prison.

William Chedsey: Priest. Died in a London prison in 1561.

Sir Edward Waldegrave: Layman. Died in a London prison in 1561.

Agnes Johnson: Laywoman. Died in a York prison in 1561.

John Fryer (or, Frier): Layman. Died in a London prison in 1563.

Bishop Richard Pate: Died on 23 November 1565 in prison.

Bishop David Poole: Died in May, 1568 in prison.

Bishop Edmund Bonner: When Elizabeth ascended to the throne he was ordered to resign, which he refused to do, adding that he preferred death. On 20th April, 1560, he was sent as a prisoner to the Marshalsea. When the Parliament of 1563 met, a new Act was passed by which the first refusal of the oath of royal supremacy was praemunire, the second, high treason. On 29th April, 1564 the oath was again tendered to Bonner by Horne, the Anglican Bishop of Winchester. This he firmly refused. Four times a year for three years he was forced to in the courts at Westminster only to be further remanded. The end came on 5th September, 1569, when he died in the Marshalsea.

Bishop Gilbert Bourne: During his brief episcopate he laboured zealously for the restoration of the Catholic religion, although towards heretics, as even Godwin, a Protestant, admits, he always used kindness rather than severity, nor do any seem to have been executed in his diocese. On his rejection of the Supremacy Oath, on 18 October, 1559, and his deprivation followed, [when he] was committed on 18 June a close prisoner to the Tower, . . . Thus began that continual “tossing and shifting” of the deposed prelates “from one keeper to another, from one prison to another”, . . . After nearly ten years of this suffering existence Bishop Bourne expired 10 September, 1569, at Silverton in Devonshire.

Anthony Draycott: Priest. Died in a London prison in 1570.

Blessed John Felton: On 24 or 25 May 1570, Felton affixed a copy of the Bull of St. Pius V excommunicating the queen to the gates of the Bishop of London’s palace near St. Paul’s. On 26 May 1570 he was arrested and taken to the Tower, where he was thrice racked, though he from the first confessed and gloried in his deed. He was condemned on 4 August and executed in St. Paul’s Churchyard, London on 8 August, 1570. He was cut down alive, and his heart was cut out.

Bishop Thomas Thurlby (or, Thirlby): Died in prison on 26 August, 1570.

Bishop James Thurberville (or, Turberville): Died in prison on 1 November 1570.

John Boxall: Priest. Died in a London prison in 1571.

Nicholas Grene: Priest. Died in a York prison in 1571.

Blessed John Story (or, Storey): When Queen Mary was on the throne, Story was one of her most active agents in prosecuting heretics, and was one of her proctors at the trial of Cranmer at Oxford in 1555. In 1560 he opposed the Bill of Supremacy , and incurred the ire of Queen Elizabeth. In August 1570, he was locked in the Tower of London and repeatedly tortured (including racking). Indicted on 26 May 1571 for conspiring against the Queen’s life. Throughout his misery, John bore his tortures with fortitude and claimed his innocence. He was hanged, drawn, and quartered at Tyburn on the 1st of June 1571.

Thomas Sedgwick: Priest. Died in a Yorkshire prison in 1573.

Blessed Thomas Woodhouse: Priest. On 14 May, 1561, he was committed to the Fleet, London, having been arrested while saying Mass. For the rest of his life he remained in custody, but [was] treated with considerable leniency till on 19 November, 1572, he sent the prison washerwoman to Lord Burghley’s house with his famous letter. In it he begs him to seek reconciliation with the pope and earnestly to “persuade the Lady Elizabeth, who for her own great disobedience is most justly deposed, to submit herself unto her spiritual prince and father”. He was executed at Tyburn on 19 June, 1573, being disemboweled alive.

Thomas Gabyt: Cistercian. Executed in 1575.

Nicholas Harpsfield: Priest. Died in a London prison in 1575.

St. Cuthbert Mayne: Priest. On April 24, 1576, he left for the English mission. Elizabeth I’s agents quickly became aware of Mayne’s presence in the area and the authorities began a systematic search for him in June. The high sheriff, Sir Richard Grenville, discovered a Catholic devotional article, an Agnus Dei round Mayne’s neck, and took him into custody. The jury found Mayne guilty of high treason on all counts. He kissed a copy of the bible, declaring that, “the queen neither ever was, nor is, nor ever shall be, the head of the church of England” [and] was executed on November 29, 1577. It is unclear if he died on the gibbet. In any case, he was unconscious during the disemboweling.

Blessed John Nelson: Jesuit. Executed at Tyburn on February 3, 1578 . . . hung and cut down alive, his heart cut out, then quartered.

Blessed Thomas Nelson: Jesuit student. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at Tyburn on February 3, 1578.

[See the Wikipedia article for a gruesome description of the English punishment of being hanged, drawn, and quartered]

Bishop Nicholas Heath: Archbishop of York. Died in prison in December 1578.

Thomas Layne: Layman. Died in a York prison in 1579.

Blessed Thomas Sherwood: Layman. Racked with a view to extracting details of houses where Mass was celebrated, Thomas kept silent. As a result he was then thrown into a dungeon to rot, and the inevitable sentence of hanging, drawing and quartering was carried out at Tyburn on February 7, 1579.

Henry Cole: Priest. During Elizabeth’s reign he remained true to the Catholic Faith . . . committed to the Tower (20 May, 1560), and finally removed to the Fleet (10 June), where he remained for nearly twenty years, until his death in February 1579 (or February 1580).

Mr. Ailworth (or, Aylword): Admitted Catholics to Mass at his house; was arrested, and died after eight days, 1580.

John Cooper: Probably a distributor of Catholic books, arrested at Dover and sent to the Tower, died of “hunger, cold, and stench”, 1580.

Robert Dimock (or, Dymoke): Arrested at Mass, and perished after a few weeks’ imprisonment at Lincoln, 11 September, 1580.

John Molineaux: Layman. Died in a London prison in 1581.

John Constable: Layman. Died in a York prison in 1581.

Blessed Everald Hanse: Priest. He was asked in court at the Newgate Sessions, what he thought of the pope’s authority, and on his admitting that he believed him “to have the same authority now as he had a hundred years before”, he was further asked whether the pope had not erred (i.e. sinned) in declaring Elizabeth excommunicate, to which he answered, “I hope not.” He was at once found guilty of “persuasion” which was high treason, and was executed at Tyburn on 31 July, 1581.

St. Alexander Briant: Priest. Placed under arrest on 28 April 1581, in the hope of extorting information. After fruitless attempts to this end at Counter Prison, London, he was taken to the Tower where he was subjected to excruciating tortures. To the rack, starvation, and cold was added the inhuman forcing of needles under the nails. He was arraigned on 16 November 1581, in Queen’s Bench, Westminster, on the charge of high treason, and condemned to death. The details of this last great suffering [hanged, drawn, and quartered], which occurred on the 1 December [1581] following, like those of the previous torture, are revolting. In his letter to the Jesuit Fathers he protests that he felt no pain during the tortures he underwent, and adds: “Whether this that I say be miraculous or no, God knoweth”.

St. Edmund Campion: Jesuit priest. He led a hunted life, preaching and ministering to Catholics in Berkshire, Oxfordshire, Northamptonshire, and Lancashire. On his way to Norfolk, he stopped at Lyford in Berkshire, where he preached on July 14 and the following day, by popular request. Here, he was captured by a spy and taken to London. Committed to the Tower of London, he was questioned in the presence of Elizabeth, who asked him if he acknowledged her to be the true Queen of England. He replied in the affirmative, and she offered him wealth and dignities, but on conditions which his conscience could not allow. (To reject his Catholic faith.) He was kept a long time in prison, twice racked (by order of the Council but certainly with Elizabeth’s consent), and every effort was made to shake his constancy. Despite the effect of a false rumour of retraction and a forged confession, his adversaries in despair summoned him to four public conferences (September 1, 18, 23 and 27, 1581). Tortured again on October 31, he was indicted at Westminster on a charge of having conspired, along with others, at Rome and Reims to raise a sedition in the realm and dethrone the Queen. The great saint stated at the close of his “trial”:

In condemning us, you condemn all your own ancestors — all the ancient priests, bishops, and kings — all that was once the glory of England, the island of saints, and the most devoted child of the See of Peter. For what have we taught, however you may qualify it with the odious name of treason, that they did not uniformly teach? To be condemned with these old lights — not of England only, but of the world — by their degenerate descendants, is both gladness and glory to us. God lives; posterity will live; their judgment is not so liable to corruption as that of those who are now going to sentence us to death.

He answered the sentence of the traitor’s death with the Te Deum laudamus, and, after spending his last days in prayer, was hanged, drawn and quartered at Tyburn on December 1, 1581.

St. Ralph Sherwin: Priest. On 9 November [1577] he was imprisoned in the Marshalsea, where he converted many fellow prisoners, and on 4 December was transferred to the Tower of London, where he was tortured on the rack and then laid out in the snow. He is said to have been personally offered a bishopric by Elizabeth I if he apostatised, but refused. After spending a year in prison he was finally brought to trial on a trumped up charge of treasonable conspiracy. On 1 December 1581 he was hanged, drawn and quartered at Tyburn.

St. John Payne: Early in July, 1581, he was arrested in Warwickshire through the efforts of the informer George “Judas” Eliot (a known criminal, murderer, rapist and thief, who made a career out of denouncing Catholics and priests for bounty). He was racked on August 14, and again on October 31. Paine was indicted at Chelmsford on March 22 on a charge of treason for conspiring to murder the Queen and her leading officers and install Mary, Queen of Scots on the throne. Paine denied the charges, and affirmed his loyalty to the Queen in all that was lawful (i.e., not contrary to his Catholicism or allegiance to the pope), contesting the reliability of the murderer Eliot. At his execution on the morning of the Monday April 2 [1582] he was dragged from prison on a hurdle to the place of execution and first prayed on his knees for almost half an hour and then kissed the scaffold, made a profession of faith and declared his innocence. The crowd had become so sympathetic to Paine that they hung on his feet to speed his death and prevented the infliction of the quartering until he was dead.

Blessed Thomas Ford: Priest. On July 17, 1581, he was arrested and on July 22nd of that same year, he was put in the Tower, where he was tortured. He was brought to court on November 16th with a faked charge of conspiracy. It said he had conspired in places he had never been (Rome and Rheims), on days he had been in England. Executed on May 28, 1582.

Blessed Robert Johnson: Priest. Racked on December 16, 1580 and put in a dungeon until his trial on November 14, 1581. He was condemned on November 20, and executed on May 28, 1582.

Blessed John Shert: Ordained in 1579. Executed on May 28, 1582.

Blessed Thomas Cottam: Convert and Jesuit. In June 1580 he was committed “close prisoner” to the Marshalsea. After being tortured, he was removed, 4 December, 1580, to the Tower, where he endured the rack and the “Scavenger’s Daughter”. On 30 May, 1582 he was drawn to Tyburn and executed.

Blessed William Filby: Priest. He was arrested in July 1581, committed to the Tower, removed 14 August to the Marshalsea, and thence back to the Tower again. He was sentenced 17 November, and from that date till he died was loaded with manacles. He was also deprived of his bedding for two months, and was executed at Tyburn, 30 May, 1582.

St. Luke Kirby: Convert and priest. In June of 1580, he was arrested on landing at Dover, and committed to the Gatehouse, Westminster. On December 4th, he was transferred to the Tower, where he was subjected to the “Scavenger’s Daughter” for more than an hour on December 9th. Kirby was condemned on November 17, 1581, and from April 2nd until the day he died [30 May 1582], he was put in irons.

Blessed Laurence Richardson: Priest. He was arrested in London in 1577 and imprisoned in Newgate, where he remained until the day of his indictment, 16 November, 1581, when he was committed to the Queen’s Bench Prison, and on the day of his condemnation, 17 November, to the Tower, where he had no bedding for two months. He was executed at Tyburn, 30 May, 1582.

Blessed Richard Kirkman: Priest. He was arrested on 8 August, 1582, and seems to have been arraigned a day or two after under 23 Eliz. c. 1. Executed at York on 22 August, 1582.

[The Act to retain the Queen’s Majesty’s subjects in their obedience (23 Eliz. c. 1), passed in 1581. This made it high treason to reconcile anyone or to be reconciled to “the Romish religion”

13 Eliz. c.1 made it high treason to affirm that the queen ought not to enjoy the Crown, or to declare her to be a heretic or schismatic; * 13 Eliz. c. 2, which made it high treason to put into effect any papal Bull of absolution, to absolve or reconcile any person to the Catholic Church, or to be so absolved or reconciled, or to procure or publish any papal Bull or writing whatsoever. The penalties of praemunire were enacted against all who brought into England or who gave to others “Agnus Dei” or articles blessed by the pope or by any one through faculties from him.

13 Eliz. c. 3, was designed to stop Catholics from taking refuge abroad, and declared that any subject departing the realm without the queen’s license, and not returning within six months, should forfeit the profits of his lands during life and all his goods and chattels.

An act against Jesuits, seminary priests, and such other like disobedient persons, (27 Eliz.1, c. 2) [1584] commanded all Roman Catholic priests to leave the country in 40 days or they be punished for high treason, unless within the 40 days they swore an oath to obey the Queen. Those who harbored them, and all those who knew of their presence and failed to inform the authorities would be fined and imprisoned, or where the authorities wished to make an example of them, they might be executed. This statute, under which most of the English martyrs suffered, made it high treason for any Jesuit or any seminary priest to be in England at all, and felony for any one to harbour or relieve them.]

Blessed William Lacey: Priest. After fourteen years’ persecution for his faith, which included imprisonment at Hull, and after the death of his wife, he went abroad and was ordained in 1580. On 10 May, 1581, he was at Loreto on his way to England. He was arrested after a Mass said by Thomas Bell, afterwards an apostate, in York Castle, 22 July, 1582. He suffered great hardships, being loaded with heavy irons, confined in an underground dungeon, and subjected to numerous examinations. He was arraigned on 11 August, probably under 13 Eliz. cc. 2 and 3. Executed at York on 22 August, 1582.

Blessed James Thompson (or, Hudson): Priest. He was arrested at York on 11 August, 1582. On being taken before the Council of the North he frankly confessed his priesthood. He was then loaded with double irons and was imprisoned, first in a private prison, then in the castle. On 25 November he was brought to the bar and condemned to the penalties of high treason. Three days later [28 November 1582] he suffered with great joy and tranquility at the Knavesmire, protesting that he had never plotted against the queen, and that he died in and for Catholic Faith. While he was hanging, he first raised his hands to heaven, then beat his breast with his right hand, and finally made a great sign of cross. In spite of his sentence, he was neither disemboweled nor quartered, but was buried under the gallows.

Thomas Ackridge: Franciscan. Died in prison in 1583.

Thurstan Arrowsmith: Layman. Died in prison in 1583.

James Laburne: Layman(?). Executed in 1583.

Thomas Mudde: Cistercian. Died in prison in 1583.

Blessed William Hart: Priest. He was betrayed by an apostate on Christmas Day, 1582, thrown into an underground dungeon, and put into double irons. Executed at York, 15 March, 1583.

Blessed Richard Thirkeld: Priest. On the eve of the Annunciation, 1583, he was arrested while visiting one of the Catholic prisoners in the Ousebridge Kidcote, York. The charge was one of having reconciled the queen’s subjects to the Church of Rome. He was found guilty on 27 May and condemned 28 May. Executed at York on 29 May, 1583.

Blessed John Bodley (or, Bodey): Convert and lay schoolmaster. Arrested in 1580, and spent three years in prison in Winchester. Hanged, drawn, and quartered on 2 November 1583 at Andover, England.

Blessed John Slade: Layman and schoolmaster. Hanged, drawn, and quartered on 2 November 1583 at Winchester, England.

Edward Arden: Born c. 1542. In 1583, Arden was indicted in Warwick for plotting against the life of the Queen and taken to London, where he was arraigned in the Guildhall, 16 December, 1583. He was convicted and was executed at Smithfield, 30 December, 1583. It is generally conceded that Arden was the innocent victim of a plot. He died protesting his innocence and declaring that his only crime was the profession of the Catholic religion.

Richard Hatton: Priest. Died in a London prison in 1583 or 1584.

Thomas Cotesmore
William Chaplain
Roger (or, Robert) Holmes
James Lomax
Roger Wakeman

Priests. Perished in prisons in 1584. Of Wakeman’s suffering several harrowing details are on record.

John Collins: Priest. Died in 1584.

Henry Comberford: Priest. Died in a York prison in 1584.

William Travers: Layman. Died in a London prison in 1584.

Thomas Watson: Bishop of Lincoln. Died after being held in Wisbeach Castle, in 1584.

Blessed William Carter: A lay printer. Among other Catholic books he printed a new edition (1000 copies) of Dr. Gregory Martin’s A Treatise of Schism, in 1580, for which he was at once arrested and imprisoned in the Gatehouse. He was transferred to the Tower in 1582. Having been tortured on the rack, he was indicted at the Old Bailey, 10 January 1584, for having printed Dr. Martin’s book, in which was a paragraph where confidence was expressed that the Catholic Hope would triumph, and pious Judith would slay Holofernes. This was interpreted as an incitement to slay the queen, though it obviously had no such meaning. He was executed for for treason at Tyburn on 11 January, 1584.

Blessed James Fenn (or, Feun): Priest. He was named a conspirator of a bogus assassination plot, and hanged, drawn, and quartered at Tyburn on February 12, 1584.

Blessed George Haydock: Priest. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at Tyburn on 12 February 1584. He acknowledged Elizabeth as his rightful queen, but confessed that he had called her a heretic. Haydock was alive when he was disemboweled.

Blessed Thomas Hemerford
Blessed John Munden
Blessed John Nutter

Priests. All hanged, drawn, and quartered at Tyburn on 12 February 1584.

Blessed James Bell: Priest. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at Lancaster on 20 April, 1584.

Blessed John Finch: Convert. His house was a centre of missionary work, he himself harbouring priests and aiding them in every way, besides acting as catechist. His zeal drew on him the hostility of the authorities, and at Christmas, 1581, he was entrapped and kept in the earl’s house as a prisoner, sometimes tortured and sometimes bribed in order to pervert him and induce him to give information. This failing, he was removed to the Fleet prison at Manchester and afterwards to the House of Correction. For many months he lay in a damp dungeon, ill-fed and ill-treated, desiring always that he might be brought to trial and martyrdom. After three years’ imprisonment, he was hanged, drawn, and quartered at Lancaster on 20 April, 1584.

John Feckenham: Benedictine, abbot of Westminster. Died in prison in 10 October 1584.

St. Richard White (or, Gwyn): In 1579 he was arrested by the Vicar of Wrexham, a former Catholic who had conformed to the new faith. He escaped and remained a fugitive for a year and a half, was recaptured, and spent the next four years in one prison after another until his execution. Gwyn was tortured often in prison, largely with the use of manacles. However, his adherence to the Catholic faith never wavered. Gwyn was condemned to death by hanging, drawing and quartering. This sentence was carried out in the Beast Market in Wrexham on 15 or 17 October 1584. When he appeared dead they cut him down, but he revived and remained conscious through the disemboweling, until his head was severed.

Thomas Crowther
Edward Pole
John Jetter

Priests. Perished in prisons in 1585.

John Ackridge: Priest. Perished in a prison in York in 1585.

Richard Creagh: Archbishop of Armagh, Ireland. Creagh preached loyalty to England. In 1567 he was lodged in the Tower of London, and kept there till his death in 1585. From his repeated examinations before the English Privy Council his unwavering loyalty to England were made plain. But his steadfastness in the Faith and his great popularity in Ireland were considered crimes, and in consequence the Council refused to set him free. Not content with this his moral character was assailed. The daughter of his jailer was urged to charge him with having assaulted her. The charge was investigated in public court, where the girl retracted, declaring her accusation absolutely false.

William Hambleton: Priest. Executed in 1585.

Stephen Hemsworth: Layman. Died in a York prison in 1585.

Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland: Layman. Died in a London prison in 1585.

Laurence Vaux: Priest. Arrested in Rochester in 1580 on information lodged by a spy. After several examinations Vaux was finally committed by the Bishop of London to the Gatehouse Prison, Westminster. In all probability he was abandoned to a lingering death in 1585 in prison.

John Almond: Cistercian, Confessor of the Faith; died in Hull Castle, 18 April, 1585. His case is of special interest as an example of the sufferings endured in the Elizabethan prisons. The courageous, patient old priest, after many sufferings in prison, was left in extreme age to pine away under a neglect that was revolting.

Thomas Vavasour: Physician. In 1572 he was accused of having entertained St. Edmund Campion. In Nov., 1574, he was sent into solitary confinement in the Hull Castle (York). Later on he was in the Gatehouse, Westminster, from which he was released on submitting to acknowledge the royal supremacy in religious matter; but he was again imprisoned as a recusant in Hull Castle, York where he died on 2 May 1585.

Blessed Thomas Alfield: Convert. Priest. Wavered at one point (after torture) and became a Protestant. But he regained his Catholic faith and was executed at Tyburn, 6 July, 1585.

Venerable Thomas Webley: Layman. Executed at Tyburn, 6 July, 1585.

Blessed Hugh Taylor: Priest. He was the first to suffer under the Statute 27 Eliz. c. 2. lately passed. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at York, 25 November, 1585.

Blessed Marmaduke Bowes: Layman. Executed on 26 November 1585.

Robert Shelly (or, Richard Shelley): Layman. Died in a London prison in 1585 or 1586.

John Harrison: Priest. Perished in prison in 1586.

Gabriel Empringham
Robert Holland
Peter Lawson

Laymen. Died in London prisons in 1586.

Thomas Harwood: Priest. Died in a York prison in 1586.

Blessed Edward Stransham: Priest. Executed at Tyburn on 21 January, 1586.

Blessed Nicholas Woodfen: Executed at Tyburn on 21 January, 1586.

St. Margaret Clitherow: Converted to Roman Catholicism at the age of 18, in 1574. She then became a friend of the persecuted Roman Catholic population in the north of England. Her son, Henry, went to Reims to train as a Catholic priest. She regularly held Masses in her home in the Shambles in York. There was a hole cut between the attics of her house and the house next door, so that a priest could escape if there was a raid. In 1586, she was arrested and called before the York assizes for the crime of harbouring Roman Catholic priests. She refused to plead to the case so as to prevent a trial that would entail her children being made to testify, and she was executed by being crushed to death – the standard punishment for refusal to plead. On Good Friday of 1586, she was laid out upon a sharp rock, and a door was put on top of her and loaded with an immense weight of rocks and stones. Death occurred within fifteen minutes.

Blessed William Thomson (aka Blackburne): Priest. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at Tyburn on 20 April 1586.

Blessed Richard Sergeant: Priest. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at Tyburn, 20 April, 1586.

Blessed Robert Anderton: Convert and priest. Hanged, drawn, and quartered on 25 April 1586 on the Isle of Wight.

Blessed William Marsden: Convert and priest. Hanged, drawn, and quartered on 25 April 1586 on the Isle of Wight.

Blessed Francis Ingleby: Priest. Executed at York on Friday, 3 June, 1586.

Blessed John Finglow (or, Fingley): Priest. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at York on 8 August 1586.

Blessed John Sandys: Priest. Hanged, drawn and quartered at Gloucester, 11 August, 1586. He was cut down while fully conscious and had a terrible struggle with the executioner, who had blackened his face to avoid recognition and used a rusty and ragged knife; but his last words were a prayer for his persecutors.

Blessed John Adams: Priest. Captured on December 19, 1585. In that year the Act had been passed making it a capital offence to be a Catholic priest in England. The sentence of hanging, drawing and quartering was completed at Tyburn, London on October 8, 1586.

Blessed Robert Bickerdike: Layman. Arrested for giving a priest, St. John Boste, a glass of ale, he was also accused at his trial of using treasonable words. He was acquitted, but Judge Rhodes, determined to have his blood, had him removed from the city gaol to the Castle and tried once more on the same charge. He was then condemned. Executed at York on 8 October 1586.

Blessed Robert Dibdale: Priest. He was arrested near Tothill Street in London on July 24, 1586 and was imprisoned first at the Counter then at Newgate. The terrible sentence of hanging, drawing and quartering was inevitable. It was carried out at Tyburn, London on October 8, 1586.

Blessed John Lowe: Priest. Hanged, drawn and quartered for being a priest at Tyburn, London on October 8, 1586.

Blessed Richard Langley: Layman and member of the gentry. Langley gave over his energies and a very considerable part of his fortune to assisting the oppressed clergy; his house was freely offered as an asylum to priests. During his investigation Langley was steadfast in his adherence to the Faith. He would not take the oath of the queen’s ecclesiastical supremacy, nor compromise his religious heritage. He was hanged, drawn, and quartered at York on 1 December 1586.

James Stonnes: Priest. He was arrested 19 Nov., 1585, in the Parish of Ormskirk, Lancashire. As he would not commit himself to the royal supremacy, though he acknowledged the queen as temporal sovereign, and as he confessed that he regarded her ecclesiastical policy as contrary to God’s law and refused to give up saying Mass, he was committed to the New Fleet, Manchester, where, as he was then aged 72, it is probable he died [c. 1586].

William Griffith
William Knowles

Laymen. Died in prisons in 1587.

Gabriel Thimelby: Priest. Perished in prison in 1587.

Ralph Cowling (or, Collins)
Isabel Foster
Mary Hutton

Laypeople. Died in York prisons in 1587.

Blessed Thomas Pilchard (or, Pilcher): Priest. He was arrested early in March, 1587, and imprisoned in Dorchester Gaol, and in the fortnight between committal to prison and condemnation converted thirty persons. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at Dorchester on 21 March 1587. He was so cruelly drawn upon the hurdle that he was fainting when he came to the place of execution.

Blessed Edmund Sykes: Priest. He was betrayed by his brother, to whose house in Wath he had resorted. Executed at York Tyburn on 23 March, 1587.

Martin Sherson: Priest. He was imprisoned in the Marshalsea before 22 December, 1586, was still there in March 1587, and died soon after.

Thomas Somerset: He was committed to the Fleet, 10 June, 1562, “for translating an oration out of French, made by the Cardinal of Lorraine”, Charles de Guise, Archbishop of Reims, “and putting the same without authority in print”. After an imprisonment of close on twenty years he was released on bail, 28 Feb., 1581-82, to attend to legal business in Monmouthshire. But by 22 October, 1585, he was again in the Tower on a charge of high treason and died there on 27 May, 1587.

Blessed Stephen Rowsham: Priest. Remained a prisoner for more than three years, during half of which time (14 Aug., 1582, until 12 Feb., 1584) he was confined to the dungeon known as the “Little Ease”. Executed at Gloucester no later than July, 1587.

Blessed John Hambley: Priest. Denied his faith twice under duress. But the third time he was captured, he did not break, and was executed near Salisbury (Chard in Somerset) around July 1587, “standing to it manfully, and inveighing much against his former fault”.

Blessed Robert Sutton: Priest. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at Stafford on 27 July, 1587.

Blessed George Douglas: Scottish priest. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at York on 9 September 1587.

Dorothy Vavasour: Laywoman. Died in the New Counter, Ousebridge, York, 26 October, 1587.

Blessed Alexander Crow (or, Crowe): Priest. Executed at York on 13 November 1587.

Thomas Wood: Priest. Born c. 1499. On account of his religion he was committed to the Marshalsea 13 May, 1560. On 20 Nov., 1561, he was transferred to the Fleet. On 28 Nov., 1569, we find him in the Tower of London, threatened with the rack. He was still there in April, 1570. From the Tower he was removed to the Marshalsea again 14 Oct., 1571, and was still there in then aged 80, in July, 1580. He died in Wisbech Castle before 1588.

Lucy Budge: Laywoman. Died in a York prison in 1587 or 1588.

Humphrey Berisford: Layman. Died in prison around 1588.

William Baldwin (or, Bawden): Priest. Perished in a York prison in 1588.

William Deeg
John Jessop
Richard Kitchin (or, Kitchen)

Laymen. Died in prisons in 1588.

Philippa (or, Philippe) Lowe: Layman. Died in a London prison in 1588.

James Clayton: Priest. Condemned to death but died in Derby jail, 22 July, 1588.

Blessed Nicholas Garlick: Born c. 1555. Ordained 1582. On 23 July 1588, he was tried for coming into the kingdom and “seducing” the Queen’s subjects. Garlick, who acted as spokesman, answered, “I have not come to seduce, but to induce men to the Catholic faith. For this end have I come to the country, and for this will I work as long as I live.” He was condemned to be hanged, drawn and quartered; carried out the next day [24 July 1588]. Here is the sentence:

That you and each of you be carried to the place from whence you came, and from thence be drawn on a hurdle to the place of execution, and be there severally hanged, but cut down while you are alive; that your privy members be cut off; that your bowels be taken out and burnt before your faces; that your heads be severed from your bodies; that your bodies be divided into four quarters, and that your quarters be at the Queen’s disposal; and the Lord have mercy on your souls.

Blessed Robert Ludlam: Priest. Hanged, drawn and quartered on 24 July 1588 at St. Mary’s Bridge, in Derby.

Blessed Richard Simpson: Priest. By July 1588, the Armada was on its way, and there was no longer any motive for sparing priests. Simpson and his companions were the first of thirty-two priests martyred that year. He was hanged, drawn, and quartered on 24 July 1588 at St. Mary’s Bridge, in Derby.

Venerable James Claxton (or, Clarkston): Priest. Executed between Brentford and Hounslow, Middlesex on 28 August 1588.

Blessed William Dean: Protestant minister who converted to Catholicism and became a priest. Executed on 28 August 1588 at Mile End in London.

Venerable Thomas Felton: Son of martyr, Blessed John Felton. Franciscan. He suffered terrible tortures in prison and was executed at Hounslow on 28 August 1588.

Venerable William Gunter: Priest. Executed on 28 August 1588 near the Theatre in London.

Blessed Thomas Holford: Priest. Hanged at Clerkenwell on 28 August 1588.

Venerable Hugh Moor: Born 1563. Layman. Condemned for having been reconciled to the Church by Fr. Thomas Stephenson, S.J. Executed in Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London, 28 August, 1588.

Venerable Robert Morton: Priest. Executed in Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London, 28 August, 1588.

Blessed Henry Webley: Layman. Condemned for assisting priests. Executed on 28 August 1588 at Mile End in London.

Blessed Richard Leigh: Priest. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at Tyburn on 30 August 1588.

Blessed Richard Lloyd (or, Flower): Welsh layman. Condemned for entertaining a priest named William Horner, alias Forrest. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at Tyburn on 30 August 1588.

Blessed Richard Martin: Layman. Condemned for giving shelter to priests and hanged, drawn, and quartered at Tyburn on 30 August 1588.

Blessed John Roche: Irish layman. Condemned for harboring priests and hanged, drawn, and quartered at Tyburn on 30 August 1588.

Blessed Edward Shelley: Layman. Hanged at Tyburn for sheltering priests, on 30 August 1588.

St. Margaret Ward: Executed for helping a priest to escape from prison. Margaret Ward was kept in irons for eight days, was hung up by the hands, and scourged, but absolutely refused to disclose the priest’s whereabouts. She was offered a pardon if she would attend a Protestant service, but refused. She was hanged at Tyburn on 30 August 1588.

Blessed William Way (or, May): Priest. Hanged, disemboweled, and quartered at Kingston-on-Thames, 23 September, 1588.

Blessed Christopher Buxton: Priest. Being so young [26], it was thought that his constancy might be shaken by the sight of the barbarous butchery of his companions, and his life was offered him if he would conform to the new religion, but he courageously answered: “I would not purchase a corruptible life at such a rate, and, if I had one hundred lives, I would willingly lay them all down in defence of my faith.” He was hanged, drawn, and quartered at Canterbury, 1 October, 1588.

Blessed Edward Campion (aka Gerard Edwards): Priest. He was captured in Sittingbourne, Kent, and was imprisoned at the Newgate and the Marshalsea prisons in London following questioning by order of the Privy Council on 22 April 1587. Upon a second examination on 14 August 1588, he admitted to being a priest. He was hanged, drawn, and quartered at Oaten Hill, Canterbury, on 1 October 1588.

St. Ralph Crockett: Priest. He was put in a prison in London on 27 April 1586, where he remained for more than two years without trial. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at Chichester, Sussex, 1 October 1588. He suffered with great constancy.

Blessed Edward James: In October, 1583 James was ordained as a priest in Rome by Bishop Thomas Goldwell, the last survivor of the English bishops who had refused to accept the Protestant Reformation. He was put in a prison in London on 27 April 1586, where he remained for more than two years without trial. Executed at Chichester, Sussex, 1 October 1588. He suffered with great constancy.

Blessed John Robertson (or, Robinson): Married layman, widower and then priest. Executed on 1 October, 1588 in Ipswich.

Blessed Robert Widmerpool:

Arrested for giving aid to a Catholic priest. Hanged, drawn and quartered at Canterbury on 1 October, 1588. He kissed the ladder and the rope, and with the rope round his neck gave God hearty thanks for bringing him to so great a glory as that of dying for his faith in the same place where St Thomas of Canterbury had died for his.

Blessed Robert Wilcox: Priest. Hanged, drawn and quartered at Canterbury on 1 October, 1588.

Blessed William Hartley: Priest. Executed at Tyburn on 5 October, 1588; he suffered with great constancy.

Venerable John Harrison (or, Symons): Layman. Executed in Halloway on 5 October, 1588.

Blessed John Hewitt (or, Weldon, or, Savell): Priest. On 4 October, 1588, he was formally arraigned on a charge of obtaining ordination from the See of Rome and entering England to exercise the ministry. He was sentenced to death, and the day following was taken through the streets of London to Mile End Green to be executed.

Blessed Robert Sutton: Lay schoolmaster. Executed at Clerkenwell on or around 5 October, 1588.

Blessed Edward Burden: Priest. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at York on November 29, 1588.

Blessed William Lampley: Layman. Executed at Gloucester in 1588.

Richard Bolbet
Thomas Cosen
Mrs. Cosen (presumably Thomas’s wife)
Edward Ellis
Anne Lander

Laymen. Died in London prisons in 1589.

? Green: Layman. Died in prison in 1589.

John Amias: Priest. Hanged, drawn, and quartered outside the city of York on March 16, 1589. He went to death “as joyfully as if to a feast”.

Blessed Robert Dalby: Priest. Hanged, drawn, and quartered outside the city of York on March 16, 1589. He displayed no hesitation in going to his death.

Blessed Thomas Belson: Layman. He was arrested, tortured repeatedly, and found guilty of felony for assisting the priests, and was hanged with his companions at Oxford [5 July 1589].

Blessed George Nichols: Priest. In Oxford, Catholicism was increasing rapidly. Nichols during this time had converted many to the Catholic faith, notably a convicted highwayman in Oxford Castle. In May of 1589 he was arrested at the Catherine Wheel Inn, opposite of St. Mary Magdalen’s Church, in Oxford, with another priest Richard Yaxley, and two laymen, Humphrey Prichard and Thomas Belson. The four men were ultimately sent to Bridewell Prison in London, where Nichols and Yaxley, were hung from their hands for up to fifteen hours to make them betray their faith, but without any success. Nichols was then separated from the rest of the three prisoners and put into a dungeon full of vermin. On June 30th all four were ordered back to Oxford for their trial. Nichols and his fellow prisoners were tried under the recent statute imposing the death sentence on any Englishman ordained abroad who entered England, and on anyone helping such a person. All were condemned, the priests for treason, the laymen for felony. On July 5, 1589, Nichols, along with Yaxley, was hanged, drawn, and quartered, while Belson and Prichard were hanged.

Blessed Humphrey Pritchard: Welsh layman and convert. On 5 July, 1589 he was hanged in the town ditch of Oxford, which is now Broad Street, along with a wealthy Catholic landowner and two priests. On the scaffold he said, “I call all people here present to bear witness, in this world and on the Day of Judgment, that I die because I am a Catholic, a faithful Christian of Holy Church.”

Blessed Richard Yaxley: Priest. He was sent to the Bridewell prison in London, and hanged up for five hours to make him betray his host, but without avail. Yaxley was sent to the Tower as a close prisoner on 25 May, 1589, and appears to have been racked frequently. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at Oxford on 5 July 1589.

Blessed Robert Hardesty: Layman. Executed for sheltering priests at York on 24 September 1589.

Blessed William Spenser: Ordained in 1584. Executed at York, 24 September, 1589.

Hugh Dutton: Layman. Died in a London prison between 1585-1590.

Thomas Bedal: Priest. Died in a York prison sometime between 1568-1590.

John Fitzherbert
David Gwynne
John Lander

Laymen. Died in London prisons in 1590.

Richard Bowes: Priest. Died in a York prison in 1590.

William Bredstock
Thomas Lynch

Laymen. Died in prisons in 1590.

Laurence Collier: Franciscan. Died in prison in 1590.

Ursula Foster: Laywoman. Died in a York prison in 1590.

William Heath: Layman. Died in prison in 1590.

Blessed Christopher Bales: Priest. Sent to England 2 November, 1588, he was soon arrested, racked, and tortured by Topcliffe, and hung up by the hands for twenty-four hours at a time; he bore all most patiently. At length he was tried and condemned for high treason, on the charge of having been ordained beyond seas and coming to England to exercise his office. He was executed on 4 March, 1590 in Fleet Street opposite Fetter Lane.

Blessed Alexander Blake: Layman. Condemned for harboring priests and executed at Gray’s Inn Lane on 4 March 1590.

Blessed Nicholas Horner: He was arrested on the charge of harbouring Catholic priests. Horner was hanged, drawn and quartered [4 March 1590].

Blessed Francis Dicconson: Priest. After many tortures in the worst London prisons under the infamous Topcliffe, he was condemned as a traitor, and hanged, drawn, and quartered at Rochester on 30 April, 1590.

Blessed Miles Gerard: Priest. After many tortures in the worst London prisons under the infamous Topcliffe, he was condemned as a traitor, and hanged, drawn, and quartered at Rochester on 30 April, 1590.

Blessed Edward Jones: Welsh priest. Hunted down and captured with the aid of spies posing as Catholics, he was hanged before the very doors of the houses in Fleet Street and Clerkenwell where he was arrested, on 6 May 1590.

Blessed Anthony Middleton: Priest. Executed with Bl. Edward Jones on 6 May 1590.

Blessed Edmund Duke: Priest. He fell under suspicion in a village in County Durham and was imprisoned and given a sentence of hanging, drawing and quartering for the treasonous crime of being a priest. Executed at Dryburne on May 27, 1590.

Blessed Richard Hill: Priest. Hanged, drawn and quartered at Dryburne on May 27, 1590.

Blessed John Hogg: Priest. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at Dryburne on May 27, 1590.

Blessed Richard Holiday: Priest. Hanged, drawn and quartered at Dryburne on May 27, 1590.

Sir Thomas Fitzherbert
? Glynne

Laymen. Died in London prisons in 1591.

Stephen Branton: Layman. Died in a York prison in 1591.

? Maycock: Layman. Died in prison in 1590.

Blessed Robert Thorpe: Priest. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at York, 15 May, 1591. Though naturally timorous, he met his death with great fortitude.

Blessed Thomas Watkinson: Layman. Condemned for harboring priests and executed at York, 15 May, 1591.

Blessed Monford Scott: Priest. In 1584 he was captured at York at brought to London, where he remained a prisoner for seven years. He was condemned on account of his priesthood and of his being in the country contrary to the Statute. He suffered martyrdom in Fleet Street on 1 July 1591.

Blessed George Beesley: A priest of singular courage, young, strong, and robust, he was captured by Topcliffe late in 1590, and was by his torture reduced to a skeleton. He endured all with invincible courage and could not be induced to betray his fellow Catholics. He was executed in Fleet Street, London on 2 July 1591.

Blessed Roger Dicconson: Priest. Executed at Winchester, 7 July, 1591.

Blessed Ralph Milner: Layman and convert. Every effort was made to persuade him to change his purpose and renounce the Faith. Unshaken in his resolution, Milner met his death with the utmost courage and calm [at Winchester, 7 July, 1591].

St. Edmund Gennings (or, Jennings): Priest. He was seized whilst in the act of saying Mass in the house of Saint Swithun Wells at Gray’s Inn in London on 7 November 1591 and was hanged, drawn and quartered outside the same house on 10 December [1591]. His execution was particularly bloody, as his final speech angered Topcliffe.

Blessed Sidney Hodgson: Layman and convert. He was condemned for harboring priests and becoming a Catholic. He was offered his life if he would give some sort of a promise of occasional conformity to the Established Church, but as he preferred to die for his religion, he was condemned and executed at Tyburn, 10 December, 1591.

Blessed Brian Lacey: He was committed to Bridewell where he was cruelly tortured by Topcliffe. He was condemned to be hanged for aiding and abetting priests and executed on 10 December 1591.

Ven. John Mason (or, Masson): Condemned as an aider and abettor of priests and executed on 10 December 1591.

St. Polydore Plasden: Priest. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at Tyburn on 10 December 1591. At his execution he acknowledged Elizabeth as his lawful queen, whom he would defend to the best of his power against all her enemies, and he prayed for her and the whole realm, but said that he would rather forfeit a thousand lives than deny or fight against his religion.

St. Swithun (or, Swithin) Wells: Convert. For the crime of attending Mass, he was sentenced to die by hanging, and was executed outside his own house on 10 December 1591.

St. Eustace White: Priest. On 1 Sept., 1591, he was betrayed at Blandford, Dorset, by a lawyer with whom he had conversed upon religion. He was sent to London, and lodged in Bridwell, 18 September, where for forty-six days he was kept lying on straw with his hands closely manacled. On 25 October the Privy Council gave orders for his examination under torture, and on seven occasions he was kept hanging by his manacled hands for hours together; he also suffered deprivation of food and clothing. At his execution, after being cut down alive, he rose to his feet, but was tripped up and dragged to the fire where two men stood upon his arms while the executioner butchered him [10 December 1591].

Blessed William Pikes: Layman. Hanged, drawn and quartered on 22 December 1591.

Thomas Metham: Jesuit priest. Perished in prison in 1592.

Roger Martin: Priest. Executed in 1592.

Venerable Richard Williams: Welsh priest of Queen Mary’s reign. Executed in 1592.

Blessed William Patenson: Priest. Hanged, drawn, and quartered on 22 January 1592 at Tyburn.

Blessed Thomas Pormort: Priest. In August or September, 1591, he was committed to Bridewell, whence he was removed to Topcliffe’s house. He was repeatedly racked and sustained a rupture in consequence. On 8 February following he was convicted of high treason for being a seminary priest. Executed at St. Paul’s Churchyard, 20 February, 1592.

Venerable Roger Ashton: He was tried and sentenced at Canterbury, and hanged, drawn, and quartered at Tyburn, 23 June, 1592.

James Brushford: Priest. Died in a London prison in 1593.

Thomas Blenkinsop: Layman. Died in a York prison in 1593.

Blessed Edward Waterson: Priest. Executed at Newcastle on 7 January 1593.

Blessed James Bird: Layman and convert. He refused to take the Oath of Supremacy and was hanged, drawn, and quartered at Winchester in his native city, on 25 March 1593.

Blessed Anthony Page: Priest. Hanged, disemboweled, and quartered at York, 20 or 30 April, 1593.

Blessed Joseph Lampton: Executed on 27 July 1593, Newcastle-on-Tyne.

Blessed William Davies: Welsh priest. He was arrested in 1592 and it was decided that he must die as a traitor, though he was offered his life if he would go but once to church. He was hanged, drawn, and quartered at Beaumaris on 27 July 1593.

William Harrison: Priest. Died in a London prison in 1594.

Blessed John Speed (or, Spence): Layman. Executed at Durham, 4 February, 1594, for assisting the venerable martyr St. John Boste, whom he used to escort from one Catholic house to another.

Blessed William Harrington: Priest. Executed on 18 February, 1594, after nine months of imprisonment and proofs of unusual constancy and noble-mindedness in prison, at the bar, and on the scaffold.

Blessed Thomas Bosgrave: Layman. Condemned for assisting a priest. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at Dorchester, 4 July, 1594. A man of some education, he delivered a stirring address on the truth of his belief prior to his execution.

Blessed John Carey: Born in Dublin. Layman. Condemned for assisting a priest. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at Dorchester, 4 July, 1594.

Blessed John Cornelius (or, Mohun): Born in 1557 of Irish immigrant parents. Jesuit priest. He was sent to London and brought before the Lord Treasurer, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and others, who, by words and torture, tried in vain to obtain the names of such as had given him shelter or assistance. He was hanged and hacked to pieces on 4 July 1594 at Dorchester, after praying for his executioners and for the welfare of the queen.

Blessed Patrick Salmon: Native of Dublin. Layman. Condemned for assisting a priest. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at Dorchester, 4 July, 1594.

St. John Boste: Convert and priest. He was betrayed to the authorities near Durham in 1593. Following his arrest he was taken to the Tower of London for interrogation. Returned to Durham he was condemned by the Assizes and executed at nearby Dryburn on 24 July 1594. Boste denied that he was a traitor saying “My function is to invade souls, not to meddle with temporal invasions”.

Blessed John Ingram: Convert and priest. Captured on the Tyne, 25 November, 1593, he was imprisoned successively at Berwick, Durgam, York, and in the Tower of London, in which place he suffered the severest tortures (to induce him to name other Catholics) with great constancy, giving away nothing. Sent north again, he was imprisoned at York, Newcastle, and Durgam before being hanged, drawn, and quartered at Newcastle-on-Tyne, 25 July, 1594.

Blessed George Swallowell: convert. Executed at Darlington on 26 July, 1594.

Blessed Edward Osbaldeston: Priest. The day following his arrest he was taken to York where he was tried at the next assizes and attained of high treason. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at York, 16 November, 1594.

John Eldersha: Layman. Died in a York prison sometime between 1585-1595.

James Atkinson: Catholic confessor, tortured to death in Bridewell prison in 1595 by Topcliffe, the notorious priest-hunter, who was trying to wring evidence from him, by torture. Yielding to torment, Atkinson broke, but shortly after repented, and was lost in despair, knowing on the one hand that Topcliffe would torture him again, perhaps unto death, and on the other fearing that no priest could possibly come to confess and absolve him before his conflict. At length, fellow prisoner Fr. William Baldwin absolved him. He died shortly afterwards as a result of yet more torture.

St. Robert Southwell: Jesuit priest. After six years of successful labor, Southwell was arrested and imprisoned at first in Richard Topcliffe’s house, where he was repeatedly put to the torture in the vain hope of extracting evidence about other priests. His imprisonment lasted for three years, during which period he was tortured on ten occasions. On February 20, 1595, Southwell was sent to Tyburn. Some of the onlookers tugged at his legs to hasten his death, and his body was then bowelled and quartered.

Blessed Alexander Rawlins: Priest. Hanged, drawn and quartered at York on 7 April 1595.

St. Henry Walpole: Jesuit. In February 1591 he was sent to the Tower, where he was frequently and severely racked. He remained there until, in the spring of 1595, he was sent back to York for trial, where he was hanged, drawn and quartered on 7 April 1595.

Blessed William Freeman: Priest. Executed at Warwick, 13 August, 1595.

St. Philip Howard: English nobleman: the 20th Earl of Arundel, and second cousin of the Queen. He was committed to the Tower of London on 25 April 1585. While charges of high treason were never proved, he was to spend ten years in the Tower, until his death of dysentery [on 19 October 1595]. He had petitioned the Queen as he lay dying to allow him to see his beloved wife and his son, who had been born after his imprisonment. The Queen responded that if he would return to Protestantism his request would be granted. He refused and died alone in the Tower.

William Abbot: Hanged, drawn and quartered at York, on 29 November 1596.

Blessed George Errington: Hanged, drawn and quartered at York, on 29 November 1596.

Blessed William Gibson: Layman. Hanged, drawn and quartered at York, on 29 November 1596.

Blessed William Knight: Layman. He was sent in October, 1593, to York Castle, where William Gibson and George Errington were already confined. A certain Protestant clergyman chanced to be among their fellow prisoners. To gain his freedom he had recourse to an act of treachery: feigning a desire to become a Catholic, he won the confidence of Knight and his two companions, who explained the Faith to him. With the connivance of the authorities, he was directed to one Henry Abbot, then at liberty, who endeavoured to procure a priest to reconcile him to the Church. Thereupon Abbot was arrested and, together with Knight and his two comrades, accused of persuading the Protestant clergyman to embrace Catholicism — an act of treason under the penal laws. They were found guilty, and were hanged, drawn, and quartered at York, on 29 November 1596.

Blessed Henry Abbot: Layman. Executed at York on 4 July 1597.

Blessed William Andleby: Priest. Executed at York on 4 July 1597.

Blessed Edward Fulthrop: Layman. Executed at York on 4 July 1597.

Blessed Thomas Warcop: Layman. Hanged for sheltering priests at York on 4 July 1597.

Blessed John Britton: Layman. He was often separated from his wife and family, owing to constant persecution which he suffered for his faith. When advanced in years, he was maliciously and falsely accused of traitorous speeches against the queen and condemned to death. Refusing to renounce his faith he was executed at York, as in cases of high treason, 1 April, 1598.

Blessed Ralph Grimston (or, Gromston): Layman. Condemned for assisting priests and hanged at York on June 15, 1598.

Blessed Peter Snow: Priest. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at York on 15 June, 1598.

St. John Jones (or, John Buckley, or John Griffith): Priest. In 1596 the ‘priest catcher’ Topcliffe was informed by a spy. Father Jones was promptly arrested and severely tortured. He was also cruelly scourged. Then the sadistic Topcliffe took him to his house and personally tortured him. He was convicted of high treason and sentenced to be hanged, drawn, and quartered [carried out on 12 July 1598].

Blessed Christopher Robinson (or, Robertson): Priest. Executed at Carlisle, 19 August 1598.

Venerable Richard Horner: Priest. Executed on 4 September 1598 in York.

Mathias Harrison: Layman. Died in 1599 in prison.

Venerable John Lion: Layman. Executed on 16 July 1599.

Venerable James Dowdall: Layman. Dowdall publicly avowed that he rejected the queen’s supremacy, and only recognized that of the Roman pontiff and thus was committed to Exeter jail. Whilst in prison he was tortured and put to the rack, but continued unchanged in his fidelity to the ancient faith. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at Exeter on 20 September, 1599.

Eleanor Hunt: Gentlewoman. Perished in prison in 1600.

Blessed Christopher Wharton: Priest. Executed at York, 28 March, 1600. He suffered with great constancy.

St. John Rigby: Twice he was given the chance to repent [of being a Catholic]; twice he refused. He was executed by hanging at St. Thomas Waterings on June 21, 1600. Cut down too soon, he landed on his feet, but was thrown down and held while he was disemboweled.

Blessed Thomas Hunt: Priest. Hanged, drawn, and quartered on 11 July 1600 at Lincoln.

Blessed Thomas Sprott: Priest. Executed at Lincoln on 11 July 1600.

Blessed Robert Nutter: Dominican priest. Spent some months in prison, subjected to torture and irons. Hanged at Lancaster, 26 July 1600.

Blessed Edward Thwing: Priest. On July 26, 1600, Father Thwing was executed at Lancaster by hanging, drawing, and quartering.

Venerable John Norton: Layman. Executed on 9 August 1600 at the gallows site in Durham.

Blessed Thomas Palasor: Priest. Executed at Durham on 9 August, 1600.

Blessed John Talbot: Layman. Executed on 9 August 1600 at the gallows site in Durham, on the crest of the hill at the north side of Durham City.

Blessed John Pibush: Priest. He was sentenced in July 1595 to suffer the penalties of high treason at St. Thomas’s Waterings, and in the meantime was to be returned to the Marshalsea. However, by the end of the year he was in the Queen’s Bench prison, where he remained for more than five years. Executed at St Thomas’s Waterings, Camberwell, 18 February, 1601.

Blessed Mark Barkworth: Convert and Benedictine priest. After having escaped from the hands of the Huguenots of La Rochelle, he was arrested on reaching England and thrown into Newgate, where he was imprisoned for six months, and was then transferred to Bridewell. At his examinations he was reported to behave with fearlessness and frank gaiety. Having been condemned with a formal jury verdict, he was thrown into “Limbo”, the horrible underground dungeon at Newgate, where he is said to have remained “very cheerful” till his death. Barkworth was executed at Tyburn on February 27, 1601.

Blessed Roger Filcock: Born 1553. Priest by 1597. Executed at Tyburn on 27 February 1601.

St. Anne Line (or, Linne): Around 1594, Fr. John Gerard opened a house of refuge for hiding priests, and put the newly-widowed Anne Line in charge of it, despite her ill health and frequent headaches. By 1597, this house had become insecure, so another was opened, and Anne Line was, again, placed in charge. On 2 February 1601, Fr. Francis Page was saying Mass in the house managed by Anne Line, when men arrived to arrest him. The priest managed to slip into a special hiding place, prepared by Anne, and afterwards to escape, but she was arrested, along with two other laypeople. Anne Line was hanged at Tyburn on 27 February 1601.

Blessed Thurston Hunt: Priest. Hunt was captured and treated with great inhumanity, heavily ironed night and day until, by the order of the Privy Council, with his feet tied beneath his horse’s belly, he was carried in public disgrace up to London and back again to Lancaster, where he was condemned and executed for being a priest. He reconciled to the Church the felons condemned to die with him. Executed at Lancaster on 31 March 1601.

Venerable Thomas Hackshot: Layman. Condemned for helping the priest, Ven. Thomas Tichborne, to escape from prison. Executed at Tyburn, London, 24 August, 1601.

Venerable Nicholas Tichborne: Layman. Condemned for helping his brother, the priest Ven. Thomas Tichborne, to escape from prison. During his long imprisonment in the Gatehouse he was “afflicted with divers torments, which he endured with great courage and fortitude.” Executed at Tyburn, London, 24 August, 1601.

Blessed Robert Middleton: Jesuit priest. Hanged and beheaded in October 1601.

Mrs. Wells: Gentlewoman. Perished in prison in 1602.

Anthony Battie (or, Bates): Layman. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at York on 22 March, 1602.

Venerable James Harrison: Priest. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at York on 22 March, 1602.

Blessed James Duckett: Layman and convert. Out of his twelve years of married life, no less than nine were spent in prison for his new faith. He was very active in propagating Catholic literature and was betrayed by Peter Bullock, a bookbinder, who acted in order to obtain his own release from prison. Duckett’s house was searched and Catholic books found. For this he was at once thrown into Newgate. Despite the betrayal of Duckett, Bullock was taken to his death at Tyburn in the same cart as Duckett on April 19, 1602.

Blessed Francis Page: Convert and Jesuit. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at Tyburn on April 20, 1602.

Venerable Thomas Tichborne: Priest. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at Tyburn on April 20, 1602. He was in the last stages of consumption when he was martyred.

Blessed Robert Watkinson: Ordained in 1602. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at Tyburn on April 20, 1602.

Blessed William Richardson (or, Anderson): Priest. He was betrayed by one of his trusted friends to the Lord Chief Justice, who expedited his trial and execution with unseemly haste, and seems to have acted more as a public prosecutor than as a judge. At his execution he showed great courage and constancy, dying most cheerfully. One of his last utterances was a prayer for the queen. Executed at Tyburn, 17 February, 1603.

***

See also 210 more Irish Catholic martyrs (up through 1603) in my article, 444 Irish Catholic Martyrs and Heroic Confessors: 1565-1713 [2-27-08].

***

Photo credit: The “Darnley Portrait” of Queen Elizabeth I of England (1575). It was named after a previous owner. Probably painted from life. [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: I copiously document (with links) 512 Catholic martyrs who met their ends due to the murderous reign of Bloody Queen Bess (Queen Elizabeth I) of merrie olde England.

20 Biblical Proofs for the Papacy, Pt. II (vs. Lucas Banzoli)

Last updated on: February 21, 2023 at 4:47 pm By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

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 27 self-published books, as well as blogmaster (active on and off) for six blogs. He has many videos on YouTube.

This is my 61st refutation of Banzoli’s writings. For almost half a year (5-25-22 to 11-12-22) he wrote not one single word in reply, because my articles were deemed to be “without exception poor, superficial and weak” and he believes that “only a severely cognitively impaired person would be inclined to take” them “seriously.” Despite this childish rationalizing, he found my refutations so “entertaining” that he bravely decided to “make a point of rebutting” them “one by one”; this effort being his “new favorite sport.”

He has now replied to me 15 times (the last one dated 2-9-23). I disposed of the main themes of his slanderous insults in several Facebook posts under his name on my Anti-Catholicism page (where all my replies to him are listed). I shall try, by God’s grace, to ignore his innumerable insults henceforth, and heartily thank him for all these blessings and extra rewards in heaven (Matthew 5:11-12).

Google Translate is utilized to render Lucas’ Portugese into English. Occasionally I slightly modify clearly inadequate translations, so that his words will read more smoothly and meaningfully in English. His words will be in blue. Words from past replies of mine to him will be in green.

*****

See Part I: Defending 20 Biblical Proofs for the Papacy (vs. Lucas Banzoli) (2-13-23)

***

This is my reply to Lucas Banzoli’s article, “Refutando as “20 maiores provas bíblicas” que Dave encontrou do papado de Pedro (Parte 2)” [Refuting the “20 Greatest Biblical Proofs” Dave Found for the Papacy of Peter (Part 2)] (2-9-23). Despite his heroic resolve to refute any and all of my [now 61] critiques of his arguments “one by one,” for some odd reason he chose to pass over my massive four-part counter-reply, “Reply to Lucas Banzoli’s 205 Potshots at St. Peter” (5-26-22) and to concentrate on my older article (not directed towards him): “Top Twenty Biblical Proofs for the Office of the Papacy” (12-12-15). Obviously, twenty arguments are easier to address than 205, but one hopes to see him defend his larger effort, which I disposed of over eight months ago now.

Here we will look at the other ten, more for entertainment than anything else, as the arguments that were already laughable in Part 1 become even more catastrophic in Part 2 (which is the “leftover” of the previous arguments).

I’m sure, then, since my arguments are so “laughable” and “catastrophic” according to Banzoli, that his takedown of my 205 refutations of his anti-Petrine / anti-papacy arguments will be appearing soon.

11. Peter alone among the apostles is exhorted by Jesus to “strengthen” the Christian “brethren” (Lk 22:32).

This in no way implies rule over the Church, because Jesus did not use a word to designate authority or leadership. The word Luke uses here is sterizo, which means “to strengthen, to make firm” (Strong’s #4741), and throughout the Bible we are taught that it is the duty of all of us to strengthen one another.

Of course we are to do so, but this misses the point (yet another non sequitur: Banzoli’s stock-in-trade). The actual point is that only Peter “among the apostles” (technically meaning here the twelve disciples) is told to do this. It is this constant singling out of Peter that indicates his primacy among the disciples, and by analogy and the historical working-out of Petrine primacy, the pope’s primacy among the bishops.

There is a reason why Peter is portrayed as the leader of the disciples and the early Church in the NT (just as there is a reason for absolutely everything in the inspired, infallible revelation of the Bible), and that reason is his role as the prototype of the pope and his being the first pope.

The author of Hebrews says that it is the overall mission of Christians (not just Peter) to “strengthen the feeble hands and the feeble knees” (Heb. 12:12); James asks to “strengthen your hearts” (James 5:8); Paul says to “be strong in the Lord and in the power of his might” (Eph 6:10), to “comfort one another” (1 Thess 4:18) and to “Exhort one another and build one another up” (1 Thess 5:11).

Yep. This has nothing to do with my point, as explained. It would be nice if just one time, Banzoli actually comprehended, grasped, understood the nature of an argument that I made. That would be such a refreshing change. I think I’d go out and celebrate of that ever happened: take my wife to a play or something; even take my whole family (my treat!). A real cause for celebration . . .

Banzoli then uses an argument that he has brought up several times now: trying to explain away or rationalize all of these evidences of Petrine primacy:

Christ had predicted in the previous verse that Satan would tempt Peter (v. 31), as indeed he did, causing him to deny the Lord three times, as he says would shortly thereafter (v. 34). So, within this context, he says that, when all this was over, Peter would be used by God to strengthen his brothers . . .

This “singular weakness of Peter” canard can’t be used for every single one of my fifty Petrine proofs (from which these twenty are drawn). Even if it is a factor at all (and it may have been, to a minor degree), it simply can’t explain away everything I have made note of. When Jesus called Peter the Rock and said He would build His Church upon Him, it wasn’t (by all indications in the immediate context) because Peter was weak and had to be given a “vote of confidence” from the Lord.

It was because Peter proclaimed that He was “the Christ [Messiah], the Son of the living God” (Mt 16:16), to which Jesus replied: “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven” (Mt 16:17). And then He made him the Rock in the next verse.

Now, what does any of this have to do with Peter being weak or the one who temporarily lost his resolve (under the threat of possible death) to follow Jesus, denying Him? Absolutely nothing! Even those who don’t like Petrine primacy and despise the very notion of a papacy freely admit that it was Peter’s faith (before the Day of Pentecost, when all Christians were indwelt with the Holy Spirit) that led Jesus to change his name to Rock.

And true faith has nothing to do with the weaknesses that we also all have. Critics of Peter (who in effect represents the dreaded, detested Catholicism) and those who run down things like my 50 Proofs, love to bring up the fact of Peter’s three denials.

As I pointed out elsewhere, that was a matter of a strictly temporary weakness or cowardice, under the threat of possible death, as one of Jesus’ followers. He made the denials, heard the cock crow, and then immediately “went out and wept bitterly” (Mt 26:75; Lk 22:62); “broke down and wept” (Mk 14:72); that is, he repented. The entire incident may have lasted no more than five or ten minutes.

Contrast that with Paul, who persecuted and actually killed who knows how many Christians, for who knows how long of a time (“ravaging the church”: Acts 8:3); who stood by “consenting” (Acts 8:1) when St. Stephen was stoned to death. It took God virtually forcing him to convert, with a dramatic vision, to stop the killing. This is why Paul described himself as “the foremost of sinners” (1 Tim 1:15), noting how he had “formerly blasphemed and persecuted and insulted” Jesus (1 Tim 1:13).

Which sin was worse, between those two? But both repented, and both were mightily used by God. Both were martyred (Paul by beheading, which takes half a second; Peter by being crucified — by his request — upside down: many hours of the most agonizing torture). Yet I never see Protestants like Banzoli arguing that God used Paul as he did only because Paul was such a notorious, murdering sinner before he became a Christian; therefore God told him (through Ananias) the great things he would do for the kingdom (“you will be a witness for him to all men”: Acts 22:15), to restore his confidence in himself.

That’s never heard; it’s only applied to Peter, and only — I submit — because we say he was the first pope. Thus, there exists an irrational bigotry towards Peter from anti-Catholics like Banzoli, or Jason Engwer: with whom I’ve gone through these discussions several times, too, whereas there is no similar animus towards Paul, even though (if we are to compare) he was a far greater sinner before his conversion to Christ.

12. St. Peter is the first to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, so he was the first Christian to “preach the gospel” in the Church era (Acts 2:14-36).

That’s right, the logic is “Peter was the first to speak; therefore he was pope.” Believe me, this is literally how Dave tries to “prove” the papacy! . . . in Dave’s tiny mind, the fact that Peter was the first to speak at Pentecost makes him a pope, . . . [this] would automatically make any talkative person a leader – which is just plain stupid. . . . If being the first to speak were a criterion that necessarily identified a supreme leader, Moses would have taken the lead and spoken directly to the people and Pharaoh, instead of urging God that Aaron do it for him. . . . But Dave can’t understand something so simple, either because of obvious cognitive limitations or because of his traditional intellectual dishonesty. He really thinks that Peter being the first to speak on one occasion can only be explained by the fact that he is “pope”, which shows the extent to which he is committed to duping his readers and how he sees them only as putty; an amorphous, mindless mass that will trust any dumb argument without question. . . . it’s really hard to imagine how anyone would follow such a guy for any reason other than to laugh.

Of course (“cognitive limitations” or “intellectual dishonesty” or not), this is not my argument because (as seemingly always!) Banzoli has not comprehended what it is in the first place. So he caricatures and ridicules it. His goal is not to understand my arguments and provide rebuttals to them. Rather, he is always trying to “prove” that I am the dumbest person and apologist to ever walk the face of the earth (as we can readily observe above in his supercharged polemic). This is why he loses — and will continue to lose — every debate with me (by virtue of his vastly underestimating the ability of his opponent).

This particular argument is part of an overall cumulative argument (fifty such observations), that, taken together, lead one to believe that Peter was being portrayed as the leader of the disciples and the Church; that is, the first pope. No single argument is sufficient to do this by itself. Ron J. Bigalke (BS; MApol; MTS; MDiv; PhD), [Protestant] professor in apologetics and theology, explains the nature of cumulative apologetics arguments:

Cumulative case apologetics is a method that argues for the existence of God (or another complex truth claim) by demonstrating that it is the more reasonable view in correspondence with all obtainable evidence than some alternate hypothesis. As an argumentative methodology, the cumulative case would employ various arguments but none would be regarded resolutely. Each argument, however, results in clear and definite conclusions evidentially, which assert the probability of the existence of God. Various theistic arguments are intended as proofs that assert the probability of belief in the existence of God. For instance, arguments for the existence of God are not entirely formulated definitively; rather the argumentation is developed progressively, according to conditions of probability, until theism explains natural theology better than any alternative hypothesis and becomes more probable as truth than it not being true. (“Apologetics, Cumulative Case”, 25 November 2011)

I explained this in my 50 New Testament Proofs for Petrine Primacy & the Papacy. And Banzoli read my explanation then, since he responded to this article of mine before I ever started refuting his materials (which was in May 2022):

The biblical Petrine data is quite strong and convincing, by virtue of its cumulative weight, especially for those who are not hostile to the notion of the papacy from the outset. (my bolding and italics now)

In March 2002, I elaborated upon this in reply to Protestant apologist Jason Engwer, who had critiqued my 50 Proofs:

[T]hey are part of a long list of indications of the primacy of Peter. As I said, it is a “cumulative” argument. One doesn’t expect that all individual pieces of such an argument are “airtight” or conclusive in and of themselves, in isolation, by the nature of the case. I certainly don’t do so. I was probably assuming at the time that the sort of thing that Jason brings up was self-evident, because that was my own opinion (therefore, I thought it quite unnecessary to state it). Obviously, passages like the two above wouldn’t “logically lead to a papacy.” But they can quite plausibly be regarded as consistent with such a notion, as part of a demonstrable larger pattern, within which they do carry some force. It’s true that I should have made my logical and epistemological viewpoint on this more clear in the original paper, but I am happy to have the opportunity to do so now.

I made an analogy to biblical evidences for the Holy Trinity, which I had compiled two long lists of proofs for (one / two), twenty years earlier, in 1982:

Obviously, the Jews are quite familiar with Isaiah 9:6 and Zechariah 12:10, but they don’t see any indication of trinitarianism at all in them, nor do the three passages above “logically lead” to trinitarianism, if they are not interconnected with many, many other biblical evidences. Yet they are used as proof texts by Christians. No one claims that they are compelling by themselves; these sorts of “proofs” are used in the same way that my lesser Petrine evidences are used, as consistent with lots of other biblical data suggesting that conclusion. And Jews who reject trinitarianism beforehand as a form of blasphemy, will not see the relevance, let alone compulsion, of any of these indications, as their presuppositions do not allow them to interpret within that framework. Likewise, with many Protestants and the papacy and its biblical evidences.

I further explained my methodology:

I approached the Petrine list with the thought in mind: “Paul is obviously an important figure, but how much biblical material can one find with regard to Peter, which would be consistent with (not absolute proof of) a view that he was the head of the Church and the first pope?” Or, to put it another way (from the perspective of preexisting Catholic belief): “if Peter were indeed the leader of the Church, we would expect to find much material about his leadership role in the New Testament, at least in kernel form, if not explicitly.” . . .

As for the nature of a “cumulative argument,” what Jason doesn’t seem to understand is that all the various evidences become strong only as they are considered together (like many weak strands of twine which become a strong rope when they are woven together). . . . Apart from the first three evidences of the 50 being far more important (as indicated by the space given to them), many of the others are not particularly strong by themselves, but they demonstrate, I think, that there is much in the New Testament which is consistent with Petrine primacy, which is the developmental kernel of papal primacy.

The reader ought to note, also, that in the original paper I wasn’t claiming that these biblical indications proved “papal supremacy” or “papal infallibility” (i.e., the fully-developed papacy of recent times). . . .

I did not assert — didn’t get anywhere near claiming — that the papacy as understood after 1870 was present in full bloom in the pages of the New Testament. Quite the contrary; I stated that the doctrine was “derived from” Petrine primacy — as opposed to “proven in all its fully-developed aspects by the biblical presentation of Peter,” or some such thing –, and that it developed from the essential elements shown with regard to St. Peter in Scripture (just as, e.g., Chalcedonian trinitarianism developed from far simpler biblical and early patristic teachings on the Trinity).

I repeated much of this when I started refuting Banzoli’s 205 anti-Petrine arguments, so (barring a nonexistent memory) he is fully aware of it. Yet he continues to mock and ridicule various evidences, as if he has no inkling of how relatively little I claim for most of them. This is either outright dishonest or extremely shoddy scholarship on his part.

My overall argument in my 50 Proofs is far more subtle and sophisticated than Banzoli seems to understand. Or he does understand its nature and has simply chosen to misrepresent and caricature it in order to make me look like a simpleton and an idiot for his already anti-Catholic and “willing to believe anything and everything about Catholicism and its defenders, no matter how ridiculous” reading audience.

Banzoli even distorts and twists the specific point I made here, mocking the notion of Peter speaking first, even though he didn’t at the Jerusalem Council. It’s not the fact that he happened to be the first speaker on this occasion (as if that would prove anything); it’s the fact that he was the only one recorded to have spoken on the Day of Pentecost, which makes him “the first Christian to ‘preach the gospel’ in the Church era.” Certainly this has significance, and there is a reason that it happened and is recorded in the Bible. It’s the beginning of the Church, and at that time, Peter was clearly its leader.

So this is not a failed evidence. It works perfectly well, as long as one properly understands how much I would claim for it, in the context of the other 49 proofs. But if they make no attempt to comprehend and grasp that which they are critiquing, then we will get the asinine, vapid, fatuous analysis that he provided above, only making a fool of himself.

13. Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12).

Wow! Peter performed a miracle; therefore, Peter was pope! It is increasingly difficult to think that anyone reads this citizen’s articles without being for comic reasons… Again, if you have an evangelism group, be very careful about performing a miracle – you don’t want someone to identify you as the pope.

He repeats the same basic, elementary noncomprehension of the nature of each individual argument, per my explanation immediately above. He notes that Paul performed seven miracles in the book of Acts, to Peter’s four. But this is perfectly irrelevant; my point being that Peter being the first has a symbolic meaning, according to the nature of biblical portrayals.

As a matter of fact, we have no way of knowing whether the first miracle was really the one performed by Peter in Acts 3; all we know is that it was the first recorded miracle.

That’s right, and this is a valid point. But this is part of my argument, too: there is a reason why Peter either performed the first or is the first person recorded as having done so.

Or maybe Dave thinks that only doing the “first” miracle is important,

Yes it is, insofar as it is viewed in conjunction with 49 other proofs: all leading to the same conclusion: Petrine primacy.

In summary, from the moment that Paul is converted, Luke focuses almost entirely on him, and Peter is practically forgotten.

Since Peter and Paul were the most important figures in first century Christianity, Luke devotes the first half of his book to Peter and the second to Paul: exactly as we would expect. Once need not pit them against each other. There is no warrant to use the polemical language of Peter being “forgotten.” His deeds and words were simply recorded first in the book and then Paul’s.

14. Peter is regarded by the common people as the leader of Christianity (Acts 5:15: “as Peter came by at least his shadow might fall on some of them.”).

It’s hard to know for sure whether it’s dishonesty or backwardness (probably a combination of the two, from what we know of him). Dave picks up a text that says Peter’s shadow healed, and says that makes him the “leader of Christianity.” If he weren’t so dishonest, I’d say it’s a serious case of psychiatric impairment. . . . it’s hard to know the line between stupidity and dishonesty.

See my explanations above, under #12. Apparently, it’s impossible to have any honest differences with anti-Catholics, without being accused of being nuts (James White, James Swan, Steve Hays all having made this charge), as well as good ol’ dishonesty.

We see Banzoli (in his reply here and often elsewhere) constantly pitting Paul against Peter, in the same manner that Jason Engwer tried to do. I answered all of that years ago:

Reply to Critique of “50 NT Proofs for the Papacy” (vs. Jason Engwer) [3-14-02]

Refutation of a Satirical “Pauline Papacy” Argument (vs. Jason Engwer) [9-30-03]

Pitting Paul Against Peter (Pathetic, Pitiful Pedantry): Reply to Failed Anti-Catholic Protestant Attempts to Tear Down St. Peter and His Papal Authority [8-10-12]

15. Peter was the first traveling missionary, and first to exercise the “visitation of the churches” (Acts 9:32-38, 43). Paul’s missionary journeys begin in Acts 13:2.

Dave’s ability to expose himself to ridicule is impressive. It even looks like he took a course on how to embarrass himself for free on the internet. I confess I have never seen anything like it before. . . . It really does sound like a five-year-old arguing . . . It is only in Dave Armstrong’s bewildered mind that whatever Peter does first is used as “proof” that he did it first because he was pope . . . In the end, anyone with a minimum of mental capacity is capable of realizing that these “arguments” are nothing more than crude, barbaric and senseless tricks to make Peter a pope at any cost – even if all logic and common sense have to be sacrificed in the process. Anything Peter does is used as “proof” of his primacy . . . and what others do is largely ignored, like the good con man that Dave is. If there are those who fall for this ruse, it’s only because his readers tend to be as ignorant as he is.

We often note and honor people who were the first to do something: the first to sail around the world, or to fly in an airplane, or the first to reach the North and South Poles, or to discover radioactivity, or to climb the highest mountain in the world (Mt. Everest) or walk on the moon. It would be reasonable to note that all these people were the “leaders” in their fields when they accomplished these things.

Likewise, there is nothing unreasonable in the slightest in making a cumulative argument about Petrine primacy which includes many items where Peter was the first, or first recorded to have done something important related to Christianity. This is a relevant factor, regardless of how much Banzoli wants to mock and ridicule, having not grasped the very nature of my overall argument in the first place. Solomon predicted such things in the tenth century BC:

Proverbs 29:9 (RSV) If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet.

16. Cornelius is told by an angel to seek out St. Peter for instruction in Christianity:

Acts 10:21-22 And Peter went down to the men and said, “I am the one you are looking for; what is the reason for your coming?” [22] And they said, “Cornelius, a centurion, an upright and God-fearing man, who is well spoken of by the whole Jewish nation, was directed by a holy angel to send for you to come to his house, and to hear what you have to say.”

That is, Peter is pope because an angel sent Cornelius to look for Peter.

Nope. That isn’t my argument, which would accurately be described as: “Peter is so important in early Christianity that an angel sends an open-minded inquirer to him. This clearly suggests that (or is at the very least consistent with the notion that) Peter was the leader, which in turn suggests (or is at the very least consistent with the notion that) he was the first pope (as the first leader of the Church), when understood in conjunction with 49 other indications of his primacy, forming together a cumulative argument.”

17. Peter is the first to receive the Gentiles into the fellowship of the Christian Catholic Church, after a revelation from God (Acts 10:9-48).

It is also based on the same logic already refuted in the penultimate argument, which is that if someone did something first, this someone must be superior to the others . . .

See my answer under #15 above.

18. Peter presides over and is preeminent in the first Church-wide council of Christianity (Acts 15:7-11).

If the other arguments were simply silly, this one is an outright lie. It’s surreal that someone reads Acts 15 and still thinks that Peter led the council. Although Peter was present at the council, he neither opens nor closes it; he only speaks “after much discussion” (Acts 15:7), and after him the debate continues, with the speeches of Paul and Barnabas (v. 12). Who gives the final word (a typical attitude of those who preside over an assembly) is James, the brother of Jesus (vs. 13-20). His speech extends over 9 verses (vs. 13-21), four more than Peter’s (vs. 7-11). More importantly, the letter sent to the churches with the council’s decisions is based entirely on his words, not Peter’s: . . .

James does most of the talking, James has the final word, James’ words are literally the council’s decisions (copied almost directly from what he said ) , but even so, in this troubled mind, it is Peter who “presides and is pre-eminent” in the council. It just reinforces the fact that his mind is so conditioned to deception and used to lying that it does it out of habit, even when all the evidence weighs to the contrary.

Apologists like Dave aren’t the least bit concerned about what the text says; they are only concerned with how to distort it to use it in favor of their previous views, to which they are psychologically conditioned. So, instead of doing exegesis, which is extracting from the text what it actually says, all they know is doing eisegesis – when someone tries to graft their own ideas into the text, even if the text doesn’t say any of that. So if a verse doesn’t say what Dave would like it to say, he tortures him until he says what he wants to hear. This is how Catholic apologetics works as a whole, which Dave exemplifies so well.

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. He was the first to speak definitively, and with authority. Peter claimed authority in a special way: “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the Gospel and believe” (15:7). Peter sternly rebuked the opposing view of strict observance of ceremonial law: “Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?” (15:10).

After Peter spoke, the debate was essentially over, and it’s reported 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). James did not hand down the main decree or add anything new to what Peter had already proclaimed. 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.” Those who talked after Peter did not disagree with his decision, and merely confirmed it (15:12-21).

James states, “Therefore my judgment …” but this does not prove that he presided, as anyone could say that (similar to saying, “my opinion is …”). The judgment was reached by consensus (“it seemed good to the apostles and elders, with the whole Church” in 15:22; “it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord” in 15:25; “it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” in 15:28; cf. 16:4). This, too, is exactly like Catholic councils throughout history: they decide matters as a group, yet popes preside. Nothing in this text suggests anything other than St. Peter being the leader.

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). 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 second major 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).

Paul is not shown as having any special authority in the council. (Many think he had more authority in the early Church than Peter). Instead, we learn that he and Barnabas “were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders about this question” (15:2). Paul and Barnabas merely give report of their experiences (15:12) and then they are sent by the council to report what had been decided (15:25, 30; 16:4).

This raises several questions for Protestants. When was the last council held a particular location, with the elders of the entire Church — at that time, Paul and Peter and others — binding for Protestant Christians at large in other locations, far away? Don’t Protestants always have the right to say that it was in error, since Scripture alone is their rule of faith? After all, that’s precisely what Luther said (councils can err, so he went by Scripture and plain reason), so why couldn’t Christians reject the decisions of Acts 15 and defy Paul’s injunction, described in Acts 16:4? Could or should a Protestant dissent from the decisions of the Jerusalem council (i.e., before portions of it became part of the New Testament? Martin Luther’s “councils err” notion doesn’t apply to it?

Instead, Paul and Timothy traveled “through the cities” (in Turkey; then called Asia Minor) and “delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem.” Thus Paul proclaimed teaching that was binding, that was formulated by Peter as the leader of the first Christian council in history.

So there we have two competing interpretations of this council. Let the reader decide which is more plausible and accurate and true to the biblical account.

Banzoli shows himself utterly incapable of s=understanding the nature and subtlety of #19, so I won’t even bother repeating his inane “replies”; my patience hanging by the thinnest of threads by now, and utterly sustained only by God’s merciful grace.

20. St. Peter’s name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together: 191 times (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon, and 6 as Cephas). John is next in frequency with only 48 appearances.

What Dave forgot to inform his readers (he forgot nothing, he left it out of purpose to bait them) is that Paul (and “Saul”, his other name) is mentioned by name no less than 240 times (not counting all the times appearing by the pronoun “he” and the like). . . . This is the typical dishonesty of Catholic apologetics and even more typical of Dave Armstrong, . . . he leaves not the slightest margin of doubt that he is dishonest.

What Banzoli forgot to inform his readers is that his argument is not a response to mine. I was comparing the mention of Peter’s name compared to the other disciples, meaning the original twelve disciples. Paul was not one of these, so his example is utterly irrelevant to my point, which is (as throughout my 50 Proofs) that Peter is presented as a leader of the disciples, therefore, by logical extension and analogy and the usual typological and prototypical understanding of Holy Scripture, he is to be regarded as the leader of the Church: particularly since Jesus said He would build His Church upon the Rock of Peter.

As we read the NT, it seems clear that Peter was more prominent than the other eleven disciples,

Exactly! At last Banzoli actually makes some sense, and this is precisely what I was trying to establish with my 50 Proofs, so he winds up conceding the argument I made there. I wrote, “The Catholic doctrine of the papacy is biblically based, and is derived from the evident primacy of St. Peter among the apostles.” What I stated was “evident” Banzoli agrees is “clear.” He obviously then denies that this primacy suggests the papacy, but that becomes a separate argument of a different epistemological nature and with different parameters and specifics.

He would have to understand my initial argument before we went on to that stage, but he shows no signs of doing so. He’s not even aware that he just conceded, above, the central point of my 50 Proofs. Peter, in his own words, “was more prominent than the other eleven disciples”. Thus far, we agree. I go on to say that this means something, that it has further implications, according to biblical prototypical and typological thinking, and that what we Catholics conclude from it is that Peter is being presented as the first leader of the Church: the first pope.

Of course that can be discussed and disagreed about, like any other topic (and has been these past 500 years), but in order to sensibly, rationally do so, those who disagree with my overall argument and its particulars, construed within the larger framework, must first understand both. Banzoli does not. Therefore, mostly what he does is mock and reiterate how supposedly stupid and/or dishonest I am, whereas I simply make my argument, presented so that anyone can make up their own mind as to whether I am onto something in this line of thinking or not.

Armstrong . . . exposes like no one else the notorious weakness of Catholic apologetics, with its famous poverty of arguments that leads it to manipulate the simplest texts in the most bizarre way possible. Although it serves as a source of entertainment, it is at the same time a sad and shocking portrait, which makes us reflect a lot on the extent to which a human being is capable of going to support his ideological fanaticism. Dave’s articles are all of these things at once, blending the comic with the surreal, and bringing out the worst in apologetics.

May God bless Lucas Banzoli with all good things, and bring him into the knowledge that Jesus is God, so that he can come back to Christianity again. He’s got the zeal in spades; he just needs God’s saving grace and the knowledge of what is true. If Paul could come to the true Jesus and become one of the greatest Christians ever, Banzoli can be made to see that Jesus is God, and to give up his unbiblical view of the soul, that caused him to reject the divinity of Jesus. Please pray for him and for God to fill him with His Spirit and educate and correct him where he is wrong.

He thinks I am his enemy and that I hate him. I’m not and I don’t. I want the best for him. I want him to be saved. This is what all Christians are commanded to do with regard to all people and I try my best, with God’s help and by His grace, to maintain this outlook. If he has made himself my enemy, then I love him all the more, according to Jesus’ command. One way to love is to correct someone when they are in theological error. That’s what I am educated to do as an apologist.

It does no one any good at all to believe in falsehood, and writers like Banzoli will be responsible for those whom they lead astray: “Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, for you know that we who teach shall be judged with greater strictness” (James 3:1). I tremble over that verse every time my fingers touch my keyboard, in order to teach.

***

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

***

Photo credit: Detail of Christ Handing the Keys to St. Peter (1481-82) by Pietro Perugino (1448-1523) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: Brazilian anti-Catholic apologist and polemicist Lucas Banzoli responded to my “20 Biblical Proofs for the Papacy”. This is Part II of my systematic counter-reply.

***

Defense of Immortal, Conscious Souls (vs. Lucas Banzoli): #13

Last updated on: February 21, 2023 at 4:25 pm By Dave Armstrong

13. Dead Biblical Heroes Return to Earth!: Samuel & Saul / Moses & Elijah at Jesus’ Transfiguration

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

This is my 49th refutation of Banzoli’s writings. From 5-25-22 until 11-12-22 (almost half a year) he didn’t write even one single word in reply. Since then he has counter-responded three times. Why so few and so late? Well, he says it’s because my articles are “without exception poor, superficial and weak . . . only a severely cognitively impaired person would be inclined to take” them “seriously.” He didn’t “waste time reading” 37 of my first 40 replies (three articles being his proof of the worthlessness of all of my 4,000+ articles and 51 books). He also denied that I had a “job” and claimed that I didn’t “work.” But he concluded that replying to me is so “entertaining” that he resolved to “make a point of rebutting” my articles “one by one.” I disposed of his relentlessly false personal insults in Facebook posts dated 11-13-22 and 11-15-22 and 11-23-22.

My current effort is a major multi-part response to Banzoli’s 1900-page self-published book, The Legend of the Immortality of the Soul [A Lenda da Imortalidade da Alma], published on 1 August 2022. He claims to have “cover[ed] in depth all the immortalist arguments” and to have “present[ed] all the biblical proofs of the death of the soul . . .” and he confidently asserted: “the immortality of the soul is at the root of almost all destructive deception and false religion.” He himself admits on page 18 of his Introduction that what he is opposing is held by “nearly all the Christians in the world.” A sincere unbiblical error (and I assume his sincerity) is no less dangerous than a deliberate lie, and we apologists will be “judged with greater strictness” for any false teachings that we spread (Jas 3:1).

I use RSV for the Bible passages (including ones that Banzoli cites) unless otherwise indicated. Google Translate is utilized to render Lucas’ Portugese into English. Occasionally I slightly modify clearly inadequate translations, so that his words will read more smoothly and meaningfully in English. His words will be in blue.

*****

See the other installments:

#1 Preliminaries [11-1-22]

#2 Genesis 2:7 and the Hebrew / Biblical Idiom of Synecdoche [11-4-22]

#3 Hebrew, Nephesh [So ul]: Massive Figurative Biblical Use [11-7-22]

#4 Revelation 6:9: “Souls” in Heaven / 16 Biblical Proofs for Conscious Souls After Death [11-9-22]

#5 Revelation 6:9: “Souls” in Heaven Redux [11-11-22]

#6 Conspiracy Theories About Bibles and the Many Meanings of “Soul” in Holy Scripture [11-12-22]

#7 Banzoli Decides — At Last! — to Reply to My Second Post [#5] About Souls Under the Altar in Heaven [11-14-22]

#8 Banzoli’s Soul Sleep Leads Him to Believe That the Soul of Jesus Christ “Died” — Didn’t Exist — Between His Death and Resurrection, and That He was Unconscious in His Human Nature During That Time [11-14-22]

#9 Matthew 10:28: Did Jesus Teach That a Soul Could be Annihilated? [11-18-22]

#10 The Story of Lazarus and the Rich Man (Lk 16:19-31) in Relation to the Doctrine of Immortal Souls [11-22-22]

#11 “Second Death” = “Lake of Fire” = Eternal Torment in Hell. Jesus & Luke Believed in Both Hades and Hell [11-25-22]

#12 Paul Affirms Three Times That Souls Continue Outside of the Body / Banzoli Claims That Angels Are Material Beings [11-29-22]

#13 Dead Biblical Heroes Return to Earth!: Samuel & Saul / Moses & Elijah at Jesus’ Transfiguration [12-1-22]

#14 Jesus’ Visit (After He Died) to Hades, Preaching to the “Spirits in Prison” and Setting “Captives” Free [12-2-22]

#15 Hebrews 12:23: “the spirits of just men made perfect” [12-3-22]

#16 Sheol (Hades): Merely the “Grave” or “Underground” or the Conscious Abode of Dead Souls? [12-5-22]

#17 Ecclesiastes 9:5: “The Dead Know Nothing” / Psalm 146:4: “His Thoughts Perish,” Etc. [12-6-22]

Biblical Justification: vs. Francisco Tourinho (Round 3, Pt. 1)

Last updated on: August 30, 2023 at 4:53 pm By Dave Armstrong

[see book and purchase information]

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]

My previous replies:

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

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

This is an ongoing debate, which we plan to make into a book, both in Portugese and English. Francisco’s words will be in blue. Mine from my previous installment will be in green. I will try very hard to cite my own past words less, for two reasons: 1) the sake of relative brevity, and 2) because the back-and-forth will be preserved in a more convenient and accessible way in the book (probably with some sort of handy numerical and index system).

In instances where I agree with Francisco, there is no reason to repeat his words again, either. I’ll be responding to Francisco’s current argument and noting if and when he misunderstood or overlooked something I think is important: in which case I’ll sometimes have to cite my past words. I use RSV for all Bible passages (both mine and Francisco’s) unless otherwise indicated.

His current reply is entitled, Justificação pela fé: perspectiva protestante (contra Armstrong): Rodada 3. Parte 1. [Justification by Faith: Protestant Perspective (Contra Armstrong): Round 3. Part 1] (10-12-22). Note that he is replying only to Part I of my previous Round 2 reply. When he writes his replies to my Parts II and III and I counter-reply, the debate will be completed, by mutual agreement, except for brief closing statements. I get the (rather large) advantage of “having the last word” because Francisco chose the topic and wrote the first installment.

I would like the reader to pay attention to the fulcrum of my argument. Any reader is “authorized” to overlook any detail except this one: the perfect work of Jesus Christ on Calvary’s cross!

Yes, of course it’s perfect because we’re talking about God.

The foundation of Sola Fide (justification by faith alone) is the perfect work of Jesus on the cross. For only by faith can we receive Jesus Christ, and in receiving Jesus, we also receive his merits and his righteousness. How then are we not already perfectly justified the moment we receive it?

We are in initial justification, but then a process is involved whereby we continually appropriate the perfect work of Jesus on the cross. I have already demonstrated this with much Scripture.

A process of justification in which works also justify when accompanied by faith denies the perfection of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, as it would have as a logical consequence the teaching that Christ is not enough, since my works must conquer something that Christ did not give me. Only by his death. Jesus Christ, the Just, transfers his righteousness to us, while taking our sin upon himself. Read the text with this in mind, for I will repeat this point several times, not for the absence of others, but for its gigantic importance.

It’s fine to repeat an emphasis, as long as readers bear in mind that mere repetition adds nothing substantive to an existing argument. St. Paul is the one who clearly teaches some sort of process involved in justification and salvation. Yes, the work of Christ on the cross is perfect and sufficient for any person who accepts the grace to be saved. But the acceptance and application of it to persons (especially in Pauline theology) is not instant, and requires our vigilant effort:

Romans 8:17 (RSV) 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.

Philippians 3:11-14 that if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Brethren, I do not consider that I have made it my own . . . I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.

Colossians 1:22-24 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, which has been preached to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister. [24] Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church,

Hebrews 3:14 For we share in Christ, if only we hold our first confidence firm to the end.

Hebrews 10:39 But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and keep their souls.

Revelation 2:10 Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life.

If I have mentioned some of these before, they can be omitted in the book version. At this point, it’s too tedious to go back and check.

Contrary to what I have defined, Mr. Armstrong does not make a practical – or even theoretical – difference between justification and sanctification, although at times he claims to be different things, using the terms interchangeably in his exegesis of Biblical texts. As we will see later, he fails to demonstrate the difference between one and the other.

They are organically connected; two sides of the same coin: just as faith and works and Bible and tradition are. But distinctions can be made (I agree). In fact, I offered a meticulous definition of both in my previous reply (search “I’m glad to do so” to find it). I cited my first book, which is semi-catechetical; massively citing the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Trent. Here are brief definitions from that treatment, citing my own words in my book:

Justification . . . is a true eradication of sin, a supernatural infusion of grace, and a renewal of the inner man. [derived from: CCC #1987-1992; Trent, Decree on Justification, chapters 7-8]

Sanctification is the process of being made actually holy, not merely legally declared so. [CCC, #1987, 1990, 2000]

I fleshed it out much further. I fail to see how this is insufficient for our task of debating the definitions and concepts, or how I could be any clearer than I was.

I made it clear last time what the practical effect was when I said in my previous article: 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 St. in Romans 5:1: “Justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Christ Jesus.” 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.

This is mere repetition, thus adding nothing to the debate. I already addressed it, and I did again, above, with eight biblical passages. That’s my “problem.” I can’t figure out a way to ignore and dismiss so many scriptural passages that expressly contradict Protestant soteriology.

When will I be righteous before God if my justification also depends on my good works? How many good works will I have to do to be considered righteous before God?

We don’t need to know that. All we need to know and do is to “press on toward the goal” and “continue in the faith, stable and steadfast”: as the Apostle Paul did (Phil 3:14 and Col 3:23), because justification is not yet “obtained” (Phil 3:12). We have to “keep our eyes on Jesus”: as we used to say as evangelicals. And we have to do this “lest” we “should be disqualified” (1 Cor 9:27). We also have to “suffer with” Jesus in order to be God’s “children” and “heirs of God” (Rom 8:17).

Paul — as always — is very straightforward, matter-of-fact, and blunt about all this (one of the million things I love about him). None of this suggests (to put it mildly) instant, irrevocable justification.

Although faith is not against works, they are exclusive with regard to the causes of justification, sanctification and salvation before God, for Saint Paul says: “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves. , it is the gift of God; does not come through works, so that no one may boast on this account.” Eph 2.8,9

This is referring to initial justification, as I believe (without looking!), as indicated in context by 2:5 (“we were dead through our trespasses”), that I have noted before in this debate. The very next verse (which Protestants habitually omit) shows the organic connection:

Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

I had a dear late devout Baptist (and Marxist!) friend, who always would point out how Protestants leave out Ephesians 2:10. It doesn’t explicitly state here that these works are indirectly tied to salvation, in conjunction with grace and faith, but that idea occurs elsewhere, many times, as I have already shown.

Good works are not formal causes of salvation at any time, but only manifestations of the transformation that God makes in us, for the working follows the Being. Therefore even holy works must be the fruits of holiness, not the cause of it. To say that works are the cause of salvation, therefore, of holiness, is Pelagianism, since every good work of supernatural value presupposes grace, and the action of grace presupposes an enablement, therefore, a sanctification. Mr. Armstrong seems to forget this Biblical and metaphysical principle: the good fruit is the effect of the good tree and not the other way around; on the other hand, we know the good tree by its fruits.

The Bible teaches us (fifty times!) that works play a key role in whether one is saved and allowed to enter heaven or not. I’ve already gone through that reasoning in depth. What is most striking about the fifty passage is that faith alone is never mentioned as the cause for salvation. “Faith” by itself is mentioned but once: in Revelation 21:8, which includes the “faithless” among those who will be damned for eternity. Even there it is surrounded by many bad works that characterize the reprobate person. If Jesus had attended a good Protestant seminary and gotten up to speed on His soteriology, Matthew 25 would have read quite differently; something like the following:

Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to whether they had Faith Alone. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to whether they had Faith Alone.

Instead, we hear from our Lord Jesus all this useless talk about works, as if they had anything to do with salvation! Doesn’t Jesus know that works have no connection to salvation whatsoever, and that sanctification and justification are entirely separated in good, orthodox evangelical or Calvinist theology? Maybe our Lord Jesus attended a liberal synagogue. Why does Jesus keep talking about feeding the hungry, giving water to the thirsty, inviting in strangers, clothing the naked, visiting prisoners, and being judged “according to their deeds”? What in the world do all these “works” have to do with salvation? Why doesn’t Jesus talk about Faith Alone??!! Something is seriously wrong here.

We have a serious problem here, for from the beginning I accuse the theology of Rome of equating justification and sanctification.

We make a sharp differentiation between initial and subsequent justification; and at least some distinction between sanctification and justification.

Mr. Armstrong denies, according to his statements, that justification is the same as sanctification, but maintains that the two are so intertwined that one cannot exist without the other, something with which I need not disagree at all.

Good!

Nevertheless, I maintain that the issue is not exactly this, but that we do not see the difference between one and the other in their definitions or in their practical applications. When he says that justification is “a true eradication of sin . . . and a renewal of the inward man,” the concept used here does not differ from sanctification.

Yes, precisely because we believe in infused and intrinsic justification, whereas Protestants believe only in declarative, imparted, and extrinsic justification. Baptist theologian Augustus Strong explains Protestant justification very well:

. . . a declarative act, as distinguished from an efficient act; an act of God external to the sinner, as distinguished from an act within the sinner’s nature and changing that nature; a judicial act, as distinguished from a sovereign act; an act based upon and logically presupposing the sinner’s union with Christ, as distinguished from an act which causes and is followed by that union with Christ. (Systematic Theology, Westwood, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell, 1967; originally 1907, 849)

So does Presbyterian theologian Charles Hodge:

It does not produce any subjective change in the person justified. It does not effect a change of character, making those good who were bad, those holy who were unholy. That is done in regeneration and sanctification . . . It is a forensic or judicial act . . . It is a declarative act in which God pronounces the sinner just or righteous . . . (Systematic Theology, abridged one-volume edition by Edward N. Gross, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1988; originally 1873, 3 volumes; 454)

But Catholics believe that justification actually does something in souls, based on the Bible:

Romans 5:19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous.

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

2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come. (cf. Gal 6:15)

Titus 2:14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

Titus 3:5-7 he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, [6] which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, [7] so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life.

2 Peter 1:9 For whoever lacks these things is blind and shortsighted and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins.

Acts 22:16 And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.

I made an argument about the last verse in my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (completed in 1996; published in 2003):

The Protestant has difficulty explaining this passage, for it is St. Paul’s own recounting of his odyssey as a newly “born-again” Christian. We have here the Catholic doctrine of (sacramental) sanctification/justification, in which sins are actually removed. The phraseology “wash away your sins“ is reminiscent of Psalm 51:2, 7; 1 John 1:7, 9 [“the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. . . . will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness”] and other similar texts dealing with infused justification, . . .

According to the standard Evangelical soteriology, the Apostle Paul would have been instantly “justified” at the Damascus-road experience when he first converted (almost involuntarily!) to Christ (Acts 9:1-9). Thus, his sins would have been “covered over” and righteousness imputed to him at that point. If so, why would St. Paul use this terminology of washing away sins at Baptism in a merely symbolic sense (as they assert), since it would be superfluous? The reasonable alternative, especially given the evidence of other related scriptures, is that St. Paul was speaking literally, not symbolically. (p. 39)

Francisco cites my definition:

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] . . .

But what is the difference between this definition of sanctification and the definition of justification?

They’re very close, as I have said, since our infused justification is essentially how you define sanctification.

Worthy of special attention is the denial of legal declaration, i.e., the denial of the imputation of Christ’s merits to man, a point to which I will return shortly.

Trent didn’t preclude any imputation whatsoever. I have had an article about this topic since 1996 on my blog. It was written by Dr. Kenneth Howell, who obtained a Master of Divinity degree from Westminster Seminary, a doctorate in history, and was Associate Professor of Biblical Languages and Literature at Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, Mississippi and Associate Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Illinois. He wrote:

Trent does not exclude the notion of imputation. It only denies that justification consists solely in imputation. The relevant canons are numbers 9-11. Canon 9 does not even deny sola fide completely but only a very minimal interpretation of that notion. I translate literally:

If anyone says that the impious are justified by faith alone so that he understands [by this] that nothing else is required in which [quo] he cooperates in working out the grace of justification and that it is not necessary at all that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his will, let him be anathema.

Canon 9 then only anathematizes such a reduced form of faith that no outworking of that faith is necessary. This canon in no way says that imputation is not true but only that it is heretical to hold that justification consists solely in imputation.

I am puzzled why anyone would say that extrinsic righteousness might be excluded by Trent. The only righteousness that justifies is Christ’s. But Catholic theology teaches that what is Christ’s becomes ours by grace. In fact Canon 10 anathematizes anyone who denies that we can be justified without Christ’s righteousness or anyone who says that we are formally justified by that righteousness alone. Here’s the words:

If anyone says that men are justified without Christ’s righteousness which he merited for us or that they are formally justified by it itself [i.e. righteousness] [‘per eam ipsam‘], let him be anathema.

Canon 10 says that Christ’s righteousness is both necessary and not limited to imputation i.e. formally. So, imputation is not excluded but only said to be not sufficient.

With regard to imputation, if Trent indeed excludes it, I am ready to reject it. But the wording of the decrees does not seem to me to require this.

How could I become a Catholic if I still thought imputation was acceptable? Because I came to see that the rigid distinction between justification and sanctification so prominent in Reformation theologies was an artificial distinction that Scripture did not support. When one takes into account the whole of Scripture, especially James’ and Jesus’ teaching on the necessity of perfection for salvation (e.g. Matt 5;8), I realized that man cannot be “simul justus et peccator.” Transformational righteousness is absolutely essential for final salvation. . . .

The Protestant doctrine, it seems to me, has at least two sides. Imputation is the declaration of forgiveness on God’s part because of Christ’s work but it is also a legal fiction that has nothing immediately to do with real (subjective) state of the penitent. Now I think the declaration side of imputation is acceptable to Trent but not the legal fiction side. The difference between the Tridentine and the Reformation views, in addition to many other aspects, is that in the latter view God only sees us as righteous while in the former, Christ confers righteousness upon (and in) us.

There is another reason why I think imputation is not totally excluded but is acceptable in a modified form. Canon 9 rejects sola fide but, as we know, Trent does not reject faith as essential to justification. It only rejects the reductionism implied in the sola. So also, canon 11 rejects “sola imputatione justitiae Christi and sola peccatorum remissione.” Surely Trent includes remission of sins in justification. Why would we not say then that it also includes imputation of Christ’s righteousness? If faith (canon 9) and remission of sins (canon 11) are essential to justification, then should we not also say that imputation of Christ’s righteousness is also necessary? . . .

What is wrong with the Reformation view then? It is the sola part. Faith is essential but not sola fide. Remission of sins is essential but not sola remissione. Imputation via absolution is essential but not sola imputatione.

See my related articles:

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

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

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

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

I agree that the sacraments confer grace and that we feed on the body of Christ, but not without the help of faith and freedom. We Protestants reject the passivity of the human being in receiving grace through the sacraments and, although this is not the appropriate place for this debate, I take the opportunity to ask: when the Roman Catholic feeds on Christ, does he not believe that he feeds on Christ? if also of its merits? Or is the Christ of the Eucharist not the crucified, dead and risen Christ? Does the Christ of the Eucharist come without the merits earned by his obedient life and death on the cross? And if he comes with the merits of his obedience and death, how can anyone not be perfectly justified if Christ himself with his righteousness is in us?

We believe that the infinite merits of Christ were received upon initial justification, which is monergistic and includes imputation, as just explained.

Saint Paul says: “And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the spirit lives because of righteousness.” Romans 8:10

That sure sounds like infused, not imputed justification, to me.

To deny the present perfection of justification is to deny the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and this logical consequence is devastating for the Roman Catholic.

It’s not at all, per the reasoning and Bible passages I have already presented in this reply. Catholics have a moral assurance of salvation, which for all practical purposes, isn’t all that different from Protestants’ belief in a past justification. We simply acknowledge, with Paul, that we have to remain vigilant, so we don’t fall away from faith and grace. Calvinists have the insuperable burden of having to rationalize and explain away the many verses along those lines. I never accepted eternal security or perseverance of the saints (though I came close and thought that only deliberate rejection of Christ would cause apostasy), which is why I was an Arminian evangelical. I was making arguments against Calvinism in the early 1980s. But I’ve also been positively influenced by many great Reformed Protestant theologians.

The idea that there is merit to be rewarded (congruity or condignity) presupposes a self-originating work, . . .

I used the phrase “self-originated works” — in context — with the meaning of “without God’s prior enabling grace.” I was opposing (as the Catholic Church does) Pelagianism and works-salvation but not works altogether, which obviously involve human free will and choice.

To say that there is merit to be rewarded is against Christian ethics from every angle. To paraphrase Luther: there is no merit, either of congruity or of condignity; all merit belongs to Christ on the cross. But the Church of Rome teaches that the person has merit, contrary to what is said: “that God crowns his own merits”.

Yes, St. Augustine wrote that, and it perfectly harmonizes with our conception of merit. I’ve written many articles about merit, as taught in the Bible. Here are some of those:

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

Does Catholic Merit = “Works Salvation”? [2007]

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

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

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

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

The Bible Is Clear: Some Holy People Are Holier Than Others [National Catholic Register, 9-19-22]

God crowns his own merits, not the merit that man has earned; God crowns Christ, and the merits we have are all of Christ and received by faith, not works, which is why we have no merit.

I contend that that’s not what the Bible teaches. The Old Testament refers to “the righteous” 136 times and the New Testament uses the same sense 15 times. Every time that occurs, merit is present: someone has achieved a relatively better status under God, with regard to an attainment of greater grace and righteousness and less sin. They’ve done meritorious actions (all of which were necessarily preceded by the grace of God, to enable them) and have been rewarded for them. That’s merit (and God’s lovingkindness).

I’ve also written about the biblical teaching on differential grace offered by God. Lastly, I would note that Protestants themselves believe in differential rewards received in heaven (see, e.g., Lk 14:13-14; 2 Cor 5:10), which is no different — except for the place it occurs — from our notion of merit. Here are many passages proving that merit is biblical teaching:

Psalm 18:20-21 The LORD rewarded me according to my righteousness; according to the cleanness of my hands hath he recompensed me. [21] For I have kept the ways of the LORD, and have not wickedly departed from my God.

2 Samuel 22:21 The LORD rewarded me according to my righteousness; according to the cleanness of my hands he recompensed me.

Jeremiah 32:19 . . . whose eyes are open to all the ways of men, rewarding every man according to his ways and according to the fruit of his doings;

Matthew 5:20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 6:3-4 But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, [4] so that your alms may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

Matthew 19:29 And every one who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life.

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

Ephesians 6:6-8 . . . as servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, [7] rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to men, [8] knowing that whatever good any one does, he will receive the same again from the Lord, . . .

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.

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

2 Timothy 2:15, 21 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. . . . [21] If any one purifies himself from what is ignoble, then he will be a vessel for noble use, consecrated and useful to the master of the house, ready for any good work.

What differentiates one man from another is grace, not the works that each one does, and therefore the one to whom God has bestowed more grace is holier, more just, and more pure, for doing good is an effect of being already transformed by grace, not the cause of grace’s transformation.

We agree on differential grace. We Catholics don’t believe that good works cause grace, but that it’s the other way around. We disagree on whether man can get credit or merit for good works. I think it’s perfectly clear in the Bible that we do obtain such merit and reward (see above). We work together with God and He rewards us for so doing. It’s “both/and”: not the false dichotomy of “either/or.”

Works, therefore, cannot be the cause of justification or sanctification, whence we conclude that it is only by faith in Christ that one is justified, and by grace alone are we sanctified, there being no merit on our part.

I’ve shown with 50 Bible passages that works play a central role in determining who will be eschatologically saved. But they are in conjunction with grace and faith. I’m providing tons of Holy Scripture. My proofs are inspired. :-)

I agree that the doctrine of works as the cause of salvation is Pelagianism, but is it not Mr. Armstrong who teaches that faith alone is insufficient to justify man? Is it not Mr. Armstrong who maintains that works are also causes of salvation?

Voluntary grace-originated works in regenerated, initially justified Christians are perfectly biblical, and required in the overall mix to be saved. I’ve shown that, and it hasn’t been overthrown by contrary Scripture (precisely because the Bible doesn’t contradict itself). Pelagianism is completely different. It falsely claims that man can start the process of doing good; but only God can start that process. It’s works without grace, lifting ourselves up by our own bootstraps: nothing that anyone should depend on. We simply don’t teach works without grace. We believe in Grace Alone (as the ultimate cause of salvation and all good things), as Protestants do.

[I]n spite of having already demonstrated it before, I will quote again some verses that prove the existence of a justification before men . . .

If it was done “before,” then I’m sure I answered before, in which case, 1) I need not answer again, and 2) Francisco needs to answer my counter-replies, rather than simply repeat his arguments, and 3) we ought not bore our readers by repeating “old news.” Repetition does not make any argument stronger. It works for propaganda, political campaigns, and television commercials, but not in reasoned debate about Christian theology. It suggests the weakness of one’s case.

I do not question the legitimacy of anyone objecting that justification before God is not acquired by faith alone, but to deny the necessity of a good testimony for men also to consider us righteous is indeed a surprise to me. Does Mr. Armstrong believe that our witness to the world is irrelevant? Does he deny that men also consider us fair when they see our behavior change?

No to both questions (being such a witness myself, as my vocation and occupation); I just don’t think that’s what the Bible is referring to when it refers to justification. When I replied to these arguments that are now being repeated, as I recall, usually context proved my point.

The debate must revolve around our justification before God, whether it is by faith alone, which I claim, or whether it is by faith and works, which Mr. Armstrong claims, but to deny that there is a justification before men is an extreme that cause astonishment. Ask “where is this distinction found in Holy Scripture?” It is the same as saying: there is no teaching in Scripture of the need for a good witness before men, when Scripture says: “You are the light of the world; a city built on a hill cannot be hidden; Nor do you light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick, and give light to everyone in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.”

The witness is all well and good and quite necessary. I would use the same proof texts for that. But I don’t see that this is justification in any sense. The phrases “justification before men” and “justified before men” never occur in the New Testament (RSV), and it seems to me that they would if this was supposed to be a biblical teaching. Francisco cites another passage:

1 Peter 2:12 Maintain good conduct among the Gentiles, so that in case they speak against you as wrongdoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation.

Once again, this is simply successful evangelistic strategy. If anything, it would fit under the Protestant category of sanctification: supposedly completely distinct from justification.

My goal [by citing Calvin] was to bring a definition in line with Reformed theology, so that no one accuses me of inventing concepts or making any inaccuracy about what I am advocating. This is not against the rules of debate. . . . I quote Scripture and I also quote John Calvin in support, not as a foundation of what I believe. I quote John Calvin because I believe what he stands for agrees with Scripture, . . .

I agree. I just cited Strong and Hodges (and Louis Bouyer and Kenneth Howell), so Calvin can also certainly be cited for the purpose of definitions. We have to give each other a little leeway. My rules were designed so that things didn’t get out of hand and go off in all directions.

The same words can have different meanings, and I believe that’s the case here.

I agree again. And we both need to work hard to accurately understand the definitions of the other side.

I claim that there is a deviation of focus here, as my objection has not been answered. My contention is that there is a practical difference whether we believe otherwise, to which Mr. Armstrong responds by making a defense of justification as a process and not by imputation. Mr. Armstrong, to answer my question, should show why there are no practical differences even though there are theoretical differences. Instead, he only ratified the theoretical differences and did not show how these differences do not impose practical differences.

Fair enough. I would answer that the “peace” that Catholics have, within a paradigm of justification and salvation as lifelong processes, is our moral assurance of salvation. I linked to an article about that before, but for the sake of our book I’ll actually cite its words now:

The Catholic faith, or Christian faith is about faith, hope, and love; about a relationship with God and with our fellow man, and faith that God has provided His children with an authoritative teaching Church, so that they don’t have to spend their entire lives in an abstract search for all theological truth, never achieving it (because who has that amount of time or knowledge to figure everything out, anyway?). The true apostolic tradition has been received and delivered to each generation, through the Church, by the guidance of God the Holy Spirit.

We’re not out to sea without any hope or joy, because we’re not absolutely certain of our salvation. God wants us to be vigilant and to persevere. This is a good thing, not a bad thing, because human beings tend to take things for granted and to become complacent. Unfortunately, much of the Protestant theology of salvation (soteriology) caters to this human weakness, and is too simplistic (and too unbiblical).

The degree of moral assurance we can have is very high. The point is to examine ourselves to see if we are mired in serious sin, and to repent of it. If we do that, and know that we are not subjectively guilty of mortal sin, and relatively free from venial sin, then we can have a joyful assurance that we are on the right road.

I always use my own example, by noting that when I was an evangelical, I felt very assured of salvation, though I also believed (as an Arminian) that one could fall away if one rejected Jesus outright. Now as a Catholic I feel hardly any different than I did as an evangelical. I don’t worry about salvation. I assume that I will go to heaven one day, if I keep serving God. I trust in God’s mercy, and know that if I fall into deep sin, His grace will cause me to repent of it (and I will go along in my own free will) so that I can be restored to a relationship with Him.

We observe St. Paul being very confident and not prone to lack of trust in God at all. He had a robust faith and confidence, yet he still had a sense of the need to persevere and to be vigilant. He didn’t write as if it were a done deal: that he got “saved” one night in Damascus and signed on the dotted line, made an altar call and gave his life to Jesus, saying the sinner’s prayer or reciting John 3:16.

The biblical record gives us what is precisely the Catholic position: neither the supposed “absolute assurance” of the evangelical Protestant, the “perseverance” of the Calvinist, nor the manic, legalistic, Pharisaical, mechanical caricature of what outsider, non-experienced critics of Catholicism think Catholicism is, where a person lives a “righteous” life for 70 years, then falls into lust for three seconds, gets hit by a car, and goes to hell (as if either Catholic teaching or God operate in that infantile fashion).

The truth of the matter is that one can have a very high degree of moral assurance, and trust in God’s mercy. St. Paul shows this. He doesn’t appear worried at all about his salvation, but on the other hand, he doesn’t make out that he is absolutely assured of it and has no need of persevering. He can’t “coast.” The only thing a Catholic must absolutely avoid in order to not be damned is a subjective commission of mortal sin that is unrepented of. The mortal / venial sin distinction is itself explicitly biblical. All this stuff is eminently biblical. That’s where we got it!

Moreover, the reason we are so concerned about falling into mortal sin and being damned, is because St. Paul in particular states again and again (1 Cor 6:9-11; Gal 5:19-21; Eph 5:3-6; 1 Tim 1:9-10; cf. Rev 21:8; 22:15) that those who are characterized by and wholly given over to certain sinful behaviors will not be saved in the end.

So we have to be vigilant to avoid falling into these serious sins, but on the other hand, Paul still has a great assurance and hope. All the teaching of Catholic moral assurance can be found right in Paul. Vigilance and perseverance are not antithetical to hope and a high degree of assurance and joy in Christ (Rom 5:1-5; 8:16-17; 12:12; 15:4, 13; Gal 5:5-6; Eph 1:9-14, 18; Col 1:11-14, 21-24; 3:24; cf. non-Pauline passages: Heb 6:10-12; 10:22-24; 1 Pet 1:3-7).

We observe, then, as always, that Holy Scripture backs up Catholic claims at every turn. We have assurance and faith and hope, yet this is understood within a paradigm of perseverance and constant vigilance in avoiding sin, that has the potential (remote if we don’t allow it) to lead us to damnation.

Bottom line: in a practical, day-to-day “walk with Christ as a disciple” sense, Catholics (broadly speaking) are — or can be — every bit as much at peace and joyful and “secure” in Christ, with an expectation of salvation and heaven in the end, as any Protestant. I’ve experienced it myself in my own life. I don’t sit around worrying whether I’ll wind up in hell. I simply do my best by God’s grace and the guidance of the indwelling Holy Spirit to love and follow and worship God and love my fellow man, and share the Good News with as many as I can through my writing. I trust that God is merciful, and I know how good He has always been to me (and now my family): true to His promises and filled with blessings for us that we can’t even imagine: both in this life and the next. All praise and honor and glory to our wonderful God!

Francisco responded to a number of Bible passages that I brought up. He complained that I went off-topic. I did, a little (as I can see now), but I was replying directly to his comment, “This peace will not be obtained if justification is a lifelong process” with a list of passages showing that it is exactly that. If that point is established, then Francisco has to grapple with what he sees as a disconnect between the process of justification and spiritual peace. The first passage he examined was Romans 8:13-17.

What Mr. Armstrong calls justification, I call sanctification. Incidentally, there is no mention of the word justification in this verse.

One doesn’t need the exact word for the concept to be present. The passage refers to “sons of God,” “children of God,” “heirs of God,” and “fellow heirs with Christ”: all of which are perfectly compatible with being justified in the Protestant definition (and much more so than to their category of sanctification). None of those titles would apply to a non-justified person in that schema. So this is a moot point.

This initial grace, which already transforms because it is monergistic (to use the author’s own term), can be rejected. Here, however, we have a logical problem. Pay attention: if it is grace that grants faith, and this initial justification is monergistic, how can man not believe if faith is already in grace? Can a man have faith and not believe? And if man needs not to resist grace so that he can have faith, then this grace needs the concurrence of freedom, not being monergistic, but synergistic.

We agree, which is why Catholics agree with Protestants (particularly Calvinists) with regard to the predestination of the elect. God has to do this initial work. That’s what I’ve been saying over and over. It’s a great area of agreement.

1 – Justification is by faith.

2 – Faith is given by grace.

3 – Initial justification (which must already include faith, because otherwise it could not be justifier) happens monergistically.

4 – Initial justification already includes faith.

5 – It is impossible to have faith and not believe.

6 – Therefore, it is impossible to be a target of grace and not believe, or it is impossible for grace to be rejected.

This syllogism shows the inconsistency of the Roman Catholic argument itself as presented by Mr. Armstrong. If there is an initial justification by a grace that is monergistic, it follows that this grace cannot be rejected because it is faith-giving and without faith there is no justification. If grace is justifying from the beginning, and justification is by faith, it follows that such grace must contain faith from the beginning; therefore, it is impossible to be rejected, for it is contradictory to have faith and not to believe.

Scripture definitely teaches that believers can fall from grace (the very thing that Francisco has just declared to be logically impossible). So it’s his logic against inspired scriptural revelation. The latter tells us, via the apostle Paul: “You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace” (Gal 5:4). Paul can’t state a falsehood about grace. This is inspired, infallible utterance. He didn’t say that such people never had grace, but that they fell “away from” it and, moreover, were (terrifyingly!) “severed from Christ.”

He reiterated in Galatians 1:6: “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel.” Paul also tells the Corinthians: “we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain” (2 Cor 6:1). If grace could not possibly be rejected, these statements would make no sense. Therefore, Francisco’s statement, “it is impossible for grace to be rejected” is false; therefore his entire argument collapses. We must be in line with the Bible!

To be taken for righteous because of our actions, I say that Scripture is very clear in affirming that good works are not causes of our justification according to the divine point of view, for the Lord Jesus says:

Luke 6:43-45 “For no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit; [44] for each tree is known by its own fruit. For figs are not gathered from thorns, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush. [45] The good man out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil man out of his evil treasure produces evil; for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.”

This is because we are known through our works, but known by whom? For God or for men? Because if we are only known by God when we show our works, then God does not know our hearts, but since God is omniscient, this knowledge does not refer to God but to men. The scholastic maxim that says “Being precedes working” fits very well here, because first we are saints and then we act holy. Saying that good works are causes of our justification before God is the same as saying that working is the cause of Being, which is a logical and biblical absurdity, especially when justification is taken as synonymous with sanctification, . . .

I agree that this is before men, but again, why classify it as its own category of “justification before men”? Why not classify it under the Protestant conception of sanctification, since it refers to “good fruit” and producing “good”? I don’t understand why a third category is created. Three chapters earlier, Jesus said a related thing:

Luke 3:9 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. (cf. Mt 3:10; 7:19)

So it turns out that that these good deeds and “good fruit” have a relation to salvation after all. If they are done, we’re told (50 times) that they correspond with being saved. If they’re not done, then one will be damned, as in this verse. Protestant soteriology doesn’t fit here in any sense. If it’s justification before men only (not God), it doesn’t save (if I understand the view correctly). But if it’s Protestant sanctification, it is said to not have anything to do with salvation, either.

Meanwhile, the Bible (the sole Protestant rule of faith and standard and source for its theology) consistently states that works done by grace and in faith, play a crucial role in the overall mix of salvation. If fifty passages can’t prove that to a Protestant like Francisco, how many does it take? 100? 200? How much inspired proof is sufficient?! I came up with 200 that refuted “faith alone” in one of my articles. My opponent could only muster up 45 in supposed favor of that false doctrine. Does that mean that Catholicism is 4.44 times more biblical than Protestantism when it comes to soteriological matters? :-)

Francisco then commented at length on this same topic, citing James 3:12; Matthew 11:16-19; and Romans 11:16. Again, I agree that there is a witness before men; I don’t see how that is justification in the secondary Protestant sense. If it’s regarded as such within the Protestant paradigm, it could have nothing to do with salvation, because they’ve already removed works altogether from that scenario. I dealt with the proposed supporting data in James at length in my last reply.

Mr. Armstrong highlights a conditional in the verse [Rom 8:17] to ratify his argument: “provided that we suffer with him that we may also be glorified with him.” To which I reply that the conditionality argument does not succeed, since if taken to the extreme, it will place passive potency in God. How can we apply a conditional to a God who knows everything infallibly? How can a God who knows everything say to a man: “If you do well, I will reward you, if you do badly, I will punish you”?

He does it all through the Old Testament, and continues in the New. Prophecies were famous for this: “if you do good thing a, good reward x will happen. If you do contrary bad thing b, judgment y will happen.” God is omniscient. All agree on that, and so there is no need to discuss it. The conditionals aren’t directly based on God (He being immutable and omniscient), but on man’s free will choices, which He incorporates into His providence.

The only answer is that this question is asked anthropopathically, that is, in a human way, taking into account human ignorance, because it is we men who have the doubt of what will happen tomorrow, not God.

We need not posit this (though it, too, is a common biblical motif, that I am often pointing out to atheists, who don’t get it). God rewards those who do good, and (eventually) punishes and (if repentance never occurs) sentences to hell those who reject Him and act badly. That is a theme throughout the entire Bible.

Predestination is, of course, it’s own self-contained topic, and one of the most complex in theology. I have written a lot about it (I’m a Congruist Molinist). Presently, it’s off-topic, so I’ll refrain from getting too much into it. The debate is long and multi-faceted enough as it is. Given that, the very last thing we want to get embroiled in is a predestination discussion.

[I]n the vector of creatures it is “provided that we suffer with him that we may also be glorified with him.” (Rom 8.17)

This need not get into predestination and the timelessness of God, etc. It’s simple: either we willingly suffer with God, or else we won’t be His children, heirs, etc. (i.e., we won’t be saved or in the elect). God knows from all eternity who will do this, so I would say that He simply chooses not to predestine those who won’t. But from where we sit, we either obey Him and suffer with Him or we will be lost. He gives us that choice. Paul uses the very familiar biblical conditional again in asserting: “if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live” (Rom 8:13). We have to do certain things to gain eternal life. It’s not just abstract belief and assent. Faith without works is dead.

Francisco tackles 1 Corinthians 9:27, about possibly being “disqualified” (from salvation). He says: “First, this text is not about justification, but sanctification.” Context — as so often in these discussions — is totally against his view, because it’s talking about gaining eternal life: which in Protestant soteriology has to be about justification, not sanctification. In 9:24 Paul states: “Do you not know that in a race all the runners compete, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it.”

What’s the “prize”? Of course it is salvation and eternal life. Protestantism rejects merit, so that can’t be it. Nor can Francisco apply this to rewards in heaven, because they are multiple and various, not singular (which is salvation itself). Then in 9:25 Paul refers to an “imperishable” wreath: which again is clearly talking about eternal life. John Calvin in his commentary (though he ultimately echoes Francisco’s view) calls it “a crown of immortality.” Therefore (all this taken into consideration), the passage is about justification, and about how it can possibly be lost: which is contrary to Calvinism and perfectly consistent with Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Arminian / Wesleyan Protestantism.

St. Paul only supposes his own ignorance concerning future acts,

How can he do otherwise, not knowing the future? How can any of us do otherwise? That’s the point.

and from this it does not follow that St. Paul’s future was indefinite to God.

Of course it isn’t. Why does this always have to be brought up? It’s not an “either/or” thing, where man is not nothing because God is supreme. God includes us in His plans, thereby granting us extraordinary dignity. He even shares His glory with us.

Lastly (I will only note this once): just because God knows everything and is outside of time, it doesn’t follow that He caused every particular event, or — more precisely stated — caused it to the exclusion of human free will, which is also present. I pretty much “know” that the sun will rise tomorrow. But when it happens I can assure everyone that I didn’t cause it beforehand. God allows us to make free will choices, so that we are much more than mere robots who can only do what He programs us to do. His granting us free will to choose right and wrong; to follow or reject Him, doesn’t detract from His majesty or sovereignty in the slightest. I think it makes His providence even more glorious.

St. Paul is admonishing his brethren in the Church at Corinth, taking himself as an example, just as Christ himself was tempted even though he could not sin.

That’s a failed analogy. Jesus could not possibly be successfully tempted. The devil (in his stupidity) could only try. But Paul could possibly fall away: because he said so.

Now, to say that salvation can be lost because the apostle declares his obligations, his submission to the law and also the possibility of being disqualified, does not mean that this can happen in reality, at least not from the divine perspective,

That’s an eisegetical analysis. Of course it can happen, because Paul said it could, and he is an inspired writer. The language is very concrete, practical, phenomenological; not abstract and supposedly talking about deep and inexplicable mysteries of the faith. Paul’s giving solid, realistic advice for day-to-day Christian living. It’s also possible from the divine perspective, because the Bible says that He doesn’t wish “that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance” (2 Pet 3:9). Yet many do perish, because many choose to reject His free offer of grace for salvation . This doesn’t surprise God, because He can’t be surprised, knowing everything and being outside of time.

for if that were so, I would could say that Christ could sin, for He Himself says, “Lead us not into temptation” (Luke 11:4).

He also got baptized, even though He had no need to, since it regenerates and follows repentance and He had no need for either. Some things He did simply as an example.

The simple fact that Christ was tempted implies a possibility of a fall if we look at the angle in which Mr. Armstrong interprets these verses.

Nonsense. He couldn’t and can’t fall because He is God, and therefore impeccable. I’ve never claimed nor remotely implied otherwise. I defend the classical attributes of God; always have in my 41 years of apologetics.

Otherwise it would not be temptation, it would be drama, but Christ cannot really fall, so it doesn’t take a real possibility of a fall to be admonished and to strive not to. No one was harder than Christ, no one prayed more than Christ, no one suffered worse temptations than Christ, and yet none of this means that Christ could fall from grace, even as Paul says of himself that he strives not to.

Jesus never stated that He could fall into sin, as Paul does, so this doesn’t fly. There’s no valid comparison. Paul is a fallen creature (who even once killed Christians). He wrote: “I am the foremost of sinners” (1 Tim 1:15) even after His regeneration. Jesus is God and did not and could not ever sin. Quite a contrast, isn’t it? Yet Francisco compares them and acts as if Paul could never fall, even though he repeatedly says that he (or anyone) conceivably or possibly or potentially could.

According to the teaching of St. John, those who come out of us, only manifest, reveal that they were not of ours (1 Jn 2.19).

In that particular instance they were not, because these were extreme sinners: described as “antichrists” in the previous verse. Other passages, that I have produced, prove that apostasy is entirely possible, and should be vigilantly avoided. Francisco uses the same argumentative technique (refuted above) for 1 Corinthians 10:12. He then uses the same sweeping “can’t possibly happen” special pleading excuse to dismiss nine more texts that I brought up, concluding with a misguided triumphalism: “The same explanation can be applied to all these texts, which prove nothing from Mr. Armstrong’s point of view.”

For the elect, the fall is not the loss of salvation, but a means of improvement, . . .

The elect cannot fall away by definition, because the word means that they are eschatologically saved, and predestined to be so.

The system of justification by a process caused by good works and faith depends on perfect faith and an immeasurable amount of perfect works.

Not at all. In the end, the Catholic needs to simply be free of mortal, serious, grave sin: entered into with a full knowledge and consent of the will. Failing that, the baptized Catholic who has been receiving grace through sacraments, too, his or her whole life, will be saved. It may, of course, be necessary (as with most of us) to be purged of remaining non-mortal sin in purgatory. But there is no necessity at all for “an immeasurable amount of perfect works.” That’s simply an absurd caricature of our view: suggesting that it has been vastly misunderstood. Or it is a failed, noncomprehending attempt at the reductio ad absurdum.

If not even St. Paul attained justification, am I or anyone better than St. Paul? If St. Paul is strictly speaking of justification, as Mr. Armstrong says, when will I have peace with God?

Here’s what Paul wrote shortly before his martyrdom:

2 Timothy 4:6-8 For I am already on the point of being sacrificed; the time of my departure has come. [7] I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. [8] Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that Day, and not only to me but also to all who have loved his appearing.

Paul thought exactly as Catholics do. He wasn’t worried about his salvation. He was quite certain of it. It sounds to me like he was perfectly at peace. At the same time he didn’t pretend that it was all accomplished many years before when he was supposedly justified for all time in an instant. He says nothing about that or anything remotely like it. He refers to a process: a “good fight” and a “race” that he “finished”: in which he had “kept the faith.”
*
If he was a good proto-Protestant, he would have, I submit, written something along the lines of: “I was justified by faith alone on the road to Damascus. Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, . . .” That’s Protestant theology: devised in the 16th century, but it’s not Pauline theology.

When can I say that “we have peace with God through faith” if that peace is conditional on a series of good deeds I have to do?

After one has examined himself and made sure no conscious serious sin is being committed, and particularly after confession and absolution. The peace is not conditional on being perfect, and even ultimate salvation is based on not being in serious sin: as Paul warns about (passages that refer to sins that prohibit one from heaven). As I contended above, Catholics have just as much peace and joy and assurance of salvation as any Protestant: who is no more “certain” of salvation than we are, since he or she doesn’t infallibly know the future. All that any of us can do is to make sure we are not involved in serious sin.

From beginning to end is faith. Works in the divine perspective are the fruits of an already holy man, who sanctifies himself more as he receives more grace. It is totally denied in Scripture that good works are causes of sanctification, justification, or glorification.

Fifty Bible passages directly contradict this erroneous understanding. Francisco (amazingly enough) tries to dismiss my fifty passages with a non sequitur / red herring:

Then follow Mr. Armstrong’s quotations of several biblical verses that deal with how men were judged for their sins in the past, as if this proved that the merits won by Christ on the cross depended on the concurrence of good works to be effective. . . .

As in the order of execution, merits precede glorification, demerits precede disgrace, and so everyone who speaks from a human perspective narrates a cause and effect relationship as seen by the human eye. This serves for the interpretation of other verses. . . .

A number of verses, absolutely all suffering from the same problem, are quoted by Mr. Armstrong. Certainly, if they all suffer from the same problem, by answering just one, I will have knocked out all the others.

But after making this claim, he does at least offer some specific criticisms. He attempts to turn very simple, easy-to-understand verses into (for lack of a better term) “abstract Calvinist philosophical entities.” But the Bible is not a philosophical treatise. That’s the problem. 1 Samuel 28:16, 18: my first example of fifty of works related to salvation, is very simple: God “turned away” from King Saul, so that he was damned. Why? It’s because Saul had “not obeyed the voice of the Lord.” He didn’t obey (not just didn’t have faith) and so was lost. There is no need or relevance to apply abstract philosophy and the sublime theology of God to that in order to dismiss its plain meaning: disobedience (i.e., evil acts) led to damnation. God gave Saul freedom of choice, and he followed it and chose to reject God.

Some of them do not even deal with sanctification or justification, for example:

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

The text deals with the final judgment.

Yes it does, since it was part of my article entitled, Final Judgment & Works (Not Faith): 50 Passages.

It is true that not everyone achieves justice here on earth. The rest of the texts are texts that deal with the order of execution, they are admonitions, pastoral advice, which have nothing to do with the proposed theme, because the need to do good works was not denied at any time by me.

It has everything to do with the theme. Francisco denies that works have anything at all to do with salvation. The final judgment has to do with final salvation. This is one of fifty passages concerning it, whereby “faith alone” is never ever mentioned. Why? This passage is again talking about “deeds” (i.e., good works). It certainly implies that they play a big role in whether a man is saved or not.

Mr. Armstrong must show how these verses prove that a good work is the cause of salvation, sanctification, or justification . . .

The fifty taken together overwhelmingly show that good works play a very important role in the whole equation.

We are judged primarily by what we are, secondarily by what we do.

In the biblical worldview, the two cannot be separated. We do according to what we are. “The good tree produces good fruit,” etc. But if we are to distinguish, the fifty passages I compiled appear to reverse this order, by placing what we do front and center in the matter of the final judgment and salvation or damnation following, based on what we did with the grace He gave us. This simply can’t be ignored or dismissed. The evidence is too relentless and powerful.

That’s why even an atheist who does good works cannot be saved, because good works do not cause salvation, but who we are.

That’s not what Paul states:

Romans 2:6, 13-16 For he will render to every man according to his works: . . . [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. [14] When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. [15] They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them [16] on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

Personally, I think it follows from this that even an atheist may possibly be saved (I’m not saying it would be easy), based on what they know and what they do with that knowledge, following their conscience, which “bears witness” and may “excuse” them on judgment day. The good thief was saved; why not an atheist, too?

A bad Christian may have fewer good works than an atheist, but the bad Christian is the one who goes to heaven, not the atheist, because it is Christ’s merits that conquer heaven, not what I do.

That’s not what the Bible teaches; as I have massively shown, and will continue to in Parts 2 and 3 of this Round 3. The lax, antinomian-type Christian may very well lose his or her salvation, seeing that even the great St. Paul stated that he had to be vigilant in his own case.

2 Kings 22:13 is dismissed with more mere philosophical fine points of theology proper, which isn’t exegesis. It’s simply application of a prior Calvinist presuppositionalism to every single passage. In the final analysis, we’re not discussing Calvinism’s well-known view of God, but how one is justified and what it means. This passage shows that God was angered because certain of His people disobeyed Him (which entails the absence of good works, which would please God): the same theme as always in the Bible.

Psalm 7:8-10 is dismissed by relegating it to “man’s . . . perspective”: which in Calvinism always seems to amount to very little significance. But it can’t be so easily dismissed. The same Psalms played a role in the messianic prophecies. Jesus quoted one (Ps 22) from the cross. They can’t be ignored simply because a man wrote them. These men (David, mostly: the man “after God’s own heart”) were inspired by God when they wrote. We learn the same thing again. God “judges . . . according to my righteousness” (not proclamations of faith). God “saves the upright in heart.” All of this can’t be squared with “faith alone.” It fits in with it about as good as a truck tire fits a compact car.

The text is a prayer; thus, it deals with the human drama, it does not deal with soteriological metaphysical relationships.

Sure it does. By God’s providence, it became part of inspired, infallible revelation. It teaches how a man is saved, and as usual, it’s harmonious with Catholic, not Protestant teaching.

He asks about my text Psalm 58:11: “How does this prove that justification is by faith and works?” It does because it states: “Surely there is a reward for the righteous”. It’s not one of the most compelling texts in my collection, but nevertheless it shows yet again, even at this early stage of salvation history, that rewards from God come as a result of a person doing good works and being righteous (and yes, having faith too: implied), but not by faith alone.

Francisco then dismissed and ignored nine of my texts, by saying, “All warning texts, which prove nothing against the doctrine of justification by faith.” In so doing, he has violated our agreed-to third rule of this debate:

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.

Francisco then tackled the important text of Matthew 7:16-27. He wrongly thinks that he can casually dismiss this, too, without seriously examining it and engaging in a true debate about its meaning, by saying, “it proves that we know the tree by its fruits, but God already knows the tree before the fruits appear.” It’s utterly irrelevant to our discussion that God knows what men will do. They are still judged when they disobey Him. Parents know that almost certainly a strong-willed two-year-old will often disobey orders to not run in the street or be noisy in church. They still discipline the child when he or she disobey, and it has no relevance to point out that they “knew” the infant would disobey. The point is that disobedience gets punished.

The passage is a tour de force against faith alone. The fruitless tree is “thrown in the fire” (hell). There must be fruit; otherwise, the danger of damnation is quite possible. But Protestantism relegates this fruit to purely optional sanctification: having nothing directly to do with salvation. The fair-minded, objective person must make a choice: biblical teaching, or Protestant teaching that blatantly contradicts it. Jesus warns that saying “Lord, Lord” (similar to saying “faith alone” like a mantra) will not necessarily save one.

Rather, it is (you guessed it!): “he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” Faith alone can’t cut it. It doesn’t make the grade. It fails the divine test. The one who does these things will be like the man who builds a house “founded on the rock” which “did not fall.” But the one who doesn’t do what Jesus commands will be in a house that falls. Everything is works, here, never faith alone. No one who didn’t already have his mind up, no matter what, could fail to see this. To not see it is like looking up in the sky on a clear day in summer at noon, and not being able to locate the sun.

Francisco then ignored no less than 22 (44%!) more of my fifty passages, which again violates our agreement to engage each other point-by-point (No. 3 in the suggested rules). I insisted on that rule precisely because I know from long experience that Protestants quite often engage in this sort of selective, pick-and-choose response. The only good thing about it is that this reply can be shorter. I’m already at nearly 12,000 words. Francisco stated as his reason for the mass dismissal:

Redundancy and errors are repeated in each approach, relieving me of the obligation to address each verse in particular. Everyone, absolutely everyone, falls into the same interpretive errors as those commented on.

Calvinists, too, are notorious for the droning sameness of their arguments. I could just about make them myself, they are so familiar.

After this flurry of texts that prescribe the good Christian way of living, my question remains open: “How many good works must I do to be righteous before God?”

I answered that earlier. It’s the wrong question to ask and presupposes caricatures of Catholic soteriology.

By quoting the verses, Mr. Armstrong showed that Jesus and the apostles warned us against evil and encouraged us to do good works, but how does that answer my question?

It doesn’t answer that question. These passages deal with the question of whether faith alone is a biblical concept and the singular way to salvation or not. The passages massively refute faith alone, which is the substance of Protestant justification (at least on our end).

From the verses quoted, then, in an attempt to show how many good works we must do in order for God to count us righteous,

That’s not what my attempt was. Rather, it was to show that in every case having to do with the criterion God uses to declare us saved or not, works play a central role, and faith alone never plays any role at all. It’s a decisive, compelling, unanswerable refutation of faith alone.

Francisco then partially responded to my summary of fifty attributes that the Bible teaches are connected with being saved at the last judgment. I introduced them as follows:

[H]ow 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, . . .

The first on the list was “I am characterized by righteousness.” Francisco answered by asking: “are we righteous because we do good works, or do works manifest our righteousness?” The answer is “both” but in any event, that has nothing to do with the gist of that list of mine. Whatever the answer to his question is, it remains true that this (one of fifty things) is one of the aspects that the Bible says contributes to our salvation, and why God should let us into heaven (according to direct Bible passages).

2) I have integrity.

3) I’m not wicked.

Does that mean not even a trace of evil? Absolute perfection?

The answer is, of course, “no.” But the counter-reply is again a non sequitur and attempt to change the topic. He’s looking at the DNA of the bark of one tree in the forest and missing the forest for the tree; focusing on irrelevant minutiae. I’m looking at the larger view of the whole forest and addressing one common Protestant theme: “If you were to die tonight and God asked you why He should let you into heaven, what would you tell Him?” His answers to #4 and #5 repeat the same misguided error. He is by that point discussing an entirely different topic, which is absolutely lousy in terms of being good debating technique.

6) I have good ways.

Good manners according to which culture?

Good ways somehow came out as “manners” in the translation to Portugese. “Good ways” is simply referring to being good and righteous, rather than a thing like manners that is indeed culturally relative. It looks like I substituted “good ways” for “doings” in Jeremiah 4:4, because we don’t say in English, “we have good doings.” It’s still the same thought.

He then dismissed #7-17 with one irrelevant, legalistic comment: “How many hungry do I need to feed?” That’s not the point at all, which is that part of what gets us into heaven is willingness to feed the hungry (compassion, love). God isn’t going to say at the judgment: “well, you only fed 1,298 hungry people instead of my quota for salvation, which is 1,300, so sorry, you don’t live up to my requirements and have to go to hell.”

That’s neither how God acts (He looks at the motivations and intents of our heart, which only He fully knows), nor a teaching that appears anywhere in the Bible or Catholic moral theology. To frame the issue in this way clearly presupposes — as I have noted before — a gross caricature of Catholic soteriology. Francisco needs to understand why this point or any of my other ones was raised in the first place (context), rather than simply reply over and over with “gotcha!”-type queries. This is also the third violation of #3 of the initial rules: answering point-by-point.

He engaged in the same wrongheaded legalism in individual counter-questions for #18-22, then grouped together #23-28 and did the same thing. He grouped #29-34, and seemed to ignore #29-32, in his response, which appeared to be to #33 and #34:

33) I’m unblamable in holiness.

34) I’ve been wholly sanctified.

This point is important, for it signifies a total absence of sin, something that, according to Mr. Armstrong, not even the apostles achieved, as they were always admonishing and placing themselves as those who might fall.

As I noted at the beginning of this list, they were “all drawn from the Bible”: from my list of fifty passages having to do with the final judgment. So that is the case here. This isn’t me pulling arguments out of a hat. They came right from express statements of Scripture; in this case the following:

1 Thessalonians 3:12-13 . . . may the Lord make you increase and abound in love to one another and to all men, as we do to you, 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.

According to St. Paul, then, such a sublime level of holiness is indeed possible. He prays that the Thessalonians can achieve it by the time of the Second Coming. Most of us won’t achieve it in fact, but it’s theoretically possible. One web page collected nine Bible passages about being holy like God is holy. Seven are in the Old Testament, but that is still inspired Scripture, and the Scripture of Jesus and the apostles before the New Testament was compiled. Two are in 1 Peter 1:15-16, with one of the two citing the Old Testament. The above two passages reflect the same thought, and 1 Thessalonians 5:23 is remarkable in that it refers to the notion that God could “sanctify [us] wholly.” The royal commandment urges us to equal Jesus in love:

John 15:12 This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. (cf. 13:34)

Paul again states in Ephesians 1:4 that we should be “we should be holy and blameless before him.” My list numbers 33 and 34 merely repeated what the Bible already taught.

36) I know God.

The problem is that good works do not prove that a person knows God, there are many atheist philanthropists.

Once again, the reply has nothing to do with my point. It misses the forest for the trees. I wasn’t engaging in philosophy of religion or even apologetics. I was answering the typical Protestant evangelistic question (from Scripture): “If you were to die tonight and God asked you why He should let you into heaven, what would you tell Him?” In this instance I was drawing from the following verse:

2 Thessalonians 1:8 inflicting vengeance upon those who do not know God and upon those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.

It follows logically that if not knowing God brings His vengeance, then knowing Him brings His mercy and grace and salvation at the judgment.

Francisco then grouped together #37-50 as a finale to this completely irrelevant and ineffective response to my entire list. Curiously, he never understood its purpose or the nature of my argument, which I laid out quite clearly enough. Here is his final comment about it:

Mr. Amstrong cited a set of subjective rules, and if I obey that set of rules, I can be considered righteous before God. In a total of 50, a very robust set of rules, which any educated man knows is impossible to comply with all,

No. The list contains the various biblical answers to why one should be allowed into heaven, according to God. They are particular biblical examples, not an exhaustive required list. I never ever claimed (nor does the Bible) that any given individual has to do all 50 (let alone perfectly) in order to be saved. Nice try at caricaturing my argument.

and even if he does, if he slips in just one, he will become guilty of all.

Again, he totally misses the point. I dealt at great length and in great depth with James 2:10 (“For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it”) last time. No need to do so again now.

No matter how hard you are, if you are not perfect in the literal sense of the term, you cannot have peace with God. That is the point, for Paul claims to have peace with God. But how can that be if, according to Mr. Armstrong, St. Paul was not entirely holy and perfect, as he was afraid of being disqualified?

It’s because he knew he wasn’t required to be absolutely perfect in order to possess such peace or to be saved. He only had to be in God’s good graces, free of serious sin, willing to repent when he did sin, and vigilant against falling away. This is all Catholic teaching. Therefore, Paul, with this view, could simultaneously write many times about persevering and pressing on, while also asserting the peace of the baptized, indwelt, sacrament- and grace-soaked believer (see some 60-70 examples of his references to “peace”).

The unequivocal conclusion follows: justification before God is by faith alone, and sanctification is by faith and works, faith being its formal cause and work the result of that sanctification.

It doesn’t follow because it’s based on false and unbiblical premises, as I have been proving over and over.

Looking at this set of 50 rules, I can’t see how this differs from Pharisaic legalism,

It’s not a set of “rules.” I’ve explained several times now what it is. It’s fifty biblical answers to the common evangelistic “slogan” that we hear from a certain sort of influential Protestant (especially in America). All the “Pharisaic legalism” here has resided in his cynical, dismissive replies that never got the point; never got to the point, and were almost always legalistic in nature. If we’re going to sling charges of pharisaism around, I say that his legalistic replies — over and over about “how many hungry must we feed?” etc. — are much more like what Jesus condemns:

Matthew 23:23 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.

Francisco, normally a good debater (I have commended him publicly for it several times now), for whatever reason, simply couldn’t follow my line of reasoning here at all. He never grasped what my argument was, and so he never got to first base in his replies; never got beyond mere caricatures and non sequiturs.

What Scripture teaches is the opposite:

Ecclesiastes 7:20 Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins.

*

Proverbs 20:9 Who can say, “I have made my heart clean; I am pure from my sin”?

Who can say that he has no sin? . . .

But if to be justified is to be fully sanctified, then it would not be a lie for someone who has reached such a standard to claim that he is without sin. Scripture, however, makes no exception, except Christ himself.

Lots of people (and angels) have been without sin: if not always, at least for a time or season. Adam and Eve before they fell were sinless; had never sinned until they rebelled. If we consider all creatures, two-thirds of the angels are not only sinless now, but always have been so. Even Satan and the fallen angels were sinless before they rebelled. Some have argued (even some Protestants, I believe) that the prophet Jeremiah and/or John the Baptist may have possibly been sinless:

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

*

Luke 1:15 for he will be great before the Lord, . . . and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.

Job is described by God as follows:

Job 1:8 And the LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil?” (cf. 1:1; 2:3)

Moses wrote that Noah was “a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God” (Gen 6:9). The Bible states that “the heart of [King] Asa was blameless all his days” (2 Chr 15:17). The word “blameless” appears forty times in the Old Testament in the RSV and twelve more times in the New. Zechariah and his wife Elizabeth, the parents of John the Baptist, are described in inspired revelation as “righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless” (Lk 1:5-6).

Children under the age of reason are basically sinless, as are those without the mental or intellectual capacity to make moral judgments. All of us are sinless every night when we sleep (excepting a wicked dream, which is only half-willing at best). After receiving absolution in sacramental confession, a person is sinless: at least until such time as he or she decides to sin again. All who make it to heaven will be sinless for all eternity.

St. Paul urges us to “be holy and blameless before him” (Eph 1:4). Sure, it’s an extremely high ideal or goal, but Paul acts as if it is at least potentially possible. He didn’t say (as Francisco would): “no one can ever possibly be blameless; so don’t even try; don’t even begin the attempt. It’s foolish to believe such a thing.” No! Paul appears to believe that it can hypothetically be done, by God’s grace. Paul didn’t just say this once, but ten times: “that you . . . may be pure and blameless for the day of Christ” (Phil 1:10); “that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish” (Phil 2:15); “You are witnesses, and God also, how holy and righteous and blameless was our behavior” (1 Thess 2:10); “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” (1 Thess 5:23); “if they prove themselves blameless let them serve as deacons” (1 Tim 3:10); “a bishop, as God’s steward, must be blameless” (Titus 1:7; cf. 1:6).

And the Blessed Virgin Mary was sinless, due to an extraordinary, miraculous act of grace by God at her conception. We know this from the meaning of kecharitomene (“full of grace”): which is how the angel Gabriel described her in inspired revelation (Lk 1:28). I’ve constructed an argument for her sinlessness solely from Scripture, based on Luke 1:28. Here is some of that argument:

The great Baptist Greek scholar A. T. Robertson exhibits a Protestant perspective, but is objective and fair-minded, in commenting on this verse as follows:

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

Kecharitomene has to do with God’s grace, as it is derived from the Greek root, charis (literally, “grace”). Thus, in the KJV, charis is translated “grace” 129 out of the 150 times that it appears. Greek scholar Marvin Vincent noted that even Wycliffe and Tyndale (no enthusiastic supporters of the Catholic Church) both rendered kecharitomene in Luke 1:28 as “full of grace” and that the literal meaning was “endued with grace” (Word Studies in the New Testament, I, 259).

Likewise, well-known Protestant linguist W. E. Vine, defines it as “to endue with Divine favour or grace” (Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, II, 171). All these men (except Wycliffe, who probably would have been, had he lived in the 16th century or after it) are Protestants, and so cannot be accused of Catholic translation bias.

For St. Paul, grace (charis) is the antithesis and “conqueror” of sin (emphases added in the following verses):

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

We are saved by grace, and grace alone:

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

Thus, the biblical argument outlined above proceeds as follows:

1. Grace saves us.

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

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

In this fashion, the sinlessness of Mary is proven from biblical principles and doctrines accepted by every orthodox Protestant. Certainly all mainstream Christians agree that grace is required both for salvation and to overcome sin. So in a sense my argument is only one of degree, deduced (almost by common sense, I would say) from notions that all Christians hold in common.

I also made a concise argument about the possibility and actuality of sinlessness in my article: “All Have Sinned” vs. a Sinless, Immaculate Mary? [1996; revised and posted at National Catholic Register on 12-11-17].

Now, if to be justified and have peace with God I have to be perfect in my ways and that means not sinning at all, then who will be free from condemnation? Who will have peace with God since no one is free from all sins?

This is a red herring, as I have repeatedly noted. Catholicism doesn’t require absolute perfection in every jot and tittle to be saved, but rather, yielding to God in repentance (with the help of sacraments, which convey grace) and being free of subjectively mortal, serious sin (not all sin). The distinction between mortal and venial (lesser) sins is explicitly biblical (see particularly 1 John 5:16-17).

Yes, he will be free from sin who receives the merits of Christ imputed to him, for there is no man who is inherently so righteous as to be without sin, being always in need of the grace of God. Furthermore, it is a lie to say that we have no sin:

1 John 1:8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

Yeah, people sin. They do so all the time. This is some huge revelation? The Protestant problem is that the above verse is trotted out, while ignoring the previous and following verses (context): “the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin” (1:7); “he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1:9). So the sinner is back to a state of holiness / righteousness / sinlessness again, by God’s grace and faithfulness. The words mean what they say: “all sin” and “all unrighteousness” are “cleansed” and they are cleansed by “the blood of Jesus.” All Francisco can do with that is claim that the words don’t “really” mean what they state (which he has already done several times: not an impressive “argument” at all).

1 John is entirely, thoroughly Catholic in perspective and in its spirit. It recognizes that people sin, but offers the total remedy for it (actually removing sin, not just declaring it’s removed when it isn’t in fact), and casually assumes that human beings are capable of going beyond sin (at least at times). And it states the high ideal of the Christian life that we should all be striving to achieve by means of God’s grace and our free will cooperation with it:

1 John 1:6 If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not live according to the truth;

*

1 John 2:1, 3-6 My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; . . . [3] And by this we may be sure that we know him, if we keep his commandments. [4] He who says “I know him” but disobeys his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him; [5] but whoever keeps his word, in him truly love for God is perfected. By this we may be sure that we are in him: [6] he who says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.

*

1 John 2:29 If you know that he is righteous, you may be sure that every one who does right is born of him.

*

1 John 3:3-10 And every one who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure. [4] Every one who commits sin is guilty of lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. [5] You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. [6] No one who abides in him sins; no one who sins has either seen him or known him. [7] Little children, let no one deceive you. He who does right is righteous, as he is righteous. [8] He who commits sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. [9] No one born of God commits sin; for God’s nature abides in him, and he cannot sin because he is born of God. [10] By this it may be seen who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not do right is not of God, nor he who does not love his brother.

*

1 John 3:17-19, 22-24 But if any one has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him? [18] Little children, let us not love in word or speech but in deed and in truth. [19] By this we shall know that we are of the truth, and reassure our hearts before him . . . [22] and we receive from him whatever we ask, because we keep his commandments and do what pleases him. [23] And this is his commandment, that we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us. [24] All who keep his commandments abide in him, and he in them. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit which he has given us.

*

1 John 4:8 He who does not love does not know God; for God is love.

*

1 John 4:20 If any one says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen.

*

1 John 5:16-18 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. [18] We know that any one born of God does not sin, but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him.

Francisco then addresses the extensive argumentation I made from James 2:10 (“For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it”). I wrote:

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”.

First I would like to point out that I have never claimed that all sins are equal, and classical Calvinist theologians are willing to agree that sins are not equal,

Great! Many Protestants do assuredly believe that, but I’m delighted that Calvinists do not. I’m still defending the Catholic view of justification against all Protestants, and as always, they disagree with and contradict each other all over the place.

There is an angle in which we consider sins equal, for we believe that Christ dies equally for all sins, not just for a group of sins; therefore, all sins are damning and all sins are mortal, for they need the blood of Christ’s death to be atoned for.

That’s not true at all, because the Bible also refers to (mortal) sins which – if not repented of – will exclude one from heaven (1 Cor 6:9-10; Gal 5:19-21; Eph 5:5; Rev 21:27; 22:15), and 1 John 5:16-18 (not far above) expressly contradicts this assertion. If all sins were equally “damning” then such lists would be meaningless and absurd and utterly unnecessary, because it would make no sense to distinguish more serious sins that exclude one from heaven when in fact all do so, according to Protestantism.

A child stealing a cookie from the cookie jar will go to hell alongside Hitler and Stalin, if “all sins are damning and all sins are mortal.” That’s the logical reduction of Francisco’s claim! Thus, once again, as so often throughout this debate, we have the Bible on one side of the debate, and Protestantism on the other. Go with the inspired Bible, folks. It’ll never let you down!

It remains standing that St. James says that if we stumble over one commandment, we become unclean, although it is not denied that there are more and less serious sins. It is also certain that all sin is an impurity, therefore it injures holiness.

I think my overall analysis of James 2:10 refuted this understanding.

If holiness and justification are the same thing, as the Roman Catholics think, then only he is just who does not stumble at the law at any point, and here lies the force of my argument. . . . When will we have peace with God?

We also state in no uncertain terms that the whole thing is a process, with fits and starts. We have peace with God when we are baptized, and when we profess a resolve to be a serious disciple, and with the sacrament of confirmation, and the Eucharist every Sunday; in sacramental absolution after confession, in sacramental marriage. We experience it in prayer and due to God being in us, in the indwelling. We have it in all kinds of ways, and it’s not dependent on being absolutely perfect to receive it. And this is the same dynamic we see in the Apostle Paul himself, as I have shown.

[I]t follows that it is impossible for man to keep the whole law, and therefore it is it is also impossible for man to be justified before God and to have peace.

No, because he fundamentally misunderstands how the Catholic system works. I’ve already explained it several times, so I need not do so again now. But the summary is that we are saved by grace, just as Protestants believe. We’re not seeking to be saved by the law, which can save no one, according to Paul and the New Testament. In fact, even the OT Jews (or at least the more theologically informed and spiritual, pious ones) ultimately believed in salvation by grace, not by law. Their views have been caricatured by Christians, just as Catholic views have been stereotyped as mere slavish legalism rather than a system and soteriology of grace, including faith, which necessarily includes works.

We reject the Roman Catholic distinction between venial sins and mortal sins, for Christ dies for all sins; therefore all are mortal and must be atoned for by the death of Christ.

Correction: they reject the clear biblical teaching on this matter. We’re merely following that; we didn’t invent it.

[W]hat commandment could God give to Adam that, if he were disobeyed, Adam would remain in paradise? Is there some kind of sin that Adam could commit that God would not drive him out of the garden? If there is, then the distinction between venial and mortal sin is valid, if there is not, then all sins are mortal, for any sin committed by Adam would lead to his death.

That’s an interesting argument and question to ponder. But I think we can arrive at the answer by analogy: it’s those sins that the Bible say will prohibit one from entering heaven (1 Cor 6:9-10; Gal 5:19-21; Eph 5:5; Rev 21:27; 22:15): the paradise of the future: just as Eden was the initial paradise. If God communicated this distinction of sins with regard to heaven (leading to spiritual death), then it stands to reason that the same sorts of sins could have conceivably excluded Adam and Eve from Eden: had they committed them, rather than Lucifer-like and Lucifer-induced wholesale rebellion against God’s authority.

Therefore, as Francisco conceded (if I am correct), there is a valid distinction between mortal and venial sin. But that knowledge didn’t come about by speculation about Eden; it came from explicit biblical teaching. The Bible, in fact, has much more material concerning different sins and differential punishments (and indeed, even purgatory) than it does about original sin.

The charge that Protestants isolate texts from their context deserves no response.

When I make this charge, I am primarily speaking in general sense. Protestants have a strong tendency to only use selected “pet” prooftexts and ignoring not only context but many other passages that are also relevant. I go through this all the time in my debates with Protestants. The proof of that is in my website articles and debates. I hasten to add that there are certainly plenty of Protestants who can also bring a lot of Scripture to a debate, and ably wrangle verse-by-verse about exegesis (my own great love for the Bible developed in completely Protestant environments, and I thank God for that all the time) — and I think my esteemed debate opponent Francisco is among those.

But there are also many who just trot out the usual pet verses on any given topic. We’re accused of the same thing, of course, the other way around. It’s said, for example, that we ignore scores of passages about grace and faith, in our supposed obsession with legalistic works. It can be a vigorous discussion back-and-forth, but it need not be personal or acrimonious.

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.

The text of James 5.16 must be evaluated not only by the consequent, but also by the antecedent. The preceding verses point to the reality of the power of prayer even in the face of sinful condition, for they say: “Confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed.”

Of course we pray for each other. This has no bearing on my point: that prayers of more righteous people have much more effect. Both things are true and do not contradict. But the previous context also expresses sacramentalism and the more powerful prayer of the “elders”. Paul (as I stated above) taught that deacons (1 Tim 3:10) and bishops (Titus 1:7) were the be “blameless.” It stands to reason that Paul would also think the same about the required qualifications of elders. So what we see here is James exhorting Christians to go to these holier people in authority in the Church (precisely in harmony with 5:16), who can also bring the saving and healing power of the sacraments:

James 5:14 Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord;

The most impressive comes in the consequent, when it comes to Elijah. Yes, Elijah is called righteous, and Mr. Armstrong agrees that the prophet Elijah was totally righteous. Saint James then says something that dismantles Mr. Armstrong’s argument, thus saying: “Elijah was a man subject to the same passions as we are, and praying that it would not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth.” James 5:17 One should reflect on the meaning of passions in this text, for the Greek term used is ομοιοπαθες (homoiopathés) and has a sense of the same nature, the same fragile and imperfect constitution, the same condition. Far from being someone absolutely perfect, as Roman Catholic theology requires, for someone to be considered righteous, Elijah was someone subject to passions like “any of us”, that is, all common men.

Once again, our theology is misrepresented. We’re not requiring (for salvation) anyone to be “absolutely perfect” (that’s ludicrous); nor are we claiming that Elijah was so. We claim exactly what the text claims. Elijah was provided (in a New Testament text citing the Old Testament) as an example of the “prayer of a righteous man” that “has great power in its effects” (5:16). Note that he was called “righteous”; not perfect or sinless. So “he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth” (5:17). Thus, the historical documentation proves the principle. Francisco then immediately caricatured the Catholic argument from this. No one ever said Elijah was perfect (well, maybe some thought so, as with Jeremiah, but it’s not required in any sense for this argument to succeed).

On the other hand, the text is not necessarily saying that Elijah was a sinner no different from any of us. Having “passions” sounds to me like simply having concupiscence: an urge or tendency to sin (which all human beings — save for Mary and maybe a few others — have), but not in and of itself sinful. I don’t see that James 5:17 is much different from Hebrews 4:15: “For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.” But in the final analysis it’s irrelevant whether Elijah was perfect or flawed and periodically sinful like virtually all human beings. The whole point of the passage is that he was relatively more “righteous,” which is why he could offer extraordinary prayers which God granted due to this superior righteousness.

When St. James quotes Elijah, he means to teach that all prayer must be done by faith. He uses Elijah’s example to show that if he was heard, we will also be heard, for the command to pray in faith is given to everyone, not just a group of those who would be righteous like Elijah.

This is literally the opposite of the thrust of the passage. If Elijah was no different from anyone else with regard to prayer, then he wouldn’t have been singled out as one man who was so “righteous” that he could make such an amazing prayer and have it granted. But that doesn’t fit all that well into Protestant soteriology so we see Francisco trying to ignore what seems to be a rather easily interpreted, “perspicuous” text

I agree that there are people holier than others, but if the measure of prayer were the degree of holiness, then it should be added to the text that we would all be heard only if we were as holy as Elijah, which is totally foreign to the text.

That need not be stated at all (and so it wasn’t). The point is that if we are spiritually wise, we will go to the holiest, most righteous person we can find and ask them to offer our intercession or petition. This principle lies behind the invocation of saints as well. We ask Mary to pray for us precisely because she is perfectly holy (apart from being the Mother of God), and so her prayers are more powerful than those of any other created human being (per the analogy of James 5:16-17). It doesn’t follow from that, that God won’t answer the prayers of any and everyone who offers them (which is clearly taught in many places elsewhere, anyway). It’s a matter of degree, not essence.

I have supported the notion and fact of the prayers of holier people having more effect from many other Bible passages (39, to be exact) as well: Biblical Evidence for Prayers of the Righteous Having More Power [3-23-11]. I can’t quote more of those here because my reply is already more than 18,000 words.

Furthermore, if the degree of holiness determined the size of the divine answer, then the answer to a prayer would be by human merit, not by divine mercy, gracious and undeserved, regardless of the degree of holiness any man has attained.

Again, both things are true (don’t buy Francisco’s false dichotomy): 1) God answers prayers of all who ask according to His will; 2) the prayers of more righteous people can be of an extraordinary nature and relatively more powerful. This is easily demonstrated. If Francisco wants to think all our prayers are “equal” then I challenge him to get together 1,000 Protestants (even all Brazilian Calvinists, if he prefers) and tell them to all fervently pray for it not to rain for 3 1/2 years, and then to pray that the rain would resume again. Let’s see how successful that experiment is, how far that goes to prove his point. Case closed!

Once again, it’s not me or those terrible Catholics who pulled this claim out of thin air. It’s massively biblical, as James 5 and many other passages in my article above prove. Whatever Francisco or Calvinists or anyone else may think of this (like or dislike it) — whether the dreaded, despised merit is entailed or not — it remains true that the Bible teaches it. And it teaches merit, as I have demonstrated with many Scriptures above. Protestantism would be so easy to follow if it weren’t for that blasted Bible that gets in the way of it times without number.

The text does not teach that we must be as holy as Elijah so that our prayers are heard as much as his was

I agree, broadly speaking. But it does strongly imply that your average run-of-the-mill Christians will not likely make a successful prayer of the nature of stopping rain for over three years. Something was different about Elijah (and people like Moses, Abraham, etc.), so that they had the power — granted by God — to make extraordinary prayers. Even sometimes cowardly Aaron “made atonement for the people. And he stood between the dead and the living; and the plague was stopped” (Num 16:47-48). This was a plague that had killed 14,700 people (Num 16:49), if we take that number literally (it may not be). King David (no perfect saint!, but “a man after [God’s] own heart”: 1 Sam 13:14) built an altar, made offerings and prayers, and “the LORD heeded supplications for the land, and the plague was averted from Israel” (2 Sam 24:25). “Phin’ehas stood up and interposed, and the plague was stayed” (Ps 106:30). Etc., etc.

on the contrary, the text levels Elijah with all the righteous, with the elders of the Church and with the people with whom we confess; that is, if Elijah was heard, we shall also be heard when we pray in faith.

Right. Again I challenge Francisco to test his belief: get 1,000 Protestants and pray for something equivalent in its astonishing nature to the rain stopping for 3 1/2 years. How about praying for a cure to cancer, or an end of war or abortion? It’s ludicrous to interpret the text in this way. He misses the entire point of of it. But he has to oppose its clear meaning because it’s so vastly different from the Protestant worldview, mindset, or predispositions. Thus, he is, I submit, reduced to pitiful special pleading. It’s a valiant effort (e for effort), and I always admire zeal, even when misplaced, but “no cigar” . . .

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.”

I fully agree,

Isn’t unity great?

but what has just been said contradicts what Mr. Armstrong has been advocating.

Not in the slightest. What it contradicts is the Protestant like Francisco’s inadequate understanding of Catholic soteriology. Protestant apologists and critics of the Catholic Church (including our beloved anti-Catholic polemicists; I do not include Francisco in that group) always try to act as if the Catholic system is one of pharisaic legalism and seeking works (in the heretical Pelagian sense) and/or the Mosaic Law to save oneself. None of it is true. We’re saved (in our belief) ultimately by grace alone through the blood of Christ on the cross alone. We differ on particulars as to how that all works out, but the fundamental beliefs are the same, and we ought to all be very thankful for that, and for many other significant agreements, in the midst of a sea of differences.

If I establish 50 rules to comply with in order to be considered righteous before God, I am talking about a righteousness of my own; but if I say that righteousness is entirely of Christ, then I am speaking of an imputed righteousness, not an infused righteousness.

As already explained, it was not 50 “rules”: all required for salvation. It was fifty answers to the question of how one is saved and gets to heaven: all straight from the Bible, not some pope in the 12th century, etc.

Francisco then addressed an argument I made against John Calvin. I won’t cite all that. Readers can see it in the previous installment. The argument involves some subtleties. I urge readers to simply read it twice if it seems hard to follow at first. In fact, this sub-argument is so involved that I will let Francisco have the last word, for the sake of both brevity and in charity (which is not the same as an admission that I couldn’t answer it if I chose to do so). I get the last word in most cases, because I respond last. Here (in charity) I will let him have it. He chose not to individually address my arguments, point-by-point at least three times (like we both agreed to do), so I will return the favor, but on a different basis. I’m over 19,000 words at this point and still trying to finish.

We move on, then, to the issue of whether the Bible teaches the notion of both mortal and venial sins. I first cited the “classic” Catholic prooftext of 1 John 5:16-17. Francisco made his reply:

This text does not claim that there are sins that do not kill spiritually, but it teaches that he who sins unrepentantly to his death, we should no longer pray for that person.

I don’t see how, since 5:16 states plainly, “a sin that does not lead to death” (NIV), “a sin not leading to death” (NASB), and some English translations make it more explicit and specific: “sin that does not lead to eternal death” (Expanded Bible / New Century Version). Francisco cites James 1:15: “Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin; and sin when it is full-grown brings forth death.” He wrote about that:

As Scripture does not contradict itself, so there is no sin that does not kill.

That doesn’t logically follow, since the sin referred to that “brings forth death” is not all sins, but only ones that are “full-grown.” Therefore, there is sin that is not “full-grown” which doesn’t lead to spiritual death or damnation. This is an even better prooftext than 1 John 5:16-17. I’m delighted that it was brought up.

Francisco then claims that the RSV translation that I used (perhaps the most well-known and established one in English after he King James Version) is “obscure [obscura], as it omits the Greek preposition pros (πρὸς)”. I can’t speak to Greek arguments like this, which are above my pay grade. I have no disagreement with the notion that some men are beyond redemption. The problem is that we as fallible men, don’t know when they have reached that point.

The text does not deal with a list of sins that are venial (common) and a list of mortal (serious) sins, but with sins that were atoned for through the concurrence of faith and repentance and sins that were not atoned for through repentance in faith. . That is why St. John says: “He that is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that overcomes the world: our faith. Who conquers the world? Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God.” 1 John 5:4,5 To believe with all your heart is to have been born again and overcome the world, therefore, whoever is born of “God is not in sin; he who is born of God is protected by God, and the Evil One does not touch him.” 1 John 5:18. . . . The text does not deal with mortal sin in contradiction to venial sin, but militates against the one who lives in sin and the one who sins but repents, and for these we must pray, while the impenitent, after being warned, must be forsaken.

I think the interpretation of Pope St. John Paul II is more plausible:

Obviously, the concept of death here is a spiritual death. It is a question of the loss of the true life or ‘eternal life’, which for John is knowledge of the Father and the Son (cf. Jn 17:3), and communion and intimacy with them. In that passage the sin that leads to death seems to be the denial of the Son (cf. 1 Jn 2:22), or the worship of false gods (cf. 1 Jn 5:21). At any rate, by this distinction of concepts John seems to wish to emphasize the incalculable seriousness of what constitutes the very essence of sin, namely the rejection of God. This is manifested above all in apostasy and idolatry: repudiating faith in revealed truth and making certain created realities equal to God, raising them to the status of idols and false gods (cf. 1 Jn 5:16–21). (Reconciliation and Penance, 2 December 1984, 17)

The text deals with sins that are forgivable and sins that are not forgivable, which sin is unforgivable? According to Scripture, only one: blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. It is certain, by deduction, that impenitence is a way of blaspheming the Holy Spirit, for we know that for impenitence there is no forgiveness.

All pretty much agree on the unpardonable sin. But there are also sins that exclude one from heaven (the same as spiritual death or damnation). I’ve listed the passages that denote this sins twice. Here they are again: (1 Cor 6:9-10; Gal 5:19-21; Eph 5:5; Rev 21:27; 22:15). Now that the point is belabored, I will list all of those sins individually, in the order of the books they appear in, but without repetition (I’ll indicate multiple mentions with a number):

“neither . . . [list] will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor 6:9-10)

“those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (Gal 5:21)

“no . . . [list] has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God . . . because of these things that the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience” (Eph 5:5-6)

“shall [not] enter [heaven]” (Rev 21:27)

“Outside are . . . [list]” (Rev 22:15)

immoral / idolaters (4) / adulterers / sexual perverts / thieves / the greedy / drunkards or drunkenness (2) / revilers / robbers / fornication (3) / impurity (2) / licentiousness / sorcery (2) / enmity / strife / jealousy / anger / selfishness / dissension / party spirit / envy / carousing / covetous / unclean / one who practices abomination / one who practices falsehood (2) / dogs / murderers

Conclusion: sins not on this list or not of this high degree of seriousness, are venial sins and will not exclude one from heaven: contrary to Francisco’s claims.

Mr. Armstrong continues his argument by trying to prove the distinction between mortal and venial sin. The point is that this doctrine cannot be deduced from Scripture.

I just did that! Let the reader judge.

Scripture teaches that there are sins more grievous than others, but it never says that there are sins that do not lead to hell, that is, to eternal death, all sins, therefore, being mortal.

To the contrary: it does in 1 John 5:16-17 and (even more explicitly and undeniably) in James 1:15.

Mr. Armstrong suggests that conscious sin is a mortal sin and ignorant sin is not a mortal sin, but this is not true for several reasons: 1 – The man who has never heard the Gospel and sins through sheer ignorance is also liable to hell. Although his sin is less than the one who knowingly commits the sin, this does not mean that his sin is not mortal before God.

As I have already shown, St. Paul in Romans 2 teaches otherwise.

“I, who was once a blasphemous and contumelious persecutor, obtained mercy, because I acted out of ignorance, as one who did not yet have the Faith.” (I Timothy 1:13). St. Paul confesses that he acted in ignorance, but he does not fail to enumerate his sin as blasphemy (a mortal sin according to Roman Catholic theology).

The sin he committed was objectively blasphemous, but not subjectively so; therefore he was not as culpable for it, since he acted in ignorance, and (as we see) obtained “mercy.”

Jesus teaches that we will even give an account of the useless words that we speak: “But I say to you that in the day of judgment men will give an account for every useless word that they have spoken. For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.” Matthew 12:36,37.

It’s yet another work that helps determine if we are saved. Where does that leave Protestants who would relegate such a thing to sanctification and as such, not having anything to do with salvation? It contradicts what Jesus said. But (as we know from two verses earlier) the verbal sin comes from the heart in any event:

Matthew 12:34 You brood of vipers! how can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. (cf. Lk 6:45)

*

Luke 12:48 But he who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, shall receive a light beating. . . .

The text is clear in saying that he who sins through ignorance, although he receives a lesser penalty, will not be free from eternal punishment. Just as the amount of good works is reflected in the heavenly reward, the gravity of sins is reflected in the punishment received in hell, but all sins lead to eternal death.

It’s not “clear” at all that it means that. Luke 12:46 refers to one of the irresponsible, hedonistic servant. He was “put . . . with the unfaithful”: which sounds to me like hell. The pone who knew the master’s will but didn’t do it “receive[d] a severe beating” (12:47). That sounds to me like severe divine chastisement. The third person didn’t know, and hence “receive[d] a light beating” (12:48). The latter hardly sounds like hell. It seems like it is mild divine chastisement (possibly in purgatory). But Francisco assumes it is hell. I don’t see how. The parabolic references to hell are quite clear: either “fire” or the “outer darkness” (Mt 22:13), etc.

Francisco tries to argue that given venial sin, we shouldn’t preach the gospel and keep people ignorant. But (I agree with him), we are commanded to do so, so it’s a moot point.

The Reformed faith is in agreement with the faith of the Church Fathers, and denies novelties such as Baptism of Desire and salvation in a state of invincible ignorance, which go against the unanimous faith of the fathers.

Oh, I’d love to get into this, but it goes against two of our agreed-to rules:

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 . . .

Francisco simply passed over a bunch of my biblical texts again (that’s now the fourth time), so I will skip over a lot of his material, too, as I am now at 21,000 words, very tired, and have a lot of other things to do at the moment. If we’re going to ditch our Rule No. 3 at this late stage, then both of us will, not just one. I won’t abide by it when my opponent refuses to. I’m just happy that it survived for two rounds before being thrown out, because in my opinion, that made for excellent dialogue, where each of us exhaustively, comprehensively dealt with all of the others’ arguments.

Now the new method is apparently “pick-and-choose” what each of us will respond to, which is how most debates (or unreasonable facsimile thereof) proceed today. Francisco has been bringing up many of the Calvinist’s favorite (and distinctive) topics at this point, such as perseverance of the saints and limited atonement: not strictly on the topic of justification. Each of those deserve a huge debate devoted to them alone. I note (with some amusement) that he made the same charge towards me, by saying, “Now, thank God, we’re back to the main subject, justification.” Okay, call it even, then.

I asked Mr. Armstrong, once again, to define the distinction between initial justification, justification, and sanctification. This distinction was made earlier, but obscurely, which is why I asked for clarification. As I only asked for clarification and he is simply exposing his concept, as he understands it, I will not object at this time. I will keep them only for the purpose of guiding my understanding during the analysis of the next questions raised by Mr. Armstrong.

I think I made additional clarifications, as asked. I hope they are considered satisfactory. I obviously think they are.

And so we are done with this round! It’s been a long haul. I again thank Francisco for being willing to debate and hanging in there for the long haul. I know he’s very busy in his life with other important responsibilities, so I appreciate the time and effort he has put into this. I thank him for the challenges and the wonderful opportunity to delve into and discuss God’s magnificent Word (which we both equally revere). I became frustrated at times in this installment (and certainly he did too, at times, which is expected in such a “meaty” exchange), but I assure him and everyone else that it’s nothing “personal” or any lack of respect for Francisco as a person or Christian. I wish him all the best and all God’s blessings.

***

Summary: Continuing installment of my debate on justification with Brazilian Calvinist apologist Francisco Tourinho. This is Round 3, part 1. I get the “last word” in each part.

Did Athanasius Accept Sola Scriptura? (vs. Bruno Lima)

Last updated on: October 24, 2022 at 8:36 am By Dave Armstrong

[book and purchase information]

***

Bruno Lima is a Brazilian Calvinist (and anti-Catholic) writer and apologist.

***

I am replying to his article, “Atanásio e a Sola Scriptura” [Athanasius and Sola Scriptura] (1-16-18). His words will be in blue. I use the standard Schaff 38-volume collection of the Church fathers, including for Bruno’s own citations. St. Athanasius’ words will be indented. I cite RSV for Bible passages.

The knowledge of our religion and of the truth of things is independently manifest rather than in need of human teachers, for almost day by day it asserts itself by facts, and manifests itself brighter than the sun by the doctrine of Christ. 2. Still, as you nevertheless desire to hear about it, Macarius, come let us as we may be able set forth a few points of the faith of Christ: able though you are to find it out from the divine oracles, but yet generously desiring to hear from others as well. 3. For although the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth — while there are other works of our blessed teachers compiled for this purpose, if he meet with which a man will gain some knowledge of the interpretation of the Scriptures, and be able to learn what he wishes to know — still, as we have not at present in our hands the compositions of our teachers, we must communicate in writing to you what we learned from them — the faith, namely, of Christ the Saviour; . . . (Against the Heathen, Part 1, 1)

This quotation is one of the strongest statements in favor of the material and formal sufficiency of Scripture.

It teaches the material sufficiency of Scripture for salvation: a doctrine where Catholics and Protestants are in full agreement: and so irrelevant to the debate about sola Scriptura. It does not, however, teach the formal sufficiency of Scripture, which means sola Scriptura (Scripture is the only infallible norm and standard of Christian doctrine). That’s simply wrongly read into the quote, which is perfectly harmonious with Catholicism. The fact that Bruno doesn’t grasp this is part and parcel of the problem with Protestant interpretation and citation of the Church fathers. I just wrote a few minutes ago in a Facebook announcement of this very article:

When anti-Catholic Protestants who try to “co-opt” the Fathers and turn them into good little “proto-Protestants” it’s almost always the same methodology: they pick and choose passages that they wrongly think support their view over against the Catholic one, when in fact they do no such thing (because of their lack of understanding of Catholicism).

The classic example of that is citing Church fathers who believe in the material sufficiency of Scripture. So do Catholics, so it’s irrelevant to the sola Scriptura debate (what’s called a non sequitur in logic).

*

Then, above all, they deliberately ignore any and all passages that directly support Catholic teachings and contradict their own. Because they almost always do this, it’s very easy (though laborious and time-consuming) to refute their efforts, and it always ends up embarrassing for them, because the cynical, objectionably selective and “sneaky” nature of their method is exposed for all to see.

Bruno is starting out with textbook, playbook, classic Protestant methodology in arguing about the Church fathers and maintaining the pretense that their teachings are closer to theirs than ours. I can already see how this will go, with his first citation and sentence in commentary. It’s the same old same old.

Athanasius is communicating with Macarius. He wanted to know more about Christian doctrines. First, he asserts that knowledge of religion and truth manifests independently, without the need for human teachers. This obviously contradicts the idea that Scripture does not speak for itself, but needs an authorized magisterium to speak for it.

Catholics agree that Scripture speaks for itself. But the Catholic Church also wisely understands (in its “both/and” thinking) that human beings have misinterpreted Scripture in hundreds of different ways; therefore, authoritative Church guidance is necessary to maintain orthodoxy. This is, of course, the same view that Scripture teaches about itself:

Nehemiah 8:7-8 Also Jesh’ua, Bani, Sherebi’ah, Jamin, Akkub, Shab’bethai, Hodi’ah, Ma-asei’ah, Keli’ta, Azari’ah, Jo’zabad, Hanan, Pelai’ah, the Levites, helped the people to understand the law, while the people remained in their places. [8] And they read from the book, from the law of God, clearly; and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading. (cf. 8:12)

Luke 24:25-27 . . . “O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! [26] Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” [27] And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Luke 24:45 Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures,

Acts 8:30-31 So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” [31] And he said, “How can I, unless some one guides me?” . . .

2 Peter 1:20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,

2 Peter 3:15-16 . . . So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, [16] speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.

Therefore, the person who claims to be going by Scripture alone (i.e., the Protestant) must necessarily include the abundant biblical teaching on the necessity of authoritative teachers and interpretation of the same Bible. One is either “biblical” or not, and the above six passages are in the inspired Bible, after all. Catholics take them to heart. Protestants either don’t at all, or only partially do.

He then places side by side the inspired Scriptures (sufficient to declare the truth) and other works of the Christian teachers. The message is simple – Scripture is sufficient to declare Christian knowledge, but there are also teachers who are useful and desirable.

That’s again perfectly harmonious with Catholicism. But where we part is in the notion of infallible teachers. Protestants deny infallibility to anything but Scripture. Catholics allow it for specific teachers (bishops in an ecumenical council, in union with popes, or in popes alone) in particular, highly specified conditions. Athanasius doesn’t deny the possibility of infallibility of such teachers in this quotation. Again, Bruno simply reads into it what he wants to (wrongly) believe is present there. We know that elsewhere, St. Athanasius did affirm infallible Church and conciliar pronouncements, the Catholic rule of faith, and the binding, infallible nature of doctrines received through apostolic succession and apostolic tradition (all expressly contrary to sola Scriptura):

But the word of the Lord which came through the ecumenical Synod at Nicea, abides forever. (Ad Afros Epistola Synodica 2; in NPNF2, IV:489)

But let the Faith confessed by the Fathers at Nicæa alone hold good among you, at which all the fathers, including those of the men who now are fighting against it, were present, as we said above, and signed: in order that of us too the Apostle may say, ‘Now I praise you that you remember me in all things, and as I handed the traditions to you, so hold them fast 1 Corinthians 11:2.’ (Ad Afros Epistola Synodica 10)

For had they believed aright, they would have been satisfied with the confession put forth at Nicæa by the whole Ecumenical Council; . . . Observe how entirely they disregard the truth, and how everything they say and do is for the sake of the Arian heresy. For in that they dare to question those sound definitions of the faith, and take upon themselves to produce others contrary to them, what else do they but accuse the Fathers, and stand up in defense of that heresy which they opposed and protested against? (Ad Episcopos Aegypti et Libyae, 5)

Who, then, that has any real regard for truth, will be willing to suffer these men any longer? Who will not justly reject their writing? Who will not denounce their audacity, that being but few in number, they would have their decisions to prevail over everything, and as desiring the supremacy of their own meetings, held in corners and suspicious in their circumstances, would forcibly cancel the decrees of an uncorrupt, pure, and Ecumenical Council? (Ad Episcopos Aegypti et Libyae, 7)

It is enough merely to answer such things as follows: we are content with the fact that this is not the teaching of the Catholic Church, nor did the fathers hold this. (Letter No. 59 to Epictetus, 3)

What defect of teaching was there for religious truth in the Catholic Church . . .? (De Synodis, I, 3)

But ye are blessed, who by faith are in the Church, dwell upon the foundations of the faith, and have full satisfaction, even the highest degree of faith which remains among you unshaken. For it has come down to you from Apostolic tradition, . . . (Fragment from Letter No. 29 [Migne, xxvi, p. 1189] )

It is obvious that these teachers (Athanasius himself was one of them) were fallible teachers.

It’s not obvious to Athanasius (as just shown) that all of them are fallible or that no one is ever infallible. Thus, as he thought, the bishops of the Council of Nicaea in 325 made infallible proclamations.

When we discuss sola scriptura and the Church fathers, Catholic apologists fail in one simple respect. It would be easy to demonstrate that a church father did not uphold sola scriptura.

It sure is! Glad to agree on something!

It suffices to demonstrate that Athanasius appealed to an infallible magisterium. He repeatedly appealed to the Scriptures as inspired and infallible, but he never appealed to the supposedly infallible magisterium.

That’s a false statement, as just demonstrated. Accordingly, J. N. D. Kelly, the Anglican patristic scholar, wrote about Athanasius’ views:

Athanasius, disputing with the Arians, claimed that his own doctrine had been handed down from father to father, whereas they could not produce a single respectable witness to theirs. The Nicene faith embodied the truth which had been believed from the beginning. The fathers of Nicaea, he declared, had merely ratified and passed on the teaching which Christ bestowed and tghe apostles proclaimed; anyone who deviated from it could not count as a Christian. . . .

[T]he ancient idea that the Church alone, in virtue of being the home of the Spirit and having preserved the authentic apostolic testimony in her rule of faith, liturgical action and general witness, possesses the indispensable key to Scripture, continued to operate as powerfully as in the days of Irenaeus and Tertullian . . . Athanasius himself, after dwelling on the entire adequacy of Scripture, went on to emphasize the desirability of having sound teachers to expound it. Against the Arians he flung the charge that they would never have made shipwreck of the faith had they held fast as a sheet-anchor to the . . . Church’s peculiar and traditionally handed down grasp of the purport of revelation. (Early Christian Doctrines, San Francisco: HarperCollins, revised edition, 1978, 45, 47)

The Protestant principle never denied the magisterial function of the Church and the usefulness of teachers, theologians, scribes and many others. What we claim is that Scripture is the only unquestioned authority. Church authority is fallible, and in case of conflict with the teaching of Scripture, we are left with the latter.

Yeah, I know. Athanasius and virtually all of the Church fathers disagree with the sola Scriptura view. I proved this about Athanasius above beyond all doubt and argument (which is why Bruno will likely not ever reply to this paper). It was a novelty introduced by Martin Luther in his 18-day Leipzig Disputation with Johann Eck in July 1519. I have proven it about most of the most well-known Church fathers in manty articles collected on my Fathers of the Church web page (search “Bible/Tradition”).

Athanasius grounds all of his teachings from Scripture in the 47 chapters of this work.

This is untrue also. In Against the Heathen 1, 6, 3 he refers to “the sectaries, who have fallen away from the teaching of the Church, and made shipwreck concerning the Faith.” In 2, 33, 1 he states that “the soul is made immortal is a further point in the Church’s teaching which you must know, . . .”. He never cites Scripture to establish this in the entire long chapter. He appealed to Church teaching and made various philosophical arguments. I provide another example of his appealing to extrabiblical sources below.

On the other hand, Athanasius or any other father could write a treatise wholly based on biblical evidences and proofs, just as I have done several hundred times myself. It doesn’t follow from that, that the writer denies the Catholic rule of faith. He’s simply producing biblical argumentation. Protestants — believe it or not! — don’t have a monopoly on either love of the Bible or its interpretation.

In another famous work – “The Incarnation of the Word”, he says:

For Jews in their incredulity may be refuted from the Scriptures, which even themselves read; for this text and that, and, in a word, the whole inspired Scripture, cries aloud concerning these things, as even its express words abundantly show. For prophets proclaimed beforehand concerning the wonder of the Virgin and the birth from her, saying: Lo, the Matthew 1:23; Isaiah 7:14 Virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a Son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which is, being interpreted, God with us. (On the Incarnation of the Word, 33, 3)

Of course, merely mentioning or arguing from the Scriptures does nothing whatsoever to prove that a writer believes in sola Scriptura. Bruno simply assumes that this is the case, but (with just a moment’s reflection) it clearly is not. The totality of a father’s work must be considered. My citations of St. Athanasius are all far more relevant to the debate than what he is coming up with (two non sequiturs thus far).

See how Athanasius argues that the Hebrew Scriptures (OT) were enough to refute the Jews’ unbelief. From the very Scriptures they read, it would already be possible to believe that Jesus was God.

Yes; oftentimes this is the case, It proves nothing with regard to whether Athanasius’ believed in sola Scriptura. I have already proven that he did not, in showing that he accepted tents directly contrary to sola Scriptura.

This kind of argument only makes sense if you assume the formal sufficiency of Scripture.

That doesn’t follow at all. It’s undeniably the case that one doesn’t have to (logically) believe that only Scripture is infallible in order to utilize Scripture in theological argument. A Catholic could make the argument that Athanasius made above, in perfect conformity with his “three-legged stool” rule of faith (Scripture-tradition-Church). I’ve done it myself, many many times, and I have written more about sola Scriptura (denying it) than any other of the hundreds of topics I address as a Catholic apologist.

Someone like Athanasius could (and did) make many arguments from Scripture alone. But he also made arguments of the authority of tradition or councils alone, or from an appeal to apostolic succession alone. And that’s because he believed any of those things could be infallible, just as Scripture is. In his statements about the Council of Nicaea (above), clearly he doesn’t think that it erred at all in its pronouncements, or (so it seems to me) even that it could possibly err.

There are other quotes along the same lines:

For if they do not think these proofs sufficient, let them be persuaded at any rate by other reasons, drawn from the oracles they themselves possess. (On the Incarnation of the Word, 38, 1)

Or if not even this is sufficient for them, let them at least be silenced by another proof, seeing how clear its demonstrative force is. For the Scripture says: . . . (On the Incarnation of the Word, 38, 3)

[T]hen it must be plain, even to those who are exceedingly obstinate, that the Christ has come, and that He has illumined absolutely all with His light, and given them the true and divine teaching concerning His Father. So one can fairly refute the Jews by these and by other arguments from the Divine Scriptures. (On the Incarnation of the Word, 40,7-8)

He cited Scripture. Great! But (for the billionth time in these foolish discussions) nothing here proves that he held to sola Scriptura. They’re consistent with sola Scriptura, but we don’t have enough information here to conclude that he holds that view. Such utterances are also perfectly consistent with the Catholic rule of faith.

Throughout the work Athanasius quotes Scripture abundantly. Tradition and the Church are never cited as independent authorities. All allusions to them are connected with some teaching clearly expounded in Scripture. In the same work he says:

Who then is he of whom the Divine Scriptures say this? Or who is so great that even the prophets predict of him such great things? None else, now, is found in the Scriptures but the common Saviour of all, the Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ. (On the Incarnation of the Word, 37, 3)

Since then nothing is said in the Scriptures, it is evident that these things had never taken place before. (On the Incarnation of the Word, 38, 5)

All this proves is that in this particular work he made only scriptural arguments; nothing more than that. In others he uses a different methodology: and one that proves that he doesn’t hold to sola Scriptura. Bruno simply ignores those. I don’t, because I present the whole truth. Bruno’s approach is “out of sight, out of mind . . .” (whenever a patristic citation contradicts Protestantism’s traditions of men). That won’t do when I’m around: scrutinizing arguments to see if they can withstand close examination.

Note that the presupposition is that if Scripture was silent, nothing could be said.

That goes far beyond the point he was making, which was simply that Scripture would have plausibly recorded certain things if indeed they had happened. He was commenting on prophecies having to do with the coming of the Messiah, Christ. Since prophecies were in the Bible, obviously a discussion of them would also remain within the text of the Bible. Here is the larger passage, which provides the full context:

[T]he prophecy not only indicates that God is to sojourn here, but it announces the signs and the time of His coming. For they connect the blind recovering their sight, and the lame walking, and the deaf hearing, and the tongue of the stammerers being made plain, with the Divine Coming which is to take place. Let them say, then, when such signs have come to pass in Israel, or where in Jewry anything of the sort has occurred. 5. Naaman, a leper, was cleansed, but no deaf man heard nor lame walked. Elias raised a dead man; so did Eliseus; but none blind from birth regained his sight. For in good truth, to raise a dead man is a great thing, but it is not like the wonder wrought by the Saviour. Only, if Scripture has not passed over the case of the leper, and of the dead son of the widow, certainly, had it come to pass that a lame man also had walked and a blind man recovered his sight, the narrative would not have omitted to mention this also. Since then nothing is said in the Scriptures, it is evident that these things had never taken place before. 6. When, then, have they taken place, save when the Word of God Himself came in the body? Or when did He come, if not when lame men walked, and stammerers were made to speak plain, and deaf men heard, and men blind from birth regained their sight? (On the Incarnation of the Word, 38, 4-6)

Now compare this to Catholic apologists who say that Scripture is an incomplete record, that there are several other records that we must obey independently of Scripture.

We believe that Scripture is incomplete because Scripture itself teaches it:

Mark 4:33 With many such parables he spoke the word to them, . . .

By implication, many parables are not recorded in Scripture.

Mark 6:34 . . . he began to teach them many things.

None of these “many things” are recorded in the immediate context.

John 20:30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;

John 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

Acts 1:2-3 . . . to the apostles . . . [3] . . . he presented himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days, and speaking of the kingdom of God.

Only very few of these appearances are recorded. In just one appearance, if Jesus had talked to the disciples for an entire evening, the amount of words might possibly have been more than those in the entire New Testament. And He appeared for forty days.

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.

2 Timothy 2:2 and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

As I wrote in my first book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (2003):

Protestants usually deny that any of Christ’s teachings not recorded in Scripture could possibly be faithfully transmitted orally by primitive apostolic Tradition. Reflection upon the closeness of Jesus to his disciples and on the nature of human interaction and memory makes quite dubious any such fancy. Who could make the claim that the Apostles remembered (and communicated to others) absolutely nothing except what we have in the four Gospels? . . .

It seems that whenever the Catholic argues that the Bible is not the be-all and end-all of the Christian faith, he is accused of disrespecting God’s Word, etc. This is one of many unfortunate Protestant false dichotomies . . . (pp. 6-7)

Athanasius closes the work by giving a very clear statement of the formal sufficiency of Scripture:

Let this, then, Christ-loving man, be our offering to you, just for a rudimentary sketch and outline, in a short compass, of the faith of Christ and of His Divine appearing to usward. But you, taking occasion by this, if you light upon the text of the Scriptures, by genuinely applying your mind to them, will learn from them more completely and clearly the exact detail of what we have said. 2. For they were spoken and written by God, through men who spoke of God. (On the Incarnation of the Word, 56, 1-2)

He does no such thing. Once again, the Protestant in his misguided and illogical zeal, foolishly thinks that a passage proves the notion of sola Scriptura (i.e., that Scripture is the only infallible authority) when it plainly does not. In fact, in the very next portion of section 2, which Bruno cut off because (it seems) he knew it contradicted the point he was trying to make, we read:

But we impart of what we have learned from inspired teachers who have been conversant with them, who have also become martyrs for the deity of Christ, to your zeal for learning, in turn.

Once again Bruno presents partial truths; I present the whole truth. Let the reader decide where the truth resides. Athanasius is expressly stating that he passes down the tradition that he received from men who knew and learned from the apostles and writers of the Bible. That’s apostolic tradition! I don’t know how it could be expressed any more clearly than this.

Athanasius had just written a treatise, but he closes it by asserting that this man could from the diligent study of Scripture gain a still fuller understanding.

Of course He can, because it is inspired revelation.

This is the kind of claim a Roman Catholic could never make.

Sheer nonsense. If Bruno is stupid enough to believe that, why doesn’t he prove it from official Catholic documents? Rather, in typical anti-Catholic fashion, he simply makes sweeping, prejudicial, ignorant statements that Catholics supposedly believe this and that. Does he actually believe that is a serious and not laughable, ludicrous argument?

Note that he still demonstrates the primacy of Scripture by establishing why it would be a teacher superior to any other – its author was God.

Exactly! No one disagrees. It’s the only inspired document, but not the only infallible one. But then he immediately refers to apostolic tradition that “we impart”. This shows that it’s not an “either/or” scenario but a “both/and” one: and that Athanasius does not believe in sola Scriptura.

When Catholic apologists claim that Scripture is insufficient (formally or materially), they are indirectly saying that God has not done a good job.

We don’t deny material sufficiency, so Bruno’s claiming that we do is a falsehood. We deny formal sufficiency of Scripture precisely because the Bible itself does, and because we think the Bible has “done a good job.” Protestants like Bruno are the ones (if anyone is to be so accused) who seem to think God did a lousy job in the Bible, because they ignore so much of it: anything that refutes their own man-made, arbitrary traditions of men. As usual in my replies, I am running rings around my opponent, in terms of citing Scripture. Who’s being more “biblical”?

Furthermore, why teach someone to diligently search the Scriptures for himself, when the infallible interpretation of the magisterium already exists? Why take the risk of misinterpreting if the infallible interpretation provided by tradition already existed?

This is a red herring. The Catholic Church requires only one interpretation of only nine Bible passages. That hardly suggests that the Church believes that no one is capable of reading and interpreting the Bible on their own without her constant and immediate guidance.

I have already blogged a series of over 100 quotes demonstrating the Church fathers’ belief in the sufficiency of Scripture (here).

Again, they accept material sufficiency, just as the Catholic Church does. But they do not teach its formal sufficiency. I have proven that time and again with almost all of the major Church fathers. The flaw is in the illogical Protestant methodology, along the lines of what I have again shown in this paper. It’s virtually always the same fallacies trotted out over and over. It gets very wearisome and tedious, and it’s only by the grace of God that I have anywhere near the patience to point it out here for the billionth time.

Quotes Used by Catholic Apologists

In the face of Athanasius’ clear testimony, apologists accuse us of taking such quotations out of context, but never bring the “correct” context. They then proceed to present other quotations from other works by the Alexandrian.

That is indeed what we do, and what I have done here. It’s necessary because Protestant apologists are incessantly citing Church fathers out of the overall context of the their entire work, and ignoring whatever doesn’t fit into their preconceived notions.

That is, at most they would be proving that Athanasius was inconsistent.

Ah; isn’t that interesting? Now the game is to act as though Athanasius was wrong whenever he disagreed with Protestants, and right when he agreed with them (and couldn’t get his logical “act” together; poor guy!). In fact, he is quite consistent; he simply believes as Catholics believe, and as the Bible teaches (being a big Bible guy — as I am, too — , which is the only thing Bruno has proven). Since Bruno and Protestants are convinced that our view of the rule of faith is inconsistent, they accuse Athanasius of the same thing when he expresses the same view.

Let’s take a look at these quotes:

And the first to put on this appearance was the serpent, the inventor of wickedness from the beginning — the devil — who, in disguise, conversed with Eve, and immediately deceived her. But after him and with him are all inventors of unlawful heresies, who indeed refer to the Scriptures, but do not hold such opinions as the saints have handed down, and receiving them as the traditions of men, err, because they do not rightly know them nor their power. (Festal Letter No. 2, 6)

The argument is that heretics appeal to Scripture to spread their errors.

No; the argument is that they appeal to Scripture alone without also taking into account (or to the exclusion of) received tradition (in other words, an extreme version of sola Scriptura).

They err in not holding “the opinions as the saints conveyed it.” These opinions would be in the oral tradition.

Not just that; also written tradition from Church fathers.

Likewise, Protestants misinterpret Scripture by despising this oral tradition.

Sometimes yes. It is beyond question that Scripture teaches the authority of oral tradition. I already provided two passages from Paul along these lines, above.

However, what Athanasius is referring to is nothing more than Scripture itself correctly interpreted. Let’s look at the context in section 5:

For those who are thus disposed, and fashion themselves according to the Gospel, will be partakers of Christ, and imitators of apostolic conversation, on account of which they shall be deemed worthy of that praise from him, with which he praised the Corinthians, when he said, ‘I praise you that in everything you are mindful of me [1 Corinthians 11:2].’ Afterwards, because there were men who used his words, but chose to hear them as suited their lusts, and dared to pervert them, as the followers of Hymenæus and Alexander, and before them the Sadducees, who as he said, ‘having made shipwreck of faith,’ scoffed at the mystery of the resurrection, he immediately proceeded to say, ‘And as I have delivered to you traditions, hold them fast.’ That means, indeed, that we should think not otherwise than as the teacher has delivered. (Festal Letter No. 2, 5)

Notice that heretics listened to the words of the apostles, but instead of submitting to them, they preferred to adapt them to their own will. They did not misinterpret it because of the insufficiency of Scripture, but because of their own sin.

These things are not at issue between us.

Thus, “the opinions which the saints conveyed” is what the apostles left us in the Scriptures, which heretics did not obey and distorted.

Here is a typical (anti-Catholic) Protestant sleight-of-hand. Whenever sacred, apostolic tradition is referred to, they immediately assume that it is merely a synonym for Scripture, or that all of this tradition referred to is included in Scripture. The problem (and no small one!) is that Scripture itself never teaches that, just as it never teaches sola Scriptura.

The Catholic view is that legitimate sacred, apostolic tradition is indeed always harmonious with Scripture, but not necessarily or always identical to it in content. Neither Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:2, nor Athanasius in referring to it, ever imply (let alone assert) that all traditions are simply referring to what was later included in Scripture. This is the Protestant myth (and yet another mere “tradition of man”) of “inscripturation”: that I have written about.

St. Athanasius makes it very clear in the same letter that Paul was teaching about the distinction between man-made, merely human traditions, and apostolic tradition and succession: classifying the latter as a good and necessary thing:

6. . . . Therefore Paul justly praises the Corinthians [1 Corinthians 11:2], because their opinions were in accordance with his traditions. And the Lord most righteously reproved the Jews, saying, ‘Wherefore do you also transgress the commandments of God on account of your traditions [Matthew 15:3].’ For they changed the commandments they received from God after their own understanding, preferring to observe the traditions of men. And about these, a little after, the blessed Paul again gave directions to the Galatians who were in danger thereof, writing to them, ‘If any man preach to you anything else than that you have received, let him be accursed [Galatians 1:9].’

7. For there is no fellowship whatever between the words of the saints and the fancies of human invention; for the saints are the ministers of the truth, preaching the kingdom of heaven, but those who are borne in the opposite direction have nothing better than to eat, and think their end is that they shall cease to be, and they say, ‘Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die [Isaiah 22:13].’ Therefore blessed Luke reproves the inventions of men, and hands down the narrations of the saints, saying in the beginning of the Gospel, ‘Since many have presumed to write narrations of those events of which we are assured, as those who from the beginning were witnesses and ministers of the Word have delivered to us; it has seemed good to me also, who have adhered to them all from the first, to write correctly in order to you, O excellent Theophilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things in which you have been instructed [Luke 1:1].’ For as each of the saints has received, that they impart without alteration, for the confirmation of the doctrine of the mysteries. Of these the (divine) word would have us disciples, and these should of right be our teachers, and to them only is it necessary to give heed, for of them only is ‘the word faithful and worthy of all acceptation [1 Timothy 1:15];’ these not being disciples because they heard from others, but being eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word, that which they had heard from Him have they handed down. (Festal Letter No. 2, 6-7; my bolding)

This sort of thinking about authority and tradition is exactly in accord with the Catholic rule of faith, and not at all in harmony with the Protestant rule of faith: sola Scriptura. Yes, of course it includes Scripture, but also sacred tradition (and Church authority: such as Athanasius’ unconditional reverence for the proclamations of the Council of Nicaea). The Bible and tradition are, as Vatican II eloquently described them, “twin fonts of the same divine wellspring.”

Bruno cites the entirety of section 7, erroneously thinking that it supports his case. Here’s what he says about it:

In this respect, the Roman Church radically deviated from the Ancient Church. Athanasius, like the other church fathers, understood that the apostolic magisterium was unique. Only the apostles or their authorized companions could teach infallibly. All those who came later could make a mistake. Athanasius points out that they were eyewitnesses. A Roman bishop who lives centuries later does not meet this prerequisite.

He does not teach that: as we see in his statements about Nicaea: that I recorded above.

Therefore, we give Scripture the status of supreme authority.

It’s unique because it is inspired, but it’s not the only infallible authority, according to the Bible and Athanasius and Catholicism (and Orthodoxy). Nor does the Bible itself teach that it is such. The Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 asserted infallible authority, invoking the Holy Spirit:

Acts 15:28-29 “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.”

That’s infallible Church authority, which is why Paul pronounced it to his hearers all over Asia Minor, “for observance”:

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.

1 Timothy 3:15 (“the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth”) also teaches the infallibility of the Church, as I have explained. Thus, the Bible explicitly condemns sola Scriptura. No one who accepts the Bible’s sublime inspired authority ought to believe in sola Scriptura. This is the biggest irony and self-contradiction of many such in Protestantism.

It is nothing more than the magisterium of the apostles and no one else can teach with the same authority as they. Thus, all subsequent teaching must be submitted to the sieve of these men who were inspired by the Holy Spirit. The word of the apostles alone is “faithful and worthy of all acceptance.” Only they are unquestionable. All the others are not (including the magisterium of Rome).

Again, that is not what Athanasius teaches. It’s what Bruno wishes that he taught. It’s what Bruno improperly superimposes onto Athanasius: to desperately “force-fit” him into Protestantism. But it can’t be done. His own words preclude it. You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, as the old saying goes, and a Protestant can’t make a Protestant out of the historic person named Athanasius. It’s impossible because it’s untrue. Athanasius couldn’t write, “the word of the Lord which came through the ecumenical Synod at Nicea, abides forever” without at the same time accepting the infallibility of Nicaea. All the wishful thinking and special pleading in the world from Bruno can’t change that fact.

Athanasius can’t refer to “the decrees of an uncorrupt, pure, and Ecumenical Council” and at the same time deny that Nicaea was infallible. He couldn’t make it more clear than he did. But Bruno is able somehow to wish that away, or simply claim that Athanasius was inconsistent. He got it right in some places and fell into a sordid Catholicism in others, so we’re told. How pathetic. Bruno, in the final analysis, doesn’t really respect Athanasius or accept his full teachings for what they are. Rather, he employs a skewed, ultra-biased methodology. That won’t do, and his argument has been roundly refuted in this reply (if I do say so).

Let’s see others:

The confession arrived at at Nicæa was, we say once more, sufficient and enough by itself, for the subversion of all irreligious heresy, and for the security and furtherance of the doctrine of the Church. (Ad Afros Epistola Synodica 1)

This quote itself does not testify against Sola Scriptura. The Nicene confession had derived authority insofar as it shone forth the teaching of Scripture.

Of course it does. Sola Scriptura denies that anything but Scripture can be infallible. And here is Athanasius saying that Nicaea was exactly that, and (remarkably in terms of our debate), also asserting that it was “sufficient and enough by itself, for the subversion of all irreligious heresy.” Folks, that is not Protestant language. We can be absolutely certain that if Athanasius had stated instead, “Scripture is sufficient and enough by itself, for the subversion of all irreligious heresy”: that Bruno would be all over that, trumpeting it from the housetops as a marvelous proof of sola Scriptura (even though it wouldn’t even establish that; only material sufficiency).

But when it is said about a council, he has to play games and obfuscate and engage in the illusion of inscripturation and “all true tradition as only those things that cite Scripture word-for-word.” This is obviously a proof of conciliar infallibility, just as the Jerusalem Council in the Bible also is. And Bruno’s “vision” is an “ignorant man’s Christianity.” It’s not thought-through. It’s illogical and shallow and outside of lived historic Christian reality, and insufficiently biblical.

As we have already seen, Athanasius would never accept a confession that could not be substantiated in Scripture.

As I already noted, Catholics believe that all genuine traditions must be in harmony with scriptural teaching. They can be found somewhere in Scripture, either explicitly, or implicitly or indirectly by deduction and cross-referencing. Athanasius, then, is thinking nothing that is different from how Catholicism approaches these matters. He’s in perfect harmony with us and in disharmony with man-made Protestantism. In the same section of this writing, Athanasius offered a magnificent description of conciliar infallibility and the Catholic rule of faith, including apostolic succession (even including, for good measure — and to Bruno’s chagrin, no doubt — , the authority of the pope):

The letters are sufficient which were written by our beloved fellow-minister Damasus, bishop of the Great Rome, and the large number of bishops who assembled along with him; and equally so are those of the other synods which were held, both in Gaul and in Italy, concerning the sound Faith which Christ gave us, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers, who met at Nicæa from all this world of ours, have handed down. For so great a stir was made at that time about the Arian heresy, in order that they who had fallen into it might be reclaimed, while its inventors might be made manifest. . . . they were not afraid of God, who says, ‘Remove not the eternal boundaries which your fathers placed [Proverbs 22:28],’ and ‘He that speaks against father or mother, let him die the death [Exodus 21:17]:’ they were not in awe of their fathers, who enjoined that they who hold the opposite of their confession should be anathema. (Ad Afros Epistola Synodica 1; my bolding)

Bruno cited part of the above and then commented on it:

A bit of historical context is important here. The Council of Nicaea ruled for the divinity of Christ in opposition to the Arian heresy. It turns out that this was not enough to quell Arianism. Several councils were held afterwards denying or reinterpreting the Nicaean words. Athanasius himself testifies that there was a time when most bishops were Arians (hence the expression “Athanasius against the world”). These bishops were specifically opposing the Council of Rimini (here) which was opposed to the Nicene creed. Up until the Council of Constantinople, nearly a hundred councils had taken place with contradictory directives regarding the Nicene creed. This alone is enough to assert that the church itself did not consider the Council of Nicaea to be infallible.

No it’s not. There are false councils. Heretics held councils and pretended that they were orthodox. The most authoritative councils were the ecumenical councils, which were considered infallible, just as Athanasius views Nicaea. The ratification by popes was the key to determine orthodoxy of councils.

Also, note that the decisions of the synods of Gaul and Italy were placed on an equal footing with the letter of the bishop of Rome (which was also subscribed by other western bishops). Ultimately, such synods as Nicaea were founded on “the solid faith that Christ gave us and the apostles preached.” In this way, the Nicene creed was sufficient insofar as it was grounded in Scripture.

If these other councils asserted Christological truth, then they were to be commended for it. This doesn’t, however, deny the infallibility of Nicaea. Nicaea was grounded in Scripture, but not absolutely identical to it. That’s the whole point. Bruno is stuck in an “either/or” illogical unreality and dream-world.

To prove that Nicaea is superior to Rimini, the group of bishops argues that the Nicaean teaching is in accord with Scripture (section 4).

Of course it is. Catholic teaching always is that. But that proves nothing as to 1) whether Nicaea was infallible, or 2) whether sola Scriptura is true.

Furthermore, the bishops defend the term “co-essential” as expressing the meaning of Scripture, even if it is not the express term found in Scripture.

This perfectly illustrates precisely what I just asserted: “grounded in Scripture, but not absolutely identical to it.”

While the letter invokes the supposedly ecumenical nature of the council as a persuasive reason for adopting its position, nowhere does the group of bishops say or suggest that the council’s decision has equal authority with Scripture.

Technically, it doesn’t have to do that. It’s not inspired. It has to merely be infallible to refute sola Scriptura. I’ve already provided the language which claims that: “the word of the Lord which came through the ecumenical Synod at Nicea, abides forever”. Again, if Athanasius had said: “the word of the Lord which came through Holy Scripture, abides forever” Bruno would place that front and center in the pathetic collection of supposed “proofs” of sola Scriptura. But when it’s stated about a council, he plays games and tries to ignore the obvious meaning and implication.

I want to make it clear that I don’t think he deliberately means it to be so (I don’t deny his sincerity), but in actuality one must conclude that the result is misrepresentation, even though it’s likely unwitting and not deliberate in intent — out of misguided zeal and the usual bias.

I hasten to add also that I’m not talking about all Protestants. Protestant historians who are actually patristic scholars: people like J. N. D. Kelly, Philip Schaff, and Jaroslav Pelikan present the Church fathers’ views with complete honesty and accuracy. I admire their work and have cited all of them many times. I have their books in my personal library. If a Church father has Catholic views (in cases where it contradicts Protestant views), they don’t try to hide the fact and play games. They simply describe it as it was. They don’t have the agenda that the anti-Catholic apologist has: always trying to bash the Catholic and the Catholic Church, no matter what the facts of the matter may be.

Furthermore, the letter says in section 5 that the council fathers “desired to set down in writing the recognized language of Scripture” and that the only reason they used a non-Scriptural word was that the Arian party kept twisting the meaning of these phrases.

That’s just wisdom and Catholic belief. It proves nothing that Bruno thinks it proves.

So section 6 explains, “And finally they wrote more clearly and concisely that the Son was co-essential with the Father, as all the above passages [of Scripture] mean this.” In other words, the Nicene fathers did not pass on unwritten tradition or define dogma on their own authority, but simply expressed the teachings of Scripture.

The immediate point at issue is whether this council was believed to be infallible. I have shown that it was. All the rest of this is interesting, but unnecessary detail, in relation to our specific debate about what Athanasius believed regarding Christian authority. Nicaea was not identical with Scripture (though in harmony with it) and was infallible. Sola Scriptura prohibits such a position. So much for sola Scriptura, which was already self-defeating and refuted in the Bible anyway, and, thus, unworthy of any serious Bible Christian’s allegiance.

The letter (in section 6) includes another acknowledgement of the constant orthodoxy of popes: “For ancient bishops, of the Great Rome and of our city, some 130 years ago, wrote and censured those who said that the Son was a creature and not coessential with the Father.” The Council is said to be in line with apostolic succession as well as Scripture:

For that of Nicæa is sufficient, agreeing as it does with the ancient bishops also, in which too their fathers signed, whom they ought to respect, on pain of being thought anything but Christians. But if even after such proofs, and after the testimony of the ancient bishops, and the signature of their own Fathers, they pretend as if in ignorance to be alarmed at the phrase ‘coessential,’ . . . (Ad Afros Epistola Synodica 9)

The purpose of the letter (section 10) was so that “among all the bond of peace might be preserved, and that all in the Catholic Church should say and hold the same thing” and for “the harmony of the Catholic Church.” Protestants obviously don’t care about achieving a perfect harmony, or else they would cease creating denominations, that contradict each other, and thus enshrine falsehood and error, whenever the myriad numbers of contradictions occur (one of the sects being necessarily wrong in such cases).

Denominationalism and sola Scriptura guarantee the maintenance of perpetual theological relativism and ecclesiological chaos. But the Catholic rule of faith makes for far greater unity: as much as possible given human sin and widespread ignorance. The letter then appeals to conciliar infallibility as a doctrinal standard, and cites the Bible’s acceptance of genuine tradition:

But let the Faith confessed by the Fathers at Nicæa alone hold good among you, at which all the fathers, including those of the men who now are fighting against it, were present, as we said above, and signed: in order that of us too the Apostle may say, ‘Now I praise you that you remember me in all things, and as I handed the traditions to you, so hold them fast [1 Corinthians 11:2].’ (Ad Afros Epistola Synodica 10)

All of this couldn’t be any more Catholic or less Protestant than it is. In section 11 it even goes so far as to state: “For this Synod of Nicæa is in truth a proscription of every heresy.” No one can possibly imagine a Protestant making such a statement, or most of these others that I have presented. Bruno continues his survey of some Catholic disproofs of his untenable position:

The tradition, teaching and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning were preached by the apostles and preserved by the fathers. On this the Church was founded; and if any one departs from this, he must also no longer be called a Christian. (Ad Serapion, 1:28)

I couldn’t find this citation in Schaff, and am too lazy to search for it elsewhere (at 8,000 words and counting), so I have accepted the translation of Bruno’s citation.

Church teaching could be found in the church fathers and would be traceable back to the beginning (the apostles). Well, if the Catholic wants to refute Sola Scriptura with this quote, he would need to demonstrate that the teaching in question was not found in Scripture (material insufficiency) or else that the parents who passed on the teaching were infallible (Athanasius did not believe it).

That entirely misses the point, and is obfuscation. The point is the fact that Athanasius could make a statement like this in the first place, about authority and true doctrine, without mentioning Scripture. He simply doesn’t talk like a Protestant and no one can force him into that mold, no matter how hard they try. This citation has everything that is infallible besides Scripture: “tradition,” “the Catholic Church,” and apostolic succession (“preserved by the Fathers”).

This was true doctrine and tradition, preserved in the Church via apostolic succession. Whoever disagrees with it can “no longer be called a Christian.” What more does one need? If this is not a standard of faith: a standard that can remove someone from holding the name of “Christian” what is, pray tell? At this point it’s embarrassing to still be disputing what is utterly obvious to any fair observer.

Bruno cites more and observes that it is talking about the Trinity which is a scriptural doctrine, therefore, no tradition is in play, etc. But that all misses the point: whether any of these other things are regarded as infallible by Athanasius. They clearly are so regarded.

Bruno from this point to the end of his article cites Athanasius with regard to the material sufficiency of Scripture (boring, because we completely agree!) but (as always) does not and cannot establish that he taught the formal sufficiency of Scripture to the exclusion of councils, apostolic tradition and succession, and Church and papal proclamations. There’s no reason to address this because it’s a total non sequitur.

As far as I am concerned, he has proven absolutely nothing that he has set out to prove, and I have decisively refuted his contentions with other passages from Athanasius.

Related Reading

St. Athanasius’ Rule of Faith (NOT Sola Scriptura) [6-16-03] [includes lengthy citations of St. John Henry Cardinal Newman about St. Athanasius’ rule of faith, from his Select Treatises of St. Athanasius, Volume II, 1844 (his Anglican period) ]

Council of Nicea: Reply to James White: Its Relationship to Pope Sylvester, Athanasius’ Views, & the Unique Preeminence of Catholic Authority [4-2-07]

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

St. Athanasius: Catholic, Not Proto-Protestant [12-26-07]

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

14 Proofs That St. Athanasius Was 100% Catholic [National Catholic Register, 6-4-20]

***

Summary: Brazilian Calvinist apologist Bruno Lima’s attempt to prove that St. Athanasius held to sola Scriptura is an utter failure. I provide relentless refutations of his contentions.

Is Sola Scriptura Self-Refuting? (vs. Bruno Lima)

Last updated on: October 12, 2022 at 4:27 pm By Dave Armstrong

[book and purchase information]

Bruno Lima is a Brazilian Calvinist (and anti-Catholic) writer and apologist.

*****

I am responding to his article, “A Sola Scriptura é Auto-Refutável?” [Is Sola Scriptura Self-Refuting?] (11-3-17). His words will be in blue.

I have already dealt with the arguments most often used by papists against Sola Scriptura (here).

I’m the same on the opposite side. I’ve written three books about it (one / two / three), have an extremely extensive web page about the topic and larger authority issues, and have written and debated more about this than any other apologetics subject, among my 4,000+ online articles and fifty books. So this looks like it will be a good and substantive discussion. I hope Bruno actually defends his articles. I have recently critiqued Brazilian apologist Lucas Banzoli 34 times, and he never did so: not one word. I respect people who have the courage of their convictions.

Today I want to address a specific objection. Catholics claim that Sola Scriptura refutes itself as Scripture itself does not teach the idea.

Indeed, that is exactly the case, as I will demonstrate yet again, as I have many times through the years.

Generally, Protestants respond by attacking the premise and pointing to texts where Scripture teaches its own material and formal sufficiency.

That’s true, too, as a generality; and then Catholic apologists systematically show that all these supposed “proofs” miserably fail in their intended purpose.

I believe the Reformed principle is taught in Scripture implicitly. By this I mean that there is no text that says “Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith,” but there are a number of texts that put together imply the Reformed principle.

I look forward to seeing which passages Bruno thinks do this. This is the latest fad in defending the notion that sola Scriptura is taught in Scripture: that it is, but only indirectly and by deduction. I vehemently deny that, too. It’s fascinating how Protestant apologists are now often applying this new approach to their serious problem in this regard: flat-out admitting that no single text teaches sola Scriptura (true so far). But then they go on to claim (as Bruno will) that it doesn’t matter, anyway. I think, with all due respect, that this is desperation and special pleading.

I was shocked recently to see Lutheran pastor and apologist Jordan Cooper using this same “forfeit argument”. He stated in his video, “A Defense of Sola Scriptura“ (3-12-19):

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.” [1:39-2:14]

How pathetic (if I do say so) that Protestant apologists have been so roundly defeated in this particular argument, that they readily concede that no Bible verse teaches it; after having spent some 480 years arguing that a host of Bible verses supposedly did so (with 2 Timothy 3:16 always leading the way!). One can certainly see ironic humor in this state of affairs.

This is the case for several other biblical teachings – the Trinity is an example. There is no text that says “Father, Son and Holy Spirit form a Trinity”. However, if we put together all that Scripture says about the three Persons, the implication is the teaching of the Trinity.

Bad choice of analogy. Literally forty years ago, when I first started writing serious apologetics (as an evangelical Protestant), I compiled the hundreds of biblical passages that — considered together — do definitely demonstrate the truth of trinitarianism. I’m still proud of that research and it has stood the test of time. There is, however, no similar set of passages that allegedly add up to the truth of sola Scriptura. It’s a fantasy; a pipe-dream.

I know; I’ve debated the topic with many of the leading defenders of the false doctrine in our time and have also critiqued the best historical defenders (Whitaker and Goode: highly recommended by James White, Luther, Calvin). The arguments fail without exception. It’s remarkable to observe such a bad and substanceless scriptural case being made for one of the two “pillars” of the Protestant Revolt, and the very basis of their unbiblically narrow rule of faith.

I would like to answer the objection on its own terms. Even though Sola Scriptura was not implicitly in Scripture, the Roman objection is false. Still, it wouldn’t be self-refuting. Let’s see:

(1) Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith;

(2) Only Scripture can say that Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith.

I agree that #2 is an obviously false statement. But it’s framing the issue in a wrong fashion. I would state #2 as follows, as part of my overall argument: “Only inspired Scripture can say infallibly, and as inspired revelation, that Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith.” And that is the basis of Protestantism’s internal difficulty in holding this unbiblical doctrine. Because of my proposition #2, their reasoning entails vicious self-contradiction, with no solution possible from within their own wildly incoherent and inconsistent reasoning. This will all be unpacked and laid out as we proceed.

Note that (1) is the definition of Sola Scriptura

I agree. It’s crucial to agree on definitions in any debate.

and (2) would be the way we could identify the article of faith.

That’s right. But the real issue is the authoritativeness (or rather, lack thereof) of such a statement, and whether it is proper to make it binding or not (from within the Protestant paradigm and rule of faith) if it’s not in the Bible itself. I say that attempting to do so results in insuperable logical difficulties: impossible to resolve. Anyone can state anything, and/or believe anything they want. But why do they believe it? On what epistemological grounds is their alleged “certainty” or (to express it another way) strong adherence based?

It turns out that (2) is not a necessary implication of (1).

I agree again, if we are talking strict logic. But the Christian faith is not mere logic and philosophy. We claim (all of us, in one way or another) to have certainty, based on God’s revelation to man. Simply having someone say, “Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith!” on no ultimate basis derived from Scripture, raises all sorts of problems for Protestantism that can’t be resolved, and which make a mockery of their centuries-old polemic against Catholic conceptions of sacred and apostolic tradition. It does that because it entails a “double epistemological standard”, whereby Catholics have to prove our views from Scripture (and we assuredly can do so, far more than they think) but the Protestant — strangely enough — gives himself a pass from doing so. It’s endless irony that this is how it is in these discussions.

It is entirely possible that there are no other rules even though Scripture does not say so.

I shall argue that there are indeed other rules (though always in harmony with Scripture) precisely because Scripture does say so: which in and of itself refutes sola Scriptura in one elegant step.

Roman apologists confuse the content of the rule with our knowledge of the rule.

We confuse nothing. Protestants have insufficient and inadequate knowledge to assert what they do about the rule of faith. They base everything else on Scripture, but then inexplicably make an exception for this: even when it’s about the nature of scriptural authority. Or if they do have such “knowledge”, it’s based on precisely the notion of “extrabiblical tradition” that they have bashed us for 500 years for believing. Truth is stranger than fiction again!

The content of the rule is infallible, but the epistemological basis on which we identify the rule need not necessarily be infallible.

Then why do they believe it in the first place?: is the question. In the end, in my opinion, it comes down to a reason of mere polemics and the reactionary impulse: “it’s not Catholic, so we believe it, even though we have no biblical or any other good reason to do so.” That’s how it began, when Martin Luther was backed into a corner in a debate in Leipzig in 1519, and adopted sola Scriptura as his “can’t do anything else” default position, and it’s been every bit as arbitrary and baseless and unbiblical ever since.

Now, there would be some ways in which the Catholic objection would be valid. If Protestants claimed that Scripture is the only source of truth (a straw man often used in debates), it would be self-refuting.

That’s right. And it’s true that this is a straw man too often used by Catholics uninformed about Protestant teachings. But I am not in that number. I properly understand it and also understand how it is logically and biblically inconsistent and incoherent.

Or if Scripture itself laid down other infallible rules. Despite attempts to use texts such as Matthew 16:18, Scripture does not point to infallible rules other than itself.

I’m glad to see that Bruno has already forfeited this debate. For indeed there are at least two scriptural arguments showing that the Church, too, is infallible (1 Timothy 3:15 and the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15). Here is my most concise presentation of the argument from 1 Timothy 3:15, from my book, 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura (Catholic Answers: 2012, pp. 104-107, #82):

1 Timothy 3:15 [RSV] if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

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.

Here’s the second argument:

The Jerusalem Council (recorded in the Bible) demonstrated the sublime authority of the Church to make binding, infallible decrees (something sola Scriptura expressly denies can or should be the case). It claimed to be speaking in conjunction with the Holy Spirit (“it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us”: Acts 15:28) and its decree was delivered as such by the Apostle Paul in several cities (“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”: Acts 16:4). [see many more papers on this by searching “Jerusalem” on my Church web page]

These two arguments alone already annihilate sola Scriptura, but there are many other arguments against it. I happen to think that these two are the best and most unanswerable ones (and so I look forward to Bruno’s attempted answer!). Very few Protestants have ever tried to knock down these two arguments: at least as I have argued and expressed them. I can only report what my own almost universal experience has been. There’s a reason for that (as James White would say).

The Roman apologist could still say “if all that is necessary to believe in order to be saved is in Scripture, then the Reformed principle must be contained in Scripture.” Once again, it is a straw man caricature of Protestant teaching. Protestants do not claim that you need to believe that Scripture is the only infallible rule to be saved, but that you need to believe the gospel that Scripture presents unadulterated.

Agreed. That’s not an argument I use, because it is a very weak one and largely a straw man.

Therefore, there is no contradiction.

Not in that particular respect, but there are several other self-contradictions, as I have been demonstrating.

We cannot fail to mention the burden of proof. If indeed there is any other infallible rule of faith besides Scripture, it behooves its proponent to evidence it.

I was happy to provide two above. How does Bruno reply to them? How is sola Scriptura salvaged in light of those two things?

If no other infallible rules are laid down, the Protestant is rationally justified in appealing to Scripture alone as unquestioned authority.

I agree. But they have been laid down from the Bible itself.

The Catholic objection is often put another way, “Sola Scriptura is self-refuting because it does not contain the canon.”

That’s a decent argument, too, but forms no part of my present *much more compelling) argument; therefore, I need not address it at the moment.

First of all, I should mention that Catholics despise the canon’s internal and intertextual evidence.

That’s an unfair and inaccurate generalization.

Scripture itself provides the criteria by which the canon can be established.

Usually, but not always:

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

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

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

The Catholic objection to the canon strikes me as hypocritical too, since supposing that there were in Scripture a book which gave us the list of the canon, papists would go on to say “how do you know that the book which lists the canon is a part of Scripture?”

That’s sheer nonsense. What we would say is that such a list in a book would decisively resolve this issue in and of itself, provided that we have good reason to believe that the book it appeared in is itself canonical and inspired. We would determine the latter by seeing what the Church Church fathers taught about it. Since we (unlike Protestants) believe in the infallibility of authentic apostolic tradition (not all claimed tradition), this is not a difficulty for us, or an inconsistency. There’s no “hypocrisy” here at all. There is epistemological and biblical consistency.

It’s precisely because there is no such list in the Bible, that infallible Catholic Church authority was needed to resolve the issue. Protestants end up accepting that, as an embarrassing exception to their usual methodology (minus seven biblical books that they rejected, following a minority position in the Church fathers), because (just as with the arbitrary sola Scriptura) they have no other recourse. It’s a desperate default position.

This is because the aim of Catholic apologetics is to demote the authority of Scripture in order to elevate the authority of its own Church.

We’ve never done such a thing. This is simply ad hominem smearing. I’ve knocked down dozens of anti-Catholic attempts to try to establish as historical fact some fictional, imaginary animus of the Catholic Church against the Bible. Perhaps Bruno wants to make an attempt (but after we discuss this!)? I’ll be happy to refute that, too.

[I]in the same way that someone might ask “how do you know what is or is not the word of God?”, we asked “how do you know your Church is infallible”. To answer this question, the Catholic will have to either appeal to circular reasoning (the church is infallible because it says it is) or to a fallible private judgment to determine whether his church is infallible. At the end of the day, we all depend on our fallible judgment to know the truth.

This is nonsense. Christianity doesn’t reduce to secular philosophical epistemology. We all have faith, remember? And that faith must derive from God’s grace. In other words, in the final analysis it’s a spiritual, religious thing, not a philosophical thing. We can defend many parts of our beliefs from philosophy and secular learning (I have no problem with that: I often do it as an apologist, and my upcoming book about biblical archaeology — that any Protestant should agree with — does it). But we have to exercise faith, too. Protestants do and Catholics do. It’s religious and theological belief.

The informed, educated Catholic doesn’t say that the Church is infallible merely because it says so. That would be stupid and prove nothing, of course. We say it’s infallible because the Bible asserts it, in 1 Timothy 3:15 and Acts 15. We believe the Bible on many other grounds (including archaeology, which my latest book addresses). We believe it because our Lord Jesus (Who proved He was God by performing miracles and rising from the dead and returning) said that the Holy Spirit would guide us into all truth, and told Peter He would build His Church upon his leadership as first pope, and that “the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16).

St. Paul also mentions quite a bit, the notion of “truth” and a set of teachings (he uses many synonymous terms) that are regarded as dogma and unassailable. And he railed against those who would deny this, and go against the “tradition” that he himself passed on to his followers: urging folks to avoid those who cause division. I wrote an entire book of biblical arguments related to this very topic of infallibility (Biblical Proofs for an Infallible Church and Papacy: March 2012).

Why do we believe the Catholic Church is the same Church talked about in the Bible and in early Church history? That’s an historical matter, and we have all kinds of arguments demonstrating historical continuity and apostolic succession (that Protestants glaringly lack for themselves). That’s why we believe it: still in and with faith, by grace, but with ample objective reasons to do so: that can withstand skeptical scrutiny (I do it for a living).

But in any event, it’s not merely “fallible private judgment” (nice try there). Of course it may be for many inadequately taught particular Catholics, just as there are also millions of undereducated Protestants (I know: I was in that group, too, for 32 years). But we can never go by that. We have to examine what “official teachings” assert, not “Joe Blow Catholic / Protestant” in some bar at midnight, spouting off about theology, says, or some loudmouthed ignorant fool on the Internet, falsely claiming to represent something.

Infallible epistemological certainty is something that God did not want to give us.

He wanted to give us an infallible certitude of faith: not the theologically relativistic, ecclesiologically chaotic state of affairs that we have in Protestant denominationalism: a concept never found in the New Testament anywhere: let alone sanctioned as a supposed norm.

Think for a moment. Why an infallible magisterium that needs to be accessed or interpreted by fallible judgments?

It’s not. The premise is wrong. It’s infallibly interpreted in specific highly specified circumstances by ecumenical councils in conjunction with popes, or by popes themselves. That’s how our system works. Bruno seems to have us confused with Protestantism, where the individual is king, and so a a result it has multiple hundreds of competing denominations, where all sorts of errors are necessarily present (by the law of contradiction).

That’s not from God. Any falsehood is from the devil. God would never countenance a system that necessarily contains that much falsehood. That’s why denominationalism is yet another central Protestant belief or reality that is utterly absent from the Bible, just like sola Scriptura and sola fide and several other false doctrines. But thank heavens, we do agree on many things, too, which is cause for rejoicing.

If that were God’s purpose, he would do something better. He would make all Christians infallible.

There is no need to do that. We have more than enough infallible human authority, and inspired Scripture, to guide us to the truth in all these matters.

The whole body of Christ in unison and clear would hold the same opinions and hold the same truths.

That will never happen in fact because of the sinfulness and lack of knowledge of human beings as a whole. But we can have an infallible, inspired Bible and infallible Church and tradition to guide the way. We don’t have to rely on our own miserable, flimsy, fallible selves as the ultimate rule and standard of faith (thank God!). The Bible never teaches that we do: yet Protestantism does: yet another unbiblical tradition of men.

*
Now, in closing I will note how fascinating it is that Bruno started out with the assertion: “I believe the Reformed principle is taught in Scripture implicitly. . . . there are a number of texts that put together imply the Reformed principle.” But yet, oddly enough, he managed to never produce these supposed Scriptures that “put together” allegedly add up to the principle of sola Scriptura. He just “forgot” about that and hoped that the reader would, too (ah! the thorny and frustrating problems of incoherent theology). What a shock and surprise! But I’m being sarcastic. This is often the methodology of Protestants “defending” sola Scriptura. It’s an ethereal, shadowy thing. The ever-evasive or plain imaginary “prooftexts” are given lip service and then ignored as if they have no importance (or existence). In fact, producing these alleged texts is absolutely crucial to their case.

It’s like the old tale about “the emperor is naked.” Everyone is scared to tell him that he is. Well, the nakedness in the present discussion is the lack of any compelling biblical evidence for sola Scriptura (and I ain’t scared to point it out!). That being the case, Protestants seem to be engaged in a sort of voluntary mass self-deception or self-delusion: by pretending that the proof is there “somewhere” in the Bible, but never producing it (or them). It’s terribly inadequate, woefully insufficient theology, exegesis, debate, and thinking, period. But it’s not going to end anytime soon. In the meantime, we can only expose the farcical, self-contradictory, and unbiblical nature of the belief so that less people are fooled and harmed by it.

See my related papers, which get into other aspects of this issue that I didn’t address here:

Sola Scriptura is Self-Defeating and False if Not in the Bible (vs. Kevin Johnson) [5-4-04]

Sola Scriptura: Self-Refuting? (vs. Steve Hays) [12-14-21]

Protestantism: Is it Logically Self-Defeating? [9-15-03]

***

Summary: Brazilian Protestant apologist Bruno Lima makes various arguments for sola Scriptura being biblical. I shoot down every one and offer plausible biblical alternatives.

Protestants Executed Peaceful Anabaptists (vs. L. Banzoli)

Last updated on: February 21, 2023 at 3:44 pm By Dave Armstrong

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 used Google Translate to transfer his Portugese text into English.

*****

This is a reply to certain false claims in Lucas’ article, “Os protestantes perseguiram os anabatistas?” [Did Protestants persecute Anabaptists?] (8-17-18).

The general idea that Lucas defends in this article is that there were two very different strains of Anabaptists: radical and violent fanatics like Thomas Müntzer (c. 1489 – 1525) and peaceful Anabaptists, who simply wanted baptize adults, along with believing in several other deviations from traditional Catholicism and the recently begun “magisterial” Protestantism of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, et al.

So far he says nothing untrue. It is his claim that Protestants executed only the radical fanatical Anabaptists that is absolutely false; and Lucas is smart and educated enough to certainly know this, or at the very least to do the minimal research necessary to discover it. Either he is very incompetent as a researcher of history, or (much worse) he is deliberately slanting what he presents (knowing it is untrue, or at best a half-truth), to further his agenda. Take your pick. But it must be one thing or the other, in light of the indisputable facts, as I will document them below. In charity, I prefer to assume that he is simply ultra-biased (as an anti-Catholic type of Protestant) and ignorant: leading to a wildly inaccurate, history-butchering presentation.

My research concerning the Protestant persecution of the Anabaptists involved mainly Martin Luther and his successor Philip Melanchthon, so I will concentrate on them only in this article. Since Luther was the founder of Protestantism itself, and of his sub-group of Lutheranism, obviously, he is a central and influential figure. If he believed in executing peaceful Anabaptists (which he did, as I will demonstrate), then Lucas’ claim that “Protestants” didn’t execute peaceful Anabaptists is false, because Luther and his group, the Lutherans, certainly did so.

Luther himself wrote:

[I]t is not right, and I truly grieve, that these miserable folk should be so lamentably murdered, burned, and tormented to death. We should allow everyone to believe what he wills. If his faith be false, he will be sufficiently punished in eternal hell-fire. Why then should we martyr these people . . . if . . . they are not guilty of rebellion or opposition to the government? . . . By fire we accomplish little. [Concerning Rebaptism, January 1528, in Luther’s Works [English], vol. 40, p. 230; I have modified Lucas’ text — translated from his Portugese to English — to agree with the English in this set; bolded emphases are Lucas’ own]

Luther was against executing people solely for religious beliefs , as the Roman Church did, but he was not against punishing those guilty of political rebellion against “divinely instituted” authority with the death penalty (Rom 13:2) , which was precisely the case with the radical Anabaptists of the Peasant Revolt that we studied earlier. In other words, the persecuted Anabaptists in Protestant countries were not persecuted for mere doctrinal divergence from some point of faith, but for rebellion and incitement to revolution, social disorder, anarchy, chaos.

This is a classic case study of Lucas’ highly selective bias. Luther did indeed believe the above, earlier in his revolt. But exactly two years and two months later (in March 1530), he changed his mind. If Lucas were attempting fair, objective, “all the relevant facts” history, he would have noted this, but he did not do so. Therefore, someone like me has to come along and inform readers of the whole, entire truth of the matter: rather than merely the half-truths of selecting what agrees with one’s own position and agenda in how to present Luther and Protestantism.

I think what I will demonstrate below is devastating to Lucas’ “historical credibility.” He’s feeding his readers anti-Catholic propaganda and not serious, scholarly historical information. He’s trying to whitewash controversial aspects of Protestant history and Luther that are difficult for present-day Protestants to “hear” and accept as historically documented facts. Lucas continues the falsehoods and half-truths throughout his article:

In relation to radical Anabaptists such as those of the Thomas Müntzer Rebellion and those of the Münster Revolution, both Protestants and Catholics were unanimous in their persecution. This was even advocated by the humanists of the time, such as Erasmus of Rotterdam, a “kind soul” who “desired the extermination of Anabaptists and other social extremists” [36] . But it was a persecution of a strictly political character, not of a religious nature. This is not surprising, as it was decreed for anyone who instigated an insurrection, often punishable by capital punishment anywhere in the world at the time.

That is why Walker writes that in Protestant territories the Anabaptists “were not treated as heretics, but as settlers” [37] , and still had the option of emigrating if they did not want to answer criminally for their actions [38] . The death penalty was only given to those who were considered “disturbers of the peace” [39] and who refused to emigrate, while “in Roman Catholic territories, mainly Austria and Bavaria, this law [the death penalty] was carried out with extreme severity” [40] . Lindberg agrees that the law “it was applied more forcefully in the (Catholic) Habsburg territories, while the evangelical territories and cities tended, in general, to apply lighter punishments, such as exile” [41] .

The more moderate Anabaptists had no more luck in Catholic lands: they were persecuted and burned in the same way, for the simple fact of being “heretics”, to whom the canon law of the Church demanded capital punishment. In contrast, in Protestant territories they were tolerated on a large scale, at least relatively. . . . [Walker] adds that the Anabaptists “were also active in Hesse and Saxony, the main Lutheran regions, and Philip of Hesse sought to treat them mildly” [43]. . . .

Another who granted tolerance to the Anabaptists was the reformer Martin Bucer in Strasbourg, where they were “treated generously” [48]. . . .

[U]nlike in Catholic lands, no Anabaptist was executed in a Protestant country for the simple “crime of heresy,” and even when an Anabaptist agitator was framed, the sentence was usually imprisonment or exile, not capital punishment. . . .

So yes, revolutionary and radical Anabaptists were persecuted, sometimes to death; and no, moderate Anabaptists were not persecuted by Protestants for purely religious reasons, although they had complications over political issues. [my bolding added; Lucas’ own italics]

This (particularly the bolded statements) is massively untrue, as I will now show. Protestant church historian Roland Bainton, who is most well-known for his biography of Martin Luther, Here I Stand (1950), which is the most famous and influential biography of Luther in English, verifies what I am contending. The following comes from his book, Studies on the Reformation (Boston: Beacon Press, 1963). I have highlighted the doctrinal / heretical aspects in green:

The outstanding reformers of the sixteenth century were in no sense tolerant. Luther in 1530 acquiesced in the death penalty for Anabaptists and Calvin instigated the execution of Servetus, while Melanchthon applauded. The reformers can be ranged on the side of liberty only if the younger Luther be pitted against the older or the left wing of the Reformation against the right . . .

By the beginning of March 1530 Luther gave his consent to the death penalty for Anabaptists, but on the ground that they were not only blasphemers, but highly seditious. . . .

Those who rush into the temple and blaspheme, should, on a second offense, receive the penalty of sedition. Here blasphemy seems to constitute the sedition. [BR, 1578 (June 1, 1530) ] In August he was pleased with the rumor of the execution of Campanus. [BR, 1672 (Aug. 3, 1530) ] In The Exposition of the Eighty-second Psalm in the same year blasphemy was put on a par with sedition. [WA, XXXI, 207] Nothing was said definitely as to the punishment, but death was almost certainly intended, for Luther had long recognized it as the current penalty for blasphemy. [WA, VI, 229. Cf. Volker, p. 91 and Paulus, p. 36, note 4] A direct appeal was made to the example of Moses, who commanded blasphemers to be stoned. [WA, XXXI, 209 (1530) ] Luther was no longer deterred because the Jews persecuted the true prophets. That was no reason for not stoning the false. [WA, XXXI, 213] The executioner should dispose of unauthorized preachers even though orthodox. [WA. XXXI, 212] It is not likely that the unorthodox would fare better, however authorized. . . .

Any doors which Luther might have left open in the second period from 1525 to 1530 were closed by Melanchthon in the memorandum of 1531. Rejection of the ministerial office was described as insufferable blasphemy, and destruction of the Church was considered sedition against the ecclesiastical order, punishable like other sedition. Luther added his assent,

for though it seems cruel to punish them with the sword, it is more cruel that they damn the ministry of the Word, have no certain teaching, and suppress the true, and thus upset society. [CR, IV, 739-740 (1531). Wappler, Inquisition, 61-62; Paulus, 41-43]

The second memorandum composed by Melanchthon and signed by Luther in 1536 is of extreme importance in making clear what was involved. The circumstance was that Philip of Hesse who steadfastly refused to go beyond banishment and imprisonment in matters of faith, invited the theologians in a number of localities to give him advice. One of the most severe among the replies was that which came from Wittenberg. In this document the Anabaptists were declared to be seditious and blasphemous, but in what did their sedition consist? The answer was: not by reason of armed revolution, but on the contrary, by reason of pacifism.

They teach that a Christian should not use a sword, should not serve as a magistrate, should not swear or hold property, may desert an unbelieving wife. These articles are seditions and the holders of them may be punished with the sword. We must pay no attention to their avowal ‘we did no one any harm’, because if they persuaded everybody there would be no government. If it be objected that the magistrate should not compel anyone to the faith the answer is that he punishes no one for his opinions in his heart, but only on account of the outward word and teaching. [Melanchthon]

The memorandum goes on to say that there were other tenets of the Anabaptists touching upon spiritual matters such as their teaching about infant baptism, original sin and illumination apart from God’s Word.

What now would happen if children were not baptized, if not that our whole society would become openly heathen? If then one holds only the articles in spiritual matters on infant baptism and original sin and unnecessary separation, because these articles are important, because it is a serious matter to cast children out of Christendom and to have two sets of people, the one baptized and the other unbaptized, because then the Anabaptists have some dreadful articles, we judge that in this case also the obstinate are to be put to death. [WA, L, 12] [Melanchthon]

Luther signed.

This document makes it perfectly plain that the Anabaptists were revolutionary, not in the sense of physical violence, but in the sense that their program entailed a complete reorientation of Church, state and society. For this they were to be put to death. (for further references and related material, see: Luther’s Attitudes on Religious Liberty [Roland H. Bainton] [2-16-06])

Bainton, in Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther (New York: Mentor, 1950, 295-296) noted what Luther wrote, in agreeing to the 1531 memorandum from Melanchthon:

I assent. Although it seems cruel to punish them with the sword, it is crueler that they condemn the ministry of the Word and have no well-grounded doctrine and suppress the true and in this way seek to subvert the civil order.

Here is a portion of the 1536 memorandum that Luther also gave assent to (doctrinal / heretical aspects again highlighted in green; my bolding also):

That seditious articles of doctrine should be punished with the sword needed no further proof. For the rest, the Anabaptists hold tenets relating to infant baptism, original sin, and inspiration which have no connection with the Word of God, and are indeed opposed to it. . . . Concerning such tenets, this is our answer : As the secular authorities are bound to control and punish open blasphemy, so they are also bound to restrain and punish avowedly false doctrine, irregular Church services and heresies in their own dominions; for this is commanded by God in the other commandment where He says : “Whoso dishonours God’s name shall not go unpunished.” Everybody is bound, according to his position and office, to prevent and check blasphemy, . . .

For think what disaster would ensue if children were not baptized; what would be the final outcome but thoroughly heathenish existence? Item, infant baptism rests on such sure foundations that the Anabaptists have no legitimate grounds for rejecting it. Item, if they say that children do not need forgiveness of sins, that there is no original sin, such statements are downright and very dangerous errors. Besides this the Anabaptists separate themselves from the churches, . . . they set up a ministry and congregation of their own, which is also contrary to the command of God. From all this it becomes clear that the secular authorities are bound to suppress blasphemy, false doctrine, and heresy, and to inflict corporal punishment on the offenders. . . .

[W]hen it is a case of only upholding some spiritual tenet, such as infant baptism, original sin, and unnecessary separation, then, because these articles are also important. . . we conclude that in these cases also the stubborn sectaries must be put to death. (cited in Johannes Janssen, History of the German People from the Close of the Middle Ages, 16 volumes, translated by A.M. Christie, St. Louis: B. Herder, 1910 [orig. 1891]; Vol. X, 222-223; my bolding)

For further related material, see: Luther Favored Death Penalty for Anabaptists [2-24-04]. If this weren’t enough to more than prove my contentions, I can present documentation of particular instances of such executions. I did so in my paper, Reply to Reformed Luther Apologist James Swan’s Request for Documentation of Executions of Anabaptists Sanctioned by Luther, in the 1530s [8-17-14]. Here are some excerpts:

I ran across . . . a work entitled, Valentin Weigel (1533-1588): German Religious Dissenter, Speculative Theorist, and Advocate of Tolerance (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2000), written by Andrew Weeks, who is a Professor of Languages, Literatures and Cultures at Illinois State University. He writes:

Of the various studies of Reformation-era intolerance, those of [Paul] Wappler and [Nikolaus] Paulus document conditions in Saxony . . . In Luther’s part of Saxony, there were executions for the offense of rebaptism as early as 1527 (before the imperial mandate of 1529), and afterward in the years 1530, 1532, and 1538. [60] Unlike the milder regime in Hessen, where as a rule only the openly rebellious dissenters were sentenced to death, the Wittenberg reformers soon came to support capital punishment even against peaceful heretics. [61] (p. 22)

There is evidence that as early as November 1529 Luther and Melanchthon sanctioned the death penalty for Anabaptists in an opinion to their Elector in response to the imperial mandate. [69] (p. 24)

By 1536, Luther, Bugenhagen, and Cruciger were advising Landgraf Philipp of Hessen to execute by the sword any Anabaptists apprehended in his territories. [74] Melanchthon was frankly encouraging capital punishment for heresy with or without rebellion. [75] (p. 25) . . .

The real “goldmine” of documentation in English comes from the same Encyclopedia [The Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online], in its article on Saxony. It cites Wappler and Paulus as well, as two of its three sources from historians . . .

James Swan was unaware of all this. Now (if he can make it through this paper by a despised papist apologist) he is aware. He asked: “I’d like to know (or be reminded) exactly who Luther had executed in Wittenberg in the 1530’s.” The answer is in the above article, partially corroborated by historian Andrew Weeks in his book and drawn (in both cases) from the German historians Paul Wappler (Lutheran) and Nikolaus Paulus (Catholic). I’ll make it even more simple by the following list of Anabaptists executed in Saxony (incorporating information from further articles in this Encyclopedia about the Anabaptists involved):

1) “Beutelhans, Wolf Schominger (Schreiner), and ten other men besides a woman” were beheaded in the district of Königsberg, a Saxon enclave in Würzburg territory: March 1527. [13]

2) Six Anabaptists (Andreas and Katharina Kolb, Christoph Ortlep, Katharina König, Elsa Kuntz, and Barbara Unger) were imprisoned at Reinhardsbrunn and put to death on 18 January 1530. [6]

3) Berlet Schmidt, Hans Eisfart, and his wife, in the Hausbreitenbach district, which was under the joint jurisdiction of Saxony and Hesse; in 1532. [3]

4) Georg Köhler and an Anabaptist woman at Sangerhausen in the territory of Mühlhausen in September 1535. [2]

5) Hans Sturm of Steyer: 1535(?) or 1536(?) in Schweinitz near Wittenberg. [1]

6) Hans Peissker of Kleineutersdorf, after a minute cross-examination, attended by Melanchthon, was beheaded with Heinz Kraut and Jobst Möller in Jena on 26 January 1536. [3]

7) Heinrich Möller at Neustadt an der Orla, c. February 1536. [1]

8) Peter Pestel of Linz was beheaded on 16 June 1536 in Zwickau. [1]

9) Klaus Ernfart in 1536. [1]

10) Jakob Storger and Klaus Scharf besides eight women drowned in the Unstrut between Mühlhausen and Ammern on 8 November 1537. [10]

11) Hans Hentrock of Amra and Ottilia Goldschmidt, a Mühlhausen girl, drowned in the Unstrut between Mühlhausen and Ammern on 17 January 1538. [2]

12) Hans Köhler of Eyerode and Hans Scheffer of Hastungsfelde, at Eisenach, at the end of January 1538. [2]

By my reckoning, that is 45 people killed in Lutheran Saxony for the “seditious” crime of being an Anabaptist, between 1527 and 1538.

Swan would probably retort by saying that none of these seem to have been in Wittenberg itself. But that is an irrelevancy. They were carried out under Lutheran auspices, in Saxony: Luther’s home ground and the initial base of Lutheranism, with the direct assent and approval of Luther and Melanchthon. Where, specifically, the executions took place is entirely secondary to those considerations. . . .

The funniest thing of all . . . is [James Swan’s] attribution of Peter Pestel as the author or editor of The Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia, when in fact, he is an Anabaptist martyr who was written about in that source (!!!). [this was in a Catholic Answers forum thread, on 3 September 2014 (comment #692) ]. . . .

Now, this may seem like my nitpicking or piling on, in a case of a simple mistake or human error. Readers may wonder why I am making such a “big deal” about it. I do precisely because Swan is always pointing out human errors in Catholic works (he’s noted real or — usually — falsely alleged — ones in my writings for twelve years). If a Catholic had made such an embarrassing error like this, we can be sure Swan would have trumpeted it from the rooftops as yet more evidence that we don’t know how to properly cite a source, and that we’re always trying to lie about and misrepresent Luther; that we’re, well, kind of dumb, and that we know nothing about context in reading and citing sources. He’s noted this many hundreds of times.

We know that Lucas draws from Swan. He did so, for example, in the article of his that I critiqued in my previous paper, “Did Luther Cause the 1525 Peasants’ Revolt? (vs. Banzoli)”. Yet Swan was so ignorant about Luther’s and Lutherans’ advocacy of execution of even (the vast majority of) peaceful Anabaptists — after 11 years of wrangling with me, over Luther’s life and beliefs and lying about me innumerable times — that he asked on the Catholic Answers Internet forum on 17 August 2014 (comment #347):

Nor do I recall Luther specifically having individuals executed in Wittenberg in the 1530’s. . . . I’d like to know (or be reminded) exactly who Luther had executed in Wittenberg in the 1530’s. While it certainly is within the realm of possibility that the secular authorities of Wittenberg during the 1530’s carried out capital punishment, I don’t recall this actually happening in the 1530’s, or more specifically, that Luther was involved with the carrying out of executions during the 1530’s, especially against Anabaptists.

I wrote my article, linked to above, on the same day, to provide him the proofs he was challenging Catholics to find. Needless to say, Swan ignored it (as he has almost all of my replies to him these past ten years or so; one can readily see why!). But his ignorant comments, made after at least eleven years of his own intense Luther research, stand for all to see, as a testament of his misinformation about Luther and capital punishment for heresy. Lucas Banzoli uses him as a reputable source. As we see, the shortcomings of anti-Catholic research are the same everywhere, so it’s no surprise to me at all to see Swan and his follower Banzoli spouting either ignorance or flat-out propagandistic inaccuracies about early Protestant history.

To be fair to Luther, I gladly note that later on in his life, Luther returned to his initial position of religious tolerance. Good for him. But we can’t blind ourselves to what he expressed from 1529 to at least 1540 or after. And this is why it is equal parts ridiculous and outrageous for Lucas to make the following patently false “universal negative” statements” (see above, in context):

[N]o Anabaptist was executed in a Protestant country for the simple “crime of heresy,” . . . moderate Anabaptists were not persecuted by Protestants for purely religious reasons, . . .

Besides Luther and Lutherans, I might mention in passing just two other examples that contradict Lucas’ silly universal negative denials. As the Scottish Whig historian Sir James Mackintosh noted in his Cabinet History of England: Scotland and Ireland, Volume 3 (1833): “John Weelmaker and Henry Toorwoort . . . two Anabaptists, were burnt at Smithfield [a district of London] on the 23d of July [1575]” (p. 170). This occurred during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I: very much a Protestant.

The Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online (“England”) stated: “Members of the Austin Friars church, as well as the martyrologist John Foxe, interceded before the Queen and her Council in behalf of the imprisoned men, and Foxe obtained a reprieve to stay the execution for a month.” Generally speaking, and as another of the innumerable examples of Protestant intolerance, I have myself documented 312 Catholic Martyrs & Confessors Under “Good Queen Bess” (Queen Elizabeth: r. 1558-1603) [2-8-08].

“Reformer” Zwingli’s Zurich was also executing Anabaptists as early as 1527:

Zwingli’s personal attitude toward the increasingly repressive police measures taken by the authorities (prison February 1525; money fines and torture late 1525; death penalty and banishment decreed in 1526 and applied in 1527) has not been adequately studied. On the one hand he seems to have urged moderation and to have intervened personally in favor of some prisoners, yet at the same time he is reported to have preached that repression is the duty of a legitimate government; and in view of his dominant role in Zürich’s public life one can hardly conceive of these measures being taken against his will or without his approval. (The Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online [“Zwingli, Ulrich (1484-1531)”] )

Certainly many many more such examples could be found: even in this one source by itself. Lucas simply doesn’t know what he is talking about, in deluding himself that Protestants never executed Anabaptists for heresy and what were regarded as false and dangerous beliefs. He himself (and anyone who believes in adult baptism today: as I once did myself: proven by my own adult “baptism” in 1982), could have possibly been executed for heresy in many Protestant regions in those days. As a Catholic, I would most likely not have been executed for heresy. This is actual Protestant history: not the squeaky-clean myths that are spouted for polemical, anti-Catholic purposes.

What Lucas claims about Brazilian Catholic apologists (whether real or self-proclaimed pretenders) in another paper (How a rogue Catholic apologist and hack blatantly lies to defame Luther, March 18, 2018), equally applies to his own efforts as a Protestant apologist and extreme anti-Catholic polemicist:

The hack wants to prove that Luther was an “evil immoral” and has no quote from Luther, just quote from a 20th century Catholic fanatic quoting what is said in another 20th century Catholic fanatic’s book. It is to this level of mediocrity that Brazilian Catholic apologetics has reached. And the worst thing is to see the lying liar still saying that these quotes are from “books of Luther or Lutherans”, trying to outwit the unwary. It’s not just mediocre: it’s disgusting. It is a veritable “anything goes” to attack Luther and defame the reformers in order to make the Roman Church look less monstrous than it actually is. It’s dishonesty after dishonesty.

To the Catholic apologist in question, I make a heartfelt plea: Assume you tried to fool your foolish readers and make a retraction video, taking that earlier crap off the air. It’s to try to save a modicum of dignity, if that sort of thing is still possible in this environment.

That works both ways, doesn’t it? I agree with his condemnation of fanatical anti-Luther apologetics. We must always speak the truth and document. But by the same token, anti-Catholic Protestant apologists (and even some non-objective, mediocre Protestant or secular historians) routinely try to whitewash and omit unsavory aspects of Luther’s teachings. Lucas did this above. I have corrected him, and so if he is honest and interested in seeking truth at all times, he, too, needs to retract the falsehoods he spewed in the article I am presently critiquing.

But he hasn’t responded at all to 14 articles of mine critiquing him (this is now the 15th), so what is the chance he will even read this paper, let alone honorably and honestly react by retracting his own falsehoods in presenting an inaccurate and incomplete, “half-truth” picture of Martin Luther to his readers?

***

Photo Credit: Double portrait of Martin Luther and Philipp Melanchthon, attributed to Lucas Cranach the Younger (1515-1586) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: Lucas Banzoli tries to argue that “no Anabaptist was executed in a Protestant country for the simple ‘crime of heresy'”. Wrong!: as I massively document with facts.

Did Luther Cause the 1525 Peasants’ Revolt? (vs. Banzoli)

Last updated on: February 21, 2023 at 3:45 pm By Dave Armstrong

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 used Google Translate to transfer his Portugese text into English.

*****

This is a reply to Lucas’ article, “O protestantismo é o culpado pela Revolta dos Camponeses de 1524?” [Is Protestantism to blame for the Peasants’ Revolt of 1524?] (2-8-18). Martin Luther’s words will be in green, with more incendiary or inflammatory portions in purple. Statements of non-Catholic historians and Luther scholars will be in brown.

I wrote at length (two parts: one / two, and 17,800 words) about this topic (i.e., Luther’s role) on 31 October 2003. That is approximately 62 pages long, if printed out, whereas Lucas’ chapter about it in his book (below) is about 56 pages. So I have done at least as much research as he has on this topic: all 19 years ago. First let me cite my own opinion expressed then (which hasn’t changed, and which had been held for 12 years when I wrote in 2003):

Historians on both sides are in agreement that Luther never supported the Peasants’ Revolt (or insurrection in general). Many, however (including Roland Bainton, the famous Protestant author of the biography Here I Stand), believe that he used highly intemperate language that couldn’t help but be misinterpreted in the worst possible sense by the peasants. I agree with these Protestant scholars, . . .

No Catholic (or Protestant) historian I have found — not even Janssen — asserts that Luther deliberately wanted to cause the Peasants’ Revolt, or that he was the primary cause of it. Quite the contrary . . .

My long-held position on this agrees, therefore, with the consensus opinion of historians of all stripes. I think Luther had the typical naivete of many sincerely, deeply-committed and (what might be called) “super-pious” religious people. It is also undeniably true that Luther’s thought is highly complex, nuanced, sometimes vacillating or seemingly or actually self-contradictory, and often difficult to understand.

Thus, for him to say the sort of extreme (seemingly straightforward) things that he said, have such opinions distributed by the tens of thousands in pamphlets, and to expect everyone (even uneducated peasants) to understand the proper sense and take into consideration context and so forth, is highly unreasonable and irresponsible. . . .

Luther believed that the papacy and the entire edifice of institutional Catholicism would come to an end, not by an insurrection or rebellion, but by a direct intervention of God Himself (in fact, by nothing less than the Second Coming, as he states more than once). In 1521 and 1522 he was caught up into and (arguably) obsessed by an apocalyptic vision of what was about to happen, in God’s providence. This being the case, at first he didn’t feel it was necessary to oppose even those who threatened a rebellion (later he changed his mind, when the resulting societal chaos required swift action). Thus he wrote in December, 1521 (source information below):

The spiritual estate will not be destroyed by the hand of man, nor by insurrection. Their wickedness is so horrible that nothing but a direct manifestation of the wrath of God itself, without any intermediary whatever, will be punishment sufficient for them. And therefore I have never yet let men persuade me to oppose those who threaten to use hands and flails. I know quite well that they will get no chance to do so. They may, indeed, use violence against some, but there will be no general use made of violence . . . it will not come to violence, and there is therefore no need that I restrain men’s hands . . .

The relationship between this divine wrath and judgment and those whom God uses to execute it, however, remains somewhat obscure, unclear, and ambiguous in Luther’s writings. Perhaps the key to this conundrum is found in a remarkable statement he made in a private letter, dated 4 May 1525: “If God permits the peasants to extirpate the princes to fulfil his wrath, he will give them hell fire for it as a reward.”

So, while Luther opposed insurrection on principle, there is a tension in his seemingly contradictory utterances between opposition to the populace taking up arms against spiritual and political tyranny, and a deluded confidence and at times almost gleeful wish that apocalyptic judgment was soon to occur, regardless of the means God used to bring it about (one recalls the ancient Babylonians, whom God used to judge the Hebrews). This produces an odd combination of sincere disclaimers against advocating violence, accompanied by (often in the same piece of writing) thinly-veiled quasi-threats and quasi-prophetic judgments upon the powers of the time, sternly warning of the impending Apocalypse and destruction of the “Romish Sodom” and all its pomps, pretenses, corruptions, and vices.

On a more earthly, mundane, practical plane, however, it is astonishing to note how cavalierlry Luther sanctions wholesale theft of ecclesiastical properties (see proofs of this in the passages listed under 12 December 1522 and Spring 1523), on the grounds that the inhabitants had forsaken the “gospel” (as he — quite conveniently in this case — defined it, of course). This was to be a hallmark of the “Reformation” in Germany and also in England and Scandinavia, and was justified as a matter of “conscience” by the Protestants at the Diet of Augsburg in 1530, who flatly refused to return stolen properties, as a gesture of good will and reconciliation with the Catholics (see the section on the Diet of Augsburg in my review of the 2003 movie Luther). Luther was still rationalizing this outrageous and unjust criminal theft in 1541:

If they are not the church but the devil’s whore that has not remained faithful to Christ, then it is irrefutably and thoroughly established that they should not possess church property. (Wider Hans Wurst, or Against Jack Sausage, Luther’s Works, vol. 41, 179-256, translated by Eric W. Gritsch; citation from p. 220)

Generally speaking, Luther had a problem with his tongue. And the social repercussions were massive and tragic. The Bible speaks a lot about an unbridled tongue. It is no small sin at all. How German peasants (Luther was of rural peasant stock) may have habitually expressed themselves in the 16th century might be an interesting historical tidbit, but it has no bearing on Christian ethics, where the tongue and slander and causing uproar and divisions are concerned. One doesn’t “get off” in God’s eyes for real sins because of cultural context. It is all the more serious when such remarks are arguably a major cause in both provoking and violently quelling a rebellion in which some 130,000 human beings lost their lives: almost all violently and cruelly.

Luther might indeed mean one thing when he utters his impassioned hyper-polemical, quasi-prophetic jeremiads (I have no problem with that), but he was (by the looks of it) so naive and lacking in practical wisdom about human nature and human affairs (“worldly” or “real-life” considerations) that he apparently had no idea what harm and ill consequences his words might cause. I agree that this gets him “off the hook” to some extent (I certainly freely grant him his good intentions and sincerity), but not all that much, in my opinion. I still think he bears much responsibility for the resulting extent of the sad division by virtue of his constant polemics (often involving much lying about the Catholic Church). Furthermore, he seemed to be absolutely naive as to how his own principles would be interpreted, extended, and applied by others. . . .

My purpose is not (at all) to demonize Luther or make him out to be bad, evil, or the devil incarnate, but only to present a fuller historical picture (whatever the truth is: “positive” or “negative”) and to make some criticisms where I think they are warranted (with the background support of historians on all sides). This doesn’t amount to equating Luther with Attila the Hun, Vlad the Impaler, or Joseph Stalin; it is simply viewing him as a fallen, flawed man, as all of us are. He shouldn’t “get a pass” simply because he opposed the Catholic Church: the thing that so many people detest and loathe.

Nor does every Catholic criticism of Luther or early or later Protestantism amount to deliberate slander, with a propagandistic, “I must always make my own side come off looking righteous and saintly, at all costs” intent. There is such a thing as legitimate historiography and reasonable opinions drawn therefrom. And (thankfully) such scholarship can (and very often does, at least on a scholarly level) unite Protestants and Catholics where it concerns certain verified facts. I write as a mere lay apologist and non-scholar, but I enlist reputable historians and copious quotations from Luther himself in order to arrive at my conclusions, both “positive” and “negative” — as the case may be (just as the professional historians do).

That is my view. Readers will know it before I begin citing Banzoli, then Luther himself (so folks can make up their own minds rather than simply be told what to believe), and summaries of historians.

The article below is part of my book on the Reformation (still under construction). The chapter in question covers everything about the Peasant Revolt of 1524, which Catholic apologists use to defame Luther and Protestantism.

I don’t. I simply do research to determine the historical truth of the matter. As seen above, my view is nuanced and not simplistic. But there is a virtual consensus among historians that Luther bore some blame for what happened, because his several outrageous, inflammatory comments that were widely circulated at the time.

As we clearly see, the peasant revolt was not an event that came out of nowhere instigated by a Protestant “religious novelty”. On the contrary, it concerned a larger problem that had been going on for centuries, and that was only getting worse and worse, like a bladder that gets closer and closer to bursting the more it fills with air. Just to take into account the peasant revolts in Germany in the years leading up to the Reformation, before Luther preached any thesis in Wittenberg or was excommunicated by a pope, there were riots in 1493, 1502, 1513, and 1517 – all of them. before the Peasants’ War of 1524

I basically agree. But the Protestant movement and Luther’s rhetoric — to some extent — exacerbated it or put more “gasoline on the flames” so to speak.

Cases like this are hardly or never remembered by Catholic apologetics, which is exclusively interested in exploring the Peasants’ War of 1524, just because they dishonestly think they make some profit out of it by associating this particular revolt with Luther and the Protestants and thus trying to tarnish the Reformation.

I just did remember it by agreeing with historians and Lucas’ general account, didn’t I? So I’m not what Lucas perceives (rightly or wrongly) to be the typical Catholic apologist.

[Lucas continues on detailing all kinds of revolts of peasants, going all the way back to Spartacus in 73 BC, and in Catholic countries after Protestantism arose (e.g., in France many times during the 17th century. I have no reason to doubt his accounts of various revolts, nor of the deplorable conditions that peasants everywhere usually lived in. None of this affects my own opinion of Luther’s relationship to the revolt of 1524-1525, and none of it is an “issue” that I would disagree with, excepting Lucas’ expected jaded view of the Catholic Church’s treatment of the poor]

Lucas continues his argumentation in his book, 500 Years of the Reformation: How Protestantism Revolutionized the World (Vol. 1: 2018), which he graciously offers on his blog as a free PDF. It appears in chapter 3: pages 84-140.

The general tenor of his analysis is to blame the Catholic Church for the condition of the peasants. On one hand, he objects to any broad connecting of Protestantism to the revolt (and I agree), but on the other hand he wants to blame Catholicism for it (thus committing the same error he chides us for committing). Neither is a fair portrayal. If there is anti-Protestant bias in Catholic accounts and among despised Catholic apologists (real or imagined), by the same token there is anti-Catholic bias in his account. I submit that we need to get beyond both prejudiced mentalities and simply examine the facts, with the help of scholars who don’t have an “agenda” one way or the other.

Lucas finally gets around to citing Luther writing to the German princes, on page 112 of his book (rightly noting that he sided with the peasants and their grievances at first):

There is so much equity in some of the twelve articles of the peasants, that they are a dishonor to you before God and the world; cover princes with shame, as Psalm 108 says. [I have] even more serious things to say to you with regard to the government of Germany, and I have already referred to you in my book dedicated to the German nobility. But you did not care for my words, and now all these complaints rain down on you. You must not ignore the their request for permission to choose pastors who preach the gospel; and it is up to the government alone to prevent the insurrection and rebellion from being preached; but there must be perfect freedom to preach both the true and the false gospel. The remaining articles, which deal with the social status of the peasant, are equally just. Governments are not established for their own interest, nor to make the people subservient caprices and evil passions, but to watch over the interests of the people. Your exactions are intolerable; you take from the peasant the fruit of his labor so that you may support your luxury and your pleasures.

What Lucas doesn’t cite are the following words of Luther to the princes in early May 1525:

For you ought to know, dear lords, that God is doing this because this raging of yours cannot and will not and ought not be endured for long. You must become different men and yield to God’s Word. If you do not do this amicably and willingly, then you will be compelled to it by force and destruction. If these peasants do not do it for you, others will . . . It is not the peasants, dear lords, who are resisting you; it is God Himself . . . (An Admonition to Peace: A Reply to the Twelve Articles of the Peasants in Swabia, Philadelphia edition of Luther’s works, 1930, IV, 219-244, translated by C.M. Jacobs; citations from 220-227, 230-233, 240-244; WA, XVIII, 292 ff.; EA, XXIV, 259 ff.)

Lucas writes on pages 120-121 of his book: “It is evident that on Catholic apologetics websites the only part that appears, taken [out of] context, is the one that talks about “crushing, killing and bleeding” the peasants. But as is quite clear, Luther was not saying this about all the peasants, but specifically about the revolting peasants, the “hordes of murderers and looters”.

I’m an apologist, and I included all of the relevant Luther passages I could find. To prove that I cite Luther’s inflammatory words and conciliatory words, I set up a color-coded system in my original 2003 paper, which worked as follows:

Red = “inflammatory, violent” statements of Luther (not intended on my part to imply in any way, shape, or form that he was necessarily calling for literal violence, but rather, to highlight remarks which were of a nature that arguably, understandably could easily be interpreted — even if wrongly — as advocating violence and insurrection of the sort characteristic of the Peasants’ Revolt)

Blue = statements of Luther indicating his fundamental opposition to insurrection of the non-governmental masses and resort to physical violence for spiritual or ecclesiastical ends and goals

As readers can readily observe in my Part I, there is plenty of blue text: perhaps as much as the red text, and often in the same writing of Luther. It was a very mixed bag. But I present it all: good, bad, and in-between. The problem with Lucas’ analysis is that he places his overwhelming emphasis on Luther’s words that I provide in blue-colored font (his “conciliatory” / “peaceable” words), while ignoring virtually all of the explosive rhetoric that came from Luther in the years leading up to the revolt, and which was certainly inspirational to many of the leaders of the peasants.

This is a thoroughly slanted and one-sided revisionist version of what actually occurred. Lucas presents Luther as a virtual saint, according to his agenda. I present him as the brilliant but highly flawed and contradictory person that he actually was. By providing my readers with a much fuller picture, they can see clearly how and why it is that many peasants felt that Luther was goading them on and encouraging the revolt (though they misinterpreted or exaggerated a lot of what he wrote).

Most of those who today accuse Luther in the comfort of their own homes and behind a computer would not have the courage to expose themselves to this [level of intervention] in order to seek peace in one’s own homeland. It would have been much easier to have omitted, hidden or previously suggested a massacre, than risk one’s life seeking a friendly conciliation, even after other attempts had already failed. When we analyze the peasants’ revolt in a responsible and honest way, we conclude that, far from tarnishing the Reformation or the reformers, it highlights how much Protestantism was not a “revolutionary” element in the worst sense of the term – that of the armed social revolution, which Luther opposed consistently throughout the entire process. The former Augustinian monk did not hesitate to oppose an armed revolt against the authorities “for God’s sake instituted” (Rom 13:1). (p. 125)

Shortly I will post Luther’s earlier incendiary rhetoric (that is, the great deal of relevant writing that Lucas chose to ignore and omit from his one-sided account) and let readers judge how much responsibility he bore for the revolt. It seems that Lucas feels he has to cover up what is unsavory in Luther. I feel no such need. I approach the topic as an amateur historian, and present Luther “warts and all”; not hesitating to agree with the usual Protestant “favorable” opinion of Luther, either, when the facts warrant it.

If I do say so myself, my treatment of this subject (in my original paper) is clearly far more balanced and comprehensive than Lucas’ treatment. If one seeks all of the facts (not just a Protestant-slanted or Catholic slanted perspective), my two-part article will provide it. And it’s true that strong bias is present in both camps. Catholics on the whole are far too negative against Luther, but Protestants are far too positive, and see him through rosy-colored glasses. I try to avoid both errors and to be as accurate, fair, and balanced as possible. I seek to be ecumenical, as well as to be an apologist. The first endeavor is rejoicing in what we can agree on; the second is defending our view when others disagree with it. Both are necessary and important.

In fact, when I wrote my 2008 book, Martin Luther: Catholic Critical Analysis and Praise, the final 83 pages (out of 258, or just a little under one-third) were devoted to “praise and agreement” with Luther. And when I did my second book, The “Catholic” Luther: An Ecumenical Collection of His “Traditional” Utterances (2014), it was comprised entirely of Luther’s words that Catholics would agree with. So by no means am I “anti-Luther” in a knee-jerk fashion. I “call it as I see it”: the good and the bad. I did the same with John Calvin, too, in my book, Biblical Catholic Answers for John Calvin (2010). The final 66 pages were devoted to “agreement” with Catholics. It was a lower proportion (out of 388, or 17%), but then, Calvin agreed with Catholics a lot less than Luther did.

The overwhelming majority of these slanderers have never read a book by Luther in their lifetime . . . (p. 128)

Just for the record, I possess in hardcover, the standard 55-volume set Luther’s Works in English (which set sits “proudly” in a bookshelf in one corner of my living room), as well as many other primary works and books about Luther.

Fortunately, some scholars with more patience than Job have refuted one-by-one the slanders and invective against the Protestant reformer. Among them stands out James Swan, a great Luther scholar, whose website has hundreds of such articles refuting the most diverse defamations.

I’ve been interacting with him off and on since 2003. He’s not a scholar in the usual sense of the word (academic / professor), but an amateur researcher with a philosophy degree. He does a lot of good work correcting errors, but he is also thoroughly biased and anti-Catholic (and also quite the insulter towards those who disagree: as I well know). Readers can consult my several dozen refutations of his work by searching “Swan” on my Anti-Catholicism web page.

Among them, we can mention here the legend of Luther’s “suicide” (refuted even in Catholic sources), accusations of that Christ had committed adultery, that Luther took James and other books from the canon, that he was drunk, that he was the forerunner of Hitler, that he instigated to sin, that he was an occultist, polygamist, murderer, Bible forger, demoniac and even (amazingly) who returned to Catholicism before he died! All these defamations and slanders that are widely disseminated on Catholic apologetics have already been refuted by both Swan and many others, whose point-by-point thematic refutation is available in two tables in articles from my site. (p. 128)

I agree that all of these charges are false and slanderous. I have written articles defending him against the adultery charge, have dealt with the false accusation that he removed the book of James, and have defended him in various ways when he is wrongly attacked.

On page 132, Lucas claims that Catholic Luther biographer Hartmann Grisar (1845-1932) lied about Luther being a manic-depressive (today usually called bipolar disorder). Many Protestant or otherwise non-Catholic historians agree that Luther — at the very least — suffered from severe recurring depression, if not bipolar disorder. I detailed this in my paper, Did Luther Suffer from Recurring Depression? [7-4-07]. I wrote in that article:

I cited the very eminent Protestant Luther historians Heiko A. Oberman, (citing Luther’s own description of an acute crisis in 1527-1528: “I have known these tribulations since my youth; but I never expected that they would so increase”), David C. Steinmetz (“Luther continued to suffer periods of severe spiritual anxiety”), and Roland Bainton (“[T]he recognition is inescapable that he had persistent maladies . . . The recurrence of these depressions raises for us again the question whether they may have had some physical basis . . . His whole life was a struggle against them, a fight for faith”). . . .

I also cite in my article nine additional non-Catholic Luther biographers, including Mark U. Edwards, Martin E. Marty, and Martin Brecht. This is not a false “attack”: it’s virtually established as historical fact. And it’s not Luther’s fault. Millions suffer from serious depression: including every single person in my family (myself, my wife, four children, and two daughters-in-law) at one time or another. Thankfully, I only had a single, six-month-long episode of very deep depression, in 1977, but it was quite traumatic, so that I understand depression “from the inside.”

Lucas goes on for pages, up to the end of the chapter, citing the history of some overzealous and inaccurate Catholic critics of Luther (likely deriving his material from James Swan). This is related to the topic of the Peasants’ Revolt, I grant, but technically off of it. Anti-Catholics, with their sordid and disgraceful (and continuing) history of slanderous, ridiculous, facts-free “analysis” of Catholicism are hardly the ones to talk about historical inaccuracies regarding Luther. And Lucas is, unfortunately, in this tiny minority, fringe camp among Protestants.

Now I shall cite Luther’s own words, and then some assessments of historians and scholars. It’s but a small portion of my 63-page article (part one / part two). Anyone who wants to study the topic in depth is urged to read all of my two-part article. I am highlighting his inflammatory rhetoric, for the sake of brevity, but plenty of his conciliatory words are in the original paper. Footnotes will be at the end.

25 JUNE 1520***It seems to me that if the Romanists are so mad the only remedy remaining is for the emperor, the kings, the princes to gird themselves with force of arms to attack these pests of all the world and fight them, not with words, but with steel. If we punish thieves with the yoke, highwaymen with the sword, and heretics with fire, why do we not rather assault these monsters of perdition, these cardinals, these popes, and the whole swarm of the Roman Sodom, who corrupt youth and the Church of God? Why do we not rather assault them with arms and wash our hands in their blood? (Bainton, 115; Carroll, 1; WA, VI, 347; EA, II, 107; PE, IV, 203; in reply to arguments of the Dominican Sylvester Prierias, Master of the Sacred Palace at Rome; On the Pope as an Infallible Teacher, or On the Papacy at Rome. Schaff gives its Latin title as De juridica et irrefragabili veritate Romanae Ecclesiae Romanique Pontificis)

4 DECEMBER 1520***Janssen (III, 136) noted how Luther’s friend, the minor “reformer” Wolfgang Capito, wisely and prophetically warned Luther on on this date about his bone-chilling invective: “You are frightening away from you your supporters by your constant reference to troops and arms. We can easily enough throw everything into confusion, but it will not be in our power, believe me, to restore things to peace and order.”

***

MARCH 1521

***

Emser lies again when he says that I wish the laity might wash their hands in the blood of the priests [see 25 June 1520, above] . . . I wrote against Sylvester per contentionem [footnote: “A term in rhetoric meaning a contrasting of one thought with another”], as this noble poet and rhetorician well knows; I said, if heretics are to be burned, why not rather attack the pope and his adherents with the sword and wash our hands in their blood, if he teaches what Sylvester writes, namely, that the Holy Scriptures derive their authority from the pope. And since I do not approve of burning the heretics, I likewise do not approve of killing any Christian. I know very well that it is not in accord with the Gospel. I simply showed what they deserved if heretics deserve to be burned. It is not at all necessary to attack you with the sword . . . your tactics with your burnings and bans, your raging and raving against the plain truth, look as if you were eager to stir up another Bohemian episode and bring about the fulfillment of the prophecy which is going the rounds that the priests are to be slain. If such destruction should come upon you, you must not blame me — just keep on, the road you are on leads right to it . . . I hope you realize that no one shall destroy the pope but yourselves, even his own creatures, as the prophet has said.

But tell me, dear Emser, since you dare to put it down on paper that it is right and necessary to burn heretics and think that this does not soil your hands with Christian blood, why should it not also be right to take you, Sylvester, the pope, and all your adherents and put you to a most shameful death? Since you dare to publish a doctrine that is not only heretical but antichristian, which all the devils would not venture to utter — that the Gospel must be confirmed by the pope, that its authority is bound up with the pope’s authority, and that what is done by the pope is done by the church. What heretic has ever thus at one stroke condemned and destroyed God’s Word? Therefore I still declare and maintain that, if heretics deserve the stake, you and the pope ought to be put to death a thousand times. But I would not have it done. Your judge is not far off, He will find you without fail and without delay.

. . . what would become of the papacy . . . ? Christ Himself must abolish it by coming with the final judgment; nothing else will avail. (Dr. Martin Luther’s Answer to the Superchristian, Superspiritual, and Superlearned Book of Goat Emser of Leipzig, With a Glance at His Comrade Murner, PE, III, 307-401, translated by A. Steimle; citations from 343-344, 366)

MID-DECEMBER 1521***Now it seems probable that there is danger of an insurrection, and that priests, monks, bishops, and the entire spiritual estate may be murdered or driven into exile, unless they seriously and thoroughly reform themselves. For the common man . . . is neither able nor willing to endure it longer, and would indeed have good reason to lay about him with flails and cudgels, as the peasants are threatening to do . . .

Now, I am not at all displeased to hear that the clergy are brought to such a state of fear and anxiety. Perhaps they will come to their senses and moderate their mad tyranny. Would to God their terror and fear were even greater. But I feel quite confident, and have no fear whatever that there will be an insurrection, at least one that would be general and affect all the clergy . . .

. . . any man who can and will may threaten and frighten them, that the Scriptures may be fulfilled, which say of such evil doers, in Psalm xxxvi, “Their iniquity is made manifest that men may hate them” . . .

According to the Scriptures such fear and anxiety come upon the enemies of God as the beginning of their destruction. Therefore it is right, and pleases me well, that this punishment is beginning to be felt by the papists who persecute and condemn the divine truth. They shall soon suffer more keenly . . . Already an unspeakable severity and anger without limit has begun to break upon them. The heaven is iron, the earth is brass. No prayers can save them now. Wrath, as Paul says of the Jews, is come upon them to the uttermost. God’s purposes demand far more than an insurrection. As a whole they are beyond the reach of help . . . The Scriptures have foretold for the pope and his followers an end far worse than bodily death and insurrection . . .

These texts [having cited Dan 8:25, 2 Thess 2:8, Is 11:4, Ps 10:15] teach us how both the pope and his antichristian government shall be destroyed . . .

If once the truth is recognized and made known, pope, priests, monks, and the whole papacy will end in shame and disgrace . . .

. . . these texts [2 Thess 2:8, 1 Thess 5:3] have made me certain that the papacy and the spiritual estate will not be destroyed by the hand of man, nor by insurrection. Their wickedness is so horrible that nothing but a direct manifestation of the wrath of God itself, without any intermediary whatever, will be punishment sufficient for them. And therefore I have never yet let men persuade me to oppose those who threaten to use hands and flails. . . .

[I]nsurrection is an unprofitable method of procedure, and never results in the desired reformation. For insurrection is devoid of reason and generally hurts the innocent more than the guilty. Hence no insurrection is ever right, no matter how good the cause in whose interest it is made. The harm resulting from it always exceeds the amount of reformation accomplished.

. . . My sympathies are and always will be with those against whom insurrection is made, however wrong the cause they stand for . . . God has forbidden insurrection . . . insurrection is nothing else than being one’s own judge and avenger, and that God cannot endure . . . God will have nothing to do with it . . . (An Earnest Exhortation for all Christians, Warning Them Against Insurrection and Rebellion, PE, III, 201-222, translated by W.A. Lambert, citations from pp. 206-213, 215-216; also in LW, vol. 45, 57-74 [revised translation by Walther I. Brandt]; WA, VIII, 676-687, EA, XXII, 44-59)

Preserved Smith (p. 137): “It may be doubted whether this pamphlet was expressed in really prudent terms, and whether it would not be more likely to excite discontent than to allay it.”

4 JULY 1522

***

But if they say that one should beware of rebelling against spiritual authority, I answer: Should God’s word be dispensed with and the whole world perish? Is it right that all souls should be killed eternally so that the temporal show of these masks is left in peace? It would be better to kill all bishops and to annihilate all religious foundations and monasteries than to let a single soul perish, not to mention losing all souls for the sake of these useless dummies and idols. What good are they, except to live in lust from the sweat and labor of others and to impede the word of God? They are afraid of physical rebellion and do not care about spiritual destruction. Are they not intelligent, honest people! If they accepted God’s word and sought the life of the soul, God would be with them, since he is a God of peace. Then there would be no fear of rebellion. But if they refuse to hear God’s word and rather rage and rave with banning, burning, killing, and all evil, what could be better for them than to encounter a strong rebellion which exterminates them from the world? One could only laugh if it did happen, as the divine wisdom says, Proverbs 1[:25–27], “You have hated my punishment and misused my teaching; therefore I will laugh at your calamity and I will mock you when disaster strikes. (Against the Spiritual Estate of the Pope and the Bishops Falsely So-Called; LW, vol. 39, 239-299; translated by Eric W. and Ruth C. Gritsch. Quotation from pp. 252-253; WA, vol. 28, 142-201)

Will Durant (p. 377) noted: “he branded the prelates as the ‘biggest wolves’ of all, and called upon all good Germans to drive them out by force.”

1523

***

All those who work toward this end and who risk body, property, and honor that the bishoprics may be destroyed and the episcopal government rooted out are God’s dear children and true Christians. They keep God’s commandment and fight against the devil’s order. Or, if they cannot do this, at least they condemn and avoid such a government. On the other hand, all those who obey the government of the bishops and subject themselves to it in willing obedience are the devil’s own servants and fight against God’s order and law . . .

Here you stand against St. Paul, against the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit stands against you. What will you say now? Or have you become dumb? Here you have your verdict: all the world must destroy you and your government. Whoever stands on your side falls under God’s disfavor; whoever destroys you stands in God’s favor.

By no means do I want such destruction and extinction to be understood in the sense of using the fist and the sword, for they are not worthy of such punishment—and nothing is achieved in this way. Rather, as Daniel 8[:25] teaches, “by no human hand” shall the Antichrist be destroyed. Everyone should speak, teach, and stand against him with God’s word until he is put to shame and collapses, completely alone and even despising himself. This is true Christian destruction and every effort should be made to this end . . .

Since it is clear, then . . . that the bishops are not only masks and idols but also an accursed people before God — rising up against God’s order to destroy the gospel and ruin souls — every Christian should help with his body and property to put an end to their tyranny. One should cheerfully do everything possible against them, just as though they were the devil himself. One should trample obedience to them just as though it were obedience to the devil; . . . (Doctor Luther’s Bull and Reformation, LW, vol. 39, 278-283; translated by Eric W. and Ruth C. Gritsch. Published in LW as part of Against the Spiritual Estate of the Pope and the Bishops Falsely So-Called; but originally published separately in two special editions in 1523, in Erfurt and Augsburg, entitled, The Bull of the Ecclesiastic in Wittenberg Against the Papal Bishops, Granting God’s Grace and Merit to All who Keep and Obey It; WA, X-11, 98-158; citations from 278-280, 283)

SPRING 1523***Who does not see that all bishops, foundations, monastic houses, universities, with all that are therein, rage against this clear word of Christ . . .? Hence they are certainly to be regarded as murderers, thieves, wolves and apostate Christians . . .

For this thing alone they have richly deserved to be cast out of the Christian Church and driven forth as wolves, thieves and murderers . . .

. . . where there is a Christian congregation which has the Gospel, it not only has the right and power, but is in duty bound . . . under pain of forfeiting its salvation, to shun, to flee, to put down, to withdraw from, the authority which our bishops, abbots, monastic houses, foundations, and the like exercise today . . . (The Right and Power of a Christian Congregation or Community to Judge all Teaching and to Call, Appoint, and Dismiss Teachers, Established and Proved From Scripture, PE, IV, 75-85, translated by A.T.W. Steinhaeuser; WA, XI, 406 ff.; EA, XXII, 141 ff.; citations from 75-79)

EARLY MAY 1525

***

To the Princes and Lords

We have no one on earth to thank for this mischievous rebellion, except you princes and lords; and especially you blind bishops and mad priests and monks . . .

. . . since you are the cause of this wrath of God, it will undoubtedly come upon you, if you do not mend your ways in time. . . the peasants are mustering, and this must result in the ruin, destruction, and desolation of Germany by cruel murder and bloodshed, unless God shall be moved by our repentance to prevent it.

For you ought to know, dear lords, that God is doing this because this raging of yours cannot and will not and ought not be endured for long. You must become different men and yield to God’s Word. If you do not do this amicably and willingly, then you will be compelled to it by force and destruction. If these peasants do not do it for you, others will . . . It is not the peasants, dear lords, who are resisting you; it is God Himself . . . There are some of you who have said that they will stake land and people on the extirpation of Lutheran teaching . . .

To the Peasants

. . . “He who takes the sword shall perish by the sword.” That means nothing else than that no one, by his own violence, shall arrogate authority to himself; but as Paul says, “Let every soul be subject to the higher powers with fear and reverence” . . .

The fact that the rulers are wicked and unjust does not excuse tumult and rebellion, for to punish wickedness does not belong to everybody, but to the worldly rulers who bear the sword . . .

. . . you do much more wrong when you not only suppress God’s word, but tread it under foot, and invade His authority and His law, and put yourselves above God . . . (An Admonition to Peace: A Reply to the Twelve Articles of the Peasants in Swabia, PE, IV, 219-244, translated by C.M. Jacobs; citations from 220-227, 230-233, 240-244; WA, XVIII, 292 ff.; EA, XXIV, 259 ff.)

C.M. Jacobs (translator and editor, PE, IV, 206): “The Peasants’ War . . . was intimately connected with the Reformation. The teaching of Luther had been taken up eagerly by the lower classes, but they gave it an interpretation that Luther had never intended it to have.”

Roland Bainton

During that summer of 1520, when the papal bull was seeking him throughout Germany, his mood fluctuated between the incendiary and the apocalyptic. In one unguarded outburst he incited to violence. A new attack by Prierias lashed Luther to rage. (Bainton, 115; see remarks of 25 June 1520 above)

His attitude on monasticism likewise admirably suited peasant covetousness for the spoliation of cloisters. The peasants with good reason felt themselves strongly drawn to Luther.

. . . a complete dissociation of the reform from the Peasants’ War is not defensible . . . Luther was regarded as a friend. When some of the peasants were asked to name persons whom they would accept as arbiters, the first name on the list was that of Martin Luther. (Bainton, 209-210, 211)

[T]he Catholic princes held Luther responsible for the whole outbreak, and color was lent to the charge by the participation on the peasants’ side of hundreds of Lutheran ministers, whether voluntarily or under constraint. (Bainton, 221)

Philip Schaff

The Reformation, with its attacks upon the papal tyranny, its proclamation of the supremacy of the Bible, of Christian freedom, and the general priesthood of the laity, gave fresh impulse and new direction to the rebellious disposition. Traveling preachers and fugitive tracts stirred up discontent. The peasants mistook spiritual liberty for carnal license. They appealed to the Bible and to Dr. Luther in support of their grievances. They looked exclusively at the democratic element in the New Testament, and turned it against the oppressive rule of the Romish hierarchy and the feudal aristocracy. They identified their cause with the restoration of pure Christianity . . . . (Schaff, Vol. VII, §75, “The Peasants’ War: 1523-1525”)

Will Durant

A Catholic humanist, Johannes Cochlaeus, warned Luther (1523) that “the populace in the towns, and the peasants in the provinces, will inevitably rise in rebellion . . . They are poisoned by the innumerable abusive pamphlets and speeches that are printed and declaimed among them against both papal and secular authority.” Luther, the preachers, and the pamphleteers were not the cause of the revolt; the causes were the just grievances of the peasantry. But it could be argued that the gospel of Luther and his more radical followers “poured oil on the flames,” and turned the resentment of the oppressed into utopian delusions, uncalculated violence, and passionate revenge. (Durant, 383; citing Janssen, III, 342 and Cambridge Modern History, 12 volumes, New York, 1907 f., II, 177)

[T]he peasants had a case against him. He had not only predicted social revolution, he had said he would not be displeased by it, he would greet it with a smile, even if men washed their hands in episcopal blood. He too had made a revolution, had endangered social order, had flouted an authority not less divine than the state’s. He had made no protest against the secular appropriation of ecclesiastical property. How otherwise than by force could peasants better their lot when ballots were forbidden them, and their oppressors daily wielded force? The peasants felt that the new religion had sanctified their cause, had aroused them to hope and action, and had deserted them in the hour of decision. Some of them, in angry despair, became cynical atheists. Many of them, or their children, shepherded by Jesuits, returned to the Catholic fold. Some of them followed the radicals whom Luther had condemned . . . (Durant, 394-395)

Owen Chadwick

Though he was well aware that his pen ran away with him, and sometimes regretted it, his simple and enclosed upbringing prevented him from realizing the effect of violent language upon simple minds. Luther, not an extremist, often sounded like an extremist. He imagined a brave citizen meeting a ravening peasant with sword in hand, and had no idea that his language could encourage men to perpetuate outrages on defenceless peasants.

Everyone who hated Roman or clerical power had gathered round him, and not every German who hated Rome was moved by the principles and the motives of Luther . . . But for a few years he was the voice of a German self-consciousness. Round Luther’s cry for religious reformation gathered men who wanted other things besides religious reformation. (Chadwick, 61)

Joseph Lortz (Catholic)

A complex, much-entangled dependence connects the resort to arms on the part of the peasants with the Reformation . . . the reforming teachings endowed each revolutionary insurrection with welcome beginnings in certain fundamentals . . .

The most significant single demonstration of the connection between peasant upheaval and Reformation is the Twelve Articles of the Peasants in Swabia . . . It was essentially religious; indeed it found its origin in the Bible . . . It was essential for outward propaganda as well as for inner procedure that all demands appear to be consecrated by higher Christian ideals . . .

Should it be, it says in the twelfth article, that one or more articles is not verified in the Word of God and if such be demonstrable on the basis of Scripture, then they will relinquish it . . . A moving, naive, Utopian confidence! . . .

Justification of their claims in the reforming doctrine is the first significant misunderstanding in world history of Luther’s views. But the term misconception applies only with a certain constraint. Luther loosed a revolutionary storm against the special status of the clergy . . . Had he not injected this irresponsible tone into the atmosphere? . . . One cannot so defiantly and dauntlessly use provocative force to demolish the old church without having some of the socially oppressed drawing conclusions in the manner of the peasants. Such teachings were destined to become far more an impulse to insurrection in an atmosphere of total hatred, unbridled criticism and demagogic excitement. From destroying images it was not far to destroying monasteries . . .

In addition there is the matter of the frightful attacks against the princes Luther presumed to make in writings of 1523 and 1524. These adversaries were painted as raging, mad fools in that God’s wrath is being laid over them, in that the people would not have been a people were it not to have elevated its just complaints even to energetic and tumultuous resort to arms. Luther’s outburst of hatred — inescapable even in sermons — against one and every worldly authority not of his mind could only result in weakening authority in general. The new Gospel created a sort of mass consciousness among all the discontented . . . without that mass awareness the peasants scarcely would have evolved even the unity they did. (“Reformation and Peasant Rebellion as Phenomena of Change,” in Sessions, 9-16; from Die Reformation in Deutschland, Freiburg: Herder, 1962; citation from 11-12,14-15)

Johannes Janssen (Catholic)

Had Luther and his followers never appeared on the scene, the spirit of discontent and insubordination, which had gained ground everywhere among the common people, would still have produced fresh tumult and sedition in the towns and provinces. But it was the special condition of things brought about — or rather developed — by the religious disturbances, which gave this revolution its characteristics of universality and inhuman atrocity . . .

Maurenbrecher (Katholische Reformation, i. 257) says frankly: “It is not true historical criticism, but a mere apologetic argument, based on false observation, which aims at disproving the fact that Luther’s evangelical preaching enormously augmented and ripened to its crisis the social agitation which had been going on in the lower strata of the nation from the beginning of the fifteenth century.” (Janssen, IV, 143-145; from Sessions, 47)

Hartmann Grisar, S.J. (Catholic)

[T]hese insurrections derived their impetus from the Lutheran ideas and slogans which had permeated the masses. It would be unhistorical to throw the entire responsibility for the gigantic movement upon Luther. Nevertheless, it cannot be gainsaid that the ideas and preachers of the new movement were intimately connected with it. The doctrine of evangelical liberty played the principal role.

In most districts the rebellious peasants . . . demanded absolute liberty to change their religion, or at least confiscation of church property and the cessation of clerical privileges . . . How often had not Luther himself summoned his followers to destroy the churches, monasteries, and dioceses of Antichrist. True he desired this to be done by the authorities, but the peasants felt that they were the authorities. Then, too, without mentioning the authorities, he repeatedly pointed out, in his violent and inconsiderate language, that an insurrection of the masses was inevitable. It appeared to the peasants that their hour for acting had now arrived. (Grisar [1], 279-280)

One of the most esteemed historians of this phase of the Reformation, Fr. von Bezold . . . [wrote] “How else but in a material sense was the plain man to interpret Luther’s proclamation of Christian freedom and his extravagant strictures on the parsons and nobles?” . . . He wonders “how he could expect the German nation at that time to hearken to such inflammatory language from the mouth of its ‘evangelist’ and “Elias’ and, nevertheless, to refuse to permit themselves to be swept beyond the bounds of legality and order.” However, like other historians who are favorable to Luther, Von Bezold sees an excuse in the latter’s “ignorance of the ways of the world and the grandiose one-sidedness,”which supposedly “attaches to an individual who is filled and actuated exclusively by religious interests.” (Grisar [1], 285; from Bezold, Geschichte der deutschen Reformation, Berlin, 1890, 447)

No one . . . will be so foolish to believe that it was really his intention to kill the Catholic clergy and monks. His bloodthirsty demands were but the violent outbursts of his own deep inward intolerance. (Grisar [2], VI, 247)

But who was it who was responsible for having provoked the war? Occasional counsels to . . . self-restraint . . . were indeed given by Luther from time to time . . . but . . . they are drowned in the din of his controversial invective. (Grisar [2], VI, 248)

James Mackinnon

To threaten the princes with the wrath of God was all very well, but such a threat would have no effect in remedying the peasants’ grievances, and they might well argue that God had chosen them, as he practically admitted, to be the effective agents of His wrath . . . (“Luther Shows His True Colors,” in Sessions, 50-54; from Luther and the Reformation, New York: Russell and Russell, 1962, III, 201-210; citation from p. 51)

Kyle C. Sessions

Luther’s revolt injected enormous impetus into a multitude of other forces of change already at work. In varying degrees the persons demanding alterations sought to identify their aspirations with those of Luther . . .

The Lutheran Reformation was deeply involved with the Peasants’ Revolt. Luther’s teachings resonated in the grievances of the rebels and Luther’s position contributed importantly to immediate events and final results . . .

The eagerness of the German peasants to embrace the Lutheran movement makes it clear that in some manner they identified their protests with the protest of Luther and their efforts for reform with those undertaken by him. (Sessions, “Introduction,” viii, xi, xiii)

R.H. Murray

His Gospel of Christian liberty proved a mighty solvent. For the spiritual freedom which he taught, multitudes substituted freedom from political oppression, from social injustice and from economic burdens . . .

The fates of theories are strange, and if the father of one of them could see the developments of some of his children he would stand aghast . . . the Anabaptist application of Luther’s was simply more thorough. The revolutionary drew back in horror. (“Political Consequences of Luther’s Doctrines of Religious Freedom,” in Sessions, 55-59; from The Political Consequences of the Reformation; Studies in Sixteenth-Century Political Thought, New York: Russell & Russell, 1960; citation from p. 58)

Preserved Smith

Luther, indeed, could honestly say that he had consistently preached the duty of obedience and the wickedness of sedition, nevertheless his democratic message of the brotherhood of man and the excellence of the humblest Christian worked in many ways undreamt of by himself. Moreover, he had mightily championed the cause of the oppressed commoner against his masters. “The people neither can nor will endure your tyranny any longer,” said he to the nobles; “God will not endure it; the world is not what it once was when you drove and hunted men like wild beasts.” (Smith, 157)

[G]enerally the peasants assume that they are acting in accordance with the new “gospel” of Luther . . . Above all they appealed to the Bible as the divine law, and demanded a religious reform as a condition and preliminary to a thorough renovation of society. Although Luther himself from the beginning opposed all forms of violence, his clarion voice rang out in protest against the injustice of the nobles. (Smith [2], 80, 79)

From his own day to the present he has been reproached with cruelty to the poor people who were partly misguided by what they believed to be his voice. And yet, much as the admirers of Luther must and do regret his terrible violence of expression, the impartial historian can hardly doubt that in substance he was right. No government in the world could have allowed rebellion to go unpunished; no sane man could believe that any argument but arms would have availed. Luther first tried the way of peace, he then risked his life preaching against the rising; finally he urged the use of the sword as the ultima ratio. He was right to do so, though he put himself in the wrong by his immoderate zeal. It would have been more becoming for Luther, the peasant and the hero of the peasants, had he shown greater sympathy with their cause and more mercy. Had he done so his name would have escaped the charge of cruelty with which it is now stained. (Smith, 166-167)

H.G. Koenigsberger

Only someone of Luther’s own naive singleness of mind could imagine that his inflammatory attacks on one of the great pillars of the established order would not be interpreted as an attack on the whole social order, or on that part of it which it suited different interests, from princes to peasants, to attack. Indeed, if this had not been so, Luther’s Reformation could not possibly have been as successful as it actually was. The first to interpret Luther’s writings as a signal for revolution were, however, not the peasants but the imperial knights . . . To them, Luther’s pamphlet addressed to the German nobility seemed a clarion call against the hated power of the princes and the Church . . .

Luther’s little tract on The Freedom of a Christian Man was interpreted — misinterpreted, so Luther thought — as an attack on all serfdom . . .

They wanted their traditional rights, and Luther and Zwingli seemed to have made their demands even more respectable by apparently giving them the sanction of Scripture . . . The peasants plundered and burnt monasteries and castles; but only on one occasion did they massacre the defenders of a castle, Weinsberg, after they had surrendered. The massacres of the Peasants’ War were nearly all perpetrated by the other side. (“The Reformation and Social Revolution,” 83-94 in Hurstfield; citations from 87-89)

Harold J. Grimm

Lutheranism also aroused considerable hope among the peasants. Their leaders soon translated religious demands for freedom, the Word of God, and divine justice into social terms, despite Luther’s warning against such action . . .

There is no doubt that Luther’s doctrines did much to raise the economic hopes of those classes not represented in the city councils, above all of the guildsmen, despite the fact that such a support was the furthest from Luther’s mind . . .

We know for certain . . . that the Reformation provided many people in all classes with a dynamic hope that their difficulties could be solved. It is reasonable to assume that Reformation doctrines, ideas, and slogans were applied to individual class interests. (“Social Forces in the German Reformation,” 85-97 in Spitz; citations from 91, 95-97)

Footnotes

WA = Weimar Ausgabe edition of Luther’s Works (Werke) in German, 1883. “Br.” = correspondence.

EA = Erlangen Ausgabe edition of Luther’s Works (Werke) in German, 1868, 67 volumes.

LW = Luther’s Works, American edition, edited by Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) and Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955.

PE = Luther’s Works, Philadelphia edition (6 volumes), edited and translated by C.M. Jacobs and A.T.W. Steinhaeuser et al, A.J. Holman Co., The Castle Press, and Muhlenberg Press, 1932.

LL = Luther’s Letters (German), edited by M. De Wette, Berlin: 1828

Bainton, Roland, Here I Stand [online], New York: Mentor Books, 1950.

Carroll, Warren H. (Catholic), The Cleaving of Christendom, Front Royal, Virginia: Christendom Press, 2000 (Vol. 4 of A History of Christendom).

Chadwick, Owen, The Reformation, New York: Penguin Books, revised edition, 1972.

Durant, Will, The Reformation, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1957 (volume 6 of the 10 volume work, The Story of Civilization, 1967).

Grisar, Hartmann (Catholic) [1], Martin Luther: His Life and Work, translated from the 2nd German edition by Frank J. Eble, Westminster, Maryland: The Newman Press, 1950; originally 1930.

Grisar, Hartmann [2], Luther [online: Vol. I / Vol. II / Vol. III / Vol. IV / Vol. V / Vol. VI], translated by E.M. Lamond, edited by Luigi Cappadelta, 6 volumes, London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1915.

Hurstfield, Joel, editor, The Reformation Crisis, New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1966.

Janssen, Johannes (Catholic), History of the German People From the Close of the Middle Ages, 16
volumes, translated by A. M. Christie, St. Louis: B. Herder, 1910; originally 1891.

McGrath, Alister E., Reformation Thought: An Introduction, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 2nd edition, 1993.

O’Connor, Henry (Catholic), Luther’s Own Statements, New York: Benziger Bros., 3rd ed., 1884.

Rupp, Gordon, Luther’s Progress to the Diet of Worms, New York: Harper & Row, Torchbook edition, 1964.

Schaff, Philip, History of the Christian Church, New York: Charles Scribner’s sons, 1910, 7 volumes; available online.

Sessions, Kyle C., editor, Reformation and Authority: The Meaning of the Peasant’s Revolt, Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath & Co., 1968.

Smith, Preserved, The Life and Letters of Martin Luther, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1911.

Smith, Preserved [2], The Reformation in Europe, New York: Collier Books, 1966 — Book I of the author’s work, The Age of the Reformation, New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1920.

Spitz, Lewis W., editor, The Reformation: Basic Interpretations, Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C. Heath & Co., 1962.

***

Photo credit: Martin Luther (1526), by Lucas Cranach the Elder (1472-1553) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: Brazilian Protestant Lucas Banzoli does his best to whitewash Luther’s connection to the Peasants’ Revolt of 1525. I refute his one-sided view with massive facts.

1 Timothy 3:15 = Infallible Church (vs. Lucas Banzoli)

Last updated on: February 21, 2023 at 3:30 pm By Dave Armstrong

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 used Google Translate to transfer his Portugese text into English.

*****

This is a reply to Lucas’ article, “A Igreja é a coluna e sustentáculo da verdade!” [The Church is the pillar and support of the truth!] (7-1-15).

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

Papists love (pardon my redundancy) to quote a text in Paul’s first epistle to Timothy, when he said that the Church is the “pillar and support of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). At least ten thousand times I had to read the repeated jargon that “the Church is the pillar of truth, not the Bible.”

I can beat that. At least ten trillion times have I heard the supposed “prooftext” that in fact proves nothing regarding sola Scriptura: “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Tim 3:16). Folks do indeed often repeat what they think are strong arguments. Whether in fact the argument is strong is another question, and it has to be argued through and demonstrated. I’ve done that with 1 Timothy 3:15 and will again today. I thank Lucas and I’m very grateful for the opportunity to strengthen a rock-solid biblical argument about the infallibility of the Church.

The later addition that makes a point of saying that “it is not the Bible” is there only to accentuate the value they place on Scripture. A complete contempt.

Sheer nonsense. I’ve been a Catholic for 31 years and a Catholic apologist almost as long. I’ve never heard any orthodox Catholic ever say that the Bible is not also a support of the truth, or not completely true. Catholics revere Holy Scripture as God’s infallible and uniquely inspired revelation. It’s an infallible pillar of the truth; so is the Church and sacred apostolic tradition. We canonized Holy Scripture, preserved it (painstaking work by thousands of monks, transcribing), translated it for 1500 years, before the Protestant Revolution arose. Protestants don’t have a “monopoly” on the Bible.

The problem here is that whenever Catholics acknowledge infallible authority of anything besides the Bible (to the Church or sacred tradition or apostolic succession or ecumenical councils or the pope), Protestants automatically assume that we are running down the Bible (because this contradicts their false and unbiblical doctrine of sola Scriptura). That doesn’t follow at all, of course.

This comes from their “dichotomous / “either/or” mindset, as if it were a zero-sum game (belief in the authority of the Church must mean less belief in the Bible, etc.). This is kindergarten thinking. The Bible itself gives councils and the Church authority; therefore, Catholics believing in and following the same biblical teachings is pro-Bible, not anti-Bible. But this is the drivel we Catholic apologists must constantly encounter and refute: “A complete contempt.” Blatantly misrepresenting other Christians’ beliefs is a serious sin, and is against the Ten Commandments (bearing false witness).

In response to this argument, we must point out in conjunction with what has been written in the book:

1) Paul was not talking about the Roman Church. The “Roman” addition in the text does not exist. In fact: it exists, but only in the head of those who need to find “Roman” there to make sense of their argument.

Yes and no. He was talking about the Church established by Jesus Christ (with Peter as its head). This Church is historically the same as what later became known as the Catholic Church, headed by the popes (Peter’s successors) in Rome. “Rome” or “Roman” isn’t present in this text, but it’s beside the point. Paul is referring to the one true Church: an actual historical, concrete institution that can be identified (it’s not a mere abstraction or “mystical” only).

2) Paul was not talking about the Church as an institution. In chapter 2 of this book we check out numerous biblical proofs that the real and true concept of ekklesia is not that of a religious institution, much less a Roman one, but refers to Christians themselves, as the Body of Christ.

This is also false, and reflects Lucas’ very “low” and unbiblical ecclesiology. In the Bible, ekklesia refers to both local churches (as in Paul’s epistles and in the first three chapters of Revelation: the “seven churches”). It also refers to the one true institutional, universal, Catholic Church that can be pointed to and identified. The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) is a prime example of this institutional authority. A council there decreed certain things regarding what laws Christians are bound to obey. It did so by invoking the infallible protection of the Holy Spirit (“it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you . . “: 15:28).

The instruction was initially sent to “the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cili’cia” (15:23). These are areas not in Israel; therefore, this can’t possibly be merely a local church in play. It’s the universal Church: a council of elders and apostles including St. Peter and St. Paul, and James, the bishop of Jerusalem. Paul himself delivered its decrees to many more cities in Asia Minor (Turkey): see Acts 16:1-8. This is one unified Church and an exercise of authority “from the top” which applied to all Christians henceforth. Christian men have not been required to be circumcised as an “entrance rite” into Christianity ever since that decision.

Other instances of “Church” as the universal, institutional Church (not merely the local congregation):

Matthew 16:18 . . . on this rock I will build my church . . .

Acts 5:11 And great fear came upon the whole , and upon all who heard of these things.

Acts 9:31 So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Sama’ria had peace and was built up . . .

Acts 20:28 . . . the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son

1 Corinthians 10:32 . . . the church of God

1 Corinthians 11:32 . . . the church of God . . .

1 Corinthians 12:28 And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues.

1 Corinthians 15:9 . . . I persecuted the church of God. (cf. Gal 1:13; Phil 3:6)

Ephesians 1:22 and he has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church, (cf. 3:10, 21; 5:23-25, 27, 29, 32)

Colossians 1:18 He is the head of the body, the church . . .

Colossians 1:24 . . . for the sake of his body, that is, the church,

3) Column is a completely different thing from foundation. The papist who argues that the truth is subject to the Church shows that he understands nothing of the meaning of “Church” and still less of “pillar.” The column is not a foundation, but is built on the foundation! Here Paul used two Greek words, one called hedraioma, which means: “support, support, support” [De acordo com a Concordância de Strong, 1477]. The other was stulos, which means “pillar or column” [De acordo com a Concordância de Strong, 4769]. As we can see, none of them has the sense of “foundation” (as some adulterated Catholic translations render it), but of something that is on the foundation.

However these two words are particularly defined, it remains true that they support the truth, which is on “top” of them (“pillar and bulwark of the truth” in RSV). I agree about the meaning of stulos (“pillar”). But hedraióma (Strong’s word #1477, as Lucas cited) is a stronger term. Strong defines it as “a foundation, stay, support” (Lucas conveniently omitted the definition of “foundation”). HELPS Word-studies on the same web page for hedraióma noted: Cognate: 1477 hedraíōma – the base, which ultimately supports the foundation itself (used only in 1 Tim 3:15). See also 1476 (hedraíos). [my bolding and italics].

But Lucas falsely claimed that “none of them has the sense of “foundation” (as some adulterated Catholic translations render it)”. I regret to inform him (but happy to inform readers) that this is a glaring falsehood, and it is proven not just by Catholic translations (in English), but by (mostly) Protestant Bibles, which translate hedraíōma as follows (Catholic Bibles in green) — including 24 of them which have foundation or foundation-stone:

foundation (NIV, NLT, Amplified, CSB, Holman, CEV, ISV, LSV, NAB, Young’s Literal, Berean Study, Lamsa, EHV, EXB, GW, Phillips, MEV, NOG, NTE, TLV, Goodspeed, Knox, Williams)

foundation-stone (Weymouth)

buttress (ESV, Mounce, Barclay)

ground (KJV, NKJV, ASV, Douay-Rheims, WEB, AKJV, ERV, Webster, Geneva, Bishop’s Bible, Coverdale, Tyndale, BRG, Good News, NMB, RGT)

bulwark (NET, NRSV, NCB, RSV, NEB, REB, Moffatt, Kleist & Lilly)

base (Darby, Smith’s Literal, Literal Emphasis, JUB)

[see web pages with most of these translations written out: one / two]

So much for Lucas’ groundless argument (no pun intended) . . .

Therefore, the meaning of the text is not that the truth is subject or dependent on the Church, but the opposite. As the pillar is dependent on the foundation, the Church is dependent on the truth. The foundation (truth) comes first, and the pillar (Church) comes later. The Church, therefore, has the role of announcing this truth, not manipulating that truth, as if whatever the Church said was true for the sole reason that the Church said it.

The text says the exact opposite of what Lucas argues, as shown. Far from the Church being “dependent on the truth”, The Bible says it is the foundation or ground or base of the truth: exactly what we Catholics are saying. It doesn’t follow that the Bible is not that (either/or reasoning). But the Church is, along with or alongside the Bible: precisely as in the Catholic rule of faith. This doesn’t make the Church inspired; only infallible. And that is quite enough to destroy sola Scriptura as a supposed biblical principle and rule of faith.

4) To clarify the issue, let us quote the text where Paul uses the same Greek word stulos (column) when saying:

“Recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James, Peter and John, regarded as pillars [stulos], stretched out their right hands to me and Barnabas as a sign of fellowship” (Galatians 2:9)

James, Peter and John were obviously not “above the truth,” much less the Church as a whole. This also does not mean that the Church would not exist without them. They were just “columns” that stood out from the rest. If Peter had been above the truth because he was a pillar, he could not have been rebuked by Paul (Gal.2:11-14), or denied Jesus (Jn.18:27). Being a column does not guarantee always preaching the truth, much less being above the truth.

The apostles, as well as Christians today (Church), had the function of preaching this truth, as they are pillars of it. If Christians do not preach the truth, the world will not hear it, and consequently will not believe the gospel. This is why, and in this sense, the Church is the pillar of truth, for she has the obligation to proclaim the truth of the Scriptures and keep the truth as it is.

The heart of the Catholic argument is not the word stulos, but the word hedraíōma, as shown. First Lucas defines it wrongly, and then ignores it as if it isn’t there. But the meaning is crystal-clear; couldn’t be more clear than it is!

[skipping over his section stating that the Bible is truth, which no one denies . . . also skipping over his one-sided, slanted presentation of the biblical data on tradition. The topic is 1 Timothy 3:15 and what it means]

. . . the Church, which is not a “foundation” of the truth, but a pillar, . . . The Bible is not really the pillar of truth, because it is much more than a pillar. It is not like a pillar (which depends on something), but the foundation, the truth itself.

The Church also is the foundation (or ground or base or bulwark) of “the truth”: as shown above. Lucas is foolishly denying what ought to be right in front of his face. I know it’s difficult to have one’s cherished (but false) belief crushed. But we all have to be strong enough to endure correction from the Bible. We can’t fight against it. That won’t do us any good at all.

Readers have now seen the utter weakness and blatantly Bible-opposing nature of Lucas’ argument. Now I will make my own concluding statement, to nail down the case beyond all argument. Here is the related portion of my book, 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura (2012, 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.

***

Photo credit: Chris Brignola cjbrignola (6-6-15) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: Brazilian Protestant apologist Lucas Banzoli presents a very weak argument against the plain meaning of 1 Timothy 3:15 (which is that the Church is infallible).