Virgin Mary “Until”? (Matthew 1:25) (vs. Lucas Banzoli)

Last updated on: February 21, 2023 at 3:47 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 use RSV for the Bible passages unless otherwise indicated.

This is my 17th refutation of articles written by Lucas Banzoli. As of yet, I haven’t received a single word in reply to any of them (or if Banzoli has replied to anything, anywhere, he certainly hasn’t informed me of it). Readers may decide for themselves why that is the case.

*****

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

Matthew 1:24-25 (NRSV) . . . Joseph . . . took her as his wife, [25] but had no marital relations with her [RSV: “knew her not”] until she had borne a son . . .

The Catholic Church traditionally teaches the dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity, according to which Jesus was an only child and Mary never had any other children besides him, and Jesus’ brothers were merely cousins. As it will be too extensive to deal with all the points that involve this dogma and to refute one by one each of the aberrations that are preached by the Roman Church, I will restrict myself to dealing with a single biblical passage, which for me is enough to decide the subject [Matthew 1:25].

It’s not “enough” in and of itself at all, as I will prove.

If Matthew had meant to imply that Joseph never “knew” Mary, he would have simply written that “he never knew her,” not that he just didn’t know her “until” Jesus was born.

He would have this option ready, at hand, which could be perfectly utilized if he wanted to defend the dogma of the “perpetual virginity of Mary”, and he would end this question once and for all.

There is a place for speculation about “what should have been written if specific view x is to be regarded as true” or what I call humorously “coulda woulda shoulda theology [or exegesis]”. I’ve done it myself on occasion (even in the last few days), and it’s fun. But of course, it’s always an argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio), which doesn’t carry all that much weight in argumentation and logic.

Hence, Sven Bernecker and Duncan Pritchard, in The Routledge Companion to Epistemology (Routledge, 2010) state that “arguments from silence are, as a rule, quite weak; there are many examples where reasoning from silence would lead us astray” (pp. 64–65). In the final analysis, we can only deal with what the biblical text actually asserts and the possible meaning and its interpretation of any given passage.

But, on the contrary, he makes a point of emphasizing that the time they reserved was the one determined until the birth of Jesus, as he would have to be born of a virgin, to fulfill the prophetic Scriptures (Mt.1:23; Is. 7:14).

Yes, He had to be born of a virgin (all Christians agree about that). But what isn’t often considered is the question: why did Joseph abstain from marital relations for the entire pregnancy if in fact he had marital relations with the Blessed Virgin Mary after Jesus’ birth? This wouldn’t affect the virgin birth because it would have occurred after Jesus was conceived. Nor would anyone know whether it had happened or not.

Rabbinic Judaism did not forbid sexual relations during the whole of pregnancy (especially not the final three months). I think we can safely assume that something of that sort was the custom of the Jews of Jesus’ time. So why did Joseph do this? There is no plausible reason to do so, other than the fact that he intended to never have relations with her (she being the Mother of God). Sometimes the most effective and elegant arguments are the small ones like this (that one could almost not notice at all).

Writing against Helvidius, St. Jerome provocatively asked (making precisely the present argument):

Why then did Joseph abstain at all up to the day of birth? He will surely answer, Because of the Angel’s words, “That which is born in her, &c.” He then who gave so much heed to a vision as not to dare to touch his wife, would he, after he had heard the shepherds, seen the Magi, and known so many miracles, dare to approach the temple of God, the seat of the Holy Ghost, the Mother of his Lord?

Perhaps Lucas (if he ever answers any of my critiques of his work) can offer a plausible explanation to me and our readers, as to why Joseph did that.

He could also have written the same as was said regarding Michal, who “had no children until the day she died” (2 Sam.6:23). With that, he would be making it clear that she had not generated children during her entire existential period (“until her death”).

He “could” have done a lot of things, but that’s neither here nor there, since it is the weak fallacy of an argument from silence. 2 Samuel 6:23 actually supports the Catholic interpretation of “until” in Matthew 1:25 because it perfectly illustrates that “until” can and does (in some instances in the Bible) refer to events up to certain point referred to, but not after. In this case, it couldn’t refer to events after, since Michal died and could no longer possibly have children.

That the “until” is conclusive proof that Mary had other children besides Jesus, plus the fact that the evangelist Matthew could well have written differently that was intended to defend the dogma and not put it in doubt, comes from the fact that on several other occasions this same term appears in the New Testament, and the text leaves no doubt that “until” marks the end of one event to give way to another. [he provides Rev 2:25, 1 Cor 11:26, Acts 4:3, Mt 17:9 as examples of this dynamic] . . . Again, the “until” marks the end of an event, designating its limit.

With so much overwhelming biblical evidence that “until” sets a boundary that is passed with the end of the restriction, why should we think that it is only different in the case of Matthew 1:25? What occurs in the text of Matthew 1:25 is strictly the same structure that occurs in the texts that we have just passed.

We do because there are other examples (conveniently ignored by Lucas) where this pattern is not present. Such variation for until and the Greek it translates either exists in Scripture or it does not. I will shortly show that it does. Once that is established, then Lucas can no longer deny that it ever happens; nor can he deny the possibility that it happened similarly in Matthew 1:25.

That changes everything in the debate. Perhaps that’s why he chose to totally ignore any counter-examples: in order to keep his readers in the dark, and ignorant. I’m not impressed, and I dare say many other people won’t be, either, when they read this critique of such a pitiable, cynical “research” methodology.

The fact that Matthew also adds that Mary gave birth to her “firstborn” (v.25) also indicates that she had other children.

It does not at all. It simply means He was her first son to be born. Hence, God Himself defines the term in Numbers 8:16: “all that open the womb, the first-born . . .” (cf. Ex 13:1-2). These children “open the womb” whether they later have siblings or not. The two concepts are distinct. When our oldest son Paul was born, he was our “firstborn.” And he would remain the firstborn, whether we had any other children or not, just as our first grandchild (a girl) remains the first and the oldest, whether or not our two married sons and their wives have any more.

Our third grandchild and first grandson (due around Halloween in a little less than two months from this writing) will remain our “firstborn [and oldest] grandson” whether or not any more are born. Additional children don’t change those facts.

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

More arguments from silence . . . No need to dwell on them, as they have no force.

In short, Matthew neither writes that Joseph never had relations with her,

Nor did he write that he did, as we shall shortly see, in four analogous instances of “until” that carry the same meaning that Catholics maintain is the case at Matthew 1:25.

nor that Jesus was her only son.

That’s true, in terms of that phrase, but on the other hand, it’s also true that Jesus’ “brethren” in Scripture are never called the children of Mary, and Mary is never called their mother, as in the case of Jesus (e.g., Jn 2:1; 19:25). In at least two instances, these “brothers” were mentioned but Mary wasn’t called their mother; only Jesus‘ mother (Mk 6:3; Acts 1:14). Moreover, Luke 2:41-42 states:

Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the Passover. [42] And when he was twelve years old, they went up according to custom;

We don’t see a word about any other children, who certainly would have gone with Joseph and Mary to observe the Passover in Jerusalem. This means that if Mary had other children, there was at least a twelve-year gap, which is hardly likely, feasible, or plausible in those days, with a young married woman of approximately 16-28 years of age. Generally (as it continued to be the case up to very recent times), wives had children one after another.

Then afterwards, the text states that “he went down with them and came to Nazareth” (2:51). If the other supposed siblings had also been there, the text would have presumably read something like, “he went down with his brothers and sisters and parents and came to Nazareth”. But it didn’t, and we submit that it didn’t because those siblings didn’t exist.

Finally, we have the strong evidence that there were no siblings of Jesus at the time He was crucified, since He committed the care of His mother to John: “the disciple whom he loved” (Jn 19:26-27). This would certainly not have happened (particularly in Jewish culture at that time), had any supposed siblings been alive. Lucas argues elsewhere that this person was actually James, and a literal sibling, but the exegetical arguments for his being John are very strong.

These are all arguments from silence, too — I hasten to add –, but if someone skeptical of Mary’s perpetual virginity insists on making them, we can also return the favor. Goose and gander . . . And these things are harder to explain than the “until” Mary and Joseph scenario, where we have perfectly analogous biblical counter-examples of “until” that cast into serious doubt the Protestant skeptical position. In other words, Catholic arguments from silence in this respect (if they must be made) are much better than Protestant ones.

Just as Jesus was the “firstborn among many brethren” (Rom.8:29) in the spiritual realm, he was also the firstborn of many brethren in the natural realm (Mk.6:3). As such, Catholic claims against the validity of Matthew 1:25 are baseless, as are their attempts to defend a dogma that has no biblical framework to back it up.

It’s not just “Catholic claims.” Here are two pretty famous non-Catholics who think Lucas’ (and later — not early — Protestantism’s) theory about Matthew 1:25 and “until” is bunk, too:

When Matthew says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom. (Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, vol. 45:206, 212-213 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew [1523] )

The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called ‘first-born’; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation. (John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, translated by William Pringle, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1949, vol. I, 107)

And now, to conclude, and as promised, here are four examples of the use of “until” in Scripture that are analogous to the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 1:25:

Acts 8:40 But Philip was found at Azo’tus, and passing on he preached the gospel to all the towns till he came to Caesare’a.

Did Philip never preach again after he arrived in Caesarea? No. In Acts 21:8 he’s called “Philip the evangelist.” So he was still doing the same stuff. But hey, Lucas contended that there is “overwhelming biblical evidence” that ” ‘until’ marks the end of an event, designating its limit.” Therefore, employing his “analysis”, Philip should have retired and set up a lemonade stand by the sea. “Till” in this verse translates the same Greek word as the “until” of Matthew 1:25: ἕως (heós): Strong’s word #2193.

Acts 25:21 But when Paul had appealed to be kept in custody for the decision of the emperor, I commanded him to be held until I could send him to Caesar.”

Was Paul, therefore, not held in jail after he met Caesar, because “until” is in this passage? No. He was to be held in custody while traveling (Acts 27:1) and also when he arrived in Rome (Acts 28:16). But Lucas has informed us that there is “overwhelming biblical evidence” that “‘until’ marks the end of an event, designating its limit.” So according to him, Paul must have been set free. Not! “Until” in this verse is, again, the same Greek word as the “until” of Matthew 1:25: heós.

1 Corinthians 15:25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.

Will Christ’s reign therefore come to an end? Nope. Luke 1:33 informs us: “he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end” (cf. Rev 11:15). This verse (so Lucas thinks, if he is consistent) would entail His reign ending at some point.

1 Timothy 4:13 Till I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching.

Does this mean that Timothy would or should stop preaching after Paul arrives? After all, Lucas says that there is “overwhelming biblical evidence” that ” ‘until’ marks the end of an event, designating its limit.” Therefore, employing his “reasoning”, Timothy ought to have ceased preaching and teaching when Paul showed up. But of course he didn’t, and Paul later commissioned him to do precisely those things (see 2 Tim 4:2, 5). “Till” translates the same Greek word as Matthew 1:25 again (heós).

My friend and fellow apologist John Martignoni provided a good summary, in writing about the same topic:

[T]he word “until” does not always and everywhere mean a change of circumstance. Yes, that is the most common usage – Condition A is true until this point of time then it is no longer true – but it is not the only usage. As I have clearly shown, from the Bible, “until” can also just be referring to what happens up to a certain point in time, without implying what happens after that point in time. It does not automatically mean that the condition changed after that point in time. So, the fact that Joseph did not know Mary “until” Jesus was born, does not necessarily infer anything about what happened between Joseph and Mary after Jesus was born.

***

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

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

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

***

Photo credit: Saint Joseph and the Christ Child (1640), by Guido Reni (1575-1642) [public domain / Wikipedia]

***

Summary: Brazilian Protestant apologist Lucas Banzoli vainly makes a failed linguistic argument that the “until” in Matthew 1:25 means that Mary was not a perpetual virgin.

Mary Clopas & Jesus’ Supposed Siblings (vs. Lucas Banzoli)

Last updated on: February 21, 2023 at 3:46 pm By Dave Armstrong

[see book and purchase information]

The words of Lucas Banzoli will be in blue. I used RSV for the Bible passages.

*****

I’m replying to Lucas’ article, “Quem é a Maria “mãe de Tiago e José”, que estava ao pé da cruz e visitou o túmulo vazio?” (4-30-20) [Who is Mary “mother of James and Joseph”, who was at the foot of the cross and visited the empty tomb?]. His site provides an English translation.

[F]our (?) women . . . went to the tomb early on the morning of the resurrection, namely Salome (Mk 16:1), Joan [Joanna] (Luke 24:10), Mary Magdalene (Mt 28:1) and someone named Mary who is described as the mother of James and Joseph, according to Matthew and Mark (Mt 27:56; Mk 15:40), or simply the mother of James, according to the account of Luke (Luke 24:10).

Matthew 13:55-56 (RSV) Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? [56] And are not all his sisters with us? . . .

Mark 6:3 “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” . . .

Galatians 1:19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.

***

Matthew 27:55-56 There were also many women there [at the crucifixion], looking on from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him; [56] among whom were Mary Mag’dalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, . . .

Mark 15:40-41, 47 There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Mag’dalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salo’me, [41] who, when he was in Galilee, followed him, and ministered to him; . . . [47] Mary Mag’dalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid.

John 19:25 . . . standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Mag’dalene.

***

Matthew 10:3 / Mark 3:18 / Luke 6:15 / Acts 1:13 . . . James the son of Alphaeus . . .

***

Matthew 27:61 Mary Mag’dalene and the other Mary were there, sitting opposite the sepulchre.

Matthew 28:1 Mary Mag’dalene and the other Mary went to see the sepulchre.

Mark 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Mag’dalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salo’me, bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him.

Luke 24:10 Now it was Mary Mag’dalene and Jo-an’na and Mary the mother of James and the other women with them who told this to the apostles;

Yes, Jesus was a brother (adelphos in Greek, not anepsios, cousin) of a James and a Joseph, and, of course, he was the son of Mary. We have here, therefore, a Mary who was the mother of at least seven children (including Jesus and at least two sisters, as they are mentioned in the plural), strictly following the Jewish custom of having many children (which was seen as a blessing divine, perhaps the greatest a woman could receive, judging by the OT accounts involving Anne, Rachel, etc.).

But Catholics, believers in the dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity, dispute this idea, claiming that James and Joseph were Jesus’ cousins, children of Mary’s sister who happened to be also called Mary. They cling to the following text from John [19:25],

That’s not all we “cling” to. Matthew 27:56 refers to “Mary the mother of James and Joseph”. Mark 15:40 references “Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses.” Mark 16:1 and Luke 24:10 likewise both mention “Mary the mother of James.” When we consider all relevant verses together (see above), we understand that this is the same Mary as “the other Mary” (Mt 27:61; 28:1) and “Mary the wife of Clopas” (Jn 19:25), who is a different person than “his [Jesus’] mother” (also Jn 19:25).

That’s quite significant biblical data to bring to bear on the topic. It’s not just us notorious Catholics sitting up in an old tower, making up things out of whole cloth. That’s the methodology of Protestants, who invented out of their imaginations the fairy tales of sola Scriptura and sola fide (certainly not derived from the Bible, where they never appear, and where the second notion is expressly condemned: “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone“: James 2:24; “faith apart from works is dead”: James 2:26).

But the Catholic view on the perpetual virginity of Mary is derived from strong biblical evidence. This is why all of the original Protestant “reformers” agreed with us on the topic, as did most Protestants for a few hundred years, until theological liberalism and biblical skepticism influenced them to start doubting it without cause.

As I point out in my article on this text, the Greek presents an ambiguity recognized by any linguist: it does not make it clear whether «Mary, wife of Clopas» was just a specification of who was Mary’s sister (as Catholics argue), or if was in fact another person quoted in the logical sequence of the text. In other words, in the Catholic reading we have three women at the foot of the cross: (1) the mother of Jesus, (2) the sister of Jesus’ mother, who was Mary of Clopas, and (3) Mary Magdalene. Already in the Protestant reading, we have four women: (1) the mother of Jesus, (2) the sister of the mother of Jesus, (3) Mary of Clopas, (4) Mary Magdalene.

Catholics think additional women besides the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mary Clopas, and Mary Magdalene were at the cross, because the Bible says so: “the mother of the sons of Zeb’edee” (Mt 27:56), Salome (Mk 15:40), possibly other unnamed women (implied by the phrase “among whom” in Mark 15:40 and “many women” in Matthew 27:55), and likely other women and men who were described as a “great multitude” who “followed” Jesus as He carried His cross (Lk 23:27). And of course, St. John was there, too (Jn 19:26).

If Lucas wants to quibble about the Greek grammar, and wrangle about whether this is referring to three or four women (equally able and pious scholars of all stripes differ on the question), I would point out that it’s irrelevant to our immediate discussion, since massive biblical evidence (again, see above) proves that there was this “other Mary” who was the mother of James and Joseph, whom elsewhere are referred to as “brothers” of the Lord.

Whether this is Mary wife of Clopas or not doesn’t change the fact that some other woman named Mary, besides the mother of Jesus, had these two sons: thus proving that they were not Jesus siblings, but first cousins or more distant relatives (or possibly step-brothers) who were part of Jesus’ extended family or kin. In other words, in determining whether Jesus had blood brothers / siblings or not, the identity of Mary Clopas is not a “dealbreaker.” If she wasn’t “the other Mary” or the mother of James and Joseph the Catholic and traditional Protestant and Orthodox view of Mary’s perpetual virginity would still remain absolutely intact.

[T]he reason why we should definitely abandon any pretense of seeing the two as sisters is the most obvious: no Jewish father would name two daughters the same . A good observer will notice that the entire Bible mentions thousands of brothers and sisters, but never two with the same name. [his emphases]

Yes, of course not. We all agree on that. The point is that “sister” has a wider latitude of meaning, as Catholics (with undeniable, unarguable support from any and all Greek lexicons) have maintained all along. Adelphe / adelphos in Greek simply is not restricted to the meaning of sibling. So the “sister” of the Blessed Virgin Mary could have been her cousin, sister-in-law, niece, step-sister, aunt, or even distant kinfolk. This was standard Hebrew terminology.

Hence, in the Old Testament, Lot, who was called Abraham’s “brother” (Gen. 14:14), was the son of Haran, Abraham’s sibling (Gen. 11:26–28); therefore, was literally Abraham’s nephew, not his sibling or blood brother. Jacob is, likewise, referred to as the “brother” of Laban, who was literally his uncle (Gen. 29:15). Eleazar’s daughters married their “brethren,” who were the sons of Kish (Eleazar’s literal sibling). These “brethren”, then, were actually their first cousins (1 Chr. 23:21–22).

Jesus Himself uses “brethren” (adelphos) in the non-sibling sense. In Matthew 23:8 (cf. 12:49-50), He calls, for example, the “crowds” and His “disciples” (23:1) “brethren.” In other words, they are each other’s “brothers”: the brotherhood of Christians.

Luke was a Greek Gentile. Paul, though Jewish, was raised in the very cosmopolitan, culturally Greek town of Tarsus. But even so, both still clearly used adelphos many times with the meaning of non-sibling:

Luke 10:29 But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
Acts 3:17 “And now, brethren, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers.”
Acts 7:23, 25-26 “When he was forty years old, it came into his heart to visit his brethren, the sons of Israel.. . . [25] He supposed that his brethren understood that God was giving them deliverance by his hand, but they did not understand. [26] And on the following day he appeared to them as they were quarreling and would have reconciled them, saying, `Men, you are brethren, why do you wrong each other?’”
Romans 1:13 I want you to know, brethren, . . .
Romans 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen by race.
1 Thessalonians 1:4 For we know, brethren beloved by God, that he has chosen you;

[I]f this James was really Jesus’ cousin, he would have to be the son of this supposed sister Mary of Jesus’ mother. But the text of John is clear in saying that she was the wife of Clopas, not Alphaeus (John 19:25)! Whenever this James is mentioned in the Bible, he is referred to as the son of Alphaeus, never as the son of Clopas (Luke 6:15; Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18; Acts 1:13). . . .

Luke would have no reason [possible related reference in Lk 24:18: “Cleopas”] to call this man Alphaeus and then call the same individual by an entirely different name, as if he were going out of his way to confuse his readers.

The great Anglican scholar and bishop J. B. Lightfoot (1828-1889), in his classic commentary The Brethren of the Lord (1865) tackled the question of whether Alphaeus = Clopas:

The identity of Alphaeus and Clopas. These two words, it is said, are different renderings of the same Aramaic name yplx or [Aramaic] (Chalphai), the form Clopas being peculiar to St. John, the more completely grecized Alphaeus taking its place in the other Evangelists. The Aramaic guttural Cheth, when the name was reproduced in Greek, might either be omitted as in Alphaeus, or replaced by a k (or c) as in Clopas. Just in the same way Aloysius and Ludovicus are recognized Latin representatives of the Frankish name Clovis (Clodovicus, Hludovicus, Hlouis).

So this is one possible explanation. Another is that one person was known by two different names [in this case, Clopas and Alphaeus], which is very common in Scripture:

Moses’ father-in-law was known as both Reuel (Ex 2:18) and Jethro (Ex 3:1)

Uzziah (2 Ki 15:32; Mt 1:9) / Azariah (2 Ki 15:1-17; 1 Chr 3:12)

Dorcas / Tabitha (Acts 9:36-40)

“Joseph called Barsab’bas, who was surnamed Justus” (Acts 1:23)

Judas (not Iscariot), one of the twelve disciples, was called Lebbeus (Mt 10:3) and also Thaddeus (Mk 3:18; Mt 10:3)

Matthew / Levi (Mk 2:14; Lk 5:27-29)

The disciple Nathanael (Jn 1:46-47), was also known as Bartholomew (Mt 10:3; Mk 3:18)

St. Peter, even before his name was changed to Peter [“Rock”] (Mt 16:19), which was [Greek] Cephas, derived from Aramaic kephos (Jn 1:40-42; used eight times by St. Paul), was known as Simon (23 times), Simon Peter (19 times), and Simeon (Acts 15:14).

“Simon the Cananaean” (Mt 10:4), one of the twelve disciples, was also known as “Simon who was called the Zealot” (Lk 6:15; Acts 1:13).

Thomas, one of Christ’s Jesus’ original disciples, was also called “the Twin” (Jn 11:16).

Note the variable names even for six of the twelve disciples!

[T]he only Mary who can be the mother of James and Joseph is the mother of Jesus, these being his brothers, exactly according to Mark 6:3.

A frequent objection to this conclusion is when one wonders why Matthew, Mark, and Luke would quote her on these occasions only as the mother of James or as the mother of James and Joseph, instead of calling her the mother of Jesus, as is often the case in the Bible. Before answering that, I have a better question: why on earth would these same evangelists have completely omitted the fact that the mother of Jesus was at the foot of the cross, as John says? Read the texts again. If the Mary mentioned in the synoptics is not the same as the mother Mary of Jesus, it means that the three evangelists simply ignored her presence on Golgotha as if it were unimportant [Jn 19:25]:

The answer to Lucas’ question is easy: there is no need for all the Gospels to include everything. It’s sufficient that one does. There are many things that Scripture mentions only a few times. The virgin birth is only present twice (in Isaiah and Luke 2). Original sin appears just two or three times, and is not very explicitly laid out. The divinity of the Holy Spirit is not that easy to argue from Scripture, though it can be done (and I have done it).

So only John mentioning this is no biggie. John’s the only one who mentions that he was at the cross, and this is significant, too: the only disciple who was there. His mentioning Jesus’ mother Mary being there is in Scripture, and that is sufficient, whether it’s once or twenty times. There is also a clear distinction to be drawn between merely not mentioning something which is described elsewhere in inspired Scripture, and stating a thing over and over that simply isn’t plausible under Lucas’ ludicrous hypothesis (i.e., the Blessed Virgin Mary repeatedly mentioned as being someone else’s mother without the text mentioning Jesus).

Lucas’ position is so ridiculous and exegetically untenable, that it illustrates the extreme and desperate lengths that Protestants will go to ignore the obvious, if a position contradicts their own present view. Here is what one has to believe, to adopt his position:

We’d have a scenario where Mary the mother of Jesus is described five times as the mother of Joseph and/or James, and/or Salome (Mt 27:56; Mk 15:40, 47; 16:1; Lk 24:10), with Jesus not even mentioned alongside them; downright excluded! That makes no sense, as opposed to simply not mentioning something altogether that is already noted elsewhere. Moreover, we would have the Blessed Virgin Mary referred to twice as “the other Mary.” This is asinine! The contexts in which they occur make it all the more absurd to hold such a view.

In Matthew 27:56 and Mark 15:40 we would have to believe that the text is describing Jesus’ mother watching her Son die on the cross, yet it doesn’t call her “his mother” — as John 19:25 does — but rather, Matthew decides to describe her as the “Mary the mother of James and Joseph” and Mark calls her “Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salo’me.”

Everyone under the sun is mentioned besides Jesus, Who just happens to be saving the world from its sin on the cross, in agony, while His mother, watching with unimaginable horror, isn’t even described as “his mother.” That stretches credulity beyond the breaking point. Wherever the truth lies here, it can’t possibly be that insane and, I would add, blasphemous. According to the Bible, and the vast majority of Christians throughout history, blasphemy doesn’t just apply to God, but also to holy people and things, as I have written about.

To draw an analogy, in order to demonstrate how utterly ridiculous Lucas’ reasoning is, suppose the mother of the great American President Abraham Lincoln (Nancy Lincoln) had been present when he was shot and killed in 1865. It so happens that she died in 1818 when he was nine, but this is just a hypothetical, anyway. She was born in 1784 and could have conceivably been there, at age 81. Lincoln had a sister, Sarah, and a brother, Thomas, who tragically died at only three days old.

Now imagine, a reporter noting after Lincoln’s assassination that “Nancy the mother of Sarah and Thomas witnessed the sad event.” That would and could have never happened! It would say, “Lincoln’s mother Nancy was sadly present.” But this way of writing is what Lucas would have us believe about how the evangelists would have described Jesus’ mother at His crucifixion (!).

Equally absurd in Lucas’ proposed scenario is Jesus’ mother being described as “Mary the mother of Joses” when she went and saw where He was buried (Mk 15:47), “Mary the mother of James, and Salo’me” when she was supposedly going to anoint her Son with spices (Mk 16:1), and “Mary the mother of James” when she allegedly reported to the disciples that Jesus’ tomb was empty (Lk 24:10). Ludicrous! It’s downright stupid and outrageous for any serious and pious person (professed Christian) to even consider such things . . .

To top it off, we have to believe that Mary the mother of Jesus would have been called “the other Mary” when mentioned as being with Mary Magdalene: visiting and being at Jesus’ tomb (Mt 27:61; 28:1). It’s claimed that Catholics elevate the Blessed Virgin Mary too much and supposedly worship her? That’s not true, but it is true — as we have just witnessed — that a Protestant like Lucas will insult and denigrate Our Lady and blaspheme against her in this unbelievable manner: all in the effort to deny that she was a perpetual virgin.

She’s so “downgraded” that three of the four Gospel writers supposedly would refuse to refer to her as the mother of Jesus (and not someone else) at His crucifixion, at His tomb, and in the context of reports about the empty tomb. Anyone who is irrational and delusional enough to believe this garbage is truly beyond all hope of persuasion about anything in the Bible or the Catholic faith.

John W. Wenham wrote an excellent article in Evangelical Quarterly in 1975, titled, “The Relatives of Jesus.” He flatly denies Lucas’ theory, and states:

The only clear reference to the mother of Jesus comes from John, who represents her as being near the cross for her son’s farewell and as being escorted from the scene before his death. The other three gospels say that the women watched from a distance and that at least two of the Marys witnessed the burial. The idea that one of these witnesses was the Lord’s mother is almost impossible to reconcile with John’s account of her being taken away “from that hour”. . . .

It has seemed natural to most readers to equate “Mary of Clopas” with “Mary the mother of James and/or Joses” and with “the other Mary”, not with the mother of Jesus. Indeed, seeing there were inescapably three Marys, it seems very odd that the Synoptists (who are quite ready to speak of the mother of Jesus) should identify her in such an obscure manner. The suggested explanations for this disguise seem laboured. In view of the fervid quest for texts to buttress the claims of Marian devotion, it is almost incredible that an appearance to the Lord’s mother on Easter Sunday morning should not have been recognized and seized upon, if such an appearance is in fact being recorded. The description “the other Mary” would provide only the flimsiest veil. That she was not so identified can only mean that there was no tradition to support such identification. . . .

If the equation of “the other Mary” with the mother of Jesus breaks down, then it is almost inevitable that she should be equated with Mary of Clopas.

I did a survey of several Protestant scholarly sources on this question (in a related article) and could find none that positively espoused this crazy theory. The closest I came was a highly tentative statement of Eerdmans Bible Dictionary about the mother of James and Joses: “It is possible but not likely that this Mary was the same person as the mother of Jesus . . .” (p. 697). Hardly a ringing endorsement, is it?

***

Summary: Brazilian Protestant apologist Lucas Banzoli suggests the most ridiculous hypotheses in order to explain Mary Clopas & to deny the perpetual virginity of Mary.

Protestants Executed Peaceful Anabaptists (vs. L. Banzoli)

Last updated on: February 21, 2023 at 3:44 pm By Dave Armstrong

***

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

***

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.

Banzoli’s 45 “Faith Alone” Passages; My 200 Biblical Disproofs

Last updated on: February 21, 2023 at 3:43 pm By Dave Armstrong

***

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 Sola Fide na Bíblia (Justificação somente pela fé)” [Sola Fide in the Bible (Justification by Faith Alone] (1-7-14). All Bible passages: RSV.

His article consists solely of Bible passages. It reminds me a lot of my many articles like that, as well as two of my books consisting of almost solely Scripture. So I’m more than happy to “play along” with this sort of methodology. “Two can play at this game!” and (surprise!) Catholics can play it as well (and even better!) than Protestants. Lucas provided 45 proofs of “justification by faith alone” from Scripture, which really aren’t proofs at all, as I will show. To counter his presentation, I produce 200 categorized Bible passages in favor of the Catholic view of infused justification or justification by faith as evidenced or manifested in works: without which faith is dead. I will categorize Lucas’ 45 passages below according to my replies to them from a Catholic perspective. I also categorize (for ease of access) my “response passages” below.

Justification by Faith / Belief Without Denying the Place of Good Works in the Overall Equation

John 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears my word and believes him who sent me, has eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

John 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

John 6:47 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.

Romans 3:26 it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies him who has faith in Jesus.

Romans 3:30 [Lucas also separately and wrongly lists Romans 3:13 for this passage] since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised through their faith.

Romans 4:16 That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his descendants — not only to the adherents of the law but also to those who share the faith of Abraham, for he is the father of us all,

Romans 5:1-2 Therefore, since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. [2] Through him we have obtained access to this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in our hope of sharing the glory of God.

Romans 5:9 Since, therefore, we are now justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.

Galatians 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.”

2 Timothy 3:15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

Hebrew 4:3 [incorrectly listed as Heb 3:4] For we who have believed enter that rest, as he has said, “As I swore in my wrath, `They shall never enter my rest,'” although his works were finished from the foundation of the world.

Hebrews 10:38 but my righteous one shall live by faith, and if he shrinks back, my soul has no pleasure in him.”

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.

This is a matter of simple logic. The Protestant claim is “justification by faith alone”. But the phrases “justification by faith” or “believe [in Christ]” are not the same as that (though they are possibly consistent with the claim). “Alone” is an additional clause modifying [justifying] “faith” or “belief”. It excludes any additional element alongside of the faith. To use an analogy, I could say:

“I am justified by reading my Bible.”

That’s different from:

“I am justified by reading my Bible at midnight.”

The second is far more particular, and excludes all times besides midnight.

None of the above passages exclude good works or merit or sanctification as part of justification and salvation. We have to examine passages along those lines in order to have the complete picture. And I will do that below. But the passages above considered by themselves do not prove justification by faith alone.

Initial Justification

Romans 4:3-4, 7 [Lucas listed “Romans 4:1-7”, but had already included Rom 4:2, 5-6] For what does the scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” [4] Now to one who works, his wages are not reckoned as a gift but as his due. . . . [7] “Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered;

Romans 4:5 And to one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness.

Romans 4:6 So also David pronounces a blessing upon the man to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works:

Romans 4:9 Is this blessing pronounced only upon the circumcised, or also upon the uncircumcised? We say that faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness.

Romans 4:11-12 [Lucas had this listed as Rom 4:11-13, but he listed Romans 4:13 already] He received circumcision as a sign or seal of the righteousness which he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised and who thus have righteousness reckoned to them, [12] and likewise the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but also follow the example of the faith which our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

Romans 4:22-24 That is why his faith was “reckoned to him as righteousness.” [23] But the words, “it was reckoned to him,” were written not for his sake alone, [24] but for ours also. It will be reckoned to us who believe in him that raised from the dead Jesus our Lord,

Romans 10:9-10 because, if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. [10] For man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved.

Galatians 3:6 Thus Abraham “believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.”

Galatians 3:22 Now it is evident that no man is justified before God by the law; for “He who through faith is righteous shall live”;

Hebrews 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, took heed and constructed an ark for the saving of his household; by this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness which comes by faith.

James 2:23 and the scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”; and he was called the friend of God.

Catholics and Protestants agree with regard to the earliest, initial stage of justification. It comes by grace through faith (for those above the age of reason, able to exercise faith with understanding), and not works. We can do nothing to earn it. When Catholics talk about works being included in the whole process of salvation, that is referring to the time subsequent to initial justification.

Chapters 5 and 8 of the Decree on Justification, from the Council of Trent (1547) state:

V. On the necessity, in adults, of preparation for Justification, and whence it proceeds.

The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace: in such sort that, while God touches the heart of man by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, neither is man himself utterly without doing anything while he receives that inspiration, forasmuch as he is also able to reject it; yet is he not able, by his own free will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in His sight. Whence, when it is said in the sacred writings: Turn ye to me, and I will turn to you, we are admonished of our liberty; and when we answer; Convert us, O Lord, to thee, and we shall be converted, we confess that we are prevented by the grace of God.

VIII. In what manner it is to be understood, that the impious is justified by faith, and gratuitously.

And whereas the Apostle saith, that man is justified by faith and freely, those words are to be understood in that sense which the perpetual consent of the Catholic Church hath held and expressed; to wit, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all Justification; without which it is impossible to please God, and to come unto the fellowship of His sons: but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace.

Chapter 10 refers to “that justice which they have received through the grace of Christ”. See also:

CANON III.-If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.

Likewise, the Catholic Catechism (#1989) states:

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

See my related articles: Initial Justification & “Faith Alone”: Harmonious? [5-3-04] and Monergism in Initial Justification is Catholic Doctrine [1-7-10], and another hosted on my page: Trent Doesn’t Utterly Exclude Imputation (Kenneth Howell) [July 1996].

The above passages, understood in this light, do not contradict Catholic teaching at all, nor do they prove justification by faith alone.

Justification by Grace Alone / Rejection of Salvation by Works (Pelagianism)

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

Romans 3:22-24 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction; [23] since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, [24] they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus,

Romans 11:6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.

2 Corinthians 3:5 Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God,

Ephesians 1:7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace

Ephesians 2:5 even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),

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

Titus 3:4-7 but when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, [5] he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, [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.

These are similar to the preceding set of passages, and neither refute Catholic soteriology nor prove “faith alone”. Catholics fully agree with Protestants that salvation is by grace alone: which is different from faith alone, since grace comes solely from God, while faith comes from man’s free will choice, preceded and ultimately caused by the grace of God. The Council of Trent (Decrees and Canons on Justification) confirms this, too:

CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

CANON II.-If any one saith, that the grace of God, through Jesus Christ, is given only for this, that man may be able more easily to live justly, and to merit eternal life, as if, by free will without grace, he were able to do both, though hardly indeed and with difficulty; let him be anathema.

The Catholic Catechism also states:

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

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

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

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

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

2009 Filial adoption, in making us partakers by grace in the divine nature, can bestow true merit on us as a result of God’s gratuitous justice. . . .

2011 The charity of Christ is the source in us of all our merits before God. Grace, by uniting us to Christ in active love, ensures the supernatural quality of our acts and consequently their merit before God and before men. The saints have always had a lively awareness that their merits were pure grace. . . .

2017 The grace of the Holy Spirit confers upon us the righteousness of God. Uniting us by faith and Baptism to the Passion and Resurrection of Christ, the Spirit makes us sharers in his life.

2020 Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ. It is granted us through Baptism. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who justifies us. It has for its goal the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life. It is the most excellent work of God’s mercy.

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

2023 Sanctifying grace is the gratuitous gift of his life that God makes to us; it is infused by the Holy Spirit into the soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it.

2027 No one can merit the initial grace which is at the origin of conversion. . . .

1266 The Most Holy Trinity gives the baptized sanctifying grace, the grace of justification:

– enabling them to believe in God, to hope in him, and to love him through the theological virtues; . . .

1250 . . . The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. . . .

1727 The beatitude of eternal life is a gratuitous gift of God. It is supernatural, as is the grace that leads us there.

Good works and merit proceed wholly from the grace of God (#2008 above) through the work of Jesus Christ on our behalf (not from ourselves). They are necessary but they do not earn salvation, which is by grace alone: Decree on Justification: chapter 16; Canons 18, 19, 20, 24, 26, 32, 33. Canon 32 refers to “the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ”.

Many Protestants can’t grasp this because they are in bondage to “either/or” unbiblical thinking. If man does anything, in the “either/or” mentality, God does nothing, and it is works-salvation. It’s all or nothing. God must do all. The problem is that the Bible says many times that we do do things: in and under God’s grace. It doesn’t dichotomize men’s actions and God’s grace, as men do, following the traditions of men. The Bible systematically supports Catholic positions.

Justification by Faith Rather than Law

Romans 3:11 Now it is evident that no man is justified before God by the law; for “He who through faith is righteous shall live”;

Romans 4:13 The promise to Abraham and his descendants, that they should inherit the world, did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith.

Romans 9:30-32 What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, righteousness through faith; [31] but that Israel who pursued the righteousness which is based on law did not succeed in fulfilling that law. [32] Why? Because they did not pursue it through faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone,

Galatians 3:24 So that the law was our custodian until Christ came, that we might be justified by faith.

Philippians 3:9 [incorrectly listed as 2:9] and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own, based on law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith;

These passages are a variation of the theme of the previous two sections. Catholics and Protestants agree that the Law in and of itself doesn’t save. It’s grace and a grace-enabled faith that saves. So far, there is total agreement, and these passages don’t prove faith alone, either. Man then cooperates with this grace to do meritorious good works leading to salvation (see the previous section).

Includes Works in the Passage

John 6:28-29 Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” [29] Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”

Romans 1:17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, “He who through faith is righteous shall live.”

Romans 4:2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.

Hebrews 11:4 By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he received approval as righteous, God bearing witness by accepting his gifts; he died, but through his faith he is still speaking.

These express the Catholic view of faith necessarily including works and justification and sanctification working together (infused justification). Notice how in Romans 1:17 one must be “righteous” to live (attain salvation); not merely have faith. Abraham was “justified by works” but it was not works-salvation, which is why he had no grounds to “boast.” His salvation came by grace through faith, just as everyone else’s did. But it didn’t exclude works in the process. Abel’s faith was expressed by a good work: making “a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain”: bringing about God’s “approval”.

In John 6:28-29, working and belief in Christ are equated, much like obedience and belief in John 3:36. In the marvelous phrase “doing the works of God,” we see that our works and God’s are intertwined if indeed we are doing his will. This is the Catholic viewpoint: an organic connection of both faith with works, and God’s unmerited grace coupled with our cooperation and obedience. Our Lord constantly alludes to the related ideas of reward and merit, which are complementary: Matthew 5:11-12, 6:3, 18, 10:42, 12:36-37, 25:14-30; Luke 6:35, 38; 12:33. St. Paul, using the same word for “works” (ergon), speaks in Acts 26:20 of the process of repenting, turning to God, and doing deeds worthy of their repentance. In other words, they will thus prove their repentance by their deeds.

“Works of the Law”

Romans 3:27-28 [27] Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On the principle of works? No, but on the principle of faith. [28] For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.

Galatians 2:16 yet who know that a man is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ, and not by works of the law, because by works of the law shall no one be justified.

Protestants habitually use these passages (and others that mention “works of the law”: Rom 3:20; Gal 3:2, 5, 10) to contend that works are antithetical to faith and grace. But “works of the law” has a particular meaning beyond simply “good works” or “all works”. This understanding has been affirmed by a Protestant movement of Pauline studies called the “New Perspective on Paul.” Anglican Bishop and professor of theology N. T. Wright (born 1948) is the most well-known proponent of it. The Wikipedia article explains:

Paul’s letters contain a substantial amount of criticism regarding the “works of the Law“. The radical difference in these two interpretations of what Paul meant by “works of the Law” is the most consistent distinguishing feature between the two perspectives. The historic Protestant perspectives interpret this phrase as referring to human effort to do good works in order to meet God’s standards (Works Righteousness). In this view, Paul is arguing against the idea that humans can merit salvation from God by their good works alone (note that the “new” perspective agrees that we cannot merit salvation; the issue is what exactly Paul is addressing).

By contrast, new-perspective scholars see Paul as talking about “badges of covenant membership” or criticizing Gentile believers who had begun to rely on the Torah to reckon Jewish kinship. It is argued that in Paul’s time, Israelites were being faced with a choice of whether to continue to follow their ancestral customs, the Torah, or to follow the Roman Empire’s trend to adopt Greek customs (Hellenization, see also Antinomianism, Hellenistic Judaism, and Circumcision controversy in early Christianity). The new-perspective view is that Paul’s writings discuss the comparative merits of following ancient Israelite or ancient Greek customs. Paul is interpreted as being critical of a common Jewish view that following traditional Israelite customs makes a person better off before God, pointing out that Abraham was righteous before the Torah was given. Paul identifies customs he is concerned about as circumcision, dietary laws, and observance of special days.

Due to their interpretation of the phrase “works of the law,” theologians of the historic Protestant perspectives see Paul’s rhetoric as being against human effort to earn righteousness. This is often cited by Protestant and Reformed theologians as a central feature of the Christian religion, and the concepts of grace alone and faith alone are of great importance within the creeds of these denominations.

“New-perspective” interpretations of Paul tend to result in Paul having nothing negative to say about the idea of human effort or good works, and saying many positive things about both. New-perspective scholars point to the many statements in Paul’s writings that specify the criteria of final judgment as being the works of the individual.

Viewed in this light, the passages above and related ones are not contrary at all to Catholic teaching, but are contrary to historic Protestant use of these passages to imply that the Apostle Paul was against all human works whatever. Many other passages (which I will soon cite) prove that he wasn’t against them at all, and indeed commanded them and attached them to sanctification, justification, and salvation alike.

Baptismal Regeneration

Mark 16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

This is obviously not “faith alone” because it entails a “work” or ritual of baptism, leading to initial justification and salvation (which can be lost if a person doesn’t persevere in the faith by grace).

No Relation to Justification or Salvation

Matthew 9:22 Jesus turned, and seeing her he said, “Take heart, daughter; your faith has made you well.” And instantly the woman was made well.

I don’t know why Lucas includes this, since it has nothing to do with soteriology. It has to do with faith leading to healing: concerning which Catholics and Protestants agree: except for largely Reformed Protestant “cessationists” who think that God no longer performs miracles today.

***

I conclude from all this that Lucas’ 45 passages [really 40: closely examined] supposedly proving justification / salvation by “faith alone” do no such thing. They do not prove that false doctrine at all. And the many biblical passages I will produce now, contradict it and expressly support the Catholic position.

Final Judgment in Scripture is Always Associated with Works and Never with Faith Alone (50 Passages)

Protestant evangelicals, when evangelizing, typically ask the inquisitive and provocative question: “If you were to die tonight and God asked you why He should let you into heaven, what would you tell Him?” They assume the proper answer is that they exercised “faith in Christ alone.” First of all, I’ve never seen in the Bible an example of God ever acting like this; so this is simply one of many Protestant catch-phrases or slogans or evangelistic techniques which cannot be found in the Bible (as far as that goes).

At the Final Judgment God doesn’t wrangle with people (and people don’t argue with God — just as with any earthly judge); He simply declares judgment, which is precisely what happens in Matthew 25. He doesn’t ask them questions about their eschatological fate in heaven or hell. As far as we know from revelation, God doesn’t talk in the manner that the familiar evangelical slogans and lingo would have Him talk (as if that were a likely or biblically supported scenario).

I find it extremely interesting that in the passages that Protestants typically cite concerning judgment (Matthew 25:31, 41-46 and Rev elation 20:11-15), we hear not a single word about the “faith alone” which is all that they seem to ever talk about in the context of judgment. Why is this, if in fact, faith alone were the sole criterion of salvation or damnation? Wouldn’t that seem to be, prima facie, a bit strange and unexpected from an evangelical viewpoint?

Instead, all we find in the Bible is this useless talk about works having something to do with salvation! Doesn’t Jesus know that works have no connection to faith whatsoever, and that sanctification and justification are entirely separated in good, orthodox evangelical or Calvinist theology? Jesus would clearly have failed the soteriology (salvation theology) class in any of their seminaries.

Maybe our Lord Jesus attended a liberal synagogue, influenced by heretical Romish ideas. 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. Jesus — and Paul — just don’t get it.

Here are 50 biblical passages about judgment where works are mentioned as the criterion of salvation but not faith alone. One of them at least mentions faith in the context of judgment (but alas, not faith alone): Revelation 21:8 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1) I am characterized by righteousness.

2) I have integrity.

3) I’m not wicked.

4) I’m upright in heart.

5) I’ve done good deeds.

6) I have good ways.

7) I’m not committing abominations.

8) I have good conduct.

9) I’m not angry with my brother.

10) I’m not insulting my brother.

11) I’m not calling someone a fool.

12) I have good fruits.

13) I do the will of God.

14) I hear Jesus’ words and do them.

15) I endured to the end.

16) I fed the hungry.

17) I provided drink to the thirsty.

18) I clothed the naked.

19) I welcomed strangers.

20) I visited the sick.

21) I visited prisoners.

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

23) I’m not weighed down with dissipation.

24) I’m not weighed down with drunkenness.

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

26) I’m not ungodly.

27) I don’t suppress the truth.

28) I’ve done good works.

29) I obeyed the truth.

30) I’m not doing evil.

31) I have been a “doer of the law.”

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

33) I’m unblamable in holiness.

34) I’ve been wholly sanctified.

35) My spirit and soul and body aresound and blameless.

36) I know God.

37) I’ve obeyed the gospel.

38) I’ve shared Christ’s sufferings.

39) I’m without spot or blemish.

40) I’ve repented.

41) I’m not a coward.

42) I’m not faithless.

43) I’m not polluted.

44) I’m not a murderer.

45) I’m not a fornicator.

46) I’m not a sorcerer.

47) I’m not an idolater.

48) I’m not a liar.

49) I invited the lame to my feast.

50) I invited the blind to my feast.

Further Biblical Passages That Refute “Faith Alone” and Assert Catholic Infused Justification in Conjunction with Sanctification, and the Proper Understanding of the Necessary Relationship Between Faith and Works

“Faith Alone” Directly Contradicted

Matthew 19:16-24 And behold, one came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?” [17] And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” [18] He said to him, “Which?” And Jesus said, “You shall not kill, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, [19] Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” [20] The young man said to him, “All these I have observed; what do I still lack?” [21] Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” [22] When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful; for he had great possessions. [23] And Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. [24] Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

This is probably the most compelling, unarguable sustained refutation of “faith alone” in the New Testament (though the James 2 passages come very close), because the rich young ruler asks Jesus the very question that is at the heart of the Catholic-Protestant dispute on faith and works: “what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?” If “faith alone” were a true biblical doctrine, and good deeds have nothing directly to do with salvation, then this was the golden opportunity for Jesus to clear that up, knowing it would be in the Bible for hundreds of millions to read and learn from (and knowing in His omniscience the sustained disputes Christians would have about these issues). But He never mentions belief in him or faith (even in a sense that isn’t “alone”). All He does is talk about works: asking if he kept the Ten Commandments, and then telling him to sell all he had and to give it to the poor.

Mark 10:17, 19, 21 . . . “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” . . . [19] You know the commandments: . . . [21] And Jesus looking upon him loved him, and said to him, “You lack one thing; go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”

Luke 6:35 But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High . . .

Luke 18:18, 20, 22 And a ruler asked him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” . . . [20] You know the commandments: . . . [22] And when Jesus heard it, he said to him, “One thing you still lack. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”

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

The Greek word for “believes” is pistuo, and the Greek for “does not obey” is apitheo. There is a parallelism in this verse, whereby belief and obedience are essentially identical. When all is said and done, believing in Christ is obeying him. This ought to be kept in mind by Protestant evangelists and pastors who urge penitents to “believe in Christ,” “accept Christ,” etc. To disobey Christ is to be subject to the wrath of God. Thus, again, we are faced with the inescapable necessity of good works — wrought by God’s grace, and done in the spirit of charity — for the purpose and end of ultimate salvation, holiness, and communion with God. Disobedience (not mere lack of faith or belief in Christ) is said to be the basis of the loss of eternal life

To speculate further, if it be granted that pistuo (“believe”) is roughly identical to “obeying,” as it indisputably is in John 3:36, by simple deduction, then its use elsewhere is also much more commensurate with the Catholic view of infused justification rather than the more abstract, extrinsic, and forensic Protestant view; for example, the “classic” Protestant evangelistic verse John 3:16, Jesus’ constant demand to believe in him in John 5 through 10, and St. Paul’s oft-cited salvific exhortations in Romans 1:16, 4:24, 9:33, and 10:9, generally thought to be irrefutable proofs of the Protestant viewpoint on saving faith.

Galatians 6:7-9 Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. For he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption; but he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. And let us not grow weary in well-doing, for in due season we shall reap, if we do not lose heart.

Colossians 3:23-25 Whatever your task, work heartily, as serving the Lord and not men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward; you are serving the Lord Christ. For the wrongdoer will be paid back for the wrong he has done, and there is no partiality.

1 Timothy 6:18-19 They are to do good, to be rich in good deeds, liberal and generous, thus laying up for themselves a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of the life which is life indeed.

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

Hebrews 12:14 . . . Strive . . . for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.

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

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

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

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

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

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

From these five passages in James 2, we learn that:

1) Faith alone doesn’t justify.

2) Faith alone is “dead”.

3) Faith alone is “barren”.

4) Faith alone cannot save.

1 Peter 4:17-18 For the time has come for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God? [18] And “If the righteous man is scarcely saved, where will the impious and sinner appear?”

Sanctification as a Direct Contributor to Salvation (as Opposed to Being an Optional “Add-On”) / Sanctification Organically Connected to Justification / Infused Justification / Theosis

Psalm 51:2, 7, 10 Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin! . . . [7] Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. . . . [10] Create in me a clean heart, O God, and put a new and right spirit within me.

Ezekiel 36:26-27 A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. [27] And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances.

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.

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

Acts 20:32 And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified.

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

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

Romans 3:22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction;

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

1 Corinthians 1:2 To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, . . .

1 Corinthians 1:30 . . . our righteousness and sanctification and redemption;

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

2 Corinthians 3:18 And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.

2 Corinthians 5:17 If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away; behold, the new has come.

Ephesians 3:16-19 that according to the riches of his glory he may grant you to be strengthened with might through his Spirit in the inner man, [17] and that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; that you, being rooted and grounded in love, [18] may have power to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, [19] and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fulness of God.

Ephesians 4:15 . . . we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ,

Ephesians 4:24 and put on the new nature, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.

Philippians 2:15 that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world,

Philippians 3:9-10 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own, based on law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith; [10] that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death,

Colossians 3:9-10 Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old nature with its practices [10] and have put on the new nature, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator.

2 Thessalonians 2:13 . . . God chose you from the beginning to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.

This is perhaps the clearest verse in the New Testament that directly connects sanctification to salvation itself (contrary to Protestant teaching).

2 Timothy 2:20-21 In a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver but also of wood and earthenware, and some for noble use, some for ignoble. [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.

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

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

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

James 1:4 And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.

James 4:8 Draw near to God and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you men of double mind.

2 Peter 1:3-5 His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, [4] by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, that through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature. [5] For this very reason make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge,

2 Peter 1:9 For whoever lacks these things [see 1:5-8] is blind and shortsighted and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins.

1 John 1:7 The blood of Jesus, his son, cleanses us from all sin.

1 John 1:9 He is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

The word for “cleanse” in 1 John 1:7, 9 is katharizo, which is used to describe the cleansing of lepers throughout the Gospels (e.g., Matt. 8:3, 11:5; Mark 1:42; Luke 7:22). This is indisputably an “infused” cleansing, rather than an “imputed” one. Why should God settle for anything less when it comes to our sin and justification?

1 John 3:7 Little children, let no one deceive you. He who does right is righteous, as he is righteous.

1 John 3:9 No one born of God commits sin; for God’s nature abides in him, and he cannot sin because he is born of God.

1 John 5:18 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.

Working Together with God / Synergism

Mark 16:20 . . . the Lord worked with them . . .

Romans 8:28 We know that in everything God works for good with those who love him, who are called according to his purpose.

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.

2 Corinthians 6:1 Working together with him, then, we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain.

Galatians 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

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.

Working to Save Ourselves

Acts 2:40 And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.”

Romans 8:13 for if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Philippians 3:8 Indeed I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as refuse, in order that I may gain Christ

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

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

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

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

2 Timothy 4:7 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.

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

Hebrews 6:11-12 And we desire each one of you to show the same earnestness in realizing the full assurance of hope until the end, [12] so that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises.

Hebrews 10:36 For you have need of endurance, so that you may do the will of God and receive what is promised. . . .

Hebrews 10:39 But we are . . . of those who have faith and keep their souls.

Hebrews 12:15 See to it that no one fail to obtain the grace of God; that no “root of bitterness” spring up and cause trouble, and by it the many become defiled;

1 John 3:3 And every one who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure. . . .

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

Working to Save Others

Romans 11:14 in order to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them.

Romans 15:17-18 In Christ Jesus, then, I have reason to be proud of my work for God. For I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has wrought through me to win obedience from the Gentiles, by word and deed,

1 Corinthians 1:21 . . . it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.

1 Corinthians 3:5 What then is Apol’los? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each.

1 Corinthians 7:16 Wife, how do you know whether you will save your husband? Husband, how do you know whether you will save your wife?

1 Corinthians 9:22 I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

2 Corinthians 1:6 If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation; and if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which you experience when you patiently endure the same sufferings that we suffer.

2 Corinthians 10:15 We do not boast beyond limit, in other men’s labors; but our hope is that as your faith increases, our field among you may be greatly enlarged,

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

2 Timothy 2:10 Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain salvation in Christ Jesus with its eternal glory.

James 5:19-20 My brethren, if any one among you wanders from the truth and some one brings him back, [20] let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.

1 Peter 3:1 Likewise you wives, be submissive to your husbands, so that some, though they do not obey the word, may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives

Faith and Works / “Obedience” of Faith / Keeping the Commandments

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.

Luke 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

John 14:12 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father.

John 14:15 If you love me, you will keep my commandments.

John 14:21 He who has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me; and he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.

Acts 5:32 . . . the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey him

Acts 6:7 . . . a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith.

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

Romans 3:31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

Romans 6:17 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed,

Romans 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel; for Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?”

Romans 14:23 But he who has doubts is condemned, if he eats, because he does not act from faith; for whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.

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

1 Corinthians 7:19 For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God.

1 Corinthians 15:58 Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain.

2 Corinthians 8:3-7 For they gave according to their means, as I can testify, and beyond their means, of their own free will, begging us earnestly for the favor of taking part in the relief of the saints — and this, not as we expected, but first they gave themselves to the Lord and to us by the will of God. Accordingly we have urged Titus that as he had already made a beginning, he should also complete among you this gracious work. Now as you excel in everything — in faith, in utterance, in knowledge, in all earnestness, and in your love for us — see that you excel in this gracious work also.

2 Corinthians 9:13 Under the test of this service, you will glorify God by your obedience in acknowledging the gospel of Christ, and by the generosity of your contribution for them and for all others;

2 Corinthians 11:23 Are they servants of Christ? I am a better one — I am talking like a madman — with far greater labors, far more imprisonments, with countless beatings, and often near death.

Galatians 5:6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love.

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

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.

2 Thessalonians 1:11 To this end we always pray for you, that our God may make you worthy of his call, and may fulfil every good resolve and work of faith by his power,

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

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

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

Hebrews 11:8 By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place which he was to receive as an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was to go.

James 2:18 But some one will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith.

James 2:21-22 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? [22] You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works,

James 2:25 And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?

James ably explains the Catholic view of the relationship of works to faith. From these three passages in James 2, we learn that:

1) Faith is shown by works.

2) Faith is completed by works.

3) One is justified by works and faith together, not either one by itself.

1 Peter 1:22 Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere love of the brethren, love one another earnestly from the heart.

2 Peter 1:5-8 For this very reason make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, [6] and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, [7] and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. [8] For if these things are yours and abound, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Revelation 2:19 I know your works, your love and faith and service and patient endurance, and that your latter works exceed the first.

Revelation 12:17 Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus.. . .

Revelation 14:12 Here is a call for the endurance of the saints, those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.

Baptismal Regeneration / Baptism and Salvation / Baptism and the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit

John 3:5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

Acts 2:38, 41 And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. . . . [41] So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

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

Romans 6:3-4 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

Galatians 3:26-27 You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

Colossians 2:12-13 and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. [13] And you, who were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,

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

1 Peter 3:20-21 . . . in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water.
[21] Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Salvation and Eternal Life as a Result of Partaking of the Holy Eucharist

John 6:48-51 “I am the bread of life. [49] Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. [50] This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. [51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

John 6:53-54 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; [54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”

John 6:56-57 “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. [57] As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.”

John 6:58 “This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”

Apostasy / Falling Away from Salvation, the Faith, and Grace

Galatians 5:4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

Galatians 5:7 You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth?

1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons.

1 Timothy 5:15 For some have already strayed after Satan.

Hebrews 3:12-13 Take care, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. [13] But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called “today,” that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.

Hebrews 6:4-6 For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God, and the powers of the age to come, if they then commit apostasy . . .

Hebrews 10:26-29 For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, [27] but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries. [28] A man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses. [29] How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace?

Hebrews 10:39 But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, . . .

2 Peter 2:15 Forsaking the right way they have gone astray; they have followed the way of Balaam, . . .

2 Peter 2:20-21 For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overpowered, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them.

Revelation 2:4-5 But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first. [5] Remember then from what you have fallen, repent and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.

***

We must also add to the “Catholic” list the four passages included in Lucas’ list (under the title above: “Includes Works in the Passage”): which really confirm the Catholic view and not Protestantism (as explained), and his use of Mark 16:16, which teaches baptismal regeneration. That brings the total of my passages against “faith alone” and merely extrinsic justification to 200.

Someone wants the Bible on the issue of what justifies and saves? Lucas gave 45 passages that he mistakenly thought favored the Protestant “faith alone” view (they did not, as I have shown). Five of his passages didn’t even prove what he was contending, as I demnonstrated. So he really has produced 40 biblical proofs. I provided 200 passages for the Catholic soteriological view, or five times more than he did. Now he can proceed to ignore all those, as Protestants habitually do, once confronted with them.

Hey, don’t blame me! The Bible is what it is. I abide by all its teachings, not just carefully selected ones, with many more passages largely ignored or considered irrelevant.

***

For much, much more on these issues and related ones, see the hundreds of articles on my Salvation, Justification, & “Faith Alone” web page.

***

Photo credit: Lucas Banzoli, Facebook photo as of 5-3-22, dated 15 January 2018.

***

Summary: Brazilian Protestant apologist Lucas Banzoli fails to establish “faith alone” with 45 biblical passages. I provide 200 passages that overwhelmingly refute this falsehood.

Biblical Evidence for Relics (vs. Lucas Banzoli)

Last updated on: February 21, 2023 at 3:41 pm By Dave Armstrong

***

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, “Quando a descrição vira prescrição e a exceção vira a regra, a heresia é certa” [When description becomes prescription and the exception becomes the rule, heresy is certain] (6-23-18).

I take this opportunity to address the only text in the entire Bible frequently used by Catholic apologists to base their doctrine around the cult of relics, which is the famous text on bones, from Elisha:

“Once, while some Israelites were burying a man, they suddenly saw one of these troops; so they threw the man’s body into Elisha’s tomb and fled. As soon as the corpse touched Elisha’s bones, the man came back to life and got up” (2 Kings 13:21)

It’s not the only biblical text used to defend relics, by any means (I will cite many more in this reply), but I agree it is the most frequently used.

Catholic apologists look at this text and say, “See? Man was resurrected because of Elisha’s bones. Then our doctrine of relics is proved!”

It’s more subtle and nuanced than that. What the story does is offer concrete evidence of the primary underlying premise of the doctrine of relics: “inanimate objects can be used by God to convey grace, or salvation, or healing, etc.” The story of Elisha’s bones undeniably supports that premise. It’s in the inspired revelation of the Bible for a reason. Does Lucas think that God wills material in the Bible that is purely extraneous and of no relevance to our instruction? Really? An omniscient God would do (or allow) that? I don’t think so.

If it seems to you at first that the argument is bad, congratulations, you are right: it is really bad.

I don’t see how it is “bad” at all, once one understands the actual reasoning being employed (which Lucas seems not to grasp).

First, because the text does not say that Elisha performed the miracle.

That’s irrelevant to what we can learn from it, as I have already explained. It’s inanimate matter which is in play here, not Elisha’s intentions (he being dead at the time).

The Old Testament Jewish doctrine of death did not even contemplate a conscious world where the prophet could be alive and performing miracles in a world “beyond” (Ps 6:5; 94:17; 146:4; Eccl 9:5; 9: 10; Isa 38:18-19). “Abraham does not know us” (Is 63:16), Isaiah already said, and presumably Elisha did not either.

This is Lucas’ false and heretical doctrine of soul sleep, which is rejected by virtually all Protestants, as well as all Catholicism and Orthodoxy. I disposed of it in a 2007 article, and it included analysis of Lucas’ supposed “prooftexts” Ecclesiastes 9:5 and Psalm 146:4. The prophet Samuel was certainly still conscious, because he appeared to King Saul and correctly foretold his death the next day (1 San 28:12-19). As for Abraham, Jesus noted that he was quite alive, in His story about Sheol / Hades (Luke 16:19-31). The “mighty chiefs” in Sheol speak and thus are conscious:

Ezekiel 32:20-21 They shall fall amid those who are slain by the sword, and with her shall lie all her multitudes. [21] The mighty chiefs shall speak of them, with their helpers, out of the midst of Sheol: ‘They have come down, they lie still, the uncircumcised, slain by the sword.’

Isaiah 63: 16 in context has nothing whatsoever to do with Abraham being conscious or not (see Protestant commentaries on the passage). So, nice try but no cigar . . .

And nowhere in the text does it say that the prophet’s “spirit” or his intercession were responsible for the resurrection.

It doesn’t have to. That’s not the Catholic understanding of relics or how we understand this passage at all. It’s simply more Protestant misunderstanding.

“Oh, but if God wanted to heal through Elisha’s bones on that occasion, then that’s a doctrine and period!” This is the main point of this article. We must not confuse description with prescription , which is the most primary error in hermeneutics. I’ve already talked about this a lot in my book “Exegesis of Difficult Texts of the Bible” (available on the books page ), but it’s worth repeating a bit here. A description is something that the biblical writer is just describing, not imposing as a rule or doctrine on everyone else.

The biggest alleged prooftext for sola Scriptura, inevitably trotted out by Protestants, is this one:

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

This doesn’t prove sola Scriptura in the slightest, but it does absolutely prove that 2 Kings 13:21, as part of inspired Scripture, is “profitable for teaching.” “All” means “all”. If “All scripture is . . . profitable for teaching” then it inexorably follows from logic that 2 Kings 13:21 (and other similar evidences for a theology of relics) is “profitable for teaching”. I didn’t make either the Bible or logic what they are. I’m just reporting the facts and using my brain to think.

Whether this passage is descriptive or prescriptive (a distinction itself not spelled out in the Bible, as far as I know, and we don’t see Lucas attempting to prove that) it still reports the fact that a man came to life after coming into contact with a dead holy man’s bones. That is an occurrence worth pondering. God was communicating something to us through this, which is why it is included in Holy Scripture, by His providence and will. Nothing God does is meaningless. Therefore, His inspiring 2 Kings 3:21 has a reason. Does Lucas wish to argue the contrary?

As Hebrews 4:12 states: “the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword . . .” The writer of Psalms 119 understood this some 3,000 years ago: “Thy word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path” (119:5); “The sum of thy word is truth” (119:60). Jesus Himself said, as recorded in John 17:17: “thy word is truth.”

Who is the one exhibiting more reverence and respect towards all of Scripture here: myself (and Catholics en masse, in this instance) or Lucas?

For example, when the Bible insinuates that Jephthah sacrificed his daughter as a burnt offering ( see here), she is not imposing this as a doctrine. She is not saying that all fathers must sacrifice their daughters, nor that it pleases the Lord. She is just narrating an event, in the same way that she narrates David’s sins and Peter’s denials, without setting it as an example or a rule.

If the Bible / particular Bible writer regards something as immoral, it is certainly noted as such. I wrote about this incident in 2009. There is no hint of the approval of God in this passage. Just because a man does something, it’s not a given that God wanted him to do it. According to orthodox Jewish religion, under the Mosaic Law, human sacrifice was strictly forbidden (Dt 12:31; Lev 18:21; 20:2-3; many other passages implying the same: see my article).

It’s simply a matter of a man sinning and not knowing what was right and wrong in this instance. Jephthah was half-Canaanite (Jud 11:1), and so he was influenced by some tenets of the false Canaanite religion (cf. Ps 106:36-39), as was often the case among the Jews (and one reason why God judged the heathen nations so harshly). He had been living among the heathen, who regularly offered human sacrifice (cf. 2 Kings 3:27), and the law of Moses was fairly unknown and not much practiced. He wrongly assumed that God would be propitiated in the same way as was believed about the Canaanite false gods. The non-approval of the author of Judges shows that he may have regarded this as an instance of what he expressed later in the book:

Judges 17:6 In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes. (cf. 21:25: identical language)

On the other hand, a prescription is more than just the narration of an event, rather it consists of a rule or principle that applies and imposes itself on readers in a timeless way. For example, when Christ says, “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Mt 22:39), he is imposing a principle, demanding a standard. The text is not just describing a person who loved someone else, but wants us to love our neighbors ourselves. It is an imperative, like the “go” of Mark 16:15.

That’s fine, but it’s not the only way to teach or direct Christians. For example, Hebrews chapter 11 is the great chapter on the “heroes of the faith.” Their heroic and holy deeds are recounted, but it never says “imitate them” or that they are our examples. There is no command. Nevertheless, the clear intention of the passage is to show us models to imitate. St. Paul does say many times that we ought to imitate him and his companions as a Christian example of conduct. Certainly many other similar examples could be found in the Bible.

The point is that the text of Elisha’s bones, like that of Jephthah’s sacrifice, is clearly a description of an event, not a prescription of a commandment, rule, or ordinance from God to all of us. The text only says that on that particular occasion God wanted to raise the dead in that way, and not that in order to raise someone we must bring him to the bones of dead people.

Technically, that may be correct, but Lucas has not proven to us how the example does not suggest and support the central principle behind relics (to repeat: inanimate objects can be used by God to convey grace, or salvation, or healing, etc.). I could just as easily argue (and will!) that if God didn’t want us lowly, ignorant Catholics to use this passage as a proof for our supposedly wicked, false belief in relics, that God could have either 1) not included it in Holy Scripture, or 2) not brought about the miracle of this man being raised from the dead after coming into contact with a holy man’s bones.

God can do anything! And He would have, I believe, done one of those things, if the doctrine of relics were false and dangerous. But since He didn’t do either, and the passage is in the Bible, it’s altogether reasonable to conclude that it has a purpose and a meaning, and that it is indeed as I and Catholics have described it.

In other words, the text is not establishing any doctrine, any standard, any rule. It is just the description of an isolated fact, which is not repeated anywhere else in the Bible, not even as another description.

Nonsense. Lucas exhibits his “biblical illiteracy.” It’s not isolated at all. There are several other similar passages. We have the mantle of Elijah: an incident described just eleven chapters earlier:

2 Kings 2:13-14 And he [Elisha] took up the mantle of Elijah that had fallen from him, and went back and stood on the bank of the Jordan. [14] Then he took the mantle of Elijah that had fallen from him, and struck the water, saying, ‘Where is the Lord, the God of Elijah?’ And when he had struck the water, the water was parted to the one side and to the other; and Elisha went over.

And we have St. Peter’s shadow:

Acts 5:15-16 . . . they even carried out the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and pallets, that as Peter came by at least his shadow might fall on some of them. [16] The people also gathered from the towns around Jerusalem, bringing the sick and those afflicted with unclean spirits, and they were all healed.

And St. Paul’s “handkerchiefs” and “aprons”:

Acts 19:11-12 And God did extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, [12] so that handkerchiefs or aprons were carried away from his body to the sick, and diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them.” (cf. Mt 9:20-22)

Elisha’s bones were a “first-class” relic: from the person himself or herself. These passages, on the other hand, offer examples of “second-class” relics: items that have power because they were connected with a holy person (Elijah’s mantle and even St. Peter’s shadow), and third-class relics: something that has merely touched a holy person or first-class relic (handkerchiefs that had touched St. Paul).

In the Pentateuch, we have a remarkable foreshadowing of relics and specifically of receiving holiness as a result of touching sacred objects:

Exodus 29:37 Seven days you shall make atonement for the altar, and consecrate it, and the altar shall be most holy; whatever touches the altar shall become holy.

Exodus 30:25-29 and you shall make of these a sacred anointing oil blended as by the perfumer; a holy anointing oil it shall be. [26] And you shall anoint with it the tent of meeting and the ark of the testimony, [27] and the table and all its utensils, and the lampstand and its utensils, and the altar of incense, [28] and the altar of burnt offering with all its utensils and the laver and its base; [29] you shall consecrate them, that they may be most holy; whatever touches them will become holy.

Note here that first there is a “holy anointing oil” which is applied to the ark, tabernacle, and related sacred religious items “that they may be most holy.” They in turn impart holiness to all who touch them. If this is not sacramentalism and the underlying principle of relics, nothing is.

God said to Moses about the body of a lamb offered at the temple: “Whatever touches its flesh shall be holy . . .” (Lev 6:27). So now we again have a dead thing (like Elisha’s bones) imparting holiness. How is that any different from Catholic relics? Likewise, the same was said even of the cereal offering (Lev 6:14-18).

Remember, the ark of the covenant had relics in it, too: “a golden urn holding the manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant [the two tablets of the Ten Commandments]” (Heb 9:4; cf. Ex 16:33-34; Num 17:10; 1 Ki 8:9; 2 Chr 5:10). The manna (a type of food produced by God to feed the wandering post-Exodus Jews) was biological, so presumably it had to be supernaturally preserved if it lasted very long. Again, the parallels to relics and the practices and principles connected to them is very clear.

God specifically said that He would “meet” people in conjunction with the ark (specifically, the mercy seat on top of it: see Ex 25:22; 30:6; Lev 16:2; cf. 1 Sam 4:4; 2 Sam 6:2; 2 Ki 19:15; 1 Chr 13:6; Ps 80:1; 99:1; Is 37:16; Ezek 10:4; Heb 9:5).

Accordingly, it was thought that holy things (the temple and the ark of the covenant) gave special power and efficacy to prayers. For this reason, the Jews worshiped “toward the temple” (Ps 5:7; cf. 99:9; 134:2; 138:2; Is 27:13). King Solomon prayed before the sacred altar: both standing and kneeling (1 Ki 8:22-23; cf. 8:54 [kneeling]; 2 Chr 6:12-14; the Jews swore oaths by the altar in the temple: 2 Chr 6:22). The prophet Daniel prayed to and thanked God in the direction of Jerusalem, three times a day, even from Babylon (Dan 6:10; cf. 1 Ki 8:44, 48; 2 Chr 6:20-21, 26-27, 29-30, 32-34, 38). The Israelites bowed down before the temple, while they worshiped and praised and thanked God (2 Chr 7:3; cf. Ps 138:2). Joshua did the same before the ark of the covenant (Josh 7:6). Levites talked to God before the ark as well (Dt 10:8; cf. 1 Ki 3:15; 8:5; 1 Chr 16:4; 2 Chr 5:6).

So how — in light of all of the above — can there possibly be an objection to praying in conjunction with relics? The principle is precisely the same as what we have in the Bible, as far as I can see.

And speaking of an isolated fact, it is important to emphasize this aspect, because those who “twist the Scriptures” (2Pe 3:16)

. . . like Lucas did above in defending his heretical notion of soul sleep with Bible texts eisegeted and butchered . . .

love to appeal to exceptions to vindicate a rule. They do this all the time. There are neo-Pentecostals who use a descriptive and isolated text where people were healed with Paul’s handkerchiefs and aprons (Acts 19:12) to substantiate as a doctrine that it is only necessary to bring handkerchiefs and aprons to the “bishop” x or the “apostle” and that people will always be healed.

First of all, it’s there for a reason, as argued above. It validates the principle behind relics, and that is its purpose. It’s purpose is not to teach that every attempted healing must have a handkerchief or apron. The practice Lucas describes above is a twisting of the passage anyway. The point is not the handkerchief or aprons themselves but rather, who they were in contact with (a holy person and great saint). But that is a silly brand of Protestants doing this practice, not Catholics. And they do it because they fundamentally misunderstand both the passage and the principle, whereas educated Catholics do neither.

It’s also a false doctrine, of course, to say that God always heals everyone just for the asking, or if enough faith is shown. I refuted that error from the Bible, way back in 1982, a year after I started doing apologetics; when I was a charismatic Protestant.

There are neo-atheists who appropriate isolated and distorted texts from Leviticus talking about not cutting the ends of the beard (Leviticus 19:27) and about not wearing clothes of different fabrics (Leviticus 19:19) to demand such a thing as a rule for the current Christians or accuse us of being “hypocrites” for not following this.

That has nothing to do with our topic, but is a question of how the Mosaic Law applies to non-Jews today. That was settled at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) which made its decree in conjunction with the Holy Spirit. The decree was binding on Christians wherever they were (see Paul agreeing to that in Acts 16:4). So we have an infallible, Holy Spirit-guided council making binding decrees, which is expressly in contradiction to sola Scriptura, which denies that anything but Scripture is infallible.

And in the same way, there are Catholics who take the text of Elisha to support the doctrine of the cult of relics, even though the text does not even speak of worship.

That’s beside the point again. It upholds the principle involved, and we do not worship anyone but God. We venerate holy people, angels, and things.

In the article, Bruno gives us other biblical examples:

Jesus, for example, healed a blind man using clay. Naaman was healed by diving into the Jordan River. The fact that God used such means does not imply that the Jordan River or the mud is a special channel of grace to be regularly resorted to. The fact that God uses a specific medium for a miracle does not make that medium itself possess any supernatural power.

This is what Catholic apologists don’t understand, or pretend not to understand so they can go on inventing ridiculous pretexts to support their false doctrines.

Bruno makes a correct point. What is wrong and wrongheaded is Lucas then claiming that Catholics (even we despised apologists!) don’t “understand” the point he made. All that these examples prove is the principle of relics. I’ll repeat it again for the third time, so that even Lucas can grasp it: “inanimate objects can be used by God to convey grace, or salvation, or healing, etc.”

The case of Elisha’s bones was as “doctrinal” as Christ’s spit to heal the blind, which no one uses to support doctrine these days (thankfully).

We would mention that as yet another example that God uses matter to convey grace (the incarnation itself and the crucifixion were examples of this). The question is: why did Jesus do that when all He had to do was declare a healing? He did so because it was one of many examples of the sacramental principle behind relics. Once again, we think all Scripture can and does teach, as 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (one of Protestants’ favorite Bible passages) expressly states. Lucas seems to think there are many accidental or meaningless or worthless Bible passages. I think that ultimately belittles God (though it’s surely not Lucas’ intention).

By no means does the method that God teaches in the Bible for people to be healed to be healed is by spitting on them (thank God), but only through prayer in faith (cf. Jas 5:13-15), despite the fact that in an isolated and descriptive case the miracle occurred after spitting or touching a bone.

It’s not isolated; it’s repeated over and over: the woman touches Jesus’ robe and is healed. Jesus touches people before healing them, etc. Also related is ordination and receiving the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands, and indeed, all seven sacraments, which are physical means of receiving more of God’s grace.

Catholic apologists, desperate to provide justification for an unbiblical teaching, take an isolated, non-prescriptive text referring to a specific extraordinary case and twist it in such a way as to turn it into a model and make a doctrine out of it – and we are still we who interpret the Bible “anyway”. This is how we see the difference between an authentic and serious theology and one that is only concerned with arranging any infamous pretext to justify its unbiblical practices.

I have made my case above with plenty of biblical support. Lucas is welcome try to refute it: that is, if he ever decides to answer my critiques. It’s now up to twelve with no answer. I believe that a person who is confident of his position will be willing and able to defend it against critical scrutiny.

This is the fundamental difference between exegesis and eisegesis. While the exegete extracts from the text what is in it and follows the prescriptions that Scripture commands as a rule or norm, the eisegete is only concerned with justifying his previous beliefs, often in a desperate way, precisely because he knows that there is no serious justification for the exegete. deceit that preaches. Thus, his mission is no longer to extract its true meaning from the Bible, consisting solely of looking for as many isolated and out-of-context texts that he thinks can be useful to confirm what he believes, but that will be completely useless in an intelligent debate.

That is a true description of exegesis and eisegesis. Where we disagree is that I think Protestants are doing this when they battle against Catholic doctrines.

While the eisegete only uses the Bible to “find” his previous beliefs, even if he has to twist many texts in the process and do some Cirque du Soleil juggling, the honest exegete is willing to give up any previous conviction to follow. just what the Bible actually teaches. It is not for nothing that the Catholic interpretation is admittedly biased, as free examination is prohibited, leaving them only to accept the teaching interpretation, whether it is good or not. Whereas the Catholic interpreter already has the “truth” and seeks to use the Bible only to confirm his or her previous beliefs, the evangelical interpreter goes to the Bible to discover the truth.

Both sides do exactly the same thing: we seek to find validation of our views in the Bible. The biggest difference is the fact that most Protestants are wholly unaware that Catholics have hundreds of biblical proofs for our views (I did a whole 445-page book consisting of precisely that [just Bible passages] ). Once they learn of some of these (it has been our failure ands fault that so few are aware of them), then they are responsible for properly interpreting and accepting what they have learned, or to (conversely) show the Catholic why he or she is wrong.

In my experience, overwhelmingly when the Protestant learns of our complete (not caricatured or distorted) actual argument, the dialogue ends and there is no more discussion. Or they are never willing to talk about it at all, as in Lucas’ methodology so far.

***

Photo credit: Lucas Banzoli, Facebook photo as of 5-3-22, dated 15 January 2018.

***

Summary: Brazilian Protestant apologist Lucas Banzoli tries mightily to knock down the many biblical proofs for relics (or a caricature thereof), but fails miserably every time.

Unbiblical Denominations (vs. Lucas Banzoli)

Last updated on: February 21, 2023 at 3:40 pm By Dave Armstrong

***

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,“Catecismo católico refuta a apologética católica” [Catholic Catechism Refutes Catholic Apologetics] (12-18-15).

Lucas cites the Catechism: #818:

“However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers. . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”

The main argument of Catholic apologetics, and sometimes the only one, is that of the “Protestant division”, about which I have written dozens of articles that can be checked in this tag. Apologetic papists argue that all evangelicals are today under the “sin of division” either because they come from “Luther’s division” or because they are divided among themselves. . . . [T]his ridiculous argument is [refuted in] the Catholic Catechism itself, . . .

As can be seen, for the Catholic Catechism, those who caused the rupture (in Luther’s case, in their view) have sinned, but those who today are born in communities arising from these ruptures have no sin of division. That is, the Catholic apologist who accuses believers today of incurring the sin of division is going against the determination of their own standard of faith. And that includes 99% of Brazilian Catholic apologists, who do not even know their own catechism, or who deliberately ignore it.

This is a correct point about something rather elementary in discussions of ecumenism and denominationalism, and I’m actually glad to see Lucas make it, because truth is truth. Whoever made the argument that Lucas describes above was wrong, and needs to study the Catechism and recent ecumenical documents. But #818 in the Catechism doesn’t refute Catholic apologetics per se (which is what his title falsely asserts), because a properly informed Catholic apologist would never make an argument contrary to #818 in the first place.

But noting this doesn’t get Protestants totally off the hook with regard to the scandal of denominationalism, as I will shortly demonstrate.

If we evangelicals have no sin of division, then let them find another, more decent argument to accuse us.

I’m more than happy to do so, presently! The sin of schism is only one aspect of denominationalism, and it applies only to those who chose to reject and forsake the Catholic Church in the 16th century. But it doesn’t follow that divisions, sects, and denominationalism thereby become wonderful, defensible, biblical things. This is my eleventh reply now to Lucas and he hasn’t written a single word yet in reply. Nevertheless, exposing his errors is a good thing, whether or not he is willing or capable of defending his own views.

The disease and anti-Protestant fanaticism of Catholic apologists are so blatant that they manage to put them against the Catholic Catechism itself, because only in this way can they keep their speech of hate and intolerance towards evangelicals standing.

As I said, whichever apologists (actual or in name only) who claimed this were wrong. Lucas didn’t document any. I’ve never seen (in 31 years of doing Catholic apologists) an actual credentialed, published, professional apologist writing in English, make this claim. Perhaps Lucas would document this, if he ever gets off his butt and musters up the courage to ever reply to me? I’m not denying that it exists, but I do deny that it represents mainstream Catholic apologetics. Nor does an attitude of hatred.

Now I shall devote the rest of this article to providing the biblical view of the wrongness and never-intended tragedy of endless denominationalism. Protestants today are not responsible for the sin of schism, but they are responsible for understanding the biblical teaching on the Church and to do their best in accepting it and applying it in their own lives.

In John 17:22 Jesus prays to the Father that the disciples would be “one, as we are one.” And in John 17:23, He desires that they (and us) be “completely one” (NRSV). KJV, NKJV: “perfect in one.” RSV, NEB, REB: “perfectly one.” NIV: “complete unity.” NASB: “perfected in unity.” Now, it is pretty difficult to maintain that this entails no doctrinal agreement (and “perfect” agreement at that). And, reflecting on John 17:22, I don’t think the Father and the Son differ on how one is saved, on the true nature of the Eucharist or the Church, etc. So how can Protestants claim this “perfect” oneness, “as we [the Holy Trinity] are one”? Or even any remote approximation?

The Apostle Paul commands: “mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine ye have learned; and avoid them.” (Rom 16:17). In 1 Corinthians 1:10, he desires “no divisions,” and that Christians should be “perfectly joined together “in the same mind.” No one can say this is simply a “warm fuzzy” love and mutual recognition. Paul goes on to condemn mere “contentions” in 1:11, and asks in 1:13: “Is Christ divided?”

In 1 Corinthians 3:3, Paul says that whatever group has “strife and divisions” are “carnal, and walk as men.” In 1 Corinthians 11:18-19 he seems to equate “divisions” and “heresies.” He calls for “no schism” in 1 Corinthians 12:25, etc., etc. (cf. Rom 13:13; 2 Cor 12:20; Phil 2:2; Titus 3:9; Jas 3:16; 1 Tim 6:3-5; 2 Pet 2:1). Romans 16:17 mentions doctrine (didache). Galatians 5:20 condemns “strife, seditions, heresies”. Etc., etc.

H. Richard Niebuhr (Lutheran) stated that:

Denominationalism . . . represents the accommodation of Christianity to the caste-system of human society. (The Social Sources of Denominationalism, New York: Meridian Books, 1929, 6, 21)

Donald Bloesch (evangelical Protestant) observed:

There will never be real evangelical unity, let alone Christian unity, until there is an awakening to the reality of the oneness and catholicity of the church. (The Future of Evangelical Christianity, Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1983, 56-57, 65)

And Carl F. H. Henry (a leading evangelical scholar) laments:

By failing to transcend their isolation and independency, evangelical Christians have virtually forfeited a golden opportunity to shape the religious outlook of the 20th century. (Carl Henry At His Best, Portland: Multnomah Press, 1989, 66)

Nevertheless, even the generally brilliant and insightful scholar and apologist Norman Geisler repeats the cliche which is the common Protestant response to these considerations:

Orthodox Protestants differ largely over secondary issues, not primary (fundamental) doctrines, . . . Protestants seem to do about as well as Catholics on unanimity of essential doctrines. (Roman Catholics and Evangelicals, Grand Rapids, Michigan Baker Book House, 1995, 193)

This is special pleading, in my humble opinion, but to get into why that is would require another long paper (which I have written). Besides the factual whopper, who’s to decide what an “orthodox” Protestant is? Geisler? Where does he get his authority? And who’s to decide what qualifies as a “secondary issue”? (oh, so much I could say here, but for time and space . . .).

The mutual anathemas started immediately with the “Reformers.” Martin Luther said Zwingli was “damned” (because he denied the Real Presence in the Eucharist) and John Calvin called Luther “half-papist” and an “idolater” (because he believed in the Real Presence in the Eucharist). I have a whole list of such tragic examples of Protestant “brotherhood.” Luther absolutely detested sectarianism and lamented, “There are as many sects as there are heads.” His successor, Philip Melanchthon, was a great deal more upset about it than Luther was, as we know from many agonized cries from the depths of his soul.

Yet both neglected to see how Luther’s rule of faith, sola Scriptura, and the principle of private judgment, are literally what brought it all about. After all, if Luther could dissent against the entire 1500-year history of the Catholic Church, on what basis could he deny that anyone could dissent from him? And denominationalism has proceeded thusly ever since: perfectly consistent with the foundational principles of Protestantism, and never able to be solved within that system.

There is no “unity” in Protestantism in the biblical sense. I grant that there is (very broadly speaking) a “mere Christianity” type of unity, but why should anyone accept or settle for this “lowest common denominator” unity? I want all the truth and nothing but the truth. Why should any Christian tolerate error (which we know from logical necessity is rampant within Protestantism), when all lies come from the father of lies, Satan?

At least the so-called “Reformers” believed strongly enough in each of their sects to anathematize the “dissidents” outside of them. Today Protestants wink at differences and pretend that there is a unity in “essentials.” And as a result many of us (including myself, in 1990) have moved from Protestantism to Catholicism and have found at long last a peace and a consistent view of the Church and the rule of faith that isn’t viciously self-defeating.

Here are more Bible verses (RSV) about sectarianism, division, and denominationalism:

Matthew 12:25 . . . Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand

John 10:16 . . . So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.

Acts 4:32 Now the company of those who believed were of one heart and soul, . . .

Romans 2:8 but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.

2 Corinthians 12:20 For I fear that perhaps I may come and find you not what I wish, and that you may find me not what you wish; that perhaps there may be quarreling, jealousy, anger, selfishness, slander, gossip, conceit, and disorder.

Galatians 5:19-20 Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit,

Ephesians 4:1-5 I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all lowliness and meekness, with patience, forbearing one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism,

Philippians 1:27 Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you that you stand firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel,

Philippians 2:2 complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.

1 Timothy 6:3-5 If any one teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching which accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit, he knows nothing; he has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions, and wrangling among men who are depraved in mind and bereft of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain. (cf. 2 Tim 2:23)

Titus 3:9-11 But avoid stupid controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels over the law, for they are unprofitable and futile. As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned. (cf. Jas 3:16)

2 Peter 2:1-2 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their licentiousness, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled.

I wrote about this problem in my book, The Catholic Verses: 95 Bible Passages That Confound Protestants (2004) [also now available in Portugese]:

Again, we see the very strong biblical and Pauline emphasis on Christian doctrinal unity, yet the Catholic Church is criticized for teaching the same thing (and, naturally, locating the focus for this unity within its own Tradition). It is extremely difficult to rationalize away all of these passages and act as if they did not deal a crushing blow to Protestantism, insofar as it is clearly divided and hopelessly multiplying into further sects.

In my opinion, this is one of the most compelling and unanswerable disproofs of Protestantism as a system to be found in the Bible. But Protestants have no choice. They feel that Protestantism must be bolstered up as an alternative to Catholicism, no matter how many serious contradictions with Scripture exist within it. So they continue to try and explain away these Bible passages.

This is why the Catholic Magisterium, apostolic succession, the papacy, binding ecumenical councils, and the notion of an unbroken, continuous apostolic Tradition preserved uniquely by the Holy Spirit in an actual concrete institution are necessary.

As a remarkable example of this losing, futile battle with Scripture in the area of doctrinal and ecclesiastical oneness, I submit the argument of a Calvinist apologist whom I engaged in a “live chat” debate one night on the Internet. I first asked him, “On what basis — by what criterion — does a person discover truth within the Protestant system, seeing that all parties in that system appeal to the Bible, yet cannot agree on a host of issues?”

In particular, I wondered, why I should believe his view of baptism (Presbyterian: infant, non-regenerative), over against that of Martin Luther (infant, regenerative) and the Baptist position (adult, non-regenerative)?

He said that one should not “consult people but the Bible.” He later fleshed out a second response: the Bible teaches that disagreements are to be expected, thus they pose no difficulty for the doctrinal disunity within Protestantism.

My Protestant friend cited Romans 14 in support of his contention that doctrinal diversity on so-called “secondary issues” was permissible, according to the Bible. I knew a little bit about what was in Romans 14, so I asked him to tell me what particular doctrines were discussed in that chapter which would allow him to conclude that doctrinal division was acceptable.

He cited only the disagreement over the Sabbath, or the day of worship. I replied that this was irrelevant to our discussion since Protestants and Catholics agree on a Sunday Sabbath, and that pretty much the only dissenters are Seventh-Day Adventists. He could give me no other doctrine discussed in Romans 14, though he continued to refer to the chapter as a justification for Protestantism’s relativism-in-practice in many doctrines (what he described as allowable and fully expected “diversity”).

There is a good reason why no more examples from Romans 14 were given: the chapter deals only with quite “undoctrinal” matters, such as what we should eat or not eat (14:2-3, 14-17), and esteeming one day above another (14:5). That is all that is there!

Yet this professional Calvinist apologist appealed to this passage in defense of his notion that doctrinal issues like baptism and the Eucharist are entirely matters of individual discretion, admitting of diverse viewpoints, and that no one should be troubled by the fact that Protestants cannot agree among themselves. This is not only a weak biblical argument; it is expressly contrary to the passages above.

The exceedingly serious problem of denominationalism exists in Protestantism and always will, for it cannot be overcome by any Protestant internal principles, no matter how nuanced or sophisticated or in line with “Reformation heritage.” Protestantism cannot settle its internal differences; each branch or sect can only (ultimately arbitrarily) assert its own authority.

Thus, Calvin asserts his own authority, Luther his, Zwingli and Menno Simons (Mennonites) and George Fox (Quakers) and William Booth (Salvation Army) theirs. Many independent Protestants today claim to be subject to no leaders or traditions, yet inevitably follow their own traditions. Protestants have no way of resolving these “denominational dichotomies.” They will continue to split, and each party or faction will justify its split based on appeals to the one Bible.

To put it in very practical terms: how does the man on the street, who has to choose between competing factions, determine truth under Protestant assumptions? He has to choose whether Calvin or Luther is right (then go on to choose among the competing Lutheran or Calvinist camps. Why should Calvin have any more authority than Luther had? Each simply claimed it for himself (as anointed from on high) and demanded allegiance.

In the final analysis, the Protestant is forced to appeal to one of two equally insufficient and unsatisfactory solutions:

A) Claim that his own brand of Protestantism is the true one to be believed above all others. This was, of course, the standard approach taken by virtually all the early Protestant factions (thus they rather comically and ironically anathematized and damned each other).

B) Pretend that doctrines on which Protestants disagree (almost always doctrines other than those on which they agree even with Catholics and Orthodox) are “secondary” and not important enough to fight over. I often describe this as a de facto doctrinal relativism, and it is the usual course taken today. . . .

“Solutions” A and B are equally unbiblical, unhistorical, and illogical. Calvin’s position is also ultimately incoherent and clashes with his doctrine of the invisible Church (examined earlier). The problems cannot be resolved. Catholics can at least offer internally coherent and consistent answers and solutions to these vexing problems of authority, whereas the Protestant system always inevitably breaks down at some point. (ch. 2, pp. 25-29)

If the above weren’t more than enough to massively prove the unbiblical and anti-biblical nature of denominationalism, there are dozens of verses proclaiming that there is but one “truth” and one “faith” and one “doctrine” and one “teaching.” I compiled these in my book, Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths (2009). That mostly used the KJV for copyright reasons, but here I will continue to provide RSV:

“The Truth”

Romans 2:8 but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.

1 Corinthians 2:13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit.

2 Corinthians 4:2 We have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways; we refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God’s word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.

2 Corinthians 11:10 . . . the truth of Christ is in me . . .

2 Corinthians 13:8 For we cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth.

Galatians 5:7 You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth?

Ephesians 1:13 In him you also, who have heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and have believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, (cf. 6:14)

Colossians 1:5 because of the hope laid up for you in heaven. Of this you have heard before in the word of the truth, the gospel

2 Thessalonians 2:10-13 and with all wicked deception for those who are to perish, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false, so that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.

1 Timothy 2:4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

1 Timothy 3:15 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.

1 Timothy 4:3 . . . those who believe and know the truth.

2 Timothy 1:13-14 Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me . . . guard the truth which has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.

2 Timothy 2:18 who have swerved from the truth by holding that the resurrection is past already. . . .

2 Timothy 2:25 . . . God may perhaps grant that they will repent and come to know the truth,

2 Timothy 3:7-8 who will listen to anybody and can never arrive at a knowledge of the truth. As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith;

2 Timothy 4:4 and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths.

Titus 1:1 Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to further the faith of God’s elect and their knowledge of the truth which accords with godliness, (cf. 1:14)

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

James 5:19 My brethren, if any one among you wanders from the truth and some one brings him back,

1 Peter 1:22 Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere love of the brethren, love one another earnestly from the heart.

2 Peter 1:12 Therefore I intend always to remind you of these things, though you know them and are established in the truth that you have.

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 2:21 I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and know that no lie is of the truth.

1 John 3:19 By this we shall know that we are of the truth, and reassure our hearts before him

1 John 4:6 We are of God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and he who is not of God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

1 John 5:7 And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth.

2 John 1:1-4 The elder to the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth, and not only I but also all who know the truth, because of the truth which abides in us and will be with us for ever: Grace, mercy, and peace will be with us, from God the Father and from Jesus Christ the Father’s Son, in truth and love. I rejoiced greatly to find some of your children following the truth, just as we have been commanded by the Father.

3 John 1:1,3-4 The elder to the beloved Ga’ius, whom I love in the truth. . . . indeed you do follow the truth. No greater joy can I have than this, to hear that my children follow the truth.

3 John 1:8,12 . . . that we may be fellow workers in the truth. . . . Deme’trius has testimony from every one, and from the truth itself; I testify to him too, and you know my testimony is true.

“The Faith”

Acts 6:7 And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith.

Acts 13:8 But El’ymas the magician (for that is the meaning of his name) withstood them, seeking to turn away the proconsul from the faith.

Acts 14:22 strengthening the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to continue in the faith, and saying that through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God.

Acts 16:5 So the churches were strengthened in the faith, and they increased in numbers daily.

Galatians 1:23 they only heard it said, “He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.”

Ephesians 4:13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ;

Philippians 1:25,27 Convinced of this, I know that I shall remain and continue with you all, for your progress and joy in the faith, . . . Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you that you stand firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel,

Colossians 1:23 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.

Colossians 2:7 rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving.

1 Timothy 1:2 To Timothy, my true child in the faith: . . .

1 Timothy 3:9,13 they must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. . . . for those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons,

1 Timothy 4:6 If you put these instructions before the brethren, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, nourished on the words of the faith and of the good doctrine which you have followed.

1 Timothy 5:8 If any one does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his own family, he has disowned the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

1 Timothy 6:10,12 For the love of money is the root of all evils; it is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced their hearts with many pangs. . . . Fight the good fight of the faith; take hold of the eternal life to which you were called when you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses.

1 Timothy 6:21 for by professing it some have missed the mark as regards the faith. Grace be with you.

2 Timothy 4:7 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.

Titus 1:1 Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to further the faith of God’s elect and their knowledge of the truth which accords with godliness,

Titus 1:13 . . . Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith,

Titus 3:15 . . . Greet those who love us in the faith. Grace be with you all.

James 2:1 My brethren, show no partiality as you hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory.

Jude 3 . . . contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.

Revelation 14:12 Here is a call for the endurance of the saints, those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.

“The Doctrine”

Romans 16:17 . . . take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them.

1 Timothy 4:6 If you put these instructions before the brethren, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, nourished on the words of the faith and of the good doctrine which you have followed.

Titus 2:10 nor to pilfer, but to show entire and true fidelity, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior.

2 John 1:9 Any one who goes ahead and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God; he who abides in the doctrine has both the Father and the Son. (cf. also, “the Way”: Acts 9:2; 22:4; 24:14, 22)

The “Teaching”

Acts 2:41-42 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.

Romans 6:17 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed,

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.

1 Timothy 6:1 Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be defamed.

That’s an awful lot of biblical oneness and unity: expressly contrary to the very notion of a denomination or the rationale used to bolster it up, whereby supposed “secondary” doctrines don’t matter, so that they can be left up to individuals and sects to decide, so that in turn, massive contradiction and therefore, necessarily, massive amounts of error are sanctioned as perfectly fine and dandy: all utterly contrary to the teaching and entire tenor and spirit of the New Testament.

I never feel more sorry for Protestants (my esteemed brothers and sisters in Christ), than when they have to try to prove (or pretend or assume, or “live with the notion” as it were) that denominationalism is actually harmonious with the New Testament. There’s simply nothing that can be said. It’s a lost cause if there ever was one. Imagine formally debating it: “Resolved: Denominationalism is Entirely Consistent with Biblical Teaching”! It would be like arguing in favor of the idea that water isn’t wet, or that eating beef is completely consistent with a vegan diet.

I’m sure this “thorn in the flesh” gives many Protestants great pause, and even agony (as with the admirably conscientious but utterly blind-as-to-cause Luther and Melanchthon). But they feel that there is nothing they can do to resolve it (which is absolutely true within Protestantism), and that the only available solution (becoming Catholic or even Orthodox) is out of the question.

I’m here to try to persuade folks that becoming a Catholic is the most “biblical” thing they can ever do! The Catholic Church (human sins and all, just as all collections of Christians have sin) is the pearl of great price that many good and decent Protestants have been looking for their whole lives, never realizing that it was right in front of them all along, in all its battered, besmirched but unvanquishable and divinely protected glory.

***

Photo credit: [Max Pixel/ CC0 public domain]

***

Summary: Brazilian Protestant apologist Lucas Banzoli throws out a “gotcha!” potshot against Catholic apologists re denominationalism, but entirely misses the larger NT point.

Jesus’ Cousins (Not Brothers) (vs. Lucas Banzoli)

Last updated on: February 21, 2023 at 3:30 pm By Dave Armstrong

***

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, “Os irmãos de Jesus eram primos?” [Were Jesus’ brothers cousins?] (9-21-12).

The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus’ brothers weren’t really brothers – they were cousins! It asserts that Aramaic makes no distinction between cousin and brother, and therefore the Lord’s brothers were mere cousins. It really is very touching that Aramaic does not have this definition, but it is a pity that it has absolutely nothing to do with the original New Testament, which was written in Greek rather than Aramaic.

It certainly does have to do with the New Testament, even though it is in Greek, because the literal translation of whatever the Aramaic word for brother is, would be the corresponding word for brother in Greek (adelphos). It’s translating the term that applies to siblings as well as all sorts of relatives, kinsmen, countrymen. Adelphos has that very wide usage as well (as Lucas himself notes below in citing a linguistic reference source).

This is why it is standard practice to translate adelphos as brother in English, because that is the corresponding term. It simply has a very wide latitude of meaning. In fact, an example of this happened to me a few days ago when Brazilian Protestant apologist Francisco Tourinho (we’ve now had one theological exchange) called me “brother” in a private message. We just “met” each other online and are from different countries, ethnic groups, religious views, and generations, but that’s what he called me, because all Christians are “brothers.” Ancient Jews expressed relationships in this same fashion.

And while Aramaic leaves something to be desired in this regard, Greek is as clear and specific as Portuguese. In Greek, there is a specific word for cousin, brother and relative. Let’s look at the meanings of each word according to Strong’s Concordance lexicon:

431 ανεψιος anepsios

of 1 (as a union particle) and an archaic particle nepos (a relative); no

1) cousin.

80 αδελφος adelphos

from 1 (as a connective particle) and delphus (the womb); TDNT 1:144.22; no

1) a brother, whether born of the same parents, or only of the same father or mother.

2) having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people or countryman.

3) any fellow or man.

4) a faithful companion, united to the other by the bond of affection.

5) an associate in employment or office.

6) brothers in Christ.

6a) his brethren by blood.

6b) all men.

6c) apostles.

6d) Christians, as those who are lifted up to the same heavenly place.

4773 συγγενης suggenes

from 4862 and 1085; TDNT – 7:736,1097; adj

1) of the same family, similar to, blood relative.

2) in a broader sense, of the same nation, fellow countryman.

English has the word “cousin” too, but it’s usually not used to translate adelphos because of what has been explained above.

Therefore, we see that:

Anepsios – Cousin

Adelphos – Brother

Sugges – Relative

The only word that has a broader meaning is adelphos, which figuratively or spiritually means “brothers in Christ”, or “companion”, and not blood brother. It can also mean a blood brother only on the paternal or maternal side. However, as both cases are rejected by the Roman Church (the Orthodox adopts the second position, while the Roman maintains that they are cousins), I will not base myself on these secondary meanings, but only on the primary one, that is, of brother by blood, which they were not Joseph’s children by a previous marriage. The case we see here, therefore, is very curious. We have three Greek words for kinship. One is just a “close relative”, another is specifically “cousin”, and the other is a real “brother”. One would expect, for obvious reasons, that whenever Jesus’ “cousins” were mentioned, the word anepsios would be present, but this is absolutely not the case in any quotation of Jesus’ brothers.

It is not “obvious” and we should not expect adelphos to be translated as “cousin” in these instances, as explained. But this doesn’t prove they aren’t cousins or possibly step brothers (the eastern Catholic and eastern Orthodox favored position).

In absolutely every quote, we see adelphos (brothers, not cousins) being used to designate Christ’s brothers.

That is correct, and it poses no problem whatsoever for the Catholic position of the perpetual virginity of Mary (Jesus being her only child). Providing examples of the usage proves nothing one way or another as to this debate. So I won’t reproduce all that; readers can read them in his article: linked above.

We see, therefore, that in absolutely every time when someone referred to the brothers of the Lord (or to a specific brother), he used adelphos, and not anepsios. Therefore, to say that the brothers of the Lord were anepsios (cousins) and not adelphos (brothers) because of Aramaic is laughable and is at least a joke.

It’s not at all, once we examine all of the relevant biblical data, as I will do.

Imagine you knowing that the Lord’s brothers were merely cousins, and having the word for “cousin” (anepsios) ready, at hand, which can be perfectly used by you when you want to your good will, and even then you give up applying it. it every time someone refers to the brothers of Jesus, and instead always applies the word for brother (adelphos)! Is it possible to understand such a thing?

Of course it is. Lucas explained it himself when he cited all the meanings that adelphos can have.

How is it that in the dozens of biblical passages about the brothers of Jesus there is not even a single one that applies anepsio? To infer that they were cousins is to murder exegesis, mutilate Greek grammar, and pretend to be someone better than the apostles and evangelists, for they explicitly wrote adelphos and not anepsios! Furthermore, we have to remember that the apostle Paul, who twice referred to the brothers of Jesus as being adelphos (Gal.1:19; 1Co.9:5) and who never referred to them as anepsios, also had this option for anepsis ready and fully available, proof of this is that he employs it in Colossians 4:10:

“Aristarchus, my fellow prisoner, sends you his greetings, as does Mark, cousin of Barnabas. You have been instructed about Mark, and if he comes to visit you, welcome him” (Colossians 4:10)

“aspazetai umas aristarchos o sunaichmalôtos mou kai markos o anepsios barnaba peri or elabete entolas ean elthê pros umas dexasthe auton” (Colossians 4:10)

Paul’s letters were written in Greek, because they were written to Greek-speaking people. Therefore, he chose to use a Greek word for cousin (whereas Aramaic didn’t have such a word).

Paul says that Mark was a cousin (anepsios) of Barnabas, but he himself does not refer to Jesus’ brothers as cousins (anepsios), but as “brothers” (adelphos), and not in a figurative sense, for he distinguishes them from the rest of the disciples and apostles:

“Have we not a right to take with us a believing wife, as also the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?” (1st Corinthians 9:5)

“mê ouk echomen exousian adelphên gunaika periagein ôs kai oi loipoi apostoloi kai oi adelphoi tou kuriou kai kêphas” (1 Corinthians 9:5)

Paul could also choose to use adelphos here, because it was understood in Greek to have a wide variety of meanings. Even today we (in English, at any rate) often use “brother” in the broader sense: “Band of brothers”, “Brother Jed will preach the sermon today”, “Brother” and “Sister” for monks and nuns (and non-literal “Father” for priests), “am I my brother’s keeper?”, Ringo Starr (an only child) calling the Beatles his “brothers” etc. Therefore, this use in and of itself doesn’t prove that he was referring to siblings of Jesus. It’s not funny or silly; it’s how language works.

It’s time to do some comparative exegesis now.

Jesus Himself uses “brethren” in the larger sense (Mt 23:1, 8; 12:49). In Matthew 23:8 (cf. 12:49-50), He calls, for example, the “crowds” and His “disciples” (23:1) “brethren.”

Matthew 13:55 (RSV) Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?

Matthew 27:55-56, 61 There were also many women there [at the crucifixion], looking on from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him; [56] among whom were Mary Mag’dalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, . . . [61] Mary Mag’dalene and the other Mary were there, sitting opposite the sepulchre.

Matthew 28:1 Now after the sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Mag’dalene and the other Mary went to see the sepulchre.

Mark 6:3 “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, . . .?” . . .

Mark 15:40, 47 There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Mag’dalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salo’me, . . . [47] Mary Mag’dalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid.

Mark 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Mag’dalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salo’me, bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him.

John 19:25 . . . standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Mag’dalene.

By comparing Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40; and John 19:25, we find that James and Joseph – mentioned in Matthew 13:55 with Simon and Jude as Jesus’ “brethren” – are also called sons of Mary, wife of Clopas. This other Mary (Mt 27:61; 28:1) is called Mary’s adelphe in John 19:25 (two Marys in one family?! – thus even this usage apparently means “cousins” or more distant relative). Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 mention Simon, Jude and “sisters” along with James and Joseph, calling all adelphoi. Since we know for sure from this information that James and Joseph are definitely not Jesus’ blood brothers, it is likely that all these other “brethren” are cousins, according to the linguistic conventions discussed above. Most Bible scholars equate Jude and Thaddeus. The latter is mentioned in two lists of the disciples that do not contain Jude: Matthew 10:3 and Mark 3:18; for more on this, see Wikipedia, “Jude the Apostle”.

In John 19:25, the apostle John calls Mary, wife of Clopas, the virgin Mary’s “sister” (adelphe). Is it Lucas’ belief that Mary, the mother of Jesus had a blood sister named Mary? Or is this a cousin or more distant relative? James and Joseph are called Jesus’ “brothers” in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55. Yet Matthew 27:56 (cf. Mk 15:40) describes a different Mary as their mother (described as “the other Mary” in 27:61 and 28:1, and “Mary the wife of Clopas” in Jn 19:25). Now, assuming that Mary, the Mother of God didn’t have a sister (sibling) named Mary, this Mary, wife of Clopas and “sister” of the Blessed Virgin Mary is at least a cousin, if not further removed.

The Protestant New Bible Dictionary (1962) confirms all this (if indeed that is necessary with all that biblical data available). In its article, “Mary,” the fourth entry is about Mary, wife of Clopas:

Mary the mother of James; ‘the other Mary’; Mary of Clopas. It is very probable that these three names all refer to the same person. Mary the mother of James and Joses . . . (Mt. 27:55 f.) . . . Mark refers to her (15:40) as ‘Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses . . .

. . . Hegesippus [2nd cent.] tells us (see Eus., EH iii 11) that Clopas (AV Cleophas) was the brother of Joseph, the husband of the Virgin Mary. (p. 793)

If the latter is true, then Mary, wife of Clopas would have been the Blessed Virgin Mary’s sister-in-law; married to her husband’s brother. That would have made her Jesus’ aunt, and thus her sons would be His first cousins. Note the looseness of adelphos again: it is applied in John 19:25 to this “sister” of Mary, who is actually a sister-in-law and not blood-related at all (according to Hegesippus and Eusebius), or else a cousin (blood-related, but more distantly than a sibling).

We find more fascinating information in Eusebius, in the same passage cited above:

After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed, it is said that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all directions with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh [Williamson, 1965, translates this as “kinsmen of the Lord“] (for the majority of them also were still alive) to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James.

They all with one consent pronounced Symeon, the son of Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention [Jn 19:25; perhaps Lk 24:18]; to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Saviour. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph. (Book III, section 11, parts 1-2; translated by Arthur Cushman McGiffert. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 1. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. [1890], pp. 123-124 in the version translated by G. A. Williamson, Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1965; my bolded and italicized emphases; cf. Book III, section 32, part 4: “Mary, the wife of Clopas, who was the father of Symeon” and Book III, section 32, part 1: “Symeon, the son of Clopas”)

It turns out, then, that early tradition, from the second-century historian Hegesippus (which we have no reason to doubt in its non-theological reporting of relationships) tells us that “Symeon” is also a son of Clopas. That’s very interesting because we have “Simon” (another form of Symeon) listed as a “brother” of Jesus, alongside James and Joseph, in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3.

Thus, he is another first cousin, according to this scenario, not a blood brother. That would identify three of these named “brothers” (there are only four named, total) as cousins, based on clear biblical evidence (James and Joseph) and a combination of sound early historical tradition and the Bible (Simon or Symeon). Eusebius cites Hegesippus again:

When James the Righteous had suffered martyrdom like the Lord and for the same reason, Symeon the son of his uncle Clopas was appointed bishop. He being a cousin of the Lord, it was the universal demand that he should be the second. (p. 181 [IV, 22]; bolded and italicized emphases added; cf. III, 32, p. 143: “. . . Mary, wife of the Clopas whose son he was” and “the son of the Lord’s uncle, the aforesaid Simon son of Clopas . . .”)

The direct evidence that Simon is Jesus’ first cousin comes from Hegesippus through Eusebius. The latter (arguably) also alludes to Jude (Judas) being Jesus’ first cousin as well:

The same historian [Hegesippus] says that there were also others, descended from one of the so-called brothers of the Saviour, whose name was Judas, . . . (Book III, section 32, part 5; McGiffert translation; Williamson translates: “one of the ‘brothers’ of the Saviour named Jude . . .”: p. 143)

Thus, Hegesippus arguably confirms that all four “brothers” of Jesus mentioned together in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3, are sons of Mary wife of Clopas, who was an aunt of Jesus. Scripture already directly affirmed that James and Joseph were the sons of Mary, wife of Clopas (Mt 27:56; Mk 15:40). Hegesippus, moreover, informs us that Clopas was a blood brother / sibling of St. Joseph, husband of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Beyond that, since it makes no sense to have two Marys of one mother, this “other Mary” was (consistently and logically interpreting all of this biblical and the earliest patristic data together) the sister-in-law of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Lucas denied that the Greek word suggenes or sungenis had a “broader meaning” than cousin. He’s wrong about that. Sungenis (Greek for “cousin”) and its cognate sungenia appear in the New Testament fifteen times (sungenia: Lk 1:61; Acts 7:3, 14; sungenis: Mk 6:4; Lk 1:36, 58; 2:44; 14:12; 21:16; Jn 18:26; Acts 10:24; Rom 9:3; 16:7, 11, 21). But they are usually translated kinsmen, kinsfolk, or kindred in KJV: that is, in a sense wider than cousin: often referring to the entire nation of Hebrews. Thus, the eminent Protestant linguist W. E. Vine, in his Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, lists sungenis not only under “Cousin” but also under “Kin, Kinsfolk, Kinsman, Kinswoman.”

In all but two of these occurrences, the authors were either Luke or Paul. Luke was a Greek Gentile. Paul, though Jewish, was raised in the very cosmopolitan, culturally Greek town of Tarsus. But even so, both still clearly used adelphos many times with the meaning of non-sibling (Lk 10:29; Acts 3:17; 7:23-26; Rom 1:7, 13; 9:3; 1 Thess 1:4). They understood what all these words meant, yet they continued to use adelphos even in those instances that had a non-sibling application.

Strikingly, it looks like every time St. Paul uses adelphos (unless I missed one or two), he means it as something other than blood brother or sibling. He uses the word or related cognates no less than 138 times in this way. Yet we often hear about Galatians 1:19: “James the Lord’s brother.” 137 other times, Paul means non-sibling, yet amazingly enough, here he must mean sibling, because (so we are told) he uses the word adelphos? That doesn’t make any sense.

“Cousin” appears four times in the entire OT in the RSV (three of those in Jeremiah, another in Leviticus). But “brother[s]” appears 390 times, “brethren” 154 times and “sister[s]” 110 times. So by a 654-4 ratio, we have those terms (which at first glance sound like siblings) used over against “cousin.” Obviously, many times they were used for non-sibling relatives.

The New Testament (which came out of the same culture, and was Jewish-written save for Luke) totally reflects this. It has “brother[s]” 159 times, “brethren” 191, and “sister[s]” 24 times, while “cousin” appears exactly once (Col 4:10). So that’s a 374-1 ratio (even more lopsided than the OT), and for the entire Bible (minus the Deuterocanon), the numbers are 1028-5, or “cousin” used instead of “brother” or “sister” once in every 206 times a relative is mentioned.

Jude is called the Lord’s “brother” in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3. If this is the same Jude who wrote the epistle bearing that name (as many think), he calls himself “a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James” (Jude 1:1). Now, suppose for a moment that he was Jesus’ blood brother. In that case, he refrains from referring to himself as the Lord’s own sibling (while we are told that such a phraseology occurs several times in the New Testament, referring to a sibling relationship) and chooses instead to identify himself as James‘ brother.

This is far too strange and implausible to believe. Moreover, James also refrains from calling himself Jesus’ brother, in his epistle (James 1:1: “servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ”): even though St. Paul calls him “the Lord’s brother” (Gal 1:19: dealt with above).

The Catholic Encyclopedia (“The Brethren of the Lord”) makes a further observation about Simon / Symeon:

Some identify him with the Apostle Simon the Cananean (Matthew 10:4; Mark 3:18) or the Zealot (Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). The grouping together of James, Jude or Thaddeus, and Simon, after the other Apostles, Judas Iscariot excepted, in the lists of the Apostles, (Matthew 10:4-5; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13) lends some probability to this view, as it seems to indicate some sort of connexion between the three.

We have, then, either compelling or (in the case of Jude) very good, plausible biblical arguments showing that James, Joseph, and Jude (aka Thaddeus) are not Jesus’ siblings, and compelling early patristic evidence (about as early and good as it gets), that all four (including Simon) are His first cousins (sons of St. Joseph’s brother Clopas and his wife, the “other” Mary).

The attempted linguistic argument against Mary’s perpetual virginity from the mere use of the word “brothers” in English translations (and from sungenis) falls flat at every turn, as we have seen.

Luke 2:41-51 describes Mary and Joseph taking Jesus to the temple at the age of twelve, for the required observance of Passover. Everyone agrees that He was the first child of Mary, so if there were up to five or more siblings, as some maintain (or even one), why is there no hint of them at all in this account?

Jesus’ “brethren” in Scripture are never called the children of Mary, and Mary is never called their mother, as in the case of Jesus:

John 2:1 On the third day there was a marriage at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there;

John 19:25 . . . standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Mag’dalene.

In at least two instances, these “brothers” were mentioned but Mary wasn’t called their mother; only Jesus‘ mother:

Acts 1:14 All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.

Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” . . .

Doesn’t it stand to reason and common sense that if these “brothers” were indeed the siblings of Jesus, that Acts 1:14 would read, instead: “Mary the mother of Jesus and his brothers”? Then we wouldn’t be having this dispute; it would have been so clear and undeniable. A similar argument could be made for Mark 6:3. But instead, we have Jesus only being called “the son of Mary” there, while “son of Mary” referring to someone besides Jesus, or the phrase “sons of Mary” never appear in Holy Scripture.

[note: additional related information about the identity of Alphaeus, whether he is Clopas, “Judas the son of James” (Lk 6:16 and Acts 1:13), and the various persons named James in the New Testament is found near the end of my paper, Were Simon & Jude Jesus’ Literal Siblings, or Cousins? [11-30-21]. ]

Therefore, Jesus’ brothers were really brothers (adelphos), not cousins (anepsios). But it doesn’t end here. There is still an important addition to be noted: if the difference between adelphos and anepsios were not sufficiently marked, the biblical writers still had at their disposal the Greek word suggenes, which means a blood relative. It would also be perfect to apply to Jesus’ brothers (if they weren’t literally blood brothers), but it never was! In the “Manual of Biblical Exegesis”, Gilson Xavier de Azevedo says:

“Were the brethren of Jesus according to the flesh fleshly brethren or cousins (as the papists say)? The Greek here says ‘adelphos’ – Blood brothers. Brethren meaning kinsman is ‘suggenes'” (Handbook of Biblical Exegesis of the New Testament)

This was all adequately explained above. Lucas never does any exegesis, which is altogether necessary to do. Who is providing readers with lots and lots of biblical information? Yours truly!

Therefore, the apostles failed to apply a word that would be ideal if Christ’s brothers were only cousins, that is, close blood relatives, but not brothers. And this omission was not due to the fact that the evangelists preferred to make “use of Aramaic”, as Luke himself applies it in his gospel:

“Elizabeth, her relative, will also have a son in her old age; she who was said to be barren is now in her sixth month of pregnancy” (Luke 1:36)

“kai idou elisabet ê a=suggenistsb=suggenês sou kai autê a=suneilêphen tsb=suneilêphuia uion en ab=gêrei ts=gêra autês kai outos mên ektos estin autê tê kaloumenê steira” (Luke 1:36)

“They said to him, ‘You have no relative by that name'” (Luke 1:61)

“kai a=eipan tsb=eipon pros autên oti oudeis estin a=ek tsb=en a=tês tsb=tê a=suggeneias tsb=suggeneia sou os kaleitai to onomati toutô” (Luke 1:61)

And in the Acts of the Apostles, Luke continues to apply this word: “Leave your country and your relatives and go to the land that I will show you” (Acts 7:3)

“kai eipen pros auton exelthe ek tês gés sou kai a=[ek] tsb=ek tês suggeneias sou kai deuro eis a=tên ên ên an soi deix” (Acts 7:3)

Luke, being a Gentile, used a Gentile expression.

John, in his gospel, also does not hesitate to make use of suggenes when dealing with relatives:

“One of the servants of the high priest, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, insisted, ‘Did I not see him with him in the olive grove?'” (John 18:26)

“legei eis ek ton doulôn touarchiereôs suggenês ôn ou apekopsen petros to ôtion ouk egô se eidon entó kêpô met autou” (John 18:26)

The apostle Paul also used this word when he spoke of relatives:

“Greetings Herodion, my kinsman. Greet those of the house of Narcissus who are in the Lord” (Romans 16:11)

“aspasasthe ab=êrodiona ts=erodiona ton suggenê mou aspasasthe tous ek ton narkissou tous ontas en kuriô” (Romans 16:11)

So here’s another interesting case:

–Luke applied suggenes to people who were not sisters, but relatives, and he does this three times, both in his gospel and in Acts (Lk.1:36; Lk.1:61; Acts.7:3), but when he referred to the brothers of Jesus, he never used suggenes, but always adelphos (Lk.8:20; Lk.8:21).

–John, the beloved disciple, also used suggenes when talking about kinship (Jn.18:26), but he also never used it when talking about Jesus’ brothers (Jn.2:12; 7:3; 7:5; 7 :10).

–And the apostle Paul is the most interesting case, because he used anepsios when talking about cousins (Col.4:10), and suggenes when talking about relatives (Rom.16:11), but he only used adelphos when talking about brothers of Jesus (Gal.1:19; 1Co.9:5)!

Again, this issue can never be ultimately resolved by speculations about what various words meant and how they were used. Exegesis and some analysis of early Church history are required, and Lucas has done neither. He needs to interact with the massive biblical and historical material I have set forth: as well as further linguistic arguments.

We’ll see whether he does or not!

So the most remarkable thing in the world, which any beginner and Bible lover can easily discern, is that Jesus’ brothers were not cousins! To claim that Jesus’ brothers were cousins is to corrupt all exegesis, mutilate all biblical hermeneutics, and send the Greek original to the fifth hell.

Lucas hasn’t done any exegesis to speak of. I have. Now he needs to interact with it, or else stand refuted.

Therefore, these Catholic claims seen on disreputable websites are nothing more than pure deception to deceive the most unstable in the faith, who are easily attracted and deceived by any doctrinal invention or theological juggling, no matter how lunatic. It amazes me to see that there are people in the 21st century who cannot make this basic distinction between cousin, brother and relative in Greek, and still maintain the naive fallacy of Aramaic. And it scares me even more to see that there are still people ignorant enough to believe it and defend it as if it were an “argument”.

I’ll leave this paragraph up as a pathetic testament to Lucas’ bigotry and condescension. Those “ignorant” folks who are included as believers in this “lunatic” view include all of the founders of Protestantism: including Martin Luther, John Calvin, Bullinger and the later Turretin, Zwingi, the Lutheran Confessions, and the English Reformers. The great John Wesley (the Protestant I most respect; I edited a book of his quotations), 200 years later, wrote:

I believe… he [Jesus Christ] was born of the blessed Virgin, who, as well after as she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin. (“Letter to a Roman Catholic,” quoted in A. C. Coulter, John Wesley, New York: Oxford University Press, 1964, 495)

Protestants always reserve the right to disagree with absolutely anyone, of course, but to call all these men “ignorant” is a bit too much to take. They may be many things, but they were not “ignorant.” It only shows Lucas’ own ignorance as to the extent and scope of those who believe in the doctrine, including many reputable Protestant commentators to this day. This is not a laughing and mocking matter. It’s a serious discussion of historic theology and New Testament exegesis, and our side can produce many many arguments (as seen above): that Lucas needs to show an awareness of and interact with, before he sounds the triumphant “victory” call. If he wants to laugh it off and act all “superior”, however, he only reveals himself as a loudmouthed fool (in this respect), in way over his head.

***

Photo credit: Lucas Banzoli, Facebook photo as of 5-3-22, dated 15 January 2018.

***

Summary: Brazilian Protestant apologist Lucas Banzoli makes endless linguistic arguments about Jesus’ cousins (“brothers” in the NT), but ignores extensive exegesis.

1 Timothy 3:15 = Infallible Church (vs. Lucas Banzoli)

Last updated on: February 21, 2023 at 3:30 pm By Dave Armstrong

***

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).

“Mother of God”: Refuting Lucas Banzoli’s Absurdities

Last updated on: February 21, 2023 at 3:29 pm By Dave Armstrong

***

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’ heretical and blasphemous articles, “Maria é mãe de Deus (Theotókos)?” [Is Mary the mother of God?] (9-20-12) and “Deus tem mãe?” [Does God have a mother?] (5-12-13).

Let’s start with definitions and basic explanations, so readers will know with certainty exactly what the catholic claim is, and what UI am defending. Theotokos, the term in question, means literally, “God-bearer.” Mary is the mother of God the Son. If someone denies that Mary is the mother of God (the Son), then they deny that Jesus is God. If, on the other hand, someone denies that Mary is the mother of God (the Son), then they deny the virgin birth, and in effect, also the incarnation.

This resolves the problem altogether. But she is not only the mother of Jesus’ human nature (Christotokos) because motherhood is about giving birth to persons, not natures (or souls, as in our case, when mothers give birth).

Historic Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants all believe that Jesus was God Incarnate: God in the flesh; the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. This title for Mary was specifically intended by the early Church to protect the deity or divinity of Jesus, since some were arguing that she was the mother of His human nature only. It would be odd to argue that human mothers give birth only to the bodies of their sons and daughters, rather than to a person who consists of body and soul. Human beings “co-create” in a sense the bodies of their children (implied by the word “procreate”), while they have nothing to do with their souls, which are directly created by God.

Likewise, Mary gave birth to Jesus as a human person, even though she had nothing to do with His divine nature (now merged with a human nature), which existed eternally. She gave birth to “the man Who was God,” so she is the mother of God (the Son). At no time have Catholics or Orthodox thought that Mary was “mother” of God the Father or the Holy Spirit. It’s impossible to find any official Catholic dogmatic document stating that Mary is the “mother of God the Father” or “mother of the Holy Spirit.” It is only from sheer misunderstanding that anything other than this was thought to be implied by “Mother of God.” Many notable Protestants have also used the title:

She became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man’s understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child . . . Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God . . . None can say of her nor announce to her greater things, even though he had as many tongues as the earth possesses flowers and blades of grass: the sky, stars; and the sea, grains of sand. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God. (Martin Luther, Commentary on the Magnificat, 1521; in Luther’s Works, Pelikan et al, volume 21, 326)

On account of this personal union and communion of the natures, Mary, the most blessed virgin, did not conceive a mere, ordinary human being, but a human being who is truly the Son of the most high God, as the angel testifies. He demonstrated his divine majesty even in his mother’s womb in that he was born of a virgin without violating her virginity. Therefore she is truly the mother of God and yet remained a virgin. (Formula of Concord, from 1577: one of the Lutheran confessions, translated by Arthur C. Piepkorn: Solid Declaration, Article VIII: “The Person of Christ,” section 9)The description of Mary as the “Mother of God” was and is sensible, permissible and necessary as an auxiliary Christological proposition. (Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, I, 2, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963, 138) [see documentation of several other prominent early Protestants using the title “Mother of God”]

Scripture teaches that:

1) Jesus is God (many biblical proofs; Jn 1:1; Col 2:9).

2) Mary is His true mother (Is 7:14; Mt 1:16,18; 2:11, 13, 20; 12:46; Lk 1:31, 35, 43; Jn 1:15; 2:1; Gal 4:4).

Ergo, “Mary is the Mother of God” [the Son].

Another, less direct, but equally effective way of arguing the point is noting Elizabeth’s exclamation to the Blessed Virgin Mary: “And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Luke 1:43, RSV). The Greek word for “Lord” here (as usually in the New Testament) is Kurios. It’s widely applied both to God the Father and to Jesus, since they are both “Lord” and God” and equal as the Father and Son in the Holy Trinity. In fact, in a single passage (Rom 10:9-13), both the Father and the Son are called “Lord” (Kurios).

John Calvin, the most influential early Protestant leader after Martin Luther, wrote about Luke 1:43:

She [Elizabeth] calls Mary the mother of her Lord This denotes a unity of person in the two natures of Christ; as if she had said, that he who was begotten a mortal man in the womb of Mary is, at the same time, the eternal God. (Harmony of the Synoptic Gospels)

Martin Luther also made many affirming statements about Theotokos. Here are two of the most striking ones:

We, too, know very well that Christ did not derive his deity from Mary; but it does not follow that it must, therefore, be false to say, “God was born of Mary” and “God is Mary’s Son” and “Mary is God’s mother.”

Mary is the true, natural mother of the child called Jesus Christ, and the true mother and bearer of God . . . Mary suckled God, rocked God, made broth and soup for God. For God and man are one Person, one Christ, one Son, one Jesus, not two persons . . . just as your son is not two sons . . . even though he has two natures, body and soul, — body from you, soul from God alone. (On the Councils and the Church, 1539)

James Cardinal Gibbons: a great apologist in the early 1900s, brilliantly explained the doctrine of Theotokos:

We affirm that the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, the Word of God, who in His divine nature is from all eternity begotten of the Father, consubstantial with Him, was in the fullness of time again begotten, by being born of the Virgin, thus taking to Himself, from her maternal womb, a human nature of the same substance with hers.

But it may be said the Blessed Virgin is not the Mother of the Divinity. She had not, and she could not have, any part in the generation of the Word of God, for that generation is eternal; her maternity is temporal. He is her Creator; she is His creature. Style her, if you will, the Mother of the man Jesus or even of the human nature of the Son of God, but not the Mother of God.

I shall answer this objection by putting a question. Did the mother who bore us have any part in the production of our soul? Was not this nobler part of our being the work of God alone? And yet who would for a moment dream of saying “the mother of my body,” and not “my mother?” . . . . .

In like manner, . . . the Blessed Virgin, under the overshadowing of the Holy Ghost, by communicating to the Second Person of the Adorable Trinity, as mothers do, a true human nature of the same substance with her own, is thereby really and truly His Mother.

. . . in this sense, and in no other, has the Church called her by that title. (The Faith of Our Fathers, New York: P. J. Kenedy & Sons, revised edition, 1917, 137-138)

Nestorius was not a “heretic”. On the contrary, he tried to restore the biblical principle that Mary is “Christotokos” (mother of Christ), while there were people who taught that she was “Theotokos” (mother of God). For him, the issue was not as simple as saying that (1) Jesus is God; (2) Mary is the mother of Jesus; then (3) Mary is the mother of God.

Then he rejected clear biblical teaching, and inexorable logic. Mary was the mother of Jesus, Who was the Second Person of the Holy Trinity and God the Son.

Proof of this is that, using similar syllogisms, we could conclude that Jesus “sinned” because (1) all men sin; (2) Jesus was a man; then (3) Jesus sinned. It is obvious that the Scriptures affirm that Jesus was without sin, but a syllogism similar to the one used by Catholics could show us otherwise.

This syllogism is a false one, because it has a false premise (“all men sin”). It is not of the essence of man that he must sin. Human beings were created good, and before they rebelled and fell, they were sinless. Therefore, “all men sin” is false, because Adam and Eve did not sin, pre-fall. The unfallen angels are also creatures (though not human beings) who never sinned. Babies who are murdered in abortion have not ever sinned, yet they are human beings. Mary never sinned, because she was filled with grace, by a special miracle of God.

Furthermore, they use other similar syllogisms to prove the other Marian dogmas as well. For example: (1) The pure cannot be born of the impure; (2) Jesus was pure; therefore (3) Mary is immaculate.

This is not correct Catholic theology. Any Catholic who uses this argument — though he may be perfectly sincere and pious — doesn’t know what he is talking about. I explain why the above argument is incorrect in my article, Was Mary’s Immaculate Conception Absolutely Necessary? [1-5-05; published at National Catholic Register on 12-8-17]. Catholics say that Mary’s Immaculate Conception was “fitting” (i.e., appropriate and to be expected) but not absolutely necessary. And we say that Jesus, being God for all eternity, can’t possibly sin (impeccability). This would be the case whether Mary was a sinner or not. Nor could He possibly receive original sin from Mary because He is not among creatures who rebelled against God and fell (since He is God).

If we read Job 14:4, we see that premise #1 is correct.

This is proverbial-type language at a very early stage of Judaeo-Christian theology. It can’t be used to determine fine points of very highly developed Christian theology.

However, this does not mean that conclusion (3) is right, since, by the same logic, Mary (pure) could not be born from someone impure either;

This is untrue. Mary’s immaculate state has nothing whatsoever to do with her mother, since it came from a special supernatural act of grace: she was filled with grace from the time of her conception. That has nothing to do with 1) Mary’s free will choice, or 2) her mother.

therefore, by the same syllogism we arrive at the conclusion that Mary’s mother is also immaculate.

If so, then this would be an example of being right for the wrong reasons.

But it doesn’t stop here. If Mary’s mother is immaculate and the pure cannot be born from the impure, then Mary’s grandmother is also immaculate. And so on: great-grandmother, great-great-grandmother… until Eva… all without blemish! It is evident, therefore, that those who arrive at the “conclusion” that Mary is the mother of God by the simple syllogism demonstrated above, incur the same fallacy presented in the other points.

No one other than Mary has to be immaculate in order for her to be,. It has nothing to do with her ancestors. It’s all about God and what He chose to do.

In addition, syllogisms similar to those used by Catholics can also be used to turn against themselves. For example: (1) Mary is not the mother of the Father; (2) The Father is God; therefore (3) Mary is not the mother of God.

That means that Mary is not the mother of God the Father, which is true. “Mother of God” only refers to being the mother of God the Son. There are distinctions even in the Trinity. The Father and the Holy Spirit do not become incarnate and take on flesh. They are immaterial spirits.

Also: (1) Mary did not beget the Holy Spirit; (2) The Holy Spirit is God; therefore (3) Mary is not the mother of God.

It’s the same error again, based on not understanding what Theotokos means in the first place. This is carnal reasoning, that Paul talks about with regard to the Corinthians and their pagan Greek philosophical background.

Interestingly, the syllogisms used by Marian fanatics are turned against themselves when we analyze them carefully.

Not at all. The one confused here is Lucas, not Catholics (and the Orthodox and Martin Luther and many Protestants who agree with us), as shown.

And that was exactly the question that Nestorius addressed: to say that Mary is or is not the mother of God is not as simple as that syllogism, but we must go into deeper terms if we want to reach a more certain conclusion. For, apparently, there is no problem with the Catholic syllogism; however, when we look more closely, we find like Nestorius that:

(1) One is only the mother of that which generates.

(2) Mary did not generate Christ’s divinity, but humanity.

(3) Therefore, Mary is the mother of Jesus as a man, and not of God.

In other words, Mary is the mother only of Christ’s humanity, and not of his divinity, which existed long before Mary. Therefore, the conclusion we come to is that Mary is the mother of Christ (Christotokos), and not the mother of God (Theotokos), as Catholics say.

This is just silly. As some of my citations above note, our mothers are not the mothers of our souls, which are directly created by God. But we don’t say that they are mothers only of our bodies. They are our mothers, and we are composed of both body and soul. Likewise, Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ the Person, Who has a Divine and Human Nature (neither of which Mary brought about through reproductive biological processes. What she did was participate in the ineffable joy of bearing the incarnate God: being a necessary and glorious part of the incarnation.

About Nestorius being accused of “heresy” by the Council of Ephesus (431 AD), we must, first of all, emphasize that infallibility does not come from the councils, but from the Bible.

That teaching is never in the Bible, while the Bible does teach that the first Christian council, at Jerusalem (Acts 15) was indeed infallible, since the decision was described as follows:

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

1 Timothy 3:15 also teaches that “the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (not just Scripture) is infallible

If councils were infallible and inerrant, then there would be no argument as to which councils are valid, for they would all be valid equally. Proof of this is that Roman Catholics accept 21 councils, while the Orthodox adopt only seven.

People disagree because not all men arrive at truth in equal measure. Look at the multiple hundreds of Protestant denominations to see that. But because a lot of falsehood is floating around, it doesn’t follow that there is not one truth (and one divinely protected Church). Nestorius is heretical based on what the Bible teaches, before we ever get to what an ecumenical council (correctly) said about him.

Tertullian was considered a “heretic” by the Church of the time, he was excommunicated, joined the Montanists and then created his own religious segment, and Catholics and Evangelicals still cite abundantly the writings of the great theologian Tertullian in all his teachings.

This is nonsense through and through. Wikipedia (“Tertullian”) noted: “today most scholars reject the assertion that Tertullian left the mainstream church or was excommunicated” [citing source: Tertullian and Paul, by Todd D. Still & David E. Wilhite, A & C Black, 2012]. Co-author Wilhite observed:

The past half-century of scholarly investigation into the life of Tertullian has formed an overwhelming consensus that Tertullian was not a Montanist schismatic. (p. 46)

Wilhite noted (p. 47) that St. Jerome (De virg. vel. 53) was the first to claim that Tertullian had formally left the Catholic Church and committed schism. He was born (c. 343) about 113 years after Tertullian died (c. 225), so that obviously didn’t occur during Tertullian’s own lifetime, and they believe that there was “a complete lack of evidence that Tertullian was a schismatic” (p. 47). Wilhite asserts:

Tertullian remained, and repeatedly referred to himself as, within the church. (p. 48)

I have contended that dismissing Tertullian’s views as “Montanist” is premature . . . (p. 49)

So (I’m extremely curious) what scholarly source does Lucas draw from, where he learned that Tertullian was 1) called a “heretic” by the Church in his lifetime, and 2) was excommunicated?

Therefore, condemning Nestorius as a heretic for the simple fact that part of the Church of the time and a council considered him to be so, is at least an act of immaturity, committed by novice and amateur “apologists”, who think that the Church in the 5th century (Nestorius’ time) preached all the harmonic doctrines as found in the Scriptures!

Yes, we believe in ecumenical councils, which are infallible in some of their proclamations, following the scriptural model of the council of Jerusalem. Nestorius was formally and rightly declared to be a heretic by the ecumenical Council of Ephesus in 431.

Furthermore, the fact that the Church did not have an “official” position on this is evident, and that opinions were divided, which we can evidence in the Council of Ephesus itself. Bishop Celestine of Rome joined the side of Cyril, who took charge of the Council, opening the discussions without waiting for the arrival of the long-delayed entourage of Eastern bishops from Antioch, who were in favor of Nestorius. Therefore, they condemned Nestorius without giving the defense due opportunity and to hear both sides.

However, as the Council progressed, John I of Antioch and the eastern bishops arrived and were furious to learn that Nestorius had already been condemned. They gathered in a synod of their own and deposed Cyril. Both sides appealed to the Emperor and he initially ordered both of them exiled. However, Cyril eventually returned after bribing several members of the imperial court! This story is not told by them, for they only tell half of the story, hiding fundamental truths that belie their ploy.

Lucas obviously wants to emphasize the disagreements, but in his selectivity, neglects to point out that ultimately John I of Antioch and Cyril were reconciled (against Nestorius). The Protestant McClintock and Strong Biblical Cyclopedia (1880: “Nestorius”) stated:

Nestorius saw himself deserted by many of the bishops of his party; and though John of Antioch and a number of the Eastern bishops stood firm for a time, John and Cyril were ultimately brought to an agreement, and both retained their sees.

So yes, there was significant agreement, which is why both Catholics and Orthodox agree that Nestorianism was heretical and that Theotokos is a good and proper title. Nestorianism barely exists today in a formal sense. Encyclopaedia Britannica (“Nestorianism”) noted:

The modern Nestorian church is not Nestorian in the strict sense, though it venerates Nestorius and refuses to accept the title Theotokos for the Blessed Virgin.

The article continues:

In 1551 a number of Nestorians reunited with Rome and were called Chaldeans, the original Nestorians having been termed Assyrians. The Nestorian Church in India, part of the group known as the Christians of St. Thomas, allied itself with Rome (1599) and then split, half of its membership transferring allegiance to the Syrian Jacobite (monophysite) patriarch of Antioch (1653).

On the second issue, Luke 1:43 says absolutely nothing about Mary being “the mother of God”. To affirm this is to go beyond what is written (1 Cor.4:6). The biblical text only says “mother of my Lord”, not mother of God. In Greek, the word used for “Lord” is “Kyrios” (kuriou). This term, applied to Jesus in Luke 1:43, is not used to refer to God alone. Let’s look at some references to “Lord” (kuriou) in the New Testament without being specifically to Jehovah:

1st Owners of property are called Lord (Mt. 20:8, kurios is “owner” – NIV).

2nd The owners of houses were called Lord (Mk. 13:35, owner = kurios).

3rd The owners of slaves were called Lord (Mt. 10:24, lord = kurios).

4th The husbands were called Lord (1 Pet. 3:6, lord = kurios).

5th A son called his father Lord (Mt. 21:30, lord = kurios).

6th The Roman Emperor was called Lord (Acts 25:26, His Majesty = kurios).

7th The Roman authorities were called Lord (Mt. 27:63, lord = kurios).

So if anyone claims that Luke 1:43 is some “proof” that Mary is “the mother of God,” he is at the very least a gross immaturity and a blatant lack of biblical knowledge.

Kurios can indeed be used in a wider, “non-God” sense. But we know that both God the Father (Mt 11:25; 21:42; Mk 13:20; Lk 4:18; 1 Tim 6:15) and Jesus (Lk 2:11; Acts 7:59; 10:36; 1 Cor 12:3; Phil 2:10-11; Heb 1:10; Rev 17:14; 19:16) are called Kurios in the sense of LORD (= God). The Father and the Son are both called “Lord” in one passage (Mt 22:41-45; Rom 10:9-13). God the Father is called “Lord” (Kurios) and “God” (Theos) in one passage many times (Mt 22:37-38; Mk 12:29-30; Lk 1:32, 46-47, 68; 20:37; Acts 3:22; Rev 18:18). Likewise, Jesus is called “Lord” (Kurios) and “God” (Theos) in one passage (Jn 20:28-29; also true of Hebrews 1:8 and 1:10, if seen as one passage in the larger context; and God the Father uses both words for Jesus). See all of these passage and more fully written out in my paper, “Deity of Jesus: Called “Lord” (“Kurios”) and “God” (“Theos”)”.

“Mother of God” doesn’t rest scripturally only on Luke 1:43 anyway. It can easily be shown through straightforward deduction:

1) Mary is the mother of Jesus (Mt 1:18; 2:11, 13-14, 20-21; 12:46; 13:55; Mk 3:31-32; Lk 1:43; 2:33-34, 48, 51; 8:19-20; Jn 2:1, 3, 5, 12; 6:42; 19:25-26; Acts 1:14).

2) Jesus is “God” / Theos:

Matthew 1:23 “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel” (which means, God with us).

John 1:1, 14 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.. . . And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us . . .

John 20:28-29 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” [29] Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.”

Titus 2:13 awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,

Hebrews 1:8 But of the Son he says, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, the righteous scepter is the scepter of thy kingdom. [God the Father calls God the Son, “God”; The larger passage cites Ps 102:25-27, which is applied to God]

2 Peter 1:1 . . . in the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

1 John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, to know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.

3) Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God [the Son: Jesus].

And finally, on the third question, there is no historical evidence (I repeat: no evidence!) that goes back to the apostles and that tells us explicitly that Mary was the mother of God.

I just provided biblical proof, which is from the apostles. There is quite a bit of corroborating evidence from Church fathers prior to 431 as well.

The first and largest historical source that refers to the apostles that we have today is the New Testament, which makes 39 mentions of Mary as being “mother of Jesus” (Christotokos), but absolutely none of her being “mother of God” (Theotókos).

It’s an inexorable deduction, as shown.

The first who preached Theotókos was Irenaeus of Lyon, at the end of the 2nd century AD. Opinion in the Church was not uniform in this regard, and we have no apostolic or 1st to early 2nd century AD evidence to show that Christians at the time believed in Theotokos.

It’s in the Bible itself, as shown, and that is apostolic, first-century, and inspired, infallible revelation.

I always ask Catholics: “Did God die on the cross”?

Yes He did, because Jesus was God. God the Son died on the cross. God the Son alone became man. God the Son alone atoned for the sins of mankind by His sacrificial death on the cross.

The answers are always divided, most of the time dubious and contradictory, and not infrequently confusing.

That’s because there are apologists with differing degrees of knowledge answering.

The truth is that they themselves resist saying that God died on the cross, because to say that God dies is the height of blasphemy, nor does the devil believe in such a thing.

The Bible says both that Jesus died on the cross and was raised “from the dead” (Mt 17:9; 27:50; 28:7; Mk 9:9-10; 15:37; Lk 23:46; 24:46; Jn 2:22; 19:30; 20:9; 21:14; Acts 3:15; 4:10; 10:41; 13:30, 34; Rom 5:6, 8; 6:8-10; 8:34; Rom 14:9, 15; 1 Cor 8:11; 15:3; 2 Cor 5:15; Gal 2:21; 1 Thess 4:14; 5:10; 1 Pet 3:18; Rev 1:18; 2:8; see many more) and that He was God / Theos (see seven Bible passages not far above). So now the Bible is blasphemous?

But if God does not die,

God the Father and God the Holy Spirit don’t die, because they don’t have bodies. God the Son dies.

that means that Jesus died on the cross as a man.

He died as the incarnate God-man. This is all carnal thinking. Lucas just doesn’t get it. And that’s sad. Most historic Protestants have understood this.

And if the Jesus who walked here on earth was a man like all of us, then Mary is the mother of the human Jesus, not of God.

No; she is His mother, period, and He is God and man both. Mothers give birth to people, not natures or souls.

Did God die on the cross?

Yes, God the Son did.

Can God have a mother?

God the Son can, yes. And that’s what Theotokos refers to. Only the willfully ignorant or consciously heretical person could fail to see that.

The answer to both questions is a resounding “No”!

The answer to both questions is a resounding “Yes”!

In this way, we see that the Catholic claims to support the Marian dogma that Mary is the mother of God are nothing more than deception, with only an “appearance of wisdom” (Col.2:23), but that, when analyzed more closely, we see that they are “ingeniously invented fables” (2Pe.1:16).

Then I eagerly await Lucas’ answers to this article. The real “fun” and challenge in theological debates comes in the second round and after, where people are subject to cross-examination and counter-reply. I’m here, waiting, and will defend all that I wrote, or retract if shown to be wrong.

Now onto Lucas’ second article on the topic: “Deus tem mãe?” [Does God have a mother?] (5-12-13).

Today, May 12, 2013, is Mother’s Day, and, as it could not be otherwise, an old discussion comes to the fore again: does God, the Eternal Creator and First Cause of everything, also have a mother?

No; God the Father obviously does not. No one with an IQ higher than a slug ever said otherwise.

Without wanting to delve too deeply into the subject, which I have also addressed here, here and here, I have elaborated the following ten points that clearly indicate that no, God does not have a mother:

1st Because, in the first place, to be considered a “mother of God” we must take into account the trinitarian concept of God. God is not limited to just the Father, just the Son or just the Holy Spirit, but the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is the one true God. Therefore, for Mary to be considered as “mother of God” she would also have to be mother of the Father and the Holy Spirit.

That’s not true at all. Each Person of the Holy Trinity is fully God, but there are a few differences between them (only the Son is incarnate and takes on flesh; the Spirit proceeds from the son: filioque). What is said of any of them is said of God. Again, Lucas is thinking in carnal terms, not spiritual, biblical terms. Theology and spirituality do not reduce merely to Greek logic. It’s not philosophy. It’s a religious faith. And biblical / Hebraic “both/and” thought is very different from Greek, secular “either/or” (and too often, Protestant) thinking. Lucas here and throughout these two papers reasons like an atheist, not a believing trinitarian Christian.

Otherwise, we could use exactly the same syllogism used by Catholics against themselves:

a) Mary is not the mother of the Father;
b) The Father is God;
c) Therefore, Mary is not the mother of God.

a) Mary is not the mother of the Holy Spirit;
b) The Holy Spirit is God;
c) Therefore, Mary is not the mother of God.

Once again, I reiterate that Theotokos, the word in question, means “God-bearer.” Only one Person of the Triune Godhead (God the Son) was born of and from a human mother. Mary can’t give birth to eternal spirits. If we had been present at Jesus’ birth, and got to hold baby Jesus, we would say, “this is Jesus: the Person that Mary gave birth to, and is the mother of, Who is Lord, Messiah [Christ] and Immanuel [“God with us”]”. No one in their right mind would say, “this is the human nature that Mary gave birth to.” Even saying or writing it sounds utterly ridiculous. But this is what the hyper-rationalistic Nestorianism entails.

Lucas again reasons like an atheist here, not a Christian. I would have opposed him just as vigorously on this point when I was an evangelical Protestant, because these things are plain in Scripture (i.e., to one who thinks spiritually, not carnally) and because one of my first great apologetics projects in the early 1980s was compiling the biblical evidences for the divinity / deity of Christ and the Holy Trinity.

2nd Furthermore, even in the case of Jesus Christ, we must consider that Mary was his mother during the 33 years he was here on earth, and not in eternity.

She will remain His mother then, just as my own mother or my wife’s mother will remain so for eternity, and I will remain my children’s father and my grandchildrens’ grandfather.

Mary cannot be considered as the mother of Jesus as he already existed from eternity

She became His mother when He came down from heaven and took on flesh (incarnation) and human nature in addition to His Divine Nature that He had always possessed.

and she was not even born yet, nor in the condition of Creator/creature. In order to claim that Mary remains the mother of Christ, it would be necessary to prove, first of all, that Jesus maintained the same earthly nature even after having already entered the heavens, so that Mary is biologically the mother of God.

It’s implied that He will still have His body (then glorified and able to go through walls) and wounds, because He did in His post-Resurrection appearances. It’s also implied in what St. John saw in heaven, after Jesus’ death, resurrection, and ascension:

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

And one passage states it outright:

Philippians 3:21 who will change our lowly body to be like his glorious body . . .

It happens, however, that God is spirit (Jn.4:24),

God the Father and God the Holy Spirit are spirits. Jesus is not, since His incarnation. The meaning of resurrection is a renewed, reborn physical body. This is true of Jesus, and it is true of us, who will be “like him” after we die. Denying this is blasphemous heresy.

and a spirit does not have flesh and bones (Lk.24:39).

That’s right. Jesus does have flesh and bones after His resurrection. He ate fish. He was embraced. Thomas put his hand in His wounds.

Jesus, in His heavenly condition, is no longer in the flesh (Heb.5:7),

Nonsense. “In the days of his flesh” in Hebrews 5:7 simply means “His earthly life.”

and therefore does not have human genetics, which is why Mary is no longer biologically linked to Him.

He has the same human genetics that He had from the day of His birth. He has DNA received from Mary.

3rd Furthermore, to say that God has a mother because Mary was the mother of Jesus on earth implies other even greater absurdities, such as, for example, that God has a father or stepfather who is Joseph, brothers (or “cousins”, as the Catholics prefer) and other relatives.

Paul referred to “brothers [literally, cousins] of the Lord” (1 Cor 9:5). And “Lord” (Kurios) is continuing the usage of “LORD” in the Old Testament which stood for “YHWH”: the name of God that God revealed to Moses at the burning bush.

And along the same lines, Mary’s mother is God’s grandmother, Mary’s grandmother is God’s great-grandmother, Mary’s great-grandmother is God’s great-grandmother, and so on in an endless succession until we get to Eve. So Eve would be related to God to a very distant degree! What is more rational: to think that God has a mother, has a brother in the flesh, has a father, has cousins, has a grandmother, great-grandmother and great-grandmother (and all this in a biological and genetic sense), or to believe that all these mentioned are just creatures of God, making the correct distinction already quoted between the heavenly and the earthly?

Only one person bore God: Mary. Every other “relation” is in a limited sense only. None of them were conceived by the Holy Spirit as Jesus was.

4th Taking into account that one is only the mother of what she generates, we must ask: did Mary generate the divinity of Christ? No!

Of course Mary didn’t “generate” Jesus’ Divine Nature, which is eternal. We fully agree. Our mothers didn’t generate our souls, either, which were direct creations of God at the time of our conceptions. But they are still “our mothers” not merely the mothers of our bodies: which no one ever says, because it’s silly and stupid. Analogously, Mary is Jesus’ mother, because He is one Man, with a Divine Nature and a Human Nature. He can’t be divided. Mothers also didn’t generate the fathers’ DNA that every child receives.

Mary generated only the human nature of Jesus, while he was “in the days of his flesh” (Heb.5:7).

That’s not at issue, so it’s a non sequitur in this discussion. But she helped generate His physical body, too. Jesus probably looked like Mary.

The divine nature of Christ has always existed, it is eternal, it comes from long before Mary even existed.

Indeed.

Claiming that Mary is the mother of God implies falling into two absurdities: that of claiming that she can be the mother of something that was not generated by her, or that Mary did generate the divinity of Christ.

It implies no such thing, correctly understood, and as explained above. Lucas simply doesn’t understand it, and he won’t until he stops thinking carnally and approaches it biblically and spiritually.

In the first case, Mary would be the mother only of the humanity of Jesus, not of the divinity (and, therefore, the mother of the man Jesus, not of the divinity of Christ), while in the second case Mary would have to be previous to the divine nature of Christ to have generated her, which is impossible, since Jesus is Creator and Mary is a creature.

Those are not the only two choices, as shown. She is the mother of a Person, the God-Man Jesus, Who has two natures.

5th Placing Mary on the level of “mother of God” (Theotokos)

She bore God the Son. Or does Luca dispute that, too?

is an abominable heresy that even amounts to blasphemy, on the same level as pagan peoples who always had a “mother-goddess” who was considered the “mother of God” for these people.

They are not using the term in the same sense and meaning that we hold.

Catholics reject the title of “mother goddess”, but accept that of “mother of God”,

That’s because Mary isn’t a goddess, as if she were a female member of the trinity or a “Quaternity.” She’s the Mother of God the Son.

in an attempt to camouflage their clear connection with pagan peoples, such as Isis, worshiped in Egypt as the “mother of God”.

Again, that is vastly different from what we believe. It’s a dumb, clueless comparison.

Interestingly, she also held the title of “Queen of Heaven” (Jer.7:18; 44:17-25), exactly the same title Catholics today ascribe to Mary, in addition to “Our Lady”. This clear syncretism with paganism shows that considering Mary as the mother of God is not merely an affirmation of the divinity of Christ, as Catholics claim, but the defense of a pagan religious syncretism in which Mary is worshiped with the same titles and attributions that the pagans offered to their mother goddess, the Queen of Heaven.

That’s a lie and Lucas can’t prove any sort of equation with paganism, which is why he doesn’t attempt it. He just repeats the same tired old anti-Catholic whoppers that (sadly) millions of theologically undereducated, gullible people have swallowed without thinking for 500 years now.

6th Although this question is delicate and may scandalize many, we should ask: Does God have a penis? Of course not.

Of course God the Father doesn’t, being a spirit.

But Jesus’ human nature had.

Natures don’t have a penis. Men do.

Failing to clearly differentiate as two distinct extremes the human nature of Christ on earth from the divine nature of Christ in Heaven would lead us to innumerable absurdities, going far beyond the aforementioned.

I haven’t seen any yet in Catholic, Orthodox, and mainstream Protestant thinking. But I’ve seen numerous ones in Lucas’ carnal thinking and the ridiculous conclusions he comes up with. It’s sad to observe.

If Mary is the mother of God because she was the mother of Jesus for 33 years while he was in the flesh here on earth, then God has all the physical characteristics of the Christ-man.

God the Son, Jesus does; only glorified now.

But if these characteristics are no longer part of Him, as God, then how can Mary be considered the mother of God?

Lucas wrongly assumes that He doesn’t have a body because he has adopted the heresy of denying that Jesus maintains His resurrected, glorious body forever. I would venture to guess that 95% of Protestants disagree with Him that Jesus is now supposedly a spirit again, rather than a gloriously resurrected body resembling what He looked like during His 33 years on earth. It’s blasphemous and heretical and has no biblical basis.

7th If Mary is the mother of God because she was the mother of Jesus on earth, then we should conclude that God died on the cross. Now, this is absurd, since the Bible teaches that God is immortal, He cannot die under any circumstances (1 Tim.6:16). So, if God is immortal and cannot die, it logically follows that God did not die on the cross. And, if God did not die on the cross, Mary cannot be called the mother of God, since she had been the mother of exactly that Jesus who was nailed and killed on a cross.

We’ve already been through all this. It’s just repeating carnal nonsense.

8th Another similar question is: Was God born after nine months?

Jesus, God the Son was born (as my patience quickly reaches it’s limits . . .).

If so, this would lead us to believe that God had a beginning, which totally goes against the universal theological belief that God is the First Cause, is the Eternal, the one who had no beginning and will have no end of days (Heb.7 :3). Therefore, God did not have a beginning, He was not born from the womb of Mary. And if God was not born after nine months, that means Mary can be considered the mother of the Son of God, or the mother of “the man Jesus Christ” (1 Tim.2:5), but not the mother of God if God was not born. in her belly. Mother of God is a wrong terminology, which may well be replaced by several others that may properly apply.

This is too silly and ridiculous to be worthy of any response. But I’ve already essentially addressed it above. Two more to go . . .

9th We must also remember that Jesus emptied himself when he became man, as Paul says: “but he emptied himself, becoming a servant” (Phil.2:7). He “did not count it as usurpation to be equal with God” (v.6).

He was humble. He never ceased to be God.

In the preserved record of the apostle Thaddeus, who lived with Christ, we confirm the interpretation that this emptying involved deposing his own divinity. This was recorded by Eusebius of Caesarea, . . .

This is the ahistorical material in Eusebius referred to as the Abgar Legend. The Wikipedia article on this summarizes:

The letters, while taken seriously in many Christian traditions for centuries, are generally classed as pseudepigrapha by modern Christians and scholars. . . . The letters were likely composed in the early 4th century. . . .

[T]he origins of the story are far still from certain, although the stories as recorded seem to have been shaped by the controversies of the third century CE, especially as a response to Bardaisan.

This is not a serious argument, and I refuse to give it any attention beyond what I just gave it: to expose it’s true nature.

Mary was the mother of Jesus while he was emptied of his attributes of divinity, and not as God.

Sheer nonsense. This blasphemous falsehood is based on the spurious documentation of the Abgar Legend, not Holy Scripture or legitimate sacred tradition.

This explains why He did not know the day of His own return (Mk.13:32), for He had already emptied Himself of the attribute of omniscience,

Nonsense again. Jesus was always omniscient in His Divine Nature. My friend David Palm did a master’s thesis on this question: “The Signs of His Coming”: for Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois (1993). He wrote it as an evangelical Protestant, later became a Catholic, and recently noted that he would change nothing in it. I summarized his arguments in this paper:

Seidensticker Folly #58: Jesus Erred on Time of 2nd Coming? (with David Palm) [10-7-20]

What body of water did Peter walk on at Jesus' invitation?

Select your answer to see how you score.