2025-07-17T12:48:53-04:00

Last updated on: July 17, 2025 at 12:48 pm   By
0 Comments

Including Luther’s Qualified “Faith Alone”; Catholic Soteriology Accurately Presented; Meritorious Works; Bible vs. “Faith Alone”

Photo credit: self-designed cover for my 2010 book.

 

Norman L. Geisler (1932 – 2019) was an American evangelical Protestant theologian, philosopher, and apologist. He obtained an M.A. in theology from Wheaton College and a Ph.D. in philosophy from Loyola University, and made scholarly contributions to the subjects of classical Christian apologetics, systematic theology, philosophy of religion, Calvinism, Catholicism, biblical inerrancy, Bible difficulties, biblical miracles, the resurrection of Jesus, ethics, and other topics. He wrote or edited more 90 books and hundreds of articles.

Dr. Geisler was the Chairman of Philosophy of Religion at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (1970–79) and Professor of Systematic Theology at Dallas Theological Seminary (1979–88) and a key figure in founding the Evangelical Philosophical Society. He also co-founded Southern Evangelical Seminary. He was known as an evangelical Thomist and considered himself a “moderate Calvinist”. He was not an anti-Catholic (i.e., he didn’t deny that Catholicism was fully a species of Christianity).

This is one of a series of comprehensive replies to his book, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences (co-author, Ralph E. MacKenzie, graduate of Bethel Theological Seminary-West; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 1995). It’s available online in a public domain version, which has no page numbers, so I will utilize page numbers from my paperback copy, for the sake of full reference. I consider it the best Protestant critique of Catholicism (especially in terms of biblical arguments) that I have ever found, from any time period. The arguments are, for the most part, impressively presented, thought-provoking, respectful, respectable, and worthy of serious consideration (which I’m now giving them).

I’ll be concentrating on the eight sections of Part Two: “Areas of Doctrinal Differences” (202 pages). These installments will be listed and linked on my Calvinism & General Protestantism web page, in section XVII: “Catholics and Protestants” (second from the end). Dr. Geisler’s and Ralph MacKenzie’s words will be in blue. My biblical citations are from RSV.

*****

Before Luther, the standard Augustinian position on justification stressed intrinsic justification . . . . Intrinsic justification argues that the believer is made righteous by God’s grace, as compared to extrinsic justification, by which a sinner is forensically declared righteous (at best, a subterranean strain in pre-Reformation Christendom). (p. 222)

Here, Dr. Geisler bears witness to the fact that the distinctive and novel “faith alone” Protestant soteriology scarcely existed before the 16th century. Thanks for the confirmation! Catholics have been making the same point for 500 years. Geisler made similar points in other parts of his book:

For Augustine, justification included both the beginnings of one’s righteousness before God and its subsequent perfection — the event and the process. What later became the Reformation concept of ‘sanctification’ then is effectively subsumed under the aegis of justification. Although he believed that God initiated the salvation process, it is incorrect to say that Augustine held to the concept of ‘forensic’ justification. This understanding of justification is a later development of the Reformation . . . (p. 85)

One can be saved without believing that imputed righteousness (or forensic justification) is an essential part of the true gospel. Otherwise, few people were saved between the time of the apostle Paul and the Reformation, since scarcely anyone taught imputed righteousness (or forensic justification) during that period! . . . . . (p. 502)

See also my article, including the leading Protestant historian of justification, Alister McGrath’s almost identical opinion: Sola Fide (Faith Alone) Nonexistent Before the Protestant Revolt in 1517 (Geisler & McGrath) [Catholic365, 10-31-23].

Geisler even notes that the classic “faith alone” view was not, strictly speaking, initiated even by Martin Luther:

Melanchthon, Luther’s great systematic theologian, did use forensic terms to describe justification. (p. 222)

Geisler commendably points out some other qualifications in Luther’s own views, which is rare in Protestant “Reformation” apologetics. These highlighted aspects reveal that Luther’s position was closer to the Catholic belief regarding justification than most people are aware:

Amid the Protestant stress on Luther’s discovery it is sometimes forgotten that Luther also believed in a progressive sense of the word “justification.” For example, he said: “For we understand that a man who is justified is not already righteous but moving toward righteousness (WA 391, 83; LW 34, 152).” Further, “Our justification is not yet complete…. It is still under construction. It shall, however, be completed in the resurrection of the dead (WA 391, 252).” This sense of progressive justification is what many Protestants call “sanctification,” the process by which we are made righteous, not an act by which one is declared righteous. Toon adds, “Justification by faith is both an event and a process. What later Protestants were to divide, Luther kept together. He is quite clear that there is a moment when a sinner is actually justified by faith. He then has the righteousness of another, the alien righteousness of Christ, imputed to him.” However, “this is the beginning of a journey toward a time (following the resurrection of the dead in the age to come) when he will in fact possess a perfect righteousness created in him by the Spirit of God.” Luther also suggested that the believer is righteous in the eyes of God and yet sinful at the same time. “For Luther, faith is the right (or righteous) relationship to God. Sin and righteousness thus coexist; we remain sinners inwardly, but we are righteous extrinsically in the sight of God.” However, “Luther is not necessarily implying that this co-existence of sin and righteousness is a permanent condition.” Instead, for Luther, “the existence of sin does not negate our status as Christians.” (pp. 223-224; Geisler cites at length Peter Toon, Foundations for Faith [Westchester, Ill., Crossway, 1983,  58-59)

I’ve pointed this out, too, for many years. See, for example, my articles:

Luther’s “Snow-Covered Dunghill” (Myth?) [10-5-05]

Martin Luther: Good Works Prove Authentic Faith [4-16-08]

Luther on Theosis & Sanctification [11-23-09]

Martin Luther: Faith Alone is Not Lawless Antinomianism [2-28-10]

Merit & Sanctification: Martin Luther’s Point of View [11-10-14]

Calvinist Origin of Luther’s (?) “Snow-Covered Dunghill”? [5-14-19]

Trent understands justification in two senses (the second corresponding to the Reformed doctrine of sanctification), this second justification requires good works as a condition for ultimate justification. “It is thus both possible and necessary to keep the law of God.” . . . Trent understood justification in two ways: the first and second phases which Catholic scholars refer to as “initial” and “progressive” justification respectively. (p. 225)

Very good. I have noted this, too:

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

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

Trent Doesn’t Utterly Exclude Imputation (Kenneth Howell) [July 1996]

Geisler makes another very helpful and ecumenical observation, accurately conveying Catholic doctrine (it’s refreshing to see):

Trent states that our initial justification must be seen as a “gift.” Thus, it comes as a surprise to many Protestants that Roman Catholics believe that “If anyone shall say that man can be justified before God by his own works which are done . . . without divine grace through Christ Jesus: let him be Further, “nothing that precedes justification, whether faith or works, merits the grace of justification. For if it is by grace, it is no more by works; otherwise, as the apostle says, grace is no more grace.” The new Catechism of the Catholic Church says clearly: “The merits of our good works are gifts of the divine goodness” (2009).

It is only fair to point out here that when Catholic scholars cite James 2:24 (“we are justified by works”) they do not mean this initial justification which comes only by grace. Rather, they are referring to progressive justification (growth in righteousness) which Protestants call sanctification. Trent does assert, however, that works are necessary for salvation in the progressive and eventual senses, making it dogma that “by his good works the justified man really acquires a claim to supernatural reward from God.” It is precisely here that Catholics and evangelicals disagree. (p. 226; italics his own, in citing Trent)

At the end, Geisler, like a good Protestant, denies meritorious works. In so doing, he opposes much Scripture:

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Scripture teaches that grace and meritorious works are mutually exclusive. . . . neither merit in the strict sense of what is justly earned nor merit which is based in part on what is earned but goes beyond that by God’s goodness is compatible with grace. (p. 230)
*
Really? I must have missed that. Here are some related passages that I have found, that teach otherwise:
Romans 15:17-18 . . . In Christ Jesus, then, I have reason to be proud of my work for God. [18] 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 3:6-9 I planted, Apol’los watered, but God gave the growth. [7] So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. [8] He who plants and he who waters are equal, and each shall receive his wages according to his labor. [9] For we are God’s fellow workers . . .
*
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.
*
Philippians 2:12-13 . . . work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; [13] for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
*
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,
St. Paul doesn’t dichotomize faith and good works, as Dr. Geisler does. They go hand-in-hand. And according to Jesus we receive rewards for good works not just in heaven, but also in this life:
Mark 10:29-30 Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, [30] who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, . . .
St. Augustine said that our merit was merely God crowning his own gifts. That’s what the Catholic Church teaches. It ultimately doesn’t come from us; it comes from God, giving us the grace to do any good thing (Ps 51:7, 10; 84:11). But we can and should willingly participate and do what He wants us to do, and God rewards that.
*
Works are not a condition of salvation; salvation is a gift of grace received by faith alone apart from meritorious works. None of us works for an inheritance; it is something graciously given to us by a benefactor. If, however, we are “rewarded” for our work by salvation or eternal life, then it is not truly and solely God’s grace, despite Catholic protests to the contrary. . . . the New Testament clearly speaks against obtaining salvation (whether justification or sanctification) as a reward (i.e., wage) for work done. (p. 230)
*
Neither initial righteousness (justification) nor progressive righteousness (sanctification) is conditioned on meritorious works. Rather, both are received by grace through faith apart from any works of righteousness. (p. 237)
*
Works-for-reward come under sanctification, not justification. They are what we do as a result of being saved, not what we do in order to be saved (i.e., to
receive the gift of eternal life). (p. 238)
*
If we must live a life of sanctification as a condition for our ultimate justification (i.e., to get to heaven), then works have nullified grace. Works have become a de facto condition for heaven. But we cannot work for our salvation (Rom. 4:5; Eph. 2:8- 9); we can only work from it (Eph. 2:10). (p. 240)
*
I have collected a hundred Bible passages that contradict this understanding. Here are some of the clearest:
Matthew 7:18-21 A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. [19] Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. [20] Thus you will know them by their fruits. [21] “Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.. . .

Matthew 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 19:16-17, 20-21 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, “. . . If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” . . . [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.” (in the parallel passage Lk 10:27 the ruler says, “. . . You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” And Jesus replied, “You have answered right; do this, and you will live.”)

Matthew 25:34-35, 41-43, 46 Then the King will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; [35] for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, . . . [41] 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; [42] for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, [43] 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.’ . . . [46] And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Luke 3:9 (+ Mt 3:10; 7:19) . . . every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

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; . . .

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

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

Galatians 6:7-9 Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. [8] 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. [9] And let us not grow weary in well-doing, for in due season we shall reap, if we do not lose heart.

1 Timothy 6:18-19 They are to do good, to be rich in good deeds, liberal and generous, [19] 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,

James 2:14, 17, 20, 22, 24, 26 What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? . . . [17] So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. . . . [20] . . . faith apart from works is barren . . . [22] You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, . . . [24] You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. . . . [26] . . . faith apart from works is dead.

Revelation 20:12-13 . . . And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, by what they had done. [13] . . . and all were judged by what they had done.

The following two passages also explicitly teach that sanctification is directly related to salvation, in a way that Protestantism expressly denies:
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.
*
2 Thessalonians 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.
In the Gospel of John only one condition is laid down for obtaining eternal life: belief (e.g., John 3:16, 36; 5:24; 20:31). If salvation were not by faith alone then John’s whole message would be misleading, since it states that there is only one condition for salvation when actually there are two: faith plus works. Indeed, John states explicitly that the only “work” necessary for salvation is to believe. When asked, “What can we do to accomplish the works of God?” Jesus replied, “This is the work of God, that you believe in the one he sent” (John 6:29, emphasis added). There simply is nothing else we may do in exchange for our salvation. Jesus did it all (John 19:30; Heb. 10:14). (p. 231)
*
Dr. Geisler has somehow overlooked these three passages in the Gospel of John that do not fit at all into his extrabiblical schema:
John 3:36 He who believes [pistuo] in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey [apitheo] the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him. (1 Pet 2:7 uses the same parallelism, with pistuo and apitheo, though RSV translates the latter as “do not believe.” KJV renders it as “disobedient” in the same way that Jn 3:36 and several other verses [Rom 1:30; 2 Tim 3:2; Titus 1:6; 3:3] do)
*
John 5:28-29 . . . all who are in the tombs will hear his voice [29] and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.
*
John 15:2, 4-6, 8 Every branch of mine that bears no fruit, he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. . . . [4] Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. [5] I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. [6] If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned. . . . [8] By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be my disciples.
We find more of the same in the epistles written by the same St. John:

1 John 2:3-5 And by this we may be sure that we know him, if we keep his commandments. [4] He who says “I know him” but disobeys his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him; [5] but whoever keeps his word, in him truly love for God is perfected. By this we may be sure that we are in him:

1 John 3:24 All who keep his commandments abide in him, and he in them. . . .

2 John 1:8 Look to yourselves, that you may not lose what you have worked for, but may win a full reward.

*
***
*
Practical Matters:  I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become a Catholic or to return to the Catholic Church, or better understand some doctrines and why Catholics believe them. If you believe my full-time apostolate is worth supporting, please seriously consider a much-needed monthly or one-time financial contribution. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV).
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle and 100% tax-deductible donations if desired), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information.
*
You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my two YouTube channels, Catholic Bible Highlights and Lux Veritatis (featuring documentaries), in partnership with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos and documentaries), and/or by signing up to receive notice for new articles on this blog. Just type your email address on the sidebar to the right (scroll down quite a bit), where you see, “Sign Me Up!” Thanks a million!
*
***
*
Photo credit: self-designed cover for my 2010 book, Biblical Catholic Salvation: “Faith Working Through Love” .
*
Summary: I address various soteriological topics, including Luther’s qualified “faith alone”; Geisler’s accurate portrayal of Catholic soteriology, meritorious works, and Bible vs. “faith alone”.
2025-07-01T11:51:38-04:00

Last updated on: July 1, 2025 at 11:51 am   By
0 Comments

Photo credit: The Annunciation (1644), by Philippe de Champaigne (1602-1674) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

1) Luke 2:7 (RSV) And she gave birth to her first-born son . . .

Critics of the perpetual virginity of Mary (“PVM”) contend that “first-born” in Luke 2:7  is proof of  — or at least strongly implies — that the Blessed Virgin Mary bore additional children. But “first-born” in Hebrew (bekor / בְּכוֹר: Strong’s word #1060) referred primarily to the first male son who “opened the womb”. Hence:

2) Numbers 3:12 Behold, I have taken the Levites from among the people of Israel instead of every first-born that opens the womb among the people of Israel. (cf. “opens the womb” in Ex 13:12; 34:19; Num 18:15)

Bekor did not include within itself reference to any additional children. The fact that this first male child was automatically called (when there were no other children) “first-born” shows by common sense that it applied whether or not additional children were in mind. In other words, it didn’t mean, by definition, “first of many” because if indeed it necessarily implied other children, then it could only have been used after those children had been born, in retrospect. But in fact this was not the practice. This understanding was the same in the New Testament, as shown by this passage:

3) Luke 2:22-23 And when the time came for their purification according to the law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord [23] (as it is written in the law of the Lord, “Every male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord”)

The word in Luke 2:7 is prototokos / πρωτότοκος: Strong’s word #4416. Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (one-volume edition, p. 967) states about its meaning in this verse: “Of itself it does not necessarily imply that Mary has other children.” Likewise, the Protestant Hastings Bible Dictionary (“Brethren of the Lord [2]”) concurs:

πρωτότοκος [prototokos / firstborn] among the Jews was a technical term, meaning ‘that which openeth the womb’ (Exodus 34:19 ff.), and does not imply the birth of other offspring.

4) Matthew 1:24-25 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife, [25] but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus.

This verse has been used as a supposed “proof” that Mary didn’t remain a virgin after the birth of Jesus, and that it necessarily implies a future change from what was the state of affairs before, but it proves no such thing, because in both English grammar and biblical usage it can simply mean “up to the time of” with no reference to the time after that. Compare also the following similar usages:

5) 1 Samuel 16:23 And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to the day of her death.

So she had one after her death?

6) Matthew 11:12 From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and men of violence take it by force.

Violence clearly didn’t cease at that time; it was ongoing.

7) Philippians 1:5 thankful for your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now.

So Paul wasn’t thankful to the Philippian Christians anymore after the time he wrote that?

8) 1 Timothy 4:13 Till I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching.

Are they supposed to stop doing so after he arrives?

9) John 19:26-27 When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” [27] Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.

Mary is committed to the care of the Apostle John by Jesus from the cross. Many Protestant interpreters agree with the Catholic view that Jesus likely wouldn’t have done this if He had brothers (who would all have been younger than He was). It would have been a rank insult to these siblings, if they had actually existed: especially the fact that a non-son was called Mary’s “son” by Jesus. Or are we to believe that they had all suddenly died in the space of the three years of Jesus’ ministry or immigrated to Egypt or something?

Renowned Anglican scholar J. B. Lightfoot even thought that this consideration by itself decisively disproved the “siblings” theory. Some try to evade this difficulty by claiming that all of His siblings didn’t believe in Him; therefore, Jesus chose one of His disciples. But that’s simply a gratuitous assumption and special pleading. The Bible doesn’t state such a thing, and that wouldn’t have been relevant in Jewish culture, anyway: children took care of older parents.

10) Luke 1:30-31, 34 And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. [31] And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, . . . [34] And Mary said to the angel, “How shall this be, since I have no husband?”

Catholics believe that Mary’s reply to the angel Gabriel indicates a prior vow of consecrated virginity. St. Augustine, in his work Holy Virginity (4, 4), wrote: “Surely, she would not say, ‘How shall this be?’ unless she had already vowed herself to God as a virgin . . . If she intended to have intercourse, she wouldn’t have asked this question!”

11) The Greek word for “brother” in the New Testament is adelphos / ἀδελφός: Strong’s word #80). The well-known Protestant linguistic reference An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, by W.E. Vine, defines it as follows:

Adelphos: denotes a brother, or near kinsman; in the plural, a community based on identity of origin or life. It is used of: 1) male children of the same parents . . .; 2) male descendants of the same parents, Acts 7:23, 26; Hebrews 7:5; . . .4) people of the same nationality, Acts 3:17, 22; Romans 9:3 . . .; 5) any man, a neighbour, Luke 10:29; Matthew 5:22, 7:3; 6) persons united by a common interest, Matthew 5:47;  7) persons united by a common calling, Revelation 22:9; 8) mankind, Matthew 25:40; Hebrews 2:17; 9) the disciples, and so, by implication, all believers, Matthew 28:10; John 20:17; 10) believers, apart from sex, Matthew 23:8; Acts 1:15; Romans 1:13; 1 Thessalonians 1:4; Revelation 19:10 (the word ‘sisters’ is used of believers, only in 1 Timothy 5:2) . . .

It is evident, therefore, from the range of possible definitions of adelphos, that Jesus’ “brothers” need not necessarily be siblings of Jesus on linguistic grounds, as many commentators, learned and unlearned (rather remarkably), seem to assume uncritically (some even foolishly thinking that this word alone disproves the PVM).

12) Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit;

Critics of the PVM think this proves that Joseph and Mary had normal marital (conjugal) relations after the birth of Jesus. But the Greek word for “came together” (sunerchomai / συνέρχομαι: Strong’s word #4905), has a wide range of meaning, almost always not about sex. In fact, if we look at all the New Testament usages of this word, only one instance out of the 29 besides Matthew 1:18 is plainly sexual in meaning, in context (1 Cor 7:5).

In 28 other cases, its use is clearly not sexual in nature (Mk 3:20; 6:33; 14:53; Lk 5:15; 23:55; Jn 11:33; 18:20; Acts 1:6, 21; 2:6; 5:16; 9:39; 10:23, 27, 45; 11:12; 15:38; 16:13; 19:32; 21:16, 22; 25:17; 28:17; 1 Cor 11:17, 18, 20, 33, 34; 14:23, 26). It could simply have referred to the time they would actually live together as a married couple (because they didn’t during betrothal); when the husband takes her into his home (cf. Dt 20:7).

Another counter-argument is to list different translations where  sunerchomai in this passage does not (necessarily) have a sexual connotation:

Phillips / New English Bible / REB: “before their marriage”

Today’s English Version / Goodspeed / CEV: “before they were married”

Barclay: “before they became man and wife”

Jerusalem: “before they came to live together”

Williams: “before they had lived together”

NRSV / Beck: “before they lived together”

Neither “marriage” nor “living together” means “engaging in sexual relations.” Granted, the latter usually is associated with the former, but they don’t mean the same thing, which is at issue. If these translators had thought that the latter was what the author (or context) intended or required, then clearly they wouldn’t have translated as they did. But no less than eleven translations (only the Jerusalem Bible has a connection with Catholicism) render the word in this fashion: in a way that does not support the “anti-perpetual virginity” position.

I am happy to yield to their professional judgment, as shown in the ways that they decided to translate the word sunerchomai in this instance. And the phrase “come together” itself does not necessarily mean sexuality (in English) either. It could, but it’s not clear-cut. Moreover, there is no translation I have located that expresses a sexual meaning beyond any reasonable or linguistic doubt.

13) In the King James Version, Jacob is called the “brother” of his Uncle Laban (Gen 29:15 / 29:10). The same thing occurs with regard to Lot and Abraham (Genesis 14:14 / 11:26-27). The Revised Standard Version uses “kinsman” at 29:15 and 14:14.

14) Neither Hebrew nor Aramaic has a word for “cousin.” Although the New Testament was written in Greek, which does have such a word, the literal rendering of the Hebrew word ach, which was used by the first disciples and Jesus, is indeed adelphos, the literal equivalent of the English “brother.”

15) In Luke 2:41-51: the story of Mary and Joseph taking Jesus to the temple at the age of twelve, it’s fairly obvious that Jesus is the only child. Since everyone agrees He was the first child of Mary, if there were up to five or more siblings, as some maintain (arguing, for example, from Matthew 13:55), they were nowhere to be found at this time.

This would mean that Mary had no further children for at least twelve years after Jesus (in the “siblings / Helvidian theory”). Mary was estimated to have been sixteen at His birth, which would then make her still only around 28 at this time. We’re to believe that it makes sense that she bore her first child at sixteen and then had no more from 16-28, and then had four or more after that? That’s not very plausible.

And when Mary said to Jesus, “your father and I have been looking for you anxiously” (2:48), wouldn’t she have said, “your father and I and your brothers an sisters . . .”? When Joseph and Mary were looking for Jesus, it doesn’t say they went to His supposed five brothers and four sisters (I would certainly do that first, as a parent); rather, “they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintances” (Lk 2:44). When they set out for Jerusalem, the Bible states that “he [Jesus] went down with them and came to Nazareth” (2:51). When they left, it’s described as, “And he went down with them and came to Nazareth . . . ” (2:51). Now it’s true that this doesn’t technically rule out siblings, but it sure doesn’t positively suggest them, does it?

16) Jesus Himself uses “brethren” in the larger sense. In Matthew 23:8 He calls the “crowds” and His “disciples” (23:1) “brethren.” In other words, they are each other’s “brothers” (that is, the brotherhood of Christians).

17) In Matthew 12:49-50 Jesus calls His disciples and all who do the will of His Father “my brothers.”

18) Mark 15:40 . . . Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salo’me

19) Matthew 27:56 . . . Mary the mother of James and Joseph, . . .

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

This other Mary (Matthew 27:61, 28:1) is called the Blessed Virgin Mary’s adelphe above (it isn’t likely that there were two women named “Mary” in one family, so she was likely a sister-in-law — 2nd century Hegesippus, as recorded in Eusebius, held that Clopas was the brother of St. Joseph — or a cousin: adelphe can be used for both).

21-22) Matthew 13:55-56 (cf. Mark 6:3) mentions “his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas” and “his sisters,” but in Mark 15:40 and Matthew 27:56 above, James and Joseph are also called sons of Mary, wife of Clopas. Therefore, at least those two aren’t Jesus’ siblings. But all are called “brothers.”

23) It’s true 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.

24) 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, we’re told that here he must mean sibling, because he uses the word adelphos? That doesn’t make any sense.

Paul understood what all these words meant, yet he continued to use adelphos even in those instances which had a non-sibling application (just as Catholics argue was the case in the Gospels, with Jesus’ “brothers”). The fallacious linguistic argument often used tries to set forth the illogical notion that if a writer knows of a more specific word and doesn’t use it (i.e., anepsios or sungenis), then he must mean a more literal sense for the word that he does use (adelphos). But Paul’s use of adelphos in a sense other than sibling, explodes this argument.

25) Some folks think it is a compelling argument that sungenis isn’t used to describe the brothers of Jesus. But they need to examine the following passage, where sungenis appears:

Mark 6:4 And Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.” (cf. Jn 7:5: “For even his brothers did not believe in him”)

What is the context? In the preceding verse, the people in “his own country” (6:1) exclaimed: ‘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?’ . . .” It can plausibly be argued, then, that Jesus’ reference to kin (sungenis) refers (at least in part) back to this mention of His “brothers” and “sisters”: His relatives. Since we know that sungenis means cousins or more distant relatives, that would be an indication of the status of those called Jesus’ “brothers”.

26) 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. 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, italics added; Williamson translates: “one of the ‘brothers’ of the Saviour named Jude . . .”: p. 143)

27) 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).

28) Uzziah died when he touched the ark of the covenant, which was arguably the holiest object in the Old Testament,  even though he was only trying to prevent it from falling (2 Sam 6:2-7). Others died by merely looking inside the ark (1 Sam 6:19; cf. Ex 33:20). When God was present in a special way on Mt. Sinai, at the time Moses received the Ten Commandments (Exodus, chapters 19 and 20), the people were warned not to even touch the mountain or its border, lest they die (Ex 19:12-13). I submit that this has implications for the propriety (though not literal necessity) of Mary being a perpetual virgin.

It follows analogically, and from pious reflection, I think, that it was fitting and proper by the nature of the relationship of a holy God and man. The Blessed Virgin Mary became, in effect, the New Holy of Holies, where God specially resides. But in the case of Mary, God is more present than He ever was in the tabernacle and temple, because now He is there physically, as a man, as well. Mary is the ark of the new covenant (as the Church fathers called her) and Mother of God (the Son).

The denial of Mary’s perpetual virginity (which was a radical innovation of the last 200-250 years, and not the view of the Protestant founders) exhibits an inadequate understanding of holy places. Consecrated persons and places are “set aside” for God’s holy purposes. Someone wrote to me in a Facebook discussion that Catholic beliefs about Mary would mean she wasn’t a “normal wife.” I replied that Mary was anything but a “normal” Jewish wife in the first place. She was suddenly “with child” miraculously by the Holy Spirit, and gave birth to Jesus: God the Son.

Most Protestants still accept the virgin birth. Consecrated virginity is far less notable than those two events. Yet the incarnation and virgin birth are widely accepted, while perpetual virginity is widely rejected. The traditional unity of the three related things is no longer comprehended by many.

St. Paul (1 Corinthians 7) maintains that the single state allows a higher, undistracted devotion to the Lord. Why should we think, then, that the Mother of God would be anything other than a perpetual virgin, devoted to God the Father, and her Son, God the Son? The virgin birth and perpetual virginity were the means that God chose to create the appropriate context in which the incarnation occurred. In Catholic thinking, and the ancient apostolic tradition, Mary’s perpetual virginity is a protection, so to speak, of the miraculous nature of the incarnation and Jesus’ birth. It’s a Christocentric doctrine: just as all Marian doctrines are.

29) St. Paul uses “cousin” (anepsios) in Colossians 4:10. Interestingly the KJV translates this passage “sister’s son,” which is akin to Semitic terminology and categories). And this is the only time it appears in the New Testament.

30) It’s true that the Gospel writers could have used the words sungenis or anepsios. But their not doing so is not as strong an argument as it may seem at first, once we understand that sungenis also has a very wide latitude (such that Paul only uses it in that wider sense of race or nationalism). That being the case, why use it, since it would be the same scenario as adelphos offers?

The same scenario applies to use of sungenis and its cognates elsewhere (see #22 above). In the KJV they are translated (besides Luke 1:36 and 1:58) kindred, kinsfolk, kin, kinsmen, and kinsman (Mark 6:4; Luke 1:61; 2:44; 14:12; 21:16; John 18:26; Acts 7:3, 14; 10:24). In the RSV, likewise, we have the renderings (even including Luke 1:36, 58) kin, kindred, kinswoman, kinsfolk, kinsmen, and kinsman. So it is unanimous there: not even the English “cousin” is used.

31) Simon was one of Jesus “brothers” in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3. The Christian historian Eusebius provides some relevant information about him:

After the martyrdom of James and the capture of Jerusalem which instantly followed, there is a firm tradition that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord who were still alive assembled from all parts together with those who, humanly speaking, were kinsmen of the Lord — for most of them were still living. Then they all discussed together whom they should choose as a fit person to succeed James, and voted unanimously that Symeon, son of the Clopas mentioned in the gospel narrative [note: Jn 19:25; perhaps Lk 24:18], was a fit person to occupy the throne of the Jerusalem see. He was, so it is said, a cousin of the Saviour, for Hegesippus tells us that Clopas was Joseph’s brother. (The History of the Church, translated by G. A. Williamson, Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1965, 123-124; italics added)

It turns out, then, that early tradition, from the second-century historian Hegesippus (and we have no reason to doubt 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.

32) Critics of the PVM make a big deal about Jesus’ “brothers” always seeming to be “hanging around” and being with Mary as well They argue that this most likely suggests their being her other children; otherwise, why are they always there? But the Hebrew “household” (if not virtually always) often would contain extended family members. It wasn’t like our nuclear families of today. For example, in the book, Families in Ancient Israel (Leo G. Perdue, editor; Westminster John Knox Press, 1997) we find this description:

The familial roles of males in the household’s kinship structure included those of lineal descent and marriage — grandfather, father, son, and husband — and those lateral relationships — brother, uncle, nephew, and cousin. (pp. 179-180)

The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary (edited by Allen C. Myers, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, rev. ed., 1975) concurs, noting that the Israelite family could include more than one nuclear family (thus, cousins would be residing together):

The basic social unit, comprised of persons related by kinship and sharing a common residence. The Israelite family was an extended family known as the “father’s house” or “household” (Heb. “bet-ab”), consisting of two or more nuclear families (i.e., a married couple and their children) or composite families (an individual with multiple spouses and their offspring) . . . other kin (including grandparents), servants, concubines, and sojourners might also be reckoned part of the household (cf. Gen. 46:5-7, 26). (“Family,” p. 376)

33) The New Testament never uses the phrases, “son[s] of Mary” or “son[s] of Joseph” for anyone besides Jesus.

34) “Son of Mary” appears once, referring to Jesus,

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?” . . .

Interestingly enough, He is called “brother” of four men and “his sisters” are mentioned. Yet none of them are called “sons / daughters” of Mary or Joseph.

35) The phrase, “Mary’s sons” never appears in the New Testament.

36) Neither one of the phrases, “daughter[s] of Mary” or “Mary’s daughter[s]” ever appear in the New Testament.

37-38) “Son of Joseph” (referring to the carpenter from Nazareth) appears twice: both times referring to Jesus:

John 1:45 Philip found Nathan’a-el, and said to him, “We have found him of whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”

John 6:42 They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? . . .”

“Sons of Joseph” appears once (Heb 11:21), but unfortunately for deniers of Mary’s perpetual virginity, it refers to the patriarch Joseph. Why is that, if these are his sons and Jesus’ supposed siblings?

39) The phrase, “Joseph’s sons” never appears in the New Testament.

40) The phrase, “Daughter[s] of Joseph” never appears in the New Testament.

41) The phrase, “Joseph’s daughter[s]” never appears in the New Testament.

42-43) Mary is never called the “mother” of these alleged siblings of Jesus, whereas she is called Jesus’ “mother”:

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.

44-45) In the following two passages, these “brothers” were mentioned but Mary wasn’t called their mother; only Jesus‘ mother:

Matthew 13:55 “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?”
*
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.
Doesn’t it stand to reason and isn’t it common sense — if these “brothers” were indeed the siblings of Jesus –, that Acts 1:14 would read, instead, something like: “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.
*
Why wouldn’t God have made it easy to understand and logically and grammatically impossible to deny, if Jesus had siblings? Holy Scripture is always very clear (with a little of the necessary study of hermeneutics and exegesis). There were many opportunities and contexts in the New Testament where this could easily have taken place, but for some odd reason (maybe because the notion of Jesus having siblings is a falsehood and not historical fact?) it never does.
*
46) Genesis 35:22-26 lists twelve sons of Jacob, from four different women. Genesis 49 lists them again. They are the basis of the twelve tribes of Israel. Jacob also had one daughter, Dinah (Gen 34:1). So it’s irrelevant if one or more are referred to as the “son of Jacob” in light of all the information we have. The twelve sons are specifically named as his. No one (who holds to biblical inspiration) can question it. But the “brothers” and “sisters’ of Jesus are never described as sons or daughters in relation to either Mary or Joseph.
*
47) “Cousin” appears four times in the entire Old Testament 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.
*
48) The New Testament (produced by the same Jewish culture, excepting the Gentile 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.
*
Roman Jewish historian Josephus (c. 37 AD-c. 100), by the way, uses these terms in a very similar way, thus backing up our point about the use of adelphos and it’s non-proof of the existence of siblings of Jesus. For documentation, see my articles, Josephus, Adelphos, & James, “Brother of Jesus” (vs. Lucas Banzoli) [12-16-22] and Josephus & “Brothers of Jesus” Redux (vs. Lucas Banzoli) [2-18-23].
*
49) “Uncle” and “aunt” are not very common words in the Old Testament. “Uncle appears only 13 times in the RSV. “Aunt” appears exactly once (Lev 18:14). Neither one appears at all in the New Testament! Again, “brother” and “sister” were the common terms used for a wide array of relatives, as shown.
*
50) Regarding Matthew 1:24-25 (#4 above): why is that Joseph abstained for the entire pregnancy — after she became his wife) if in fact he had marital relations with the Blessed Virgin Mary after Jesus’ birth? 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? It’s difficult to posit any plausible reason, 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 should-be-obvious ones like this that are easy to overlook.
*
*
***
*
Practical Matters:  I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become a Catholic or to return to the Catholic Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them. If you believe my full-time apostolate is worth supporting, please seriously consider a much-needed monthly or one-time financial contribution. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV).
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle and 100% tax-deductible donations if desired), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information.
*
You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my two YouTube channels, Catholic Bible Highlights and Lux Veritatis (featuring documentaries), where I partner with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos and documentaries), and/or by signing up to receive notice for new articles on this blog. Just type your email address on the sidebar to the right (scroll down quite a bit), where you see, “Sign Me Up!” Thanks a million!
*
***
*
Photo credit: The Annunciation (1644), by Philippe de Champaigne (1602-1674) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
*
Summary: Comprehensive, thought-provoking collection of biblical arguments for the perpetual virginity of Mary (i.e., Jesus was an only child with no siblings or blood brothers).
2025-04-30T13:07:42-04:00

Last updated on: April 30, 2025 at 1:07 pm   By
0 Comments

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

This is a collection of commentary that I have made about this passage in various articles through the years.

*****

John 21:15-17 (RSV) When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” [16] A second time he said to him, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” [17] He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep.”

Once again, Jesus singles Peter out by name. He rarely did that with any other disciple. And He is talking about how it is Peter’s role to guide the sheep and teach the Christian flock. It’s all perfectly consistent with Petrine primacy and the papacy. Jesus is the Good Shepherd; so is Peter, in the earthly sense. The shepherd tends to his flock. Jesus’ “sheep” are clearly Christian believers. This is who Peter feeds and tends in a universal sense. How anyone could fail to see the huge ecclesiological significance here is the mystery. It’s just Protestant blinders, I reckon.

Acts 20:28 is sometimes brought up as a supposed counter-evidence against Petrine primacy: “Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son.” But it’s not at all. It’s talking about bishops, who do indeed oversee flocks, but only limited, localized ones. Hence, this passage was directed to the “elders” of Ephesus, which was only one local church (what we would call today a diocese).

So they are to care for that flock, whereas Peter (singularly addressed by Our Lord) is ultimately to tend and feed the entire Church: not just a local section. I Peter 5:2 teaches the same. He is addressing elders as a collective, but Jesus addresses him alone. Peter refers to “those in your charge” whereas Jesus refers to Peter’s overseeing of His “sheep.” And Peter is addressing only elders of a particular region in Asia Minor (Turkey): “To the exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappado’cia, Asia, and Bithyn’ia,” (1 Peter 1:1).

Peter acts like a pope would act in his second epistle, because it is directed towards all Christians: “To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours in the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Pet 1:1).

John 21 shows that Peter is singled out, as opposed to others being addressed as a collective. It’s much like referring to the President of the United States, as compared to the collectives of Senators or Congressmen in the House or cabinet members.

***

Jesus asks Peter three times if He loved Him, and when Peter replies, Jesus tells him to “Feed my lambs” (21:15) and “Tend my sheep” (21:16) and “Feed my sheep” (21:17). Why does He do that? It’s because — again — Peter was the leader, and that was what leaders do: the shepherd and the sheep who follow him: the sheep he cares for. It seems rather obvious that the deeper meaning is Peter as the Chief shepherd of and over other Christians. No one else is singled out in this fashion as he is.

***

The Greek word for “tend” in 21:16 is poimaino, which is applied to Jesus Christ in Revelation 7:17 above, and also in Matthew 2:6, and Revelation 2:27, 12:5, and 19:15. It is used of bishops in Acts 20:28 and 1 Peter 5:2 (which seems to be a passage perhaps reminiscent in St. Peter’s mind of the Lord’s charge to him). Clearly, an awesome amount of spiritual authority is being given to Peter, which includes, according to the Protestant Greek scholar W.E. Vine, “discipline, authority, restoration, material assistance of individuals.” [An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell, 1940, four-volumes-in-one edition, vol. 2, p. 88.]

The commission of Christ to Peter, then, to tend my sheep, while not exclusive to Peter in the sense that no one else (besides Christ) exercises this function (St. Peter himself says as much in 1 Peter 5:2), nevertheless is supremely unique and important insofar as no other individual disciple is likewise instructed by our Lord – and in such momentous terms (considering all of the biblical data).

Peter’s ministry to the Church is always universal; his jurisdiction knows no bounds, and the language that Christ Himself applies to him is strikingly sublime and profound. For to no one else was it granted the keys of the kingdom of heaven. No one else was renamed “Rock,” and proclaimed by Jesus to be the foundation upon which He would build His Church. And although the power to bind and loose was given to the disciples as a whole in Matthew 18:18, nevertheless, Peter is the only individual to be given this power by Christ. In other words, St. Peter has extraordinary privileges unique to himself, and in cases where they are not exclusive they are obviously applied to him in a preeminent sense.

We find then, that the scriptural relation between Christ, Peter, and the disciples (by extension, bishops and priests), is precisely that found in the teaching and practice of the Catholic Church, where the pope, more than just the “foremost among equals,” as the Orthodox and some Lutherans and Anglicans hold, is the supreme shepherd and leader of the Church, yet not in such a fashion as to exclude Christ as the Head or the Cardinals and bishops (and even laymen) as fellow members of the Body in Christ acting in organic harmony. Always, it is the pope and the Cardinals, the pope and the Council, the pope acting with due consideration of the faithful lay members of the Church, but the pope is supreme.

It is simply not necessary to dichotomize the relationship between the pope and lesser clergy. With regard to the papacy, only Catholicism does justice to both the scriptural data and the course of the early Church in the formative years of its development. One need not fall into the trap of denying the pope’s existence (and thereby doing violence to the Petrine texts as well), nor of caricaturing the Catholic Church’s doctrine of the papacy as strictly a “top-down,” “autocratic,” “monarchical” conception of Church government. In any event, the abundant Petrine evidence in the Bible must be dealt with in an open and consistent manner, whatever position one holds.

***

A. New Bible Commentary

“There are slight differences . . . in the three exhortations to Peter. The first and third use the word `feed,’ whereas the second uses the word `tend’ (Gk `poimaino’) which involves all the responsibilities of shepherding the sheep.” [D. Guthrie, and J. A. Motyer, editors, The New Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 3rd edition, 1970 (Reprinted, 1987, as The Eerdmans Bible Commentary), 966]

B. Adam Clarke’s Commentary

“Our Lord . . . seems to intimate [in v.16] that it is not sufficient merely to offer the Bread of Life to the congregation of the Lord, but he must take care that the sheep be properly collected, attended to, regulated, guided. Every spiritual shepherd of Christ has a flock, composed of lambs – `young converts’ – and sheep – `experienced Christians’ – to feed, guide, regulate, and govern.” [Commentary on the Bible, abridged one-volume edition by Ralph Earle, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1967 (orig. 1832, 8 vols.); Clarke was a Methodist;, p. 955]

C. Richard Baumann

“In John 21 the form of the order of authority, with the one at the helm, is clearly discernible as a revelation of enduring significance . . . As the `keeper of the keys’ was the successor of King David and the custodian of his everlasting throne, so too the Shepherd is the ruler of the nation forever. The promised Messiah was also described as the one who would feed the people of God (Mt 2:6; Jn 21:15). Jesus therefore handed His pastoral staff to one of the disciples in order that all the redeemed might be one flock under one shepherd. There must be one who guards and protects us all from the devil who is one persecutor. The one must watch over the weak and the small, and direct those who are strong, serving all men so that they may have life and full happiness in the Lord. The shepherd’s service is consequently an act of love, a return of love to Him who first loved Christ and all mankind. It is the bond of Jesus’ love, and of the love of God and the brethren, which holds the entire Church together indissolubly. This all-embracing service of the Shepherd is also extended to his fellow pastors, the priests and bishops of the Church.” [in Hans Asmussen, et al, The Unfinished Reformation, translated by Robert J. Olsen, Notre Dame, Indiana: Fides Publishers Assoc., 1961, 172-173. Baumann is a Lutheran]

D. Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (W. E. Vine)

“`Poimaino’: to act as a shepherd . . .(b) metaphorically, to tend, to shepherd; said of Christ, Matt 2:6 . . .; of those who act as spiritual shepherds under Him, John 21:16 . . .; so 1 Pet 5:2; Acts 20:28 . . .

“In John 21:15,16,17, the Lord, addressing Peter, first uses `bosko’ [`feed’] (ver.15), then `poimaino’ (ver.16), and then returns to `bosko’ (ver.17). These are not simply interchangeable (nor are other variations in His remarks); a study of the above notes will show this. Nor, again, is there a progression of ideas. The lesson to be learnt, . . . is that, in the spiritual care of God’s children, the feeding of the flock from the Word of God is the constant and regular necessity . . . The tending (which includes this) consists of other acts, of discipline, authority, restoration, material assistance of individuals . . .” [An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell, 1940, four-volumes-in-one edition, vol. 2: 87-88]

E. Word Studies in the New Testament (Vincent)

[For 1 Peter 5:2 and Matt 2:6: same word, `poimaino’]

“The verb denotes all that is included in the office of a shepherd – guiding, guarding, folding, no less than feeding . . . There is, doubtless, a reminiscence in the word of Christ’s charge to Peter (Jn 21:15-17).”

“Homer calls kings `the shepherds of the people.’ To David the people said, `The Lord said to thee, Thou shalt feed (as a shepherd) my people Israel’ (2 Sam 5:2; cf. Ps 78:70-72). God is often called a shepherd (Gen 48:15; Ps 23:1; 77:20; 80:1; Is 40:11; Ezek 34:11-31). Jesus calls himself the good shepherd (Jn 10:11). Peter, who is bidden by Jesus to shepherd his sheep (Jn 21:16), calls him the Shepherd of Souls (1 Pet 2:25), and the Chief Shepherd (1 Pet 5:4); and in the Epistle to the Hebrews (13:20), he is styled the great Shepherd of the sheep. In Rev 2:27, rule is literally to shepherd (cf. 19:15).” [Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1946 (orig. 1887), 4 volumes; vol. 1: 665, 20-21]

“Poimaino” is also used of Christ in Rev 7:17: “For the Lamb which is in their midst of the throne shall feed them . . .,” and 12:5: “And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.”

***

Without doubt this is also a parallelism to Peter’s three denials, but that no more proves that Peter wasn’t pope, or not indicated as such in this passage, than David’s sin with Bathsheba and murder of her husband proved that he wasn’t king, or the subject of a covenant with God, or the writer of most of the Psalms. Paul killed Christians before God knocked him off his high horse. So what? What does the fact that a person sins have to do with anything? Isn’t that what Christianity is about? To redeem sinners? If sinners can write an inspired, inerrant, infallible Bible, they can certainly be used as infallible popes as well.

***

Patrick Madrid — in a classic article from 1992 — elaborates upon this:

Jesus is the shepherd of his flock the Church (Jn 10:16), yet he shares his shepherdhood in a subordinate way with others, beginning with Peter (Jn 21:15-17) and extending it later to others (Eph 4:11). It is true that Jesus says he is the only shepherd (Jn 10:11-16), yet this seemingly exclusive statement does not conflict with him making Peter shepherd over the flock (Jn 21:15-17) or with his calling others to be shepherds as well (Eph 4:11). Peter emphasizes that Jesus shares his role as shepherd with others by calling Jesus the chief shepherd, thus implying lesser shepherds (1 Pt 5:4). Note also that the Greek construction of John 10:16 ([there is] one shepherd, heis poimen) is the same as 1 Timothy 2:5 ([there is] one mediator, heis mesites). The apostles and their successors, the bishops, are truly shepherds also.

***

[Protestant anti-Catholic apologist Lucas Banzoli]: Nowhere in the text does Peter call the “Supreme Shepherd”. This is again Dave putting his daydreams into the text, rather than extracting from the text simply what the text says.

What do we call the folks who feed and tend sheep? Shepherd, of course. Jesus is commissioning Peter to tend to His sheep (i.e., Christians). That is precisely being Jesus’ chief shepherd. Jesus says this to no other of His disciples.

[Lucas Banzoli] To make matters worse, in 1 Peter 5:1-2, Peter himself explicitly says that “I do so as an elder like them”, not as a superior, as Dave claims. If he was right in his thesis that John 21:15-17 refers to a “Supreme Shepherd” and in these other texts only to “subordinate shepherds”, Peter would have said that “I do so in the capacity of a Supreme Shepherd above them”, and not “an elder like them”.

Exactly! Just like Jesus said, “For the Son of man also came not to be served but to serve” (Mk 10:45). Jesus washed their feet, and said, “No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends,” (John 15:15) and “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave” (Mt 20:25-27). St. Peter, then, is quite obviously following Jesus’ example of humility.

*
***
*

Practical Matters:  I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six 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. If you believe my full-time apostolate is worth supporting, please seriously consider a much-needed monthly or one-time financial contribution. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV).
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle and 100% tax-deductible donations if desired), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information.
*
You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my two YouTube channels, Catholic Bible Highlights and Lux Veritatis (featuring documentaries), where I partner with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos and documentaries), and/or by signing up to receive notice for new articles on this blog. Just type your email address on the sidebar to the right (scroll down quite a bit), where you see, “Sign Me Up!” Thanks a million!
*
***
*
Photo credit:  Detail of Christ Handing the Keys to St. Peter (1481-82) by Pietro Perugino (1448-1523) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
*
Summary: I provide commentary from past articles of mine on the “Petrine passage, John 21:15-17, where Jesus tells St. Peter to “Feed my lambs,” “Tend my sheep,” and “Feed my sheep.”
2025-04-07T01:47:33-04:00

Last updated on: April 7, 2025 at 1:47 am   By
0 Comments

Including Two Examples of Luther’s Espousal of Capital Punishment for Wrong or Aberrant Behavior Prior to 1530

Photo credit: witch burning [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

It’s commonly thought by students of 16th-century Christianity (who have an adequate knowledge of the historical facts) that Martin Luther advocated tolerance towards belief-systems and behaviors contrary to what he thought was Christian, and prior to 1530 (i.e., in the first twelve years or so of his proclaimed “reformation”); thus was opposed to persecution up to and including execution on these grounds.

Many other Protestants are under the illusion that Luther was always tolerant and never advocated persecution for religious beliefs different than his own. I’ve talked to, for example, at least one wife of a Lutheran pastor who thought this. The myth of the tolerant Luther dies hard in many folks. One can only present the documented facts. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink. I’ve written about it several times:

Luther Favored Death Penalty for Anabaptists [2-24-04]

Luther’s Attitudes on Religious Liberty (Roland H. Bainton) [2-16-06]

Luther: Death Penalty for Anabaptists & 1525 Peasants’ Revolt (Critique of James Swan’s Misrepresentation on the Radio Show, Iron Sharpens Iron, with Chris Arnzen) [11-6-07]

Luther on the Deaths of Zwingli, St. Thomas More, & St. John Fisher [11-30-07; expanded on 10-31-17]

Reply to Reformed Luther Apologist James Swan’s Request for Documentation of Executions of Anabaptists Sanctioned by Luther, in the 1530s [8-17-14]

Luther Favored Death, Not Religious Freedom, For ‘Heretics’ [National Catholic Register, 10-25-17]

Protestants Executed Peaceful Anabaptists (vs. L. Banzoli) [6-20-22]

Luther Favored Execution of Heretics (vs. Jordan Cooper) + Good & Bad Protestant & Catholic Apologetics & Historical Revisionism & “Twisting” [3-21-24]

James Swan Rationalizes Luther’s Intolerance Again [11-22-24]

I’d like to specifically discuss in this article “early” and “weird” examples of Luther’s views in this regard. As early as 1522, he had written:

[p. 32] You may ask: What is to become of the other [the guilty party] if he too is perhaps unable to lead a chaste life? Answer: It was for this reason that God commanded in the law [Deut. 22:22-24] that adulterers be stoned, that they might not have to face this question. The temporal sword and government should therefore still put adulterers to death. . . . Where the government is negligent and lax, however, and fails to inflict the death penalty, the adulterer may betake himself to a far country and there remarry if he is unable to remain continent. But it would be better to put him to death, lest a bad example be set . . .

The blame rests with the government. [p. 33] Why do they not put adulterers to death? Then I would not need to give such advice. Between two evils one is always the lesser, in this case allowing the adulterer to remarry in a distant land in order to avoid fornication. . . .

Where the government fails to inflict the death penalty and the one spouse wishes to retain the other, the guilty one should still in Christian fashion be publicly rebuked and caused to make amends according to the gospel . . .

[p. 34] Here you should be guided by the words of St. Paul, I Corinthians 7 [:4–5], “The husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does; likewise the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does. Do not deprive each other, except by agreement,” etc. Notice that St. Paul forbids either party to deprive the other, for by the marriage vow each submits his body to the other in conjugal duty. When one resists the other and refuses the conjugal duty she is robbing the other of the body she had bestowed upon him. This is really contrary to marriage, and dissolves the marriage. For this reason the civil government must compel the wife, or put her to death. If the government fails to act, the husband must reason that his wife has been stolen away and slain by robbers; he must seek another. We would certainly have to accept it if someone’s life were taken from him. Why then should we not also accept it if a wife steals herself away from her husband, or is stolen away by others? (The Estate of Marriage, 1522, translated by Walther I. Brandt, from Luther’s Works, Vol. 45, pp. 32-34)

This is marvelous reform of the morals concerning sexuality that the Catholic Church had cultivated for 1500 years, isn’t it? The state puts adulterers to death. Frigid women should also be done away with by the state. If the state doesn’t execute adulterers, they ought to run away to another country and get remarried (!!!).

Luther doesn’t say whether an impotent man should likewise be put away by the wife or put to death by authorities (the “ED police”?). I suspect he would not take such a position. No, only women who aren’t fulfilling their sexual duties (men always do, no doubt) are subjected to such drastic measures, and the adulterous man can flee to another country, where Luther in his wisdom recommends another “marriage” as the “lesser” of “two evils.” We can see how the “Reformation” truly liberated women from Catholic chauvinistic medieval serfdom, can’t we?

Self-proclaimed expert on Luther and Reformed Protestant apologist and polemicist James Swan, aka Tertiumquid (see his lengthy section on my Anti-Catholicism page). blissfully unaware of the above, nevertheless makes one of his sweeping and historically ignorant whoppers in a comment on the anti-Catholic CARM forum, on 2-11-25:

Linking Luther to intolerance and capital punishment in 1523 does not comport with Luther scholarship. At this period in his career, it’s highly unlikely he advocated executing heretics. (comment #96 in the thread, “Is burning heretics against the will of the Holy Spirit?”: p. 5)

With more nuance, Swan wrote on his blog, Boors All, on 8-13-15:

Luther did support a broader concept of religious freedom previous to 1530. He then saw public blasphemy and sedition as two offenses that should be reprimanded. The death penalty may be invoked in certain instances.

In 1526, Luther preached that female sorcerers should be put to death (not sure if he thought the same about male sorcerers):

Concerning the female sorcerer. . . . Why does the law name women more than men here, even though men are also guilty of this? Because women are more susceptible to those superstitions of Satan; take Eve, for example. They are commonly called “wise women.” Let them be killed. (Sermon on Exodus 22:18: “You shall not permit a female sorcerer to live,” 1526, WA [Weimar collection of Luther’s writings] XVI, p. 551; in Susan C. Karant-Nunn & Merry E. Wiesner-Hanks [editors and translators], Luther on Women: a Sourcebook, Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 231)

In 1538, Luther advocated the burning of witches:

On that day (August 20, 1538), [Georg] Spalatin [good friend of Luther’s] related the tale of a witch’s insolence, and how a girl at Altenburg shed tears of blood whenever the woman was present, for, even if she did not see her nor know of her, yet she felt her presence and shed tears. Luther answered: “One should hasten to put such witches to death. The jurists wish to have too many witnesses, despising these plain signs. Recently I had to deal with a matrimonial case, where the wife wished to poison her husband, so that he vomited lizards. When she was examined by torture she answered nothing, because such witches are dumb; they despise punishment and the devil does not let them speak. These facts show plainly enough that an example should be made of them to terrify others.”

On August 25 (1538), they spoke much of witches who stole eggs from hens and milk and butter. Luther said: “No mercy is to be shown them. I myself would begin to burn them according to the law that the priests should begin to stone culprits.” (Conversations With Luther: Selections from Recently Published Sources of the Table Talk, translated and edited by Preserved Smith and Herbert Percival Gallinger, New York: The Pilgrim Press, 1915, pp. 163-164)

Smith and Gallinger commented in a footnote to this on page 164:

Such sayings as these fanned the flames of the horrible persecution of witches by which hundreds of thousands of harmless persons lost their lives in the sixteenth century. Four witches were executed at Wittenberg in 1540.

This is a trustworthy portion of the Table Talk, according to the scholarly criteria which I presented at some length in my article, “Luther’s ‘Table Talk’: How Historically Accurate Is It?” (4-7-25). Preserved Smith (1880-1941) was an American historian of the Protestant “Reformation”: whose doctoral dissertation at Columbia University (1907) was a critical study of the Table Talk. Since he included the above excerpts in his book, he deemed them to be “original records” which “in recent years has for the first time offered a really good text . . . new material of first importance” (Conversations . . . Introduction, pp. xxv-xxvi)

Alas, the editors of Luther’s Works (55 volumes in English) chose not to include this entry (perhaps readers can guess why). The entirety of Volume 54 (published in 1967: 52 years after Smith’s book) is devoted to a chronological compilation of Luther’s recorded utterances in the Table Talk (as best as can be determined). But it includes entries from August 19th and 22nd, 1538 (pp. 300-304) and on August 25th, but on a different topic (p. 305).

Luther lived in Wittenberg and died there in 1546. So it’s quite possible if not plausible that he approved of these particular burnings. An article from the website Alaturka.info entitled, “Martin Luther – Reformation movement and witch burning” (7-29-18) commented on seemingly the same incident. I don’t know how accurate it is, but for what it’s worth:

Prista Frühbottin was arrested by the electoral bailiff, because she was accused of having poisoned the cattle in the pasture with the help of her son and two farmhands. In truth, a drought had killed the cattle. However, after the trial and torture, the defendants were tied to oak piles in the marketplace on June 29, 1540, and were burned alive by the fire below them.

The artist and eyewitness, Lucas Cranach the Younger, made a woodcut of the pyre [see a photo of it]. The Wittenberg executioner Magnus Fischer was also suspected of having been in close contact with Prista Frühbottin. He as well was seized and sentenced to death by burning, executed in Eisleben on July 7, 1540. In Wittenberg at least 21 people from 1540 to 1674 were affected by witch-hunts: eight executions [were] witnessed, of 13 other procedures the output is not known. In connection with the trial of Prista Frühbottin, it is said in the documents handed down that many others have been arrested and convicted.

In another Table Talk excerpt from the period 1538-1540, drawn from the Weimar edition, deemed to be quite trustworthy by the editors of Luther’s Works (Vol. 54, Introduction), Luther advocated the torturing (and execution?) of witches, thus echoing the worst excesses and sins of Catholic inquisitorial tactics which are endlessly decried by Protestant apologists and polemicists (even actual historians), with the constant implication that Luther and Protestants supposedly rose above all that.

I agree with the condemnations of such practices (unlike Luther, I have never advocated them for heresies and false beliefs, and am also opposed to capital punishment, period), but disagree with the Massive Lie that only Catholics believed and engaged in them in past eras. Luther stated (i.e., was recorded to have stated):

Out of special hatred for our faith, the devil has sent some whores here to destroy our poor young men . . . such a syphilitic whore can poison ten, twenty, thirty or more of the children of good people, and thus is to be considered a murderer, or worse, as a poisoner. . . .

And I must speak plainly. If I were a judge, I would have such a poisonous, syphilitic whore tortured by being broken on the wheel and having her veins lacerated, for it is not to be denied what damage such a filthy whore does to young blood, so that it is unspeakably damaged before it is even fully grown and destroyed in the blood. (Table-Talk, WA, TR, IV, no. 4857, pp. 552-554; cited in Susan C. Karant-Nunn & Merry E. Wiesner-Hanks, ibid.,  pp. 157-158)

Luther’s Works again chose to omit this entry, even though it is from impeccable sources, according to its own discussion of Table Talk in the Introduction to Volume 54. The chronological listing of excepts originally numbered in the Weimar German edition jumps from #4716 (p. 363) to #4875 (p. 369). One must really “dig” to find Luther statements like these.

But they may be available in Luther’s Works in due course, because it’s being expanded from the initial 55 volumes, with many more volumes to be added. So far, 82 volumes have been published or planned, but looking over their titles, I see no “Table Talk Part II” among them.  So unless one knows German, “shocking” and “inquisitorial”-like statements like the one above have to be found in articles such as this one, or the books from which I draw them.

They’re not likely to ever be heard from Lutheran or other Protestant pulpits on Sunday: that‘s for sure!

Related Reading

Protestantism: Historic Persecution & Intolerance (my web page)

*
***
*

Practical Matters:  I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six 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. If you believe my full-time apostolate is worth supporting, please seriously consider a much-needed monthly or one-time financial contribution. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV).
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle and 100% tax-deductible donations if desired), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information.
*
You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my YouTube channel, Catholic Bible Highlights, where I partner with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos), and/or by signing up to receive notice for new articles on this blog. Just type your email address on the sidebar to the right (scroll down quite a bit), where you see, “Sign Me Up!” Thanks a million!
*
***
*

Photo credit: witches being burned in Nuremburg (from 1525 a Protestant town) in 1555 [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: I document that Luther advocated execution for adulterers & frigid wives in 1522, for sorcerers in 1526, burning of witches in 1538, & torturing prostitutes in 1538-1540.

2025-03-07T15:34:48-04:00

Last updated on: March 7, 2025 at 3:34 pm   By
0 Comments

“Yes, Virginia, There Was a St. Ignatius of Antioch”

Photo credit: My own self-published book with self-designed cover (2nd revised edition, 2013)

This came about after his recent debate with Joe Heschmeyer regarding whether the Catholic Mass is propitiatory. During one of the cross-examination periods, Bishop “Dr.” [???] James White (see my large web page devoted to him and also my long 2013 book, Debating James White: Shocking Failures of the “Undefeatable” Anti-Catholic Champion) mentioned in passing that in contemporary scholarship, there is a movement that denies the historical existence of St. Ignatius of Antioch (d. c. 110).

NOTE: This view was not espoused by White; he merely mentioned that it is out there. Several folks have unfortunately distorted what he said [example one / example two]. I watched the entire debate. I believe, by the way, that it’s the only one of his oral debates that I’ve ever watched in its entirety, because his relentless sophistry drives me up the wall and I just don’t have the patience for it. I’ve been on the receiving end of it many times, believe me. I was “saved” by Joe’s superb performance. White stated at 1:48:56 in the transcript:

. . . if we have what Ignatius wrote Since I was [in] the seminary — and I’m not sure if you’re aware of this — over the past 25 years there has been a tremendous amount of scholarly skepticism expressed as to whether Ignatius even existed and which letters are actually [authentic] . . . it’s becoming the central view. I hope Ignatius existed and wrote the things we have . . . he may have written in 107-108. I hope he did but but maybe not, but what he’s addressing what’s very important whenever it was written, some people are saying it was 150 something like that.

White wrote on his blog on 3 March 2025, in an introduction to a Dividing Line episode devoted to the controversy:

I felt it was absolutely necessary to address the amazingly dishonest attacks that have been launched against me about a single cross-examination question from Saturday night’s debate. So we did a full dive into Ignatius, his writings, the issues with the transmission of those writings, forgeries, you name it, and then walked through the actual text cited in the debate demonstrating that the actual answer I gave was fully substantiated by the text itself. It is my hope that those who are planning to continue this campaign of misrepresentation will listen to this presentation, realize the foolishness of such an action, repent of their intentions, and cease and desist with their activities. That is up to them. (see also a post-debate clarification that White made on Twitter / X about his position regarding St. Ignatius).

Having defended the good bishop in this respect, I do, however, think it’s beyond strange and odd that he would even bring up such a thing during the debate. But having followed his antics and refuted him for now literally 30 years as of this very month, it doesn’t surprise me. A cynic might possibly opine — and perhaps accurately — that this was an obfuscatory tactic.

Moreover, White in a video today stated that Joe apologized to him for having stated in his closing statement that he denied St. Ignatius” existence. But Joe disputes this in a Facebook comment from 3-6-25: “When he says that I admitted to misrepresenting him and apologized for it, that’s just not true. Obviously. He’s not covering himself in glory here.” In fact, Joe had only asserted that “by the way, he did exist; he did write. We have his writings.” He never claimed that White himself denied his existence.

Now I’d like to cite someone who is an expert on St. Ignatius: Michael W. Holmes, the former Chair of the Department of Biblical and Theological Studies at Bethel University in St. Paul, Minnesota. He received an MA in New Testament from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (1976), and a PhD from Princeton Theological Seminary (1984). He did his PhD work under Bruce Metzger, who was widely considered to be one of the most influential New Testament scholars of the 20th century. Holmes’ primary research areas are in New Testament textual criticism and the Apostolic Fathers.

He was previously on the faculty at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and Princeton Theological Seminary, and has been visiting scholar at Luther Theological Seminary in St. Paul. He holds membership in the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas, the Society of Biblical Literature, the Institute for Biblical Research, and the North American Patristics Society. I will be citing his book, The Apostolic Fathers in English (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 3rd edition, 2006). I have had the second edition from 1989 in my library for a long time, and read it in November 1994. Holmes writes in his introduction to St. Ignatius:

Everything said about Ignatius thus far rests upon the conclusion that the seven letters of the so-called middle recension are authentic. This conclusion is widely held today . . . The middle recension, which was known to Eusebius, preserves the original form of the letters. (p. 90)

Catholic scholars [in the 16th-17th centuries] generally defended the authenticity of the letters because of the obvious polemical value of Ignatius’s early emphasis on the monepiscopal form of church structure, while Protestants generally denied their authenticity for similar reasons.

A consensus of sorts in favor of the middle recension came to prevail following the publication of Pearson’s Vindiciae Ignatianae (1672), but . . . Not until the independent work of Theodor Zahn (1873), Adolf von Harnack (1878), and J. BV. Lightfoot (1885) was the authenticity of the seven letters of the middle recension generally recognized. So thorough and persuasive was the work especially of Zahn and Lightfoot that the great majority of scholars since their day have considered the matter of authenticity settled once and for all.

Three major challenges in the space of a decade in the late 1960s and 1970s — by Weijenborg and Joly, who questioned the authenticity of the entire corpus, and by Rius-Camps, who contended that three of the seven letters were forged and the rest interpolated and revised — did little to alter the consensus. The admitted difficulties that were noted and raised as a reason for reevaluating the documents were not new, and the proposed solutions seemed to raise more problems than they solved. (p. 91)

In the late 90s the question of authenticity was again raised. . . . scholars such as R. Hubner and T. Lechner claim that the letters betray a dependence upon the writings of Noetus of Smyrna and therefore must be forgeries composed no earlier than about AD 165-175 . . . their case for seeing them as later forgeries is unpersuasive . . . The traditional view, that the seven letters attributed to Ignatius are authentic, remains the most probable (and least problematic) solution to the question regarding authenticity. (pp. 91-92)

Related Reading

John Calvin: Ignatian Epistles (c. 110) Not Authentic [6-7-09]

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

St. Ignatius & Eucharistic Real Presence (vs. Lucas Banzoli) [9-12-22]

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

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

Reply to Gavin Ortlund: St. Ignatius & Bishops (+ St. Polycarp and St. Clement of Rome On Early Church Ecclesiology) [2-1-24]

Revelation 2-3: Monarchical Bishops By 95 AD [2-2-24]

Church Fathers & Sola Fide (vs. Jordan Cooper) Incl. St. Ignatius of Antioch vs. Faith Alone; Epistle to Diognetus; Council of Trent on Justification by Faith & Imputation; Anti-Catholicism in the Lutheran Confessions [3-6-24]

Faith Alone & Earliest Fathers (vs. Scholastic Lutherans) — Including Clement of Rome (d. c. 101), Ignatius of Antioch (50-c. 110), and the Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus (bet. 130-190) [11-10-24]

*
***
*

Practical Matters:  I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six 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. If you believe my full-time apostolate is worth supporting, please seriously consider a much-needed monthly or one-time financial contribution. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV).
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle and 100% tax-deductible donations if desired), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information.
*
You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my YouTube channel, Catholic Bible Highlights, where I partner with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos), and/or by signing up to receive notice for new articles on this blog. Just type your email address on the sidebar to the right (scroll down quite a bit), where you see, “Sign Me Up!” Thanks a million!
*
***
*

Photo credit: My own self-published book with self-designed cover (2nd revised edition, 2013) [see book and purchase information]

Summary: Reformed Baptist anti-Catholic apologist James White is falsely accused of denying St. Ignatius’ existence, but it was still silly of him to mention skeptical historians in a debate.

2024-12-27T13:09:09-04:00

Last updated on: December 27, 2024 at 1:09 pm   By
0 Comments

Photo credit: self-designed cover of my self-published book (2010).

*****

“Faith Alone” Error

Bible vs. “Faith Alone”: 100 Proofs (100 Bible Passages On Catholic Justification, Sanctification, and Faith + Works [from 22 out of 27 NT Books]: All Disproving Protestant “Faith Alone” Soteriology) [10-8-24]

Final Judgment & Works (Not Faith): 50 Passages [2-10-08]

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

Sanctification / Infused Justification

Transformation of Believers in the NT: 150 Passages (Regeneration is Only the Beginning . . .) [12-16-24]

“Blameless” & “Pure” in the Bible (Sinless?): 40 Passages [12-12-24]

Biblical “Power”: Proof of Infused (Catholic) Justification [12 passages] [3-14-11]

St. Paul’s Use of the Term “Gift” & Infused Justification [19 passages] [2013]

Merit / Faith & Works

Meritorious Works: 50 Biblical Proofs [10-4-24]

Salvation Caused by Actions: 80 Bible Passages (. . . Proving That “Faith Alone” is a False Doctrine) [10-5-24]

St. Paul on Grace, Faith, & Works (50 Passages) [8-6-08]

Perfectly Keeping the Law: 15 Bible Passages [12-12-24]

***

“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 5,000+ articles, please follow my blog by signing up (with your email address) on the sidebar to the right (you may have to scroll down a bit), above where there is an icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. My blog was rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT: endorsed by influential Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Actually, I partner with Kenny Burchard on the YouTube channel, Catholic Bible Highlights. Please subscribe there, too! Please also consider following me on Twitter / X and purchasing one or more of my 55 books. All of this helps me get more exposure, and (however little!) more income for my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!

***

Baptismal Regeneration

14 Bible Verses That Show We’re Saved Through Baptism [National Catholic Register, 11-30-21]

Salvation as a Process

Salvation as a Process: 75 NT Passages [11-16-24]

Abraham: Justified Twice by Works & Once by Faith [8-30-23]

Falling Away (Apostasy)

Falling Away (Apostasy): 150 Biblical Passages (+ Catalogue of Sixty Traits That Apostates Formerly Possessed When They Were in God’s Good Graces) [11-19-24]

Universal Atonement

Limited Atonement Biblical Arguments Refuted (33 NT Passages Against Limited Atonement and in Favor of Universal Atonement) [11-21-24]

Old Testament Precursors

Isaiah’s Catholic & UnProtestant Soteriology [45 passages] [8-1-23]

Jeremiah’s Catholic & Very UnProtestant Soteriology [44 passages] [7-31-23]

Minor Prophets: Their Theology of Salvation [107 passages] [8-2-23]

Salvation and Eternal Afterlife in the Old Testament [26 passages] [8-31-19]

Synergy / Free Cooperation with God

God’s “Fellow Workers” Help Spread Salvation & Grace (We “Impart Grace”, “Save” Others, Win Souls, Help Them “Obtain Salvation”, Etc., In Our “Work of the Lord”) [55 passages] [10-29-21]

Scripture on Being Co-Workers with God for Salvation [72 passages] [2013]

Salvation by Grace Alone and Justification by Faith / General Soteriology

Bible on Faith / Belief, etc. “Alone” [?] for Salvation (Fifty Bible Passages Stress Faith or Belief, Regarding the Question of Salvation, Compared to a Hundred that Emphasize or Highlight Works) [10-11-24]

Salvation: By Grace Alone, Not Faith Alone or Works [19 passages] [2013]

Bible on the Nature of Saving Faith (Including Assent, Trust, Hope, Works, Obedience, and Sanctification) [380 passages] [1-21-10]

Salvation and Justification in the Gospels and Acts [21 passages] [1996]

Personal Relationship with Jesus

Biblical Evidence: Personal Relationship with Jesus [14 passages] [2013; expanded on 1-18-19]

***

Related Reading

What is the Gospel? Catholic-Protestant Agreement  [12-3-96 and 1-4-97]

Gospel: Defined by the Earliest Christian Preaching [January 1988; rev. 7-8-02]

What is the Gospel? (The Actual Biblical Definition) [Facebook, 11-23-24]

Explicit Biblical Instruction on Saving Souls [1-24-22]

Baptismal Regeneration and Justification (vs. Jason Engwer) [6-4-20]

*

***
*
Practical Matters:  I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

*
***
*

Photo credit: self-designed cover of my self-published book (2010). 

Summary: 1871 Bible passages compiled from existing articles, supporting biblical Catholic salvation (infused justification, etc.) and refuting false views like faith alone and eternal security.

2024-12-02T11:33:59-04:00

Last updated on: December 2, 2024 at 11:33 am   By
0 Comments

Photo credit: Demon (Horror Fantasy), by Maxwell Hamilton (3-3-14) [Flickr / CC BY 2.0 license]

[all passages RSV]

For overviews of the subject, see:

Biblical Evidence for an Eternal Hell [1998]

Jewish and Old Testament Views of Hell and Eternal Punishment [4-14-04]

Biblical Annihilationism or Universalism? (w Atheist Ted Drange) [9-30-06]

Universalism is Annihilated by the Book of Revelation [National Catholic Register, 6-23-19]

Salvation and Eternal Afterlife in the Old Testament [8-31-19]

The Bible Teaches that Hell is Eternal [National Catholic Register, 4-16-20]

Defense of Immortal, Conscious Souls (vs. Lucas Banzoli): #11 (“Second Death” = “Lake of Fire” = Eternal Torment in Hell. Jesus & Luke Believed in Both Hades and Hell) [11-25-22]

See many more articles on my Hell and the Devil / Last Things web page

*****

Deuteronomy 32:22 For a fire is kindled by my anger, and it burns to the depths of Sheol, . . .

1 Samuel 2:6 The LORD kills and brings to life; he brings down to Sheol and raises up.

Job 33:28 He has redeemed my soul from going down into the Pit, and my life shall see the light.

Psalm 6:4-5 Turn, O LORD, save my life; deliver me for the sake of thy steadfast love. [5] For in death there is no remembrance of thee; in Sheol who can give thee praise?

Psalm 9:16-18 The LORD has made himself known, he has executed judgment; the wicked are snared in the work of their own hands. . . . [17] The wicked shall depart to Sheol, all the nations that forget God. [18] For the needy shall not always be forgotten, and the hope of the poor shall not perish for ever.

Psalm 16:10-11 For thou dost not give me up to Sheol, or let thy godly one see the Pit. [11] Thou dost show me the path of life; in thy presence there is fulness of joy, in thy right hand are pleasures for evermore.

Psalm 31:16-17 Let thy face shine on thy servant; save me in thy steadfast love! [17] Let me not be put to shame, O LORD, for I call on thee;
let the wicked be put to shame, let them go dumbfounded to Sheol.

Psalm 49:14-15  Like sheep they are appointed for Sheol; Death shall be their shepherd; straight to the grave they descend, and their form shall waste away; Sheol shall be their home. [15] But God will ransom my soul from the power of Sheol, for he will receive me.

Psalm 55:23 But thou, O God, wilt cast them down into the lowest pit; men of blood and treachery . . .

Psalm 88:6-7 Thou hast put me in the depths of the Pit, in the regions dark and deep. [7] Thy wrath lies heavy upon me, and thou dost overwhelm me with all thy waves.

Psalm 89:48 What man can live and never see death? Who can deliver his soul from the power of Sheol?

Psalm 103:2-4 Bless the LORD, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits, [3] who forgives all your iniquity, who heals all your diseases, [4] who redeems your life from the Pit, who crowns you with steadfast love and mercy,

Psalm 143:7 . . . Hide not thy face from me, lest I be like those who go down to the Pit.

Isaiah 14:11, 15 Your pomp is brought down to Sheol, the sound of your harps; maggots are the bed beneath you, and worms are your covering. [15] But you are brought down to Sheol, to the depths of the Pit.

Isaiah 33:14 The sinners in Zion are afraid; trembling has seized the godless: “Who among us can dwell with the devouring fire? Who among us can dwell with everlasting burnings?”

Isaiah 38:18 For Sheol cannot thank thee, death cannot praise thee; those who go down to the pit cannot hope for thy faithfulness.

Isaiah 66:24 “And they shall go forth and look on the dead bodies of the men that have rebelled against me; for their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.”

Jeremiah 15:14 . . . in my anger a fire is kindled which shall burn for ever. (cf. 17:4)

Jeremiah 23:40 “And I will bring upon you everlasting reproach and perpetual shame, which shall not be forgotten.”

Ezekiel 26:20-21 “then I will thrust you down with those who descend into the Pit, to the people of old, and I will make you to dwell in the nether world, among primeval ruins, with those who go down to the Pit, so that you will not be inhabited or have a place in the land of the living. [21] I will bring you to a dreadful end, and you shall be no more; though you be sought for, you will never be found again, says the Lord GOD.”

Ezekiel 31:16-17 I will make the nations quake at the sound of its fall, when I cast it down to Sheol with those who go down to the Pit; and all the trees of Eden, the choice and best of Lebanon, all that drink water, will be comforted in the nether world. [17] They also shall go down to Sheol with it, to those who are slain by the sword; yea, those who dwelt under its shadow among the nations shall perish.

Ezekiel 32:23, 25 whose graves are set in the uttermost parts of the Pit, and her company is round about her grave; all of them slain, fallen by the sword, who spread terror in the land of the living. . . . [25] . . .  they bear their shame with those who go down to the Pit . . .

Daniel 12:2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. (cf. Judith 16:17: “The Lord Almighty will take vengeance on them in the day of judgment; fire and worms he will give to their flesh; they shall weep in pain for ever.”)

Hosea 13:14 Shall I ransom them from the power of Sheol? Shall I redeem them from Death? . . .

Matthew 3:10, 12 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. . . . [12] His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the granary, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.

Matthew 5:20-22 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. [21] “You have heard that it was said to the men of old, ‘You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.’ [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 5:29-30 If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. [30] And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.

Matthew 7:13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.”

Matthew 7:19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

Matthew 8:11-12 “I tell you, many will come from east and west and sit at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, [12] while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.”

Matthew 10:28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

The word for “destroy” is apollumi, which means, according to W. E. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, “not extinction, but ruin, loss, not of being, but of well-being.” The other verses in which it appears make this meaning clear (Mt 10:6; Lk 15:6, 9, 24; Jn 18:9). Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament or any other Greek lexicon would confirm this.

Matthew 13:41-42 The Son of man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers, [42] and throw them into the furnace of fire; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.

Matthew 13:47-50 “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net which was thrown into the sea and gathered fish of every kind; [48] when it was full, men drew it ashore and sat down and sorted the good into vessels but threw away the bad. [49] So it will be at the close of the age. The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous, [50] and throw them into the furnace of fire; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.

Matthew 18:8-9 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. [9] 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 18:14 “So it is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.”

Matthew 21:39-41 And they took him and cast him out of the vineyard, and killed him. [40] When therefore the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?” [41] They said to him, “He will put those wretches to a miserable death, . . .

Matthew 22:13 “Then the king said to the attendants, `Bind him hand and foot, and cast him into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.'”

Matthew 23:15 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you traverse sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.

Matthew 23:33 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?

Matthew 24:50-51 the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, [51] and will punish him, and put him with the hypocrites; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.

Matthew 25:29-32 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. [30] And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.’ [31]When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. [32] Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats,

Matthew 25:41 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;

Matthew 25:46 “And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

The Greek meaning of aionios (“eternal,” “everlasting”) is indisputable. It is used many times referring to eternal life in heaven. The same Greek word is also used to refer to eternal punishments (Mt 18:8; 25:41, 46; Mk 3:29; 2 Thess 1:9; Heb 6:2; Jude 7). In the verse above, the word is used twice: once to describe heaven and once for hell. “Eternal punishment” means what it says. There is no way out of this without doing violence to Scripture. Greek scholar A. T. Robertson wrote:

The word aionios . . . means either without beginning or without end or both. It comes as near to the idea of eternal as the Greek can put it in one word. It is a difficult idea to put into language. Sometimes we have ‘ages of ages’ (aiones ton aionon). (Word Pictures in the New Testament, Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930, vol. 1, p. 202 [commenting under Matthew 25:46] )

Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon also concurs, as does Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, the most revered and respected Greek analysis of the New Testament.

Mark 3:29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin

Mark 9:42-49 “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung round his neck and he were thrown into the sea. [43] And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. [45] And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell. [47] And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, [48] where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched. [49] For every one will be salted with fire.”

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

***

“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 5,000+ articles, please follow my blog by signing up (with your email address) on the sidebar to the right (you may have to scroll down a bit), above where there is an icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. My blog was rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT: endorsed by influential Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Actually, I partner with Kenny Burchard on the YouTube channel, Catholic Bible Highlights. Please subscribe there, too! Please also consider following me on Twitter / X and purchasing one or more of my 55 books. All of this helps me get more exposure, and (however little!) more income for my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!

***

Luke 1:79 to give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death . . .

Luke 3:8-9 Bear fruits that befit repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, `We have Abraham as our father’; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. [9] Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.”

Luke 3:17 His winnowing fork is in his hand, to clear his threshing floor, and to gather the wheat into his granary, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.

Luke 12:4-5  “I tell you, my friends, do not fear those who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. [5] But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has power to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear him!”

Luke 13:3 I tell you, No; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish. (cf. 3:5)

Luke 13:27-28 “But he will say, ‘I tell you, I do not know where you come from; depart from me, all you workers of iniquity!’ [28] There you will weep and gnash your teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God and you yourselves thrust out.”

Luke 16:22-24, 26, 28 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died and was buried; [23] and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes, and saw Abraham far off and Laz’arus in his bosom. [24] And he called out, `Father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Laz’arus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame.’ . . . [26] ‘. . . between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.’ . . . [28] ‘. . . this place of torment.’ [refers to the compartment in Hades reserved for the wicked or reprobate, who will eventually be consigned to hell: Rev 20:14 below]

John 3:16, 18 For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. . . . [18] He who believes in him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

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.

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 5:26-29  For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself, [27] and has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of man. [28] Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice [29] and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.

John 6:27 Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of man will give to you; for on him has God the Father set his seal.”

John 8:51 “Truly, truly, I say to you, if any one keeps my word, he will never see death.”

John 10:10 The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.

John 10:28 and I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand.

John 12:25 He who loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life.

John 15:5-6 I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. [6] If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned.

John 17:12 . . . I have guarded them, and none of them is lost but the son of perdition, . . .

Acts 13:46 . . . “It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken first to you. . . . you thrust it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, . . .

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 2:2-3 We know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who do such things. [3] Do you suppose, O man, that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgment of God?

Romans 2:5-8 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. [6] For he will render to every man according to his works: [7] to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; [8] but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.

Romans 2:12 All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, . . .

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.

Romans 5:17 If, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. (cf. 5:12, 14, 21)

Romans 6:16 . . . sin, which leads to death, . . .

Romans 6:21-23 But then what return did you get from the things of which you are now ashamed? The end of those things is death. [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. [23] For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Romans 7:5 While we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. (cf. 7:10, 13, 24)

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. (cf. 8:2, 6)

Romans 9:22 . . . the vessels of wrath made for destruction,

1 Corinthians 1:18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

1 Corinthians 3:17 If any one destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him. . . .

“Destroy” is the Greek, phthiro, meaning literally, “to waste away” (much like apollumi). When the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 A.D., the bricks were still there. It was not annihilated, but wasted. So shall it be with the wicked soul, which will be wasted or ruined, but not blotted out of existence. We see the meaning of phthiro clearly in every other instance of it in the NT (usually, “corrupt”), where in each case, the meaning is as I have said (1 Cor 15:33; 2 Cor 7:2; 11:3; Eph 4:22; Jude 10; Rev 19:2).

1 Corinthians 11:32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

2 Corinthians 2:15 For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing,

2 Corinthians 4:3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing.

Ephesians 2:3 . . . we were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

Ephesians 5:6 . . . it is because of these things that the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.

Philippians 1:28 . . . This is a clear omen to them of their destruction . . .

Philippians 3:18-20 For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, live as enemies of the cross of Christ. [19] Their end is destruction, their god is the belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things. [20] But our commonwealth is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ,

“Destruction” or “destroyed” in Philippians 1:28; 3:19, Hebrews 10:39 is the Greek apolia. Its meaning as “ruin” or “waste” is clearly seen in, e.g., Matthew 26:8 and Mark 14:4 (a waste of ointment). In Revelation 17:8, when it refers to the beast (“perdition”), it states that the beast is not wiped out of existence: “it was and is not and is to come.”

Colossians 3:5-6 Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: fornication, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. [6] On account of these the wrath of God is coming.

1 Thessalonians 1:10 . . . Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.

1 Thessalonians 5:9 For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ,

2 Thessalonians 1:7-9 . . . when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, [8] inflicting vengeance upon those who do not know God and upon those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. [9] They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might,

2 Thessalonians 2:3 . . . the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of perdition,

2 Thessalonians 2:8, 10, 12 And then the lawless one will be revealed, and the Lord Jesus will slay him with the breath of his mouth and destroy him by his appearing and his coming. . . . [10] and with all wicked deception for those who are to perish, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. . . . [12] so that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

1 Timothy 6:9-10  But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and hurtful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. [10] 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.

2 Timothy 1:10 . . . our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.

Hebrews 2:14-15 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same nature, that through death he might destroy him who has the power of death, that is, the devil, [15] and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage.

Hebrews 6:2 . . . eternal judgment.

Hebrews 10:26-27 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.

Hebrews 10:27 must be understood in harmony with Hebrews 6:2, which speaks of “eternal judgment” (mentioned above in the discussion of aionios). The only way to synthesize all the relevant data in the Bible is to adopt the eternal hellfire view.

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.

Hebrews 12:25 . . . For if they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less shall we escape if we reject him who warns from heaven.

James 1:15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin; and sin when it is full-grown brings forth death.

James 3:6 And the tongue is a fire. The tongue is an unrighteous world among our members, staining the whole body, setting on fire the cycle of nature, and set on fire by hell.

James 4:12 There is one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. . . .

James 5:20 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.

2 Peter 2:1 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.

2 Peter 2:4 . . . God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of nether gloom to be kept until the judgment;

2 Peter 2:12-13 But these, like irrational animals, creatures of instinct, born to be caught and killed, reviling in matters of which they are ignorant, will be destroyed in the same destruction with them, [13] suffering wrong for their wrongdoing. . . .

In 2 Peter 2:12, “destroyed in the same destruction” the Greek kataphthiro is used. In the only other place in the NT where this word appears (2 Tim 3:8), it is translated as “corrupt” in RSV. If the annihilationist interpretation were applied to that verse, it would read, “. . . men of nonexistent minds. . .”

2 Peter 2:17 These are waterless springs and mists driven by a storm; for them the nether gloom of darkness has been reserved.

2 Peter 3:7, 9 But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist have been stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. . . . [9] The Lord is not slow about his promise as some count slowness, but is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

“Perish” is the Greek apollumi (see comment on Matthew 10:28 above), so annihilation, as always, is not taught, by virtue of the simple meaning of the Greek word. Furthermore, in v.6, where it is said that the world “perished” in the flood, it is obvious that it was not annihilated, but wasted, consistent with the other interpretations above.

2 Peter 3:15-16 . . . So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, [16] speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.

1 John 3:14-15 We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death. [15] . . . no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

Jude 6-7, 10, 13-15 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; [7] 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. . . . [10] 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. . . . [13] 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. [14] . . . “Behold, the Lord came with his holy myriads, [15] to execute judgment on all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness . . . ”

Jude 23 save some, by snatching them out of the fire; . . .

Revelation 2:11 ‘He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who conquers shall not be hurt by the second death.’

Revelation 6:15-17 Then the kings of the earth and the great men and the generals and the rich and the strong, and every one, slave and free, hid in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains, [16] calling to the mountains and rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who is seated on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb; [17] for the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand before it?”

Revelation 9:1-2 And the fifth angel blew his trumpet, and I saw a star fallen from heaven to earth, and he was given the key of the shaft of the bottomless pit; [2] he opened the shaft of the bottomless pit, and from the shaft rose smoke like the smoke of a great furnace, and the sun and the air were darkened with the smoke from the shaft. (cf. 9:11; 11:7; 20:1-3)

Revelation 11:18 “The nations raged, but thy wrath came, and the time for the dead to be judged, for rewarding thy servants, the prophets and saints, and those who fear thy name, both small and great, and for destroying the destroyers of the earth.”

Revelation 14:10-11 he also shall drink the wine of God’s wrath, poured unmixed into the cup of his anger, and he shall be tormented with fire and sulphur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. [11] And the smoke of their torment goes up for ever and ever; and they have no rest, day or night, . . .

Revelation 14:19 So the angel swung his sickle on the earth and gathered the vintage of the earth, and threw it into the great wine press of the wrath of God;

Revelation 15:7 And one of the four living creatures gave the seven angels seven golden bowls full of the wrath of God who lives for ever and ever;

Revelation 17:8 The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is to ascend from the bottomless pit and go to perdition . . .

Revelation 19:15 From his mouth issues a sharp sword with which to smite the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron; he will tread the wine press of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty.

Revelation 19:20 And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had worked the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulphur.

Revelation 20:6 Blessed and holy is he who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, . . .

Revelation 20:10 and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulphur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

The Greek word aion is used throughout Revelation for eternity in heaven (e.g., 1:18 [Jesus: “I am alive for evermore”], 4:9-10; 5:13-14; 7:12; 10:6; 11:15; 15:7; 22:5), and also for eternal punishment (14:11; 20:10). Some attempt to argue that Revelation 20:10 only applies to the devil, but they must explain Revelation 20:15, where it is applied to “anyone” not in “the book of life”.

Revelation 20:12-15 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. [13] 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. [14] Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire; [15] and if any one’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

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.

*
***
*
Practical Matters:  I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

*
***
*

Photo credit: Demon (Horror Fantasy), by Maxwell Hamilton (3-3-14) [Flickr / CC BY 2.0 license]

Summary: 125 Bible passages on hell & related concepts of judgment, Sheol, destruction, eternal punishment, the “Pit”, God’s wrath & judgment, etc.; includes 24 Old Testament passages.

2024-11-21T10:33:08-04:00

Last updated on: November 21, 2024 at 10:33 am   By
0 Comments

Five Biblical Examples Provided

Photo credit: The Shade of Samuel Appears to Saul (1668), by Salvator Rosa (1615-1673) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

CARM is a huge online forum that is dominated by the extreme anti-Catholic form of Protestantism. In its “Roman Catholicism” sub-forum, the discussion topic and thread, “Why not just go straight to Jesus in prayer?” began on 25 October 2024. In it, a number of false claims about what the Bible teaches or supposedly never teaches are made. I will prove that the statements are false at the end by producing five scriptural examples that many of these folks claim don’t exist. Will they follow inspired, inerrant, infallible revelation wherever it leads?

*****

I have dealt with the topic, broadly speaking, many times:

Biblical Evidence for Prayers of the Righteous Having More Power [3-23-11]

Why the Bible Says the Prayers of Holy People Are More Powerful [National Catholic Register, 3-19-19]

Bible on Praying Straight to God (vs. Lucas Banzoli) [9-21-22]

Bible on the Power of Prayers of the Righteous [11-16-22]

Bible on Seeking Exceptionally Righteous Intercessors (vs. Dr. Lydia McGrew) [11-9-24]

But specifically in this thread, its repeatedly asserted that the Bible never references prayer to anyone but God (citations of instances of this follow).

***

Nondenom40: your church also advocates praying to anyone else doesn’t it? One you will find in the bible, one you won’t. Guess which is which?

Nothing in the bible, not one thing indicates we should or need to go to anyone else to pray TO. . . . Scripture very clearly tells us that we are to ask others to pray FOR us. Where is the equally clear verse that says we should pray to dead people? Give us the verse and you’ve made your case.

It’s wise to let scripture be our guide instead of us being our guide. The entire bible models prayer as going to God, no one else. . . . If God wanted you to pray to someone besides Him, He would have told us.

Where’s the one name I’ve asked you for, twice, of anyone from scripture that does what you’re saying is okay to do. Got that one yet?

Where’s that verse again where Paul prays to James or Stephen or Moses? Maybe you can help us out here?

Who do you imitate to pray to anyone besides God? Name them, from scripture.

Do as I’ve been asking like forever here. If Paul or anyone else suggested there are others you can pray to, just list them for us. We’ll wait. Its funny how certain catholics can be about thing nowhere found in the bible yet so uncertain of things all over the bible from cover to cover and won’t believe it. Its truly amazing to watch.

There are clear cut practices and exhortations regarding these practices and one of them is prayer. What’s the model we see? What directives did Jesus Himself or the apostles give us? Where did they say that there are any exceptions to whom we can pray to? You keep dodging my question which is directly related to your practice. WHO in the bible does the thing you are here advocating? Name someone or at least admit that nowhere in the bible do we see anyone at all praying to anyone other than God. You can admit at least that much huh?

So yes, you pray to the dead…i.e. those no longer on this earth. Something never one time endorsed by anyone in the bible.

It is clear we are not to communicate with the dead from scripture. It is clear when asked the question about prayer Jesus is clear as to who we are to pray to, He does not add you can also pray to Moses, Jacob etc. The apostles NEVER pray to the dead.

How about the fact no one ever, does what youre advocating in the bible? If location has nothing to do with prayer why isn’t even one person praying to anyone other than God, even those alive on the planet? 

balshan: Nowhere does He or the apostles even hint at praying to the dead.

If praying to the dead was apostolic, please NAME one apostle who prayed to anyone other than the Lord?

That’s just in the first four pages out of twelve. But it’s enough. Now I will answer this biblically illiterate foolishness. Jesus taught the following, which was a true story, not a parable (parables never contain proper names):

Luke 16:19-31 (RSV) “There was a rich man, who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. [20] And at his gate lay a poor man named Laz’arus, full of sores, [21] who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man’s table; moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. [22] The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died and was buried; [23] and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes, and saw Abraham far off and Laz’arus in his bosom. [24] And he called out, `Father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Laz’arus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame.’ [25] But Abraham said, `Son, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Laz’arus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. [26] And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.’ [27] And he said, `Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father’s house, [28] for I have five brothers, so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’ [29] But Abraham said, `They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ [30]And he said, `No, father Abraham; but if some one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ [31] He said to him, `If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead.’”

***

“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 5,000+ articles, please follow my blog by signing up (with your email address) on the sidebar to the right (you may have to scroll down a bit), above where there is an icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. My blog was rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT: endorsed by influential Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Actually, I partner with Kenny Burchard on the YouTube channel, Catholic Bible Highlights. Please subscribe there, too! Please also consider following me on Twitter / X and purchasing one or more of my 55 books. All of this helps me get more exposure, and (however little!) more income for my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!

***

From this we learn many things:
1) Prayer petitions can be made to someone other than God: to dead saints; in this case, a famous figure and the father of faith and monotheism, Abraham. Three petitions are made (16:24, 27-28, 30). In Luke 16:27 in the King James Bible, it even renders what the rich man says as, “I pray thee.”
*
2) The rich man assumes that Abraham has it in his power to answer his petitions. Abraham doesn’t deny that he can answer; nor does this contradict the idea that Abraham would go to God to fulfill the request (per Rev 5:8), and if God so wills, deliver the reply to the rich man. From the rich man’s perspective, Abraham can grant to him what he desires.
*
3) The usual Protestant counter-reply to this is to say that Abraham refused the requests. But that no more proves their illegitimacy than God’s refusal to answer all of our prayers “proves” that we shouldn’t pray to Him. If prayer to him were indeed totally improper, Jesus could have never told the story in the first place. It would be a demonic lie, from Jesus’ lips! And if Protestants are right on this point, Abraham would have had to say that the rich man was asking amiss, and he would have rebuked him and told him to “pray to God only! You can’t pray to me!” But he didn’t. Therefore, it’s proper.
*
4) Nor does Abraham’s refusal prove that he lacks the power to fulfill the prayer (ultimately due to God’s power, of course). He said no in the first instances, because Dives’ punishment in the afterlife was already determined by God. He refused in the second instance because the “proposal” wasn’t going to work, anyway. He didn’t say, “I don’t have the power to send Lazarus and it’s blasphemous for you to think so.” He said, rather, that if he did send him, it wouldn’t make any difference as to the result Abraham hoped for (Lk 16:21: “If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead”).
*
5) The second most common Protestant retort is to say that both men are dead, so it is an irrelevant example. This fails, because if in fact we ought to never pray to anyone but God, it remains a sin even after we are dead (like the rich man was). What’s wrong is wrong. If such a prayer is totally impermissible, period, then the rich man can’t make it. Whether he is dead or not is irrelevant. He’s still alive as a soul.
*
6) It’s Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who is God, Who taught us this sort of prayer, by providing the story that included it without condemnation and no hint of wrongdoing (in praying to Abraham) whatsoever. Jesus can’t contradict Himself. And He certainly can’t teach rank heresy in any illustrative story or parable that He tells (if someone insists this is a parable), or any of His sayings or sermons whatsoever. Yet here we are: Jesus is teaching things that Protestants tell us are damnable lies and idolatrous, blasphemous, occultic  practices. One must choose! I choose Jesus over unbiblical man-made traditions, any day, any time.

Secondly, King Saul spoke to the dead prophet Samuel, who appeared to him after death:

1 Samuel 28:15-16 Then Samuel said to Saul, “Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?” Saul answered, “I am in great distress; for the Philistines are warring against me, and God has turned away from me and answers me no more, either by prophets or by dreams; therefore I have summoned you to tell me what I shall do.” And Samuel said, “Why then do you ask me, since the LORD has turned from you and become your enemy?”

Saul made a petition (“I have summoned you to tell me what I shall do”) and Samuel never said that Saul shouldn’t have done that. If the Protestant opposition to invocation of saints were true, Samuel should have said, “Why then do you ask me, since God has forbidden all invocation of departed persons. You have to ask God only.” Rather, Samuel noted the simple fact that the Lord had already turned against Saul and he proceeded to inform him that he would be killed the next day. The comeback is that this is a demon impersonating Saul or that it’s irrelevant because it occurred during a seance.

Both fail, since the Bible never indicates that this isn’t Samuel. It repeatedly refers to “Samuel” (15:12, 14-16, 20). And Samuel predicted that Saul would die in battle. This happened the next day; therefore it was a true prophecy, which a demon wouldn’t give (being a habitual liar). The principle / scenario here is the same as the rich man and Abraham. Samuel could properly be petitioned or, in effect, “prayed to” but he also could refuse the request, and he did so. As Samuel explained, he didn’t question the asking as wrong and sinful, but rather, refused because the request to save Saul was against God’s expressed will: which Samuel also knew about, as a departed saint.

Thirdly, Lot made two petitionary prayer requests to angels, and they were both granted:

Genesis 19:15, 18-21 When morning dawned, the angels urged Lot, saying, “Arise, take your wife and your two daughters who are here, lest you be consumed in the punishment of the city.” . . . [18] And Lot said to them, “Oh, no, my lords; [19] behold, your servant has found favor in your sight, and you have shown me great kindness in saving my life; but I cannot flee to the hills, lest the disaster overtake me, and I die. [20] Behold, yonder city is near enough to flee to, and it is a little one. Let me escape there — is it not a little one? — and my life will be saved!” [21] He said to him, “Behold, I grant you this favor also, that I will not overthrow the city of which you have spoken.

This is sanctioned prayer to creatures and beings other than God (angels): what was repeatedly demanded — in a mocking, contemptuous spirit — in the thread. So what do the anti-Catholics there do with this? We have Jesus teaching through a story that featured Abraham: the historical figure. Abraham is petitioned in the story, and neither Abraham nor Jesus state that he shouldn’t have been. We have the prophet Samuel being petitioned and saying no, but not rebuking Saul for having petitioned him. So that’s two examples. Then we have a third example of Lot making two petitionary requests to angels, and both being granted in that instance.

There is a fourth evidence as well; not as strong as those above, but still interesting:

Matthew 27:46-49 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, la’ma sabach-tha’ni?” that is, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” [47] And some of the bystanders hearing it said, “This man is calling Eli’jah.” [48] And one of them at once ran and took a sponge, filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave it to him to drink. [49] But the others said, “Wait, let us see whether Eli’jah will come to save him.” (cf. Mk 15:34-36)

The “bystanders” at Jesus’ crucifixion assumed that He could ask (pray to) the prophet Elijah to save Him from the agony of the cross (Mt 27:46-50). They’re presented as allies of Jesus (not enemies), since one of them gave Him a drink (Mt 27:48). Matthew 27:49 shows that this type of petition was commonly believed at the time. Moreover, Elijah had already appeared, along with Moses, at the Transfiguration of Jesus (Mt 17:2-3; Mk 9:4; Lk 9:30-31). And some (perhaps many?) biblical commentators think that Elijah was one of the “two witnesses” of Revelation 11:3, who came back to earth.

It’s perfectly understandable that the “bystanders” at the crucifixion misunderstood Jesus on the cross as calling out to Elijah, for this purpose. It would have been very difficult for him to talk, and they may have been a ways away. Tradition holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. John, whom we know were at the cross, were some distance away (30-40 feet). I stood on the spot when I visited Jerusalem in 2014. These other people heard Jesus say (in actuality) “Eli” or “Eloi” and mistook it for “Elijah” (“Eliyahu” or “Eliya” in Hebrew).

We know that Jesus was in fact referring to God, not Elijah. But it doesn’t affect the present argument. What is relevant to note is the fact that they casually assumed that he could call on (in effect, “pray to”) a human being rather than God. These people probably hadn’t heard Jesus’ interpretation of John the Baptist as Messiah, so they thought that he (of whom it was known by then that he claimed to be the Messiah) was invoking / calling upon Elijah, as a fulfillment of the prophecy tying Elijah to the Messiah.

They were simply applying the Old Testament tradition of Elijah returning, reiterated several times in the New Testament. And in so doing they assumed the ability of human beings to invoke dead saints (as a tenet of existing Judaism). This is an argument for the invocation of the saints. It’s not the best one, or anywhere near compelling in and of itself (I want to make it clear how much I claim for it), but it is a valid and interesting argument and one (in my humble opinion) more than worthy of serious consideration. In any event, the other three above, are indisputable; they all illustrated human beings praying to someone other than God: either a dead person (Abraham, Samuel) or an angel, without a hint in any of the texts that it was wrong, let alone blasphemous, to do so.

There is also a fifth evidence of communication with the dead, by both Peter and Jesus, and something close to asking them to intercede. Tabitha was a disciple in Joppa who died. Peter prayed to her when he said “Tabitha, rise.” See Acts 9:36-41. She was dead, and he was addressing her. There is no impenetrable wall between heaven and earth.  This is not only praying to the dead, but for the dead, since the passage says that Peter “prayed” before addressing Tabitha first person. And he was praying for her to come back to life. Our Lord Jesus does the same thing with regard to Lazarus. He prays for Lazarus (a dead man: John 11:41-42) and then speaks directly to a dead man (in effect, “praying” to him): “Lazarus, come out” (John 11:43).

So we have Jesus, Abraham, Samuel, Elijah, Peter, Moses, and angels connected with prayer to dead saints or angels or the closely related communication with the dead (also regarded as blasphemous, occultic, and always impermissible by most Protestants). Case closed. Next question?

*
***
*
Practical Matters:  I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

*
***
*

Photo credit: The Shade of Samuel Appears to Saul (1668), by Salvator Rosa (1615-1673) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: A thread on the anti-Catholic forum, CARM, repeatedly mocked intercession of the saints and angels, and asked for biblical proof. I’m happy to oblige them with five examples.

2025-07-05T10:13:30-04:00

Last updated on: July 5, 2025 at 10:13 am   By
0 Comments

Photo credit: cover of my 2013 book (self-published).

 

Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths [over 2,000 biblical passages] [book, August 2009]

Catholic Salvation: 1871 Bible Passages [12-27-24]

Revelation! 1001 Bible Answers to Theological Topics [book: October 2013]

601+ Bible Passages Disprove Sola Scriptura (Featuring an Emphasis on the Scriptural Data Regarding the Strong Influence of Jewish Tradition in Early Christianity) [1-6-25]

Bible on the Nature of Saving Faith (Including Assent, Trust, Hope, Works, Obedience, and Sanctification) [380 passages] [1-21-10]

Jesus is God: Hundreds of Biblical Proofs (300 Biblical Proofs + Many Additional Related Cross-References) (RSV edition) [1982; rev. 2012 and 11-26-24]

150 Reasons Why I Became (and Remain) a Catholic (Featuring 300 Biblical Evidences Favoring Catholicism) [1992; revised 9-28-05]

Holy Trinity: Hundreds of Biblical Proofs (RSV edition) [1982; rev. 2012]

Reply to Lucas Banzoli’s 205 Potshots at St. Peter (4 Parts) [5-30-22]

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

Inspired!: 198 Supposed Biblical Contradictions Resolved [book: June 2023]

Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (8 Parts) [4-11-22]

Falling Away (Apostasy): 150 Biblical Passages (+ Catalogue of Sixty Traits That Apostates Formerly Possessed When They Were in God’s Good Graces) [11-19-24]

Transformation of Believers in the NT: 150 Passages (Regeneration is Only the Beginning . . .) [12-16-24]

St. Augustine: Thoroughly Catholic: 135 Proofs [8-30-12]

Christmas Carols and Songs: An Alphabetical, Chronological, and Geographical Catalogue [135 carols] [December 2005]

Eternal Hell: 125 Biblical Evidences [12-2-24]

The Holy Spirit is a Person: 125 Bible Passages [12-26-24]

Christians or Theists Founded 115 Scientific Fields [8-20-10]

Purgatory: 110 Related Biblical Themes [10-31-24]

Minor Prophets: Their Theology of Salvation [107 passages] [8-2-23]

100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura [book: Nov. 2011]

Bible vs. “Faith Alone”: 100 Proofs (100 Bible Passages On Catholic Justification, Sanctification, and Faith + Works [from 22 out of 27 NT Books]: All Disproving Protestant “Faith Alone” Soteriology) [10-8-24]

Doctrinal Development: 80 Bible Passages [12-10-24]

Salvation Caused by Actions: 80 Bible Passages (. . . Proving That “Faith Alone” is a False Doctrine) [10-5-24]

Faith Alone? 80 Bible Verses Say Otherwise [National Catholic Register, 10-31-24]

Salvation as a Process: 75 NT Passages [11-16-24]

Scripture on Being Co-Workers with God for Salvation [72 passages] [2013]

67 Possible NT Deuterocanonical References in the Gospels [7-13-05]

60 Possible NT Deuterocanonical References (Philippians to Revelation) [8-10-05]

God’s “Fellow Workers” Help Spread Salvation & Grace (We “Impart Grace”, “Save” Others, Win Souls, Help Them “Obtain Salvation”, Etc., In Our “Work of the Lord”) [55 passages] [10-29-21]

Refutation of Atheist Paul Carlson’s 51 Bible “Contradictions” [4-6-21]

Final Judgment & Works (Not Faith): 50 Passages [2-10-08]

Meritorious Works: 50 Biblical Proofs [10-4-24]

Bible on Faith / Belief, etc. “Alone” [?] for Salvation (Fifty Bible Passages Stress Faith or Belief, Regarding the Question of Salvation, Compared to a Hundred that Emphasize or Highlight Works) [10-11-24]

Jesus Had No Siblings: 50 Biblical Arguments [7-1-25]

St. Paul on Grace, Faith, & Works (50 Passages) [8-6-08]

50 New Testament Proofs for Peter’s Primacy & the Papacy [1994]

Reply to Critique of “50 NT Proofs for the Papacy” [3-14-02]

50 Biblical Indications of Petrine Primacy and the Papacy [National Catholic Register, 11-20-16]

Jason Engwer, Trent Horn, & My 50 NT Petrine Proofs [7-28-22]

Honoring Jesus Thru Mary: 50 Biblical Reasons [4-21-15]

50 Biblical Reasons to Honor Jesus Through Mary [National Catholic Register, 7-24-19]

50 Bible Passages on Purgatory & Analogous Processes [2009]

50 Biblical Indications That Purgatory is Real [National Catholic Register, 10-24-16]

50 OT Messianic Prophecies Fulfilled by Jesus [initial research from 1982; slightly revised in 1997; revised and reformatted for RSV edition in 2012; separated from the larger article on 11-26-24]

50 Ways In Which Luther Had Departed From Catholic Orthodoxy by 1520 (and Why He Was Excommunicated) [3-29-06]

50 Reasons Why Martin Luther Was Excommunicated [National Catholic Register, 11-23-16]

50 “Catholic” John Calvin Views [3-18-10]

50 Biblical Proofs That Jesus is God [National Catholic Register, 2-12-17]

50 Biblical Evidences for the Holy Trinity [National Catholic Register, 11-14-16]

Moses Wrote the Torah: 50 External Evidences [12-14-22]

Evangelist Luke & Archaeology & History (50 Separate Extrabiblical Verifications of Luke’s Historical Accuracy) [2-4-22]

Reply to Seidensticker’s 50 “2-Minute” Anti-Christian Arguments [12-15-22]

Isaiah’s Catholic & UnProtestant Soteriology [45 passages] [8-1-23]

Jeremiah’s Catholic & Very UnProtestant Soteriology [44 passages] [7-31-23]

44 Possible NT Deuterocanonical References (Acts to Ephesians) [7-27-05]

“Blameless” & “Pure” in the Bible (Sinless?): 40 Passages [12-12-24]

Works & Sanctification Partly Cause Salvation: 34 Passages [1-30-25]

33 Empiricist Christian Thinkers Before 1000 AD [8-5-10]

Limited Atonement Biblical Arguments Refuted (33 NT Passages Against Limited Atonement and in Favor of Universal Atonement) [11-21-24]

Bible On Mortal & Venial Sin (vs. Anglican Stearns #5) [31 passages] [3-20-25]

Church Fathers vs. “Faith Alone”: Handy Capsule Proofs [30 Church Fathers] [4-9-24]

Apostolic Tradition: 28 Passages in Paul’s Epistles (Including Incisive Commentary from the Anglican Tractarian John Keble: 1792-1866) [1-29-25]

Pearce’s Potshots #11: 28 Defenses of Jesus’ Nativity (Featuring Confirmatory Historical Tidbits About the Magi and Herod the Great) [1-9-21]

The Deuterocanon: 27-Point Catholic Summary [3-19-02]

Salvation and Eternal Afterlife in the Old Testament [26 passages] [8-31-19]

25 Bible Passages on Purgatory [1996]

25 Descriptive and Clear Bible Passages About Purgatory [National Catholic Register, 5-7-17]

The “Catholic-Sounding” Luther: 25 Examples [6-16-08]

25 Arguments Regarding Binding Church Authority [1-13-09]

25 Brief Arguments for Binding Catholic Tradition [2009]

25 Brief Arguments Regarding Biblical “Clearness” [2009]

25 Brief Arguments on the Biblical Canon & Protestantism [2009]

OT & Archaeology: 25 Fascinating Confirmations [9-21-21]

Pearce Pablum #72: Flood: 25 Criticisms & Non Sequiturs [3-8-22]

The Sacrifice of the Mass in Hebrews & Revelation [25 passages] [3-6-25]

24 Biblical Passages on Meritorious Works [National Catholic Register, 9-30-24]

23 Catholic Medieval Proto-Scientists: 12th-13th Centuries [2010]

22 Reminders That St. Augustine Was 100% Catholic [National Catholic Register, 4-23-20]

Salvation and Justification in the Gospels and Acts [21 passages] [1996]

Invocation of Saints: 20 Biblical Proofs [1-15-24]

Top 20 Biblical Proofs of the Papacy [12-12-15]

Top 20 Biblical Evidences for the Primacy of St. Peter [National Catholic Register, 1-8-18]

Defending 20 Biblical Proofs for the Papacy (vs. Lucas Banzoli) (two parts) [2-13-23]

Star of Bethlehem & Magi: 20 Fascinating Aspects [1-22-21]

St. Paul’s Use of the Term “Gift” & Infused Justification [19 passages] [2013]

Salvation: By Grace Alone, Not Faith Alone or Works [19 passages] [2013]

Gospel of John & Archaeology & History (17 Extrabiblical Verifications of the Gospel of John’s Historical Accuracy) [2-8-22]

Worshiping God Through Images (vs. Anglican Stearns #4): Including the Biblical Case for Icons  [17 passages] [3-20-25]

16 Church Fathers vs. Faith Alone [National Catholic Register, 4-23-24]

15 Theistic Arguments (Copious Resources) [11-3-15]

15 Times Martin Luther Sounded Surprisingly Catholic When Talking About Suffering [National Catholic Register, 2-25-21]

Top 15 “Catholic” Beliefs of John Calvin [8-22-15]

Defending John Calvin’s “Top 15 ‘Catholic’ Beliefs” [9-2-15]

John Calvin’s 15 Surprisingly Catholic Views [National Catholic Register, 10-10-17]

15 Archaeological Proofs of Old Testament Accuracy (National Catholic Register, short summary points from my book, The Word Set in Stone) [3-23-23]

15 Archaeological Proofs of New Testament Accuracy (National Catholic Register, short summary points from my book, The Word Set in Stone) [3-30-23]

Perfectly Keeping the Law: 15 Bible Passages [12-12-24]

Biblical Evidence: Personal Relationship with Jesus [14 passages] [2013; expanded on 1-18-19]

14 More Church Fathers vs. Faith Alone [National Catholic Register, 4-30-24]

14 Bible Verses That Show We’re Saved Through Baptism [National Catholic Register, 11-30-21]
*
14 Proofs That St. Athanasius Was 100% Catholic [National Catholic Register, 6-4-20]
*
*
13 Church Fathers Defend the Catholic Teaching on Baptism [National Catholic Register, 8-26-24]
*
*
*
*
*
Top Ten Questions Catholics Are Asked [OSV pamphlet, July 2002]

James White’s Top Ten Questions for “Romanist” Converts Answered [9-4-07]

Top Ten Remarkable “Catholic” Beliefs of Martin Luther [1-19-15]

10 Remarkably “Catholic” Beliefs of Martin Luther [National Catholic Register, 10-6-17]

Martin Luther’s Ten Important “Catholic” Views [2-2-25]

John Calvin’s Ten Striking “Catholic” Views [2-11-25]

Critique of Ten Exaggerated Claims of the “Reformation” [10-31-17]

Archaeology & Ten (More) Kings of Judah & Israel [4-20-23]

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

Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura [10-10-03]

10-Point Biblical Refutation of Sola Scriptura [National Catholic Register, 12-11-16]

Nutshell Biblical Intercession of the Saints & Angels [10 Points] [2-3-24]

9 More Church Fathers Explain the Catholic Belief About Baptism [National Catholic Register, 8-30-24]

9 Ways Jesus Tells Us He is God in the Synoptic Gospels [National Catholic Register, 10-28-20]

Svendsen’s Dissertation on Mary: 2. “Brothers” of Jesus (Including a Handy, Nine-Point Summary of Solid Exegetical Arguments for the “Cousins” Theory of Jesus’ “Brothers”) [2-2-23]

Patristic Eucharistic Doctrine: Nine Protestant Scholars [12-1-96]

Did St. Augustine Accept All Seven Sacraments? [National Catholic Register, 11-15-17]

St. Augustine Accepted All Seven Catholic Sacraments [9-25-10]

7 Takes on Satan’s Persecutions and the Balanced Christian Life [National Catholic Register, 11-24-18]

Papal Participation in the First Seven Ecumenical Councils [4-22-09]

Seven Replies Re Interceding Saints (vs. Lucas Banzoli) [5-25-22]

Veneration of Human Beings: Seven Biblical Examples (Apostles Paul and Silas, Kings David and Saul, Prophets Daniel and Samuel, Patriarch Joseph) [3-4-19]

Prayers to Saints & for the Dead: Six Biblical Proofs [6-8-18]

My First Six Christmas Poems [1996-2003]

5 Replies to Questions About Catholic (and Biblical) Prayer [National Catholic Register, 11-30-22]

CARM Forum Wrong About Biblical Prayer to Creatures (Five Biblical Examples Provided) [11-21-24]

Archaeology Confirms Dates of Five Biblical Battles: Battles at Beth She’an (c. 926 BC), Beth Shemesh (c. 790 BC), Bethsaida & Kinneret (732 BC), and Lachish (701 BC) [2-6-23]

4 Biblical Proofs for Prayers to Saints and for the Dead [National Catholic Register, 6-16-18]

*
***
*

Practical Matters:  I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six 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. If you believe my full-time apostolate is worth supporting, please seriously consider a much-needed monthly or one-time financial contribution. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV).
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle and 100% tax-deductible donations if desired), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information.
*
You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my YouTube channel, Catholic Bible Highlights, where I partner with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos), and/or by signing up to receive notice for new articles on this blog. Just type your email address on the sidebar to the right (scroll down quite a bit), where you see, “Sign Me Up!” Thanks a million!
*
***
*

Photo credit: cover of my 2013 book (self-published) [see book and purchase information].

Summary: Compilation of my own articles that feature a large number of arguments (e.g., “Bible vs. ‘Faith Alone’: 100 Proofs”), including also a few books and one bestselling pamphlet.

Updated on 5 July 2025

2024-11-18T18:01:13-04:00

Last updated on: November 18, 2024 at 6:01 pm   By
0 Comments

Featuring Liturgy and the Sacrifice of the Mass in the Church Fathers

Photo credit: cover of my self-published 2011 book

I am replying to the first portion of the video, Why you should be Lutheran INSTEAD of Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox (w/ Pr. Will Weedon) [8-9-24], on the YouTube channel of Javier Perdomo: who recently converted to Lutheranism from another form of Protestantism.

William Weedon has served as a parish pastor for 26 years and served as Director of Worship and Chaplain for the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod from 2012-2019 (a traditional Lutheran communion for which I have a great respect). He is the author of the books Celebrating the Saints, Thank, Praise, Serve and Obey and See My Savior’s Hands. Pastor Weedon holds a Master of Divinity and a Master of Sacred Theology degree from Concordia Seminary, St. Louis.

His words will be in blue.

*****

6:37  you can see why Lutherans would be more inclined toward Orthodoxy maybe than toward Rome. You don’t have indulgences

. . . which has an explicit biblical basis and a history that has often been distorted by Protestants for polemical purposes, or out of sheer lack of knowledge.

you don’t have Purgatory

. . . which has at least 110 Bible passages pointing to, and in complete harmony with essential aspects of it . . .

you don’t have any of the the weird stuff that uh that Lutheran struggled with across across the centuries with with Rome

“Weird” is often in the eye of the beholder and works both ways.

7:28 Orthodoxy has a perfect solution to this . . . the church can’t be wrong and therefore if we’ve been teaching this for any number of years it’s got to be the truth of God and you just need to learn to submit to that; you know that’s the way to go

The indefectibility of the Church is biblical teaching. See also:

1 Timothy 3:15 = Church Infallibility (vs. Steve Hays) [5-14-20]

So is apostolic succession:

Biblical Arguments for Apostolic Succession [9-9-09]

The Bible on Submission to Church & Apostolic Tradition + Biblical Condemnation of the Rebellious & Schismatic Aspects of the Protestant Revolt [8-27-11]

Apostolic Succession: More Biblical Arguments [1-6-17]

Apostolic Succession as Seen in the Jerusalem Council [National Catholic Register, 1-15-17]

Answers to Questions About Apostolic Succession [National Catholic Register, 7-25-20]

A New Biblical Argument for Apostolic Succession [National Catholic Register, 4-23-21]

“New” Apostle Matthias: Proof of Church Infallibility [12-31-21]

Lutherans are bound to the teachings of their own confessions: compiled in the Book of Concord. It’s not that different. But Orthodoxy and Catholicism can trace themselves back to the early Church and Jesus Christ, whereas Lutheranism only goes back to Martin Luther in the 16th century. Our views are both more coherent and consistent. Lutheranism tries to establish itself as uniquely consistent with patristic teachings, but fails every time, excepting cases where it already agrees with Catholicism or Orthodoxy (e.g., regarding baptismal regeneration or the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist). I’ve documented this many times in my own research.

7:44 but what do you do with Mary?

You do what Martin Luther did (assuming he was a good, orthodox Lutheran). He believed that she was a perpetual virgin (even during birth: i.e., a miraculous in partu birth), and held to a form of her Immaculate Conception, and believed in her Assumption, and that she was the Mother of God the Son (Theotokos), and in venerating her, within certain definite limits.

8:02 He cites a typical “flowery” Marian prayer from the Orthodox. I have dealt with this many times, in terms of similar Catholic language of veneration and intercession:

St. Alphonsus de Liguori: Mary-Worshiper & Idolater? [8-9-02]

Catholics Think Mary is “Co-Creator”? (vs. T.F. Kauffman) (Refuting a Distortion of What St. Alphonsus de Liguori Actually Teaches in The Glories of Mary) [7-17-23]

Mary, Not Jesus, is the Catholic “Savior”? (Response to More Misrepresentation of St. Alphonsus de Liguori’s Book, The Glories of Mary) [7-21-23]

Was St. Louis de Montfort a Blasphemous Mariolater? (cf. abridged, National Catholic Register version) [2009]

Maximilian Kolbe’s “Flowery” Marian Veneration & the Bible [2010]

8:51 they’ll always say, “hey we ask fellow Christians here on earth to pray for us.” I don’t ask a fellow Christian here on earth to grant me tears of repentance

We obviously ask other believers to pray to God that we would be granted tears of repentance by God’s grace. It’s the same with Mary, just on a larger scale, because she was so honored by God to be the mother of Jesus.

8:56 I don’t ask them to to grant me mercy . . .  I just can’t square [that] with the Bible

Then why did the rich man in Hades, say, “Father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame” (Lk 16:24, RSV)? That was recounted in a story (not a parable) by Jesus Himself. The rich man petitioned Abraham in three different ways. Abraham never told him that he mustn’t do so; only that the answer to his requests was no: just as God sometimes doesn’t answer our prayers. Then we are told that this is merely a parable. Even if it were, Jesus couldn’t teach theological falsehood in it. Or we’re told that this doesn’t “count” because it’s after death. That’s irrelevant, too, because if it is intrinsically impermissible to make petitions of anyone besides God, that would hold in Hades as well as on earth, and Jesus couldn’t and wouldn’t affirm the practice.

13:29 you cannot start reading the early church fathers before you encounter what a big deal the mass or The Divine Liturgy [is]: what we Lutherans often call the common service or the Divine service. It confronts you all over the place, right away. It’s there already [in] 150 AD. Read St Justin Martyr’s first apology and you you can clearly recognize, “that’s the same service we use.”

Lutherans thankfully retain the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist (though not transubstantiation), but they ditched the belief in the eucharistic sacrifice of the Mass, which the Church fathers believed in.  So they aren’t following the fathers with regard to the essence of the Mass: that Jesus’ one-time sacrifice on the cross is made supernaturally present to us. See:

Transubstantiation & Church History: Dialogue w Lutheran [2-12-05; abridged on 10-23-18]

Eucharistic Sacrifice: The Witness of the Church Fathers [9-12-05]

Sacrifice of the Mass: Reflections on Theology & Patristics [9-22-05]

Development of Sacrifice of the Mass: Dialogue w Lutheran [9-22-05]

Sacrifice of the Mass / Cyprian’s Ecclesiology (vs. Calvin #11) [5-19-09]

Church Fathers and the Sacrifice of the Mass (Thoroughly Catholic!) [12-11-09]

Justin Martyr, Real Presence, & Eucharistic Sacrifice (vs. Lucas Banzoli) [9-13-22]

Lucas Banzoli Misrepresents Chrysostom’s Eucharistic Theology (+ An Overview of St. John Chrysostom’s Catholic View of the Eucharistic Sacrifice) [9-14-22]

Tertullian’s Eucharistic Theology: Lucas Banzoli vs. J.N.D. Kelly [9-15-22]

***

“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,900+ articles, please follow my blog by signing up (with your email address) on the sidebar to the right (you may have to scroll down a bit), above where there is an icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. My blog was rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT: endorsed by influential Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Actually, I partner with Kenny Burchard on the YouTube channel, Catholic Bible Highlights. Please subscribe there, too! Please also consider following me on Twitter / X and purchasing one or more of my 55 books. All of this helps me get more exposure, and (however little!) more income for my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!

***

Pr. Weedon brought up St. Justin Martyr. Was he a good proto-Lutheran? Hardly. J. N. D. Kelly is a very well-known Anglican church historian. Here’s what he believes about Justin’s views:

Justin speaks [Dialogue with Trypho, 117, 1] of ‘all the sacrifices in this name which Jesus appointed to be performed, viz. in the eucharist of the bread and the cup, . . .’. Not only here but elsewhere [Ib., 41, 3] too, he identifies ‘ the bread of the eucharist, and the cup likewise of the eucharist’, with the sacrifice foretold by Malachi. (Early Christian Doctrines, HarperSanFrancisco, revised edition of 1978, p. 196)

Here are the two passages from St. Justin Martyr referred to:

Accordingly, God, anticipating all the sacrifices which we offer through this name, and which Jesus the Christ enjoined us to offer, i.e., in the Eucharist of the bread and the cup, and which are presented by Christians in all places throughout the world, bears witness that they are well-pleasing to Him. But He utterly rejects those presented by you and by those priests of yours, saying, ‘And I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands; for from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is glorified among the Gentiles (He says); but you profane it.’ Malachi 1:10-12 (Dialogue with Trypho, 117, 1)

Hence God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord; and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands: for, from the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same, My name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure offering: for My name is great among the Gentiles, says the Lord: but you profane it.’ Malachi 1:10-12 [So] He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us, who in every place offer sacrifices to Him, i.e., the bread of the Eucharist, and also the cup of the Eucharist, affirming both that we glorify His name, and that you profane [it]. (Dialogue with Trypho, 41, 3)

Kelly continues his lengthy commentary on Justin’s views:

It was natural for early Christians to think of the eucharist as a sacrifice. The fulfilment of prophecy demanded a solemn Christian offering, and the rite itself was wrapped in the sacrificial atmosphere with which our Lord invested the Last Supper. The words of institution, ‘Do this’, must have been charged with sacrificial overtones for second-century ears; Justin at any rate understood [1 apol. 66, 3; cf. dial. 41, 1] them to mean, ‘Offer this’. . . . Justin . . . makes it plain [Dial. 41, 3] that the bread and wine themselves were the ‘pure offering’ foretold by Malachi. Even if he holds [Ib., 117, 2] that ‘prayers and thanksgivings’ are the only God-pleasing sacrifices, we must remember that he uses [1 apol. 65, 3-5] the term ‘thanksgiving’ as technically equivalent to ‘the eucharistized bread and wine’. The bread and wine, moreover, are offered ‘for a memorial of the passion’, a phrase which in view of his identification of them with the Lord’s body and blood implies much more than an act of purely spiritual recollection. Altogether it would seem that, while his language is not fully explicit, Justin is feeling his way to the conception of the eucharist as the offering of the Saviour’s passion. (Kelly, ibid., pp. 196-197)

F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone, editors, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Oxford Univ. Press, 2nd edition, 1983, 475-476, 1221, wrote:

It was also widely held from the first that the Eucharist is in some sense a sacrifice, though here again definition was gradual. The suggestion of sacrifice is contained in much of the NT language . . . the words of institution, ‘covenant,’ ‘memorial,’ ‘poured out,’ all have sacrificial associations. In early post-NT times the constant repudiation of carnal sacrifice and emphasis on life and prayer at Christian worship did not hinder the Eucharist from being described as a sacrifice from the first . . .

From early times the Eucharistic offering was called a sacrifice in virtue of its immediate relation to the sacrifice of Christ.

Jaroslav Pelikan [Lutheran at the time of this writing, and later Orthodox], The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1971, 146-147, 166-168, 170, 236-237:

By the date of the Didache [anywhere from about 60 to 160, depending on the scholar]. . . the application of the term ‘sacrifice’ to the Eucharist seems to have been quite natural, together with the identification of the Christian Eucharist as the ‘pure offering’ commanded in Malachi 1:11 . . .

The Christian liturgies were already using similar language about the offering of the prayers, the gifts, and the lives of the worshipers, and probably also about the offering of the sacrifice of the Mass, so that the sacrificial interpretation of the death of Christ never lacked a liturgical frame of reference . . .

. . . it does seem ‘express and clear’ that no orthodox father of the second or third century of whom we have record declared the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist to be no more than symbolic (although Clement and Origen came close to doing so) or specified a process of substantial change by which the presence was effected (although Ignatius and Justin came close to doing so). Within the limits of those excluded extremes was the doctrine of the real presence . . .

Liturgical evidence suggests an understanding of the Eucharist as a sacrifice, whose relation to the sacrifices of the Old Testament was one of archetype to type, and whose relation to the sacrifice of Calvary was one of ‘re-presentation,’ just as the bread of the Eucharist ‘re-presented’ the body of Christ . . .

As John Adams once said, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

15:23  our Lutheran liturgy really is overwhelmingly the same heritage 

It’s not, because it denies the very essence of the Mass: the eucharistic sacrifice.

15:28 Luther and the reformers were anything but revolutionaries on this question

Really? In 1525, Luther wrote his treatise, The Abomination of the Secret Mass (found in Luther’s Works, vol. 36, pp. 311-328). In it he calls the Catholic Mass “disgraceful,” “abominable,” “idolatries” (all on p. 311), “shameful,” “plague,” “deliberate blasphemies” (p. 312), “insults God,” “they deny God and insult the sacrifice that Christ has made and disgrace his blood” (p. 313), “the blasphemy is so great that it must simply wait for eternal hell-fire” (p. 320), etc. ad nauseam.

All through the diatribe he shows himself perfectly ignorant of the fact that we hold that it is a supernatural re-presentation of the one true Sacrifice on Calvary, not a repeated sacrifice (e.g., “they . . . offer him up more than a hundred thousand times throughout the world. They thereby deny . . . that Christ . . . has died and risen again”: p. 320). This is elementary, and was explained long since in the Church fathers. But once Luther got on his soap box, mere things like accuracy and fairness to opponents always quickly went by the wayside.

But he was undeniably a liturgical revolutionary because he “gutted” the Mass of its most essential element. In no way can he be viewed as consistently following the liturgical understanding of the Church fathers.

15:34  they kept whatever they could from the ancient tradition that was not contrary to the Bible

Ah, so now it’s at least qualified.

16:28 our churches are falsely accused of abolishing the mass 

The problem is that if one omits what is essential and “non-negotiable” / “non-optional” in an ancient view, one can’t be said to be continuing the same ancient view, or call it their “heritage.” It’s a basic question of both fact and logical consistency. Catholicism and Orthodoxy continue what the fathers believed about liturgy. Lutheranism does not, nor does any form of Protestantism, save for possibly a few Anglo-Catholics.

17:29 in a Lutheran Church . . . the historic liturgy is being used

It certainly is not, with all due respect. It’s “historic” only back to Luther’s time. The Church fathers wouldn’t recognize it. They would say it is gutted, as we do.

35:55 Lutherans do teach that there is a sacrifice in the Eucharist. The sacrifice is a noun, not a verb. The sacrifice is the body and the blood which Christ once offered on the tree, [which] he now reaches to you to seal that salvation to you, so that you might know that your sins are forgiven, and that that sacrifice was offered on your behalf. He continually gives it to you
*
That’s exactly what we believe: so far . . .
*
36:26  we do not offer it up to him that is a big difference in perspective 

The Council of Trent, in its Doctrine on the Sacrifice of the Mass (September 17, 1562), explains why we do:

He offered up to God the Father His own Body and Blood under the species of bread and wine . . . and by those words, “Do this in commemoration of me” (1 Cor. 11:24), He commanded them and their successors in the priesthood to offer them . . .

And this is indeed that clean oblation, which cannot be defiled by any unworthiness or malice of those that offer it; which the Lord foretold by Malachi was to be offered in every place, clean to his name (Mal. 1:11) . . . This, in fine, is that oblation which was prefigured by various types of sacrifices (Gen. 4:4; 8:20, etc.), during the period of nature and of the law; inasmuch as it comprises all the good things signified by those sacrifices, as being the consummation and perfection of them all.

We’re following the example of Our Lord at the Last Supper, as set down in inspired revelation. For more on this, see;

The Sacrifice of the Mass: A Lamb . . . Slain [3-8-92; rev. May 1996]

The Sacrifice of the Mass: Classic Catholic Reflections [1994]

Sacrifice of the Mass & Hebrews 8 (vs. James White) [3-31-04]

Passover in Judaism & a Mass that Transcends Time (“Past Events Become Present Today”/ Survey of “Remember” in Scripture) [7-7-09]

The Timeless Crucifixion & the Sacrifice of the Mass [9-25-09]

Is Jesus “Re-Sacrificed” at Every Mass? [National Catholic Register, 8-19-17]

39:05 this sacrifice once offered on the cross takes place continually in an unseen fashion in heaven

Catholics believe that in the Mass we are supernaturally included in this offering.

39:11 by way of commemoration when Christ offers to his father on our behalf his suffering

It’s not merely commemoration if we are supernaturally transported back to Calvary and Jesus’ suffering and death on the cross. In Revelation 5:6, St. John saw Jesus in a way that is very much like the Sacrifice of the Mass: “I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain.” Yet in 5:9 and 5:12 the text notes that Jesus “wast slain” and “was slain.”  And we all know that Jesus rose from the dead and was resurrected. So the Bible teaches that there is a quality of the Mass and Jesus’ one-time sacrifice that transcends time. “Lamb” referring to Jesus occurs 28 times in the book of Revelation in RSV.

39:23  this is the unbloody sacrifice which is carried out in heaven

But it’s not unbloody because it is the one sacrifice that occurred in time in Jerusalem, and this is more or less proven by Revelation 5:6. At the very least, that passage is perfectly consistent with what we say about the Mass: especially since it occurs in the context of a massive worship service in heaven.

39:37 If we view the matter from the material standpoint the sacrifice in the Eucharist is numerically the same as the sacrifice that took place on the cross 

Exactly! Now if Lutherans could only figure out that we agree on this point!

44:13 when we read the fathers, number one, we don’t burden them with infallibility. There’s going to be stuff in the fathers that they get wrong and we know that . . . the fathers are not the inspired and inherent scriptures

So do we. We don’t believe that the Church fathers collectively or individually are infallible. We think the Church and the pope are granted that gift, in carefully specified circumstances. What we look to is patristic consensus on issues, which we believe indicates or exhibits the scope and nature of the apostolic tradition that was passed down. We don’t even hold that St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas were infallible.

*
***
*
Practical Matters:  I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 4,900+ free online articles or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

*
***
*

Photo credit: cover of my self-published 2011 book [see book and purchase information]

I critique Luther pastor Will Weedon’s rationale for remaining Lutheran, over against Catholicism. Highlights include the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Church fathers.

Follow Us!
TAKE THE
Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who was the only female judge of Israel?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Browse Our Archives
TRENDING AT PATHEOS Family
Is AI in the Image of God?
Where HAVE you Been?
In Search of a New Paradigm? Try Yeshua!
News about John Henry Newman
How to Rebuild Trust After You’ve Broken It
An unexpected side of Sigmund Freud
view all Family blogs