2020-01-20T12:45:34-04:00

Last updated on: January 20, 2020 at 12:45 pm   By

[Chapter Six from my book, Biblical Catholic Eucharistic Theology (Feb. 2011) ]

*****

St. Paul wrote that those taking the bread and cup “in an unworthy manner” were “guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Cor 11:27-30; cf. 1 Cor 10:14-22). Does he “need” the Aristotelian philosophy of substance and accidents to know this? No. He doesn’t even need Stoic or Epicurean or Platonic philosophy. He doesn’t need any philosophy at all. All he needs is Jewish realism, just as when he was converted, Jesus told him he was persecuting Him (Acts 9:3-6). Paul was persecuting the Church (Acts 8:3).

The Church is the Body of Christ, in this incarnational, sacramental, biblical way of thinking. It is Jewish realism and historicism taken to another spiritual level. John 6 and the Last Supper accounts, as well as Paul’s literalism above, make eucharistic realism quite easily ascertained, which is why no one of note denied the doctrine until the Protestant Zwingli in the 16th century. Even Luther left it untouched and damned to hell all those who denied it. The fathers unanimously took the literal view of the Eucharist.

Nothing in Paul’s discussion of the Eucharist goes against a straightforward literal interpretation. If I referred to “the body and blood of Dave Armstrong,” people would know exactly what that meant. If I complained that “my body aches today,” no one would take that merely symbolically or “spiritually” or “mystically.” If I mentioned that “I gave blood at the Red Cross” I dare say that not a single person would think I was only speaking allegorically. Yet when Jesus says, “This is My Body” and “This is My Blood” at the Last Supper, all of a sudden many people think it is a spiritual, non-physical, symbolic meaning only.

The Last Supper was an observance of the Jewish Passover. The sacrifice of the lamb (Jesus) — following Jewish ritual and ceremonial practices — was quite real. That wasn’t symbolic. Yet Jesus’ Body and Blood are reduced to mere symbols. Why should symbol be more impressive or “spiritual” than physical, concrete reality? I think the tendency to anti-sacramentalism in Protestantism is ultimately (by logical reduction) anti-incarnational and a derivative of the antipathy to matter of ancient heresies such as the Docetics and Gnostics.

In any event, one can believe in the literal, substantial Eucharist without a whit of philosophical knowledge, just as one can believe in the Trinity or the Incarnation without the slightest knowledge of the hypostatic union, homoousios, filioque, kenosis, etc. The puddle of Christianity (as the proverb goes) is shallow enough for a child to play in and deep enough for an elephant to drown in.

The central point isn’t the philosophical categories, but that Jesus is truly present, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. The Orthodox and the Lutherans are realists, too; they simply use different words and expressions. All agree that it is ultimately a great mystery. We merely try to explain or comprehend it in a bit more detail.

Orthodox object to our alleged “hyper-rationalism,” yet they get into quite technical detail also when they discuss the filioque, the Divine Energies, and theosis, or divinization. Excessive “rationalism,” then, is often in the eye of the beholder.

Does anyone wish to contend that the Holy Eucharist can’t be understood or believed at all without taking four philosophy courses: philosophy of language, epistemology, logic, and analytic philosophy? I deny it. I think many Protestant apologists are approaching this issue far too “academically” or “philosophically”.

The philosophy has been raised to too high a level once again, usurping the place of faith and common sense. And we Catholics stand by common sense. To wax somewhat “Chestertonian”: Common sense is far better than uncommon lack of sense.

Catholic sacramentalism and incarnational theology maintain that the symbol or sign is also a reality. The separation whereby all symbols are opposed to realism, is what we oppose. Jesus compared His Resurrection to the “sign of Jonah.” But it was literal. Augustine could speak of the Eucharist as both a sign and a physical reality. The two are not mutually exclusive.

We must not yield up such a fundamental doctrine and rite of Christianity to relativism and “diversity.” It’s clear enough what the Church believed through the centuries on this, without a necessity for Aristotelianism to be brought into the discussion.

If we were to observe Jesus as a fetus, would we be able to ascertain that He had come about in a way other than the usual natural meeting of sperm and egg? Could we prove that the burning bush was somehow to be equated with the Creator of the Universe? How would someone falsify the multiplication of the loaves and fishes?

How could someone prove that the atonement and redemption of all mankind is occurring by observing an itinerant preacher being put to death on a cross: just one of many thousands who endured the same horrible end at the hands of the Romans? How is that falsifiable? One can’t prove that the water used in baptism has power by taking it immediately off the head of a baby and analyzing it chemically.

Christianity is an empirical, concrete, practical religion. But it is not always. The foundational doctrines of Christianity cannot be proven empirically. How does one prove that Christ redeemed the world? How can the Holy Trinity itself be either proven or falsified, apart from revelation and faith? Such skepticism about the Eucharist would also exclude the atonement, the incarnation, the virgin birth, etc. (by placing them in the same “absurd” category — qua miracles — as transubstantiation). Yet some seem to deny that the Eucharist is a mystery at all.

***

Related Reading:

*
*
*
John Calvin’s Erroneous Mystical View of the Eucharist [4-9-04, 9-7-05, abridged and re-edited on 11-30-17]
*

***

Unfortunately, Money Trees Do Not Exist: If you have been aided in any way by my work, or think it is valuable and worthwhile, please strongly consider financially supporting it (even $10 / month — a mere 33 cents a day — would be very helpful). I have been a full-time Catholic apologist since Dec. 2001, and have been writing Christian apologetics since 1981 (see my Resume). My work has been proven (by God’s grace alone) to be fruitful, in terms of changing lives (see the tangible evidences from unsolicited “testimonies”). I have to pay my bills like all of you: and have a (homeschooling) wife and three children still at home to provide for, and a mortgage to pay.
*
My book royalties from three bestsellers in the field (published in 2003-2007) have been decreasing, as has my overall income, making it increasingly difficult to make ends meet.  I provide over 2600 free articles here, for the purpose of your edification and education, and have written 50 books. It’ll literally be a struggle to survive financially until Dec. 2020, when both my wife and I will be receiving Social Security. If you cannot contribute, I ask for your prayers (and “likes” and links and shares). Thanks!
*
See my information on how to donate (including 100% tax-deductible donations). It’s very simple to contribute to my apostolate via PayPal, if a tax deduction is not needed (my “business name” there is called “Catholic Used Book Service,” from my old bookselling days 17 or so years ago, but send to my email: [email protected]). Another easy way to send and receive money (with a bank account or a mobile phone) is through Zelle. Again, just send to my e-mail address. May God abundantly bless you.
*
***
2020-01-15T14:03:51-04:00

Last updated on: January 15, 2020 at 2:03 pm   By

Dr. Mark Miravalle holds the St. John Paul II Chair of Mariology at Franciscan University of Steubenville, and is Professor of Mariology at Ave Maria University. He is the President of Vox Populi Mariae Mediatrici, which seeks the solemn papal definition (at the highest dogmatic level) of the Spiritual Maternity of the the Blessed Virgin Mary, as Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix of All Graces, and Advocate for the People of God.

I’m honored and delighted to host this recent paper of Dr. Miravalle on my blog. I have greatly appreciated and cited his work for over twenty years in several of my apologetic / theological writings on the topic, in defense of the same Marian doctrines (which I will link to below).

*****

In light of Pope Francis’ December 12, 2019 non-scripted, spontaneous comments concerning the traditional Marian title “co-redemptrix,” coupled later with a more vague inference to its proposed dogmatic definition (see National Catholic Register, Dec 23, 2019; La Stampa Vatican Insider, Jan. 8, 2020), a high-spirited worldwide discussion has ensued regarding the legitimacy of this Marian title, and the doctrine which it seeks to identify: namely, the unique human cooperation of the Mother of Jesus with and under Jesus Christ, humanity’s sole divine Redeemer, in the historic work of Redemption.

Most of the global discussion has focused upon the question of the authenticity of the classic Co-redemptrix title, which expresses in a single term the unique human role of Mary in the historic salvation of humanity accomplished by her divine son. What has not been discussed is the proposed rationale for a possible solemn definition or “dogma” of Mary’s role in the Redemption, along with her consequent motherly role as Spiritual Mother of humanity.

The unparalleled role of the Mother of Jesus in the saving work of Jesus Christ indeed already constitutes the authoritative doctrinal teaching of the Church’s Magisterium. The Second Vatican Council repeatedly teaches this unique coredemptive role of Mary with and under Jesus, and her consequent intercessory roles as Mediatrix and Advocate for humanity:

…the Blessed Virgin advanced in her pilgrimage of faith, and faithfully persevered in her union with her Son unto the cross, where she stood, in keeping with the divine plan, enduring with her only begotten Son the intensity of his suffering, associated herself with his sacrifice in her mother’s heart, and lovingly consenting to the immolation of this Victim which she herself had brought forth (Lumen Gentium 58).

And again:

She conceived, brought forth and nourished Christ. She presented Him to the Father in the temple, and was united with Him by compassion as He died on the Cross. In this singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope and burning charity in the work of the Savior in giving back supernatural life to souls. Therefore, she is a mother to us in the order of grace (Lumen Gentium, 61).

St. John Paul II referred to Mary as the human “Co-redemptrix” with Jesus, the only divine Redeemer, on at least seven occasions. The great John Paul would further teach and preach the greatest quality and quantity of the theology regarding Marian coredemption in the history of the Church.

The prefix “co” comes from the Latin word, cum, which in its first denotation means “with” and not “equal.” The title “co-redemptrix” applied to the Mother of Jesus never places Mary on a level of equality with Jesus Christ, the world’s sole divine Redeemer. To place Mary on a divine
level of equality with Jesus constitutes both Christian heresy and blasphemy!

The biblical and the liturgical sources also confirm that the prefix “co” does not predominantly mean equal. St. Paul refers to all Christians as “co-workers with God” (1 Cor. 3:9) but is not teaching that we are “equal workers” with God. The Liturgy refers to Christians as “co-heirs” with Jesus, but is certainly not signifying that we are “equal heirs” with Jesus. Pope St. John Paul II repeatedly called the Catholic faithful to be “co-redeemers in Christ” (e.g., May 8, 1988). Again, “co” signifies “with” and not equal, as it appropriately used biblically, liturgy, papally, and in the Marian title, “Co-redemptrix.”

Again, the Co-redemptrix term applied to Jesus’ human mother denotes Mary’s singular human participation with and under Jesus, the one and only divine Redeemer, in the saving work of Redemption (redimere: to “buy back”) for all humanity. Her subordinate human participation depends entirely upon Jesus’ divine and infinite saving act.

No one shared in the Redemption accomplished by her divine Son more than his human mother. Mary alone was the Mother of Jesus, giving the Word his flesh, the very instrument of our Redemption. (cf. Heb. 10:10). Further and most importantly, Mary alone was the “Immaculate Conception.” Her fullness of grace allowed her to be the perfect sinless partner with her son in the work of the Redemption, and also provided for Mary the opportunity of a perfect human choice, freed from sin, to cooperate with the Redeemer to save souls through a suffering of love united to her Son.

If Mary’s unique role in the Redemption is already an official doctrine of the Church, what then would be the benefit of the Holy Father declaring it as a new dogma?

The following constitute 7 fruits by which the contemporary Church and world would greatly benefit from a solemn definition of Mary as the Spiritual Mother of all peoples (inclusive of her three motherly roles as Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate).

1. Releasing historic graces for the Church and the world: Fully Activating Mary’s Motherly Intercession

During the horrors of World War I, the renowned Belgian Cardinal Desìre Mercier initiated a petition drive to Pope Benedict XV for the dogmatic definition of Mary’s universal mediation. What was Mercier’s rationale for this new Marian dogma? He argued that a solemn declaration of Mary’s roles of intercession would lead to “great graces for the world,” especially the grace of “world peace.” By 1925, over 450 cardinals and bishops, and hundreds of thousands of clergy and faithful had sent petitions to Popes Benedict XV and Pius XI in support of the Marian proclamation.

Also in the 1920’s, St. Maximilian Kolbe joined his strong support to his international Army of the Immaculate. Three papal commissions produced over 2500 pages of theological support for the new Marian dogma. Theological defense for the Marian doctrines of Co-redemptrix and Mediatrix of all graces dominated the Mariology of the 1940’s and 1950’s. Although Pope St. John XXIII made it clear from the offset of the Second Vatican Council that it would not be a council defining new dogmas (but rather a pastoral council,) the doctrines of Marian coredemption, mediation, and advocacy are nonetheless explicitly and repeatedly taught (again, cf. Lumen Gentium, 56, 57, 58, 61, 62).

Since 1993, over 8 million petitions from the People of God spanning some 180 countries have been sent to the Holy See in support of a fifth Marian dogma. Just in the last 25 years, over 600 bishops and 70 cardinals have joined the People of God in their petition to the Holy See. These millions of faithful and hundreds of prelates generally share the same belief as the movement’s founder over a century ago: this papal proclamation of Mary’s universal spiritual motherhood will lead to a historic release of grace for the Church and for the world. An August, 2019 open letter to Pope Francis by cardinals and bishops representing the six contents requesting the fifth Marin dogma voices precisely the same spiritual conviction (www.openletterformary.com).

What is the theological justification for the expectation of historic graces through a dogmatic proclamation of Mary’s role as Co-redemptrix and her resulting universal Spiritual Motherhood?

God the Father so respects human freedom that grace cannot be forced upon humanity. The free consent of humanity is required for Our Lady to most fully and completely intercede on our behalf. The Holy Father, therefore, as Vicar of Christ on earth and supreme authority of the Church, must freely and solemnly acknowledge Mary’s unique human role in the Redemption and her consequent maternal functions for humanity as Mediatrix of all graces and Advocate in order for Our Lady to fully and most powerfully exercise these three motherly roles of intercession for world today.

Do we not see the exactly the same theological principle manifested in the biblical institution of the papacy? In Mt. 16:15-20, Jesus asks the apostles the question, “Who do they say that I am?” Jesus, of course, knew who He was, yet Jesus wanted to hear the truth freely proclaimed by Peter. Then and only then, upon the condition of free human consent, does Jesus institute the papacy, which as a result leads to all the historic graces that will flow to the Church and world through the papacy.

The millions of faithful presently petitioning Pope Francis believe that a similar phenomenon of a historic grace will flow upon the world once the Holy Father freely and solemnly proclaims Our Lady as the Spiritual Mother of all peoples: an act of free human consent by the Vicar of Christ which will lead to a new and monumental release of grace through Our Lady’s newly proclaimed roles of intercession.

2. The Completion of Marian Dogma: Declaring Mary’s Relationship with Humanity

Up to this point in history, the Catholic Church has proclaimed 4 dogmas about the Mother of Jesus: that Mary is Mother of God (“Theotokos”), that is, true human mother of God the Son  made man in Jesus Christ (Council of Ephesus, 431); her Perpetual Virginity, which proclaims that Mary was virginal before, during, and after the birth of Jesus Christ (Lateran Council, 649); her Immaculate Conception, that Mary was conceived without original sin (infallibly defined by Blessed Pope Pius IX in 1854); and her Assumption, which proclaims that Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven at the end of her earthly life (infallibly defined by Pope Pius XII in 1950).

These four dogmas, sublime in their articulation of Our Lady’s unique prerogatives, nonetheless, say nothing explicitly about her relationship to humanity, nor about her role in the Redemption of humanity. This fifth Marian dogma which would solemnly define Our Lady’s role as the Spiritual Mother of all peoples and incorporate her three foundational maternal roles as Co-redemptrix (the “Mother Suffering”) Mediatrix of all graces (the “Mother Nourishing”) and Advocate (the “Mother Interceding”) would thereby effectively bring to dogmatic completion the “whole truth about Mary,” to use the expression of Pope St. John Paul II.

How appropriate that during what many contemporaries believe to be the historical climax of the “Age of Mary,” an age which boasts of more Marian dogmas declared, more Marian apparitions approved, and more Marian popes than in any other single period of the Church’s history, her coredemptive role with Jesus for humanity and her relationship with humanity as our Spiritual Mother would be solemnly defined.

Additionally, authentic love of Mary must always be grounded upon authentic truth about Mary. For example, The Rosary, Marian Consecration, and the Scapular devotion are all theologically based upon the doctrine of Our Lady’s Spiritual Maternity. It would thus be appropriate to have a dogmatic definition of the Marian doctrine upon which the greatest contemporary manifestations of Marian devotion depend.

3. Declaring the Redemptive Value of Human Suffering: Mary Co-redemptrix and the Christian’s role as “co-redeemer in Christ”

A papal definition of Mary Co-redemptrix would manifest to the world the fundamental Christian truth that “suffering is redemptive.” This dogma would inherently highlight the redemptive value of human suffering, which, in an age faced with ubiquitous suffering both spiritual and physical in nature, could provide a quintessential pastoral message in a concrete human expression to the contemporary Church and world.

While Our Lady’s suffering with her Crucified Son was unparalleled in its depth and in its merit, all Christians are called by St. Paul to “make up what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ for the sake of his body, which is the Church (Col.1:24). Each of us within the Body of Christ has the privilege and responsibility to join the redemptive mission of Jesus and Mary, and by the patient enduring of our sufferings and spiritually uniting them to the sufferings of our Redeemer, can contribute to the mysterious release of graces for human salvation.

St. John Paul repeatedly called all Christians to become “co-redeemers in Christ,” and Pope Benedict XVI likewise invited the sick at Fatima to become “redeemers in the Redeemer” (Homily of Fatima, May 13, 2010). A solemn proclamation of Mary as the human Co-redemptrix with Jesus offers the People of God a perfect human example to imitate in their Christian call to offer our daily sufferings for the redemption of others.

In an age where the evils of euthanasia and suicide are massively on the rise, the world needs a powerful reminder that human suffering is not useless and hopeless, but rather can be both supernaturally redemptive and eternally meritorious.

Mary’s role as Co-redemptrix as the perfect model for all Christians to actively be “co-redeemers in Christ” is not limited to our participation in human suffering. Her unique cooperation in the redemptive work of Christ powerfully illustrates the overall and central Catholic principle of participation, where creatures can share in an attribute or work of God, but without adding, subtracting, or competing with God through that participation. For example, every Christian participates in the very nature of God by sharing in his divine life through sanctifying grace (cf.2 Peter 1:14), but without adding, subtracting or competing with divine life of the Trinity. All Christians likewise participate in an entirely dependent and subordinate way in the “one mediation between God and man, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim 2:5) through, as St. Paul urges a few verses earlier, our own “supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanksgiving” for one another (1 Tim 2:1). A Christian who prays for the salvation of another; who evangelizes the saving Gospel to another; who brings the love of Christ to another in the form of food, shelter, comfort, love—these are all acts of Christian coredemption which can bring the saving mercy of Jesus to the world through our own human participation.

Couples “co-create” with the Eternal Father when they have children; bishops “co-sanctify” with the Holy Spirit when they administer Confirmation; and all Christians “co-redeem” with Jesus by offering their prayers and sacrifices in union with Jesus for the salvation of souls. Defining Mary’s role as Co-redemptrix would exponentially accentuate this key Christian truth.

4. Highlighting the Dignity of the Human Person and Human Freedom: The Human Imperative to Cooperate with Grace

Proclaiming Mary’s free and personal role in the Redemption would also inherently proclaim the dignity of the human person as well as the dignity of God’s most precious gift to the human person: freedom. This dogma would recognize in a solemn expression that a free decision of a human being was a necessary element within God’s providential plan for human Redemption.

Numerous contemporary ideologies deny both the dignity of human freedom and the dignity of the human person—from totalitarian regimes like Communist China, to western syndicates of human trafficking, where its principal market is found in the West. A dogma founded on God’s respect for human freedom joined with Our Lady’s perfect exercise of it would innately pronounce the transcendent dignity of the human person and the imperative to respect human freedom in all circumstances—as does the Creator himself. As beautifully articulated by Pope Leo XIII: “The Eternal Son of God, about to take upon Him our nature for the saving and ennobling of man, and about to consummate thus a mystical union between Himself and all mankind, did not accomplish His design without adding there the free consent of the elect

Mother, who represented in some sort all human kind, according to the illustrious and just opinion of St. Thomas, who says that the Annunciation was effected with the consent of the Virgin standing in the place of humanity” [cf. Summa theologiae III, q. 30, a. 1], (Octobri mense, n. 4).

This Marian declaration would moreover underscore the perennial Catholic teaching on the human necessity to cooperate with grace for our salvation. As St. Augustine conveys in his famous maxim: “God created us without us: but he did not will to save us without us” (Sermo 169, 13; PL 38, 923).

In fact, the Co-redemptrix title may well be the single greatest term that most completely embodies the full Catholic doctrinal teaching on personal salvation, as it necessarily includes authentically Catholic justification principles such as the proper relationships between human freedom and divine providence, grace and free will, faith and works.

Human freedom exercised with human dignity in perfect cooperation with God’s plan of salvation—therein lies the supreme witness of Mary Co-redemptrix.

5. Proclaiming the True Dignity of Woman: Authentic Christian Feminism as Embodied in Our Lady

This proposed dogma would sublimely underline that the greatest act of human history—the redemption of the human family— is the result of a woman’s active and feminine “yes.”

It was the will of God that the human person to partake most intimately in the greatest divine act for humanity would not be a pope, nor a bishop, nor a priest, nor a man—but rather a woman and a mother. This speaks volumes regarding both the dignity of woman and the true theological, anthropological, and social nature and dignity of authentic Christian feminism.

The providential necessity of a woman’s contribution to the Redemption has been acknowledged throughout Christian history. In 180 A.D., St. Irenaeus refers to Mary’s feminine contribution as “the cause of salvation for herself and the whole human race.” In 1918, Pope Benedict XV authoritatively teaches: “We may rightly say that she redeemed the human race together with Christ” (Inter Sodalicia). In 1993, Mother Teresa succinctly conveys the same truth in her common quip, “No Mary, no Jesus.” (Conversation with Author, Calcutta, August 14, 1993).

St. Thomas Aquinas also recognized that Mary’s assent to become the Mother of God was given “in place of all human nature” (loco totius humanae naturae) [Summa theologiae III q. 30, a. 1]. Thus a woman spoke on behalf of the entire human race in order to bring the Savior into the world.”

Particularly in a time of the Church when questions and confusions regarding the nature and role of women in the Church are reaching their crescendos, the answer and remedy is Mary. Proclaiming the greatness of Mary and her roles of maternal intercession for humanity will clarify the proper role of women in the Church, leading to their powerful, yet humble service to the Body of Christ.

The Redemption of the human race is therefore both a gift from the Divine Redeemer to humanity, and at the same time a gift from a woman to humanity. As eloquently expressed by personalist philosopher, Josef Seifert:

This dogma would express a dignity of a woman’s action which exceeds in activeness, sublimity and effectiveness the deeds of all pure creatures and men: of all kings and politicians, thinkers, scientists, philosophers, artists and craftsmen from the beginning of the world to the end of doom, and in a certain manner even of all priests except Christ. For all other priestly actions render only present Christ’s redemptive grace and action but Mary’s act rendered our redemption itself possible and thus mediated for mankind the most high gift of our divine Savior himself (Mary Co-redemptrix: Doctrinal Issue Today, p. 77).

6. Applying Authentic Christian Ecumenism to Mary: A Mother Unites her Children

A new dogma on Mary’s Spiritual Motherhood would actually serve authentic Christian Ecumenism, apart from initial appearances to the contrary, as genuine Ecumenism is designated by the Church’s Magisterium.

The Second Vatican Council teaches:

It is, of course, essential that doctrine be clearly presented in its entirety. Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false conciliatory approach which harms the purity of Catholic doctrine and obscures its assured genuine meaning (Unitatis Redintegratio, 11).

In his papal document on ecumenism, Ut Unum Sint, Pope St. John Paul II describes truly Catholic ecumenical activity in terms of prayer “as the soul” and dialogue “as the body” in pursuit of true and lasting Christian unity within the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of Christ (cf Ut Unum Sint, 21, 28). In regards to areas of doctrinal disagreement such as Marian dogma or doctrine, John Paul strongly condemns any form of doctrinal “reductionism”:

With regard to the study of areas of disagreement, the Council requires that the whole body of doctrine be clearly presented …Full communion of course will have to come about through the acceptance of the whole truth into which the Holy Spirit guides Christ’s disciples. Hence all forms of reductionism or facile “agreement” must be absolutely avoided (UUS, n. 36).

And again:

The unity willed by God can be attained only by the adherence of all to the content of revealed faith in its entirety. In matters of faith, compromise is in contradiction with God who is Truth. In the Body of Christ, ‘the way, the truth, and the life’ (Jn.14:6), who could consider legitimate a reconciliation brought about at the expense of the truth? (USS, 36).

Fullness of doctrinal truth and greatest possible clarity of doctrine thereby constitute two essential pillars of legitimate Catholic ecumenical activity.

If the expressed purpose of a dogmatic proclamation of Mary’s role in the Redemption is precisely to articulate the fullness of doctrinal truth and the greatest possible clarity of this true Marian doctrine, it cannot, by definition, constitute a violation of authentic Catholic Ecumenism.

To hold as such would be to de facto rule out the legitimacy of the last four Marian dogmas, as well the charism of papal infallibility itself regarding Marian truth.

The late John Cardinal O’Connor of New York, in his letter to Pope John Paul II for the fifth Marian dogma, well expresses the dogma’s potential service to authentic Ecumenism:

Clearly, a formal papal definition would be articulated in such precise terminology that other Christians would lose their anxiety that we do not distinguish adequately between Mary’s unique association with Christ and the redemptive power exercised by Christ alone (Letter to Pope John Paul II, Feb. 14, 1994).

7. Confirmation from Church Approved Private Revelation: Our Lady desires this Dogma

Marian Private revelation, even when approved by the Church, can never constitute the theological foundation for a Marian dogma. Yet it can serve as a supernatural confirmation for its appropriateness, importance, and even necessity.

We should not be surprised when the Holy Spirit’s gift of prophecy manifested through private revelation confirms heaven’s desire and/or condition by which to grant a historic grace for the Church. For example, the Rosary and the Scapular first revealed through private revelation. The acclaimed Fatima apparitions requested a consecration in order to bring momentous grace to the world. The apparitions of Our Lady of Grace and the Miraculous Medal (1830) served as a prophetic revelation to Blessed Pope Pius IX to declare the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Pope Pius XII receiving solar miracles in the Vatican gardens (October, 1950) as prophetic signs of encouragement and confirmation to declare the dogma of the Assumption.

Hence, we should not be surprised, but almost come to expect, some form of supernatural confirmation for great ecclesial acts which lead to historic graces for the world.

The locally approved apparitions of the Lady of All Nations in Amsterdam, Holland (1945-1959), which were declared as “consisting in essence of a supernatural origin” by Bishop Punt of Haarlem-Amsterdam (May 31, 2002, https://www.de-vrouwe.info/en/bishop2002 ) could provide such a heavenly confirmation. Not only do the Amsterdam apparitions ratify the appropriateness of a fifth Marian dogma for our time, but they further specify this Marian dogma as a heavenly condition for eventual world peace.

On April 29, 1951, the Lady of All Nations articulates heaven’s desire for a new dogma of Mary as Co-redemptrix:

I stand here as the Co-redemptrix and Advocate. Repeat this after me: the new dogma will be the “dogma of the Co-redemptrix.” Notice I lay special emphasis on the word, “co.” I have said that it will arouse much controversy. Once again I tell you that the Church, “Rome” will carry it through and silence all objections. The Church, “Rome,” will incur opposition and overcome it. The Church, “Rome” will become stronger and mightier in proportion to the resistance she puts up in the struggle (April 29, 1951).

On May 31,1954, the Lady of All Nations further instructs the People of God to work and petition to the Pope for this fifth Marian dogma:

Work and ask for this dogma. You should petition the Holy Father for this dogma…The world is dominated by the spirit of Satan. When the dogma, the last dogma in Marian history has been proclaimed, then the ‘Lady of All Nations’ will give peace, true peace,
to the world.

And again in this Amsterdam message of May 31, 1955, the Lady of All Nations calls for this dogma and associates its proclamation with the eventual gift of world peace:

The world has lost its bearings? Well then, nations, put your trust in your Mother. She is allowed to come to you under this new title: Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate. …Once the dogma has been pronounced, the Lady of all Nations will give her blessing…Then, the ‘Lady of All Nations’ will bestow peace. She will help you when this dogma has been proclaimed.

Our Lady’s approved apparitions in Amsterdam are later confirmed by a second Church-approved apparition involving the Lady of All Nations in Akita, Japan. From 1973 to 1981, Our Lady began a series of mystical phenomena in Akita where a wooden statue of the Lady of All Nations wept tears on 101 different occasions (several times in the presence of the local bishop, Bishop John Ito). Bishop Ito approved the supernatural authenticity of the Akita events in 1984, and confirmed that these two Church approved apparitions possess an essential unity when he stated: “Akita is the continuation of Amsterdam.”

Conclusion

From Cardinal Mercier’s initial inspiration of great graces of peace for the Church and world, to Our Lady’s confirmation through private revelation that the dogma of Mary’s Spiritual Motherhood would lead to eventual graces of global peace, one can testify to great contemporary fruits for the Church through a fifth Marian dogma.

Those who would like to join with the millions of faithful People of God worldwide in the respectfully petitioning of Pope Francis for this dogma may do so by writing a brief note to our Holy Father at the following address:

His Holiness, Pope Francis,
Vatican City State
00120

Most contemporary commentators agree that we will need “help from above” in order to remedy the ubiquitous crises threatening the world and the Church today. The 2020 conflict between Iran and the United States and their respective world allies only accentuates the peaceful urgency for this fifth Marian dogma and its resulting promised graces.

Let us follow the wisdom of the early Church. Let us fly to the protection of the “Holy Mother of God” in this contemporary crisis. Let us also follow Our Lady’s present plea to “work and ask for this dogma” so that she may be “freed” by our human consent to do for the world that which we simply cannot do for ourselves: to intercede for peace, true peace, for the world.

***

My Related Papers:

Mary Mediatrix: A Biblical Explanation [1999]

Mary Mediatrix: Dialogue w Evangelical Protestant [1-21-02]

Mary: Spiritual Motherhood & Rosary: Dialogue w Protestant [1-21-02]

Mary Mediatrix vs. Jesus Christ the Sole Mediator? [1-30-03]

Mary Mediatrix & the Bible (vs. Dr. Robert Bowman) [8-1-03]

Mary Mediatrix and the Church Fathers (+ Documentation That James White Accepts the Scholarship of the Protestant Church Historians I Cite [J. N. D. Kelly and Philip Schaff] ) [9-7-05]
*

Mary Mediatrix: St. John Paul II & Benedict XVI Clarify [2-19-08]

Immaculate Heart of Mary & Mary Mediatrix (Excessive Devotions?): Explanations Especially for New Converts to the Catholic Faith [11-25-08]

Biblical Evidence for Mary Mediatrix [11-25-08]

Mary Mediatrix: A Biblical & Theological Primer [9-15-15]

Exchange on Catholic Mariology and Mary Mediatrix [12-3-16]

Mary Mediatrix: Close Biblical Analogies [National Catholic Register, 8-14-17]

Mary Mediatrix & Jesus (Mere Vessels vs. Sources) [8-15-17]

Todd Baker’s Exodus from Rome (Tradition, Mary, Sola Fide) [4-23-18]

Pope Francis vs. the Marian Title “Co-Redemptrix”? (+ Documentation of Pope Francis’ and Other Popes’ Use of the Mariological Title of Veneration: “Mother of All”) [12-16-19]

Pope Francis’ Deep Devotion to Mary (Esp. Mary Mediatrix) [12-23-19]

*****

Photo credit: The coronation of the Virgin (1624-1626), by Peter Paul Rubens (1577-1640) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

*****

 

2020-01-13T17:40:20-04:00

Last updated on: January 13, 2020 at 5:40 pm   By
“Past Events Become Present Today”/ Survey of “Remember” in Scripture

I have heard that Jews celebrating Passover believe that the past becomes present. As such, the Catholic sees a similarity to our notion of the Sacrifice of the Mass, and Jesus’ death on the cross becoming present, and in a very real sense, transcending time altogether. We also believe that the Last Supper, where the Holy Eucharist was initiated, was a Passover meal. Many common notions could be explored with regard to the development of traditional Jewish understanding and Christian belief that is related to these in some fashion. For example, one ecumenical Jewish site stated:

The Jewish conviction that at the Seder past events become present today is something that can resonate strongly with Catholics. The Catholic concept of anamnesis corresponds to the Hebrew term zecher. Both refer to the use of ritual to make the past a lived present reality.

The Hebrew word zecher (in Strong’s Concordance, zakar or zeker: words #2142-2145), are usually translated as remember or remembrance, or related terms. It seems to have a connotation of more than a mere remembrance. The thing remembered has a direct relation to the present. For example:

Exodus 2:24 (RSV) And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob.

God “remembering” the covenant “made” it present insofar as it was still in force, thus enabling the Jews to win a battle. Of course, for God to “remember” anything is an anthropomorphism: God using expressions that human beings will understand. Since God knows everything at all times, to say that He “remembers” cannot be taken literally. If it were, this would imply a limitation of God’s knowledge. But this is how it is often expressed: God “remembers” the covenant, which is very much a present (or eternal) thing, so that past and present are in effect merged:

Genesis 9:15-16 I will remember my covenant which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. [16] When the bow is in the clouds, I will look upon it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.”

Exodus 6:5 Moreover I have heard the groaning of the people of Israel whom the Egyptians hold in bondage and I have remembered my covenant.

Psalm 106:45 He remembered for their sake his covenant, and relented according to the abundance of his steadfast love.

Ezekiel 16:60 yet I will remember my covenant with you in the days of your youth, and I will establish with you an everlasting covenant.

1 Maccabees 4:10 And now let us cry to Heaven, to see whether he will favor us and remember his covenant with our fathers and crush this army before us today.

Luke 1:54 He has helped his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy,

Luke 1:72 to perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant,

The “remembrance” is perfectly harmonious with being “present” and “eternal.” It’s the classic biblical, Hebraic “both/and” outlook. Less “sacramental” Protestants, on the other hand, often draw the conclusion that because the terminology of “remembrance” is used in the Last Supper and the Mass, that, therefore, the Eucharist is solely a thing of the past, to be reflected upon, with mere symbolism of bread and wine (or grape juice), as opposed to being a present reality, and the actual Body and Blood of Christ under the outward appearance of bread and wine: a miracle.

*

The Passover was a way for the Jews to remember, or make again present, the Exodus and deliverance from Egypt. Thus, when it was instituted, Moses stated:

Exodus 13:3-10 And Moses said to the people, “Remember this day, in which you came out from Egypt, out of the house of bondage, for by strength of hand the LORD brought you out from this place; no leavened bread shall be eaten. [4] This day you are to go forth, in the month of Abib. [5] And when the LORD brings you into the land of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Hivites, and the Jeb’usites, which he swore to your fathers to give you, a land flowing with milk and honey, you shall keep this service in this month. [6] Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread, and on the seventh day there shall be a feast to the LORD. [7] Unleavened bread shall be eaten for seven days; no leavened bread shall be seen with you, and no leaven shall be seen with you in all your territory. [8] And you shall tell your son on that day, `It is because of what the LORD did for me when I came out of Egypt.’ [9] And it shall be to you as a sign on your hand and as a memorial between your eyes, that the law of the LORD may be in your mouth; for with a strong hand the LORD has brought you out of Egypt. [10] You shall therefore keep this ordinance at its appointed time from year to year.”

Likewise, the Sabbath was an ongoing observance, but the word “remember” is applied to it:

Exodus 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

To “remember” all the commandments is to keep them in the present, and always:

Numbers 15:39-40 and it shall be to you a tassel to look upon and remember all the commandments of the LORD, to do them, not to follow after your own heart and your own eyes, which you are inclined to go after wantonly. [40] So you shall remember and do all my commandments, and be holy to your God.

Psalm 103:18 to those who keep his covenant and remember to do his commandments.

Psalm 119:55 I remember thy name in the night, O LORD, and keep thy law.

There was a spiritual, moral aspect to remembering, with regard to present conduct:

Deuteronomy 9:7 Remember and do not forget how you provoked the LORD your God to wrath in the wilderness; from the day you came out of the land of Egypt, until you came to this place, you have been rebellious against the LORD.

Deuteronomy 15:15 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God redeemed you; therefore I command you this today.

Deuteronomy 16:12 You shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt; and you shall be careful to observe these statutes.

Deuteronomy 24:18, 22 but you shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt and the LORD your God redeemed you from there; therefore I command you to do this. . . . [22] You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt; therefore I command you to do this.

John 14:26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

2 Peter 3:2 that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles.

Jude 1:17 But you must remember, beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;

Revelation 3:3 Remember then what you received and heard; keep that, and repent. If you will not awake, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come upon you.

God “remembers” our acts of worship and prayers:

Exodus 28:29 So Aaron shall bear the names of the sons of Israel in the breastpiece of judgment upon his heart, when he goes into the holy place, to bring them to continual remembrance before the LORD.

Exodus 30:16 And you shall take the atonement money from the people of Israel, and shall appoint it for the service of the tent of meeting; that it may bring the people of Israel to remembrance before the LORD, so as to make atonement for yourselves.

Psalm 20:3 May he remember all your offerings, and regard with favor your burnt sacrifices! [Selah]

Acts 10:31 saying, `Cornelius, your prayer has been heard and your alms have been remembered before God.

“Remembering” God is virtually a synonym for reverence and worship of God:

Psalm 6:5 For in death there is no remembrance of thee; in Sheol who can give thee praise?

Psalm 22:27 All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the LORD; and all the families of the nations shall worship before him.

Isaiah 17:10 For you have forgotten the God of your salvation, and have not remembered the Rock of your refuge; therefore, though you plant pleasant plants and set out slips of an alien god,

Jonah 2:7 When my soul fainted within me, I remembered the LORD; and my prayer came to thee, into thy holy temple.

Tobit 1:12 because I remembered God with all my heart.

Given all this background, the institution of the Holy Eucharist can now come into clearer focus:

Luke 22:19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”

1 Corinthians 11:24-25 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” [25] In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

The Eucharist and Sacrifice of the Mass are present realities, not just bare symbolic, abstract thoughts. The Jewish Passover has this characteristic also. Rabbi Yossi Kenigsberg explains:

. . . on no other Jewish holiday are we instructed to have a formalized dialogue and discussion recollecting the relevant historical events of the time. Why did our sages provide us with the Haggadah text and prescribe this lengthy and detailed analysis of our Egyptian experience?

Besides celebrating our physical emancipation from slavery, on Pesach we also commemorate the anniversary of Jewish nationhood and identity. Since the Exodus represents the genesis of our Jewish collective identity, it is vital that we do everything possible to discover and reaffirm our Jewish consciousness at this juncture. In order to achieve this, we must feel a connection to our Jewish past, present and future. The objective of the seder and the Haggadah format is to facilitate the opportunity for us to develop an acute sense of affiliation with the past, present, and future of the Jewish experience. . . .

Throughout the trials and tribulations of Jewish history, God continuously intervenes on our behalf and we are confident that His divine protection will always embrace us. The fusion of the past, present, and future that we created on those first nights of Pesach will provide for us and for our children a glimpse into eternity.

In a book specifically about the Passover celebration, Martin Sicker provides further relevant insight:

The Haggadah then continues with a statement that is also found in the Mishnah that calls upon each participant in the Seder to share vicariously in the experience of the Exodus.

In every generation one is obliged to view oneself as though he [personally] had gone out from Egypt. As it is said: And thou shalt tell thy son in that day, saying: It is because of that which the Lord did for me when I came forth out of Egypt (Ex. 13:8).

The Haggadah then amplifies this teaching, providing an appropriate biblical prooftext in support of its elaboration.

The Holy One, blessed is He, did not redeem only our ancestors, but also redeemed us along with them. As it is said: And He brought us out from thence, that he might bring us in, to give us the land which He swore unto our fathers. (Deut. 6:23).

. . . The Mishnah calls upon each participant in the Seder to make an intellectual leap across the millennia and thereby to share directly in the experience of their ancestors. (A Passover Seder Companion and Analytic Introduction to the Haggadah, IUniverse, 2004, p. 104)

Another Jewish source concurs:

By participating in the Seder, we are vicariously reliving the Exodus from Egypt. Around our festival table, the past and present merge and the future is promising.

Rabbi Dan Fink provides a further eloquent explanation:

Our sages taught: “In every generation, it is incumbent upon us to see ourselves as if we, too, went out from Egypt.” Pesach is not about remembering the distant past; it is about re-experiencing that past in the present time. It is not the story of our ancestors long ago; it is our story. Our challenge is to consider what enslaves us — anything and everything from money to television to old, stale habits — and find ways to free ourselves from those burdens. The Hebrew word for Egypt, mitzrayim, means “a narrow place.” This spring festival of deliverance is the time of our own liberation, an opportunity to renew ourselves.

So this year, don’t ask, “When do we eat?” Savor the journey rather than kvetching your way to the destination. Find creative ways to make your seder a living, breathing experience of redemption. Raise other, better questions: “What can I do to change the world this year? What still enslaves me? How can I help hasten the redemption of others still in bondage?” It’s not about the food. It’s about the freedom. Experience it this year.

Citing some of the same passages from the Talmud, Jewish educator Jennie Rosenfeld wonderfully expresses the same notions:

. . . it is particularly difficult to imagine how anyone so historically removed from the Egyptian exile can personally experience the redemption from Egypt in the same way that the Jewish slaves experienced it. . . . If we use this season in order to tap into our personal need for redemption in the here and now, we can either vicariously relate to or truly experience yetziat mitzrayim (exodus from Egypt) in our own lives. . . .

One type of holiness is kedushat hazman, holiness of time; the time of year in which miracles occurred in the past has within it the potential for future miracles. Jewish holidays both commemorate past miracles and contain the kedushat hazman, the temporal holiness, which we can access to effect miracles now. . . . by believing in the miracle of yetziat mitzrayim, we can experience it again now in our personal lives. Every individual can tap into this season in order to leave his/her personal meitzar (place of narrowness or confinement) or mitzrayim. The fact that Pesach occurs in the spring, the season in which nature renews itself and the flowers begin to blossom, foreshadows this potential for personal growth.

These fascinating aspects of the Jewish self-understanding of Passover have obvious analogical implications relative to the Catholic Mass. The great Catholic writer Karl Adam exclaimed:

The Sacrifice of Calvary, as a great supra-temporal reality, enters into the immediate present. Space and time are abolished. The same Jesus is here present who died on the Cross. The whole congregation unites itself with His holy sacrificial will, and through Jesus present before it consecrates itself to the heavenly Father as a living oblation. So Holy Mass is a tremendously real experience, the experience of the reality of Golgotha. (The Spirit of Catholicism, translated by Dom Justin McCann, Garden City, New York: Doubleday Image, 1954; originally 1924 in German, 197)

In conclusion, here are my thoughts, from my (1996) book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (pp. 99-100):

Some verses in Revelation state that the “prayers of the saints” are being offered at the altar in the form of incense (8:3-4; cf. 5:8-9). But the climactic scene of this entire glorious portrayal of Heaven occurs in Revelation 5:1-7. Verse 6 describes “a Lamb standing as though it had been slain.” Since the Lamb (Jesus, of course) is revealed as sitting in the midst of God’s throne (5:6; 7:17; 22:1, 3; cf. Matt. 19:28; 25:31; Heb. 1:8), which is in front of the golden altar (Rev. 8:3), then it appears that the presentation of Christ to the Father as a sacrifice is an ongoing (from God’s perspective, timeless) occurrence, precisely as in Catholic teaching. Thus the Mass is no more than what occurs in Heaven, according to the clear revealed word of Scripture. When Hebrews speaks of a sacrifice made once (Heb. 7:27), this is from a purely human, historical perspective (which Catholicism acknowledges in holding that the Mass is a “re-presentation” of the one Sacrifice at Calvary). However, there is a transcendent aspect of the Sacrifice as well.

Jesus is referred to as the Lamb twenty-eight times throughout Revelation (compared with four times in the rest of the New Testament: John 1:29, 36; Acts 8:32; 1 Peter 1:19). Why, in Revelation (of all places), if the Crucifixion is a past event, and the Christian’s emphasis ought to be on the resurrected, glorious, kingly Jesus, as is stressed in Protestantism (as evidenced by a widespread disdain for, crucifixes)? Obviously, the heavenly emphasis is on Jesus’ Sacrifice, which is communicated by God to John as present and “now” (Rev. 5:6; cf. Heb. 7:24)

***

Related Reading:

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

Biblical Evidence for Priests [9-13-15]

St. Paul Was a Priest [9-15-15]

Luther Espoused Eucharistic Adoration [9-17-15]

Catholic Mass: “Re-Sacrifice” of Jesus? [11-19-15]

“Re-Presentation” vs. “Re-Sacrifice” in the Mass: Doctrinal History [4-4-18]

Eucharistic Adoration: Explicit & Undeniable Biblical Analogies [2-1-19]

*

***

Unfortunately, Money Trees Do Not Exist: If you have been aided in any way by my work, or think it is valuable and worthwhile, please strongly consider financially supporting it (even $10 / month — a mere 33 cents a day — would be very helpful). I have been a full-time Catholic apologist since Dec. 2001, and have been writing Christian apologetics since 1981 (see my Resume). My work has been proven (by God’s grace alone) to be fruitful, in terms of changing lives (see the tangible evidences from unsolicited “testimonies”). I have to pay my bills like all of you: and have a (homeschooling) wife and three children still at home to provide for, and a mortgage to pay.
*
My book royalties from three bestsellers in the field (published in 2003-2007) have been decreasing, as has my overall income, making it increasingly difficult to make ends meet.  I provide over 2600 free articles here, for the purpose of your edification and education, and have written 50 books. It’ll literally be a struggle to survive financially until Dec. 2020, when both my wife and I will be receiving Social Security. If you cannot contribute, I ask for your prayers (and “likes” and links and shares). Thanks!
*
See my information on how to donate (including 100% tax-deductible donations). It’s very simple to contribute to my apostolate via PayPal, if a tax deduction is not needed (my “business name” there is called “Catholic Used Book Service,” from my old bookselling days 17 or so years ago, but send to my email: [email protected]). Another easy way to send and receive money (with a bank account or a mobile phone) is through Zelle. Again, just send to my e-mail address. May God abundantly bless you.
*
***

(originally 7-7-09)

Photo credit: The Last Supper, by Philippe de Champaigne (1602-1674) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
* * *
2019-12-10T16:28:55-04:00

Last updated on: December 10, 2019 at 4:28 pm   By

Dr. David Madison is an atheist who was a Methodist minister for nine years: with a Ph.D. in Biblical Studies from Boston University.  You can see (by the number in the title) how many times I have replied to his videos or articles. Thus far, I haven’t heard one peep back from him  (since 8-1-19 to this date). This certainly doesn’t suggest to me that he is very confident in his opinions. All I’ve seen is expressions of contempt from Dr. Madison and from his buddy, atheist author and polemicist, the extraordinarily volatile John Loftus, who runs the notoriously insulting Debunking Christianity blog.

Loftus even went to the length of changing his blog’s rules of engagement, in order for himself and Dr. Madison to avoid replying to me. Obviously, I have “hit a nerve” over there. In any event, their utter non-responses and intellectual cowardice do not affect me in the slightest. No skin off of my back. If I want to critique more of their material, I will. If my replies go out unopposed, all the better for my cause.

This is a reply to Dr. Madison’s article, O Holy Night! How Matthew Screwed Up the Christmas Story (12-21-18).  Dr. Madison’s words will be in blue below.

*****

We can imagine the literary agents for Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John meeting for drinks one Friday evening after work. They all get texts that the church’s Authorized Bible Committee has decided to publish the four gospels together, back-to-back. They all wince. Not a good idea! This will encourage the faithful to compare the four Jesus accounts. Matthew and Luke plagiarized (and altered) Mark extensively—without telling anyone—and the author of John’s gospel was pretty sure that the other three hadn’t told the story well at all, and made up stuff to ‘improve’ to tale. What a mess.

Very cute. Of course, this is sheer cynical speculation, and so has no argumentative value whatsoever. It’s simply thrown out as red meat for online anti-theist atheist audiences, who will (as long experience invariably illustrates) sop up any dig at Christianity, no matter how imbecilic or devoid of substance. Of course, what atheists like Madison never seem to realize is: why in the world would this “Authorized Bible Committee” publish all four gospels if in fact (assuming for the sake of argument), they are a mess of endless contradictions? It makes no sense. But that’s what this silly atheist “scenario” would entail.

But, never fear, it would be many centuries before the faithful would have access to the Bible, and even when they could have their own copies, they would never develop the habit of critically comparing the four gospels. These were holy books, after all, and anything that seemed fishy or hard to swallow was just part of the mystery.

There came a time, however, when pious New Testament scholars decided to study the gospels using the methods of historians, and it became a challenge to explain the mess. Specifically, this was the beginning of the end for the familiar birth narratives in Matthew and Luke, which fail on all accounts as history. But let’s take a close look at Matthew’s version as if he thought he was telling the truth.

For dissident liberals, who deny the inspiration of the Bible and approach Scripture like a butcher does a hog, they will end up finding what they desire to find, based on their prior lack of faith and incoherent worldview. For them (at least the most extreme ones) and for Dr. Madison, Matthew is simply a deliberate liar with an agenda.

But  there is quite a bit of literature, too, from serious historic Christians, dealing with difficulties that naturally come up (as with all complex issues) and with all the so-called, trumped-up alleged “contradictions” that atheists imagine: which are almost always not even logical contradictions at all, but simply different but complementary texts. I’ve dealt with this mentality time and again in my own apologetics (and in my previous 35 replies to Dr. Madison). But again, it sounds good to the anti-theists, so (like all good sophists) Madison uses it.

Familiar traditions have staying power, and Christians aren’t about to give up their Nativity Scenes, with shepherds and Wise Men worshipping the baby Jesus in a stable. The folks in the pews don’t seem to notice that this depiction is an impossible mash-up of Matthew and Luke. These two authors wrote different stories about the birth of Jesus—

This is actually correct, and it’s the Bible scholars who tell us that the wise men actually visited two years later. The Nativity scenes are simply engaging in what might be called “dramatic compression.” As an analogy, in the recent movie about the musical group The Four Seasons (Jersey Boys), it portrayed lead singer Frankie Valli sadly enduring the death of his youngest daughter Francine in the year 1967, whereas it was actually in 1980. There were other liberties taken as to when there were dramatic conflicts and departures of certain members of the band (with “errors” as much as five years off). I’m sure similar anomalies could be found in the recent biopics of Freddie Mercury of Queen and Elton John.

Movies do this all the time (mostly because biopics have two hours or so to deal with biographies and the entire lives of real people, so they conflate or compress events). So why is it inconceivable that Christians (with the sanction of the Church) might do it with regard to nativity scenes and the wise men? It’s simply putting different elements of the early life of Jesus together, for the sake of devotion and reflection. The time of the visit of the wise men is not nearly as important as the fact that they visited Jesus at all. The time isn’t the essence of it. This sort of thing doesn’t have to be either ignorance or dishonesty.

actually, Matthew doesn’t describe the birth of Jesus at all—and if Christians paid attention, they could figure it out. . . . Matthew’s story doesn’t even take place at Christmas time; he says nothing whatever about the night Jesus was born. No stable, no shepherds, no angels.

Why does he have to do that? In other words, I question Dr. Madison’s false premise. Where is it written that every Gospel account must include details of Jesus’ birth? Christians believe that, in God’s providence, the Gospels complement each other and have different emphases. What in the world is wrong with that? It’s just plain dumb “reasoning.” Luke was the one with the details of the birth and the Annunciation nine months prior. Matthew just offers a few bare facts (“Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king”: 2:1, RSV), Mark offers none (it starts with John the Baptist and Jesus at age 30, at the start of His public ministry), and John has no “birth facts” (it starts with theological words about trinitarianism, the incarnation, and the divinity of Christ; again, a different emphasis).

he seems to have timed their [the wise men’s] visit well after Jesus’ birth. . . . When they arrived in Bethlehem—after a detour to Jerusalem (more about that later)—they came to the house (not a stable) where Mary and the child were Matthew 2:11). Not a newborn, but a paidion—the Greek word for little child. In Matthew 19:14 Jesus himself uses the same word, “Permit the children to come unto me.” 

Exactly! Now how is this a supposed “difficulty” for Christianity, or some kind of “lie”? I won’t hold my breath for an answer, since — as I noted above — Dr. Madison completely ignores every criticism of his articles I make. My readers can see how silly all of this is.

The newborn babe (Greek brephos), in swaddling clothes in a manger, is found in Luke’s account of the night Jesus was born, presumably weeks or months earlier. So the Nativity Scenes that include the Wise Men kneeling in front of a trough to present their gifts is part of the impossible mash-up. Note also Matthew 2:16, which reports Herod’s dragnet to eliminate Jesus: “…he sent and killed all the children in and around Bethlehem who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had learned from the wise men.”

That’s precisely how Bible scholars have deduced that he wise men visited Jesus at about two years of age. Ho hum . . .

The Jesus in Matthew’s story could have been a toddler. So please, Christians, get those Wise Men out of the stable!

Again: why do we have to: anymore than the film Jersey Boys must be meticulously accurate as to the years that events portrayed in it actually happened. Once again: the essence of the thing is that the wise men (who were Gentiles, not Jews, and of a different religion: probably Zoroastrianism) visited Jesus, offering gifts and adoration, not when they visited. So the nativities simply compress the time frame to present all of it together, just as biographical films do all the time.

It’s much ado about nothing: which is a good summary of the entirety of the Bible-bashing work of Dr. Madison. I have shown myself (now literally 36 times) how he is in error and commits illogical fallacies over and over and over. But he doesn’t care. His goal isn’t to arrive at the truth or fuller understanding of these matters, but rather, to drive as many Christians away from Christianity, and into a hatred of their former belief, as possible. It’s all “chum” for the hungry anti-theist atheist sharks circling the Christian “boat.” It reduces to humorous folly in our view, but we also pity and pray for the poor man, to emerge from his self-imposed bondage to falsehoods and the slop of atheist disbelief.

Mixing Theology with Astrology

Even more inept, however, is Matthew’s invention of astrologers ‘from the East’ in the first place. Why would they even bother with the birth of a Jewish messiah? How in the world could they ‘see a star’ and infer that it had anything do to with a bit of Jewish theology? Well, astrologers talk even more nonsense than theologians do, so No, Matthew, this doesn’t make sense.

There have been several in-depth treatments of the wise men. Dr. Madison asks questions only rhetorically and polemically: never hoping to actually receive any sort of answer from us stupid Christians. But we actually examine the thing in the greatest depth:

Catholic Encyclopedia (“Magi”)

“The Magi” (Fr. William Saunders)

“Who Were the Three Wise Men?” (Fr. Dwight Longenecker)

Mystery of the Magi: The Quest to Identify the Three Wise Men (2017 book by Fr. Dwight Longenecker)

“Wise Men from the East and the Feast of the Epiphany of the Lord” (Sandra Miesel)

“The Magi” (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)

“Magi” (Smith’s Bible Dictionary)

And how can Christians be comfortable with the embrace of astrology anyway, especially concerning the story of Jesus? That omens in the sky relate to famous humans was a common superstition of the time; do Christians really want to go there? It would be hard to figure how astrology—the notion that human destinies are determined by star and planetary alignments—can be spliced into Christian theology. Astrology thrives where there is no grasp of confirmation bias and the capacity for critical thought has collapsed; theology has weak epistemology, astrology has none at all.

We don’t embrace astrology, nor does the Bible. It simply recounts the story of people who believed in astrology finding out about a very significant birth. All truth is God’s truth. Many great scientists (even those lionized by atheists) like Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler were enamored of astrology (and Newton with alchemy and the occult), while folks like Augustine and Aquinas (lowly theologian types) were not at all.

Why the Nile?

Matthew’s goofs get even worse. He is well known for his outrageous out-of-context quotes from the Old Testament to ‘prove’ that Jesus was the messiah, and perhaps the most egregious example is his use (Matt 2:15) of Hosea 11:1: “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.” Yes, Hosea meant Israel. But Matthew wanted desperately to make this apply to Jesus. How was he to get Joseph, Mary, and Jesus to Egypt?

Well, here is an excellent article that deals with the question: “Out of Egypt I Called My Son” (Kevin DeYoung).

God told Joseph in a dream that Herod was about to go on a rampage, so they should flee to…where? Why would they go to Egypt of all places? It’s not as if the toddler Jesus had been branded somehow (the halo wasn’t added until artists worked on the story much later), so the Holy Family could have blended in among the peasantry almost anywhere away from Bethlehem. But for Matthew’s contrived plot, it had to be Egypt.

They probably went there because Herod had no jurisdiction there. It was a populated place relatively close, away from Roman Judea. Dr. Madison simply assumes without proof that Matthew “made it up” so as to dishonestly fulfill and Old Testament prophecy. When it comes to the Bible, he’s usually a stranger to rational argument. How odd for a man who has a doctorate in biblical studies. It depends on what one studies and whether one is operating with false premises.

Eventually they had to go home again. But where was home? Joseph planned to return to Judea (Matt. 2:22)—back to Bethlehem, presumably—but that was still unsafe, so “…he went away to the district of Galilee. There he made his home in a town called Nazareth…” Sounds like for the first time! Matthew’s assumption was that Joseph and Mary had lived in Bethlehem all along.

Luke thought they were originally based in Nazareth, and he had to contrive a way to get them to Bethlehem for the birth. Hence he told of a census that required people to go to their ancestral homes to be ‘registered.’ On several grounds historians have dismissed the story as nonsense. There obviously was a strong tradition that Jesus was from Nazareth; Luke had Mary and Joseph there from the beginning; Matthew got them there after abandoning their home in Bethlehem. More of the impossible mash-up.

There is no problem here. Much ado about nothing. I dealt with these sorts of groundless assertions in the following articles:

The Census, Jesus’ Birth in Bethlehem, & History [2-3-11]

Reply to Atheist Jonathan MS Pearce: Herod’s Death & Alleged “Contradictions” (with Jimmy Akin) [7-25-17]

Reply to Atheist Jonathan MS Pearce: Bethlehem & Nazareth “Contradictions” (Including Extensive Exegetical Analysis of Micah 5:2) [7-28-17]

The Star Screws Up

Earlier I called the story of the Wise Men ‘disastrous” because, the way Matthew spins it, a lot of babies ended up getting killed. He reports that the astrologers headed to Jerusalem to inquire where the holy child could be found. The top religious bureaucrats, consulted by an alarmed King Herod, agreed that Bethlehem was the place, based on Micah 5:2, “…for from you shall come a ruler who is to shepherd my people Israel.” So the Wise Men set out for Bethlehem, but now—wait for it—the star had turned into a GPS!

“…and there, ahead of them, went the star that they had seen …until it stopped over the place where the child was. When they saw that the star had stopped, they were overwhelmed with joy.” (Matthew 2:9-10) . . . 

In fact we are talking about a major plot flaw, and a bungling God who didn’t think things through; or was it just Matthew who didn’t notice God’s incompetence? 

For thorough Christian treatments of the topic of the star of Bethlehem, see:

“The Star of Bethlehem” (T. Michael Davis)

“Star of the Magi” (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)

“Seeking the Star of Bethlehem” (Jimmy Akin)

That Other Famous Misquote

I might get pushback for my suggestion earlier that Matthew’s use of Hosea 11:1 was his most egregious misquote. His biggest blunder, no doubt, which was noticed long ago and has been discussed ad infinitum, is his use of a mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14 in the Greek version of the Old Testament: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son…” In the original Hebrew, the word isn’t virgin at all, but simply young woman and, in the context of Isaiah 7 concerned a political/military situation at the time. It had nothing whatever to do with the birth of a messiah centuries later. In pulling this text into his story, Matthew was sloppy or devious—maybe both.

I and many others have dealt with this false accusation, too:

Reply to Atheist Jonathan MS Pearce: “Mistranslation” of “Virgin”? (Isaiah 7:14) (with Glenn Miller) [7-26-17]

But the even bigger question is why Matthew thought it was a good idea to graft virgin birth onto the Jesus story. This concept clearly derived from other religions of the ancient world . . . Was it a matter of ‘anything your god can do, my god can do better’? Or did Matthew just want to make sure that Jesus’ divine pedigree was guaranteed? “…the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit” (Matt 1:20).

Maybe because . . . it was actually true? Just a thought . . .  We can’t prove that it was true (i.e., we can’t examine the actual conception — be there before it took place — to see if it was miraculous).  But neither can Madison and our overlord atheist superiors prove that it did not happen. Dr. Madison simply assumes it didn’t, because his overall belief that miracles are either impossible or cannot and have not in fact been sufficiently proven / documented, precludes him from accepting the virgin birth even before he ever examines the question.

This is a minority opinion in the New Testament, by the way. Luke ran with it enthusiastically, but Mark knew nothing about it; for him the status of Jesus was sealed at his baptism and his Transfiguration. For the apostle Paul, the resurrection was all that mattered, and he probably wouldn’t have mentioned virgin birth even if he had heard of it. The author of John’s gospel most certainly knew of Matthew’s story, but didn’t need it, didn’t want it: his Jesus had been present at creation! Maybe he thought virgin birth was, by his time, a cliché.

Now here is a classic example of a trumped-up “contradiction” or “difficulty” in Scripture that is in fact none at all. It’s Dr. Madison who is thinking illogically. Here’s a bit of logical analysis at no extra charge: to not mention a thing is not the equivalent of a denial of the same thing. Let me illustrate by analogy. The two following statements are both true:

Dave: “Yesterday we visited downtown and went ice skating.”

Dave’s wife Judy: “Yesterday we visited downtown, had lunch at a great Italian restaurant, went ice skating, and caught the bus home.” 

Are these two statements contradictory? No, not at all. One simply has more information and a recounting of facts than the other (which happens in the Gospel accounts innumerable times). Judy’s account includes the information that lunch was enjoyed downtown, and that a bus was taken home. Did Dave deny those two things? Not logically. He simply highlighted the most important aspects of the visit: the place and their main reason for going (eating lunch and taking a bus being “secondary” details). If — logically speaking — Dave were to truly contradict Judy’s account, he would have to say something like:

“Yesterday we visited downtown and ice skating is all that we did, before returning by car.”

That is undeniably a contradiction to Judy’s account, by the rules of logic, because it denied that lunch was also eaten downtown, and differs in the mode of transportation. But in “Madison-logic” and that of so many atheists in analyzing the Bible, the first two statements above would be “contradictory.” Madison would conclude that Dave denied the fact of the downtown lunch and the bus trip home, because he didn’t see fit to mention them. After all, he claims that Gospel writer Mark “knew nothing about” the virgin birth because he didn’t mention that.

For Dr. Madison, the virgin birth is a “minority opinion in the New Testament” because it’s mentioned very few times. For Christians and logical thinkers, we believe in the inspiration of Scripture (for many good reasons, but ultimately as an article of faith and belief). If in fact all of the Bible is inspired (which means literally “God-breathed” and God’s revelation of Himself), the virgin birth need not be noted or recorded in every book. Even once is enough to suffice. That’s the outlook of Christian faith. But my primary concern here is to show how Dr. Madison is not even thinking logically: even before we get to questions of faith.

One of the unfortunate consequences has been the idealization of chastity, and the exaggeration of Mary’s virtue. Indeed, in Catholic piety, Mary had to remain a virgin to preserve her special holiness; this is a challenge to Catholic apologists since the gospels mention Jesus’ siblings!

Actually, in Catholic thinking and theology, Mary didn’t have to (that is, necessarily in all possible worlds) be a perpetual virgin, anymore than she “had to” be immaculately conceived. In this strict sense, Jesus didn’t even have to necessarily become a man and die on the cross, either, if God the Father had in fact simply decided to proclaim all human beings (or a certain number) forgiven: a forgiveness that they would have to receive on their end. We believe that both things are fitting and appropriate and that they both actually happened in fact.

The Bible has more than enough information in it to explain the use of the term “brothers” in the Hebraic sense, which could refer to (just as it also does in English) far more than merely siblings. Since that is a rabbit trail, I refer readers to many of my articles on the topic in its own section, on my web page about the Blessed Virgin Mary. And it’s not only “Catholic piety.” All of the original Protestant “Reformers” believed the same thing, as have the Orthodox all along.

Virgin Birth = another installment of magical thinking. This doesn’t help make the case for Christianity.

The virgin birth is what it is: an actual historical event. It was a miracle, fitting for the incarnate God, Who is a pretty special human being, after all. Dr. Madison denies and ridicules all miracles, and for him they can only be fictional “magic.” He’s bound and prohibited from free inquiry by his false presuppositions, that have no basis themselves. No one has ever “proven” that no miracle could ever possibly occur, or that an omnipotent God (assuming for a moment that He exists) could not bring one about.

In Dreamland

Matthew reports that Joseph heard from God in dreams, and even the Wise Men were “warned about Herod” in a dream. A novelist has the ‘omniscient perspective,’ i.e., he/she knows what’s going on inside the heads of the characters. Those who claim that Matthew’s story is history have to explain how the author knew the content of the dreams.

I can think of at least two scenarios right off the bat:

1) Since biblical writing is divinely inspired, God could have directly revealed this fact to Matthew, just as He revealed things to Abraham and Moses, and the prophets, and St. Paul at his conversion, and St. John in the revelations of the last book of the New Testament, and to many other people.

2) The disciples knew Mary the mother of Jesus, who lived some years after Jesus’ death. For example, the Bible informs us that Mary was with the disciples in the upper room, when they received the Holy Spirit  on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 1:13-14). Early Christian tradition tells us that the apostle John lived with her in Ephesus. Thus, it’s a simple matter (and possibility): Joseph could have told Mary about the dream he had. Later Mary told Matthew, or told someone else, from whom he heard the story. It’s “earwitness” testimony of a second person, in relation to the person who experienced it.

Now ask yourselves: why is it that Dr. Madison didn’t seem to be able to imagine or comprehend such a scenario?

Of course, people have dreams, so that’s not the issue. However, for Matthew the historian to report the content of the dreams—what God said to Joseph, for example—he would have needed access to some kind of contemporary documentation: that’s how history is written. If Joseph had kept a diary in which he wrote down what God told him, well, that’s the kind of documentation Matthew could have used. It doesn’t mean that a god really did speak to Joseph, but it would be documentation of what Joseph thought his god told him.

I just explained in #2 above a perfectly plausible, sensible, rational scenario where this very thing could have happened.

Since there is no evidence whatever that there was a diary and since we know that Matthew fails as a careful historian, then it’s no surprise that we find his use of the omniscient perspective in creating this fantasy literature.

Rather, it’s no surprise that Dr. Madison has so “dumbed himself down” in his rejection of the gospel and Christianity, that he can’t even imagine a simple procedure: “Joseph told Mary about x; Mary told Matthew about x, or told someone else who told Matthew.” Such skepticism causes folks to become less rational and logical.

***

Unfortunately, Money Trees Do Not Exist: If you have been aided in any way by my work, or think it is valuable and worthwhile, please strongly consider financially supporting it (even $10 / month — a mere 33 cents a day — would be very helpful). I have been a full-time Catholic apologist since Dec. 2001, and have been writing Christian apologetics since 1981 (see my Resume). My work has been proven (by God’s grace alone) to be fruitful, in terms of changing lives (see the tangible evidences from unsolicited “testimonies”). I have to pay my bills like all of you: and have a (homeschooling) wife and three children still at home to provide for, and a mortgage to pay.
*
My book royalties from three bestsellers in the field (published in 2003-2007) have been decreasing, as has my overall income, making it increasingly difficult to make ends meet.  I provide over 2600 free articles here, for the purpose of your edification and education, and have written 50 books. It’ll literally be a struggle to survive financially until Dec. 2020, when both my wife and I will be receiving Social Security. If you cannot contribute, I ask for your prayers (and “likes” and links and shares). Thanks!
*
See my information on how to donate (including 100% tax-deductible donations). It’s very simple to contribute to my apostolate via PayPal, if a tax deduction is not needed (my “business name” there is called “Catholic Used Book Service,” from my old bookselling days 17 or so years ago, but send to my email: [email protected]). Another easy way to send and receive money (with a bank account or a mobile phone) is through Zelle. Again, just send to my e-mail address. May God abundantly bless you.
***
Photo credit: St. Matthew and the Angel (bet. 1635-1640), by Guido Reni (1575-1642) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
***
2025-06-27T17:16:36-04:00

Last updated on: June 27, 2025 at 5:16 pm   By

Compilation of 348 articles of mine for the National Catholic Register (29 September 2016 to 26 June 2025): enough material for six volumes of 203 + pages each (i.e., about 3 1/2 pages for each 1000-word article).

Catholicism Explained

(the material below constitutes a free online multi-volume “book” [1218 + pages]: first presented on 18 June 2023. This is a complete catechetical and apologetical explanation of the Catholic faith)

I consider this collection to be a virtual book, even though I don’t intend to make an actual published book out of it. But in terms of presenting the wide scope and broad range of Catholic and general apologetics arguments that can be brought to bear, it has strong similarities to, and the main components of books like my One-Minute Apologist (2007; which had 61 two-page chapters in a Summa-like format), Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical (2015; 80 short chapters — usually 1000 words or less — covering many topics), and The Catholic Answer Bible (2002): forty apologetics inserts: each one page long.

These articles for National Catholic Register are all a standard length of 1000 words: give or take a very few. A thousand words usually run about 3 1/2 single-spaced pages, including spaces between paragraphs. It’s not very long at all. And it is a nice length (perhaps the ideal one?) to summarize the usual apologetics and exegetical / historical arguments involved in any given theological issue. I’ve gotten very comfortable this length of article, after doing this “gig” for over three years now, and two earlier ones that were similar (Seton Magazine and Michigan Catholic). I have found that most of the important points that need to be made, can fairly easily be presented within this length.

These articles also essentially constitute my “mature” opinions on each topic I tackle, since all of these were written (or revised) within the last eight years. I keep learning things all the time (my thought is always developing), so in some cases, I would have slightly changed my mind (where permitted, in light of dogma), or added new arguments (that I’ve either seen, or came up with myself) not present in my earlier writings.

With these articles close at hand, categorized alphabetically by topic and conveniently linked, the reader has a quick and easy resource that may come in handy when the usual objections to the Catholic faith arise. Each article is easy to read (so I’ve been told many times), and can probably be completed in less than five minutes (if even that), and, I submit, contains enough substance and content to provide ample food for thought and further reflection or study. It’s my privilege to have been allowed to write and publish them in such a prestigious venue. Enjoy!

*****

Abortion

On Being a So-Called “Single-Issue” Pro-Lifer [1-25-18]

Do Democratic Presidents Cause Fewer Abortions to Occur? [2-28-18]

Apologetics and Evangelism

Apologetics Doesn’t Mean Being Sorry for Your Faith [6-6-17]

“The Harvest is Ready”: 14 Tips for Catholic Evangelism [7-12-17]

Swearing and Sharing the Faith Don’t Mix Very Well! [7-16-18]

Some Thoughts on Evangelism and Being “Hated by All” [7-20-18]

Apostolic Succession

Apostolic Succession as Seen in the Jerusalem Council [1-15-17]

Answers to Questions About Apostolic Succession [7-25-20]

A New Biblical Argument for Apostolic Succession [4-23-21]

Archaeology, Biblical

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

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

Atheism

Atheists Seem to Have Almost a Childlike Faith in the Omnipotence of Atoms [10-16-16]

Yes, Virginia, Atheists Have a Worldview [3-23-21]

Why Should We Bother Defending the Bible Against Atheists? [4-1-21]

Babel, Tower of

Linguistic Confusion and the Tower of Babel [6-21-22]

Baptism

What the New Testament’s Baptisms Teach Us About the Magisterium: Christians remain bound to Church doctrine through its development [1-29-17]

What the Bible Reveals About Infant Baptism [7-27-17]

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

Explicit Biblical Instruction on Saving Souls [2-28-22]

In the New Testament, ‘Household’ Baptism Includes Infant Baptism [10-28-22]

Millions of Christians Think Baptism Is Unrelated to Justification — Here’s Why They’re Wrong [6-22-24]

Bible (and Catholicism)

*
*
*
*
*
*
Bible, Canon of
*
*
*
*
Bible, General
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Camels, Domestication of (and the Bible)

Camels Help Bible Readers Get Over the Hump of Bible Skepticism [7-21-21]

Celibacy (in Priests and Religious)

Priestly Celibacy: Ancient, Biblical and Pauline [9-18-17]

*
*
*
Charismatic (Catholic) Renewal 
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Church (Catholic): Authority of
*

C. S. Lewis vs. St. Paul on Future Binding Church Authority [1-22-17]

The Analogy of an Infallible Bible to an Infallible Church [6-16-17]

Why Do Protestants Reject the Notion of “One True Church”? [6-22-17]

Catholicism is True and Denominationalism is Anti-Biblical [6-27-17]

Is the One True Church a Visible or Invisible Entity? [9-12-18]

Catholics Accept All of the Church’s Dogmatic Teaching [9-18-18]

Orthodoxy: The ‘Equilibrium’ That Sets Us Free [3-29-19]

Were the Jerusalem Council Decrees Universally Binding? [12-4-19]

Church, Sinners in / Scandals

Were 50 Million People Really Killed in the Inquisition? [5-30-18]

The Sex Scandals Are Not a Reason to Reject Catholicism [8-24-18]

Some Nagging Questions About Scorsese’s Silence [2-19-17]

Are Abuse Scandals a Reason to Leave the Church? [3-31-19]

The Inquisition, as Medieval Catholics Would View It [7-31-19]

Confession and Absolution

Confession and Absolution Are Biblical [7-31-17]

Contraception

Bible vs. Contraception: Onan’s Sin and Punishment [5-30-17]

Luther and Calvin Opposed Contraception and “Fewer Children is Better” Thinking [9-13-17]

Contraception and “Anti-Procreation” vs. Scripture [6-6-18]

A Defense of Natural Family Planning [5-25-19]

Conversion, Catholic

Here’s What I Discovered That Made Me Become Catholic [9-29-16]

Why C. S. Lewis Never Became a Catholic [3-5-17]

Daniel

Is There Any Archaeological Support for the Prophet Daniel? [4-25-22]

David, King

Was King David Mythical or Historical? [7-24-23]

Deuterocanonical Books (So-Called “Apocrypha”)

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

Divorce and Annulments

Annulments are Fundamentally Different from Divorce [4-6-17]

Doctrinal Development

Development of Catholic Doctrine: A Primer [1-5-18]

Ecumenism and Comparative Religion

Biblical Evidence for Ecumenism (“A Biblical Approach to Other Religions”) [8-9-17]

Ethics and Social Teaching, Catholic

Atheist “Refutes” Sermon on the Mount (Or Does He?) [7-23-17]

What Proverbs 31 Says About Alcohol [9-22-17]

Borders and the Bible [1-14-19]

What Does “Turn the Other Cheek” Mean? [7-20-19]

Biblical and Catholic Teaching on the Use of Alcohol [3-26-20]

Eucharist, Holy

Transubstantiation, John 6, Faith and Rebellion [12-3-17]

The Holy Eucharist and the Treachery of Judas [4-6-18]

Transubstantiation is No More Inscrutable Than Many Doctrines [9-26-18]

Why Are Non-Catholics Excluded from Holy Communion? [7-3-19]

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

If You Believe in Miracles, You Should Believe in the Real Presence [12-31-21]

Refuting the “Real Absence” Anti-Transubstantiation Argument [1-10-22]

Was Jesus Unclear in John Chapter 6? [1-25-22]

20 Ways the Bible Affirms the Real Presence of Christ [5-27-25]

Why the Bible Sometimes Uses ‘Bread and Wine’ to Describe the Eucharist [5-31-25]

Evil and Pain: Problem of

God, the Natural World and Pain [9-19-20]

Is God Mostly to Blame for the Holocaust? [5-31-21]

Faith and Works / “Faith Alone” / Discipleship

Final Judgment is Not a Matter of “Faith Alone” At All [10-7-16]

How Are We Saved? Faith Alone? Or the Way Jesus Taught? [5-11-17]

“The Lord Helps Those Who Help Themselves” [7-19-17]

“Personal Relationship with Jesus” — A Catholic Concept? [2-19-18]

Did Jesus Teach His Disciples to Hate Their Families? [8-17-19]

First John, Faith and Works, and Falling Away [11-24-19]

Lessons in Reconciliation from Kobe Bryant and Magic Johnson [2-10-20]

Good Works and Men, God’s Grace, and Regeneration (vs. John Calvin) [8-6-20]

Why the Apostles Would Have Flunked Out of Protestant Seminary (my original title: “Meritorious and Salvific Works According to Jesus”) [9-28-23]

Sanctification and Works Are Tied to Salvation [9-26-24]

Faith Alone? 80 Bible Verses Say Otherwise [10-31-24]

Fathers of the Church

Did St. Augustine Accept All Seven Sacraments? [11-15-17]

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

14 Proofs That St. Athanasius Was 100% Catholic [6-4-20]

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

St. Polycarp, Who Learned the Faith From an Apostle, Did Not Believe in ‘Faith Alone’ [2-26-23]

16 Church Fathers vs. Faith Alone [4-23-24]

14 More Church Fathers vs. Faith Alone [4-30-24]

The Early Christians Believed in the Infallibility of the Church [7-30-24]

13 Church Fathers Defend the Catholic Teaching on Baptism [8-26-24]

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

God, Attributes of

Does God Punish to the Fourth Generation? [10-1-18]

If God Needs Nothing, Why Does He Ask For So Much? (Is God “Narcissistic” or “Love-Starved?) [8-22-19]

Does God Ever Actively Prevent Repentance? [9-1-19]

Who Caused Job to Suffer — God or Satan? [6-28-20]

The Bible Teaches That Other “Gods” are Imaginary [7-10-20]

Does God Have Any Need of Praise? [9-24-20]

God in Heaven and in His Temple: Biblical Difficulty? [12-10-20]

Goliath

How Tall Was Goliath? [8-30-21]

Heaven

Salvation and Immortality Are Not Just New Testament Ideas [9-23-19]

Hell, Satan, and Demons

Screwtape on the Neutralization of Effective Apologetics and Divine Callings [2-5-17]

How to Annihilate Three Skeptical Fallacies Regarding Hell [6-10-17]

Satan is Highly Intelligent—and an Arrogant Idiot   [11-27-17]

Is Abortion a Biblical Metaphor for Hell? [10-20-18]

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

Universalism is Annihilated by the Book of Revelation [6-23-19]

The Bible Teaches that Hell is Eternal [4-16-20]

Holy Places and Items / Relics

The Biblical Understanding of Holy Places and Things [4-11-17]

Biblical Proofs and Evidence for Relics [3-13-20]

Relics Are a Biblical Concept — Here Are Some Examples [5-31-22]

Homosexuality

History of the False Ideas Leading to Same-Sex “Marriage” [11-2-16]

How Did Jesus View Active Homosexuality? [9-16-19]

Icons, Images, and Statues

Worshiping God Through Images is Entirely Biblical [12-23-16]

How Protestant Nativity Scenes Proclaim Catholic Doctrine [12-17-17]

Crucifixes: Devotional Aids or Wicked Idols? [1-15-20]

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

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

Indulgences

The Biblical Roots and History of Indulgences [5-25-18]

Inquisition[s]

How to Understand Past Attitudes Toward Violence (past Catholic and Protestant religious persecution) [2-16-24]

Jesus

50 Biblical Proofs That Jesus is God [2-12-17]

Did Jesus Descend to Hell, Sheol, or Paradise After His Death? [4-17-17]

Visiting Golgotha in Jerusalem is a Sublime Experience [3-21-18]

Are the Two Genealogies of Christ Contradictory? [1-5-19]

Did Jesus Use “Socratic Method” in His Teaching? [4-29-19]

Can the Prayers of Jesus Go Unanswered? [6-10-19]

Why Jesus Opposed the Moneychangers in the Temple [9-26-19]

Jesus’ Agony in Gethsemane: Was it “Anxiety”? [10-29-19]

On Whether Jesus’ “Brothers” Were “Unbelievers” [6-11-20]

Did Jesus Heal and Preach to Only Jews? No! [7-19-20]

The Bible is Clear — Jesus is True God and True Man [9-12-20]

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

12 Alleged Resurrection “Contradictions” That Aren’t Really Contradictions [4-7-21]

11 More Resurrection “Contradictions” That Aren’t Really Contradictions [5-8-21]

Darkness at Jesus’ Crucifixion — Solar Eclipse or Sandstorm? [4-15-22]

What We Know About Nazareth at the Time of Jesus [11-24-23]

From Moses to the Messiah: Oral Tradition Heard in Jesus’ Teachings [1-26-25]

The Jewish Roots of Christianity: How Jesus and the Apostles Kept the Law [2-15-25]

Jonah

Did God Raise Jonah from the Dead? [4-20-23]

Joshua

What Archaeology Tells Us About Joshua’s Conquest [7-8-21]

Jericho and Archaeology — Disproof of the Bible? (Here is one possible explanation for the high level of erosion in Jericho) [9-26-21]


Liberalism, Theological (Modernism / Dissent / Heterodoxy)

Silent Night: A “Progressive” and “Enlightened” Reinterpretation [12-21-17]

Liturgy, Formal / Rosary

Ritualistic, Formal Worship is a Good and Biblical Practice [12-4-16]

The Rosary: ‘Vain Repetition’ or Biblical Prayer? [3-16-18]

Luther, Martin

50 Reasons Why Martin Luther Was Excommunicated [11-23-16]

Luther’s Disgust Over Protestant Sectarianism and Radical Heresies [9-8-17]

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

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

Busting a Myth About Martin Luther (Did Luther Call the Justified Man a “Snow-Covered Dunghill”?) [1-13-23]

How Martin Luther Invented Sola Scriptura [5-21-24]

Why Martin Luther Said He Was More Spiritual as a Catholic [6-30-24] 

Mary, Apparitions of

Biblical Evidence for Marian Apparitions [5-21-17]

Mary, Bodily Assumption of

Biblical Arguments in Support of Mary’s Assumption [8-15-18]

Martin Luther Said He Believed in Mary’s Assumption — Did He Ever Change His Mind? [7-25-24]

Mary, General

Did Mary Know That Jesus Was God? [4-29-18]

The Exalted Blessed Virgin Mary and Theosis [11-28-18]

Martin Luther’s Exceptionally “Catholic” Devotion to Mary [4-16-19]

St. John Henry Newman’s High Mariology [10-18-19]

The Biblical Basis of Catholic ‘Fittingness’ [10-11-23]

Mary, Immaculate Conception of

Martin Luther’s “Immaculate Purification” View of Mary [12-31-16]

Scripture, Through an Angel, Reveals That Mary Was Sinless [4-30-17]

Was Mary’s Immaculate Conception Absolutely Necessary? [12-8-17]

“All Have Sinned” vs. a Sinless, Immaculate Mary? [12-11-17]

Amazing Parallels Between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant [2-13-18]

Biblical Support for Mary’s Immaculate Conception [10-29-18]

St. Thomas Aquinas and Mary’s Immaculate Conception [6-13-24]

Immaculate Conception: How the Church Fathers Saw Mary as the New Eve [3-11-25]

Mary and Jesus / Mary a Sinner and Doubter of Jesus?

Did Jesus Denigrate Calling Mary “Blessed?” [12-24-19]

“Who is My Mother?” — Jesus and the “Familial Church” [1-21-20]

Immaculate Mary and the Finding of the Child Jesus in the Temple [8-31-22]

Was Our Lady Among Those Who Accused Our Lord of Being ‘Beside Himself?’ [9-28-22]

Mary, Invocation and Intercession of

Why Do We Ask Mary to Pray for Us? [5-24-22]

How Can a Human Like Mary Hear Millions of Prayers? The Answer Is in the Bible [2-18-23]

Mary Mediatrix

Mary Mediatrix: Close Biblical Analogies [8-14-17]

Mary, Mother of God (Theotokos)

How to Correct Some Misunderstandings About Mary [2-20-19]

Mary, Perpetual Virginity of

Biblical Evidence for the Perpetual Virginity of Mary [4-13-18]

More Biblical Evidence for Mary’s Perpetual Virginity [4-25-18]

Perpetual Virginity of Mary: “Holy Ground” [5-8-18]

Jesus’ “Brothers” Always “Hanging Around”: Siblings? [5-11-18]

Biblical and Patristic Evidence for Mary’s “In Partu” Virginity [11-14-19]

The Early Protestants Believed in Mary’s Perpetual Virginity [11-19-19]

Were Sts. Simon and Jude the Cousins of Jesus? [12-24-21]

Calvin Believed in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary — So Should Calvinists [6-22-22]

Mary’s Perpetual Virginity and Biblical Language [1-20-23]

Mary, Queen Mother

Mary is Queen Mother and Queen of Heaven [6-6-19]

Is Our Lady the Woman of Revelation 12? [11-27-19]

Mary, Veneration of

St. Louis de Montfort’s Marian Devotion: Idolatry or Christocentric? [12-18-16]

The Blessed Virgin Mary is Our Role Model [4-20-17]

Did the Angel Gabriel Venerate Mary When He Said “Hail?” [3-14-19]

50 Biblical Reasons to Honor Jesus Through Mary [7-24-19]

The Earliest Veneration of Mary Can Be Found in the Bible Itself [1-31-23]

Catholics Don’t Worship Mary — We Love and Honor Her [7-31-23]

Mass, Sacrifice of

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

Why is Melchizedek So Important? [1-15-18]

Time-Transcending Mass and the Hebrew “Remember” [8-3-18]

Reasons for the Sunday Mass Obligation [11-14-18]

Intriguing Biblical Analogies to Eucharistic Adoration [2-13-19]

The Absurdity of Claiming That the Mass is Idolatrous [6-17-19]

Worthy Is the Lamb Who Was Slain [3-31-25]

Miracles

Biblical and Historical Evidences for Raising the Dead [2-8-19]

Reflections on Joshua and “the Sun Stood Still” [10-22-20]

Moses and the Exodus

A Bible Puzzle About the Staff of Moses and Aaron [1-14-21]

Using the Bible to Debunk the Bible Debunkers (Is the Mention of ‘Pitch’ in Exodus an Anachronism?) [6-30-21]

Science, Hebrews and a Bevy of Quail [11-14-21]

Fascinating Biblical Considerations About Mount Sinai [11-23-22]

Why Did God Get Angry at Moses for Striking the Rock? [2-3-24]

Parting of the Red Sea: Wind, Tides or Miracle? [6-19-25]

Nehemiah

Archaeology Supports the Book of Nehemiah [11-30-23]

Papacy and Petrine Primacy

50 Biblical Indications of Petrine Primacy and the Papacy [11-20-16]

Papal Succession: Biblical and Logical Arguments [5-26-17]

I Hope the Pope Will Provide Some Much-Needed Clarity (Re: Answering the Dubia) [9-30-17]

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

Does Paul’s Rebuke of Peter Disprove Papal Infallibility? [3-31-18]

A Brief History of Papal Infallibility [5-21-18]

Protestant Objections to Papal Infallibility [2-29-20]

Is Peter’s Primacy Disproved by His Personality? [11-30-20]

Which Has More Authority: A Pope or an Ecumenical Council? [5-19-21]

Christians Have Always Recognized the Pope’s Authority — Here’s Proof From the 1st Century (Pope St. Clement of Rome) [9-18-21]

Jesus Christ and St. Peter — Are Both Rocks? [6-29-22]

The Meaning of the Keys of St. Peter [8-25-22]

Why Are Popes Called Popes? [3-27-24]

What the Bible Says About the Pope [3-31-24]

‘Feed My Sheep’: How John 21 Shows Peter Was the First Pope [6-26-25]

Penance / Mortification / Asceticism / Lent / Monasticism

Where are Lenten Practices in the Bible? [2-23-19]

Bodily Mortification is Quite Scriptural [2-28-19]

More Biblical Support for Bodily Mortification [3-5-19]

Why God Loves Monasticism So Much [3-5-20]

John Calvin vs. Lent and the Bible [2-20-21]

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

Why Examination of Conscience Is Biblical [11-25-24]

Prayer 

Biblical Prayer is Conditional, Not Solely Based on Faith [10-9-18]

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

Priests

Was the Apostle Paul a Priest? [4-2-17]

“Call No Man Father” vs. Priests Addressed as “Father”? [8-9-18]

The Biblical Basis for the Priesthood [11-2-18] *

Purgatory and Prayer for the Dead

50 Biblical Indications That Purgatory is Real [10-24-16]

Does Matthew 12:32 Suggest or Disprove Purgatory? [2-26-17]

St. Paul Prayed for Onesiphorus, Who Was Dead [3-19-17]

25 Descriptive and Clear Bible Passages About Purgatory [5-7-17]

Reflections on Interceding for the Lost Souls [6-26-18]

Jesus, Peter, Elijah and Elisha All Prayed for the Dead [2-23-20]

Fire-Tested Faith: Exploring the Biblical Foundation for Purgatory [12-27-24]

“Religion”

The Bible Makes It Clear: Religion Means Relationship With God [6-18-21]

Sacramentalism

Biblical Evidence for Sacramentalism [8-29-17]

Sacraments and Our Moral Responsibility [1-7-20]

Saints

The Holy Collaboration of Mother Teresa and Malcom Muggeridge [6-20-18]

Saints and Angels, Invocation of

Why Would Anyone Pray to Saints Rather Than to God? [1-8-17]

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

Angelic Intercession is Totally Biblical [7-1-18]

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

The Saints in Heaven are Quite Aware of Events on Earth (featuring a defense of patron saints) [3-21-20]

Prayer to Abraham and Dead People in Scripture [6-20-20]

What Christ’s Words on the Cross Tell Us About Elijah and the Saints [8-2-20]

How Can a Saint Hear the Prayers of Millions at Once? [10-7-20]

Origen and the Intercession of Saints [11-19-20]

Here’s What the Bible Says About Asking Saints to Pray For Us [1-22-24]

Saints and Angels, Veneration of

The Veneration of Angels and Men is Biblical [8-24-17]

Biblical Evidence for Veneration of Saints and Images [10-23-18]

True ‘Bible Christians’ Imitate and Venerate the Saints [10-25-23]

Salvation and Justification / Grace / Sanctification / Merit / Assurance / Hope

“Why Desire Salvation?”: Reply to a Non-Christian Inquirer [7-7-17]

Biblical Evidence for Salvation as a Process [8-4-17] 

Biblical Evidence for Catholic Justification [11-2-17]

Is Grace Alone (Sola Gratia) Also Catholic Teaching? [2-5-18]

‘Doers of the Law’ Are Justified, Says St. Paul [5-22-19]

Jesus on Salvation: Works, Merit and Sacrifice [7-28-19]

The Bible is Clear: ‘Eternal Security’ is a Manmade Doctrine [8-17-20]

Eternal Security vs. the Bible [8-23-20]

There Never Will Be a Single Human Being for Whom Christ Did Not Suffer [4-28-21]

Biblical Reasons Why Catholics Don’t Believe in ‘Limited Atonement’ [10-27-21]

More Biblical Reasons Why Catholics Don’t Believe in ‘Limited Atonement’ [10-30-21]

What the Bible Says About Justification by Faith and Works [7-27-22]

Ongoing Justification and the Indwelling Holy Spirit [8-1-22]

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

The Prophet Jeremiah Explains the Catholic Teaching on Salvation [8-17-23]

The Prophet Isaiah Explains How God Saves Us [8-30-23]

Abraham and Ongoing Justification by Faith and Works [9-19-23]

We Desire That All Be Saved — But Only in the Way God Desires It [2-28-24]

24 Biblical Passages on Meritorious Works [9-30-24]

What the Bible Says About Moral Assurance of Salvation [11-13-24]

Is it Possible to Perfectly Keep the Law? [12-31-24]

Hold Fast to Hope: A Biblical Guide to Confidence in Salvation [2-27-25]

Samson

Did Samson Really Destroy the Philistine Temple With His Bare Hands? [4-28-23]

Science, the Bible, and Christianity

The Bible and Mythical Animals [10-9-19]

The Bible is Not “Anti-Scientific,” as Skeptics Claim [10-23-19]

Galileo and Fellow Astronomers’ Erroneous Scientific Beliefs [4-30-20]

Modern Science is Built on a Christian Foundation [5-6-20]

The ‘Enlightenment’ Inquisition Against Great Scientists [5-13-20]

Embarrassing Errors of Historical Science [5-20-20]

Scientism — the Myth of Science as the Sum of Knowledge [5-28-20]

Creation Ex Nihilo is in the Bible [10-1-20]

Medieval Christian Medicine Was the Forerunner of Modern Medicine [11-13-20]

Quantum Mechanics and the “Upholding” Power of God [11-24-20]

Dark Energy, Dark Matter and the Light of the World [2-17-21]

What Made the Walls of Jericho Fall? [National Catholic Register, 5-20-23]

Sexuality

Sex and Catholics: Our Views Briefly Explained [2-2-18]

More Proof That ‘Heresy Begins Below the Belt’ (Even for Young C. S. Lewis) [8-30-20]

The Bible on Why Premarital Sex Is Wrong [5-26-21]

Sin: Mortal and Venial

What the Bible Says on Degrees of Sin and Mortal Sin [7-6-18]

“Hate the Sin, Love the Sinner” — Quite Biblical! [1-29-20]

Solomon, King

Archaeology, Solomon and the Queen of Sheba [6-2-23]

Archaeology and King Solomon’s Mines [6-29-23]

Suffering / Redemptive Suffering

Suffering With Christ is a Biblical Teaching [3-27-18]

The Bible Says Your Suffering Can Help Save Others [1-31-19]

Biblical Hope and Encouragement in Your Times of Suffering [4-22-19]

Tradition (Apostolic / Sacred)

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

In the Bible, “Word of God” Usually Means Oral Proclamation [12-17-19]

The Bible Alone? That’s Not What the Bible Says [3-5-21]

The One-Legged Stool Called ‘Inscripturation’ is Not Taught in the Bible [3-15-21]

How Did the Gospel Writers Know About ‘Hidden’ Events? [3-31-22]

Trinity, Holy

50 Biblical Evidences for the Holy Trinity [11-14-16]

Wealth / Capitalism / Catholic Social Teaching

Who Must Renounce All Possessions to Follow Jesus? [1-21-21]

***

Last updated on 27 June 2025

 

2019-10-28T11:48:25-04:00

Last updated on: October 28, 2019 at 11:48 am   By

[Book and purchase information]

Revelation 5:8 (RSV) And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints;

Revelation 6:9-10 When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne; they cried out with a loud voice, ‘O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before thou wilt judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell upon the earth?’

Revelation 8:3-4 And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God.

Matthew 17:1-3 And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James and John his brother, and led them up a high mountain apart. And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his garments became white as light. And behold, there appeared to them Moses and Elijah, talking with him.

Matthew 27:52-53 the tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.

Catholics believe that saints and angels in heaven can pray for us on earth and can hear our intercessory requests, just as people on earth can do; in fact, being so near to God’s presence in heaven, their prayers are more powerful than ours on earth. But most Evangelical Protestants today would deny the saints’ intercessory power – and thus claim that any attempt to petition them would be vain at best and idolatrous at worst – as placing superfluous additional mediators between God and mankind.

There is, again, some agreement with the Catholic position among the founders of Protestantism. Martin Luther, in his Smalcald Articles of 1537, acknowledged that saints in heaven “perhaps” pray for those on earth, although he denies that they can be invoked or asked to offer prayer:

Although angels in heaven pray for us (as Christ himself also does), and although saints on earth, and perhaps also in heaven, do likewise, it does not follow that we should invoke angels and saints (Part II, Article II, in Tappert, 297).

John Calvin takes a similar view:

They again object, Are those, then, to be deprived of every pious wish, who, during the whole course of their lives, breathed nothing but piety and mercy? . . . [T]here cannot be a doubt that their charity is confined to the communion of Christ’s body, and extends no farther than is compatible with the nature of that communion. But though I grant that in this way they pray for us, they do not, however, lose their quiescence so as to be distracted with earthly cares: far less are they, therefore, to be invoked by us (Institutes, III, 20, 24; emphasis added).

But Calvin continues in the same section, speaking much more like present-day Protestants:

But all such reasons are inapplicable to the dead, with whom the Lord, in withdrawing them from our society, has left us no means of intercourse (Eccles. 9:5, 6), and to whom, so far as we can conjecture, he has left no means of intercourse with us.

Biblical evidence to the contrary was discussed in the preceding section. As for the dead being “withdrawn” from earthly concerns, I would ask Calvin if he were here today: “Why, then, are there so many instances of the dead in Christ having contact with the living, with the full consent of God?”

Some examples of this are Moses and Elijah appearing with Jesus at the Transfiguration (Matt. 17:1-3), the “two witnesses” of Revelation 11:3, whom many commentators believe to be Moses and Elijah also; Samuel’s appearance to Saul, prophesying his impending death (1 Sam. 28:12, 14-15; commentators are almost unanimous in asserting that this was actually Samuel); and the many saints who rose from the dead and appeared to many in Jerusalem after Jesus’ death (Matt. 27:52-53).

Calvin contradicts himself, however, shortly after he granted that saints in heaven pray for us:

[T]he dead, of whom we nowhere read that they were commanded to pray for us. The Scripture often exhorts us to offer up mutual prayers; but says not one syllable concerning the dead . . . While the Scripture abounds in various forms of prayer, we find no example of this intercession (Institutes, III, 20, 27; emphasis added).

Elsewhere, he says flatly:

Of purgatory, the intercession of saints . . . not one syllable can be found in Scripture (Institutes, IV, 9, 14).

It is seldom wise to make such sweeping negative statements, because just one counterexample can make them look rather foolish. The counterproof to Calvin’s statement lies in the three passages from Revelation cited in this section. Calvin attempts another sort of disproof by claiming that to say the saints intercede for us is to confuse men and angels on the order of being:

We frequently read (they say) of the prayers of angels, and not only so, but the prayers of believers are said to be carried into the presence of God by their hands . . . How preposterously they confound departed saints with angels is sufficiently apparent from the many different offices by which Scripture distinguishes the one from the other (Institutes, III, 20, 23).

This is frivolous logic. All that has to be shown as a commonality is the capacity to intercede. Dead saints do not have to have all the characteristics of angels to do that. Calvin’s reasoning is as absurd as the following analogy:

  1. A great intellect like Einstein’s abilities include the knowledge that 2 + 2 = 4.
  2. A child of six also knows that 2 + 2 = 4.
  3. But in order for a child to know that, he must have all of Einstein’s knowledge.
  4. Therefore, the child cannot know that 2 + 2 = 4 because he doesn’t have all of Einstein’s knowledge.

The false premise obviously lies in proposition number three. Likewise, Calvin’s false premise is his implied assumption that saints would need to be like angels in all respects in order to intercede. Apart from the faulty reasoning, Scripture clearly contradicts the assertion, anyway, for Revelation 8:3-4 describes an angel presenting the prayers of the saints to God, and Revelation 5:8 attributes to human beings the same function.

How does Calvin interpret these passages? It’s difficult to determine, because he did not comment on them in the Institutes (except for one veiled, ambiguous reference above), and did not write a commentary on Revelation. So we will have to examine how other Protestants deal with this fascinating biblical data. Methodists Adam Clarke and John Wesley in their commentaries simply make the prayers presented in 5:8 figurative. Clarke makes a rather curious assertion concerning Revelation 8:3-4:

It is not said that the angel presents these prayers. He presents the incense, and the prayers ascend with it.

But the incense is the prayers of the saints in Revelation 5:8, making Clarke’s contention implausible. Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown do some eisegesis of their own in commenting on 8:3-4 (capitalization in original):

How precisely their ministry, in perfuming the prayers of the saints and offering them on the altar of incense, is exercised, we know not, but we do know they are not to be prayed TO . . . It is not the saints who give the angel the incense; nor are their prayers identified with the incense; nor do they offer their prayers to him. Christ alone is the Mediator through whom, and to whom, prayer is to be offered.

How, indeed, do we know the angels are not asked to intercede? For it stands to reason that they would  be offering the prayers of the saints only if they were asked to – otherwise those prayers would not be, in a sense, theirs to offer.

Lastly, the fact that Christ is mediator is not questioned by anyone. Asking a saint in heaven to pray for us no more interferes with the unique mediation of Christ than does asking a person on earth to pray for us. We always pray in Christ, through His power, and to Him, whether it is directly to Him, or by means of another person or angel, in heaven or on earth.

The (false) dichotomy between Christ’s mediation and human or angelic mediation need not be drawn at all; it arises only because of the Protestant’s needless alarmism at God’s making use of creatures to fulfill his purposes. Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown’s comment on Revelation 5:8 exhibits even more of a sort of “fortress mentality”:

This gives not the least sanction to Rome’s dogma of our praying to saints. Though they be employed by God in some way unknown to us to present our prayers (nothing is said of their interceding for us), yet we are told to pray only to Him (Rev. 19:10; 22:8, 9).

We are not told in Scripture that we cannot ask someone in heaven to pray for us. Saints in heaven are more alive and aware and far more holy than we are. They watch us (Heb. 12:1). They are aware of earthly happenings (Rev. 6:9-10). They can certainly be given extraordinary capacities for knowledge by God; there is nothing implausible or intrinsically impossible or unbiblical in that notion at all.

St. Paul states about the afterlife in heaven:

1 Corinthians  13:12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood.

Therefore, they can pray for us and we can ask for their prayers. We know that they can come back to earth (from the four examples given earlier). Are we to believe that when such saints come to earth they can pray, but immediately upon returning to heaven they cannot once again? And if they can present our prayers, why is it so inconceivable that they could intercede for us?

Albert Barnes in his comment on both Revelation 5:8 and 8:3 draws some hairsplitting distinctions that would make the most skillful lawyer envious:

The representation there [Revelation 8:3] undoubtedly is, that the angel is employed in presenting the prayers of the saints which were offered on earth before the throne. It is most natural to interpret the passage before us [Revelation 5:8] in the same way . . . It is not said that they offer the prayers themselves, but that they offer incense as representing the prayers of the saints.

Much more sensible and plausible is part of his comment on Revelation 6:9-10:

The souls of them that were slain. That had been put to death by persecution. This is one of the incidental proofs in the Bible that the soul does not cease to exist at death, and also that it does not cease to be conscious, or does not sleep till the resurrection. These souls of the martyrs are represented as still in existence; as remembering what had occurred on the earth; as interested in what was now taking place; as engaged in prayer; and as manifesting earnest desires for the Divine interposition to avenge the wrongs which they had suffered.

But then, Barnes’ Protestant bias comes over him again:

[N]or are we to suppose that the injured and the wronged in heaven actually pray for vengeance on those who wronged them, or that the redeemed in heaven will continue to pray with reference to things on the earth; but it may be fairly inferred from this that there will be as real a remembrance of the wrongs of the persecuted, the injured, and the oppressed, as if such prayer were offered there.

Peter Berger, an eminent Lutheran sociologist, discusses with great insight the difference between Protestantism and Catholicism, with regard to the Communion of Saints:

If compared with the “fullness” of the Catholic universe, Protestantism appears as a radical truncation, a reduction to “essentials” at the expense of a vast wealth of religious contents . . . Protestantism may be described in terms of an immense shrinkage in the scope of the sacred in reality, as compared with its Catholic adversary . . . The immense network of intercession that unites the Catholic in this world with the saints and, indeed, with all departed souls disappears as well. Protestantism ceased praying for the dead.

The Catholic lives in a world in which the sacred is mediated to him through a variety of channels — the sacraments of the church, the intercession of the saints, the recurring eruption of the “supernatural” in miracles — a vast continuity of being between the seen and the unseen. Protestantism abolished most of these mediations. It broke the continuity, cut the umbilical cord between heaven and earth (Berger, 111-112).

Protestants are very reluctant to speak about these departed saints at all, on the grounds that it somehow raises them to a “godlike” status or detract from God’s sole glory and majesty; or perhaps that it would lead them dangerously close to necromancy. As we have seen, this runs contrary to much biblical indication otherwise.

In this, as in so many instances, I believe that the underlying negative or skeptical attitude is rooted in a fear or suspicion that to act in “Catholic” ways would be to yield ground to Catholics and to start down a slippery slope leading inexorably to Rome. It is a defensive “fortress mentality.” But I would contend that all Christians must yield to the biblical examples and commands, whether the issue at hand outwardly appears “Protestant” or “Catholic.”

Catholics who venture out into the ground of apologetics and sharing their faith with Protestants will encounter this attitude over and over, and need to be aware of how to counter it with solid biblical argumentation and simple logic. As Peter Berger noted above, Protestantism is characterized by “an immense shrinkage in the scope of the sacred in reality.”

The mysterious, the miraculous, the sacramental, and other similar elements are minimized in many sectors of Protestantism. The overwhelming emphasis is on the individual in relationship to God, and the “Word” (construed as the Bible Alone). That is simply not in accord with the Bible and historical Christianity. Therefore, Catholics who try to defend these beliefs need to show that they are rooted in the Bible, not merely petrified and arbitrary “[Catholic] traditions of men.”

***

SOURCES

Barnes, Albert [Presbyterian], Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, 1872; reprinted by Baker Book House (Grand Rapids, Michigan), 1983. Available online.

Berger, Peter L., The Sacred Canopy, Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1967.

Calvin, John, Institutes of the Christian Religion, translated by Henry Beveridge for the Calvin Translation Society, 1845 from the 1559 edition in Latin. Reprinted by Eerdmans Pub. Co. (Grand Rapids, Michigan), 1995. Available online. (see also the 1960 translation listed under McNeill)

Clarke, Adam [Methodist], Commentary on the Bible, 1825, six volumes; reprinted by Abingdon Press (Nashville), no date. An abridged one-volume edition by Ralph Earle was published by Baker Book House (Grand Rapids, MI), 1967. Available online.

Jamieson, Robert [Presbyterian], Andrew R. Fausset [Anglican], and David Brown [Anglican], Commentary on the Whole Bible, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1961 (orig. 1864). Available online.

Tappert, Theodore G., translator and editor, The Book of Concord, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959. [A different translation is available online]

***

Unfortunately, Money Trees Do Not Exist: If you have been aided in any way by my work, or think it is valuable and worthwhile, please strongly consider financially supporting it (even $10 / month — a mere 33 cents a day — would be very helpful). I have been a full-time Catholic apologist since Dec. 2001, and have been writing Christian apologetics since 1981 (see my Resume). My work has been proven (by God’s grace alone) to be fruitful, in terms of changing lives (see the tangible evidences from unsolicited “testimonies”). I have to pay my bills like all of you: and have a (homeschooling) wife and three children still at home to provide for, and a mortgage to pay.

*

My book royalties from three bestsellers in the field (published in 2003-2007) have been decreasing, as has my overall income, making it increasingly difficult to make ends meet.  I provide over 2500 free articles here, for the purpose of your edification and education, and have written 50 books. It’ll literally be a struggle to survive financially until Dec. 2020, when both my wife and I will start receiving Social Security. If you cannot contribute, I ask for your prayers. Thanks! See my information on how to donate (including 100% tax-deductible donations). It’s very simple to contribute to my apostolate via PayPal, if a tax deduction is not needed (my “business name” there is called “Catholic Used Book Service,” from my old bookselling days 17 or so years ago, but send to my email: [email protected]). May God abundantly bless you.

***

(originally 2004)

*** 

2019-10-20T13:23:29-04:00

Last updated on: October 20, 2019 at 1:23 pm   By

Here I present biblical texts having to do with this topic (RSV), followed by commentary from one or more great historic Catholic apologists. These excerpts are all drawn from my 2012 book, Classic Catholic Biblical Apologetics: 1525-1925.  Bibliographical briefs of each apologist can be read on that book page. Source information will be added at the end (below).

*****

John 3:3-5, 9-10 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” [4] Nicode’mus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” [5] Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. . . .” [9] Nicode’mus said to him, “How can this be?” [10] Jesus answered him, “Are you a teacher of Israel, and yet you do not understand this?”

Nicholas Cardinal Wiseman I did indeed remark, that, whereas in the old law we had an express provision made lor a written code, that yet the most important doctrines, probably, which were known by the Jews, and which our Saviour found existing at his time, were not contained in that volume, but had been handed down by oral tradition. I showed this to be the case with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity; with respect to the doctrine of the Word of God being incarnate, and suffering for the redemption of mankind; I showed this regarding the doctrine also of a future state; and any clear apprehension of rewards and punishments in the next life. I might have added another very important dogma, especially as it is considered now-a-days, and that is, the doctrine of spiritual regeneration —for it is impossible to read our Saviour’s discourse with Nicodemus, when Nicodemus objects, “How can a man that is old be born again?” and to observe our Saviour’s answer, “Art thou a master in Israel, and knowest not these things?” and not feel at once satisfied, that among the teachers of the Jews, that among the doctors of that nation, there was a dogma corresponding exactly to this; and that our Saviour consequently was justified in chiding Nicodemus for making an objection which he himself should have been able to answer. And so it is, in fact, that we find among the Jews precisely the same term, that of being born again, or regenerated, applied to those proselytes who become members of the Jewish faith, and perhaps, more particularly from a word in special use and favour among the pharisees. But in the old law, you will not find this doctrine ever laid down, you will not find it, I will be bound to say, even so much as alluded to—at least, not so alluded to, as any one, without the key drawn from the New Testament, could have possibly discovered it. Thus we find, on the one hand, in the written law of old, where provision was made for its existence, that yet the most important doctrines were handed down by tradition. (p. 203)

John 16:12 I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.

St. Francis de Sales I ask you, when did he say these things which he had to say? Certainly it was either after his Resurrection, during the forty days he was with them, or by the coming of the Holy Spirit. But what do we know of what he comprehended under the word: — “I have many things,” &c. — if all is written? It is said indeed that he was forty days with them teaching them of the Kingdom of God; but we have neither all his apparitions nor what he told them therein. [Acts 1:3: “To them he presented himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days, and speaking of the kingdom of God.”] (pp. 148-149)

John 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.

St. Thomas More He doesn’t say that the Spirit will “write” to you or whisper in your ear, but he will lead you, will form you interiorly, and with His breath will show your hearts the way to all truth. Was it the Apostles, here addressed by Christ, to whom the way was to be shown? Were they alone told, “I am with you to the consummation of the world”? [Matt 28:20] Who can question the direction of this message to the Church? Will not the Holy Spirit show her the way to all truth? Was she not told, “Go, preach the Gospel to every creature”? [Matt 28:19] Did they read the Gospel or preach it? And did Christ cast the new law in bronze or strike it on stone tablets, commanding that everything else be considered valueless and cast out? [Response to Luther, 1523] (p. 116)

John 20:30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;

St. Thomas More These things which you have remarked as absent from the other scriptural books also, and of which John says that the whole world cannot contain them – aren’t they to be regarded as miracles at least? Wouldn’t you also find that an ignorance of many of them would jeopardize faith? [Response to Luther, 1523] (p. 116)

John 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

 

St. Thomas More Some of the deeds of Christ were handed down to the faithful by tradition rather than by the written word, and were forever after preserved in the faith of the Church. Why is it not reasonable to believe certain truths only on the authority of the Church, since we accept the Gospels themselves only on the same authority? If none of the Gospels had ever been written down, there would still remain a Gospel written in the hearts of the faithful, these tablets being much more ancient than all the codices of the Evangelists. The sacraments would remain, and these same sacraments, I am sure, are older than all the books of the Gospels. It is no argument for Luther to say that a man receives a sacrament in vain if its institution is not recorded in the Gospels. [Response to Luther, 1523] (p. 112)

James Cardinal Gibbons For instance, most Christians pray to the Holy Ghost, a practice which is nowhere found in the Bible. (p. 89)

Romans 10:14-17 But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? [15] And how can men preach unless they are sent? [16] But they have not all obeyed the gospel; for Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” [17] So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ.

Francisco Suárez  For the Holy Spirit immediately provides everyone in some way with help for receiving or handing on supernatural doctrine, according to the office or need of each. And so he helps all the faithful and illuminates them interiorly for believing what he teaches through his preachers . . . God by a common law does not teach men save through men. (p. 158)

St. Francis de Sales I should indeed have wished to be heard, as the accusers have been; for words in the mouth are living, on paper dead. “The living voice,” says S. Jerome, “has a certain indescribable secret strength, and the heart is far more surely reached by the spoken word than by writing.” This it is which made the glorious Apostle S. Paul say in the Scripture: How shall they believe him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? . . . Faith then cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. My best chance, then, would have been to be heard, in lack of which this writing will not be without good results, . . . (p. 1)

1 Corinthians 11:23-30 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, [24] and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” [25] In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” [26] For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. [27] Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. [28] Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. [29] For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. [30] That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

St. Thomas More Is this delivery made in the form by which he received it – unwritten? Truly, until the writing of the letter, he had used no other form of transmission. He had written neither the Corinthians, nor the Romans, nor any other people. If Paul had chosen the permissible form of direct verbal communication on those occasions when he did write, you would now be doubting those articles of faith based on the Pauline Epistles. [Response to Luther, 1523] (p. 116)

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

 

St. Thomas More . . . if as you consistently affirm, all extrascriptural matter is to be maintained only freely and none of it held fast by faith, what is the meaning of this Apostolic admonition . . .? The preservation of both word and letter is equally charged by the Apostle. Extrascriptural matter was thus handed down, and on a binding, not a take-it-or-leave-it basis! What do you say to that, Luther? [Response to Luther, 1523] (p. 115)

Nicholas Cardinal Wiseman . . . showing again, that there were two classes of truth that had been committed to them; that some were to be written, and that others were unwritten, and that both were exactly on an equal footing, that both were to be received with equal respect, that both were to be observed in the church with equal punctuality, and both, consequently, committed to those who should succeed them. When I find these express testimonials; when I find, in such a marked manner, on the one hand, the principle of authority, and, on the other, the principle of an oral teaching; and, at the same time, the total silence upon, any thing like a written code of Christianity which was to be produced; can I, for a moment, hesitate as to which was the method pursued by the apostles, and what are the grounds on which they built up their churches? Must I not conclude that it was upon this twofold principle, of authority to teach vested in the pastors, and the unwritten code whereby they were to teach, as well as by the written word? (p. 86)

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you. Avoid the godless chatter and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge,

Nicholas Cardinal Wiseman . . . we find, from the very beginning, all the ground-work of the system based essentially upon the doctrine of authority, and upon that of authoritative teaching. Not even so content, my brethren, we find that they gave the most minute instructions to these individuals and to the churches; not, indeed, carefully to read the words of Scripture when they should be written—for there is not a hint that they were ever to be recorded (I speak, of course, of the New Testament)—but they were to be careful to preserve the doctrines which were given into their hands. . . . Remember those doctrines which I have given to you, which may easily be perverted in words; take care even to retain the very terms wherein these doctrines have been delivered; lest, by the opposition of false knowledge”—in which words St. Paul is hinting at the earliest errors that crept into the church—”beware, therefore, lest any thing should be changed even in an expression wherein faith is contained.” Now, had his idea been, that the whole of religion was to have been recorded in a book, and that the words of that book were to be the only text on which religion was to be grounded, assuredly it could not have been necessary to inculcate with such care this preservation of doctrine, even as the words delivered in charge to the bishops of the church—not to the flock, not to the congregation, nor to each member of it, but to him who was to render an account to God for their souls. (p. 85)

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

Nicholas Cardinal Wiseman . . . is not this, therefore, the foundation of ecclesiastical tradition? He does not tell Timothy, not to write these words, not to deliver this epistle into the hands of those that succeeded him; but those things he had heard before many witnesses, to commit these to faithful men, that is, to those who have the care of others, those in whose prudence, in whose virtue, and in whose sincerity, he could fully rely; that so they, in their turn, may be able to communicate them to others. Then, does not this imply a system of oral teaching, a system of divine authority, grounded on that link which should be established between the later teachers and the apostles to whom they could trace their doctrines? (pp. 85-86)

Karl Adam All the doctrinal controversies of Christianity are dominated by this Christo-centric conception of the Church’s teaching authority. It is because Christ is the sole canon of her preaching, that the Church adheres so obstinately and so rigidly to His traditional message. It is for this reason that she can endure no modernism, no fraternizing with the spirit of the age. Her teaching is, and aims at being, nothing else but a handing on of that message of Christ which was proclaimed by the apostles. St. Paul enjoined his disciple, Timothy, to guard that which had been committed to him (Timothee, custodi depositum! 2 Tim. i, 14; cf. 1 Tim. iv, 16; vi, 14). That is exactly the doctrinal program of the Church. Her conservatism and her traditionalism derive directly from her fundamentally Christo-centric attitude. (p. 23)

Hebrews 8:10 This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. (cf. 10:16)

 

St. Thomas More Can God’s own word as set down by the Apostle leave Luther untouched, . . .? He makes no mention of stone or wood, for as the old law was stamped by Him upon external stone, so will the new be inscribed with His own finger in the book of the heart; that which existed so briefly upon the hardest material will be made to last forever on the softest. So it has pleased God to show His power. Though the old stone tablets were quickly shattered, the new remain. The word of God will remain forever uneffaced in the heart of man. The heart, the Church of Christ, will forever contain the true Gospel of Christ, written there before any of the Evangelical books. However ingenious the apparent scriptural evidence heretics may bring against the true faith, God has engraved His law in such a way that it is impervious to their guile. The strength of this spring has preserved the faith of Christ against assaults upon both His mother and Himself from their respective enemies, Helvidius and Arius . . . Whether supported by writing or not, the Church of Christ has never doubted the authenticity of her inspiration by the Holy Spirit . . . the spirit of God cannot contradict Himself and it is certain that Christ would not disappoint His Church on the essentials of her faith. [Response to Luther, 1523] (pp. 116-117)

1 John 2:27 but the anointing which you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that any one should teach you; as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie, just as it has taught you, abide in him.

Francisco Suárez . . . Christ too promised both his own assistance and the Holy Spirit to teach the Church all truth, namely all truth necessary and opportune for any time, to which most of all has regard the true and certain understanding of Scripture in necessary matters. But the second part, wherein  we deny that this promise was made to the individual faithful, we prove it to begin with by requiring some place of Scripture in which the promise was made, which request we can deservedly make of those who deny that anything is to be believed which is not written; but there is no place, not even an apparent one, that they can bring forward. . . . For Paul teaches, 1 Corinthians 12, Romans 12, and Ephesians 4, that there are various gifts of the Spirit in the Church, among which are put the gift of prophecy, the interpretation of speech, the discerning of spirits . . . (pp. 157-158)

SOURCES

St. Thomas More (1478-1535) The Essential Thomas More (edited by James J. Greene and John P. Dolan; New York: Mentor-Omega Books, 1967)

Francisco Suárez (1548-1617) Defense of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith Against the Errors of Anglicanism (translated by Peter L. P. Simpson, 2011)

St. Francis de Sales (1567-1622) The Catholic Controversy (translated by H. B. Canon MacKey; third revised edition, London: Burns & Oates, Ltd. / New York: Benziger Brothers, 1909)

Nicholas Cardinal Wiseman (1802-1865) Lectures on the Doctrines and Practices of the Roman Catholic Church (London: J. S. Hodson, 1836)

James Cardinal Gibbons (1834-1921) The Faith of Our Fathers (Baltimore: John Murphy Company, 93rd revised and enlarged edition, 1917)

Karl Adam (1876-1966) The Spirit of Catholicism (translated by Dom Justin McCann; Garden City, New York: Doubleday Image, 1954 [originally 1924] )

***
Unfortunately, Money Trees Do Not Exist: If you have been aided in any way by my work, or think it is valuable and worthwhile, please strongly consider financially supporting it (even $10 / month — a mere 33 cents a day — would be very helpful). I have been a full-time Catholic apologist since Dec. 2001, and have been writing Christian apologetics since 1981 (see my Resume). My work has been proven (by God’s grace alone) to be fruitful, in terms of changing lives (see the tangible evidences from unsolicited “testimonies”). I have to pay my bills like all of you: and have a (homeschooling) wife and three children still at home to provide for, and a mortgage to pay.

*

My book royalties from three bestsellers in the field (published in 2003-2007) have been decreasing, as has my overall income, making it increasingly difficult to make ends meet.  I provide over 2500 free articles here, for the purpose of your edification and education, and have written 50 books. It’ll literally be a struggle to survive financially until Dec. 2020, when both my wife and I will start receiving Social Security. If you cannot contribute, I ask for your prayers. Thanks! See my information on how to donate (including 100% tax-deductible donations). It’s very simple to contribute to my apostolate via PayPal, if a tax deduction is not needed (my “business name” there is called “Catholic Used Book Service,” from my old bookselling days 17 or so years ago). May God abundantly bless you.

***

Photo credit: Sir Thomas More, by Hans Holbein the Younger (1497/1498-1543) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

2019-09-08T15:46:27-04:00

Last updated on: September 8, 2019 at 3:46 pm   By

I first ran across former Christian minister and atheist John W. Loftus back in 2006. We dialogued about the problem of evil, and whether God was in time. During that period I also replied to an online version of his deconversion: which (like my arguments about God and time) he didn’t care for at all. I’ve critiqued many atheist deconversion stories, and maintain a very extensive web page about atheism. In 2007 I critiqued his “Outsider Test of Faith” series: to which he gave no response. Loftus’ biggest objection to my critique of his descent into atheism was that I responded to what he called a “brief testimony.” He wrote in December 2006 (his words in blue henceforth):

Deconversion stories are piecemeal. They cannot give a full explanation for why someone left the faith. They only give hints at why they left the faith. It requires writing a whole book about why someone left the faith to understand why they did, and few people do that. I did. If you truly want to critique my deconversion story then critique my book. . . . I challenge you to really critique the one deconversion story that has been published in a book. . . . Do you accept my challenge?

I declined at that time, mainly (but not solely) for the following stated reason:

If you send me your book in an e-file for free, I’d be more than happy to critique it. I won’t buy it, and I refuse to type long portions of it when it is possible to cut-and-paste. That is an important factor since my methodology is Socratic and point-by-point. . . . You railed against that, saying that it was a “handout.” I responded that you could have any of my (14 completed) books in e-book form for free.

Throughout August 2019, I critiqued Dr. David Madison, a prominent contributor to Loftus’ website, Debunking Christianity, no less than 35 times. As of this writing, they remain completely unanswered. I was simply providing (as a courtesy) links to my critiques underneath each article of Dr. Madison’s, till Loftus decided I couldn’t do that (after having claimed that I “hate” atheists and indeed, everyone I disagree with). I replied at length regarding his censorship on his website. Loftus’ explanation for the complete non-reply to my 35 critiques was this: “We know we can respond. It’s just that we don’t have the time to do so. Plus, it’s pretty clear our time would be better spent doing something else than wrestling in the mud with you.” He also claimed that Dr. Madison was “planning to write something about one or more of these links in the near future.” Meanwhile, I discovered that Dr. Madison wrote glowingly about Loftus on 1-23-17:

When the history of Christianity’s demise is written (it will fade eventually away, as do all religions), your name will feature prominently as one who helped bring the world to its senses. Your legacy is secure and is much appreciated.

This was underneath an article where Loftus claimed: “I’ve kicked this dead rodent of the Christian faith into a lifeless blob so many times there is nothing left of it.” I hadn’t realized that Loftus had single-handedly managed to accomplish the stupendous feat of vanquishing the Hideous Beast of Christianity (something the Roman Empire, Muslims, Communists, and many others all miserably failed to do). Loftus waxed humbly and modestly ten days later: “I cannot resist the supposition that my books are among the best. . . . Every one of my books is unique, doing what few other atheist books have done, if any of them.”

These last three cited statements put me “over the edge” and I decided to buy a used copy of his book, Why I Became an Atheist (revised version, 2012, 536 pages) and critique it, as he wanted me to do in 2006. Moreover, on 8-27-07 he made a blanket challenge about the original version of this book: “I challenge someone to try this with my book. I might learn a few things, and that’s always a goal of mine. Pick it up and deal with as many arguments in it that you can. Deal with them all if you can.” His wish is granted (I think he will at length regret it), and this will be my primary project (as a professional apologist) in the coming weeks and probably months.

Despite all his confident bluster, I fully expect him to ignore my critiques. It’s what he’s always done with me (along with endless personal insults). I’m well used to empty (direct) challenges from atheists, based on my experience with Madison and “Bible Basher” Bob Seidensticker, who also has ignored 35 of my critiques (that he requested I do). If Loftus (for a change) decides to actually defend his views, I’m here; always have been. And I won’t flee for the hills, like atheists habitually do, when faced with substantive criticism.

The words of John Loftus will be in blue.

*****

John Loftus’ chapter 3 is entitled, “The Outsider Test for Faith” (pp. 64-78).

Loftus summarizes this argument of his as follows:

(1) Rational people in distinct geographical locations around the globe overwhelmingly adopt and defend a wide diversity of religious faiths due to their upbringing and shared cultural heritage.

(2) [T]o an overwhelming degree, one’s religious faith is causally dependent upon cultural conditions.

From (1) and (2) it follows that:

(3) It is highly likely that any given adopted religious faith is false.

Given these odds we need a test, or an objective standard, to help us determine if our inherited religious faith is true, so I propose that:

4) The best and probably the only way to test one’s adopted religious faith is from the perspective of an outsider with the same level of skepticism one uses to evaluate other religious faiths.

. . . I’m not arguing that religious faiths are completely culturally relative and therefore all false because of religious diversity. I’m merely arguing that believers should be very skeptical of their faith because of these cultural factors. . . . (p. 65)

If you were born in Saudi Arabia you would be a Sunni Muslim right now.  . . . If you were born in the first century BCE in Israel, you’d adhere to the Jewish faith, and if you were born in Europe in 1200 CE, you’d be a Roman Catholic.. . . In short, we are overwhelmingly products of our times. (p. 66)

At the very minimum, believers should be willing to subject their faith to rigorous scrutiny by reading many of the best-recognized critiques of it. For instance, Christians should be willing to read this book of mine and others I’ve published. (p. 68)

[T]hey can no longer start out by believing that the Bible is true . . . nor can they trust their own anecdotal religious experiences, since such experiences are had by people of all religious faiths who differ about the cognitive content learned as the result of these experiences. (pp. 68-69)

If after you have investigated your religious faith with the presumption of skepticism, you find that it passes intellectual muster, you can have your religious faith. It’s that simple. If not, abandon it. (p. 71)

I answered an earlier version of Loftus’ argument in September 2007. The following draws heavily from that article of mine.

I fully agree with the “rational self-examination” core of this argument. It’s a major reason why I do apologetics. Religious views need to be held with a great deal more rationality and self-conscious analysis of the epistemological basis and various types of evidences for one’s own belief.

I believe everyone should study to know why they believe what they believe. On the other hand, I deny that there is no religious knowledge or evidence other than these hard proofs from scientific inquiry. There are also highly complex internal or instinctive or subjective or experiential factors that have been analyzed at great length by philosophers like William Alston (see Alvin Plantinga (“properly basic belief”). Those are huge discussions, but not to be dismissed as irrelevant to the present line of inquiry.

Many (and probably most) Christians never do the recommended self-examination of their faith and its basis; I agree. Again, this is among the many reasons why I have devoted myself to apologetics. I would say, though, that there is a version of this “become whatever your surroundings dictate” argument that can be turned around as a critique of atheism.

Many atheists — though usually not born in that worldview — nevertheless have decided to immerse themselves in atheist / skeptical literature and surround themselves with others of like mind. And so they become confirmed in their beliefs. We are what we eat. In other words, one can voluntarily decide to shut off other modes and ways of thinking in order to become “convinced” of a particular viewpoint. That is almost the same mentality as adopting a religion simply because “everyone else” in a culture does so, or because of an accident of birth. People can create an “accident of one-way reading” too.

My position, in contrast, is for people to read competent advocates of any given debate and see them interact with each other. That’s why I do so many dialogues. John Loftus wrote these papers and books, and they might seem to be wonderfully plausible, until someone like me comes around to point out the fallacies in them and to challenge some of the alleged facts. Inquirers need to read both sides and exercise their critical faculties (not just Christians or only atheists). The most fruitful, helpful debates are those where both sides know their stuff and have the confidence to defend themselves and the courage and honesty to change their opinions if they have been shown that truth and fact demand it.

It’s true that most people believe in the religious view that they were born into. But of course, some (many?) change their minds later on. And we must also take into account variations within religions. In my case, for example, one could say “sure, you’re a Christian because most Americans claim to be so.” True enough on one level, but it is false insofar as it would presuppose that I am a Christian only because of this factor and no others.

In fact, I have made up my mind as an individual and often changed my opinions. I was born into a liberal Methodist family. I never resonated with that much, and stopped going to the Methodist church when I was ten. I then became a “secularist” or “practical atheist” for about eight years. That went against my background because both parents and all four grandparents were Methodists. I then converted to evangelical Christianity at age 18. There wasn’t much of that in my larger (mostly Canadian) family, either. And at length I converted to Catholicism at age 32. There were virtually no Catholics in my extended family. So I was making decisions on my own regardless of what folks around me believed (particularly in my Catholic conversion). Therefore, this whole analysis doesn’t really apply to me, if we examine it closely and take it a step deeper and out of the broadest generalities.

I’m not saying that my type of path is anywhere near the norm, but I am saying that there are (who knows how many?) folks like me to which this “test” doesn’t apply. We didn’t adopt our religious views simply because of what the majority of people around us believed, or because it was what we were raised in. We thought it through and came to our own conclusions.

Another relevant factor to consider is that many beliefs in other religions are similar or identical to Christian ones. This would cause this argument to have to be qualified, since the “diversity” is not as great as it may seem at first glance. All religions and indeed ethical systems (whether religious or not) have great commonalities. This was a central thesis of C. S. Lewis’s book The Abolition of Man. Anyone can word-search the free online version for “Appendix Illustrations of the Tao” to find many examples of commonalities in ethics. For example, Lewis found the Golden Rule in the Analects of Confucius: “Never do to others what you would not like them to do to you.”

We need not reject all other religions in toto; just aspects of them that we believe to be untrue. For example, we have no objection to Jews following the 613 commandments of Mosaic Law or keeping kosher. Buddhists are often pro-life, and teach about personal asceticism: something not unlike Catholic monasticism. Muslims still have lots of children (like American Christians used to), and are against abortion and premarital sex and pornography. All great stuff . . . 

Lewis’ argument, and one often made by Christian apologists, is that such commonality is an an indication of the truthfulness of those tenets which are widely held in common. If virtually every religious (or conscientious atheist) person in the world believes in some form of the Golden Rule, then that is evidence that the Golden Rule is likely true. If diversity suggests much falsehood (as I agree it does), then commonality suggests much truth in play.

I agree that every Christian should have a reasonable faith, that can withstand rational and skeptical examination. I do this myself and I write so that others can share in the same confidence and blessing that I receive as I do apologetics and interact with other people of different beliefs. I have also long accepted the sociological basis of much actual belief, on account of my reading of social analysts such as Thomas Kuhn (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions) and Michael Polanyi. 

Every person is responsible for his or her own intellectual advancement. The trouble is that public education is so rotten today that young minds aren’t formulated in ways that would further this end. They are spoon-fed secularist propaganda bleached of any Christian influence whatsoever, and then given a massive sophisticated dose of anti-Christianity in college (so that many students lose their faith because they are so overwhelmed and unprepared), as if this were a fair, intelligent way of going about things. They are what they eat too.

That’s why secularists are so intent on removing any vestige of Christianity from education, because they prevail only by people being ignorant of any alternative. I was a thoroughly secularist pro-choice, pro-feminist, political and sexual liberal coming out of high school. I would have repeated the party line impeccably (in marvelously blissful ignorance). But when I started reading some materials with a different perspective during my college years and shortly afterwards (Christian, politically conservative, pro-life), my opinions changed because I had a rational basis to compare one view with another, rather than merely aping propagandistic slogans learned by rote repetition (which is much of liberal, secularist education these days).

But (back to Loftus’ argument) there are no absolutely clean slates. This is where I would disagree, based on the analyses of people like Plantinga, Alston, and Polanyi (the latter almost single-handedly dismantled logical positivism). We can be sure that the alleged “neutral skeptic” has a complete set of predispositions, biases, and even some prejudices: as we all do to one degree or another. 

I do, however, believe in being as objective and fair as we possibly can be, even given our inevitable biases and belief-system that cannot be erased merely by playing the game of philosophy and supposed extreme, dispassionate detachment.

There are a number of evidential or empirical tests that Christianity and other religions can be subjected to. The argument from biblical prophecy offers a chance to test by real, concrete historical events whether the predictions were accurate or not. A study of Jesus’ Resurrection, that involved a dead body and a rock tomb guarded by Roman soldiers, provides hard facts that have to be dealt with and explained somehow. The cosmological and teleological theistic arguments offer hard scientific facts and details that are rationally explained as suggesting a God. All miraculous claims can be examined with a fine-toothed comb.

At least for the western religions, there are several tests from various fields of study (natural science, archaeology, textual analysis, historiography, philosophical arguments, etc.) that can be brought to bear. Those from these traditions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) hold lots of beliefs along those lines in common, and so can compare the relative strength of their religious claims. Eastern religion is another story, and the presuppositions and conception of God is so different that it is difficult to test or examine rationally by these same standards.

In the Catholic tradition, there are many eyewitness accounts of people being raised from the dead (St. Augustine, for example, attested to this). There are all sorts of miracles. For example: the incorrupt bodies of saints. If you can take a dead person out of their grave twenty, fifty years or more after their death, and the body has not decayed, and it is because they were a saintly person, then that is hard empirical evidence that confirms Christian, Catholic teaching. You have the mystery of the stigmata, that could be seen in, e.g., St. Padre Pio, who died in 1968. There is archaeological evidence confirming the claims of the Bible. Etc., etc. I have compiled some evidence for scientifically verified miracles at the Marian shrine in Lourdes, France.

Skeptics thumb their noses at all of this but it is not nearly so simple. There are unexplained phenomena here that have to be accounted for. We have our interpretation, but the atheist puts his head in the sand and claims that it’s all impossible because of their prior axiomatic beliefs that all miracles simply cannot happen because they allegedly “go against science ” (itself a blatant fallacy). 

As for believing that the Bible is true: we test it like any other source of history: through historiographical scholarship and archaeology. The Bible has been verified again and again in this fashion and has proven itself highly accurate, insofar as it correctly reports historical, geographical, biographical details, etc.

Wholly apart from religious faith, then, we can establish that it is a remarkably accurate document that can be trusted to accurately report things. That’s the bare minimum. Once supernatural events are being discussed, the argument must be made on an entirely different plane: legal-historical evidences, philosophy, etc. But the Bible is not untrustworthy on the basis of inaccuracy of things that can be empirically verified.

Loftus has never replied to any of these arguments of mine for almost twelve years (except with personal insults towards me). He claims that Christians have offered no good replies to this argument. I believe that I have offered some (that’s for readers to determine).

Bottom line: everyone is in this same boat (as Loftus agrees). We all have to / should / must examine why we believe what we believe. The Outsider Test is almost an apologia for Christian apologetics: when applied to Christianity. In a large sense, he almost makes my case for me. His arguments apply to those who are ignorant of apologetics and rational defense of their views. Loftus even rather dramatically concedes: “If after you have investigated your religious faith with the presumption of skepticism, you find that it passes intellectual muster, you can have your religious faith” (p. 71). I couldn’t agree more!

It’s undeniably true (believe me, I know, in my profession) that most people, whether religious or atheist, don’t think very much about their worldview, and why they believe in God or disbelieve in His existence. Oftentimes, they don’t even know what they believe. This will be the case all the more as western culture continues to become more and more postmodernist, relativist, nominal as to religion and metaphysics and “ultimate questions of meaning,” and subjective. Religion and atheism both are often regarded as merely subjective and “personal” matters: for which (it is falsely claimed) no objective criteria of truth or falsity are relevant or even possible.

Moreover, the same dynamic that Loftus critiques as to Christians is seen in nations that are becoming predominantly atheist / non-religious. Folks who are born into those environments will (statistically, as the trends continue) be far more likely to grow up as good card-carrying  atheists (simply due to happenstance and where they were born), who think far more like Loftus does than like I do. Hence, we might observe, as a prime example, what is happening in England. An article in The Guardian (11-14-18) about falling Church of England attendance, noted:

Figures published by the British Social Attitudes survey in September showed that affiliation with the C of E was at a record low, at 14% – and down to 2% among young adults. More than half the population said they had no religion.

So millions who happen to be born in England are far more likely than those born in America, to be nominal about religion or atheist. And the vast majority of these won’t be able to defend their positions against examination, just as most Christians also cannot. They couldn’t care less about discussing it at all. Even atheists who are supposedly able to do so (polemicists or “apologists” for their “cause”), rarely interact with serious Christian critiques. Why?

The entire argument can be thrown back onto Loftus and atheists. Why are they so unwilling (like most Christians) to subject their views to scrutiny? Why do they confine their online discourse almost solely to cheerleading “groupthink” echo chambers: their own comboxes, where they can safely “preach to the choir” and quickly gang up on anyone who enters and dares to dissent form the party line? Why did Bob Seidensticker, who runs the popular Cross Examined blog, completely ignore 35 direct critiques I have made of his arguments (after he challenged me to write them)? Is this being intellectually deficient and/or dishonest, as Loftus charges Christians who act the same way? Does this extraordinary, determined reluctance suggest a lack of confidence in his own views?

Why has Dr. David Madison, who blogs on Loftus’ own Debunking Christianity site, also utterly ignored 35 of my critiques against his atheist articles, that aggressively attack Christian beliefs? The same questions apply to him, just as Loftus applies them to Christians who can’t rationally explain why they believe what they believe. Goose and gander. Meanwhile, I’m here doing exactly what Loftus calls for (and what I have done since 1981, as an apologist): subjecting my views to scrutiny and examination through multiple hundreds of dialogues, and extending the same courtesy to atheists (who almost universally refuse to respond to such inquiries). In other words, they act exactly as most Christians do in this regard.

And if John Loftus also chooses to ignore these critiques of his book (that he challenged me to do way back in 2006, and boldly challenges anyone and everyone to do), he will help to prove my point, too. We have to look at what both Christians and atheists do; not just what they say, and claim to believe, just as Jesus rebuked His proclaimed followers who were being hypocritical:

Luke 6:46 “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I tell you?” 

Christians have no monopoly on either ignorance or hypocrisy. Loftus talks a good game. He writes well and articulately presents his case. Now let’s see if he can back up his own rhetoric with defenses of his views, as they are seriously examined (just as he examines and rejects ours).

***

Photo credit: John Loftus at SASHAcon 2016 at the University of Missouri; Mark Schierbecker (3-19-16) [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license]

***

 

 

2019-08-27T12:30:20-04:00

Last updated on: August 27, 2019 at 12:30 pm   By

Pauline / Biblical Soteriology: Faith and Works, Grace and Merit / Hyperbole (“No one is good”)

This is an installment of my replies to a series of articles on the epistle to the Romans (written by St. Paul) by Dr. David Madison: an atheist who was a Methodist minister for nine years: with a Ph.D. in Biblical Studies from Boston University. His summary article is called, “Bad Bible Theology: Paul’s Letter to the Romans: Let me count the ways…that Paul got it wrong” (2-26-18). He devotes a paper to each chapter. Unless he repeats himself (a bad habit of his) or descends to sheer biblical skepticism (which I have less than no interest in), I will reply to all. 

The introduction is basically a catalogue of rank insults, where he calls St. Paul “a crank” and a “delusional cult fanatic” and “the prototype for Christian crazies” and “an obsessive-compulsive mediocre thinker and bad theologian” and “an embarrassment.” He adds: “how can anyone take this guy seriously?” That about covers the “content” there. Bears poop in the woods, brats throw fits, squirrels walk telephone lines, and the prevalent anti-theist brand of atheists insult Christians. Ho hum. What else is new?

Dr. Madison’s words will be in blue below.

*****

Dr. Madison calls his critique of Romans chapter 3, “Paul the Apostle and the Hogwarts Factor: For Paul, sin was a disease of the soul…he was sure he knew the cure” (2-24-17) 

For Paul, sin was a disease of the soul…he was sure he knew the cure 

Thanks to countless cartoons, we all know the iconic image of St. Peter perched at a desk, with his big ledger book, surrounded by fluffy clouds, just outside the Pearly Gates: You get to enter heaven if you’ve got enough good deeds to your credit. While most Christians—I suspect, I hope—know this scene is comic book stuff, they do go along with the theology behind it. In fact, they know this in their guts. That is, God lets you in if you’ve been a good person. If you’ve been bad or nasty, then your odds go down. Isn’t that just fair play, common sense? After all, heaven is called your Eternal Reward.

Well, all Christians agree that salvation is by God’s grace. They differ on the relationship between faith and works, but not as much as many think. Protestants, of course, teach faith alone, but they do not deny the importance and necessity of (non-salvific, non-justifying) good works. Both Luther and Calvin taught that these works would necessarily flow from a true, genuine, authentic faith. And of course the book of James famously stated:

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

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

James 2:20-22 Do you want to be shown, you shallow man, that faith apart from works is barren? [21] Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? [22] You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, 

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

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

Consistent with this biblical teaching, Scripture, in fifty passages about final judgment, mentions works every time, and never “faith alone.” And Jesus, asked by the rich young ruler how he could attain eternal life, asked if he kept the commandments (works), and then told him he had to sell all he had and give it to the poor (a good work). Faith was never mentioned.

No Matter How Good You Are

But the New Testament requirements for making the grade are not really that simple, thanks, in large part, to the theology of Paul. He didn’t see eye-to-eye with Peter anyway, so giving Peter a desk at the Pearly Gates wouldn’t have been his idea. That’s a story for another time, however.

Paul recoiled at the idea that anyone could deserve to be granted eternal life. There was no way to merit it. His Letter to the Romans stands in the way of this intuitive approach,i.e., adding up your good deeds to get into heaven. So now let’s open our Bibles to Romans, chapter 3. Atheists who want to make the case that the good book is not all that good should know how bad the Book of Romans is.

Yes; of course Paul teaches salvation by grace through faith. But he doesn’t exclude the necessity of works, or the notion of merit. In other words, he doesn’t teach Protestant soteriology, which Dr. Madison, as a good former Methodist, mistakenly thinks the Bible teaches. And he doesn’t disagree with Peter’s theology. When he rebuked him, it was for behavioral hypocrisy, not false doctrine. Here is what Paul taught:

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

To summarize: The concept of “demerits” is present (verse 5). Differential rewards for works (by implication, differential “merit”) exist (verse 6). Eternal life is correlated with well-doing (verses 7, 10). Divine wrath is due to disobedience (verses 8, 9). Obedient doers of the law shall be justified (verse 13; a striking similarity to James 1:22-23; 2:24).

The theme of obeying the gospel, or the obedience of faith, is also common in St. Paul’s writings (for example, Rom. 1:5, 6:17, 10:16, 15:18-19, 16:25-26; 2 Thess. 1:8; cf. Acts 6:7; Heb. 11:8).

Judgment, according to Paul in Romans, is also according to works, just as Christ also explicitly taught. This is a theme that runs through St. Paul’s writings (for example, 1 Cor. 3:13, 4:5; 2 Cor. 5:10; Gal. 6:7-9; Col. 3:23-25).

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

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

1 Corinthians 3:8-9: “Each shall receive his wages according to his labor. For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building.”

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” (see also 1 Cor. 15:58; Gal. 5:6, 6:7-9).

Philippians 2:12-13: “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.”

St. Paul again regards faith and the human cooperation of works (labor) as two sides of the same coin, both proceeding from grace. Elsewhere, the apostle writes of the “works of faith” and related concepts (1 Thess. 1:3; 2 Thess. 1:11; Titus 1:15-16). Faith and works are not at all incompatible in all these Pauline passages. Salvation is described as a struggle, a process, a goal — not merely an abstract, past, instantaneous event.

In verse 9 he mentions “the power of sin”—it’s not that people just commit sins, rather sin is an indwelling force. To make the point, he culls a few of the gloomiest texts from the Old Testament to show how bad people are, functioning under this power. Paul can have his Hallmark moments, but these verses (vv.10-18) will never end up on sentimental Christian greeting cards. There isn’t enough space to quote them all here, but v. 12 and v. 13 are representative:

“All have turned aside, together they have become worthless; there is no one who shows kindness, there is not even one ” and “Their throats are opened graves; they use their tongues to deceive. The venom of vipers is under their lips.”

These passages are, of course, examples of typical Jewish hyperbole, or exaggeration: not to be taken absolutely literally. For example, Jesus said, “No one is good but God alone” (Lk 18:19; cf. Mt 19:17). Yet He also said: “The good person brings good things out of a good treasure.” (Mt 12:35; cf. 5:45; 7:17-20; 22:10). Is this a contradiction? No; Jesus is merely drawing a contrast between our righteousness and God’s, but He doesn’t deny that we can be “good” in a lesser sense. We observe the same dynamic in the Psalms:

Psalm 14:2-3 The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any that act wisely, that seek after God. [3] They have all gone astray, they are all alike corrupt; there is none that does good, [Hebrew, tob] no not one. (cf. 53:1-3; Paul cites this in Rom 3:10-12)

Yet in the immediately preceding Psalm, David proclaims, “I have trusted in thy steadfast love” (13:5), which certainly is “seeking” after God! And in the very next he refers to “He who walk blamelessly, and does what is right” (15:2). Even two verses later (14:5) he writes that “God is with the generation of the righteous.” So obviously his lament in 14:2-3 is an indignant hyperbole and not intended as a literal utterance.

Such remarks are common to Hebrew poetic idiom. The anonymous psalmist in 112:5-6 refers to the “righteous” (Heb. tob), as does the book of Proverbs repeatedly: using the words “righteous” or “good” (11:23; 12:2; 13:22; 14:14, 19), using the same word, tob, which appears in Psalm 14:2-3. References to righteous men are innumerable (e.g., Job 17:9; 22:19; Ps 5:12; 32:11; 34:15; 37:16, 32; Mt 9:13; 13:17; 25:37, 46; Rom 5:19; Heb 11:4; Jas 5:16; 1 Pet 3:12; 4:18, etc.).

St. Paul is not a “doom and gloom” / morose sort of guy at all (let alone a fanatic nut: as Dr. Madison futilely tries to paint him). One has to continue reading in Romans. He builds his case of God’s plan of salvation, explaining the relationship between the old and new covenants, and the primacy of faith and grace in both. The climax of this portion of his epistle is the magnificent, triumphant, bright and sunny chapter 8. In the meantime, it would be good for folks to understand how biblical hyperbole works. I’ve provided a quick summary aid above.

[passing over the generic, stock, anti-supernaturalist arguments (or rather, bald assertions) — inaccurately caricatured as “magic” and “hocus-pocus” –, as the goal of this series of counter-replies is to exegete Paul and Romans, as opposed to being an apologia for the supernatural and miracles, which is a completely separate and complex discussion.]

***

Photo credit: The Apostle Paul (c. 1657), by Rembrandt (1606-1669); possibly also by his workshop [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

2019-08-26T14:38:24-04:00

Last updated on: August 26, 2019 at 2:38 pm   By

Supernatural & Miracles / Biblical Literary Genres & Figures / Perpetual Virginity / Healing & Belief / Persecution of Jesus in Nazareth

This is an installment of my replies to a series of articles on Mark by Dr. David Madison: an atheist who was a Methodist minister for nine years: with a Ph.D. in Biblical Studies from Boston University. His summary article is called, “Not-Your-Pastor’s Tour of Mark’s Gospel: The falsification of Christianity made easy” (Debunking Christianity, 7-17-19). His words will be in blue below.

Dr. Madison has utterly ignored my twelve refutations of his “dirty dozen” podcasts against Jesus, and I fully expect that stony silence to continue. If he wants to be repeatedly critiqued and make no response, that’s his choice (which would challenge Bob Seidensticker as the most intellectually cowardly atheist I know). I will continue on, whatever he decides to do (no skin off my back).

Dr. Madison believes we are not at all sure whether Jesus in fact said anything recorded in the Gospels. The atheist always has a convenient “out” (when refuted in argument about some biblical text) that Jesus never said it anyway and that the text in question was simply made up and added later by unscrupulous and “cultish” Christian propagandists.

I always refuse to play this silly and ultimately intellectually dishonest game, because there is no way to “win” with such a stacked, subjective deck. I start with the assumption (based on many historical evidences) that the manuscripts we have are quite sufficient for us to know what is in the Bible (believe it or not). 

Dr. Madison himself — in his anti-Jesus project noted above, granted my outlook, strictly in terms of practical “x vs. y” debate purposes: “For the sake of argument, I’m willing to say, okay, Jesus was real and, yes, we have gospels that tell the story.” And in the combox: “So, we can go along with their insistence that he did exist. We’ll play on their field, i.e., the gospels.” Excellent! Otherwise, there would be no possible discussion at all.

*****

Dr. Madison called this installment: “Christianity’s Guilty Pleasure: Magical Thinking: Where’s the Delete Key?” (8-10-18) [Mark chapter 5]

It’s too bad J. K. Rowling didn’t write the gospels. Jesus could have used the Invisibility Cloak on the night he was betrayed; Judas wouldn’t have been able to find him to give him that famous kiss. But the four guys who penned the most famous Jesus stories—whom later tradition named Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—were no slouches in the magical thinking department.

One of the mysteries of the Christian faith is that devout folks don’t notice this, or don’t grasp it; or, inexplicably, they’re just not too concerned about it. Some evangelicals are tuned in enough to be alarmed by the Harry Potter stories—it’s sorcery, after all—without noticing the irony: Harry is competition; they trade in the same genre. . . . 

I suppose Christians are willing to give a pass to magical thinking when it is embedded in charming, touching stories—or one with ominous qualities, which is what we find in Mark 5. Still, this is no excuse to abandon critical thinking. Just what kind of literature is this?

In Dr. Madison’s critique of chapter 6 (see my replies below) he writes similarly:

So, let’s add to the challenge to Christians that I mentioned at the beginning. Not only how many chapters can they get through without having to make up excuses; but how many gospel verses—be honest now—should be filed under The Messiah’s Magic Tricks? If a ‘miracle’ verse could just as easily fit into a fairy tale, a Disney animated fantasy, or even a Marvel Comics adventure (are there other superheroes who walk on water?), then, fess up, the gospel writers have indulged their weakness for magical thinking.

What I stated in installment #2 of this series, I’ll repeat again here:

I pass over Dr. Madison’s stock atheist objections to Satan, demons (getting also a bit into the problem of evil), and supernatural healing. These are discussions that are very involved, entailing in-depth philosophy and theology, and go far beyond the “textual” arguments that I am concentrating on in my critiques.

Dr. Madison rarely seems to ever make — if ever – an actual argument against the existence of angels, demons, and Satan, and the supernatural and miracles. He simply assumes from the outset that such things are ridiculous and the equivalent of the Easter Bunny and fairies and leprechauns, Harry Potter sorcery, etc. And that’s another distinct reason I refuse to engage him on this particular issue: because there is no rational argument to engage in the first place, since he provides none.

All he gives us is the usual empty-headed, closed-minded mockery (“Jesus chatted with demons. What kind of compromises with reality are Christians willing to make?” etc.): so beloved of so many atheists (especially apostate Christian ones). Yes! The Bible contains miracles and supernatural elements! Like, this is supposed to come as some sort of surprise? My purpose in this series is to do biblical exegesis and commentary, and to refute Dr. Madison’s hostile, fallacious, non-factual claims for the biblical text that can’t withstand scrutiny.

For those who still possess an open mind and are willing to examine scientifically documented instances of healing, I wrote about this in May 2018 in dialogue with an atheist. He chose not to grapple with the evidence presented, and no other atheist has seen fit to do so since, either (what a surprise):

Does God Still Perform Miracles? (Some Evidence)

I’ve written about the philosophical question of miracles many times and have also collected scholarly articles on the topic, but this is beyond my present purview. Whoever wants to read any of my articles on the topic or those of others, is free to do so.

But back to Dr. Madison: literally all he does in this paper is rant and rave, sans rational argument against that which he detests and disbelieves. So there is nothing here to contend with, in terms of exegesis and textual arguments. Thus, I move on to the next attack-piece in the series:

“Jesus and his Team of Traveling Exorcists: Reading the gospels can be a bumpy ride” (8-31-18) [Mark chapter 6]

It would be cool to throw down this challenge to the folks who are sure the Bible is God’s Wonderful Word: See how many chapters you can get through without having to make excuses for what seems to be the plain meaning of the text. We commonly hear, “Well, you can’t take that literally,” or “It’s not as strange/bad/silly as it sounds…” There are plenty of on-line apologist commentaries to help knock off the rough edges and ‘make straight the way of the lord,’ so to speak. Of course, one can breeze through the gospels on the hunt for the familiar, comforting texts, but a careful, thoughtful reading sometimes can put strains on faith.

For discerning readers who are under no obligation to make the story ‘come out right’—with Jesus sane and intact—Mark, Chapter 6 has too many rough edges.

Imagine that! The Bible actually contains lots of non-literal passages, utilizing many many forms and varieties of literary figures, genres, etc. (!!!): all tied into and presupposing a very different ancient near eastern Semitic / Hebrew / Israelite culture: which we also have to learn a bit about (to put it mildly) in order to fully understand the Bible and what it is trying to convey in any given passage or book. These things are not fodder for juvenile jokes and mocking.

They may — who knows why? — come as extraordinarily shocking news to Dr. Madison (a man with a doctorate degree in biblical studies), but it is common knowledge that all languages in every culture and at all times, include these aspects. Ancient Hebrew and Greek as used in Holy Scripture are no different.

In my previous antidote, Dr. David Madison vs. Jesus #1: Hating One’s Family?, I mentioned Bible scholar E. W. Bullinger, who described and explained “over 200 distinct figures [in the Bible], several of them with from 30 to 40 varieties.” His 1104-page tome is called, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (London: 1898). It’s available for free, online.  I have a hardcover copy in my own personal library. It’s endlessly educational and fascinating. That particular reply of mine delved into just one such figure in considerable depth.

Very few people could master all that information and have it in their head. But Dr. Madison is different, you see. He inhabits an entirely different thought-world than us lowly and ignorant, gullible and infantile Christian peasants. He has the brain power and wisdom to immediately know and grasp and comprehend “the plain meaning of” any biblical text, without having to be burdened by such trifles as what Dr. Bullinger writes about, over 1104 pages.  Dr. Madison needs none of it. He knows all things biblical instantly, with no further need of study.

Moreover, the skeptical locals put Jesus in his place: “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?” Catholic theologians, committed to protecting Mary’s Perpetual Virginity, try to nullify the clear meaning of the text: these were actually cousins of Jesus, they claim, or children from Joseph’s first marriage! Theologians assume they can get away with pulling the wool.

First of all, perpetual virginity is not simply Catholic teaching, but also Orthodox and historic Protestant teaching. All of the major “reformers” of early Protestantism held to it: including Martin Luther and John Calvin. And all of these Christians traditions do so for a reason: it was what was passed down in apostolic tradition from the beginning, and it has many biblical and apostolic and patristic arguments in its favor.  I have elaborated upon these many times, and this is not “pulling the wool” but rather, seriously engaging all of the relevant biblical texts:

*
*
*
Jesus’ “Brothers” Always “Hangin’ Around” Mary … (Doesn’t This Prove That They Are Actually His Siblings?) [8-31-09]
*
*
*
Biblical Evidence for the Perpetual Virginity of Mary [National Catholic Register, 4-13-18]
*
More Biblical Evidence for Mary’s Perpetual Virginity [National Catholic Register, 4-25-18]
*
The “clear meaning” of the text Dr. Madison cites (Mk 6:3) is not at all in line with what he casually thinks and assumes, and this is fairly easy to demonstrate, as I have done.
*
In verse 5 we find an admission that Jesus was powerless, or nearly so. “And he could do no deed of power there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and cured them.” Can we infer that Jesus’ “deeds of power” depended on people believing he could do them? This raises questions about his skills as a showman, and the gullibility of those who were eager to see “deeds of power.”
Mark 6:5-6 (RSV) And he could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands upon a few sick people and healed them. [6] And he marveled because of their unbelief. . . .
Yes, there is a strong overlap of people having faith and their being healed, but not always (or it’s not always stated: which is a different thing) See my long paper on the biblical view of healing. Three of the Gospels record Jesus saying, “your faith has made you well” six times. Jesus’ power in and of itself doesn’t depend on people’s faith, or else it is absent. He simply wants them to have faith. But I think this particular text isn’t even talking about what Dr. Madison thinks. Jesus couldn’t do a “mighty work” in Nazareth, because He was hounded out of town as soon as He spoke in the synagogue, citing Isaiah and claiming to be the Messiah. That’s made clear in Luke:
Luke 4:28-31 When they heard this, all in the synagogue were filled with wrath. [Mk 6:3: “they took offense at him”] [29] And they rose up and put him out of the city, and led him to the brow of the hill on which their city was built, that they might throw him down headlong. [30] But passing through the midst of them he went away. [31] And he went down to Caper’na-um, a city of Galilee. . . .
That’s why He couldn’t do many healings there: which of course has nothing to do with supposedly being “powerless, or nearly so.” See how silly and shallow this typical specimen of atheist “exegesis” is? It’s because anti-theist atheists of Dr. Madison’s type approach the Bible like a butcher approaches a hog. Jesus didn’t have time to do many healings in Nazareth because the townspeople attempted to stone Him as soon as He read in the synagogue. The first part of stoning was to throw a person off of a big cliff, if available. And such a cliff was available in Nazareth. I’ve been there and have seen it. Here is a description from the Jewish Talmud:

One account is given to us in the Jewish Mishnah (multiple oral Jewish traditions combined into a single work). In (Sanhedrin, ch. 6, Mishnah 4) it says this on how a person was to be stoned:

#1. The place of stoning was twice a man’s height (with rocks below).

#2. One of the witnesses pushed him by the hips, [so that] he was overturned on his heart (fell face first on the rocks).

#3. He was then turned on his back.

#4. If that caused his death, he had fulfilled [his duty]; but if not, the second witness took a (large) stone and threw it on his chest.

#5. If he died thereby, he had done [his duty]; but if not, he [the criminal] was stoned by all Israel.

But by far the most embarrassing item in this text is Jesus’ hard-heartedness. Like other cult leaders, he had no patience for those who balked at his message (v.11): “If any place will not welcome you and they refuse to hear you, as you leave, shake off the dust that is on your feet as a testimony against them.” When Matthew copied Mark’s text, he made Jesus even meaner (10:15): “Truly I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.” The apostles, so says verse 12, “…went out and proclaimed that all should repent.” Presumably some of the folks they accosted, being devout Jews, felt no need to ‘repent.’ But if they turned away these itinerate preachers they deserved destruction. How does Jesus come off as the good guy? I don’t know how Christians can overlook this arrogance; their hero is seriously flawed. If you meet Christians who are okay with this kind of vengeance…well, those are the kinds of Christians to stay away from.

I dealt with the supposedly “meaner” Matthew account and Dr. Madison’s identical argument in my paper, Madison vs. Jesus #9: Clueless Re Rebellion & Judgment. And I took on the general non-“issue” almost five years ago: “Shake the Dust Off of Your Feet”: Mean?
 
***
*
Photo credit: Jesus Unrolls the Book in the Synagogue, by James Tissot (1836-1902) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
*
***
Follow Us!
Browse Our Archives
TRENDING AT PATHEOS Family
On Fake News, Mendacity, Social Media, and the...
Vs. Geisler on Catholicism #3: “Apocrypha” 3: Septuagint
To Glenda, Selling Alligator Alcatraz Merch on Etsy
Vs. Geisler on Catholicism #2: “Apocrypha” 2: NT...
Then, Now, Always, Camp Mystic
“Be Angry but Do Not Sin”—How to Cope...
view all Family blogs