2025-06-26T09:41:11-04:00

(November 2024, 124 pages)
*****
TABLE OF CONTENTS
***
Communion of Saints
I. GENERAL
II. INVOCATION AND INTERCESSION OF SAINTS AND ANGELS 
III. VENERATION OF SAINTS AND ANGELS 
IV. VENERATION OF ICONS AND IMAGES (INCLUDING OF GOD) / STATUES / HOLY OBJECTS / HOLY DAYS
V. RELICS
Purgatory and Penance
VI. PURGATORY AND SHEOL (HADES)
VII. PRAYER AND PENANCE FOR THE DEAD
VIII. PRAYER FOR THE DEAD: ST. PAUL AND ONESIPHORUS
IX. SACRAMENT OF PENANCE: CONTRITION, CONFESSION, ABSOLUTION, AND SATISFACTION
X. INDULGENCES
XI. MORTIFICATION, FASTING, ABSTINENCE, ASCETICISM, MONASTICISM, SUFFERING, & REDEMPTIVE SUFFERING
XII. LENT
***
***
 
I. COMMUNION OF SAINTS: GENERAL
*
Classic Reflections on the Communion of Saints [2-17-91; revised and expanded: 12-14-93]
*
The Cloud of Witnesses [cartoon tract; art by Dan Grajek, early 90s]
*
Communion of Saints: Biblical Introduction & Overview [1995; published in The Catholic Answer (Nov / Dec 1998)]
*
The Communion of Saints: All Who Are In Christ [2-17-91; rev. Dec. 1993 and May 1996]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Treatise on Communion of Saints (Anthony Zarrella) [6-9-16]
*
*
***
*
II. COMMUNION OF SAINTS: INVOCATION AND INTERCESSION OF SAINTS AND ANGELS 
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Asking Saints to Intercede: Teaching of Jesus [2015]

Why Pray to Saints Rather than God? [9-4-15]

Reply to a Lutheran Pastor on Invocation of Saints [12-1-15]

John Calvin Did Not Pray to Philip Melanchthon [9-19-09; revised with retraction, 5-3-16]

Dialogue on Praying to Abraham (Luke 16) [5-22-16]

Prayer to Saints: “New” [?] Biblical Argument [5-23-16]

Treatise on Communion of Saints (Anthony Zarrella) [6-9-16]

Must Catholics Pray to Saints or be Excommunicated? [12-2-16]

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

Invocation & Intercession of Saints & Angels: Bible Proof [10-22-16 and 1-9-17]

“Armstrong vs. Geisler” #5: Prayer to Creatures [2-20-17]

Dialogue: Rich Man’s Prayer to Abraham (Luke 16) and the Invocation of Saints (vs. Lutheran Pastor Ken Howes) [5-3-17]

Dialogue on Samuel Appearing to Saul (Witch of Endor) [5-6-17]

Dialogue on Prayer to the Saints and Hades / Sheol [12-19-17]

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

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

Angelic Intercession is Totally Biblical [National Catholic Register, 7-1-18]

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

C. S. Lewis & the Invocation & Communion of Saints [10-10-19]

Vs. James White #13: Jesus Taught Invocation of Saints (And by James White’s “Reasoning,” Jesus Couldn’t be God and was a Blaspheming False Teacher) [11-16-19]

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

Invocation of Saints and Angels (Luke 16 [Lazarus & the Rich Man & Abraham] is One of the Most Unanswerable Arguments in Catholic Apologetics) (vs. Jason Engwer) [5-26-20]

Invocation of Saints: Jesus Allegedly “Calling on Elijah” (vs. Jason Engwer) [6-8-20]

Prayer to Abraham and Dead People in Scripture [National Catholic Register, 6-20-20]

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

Can Mary Hear “Simultaneous” Prayers of Millions? (vs. Matt Slick) [9-30-20]

Prayer to Creatures Proven from Holy Scripture (vs. Matt Slick) [10-1-20]

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

Jason Engwer, Origen, & Intercession of Saints [10-16-20]

Origen and the Intercession of Saints [National Catholic Register, 11-19-20]

Dialogue: Prayer For & To the Dead (w Dr. Lydia McGrew) [2-17-21]

Dialogue on Prayers to Saints & for the Dead [5-29-21]

Prayer to an Angel: An Explicit Biblical Example [11-21-21]

Reply to Jordan Cooper: Invocation of Saints [4-27-22]

Reply to Gavin Ortlund on Praying to the Saints (Including a Reply Regarding the [Blasphemous?] “Excesses of Marian Prayers” from the Protestant Point of View) [5-15-22]

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

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

Answer to Banzoli’s “Challenge” Re Intercession of Saints [9-20-22]

Nutshell Systematic Theology of the Efficacy & Biblical Nature of “Prayers of the Righteous” [Facebook, 9-20-22]

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

Reply to Banzoli’s “Analyzing the ‘evidence’ of saints’ intercession” [9-22-22]

Reply to Banzoli’s “Questions for Catholics About Prayer…” [9-23-22]

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

Dead Saints Interceding (vs. Lucas Banzoli): Including a Back-and-Forth Discussion on Banzoli’s Tragic Denial of the Deity of Christ [2-8-23]

Bible & the Intercession of Saints (vs. Lucas Banzoli) [2-8-23]

John Calvin in Effect Regards Jesus’ Teaching on Prayer to Abraham as “Novel and Impure” [Facebook, 3-8-23] 

Do Petitions to Departed Saints Offend God? [3-20-23]

Jason Engwer vs. the Biblical Case for Invoking Saints [4-22-23]

Invocation of Saints: Jason Engwer Still Out to Sea [7-19-23]

Jesus: Okay to Request Abraham’s Intercession [9-25-23]

Vs. J. Oliveira #3: Mediating Saints [9-28-23]

Vs. J. Oliveira #5: Talking to Dead Saints [10-3-23]

Defense of My NCR Article, “4 Biblical Proofs for Prayers to Saints and for the Dead” [Facebook, 10-7-23]

What Are Saints & Angels in Heaven Doing with Our “Prayers”? [Catholic365, 11-26-23]

Are Saints in Heaven Ignorant and Passive or Extremely Knowledgeable and Active in Charity and Prayer? [Facebook, 12-22-23]

Vs. Turretin #3: Communion Of Saints 3 (Intercession) [12-23-23]

Vs. Turretin #4: Communion Of Saints 4 (Invocation) [12-26-23]

Invoking Saints and Angels: A Nutshell Biblical Proof [Facebook, 12-26-23]

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
III. COMMUNION OF SAINTS: VENERATION OF SAINTS AND ANGELS 
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
The Veneration of Angels and Men is Biblical [National Catholic Register, 8-24-17]
*
Biblical Evidence for Veneration of Saints and Images [National Catholic Register, 10-23-18]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
“Graven Images”: Unbiblical Iconoclasm (vs. John Calvin) [Oct. 2012]
*
*
*
Worshiping God Through Images is Entirely Biblical [National Catholic Register, 12-23-16]
*
The Biblical Understanding of Holy Places and Things [National Catholic Register, 4-11-17]
*
How Protestant Nativity Scenes Proclaim Catholic Doctrine [12-15-13; expanded for publication at National Catholic Register: 12-17-17]
*
Dialogue on Worship of God Via Natural Images (vs. Jim Drickamer) [1-16-17]
*
*
*
Biblical Evidence for Veneration of Saints and Images [National Catholic Register, 10-23-18]
*
*
*
*
Crucifixes: Devotional Aids or Wicked Idols? [National Catholic Register, 1-15-20]
*
*
*
*
*
Golden Calf & Cherubim: Biblical Contradiction? (vs. Dr. Steven DiMattei) [11-23-20]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
V. COMMUNION OF SAINTS: RELICS
*
*
*
*
*
My Wedding Ring: Third-Class Relic (+ Examination of Fine Distinctions of Relic Classes) [9-16-15] [+ Facebook discussion: 4 November 2014; my ring touched 100 holy items in the Holy Land]
*
*
Biblical Proofs and Evidence for Relics [National Catholic Register, 3-13-20]
*
*
*
Relics Are a Biblical Concept — Here Are Some Examples [National Catholic Register, 5-31-22]
*
*
*
*
*
VI. PURGATORY AND SHEOL (HADES)
*

Classic Catholic Reflections on Purgatory [1994]

Fictional Dialogue on Purgatory [1995]

25 Bible Passages on Purgatory [1996]

Purgatory: . . . Saved, But Only As Through Fire [4-21-94; rev. May 1996]

Purgatory: A Short Exposition [5-9-02]

A Biblical Argument for Purgatory (Matthew 5:25-26) [10-13-04]

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

Is Purgatory a “Place” or a “Condition”?: Misconceptions From [Eastern Orthodox] Fr. Ambrose About My Opinion (and the Church’s View) / Also: Development and Alleged Historical Revisionism [7-24-05]

Dialogue with Lutherans on Jesus’ Descent Into “Hell” [2-1-07]

Purgatory: Refutation of James White (1 Corinthians 3:10-15) [3-3-07]

Has Limbo Been Relegated to Limbo? [12-28-07]

Luther Believed in Soul Sleep; Thus He Rejected Purgatory [2-9-08]

Dialogue on Sheol / Hades (Limbo of the Fathers) and Luke 16 (the Rich Man and Lazarus) with a Baptist (vs. “Grubb”) [2-28-08]

Luther: Purgatory “Quite Plain” in 2 Maccabees [3-5-09]

Purgatory is the Waiting Room for Heaven [4-25-09]

Luke 23:43 (Thief on the Cross): “Paradise” = Sheol, Not Heaven, According to Many Reputable Protestant Scholars [5-25-09]

50 Bible Passages on Purgatory & Analogous Processes [2009]

John Wesley’s Belief in an Intermediate State After Death [7-13-09]

Purgatory: My Biblical Defense of its Doctrinal Development [9-20-11]

John Wesley’s View of Purgatory and Analogous Processes [2013]

Dialogue with an Evangelical on Purgatory [10-7-13]

Multiple Meanings of “Paradise” in Scripture [1-2-14]

Purgatory in One Verse (1 Corinthians 3:15) [Facebook, 1-29-14]

Catholic Mystics & Contemplatives on Purgatory [2014]

Martin Luther’s Belief in Purgatory (1517-1522, 1528) [11-17-14]

Dialogue w Calvinists on Prayer for the Dead & Purgatory [3-18-15]

Dialogue: Raising of Tabitha from the Dead & Purgatory [March 2015]

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

“Armstrong vs. Geisler” #1: Purgatory (Mt 12:32) [2-17-17]

“Armstrong vs. Geisler” #2: Purgatory (Lk 23:43) [2-17-17]

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

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

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

Purgatory: Exchange with a Presbyterian (Calvinist) [5-11-17]

Armstrong vs. Collins & Walls #7: Unbiblical / Non-Patristic Purgatory? [10-19-17]

Dialogue on Prayer to the Saints and Hades / Sheol [12-19-17]

Reflections on Interceding for the Lost Souls [National Catholic Register, 6-26-18]

C. S. Lewis Believed in Purgatory & Prayer for the Dead [6-22-10; rev. 10-8-19]

Does Time & Place Apply to Purgatory? (vs. James White) [11-6-19]

Luke 16 Doesn’t Describe Hell or Purgatory, But Hades [1-16-20]

Dialogue: Purgatory & 2 Maccabees 12:39-45 [11-8-20]

Purgatory in the Bible (vs. Calvin #60) [1-15-21]

Reply to Gavin Ortlund on Purgatory [5-12-22]

Vs. J. Oliveira #6: Bible & Purgatory [10-3-23]

Purgatory: Biblical Indications (chapter five [“Purgatory”] — pp. 239-252 — of my 2009 book, Bible Truths for Catholic Truths: A Source Book for Apologists and Inquirers) [10-18-23]
*
*
*
*
*
VIDEO: Purgatory is 100% BIBLICAL!! [Kenny Burchard, Catholic Bible Highlights, utilizing my biblical research, 8-29-24]
*
VIDEO: Does this Bible Verse DESTROY the doctrine of Purgatory (or does it teach it?) [Kenny Burchard, Catholic Bible Highlights, utilizing my biblical research, 9-1-24]
*
*
*
Purgatory: 110 Related Biblical Themes [10-31-24; revised 11-2-24]
*
*
VIDEO: 9 Things to Say to Your Protestant Friends about Purgatory [with Kenny Burchard on Catholic Bible Highlights, 12-13-24] 
*
Fire-Tested Faith: Exploring the Biblical Foundation for Purgatory (written version of the above video) [National Catholic Register, 12-27-24]
*
***

Jewish 1st Century Belief in Purgatory (Paul Hoffer) [9-20-11]

Raising of Tabitha: Proof of Purgatory (Tony Gerring) [3-20-15]

*

VII. PRAYER AND PENANCE FOR THE DEAD

Baptizing the Dead? (Odd Verse 1 Corinthians 15:29) [6-5-02]

Baptized for the Dead: The “UnProtestant” Verse (1 Cor 15:29) [2004]

New (?) Biblical Argument: Prayers for the Dead [2004]

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

Prayer for the Dead & Retroactive Prayer (Luther & Protestants) [3-22-05]

Does God Forbid All Contact with the Dead? [6-23-07]

John Wesley Believed in Prayer for the Dead [7-13-09]

Prayer for the Dead (vs. Calvin #57) [2012]

Fasting for the Dead in the Old Testament (Not Unlike Praying) [11-4-12]

Dialogue on Prayer for the Dead & the Bible [11-5-12]

Dialogue: Jesus, Peter, Elijah & Elisha Prayed for the Dead (+ a discussion on apologetics methodology and effectiveness) [6-9-13] 

“Pray for the Dead Like Paul Did!” (mock Church billboard) [Facebook, 2-10-14]

Dialogue w Calvinists on Prayer for the Dead & Purgatory [3-18-15]

“Armstrong vs. Geisler” #4: Prayer for the Dead [2-20-17]

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

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

Reflections on Interceding for the Lost Souls [National Catholic Register, 6-26-18]

Dialogue w Lutherans: “Proxy Baptism”? (1 Cor 15:29) [12-28-18]

C. S. Lewis Believed in Purgatory & Prayer for the Dead [6-22-10; rev. 10-8-19]

The Anglican Newman on Prayer for the Dead (1838): It was as well-attested in the early Church as the Canon of Scripture [10-11-19]

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

Dialogue: Purgatory & 2 Maccabees 12:39-45 (vs. Luke Wayne) [11-8-20]

Dialogue: Acts 9:40 and Prayers for (not to) the Dead (vs. Luke Wayne) [11-11-20]

Dialogue: Prayer For & To the Dead (w Dr. Lydia McGrew) [2-17-21]

Dialogue on Prayers to Saints & for the Dead [5-29-21]

Prayer for the Dead: Brief Exchange with a Friendly Agnostic [Facebook, 3-9-23]

Prayers to and for the Dead (vs. Jason Engwer): Did Jesus & Peter Talk to Dead People Before They Rose from the Dead, and — Along with Elijah and Elisha — Pray for the Dead, or Only Ask Them to Move After They Were Raised? (+ Part 2) [3-13-23]

*

VIII. PRAYER FOR THE DEAD: ST. PAUL AND ONESIPHORUS

Paul Prayed for Dead Onesiphorus (Protestant Commentaries) [7-14-09]

Cardinal Newman on Onesiphorus and Prayer for the Dead [Facebook, 3-18-15]

St. Paul Prayed for a Dead Man: Onesiphorus [8-19-15]

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

Was Onesiphorus Dead When Paul Prayed for Him?: Data from 16 Protestant Commentaries (1992-2016) [3-20-17]

Paul & Dead Onesiphorus (vs. Steve Hays) [10-10-23]

*

IX. SACRAMENT OF PENANCE: CONTRITION, CONFESSION, ABSOLUTION, AND SATISFACTION

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Confession and Absolution Are Biblical [National Catholic Register, 7-31-17]
*
*
*
John 20:22-23 & Formal Absolution (vs. Steve Hays) [5-12-20]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Why Examination of Conscience Is Biblical [National Catholic Register, 11-25-24]
*
X. INDULGENCES
*
*
*
*
*
Myths and Facts Regarding Tetzel and Indulgences [11-25-16; published in Catholic Herald]
*
The Biblical Roots and History of Indulgences [National Catholic Register, 5-25-18]
*
*
*
XI. MORTIFICATION, FASTING, ABSTINENCE, ASCETICISM, MONASTICISM, SUFFERING, & REDEMPTIVE SUFFERING
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Suffering With Christ is a Biblical Teaching [National Catholic Register, 3-27-18]
*
*
The Bible Says Your Suffering Can Help Save Others [National Catholic Register, 1-31-19]
*
Bodily Mortification is Quite Scriptural [National Catholic Register, 2-28-19]
*
More Biblical Support for Bodily Mortification [National Catholic Register, 3-5-19]
*
Biblical Hope and Encouragement in Your Times of Suffering [National Catholic Register; abridged and edited from 1981 material: 4-22-19]
*
*
Why God Loves Monasticism So Much [National Catholic Register, 3-5-20]
*
*
XII. LENT
*
*
Where are Lenten Practices in the Bible? [National Catholic Register, 2-23-19]
*
John Calvin vs. Lent and the Bible [National Catholic Register, 2-20-21]
*
*

[for lengthy philosophical analyses of suffering and the problem of evil, see my Philosophy, Science, and Christianity web page; second section]

***** 

*
***
*

Practical Matters:  I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them. If you believe my full-time apostolate is worth supporting, please seriously consider a much-needed monthly or one-time financial contribution. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV).
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle and 100% tax-deductible donations if desired), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information.
*
You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my two YouTube channels, Catholic Bible Highlights and Lux Veritatis (featuring documentaries), where I partner with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos), and/or by signing up to receive notice for new articles on this blog. Just type your email address on the sidebar to the right (scroll down quite a bit), where you see, “Sign Me Up!” Thanks a million!
*
***
*
Last updated on 26 June 2025

***
2025-06-04T11:08:31-04:00

HARDON4 
 I was received into the Catholic Church (and Judy returned to it), on 8 February 1991, by the eminent catechist and author, Servant of God  Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. [photo credit: Tom McGlynn: 8 February 1991]

***

TABLE OF CONTENTS

***

I. BRIEF RELIGIOUS BACKGROUND INFORMATION 

II. FORMAL AND INFORMAL EDUCATION / EMPLOYMENT 

III. CATHOLIC ORGANIZATIONAL AFFILIATIONS 

IV. PUBLISHED WRITINGS (Articles / Cartoon Tracts / Books)

V. RADIO AND WEBCAST INTERVIEWS AND TALKS 

VI. REFERENCES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

VII. ABOUT THE AUTHOR

***

DAVE ARMSTRONG

CATHOLIC APOLOGIST, EVANGELIST, AND AUTHOR


I. BRIEF RELIGIOUS BACKGROUND INFORMATION
 

Born 30 July 1958 in Detroit, Michigan. Raised Methodist; converted to non-denominational evangelicalism in 1977. During the 1980s, informally studied Christian apologetics and basic theology extensively, and was active in evangelistic, counter-cult and pro-life work, writing many “tracts” on these subjects. Church-supported missionary to college students from May 1985 until October 1989. Received into the Catholic Church on 8 February 1991 by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., after a year of intense study and discussion. Married to Judy Kozora (6 October 1984) with four children: three sons and a daughter.

[see also my Wikipedia page]


II. FORMAL AND INFORMAL EDUCATION / EMPLOYMENT 

Bachelor of Arts, Sociology (cum laude) from Wayne State University, Detroit, 1982; a broad liberal arts education, including much philosophy and history, and a minor in psychology. Multiple thousands of hours studying theology, Church history, philosophy, and general Christian and Catholic apologetics since 1981 (no formal training in theology). I have about 2000 books in my own library (mostly these same subjects).
*
Full-time author, apologist, evangelist, and free-lance writer since December 2001. I have taken on additional part-time jobs as necessary to support my apologetic vocation (often in the delivery business: the last non-writing full-time job that I had, throughout the 1990s).
*
In November 2007, I joined the staff of the Coming Home Network as Facilitator of Online Apologetics / Forum Coordinator / “Network Apologist”. This position lasted until the end of December 2010, when it was eliminated due to downsizing at CHNI necessitated by the bad economy and slumping donations (it had nothing to do with my performance).
*
My wife Judy home schooled our four children (no small task considering that three of them have special needs).


III. CATHOLIC ORGANIZATIONAL AFFILIATIONS 

Catholic Answers  [link] (the largest Catholic apologetics organization, with employees such as Jimmy Akin, Trent Horn, and Tim Staples). I’ve been published in Catholic Answers Magazine (formerly, This Rock), several times; have been on Catholic Answers Live twice,  and CA published my books, 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura (May 2012) and The Word Set in Stone: How Archaeology, Science, and History Back Up the Bible (March 2023).

St. Paul Street Evangelization [link], is a rapidly growing Catholic evangelism and apologetics group. I was a member of the Advisory Board for SPSE and edited sixteen of their self-produced tracts: on the topics of returning to the Catholic Church, common objections, God’s existence, the Trinity, Divinity of Christ, salvation, the papacy, intercession of the saints, the problem of evil, Marian doctrines, last things, sexual purity, contraception, homosexuality, abortion, and the Rosary.

The Coming Home Network International [link], an organization founded by Marcus Grodi (host of the EWTN program The Journey Home); designed to aid and assist Catholic converts, or potential converts (especially Protestant pastors). I have had several articles published in its periodical, The Coming Home Journal, and was a staff member as a forum moderator for three years, from 2007-2010.
*
Seton Magazine [link]: the premier Internet Catholic homeschooling magazine. I contributed weekly apologetics columns, from March 2014 to August 2015 (41 articles). They have a very nice author profile for me on the site.  See the list of my articles.
*
The Michigan Catholic: this was the official publication of the archdiocese of Detroit (since discontinued).  I was commissioned to write apologetics articles twice a month (for each issue), from May 2014 until August 2018 (109 total articles). My columns were featured in the center of each issue. They are now collected on the website Detroit Catholic.

National Catholic Register [link to my author page]: I began writing regularly for this very well-known magazine and site, produced at EWTN, in September 2016. See the collection of my more than 343 articles (Armstrong’s Handbook of Apologetics: A Cyber-Book).
*
Sophia Institute Press [link]: a major and influential Catholic publisher, specializing in the classics. Sophia has published six of my books.

Catholic Bible Highlights with Kenny Burchard, a YouTube channel [link]. Starting in September 2024, I entered into a partnership with Kenny Burchard, a former Protestant pastor who works with the Coming Home Network, in which I provide most of the biblical research and appear with him in videos, informally chatting on various topics [see a listing of my videos], featuring lots of Bible passages. I also reply to comments underneath the videos. We publish books, too, similar to the videos (see the first on purgatory).

Lux Veritatis, a second YouTube channel [link] with my partner Kenny Burchard, begun in May 2025, is our platform for delving into a much wider and broader range of apologetics topics in the areas of history, science, biblical archaeology, philosophy, etc. The videos are in a documentary format, with a narrator [see a listing of my videos]. And I interact quite a bit with the comments underneath, too.

IV. PUBLISHED WRITINGS

Articles and Miscellaneous

 “The Real Martin Luther,” The Catholic Answer, Jan/Feb 1993, 32-37.

“A Church Shopper’s Road to Catholicism,” This Rock, September 1993, 14-16.

“Is Development of Doctrine a Corruption of Biblical Teaching?,” The Catholic Answer, Sep/Oct 1995, 8-11. 

“Converts to Catholicism: G. K. Chesterton,” The Coming Home Newsletter, Sep/Oct 1996, 5-7. 

“The Megabyte Before Christmas” (poem), The Coming Home Newsletter, Nov/Dec 1996, 12.

“The Pre-Eminence of St. Peter: 50 New Testament Proofs,” The Catholic Answer, Jan/Feb 1997, 32-35.

“Converts to Catholicism: Monsignor Ronald Knox,” The Coming Home Newsletter, Jan/Feb 1997, 9.

“Converts to Catholicism: Malcolm Muggeridge,” The Coming Home Newsletter, March/April 1997, 6-7.

“How Newman Convinced Me of the Apostolicity of the Catholic Church,” lead conversion (and cover) story (with family photograph), The Coming Home Newsletter, September-December 1997, 1-8.

 “To Orthodox Critics of Catholic Apostolicity: Unity Still Sought,” The Catholic Answer, Nov/Dec 1997, 32-35, 38-39, 62.


“Martin Luther’s Devotion to Mary,” The Coming Home Journal, January-March 1998, 12-13.

“The Imitation of Mary,” The Catholic Answer, May/June 1998, 8-11.

My website was positively reviewed by David Morrison in New Covenant magazine, August, 1998:


An empowered, faithful, educated and technically astute laity is a wonderful phenomenon and Dave Armstrong, a free lance writer and Catholic apologist, is just such a character. His Biblical Evidence for Catholicism pages provide both a good in-depth resource for those seeking to better understand the Catholic Church and a witness to the joy of a life lived in the Truth. The site is designed well for the user, easy to navigate and explore and has a good mix of the dry and the funny. How can a guy go wrong when, at the top of his page, pictures appear of John Henry Cardinal Newman, the rose window from Notre Dame, Paris, and G.K Chesterton with his beloved wife Francine? 


“Transubstantiation and the Eucharist,” The Coming Home Journal, July-December 1998, 12-13, 31.

“St. Augustine’s Belief in the Real Presence,” The Coming Home Journal, July-December 1998, 18-20.

“The Communion of Saints,” The Catholic Answer, Nov/Dec 1998, 8-12.

I received the Award Website of the Year (for 1998) from the staff and advisors of Envoy Magazine, and was a finalist (with three others) for “Best New Evangelist” (Envoy, January/February 1999, 10).


“Newman Persuaded Me of the Apostolicity of the Catholic Church,” The Latin Mass, Fall 1999, Vol. 8, No. 4, 65-71.

“The Perspicuity (‘Clearness’) of Scripture,” The Coming Home Journal, July-December 1999, 16-18.

“Is This God?,” cover story on the Holy Eucharist, Envoy Magazine, January/February 2000, cover and 1, 34-40. 

“Interview With a Catholic Apologist” (interview with Peter Vere, JCL), November 2001; posted on the Onerock Online website, and in the January 2002 edition of The Write Stuff, the monthly e-zine of The Catholic Writer’s Association (CWA).

Dave Armstrong: Catholic Apologetics’ “Socratic Evangelist,” interview with, and article by Tim Drake, for the regular feature “Diplomatic Corps,” Envoy Magazine, Spring 2002, volume 5.6, 8-9.

Top Ten Questions Catholics Are Asked — pamphlet published by Our Sunday Visitor for mass distribution in churches, July 2002. [+ Spanish version] [read online pdf]

“Catholics Need to Read Their Bibles,” This Rock, February 2004, 20-22.

“On Sinners in the Church: How Could it be Otherwise?,” This Rock, April 2004, 25-27.

Review of A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, by Michael J. Miller, in Homiletic & Pastoral Review, May 2004.

“A Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura,” This Rock, September 2004. [alt URL]

“The Pleasures and Perils of a Catholic Apologetics Apostolate,” This Rock, November 2004.

“Excerpt from: The New Catholic Answer Bible (NAB) with inserts by Paul Thigpen and Dave Armstrong: Why the Catholic Church is Unique,” Our Sunday Visitor online version, 22 June, 2005.


Review of The Catholic Verses, by Dr. Stanley Williams, on Catholic Exchange website, 24 June 2005.


“Excerpt from: The New Catholic Answer Bible (NAB), inserts by Paul Thigpen and Dave Armstrong: Are Catholics ‘Born Again’?,” Our Sunday Visitor online version, 13 July 2005.


Review of The Catholic Verses, by Michael J. Miller, in Homiletic & Pastoral Review, October 2005; reprinted in Ignatius Insight.

DVD Study Guide for Common Ground [a Catholic – evangelical Protestant ecumenical endeavor], June 2007.

DVD Study Guide for What Catholics Really Believe [answers portion of the Guide for the teaching series by Dr. Ray Guarendi and Fr. Kevin Fete], July 2007.

Review of The One-Minute Apologist, by Carl E. Olson, in National Catholic Register, 21 August 2007.

My book, Martin Luther: Catholic Critical Analysis and Praise, was briefly reviewed by Fr. Peter Stravinskas in the January / February 2009 issue of The Catholic Response (Vol. V, No. 4, pp. 31-32). Here is the entire review:

The author is a fine apologist and has often demonstrated how Luther (and other Reformers) were much more Catholic than their spiritual heirs today. In scholarly, critical, and ecumenical fashion, the reader is led through the theological musings of a very complex and confused /confusing man. Where Catholic truth is at stake, Luther’s inadequacies are highlighted; where there is coincidence, that is happily shown. Particularly worthwhile is the treatment of Luther’s Eucharistic theology and his Mariology, where contemporary Protestants could profit greatly from their spiritual forefather. 

“‘Can I Get a Quote on That?’: An Interview With Dave Armstrong,” Gilbert Magazine (Vol. 13, No. 5, March 2010, pp. 14-17; interviewer: Dale Ahlquist. This periodical is published by the American Chesterton Society. It was devoted primarily to my book, The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton.

My Two Conversions: Interview with Spanish Journalist Itxu Díaz, of the Dicax Press Agency (April 2011).

“Ten must-see web resources for Catholics” (by Mark Shea; OSV Newsweekly, 21 February 2012; my apostolate is one of the ten profiled).

45-minute phone interview with Jimmy Akin on the topic of sola Scriptura (30 April 2012) 

“Ten Deficiencies of Sola Scriptura as a Rule of Faith,” Catholic Answers Magazine, May / June 2012, 22-25.

“Lessons from Catholic Evangelists,” by Jim Graves, The Catholic World Report, 22 August 2012 [cited at length as one of five interviewees in the article].

Review of 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura, by Rev. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, The Catholic Response, (Nov / Dec 2012, Vol. IX, No. 3, p. 58):

Dave Armstrong is an impressive and prolific apologist, who takes on in this work the fundamental Reformation principle of “scripture alone.” The former Evangelical now sees that principle to be an “anti-principle,” indeed, “ a biblically bankrupt concept, unable to withstand scriptural, logical, or historical scrutiny.” One of the more interesting entries demonstrates the New Testament use of texts from what Protestants call “apocryphal” books or “deuterocanonical” by the Catholic Church. Highly recommended.

Review of The Quotable Newman by Rev. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, The Catholic Response (Jan / Feb 2013, Vol. IX, No. 4, p. 58):

Cardinal Newman does not admit of sound-bites but Dave Armstrong has done a creditable job of giving us easily digestible portions of Newman’s thoughts on a host of topics, conveniently arranged in alphabetical order with a precise citation following each entry. This is a wonderful addition to Newman scholarship.

“Converts Come to the Church Like St. Paul: Answers to ‘What Helped Your Conversion?'”, by Jim Graves, National Catholic Register (10 June 2013) [I’m cited, along with four other converts].

Review of The Quotable Newman by  Stephen J. Kovacs, in New Oxford Review (October 2013).

“How to Defend the Faith,” by Marge Fenelon, OSV Newsweekly (28 May 2014) [I was cited twice, along with other apologists].

“How We Honor Jesus Through Mary,” Catholic Answers Magazine, July/ August 2015, 32-36. [see similar article]

“Three Biblical Arguments for the Authority of the Church,” Catholic Exchange, 21 July 2015.

Johann Tetzel & Indulgences: Myths & Facts, Catholic Herald, 25 November 2016.

Foreword to The Mariology of Cardinal Newman, by Rev. Francis J. Friedel; originally published in 1928, reprinted by Mediatrix Press (editor: Ryan Grant), 2019.

“A Defense of the Virgin Birth Against a ‘Bible-Bashing’ Atheist”, The Catholic World Report, 24 December 2019.

“Answering the Bethlehem Skeptics”Catholic Answers Magazine, Nov / Dec. 2019.

“Dismantling a Classic Sola Scriptura Argument”, Catholic Answers Magazine, July-Aug 2020.

” ‘Tradition’ Isn’t a Dirty Word”, Coming Home Network Newsletter, Sep. 2020, pp. 4-5. 

“Christmas Trees: Christian Symbolism & Development of the Custom”, The Catholic World Report, 22 December 2020 [written in Nov. 2019].

“Parting the Red Sea: A Bible Myth?,Catholic Answers Magazine, 3 April 2023.

“6 Biblical Plagues Explained by Science,” Catholic Answers Magazine, 3 May 2023.

“Dig Deep and Defend the Bible,” Catholic Answers Magazine, 10 July 2023.

“St. John’s Gospel and the Archaeological Record,” Catholic Answers, 3 August 2023.

[see also a list of my 41 articles for Seton Magazine and more than 330 for National Catholic Register]


Cartoon Tracts

[Evangelistic comic tracts (all art by Daniel Grajek; consulting editor: Joe Polgar). Endorsed by Karl Keating (This Rock, “Dragnet”, October 1993, p. 7 / “Dragnet,” February 1994, 8-9), Fr. Peter Stravinskas (The Catholic Answer, March/April 1997, p. 27), Envoy (March/April 1997, pp. 17-18; “Friends in the Field,” by Tracy Moran), and others. Fr. John A. Hardon (+ 2000) was an editor and theological advisor, and recommended the tracts on Mother Angelica Live (21 June 1995), and had even shown them to Pope St. John Paul II. These comic tracts are now distributed by Grotto Press.] 

I am the sole or primary author of the text of five of these (the first two from 1985; others from the early 1990s): The Resurrection: Hoax or History?, The Class Struggle, Mary: Do Catholics Have a Biblical View?, The Cloud of Witnesses, and Joe Hardhat, the Quintessential Catholic: On Justification.


Books (all available for purchase — follow the linked titles)


“Confessions of a 1980s’ Jesus Freak,” 241-252 in Surprised by Truth, edited by Patrick Madrid, San Diego: Basilica Press, September 1994 (one of eleven conversion stories). Surprised by Truth has sold more than 400,000 copies and is the second-largest Catholic bestseller after the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

“The Imitation of Mary,” (written in 1997), chapter 5 in The Catholic Answer Book of Mary, edited by Fr. Peter M.J. Stravinskas, Huntington, Indiana: Our Sunday Visitor, March 2000, 31-35. 

A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (#1), was completed in May 1996, published in October 2001 by AuthorHouse (formerly 1stBooks Library), and in June 2003 by Sophia Institute Press. It includes a Foreword by the late Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. 

More Biblical Evidence for Catholicism (#2), was published in February 2002, by AuthorHouse (formerly 1stBooks Library) and republished (without appendices) in May 2007 by Lulu. It includes a Foreword by Dr. Scott Hahn.

Bible Conversations: Catholic-Protestant Dialogues on the Bible, Tradition, and Salvation (#3), was completed in June 2002 and published in May 2007 by Lulu. 

Development of Catholic Doctrine: Evolution, Revolution, or an Organic Process? (#4), was completed in June 2002 and published in May 2007 by Lulu.

Mere Christian Apologetics (#5), was completed in September 2002 and published in August 2007 by Lulu.

Christian Worldview vs. Postmodernism (#6), was completed in September 2002 and published in May 2007 by Lulu.

I wrote all of the apologetic commentary (44 articles on various topics, on 22 color inserts) for The Catholic Answer Bible (#7), published by Our Sunday Visitor in September 2002. 

Family Matters: Catholic Theology of the Family (#8), was completed in December 2002 and published in May 2007 by Lulu. 

Reflections on Radical Catholic Reactionaries(#9), was completed in December 2002 (revised second edition: August 2013) and published in May 2007 by Lulu. Now a free online book.

Protestantism: Critical Reflections of an Ecumenical Catholic (#10), was completed in May 2003 and published in August 2007 by Lulu.

Twin Scourges: Thoughts on Anti-Catholicism & Theological Liberalism (#11), was completed in June 2003 and published in September 2007 by Lulu. 

Orthodoxy and Catholicism: A Comparison (#12). The First Edition was completed in July 2004 and published in September 2007. The Third Edition (heavily revised), with very significant additional contributions from Eastern Catholic Fr. Deacon Daniel Dozier, was completed  and published by Lulu in July 2015; 383 pages. Also published by Logos / Faithlife, in January 2018.

The Catholic Verses: 95 Bible Passages That Confound Protestants (#13), was published by Sophia Institute Press in August 2004. 

The New Catholic Answer Bible (revision and expansion of The Catholic Answer Bible) was published by Our Sunday Visitor in April 2005. I am the co-author of the 88 articles, with Paul Thigpen (my original 44 are half of the total). In March 2011 it was released with the revised NAB text.

The One-Minute Apologist: Essential Catholic Replies to Over Sixty Common Protestant Claims (#14), was published by Sophia Institute Press in May 2007.

Catholic Church Fathers: Patristic and Scholarly Proofs (#15), was completed in November 2007 and published in the same month by Lulu. Revised second edition on 28 August 2013.

Martin Luther: Catholic Critical Analysis and Praise (#16), was completed in April 2008 and published in the same month by Lulu. 

The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton (editor only; #17) was completed in October 2008 and was published in December 2009 by Saint Benedict Press / TAN Books. 

Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths: A Source Book for Apologists and Inquirers (#18), was completed in April 2009 and published in August 2009 by Sophia Institute Press. Now a free online book.

Author of Study Guide portion of Common Ground: What Protestants and Catholics Can Learn From Each Other, by Pastor Steve Andrews and Fr. John Riccardo, and edited by Stanley D. and Pam Williams; published in January 2010 by Nineveh’s Crossing. 

Biblical Catholic Answers for John Calvin (#19), was completed in March 2010 and published in the same month by Lulu. 

“The Catholic Mary”: Quite Contrary to the Bible? (#20), was completed in September 2010 and published in October 2010 by Lulu.  

Science and Christianity: Close Partners or Mortal Enemies? (#21), was completed in October 2010 and published in the same month by Lulu.

Biblical Catholic Salvation: “Faith Working Through Love” (#22), was completed in October 2010 and published in the same month by Lulu.

Author of Study Guide portion of What Catholics Really Believe, by Dr. Ray Guarendi and Fr. Kevin Fete; edited by Stanley D. Williams; published in December 2010 by Nineveh’s Crossing. 

Biblical Catholic Eucharistic Theology (#23), was completed in February 2011 and published in February 2011 by Lulu. 

The Quotable Newman: A Definitive Guide to His Central Thoughts and Ideas (#24): original manuscript completed on 19 August 2011. Accepted for publication by Sophia Institute Press (in slimmed-down form) on 28 September 2011 and published on 12 October 2012.


100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura (#25), was completed on 4 November 2011; published on 10 May 2012 by Catholic Answers.

Classic Catholic Biblical Apologetics: 1525-1925 (#26) was completed on 6 February 2012 and published on the same day by Lulu. 

Biblical Evidence for the Communion of Saints (#27)  was completed on 11 February 2012 and published on the same day by Lulu.

I signed a contract on 8 March 2012 with Logos Bible Software, Inc. / Verbum, for inclusion of nine of my Lulu-published books to be sold on their website and included in the wonderful searchable state-of-the-art Bible study resources that they offer. 

Biblical Proofs for an Infallible Church and Papacy (#28) was completed on 21 March 2012 and published on the same day by Lulu. 

The Quotable Wesley (#29) was completed on 2 May 2012 and originally published on the same day by Lulu. A contract with the Protestant publisher Beacon Hill Press was signed on 17 December 2012, with publication scheduled for 1 April 2014.

Beatles, Motown, Beach Boys, Etc.: Classic Rock Discographies, Commentary, and Mono vs. Stereo Analysis (#30) [my only non-theological book thus far] was completed on 12 May 2012, and published on the same day by Lulu. 

Pillars of Sola Scriptura: Replies to Whitaker, Goode, & Biblical “Proofs” for “Bible Alone” (#31) was completed on 7 July 2012 and published on 2 September 2012 by Lulu.  

The Quotable Augustine: Distinctively Catholic Elements in His Theology (#32) was completed on 1 September 2012 and published on the same day by Lulu. 

A Biblical Critique of Calvinism (#33) was completed on 23 October 2012 and published on the same day at Lulu.

Theology of God: Biblical, Chalcedonian Trinitarianism and Christology (#34) was completed on 14 November 2012 and published on 15 November 2012 at Lulu.

Mass Movements: Radical Catholic Reactionaries, the New Mass, and Ecumenism (#35) was completed on 20 December 2012 and published on the same day at Lulu. 

The Quotable Summa Theologica (#36) was completed on 29 January 2013 and published at Lulu the next day.

Biblical Catholic Apologetics: A Collection of Essays (#37) was completed on 22 March 2013 and published at Lulu on the same day.

Catholic Converts and Conversion (#38) was completed on 8 April 2013 and published at Lulu on the same day.

The Quotable Eastern Church Fathers (#39) was completed on 8 July 2013 and published at Lulu on the same day.

The Quotable Newman, Vol. II (#40) was completed on 26 August 2013 and published at Lulu the next day.

Revelation! 1001 Bible Answers to Theological Topics (#41), was completed on 3 October 2013 and published at Lulu on the same day.

Debating James White: Shocking Failures of the “Undefeatable” Anti-Catholic Champion (#42) was completed on 1 November 2013 and published at Lulu on the same day.

Pope Francis Explained: Survey of Myths, Legends, and Catholic Defenses in Harmony with Tradition (#43) was completed on 22 January 2014 and published at Lulu on the same day.

Quotable Catholic Mystics and Contemplatives (#44) was completed on 30 April 2014 and published at Lulu on 1 May 2014.

Victorian King James Version of the New Testament: A “Selection” for Lovers of Elizabethan and Victorian Literature (#45) was completed on 15 July 2014 and published at Lulu on the same day.

Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical: 80 Short Essays Explaining the Biblical Basis of Catholicism (#46) was completed on 2 August 2014, accepted for publication by Sophia Institute Press on 11 November 2014, and published on 7 July 2015.

Footsteps that Echo Forever: My Holy Land Pilgrimage (#47) was completed on 8 November 2014 and published at Lulu on the same day.

The “Catholic” Luther: An Ecumenical Collection of His “Traditional” Utterances (#48) was completed on 28 December 2014 and published at Lulu (PDF) on the same day.

Cardinal Newman: Q & A in Theology, Church History, and Conversion (#49) was completed on 24 May 2015 and published at Lulu on the same day.
*
“The Perspicuity (‘Clearness’) of Scripture”: Chapter Two (pp. 11-19), of The Bible Alone?: Is the Bible Alone Sufficient? (Marcus Grodi, editor, Zanesville, Ohio: CHResources, 2016).
*
¡Revelación!: 1001 respuestas de la Biblia a las preguntas teológicas (Spanish translation by Kevin Bingaman, of book #41 above); completed on 9 September 2016 and published at Lulu on the same day.
*
Está na Bíblia – Os Versículos Católicos (Portugese translation by Alexei Gonçalves de Oliveira, of book #13 above); published on 8 February 2017 by Brazilian publisher, Klasiká Liber.
*
Révélation !: 1001 réponses bibliques à des questions théologiques (French translation by Benoit Meyrieux, of book #41 above); completed on 13 April 2017 and published at Lulu on the same day.
*
“La Virgen de los católicos”: ¿Muy al contrario de la Biblia? (Spanish translation by Lizette Sellar Moon, of book #20 above; completed on 9 June 2017 and published at Lulu on the next day.
*
Evidencias bíblicas para el Catolicismo [Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: Spanish Edition]; multiple translators. Completed on 16 March 2018 as an e-book only, available only from my e-booksite.
*
The Bible Tells Me So: A Catholic Apologist Challenges Protestants with Scripture (#50);  2nd expanded edition was published on 10 January 2019 by Chorabooks.
*
100 Argumentos Bíblicos Contra o Sola Scriptura (Portugese translation of book #25 above); published on 20 November 2021 by Brazilian publisher, Edições Cristo e Livros.
*
The Word Set in Stone: How Archaeology, Science, and History Back Up the Bible (#51): published on 15 March 2023 by Catholic Answers Press.
*
The Word Set in Stone: “Volume Two”More Evidence of Archaeology, Science, and History Backing Up the Bible (#52; free online book: 160+ sections; first presented on 25 May 2023, with future additions as new material is discovered).
*
Inspired!: 198 Supposed Biblical Contradictions Resolved (#53; free online book, completed on 3 June 2023).
*
Justification: A Catholic Perspective (#54; free online book, completed on 30 August 2023. Debate with co-author Brazilian Calvinist Francisco Tourinho; to also be published in Portugese in Brazil).
*
Catholicism Explained (#55; free online six-volume “book”: ongoing. As of 6-4-25, it contains 346 1000-word articles written for the National Catholic Register for over eight years, starting in 29 September 2016. It’s enough material for six 202-page volumes or more than 1211 pages total! This is a complete catechetical and apologetical explanation of the Catholic faith).
*
God of Love, Fire & Light: A Biblical Defense of Purgatory (#56: with co-author Kenny Burchard): published on 21 November 2024 by Bridge Builders Press.
*
Chapter 11 (pp. 246-253), “Trad-adjacent: Radical Catholic Reactionaryism” from the book, Faith in Crisis: Critical Dialogues in Catholic Traditionalism, Church Authority & Reform, edited by Andrew Likoudis (En Route Books, June 2025).
*
V. RADIO AND WEBCAST INTERVIEWS AND TALKS 
 
Love Talks with Foster Braun, WCM 990 AM, Ann Arbor, MI, 11 AM-1 PM EST on 14 November 1988; my call-in concerning my first participation in Operation Rescue pro-life activism two days earlier. [Listen: see #1]

Evangel Echoes with Emery Moss, WMUZ-FM 103.5, Detroit, MI, 12 midnight-1:15 AM EST on 3 November 1989; on the false teaching of Jehovah’s Witnesses (I was an evangelical Protestant at this time). (#1) [Listen: see #2]
*
The Al Kresta Show Live, WDEO, 990 AM, Ann Arbor, MI, from 12:00-12:30 PM EST on 8 September 1997; interviewed concerning my conversion story. See the transcript. (#2) [Listen: see #3]

“Appearances” (via phone) on the Connecticut Catholic apologetics television program Pillar of Truth (host Dick Kelley), on 8 May 1999 (Development of Doctrine) [Listen: see #4 / see transcript] and 15 May 1999 (Questions and Answers) [Listen: see #5 / see transcript] — half hour each. (#3, #4)

Kresta in the Afternoon (host Al Kresta), WDEO, 990 AM, Ann Arbor, MI, from 3:00-4:00 PM EST on 30 April 2002; interviewed concerning my conversion story and my first book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism. (#5) [Listen: see #6]

Faith and Family Live (host Steve Wood), syndicated nationwide by EWTN radio, “A Biblical Defense of Catholicism,” 11:00 AM-12 Noon EST, 10 July 2003. (#6) [Listen: see #7]

Catholic Answers Live (host Jerry Usher); affiliated with Karl Keating’s apologetic apostolate, Catholic Answers. Syndicated nationally on EWTN radio. “Why We Need More than the Bible”, 6:00-7:00 PM EST, 10 October 2003. (#7). [Listen: see #8] Jerry wrote (letter of 16 October 2003):

You did a terrific job . . . I could tell by the response from our listeners . . . that they benefited from the program. We’ll be happy to have you on the show again in the future . . . may the Lord continue to bless you and the fine work you’re doing. 

Hands-On Apologetics Live (hosts Gary Michuta and Tony Gerring) on Michigan Catholic Radio: 1090 WCAR in metro Detroit and 1080 in Lansing area. Interview and Question and Answer, 10:00-11:00 AM EST, 18 October 2003. (#8) 

Kresta in the Afternoon (host Al Kresta), WDEO, 990 AM, Ann Arbor, MI, from 5:00-5:30 PM EST on 2 April 2004; interviewed concerning general apologetics and my authorship of all the notes for The Catholic Answer Bible. (#9) [Listen: see #9]

Live From the Shrine (hosts John Kruse and Julie Komasara), Michigan Catholic Radio: WCAR: 1090 AM. General interview (conversion, books, etc.) by Julie Komasara: 4:15-5:00 PM, 24 September 2004. (#10) 


Catholic Answers Live (host Jerry Usher); affiliated with Karl Keating’s apologetic apostolate, Catholic Answers. Syndicated nationally on EWTN radio. “Communion of Saints: A Cloud of Witnesses”, 7:00-8:00 PM EST, 26 June 2006. (#11) [Listen: see #10]

Son Rise Morning Show (host Brian Patrick); Sacred Heart Radio: 740 AM in the Cincinnati area. Q & A on a variety of apologetic issues, 8:10-8:30 AM EST, 17 January 2008. (#12) 


Spirit Morning Show (hosts Bruce and Kris McGregor); Spirit Catholic Radio: 88.9 FM, Omaha. Interview concerning The One-Minute Apologist and brief conversion testimony; 8:00-8:45 AM EST, 15 February 2008. (#13) 

Son Rise Morning Show; Sacred Heart Radio: 740 AM in the Cincinnati area: 6-9 AM Monday through Friday. Ten-minute interview with Matt Swaim concerning my book, The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton, 15 December 2009. (#14) 

Spirit Morning Show (hosts Bruce and Kris McGregor); Spirit Catholic Radio: 88.9 FM, Omaha. 30-minute interview concerning The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton [taped on 29 December 2009]. (#15) 

The Catholics Next Door, with Greg and Jennifer Willits (Sirius Satellite Channel: The Catholic Channel, 159 and XM Satellite Channel 117). Interview concerning The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton 3 March 2010 (11:25-11:40 AM) (#16) [Listen: see #11]

Phone Interview with Jimmy Akin About Sola Scriptura, April 2012 [Listen: see #12] (#17)

Blessed John Paul the Great Leafeater’s Club, with hosts Terry Moran and John Lillis, on 88.1 FM in Sioux City, Iowa. 40-minute interview concerning my Catholic conversion and The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton 1 June 2012 [start 20 minutes into the audio tape] (#18) [Listen: see #13]

Catholic Connection, with host Teresa Tomeo,
produced by Ave Maria Radio in Ann Arbor, Michigan and heard on over 200 Catholic stations nationwide through the EWTN Global Catholic Radio Network; it’s also carried on Sirius/XM Satellite Radio. 21-minute interview concerning my book, 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura, 22 June 2012. (#19)

Meet the Author, with host Ken Huck, produced by Radio Maria. 45-minute interview about my books, The Quotable Newman, and The Catholic Verses, 17 January 2013. (#20) I’ve also posted my written interview notes, that contain a lot of material that we didn’t get to, due to the constraints of time. [Listen: see #14]

Kresta in the Afternoon (host Al Kresta), WDEO, 990 AM, Ann Arbor, Michigan, from 5:20-6:00 PM EST on 14 April 2014; interviewed concerning my conversion story and my books. (#21) [Listen: see #15]

Meet the Author, with host Ken Huck, produced by Radio Maria. 23-minute interview about my book, Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical: 80 Short Essays Explaining the Biblical Basis of Catholicism, 3 September 2015 (3:30-3:53 PM EST). (#22) [Listen: see #16]

On Call, with host Wendy Wiese, on Relevant Radio: 30-minute interview about my book, Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical, 9 September 2015 (2:00-2:30 PM EST). (#23) 

Busted Halo Show, with host Fr. Dave Dwyer (Sirius XM: Catholic Channel):  30-minute interview about my book, Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical, 18 September 2015 (9:00-9:30 PM EST). (#24)

Pathways of Learning, with host Sister Marie Pappas: one hour interview about my book, Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical, 15 October 2015 (12:00-1:00 PM EST). (#25) [Listen: see #17]

Hands On Apologetics with Gary Michuta (Virgin Most Powerful Radio): 30-minute  interview on broad apologetics topics, 12 October 2018 (1:30-2:00 PM EST) (#26)

Hands On Apologetics with Gary Michuta (Virgin Most Powerful Radio): 45-minute  interview on sola Scriptura, 9 November 2018 (1:00-2:00 PM EST) (#27)

Dave Armstrong Responds to Gavin Ortlund on Jerome & the Monepiscopacy [30-minute audio presentation Suan Sonna’s YouTube channel, Intellectual Catholicism, 4 February 2024 (#28)

My visit to the Holy Land in 2014 and my book chronicling it, Footsteps That Echo Forever [35-minute interview with John Benko on The 4 Persons Podcast, 20 March 2025 (#29)

VI. REFERENCES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The late Servant of God, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. (respected theologian / prolific author / catechist for St. Teresa of Calcutta’s Missionaries of Charity, close advisor to Pope St. Paul VI). Fr. Hardon wrote the Foreword for my first book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism:

I highly recommend his work, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, which I find to be thoroughly orthodox, well-written, and effective for the purpose of making Catholic truth more understandable and accessible to the public at large. It is, I firmly believe, a fine book of popular Catholic apologetics.

Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas (prominent Catholic apologist and author). My articles have appeared in the magazine he edited: The Catholic Answer, six times:

I always appreciate your work.

Dave Armstrong is an impressive and prolific apologist.

The late Fr. Ray Ryland (adviser to Catholic Answers and Coming Home Network; prominent ecumenist and apologist):

God bless you in your indefatigable labors on behalf of the Faith! Only God knows how many lives your efforts have touched with the truth. May God continually bless you and guide you . . .

Your splendid book [A Biblical Defense of Catholicism] . . . spreads forth a feast of intellectual nourishment for the Catholic faith. I do hope it has wide circulation . . . God bless you and give you joy and strength in persevering in your important ministry.

Dr. Scott Hahn (perhaps the preeminent Catholic apologist today; author of Rome Sweet Home — with his wife Kimberly). He wrote the Foreword for my second book, More Biblical Evidence for Catholicism:

I spent over an hour romping around your website. Nice, very nice . . . Good stuff. Keep up the great work . . . rather remarkable cyber-talents.

Thanks again for the great work you’re doing for Christ and His Church. No matter how long it’s taken, the Lord clearly has you right where He wants you.

Karl Keating (founder of Catholic Answers, father of the modern Catholic apologetics revival, and best-selling author):

Dave has been a full-time apologist for years. He’s done much good for thousands of people.

You have a lot of good things to say, and you’re industrious. Your content often is great. You’ve done yeoman work over the decades, and many more people [should] profit from your writing. They need what you have to say.

I know you spend countless hours writing about and defending the Church. There may not be any American apologist who puts in more labor than you. You’ve been a hard-working laborer in the vineyard for a long time.

***

[3-23-18] Dave has produced a lot of good work over the years. He’s one of the better U.S. apologists, and I don’t recall him ever being accused, legitimately, of theological error. He always has been conscientious in his work, trying to dig a bit deeper than most other apologists. And he always has made an effort to be kind, even to those who might not seem to deserve much kindness.

Steve Ray (author of apologetic books Crossing the Tiber [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1997] and Upon This Rock [Ignatius, 1999] ):

Keep up the good work. I am constantly sending people to your page to find answers for their questions and sources for their search.

Marcus Grodi (story in Surprised by Truth, director of The Coming Home Network, and host of the live call-in TV show on EWTN: The Journey Home):

You utterly amaze me! Such good stuff . . . Dave, keep up your effective and eternally valuable apologetic journalism!

Patrick Madrid (well-known Catholic apologist; editor of Surprised by Truth and Envoy Magazine, author of Pope Fiction):

I’ve been noticing a lot of positive comments from around the country on your apologetics efforts on the Internet. Bravo!

I admire, as ever, your fantastic and penetrating work for Christ and His Church.

Keep up the fantastic work with “Biblical Catholicism.” All of us at Envoy love it and often refer people to it.

Tim Staples (Catholic Answers apologist):

Every so often, I recommend great apostolates, websites, etc. And I am very careful to recommend only the very best that are entirely Catholic and in union with the Church. Dave Armstrong’s Biblical Evidence for Catholicism site is one of those. It is a veritable treasure chest of information. Dave is thorough in his research, relentlessly orthodox, and very easy to read.

 Dr. Kenneth Howell (Catholic apologist; author of Mary of Nazareth, Queenship Pub. Co., 1998):

You do such good work. Without pride, don’t minimize the gifts God has given you. Your web page is excellent and you are obviously a self-taught man.

Steve Wood (prominent advocate of traditional family values):

You have done a VERY great job on your web site. Keep up the excellent work!

Dr. Paul Thigpen (apologist and prolific author):

Wow, Dave–the fountain just keeps gushing! You’ll never know this side of eternity just how many souls have been brought closer to the Kingdom and to the fullness of the Faith through your efforts. I recommend your website frequently . . . Just wanted to let you know I appreciate your labors of love . . .

Amy Welborn (well-known Catholic author and blogmaster):

There is someone out there who says what I have to say much better than I ever could — the smartest Catholic apologist I know of — Dave Armstrong.

Fr. Joseph Fessio (President of Ignatius Press):

I certainly think it [the earlier, much longer version of my manuscript A Biblical Defense of Catholicism] is a valuable tool.

Mike Aquilina (Catholic apologist and author of several books):

I love your books, love your site, love everything you do. God bless you in your work. I’m very grateful for all you’ve done, and for all you make available. If someone pitches a hard question at me, I go first to your site. Then I send the questioner directly to the page that best answers the question. I know it’s going to be on your site.

Al Kresta (late Catholic talk show host — Kresta in the Afternoon [Ave Maria Radio] — and author of Why Do Catholics Genuflect?, Servant, 2001):

People regularly tell me how much they appreciate your work. Your website is incredible and I recommend it regularly to new Catholics.

Dave Armstrong is a master of biblical citation and compressing arguments. He does in a few pages what many apologists take chapters to accomplish.

Fr. Dwight Longenecker (author and prominent blogmaster):

Dave Armstrong[‘s] website is an amazing treasure trove representing hours – yea a lifetime of material gathered to defend Catholic doctrine. Over the years Dave has gathered the evidence for Catholic teaching from just about every source imaginable. He has the strength not only to understand the Catholic faith, but to understand the subtleties and arguments of his Protestant opponents.

Devin Rose (apologist and author of The Protestant’s Dilemma):

I love how Dave makes so much use of the Scriptures in his arguments, showing that the Bible is fully compatible with Catholicism, even more plausibly so than it is with Protestantism. . . . Dave is the hardest working Catholic apologist I know. He is an inspiration to me. 

Marcellino D’Ambrosio, Ph.D. (apologist and author)

Thanks for all the important work you do defending and explaining the faith. [I’m] especially grateful for your defense of Pope Francis against his reactionary detractors.

Dave Armstrong is one of the very best Catholic apologists that I have the pleasure of knowing. (on his Facebook page, 2-19-22)

Brandon Vogt (apologist and author)

As you know, I’ve long appreciated your work. It’s been helpful to me in so many ways.

Carl E. Olson [editor of The Catholic World Report and Catholic author]

This book [The One-Minute Apologist] is commendable for being pithy and precise while never being either simplistic or dense, an indication of how well Armstrong knows his subject matter and his audience. In fact, this is the sort of book that could only be written by someone who has spent countless hours studying, articulating and discussing the Catholic faith, to the point that he knows how to accurately answer questions and clearly correct misunderstandings. The writing is punchy but never pugnacious, accessible and substantial.

Fr. Paddy McCafferty (active online; from Belfast)

I appreciate everything you write, Dave. You are an inexhaustible fount of excellent material on virtually every topic and an invaluable resource of superb apologetics. (Facebook, 2-4-21)

Dave is a very skilled Catholic apologist and superb writer. His explanations and defences of Catholic doctrine are phenomenal. (Facebook, 1-24-23)

Karlo Broussard (Catholic Answers apologist and author)

I really appreciate your work. I’ve been reading your papers and books for many years now and have benefited greatly from them. You’re an inspiration to me as an apologist. (correspondence, 2-15-21)

The late Thomas Howard (convert, English professor, and author of many classic Catholic books)

Bravo to you for all that you’ve written. And my word! Your bibliography is astounding — you seem to have read everyone and everything! I’m keeping it for reference, since I am almost unremittingly in correspondence with people who are undergoing the agonies of conversion to Rome. I wish we could have chatted. Perhaps our paths will cross one day. But in the meantime, thank you so much for these things. (postcard dated 7 September 1991. I had given him a bibliography I put together for my first book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, and some other early apologetics papers of mine, at a First Friday breakfast. We did meet again and briefly talked  at a Steubenville Defending the Faith conference a few years later. He was a great man)

William Albrëcht (Catholic talk show host and debater)

As usual, your posts are thought-provoking and fantastic. I appreciate you staying so on top of these important matters. (on my Facebook page, 9-27-21)

Dr. Stanley D. Williams (Catholic filmmaker and writer / apologist)

I have a number of Dave’s books and trust them easily. I have never known Dave to write amiss of Catholic teaching. He is a trusted apologist and writer. Thanks Dave for your work. The world is a better place for it. (2-9-23 on my Facebook page)

VII. About the Author
(Dave Armstrong)
 

Dave Armstrong is a Catholic author and apologist, who has been actively proclaiming and defending Christianity since 1981, and Catholicism in particular since 1991. Formerly a campus missionary, as a Protestant, Dave was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991, by the late, well-known catechist and theologian, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J.
His conversion story was published in the bestselling book Surprised by Truth (edited by Patrick Madrid; San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). Dave’s articles have frequently appeared in many Catholic periodicals, including This Rock (now Catholic Answers Magazine), Envoy Magazine, The Catholic Answer, Seton Magazine, The Michigan CatholicThe Coming Home Journal, Catholic HeraldGilbert Magazine, The Catholic World Report, and The Latin Mass. He has been a regular columnist at National Catholic Register since September 2016 (more than 345 articles, as of May 2025). 
*
Dave’s apologetic and writing apostolate was the subject of a feature article in the May 2002 issue of Envoy Magazine and he has been interviewed on many nationally syndicated Catholic radio shows, including Catholic Answers Live (twice), Faith and Family Live, Kresta in the Afternoon, Son Rise Morning Show, Catholic Connection, and The Catholics Next Door.
*
His large and popular website, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, was online from February 1997 to March 2007, and received the 1998 Catholic Website of the Year award from Envoy Magazine. His blog of the same name (continuation of the old website, begun in February 2004), contains links to more than 5,000 articles, including well over a thousand debates or dialogues, and over 40 distinct “index” web pages.
*
In September 2024, Dave began partnering with former Protestant pastor Kenny Burchard in a YouTube channel called Catholic Bible Highlights, and in May 2025 they began a second channel called Lux Veritatis, devoted to documentaries on a wider array of topics devoted to Christianity and its relation to reason, science, and history.
*
Sophia Institute Press has published six of Dave’s books: A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., 2003), The Catholic Verses (2004), The One-Minute Apologist (2007), Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths (2009), The Quotable Newman (editor: 2012), and Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical (2015). He is co-author (with Dr. Paul Thigpen) of the inserts for The New Catholic Answer Bible (Our Sunday Visitor: 2005), and editor of The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton (Saint Benedict Press / TAN Books: 2009). 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura was published by Catholic Answers in May 2012. His Quotable Wesley compilation was published by (Protestant / Wesleyan publisher) Beacon Hill Press in April 2014. On March 15, 2023, Catholic Answers Press published his volume, The Word Set in Stone: How Archaeology, Science, and History Back Up the Bible. On 21 November 21, 2024 his book co-written with Kenny Burchard, God of Love, Fire & Light: A Biblical Defense of Purgatory was published. Several of his 56 books are bestsellers in their field.

Starting in September 2016, some of Dave’s books became available in Spanish and Portugese and French translationswith more in progress.

Dave’s writing has been enthusiastically endorsed or recommended by many leading Catholic apologists, authors, and priests, including Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Marcus Grodi, Patrick Madrid, Carl E. Olson, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Devin Rose, Mike Aquilina, Al Kresta, Karl Keating, Brandon Vogt, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Karlo Broussard, William Albrëcht, Marcellino D’Ambrosio, and Servant of God Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J.
 
He has been happily married to his wife Judy since October 1984. They have three sons and a daughter, two granddaughters and three grandsons, and reside in the rural Irish Hills area of southeast Michigan.
*
*
***
*
Practical Matters:  I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them. If you believe my full-time apostolate is worth supporting, please seriously consider a much-needed monthly or one-time financial contribution. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV).
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle and 100% tax-deductible donations if desired), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information.
*
You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my two YouTube channels, Catholic Bible Highlights and Lux Veritatis (featuring documentaries), where I partner with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos), and/or by signing up to receive notice for new articles on this blog. Just type your email address on the sidebar to the right (scroll down quite a bit), where you see, “Sign Me Up!” Thanks a million!
*
***
*
***

Last updated on 4 June 2025

***

2023-11-30T15:58:56-04:00

Christian Worldview (555x848)
[completed in September 2002; published by Lulu in April 2007]
 
—– To purchase, go to the bottom of the page —–
 
[Cover design by Chad Toney]
 
Intended for general Christian reading — no Catholic distinctives presented
 

Table of Contents

Dedication


Chapter One: The Rationality of the Christian Worldview
Chapter Two: Reflections on Agnosticism, Atheism, and Skepticism
Chapter Three: Replies to Atheists’ and Agnostics’ Questions About Christianity
Chapter Four: Christian Replies to the Argument From Evil (Free Will Defense): Is God Malevolent, Weak, or Non-Existent Because of the Existence of Evil and Suffering?
Chapter Five: The “Problem of Good” and the Nature of Meaningfulness in Atheism (The Flip Side of the Problem of Evil Argument Against Christianity) [see the original online dialogue with an atheist]
Chapter Six: Miracles, Natural Scientific Laws, and the Relationship of Christianity and Metaphysics to the Scientific Method
Chapter Seven: The Atheist’s Boundless Faith in Deo-Atomism (“The Atom-as-God”) [see revised online version]

Chapter Eight: First Cause: The Cosmological Argument for God’s Existence
Chapter Nine: The Teleological Argument for God’s Existence: Irreducible Complexity, and Intelligent Design


Appendix One: G.K. Chesterton on Humanist Skepticism
Appendix Two: John Henry Newman: The Illative Sense (Epistemology)
Appendix Three: John Henry Newman: Biblical Miracles

Purchase Options
***
***

Last updated on 3 June 2023

2025-06-30T11:51:04-04:00

Photo credit: The Eagle and Child pub in Oxford, England, affectionately known by Lewis and his friends, the “Inklings” — who used to gather there for regular discussions — as “The Bird and Baby” [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

C. S. Lewis (1898-1963), the Anglican author of The Chronicles of Narnia and classics such as The Screwtape Letters and Mere Christianity, is widely considered to be the best defender of the Christian faith in the 20th century. These quotations are drawn from The Collected Letters of C. S. Lewis, Volume II: Books, Broadcasts, and the War 1931-1949, and Volume III: Narnia, Cambridge, and Joy 1950-1963, both edited by Walter Hooper and published by HarperSanFrancisco in 2004 and 2007.

*****

1) Paganism and Christianity 

I think the thrill of the Pagan stories and of the romance may be due to the fact that they are mere beginnings – the first, faint whisper of the wind from beyond the world – while Christianity is the thing itself: and no thing, when you have really started on it, can have for you then and there just the same thrill as the first hint. (Nov. 8, 1931)

2) Early Christians and Ecclesiology

We should be glad that the early Christians expected the second coming and the end of the world quite soon: for if they had known that they were founding an organization for centuries they would certainly have organized it to death: believing that they were merely making provisional arrangements for a year or so, they left it free to live. (Christmas Day, 1931)

3) Reading

I think re-reading old favourites . . . is one of my greatest pleasures: indeed I can’t imagine a man really enjoying a book and reading it only once. (Feb. 1932)

4) God’s Will and Our Lives

Just because God wants for us what we really want and knows the only way to get it, therefore He must, in a sense, be quite ruthless towards sin. He is not like a human authority who can be begged off or caught in an indulgent mood. The more He loves you the more determined He must be to pull you back from your way which leads nowhere into His way which leads you where you want to go. (Sep. 12, 1933)

5) Evil

The truth is that evil is not a real thing at all, like God. It is simply good spoiled. That is why I say there can be good without evil, but no evil without good. You know what the biologists mean by a parasite – an animal that lives on another animal. Evil is a parasite. It is there only because good is there for it to spoil and confuse. (Sep. 12, 1933)

6) Friends

Friendship is the greatest of worldly goods. Certainly to me it is the chief happiness of life. If I had to give a piece of advice to a young man about a place to live, I think I should say, ‘sacrifice almost everything to live where you can be near your friends.’ I know I am very fortunate in that respect . . . (Dec. 29, 1935)

7) Nature Mysticism and Romanticism

What indeed can we imagine Heaven to be but unimpeded obedience. I think this is one of the causes of our love of inanimate nature, that in it we see things which unswervingly carry out the will of their Creator, and are therefore wholly beautiful: and though their kind of obedience is infinitely lower than ours, yet the degree is so much more perfect that a Christian can see the reason that the Romantics had in feeling a certain holiness in the wood and water. The Pantheistic conclusions they sometimes drew are false: but their feeling was just and we can safely allow it in ourselves now that we know the real reason. (Jan. 8, 1936)

8) Philosophy

I must have expressed myself very badly if you thought I held that one system of philosophy was as good as another or that pure reason was mutable. All I meant was that no philosophy is perfect: nor can be, since, whatever is true of Reason herself, in the human process of reasoning there is always error and even what is right, in solving one problem, always poses another. . . . The dominance (and revival) of particular philosophy does seem to me to have historical causes. In any age, foolish men want that philosophy whose truths they least need and whose errors are most dangerous to them: and wise men want the opposite. In the next age neither fools nor wise want the same. . . . Reason, no doubt, is always on the side of Christianity: but that amount and kind of human reasoning which gives an age its dominant intellectual tone, is surely sometimes on one side and sometimes on the other. (April 24, 1936)

9) Jesus, Poetry, and Philosophy

Surely the ‘type of mind’ represented in the human nature of Christ . . . stands at just about the same distance from the poetic as from the philosopher. The overwhelming majority of His utterances are in fact addressed neither to thought nor to the imagination, but to the ‘heart’ – i.e., to the will and the affections . . . The parables approach poetry just about as much [as] His argumentative utterances approach philosophy . . . how full of argument, of repartee, even of irony, He is. The passage about the denarius (‘whose image and superscription’ [Mt 22:20]); the dilemma about John’s baptism [Mt 21:25]; the argument against the Sadducees from the words ‘I am the God of Jacob etc’ [Mt 22:32]; the terrible, yet almost humorous, trap laid for his Pharisaic host (‘Simon, I have something to say to you’ [Lk 7:40]); the repeated use of the a forteriori (‘If . . ., how much more’ [Mt 6:30; Lk 12:28]); and the appeals to our reason (‘Why do not ye of yourselves judge what is right? [Lk 12:56-57]) – surely in all these we recognize as the human and natural vehicle of the Word’s incarnation and mental complexion in which a keen-eyed peasant shrewdness is just as noticeable as an imaginative quality – something in other words quite as close (on the natural level) to Socrates as to Aeschylus. (May 23, 1936)

10) The Psalms  

My enjoyment of the Psalms has been greatly increased lately. . . . what an admirable thing it is in the Divine economy that the sacred literature of the world should have been entrusted to a people whose poetry, depending largely on parallelism, should remain poetry in any language you translate it into. (July 16, 1940)

11) Poetry, Mythology, Religion, and Reality

Poetry ‘creates life’ in the sense of producing life-like fictions, and the world of fictions I call the ‘spiritual world’ . . . Poets ‘proclaim the mystery’ in the sense that they remind us we don’t know what the real universe is like . . . Oddly enough they also produce the illusion of penetrating the mystery . . . Mythologies and religions are products of the imagination in the sense that their content is imaginative. The more imaginative ones are ‘nearer the mark’ in the sense that they communicate more Reality to us. Poetry ‘creates life’ in the sense that its products are something more than fictions occurring in human minds, mere psychological phenomena, and can therefore be described as inhabiting a ‘spiritual world.’ Poets ‘proclaim the mystery’ in the sense that they somehow convey to us an inkling of supersensual and super-intellectual Reality . . . which transcends our common modes of perception. (Sep. 25, 1940)

12) Agnostics

A pure agnostic is a fine thing. I have known only one and he was the man who taught me to think. . . . one of the most dangerous things about the modern world seems to me the fact that most of those who call themselves agnostics have not really got rid of religion but merely exchanged civilized religion for barbarous religion – worship of sex, or the State, . . . or the dead, or Mystery as such. (Sep. 25, 1940)

13) Christian Apologetics

Many laymen who believe the Christian doctrines desire to hear them supported and expounded from the pulpit, and are disappointed when they hear only moral exhortation. I do not think this desire is confined to educated laymen, for I have ben present when an airman who had heard a lecture on the historicity of the Gospels exclaimed, ‘This is the first time I’ve heard anyone advance a reason for believing the Bible might be true.’ In my experience we laymen are often more easily shocked than our clergy by clerical disbelief or neglect of doctrine. (Dec. 11, 1942)

14) Original Sin

It is to me inconceivable that Nature as we see it is either what God intended or merely evil: it looks like a good thing spoiled. The doctrine of the Fall (both of man and of . . . ‘angels’) is the only satisfactory explanation. Evil begins, in a universe where all was good, from free will, which was permitted because it makes possible the greatest good of all.  The corruption of the first sinner consists not in choosing some evil thing (there are no evil things for him to choose) but in preferring a lesser good (himself) before a greater (God). The Fall is, in fact, Pride. The possibility of this wrong preference is inherent in the very fact of having, or being, a self at all. But though freedom is real it is not infinite. Every choice reduces a little one’s freedom to choose the next time. There therefore comes a time when the creature is fully built, irrevocably attached either to God or to itself. This irrevocableness is what we call Heaven or Hell. Every conscious agent is finally committed in the long run: i.e. it rises above freedom into willed, but henceforth unalterable, union with God, or else sinks below freedom into the black fire of self-imprisonment. (July 20, 1943)

15) Suffering

The great thing, if one can, is to stop regarding all the unpleasant things as interruptions of one’s ‘own’, or ‘real’ life. The truth is of course that what one calls the interruptions are precisely one’s real life – the life God is sending one day by day: what one calls one’s ‘real life’ is a phantom of one’s own imagination. (Dec. 20, 1943)

16) Accents

The first time I heard my voice on a record I didn’t recognize it and was shocked. Moral: A. No man knows what his own accent is like. B. No man’s accent is there because he has chosen it. C. It may not be the accent he likes. (March 13, 1944)

17) Loving God

Certainly I cannot love my neighbour properly till I love God. . . . On the other hand we have no power to make ourselves love God. The only way is absolute obedience to Him, total surrender. He will give us the ‘feeling’ if He pleases. But both when He does and when He does not, we shall gradually learn that feeling is not the important thing. There is something in us deeper than feeling, deeper even than conscious will. It is rather being. When we are quite empty of self we shall be filled with Him . . . (May 23, 1944)

18) God’s Grace and Our Pride

Of course it is good . . . to ‘realise’ that the source of all our good feelings is God. That is the right way to deal with pride: not to depreciate the good thing we are tempted to be proud of but to remember where it comes from. (May 23, 1944)

19) Christian Witness

The only hope lies in you and in any other Christian friends she has. It is in so far as you succeed in representing Christ to her by all your actions and words that she may, even unconsciously, cone to know Him. (June 7, 1945)

20) Crying

We don’t cry enough nowadays, that’s one of the things that is wrong with us. Achilles cried, Roland cried, Lancelot cried. It’s in Shakespeare that characters first start apologizing for tears. (c. Nov. 8, 1945)

21) Lewis’ Agnosticism and Return to Christianity

My Christian faith was first undermined by the attitude taken towards Pagan religion in the notes of modern editors of Latin & Greek poets at school. They always assumed that the ancient religion was pure error: hence, in my mind, the obvious question ‘Why shouldn’t ours be equally false?’ . . . I abandoned all belief in Christianity at about the age of 14 . . . My beliefs continued to be agnostic, with fluctuation towards pantheism and various other sub-Christian beliefs, till I was about 29.  I was brought back (a.) By philosophy. . . . (b.) By increasing knowledge of medieval literature. It became harder & harder to think that all those great poets & philosophers were wrong. (c.) By the strong influence of two writers, the Presbyterian George Macdonald & the R.C., G. K. Chesterton. (Feb. 15, 1946)

22) Hell

About Hell. All I have ever said is that the N.T. plainly implies the possibility of some being finally left in ‘the outer darkness.’ Whether this means (horror of horror) being left to a purely mental existence, left with nothing at all but one’s own envy, prurience, resentment, loneliness & self-conceit, or whether there is still some sort of environment, something you could call a world or a reality, I would never pretend to know. But I wouldn’t put the question in the form ‘do I believe in an actual Hell’. One’s own mind is actual enough . . . when there is nothing for you but your own mind (no body to go to sleep, no books or landscape, no sounds, no drugs) it will be as actual as . . . a coffin is actual to a man buried alive. (May 13, 1946)

23) Self-Sacrifice

You can keep forever only what you give up: beginning with the thing it is hardest to give up – one’s self. What you grab you lose: what you offer freely and patiently to God or your neighbour, you will have. (June 30 [Lewis wrote “31”], 1947)

24) God’s Providence

I am sure God has not forced B to give A the job. God’s action would consist, I believe, in arranging all the circumstances so that A came at the right moment etc – i.e. in presenting B with the situation, on which then his free will worked. Ordinary people regard life as a mixture of ‘luck’ and free will. It is the part usually called ‘luck’ by which. On my view, God answers prayers. (Sep. 9, 1947)

25) Prayer

Prayer is a species of request: and the essence of request, whether to God or to a human superior, is that it may or may not be granted, and the essence of faithful and humble Christian prayer is that the petitioner is willing that it should not be granted (‘Nevertheless not as I will but as Thou wilt’ [Mt 26:39]) (March 25, 1948)

26) Timeless God

I firmly believe that God’s life is non temporal. Time is a defect of reality since by its very nature any temporal being loses each moment of its life to get the next – the moments run through us as if we were sieves! God forbid that we should think God to be like that. (February 4, 1949)

27) Sin

Sin is the turning away of the will from God. But the experience of sin will differ in different people: e.g. to an uninstructed person it may appear in consciousness merely as disobeying human authority, or taking a legitimate indulgence. That sin-as-it-really-is is ever fully present to human (as opposed to diabolical) consciousness at the moment of commission, I doubt. The rebellion of the will is nearly always accompanied with some fogging of the intelligence. (March 28, 1949)

28) The Lord’s Prayer

We make a great mistake by quoting ‘thy will be done’ without the rest of the sentence ‘on earth as it is in Heaven’ [Mt 6:10]. That is the real point, isn’t it? Not merely submission but a prayer that we may be enabled to do God’s will as (in the same way as) angels and blessed human spirits do it, with alacrity & delight like players in an orchestra responding spontaneously to the conductor. (July 27, 1949)

29) Praising the Lord

In so far as a creature sees God it cannot help in some way (not of course necessarily by words) telling Him what it sees (silence might be one way). Its ‘praise’ is a necessary reaction: the divine light sent back to its Source from the creature which has become its mirror. The sun is not brighter because a mirror reflects it: but the mirror is brighter because it reflects the sun. (August 17, 1949)

30) Communal Christianity / Going to Church

The New Testament does not envisage solitary religion: some kind of regular assembly for worship and instruction is everywhere taken for granted in the Epistles. So we must be regular practicing members of the Church. Of course we differ in temperament. Some (like you – and me) find it more natural to approach God in solitude: but we must go to church as well. For the Church is not a human society of people united by their natural affinities but the Body of Christ in which all members however different . . . must share the common life, complementing and helping and receiving one another precisely by their differences. . . . If people like you and me find much that we don’t naturally like in the public & corporate side of Christianity all the better for us: it will teach us humility and charity towards simple low-brow people who may be better Christians than ourselves. (Dec. 7, 1950)

31) Learning

Unless one has to qualify oneself for a job . . . the only sensible reason for studying anything is that one has a strong curiosity about it. And if one has, one can’t help studying it. . . . I never see why we should do anything unless it is either a duty or a pleasure! . . . one usually learns more from a book than from a lecture. (March 17, 1951)

32) Formal Liturgy and Prayer

The advantage of a fixed form of service is that we know what is coming. Ex tempore public prayer has this difficulty: we don’t know whether we can mentally join in it until we’ve heard it – it might be phoney or heretical. We are therefore called upon to carry on a critical and a devotional activity at the same moment: two things hardly compatible. In a fixed form we ought to have ‘gone through the motions’ before in our private prayers: the rigid form really sets our devotions free. I also find the more rigid it is, the easier it is to keep one’s thoughts from straying. Also it prevents any service getting too completely eaten up by whatever happens to be the pre-occupation of the moment (a war, an election, or what not). The permanent shape of Christianity shows through. I don’t see how the ex tempore method can help becoming provincial & I think it has a great tendency to direct attention to the minister rather than to God. (April 1, 1952)

33) Salvation of Non-Christians

I think that every prayer which is sincerely made even to a false god or to a very imperfectly conceived true God, is accepted by the true God and that Christ saves many who do not think they know Him. For He is (dimly) present in the good side of the inferior teachers they follow. (Nov. 8, 1952)

34) Abuse of Bible Verses in “Prooftexting”

We must not use the Bible . . . as a sort of Encyclopedia out of which texts (isolated from their context and not read with attention to the whole nature & purport of the books in which they occur) can be taken for use as weapons. (Nov. 8, 1952)

35) Ghosts

Everyone fears lest he should meet a ghost, but there seems to be some ground for supposing that those who really meet them are often quite unafraid. (Dec. 11, 1952)

36) Television

We haven’t got a set, and don’t propose to get one; it is I think a very bad habit to develop. People who have sets seem to do nothing but go into a huddle over them every evening of their lives, instead of being out walking, or in their gardens. And of course, like all things which begin as luxuries, they end up being necessities . . . (July 17, 1953)

37) Emotions and Spirituality

It is a great joy to be able to ‘feel’ God’s love as a reality, and one must give thanks for it and use it. But you must be prepared for the feeling dying away again, for feelings are by nature impermanent. The great thing is to continue to believe when the feeling is absent: & these periods do quite as much for one as those when the feeling is present. (July 23, 1953)

38) Holy People

I am so glad you gave me an account of the lovely priest. How little people know who think that holiness is dull. When one meets the real thing (and perhaps, like you, I have met it only once) it is irresistible. If even 10% of the world’s population had it, would not the whole world be converted and happy before a year’s end? (August 1, 1953)

39) Hard Sayings in the Bible

You experience in listening to those philosophers gives you the technique one needs for dealing with the dark places in the Bible. When one of the philosophers, one whom you know on other grounds to be a sane and decent man, said something you didn’t understand, you did not at once conclude that he had gone off his head. You assumed you’d missed the point. Same here. . . . Behind that apparently shocking passage, be sure, there lurks some great truth which you don’t understand. If one ever does come to understand it, one will see that [He] is good and just and gracious in ways we never dreamed of. . . . But why are baffling passages left in at all? Oh, because God speaks not only for us little ones but for the great sages and mystics who experience what we only read about, and to whom all the words have therefore different (richer) contents. Would not a revelation which contained nothing that you and I did not understand, be for that very reason rather suspect? To a child it would seem a contradiction to say both that his parents made him and that God made him, yet we see both can be true. (August 8, 1953)

40) Cultural Apostasy

I feel that very grave dangers hang over us. This results from the apostasy of the great part of Europe from the Christian faith. Hence a worse state than the one we were in before we received the Faith. For no one returns from Christianity to the same state he was in before Christianity but into a worse state: the difference between a pagan and an apostate is the difference between an unmarried woman and an adulteress. For faith perfects nature but faith lost corrupts nature. Therefore many men of our time have lost not only the supernatural light but also the natural light which pagans possessed. (Sep. 15, 1953)

41) Christmas Commercialism

I feel exactly as you do about the horrid commercial racket they have made out of Christmas. I send no cards and give no presents except to children. (Nov. 27, 1953)

42) Vocations and Monasticism

Most spiritual writers distinguish two vocations for Christians. (i.) The monastic or contemplative life. (ii) The secular or active life. All Christians are called to  abandon the ‘World’ (sense ii) in spirit, i.e. to reject as strongly as they possibly can its standards, motives, and prized. But some are called to ‘come out of it’ [Rev 18:4] as far as possible by renouncing private property, marriage, their professions etc: others have to remain ‘in it’ but not ‘of it’. (Dec. 1, 1953)

43) God’s Mercy and Forgiveness

I fully agree with you about the difference between a doctrine merely accepted by the intellect and one (as Keats says) ‘proved in the pulses’ so that [it] is solid and palpable. . . . About two years ago I made a similar progress from mere intellectual acceptance of, to realization of, the doctrine that our sins are forgiven. That is perhaps the most blessed thing that ever happened to me. (Feb. 5, 1954)

44) Faith

Two men had to cross a dangerous bridge, The first convinced himself that it would bear them, and called this conviction Faith. The second said, ‘Whether it breaks or holds, whether I die here or somewhere else, I am equally in God’s good hands.’ And the bridge did break and they were both killed: and the second man’s Faith was not disappointed and the first man’s was. (March 26, 1954)

45) Meditating on the Passion of Christ

And of course you are doing the very best thing in meditating on the sufferings of Our Lord. (Sep. 19, 1954)

46) “Cookie Cutter” Salvation

It is right and inevitable that we should be much concerned about the salvation of those we love. But we must be careful not to expect or demand that their salvation should conform to some ready-made pattern of our own. Some Protestant sects have gone very wrong about this. They have a whole programme of ‘conviction’, ‘conversion’ etc. marked out, the same for everyone, & will not believe that anyone can be saved who doesn’t go through it ‘just so’. . . . What we practice, not (save at rare intervals) what we preach is usually our great contribution to the conversion of others. (March 2, 1955)

47) Heaven

The good things even of this world are far too good ever to be reached by imagination. Even the common orange, you know: no one could have imagined it before he tasted it. How much less Heaven. (Aug. 7, 1956)

48) Traveling by Car or Train

The real trouble about motoring, however, is not that you don’t see little things close up. You do: and too many. Nature allows us to see either a few things close up (when we walk) or many things far off (when we look down from a hill-top). But trains and cars give you many things, each close up in its turn and therefore each soliciting the attention which the speed does not allow you to give. . . . like walking in a crowd where you see face after face: which as someone said is like being forced to read the first page, and no more, of a hundred books in rapid succession. (Oct. 3, 1956)

49) Satan and Our Sins

One must come down to brass tacks. If there is a particular sin on your conscience, repent & confess it. If there isn’t, tell the despondent devil not to be silly. You can’t help hearing his voice (the odious inner radio) but you must treat it merely like a buzzing in your ears or any other irrational nuisance. . . . one must always get back to the practical and definite. What the devil loves is that vague cloud of unspecified guilt feeling or unspecified virtue by which he lures us into despair or presumption. (July 21, 1958)

50) Disputation

We could show our juniors – what they increasingly need to be shown – that disputation is not the same as quarrelling. (Aug. 22, 1959)

*
***
*
Practical Matters:  I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become a Catholic or to return to the Catholic Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them. If you believe my full-time apostolate is worth supporting, please seriously consider a much-needed monthly or one-time financial contribution. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV).
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle and 100% tax-deductible donations if desired), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information.
*
You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my two YouTube channels, Catholic Bible Highlights and Lux Veritatis (featuring documentaries), where I partner with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos and documentaries), and/or by signing up to receive notice for new articles on this blog. Just type your email address on the sidebar to the right (scroll down quite a bit), where you see, “Sign Me Up!” Thanks a million!
*
***
*
Photo credit: The Eagle and Child pub in Oxford, England, affectionately known by Lewis and his friends, the “Inklings” — who used to gather there for regular discussions — as “The Bird and Baby” [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
*
Summary: Collection of quotations from Anglican apologist C. S. Lewis (1898-1963), from his “Collected Letters” Vol. II, 1931-1949, & Volume III: 1950-1963, edited by Walter Hooper.

 

2025-06-26T09:35:22-04:00

Are We Never to Seek Intercessory Aid from Departed Saints or Even from Righteous People on the Earth?

Photo credit: portrait of Zwingli (1531), by Hans Asper (1499-1571) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

I cite The Latin Works of Huldreich Zwingli, Volume Three, edited by Clarence Nevin Heller, Philadelphia: The Heidelberg Press, 1929. It contains Zwingli‘s work, Reply to Emser (20 August 1524), pp. 359 ff., which was translated by Professor George William Gilmore and revised by Heller. I am specifically addressing the section, “The Intercession of Saints” (pp. 382-388). Zwingli’s words will be in blue. I use RSV for biblical citations.

*****

I. God alone is good, Luke 18:19. (p. 382)

Jesus says there, “No one is good but God alone” but He means by that, that He is the ultimate source of good, because elsewhere he Himself refers to the “good man”:

Luke 6:45 The good man out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil man out of his evil treasure produces evil; for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.

II. From this one and only source one must derive whatever good is needed. For every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, James 1:17. (p. 382)

This is true, but not in an exclusive sense. Again, God is the ultimate source of all good, but we can receive good things from human beings as well:

Psalm 34:14 Depart from evil, and do good; . . .

Isaiah 1:17  learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; defend the fatherless, plead for the widow.

Mark 14:7 For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you will, you can do good to them; but you will not always have me.

Luke 6:27 . . . Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, (cf. 6:33, 35)

Galatians 6:6, 10 Let him who is taught the word share all good things with him who teaches. . . . [10] So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all men, and especially to those who are of the household of faith.

1 Thessalonians 5:15 . . . always seek to do good to one another and to all.

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

Hebrews 13:16 Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God.

III. The faithful are distinguished from the unfaithful by this mark: the faithful depend upon this One and Only Good, cling to Him alone, resort to Him alone, draw from Him alone; (p. 383)

Ultimately yes, but we also depend upon good and trustworthy and righteous human beings, who are simply spreading God’s grace and His love as His instruments or as “God’s fellow workers” (1 Cor 3:9). St. Paul expressed perfectly how we work with God to accomplish His will: “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” (1 Cor 15:10). Paul refers to “Working together with him” (2 Cor 6:1) and writes, “God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phil 2:13), and refers to “always abounding in the work of the Lord” (1 Cor 15:58).

on the contrary, the unfaithful turn from the Creator to creatures, depend upon them, and hope for aid from them. (p. 383)

There is northing whatsoever wrong with this, as long as it’s not in a sense that excludes or replaces God (idolatry).

The only faithful ones, then, are those who are so filled with the knowledge that they are God’s that they do not even name any father except the Almighty Father, so far are they from having hope in another. . . . especially since the Master forbids us to call any man father on the earth? Matt 23:9. (p. 383)

Jesus was making the point that God the Father is the ultimate source of all authority. He said this during the course of rebuking the Pharisees for spiritual pride (Mt 23:2-10). Those who try to reason in this way neglect to see that it would prohibit all uses of the word father whatsoever; even biological fathers. Since that is an absurd outcome, it is clear that the statement cannot be taken in an absolute sense.

Accordingly, Jesus refers to Abraham as “father” twice (Lk 16:24; Jn 8:56)? And Stephen (Acts 7:2), Paul (Rom 4:12, 16). and James (Jas 2:21) do the same thing. Even God called Abraham “the father of many nations” (Rom 4:17). Paul refers to “our forefather Isaac” (Rom 9:10) and described himself as the “father” of the Corinthians (1 Cor 4:15) and to Timothy (Phil 2:22). Zwingli seems only minimally acquainted with Scripture. Yet he fancied himself a great Christian leader.

Furthermore, he departs from the Lord who seeks elsewhere than with Him for the good which he needs . . . (p. 383)

This is the typical extreme Protestant “dichotomous” / “either/or” mindset. In the Bible, people can act on behalf of God. It’s not “either/or” (i.e., “if we ask a man for help, we are denying that God is our help and the ultimate source of all good”).

There is no reason for lack of faith to make for itself this excuse: “Of course, I know that all my hope rests in God; but yet I have need of advocates to commend
me to that most high God.” From its own words one can easily judge what it is that thus speaks, namely, lack of faith. Since you say, “I know that all my hope rests in God,” why do you not in all adversities flee to Him? . . . Nor is there any reason for your giving me the everlasting reply, “I need intercessors with the Son.” The fact is, you are not willing to see that He Himself came down for the purpose of making clear how completely the opposite of inaccessible He is. . . . For if a way of approach to God is open by means of so many different advocates (which is the common pernicious belief), then Christ died in vain; He is not the only mediator, the only way; coming to the Father will be elsewise than by the Son; deceitfully He said: “Come unto me all ye that labor,” etc. How blasphemous this is, how impious, ungrateful, and pernicious, no one can adequately describe. (p. 385)

The only problem with all of this analysis is that it is utterly unscriptural. The Catholic and biblical position is that it’s best, and always possible, to “go straight to God” in prayer, unless there happens to be a person more righteous than we are in the immediate vicinity, who is willing to make the same prayer request. Then the Bible — not merely the Catholic Church — recommends that we ask them to intercede, rather than asking God directly.

If someone wants to be biblical and to follow the biblical model of prayer and intercession, it would include this practice. Why do we go to others holier than us, and ask them to intercede? Again, because this is what the Bible teaches. First of all, it expressly commands us to go to the elders of the church and to ask them to pray for us if we are sick or have committed sins:

James 5:14-15 Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; [15] and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.

Immediately after this in the same passage, we learn about the exceptional power of prayer by holy people:

James 5:16-18 . . . The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects. [17] Eli’jah was a man of like nature with ourselves and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth. [18] Then he prayed again and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth its fruit. (cf. 1 Kgs 17:1)

Anyone can go directly to God in prayer at any time. The Catholic Church has never stated otherwise. But they can also choose to wisely ask a person holier than themselves to make a prayer request of God, because of the passages above, and others such as: “the eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous, and his ears are open to their prayer” (1 Pet 3:12), and “When the righteous cry for help, the LORD hears” (Ps 34:17), and “the prayer of the upright is his delight” (Prov 15:8), and “he hears the prayer of the righteous” (Prov 15:29), and “we receive from him whatever we ask, because we keep his commandments and do what pleases him” (1 Jn 3:22), and “If I had cherished iniquity in my heart, the Lord would not have listened” (Ps 66:18; cf. 66:19-20).

Having established this principle of scriptural and efficient, spiritually wise prayer, we see how it is carried out in the case of very holy people. God told Abimelech that Abraham would pray for him, so he could live, “for” Abraham was “a prophet” (Gen 20:6-7). “All Israel” (1 Sam 12:1) “said to Samuel [the prophet], ‘Pray for your servants to the LORD your God, that we may not die’. . .” (1 Sam 12:19). God told Job’s “friends”: “my servant Job shall pray for you, for I will accept his prayer not to deal with you according to your folly” (Job 42:8).

Why did God listen to Job’s prayers? It’s because God Himself stated that “there is none like” Job “on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil” (Job 1:8). King Zedekiah asked the holy prophet Jeremiah to pray for him and the country (Jer 37:3; cf. 42:2: “[they] said to Jeremiah the prophet, ‘Let our supplication come before you, and pray to the LORD your God for us’ “).

If we go to a more righteous or holy person and ask them to pray for x, then x is far more likely to happen than if we go to God directly (because we are less righteous). Therefore, it’s more “efficient” and “better” to do this in these instances rather than go directly to God. Righteous people know God’s will better than those who are not following God with a whole heart, with all their might. Therefore, their prayers are more effective. Here are many more passages that teach this principle of prayer:

Exodus 32:30 On the morrow Moses said to the people, “You have sinned a great sin. And now I will go up to the LORD; perhaps I can make atonement for your sin.”

Deuteronomy 9:18-19 Then I lay prostrate before the LORD as before, forty days and forty nights; I neither ate bread nor drank water, because of all the sin which you had committed, in doing what was evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger. [19] For I was afraid of the anger and hot displeasure which the LORD bore against you, so that he was ready to destroy you. But the LORD hearkened to me that time also.

Deuteronomy 10:10 I stayed on the mountain, as at the first time, forty days and forty nights, and the LORD hearkened to me that time also; the LORD was unwilling to destroy you.

2 Kings 6:18 And when the Syrians came down against him, Eli’sha prayed to the LORD, and said, “Strike this people, I pray thee, with blindness.” So he struck them with blindness in accordance with the prayer of Eli’sha.

2 Chronicles 30:18-20 . . . Hezeki’ah had prayed for them, saying, “The good LORD pardon every one [19] who sets his heart to seek God, the LORD the God of his fathers, even though not according to the sanctuary’s rules of cleanness.” [20] And the LORD heard Hezeki’ah, and healed the people.

That’s an awful lot of Scripture for a Christian so-called “reformer” to be ignorant of. Because he seems to be unaware of all this, he goes on to teach absurd and woefully unbiblical things.

I plead by Holy Writ, . . . (p. 386)

Well, no he doesn’t, because he doesn’t even seem to be aware of the many ultra-relevant biblical passages that I have brought to bear. He’s in his own little highly selective, cherry-picking proof text bubble, like so many Protestant apologists.

The other passage is: “Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” etc. [Exod. 23: 13], where at first he did not notice that “O God, remember Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to whom thou swarest” and “Abraham, intercede for us” are by no means equivalent, since the former is said to God, that He may deign to bless the
children of Israel for the sake of the fathers, whereas the latter would be said to Abraham, though it is found nowhere in Holy Writ. (p. 387)

Actually, the latter (prayer to Abraham, generally speaking) is in Scripture, taught by our Lord Jesus Himself but once again, Zwingli is ignorant of it. The story Jesus told involves someone praying or making an intercessory request of someone other than God:

Luke 16:24 And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame.’

Abraham says no (16:25-26), just as God will say no to a prayer not according to His will. He asks him again, begging (16:27-28). Abraham refuses again, saying (16:29): “They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’” He asks a third time (16:30), and Abraham refuses again, reiterating the reason why (16:31).

How this supposedly does not support the principle of saints interceding and being able to intercede is a mystery to me. If we were not supposed to ask saints to pray for us, I think this story would be almost the very last way to make that supposed point. Abraham would simply have said, “you shouldn’t be asking me for anything; ask God!” In the same way, analogously, angels refuse worship when it is offered, because only God can be worshiped (Rev 19:9-10; 22:8-9). St. Peter did the same thing (Acts 10:25-26); and St Paul and Barnabas did, too (Acts 14:11-15).

If the true theology is that Abraham cannot be asked an intercessory request, then Abraham would have noted this and refused to even hear it. But instead he heard the request and said no. Jesus couldn’t possibly have taught a false principle. It’s not that Abraham couldn’t intercede (if that were true, he would have said so and Jesus would have made it clear), but that he wouldn’t intercede in this instance (i.e., he refused to answer the request). Refusing a request is not the same thing as not being able to grant the request. Otherwise, we would have to say that God is unable to answer a prayer request when He refuses one.

Game, set, match, right in the Bible, from Jesus Himself. But those who place man-made traditions about Holy Scripture will always think they can find a way to weasel their way out of plain biblical teaching. It’s sad. Luke 16 has to do with two major prior premises in the larger debate of intercession of the saints:

1) Is it proper to “pray” to anyone but God?,

and

2) is it proper to ask anyone but God to not only pray for, but fulfill (i.e., have the power and ability to bring about) an intercessory request?

Protestantism utterly rejects #1 and #2 above; yet Luke 16 (from Jesus) clearly teaches them. Hence lies the dilemma. It matters not if both men are dead; the rich man still can’t do what he did, according to Protestant categories of thought and theology. Whether Dives [the “rich man”] was dead or not is irrelevant, since standard Protestant theology holds that no one can make such a request to anyone but God. He’s asking Abraham to send Lazarus to him, and then to his brothers, to prevent them from going to hell. That is very much prayer: asking for supernatural aid from those who have left the earthly life and attained sainthood and perfection, with God. . . .

Jesus told this story, and it has a guy praying to a dead man, to request things that the dead man appears to be able to fulfill by his own powers (themselves no doubt delegated by God). That is quite sufficient to prove the point. . . . It remains true that Protestant theology, generally speaking, forbids asking a dead man to intercede (thus, a dead man asking this is part of the larger category that remains forbidden in that theology), and makes prayer altogether a matter only between man and God . . .

In fact, God is never mentioned in the entire story (!!!) . . .

So why did Jesus teach in this fashion? Why did He teach that Dives was asking Abraham to do things that Protestant theology would hold that only God can do? And why is the whole story about him asking Abraham for requests, rather than going directly to God and asking Him: which would seem to be required by [Protestant] theology? . . .

This just isn’t how it’s supposed to be, from a Protestant perspective. All the emphases are wrong, and there are serous theological errors, committed by Jesus Himself (i.e., from the erroneous Protestant perspective).

Moreover, there is a sense in the Bible in which it is irrelevant whether a human being is dead or not. They are still conscious and alive (Mt 22:32) and bound to God’s laws. So, for example:

Philippians 2:10-11 . . . at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, [11] and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Revelation 5:3 And no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll or to look into it,

Revelation 5:13 And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all therein, saying, “To him who sits upon the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might for ever and ever!”

Today also those are deservedly counted among the faithless who call for aid upon others than the one and only God. (p. 388)

Numbers 11:2 Then the people cried to Moses; and Moses prayed to the LORD, and the fire abated.

Numbers 14:13, 19-20 But Moses said to the LORD, “ . . . [19] Pardon the iniquity of this people, I pray thee, according to the greatness of thy steadfast love, and according as thou hast forgiven this people, from Egypt even until now.” [20] Then the LORD said, “I have pardoned, according to your word;

1 Samuel 7:8 And the people of Israel said to Samuel, “Do not cease to cry to the LORD our God for us, that he may save us from the hand of the Philistines.”

1 Samuel 12:18-19 So Samuel called upon the LORD, and the LORD sent thunder and rain that day; and all the people greatly feared the LORD and Samuel. [19] And all the people said to Samuel, “Pray for your servants to the LORD your God, that we may not die; for we have added to all our sins this evil, to ask for ourselves a king.”

1 Kings 13:6 And the king said to the man of God, “Entreat now the favor of the LORD your God, and pray for me, that my hand may be restored to me.” And the man of God entreated the LORD; and the king’s hand was restored to him, and became as it was before.

This is calling upon God; it simply goes through a holy person, because their prayers are much more powerful and — shall we say? — efficient (so James informs us). The people begged the prophet Samuel, “Do not cease to cry to the LORD our God for us” and “Pray for your servants to the LORD your God.” It’s all directed to Him.

The fuller intercession of saints involves those who are departed and in heaven. They are more alive than we are, and are perfected and aware of earthly happenings. They have extraordinary qualities granted to them from God. I’ve made scores of biblical arguments about many aspects of these things on my Saints, Purgatory, & Penance web page.

*
***
*
Practical Matters:  I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become a Catholic or to return to the Catholic Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them. If you believe my full-time apostolate is worth supporting, please seriously consider a much-needed monthly or one-time financial contribution. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV).
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle and 100% tax-deductible donations if desired), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information.
*
You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my two YouTube channels, Catholic Bible Highlights and Lux Veritatis (featuring documentaries), where I partner with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos and documentaries), and/or by signing up to receive notice for new articles on this blog. Just type your email address on the sidebar to the right (scroll down quite a bit), where you see, “Sign Me Up!” Thanks a million!
*
***
*
Photo credit: portrait of Zwingli (1531), by Hans Asper (1499-1571) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
*
Summary: Early Protestant leader Zwingli argued that we mustn’t ask anyone for intercession & must go straight to God. The Bible teaches us to ask holy persons to pray to God for us.
2025-06-18T10:19:22-04:00

This occurred on a public Facebook page of a Facebook friend of mine. The words of my opponent will be in blue.

*****

The inherent problem of apologetics [is that] it has no room for real conversation to exist on theology. Apologetics is the conclusion being presented as proof of the hypothesis, and the conversation ends there. Theology allows for criticism, highlights and disagreements. It allows for not two paths but a multitude of paths for discussion.

The root cause is apologetics. You got people on two sides hellbent [on] arguing [about] something and then turning arguments into personal attacks of characters. As long [as] people are only willing to engage the conversation [on an] apologetics [level] this will continue to happen.

If we have nothing that we accept as true, full stop, that we then go out and defend, how do we apply Jude 3 (“contend earnestly for the faith”) and 1 Peter 3:15 (“stand ready to make a defense”)? There is this thing in the Bible called “the faith” and Jesus and Paul casually assume that there is one “truth” and “tradition” and “message” etc. etc. that exists “out there” to be adhered to and defended, which is so clear that we are to separate from those who continually violate it.
*
You act as if Christians don’t have an existing belief-system and must always be uncertain (this is an outlook that I have called “the quest for uncertainty”).
Thus, the problem isn’t apologetics, which is a biblical command, but rather, those who do it poorly (without love and/or knowledge; confusing it with a stupid quarrel or an arrogant chest-puffing exercise). You throw the baby out with the bath water. It isn’t like people don’t vehemently disagree on theology, too, and often with rancor (see Protestantism and Orthodoxy), so it’s a false dichotomy, too.
*
You say that with apologetics “the conversation ends.” It never has to. As an apologist, myself, I always want to have conversation and discussion (because that is how truth is often arrived at), and I do it without bitterness and personal attacks. The problem is that when there is any disagreement, folks only rarely want to continue on with a normal conversation. It takes two. The reluctance to converse is almost never on my end. The only time I refuse to engage is when it is absolutely clear that a person doesn’t have the spirit of dialogue and open-mindedness that goes with it. It becomes evident very quickly, if this is absent (especially in proportion to how experienced one is at dialogue and debate).
*
Truth is not dying on the often exaggerated and reinterpreted narratives that apologetics uses to consequentially present historical and theological points in a system of confession that reflects presupposed beliefs rather than presenting the historical and theological points in contextual presentation and allowing them to drive the hermeneutics. Apologetics is, in the end, the argument of a person who believes [he] is right and who will not budge otherwise. It is the end of conversation and the end of the study of truth. Apologetics is, for a reason, the lower tier of philosophy, theology, and history, often being neither good at presenting truth nor at the study of the things it claims to defend. Disagreeing with theology is a real thing, and should be the issue it is when people turn it into a dichotomy dissection in which splits the idea that one side is fully right and clean and the other is wrong and filthy in their error.
*
So you don’t have a set group of Christian beliefs? Or are you an atheist or simply non-religious? If you have a set of Christian beliefs, then according to the Bible you are obliged to defend it and share it with others, in evangelism. And that is your problem. You can’t “diss” apologetics” within a Christian and biblical paradigm.
*
So it comes down to what you believe. As it is, you sound almost relativistic or only nominally Christian. I don’t know unless you tell me what you believe.
But you are just as vehement in an “anti-apologetics” view as you say we apologists are in our view. You make blanket statements and you seem quite sure of your views, which is scarcely indistinguishable from what you critique.
*
So in my humble opinion you have insufficiently thought through your own presuppositions. Jesus and Paul and the Church fathers and doctors of the Church all passionately engaged in apologetics, so, again, if you are a Christian, you can’t possibly be dead-set against it, as you are.
*
You also wrongly assume that apologists never change their minds. I was an apologist as a Protestant and massively changed my mind when I became a Catholic. If I am ever persuaded that Orthodoxy is the way to go, I will surely follow that path too. I’ve also changed my mind on big issues as a Catholic (e.g., capital punishment), just as I did on many issues as a Protestant apologist. So the key is to always be willing to follow truth wherever it leads. But in any event, there is such a thing as truth. We’re not here to endlessly speculate and never arrive at it.
*
Lastly, it’s not true that one has to demonize all opponents in dialogue. I don’t do that at all. I take the greatest pains not to do so and note that errors usually come from false premises obtained along the way and not from an evil will or bad faith. Accordingly, I’ve written about how individual atheists could very well be saved, per Romans 2.
*
You’re the one in effect demonizing a whole field (apologetics) by dismissing it as a “bad” thing. In doing so, you go after Jesus and Paul, etc., and that’s your problem if you are any sort of Christian. Once you tell me what you believe, it’ll become clearer why you feel led to go down this path.
*
[he then put up a “laughing” icon in “response]
*
See, this is why I can’t take y’all seriously. The jumping to non-fundamental conclusionism . . . 
*
It’s why you don’t offer a serious critique, unless you further explain yourself and offer any sort of counter-argument to what I have said. We still have no idea what your belief-system is. Instead, you go right to immediately judging and dismissing (and now essentially laughing at; you put a laughing icon in “reply” to one of my posts) an entire group of human beings: Christians who rationally defend what they believe.
*
So far, you have shown zero interest in dialogue, and this is the high irony. You would rather preach and proselytize with your seemingly skeptical outlook. You condemn an alleged widespread attitude among apologists of being dogmatic and unwilling to dialogue. Far too many persons are that way; I agree, but not the whole group as a general description. At the same time, you exhibit precisely the same closed-minded spirit that you have just condemned.
*
I just got through writing that it’s usually the other guy unwilling to dialogue, and then you prove the validity of the generalization (based on long personal experience: 44 years, in fact) before our very eyes.
*
[he again put up a laughing icon in “reply’]
*
If you are serious about the issue, it is with apologetics, not apologists. Apologetics, as a normative practice, often creates a narrative of circular argument that relies on authority and, more often than not, an interpretation of it. Apologetics requires rejecting real evidence that shows changes in doctrines and dogmas, and employing any method to argue for an interpretation that avoids admitting any obvious bias. I find it a lower form of theology, history, philosophy, linguistics, and related disciplines.
*
I adhere to a quasi-apokatastasis system, since I believe everything that exists in creation exists within God and can never exist outside of God. A Christological cosmic narrative differs significantly from concepts of God and the universe as fully separate, with only the acts of God existing in God, not the essence, or just the manifestation of God’s existence operating in the universe. My dislike of the “I am right and you’re wrong” position of apologetics stems not from that, but from the clear textual evidence and archaeological findings regarding changes, reinterpretations, and frameworks. Religion is primarily an aspect of anthropomorphic human institutionalism, subject to change and adaptation like any other institution. I refuse to simply sit down and say otherwise or perform mental gymnastics to be “right” while others are “wrong” and therefore need to convert to be right. The sole sacrament of Christianity is a mystery that every Christian, and even many non-Christians, both have and attain, guiding the movement from the finite to the infinite. I do not need to tell everyone who is right to win arguments or prove my side true. I am always willing to exchange views with people, not to show who is right, but why we believe differently. If I wanted circular reasoning and wasting time, Islam is there to join or argue against never truly making a difference on reality.
*
I became a Catholic due to reading St. Cdl. Newman’s Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, and development is my favorite theological topic. But it depends on what we mean by “development.” Newman is very precise as to his own meaning: it is development without losing the kernel or essence of a doctrine from beginning to end (an acorn and an oak tree are the same thing, on a continuum). All Christians who accept biblical inspiration also believe in progressive revelation. Doctrines have indeed changed. But we do deny that what we believe to be the true doctrines have changed in essence.
*
You criticize us for feeling certain about Catholic dogmas, while you sit there and by all appearances and perceptions feel absolutely (?) certain that your worldview that you are now describing (thank you!) is correct and ours — at least what you perceive to be ours — is wrong.
*
So you absolutely condemn absolute (as opposed to relative) views, and propose an absolute view as a replacement: all the while severely chastising any sort of dogma or certainty. This huge self-contradiction is discussed a lot by C. S. Lewis in his books and articles (e.g., “The Poison of Subjectivism”). You seem quite blissfully unaware of it, and that’s how it usually goes with folks who hold these sorts of views.
*
As to one of your many specific criticisms: I, as a professional apologist, do not rely on — and have never relied on — “circular argumentation” at all: nor does any apologist who is even remotely deserving of that title. So, for example, in my last officially published book from Catholic Answers, The Word Set in Stone: How Archaeology, Science, and History Back Up the Bible, you can see in the title alone, what my methodology is. I am taking things (secular fields of knowledge) outside of the Bible to offer evidence that it is historically trustworthy to a remarkable degree. I make it clear that I am not claiming that this proves biblical inspiration, but that it does offer a view that is *consistent* with that position.
*
In other words, if the Bible is indeed an inspired revelation, we would expect at a minimum for it to not contain obvious massive errors of fact and self-contradictions, because those things would be counter-evidences of inspiration and guidance from an omniscient God. And that is the purpose of another book of mine (I offer it for free, too): Inspired!: 198 Supposed Biblical Contradictions Resolved. This is literally an answer to actual atheist arguments to the effect that the Bible is ridiculously and relentlessly self-contradictory and nonsensical and anti-scientific. So I give them the respect of seriously considering their arguments, and offering a reply from one who thinks that they are all bum raps. Then my readers can make up their own minds. I give them the atheist argument and also the Christian reply, and may the best argument prevail!
*
That’s not circular, either. It’s applying knowledge of biblical literature and of logic and science and making an argument. Moreover, the Bible is very often critiqued by those who, ironically, usually know very little about either biblical literature (genres) or exegesis. I’ve found that this is almost invariably the case. Many of these atheists with whom I have dialogued were former fundamentalists and they continue to interpret in that same manner, as if the Bible is always to be interpreted with a wooden literalism.
*
I never was a fundamentalist. I was a nominal Methodist and then a practical atheist with a fascination for the occult. When I was ready to be a Christian at age 18 I applied reason to it, and all the more four years later when I started doing apologetics in a serious way. But none of what I do is circular reasoning. There are some apologists who at least partially fall into that (it’s my critique of a school called presuppositionalists, who tend to be Calvinists), but my basic category is evidentialist apologetics, which is a very different approach.
*
So now we may perhaps be starting to engage in an actual dialogue. One key to determining that is whether you put a laughing icon underneath my comment for the third straight time. If you do, I’m done with this exchange. If not, then it’s up to you to figure out if I’m sufficiently “serious” for you to spend time engaging in dialogue with. You’re the one who came onto this thread broad-brushing against apologetics and apologists. As one of those, myself, one might expect that I would respond. No one appreciates being massively misrepresented.
*
One can’t enter into true dialogue if he or she has utter disdain for the other person’s views or if (as I think is more the case with you) one exhibits a poor understanding in several ways of the view (or caricature of a view) that they are so passionately condemning.
*
I don’t know you personally, so I can’t speak to the specific arguments in your published work. My critique is directed at apologetics as a method—how it tends to function structurally—not at you as a person or professional.
*
The issue I often have with apologetics is how tightly it relies on axiomatic premises—“the Bible says,” “the Church teaches,” “this is the correct interpretation”—as foundations that shape all subsequent reasoning. These positions are often established beforehand and can’t be challenged from within the system, because doing so would undermine the whole structure. So the apologetic task isn’t really open inquiry; it’s more often the defense of a framework already set in place.
That’s different from how I approach things. If I hold a view that’s flawed or incomplete, I welcome the opportunity to reevaluate it through historical-critical analysis, archaeology, philosophy, or other lenses. My beliefs aren’t rooted in absolute certainty. Rather, I try to hold them as provisional conclusions based on what currently seems most likely, based on the data I’ve encountered. I don’t claim objectivity—I simply acknowledge where I stand after a process of study, experience, and reflection. And I remain open to being wrong.
*
So, to your concern that I’m being inconsistent—criticizing Catholic certainty while holding to my own worldview with conviction—I’d respond this way: I’m not against conviction. I’m against epistemic closure. The kind of certainty I’m critiquing is the kind that can’t allow itself to be questioned, not the kind that results from careful thought.
*
I understand that you distinguish between evidential and presuppositional apologetics—and that you place yourself firmly in the evidentialist camp. That’s fair. Still, I would argue that even evidential apologetics often operates with an interpretive lens that reinforces doctrinal conclusions rather than leaving them open to real revision. It may not be circular in the strict philosophical sense, but the framework often defaults back to confirming the initial theological commitment, which can have the same effect functionally.
*
As for tone—I want to acknowledge something you brought up. If my comments or reactions (including emojis) came off as dismissive or mocking, that wasn’t my intention. I’m here to engage ideas, not ridicule people. So I’ll leave that aside moving forward and stay focused on the substance.
*
Regarding the theological examples I raised, I’m not just pointing out errors for the sake of argument. Take the question of Jesus’ divinity: in a Catholic apologetic framework, the starting position is already fixed—Christ is fully divine, as revealed in the Gospels and affirmed by the early Church Fathers. The apologetic role is then to show how Scripture and tradition align with this, often by invoking later theological interpretations or selective patristic citations.
You can see this in the way apologetics handles topics like the Immaculate Conception (kecharitōmenē) or original sin in Romans 5. These arguments frequently rely on theological categories that developed centuries later and are read back into the earliest texts. My point is not that these conclusions are impossible—only that the method often precludes other viable readings from being taken seriously.
*
Other disciplines allow for a more complex picture. For example, exploring how John’s Logos parallels Philo, or how the Enochic and Metatron traditions influenced early Jewish mysticism, opens up richer possibilities for understanding the Christological claims in the New Testament. Likewise, noting the more subordinate tone in Ignatius or Polycarp’s writings allows us to ask whether high Christology was as immediate or universal as often claimed. These aren’t attacks on doctrine—they’re attempts to approach the material on its own terms before drawing conclusions.
*
I also think your invocation of Newman is fair, and you’re right that doctrine can develop in meaningful ways without abandoning its essence. There’s room to bring in McGrath’s framing of doctrine as both ontological and epistemological. My broader question, though, is whether any system—especially one rooted in institutional authority—can admit the possibility that councils or doctrinal formulations were mistaken without appealing to that same authority to justify or reframe it. That’s a hard circle to square epistemologically.
*
So again, this isn’t a personal attack. I respect your background and how you came to your views. My critique is aimed at the structure of apologetics itself. Even when it doesn’t appeal directly to authority, it still tends to carry a theological gravity that weighs all evidence toward a particular end. Whether we’re talking about Yahweh and Asherah, firstborn sacrifice, or redaction layers in the Pentateuch, the evidence gets filtered through a system that won’t entertain conclusions seen as incompatible with dogma.
*
Everyone has bias, myself included. The difference, I think, lies in whether we’re transparent about it—and whether our method allows room for uncertainty. That’s not relativism; it’s just acknowledging that religion, like all human expression, bears our fingerprints. It deserves reverence, yes, but also rigorous, open, and sometimes uncomfortable inquiry.
*
When you speak on biblical contradictions and bring up your point, I will say that’s another conversation, a different topic altogether. But I will give you a quick reply to that point for the record. You seem to be operating from a more classical theological model which reminds me frankly to be closer Augustine. A model where divine revelation is centrally embedded in the inspired text, interpreted through a tradition that’s believed to be guided and protected from error. That system makes sense internally, and it creates a framework where theological and historical tensions must be harmonized or explained within its boundaries.
*
In contrast, my epistemological position doesn’t begin with a single institution, canon, or tradition as the guarantor of truth. I personally hold to the idea that the canon is open and not closed and a big reason why I consider the book of Enoch or Jubilee as part of prayer use and to be read. I begin differently from you with the idea that truth exists, but that human beings can only access it partially, through provisional means—history, reason, experience, intuition, and the tools of interpretation we develop over time. Revelation, if it is real, doesn’t have to be locked inside a single text or tradition; it can emerge dynamically, even through contradiction, fragmentation, or silence. I see then an idea that there is divine revelation but it is found across faiths, time and traditions.
*
That means I don’t expect the Bible to be a uniform voice, nor do I defend that idea or need it. I expect it to reflect its human authorship, sometimes conflicting, sometimes brilliant, sometimes flawed. And I believe that’s where its value lies: not in being a perfect monolith, but in being a textured, unfolding conversation across time. I treat it as a sacred witness to humanity’s attempts to grapple with the divine—not as the final word, but as one profound chapter in a much larger dialogue between the human and the transcendent.
*
So when I speak about faith, I’m not speaking about certainty, but about trust in a process of seeking—one that accepts complexity, ambiguity, and growth. My worldview isn’t built on the need for unshakable foundations. It’s built on the conviction that even without perfect clarity, we are still capable of drawing near to what is meaningful, beautiful, and real.
*
In that sense, I’m not rejecting the idea of divine truth. I’m rejecting the idea that divine truth can only come pre-packaged in a fixed, error-free system. I believe it can also be discovered through tension, through error, and through the honest admission that we see in part and reason through mystery.
*
Thanks for your detailed reply. There are tons of things to discuss here and I’m not particularly up to that task at the moment — not in the scope and depth that it would require — and I don’t know if you are either. But at least we are dialoguing in a much more acceptable way than how we started.
*
I guess it all comes down to how one determines that they have arrived at a set of truths; in my case, Catholicism, and for 13 years prior to that, evangelical Christianity: both grounded in an infallible, inerrant Bible. And why do we believe that about the Bible? I have many reasons (none of them circular!), and a lot of them, and probably the most important ones to me, are included in my two books that I mentioned.
*
My epistemology is most grounded upon Cdl. Newman’s extraordinary work, A Grammar of Assent, which was the “heaviest” book I ever read, bar none. It’s very different from most Christian apologetics, in its notion of the illative sense and implicit reasoning and analogical argumentation. The philosopher Michael Polanyi later explored the same general line of thought, which is a fascinating one indeed.
*
I do apologetics because I believe that I have arrived at a set of truths and that I am called to proclaim and defend those, just as Jesus, Paul, and the Church fathers did. First I defended an infallible Bible and general Christianity. Then I came to be convinced that Catholicism is the fullness of Christian truth and way of life. St. Paul wasn’t on a perpetual quest for knowledge. He felt that he had received “the faith” through an existing tradition and was passing it on as best he knew how. In other words, he was an apologist, not a philosopher (though he was quite acquainted with philosophy, as we know from his sermon on Mars Hill in Athens).
*
To take just two example of yours, you mention “the question of Jesus’ divinity”: which you claim is “complex” and which developed for centuries. Well, it did highly develop, but it was all in one direction: strengthening the view that He was the incarnate God and the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.
*
But it’s already there in all essential aspects in the Bible. One of my first major apologetics projects was studying this in the Bible itself: back in 1982. And I discovered literally hundreds of evidences in the Bible that orthodox Christianity (in this case, all three “branches”) was exactly right: they only accepted and passed on what was already quite clear in the Bible. I will link to my two articles on that: consisting of 97% Bible passages. I merely organized them by subcategory:
*
Jesus is God: Hundreds of Biblical Proofs (300 Biblical Proofs + Many Additional Related Cross-References) (RSV edition) [1982; rev. 2012 and 11-26-24]
*
Holy Trinity: Hundreds of Biblical Proofs (RSV edition) [1982; rev. 2012]
*
Then you mention “topics like the Immaculate Conception” and claim that its “arguments frequently rely on theological categories that developed centuries later and are read back into the earliest texts.”
*
Well, I have devised arguments from the relevant texts that are strictly biblical and exegetical and don’t smuggle anything in from later centuries or Catholic dogmatic pronouncements: particularly kecharitomene from Luke 1:28. These show, I think, that the essence of the Immaculate Conception (Mary’s sinlessness) is already contained in Luke 1:28 in conjunction with what Paul teaches about the nature of grace as the antithesis of sin. Thus to be “full of grace” is to be sinless per the angel Gabriel and Paul. The Immaculate Conception is a straightforward development from that (the key developments being preredemption and the extension of freedom from original sin as well as from actual sin.
*
There are several other related biblical analogies as well. I used only biblical texts in making that argument and relied upon (solely, as I recall) all non-Catholic lexicons and biblical linguists.
*
So all these points are disputable. You accept them; I do not, and I have explained briefly why I do not, at least for a few of the matters you brought up.
What I’d like to see (if you are willing) is how and why you have arrived at your present viewpoint; on what basis? I’m sure you’d agree with me that those kinds of questions of epistemology are incredibly complex. Perhaps you’d also agree with me when I say that I highly suspect that the more closely we look into why you feel “comfortable” (if not assured) in your set of beliefs, the more we would find that you have no more guarantee that you are right over against my more “classical” Catholic Christian view, than I have for claiming that my view is right. And you would accept many unproven or axiomatic premises along the way that you couldn’t compellingly defend from reason alone. Faith is faith; it ain’t philosophy. It can be backed up with reason, but it’s not identical to it. It’s something different and God-given.
*
Your outlook can be questioned at every point along the way just as mine can be. And that would be an extremely interesting discussion, in my opinion. All I do in the final analysis as an apologist goes back even beyond the Bible and Christianity, to Socrates, and the idea that we should relentlessly question our own premises. He was sort of the original Karl Popper, insofar as he sought to potentially falsify his own and others’ beliefs by scrutiny and reflection and dialogue.
That’s what I do as well, along with having a robust faith. As I already stated, if I am convinced of Orthodoxy at some future date, I will become Orthodox. That’s possible, but not likely, as I haven’t come even remotely close to doing so these past 35 years. I’ve heard the arguments; wrote a book about it, and remain confidently Catholic.
*
But a seeker of truth obviously must always acknowledge that parts of that overall truth may be discovered over time, usually surprisingly and shockingly, and he or she must always be willing to submit to it when that happens.
*
As I keep defending Catholicism, my faith and belief that it is the dullness of Christian truth keeps getting stronger and stronger. And it does because of the weakness of opposing positions when they truly interact with Catholic positions. You may be skeptical of that, but the proof’s in the pudding. Anyone can look over my work to see how I reasoned through things in my more than 5,000 articles and 56 books, and counting.
*
Most of the time, opposing apologists simply refuse to interact with what I consider the best arguments in favor of Catholicism or the Bible or larger Christianity. When that happens, it doesn’t exactly compel one to adopt the other view, since the proponent refuses to defend it.
*
[more to be added whenever this person “responds” further]
*
*
***
*
Practical Matters:  I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become a Catholic or to return to the Catholic Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them. If you believe my full-time apostolate is worth supporting, please seriously consider a much-needed monthly or one-time financial contribution. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV).
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle and 100% tax-deductible donations if desired), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information.
*
You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my two YouTube channels, Catholic Bible Highlights and Lux Veritatis (featuring documentaries), where I partner with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos and documentaries), and/or by signing up to receive notice for new articles on this blog. Just type your email address on the sidebar to the right (scroll down quite a bit), where you see, “Sign Me Up!” Thanks a million!
*
***
*
Summary: I respond to a wholesale attack on Christian apologetics: of the sort that I have observed many times over 44 years. As one can see, this person was utterly unwilling to dialogue.
2025-04-24T13:59:46-04:00

Photo credit: my self-published 2003 book

 

Lucas Banzoli is a very active Brazilian anti-Catholic polemicist, who holds to basically a Seventh-day Adventist theology, whereby there is no such thing as a soul that consciously exists outside of a body, and no hell (soul sleep and annihilationism). He has a Master’s degree in theology, a degree and postgraduate work in history, a license in letters, and is a history teacher, author of 27 self-published books, as well as blogmaster for six blogs. He has many videos on YouTube.

This is my 68th refutation of Banzoli’s writings. From 25 May until 12 November 2022 he wrote not one single word in reply, claiming that my articles were “without exception poor, superficial and weak” and that “only a severely cognitively impaired person” would take them “seriously.” Nevertheless, he found them so “entertaining” that after almost six months of inaction he resolved to “make a point of rebutting” them “one by one”; this effort being his “new favorite sport.” But apparently he changed his mind again, since he has replied to me only 16 times (the last one dated 2-20-23).

This is a reply to the controversial and relevant items of his list, in his article, “A Confession of Faith Common to all Protestants” [Uma Confissão de Fé comum a todos os protestantes] (10-29-24)

Lucas’ original Portugese was automatically translated into English on his blog by Google Translate. His words will be in blue.

*****

You have certainly seen a Catholic accuse Protestants of being divided into “40,000 sects with different doctrines” (which is humanly impossible, since there are not even 40,000 doctrines to have 40,000 doctrinal divergences), 

Yes; this is a dumb argument. I renounced it over twenty years ago in my article, 33,000 Protestant Denominations? No! [9-4-04], and have ever since said “hundreds” to describe the number of Protestant denominations. There are methodological difficulties with the usual figures. In any event, denominationalism itself is utterly unbiblical and anything beyond one Church is already a very serious unbiblical falsehood.

and many of them say that there is not even a common core of doctrines to be considered “Protestant”, as if “Protestant” could be anything.

That’s a stupid belief, too, but I immediately note that almost all of what Protestants have in common are beliefs that Catholics and Orthodox also hold; in other words, these are tenets that all Christians hold in common. I will demonstrate that in my reply.

First of all, it is important to highlight two things. First, unlike the scarecrow constantly present in Catholic apologetics, antitrinitarians are not “protestants,”

I’ve been a Catholic apologist for almost 35 years, and I haven’t observed this false view being “constantly present in Catholic apologetics.” One would have to be very ignorant to claim this, and as usual when sweeping statements about “Catholic apologists” are made by Protestants, not even a single example is provided. Speaking for myself, I have never ever stated that actual Protestants denied the Trinity.

Unfortunately, out of ignorance or bad faith, many of them say this because they believe that Jehovah’s Witnesses are Protestants, 

“Many”? I think not. It doesn’t take much knowledge at all to see that JWS are not Protestants or any other kind of Christians. They’re Arian heretics. I particularly object to this silly characterization, seeing that my first major apologetics project as a Protestant evangelical in 1981, was to do a massive refutation of the false belief of Jehovah’s Witnesses. I was part of an “anti-cult” ministry.

behind the secondary issues that divide us is a primary and much more important element that unites us.

And he thinks these are listed in his thirty points. But I will show that with regard to many of these so-called “central” or “primary” beliefs, Protestants in fact disagree with each other. Note that Lucas claims in his title that these points are “common to all Protestants.” So if I demonstrate that several of them aren’t, he is guilty of a misleading, only partially true title and would have to shorten his list to half as long in order to be intellectually honest.

Nineteen, or 63% of all his points are simply beliefs held in common with all Christians, and thus irrelevant. What Lucas needs to demonstrate are beliefs that are distinctive to Protestants and held by all of them. That list becomes a very short one indeed, under scrutiny (perhaps even nonexistent). Thus, we can exclude (in this scenario that I think is reasonable) from the discussion right off the bat (#1-2, 4-6, 8, 11, 13-17, 21-22, 25-29; #21 being somewhat unique, as I will explain).

The other eleven points, or 37% of the list (#3, 7, 9-10, 12, 18-20, 23-24, 30) are disputable, and I contend that there are Protestants — not infrequently, many — who disagree with what Lucas claims is unanimity. Thus, 100% of his points fail in their purpose, under scrutiny: being either irrelevant (19) or untrue as a matter of fact (11), leaving his claim a complete failure. Let’s take a look at the “duds.”

3) We believe that God is the only one we should pray to and the only one who answers our prayers.

Catholics agree that God ultimately answers our prayers, and that when saints are involved, they are functioning as intermediaries who can only “pass along” what God brings about. But there are some Protestants who believe that saints can be invoked. A post from St. Michael’s Anglican Church in Matthews, North Carolina states:

The practice of requesting the intercessions of the glorified Saints is no different in degree, nature, or kind from the necessary intercessory prayer that Christians offer for one another on earth. If I ask you to pray for me and for my intentions, I know that in Christian charity you will do so. If you ask prayers of me, I should be delighted and moved by the same charity to pray for you. Offering requests through God in the Communion of the Saints to those fellow Christians who reign with Christ beyond the veil is no different. We may ask for their prayers, just as we pray for them. . . .

Anglicans are not obliged to solicit the gracious prayers of the Saints on our behalf, but, just as they are not compelled to request the intercessory prayers of fellow Christians in heaven, so they are forbidden to say that such a practice is contrary to Scripture and Tradition. For Anglicans, the practice of the invocation of the Saints is limited in the main to private devotions and extraliturgical services which are not part of the usual public Liturgy. However, it is certainly to be encouraged and has never been rejected by the Anglican Church, , which counts herself a true Apostolic Church practicing the fullness of the Catholic Faith, of which the Communion of Saints is a supreme article. Please note that Article of Religion XXII does not condemn the ancient or patristic or biblical doctrine concerning the Invocation of Saints and other related truths, but only the Romish, that is, the popularly-believed late medieval and thus erroneous view of the same. The Anglican teaching is the reformed Catholic view, anchored in the Holy Scriptures and the Tradition of the Primitive Church.

Anglican apologist C. S. Lewis wrote:

I accept the authority of the Benedicite for the propriety of invoking . . . saints. . . . ( The Collected Letters of C. S. Lewis, Vol. III: Narnia, Cambridge, and Joy 1950-1963, edited by Walter Hooper, HarperSanFrancisco, 2007, To the Editor of the Church Times, 15 July 1949)

With approximately 85 – 110 million members, Anglicanism is the third-largest Christian communion after Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

7) We believe in a worship free of graven images for purposes of worship and/or veneration, and that we should not bow down before any image.

Martin Luther believed in adoration of Jesus in the sacrament of the Eucharist, which includes bowing before the consecrated host and chalice. He even wrote a treatise about it in 1523, called, The Adoration of the Sacrament, which is included in Luther’s Works in English, in volume 36, pp. 268–305, where he proclaimed, “he who does believe, as sufficient demonstration has shown it ought to be believed, can surely not withhold his adoration of the body and blood of Christ without sinning . . . One should not withhold from him such worship and adoration either . . . one should not condemn and accuse of heresy people who do adore the sacrament.”

Luther was observed bowing before the consecrated host and chalice. It’s for this reason that John Calvin called Luther “half-papist” and that “he had raised up the idol in God’s temple.” See more on thisSome “high” Anglicans or Anglo-Catholics practice this, too. So, for example, the article, “What is Eucharistic Adoration?” from Church of the Good Shepherd, an Anglo-Catholic parish in South Carolina, affirmed:

The practice of Eucharistic Adoration is the spiritual exercise of adoring the Real Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. The intention of such a devotion is to allow the faithful to be connected with an awareness of the gift of Christ’s sacramental presence and experience a spiritual communion with Him. . . .

In the Church of England, Father John Mason Neale (1818-1866) revived interest in Eucharistic Adoration among Anglicans when he made it a part of the devotional life of the nuns of the Society of Saint Margaret. Father Neale saw Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament and Eucharistic Exposition as the logical devotional expression of the Church Catholic’s understanding of the Real Presence.

9) We believe that Sacred Scripture is the highest authority for Christians, the highest and final authority that prevails over any tradition, teaching, denomination, council, confession of faith or religious leadership.

This is generally true of Protestantism, as one of its two pillars and its rule of faith, but again, there are exceptions (whereas Lucas ignores that). Anglicanism and its offshoot, Methodism, place a higher emphasis on tradition and the authority of the Church, and also accept the notion of apostolic succession, both of which are, strictly speaking, contradictory to sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone as the only infallible authority). Along these lines, John Wesley, the key figure at the beginning of Methodism, but himself a lifelong Anglican, stated:

If to baptize infants has been the general practice of the Christian Church in all places and in all ages, then this must have been the practice of the apostles, and, consequently, the mind of Christ. . . . The fact being thus cleared, that infant baptism has been the general practice of the Christian Church in all places and in all ages, that it has continued without interruption in the Church of God for above seventeen hundred years, we may safely conclude it was handed down from the apostles, who best knew the mind of Christ. (A Treatise on Baptism; in Coll. iii, 232-233; 11 Nov. 1756)

Martin Luther had made the exact same point over 200 years earlier:

Child baptism derives from the apostles and has been practised since the days of he apostles. . . .
*
Were child baptism now wrong God would certainly not have permitted it to continue so long, nor let it become so universally and thoroughly established in all Christendom, but it would sometime have gone down in disgrace. The fact that the Anabaptists now dishonor it does not mean anything final or injurious to it. Just as God has established that Christians in all the world have accepted the Bible as Bible, the Lord’s Prayer as Lord’s Prayer, and faith of a child as faith, so also he has established child baptism and kept it from being rejected while all kinds of heresies have disappeared which are much more recent and later than child baptism. This miracle of God is an indication that child baptism must be right. . . .
*
You say, this does not prove that child baptism is certain. For there is no passage in Scripture for it. My answer: that is true. From Scripture we cannot clearly conclude that you could establish child baptism as a practice among the first Christians after the apostles. But you can well conclude that in our day no one may reject or neglect the practice of child baptism which has so long a tradition, since God actually not only has permitted it, but from the beginning so ordered, that it has not yet disappeared.
*
For where we see the work of God we should yield and believe in the same way as when we hear his Word, unless the plain Scripture tells us otherwise. . . .
*
[I]f the first, or child, baptism were not right, it would follow that for more than a thousand years there was no baptism or any Christendom, which is impossible. . . . For over a thousand years there were hardly any other but child baptisms. . . .
*
We . . . are certain enough, because it is nowhere contrary to Scripture, but is rather in accord with Scripture. (Concerning Rebaptism, January 1528; in Luther’s Works, 225-262; citation from 254-257)
The Anglican historian of Christian theology, Alister McGrath (b. 1953) noted the high irony of how even Martin Luther and his Lutherans changed their tune about sola Scriptura and the Bible after 1525 (just four years after Luther was excommunicated and in effect started Lutheranism):

The magisterial Reformation initially seems to have allowed that every individual had the right to interpret Scripture; but . . . The Peasant’s Revolt of 1525 appears to have convinced some, such as Luther, that individual believers (especially German peasants) were simply not capable of interpreting Scripture. It is one of the ironies of the Lutheran Reformation that a movement which laid such stress upon the importance of Scripture should subsequently deny its less educated members direct access to that same Scripture, for fear that they might misinterpret it (in other words, reach a different interpretation from that of the magisterial reformers). (Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th edition, 2012, p. 110)

10) We believe that the reading of Sacred Scripture is for all the faithful, that its translation into the language of the people should be encouraged and that it can be freely examined by the faithful, to the detriment of an ecclesiastical monopoly of some institution.

First of all, Lucas lies about supposed Catholic suppression of the Bible, and denunciation of non-Latin vernacular translations in particular. McGrath gives the actual facts of the matter:
No universal or absolute prohibition of the translation of scriptures into the vernacular was ever issued by a medieval pope or council, nor was any similar prohibition directed against the use of such translations by the laity.”  (The Intellectual Origins of the European Reformation, 1987, p. 124)
Nor was this even true of Luther’s original Lutheranism, within the first ten years. McGrath explains the details:
For example, the school regulations of the duchy of Wurttemburg laid down that only the most able schoolchildren were to be allowed to study the New Testament in their final years — and even then, only if they studied it in Greek or Latin. The remainder — presumably the vast bulk — were required to read Luther’s Lesser Catechism instead. The direct interpretation of Scripture was thus effectively reserved for a small, privileged group of people.  . . . The principle of the “clarity of Scripture’ appears to have been quietly marginalized, in the light of the use made of the Bible by the more radical elements within the Reformation. Similarly, the idea that everyone had the right and the ability to interpret Scripture faithfully became the sole possession of the radicals. (Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 2nd edition from 1993, p. 155)
12) We believe that Jesus is the only person who spent his entire life without contracting any stain of sin.
*
Again, Martin Luther, the founder of the system, believed in the Immaculate Conception of Mary, which includes her sinlessness (even from original sin). No one has to take my word for that. Many Lutheran scholars and historians assert it. The well-known Lutheran scholar Arthur Carl Piepkorn stated in a scholarly article in 1967 that “Martin Luther’s personal adherence to the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God (barring two lapses) seems to have been life-long.” This same piece was described as a “splendid and learned summary” by the great Lutheran scholar Jaroslav Pelikan in his 1996 book, Mary Through The Ages, on page 249. Prominent Lutheran theologian Friedrich Heiler was cited in a 1959 Lutheran article stating that “Mary is for Luther ‘immaculately conceived,’ . . . in the sense . . . which the Roman Church in 1854 formulated as a dogma.”
*
The eminent Lutheran scholar Eric W. Gritsch, one of the translator in the 55-volume set of the works of Luther, concurred, writing: “The literary evidence from Luther’s works clearly supports the view that Luther affirmed the doctrine.” He also stated that “Luther affirmed Mary’s assumption into heaven.” This was in the 1992 book, The One Mediator, the Saints, and Mary, Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VIII, written by twelve Lutheran and ten Catholic scholars. The Lutherans agreed with a common statement on page 54: “Luther himself professed the Immaculate Conception as a pleasing thought, though not as an article of faith.” Also, the German Lutheran Julius Köstlin, author of a famous 1883 biography, Life of Luther, stated that “the Immaculate Conception” was “firmly maintained by Luther himself.” For more on this, see:
*
*
Some Protestants also believe that John the Baptist never sinned.
*
18) We believe in the necessity of good works as a consequence of salvation by faith, and not as the cause of salvation.
*
Several strains of Protestantism dissent from the strict, pure notion of faith alone (sola fide), where works have nothing whatsoever (formally) to do with salvation. In particular, we can point to Christian perfectionism. Wikipedia has an excellent, in-depth article with the same title. I cite it at some length:
Within many denominations of Christianity, Christian perfection is the theological concept of the process or the event of achieving spiritual maturity or perfection. The ultimate goal of this process is union with God characterized by pure love of God and other people as well as personal holiness or sanctification. Other terms used for this or similar concepts include entire sanctification, holiness, perfect love, the baptism with the Holy Spirit, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, baptism by fire, the second blessing, and the second work of grace. . . .
*
Traditional Quakerism uses the term perfection and teaches that it is the calling of a believer.

Perfection is a prominent doctrine within the Methodist tradition, . . . Methodists use the term Baptism of the Holy Spirit to refer to the second work of grace, entire sanctification.

Other denominations, such as the Lutheran Churches and Reformed Churches, reject the possibility of Christian perfection in this life as contrary to the doctrine of salvation by faith alone, . . .

In traditional Calvinism and high church Anglicanism, perfection was viewed as a gift bestowed on righteous persons only after their death (see Glorification). John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, was responsible for reviving the idea of spiritual perfection in Protestantism. . . . Wesley transformed Christian perfection as found in church tradition by interpreting it through a Protestant lens that understood sanctification in light of justification by grace through faith working by love. . . .

Wesley taught that the manifestation of being entirely sanctified included engagement in works of piety and works of mercy. . . .

Daniel L. Burnett, a professor at Wesley Biblical Seminary, writes that:

Views compatible with the Wesleyan understanding of entire sanctification were carried forward in later times by men like the medieval Catholic priest Thomas a Kempis, . . . the Dutch theologian Jacobus Arminius, the German Pietist Phillip Jacob Spener, the Quaker founder George Fox, the Anglican bishop Jeremy Taylor, and the English devotional writer William Law. Many of these influences fed into [John] Wesley’s heritage and laid the foundation for the development of his thought.

John Wesley wrote about the falsity of “faith alone”:

Beware of solifidianism; crying nothing but, ‘Believe, believe’ and condemning those as ignorant or legal who speak in a more scriptural way. At certain seasons, indeed, it may be right to treat of nothing but repentance, or merely of faith, or altogether of holiness; but, in general, our call is to declare the whole counsel of God, and to prophesy according to the analogy of faith. The written word treats of the whole and every particular branch of righteousness, descending to its minutest branches; as to be sober, courteous, diligent, patient, to honour all men. So, likewise, the Holy Spirit works the same in our hearts, not merely creating desires after holiness in general, but strongly inclining us to every particular grace, leading us to every individual part of ‘whatsoever is lovely.’ And this with the greatest propriety; for as ‘by works faith is made perfect’, so the completing or destroying the work of faith, and enjoying the favour, or suffering the displeasure, of God, greatly depends on every single act of obedience or disobedience. (A Plain Account of Christian Perfection, 1767; rev. 1777; in W xi, 431-432; from Farther Thoughts on Christian Perfection, 1762)

19) We believe that salvation is defined based on what we have done in this life only, with no second chances for salvation after death (whether through reincarnation, purgatory or the like).

There are two silly and absurd things here. Catholics don’t believe in a “second chance” for salvation after death. One’s eternal destiny is determined at the moment of death, and doesn’t change. Accordingly, all who are in purgatory, in our view, are saved and inevitably on the way to heaven. Secondly, no Christian, as the term has always been defined through history, believes in reincarnation. That said, now we can address purgatory. And yes, some serious Protestants believe in this, too. C. S. Lewis wrote:

Our souls demand Purgatory, don’t they? Would it not break the heart if God said to us, “It is true, my son, that your breath smells and your rags drip with mud and slime, but we are charitable here and no one will upbraid you with these things, nor draw away from you. Enter into the joy”? Should we not reply, “With submission, sir, and if there is no objection, I’d rather be cleaned first.” “It may hurt, you know” — “Even so, sir.”

I assume that the process of purification will normally involve suffering. Partly from tradition; partly because most real good that has been done me in this life has involved it. . . .

My favourite image on this matter comes from the dentist’s chair. I hope that when the tooth of life is drawn and I am “coming round,” a voice will say, “Rinse your mouth out with this.” This will be Purgatory. The rinsing may take longer than I can now imagine. The taste of this may be more fiery and astringent than my present sensibility could endure. (Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1964, 107-109)

See more on this and also Lewis’ belief in prayers for the dead. The Wikipedia article, “Purgatory” states:

Elements of the Anglican, Lutheran, and Methodist traditions hold that for some there is cleansing after death and pray for the dead, knowing it to be efficacious.

Wesleyan scholar Jerry L. Walls defended the doctrine in his book, Purgatory: The Logic of Total Transformation (Oxford University Press, 2011).

20) We believe that sins can and should be confessed directly to God, who forgives us if we are sincerely repentant, and that we can also confess our sins to one another (especially if we have sinned against them), and not under the obligation of a private confession to a priest or that forgiveness depends on that private confession.

Some Protestants accept this, too. John Wesley wrote:

Do not they yet know that the only Popish confession is the Confession made by a single person to a priest? — and this itself is in no wise condemned by our Church; nay, she recommends it in some cases. (A Plain Account of the People Called Methodists; in Coll. iv, 186 [W (1831) v. 176-190]; 1748)

C. S. Lewis, the famous Anglican apologist, believed in and practiced formal confession, as I discovered when reading the book, The Collected Letters of C. S. Lewis, Vol. II: Books, Broadcasts, and the War, 1931-1949, edited by Walter Hooper, HarperSanFrancisco, 2004. In a letter to his friend Mary Neylan on 4 January 1941 (“Supplement” section of  Volume III from 2007), Lewis gave a basic explanation, referring to “Confession and Absolution which our church enjoins on no-one but leaves free to all . . . the confessor is the representative of our Lord and declares His forgiveness” (p. 1540). Writing again to her on 26 April 1941 Lewis stated (p. 481) that practicing confession was “a desire to walk in well established ways which have the approval of Christendom as a whole.” See much more on this.

The Wikipedia article, “Absolution” has a wealth of information about various Protestant versions of confession and absolution. It states about Lutheranism:
The second form of confession and absolution is known as “Holy Absolution“, which is done privately to the pastor (commonly only upon request). Here the person confessing (known as the “penitent“) confesses his individual sins and makes an act of contrition as the pastor, acting in persona Christi, announces this following formula of absolution (or similar): “In the stead and by the command of my Lord Jesus Christ I forgive you all your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” In the Lutheran Church, the pastor is bound by the Seal of the Confessional (similar to the Roman Catholic tradition). Luther’s Small Catechism says “the pastor is pledged not to tell anyone else of sins told him in private confession, for those sins have been removed.”
And about Anglicanism:
In the Church of England and in the Anglican Communion in general, formal, sacramental absolution is given to penitents in the sacrament of penance now formally called the Reconciliation of a Penitent and colloquially called “confession.”
And in Methodism:
In the Methodist Church, penance is defined by the Articles of Religion as one of those “Commonly called Sacraments but not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel”, also known as the “five lesser sacraments“. John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist Church, held “the validity of Anglican practice in his day as reflected in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer“, stating that “We grant confession to men to be in many cases of use: public, in case of public scandal; private, to a spiritual guide for disburdening of the conscience, and as a help to repentance.” The Book of Worship of The United Methodist Church contains the rite for private confession and absolution in A Service of Healing II, in which the minister pronounces the words “In the name of Jesus Christ, you are forgiven!” . . .
*
Lay confession is permitted, although this is not the norm. Near the time of death, many Methodists confess their sins and receive absolution from an ordained minister, in addition to being anointed.
23) We believe that baptism and the Lord’s Supper are still valid today.
*
Note how vague and general this statement is. There is a good reason for that. It’s because Protestants have massive disagreements on the nature of these rites, which most of them agree with us in regarding them as sacraments. I could document this till kingdom come, but I’ll just provide a brief summary. From the beginning, Protestants differed on the Eucharist, with Luther and Lutherans following a view of the Real Presence, similar but not identical to the Catholic view (more like that of Orthodoxy). Zwingli opted for a completely symbolic Eucharist, and John Calvin took a middle position, of a mystical presence.
*
That’s basically the three views regained today, that is, unless one is a Quaker or member of the Salvation Army: neither of which practice it at all. An article by a Quaker explains:
As far as I know, there are only two Christian traditions who officially don’t celebrate the Eucharist: the Salvation Army and the Society of Friends (Quakers). A fellow student at Queen’s Theological Foundation, where I study Theology, who is a ‘Salvationist’, told me that there are many different reasons for the Salvation Army not celebrating the Eucharist, but these are two important ones: they have always regarded women as equal in ministry (and sacraments at the time were only distributable by men); and they believe that throughout history the sacraments have had a divisive influence on the church, and differing beliefs about them have led to abuse and controversy. . . .
*
The Quakers have never celebrated the Eucharist or any sacraments. . . . because Quakers find that all ritual distracts and takes focus away from God. Also, Quakers believe that ministry is not only equal between men and women, but that it belongs to all people, not just a few ministers.

Protestants got so ridiculous about the Eucharist within their first six decades, that in 1577, at Ingolstadt in Germany, a book entitled, Two Hundred Interpretations of the Words, “This is My Body” was published.

Note also that Lucas didn’t claim that Protestants agreed on ordination, because he knows that many of them now ordain women; nor that they can agree on something as fundamental as abortion (all of the mainline denominations favor it) or divorce, or whether practicing homosexuals can get married, or whether sodomy is a sin.

As for baptism, note that these two groups don’t practice that, either, despite it being a command of Jesus Christ (oh well). Beyond that, there are four major variations of baptism among Protestants, who are split into infant baptism and adult believers’ baptism camps (the former group, including Luther and Calvin and their followers, used to execute the latter for this reason).
Furthermore, the infant camp contains those who accept baptismal regeneration (Lutherans, Anglicans, and to some extent, Methodists), as does the adult camp (Churches of Christ and Disciples of Christ). Thus, there are five distinct competing belief-systems among Protestants with regard to baptism. They can’t even agree on these crucially important sacraments: both directly tied to salvation in Holy Scripture.
24) We believe that the Church consists of the body of Christ, the gathering together of all those saved in Christ wherever they are.
*
This is the “mystical body” and Catholics agree that it is comprised of the elect, known ultimately only by God. But various Protestants also hold to a “visible Church” that goes far beyond this limited conception. So, for example, John Calvin wrote:

In this Church there is a very large mixture of hypocrites, who have nothing of Christ but the name and outward appearance: of ambitious, avaricious, envious, evil-speaking men, some also of impurer lives, who are tolerated for a time, either because their guilt cannot be legally established, or because due strictness of discipline is not always observed. Hence, as it is necessary to believe the invisible Church, which is manifest to the eye of God only, so we are also enjoined to regard this Church which is so called with reference to man, and to cultivate its communion. (Institutes of the Christian Religion, IV, 1:7)

Still those of whom we have spoken sin in their turn, by not knowing how to set bounds to their offence. For where the Lord requires mercy they omit it, and give themselves up to immoderate severity. Thinking there is no church where there is not complete purity and integrity of conduct, they, through hatred of wickedness, withdraw from a genuine church, while they think they are shunning the company of the ungodly. They allege that the Church of God is holy. But that they may at the same time understand that it contains a mixture of good and bad, let them hear from the lips of our Saviour that parable in which he compares the Church to a net in which all kinds of fishes are taken, but not separated until they are brought ashore. Let them hear it compared to a field which, planted with good seed, is by the fraud of an enemy mingled with tares, and is not freed of them until the harvest is brought into the barn. Let them hear, in fine, that it is a thrashing-floor in which the collected wheat lies concealed under the chaff, until, cleansed by the fanners and the sieve, it is at length laid up in the granary. If the Lord declares that the Church will labour under the defect of being burdened with a multitude of wicked until the day of judgment, it is in vain to look for a church altogether free from blemish (Mt. 13). (Ibid., IV, 1:13)

Likewise, Martin Luther wrote:

The second kind of fellowship is an outward, bodily and visible fellowship, by which one is admitted to the Holy Sacrament and receives and partakes of it together with others. From this fellowship or communion bishop and pope can exclude one, and forbid it to him on account of his sin, and that is called putting him under the ban. . . . This external ban, both the lesser and the greater, was instituted by Christ when He said in Matthew xviii: “If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. If he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word or transaction may be established. If he will not hear them, then tell it unto the whole congregation, the Church. If he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee a heathen man and a publican.” [Matt. 18:15 ff.] Likewise St. Paul says in I Corinthians v: “If any man among you be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such an one keep not company, neither eat with him.” [1. Cor. 5:11] Again he says in II Thessalonians iii: “If any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.” [2 Thess. 3:14] Again, John says in his second Epistle: “If any one come unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed, and he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.” [2 John 10] . . . St. Paul limits the purpose of the ban to the correction of our neighbor, that he be put to shame when no one associates with him, and he adds in 11 Thessalonians iii: “Count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.” [2 Thess. 3:15] . . . To put under the ban is not, as some think, to deliver a soul to Satan and deprive it of the intercession and of all the good works of the Church. (A Treatise Concerning the Ban, 1520)

30) We believe in the final judgment, when God will judge both the righteous and the wicked; the righteous to receive the reward of eternal life, and the wicked to be condemned.
*
Note that Lucas doesn’t mention hell. And that’s because his own view in this respect is like the Seventh-Day Adventists. He believes in soul-sleep after death, and in annihilationism, which is a denial of the very biblical doctrine of an eternal hell of punishment and of the eternal existence of all souls. He classifies himself as a Protestant, but denies things that probably 95% of them or more believe. Thus, already, we see a doctrinal relativism concerning the doctrine of man (anthropology) and eschatology (last things).
*
Annihilationism is gaining ground as a fashionable view among even evangelical Protestants (usually more traditional). John Stott was one such figure who came to adopt it. F. F. Bruce — the great biblical scholar — wrote a letter to Stott in 1989, saying, “annihilation is certainly an acceptable interpretation of the relevant New Testament passages. . . For myself, I remain agnostic.”
*
In his book, The Problem of Pain, even C. S. Lewis sounds  like an annihilationist. He wrote:

But I notice that Our Lord, while stressing the terror of hell with unsparing severity usually emphasizes the idea not of duration but of finality. Consignment to the destroying fire is usually treated as the end of the story—not as the beginning of a new story. That the lost soul is eternally fixed in its diabolical attitude we cannot doubt: but whether this eternal fixity implies endless duration—or duration at all—we cannot say.

So the endless debates go in within Protestantism, with regard to this issue and many dozens of others. I have now shown, from Lucas’ own list, that in the ten areas which are Protestant distinctives and not in agreement with other Christians, there are always some Protestants who disagree. It’s theological relativism and ecclesiological chaos.
*
***
*
21) We believe that it is against the will of the Holy Spirit for heretics to be burned, since Jesus commanded us to love everyone, even our enemies.
All Christians have believed that snice the mid-18th century at the latest. Virtually all Christians believed in and practiced capital punishment for heresy before that time. So this discussion is useless and a wash. For the abundant history of Protestant scandals in this regard, see my web page, Protestantism: Historic Persecution & Intolerance.

*
***
*

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

Photo credit: my self-published 2003 book [see book and purchase information]

Summary: Protestant apologist Lucas Banzoli fails to prove — as I demonstrate with facts — that Protestants have things in common besides those that all Christians have in common.

2025-04-14T16:55:03-04:00

Photo credit: image by Kahunapule Michael Johnson, 1-22-16 [Flickr / CC BY-SA 2.0 license]

The following was drawn from my debate / book, Justification: A Catholic Perspective (Aug. 2023), vs. the Brazilian Calvinist Francisco Tourinho. We discussed the book of James at great length, and for some time I’ve been meaning to compile those portions, because the topic often comes up in debates on justification. I will be excerpting my words only, with slight editing. I use RSV for Bible citations. Breaks in the texts / citations will be noted by five asterisks.

*****

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

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

*****

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1) Faith alone doesn’t justify.

2) Faith alone is “dead”.

3) Faith alone is “barren”.

4) Faith alone cannot save.

And these are only the best and clearest Bible passages, in my estimation, that refute “faith alone.”

*****

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

James 2 is usually applied by Protestants to sanctification, but that is not what the passage says. It mentions “justified” (dikaioo: Strong’s word #1344) three times (2:21, 24-25): the same Greek word used in Romans 4:2, as well as 2:13; 3:20, 24, 28; 5:1, 9; 8:30; 1 Corinthians 6:11; Galatians 2:16-17; 3:11, 24; 5:4; and Titus 3:7. If James actually meant sanctification, on the other hand, he could have used one of two Greek words (hagiazo hagiasmos: Strong’s #37-38) that appear (together) 38 times in the New Testament (the majority of times by Paul himself).

*****

The problem is Francisco’s contention that James was dealing with “libertines”: ones who “were like demons who have a dead faith.” That would seem to me to be non-Christians, who don’t have an authentic, living faith, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and God’s grace, rather than a dead belief akin to that of the demons. But the actual text (in its overall context) doesn’t assert these things.

James refers in 2:1 to his readers as “My brethren” who “hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Then he calls them “my beloved brethren” (2:5) and “my brethren” again in 2:14. This is in line with the epistle before and after chapter 2. James refers to them as “brethren” (4:11; 5:7, 9-10, 12), “my brethren” (1:2; 3:1, 10, 12; 5:19), and “my beloved brethren” (1:16, 19). St. Paul also massively used the title of “brethren” to all the Christian in the congregations that he loved and wrote to and shepherded.

So this is Francisco’s problem: the text doesn’t support this particular argument of his. When James refers in 2:19 to “You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe — and shudder” he is referring to the same people that he called “my brethren” five verses earlier. It’s no doubt a rhetorical flourish, but it seems to me that it still relates to what was before.

It’s much like Paul’s letter to the Galatians. He calls the Galatian Christians “brethren” ten times. . . .

These are undeniably fellow Christians in the book of James as well; therefore, the argument that James is writing to libertines or some form of antinomians is not supported. Thus, when faith and works are written about, it’s related to fellow Christians, just as Paul does in, for example, Romans 2:5-13, which is all about the necessity of good works, or in Galatians. There is no reason that I can see, for James to write his entire letter to “libertines”; he’s writing to Christians. And so what he says to them won’t be substantially different from what Paul writes to those in his charge. He’s not going to write about faith only in terms of what other people think of them, but of authentic faith in God.

The Navarre Commentary observed about James 2:23:

“It was reckoned to him as righteousness”: St. Paul (cf. Gal 3:6 and note) uses these words of Genesis 15:6 to explain that righteousness is attained not just by Abraham’s descendants but by all who believe the word of God, whether they be Jews or not; St. James, from another perspective, quotes this text to show that Abraham’s faith made him righteous, that is, holy. Both teachings are complementary. Abraham believed in the divine promise that he would be the father of a great people despite his age and his wife’s sterility; but that faith was reinforced and manifested when it met the test God set — that of sacrificing his only son, while still believing in the earlier promise. The same thing happens in the case of the Christian: his initial faith is strengthened by obedience to the commandments, and he thereby attains holiness.

St. John Henry Cardinal Newman, writing when he was still an Anglican in 1838 (Lectures on the Doctrine of Justification: rev. 1874; London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 3rd edition, 1908), has several insightful things (as always) to say about this general issue and James in particular:

St. Paul says, we are justified without works; what works? “works of,” or done under, “the Law,” the Law of Moses, through which the Law of Nature spoke in the ears of the Jews. But St. James speaks of works done under what he calls “the royal Law,” “the Law of liberty,” which we learn from St. Paul is “the Law of the Spirit of Life,” for “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty;” in other words, the Law of God, as written on the heart by the Holy Ghost. St. Paul speaks of works done under the letter, St. James of works done under the Spirit. This is surely an important difference in the works respectively mentioned. Or, to state the same thing differently: St. James speaks, not of mere works, but of works of faith, of good and acceptable works. I do not suppose that any one will dispute this, and therefore shall take it for granted. St. James then says, we are justified, not by faith only, but by good works. Now St. Paul is not speaking at all of good works, but of works done in the flesh and of themselves “deserving God’s wrath and damnation.” He says, “without works;” he does not say without good works; whereas St. James is speaking of good works solely. St. Paul speaks of “works done before the grace of Christ and the inspiration of His Spirit;” St. James of “good works which are the fruits of faith and follow after justification.” (ch. 12)

St. Paul never calls those works which he says do not justify “good works,” but simply “works,”—”works of the Law,”—”deeds of the Law,”—”works not in righteousness,”—”dead works;” what have these to do with works or fruits of the Spirit? Of these latter also St. Paul elsewhere speaks, and by a remarkable contrast he calls them again and again “good works.” For instance, “By grace are ye saved through faith, … not of works, lest any man should boast; for we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works.” This surely is a most pointed intimation that the works which do not justify are not good, or, in other words, are works before justification. As to works after, which are good, whether they justify or not, he does not decide so expressly as St. James, the error which he had to resist leading him another way. He only says, against the Judaizing teachers, that our works must begin, continue, and end in faith. But to proceed; he speaks elsewhere of “abounding in every good work,” of being “fruitful in every good work,” of being “adorned with good works,” of being “well reported of for good works,” “diligently following every good work,” of “the good works of some being open beforehand,” of being “rich in good works,” of being “prepared unto every good work,” of being “throughly furnished unto all good works,” of being “unto every good work reprobate,” of being “a pattern of good works,” of being “zealous of good works,” of being “ready to every good work,” of being “careful to maintain good works,” of “provoking unto love and to good works,” and of being “made perfect in every good work.” [2 Cor. ix. 8. Eph. ii. 10. Col. i. 10. 2 Thess. ii. 17. 1 Tim. ii. 10; v. 10, 25; vi. 18. 2 Tim. ii. 21; iii. 17. Tit. i. 16; ii. 7, 14; iii. 8, 14. Heb. x. 24; xiii. 21.] Now surely this is very remarkable. St. James, though he means good works, drops the epithet, and only says works. Why does not St. Paul the same? why is he always careful to add the word good, except that he had also to do with a sort of works with which St. James had not to do,—that the word works was already appropriated by him to those of the Law, and therefore that the epithet good was necessary, lest deeds done in the Spirit should be confused with them? St. Paul, then, by speaking of faith as justifying without works, means without corrupt and counterfeit works, not without good works. (ch. 12)

“By works,” says St. James, “a man is justified, and not by faith only.” Now, let me ask, what texts do their opponents shrink from as they from this? do they even attempt to explain it? or if so, is it not by some harsh and unnatural interpretation? Next, do they not proceed, as if distrusting their own interpretation, to pronounce the text difficult, and so to dispose of it? yet who can honestly say that it is in itself difficult? rather, can words be plainer, were it not that they are forced into connection with a theory of the sixteenth century; . . . (ch. 12)

Similarly, he wrote again on 26 January 1840: still over five-and-a-half years before becoming a Catholic:

The way of salvation is by works, as under the Law, but it is by “works which spring out of faith,” and which come of “the inspiration of the Spirit.” It is because works are living and spiritual, from the heart, and by faith, that the Gospel is a new covenant. Hence in the passages above quoted we are told again and again of “the law in our inward parts;” “a new heart;” “a new spirit;” the Holy “Spirit within us;” “newness of life,” and “circumcision of the heart in the Spirit.” And hence St. Paul says, that though we have not been “saved by works,” yet we are “created unto good works;” and that “the blood of Christ purges the conscience from dead works to serve the living God.” Salvation then is not by dead works, but by living works. . . . And thus there is no opposition between St. Paul and St. James. St. James says, that justification is by works, and St. Paul that it is by faith: but, observe, St. James does not say that it is by dead or Jewish works; he mentions expressly both faith and works; he only says, “not faith only but works also:”—and St. Paul is far from denying it is by works, he only says that it is by faith and denies that it is by dead works. And what proves this, among other circumstances, is, that he never calls those works, which he condemns and puts aside, good works, but simply works: whenever he speaks of good works in his Epistles, he speaks of Christian works; not of Jewish. On the whole, then, salvation is both by faith and by works. St. James says, not dead faith, and St. Paul, not dead works. St. James, “not by faith only,” for that would be dead faith: St Paul, “not by works only,” for such would be dead works. Faith alone can make works living; works alone can make faith living. Take away either, and you take away both;—he alone has faith who has works,—he alone has works who has faith. (Parochial and Plain Sermonsvol. 5, Sermon 12: “The New Works of the Gospel”)

*****

James 2:10 has to be interpreted and understood in light of related verses (cross-referencing and systematic theology). The Bible does not teach that all sins are absolutely equal. This is easy to prove. . . .

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

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

*****

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

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

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

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

*****

James 2:1 is not about proving our faith to other persons by works, but about treating people equally, as classic Protestant commentaries agree:
*
Bengel’s Gnomen: The equality of Christians, as indicated by the name of brethren, is the basis of this admonition.
*
Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers: “Ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ,” wrote St. Paul to the proud and wealthy men of Corinth (2Corinthians 8:9), “that, though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that ye through His poverty might be rich;” and, with more cogent an appeal, to the Philippians (James 2:4-7), “In lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves: look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others. Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God”i.e., Very God, and not appearance merely—nevertheless “thought not His equality with God a thing to be always grasped at,” as it were some booty or prize, “but emptied Himself” of His glory, “and took upon Him the shape of a slave.” Were these central, nay initial, facts of the faith believed then; or are they now? If they were in truth, how could there be such folly and shame as “acceptance of persons” according to the dictates of fashionable society and the world? “Honour,” indeed, “to whom honour” is due (Romans 13:7).
*
Meyer’s NT Commentary: In close connection with the thought contained in chap. Jam 1:27, that true worship consists in the exhibition of compassionate love, James proceeds to reprove a practice of his readers, consisting in a partial respect to the rich and a depreciation of the poor, which formed the most glaring contrast to that love. . . . their faith should not be combined with a partial respect of persons.
*
Calvin’s Commentaries: [H]e does not simply disapprove of honor being paid to the rich, but that this should not be done in a way so as to despise or reproach the poor; and this will appear more clearly, when he proceeds to speak of the rule of love. Let us therefore remember that the respect of persons here condemned is that by which the rich is so extolled, wrong is done to the poor, which also he shews clearly by the context . . .
*****
James 2:7 extends the same thought expressed in James 2:1-6: preferential treatment of the rich over the poor. Hence, James 1:6 (RSV, as throughout) states: “But you have dishonored the poor man. Is it not the rich who oppress you, is it not they who drag you into court?” The point is about Christian ethical hypocrisy and double standards, not about proving the validity of one’s faith to men, as if James supposedly isn’t talking about faith like Paul and Jesus do.
*****
I don’t see that James is operating with an entirely different conception of works (“before men only, and not before God”). To the contrary, James, just like Paul, ties both faith and works into salvation, not just flattering and God-honoring appearances before men. They are connected to salvation itself (1:12, 21-22; 2:14) as well as to justification (2:21, 24-25); both things directed “Godward” and not merely towards other persons.
*****
There is indeed a sense in which we prove the genuineness of our faith in the world and the Church, and provide a good witness. But this sense doesn’t exclude the organic connection between faith and works / justification and sanctification: directly tied to salvation.
*****

Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (one-volume edition, pp. 172-173) states regarding the meaning of James 2:24:

How we can be righteous before God is dealt with in 2:23-24. The concern here is to combat a dead orthodoxy that divides faith and works. The works that justify are not legalistic observances but the works of loving obedience that Paul calls the fruit of the Spirit. Abraham was justified by a faith which found fulfillment in works. . . . the practical concern, namely, that the only valid faith is one that produces works, is very much in line with the total proclamation of the NT, including that of Paul himself.

*****

Luke 16:15 presents an entirely negative slant on “justification before men” because Jesus condemns it. This hardly supports Francisco’s view of James on faith and works, where he asserts that it is the same as what Paul teaches, but is from a pastoral / “before men” perspective. So he contradicts himself. Is such “justification” entirely bad (Jesus) or good (as supposedly in James)? Catholics say that Paul and James are talking about exactly the same thing, and that “justification before men” is a bad thing (pride / inflated self-importance / spiritual arrogance): as authoritatively explained by Jesus.

*****

The author of Hebrews is not a whit different from Paul or James when discussing faith.

*****

We see that both faith and works can bring about justification, especially by an analogical comparison of the biblical use of this term “reckoning” (and both applied to one person in the case of Abraham; and both types of justification are applied to him in one chapter of one book: James 2):

Faith

Genesis 15:6 And he believed the LORD; and he reckoned it to him as righteousness.

1 Maccabees 2:52 Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness?

Romans 4:3, 5, 9, 11 For what does the scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” . . . [5] And to one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness. . . . [9] We say that faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness. . . . [11] The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised and who thus have righteousness reckoned to them,

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

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

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

Works

Psalms 106:30-31 Then Phin’ehas stood up and interposed, and the plague was stayed. [31] And that has been reckoned to him as righteousness from generation to generation for ever.

James 2:21-22, 24-25 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, . . . [24] You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. . . . [25] And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?

Faith and Works

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

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

*****

Scripture obviously distinguishes between faith and works. But of course works are in close and necessary conjunction with faith (“faith without works is dead, etc.). The Venerable Bede (c. 673-735), commenting on James 2:21, puts both together in a helpful fashion:

James makes deft use of the example of Abraham in order to provoke those Jews who imagined that they were worthy followers of their great ancestor. In order to show them that they did not come up to the mark in times of trial and to test their faith by specific examples, James takes Abraham as his model. For what greater trial could there be than to demand that a man sacrifice his beloved son and heir? How much more would Abraham have preferred to give all the food and clothing he possessed to the poor than to be forced to make this supreme sacrifice at God’s command? James is merely echoing what it says in Hebrews: “By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was ready to offer up his only son, of whom it was said, ‘Through Isaac shall your descendants be named.’ ” (Heb 11;17-18)  Looking at one and the same sacrifice, James praised the magnificence of Abraham’s work, while Paul praised the constancy of his faith. But in reality the two men are saying exactly the same thing, because they both knew that Abraham was perfect in his faith as well as in his works, and each one merely emphasized that aspect of the incident which his own audience was most in need of hearing.

Andreas of Caesarea (563-614) insightfully elaborates on the same passage:

Now someone might object to this and say: “Did Paul not use Abraham as an example of someone who was justified by faith, without works? And here James is using the very same Abraham as an example of someone who was justified, not by faith alone, but also by works which confirm that faith.” How can we answer this? And how can Abraham be an example of faith without works, as well as of faith with works, at the same time? But the solution is ready to hand from the Scriptures. For the same Abraham is at different times an example of both kinds of faith. The first is prebaptismal faith, which does not require works but only confession and the word of salvation, by which those who believe in Christ are justified. The second is postbaptismal faith, which is combined with works. Understood in this way, the two apostles do not contradict one another, but one and the same Spirit is speaking through both of them.

Cyril of Alexandria (c. 376-444), wrote even earlier about this passage:

On the one hand, the blessed James says that Abraham was justified by works when he bound Isaac his son on the altar, but on the other hand Paul says that he was justified by faith, which appears to be contradictory. However, this is to be understood as meaning that Abraham believed before he had Isaac and that Isaac was given to him as a reward for his faith. Likewise, when he bound Isaac to the altar, he did not merely do the work which was required of him, but he did it with the faith that in Isaac his seed would be as numberless as the stars of heaven, believing that God could raise him from the dead. (Rm 4:18-25)

Justification in Catholic soteriology is ongoing. One might draw an analogy to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. He is first received through baptism: “be baptized . . . and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit”: Acts 2:38; ” ‘that you [St. Paul] may . . . be filled with the Holy Spirit.’ . . .  Then he rose and was baptized”: Acts 9:17-18; “by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit”: Titus 3:5. Yet, despite having already received the Holy Spirit into ourselves at baptism, St. Paul nevertheless refers to an ongoing sense of receiving Him to a fuller degree, too. Both/and once again . . .:

Ephesians 5:18 . . .  be filled with the Spirit,

*****

The notion of Rahab being justified before the spies is simply read into the passage (eisegesis). Of course she had faith. It’s always there alongside good works. But, bottom-line; when Scripture comes up with words to describe her justification, it wasn’t by faith:

James 2:24-25  You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. [25] And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?

So the Bible says that she had “faith” (Heb 11:31), but when it describes her justification it specifically mentioned works. Faith + works is no problem for us (both/and), but it is for a falsely dichotomous “faith alone” / “justification only by faith” Protestant view (either/or).

*****

I agree that there is a witness before men; I don’t see how that is justification in the secondary Protestant sense. If it’s regarded as such within the Protestant paradigm, it could have nothing to do with salvation, because they’ve already removed works altogether from that scenario.

*****

Good works are directly in play in James 2:1, as opposed to trying to bolster one’s reputation. It’s not contradictory to having a good report, etc., but the latter notion is not to be found directly in the text. It’s not the main thought, and the essence of James 2 is what we are debating.

*****

If good works are this organically connected to faith (which is what James is plainly teaching), then how is it that Protestants try to separate what the New Testament does not separate? It reminds me of Matthew 19:6, where Jesus says: “What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.”

*****

Catholics believe in an initial monergistic justification, just as Protestants do. But unlike them, we think there is a continuing sense of the word, too, and when the process continues, works are necessarily present and part and parcel of justification, since faith without works is dead (per James). In this way, good works cannot be abstractly separated from faith, according to the Bible. In other words, the grace-filled and grace-enabled works have something directly to do with salvation, too.

*****

Francisco says that Genesis 22:15-18 does not refer to justification and tries to make it merely a thing having to do with God’s covenant with Abraham. The big problem with this is that it is explicitly contradicted by James 2:21-24, which states in no uncertain terms that Abraham was “justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar” (2:21) and that this extraordinary work was precisely what proved that Abraham “believed” and that the working out of his faith “was reckoned to him as righteousness” (2:22-23). Then, if the reader has still not grasped what is being taught, James reiterates: “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” (2:24).

*****

James’ point is that faith without works is dead. The only one that needs to be “shown” anything is the one described by James as a “shallow man” (2:20). Humorously (given the historic debate), James, throughout the passage, defines the shallow person as the one who believes in “faith alone” (the standard Protestant position). I can certainly understand how it would be embarrassing to have one’s position described in the Bible as “shallow”. Christians must always — we are duty-bound to — follow the Bible wherever it leads, whether it follows our predispositions and preferences or not. The latter must be guided by the Bible.

*****

Rahab is included in the roster of the heroes of faith (Heb 11:31). Why? It’s because “she had given friendly welcome to the spies” [in Jericho]. James says that she  was “justified by works” because “she received the messengers and sent them out another way” (2:25). But alas, we have Francisco (contra the author of Hebrews and James) to tell us that the inspired revelation of the Bible is wrong about that, and that, in fact, her good works were not good works. “As for me and my house” we will choose biblical teaching rather than Francisco’s, in cases where they conflict.

*****

James never calls Rahab a liar, nor does anyone else in the Bible, that I can find.

*****

The Bible states in context (God speaking through the angel of the LORD), “because you have done this . . . I will indeed bless you, and I will multiply your descendants . . . because you have obeyed my voice” (Gen 22:16-18). Thus, it’s firmly established in Genesis 22 that it was a work of Abraham that brought about God’s renewed covenant with him.

Knowing this, James simply called it what it was:, using different but conceptually equivalent terminology “Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?” (James 2:21). James — take note — doesn’t deny that Abraham also had faith, which was part of his justification as well (2:18, 20, 22-24, 26). We already knew Abraham was justified by a work in Genesis 22 because God rewarded him for something he had “done” and because he “obeyed” him.

*
***
*

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

Photo credit: image by Kahunapule Michael Johnson, 1-22-16 [Flickr / CC BY-SA 2.0 license]

Summary: I explain the Catholic view of justification in James (same as Paul’s view) over against the Protestant position that it has a different, lesser meaning of “works done before men.”

2025-04-09T11:23:57-04:00

Photo credit: Healing of the Blind Man, by Carl Bloch (1834-1890) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

[see also the Brazilian Portugese version]

Yes; a supernatural healing is what I’m claiming, and I can substantiate it with both my history of stomach problems and the systematic way in which I’ve experimented over a two-week period by trying out the various, numerous foods I haven’t been able to eat  — most for many years — , since the suspected miracle. I went about it pretty much as the Church does when it investigates purported miraculous occurrences of various sorts, with an examination entailing empirical evidence and reason. That’s not skepticism; rather, it’s the blending of belief in the miraculous, with objective ways of determining when a specific purported miracle has actually occurred or not, so that it can more effectively be shared to the world as a testimony of God’s power and mercy and love.

I’ve never been skeptical of miracles since I dedicated my life to God in the spring of 1977. I have defended them in my writings and have always believed — both as a Protestant evangelical and as a Catholic — that all the charismatic gifts are operative in the Church today, and that even the most dramatic, extraordinary miracles still occur: such as the raising of the dead. In fact, I have been saying since 1978 that I was healed of serious, clinical depression, that I experienced for about six months in 1977. I’ve never had serious depression since that time.

Let me describe my background in this respect. Once it’s understood, the striking nature of the miraculous healing is all the more manifest. I used to eat absolutely anything I wanted (and — those were the days! — wouldn’t gain any weight, either) up till about roughly the time I got married (October 1984) at age 26. But in 1983 I started eating a lot less sugar, as I had hypoglycemia.

At that time, many doctors were very skeptical that the condition even existed (it was usually collapsed into a variant of diabetes if it was acknowledged at all): much as many doctors today are skeptical regarding fibromyalgia and Lyme Disease. But I read a few books, figured out that it was likely what I had (since I felt lousy at the ripe old age of 25 and otherwise healthy). So I started the new diet and in due course (after a withdrawal period) I felt great.

My wife Judy and I have tried to eat as healthy as finances allowed throughout our entire marriage, and we strongly believe in holistic health, alternative medicine, and herbalism (while not in the least discounting the many great treatments of conventional medicine: “both/and”), and have experienced the relief or disappearance of many symptoms and maladies through the years, that I have written about, so others could benefit from the same knowledge.

One of the first things I remember with regard to difficulties when eating certain foods would have been in the second half of the 80s, with extracts. This problem may have also been with alcohol, because they all have them. I discovered that after we made various puddings and cookies that included extracts. The next thing I recall having a big problem with is salad dressing, where the culprit is vinegar. Acidic foods are very numerous and go far beyond citric acid (as in orange juice) and acetic acid (vinegar).

Increasingly through the years it became clear that I had the classic ulcer symptoms, and had problems with acidy foods, herbs and spices, pepper, concentrated or dried foods, extracts, alcohol, and carbonated drinks. Scientists now know that ulcers do not derive from simply worrying too much and/or stress in general (‘m not a “worrier” type anyway). The most common cause is a bacteria, Helicobacter pylori. A second cause is the over-use or extended use of NSAIDs (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medicines): pain and fever medicines such as aspirin, ibuprofen, and naproxen (none of which I take; I use acetaminophen [Tylenol]). I’ve taken various digestive aids for many years (particularly one called Super-Digestaway, which has become very expensive).

In addition to an ulcer, I seem to have developed IBS (irritable bowel syndrome) or something like it. This caused me to have trouble digesting food just about every day. The problems (usually bloating) generally started in the mid-afternoon and extended into the evenings and sometimes overnight, too. Not infrequently I’d wake up in pain in the middle of the night, and pop Rolaids. I also increasingly had difficulties when I didn’t eat often enough. It’s thought that the onset of IBS may be triggered by a great amount of stress, and I did indeed experience extreme stress and even severe trauma in the year 2024.

So that’s where I was at on March 10th (eleven days ago as I write): chomping Rolaids like candy, using a heating pad almost every night to relieve the bloating, heartburn, sour stomach, cramping, and plain old stomach aches. At the worst times I would take a hot bath or drink chamomile tea. Blessedly, all four of these remedies worked pretty well. But they were strictly temporary, and I wanted more than a “Band-Aid”. I resolved to try to get rid of the root causes, because it gets old having to do these things every day. I was starting to not even enjoy eating, which had never happened before.

I tried the standard conventional “triple therapy” treatment for ulcers (having no objection to it: “if it works, it works” [pragmatism]). According to one study in the journal, Digestion, it brought about a cure rate of 84%. But for some reason I was in the 16%. Then I tried various and sundry natural (usually herbal) remedies, including one herb known in Brazil, recommended by a doctor there who knew me on Facebook. That didn’t work, either. So I restricted my diet more and more, eventually trying to eat less at a time, too (which is said to help), but nothing worked. I’ve also sought to avoid excessive seed oils (I earned that oils are high-acid, too), after doing some research on that, and bioengineered foods and harmful additives to food, in the last six months, and to eat as many non-GMO / organic foods as I can find — and afford, as they can be quite pricey.

Apart from my family, people who have been following my work, especially on Facebook, are familiar with my stomach problems, because I have written about them several times and put up low-acid / low-spice recipes. They know what I’ve gone through, and that it has been a long-term and relatively serious problem. Of course “in-person” friends are also aware of this, since it comes up every time I am at some gathering and food is provided, or at restaurants. This also verifies the miraculous nature of what has happened to me.

That’s the backdrop behind my daughter Angelina telling me about a healing service; part of a Catholic organization that she has been involved with, called Encounter Ministries, co-founded by Fr. Mathias Thelen, author of the book, Biblical Foundations for the Role of Healing in Evangelization (Wipf and Stock, 2017), and Patrick Reis, and advised by Dr. Mary Healy, professor of Sacred Scripture at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, author of many books, and advisor to Pope Francis.

I attended this event at St. Patrick’s Catholic Parish in Brighton, Michigan, on Monday evening, March 10th, 2025. After a time of worship and a few testimonies of past healings, several teams of prayer-warriors (usually consisting of four people) were formed in order to pray for specific healing requests. When my turn came, I explained to one of the teams what my problems were (basically a very brief capsule summary of the above). They started praying, together at first and then one-by-one. While the fourth person was praying, I experienced a “flushed” feeling, or warmth in my head which then went down with a sort of tingling to my stomach: what I described to them as “like goose-bumps.”

Apparently, in healings, there is often some sort of feeling like this. They then prayed a second time, individually, but the experience didn’t happen again. I thanked them all and wondered if I had been healed or not. I didn’t rule it out, especially since my daughter had told me that according to what she had learned in her studies attending Encounter, that sometimes it took a day or two before people experienced healings after prayer.  Time would tell.

On either Monday or Tuesday night (this is the only detail I don’t remember for certain), as I was laying in bed about to go to sleep, I experienced an intense sort of little “explosion” in the pit of my stomach and very intense pain for maybe 10-20 seconds. I thought that this might possibly be another manifestation or sign of a healing, because of its unique nature. I had the usual problems and symptoms on Tuesday, the day after the prayers for healing. But starting on Wednesday (March 12th), the symptoms of ulcer and IBS disappeared, and have not returned since (thirteen days ago as I write).

Being systematic and methodical as I am, I decided after four days of this, to start testing out foods, to verify whether a miraculous healing had occurred. On Sunday (March 16th) on the way to church I announced to my wife and daughter that I may have been healed, because of the lack of all adverse symptoms for four days, and after church the first thing I ate was a large order of crinkle fries at Arby’s, with a significant amount of ketchup (i.e., vinegar).I could still eat fries prior to the healing, but it had to be without ketchup (boring!). Even so I noticed that when I ate them at home, I would react to the (acidy) olive oil on the potatoes (even from an organic brand that we bought). I couldn’t win for losing! But this time, I had no adverse reaction at all.

On Tuesday, March 18th, I had a granola cereal for breakfast that gave me trouble the time before (from oil, cinnamon, and cardamom). Then for lunch I had a tuna sandwich with mayo and pickles. For dinner I had homemade pizza on whole wheat pita bread (we’ve done that for 40 years) with (acidy) pineapples, and at night, Triscuit crackers. The oil in those had caused me problems a week or so earlier. But after all of that “forbidden” food in one day, my stomach and intestines were perfectly fine.

On Wednesday, March 19th, “Day Nine” after the healing,  I had another tuna sandwich and hot rice cereal with raisins (the latter had been a digestive problem, as a dried food). Again, success!

On Thursday, March 20th, Day Ten, I had more fries and ketchup for a snack in the evening, with no problems again.

On Friday, March 21st, Day 11, I had more Triscuits and cheese for lunch. For dinner we had what used to be one of my favorite foods: tuna salad, with whole wheat elbow noodles, sweet relish, and mayo. The mayonnaise (from the brand Simple Truth, sold at Kroger’s and with a taste very similar to Miracle Whip) itself contained vinegar, soybean oil, egg yolk, mustard, and lemon juice: all of which I couldn’t previously eat for some time.

It was fabulous! I remarked over dinner how I was really starting to enjoy food again, as it should be. I had almost lost that pleasure, even with my favorite foods: perhaps largely because of the boredom and repetition of a severely restricted diet. I guess the anxiety about adverse reactions might psychologically work against the pleasure of taste buds, too. At night, I snacked on toast with butter, honey and cinnamon. But now everything was again fine. God is so good and loving!

On Saturday, March 22nd, Day 12, at dinnertime I “dared” to attempt the “nuclear option”: pizza (Jet’s, Detroit deep dish style) with pepperoni and green peppers. For years, I have continued to eat pizza made with pineapple chunks, which were removed before I ate (one still tastes the juice). At least I could still eat that. My drink at dinner was A&W root beer. All of this was successful too.

On Sunday, March 23rd, Day 13, I continued testing by having a ham sandwich with mayo, mustard, ketchup, and “hot” pickles. For dinner, the “new” foods were sweet and sour sauce (Kraft brand) on breaded chicken (I used to also love that combination as a kid). No problems!

On Monday, March 24th, Day 14, I had root beer for my drink at lunch. No symptoms at all. If anyone has a “natural” explanation for this, feel free! I’d love to see it.

I think I can safely say that the healing of my ulcer and IBS is by now more than abundantly confirmed. Praise God! All glory and honor to Him! It gives me great pleasure to be able to proclaim this testimony and report (with evidence from my own experience) that God is still in the healing business today, just as He always has been. I’ve experienced it now twice. As you can see, this miracle has been thoroughly and exhaustively documented. Others in my family have had healings, too. My son Paul had a serious knee problem that was healed on the same night. And he had been healed before some years ago of a muscular and bone issue.

The two mistakes people all too frequently make with regard to healing miracles involve going to one of two extremes: believing either that God never heals in this day and age or that He always does, by our command, as it were (a serious and dangerous error that I refuted at length in a treatise way back in 1982, as a Protestant charismatic: one of my first major apologetics efforts). Don’t let the devil mislead you with either of these lies. What we do know — from the Bible and from scientific and eyewitness verification — is that God still heals today: in His own time and place and for His own purposes: usually unknown or not fully known by us mere mortals. It usually is connected with a strong faith in the person who is healed, but not always, per the Bible and the experience of observation. That said, no one has anything to lose and has a lot to possibly gain by asking and praying for healing. It’s very real. I urge all to believe it, and pray for it. Don’t ignore this part of the Bible. Unfortunately, however, most Catholic parishes do ignore or disbelieve it, and that’s a great shame.

To top it off, I looked up what feast day fell on March 10th: the day I was healed. It’s St. John Ogilvie (1579-1615), a Scotsman who was raised in a noble family as a Calvinist, converted, and became a Jesuit priest and martyr. He’s the only post-“Reformation” Scottish saint. Being part Scottish myself (Armstrong being a border clan), and a convert, I think it’s very appropriate. I love how God is involved in every detail. He’s wonderful in that way

ADDENDUM 1 (3-26-25): Garlic and Onion Factors

I did experience on 3-25-25 my first adverse digestive issue in two weeks (semi-diarrhea). So what I did is do what I’ve always done: trace what I ate and determine what food correlates with the problem. And what I had eaten was, in the space of a few days, two 8 oz, bags of Lays’ Barbecue Chips, mostly accompanied by French Onion dip. I had a lot of that last might at about 11 PM by itself, so there was a clear correlation. Now, what do they both have in common? It’s dried onion and garlic. I did a little quick research on that (and the related onion and garlic powder) and discovered, apart from the obvious matter of greater concentration, that dried onion and garlic often have unlisted preservatives added to them, too. I think it’s this distinction, plus the great quantities I have eaten in testing the miracle, and my usual not-enough-water, that are the culprits. The dip is sour cream-based, too (see Addendum 2 below).

What this reveals to me is that I’m still sensitive (if not allergic) to at least the dried / dehydrated type of onion and garlic. I have, in fact, been eating some amount of “straight” garlic and onion for years with no problem, in our old standby, Little Caesar’s pizza.  And I have had it in spaghetti sauce (Prego or Ragu) that we use for homemade pizza, our entire marriage; and we would put onion slices on top of homemade baked beans in the crock pot, etc.  This shows me that it’s the dried, concentrated element and/or “hidden” preservatives added to it that is likely the specific problem, and that it’s probably still possible to eat both in much smaller quantities.

With the above qualifications in mind, I have removed the foods that I reported as having eaten with no problem that had onion and/or garlic in them, so I’m not misrepresenting anything. It’s true that for two weeks I had no symptoms of digestive problems at all (I didn’t exaggerate or misreport anything), so there is some mystery to this, and God wants us to use our minds to analyze things, and to be sensible and balanced and prudent. The many and various foods that remain listed above in all my days of testing, have been eaten without any adverse reactions.

ADDENDUM 2 (4-9-25): Regarding Food Allergies or Sensitivities

I originally claimed that I was healed of my ulcer, irritable bowel syndrome (IBC) and “food allergies.” At the time, after massive testing of various foods, that seemed to be the case, by all indications. But now, thirty days after my healing took place, it appears fairly certain that I was not healed of all of my “food difficulties” or allergies or “oversensitivity” to certain foods. I have sought to be scientific and reasoned about this all along and to be as candid and honest as I can be. It’s still evident — I want to emphasize this — that I have been healed of my ulcer and IBS, because the symptoms of those are very clear: particularly the negative response to acids and spices and other classic symptoms (ulcer) and the distinctive daily bloating, usually in the evening (IBS). Those are gone, and there hasn’t been any variability in (the absence of) my reactions.

It’s simply a matter of accurately identifying exactly what was healed and what is not healed as I go through my daily eating routine. Digestive difficulties are complex and multi-faceted. It seems that I still have, for example, my lactose intolerance. And yesterday I had mushroom soup for the first time in many 30 (?) years, and had an adverse reaction that could only have been that. I’m still not totally sure about peanut butter and eggs (two foods that many people have trouble digesting), and have to test those some more. So some of these non-ulcer / non-IBS problems were not healed. I can still say that I have a “sensitive stomach.” As with the garlic and onion, I will remove references to these foods, and modify my title too, so as not to leave an erroneous impression.

*
***
*

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

Photo credit: Healing of the Blind Man, by Carl Bloch (1834-1890) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: I explain in great detail and specificity, the miraculous healing of my serious digestive problems on 3-10-25, including a rundown of numerous “tests” I did to verify the change.

2025-04-01T17:56:17-04:00

Five Biblical Proofs

Photo credit: Healing of the Cripple and Raising of Tabitha, by Masolino da Panicale (1383-1447) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Charles Henry Hamilton Wright (1836-1909) was an Irish Anglican clergyman. He graduated from Trinity College, Dublin, in 1857, was the Grinfield lecturer on the Septuagint at Oxford (1893–97), vicar of Saint John’s, Liverpool (1891–98), examiner in Hebrew at the University of London (1897–99), and clerical superintendent of the Protestant Reformation Society (1898–1907). He authored a number of books, including The Intermediate State and Prayers for the Dead (1900) and the volume I will be examining, Roman Catholicism, or The Doctrines of the Church of Rome Briefly Examined in the Light of Scripture (London: The Religious Tract Society, revised 5th ed., 1926).

His words will be in blue. I use RSV for biblical citations.

***

If it were right to . . . pray to such beings, the apostles must have said something on that subject . . . (p. 178)

Oh, I totally agree, and that’s the very purpose of this article!

Nothing is said respecting the invocation of the saints in the New Testament. (p. 181)

The invocation of saints is not warranted by God’s written Word. (p. 182)

The Lutheran Defense of the Augsburg Confession also stated similarly:

Scripture does not teach the invocation of the saints, or that we are to ask the saints for aid. . . . neither a command, nor a promise, nor an example can be produced from the Scriptures concerning the invocation of saints, . . . Nothing can be produced by the adversaries against this reasoning, . . . invocation does not have a testimony from God’s Word.

Likewise, fellow Anglo-Irish clergyman and scholar Richard Frederick Littledale (1833-1890) wrote a book called Plain Reasons Against Joining the Church of Rome (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1881), where he stated in no uncertain terms:

The whole practice of the Invocation of Saints is founded on pure guesswork. Not one syllable can be discovered in the Old or New Testament which gives the least ground or suggestion of it; God has never been pleased to reveal it, . . . God has not chosen to make it known to us, and it is a very perilous thing to fly in the face of His holy Word . . . (pp. 31-32)

I will produce three proofs that human beings who have died are invoked in the New Testament, and a similar instance from the Old Testament, with no condemnation at all present in the texts, including one instance (#1) so undeniable and clear that no one could possibly doubt it. Wright devotes all of five-and-a-half pages to this topic, thinking he has exhaustively covered it. He exhibits scant evidence that he is acquainted with any Catholic arguments on the subject. I guess that’s why his title alludes to our doctrines being “briefly examined” in his book. At least he was upfront about that.

1) The Rich Man and Abraham in Hades

Here’s a story — right from the lips of Jesus — about someone praying or making an intercessory request of someone other than God:

Luke 16:24 And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame.’

Abraham says no, just as God will say no to a prayer not according to His will:

Luke 16:25-26 But Abraham said, ‘Son, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Laz’arus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. [26] And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.’

The rich man asks Abraham again, begging:

Luke  16:27-28 And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father’s house, [28] for I have five brothers, so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’

Abraham refuses again, saying (16:29): “They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’” So, like any good self-respecting Jew (Moses and Abraham himself both “negotiated” with God), he argues with Abraham (16:30: “No, father Abraham; but if some one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.”), and Abraham refuses again, reiterating the reason why (16:31: “If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead.”).

If we were not supposed to ask saints to pray for us, I think this story would be almost the very last way to make that supposed point. Abraham would simply have said, “you shouldn’t be asking me for anything; ask God!” In the same way, analogously, angels refuse worship when it is offered, because only God can be worshiped:

Revelation 19:9-10 And the angel said to me, “Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.” And he said to me, “These are true words of God.” [10] Then I fell down at his feet to worship him, but he said to me, “You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brethren who hold the testimony of Jesus. Worship God.” . . .

Revelation 22:8-9 I John am he who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed them to me; [9] but he said to me, “You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brethren the prophets, and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship God.”

St. Peter did the same thing:

Acts 10:25-26 When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. [26] But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I too am a man.”

So did St Paul and Barnabas:

Acts 14:11-15 And when the crowds saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in Lycao’nian, “The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men!” [12] Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul, because he was the chief speaker, they called Hermes. [13] And the priest of Zeus, whose temple was in front of the city, brought oxen and garlands to the gates and wanted to offer sacrifice with the people. [14] But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their garments and rushed out among the multitude, crying, [15] “Men, why are you doing this? We also are men, of like nature with you, and bring you good news, that you should turn from these vain things to a living God who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them.

If the true theology is that Abraham cannot be asked an intercessory request, then Abraham would have noted this and refused to even hear it. But instead he heard the request and said no. Jesus couldn’t possibly have taught a false principle. It’s not that Abraham couldn’t intercede (if that were true, he would have said so and Jesus would have made it clear), but that he wouldn’t intercede in this instance (i.e., he refused to answer the request). Abraham doesn’t deny that he is able to potentially send Lazarus to do what was requested; he only denies that it would work (by the logic of “if they don’t respond to greater factor x, nor will they respond to lesser factor y”).

Therefore, it is assumed in the story that Abraham had the ability and authority to do so on his own. And this is all taught, remember, by our Lord Jesus. Refusing a request is not the same thing as not being able to grant the request. Otherwise, we would have to say that God is unable to answer a prayer request when He refuses one. God’s answer to prayer can always be “no”, and this doesn’t “prove” that we ought not pray to God, because He turns down requests outside of His will. We know that from these scriptural passages:

James 4:3 You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions.
*
1 John 3:22 and we receive from him whatever we ask, because we keep his commandments and do what pleases him.
*
1 John 5:14 And this is the confidence which we have in him, that if we ask anything according to his will he hears us.

The passage in Luke 16 has to do with two major prior premises in the larger debate concerning intercession of the saints:

1) Is it proper to “pray” to anyone but God?

2) is it proper to ask anyone but God to not only pray for, but fulfill (i.e., have the power and ability to bring about) an intercessory request?

These are the sorts of questions concerning which the Luke 16 passage is relevant. Protestantism utterly rejects #1 and #2 above; yet Luke 16 (from Jesus) clearly teaches them. Hence lies the dilemma. It matters not if both men are dead, or where they are (Hades, in this case: Lk 16:23); the rich man still can’t do what he did, according to Protestant categories of thought and theology, which holds that no one can make such a request to anyone but God. But God is never mentioned in the entire story. He’s asking Abraham to send Lazarus to him, and then to his brothers, to prevent them from going to hell. That is very much prayer: asking for supernatural aid from those who have left the earthly life and attained sainthood and perfection, with God.

So why did Jesus teach in this fashion? Why did He teach that the rich man was asking Abraham to do things that Protestant theology would hold that only God can do? And why is the whole story about him asking Abraham for requests, rather than going directly to God and asking Him? This just isn’t how it’s supposed to be, from a Protestant perspective. All the emphases are wrong, and there are serous theological errors, committed by Jesus Himself (i.e., from the erroneous Protestant perspective). Praying to a saint is a biblical teaching: expressly from Our Lord Jesus.

One common but futile retort is to say that this is “only a parable,” and hence, supposedly can be dismissed as of no import to theology. We reply that:

1) parables are teaching tools from Jesus about not only spirituality but also theology;

2) parables — like anything else Jesus says – could not contain false theological principles, sanctioned by Jesus, and not condemned by Him. Jesus couldn’t and wouldn’t teach falsehoods, whether in a parable or not;

3) I contend that the story about the rich man, Lazarus, and Abraham is not a parable in the first place, since parables don’t include proper names, let alone names of known historical figures. Jesus isn’t telling fairy tales, but recounting actual events.

4) It isn’t introduced as a parable, which is the standard biblical “protocol”. In the same book, the phrase, “he told them a parable” occurs five times: 5:36; 6:39; 12:16; 18:1; 21:29. But in Luke 16 it doesn’t. Jesus starts out, “There was a rich man . . .” (16:19).

2) Jesus Talking to and Making a Request of the Dead Lazarus

Granted, it’s a bit of a unique scenario, but the Bible provides two instances of communicating to or “contacting” the dead, making a request of a dead person (i.e., those who supposedly can never “hear” us on earth), and also — interestingly — praying for the dead at the same time, without mediums or spiritists: initiated by the praying person. The first was done by Jesus Himself:

John 11:43-44 . . . he cried with a loud voice, “Laz’arus, come out.” [44] The dead man came out, . . .

3) St. Peter Talking to and Making a Request of the Dead Tabitha

If it is objected that it was Jesus (God) talking to and raising Lazarus, so that it’s a special case not applicable to created human beings, then we have the example of St. Peter doing the same thing:

Acts 9:40-41 But Peter put them all outside and knelt down and prayed; then turning to the body he said, “Tabitha, rise.” And she opened her eyes, and when she saw Peter she sat up. [41] And he gave her his hand and lifted her up. Then calling the saints and widows he presented her alive.

We are certainly to imitate the example of the apostles (2 Thessalonians 3:9). Thus, St. Paul urges his readers to imitate him (Phil 3:17; 4:9), and both him and the Lord (1 Thessalonians 1:6-7), just he in turn imitates and follows Christ (1 Corinthians 11:1). St. Peter, and apostle and the first pope, talked to / “invoked” and made a request of a dead person; so can we.

4) The Possibility of Jesus Praying to Elijah to Save Him

Matthew 27:46-50 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, la’ma sabach-tha’ni?” that is, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” [47] And some of the bystanders hearing it said, “This man is calling Eli’jah.” [48] And one of them at once ran and took a sponge, filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave it to him to drink. [49] But the others said, “Wait, let us see whether Eli’jah will come to save him.” [50] And Jesus cried again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit. (cf. Mk 15:34-36)

The “bystanders” at Jesus’ crucifixion assumed that He could ask (pray to) the prophet Elijah to save Him from the agony of the cross . They’re presented as allies of Jesus (not enemies), since “one of them” gave Him a drink (Mt 27:48). Matthew 27:49 shows that this type of petition was commonly believed at the time. Thus, it was believed that one could pray to one such as Elijah (who had already appeared with Jesus at the transfiguration), and that he had power to come and give aid; to “save” a person (in this case, Jesus from a horrible death).

It’s not presented as if they are wrong, and in light of other related Scriptures it is more likely that they are correct in thinking that this was a permitted scenario. Jesus, after all , had already referred to Elijah, saying that he was the prototype for John the Baptist (Mt 11:14; 17:10-13; cf. Lk 1:17 from the angel Gabriel), and it could also have been known that Elijah and Moses appeared with Jesus at the transfiguration (Mt 17:1-6; Mk 9:4; Lk 9:30-31), if these were His followers.

Some may think this is a “desperate” and utterly insignificant, inconsequential argument, but there is a lot more to it than first meets the eye. In fact, it was a well-known Old Testament tradition that the prophet Elijah would come back in some sense; alluded to several times in the New Testament:

Malachi 4:5-6 “Behold, I will send you Eli’jah the prophet before the great and terrible day of the LORD comes. [6] And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the land with a curse.” (cf. Mt 16:13-14; Mk 6:13-15; 8:27-28; Lk 9:7-8; 9:18-19)

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

If Jesus was calling Elijah He would have said, ‘Eli, Eli.’ Eli in Hebrew can mean either ‘My God’ or a form of Eliyahu, Hebrew for Elijah. However, the Aramaic Eloi can only mean ‘My God.’ Mark’s has Eloi, Eloi, Lama sabakthank. Matthew does record ‘Eli, Eli’.

We know they were mistaken, and that Jesus was in fact referring to God, not Elijah. But it doesn’t affect the present argument. What is relevant to note is the fact that they casually assumed that he could call on (in effect, “pray to”) a human being rather than God. That is the argument.

In  Jewish forum on stackexchange called mi yodeya, (“Do Jews pray to deceased forefathers?”), it was noted the traditional rabbinic opinion on the  question was mixed, but that there is at least some indication of the practice:

I was reading in Sotah 34b and I noticed that it reads:

Raba said: It teaches that Caleb held aloof from the plan of the spies and went and prostrated himself upon the graves of the patriarchs, saying to them, ‘My fathers, pray on my behalf that I may be delivered from the plan of the spies’. . . .

For a long time there have been Jews who have indeed beseeched the dead. However, numerous sources state that this is prohibited. Some state that it is permitted if the request is not directly from the dead, but just that the dead beseech God.

Forbidden when the request is directly of the deceased

Maharam Shikk writes in a responsum (OH 293) that such practices raise both the issue of doresh el hametim (Deut. 18:11) and of serving God through an intermediary (apparently the prohibition of avoda zara; idolatry). He concludes that if one relates one’s problems to the dead hoping that they will intercede with God it is permissible, but if one wants help from them directly, it would be forbidden. He emphasises that even using them as intermediaries is forbidden according to many authorities.

Similarly, the Ben Ish Hai writes in a responsum (Rav P’alim Vol II YD 31) that it is forbidden to make requests of a dead person directly. Doing so constitutes doresh el hametim. One may only ask that the dead intercede with God. He writes this in explanation of the Zohar (Acharei Mot: 71). . . .

R. Eliezer of Metz writes in his Sefer Yereim (334-335) that the prohibition of doresh el hametim only includes involvement with the body of the deceased; involvement with the spirit of the deceased, however, would be permitted.

This argument is relatively weak, but in my opinion, it’s still worthy of consideration and not able to be immediately dismissed.

5) King Saul and the Dead Prophet Samuel

King Saul petitioned the dead prophet Samuel. All agree that consulting a medium to do so was wrong. Yet when the real Samuel appeared (the text never indicates that he is anything but real), Saul petitioned him, and Samuel didn’t condemn him for that:

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

Samuel could properly be petitioned or, in effect, “prayed to” but he also could refuse the request, just as God does, and he did so. As Samuel explained, he didn’t question the asking as wrong and sinful, but rather, refused because the request to save Saul was against God’s expressed will: which Samuel also knew about, as a departed saint. Moreover, Samuel knew (after his death) that Saul was to be defeated in battle the next day and would die (1 Sam 28:18-19). This proves that it was truly Samuel, a prophet, and not an “impersonating demon”: who would have lied about Saul’s impending death or anything else that it uttered.

***

Once again we see — as I have seen innumerable times in 35 years of Catholic apologetics — that the Protestant anti-invocation arguments are insufficiently biblical (to put it mildly) and that the Catholic arguments are thoroughly and comprehensively biblical. It’s not “supposed” to be that way, so we are constantly told, but alas, there it is!

*
***
*

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

Photo credit: Healing of the Cripple and Raising of Tabitha, by Masolino da Panicale (1383-1447) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: Five biblical examples are provided in favor of the invocation of saints: 1) rich man & Abraham, 2) Lazarus, 3) Tabitha, 4) Saul & Samuel, & 5) Jesus’ possibly calling upon Elijah.

Follow Us!



Browse Our Archives