Photo credit: Saint Paul Writing His Epistles (c. 1618-1620); attributed to Valentin de Boulogne (1591-1632) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
This came about in an exchange with (I think) a Lutheran; some sort of Protestant, at any rate, in a Protestant venue.
*****
The Pharisees are usually regarded by Christians of all stripes as the “bad guys” in the New Testament. In many respects they were. But they remained the mainstream Jewish tradition, and they accepted the view that Moses received oral tradition from God on Mt. Sinai in addition to the written law, and many other theological views that Christianity inherited.
Both Jesus and Paul assumed and followed various pharisaical customs and practices. The biggest problem of all for those who want to say they are all bad, is that Paul called himself a Pharisee twice at his trial (Acts 23:6; 26:5) and again in Philippians 3:5 (the first instance clearly in the present tense). That doesn’t harmonize well with the attempt to completely demonize the Pharisees.
Our friend argued that Paul saying “I am a Pharisee” during his trial (Acts 23:6, RSV) is essentially nullified because in context he also mentioned his past life as a Pharisee (“a son of Pharisees”). He was basically accusing St. Paul of lying and sophistry: pretending to be a Pharisee as a methodological tactic to cause division between the Pharisees and Sadducees who were present at his trial. But he didn’t have to pretend or lie in order to do that. The division remained, and by his identifying himself as of one of the two parties, this would cause division between them.
My father wasn’t Catholic; he was a Methodist. But if he were a Catholic, I could state, “I am a Catholic, the son of a Catholic.” The fact that I mentioned that my father also was has no bearing whatsoever on whether I am one or not today. It merely strengthens the statement by placing it in the context of a familial, upbringing tie as well as a theological one.
Was St. Paul at that time really a Pharisee? Was he not, as following in his Master’s footsteps, the sworn foe of Pharisaism? The answer to that question, which obviously ought to be answered and not suppressed, is that all parties have their good and bad sides, and that those whom the rank and file of a party most revile may be the most effective witnesses for the truths on which the existence of the party rests. The true leaders of the Pharisees had given a prominence to the doctrine of the Resurrection which it had never had before. They taught an ethical rather than a sacrificial religion. Many of them had been, like Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathæa, secret disciples of our Lord. At this very time there were many avowed Pharisees among the members of the Christian Church (Acts 15:5). St. Paul, therefore, could not be charged with any suppressio veri in calling himself a Pharisee. It did not involve even a tacit disclaimer of his faith in Christ. It was rather as though he said, “I am one with you in all that is truest in your creed. I invite you to listen and see whether what I now proclaim to you is not the crown and completion of all your hopes and yearnings. Is not the resurrection of Jesus the one thing needed for a proof of that hope of the resurrection of the dead of which you and your fathers have been witnesses?”
He was not only brought up in that sect from his youth, and lived according to it before his conversion, but he was still a Pharisee; wherefore he does not say, I “was”, but I “am” a Pharisee; for whatever distinguished the Pharisee from the Sadducee, whether in principle, or in practice, and manner of living, which agreed with Christianity, the apostle still retained; as the belief of the immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the dead, and a future state, and strict holiness of life and conversation.
He designates himself as a Jew, who, as such, belonged to no other than the religious society of the Pharisees; and particularly in the doctrine of the resurrection, Paul, as a Christian, continued to defend the confession of the Pharisees (in opposition to all Sadduceeism) according to its truth confirmed in the case of Christ Himself (Acts 4:1 f.). His contending against the legal righteousness, hypocrisy, etc., of the Pharisees, and his consequent labouring in an anti-Pharisaical sense, were directed not against the sect in itself, but against its moral and other perversions. Designated a Jew, Paul still remained what he was from his birth, a Pharisee, and as such an orthodox Jew, in contrast to Sadducean naturalism.
It is difficult to see why the Apostle should not describe himself as a Pharisee in face of the statement, Acts 15:5, that many members of the sect were also members of the Christian Church. They, like St. Paul, must have acknowledged that Jesus was the Messiah. But that Messiahship was attested by the avowal of the resurrection of Jesus, and the resurrection was a prominent article of the Pharisees’ creed. In the acceptance of this latter doctrine St. Paul was at one not only with the “Pharisees who believed,” but with the whole sect, and that he used the title in this limited way, viz., with relation to the hope of the resurrection, is plain from the context, which fixes the limitation by the Apostle’s own words.
As to Acts 26:5, it’s true that it isn’t technically present tense. But since it has to be harmonized with Acts 23:6 which is present tense, it harmonizes (as all Scripture does). Paul states, “according to the strictest party of our religion I have lived as a Pharisee.” Note the “our religion.” He doesn’t consider that Christianity is a separate religion from Judaism, but rather, is an extension of it, harmonious with it, or a consistent development of Judaism (which indeed it is).
I could say, “I have lived as a Catholic” [since 1990, in my case]. That statement alone doesn’t necessarily imply that I have since ceased to live as or be a Catholic, though it might. I could also say, “I have lived as a pagan occultist” [which was true from 1970 or so through to 1977]. In that case it did cease. But since we have to harmonize 26:5 with 23:6, we see that it is consistent with a continued allegiance.
In Philippians 3:3-10, he never states that he has ceased to be a Pharisee. He couldn’t, because that would contradict Acts 23:6 and it would 1) make him a liar or equivocator, and 2) make the Bible contradict itself, which inspired revelation cannot do. And so it’s saying the same thing. Paul writes in 3:5: “of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law a Pharisee”. He was still an Israelite, still from the tribe of Benjamin, still a Hebrew, and still a Pharisee.
As two of the commentaries I cited noted, Acts 15:5 refers to “some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees.” There is, therefore, nothing intrinsically inconsistent for a Christian to continue to be a Pharisee (whereas there are no Christian Sadducees, because they were basically the theological liberals of the time). Paul was a Pharisee, and so was, in fact, Jesus.
*
***
*
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).
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: Saint Paul Writing His Epistles (c. 1618-1620); attributed to Valentin de Boulogne (1591-1632) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
Summary: Reply to a Protestant who disputed that St. Paul called himself a Pharisee in the present tense (Acts 23:6; cf. Acts 26:5; Phil 3:5). Acts 15:5 also refers to Christian Pharisees.
Edward Josiah Stearns (1810-1890) was an Episcopal clergyman from Maryland and author of several books. His volume, The Faith of Our Forefathers (New York: Thomas Whittaker, 1879), was a reply to The Faith of Our Fathers(1876), by James Cardinal Gibbons (1834-1921), one of the best and most well-known Catholic apologetics works, with an emphasis on scriptural arguments and replies to Protestant critiques of Catholicism. It had sold over 1.4 million copies by the time of its 83rd edition in 1917 and was the most popular book in the United States until Gone With the Wind was published in 1939. This volume highly influenced my own development as a soon-to-be Catholic apologist in the early 1990s: especially with regard to my usual modus operandi of focusing on “biblical evidence” for Catholicism.
The words of Rev. Stearns will be in blue, and those of Cardinal Gibbons in green. I use RSV for biblical citations.
***
A word of introduction is in order before we begin.
Catholics hold that Scripture is a fairly clear document and able to be understood by the average reader, but also that the Church is needed to provide a doctrinal norm, an overall framework for determining proper biblical interpretation. I’ve always found Holy Scripture to be clear in my many biblical studies, but Church history shows us that it isn’t clear enough to bring men to agreement. Catholics don’t think Scripture is nearly as unclear and obscure as we are often caricatured to supposedly believe. But we know that heretics throughout the centuries have distorted the Scripture, for whatever reason, so that an authoritative statement of orthodoxy becomes practically necessary in order to preserve unity as well as orthodoxy.
It’s often stated that Scripture is “perspicuous” (clear) and able to be understood in the main by the committed, regenerate layman, and that by comparing Bible passage with Bible passage, the truth can always be found. But the rub is that there are different ways of harmonizing the Scripture. There is the Calvinist way and the Arminian way and the Baptist way, the Lutheran, Anglican, Nazarene, Presbyterian, Methodist, Plymouth Brethren, 7th-Day Adventist, Mennonite, Church of God, Church of Christ ways, etc., etc. ad infinitum. Simply invoking the principle does not solve the problem in the least.
Catholicism doesn’t require a totally obscure Bible at all. This is a myth. But could virtually the entire Bible be understood without the need of authoritative teachers? No. And that’s rather obvious to this day. Protestants continue to absurdly claim that the Bible is perspicuous, yet fail to agree amongst themselves. And their reasons for why this is (stupidity or sin on the other guy’s part) are as absurd and silly as the original false premise.
One can arrive at any number of true doctrines by reading Scripture alone. I pretty much did that in a number of cases, when I was a Protestant. The problem, however, comes with the Jehovah’s Witness (an Arian) on the next block, who reads the same Scripture that we do and concludes that Jesus was created. It’s with the Mormon two blocks over who believes that God was once a man and that men can become gods. It’s with the Christian Scientist and the Sabellian (Jesus Only) and the Unitarian and Moonie and Scientologist and snake handlers and Name-it-Claim-it heretics, etc., etc., etc. They’re all operating on the principle of Scripture Alone, just as the ancient Arians and virtually all heresies did, too.
The Catholic view of authority and Holy Scripture is not about some ubiquitous churchman looking over everyone’s shoulder so that they would interpret each and every verse exactly as the Church says it ought to be interpreted (in fact, less than ten Bible verses are “officially” interpreted by the Catholic Church). People can read the Bible and it was largely clear; just not always, and it is not self-interpreting enough to prevent heresy without the Church intervening on behalf of orthodoxy. This is the Catholic rule of faith.
The Protestant rule of faith, sola Scriptura, on the other hand, cannot pronounce on orthodoxy, except on a denominational level only. All it can do is appeal back to the individual and claim that Scripture is perspicuous (clear) and formally sufficient and that no Church council has binding authority if an individual sees otherwise in Holy Scripture. That can never bring about unity, and never has in fact, because it is inadequate for establishing orthodoxy as applying to all Christians across the board.
“A competent guide must be clear and intelligible to all, so that every one may fully understand the true meaning of the instructions it contains. Is the Bible a book intelligible to all ? Far from it; it is full of obscurities and difficulties not only for the illiterate, but even for the learned.” (p. 104.) [cited on p. 84]
That there are hard places in Scripture nobody denies, but they are not those necessary to salvation. (p. 84)
This is one of those maxims of Protestantism that are easy to state, but much more difficult to prove (especially in actual practice). To give just two examples: baptism is said in Scripture several times to be necessary to salvation, yet Protestants can’t agree on whether this is true or not, and separate into five major camps regarding baptism. Secondly, the Eucharist is said to be necessary for salvation as well (Jesus states this repeatedly in John 6), but Protestant can’t agree on that, either. Therefore, I submit, judging by Protestantism’s various and contradictory conclusions, the Bible must not be clear — in and of itself without authoritative interpretation –about what is necessary for salvation.
The “things hard to be understood,” which ”St. Peter himself informs us” of, ” in the Epistles of St. Paul,” are, as the connection shows, certain prophecies, particularly about the “times and seasons,” which are purposely left in uncertainty, that we may be always watching for the coming of the Lord. (p. 85)
Okay; let’s take a closer look at this passage:
2 Peter 3:15-17 . . . So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, [16] speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. [17] You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability.
It’s indeed true that earlier in the chapter, St. Peter wrote about the coming of the Lord: the specific time of which we don’t and can’t know (“the day of the Lord will come like a thief”: 3:10). Verse 16 at its beginning appears to refer back to this theme, but then St. Peter moves on from it and makes a general statement: “There are somethings in them [Paul’s letters] hard to understand.” In other words, he doesn’t write something to the effect of, “and this teaching [about prophecies, etc.] is hard to understand.” He is now expressing himself in broad terms. Then he notes that these “things . . . hard to understand” [in Paul] are what “the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction”.
If there is any doubt that he is thinking in general terms at this point, there can be none when we see that he writes, “. . . “as they do the other scriptures”. So now Peter is saying that many scriptures — not necessarily even those written just by Paul — are “twist[ed]” by the ignorant and unstable. And this, of course, proves the Catholic point and disproves the Protestant one about the perspicuity of Scripture: supposedly sufficient enough as to preclude a binding, authoritative interpretation from the Church. Note also that Peter ends with a warning: “lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability.” In other words, he thinks the problem is sufficiently serious to warn every reader to be vigilant and to not be led astray.
A comeback may be that Peter is only teaching that Pauline and/or other portions of Scripture are difficult only for the “ignorant and unstable.” The problem with that is that many people are “ignorant” (i.e., simply lacking knowledge of Scripture, or its exegesis, and the nature and exercise of hermeneutics: systematic interpretation of Scripture). Anyone who has spent much time at all in Christians circles (Protestant and Catholic alike; and I’ve been in both for many years) knows full well of the massive amount of biblical illiteracy.
That’s all it takes to distort the Bible, even before we get to deliberate heresy or spiritual, emotional, or theological instability. Needless to say, the endless internal Protestant disagreements do not give one much confidence at all in the Protestant assertion of “perspicuity of Scripture”. All that the denominationalism and division show is that excessive private judgment and rejection of a binding teaching authority as to orthodox theology leads to ecclesiological chaos and theological relativism, ending up in confusion and lack of certainty.
The passage the Archbishop quotes from 2 St. Peter 1:20, ”that no prophecy of Scripture is made by private interpretation,” refers, not to the explanation of it, but to the making of it, as the very wording of it shows; and if it did not, the next verse would make it plain. (p. 85)
Let’s look at this one, too:
2 Peter 1:20-21 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, [21] because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
Rev. Stearns’ exegesis is too simple and incomplete. The overall point Peter is making is that prophecy can’t be understood as a matter of private interpretation, because it’s spiritually discerned: having come from God the Holy Spirit in the first place. The more spiritual and less carnal a thing is, the more we need an authoritative Church to interpret and apply it, because the Church is the accumulated wisdom of spiritual persons for 2,000 years, which is far superior to anyone’s own specific understandings. But Rev. Stearns vainly contends that this has nothing to do with “explanation.”
I don’t see how that could be, because the word “interpretation” doesn’t refer to “the making of” prophecy. It refers to the understanding of it, and that leads us back to the discussion at hand: how clear Scripture is to the individual without any aid of a Church and a Sacred Tradition, or even matters such as cross-referencing from Scripture itself. Rev. Stearns is doing very poor exegesis and winds up special pleading.
To nail down his point, St. Peter goes on (originally the New Testament had no verses or chapters) to warn of the bad effects of erroneous private interpretation of Scripture:
2 Peter 2:1-3 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. [2] And many will follow their licentiousness, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled. [3] And in their greed they will exploit you with false words; . . .
St. Paul warns about the same sort of thing:
2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, [4] and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths.
These factors are some of the many reasons why it’s a dangerous thing for individuals to think that they understand all of Scripture, and — in the final analysis, or bottom line — need no assistance from an authoritative Tradition and/or Church: the latter being “the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15).
What the ”certain man” wanted of St. Philip (Acts 8:31) was something to aid his private judgment, not to supplant it; and the explanation that St. Philip gave of the prophecy commended itself to the man’s private judgment, else he would not have asked to be baptized. (p. 85)
I don’t think this flies, either. Let’s look at it:
Acts 8:27, 30-35 . . . behold, an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a minister of the Can’dace, queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of all her treasure, had come to Jerusalem to worship . . . [30] So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” [31] And he said, “How can I, unless some one guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. [32] Now the passage of the scripture which he was reading was this: “As a sheep led to the slaughter or a lamb before its shearer is dumb, so he opens not his mouth. [33] In his humiliation justice was denied him. Who can describe his generation? For his life is taken up from the earth.” [34] And the eunuch said to Philip, “About whom, pray, does the prophet say this, about himself or about some one else?” [35] Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this scripture he told him the good news of Jesus.
Rev. Stearns tries to make out that the eunuch had sufficient understanding, and only needed an aid for relatively better understanding. But that’s not how the text reads, prima facie. He’s asked if he understands what he is reading, and the eunuch answers, “How can I, unless some one guides me?” How clear can something be?! This is precisely what Catholics contend: it’s good to have an authoritative guide to help any given individual understand Scripture. The eunuch had an apostle. We have the Holy Church and Holy Tradition and other passages in the Holy Bible (cross-referencing). The eunuch was reading Isaiah 53, a well-known messianic passage. He didn’t even know that it applied to the Messiah, and thought it might be Isaiah writing about himself. And so Philip shared with him that it was referring to Jesus the Messiah.
Rev. Stearns makes a great deal out of the eunuch asking to be baptized, as if this confirmed that he had a solid, reliable “private judgment“. But the text informs us that, right after Philip started sharing the gospel, “they went along the road” and “came to some water” (8:36). We know that they were on “a desert road” (8:26), so it may very well have been some time before they arrived at water. And during that time, in Philip’s sharing of the gospel, he very likely would have proclaimed the necessity of baptism.
This is, after all, what St. Peter did in the first Christian sermon, recorded six chapters earlier in Acts. After proclaiming the gospel (Acts 2:22-36), the very next thing he did was to say, “”Repent, and be baptized every one of you” (2:38). So it’s more likely that Philip told the eunuch about baptism than it is that the eunuch already knew about its importance and necessity (although that’s certainly possible, too). But even if the eunuch did know that much, it has no bearing on his overall knowledge of Scripture. He surely didn’t know much about biblical theology, if he wasn’t aware that Isaiah 53 was a messianic passage. And this is precisely why he asked to be guided and instructed in biblical exegesis.
St. Augustine wrote about this passage:
And we know that the eunuch who was reading Isaiah the prophet, and did not understand what he read, was not sent by the apostle to an angel, nor was it an angel who explained to him what he did not understand, nor was he inwardly illuminated by the grace of God without the interposition of man; on the contrary, at the suggestion of God, Philip, who did understand the prophet, came to him, and sat with him, and in human words, and with a human tongue, opened to him the Scriptures. [Acts 8:26] Did not God talk with Moses, and yet he, with great wisdom and entire absence of jealous pride, accepted the plan of his father-in-law, a man of an alien race, for ruling and administering the affairs of the great nation entrusted to him? [Exodus 18:13] (On Christian Doctrine, Preface, 7)
The highly educated Augustine even wrote that he himself — like the Ethiopian eunuch — did not understand the book of Isaiah, which was recommended for him to read by his mentor, St. Ambrose, shortly after his conversion:
I, not understanding the first portion of the book, and imagining the whole to be like it, laid it aside, intending to take it up hereafter, when better practised in our Lord’s words. (TheConfessions, ix, 5, 13)
St. John Chrysostom also preached about it:
Even as the eunuch of Candace read, but until one came who instructed him in the meaning of what he was reading he derived no great benefit from it . . . we must not attend to the words merely, but turn our attention to the sense, and learn the aim of the speaker, and the cause and the occasion, and by putting all these things together turn out the hidden meaning. (Homily on Matthew 26:19, Against Marcionists and Manichæans)
Rev. Stearns doesn’t discuss other biblical passages directly relevant to the question of the clearness or perspicuity of Scripture. But I will, because I think people deserve a much fuller biblical explanation:
Nehemiah 8:1-3, 7-9, 12 And all the people gathered as one man into the square before the Water Gate; and they told Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses which the LORD had given to Israel. [2] And Ezra the priest brought the law before the assembly, . . . [3] And he read from it . . . [7] Also Jesh’ua, Bani, Sherebi’ah, Jamin, Akkub, Shab’bethai, Hodi’ah, Ma-asei’ah, Keli’ta, Azari’ah, Jo’zabad, Hanan, Pelai’ah, the Levites, helped the people to understand the law, . . . [8] And they read from the book, from the law of God, clearly; and they gave the sense, so thatthe people understood the reading. [9] . . . and the Levites who taught the people . . . [12] . . . they had understood the words that were declared to them.
Mark 4:33-34 With many such parables he spoke the word to them, as they were able to hear it; [34] he did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything.
Luke 24:25-27, 32 And he said to them, “O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! [26] Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” [27] And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. . . . [32] They said to each other, “Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the scriptures?”
The two disciples on the road to Emmaus later marveled at how Jesus “opened to us the scriptures”. In other words, those prophecies were not understood until Jesus explained them, and in fact, most of the Jews did not see that they were fulfilled. Thus, Old Testament Scripture was insufficient for these messianic truths to be grasped simply by reading them. One could retort that the Jews were hardhearted and thus could not understand since they had not the Holy Spirit and God’s grace to illumine their understanding. But that proves too much because it would also have to apply to these two disciples, and indeed all of the disciples, who did not understand what was happening, even after Jesus repeatedly told them that He was to suffer and to die, and that this was all foretold.
The Phillips Modern English translation renders Luke 24:32 as, “he made the scriptures plain to us.” The Greek word for “opened” is dianoigo (Strong’s Concordance word #1272). According to Joseph Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1977 reprint of 1901 edition, p. 140), it means “to open by dividing or drawing asunder, to open thoroughly (what had been closed).” This meaning can be seen in other passages where dianoigo appears: Mark 7:34-35, Luke 2:23, 24:31,45, Acts 16:14, 17:3.
Obviously, then, Holy Scripture is informing us that some parts of it were “closed” and “not plain” until the “infallible” teaching authority and interpretation of our Lord Jesus opened it up and made it plain. This runs utterly contrary to the Protestant notion of perspicuity of Scripture and its more or less ubiquitous self-interpreting nature, at the very least as regards salvation. In this instance, it did have to do with salvation, because Jesus was talking about “all the scriptures the things concerning himself.” They hadn’t understood those passages until Jesus “opened” them up to them. It’s hard to imagine a clearer refutation of the Protestant notion of perspicuity.
Shortly after in the text, Jesus appears to the eleven disciples and reiterates the same teaching:
Luke 24:44-47 Then he said to them, “These are my words which I spoke to you, while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled.” [45] Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures, [46] and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, [47] and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
Note again that they didn’t understand the Old Testament Scriptures simply by reading them. Nor did they understand the gospel itself (thus Scripture wasn’t clear about even the gospel and salvation, for them to grasp it: directly contrary to what Protestants assert). It was necessary that Jesus “opened their minds to understand the scriptures.” If this was true of the disciples who lived with Jesus for three years and had innumerable discussions with Him, how much more is it necessary for us today and for men and women all through time? We don’t have Jesus to explain all of this, but we have the Church that He left, which was to be guided by the Holy Spirit and protected by Him from error (see, e.g., Acts 15:28: “it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us”).
The great Protestant theologian G. C. Berkouwer (1903-1996) wrote very helpfully about this issue of perspicuity:
An attempt has often been made to solve this problem by referring to the ‘objective’ clarity of Scripture, so that every incomplete understanding and insight of Scripture is said to be due to the blinding of human eyes that could not observe the true light shining from it . . .
In considering this seemingly simple solution . . . we will soon discover that not all questions are answered by it . . . An incomplete understanding or a total misunderstanding of Scripture cannot simply be explained by blindness. Certain obstacles to understanding may also be related to Scripture’s concrete form of human language conditioned by history . . . Scripture . . . is tied to historical situations and circumstances in so many ways that not every word we read is immediately clear in itself . . . Therefore, it will not surprise us that many questions have been raised in the course of history about the perspicuity of Scripture . . . Some wondered whether this confession of clarity was indeed a true confession . . . The church has frequently been aware of a certain ‘inaccessibility.’
According to Bavinck . . . it may not be overlooked that, according to Rome . . . Scripture is not regarded as a completely obscure and inaccessible book, written, so to speak, in secret language . . . Instead, Rome is convinced that an understanding of Scripture is possible – a clear understanding. But Rome is at the same time deeply impressed by the dangers involved in reading the Bible. Their desire is to protect Scripture against all arbitrary and individualistic exegesis . . .
It is indeed one of the most moving and difficult aspects of the confession of Scripture’s clarity that it does not automatically lead to a total uniformity of perception, disposing of any problems. We are confronted with important differences and forked roads . . . and all parties normally appeal to Scripture and its perspicuity. The heretics did not disregard the authority of Scripture but made an appeal to it and to its clear witness with the subjective conviction of seeing the truth in the words of Scripture. (Studies in Dogmatics: Holy Scripture, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1975, translated from the Dutch edition of 1967 by Jack B. Rogers, 268-271, 286)
Rev. Stearns then produces many citations of the Church fathers (on pp. 87-95) in support or alleged support of Protestant perspicuity. Many simply say that it’s good and profitable to read Scripture, a thing that the Catholic Church has never denied. As an editor of three books of patristic quotations, I can present several, too, that support the Catholic position on this and are quite contrary to the Protestant view. Anglican patristics scholar J. N. D. Kelly wrote:
So Athanasius, disputing with the Arians, claimed that his own doctrine had been handed down from father to father, whereas they could not produce a single respectable witness to theirs . . .
The ancient idea that the Church alone, in virtue of being the home of the Spirit and having preserved the authentic apostolic testimony in her rule of faith, liturgical action and general witness, possesses the indispensable key to Scripture, continued to operate as powerfully as in the days of Irenaeus and Tertullian . . . Athanasius himself, after dwelling on the entire adequacy of Scripture, went on to emphasize the desirability of having sound teachers to expound it. Against the Arians he flung the charge that they would never have made shipwreck of the faith had they held fast as a sheet-anchor to the . . . Church’s peculiar and traditionally handed down grasp of the purport of revelation. Hilary insisted that only those who accept the Church’s teaching can comprehend what the Bible is getting at. According to Augustine, its doubtful or ambiguous passages need to be cleared up by ‘the rule of faith’; it was, moreover, the authority of the Church alone which in his eyes guaranteed its veracity. . . .
It should be unnecessary to accumulate further evidence. Throughout the whole period Scripture and tradition ranked as complementary authorities, media different in form but coincident in content. To inquire which counted as superior or more ultimate is to pose the question in misleading terms. If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the surest clue to its interpretation, for in tradition the Church retained, as a legacy from the apostles which was embedded in all the organs of her institutional life, an unerring grasp of the real purport and meaning of the revelation to which Scripture and tradition alike bore witness. (Early Christian Doctrines, San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1978, 45, 47-48; italics my own)
Let’s go right to the teaching of St. Augustine — virtually the “patron saint” of Protestantism — on how clear Scripture is, and whether it’s necessary to have the Church as its authoritative interpreter. I have seven pages of his citations on this topic, in my book, The Quotable Augustine: Distinctively Catholic Elements in His Theology(Sep. 2012, 245 pages). Here is a heavy sampling:
Let the reader consult the rule of faith which he has gathered from the plainer passages of Scripture, and from the authority of the Church, . . . (On ChristianDoctrine, 3, 2, 2)
For many meanings of the holy Scriptures are concealed, and are known only to a few of singular intelligence . . . (Explanations of the Psalms, 68:30 [68, 36] )
For every one with average intelligence can easily see that the explanation of the Scriptures should be sought for from those who are the professed teachers of the Scriptures; and that it may happen, and indeed always happens, that many things seem absurd to the ignorant, which, when they are explained by the learned, appear all the more excellent, and are received in the explanation with the greater pleasure on account of the obstructions which made it difficult to reach the meaning. This commonly happens as regards the holy books of the Old Testament, . . . (On the Morals of the Catholic Church, 1)
But hasty and careless readers are led astray by many and manifold obscurities and ambiguities, substituting one meaning for another; and in some places they cannot hit upon even a fair interpretation. Some of the expressions are so obscure as to shroud the meaning in the thickest darkness. And I do not doubt that all this was divinely arranged for the purpose of subduing pride by toil, and of preventing a feeling of satiety in the intellect, which generally holds in small esteem what is discovered without difficulty. . . . the Holy Spirit has, with admirable wisdom and care for our welfare, so arranged the Holy Scriptures as by the plainer passages to satisfy our hunger, and by the more obscure to stimulate our appetite. For almost nothing is dug out of those obscure passages which may not be found set forth in the plainest language elsewhere. (On ChristianDoctrine, ii, 7-8)
There are some passages which are not understood in their proper force, or are understood with great difficulty, at whatever length, however clearly, or with whatever eloquence the speaker may expound them; and these should never be brought before the people at all, or only on rare occasions when there is some urgent reason. (On ChristianDoctrine, iv, 22-23)
I resolved, therefore, to direct my mind to the Holy Scriptures, that I might see what they were. And behold, I perceive something not comprehended by the proud, not disclosed to children, but lowly as you approach, sublime as you advance, and veiled in mysteries; and I was not of the number of those who could enter into it, or bend my neck to follow its steps. . . . nor could the sharpness of my wit pierce their inner meaning. (TheConfessions, iii, 5, 9)
For not in vain have You willed that the obscure secret of so many pages should be written. TheConfessions, xi, 2, 3)
Those who are able commentators on the Scripture, . . . notwithstanding their common loyalty to the one true faith, must often bring forward various opinions on account of the obscurity of many passages; although this difference of interpretation by no means involves departure from the unity of the faith; just as one commentator may himself give, in harmony with the faith which he holds, two different interpretations of the same passage, because the obscurity of the passage makes both equally admissible. (Ep. 82 [5, 34]: to St. Jerome [405] )
Without doubt in that sentence of the Apostle [1 Corinthians 3:11-15] we must look for another interpretation, and we must account it among those things, whereof Peter says, that there are certain in his writings hard to be understood, which men ought not to pervert unto their own destruction, . . . Here perhaps I may be asked, what my own sense is of this same sentence of Paul, and in what way I think that it ought to be understood. I confess that on this point I should rather hear men of more understanding and learning than myself speak, . . . (On Faith andWorks, 26-27)
There is a third class of objectors who either really do understand Scripture well, or think they do, and who, because they know (or imagine) that they have attained a certain power of interpreting the sacred books without reading any directions of the kind that I propose to lay down here, will cry out that such rules are not necessary for any one, but that everything rightly done towards clearing up the obscurities of Scripture could be better done by the unassisted grace of God. . . . No, no; rather let us put away false pride and learn whatever can be learned from man; . . . lest, being ensnared by such wiles of the enemy and by our own perversity, we may even refuse to go to the churches to hear the gospel itself, or to read a book, or to listen to another reading or preaching, . . . Cornelius the centurion, although an angel announced to him that his prayers were heard and his alms had in remembrance, was yet handed over to Peter for instruction, and not only received the sacraments from the apostle’s hands, but was also instructed by him as to the proper objects of faith, hope, and love. (On ChristianDoctrine, Preface, 2, 5-6)
If you acknowledge the supreme authority of Scripture, you should recognise that authority which from the time of Christ Himself, through the ministry of His apostles, and through a regular succession of bishops in the seats of the apostles, has been preserved to our own day throughout the whole world, with a reputation known to all. There the Old Testament too has its difficulties solved, and its predictions fulfilled. (AgainstFaustus the Manichee, xxxiii, 9)
What, moreover, shall I say of those commentators on the divine Scriptures who have flourished in the catholic Church? They have never tried to pervert these testimonies to an alien sense, because they were firmly established in our most ancient and solid faith, and were never moved aside by the novelty of error. (On Marriage and Concupiscence, ii, 51)
Likewise, St. John Chrysostom, whom Rev. Stearns cited at great length, taught the same thing:
If anyone unpracticed in the art undertake to work a mine, he will get no gold, but confounding all aimlessly and together, will undergo a labor unprofitable and pernicious: so also they who understand not the method of Holy Scripture, nor search out its peculiarities and laws, but go over all its points carelessly and in one manner, will mix the gold with earth, and never discover the treasure which is laid up in it. I say this now because the passage before us contains much gold, not indeed manifest to view, but covered over with much obscurity, and therefore by digging and purifying we must arrive at the legitimate sense. . . . we rest not in the mere words; for thus the heretics err, because they enquire not into the object of the speaker nor the disposition of the hearers. If we add not these and other points besides, as times and places and the opinions of the listeners, many absurd consequences will follow. (Homily XL on John, v. 5:31-32)
If in things of this life a man can gain no great profit if he conduct them in an indifferent and chance way, much more will this be the case in spiritual things, since these require yet greater attention. Wherefore Christ when He referred the Jews to the Scriptures, sent them not to a mere reading, but a careful and considerate search; for He said not, “Read the Scriptures,” but, “Search the Scriptures.” Since the sayings relating to Him required great attention, (for they had been concealed from the beginning for the advantage of the men of that time,) He biddeth them now dig down with care that they might be able to discover what lay in the depth below. These sayings were not on the surface, nor were they cast forth to open view, but lay like some treasure hidden very deep. Now he that searcheth for hidden things, except he seek them with care and toil, will never find the object of his search. (Homily XLI on John, v. 5:39-40)
*
***
*
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).
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!
Summary: Reply to Anglican Edward Josiah Stearns regarding the supposed total clearness of the Bible, pertaining to matters of salvation, and lack of necessity for a Christian authority.
Photo credit: self-designed cover of my self-published book (2012)
Henry R. Percival, D.D. (1854-1903) was a prominent American Episcopal priest and author of many books. This is a reply to a few portions of his book, The Invocation of Saints Treated Theologically and Historically (London and New York: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1896). As a High Church Anglican, he substantially agrees with us on this general topic. So I am only quibbling with him over a few things. His words will be in blue. I use RSV for Scripture citations.
*****
In the year 1549 it was evidently the mind of those who were responsible for the compiling and translating of the Prayer-book, that the only way to be sure of avoiding corruption, and the superstition consequent thereupon, was by omitting all invocations whatever. (pp. 18-19)
This is far too often the “solution” of Protestantism: if anything is at all corrupted, get rid of the whole thing; in other words, “throw the baby out with the bathwater.” That’s no solution at all; it’s not even the vaunted “reform.” It has led to the truncated, bare minimum, hollowed-out Christianity Lite that is many Protestant denominations today: which is the flip side difficulty at the other extreme on the spectrum of corruption in practice of good things.
First, let me clearly state that the Roman Church has shown herself most anxious to remove this ” Romish doctrine,” and to restore the practice to its first purity. In the Twenty-fifth Session of the Council of Trent, holden in 1563 — that is, eleven years after the setting forth of this Article in its first form, and one year after its adoption in its present form (a fact which shows that the article cannot possibly be looked upon as drawn up to condemn the decree of Trent, since at that time it as yet had no existence), the Fathers decreed as follows : —
Moreover, let every superstition in connection with invoking the saints be done away. Let all base questionings be cut off. Finally, let all lasciviousness be avoided (Dec De Purgatorio).
It is, then, not denied by the Church of Rome that, at the time of the Reformation, there were abuses with regard to the invocation of saints which needed reformation, and we have the contemporaneous record of some of these. (pp. 36-37)
There are always abuses and lack of understanding among the more ignorant portions of any religious group whatever. All groups — including Catholicism — reform themselves constantly — in terms of practice ‘on the ground” — or should, if they don’t. The problem we usually encounter in Protestant polemics against Catholicism, however, is that corruptions in Catholic practice are compared to the most sophisticated teachings of Protestants, such as Calvin or Chemnitz: which is a glaring double standard. If we’re going to talk about corruptions, then it should be applied across the board; not only to Catholics.
But by and large, to have a substantive discussion, we can only objectively analyze official proclamations of doctrine. The proper comparison is between Catholic and Protestant official doctrines and confessions. Percival himself cites Trent and other magisterial sources, as well as Doctors of the Church like Aquinas and Bellarmine. So he doesn’t fall into this silly practice.
A prevalent ” Romish doctrine ” seems to have been that the saints were given by God particular departments to have under their special care. To this we find allusion in the “Articles about Religion, set out by the Convocation” in the year 1 536, where we read that —
it is very laudable to pray to saints in heaven everlastingly-living, whose charity is ever permanent, to be intercessors and to pray for us and with us unto Almighty God. … So that it be done without any vain superstition as to think that any saint is more merciful or will hear us sooner than Christ, or that any saint doth serve for one thing more than other, or is patron of the same. (pp. 37-38)
First of all, the Catholic Church never taught that “any saint is more merciful or will hear us sooner than Christ”. That’s simply an insulting, groundless, gratuitous caricature. But as for patron saints, I fail to see the slightest objection to it, let alone harm. It’s simply common sense and “division of labor”: so to speak. St. Paul discusses these sorts of differential tasks when describing the function of the Body of Christ:
1 Corinthians 12:4-11, 17-18 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; [5] and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; [6] and there are varieties of working, but it is the same God who inspires them all in every one. [7] To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. [8] To one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, [9] to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, [10] to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. [11] All these are inspired by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills. . . . [17] If the whole body were an eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? [18] But as it is, God arranged the organs in the body, each one of them, as he chose. (cf. 12: 12-16, 19-30)
But is it true that supposedly no one can “specialize” in heaven, with regard to intercession? I don’t see any biblical case against it, but I can think of biblical analogies to it. I wrote in an article about the intercession of saints:
The Bible clearly teaches that different people have different levels of grace (Acts 4:33; 2 Cor 8:7; Eph 4:7; 1 Pet 1:2; 2 Pet 3:18). From this it follows, it seems to me, that some might specialize in certain areas more so than others, according to different parts of the Body of Christ (there is much Pauline teaching on that). . . . an ironclad argument against it from Scripture is rarely made.
The fact remains that “The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects” (James 5:16). In the larger context of that passage, James states:
James 5:17-18 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.
Would it not follow, then, that Elijah seemed to have a particular influence over weather? Therefore, why couldn’t someone ask him to pray to God about the weather, rather than someone else, since he had this record of asking for rain to cease, and it did for three and-a-half years? So he became, in effect, the “patron saint of meteorological petitions.”
We do roughly the same in this life with friends, on the level of empathy. So, for example, if a woman has difficulty with miscarriage or difficult pregnancies or deliveries, she might go to a woman who has experienced the same thing and ask her to pray to God for her.
I don’t see any intrinsic difficulty here.
Percival cites “Benedictine editors” who sum up a homily of St. John Chrysostom as, “We reap more profit from our own prayers than from those which are offered by others for us.” Percival then opines, “This is a fair summing up of the whole discussion of the saint upon the subject . . .” (p. 46)
The Catholic Church never forbade anyone to pray directly to God. That’s a non-issue. But is there a sense in which asking others to pray for us to God (to intercede) is a better, more efficient way of praying to God? According to the Bible, this is absolutely possible and in many cases preferred. The Catholic 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.
The Bible states that “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 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. And it’s all based on explicit biblical teaching and examples. The Bible refers to preeminent, effective prayer warriors and valiant intercessors like Moses (Ex 32:30; Num 11:1-2; 14:11-13, 19-20; 21:6-8; Dt 9:18-19; 10:10), Samuel (1 Sam 7:8; 12:18-19), Elisha (2 Ki 6:18), Elijah (James 5:17-18), and King Hezekiah ( 2 Chr 30:18-20).
*
***
*
Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them. 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).
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!
Summary: I reply to a few points of a book by Anglican Henry R. Percival (1854-1903) regarding the notion of patron saints and asking saints’ intercession rather than praying directly to God.
If I am asked for proof of the doctrine being held in the early Church, I answer that it seems included in the general belief that the Blessed Virgin was without sin – and, while not much is said about her at all, when she is spoken of, she is spoken of in this aspect. I need not do more than remind you of the well known passage of St Augustine, in which he says that, when Mary is named, he does not wish to make any mention of sin, as if the two names were antagonistic – but what to me is, and ever has been, most striking, is the series of passages from the earliest Fathers in which Mary is contrasted to Eve, as typical contrasts. St Justin (A.D 160) St Irenaeus (A.D. 170) Tertullian (A.D 200) all enlarge on this contrast – and later Fathers hand down the Tradition. The very point indeed in which the contrast is made, is that of obedience – but, when St Irenaeus says, ’mankind is surrendered to death by a Virgin, and is saved by a Virgin,’ he surely implies that as Eve was without sin, so was Mary. Why indeed is it difficult to suppose that Mary had at least the privilege of Eve? – and Eve had an immaculate conception and birth. . . . I think I am right in saying, that the only great historical difficulty of the doctrine is the opposition, if it may be so called, of St Bernard and St Thomas – yet to my mind it is clearly shown that they did not mean by the doctrine what the Church now means . . . the two saints in question were opposing what no one now thinks of maintaining . . . (The Letters and Diaries of John Henry Newman, vol. 19; To Arthur Osborne Alleyne, 30 May 1860)
You will ask perhaps, ‘Why then was there so much controversy about the doctrine or about its definition?’ . . . I do not see any difficulty in the matter. From the beginning of the Church even good and holy men have got involved in controversies of words. . . . The devotion to her has gradually and slowly extended through the Church; the doctrine about her being always the same from the first. But the gradual growth of the devotion was a cause why that doctrine, in spite of its having been from the first, should have been but slowly recognised, slowly defined. . . . ‘The new devotion was first heard of in the ninth century.’ Suppose I say, ‘The new doctrine of our Lord’s immensity, contradicted by all the Ante-nicene Fathers, was first heard of in the creed of St Athanasius?’ or ‘The Filioque, protested against by the Orthodox Church to this day, was first heard of in the 7th Century?’ Whatever principle is adduced to explain the latter statement will avail for the first. . . . The Holy Ghost’s eternity is involved in His divinity; the Blessed Virgin’s immaculateness in her conception is involved in the general declarations of the Fathers about her sinlessness. If all Catholics have not seen this at once, we must recollect that there were at first mistakes among pious and holy men about the attributes of the Holy Spirit. . . . I fully grant that there is not that formal documentary evidence for the doctrine in question which there is for some other doctrines, but I maintain also that, from its character, it does not require it. (The Letters and Diaries of John Henry Newman, vol 19; To Arthur Osborne Alleyne, 15 June 1860)
I ask you, have you any intention to deny that Mary was as fully endowed as Eve? is it any violent inference, that she, who was to co-operate in the redemption of the world, at least was not less endowed with power from on high, than she who, given as a help-mate to her husband, did in the event but cooperate with him for its ruin? If Eve was raised above human nature by that indwelling moral gift which we call grace, is it rash to say that Mary had even a greater grace? And this consideration gives significance to the Angel’s salutation of her as “full of grace,”—an interpretation of the original word which is undoubtedly the right one, as soon as we resist the common Protestant assumption that grace is a mere external approbation or acceptance, answering to the word “favour,” whereas it is, as the Fathers teach, a real inward condition or superadded quality of soul.
And if Eve had this supernatural inward gift given her from the first moment of her personal existence, is it possible to deny that Mary too had this gift from the very first moment of her personal existence? I do not know how to resist this inference:—well, this is simply and literally the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. I say the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is in its substance this, and nothing more or less than this (putting aside the question of degrees of grace); and it really does seem to me bound up in the doctrine of the Fathers, that Mary is the second Eve. . . .
It has no reference whatever to her parents, but simply to her own person; it does but affirm that, together with the nature which she inherited from her parents, that is, her own nature, she had a superadded fulness of grace, and that from the first moment of her existence. Suppose Eve had stood the trial, and not lost her first grace; and suppose she had eventually had children, those children from the first moment of their existence would, through divine bounty, have received the same privilege that she had ever had; that is, as she was taken from Adam’s side, in a garment, so to say, of grace, so they in turn would have received what may be called an immaculate conception. They would have then been conceived in grace, as in fact they are conceived in sin. What is there difficult in this doctrine? What is there unnatural? Mary may be called, as it were, a daughter of Eve unfallen.
You believe with us that St. John Baptist had grace given to him three months before his birth, at the time that the Blessed Virgin visited his mother. He accordingly was not immaculately conceived, because he was alive before grace came to him; but our Lady’s case only differs from his in this respect, that to her the grace of God came, not three months merely before her birth, but from the first moment of her being, as it had been given to Eve. . . . they fancy that we ascribe a different nature from ours to the Blessed Virgin, different from that of her parents, and from that of fallen Adam. We hold nothing of the kind; we consider that in Adam she died, as others; that she was included, together with the whole race, in Adam’s sentence; that she incurred his debt, as we do; but that, for the sake of Him who was to redeem her and us upon the Cross, to her the debt was remitted by anticipation, on her the sentence was not carried out, except indeed as regards her natural death, for she died when her time came, as others. All this we teach, but we deny that she had original sin; . . . Mary could not merit, any more than they, the restoration of that grace; but it was restored to her by God’s free bounty, from the very first moment of her existence, and thereby, in fact, she never came under the original curse, which consisted in the loss of it.
And she had this special privilege, in order to fit her to become the Mother of her and our Redeemer, to fit her mentally, spiritually for it; so that, by the aid of the first grace, she might so grow in grace, that, when the Angel came and her Lord was at hand, she might be “full of grace,” prepared as far as a creature could be prepared, to receive Him into her bosom. I have drawn the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, as an immediate inference, from the primitive doctrine that Mary is the second Eve. The argument seems to me conclusive . . . (Letter to Pusey, ch. 3, 1865; paragraph breaks my own)
As to the antiquity of the doctrine. In the first ages original sin was not. formally spoken of in contrast to actual. In the fourth century, Pelagius denied it, and was refuted and denounced by St Augustine. Not till the time of St Augustine could the question be mooted precisely whether our Lady was without original sin or not. Up to his time, and after his time, it was usual to say or to imply that Mary had nothing to do with sin, in vague terms. The earliest Fathers, St Justin, St Irenaeus etc. contrast her with Eve, while they contrast our Lord with Adam. In doing this – 1. they, sometimes imply, sometimes insist upon, the point that Eve sinned when tried, and Mary did not sin when tried; and 2. they say that, by not sinning, Mary had a real part in the work of redemption, in a way in which no other creature had a share. This does not go so far as actually to pronounce that she had the grace of God from the first moment of her existence, and never was under the power of original sin, but by comparing her with Eve, who was created of course without original sin, and by giving her so high an office, it implies it. Next, shortly after St Augustine, the 3rd General Council was held against Nestorius, and declared Mary to be the Mother of God. From this time the language of the Fathers is very strong, though vague, about her immaculateness. In the time of Mahomet the precise doctrine seems to have been taught in the East, for I think he mentions it in the Koran. In the middle ages, when everything was subjected to rigid examination of a reasoning character, the question was raised whether the doctrine was consistent with the Blessed Virgin’s having a human father and mother – and serious objections were felt to it on this score. Men defined the words ’Immaculate Conception’ differently from what I have done above, and in consequence denied it. St Bernard and St Thomas, in this way, were opposed to it, and the Dominicans. A long controversy ensued and a hot one – it lasted many centuries. At length, in our time, it has been defined in that sense in which I have explained the words above – a sense, which St Bernard, St Thomas, and the Dominicans did not deny. The same controversy about the sense of a word had occurred in the instance of the first General Council at Nicaea. The Nicene Creed uses the word ’Consubstantial’ to protect the doctrine of our Lord’s divinity against Arius, which the great Council of Antioch some 70 years before had repudiated as a symbol of heresy. In like manner great Saints have repudiated the words ’Immaculate Conception,’ from taking them in a different sense from that which the Church has accepted and sanctioned. (The Letters and Diaries of John Henry Newman, vol. 22; To Lady Chatterton, 2 Oct. 1865)
Of course the comparison between Eve and Mary is in all the Fathers ’mystical throughout,’ not literal. Our Lord is Adam mystically – and Mary is Eve. Unless there is a likeness, there would be no mystical relation. The Lamb of God, the King of Israel, the Elias that was to come, the New Jeru salem are all mystical; but we interpret the new by the old. We say that our Lord was a sacrifice, because he was mystically a Lamb – and Mary sinless because she was mystically Eve. (The Letters and Diaries of John Henry Newman, vol. 22; To Robert Charles Jenkins, 26 Feb. 1866)
That the Immaculate Conception was in the depositum seems to me clear, as soon as it is understood what the doctrine is. I have drawn out the argument in my “Letter to Dr. Pusey.” The Fathers from the beginning call Mary the Second Eve. This has been the dogma proclaimed by the earliest Fathers. There are three especially witnesses to [it] in three or four or five countries widely separated. St. Justin Martyr speaks for Syria, St. Irenaeus for Asia Minor and Gaul, and Tertullian for Rome and Africa. Nothing is included in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception which is not included in the Eve character of Mary—nay, not so much, for Eve in Paradise did not need redemption, but Mary was actually redeemed by the blood of her Son so much as any of us, and the grace she had was not like Eve’s grace in Paradise, but simply a purchased grace. (Letter to Mrs. William Froude, March 1871; in Wilfrid Ward, The Life of John Henry Cardinal Newman, vol. 2, 1912, 376-377)
This is what is often called development of doctrine. It is no where said e.g., by the early Fathers, that Mary was without sin – but they do say that she is the second Eve, and that also she is the contrary to Eve in not having fallen; from which the Church, under the gift of infallibility, deduces her sinlessness. (The Letters and Diaries of John Henry Newman, vol. 27, 84; Letter to J. H. Willis Nevins, 25 June 1874)
That “Mary is the new Eve,” . . . is an explicit tradition; and by the force of it follow two others, which are implicit:—first (considering the condition of Eve in paradise), that Mary had no part in sin, and indefinitely large measures of grace; secondly (considering the doctrine of merits), that she has been exalted to glory proportionate to that grace. (Note III for Letter to Pusey, in Certain Difficulties Felt by Anglicans in Catholic Teaching Considered, vol. 2, 1875)
The early teaching was that Mary was the ‘Second Eve –’ now Eve was filled with grace from the moment she was taken from Adam’s side – and this is just the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. (The Letters and Diaries of John Henry Newman, vol. 28, 129; Letter to John Douglas Sandford, 21 Oct. 1876)
Now, as to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, it was implied in early times, and never denied. In the Middle Ages it was denied by St. Thomas and by St. Bernard, but they took the phrase in a different sense from that in which the Church now takes it. They understood it with reference to our Lady’s mother, and thought it contradicted the text, “In sin hath my mother conceived me”—whereas we do not speak of the Immaculate Conception except as relating to Mary; and the other doctrine (which St. Thomas and St. Bernard did oppose) is really heretical. . . . Consider what I have said. Is it, after all, certainly irrational? is it certainly against Scripture? is it certainly against the primitive Fathers? is it certainly idolatrous? I cannot help smiling as I put the questions. Rather, may not something be said for it from reason, from piety, from antiquity, from the inspired text? . . . Many, many doctrines are far harder than the Immaculate Conception. The doctrine of Original Sin is indefinitely harder. Mary just has not this difficulty. It is no difficulty to believe that a soul is united to the flesh without original sin; the great mystery is that any, that millions on millions, are born with it. Our teaching about Mary has just one difficulty less than our teaching about the state of mankind generally. (Meditations and Devotions of the Late Cardinal Newman, edited by William P. Neville; London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1907, “Memorandum on the Immaculate Conception”)
1) Many Church fathers (including, notably, St. Augustine) held that Mary was free of actual sin, but not of original sin. I have argued that the essence of the Immaculate Conception was sinlessness. Cdl. Newman contended several times above that the analogy to Eve (Second or New Eve) presupposes Mary’s sinlessness, because Eve was created sinless, and Mary in effect “undid” Eve’s subsequent sin and fall. She was the “Eve” who said yes to God instead of no. But the extension of her being without actual sin to being free of original sin can easily and plausibly be regarded as a better understood development of her freedom from sinlessness.
2) Related to #1 and also mentioned by Cdl. Newman is the fact that the doctrine of original sin itself (explicitly attested to in very few passages in Holy Scripture) was slow to develop; basically taking until Augustine’s time in the late 4th century (and there were also east-west differences that have existed ever since). Obviously, then, patristic quotes before this time would not have been taking it into account.
3) It poses no problem for Catholicism if some Church fathers simply were wrong about this doctrine or any other that we believe in. St. Augustine was wrong, for example, about double predestination. But in any event, we don’t regard the Church fathers (especially not as individuals) as infallible. Even “unanimous consent” of the fathers doesn’t literally mean that, in the Latin. It means “overall consensus.” The Church fathers aren’t part of the Catholic magisterium (our basis of ecclesial authority). That would be the pope, when he indicates that he is making a binding proclamation of dogma, and bishops collectively in an ecumenical council, in agreement with the pope. But we do think it’s significant and an indication of the presence of sacred tradition and the apostolic deposit in cases where they exhibit an overwhelming consensus regarding a doctrine.
4) As I contended in my previous related paper, doctrines develop at different rates of speed, and this is one that was relatively slower, largely because of, I think, the fact that Jesus was front and center, both in the New Testament and in the fathers in the earlier centuries. But as an analogy, trinitarianism also took about the same length of time to fully develop. I wrote:
The Christological heresy of Monophysitism was still present in the 6th century, and Monothelitism extended all the way to the Third Council of Constantinople in 681, where it was condemned. . . . Andrew of Crete (c. 660-740) wrote about how “human nature . . . regains in her person its ancient privileges and is fashioned according to a perfect model truly worthy of God” (Homily 1 on Mary’s Nativity) . . . Marian scholar Hilda Graef, a source that appeared once in your article, noted that “according to John of Damascus [c. 675-749], even the ‘active’ conception of Mary was completely without stain . . .”: a position that even goes beyond what the Catholic dogma holds (which is that her immaculate conception had nothing to do with her parents at all). Thus, these last two writers express pretty much the fully developed doctrine of Mary’s Immaculate Conception, around the same time as trinitarian debates were wrapping up, or only shortly thereafter. So Catholics ask Protestants, in Newmanian analogical style: “if even trinitarianism was fully developed as late as 681, why is it an issue that Mary’s Immaculate Conception was first explicitly expressed (as far as we know) around the same time?” If one thing is okay, so is the other. One can’t accept late development only of Protestant distinctives or doctrines where we agree. The same analysis and standard has to be used across the board.
5) The time of ensoulment also had to wait until a proper understanding of biology was achieved, and it’s still held in faith because science per se (based on empiricism) doesn’t deal with souls. Many through the centuries thought that it occurred at quickening, or the detection of movement in a preborn child. This was what St. Thomas Aquinas got wrong. Even Martin Luther’s later view (sometime after 1527) — which I have researched in great detail — partially depended on this distinction, and/or held that Mary’s purification from both actual and original sin occurred at the conception of Christ, not her own. Many Lutheran scholars contend that Luther held to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception his entire life. Others — I agree with them — think he changed to a somewhat different view later on. I have called his later position, “Immaculate Purification.”
6) A key aspect of the Catholic doctrine involves the idea of “pre-redemption”: meaning that Mary was still saved from sin like we all are because God prevented — by an extraordinary act of grace at her conception — what would have been an inevitable inheritance of original sin, and very likely also actual sin as a consequence. This is why Mary can refer to God as her savior, without contradiction to our doctrine. Duns Scotus (c. 1365-1408) is credited with this insight.
7) Related to #6 is a sense in which Mary did inherit original sin by being conceived. But God chose to intervene because she was the mother of God the Son, and it was fitting to do so (itself a biblical concept, as I have shown). Assume for the sake of argument that Mary actually inherited original sin for a nanosecond before God performed His special act of grace. Whether that happened or not, still we know that she definitely would have inherited it had God not acted. The very act on His part shows that it was necessary to prevent such an inheritance. In this specific sense one can incorporate all of the statements from the fathers saying that inheritance of original sin was universal, without any harm to the Catholic doctrine.
I could probably think of a few more general observations if I kept pondering it, but as I said in my previous article, I don’t intend to make a full reply. My main point that I want to get across is to note that the issue is not nearly as simple as merely a compilation of all the citations Javier found; because they have to be understood and interpreted in historical context (and each fathers’ other writings as well, because they can develop or change) and subjected to the qualifiers I have brought up.
*
***
*
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).
You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my YouTube channel, Catholic Bible Highlights, where I partner with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos), and/or by signing up to receive notice for new articles on this blog. Just type your email address on the sidebar to the right (scroll down quite a bit), where you see, “Sign Me Up!” Thanks a million!
*
***
*
Photo credit:cover of my 2012 book, published by Sophia Institute Press (see book & purchase info.).
Summary: Lutheran apologist Javier Perdomo’s claims that the Church fathers contradict Mary’s sinlessness and Immaculate Conception. I respond with Newman & a few more thoughts.
Catholic Apologist John Martignoni strongly critiques me in his “Apologetics for the Masses #501” and — as one can see from my title, which cites his own article title: states that he has never heard of papal indefectibility. I can understand that, at least to some extent, because I didn’t think or write all that much about it, either, until my good friend, the theologian Dr. Robert Fastiggi, editor of the latest (43rd edition of) Denzinger’s Enchiridion symbolorum and 2018 revised version of Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, highlighted it in 2020. Live and learn. I love to learn more and more about the Catholic faith. It encourages and edifies me.
*
But I had essentially addressed the topic in a broad way as far back as my first book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, which was actually finished in May 1996 (later published “officially” in 2003), and included a Foreword and glowing endorsement from Servant of God John A. Hardon, SJ, who was arguably the leading catechist in the United States in the 1990s, when the Catholic Catechism was published. One time, in person (I attended many of his Ignatian Catechist classes and he received me into the Church), he described my writing in that book as “very Catholic”: which humbles me, and which I consider the greatest compliment that I have ever received about my apologetics — and my orthodoxy. In my chapter on the papacy, I cited one of the well-known prooftexts and then St. Francis de Sales’ interpretation of it:
Luke 22:31-32 [RSV] Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren. . . .
Our Lord . . ., having planted this holy assembly of the disciples, prayed for the head and the root, in order that the water of faith might not fail to him who was therewith to supply all the rest, and in order that through the head the faith might always be preserved in the Church. (pp. 228-229; citing The Catholic Controversy, Henry B. Mackey, translator, Rockford, Illinois: TAN Books, 1989 [originally 1596], 258-259)
If the council and popes are positively promulgating “grave” heretical error, then surely the Satanic conspiracy to overthrow the Church is complete, and the “gates of hell” have prevailed against the Church, contrary to our Lord’s promises (Matthew 16:18). This would, of course, raise further thorny difficulties for orthodox Christology. (p. 34)
Note that I didn’t use the term, “papal indefectibility” in either instance; but the idea is there, just as words like Trinity or transubstantiation are not in the Bible, yet we believe that the concepts are taught there. Apart from such fleeting treatments, however, I didn’t write or think much about it, until recently. I assumed that the pope could not promulgate as binding on all Catholics, doctrines that were untrue, as a function of his charism of infallibility. Martignoni (words in blue henceforth) repeatedly insinuates in his latest polemic, that I am supposedly some sort of loose cannon, foolishly seeking to foist unfounded notions upon my readers:
On my “John Martignoni and the Bible Christian Society” Facebook page, I recently had someone post the following: “There are certain apologists online accusing certain bishops and cardinals of being heretics for not holding to papal indefectibility. But in my understanding there is no such thing, only the limits of papal infallibility?” (Huh…ya think she might be referring to Dave Armstrong?) Anyway, basically, this person is saying that, as she understands it, there is no such thing as a doctrine of papal indefectibility. So, I thought I would re-visit this doctrine of “papal indefectibility” that Armstrong claims was proclaimed at Vatican Council I and see if it really is a “thing”. . . . [this charge is a rank falsehood, that I thoroughly debunked almost a year ago — obviously to no avail! — in my article, I Never Regarded Bp. Strickland Or Cdl. Burke As “Heretics”: Contra John Martignoni’s Repeated Claims to the Contrary ]
*
This phrase, ‘papal indefectibility,’ that Armstrong uses, is not something I’ve seen commonly used. I’ve always seen the word ‘indefectibility’ used in regard to the Church as a whole. . . .
I started digging a little deeper into “papal indefectibility”. And guess what? I couldn’t find that phrase used anywhere. I couldn’t find it in the Catechism. I couldn’t find it on Catholic Answers website – catholic.com. I couldn’t find it in the Code of Canon Law. I couldn’t find it in Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma – which, as I understand it, was a standard textbook in the seminaries for decades. I couldn’t find it in Denzinger’s The Sources of Catholic Dogma. I couldn’t find it in the 1918 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia that is on newadvent.org. I couldn’t find it in the Documents of Vatican II. I couldn’t find it in Our Sunday Visitor’s Catholic Dictionary, edited by Fr. Peter Stravinskas. I couldn’t find it in any of the 3 volumes of The Faith of the Early Fathers. And, I couldn’t find it in Our Sunday Visitor’s Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine, edited by Russell Shaw. I couldn’t find it anywhere. If “papal indefectibility” is indeed a “thing,” it is one that seems to be rarely mentioned, outside of the discussions of a few theologians…and Dave Armstrong.
*
I did, however, find papal “infallibility” mentioned in all of those places, and I found the indefectibility of the Church mentioned in several of those sources, but not once did I see anything on the “indefectibility” of the pope. . . .
*
I had never even heard the phrase “papal indefectibility” until I got involved in that discussion with Armstrong.
I will be documenting the fact that this doctrine is indeed taught by the Church. Here are the key passages from Vatican I, from the First Dogmatic Constitution Pastor aeternus on the Church of Christ: Session 4: July 18, 1870: the same magisterial proclamation that declared papal infallibility to be a dogma on the highest level (my bolding):
For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter, that by His revelation they might make known new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith delivered through the Apostles. And indeed all the venerable Fathers have embraced and the holy orthodox Doctors have venerated and followed their apostolic doctrine; knowing most fully that this See of Saint Peter remains ever free from all blemish of error, according to the divine promise of the Lord our Saviour made to the Prince of His disciples: “I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not; and when thou art converted, confirm thy brethren.” [Denzinger: “this See of Peter always remains untainted by any error . . .”: p. 615: #3070]
This gift, then, of truth and never-failing faith was conferred by heaven upon Peter and his successors in this Chair, that they might perform their high office for the salvation of all; that the whole flock of Christ, kept away by them from the poisonous food of error, might be nourished with the pasture of heavenly doctrine; that, the occasion of schism being removed, the whole Church might be kept one, and resting in its foundation, might stand firm against the gates of hell.
But first — before delving more deeply into the background of all that — I want to dispose of a specific serious misrepresentation of my views that Martignoni frequently asserts:
Essentially, he is saying, as best as I can discern . . . that this “doctrine of papal indefectibility” means the Pope cannot teach error in the areas of faith and morals, even if he is not speaking from the Chair of Peter to the entire Church – i.e., even if he is not speaking infallibly. He cannot teach, or even believe, any error in the realm of faith and morals, even as a private theologian or just as a private person. . . .
*
. . . Armstrong’s contention that “papal indefectibility” prevents the Pope from teaching error in faith and morals, even in a private capacity, or even believing in error in either of those areas:
*
The passage Armstrong cites above, from Vatican I, that the “See of Saint Peter remains ever free from all blemish of error,” in context, appears to be referring to the office of the Pope, not necessarily to the Pope as a private individual. . . . the verbiage from Vatican I, in context, appears to me to be referring to the Pope in his official capacity of Universal Pastor when teaching the entire Church in the area of faith and morals, and not simply in a private capacity. . . .
*
. . . “papal indefectibility,” as it is promulgated by Dave Armstrong and others – that the Pope cannot teach, much less even believe, anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, even outside of his official capacity as Universal Pastor of the Church and outside of the teaching on papal infallibility . . .
St. Bellarmine noted that it was generally agreed in Catholic theology thata pope could hold to material heresy in a private capacity (such as possibly the case with Pope John XXII and Pope Honorius I). [footnote: “…the Pope can err as a private teacher from ignorance, even in universal questions of law concerning both faith and morals, just as what happens to other teachers”. St. Robert Bellarmine De Controversiis, Book 4, Chap II.] But there was no real consensus reached among Catholic theologians as to whether or not a pope could actually fall into formal heresy (and thus lose his office via an automatic excommunication), or actively teach heresy through his authentic Magisterium (thus binding the entire Church to heresy). Both Bellarmine and Suárez speculated about the possibility of an heretical pope, but ultimately concluded that the Roman Pontiff could not fall into formal heresy, because of the Divine assistance offered towards the Successors of St. Peter, which is given in answer to Christ’s prayer for the never failing faith of Peter in Luke 22:31-32 . . .
*
With regard to the theoretical possibility of a heretical Pope, Suárez believed that even if a Pope, as a private person, might fall into error out of ignorance, God, in His divine Providence, would graciously insure that this heretical Pope would not harm the Church. (De Fide, disp. 10, sect. 6, no. 10 . . .) . . . Suárez is absolutely clear that the Roman Pontiff, when assuming the posture of the teacher of the universal Church, can never err or depart from the faith. . . .
*
St. Bellarmine did not mean that a Roman Pontiff could not hold to material heresy in his capacity as a private teacher through ignorance (since we have noted that this reality was widely accepted), but he was rather arguing that God would never allow the Successors of St. Peter to fall into formal heresy or bind the Church to such heretical teaching in the papal Magisterium, in accordance with Christ’s prayer for Peter’s never failing faith. This can be summarized by Bellarmine’s maxim: “it is gathered correctly that the Pope by his own nature can fall into heresy, but not when we posit the singular assistance of God which Christ asked for him by his prayer”. [footnote: De Controversiis, Book 4, Chap VII] . . .
St. Robert Bellarmine’s “fourth opinion”, which the Relatio states was formally dogmatized in the First Vatican Council, thus automatically precludes the idea of an heretical pope who would bind the entirety of the Faithful to error in matters related to faith or morals in the authentic papal Magisterium. [my italics and bolding]
In other words, my view in this regard is exactly that of Doctor of the Church, St. Robert Bellarmine, which the Relatio on Infallibility by Bishop Vincent Gasser holds to be precisely the position adopted by Vatican I in Pastor aeternus. As always, I follow whatever the Church teaches — as best I can determine that. I’m not promulgating my own self-produced “weird’ views. I am simply accepting, proclaiming, and defending the magisterial teaching of Vatican I, which is what every self-respecting Catholic apologist worth his salt ought to do. Even Karl Keating, founder of Catholic Answers and a key figure in the modern revival of Catholic apologetics, bore witness to that:
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. (3-23-18)
Catholic apologist Tim Staples, also with Catholic Answers, wrote similarly, and very kindly, about me:
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.
Emmett O’Regan, by the way, is a PhD candidate at the Loyola Institute, Trinity College Dublin. The title of his doctoral thesis is “The Indefectibility of the Apostolic See: The Nature and Scope of Divine Assistance for the Non-Definitive Exercise of the Authentic Magisterium.” When one writes a dissertation, he or she is expected to at least as much about the topic as anyone else. That being the case, we can safely conclude that O’Regan is an expert concerning papal indefectibility, and can be trusted to accurately convey orthodox Catholic thinking.
*
St. Robert Bellarmine wrote:
All Catholics and the heretics agree on two things. Firstly, that the Pontiff, even as Pontiff, can err in particular controversies of fact, even together with a general Council, because these depend especially on the testimonies of men. Secondly, the Pope can err as a private teacher from ignorance, even in universal questions of law concerning both faith and morals, just as what happens to other teachers. (On the Roman Pontiff [De Controversiis], translated by Ryan Grant, Post Falls, Idaho: Mediatrix Press, 2016, 152)
The protection from error in faith and morals offered towards the ordinary Magisterium through the Divine assistance of the Holy Spirit does not stem from the gift of infallibility, but is instead an essential corollary of the dogma of the indefectibility of the Church. A necessary ancillary means through which the perpetuity of the successors of St. Peter is nourished and maintained, which is independent of, albeit related to, the dogma of papal infallibility. This means that the pope cannot impose error on matters of faith and morals not only because of papal infallibility but also because of the Divine assistance implicit in the gift of indefectibility.
The term “indefectibility” is more applicable for Bellarmine’s position on the public teaching office of the pope, since he allows for the existence of certain deficiencies in this capacity while rejecting the possibility that a pope could publicly defect from the faith in the non-definitive exercise of the papal magisterium. Derived from the Latin indefectibilis (unfailing), this word indicates the inability of the church to fail or defect from the faith, which is used in a more passive and loose sense. This allows some scope for the reversal of certain contingent magisterial teachings that have not been set forth as irrevocable, while simultaneously maintaining that this non-definitive exercise of the Magisterium is still protected against doctrinal corruption through the divine assistance of the Holy Spirit. This is to be distinguished from the use of the Latin word infallibilis—used to describe the inerrancy of the church in a more active and strict sense—that is usually confined to the definition of irreformable dogmas.
Papal indefectibility has historically been derived primarily from Luke 22:31-32:
Bellarmine identifies two particular privileges that were won for the successors of Peter through the efficacy of Christ’s prayer in Luke 22:31–32:
One, that he could not ever lose the true faith insofar as he was tempted by the Devil, and that is something more than the gift of perseverance, for he said to persevere even to the end, which although he fell in the meantime, he still rose again in the end and was discovered faithful, since the Lord prayed for Peter that he could not ever fall because he held fast to the faith. The second privilege is that he, as the Pope, could never teach something against the faith, or that there would never be found one in his See who would teach against the true faith. (Grant, On the Roman Pontiff, 156; Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, book 4, chap. III, col. 713.
O’Regan also distinguishes Bellarmine’s view (again, also my own) with the “rather idiosyncratic” position of Pighius:
Albert Pighius . . . believed that “the Pope cannot in any way be a heretic nor publicly teach heresy.” . . . the key distinction is that Pighius held that the pope could not be a heretic “in any way” (non posse ullo modo esse haereticu), while Bellarmine allowed for the possibility that the pope could teach heresy as a private doctor (doctor privatus) but not in his capacity qua Roman pontiff.
Papal indefectibility is nothing new. It has developed, like all other doctrines. So, for example, in his Letter Apostolicae Sedis Primatus, dated 12 November 1199, Pope Innocent III stated:
The Lord confesses at the time of the Passion that he prayed for him: “I have prayed for you, Peter, that your faith may not fail: and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren” [Lk 22:32], by this manifestly indicating that his successors would never at any time deviate from the Catholic faith, but rather, they would recall others and also strengthen the hesitant . . .” [translation from Denzinger, Enchiridion symbolorum, 43rd edition, Ignatius Press, 2012, p. 255, #775]
The Supreme Pontiffs can exercise this form of magisterium. And this has in fact happened. Many Popes, however, have not exercised it. But it should be noted that in the conciliar texts that we are illustrating, the “ordinary” magisterium is distinguished from the “extraordinary” one, underlining the importance of the former, which is of a permanent and continuous nature; while that which is expressed in the definitions can be said to be exceptional. Alongside this infallibility of the ex cathedra definitions, there is the charism of assistance of the Holy Spirit, granted to Peter and his successors so that they do not err in matters of faith and morals and instead give good enlightenment to the Christian people. This charism is not limited to exceptional cases, but embraces in varying degrees the entire exercise of the magisterium.” [I used Google Translate in order to render the Italian into English]
He also possibly alluded to papal indefectibility in an address to the mayor of Rome: “In this same City there has now arrived a new Successor of Peter, also marked by so many human limitations, but trustful in the indefectible help of grace, . . .” (12 November 1978).
*
Martignoni wrote:
I do not claim that I know all there is to know about the Catholic Faith. So, if I say something below that is somehow found to be contrary to any teaching of the Catholic Church regarding the topic being discussed, then I renounce what I say and defer to the teaching of the Church. . . .
*
I say that if anything I have said here turns out to be contrary to the teachings of the Church, then I disavow what I have said and yield to the Church’s teachings. The problem is, I can’t find any “official” teaching on “papal indefectibility”. And I’ve looked. I can find articles from non-magisterial sources – with the opinions of theologians – on the matter, but no official magisterial teachings that define for me exactly what “papal indefectibility” is and what I am to believe in that regard. . . .
*
Again, if the Church teaches it…I believe it. If the Church doesn’t teach it…I don’t believe it.
I have provided the resources and documentation so that he can do exactly what he wants to do: submit to the teaching of the Church (once properly understood). Once he comes to grasp exactly what papal indefectibility means, according to Vatican I, essentially following the thought of St. Robert Bellarmine, I trust that he will do exactly that, and modify his article, for the sake of his readers, so that they won’t be led astray.
*
And it would be nice, too, as an extra bonus, if he would stop misrepresenting what I believe about papal indefectibility and about who is a heretic. They say that repetition is a great teacher, so here goes:
My view is identical to those of St. Robert Bellarmine and Vatican I.
My view is identical to those of St. Robert Bellarmine and Vatican I.
My view is identical to those of St. Robert Bellarmine and Vatican I.
My view is identical to those of St. Robert Bellarmine and Vatican I.
My view is identical to those of St. Robert Bellarmine and Vatican I.
Rinse, repeat, and if you still don’t get it, I am willing to clarify further. Not sure what else I can add, but I’ll give it the old college try . . .
*
***
*
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).
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:anonymous portrait of St. Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621), c. 1622 [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
Summary: Catholic apologist John Martignoni publicly took me to task over my writings regarding papal indefectibility, and also misrepresented what I believe about it. I correct his errors.
I shall now proceed to offer a critique of common Protestant attempts to ignore, explain away, rationalize, wish away, overpolemicize, minimize, de-emphasize, evade clear consequences of, or special plead with regard to “the Catholic Verses”: ninety-five biblical passages that provide the foundation for Catholicism’s most distinctive doctrines. . . .
I will assert – with all due respect and, I hope, with a minimum of “triumphalism” — the ultimate incoherence, inadequacy, inconsistency, or exegetical and theological implausibility of the Protestant interpretations, and will submit the Catholic views as exegetically and logically superior alternatives.
The dates of Calvin’s various Commentaries are as follows:
1540 Romans
1548 All the Epistles of Paul
1551 Hebrews, and the Epistles of Peter, John, Jude, and James
1551 Isaiah
1552 Acts of the Apostles
1554 Genesis
1557 Psalms
1557 Hosea
1559 Twelve Minor Prophets
1561 Daniel
1562 Joshua
1563 Harmony of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy
1563 Jeremiah
1563 Harmony of Three Gospels and Commentary on St John
I use RSV for biblical citations. Calvin’s words will be in blue.
A complete listing of this series will be on my web page, John Calvin: Catholic Appraisal, under the subtitle: “Bible vs. ‘Faith Alone’ vs. John Calvin”.
*****
Acts 26:18 to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me. [Phillips: “made holy by their faith in me”]
Some do read it falsely in one text, among those who are sanctified by faith, because this word is extended unto the whole period. Therefore, the meaning thereof is, that by faith we come unto the possession of all those good things which are offered by the gospel. And faith is properly directed unto Christ because all the parts of our salvation are included in him.
True to form, Calvin skips over the main striking point: “sanctified by faith in me.” In other words, the same faith that brings about justification includes sanctification at the same time. In exercising faith, we are sanctified: the very thing that Calvin and Protestants generally try to make out is completely separate from justification. It’s impossible to do because this passage and Romans 6:22 (“. . . sanctification and its end, eternal life”) organically connect the two in a way that is rather difficult to explain away. Thus, since sophistry wouldn’t explain away this passage, Calvin opted for his other frequent dubious method: ignoring the obviously “Catholic” implications of it.
Romans 2:6-10 For he will render to every man according to his works: [7] to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; [8] but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. [9] There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, [10] but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.
There is not so much difficulty in this verse [2:6], as it is commonly thought. For the Lord, by visiting the wickedness of the reprobate with just vengeance, will recompense them with what they have deserved: and as he sanctifies those whom he has previously resolved to glorify, he will also crown their good works, but not on account of any merit: nor can this be proved from this verse; for though it declares what reward good works are to have, it does yet by no means show what they are worth, or what price is due to them. And it is an absurd inference, to deduce merit from reward.
But this completely ignores — with boilerplate rhetoric –, the entire thrust of 2:6 combined with 2:7: where “well-doing” is assumed to be a cause of “eternal life”: a thing that simply can’t be in Calvin’s soteriology, because it would entail the dreaded, despised merit.
And when he says, that the faithful, by continuing in good works, seek glory and honour, he does not mean that they aspire after any thing else but the favor of God, or that they strive to attain any thing higher, or more excellent: but they can not seek him, without striving, at the same time, for the blessedness of his kingdom, the description of which is contained in the paraphrase given in these words. The meaning then is, — that the Lord will give eternal life to those who, by attention to good works, strive to attain immortality.
Here, Calvin is essentially making our argument for us, since he seems to be saying that good works and striving have to do with immortality (i.e., justification and salvation). But that’s our view, so he appears to be internally incoherent and inconsistent, which is not all that uncommon in Calvin, though much less so than with Luther.
Calvin then completely skips over v. 10. I guess I would, too, if I held his view, since Paul is saying that salvation comes to “every one who does good” as opposed to everyone having faith alone in Jesus.
***
“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”!If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 5,000+ articles, please follow my blog by signing up (with your email address) on the sidebar to the right (you may have to scroll down a bit), above where there is an icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. My blog was rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT: endorsed by influential Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Actually, I partner with Kenny Burchard on the YouTube channel, Catholic Bible Highlights. Please subscribe there, too! Please also consider following me on Twitter / X and purchasing one or more of my 55 books. All of this helps me get more exposure, and (however little!) more income for my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!
***
Romans 2:13For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.
How does Calvin attempt to explain away such a clear “Catholic” verse? He does so by eisegesis (reading into it what isn’t there) and sophistry:
They who pervert this passage for the purpose of building up justification by works, deserve most fully to be laughed at even by children. It is therefore improper and beyond what is needful, to introduce here a long discussion on the subject, with the view of exposing so futile a sophistry: for the Apostle only urges here on the Jews what he had mentioned, the decision of the law, — That by the law they could not be justified, except they fulfilled the law, that if they transgressed it, a curse was instantly pronounced on them. Now we do not deny but that perfect righteousness is prescribed in the law: but as all are convicted of transgression, we say that another righteousness must be sought. Still more, we can prove from this passage that no one is justified by works; for if they alone are justified by the law who fulfill the law, it follows that no one is justified; for no one can be found who can boast of having fulfilled the law.
In my opinion, this is obviously self-refuting. He’s not dealing straightforwardly with the text, because if he did, he’d be unable to avoid to a “Catholic” conclusion, and he can never do that, so . . .
Romans 6:22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life.
We now gather the fruit of righteousness, even holiness; we hope in future to gain eternal life. These things, unless we are beyond measure stupid, ought to generate in our minds a hatred and horror of sin, and also a love and desire for righteousness. Some render τελος, “tribute” or reward, and not “end,” but not, as I think, according to the meaning of the Apostle; for though it is true that we bear the punishment of death on account of sin, yet this word is not suitable to the other clause, to which it is applied by Paul, inasmuch as life cannot be said to be the tribute or reward of righteousness.
Here he simply denies what the text says: a form of sophistry, especially in his last clause. It can’t be, so it isn’t, despite the fact that Holy Scripture plainly asserts it. Man-made tradition trumps God’s inspired, infallible revelation. What a cynical and sad view: to treat God’s Word in such a cavalier fashion.
Romans 8:13 for if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live.
This is a classic Hebraic, biblical “if . . . then” contract-like conditional: “if you do [bad thing] x, you’ll die, but if you do [good thing] y, you will live.” It’s undeniably direct causation. Here, a carnal, worldly life brings spiritual death, but a Spirit-filled life brings eternal life. This, of course, goes against the Calvinist doctrine that one is justified once-and-for all in one moment, by faith, and that, thereafter, good works, while beneficial and encouraged by Calvin, have nothing to do with salvation whatsoever. The problem is that the biblical text — like many others I have found — doesn’t read like one would expect it to read, were Calvin’s doctrine true. So let’s see how he tries to evade that fact.
He adds a threatening, in order more effectually to shake off their torpor; by which also they are fully confuted who boast of justification by faith without the Spirit of Christ, though they are more than sufficiently convicted by their own conscience; for there is no confidence in God, where there is no love of righteousness. It is indeed true, that we are justified in Christ through the mercy of God alone; but it is equally true and certain, that all who are justified are called by the Lord, that they may live worthy of their vocation. Let then the faithful learn to embrace him, not only for justification, but also for sanctification, as he has been given to us for both these purposes, lest they rend him asunder by their mutilated faith.
What Calvin does is apply his doctrine of irresistible grace: those who are justified by faith will inevitably live righteous lives — in a broad sense — and are incapable of doing otherwise. This flies in the face, of course, of at least 150 Bible passages that explicitly describe true believers falling away (committing apostasy). That’s an awful lot of Scripture to have to rationalize away or ignore.
He [in 8:13b] . . . moderates his address, that he might not deject the minds of the godly, who are still conscious of much infirmity; for however we may as yet be exposed to sins, he nevertheless promises life to us, provided we strive to mortify the flesh: for he does not strictly require the destruction of the flesh, but only bids us to make every exertion to subdue its lusts.
This is deviously clever. Calvin invents a “saving distinction” not found in the text itself, by asserting that Paul doesn’t “require” a renunciation and resolve to “put to death the deeds of the body”; he only demands an “e for effort”: the good ol’ college try. Nice try at smuggling in a desperate eisegetical ploy. The passage, as already noted, makes a one-on-one causal scenario: far from being optional, denouncing sin is required for salvation. To make the point crystal-clear, St. Paul reiterates it four verses later, with a reversed “if then” (“then if”) condition:
Romans 8:17 . . . heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.
Ifwe “suffer with him” then we will be “heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ” and will be “glorified with him.” The suffering isn’t optional. This is one of the most ignored verses in the New Testament. It fits perfectly into Catholic soteriology and not at all into most Protestant — particularly Calvinist — versions.
It is however the design of Paul, as it will presently appear more fully, highly to extol this inheritance promised to us, that we may be contented with it, and manfully despise the allurements of the world, and patiently bear whatever troubles may press on us in this life.
But that’s not what Paul wrote. He wasn’t merely expressing the notion that we are “contented” with whatever struggles come our way, but rather, that the sufferings have a direct bearing on whether we will be saved and attain eternal life. Calvin sidesteps this crucial factor by ignoring it. It’s his “time-honored” method.
“God’s inheritance is ours, because we have by his grace been adopted as his children; and that it may not be doubtful, its possession as been already conferred on Christ, whose partners we are become: but Christ came to it by the cross; then we must come to it in the same manner.” Nor is that to be dreaded which some fear, that Paul thus ascribes the cause of our eternal glory to our labours; for this mode of speaking is not unusual in Scripture. He denotes the order, which the Lord follows in dispensing salvation to us, rather than the cause; for he has already sufficiently defended the gratuitous mercy of God against the merits of works. When now exhorting us to patience, he does not show whence salvation proceeds, but how God governs his people.
This is pure sophistry. Having basically explicated the actual meaning in the first part of his above statement, he then proceeds to explain it away as if it has no imperative importance, by drawing a sophistical and unbiblical dichotomy between “order” and “cause.” It won’t do. The text is too clear. It goes far beyond mere “order” or chronology, to causation. It’s not descriptive (what in fact happened), but prescriptive (what we ought to do).
Romans 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel; for Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?”
Calvin completely ignores, in his commentary on this passage, the aspect of “obeyed the gospel”: which conjoins faith and works in a way that he doesn’t like. Instead, he uses the passage as an opportunity to express his false doctrine of limited atonement. He doesn’t even attack universal atonement, but rather, universalism, which, of course, neither Catholics nor Orthodox, nor the great majority of Protestants who hold to universal atonement, believe:
It is hence evident, how foolishly some maintain, that all are indiscriminately the elect, because the doctrine of salvation is universal, and because God invites all indiscriminately to himself. But the generality of the promises does not alone and by itself make salvation common to all: on the contrary, the peculiar revelation, mentioned by the Prophet, confines it to the elect.
Fighting straw men, ignoring inspired revelation that he foolishly disagrees with, and topic-switching advance his own erroneous view not a whit.
Romans 16:26 but is now disclosed and through the prophetic writings is made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith (cf. Heb 11:8-9: “By faith Abraham obeyed . . . he went out, not knowing where he was to go. By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, . . .”)
This merges faith with obedience or works, just as Romans 10:16 had done. Paul’s thought is unified and consistent. Calvin mentions the phrase “obedience of faith” but doesn’t analyze the implications of it. The editor of Calvin’s commentary on Romans draws a remarkable conclusion, in line with false elements of Calvin’s and Calvinist soteriology, by writing, “obedience to the gospel is faith in what it declares. To believe is the special command of the gospel: hence to believe is the special act of obedience that is required; and he who believes is he who shall be saved. But this faith is that of the heart, and not of the lips; and a faith which works by love and overcomes the world, the mighty power of which we learn from Hebrews 11.”
In this way, what Paul refers to when he refers to obedience, is simply obeying the command to believe in; have faith in Jesus and His death on our behalf; not any additional good works. It’s more sophistry and eisegesis. But at least Calvin himself was wise enough to not write such a silly thing (not in this place, anyway).
What would Calvin do with the related passage, Hebrews 11:8-9? It makes it clear that the obedience is not merely in the act of proclaiming faith and allegiance, but in actions that proceed “by” this same faith. So they can’t be equated. Abraham exhibited or lived out his faith by obeying God’s commandment to travel to a different land.
Abraham himself had no excellency which did not proceed from faith. He first teaches us that faith was the cause why he immediately obeyed God when he was commanded to remove from his own country; and then that through the same faith it was that he went on without wavering, according to what he was called to do even to the end. By these two things, — his promptness in obeying, and his perseverance, was Abraham’s faith most clearly proved.
This is good and true as far as it goes. But Calvin doesn’t go the whole way and acknowledge that faith and works go hand-in-hand, in terms of how one achieves salvation, as James makes very clear. To Calvin, this biblical teaching amounts to a Pelagian glorifying of what he thinks is a false notion of merit (a doctrine that has at least fifty biblical passages in its favor). I’ve also collected 80 passages that teach a salvation caused in part by various actions or works. Calvin eloquently describes Abraham’s extraordinary faith, expressed in a profound obedience:
It is a no ordinary trial of faith to give up what we have in hand, in order to seek what is afar off, and unknown to us. For when God commanded him to leave his own country, he did not point out the place where he intended him to live, but left him in suspense and perplexity of mind: “go”, he said, “into the place that I will show thee.” (Genesis 12:1.) Why did he defer to point out the place, except that his faith might be more and more exercised? Besides, the love of his native land might not only have retarded the alacrity of Abraham, but also held him so bound to it, so as not to quit his home. His faith then was not of an ordinary kind, which thus broke through all hindrances and carried him where the Lord called him to go. . . . That Abraham then courageously sustained this trial was an instance of great fortitude; but it proceeded from faith alone.
Exactly: faith and works go together and are organically connected. Sadly, Calvin gets so close to that here, without actually explicitly accepting it.
*
***
* Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
Summary: One of a series examining how John Calvin (1509-1564) exegeted biblical passages in his Commentaries that (in my opinion) refute the novel Protestant doctrine of “faith alone”.
Matthew 19:29; 25:34-46; Mark 16:16; Luke 6:35; Acts 10:34-35
Photo credit: Historical mixed media figure of John Calvin produced by artist/historian George S. Stuart and photographed by Peter d’Aprix: from the George S. Stuart Gallery of Historical Figures archive [Wikimedia Commons / Creative CommonsAttribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license]
I shall now proceed to offer a critique of common Protestant attempts to ignore, explain away, rationalize, wish away, overpolemicize, minimize, de-emphasize, evade clear consequences of, or special plead with regard to “the Catholic Verses”: ninety-five biblical passages that provide the foundation for Catholicism’s most distinctive doctrines. . . .
I will assert – with all due respect and, I hope, with a minimum of “triumphalism” — the ultimate incoherence, inadequacy, inconsistency, or exegetical and theological implausibility of the Protestant interpretations, and will submit the Catholic views as exegetically and logically superior alternatives.
The dates of Calvin’s various Commentaries are as follows:
1540 Romans
1548 All the Epistles of Paul
1551 Hebrews, and the Epistles of Peter, John, Jude, and James
1551 Isaiah
1552 Acts of the Apostles
1554 Genesis
1557 Psalms
1557 Hosea
1559 Twelve Minor Prophets
1561 Daniel
1562 Joshua
1563 Harmony of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy
1563 Jeremiah
1563 Harmony of Three Gospels and Commentary on St John
I use RSV for biblical citations. Calvin’s words will be in blue.
A complete listing of this series will be on my web page, John Calvin: Catholic Appraisal, under the subtitle: “Bible vs. ‘Faith Alone’ vs. John Calvin”.
*****
Matthew 19:29 And every one who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life. (cf. Mk 10:29-30)
After having raised the expectation of his followers to the hope of a future life,
Indeed, Jesus said in v. 28: “you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones . . .”
he supports them by immediate consolations, and strengthens them for bearing the cross. For though God permit his people to be severely afflicted, he never abandons them, so as not to recompense their distresses by his assistance. And here he does not merely address the apostles, but takes occasion to direct his discourse generally to all the godly. The substance of it is this: Those who shall willingly lose all for the sake of Christ, will be more happy even in this life than if they had retained the full possession of them; but the chief reward is laid up for them in heaven.
Jesus expresses the thought, “If you do x, you inherit eternal life.” That’s much different from “if you believe in me and have faith, you receive possibility of having a connection to salvation. They don’t fit the “plan” and so they are either totally ignored, or else this obvious aspect is simply not addressed. Calvin noted that Jesus went beyond the disciples to “all the godly.”
But Calvin does a clever and not altogether honest thing. Rather than assert that their reward is heaven itself, as the passage does (“everyone who has [done any of these self-sacrificing things] . . . will . . . inherit eternal life”), he claims that “the chief reward is laid up for them in heaven”: that is, the person who does these things will be more greatly rewarded in heaven (the differential rewards that we all agree upon). But that’s not what the text teaches. It doesn’t say that the reward in heaven is a “hundredfold.” The “hundredfold” is referring to this life. The cross-references in Mark and Luke make this absolutely clear:
Mark 10:30 . . . receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life.
Luke 18:30 . . . receive manifold more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life.”
This is utterly contrary to the doctrine of “faith alone.” Calvin alludes to rewards in this life (“will be more happy even in this life”) but he doesn’t acknowledge that heaven itself is a reward, too. To sum up, the text (most undeniably in Mark and Luke) is in the following logical form: “whoever does x, will receive yandz“: as opposed to, “whoever does x, will receive yas part of z“.
Calvin simply ignores the central teaching of the text itself. And that won’t do. If we are serious about following the Bible as God’s inspired revelation, we must follow it wherever it leads, rather than trying to force-fit it into our preconceived theology, when in fact it does not harmonize with the latter (what is called eisegesis, or “reading into” a biblical text things that aren’t present). It’s an even more serious error when one is “messing around” with the words of Our Lord Jesus Himself.
Matthew 25:34-35, 41-43, 46 Then the King will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; [35] for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, . . . [41] Then he will say to those at his left hand, `Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; [42] for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, [43] I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ . . . [46] And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
We must remember Christ’s design; for he bids his disciples rest satisfied now with hope, that they may with patience and tranquillity of mind look for the enjoyment of the heavenly kingdom; and next, he bids them strive earnestly, and not become wearied in the right course. To this latter clause he refers, when he promises the inheritance of the heavens to none but those who by good works aim at the prize of the heavenly calling. But before speaking of the reward of good works, he points out, in passing, that the commencement of salvation flows from a higher source; for by calling them blessed of the Father, he reminds them, that their salvation proceeded from the undeserved favor of God. Among the Hebrews the phrase blessed of God means one who is dear to God, or beloved by God. . . . There can be no doubt, therefore, that Christ, in describing the salvation of the godly, begins with the undeserved love of God, by which those who, under the guidance of the Spirit in this life, aim at righteousness, were predestined to life. [my bolding]
I think he’s putting too much stock in the notion that “blessed of God” could only mean “one of the elect.” After all, we have this passage, too:
Luke 6:20 And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said: “Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.”
Does that mean they were all saved and predestined for heaven? It can’t, since Judas was among them at this time (he was mentioned along with all the others in 6:14-16). Jesus also said the following:
Matthew 26:24-25 . . . woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.” [25] Judas, who betrayed him, said, “Is it I, Master?” He said to him, “You have said so.”
John 17:11-12 And now I am no more in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name, which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one. [12] While I was with them, I kept them in thy name, which thou hast given me; I have guarded them, and none of them is lost but the son of perdition, that the scripture might be fulfilled.
Therefore, it follows inexorably that just because one is pronounced to be “blessed” by Jesus, or even that they possess “the kingdom of God”: it doesn’t always or necessarily mean that they are saved, let alone predestined to be saved. I think this is simply Calvin’s way of trying to avoid the plain “Catholic” implications of the text. In context, “blessed of my Father” refers to those who are actually about to enter eternal life. That said, it doesn’t follow, even if they are predestined (Catholics agree that all saved persons were predestined by God), that works had nothing to do with it. We say that both things are relevant to salvation, because Jesus said so (more plainly here than almost anywhere else in Scripture, out of the one hundred examples I have compiled).
It’s Jesus (not some pope or other Catholic) Who said that the ones who went to heaven at the Last Judgment did so, “for” [synonym of “because” here] they did various works. And the damned went to hell “for” they refused to do the same good works. That’s causation, any way we look at it. We’re happy to agree that the works go hand-in-hand with grace and faith; no problem. It’s what the Bible teaches. But Protestants want to remove works from the equation altogether, and that is what is blatantly unbiblical. They amazingly exclude from consideration the very thing that Jesus singled out in this passage, in Matthew 19:29, and earlier in Matthew 19, in His discussion with the rich young ruler (discussed solely and at length in my previous installment).
***
“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 5,000+ articles, please follow my blog by signing up (with your email address) on the sidebar to the right (you may have to scroll down a bit), above where there is an icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. My blog was rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT: endorsed by influential Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Actually, I partner with Kenny Burchard on the YouTube channel, Catholic Bible Highlights. Please subscribe there, too! Please also consider following me on Twitter / X and purchasing one or more of my 55 books. All of this helps me get more exposure, and (however little!) more income for my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!
***
To this also relates what he says shortly afterwards, that the kingdom, to the possession of which they will be appointed at the last day, had been prepared for them from the beginning of the world. For though it may be easy to object, that the reward was laid up with a view to their future merits, any person who will candidly examine the words must acknowledge that there is an implied commendation of the grace of God. Nay more, Christ does not simply invite believers to possess the kingdom, as if they had obtained it by their merits, but expressly says that it is bestowed on them as heirs.
Again, it’s both things. Those who are saved in the end, were indeed predestined to be among the elect. But merit is still a factor in the causation of salvation because Jesus said it was (the all-important word, for in Matthew 25).
Let us always remember the inheritance which awaits us in heaven; for it depends on no uncertain event, but was prepared for us by God before we were born, —prepared, I say, for each of the elect, for the persons here addressed by Christ are the blessed of the Father.
Even as great of a saint as St. Paul wasn’t absolutely sure that he was saved, as Calvin thinks we all can and should be, since he wrote:
Philippians 3:11-13 that if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. [12] Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. [13] Brethren, I do not consider that I have made it my own . . .
Note the six tentative qualifiers there . . . God knew that Paul was in the elect and would go to heaven, but Paul wasn’t sure, because he wasn’t God and didn’t know the future. And that’s the point in these discussions of predestination and our supposed certain knowledge of our salvation. We can have a moral assurance but not an absolute assurance.
For I was hungry. If Christ were now speaking of the cause of our salvation, the Papists could not be blamed for inferring that we merit eternal life by good works;
He’s certainly speaking of one of the causes, and the only one mentioned in this passage concerning the Last Judgment. Faith is never mentioned.
but as Christ had no other design than to exhort his people to holy and upright conduct, it is improper to conclude from his words what is the value of the merits of works. With regard to the stress which they lay on the word for, as if it pointed out the cause, it is a weak argument; for we know that, when eternal life is promised to the righteous, the word for does not always denote a cause, but rather the order of procedure.
At least he’s responding to actual Catholic arguments (praise God!), but “for” is used in exactly the same way in at least nine other places in the NT, too:
Romans 2:13For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.
Galatians 3:11 . . . for “He who through faith is righteous shall live”;
Galatians 6:7-9 Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. [8] For he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption; but he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. [9] And let us not grow weary in well-doing, for in due season we shall reap, if we do not lose heart.
1 Timothy 4:16 . . . for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.
James 1:12 Blessed is the man who endures trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life which God has promised to those who love him.
Revelation 3:4-5 . . . they shall walk with me in white, for they are worthy. [5] He who conquers shall be clad thus in white garments, and I will not blot his name out of the book of life; I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels.
Revelation 14:13 And I heard a voice from heaven saying, “Write this: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord henceforth.” “Blessed indeed,” says the Spirit, “that they may rest from their labors, for their deeds follow them!”
Calvin can try to play games with different meanings of words, but it won’t fly here: the text is too clear (as it invariably is).
We do not deny that a reward is promised to good works, but maintain that it is a reward of grace, because it depends on adoption.
That’s not what the text says! Calvin is eisegeting again. It says nothing of the sort. Rather, it proclaims that people go to heaven because they did the good works mentioned. That is the text. What Calvin claims is simply his contradictory presupposition or preconceived view, smuggled into the text, when in fact it’s not there at all. Calvin believes that if works have anything to do with salvation, grace is thereby nullified, whereas the Bible states that good works flow from grace. Hence Paul could write:
1 Corinthians 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me.
although by the guidance of the Spirit they aim at the practice of righteousness, yet as they never fulfill the law of God, no reward is due to them, but the term reward is applied to that which is bestowed by grace.
Mark 16:16He who believes and is baptized will be saved; . . .
By believing in the only begotten Son of God, not only are they reckoned among the children of God, but receiving the gift of free justification and of the Spirit of regeneration, they possess what constitutes eternal life. Baptism is joined to the faith of the gospel, in order to inform us that the Mark of our salvation is engraved on it . . .
None of this addresses the text as it is, which is a combination of two propositions:
He who believes will be saved; . . .
He who is baptized will be saved; . . .
But by adding “and” between the two things that save us, it’s proven that both things are necessary. Calvin “gets out” of these clear and strong implications by superimposing onto the text the notion that regeneration is somehow separate from baptism, and that baptism is only a seal or testimony of an already received justification and salvation rather than a direct cause of salvation. If we treated all of Scripture so shabbily we could invent all manner of doctrines out of whole cloth. But we have to respect what inspired revelation teaches us.
Luke 6:35 But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; . . .
In his commentary on this passage, Calvin completely ignores the fact that in this passage being “sons of the Most High” (being justified, saved, attaining heaven) is a result of loving enemies, doing good, and lending, expecting nothing back (two of these being good works, plus love that is proven by outward good works: “love is kind” after all [1 Cor 13:4], and kindness is a good action).
Acts 10:34-35 And Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I perceive that God shows no partiality, [35] but in every nation any one who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.
It seemeth that this place doth attribute the cause of salvation unto the merits of works. For if works purchase favor for us with God, they do also win life for us which is placed in the love of God towards us. Some do also catch at the word righteousness, that they may prove that we are not justified freely by faith, but by works. But this latter thing is too frivolous. For I have already showed that it is not taken for the perfect and whole observing of the law, but is restrained unto the second table and the offices of love. Therefore it is not the universal righteousness whereby a man is judged just before God, but that honesty and innocency which respecteth men, when as that is given to every man which is his.
Therefore the question remaineth as yet, whether works win the favor of God for us? which that we may answer, we must first note that there is a double respect of God in loving men. For seeing we be born the children of wrath, (Ephesians 2:3,) God shall be so far from finding any thing in us which is worthy of his love, that all our whole nature causeth him rather to hate us; in which respect, Paul saith that all men are enemies to him until they be reconciled by Christ, (Romans 5:10.) Therefore the first accepting of God, whereby he receiveth us into favor, is altogether free; for there can as yet no respect of works be had, seeing all things are corrupt and wicked, and taste of [bespeak] their beginning. Now, whom God hath adopted to be his children, them doth he also regenerate by his Spirit, and reform in them his image: whence riseth that second respect. For God doth not find man bare and naked then, and void of all grace, but he knoweth his own work in him, yea, himself. Therefore, God accepteth the faithful, because they live godly and justly. And we do not deny that God accepteth the good works of the saints; but this is another question, whether man prevent the grace of God with his merits or no, and insinuate himself into his love, or whether he be beloved at the beginning, freely and without respect of works, forasmuch as he is worthy of nothing else but of hatred. Furthermore, forasmuch as man, left to his own nature, can bring nothing but matter of hatred, he must needs confess that he is truly beloved; whereupon, it followeth that God is to himself the cause that he loveth us, and that he is provoked [actuated] with his own mercy, and not with our merits. Secondly, we must note, that although the faithful please God after regeneration with good works, and their respects of works, yet that is not done with the merit of works. For the cleanliness of works is never so exact that they can please God without pardon; yea, forasmuch as they have always some corruption mixed with them, they are worthy to be refused. Therefore, the worthiness of the works doth not cause them to be had in estimation, but faith, which borroweth that of Christ which is wanting in works. [my bolding]
This is classic “total depravity” theology (which I have critiqued). Calvin says, “our whole nature causeth him rather to hate us.” This is outrageously incorrect. Pat McCloskey, OFM explains why in his article, “Did God Hate Esau?” (Franciscan Media, 5-12-20):
Malachi 1:1-3 says: “An oracle. The word of the LORD to Israel through Malachi. ‘I have loved you,’ says the LORD; but you say, ‘How have you loved us?’ ‘Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?’ says the LORD: ‘yet I loved Jacob, but hated Esau; I made his mountains a waste, his heritage a desert for jackals.’” Romans 9:13 quotes part of this passage, “As it is written: ‘I loved Jacob but hated Esau.’” Is it true that God hated Esau?
No, God did not hate Esau, but God did prefer Jacob (later known as Israel) over Esau. The Hebrew word used in these passages is translated as hate in The New American Bible, The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) and The New Jerusalem Bible. If God prefers one person over another, biblical writers may say that God loves the one and hates the other, although God cannot hate any person.
According to The NRSV Concordance Unabridged, the word hate occurs 83 times in the Old Testament and 17 times in the New Testament, not counting hated, hates and similar words. In the Old Testament, 78 of those usages apply hate in the context of one person to God, an individual, a group of people or some type of sin. Only five times do we read that God hates in the sense described above.
The New Testament’s first usage of hate is a challenge to the idea that one person is allowed to hate another. In Matthew 5:43-45, Jesus says: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust.” . . .
Other New Testament passages apply hate as happening between one person and someone else or in the Semitic sense of prefer.
What the Bible teaches is that “God our Savior, . . . desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim 2:3-4) and that God “is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance” (2 Pet 3:9). Indeed, “God is love” (1 Jn 4:8, 16). St. Paul wrote that “if we are faithless, he remains faithful — for he cannot deny himself” (2 Tim 2:13). It’s precisely because God loves everyone that we are commanded to do the same:
John 15:12 This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. (cf. 13:34; Mt 5:43-45, seen above)
1 John 3:11 For this is the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another,
1 John 3:23 And this is his commandment, that we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us.
1 John 4:11-12 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. [12] . . . if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us. (cf. 4:7)
2 John 1:5 And now I beg you, lady, not as though I were writing you a new commandment, but the one we have had from the beginning, that we love one another.
Nor did God hate us when we were sinners, as Calvin vainly imagines, and start loving us when we repented. That would be conditional love; but His love (like a parent’s love) is unconditional. If, after all, He didn’t love us when we were sinners, it wouldn’t ever be His will to predestine us and save us in the first place:
Romans 5:6, 8 While we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. . . . [8] But God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.
Matthew 23:37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!”
God hates no one, loves everyone; desiring that all be saved, and it is blasphemy and sacrilege to claim that He does do so.
Calvin claims, “the cleanliness of works is never so exact that they can please God without pardon; yea, forasmuch as they have always some corruption mixed with them, they are worthy to be refused.” This is untrue. King Solomon asked God, “Give thy servant therefore an understanding mind to govern thy people, that I may discern between good and evil” (1 Kgs 3:9). Then the text states, “It pleased the Lord that Solomon had asked this” (1 Kgs. 3:10). God then proclaims:
1 Kings 3:11-12 . . . “Because you have asked this, and have not asked for yourself long life or riches or the life of your enemies, but have asked for yourself understanding to discern what is right, [12] behold, I now do according to your word. Behold, I give you a wise and discerning mind, so that none like you has been before you and none like you shall arise after you.”
Note that Solomon made the request before God granted him a “wise and discerning mind” with which he could “discern what is right.” It follows that he asked while still in an ostensible state of unregenerate sin. But Calvin asserted that such a person can never “please” God. That’s false. A person can do that by doing what is right: which is an intrinsically good thing. The Bible never teaches that all actions, even intended good one from unregenerate people “always some corruption mixed with them.” And those come from God’s grace, too (Catholics fully agree!). For more on this, see:
Meanwhile, Calvin ignored, as usual, the main point of the passage at hand: “in every nation any one who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.” He played around with it with his usual boilerplate polemics about “Reformed” soteriology, never directly addressing it. And that’s one of his constant tactics that we have observed all through this series of critiques. Calvin appears rather scared and fearful — if not outright contemptuous — of biblical teachings, as soon as they disagree with his prior beliefs. Otherwise he could simply deal with them head on, as I do, without all the foolish sophism and other avoidance techniques. I grant in charity that he may not be — probably is not, in my opinion — engaging in these tactics willfully or consciously, but he is still utilizing them in either case, and they remain highly objectionable.
*
***
* Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
Summary: One of a series examining how John Calvin (1509-1564) exegeted biblical passages in his Commentaries that (in my opinion) refute the novel Protestant doctrine of “faith alone”.
37:26 what’s going on in a lot of these fathers [is] that most of the times when the fathers are talking about . . . things that look like works contribute to your justification, usually what’s going on is, 1) they’re just talking about how committing mortal sin destroys faith, 2) they’re talking about how receiving the sacraments saves or how hearing the word or whatever saves, or 3) they’re talking about good works meriting rewards in heaven: perhaps different levels of reward. All three of those are compatible with the Lutheran view . . .
What Roman Catholicism needs to show is that the fathers are saying that works contribute to justification in a sense stronger than any of those three. Let’s look at First Clement . . . We . . . reiterate how strong Clement’s language of justification by faith alone is . . . you could read
this to any normal well read theologian without mentioning the author and it would clearly come across as an espousal of justification by faith alone. He says that we are justified before God . . . then he goes on to say [we]:
are not justified by ourselves or by our own wisdom or understanding or godliness or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart, but by the faith through which from the beginning almighty God has justified all men to whom the glory be forever and ever. Amen. [from 1st Clement, ch. 32]
39:40 the only good Roman retort to this would be an appeal to “oh yeah, he’s only talking about initial justification, that is, that moment in time where man for the first time is is translated or moved from the state of being a child of wrath standing under God’s condemnation and then transferred into this state of grace whereby his sins are forgiven and he enters into a relationship with God.” And yeah, the Roman Catholic might be able to say “yeah that is without works; that is without any good deeds or anything,” but notice here and and be careful in reading the words of Clement here because not only is this to impose a category and conceptualization which is absent from Clement’s work . . . but it would also seem to run quite contrary to Clement’s own definition, because here he is talking about the justification of all men forever not just some initial point or initial translation and he’s also excluding works done in holiness of heart.
*
We have to take in all of the relevant elements of his letter together, so that, if indeed he mentions works in conjunction with justification elsewhere, then we have to explain why he doesn’t in this portion. The Catholic distinction between initial and subsequent justification would harmonize the two motifs. Or we can assert that Clement contradicted himself, or the good folks at the Scholastic Lutherans channel can interact with the sort of things I bring up here and propose another explanation. But the latter is like pulling teeth: to get Protestants to interact with serious critiques of their explanations (let alone to interact with our arguments). I hope for a change that this will prove to be an exception.
*
I would contend that in chapter 32, Clement is opposing salvation by works, or what was later to be the heresy of Pelagianism, and asserting grace alone, with which Catholicism fully agrees. Even when we talk about works, as the Bible does (connecting it to salvation and justification at least a hundred times) it’s always good works understood to be enabled and ultimately produced by God’s grace. They’re not self-generated. They originate in God’s power, grace, and will, and we cooperate with Him and perform them. Then he pronounces them to be meritorious (a biblical doctrine for which I have found fifty passages in support). The Council of Trent is very clear about this.
*
If chapter 32 was all we had from Clement, or all he wrote about this topic, then sure, I agree that it would sound, at least prima facie, like he believed in faith alone. But we also have other portions that address the topic of faith and works in connection to justification and salvation, which disprove that take, and which, as usual in these patristic discussions, are ignored by our three Lutheran apologists. They present a partial truth or a half-truth. It’s extremely common in Protestant patristics, especially on an amateur, lay, non-scholarly level. I frequently cite Protestant scholars like Schaff or Pelikan or Kelly who do not selectively cite in this fashion. But it’s endemic in popular lay Protestant apologetics.
*
and that is really key to understand here because only justified believers — only the regenerate people — are able to do works in holiness of heart because outside faith there is no holiness of heart so he’s also excluding good works done by the believers, which shows that he is not talking about those initially justified but all believers. . . . he says this is how almighty God has justified all men from the beginning and and and only by trying to read in foreign categories can you try to frame it in a different manner . . .
*
I think he is simply expressing the belief in justification by faith, that we agree with when it is applied to initial justification. I have compiled fifty passages about justification by faith also. It’s a biblical doctrine. But Protestants make a false dichotomy between those and the hundred, and fifty about the role that works and merit play in the process of salvation. We incorporate all of them into our theological understanding. We deny justification by faith alone, but not justification by faith itself. What is “foreign” is to separate sanctification from justification, a thing — as Protestant church historian Alister McGrath asserts — that no one did until Philp Melanchthon in the 16th century.
*
45:18 we can easily come up with a coherent understanding . . . without like trying to to conjure up some artificial contradiction between his two statements on justification
*
They bring up a few other things, too, but I want to see how they would respond to my argument from other statements of Clement’s, that I shall now present. It’s easy to set up a “triumphant” explanation if one ignores any serious contrary views.
*
In chapter 30 St. Clement wrote:
Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, being justified by our works, and not our words.
In the next chapter he stated about Abraham:
For what reason was our father Abraham blessed? Was it not because he wrought righteousness and truth through faith?
Then Clement teaches justification by faith in chapter 32. We totally agree, as to initial justification. We simply believe that good works (which are meritorious) are necessary after initial justification. But in talking about salvation, it’s clear that he thinks that faith and works are both required, not only faith:
For, as God lives, and as the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost live — both the faith and hope of the elect, he who in lowliness of mind, . . . has observed the ordinances and appointments given by God— the same shall obtain a place and name in the number of those who are being saved through Jesus Christ, . . . [58]
And again: “On account of her faith and hospitality, Rahab the harlot was saved” (chapter 12), and: “He [Abraham], in the exercise of obedience, went out from his own country, and from his kindred, and from his father’s house, in order that, by forsaking a small territory, and a weak family, and an insignificant house, he might inherit the promises of God. . . . On account of his faith and hospitality, a son was given him [Abraham] in his old age” (chapter 10), and: “On account of his hospitality and godliness, Lot was saved out of Sodom” (chapter 11), and: “It is requisite, therefore, that we be prompt in the practice of well-doing; for of Him are all things. And thus He forewarns us: ‘Behold, the Lord [comes], and His reward is before His face, to render to every man according to his work.’” (chapter 34).
*
See the theme and common thread there? He’s very explicit about the crucial role of works and merit in chapters 21 and 35:
Take heed, beloved, lest His many kindnesses lead to the condemnation of us all. [For thus it must be] unless we walk worthy of Him, and with one mind do those things which are good and well-pleasing in His sight. . . . Let us reverence the Lord Jesus Christ, whose blood was given for us; let us esteem those who have the rule over us; let us honour the aged among us; let us train up the young men in the fear of God; let us direct our wives to that which is good. Let them exhibit the lovely habit of purity [in all their conduct]; let them show forth the sincere disposition of meekness; let them make manifest the command which they have of their tongue, by their manner of speaking; let them display their love, not by preferring one to another, but by showing equal affection to all that piously fear God. Let your children be partakers of true Christian training; let them learn of how great avail humility is with God — how much the spirit of pure affection can prevail with Him — how excellent and great His fear is, and how it saves all those who walk in it with a pure mind. [my italics]
*
Let us therefore earnestly strive to be found in the number of those that wait for Him, in order that we may share in His promised gifts. But how, beloved, shall this be done? If our understanding be fixed by faith towards God; if we earnestly seek the things which are pleasing and acceptable to Him; if we do the things which are in harmony with His blameless will; and if we follow the way of truth, casting away from us all unrighteousness and iniquity, along with all covetousness, strife, evil practices, deceit, whispering, and evil-speaking, all hatred of God, pride and haughtiness, vain glory and ambition. [my bolding and italics]
All of this is thoroughly Catholic soteriology. Some, however, might refer to Clement’s statement about Abraham in chapter 31: “For what reason was our father Abraham blessed? Was it not because he wrought righteousness and truth through faith?” Yes, Abraham had faith. He’s the father of faith. He’s renowned for that. But he also had works. Jordan didn’t mention another instance (one of just three) where Abraham is mentioned, in chapter 10: “He, in the exercise of obedience, went out from his own country, . . . in order that, . . . he might inherit the promises of God.” That’s talking about works. One passage is about his faith, another about his works. Faith and works . . . We can’t only mention one and ignore the other. Clement was referring to Romans 4, which is about Abraham’s faith. But James 2:21-24 is also in the Bible:
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.
James directly ties the “reckoned as righteous” passage to Abraham’s work of being willing to sacrifice Isaac, which “fulfilled” the other passage. It’s not just faith. It’s faith that inherently, organically includes works, which “complete” faith. Genesis also makes it clear that Abraham’s obedience was central to God’s covenant with him:
Genesis 22:15-18 And the angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time from heaven, [16] and said, “By myself I have sworn, says the LORD, because you have done this, and have not withheld your son, your only son, [17] I will indeed bless you, and I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore. And your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies, [18] and by your descendants shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves, because you have obeyed my voice.”
Catholics joyfully agree that Abraham had extraordinary faith. But we don’t ignore the role that his works and obedience played in his being so honored by God, and saved. The author of Hebrews also mentions Abraham’s works. He ties it together with his faith, even in the famous “faith chapter”: “By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place which he was to receive as an inheritance . . .” (11:8). For more on Abraham’s justification, see my article: Abraham: Justified Twice by Works & Once by Faith [8-30-23].
*
***
“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,900+ articles, please follow my blog by signing up (with your email address) on the sidebar to the right (you may have to scroll down a bit), above where there is an icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. My blog was rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT: endorsed by influential Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Actually, I partner with Kenny Burchard on the YouTube channel, Catholic Bible Highlights. Please subscribe there, too! Please also consider following me on Twitter / X and purchasing one or more of my 55 books. All of this helps me get more exposure, and (however little!) more income for my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!
***
At 48:40 they cite this portion from St. Ignatius of Antioch:
Let none of you be found a deserter. Let your baptism endure as your arms; your faith as your helmet; your love as your spear; your patience as a complete panoply. Let your works be the charge assigned to you, that you may receive a worthy recompense. (Epistle to Polycarp, ch. 6)
49:05 that’s just plain scriptural, right? I mean, that’s language that’s used all the time in the scriptures and so Trent has to assume that the Protestants can’t [or] don’t have any way of reading that language in the Holy Scriptures, and since we think that we do, his response isn’t going to be sufficient.
*
Maybe not, or maybe so. But for whatever it’s worth, here is my response:
*
I think equally pious, reasonable Christians can hold that he could be referring (in using “recompense”) either to differential rewards in heaven or the reward of heaven itself. I shall contend that it is the latter, and provide reasons for so believing. If it refers to differential rewards, it’s no problem for Catholicism, since we agree that these occur. But if it refers to heaven, it’s a problem for the Protestant sola fide position. The fact that he refers to the possibility of desertion and also includes the corresponding idea of “endure” may mean that — at least at that point — Ignatius had apostasy in mind.
*
Thus, “recompense “would seem to be the converse of falling away: staying the course unto salvation itself. A paraphrase, if this is correct, would be: “Don’t fall away. Let your baptism, faith, love, patience, and works in general preclude this eventuality, and lead to the reward of heaven.” In 1 Corinthians 3:14 Paul, I think, refers to differential rewards in heaven. In Colossians 3:24 it seems to be heaven (“from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward”). So Paul uses the notion in two ways.
*
In the next chapter (7), Ignatius talks very “Catholic” and states, “I also am the more encouraged, resting without anxiety in God, if indeed by means of suffering I may attain to God, so that, through your prayers, I may be found a disciple [of Christ].” He attains to God and will be found to be a disciple if he suffers (not a word about faith there). This is meritorious works (anathema to Lutheranism and larger Protestantism). Ignatius didn’t stick works into a separate category of “non-salvific sanctification” as Lutherans do.
Then he writes, “Now, this work is both God’s and yours, when you shall have completed it to His glory. For I trust that, through grace, you are prepared for every good work pertaining to God.” Here he expresses the paradoxical biblical notion that our good works, enabled by God’s grace and done in faith, are at the same time God’s works, too. This means they are meritorious: examples of what St. Augustine calls “God crowning His own gifts.” This reflects four statements from St. Paul:
1 Corinthians 3:10 (RSV) According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and another man is building upon it. Let each man take care how he builds upon it.
1 Corinthians 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me.
2 Corinthians 1:12 For our boast is this, the testimony of our conscience that we have behaved in the world, and still more toward you, with holiness and godly sincerity, not by earthly wisdom but by the grace of God.
2 Corinthians 6:1 Working together with him, then, we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain. (in 6:7 Paul said that he did various things by “the power of God”)
In his Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Ignatius couples “faith and love” three times (Greeting, chapters 6, 13), and he writes:
Let no man deceive himself. Both the things which are in heaven, and the glorious angels, and rulers, both visible and invisible, if they believe not in the blood of Christ, shall, in consequence, incur condemnation. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.Matthew 19:12 Let not [high] place puff any one up: for that which is worth all is faith and love, to which nothing is to be preferred. But consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the grace of Christ which has come unto us, how opposed they are to the will of God. They have no regard for love; no care for the widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed; of the bond, or of the free; of the hungry, or of the thirsty. (6)
He places faith and works together; directly reflecting the words of Jesus at the Last Judgment in Matthew 25:31-46, and when he is commenting on grace he immediately brings up various good works. He refers to grace, faith, love, and good works, all in the same context, which is what St. Paul habitually does. Again, in his Epistle to the Trallians, he makes similar connections: “Wherefore, clothing yourselves with meekness, be renewed in faith, that is the flesh of the Lord, and in love, that is the blood of Jesus Christ” (ch. 8). In his Epistle to the Magnesians, he couples “faith and love” three times (chapters 1, 6, 13). In his Epistle to the Ephesians, he again uses the phrase “faith and love” twice (chapters 1, 14). And he associates faith and works:
. . . your name, much-beloved in God, which you have acquired by the habit of righteousness, according to the faith and love in Jesus Christ our Saviour. (1)
For it was needful for me to have been stirred up by you in faith, exhortation, patience, and long-suffering. (3)
. . . faith cannot do the works of unbelief, nor unbelief the works of faith. (8)
. . . making use of the Holy Spirit as a rope, while your faith was the means by which you ascended, and your love the way which led up to God. You, therefore, as well as all your fellow-travellers, are God-bearers, temple-bearers, Christ-bearers, bearers of holiness, adorned in all respects with the commandments of Jesus Christ, . . . (9)
None of these things is hid from you, if you perfectly possess that faith and love towards Christ Jesus which are the beginning and the end of life. For the beginning is faith, and the end is love . . . The tree is made manifest by its fruit; so those that profess themselves to be Christians shall be recognised by their conduct. For there is not now a demand for mere profession, but that a man be found continuing in the power of faith to the end. (14)
This simply isn’t faith alone, folks; no way, no how. Then they move on to the Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus:
49:33 ultimately why it’s so impressive is it seems to teach . . . [that] he himself took on him the burden of our iniquities; he gave his son as a ransom for us: “the Holy One for transgressors; the blameless One for the wicked; the righteous one for the unrighteous; the Incorruptible one for the corruptible, so on so forth, for what other thing was capable of covering our sins than his righteousness. By what other one was it possible that we the wicked and ungodly should be justified than by the only son of God? Oh sweet exchange oh and searchable operations oh benefits surpassing all expectations that the wickedness of many shall be head hid in a single righteous one and that the righteousness of one should justify many transgressors . . . ” Pretty clearly consistent with what Protestants believe and a lot harder, I think, to square with Roman Catholicism because this righteousness is found in another. . . . the language of imputation here . . . these are like the exact same categories Martin Luther would pick up 1,400 or so years later . . .
* When the fathers talk about good works being rewarded and that we will gain recompenses . . . only if you presuppose the Roman understanding that the recompense and the reward is an increase of our justice before God, only then will these quotations provide any form of support for the Roman Catholic understanding. We Lutherans confess in all of our confessions that God will reward good works done done here on earth that there will be heavenly gifts and rewards for us for the good works we do, but these things have nothing to do with our standing before God, which hinges on Christ’s righteousness, not our works.
Now here is my different take on this letter, with regard to soteriology. Here is the entire chapter that they cited, in the Epistle to Diognetus with regard to justification:
As long then as the former time endured, He permitted us to be borne along by unruly impulses, being drawn away by the desire of pleasure and various lusts. This was not that He at all delighted in our sins, but that He simply endured them; nor that He approved the time of working iniquity which then was, but that He sought to form a mind conscious of righteousness, so that being convinced in that time of our unworthiness of attaining life through our own works, it should now, through the kindness of God, be vouchsafed to us; and having made it manifest that in ourselves we were unable to enter into the kingdom of God, we might through the power of God be made able. But when our wickedness had reached its height, and it had been clearly shown that its reward, punishment and death, was impending over us; and when the time had come which God had before appointed for manifesting His own kindness and power, how the one love of God, through exceeding regard for men, did not regard us with hatred, nor thrust us away, nor remember our iniquity against us, but showed great long-suffering, and bore with us, He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the immortal One for those who are mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness? By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! That the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors! Having therefore convinced us in the former time that our nature was unable to attain to life, and having now revealed the Saviour who is able to save even those things which it was [formerly] impossible to save, by both these facts He desired to lead us to trust in His kindness, to esteem Him our Nourisher, Father, Teacher, Counsellor, Healer, our Wisdom, Light, Honour, Glory, Power, and Life, so that we should not be anxious concerning clothing and food. (ch. 9; complete)
This is discussing initial justification. There is no disagreement here. This is referring to an imputation of righteousness to the believer that Catholics can agree with, per the explanations of former Presbyterian minister and professor Kenneth Howell:
I am puzzled why anyone would say that extrinsic righteousness might be excluded by Trent. The only righteousness that justifies is Christ’s. But Catholic theology teaches that what is Christ’s becomes ours by grace. In fact Canon 10 anathematizes anyone who denies that we can be justified without Christ’s righteousness or anyone who says that we are formally justified by that righteousness alone. . . . Canon 10 says that Christ’s righteousness is both necessary and not limited to imputation i.e. formally. So, imputation is not excluded but only said to be not sufficient. With regard to imputation, if Trent indeed excludes it, I am ready to reject it. But the wording of the decrees does not seem to me to require this. . . .
The Protestant doctrine, it seems to me, has at least two sides. Imputation is the declaration of forgiveness on God’s part because of Christ’s work but it is also a legal fiction that has nothing immediately to do with real (subjective) state of the penitent. Now I think the declaration side of imputation is acceptable to Trent but not the legal fiction side. The difference between the Tridentine and the Reformation views, in addition to many other aspects, is that in the latter view God only sees us as righteous while in the former, Christ confers righteousness upon (and in) us. . . .
What is wrong with the Reformation view then? It is the sola part. Faith is essential but not sola fide. Remission of sins is essential but not sola remissione. Imputation via absolution is essential but not sola imputatione. I remember well how this hit me one day in my journey. So much of Protestantism represents a reductionism of the Catholic faith. The Protestants added their qualifiers (sola) and thereby threw out the fullness of faith. [Trent Doesn’t Utterly Exclude Imputation, July 1996]
But as soon as initial justification occurs, God works together with the believer to make it a real, day-by-day righteousness (not merely a declared or proclaimed righteousness that in fact is not actual righteousness). That’s where the two sides differ, but not on the above. Faith alone without love won’t cut it. Nothing whatsoever in this work contradicts Catholic soteriology. This epistle states, “For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness?” Precisely! The Council of Trent in agreement stated in its Decree on Justification (5): “the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called . . .”
This eloquent work approaches justification much as Paul does (and as Catholics do, rightly understood). He writes about initial monergistic justification — which we Catholics fully accept! But — again like Paul and Catholics — he doesn’t formally separate works from faith as Protestants do, and writes: “. . . to whom He sent His only-begotten Son, to whom He has promised a kingdom in heaven, and will give it to those who have loved Him” (chapter 10). He continues:
Or, how will you love Him who has first so loved you? And if you love Him, you will be an imitator of His kindness. And do not wonder that a man may become an imitator of God. He can, if he is willing. For it is not by ruling over his neighbours, or by seeking to hold the supremacy over those that are weaker, or by being rich, and showing violence towards those that are inferior, that happiness is found; nor can any one by these things become an imitator of God. But these things do not at all constitute His majesty. On the contrary he who takes upon himself the burden of his neighbour; he who, in whatsoever respect he may be superior, is ready to benefit another who is deficient; he who, whatsoever things he has received from God, by distributing these to the needy, becomes a god to those who receive [his benefits]: he is an imitator of God. [chapter 10]
And he writes along these lines in chapter 12:
When you have read and carefully listened to these things, you shall know what God bestows on such as rightly love Him, being made [as you are] a paradise of delight, presenting in yourselves a tree bearing all kinds of produce and flourishing well, being adorned with various fruits.
Once again, I see nothing whatsoever in this work that contradicts Catholic soteriology. But it seems to have some elements (seen above) that contradict Lutheran soteriology. It is what it is. I’m simply describing the nature of the work.
***
* Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 4,900+ free online articles or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
Photo credit: St. Ignatius of Antioch [public domain / Get Archive]
Summary: I disagree with three Lutherans who claim that Clement of Rome (d. c. 101), Ignatius of Antioch (50-c. 110), and the Epistle to Diognetus (bet. 130-190) taught “faith alone.”
Photo credit: self-designed cover of my 2010 book, Biblical Catholic Salvation: “Faith Working Through Love” .
This is my reply to a lengthy comment by “ThornyCrown” underneath the video by my friend, Kenny Burchard, “Why ‘Sola Fidei’ is 100% unbiblical!! [30+ Verses to Highlight!!]” (10-6-24; utilizing my biblical research). His words — and I cite all of them — will be in blue. I use RSV for biblical citations.
*****
As a die-hard Protestant who left the Roman church 35 years ago,
I’m a die-hard Catholic, who left Protestantism 34 years ago. But I continue to have great respect for evangelical Protestantism and am ecumenical. I simply have some honest disagreements with my esteemed brothers and sisters in Christ, with whom I continue to have a great deal in common. And I’m sure Kenny feels the same way.
I find GREAT fault with this video by what Mr. B does NOT say.
That’s fine; it can be discussed (and I will be doing that), but it would be nice — and I think more sensible — if you responded to what he actually argued. To not do so is, bottom line, simply the old tired tactic of topic-switching and evading the responsibility of interaction with an opposing argument. If the Bible passages we produce (most from myself) are inadequate in your opinion, then by all means, show us (and everyone reading) how and why they are. If you have the superior biblical case, that should be a piece of cake for you; easy as pie (to use two culinary analogies). We’ll have that dialogue with you, but it takes two to dialogue.
It’s quite easy to lecture without the opposing view there to object,
Exactly my point! Since you yourself say you are responding to what Kenny didn’t say, rather than to what he did contend for, you are guilty of the very same thing you now condemn. There is not yet an opposing view because you set off into completely new territory. But I am now replying to you, providing the opposing view to your current off-topic argument, and giving you the courtesy of direct interaction. I respectfully ask that you extend to us the same courtesy.
so kindly allow these next two comboxes to be my objection.
You’re free to talk, as long as you remain civil. But in the future, again, we ask that you please stay on-topic. Otherwise, your comment veers too close to trolling.
First, I have before me a list of 30 people from antiquity who used the phrase “faith alone” or its derivative.
That’s clearly off-topic, since the video is about 30+ Bible passages, not the Church fathers. Secondly, did you do that research yourself or did you simply copy it from someone else? Thirdly, context is all-important in such discussions, so you need to provide documentation as much as possible: preferably to online sources, so context can be examined. Fourth, I did do my own research, in many posts on the same topic, in addition to my three books of patristic citations:
I won’t list them all, but suffice to say, they would obviously disagree with you.
Maybe in some very few cases; someone who simply got it wrong. I suspect, however, that in almost all cases, they do not, when their overall thought is considered. Again, I can prove that because I have done the work. I have time to do such work, as a full-time Catholic apologist, these past 23 years. Here’s what I have collected along these lines:
Marius Victorinus: For faith itself alone gives justification and sanctification (“Ipsa enim fides sola iustificationem dat-et sanctificationem” ).
You provide no documentation. I will do so. This quotation is from his Commentary on Galatians, which can be accessed online (with a little work!). It was published by Oxford University Press in 2005, translated with notes by Stephen Andrew Cooper. Here is the citation in context:
We, says Paul, we have believed in Christ, and we do believe in order that we might be justified based on faith, not works of the Law, seeing that no flesh—that is, the human being who is in flesh—is justified based on works of the Law. So knowing this, if we have believed that justification comes about through faith, we are surely going astray if we now return to Judaism, from which we passed over to be justified based not on works but faith, and faith in Christ. For faith itself alone grants justification and sanctification. Thus any flesh whatsoever—Jews or those from the Gentiles—is justified on the basis of faith, not works or observance of the Jewish Law. (Cooper, 152-153; italics not included, because I doubt that they were in the original)
Catholics agree that initially we are justified by faith alone (and of course, grace alone), contra Pelagianism. We have no beef with that at all. It’s “monergistic” at first. What we are saying is that after initial justification, we are then required to cooperate with God and do good works, if we are to be saved in the end, because “faith without works is dead.” Now, it may be that Marius Victorinus was simply wrong and held to a proto-Protestant view of justification, unlike virtually all other Church fathers (according to the Protestant scholars McGrath and Geisler). Translator Cooper notes that “it is perhaps the earliest Latin formulation of Paul’s theology in those terms [i.e., “faith alone”]” (p. 153).
Isn’t that interesting? Marius Victorinus lived from 290 to 364, so this means — if Cooper is correct — that no Latin Church father used the term “faith alone” for at least 260 years after the death of Christ. The fact that Protestants can find one man is no proof that the Church fathers en masse or as a consensus believed in “faith alone.” One can always find one or a few Church fathers who simply got things wrong. They’re not infallible, in Catholic teaching. But they usually agreed overwhelmingly on orthodox Catholic doctrine. This issue is no exception, as even my own articles alone prove.
St. Paul — over against Marius Victorinus — teaches over and over that good works play a crucial and necessary role in the attainment of salvation (i.e., in anyone who lives after they have been regenerated at baptism):
“As it is written, ‘He who through faith is righteous shall live.’” (Romans 1:17); “To those who by patience in well-doing seek for … immortality, he will give eternal life … glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good” (Romans 2:7, 10); “the doers of the law … will be justified” (Romans 2:13). The “end” of “sanctification” is “eternal life” (Romans 6:22), and indeed we are “saved, through sanctification” (2 Thessalonians 2:13); we’re “fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him” (Romans 8:17; cf. 1 Peter 4:13). He taught that we must do many good things and be fruitful in order to be saved:
Galatians 5:14, 19, 21-23. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” … Now the works of the flesh are plain … those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such there is no law.
2 Thessalonians 1:8, 11. … inflicting vengeance … upon those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. … To this end we always pray for you, that our God may make you worthy of his call, and may fulfill every good resolve and work of faith by his power …
1 Timothy 4:12, 15-16. … set the believers an example in speech and conduct, in love, in faith, in purity. … Practice these duties, … Take heed to yourself and to your teaching; hold to that, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.
Paul frequently makes many similar points in his letters: “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Philippians 2:12-13); “work heartily, … knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward” (Colossians 3:23-24); “woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness” (1 Timothy 2:15); “aim at righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness. Fight the good fight of the faith; take hold of the eternal life to which you were called” (1 Timothy 6:11-12); “keep the commandment … do good … be rich in good deeds … so that they may take hold of the life which is life indeed” (1 Timothy 6:14, 18-19).
Chrysostom… For he makes a wide distinction between commandments and ordinances. He either then means faith, calling that an ordinance, (for by faith alone he saved us) or he means precept, such as… (NPNF1: Vol. XIII, Homilies on Ephesians, Homily 5, Ephesians 2:11-12).
St. John Chrysostom’s overall thought needs to be taken into account. He did not believe in Protestant “faith alone” soteriology. For he also wrote:
Ver. 7. “To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life.” Here also he awakens those who had drawn back during the trials, and shows that it is not right to trust in faith only. For it is deeds also into which that tribunal will enquire. (Homily V on Romans 1:28: v. 2:7; NPNF1-11)
For “each of us shall give account of himself to God.” In order therefore that we may render up this account with a good defence, let us well order our own lives and stretch out a liberal hand to the needy, knowing that this only is our defence, the showing ourselves to have rightly done the things commanded; there is no other whatever. And if we be able to produce this, we shall escape those intolerable pains of hell, and obtain the good things to come; . . . (Homily XXI on 1 Corinthians 9:1, 11, v. 9:12; NPNF1-12)
As often as you enter in to pray, first deposit your alms, and then send up your prayer; . . . since not even the Gospel hanging by our bed is more important than that alms should be laid up for you; for if you hang up the Gospel and do nothing, it will do you no such great good. (Homily XLIII on 1 Corinthians 16:1, 7, v. 16:9; NPNF1-12)
For to believe is not all that is required, but also to abide in love. (Commentary on Galatians, v. 5:6; NPNF1-13)
“It is the gift,” said he, “of God,” it is “not of works.” Was faith then, you will say, enough to save us? No; but God, saith he, hath required this, lest He should save us, barren and without work at all. His expression is, that faith saveth, but it is because God so willeth, that faith saveth. Since, how, tell me, doth faith save, without works? This itself is the gift of God. . . . He did not reject us as having works, but as abandoned of works He hath saved us by grace; so that no man henceforth may have whereof to boast. And then, lest when thou hearest that the whole work is accomplished not of works but by faith, thou shouldest become idle, observe how he continues, Ver. 10. “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God afore prepared that we should walk in them.” (Homily IV on Ephesians, v. 2:8-10; NPNF1-13)
If faith without a good life is unavailing, much more is the converse true. (Homily V on 1 Timothy, v. 1:20; NPNF1-13)
Let not us either expect that faith is sufficient to us for salvation; for if we do not show forth a pure life, but come clothed with garments unworthy of this blessed calling, nothing hinders us from suffering the same as that wretched one. (Homily X on John, v. 1:13; NPNF1-14)
“Is it then enough,” saith one, “to believe on the Son, that one may have eternal life?” By no means. And hear Christ Himself declaring this, and saying, “Not every one that saith unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven” ( Matt. vii. 21 ); and the blasphemy against the Spirit is enough of itself to cast a man into hell. But why speak I of a portion of doctrine? Though a man believe rightly on the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, yet if he lead not a right life, his faith will avail nothing towards his salvation. Therefore when He saith, “This is life eternal, that they may know Thee the only true God” ( c. xvii. 3 ), let us not suppose that the (knowledge) spoken of is sufficient for our salvation; we need besides this a most exact life and conversation. (Homily XXXI on John, v. 3:35-36; NPNF1-14)
. . . because He had said above, “He that heareth My words and believeth on Him that sent Me,” “is not judged,” lest any one should imagine that this alone is sufficient for salvation, He addeth also the result of man’s life, declaring that “they which have done good shall come forth unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of judgment.” (Homily XXXIX on John, v. 5:28-29; NPNF1-14)
How long shall we neglect our own salvation? Let us bear in mind of what things Christ has deemed us worthy, let us give thanks, let us glorify Him, not by our faith alone, but also by our very works, that we may obtain the good things that are to come . . . (Homily XLVI on John, v. 6:52; NPNF1-14)
. . . a right faith availeth nothing if the life be corrupt, both Christ and Paul declare . . . (Homily LXIII on John, v. 11:40; NPNF1-14)
Faith is indeed great and bringeth salvation, and without it, it is not possible ever to be saved. It suffices not however of itself to accomplish this, . . . on this account Paul also exhorts those who had already been counted worthy of the mysteries; saying, “Let us labor to enter into that rest.” “Let us labor” (he says), Faith not sufficing, the life also ought to be added thereto, and our earnestness to be great; for truly there is need of much earnestness too, in order to go up into Heaven. (Homily VII on Hebrews, v. 4:11-13; NPNF1-14)
See much more along these lines in my article about St. John Chrysostom, linked above.
Basil of Caesarea:… Let him who boasts boast in the Lord, that Christ has been made by God for us righteousness, wisdom, justification, redemption. This is perfect and pure boasting in God… justified solely by faith in Christ (Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, Part 1, p. 505)
Again, we are given no primary documentation. But I know that St. Basil rejected faith alone, based on research that I did way back in 2007:
Mere renouncement of sin is not sufficient for the salvation of penitents, but fruits worthy of penance are also required of them. (The Morals, 1, 3)
He who would obey the gospel must first be purged of all defilement of the flesh and the spirit that so he may be acceptable to God in the good works of holiness. (The Morals, 2, 1).
“Turn to your rest; for the Lord has been kind to you.” Eternal rest awaits those who have struggled through the present life observant of the laws, not as payment owed for their works, but bestowed as a gift of the munificent God on those who have hoped in him. (On Psalm 114, no. 5)
They, then, that were sealed by the Spirit unto the day of redemption, and preserve pure and undiminished the first fruits which they received of the Spirit, are they that shall hear the words “well done thou good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things.” In like manner they which have grieved the Holy Spirit by the wickedness of their ways, or have not wrought for Him that gave to them, shall be deprived of what they have received, their grace being transferred to others; or, according to one of the evangelists, they shall even be wholly cut asunder, —the cutting asunder meaning complete separation from the Spirit. (De Spiritu Sancto, chapter 15; NPNF 2, Vol. VIII)
Truly blessed is the soul, which by night and by day has no other anxiety than how, when the great day comes wherein all creation shall stand before the Judge and shall give an account for its deeds, she too may be able easily to get quit of the reckoning of life. For he who keeps that day and that hour ever before him, and is ever meditating upon the defence to be made before the tribunal where no excuses will avail, will sin not at all, or not seriously, for we begin to sin when there is a lack of the fear of God in us. When men have a clear apprehension of what is threatened them, the awe inherent in them will never allow them to fall into inconsiderate action or thought. (Letter 174: To a Widow; NPNF 2, Vol. VIII)
Ignatius of Antioch… His cross, and his death, and his resurrection, and the faith which is through him, are my unpolluted muniments [legal titles] and in these, through your prayers, I am willing to be justified (Epistle to Philadelphians)
But to me Jesus Christ is in the place of all that is ancient: His cross, and death, and resurrection, and the faith which is by Him, are undefiled monuments of antiquity; by which I desire, through your prayers, to be justified.
We are indeed justified by faith, but not by faith alone. St. Ignatius proves that he rejects the latter false doctrine in other statements:
None of these things is hid from you, if you perfectly possess that faith and love towards Christ Jesus [1 Timothy 1:14] which are the beginning and the end of life. For the beginning is faith, and the end is love. [1 Timothy 1:5] Now these two, being inseparably connected together, are of God, while all other things which are requisite for a holy life follow after them. No man [truly] making a profession of faith sins; [1 John 3:7] nor does he that possesses love hate any one. The tree is made manifest by its fruit; [Matthew 12:33] so those that profess themselves to be Christians shall be recognised by their conduct. For there is not now a demand for mere profession, but that a man be found continuing in the power of faith to the end. (Epistle to the Ephesians, ch. 14)
In his Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Ignatius couples “faith and love” three times (Greeting, chapters 6, 13), and he writes:
Let no man deceive himself. Both the things which are in heaven, and the glorious angels, and rulers, both visible and invisible, if they believe not in the blood of Christ, shall, in consequence, incur condemnation. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.Matthew 19:12 Let not [high] place puff any one up: for that which is worth all is faith and love, to which nothing is to be preferred. But consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the grace of Christ which has come unto us, how opposed they are to the will of God. They have no regard for love; no care for the widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed; of the bond, or of the free; of the hungry, or of the thirsty. (6)
He places faith and works together; directly reflecting the words of Jesus at the Last Judgment in Matthew 25:31-46, and when he is commenting on grace he immediately brings up various good works. He refers to grace, faith, love, and good works, all in the same context, which is what St. Paul habitually does. Again, in his Epistle to the Trallians, he makes similar connections: “Wherefore, clothing yourselves with meekness, be renewed in faith, that is the flesh of the Lord, and in love, that is the blood of Jesus Christ” (ch. 8). In his Epistle to the Magnesians, he couples “faith and love” three times (chapters 1, 6, 13). In his Epistle to the Ephesians, he again uses the phrase “faith and love” twice (chapters 1, 14). And he associates faith and works:
. . . your name, much-beloved in God, which you have acquired by the habit of righteousness, according to the faith and love in Jesus Christ our Saviour. (ch. 1)
For it was needful for me to have been stirred up by you in faith, exhortation, patience, and long-suffering. (ch. 3)
. . . faith cannot do the works of unbelief, nor unbelief the works of faith. (ch. 8)
. . . making use of the Holy Spirit as a rope, while your faith was the means by which you ascended, and your love the way which led up to God. You, therefore, as well as all your fellow-travellers, are God-bearers, temple-bearers, Christ-bearers, bearers of holiness, adorned in all respects with the commandments of Jesus Christ, . . . (ch. 9)
This simply isn’t faith alone, folks; no way, no how.
Bernard of Clairvaux… “solam justificatur per fidem,” (i.e., is justified by faith alone) (In Canticum serm. 22.8…PL 183.881):
I need a source in English, preferably with a link. Since St. Bernard isn’t one of the Church fathers, I’ll pass for the time being, since I am already devoting many hours of work to this response.
Obviously, the RCC arbitrarily picks and chooses which early teachers constitute “tradition” and choose only those which they feel are in conformity with the magisterium.
As I have shown in my own research (links above), the Church fathers en masse rejected “faith alone.”
This is dishonest, as was this video by not mentioning them.
The video was about biblical arguments. But charges of dishonesty of this sort aren’t allowed in this channel. Please cease and desist with the insults. “A word to the wise is sufficient.” We can discuss competing theologies without making such insinuations. The Catholic Church and Catholics honestly, sincerely believe what they do, and so do Protestants. The thing is to determine who is right. We do that by making rational, historical, theological, biblical arguments, not making sweeping charges of supposed heart-reading and sin. The great Protestant historian Philip Schaff observed:
If any one expects to find in this period [100-325], or in any of the church fathers, Augustin himself not excepted, the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone, . . . he will be greatly disappointed . . . (History of the Christian Church, Vol. 2, 588-589)
Second, Since Mr. B agrees that works of the Mosaic law “definitely” do not justify us (20:30). How nice. Why then are the Ten commandments of the Mosaic law “necessary for salvation” per CCC 2068???????
One must distinguish between the technical phrase “works of the law” (which referred to specifically Jewish works of national identity, per the understanding of some Protestants’ belief in “new perspective on Paul”) and works in general, or commandments. The Ten Commandments are still binding upon Christians. Or do you disagree with that? I imagine that the Catechism states that the Ten Commandments were necessary for salvation because Jesus said the same thing to the rich young ruler, when He asked Him, “what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?” (Mt 19:16). Jesus’ answer was, “If you would enter life, keep the commandments” (Mt 19:17).
St. Paul mentioned four of the ten (Rom 13:9) and then in the same noted that commandments were “summed up in this sentence, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'” Then he teaches that “love is the fulfilling of the law” (13:10) and in context proclaims that “salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed” (13:11). Then in Revelation 14:12, “the saints” are described as “those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus”. Then it is said about the “Blessed . . . dead who die in the Lord henceforth” that “their deeds follow them!” (14:13). Also in the same book Jesus taught that those who did not keep the Ten Commandments, such as “sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters” (22:15) would not enter heaven. St. John also states, “All who keep his commandments abide in him, and he in them” (1 Jn 3:24). It follows, then, that keeping those commandments are necessary to salvation and entrance into heaven (eschatological salvation).
Third, when we say (and the Bible concurs) that we are not saved by works, we mean ANY works, whether it be from the law, good works we do as a cheerful giver, or good works done in God’s grace. The distinction Mr. B tries to make between works of the law which don’t save — and faith and good works done with God’s grace which DOES save (CCC 1821) cannot stand biblical scrutiny.
Sure it can withstand biblical scrutiny. I’ve produced no less than 100 biblical passages that forbid faith alone. You have ignored them. Why is that: if you are so convinced we are wrong and you are right? You should have counter-explanations for every single one. Instead, you ignore and change the subject. This does not — to put it mildly — bespeak a confidence in your case or the courage of your convictions. Here are two of the clearest ones:
Romans 2:7 For he will render to every man according to his works: [7] to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;
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?
Mr. B is advocating that anytime we hear we aren’t saved by works, to take that to mean the restriction of only those works emanating from the Pentateuch.
However, this cannot be so because Paul goes on record using the word “law” to designate the Scriptures as a WHOLE, which would mean he is NOT restricting good works of the law only to the Pentateuch, but ANY GOOD WORKS WHATSOEVER right up to this present day.
The Bible teaches that we aren’t saved by works in the sense of Pelagianism works-salvation (salvation by works alone), which the Catholic Church entirely rejects (e.g., Eph 2:8-9). But when Kenny is talking about the phrase “works of the law”, that has a specific meaning, applying to Jews who kept the Mosaic Law in its entirety (which no Christian does). “Works of the law” is a phrase that occurs seven times in Paul’s epistles. Paul also refers to “the law of the Jews” (Acts 25:8) and “the law of Moses” (1 Cor 9:9).
Good works in a generic sense are good! (a = a), and related to salvation: so say at least a hundred biblical passages. Protestants, on the other hand, believe in several things that have no scriptural support at all. The canon of the New Testament is one of those that they will readily admit. I would also contend that sola Scriptura and sola fide are two more things that lack any biblical support at all. But we can produce a hundred biblical passages against faith alone (I did that, myself), and I wrote a book called 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura.
For instance, he appeals to the law in 1 Cor 14:21, but he quotes Isaiah 28:11-12, which of course is NOT part of the Pentateuch. In Romans 3:19, he describes his citations from the O.T. in verses 10-18 as “what the law says”. However, these verses are derived from the Psalms (5:9, 10:7, 14:1-3, 36:1, 53:1-3, 140:3…as well as Proverbs 1:16, and Isa 59:7-8) all of which categorically proves that good works done under the old law– “for salvation”– cannot be restricted to the Mosaic law as is commonly supposed. Thus, we must not seek to qualify the kinds of works which are excluded for justification because the fact is, each and every kind of righteous work is prohibited; i.e., we are not to trust in them AT ALL, nor does God save us by ANY kind of righteousness on our part done with or without the grace of the Holy Spirit.
That’s simply not true, and I have a hundred Bible passages to prove it. So at this point the ball is in your court. In order to dissuade us, you have to produce counter-interpretations of all one hundred that are in line with “faith alone” and not in harmony with the Catholic and biblical soteriology of salvation by grace alone, by faith: to which works are organically connected and required. I dare say that you can’t do so, and that your refusal to even begin that necessary task is already pretty strong evidence that you can’t. You’re welcome to start at any time! We’ll be glad to publish that effort on our video channel and in any blogs I write in reply. And we will always answer and refute any such attempt, that is, unless you convince us, in which case we would be duty-bound to change our minds and become Protestants again. But clearly, that won’t ever happen if you completely refuse to engage in; indeed, run away from, what you must do to refute what we have offered — as you have done in this reply.
Mr. B will agree that no one can be justified by the Mosaic law, explicitly stated in Acts 13:39. Fine. But the problem with Catholicism emerges when you agree (for example) that if obeying one’s parent’s under the Mosaic law was not salvific, then how can you say that obeying your parents under the New Testament IZZZ salvific?
It is in conjunction with faith: all caused by God’s grace. It isn’t, in and of itself. We can say that it’s one thing that helps save one, because Jesus said so (Mt 19:17): honoring parents being one of the Ten Commandments. It’s one of dozens of works that the New Testament mentions as part of the overall equation of salvation. Jesus mentioned three works that helped cause salvation in one saying:
Matthew 25:34-35 Then the King will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; [35] for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, . . .
In another place, He mentioned five actions: the reward for each being eternal life:
Luke 18:29-30 And he said to them, “Truly, I say to you, there is no man who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, [30] who will not receive manifold more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life.”
Etc., etc., up to a hundred biblical passages. . . .
Yet that is exactly what they teach; i.e., God has created a new “system of grace” wherein the good works we do under the new covenant, now become the gateway to heaven. But by doing so, they have attached to their good deeds, a salvific EFFICACY on the same level as the blood of Christ. This is unacceptable and is “another gospel” per 2 For 11:4 which saves no one.
That doesn’t follow. I think I’ve gone through this before with you. To say that “x work plays a role in salvation, alongside faith, caused by grace” is not the same as equating that work in value with the blood of Christ. That simply doesn’t follow, either logically or theologically. But it sounds nice as anti-Catholic rhetoric and polemics. The only problem is that it’s a fallacy and falsehood.
I will continue in one more combox quoting from the #1 RC apologetic book for the last 25 years, Not By Faith Aloneby R. Sungenis, endorsed by all the major Catholic luminaries of today on the inside cover pages.
I believe the #1 Catholic apologetics book is Surprised by Truth, which has sold some half a million copies. My own conversion story is one of the twelve included in it.
To verify what I just said about good deeds having the same blood-cleansing efficacy as Christ’s blood, we read, “Works become JUST AS MUCH a salvific part of the individual’s justification as his faith” (p. 172). There is your equivalency factor, clear as the light of day and it is “100% unbiblical”… to use Mr. B’s video title.
It’s not unbiblical at all. I produced 100 biblical proofs. Christ’s blood brings about the possibility of salvation for anyone who repents and accepts God’s mercy, and is 1000% sufficient for that purpose. But then we have to do our part, which is exercising faith and doing good works. It’s not established by you at all that our faith or whatever good works we do are equivalent to Christ’s blood. I don’t see how they ever could be. Whatever good is in us is ultimately caused by God’s grace. Now, if faith without works is dead, then it logically follows that authentic faith cannot exist without works. And if that is the case, it also follows that works are as important as faith, seeing that the former literally bring the latter “to life”: so to speak.
Before I give more disturbing quotes,
“Disturbing”? What you have given is not “disturbing” in the slightest. I’ve had no problem refuting all or any of it.
the bulk of Mr. B’s time was throwing out the verses that tell us we ought to be good. But no Protestant alive or dead has ever advocated that faith be “dislocated” from works, to use Mr. B’s word. All the “good” passages simply mean that the elect in heaven will have had a GENERAL TENOR of being good, not that their goodness got them there!
That’s untrue. It’s a falsehood. I specifically chose my prooftexts — and Kenny uses my work in his videos –, keeping in mind this very thing: that Protestants would claim that works simply accompany faith, while supposedly having nothing to do with salvation itself. That’s not what the Bible teaches at all. Again and again, it establishes a causal relationship of works and salvation, just as with faith and salvation (grace being the main cause behind both). Matthew 25 (the judgment) and the Jesus and the rich young ruler passage (Matthew 19) show this most clearly. Here are a few more of the clearest of my biblical proofs, in terms of demonstrating a direct causal relationship:
Matthew 7:19, 21 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. . . . [21] “Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
John 5:29 . . . those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, . . .
Romans 6:22 . . . the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life.
Colossians 3:23-24 Whatever your task, work heartily, as serving the Lord and not men, [24] knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward;
2 Thessalonians 2:13 . . . God chose you from the beginning to be saved, through sanctification . . .
1 Timothy 6:18-19 They are to do good, to be rich in good deeds, liberal and generous, [19] thus laying up for themselves a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of the life which is life indeed.
Revelation 20:12-13 . . . And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, by what they had done. [13] . . . and all were judged by what they had done.
The dire difference is that we don’t believe we are saved or justified BYYYY them in any way whatsoever, whereas Catholics DO, which is their fatal error.
We are following clear and relentlessly repeated Scripture in this respect. You are not.
We say, yes, do a million good works to the glory of God, but if you begin to base your hope for HEAVEN on them (explicitly stated in CCC 1821), you are lost.
See the above seven passages in particular for the answer to this. But there are 93 more answers, too.
The “damnable works-righteousness” Mr. B (rightly) says Protestants accuse Catholics of, may be seen in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 261. Catholics seek to be, “supernaturally endowed to perform ordinary and extraordinary heroic acts FOR the salvation of the soul”. This is precisely where and why we part company.
Yes, because you depart from Scripture, and we obediently follow it, since it’s God’s inspired revelation. We don’t deign to place our man-made unbiblical traditions above God’s written Word and in contradiction of that same Scripture.
Allegedly, as long as they admit their good works are done under the umbrella of God’s grace, all will be well, or so they think. Instead of a singular confidence in the doing and dying of Christ alone (Romans 5:10) a clever trick is sneaked in through the back door.
Following biblical instructions and teachings isn’t “clever”; rather, it’s wise and spiritually fruitful and pleasing to God. I have nine passages from the letter to the Romans in my collection: proving that Paul rejects “faith alone.”
Specifically, when one has the intention of doing good works under the auspices of God’s grace, this mindset magically qualifies those deeds to become the hinge upon which the door into heaven swings (repeat, CCC 1821). What Catholicism is stipulating is that the power of his grace invigorates them on a path of good deeds, all of which are then instrumental in the verdict of justification (i.e., our right standing before God).
Now to Mr. Sungenis:
“Works are a primary criteria in [God] deciding whether or not the individual is saved” (p. 50).
“Works are the determining factor in our salvation” (p. 215; cf. p. 38 footnote).
“Works are the ultimate factor in the salvation of the individual” (p. 145).
“Salvation is either granted or denied based on works” (p. 159).
“A person’s eternal destiny is dependent on God’s final evaluation of the person’s deeds” (p. 484).
“If done through grace, they [works] are graciously meritorious for salvation”
(p. 102).
“The evaluation of our good works as noted in 1 Cor 3:13-17 and 2 Cor 5:10 will not result in personal rewards only, but “rather a judgment which will determine whether one will be saved” (p. 41).
That’s all biblical, per my 100 proofs. Matthew 25 is particularly clear in this respect.
In light of these audacious claims, there can be no doubt that Catholics have been rightly accused of working their way to eternal life, for that is exactly what they teach. Rather than trust in the mercy of God alone in the face of Jesus Christ (2 For 4:6) so that “no flesh should glory in his presence” (1 Cor 1:29) heavy emphasis is placed on their dazzling “performance rituals” to ensure a spot in heaven, and that being so, we shudder for the salvation of the Pope down to the pauper in the pew.
Contrary to the video’s thesis, “Faith Alone” is 100% biblical. The book on my shelf, “Faith Alone in 100 verses” by Wilkin is a case in point. I will NOT throw that book away after watching this presentation, for it did NOT have the power to persuade those of us aware of the facts Mr. B. OMITTED to say such as doing “heroic acts that save the soul” mentioned above which is downright preposterous.
Now why don’t you deal with my 100 passages, if you are so confident and sure of your belief? What stops you?
Hence, Evangelicals use the logo, “Faith Alone” merely as shorthand that guards against a tug-of-war. That is, a tug-of-war between trusting in our own “right conduct” to open heaven’s gate (per CCC 16) and the fatal error of giving equal trust to the “right conduct” of Christ the Lord!
“At the end of the day, “Faith Alone” brings perfect peace (Isa 26:3) to the one who trusts solely in the OBJECT of their faith, for “the one who believes in him will never be put to shame” (Romans 9:33).
God could have chosen to make “faith alone” the sole criterion of salvation. But He didn’t (as we know from the Bible). He chose to have works directly involved, too, since they are organically connected to faith and can’t be arbitrarily separated from it. The works are derived from His grace just as faith is. God crowns His own gifts, as St. Augustine stated, in choosing to regard our good works as meritorious.
*
***
*
Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 4,800+ free online articles or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
Summary: I reply to every argument made by a Protestant who objected to Kenny Burchard’s video, “Why ‘Sola Fidei’ is 100% unbiblical!!” yet mostly ignored its evidences.
Its “Late” Development / Two 4th Century Witnesses / Protestant Commentators on Revelation 12 / Biblical Arguments
Photo credit: Madonna in Glory (c. 1670), by Carlo Dolci (1616-1686) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
Dr. Gavin Ortlund is a Reformed Baptist author, speaker, pastor, scholar, and apologist for the Christian faith. He has a Ph.D. from Fuller Theological Seminary in historical theology, and an M.Div from Covenant Theological Seminary. Gavin is the author of seven books as well as numerous academic and popular articles. For a list of publications, see his CV. He runs the very popular YouTube channel Truth Unites, which seeks to provide an “irenic” voice on theology, apologetics, and the Christian life. See also his website, Truth Unites and his blog.
In my opinion, he is currently the best and most influential popular-level Protestant apologist (see my high praise), who (especially) interacts with and offers thoughtful critiques of Catholic positions, from a refreshing ecumenical (not anti-Catholic), but nevertheless solidly Protestant perspective. That’s what I want to interact with, so I have issued many replies to Gavin and will continue to do so. I use RSV for all Bible passages unless otherwise specified.
*
This is my 31st reply to his material. He has made just one lengthy and substantial reply to my critiques thus far. Why is that? His own explanation is simply lack of time. He wrote on my Facebook page on 17 April 2024: “Dave, thanks for engaging my stuff. People often ask to dialogue or engage and then are disappointed when I decline. Unfortunately I have to say no to most things. . . . if you are expecting regular responses, I’m afraid that is not realistic right now.” Again, on 23 August 2024 he commented on my Facebook page: “thanks for your engagement here. [I’m] grateful you give my work so much attention, and I only apologize [that] I’m not able to respond more. I think in the past I’ve explained a little bit about why.”
*
All of my replies to Gavin are collected on the top of my Calvinism & General Protestantism web page in the section, “Replies to Reformed Baptist Gavin Ortlund.” Gavin’s words will be in blue.
*****
This is my response to Gavin’s video, “Why Mary’s Assumption Is Indefensible” (8-17-23), which at the time of this writing has garnered 59,182 views and 3,069 comments. I think it deserves a solid reply from a Catholic apologist. Glad to do it!
*
1:12 I think Trent [Horn] is a good apologist and I enjoy engaging his work. . . . I’m happy to dialogue with him on this too if he wants
*
He is a good apologist. I hope that one day Gavin will “enjoy engaging”my work as well. I don’t think it’s that bad, if I do say so myself. At the very least, I think I offer significant food for thought, if nothing else, and agree or disagree. As the old saying goes, “you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.”
*
1:18 now I’ve done other videos on this topic, but this one will be the most updated the most thorough. I put a lot of work into it. Some of this information I’m not aware is out there available elsewhere so I hope this will really be helpful . . . I think this will be one of my more important videos
*
That’s what I like to interact with: his best shot at this topic.
*
1:54 I know that hearing your beliefs criticized can be uncomfortable and even painful I know what that’s like
*
Indeed. Maybe I’m weird, but I find it fun because it’s challenging, thought-provoking, and keeps us honest. As an apologist, it almost always stimulates new arguments in me, if I don’t concede the point (as I have many times). Dialogue helps us respect and understand each other a lot better, even if no one is dissuaded from their position, and that’s a good thing.
*
2:19 this is not a game; this is not just an intellectual exercise, and when we treat it like that it becomes ugly and cruel and it can destroy people. We’ve all seen people destroyed by the ugliness of apologetics and how that can go
*
Very true. I agree 100%. But I am quick to add that we also see millions of souls destroyed because they didn’t care about apologetics at all, or about how to integrate faith and reason, or about knowing why they believe what they say they already believe or want to believe or better understand, as the case may be. We must do apologetics with gentleness and love (1 Pet 3:15) or it’s worthless. Gavin is an excellent role model in that respect, and I always strive to do the same. I’m sure I don’t always succeed, but it’s my constant goal and vision, and has been since I began serious apologetics in 1981.
*
2:37 you should never cause any more pain than is necessary. Some pain and discomfort is inevitable when two different ideologies clash. It’s uncomfortable, it’s awkward, it’s hard, it’s frustrating at times, it’s jarring. So that’s just inevitable to some extent.
*
Indeed it is. It can also be fun and stimulating if we maintain an open mind and the proper humility. But in my experience, unfortunately most people don’t like to be disagreed with or challenged in any way, and very few have any interest in true dialogue.
*
4:04 I do I feel that love for these other traditions — for the people in them — but we should not hold back from contending for truth and seeking the truth with all of our heart
*
Amen; I do, too, and I agree. Seek the truth. My old Protestant campus ministry was called True Truth Ministries: from a phrase in Francis Schaeffer, whom Gavin mentioned and cited. I have immense respect for Protestants (many dear friends) and Protestantism, as I have stated and written about many times. And I have honest disagreements with them. The two are not mutually exclusive at all. In this seeking of truth, folks will continue to honestly disagree in good faith, and we mustn’t demonize them when they do.
*
4:17 I think the evidence against the Assumption of Mary is overwhelming. It gives every indication of being a post-apostolic accretion that seems to originate in heterodox groups and only slowly worms its way into the doctrine and piety and liturgy of the church over the course of many centuries, as we shall see. And yet it has been made by several churches into an obligatory irreformable part of the Christian faith
*
We say in reply that it can be grounded in the Bible — not explicitly proven, but shown to be harmonious with it, and even indicated in some ways. Protestants always seem to demand explicit proof of any doctrine, yet there is none at all for the canon of New Testament Scripture, and even historically it was only known in its complete form no earlier than 367 (in St. Athanasius). There is no explicit proof for sola Scriptura, as some Protestants are willing to admit (notably, recently, Gavin’s friend, the Lutheran apologist Jordan Cooper). It must be deduced from Scripture, just as the Assumption is. Lastly, Scripture never states that all doctrines must be explicitly proven from the Bible, and it does indicate an authoritative, doctrine-affirming Church and tradition.
*
I went through this business of doctrines being “an obligatory irreformable part of the Christian faith” in my last article: a reply to Gavin’s video on Mary’s Immaculate Conception, and noted several instances of Protestants making these demands, just as Catholics do (reading people out of Christianity if they disagree). So let’s have no more double standards. It gets very wearisome. I will point them out as I run across them, every time. That doesn’t help me be more popular or loved by one and all (Jesus said we inevitably wouldn’t be, anyway, if we truly follow Him), but it does keep me honest and truthful.
*
6:27 I’ve said this several times: it represents an area where our traditions (Protestant and Roman Catholic) are drifting further apart, and the same is true for the Immaculate Conception.
*
That’s largely true, but I would note in an ecumenical way that even Martin Luther accepted the truthfulness of the Immaculate Conception earlier in his life (up till at least 1527) — many Lutheran and other non-Catholic scholars verify this — and accepted an only slightly modified view of it for the rest of his life. I recently also wrote about Luther’s seeming lifelong personal acceptance of Mary’s Assumption. If he could do those things as the founder of Protestantism, perhaps there is more common ground, even with regard to these vexed issues, than either side usually realizes.
*
7:54 if something is declared as an infallible dogma, then that sets the stakes pretty high and it’s totally appropriate to give it some critical reflection
*
Absolutely, Bring it on. And we will defend Catholic dogmas (and return the favor and criticize what we believe to be false and unbiblical Protestant doctrines). Unfortunately, after we apologists and theologians do that, the dialogue usually ends and our critics disappear or discover that they have many more important things to do instead. To me, that’s when serious, constructive should begin: after both sides go “one round.” The second round and further rounds are what are most interesting and fun. But sadly, very very few are ever willing to pursue anything that far.
*
8:18 anathemas are not wrong in principle; anathemas are biblical (Galatians 1 or 1 Corinthians 16:22).
*
I made this point in my last article, too. Glad to see that Gavin agrees and notes this. I don’t see how he or any Christians who believes in biblical inspiration could disagree. Paul is very clear about it.
*
9:54 it appears to be something close to a scholarly consensus that the Assumption of Mary only comes into the church in the late 5th Century between 450 and 500.
*
In terms of being widespread or mentioned very much, I agree. And why was that? I would say that the slow development of Mariology was no different than many other doctrines where both sides agree (such as the creed and the canon and trinitarianism), per St. John Henry Newman’s historical analysis:
It is a less difficulty that the Papal supremacy was not formally acknowledged in the second century, than that there was no formal acknowledgment on the part of the Church of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity till the fourth. No doctrine is defined till it is violated. . . . If the Imperial Power checked the development of Councils, it availed also for keeping back the power of the Papacy. The Creed, the Canon, in like manner, both remained undefined. The Creed, the Canon, the Papacy, Ecumenical Councils, all began to form, as soon as the Empire relaxed its tyrannous oppression of the Church. (Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, 1845; revised 1878; Part I: ch. 4, sec. 3)
Newman in this same classic work gave the analogous example of original sin (accepted by Protestants and Catholics alike) as another slow-developing doctrine:
(2.) Original Sin
I have already remarked upon the historical fact, that the recognition of Original Sin, considered as the consequence of Adam’s fall, was, both as regards general acceptance and accurate understanding, a gradual process, not completed till the time of Augustine and Pelagius. St. Chrysostom lived close up to that date, but there are passages in his works, often quoted, which we should not expect to find worded as they stand, if they had been written fifty years later. It is commonly, and reasonably, said in explanation, that the fatalism, so prevalent in various shapes pagan and heretical, in the first centuries, was an obstacle to an accurate apprehension of the consequences of the fall, as the presence of the existing {127} idolatry was to the use of images. If this be so, we have here an instance of a doctrine held back for a time by circumstances, yet in the event forcing its way into its normal shape, and at length authoritatively fixed in it, that is, of a doctrine held implicitly, then asserting itself, and at length fully developed. (Ibid., Part I: ch. 4, sec. 1, 2)
Then he gave his opinion as to why Marian doctrines developed relatively late:
I have said that there was in the first ages no public and ecclesiastical recognition of the place which St. Mary holds in the Economy of grace; this was reserved for the fifth century, as the definition of our Lord’s proper Divinity had been the work of the fourth. There was a controversy contemporary with those already mentioned, I mean the Nestorian, which brought out the complement of the development, to which they had been subservient; and which, if I may so speak, supplied the subject of that august proposition of which Arianism had provided the predicate. In order to do honour to Christ, in order to defend the true doctrine of the Incarnation, in order to secure a right faith in the manhood of the Eternal Son, the Council of Ephesus determined the Blessed Virgin to be the Mother of God. Thus all heresies of that day, though opposite to each other, tended in a most wonderful way to her exaltation; and the School of Antioch, the fountain of primitive rationalism, led the Church to determine first the conceivable greatness of a creature, and then the incommunicable dignity of the Blessed Virgin. (Ibid., Part I: ch. 4, sec. 2, 10)
The title of theotokos, or “Mother of God,” — which Gavin agrees with and doesn’t make an issue of — was declared in 431 at the Council of Ephesus. So that was only 19 years before he says the doctrine of the Assumption started coming more into focus. The Two Natures of Christ, of course, were formulated also at this time, at the Council of Chalcedon in 451.
11:37 I reference scholars who say that, to invite people to see, because I don’t think people understand how big of a problem this dogma is. I don’t think they get how serious the problems are so I’m quoting these scholars to try to encourage people to look at what they’re willing to concede
It’s no more of a “problem” than are all the other doctrines (where we agree) — like the canon, the creed, original sin, trinitarianism, Two Natures of Christ, the personhood and Deity of the Holy Spirit, the dogma of theotokos –, that started rapidly developing in roughly the same time frame. It’s a non-issue, as Newman amply and ably explained.
***
“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,800+ articles, please follow my blog by signing up (with your email address) on the sidebar to the right (you may have to scroll down a bit), above where there is an icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. My blog was rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT: endorsed by influential Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Please also consider following me on Twitter / X and purchasing one or more of my 55 books. All of this helps me get more exposure, and (however little!) more income for my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!
***
13:34 Epiphanius [c. 310–320 – 403] says nothing about a bodily assumption to heaven. That has to be read into the text.
Not at all. I just wrote about this topic about five weeks ago on my Facebook page. He wrote:
And if I should say anything more in her praise, [she is] like Elijah, who was virgin from his mother’s womb, always remained so, and was taken up and has not seen death.” (Panarion, c. 378; “Against Collyridians”: from section 79 of The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis Books II and III. De Fide, second revised version, translated by Frank Williams, Boston: Brill, 2013, p. 641; my italics)
“Taken up” pretty obviously refers to her Assumption. And this was written about 72 years before Gavin claimed “the Assumption of Mary. . . comes into the church” (i.e., after 450). Even the canon of the New Testament had not yet been defined at that time. St. Athanasius was the first to name all 27 books in one place only about eleven years earlier. So, the Assumption is a “late doctrine”? Yes, provided we also say the same about many other far less controversial doctrines. But here, Gavin was unaware that Epiphanius expressly asserted Mary’s Assumption. Tim Staples (whose book on Mary Gavin mentioned), observed:
St. Epiphanius clearly indicates his personal agreement with the idea that Mary was assumed into heaven without ever having died. He will elsewhere clarify the fact that he is not certain, and no one is, at least not definitively so, about whether or not she died. But he never says the same about the Assumption itself. That did not seem to be in doubt. By comparing her to Elijah he indicates that she was taken up bodily just as the Church continues to teach 1,600 years later.
Looks pretty straightforward to me. I don’t know why Gavin has such a hard time seeing that he affirmed the Assumption of Mary. “Taken up” can only mean so many things, and if it is directly compared to Elijah, it’s definitely an Assumption up into heaven. Elijah did so in his body as well. He comes back to the topic later in his video, so we’ll see what he says (I am answering as I read the transcript, per my usual custom).
* Tim Staples brings up another fourth-century reference:
According to Fr. [Michael] O’Carroll (in his [2000] book, Theotokos: A Theological Encyclopedia of the Blessed Virgin Mary, 388), we now have what some believe to be a fourth-century homily on the prophet Simeon and the Blessed Virgin Mary by Timothy, a priest of Jerusalem, which asserts Mary is “immortal to the present time through him who had his abode in her and who assumed and raised her above the higher regions.”
Gavin then claims (15:39) that Isidore of Seville (c. 560 –636) is the next patristic witness to the Assumption. He overlooked Gregory of Tours, who wrote a little earlier:
The Apostles took up her body on a bier and placed it in a tomb; and they guarded it, expecting the Lord to come. And behold, again the Lord stood by them; and the holy body having been received, He commanded that it be taken in a cloud into paradise: where now, rejoined to the soul, [Mary] rejoices with the Lord’s chosen ones . . . (Eight Books of Miracles, 1:4; between 575-593; see others from after that time)
21:06 the Assumption gets traction within the church in the late 5th century. The book of Mary’s Repose is a Gnostic legend. This is the first text where you ever have a bodily assumption[of] Mary.
I have shown that this occurred about a hundred years earlier with Epiphanius and Timothy, a priest of Jerusalem (orthodox sources: not heretics).
Gavin gets back to Epiphanius (41:13) and attempts to make contextual arguments against his assertion that she was bodily assumed. I just don’t see it. Maybe I’m dense (who knows?). Readers may consult the text, that I link to (go to p. 641 and read all the context you like). I don’t see how the portion I cited doesn’t mean her Assumption.
44:35 the woman in Revelation 12 is not Mary
I have contended that the text has a dual application: to Mary and to the Church; most obviously referring to Mary in verse 5: “she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne”. It’s pretty difficult not to apply that to Mary, since her Son is so obviously the Messiah, Jesus. See, for example:
Revelation 19:11-16 Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! He who sat upon it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. [12] His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems; and he has a name inscribed which no one knows but himself. [13] He is clad in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. [14] And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, followed him on white horses. [15] From his mouth issues a sharp sword with which to smite the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron; he will tread the wine press of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. [16] On his robe and on his thigh he has a name inscribed, King of kings and Lord of lords. (cf. Ps 2:7-9)
So who is Jesus’ mother? Obviously, Mary of Nazareth. It can’t be, figuratively the Church, because Jesus established the Church (Matthew 16). It didn’t give birth to Him. The Bible never uses a terminology of Jesus being a “child” (Rev 12:5) of the Church. He is the child of God the Father (His Divine Nature) and of Mary (as a person with both a Divine and human nature). The Church is “of Christ”; Christ is not “of the Church”; let alone its “child.” Those categories are biblically ludicrous and indeed almost blasphemous. Only Jesus is connected directly with that, because He is God. Revelation 7:17 refers to “the Lamb in the midst of the throne.” Revelation 21: 1 and 3 reference “the throne of God and of the Lamb.” Compare Matthew 19:28; 25:31; Hebrews 1:8.
But Gavin says no; so how would he overcome this evidence? St. Cardinal Newman wrote:
What I would maintain is this, that the Holy Apostle would not have spoken of the Church under this particular image, unless there had existed a blessed Virgin Mary, who was exalted on high and the object of veneration to all the faithful. No one doubts that the “man-child” spoken of is an allusion to our Lord; why then is not “the Woman” an allusion to his mother? (“Letter to Pusey,” in Difficulties of Anglicans, Vol. 2, 1875)
And if it is Mary in this passage (as well as the Church), then we have an indication of both her veneration and glorification in heaven, akin to the Assumption. Many classic Protestant commentators agree regarding Revelation 12:5, too. Baptist A. T. Robertson (Word Pictures in the New Testament – six volumes), says of Rev. 12:5: “There is here, of course, direct reference to the birth of Jesus from Mary”. Eerdmans Bible Commentary likewise states: “the ‘catching up’ is sufficiently similar to the victorious ascension of Jesus to make plain its real meaning in this context.” Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary states: “rod of iron . . . ch. 2:27; Psalm 2:9, which passages prove the Lord Jesus to be meant. Any interpretation which ignores this must be wrong.” It also notes the reference to the ascension.
Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers states: “There can be no doubt that this man child is Christ. The combination of features is too distinct to admit of doubt, it is the one who will feed His flock like a shepherd (Isaiah 40:12), who is to have, not His own people, but all nations as His inheritance (Psalm 2:7-9), and whose rule over them is to be supreme and irresistible.”
*
Meyer’s NT Commentary: “These words taken from Psalm 2:9 (LXX.), which are referred also to Christ in Revelation 19:15, make it indubitable that the child born of the woman is the Messiah; but the designation of Christ by these words of the Messianic Psalm is in this passage the most appropriate and significant, since the fact is made prominent that this child just born is the one who with irresistible power will visit in judgment the antichristian heathen.”
Pulpit Commentary: “This reference and Psalm 2:9 leave no doubt as to the identification of the man child. It is Christ who is intended. The same expression is used of him in Revelation 19, where he is definitely called the “Word of God.” And her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne. The sentence seems plainly to refer to the ascension of Christ and his subsequent abiding in heaven, from whence he rules all nations.”
Coffman’s Commentaries on the Bible: “These two clauses open and close this verse; and the whole biography of the earthy life, ministry, death, burial, and resurrection of the Son of God is here compressed into nineteen words! The critics have really had a fit about this. Some have even denied that the birth of Christ is mentioned here. . . . Despite such views, the pregnant woman, the travailing in birth, and the delivery of a man child in this passage can mean nothing else except the birth of Christ; and the compression of Jesus’ whole biography into such a short space is perfectly in harmony with what the author did by presenting the entire Old Testament history in a single verse (Revelation 12:4). To suppose that the birth is not included here would make the passage mean that the woman brought forth his death and resurrection; because the emphatic statements of her pregnancy and her being delivered clearly makes her the achiever of whatever happened in Revelation 12:5. This therefore has to be a reference to Jesus’ physical birth in Bethlehem.”
47:21 even if Revelation 12 was about Mary it simply says nothing about a bodily assumption
We’re not claiming that it is an explicit description of the Assumption; only that it is consistent with an assumed Mary exalted in terms of veneration, in heaven. Gavin flat-out denied that Mary was referred to, and I submit that that is impossible to do in light of verse 5.
47:28 the woman is seen in heaven in verse 1 prior to all of the events of the chapter; prior to the birth of the Messiah in verse 5 prior to her flight . . .
Verse 2 states: “she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth.” This is referring back to the woman in verse 1: “a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.” Then verse 5 clearly is talking about the same person: “she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne.” Therefore, Mary is the woman of Revelation 12, at least in these passages (most relevant to our topic). Other parts apply to the Church.
47:45 all of that is subsequent to the initial vision of her in heaven, so the idea that Mary was bodily assumed to Heaven at the end of her life after these events happened is completely foreign to the passage
As I just showed, the person in verses 1, 2, and 5 must be the same person, if words and grammar and logic mean anything at all.
As Gavin mostly did in his video on the Immaculate Conception (which I also critiqued), he completely ignored Catholic biblical argumentation regarding the Assumption. Now, maybe he intended for this to simply address historical questions. That’s fine. But his title was, “Why Mary’s Assumption Is Indefensible,” and it’s certainly defensible from the Bible. I will present the main lines of that argument now, in conclusion, since Gavin ignored it.
Christians already believed in extraordinary non-death departures from this life in the case of Enoch (Heb 11:5; cf. Gen 5:24), Elijah (2 Ki 2:1,11), and many during the Second Coming (1 Thess 4:15-17), and also similar dramatic “going-up-to-heaven” events after having died, in the case of the two witnesses of Revelation (11:7-12) and our Lord Jesus Himself. And we have St. Paul reporting that he went up to heaven before he died (2 Cor 12:1-4): possibly in his body; possibly not (12:3), and St. John also seems to be in heaven witnessing many things (the entire book of Revelation). That’s seven biblical analogies to Mary’s Assumption, to one degree or another!
The Church hasn’t declared whether Mary died or not. All of these events occur by virtue of the power of God, not the intrinsic ability of the persons. Jesus ascended by His own power, but the Blessed Virgin Mary was assumed by the power of her Son Jesus’ victory over death. Hers was an “immediate resurrection.” One day all who are saved will be bodily resurrected. Mary was the first after the Resurrection: quite appropriately (and even, I submit, “expected”), since she was Jesus’ own Mother.
Catholics believe that all Catholic and Christian doctrines must be in harmony with Scripture; must not contradict it; also, that some doctrines are able to be supported only indirectly, implicitly, or by deduction from other related Bible passages. All Catholic doctrines have scriptural support in some sense (this is my main specialty as an apologist). We also believe in Sacred Tradition: itself always in harmony with Scripture. Sometimes (as in the present case), a doctrine is “stronger” in Tradition.
I agree that there is no direct “proof” of Mary’s Assumption in Scripture. But there is strong deductive and analogical evidence (the analogous examples of “going directly up to heaven” events, shown above). The deductive argument has to do with the “consequences” of Mary’s Immaculate Conception: a doctrine more directly indicated in Scripture (e.g., Lk 1:28). Bodily death and decay are the result of sin and the fall of man (Gen 3:16-19; Ps 16:10). An absence of actual and original sin would allow for instant bodily resurrection.
It’s as if Mary goes back to before the fall (for this reason the Church fathers call her the “New Eve”). Scripture tells us the consequences of original sin; these would then be reversed by Mary not being subject to either original sin or the results. If one is completely without sin, this arguably includes original sin, and without original sin, there is no decay; ergo, the Assumption follows as a matter of course.
Biblically speaking (if not according to strict logic), I don’t think there is anything that could cause death + bodily corruption other than original sin. In other words, we are in a supernatural / spiritual realm in the Bible that is only taught to us through revelation. In that “world” of thinking, it seems to me that there is a one-to-one relation:
1) Original sin ——> bodily corruption + spiritual death.
2) Removal of original sin, or a case where original sin never occurred —–> no spiritual death and no bodily corruption.
Jesus’ Resurrection makes possible universal resurrection (1 Cor 15:13, 16), and redemption of our bodies as well as souls (1 Cor 15:20-23). Mary’s Assumption is the “first fruits,” sign, and type of the general resurrection of all (created) mankind; she exemplifies the age in which death and sin are conquered once and for all (1 Cor 15:26).
1 Corinthians 15:17-26 (RSV) If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied. But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death.
What better person to follow Jesus in resurrection than His own mother, who made the way of salvation possible at the Annunciation? Though this is no ironclad proof, on the other hand, it is a very plausible scenario, and contradicts nothing in the Bible.
Protestant apologist Norman Geisler admits:
[T]he Bible does teach implicitly and logically, if not formally and explicitly, that the Bible alone is the only infallible basis for faith and practice. (Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, co-author, Ralph E. Mackenzie, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1995, 184; emphases added)
He denies that there is either “formal” or “explicit” biblical proof for this foundation of Protestant theology and its very rule of faith. So if even sola Scriptura lacks this sort of biblical proof (and I would also deny that one can find even implicit or logical proof for it in Scripture), why is it required of Catholics to provide more for a doctrine like the Assumption? There are such things as “implicit” and deductive proofs from Scripture or at least indications. Nothing in Scripture contradicts the possibility of Mary being assumed into heaven (and many parallels show it to be entirely possible and plausible).
As with Mary’s Immaculate Conception, Catholics believe that this event was “fitting” and proper, as opposed to being intrinsically necessary. The word “fitting” is used seven times in the proclamation of her Assumption as a dogma in 1950. St. Cardinal Newman makes an extended argument for Mary’s Assumption from “fittingness”:
It was surely fitting then, it was becoming, that she should be taken up into heaven and not lie in the grave till Christ’s second coming, who had passed a life of sanctity and of miracle such as hers. . . . Who can conceive, my brethren, that God should so repay the debt, which He condescended to owe to His Mother, for the elements of His human body, as to allow the flesh and blood from which it was taken to moulder in the grave? . . . Why should she share the curse of Adam, who had no share in his fall? “Dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return,” was the sentence upon sin; she then, who was not a sinner, fitly never saw corruption. She died, then, as we hold, because even our Lord and Saviour died . . . by the grace of Christ which in her had anticipated sin, which had filled her with light, which had purified her flesh from all defilement, she was also saved from disease and malady, and all that weakens and decays the bodily frame. Original sin had not been found in her . . . If the Mother of Emmanuel ought to be the first of creatures in sanctity and in beauty; if it became her to be free from all sin from the very first, and from the moment she received her first grace to begin to merit more; and if such as was her beginning, such was her end, her conception immaculate and her death an assumption . . . (Discourses Addressed to Mixed Congregations [1849; London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1906), Discourse 18: “On the Fitness of the Glories of Mary”)
Protestant anti-Catholic apologist Jason Engwer, who runs the Triablogue site, took some potshots against the Assumption of Mary in his article, Luke Against Roman Catholic Mariology (10-24-21). I counter with similar arguments, using his incessantly skeptical, cynical methodology (two can play at this game). Jason wrote:
Similarly, she’s mentioned in Acts 1:14, but not in the three decades of church history narrated afterward. No assumption of Mary is mentioned either. . . . if she died within the history covered by the document, especially if she died earlier rather than later, why is there no mention of an assumption? . . .
Luke’s writings can be an important part of a cumulative argument when considering an issue like the assumption of Mary. The more sources we have that show interest in relevant subjects, yet don’t mention an assumption of Mary, the less likely it is that she was assumed (e.g., Luke’s failure to mention an assumption despite multiple references to Jesus’ ascension, . . .) . . . Luke is the sort of author who would have been in an unusually good position to have referred to an assumption if one had occurred.
Applying the technique of analogical argument, I countered this, bringing about what is known in logic as a reductio ad absurdum (reduction to absurdity):
Matthew’s and John’s Gospels can be an important part of a cumulative argument when considering an issue like the ascension of Jesus. The more sources we have that show interest in relevant subjects, yet don’t mention an ascension of Jesus, the less likely it is that He ascended to heaven (e.g., Matthew’s and John’s failure to mention His ascension . . .) . . . Matthew and John are the sorts of authors who would have been in an unusually good position to have referred to His ascension if it had occurred. They wrote a lot in relevant contexts, including a substantial amount about Jesus, . . .
By the way, the book of Acts “is usually dated to around 80–90 AD, although some scholars suggest 90–110”: according to Wikipedia. St. Paul’s death, according to the Wikipedia article about him, “is believed to have occurred after the Great Fire of Rome in July 64, but before the last year of Nero’s reign, in 68.” St. Peter’s death, in the article devoted to him –according to “Early Church tradition” was “at the time of the Great Fire of Rome in the year 64.” Yet neither event is mentioned in the book of Acts.
No martyrdoms of St. Paul or St. Peter are mentioned [in Acts] either. . . . if they died within the history covered by the document, especially if they died earlier rather than later, why is there no mention of their martyrdoms? . . . Luke’s writings can be an important part of a cumulative argument when considering an issue like the martyrdoms of St. Paul and St. Peter. The more sources we have that show interest in relevant subjects, yet don’t mention martyrdoms of St. Paul and St. Peter, the less likely it is that they were martyred (e.g., Luke’s failure to mention martyrdoms of St. Paul and St. Peter . . .) . . . Luke is the sort of author who would have been in an unusually good position to have referred to the martyrdoms of St. Paul and St. Peter if they had occurred. He wrote a lot in relevant contexts, including a substantial amount about St. Paul and St. Peter, . . .
Mark’s and John’s Gospels can be an important part of a cumulative argument when considering an issue like the virgin birth in Bethlehem of Jesus. The more sources we have that show interest in relevant subjects, yet don’t mention the virgin birth in Bethlehem of Jesus, the less likely it is that He was born of a virgin in Bethlehem (e.g., Mark’s and John’s failure to mention His virgin birth in Bethlehem, and Mark’s failure to mention Bethlehem at all in his entire Gospel . . .) . . . Mark and John are the sorts of author who would have been in an unusually good position to have referred to the virgin birth in Bethlehem of Jesus if it had occurred. They wrote a lot in relevant contexts, including a substantial amount about Jesus, . . .
Matthew’s and Mark’s and Luke’s Gospels can be an important part of a cumulative argument when considering an issue like the raising of Lazarus from the dead by Jesus. The more sources we have that show interest in relevant subjects, yet don’t mention the raising of Lazarus, the less likely it is that Lazarus was raised by Jesus (e.g., Matthew’s and Mark’s and Luke’s failure to mention His being raised from the dead by Jesus . . .) . . . Matthew, Mark, and Luke are the sorts of authors who would have been in an unusually good position to have referred to the raising of Lazarus from the dead by Jesus if it had occurred. They wrote a lot in relevant contexts, including a substantial amount about Jesus, . . .
Etc., etc. One gets the analogical / satirical point by now . . . Folks don’t always mention every particular thing.
*
***
*
Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 4,800+ free online articles or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
Photo credit: Madonna in Glory (c. 1670), by Carlo Dolci (1616-1686) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
Summary: I respond to a video by Reformed Baptist apologist Gavin Ortlund, explaining why Protestants reject the Assumption of Mary. Unlike him, I discuss relevant Scripture, too.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In