Church Fathers & Sola Fide (vs. Jordan Cooper)

Last updated on: March 7, 2024 at 5:27 pm By Dave Armstrong

Incl. St. Ignatius of Antioch vs. Faith Alone; Epistle to Diognetus; Council of Trent on Justification by Faith & Imputation; Anti-Catholicism in the Lutheran Confessions

Rev. Dr. Jordan B. Cooper is a Lutheran pastor, adjunct professor of Systematic Theology, Executive Director of the popular Just & Sinner YouTube channel, and the President of the American Lutheran Theological Seminary (which holds to a doctrinally traditional Lutheranism, similar to the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod). He has authored several books, as well as theological articles in a variety of publications. All my Bible citations are from RSV, unless otherwise indicated. Jordan’s words will be in blue.

This is my 10th reply to Jordan (many more to come, because I want to interact with the best, most informed Protestant opponents). All of these respectful critiques can be found in the “Replies to Jordan Cooper” section at the top of my Lutheranism web page.

*****

This is a response to Jordan’s YouTube video, “A Response to Trent Horn on Sola Fide in the Church Fathers” (11-27-23).

3:22 Trent Horn cites a number of passages from the apostolic fathers where these figures write about the necessity of striving, the necessity of continuing to do good works, the necessity of of striving in the faith, even to the point of saying that it is through that striving in the faith that you are going to inherit eternal life, and if you don’t strive, then you are not going to. Now these passages, to be clear, fit easily into a Lutheran framework. They’re really not a problem at all because in a confessional Lutheran framework we recognize that there is is a necessity of perseverance. We do believe that one can apostatize, and if you are not walking in the faith; if you are not striving to walk in Christ, you can indeed fall into what we would call mortal sin, in that you can live in unrepentant sin and in fact be cut off from Christ.

5:07 there are citations that you find in Trent Horn’s video that speak about a recompense for one’s works. This is not a problem at all; there is no issue with this within Lutheran theology . . . the rewards for good works . . . are heavenly rewards.

The problem here for Lutherans and Protestants generally is that the Bible doesn’t merely describe differential rewards in heaven for the works we do (both sides agree on that). The problem for them is that the Bible massively connects these good works to salvation itself, when it refers to the criteria of salvation and entrance into heaven. I have compiled fifty biblical passages along these lines, and it’s a huge difficulty for Protestants to explain away, because it’s clearly a denial of faith alone and of the denial of meritorious works. These passages simply don’t “read Protestant.”

To put it another way, if the true view is supposedly that faith alone saves us and works have nothing directly to do with it, and are only rewarded separately with differential rewards in heaven, then Protestants must explain why it is that the Bible so often ties works directly to salvation and entrance into heaven, and why faith was only mentioned once alongside works in all of these fifty passages. We agree that faith and works save us. But why are works featured so prominently and exclusively in all these passages? This biblical fact is not plausible under Protestant soteriology, but it’s perfectly harmonious with Catholic and Orthodox theology, and not surprising at all to us.

5:31 now it depends on what you mean by recompense. If the assumption is, I am earning my justification or increasing my justification by my good works, we would deny that categorically, explicitly, and clearly. But that’s not what these fathers especially Ignatius [say]. Ignatius says he speaks about there being a recompense for our good works once we enter into the kingdom of God eternally. We have always confessed that there are heavenly rewards for the good works that we do in this life.

Jordan provides no reference for Ignatius of Antioch’s statement[s] concerning this matter. After searching “works,” “heaven,” and “reward” in his letters, as best I can determine, he is referring to this:

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)

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 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.

7:17 there is a way to accept the idea of faith alone or justification through faith alone if what you mean is an initial justification.

Indeed. See my papers:

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

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

8:02 there is an allowance for this language of justification through faith alone that simply doesn’t seem to be consistent with the Roman tradition when you look at the responses to the reformers [at] Trent and then post-Trent. . . . the allowance for justification through faith alone in one sense really is not there in the way that it tends to be within modern Roman Catholic apologetics.

Canons I-III and X on justification from Trent (Sixth Session: 13 January 1547, while Melanchthon and Calvin were still alive) teach initial justification, which is by grace through faith, and not by works:

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

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

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

CANON X. If any one saith, that men are just without the justice of Christ, whereby He merited for us to be justified; or that it is by that justice itself that they are formally just; let him be anathema.

Likewise, the Decree on Justification, chapter 5:

The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace: in such sort that, while God touches the heart of man by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, neither is man himself utterly without doing anything while he receives that inspiration, forasmuch as he is also able to reject it; yet is he not able, by his own free will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in His sight.

The italicized portions refer to initial justification by grace alone and faith alone; over against Pelagianism and in agreement with Protestantism. Former Presbyterian minister and professor Kenneth Howell comments on these declarations of the Council of Trent:

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]

8:24 Now I’m glad that they’ve kind of changed. I think they’ve come our way a little bit and I think that’s good, but they don’t want to say that, of course. I just want to say that . . . personally in my interpretation of Trent . . . I don’t see the way that a lot of modern Roman Catholic apologists have moved on this as consistent with Tridentine soteriology, so I think that it’s actually a capitulation to our particular view or perspective on things.

As I believe I have just shown, there has been no change, and Trent itself does indeed teach monergistic justification or justification by faith alone, as pertains to initial justification. See the crucial distinctions highlighted by Dr. Howell above. Jordan simply needs to be more acquainted with the subtleties and nuances of Trent’s teaching. I think Dr. Howell’s exposition in particular can help him do that.

Ironically, if Jordan thinks we Catholic apologists have changed and departed from Trent’s soteriology, whereas in fact — if my reasoning above is correct — , we haven’t at all, then Jordan has actually confirmed in a roundabout way that Trent agreed with Protestants on initial justification all along. That should make him happy, I would think, if in fact the two sides have more in common than he had previously thought (and as many Catholics have thought and do think, as well). It makes me happy whenever we can agree; less to disagree about and less work for me as an apologist!

9:03 I’m glad that they’re willing to concede that

The credit goes to Trent, not us apologists who have supposedly modified it, which would be fundamentally unacceptable for a Catholic apologist to do. It would be like Jordan messing around with the Book of Concord, and ignoring parts of it, in order to be more agreeable to Catholics. Nor did Trent “concede” this point. It was reaffirming what had been held all along. The condemnations of the Pelagians a thousand years earlier at the 2nd Council of Orange dealt with and resolved all this.

9:13 I see that as kind of proof that there isn’t even acknowledgement that maybe we’ve done some things right or we were right about certain things

Not in this instance (because Jordan’s premise is wrong; we never did disagree here as to initial justification), but generally speaking, Catholics believe that there is a lot of agreement between us, and we’re delighted about that and see it as Protestants having gotten many things “right.” See my paper that cites Vatican II in this regard: How Catholics View Protestants. Truth is truth wherever it is found. This works two ways, too, I should add. Catholicism has made a lot of effort in ecumenical matters in the last century or so. But in the Book of Concord: the Lutheran Confessions that Jordan and all orthodox, traditional Lutherans abide by, there are still many statements like the following:

The Mass in the papacy must be regarded as the greatest and most horrible abomination because it runs into direct and violent conflict with this fundamental article. Yet, above and beyond all others, it has been the supreme and most precious of the papal idolatries . . . this dragon’s tail — that is, the Mass — has brought forth a brood of vermin and the poison of manifest idolatries. (Smalcald Articles [1537], Part II, Article II: The Mass, from The Book of Concord, translated and edited by Theodore Tappert, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House / Muhlenberg Press, 1959, pp. 293-294)

So in the papal realm the worship of Baal clings — namely, the abuse of the Mass . . . And it seems that this worship of Baal will endure together with the papal realm until Christ comes to judge and by the glory of his coming destroys the kingdom of Antichrist. Meanwhile all those who truly believe the Gospel should reject those wicked services invented against God’s command to obscure the glory of Christ and the righteousness of faith. (Apology of the Augsburg Confession [1531], Article XXIV: The Mass, in Tappert, ibid., 268)

There may very well be a way that ecumenical Lutherans reconcile the above with respect for Catholics as brothers and sisters in Christ, through some interpretive means that I am not yet aware of. I’d be more than happy to be educated by those who feel that they have a solution to this apparent dilemma for ecumenical Lutherans.

Jordan brings up (around the ten-minute mark) the Epistle to Diognetus with regard to justification. I addressed that in an earlier reply to Jordan, entitled, Faith Alone In The Early Church Fathers? [2-28-24]. Jordan refers to this particular passage:

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, which I have addressed above, with citations from Trent. 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 Dr. Howell above. But as soon as it occurs, the believer works together with God to make it a real, day-by-day righteousness (not merely a declared or proclaimed righteousness that in fact is not righteousness). That’s where the two sides differ, but not on the above.

As I noted in my earlier treatment of this epistle, the author states that God will give salvation and the reward of heaven “to those who have loved Him” (chapter 10). Faith alone without love won’t cut it. He writes again along these lines in chapter 12, observing that “you shall know what God bestows on such as rightly love Him, . . . presenting in yourselves a tree bearing all kinds of produce and flourishing well, being adorned with various fruits.” As I wrote before: “I see nothing whatsoever in this work that contradicts Catholic soteriology.”

This epistle states, “For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness?” Precisely! 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 . . .”

12:13 I think there are plenty of passages in Luther that are very clear that The Great Exchange is more than just a forensic reality

I agree, which is why I put out the papers:

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

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

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

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

Luther wrote (very “Catholic-like”:

Our justification is not yet finished. It is neither something which is actually completed nor is it essentially present. It is still under construction [to be completed in the resurrection]. (Disputation on the Works of the Law and of Grace, 1537; Luther’s Works, vol. 71; cf. Paul Althaus, “The Theology of Martin Luther,” 245, footnote 96)

[T]he entire man, both as to his person and his works, is to be called and to be righteous and holy from pure grace and mercy, shed upon us [unfolded] and spread over us in Christ. (Smalcald Articles, 1537; Pt. III, Art. XIII)

It was Luther’s successor, Philip Melanchthon, who completely separated works from justification. It was a fatal move, that has led to much false doctrine and the bad fruit that results from falsehood.

16:59 if Rome is willing to say, “okay we have [to] enter into a state of grace through faith alone or through a baptism” . . .

“Rome” has always said that, so it’s not an issue. The curious thing here is that Jordan, for some reason, thinks we haven’t yet asserted this.

Jordan continues (per his apparently usual custom) in the rest of the video to be all over the ballpark. Once again, his title is a misnomer. He basically dealt with only two pieces of patristic data regarding soteriology, and I responded to both, along with many other things (ostensibly off the topic of what the title describes, though distantly related).

20:41 I don’t want to go back and forth. . . . I don’t really want my channel to be a anti-Roman Catholic Protestant channel. That’s never been my desire, but I do think it’s important to engage in these things. It’s important to debate these things. Trent is a professional Roman Catholic apologist and he can go back and forth on these things with people. That’s just not really my mission. I am certainly a Lutheran apologist. I’m a Lutheran theologian, but I don’t want to just kind of go back and forth on these things.

That’s fine. Everyone has his own vocation, as well as desires and strengths and weaknesses. To each his own. He can decide to reply to Trent Horn and/or Catholic apologists, including myself, as he wishes, and no one should judge his decisions as to how he spends his time and uses the gifts that God gave him (which are many). But he should also be aware that a person like me, who specializes in debate and examination of Protestantism and defense of Catholicism, will reply to claims he has made about the Catholic Church and Catholicism, which need to be able to withstand scrutiny, and which are not all self-evidently true, or unquestionable when examined more closely.

Jordan is now influencing many thousands of his viewers, and so it’s only fair and to be expected that if he treats the subject of Catholicism, Catholics — including myself — will make some kind of reply, so that it can be a “fair fight” and a scenario where both sides are heard and not just one. I hope he does decide to reply to me. I think it would be fun for both of us. I don’t bite! I’m friendly, no matter how many disagreements I may have with a person. The two sides (not just us, but readers) can potentially better understand each other, whether or not anyone is persuaded otherwise (which is always rare, anyway). All of that is good and well worth spending time on, in my humble opinion. More accurate knowledge of views other than our own is always a net gain.

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

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

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

***

Photo credit: Rev. Dr. Jordan Cooper, from the American Lutheran Theological Seminary “Faculty & Staff” page.

Summary: Lutheran apologist Jordan Cooper makes arguments about the supposed allegiance of two Church fathers to sola fide (faith alone). I submit contrary evidences.

Luther, James, Faith & Works: Additional Relevant Data

Last updated on: March 7, 2023 at 12:07 pm By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

Previously, over 18 years ago, I dealt at length with Luther’s negative comments made about James: that it was a book not written by an apostle, that it supposedly contradicts the soteriology of St. Paul, that it was “an epistle of straw” and either not fit for the biblical canon, or if so, only in a secondary, lesser sense (it was, in fact, included in his German Bible, and not thrown out). I noted how the potshot about James being “an epistle of straw” was removed from his 1545 revision of his Preface to the New Testament. This can all be found in my article, “Luther’s Radical Views on the Biblical Canon” (9-25-04; do a word-search of “James”).

I have written several times about Luther’s soteriology being much more complex than a radical “faith alone” / antinomian outlook, which is unfortunately often falsely attributed to him, by misinformed Catholics and Protestants alike (following polemical stereotypes):

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

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

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

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

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

Luther’s Translation of “Faith Alone” in Romans 3:28 (Also: Did “Early Erasmus” Agree with Luther?) [12-7-22]

On almost any major issue, it will be found that Luther’s views are either flat-out self-contradictory, or that his positions vacillated throughout his lifetime (in some cases back-and-forth more than once). His view of the book of James was no exception. Presently, I’d like to present some relatively positive statements from Martin Luther about the book of James. The main themes are that works cannot justify by themselves (a position Catholics fully agree with, contra Pelagianism), and that faith must be accompanied by works (we again agree), and that justification is always by faith alone (here we disagree and say that it is by faith, which always includes works as two sides of one coin; therefore works are part of justification as well as sanctification).

So he ultimately disagrees with us in his overall soteriology, and separates sanctification from justification, in a way that Scripture and Catholicism do not. But on the other hand, he is no antinomian: the position that works are more-or-less totally separate and distinct from faith, even in terms of a separated sanctification, and this has welcome affinities with Catholic soteriology. Luther’s words below will be in blue.

In a 1521 sermon Luther preached:

See, this is what James means when he says, [2:26] “Faith apart from works is dead.” For as the body without the soul is dead, so is faith without works. Not that faith is in man and does not work, which is impossible. For faith is a living, active thing. But in order that men may not deceive themselves and think they have faith when they have not, they are to examine their works, whether they also love their neighbors and do good to them. If they do this, it is a sign that they have the true faith. If they do not do this, they only have the sound of faith, and it is with them as the one who sees himself in the glass and when he leaves it and sees himself no more, but sees other things, forgets the face in the glass, as James says in his first chapter, verses 23-24.

This passage in James deceivers and blind masters have spun out so far, that they have demolished faith and established only works, as though righteousness and salvation did not rest on faith, but on our works. To this great darkness they afterwards added still more, and taught only good works which are no benefit to your neighbor, as fasting, repeating many prayers, observing festival days; not to eat meat, butter, eggs and milk; to build churches, cloisters, chapels, altars; to institute masses, vigils, hours; to wear gray, white and black clothes; to be spiritual; and innumerable things of the same kind, from which no man has any benefit or enjoyment; all which God condemns, and that justly. But St. James means that a Christian life is nothing but faith and love. Love is only being kind and useful to all men, to friends and enemies. And where faith is right, it also certainly loves, and does to another in love as Christ did to him in faith. Thus everyone should beware lest he has in his heart a dream and fancy instead of faith, and thus deceives himself. This he will not learn anywhere as well as in doing the works of love. As Christ also gives the same sign and says: “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.” John 13, 35. Therefore St. James means to say: Beware, if your life is not in the service of others, and you live for yourself, and care nothing for your neighbor, then your faith is certainly nothing; for it does not do what Christ has done for him. Yea, he does not believe that Christ has done good to him, or he would not omit to do good to his neighbor. (The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther Vol. 3:1, Michigan: Baker Books, 2000, 71-72; my bolding and italics)

In another sermon (unknown date), he stated:

This is what St. James means when his says in his Epistle, 2:26: ‘”Faith without works is dead.” That is, as the works do not follow, it is a sure sign that there is no faith there; but only an empty thought and dream, which they falsely call faith. Now we understand the word of Christ: “Make to yourselves friends by means of the mammon of unrighteousness.” That is, prove your faith publically by your outward gifts, by which you win friends, that the poor may be witnesses of your public work, that your faith is genuine. For mere external giving in itself can never make friends, unless it proceed from faith, as Christ rejects the alms of the Pharisees in Matthew 6:2, that they thereby make no friends because their heart is false. Thus no heart can ever be right without faith, so that even nature forces the confession that no work makes one good, but that the heart must first be good and upright. (The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther Vol. 2:2, Michigan: Baker Books, 2000, 308; my bolding and italics)

And in 1524:

For this life is nothing more than a life of faith, of love, and of sanctified affliction. But these three will never be perfect in us while we live here on earth, and no one possesses them in perfection except Christ. He is the sun and is set for our example, which we must imitate. For this reason there will always be found among us some that are weak, others that are strong, and again some that are stronger; these are able to suffer less, those more; and so they must all continue in the imitation of Christ. For this life is a constant progress from faith to faith, from love to love, from patience to patience, and from affliction to affliction. It is not righteousness, but justification; not purity, but purification; we have not yet arrived at our destination, but we are all on the road, and some are farther advanced than others. (A Sermon on Confession and the Lord’s Supper; 1524; in Sermons of Martin Luther, The Church Postils; edited and partially translated by John Nicholas Lenker, 8 volumes. Volumes 1-5 were originally published in Minneapolis by Lutherans of All Lands, 1904-1906; Vol. 2)

In 1530, in reply to the question, “Why does James [2:26] say, ‘Faith apart from works is dead’?,” Luther wrote:

James is dealing with a moral point, not theological, just as he is almost entirely about morality. Morally speaking, it is true that faith without works is dead- that is, if faith does not do works or if outward works do not follow faith. In this way then, faith cannot exist apart from works; that is, it cannot fail to do works, else there is no faith alone.

We, however, are dealing with a theological point here since we are discussing justification before God. Here we assert that faith alone is counted as righteousness before God, apart from works and merits.” (Luther’s Works, Vol. 61 [published in 2021], 183-184; my bolding and italics)

And in his The Disputation Concerning Justification (1536), Luther responded to the proposition: “Faith without works justifies, Faith without works is dead [James 2:17, 26]. Therefore, dead faith justifies”:

The argument is sophistical and the refutation is resolved grammatically. In the major premise, ‘faith’ ought to be placed with the word ‘justifies’ and the portion of the sentence ‘without works justifies’ is placed in a predicate periphrase and must refer to the word ‘justifies,’ not to ‘faith.’ In the minor premise, ‘without works’ is truly in the subject periphrase and refers to faith. We say that justification is effective without works, not that faith is without works. For that faith which lacks fruit is not an efficacious but a feigned faith. ‘Without works’ is ambiguous, then. For that reason this argument settles nothing. It is one thing that faith justifies without works; it is another thing that faith exists without works. (Luther’s Works, Vol. 34, 175-176; my bolding and italics)

Luther even wrote in 1537, sounding very “Catholic” indeed:

Our justification is not yet finished. It is neither something which is actually completed nor is it essentially present. It is still under construction [to be completed in the resurrection]. (Disputation on the Works of the Law and of Grace, 1537; German: WA 39.1:252 / English: Luther’s Works, Vol. 71; cf. Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther, 245, footnote 96; my bolding and italics)

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,200+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-one 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.

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

***

Photo credit: Luther posting his 95 theses in 1517; 1872 painting by Ferdinand Pauwels (1830-1904) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: I analyze some lesser-known positive remarks from Martin Luther about James, with regard to faith & works. As usual, he is complex and self-contradictory.

Lucas Banzoli vs. Biblically Venerated “Catholic” Mary

Last updated on: February 24, 2023 at 7:48 pm By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

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

This is my 63rd refutation of Banzoli’s writings. From 25 May until 12 November 2022 he wrote not one single word in reply, claiming that my articles were “without exception poor, superficial and weak” and that “only a severely cognitively impaired person” would take them “seriously.” Nevertheless, he found them so “entertaining” that after almost six months of inaction he resolved to “make a point of rebutting” them “one by one”; this effort being his “new favorite sport.”

He has now replied to me 16 times (the last one dated 2-20-23). I disposed of the main themes of his numberless slanders in several Facebook posts under his name on my Anti-Catholicism page (where all my replies to him are listed). I shall try, by God’s grace, to ignore his innumerable insults henceforth, and heartily thank him for all these blessings and extra rewards in heaven (Matthew 5:11-12).

Google Translate is utilized to render Lucas’ Portugese into English. Occasionally I slightly modify clearly inadequate translations, so that his words will read more smoothly and meaningfully in English. His words will be in blue. Words from past replies of mine to him will be in green.

*****

This is a reply to Lucas Banzoli’s article, “A nova tentativa de Dave de justificar a idolatria católica” [Dave’s New Attempt to Justify Catholic Idolatry] (2-20-23).

The feeling is that Dave is pressured by his readers to write something in response to my articles,

Mostly my readers urge me to ignore Banzoli as an idiot. Just two hours ago, for example, someone wrote on my Facebook page under a little article refuting yet another Banzoli error: “Man, you keep casting pearls before swine.” So if there is any “pressure” it’s to not reply.

It must be an immeasurable shame that a gentleman whose profession is apologetics and who makes a living from it alone is not able to give a minimally decent answer to a young man who has apologetics only as a hobby, not as a job . . .

This is very interesting. Banzoli has been lying for months, saying I have no job at all, and now he wants to switch on a dime and assert that apologetics is my “profession” and “job”? I guess this is Orwellian doublethink and doublespeak. Normally such a drastic change would call for a retraction and apology. But then, alas, four paragraphs later, he writes that “this is his ‘job'”: implying that it really isn’t. So the doublethink continues full force.

See, for example, what Pope Pius XII said:

And the Empyrean saw that she was really worthy of receiving the honor, the glory, the empire, — because more full of grace, more holy, more beautiful, more deified, incomparably more, than the greatest saints and the most sublime angels, or separately or together; —because mysteriously related in the order of the Hypostatic Union with the whole Blessed Trinity, with the One who is by essence the infinite Majesty, King of kings and Lord of lords, who is the eldest Daughter of the Father and the Supreme Mother of the Word and the beloved Spouse of the Holy Spirit ; — because Mother of the divine King, of the One to whom the Lord God gave the throne of David and eternal royalty in the house of Jacob from her mother’s womb and who from himself proclaimed, to have been given all power in heaven and on earth: He, the Son of God, reflects upon the heavenly Mother the glory, the majesty, the empire of her royalty; — Because associated, as Mother and Minister, with the King of martyrs in the ineffable work of human Redemption, she is forever associated with him, with an almost immense power, in the distribution of the graces that derive from Redemption. (Radio Advertisement to the Portugese Faithful on the Occasion of the Celebration of the Coronation of Our Lady of Fatima, May 13, 1946)

I see no problem here. This is all quite biblical. She receives honor?:

1 Chronicles 29:20 (RSV) Then David said to all the assembly, “Bless the LORD your God.” And all the assembly blessed the LORD, the God of their fathers, and bowed their heads, and worshiped [shachah] the LORD, and did obeisance [shachah] to the king. [KJV: “worshipped the LORD, and the king”]

2 Chronicles 32:33 And Hezekiah slept with his fathers, and they buried him in the chiefest of the sepulchres of the sons of David: and all Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem did him honour at his death. . . .

Luke 1:42, 45 “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! . . . [45] And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfilment of what was spoken to her from the Lord.”

1 Peter 2:17 Honor all men. . . .

So should we honor Mary? Of course! She’s the Mother of God the Son. How could we not honor such a person? How about Mary receiving glory? Is that outrageous idolatry or a biblical thing? It’s the latter (odd how Banzoli could be ignorant of so much Scripture!):

John 17:22 The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one,

Romans 2:10 . . . glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.

Romans 5:2 Through him we have obtained access to this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in our hope of sharing the glory of God.

Romans 9:23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for the vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory,

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

1 Thessalonians 2:12 to lead a life worthy of God, who calls you into his own kingdom and glory.

2 Thessalonians 2:14 To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Peter 4:14 If you are reproached for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the spirit of glory and of God rests upon you.

1 Peter 5:1 So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ as well as a partaker in the glory that is to be revealed. (cf. 5:4)

2 Peter 1:3 . . . through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory [see many more such passages]

Mary is relatively more deified? That’s no problem, since we are all called to that. The Bible teaches that followers of Christ would be “united with him” (Rom 6:5), “one spirit with him” (1 Cor 6:17), “changed into his likeness” (2 Cor 3:18), “filled with all the fullness of God” (Eph 3:19) and “the fullness of Christ” (Eph 4:13); indeed, “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet 1:4). Even Martin Luther taught deification.

mysteriously related in the order of the Hypostatic Union with the whole Blessed Trinity

Yes, she is related to God in the Holy Trinity, as the Mother of God the Incarnate Son, miraculously impregnated by the Holy Spirit and thus able to be called His “spouse” in a sense. “Spouse of the Holy Spirit” — like “Mother of God” — is wrongly thought to imply an equality with God, when in fact it’s only a limited analogical description based on Mary’s relation to the Holy Spirit in the matter of the conception of Jesus. This description is no more “unbiblical” or non-harmonious with scriptural thought than St. Paul saying “we are God’s fellow workers” (1 Cor 3:9; cf. 2 Cor 6:1).

Along these lines, there are many biblical passages about Israel or the Church being the “bride” of God the Father or Jesus Christ, God the Son:

Isaiah 54:5 For your Maker is your husband, the LORD of hosts is his name; . . .

Isaiah 62:5 . . . as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, so shall your God rejoice over you.

Jeremiah 31:32 . . . my covenant which they broke, though I was their husband, says the LORD. (cf. 3:20)

Hosea 2:16, 19-20 “And in that day, says the LORD, you will call me, `My husband,’ and no longer will you call me, `My Ba’al.’ . . . [19] And I will betroth you to me for ever; . . . (cf. 4:12; 9:1)

Matthew 9:15 And Jesus said to them, “Can the wedding guests mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them?” (cf. Mk 2:19-20; Lk 5:34-35; Mt 25:1-10)

2 Corinthians 11:2 I feel a divine jealousy for you, for I betrothed you to Christ to present you as a pure bride to her one husband.

Ephesians 5:28-29, 32 Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. [29] For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church, . . . [32] This mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church (cf. Rev 19:7; 21:2; 21:9)

God chose to involve her intimately with Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Who are we to second-guess Him? Intimacy with God is, again, something all believers were meant to experience. The Holy Spirit is in us (the indwelling). We are “in” the Father and the Son (Jn 17:21; 1 Jn 2:24), and “in” Jesus (Jn 6:56; 14:20; 15:4-7; 16:33; 2 Cor 5:21; Phil 4:13; Col 2:6-7, 10; 1 Jn 2:24, 28; 5:20). God is in us (1 Jn 3:24; 4:13, 15) and we are “in” God (Col 3:3; 1 Jn 2:5, 24; 3:6, 24; 4:13, 15). Jesus is “in” us (Jn 14:20).

God the Father just took these principles a bit further in the case of Mary, since she was the Mother of His Son. So Mary was associated with God “in the ineffable work of human Redemption” and “the distribution of the graces that derive from Redemption”? So was the Apostle Paul:

Romans 11:13-14 Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry in order to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them.

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

2 Corinthians 1:6 If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation; . . .

2 Corinthians 4:15 For it [his many sufferings: 4:8-12, 17] is all for your sake, so that as grace extends to more and more people it may increase thanksgiving, to the glory of God.

Ephesians 3:2 assuming that you have heard of the stewardship of God’s grace that was given to me for you…

So does God intend us to be:

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

Ephesians 4:29 Let no evil talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for edifying, as fits the occasion, that it may impart grace to those who hear. [is not “imparting grace” the same as “distributing” it?]

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

1 Peter 3:1 Likewise you wives, be submissive to your husbands, so that some, though they do not obey the word, may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives [Paul says that Timothy can help save others, and wives and husbands can help “save” their spouses (and Peter concurs with the latter notion), thus also becoming a mini-mediators]

1 Peter 4:8b-10 . . . love covers a multitude of sins. Practice hospitality ungrudgingly to one another. As each has received a gift, employ it for one another, as good stewards of God’s varied grace.

James 5:20 let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins. [Paul and others “save” other people, thus becoming “mini-mediators” in the sense that they are vessels for the grace and salvation that comes from God, won by Jesus’ wholly sufficient and perfect sacrificial death on the cross]

Banzoli simply needs to think more biblically. It’s a problem completely able to be solved. When he learns that, he will be able to easily comprehend Catholic Mariology. Catholics are so much more biblical than Protestants are, it takes time for the latter to learn and catch up. But that’s one reason I’m here: to help assist people to think more biblically.

Banzoli has a problem with Pope Leo XIII stating on September 12, 1897: “Yet our manner of praying to the Blessed Virgin has something in common with our worship of God, so that the Church even addresses to her the words with which we pray to God: ‘Have mercy on sinners.’ ”

Lots of things have elements in common with others, without being the equivalent of the other thing. This is common sense and logic. Walking and bicycling have in common the constant motion of legs. Does that make walking and bicycling the same thing? No. Arithmetic and calculus both work with numbers. Does that make them the same thing? No. Painting a house and painting a portrait of a beautiful woman both involve paint and a brush. Does that make them identical? No. Anti-Catholic Banzoli and anti-theist atheists both call me stupid. Does that make Banzoli an atheist? No. And so on and so forth.

Likewise, a thing that is not worship of God may have a characteristic that it has in common with worshiping God. Did anyone ever pray or say “have mercy” to anyone besides God? Sure; the rich man prayed this to Abraham: “Father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Laz’arus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame” (Lk 16:24). Does that make Abraham God? No. But it makes him able to hear and also to answer (if it’s God’s will) a prayer.

God told Abimelech that Abraham would pray for him, so he could live, “for” Abraham was “a prophet” (Gen 20:6-7). In effect then, Abraham had mercy on Abimelech, too, because he played a key role in the entire event. “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). Samuel exercised mercy, just as Mary does if we ask her, “have mercy on sinners.”

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). Same principle again. 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).

Exodus 32:30 On the morrow Moses said to the people, “You have sinned a great sin. And now I will go up to the LORD; perhaps I can make atonement for your sin.” Did Moses have mercy on his people? Yes. Does that make him God? No. “Then the people cried to Moses; and Moses prayed to the LORD, and the fire abated” (Num 11:2). “Pardon the iniquity of this people, I pray thee, according to the greatness of thy steadfast love, and according as thou hast forgiven this people, from Egypt even until now.” Then the LORD said, “I have pardoned, according to your [Moses’] word” (Num 14:19-20). See many many more examples.

There are things that creatures do that result in mercy or grace (even salvation) being extended to more and more people. This is how God designed it. We best follow His examples.

***

Some sort of sidekick of Banzoli, named André Marinho, tried to undercut my argument about Mary’s intercession, in a comment underneath Banzoli’s article (on 2-24-23) that is refuted above. He thought he did so by citing words of Pope Francis that are supposedly “against” the Mariology that I hold (in perfect harmony with the Church). Rightly understood, of course there is no difference. But nice try. E for effort, and also for performance. Here are my articles that refute Marinho’s claims, along with two related ones by others:

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

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

Pope Francis and Mary Co-Redemptrix (Robert Fastiggi, Where Peter Is, 12-27-19)

Pope Francis and the coredemptive role of Mary, the “Woman of salvation” (Mark Miravalle & Robert Fastiggi, La Stampa, 1-8-20)

His other arguments, made in surrounding comments (which were conveniently seized upon by Banzoli as an excuse not to reply to this article: “I don’t even need to say anything else”), are too ridiculous and dumbfounded to spend any further time on. I just wanted to set the record straight about the complete agreement between myself and Pope Francis with regard to Mary. This is an old trick that anti-Catholic polemicists play quite a bit: pretending that popes oppose what an apologist like myself argues in favor of. They merely expose their gross ignorance in attempting these ludicrous pseudo-“arguments.”

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-one 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.

***

Photo credit: Our Mother of Perpetual Help, a 15th Century Marian Byzantine icon. [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: Anti-Catholic Lucas Banzoli fanatically opposes a biblically venerated “Catholic” Mary. I relentlessly refute his anti-biblicism with dozens of Scripture passages.

***

Luther’s Translation of “Faith Alone” in Romans 3:28

Last updated on: December 7, 2022 at 4:14 pm By Dave Armstrong

Also: Did “Early Erasmus” Agree with Luther?

Luther researcher and anti-Catholic polemicist James Swan, who runs the Boors All blog, recently explored the famous controversy regarding Luther adding the word “alone” to “faith” in Romans 3:28: “Erasmus, Romans 3:28 and Faith Alone: ‘Vox sola, tot clamoribus lapidata hoc saeculo in Luthero, reverenter in Patribus auditur’ “ (11-29-22). He maintained that in his earlier writings Erasmus agreed with Luther about “faith alone” but in his later writings, he split from him in this respect.

Before I get into all that, let me note that I myself have dealt with Romans 3:28 and Luther’s “faith alone” in his German translation very little in my apologetics, even though I have written or edited two books about Martin Luther (one / two), and have huge web pages about Luther and Lutheranism. “Romans 3:28” never appears on my Luther web page or in my two books about him. I did mention it in passing in my 2004 book, The Catholic Verses: 95 Bible Passages That Confound Protestants:

Luther was equally strident when defending his addition of the word alone after faith in Romans 3:28:

Thus I will have it, thus I order it, my will is reason enough…. Luther will have it so, and . . . he is a Doctor above all Doctors in the whole of Popery (. . . Letter to Wenceslaus Link in 1530).

On the same page I described this as one of the “desperate measures and arguments” of Protestants following Luther’s lead. In a very early article of mine, dated 11 June 1991 (since greatly revised), I made a critical observation about Luther’s statement above:

Luther insists on his own (in effect) absolute infallibility. . . . One wonders whether Luther uttered these absurd sentiments with a smile on his face, or with tongue in cheek. In any event, such boastful, essentially silly and foolish rhetoric is not uncommon in Luther’s voluminous writings.

Note that I had serious doubts (back when I had only been recently convinced of Catholicism) whether Luther was even being totally serious. But this is very little emphasis (given my massive amount of writing about Luther and the Protestant Revolution) on an issue that is one of the most famous regarding Luther. In an article of mine, entitled “18 ‘Dumb Catholic Apologetics Arguments’ Analyzed” (5-14-09), I agreed with Catholic writer Ben Douglass’s cited opinion about this argument:

16. Avoid making hay about Martin Luther adding the word “alone” to Romans 3:28. While the word is indeed absent from the Greek text, Luther was not the first to regard it as a justifiable gloss. That it is not in fact justifiable makes Luther’s addition an exegetical error, but this is not the same thing as a blatant perversion.

I’ve never put much stock in this argument, and agree that it doesn’t accomplish much in Protestant-Catholic discussion.

Conclusion for #16: complete agreement. [bolding in original]

This article, accordingly, represents my first in-depth treatment of this issue, after 32 years of writing Catholic apologetics (over 4,000 articles on my blog, and 51 books). The letter of Luther in question was to Wenceslaus Link, dated 8 September 1530. It was published as An Open Letter on Translating. Here is a very extensive excerpt, which makes for fascinating reading (agree or disagree):

[Y]ou ask why in translating the words of Paul in the 3rd chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, Arbitramur hominem iustificari ex fide absque operibus, I rendered them, “We hold that a man is justified without the works of the law, by faith alone,” and you also tell me that the papists are causing a great fuss because Paul’s text does not contain the word sola (alone), and that my addition to the words of God is not to be tolerated. . . . you can give the papists this answer from me, if you like.

First of all if I, Dr. Luther, had expected that all the papists together were capable of translating even one chapter of Scripture correctly and well into German, I would have gathered up enough humility to ask for their aid and assistance in translating the New Testament into German. However, because I knew (and still see with my own eyes) that not one of them knows how to translate or speak German, I spared them and myself the trouble. It is evident, however, that they are learning to speak and write German from my German translation, and so they are stealing my language from me, a language they had little knowledge of before this. Yet they do not thank me for this, but instead they use it against me. However, I readily grant them this, for it tickles me to know that I have taught my ungrateful pupils, even my enemies, how to speak. . . .

If I have made some mistakes in it (although I am not aware of any, and would most certainly be unwilling to deliberately mistranslate a single letter) I will not allow the papists to be my judges. For their ears are still too long and their hee-haws too weak for them to criticize my translating. I know quite well how much skill, hard work, sense and brains are needed for a good translation. They know it even less than the miller’s donkey, for they have never tried it. . . .

I would like to see a papist come forward and translate even one epistle of St. Paul’s or one of the prophets without making use of Luther’s German or translation. Then we might see a fine, beautiful and noteworthy translation into German. . . .

If your papist wishes to make a great fuss about the word sola (alone), say this to him: “Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and he says that a papist and a donkey are the same thing.” Sic volo, sic iubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas. [1] For we are not going to be students and disciples of the papists. Rather, we will become their teachers and judges. For once, we also are going to be proud and brag, with these blockheads; and just as Paul brags against his mad raving saints, I will brag against these donkeys of mine! Are they doctors? So am I. Are they scholars? So am I. Are they preachers? So am I. Are they theologians? So am I. Are they debaters? So am I. Are they philosophers? So am I. Are they logicians? So am I. Do they lecture? So do I. Do they write books? So do I.

I will go even further with my boasting: I can expound the psalms and the prophets, and they cannot. I can translate, and they cannot. I can read the Holy Scriptures, and they cannot. I can pray, they cannot. Coming down to their level, I can use their rhetoric and philosophy better than all of them put together. . . .

Let this be the answer to your first question. Please do not give these donkeys any other answer to their useless braying about that word sola than simply this: “Luther will have it so, and he says that he is a doctor above all the doctors of the pope.” Let it rest there. I will from now on hold them in contempt, and have already held them in contempt, as long as they are the kind of people (or rather donkeys) that they are. And there are brazen idiots among them who have never even learned their own art of sophistry, like Dr. Schmidt and Dr. Snot-Nose, [2] and such like them, who set themselves against me in this matter, which not only transcends sophistry, but as Paul writes, all the wisdom and understanding in the world as well. Truly a donkey does not have to sing much, because he is already known by his ears. . . .

I know very well that in Romans 3 the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text — the papists did not have to teach me that. It is fact that the letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these blockheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text — if the translation is to be clear and vigorous [klar und gewaltiglich], it belongs there. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had set about to speak in the translation. But it is the nature of our language that in speaking about two things, one which is affirmed, the other denied, we use the word allein [only] along with the word nicht [not] or kein [no]. For example, we say “the farmer brings allein grain and kein money”; or “No, I really have nicht money, but allein grain”; I have allein eaten and nicht yet drunk”; “Did you write it allein and nicht read it over?” There are countless cases like this in daily usage.

In all these phrases, this is a German usage, even though it is not the Latin or Greek usage. It is the nature of the German language to add allein in order that nicht or kein may be clearer and more complete. To be sure, I can also say, “The farmer brings grain and kein money,” but the words “kein money” do not sound as full and clear as if I were to say, “the farmer brings allein grain and kein money.” Here the word allein helps the word kein so much that it becomes a completely clear German expression. We do not have to ask the literal Latin how we are to speak German, as these donkeys do. Rather we must ask the mother in the home, the children on the street, the common man in the marketplace. We must be guided by their language, by the way they speak, and do our translating accordingly. Then they will understand it and recognize that we are speaking German to them. . . .

Why should I even bother to talk about translating so much? If I were I to explain all the reasons and considerations behind my words, I would need an entire year. I have learned by experience what an art and what a task translating is, so I will not tolerate some papal donkey or mule acting as my judge or critic. They have not tried it. If anyone does not like my translations, he can ignore it; and may the devil repay him for it if he dislikes or criticizes my translations without my knowledge or permission. If it needs to be criticized, I will do it myself. If I do not do it, then let them leave my translations in peace. Each of them can do a translation for himself that suits him — what do I care? . . .

I care nothing about the papal donkeys, as they are not good enough to acknowledge my work and, if they were to bless me, it would break my heart. Their insults are my highest praise and honor. I shall still be a doctor, even a distinguished one. I am certain that they shall never take that away from me until the Last Day.

Footnotes

[1] “I will it, I command it, my will is reason enough.” A quotation from Juvenal’s sixth satire, which Luther often used to characterize the arbitrary power of the pope.

[2] With these abusive terms Luther refers to two prominent Catholic enemies. By “Smith” he means Johann Faber of Leutkirch (whose father was a blacksmith) and by “Snot-Nose” (Rotzlöffel) he means Johann Cochlaeus (“löffel” is the German equivalent of the Latin cochlear).

Swan wrote in his article:

Ironically, it was a Roman Catholic scholar that best defended Luther on this: Joseph A. Fitzmyer pointed out a number of people previous to Luther also saw the thrust of “alone” in Romans 3:28.

We need not — are under no “Catholic necessity” to — deny this. The live question of translation is whether it should be added. Secondly, if Erasmus’ views are brought into the discussion, it might be interesting to see if he included himself in his famous Textus Receptus Greek edition of the New Testament (or, Novum Instrumentum omne) in 1516. Wikipedia states about it:

The Textus Receptus constituted the translation-base for the original German Luther Bible, the translation of the New Testament into English by William Tyndale, the King James Version, the Spanish Reina-Valera translation, the Czech Bible of Kralice, and most Reformation-era New Testament translations throughout Western and Central Europe. The text originated with the first printed Greek New Testament, published in 1516, a work undertaken in Basel by the Dutch Catholic scholar, priest and monk Desiderius Erasmus.

It turns out that “alone” is not found in Erasmus’ Greek New Testament at Romans 3:28. One web page about this topic posted the Greek from that work:

λογιζομεθα ουν πιστει δικαιουσθαι ανθρωπον χωρις εργων νομου

— The Textus Receptus; base text is Stephens 1550, with variants of Scrivener 1894.

See also an interlinear version with the Greek of Textus Receptus, and English. One might also sensibly ask: “how have translations rendered Romans 3:28 over the past 500 years?” Do they exhibit Luther’s vehement insistence (apart from the specifically German aspects of the question)? The Bible Gateway site, that has about 30 English translations (specifically for for Romans 3:28), informs us that none of them have “alone” in Romans 3:28. One translation has “only” and that is the Good News Translation (GNT), a well-known very free paraphrase. It reads: “For we conclude that a person is put right with God only through faith, and not by doing what the Law commands.” Likewise, Bible Hub’s parallel Bibles page shows exactly the same thing: none with “alone” and only GNT with “only.”

These include, most interestingly, even Bibles from the 1500s:

Tyndale Bible (1526) For we suppose that a man is iustified by fayth without the dedes of ye lawe.

Coverdale Bible (1535) We holde therfore that a man is iustified by faith, without the workes of the lawe.

Bishops’ Bible (1568) Therfore, we holde that a man is iustified by fayth, without the deedes of the lawe.

Geneva Bible (1587) Therefore we conclude, that a man is iustified by faith, without the workes of the Lawe.

William Tyndale was a Protestant. Myles Coverdale was an Anglican. His Bible was a combination of Tyndale’s, plus his translations of books not included in Tyndale’s collection. The Bishops’ Bible was produced by the Church of England. The Geneva Bible was also basically a revision of and addendum to Tyndale’s Bible, produced by Protestants. Thus, none of these versions can be accused of Catholic bias in translation. The absence of “alone” in the passage is virtually universal. Hence, the most historically influential Bible in English, the King James Version, reads, “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.” The Catholic English Bible from roughly the same period: the Douay-Rheims, reads, “For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law.”

One must take a step back from this passage and learn about the issues at stake in the first place. Catholics fully agree that we are “justified by faith apart from works of law” (RSV) because of what we understand by the particular Pauline phrase, “works of law.” I cited my friend Al Kresta in my first book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (2003), explaining this:

Unlike the modern evangelical Protestant revivalistic preaching tradition, the Apostle Paul was not preoccupied with his acceptance as a sinner before a holy and righteous God. That was Luther’s crisis. Protestants have tended to read Paul through the lens of Luther’s experience.

. . . Luther said he feared God but clung to the Apostle Paul. All the constitutive elements of the classic Luther-type experience, however, are missing in both the experience and the thought of the Apostle.

Unlike Luther, Paul was not preoccupied with his guilt, seeking reassurance of a gracious God. He was rather robust of conscience, even given to boasting, untroubled about whether God was gracious or not (Philippians 3:4 ff.; 2 Corinthians 10, 11). He knew God was gracious. He never pleads either with Jews or Gentiles to feel an anguished conscience and then receive release from that anguish in a message of forgiveness . . . Paul’s burden is not to “bring people under conviction of sin” as in revival services. Forgiveness is simply a matter of fact.

When Paul speaks of himself as a serious sinner, it is . . . very specifically because . . . he had persecuted the church and missed God’s new move — opening the covenant community to the Gentiles (1 Corinthians 15:9-10; Ephesians 3:8; Galatians 1:13-16; 1 Timothy 1:13-15).

What is now set right in his life is not that he is no longer trying to work his way to heaven, abandons self-exertion and now trusts Christ; it is rather that he now sees that God has inexplicably chosen him to reveal this new and more inclusive covenant community made up of Jew and Gentile . . . (Ephesians 2:11-3:6).

2. Paul’s arguments against works of the law are not fundamentally arguments against human participation in or human cooperation with the saving purposes of God but arguments against Judaistic pride that sought to define membership in the covenant community by reference to Jewish marks of identity, such as circumcision, Sabbath-keeping, etc. and not fundamentally faith in Jesus as Messiah . . .

Contrary to the pronouncements of popular preachers, first century Judaism did not believe in salvation by works. They believed that they were God’s elect people by grace; lawkeeping was their response to God’s grace. Salvation was understood to be granted by God’s electing grace, not according to a righteousness based on merit-earning works. But most Protestant scholars since Luther have read Paul as saying that Judaism misunderstood the gracious nature of God’s covenant with Moses and perverted it into a system of attaining righteousness by works.

Wrong! Luther’s experience was not Paul’s. New Testament scholars, for the most part, now understand ‘works of law’ not as synonymous with human effort but as the activities by which the Jews maintained their distinct status from the Gentiles . . . (pp. 141-142; from unpublished lecture notes entitled Some Further Thoughts on Justification by Faith Through Grace [1993] )

With this understanding, Catholics can and do freely accept the proposition, “justified by faith apart from works of law” because it doesn’t exclude grace-produced, grace-enabled works that accompany genuine faith, according to what is taught in James:

James 2:14, 17-18, 20-22, 24-26 What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?…[17] So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. [18] But some one will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith. . . . [20] Do you want to be shown, you shallow man, that faith apart from works is barren? [21] Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? [22] You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, . . . [24] You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. [25] And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? [26] For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.

We have no problem with “justification by faith” nor with justification by grace alone. The Catholic Church fully accepts both. Our problem is with an altogether different proposition: “justification by faith alone.” I’ve written many times along these lines:

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

Council of Trent: Canons on Justification (with a handy summary of Tridentine soteriology) [12-29-03]

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

Catholic-Protestant Common Ground (Esp. Re Good Works) [4-8-08]

Comparative Soteriology (Salvation): A Handy Chart [7-19-08]

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

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

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

Also, Luther’s view on justification, fully understood, is much more complex than a supposed stark dichotomy between faith and works:

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

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

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

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

Lastly, Erasmus’ remarks must be understood in light of all of this backdrop, too. Swan cites Protestant exegete D. A. Carson, who claimed that Erasmus accepted some variation of “faith alone” till “1532, when he . . . began advocating for the need of human works in justification.” I don’t have time for an exhaustive review of Erasmus’ soteriology, but I do know that he made the following (perfectly orthodox and Catholic; consistent with Trent) statements in 1526, in his Hyperaspistes, which was a reply to Luther. I have in my own library a copy of Collected Works of Erasmus, Vol. 76: Controversies: De Libero Arbitrio / Hyperaspistes I, (Univ. of Toronto Press, 1999), by Peter Macardle and Clarence H. Miller, translators, and Charles Trinkhaus, editor. Here are some relevant excerpts:

[I]n my Discussion I so distinctly and so clearly explain that there is no contradiction in saying that the sum and substance of a good deed should be attributed to God and asserting also that the human will does something, however tiny its share may be. (p. 154)

For why should anyone have faith in himself if he knows that he can neither begin nor complete anything without the help of God’s grace, to whom I profess that the sum and substance of all things rightly done ought to be attributed? Nor is there any difference between you and me except that I make our will cooperate with the grace of God and you make it completely passive. (p. 185)

How will a person rise up against God if he knows that he has in himself no hope of salvation without the singular grace of God, if he is persuaded that all human powers are of no avail for salvation without the aid of grace, especially since he is not unaware that everything he can do by his natural powers is the free gift of God? If a person wishes to cross the ocean, is he confident that he can achieve this without a ship and wind? And yet he is not idle while he is sailing. For professing free will does not tend to make a person attribute less to the mercy of God but rather keeps him from not responding to operating grace and gives him reason to blame himself if he perishes. I exalt God’s mercy so much, I diminish human power so much, that in the matter of salvation no one can claim anything for himself, since the very fact of his existence and whatever he can do by his natural endowments is the gift of God. You exalt grace and demean mankind so much that you open another pit which we had closed over by attributing just a little bit to free will, namely that it accommodates itself to grace or turns away from grace. (p. 186)

When you say that a person taken captive by sin cannot by his own power turn his will to good unless he is blown upon by the breath of grace, we also profess this, especially if you mean turning effectively. (p. 188)

. . . you remove grace from free will, but when I say free will does something good, I join it with grace, and while it obeys grace it is acted upon and it acts felicitously. (p. 190)

Now see how you bear down upon me: it effects nothing without grace; therefore it does nothing at all with grace. Is this the trap you have set to catch me? (p. 190)

***

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

***

Photo credit: Desiderius Erasmus (1466/1469-1536); portrait (1523) by Hans Holbein the Younger (1497/1498-1543) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: The controversy over Romans 3:28 and Martin Luther adding “alone” to “faith” in his German Bible is explored from many angles, including the views of Erasmus.

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

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

Lucas Banzoli is a very active Brazilian anti-Catholic polemicist, who holds to basically a Seventh-Day Adventist theology, whereby there is no such thing as a soul that consciously exists outside of a body, and no hell (soul sleep and annihilationism). This leads him to a Christology which is deficient and heterodox in terms of Christ’s human nature after His death. He has a Master’s degree in theology, a degree and postgraduate work in history, a license in letters, and is a history teacher, author of 25 books, as well as blogmaster (but now inactive) for six blogs. He’s active on YouTube.

***

The words of Lucas Banzoli will be in blue. I used Google Translate to transfer his Portugese text into English.

*****

This is a reply to Lucas’ article, “A Sola Fide na Bíblia (Justificação somente pela fé)” [Sola Fide in the Bible (Justification by Faith Alone] (1-7-14). All Bible passages: RSV.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hebrews 10:39 But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and keep their souls.

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

“I am justified by reading my Bible.”

That’s different from:

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

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

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

Initial Justification

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Likewise, the Catholic Catechism (#1989) states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Titus 3:4-7 but when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, [5] he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, [6] which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, [7] so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life.

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

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

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

The Catholic Catechism also states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justification by Faith Rather than Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

Includes Works in the Passage

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Works of the Law”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Baptismal Regeneration

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

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

No Relation to Justification or Salvation

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe our Lord Jesus attended a liberal synagogue, influenced by heretical Romish ideas. Why does Jesus keep talking about feeding the hungry, giving water to the thirsty, inviting in strangers, clothing the naked, visiting prisoners, and being judged “according to their deeds”? What in the world do all these “works” have to do with salvation? Why doesn’t Jesus talk about faith alone??!! Something is seriously wrong here. Jesus — and Paul — just don’t get it.

Here are 50 biblical passages about judgment where works are mentioned as the criterion of salvation but not faith alone. One of them at least mentions faith in the context of judgment (but alas, not faith alone): Revelation 21:8 includes the “faithless” among those who will be damned for eternity. Even there it is surrounded by many bad works that characterize the reprobate person.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1) I am characterized by righteousness.

2) I have integrity.

3) I’m not wicked.

4) I’m upright in heart.

5) I’ve done good deeds.

6) I have good ways.

7) I’m not committing abominations.

8) I have good conduct.

9) I’m not angry with my brother.

10) I’m not insulting my brother.

11) I’m not calling someone a fool.

12) I have good fruits.

13) I do the will of God.

14) I hear Jesus’ words and do them.

15) I endured to the end.

16) I fed the hungry.

17) I provided drink to the thirsty.

18) I clothed the naked.

19) I welcomed strangers.

20) I visited the sick.

21) I visited prisoners.

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

23) I’m not weighed down with dissipation.

24) I’m not weighed down with drunkenness.

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

26) I’m not ungodly.

27) I don’t suppress the truth.

28) I’ve done good works.

29) I obeyed the truth.

30) I’m not doing evil.

31) I have been a “doer of the law.”

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

33) I’m unblamable in holiness.

34) I’ve been wholly sanctified.

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

36) I know God.

37) I’ve obeyed the gospel.

38) I’ve shared Christ’s sufferings.

39) I’m without spot or blemish.

40) I’ve repented.

41) I’m not a coward.

42) I’m not faithless.

43) I’m not polluted.

44) I’m not a murderer.

45) I’m not a fornicator.

46) I’m not a sorcerer.

47) I’m not an idolater.

48) I’m not a liar.

49) I invited the lame to my feast.

50) I invited the blind to my feast.

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

“Faith Alone” Directly Contradicted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1) Faith alone doesn’t justify.

2) Faith alone is “dead”.

3) Faith alone is “barren”.

4) Faith alone cannot save.

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

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

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

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

Matthew 5:20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of Heaven.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 Timothy 2:20-21 In a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver but also of wood and earthenware, and some for noble use, some for ignoble. [21] If any one purifies himself from what is ignoble, then he will be a vessel for noble use, consecrated and useful to the master of the house, ready for any good work.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 John 5:18 We know that any one born of God does not sin, but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him.

Working Together with God / Synergism

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

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

1 Corinthians 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me.

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

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

Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Working to Save Ourselves

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Working to Save Others

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Matthew 23:23 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 Thessalonians 1:8 inflicting vengeance upon those who do not know God and upon those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1) Faith is shown by works.

2) Faith is completed by works.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

***

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

***

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

***

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

Is “Religion” Against “Relationship” in Scripture?

Last updated on: May 31, 2021 at 1:27 pm By Dave Armstrong

Evangelical Protestantism (which I was an enthusiastic part of from 1977-1990, and retain many many fond memories of and gratefulness for) is known for having lots of slogans and catch-phrases and mantras that are repeated over and over as if they are Gospel Truth. One of these is: “Christianity isn’t a religion. It’s a relationship.”

I used to resonate with this sentiment quite a bit myself, but I never took it as far as many people do (I hardly could have: having obtained a college degree in sociology). I would have still said, if asked: “Christianity is one of the world’s religions, and the one that is the most true.” I’d like to unpack this famous saying a bit.

I found a great article on this topic by a United Methodist pastor named Jimmy Mallory, entitled, “It’s Not a Religion, It’s a Relationship, Right?” (Firebrand, 9-14-20). It will serve as a useful introduction to what I want to say. He observed:

The popular slogan certainly has truth in it, but it’s not the complete truth. In fact, I find it exasperating. . . .

It . . . gave me a reason to shrug away an annoyance: I no longer need to align myself with religious baggage that may make me seem weird, intolerant, and hateful. . . . I could have the best of both worlds because I could still have my faith without the baggage of religion. It was plain to me that there was something about Christianity not being associated with religion that somehow made it more accessible and palatable. . . .

“Ritual” is not a bad word. Neither is “religion.” They are simply the ways by which humanity can relate to God. Everyone utilizes ritual. Many have their own daily rituals. Some wake up in the morning to the sound of an alarm clock, get ready for the day, go to the kitchen for breakfast and coffee, send the kids off to school, and then head to work, where more rituals await. We have prescribed formulas in which we go about our daily routines, and if one thing is out of place, it could ruin the whole day. Our daily rituals keep our lives organized.

The same can be said for religious ritual. Every church service is full of ritual, whether we recognize it as such or not. Praying, singing, the preaching of the Word, partaking in the sacraments, even the day we choose to attend worship, the church service is determined by these formulaic routines that help us to connect with God. They create order. One can even say that ritual is Godly because that’s what God does; God brings order out of chaos. Religion, then, is built upon the rituals utilized by Christians to keep an orderly faith-life. . . .

In the case of the Pharisees, Jesus took issue with the appearance of religion. His concern was with those who act religious but lack the love of God for their neighbors. Without the heart of the law, religion is relegated to a show. We are just pretty tombs filled with death and decay, no better than our natural state apart from the grace of God.

Empty religion and spiritual death is a legitimate concern for all Christians. . . .

By definition, a relationship requires a mutual connectedness. . . . it’s true that we can do nothing on our own to earn our salvation. However, by God’s grace at work in our lives, we can respond. And the practices by which we respond are collectively called “religion.” It makes our mutual connectedness complete. The formula is Grace + Religion = A Relationship with God. This is how relationships work; by doing our part to maintain a healthy and life-giving connection. Our part in our response is “attending to the ordinances of God.” God comes to us in grace. We go to God in religion. Together, we form a relationship that puts all other relationships into right-relatedness.

This is dead-on, and I especially like it because it shows that this understanding is not simply a Catholic one, but a concept where Catholics and Protestants ought to be able to fully agree. And we can and should because, as I will shortly demonstrate, the Bible itself doesn’t pit these two valuable and altogether necessary things (relationship with God and religion) against each other.

I ran across a meme along these lines from “God TV”. It stated: “Jesus did not die to give us a religion. He died so that through faith in Him we could have an intimate relationship with God.” This is classic example of what we might call “evangelical folk piety.” It’s well-intentioned, rightly promotes the very important truth of having a relationship with God (which is wonderful and needed), but at the same time it blasts “religion” as if it were inherently, intrinsically, essentially a bad thing through and through: some sort of sin. It “throws the baby out with the bath water”, so to speak.

All “religion” means is to “observe” or “bind.” All Christians certainly “observe” many things. Almost all of us believe in baptism and receiving Holy Communion. That’s ritual and it’s religion. Jesus even said that receiving the Holy Eucharist is directly tied to salvation, and the Bible teaches that baptism is, too. We sing hymns in Church. That’s a ritual of worship. We bow our heads together to pray. Sometimes we kneel. Etc. All of this is “religion.” We should feel no need to pit it against faith and knowing God.

Many define “religion” as if it were inherently hostile and opposed to a personal relationship to Jesus, but this simply isn’t the case. We can’t all simply define terms as we like, or we wouldn’t be able to communicate with each other. The whole world would be like the Tower of Babel in no time with five billion “personal” definitions of each word!

No Christian of any sort who knows anything about his or her faith would deny the importance of a deep relationship with Jesus. But it’s one of the most cherished and repeated Protestant myths about Catholicism: that (many millions of us, if not most Catholics) we just go through the motions and don’t know God, and that we believe in salvation by works. Both are false.

Some Catholics do, of course do one or both things, but this is true of any group. One can always find hypocrites and bad examples; half-hearted, ignorant followers, who don’t even know the teachings of the religious group they are affiliated with (what is called religious nominalism). That’s why Jesus died, too: to not only save but to transform people like that (like most of us Christians at least used to be before God transformed our lives). This is why God sent the Holy Spirit to be our Helper and to guide and empower us as we walk with Jesus in discipleship.
*

If we read the Catholic mystics (Thomas a Kempis’ Imitation of Christ for example) — I put together a book of quotations of Catholic mysticism — , we find a very deep understanding of relationship with God: in no way spiritually inferior to similar understandings in Protestantism. I actually read that book as a Protestant, and to this day I think it is closer in spirit to the Bible than any book I have ever read. It’s nothing new that Protestants supposedly uniquely figured out 1500 years after Jesus.

But if we really want to understand the definition of “religion” why not go to the Bible: which all Christians agree (or should agree) is the inspired and infallible revelation from God? Here’s what we find:

1 Timothy 2:10 (RSV) but by good deeds, as befits women who profess religion.

Note the “religion” is a positive thing, characterized by good deeds.

1 Timothy 3:16 Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of our religion: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.

Here “religion” has to do more with the doctrinal creed or confession that we accept (it’s used by Paul in the same way, to describe his own former Jewish religious belief — many tents of which he retained, as did Jesus — , in Acts 26:5). That’s part of it, too. We observe and do certain things because of what we believe in faith.

2 Timothy 3:1-5 But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of stress. [2] For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, [3] inhuman, implacable, slanderers, profligates, fierce, haters of good, [4] treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, [5] holding the form of religion but denying the power of it. Avoid such people.

Again, religion is a good thing, not a bad thing. But as with everything it can be corrupted, with folks making it an empty form and “denying the power of it.” Proper marital sexuality can be perverted to lust; enjoyment of food can descend to gluttony, rest to slothfulness / laziness, etc. So Paul is saying those who are lousy at religion should be avoided, not those who are religious, period.

James 1:26-27 If any one thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this man’s religion is vain. [27] Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.

The same thing is expressed again; religion is good, but a religious hypocrite is bad: exactly what Jesus scolded the Pharisees about.

Acts 17:22 So Paul, standing in the middle of the Are-op’agus, said: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious.

This was not a rebuke at all. Paul was complimenting them. But they worshiped an “unknown god” (17:23), so Paul took the opportunity to proclaim the one true God to them; to preach the gospel (17:23-31). He built upon what they knew, and cited their own pagan philosophers and poets (17:28). He used his own evangelistic “methodological principle”: later expressed as “I have become all things to all people, that I may win all the more.” People often understand and believe partial truths. In these cases, we build upon what they know and introduce then to even greater, deeper spirituality and theology.

1 Timothy 5:4 If a widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn their religious duty to their own family and make some return to their parents; for this is acceptable in the sight of God.

Again, nothing negative about “religion” . . . it’s a “duty.”

With that, I rest my case.

Heartfelt Sacramentalism (Not Mere Charms) [1996]

“Tradition” Isn’t a Dirty Word [late 90s; rev. 8-16-16]

Catholic Converts’ Qualms: Mariology, Formal Worship, Etc. [2-11-04; some new recommended links added on 5-2-17]

Catholics Never Hear About the Gospel or Jesus at Mass? [6-4-07]

Biblical Evidence: Formal Prayer Isn’t “Vain Repetition” [2009]

“Knowing Jesus as we Ought to”: A Catholic Perspective [7-10-09]

Martin Luther : Strong Elements in His Thinking of Theosis & Sanctification Linked to Justification [11-23-09]

Trusting God as an Element of Faith & Discipleship [1-8-10]

“Vain Repetition”: Jesus Shows What it’s Not (Did Jesus Condemn All Formal and/or Repetitious Prayers: Like the Rosary and the Mass?) [7-22-10]

Biblical Evidence for True Apostolic Tradition (vs. “Traditions of Men”) [6-23-11]

Informal Worship vs. Formal Catholic Liturgy [3-4-13]

“In Him” An Expression of the Oneness of Theosis? [3-13-14]

Theosis / Deification / Divinization in Western Spirituality [2015]

“Personal Relationship with Jesus”: Good Catholic Phrase? and Practice? [8-15-15]

Bible on Wholehearted Formal Worship [6-4-07; revised and expanded 1-22-16]

“Personal Relationship” vs. “Join the One Church”? [2-3-16]

The Rosary: “Vain Repetition” or Biblical Devotion? [5-24-16]

Is the Rosary Christ-Centered? [5-25-16]

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

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

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

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

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

***

Photo credit: tamara_cox1 (7-7-11) [Flickr / CC BY-SA 2.0 license]

***

Summary: Evangelical Protestantism has lots of slogans & catch-phrases & mantras. One of these is: “Christianity isn’t a religion. It’s a relationship.” I show how it is a half-truth & quite unbiblical.

Seidensticker Folly #51: God and Praise, Part II

Last updated on: September 8, 2020 at 12:46 pm By Dave Armstrong

Atheist and anti-theist Bob Seidensticker, who was “raised Presbyterian”, runs the influential Cross Examined blog. He asked me there, on 8-11-18: “I’ve got 1000+ posts here attacking your worldview. You just going to let that stand? Or could you present a helpful new perspective that I’ve ignored on one or two of those posts?” He also made a general statement on 6-22-17: “Christians’ arguments are easy to refute . . . I’ve heard the good stuff, and it’s not very good.”

He added in the combox: “If I’ve misunderstood the Christian position or Christian arguments, point that out. Show me where I’ve mischaracterized them.” Such confusion would indeed be predictable, seeing that Bob himself admitted (2-13-16): “My study of the Bible has been haphazard, and I jump around based on whatever I’m researching at the moment.”

Bob (for the record) virtually begged and pleaded with me to dialogue with him in May 2018, via email. But by 10-3-18, following massive, childish name-calling attacks against me, encouraged by Bob on his blog (just prior to his banning me from it), his opinion was as follows: “Dave Armstrong . . . made it clear that a thoughtful intellectual conversation wasn’t his goal. . . . [I] have no interest in what he’s writing about.”

And on 10-25-18, utterly oblivious to the ludicrous irony of his making the statement, Bob wrote in a combox on his blog: “Someone who’s not a little bit driven to investigate cognitive dissonance will just stay a Christian, fat ‘n sassy and ignorant.” Again, Bob mocks some Christian in his combox on 10-27-18: “You can’t explain it to us, you can’t defend it, you can’t even defend it to yourself. Defend your position or shut up about it. It’s clear you have nothing.”

And again on the same day: “If you can’t answer the question, man up and say so.” And on 10-26-18: “you refuse to defend it, after being asked over and over again.” And again: “You’re the one playing games, equivocating, and being unable to answer the challenges.”

Bob’s cowardly hypocrisy knows no bounds. Again, on 6-30-19, he was chiding someone for something very much like he himself: “Spoken like a true weasel trying to run away from a previous argument. You know, you could just say, ‘Let me retract my previous statement of X’ or something like that.” Yeah, Bob could! He still hasn’t yet uttered one peep in reply to — now — 48 of my critiques of his atrocious reasoning.

Bible-Basher Bob’s words will be in blue. To find these posts, follow this link: “Seidensticker Folly #” or see all of them linked under his own section on my Atheism page.

*****

I was browsing Bob’s website, looking for something else of the innumerable items that are ripe for Christian refutation, and I happened to come across a citation where he actually cited me (!!!). This was just before the period where he (very conveniently) dissed me as unworthy of anyone’s further attention. Here it is:

Let’s continue with Christian apologists’ justifications for praise and worship of God . . .

3. Worship isn’t for God’s benefit but Man’s

We don’t worship God because He needs it (He needs nothing and is entirely self-sufficient), but because we need it. . . . God “needs” no worship whatever because in Christian theology, He needs nothing. He’s completely all-sufficient and self-sufficient. It’s for our sake that we “render unto God’s what is rightfully God’s.” (Source) (God as Donald Trump: Trying to Make Sense of Praise and Worship (part 3) ) (8-27-18)

This is an adequate summary of the Christian position on worship, I think, but as usual, it goes over (or through) Bob’s head, and he doesn’t get it. Just nine days ago I refuted Bob on this very topic (Seidensticker Folly #47: Does God Need Praise? [8-31-20] ). That’s the basic Christian response. Presently, I will highlight a few different aspects of the question.

Don’t tell me that God gets no benefit from human actions.

God gets no benefit from human actions. Sorry!

Burnt offerings are a “pleasing aroma” in the Bible,

Of course, He says this because the idea is that “proper worship of human beings is good for them, because they ought to praise and worship the God Who created them.” But it’s not literal; rather, it’s an instance of the very common anthropopathism and anthropomorphism in the Bible. This is what Bob has to learn and understand. He obviously is completely unfamiliar with it, so this is what comes from biblical illiteracy and ignorance.

Again, God doesn’t need anything. This is standard theology proper (theology of God) in historic Christianity: Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant alike. Moreover, the “pleasing aroma” is necessarily symbolic because God the Father is a non-material spirit and has no nostrils. He’s simply communicating in terms that human beings can understand: condescending to us. The idea is human obedience and doing what is best for us (serving and obeying God, for out own happiness and well-being). This was a poetic, easily comprehensible way to express, “yes, you’re doing well and good.”

But when His people disobeyed Him and became sinful and unrighteous, He expressed the opposite:

Amos 5:11-14, 21-24 (RSV) Therefore because you trample upon the poor and take from him exactions of wheat, you have built houses of hewn stone, but you shall not dwell in them; you have planted pleasant vineyards, but you shall not drink their wine. [12] For I know how many are your transgressions, and how great are your sins — you who afflict the righteous, who take a bribe, and turn aside the needy in the gate. [13] Therefore he who is prudent will keep silent in such a time; for it is an evil time. [14] Seek good, and not evil, that you may live; and so the LORD, the God of hosts, will be with you, as you have said . . . [21] I hate, I despise your feasts, and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies. [22] Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and cereal offerings, I will not accept them, and the peace offerings of your fatted beasts I will not look upon. [23] Take away from me the noise of your songs; to the melody of your harps I will not listen. [24] But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.

Proverbs 15:8 The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the LORD, but the prayer of the upright is his delight.

Proverbs 21:27 The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination; how much more when he brings it with evil intent.

Jeremiah 6:19-20 Hear, O earth; behold, I am bringing evil upon this people, the fruit of their devices, because they have not given heed to my words; and as for my law, they have rejected it. [20] To what purpose does frankincense come to me from Sheba, or sweet cane from a distant land? Your burnt offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices pleasing to me.

Malachi 1:6-14 “A son honors his father, and a servant his master. If then I am a father, where is my honor? And if I am a master, where is my fear? says the LORD of hosts to you, O priests, who despise my name. You say, `How have we despised thy name?’ [7] By offering polluted food upon my altar. And you say, `How have we polluted it?’ By thinking that the LORD’s table may be despised. [8] When you offer blind animals in sacrifice, is that no evil? And when you offer those that are lame or sick, is that no evil? Present that to your governor; will he be pleased with you or show you favor? says the LORD of hosts. [9] And now entreat the favor of God, that he may be gracious to us. With such a gift from your hand, will he show favor to any of you? says the LORD of hosts. [10] Oh, that there were one among you who would shut the doors, that you might not kindle fire upon my altar in vain! I have no pleasure in you, says the LORD of hosts, and I will not accept an offering from your hand. [11] For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the LORD of hosts. [12] But you profane it when you say that the LORD’s table is polluted, and the food for it may be despised. [13] `What a weariness this is,’ you say, and you sniff at me, says the LORD of hosts. You bring what has been taken by violence or is lame or sick, and this you bring as your offering! Shall I accept that from your hand? says the LORD. [14] Cursed be the cheat who has a male in his flock, and vows it, and yet sacrifices to the Lord what is blemished; for I am a great King, says the LORD of hosts, and my name is feared among the nations.

It’s all anthropopathism (i.e., non-literal expression). What is true in this is that God’s will is for man to obey Him: precisely because that is how man will be happy and fulfilled and joyful; not because God needs anything at all. If Bob had the slightest understanding of the very complex, multi-faceted Hebrew literary / poetic idiom, he would grasp this.

but this wasn’t like incense, where God could take it or leave it.

As I just demonstrated, it was exactly like incense. If it was done correctly (whether incense or burnt offerings) by people who were seeking righteousness, God was said to be “pleased” with it (e.g., as regards incense: Lev 16:12-13). But if it was done by sinning hypocrites, He is said to not be pleased (e.g., Lev 26:30).

This is explicitly labeled a food offering 27 times in the Old Testament.

Yes; so what? There was a right way and a wrong way to do it, depending on the righteousness of the offerer.

And in the Garden of Eden story, God created Adam to be the gardener (Genesis 2:15).

Sure; how is that relevant to the topic at hand?

Getting onto more cerebral or emotional needs, God refers to “everyone . . . whom I created for my glory” (Isaiah 43:7). No, God isn’t “entirely self-sufficient” when humans support his Maslow’s pyramid, providing food and labor at the bottom and glory and esteem at the top.

Nice try. This gets into the silly atheist argument that God is supposedly a “cosmic narcissist” or “egomaniac” and so forth: that I dealt with in my previous paper. Any “glory” given or attributed to God is for our sake, not His: just as if a child honors or praises or obeys his or her parents, it is for his or her own good. In fact, God does share His glory and gives human beings glory, as Scripture informs us. Now why in the world would He do that, if indeed He were indeed such a crazed, insecure egomaniac?:

Psalm 8:5 Yet thou hast made him little less than God, and dost crown him with glory and honor.

*

Psalm 149:4-5, 9 For the LORD takes pleasure in his people; he adorns the humble with victory. [5] Let the faithful exult in glory; let them sing for joy on their couches. . . . [9] . . . This is glory for all his faithful ones. Praise the LORD!

Proverbs 16:31 A hoary head is a crown of glory; it is gained in a righteous life.

Proverbs 28:12 When the righteous triumph, there is great glory; . . .

Isaiah 60:1-2 Arise, shine; for your light has come, and the glory of the LORD has risen upon you. [2] For behold, darkness shall cover the earth, and thick darkness the peoples; but the LORD will arise upon you, and his glory will be seen upon you.

Isaiah 60:4 . . . the LORD will be your everlasting light, and your God will be your glory.

Daniel 5:18 O king, the Most High God gave Nebuchadnez’zar your father kingship and greatness and glory and majesty;

John 5:44 How can you believe, who receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God?

John 17:22 The glory which thou hast given me [Jesus] I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one,

Romans 2:9-10 There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, [10] but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.

Romans 5:2 Through him we have obtained access to this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in our hope of sharing the glory of God.

Romans 9:23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for the vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory,

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

Ephesians 3:19 and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fulness of God.

1 Thessalonians 2:12 to lead a life worthy of God, who calls you into his own kingdom and glory.

2 Thessalonians 2:14 To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Hebrews 6:4 . . . partakers of the Holy Spirit,

1 Peter 4:14 If you are reproached for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the spirit of glory and of God rests upon you.

1 Peter 5:1 So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ as well as a partaker in the glory that is to be revealed. (cf. 5:4)

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

Catholic & Calvinist Agreement on Justification & Works

Last updated on: September 2, 2020 at 12:14 pm By Dave Armstrong

All of the following words (minus the section titles) are from one of the most prominent of the early Protestant leaders: John Calvin (1509-1564), from his Institutes of the Christian Religion. I utilize the public domain translation of Henry Beveridge, dated 1845, from the 1559 edition in Latin; available online. This is taken from my book, A Biblical Critique of Calvinism (2012 book: 178 pages), from the final section: “Appendix of Areas of Calvinist-Catholic Agreement.”

*****

Antinomianism; Cheap Grace

This is the place to address those who, having nothing of Christ but the name and sign, would yet be called Christians. How dare they boast of this sacred name? None have intercourse with Christ but those who have acquired the true knowledge of him from the Gospel. The Apostle denies that any man truly has learned Christ who has not learned to put off “the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, and put on Christ,” (Eph. 4:22). They are convicted, therefore, of falsely and unjustly pretending a knowledge of Christ, whatever be the volubility and eloquence with which they can talk of the Gospel. Doctrine is not an affair of the tongue, but of the life; is not apprehended by the intellect and memory merely, like other branches of learning; but is received only when it possesses the whole soul, and finds its seat and habitation in the inmost recesses of the heart. Let them, therefore, either cease to insult God, by boasting that they are what they are not, or let them show themselves not unworthy disciples of their divine Master. To doctrine in which our religion is contained we have given the first place, since by it our salvation commences; but it must be transfused into the breast, and pass into the conduct, and so transform us into itself, as not to prove unfruitful. If philosophers are justly offended, and banish from their company with disgrace those who, while professing an art which ought to be the mistress of their conduct, convert it into mere loquacious sophistry, with how much better reason shall we detest those flimsy sophists who are contented to let the Gospel play upon their lips, when, from its efficacy, it ought to penetrate the inmost affections of the heart, fix its seat in the soul, and pervade the whole man a hundred times more than the frigid discourses of philosophers? (III, 6:4)

Discipleship

I insist not that the life of the Christian shall breathe nothing but the perfect Gospel, though this is to be desired, and ought to be attempted. I insist not so strictly on evangelical perfection, as to refuse to acknowledge as a Christian any man who has not attained it. In this way all would be excluded from the Church, since there is no man who is not far removed from this perfection, while many, who have made but little progress, would be undeservedly rejected. What then? Let us set this before our eye as the end at which we ought constantly to aim. Let it be regarded as the goal towards which we are to run. For you cannot divide the matter with God, undertaking part of what his word enjoins, and omitting part at pleasure. For, in the first place, God uniformly recommends integrity as the principal part of his worship, meaning by integrity real singleness of mind, devoid of gloss and fiction, and to this is opposed a double mind; as if it had been said, that the spiritual commencement of a good life is when the internal affections are sincerely devoted to God, in the cultivation of holiness and justice. But seeing that, in this earthly prison of the body, no man is supplied with strength sufficient to hasten in his course with due alacrity, while the greater number are so oppressed with weakness, that hesitating, and halting, and even crawling on the ground, they make little progress, let every one of us go as far as his humble ability enables him, and prosecute the journey once begun. No one will travel so badly as not daily to make some degree of progress. This, therefore, let us never cease to do, that we may daily advance in the way of the Lord; and let us not despair because of the slender measure of success. How little soever the success may correspond with our wish, our labour is not lost when to-day is better than yesterday, provided with true singleness of mind we keep our aim, and aspire to the goal, not speaking flattering things to ourselves, nor indulging our vices, but making it our constant endeavour to become better, until we attain to goodness itself. If during the whole course of our life we seek and follow, we shall at length attain it, when relieved from the infirmity of flesh we are admitted to full fellowship with God. (III, 6:5)

Faith and Works are Both Necessary in the Christian Life

. . . the faith by which alone, through the mercy of God, we obtain free justification, is not destitute of good works . . . (III, 11:1)

We dream not of a faith which is devoid of good works, nor of a justification which can exist without them . . . This faith, however, you cannot apprehend without at the same time apprehending sanctification; for Christ “is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption,” (1 Cor. 1:30). Christ, therefore, justifies no man without also sanctifying him. These blessings are conjoined by a perpetual and inseparable tie. Those whom he enlightens by his wisdom he redeems; whom he redeems he justifies; whom he justifies he sanctifies. But as the question relates only to justification and sanctification, to them let us confine ourselves. Though we distinguish between them, they are both inseparably comprehended in Christ. Would ye then obtain justification in Christ? You must previously possess Christ. But you cannot possess him without being made a partaker of his sanctification: for Christ cannot be divided. Since the Lord, therefore, does not grant us the enjoyment of these blessings without bestowing himself, he bestows both at once but never the one without the other. Thus it appears how true it is that we are justified not without, and yet not by works, since in the participation of Christ, by which we are justified, is contained not less sanctification than justification. (III, 16:1)

I think we have already put it out of the power of our calumniators to treat us as if we were the enemies of good works—justification being denied to works not in order that no good works may be done or that those which are done may be denied to be good; but only that we may not trust or glory in them, or ascribe salvation to them. (III, 17:1)

And as Paul contends that men are justified without the aid of works, so James will not allow any to be regarded as justified who are destitute of good works. . . . an empty phantom of faith does not justify, and . . . the believer, not contented with such an imagination, manifests his justification by good works. (III, 17:12)

Grace Alone; Initial Justification

Scripture, when it treats of justification by faith, leads us in a very different direction. Turning away our view from our own works, it bids us look only to the mercy of God and the perfection of Christ. The order of justification which it sets before us is this: first, God of his mere gratuitous goodness is pleased to embrace the sinner, in whom he sees nothing that can move him to mercy but wretchedness, because he sees him altogether naked and destitute of good works. He, therefore, seeks the cause of kindness in himself, that thus he may affect the sinner by a sense of his goodness, and induce him, in distrust of his own works, to cast himself entirely upon his mercy for salvation. This is the meaning of faith by which the sinner comes into the possession of salvation, when, according to the doctrine of the Gospel, he perceives that he is reconciled by God; when, by the intercession of Christ, he obtains the pardon of his sins, and is justified . . . (III, 11:16)

There is no controversy between us and the sounder Schoolmen as to the beginning of justification. They admit that the sinner, freely delivered from condemnation, obtains justification, and that by forgiveness of sins . . . (III, 14:11)

Grace: Greater Degree or Measure of

we must hold that the Lord, while he daily enriches his servants, and loads them with new gifts of his grace, because he approves of and takes pleasure in the work which he has begun, finds that in them which he may follow up with larger measures of grace. To this effect are the sentences, “To him that has shall be given.” “Well done, good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things,” (Mt. 25:21, 23, 29; Luke 19:17, 26). . . . I admit, then, that believers may expect as a blessing from God, that the better the use they make of previous, the larger the supplies they will receive of future grace; but I say that even this use is of the Lord, and that this remuneration is bestowed freely of mere good will. (II, 3:11)

Grace: Synergy; Free Cooperation with God’s Grace

Meanwhile, we deny not the truth of Augustine’s doctrine, that the will is not destroyed, but rather repaired, by grace—the two things being perfectly consistent—viz. that the human will may be said to be renewed when its vitiosity and perverseness being corrected, it is conformed to the true standard of righteousness . . . There is nothing then to prevent us from saying, that our will does what the Spirit does in us, although the will contributes nothing of itself apart from grace. . . . though every thing good in the will is entirely derived from the influence of the Spirit, yet, because we have naturally an innate power of willing, we are not improperly said to do the things of which God claims for himself all the praise; first, because every thing which his kindness produces in us is our own (only we must understand that it is not of ourselves); and, secondly, because it is our mind, our will, our study which are guided by him to what is good. (II, 5:15)

Justification and Sanctification: Closely Allied

. . . Christ cannot be divided into parts, so the two things, justification and sanctification, which we perceive to be united together in him, are inseparable. Whomsoever, therefore, God receives into his favor, he presents with the Spirit of adoption, whose agency forms them anew into his image. But if the brightness of the sun cannot be separated from its heat, are we therefore to say, that the earth is warmed by light and illumined by heat? Nothing can be more apposite to the matter in hand than this simile. The sun by its heat quickens and fertilizes the earth; by its rays enlightens and illumines it. Here is a mutual and undivided connection, and yet reason itself prohibits us from transferring the peculiar properties of the one to the other. . . . those whom God freely regards as righteous, he in fact renews to the cultivation of righteousness, . . . Scriptures while combining both, classes them separately, that it may the better display the manifold grace of God. (III, 11:6)

Law of Moses: not Abrogated or Abolished

When the Lord declares, that he came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfil (Mt. 5:17); that until heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or little shall remain unfulfilled; he shows that his advent was not to derogate, in any degree, from the observance of the Law. And justly, since the very end of his coming was to remedy the transgression of the Law. Therefore, the doctrine of the Law has not been infringed by Christ, but remains, that, by teaching, admonishing, rebuking, and correcting, it may fit and prepare us for every good work. (II, 7:14)

Sanctification

For if we have true fellowship in his death, our old man is crucified by his power, and the body of sin becomes dead, so that the corruption of our original nature is never again in full vigor (Rom. 6:5, 6). If we are partakers in his resurrection, we are raised up by means of it to newness of life, which conforms us to the righteousness of God. In one word, then, by repentance I understand regeneration, the only aim of which is to form in us anew the image of God, which was sullied, and all but effaced by the transgression of Adam. So the Apostle teaches when he says, “We all with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, as by the Spirit of the Lord.” Again, “Be renewed in the spirit of your minds” and “put ye on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.” Again, “Put ye on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him.” Accordingly through the blessing of Christ we are renewed by that regeneration into the righteousness of God from which we had fallen through Adam, the Lord being pleased in this manner to restore the integrity of all whom he appoints to the inheritance of life. This renewal, indeed, is not accomplished in a moment, a day, or a year, but by uninterrupted, sometimes even by slow progress God abolishes the remains of carnal corruption in his elect, cleanses them from pollution, and consecrates them as his temples, restoring all their inclinations to real purity, so that during their whole lives they may practice repentance, and know that death is the only termination to this warfare. The greater is the effrontery of an impure raver and apostate, named Staphylus, who pretends that I confound the condition of the present life with the celestial glory, when, after Paul, I make the image of God to consist in righteousness and true holiness; as if in every definition it were not necessary to take the thing defined in its integrity and perfection. It is not denied that there is room for improvement; but what I maintain is, that the nearer any one approaches in resemblance to God, the more does the image of God appear in him. That believers may attain to it, God assigns repentance as the goal towards which they must keep running during the whole course of their lives. (III, 3:9)

The Scripture system of which we speak aims chiefly at two objects. The former is, that the love of righteousness, to which we are by no means naturally inclined, may be instilled and implanted into our minds. The latter is to prescribe a rule which will prevent us while in the pursuit of righteousness from going astray. It has numerous admirable methods of recommending righteousness. Many have been already pointed out in different parts of this work; but we shall here also briefly advert to some of them. With what better foundation can it begin than by reminding us that we must be holy, because “God is holy?” (Lev. 19:1; 1 Pet. 1:16). For when we were scattered abroad like lost sheep, wandering through the labyrinth of this world, he brought us back again to his own fold. When mention is made of our union with God, let us remember that holiness must be the bond; not that by the merit of holiness we come into communion with him (we ought rather first to cleave to him, in order that, pervaded with his holiness, we may follow whither he calls), but because it greatly concerns his glory not to have any fellowship with wickedness and impurity. Wherefore he tells us that this is the end of our calling, the end to which we ought ever to have respect, if we would answer the call of God. For to what end were we rescued from the iniquity and pollution of the world into which we were plunged, if we allow ourselves, during our whole lives, to wallow in them? Besides, we are at the same time admonished, that if we would be regarded as the Lord’s people, we must inhabit the holy city Jerusalem (Isaiah rev. 8, et alibi); which, as he hath consecrated it to himself, it were impious for its inhabitants to profane by impurity. Hence the expressions, “Who shall abide in thy tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy holy hill? He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness,” (Ps. 15:1, 2; 24:3, 4); for the sanctuary in which he dwells certainly ought not to be like an unclean stall. (III, 6:2)

If the Lord adopts us for his sons on the condition that our life be a representation of Christ, the bond of our adoption,—then, unless we dedicate and devote ourselves to righteousness, we not only, with the utmost perfidy, revolt from our Creator, but also abjure the Saviour himself. Then, from an enumeration of all the blessings of God, and each part of our salvation, it finds materials for exhortation. Ever since God exhibited himself to us as a Father, we must be convicted of extreme ingratitude if we do not in turn exhibit ourselves as his sons. Ever since Christ purified us by the laver of his blood, and communicated this purification by baptism, it would ill become us to be defiled with new pollution. Ever since he ingrafted us into his body, we, who are his members, should anxiously beware of contracting any stain or taint. Ever since he who is our head ascended to heaven, it is befitting in us to withdraw our affections from the earth, and with our whole soul aspire to heaven. Ever since the Holy Spirit dedicated us as temples to the Lord, we should make it our endeavour to show forth the glory of God, and guard against being profaned by the defilement of sin. Ever since our soul and body were destined to heavenly incorruptibility and an unfading crown, we should earnestly strive to keep them pure and uncorrupted against the day of the Lord. (III, 6:3)

For we deny not that God by his Spirit forms us anew to holiness and righteousness of life . . . (III, 11:12)

Theosis; Divinization

Christ by justifying us becomes ours by an essential union, . . . the essence of the divine nature is diffused into us . . . (III, 11:6)

***

Photo credit: Portrait of Jean Calvin, by Titian (1490-1576) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Dialogue: “Obscure” Bible Before Luther’s Translation?

Last updated on: June 15, 2020 at 11:06 am By Dave Armstrong

This was originally a lengthy Facebook discussion (7-24-14) about my article, Were Vernacular Bibles Unknown Before Luther? (Luther’s Dubious Claims About the Supposed Utter Obscurity of the Bible Before His Translation) [6-15-11]. Dr. Edwin Tait’s words will be in blue, and words of Pastor Ken Howes [LCMS] in green.

*****

Here I go again with the nuancing and qualification:

1. Luther was not lying when he said that there was a pretty common opinion to the effect that the Bible as a whole should not be put into the hands of the laity because of the possibility of heretical misrepresentation. Ironically, this wasn’t a huge concern in Germany before Luther, because heresy wasn’t a huge problem. But there are instances of church leaders expressing concern about the widespread availability of Scripture. Of course, that still leaves Luther guilty of wild exaggeration and misrepresentation. But as you say, the metaphor of Scripture being “kicked under the bench” could mean a lot of things. So I don’t think the word “lie” is appropriate here. [I later changed that language, as a result of these dialogues]

2. I disagree more strongly with your claim that modern Protestants believe in the myth of an inaccessible Bible in the Middle Ages primarily because of Luther. In England in the century or so before the Revolt (I use that term out of courtesy to you!), laypeople were forbidden to read Scripture in the vernacular. Sure, that was a response to the Lollard Bible, but the Church did not sponsor an orthodox translation. The fact that there were 17 editions of the Bible in Germany (none of them, as far as I know, linked with heretical groups or condemned by the Church, though some clergy did mutter about the danger of heretical misinterpretation) highlights the fact that the only vernacular Bible available to the English was a heretical one. English-speaking Protestants have typically assumed that England was typical in this respect, when actually it was (in the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries) unique to my knowledge. Certainly Luther’s over-the-top statements gave cover to this misunderstanding, but they were not solely responsible for it.

3. A further factor is the fact that the Council of Toulouse had banned vernacular Bibles (probably the versions in mind were actually heretical paraphrases, but the wording of the Council covers all vernacular translations) in 1229, and that from Trent until the 19th century the general policy of the Catholic Church (with notable exceptions, especially in England, ironically given the earlier history but understandably since England was a Protestant country and Catholics needed their own version) was to discourage lay reading of the Bible. It is therefore understandable that Protestants, especially English-speaking ones, would put together the 1229 condemnation, Arundel’s late medieval condemnation, Luther’s misleading language about the Bible being “under the bench,” and the post-Tridentine repressive policy toward vernacular Bibles, and assume mistakenly that the Middle Ages as a whole were a time when the Bible was unknown.

4. As you make clear, the Middle Ages were in fact a time when culture was saturated by the Bible. People who think that medieval people (devout people, at least) were ignorant of the Bible clearly haven’t read much medieval literature or seen much medieval art. However, the Bible wasn’t primarily read “straight” as the Protestant tradition would encourage. It was known above all through allusion, interpretation, preaching, art, drama, etc. The Renaissance brought a new way of thinking about texts and authors, and the printing press made it much easier to produce and handle large books as unified objects. So there was a new way of thinking about the Bible and using it in the age of the printing press, and some of Luther’s language can be explained on those grounds. Much medieval engagement with the Bible wouldn’t have seemed significant to Luther. For instance, he claims absurdly that the scholastics ignored the Bible. Actually the main job of a scholastic theology professor was to comment on the Bible, but Biblical books were typically treated as sources of theological propositions rather than as literary works.

So we agree that Luther’s language was highly misleading, and that Protestants widely misunderstand the depth and breadth of medieval engagement with the Bible. However, I don’t think “lie” is fair, and more to the point the Protestant belief that the Catholic Church discouraged lay Bible reading is not without foundation and is not solely based on these statements by Luther.

[see also the extensive comments in the thread by Catholic Alfonso Taboada Portal. I have to omit something due to the length of this thread, but they remain on Facebook for folks who want to delve more deeply into this topic (one / two / three / four / five / six / seven).]

Alfonso Taboada Portal, I note that your examples of the Church encouraging lay Bible reading are all from the years before the Reformation. As I said in my earlier long post, this was a period when lay Bible reading was allowed except in England. I am aware of St. Thomas More’s attempt to explain away the regulations of Archbishop Arundel, and I do not find them convincing. More apparently claimed that he knew of people reading vernacular versions, but I’ve never even seen a specific citation of the passage where More claims this (in other words, I’ve only seen this alleged by other people such as yourself), much less any evidence corroborating his claim. Of course Arundel was banning the Lollard translation, but the point, again, is that no other translation was available. In 13th-century France, in 15th-century England, and in most Catholic countries from Trent until the mid-19th century, the standard Catholic response to heretical use of the Bible was to limit or prohibit lay access to Scripture. Pope Clement XI condemned Paschasius Quesnel for saying that laypeople ought to read Scripture (see especially condemned propositions 79-81) [link].

So if you concede that Bible reading was prevalent in Germany before the Protestant Revolt, then how is it you say that Luther didn’t misrepresent this history? What does he care about England? He never even visited there, and I don’t believe he knew English. He must have been talking mainly about Germany, and we know it had many Bible versions before his and that they were available. I hear they are greatly inferior but they were there, and he claims that the populace was almost entirely ignorant of them, because of the wickedness of the Catholic Church in hiding the Bible.

I am very sad to see this unfair and unhelpful attack on Luther.

If you demonstrate any inaccuracies in it, Ken, I’ll be happy to modify them. I always respect your opinion. Certainly you are well aware that Luther said lots of disparaging things about the Catholic Church, and we are entitled to respond to them, no? It’s not like we have no answers and just wilt and die in the face of some attack made against us.

I like Luther in other ways. In fact, I am seriously considering doing a book collecting his writings where he says things that we agree with (just as a third of my book about him did). [I did later put together that book] But that doesn’t wipe out the fact that he is often quite unfair to the Catholic Church too.

Part of different kinds of Christians getting to know each other better includes, unfortunately, the negative things in our histories as well. We need to face those squarely, in all camps. But I am always open to correction, and will link to these discussions for a fuller perspective that all can benefit from.

I would add, too, that I am always happy to learn that some opinion or other in Luther was not as bad (from our perspective) as I first suspected. So to receive information that runs counter to what I have presented would be most welcome indeed.

I’m happy to talk about anything here. I’m not out to embarrass people or make them feel uncomfortable. I simply care about learning theological and historical truth, to the best of my ability.

I did not “deal with” the citations from Luther because obviously I accept that Luther said those things and that they are misleading. But you did not, as far as I can see, present any evidence that Luther actually denied that there were a number of editions of the Bible available. He spoke in a way that has misled later Protestants (especially in light of the rather different English history on this point) into thinking that this was the case. Luther’s language, as you cite it, is metaphorical and vague (you show that his favorite term was “leaving Scripture under the bench,” which can mean a lot of things). To justify the term “lie” you have to show that there was a specific claim Luther made which was factually false rather than simply being exaggerated or rhetorically misleading (like “leaving Scripture under the bench”).

I don’t see that you have done that. I’m not, by the way, denying that Luther did lie on occasion–he certainly advocated lying to cover up the bigamy of Philip of Hesse. But in his context, lying about the obvious fact that there were existing versions of the Bible would be pointless. In fact, if he had been able to deceive people on that score, this would prove that these versions can’t have been very well known. Luther’s words have deceived later generations of Protestants who didn’t know about the pre-Reformation versions. But it’s a bit odd to suggest that he was so fore-sighted in his deception as to lie for the benefit of generations yet unborn!

Okay; that’s fair. So you are saying that Luther wasn’t denying that they existed altogether, but was asserting that the Church deliberately kept people from them (perhaps a variation of the old fallacious “chained Bible” argument)?

I’m saying that his language is so rhetorical and over the top that it’s not clear exactly what he was claiming. Insofar as he was claiming that there was a widespread opinion that it was dangerous for laypeople to read Scripture, he was right. But obviously in Germany (and most other countries, except for England, on the eve of the “Revolt”) these concerns were not pressed very vigorously by the Church. I don’t know how far the Bible versions available in Germany were actually encouraged by the authorities of the Church, as they were in Spain if I remember rightly (contrasting sharply with the post-Reformation situation in Spain). I know that I came across a reference (I think in the Cambridge History of the Bible, but I don’t remember precisely) to at least one German bishop or other church official expressing disapproval of vernacular translations. But that’s pretty mild. Ironically, as on so many other points, the Reformation would turn out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy in many ways, since Church leaders responded to Protestantism by cracking down on lay Bible reading throughout the entire Church, instead of dealing with the issue locally as in the Middle Ages.

Let me clarify: my argument in the paper was that Luther was saying that the Catholic Church “obscured” the Bible (see its very title): not that Luther denied that earlier vernacular versions in German existed. He never mentions them, that I can see, so one might opine that he implied (for the less educated reader) that they didn’t exist, if he didn’t flat-out deny their existence. And so I wrote in the paper:

The big myth under consideration is the commonly heard legend among Protestants (especially of an anti-Catholic bent) of Catholic hostility to the Bible and desire to keep it out of the hands of the people, for fear that its doctrines will be exposed as contrary to the Bible. . . . the controversy at hand was whether the Bible was available to the populace in (mostly High) German to any significant extent before Luther. It certainly was.

One comment of mine above was poorly worded, in light of these considerations, and I changed the wording a bit.

I don’t know how far the Bible versions available in Germany were actually encouraged by the authorities of the Church, as they were in Spain if I remember rightly (contrasting sharply with the post-Reformation situation in Spain).

Actual evidence that I have presented in other papers of mine (linked in this one) strongly suggests both Church encouragement of vernacular translations (which definitely means lay readership, since scholars worked mostly in Latin, right?), and wide reading, since there were so many editions. Here are some of those facts:

The number of translations . . . of the complete Bible, was indeed very great . . . Between this period [1466] and the separation of the Churches at least fourteen complete editions of the Bible were published in High German, and five in the low German dialect. The first High German edition was brought out in 1466 by Johann Mendel, of Strasburg . . .

[Other editions in High German: Strasburg: 1470,1485 / Basel, Switzerland: 1474 / Augsburg: 1473 (2),1477 (2),1480,1487,1490,1507,1518 / Nuremburg: 1483]. Bible Translations in Low German: Cologne: 1480 (2) / Lubeck: 1494 / Halberstadt: 1522 / Delf: before 1522]

(Janssen, History of the German People From the Close of the Middle Ages, 16 volumes, translated by A.M. Christie, St. Louis: B. Herder, 1910 [orig. 1891], vol. 1, 56-57; vol. 14, 388)

We know from history that there were popular translations of the Bible and Gospels in Spanish, Italian, Danish, French, Norwegian, Polish, Bohemian and Hungarian for the Catholics of those lands before the days of printing . . .

In Italy there were more than 40 editions of the Bible before the first Protestant version appeared, beginning at Venice in 1471; and 25 of these were in the Italian language before 1500, with the express permission of Rome. In France there were 18 editions before 1547, the first appearing in 1478. Spain began to publish editions in the same year, and issued Bibles with the full approval of the Spanish Inquisition (of course one can hardly expect Protestants to believe this). In Hungary by the year 1456, in Bohemia by the year 1478, in Flanders before 1500, and in other lands groaning under the yoke of Rome, we know that editions of the Sacred Scriptures had been given to the people. In all . . . 626 editions of the Bible, in which 198 were in the language of the laity, had issued from the press, with the sanction and at the instance of the Church, in the countries where she reigned supreme, before the first Protestant version of the Scriptures was sent forth into the world . . . What, then, becomes of the pathetic delusion . . . that an acquaintance with the open Bible in our own tongue must necessarily prove fatal to Catholicism? . . .

Many senseless charges are laid at the door of the Catholic Church; but surely the accusation that, during the centuries preceding the 16th, she was the enemy of the Bible and of Bible reading must, to any one who does not wilfully shut his eyes to facts, appear of all accusations the most ludicrous . . .

We may examine and investigate the action of the Church in various countries and in various centuries as to her legislation in regard to Bible reading among the people; and wherever we find some apparently severe or unaccountable prohibition of it, we shall on enquiry find that it was necessitated by the foolish or sinful conduct on the part either of some of her own people, or of bitter and aggressive enemies who literally forced her to forbid what in ordinary circumstances she would not only have allowed but have approved and encouraged.

(Henry G. Graham, Where We Got the Bible, St. Louis: B. Herder, revised edition: 1939, 98, 105-106, 108, 120)

And in contrast we have Luther saying stupid stuff like:

[T]he Holy Word of God has not only been laid under the bench but has almost been destroyed by dust and filth. [1518]

But up to this time, the idea that the laity should read the Scriptures has been treated with derision. For in this the devil has hit on a fine trick to tear the Bible out of the hands of the laity; and he has thought thus: If I can keep the laity from reading the Scriptures, I will then turn the priests from the Bible to Aristotle, and so let them gossip as they will, the laity must hear just what they preach; . . . [1523]

When in our own day we saw how Scripture lay under the bench, and how the devil was deluding us and taking us captive with the hay and straw of men-made prayers, we tried, by the Grace of God, to mend matters, and have indeed with great and bitter pains brought Scripture back to light once more, and, sending human ordinances to the winds, set ourselves free and escaped from the devil. [1527]

[T]he Bible lies forgotten in the dust under the bench (as happened to the book of Deuteronomy, in the time of the kings of Judah). [1539]

Sorry, guys, but I have to object to these statements, as a Catholic apologist and lover of accurate history.

For the sake of charity and unity I took the word “lie” out of the paper’s title and contents.

Here is my new revised ending:

Luther’s Commentary on Peter and Jude from 1523 (cited at length above), explicitly states that Catholics (or the Church) supposedly desired to keep the Bible out of the laity’s hands. As a general statement, this is untrue. And it’s a bit difficult to believe that he could have been this ignorant of Church history and Catholicism (being quite a sharp guy).

But we know that Luther was prone to hyper-polemical utterances and exaggeration (and that context is always very important in interpretation of Luther); thus we hope (in charity) that this is altogether an instance of that, rather than reflective of his literal opinion as to the historical facts.

See, I did change some language and am trying to be more fair, taking into account your criticisms. “Lie” ain’t in the paper anymore . . . I continue to strongly disagree with Luther’s statements (in this regard and many others) about Catholic history and supposed “attitudes.”

Okay. We can differ about the accuracy of what he said; I’m glad that the accusation of deliberate falsehood is gone.

Of course the Catholic Church, and its apologists, are entitled to respond to charges Luther, or anyone else made. It’s your job to do that., just as it was my job to make the protest I made above. Grave charges have been made more than once on both sides, and neither side has always been fair. I think that we will get somewhere when each side understands that the other has taught and said what it thought was right. No one, certainly no one within the orthodoxy of each tradition, has gone out with the intention of doing evil, and very few have gone out to lie intentionally (we’ll assume that the idea of the “pious lie” that one group propagated in the 16th to the 18th centuries has been laid to rest). As in most things, we’ll probably ultimately discover that there was some justice to much of what each side said, and that much of the rancor has been misreading of what each other said. I don’t believe that the Catholic Church is now, if it ever was, anti-Biblical; Catholics should drop their common accusation that Lutherans are antinomians (my major project is the translation of the book by Finnish theologian Lauri Haikola Usus Legis from German into English, which is rather specifically covering the Antinomian Controversy of the 1550’s). There is in the works a project for a joint observance in 2017 of the events of October 31, 1517. It would be wonderful if some of the issues that have divided us were resolved by then.

Great, Ken! I’ve defended Luther against antinomianism:

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

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

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

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

Excellent!

We mustn’t unfairly approach those who differ from us theologically. There is more than enough actual error in Luther’s teaching, from a Catholic perspective, without having to make up additional errors and distort and twist his views by cynically selective citations taken out of context (as happens in some Catholic circles, sadly, all too often).

Our duty as Christians is to be truthful about the views of those we disagree with. It’s not optional. Bearing false witness violates one of the Ten Commandments. If we fail to do this, it only reflects badly on us, not the ones whose true opinions we caricature and distort.

I totally agree. This is why I have vehemently opposed anti-Catholicism and anti-Protestantism alike. Both sides commit these errors and, yes, sins.

I don’t see that I’ve misrepresented Luther here. I think he has done that regarding the Catholic Church and the Bible, and plenty of evidence that I give here and in further links backs me up on that.

And as I said, if you have some data that shows otherwise, or puts these comments of Luther in a larger, more favorable context, no one would be happier than me, to learn about that and to add it to the paper, for a fuller picture.

I do have quotes from Luther extolling the Catholic Church in several respects, too (about true Catholic tradition that he agrees with), so, as always, he was complex and seemingly contradictory at times.

That was very well said; I would have said much the same in reverse; I would say there are errors in Aquinas and Bellarmine, but we should not invent errors on their part–nor should an error in one matter undermine our respect for the good work they did in another. Rather, we should as Christian brothers establish where we agree and see first that we do not misunderstand each other where we appear to differ, and then, if we really do differ, attempt to write respectfully of each other. We can look at the way Bellarmine and Gerhard interacted. Neither misrepresented the other’s arguments. Each, where he thought the other had gotten something right, acknowledged that. We can look at the fact that when the Catholic theologians wrote the Confutatio against the Augsburg Confession, they approved a good many articles of the Augsburg Confession–and when Martin Chemnitz wrote the Examination of the Council of Trent, there are many canons where Chemnitz said, “We do not disagree with this canon; just don’t include us in your condemnation of those who disagree with both you and us.’

I think Luther was stating accurately what he observed. He could be intemperate, but he wasn’t a liar. I wrote a paper in seminary on the efficacy of Scripture that looks at some Catholic statements from the 16th century that sound very much like what Luther complained of. But fairness from the Lutheran side requires that Lutherans recognize that it was not all that way. I wouldn’t be able to use St. Anselm, St. Bernard of Clairvaux and St. Thomas Aquinas nearly as much in my work as I do if their work was all bad. They, especially St. Anselm, wrote some great stuff that showed a profound grasp of Scripture. Even some late Scholastics, like Gerson and Cajetan, wrote some very good things that were soundly based in Scripture. So if you rap Luther for an insufficiently broad perspective of pre-Reformation Catholic writing or for not giving more weight to the better Catholic writers of the Middle Ages, you have at least a defensible case. (Luther did like St. Bernard very much.) Many other Lutheran writers, like Melanchthon, Chemnitz and Gerhard, do recognize the good work that had been done in that era.

Great historical information there; thanks.

***

Photo credit: Martin Luther, 31 December 1525 (age 42), by Lucas Cranach the Elder [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Defense of Critique of Jame’s White’s Misinformed Mariology

Last updated on: June 12, 2020 at 3:02 pm By Dave Armstrong

vs. James Swan

I joined William Possidento, the primary author, in a critique of James White’s book above. Protestant Reformed anti-Catholic polemicist James Swan then offered criticisms of our critique. His words will be in blue.; words of James White in green.

***

[originally posted on 3-15-04 and 9-7-05]

***

You assert that Irenaeus believed Mary to be co-redemptrix? (that is, you via “William Possidento”).

In a primitive, relatively undeveloped sense, yes. This was seen in his words, “Mary was the only one to cooperate in the economy” and in the general idea of Mary as the New Eve or Second Eve. Elsewhere (Mary Mediatrix: Patristic, Medieval, & Early Orthodox Evidence). St. Irenaeus (130-202), in his famous Against Heresies (bet. 180-199) wrote:

[S]o also Mary . . . being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race . . . Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith.” (3,22,4; from Jurgens, W.A., The Faith of the Early Fathers, Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1970, vol. 1, p. 93, #224)

[F]or in no other way can that which is tied be untied unless the very windings of the knot are gone through in reverse: so that the first joints are loosed through the second, and the second in turn free the first . . . Thus, then, the knot of the disobedience of Eve was untied through the obedience of Mary.” (Against Heresies, III, 22,4; from Most, William G., Mary in Our Life, Garden City, New York: Doubleday Image, 1954, 25)

William Most comments:

Mary, says St. Irenaeus, undoes the work of Eve. Now it was not just in a remote way that Eve had been involved in original sin: she shared in the very ruinous act itself. Similarly, it would seem, Mary ought to share in the very act by which the knot is untied — that is, in Calvary itself. (in Most, ibid., 25)

Just as the human race was bound over to death through a virgin, so was it saved through a virgin: the scale was balanced — a virgin’s disobedience by a virgin’s obedience. (Against Heresies, V, 19, 1; cited in Most, ibid., 274)

Swan acts as if this is extraordinary special pleading to see in remarks such as these a kernel of the notion of mediatrix or the always vastly-misunderstood term, “co-redemptrix”. Funny, then, that the well-known Protestant patristics scholar J. N. D. Kelly doesn’t think so (he precisely agrees with me):

The real contribution of these early centuries, however, was more positively theological, and consisted in representing Mary as the antithesis of Eve and drawing out the implications of this. Justin was the pioneer, although the way he introduced the theme suggests that he was not innovating . . . Tertullian and Irenaeus were quick to develop these ideas. The latter, in particular, argued [Against Heresies, 3, 22, 4; cf. 5, 19, 1] that Eve, while still a virgin, had proved disobedient and so became the cause of death both for herself and for all mankind, but Mary, also a virgin, obeyed and became the cause of salvation both for herself and for all mankind. “Thus, as the human race was bound fast to death through a virgin, so through a virgin it was saved.” Irenaeus further hinted both at her universal motherhood and at her cooperation in Christ’s saving work, describing [Ibid, 4, 33, 1] her womb as “that pure womb which regenerates men to God.” (Early Christian Doctrines, San Francisco: HarperCollins, revised edition of 1978, 493-494, emphases added)

So we see that William Possidento and myself were merely citing most of the same passages that Kelly cites, and interpreting them in precisely the same way. Even Mr. White is not a Church historian, so if it comes down to a conflict of historical fact between White and Kelly, it is obvious who has the advantage and who can be trusted for the facts. And that is not all one can find by way of Protestant historians. How about Philip Schaff? He writes:

The development of the orthodox Mariology and Mariolatry originated as early as the second century in an allegorical interpretation of the history of the fall, and in the assumption of an antithetic relation of Eve and Mary, according to which the mother of Christ occupies the same position in the history of redemption as the wife of Adam in the history of sin and death [Rom 5:12 ff., 1 Cor 15:22] . . . Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian, are the first who present Mary as the counterpart of Eve, as a “mother of all living” in the higher, spiritual sense, and teach that she became through her obedience the mediate or instrumental cause of the blessings of redemption to the human race, as Eve by her disobedience was the fountain of sin and death. [Footnote: “Even St. Augustine carries this parallel between the first and second Eve as far as any of the fathers . . . “] (History of the Christian Church, Vol. III: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity: A.D. 311-600, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1974; reproduction of fifth edition of 1910, 414-415, emphases added. This work is available in its entirety online, too)

But James White makes the following profoundly ignorant historical summation, that James Swan cited from the original paper:

James White did not bring most of these ECF’s [early Church Fathers] up. DA has, in order to disprove White’s assertion that “the idea of Mary as Coredemptrix or Mediatrix completely absent from the Bible and from the early Church, it does not have its origin in history but in this kind of piety or religious devotion that is focused upon Mary.” [pp. 75-76 of White’s book]

This being the case, I have the utmost sympathy and compassion for James Swan in his effort to defend such a ridiculously wrongheaded point of view. The old wise proverb says that “you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear,” but maybe Swan can somehow pretend that these notions were absent from history, per White, when they clearly were not, according to Protestant historians Kelly and Schaff (two of the very best and most-cited, at that). Best wishes! I don’t envy you. And I think we can already see one reason why Mr. White won’t come out from behind his word-processor and defend his own historical absurdities from his book.

Furthermore, Lutheran historian Jaroslav Pelikan (who converted to Orthodoxy after the following was written), observed the true focus of patristic and Catholic Mariology, during St. Irenaeus’ time:

[A]s Christian piety and reflection sought to probe the deeper meaning of salvation, the parallel between Christ and Adam found its counterpart in the picture of Mary as the Second Eve . . . in is fundamental motifs the development of the Christian picture of Mary and the eventual emergence of a Christian doctrine of Mary must be seen in the context of the development of devotion to Christ and, of course, of the development of the doctrine of Christ.

For it mattered a great deal for christology whether or not one had the right to call Mary Theotokos [Mother of God] . . . an apt formula for their belief that in the incarnation deity and humanity were united so closely . . . It was a way of speaking about Christ at least as much as a way of speaking about Mary. (The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. I: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), University of Chicago Press, 1971, 242-243)

Questions:

1. Which line from Irenaeus above actually says this?

The concept (in early development) was there, as seen in the quotes themselves and in the summary of Irenaeus’ teaching by Kelly and Schaff, where they actually relate it to “redemption” and “salvation” and use words like “mediate” and “instrumental” with regard to Mary’s place in the economy of redemption. The word no more has to be present than the word “Trinity” has to be in the Bible, in order to think that the teaching is there.

2. I direct your attention to Giovanni Miegge’s explanation of the passage from Irenaeus in question:

If we pass from the New Testament to the patristic field there is equal silence. Irenaeus’ famous parallel of Eve and Mary alludes only to the motherhood of Mary who gives the Redeemer to the world with her faith in the divine annunciation. The title “advocate” refers to the restoration of Eve and could be extended at most to the idea of a ministry of intercession which, however, is not explicitly contained in the term. All those who in various ways look for this parallel in the first century connect it with Mary’s motherhood. Mary is not associated with the redemptive sufferings of Christ: ‘if anyone is it is the martyrs, but in a quite indirect form as imitators of Christ, as members of His body, as witnesses of Him. In that sense the apostle Paul speaks of his part in the sufferings of Christ, with an ardent figure of speech, “to fill up that which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ” (Colossians 1 : 24, R.V.); but he attributes no co-redemptive significance to this thought. But Mary did not know martyrdom.

Source: Giovanni Miegge, The Virgin Mary (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1955), 163-164)

That does not agree with Kelly, Schaff, and Pelikan, and (frankly) they carry a lot more weight than Miegge does. Why don’t you tell us more about him? What are his credentials?

3. Where does Jaroslav Pelikan say that Irenaeus believed Mary was co-[re]demptrix?

It is implicit in the concept of Second Eve, by its very nature, as shown above.

I couldn’t find it in the quote from your paper.

That’s because you are looking for a word, rather than a concept.

Is your use of Pelican [sic] simply arguing for development of doctrine,

It’s not just development (though that is a crucial component of this discussion), but the fact that the concept of New Eve was already in full force at this early stage (as early as Justin Martyr, who died in 165 — and Kelly says it looks like he was just passing on what he received).

. . . in which case, the reader has to accept the faith claim of the “acorn and the oak tree”? If this is so, your critique of James White should spell this out clearly, with a statement like this: “Dave Armstrong’s interpretation of the history of Mariology demands the Roman Catholic notion of development of doctrine. Without this, James White’s book, Mary Another Redeemer makes historical sense.”

It’s not necessary to have a “Roman Catholic notion of development of doctrine” in order to accept this development, but to have whatever kind of development Schaff and Pelikan and Kelly accept (since they are not Catholics). This is the whole point. It’s not a “Catholic thing”; it is an “historical thing.” Schaff detests the very doctrines he is describing, and makes no bones about it, but he is also (invariably) an honest historian who presents the facts — whatever he thinks of them.

White detests the doctrines, too, but then tries to vainly pretend that they were absent from patristic history. This is the difference, and this is one of a multitude of reasons why I have long maintained that White is a sophist and special pleader.

In my portion of the book review I made elaborate and involved arguments showing that White himself accepts development in one area but denies it in another, and his criteria for doing so are completely arbitrary, self-contradictory, and instances of glaring double standards. So this has already been thoroughly dealt with.

Development of Mariology is no different than development of any other doctrine. One may quibble with it because it is supposedly so “unbiblical,” but then one would have to also toss out the canon of Scripture, which is absolutely unbiblical. Etc. I’ve made all the arguments.

*****

As far as I am concerned, so far, not one thing I have contended has been overthrown or refuted. It was claimed (by White and his defenders) that St. Irenaeus taught not a thing about Mary Mediatrix. I responded with Protestant historians Kelly and Schaff (and a bit indirectly), Pelikan, who thought quite otherwise. It was claimed that I was demanding people to accept a presupposed Catholic version of development of doctrine. I showed how that was not the case, and my extensive reasoning for why I think that, in the review itself, needs to be dealt with. So we don’t have much substance so far. Let’s see how much can be produced . . .

I would like to work through all of DA’s Irenaeus quotes, slowly, as time allows.

It would be nice if you would counter-respond to my first lengthy response, since I raised, I think, several important issues that you need to deal with for your case to succeed. I cited three very reputable Protestant historians. But I guess that would be too much like a dialogue . . . I’ll take what I can get. But I will always note that you left something unresponded-to, so readers don’t miss that “detail.”

I would like to look first at this comment from DA’s paper:

St. Irenaeus wrote, for example, of Christ as the pure one opening purely that pure womb which regenerates men unto God (Against Heresies IV,33,11) – words with which Irenaeus credited the Virgin’s womb and assigns to her a universal motherhood. Writing of the economy, that is, the plan of salvation, St. Irenaeus remarked ..without Joseph’s action, Mary was the only one to cooperate in the economy… (Against Heresies III, 21,5, in Miravalle, p. 178). Contemplate that. St. Irenaeus gave, with those words, a second century statement of belief that Mary had a unique role in the plan of salvation.

DA’s comments about Irenaeus

Actually, William Possidento’s at this point (just to clarify). My arguments in the review were mostly analogical ones dealing mostly with development of doctrine, whereas his were textual ones from the Fathers and James White’s own book.

overlook something rather important: the context in which they were written.

Context does not nullify our points at all (as I will show). You only think it does when you apply the typically Reformed “either/or” dichotomous mindset to the passage in order to maintain that one must be doing only one thing and could not possibly be doing more than one (killing two birds with one stone).

Note above, the book written by Irenaeus is called Against Heresies. The intent of Irenaeus was not to write a Bible dictionary, so when he got to the letter “M” he wrote out his thoughts on Mary. Hardly.

In fighting heresy, one may express points of Mariology, just as he might express various aspects of christology, soteriology, anthropology, theology proper, etc. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that out. If you are fighting heretical theology, you have to give orthodox theology to counter it (in fact, fighting error is often the occasion for some of the most elaborate expositions of orthodox theology, as a counterpoint; for example, St. Augustine’s reactions to the Manichees and Donatists and Pelagians).

And if Mary is mentioned in any “theological” way, that is Mariology, pure and simple. It may be very primitive and undeveloped (of course it is, in the second century (Irenaeus’ era), though it is remarkably and surprisingly well-developed, given Protestant hostile assumptions about how little it should be by this time), but it remains Mariology because it offers some theology and interpretation of Mary.

Against Heresies is concerned with, you guessed it, heresy.

Very good; a refreshing note of agreement . . .

As Giovanni Miegge explains,

The gnostic teachers in the imposing cycle of their cosmogony brought in the Saviour Jesus at a certain point, one who came down into the material world to free the souls that had fallen. But, spiritualists to excess, they maintained that the purest “eon” could not really have incarnated himself in a man. They thought that the Christ had temporarily united himself to the man Jesus from his baptism to the crucifixion only, or that he manifested himself with a seeming body without true material substance (docetism, from dokei, seems). This second conception had the advantage also of not requiring a real maternity in the physical sense on the part of Mary, whom the eon Christ simply passed through as water passes through a conduit. The virginity of Mary in the bringing forth was the legitimate consequence of these speculations, although it was not one in the strict sense.

The Church reacted decisively to the gnostic docetism that denied the real humanity of the Lord and transferred salvation to a mythical plane away from the historical and human. The traces of this reaction are plain to be seen, first in the later writings of the New Testament, then through the references and confutations of the anti-heretical writers, and also in the elaboration of the oldest symbols of the faith.” The so-called Apostles’ Creed has an anti-docetic tone that is quite recognizable in the emphasis of its affirmation of the real humanity of the Lord and His historical life, “Begotten {gennethenta) by the Holy Spirit and by Mary”, “qui natus est de Spiritu Sancto et Maria Virgine“, as the Roman Apostles’ Creed affirms. Or “conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary”, “conceptum de Spiritu Sancto, natum ex Maria Virgine“, according to the more accurate rendering of the definitive Gallican wording. The Creed expresses the same insistence on the humanity and historicity of Christ in its particularizing of the Passion: “suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified dead and buried”.The Church did it directly again with the stress these expressions receive from Ignatius of Antioch: “Jesus Christ of the progeny of David by Mary, who was truly begotten, ate and drank, was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate, was truly crucified and died, in the presence of beings celestial, terrestrial and subterrestrial, who was truly brought to life from the dead, His Father raising Him up.” Mary and Pilate! The two pillars on which stands the affirmation of the real historicity of Christ, truly born in a human body at a definite point in history, and truly crucified in that body at an equally definite point in time. Mary and Pilate, the two witnesses of the humanity of the Saviour, that is of the reality of the incarnation. Mary owes her inclusion in the Creed—as does Pilate—to this her function of witnessing, but she assumes, besides, the other function of testifying to His divinity by the adjective that describes her, the Virgin Mary. This function she shares with the affirmation of the resurrection and ascension of Christ which ends the central article of the Creed, Vere homo et vere Deus, according to the concise formula of Irenaeus.

Source: Giovanni Miegge, The Virgin Mary (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1955), 36-37.

Yes, of course. I have no problem with this. Catholics have always stated that Mariology is christocentric, and that this was its primary purpose. It was to safeguard the deity and incarnation of Jesus. You guys are the ones who try to make out that we are somehow separating Mary from her Son Jesus, as some sort of ridiculous rival “goddess.” So now we have to be accused of the caricature that you try to make out is our belief, that we always deny, and you see this as some “debating point”? :-)

This is precisely why I cited Jaroslav Pelikan, in agreement with Catholic theology and perspective: “. . . in its fundamental motifs the development of the Christian picture of Mary and the eventual emergence of a Christian doctrine of Mary must be seen in the context of the development of devotion to Christ and, of course, of the development of the doctrine of Christ.”

But somehow you miss that “detail” because (apparently) you are so uninterested in my first response that you repeat things already dealt with in it, and agreed to. Weird . . . but this is common in the Protestant response to Catholic apologetics. It’s almost as if we are talking but the words don’t register. Many times in debates like this, I find myself repeating the argument I just made, because my opponent acts as if I never made it, in the very structure and thrust of his “response.” It’s very frustrating, and a bit insulting, I must say. In effect, you are forcing us to “believe” only what you want us to believe (i.e., the polemical caricature of “Catholicism”), no matter what we say; no matter how many times we clarify, till we’re blue in the face. Even when we fully agree with you, you don’t want to believe it.

So, the statements about Mary found in Irenaeus are not intended to present the “kernel” of the non-defined “co-mediatrix” dogma, but are rather intended to safeguard correct doctrine about Jesus Christ.

The negation you assert doesn’t follow, and is illogical. First of all, you haven’t proven that to argue about Christ necessarily excludes discussion of Mary, as if the two are like oil and water or two magnetic poles. In fact, the long citation you just provided puts the lie to this. Mariology was (and is) a subset of christology. This is how Irenaeus approaches it, and how the Catholic Church does, as well.

Secondly, when people are presenting a primitive, undeveloped form of a doctrine, they don’t themselves know how far it will be developed in the future, by definition. If they did, there would be no development! But there is development, of every doctrine. The canon of Scripture developed; so did original sin, and the Hypostatic Union, and trinitarianism, and the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, and Mariology, and sacramentology, and the doctrine of the atonement, and eucharistic theology. Irenaeus would have been incapable of presenting, for example, the full intricate doctrine of the Hypostatic Union, which was fully developed at the Council of Chalcedon in 451.

So basically, you have argued nothing whatsoever in your last statement. That’s all it is: a bald statement. You state what you assume. This is not argument. It is an assumption. To the extent that you think it is an argument, it is merely logically circular. But you have some more reasoning to go, so I will desist.

The quote offered by DA:

St. Irenaeus wrote, for example, of Christ as the pure one opening purely that pure womb which regenerates men unto God (Against Heresies IV,33,11) – words with which Irenaeus credited the Virgin’s womb and assigns to her a universal motherhood.

First of all, this is not just Catholic “special pleading” and “anachronistically reading our ‘papist’ views back into the 2nd century. Here we go repeating the argument we already gave, again, because you have ignored it and act as if it never happened (the only good thing about that is that repetition is a helpful learning tool). I cited J. N. D. Kelly arriving at the same exact same conclusion about this very passage: “Irenaeus further hinted both at her universal motherhood and at her cooperation in Christ’s saving work, describing her womb as ‘that pure womb which regenerates men to God.'”

So how is it that I am somehow the unreasonable one even though I can cite one of the leading Protestant patristic experts in exact agreement with my interpretation of Irenaeus, while you are reasonable when you ignore that and keep citing this Miegge — whom you won’t tell us a thing about (per my request)? Do you actually believe that Miegge is a better scholar than Kelly and Schaff, and to be believed over them in the event that they disagree? If so, why? But I don’t expect you to answer this, since you ignored my entire first reply. This gets old. But I’ll pray for patience and keep refuting what you write as long as I can stand your utter ignoring of my arguments.

Schaff (repeat, REPEAT) also asserts a “universal motherhood” as an early patristic belief:

Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian, are the first who present Mary as the counterpart of Eve, as a ‘mother of all living’ in the higher, spiritual sense, and teach that she became through her obedience the mediate or instrumental cause of the blessings of redemption to the human race, . . .

Now, lets look at IV, 33, 11, in its context:

Sure, let’s. And I show you the courtesy of actually replying to your arguments. That’s kind of nice, isn’t it?

11. For some of them, beholding Him in glory, saw His glorious life (conversationem) at the Father’s right hand;(3) others beheld Him coming on the clouds as the Son of man;(4) and those who declared regarding Him, “They shall look on Him whom they have pierced,”(5) indicated His (second) advent, concerning which He Himself says, “Thinkest thou that when the Son of man cometh, He shall find faith on the earth?”(6) Paul also refers to this event when he says, “If, however, it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you, and to you that are troubled rest with us, at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven, with His mighty angels, and in a flame of fire.”(7) Others again, speaking of Him as a judge, and , as if it were a burning furnace, (to) the day of the Lord, who “gathers the wheat into His barn, but will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire,”(8) were accustomed to threaten those who were unbelieving, concerning whom also the Lord Himself declares, “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, which my Father has prepared for the devil and his angels.”(9) And the apostle in like manner says (of them), “Who shall be punished with everlasting death from the face of the Lord, and from the glory of His power, when He shall come to be glorified in His saints, and to be admired in those who believe in Him.”(10) There are also some (of them) who declare, “Thou art fairer than the children of men;”(11) and, “God, Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy fellows;”(12) and, “Gird Thy sword upon Thy thigh, O Most Mighty, with Thy beauty and Thy fairness, and go forward and proceed prosperously; and rule Thou because of truth, and meekness, and righteousness.”(13) And whatever other things of a like nature are spoken regarding Him, these indicated that beauty and splendour which exist in His kingdom, along with the transcendent and pre-eminent exaltation (belonging) to all who are under His sway, that those who hear might desire to be found there, doing such things as are pleasing to God. Again, there are those who say, “He is a man, and who shall know him?”(14) and, “I came unto the prophetess, and she bare a son, and His name is called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God;”(15) and those (of them) who proclaimed Him as Immanuel, of the Virgin, exhibited the union of the Word of God with His own workmanship, (declaring) that the Word should become flesh, and the Son of God the Son of man (the pure One opening purely that pure womb which regenerates men unto God, and which He Himself made pure); and having become this which we also are, He (nevertheless) is the Mighty God, and possesses a generation which cannot be declared. And there are also some of them who say, “The Lord hath spoken in Zion, and uttered His voice from Jerusalem;”(16) and, “In Judah is God known;”(17)—these indicated His advent which took place in Judea. Those, again, who declare that “God comes from the south, and from a mountain thick with foliage,”(18) announced His advent at Bethlehem, as I have pointed out in the preceding book.(19) From that place, also, He who rules, and who feeds the people of His Father, has come. Those, again, who declare that at His coming “the lame man shall leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb shall (speak) plainly, and the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall hear,”(1) and that “the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees, shall be strengthened,”(2) and that “the dead which are in the grave shall arise,”(3) and that He Himself” shall take our weaknesses, and bear our sorrows,”(4)—(all these) proclaimed those works of healing which were accomplished by Him.

Now is Irenaeus “assigning to Mary a universal motherhood”?

According to Kelly and Schaff, he is. Why do they think that? Because of an incorrigible “papal propagandistic” bias?

and expressing Mary’s role in suffering with Christ as Coredemptrix? No.

That’s a later development, and I agree that it is improper to read into Irenaeus’ statements.

Irenaeus is protecting Christian doctrine against heretics.

That’s right, but no one is arguing that he isn’t. How does that preclude this particular interpretation of his words about Mary?

DA further offers:

Writing of the economy, that is, the plan of salvation, St. Irenaeus remarked ..without Joseph’s action, Mary was the only one to cooperate in the economy… (Against Heresies III, 21,5, in Miravalle, p. 178). Contemplate that. St. Irenaeus gave, with those words, a second century statement of belief that Mary had a unique role in the plan of salvation.

Yes, indeed, let’s contemplate it. Here is III, 21, 5:

5. And when He says, “Hear, O house of David,”(9) He performed the part of one indicating that He whom God promised David that He would raise up from the fruit of his belly (ventris) an eternal King, is the same who was born of the Virgin, herself of the lineage of David. For on this account also, He promised that the King should be “of the fruit of his belly,” which was the appropriate (term to use with respect) to a virgin conceiving, and not “of the fruit of his loins,” nor “of the fruit of his reins,” which expression is appropriate to a generating man, and a woman conceiving by a man. In this promise, therefore, the Scripture excluded all virile influence; yet it certainly is not mentioned that He who was born was not from the will of man. But it has fixed and established “the fruit of the belly,” that it might declare the generation of Him who should be (born) from the Virgin, as Elisabeth testified when filled with the Holy Ghost, saying to Mary, “Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy belly;”(1) the Holy Ghost pointing out to those willing to hear, that the promise which God had made, of raising up a King from the fruit of (David’s) belly, was fulfilled in the birth from the Virgin, that is, from Mary. Let those, therefore, who alter the passage of Isaiah thus, “Behold, a young woman shall conceive,” and who will have Him to be Joseph’s son, also alter the form of the promise which was given to David, when God promised him to raise up, from the fruit of his belly, the horn of Christ the King. But they did not understand, otherwise they would have presumed to alter even this passage also.

As DA’s paper admonishes to “contemplate” that “ Mary was the only one to cooperate in the economy” , I can’t quite see where I’m supposed to find the seed of co-redemption in the above quote. I’d rather simply read what Irenaeus said, and agree with this ancient author that Christ was not the biological son of Joseph.

The passage is actually from III, 21, 7, as Miravelle indicated in his notes. Here is the whole passage (emphasis added):

7. On this account also, Daniel, foreseeing His advent, said that a stone, cut out without hands, came into this world. For this is what “without hands” means, that His coming into this world was not by the operation of human hands, that is, of those men who are accustomed to stone-cutting; that is, Joseph taking no part with regard to it, but Mary alone co-operating with the pre-arranged plan. For this stone from the earth derives existence from both the power and the wisdom of God. Wherefore also Isaiah says: “Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I deposit in the foundations of Zion a stone, precious, elect, the chief, the corner-one, to be had in honour.” So, then, we understand that His advent in human nature was not by the will of a man, but by the will of God.

Miravalle gives the Latin of the relevant phrase: sola Maria cooperante dispositioni.

Beware of reading history with the glasses of modern Roman Catholic Mariology.

Again (for the tenth) time, it is not just “Catholic-tinted glasses” but the informed historical opinions of Kelly and Schaff. James White claims that mediation and co-redemption are “completely absent” from “the early Church.” But Kelly, writing about Irenaeus’ Mariology, uses descriptive words like “cause of salvation,” “through a virgin it was saved,” “universal motherhood,” “cooperation in Christ’s saving work,” and “[her womb] regenerates men.” Schaff uses words like “The development of the orthodox Mariology and Mariolatry originated as early as the second century,” “redemption,” ‘mother of all living’,” and “mediate or instrumental cause of the blessings of redemption to the human race.” What more does one need?

Furthermore, a few centuries later, these concepts became extremely explicit in some of the Fathers (precisely as we would expect from the nature of development itself). So. for example, St. Ambrose of Milan (c. 339-397) wrote:

Mary was alone when the Holy Spirit came upon her and overshadowed her. She was alone when she saved the world — operata est mundi salutem – and when she conceived the redemption of all — concepit redemptionem universorum. (in Miravelle, Mark I., editor, Mary: Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate: Theological Foundations, Santa Barbara: Queenship Publishing, 1995, p. 14; from Epist. 49,2; ML 16, 1154)

And:

She engendered redemption for humanity, she was carrying, in her womb, the remission of sins. (in Miravelle, ibid., p. 14; from De Mysteriis III, 13; ML 16,393; De instit. Virginis 13,81; ML 16,325)

St. Ephraem of Syria (c. 306-373) called Mary the “dispensatrix of all goods.” (in William G. Most, Mary in Our Life, Garden City, New York: Doubleday Image, 1963, 48)

Basil of Seleucia (died c. 458) referred to her as the “Mediatrix of God and men.” (in Most, ibid., 48)

St. Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444) wrote:

Hail, Mary, Mother of God, by whom all faithful souls are saved [sozetai]. (in Miravelle, ibid., p. 13; from MG 77,992, and 1033; from the Council of Ephesus in 431)

The expression Mediatrix or Mediatress was found in two 5th-century eastern writers, Basil of Seleucia (In SS. Deiparae Annuntiationem, PG 85, 444AB) and Antipater of Bostra (In S. Joannem Bapt., PG 85 1772C. The theory developed in the work of John of Damascus (d.c. 749; see Homilia I in Dormitionem, PG 96 713A) and Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople (d.c.733; see Homilia II in Dormitionem, PG 98 321, 352-353). [see Miravelle, ibid., 134-135]

The Protestant reference Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (ed. F. L. Cross, 2nd edirtion, Oxford Univ. Press, 1983, p. 561), states concerning Patriarch Germanus:

Mary’s incomparable purity, foreshadowing the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, and her universal mediation in the distribution of supernatural blessings, are his two frequently recurring themes.

St. Andrew of Crete (c. 660-740) referred to Mary as the “Mediatrix of the law and grace” and also stated that “she is the mediation between the sublimity of God and the abjection of the flesh.” (Nativ. Mariæ, Serm. 1 and Serm. 4, PG 97, 808, 865; in Miravelle, ibid., 283)

St. John of Damascus (c. 675-c. 749) spoke of Mary fulfilling the “office of Mediatrix.” (Hom. S. Mariæ in Zonam, PG 98, 377; in Miravelle, ibid., 283)

But remember, James White has informed us on pp. 75-76 and 137 of his book:

In fact, not only is the idea of Mary as Coredemptrix or Mediatrix completely absent from the Bible and from the early Church, it does not have its origin in history but in this kind of piety or religious devotion that is focused upon Mary.

[T]he push to define Mary as Coredemptrix flows out of the piety seen so plainly in Alphonsus Ligouri [sic] and Louis Marie Grignon de Montfort. It does not come to us from Scripture, nor does it come from history.

White consistently misspells Liguori as “Ligouri”. That saint lived from 1696-1787. White appears to date this theological development to him, but he is more than 1200 years off the mark, since, as shown, the very terms mediatrix or mediatress were being used in the 5th century by at least two writers, and the concept in kernel can be traced as far back as Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Irenaeus. So much for Mr. White’s historiographical abilities . . . they are almost as deficient as his theological methodologies and conclusions.

Of course, he might want to argue that the 5th century (when St. Augustine and St. Jerome and St. Cyril of Alexandria lived) was not the time of the “early Church.” It wouldn’t be the oddest thing he has argued.

Contrarily, Read the Ancient Church Fathers in their contexts. I assume that anyone looking for Mary in the Roman Catholic sense will find any statement about Mary in ancient church history and find some way to apply it to their own paradigm.

You are merely assuming what you are trying to prove, by offering either no arguments at all, or circular ones (as I think I have shown).

Which leads me to ask the question: Does a Roman Catholic need an infallible interpreter to interpret history also? It seems they do.

No, we only need good, competent Protestant historians like Kelly and Schaff. But we need to avoid amateur historians like James White (and James Swan) who are clearly in over their head when trying to discuss early Mariology. I’m no historian, either, but it is very easy for me to find substantiation from the best Protestant historians of Church history and the history of doctrine, for my point of view.

I suggest as a friend that you give up this fight, before you dig yourself deeper into self-contradiction and futile opposition to plain historical facts. Let James White defend himself! Why should you have to take the fall for him?

James Swan further responds (on the CARM board):

I posted the following quote from Giovanni Miegge giving an explanation of the passage from Irenaeus put forth by Dave Armstrong:

If we pass from the New Testament to the patristic field there is equal silence. Irenaeus’ famous parallel of Eve and Mary alludes only to the motherhood of Mary who gives the Redeemer to the world with her faith in the divine annunciation. The title “advocate” refers to the restoration of Eve and could be extended at most to the idea of a ministry of intercession which, however, is not explicitly contained in the term. All those who in various ways look for this parallel in the first century connect it with Mary’s motherhood. Mary is not associated with the redemptive sufferings of Christ: ‘if anyone is it is the martyrs, but in a quite indirect form as imitators of Christ, as members of His body, as witnesses of Him. In that sense the apostle Paul speaks of his part in the sufferings of Christ, with an ardent figure of speech, “to fill up that which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ” (Colossians 1 : 24, R.V.); but he attributes no co-redemptive significance to this thought. But Mary did not know martyrdom.

Source: Giovanni Miegge, The Virgin Mary (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1955), 163-164)

It should be pointed out that Dave simply dismissed the quote rather than interact with the quote. It’s the old, “my scholar is better than your scholar” technique, of which I can also be guilty of utilizing at times. The technique is useful since it dismisses the content of the quote without ever interacting with the content of the quote.

This is not an accurate description of what I did, and I’ll explain why. First of all, roughly the second half of Miegge’s citation has nothing to do with Irenaeus in the first place, and his Mariology was the subject at hand, and so that portion can be dismissed for the time being.

Secondly, no argument that I can see is presented here, with regard to Irenaeus; there are only bald declarative statements:

“[in the] patristic field there is equal silence . . . ”

[this is, of course, demonstrably untrue, just as White’s summary of supposed patristic silence or “absence” is]

“Irenaeus’ famous parallel of Eve and Mary alludes only to . . . ”

“The title ‘advocate’ refers to . . . ”

“Mary is not associated with the redemptive sufferings of Christ:”

These are not arguments, but mere statements. There is a difference.

Thirdly, this being the case, it becomes basically an appeal to authority on both our parts. We’re all reading the same texts and drawing conclusions from them: the professionals (Miegge, Schaff, Kelly, and Pelikan) and the amateurs (me and you). Professionals hold more weight in these matters than amateurs do, because they are familiar with the whole body of a Church Father’s work, and with his thought, just as a Bible scholar can interpret the Bible with much more knowledge because they know much more about background, language, culture, exegesis, hermeneutics, etc.

Fourthly, if it is simply one scholars’ word against the other, I stand by my opinion that Kelly and Schaff are more to be trusted than Miegge. How does the layman decide when there are differences of opinions among scholars? In this case, I am citing all Protestant scholars, rather than Catholic partisans who already agree with me (as a foregone conclusion).

And I am citing some of the most well-known and reputable historians of Christian doctrine. I need not argue that. I don’t believe you would deny it. You, on the other hand, cite a relatively unknown scholar, who looks to be an anti-Catholic and a fellow Reformed. You’re citing your own guy. This carries less weight in disputes such as this, because you are obviously biased towards the person in your own camp (just as I am, and everyone is), and will tend to agree with most (if not everything) of what he says.

Schaff speaks of “Mariolatry” too, but he doesn’t deny that these ideas were present in Irenaeus (unlike Miegge and White). That is the difference. At best, you can only establish that either of our positions are equally tenable, based on which historian we go with. But Miegge’s and White’s assertions about “absence” and “silence” in the Fathers on these issues are able to be demonstrated as false, and I have already done so. That is something solid and factual to refute (it’s falsifiable), and since they have been shown to be in error on the facts, their judgment in matters of interpretation is not quite so credible as it was before we exposed their serious errors of fact.

You say that I dismissed the quote. I did insofar as no argument was presented in it. If he gives no argument, I am not obliged to refute what he says. In fact, I cannot, because there is nothing to refute if no argument from the texts is presented. He gives his dogmatic interpretation. I simply said that Kelly and Schaff disagree with his interpretation and that they carry more weight. As a layman, I yield to their judgment. And I can’t be accused of simply “choosing my own guy” because none of them are Catholics. You choose your one guy, though (and no one else thus far) and that doesn’t strike one as particularly “objective.”

Dave then asked, “Why don’t you tell us more about him? What are his credentials?”

Giovanni Miegge, was Professor of Church History in the Waldensian Faculty of Theology at Rome. He published a book on Rudolf Bultmann for which he is better known for.

Thank you. With all due respect to you and Dr. Miegge, this hardly puts him in league with giants in the field like Kelly, Pelikan, and Schaff. I look in vain to try to find this guy in any bibliographies of Mariological works (neither Pelikan nor Kelly list him, nor does Protestant Max Thurian, in his book on Mary). Can you give me any bibliographies that he is listed in? If you type his name in at Google, you find very little (at least not in English).

Therefore, it’s not a case of “my professor’s better than yers; nya nya nya nya naaaaa nya,” but a clear-cut case of some of the most eminent and widely cited Church historians vs. a relatively unknown one. So it is quite reasonable to side with the former in cases of disagreement.

Is this all you can come up with? You’ll simply keep quoting Miegge as if he is the last word on the subject, and blithely dismiss the fact that three major Protestant historians agree with my position almost exactly?

You haven’t acknowledged that all these things developed. To me it is self-evident. One cannot believe otherwise. It is simply the history of doctrine.

Is the following part of “primitive, undeveloped form of a doctrine” found in Irenaeus?

In his book titled, Irenaeus of Lyons, Grant wrote:

In Irenaeus’ judgment the Ephesian church, founded by Paul and preserved by John, is a reliable witness to the tradition of the apostles (Against Heresies, 3.3.4) though his exegesis of John 8:57 (“you are not yet 50 years old”) leaves much to be desired. He is convinced that Luke cannot have meant to say that Jesus was baptized in his thirtieth year, because unless he reached “the most necessary and honorable period of his life” he could not have had disciples. John certifies that he was over 40 but under 50. “All the presbyters of Asia who were with John the Lord’s disciple testify that John delivered the same tradition to them, for he remained with them until the reign of Trajan” (Against Heresies, 2.22.4-5). Irenaeus’ doctrine of recapitulation assured him that in order to save men of all ages Jesus had to “recapitulate” the life of humanity and pass in five stages from infant to child to adolescent to manhood and finally advanced age. His analysis of ages is like what we find in Hippocrates, for whom each of the ages mentioned by Irenaeus occupies some multiple of seven years. One is a child from 1 to the loss of teeth at 7, a boy to puberty at 14, a lad till the trace of a beard comes at 21, a young man until the whole body is grown at 28, then a man from 29 to 49; an elderly man lasts only until 56, and after that becomes an old man. Jesus could not have become really mature before reaching 49. Since Irenaeus explicitly dated the birth of Jesus around the forty-first year of Augustus, he cannot have had in mind the real beginning of that emperor’s reign in January 27 BC, but must have backdated it to the death of Julius Caesar in 44. If then Jesus was born in about 3 BC he would have reached 49 during the reign of Claudius (41-54), and that is where Irenaeus set his death in his later Demonstration.

See Robert M. Grant, Irenaeus of Lyons (London: Routledge, 1997), p. 33.

He was clearly wrong in this respect, so no, this was not part of legitimate apostolic tradition that developed over time. It is simply an error.

I’m not trying to misdirect the issue here, only to focus on a crucial point in this discussion- If Irenaeus was the pupil of Polycarp (who was the pupil of John), why has this important aspect of Christology not been “handed down” and developed?

Because individual Fathers are not infallible. They can be mistaken in many things. We believe that popes can be, too, but that they are specially-protected with the gift of infallibility under certain carefully-defined circumstances. You need to learn a lot about how Catholic authority and epistemology works. I don’t mean that as a put-down, but a simple observation.

It’s funny how, whenever I write about Luther and point out some unsavory (and to Protestants, shocking) things (such as his advocacy of death for peaceful Anabaptists or his early position that the damned should cheerfully accept their fate), I am always told (what I already know, of course, and believed as a Protestant) that he was not infallible, nor the rule of faith himself, for Protestants. All Catholics do is apply that same outlook to the Church Fathers. Individually, they make plenty of mistakes. But when we look at the consensus of what they taught, we see the mind of the Church and the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Yet you think you have found (if I gather correctly what you are trying to do here) a “difficulty” in my position by pointing out gaffes in Irenaeus, as if this negatively affects in the slightest way the argument I have made. The current dispute proper isn’t over whether Irenaeus was correct in his Mariology, but whether he held to any notion of co-redemption or Mediatrix at all. White and Miegge deny (as a factual matter) that he did. Kelly, Schaff, and Pelikan assert that he did, and take a position virtually identical to my own.

Now apply this to Mariology. Who determines what was in fact the Marian “kernal” [sic] that bloomed into a fully developed doctrine? Who reads the ECF’s and declares what is the “kernal” [sic]?

The Church decides that in the process of centuries of reflection, in its corporate gatherings called councils, just as it decided the proper Christology regarding the deity of Christ and the Incarnation (451 at Chalcedon) and the canon of Scripture (397). What’s so difficult to understand about this?

You RC folks read almost anything on Mary in the ECF’s and pick and choose what is, and what is not correct doctrine.

Kelly, Schaff, and Pelikan are not “RC folks.” Schaff is even nearly an anti-Catholic, who calls some of these beliefs “Mariolatry” and traces them back to “the second century.” You “Protestant folks” accept the verdict of a Catholic council almost 400 years after Christ’s death as to what books are in the Bible and which aren’t. Why do you allow them to “pick and choose”? Why do you fully accept this Church authority at that one crucial point, but turn around and deride it and caricature it at other points?

Our development is entirely self-consistent, but Protestantism literally reversed many doctrines which had been taught for centuries and from the beginning in primitive form. That is the truly important question here (how that can be justified), not some groundless claim of arbitrary “RC” choosing of one doctrine or another. We had councils made up of hundreds of bishops to decide these important things. You guys have lone, self-anointed individuals who claim some quasi-prophetic power and super-infallibility (Luther, Calvin). How is that scenario preferable to ours, I ask?

Jason Engwer pointed out some very interesting facts from Irenaeus’s Mariology. After reading through these (Dave, there no need to respond to every jot and tittle), note that certain aspects of Irenaeus’s Mariology have not been handed down:

This is uncontroversial. But it is part and parcel of the flawed premises and futile exercises of Jason Engwer in his tunnel-vision interpretation of the Fathers.

Roman Catholic apologists often claim that the ark of the covenant in the Old Testament is a type of Mary. They then use that typological speculation as an argument for doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary. But Irenaeus saw something else in the ark:

so is that ark declared a type of the body of Christ, which is both pure and immaculate. For as that ark was gilded with pure gold both within and without, so also is the body of Christ pure and resplendent, being adorned within by the Word, and shielded on the outside by the Spirit, in order that from both materials the splendour of the natures might be exhibited together.” (Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenaeus, 48)

The analogy was widespread, so the fact that Irenaeus didn’t hold to it has little relevance to its validity. So what?

Irenaeus refers to Mary giving birth to Jesus when she was “as yet a virgin” (Against Heresies, 3:21:10). The implication is that she didn’t remain a virgin. Irenaeus compares Mary’s being a virgin at the time of Jesus’ birth to the ground being “as yet virgin” before it was tilled by mankind. The ground thereafter ceased to be virgin, according to Irenaeus, when it was tilled. The implication is that Mary also ceased to be a virgin. Elsewhere, Irenaeus writes:

To this effect they testify, saying, that before Joseph had come together with Mary, while she therefore remained in virginity, ‘she was found with child of the Holy Ghost;’ (Against Heresies, 3:21:4)

Irenaeus seems to associate “come together” with sexual intercourse. The implication is that Joseph and Mary had normal marital relations after Jesus was born.

As far as I know, Irenaeus held to the perpetual virginity of Mary. If you are claiming otherwise, prove it. This was not a point of contention. That came mostly after the Enlightenment and liberal Bible scholarship. Even virtually all of the “Reformers” held to this doctrine.

Many people don’t realize the extent of the RCC’s claims about Mary. For example, while many people are aware of doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, it seems that relatively few are aware of claims such as the following:

By her complete adherence to the Father’s will, to his Son’s redemptive work, and to every prompting of the Holy Spirit, the Virgin Mary is the Church’s model of faith and charity….This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 967, 969)

According to the RCC, Mary completely adhered to the Father’s will, following every prompting of the Holy Spirit. She was the spiritual mother of us all uninterruptedly, from the annunciation onward.

She was without sin (YAWN). This is some big revelation and news to you guys, that we believe that (as did Martin Luther)?

One wonders how such things could be true in light of the fact that Mary didn’t even understand a simple statement Jesus made about His own identity after living with Mary for twelve years (Luke 2:49-50). Apparently, she was following all of the Father’s will and every prompting of the Spirit, while she was the spiritual mother of all believers, yet, at the same time, she didn’t even understand what Jesus said in Luke 2:49.
She also was among the kinsmen who thought Jesus was insane (Mark 3:20-35), and she didn’t honor Jesus as He should have been honored (Mark 6:3-4).

I have dealt with these silly, groundless objections:

Mary’s Knowledge About Jesus’ Divinity

Jesus’ “Brothers” Were “Unbelievers”? (Jason also claims that “Mary believed in Jesus,” but wavered, and had a “sort of inconsistent faith”) (vs. Jason Engwer) [5-27-20]

On Whether Jesus’ “Brothers” Were “Unbelievers” [National Catholic Register, 6-11-20]

The church father Irenaeus doesn’t seem to have agreed with the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Instead of seeing Mary as following all of the Father’s will and every prompting of the Spirit, he sees Mary as being rebuked by Jesus in John 2:4, since she was ignorant of what He was doing and was interfering with the Father’s will:

With Him is nothing incomplete or out of due season, just as with the Father there is nothing incongruous. For all these things were foreknown by the Father; but the Son works them out at the proper time in perfect order and sequence. This was the reason why, when Mary was urging Him on to perform the wonderful miracle of the wine, and was desirous before the time to partake of the cup of emblematic significance, the Lord, checking her untimely haste, said, ‘Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come’ -waiting for that hour which was foreknown by the Father. (Against Heresies, 3:16:7)

He was wrong on that, too. So what? What did you expect me to say? That Irenaeus was omniscient? How silly is this whole conversation?
I thought you understood Catholicism much better than this.

The question then is:

-who determines what the tradition is? We could go through a bunch of the ECF’s on Mariology and find all sorts of things that have not been synthesized into Marian doctrine.

The Church.

It’s [sic] seems the way RC’s operate is they have a Marian doctrine, and then they go back into history and find “kernals” [sic] and toss out those other bits that don’t fit their paradigm- This was demonstrated quite clearly with your citations of Irenaeus.

Oh, so we hired contra-Catholic Schaff as one of our secret agents, and J. N. D. Kelly has somehow been hoodwinked and brainwashed into accepting and applying this stupid methodology (which is a gross caricature of what we do, anyway)? When will you ever deal with them? My patience wears extremely thin. As soon as you guys are nailed on some point, you immediately start a bunch of side issues so no one will notice what has happened, and see that you have no cogent reply to the really important stuff. This is a classic case. Shame on you! You can do far better than this.

***

Since James Swan continues to ignore the troubling implications of the strong disagreement with J. N. D. Kelly and Philip Schaff with James White’s position on the supposed “complete absence” of Mary Mediatrix and co-redemption in the early Church, I thought it would be fun to search James White’s site in order to find out what he thinks of the scholarly abilities of Kelly and Schaff. This is what I found:

1) Article: “Exegetica: Roman Catholic Apologists Practice Eisegesis in Scripture and Patristics” (3-4-02):

White cites “Protestant church historian” Kelly once with regard to whether Rome had a single bishop or a group of bishops in the second century (the same era as Irenaeus).

2) Article: “Did The Early Church Believe In the LDS Doctrine of God?” (7-27-00):

White, arguing against Mormonism, cites Kelly at length, introducing him as “One of the greatest patristic scholars”. And he is the only historian White cites, in an article about the “early Church”.

3) Article: “The Pre-existence of Christ In Scripture, Patristics and Creed” (7-27-00):

Again, in an article dealing in part with patristics, White cites only Kelly as a scholar in his section “Patristic Interpretation.” And then in the following footnotes, look who he mentions:

“25) For the text of the Nicene Creed, see J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds (New York: Longman Inc., 1981), pp.215-216 and Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985) vol. 1:27-28.

26) Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, vol. 1:30.”

4) Article: “A Test of Scholarship” (7-26-00):

Again, Kelly is proclaimed as “One of the greatest patristic scholars” and White notes after a very long citation from Kelly: “I am appending a selection of quotations from the early Fathers that substantiates the conclusions of . . . Kelly quoted above.” White writes later:

“. . . J.N.D. Kelly’s fine work, Early Christian Doctrines (1978), a work that occupies a space close to my desk (for frequent reference).”

Jaroslav Pelikan’s comments on the notion of theosis in the early Church are also cited at length.

5) Article: “How Reliable Is Roman Catholic History?: An Example in a Recent Edition of This Rock Magazine” (7-25-00):

Kelly is cited three times as an expert on early Church ecclesiology. It stands to reason, that if Kelly can be used in an effort to show that Catholic Answers’ history on a certain disputed point is inaccurate, he can also be used in such a fashion against James White. After all, Kelly is obviously White’s favorite patristics scholar and historian of the early Church.

6) Article: “A Debate Between Professor James White, Director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, and Brother John Mary, Representing the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary” (7-24-00):

Kelly is cited as an expert about the very Church Father under consideration:

“I note that J.N.D. Kelly asserts that Ireneaus, Tertullian, and Origen all felt Mary had sinned and doubted Christ (Early Christian Doctrines, 493).”

Note: Kelly sees no contradiction between Irenaeus’ belief in a non-sinless Mary and a Mary who is involved in co-redemption. He asserts that Irenaeus believed both things about Mary. So this is no disproof of the question at hand, but rather, a strong proof, since Kelly is obviously not an advocate of specifically “Catholic” dogma.

Philip Schaff is also cited pertaining to the question of whether Pope Sylvester called the Council of Nicaea.

7) Article: “The Trinity, the Definition of Chalcedon, and Oneness Theology” (7-21-00):

White cites “noted patristic authority J.N.D. Kelly”.

Philip Schaff is mentioned even more times on White’s site (29 compared to 11 for Kelly):

8) “An In Channel Debate on Purgatory” (2-21-02):

White cites Schaff twice with regard to the views of Pope Gregory the Great.

9) “Catholic Legends And How They Get Started: An Example” (6-11-01):

Schaff is cited interpreting a letter from Pope Zosimus.

10) “Failure to Document: Catholic Answers Glosses Over History” (10-25-00):

Schaff is mentioned twice with regard of the history of the proceedings of Vatican I.

11) “Whitewashing the History of the Church” (8-31-00):

Schaff is cited with regard to Cyril’s views and the Council of Florence. This provides us with more delightful irony (never lacking when one deals with the illustrious Dr. White), since if Schaff can be cited as a “witness” to alleged Catholic “whitewashing” of history, he can be utilized to show Mr. White engaging in this practice (with Mr. White’s full consent!).

12) “Truths of the Bible or Untruths of Roman Tradition? James White Responds to Tim Staples’ Article, “How to Explain the Eucharist” in the September, 1997 issue of Catholic Digest“ (7-25-00):

Schaff is cited twice with regard to historical debates on transubstantiation.

13) “The Trinity, the Definition of Chalcedon, and Oneness Theology” (7-21-00):

Schaff is cited with regard to the Council of Chalcedon and Christology, and his work is recommended for further reading on the Council.

***

Photo credit: Cover of James White’s book, from its Amazon page.

***

λογιζομεθα ουν πιστει δικαιουσθαι ανθρωπον χωρις εργων νομου

3. Worship isn’t for God’s benefit but Man’s