2021-11-20T12:34:38-04:00

Jesus45

The Lord’s Prayer, by James Tissot (1836-1902) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

(11-7-08)

***

A self-described Hebrew Catholic asked on the Coming Home Network board:

The Catechism and the RSV translate Gk opheilemata as trespasses in the Lord’s Prayer (Mt 6:12), when it manifestly means debts — both in the NT usage (Rm 4:4) and in the Septuagint (Dt 24:10). Why?

The concept of sins as debts is a midrash that ties in the Year of Jubilee (Lv. 25) in which all financial debts are forgiven, the coming of Messiah (Is 61:1-2) which Yeshua applies to himself (Lk 4:21), and the Lord’s Prayer (Mt 6:12). Dead Sea Scroll 11QMelchizedek portrays Melchizedek as a Messianic figure come to forgive sins as “debts” with this same idea. So it is an important 2nd Temple Jewish idea with real roots in the Tanakh.

So, why does the RSV and the Catechism mistranslate it? Losing the entire OT connections of the midrash?

It is very confusing to pray the Lord’s prayer with others, some of whom use “trespasses”, some “debts”, some “sins” (Lk 11:4, although later on in the verse hamartia (sins) is paralleled withopheilonti (debts).

Why did the Catechism choose trespasses?

First of all, in my RSV (which is the non-Catholic standard version), Matthew 6:12 has “debts” and “debtors.” “Trespasses” occurs at Matthew 6:14-15, but it is a different Greek word than what you note (see below). I thought perhaps the RSV-CE (Catholic edition) might be different. The Wikipedia article on RSV-CE doesn’t list Matthew 6:12 at all. The EWTN Bible Search for RSV-CE has “And forgive us our debts, [opheilema] As we also have forgiven our debtors”.

[later note: I’ve been informed that the RSV-CE2 (second Catholic edition) has “trespass” for Matthew 6:12]

I don’t know Greek and am no expert on translation, but I can go to various lexical references in my library and online (designed for regular old folks like me) to get an idea of what the Greek means (and to speculate why RSV-CE2 chose this rendering for Matthew 6:12). We can also speculate upon the rationale behind the liturgical usage of “trespass” in the (English-speaking) Catholic Church.

Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (one-volume, p. 747) states:

In later Judaism it [opheilema] is a common term for “sin.” In the NT it occurs in Mt. 6:12 for “debt” in the sense of “sin” (cf. hamartia in Lk. 11:4).

I think this is possibly the key to understanding the rendering of “trespass” which might be regarded as a synonym (in English) for “sin.” You yourself noted Luke 11:4 as the parallel passage:

Matthew 6:9-13 (RSV / RSV-CE) Pray then like this: Our Father who art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, On earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread; And forgive us our debts, [opheilema] As we also have forgiven our debtors [opheiletes]; And lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from evil.

Luke 11:2-4 And he said to them, “When you pray, say: “Father, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Give us each day our daily bread; and forgive us our sins [hamartia], for we ourselves forgive every one who is indebted [opheilo] to us; and lead us not into temptation.”

So we have a scenario in the synoptics with two Greek words being used for what was obviously the same address (the Lord’s Prayer or Our Father). We compare Scripture with Scripture, for a more accurate understanding. Hamartia is translated as “sin” 172 times in the KJV, as “sinful” once and as “offence” once. Its cognate hamartano is rendered “sin” 39 times, “offend” once, and as “trespass” three times in the KJV. Here are those three instances:

Matthew 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

Luke 17:3-4 Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him.

Compare to the RSV:

Matthew 18:15 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.

Luke 17:3-4 Take heed to yourselves; if your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him; and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, and says, `I repent,’ you must forgive him.”

RSV habitually translates hamartia or hamartano as “sin”. “Trespass” occurs 22 times in the NT in the RSV, but not as a rendering of or its opheilema cognates. It is the translation of the Greek paraptoma, where it is clearly synonymous with “sin”:

Matthew 6:14-15 For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Mark 11:25 And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against any one; so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.”

Romans 4:25 who was put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification.

Romans 5:15-18, 20 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the effect of that one man’s sin [hamartano]. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brings justification. If, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. . . . Law came in, to increase the trespass; but where sin [hamartia] increased, grace abounded all the more,

[Note how “trespass” (though here it is paraptoma) and sin (hamartia) are used interchangeably and synonymously in this passage:

5:15 one man’s trespass

5:16 one man’s sin

5:16 one trespass

5:17 one man’s trespass

5:18 one man’s trespass

5:16 the free gift following many trespasses brings justification

5:20 but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more ]

Romans 11:11-12 So I ask, have they stumbled so as to fall? By no means! But through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous. Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!

2 Corinthians 5:19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.

Galatians 6:1 Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Look to yourself, lest you too be tempted.

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

Ephesians 2:1, 5 And you he made alive, when you were dead through the trespasses and sins [hamartia]. . . even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),

Colossians 2:13 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,

Paraptoma is translated as sin in one place:

James 5:16 Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects.

It appears, then, that the Catholic liturgical tradition and the Catechism and RSV-CE2 are taking the overall thought of all these related passages into consideration, in choosing “trespass” — even though a solid linguistic argument can be made (and you made it) for preferring “debtor.”

The Catechism has “trespasses” at #2759 but “debts” at #2841 and #2845.

But why is “trespass” the Catholic version for the Lord’s Prayer? The Latin Vulgate rendering and the language in the Latin Mass are, literally, “debts” and “debtors”:

et dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris

Wikipedia, “Lord’s Prayer” states:

Though Matthew 6:12 uses the term debts, the older English versions of the Lord’s Prayer uses the term trespasses, while ecumenical versions often use the term sins. The latter choice may be due to Luke 11:4, which uses the word sins, while the former may be due to Matthew 6:12 (immediately after the text of the prayer), where Jesus speaks oftrespasses. As early as the third century, Origen of Alexandria used the word trespasses (παραπτώματα) in the prayer. Though the Latin form that was traditionally used in Western Europe has debita (debts), most English-speaking Christians (except Presbyterians and others of the Reformed tradition), use trespasses. . . .

Matthew continues with a request for debts to be forgiven in the same manner as people forgive those who have debts against them. Luke, on the other hand, makes a similar request about sins being forgiven in the manner of debts being forgiven between people. The word “debts” (ὀφειλήματα) does not necessarily mean financial obligations as shown by the use of the verbal form of the same word (ὀφείλετε) in passages such as Romans 13:8. In Aramaic the word for debt is also used to mean sin. This difference between Luke’s and Matthew’s wording could be explained by the original form of the prayer having been in Aramaic. The generally accepted interpretation is thus that the request is for forgiveness of sin, not of supposed loans granted by God. . .

The article gives the form as it appeared in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer (Anglican):

Our Father, which [who] art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name;
thy kingdom come;
thy will be done,
in [on] earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive them that [those who] trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation;
but deliver us from evil.
[For thine is the kingdom,
the power, and the glory,
For ever and ever.
Amen.]

This is almost word-for-word identical to the words used in the Catholic Mass and in the Catechism (#2759). I have inserted the Catholic differences in blue. Therefore, it appears that “trespass” is the accepted English liturgical usage of the prayer as passed down; influenced by the lofty Elizabethan language of the Book of Common Prayer, just as the RSV is the continuation of the (Protestant) KJV tradition of Bible translation.

Dr. Orville Boyd Jenkins noted:

Do you know the reason for the different forms of the Lord’s Prayer? These two common variations of the “Lord’s Prayer” are from two different English translations of Matthew’s version of the prayer (Matt. 6:12).

The “debts” form is from the first English translation of the Bible, by John Wycliffe in 1395 (Wycliffe spelling “dettis”)! The “trespasses” version is from the 1526 translation by William Tyndale (Tyndale spelling “treaspases”).

In 1549 the first Book of Common Prayer in English used a version of the prayer with “trespasses.” This became the “official” version used in the Anglican congregations.

Nicholas Ayo, in his book, The Lord’s Prayer (Roman & Littlefield, 2003) gives us further insight:

Matthew’s debts shows a more Semitic usage. The Aramaic word for sins was debts, with the primary analogue financial debts. To the Greek Gentile Christians of Luke’s community, however, sins would be more understandable. The Greeks knew sin, or hamartia, as literally a missing of the mark, an arrow gone astray, an error or mistake, a falsity of some kind. (p. 72)

Ayo, on the same page, traces the use of “trespass” in English to Wycliffe’s translation of the passage following the Our Father (Matthew 6:14): a practice retained by the KJV and the RSV. Wycliffe used “debts” in the prayer itself, as noted above. Tyndale used “trespasses” in both Matthaean passages and even in Luke’s version, where the Greek is different. Ayo continues:

Jerome translated the Greek word paraptoma (transgressions) . . . by an alternate use of two Latin words, peccata (sins) and delicta (offenses). Wycliffe rendered those two Latin words with the English words “sins” and “trespasses.”

Catholic Bible translator Ronald Knox uses trespass at Matthew 6:12 and also Luke 11:4. Since his version was a revised Vulgate, he either had some linguistic reason to do so, or else he was bowing to the liturgical tradition in English at that point.

Bible translator and commentator William Barclay, in his book, The Lord’s Prayer (Westminster John Knox Press, 1998) provides yet further fascinating speculation:

It may well be that Tyndale did not wish to use the word debts, because there were those who desired to take this petition . . . as a statement in the money sense of the term are obliterated and need no longer be paid. Augustine (The Sermon on the Mount 2.8) in point of fact spends the greater part of his exposition of this petition dealing with the obviously not inconvenient interpretation which found in this petition a new way to abolish old debts. (p. 87)

Finally, here is St. Augustine’s commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, Book II, chapter 8, section 28 (complete):

The fifth petition follows: “And forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors.” It is manifest that by debts are meant sins, either from that statement which the Lord Himself makes, “You shall by no means come out thence, till you have paid the uttermost farthing;” or from the fact that He called those men debtors who were reported to Him as having been killed, either those on whom the tower fell, or those whose blood Herod had mingled with the sacrifice. For He said that men supposed it was because they were debtors above measure, i.e. sinners, and added “I tell you, Nay: but, unless you repent, you shall all likewise die.” Here, therefore, it is not a money claim that one is pressed to remit, but whatever sins another may have committed against him. For we are enjoined to remit a money claim by that precept rather which has been given above, “If any man will sue you at the law, and take away your coat, let him have your cloak also;” nor is it necessary to remit a debt to every money debtor; but only to him who is unwilling to pay, to such an extent that he wishes even to go to law. “Now the servant of the Lord,” as says the apostle, “must not go to law.” And therefore to him who shall be unwilling, either spontaneously or when requested, to pay the money which he owes, it is to be remitted. For his unwillingness to pay will arise from one of two causes, either that he has it not, or that he is avaricious and covetous of the property of another; and both of these belong to a state of poverty: for the former is poverty of substance, the latter poverty of disposition. Whoever, therefore, remits a debt to such an one, remits it to one who is poor, and performs a Christian work; while that rule remains in force, that he should be prepared in mind to lose what is owing to him. For if he has used exertion in every way, quietly and gently, to have it restored to him, not so much aiming at a money profit, as that he may bring the man round to what is right, to whom without doubt it is hurtful to have the means of paying, and yet not to pay; not only will he not sin, but he will even do a very great service, in trying to prevent that other, who is wishing to make gain of another’s money, from making shipwreck of the faith; which is so much more serious a thing, that there is no comparison. And hence it is understood that in this fifth petition also, where we say, “Forgive us our debts,” the words are spoken not indeed in reference to money, but in reference to all ways in which any one sins against us, and by consequence in reference to money also. For the man who refuses to pay you the money which he owes, when he has the means of doing so, sins against you. And if you do not forgive this sin, you will not be able to say, “Forgive us, as we also forgive;” but if you pardon it, you see how he who is enjoined to offer such a prayer is admonished also with respect to forgiving a money debt.

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 3,900+ 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.
*
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]. 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 InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!
*
***
2024-10-02T11:59:16-04:00

Photo credit: [public domain / PxFuel]

The following exchange took place in the combox of the video by Kenny Burchard, “Purgatory is 100% BIBLICAL!!” (Catholic Bible Highlights, 8-29-24). I provide the biblical research for this series of videos. Our Protestant friends’ words will be in blue. I cite all of them. I added a few little tidbits just for this article. I use RSV for biblical citations.

*****

I love the way you articulate your position, and it is easy to see your loving heart for seeking God’s Truth. As a lifelong disciple of Our Lord Jesus Christ, I have something that I would like to offer as another position to you and your followers. As you put forward your beliefs, and that of the Catholic doctrine I hear you say that we can define “the act by which we are purified” after death as “Purgatory.”

I believe that the Bible is very clear, stating in Romans 6:23, “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

We do know that if we are under the blood of Christ, that He has paid out debts in full, and we can miraculously receive the Holy Spirit in this current life. Even being made into a new creation, we still must suffer the penalty of death, ending our Earthy lives. Having salvation, abiding, and being sanctified through the Holy Spirit inside of us is happening while in this life.

We actually do individually pay the penalty for sin at our death, and yet the insurmountable amount of punishment we deserve is satisfied through Jesus Himself covering over our multitudes of debt. The Holy Spirit testifies for us as sons and daughters under his blood!

The mode by which the punishment due us is dealt with is explained in scripture by “The Passed Over” in Exodus. If the blood was over the door posts, “God’s wrath passed over and saved those inside” hence “covered by the blood,” despite the sinfulness of those inside! The same goes for all those who look to Christ and abide with him. This all leads to an even more beautiful picture of Grace! The undeserved gift!!! That is the Gospel!

It is with brotherly love and a humble spirit that I say the following: Your portrayal of the Catholic position takes away from the power and beauty of what God did for us on the cross and His Grace! By saying we must still go through a painful process of burning away our sins till Jesus comes back is saying He didn’t pay our debts in full on the cross.

We actually are accused and found wanting at the moment of our death, but like you stated, we will be able to have right communion with God at that very moment! That would be impossible if we had not been purified by his Holy Spirit.

When we die, we will be outside of the limitations of time and this current physical world. Your example of John in Revelation having his lips touched by the fire is odd because he hadn’t died yet, so it is strange to apply that situation to all of us from that one moment. I agree that God does burn away our sins and for some it will be a lot more than others, if you want to title that moment “Purgatory” that is fine, but it will be the most humbling and joyful moment of our lives.

The great “White throne Judgment” is when the true evil will be dethroned and cast down, bringing about the “Second Death.” All those, not written in the book of life, are and will be awaiting that final Judgment during the “Day of the Lord.” That is when all those who chose to fully rebel against Him will be cast into the lake of fire.

If you want to call the process that God purifies us at death. “Purgatory,” that is fine with me, I guess, but like you said, it is not a place. Not only that, it is not a person. Christ is the Righteous Judge, He is the One on the throne, and He is the refining fire, but there is nothing tangible or clear that says He is still going to be purifying us after death until His second coming. That process does not continue since He technically paid it once and for all.

That passage was talking about “The Church” which is something that goes beyond all our little lifetimes and is the bridegroom of Christ. He is continuing to purify the church despite how many of us live and die. Perhaps that is why you thought it continues.

I pray this comment comes across in the right light, and I’m sure you get lots of messages that contradict your videos. I almost never have commented on videos, but felt called to share how I see sound doctrine. Keep up what you are doing, and I appreciate your loving spirit for the lost. I would be happy to discuss this further and give you far more contextual verses that Prove this case. Thank you so much,

Your brother in Christ,

Timothy

Thanks for your comment. It’s fine to make critiques. You have the right spirit, and civility and charity, and it’s great to see that. All we require here is civility and the right spirit. People can disagree all they like, provided they properly “behave.” Kenny and I are well familiar with Protestant doctrine, including in this regard. He was a pastor, with a Masters degree in theology, and I was an apologist and missionary as an evangelical, and have intensely studied apologetics and the Bible for now 43 years, including almost 23 years of full-time apologetics). So none of this is new to us. We understand the Protestant view; we simply have an honest and respectful disagreement, where it differs from the Catholic (and we would say, biblical) outlook.

I’ve often used what I call the “nutshell” argument for purgatory: we must be without sin to enter into God’s presence (Eph 5:5; Heb 12:14; Rev 21:27; 22:3, 14-15). Therefore, God must purge or wash away our sin to make us fit to be in heaven with Him (actual, infused holiness; not merely imputed or declared). All agree so far. The only disagreement is whether this “divine cleansing” takes place in an instant or is more of a process. This is merely a quantitative difference; not an essential one.

Protestants agree that sanctification in this life is a lifelong process, although (unlike us) they remove it categorically from any direct connection (alongside faith and grace) salvation itself. Be that as it may, it stands to reason that if sanctification does indeed occur after death (as it must in order for us to be sinless and fit for heaven), that it would be — by straightforward analogy —  a process there, too, and it would resemble in particulars what the Bible describes as refining and purifying processes in this life. Catholics agree that purgatory has nothing to do with determining salvation, which is already attained (everyone in purgatory is already saved). In that sense, we agree that it is non-salvific, yet necessary (just like works are in the Protestant view).

Purgatory is indicated most directly in 1 Corinthians 3:13, 15: “Each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. . . . If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.”

The Bible also often refers to this same purging process taking place before we die: the very common biblical theme of God’s chastising or purifying His people. By analogy, this shows us the same notions that lie behind the apostolic and Catholic doctrine of purgatory (methods of how God works, so to speak). When these passages are included, one can find (as I did) at least fifty biblical passages that are relevant to purgatory. Protestants can ignore, if they wish, the deuterocanonical passages (highlighted in green below), which they exclude from the biblical canon. The argument doesn’t stand or fall on them, in any event.

Scripture refers to a purging fire (in addition to 1 Corinthians 3 above): whatever “shall pass through the fire” will be made “clean” (Num 31:23); “Out of heaven he let you hear his voice, that he might discipline you; and on earth he let you see his great fire, and you heard his words out of the midst of the fire” (Dt 4:36); “we went through fire” (Ps 66:12); “For gold is tested in the fire, and acceptable men in the furnace of humiliation” (Sir 2:5); “our God is a consuming fire” (Heb 12:29); “do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal which comes upon you to prove you” (1 Pet 4:12); We also see passages about the “baptism of fire” (Mt 3:11; Mk 10:38-39; Lk 3:16; 12:50).

The Bible makes frequent use also of the metaphor of various metals being refined (in a fire): “when he has tried me, I shall come forth as gold” (Job 23:10); “thou, O God, hast tested us; thou hast tried us as silver is tried” (Ps 66:10); “The crucible is for silver, and the furnace is for gold, and the LORD tries hearts” (Prov 17:3); “I will turn my hand against you and will smelt away your dross as with lye and remove all your alloy” (Is 1:25); “I have refined you, . . . I have tried you in the furnace of affliction” (Is 48:10); “I will refine them and test them” (Jer 9:7); “I will put this third into the fire, and refine them as one refines silver, and test them as gold is tested” (Zech 13:9); “he is like a refiner’s fire, and like fullers’ soap; he will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, and he will purify the sons of Levi, and refine them like gold and silver” (Mal 3:2-3); “Having been disciplined a little, they will receive great good, because God tested them and found them worthy of himself; [6] like gold in the furnace he tried them, . . . “ (Wis 3:5-6); “. . . your faith, more precious than gold which though perishable is tested by fire” (1 Pet 1:6-7).

God cleansing or washing us is another common biblical theme: “Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin! . . . Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean” (Ps 51:2, 7); “Blows that wound cleanse away evil; strokes make clean the innermost parts” (Prov 20:30; cf. 30:12); “the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion and cleansed the bloodstains of Jerusalem from its midst by a spirit of judgment and by a spirit of burning” (Is 4:4); “I will cleanse them from all the guilt of their sin against me” (Jer 33:8); “I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses” (Ezek 36:25); “cleanse them from sin and uncleanness” (Zech 13:1); “our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water” (Heb 10:22); “he was cleansed from his old sins” (2 Pet 1:9); “the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin” (1 John 1:7).

Divine “chastisement” is taught clearly in many passages: “as a man disciplines his son, the LORD your God disciplines you” (Dt 8:5); “do not despise the LORD’s discipline or be weary of his reproof,” (Prov 3:11); “I will chasten you in just measure” (Jer 30:11); “For thou didst test them as a father does in warning” (Wis 11:10); “God who tests our hearts” (1 Thess 2:4); “For the Lord disciplines him whom he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives. It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? . . . he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness” (Heb 12:6-7, 10).

We are subject to God’s indignation or wrath, insofar as we sin: “God will bring every deed into judgment” (Ecc 12:14); “I will bear the indignation of the Lord because I have sinned against him, . . . He will bring me forth to the light” (Mic 7:9).

Purgatory is “written all over” the passages above. It all goes back to sin not being allowed in heaven. Once we get there, there is no longer mere “imputation” of righteousness. At that point it’s actual righteousness in play. Therefore, we have to transition from our present sinful life or state of being, to the sinless life we will live in heaven. So the question is: how does God bring that result about? Is it instantaneous? Zap! And we’re there! Or is it more of a process?

That’s the heart of my argument in the 50 passages: by analogy, the Bible teaches that purging of sin is a process in this life. If that’s true, then it’s plausible and reasonable to believe also that the same purging of sin in heaven is a process rather than an instantaneous “zap.” And that is the essence of purgatory. Once the analogy is understood, then all of the passages I produced are relevant to understanding (and accepting) purgatory.

*

Photo credit: [public domain / PxFuel]

Summary: In-depth reply to a Protestant in which I discuss the many biblical themes that suggest a process of purgation after we die, which is analogous to ongoing sanctification in this life.

2024-04-29T08:47:04-04:00

“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,600+ articles, please follow this blog by signing up (w your email address) on the sidebar to the right (you may have to scroll down a bit), above where there is an icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is sort of the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. Please also consider following me on Twitter / X and purchasing one or more of my 55 books. All of this helps me get more exposure, and (however little!) more income for my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!

***

Good Works Necessary for Salvation

For neither celibacy nor marriage avails anything without works, since even faith, which is specially characteristic of Christians, if it have not works, is said to be dead, . . . (Against Jovinianus, Bk. I, 11)

For when Peter, representing the Apostles, says to the Lord: [Matthew 19:27] Lo we have left all and followed you, the Lord answered him, [Luke 18:29-30] Verily I say unto you, there is no man that has left house or wife, or brethren, or parents, or children for the kingdom of God’s sake, who shall not receive manifold more in this time, and in the world to come eternal life. (Against Jovinianus, Bk. I, 26)

For if the woman is saved in child-bearing, . . . why did he add if they continue in faith and love and sanctification . . . ? [1 Tim 2:15] (Against Jovinianus, Bk. I, 27)

In vain do we make our boast in him whose commandments we keep not. To him that knows what is good, and does it not, it is sin. James 2:26 As the body apart from the spirit is dead, even so faith apart from works is dead. And we must not think it a great matter to know the only God, when even devils believe and tremble. He that says he abides in him ought himself also to walk even as he walked. Our opponent may choose whichever of the two he likes; we give him his choice. Does he abide in Christ, or not? If he abide, let him then walk as Christ walked. But if there is rashness in professing to copy the virtues of our Lord, he does not abide in Christ, for he does not walk as did Christ. (Against Jovinianus, Bk. II, 2)

But, beloved, I am persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation. For it is not accordant with the righteousness of God to forget good works, . . . (Against Jovinianus, Bk. II, 3)

Lot also, God’s friend, whom He saved upon the mountain, who was the only one found righteous out of so many thousands . . .
(Letter 22: To Eustochium, 8)

What great power compassion has and what high rewards it is destined to win, the blessed Cyprian sets forth in an extensive work. It is proved also by the counsel of Daniel who desired the most impious of kings — had he been willing to hear him — to be saved by showing mercy to the poor. [Daniel 4:27] (Letter 66: To Pammachius, 5

When in the gospel the apostles ask their Lord and Saviour what He will give to those who have left all for His sake, He tells them that they shall receive an hundredfold now in this time and in the world to come eternal life. [Mark 10:28-30] [Letter 108: To Eustochium, 3]

One who despairs of salvation can have no expectation of a judgment to come. For if he dreaded such, he would by doing good works prepare to meet his Judge. Let us hear what God says through Jeremiah, withhold your foot from a rough way and your throat from thirst and again shall they fall, and not arise? Shall he turn away, and not return? [Jeremiah 8:4] Let us hear also what God says by Isaiah: When you shall turn and bewail yourself, then shall you be saved, and then shall you know where you have hitherto been. We do not realize the miseries of sickness till returning health reveals them to us. So sins serve as a foil to the blessedness of virtue; and light shines more brightly when it is relieved against darkness. Ezekiel uses language like that of the other prophets because he is animated by a similar spirit. Repent, he cries, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin. Cast away from you all your transgressions whereby you have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will you die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dies, says the Lord. [Ezekiel 18:30-32] Wherefore in a subsequent passage he says: As I live, says the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked: but that the wicked turn from his way and live. [Ezekiel 33:11] These words show us that the mind must not through disbelief in the promised blessings give way to despair; and that the soul once marked out for perdition must not refuse to apply remedies on the ground that its wounds are past curing. (Letter 122: To Rusticus, 1)

In Egypt the monasteries make it a rule to receive none who are not willing to work; for they regard labour as necessary not only for the support of the body but also for the salvation of the soul. (Letter 125: To Rusticus, 11)

. . . that he may not be shut out by the bridegroom because being unprovided with the oil of good works his lamp has gone out. [Matthew 25:1-10] (Letter 125: To Rusticus, 20)

The same may be said of sanctification and of that chastity without which no man shall see the Lord. Each of these is a step on the upward way, yet none of them by itself will avail to win the virgin’s crown. The gospel teaches us this in the parable of the wise and foolish virgins; the former of whom enter into the bridechamber of the bridegroom, while the latter are shut out from it because not having the oil of good works they allow their lamps to fail. [Matthew 25:1-12] (Letter 130: To Demetrias, 11)

Baptismal Regeneration / Baptism & Salvation / Born Again

If it were possible for us to be always immersed in the waters of baptism, sins would fly over our heads and leave us untouched. The Holy Spirit would protect us. (Against the Pelagians, Bk. III, 1)

No sooner do they rise from the baptismal font, and by being born again and incorporated into our Lord and Saviour thus fulfil what is written of them, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are covered, than at the first communion of the body of Christ they say, Forgive us our debts, . . . (Against the Pelagians, Bk. III, 15)

If baptism makes a man new and creates a wholly new being, and if there is nothing of the old man held over in the new, that which once was in the old cannot be imputed to the new. (Letter 69: To Oceanus, 2)

All iniquities, we are told, are forgiven us at our baptism, and when once we have received God’s mercy we need not afterwards dread from Him the severity of a judge. The apostle says:— And such were some of you: but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. [1 Corinthians 6:11] All sins then are forgiven; it is an honest and faithful saying. (Letter 69: To Oceanus, 4)

What the true effect of baptism is, and what is the real grace conveyed by water hallowed in Christ, I will presently tell you . . . (Letter 69: To Oceanus, 5)

And it is to the grace of baptism that the prophecy of Micah refers: He will turn again, he will have compassion upon us: he will subdue our iniquities, and will cast all our sins into the depths of the sea. [Micah 7:19] (Letter 69: To Oceanus, 6)

Time would fail me were I to try to lay before you in order all the passages in the Holy Scriptures which relate to the efficacy of baptism or to explain the mysterious doctrine of that second birth which though it is our second is yet our first in Christ. (Letter 69: To Oceanus, 7)

. . . baptism ensures the salvation of the child . . . (Letter 107: To Laeta, 6)

. . . regeneration through the baptismal laver, . . . (Letter 123: To Ageruchia, 11)

Of those engendered of the seed of Adam no man is born without sin, and it is necessary even for babes to be born anew in Christ by the grace of regeneration. (Letter 144: To Optatus, 9)

Infused Justification / Sanctification

Amongst other passages, Paul the Apostle writes to the Romans: [Romans 6:21-22] What fruit then had ye at that time in the things whereof you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, you have your fruit unto sanctification, and the end eternal life. I suppose too that the end of marriage is death. But the compensating fruit of sanctification, fruit belonging either to virginity or to continence, is eternal life. (Against Jovinianus, Bk. I, 37)

Working Together with God (Synergy)

God created us with free will, and we are not forced by necessity either to virtue or to vice. Otherwise, if there be necessity, there is no crown. As in good works it is God who brings them to perfection, for it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that pities and gives us help that we may be able to reach the goal: so in things wicked and sinful, the seeds within us give the impulse, and these are brought to maturity by the devil. (Against Jovinianus, Bk. II, 3)

We are agreed, then, that in good works, besides our own power of choice, we lean on the help of God; in evil works we are prompted by the devil. (Against the Pelagians, Bk. I, 2)

Now where there is grace, this is not given in return for works but is the free gift of the giver, so that the apostles’ words are fulfilled: it is not of him that wills nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy. [Romans 9:16] And yet it is ours to will and not to will; and all the while the very liberty that is ours is only ours by the mercy of God. (Letter 130: To Demetrias, 12)

Since our wills are free, they argue, we are no longer dependent upon God; and they forget the Apostle’s words what have you that thou did not receive? Now if you received it why do you glory as if you had not received it? [1 Corinthians 4:7] A nice return, truly, does a man make to God when to assert the freedom of his will he rebels against Him! For our parts we gladly embrace this freedom, but we never forget to thank the Giver; knowing that we are powerless unless He continually preserves in us His own gift. As the apostle says, it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy. [Romans 9:16] To will and to run are mine, but they will cease to be mine unless God brings me His continual aid. For the same apostle says it is God which works in you both to will and to do. [Philippians 2:13] And in the Gospel the Saviour says: my Father works hitherto and I work. [John 5:17] He is always a giver, always a bestower. It is not enough for me that he has given me grace once; He must give it me always. I seek that I may obtain, and when I have obtained I seek again. (Letter 133: To Ctesiphon, 6)

Human Beings Helping Cause Others to be Saved

For me, too, I feel sure, she makes intercession and asks God to pardon my sins in return for the warnings and advice that I bestowed on her, when to secure her salvation I braved the ill will of her family. (Letter 39: To Paul, 7)

Another would perhaps describe how for his salvation you left the east and the desert and how you soothed me your dearest comrade by holding out hopes of a return: and all this that you might save, if possible, both your sister, then a widow with one little child, or, should she reject your counsels, at any rate your sweet little nephew. (Letter 60: To Heliodorus, 9)

Not content with assuring her own salvation she has sought yours also, in former days at home and now in the holy places. (Letter 122: To Rusticus, 1)

. . . yet you will not follow her when her salvation leads you to the threshold of the faith! P. . . your fellow-servant who daily sighs for your salvation and never despairs of it. While you are wandering about your own country . . . she is interceding for you in the venerable spots which witnessed the nativity, crucifixion and resurrection of our Lord and Saviour, and in the first of which He uttered His infant-cry. She draws you to her by her prayers that you may be saved, if not by your own exertions, at any rate by her faith. (Letter 122: To Rusticus, 4)

Falling Away from Salvation (Apostasy)

Therefore I keep under my body and bring it into subjection lest that by any means when I have preached to others I myself should be a castaway. [1 Corinthians 9:27] If Paul is afraid, which of us can venture to be confident? If David the friend of God and Solomon who loved God were overcome like other men, if their fall is meant to warn us and their penitence to lead us to salvation, who in this slippery life can be sure of not falling? (Letter 79: To Salvina, 7)

. . . without the gift of grace afterwards received and kept they cannot be saved. (Letter 85: To Paulinus, 2)

It is better to lose a portion of one’s substance than to imperil the salvation of one’s soul. It is better to lose that which some day, whether we like it or not, must be lost to us and to give it up freely, than to lose that for which we should sacrifice all that we have. . . . the sinner must not despair of salvation nor the righteous man rest secure in his virtue. (Letter 123: To Ageruchia, 15)

*
***

*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,600+ 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 InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

*

***

Photo credit: St. Jerome, by Leonello Spada (1576-1622). The first eyeglasses were invented in Italy, c. 1286 [!] [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: I compile writings from St. Jerome (c. 343-420) which substantiate his opposition to the novel 16th century Protestant innovation of “faith alone”.

2023-09-04T12:02:01-04:00

[see book and purchase information]

Francisco Tourinho is a Brazilian Calvinist apologist. He described his theological credentials on my Facebook page:

I have the respect of the academic community for my articles published in peer review magazines, translation of unpublished classical works into Portuguese and also the production of a book in the year 2019 with more than 2000 copies sold (with no marketing). In addition I have higher education in physical education from Piauí State University and theology from the Assemblies of God Biblical Institute, am currently working towards a Masters from Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary, and did post-graduate work at Dom Bosco Catholic University. Also, I am a professor in the Reformed Scholasticism discipline at the Jonathan Edwards Seminary in the postgraduate course in Philosophical Theology. [edited slightly for more flowing English]

My previous replies:

Justification: A Catholic Perspective (vs. Francisco Tourinho) [6-22-22]

Reply to Francisco Tourinho on Justification: Round 2 (Pt. 1) [+ Part 2] [+ Part 3] [7-19-22]

Biblical Justification: vs. Francisco Tourinho (Round 3, Pt. 1) [10-20-22]

This is an ongoing debate, which we plan to make into a book, both in Portugese and English. I use Google Translate to render his Portugese text into English. Francisco’s words will be in blue. Mine from my previous installment will be in green. I will try very hard to cite my own past words less, for two reasons: 1) the sake of relative brevity, and 2) because the back-and-forth will be preserved in a more convenient and accessible way in the book (probably with some sort of handy numerical and index system).

In instances where I agree with Francisco, there is no reason to repeat his words again, either. I’ll be responding to Francisco’s current argument and noting if and when he misunderstood or overlooked something I think is important: in which case I’ll sometimes have to cite my past words. I use RSV for all Bible passages (both mine and Francisco’s) unless otherwise indicated.

His current reply is entitled, Justificação pela fé: perspectiva protestante (contra Armstrong): Rodada 3. Parte 2. [Justification by Faith: Protestant Perspective (Contra Armstrong): Round 3. Part 2] (8-12-23). Note that he is replying only to Part II of my previous Round 2 reply. When he writes his replies to my Round 2, Part III and I counter-reply, the debate will be completed, by mutual agreement, except for brief closing statements. I get the (rather large) advantage of “having the last word” because Francisco chose the topic and wrote the first installment.

First, thanks again to Mr. Armstrong for the opportunity for the debate. Mr Armstrong begins this second round with a few short remarks, directing the reader to other parts of the debate, I suggest the reader take the advice if he so chooses. The first substantive argument is against my interpretation of James 2:1. He says:

James 2:1 is not about proving our faith to other persons by works, but about treating people equally, as classic Protestant commentaries agree:
*
Bengel’s Gnomen: The equality of Christians, as indicated by the name of brethren, is the basis of this admonition.
*
Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers: “Ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ,” wrote St. Paul to the proud and wealthy men of Corinth (2 Corinthians 8:9), “that, though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that ye through His poverty might be rich;” and, with more cogent an appeal, to the Philippians (James 2:4-7), “In lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves: look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others. Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God”i.e., Very God, and not appearance merely—nevertheless “thought not His equality with God a thing to be always grasped at,” as it were some booty or prize, “but emptied Himself” of His glory, “and took upon Him the shape of a slave.” Were these central, nay initial, facts of the faith believed then; or are they now? If they were in truth, how could there be such folly and shame as “acceptance of persons” according to the dictates of fashionable society and the world? “Honour,” indeed, “to whom honour” is due (Romans 13:7).
*
Meyer’s NT Commentary: In close connection with the thought contained in chap. Jam 1:27, that true worship consists in the exhibition of compassionate love, James proceeds to reprove a practice of his readers, consisting in a partial respect to the rich and a depreciation of the poor, which formed the most glaring contrast to that love. . . . their faith should not be combined with a partial respect of persons.
*
Calvin’s Commentaries: [H]e does not simply disapprove of honor being paid to the rich, but that this should not be done in a way so as to despise or reproach the poor; and this will appear more clearly, when he proceeds to speak of the rule of love. Let us therefore remember that the respect of persons here condemned is that by which the rich is so extolled, wrong is done to the poor, which also he shews clearly by the context . . .
It is clear that there is no contradiction between the two statements. Why would treating all people equally nullify that a Christian must necessarily have a good report before men?
*
Good works are directly in play in James 2:1, as opposed to trying to bolster one’s reputation. It’s not contradictory to having a good report, etc., but the latter notion is not to be found directly in the text. It’s not the main thought, and the essence of James 2 is what we are debating.
*
Furthermore, the text cannot be analyzed in isolation, as a connection was made with verse 7 which says: “Are they not the ones who slander the good name that was invoked upon you?” James 2:7,
*
I replied to that last time. 
*
and further on in the same chapter, Saint James says, “But someone will say, “You have faith; I have works”. Show me your faith without works, and I will show you my faith by works.” James 2:18. Note the emphasis on the word “show”, that is, what is the use of showing a faith that does nothing?
*
It’s the emphasis in that verse (as a sort of sub-topic derived from the main topic), but not of the entire chapter.
*
What’s the use of SAYING to have faith and not to have works? See how the whole event is directed to “one another”, the apostle places himself as a human being, limited in knowledge about the hearts of other people and provides us with a tool to know if someone who claims to have faith, really has a faith. True, namely, what is manifest by his works, by what is visible, for faith is not the work itself, nor can it be, but the way in which invisible faith can be seen before men. Mr. Armstrong is focusing on the prescribed good work itself, which is to treat everyone equally, but he forgets that in verse 18 St. James teaches us to demand that a person without works show his faith through works, and that we ourselves do so.
*
Again, I feel that I have already adequately answered: particularly in my section below, starting withJames, just like Paul, . . .”
*
***
*
This extends the same thought expressed in James 2:1-6: preferential treatment of the rich over the poor. Hence, James 1:6 (RSV, as throughout) states: “But you have dishonored the poor man. Is it not the rich who oppress you, is it not they who drag you into court?” The point is about Christian ethical hypocrisy and double standards, not about proving the validity of one’s faith to men, as if James supposedly isn’t talking about faith like Paul and Jesus do.
*
I repeat the previous argument, one thing does not cancel the other, in fact, the act of treating everyone equally is already a demonstration of true faith through good works.
*
If good works are this organically connected to faith (which is what James is plainly teaching), then how is it that Protestants try to separate what the New Testament does not separate? It reminds me of Matthew 19:6, where Jesus says: “What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.”
*
The Bible is always very condemning of two-faced hypocrisy. I don’t see how this proves that James is operating with an entirely different conception of works (“before men only, and not before God”). It doesn’t logically follow. To the contrary, James, just like Paul, ties both faith and works into salvation, not just flattering and God-honoring appearances before men. They are connected to salvation itself (1:12, 21-22; 2:14) as well as to justification (2:21, 24-25); both things directed “Godward” and not merely towards other persons.
*
In Mr. Armstrong’s conception, justification is the very process of salvation, for man, through good works, gradually becomes righteous. In the Reformed conception man is justified before God by a single work, the work of Christ, and good works are the effects of divine grace and a means of salvation, but not its cause.
*
We’ve been through this over and over. Catholics believe in an initial monergistic justification, just as Protestants do. But unlike them, we think there is a continuing sense of the word, too, and when the process continues, works are necessarily present and part and parcel of justification, since faith without works is dead (per James). In this way, good works cannot be abstractly separated from faith, according to the Bible. In other words, the grace-filled and grace-enabled works have something directly to do with salvation, too, as I have shown again and again throughout this debate, with tons of biblical indications provided.
*
But no matter how much clear scriptural support we provide (mine add up to 200 at least), Protestants continue to argue that sanctification and works are optional in terms of supposedly not being inherently tied to eschatological salvation. 
*
Having said that, it is important to note that these two assumptions are at issue when analyzing these verses, for when I say that I am justified by the work of Christ and not by my work, it does not make sense that a work, even if seen by God as good, can justify myself before Him, for the justifying work was Christ’s. I do not deny that good works must be done for God, not to boast of one’s deeds before men, but I do say that good works justify us in man’s sight, and are a proper means of salvation, but are not the cause of it, nor even justifies man before God, for we have the righteousness of Christ in us who believe.
*
It’s interesting to me to see the phrase,
a proper means of salvation, but . . . not the cause of it.” This is close to the Catholic position and a place where perhaps significant common ground can be found. If we say that good works are a “means of salvation,” then they are not  separated from salvation altogether. “Means” in English (at Dictionary.com) is defined as “the medium, method, or instrument used to obtain a result or achieve an end.” We can wholeheartedly agree that God’s grace and His death on the cross on our behalf are the ultimate causes (or “means”) of our salvation; yet if works are one of the “means” then they are included in the entire process. And that’s what Catholics are saying. I see at least two instances where the New Testament uses the word “means” in this sense:
John 11:4 But when Jesus heard it he said, “This illness is not unto death; it is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified by means of it.”
*
1 Corinthians 9:22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
A lot (if not most) of “all things” that Paul became in order to save others, were good works. Hence, he wrote, “by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me” (1 Cor 15:10). He doesn’t separate faith and works or grace and works. To him they are organically intertwined. Paul does the work but at the same time it was “by the grace of God” which was “with” him (ultimate cause). It’s biblical / Hebraic paradox. Paul, in the same context, referred to his own good works not only helping to save others, but also to save himself:
1 Corinthians 9:27 . . . I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.
Compare:
2 Timothy 4:5-7 As for you, always be steady, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfil your ministry. [6] For I am already on the point of being sacrificed; the time of my departure has come. [7] I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.
Paul didn’t just abstractly believe in the faith; he kept it, which is good works. He did “the work of an evangelist,” just as he is exhorting Timothy to do in his footsteps. The “good fight” and finishing “the race” are also good works. I wrote:
*
Just because God knew what would happen (being omniscient and timeless), it doesn’t follow that Abraham didn’t prove himself. To say that the “the test was not in relation to God, but in relation to men” makes little sense, seeing that no one was else was around at the time, and likely would not have even been told by Abraham what happened. Moreover, it’s very likely very few if any knew about it until Moses recorded the incident several hundred years later. Thirdly, does the immediate text indicate what Francisco claims? No. It indicates a relationship of his action to God, not other men:
Genesis 22:15-18 And the angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time from heaven, [16] and said, “By myself I have sworn, says the LORD, because you have done this, and have not withheld your son, your only son, [17] I will indeed bless you, and I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore. And your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies, [18] and by your descendants shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves, because you have obeyed my voice.” [my bolded and red emphases]
This action of Abraham — far from being simply a witness before men — is made the very basis upon which God makes a covenant with Abraham, and makes him the father of three major world religions, and the exemplar ever-after of faith itself.
*
First, I never said that Abraham was not tried by God, on the contrary, I said that Abraham was indeed tried, but in relation to himself, because for God there is no test, what test can there be for Abraham if God already knows if Abraham will pass or not?
*
God all through Scripture tests and tries and refines His followers (see many verses about that) and all the while He knows everything, including the future. So yes, there can indeed be a divine test, which remains true alongside the fact that God always knows what will be the result.
*
To say that a public justification makes little sense because no one was around is not a good argument, for there was Abraham, there was Isaac,
*
Abraham didn’t need to justify himself before Isaac, who already had full trust in him.
*
and there is God himself who anthropopathically acts like a man when he says, “Now I know that you fear God.” (Gn 22.12),
*
Yes, it is anthropopathism, but then this proves my point. Abraham didn’t have to prove anything to God. He simply had to be obedient and do the works that he was called to do, including moving to where God told him to go and being willing to sacrifice Isaac if indeed God commanded him to do that. And so the Bible says,
James 2:20-26 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, [23] and the scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”; and he was called the friend of God. [24] You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. [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.
This directly ties works inexorably into faith, as part and parcel of it, complete with a rather delightful express condemnation of “faith alone” (2:24). Man can and should be justified by works as well as faith. The two cannot be separated. And this is Catholic, biblical teaching. None of this is simply showing men that we have faith, which is rather elementary Christianity. In fact, Jesus condemns acts of piety for the sole purpose of impressing other men:
Matthew 6:1-6 “Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. [2] “Thus, when you give alms, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. [3] But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, [4] so that your alms may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you. [5] “And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. [6] But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.”

We simply do our good works in faith, and God, Who sees all, rewards us accordingly (which is merit).

and most importantly, we have this testimony today, without this proof, we would know an unbelieving Abraham, as described in the moment when the angel announces Sarah’s pregnancy.

Abraham proved that he feared God and believed. But it was not “before men.” It was a thing that was in and of itself, whether anyone saw it or not, and before God (for His sake, not God’s). But referring to works as a “means of salvation” offers hope that we can fundamentally agree on a key point in this vexed debate.
*
Francisco continues his answer to my biblical argument above:
*
We know that theologically it is impossible for God to have any cause outside of himself, as that would make him imperfect. The text has an anthropopathic character, as when God says that he repents or suggests an ignorance of information (Gen 3.9). Abraham’s action cannot be the basis for a divine action, but it certainly serves as a means to the fulfillment of a promise. The point is that in this particular verse, the author is not referring to justification, but to the moment when a covenant is made. Abraham justified only himself, as the covenant is for the blessing of all his offspring. Furthermore, the covenant or a covenant is also a public testimony of what has already been wrought spiritually, so that there being a covenant does not alter the fact that there was justification before men and that this attitude serves as a witness for us, since God cannot be caused, nor be surprised. After that I stated that: “Men who were ignorant of Abraham’s faith were given evidence that he was a righteous man.”
*
Francisco says that Genesis 22:15-18 does not refer to justification and tries to make it merely a thing having to do with God’s covenant with Abraham. The big problem with this is that it is explicitly contradicted by James 2:21-24, which states in no uncertain terms that Abraham was “justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar” (2:21) and that this extraordinary work was precisely what proved that Abraham “believed” and that the working out of his faith “was reckoned to him as righteousness” (2:22-23). Then, if the reader has still not grasped what is being taught, James reiterates: “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” (2:24).
*
Francisco claims that Genesis 22 isn’t about justification, but Scripture elsewhere states plainly that it is. In those cases, I go by the principle of “clear related passages interpret the less clear” rather than an unbiblical notion (justification merely before men).
*
Then why is it that the text that James refers to, doesn’t express that thought. Rather, it states that “because you have done this, and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will indeed bless you, . . . And your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies, and by your descendants shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves, because you have obeyed my voice” (Gen 22:16-18) [my bolded emphases].
*
As so often, the Catholic interpretation is far more grounded in the Bible.
*
Mr. Armstrong forgets that if the testimony were not public, it would not have reached us, in fact, once again Mr. Armstrong’s interpretation places divine attitudes based on human attitudes, which is theologically and philosophically impossible.
*
This confuses two things: supposed justification before men only, and public revelation. The first is an unbiblical falsehood and the second a great gift and necessary blessing.
*
The text takes on an anthropopathic character, just like the test that Abraham passed. Certainly, before a predicamental order (of creatures) it is correct to say that God blessed Abraham for his test of faith, but this is not the same transcendental angle, because in the angle of creatures, our attitudes precede grace, in the angle of God, grace precedes our attitudes.
*
In Catholic theology, all good things must be precede and caused by God’s grace, too.

Francisco then takes on my citations of James 2:14, 17, 20, 24, 26:

I have already touched on this and it proves my point, as Mr. Armstrong arbitrarily refused to comment on the highlighted parts where the heart of the matter it is not only an admonition to be holy, but also a public profession of faith.

I have addressed this repeatedly, including in my present reply.

Let’s see the verses that Mr. Armstrong quotes and pay attention to the highlighted parts:

Let’s!

[2:14, 17, 20] Note that St. James admonishes us to demand visible proof from those who believe. Believing is subjective, it cannot be proved, but the work is objective, although it is not an absolute proof, it is a proof superior to speech alone.
*
I say that this is not James’ point (which is that faith without works is dead). The only one that needs to be “shown” anything is the one described by James as a “shallow man” (2:20). Humorously (given the historic debate), James, throughout the passage, defines the shallow person as the one who believes in “faith alone” (the standard Protestant position). I can certainly understand how it would be embarrassing to have one’s position described in the Bible as “shallow”. Christians must always — we are duty-bound to — follow the Bible wherever it leads, whether it follows our predispositions and preferences or not. The latter must be guided by the Bible.
*
Francisco says, “St. James commands us to observe this detail.” He sure does. He’s referring to James 2:24: “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” That’s Catholic theology, folks.
*
This verse [James 2:26] has already been commented on by me, and I repeat my comment, I repeat:
“Does anyone see the spirits? We do not see the spirits (God does; men do not), but we know that someone is alive by his body through his movements, and the same is true of faith: we only know that it is there by works of piety.”
Mr Armstrong avoided commenting on my argument.
*
There was no need to, since it’s self-evident and we agree, as far as it goes.
*
[I also sadly note again at this point that Francisco decided in his prior reply to ignore many parts of my reply, which went against our initial agreement: which I lamented and protested]
*
James states: “I by my works will show you my faith” (2:18). It’s not our dispute, which is, rather, whether works are to be considered as necessary for salvation alongside faith: both caused by grace.
*
My opponent again quotes several verses, however, all of them dealing with sanctifying regeneration, and for this to speak in his favor, he must first prove that sanctification and justification are the same things, which he has already admitted to have his distinction.
*
Having just noted again that my opponent chooses to ignore portions of my argument (all of which I believe are important, or else I wouldn’t have written them!), he goes on to do this very thing, by choosing to ignore and not respond to no less than 18 passages (!!!). The whole point of them was to show that works were directly tied to salvation, and sanctification to justification and/or salvation (precisely what we are presently debating). Here are the portions that most clearly show that:
Acts 26:18 . . . those who are sanctified by faith in me. [Phillips: “made holy by their faith in me”]
*
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 1:30 . . . 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 Thessalonians 2:13 . . . God chose you from the beginning to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. [perhaps the clearest verse in the New Testament that directly connects sanctification to salvation itself: contrary to Protestant teaching]

Hebrews 10:10 And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. [cf. 10:14]

Since Francisco chose to ignore 18 passages last time, I suppose he will again ignore the selected six best ones above in his next reply. I don’t see how that shows that he has a superior case to mine. But his practice of ignoring whatever he wants to ignore (making out that it is off-topic or whatever . . .) violates the third of four principles we agreed to abide by in our first round (I wrote them; he agreed):

3) Both of us should try to actually interact point-by-point rather than picking and choosing; a serious debate where all the opponent’s arguments are grappled with.

He just did it again, folks.

I began this debate by affirming this connection between faith and works, citing the example of light and heat, an analogy praised by Mr. Armstrong himself. Of course, I assert again, faith is absolutely not to be separated from good works, for both faith and good works are an effect of regenerating grace. Whoever has faith must have good works, but good works and faith are different things, so we can indicate different effects without entering into contradiction.

I understand that Protestants think good works must follow from faith, lest it be a counterfeit faith. I posted articles — years ago — documenting how both Luther and Calvin taught that. That’s all water under the bridge. What I am discussing and seeking to prove from Scripture is that works cannot be totally separated from salvation.

We may put Mr Armstrong’s proposition as follows: Faith is never alone, therefore it does not justify alone. To which we reply, that it does not follow, for it would be like saying that the eye is never alone in the head, and therefore does not see alone, which is absurd. While as far as substance is concerned the eye is never alone, as far as vision is concerned it is alone. And so, although faith does not subsist without God’s love, hope, and other graces, yet, so far as the act of justification is concerned, it is unique.

This is an articulate description of the Reformed position, but it doesn’t disprove all the Bible passages I have set forth in favor of Catholic soteriology.

There is indeed a sense in which we prove the genuineness of our faith in the world and the Church, and provide a good witness. But this sense doesn’t exclude the organic connection between faith and works / justification and sanctification: directly tied to salvation:

That was my introduction to the 18 Bible passages that he chose to ignore, against our initial agreement. Instead of grappling with those, he made the following reply:
*
I repeat that I agree that there is a relationship between faith, good works, justification, sanctification and salvation, but this relationship is not always causal. We Reformed understand that there are multiple causes of salvation, but works are not included, as John Calvin states:

“If, however, we pay attention to the four types of causes that philosophers prescribe that must be considered in the effectuation of things, none of them will be found to fit works so that our salvation is consummated. For the Scripture everywhere proclaims that the heavenly Father’s mercy and gracious love to us are the Efficient Cause for purchasing us eternal life; the Material Cause is through Christ with his obedience, whereby he purchased righteousness for us; and what shall we say is the Formal Cause, or also instrumental, if not faith? And John understands these three at once in one sentence, when he says, ‘God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life’ (John 3 :16).

The problem is that the Bible also states (at least fifty times) that works are directly tied to ultimate salvation, eternal life, and entrance into heaven (as a “formal” or “instrumental” cause). St. Paul ties grace, faith, and works together in a harmonious whole: fifty times. All of that simply can’t be ignored. Scripture speaks too loudly.
“But the Apostle testifies that the Final Cause is not only the manifestation of divine justice, but also the praise of his goodness, where he also brings to remembrance, in eloquent terms, the other three. For thus he speaks to the Romans: ‘All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; but they are justified freely by his grace’ (Rom 3:23,34)” (John Calvin, Institutes 3.15.17)
As we can see, the same thing can be seen from several angles. No Reformed teaches that only faith, without works, can save, because if you have faith, you will have works, but we deny that good works are causes of salvation, but a consequence of it. Faith alone justifies, but faith in action is sanctification. I ask Mr. Armstrong, what are the efficient, material, formal, and final causes of man’s salvation? Where can good works be properly placed? Anxious for the answer.
*
They are placed alongside faith because faith without works is dead. It’s as simple as that. Scripture (fifty times) shows that they play a crucial role in man’s salvation.
*
Mr Armstrong, after citing several verses on sanctification, makes an interesting observation:
*
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? 
*
The text mentioned is this:
1 John 1:6-8 If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not live according to the truth; [7] but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. [8] If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
This is an interpretative error, because St. John is dealing with people already converted who need to sanctify themselves. Justification takes place at the moment of conversion through faith. The greatest proof that this text does not deal with a justification along the Roman Catholic lines, is that in the theology of Rome, a person who is actually justified is someone who is completely free of sins, however, the text itself states that it is impossible to be in this world completely sinless, for if it were possible, why would it be forbidden to say that he has no sin (verse 8), if that were true?
*
It’s a process. We fail, repent, confess, and try to do better, then fail and sin again, etc. But we can seek by God’s grace to do better and better. The sin that remains when we die gets cleansed in purgatory. The very next verse (1:9) says that we can at least potentially and/or temporarily be totally righteous: “he . . . will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”
*
In my favor I invoke the XV Council of Carthage, begun on May 1, 418, convened to refute the heresies of the Pelagian Celestius, when interpreting the text quoted by Mr. Armstrong, it says:
“Can. 6. It was also decided, with regard to the passage of Saint John the Apostle: “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us” [1 Jn 1,8]: Whoever judges can interpret this in the sense that out of humility it is necessary to say that we have sinned, not because it is true, it is anathema. The Apostle, in fact, goes on to argue: “If we have confessed our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all iniquity” [1 Jn 1:9]. Here it appears quite clearly that this is not said merely out of humility, but in the true sense. The Apostle, indeed, might have said, “If we said that we had no sin, we would exalt ourselves, and there is no humility in us.” But as he says, “We deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us,” it is clear enough that he who says he has no sin, speaks not what is true, but what is false.
Then he continues, now defending my interpretation of the text of James, where he presents himself as imperfect, even though he is a saint:
“Can. 7. It was also decided: Whoever claims that the saints, when in the Lord’s prayer they say: “Forgive us our debts” [Mt 6,12], say no in favor of themselves, since for them this prayer already it is not needed, but for the rest of your people, who are sinners; and that every saint does not say: “Forgive me my sins”, but “Forgive us our sins”, so that it may be understood that the just person asks this for others rather than for himself, it is anathema. Holy and righteous indeed was the Apostle James when he said: “We all err in many things” [James 3:2]. For why was “all” added, if not because this statement also agrees with the Psalm where it reads: “Do not enter into judgment with your servant, for not one living person will be justified in your sight” [Ps 143,2] ? And in the prayer of the most wise Solomon: “There is no human being who has not sinned” [1 Kings 8:46]. And in the book of holy Job: “In every man’s hand he puts a mark, that every man may know his weakness” [Job 37:7]. Therefore, also the holy and just Daniel says, in the prayer in plural form: “We have sinned, we have committed iniquity” [Dn 9,5.15] and the other things that he confesses with truth and humility; <and> Lest it be thought, as some understand, that he had spoken of his sins and not of those of the people, he says further on: “While I… was praying and confessing my sins and the sins of my people” [Dan 9 ,20] to the Lord my God; he did not mean “our sins,” but spoke of the sins of his people and his own, for as a prophet he foresaw that there would be those who misunderstood him so.”
Canon 8. It was also decided: Whoever claims that the words of the Lord’s prayer, when we say “Forgive us our debts” [Mt 6,12], are uttered by the saints in the sense of humility, not of truth, let him be anathema. For who could bear a person praying who lies, not to men, but to God himself, when with his lips he says that he wants to be forgiven, but with his heart that he has no debts to be forgiven him?” (XV Synod of CARTHAGE (others: XVI), started 1 May 418. Denzinger 0043-0090)

These things are true in a general sense, but can have exceptions. See my related article:

Sinless Creatures in the Bible: Actual & Potential (Including a Listing of Many Biblical Passages About Sin, Holiness, Blamelessness, Righteousness, Godliness, Perfection, and Sanctity) [10-20-22; greatly expanded on 7-27-23]

If Mr. Armstrong invokes some biblical commentators, I invoke the interpretation of a Synod of several Bishops of Carthage of the ancient Church. The Synod anathematizes the idea of Christian perfection as taught by Roman Catholics today, and therefore by Mr. Armstrong. The Council ratifies Augustine’s ideas against Celestius, a famous Pelagian of the time, and reveals to us where the origin of this idea of justification is a process of improvement. I can also invoke the greatest theologian of the Christian Church – Saint Augustine, who teaches that it is impossible for anyone to reach a state of Christian perfection:
“Dearest son Marcellin, I have recently prepared, at your request, works on infant baptism and the perfection of holiness in man. It seems that no one reached this perfection or will reach it in this life, with the exception of the only Mediator, who, immune from all sin, experienced human frailty in the likeness of the flesh of sin. After having read the aforementioned treatises, you wrote to me again confessing that what I said in the second of them caused you concern about the possibility of a human being living without sin, if he does not lack the will and divine help. However, this perfection did not and will not have any human being here in the world, except the one in which all will receive life (1 Cor 15,22).” (The Spirit and the Letter. Chapter 1.1.)
When Catholics talk about justification, we don’t talk about being perfect or free from absolutely any sin. This is quite obvious, in, for example, the section in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, on justification (#1987-1995). Likewise, Servant of God Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., defined justification similarly in his Pocket Catholic Dictionary (New York: Doubleday Image, 1980, 214-215):

Justification is a true removal of sin, and not merely having one’s sins ignored or no longer held against the sinner by God . . .

An infant is justified by baptism and the faith of the one who requests or confers the sacrament. Adults are justified for the first time either by personal faith, sorrow for sin and baptism, or by the perfect love of God . . . Adults who have sinned gravely after being justified can receive justification by sacramental absolution or perfect contrition for their sins.

“Perhaps you will answer me that these facts mentioned, which did not happen, but which could happen, would be divine works. But the fact that the human being lives without sin belongs to the human sphere and is the most excellent action, since through it full and perfect holiness is realized in its maximum expression. Therefore, it is unbelievable that there has been or could be someone who has performed this action, assuming that a human being can perform it.” (Augustine, The Spirit and the Letter. Chapter 2.2.)

The same St. Augustine also wrote about infused justification as follows:
Certainly this renewal does not take place in the single moment of conversion itself, as that renewal in baptism takes place in a single moment by the remission of all sins; for not one, be it ever so small, remains unremitted. But as it is one thing to be free from fever, and another to grow strong again from the infirmity which the fever produced; and one thing again to pluck out of the body a weapon thrust into it, and another to heal the wound thereby made by a prosperous cure; so the first cure is to remove the cause of infirmity, and this is wrought by the forgiving of all sins; but the second cure is to heal the infirmity itself, and this takes place gradually by making progress in the renewal of that image: which two things are plainly shown in the Psalm, where we read, Who forgives all your iniquities, which takes place in baptism; and then follows, and heals all your infirmities; and this takes place by daily additions, while this image is being renewed. (On the Trinity, xiv, 17, 23)
*
These are the diseases of a man’s old nature which, however, if we only advance with persevering purpose, are healed by the growth of the new nature day by day, by the faith which operates through love. (The Spirit and the Letter, 59)
*
[I]t is that we may cleave to Him, that we are cleansed from all stain of sins and evil passions, and are consecrated in His name. (City of God, x, 3)
*
[I]t is our duty at once to be thankful for what is already healed within us, and to pray for such further healing as shall enable us to enjoy full liberty, in that most absolute state of health which is incapable of addition, the perfect pleasure of God. For we do not deny that human nature can be without sin; nor ought we by any means to refuse to it the ability to become perfect, since we admit its capacity for progress—by God’s grace, however, through our Lord Jesus Christ. By His assistance we aver that it becomes holy and happy, by whom it was created in order to be so. (On Nature and Grace, 68 [LVIII] )
*
If God wished not that man should be without sin, He would not have sent His Son without sin, to heal men of their sins. This takes place in believers who are being renewed day by day, [2 Corinthians 4:16] until their righteousness becomes perfect, like fully restored health. (On Man’s Perfection in Righteousness, 3, 7)
*
[H]e has kept God’s ways who does not so turn aside as to forsake them, but makes progress by running his course therein; although, weak as he is, he sometimes stumbles or falls, onward, however, he still goes, sinning less and less until he reaches the perfect state in which he will sin no more. For in no other way could he make progress, except by keeping His ways. (On Man’s Perfection in Righteousness, 11, 27)
*
“And every man that has this hope towards Him purifies himself, even as He is pure,” [1 John 3:3] — purifies himself, not indeed by himself alone, but by believing in Him, and calling on Him who sanctifies His saints; which sanctification, when perfected at last (for it is at present only advancing and growing day by day), shall take away from us for ever all the remains of our infirmity. (On Man’s Perfection in Righteousness, 18, 39)
If Francisco wants to “cherry-pick” Augustine, to find what sounds at first glance most “Protestant” I’ll be more than happy (as an editor of a book of his quotations) to fill out the fuller picture of his teaching on infused justification and actual righteousness (not merely declared). Francisco cited two Augustine statements from one book. I cite him once from the same book and six more times from four other of his books.
*
If justification is a process of gradual improvement to perfection, the only solution for the Roman Catholic is despair, for there would be no salvation for him, since such perfection is impossible, if such perfection is impossible, we are left with that perfection is not ontological, but imputed on us. The text invoked by Mr Armstrong, 1 John 1:6-8, actually teaches the exact opposite of Roman Catholic doctrine.
*
Purgatory takes care of that. There is no despair here. The Lord chastens and refines those whom He loves. The real despair lies in those whom supralapsarian Calvinists claim are predestined to hell from all eternity, by God’s decree, or whom infralapsarian Calvinists declare predestined to damnation in light of the fall of man. Don’t just take my word for that. Read what John Calvin himself wrote:
The human mind, when it hears this doctrine, cannot restrain its petulance, but boils and rages as if aroused by the sound of a trumpet. . . . there could be no election without its opposite reprobation. . . . Those, therefore, whom God passes by he reprobates, and that for no other cause but because he is pleased to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines to his children. (Institutes, III, 23:1)
*
[T]he Lord has created those who, as he certainly foreknew, were to go to destruction, and he did so because he so willed. Why he willed it is not ours to ask, as we cannot comprehend, nor can it become us even to raise a controversy as to the justice of the divine will. (Institutes, III, 23:5)
*
Now, since the arrangement of all things is in the hand of God, since to him belongs the disposal of life and death, he arranges all things by his sovereign counsel, in such a way that individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction. (Institutes, 23:6)
*
Nor, indeed, is there any probability in the thing itself—viz. that man brought death upon himself merely by the permission, and not by the ordination of God; as if God had not determined what he wished the condition of the chief of his creatures to be. (Institutes, III, 23:8)
If my efforts and decisions are causes of justifying grace, that is, if good works produce justification before God and not just for men, it follows that something in God is caused by these works, therefore ignorant of what would happen, for a cause always grants to the caused something that the caused does not have, therefore every cause perfects the caused. If it is true, not only from the creaturely point of view, but also from the divine point of view, that it was Abraham’s attitudes that caused the divine attitude to bless him; if it is true that there has been a true test concerning God, as Mr Armstrong claims, then, however much my opponent may deny it, he cannot escape the logical consequence that his argument presupposes divine ignorance, hence passive potency in God. It will take much more than a mere assertion to prove that Mr. Armstrong’s argument does not make God passive.
*
This doesn’t follow. God ordains from all eternity the fact that a person will respond to His grace and perform works in order to merit salvation, in conjunction with grace and his faith. Augustine famously stated that merit was “God crowning His own gifts.” None of that entails any change, limitation, or ignorance in God. It was all in His providence from all eternity (see Gen 50:20; Ezra 6:22). Francisco is confused in his theology proper and thinks that human free will would actually limit God.
*
St. Paul concludes that Abraham cannot boast precisely because he was not justified by any work. Mr Armstrong cannot agree with St. Paul’s conclusion without agreeing with its premise, which he does. If no one can boast before God, then there is no merit in good works. The answer that logically follows from God’s mercy being our all is that nothing comes from us that causes salvation. In the process of salvation, man enters with sin and God with mercy.
*
Paul didn’t think there was nothing he could boast about. He teaches that we can boast about our works and that they are simultaneously caused by the grace of God. He doesn’t play the “either/or” and false dichotomy game:
Romans 15:17 In Christ Jesus, then, I have reason to be proud of my work for God.
*
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. (cf. 1:14; 5:12)
*
2 Corinthians 7:14 For if I have expressed to him some pride in you, I was not put to shame; but just as everything we said to you was true, so our boasting before Titus has proved true. (cf. 10:8, 13; 11:10; 12:9)
*
Galatians 6:4 But let each one test his own work, and then his reason to boast will be in himself alone and not in his neighbor.
Our good works enabled by God’s grace are equated with God’s own works. It’s for this reason that they are meritorious and put us in good stead with God:
*
I want to explain the reasons why it is impossible for there to be merit before God in any good human work. The great Francis Turretin lists five conditions for one to have merit, they are:
*
1 – that the “work is undue” – for no one deserves, upon payment, what he owes (Luke 17.10), he only satisfies;
*
2 – let it be ours – because it cannot be said that someone deserves what belongs to another;
*
3 – that it be absolutely perfect and free from all stain – for where sin is, there can be no merit;
*
4 – that it is equal and proportionate to the reward and payment; otherwise it would be a gift, not merit;
*
5 – that reward is due to that work on the basis of justice – hence an “undue work” is commonly defined as one that “makes a reward due in the order of justice”
*
After listing these five conditions, he explains why good human works do not fit the aforementioned conditions:
*
1 – They are not undue, but due; for all that we are and can do, all this we owe to God, to whom we are, for that reason, called debtors (Luke 17:10; Romans 8:12).
*
Of course we owe it all to God, but we still get credit for such works (biblical “both/and” paradox):
Matthew 6:6 But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you. (cf. 6:1, 4, 18)
*
Matthew 10:41-42 He who receives a prophet because he is a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward, and he who receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward. [42] And whoever gives to one of these little ones even a cup of cold water because he is a disciple, truly, I say to you, he shall not lose his reward. (cf. Mk 9:41)
*
Matthew 25:20-21 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.’ [21] 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.’
*
Mark 10:29-30 Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, [30] who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life.
*
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; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the selfish.
*
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.
*
Romans 2:10 . . . glory and honor and peace for every one who does good . . .
*
1 Corinthians 3:14 If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward
*
1 Corinthians 15:10 . . . I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me.

The Bible repeatedly states that God even shares His glory with His creatures.

2 – None is ours, but they are all gifts of grace and fruits of the Spirit (James 1:17; Phil 2:13; 2Co 3:5).

*
A gift, by definition, becomes ours, once we receive it. If I get a gift of a new suit for my birthday, it’s mine after my birthday party is over. This is simply more Protestant unbiblical “either/or” reasoning. Accordingly, Paul writes, “Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith” (Rom 12:6). We make these gratuitous divine gifts our own and appropriate them, and do something with them:
Philippians 2:12-13 . . . work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; [13] for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
*
1 Timothy 4:14-16 Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophetic utterance when the council of elders laid their hands upon you. [15] Practice these duties, devote yourself to them, so that all may see your progress. [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 4:1 As each has received a gift, employ it for one another, as good stewards of God’s varied grace:
3 – They are not perfect, but are admitted despite their various impurities (Rm 7.18; Gl 5.17,18; Is 64.6).
*
Of course; no one ever said otherwise.
*
4 – They are not equal to future glory, because there is no proportion between the finite and temporal and the infinite and eternal (Rm 8.18; 2 Co 4.17).
*
People receive differential rewards in heaven (just as we receive differing levels of grace):
Daniel 12:3 And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament; and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever.
*
Matthew 6:20 but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal.

Matthew 16:27 For the Son of man . . .  will repay every man for what he has done.

Romans 2:5-6 But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed. [6] For he will render to every man according to his works: (cf. Prov 24:12)
*
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.

5 – The reward promised by them is merely free and undue and is to be expected not on the basis of the internal merit of the work and its intrinsic dignity, but solely on the very free esteem of it by him who crowns it (Rom 6.23; 4.4; 11.6 ). Hence also it appears, that there is no merit, properly so called, of man before God, no matter what state he may be in. Thus Adam himself, if he had persevered, would not have merited life in strict justice, though (by a certain condescension [synchatabasin]) God covenantally promised him life on condition of perfect obedience (which is called meritorious on that ground). covenant in a wider sense, because it was to be, as it were, the foundation and meritorious cause in view of which God had bestowed upon him life).

Once again, Francisco ignored commenting upon the six passages I provided, that back up my last-cited statement above. My general answer to this argument that merit is unbiblical are the following articles:

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Given the above reasons, human works cannot match divine work.
*
No one ever said they could!
*
In short, if there is no merit, it also does not justify.
*
In short, there is such a thing as merit, as I have shown with tons of Scripture, and it plays a role in justification and salvation.
*
Mr. Dave Armstrong has spared himself from commenting on the several parallel verses I have used in which I abundantly prove that the term can be properly used of a justification before men, as, when I said that St. Luke narrates that, after hearing Christ, the people justified to God (Luke 7:29).

I have covered that topic in great depth; surely a sufficient answer.

St. Luke never meant that the people impute or infuse justice to God, which would be absurd, since God is justice itself, but they have given God and his doctrine the praise they deserve.

Amen!

Mr. Armstrong does not attack the relationship I make with the use of the term, he diverts the focus and uses a quotation that does not contradict what I say, but that makes a more pastoral analysis of 2.24. He writes:
*
Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (one-volume edition, pp. 172-173) disagrees as to the meaning of James 2:24:

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

After that, I quote Luke 16.15, with proof that there is a justification before men: “You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts; for what is exalted among men is an abomination before God.”

Francisco wants to argue that there is a positively encouraged justification before men, but here Jesus is condemning (not commending) the Pharisees for wanting to do this, as I elaborated upon last time (I won’t repeat it).

Mr Dave Armstrong did not understand the crux of the matter. When I say that the text proves that there is justification before men (something that even Mr. Armstrong assumes exists), I do not cite as an example of someone who succeeded in trying to do so, but I say that the text presents someone who tries to do so. doing it precisely because it is true, but doing it the wrong way. And the reason is what I mentioned in the previous article: the Pharisees tried to show works without faith, that is, they tried to justify themselves before men for their own ego, not to glorify God.I claim that the text proves that Scripture teaches both justifications, as Dave Armstrong himself has already confirmed.

Fair enough, but this isn’t the same dynamic as in James 2, which is the case Francisco was trying to make: to try to differentiate that from what Protestants regard as “standard” Pauline soteriology. They have to do so because James includes works in the equation. But of course, Paul also teaches the same thing, many times.

After that, I quote Hebrews 11 to prove that there is a need for a public testimony of faith, a justification before men, but that the works quoted there do not justify before God.

To the contrary, the writer states that “by it [faith] the men of old received divine approval” (11:2) and that “Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he received approval as righteous, God bearing witness . . .” (11:4) and that “Enoch . . . was attested as having pleased God” (11:5). We “please” God by means of faith (11:6) and works of faith, just as these heroes of the faith did.

The ancient Hebrews and biblical writers thought in both/and terms and, often, paradoxical terms. God saves us, but we save ourselves and others (many passages). We work together with God and His work is ours in a sense. He blesses us with His grace to do good works, and then gives us credit for it. God even shares His glory with us, and the Bible makes the extraordinary statement that we “suffer with” Christ (Rom 8:17) and “become partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet 1:4).

I agree that divine action does not destroy the nature of the second cause, but when the same work is attributed to God and men, it is never in the same sense, it is never taken univocally. If God does good and man does good, the two works have different meanings, since God acts as the First Cause and man acts as the Secondary Cause.

We totally agree. But by the same token, Francisco is in effect granting the presence of merit on man’s part; just in a far lesser sense than what God does for us, in enabling us to be able to achieve merit and reward in the first place.

It is true that according to the angle of creatures, we have merits, we can be good and receive credit for it, because in this vector, good works precede grace, so we have merits, but it is not the same from the angle of God, except when Scripture presents Him in an anthropopathic way, because in this vector, grace precedes good works, so we have no merits.

Francisco makes this statement, but I have contradicted it over and over with explicit Scriptural counter-arguments. Readers must choose what they prefer: Francisco’s assertions, or my contentions that I massively back up with Holy Scripture at every turn.

Francisco replied to my extended commentary on Hebrews 11 in my previous reply, as follows:

Certainly, when we work faith through good works, because it is a commandment, God is pleased with those who fulfill it, but it does not follow that God justifies that person through these works.

Alert for the following point: we are talking about justification before God. We are talking about the work of God towards man and from the divine perspective. In all texts, in addition to presenting a perspective of creatures, it does not report God justifying a man because of his work.

James disagrees:

James 2:21-25 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? [22] You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, [23] and the scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”; and he was called the friend of God. [24] You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. [25] And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works . . . 

This doesn’t fit with Protestant soteriology, so they try to reinterpret the passage, but it doesn’t fly, as I have been showing. The language is too clear. I have often noticed (to my delight) that God makes passages very clear and straightforward when it comes to refuting Protestant errors. God knew these errors would arise fifteen centuries after Christ, so He provided the refutations and remedies in crystal clear Bible passages. Nothing is more clear than “a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” or “faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead” (Jas 2:17).

In Hebrews 11.4, quoted by Mr. Armstrong, the text says that by faith Abel’s sacrifice was greater than that of Cain, and therefore he obtained testimony that he was righteous, faith was the great driving force of justification.

He made a “sacrifice” by “faith” and the combination (not faith alone) was what brought about his “approval as righteous” by God. Once again, it’s faith and works: precisely as in the Catholic understanding. See how the work was directly involved and not secondary and optional? Otherwise, the sacrifice wouldn’t be mentioned. Abel would simply be described as having faith in God, by which he was made righteous.

Throughout the 11th chapter the testimony is unanimous that however good the works of the saints were, it was by faith that they gained their value, their dignity, and all their excellencies; hence it follows, that the fathers pleased God by faith alone, for the work of Cain and Abel were the same, but the difference was faith. In addition, the text says that Abel is dead, but speaks, that is, because of his faith, although he is dead “he is still spoken”, his testimony remained for generations as a public example of faith.

Faith is clearly the focus of the chapter, but it’s not separated from works. This is always the Catholic point in this debate, and what we relentlessly, ubiquitously see in Scripture. I already proved this from Hebrews 11 last time, as far as I am concerned, and to a lesser extent again this time.

Francisco discusses Galatians 2:21: “I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification were through the law, then Christ died to no purpose.”

There is a disagreement on the meaning of “law” used in the verse, which changes a lot. For Mr. Armstrong, the law mentioned by St. Paul is the Mosaic sacramentalist laws, it is not a matter of every good work, as repeated several times by him. So what I mean is that no good work, none at all, can justify it. What Mr. Armstrong means is that no works of the Mosaic ceremonial law can justify, but that such good works as love, hope, and righteousness can justify. For this he used the text of Galatians 5:6: “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails, but faith working through love.” with faith.

This is true. I agree with the “new perspective on Paul,” which is a Protestant trend in theology, that corresponds nicely with traditional Catholic teaching. See N. T. Wright’s in-depth exposition on that topic.

To refute the first part, I will once again invoke the greatest of all theologians, Saint Augustine of Hippo, as he says about the separation between Mosaic law and the law of love:

“But say the Pelagians, “We praise God, the author of our justification, acknowledging that he has given us the law, under the view of which we know how to live.” They do not pay attention to what they read: For in his sight no man will be justified by the deeds of the Law (Rm 2,20). This justification can be given before men, but not before God, who searches hearts and the most hidden will, in which he sees what he would like, if it were lawful, he who fears the Law, although he practices something else. . And, to avoid a distorted interpretation, stating that the Apostle was referring in that sentence to that law which in the ancient sacraments included in figure many precepts, among which the circumcision of the flesh that children should receive on the eighth day after birth (Lev. 12,3), adds in the continuation to which law he was referring and said: For by the Law is the knowledge of sin (Rm 20,22). Therefore, it is a question of that Law of which he later said: For I did not know concupiscence except through the Law. I would not have known concupiscence, if the Law had not said: You shall not covet (Rm 7,7). What else does it mean, Through the law comes only the knowledge of sin?” (The Spirit and the Letter. Chapter 8.14)

I thoroughly documented St. Augustine’s Catholic view of infused justification above; no need to repeat that. I have many passages from Augustine (who Francisco calls “the greatest of all theologians”) about the falsity of faith alone and faith without works, and how works ties into salvation, in my book, The Quotable Augustine. For the sake of brevity and readers’ patience, I’ll cite only some of the most clear ones:

Who is he that believes not that Jesus is the Christ? He that does not so live as Christ commanded. For many say, “I believe”: but faith without works saves not. Now the work of faith is Love, . . . (Homilies on the First Epistle of John, 10, 1)

What the Lord Himself, to pass over other things, when that rich man sought of Him, what good thing he should do, that he might attain life eternal, let them call to mind what He answered; If thou wilt come, said He, unto life, keep the Commandments. [Matthew 19:17] But he said, What? Then the Lord made mention of the Commandments of the Law, Thou shall not kill, Thou shall not commit adultery, and the rest. Whereupon when he had made answer that he had performed these from his youth, He added also a Commandment of perfection, that he should sell all that he had, and give in alms unto the poor, and have treasure in heaven, and follow the same Lord. Let them then see that it was not said unto him that he should believe and be baptized, by the aid of which alone those men think that a man comes unto life; but commandments of morals were given unto the man, which certainly without faith cannot be guarded and observed. Neither, however, because in this place the Lord appears to have been silent as to the suggestion of faith, do we lay down and contend, that we are to state commandments of morals alone to men who desire to attain unto life. For both are connected the one with the other, as I said before; because neither can the love of God exist in a man who loveth not his neighbour, nor the love of his neighbour in him who loveth not God. And so at times we find that Scripture makes mention of the one without the other, either this or that, in place of the full doctrine, so that even in this way we may understand that the one cannot exist without the other: because both he who believes in God ought to do what God commands; and he who therefore does it because God commands it, must of necessity believe in God. (On Faith and Works, 20)

And the apostle himself, after saying, “By grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast;” [Ephesians 2:8-9] saw, of course, the possibility that men would think from this statement that good works are not necessary to those who believe, but that faith alone suffices for them; and again, the possibility of men’s boasting of their good works, as if they were of themselves capable of performing them. To meet, therefore, these opinions on both sides, he immediately added, “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God has before ordained that we should walk in them.” [Ephesians 2:10] . . . Now, hear and understand. “Not of works” is spoken of the works which you suppose have their origin in yourself alone; but you have to think of works for which God has moulded (that is, has formed and created) you. For of these he says, “We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works.” (On Grace and Free Will, 20)

Let us therefore not flatter the Catholic who is hemmed in with all these vices, nor venture, merely because he is a Catholic Christian, to promise him the impunity which holy Scripture does not promise him; nor, if he has any one of the faults above mentioned, ought we to promise him a partnership in that heavenly land. (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, iv, 19, 27)

He wills not to distinguish faith from work, but declared faith itself to be work. For it is that same faith that works by love. [Galatians 5:6] (Lectures on the Gospel of John, 25, 12)

[B]y means of the free-will naturally implanted within him, he enters on the way which is pointed out to him, and by persevering in a just and pious course of life, deserves to attain to the blessedness of eternal life. (On the Spirit and the Letter, 4)

I have written a book on this subject, entitled Of Faith and Works, in which, to the best of my ability, God assisting me, I 98 have shown from Scripture, that the faith which saves us is that which the Apostle Paul clearly enough describes when he says: “For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision avails anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith which works by love.” [Galatians 5:6] But if it works evil, and not good, then without doubt, as the Apostle James says, “it is dead, being alone.” [James 2:17] The same apostle says again, “What does it profit, my brethren, though a man say he has faith, and have not works? Can faith save him?” [James 2:14] And further, if a wicked man shall be saved by fire on account of his faith alone, and if this is what the blessed Apostle Paul means when he says, “But he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire;” [1 Corinthians 3:15] then faith without works can save a man, and what his fellow-apostle James says must be false. And that must be false which Paul himself says in another place: “Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners; shall inherit the kingdom of God.” [1 Corinthians 6:9-10] For if those who persevere in these wicked courses shall nevertheless be saved on account of their faith in Christ, how can it be true that they shall not inherit the kingdom of God? (Enchiridion: Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Love, 67)

St. Augustine also firmly held to the notion of merit (which Calvin, Calvinists, Protestants, and Francisco vehemently deny). I have compiled no less than 25 of his statements about that, but I’ll restrict my citation here to the crystal-clear, undeniably “Catholic” portions:

We disapprove the error of those, who think that there are no merits of souls before You. (The Soliloquies, i, 3)

And according to the cleanness of My deeds He will recompense Me, who has given Me to do well by bringing Me forth into the broad place of faith. (Explanations of the Psalms, 18:20 [18:21] )

[N]ot only for the breadth of faith, which works by love; but also for the length of perseverance, will the Lord reward Me according to My righteousness. (Explanations of the Psalms, 18:24 [18:25] )

. . . cures more frequent by the merits of Martyrs. (Explanations of the Psalms, 119:157 [119, 155] )

The personal merit . . . was different in the two cases. (Against the Letters of Petilian the Donatist, ii, 47, 110)

For I would ask whether you use the Lord’s prayer in your devotions? For if you do not use that prayer, which our Lord taught His disciples for their use, where have you learned another, proportioned to your merits, as exceeding the merits of the apostles? (Against the Letters of Petilian the Donatist, ii, 104, 237)

For if the sanctity of baptism be according to the diversity of merits in them that administer it, then as merits are diverse there will be diverse baptisms; . . . (Lectures on the Gospel of John, 6, 8)

Merit is accumulating now to the believer, and then the reward is paid into the hand of the beholder. . . . As far as each one has been a partaker of You, some less, some more, such will be the diversity of rewards in proportion to the diversity of merits . . . (Lectures on the Gospel of John, 68, 3)

. . . persons whose merits are so good, . . . (On the Care of the Dead, 2)

Therefore, it is in this life that all the merit or demerit is acquired, which can either relieve or aggravate a man’s sufferings after this life. (Enchiridion: Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Love, 110)

The good, indeed, shall receive their reward according to the merits of their own good-will, but then they received this very good-will through the grace of God . . . (Epistle 215 [1]: to Valentinus [426] )

“I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight; I have finished my course; I have kept the faith.” [2 Timothy 4:6-7] He enumerates these as, of course, now his good merits; so that, as after his evil merits he obtained grace, so now, after his good merits, he might receive the crown. . . . (On Grace and Free Will, 14)

If, then, your good merits are God’s gifts, God does not crown your merits as your merits, but as His own gifts. (On Grace and Free Will, 15)

[S]ince even that life eternal itself, which, it is certain, is given as due to good works, is called by so great an apostle the grace of God, although grace is not rendered to works, but is given freely, it must be confessed without any doubt, that eternal life is called grace for the reason that it is rendered to those merits which grace has conferred upon man. (On Rebuke and Grace, 41)

So — sorry to inform Francisco — Augustine is not some sort of proto-Calvin. He’s a thoroughgoing Catholic.

Augustine attributes to the Pelagians the interpretation that deduces from Paul’s texts a separation between sacramental/preceptual Mosaic law and the good work, whatever it may be, since adultery, covetousness and all sin comes through the knowledge of the law, and not doing good works is sin, therefore it is also part of the law. St. Augustine’s thinking refutes Mr. Armstrong on several fronts, supporting my thinking about justification before men and not before God through good works, it also supports my interpretation that good works belong to what St. Paul calls “works of the law” ”which do not justify, which can be applied to the texts of Romans, James and Galatians. Now Mr. Armstrong’s whole argument rests on this distinction between the Mosaic law and the good work, where he sets good works apart from the Mosaic law in every text where St. Paul says that the works of the law do not justify. By proving this distinction to be exegetically impossible, every one of Mr Armstrong’s arguments fall down like a house of cards. Unless Mr. Armstrong proves that he has a better interpretation of these texts than St. Augustine, I would not need to write another line in this debate.

Jason A. Myers, author of the article, “Law, Lies and Letter Writing: An Analysis of Jerome and Augustine on the Antioch Incident (Galatians 2:11–14)”, Scottish Journal of Theology, published by Cambridge University Press, 10 April 2013, disagrees with Francisco’s interpretation of Augustine:

[C]ritics of the NPP [“New Perspective on Paul”] often turn to the reformers such as Calvin and Luther to defend the traditional reading of Paul and trace this traditional reading back to Augustine. For the critics, church tradition stands on the side of the traditional reading.

This article seeks to highlight an often neglected early church view on one aspect of the NPP, that of Paul and the Law. This article highlights one of the fiercest exchanges between two church fathers. Through a series of letters, Jerome and Augustine corresponded on Jerome’s interpretation of Galatians 2 and the Antioch incident. For Augustine the pastor, nothing less than the veracity of scripture was at stake and Augustine mounts a defence of Paul’s actions in Galatians 2 in response to Jerome’s insistence of an agreed-upon lie between Peter and Paul. In the process of Augustine’s rebuttal of Jerome, he notes that Paul followed the law without ‘pretence’ and that there was a period in early Christianity where Jewish Christians practised law observance. Augustine highlights the divine origin of the Mosaic law, which renders a positive role for the law in early Christianity, and notes that the negative critique of the law comes within the context of a Gentile audience, but did not have implications for Jewish Christians. Augustine rightly notices and raises the important context of Paul’s negative statements on the law and offers a nuanced discussion of Paul’s treatment of the law.

Augustine notes some of the important conclusions drawn by the NPP, namely a positive view of the law and its practice by Paul and other Jewish Christians. He also notes the various ways the law functions in Jewish and Gentile contexts. Such a positive view of Paul and the law may appear striking to many, but must be considered by those who are otherwise critical of the NPP. This article shows that there was at least one voice, among others, within the early church which advocated for a positive reading of Paul and the law. The history of interpretation of Galatians 2 offers many insights for contemporary Pauline scholars which ought to be heeded in future discussions. This article, by highlighting the exchange between Jerome and Augustine, seeks to give the NPP a historical ‘rootedness’ and placement within the history of interpretation.

My argument, still unanswered, is that knowing that justification, according to the Church of Rome, is an infusion of righteousness and the merits of Christ, and, if there is a distinction between good work and the works of the law, and if the works of the law cannot justify, that is, it cannot merit Christ’s merits, but other good works are justifying, therefore they can merit Christ’s merits, then Christ’s work would become imperfect. I explain: justification is not only an improvement, but also a process of removal of blame.

I answered this last time by stating: “They can merit reward” (as opposed to “meriting Christ”). Here is a further reply, from the article “Merit” in the Catholic Encyclopedia (1911):

Christian faith teaches us that the Incarnate Son of God by His death on the cross has in our stead fully satisfied God’s anger at our sins, and thereby effected a reconciliation between the world and its Creator. Not, however, as though nothing were now left to be done by man, or as though he were now restored to the state of original innocence, whether he wills it or not; on the contrary, God and Christ demand of him that he make the fruits of the Sacrifice of the Cross his own by personal exertion and co-operation with grace, by justifying faith and the reception of baptism. It is a defined article of the Catholic Faith that man before, in, and after justification derives his whole capability of meriting and satisfying, as well as his actual merits and satisfactions, solely from the infinite treasure of merits which Christ gained for us on the Cross (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. VI, cap. xvi; Sess. XIV, cap. viii).

Trent specifically denied that we could “merit Christ’s merits.” So this whole line of argument is a straw man and non sequitur.

If even after we have Christ in our heart, the guilt remains in us, having to be expiated through our good works, this makes the work of Christ imperfect, for it was not able to expiate all the guilt and make me righteous before God in the moment I receive it. Either we have Christ, or we don’t have Christ. That is the argument, and it remains unanswered.

Servant of God Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J. (died 2000), who received me into the Church, wrote the Foreword of my first book, and baptized my first two sons, wrote about what Catholics believe baptism does:

The first and most practical effect of Baptism is to remove the guilt of original sin and restore the corresponding title to heavenly glory. What does this mean? It means that all the guilt of all the sin a person may have on his soul is taken away. A baptized child who has not reached the age of reason, if it dies, has an immediate title to the beatific vision. After the age of reason, a baptized person is freed not only from original sin but all the sins committed, and all the punishment due to even a lifetime of personal sins. (“The Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation,” 1998)

That sounds quite identical to Francisco’s description of howthe work of Christ” is “able to expiate all the guilt and make [us] righteous before God in the moment [we] receive it.” We simply place this event at baptism. Any guilt after that is the result of actual sin, and St. John addresses that, and its remedy:

1 John 1:8-10 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. [9] If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. [10] If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

1 John 2:1-2 My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; [2] and he is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

Francisco then cites verses I set forth, as follows:

It [righteousness] ultimately and always comes from Christ alone and then we also make it our own as well (both/and):

Mark 16:20 And they went forth and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them . . .

Romans 15:17-19  In Christ Jesus, then, I have reason to be proud of my work for God. [18] For I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has wrought through me to win obedience from the Gentiles, by word and deed,

1 Corinthians 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 3:9 . . . we are God’s fellow workers . . . (KJV: “labourers together with God”)

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.

2 Corinthians 13:3 . . . Christ is speaking in me . . .

Philippians 2:13 for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

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.

James 5:20 . . .  whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death . . .

Now let’s see how many of these passages he will address and deal with.

I disagree and reject the charge that we are doing an unnecessary either/or. Dichotomies exist in Scripture, but this is not the case. While I do not interpret it in the same way as Mr Armstrong does, this does not mean that I am excluding any part of any verse from my explanations.

Good and fair enough; duly noted. Then I will look closely to see exactly how you interpret these passages.

When Mr. Armstrong says that righteousness “ultimately and always comes from Christ alone and then we also make it our own as well (both/and)”, I see no reason to disagree with this sentence, for indeed, through faith we appropriate the works of Christ , but this requires further explanation, it is obvious that there are differences between what I am saying and what Mr Armstrong has in mind.

Glad to hear it. We do differ somehow, though, and whatever the difference is will be examined now.

First, that there is cooperation between God and man, that is a fact, but creatures are like subordinate agents, men subordinate to God, not like equal agents with God.

We completely agree.

I have already explained and I repeat, there is human merit when we look only to men, but none of the apostles dare, at any time, to boast before God.

To the contrary, Paul wrote:

Galatians 6:4 But let each one test his own work, and then his reason to boast will be in himself alone and not in his neighbor.

This is simply a man examining himself. It has nothing to do with other men observing. He is testing his own work, which value God will judge, as Paul notes three verses later:

Galatians 6:7-9  Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. [8] For he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption; but he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. [9] And let us not grow weary in well-doing, for in due season we shall reap, if we do not lose heart.

So it’s all before God, and Paul stated that it was a legitimate reason for him to “boast.”

If anyone is proud, it is in front of other men,

That’s not always true, either:

Philippians 2:16 holding fast the word of life, so that in the day of Christ I may be proud that I did not run in vain or labor in vain.

Hebrews 3:6 . . . And we are his house if we hold fast our confidence and pride in our hope.

Romans 15:17 In Christ Jesus, then, I have reason to be proud of my work for God.

but always emphasizing that his works would not be possible without God.

As Paul does in the next verse, in the following example:

Romans 15:18 For I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has wrought through me to win obedience from the Gentiles, by word and deed,

If the apostles cannot and do not boast of such works,

But they do, so the premise is wrong.

neither can they say that these works are causes of justification.

I’ve gone over this subject matter many times by now. The Bible teaches (as I have shown more than hundred times now) that works contribute as the cause of our justification, alongside grace and faith.

Francisco cites 1 Corinthians 15:10 and comments:

It is clear that Paul ascribes nothing to himself in regard to this work, though he may do it before men, but in relation to God he claims to have done nothing. At the same time, in which he works, this work is as if it were not him.

He does say that he did something, in asserting, “I worked harder than any of them.” If in fact he thought that he did absolutely nothing, the verse would be half as long as it is, and would read, “But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain.” There would be no reason whatsoever to include the clause I just noted. It would confuse readers. But it’s “both/and” biblical paradox. Paul reiterates that he did something; that he was not passive or without free will, in the next verse, too: “so we preach and so you believed.” That is not ascribing nothing to himself”; sorry!

Francisco then decided (thank you kind sir!) to address another of my passages, Philippians 2:13 (for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure”):

this verse shows us, contrary to what Mr. Armstrong tries to insinuate, not a synergism in which there is cooperation between two equal parts, but a subordinate synergism, in which human cooperation generates an effect in reality, but only because God operated the will and the doing, that is, everything comes from God to man, nothing goes from man to God, the cause is God

We largely agree, but we disagree with Calvinists (as do most Protestants and the Orthodox) that man has no free will. I didn’t do it in this specific context, but I have, many times, noted that man is a totally inferior, subordinate cooperator with God. It’s self-evident, I would say, but we must often point this out, so we don’t get falsely accused of making man equal to God.

human works are an effect of the divine operation, how can they be causes of justification, which is a divine act, “from above downwards”, from God to man?

They can because the inspired revelation of the Bible says that they do. We must adjust our theologies accordingly.

it can be argued a partial operation on the part of God, due to the previous verse that says: “Work out your salvation with trembling” (verse 12), which, I think, is a thought which may properly be attributed to Mr. Armstrong.

Indeed, here’s a classic case where context helps explain the meaning of the verse.

However, St. Paul does not speak here of a collaboration of partial causes, synergistic, where God plays a part and the creature another, as complementary, which would be appropriate for the work of man to be meritorious and could be the cause of justification.

“work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” sure sounds to me like the man is doing something and that it will be meritorious if he does end up saved and in heaven.

The reason is that while in Phil 2:13 the word used for operate is “energeo”, while the word used for “cooperate” is the Greek word synergeo (Strong’s 4903), and in the same letter, in the same chapter, in Philippians 2:25, Paul uses the word synergeo for cooperating: “Nevertheless, I think it will be necessary to send back to you Epaphroditus, my brother, fellow worker (synergeo) and fellow soldier, the messenger whom you sent to minister to my needs” (Philippians 2:25). If, in Philippians 2.13, St. Paul wanted to convey an idea of cooperating, as partial causes, he would know very well what word to use, it would not be energeo, but synergeo. We then affirm that both the primary cause and the secondary cause are total during the event that happened, and that they collaborate, but not as partial and simultaneous causes, but as total causes, the primary being prior to the secondary. The second cause is always subordinate, therefore, it cannot cause a divine attitude, however much it collaborates subordinately.

Here, Francisco gets an “E” for effort, but he proves too much. If synergeo is the word that would signify cooperating, and God can supposedly never do that with man, then we need merely find it in other similar verses where God and man are working together (superior and subordinate, but still together). If we can do that, Francisco’s attempted linguistic argument would be seen to be self-refuting. There are in fact such verses, found under a web page on the word. One was the first example I provided:

Mark 16:20 And they went forth and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked [synergeo] with them . . .

A second verse from my list is also included:

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

The same page cites Thayer’s Greek Lexicon, commenting on the above passage: “to work together, help in work, be a partner in labor.” And regarding Mark 16:20, it states that the word means “to put forth power together with and thereby to assist.” Case closed, and I heartily thank Francisco for providing Catholics with one of the many hundreds of scriptural and linguistic arguments that we can bring to bear.

As St. Paul states: “And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God who works (energeo) all in all” (1 Cor 12:6).

Absolutely; He certainly does, but this is not the same thought as my passages, which are about man cooperating with God as an infinitely lesser partner, but still a partner.

Mr. Armstrong’s proposal runs into not only exegetical errors, but metaphysical ones.

Well, it doesn’t, because I just produced two verses that did what Francisco just argued could and would never happen. We must follow inspired, inerrant biblical teachings as our “master”. Catholics never have a problem doing that because our teachings are always in harmony with Scripture. I know, and am in a position to make such a summary statement, because “biblical evidence for Catholicism” has been my biggest emphasis in my Catholic apologetics, these past 33 years.

The other verses follow the same line of what has already been explained.

Note again that this is — sadly – Francisco’s technique to ignore my other biblical evidences with a line (one of the oldest evasive tactics in the book). He chose to deal with two of the eleven verses (18%) that I presented. I counter-answered the two that he cherry-picked to discuss (because he thought he had a good argument for them). If he is so confident in his case, then surely he could have refuted my contentions about the other nine. As it is, he again broke our agreed-to rules at the outset of this debate: “3) Both of us should try to actually interact point-by-point rather than picking and choosing; a serious debate where all the opponent’s arguments are grappled with.”

If Mr. Armstrong says that the answer to my argument is the explanation of his model of justification, then I will give more reason for the reader to be convinced that the Roman Catholic model of justification is biblically false.

But that’s not all that Armstrong does, of course. Armstrong also provides exponentially more biblical passages in support of Catholic theology than Francisco does for his theology, that Francisco then decides to ignore, as we just saw in the latest example: just one of many. It’s disappointing and bad for the debate, but hey, if he wishes to in effect concede the argument in this way (by not addressing large chunks of my presentation), that only helps our side and doesn’t provide much support for his. You readers out there who may be on the fence, or willing to look at both sides (especially former Catholics who have become Protestant), pay close attention in your determination of which view is more biblical and sensible!

For Mr Armstrong, as I understand it from his explanations, before justification there is an operation of the Holy Spirit which is a preparation for justification, wrought in part by divine power, and in part by the power of human free will, by which a man disposes itself for its own future justification.

The Council of Trent, on the other hand, taught (more precisely):

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 III on Justification)

This is also taught in 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 rest of his description of our view is adequate.

An important point is that Mr. Armstrong concedes that the first, or initial, justification is the fruit of God’s mercy alone through the merit of Christ, without human work.

It’s not a “concession.” The Catholic Church has always taught this. Protestants, as a result, received it from us.

And this is where the question I asked comes in: “What exactly is it that makes a man stand right with God and be accepted into eternal life?” I replied that nothing but the righteousness of Christ, which consists partly in His sufferings and partly in His active obedience in carrying out the strictness of the law, hence we call it Solus christus (Christ alone).

Christ ultimately is the cause. No one disagrees with that. But in terms of the immediate instrumental cause, I devoted a paper to just that question. According to Holy Scripture, the following things are what causes God to declare that human beings are saved and worthy of heaven. Our answer to Francisco’s question and to God when we stand before Him, could incorporate any one or all of the following fifty responses: all perfectly biblical, and straight from the words of God Himself:

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 are sound 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.

Where all this comes from is Bible passages: documented in my article, Final Judgment in Scripture is Always Associated with Works and Never with Faith Alone (50 Passages). So once again, I answer the probing question of my opponent with fifty passages directly cited from the Bible.

Mr. Armstrong answers that the thing which makes us right with God, and leads us to be accepted into eternal life, is the remission of sins, and the habit of inward righteousness, or charity with the fruits thereof.

Exactly! And why do I believe that? It’s because the Bible (oftentimes, God Himself speaking) explicitly states it, at least fifty times that I have found. The Bible asserting a proposition fifty times is pretty compelling evidence for any Christian looking for an answer to some theological question. What more could we expect or demand, pray tell?

I grant that there is a habit of righteousness, but I call it sanctification

Whatever someone wants to call it, it’s necessary for salvation and eternal life and entrance into heaven, per the Bible.

I also grant that it is an excellent gift of God, with its reward on his part, but I maintain that this justification is before man alone, because it serves to declare that we are reconciled to God.

The fifty passages I produced are not just “before man alone.” So, for example, we have the passages in Matthew 25:

“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.’ . . . And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

See the bolded, italicized word “for” there? It indicates cause and means “because.” These people are allowed to enter heaven because (or, “for”) they did all these good works (six different ones mentioned). That’s what the Bible teaches, recording the words of our Lord and Savior and Redeemer Jesus, at the Last Judgment. It couldn’t be any more clear than it is. The word “faith” never even appears. But I’m not saying that faith isn’t part of it. I’ve never ever argued that. I’m saying that the fact of works also playing a key role cannot possibly be denied without rejecting plain biblical teaching.

However, I do not concede that the habit of righteousness and good works changes us from sinners to good men.

He doesn’t have to because we don’t believe that. We believe that both initial justification and baptism are monergistic.

The main reason I have given, to which, I insist, I have not received a proper answer, though Mr. Armstrong says otherwise, is this, based on the following verse: “He who knew no sin was made sin for us, that we might be made righteousness. of God which is in him” (2 Corinthians 5:21). From this it is easily deduced that as Christ was made sin for us, so we also are made the righteousness of God in Him. But Christ was made sin, or, a sinner by the imputation of our sins, He being in Himself most holy; therefore, a sinner is justified before God because the righteousness of Christ is imputed and applied to him.

Exactly. That’s what happens in initial justification and baptism. If we fall into sin, then we have to repent and confess, be granted absolution, and get back in right relationship with God. The Bible teaches that we have to be vigilant and make sure that we don’t fall from grace and salvation.

For although Mr. Armstrong agrees that both righteousness and forgiveness of sins come from Christ alone, this applies only to the initial justification, but does not apply to the permanence of that state of righteousness, namely, the second justification.

This is incorrect. It applies to any instance of justification, whether initial or subsequently after losing it through sin and rebellion. But the difference is that we are — after initial justification — commanded to do good works, which play into the determination of our ultimate salvation.

If justification has to do with having peace with God, as St. Paul says, “Being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ;” Rm 5.1, when will we have peace with God if Christian perfection is something unattainable?

I’ve already addressed the question of perfection, holiness, righteousness, etc.

And even if we understand the Roman Catholic view of the possibility of Christian perfection,

Not just our view, but the biblical view, which we merely follow.

it doesn’t solve the problem, for we know that Christian perfection is extremely difficult, so that only a very few people would be endowed with the true justification that bestows peace. The logical consequence is that the work of Christ is imperfect, as it does not forgive all human sins, which depend on good works, penances and a series of additional ones to obtain the benefits of the work that Christ conquered on the cross.

I’ve dealt with this, too, It’s merely repeating, which doesn’t advance the discussion.

Francisco then addresses Philippians 3:11-14, which is one of nine passages I present in favor of the view that justification is a process.

In this case, Mr. Armstrong mutilates the text to appear to agree with his arguments, omitting verse 9, where St. Paul says: “And be found in him, not having my righteousness which is of the law, but that which is by faith.” in Christ, that is, the righteousness which is from God by faith;”

I didn’t “mutilate” anything (nice try). I simply didn’t cite that portion (every biblical citation has to “cut off” somewhere). And I didn’t, because Catholics and Protestants agree about that, and it has nothing directly to do with the question of whether justification is instant or ongoing. It’s a non sequitur: outside of the topic immediately under consideration. Verses 11-14, on the other hand, make it undeniably clear that justification (prior to its initial phase) is a process.

St. Paul certainly excludes any and all work when he says that righteousness comes from faith, not from the law. There is no distinction here between Mosaic law and good work, for as Augustine says, this is a distortion of the apostle’s words, for if it were true, sin would no longer exist, since it is through the law that we know sin, therefore, all sin it involves the transgression of the law, so if not to love is a sin, then all good works are included in the law to which St. Paul refers.

I’ve dealt with this over and over, but again, it’s not the immediate topic at this point, which is whether justification is a process and whether it can be lost.

But St. Paul seems to anticipate Mr. Armstrong’s argument when he says, “Not that I have already attained it, or that I am perfect; but I press on to obtain what I was also arrested for by Christ Jesus.” Philippians 3:12, adding that he himself, an apostle of Christ at the end of his life, had not reached perfection, yet St. Paul considers himself justified, for it is simply possible to be perfect in the merits of Christ and not to be ontologically perfect.

He is talking about initial justification, which he probably had never lost up to that point. But then he talks about how he might lose it if he isn’t vigilant. That possibility means that it’s a process, without yet a known outcome. Even the holy Paul thinks so. He ends the passage by asserting, “let us hold true to what we have attained” (3:16). In other words, it could possibly be lost; otherwise it makes no sense to referring to holding “true” to it.

It’s like saying to one’s spouse: “I’ll be true to you forever.” That’s the stated goal, but no one knows whether it will be carried out until the time passes (up until death) and the spouse is still there, being true. If justification couldn’t possibly be lost, it makes no sense whatsoever for Paul to exhort his followers to “hold true” to it. This wasn’t even in my original argument, but since Francisco wants to disagree, now my argument has become stronger.

Francisco then decided to tackle a second of my nine proofs for the process of justification: Colossians 1:21-23, which states in part:  “. . . provided that you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel . . .”

Here Mr Armstrong errs again in confusing the transcendental order with the predicamental order. Now, one thing is the way in which creatures are spoken of, another is the way in which God sees these same creatures. An admonition about the loss of salvation rests on ignorance either of the hearer, or of the speaker and hearer, for it is obvious that it is extreme absurdity to apply to God a particle of indeterminacy, as if God were ignorant. How can the phrase be applied univocally to God and man: “IF you persevere to the end, you will be saved”, if in God there is no particle of indeterminacy, therefore there is no “IF”?

It’s not applied to God at all. It’s a conditional warning, expressing the thought: “if you [a human being] don’t continue in the faith and shift away from the gospel you have received, you won’t be saved.”

Now, here it is not up to Mr. Armstrong to simply state that he does not deny divine omniscience, but he must, for the sake of the debate and the coherence of his argument, under penalty of not sustaining it, explain how this text can be explained without using anthropopathy, therefore, of a metaphorical language for God, although real for man, cannot be used as a base text for justification, since justification is not a human work, but a divine one.

The passage has to do with man’s responsibility to persevere. Of course, one of the false Calvinist dogmas holds that God will always make a Christian persevere. I’ve refuted that in several ways elsewhere. This passage is talking precisely about man’s part in justification (which I’ve already massively proven from the Bible), and his responsibility to hold firm.

The next passage of mine that he addresses is this one:

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.

This text does not even speak of the faith that saves, but of faith as a doctrine.

Christian faith entails belief in a system of doctrines or theology, which can be rejected and “fallen away from” just as one can reject and fall away from God Himself. If someone ceases to believe in the Holy Trinity or the redemptive death of Jesus on the cross he or she is not a Christian and can’t be saved; and if not saved; not justified, either. Therefore, this passage is perfectly relevant to our discussion. 

He then addresses 2 Timothy 2:12: “if we endure, we shall also reign with him; if we deny him, he also will deny us;”:

Note that St. Paul poses as ignorant of the facts of the future.

He didn’t know the future any more than anyone else did (unless God revealed it to him, as with the prophets). He is saying that salvation is conditional upon our endurance.

This only proves that Mr. Armstrong regards God as ignorant, as a consequence, although he denies this fact, he still needs to explain how God does not become ignorant if we apply this text in a transcendental view.

The passage and my use of it has nothing whatsoever to do with some supposed blasphemous notion that God is “ignorant” of anything. God warns us out of love, through the inspired writing of Paul, that we must be vigilant and persevering if we are to be saved in the end. We can lose our salvation and heaven through sin and rebellion and disobedience. It’s as obvious as the nose on one’s face.

I commend Francisco for at least making some attempt to refute my use of each of these Bible passages. Bravo! He did make some response for all of them.

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

Same as above. Conditionals do not exist for God, for God does not ignore future acts in order for a condition to exist outside Him, to be actualized, this destroys divine simplicity.

The conditional in the passage is not about God at all. Francisco simply assumes the Calvinist view. That’s not the same as defending it and showing that it follows from biblical texts. Then he tackles Hebrews 6:15: “. . . Abraham, having patiently endured, obtained the promise.” He does so by reiterating the previous “argument” which is simply an irrelevant non sequitur.

Here’s his reply to 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”:

Paul is asserting that he and others do not lose their salvation, for they are not backsliding people. The text states the opposite of what Mr. Armstrong intends.

Of course, my argument flows from the fact that Paul casually asserts that there are those who “shrink back”; that is, leave the faith and the God they once believed in. This means that they exist; the thing exists (those who fall away). The fact that Paul and his followers are not (at least at the time he wrote) part of that crowd is irrelevant to my argument.

Francisco then addresses my prooftext Revelation 3:11: “I am coming soon; hold fast what you have, so that no one may seize your crown” with his by now common obscurantist philosophical analysis, which again goes down the rabbit trail of discussing God’s attributes (already wholeheartedly agreed-upon) rather than exegeting the text in question:

An admonition is a will of sign, not of consent. The will of a sign is proper to the human being, not to God. It is an admonition based on human ignorance, the hidden mysteries of God for us are not being taken into account, his plans and desires that only he himself knows and that he will make happen regardless of our works, because God does not depend on men to carry out his plans . The logical consequence of Mr. Armstrong’s arguments is to make God a great human being, a kind of superman, while God is Pure Act, the most perfect, therefore lacking nothing, not even the attitudes of creatures.

There is nothing to say in reply here because it has nothing to do with the verse I brought up as proof of the ongoing nature of justification and the possibility of losing it. Francisco is in an impenetrable Calvinist bubble: apparently unable to conceive of anything different from it.

Nor does the text of Galatians 5:6 prove justification by works and faith. Faith in Christ in its very beginning is justifying. The growth or formation of faith through love is about sanctification, not justification.

The clause “faith working through love” is a clear description of the organic relationship of faith and works. Francisco simply plays the abstract game of separating the “working” part into a separate non-salvific category of sanctification. This won’t do, because the Bible itself doesn’t make this arbitrary distinction.

I have already proved with various analogies that if one thing is with another, it does not mean that the two produce the same effect. I have already cited the example of light and heat, also of the eye and the head.

That’s not biblical evidence, like my argumentation always involves.

The curious thing here (for the Protestant), is the seemingly instantaneous change of sanctification, which would accompany justification. If “all things are new” (as in the King James Version), how does this square with mere declaratory, forensic, extrinsic justification? The whole drift of the passage seems to be actual transformation in the person now in Christ, whereas in Protestant justification only the individual’s “legal” standing with God is changed. In fact, justification and sanctification are intimately related aspects of our ultimate salvation.

In the same way that when we look at sunlight, we cannot see it without heat, however, can I really say that they are the same things or that light and heat generate the same effects? Now light illuminates and heat warms, it is not appropriate to say that light warms and heat illuminates, just because the two are always together. Mr Armstrong’s syllogism does not work, in fact his syllogism is fallacious, as it does not necessarily follow from the premises.

Again, Tourinho doesn’t directly grapple with the text (i.e., do exegesis), but merely descends to philosophy. This is a theological and exegetical debate.

Galatians 5.6 does not deal with justification before God.

It sure does, because it refers to what happens “in Christ Jesus” and (in the previous verse) “through the Spirit, by faith.” That is a “Godward” perspective, not man-to-man comparisons. The larger context refers to “walk by the Spirit” (5:16, 25) and “those who belong to Christ Jesus” (5:24).

When the text says “in Christ Jesus”, it is talking about someone holy, who is in Christ, and who works love through faith, this is not about justification, but about sanctification.

Again, this involves the sub-discussion of whether justification is ongoing, and the relationship of faith and works. I’ve addressed this over and over, but Tourinho usually ignores my biblical evidences and resorts to Protestant slogans and mere philosophy. The debate is winding down and we are mostly just “spinning our wheels” at this point.

Here, we must consider that we have different concepts of justification, and that we are using these optics to interpret the texts.

Exactly right. That’s what everyone does, so entire systems have to be compared.

In my favor, I say that the text does not cite justification, it does not cite the good work as the source or cause of a justification, it points to the perfecting of a man’s faith through love, but through love in the right object, which is Christ.

Now he is actually directly addressing the text. Good! Protestants say that faith is what brings about justification. Initially it does. But later, works are also involved, and that’s what this verse shows. It’s not necessary for the word “justification” to appear because we are dealing in biblical concepts. In using the phrase, “faith working through love” Paul connects the two things, so that no one can attempt to separate them and argue that they produce different effects. It’s like a scrambled egg, which has eggs and milk, which cannot be separated again, after the scrambling. As for works being a cause of justification, I have already directed readers several times to fifty biblical passages that teach that, and fifty more from St. Paul that teach the organic relationship of grace, faith, and works. Those are the proofs of our position.

St. Paul himself, at the end of his life, says that he did not obtain perfection, but continued to achieve it, however, the same man says in Romans 5:1 that he is justified and has peace with God.

The first thing is ongoing justification and striving after holiness; the second is initial justification.

“Being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ;” (Romans 5:1), even without having reached perfection, it follows that justification coexists with imperfections

We have never claimed otherwise.

and that the process of personal improvement does not justify, but sanctifies.

If a person has fallen into mortal sin (which is an explicit biblical concept), separating them from God, then they have to be justified again. Obviously, since the Calvinist denies that a believer can ever fall away from God and from grace, to them this notion is meaningless, and they can’t allow it into their thinking and belief-system as a result. But they have a false, unbiblical premise, which is the root of their problem in this respect.

If you want to use the word justify in the sense of sanctifying, I am not against it, as long as you specify the meaning and do not remove its forensic meaning.

It has two aspects, as I have shown.

I have to not reply to some of the material that Francisco brings up at this point, not because I am ignoring it, but because I have already dealt with it, and we risk alienating readers with extreme repetition and tedium.  We still have part 3 of this round to go. I am trying to bring in fresh biblical passages, so the debate continues to move forward, and so readers can see how deep and rich and eminently biblical the Catholic position is. 

Tourinho notes that justification can’t be “increased.” Catholics are saying, rather, that it can be lost and regained, which is different from saying that it is (potentially or actually) constantly increased. The question comes down to whether justification can be lost. If it can, then it can and should rightly be seen as ongoing or lifelong, in the sense that we don’t know if we will never fall away, and therefore must be vigilant, as Paul constantly warns (and which makes no sense if we can never lose our justification and right relationship with God).

Catholics believe in a category of sanctification as well, which is not all that different from the Protestant conception of it, in its main outlines. We agree on much. But unlike them, we connect it directly with justification. Servant of God Fr. John A. Hardon S.J. defined it as follows:

Being made holy. The first sanctification takes place at baptism, by which the love of God is infused by the Holy Spirit (Romans 5:5). Newly baptized persons are holy because the Holy Trinity begins to dwell in their souls and they are pleasing to God. The second sanctification is a lifelong process in which a person already in the state of grace grows in the possession of grace and in likeness to God by faithfully corresponding with divine inspirations. The third sanctification takes place when a person enters heaven and becomes totally and irrevocably united with God in the beatific vision. (Pocket Catholic Dictionary, New York: Doubleday Image, 1980, 393)

I have, elsewhere, noted (back in the early 90s) Protestant definitions of sanctification and of justification, by the Reformed Baptist Augustus Strong and Reformed Presbyterian Charles Hodge. We must correctly understand them, just as Protestants must accurately understand our definitions. Then we can each defend them from Scripture.

Assuming it to be true that Christ never said that faith alone saves, and that absence proves that faith alone does not save.

He said that belief in Him would save (and that the Eucharist also saved), but it must be interpreted in conjunction with scores of passages where He said that works also play a role in salvation. He never cited belief or faith in the sense of being utterly alone, as pertaining to salvation.

I can argue that Jesus never called Mary mother, how strange, isn’t it? Does it follow that the Lord Jesus did not have her for a mother? Let’s see how far Mr. Dave Armstrong will be consistent with his own argument.

This is just silly and a very bad and ineffective attempted analogy. The Bible happens to not have a passage where He called her “mother” (because it doesn’t include much discourse with her at all), but He certainly did so in His 33 years or so: the first thirty living with her. No one would foolishly argue that He never called her “mother” or “mom” or whatever the Aramaic address was, in all that time.

On the other hand, with the issue of salvation and faith we are dealing with one of the “pillars” of the so-called “Reformation”: “faith alone.” If it is supposedly so central to soteriology and theology, and so important, certainly we should reasonably expect Jesus to explicitly teach it. But He never does; nor does Paul or anyone else. And they explicitly deny it.

Now, I do not agree that Mr Armstrong’s statement is true. The Lord Jesus does not mention any work for those who have actually been saved, but only faith. . . . The right question is, When were works cited as meritorious or as the cause of salvation during Christ’s ministry? Answer: never.

That’s simply false, and rather spectacularly so. Jesus spoke the following words to His disciples, who were presumably saved (minus Judas):

John 14:12 . . . 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. [here, the questions of who loves Jesus, and even the indwelling (cf. 16:7, 13) are dependent upon not just faith, but on whether one keeps the commandments]

John 15:4-6, 8 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. [5] I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. [6] If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned. . . . [8] By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be my disciples. [“fruit” is, of course, good works]

John 15:10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love . . . [note the conditional, implying a state of affairs where they could cease abiding in His love, and being justified and eschatologically saved. Judas was, in fact, an example of this happening (see 17:12). Jesus alluded to such a possibility also when He said, “I have said all this to you to keep you from falling away”: 16:1]

John 15:12 This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. (cf. 15:17)

John 15:14 You are my friends if you do what I command you.

To be sure, in the same discourse at the Last Supper (John 14-17), Jesus also said “believe also in me” (14:1; cf. 16:27, 30-31; 17:8), but eleven verses later, He coupled this belief with inexorable good works: “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” (14:12). So again, Francisco’s “universal negative” (and his overall soteriology) is shown to be incorrect. I think he could have figured this out without my help, but he went ahead and made the statement. I’m delighted to have the opportunity to be able to refute it from Jesus’ own words. 

Moreover, Jesus, in praying to the Father at the Last Supper, says, “they have kept thy word” (17:6).

Mr. Armstrong did not understand that Christ knew the rich young man’s heart, and knew that he was possessed of the Pharisaic spirit of good works. Jesus challenges him, showing him his inability to be saved through good works.

This is the very opposite of what the passage teaches. Asked by the rich young ruler how he could attain eternal life, Jesus’ answer was two kinds of works: keeping the commandments and giving all his money to the poor. He said not a word about faith, let alone, faith alone. This was how he would be saved; clear as day! Then Francisco comes along and says (in direct opposition to what Jesus stated) that the passage supposedly teaches theinability to be saved through good works.” Wow! Such brazen opposition to Jesus’ plain teaching is downright frightening and even close to blasphemous.

It’s fascinating, also, in light of what I have just shown from the Last Supper Discourse, that Jesus says the same thing to His disciples, in His last major teaching to them (i.e., that we know of)  before He was crucified. They had already given up “everything” to follow Him (Mt 19:27), so He didn’t need to mention that. But He told them no less than six times (14:15, 21; 15:10, 12, 14, 17) to keep His commandments. Talk about “repetition” being a good teacher! Therefore, He taught the same thing to both non-believers and believers / followers. He also said to the masses in His Sermon on the Mount: 

Matthew 5:16-20 “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven. [17] Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. [18] For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. [19] Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. [20] For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”

On the other hand, He never mentions belief in Him during the Sermon, or faith, excepting His statement, “O men of little faith” (6:30). But there are all kinds of works mentioned and urged. Jesus showed Himself to be quite the “legalistic, Pharisaical ‘Catholic'” didn’t He?!

He pulled the same stunt at the Final Judgment in Matthew 25: talking only about works and never about faith in Him, when the biblical text is specifically teaching how one enters into heaven. As I’ve said many times, Jesus would have flunked out of any Protestant seminary, with His worst grades achieved in classes on soteriology (D at best, but more likely an E).

But faith is cited, always omitting the work: “Then Jesus said to him, “Get up and go! Your faith has saved you.” The Coming of the Kingdom of God” Luke 17:19 “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life, does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.” John 5.24 It is important to note that the Reformed do not defend that a person can enter heaven being a wanton, but that the saved person will remain in good works, sanctify himself through them, but will not be saved by them.

Faith in Jesus is mentioned many times, and is crucial. But Jesus (like Paul and James and Peter) also teaches that works are involved in salvation. Catholics fully accept the “faith” passages” but we don’t ignore the works passages that tie works into salvation, too (scores and scores of which I have repeatedly  presented in this debate). That’s the thing. All of the relevant biblical teachings need to be taken into account, not just a few selected “pet” verses. A half-truth is no better than a lie.

Francisco alluded to and cited our previous discussion on the rich young ruler and then added more analysis:

The young man thought he was good before God because he did a lot of good work, and in that sense, no one is good.

He was right about that (as Jesus affirmed, by saying, “If you would enter life, keep the commandments”: Mt 19:17), except that he rebelled against the notion of doing the most important work in his own case,: giving up all that he had (precisely necessary because his idol was riches).

The young man comes to Christ full of self-righteousness, and Christ, knowing his heart, converses with the intention of showing that this righteousness will not take him to heaven,

Again, this is the opposite of what Jesus said. I just showed how Jesus tied keeping the commandments with [eternal] “life.” The man had asked, remember, about how to attain “eternal life” (19:16). Then He said that if he gave away all of his possessions, he would “have treasure in heaven” (19:21). So yes, righteousness plays a key, indispensable role in attaining heaven and salvation, according to Jesus.

putting him in a situation of inability to keep the law.

Jesus never said that He was unable to keep the law. He merely noted that he was unwilling to fully follow one aspect of it: not having an idol (riches) in place of God. Jesus assumes in the Sermon on the Mount (my citation not far above) that the law could not only be kept, but that it was necessary to “enter the kingdom of heaven.” He employs the same exact reasoning with the rich young ruler, as He does with His disciples at the Last Supper and with those who stand at the Last Judgment.

Christ shows that the young man’s heart is evil, even though he boasts of doing so many good works.

He didn’t “boast” as far as we can determine from the text); he simply stated that he had “observed” the Ten Commandments. As the old 1930s baseball pitcher Dizzy Dean said, “it ain’t braggin’ if you can do it.” Nor does Jesus imply that he is evil through and through. But he had an idol. Many of us have an idol, whether it be riches, or sex, or pride, or fame, or any number of other things. It was the primary sin of Israel all through the Old Testament.

Even though Christ fulfilled all the law, he still claims not to be good, this shows that fulfilling the law or good works does not make us good

Of course Christ is totally good. His statement, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone” (Mk 10:18) was obvious rhetorical. He can’t be literally saying He isn’t good because He is God the Son.

In fact it is impossible for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, just as how impossible it is for a man to be saved by his good works.

Jesus was specifically talking about how riches are so commonly regarded as an idol by rich people; hence, their difficulty in being saved. He wasn’t making a general statement against good works as a means to salvation, too (which is what Francisco wrongly injects — or eisegetes – into the text because of his prior dispositions).

Jesus non-hostility to works and “Catholic” soteriology is in fact stated five verses later, when He said that good works will lead to eternal life (precisely as He had told the rich young ruler):

Matthew 19:29 And every one who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life. 

The disciples had given up everything, thus proving that their attachment to material goods — and even family (see Mt 10:37) — were not  idols and more important than following Christ, which they were called to. As a result, they received eternal life, as we know from Christ’s express statement that this gave them eternal life (or at the very least played a role among other things in that salvation). But the rich young ruler refused to do the same thing, so it’s strongly implied in Jesus’ comment on it, that he wouldn’t attain eternal life as a result. Thus, we rightly conclude that a good work that the disciples performed, in leaving their families and jobs, led them to eternal life, while the refusal to do the same good work led to the loss of eternal life for the rich young ruler (unless, of course, he later changed his mind).

The text does show human inability to enter heaven through his works,

Quite the contrary, as just proven.

The conclusion drawn from this text by Mr. Armstrong would lead us to believe that a person can be saved by works alone.

Nonsense. I have reiterated over and over (in this debate and in my Catholic apologetics for 33 years) that grace and faith are also necessarily involved in salvation. But at the same time, the scores and scores of striking, clear passages about works also playing a role simply cannot be dismissed. I’m not minimizing faith and grace at all; not one iota. But I am not ignoring works, as Francisco vainly and foolishly attempts to do, in the face of the overwhelming biblical data. I have the biblical “both/and” view; he takes “either/or” unbiblical, Protestant view in these matters. False dichotomies rule the day for him.

If he becomes a Catholic he can get out from under that burden and strain of unbiblical and illogical false teaching. I hope and pray that he — and many readers of this debate — will do just that, by God’s grace. We Catholics want to share the fullness of the faith and the “pearl of great price” that we have found with others. so that they can share in the joy, peace, and truth of the teachings of Holy Mother Church.

What I said was that if faith and works are necessary to inherit eternal life, and if Jesus really intended to teach the rich young man how to inherit eternal life, then he should have cited faith. But if he does not cite faith,

For whatever the reason, Jesus tends to speak of each factor alone, rather than together. But there were a few times when He spoke of both things in the same context or sentence. In John 14:15, 21 and 15:14 He connected love for Him with works, as proof of that love. And (also seen above), He connected belief in Him and works in John 14:12. And He said:

Matthew 7:17-21, 24 So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. [18] A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. [19] Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. [20] Thus you will know them by their fruits. [21] “Not every one who says to me, `Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.. . . [24] “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;”

Note here that He rebuked faith alone, or faith without the requisite, required works, as He also did when he stated: “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I tell you?” (Lk 6:46). In the same context, He went on to also rebuke works alone for salvation, which is the heresy of Pelagianism:

Matthew 7:22-23 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?’ [23] And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.’

They didn’t “know” Him because that is done by grace through faith, So Jesus — when His whole teaching is understood — taught faith alongside the inevitable works or “works of faith” that make faith alive, for salvation. He had a Catholic soteriology, not a Protestant one. Works cannot be separated from faith, as Protestants try to do by making all works strictly optional with regard to salvation itself. And both flow from God’s amazing and enabling grace.

The real kicker for Francisco and Calvinists to explain is how it is that it’s “the doers of the law who will be justified” (Rom 2:13)? If no work whatever has anything to do with any kind of justification, how in the world can Paul write this? It’s devastating to the Protestant soteriological position. According to Francisco and Calvinist theology, Paul should have written “saved” in Romans 2:13 instead of “justified.” 

Here, Mr Armstrong has isolated the text from its context. The previous verses say the following:

Romans 2:4-13 Or do you presume upon the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience? Do you not know that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? [5] But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed. [6] For he will render to every man according to his works: [7] to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; [8] but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. [9] There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, [10] but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. [11] For God shows no partiality. [12] 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. [13] For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

I see nothing there that is in conflict with Catholic soteriology at all. Works again play a crucial role in achieving eternal life (2:6-10 and again in 2:13). It’s expressed very eloquently and forcefully, so that no one can possibly deny it.

The text deals with the day of judgment. The text does not deal with justification by faith that happens in time, but with the judgment of the last day in which God will give his sentence and his reward. From verse 5, the apostle Paul talks about current virtues and sins and how people who do good and evil will be judged on the last day.

Whether it has to do with the Day of Judgment or not is secondary to the concepts that are taught, and how works are regarded. The Last Day does have to do with eschatological salvation, so it is very relevant to our present discussion. And we see again here that it is all works which are mentioned.: “works” (2:6), “well-doing” leading to “eternal life” (2:7), “not obey” (2:8), “does evil” (2:9), “does good” (2:10), “sinned” 2:12), and “doers of the law” who are “justified” (2:13). “Faith” and “belief” are never mentioned. How this in any way, shape, or form supports Francisco’s position, is, I confess, a great mystery.

It’s not mainly about the law, but about good works, generally speaking. This is shown in two ways: the reference to “every man” (2:6)
*
I agree.
*
“Faith” is never mentioned in Romans 2, but several times in chapter 3, so we know he is not excluding it in chapter 2.

That’s the same point I made about Jesus. Paul is here basically doing the same thing: centering on works in one long passage and faith in another; the conclusion being that neither is optional in salvation.

Here [Eph 2:8-10] Paul asserts the necessity of faith in salvation (we agree), and the inadequacy of works salvation (again we agree). He then proceeds to present the Catholic both/and view. God preordains works, and we walk in them. Works are necessary (and in many other Pauline passages, central in the equation of salvation). Thus, faith and works, just as we have maintained all along . . .

Notice how Mr. Armstrong simply did not address the argument. It is true that Paul speaks of the necessity of faith in salvation, but what he says right after is devastating for the theology of Rome, he states: “Not of works, lest anyone should boast”. St. Paul is clear, salvation it does not come from good works, but from faith alone, and Mr. Armstrong simply ignored my argument in this regard. The text says that it is by faith and not by works,

We agree that salvation is ultimately by grace through faith; we deny that works alone save (Eph 2:9), but that post-initial justification, post-regenerative good works are essential in the whole process (Eph 2:10): always joined to grace and faith. There is no falsely perceived “problem” here at all, let alone some supposed scenario of this being devastating for the theology of Rome.” Francisco still has to explain why Romans 2 is so different, with Paul talking all about works (and why Jesus makes a very strong emphasis on works as well). Obviously, works are in play along with grace and faith. Our theology takes into account both motifs; his does not, and it does so by attempting to ignore works in the salvific process, which won’t do. The Bible is too clear to allow that ploy.

We have no difference as to prayer and how God treats us when we pray, so no need to further address that, and it’s not the topic, anyway (justification is).

I pass over a lot of Francisco’s text — again — not because I am trying to avoid it (against our agreed-to rules), but because it is either off-topic (e.g., God’s nature, which Francisco for some unknown reason keeps repeating even though we are in total agreement) or has already been dealt with and answered (usually many times over). If we do publish a successful book of this debate, the now extreme repetition will have to be helpfully dealt with by an editor. I’m trying to do my part to make that editor’s job easier, by refusing to endlessly repeat myself.

And it is God who saves, we do not save ourselves,

No; we participate as lesser causes alongside God, the primary cause:

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

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

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?

Philippians 2:12 . . . work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;

1 Timothy 2:15 Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

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,

Francisco responded to my use of 2 Peter 2:15, 20-21 as proof of the possible loss of salvation:

2 Peter 2:22 It has happened to them according to the true proverb, The dog turns back to his own vomit, and the sow is washed only to wallow in the mire.

After describing all their attitudes, he now shows us what the events reveal, that they were not sheep, but he says that the DOG RETURNED to his vomit, . . . The text is clear, these men went astray, but none of them left a dog or a pig, which, according to Jewish tradition, were filthy animals, that is, they never ceased to be filthy, a washed pig only disguises its bad smell, but doesn’t become pure. The text is a description of earthly events and an admonition for the same to not happen to others, but it does not prove loss of salvation from the divine perspective, as it is revealed to us that these false prophets were washed pigs, that is, they were never pure, therefore, they were never justified or sanctified before God, though they appeared so before men. God always knew they were pigs and dogs, men didn’t, so St. Peter, who was a man, describes the events as a detour and a loss.

This is desperate special pleading, and illogical. First of all, the man described by St. Peter clearly was a Christian, since he is described as having “escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Pet 2:20). One can’t be described as having escaped a thing if in fact they never left it. That makes no sense at all. But it’s what Francisco wants to argue. 2 Peter 2:20 then states that “they are again entangled in them,” which means that they once were, then they were not (the preceding clause) and then were again, as opposed to never leaving their first state. The text then reiterates this by referring to a “last state” and a “first”: as opposed to one continual state.

In 2 Peter 2:21 Peter states that “it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness.” Quite obviously, then, they must have known it because Peter is saying that it would have been “better” (i.e., a different scenario from what actually happened: a compare and contrast) if they never had. Ergo: they did indeed experience being a Christian and being in Christ. He expresses this in another way by writing that “after knowing it” they decided “to turn back” (to their unsaved, unjustified prior state). In 2:22 he wraps it up by noting that they turned “back” to their “own vomit”: not that they never left it. Yet Francisco pretends that the opposite scenario from what is presented is what actually happened. It’s a sad case study of textbook eisegesis.

Philippians 1:6 And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.

Of course He is able to do so. But this doesn’t wipe out human free will and rebellion against God’s will, that will always be carried out, provided we accept it and conform our will to His.

If Mr. Armstrong is right, St. Paul is lying in assuming that he who begins a good work in us, what Armstrong would call initial justification, will complete it until the last day, and who would dare not believe in the power of God? Who can doubt if God himself says that the work he started he will finish? Now, God is able to deliver us from all temptations and stumbling blocks, “Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to present you blameless before his glory with joy,” (Jude 1:24). Speaking of loss of salvation from the divine perspective is the same as saying that God is not powerful to deliver man from stumbling blocks, to keep us, and that he is flawed in his work. Therefore, Reformed theologians see the loss of salvation only from a human perspective, but we declare and believe in the sovereignty of God and his omnipotence, something that all other traditions declare only with their mouths, but deny with their hearts.
*
As always, we must take into consideration all of the relevant biblical texts on a given topic (which is systematic theology). And these include several where God’s will is opposed by man: which God allows because He willed that men — and angels — had free will, which included the possibility of rebellion, which in turn goes back to the rebellion of Satan and his demons, and Adam and Eve’s rebellion, and in them, the whole human race (1 Cor 15:22). Here are two of those passages:
Matthew 23:37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!”
*
John 17:12 While I was with them, I kept them in thy name, which thou hast given me; I have guarded them, and none of them is lost but the son of perdition, that the scripture might be fulfilled.

Man can either serve God or reject Him:

Deuteronomy 30:15, 19 . . .I have set before you this day life and good, death and evil. . . . [19] . . . I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live, 

Joshua 24:15 “And if you be unwilling to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell; but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.”

God doesn’t predestine anyone to hell, since the Bible states: 

1 Timothy 2:3-6 . . . God our Savior, [4] who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. [5] For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, [6] who gave himself as a ransom for all, . . .

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is . . . not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

Yet they don’t all repent. Therefore, the cause is their own rebellion, which God allowed, and it follows that God didn’t predestine them to hell because inspired revelation informs us that this is not His desire or wish, which is that all be saved.

Psalm 51:12 [RSV] Restore to me the joy of thy salvation, and uphold me with a willing spirit.

How could King David ask to have the joy of a salvation he did not yet have?

I previously replied: It can just as easily be interpreted as “give me back the salvation that included joy.”

No. It couldn’t be interpreted that way, because that’s not what the text says. That simple. Language is not like mathematics, because in mathematics the order of the factors does not change the product, but in language the order of the factors can change the product.

First of all, for the OT Jew, joy and salvation went hand-in-hand (see seven examples in the Protestant OT). Secondly, we must take into consideration the dramatic context of Psalm 51. David had had a man killed so he could commit adultery with his wife, and the prophet Nathan confronted him with his sin, leading David to repent: which he expressed in Psalm 51. So if ever a man had lost salvation and fallen from grace, it was David at that time. 

But David repented and wanted to be back in the fold with God. This is the Catholic view of loss of initial justification and regaining it by repentance and confession (51:3-4) and forgiveness (throughout the Psalm). We could, therefore, plausibly interpret David as saying “please restore to me your salvation, which brings about joy.” David fell away, repented, and was brought back into justification and right relationship with God. The prophet Samuel had described David as “a man after” God’s “own heart” (1 Sam 13:14). God Himself referred to “my servant David, who kept my commandments, and followed me with all his heart, doing only that which was right in my eyes,” (1 Kgs 14:8). And the author of the book referred to “the heart of David” as being “wholly true to the LORD his God” (1 Kgs 15:3). Yet he sinned and fell and had to be restored.

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,300+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-three 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]. 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 InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

Summary: This is my reply (3rd round, part 2) in an in-depth debate on justification and comparative soteriology, with Brazilian Reformed Presbyterian apologist Francisco Tourinho.

2023-02-21T16:22:28-04:00

10. The Story of Lazarus and the Rich Man (Lk 16:19-31) in Relation to the Doctrine of Immortal Souls

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.

This is my 45th refutation of Banzoli’s writings. Since 5-25-22 he hadn’t written one  word in reply, until he responded on 11-12-22 (see my reply) and on 11-15-22 (see my response). Why so few and so late? He says it’s because my articles are “without exception poor, superficial and weak” and my “objective” was “not to refute anything, but to exhaust [my] opponent.” Indeed, my writings are so bad that “only a severely cognitively impaired person would be inclined to take” them “seriously.” He didn’t “waste time reading” 37 of my 40 replies (three articles are his proof of the worthlessness of all of my 4,000+ articles and 51 books). He also denied that I had a “job” and claimed that I didn’t “work.” I disposed of these and other slanderous insults on my Facebook page on 11-13-22. But Banzoli thought that replying to me was so “entertaining” that he’ll “make a point of rebutting” my articles “one by one.” 

My current effort is a major multi-part response to Banzoli’s 1900-page self-published book, The Legend of the Immortality of the Soul [A Lenda da Imortalidade da Alma], published on 1 August 2022.  He claims to have “cover[ed] in depth all the immortalist arguments” and to have “present[ed] all the biblical proofs of the death of the soul . . .” and he confidently asserted: “the immortality of the soul is at the root of almost all destructive deception and false religion.” He himself admits on page 18 of his Introduction that what he is opposing is held by “nearly all the Christians in the world.” A sincere unbiblical error (and I assume his sincerity) is no less dangerous than a deliberate lie, and we apologists will be “judged with greater strictness” for any false teachings that we spread (Jas 3:1).

I use RSV for the Bible passages (including ones that Banzoli cites) unless otherwise indicated. 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.

*****

See the other installments:

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

See also the related articles:

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

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

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

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

*****

This is a reply to Banzoli’s article, “A parábola do rico e Lázaro prova a imortalidade da alma?” [Does the parable of the rich man and Lazarus prove the immortality of the soul?] (11-19-22). It in turn was drawn from his book, The Legend of the Immortality of the Soul.

He starts out by recounting a story that an Adventist preacher told, concerning St. Peter as the gatekeeper of heaven. It turns out that the preacher was using the story as an illustration preceding his sermon about Lazarus and the rich man. Then Banzoli delivers the kicker:

• The audience knows this is not a true story.
 
• They know the popular belief that those who die go to heaven, and at the entrance they meet Saint Peter.
 
•  They don’t believe in this creed as a doctrine. They know this is not true (the pastor already knows the audience and knows that they believe as he does, about man’s destiny after death).

None of this, of course, is relevant to Jesus and His telling of the story. Jesus was God. His recorded words are in the inspired, infallible, inerrant revelation of the New Testament. He could not possibly teach falsehood, whether this was a parable or not. I shall argue that it was not; but that even if it was, the same point stands: it could not contain theological error or heresy.

And it could not because this is the Bible: central to the rule of faith for all Christians. What it teaches is always true: whether it comes in the form of a parable or other non-literal idiom, or  a “straight” story of actual history. This is all the more the case, seeing that God the Son Himself is speaking and teaching. But then again, Banzoli is a Christological heretic, who thinks (as far as I can determine) that Jesus stopped existing after His death on the cross and then was put together again by His Father at His resurrection.

Jesus was not an Adventist preacher, whose belief included the heretical doctrine of soul sleep. His teachings were developments of Jewish doctrine, which had always held to conscious souls in the afterlife (as I have abundantly shown in past installments). The sort of folk religion / cultural religion that produced the notion of Peter as the gatekeeper goes beyond Scripture, but is actually loosely based on his being given “the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 16:19). From that people got the idea that he would be standing there with the key to get into heaven for each person, after they die, and that he would tell them why they could enter or not (which in the Bible is a task reserved for God).

Jesus never taught anything that His hearers knew was “not true.” The very notion is nonsensical and blasphemous. It would make Jesus a misleading liar. Banzoli thinks this story is one such case, but he can’t prove that from Scripture itself. He is only thinking like this in this instance because he knows that the story demolishes his belief in soul sleep.

But if this story is considered to contain gross falsehoods and untruths about the afterlife and the nature of souls, then how many other stories, doctrinal teachings, or parables also contain falsehoods, that readers supposedly “know” are false? Perhaps he can inform us of those, and, moreover,  tell us how it is that he determined their less-than-true nature? The dangers are obvious: pretty soon Holy Scripture would become a “slippery slope” and used and abused to supposedly teach any false doctrine imaginable.

After arguing that a parable need not contain truths, Banzoli inexplicably defines a parable as an Allegorical narrative that transmits moral or religious precepts, common in the Holy Scriptures.” Exactly! They are teaching some sort of precepts, to be believed; not falsehood. So he again contradicts himself (a not uncommon occurrence in his writings). He states that parables were “never intended to be a true story or necessarily express real things.” The first clause is true; the second is not.

Parables teach true “moral or religious precepts”: as Banzoli truly stated (a “religious precept” being a “real thing”). The author of Mark wrote that “he taught them many things in parables, and in his teaching he said to them” (Mk 4:2). “Teaching” in the gospels refers to the sharing of truths (with regard to Jesus’ “teaching”, see Mt 4:23; 7:28; 9:35; 21:23;  22:33; 26:55; 28:20; Mk 1:22; 6:6; 9:31; 11:18; 12:38; 14:49; Lk 4:31-32; 5:17; 10:39; 13:10, 22; 19:47; 20:1; 21:37; 23:5; Jn 7:16-17; 18:19). Paul also uses the word “teaching” many times, with the meaning of “truth” or “true tradition”.

Jehoash’s purpose [see 2 Kgs 14:8-10] obviously was not to teach that thorn bushes literally converse with the cedars of Lebanon, just as Jesus’ purpose in telling the parable of the rich man and Lazarus was obviously not to say that Sheol/Hades was a place of souls burning or talking. In both cases, the conversation of the trees or the dead serves only as a “resource of analogy or comparison”, which is precisely what a parable consists of.

In other words, although the elements themselves (thorn bushes, cedars or dead trees) are fictitious, they convey a deeper moral lesson, which is in fact the author’s objective in using the parable as a didactic resource.

Alright; Banzoli needs to tell us, then, what Jesus’ purpose was, in misrepresenting what it is like in the afterlife, by means of false symbolic illustrations — in Luke 16 — of what doesn’t actually occur (which amounts to little better than a lie). So what did He mean, then, and why would He use these illustrations? We’re all ears.

It’s beyond strange that if Jesus wanted to teach us that souls were “asleep” or not even in existence in the afterlife (as Banzoli and Adventists and Jehovah’s Witnesses erroneously believe), until God creates them anew in the general resurrection, that He does so by having the rich man talking to Abraham, asking petitionary requests of him (i.e., praying to him) and Abraham answering: all in the effort to show that none of those very things are possible, and that, in fact, there is no such thing as Sheol / Hades in the sense of a place of conscious souls.

Is it not obvious that the very last way to convey such a meaning would be by use of this story? This scenario makes no sense whatsoever. It’s absurd and ludicrous to think that it does. Heresy always leads to absurdity and self-contradiction.

Add to this the important addendum that, contrary to what most people think, Jesus did not tell parables to clarify spiritual truths, but to hide them.

That’s not strictly true. The parables are true; they convey truths. Whether hearers can hear them is another question. Jesus told them to people He knew would not be able to receive them:

Matthew 13:12-13 For to him 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. [13] This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.

Jesus’ disciples, who had not yet received the gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit, often didn’t understand Jesus, just as the Pharisees and Sadducees (due to their outright rebelliousness and hostility) did not. Hence, Jesus said to His disciples:

Matthew 15:15-16 But Peter said to him, “Explain the parable to us.” [16] And he said, “Are you also still without understanding?”

Mark 4:13 . . . “Do you not understand this parable? How then will you understand all the parables?”

Mark 7:17-18 . . . his disciples asked him about the parable. [18] And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? . . .”

Mark 8:15-18, 21 And he cautioned them, saying, “Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod.” [16] And they discussed it with one another, saying, “We have no bread.” [17] And being aware of it, Jesus said to them, “Why do you discuss the fact that you have no bread? Do you not yet perceive or understand? Are your hearts hardened? [18] Having eyes do you not see, and having ears do you not hear? . . . [21] And he said to them, “Do you not yet understand?”

As strange as this may seem, Jesus did not tell parables so that the crowd would better understand his teaching, but just the opposite: so that they would not understand!

The hardened who could not “hear” wouldn’t understand; that’s quite true. But as I just proved, neither did the disciples understand, on many occasions. It doesn’t make the parables not true in what they expressed. Jesus expresses the thought that the disciples should have understood them, if they had opened up their hearts. Otherwise, if it was inevitable that no one could understand a parable, it would be meaningless for Jesus to ask the disciples: “Are you also still without understanding?” (Mt 15:16) The question assumes that it was falling short on their part, or a fault, for them to not understand the parable.

This is why Jesus spoke to the disciples clearly, but to the crowd he spoke only in parables: . . . it was a selfish crowd with a hardened heart. This explains why people were always misunderstanding what Jesus was saying, as they do all the time in the Gospels.

He clarified more so to the disciples, compared to the crowds, but He didn’t always speak “clearly” from their perspective, because they repeatedly misunderstood or didn’t grasp His parables (see the four passages above), or His predictions about His coming death. According to Jesus, His disciples could have hardened hearts at times, too, which is why He asked rhetorically (as an intended rebuke): “Are your hearts hardened?” (Mk 8:17). Mark 6:52 states flat-out about the disciples: “for they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened.”

To be fair, Banzoli does acknowledge that the disciples sometimes misunderstood Jesus, too:

Even the disciples had difficulty understanding when Jesus was speaking literally and when not, which is why they argued about not having bread when Jesus asked them to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees (Mt 16:6-7).

Good!

This indicates that Jesus did not tell the parable of the rich man and Lazarus to teach anything about the afterlife.

Of course He taught there about the afterlife; otherwise, why did He provide the details that He gave? It makes no sense, as I contended above. In any event, it doesn’t follow that Jesus therefore purposely taught untruths and in effect misled people or lied to them in parables or in (as I believe) His recounting of an actual historical event in Luke 16.

Even if there were anyone so foolish as to think that Jesus meant to teach the afterlife by telling the parable (which is not surprising, since they confused everything Jesus said in an allegorical way), the true purpose of the parable it was not in its lines, but between the lines, hidden from the gaze of the crowd.

There was no interpretation needed in the story of Lazarus and the rich man because it wasn’t a parable. It was a true story, and it stood on its own.

overwhelming evidence, both inside and outside Luke 16:19-31, which demonstrates that Jesus was really telling a parable, not an actual story.

To begin with, the pericope in question is right in the middle of Luke’s well-known parables. Both the preceding and following chapters, including chapter 16 itself, are filled with parables of the most varied types, as if Luke had reserved that part of the book almost exclusively for the parables of Jesus. . . . 

If the parable of the rich man and Lazarus were inserted in the midst of real stories, such prior notice would be expected, but not when the entire context is notoriously marked by fictional stories.

This portion is not all parables. Luke 15 is all parables but Luke 16 is not. Jesus continues telling them through 16:13, but then 16:14-18 records a dispute between Him and the Pharisees, about the law, the gospel, and adultery. The story of Lazarus and the rich man immediately follows that. And it’s about riches, since the narrator in 16:14 had written: “The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all this, and they scoffed at him.” Jesus then continues with straight teaching, not parables, in John 17:1-5, about temptation and forgiveness. Therefore, both immediately before and after our story, there are non-parabolic teachings.

This suggests (if we are to make such a contextual argument) that 16:19-31 is, or could be, an actual story as well. Jesus did tell those, and He recalled true events. So, for example, He mentioned, “Zechari’ah the son of Barachi’ah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar” (Mt 23:35). These were actual historical figures, just as Abraham, Lazarus, and the rich man were. That story just happened to be about the afterlife, which Jesus knew about, since He knows all things. He spoke of true messianic prophecies about Himself: “If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote of me” (Jn 5:46). He referred to events concerning King David: “Have you not read what David did, when he was hungry, . . .?” (Mt 12:3).

[the parable of] of the dishonest manager (Luke 16:1-8), which immediately precede that of the rich man and Lazarus.

It does not, as already stated. 16:14-18 is a dispute with the Pharisees.

It is obviously unnecessary to emphasize that this is another parable when one has been narrating several parables in a row, which is assumed by anyone with an IQ above zero.

If in fact, it was all parables before and after our story, he might have a point, although this wouldn’t prove that Jesus had to tell a parable in the middle of all of them and couldn’t possibly tell a true story. There is no necessity for that, let alone any statement that says such a thing. So perhaps it is Banzoli‘s IQ that might be lower than he thinks it is, or it may be that he is not nearly as unanswerable as he appears to assume.

neither did the evangelists always make a point of emphasizing when it was a parable, nor did the disciples need Jesus to explicitly state that it was one. They naturally understood that when Jesus told stories he taught in parables.

I agree that Jesus didn’t always say that a parable was a parable. That’s not in dispute.

the parable personifies inanimate characters

There is no indication I am aware of, where the Bible mentions actual historical persons, like Abraham, but only in the sense of personification. Banzoli has his categories mixed up. When Samuel appeared to Saul, it really was him, and he gave a true prophecy of Saul’s impending death and judgment, which demons would not do. Likewise, when Moses and Elijah appear with Jesus at His transfiguration, there is not the slightest suggestion that they aren’t those actual people. Personification involves giving inanimate objects personal features, not giving people personal features, which is a non sequitur or a redundancy. This is desperate special pleading on Banzoli’s part.

characters appear in Hades with a physical body, not as a disembodied soul or disembodied spirit. This becomes clear in verse 24, where the rich man asks Lazarus to “dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue ” . This shows that Lazarus had fingers and the rich man had a tongue, both organs of a physical body, not parts of an immaterial spirit or ghostly soul.

It shows no such thing. These are anthropomorphisms. As an apologist who believes in biblical inspiration and understands biblical literary forms, I have to explain these things to atheists and also to heretics like Banzoli. Neither one gets it because neither properly understands biblical idioms.

God the Father, Who is an immaterial spirit (2 Cor 3:17-18), is also (figuratively) described in the Bible as having hands (1Kgs 8:15; Is 59:1), ears (2 Chr 7:15; Is 59:1), a face (2 Chr 7:14; Is 59:2); arms (Ex 6:6); eyes (2 Chr 7:15), a heart (2 Chr 7:16); breath (Ps 33:6); wings (Ps 36:7); breasts, womb (Dt 32:18; Is 66:7-13); a finger (Ex 31:18; Dt 9:10; Lk 11:20); nostrils (Ex 15:8; Ps 18:15); and a mouth (2 Chr 6:4; 35:22).

Let’s take a step back at this point and consider the reasons why I submit that this story should not be regarded as a parable:

1) People are never named in parables. This story names Abraham (Lk 16:23-24) and Moses (16:29, 31), historical figures mentioned many other times in the Bible. Parables refer generally to people: “a king” (Lk 14:31-42), “master of the house” (Mt 24:42-44), “evil servant” (Mt 24:48-51), “a man taking a far journey” (Mk 13:34-37), “judge” (Lk 18:2), “widow” (Lk 18:3), “a certain man” (Lk 13:6), “a certain rich man” (Lk 12:16), etc. If Banzoli thinks he can find one with names, he is welcome to do so. Best of wishes to him in that endeavor!

2) Parables have earthly settings, never heavenly or spiritual ones. This story mentions Hades (Lk 16:23), and “Abraham’s bosom” (16:22).

3) Angels are not mentioned in parables. The “reapers” in the parable of the wheat and tares, are “angels” in the explanation, and “the enemy” in the parable is explained as “the devil” (Mt 13:39). So if angels only appear in the explanation, but never in the parable itself, then the story of Lazarus and the the rich man cannot be a parable, because angels are also mentioned (Lk 16:22).

4) Parables are stories that presuppose commonplace human experience (#2), then delve into a deeper spiritual meaning. But Luke 16, unlike, for example, the parable of the sower, which had to be (and was) explained by Jesus, can be read by anyone and they’ll grasp the meaning without the necessity of interpretation. Jesus never “explains” it.

A literal interpretation of the parable also leaves room for a number of inconsistencies, which immortalists would hardly want to include in their theology. For example, it would make room for the belief that the saved in heaven will be able to converse calmly with the wicked in hell, just as the rich man converses with Lazarus.

This is neither hell nor heaven, but rather, “Abraham’s bosom” (Lk 16:22) or “Hades” (Lk 16:23): the intermediate state or place where the dead resided before the death of Christ. See my article: Luke 16 Doesn’t Describe Hell or Purgatory, But Hades [1-16-20].

Imagine you not only knowing that your child is burning in hell in endless terrible suffering, but still being able to see him suffering before your eyes and communicate with him without being able to do anything to mitigate his suffering or get him out of there. I bet your experience in heaven wouldn’t be all that satisfying…

Since the story is not attempting to describe either heaven or hell, this comment is a non sequitur.

Although some immortalists claim that after Jesus’ death the saved ones in “Abraham’s Bosom” were magically transferred to a heavenly dimension

Yes, because the Bible describes that:

Ephesians 4:8-10 Therefore it is said, “When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men.” [9] (In saying, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower parts of the earth? [10] He who descended is he who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.)

1 Peter 3:18-20 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit; [19] in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison, [20] who formerly did not obey,

That’s not “magic”; it’s the power and love of God.

Either the fire in the parable is fake, or hell must not be so painful after all.

It was metaphorical flames, which stand for torment and anguish (such chastening heat and/or fire are common motifs in Scripture), just as the described body parts need not necessarily be literal. Scripture refers to a purging fire (1 Corinthians 3:13, 15 is a graphic example); whatever “shall pass through the fire” will be made “clean” (Num 31:23); “Out of heaven he let you hear his voice, that he might discipline you; and on earth he let you see his great fire, and you heard his words out of the midst of the fire” (Dt 4:36); “we went through fire” (Ps 66:12); “our God is a consuming fire” (Heb 12:29); “do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal which comes upon you to prove you” (1 Pet 4:12); We also see passages about the “baptism of fire” (Mt 3:11; Mk 10:38-39; Lk 3:16; 12:50).

Besides, what good is a drop of water when the whole body is burning with unquenchable fire? Would that drop put out the fire of hell in which the rich man was plunged?

Of course not. But since this story is not describing hell, that’s neither here nor there.

It is also striking that the rich man asks Abraham to send Lazarus back to the world of the living, as if Abraham had some power to do so, instead of God. And though Abraham does not grant the request, he does not say that he did not have this power, 

Excellent! I’ve made precisely this argument many times, in using this part of Scripture to defend the invocation and intercession of saints. If Abraham couldn’t grant prayer requests, he would have made that clear, and would have said, “why are you asking me?! Go to God only!” But he didn’t. He simply declined the request. So this would be more false teaching from the lips of Jesus, if the Protestant denial of the communion of saints is the true state of affairs. Since Jesus cannot and would not ever teach falsehood, it follows that one can make petitionary requests of dead people. Abraham was a great prayer warrior on earth; he is in the afterlife also.

No wonder, the traditional conception of hell in systematic theologies completely deviates from that presented in the parable,

Now he’s starting to get it; since the story is about Hades, as it itself plainly states. But Banzoli is so profoundly ignorant and biblically illiterate that he can’t tell — or doesn’t know — the difference between the biblical concepts of heaven and hell and Sheol / Hades / Abraham’s bosom.

it only makes sense to speak of “lies” when dealing with real stories , not from fictional stories , like a parable.

This simply isn’t true. Jesus can’t utter theological lies or falsehoods in His parables. The parable is a teaching tool of Jesus. He can’t present false notions in them (even granting for the moment that this story is actually a parable, as many honest Christian scholars regard it). So, for example, when using “master” as a metaphor for God (as many parables do), Jesus couldn’t say that the servant had five masters rater than one (implying that there were five gods instead of one God). That would convey the false teaching of polytheism. Parables have to be theologically correct or else they would fail as teaching tools. The first requirement of a good teacher is to tell the truth and not inaccuracies, falsehoods, or lies.

If telling a fictional story was “lying”, then all fiction writers would be big liars.

This would only apply to fiction that is attempting to allegorically convey known truths of Christianity. So, for example, in C. S. Lewis’ famous Chronicles of Narnia series, Aslan the lion represents Christ (as all interpreters agree). He has qualities that are reflections of those of Christ. If he were portrayed as a deceiver or one who hates rather than loves, then that would not be a good or accurate allegory of Christianity. Or if these stories had four Aslans, as if there were four Christs instead of one, it would be a “lie” insofar as it is attempting to mirror or reflect Christian doctrine in a way that doesn’t correspond to the latter.

Lewis (my favorite author these past 45 years) denied that the Chronicles were straight allegories. But Aslan as one element within them reflects Christ. Lewis wrote in a December 1959 letter to a young girl named Sophia Storr:

I don’t say. ‘Let us represent Christ as Aslan.’ I say, ‘Supposing there was a world like Narnia, and supposing, like ours, it needed redemption, let us imagine what sort of Incarnation and Passion and Resurrection Christ would have there.’

So that’s not an exact analogy, but close enough to make my point. With Jesus and the parables, however, He is a teacher in Israel, and in fact, the Jewish Messiah and God the Son, and His teaching is recorded in inspired revelation. In His teaching He could not misrepresent the afterlife and the doctrine of souls (and the invocation and intercession of saints). That simply could not and would not happen, within the paradigm of Christianity and inspired Scripture. It would be a lie, and He’s not a liar. He is “the way and the truth and the life” (Jn 14:6).

It makes less than no sense for Him to teach what He did in Luke 16 (whether it’s a parable or a real story) if in fact soul sleep and the absence of the intercession of saints and a place called Hades / Sheol (in a sense other than merely any “grave”) are the actual state of affairs. That would be deception: accessible to many millions who have read the Gospel of Luke for two thousand years.

As we can see, personifying inanimate things is a recurring practice in the Bible, even more so in a parabolic context like this one.

Lazarus, the rich man, and Abraham are not inanimate objects, but people. This is not personification. It has nothing to do with Banzoli’s favorite supposed “counter-example”: talking trees.

None of Jesus’ original hearers would be induced to think that the soul survives after death, 

Really? What would they make of Elijah and Moses appearing at His transfiguration, then? That was an actual historical event. I visited the place on top of a mountain where it happened. Also, how could Jesus say “Laz’arus, come out” (Jn 11:43) if the dead Lazarus couldn’t hear Him? Or how could Peter say, “Tabitha, rise” (Acts 9:40) if the dead Tabitha couldn’t hear him? Jesus’ disciples saw Him raise Lazarus.

In this parable, the unfaithful steward dishonestly halves the debts of his creditors in order to gain some personal gain from them (Luke 16:1-9), but no one accuses Jesus of encouraging dishonesty in business.

It is curious to observe that the same immortalists who use the means of the parable of Luke 16:19-31 to validate the immortality of the soul do not do the same thing with the means of the previous parable to validate dishonest administration, despite the parable saying that “the master commended the dishonest manager, because he acted shrewdly” (Luke 16:8).

Jesus was not sanctioning dishonesty, but rather, prudence. Expositor’s Greek Testament explains:

The master . . . may be supposed to be in the dark; it is the speaker of the parable who is in the secret. He praises the steward of iniquity, not for his iniquity (so Schleiermacher), but for his prudence in spite of iniquity. . . . The counsel would be immoral if in the spiritual sphere it were impossible to imitate the steward’s prudence while keeping clear of his iniquity. In other words, it must be possible to make friends against the evil day by unobjectionable actions. The mere fact that the lesson of prudence is drawn from the life of an unprincipled man is no difficulty to any one who understands the nature of parabolic instruction. The comparison between men of the world and the “sons of light” explains and apologises for the procedure. If you want to know what prudent attention to self-interest means it is to men of the world you must look.

Likewise, Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges:

The fraud of this “steward of injustice” is neither excused nor palliated; the lesson is drawn from his worldly prudence in supplying himself with friends for the day of need,—which we are to do by wise and holy use of earthly gifts. . . . The zeal and alacrity of the “devil’s martyrs” may be imitated even by God’s servants.

And Barnes’ Notes on the Bible:

The lord commended – Praised, or expressed admiration at his wisdom. These are not the words of Jesus, as commending him, but a part of the narrative or parable. His “master” commended him – saw that he was wise and considerate, though he was dishonest.

The unjust steward – It is not said that his master commended him because he was “unjust,” but because he was “wise.” This is the only thing in his conduct of which there is any approbation expressed, and this approbation was expressed by “his master.” This passage cannot be brought, therefore, to prove that Jesus meant to commend his dishonesty. It was a commendation of his “shrewdness or forethought;” but the master could no more “approve” of his conduct as a moral act than he could the first act of cheating him.

Banzoli concedes this point later, by asserting (my italics):

the dishonest manager is praised for having acted shrewdly, even though he has robbed his master. . . . In the case of the parable of the dishonest steward, the lesson was that “he who is faithful with a little is also faithful with much, and he who is dishonest with a little is also dishonest with much” (Luke 16:10) – which has nothing to do with stealing from the boss

***

It is inappropriate and unwise to draw theological conclusions upon the means of a parable, which, by definition, is a fictional story, expressed through allegories. What we must extract from them is their moral lesson, which is usually found between the lines.

If we can learn morals through parables, we can also learn theology. The line is very fine. For example, the biblical statement, “God is love” is at the same time a theological and moral observation. Something like “because the Holy Spirit lives within us, we love others as Christ loved us” is the same blend.

Just as no one believes that bad wolves destroy houses with a breath, no one should think that the dead converse in the afterlife

Well, they do when they learn that Scripture repeatedly teaches it, as I have shown in my past entries (that it does do so). We bow to God’s inspired revelation, which is far more momentous than our own pet speculations and predispositions.

Furthermore, unlike Jesus’ other parables, the one about the rich man and Lazarus does not portray “everyday truths”,

Precisely because it isn’t a parable, as mentioned above. I thank Lucas for confirming one of my arguments.

it is of a completely different type from the other parables found in the Gospels.

Yeah, because it isn’t a parable at all . . .

and, as we shall see, the lesson of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus was that “if they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced even if someone raises from the dead” (Luke 16:31) – nothing to to do with the immortality of the soul.

Nonsense. The very person who made this statement (according to Jesus) was Abraham, who was conscious, in Hades, and conversing with another conscious soul in Hades, who had prayed to him (not God). So it has everything to do with the immortality of the soul. Try as hard as he may, Banzoli can’t ignore all these factors and pretend they aren’t there or have no relevance, anymore than a (non-blind) person looking straight up in the sky at noon on a clear summer day can avoid seeing the sun.

The parable’s lesson had nothing to do with God being irritated by our requests, but only that we must pray with perseverance. . . . 

Anyone making a literal application of the parable would be led to think that God is like that hard-hearted man who acts dishonestly, since it is He who distributes the talents.

Both stories make use of anthropopathism. We can only understand God by making Him seem like us in some respects, even though it isn’t actually true.

the simple reason that the means of a parable can never be used to substantiate doctrine.

Nonsense. They sure can. That was part of Jesus’ intention in giving them (along with teaching good morals). What we have to do is properly, correctly understand when figurative language is being used, and what it means when it is being used. This is what Banzoli gets wrong.  Many of the parables have to do with, for example, going to heaven or hell, which in turn, is related to soteriology, which is certainly theology. Therefore, the opposite of what Banzoli claims, is true: parables can and do “substantiate doctrine.”

Banzoli concedes this point in his next paragraph, contradicting himself: “We know that this parable talks about salvation, . . .”

However, few think that God literally forces people to be saved, as if they had no choice but to reject him.

Calvinists do (“irresistible grace” and “unconditional election”), but that’s beside the point. If the parable has to do with salvation, that’s soteriology, a branch of theology. And that’s doctrine.

It’s a kind of convenient deception, which serves the purpose of someone desperate to find biblical support for a doctrine that he knows is so baseless that the way is to resort to a parable.

Once again, Banzoli casts aspersions upon the basic honesty of all those Christians whom he himself described as “nearly all the Christians in the world.” This is outrageous. I do not claim the same about him. I think he is misinformed and grossly ignorant, and pompously condescending, but not dishonest. In other words, I don’t doubt his sincerity.

I doubt his theological understanding and ability to interpret Holy Scripture according to historic orthodoxy (including Protestant orthodoxy) and the laws of logic. But Banzoli is not a Protestant. He’s a Christological heretic: the worst and most dangerous kind. That’s not a mere insult. It’s a statement of fact, based on his beliefs, as stated in this book.

The Pharisees were proud of having Abraham as their father, but they did not act in accordance with what Abraham did. That is why in the parable Jesus places Abraham beside the beggar Lazarus, and leaves him separated from the rich man by a great gulf (v. 26). All of this is very symbolic, representing at the same time how far the Pharisees were from the one they claimed to have as their “father”, and how those who really followed in the footsteps of Abraham were the repentant sinners whom they so despised, who in the parable are placed at the side of Abraham in the figure of Lazarus.

All of that could have been done in a different way, without having the scene be a place which is precisely what “immortalists” understand as Sheol/Hades. Jesus didn’t need to include false doctrine (according to the soul sleep advocates) in His teaching here. There were a million other ways He could have made the same point and the same distinctions. It makes no sense at all that He just happened to tell the story (or parable, for those who believe that) with all this “baggage.” Banzoli simply can’t overcome this difficulty in his position, no matter how much he seeks to ignore it and special plead and rationalize it away and out of his thoroughly confused brain.

the expression “the bosom of the Father” does not refer to a place with this name, but is just a way of saying that Jesus he is beside the Father, seated at the right hand of the Almighty.

That is a place: in heaven next to God the Father. Likewise, “bosom of Abraham” before the death and resurrection of Christ means being in the place where Abraham was: that is, in the good part of Sheol / Hades, which is where those who would eventually go to heaven reside (with the ones bound for hell across the chasm).

Note further that the rich man says he had five brothers (v. 28). Jesus could have just said that he had brothers, but he is very specific in saying that he had five.

Yes, because this was a true story about real people; so in this case, he actually had five brothers, and Jesus can’t change that (being always a truthteller). It’s overanalyzing it to make out that this represents five factions of Judaism. It doesn’t represent anything except the historical fact that this man had five brothers.

Even the names quoted in the parable, which immortalists slyly use as “proof” that it was not a parable,

I reiterate my challenge: find another parable that has proper names. And if there are none, then that is strong evidence that this is not a parable.

It is noteworthy that there is not a single dictionary in the world that imposes as a rule that a parable cannot have proper names. 

That’s not necessary. This is simply an observation about the nature of existing parables in the NT: what they are and what they aren’t, or what they don’t include.

This is a “rule” invented by desperate immortalists, plucked from their own heads.

Nope. It’s a fact about the actual parables in the NT. A fact is not a rule.

What needs to be understood is that the parable’s exaggerations and nonsense are not occasional, but were deliberately included by Jesus to satirize the Greek Hades. By seeing Jesus treat the pagan Hades as a joke, his hearers would in no way be induced to believe the reality of it. Rather, they would know that Jesus did not endorse belief, just as Elijah did not endorse belief in Baal by ridiculing him. It would be like telling the famous story of Snow White but portraying the seven dwarfs as seven muscular giants. That would elicit laughter from the audience, and certainly no one would think I believed the tale.

I see. How, then, are these other verses to be explained? They certainly don’t read as satire and as exhibiting Jesus’ supposed disbelief in Hades, or His thinking it was a “joke”. He’s dead serious:

Matthew 11:23 And you, Caper’na-um, will you be exalted to heaven? You shall be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.

Luke 10:15 And you, Caper’na-um, will you be exalted to heaven? You shall be brought down to Hades.

This is about judgment of those in these cities who rejected Jesus. That’s funny? That’s a joke or satire? One of these uses is just six chapters before our story. Similarly, Revelation 1:18; 6:8; 20:13-14 are as serious as they can be in referring to Hades. 20:13 states that Hades had “dead in” it. It was the abode of the dead. The wicked dead there are “thrown into the lake of fire” (hell: 20:14), while the righteous there go with Jesus to heaven, after He conquered death (Eph 4:8-10; 1 Pet 3:18-20). If these are “joking” and humorous references to Hades, I must say that I don’t see the slightest hint of it. What could be more serious than passages about people going to hell for eternity (or being annihilated, if one follows Banzoli’s heretical view)? If that’s a “joke” I surely don’t know the meaning of the word. Maybe it translates badly from Portugese . . .

this ignorance is deliberate, for no layperson who would take the trouble to research the true purpose of the parable in the face of all the biblical, exegetical, and historical context would go to the ridiculous lengths of concluding that Jesus was endorsing the belief in an immortal soul.

In other words, no one can have a serious, honest, sincere disagreement with Banzoli and his heretical buddies. Any disagreement with them must arise out of deliberate ignorance: that is, consciously, deliberately deceptive lies. This is its own refutation.

Lastly, John Calvin wrote about this topic:

Let us come now to the history of the rich man and Lazarus, the latter of whom, after all the labors and toils of his mortal life are past, is at length carried into Abraham’s bosom, while the former, having had his comforts here, now suffers torments. A great gulf is interposed between the joys of the one and the sufferings of the other. Are these mere dreams – the gates of ivory which the poets fable? To secure a means of escape, they make the history a parable, and say, that all which truth speaks concerning Abraham, the rich man and the poor man, is fiction. Such reverence do they pay to God and his word! Let them produce even one passage from Scripture where any one is called by name in a parable! What is meant by the words – “There was a poor man named Lazarus?” Either the Word of God must lie, or it is a true narrative.

This is observed by the ancient expounders of Scripture. Ambrose says – It is a narrative rather than a parable, inasmuch as the name is added. Gregory takes the same view. Certainly Tertullian, Irenaeus, Origen, Cyprian and Jerome, speak of it as a history. Among these, Tertullian thinks that, in the person of the rich man, Herod is designated, and in Lazarus John Baptist. The words of Irenaeus are “The Lord did not tell us a fable in the case of the rich man and Lazarus,” etc, And Cyril, in replying to the Arians, who drew from it an argument against the Divinity of Christ, does not relate it as a parable, but expounds it as a history. (Tertull. lib. adv. Marcion; Iren. lib. 4: contra haeres, cap. 4; Origen, Hom. 5 in Ezech.; Cyprian epist, 3; Hieron. in Jes. c. 49 and 65; Hilar. in Psalm 3.; Cyril in John 1 chapter 22.) They are more absurd when they bring forward the name of Augustine, pretending that he held their view. They affirm this, I presume, because in one place he says – “In the parable, by Lazarus is to be understood Christ, and by the rich man the Pharisees;” when all he means is, that the narrative is converted into a parable if the person of Lazarus is assigned to Christ, and that of the rich man to the Pharisees. (August. de Genes. ad Liter. lib. 8:) This is the usual custom with those who take up a violent prejudice in favor of an opinion. Seeing that they have no ground to stand upon, they lay hold not only of syllables but letters to twist them to their use! To prevent them from insisting here, the writer himself elsewhere declares, that he understands it to be a history. Let them now go and try to put out the light of day by means of their smoke!

They cannot escape without always falling into the same net: for though we should grant it to be a parable, (this they cannot at all prove,) what more can they make of it than just that there is a comparison which must be founded in truth? If these great theologians do not know this, let them learn it from their grammars, there they will find that a parable is a similitude, founded on reality. Thus, when it is said that a certain man had two sons to whom he divided his goods, there must be in the nature of things both a man and sons, inheritance and goods. In short, the invariable rule in parables is, that we first conceive a simple subject and set it forth; then, from that conception, we are guided to the scope of the parable – in other words, to the thing itself to which it is accommodated. Let them imitate Chrysostom, who is their Achilles in this matter. He thought that it was a parable, though he often extracts a reality from it, as when he proves from it that the dead have certain abodes, and shews the dreadful nature of Gehenna, and the destructive effects of luxury. (Chrysos. Hom, 25 in Matthew Hom. 57; in eundem, In Par ad The. Lapsor. Hom. 4 Matthew). (Psychopannychia, 1534)

***

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 Churchor 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 apologistand February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

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 InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

Photo credit: Saint Michael the Archangel and Another Figure Recommending a Soul to the Virgin and Child in Heaven, by Bartolomeo Biscaino (1629-1657) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: Part 10 of many responses to Lucas Banzoli’s 1900-page book, The Legend of the Immortality of the Soul: published on 1 August 2022. I defend historic Christianity.

2020-02-22T21:11:13-04:00

This is my reply to comments on my blog, underneath the article, Dialogue: Are Paul, the Bible, & Catholicism Against Sex?  Words of anti-theist-type agnostic 90Lew90 (who was dialogue opponent in part 1) will be in blue.

***

“Each and every sexual act must be marital, unitive and procreative.”

I looked through my words in our last dialogue and could not find this “quote.” So why do you put these words in quotation marks, and where did you get it from. I think I know, but I’d like to hear you admit your little sleight-of-hand attempt here. Just as before, you don’t really interact with my arguments. You simply preach and repeat; and this is a logical fallacy. It doesn’t prove anything, except that you believe x, and preach it repeatedly. It tells us nothing as to the truth or falsity of x.

Your “quotation” as it stands is plainly false according to Catholic teaching, which holds that we are always to be open to procreation, if it occurs (i.e., don’t contracept and don’t murder an innocent, helpless child that is conceived (planned or not). Pope St. Paul VI in his encyclical Humanae Vitae in 1968 made it quite clear that spacing and limitation of children is permissible on three grounds: financial, emotional, and health reasons.

This means that it is perfectly in accord with Catholic teaching to plan children and to also plan to deliberately have sex (not desiring a child at this particular time, for good and valid reasons) during infertile times in the wife’s reproductive cycle. Nor does the Church forbid sex between infertile couples, or couples past the age of childbearing.

What it forbids is contraception and being hostile to a life that may come about due to our sexual activities.

Anything else is intrinsically evil and gravely immoral.

I have explained what we consider immoral.

This is not the kind of sex anyone has.

Many millions of observant Catholics have it, and secular polling repeatedly establishes that married couples who are serious about their Christian faith (go to church every week, pray, read the Bible, follow the moral teachings, etc.) are 1) happier in general (as indicated by self-reports and far less divorce), and 2) happier and more fulfilled specifically in the sexual sense.

Who woulda thunk it, huh? Us supposedly killjoy, puritanistic, fuddy-dud, Victorian, dour, anti-pleasure, anti-sex Christians have a considerably happier sex life than our wild, “liberated” so-called “free” friends who follow no particular religious code: and this is borne out by secular scientific social studies (sociology was my major). The empty promise in the sexual revolution was blissful happiness to all who ventured out to be as promiscuous as they could be. Somehow it didn’t work out that way. We knew all along that it wouldn’t. Pope Paul VI predicted virtually every alarming social trend having to do with sex, that we see today.

Even to have sex for pleasure is intrinsically evil and gravely immoral.

Not at all; only when pleasure becomes the sole and ultimate end of sex, while procreation is rejected. God invented the gift of sex and gave it to us to enjoy. He could have made reproduction something like a blood transfusion or a specialized handshake or what not. He could have done anything He wanted to. But He chose to make reproduction and sexuality one of the greatest physical pleasures that human beings can experience.

He did the same with eating. Taste buds have no biological function. They are strictly for pleasure. That’s how God wanted it. He could have not created, for example, colors, and the infinite variety of plants and wildlife, and of human personalities and different appearances (hair and eye color, shapes, etc.). He chose variety: knowing that we would enjoy that. The world is a feast for the senses.

The pleasure arising from sex may be seen as good in itself but incidental to the sex act.

Again, it is good; it’s great. It is one of the dual purposes of sex, but it’s not the very essence of sex, which is openness to life and reproduction / procreation, as its fundamental purpose. Many people have the greatest difficulty distinguishing between “not making something an ultimate or sole end” and “bad through and through.”

If pleasure is sought as the end of sex, it is intrinsically evil and gravely immoral.

Strictly speaking (as explained) yes, but of course there are many infertile times when the sex is primarily (in practice) for pleasure and unity and togetherness.

This is not the kind of sex anyone has. Every time you do it, according to the church, you must be trying for a baby.

I already explained above how this is clearly false, and (with just a few moments’ reflection) downright stupid and clueless as well. Nor does the Church require Catholics to have unlimited children. We’re allowed to plan. It’s called Natural Family Planning. We’re not allowed to contracept. I have explained the essential difference between the two things in many papers.

Aquinas bases his sexual ethics on his misconception of nature. While man is allowed special status in creation in almost every other sphere, in sexual matters, Aquinas reduces him to the level of the animals, which he supposes only have sex in order to procreate. We know this is not true of animals, and we know that sex — and sex for pleasure — is of vital importance to healthy human bonding and flourishing. Aquinas not only neglects this view but explicitly rejects it.

I’d have to see what he says. But whatever he teaches, he alone (respected though he is) is not part of the magisterium. In other words, his is not the last word on the topic within Catholicism. So he could quite possibly teach many things that the Church has determined to be false, or incomplete truths. What folks who are actually willing to inquire and understand, should seek out, are the wonderful teachings of Pope St. John Paul II on the theology of the body. This is the highest development of Catholic thought on the topic.

Foreplay is not allowed. “Passionate kissing” is extremely dodgy territory.

Not within a marriage, with the proper understanding of the purpose of sexuality. Foreplay is simply part of sex (read Song of Solomon). What we prohibit is male ejaculation outside of the vagina, and female orgasm completely disconnected from intercourse and possible procreation. And this is because orgasm is made an end in and of itself and separated totally from openness to procreation. This is why homosexual sex is by its very nature gravely disordered.

Aquinas goes so far as to make prescriptions even on the position in which you’re allowed to have sex (the missionary is de rigeur, unless some health ailment precludes it and you can’t procreate unless you do it doggy).

Again, no Catholic is bound to what one man (however eminent) wrote about sexuality in the 13th century.

It is the Catholic notion of sex which is unnatural. The natural law prescriptions about sex are based on a completely ignorant misapprehension of nature.

This is one of your typical broad sweeping assertions with no rational content.

You call these “sensible rules” about sex. On what planet? Certainly not our vastly over-populated one. That much seems certain.

The earth is not overpopulated.

I’m surprised you found that little comment box exchange of ours interesting enough to build a post out of it. It smacks of rather desperate click-bait.

It was an opportunity to reveal the bankruptcy of much of the secular argument against the Catholic Church as regards sex, and that’s why I do dialogues: for their pedagogical value. I’m not just doing this just for fun, or as some sort of pastime (though I do almost always enjoy it). I’m a teacher. This is my life’s work. I will show every time how weak the opposing argument is, when it attempts to trash the Bible, Catholicism, or larger Christianity, and offers nothing remotely as good as an alternative. I’ve never found that to be a difficult task to do. Quite easy, actually . . .

I do hope you’re not as yet in penury, but console yourself with the knowledge that life is supposed to be a bitch. “Offer it up,” as my mother used to say.

Thanks for your concern. I’m doing fine. God has provided our needs, as always. As I always note: we have a great credit score, don’t use credit cards, have no debts except a mortgage, pay all our bills, and take a nice vacation every year. Last year was Grand Canyon and Bryce Canyon; two years before that we went to Alaska (9000 mile round trip, by car, from Michigan), etc. So we’re not financially suffering in any real sense of that word.

We’re richer than most people in the world and especially most throughout history. We’re certainly not “rich” by American standards, but that is by our own free choice and a result of our priorities in life. I do include a mild solicitation in many of my articles (see it below) because I provide a service, and deserve to be recompensed for it by people who say they have been aided or helped.

***

Related Reading

Sexuality, Gender, Feminism, & Divorce web page

Life Issues: Abortion, Contraception, War, Etc. web page

***

Unfortunately, Money Trees Do Not Exist: If you have been aided in any way by my work, or think it is valuable and worthwhile, please strongly consider financially supporting it (even $10 / month — a mere 33 cents a day — would be very helpful). I have been a full-time Catholic apologist since Dec. 2001, and have been writing Christian apologetics since 1981 (see my Resume). My work has been proven (by God’s grace alone) to be fruitful, in terms of changing lives (see the tangible evidences from unsolicited “testimonies”). I have to pay my bills like all of you: and have a (homeschooling) wife and two children still at home to provide for, and a mortgage to pay.
*
My book royalties from three bestsellers in the field (published in 2003-2007) have been decreasing, as has my overall income, making it increasingly difficult to make ends meet.  I provide over 2700 free articles here, for the purpose of your edification and education, and have written 50 books. It’ll literally be a struggle to survive financially until Dec. 2020, when both my wife and I will be receiving Social Security. If you cannot contribute, I ask for your prayers (and “likes” and links and shares). Thanks!
*
See my information on how to donate (including 100% tax-deductible donations). It’s very simple to contribute to my apostolate via PayPal, if a tax deduction is not needed (my “business name” there is called “Catholic Used Book Service,” from my old bookselling days 17 or so years ago, but send to my email: [email protected]). Another easy way to send and receive money (with a bank account or a mobile phone) is through Zelle. Again, just send to my e-mail address. May God abundantly bless you.
*

***

Photo credit: brett jordan (6-28-10); how many view the Catholic Church, but it is grossly inaccurate; in fact, not even accurate as to the nature of Puritanism, either [Flickr / CC BY 2.0 license]

***

2019-06-14T13:30:16-04:00

“JS”, a Thomist, with whom I have recently been debating the nature of predestination, has claimed that Pope John Paul II was a “Thomist.” In a very broad sense, one could state this. But once one looks more closely, I think it is a misleading categorization. Here is our brief exchange, from previous comments on my blog (his words in blue), and a collection of several commentaries on the general question of Thomism and the proponents of it, in its various forms:
* * * * *

Thomism is not the last word on everything in the Church. The present pope and John Paul Great (basically a phenomenologist, philosophically) were not particularly of that train of thought at all, and no one would suspect their orthodoxy or huge contributions to the Mind of the Church. Sometimes it appears to me that Thomists view themselves as sort of the “cream of the crop,” somewhat like Calvinists see themselves within Protestantism.

It’s a great tradition, which has made immense contributions to the Church, and I love St. Thomas, but it’s not the magisterium or the extent of the Mind of the Church. If a Thomist acts like it is, he is wrong. And I’m not commenting on JS! Just a general observation from my 15 years of dialoguing about theological matters . . .

John Paul the II was a Thomist, and trained under the greatest Thomist of the 20th century, Father Lagrange at the Angelicum in Rome. In Fides et Ratio he repeatedly defended the tradition of St. Thomas and the Thomists of the 20th century. John Paul II is actually a perfect example of what a Thomist really is – able to adapt and utilize newer currents in philosophy (as Aquinas had done in his day) in the service of theology. Thomism is the undergirding force behind his phenomenology. St. Edith Stein summarized this nicely, “Phenomenology is the handmaid of Thomism.” John Paul II is very much in this school of thought.

Thomism does have privileged place in Catholic theology as per Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Aeterni Patris, St. Pius X’s encyclical Against Modernism and John Paul II’s encyclical Faith and Reason.

No one is denying that it does. Again, what I stated was a far less critical assertion: “Thomism is not the last word on everything in the Church” and “it’s not the magisterium or the extent of the Mind of the Church.”

I believe the “Thomism” that Dave is presenting is an overly narrow view of Thomism that is not consistent with the Church’s doctrinal understanding of it.

I haven’t “presented” Thomism at all; all I did was make a subjective observation of how some Thomists sometimes come off, as a matter of attitude. That is not the thing itself, but rather, how it is presented, over against other broadly philosophical approaches to the faith.

As for John Paul the Great being a “Thomist,” this is not true, as biographer George Weigel makes very clear (nor is Pope Benedict XVI). He had great respect for St. Thomas and Thomism, as all Catholics should and must (I would say), but his thought is not a mere development of Thomism: it moves beyond it and dialogues with it, incorporating its truths within a larger intellectual sphere.

That is exactly how I would describe my own approach: I am a syncretist in terms of philosophical theology. The biggest intellectual influence on me was Cardinal Newman, who is also of a very different school and mode of thinking than Thomism (while immensely respecting its contributions, as I do).

Here are biographer George Weigel’s opinions on this question, from his 992-page volume, Witness to Hope: The Biography of Pope John Paul II (New York: HarperCollins, 1999):

[T]he Dominican-led Angelicum, where Wojtyla studied, had positioned itself as the defender of a rigorous neo-scholasticism, a form of Thomism that had been developed from the mid-thirteenth through the early twentieth centuries as an alternative to modern philosophical methods . . .

The leading figure on the Angelicum faculty during Wojtyla’s doctoral studies was Father Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, OP, the undisputed master of traditional neo-scholasticism.

. . . In his review of the dissertation, Garrigou criticized Wojtyla for not using the phrase “divine object” of God . . . Garrigou did not persuade Wojtyla of his point . . . his insistence on not treating God as a divine “object,” even by way of analogy, Wojtyla was moving beyond the vocabulary, formulas, and intellectual categories that dominated the Angelicum during his two years there. The Thomism he had learned in Krakow and at the Angelicum . . . had given him an intellectual foundation. But it was precisely that, a foundation. And foundations were meant to be built upon.

. . . The phenomenologist . . . [is] interested in the experience as a whole, the psychological, physical, moral, and conceptual elements . . . It was phenomenology’s determination to see things whole and get to the reality of things-as-they-are that attracted Karol Wojtyla . . . That he looked to Scheler as a possible guide, and that he put himself through the backbreaking work of translation so that he could analyze Scheler in his own language, suggests that Wojtyla had become convinced that the answers were not found in the neo-scholasticism of Father Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange . . .

Wojtyla didn’t lock himself into intellectual combat with the philosophical method he had been taught, expending his energies in a war of attrition against an entrenched Catholic way of thinking. Certain forms of neo-scholasticism might have been an obstacle to a genuine Catholic encounter with modern philosophy. Wojtyla simply went around the barrier, having absorbed what was enduring about neo-scholasticism – its conviction that philosophy could get to the truth of things-as-they-are . . . The net result would be what Wojtyla would call, years later, a way of doing philosophy that “synthesized both approaches”: the metaphysical realism of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas and the sensitivity to human experience of Max Scheler’s phenomenology . . . Wojtyla also agreed with Scheler’s claim that human intuitions into the truth of things included moral intuitions, a certain “knowledge of the heart” that was, nonetheless, real knowledge [Dave: this reminds one of Augustine and Pascal, as well as Newman] . . . The question Wojtyla posed in his habilitation thesis was whether Scheler (and, by extension, the phenomenological method) could do for contemporary Christian philosophy and theology what Aristotle had done for Thomas Aquinas.

. . . The KUL [Catholic University of Lublin, where he taught, starting in 1953] philosophers also agreed to adopt a distinctively modern starting point for philosophical inquiry. Philosophy would begin with a disciplined reflection on human experience rather than with cosmology (a general theory of the universe), as ancient and medieval philosophy and the neo-scholasticism Wojtyla had been taught at the Angelicum had done.

. . . Karol Wojtyla’s continuing interest in phenomenology and his ongoing investigation of modern and contemporary philosophy raised eyebrows among some of his more traditional colleagues . . .

Ratzinger’s appointment also suggested that the Pope wanted CDF [Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith] to interact with the international theological community in a thoroughly contemporary way . . . Cardinal Ratzinger was the first man in his position in centuries who did not take Thomas Aquinas as his philosophical and theological master. The Pope respected Thomism and Thomists, but he broke precedent by appointing a non-Thomistic Prefect of CDF. It was a clear signal that he believed there was a legitimate pluralism of theological methods, and that this pluralism ought to be taken into account in the formulation of authoritative teaching. (pp. 84-87, 127-129, 133, 135, 443-444)

From a blog article: Benedict XVI, Vatican II and Modernity: Tracey Rowland on the Pope’s Interpretation of the Council (July 24, 2005; Zenit.org):

Q: In what sense is Pope Benedict an Augustinian? In what sense is he a Thomist?

Rowland: I would say that Pope Benedict is a Thomist insofar as he would probably agree with most of what St. Thomas wrote. However, he is not a Thomist in the sense of appealing to the authority of St. Thomas in his defense of the faith, focusing his scholarly endeavors upon the works of Aquinas or in the sense of using a scholastic methodology. Rather, Pope Benedict is one of the many members of his generation who, while not disagreeing with the content of Thomist thought, believed that the scholastic presentation of the faith doesn’t exactly set souls on fire unless they happen to be a particular type of soul with a passion for intellectual disputation. He has said that “scholasticism has its greatness, but everything is impersonal.” In contrast, with Augustine “the passionate, suffering, questioning man is always right there, and you can identify with him.” Benedict has also been strongly influenced by the Augustinian principle that faith is the door to understanding. He has said that he believes that a kind of memory, of recollection of God, is etched in man, though it needs to be awakened. His Augustinian pedigree is also manifest in his interest in the transcendental of beauty and his understanding of the catechetical importance of language and symbols and the relationship between matters of form and substance.

From: John Paul II and Human Dignity (June 2005), by Tracey Rowland:

This anthropology took its final academic form in the publication of his work The Acting Person in 1969. The ideas contained in this work are often summarised under the label of Lublin Thomism. The important point here is that his solution to the anthropological challenges of the ensemble of Marxists, Freudians and Nietzscheans, was not a mere warmed up late scholastic Thomism, something which would have been about as effective as the Polish cavalry charge against German tanks in 1939. Rather, he took the classical Thomist insight that every human action has two dimensions: the transitive and intransitive, meaning that every one of our actions has both an internal and external effect, and synthesised this with insights from the Existentialist and Personalist movements. In so doing he linked human dignity, not to power, but to the human capacity for self-transcendence. He argued that human persons can transcend their cultural conditioning, can arise above the temptation to do evil, if they train their wills on the good, and their intellects on the true.

In The Duty to Know, on John Paul II’s encyclical Fides et Ratio, John J. Reilly wrote:

John Paul II also takes care to note that Neo-Thomism is not the whole of Christian philosophy, and neither does he propose it as the universal philosophy of the future. He alludes to other, more recent methods, especially the phenomenology that has so influenced his own thinking. He suggests that these different intellectual approaches may nevertheless allow for a unity of method . . .

Here are some relevant statements from Pope John Paul II from Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason: 9-14-98) — green emphases added –:

58. The positive results of the papal summons are well known. Studies of the thought of Saint Thomas and other Scholastic writers received new impetus. Historical studies flourished, resulting in a rediscovery of the riches of Medieval thought, which until then had been largely unknown; and there emerged new Thomistic schools. With the use of historical method, knowledge of the works of Saint Thomas increased greatly, and many scholars had courage enough to introduce the Thomistic tradition into the philosophical and theological discussions of the day. The most influential Catholic theologians of the present century, to whose thinking and research the Second Vatican Council was much indebted, were products of this revival of Thomistic philosophy. Throughout the twentieth century, the Church has been served by a powerful array of thinkers formed in the school of the Angelic Doctor.

59. Yet the Thomistic and neo-Thomistic revival was not the only sign of a resurgence of philosophical thought in culture of Christian inspiration. Earlier still, and parallel to Pope Leo’s call, there had emerged a number of Catholic philosophers who, adopting more recent currents of thought and according to a specific method, produced philosophical works of great influence and lasting value. Some devised syntheses so remarkable that they stood comparison with the great systems of idealism. Others established the epistemological foundations for a new consideration of faith in the light of a renewed understanding of moral consciousness; others again produced a philosophy which, starting with an analysis of immanence, opened the way to the transcendent; and there were finally those who sought to combine the demands of faith with the perspective of phenomenological method. From different quarters, then, modes of philosophical speculation have continued to emerge and have sought to keep alive the great tradition of Christian thought which unites faith and reason.

The following article expresses opinions on these matters, and also concerning Cardinal Newman and his intellectual approach, so eloquently, that I wish to cite it at great length (almost in its entirety):

Chairman addresses the question of Thomism in Franciscan University’s philosophy department, by John F. Crosby:

I had not planned to enter the debate over the place of Thomism in Catholic philosophy. I prefer to listen in and learn from it. But Edy Morel de la Prada leaves me no alternative, for he makes certain public criticisms of the department I chair. He says, in effect, that the philosophy department, since it does not feature Thomism as strictly as he would, has a deficient relation to the teaching Church. He further alleges that, as a result, our department somehow collaborates with the forces of dissent in the post-conciliar Church.

It would not be right to reject such serious criticisms without first carefully considering them. Various popes have expressed great esteem for St. Thomas both as philosopher and theologian, and those expressions of esteem, as indeed all papal utterances, should be carefully listened to. If the leadership in the philosophy department has failed to listen closely enough, it should be willing to recognize this lack and to make the needed changes.

But after carefully reflecting on what Mr. Morel de la Prada is saying to us, I must say I find his interpretation of the mind of the Church with respect to Thomism is a rigid, “wooden” interpretation that would hinder intellectual growth and development in the Church. A fuller, freer, more imaginative interpretation yields a very different picture of the papal recommendations of Thomism. I also find that he shows himself to be surprisingly misinformed about the department he is so eager to reform. I begin with this last point.

Mr. Morel de la Prada suggests that the non-Thomists in the philosophy department hold “that a freedom unhindered by tradition is necessary for one to make a contribution” in philosophy. I suppose I am among those he has in mind. But in my book, The Selfhood of Human Persons, I write in the Introduction: “I stand in the philosophia perennis, in the broad tradition of Western philosophy originating with Plato and Aristotle, and passing through St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus, and Suarez.” And his characterization not only fails to fit me, it fails to fit most of my colleagues as well.

From Mr. Morel de la Prada’s articles you would never know that the Department of Philosophy passed this resolution, drafted by me, on April 22, 1991: “St. Thomas Aquinas occupies a privileged position within this philosophical patrimony [of the philosophia perennis]. The professors of philosophy recognize, and gladly recognize, the unique stature and prestige of Aquinas, not only as a theologian but also as a philosopher; they gladly concur in the tradition of calling him ‘the Common Doctor.'”

Nor would you be able to tell from his picture of the department that all of us who teach in it would–I am so sure of this that I do not even bother to poll my colleagues–readily agree with what Dr. Waldstein said in his letter to the Concourse about the surpassing wisdom of St. Thomas and the importance of letting him be one of our teachers in philosophy.

Nor does he know that I for my part never identify myself as “a phenomenologist.” I have too many intellectual debts to non-phenomenologists such as Plato, Aristotle, St. Thomas, Newman.

Of course, I do not claim that if Mr. Morel de la Prada knew our department better than he does, he would find it sufficiently Thomistic to satisfy him. But he would find vastly more respect for and study of St. Thomas than he had supposed. He would find that his notion about the a-historical approach of most of the faculty does not correspond to what we really are. Above all, he would find that he was not sufficiently informed about us to challenge us publicly to change our ways.

I turn now to my other main difficulty with Mr. Morel de la Prada’s articles. I do not think that he knows how to interpret with balance and precision the papal recommendations of St. Thomas.

I begin by going back to John Henry Cardinal Newman, about whom Mr. Morel de la Prada and Mr. Gordon were debating. I base my remarks on my lifelong immersion in his works, and I say: anyone who dwells in Newman’s intellectual world knows that Newman is in no way indebted to Thomas for his first principles, which he instead derives mainly from the Greek fathers of the Church. In fact, Newman holds any number of philosophical positions that are hardly consistent with those of St. Thomas. The pious references to St. Thomas that Mr. Morel de la Prada cites in Newman can also be found in abundance in von Hildebrand’s Ethics. It is one thing to quote Thomas with respect; it is another thing to take over his first principles in one’s philosophy, and it is just this that is so conspicuously missing in Newman.

In the most thorough study that has been made of Newman the philosopher we read: “It is true that he [Newman] often consulted St. Thomas and other Scholastic theologians… He consulted them as authorities, to be assured that what he had reasoned out for himself was in accordance with the mind of theologians whom he knew to have the approval of the Church, but he never attempted to follow their method, nor their lines of thinking on any theological or philosophical questions” (Sillem, General Introduction to the Study of Newman’s Philosophy, 238, my italics).

Now why do I make so much of Newman’s independence from Thomistic philosophy? Certainly not because I think that he is a model for us in this respect. I do not myself try to follow him in his non-Thomism, nor would I in any way recommend this to my students. I make so much of it because for all his non-Thomism Newman entirely belongs to the Catholic intellectual tradition, and in fact occupies a unique position in it. He is perhaps the most seminal Catholic thinker since the Reformation. He is called the “hidden Council father” of Vatican II, being commonly credited with doing more than any other single theologian to prepare the ground in the Church for Vatican II. The saying of Erich Pryzwara, S.J., has gained great currency in the Church: what St. Augustine was for the Church in the patristic era, and what St. Thomas was for the Church in the medieval era, that Newman is for the Church in the modern era. When in 1991 John Paul II took the first step toward canonizing Newman, the official declaration of the Church read in part: “John Henry Newman’s theological thought is of such stature and profundity that he is judged by many learned men to rank alongside the greatest Fathers of the Church.” But he has this stature and profundity without being a Thomist. Both Pope Pius XII and Pope Paul VI said that they looked forward to the day when Newman would be declared a doctor of the Church. This means that they looked forward to him being made an official model for Catholic philosophers and theologians even though he was not a Thomist.

We ought to interpret the recommendation of Thomism in the light of those whom the Church proposes to us as models. If a non-Thomist enjoys enormous prestige as a Catholic thinker, and if the popes confirm this prestige, and if none of them ever complains about his not being a Thomist, or expresses any regret about it, then we can only conclude: the recommendation of Thomism does not mean that each and every Catholic philosopher is encouraged to be a Thomist. Nor does it mean that a Catholic philosopher not a Thomist must have a deficient relation to the teaching Church and must be an accomplice to the confusion that presently wracks the Church.

There is something else that the recommendation of Thomism does not mean. It does not mean that all the philosophical theses, or even the fundamental theses of St. Thomas are guaranteed by the Church to be true. A Catholic philosopher, while he should consult the teaching of St. Thomas with the greatest respect, is at liberty to think St. Thomas sometimes errs. It would seem in fact that he has to think this in certain cases, as when St. Thomas takes over Aristotle’s teaching that the human female is a “deformed male,” or when he takes over Aristotle’s account of embryonic development including the theory of “mediate animation,” which has been a source of embarrassment to contemporary Catholic philosophers trying to defend the personhood of the embryo from the moment of conception. Even with regard to St. Thomas’s philosophical first principles it is possible to have serious reservations. The great Italian Thomist, Cornelio Fabro, thought that the account of freedom in St. Thomas, so far as it was based on Aristotle, was in many ways problematic.

. . . It seems to me that one should never say of any human philosophy that it is “indestructible as truth.” Any philosophy developed by Christians, even if developed by thinkers of the stature of St. Augustine, St. Thomas or St. Bonaventure, always shows itself to be “treasure in earthen vessels.” That is, for all the treasures of truth and wisdom to be found in such philosophy, there is always also in it no lack of historical conditioning, unclarified concepts, missing distinctions, doubtful inferences, regrettable lapses, etc. One should not venerate any Christian philosophy, not even the Thomistic philosophy, in such a way as to overlook, or to repress, this inevitably earthen side of it. Otherwise, one ends up canonizing all the historical contingencies and deficiencies of that philosophy.

All the papal recommendations quite leave open the possibility that some future philosopher or school of thought will develop a philosophy, which, while preserving all the truth in Thomas, will go beyond him. In the 13th century St. Augustine was the pre-eminent Christian philosopher; along came St. Thomas, who took over this position of pre-eminence. Why should this surpassing not happen again? There are weighty reasons for thinking that at least in certain points of philosophy, including certain fundamental points, Christian philosophers have already gone decisively beyond St. Thomas. I do not only speak of correcting St. Thomas, but also of their working toward a more comprehensive view of reality. Think of the way in which Karol Wojtyla has objected to what he calls the excessively “cosmological” approach of the Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophy; think of the more “personalist” approach that he himself takes. (See his short essay, “Subjectivity and the Irreducible in Man.”) He is of the opinion that with his personalism he is retrieving an important dimension of the human person that remained altogether undeveloped in the tradition. It is true that he wants to preserve the truth in the old cosmological view of man; and yet his own view, once systematically developed, could become a unified philosophy more perfectly congenial to Christian revelation than the Thomistic.

Mr. Morel de la Prada should take care not to turn Thomistic philosophy into an obstacle to this growth of which Christian philosophy is capable. He should beware of casting aspersions on the labors of Catholic philosophers, whose work might one day share in the prestige St. Thomas today enjoys. Above all, he really must abstain from the insinuation that the work undertaken by non-Thomists must be born of a grudging spirit that refuses to accept wholeheartedly the magisterium of the Church.

This is not the first time I have seen Thomism used in a way that cramps and constrains the freedom Catholic philosophers need to do their work. It is now widely recognized that in the century before Vatican II a rigid “manualistic” Thomism had become established in many Catholic seminaries and universities, and that, under the impact of the Council, Catholic philosophy cracked and came apart, becoming engulfed in confusion, in part because authentic philosophy had for too long been replaced by a kind of “Thomistic ideology.” Looked at from this perspective it is the Thomists of the strict observance who may be contributing to the continuing crisis in the Church; they may be absolutizing St. Thomas in such a way as to pervert authentic philosophy into ideology, which then inexorably calls forth reactions that do the Church great harm.

The Church since the Council seems to be aware of the danger of prescribing Thomism too strictly; in any case, the old recommendation of St. Thomas as philosopher has been significantly weakened. Just compare the old with the new Code of Law with respect to the philosophical formation of seminarians. The old code says: “let the professors deal with the study of rational philosophy and theology…entirely according to the thought, content, and principles of the Angelic Doctor and let them hold these things as sacred” (Canon 1366.2). The new code does not so much as mention St. Thomas; instead the well-known expression of Vatican II, “the ever valid philosophical patrimony,” is used (in Canon 251) to describe the philosophical education of seminarians.

It is not to the point to insist on the special place St. Thomas occupied in this philosophical patrimony; I quite recognize it. But we cannot fail to recognize the fact that the Church since the Council has taken a more inclusive approach to Christian philosophy. This is also the approach we take in the philosophy department at Franciscan University.

See the related article: A perennially valid and Christian philosophy: Why the Church gives St. Thomas primacy of place in Catholic education, by Edy Morel de la Prada.

In a further article, John F. Crosby writes, hitting the nail on the head again:

I am reminded of the debates that Newman had with the English Ultramontanes of his day. They went much farther than he did on the question of papal infallibility. Newman thought that this theological difference between himself and them was fairly minor, being just the kind of difference that is bound to exist at all times in the Church. But the Ultramontanes refused to be so conciliatory; they questioned the Catholic faith of those who did not go the full distance with them on papal infallibility. This provoked a severe rebuke from Newman, an example of which is a famous letter written to Ward: “I protest then again, not against your tenets, but against what I must call your schismatical spirit.”

So the question is, does Mr. Morel de la Prada think that his own reading of the recommendations of Thomism completely coincides with the mind of the Church, so that any other reading of it is foreign to the mind of the Church? He seems to suggest this in the opening of his response to me. For he has me saying that the Church’s recommendation of Thomas is wooden and rigid, when in fact I only said that his interpretation of this recommendation seems to me wooden and rigid. He does not seem to mark any distinction between the mind of the Church and his own reading of the mind of the Church. But it is all important for him to make this distinction. For then it becomes possible for him to say that, as there are legitimately diverse interpretations of infallibility, so there are legitimately diverse interpretations of the recommendations of Thomism. And then he can say that these recommendations fully leave a place for Catholic philosophers who, while approaching Thomas with the greatest respect and studying him as a master from whom one has much to learn, can still not adhere to every point in Thomas with the strictness with which he personally adheres to every point.

. . . In this matter of due nuance I would urge Mr. Morel de la Prada to take greater care with his use of papal documents. In his response to me I think that he trims rather too tendentiously his quotations from John Paul’s address of September 29, 1990. He omitted these words from the passage he quoted, words in which John Paul explains why the direct references to St. Thomas were dropped at Vatican II and in the new Code of Canon Law: “without doubt the Council wanted to encourage the development of theological studies and allow their followers a legitimate pluralism and a healthy freedom of research…” The recommendation of Thomism has to be qualified by the necessity of this “legitimate pluralism.” The Church is teaching this today more emphatically than she taught it before . . . We see that there is as much a place in the intellectual realm of the Church for Newman and Blondel and von Balthasar as for Garrigou-Lagrange and Maritain and Gilson, and that it would in fact be a great loss for the Church if she had only the latter.  (Finding common ground between Thomists and non-Thomists in Catholic philosophy)

Here is another observation from Tracey Rowland: De Lubac’s writings in English translations:

One of the major undertakings of Ignatius Press has been to publish in English translation the works of the most influential European theologians in the Communio circles. The word “Communio” stands for both the title of a journal which is published in several different languages and the ecclesiology, or theory of the Church, implicit within the works of scholars associated with the journal. Initially, in the late 1960s, the leaders of this theological group were Joseph Ratzinger, Hans Urs von Balthasar and Henri de Lubac. All three were subsequently nominated as Cardinals.

Another concept associated with the Communio circles is that of “ressourcement” – a French word translated as “back to the sources”. Ressourcement scholars were all in different ways critical of elements of late scholasticism and neo-Thomism. They believed that the Thomist tradition, although of great value for the Church, had become ossified into rigid categories, that principles which were thought to have been formulated by Aquinas were in fact 16th century revisions, that the interpretation of the grace-nature relationship in 16th and 17th century scholastic thought had given rise to unhelpful dualisms in Catholic thought and practice, that the insights of the Patristics had been neglected in the focus upon scholasticism, and that the intellectual formation of seminarians was all too often limited to parroting scholastic maxims. They were not, however, opposed to Thomism per se.

Historians of the Second Vatican Council tend to agree that there were three dominant intellectual groups represented at the Council: the Neo-Thomists, the Ressourcement types (most particularly de Lubac), and the Transcendental Thomists (most particularly Karl Rahner). Thus one way of construing post-Conciliar theological conflict is to study the fault-lines which define scholars as proponents of one or other of these positions. Fr Joseph Fessio SJ, the founder of Ignatius Press, is in the Ressourcement tradition and this explains his emphasis upon the publication of the works of de Lubac, Ratzinger and von Balthasar.

***

(originally 5-5-06)

Photo credit: Detail from Triumph of St. Thomas Aquinas over Averroes, by Benozzo Gozzoli (1420–97) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

2024-11-26T23:29:25-04:00

300 Biblical Proofs + Many Additional Related Cross-References

[all passages RSV unless indicated otherwise]

[green verses indicate words of Jesus Himself]

1. Direct Statements of Jesus’ Equality with God the Father

Matthew 1:23 “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel” (which means, God with us).

Matthew 4:7 Jesus said to him, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God.’” [the devil was tempting Jesus: 4:3, 5-6]

Matthew 13:15 For this people’s heart has grown dull, and their ears are heavy of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should perceive with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and turn for me to heal them. (cf. Mt 13:13-14 and Is 6:9-10) [Jesus is citing an Old Testament passage about God and applying it to Himself]

John 1:1, 4, 14 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . . [4] In him was life, and the life was the light of men. . . . [14] And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father. (cf. 1 Jn 1:1: “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes . . .”; 1 Jn 1:5: “God is light and in him is no darkness at all”; 1 Pet 1:20: “He was destined before the foundation of the world . . .”; Is 57:16: “I have made the breath of life”)

John 5:17-18, 21-22 But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working still, and I am working.” [18] This was why the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the sabbath but also called God his Father, making himself equal with God. . . . [21] For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. [22] The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son,”

John 8:24 I told you that you would die in your sins, for you will die in your sins unless you believe that I am he. (alluding to Ex 3:13-15 below)

Exodus 3:13-15 Then Moses said to God, “If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?” [14] God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.'” [15] God also said to Moses, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you’: this is my name for ever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations.”

John 8:28 So Jesus said, “When you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own authority but speak thus as the Father taught me.

John 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”

John 10:30, 33 “I and the Father are one.”… [33] The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we stone you but for blasphemy; because you, being a man, make yourself God.”

John 13:19-20 I tell you this now, before it takes place, that when it does take place you may believe that I am he. [20] Truly, truly, I say to you, he who receives any one whom I send receives me; and he who receives me receives him who sent me.”

John 16:13-15 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. [14] He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. [15] All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

John 17:9-10 I am praying for them; I am not praying for the world but for those whom thou hast given me, for they are thine; [10] all mine are thine, and thine are mine, and I am glorified in them.

John 20:28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” [Jesus didn’t correct him]

Use of “Father” Jesus constantly referred to God as “My Father” and claimed to have a unique relationship with Him. In Mark 14:36 He called God Abba, Aramaic for “daddy”: an absolutely unprecedented address of God (cf. Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6). The Jews understood full well what Jesus was implying by repeatedly speaking of His singular relationship with God the Father, but thought this was blasphemy, since they didn’t believe that He Himself was God the Son (cf. Jn 5:18; 10:33 above).

Divine “I” Jesus teaches in His own authority (“I say to you”) in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5:18-34, etc.), and many other passages (91 total in RSV). The prophets, in contrast, spoke as God’s messengers in the second person (usually, “the word of the LORD”: 243 times in the OT). God says “I say to you” six times in the OT. Jesus often talks in a way in which only God could speak. For instance, when He addresses the seven churches in the book of Revelation, He is clearly speaking to them as God (Rev 1:17-3:22). Perhaps the most striking example of this occurs in Matthew 23:

Matthew 23:34, 37 Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes… [37] O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!

Monogenes (“Only Begotten”) The phrase “only begotten (Son)”: used in John 1:18; 3:16, 18, and 1 John 4:9, is the Greek monogenes, which means, according to any Greek lexicon, “unique, only member of a kind.” It does not mean “created,” as some (e.g., Jehovah’s Witnesses) falsely interpret it. Christ is the eternal Son of God, and as such, possesses every attribute of pure Godhood, just as a human son partakes fully of humanness.

Philippians 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,

Colossians 1:17, 19 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. . . . [19] For in him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell,

Colossians 2:9 For in him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily,

1 Timothy 3:15-16 [15] if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. [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. (the “He” in v. 16 appears to refer back to “God” in v. 15; God became man; i.e., the incarnation)

Titus 2:13 awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,

Hebrews 1:3, 8 He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, . . . [8] But of the Son he says, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, the righteous scepter is the scepter of thy kingdom.” (God the Father calls the Son Jesus, “God” [Theos] — reference to an OT passage):

Psalm 45:6-7 Your divine throne endures for ever and ever. Your royal scepter is a scepter of equity; [7] you love righteousness and hate wickedness. Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows;

2 Peter 1:1 …our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

1 John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, to know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.

2. Creator

God alone is the creator

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Nehemiah 9:6 And Ezra said: “Thou art the LORD, thou alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them; and thou preservest all of them; and the host of heaven worships thee.”

Job 9:8 who alone stretched out the heavens, . . .

Psalm 33:6 By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and all their host by the breath of his mouth.

Psalm 90:2 . . . thou hadst formed the earth and the world . . .

Psalm 100:3 Know that the LORD is God! It is he that made us, . . . 

Isaiah 40:28 . . . The LORD is . . . the Creator of the ends of the earth. . . .

Isaiah 42:5 Thus says God, the LORD, who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread forth the earth and what comes from it, who gives breath to the people upon it and spirit to those who walk in it:

Isaiah 44:24 Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb: “I am the LORD, who made all things, who stretched out the heavens alone, who spread out the earth — Who was with me?”

Isaiah 57:16  . . . from me proceeds the spirit, and I have made the breath of life.

Jeremiah 32:17 ‘Ah Lord GOD! It is thou who hast made the heavens and the earth by thy great power and by thy outstretched arm!’

Malachi 2:10 . . . Has not one God created us? . . .

Romans 4:17 . . . the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist.

Romans 11:36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. . . .

Ephesians 3:9 . . . God who created all things;

Hebrews 2:10 . . . he, for whom and by whom all things exist . . .

Jesus is the creator

John 1:3, 10 all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. . . . [10] . . . the world was made through him . . .

1 Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

Colossians 1:15-18 He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; [16] for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities — all things were created through him and for him. [17] He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. [18] He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent.

Prototokos (“Firstborn”) The Greek for “first-born” is prototokos, which means “preeminence” and “eternal preexistence,” according to Greek lexicons. It does not mean “first-created.” The Hebrew usage of “first-born” is also instructive, since it illustrates its meaning as “preeminent.” David is called “first-born” in Psalm 89:27, not because he was the literal first child of Jesse (for he was the youngest), but in the sense of his ascendancy to the kingship of Israel. Likewise, Jeremiah 31:9 refers to Ephraim as the first-born, whereas Manasseh was actually the first child born (Gen 41:50-52). The nation Israel is called “my first-born son” by God (Ex 4:22). The Jewish rabbinical writers even called God the Father Bekorah Shelolam, meaning “first-born of all creation,” that is, the Creator. This is precisely what St. Paul means by “firstborn” in Colossians 1:15, 18.

Hebrews 1:2-3, 10 but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. [3] . . . upholding the universe by his word of power. . . . [10] And, “Thou, Lord, didst found the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of thy hands;” (God the Father calls the Son, Jesus “Lord” (Kurios) and describes Him as creator). See:

Psalm 102:25 Of old thou didst lay the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thy hands.

Revelation 3:14 . . . the beginning of God’s creation.

Arche This is the Greek word for “beginning” — from which we derive our word “architect.” Its literal meaning is “origin, active cause, source, uncreated principle.” Thus, Revelation 3:14 describes Jesus as the “architect” or creator of the universe. In 21:6 arche is also applied to the Father (“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end”), so it can’t possibly mean “created being.”

3. Eternal and Uncreated

God alone is eternal and uncreated

Genesis 21:33 …the LORD, the Everlasting God.

Exodus 3:14 God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” . . .

Deuteronomy 33:27 The eternal God is your dwelling place, and underneath are the everlasting arms. . . .

Psalm 90:2 . . . from everlasting to everlasting thou art God.

Psalm 93:2 thy throne is established from of old; thou art from everlasting.

Isaiah 40:28 . . . The LORD is the everlasting God, . . .

Isaiah 57:15 . . . the high and lofty One who inhabits eternity, . . .

Habakkuk 1:12 Art thou not from everlasting, O LORD my God, my Holy One? . . .

Romans 16:26 …the eternal God . . .

1 Timothy 1:17 . . . the King of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God . . .

Jesus is eternal and uncreated

Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government will be upon his shoulder, and his name will be called “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” (The word for “everlasting,” ad, is applied to God the Father in Isaiah 57:15: see not far above)

Micah 5:2 But you, O Bethlehem Eph’rathah, who are little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days.

The Hebrew word for “from ancient days” here (KJV: “from everlasting”) is olam; it’s often used to describe God the Father’s eternal existence (e.g., Ps 90:2; 93:2; Is 40:28: see the previous section above). If this word means “eternal and uncreated” when applied to God the Father (YHWH), then it must mean the same thing when it is applied to Jesus.

John 17:5, 24 and now, Father, glorify thou me in thy own presence with the glory which I had with thee before the world was made. . . . [24] . . . my glory which thou hast given me in thy love for me before the foundation of the world.

Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, . . .

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and for ever.

4. Worshiped

God alone is to be worshiped

Exodus 20:3 “You shall have no other gods before me.”

Exodus 34:14 (for you shall worship no other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God),

Deuteronomy 8:19 And if you forget the LORD your God and go after other gods and serve them and worship them, I solemnly warn you this day that you shall surely perish.

Deuteronomy 11:16 Take heed lest your heart be deceived, and you turn aside and serve other gods and worship them,

Deuteronomy 17:2-5 “If there is found among you, within any of your towns which the LORD your God gives you, a man or woman who does what is evil in the sight of the LORD your God, in transgressing his covenant, [3] and has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, . . . [4] and it is told you and you hear of it; . . . and if it is true and certain that such an abominable thing has been done in Israel, [5] then you shall bring forth to your gates that man or woman who has done this evil thing, and you shall stone that man or woman to death with stones.”

Deuteronomy 29:25-27 . . . they forsook the covenant of the LORD, the God of their fathers, which he made with them when he brought them out of the land of Egypt, [26] and went and served other gods and worshiped them, gods whom they had not known and whom he had not allotted to them; [27] therefore the anger of the LORD was kindled against this land, bringing upon it all the curses written in this book;

Deuteronomy 30:17-18 But if your heart turns away, and you will not hear, but are drawn away to worship other gods and serve them,
[18] I declare to you this day, that you shall perish; . . . (cf. 1 Ki 9:6-9; Jer 16:11; 22:9; 25:6; Dan 3:28)

Luke 4:8 And Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve.’” (cf. Mt 4:10)

Revelation 4:9-11 And whenever the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to him who is seated on the throne, who lives for ever and ever, [10] the twenty-four elders fall down before him who is seated on the throne and worship him who lives for ever and ever; they cast their crowns before the throne, singing, [11] “Worthy art thou, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for thou didst create all things, and by thy will they existed and were created.”

Worship of angels is condemned (Col 2:18), and angels refuse worship (Rev 19:10; 22:8-9). Peter refuses worship (Acts 10:25-26), as do Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14:11-15).

Jesus is worshiped, and He accepts worship

Matthew 14:33 And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.” (cf. 8:2; 9:18; 15:25; 20:20: “knelt”; “kneeling”)

Matthew 28:9 And behold, Jesus met them and said, “Hail!” And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him.

Matthew 28:16-17 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. [17] And when they saw him they worshiped him; . . .

Mark 5:6-7 And when he saw Jesus from afar, he ran and worshiped him; [7] and crying out with a loud voice, he said, “What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I adjure you by God, do not torment me.”

John 5:23 that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.

John 9:35-38 Jesus heard that they had cast him out, and having found him he said, “Do you believe in the Son of man?” [36] He answered, “And who is he, sir, that I may believe in him?” [37] Jesus said to him, “You have seen him, and it is he who speaks to you.” [38] He said, “Lord, I believe”; and he worshiped him.

Acts 2:33 . . .  exalted at the right hand of God . . .

Acts 5:31 God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.

Philippians 2:9-11 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, [10] that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, [11] and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Hebrews 1:6 And again, when he brings the first-born into the world, he says, “Let all God’s angels worship him.”

Hebrews 7:26 For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners, exalted above the heavens.

Revelation 5:8 . . . the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb . . .

Revelation 5:11-14 Then I looked, and I heard around the throne and the living creatures and the elders the voice of many angels, numbering myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, [12] saying with a loud voice, “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!” [13] And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all therein, saying, “To him who sits upon the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might for ever and ever!” [14] And the four living creatures said, “Amen!” and the elders fell down and worshiped. (cf. worship of God in 4:9-11)

Revelation 7:9-12 After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no man could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, [10] and crying out with a loud voice, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits upon the throne, and to the Lamb!” [11] And all the angels stood round the throne and round the elders and the four living creatures, and they fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, [12] saying, “Amen! Blessing and glory and wisdom and thanksgiving and honor and power and might be to our God for ever and ever! Amen.”

Worship of Jesus in the book of Revelation is the same as the worship of God the Father

In the New Testament, the Greek word for “worship,” proskuneo, is used 22 times to refer to worship of the Father, five times of divine worship without specification, and 14 times in reference to worship of Jesus. Proskuneo is also explicitly defined, both in Revelation 4:10-11 and 7:11-12, since both passages define the worship of God by virtue of describing the words directed to God in praise and worship (7:11-12: “worshiped God, saying . . .”). Every Greek word (eleven in all) applied to God the Father in this fashion in Revelation is applied to Jesus as well (eucharistia is used of Christ in Colossians). One word, ploutos, is applied to Jesus only in Revelation, and to the Father in Romans 11:33. There can be no stronger evidence that Jesus is to receive worship equally with His Father, thus making Him equal to the Father, and no less than fully God:

Greek: Pipto; English: (“fall down before”; “fell on their faces before”): Father: Revelation 4:10; 7:11 / Jesus: Revelation 5:8

Eulogia (“blessing”): Father: 5:13; 7:12 / Jesus: 5:12-13

Doxa (“glory”): Father: 4:9, 11; 5:13; 7:12 / Jesus: 5:12-13

Sophia (“wisdom”): Father: 7:12 / Jesus: 5:12

Time (“honor”): Father: 4:9, 11; 5:13; 7:12 / Jesus: 5:12-13

Dunamis (“power”): Father: 4:11; 7:12 / Jesus: 5:12

Kratos (“might”): Father: 5:13 / Jesus: 5:13

Ischus (“might”): Father: 7:12 / Jesus: 5:12

Axios (“worthy”): Father: 4:11 / Jesus: 5:12

Lambano (“receive”): Father: 4:11 / Jesus: 5:12

Ploutos (“riches”; “wealth”): Father: (Romans 11:33) / Jesus: Rev 5:12

Eucharistia (“thanks”; “thanksgiving”): Father: 4:9; 7:12 / Jesus: (Colossians 2:6-7)

5. Omnipotent (All-Powerful)

God alone is omnipotent

Genesis 18:14 Is anything too hard for the LORD? . . . (cf. Dt 32:39)

Job 11:7 . . . Can you find out the limit of the Almighty?

Job 42:2 I know that thou canst do all things, and that no purpose of thine can be thwarted.

Jeremiah 32:17 . . . Nothing is too hard for thee, (cf. Is 46:10; Rom 1:20; Eph 1:11)

Matthew 19:26 . . . With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible. 

Mark 10:27 Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God.”

Luke 1:37 For with God nothing will be impossible. (cf. Lk 18:27)

God the Father or “the LORD” or “God” is also called “almighty” in many verses (Gen 17:1; 28:3; 35:11; 43:14; 48:3; 49:25; Ex 6:3; Job 5:17; 6:4, 14; 8:3, 5; 21:15, 20; 27:2, 10-11, 13; 31:2, 35, etc.; Ezek 10:5; 2 Cor 6:18; Rev 1:8; 4:8; 11:17; 15:3; 16:7, 14; 19:6, 15; 21:22).

Jesus is omnipotent

Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government will be upon his shoulder, and his name will be called “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” (God the Father is also called “Mighty God” (the same phrase in Hebrew: El Gibbor): Dt 10:17; Neh 9:32; Is 10:21; Jer 32:18)

John 3:35 the Father loves the Son, and has given all things into his hand.

John 5:19, 21 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever he does, that the Son does likewise. . . . [21] For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. (implied: the Father’s unique characteristics are also possessed by the Son; (cf. 2:19; 6:40; 10:17-18)

John 13:3 Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, . . . 

Philippians 3:21 who will change our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power which enables him even to subject all things to himself. (cf. Rev 1:18)

Colossians 1:17 . . . in him all things hold together.

Hebrews 1:3 . . . upholding the universe by his word of power.…

Revelation 3:7 . . . the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens.

6. Omniscient (All-Knowing)

God alone is omniscient

1 Kings 8:39 . . . (for thou, thou only, knowest the hearts of all the children of men); (cf. 2 Chr 6:30)

1 Chronicles 28:9 . . . the LORD searches all hearts, and understands every plan and thought. . . .  (cf. Heb 4:13)

Job 36:4-5 . . . one who is perfect in knowledge is with you. [5] “Behold, God is mighty, and does not despise any; he is mighty in strength of understanding.

Job 37:16 . . . him who is perfect in knowledge,

Psalm 44:21 . . . he knows the secrets of the heart.

Psalm 147:5 Great is our LORD, and abundant in power;  his understanding is beyond measure.

Isaiah 40:28 . . . his understanding is unsearchable.

Isaiah 46:9-10 . . . I am God, and there is none like me, [10] declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, (cf. 48:3; Acts 15:18)

Isaiah 66:18 . . .  I know their works and their thoughts . . . 

Ezekiel 11:5 . . . I know the things that come into your mind.

Luke 16:15 . . . God knows your hearts . . . 

Acts 1:24 . . . “Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men . . .”

Romans 8:27 . . . he who searches the hearts of men . . . 

Romans 11:33 O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!

Matthew 6:8 . . . your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

1 John 3:20 . . . . . . he knows everything.

Jesus is omniscient

John 16:30 Now we know that you know all things, . . . 

John 21:17 . . . “Lord, you know everything; . . .”

Colossians 2:3 in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

Revelation 2:23 . . . I am he who searches mind and heart. . . .

Omniscience is also implied (though not proven) in many passages that describe Jesus’ extraordinary knowledge; these are consistent with omniscience (Mt 9:4; 12:25; Mk 2:8; 14:13-15; Lk 5:22; 6:8; 9:47; 22:10-13; Jn 2:24-25; 4:17-19, 29; 6:64; 13:11).

Additionally, there are many other verses illustrating that Jesus knew the future perfectly, which is consistent with, and suggestive of omniscience, though not a proof (Mt 12:40; 13:1; 16:21; 17:9, 11-12, 22-23; 20:18-19; 21:39; 24:2; 26:2, 12, 21, 31-34, 54; Mk 8:31; 9:31; 10:32-34; 14:9, 18, 27-30, 42, 49; Lk 9:22, 44; 11:30; 12:50; 17:25; 18:31-33; 22:15, 21-22, 32, 34, 37; Jn 2:19; 3:14; 10:11, 15, 17-18; 12:32-34; 13:18-21; 14:19; 15:13; 16:20; 18:4, 11; 21:18-19).

7. Omnipresent (Present Everywhere)

God alone is omnipresent

1 Kings 8:27 But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain thee . . . 

2 Chronicles 2:6 But who is able to build him a house, since heaven, even highest heaven, cannot contain him . . . (cf. Acts 7:48-49)

Psalm 139:7-8 Whither shall I go from thy Spirit? Or whither shall I flee from thy presence? [8] If I ascend to heaven, thou art there! If I make my bed in Sheol, thou art there!

Jeremiah 23:24 Can a man hide himself in secret places so that I cannot see him? says the LORD. Do I not fill heaven and earth? says the LORD. 

Ephesians 4:6 one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all.

Jesus is omnipresent

Matthew 18:20 “For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”

Matthew 28:20 “. . . lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

Ephesians 1:22-23 . . . the church, [23] which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all. 

Colossians 3:11 . . . Christ is all, and in all. 

8. Forgives Sins in His Own Name

God alone can forgive sins in His own name

Exodus 34:7 keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin,… (cf. 2 Sam 12:13; 1 Ki 8:34; Dan 9:9; Mic 7:18)

Psalm 25:11 For thy name’s sake, O LORD, pardon my guilt, for it is great. (cf. 25:7, 18; 32:1-2, 5)

Psalm 51:9 Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all my iniquities. (cf. 65:3; 79:9; 85:2; 99:8; Is 1:18; 6:6; 44:22)

Psalm 103:12 as far as the east is from the west, so far does he remove our transgressions from us. (cf. 130:4)

Isaiah 43:25 I, I am He who blots out your transgressions for my own sake, and I will not remember your sins. (cf. 55:7; Heb 8:12; 10:2, 17)

Jeremiah 33:8 I will cleanse them from all the guilt of their sin against me, and I will forgive all the guilt of their sin and rebellion against me. (cf. 31:34; Ezek 33:15-16; 1 Jn 1:9)

Matthew 6:14-15 For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; [15] but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Luke 5:21 And the scribes and the Pharisees began to question, saying, “Who is this that speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God only?” (cf. Mk 2:7)

Jesus forgives sins in His own name

Mark 2:5, 10 And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “My son, your sins are forgiven.”… [10] …the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins… (cf. Mt 9:2-6; Lk 5:20-24)

Luke 7:47-48 “Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little.” [48] And he said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.”

9. Receives Prayer

God the Father receives prayer

Genesis 4:26 . . . At that time men began to call upon the name of the LORD.

Genesis 20:17 Then Abraham prayed to God . . . (cf. 1 Kgs 8:28; 1 Chr 17:25; 2 Chr 6:19; 33:18-19; Neh 1:4; 2:4; 4:9; Ps 5:2; 42:8; 54:2; 55:1; 61:1; 66:20; 84:8; Dan 6:10; 9:3-4, 17)

Genesis 26:25 So he built an altar there and called upon the name of the LORD . . . 

Exodus 8:29 . . . I will pray to the LORD . . . (cf. Num 21:7; Dt 9:26; 1 Sam 7:5; 12:19; 1 Kgs 8:44, 54; 2 Kgs 19:15, 20; 20:5; Ps 69:13; Is 37:15; Jer 29:7, 12; 32:16; 37:3; 42:2, 4, 20; Jon 2:1)

Deuteronomy 4:7 For what great nation is there that has a god so near to it as the LORD our God is to us, whenever we call upon him?

Jeremiah 33:3 Call to me and I will answer you, and will tell you great and hidden things which you have not known.

Joel 2:32 And it shall come to pass that all who call upon the name of the LORD shall be delivered . . . (cf. Ps 14:4; Is 12:4; Acts 2:21; 2 Tim 2:22)

Matthew 6:9-13 Pray then like this: Our Father who art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. [10] Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, On earth as it is in heaven. [11] Give us this day our daily bread; [12] And forgive us our debts, As we also have forgiven our debtors; [13] And lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from evil.

Luke 6:12 In these days he went out to the mountain to pray; and all night he continued in prayer to God.

Luke 23:46 Then Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, “Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit!” And having said this he breathed his last.

Acts 10:2, 4 a devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms liberally to the people, and prayed constantly to God. . . . [4] And he stared at him in terror, and said, “What is it, Lord?” And he said to him, “Your prayers and your alms have ascended as a memorial before God.”

Acts 12:5 So Peter was kept in prison; but earnest prayer for him was made to God by the church. (cf. 16:25)

Romans 10:1 Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. (cf. 15:30; 1 Cor 11:13)

Romans 10:12-14 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and bestows his riches upon all who call upon him. [13] For, “every one who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved.” [14] But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? . . . 

Philippians 4:6 Have no anxiety about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God.

1 Thessalonians 1:2 We give thanks to God always for you all, constantly mentioning you in our prayers,

Revelation 8:4 and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God.

Jesus receives prayer

John 14:13-14 Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it, that the Father may be glorified in the Son; [14] if you ask anything in my name, I will do it.

John 16:23-24, 26 In that day you will ask nothing of me. Truly, truly, I say to you, if you ask anything of the Father, he will give it to you in my name. [24] Hitherto you have asked nothing in my name; ask, and you will receive, that your joy may be full. . . . [26] In that day you will ask in my name; 

Acts 7:59 And as they were stoning Stephen, he prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” 

Ecclesiastes 12:7 . . . and the spirit returns to God who gave it.

Acts 22:6-10 “As I made my journey and drew near to Damascus, about noon a great light from heaven suddenly shone about me. [7] And I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, `Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?’ [8] And I answered, `Who are you, Lord?’ And he said to me, `I am Jesus of Nazareth whom you are persecuting.’ [9] Now those who were with me saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who was speaking to me. [10] And I said, `What shall I do, Lord?’ And the Lord said to me, `Rise, and go into Damascus, and there you will be told all that is appointed for you to do.'”

Acts 26:14-16 And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, `Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It hurts you to kick against the goads.’ [15] And I said, `Who are you, Lord?’ And the Lord said, `I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. [16] But rise and stand upon your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you to serve and bear witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you,

1 Corinthians 1:2 …together with all those who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours: 

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

10. Sinless and Perfectly Holy

John 8:46 Which of you convicts me of sin? . . .

Acts 3:14 . . . the Holy and Righteous One . . . 

2 Corinthians 5:21 . . . who knew no sin. . . . 

Hebrews 4:15 For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.

Hebrews 7:26 For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners, exalted above the heavens.

Hebrews 9:14 . . . without blemish . . . 

1 Peter 1:19 but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.

1 Peter 2:22 He committed no sin; no guile was found on his lips.

1 John 3:5 You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin.

Many passages refer to God the Father as the “Holy One” (e.g., 2 Ki 19:22; Job 6:10; Ps 71:22; 78:41; 89:18; Is 1:4; 5:24; 17:7; 1 Jn 2:20; Rev 16:5; many others). The same description is used, in turn, to describe Jesus in the New Testament (Mk 1:24; Lk 4:34; Jn 6:69; Acts 2:27; 3:14; 13:35; Rev 3:7). “Holy” is also applied to Jesus, often in the sense of “uniquely or completely holy” (Lk 1:35; 4:27, 30): following similar usage as regards God the Father (Lk 1:49; Rev 6:10).

11. Called Lord (Kurios) and God (Theos)

[Kurios is Strong’s word #2962 and Theos is Strong’s word #2316]

God the Father Called “Lord” (Kurios)

Matthew 11:25 At that time Jesus declared, “I thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes;” 

Matthew 21:42 . . . this was the Lord’s doing . . . 

Mark 13:20 And if the Lord had not shortened the days, no human being would be saved . . . 

Luke 4:18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, . . .”

1 Timothy 6:15 . . . the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords,

God the Son, Jesus, Called “Lord” (Kurios)

Luke 2:11 for to you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.

Acts 7:59 And as they were stoning Stephen, he prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”

Acts 10:36 You know the word which he sent to Israel, preaching good news of peace by Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all), 

1 Corinthians 12:3 . . . no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except by the Holy Spirit.

Philippians 2:10-11 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, [11] and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (cites Isaiah 45:23, and attributes to Jesus what is applied to God there; therefore, Jesus is God):

Isaiah 45:23 “By myself I have sworn, from my mouth has gone forth in righteousness a word that shall not return: ‘To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.’”

Hebrews 1:10 And, “Thou, Lord, didst found the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of thy hands;

Revelation 17:14 they will make war on the Lamb, and the Lamb will conquer them, for he is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those with him are called and chosen and faithful. (cf. 19:16; “Lord of Lords” was applied to God the Father in 1 Timothy 6:15 above)

God the Father and God the Son, Jesus, Both Called “Lord” (Kurios) in One Passage

Matthew 22:43-45 He said to them, “How is it then that David, inspired by the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying, [44] ‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, till I put thy enemies under thy feet’? [45] If David thus calls him Lord, how is he his son?” (cf. Mk 12:36-37; Lk 20:42-44; Acts 2:34)

Romans 10:9, 12-13 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.… [12] For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and bestows his riches upon all who call upon him. [13] For, “every one who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved.” (the New Testament is applying Old Testament passages about God directly to Jesus, since He is God, and He and His Father are one — John 10:30).

Joel 2:32 “And it shall come to pass that all who call upon the name of the LORD shall be delivered; for in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those who escape, as the LORD has said, and among the survivors shall be those whom the LORD calls.” 

God the Father Called “God” (Theos)

Luke 16:15 . . . God knows your hearts; for what is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God.

John 8:47 “He who is of God hears the words of God; the reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.”

Acts 22:14 And he said, ‘The God of our fathers appointed you to know his will, to see the Just One and to hear a voice from his mouth’;

Romans 11:1 I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! . . .  

Colossians 3:17 And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.

1 Peter 1:2 chosen and destined by God the Father and sanctified by the Spirit for obedience to Jesus Christ . . . 

God the Father Called “Lord” (Kurios) and “God” (Theos) in One Passage

Matthew 22:37-38 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. [38] This is the great and first commandment.” (cf. Mk 12:29-30; Lk 10:27)

Luke 1:46-47 And Mary said, “My soul magnifies the Lord, [47] and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,” (cf. 1:32, 68; 20:37; Acts 3:22; Rev 18:8)

God the Son, Jesus, Called “God” (Theos)

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (cf. Mt 1:23)

Titus 2:13 awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, 

Hebrews 1:8 But of the Son he says, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, the righteous scepter is the scepter of thy kingdom.”

2 Peter 1:1 . . . in the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

1 John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, to know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.

God the Son, Jesus, Called “Lord” (Kurios) and “God” (Theos) in One Passage

John 20:28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” (cf. Heb 1:8, 10 above)

12. 50 Descriptions Applied Both to YHWH and Jesus

Name of God: “I AM” (YHWH)

Exodus 3:14 God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.'”

John 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” 

“I am He”

Deuteronomy 32:39 “See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me; . . .” 

Isaiah 41:4 . . . I am He.

Isaiah 43:10-11, 13 “You are my witnesses,” says the LORD, “and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am He. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me. [11] I, I am the LORD, and besides me there is no savior. . . . [13] “I am God, and also henceforth I am He; there is none who can deliver from my hand; I work and who can hinder it?”

Isaiah 48:12 . . . I am He . . . 

***

John 8:24, 28 I told you that you would die in your sins, for you will die in your sins unless you believe that I am he. . . . [28] So Jesus said, “When you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own authority but speak thus as the Father taught me.”

John 13:19 I tell you this now, before it takes place, that when it does take place you may believe that I am he.

Raises the dead and gives life

Deuteronomy 32:39 . . . I kill and I make alive . . . 

1 Samuel 2:6 The LORD kills and brings to life . . . 

Romans 4:17 . . . the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead . . . 

***

John 1:4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men.

John 2:19, 21-22 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” . . . [21] But he spoke of the temple of his body. [22] When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this . . . 

John 5:21 For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will.

John 10:17-18For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. [18] No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again; this charge I have received from my Father.”

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

1 John 5:11-13 And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. [12] He who has the Son has life; he who has not the Son of God has not life. [13] I write this to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life.

Shepherd of the flock

Psalm 23:1 The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not want;

Psalm 80:1 Give ear, O Shepherd of Israel, thou who leadest Joseph like a flock!

Psalm 100:3 Know that the LORD is God! . . . we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture.

Isaiah 40:11 He will feed his flock like a shepherd, he will gather the lambs in his arms, he will carry them in his bosom, and gently lead those that are with young.

Jeremiah 23:1 “Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture!” says the LORD.

Jeremiah 31:10 . . . ‘He who scattered Israel will gather him, and will keep him as a shepherd keeps his flock.’

Ezekiel 34:11-12, 15-16 “For thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I, I myself will search for my sheep, and will seek them out. [12] As a shepherd seeks out his flock when some of his sheep have been scattered abroad, so will I seek out my sheep; and I will rescue them from all places where they have been scattered on a day of clouds and thick darkness. . . . [15] I myself will be the shepherd of my sheep, and I will make them lie down, says the Lord GOD. [16] I will seek the lost, and I will bring back the strayed, . . .” 

Ezekiel 34:22 I will save my flock, they shall no longer be a prey; and I will judge between sheep and sheep.

Ezekiel 34:31 And you are my sheep, the sheep of my pasture, and I am your God, says the Lord GOD.

***

Ezekiel 34:23 And I will set up over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he shall feed them: he shall feed them and be their shepherd.

Micah 5:2, 4 But you, O Bethlehem Eph’rathah, who are little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days. . . . [4] And he shall stand and feed his flock in the strength of the LORD,
in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God. . . . 

Matthew 26:31 Then Jesus said to them, “You will all fall away because of me this night; for it is written, ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.’

Zechariah 13:7 “Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, against the man who stands next to me,” says the LORD of hosts. “Strike the shepherd, that the sheep may be scattered; . . .” 

John 10:7, 11, 14, 16 So Jesus again said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. . . . [11] I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. . . . [14] I am the good shepherd; I know my own and my own know me, . . . [16] And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.

John 10:26-28 but you do not believe, because you do not belong to my sheep. [27] My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me; [28] and I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand.

Hebrews 13:20 . . . our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep

1 Peter 5:4 And when the chief Shepherd is manifested you will obtain the unfading crown of glory.

Revelation 7:17 For the Lamb in the midst of the throne will be their shepherd, . . . 

Source of eternal words

Psalm 119:89 For ever, O LORD, thy word is firmly fixed in the heavens.

Psalm 119:160 The sum of thy word is truth; and every one of thy righteous ordinances endures for ever.

Isaiah 40:8 The grass withers, the flower fades; but the word of our God will stand for ever.

***

Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.

1 Peter 1:23-25 You have been born anew, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God; [24] for “All flesh is like grass and all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower falls, [25] but the word of the Lord abides for ever.” That word is the good news which was preached to you. (cf. Is 40:8 above)

Worshiped and praised by angels

Psalm 148:1-2 Praise the LORD! Praise the LORD from the heavens, praise him in the heights! [2] Praise him, all his angels, praise him, all his host!

Hebrews 1:6 And again, when he brings the first-born into the world, he says, “Let all God’s angels worship him.” 

Bridegroom to the people / Church

Isaiah 54:5 For your Maker is your husband, the LORD of hosts is his name; . . . (cf. 54:6)

Isaiah 62:5 For as a young man marries a virgin, so shall your sons marry you, and as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, so shall your God rejoice over you.

Hosea 2:16, 19-20 “And in that day, says the LORD, you will call me, ‘My husband,’ . . .” . . . [19] And I will betroth you to me for ever; I will betroth you to me in righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love, and in mercy. [20] I will betroth you to me in faithfulness; and you shall know the LORD.

***

Matthew 9:14-15 Then the disciples of John came to him, saying, “Why do we and the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?” [15] And Jesus said to them, “Can the wedding guests mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them? The days will come, when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast.

Matthew 25:1 Then the kingdom of heaven shall be compared to ten maidens who took their lamps and went to meet the bridegroom.

John 3:28-29 You yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but I have been sent before him. [29] He who has the bride is the bridegroom; the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom’s voice; therefore this joy of mine is now full.

Ephesians 5:25, 32 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, . . . [32] This mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church;

Revelation 19:7 Let us rejoice and exult and give him the glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his Bride has made herself ready;

Revelation 21:2, 9 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband; . . . [9] Then came one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues, and spoke to me, saying, “Come, I will show you the Bride, the wife of the Lamb.”

“Glory” of God

Isaiah 42:8 I am the LORD, that is my name; my glory I give to no other, . . . 

Isaiah 48:11 . . . My glory I will not give to another. (cf. 43:7; 66:18; Ezek 28:22; 39:13, 21; Hag 1:8)

***

Matthew 25:31 When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne.

John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.

John 16:14 He will glorify me, . . . 

John 17:1, 5 . . . “Father, the hour has come; glorify thy Son that the Son may glorify thee, . . . [5] and now, Father, glorify thou me in thy own presence with the glory which I had with thee before the world was made.

1 Corinthians 2:8 None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

Hebrews 1:3 He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, . . . 

Seeker of lost souls

Ezekiel 34:16 I will seek the lost, and I will bring back the strayed, . . . 

Luke 19:10 For the Son of man came to seek and to save the lost. 

“Lord of Lords”

Deuteronomy 10:17 For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the terrible God, 

Psalm 136:2-3 O give thanks to the God of gods, . . . [3] O give thanks to the Lord of lords, . . . 

1 Timothy 6:15-16 . . . the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, [16] who alone has immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has ever seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen.

***

Revelation 17:14 they will make war on the Lamb, and the Lamb will conquer them, for he is Lord of lords and King of kings,… (cf. 19:16)

“Lord / God / King of glory”

Psalm 24:7-10 Lift up your heads, O gates! and be lifted up, O ancient doors! that the King of glory may come in. [8] Who is the King of glory? The LORD, strong and mighty, the LORD, mighty in battle! [9] Lift up your heads, O gates! and be lifted up, O ancient doors! that the King of glory may come in. [10] Who is this King of glory? The LORD of hosts, he is the King of glory! [Selah]

Psalm 29:3 . . . the God of glory . . . 

Acts 7:2 . . . The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham . . . 

Ephesians 1:17 . . . the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory . . . 

***

1 Corinthians 2:8 None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

James 2:1 My brethren, show no partiality as you hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory.

“Above all”

1 Chronicles 29:11 Thine, O LORD, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty; for all that is in the heavens and in the earth is thine; thine is the kingdom, O LORD, and thou art exalted as head above all.

Ephesians 4:6  one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all.

***

John 3:31 . . . he who comes from heaven is above all.

Ephesians 1:21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come;

“All in all”

1 Corinthians 15:28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to every one. (“all in all” in KJV)

***

Ephesians 1:23 which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all. 

Colossians 3:11 . . . Christ is all, and in all.

“Over all”

Psalm 47:2 For the LORD, the Most High, is terrible, a great king over all the earth.

Psalm 83:18 . . . the LORD, art the Most High over all the earth.

Psalm 97:9 For thou, O LORD, art most high over all the earth . . . (cf. 99:2)

Psalm 103:19 The LORD has established his throne in the heavens, and his kingdom rules over all.

Psalm 108:5 Be exalted, O God, above the heavens! Let thy glory be over all the earth!

Zechariah 14:9 And the LORD will become king over all the earth; . . . 

Romans 9:5 . . . God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen. (some translations apply “God” here to Jesus)

***

John 17:2 since thou hast given him power over all flesh, . . .

Ephesians 1:22 and he has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church,

Light

Psalm 4:6 . . . “Lift up the light of thy countenance upon us, O LORD!” (cf. 44:3; 89:15; 90:8)

Psalm 27:1 The LORD is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear?

Psalm 36:9 For with thee is the fountain of life; in thy light do we see light.

Psalm 139:12 even the darkness is not dark to thee, the night is bright as the day; for darkness is as light with thee.

Isaiah 2:5 O house of Jacob, come, let us walk in the light of the LORD.

Daniel 2:22 . . . the light dwells with him.

Micah 7:8 . . . when I sit in darkness, the LORD will be a light to me.

Habakkuk 3:4 His brightness was like the light . . . 

2 Corinthians 4:6 For it is the God who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.

1 Timothy 6:16 who alone has immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, . . . 

James 1:17 . . . the Father of lights . . . 

1 John 1:5 . . . God is light and in him is no darkness at all.

***

Matthew 4:16 the people who sat in darkness have seen a great light, . . . 

John 1:4-5 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. [5] The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

John 1:8-9 He was not the light, but came to bear witness to the light. [9] The true light that enlightens every man was coming into the world.

John 3:19-21 And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. [20] For every one who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. [21] But he who does what is true comes to the light, that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been wrought in God.

John 8:12 . . . “I am the light of the world; he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”

John 9:5 As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.

John 12:35-36, 46 Jesus said to them, “The light is with you for a little longer. Walk while you have the light, lest the darkness overtake you; he who walks in the darkness does not know where he goes. [36] While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light. . . . [46] I have come as light into the world, that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness. 

2 Corinthians 4:4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the likeness of God. 

1 John 1:7 but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.

1 John 2:9-10 He who says he is in the light and hates his brother is in the darkness still. [10] He who loves his brother abides in the light, and in it there is no cause for stumbling.

Giver of light

Psalm 43:3 Oh send out thy light and thy truth; let them lead me, . . . 

Psalm 118:27 The LORD is God, and he has given us light. . . . 

Psalm 119:130 The unfolding of thy words gives light; . . . 

Isaiah 60:1 Arise, shine; for your light has come, and the glory of the LORD has risen upon you.

***

Ephesians 5:14 Therefore it is said, “Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give you light.”

Acts 26:23 that the Christ must suffer, and that, by being the first to rise from the dead, he would proclaim light both to the people and to the Gentiles.

Light to replace the sun

Isaiah 60:19 The sun shall be no more your light by day, nor for brightness shall the moon give light to you by night; but the LORD will be your everlasting light, and your God will be your glory. (cf. 60:20)

Revelation 22:5 And night shall be no more; they need no light of lamp or sun, for the Lord God will be their light, and they shall reign for ever and ever.

***

Revelation 21:23 And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine upon it, for the glory of God is its light, and its lamp is the Lamb.

Redeemer

Psalm 19:14 . . . O LORD, my rock and my redeemer. (cf. 78:35)

Isaiah 44:6 . . . his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts . . . 

Isaiah 47:4 Our Redeemer — the LORD of hosts is his name — is the Holy One of Israel. (cf. 41:14; 43:14; 44:24; 48:17; 49:7; 54:5, 8; Jer 50:34)

Isaiah 49:26 . . . I am the LORD your Savior, and your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob. (cf. 60:16)

Isaiah 63:16 . . . thou, O LORD, art our Father, our Redeemer from of old is thy name.

Luke 1:68 “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he has visited and redeemed his people,”

***

Galatians 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, . . . 

Ephesians 1:7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace (cf. Col 1:14; Heb 9:12, 15)

Titus 2:14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds. (cf. 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 3:24; Gal 4:5; Rev 14:4)

Ransomer

Jeremiah 31:11 For the LORD has ransomed Jacob, and has redeemed him from hands too strong for him. (cf. Ps 49:15; Is 35:10; 51:11)

1 Timothy 2:6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was borne at the proper time. (cf. Mt 20:28; Mk 10:45; 1 Pet 1:18-19; Rev 5:9)

“First and last”

Isaiah 44:6 Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: “I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god. (cf. 41:4; 48:12)

Revelation 1:17 . . . Fear not, I am the first and the last, (cf. 2:8; 22:13, 16) 

“Alpha and Omega”

Revelation 1:8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.

Revelation 21:6 And he said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. . . .” 

***

Revelation 22:13 “I am the Alpha and the Omega, . . .” [identified as Jesus in 22:16] 

“Beginning and the end”

Revelation 21:6 And he said to me, “It is done! I am . . . the beginning and the end. . . .” 

Revelation 22:13 I am… the beginning and the end. [identified as Jesus in 22:16]

Satisfier of spiritual thirst

Revelation 21:6-7 . . . To the thirsty I will give from the fountain of the water of life without payment. [7] He who conquers shall have this heritage, and I will be his God and he shall be my son. (cf. 22:17)

John 4:14 but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst; the water that I shall give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life. (cf. 6:35; 7:37)

All-powerful “hand”

Deuteronomy 32:39 . . . there is none that can deliver out of my hand. (cf. Jn 10:29)

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

Sound of “many waters”

Ezekiel 43:2 . . . the sound of his coming was like the sound of many waters . . .

Revelation 1:15 …his voice was like the sound of many waters;

“Horn of salvation”

2 Samuel 22:3 my God, my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield and the horn of my salvation, . . . (cf. Ps 18:2)

Luke 1:69 . . . raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David, 

Divine disciplinarian

Proverbs 3:12 for the LORD reproves him whom he loves, as a father the son in whom he delights.

Revelation 3:19 Those whom I love, I reprove and chasten; so be zealous and repent.

Destroyer of death

Isaiah 25:8 He will swallow up death for ever, . . . 

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

Rewarder according to works

Psalm 62:12 . . . thou dost requite a man according to his work. (cf. Is 40:10)

Matthew 16:27 For the Son of man… will repay every man for what he has done. (cf. Rev 22:12)

Separator of sheep and goats

Ezekiel 34:17 “. . .  thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I judge between sheep and sheep, rams and he-goats.”

Matthew 25:32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats,

Receiver of glory

Galatians 1:3-5 . . . God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, [4] who gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father; [5] to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen. (cf. Rom 11:36; Eph 3:21; Phil 4:20; 2 Tim 4:18; Jude 1:25)

2 Peter 3:18 . . . our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen. (cf. Rom 16:27; Heb 13:21; Rev 1:6)

Kingdom of whom?

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.” (cf. Mt 21:31; Lk 7:28; Acts 1:3; Rom 14:17; 1 Cor 4:20; 15:50; Col 4:11; Rev 12:10)

Colossians 1:13 He has delivered us from the dominion of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, (cf. Jn 18:36; Eph 5:5; 2 Tim 4:1; Heb 1:8; 2 Pet 1:1)

“For whom all things exist”

Hebrews 2:10 For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through suffering. (cf. Rom 11:36)

Colossians 1:16 . . . all things were created . . . for him. (cf. Mt 11:27; Jn 3:35; 13:3; Phil 3:21)

“Through him are all things”

Romans 11:36 For from him and through him . . . are all things. . . . 

Colossians 1:16, 20 all things were created through him . . . [20] and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

“To him are all things”

Romans 11:36 For . . . to him are all things. . . . (cf. 1 Cor 15:28; Col 1:20)

Philippians 3:21 . . . the power which enables him even to subject all things to himself. (cf. Heb 2:8; 1 Pet 3:22)

Majesty

Psalm 93:1 The LORD reigns; he is robed in majesty; . . . (cf. 104:1; 145:5; Is 26:10; 35:2; Lk 9:43; Jude 1:25)

2 Peter 1:16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. (cf. Mic 5:4; Heb 1:3; 8:1)

“The Spirit of.…”

Acts 16:7 …the Spirit of Jesus… (cf. Rom 8:9: “the Spirit of Christ”; Gal 4:6; Phil 1:19; 1 Pet 1:11; Rom 8:9: “Spirit of God”; 8:11, 14; Gen 1:2; Ex 31:3; Num 24:2; Jud 6:34; 11:29; 1 Sam 10:6; 16:13; Is 61:1; Ezek 11:24; 37:1; Mic 2:7; Mt 3:16; 12:28; Jn 15:26; Acts 5:9; 1 Cor 2:11-12, 14; 6:11; 7:40; 12:3; 2 Cor 3:3, 17; 1 Pet 4:14; 1 Jn 4:2)

“Our hope”

1 Timothy 4:10 For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. (cf. Jer 14:22)

1 Timothy 1:1 . . . Christ Jesus our hope, 

Ruler

Isaiah 33:22 . . .  the LORD is our ruler, . . . 

Revelation 1:5 . . . Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the first-born of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth.… (cf. Mic 5:2)

“Mighty God”

Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; …and his name will be called “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” (cf. Is 10:21; Dt 10:17; Neh 9:32; Jer 32:18)

Source of grace for salvation

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men,

Acts 15:11 But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, . . .  

Sender of prophets

Judges 6:8 the LORD sent a prophet to the people of Israel . . . (cf. 2 Ki 17:13; 2 Chr 24:19; Jer 7:25; 25:4; 26:5; 29:19; 35:15; 44:4; Hag 1:12; Zech 7:12)

Matthew 23:34 Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from town to town,

Divine “wings”

Deuteronomy 32:11-12 Like an eagle that stirs up its nest, that flutters over its young, spreading out its wings, catching them, bearing them on its pinions, [12] the LORD alone did lead him, . . . (cf. Ruth 2:12; Ps 36:7; 57:1; 63:7; 91:4)

Luke 13:34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! (cf. Mt 23:37)

Angels of whom?

Luke 15:10 “. . . there is joy before the angels of God over one sinner who repents.” (cf. Gen 28:12; 32:1; Lk 12:8-9; Jn 1:51; Heb 1:6; Rev 3:5)

Matthew 13:41 The Son of man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers, (cf. 16:27; 24:31; 2 Thess 1:7)

Sender of angels

Revelation 22:6 . . . And the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel . . . 

Revelation 22:16 I Jesus have sent my angel to you. . . .  

“His saints”

Psalm 97:10 The LORD loves those who hate evil; he preserves the lives of his saints; he delivers them from the hand of the wicked. (cf. 30:4; 31:23; 34:9; 37:28; 85:8; 116:15; 148:14; Prov 2:8; Col 1:26-27)

1 Thessalonians 3:13 . . . the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his saints. (cf. 2 Thess 1:10)

Gospel of whom?

Romans 1:1 . . . the gospel of God (cf. 15:16; Mk 1:14; 1 Thess 2:2, 8-9; 1 Pet 4:17)

Romans 15:19 . . . the gospel of Christ, (cf. 1:16; 1 Cor 9:12; 2 Cor 2:12; 1 Thess 3:2)

Church of whom?

1 Corinthians 15:9 . . . the church of God. (cf. 10:32; 11:22; Acts 20:28; Gal 1:13; 1 Tim 3:15)

Matthew 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, . . .  (cf. Rom 16:16; Gal 1:22)

Servants of whom?

Titus 1:1 . . . a servant of God . . . (cf. Lk 4:8; Rom 12:11)

Romans 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ,… (cf. Eph 6:6; Col 3:24)

[servants of both: Jas 1:1; Rev 7:3; 11:18; 19:5]

Sanctified by whom?

Leviticus 20:8 . . . I am the LORD who sanctify you. (cf. 21:8, 15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; Ex 31:13; Ezek 20:12; 37:28; Jn 17:17; 1 Thess 5:23)

Hebrews 13:12 So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood. (cf. 10:10, 14; Acts 26:18; 1 Cor 1:2, 30; 6:11; Eph 5:26)

13. Image of the Invisible Father

God the Father is Invisible

John 1:18 No one has ever seen God . . . (cf. 1 Jn 4:12)

John 5:37 . . . his form you have never seen; (cf. 6:46)

Colossians 1:15 . . . the invisible God. . . .  (cf. 1 Tim 1:17)

1 Timothy 6:16 who alone has immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has ever seen or can see. . . .

Jesus Reveals, and is the Image of the Father

John 14:7-9 “If you had known me, you would have known my Father also; henceforth you know him and have seen him.” [8] Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and we shall be satisfied.” [9] Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you do not know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?” (cf. 12:45)

Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, . . . (cf. 2 Cor 4:4; Heb 1:3)

14. Primacy of the Name of Jesus

We find the phrase, “the name of the Lord” about fifty times in the Old Testament and eleven times in the New Testament. In the latter, “name of God” is found seven times and “the name of the Father” eight times, but the “name” as referring to Jesus occurs at least 91 times. Jesus is the fullest revelation of God, and the One through Whom the Father is now speaking (Hebrews 1:1-2). Hence, we find an overwhelming emphasis on His name in the New Testament:

1) Salvation and Faith in Jesus’ Name: Mt 12:21; Jn 1:12; 2:23; 3:18; Acts 4:10, 12; 10:43; 22:16; Rom 10:9; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Jn 3:23; 5:13.

2) Jesus: the Most Important Name: 1 Cor 1:2; Eph 1:20-21; Phil 2:9-11 (cf. Is 45:23); 2 Thess 1:12; 1 Jn 3:23; Rev 2:3, 13.

3) Who Are We “Witnesses” of?: Acts 1:8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Sama’ria and to the end of the earth. (Jesus speaking: 1:1, 11)

4) Jesus Talks About the Importance of His Name: Mt 7:22; 10:22; 12:15-21; 18:5, 20; 19:29; 24:9; 28:19-20.

5) Christians Are Baptized in Jesus’ Name: Mt 28:19; Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5; 1 Cor 1:13, 15.

6) Christians Suffer For Jesus’ Name: Acts 5:41; 9:16; 15:26; 21:13.

7) Christians Gather in Jesus’ Name: Mt 18:20; 1 Cor 5:4.

8) Men Healed in Jesus’ Name: Acts 3:6, 16; 4:10, 30.

9) Christians Speak, Teach and Preach in Jesus’ Name: Lk 24:47; Acts 4:17-18; 5:28; 8:12; 9:27, 29.

10) Christians Named After Jesus Christ: Acts 11:26; 1 Pet 4:16.

11) Remission of Sins in Jesus’ Name: Acts 10:43; 1 Jn 2:12.

12) Jesus is Called “Lord of Lords”: Rev 19:16.

13) Christians Are to Give Thanks and Praise in Jesus’ Name: Eph 5:20; Heb 13:15.

14) Christians Are to Do All Things in Jesus’ Name: Col 3:17.

15. Jesus Claims to be the Messiah (Christ)

Every time the New Testament refers to Jesus as Christ, it is declaring that He is the Messiah, since Christ is the Greek for the Hebrew Messiah. The latter word appears twice in the New Testament in the RSV, and in both cases, it is shown that Christ is the equivalent term:

John 1:41 He first found his brother Simon, and said to him, “We have found the Messiah” (which means Christ).

John 4:25-26 The woman said to him, “I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ); when he comes, he will show us all things.” [26] Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am he.”

Other verses provide further evidence:

Matthew 16:16-17, 20 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” [17] And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.”. . .  [20] Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ. (cf. Mk 8:27-30; 9:41; Lk 4:41; 9:18-21)

Mark 14:61-62 But he was silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” [62] And Jesus said, “I am; and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” (cf. Mt 26:63-65; Lk 22:67-71; 24:25-27)

See also Mt 1:16-18; 5:17; 11:2, 10; 21:42; 24:5, 23-24; 26:56, 68; 27:17, 22; Mk 3:11; 5:7; 13:21-22, 26; Lk 1:31-33; 2:11, 26; 4:20-21; 22:37; 23:2, 35, 39; 24:44; Jn 5:39-40, 46-47; 15:25.

Son of Man When Jesus calls Himself “the Son of Man” (e.g., Mt 10:23, 32-33; 19:28; 23:37 ff.; 24:47; Mk 2:19-20; 3:28-29; 8:31, 38; 9:9, 31; 10:33, 38; 14:21, 41; Lk 11:30; 12:8, 49-50; 17:24; 18:6, 8; 21:36; 22:27, 48), He is claiming to be the Messiah, since He is referring (especially in Mk 13:26; 14:62; Jn 5:27; cf. Rev 1:13; 14:14) to a well-known messianic passage:

Daniel 7:13-14 I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. [14] And to him was given dominion and glory and kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.

In Mark 14:61-62, Jesus assumes that the Christ (Messiah) and the Son of Man are one and the same (Himself). Matthew 16:16-17 establishes the fact that the Messiah and “the Son of God” are identical as well. The latter term is used of Jesus 43 times in the New Testament, in RSV.

16. YHWH, the Messiah, and Jesus: Six Parallel Attributes

[passages applying to YHWH are presented first, followed by italicized passages about the (Old Testament) Messiah, and lastly, verses about Jesus]

The Savior

Isaiah 43:11 I am the LORD, and besides me there is no savior. (cf. 43:3; 45:15, 21; 49:26; 60:16, 63:8; Hos 13:4)

1 Timothy 4:10 . . . the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. (cf. 1:1; 2:10; Lk 1:47; Titus 1:3; 2:10; 3:4; Jude 1:25)

Isaiah 49:6 It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the preserved of Israel; I will give you as a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.

Isaiah 53:5, 11-12 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that made us whole, and with his stripes we are healed. . . . [11] . . . my servant, make many to be accounted righteous; and he shall bear their iniquities. [12] …he poured out his soul to death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. (cf. 52:10; 59:16; 63:5; Zech 9:9)

Luke 2:11 . . . a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. (cf. Jn 1:29; 4:42; 5:24; 10:9; Acts 5:31; 13:23)

Titus 2:13 . . . our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, (cf. 1:4; 3:6; Phil 3:20; 2 Tim 1:10)

2 Peter 1:1 . . . our God and Savior Jesus Christ: (cf. 1:11; 2 Pet 2:20; 3:18; 1 Jn 4:14; also, one passage puts both together: Jude 1:25: “the only God, our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord”)

Served and Exalted

Deuteronomy 6:13 You shall fear the LORD your God; you shall serve him, and swear by his name. (cf. 10:20; 13:4; Jer 30:9)

Isaiah 45:23 . . . To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. (cf. Rom 14:11)

Revelation 1:6 …God and Father, to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Daniel 7:14 And to him was given dominion and glory and kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed. (cf. Ps 2:12)

Isaiah 52:13 Behold, my servant shall prosper, he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high.

Ephesians 1:20-22 which he accomplished in Christ when he raised him from the dead and made him sit at his right hand in the heavenly places, [21] far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come; [22] and he has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church,

Philippians 2:9-11 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, [10] that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, [11] and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Second Coming

Isaiah 40:10 Behold, the Lord GOD comes with might, and his arm rules for him; behold, his reward is with him, and his recompense before him. (cf. 40:5; Ps 96:13; 98:9)

Isaiah 66:15-16 For behold, the LORD will come in fire, and his chariots like the stormwind, to render his anger in fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire. [16] For by fire will the LORD execute judgment, and by his sword, upon all flesh; and those slain by the LORD shall be many. (cf. 59:20; Joel 2:11; Zech 2:10)

Zechariah 9:14 Then the LORD will appear over them, and his arrow go forth like lightning; the Lord GOD will sound the trumpet, and march forth in the whirlwinds of the south.

Zechariah 12:10 . . . when they look on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a first-born. (cf. Jn 19:37)

Zechariah 14:3-5 Then the LORD will go forth and fight against those nations as when he fights on a day of battle. [4] On that day his feet shall stand on the Mount of Olives which lies before Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives shall be split in two from east to west by a very wide valley; . . . [5] . .. Then the LORD your God will come, and all the holy ones with him.

Isaiah 11:4 . . .he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall slay the wicked.

Daniel 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him.

Matthew 24:30 then will appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory; (Mt 16:27; 26:64; Mk 14:62)

Acts 1:11-12 . . .“This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.” [12] Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem . . . (cf. Zech 14:4)

2 Thessalonians 1:7-8 . . .when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, [8] inflicting vengeance upon those who do not know God and upon those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. (cf. Rev 22:12)

2 Thessalonians 2:8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, and the Lord Jesus will slay him with the breath of his mouth and destroy him by his appearing and his coming.

Revelation 1:7 Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, every one who pierced him; and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. . . . (cf. Zech 12:10)

Revelation 19:15 From his mouth issues a sharp sword with which to smite the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron; he will tread the wine press of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. (cf. 19:11, 13, 16, 19, 21; Is 49:2)

Judge

1 Samuel 2:10 …The LORD will judge the ends of the earth . . . (cf. Gen 18:25; 1 Chr 16:33; Ps 7:11; 9:8; 96:10; Is 2:4; 33:22)

Psalm 50:6 The heavens declare his righteousness, for God himself is judge! (cf. 58:11; 67:4; 82:8; 94:2; Jer 11:20)

Ecclesiastes 12:14 For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil. (cf. 3:17; Ezek 18:30; 33:20; Joel 3:12)

Zephaniah 1:14-15 The great day of the LORD is near, near and hastening fast; the sound of the day of the LORD is bitter, the mighty man cries aloud there. [15] A day of wrath is that day, a day of distress and anguish, a day of ruin and devastation, a day of darkness and gloom, a day of clouds and thick darkness,

Psalm 2:9 You shall break them with a rod of iron, and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.

Psalm 110:5-6 The Lord is at your right hand; he will shatter kings on the day of his wrath. [6] He will execute judgment among the nations, filling them with corpses; he will shatter chiefs over the wide earth.

John 5:22, 27 The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, . . . [27] and has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of man. (cf. 9:39)

Acts 10:42 . . . he is the one ordained by God to be judge of the living and the dead. (cf. 2 Tim 4:1)

Acts 17:31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all men by raising him from the dead.

Revelation 14:14-16 Then I looked, and lo, a white cloud, and seated on the cloud one like a son of man, with a golden crown on his head, and a sharp sickle in his hand. [15] And another angel came out of the temple, calling with a loud voice to him who sat upon the cloud, “Put in your sickle, and reap, for the hour to reap has come, for the harvest of the earth is fully ripe.” [16] So he who sat upon the cloud swung his sickle on the earth, and the earth was reaped. (cf. 6:16-17; 19:11)

King

1 Samuel 12:12 . . . the LORD your God was your king. (cf. Ps 95:3)

Psalm 10:16 The LORD is king for ever and ever; (cf. 24:8, 10; 47:2; 84:3; 98:6; 103:19; Zech 14:9, 16)

Isaiah 33:22 . . . the LORD is our ruler, the LORD is our king; he will save us. (cf. 43:15; 44:6; Jer 10:10; Mic 4:7; 1 Tim 1:17; Rev 15:3)

Psalm 2:6 I have set my king on Zion, my holy hill. (cf. 2:7-8)

Isaiah 9:7 Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David, and over his kingdom,…

Jeremiah 23:5 Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. (cf. 30:9)

Ezekiel 37:24-25 My servant David shall be king over them; and they shall all have one shepherd. They shall follow my ordinances and be careful to observe my statutes. [25] . . . David my servant shall be their prince for ever.

Luke 1:32-33 . . . the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, [33] and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end. (cf. 22:29-30; Mt 21:5; 25:34, 40; Col 1:13; Heb 1:8; 2 Pet 1:11; Rev 11:15)

John 18:37 Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I have come into the world, . . . ” (cf. 1:49; 12:13, 15; 18:36; Mt 27:11; Mk 15:2)

Revelation 12:5 she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne,

Revelation 17:14 . . . he is Lord of lords and King of kings . . . (cf. 19:16; 1 Tim 6:15)

God’s Throne

1 Kings 22:19 . . . I saw the LORD sitting on his throne. . . . 

Psalm 11:4 . . . the LORD’s throne is in heaven; . . . (cf. 47:8; 93:2)

Revelation 4:10 the twenty-four elders fall down before him who is seated on the throne and worship him who lives for ever and ever . . .  (cf. 7:10; 19:4)

Ezekiel 1:26 And above the firmament over their heads there was the likeness of a throne, in appearance like sapphire; and seated above the likeness of a throne was a likeness as it were of a human form.

Ezekiel 43:7 and he said to me, “Son of man, this is the place of my throne and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the people of Israel for ever. . . . “

Matthew 19:28 . . . the Son of man shall sit on his glorious throne. . . .  (cf. 25:31)

Revelation 7:17 For the Lamb in the midst of the throne will be their shepherd, . . . 

Revelation 22:1 . . . the throne of God and of the Lamb . . . (cf. 22:3)

17. Jesus’ Subjection (as Messiah) to the Father

Jesus’ subjection to the Father is seen in such verses as John 14:28: “. . . the Father is greater than I,” 1 Corinthians 11:3: “. . . the head of Christ is God,” and 1 Corinthians 15:28: “When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him. . . .”

These verses and others have been utilized historically by heretics such as the Arians (of whom Jehovah’s Witnesses are a revival), as well as non-trinitarian theists such as Unitarians, to allegedly “prove” that Jesus is lesser than the Father and therefore not God in the flesh. Upon closer inspection, however, a clearer picture emerges.

John 14:28 is to be understood in light of passages such as Philippians 2:6-8, which shows us that Christ in John 14:28 was speaking strictly in terms of his office as Messiah, which entailed a giving up, not of the Divine Nature, but of certain prerogatives of glory and Deity which are enjoyed by the Father. Christ subjected Himself to the Father in order to undertake His role as the Incarnate Son and Mediator between God and man (1 Tim 2:5).

Similarly, one might say that “the President of the United States is a greater man than I am,” but this would not mean he was necessarily a better man. In any event, he is still a man like us. Jesus is still God, even while “humbling” Himself (Phil 2:8).

When the Father is called the “head” of the Son (1 Cor 11:3), this also does not entail any lessening of the equality between the Son and the Father. The Bible also talks about wives being subject to their husbands (1 Pet 3:1, 5), even while the two are equals (Gal 3:28; Eph 5:21-22), and indeed, “one flesh” (Mt 19:5-6).

Likewise, one Person of the Godhead can be in subjection to another Person and remain God in essence and substance (Phil 2:6-8). Luke 2:51 says that Jesus was “subject” to Mary and Joseph. Yet no orthodox Christian of any stripe would hold that Jesus was lesser in essence than His earthly parents! The same Greek word for “subject” in Luke 2:51 (hupotasso) is used in 1 Corinthians 15:28, and in 1 Peter 2:18 below. Besides, submissiveness and servanthood is not presented as a sign of weakness in Scripture. Quite the contrary:

Matthew 23:11-12 He who is greatest among you shall be your servant; [12] whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

1 Peter 2:18 Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, . . . 

The word for “greatest” in Matthew 23:11 is meizon, the same word used in John 14:28. Thus, any notion that submissiveness is a lessening of equality is absolutely unscriptural. Likewise, in 1 Corinthians 15:28, the subjection spoken of is that of the Son as incarnate, not the Son as Son in essence. While this verse tells us that God will be “everything to every one” Colossians 3:11 tells us that “Christ is all, and in all.” Thus, Jesus’ office as Messiah and Mediator will cease in time, but not His Godhood, since Scripture teaches that He will be “all in all” just as His Father is.

***

[see also the companion paper: Holy Trinity: Hundreds of Biblical Proofs (RSV Edition) ]

***

(initial research from 1982 [using KJV]; slightly revised in 1997; revised and reformatted for RSV edition in 2012; expanded and revised  in Nov. 2024)

Photo credit: my book, Theology of God: available for purchase, for as low as $2.99 in e-book formats. The material above was drawn from this book.

***

2019-02-16T13:52:14-04:00

[purchase my apologetics notes only, from this bestselling work, for only $2.99]

*****

This is a response to a tag in an article written by Catholic journalist Jay McNally. It had to do with the early Internet, and how journalists have fared in the Internet Age. Jay seems to imply that I am a journalist, which I deny. I’m an apologist. Apples and oranges. Anyway, I had thoughts about it that I wrote on his page and now share here. Jay wrote:

I enjoyed this paragraph early in the essay and thought of my friend Dave Armstrong:

Most professional journalists who had work when the Web was born are out of the business, or under-employed within it. Many work for little or no money. Crazy as it may seem, they keep working because they believe the world needs what they do.

Since my name was (somewhat curiously) mentioned, just some thoughts that I have, for the record (stimulated by your comment!):

1. I’m not a journalist (like you) but an apologist, evangelist, and teacher. They are different tasks and goals, though they can overlap. You seem to think that my job should necessarily incorporate what you do (per our discussions about problems in the Church), but I would disagree with that. I’m not an ombudsman or investigative journalist for the Church: coming up with all the “inside dope” and exposing scandals, corruption, and sin in the bishops and various Catholic organizations (that’s your task) but rather, a defender of it and its doctrines, and of larger Christianity over against secularism.

2. Apologetics has always been a tiny field in terms of bookselling. As Karl Keating has said, 10,000 copies sold is considered a bestseller. I have exceeded or will exceed 20,000 for several of my books. In other words, the success or lack thereof in terms of selling books, for an apologist, is not due only or even primarily to the Internet, but rather, to the fact that only a tiny percentage of Catholics could care less about apologetics or even theology itself, and learning more about it.

3. The folks in apologetics who are doing the “best” (i.e., financially) are doing so, not mainly because of the Internet but because of 1) TV, 2) radio, 3) the lecture circuit, 4) large donor bases, and 5) aggressive fundraising campaigns using Madison Avenue type time-honored techniques (which are fine and perfectly ethical for a very good cause, as this is, but I personally don’t care much for them, myself).

All of these existed prior to the advent of the Internet. I have none of those advantages (though I have been on the radio about 25 times; I meant having a regular show), and do merely one mild, quite low-key fundraiser each fall. Even that began only in 2012 because of the Obama economy. I hadn’t done a fundraiser since 2001, before that. I’m one of very few full-time Catholic apologists who have succeeded without any of the five advantages above. It has all been a result of my writing. If folks like it, they’ll buy my books and/or consider financially supporting my apostolate. But that’s what they get with me: tons of writing: over 2,200 blog posts and 50 books [as of February 2019].

4. My career as a professional writer (originally part-time) began before the Internet took off: in 1993, when I first made it into Catholic magazines. My first book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (finished in 1996, published in 2003) was endorsed by Fr. John A. Hardon (in the Foreword) in 1994. My conversion story was also one of eleven in Surprised by Truth that year. But there is no question that the Internet has played a key role in whatever name recognition I have achieved.

5. We chose to live simply and to give up certain things (that lots of folks think they can’t live without), and we are perfectly happy doing so.

6. The world certainly “needs” evangelization and its half-sister, apologetics. Like Jesus said: “the harvest is ripe, but the laborers are few.”

7. We manage (with four children) to pay all our bills, have good credit, no debts excepting our mortgage; we don’t use credit cards, and take a good vacation every year (including four times out west since 2006, from Michigan, and Nova Scotia in 2004).

In a month I will have 19 books that have been published by “real” publishers (not just self-published: though I do a lot of that, too). That’s very successful in the publishing world by any standard or reckoning, so I don’t consider myself “under-employed” nor making “little or no money”: though by American materialistic standards I don’t have much. It’s fine for the life we have chosen, since we’re payin’ our bills and manage to do a lot of fun things for entertainment and recreation.

8. Moral of the story: If God calls a person to a particular task, He will provide and make a way for them to do so. I’ve been a full-time apologist since December 2001. God has provided. I can testify to that. That is the main reason I write this lengthy comment: to give the glory to God and give testimony that He is good to His word: He provides our needs when we devote our lives to Him (in whatever calling in life He has for us). On “paper” it didn’t seem possible, yet it happened, and is a matter of record, and continues to be the case. I’m perfectly happy, content, and fulfilled in what I do and wouldn’t do anything other: precisely because we must follow God’s calling in our lives.

I write this in part, knowing that there are people out there (I hear from them occasionally) who don’t know a thing about my living situation, who believe any number of myths about me and my family and are quite willing to slander me in public: such as, for example, that we’re starving and destitute because I am obsessed with having a blog, typing like a madman up in my “attic” (what one idiot critic of mine calls the top floor of a bungalow) and force my wife to go along, and other such absurdly false caricatures that have no relation to truth whatsoever (in fact, are invariably precisely the opposite of the truth).

We don’t feel that we are lacking in anything. Like St. Paul wrote: “I have learned, in whatever state I am, to be content” (Philippians 4:11, RSV).

Whether journalists can say the same about their life situations, I have no idea, but then again, I am not a journalist in the first place . . . (which is why I thought it was odd that my name was brought up in this context, and wanted to clarify some things).

***

(originally 3-6-14)

***

2019-01-31T14:14:09-04:00

This is an installment of a series of replies (see the Introduction and Master List) to much of Book IV (Of the Holy Catholic Church) of Institutes of the Christian Religion, by early Protestant leader John Calvin (1509-1564). I utilize the public domain translation of Henry Beveridge, dated 1845, from the 1559 edition in Latin; available online. Calvin’s words will be in blue. All biblical citations (in my portions) will be from RSV unless otherwise noted.

Related reading from yours truly:

Biblical Catholic Answers for John Calvin (2010 book: 388 pages)

A Biblical Critique of Calvinism (2012 book: 178 pages)

Biblical Catholic Salvation: “Faith Working Through Love” (2010 book: 187 pages; includes biblical critiques of all five points of “TULIP”)

*****

IV, 15:10-11

***

Book IV

CHAPTER 15

OF BAPTISM.

10. Objection of those who imagine that there is some kind of perfect renovation after baptism. Original depravity remains after baptism. Its existence in infants. The elect after baptism are righteous in this life only by imputation.
*

It is now clear how false the doctrine is which some long ago taught, and others still persist in, that by baptism we are exempted and set free from original sin, and from the corruption which was propagated by Adam to all his posterity, and that we are restored to the same righteousness and purity of nature which Adam would have had if he had maintained the integrity in which he was created. This class of teachers never understand what is meant by original sin, original righteousness, or the grace of baptism. 

Calvin’s roster of the ignorant contains many great figures who do not hold to his novel views of baptism and its effects:

St. Irenaeus

‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’. (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190])

St. Clement of Alexandria

When we are baptized, we are enlightened. Being enlightened, we are adopted as sons. Adopted as sons, we are made perfect. Made perfect, we become immortal . . . ‘and sons of the Most High’ [Ps. 82:6]. This work is variously called grace, illumination, perfection, and washing. It is a washing by which we are cleansed of sins, a gift of grace by which the punishments due our sins are remitted, an illumination by which we behold that holy light of salvation. (The Instructor of Children 1:6:26:1 [A.D. 191])

St. Cyprian of Carthage

While I was lying in darkness . . . I thought it indeed difficult and hard to believe . . . that divine mercy was promised for my salvation, so that anyone might be born again and quickened unto a new life by the laver of the saving water, he might put off what he had been before, and, although the structure of the body remained, he might change himself in soul and mind. . . . But afterwards, when the stain of my past life had been washed away by means of the water of rebirth, a light from above poured itself upon my chastened and now pure heart; afterwards, through the Spirit which is breathed from heaven, a second birth made of me a new man. (To Donatus 3–4 [A.D. 246])

St. Cyril of Jerusalem

If any man does not receive baptism, he does not have salvation. The only exception is the martyrs, who, even without water, will receive baptism, for the Savior calls martyrdom a baptism [Mark 10:38]. . . . Bearing your sins, you go down into the water; but the calling down of grace seals your soul and does not permit that you afterwards be swallowed up by the fearsome dragon. You go down dead in your sins, and you come up made alive in righteousness. (Catechetical Lectures 3:10, 12 [A.D. 350])

St. Ephraem

The baptized when they come up are sanctified;–the sealed when they go down are pardoned.—They who come up have put on glory;–they who go down have cast off sin. (Hymns for the Feast of the Epiphany, 6:9 [ante A.D. 373] )

St. Basil the Great

For prisoners, baptism is ransom, forgiveness of debts, the death of sin, regeneration of the soul, a resplendent garment, an unbreakable seal, a chariot to heaven, a royal protector, a gift of adoption. (Sermons on Moral and Practical Subjects 13:5 [A.D. 379])

St. Gregory of Nazianz 

Such is the grace and power of baptism; not an overwhelming of the world as of old, but a purification of the sins of each individual, and a complete cleansing from all the bruises and stains of sin. And since we are double-made, I mean of body and soul, and the one part is visible, the other invisible, so the cleansing also is twofold, by water and the Spirit; the one received visibly in the body, the other concurring with it invisibly and apart from the body; the one typical, the other real and cleansing the depths. (Oration on Holy Baptism 7–8 [A.D. 388])

St. Ambrose of Milan

The Lord was baptized, not to be cleansed himself but to cleanse the waters, so that those waters, cleansed by the flesh of Christ which knew no sin, might have the power of baptism. Whoever comes, therefore, to the washing of Christ lays aside his sins. (Commentary on Luke 2:83 [A.D. 389])

St. Augustine

Baptism washes away all, absolutely all, our sins, whether of deed, word, or thought, whether sins original or added, whether knowingly or unknowingly contracted. (Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 3:3:5 [A.D. 420])

This is the meaning of the great sacrament of baptism, which is celebrated among us: all who attain to this grace die thereby to sin—as he himself [Jesus] is said to have died to sin because he died in the flesh (that is, ‘in the likeness of sin’)—and they are thereby alive by being reborn in the baptismal font, just as he rose again from the sepulcher. This is the case no matter what the age of the body. For whether it be a newborn infant or a decrepit old man—since no one should be barred from baptism—just so, there is no one who does not die to sin in baptism. Infants die to original sin only; adults, to all those sins which they have added, through their evil living, to the burden they brought with them at birth. (Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Love 13[41] [A.D. 421])

Now, it has been previously shown (Book 2 chap. 1 sec. 8), that original sin is the depravity and corruption of our nature, which first makes us liable to the wrath of God, and then produces in us works which Scripture terms the works of the flesh (Gal. 5:19). The two things, therefore, must be distinctly observed—viz. that we are vitiated and perverted in all parts of our nature, and then, on account of this corruption, are justly held to be condemned and convicted before God, to whom nothing is acceptable but purity, innocence, and righteousness. And hence, even infants bring their condemnation with them from their mother’s womb; for although they have not yet brought forth the fruits of their unrighteousness, they have its seed included in them. Nay, their whole nature is, as it were, a seed of sin, and, therefore, cannot but be odious and abominable to God. 

Calvin’s faulty, excessive view of total depravity has been examined in these papers of mine:

*
*
Total Depravity & the Evil of the Non-Elect (vs. John Calvin) [10-12-12]
*
*
Believers become assured by baptism, that this condemnation is entirely withdrawn from them, since (as has been said) the Lord by this sign promises that a full and entire remission has been made, both of the guilt which was imputed to us, and the penalty incurred by the guilt. 
*
These statements are not too far from Catholicism.
*They also apprehend righteousness, but such righteousness as the people of God can obtain in this life—viz. by imputation only, God, in his mercy, regarding them as righteous and innocent.The falsity of imputation only with regard to removal of sin, is refuted by innumerable Scripture passages:
11. Original corruption trying to the pious during the whole course of their lives. They do not, on this account, seek a licence for sin. They rather walk more cautiously and safely in the ways of the Lord.
*

Another point is, that this corruption never ceases in us, but constantly produces new fruits—viz. those works of the flesh which we previously described, just as a burning furnace perpetually sends forth flame and sparks, or a fountain is ever pouring out water. For concupiscence never wholly dies or is extinguished in men, until, freed by death from the body of death, they have altogether laid aside their own nature (Book 3 chap. 3 sec. 10-13). 

Catholics agree that concupiscence continues in us, but not that our entire human nature is corrupted.

Baptism, indeed, tells us that our Pharaoh is drowned and sin mortified; not so, however, as no longer to exist, or give no trouble, but only so as not to have dominion. For as long as we live shut up in this prison of the body, the remains of sin dwell in us, but if we faithfully hold the promise which God has given us in baptism, they will neither rule nor reign. But let no man deceive himself, let no man look complacently on his disease, when he hears that sin always dwells in us. When we say so, it is not in order that those who are otherwise too prone to sin may sleep securely in their sins, but only that those who are tried and stung by the flesh may not faint and despond. Let them rather reflect that they are still on the way, and think that they have made great progress when they feel that their concupiscence is somewhat diminished from day to day, until they shall have reached the point at which they aim—viz. the final death of the flesh; a death which shall be completed at the termination of this mortal life. Meanwhile, let them cease not to contend strenuously, and animate themselves to further progress, and press on to complete victory. Their efforts should be stimulated by the consideration, that after a lengthened struggle much still remains to be done. We ought to hold that we are baptised for the mortification of our flesh, which is begun in baptism, is prosecuted every day, and will be finished when we depart from this life to go to the Lord.

This is a good section that Catholics can agree with. Calvin agrees that the Christian life is one of day-by-day struggle and vigilance in the avoidance of sin by God’s grace. His practical piety and spirituality is much better (and far more biblical) than his abstract, flawed soteriology (and this is common ground where Catholics and Calvinists can wholeheartedly agree). I have noted and rejoiced elsewhere that Calvin strongly urges good works as the proof of a lively and authentic faith.

***

(originally 11-17-09)

Photo credit: Historical mixed media figure of John Calvin produced by artist/historian George S. Stuart and photographed by Peter d’Aprix: from the George S. Stuart Gallery of Historical Figures archive [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license]

***

Follow Us!



Browse Our Archives