2025-06-25T09:37:09-04:00

Jason Engwer is a Protestant evangelical anti-Catholic apologist who runs the Triablogue site. I’ve critiqued his articles many many times (see his name on my Anti-Catholicism page), but he has refused to counter-reply since 2010 (having done so for the previous eight years), and of course he bans me from his site. What else is new? In any event, it’s still well worth spending time refuting error that is influencing many people, because falsehoods don’t do anyone any good. I use RSV for Bible citations. Jason’s words will be in blue.

*****

I’m replying to Jason’s article, “How Early Activities, Not Just Early Language, Contradict Mary’s Perpetual Virginity” (6-1-25).

The marriage between Joseph and Mary is evidence against her being a perpetual virgin, . . . 

It’s not at all, in and of itself, because it was absolutely unique in all of human history: being a mother and a father figure to God incarnate. Most Christians throughout history have regarded it as fitting and proper that the womb that carried God the Son should not bear any other human being. One either spiritually and intuitively grasps this or not (see my “holy ground” argument).

Those who don’t accept this outlook usually fall back on the old, tiresome, “Catholics are against sex and think it’s dirty” argument. We’re not (we regard marriage as a sacrament, after all), but beyond that canard, we’re not the only ones who believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity in the first place. Martin Luther did; John Calvin did, Zwingli did; as did all of the earliest Protestant leaders. Many excellent and renowned Protestant exegetes and commentators throughout history have believed in it; as does the Orthodox Church; and the Church fathers massively held to it.

Marriage wouldn’t have to involve sexual activity, but encourages it, typically involves it, and typically does so as a significantly prominent part of the relationship.

That’s the whole point. Of course, “typically” a marriage includes sexual relations, but this marriage was anything but typical. Thus, Jason — almost despite himself — concedes the possibility of Mary’s perpetual virginity even by the language he uses. He can’t avoid it.

If there was a desire for a mother/father setting for the raising of Jesus, a desire on God’s part or on the part of Joseph and Mary, why not think there was also a desire for the usual human experience of having siblings, most often siblings from the same parents . . .?

Because, again, Jason refers to “the usual human experience.” The Holy Family is not that. It’s an exception to the rule. The Bible is filled with odd things: talking donkeys (the Balaam story), Jacob wrestling with God, Nebuchadnezzar eating grass like cattle; even weird sexual things (since Jason wants to make this issue all or primarily about sexuality): God commanding the prophet Hosea to marry both a prostitute and a promiscuous married woman in order to create an analogy to Israel’s unfaithfulness:

Hosea 1:2-3 . . . the LORD said to Hose’a, “Go, take to yourself a wife of harlotry and have children of harlotry, for the land commits great harlotry by forsaking the LORD.” [3] So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Dibla’im, and she conceived and bore him a son.

Hosea 3:1 And the LORD said to me, “Go again, love a woman who is beloved of a paramour and is an adulteress; even as the LORD loves the people of Israel, though they turn to other gods and love cakes of raisins.”

Or how about God commanding the prophet Isaiah to walk around naked for three years (Is 20:2-4)? King Solomon “had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines” (1 Kgs 11:3). This doesn’t even seem to be condemned in and of itself, in context. What is clearly condemned is the fact that “his wives turned away his heart after other gods; and his heart was not wholly true to the LORD his God” (11:4). His father King David had at least eight wives, and many other concubines as well.

If all those things could happen, sanctioned or allowed by God, why is it unimaginable or considered to be utterly implausible that the other extreme could also happen and be God’s will: namely, a marriage designed from the start to be very different and celibate, because the child involved was 1) already supernaturally conceived by the Holy Spirit, and 2) was God incarnate? Jason loves making all of these anti-traditional and anti-biblical arguments from plausibility and analogy.

I return the favor. I love analogical argument and arguments from plausibility, so it’s a pleasure for me. But we can assuredly turn the tables on all of these arguments he comes up with. As an extra bonus, I also believe in dialoguing with opposing views. Jason does not: at least not with me, and he seems to not do it much at all anymore.

If there was a desire to avoid what’s involved in having other children, in order to focus on Jesus, 

That’s not the reason usually given when we defend this; rather, it’s a question of propriety and fittingness. The latter concept is a biblical one.

then why did Mary have a husband with several children from a previous marriage? 

Since the premise was wrong, the question is irrelevant. But western Catholics usually believe in the “cousins” explanation, which is grounded in the Bible itself, as opposed to early tradition, as I will show below.

As the New Testament passages about those other children illustrate, Jesus’ siblings were often involved in Joseph and Mary’s lives, including in opposition to Jesus. The most straightforward way to take the marriage between Joseph and Mary is that it involved the usual sexual relationship . . . 

Think of how Jesus’ brothers are sometimes referred to as being with Mary and are mentioned just after her (Matthew 12:46John 2:12Acts 1:14). Cousins or older children from a previous marriage of Joseph could be with Mary and keep getting mentioned just after her, but younger siblings offer the most efficient explanation. Not only would later children born of Mary best explain the “brothers” language, but they’d also be the best candidates for individuals mentioned just after Mary and referred to as being with Mary (younger siblings of Jesus being better candidates for being with Mary because of their younger age, their closer relationship with Mary, and the efficiency of explaining their group activities by their living in the same house rather than different ones). Similarly, when the people of Nazareth mention Jesus’ brothers and sisters (Matthew 13:55-56), later children of Mary offer the best explanation for why they’d bring up those brothers and sisters. The surrounding context is focused on Jesus’ immediate family (the mentioning of Joseph, the mentioning of Mary), so brothers and sisters from his immediate family would make the most sense in that context. . . . 

And notice the cumulative effect. It’s very unlikely that more distant relatives of Jesus (not younger siblings born of Mary) would happen to keep appearing in contexts that would more naturally involve younger siblings born of Mary. Are we to believe that Mary kept appearing, in multiple contexts, with the same more distant relatives and that the people of Nazareth chose to mention the same type of relatives outside Jesus’ immediate family (“brothers”, “sisters”) just after mentioning members of his immediate family, all the while leaving out other relatives outside his immediate family?

I answered this argument over seven years ago in my article for National Catholic Register, entitled, Jesus’ “Brothers” Always “Hanging Around”: Siblings? Here are some highlights:

The Hebrew “household” (if not virtually always) often would contain extended family members. It was not like our nuclear families of today. For example, in the book, Families in Ancient Israel(Leo G. Perdue, editor; Westminster John Knox Press, 1997) we find this description:

The familial roles of males in the household’s kinship structure included those of lineal descent and marriage — grandfather, father, son, and husband — and those lateral relationships — brother, uncle, nephew, and cousin. (pp. 179-180)

The household often even extended to sojourners or hired laborers (ibid., p. 199). In this book, the “household” is casually described as including cousins. For example:

The line of responsibility to serve as the household’s or clan’s “goel” began with the brother, then the uncle, then the cousin, and, finally, any close relative. (p. 192; goel = “redeemer,” or the one “responsible for the justice and well-being of the family”)

The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary (edited by Allen C. Myers, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, rev. ed., 1975) makes the nature of the Israelite family very clear, by noting that it could include more than one nuclear family (thus, cousins would be residing together):

The basic social unit, comprised of persons related by kinship and sharing a common residence. The Israelite family was an extended family known as the “father’s house” or “household” (Heb. “bet-ab”), consisting of two or more nuclear families (i.e., a married couple and their children) or composite families (an individual with multiple spouses and their offspring) . . . other kin (including grandparents), servants, concubines, and sojourners might also be reckoned part of the household (cf. Gen. 46:5-7, 26). (“Family,” p. 376)

Moreover, on the next page, this reference work noted that clans also usually “occupied the same or adjacent towns.” Extended families stuck together. It was like a perpetual family reunion. This would account for first or second or third cousins (all referred to as “brothers” in Semitic or Near Eastern culture: then and now) “hanging around” in one place.

Because Jason and many Protestants and Catholics alike don’t understand this, nor the general use of “brother” for almost any relative or even a fellow Israelite, they are quick to assert the existence of siblings of Jesus. Well, I have fourteen questions for him and those who agree with him, too, if they believe these people are Jesus’ siblings:

1) Why is it that the New Testament never uses the phrase “son[s] of Mary” or “son[s] of Joseph” for anyone besides Jesus?
*
2) “Son of Mary” appears once, in Mark 6:3 (RSV), referring to Jesus, and interestingly enough, in the same verse He is called “brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon,” and people say, “are not his sisters here with us?” Yet none of them are called “sons / daughters” of Mary or Joseph. Why not?
*
3) Why is it that “sons of Mary” never appears in the NT?
*
4) Why doesn’t the phrase, “Mary’s sons” ever appear in the NT, either?
*
5) How come “daughter[s] of Mary” never appears?
*
6) Why don’t the words, “Mary’s daughter[s]” ever appear in the NT?
*
7) “Son of Joseph” (referring to the carpenter from Nazareth) appears twice (Jn 1:45; 6:42): both referring to Jesus. “Sons of Joseph” appears once (Heb 11:21), but unfortunately for deniers of Mary’s perpetual virginity, it refers to the patriarch Joseph. Why is that, if these are his sons (either supposedly with Mary or from a previous marriage)?
*
8) Why is it that  “Joseph’s sons” never appears?
*
9) How come “Daughter[s] of Joseph” never appears, wither?
*
10) Why doesn’t “Joseph’s daughter[s]” appear in the NT?
*
11) Why are none of these supposed siblings mentioned when Jesus went to Jerusalem at age 12 and His parents were looking for Him? Are we to believe that Mary waited more than twelve years to have more children?
*
12) How come Mary is never called the “mother” of these alleged siblings of Jesus, whereas she is called Jesus’ “mother” (Jn 2:1; 19:25)?
*

13) Why is it, again (see #2) the case that in the following two passages, these “brothers” were mentioned but Mary wasn’t called their mother; only Jesus‘ mother?

*
Matthew 13:55 “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?”
*
Acts 1:14 All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.
*
14) Strikingly, it looks like every time St. Paul uses adelphos (unless I missed one or two), he means it as something other than blood brother or sibling. He uses the word or related cognates no less than 138 times in this way. Yet we often hear about Galatians 1:19: “James the Lord’s brother.” 137 other times, Paul means non-sibling, yet amazingly enough, here he must mean sibling, because (so we are told) he uses the word adelphos? That doesn’t make any sense. Why would he do that?
Doesn’t it stand to reason and isn’t it common sense that if these “brothers” were indeed the siblings of Jesus, that Acts 1:14 would read, instead: “Mary the mother of Jesus and his brothers”? Then we wouldn’t be having this dispute; it would have been so clear and undeniable. A similar argument could be made for Mark 6:3.
*
I’d like to ask those who deny Mary’s perpetual virginity: why do you think all of the words noted in #1-14 above are the way they are? Why wouldn’t God have made it easy to understand and logically and grammatically impossible to deny, if Jesus had siblings? There were many opportunities and contexts in Holy Scripture where this could easily have taken place, but for some odd reason (maybe because it’s a falsehood and not a fact?) it never does.
*
And so, here we are 2,000 years later debating the issue, since Protestants in the late 17th and early 18th centuries decided to depart from the rest of Christendom (even their own founders and 250 years of teaching) and start denying that the Blessed Virgin Mary was a perpetual virgin: as part and parcel of their increasing theological liberalism and nominalism.
*
They also make the most sense of the absence of any reference to other more distant relatives. If the “brothers” and “sisters” were cousins of Jesus, why not also mention uncles, aunts, etc.?
*
This again exhibits Jason’s ignorance of biblical language. The same words (both in Hebrew and Greek) were used for all of these relatives. “Cousin” appears four times in the entire OT in the RSV (three of those in Jeremiah, another in Leviticus). But “brother[s]” appears 390 times, “brethren” 154 times and “sister[s]” 110 times. So by a 654-4 ratio, we have those terms (which at first glance sound like siblings) used over against “cousin.” Obviously, many times they were used for non-sibling relatives. Here are some examples of that:
*
Lot, who was called Abraham’s “brother” (Gen. 14:14), was the son of Haran, Abraham’s sibling (Gen. 11:26–28); therefore, was Abraham’s nephew, not his sibling or blood brother. Jacob is, likewise, referred to as the “brother” of Laban, who was literally his uncle (Gen. 29:15). Eleazar’s daughters married their “brethren,” who were the sons of Kish (Eleazar’s literal sibling). These “brethren”, then, were actually their first cousins (1 Chr. 23:21–22).
*
“Brother” and “sister” could also refer to kinsmen (Dt. 23:7; Neh. 5:7; Jer. 34:9), as in the reference to the forty-two “brethren” of King Azariah (2 Kgs. 10:13–14). Many more such examples could be given. The NT (which came out of the same culture, and was Jewish-written save for Luke) totally reflects this. It has “brother[s]” 159 times, “brethren” 191, and “sister[s]” 24 times, while “cousin” appears exactly once (Col 4:10). So that’s a 374-1 ratio (even more lopsided than the OT), and for the entire Bible (minus the Deuterocanon), the numbers are 1028-5, or “cousin” used instead of “brother” or “sister” once in every 206 times a relative is mentioned.
*
“Uncle” and “aunt” are not very common words in the OT. “Uncle appears only 13 times in the RSV. “Aunt” appears exactly once (Lev 18:14). Neither one appears at all in the NT! Again, “brother” and “sister” were the common terms used for a wide array of relatives, as shown. This is our reply to Jason’s question: he is ignorant of how familial terms are used in the entire Bible.
*
The presence of younger siblings of Jesus in Luke 2:41-52 (among the “relatives” of verse 44) helps explain why the absence of Jesus would have been unnoticed for a while. The failure to notice his absence is harder to explain if Jesus was the only child his parents had to care for and the only child of Joseph and Mary other relatives had to account for.
*
Luke states (2:46) that the search for Jesus took three days before He was found in the temple. Mary said, “your father and I have been looking for you anxiously” (2:48, RSV). If other children had been with them, they certainly would have been looking, too; in which case, Mary would have said, “your father and I and your brothers and sisters have been looking for you anxiously.” But she didn’t say that.
*
There is also the factor of how caravans in ancient Israel traveled. I cite three Protestant commentaries on Luke 2:44:
Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers: Supposing him to have been in the company.—The company was probably a large one, consisting of those who had come up to keep the Passover from Nazareth and the neighbouring villages. It is not certain, but in the nature of things it is sufficiently probable, that the boys of such a company congregated together, and travelled apart from the others.
Barnes’ Notes on the Bible: Supposing him to have been in the company – It may seem very remarkable that parents should not have been more attentive to their only son, and that they should not have been assured of his presence with them when they left Jerusalem; but the difficulty may be explained by the following considerations:
1. In going to these great feasts, families and neighbors would join together, and form a large collection.
2. It is not improbable that Jesus was “with” them when they were about to start from Jerusalem and were making preparations. Seeing him then, they might have been certain as to his presence.
3. A part of the company might have left before the others, and Joseph and Mary may have supposed that he was with them, until they overtook them at night and ascertained their mistake.
Expositor’s Greek Testament: A company would be made up of people from the same neighbourhood, well acquainted with one another. . . . It is quite conceivable how they should have gone on so long without missing the boy, . . .
An online friend of mine, traditional Anglican author and apologist and philosopher Lydia McGrew commented underneath:
*
Good point about the brothers repeatedly cropping up in contexts with Mary. I think the John 2:12 context is especially significant, since they seem to be just hanging out with Mary and Jesus there. A Catholic might argue that when the “brothers” are involved in staging an intervention because they think Jesus has gone crazy, this could be whatever other male relatives were alive at that point in a society where kinship was a big deal. But why would they just sort of be there spending time with Mary, Jesus, and whatever disciples Jesus had called by that early point in his ministry, as in John 2:12, if they were just relatives?
*
Because that’s how extended family worked in ancient Israelite culture, as I explained above.
*
Of course, if we had other clear primary source evidence from Jesus’ life that they were cousins, this could be harmonized.
*
We do have that evidence in the NT itself, as I and many others have written about. The “cousins” theory (which I hold) has explicit biblical backing:
1) in comparing Matthew 27:56, Mark 15:40, and John 19:25, we find that James and Joseph (mentioned in Matthew 13:55 with Simon and Jude as Jesus’ “brothers”) are the sons of Mary, wife of Clopas. This other Mary (Mt 27:61; 28:1) is called Our Lady’s adelphe in John 19:25. Obviously, there are not two women named “Mary” in one family.
*
One opinion, based also on some early patristic evidence, that I hold myself, is that this second Mary was the Blessed Virgin Mary’s sister in-law (Clopas being Joseph’s sibling). In this scenario, a sister-in-law is called “sister” in the NT (which we often do today in our own culture). In any event, we know for sure, from the above information, that James and Joseph were not Jesus’ siblings. They were likely His first cousins, or possibly more distant cousins.
*

2) Jude is called the Lord’s “brother” in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3. If this is the same Jude who wrote the epistle bearing that name (as many think), he calls himself “a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James” (Jude 1:1). Now, suppose for a moment that he was Jesus’ blood brother. In that case, he refrains from referring to himself as the Lord’s own sibling (while we are told that such a phraseology occurs several times in the New Testament, referring to a sibling relationship) and chooses instead to identify himself as James’ brother. This is far too strange and implausible to believe.

*
3) Moreover, James also refrains from calling himself Jesus’ brother, in his epistle (James 1:1: “servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ”): even though St. Paul calls him “the Lord’s brother” (Gal 1:19).
*
4) Most significantly, Jesus Himself referred to His “brothers” as “kin” or “cousins”:
*
Mark 6:3-4 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. [4] And Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.”
“Kin” is a translation of the Greek word, suggenes / συγγενής which means “relative” and can also mean “cousin” according to Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance. See Strong’s word #4773 . KJV translates it as Mary’s “cousin Elisabeth” in Luke 1:36 and “her cousins” in Luke 1:58, and elsewhere usually as “kinsmen” but never “brother.” NASB usually renders it “relatives” (and “kinsmen” a few times, too).
*
I submit, then, that Jesus is referring to some of His named “brothers” in Mark 6:3 as cousins or non-sibling relatives in Mark 6:4, by referring to them as suggenes / συγγενής (“kin” in RSV). The idea ties in with John 7:5: “For even his brothers did not believe in him.” Thus, they are mentioned in the scene in Nazareth where Jesus was rejected, and so Jesus noted that a “prophet” didn’t receive “honor” from “his own kin.” They later likely became believers, but at this point, before the Holy Spirit was given, they didn’t yet “get” it.
But one realizes after surveying these considerations just how much the prior probability in the Catholic’s mind (due to official Church teaching) is playing a role in forcing him to interpret these various clues in at least somewhat implausible ways.
*
That works both ways, of course. Yes, Catholics are biased in favor of the PVM because it’s a dogma of ours, so one would fully expect that. But many Protestants — including Jason — who deny the PVM are equally “dogmatic” about it’s not being true, and supposedly having been solely or primarily derived from an anti-sex agenda rather than Holy Scripture and patristic tradition.
*
Thus we observe Jason being relentlessly biased against it in this article, and many others. I’d love to see him answer my fourteen questions, but alas, he has ignored me these past fifteen years (after replying to me many times in the previous eight). So maybe Lydia will! I will tag her in my Facebook posting.
*
All Christians, of course, will have a natural bias towards any doctrine they believe in. Thus, orthodox Calvinists will never interpret any soteriological passages in ways that contradict their five big dogmas, “TULIP”. Baptists will minimize the biblical data suggesting infant baptism and the analogy with circumcision that St. Paul draws in Colossians. Quakers will ignore God-sanctioned battles and military motifs and implications in the Bible (being pacifists); etc. ad infinitum.
*
Why single out Catholics in this regard, then, when all who believe in and argue from the Bible — and who hold a creedal set of beliefs — exhibit precisely the same tendency? It’s not fair play at all. But it happens all the time and needs to be called out for the double standard that it is. We all contend for the things we believe and whenever one view is taken over another, natural biases are invariably present. The bottom line is a comparison of the relative strength of arguments.
*
*
***
*
Practical Matters:  I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become a Catholic or to return to the Catholic Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them. If you believe my full-time apostolate is worth supporting, please seriously consider a much-needed monthly or one-time financial contribution. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV).
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle and 100% tax-deductible donations if desired), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information.
*
You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my two YouTube channels, Catholic Bible Highlights and Lux Veritatis (featuring documentaries), where I partner with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos and documentaries), and/or by signing up to receive notice for new articles on this blog. Just type your email address on the sidebar to the right (scroll down quite a bit), where you see, “Sign Me Up!” Thanks a million!
*
***
*
Photo credit: The Virgin Annunciate, by Carlo Crivelli (c. 1435-c. 1495) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
*
Summary: Protestant anti-Catholic apologist Jason Engwer mightily tries to disprove the perpetual virginity of Mary, but there are just too many good opposing biblical arguments.
2025-01-29T20:35:19-04:00

Photo credit: cartoon by JM Staniforth. Commentary on the fact that the Cardiff Gas company is losing ground on the rival Swindon company who have introduced gas meters (1 July 1899) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons / Get Archive]

Jason Engwer is a Protestant anti-Catholic apologist who runs the Tribalblogue site. I’ve critiqued his articles many many times (see his name on my Anti-Catholicism page), but he has refused to counter-reply since 2010 (having done so for the previous eight years). What else is new? So here goes “nothing” again . . . 

*****

I’m replying to Jason’s article, “The Prominence Of Sola Fide In Acts” (1-19-25). His words will be in blue. I use RSV for biblical citations.

One of the factors to take into account when judging the small number of passages in Acts that are cited against justification through faith alone is how often only faith or repentance (two sides of the same coin) is mentioned as the means of receiving justification: 2:21, 3:16, 3:19, 4:4, 9:42, 10:43-44, 11:17, 11:21, 13:39, 13:48, 14:1, 14:27, 15:9, 16:31, 16:34, 17:34, 19:2, 26:20.

The is very typical of Jason’s methodology (and annoyingly often, also that of Protestants en masse). He highlights only the passages that he thinks support his point of view, while ignoring  other equally relevant ones, as I will proceed to prove. It’s quite pathetic (especially after observing someone doing this for 25 years now), and, I dare say, bordering on intellectual dishonesty. I’ll cite the passages he brings up in green font color.

Acts 2:21 And it shall be that whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

How is one saved, though? Is it through bald faith alone, with no other works, including baptism? Is that what is taught in the book of Acts? Hardly. He ignores contrary evidence even in the same chapter:

Acts 2:38-41 “And Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.’ And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, ‘Save yourselves from this crooked generation.’ So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.” (cf. 9:17-18; 1 Corinthians 12:13: both associate the Holy Spirit with baptism)

From this passage alone we learn that baptism brings: (1) “forgiveness of sins;” (2) the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, which no unregenerate person could possess; (3) salvation (“save yourselves”); and (4) inclusion in the rank of saved “souls” (cf. Galatians 3:27).

Acts 3:16, 19 And his name, by faith in his name, has made this man strong whom you see and know; and the faith which is through Jesus has given the man this perfect health in the presence of you all. . . . Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord,

I’ll expand on some of those passages, to clarify why I’ve cited them. Acts 3:16 refers to a healing, but it’s probably the sort of double healing passage I’ve discussed elsewhere. The healed man is referred to as praising God after the healing and is described as following the apostles (3:8, 3:11). Both of those make more sense if he had converted than if he hadn’t. And Peter and John don’t say anything to the man about a need to do anything else in order to be reconciled to God, which also makes more sense if the man had already been reconciled to God. Furthermore, Peter refers to the healed man’s faith as “the faith which comes through [Jesus]” (3:16). A reference to “the faith” makes more sense if it’s a faith that people in general are supposed to have, not just people seeking a healing.

I agree that the man probably became a believer, but we can’t know for sure from what we have in the text, which is about the topic of healing, not salvation, and it can only be surmised. Even if he were a believer, nothing in the text precludes baptism, and “believing” can possibly precede justification and certainly baptism, just as it did for the Apostle Paul, as we shall see later in the book.

Peter and John were both involved in the healing, and Peter had just explained how baptism was central to regeneration and salvation in chapter 2. Moreover, baptismal regeneration and justification are often associated or conjoined in Scripture, as I have written about (replying to him in June 2020).  Jason tries so hard to separate them, but I see the exact opposite in Holy Scripture.

Acts 4:4 But many of those who heard the word believed; and the number of the men came to about five thousand.

So what? This says nothing about baptism. Jason merely assumes that it rules out baptism, but that doesn’t follow logically, and is a weak argument from silence. Belief is quickly followed by baptism in ten other passages in Acts:

Acts 8:12-13 But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. [13] Even Simon himself believed, and after being baptized he continued with Philip. . . . 

Acts 8:34-38 And the eunuch said to Philip, “About whom, pray, does the prophet say this, about himself or about some one else?” [35] Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this scripture he told him the good news of Jesus. [36] And as they went along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What is to prevent my being baptized?” [38] And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.

Acts 16:14-15 One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyati’ra, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to give heed to what was said by Paul. [15] . . . she was baptized, with her household, . . . 

Acts 16:30-34 . . . “Men, what must I do to be saved?” [31] And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” [32] And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all that were in his house. [33] And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their wounds, and he was baptized at once, with all his family. [34] Then he brought them up into his house, and set food before them; and he rejoiced with all his household that he had believed in God. (cf. 1 Cor 1:16)

Acts 18:8 Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with all his household; and many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized. 

Acts 19:5-6 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. [6] And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. (add also Paul’s baptism in Acts 9:17-18 and 22:16; Acts 10:44-48, below, and Acts 2:38-41, above)

We know from Mark 16:16 and Jesus Himself that “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.” Funny that none of ten passages of belief + baptism make it to Jason’s list of Bible prooftexts, save one-fourth of Acts 16:30-34 (v. 31) because that’s the verse that — guess what?! —  sounds at first glance like “faith alone” but is proven not to be in the context that he blithely ignores, per his usual modus operandi.

Acts 9:42 And it became known throughout all Joppa, and many believed in the Lord.

Again, it says nothing about baptism, either way, so it can’t preclude it. They could simply have gotten baptized afterwards, or shortly afterwards: following the model that we frequently see in Acts. And yet again, Jason absurdly ignores counter-evidence in the same chapter (he’s terrible at systematic theology):

Acts 9:17-18 So Anani’as departed and entered the house. And laying his hands on him he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came, has sent me that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” [18] And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized,

Ananias laid hands on him, which is essentially the equivalent of the sacrament of confirmation, in which the Holy Spirit comes to a person as a result of having hands laid on them by a spiritual authority (in this case, one directly instructed by God: 9:10-16). Later in the book, Paul explicitly describes the same experience as baptismal regeneration, in recounting what Ananias had said to him:

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

The same passage shows, by the way, that baptism is associated with “calling on his name”: which Jason tried to isolate and separate from baptism in his use of Acts 2:21: see above. But God through Ananias, in connection with St. Paul, made it clear that they went together. And, true to form, he tries to vainly rationalize:

Some of the passages I’ve cited mention faith without mentioning justification (4:4, 9:42, 14:1, 17:34), but the passages make the most sense if faith is viewed as bringing about justification. If something more was needed for reconciliation to God, then it would make less sense to highlight faith so much and not mention more. Seeing these passages as referring to justification also aligns them better with the rest of the material in Acts, like the other passages cited above.

Acts 10:43-44 And he commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that he is the one ordained by God to be judge of the living and the dead. [43] To him all the prophets bear witness that every one who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.

Yep; and then they get baptized, which these people did in the larger passage that Jason (you guessed it) ignored:

Acts 10:44-48 While Peter was still saying this, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. [45] And the believers from among the circumcised who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. [46] For they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, [47] “Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” [48] And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. . . . 

We know from passages I have already cited that baptism in this book and throughout the New Testament, regenerates. And so it’s a work that we do that brings about regeneration and justification, and salvation (if we persevere in His grace and keep it). Jason somehow manages to not see this, because he doesn’t want to see it. And that’s because it goes against his preconceived extrabiblical theology, that he brings to the Bible, causing blindness and distortion when he sets about wrongly interpreting it.

I don’t mean to be harsh or uncharitable, but as I noted, I’ve seen him commit these same errors over and over, throughout 25 years of replying to him. It does become very wearisome, to see a person refuse to learn (or even to interact at all, as in his dealings with me).

Acts 11:17, 21 “If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?” . . . And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number that believed turned to the Lord.

Jason again utilizes the ultra-weak argument from silence (baptism isn’t mentioned, so it didn’t take place). The problem is that the very next verse (“News of this came to the ears of the church in Jerusalem . . .”) interrupts the narrative and moves onto something else. Therefore, baptism could have occurred, but simply wasn’t mentioned, because the narrative was “cut off”. We know from the pattern in Acts that baptism follows belief in no less than ten instances; thus, we saw this shortly before, at the end of chapter 10.

The New Testament originally had no verse numbers or chapters. Chapters were first added in the early 13th century and verses in the mid-16th century. That being the case, we can note that Jason has ignored the context, since chapter ten isn’t isolated from chapter 11.

Acts 13:39, 48 and by him every one that believes is freed from everything from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses. . . . And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of God; and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

Once again, as in the last example, the narrative stops in 13:49, so we don’t know what these people did next, and it’s another pitiable argument from silence.

Acts 14:1 Now at Ico’nium they entered together into the Jewish synagogue, and so spoke that a great company believed, both of Jews and of Greeks.

For a third time, the narrative moves along in verse 2. It proves nothing against baptism.

Acts 14:27 And when they arrived, they gathered the church together and declared all that God had done with them, and how he had opened a door of faith to the Gentiles.

Jason’s primary aim in his article is to establish that faith alone reigns in the book of Acts. Ignoring baptism is part of this aim. In context (v. 22) we learn that Paul and Barnabas “strengthening the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to continue in the faith, and saying that through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God.” Note that this is not faith alone because enduring tribulations appears to be made a necessary component of salvation and attainment of eternal life. This is not an isolated instance in the book, either. Acts 10:35 records Peter preaching and saying that “in every nation any one who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.” More works . . . 

Acts 26:18 refers to those who “turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God” and who “receive forgiveness of sins”. These same justified people are also described as “those who are sanctified by faith in me.” Acts 15:9 (“cleansed their hearts by faith”) implies the same thing. So does Acts 20:32: “the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified”).

The problem here for Protestants is that they believe sanctification is essentially separate from justification and has nothing to do with salvation. But the Bible, here and elsewhere (e.g., Rom 6:22; 2 Thess 2:13), teaches that it does. And sanctification involves works, because it’s largely behavioral and has to do with our actions as well as our interior dispositions. 

Acts 15:9 and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith.

See the previous paragraph for the problems for Protestant theology and soteriology in this verse. Ah. what a can of worms that Jason, oblivious, has opened up!

As for Jason’s passages, Acts 16:31, 34, I cited 16:30-34 above and we saw that it included baptism in context. Jason — as he so often does – simply ignored that. But that won’t do. This is not how systematic theology is done. We don’t pick and choose and ignore everything that doesn’t bolster our false pet theories.

Acts 17:34 But some men joined him and believed, among them Dionys’ius the Are-op’agite and a woman named Dam’aris and others with them.

The narrative doesn’t continue into 18:1, so we don’t know whether they got baptized afterwards. Since in ten instances in the book, this is what happened shortly after coming to believe in the Lord and the gospel, it’s reasonable to assume that these folks did so as well. But it’s not possible to claim with certainty that they did not

Acts 19:2 And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have never even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”

And of course they got baptized in 19:5, and — again — we know the theology of the book of Acts is that baptism regenerates and ushers one into the kingdom of God: on the road to eschatological salvation.

Acts 26:20 “but declared first to those at Damascus, then at Jerusalem and throughout all the country of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God and perform deeds worthy of their repentance.”

Paul implies that works are part of the overall equation of salvation, just as Peter taught at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15:9 and Paul taught in 20:32, and as Jesus said to Paul in 26:18 (all dealt with not far above). And that is antithetical to, and a refutation of faith alone.

Conclusion? Jason has proven exactly nothing with this argumentation. But e for effort, and clever — albeit false and wrongheaded — sophistry . . . Pray for the man. He will have to stand accountable before God for leading people astray:

James 3:1 Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, for you know that we who teach shall be judged with greater strictness.

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

Photo credit: cartoon by JM Staniforth. Commentary on the fact that the Cardiff Gas company is losing ground on the rival Swindon company who have introduced gas meters (1 July 1899) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons / Get Archive]

Summary: Protestant anti-Catholic apologist Jason Engwer tries so hard to ignore baptismal regeneration and justification in Acts, and fails to “prove” that “faith alone” reigns there.

 

2024-12-19T15:45:05-04:00

Photo credit: Photograph by Kai Stachowiak [PublicDomainPictures.Net]

This is a reply to the first section of Jason’s article, “The False Doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration” (Dec. 1998). His words will be in blue. I use RSV for Bible citations.

*****

If baptism is a requirement for salvation…

Why do so many passages refer to salvation through faith, but mention nothing of baptism (John 5:24, John 6:29, Acts 13:39, Acts 16:31, Romans 1:16, Romans 4:5, Galatians 3:24, 1 Peter 1:5, etc.)?

Because they’re not required to. Not every passage has to mention every aspect of a given topic, particularly if other portions of the Bible have done so. For example, St. Paul mentions very few events in Jesus’ life. Why? It’s because four Gospels had already done so, making a fifth account unnecessary. We know from the Bible that at least 14 Bible passages teach that we’re regenerated through baptism (see also my video commentary on the same topic). Moreover, I proved the strong connection in Scripture of baptism and justification in another one of my articles.

The task of every exegete is to incorporate and harmonize all of the Bible into a coherent and self-consistent whole; not merely pick-and-choose or “cherry-pick” highly selected passages that seem to teach a thing but in fact do not, in light of other related topics. That’s what Jason has done above. But let’s play his game for a moment and briefly examine the eight texts he mentions (verse numbers highlighted in green), to show that they don’t disprove baptismal regeneration at all.

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

John 6:29 Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”

Acts 16:29-31 . . . he fell down before Paul and Silas, [30] and brought them out and said, “Men, what must I do to be saved?” [31] And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

Romans 1:16 . . . the gospel: it is the power of God for salvation to every one who has faith . . .

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

Galatians 3:24 . . . that we might be justified by faith.

1 Peter 1:5 who by God’s power are guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

These offer no disproof. John 5:24 doesn’t say, “if one does nothing else but hear my word and believe him who sent me, he has eternal life.” That would actually be an explicit proof of Jason’s position (if only it were Scripture . . .). The text as it reads doesn’t teach Jason’s position. It teaches that faith is an important component of salvation. It’s the same thing with the others above. The same Jesus also states in John chapter 6 that faith alone doesn’t save; that the Eucharist is also required (reiterating the point no less than seven times):

John 6:50- 58 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. [51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.” [52] The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” [53] So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; [54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. [55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. [56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. [57] As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. [58] This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”

So is baptism, according to Jesus, speaking shortly before He ascended into heaven:

Mark 16:16 “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; . . . “

Thus we see that the above seven passages cited in isolation are far from sufficient in determining the entire doctrine concerning salvation, even from Jesus alone. A half-truth is little better than a falsehood. People are indeed saved by faith, as these passages teach, but not faith alone; it’s also through baptism, the Eucharist, etc. I provide the whole biblical teaching, not merely one part of it.

Acts 13:38-39 Let it be known to you therefore, brethren, that through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, [39] and by him every one that believes is freed from everything from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses.

Absolutely. We’re saved by Jesus. This doesn’t logically or exegetically rule out things like baptism and the Eucharist, that He Himself said were required for salvation, and are part of our appropriation of the salvation that he won for us on the cross.

Why do so many passages exclude all human works from the salvation process (Romans 4:4-6, Romans 9:30-10:4, Romans 11:6, Ephesians 2:8-9, etc.)?

Because they are emphasizing faith. It’s not true that they exclude works, as Jason claims. They all have to be harmonized with, for example, 80 Bible passages having to do with actions / works as contributing causes of salvation. Jason cites only Paul above. The same Paul made actions a requirement, too, in twenty-two of the passages I cited in my preceding linked article.

Why is the man in Mark 2:5 saved without being baptized?

Jesus didn’t say he was saved in the first place; He said, “your sins are forgiven”: which is a different concept. Jesus was talking about transactional forgiveness of sins by an appointed person on earth, as seen in Matthew 16:19; 18:18; John 20:23, and as indicated by His words, “the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins” (Mk 2:10). John the Baptist did the same thing a chapter earlier (Mk 1:4-5). And again, in the same Gospel, Jesus said, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved”: so obviously, He is not excluding baptism from the equation. One must choose between Jason’s opinion, and Jesus’ opinion, that contradicts Jason’s. As Joshua said, “choose this day whom you will serve, . . . as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD” (Josh 24:15).

Why is the woman in Luke 7:50 saved without being baptized?

Jesus said, “Your faith has saved you” but this doesn’t exclude everything else, because Jesus also said in context, “her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much” (Lk 7:47). We know that one of these acts of love (which is a good work, not merely faith), was done to Jesus Himself: “she began to wet his feet with her tears, and wiped them with the hair of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment” (Lk 7:38). Therefore, if this work wasn;t excluded from her salvation, it follows that baptism can’t be excluded, either.

Why is the man in Luke 23:39-43 saved without being baptized?

Because he couldn’t possibly get baptized: being the thief on the cross next to Jesus, who repented. It’s an exception to the rule or the norm. Exceptions don’t disprove or eliminate the rules that they go against.

Why do the believers in Acts 10:44-48 receive the Holy Spirit, the seal of salvation (Ephesians 1:13-14), before being baptized?

It’s not the chronological order that is the essence, but the requirement of baptism. This doesn’t logically rule out baptism. The first thing Paul himself did was get baptized, after he converted (Acts 9:18). Acts 22:16 provides more detail. Ananias tells Paul, And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.”

Why, among the many salvation passages in scripture, is there no passage that states that those who are not baptized will not be saved?

Two passages actually do assert that:

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

John 3:5 “Jesus answered, ‘I tell you the truth, unless a man is born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’” (cf. 3:3: “unless a man is born again …”)

Moreover the other passages (at least twelve) that make a close connection between baptism and regeneration and salvation, in effect teach the same thing. If, for example, I say, “if I drink a glass of water I’ll quench my thirst” it’s logically the same idea to express it in the opposite sense: “if I don’t drink a glass of water I won’t quench my thirst.” So John 3:5 expresses it in the second, negative sense, and Mark 16:16 in the first positive sense. If we “reversed” Mark 16:16 it would read, “He who doesn’t believe and is not baptized will not be saved; . . .” It’s the same thought, simply expressed in different ways. Likewise, if we reverse John 3:5 it reads, “if a man is born of water and of the Spirit, he will enter the kingdom of God.” Conclusion? Jason’s argument is special pleading, desperate, and fundamentally unscriptural.

The message of the Bible from Genesis (15:6) to Revelation (21:6) is that salvation is a free gift of God’s grace, accepted through faith alone. “The just shall live by faith” (Habakkuk 2:4, Romans 1:17). The Mosaic law of the Old Testament had faith in God as part of its first and greatest commandment (Mark 12:28-30). Adherence to all other aspects of the law, from circumcision to animal sacrifice, was rejected by God if the person’s relationship with Him was not right. This concept is expressed in Amos 5:21-24, Micah 6:6-8, and many other passages of scripture. Jesus and the apostles also emphasized the futility of empty ritualism (Matthew 15:1-14, Galatians 4:8-10, etc.). . . . 

Paul emphasizes over and over again, elsewhere in the book of Romans and in his other epistles, that God justifies people through faith alone. Paul explains that although Abraham was circumcised, and obeyed God in other ways, it was his faith that resulted in his salvation (Romans 4:9-13). Abraham’s works were evidence of his faith, and justified him before the rest of the world, as explained in James 2, but it was his faith alone that justified him before God (Genesis 15:6). In the Old Testament era, God saved those who trusted in Him on the basis of what Christ would later do to atone for their sins. In this New Testament era, God saves those who trust in Him on the basis of what Christ has already done. Salvation has always been granted on the basis of Christ fulfilling the just requirements of God’s laws, and bearing on the cross the penalty for man’s sins. God was born as a Man, lived the perfect life that all of us have failed to live, and then bore the penalty for our sins. God not only showed His mercy and His love for lost sinners, but also His holiness and justness. The cross represents both God’s hatred of sin and His love for mankind. Any attempt to be reconciled with God on the basis of anything but what Christ has already accomplished is a denial of the sufficiency of Christ’s work. The Bible repeatedly refers to salvation as a free gift of God’s grace (Romans 3:24, Romans 6:23, Revelation 21:6, etc.), and it must either be accepted as such, or rejected as such. We are either clothed in Christ’s righteousness, given to us through faith alone (Romans 3:21-22, Romans 4:5, Philippians 3:9, 2 Corinthians 5:21, etc.), or we’re clothed in the filthy rags of our own righteousness (Isaiah 64:6, Luke 18:10-14, Galatians 5:4, etc.). Jesus must be our righteousness (Jeremiah 23:6). We have to trust wholly in Him and His finished work for our salvation, not in any of our own works.

It’s by grace alone but not by faith alone. How do I know that? I do because 100 Bible passages expressly refute faith alone, and assert that works are also required alongside faith. Another fifty passages show that works are crucial in the final judgment in determining salvation, and a further fifty teach that good works done by God’s grace are meritorious.

*

***
*
Practical Matters:  I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
*
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: Photograph by Kai Stachowiak [PublicDomainPictures.Net]

Summary: I dismantle anti-Catholic evangelical Protestant apologist Jason Engwer’s attack on baptismal regeneration by showing that his “prooftexts” are actually not relevant at all.

 

2024-11-02T21:12:57-04:00

Prominent Scholarly Protestant Reference Sources (Kittel, Robertson, Vincent) Largely Support Baptismal Regeneration Views

Photo credit: Marvin Vincent’s Word Studies of the New Testament [photo from Amazon purchase page]

***

Evangelical apologist Jason Engwer  wrote a piece entitled, “The Abuse Of Water-Related Language In The Bible To Support Baptismal Regeneration” (Triablogue, 10-27-24).

It turns out that I had spoken about the same thing in a video on the Catholic Bible Highlights YouTube channel, where I partner with Kenny Burchard. See: “BAPTISM NOW SAVES YOU – Fridays With Dave!! [14+Verses to Highlight]” (10-25-24). By the merest of coincidences, Jason’s article was published two days afterwards. He’s an advocate of the “believer’s adult baptism” position: one that I held myself from 1980-1990, even getting “baptized” in 1982, thus rejecting my Methodist baptism as an infant.

Our video was in turn a discussion of my article in National Catholic Register, 14 Bible Verses That Show We’re Saved Through Baptism [11-30-21]. That article — and our video discussing it — included analysis of the following passages that include references to baptismal regeneration without using the word “baptism”:

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

John 3:5 “Jesus answered, ‘I tell you the truth, unless a man is born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’” (cf. 3:3: “unless a man is born again …”)

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.

The following passage from Paul combines the word “baptism” with “wash away your sins” (clearly, baptismal regeneration):

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

But Jason disagrees. Here is his argument (his words in blue):

Advocates of baptismal regeneration take certain passages out of context to make them seem supportive of baptismal regeneration because of the water-related terminology that’s used. Even where the context goes in the opposite direction, they appeal to phrases that can be made to appear supportive of baptismal regeneration if taken in isolation (e.g., citing the reference to water in John 3:5, even though Jesus goes on to refer to the Old Testament background of his comments and keeps referring to people being justified apart from baptism elsewhere in the gospels; citing the reference to washing in Titus 3:5, even though it’s accompanied by an exclusion of works). . . . 

In 2 Corinthians 7:1, Paul tells his audience that we should “cleanse ourselves”. Was Paul suggesting that he and the Christians he was addressing should get baptized again? No, it’s an obviously non-baptismal reference to spiritual cleansing.

It is obviously not baptism being referred to, and as such it’s a non sequitur in this discussion. The above passages, on the other hand, do have a fairly obvious meaning of baptismal regeneration: especially when cross-referenced with each other.

What about the cleansing referred to in 2 Timothy 2:21? Like the 2 Corinthians passage, it seems to be about growth in the Christian life, as 2 Timothy 2:22, addressing Timothy, illustrates. It’s not about baptismal regeneration.

The plural “washings” in Hebrews 6:2 most naturally is taken to refer to more than one type of washing, so it has to involve some application of that language to something other than baptism. That sort of language can refer to, and does refer to, a variety of physical and spiritual events.

See my previous reply.

***

“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,900+ articles, please follow my blog by signing up (with your email address) on the sidebar to the right (you may have to scroll down a bit), above where there is an icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. My blog was rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT: endorsed by influential Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Actually, I partner with Kenny Burchard on the YouTube channel, Catholic Bible Highlights. Please subscribe there, too! Please also consider following me on Twitter / X and purchasing one or more of my 55 books. All of this helps me get more exposure, and (however little!) more income for my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!

***

Though this post has focused on a few New Testament passages outside the gospels, keep in mind the Old Testament and gospel passages I cited in my earlier post. Since proponents of baptismal regeneration acknowledge that it wasn’t in effect during the Old Testament era and often place the beginning of its application sometime after Jesus’ public ministry, the widespread use of water-related terminology in those earlier contexts is highly significant. That earlier usage carries more weight than the unverifiable appeal to a smaller number of passages with water-related language that allegedly support baptismal regeneration.

Actually, technically, baptismal regeneration (in terms of John the Baptist’s baptism) was in effect to some extent before the New Covenant began on the Day of Pentecost after Jesus’ Ascension. This “proto-baptism” had a regenerative aspect:

Matthew 3:6 . . . they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.

Mark 1:4 John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

Luke 3:3 . . . preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

The best argument I’m aware of for interpreting a passage like John 3 or Titus 3 as teaching baptismal regeneration is to appeal to a later history of interpretation.

Which Kenny did in our video (again, just a coincidence).

But that later history is outweighed by factors like the earlier evidence against baptismal regeneration, the lateness of the later interpretations in question, and the other later interpretations we find alongside the ones being appealed to by advocates of baptismal regeneration. Passages like the ones in John and Titus were being interpreted in multiple ways, including in ways not involving baptismal regeneration, long before the Reformation. The popular claim that there was unanimous agreement, or nearly unanimous agreement, about interpreting such passages in support of baptismal regeneration before the Reformation is false. See my discussions here and here, for example, among other posts.

Maybe Jason can come up with a few fathers and contradict Kenny’s claim that none did so. But that wouldn’t prove much at all, if anything, as there are usually exceptions in the fathers regarding any doctrine. If the consensus is overwhelming one way, that’s what matters. Jason habitually indulges in this fantasy / delusion. He’ll find a few fathers here and there (often fairly minor ones at that) who deny what the great mass of them teach, and act as if this is some sort of effective argument against patristic consensus. It’s desperate “patristic special pleading.” But that’s a separate (historical) issue.

In this article, I want to briefly verify that standard Protestant Greek language reference works mostly do not agree with his take on John 3:5, 1 Corinthians 6:11, and Titus 3:5. They verify that baptism regeneration is in view in some sense: precisely as Kenny and I have argued. It’s not merely symbolic. Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, a very widely used and respected source for biblical Greek, is one such source. I have the one-volume edition (Eerdmans 1985). On page 539 it discusses the word group louō / λούω [“to wash, bathe”]: Strong’s word #3068, and loutrón  / λουτρόν [“bath, place for bathing”]: Strong’s word #3067:

In many verses there is a clear reference to baptism. In Acts 22:16 Ananias tells Paul to be baptized and wash away his sins. In 1 Cor. 6:11 Paul reminds his readers that, being washed, they are to avoid fresh defilement. In Eph. 5:26 Christ purifies the church for bridal union . . . In Heb. 10:22 the outward washing is related to the inner purifying. In Tit. 3:5 the washing of regeneration is on the basis, not of our own works, but of God’s mercy. In 2 Pet. 2:22 the point of the proverb (Prov. 26:11) is that the false teachers, after baptism, return to sin and incur unforgivable guilt (Heb. 6:4ff.; 1 Jn. 5:16).

What fascinates and delights me about this analysis is that, in addition to verifying our take on Titus 3:5 and 1 Corinthians 6:11 (and mentioning relevant cross-reference Acts 22:16), it brings up three other passages that I not only didn’t include in my fourteen biblical passages regarding baptismal regeneration, but (if I recall correctly) have never used in my apologetics at any time. I love when that happens!:

Ephesians 5:25-27 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, [26] that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, [27] that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

Hebrews 10:22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

2 Peter 2:20-22 For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overpowered, the last state has become worse for them than the first. [21] For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. [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.

Kittel applies all of these allusions to “wash[ing]” to some notion of baptismal regeneration. He notes on the same page that loutrón means “freeing from sin (in baptism) . . . “in Eph. 5:26; Tit. 3:5).

Moreover, A. T. Robertson, in his famous Word Pictures of the New Testament, writing about Titus 3:5, states:

Through the washing of regeneration (δια λουτρου παλινγενεσιας). . . . For λουτρον, see Ephesians 5:26, here as there the laver or the bath. Probably in both cases there is a reference to baptism . . .

This is very important since Robertson, himself a Baptist, would deny baptismal regeneration.  Yet he concedes that Titus 3:5 “probably” is referring to baptism, when it makes reference to “the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit.” It’s equally remarkable for him to believe the same about Ephesians 5:26, which uses the baptismal regeneration language of “sanctify” and “cleansed” and “without spot or wrinkle” and “holy and without blemish.” Robertson is a bit tentative but seriously discusses a form of baptismal regeneration in John 3:5 as well:

He may have hoped to turn the mind of Nicodemus away from mere physical birth and, by pointing to the baptism of John on confession of sin which the Pharisees had rejected, to turn his attention to the birth from above by the Spirit. That is to say the mention of “water” here may have been for the purpose of helping Nicodemus without laying down a fundamental principle of salvation as being by means of baptism.

Presbyterian Marvin Vincent, in his Word Studies of the New Testament agrees. As to Titus 3:5 he writes:

Loutron only here and Ephesians 5:26. It does not mean the act of bathing, but the bath, the laver. . . . The phrase laver of regeneration distinctly refers to baptism, in connection with which and through which as a medium regeneration is conceived as taking place. Comp. Romans 6:3-5. It is true that nothing is said of faith; but baptism implies faith on the part of its recipient. It has no regenerating effect apart from faith; and the renewing of the Holy Spirit is not bestowed if faith be wanting.

His commentary on John 3:5 is extraordinary:

4. That water points definitely to the rite of baptism, and that with a twofold reference – to the past and to the future. Water naturally suggested to Nicodemus the baptism of John, which was then awakening such profound and general interest; and, with this, the symbolical purifications of the Jews, and the Old Testament use of washing as the figure of purifying from sin (Psalms 2:2Psalms 2:7Ezekiel 36:25Zechariah 13:1). Jesus ‘ words opened to Nicodemus a new and more spiritual significance in both the ceremonial purifications and the baptism of John which the Pharisees had rejected (Luke 7:30). John’s rite had a real and legitimate relation to the kingdom of God which Nicodemus must accept.

5. That while Jesus asserted the obligation of the outward rite, He asserted likewise, as its necessary complement, the presence and creating and informing energy of the Spirit with which John had promised that the coming one should baptize. That as John’s baptism had been unto repentance, for the remission of sins, so the new life must include the real no less than the symbolic cleansing of the old, sinful life, and the infusion by the Spirit of a new and divine principle of life. Thus Jesus ‘ words included a prophetic reference to the complete ideal of Christian baptism – “the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost” (Titus 3:5Ephesians 5:26); according to which the two factors are inseparably blended (not the one swallowed up by the other), and the new life is inaugurated both symbolically in the baptism with water, and actually in the renewing by the Holy Spirit, yet so as that the rite, through its association with the Spirit’s energy, is more than a mere symbol : is a veritable vehicle of grace to the recipient, and acquires a substantial part in the inauguration of the new life. Baptism, considered merely as a rite, and apart from the operation of the Spirit, does not and cannot impart the new life. Without the Spirit it is a lie. It is a truthful sign only as the sign of an inward and spiritual grace.

6. That the ideal of the new life presented in our Lord ‘s words, includes the relation of the regenerated man to an organization. The object of the new birth is declared to be that a man may see and enter into the kingdom of God. But the kingdom of God is an economy. It includes and implies the organized Christian community. This is one of the facts which, with its accompanying obligation, is revealed to the new vision of the new man. He sees not only God, but the kingdom of God; God as King of an organized citizenship; God as the Father of the family of mankind; obligation to God implying obligation to the neighbor; obligation to Christ implying obligation to the church, of which He is the head, “which is His body, the fullness of Him that filleth all things with all things” (Ephesians 1:23). Through water alone, the mere external rite of baptism, a man may pass into the outward fellowship of the visible church without seeing or entering the kingdom of God. Through water and the Spirit, he passes indeed into the outward fellowship, but through that into the vision and fellowship of the kingdom of God.

*
***
*
Practical Matters:  I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 4,900+ free online articles or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

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

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: Marvin Vincent’s Word Studies of the New Testament [photo from Amazon purchase page]

Summary: I disagree with Protestant apologist Jason Engwer, who contends that references to baptism that don’t use the word “baptism” do not teach baptismal regeneration.

2024-05-28T18:55:14-04:00

“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 (with your email address) on the sidebar to the right (you may have to scroll down a bit), above where there is an icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. 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!

***

Anti-Catholic Protestant apologist Jason Engwer of Tribalblog fame really outdid himself this time. He has come up with some real whoppers in his long writing career but this one (“The Day Of Salvation Is Several Months From Now”: 5-26-24) may take the cake. His words will be in blue.

baptismal regeneration interferes with the Biblical theme of the nearness of redemption.

Really? Funny, I never noticed that. I fail to see how something that the Bible repeatedly and undeniably connects to redemption and salvation can somehow “interfere” with redemption.

The title of this post is meant to draw attention to the contrast between the Biblical theme of the nearness of redemption, such as the reference to how “now is ‘the day of salvation'” in 2 Corinthians 6:2, and the absurd putting of off redemption under baptismal regeneration.

Some in the early Church did indeed postpone baptism (sometimes till near death), but that is long gone. The Church from early times started  routinely baptizing infants, and putting off baptism is not a biblical theme, either. It was merely an unfortunate tradition of men.

Jason points out a supposed “inconsistency between baptismal regeneration and how Jesus redeemed people independent of baptism in the gospels.”

Again, he’s out to sea. This is what we know about Jesus and baptism:

Matthew 28:19 (RSV) Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Mark 16:15-16 And he said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. [16] He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.”

John 3:5-6 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. [6] That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”

John 3:22 After this Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized.

John 3:26 And they came to John, and said to him, “Rabbi, he who was with you beyond the Jordan, to whom you bore witness, here he is, baptizing, and all are going to him.”

John 4:1-3 Now when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John [2] (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples), [3] he left Judea and departed again to Galilee.

Far from attempting to separate baptism from salvation or redemption, Jesus immediately mentioned baptism after referring to the making of new disciples, and connected baptism with believing, for salvation. He noted that baptism was required in order to “enter the kingdom of God.” He baptizes via His disciples, who represent him (Mk 16:17; Lk 10:16).The Bible refers to Jesus (i.e., His entourage) baptizing in this manner three times (Jn 3:22, 26; 4:1-2), and even “baptizing more disciples than John” (the Baptist).

Thus, He was baptizing more than even the person (John the Baptist) whose main characteristic and function was to baptize! So how is it that Jason can remarkably and dumbfoundedly claim that “Jesus redeemed people independent of baptism in the gospels”? Sometimes I wonder if these anti-Catholic zealots even read the same Bible.

The first thing the new disciple was to do was to be baptized. It’s what St. Paul did, washing away his sins (Acts 9:17-18; 22:16); it’s what Cornelius and other Gentiles did, after the former was told by an angel to go see Peter, to “hear what” he had “to say” (Acts 10:22). The first thing Peter did after meeting them and seeing the Holy Spirit come down on them (10:44-46) was to encourage them to be baptized:

Acts 10:47-48 “Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” [48] And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. . . .

It’s exactly how St. Peter, the leader of the Church, acted on the Day of Pentecost. The Holy Spirit came down (Acts 2:1-4), he preached the first sermon of the Christian age (Acts 2:14-36), and here’s what happened next:

Acts 2:37-41 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” [38] And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. [39] For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.” [40] And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” [41] So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

Baptism was again the first thing that brand-new believers did. Note that Peter associated it with “forgiveness of sins” and receiving “the gift of the Holy Spirit.” And he says that in being baptized, the new believers would “save” themselves (cf. 1 Pet 3:21). Moreover, Luke the narrator casually assumes that it is baptism that adds “souls” to the kingdom of God. What more does one need, pray tell? Again, in the scene with the Ethiopian eunuch, right after Philip “told him the good news of Jesus” (Acts 8:35), he baptized him (8:38). Simon the magician “believed” after hearing Philp preach and was “baptized” (Acts 8:12-13), and many others after they “believed” as a result of Philip’s proclamation of the gospel, “were baptized” (Acts 8:12).

It was the same again with Lydia. Immediately after “The Lord opened her heart to give heed to what was said by Paul” (Acts 16:14), she was “baptized with her household” (16:15). The Philippian jailer was told by Paul and Silas, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household” (Acts 16:31), and — it was just a mere coincidence — the next thing that the text informs us of is, “he was baptized at once, with all his family” (16:33). “Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with all his household; and many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized” (18:8). Paul found some “disciples” who had been baptized by John the Baptist. Sure enough, “they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:5).

St. Paul directly connects baptism with justification and salvation, too: “We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life” (Rom 6:4); “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body” (1 Cor 12:13); “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal 3:27); “and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God . . .” (Col 2:12). The biblical data is overwhelming and completely consistent, and as far away from Jason’s description as can be imagined. It’s very difficult indeed to resist and oppose all this.

Paul, like Jesus and others, thought of Abraham as the Christian’s spiritual father, citing Genesis 15:6 as the paradigm example of how we’re justified. No baptism was involved, 

Circumcision was not yet the sign of the covenant between God and His people. That was first mentioned in Genesis 17:10. As soon as Abraham became aware of that through God’s revelation, he was himself circumcised, at the age of 99 (Gen 17:26). This was the sign of the old covenant, and the parallel to the future baptism: the sign of the new and the entrance rite. Paul draws a comparison between circumcision and baptism:

Colossians 2:11-13 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; [12] and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. [13] And you, who were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,

there are many problems with baptismal regeneration. Its inconsistency with the Biblical theme of the nearness of redemption is one that gets discussed far less than it should.

I guess it would and should be discussed rarely, since it is such a lousy and unbiblical and illogical argument, as we see above, over and over.

The response to somebody like [former abortionist] Bernard Nathanson isn’t to tell him to wait several months for baptism or whatever other initiatory rite or group of rites. You tell him, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.” (Luke 7:50)

If faith is all that is entailed, why, then, did Jesus, through His delegated disciples, baptize folks even more than John the Baptist (Jn 4:1-2)? And why does Peter, right on the Day of Pentecost, in the first Christian sermon at the beginning of the Church age and the new covenant, say that baptism saves, provides forgiveness of sins, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38, 40)?

Lots of questions! Jason almost certainly won’t interact with them, though, because he has ignored my counter-replies for 14 years now (after vigorously replying in the previous eight years).

*

***
*
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: Baptismal font in a fifth century church in Shivta: Negev Desert, Israel. Photo by “Eitan f” [Wikimedia Commons /  Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license]

Summary: Anti-Catholic Protestant Jason Engwer vainly ignores the overwhelming scriptural data concerning baptismal regeneration & baptism’s proximity to salvation.

2023-09-26T09:51:54-04:00

Jason Engwer is a prolific Protestant anti-Catholic apologist and webmaster of the site, Triablogue. He used to interact with me from 2000 to 2010 or so and then promptly stopped. I continue to critique his material, if I think there is educational value in doing so. Maybe one day he’ll decide to start dialoguing again. In any event, I’ll continue to do what I’ve done these past [nearly] 33 years as a Catholic apologist, and if I see that he makes some dubious claim against a Catholic position, I’ll respond, provided it is substantive enough to be worth addressing.

*****

This is a response to portions of Jason’s article, “A Challenge to Those Who Deny Eternal Security,” which was posted sometime before August 2004. His words will be in blue. I will be using RSV for Bible citations.

Why were the apostles sure that they would go to Heaven, even though they still had time to sin (2 Timothy 4:18, 1 Peter 5:1, 2 John 2-3)?

2 Timothy 4:18 The Lord will rescue me from every evil and save me for his heavenly kingdom. . . .

This is in the sense that God is perfectly capable and willing to do so, but it presupposes that we, too, are willing and don’t fall from grace. The Bible doesn’t teach irresistible grace.  Many other passages (including four from the same book) also need to be considered in the overall mix. They show that there are conditions (i.e., it’s not a sure thing, set for all time), and that one can lose salvation and being in a state of grace with God if they don’t persevere to the end. The passages that Jason brings up all have to be interpreted in light of this other motif that is also plainly taught in the Bible, in the following seventeen passages, among others:

Romans 8:15-17 For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the spirit of sonship. When we cry, “Abba! Father!” [16] it is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God, [17] and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.

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

John 16:1 I have said all this to you to keep you from falling away.

Philippians 3:11-12 that if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. [12] Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make it my own,  . . .

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

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

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

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

1 Timothy 1:19-20 . . . By rejecting conscience, certain persons have made shipwreck of their faith, [20] among them Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.

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

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

2 Timothy 2:17-18 . . . Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, [18] who have swerved from the truth . . .

Hebrews 3:12-14 Take care, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day . . . that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we share in Christ, if only we hold our first confidence firm to the end.

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

Hebrews 10:26-29, 36, 39 For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, [27] but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries. [28] A man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses. [29] How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace? . . . [36] For you have need of endurance, so that you may do the will of God and receive what is promised. . . . [39] But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and keep their souls.

2 Peter 2:15, 20-21 Forsaking the right way they have gone astray; they have followed the way of Balaam, . . . For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overpowered, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them.

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

Paul in his 2nd epistle to Timothy strongly implies that his salvation was conditional upon his perseverance and observance of God’s laws and a steadfast faith. This in turn is a different thing from the notion of achieving salvation and eternal security in one instant:

2 Timothy 4:7-8 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. [8] Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, . . .

Paul didn’t say, “I knew I was saved on such-and-such a date, because it is by faith alone and has nothing to do with works or sanctification.” No! He didn’t explain this as a typical evangelical Protestant like Jason would. He worked! He “fought” and “finished the race” and “kept [not just believed] the faith”. These all involve time and perseverance. And as a result, he states, “Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness.”

For Paul, salvation is a “both/and” synergistic proposition, not “either/or” (God does all, man can and does do nothing to attain it). So he writes that “he is able to guard until that Day what has been entrusted to me” (2 Tim 1:12), but also writes “guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us” (2 Tim 1:14). God works, and so do we, enabled by His grace.

If indeed we have free will, we can choose to stop cooperating with God’s grace, too. Thus, in his first epistle to Timothy, Paul referred to “some” who “will depart from the faith” (1 Tim 4:1) and “some” who “have already strayed after Satan” (1 Tim 5:15), and he names two of these: “Hymenaeus and Alexander” (“the coppersmith”: 2 Tim 4:14) who “have made shipwreck of their faith” (1 Tim 1:19-20). And “Hymenaeus. . . swerved from the truth” (2 Tim 2:17-18). Two other statements of Paul in 2 Timothy imply good works as part of the conditional salvific process:

2 Timothy 2:5-6 An athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules. [6] It is the hard-working farmer who ought to have the first share of the crops.

2 Timothy 2:11-12 The saying is sure: If we have died with him, we shall also live with him; [12] if we endure, we shall also reign with him;

There is no such thing as “eternal security” in either of Paul’s letters to Timothy. Quite the opposite . . .

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

He writes similarly in 1:3-5 and 5:4, 10. At the moment he was that, if he was free of mortal sin. This is the Catholic understanding of moral assurance of salvation. It doesn’t follow that this grace and salvation can’t be lost. St. Peter clearly taught the possibility of apostasy and forsaking the faith in 2 Peter 2:15, 20-21, already cited above. Just seven verses earlier in the same book, Peter wrote:

1 Peter 4:13-14 But rejoice in so far as you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed. [14] If you are reproached for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. (cf. 5:9-10)

This echoes very similar Pauline teaching (cited above) from Romans 8:15-17 and Philippians 1:29 (“you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake”) and 3:10 (“that I may know him . . . and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death”). Some amount of suffering appears to be required for ultimate salvation, and this simply isn’t “faith alone.” 1 Peter 4:13-14 and Romans 8:15-17 mention God’s “glory” or our receiving His “spirit of glory” or being “glorified with him”. Here’s another similar passage (note the conditional “if”):

Romans 6:3-5 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? [4] We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. [5] For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.

This passage specifically has to do with baptism, but it has motifs similar to Romans 8:15-17 and 1 Peter 4:13.
*
Peter refers to “newborn babes” in Christ, who “may grow up to salvation” (1 Pet 2:2). That hardly sounds like an instant salvation that can never be lost. He also teaches that humility has something to do with salvation:
1 Peter 5:6 Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that in due time he may exalt you.
It would seem to follow that if we don’t humble ourselves, then we won’t be exalted at the last judgment.
2 John 1:2-3 . . . the truth which abides in us and will be with us for ever: [3] Grace, mercy, and peace will be with us, . . .
I’ve already addressed St. John’s theology regarding “eternal security” or the lack thereof (and Jason brings up the old chestnut 1 John 5:13 in his next comment):

“Certainty” of Eternal Life? (1 Jn 5:13 & Jn 5:24) [5-8-02]

Why did the apostles want the believers to whom they wrote to be sure of their future in Heaven (Romans 5:9, 1 Corinthians 1:8, Philippians 3:20-21, 1 Peter 1:3-5, 5:4, 1 John 5:13, 2 John 2-3)?

Romans 5:9 Since, therefore, we are now justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.
In Romans 8:15-17 (cited above), Paul makes salvation and glorification conditional upon our suffering with Christ (cf. Rom 5:3-5). This is reflected in the seeming conditional of Romans 5:2, in context, where Paul states that “we rejoice in our hope of sharing the glory of God.” If it were already certain and irrevocable, why wouldn’t Paul have, rather, written something like, “we rejoice in the fact that we have already received a certain assurance of sharing the glory of God”? In any event, a hope of something is not, strictly or logically speaking, a certainty of receiving it. Paul makes this clear elsewhere in the epistle, in conjunction with salvation:
Romans 8:24-25 For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? [25] But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.

Thayer’s Greek Lexicon defines hope (Gk., elpis, Strong’s Greek word #1680) as “expectation of good, hope; and in the Christian sense, joyful and confident expectation of eternal salvation”. Granted, this is not far from “certain” or “absolute” (and Catholics believe in this, in the sense of a reflective, self-examining moral assurance) but it’s not quite there, so that there is still a chance of losing such salvation or the divine grace that brings it about. That salvation is a process for Paul, also, is indicated when he writes that “salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed” (Rom 13:11). If we already possess it in absolute certainty, then it would be absurd and nonsensical to refer to it being “nearer”: and nearer at a subsequent point of time after “we first believed.”

Moreover, in Romans 2:6-7, Paul teaches that God “will give eternal life” based on (“according to”) the “works” of “every man” and to those who earn it through “patience in well-doing.” What’s with all these works?! Is Paul a lousy Pelagian or something? No! He teaches grace alone for salvation, through faith, which includes within it (inseparably) good works.

1 Corinthians 1:8 who will sustain you to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Yes He will. This is the only way we can be saved. But we must also cooperate. Hence, Paul writes in the same letter that even he could possibly be “disqualified” (1 Cor 9:27) and urges that “any one who thinks that he stands” should “take heed lest he fall” (1 Cor 10:12). 1 Corinthians 1:8 must be interpreted in light of that data (and much more from Paul, generally). We can decide that Paul is hopelessly self-contradictory (which runs counter to biblical inspiration and infallibility), or we can try to harmonize the two motifs in a way that is logically consistent.
*
Catholics offer a plausible Bible-soaked way to do that. Protestants offer, well (usually) a highly selective presentation of Bible passages without taking into considerations those of the other motif, like I am presently doing. But they are responsible, too, for taking all of the relevant biblical data into account, just as Catholics are. We don’t ignore their verses (I am going through them systematically in this article); they mostly ignore ours that indicate a conditional and not eternally secure salvation that is gained through a grace-enabled, but difficult and lengthy cooperative process on our end.
Philippians 3:20-21 But our commonwealth is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, [21] who will change our lowly body to be like his glorious body, . . .
8-9 verses earlier (making it in context), Paul proved that he regards this salvation as conditional: “if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained this . . . I press on to make it my own” (3:11-12). Here, as always, the two strains of thought, which I would say are paradoxical — very typical of Hebraic thought — but not contradictory, must be harmonized somehow. I think we do this by asserting that a very strong, confident moral assurance is possible if we are not in mortal sin, but that absolute assurance is not (since we don’t infallibly know he future), and that both are repeatedly taught in Holy Scripture.
*
Paul also writes: “Only let us hold true to what we have attained” (Phil 3:16). To me — at least prima facie — this implies either that we have to continue to perseveringly hold what we have attained, lest we possibly lose it (cf. 3:11-12) or maybe that there is more to attain than we have already attained (or both). Of course, “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” (2:12) goes against the notion of instant salvation without process. Christians are those who are hopefully “holding fast the word of life” (2:16) and who must “stand firm . . . in the Lord” (4:1).
*
1 Peter 1:3-5 refers to “hope”: which I have written about above. It and 1 Peter 5:4 must be understood in synthesis with the data from both epistles of Peter, as analyzed above.
*
Critics of eternal security argue that salvation depends on our present faith and our present behavior. Why, then, do the scriptures refer to people having salvation, or something associated with salvation, in the present because of a past faith or a past justification (Luke 7:50, Acts 19:2, Romans 5:1)? How is this possible if there isn’t a moment of faith in the past that results in our future salvation?
Luke 7:50 And he said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”
Again, this has to be interpreted in light of other related passages. So, for example, Jesus tells the woman caught in adultery, “go, and do not sin again” (Jn 8:11), and said, “he who endures to the end will be saved” (Mt 10:22), and “If you would enter life, keep the commandments” (Mt 19:17; cf. Jn 14:15, 21; 15:14). I have compiled fifty Bible passages showing that works were crucially involved in the question of whether one is saved or not. Faith isn’t even mentioned in any of them, save one.
Acts 19:2 And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” . . .
These people embraced Christ and Christianity. It simply doesn’t say that they were saved at one moment once and for all, and for all time. Protestant soteriology is smuggled into it, but of course that is eisegesis. Hebrews 6:4, 6 states that those who had “become partakers of the Holy Spirit” can nevertheless possibly still “commit apostasy”.
Romans 5:1 Therefore, since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
This is what we consider to be initial justification. The text doesn’t say that this means attainment of a salvation in one instant, that can never be lost. It can be lost (see all the seventeen Scriptures listed near the top).
*
Why do the scriptures say that salvation is a free gift of God’s grace (Romans 3:24, 5:17, 6:23, Revelation 22:17)? If attaining salvation through works would contradict grace (Romans 4:4, 11:6), then how can maintaining salvation through works be consistent with grace?
*
In these passages the Bible is opposing the notion that we can save ourselves by our self-generated works, apart from God’s grace (which is the heresy of works-salvation or Pelagianism). It’s not saying that works are not part and parcel of faith and hence also salvation, after the initial justification. They certainly are; so says the Bible at least fifty times. Romans 6:22, right before on of Jason’s prooftexts, refers to “sanctification and its end, eternal life.” That is the distinction:

1) initial justification  = monergistic with no works on our part;

2) maintenance of justification = synergistic and cooperative, and involves good works.

But in Protestant theology (very unlike Rom 6:22), sanctification has nothing directly to do with salvation. It’s the category they reserve for doing good things in gratefulness to God for a supposed salvation already achieved in an instant. When men’s theological systems and Holy Scripture clash, we must always choose God’s revelation over man-made tradition, that is shown to be false by contradicting the Bible. Revelation 22:17 has to be harmonized with Revelation 2:4-5, which says that it’s possible to fall away from the faith.
*
If some “really bad” sins cause the loss of salvation, while other sins don’t, as critics of eternal security tend to believe, then why do Paul and James say that a person would have to maintain a law of works perfectly in order to be saved by it, and that any violation of any aspect of that law makes a person guilty of violating the entire law (Galatians 3:10, James 2:8-10)?
*
The Bible does not teach that all sins are absolutely equal. James 2:10 deals with man’s inability to keep the entire Law of God: a common theme in Scripture. James accepts differences in degrees of sin and righteousness elsewhere in the same letter: “we who teach shall be judged with a greater strictness” (3:1). In 1:12, the man who endures trial will receive a “crown of life.” In James 1:15 he states that “sin when it is full-grown brings forth death”.
*
Therefore, there must be sins that are not full-grown and do not bring about spiritual death. James also teaches that the “prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects” (5:16), which implies that there are relatively more righteous people, whom God honors more, by making their prayers more effective (he used the prophet Elijah as an example). If there is a lesser and greater righteousness, then there are lesser and greater sins also, because to be less righteous is to be more sinful, and vice versa.
*
Righteousness doesn’t derive from the law. It comes from God and His enabling grace, not written words on a page, however good and true they are. Galatians 3:21 states “if a law had been given which could make alive, then righteousness would indeed be by the law” (cf. 2:16-17,21; 5:4-6,14,18; Rom 3:21-22; 4:13; 9:30-32). Paul writes in Romans 10:3: “For, being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness.”
*
John Calvin teaches something quite different from the Bible, when he addresses James 2:10:

Even were it possible for us to perform works absolutely pure, yet one sin is sufficient to efface and extinguish all remembrance of former righteousness, as the prophet says (Ezek. 18:24). With this James agrees, . . . [cites Jas 2:10] (Institutes III, 14:10)

[cites Jas 2:10-11] Therefore, it should not seem absurd when we say that death is the just recompense of every sin, because each sin merits the just indignation and vengeance of God. (Institutes III, 18:10)

It’s quite easy in context to see the error Calvin commits with regard to Ezekiel 18. The prophet is speaking generally and broadly of the sinners’ life vs. the life of the redeemed, righteous man. The verse (first part) states: “But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity and does the same abominable things that the wicked man does, shall he live?”
*
Notice that the sins are plural: not one little sin that supposedly undoes everything, as in Calvin’s schema. Ezekiel is teaching, in effect: “if you live in sin as the wicked and evil people do, you will [spiritually] die.” This is referring to people who give themselves totally over to sin (including mortal sins). These are what separate a person from God, not one white lie or lustful thought or stealing a cookie from the cookie jar. Context makes this interpretation rather clear and obvious:

Ezekiel 18:5-13 If a man is righteous and does what is lawful and right — [6] if he does not eat upon the mountains or lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, does not defile his neighbor’s wife or approach a woman in her time of impurity, [7] does not oppress any one, but restores to the debtor his pledge, commits no robbery, gives his bread to the hungry and covers the naked with a garment, [8] does not lend at interest or take any increase, withholds his hand from iniquity, executes true justice between man and man, [9] walks in my statutes, and is careful to observe my ordinances — he is righteous, he shall surely live, says the Lord GOD. [10] If he begets a son who is a robber, a shedder of blood, [11] who does none of these duties, but eats upon the mountains, defiles his neighbor’s wife, [12] oppresses the poor and needy, commits robbery, does not restore the pledge, lifts up his eyes to the idols, commits abomination, [13] lends at interest, and takes increase; shall he then live? He shall not live. He has done all these abominable things; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon himself.

The prophet continues in the same vein in 18:14-23. This is not Calvin’s “one sin”; it’s a host of sins, a lifestyle: a life given over to wanton wickedness and unrighteousness. Then in 18:26 he reiterates: “When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, he shall die for it; for the iniquity which he has committed he shall die.” If that weren’t clear enough, he refers again to “all the transgressions” (18:28, 31) and “all your transgressions” (18:30).
*
If passages like 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and Galatians 5:19-21 are lists of sins that cause the loss of salvation, as many critics of eternal security claim, then why do we see examples in scripture of people committing those sins, yet remaining saved (1 Corinthians 3:1-3, 11:17-32)?
*
It’s a matter of degree. Once again, Paul writes in the same letter that even he could possibly be “disqualified” (1 Cor 9:27) and urges that “any one who thinks that he stands” should “take heed lest he fall” (1 Cor 10:12). So Paul is not teaching in the letter that no one can ever lose salvation. These passages (and I would add three others of like nature: Eph 5:5; Rev 21:8; 22:14-15) certainly refer to a loss of salvation due to committing serious sins. By immediate and undeniable implication, there are other lesser sins that do not bring about a loss of salvation and/or grace and a right relationship with God.
*
Paul may not refer to a person who was saved and lost his salvation in this letter, but he certainly does in his epistle to the Galatians (“You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace”: 5:4), and three times in 1 Timothy and once in 2 Timothy (see citations above). He’s not required to repeat every teaching of his in every letter. They are to be interpreted as a whole.
*
If salvation could be lost, it couldn’t be regained (Hebrews 6:4-6).
*
That’s specifically referring to the sin of apostasy.
*
How, then, were people like David and Peter saved after committing sins such as adultery and denying Christ? If such sins aren’t bad enough to cause the loss of salvation, what would be?
*
1) They didn’t commit apostasy, and 2) they both profoundly repented; 3) both were also chosen by God for very special tasks, and so presumably had an extra “protection.” But the main difference is an absence of apostasy and deliberate rejection of God. As I have written about, Peter simply had a very short lapse of fear, during the terrible time of Jesus’ passion and trial. His whole sin may have lasted all of ten minutes. Then as soon as he heard the cock crow, he wept bitterly and repented. If God can’t forgive that, He wouldn’t be God.
*
Why does the book of the Bible that most often refers to salvation as a gift (Romans 3:24, 5:15, 5:16, 6:23, etc.) also tell us that the gifts of God are irrevocable (Romans 11:29)?
*
They are irrevocable on God’s end, but man has a free will that makes it possible for him to reject them:
1 Corinthians 2:14 The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
*
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!”
*
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!
*
***
*

Photo Credit: St. Paul (1482), by Bartolomeo Montegna (1450-1523) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: I tackle several rapid-fire supposed prooftexts for eternal security, presented by anti-Catholic evangelical apologist Jason Engwer, & show that apostasy is possible.

2023-09-23T11:42:00-04:00

[see book information and purchase options]

Jason Engwer is a prolific Protestant anti-Catholic apologist and webmaster of the site, Triablogue. He used to interact with me from 2000 to 2010 or so and then promptly stopped. I continue to critique his material, if I think there is educational value in doing so. Maybe one day he’ll decide to start dialoguing again. In any event, I’ll continue to do what I’ve done these past [nearly] 33 years as a Catholic apologist, and if I see that he makes some dubious claim against a Catholic position, I’ll respond, provided it is substantive enough to be worth addressing.

*****

I’m replying to an old debate (dated sometime prior to August 2004) that Jason had with Robert Sungenis on the topic of justification. I will interact only with Jason’s portions. His words will be in blue. I use RSV for Bible citations.

As James explains in 2:8-12, people would have to live perfectly, obeying all of God’s laws (James 2:10), in order to be saved through works. Instead of trusting in a law of works, we have to trust in a law of liberty (James 2:12).

James is reiterating that the law doesn’t save anyone, which is elementary NT soteriology, and a proposition concerning which Catholics and Protestants are in full agreement (see Rom 4:13-16). On the other hand, St. Paul notes that it is “the doers of the law who will be justified” (Rom 2:13) and that “the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good” (Rom 7:12) and “Christ is the end of the law” (Rom 10:4) and “love is the fulfilling of the law” (Rom 13:10). In other words, although the law itself doesn’t save, and “was our custodian until Christ came” (Gal 3:24), nevertheless, those who are justified by grace through faith will always do works, flowing from this grace-soaked faith, and these will be meritorious and play a role in their salvation. It’s not law and works by themselves, but flowing from faith (James 2:14, 17-18, 20-22, 24-26). These works are meritorious and help bring about salvation and eternal life:

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

Romans 5:10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.

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.

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

Hebrews 11:4 By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he received approval as righteous,

Jude 1:20-21 But you, beloved, build yourselves up on your most holy faith; pray in the Holy Spirit; keep yourselves in the love of God; wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.

He’s addressing the evidence of saving faith (James 2:14).

Not at all. Rather, in that verse he is asserting that faith alone cannot save (“Can his faith save him?”), and has to be accompanied by works, so that possessing both, a person can be saved.  He makes this perfectly plain ten verses later: “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” (Jas 2:24), and also three verses later: “faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead” (Jas 2:17).

Since faith always comes before works, do [Catholics] want to argue that people respond to the gospel with dead faith, which becomes living faith only later

That’s not possible for a Catholic to do, according to Trent,  in its Canons 1 and 3 on Justification:

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

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

There’s no way to avoid the fact that Genesis 15:6 refers to righteousness being reckoned through faith alone, when Abraham does nothing more than trust God. There is no baptism, giving money to the poor, or any other work done in Genesis 15:6. Righteousness was reckoned to Abraham through faith alone, . . . James 2:23 refers to Abraham having righteousness reckoned through faith alone. There are no works in Genesis 15:6. . . . 

Genesis 15:6 does tell us what Paul means by “faith”. What occurs in Genesis 15:6? Is Abraham baptized? Is he circumcised? Does he give money to the poor? No, Abraham just believes God. That’s faith alone. If somebody today did nothing more than what Abraham did in Genesis 15:6, you as a Catholic would say that he was unjustified.

James (2:23) gives an explicit interpretation of Genesis 15:6, by stating, “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.” The previous three verses were all about justification, faith and works, all tied in together (2:20: “faith apart from works is barren”; 2:22: “faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works”) and this is what James says “fulfilled” Genesis 15:6.  So, no, according to the inspired exegesis of James, Abraham was not justified by “faith alone” in Genesis 15:6.

James tells another person to “show me” his faith through his works (James 2:18). That’s justification before men. We see something similar in James 3:13. Who would have seen Abraham’s work of offering Isaac? Isaac would have seen it. And millions of others have seen it by means of hearing about it through scripture. The idea of justification before men, regardless of whether the word “justify” is used, is a theme we see often in scripture, sometimes negatively (Matthew 6:1-5, Luke 16:15, Romans 4:2, Galatians 3:11) and sometimes positively (Luke 7:35, James 2:18, 3:13). The phrase “before God” in a passage such as Galatians 3:11 seems to assume that you can be justified before others as well. The concept of being justified, or vindicated, before men is Biblical and is what James refers to in 2:18. What else would “show me” mean? 

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”). 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. 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).

Per the usual unacceptable anti-Catholic method of citing the Church fathers, Jason cites three carefully selected snippets from St. John Chrysostom, out of context, in which he uses the phrases “faith alone” and “faith only”:

They said that he who kept not the Law was cursed, but he proves that he who kept it was cursed, and he who kept it not, blessed. Again, they said that he who adhered to Faith alone was cursed, but he shows that he who adhered to Faith alone is blessed. (Commentary on Galatians, 3)

by faith alone He saved us (Homilies on Ephesians, 5)

In his homily on Galatians 3, Chrysostom was treating the same topic as Paul in that passage: whether one is saved / justified by the law or by faith. Paul states in Galatians 3 that “no man is justified before God by the law” (3:11) and that we are “justified by faith” (3:24). That is the topic, rather than a supposed denial of works also being necessary in the quest for and attainment of salvation. Chrysostom, accordingly, cites Galatians 5:4: “You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.” He is basically making the same reference to initial justification in his comment from Homily 5 on Ephesians, too.

Catholics fully agree with Protestants that initial justification is monergistic and comes entirely through God’s grace (not by the law), which brings about our faith in response. What we deny is the notion of obtaining a salvation that can never be lost, through faith, and the notion that works play no role whatsoever in our salvation and justification, after initial justification.  That is the particular sense in which Chrysostom uses “faith alone” in the words Jason cites. This isn’t “faith alone” in the Protestant sense at all, and we know this for sure, by noting what he said about “faith alone” many times elsewhere (see below).

Attend to this, ye who come to baptism at the close of life, for we indeed pray that after baptism ye may have also this deportment, but thou art seeking and doing thy utmost to depart without it. For, what though thou be justified: yet is it of faith only. But we pray that thou shouldest have as well the confidence that cometh of good works (Homilies on Second Corinthians, 2)

In his Homily 2 on Second Corinthians, Chrysostom immediately conjoins the faith with works, and I commend Jason for including that portion. I take it that the “confidence” referred to is confidence of procuring salvation, if one continues faithfully in the Way. Moreover, in his comment on 1:6-7 he expressly denies “faith alone”:

for not through believing only comes your salvation, but also through the suffering and enduring the same things with us. . . . the work of salvation consists not in doing evil, but in suffering evil.

Therefore, he provides an interpretation of his own use of the phrase “faith only” in the same piece of writing, and proves that it is not according to the Protestant notion of “faith alone.”

For my part, I take into account St. John Chrysostom’s entire teaching on the topic; for example, as part of my extensive research for my 303-page book, The Quotable Eastern Church Fathers: Distinctively Catholic Elements in Their Theology (July 2013). This book included almost seven pages of his citations opposing “faith alone” and another five pages of his statements on “faith and works.” That’s real — and appropriately thorough — research, folks, as opposed to mere “quote-mining” for “pet passages”. But Jason didn’t cite passages such as the following from the great saint and Doctor of the Church:

Ver. 7. “To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life.” Here also he awakens those who had drawn back during the trials, and shows that it is not right to trust in faith only. For it is deeds also into which that tribunal will enquire. (Homily V on Romans 1:28: v. 2:7; my italics)

For “each of us shall give account of himself to God.” In order therefore that we may render up this account with a good defence, let us well order our own lives and stretch out a liberal hand to the needy, knowing that this only is our defence, the showing ourselves to have rightly done the things commanded; there is no other whatever. And if we be able to produce this, we shall escape those intolerable pains of hell, . . . (Homily XXI on 1 Corinthians 9:1, 11, v. 9:12; my italics)

[H]ow, tell me, doth faith save, without works? (Homily IV on Ephesians, v. 2:8-10; my italics)

He too was one of the guests, for he had been invited; but because, after the invitation and so great an honor, he behaved with insolence towards Him who had invited him, hear what punishment he suffers, how pitiable, fit subject for many tears. For when he comes to partake of that splendid table, not only is he forbidden the least, but bound hand and foot alike, is carried into outer darkness, to undergo eternal and endless wailing and gnashing of teeth. Therefore, beloved, let not us either expect that faith is sufficient to us for salvation; for if we do not show forth a pure life, but come clothed with garments unworthy of this blessed calling, nothing hinders us from suffering the same as that wretched one. (Homily X on John, v. 1:13; my italics)

“Is it then enough,” saith one, “to believe on the Son, that one may have eternal life?” By no means. And hear Christ Himself declaring this, and saying, “Not every one that saith unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven” ( Matt. vii. 21 ); and the blasphemy against the Spirit is enough of itself to cast a man into hell. But why speak I of a portion of doctrine? Though a man believe rightly on the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, yet if he lead not a right life, his faith will avail nothing towards his salvation. Therefore when He saith, “This is life eternal, that they may know Thee the only true God” ( c. xvii. 3 ), let us not suppose that the (knowledge) spoken of is sufficient for our salvation; we need besides this a most exact life and conversation. Since though he has said here, “He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life,” and in the same place something even stronger, (for he weaves his discourse not of blessings only, but of their contraries also, speaking thus: “He that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him”;) yet not even from this do we assert that faith alone is sufficient to salvation. And the directions for living given in many places of the Gospels show this. Therefore he did not say, “This by itself is eternal life,” nor, “He that doth but believe on the Son hath eternal life,” but by both expressions he declared this, that the thing doth contain life, yet that if a right conversation follow not, there will follow a heavy punishment. (Homily XXXI on John, v. 3:35-36; my italics)

How long shall we neglect our own salvation? Let us bear in mind of what things Christ has deemed us worthy, let us give thanks, let us glorify Him, not by our faith alone, but also by our very works, that we may obtain the good things that are to come . . . (Homily XLVI on John, v. 6:52; my italics)

[A] right faith availeth nothing if the life be corrupt, both Christ and Paul declare . . . (Homily LXIII on John, v. 11:40; my italics)

Faith is indeed great and bringeth salvation, and without it, it is not possible ever to be saved. It suffices not however of itself to accomplish this, . . . on this account Paul also exhorts those who had already been counted worthy of the mysteries; saying, “Let us labor to enter into that rest.” “Let us labor” (he says), Faith not sufficing, the life also ought to be added thereto, and our earnestness to be great; for truly there is need of much earnestness too, in order to go up into Heaven. (Homily VII on Hebrews, v. 4:11-13; my italics)

For unless we add also a life suitable to our faith, we shall suffer the extremest punishment. (Homily LXIV on Matthew 19:27, 4; my italics)

Should I conclude, then, that all of these people agreed with my view of salvation? No, obviously not. A church father could refer to salvation being through “faith alone” in one passage, but refer to baptismal regeneration or some other form of salvation through works elsewhere. He may have been inconsistent. Or he may have just defined “faith alone” differently than I do. We would have to examine each case individually.

I agree. I did examine St. John Chrysostom’s teachings on this specific topic sufficiently enough to reach a firm conclusion. Jason did not. And so he put out a mistaken, incomplete picture, and hence indefensibly misrepresented Chrysostom. It happens all the time with anti-Catholic attempts at “patristics.”

For [Catholics] to say that the words “faith alone” don’t appear in a passage like Mark 2:5 or Luke 18:10-14 is inconclusive. The concept can be there without the words being there, just as the concept can be absent with the words being there. Is the concept of faith alone present in passages like Mark 2:5 and Luke 18:10-14? Yes, it is. . . . 

The man in Mark 2:5 was paralyzed. He didn’t do any works. He wasn’t water baptized, was he? The text says that Jesus forgave him upon seeing their faith, not their faith and their works. Jesus could have told the paralytic that he was healed, then told him to be baptized if he wanted to be saved. Instead, Jesus saved him through faith alone.

Technically, from the passage, we know that the man’s sins prior to that time were forgiven, not that he was eschatologically saved. That is an assumption unwarranted in the text, that smuggles in Protestant faith alone soteriology and eternal security.  

To dismiss this case as an exception to the rule is arbitrary. As we’ll see, Mark 2:5 isn’t the only example of a Biblical figure being saved through faith alone, and we have no examples of a person believing, but being unforgiven until his baptism. Passages like Mark 2:5 aren’t exceptions to the rule. They’re examples of the rule.

Mark 2:5 reads, “And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, ‘My son, your sins are forgiven.’ ” This teaches (I think, arguably, anyway) justification by faith, but not “faith alone.” The two concepts are distinct. Catholics accept the first thing and reject the second as unscriptural and illogical. It’s the same for Luke 18:10-14. There simply isn’t enough information in the passage to conclude “faith alone.” Every mention of “faith” is not a proof of “faith alone.”

What about Luke 18:10-14? Jesus says nothing at all about baptism or any other work. 

Rather delightfully, Luke 18:10-14 concludes four verses before the passage about the rich young ruler, in which he asks Jesus, “what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” (18:18). Jesus in His two-part answer never mentions faith, but rather, He asked whether the man kept the commandments (18:20); then upon finding out that he did, said, “One thing you still lack. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven” (18:22). Two works are what would save him, according to God the Son, and this has to be harmonized with His teaching in Luke 18:10-14. That is the furthest thing imaginable from “faith alone.” Thus, Catholics fully concur with the [initial] justification by faith in both passages brought up by Jason, while not agreeing that subsequent faith is sufficient for salvation without accompanying works.

The thief on the cross (Luke 23:39-43) would be yet another example [Catholics] would have to dismiss as an exception to the rule. 
*
Of course we would, since that man couldn’t do anything (including any work or baptism) even if he wanted to. So it’s an exceptional situation, and God understands that. So do Catholics when we use it as the prime example of a “baptism by desire.”
*
[T]he Judaizers Paul was responding to in his writings, for example, didn’t deny the necessity of faith. They denied the sufficiency of faith. This is why Paul assumed that the Galatians would agree with him that their Christian life at least began with faith (Galatians 3:2). It’s not as though the Judaizers were opposed to having faith. Instead, the Judaizers, like Roman Catholics, added works as a requirement for salvation. 
*
We do so because Jesus, Paul, and the Bible massively, undeniably do so, and we follow them wherever they lead. See:
*
*
*
The reason why Paul had to define grace (Romans 11:6) and could assume that his opponents accepted the necessity of faith (Galatians 3:2) was because his opponents claimed to believe in salvation by grace and through faith. But they added works to grace and faith. The Roman Catholic Church has done the same thing. . . . 
*
Paul is not excluding a type of works that does nullify saving grace, while including another type of works that doesn’t nullify saving grace. Rather, he’s excluding all work, because work of any type would nullify salvation by grace.
*
Jason’s premise is wrong, because Paul — like Jesus (reply to the rich young ruler, etc.) — believed that works were necessary, too:

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

Romans 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.

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

I know, I already cited these, but repetition is a good teacher. And there is nothing better to recite and memorize than Holy Scripture. Sanctification and righteousness (including good works) are parts of the cause of salvation, not merely an optional way of “thanking God” for a salvation already supposedly gained with no chance of ever losing it: so says St. Paul.
*
Why is it that there are so many dozens of passages in scripture about salvation that only mention faith?
*
Because this is referring to initial justification, which indeed comes by and through faith, enabled by grace. Why is it — since we are asking challenging questions — that there are so many dozens of passages in scripture (at least fifty) about salvation that only mention works? Why is it that Jesus only mentioned works to the rich young ruler: precisely in reply to his query about how one attains heaven and is saved?
*
Since the work of justification was done by Christ, and that work is finished, it makes no sense to refer to multiple justifications. 
*
It makes just as much sense as it does for Paul to refer to an ongoing tense of “being saved” in the Bible:
1 Corinthians 1:18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. [note that Paul includes himself in this description, as well as the entire Corinthian assembly of Christians]
It makes as much sense as it does for the Bible to refer to a future salvation that is only attained through much effort and time:
Matthew 10:22 . . . he who endures to the end will be saved. (cf. 24:13; Mk 13:13)
*
Acts 15:11 But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus . . .
*
Philippians 2:12 . . . work out your own salvation with fear and trembling
*
Philippians 3:11-12 that if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. [12] Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make it my own,  . . .
*

It makes as much sense as Paul stating that salvation — far from being a one-time instant thing — was relatively “nearer to us now than when we first believed” (Rom 13:11), or that we as believers nevertheless still have a “hope of salvation” (1 Thess 5:8), or Peter asserting that we Christians are those who “grow up to salvation” (1 Pet 2:2).

If salvation is an ongoing process or lifelong quest (as I have just proven with ten Bible passages), then so is justification. It’s common sense. I also proved in a recent article utilizing the example of Abraham (including NT interpretations of his justification), that justification is ongoing and comes by works as well as by faith.

God glorifies those He justifies (Romans 8:30).
*
Of course He does. This particular verse tells us nothing about whether justification is a long process or can be lost, or is tied inexorably to sanctification. In context, however, Paul does clarify and states that we can become “heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him” (Rom 8:17). Note that suffering is a prerequisite for glorification and eschatological salvation, and he appears to be talking about a long process. This is verified by 8:18, where he states that “the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us,” and especially in the following passage:
Romans 8:35-36 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? [36] As it is written, “For thy sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.”
Paul repeatedly refers to people having peace in the present (Romans 5:1)
*
Absolutely. He writes in that verse that “since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” Catholics believe in a moral assurance of future salvation, conditional upon avoiding mortal sin or formally confessing it should we commit it. Then Paul refers in 5:2 to “this grace in which we stand.” But is that forever determined in one moment of decision for us? No. This grace can be lost, as Paul also teaches:

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

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

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

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

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

and assurance of the future (Romans 5:9-10, 6:8) because of a past justification.
*
Those passages have to be interpreted in light of the five above, which also come from Paul. Taken together, it adds up to a moral assurance, precisely as Catholics teach. One can have a very high degree of moral assurance, and trust in God’s mercy. St. Paul shows this. He doesn’t appear worried at all about his salvation, but on the other hand, he doesn’t make out that he is absolutely assured of it and has no need of persevering. He can’t “coast.” That seems to be his outlook. We can have assurance and faith and hope, yet this is understood within a paradigm of perseverance and constant vigilance in avoiding sin, that has the potential to lead us to damnation.
*
Moreover, Paul says that we will be presented “holy and blameless and irreproachable before him, provided that” we “continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel which [we] heard” (Col 1:22-23). The “past justification” is our initial one, but it can be lost through sin and rebellion, if we fail to persevere in grace (Gal 5:4) and seriously fall short in following God’s moral commands.
*
In passages like Mark 2:5, Luke 18:10-14, Acts 10:44-48, etc., there aren’t any saving works. Those passages . . . exclude all works.
*
This is an argument from silence, which never prove much, if anything. To simply not mention a thing in merely one passage is not proof that it is excluded altogether. Secondly, I already noted that Luke 18:10-14 is four verses before the rich young ruler passage. If in fact Jesus “excluded all works” in 18:10-14, then He almost immediately contradicted Himself in telling the rich young ruler that he could be saved and go to heaven by following the commandments and selling all that he had (i.e., two works; and Jesus never mentioned faith when asked about the process of salvation). Acts 10:44-48 is about the day of Pentecost and Christians first receiving the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. In that respect it is very similar to initial justification: God acting unilaterally in bestowing a tremendous blessing.
*
Nobody has ever been saved by obeying God’s commandments, even when they had faith.
Luke 18:18, 20 And a ruler asked him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” . . . [20] [Jesus] “You know the commandments: . . . “
According to Jesus, obeying the commandments can indeed save a person. He did go on to say that the rich young ruler “lack[ed]” just one thing: he had to give hiss possessions to the poor. So, then, he would have been saved by the commandments and one specific additional command from God to do a good work. Faith is never mentioned. According to Protestantism, Jesus would necessarily (lest he lead us all astray) have had to say something along the lines of, “Two things you still lack. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and exercise faith alone in me, and you will have treasure in heaven.”
*
That doesn’t even make any sense. If he had to do this work to be saved, then it clearly wasn’t faith alone. I would say that it’s implied that he had faith, in his following of the commandments. He had to believe in God in order to believe that these commandments came from Him and were worthwhile to abide by. But if faith alone is true, and if in fact “Nobody has ever been saved by obeying God’s commandments, even when they had faith,” then this passage could not possibly be written the way it is in fact written in the inspired, infallible revelation of Holy Scripture. And Jesus would become a sincere teacher of heresy at best or a lying deceiver at worst.
Romans 2:6-7, 13 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; . . . [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.
*
Matthew 25:31-36 “When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. [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, [33] and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. [34] Then the King will say to those at his right hand, `Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; [35] for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, [36] I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’”
*
Revelation 2:23 . . . I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you as your works deserve.
*
Revelation 20:11-13 Then I saw a great white throne and him who sat upon it; from his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. [12] And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Also another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, by what they had done. [13] And the sea gave up the dead in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead in them, and all were judged by what they had done.
*
Revelation 22:12 Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense, to repay every one for what he has done.
In these five passages, works alone are said to be a direct cause of justification (Rom 2:6-7, 13) and final salvation and admittance to heaven (Mt 25:31-36; Rev 2:23; 20:11-13; 22:12). This doesn’t exclude faith (by the same principle of the argument from silence just mentioned; and Catholics certainly don’t exclude it), but it does exclude “faith alone”, since for that to be true, it would have to be the only reason why people were saved, rather than works also being required, or being the only thing (alone or not) mentioned as being required, as in these passages.
*
Paul is excluding even good works done with faith and in obedience to God. He excludes the possibility that anybody has fulfilled Romans 2:13.
*

Nonsense. If this were true, then Paul would have had to write in Romans 2:13, “it is . . . the doers of the law who will not be justified.” But in fact he wrote, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit: “it is . . . the doers of the law who will be justified” (Rom 2:13). Jason’s extreme antipathy towards works — let it be known — amounts to a fringe and reactionary “faith alone” outlook that verges on antinomianism, and which is rejected by many if not most conservative Protestant theologians.

*
According to the Catholic Church, we are saved through laws such as the ten commandments . . . Nobody would arrive at the Roman Catholic gospel by studying the teachings of Jesus and the apostles.
*
According to Jesus, too (Lk 18:20): at least in the case of the rich young ruler. I’m very glad that if we must have an honest disagreement with someone, it’s with Jason and not Our Lord Jesus. I build an elaborate extensive scriptural case for Catholic soteriology, precisely by highlighting (with scores of NT passages) the teachings of Jesus and Paul.
*
Peter and the other apostles said that salvation comes upon believing response to the preached word
*

They also wrote the following (and these passages must be harmonized in any coherent take on NT soteriology):

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

Acts 2:38-41 And Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.’ And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, ‘Save yourselves from this crooked generation.’ So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

Acts 22:16 And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name. (cf. 9:17-18)

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

1 Peter 3:21 Baptism … now saves you …

[Catholics] would never tell people that believing in Christ gives them life and keeps them from condemnation. Instead, [Catholics] would tell them about . . . obeying the ten commandments, etc. You would tell them that believing in Christ isn’t enough.

If we did this (and of course it’s not all we do, and is a misinformed caricature), it would be exactly what Jesus said and didn’t say in Luke 18 (talking to the rich young ruler). That’s a good model to follow, I would say, since Jesus said, “he who believes in me will also do the works that I do” (Jn 14:12). One of these works was telling the rich young ruler how to be saved. So we can and should imitate it, according to Jesus’ words in John 14:12. Jesus also said — when He was being more detailed about these matters, as opposed to “proverbial” — that simply believing in Him wasn’t enough: “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I tell you?” (Lk 6:46). We should never contradict Jesus. Jason is in deep spiritual trouble and theological confusion by frequently doing so. It’s a frightening thing. And he continues to teach others on his blog.

Those who claim that faith must be combined with works in order for a person to be saved can’t explain the passages of scripture in which people are saved when they believe, before doing any works.

That’s easy. They aren’t “saved” in the sense that it can never be lost; they are initially justified (which is a monergistic, unilateral action of God’s grace). They are in good graces with God, and only “saved” in the sense that they will attain heaven if they persevere and never fall away from faith and grace.

Jesus didn’t always require faith to physically heal people or to perform some other miracle for them, but He did require faith to heal them spiritually.

He didn’t in the case of Paul, who had no Christian faith before God supernaturally converted him on the spot. We know this for sure because when this occurred, Jesus said to him (present tense), “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” (Acts 9:4) and “I am Jesus of Nazareth whom you are persecuting” (Acts 22:8).

there are no scriptural examples of people not being saved until they work,

See Matthew 25:31-36; Luke 6:46; 18:18 ff.; John 14:12; Romans 1:17; 2:6-7, 13; 5:10; 6:22; Philippians 2:12; 3:11-12; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; Hebrews 11:4; Revelation 2:23; 20:11-13; 22:12 — that’s fifteen passages (fifteen more than “no scriptural examples“), almost all of which were fully cited, above.

Romans 2:12-13 says that obedience to the law without sin brings justification. 

Then how can Paul say, “the doers of the law who will be justified” (2:13)? In other words, there are some who will be justified (innumerable passages in Paul), and to do so — according to what he states here — they had to follow the law by doing it. It’s not saying that this has to necessarily be done in a sinless state (Jason arbitrarily and groundlessly merely assumes that); only that it is the ones who act according to the law who will be justified, and insofar as they do that, they did it without sin, since disobeying the law, not following it, is sin. But none of this excludes faith. It’s asserting, rather, the necessity of works in the overall equation and process of justification and salvation.

*
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that we attain eternal life through grace, faith, and a system of works. 
*
So does the New Testament; especially Jesus and Paul, as repeatedly proven above. That’s exactly why we teach it! It’s Protestant soteriology that is shockingly unbiblical and which massively contradicts the Bible.
*
Acts 16:31 is heresy to a Roman Catholic. 
*
Not in the slightest. It simply states the principle that belief and faith in Jesus are necessary for salvation. Yes, of course! DUH! Elsewhere, the Bible frequently elaborates upon this and on how works are incorporated into the process of the attainment of salvation. Protestants like Jason only look at one sort of passage and ignore other related, relevant ones, leading to misleading half-truths (which are not much better than outright falsehoods). Catholics, in great contrast, harmonize all of them together.
*
This stark difference of methodology can be readily observed, above. Note the huge amount of Scripture I bring to bear: virtually all of which Jason ignored in his presentation. The Bible is the Bible, and it’s all inspired, infallible revelation. If we ignore or rationalize large portions of it, only harm (and possibly, eventual spiritual ruin) will result.
*
Jason almost certainly won’t reply to this because he has ignored my dozens of rebuttals of his arguments since 2010. But even in the days when he did respond, he would often ignore some 80% of my arguments (as I documented after becoming very tired of it), so he would likely do the same with all this scriptural data, if the past is a reliable guide. In fact, my documentation of his pathetic and what must also be called cynical “debate” (?) method of extreme “picking-and-choosing” appears to be what caused him to stop replying to me altogether.
*
***
*
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: The exact nature of justification, relationship of faith and works, and sanctification and justification are discussed in reply to anti-Catholic Jason Engwer.

2023-07-19T13:48:55-04:00

Jason Engwer is a Protestant apologist who runs the site, Triablogue. He used to interact with me from 2002-2010 or so and then promptly stopped. I continue to critique his material, if I think there is educational value in doing so. Maybe one day he’ll decide to start dialoguing again, but if not, no skin off my back. I’ll continue to do what I’ve done these past [nearly] 33 years as a Catholic apologist.

*****

I am responding to Jason’s article, “If somebody prays for you, does it follow that you can pray to him?” (7-9-23). His words will be in blue.

Obviously not. Yet, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox often act as if passages in the church fathers about how the saints pray for us are evidence that those fathers believed in praying to the saints. Or let’s say that somebody lives a thousand miles from you, but is part of the same denomination you belong to. And that denomination has set aside a particular day to pray about something. Let’s say it’s praying for missionaries. So, that person is praying with you for missionaries, in the sense that you’re both praying for them on that day. Does the fact that he’s praying with you prove that you can pray to him?

This reveals a rather basic misunderstanding of what Catholic and Orthodox invocation of saints is in the first place. It comes down to the definitions of prayer and petition and intercession. It’s true that Catholics will sometimes talk about “praying to a saint.” I have done it myself. But we understand what we are talking about (whereas Jason doesn’t). Everyone uses “shorthand”-type expressions all the time. So when an informed Catholic refers to praying to saints, what he almost always means in the final analysis, is “asking a saint to intercede to God on his / her behalf.”

Protestants tend to define any interaction whatever with departed saints as “prayer” and think it is fundamentally wrong because they wrongly assume that prayer only has to do with direct human-to-God communications and discussions or verbal discourse. And they tend to equate it with worship as well. They assume that we can’t ask or petition departed saints to pray (i.e. intercede) for us (i.e., pray to God on our behalf). I don’t know why, since Jesus Himself taught that the rich man could make two petitionary requests to Abraham (Luke 16), and Abraham never rebuked him (as a good Protestant would) for doing so.

They might object  that both were in the afterlife, in Hades / Sheol. And so they were. But that doesn’t overcome the false Protestant belief that no one can (whether on the earth or in Hades) ever petition any dead saint to intercede with God on their behalf. Jesus says we can, and that ought to be good enough for any Christian. But for some odd reason it isn’t. Protestant extrabiblical tradition trumps even Jesus in their minds, I guess.

But if we want someone on the earth petitioning a dead saint then we have King Saul doing that with the prophet Samuel. The Bible says that Saul “knew that it was Samuel, and he bowed with his face to the ground, and did obeisance” (1 Sam 28:14). Saul then petitioned him:

1 Samuel 28:15 (RSV) “I am in great distress; for the Philistines are warring against me, and God has turned away from me and answers me no more, either by prophets or by dreams; therefore I have summoned you to tell me what I shall do.”

Did Samuel say, “what are you doing!? Don’t you know that you can’t petition a dead man?” Nope. He gave an answer, which was “no” (just as God can refuse our prayers if they aren’t in line with His will):

1 Samuel 28:16-19 . . . “Why then do you ask me, since the LORD has turned from you and become your enemy? [17] The LORD has done to you as he spoke by me; for the LORD has torn the kingdom out of your hand, and given it to your neighbor, David. [18] Because you did not obey the voice of the LORD, and did not carry out his fierce wrath against Am’alek, therefore the LORD has done this thing to you this day. [19] Moreover the LORD will give Israel also with you into the hand of the Philistines; and tomorrow you and your sons shall be with me; the LORD will give the army of Israel also into the hand of the Philistines.”

Rightly understood, Catholics don’t pray to saints, thinking that they can and do answer under their own power. It’s understood that they (including the Blessed Virgin Mary) go to God on our behalf, and we ask them because we are applying the biblical principle, “The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects” (Jas 5:16). So we do go to fellow human beings who are still alive on the earth and ask them to intercede for us. Protestants would, for example, ask the late great Billy Graham to pray for them because (implicitly) they were thinking that his prayers might have more effect (as in Jas 5:16).

Catholics do the same, but we apply it to dead saints and angels, too. And we do because we know that they are very aware of earthly events, and watch us like (as the Bible says) spectators in an arena. See my article, “Witnesses” of Hebrews 12:1 (Communion of Saints) [1998]. This is our understanding. We don’t think, “I’m gonna go pray to my friend Bill who lives in Pittsburgh because he’ll be able to answer my prayer.” Rather, we go to him and ask him to intercede to God on our behalf, just as Protestants do all the time. Isn’t this obvious? Why then, does Jason make the dumbfounded statement: “Does the fact that he’s praying with you prove that you can pray to him?”

Would you go into your bedroom, say a prayer to this man who lives a thousand miles away, and expect him to hear the prayer? No, you wouldn’t. If you prayed for him, would it make sense for somebody to conclude that you must have no objection to praying to him as well? No. In that sort of everyday experience, we make the relevant distinction between praying for an individual and praying to him, praying with somebody and praying to somebody, being prayed for by somebody and praying to that person.

Of course everyone does, and that includes us Catholics. Saints in heaven have far greater awareness than we do on earth. It’s best to “go straight to God” in prayer, unless there happens to be a person more righteous than we are in the immediate vicinity, who is willing to make the same prayer request. Then the Bible recommends that we ask them to intercede, rather than asking God directly. And this includes the dead righteous, who are far more alive and almost infinitely more righteous than we are (having been perfected by God’s grace and proximity to Him). I didn’t claim this; the Catholic Church didn’t invent it. It’s in the Bible. If someone wants to be biblical, it would include this practice. See: Bible on the Power of Prayers of the Righteous [11-16-22].

St. John stated: “when he appears we shall be like him” (1 Jn 3:2), and our Lord Jesus said, “in the resurrection they . . . are like angels in heaven” (Mt 22:30). St. Paul teaches the same:

1 Corinthians 2:9 But, as it is written, “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him,” (cf. Is 64:4)

1 Corinthians 13:9-10, 12 For our knowledge is imperfect and our prophecy is imperfect; [10] but when the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away. . . . [12] For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully,

1 Corinthians 15:51-53 Lo! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, [52] in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. [53] For this perishable nature must put on the imperishable, and this mortal nature must put on immortality.

Thus it looks like the saints in heaven will possess very great knowledge and that would quite plausibly include awareness of our petitions and the will and ability to go to God and intercede for us or for our requests.

And Protestants aren’t the only ones who make those distinctions. Catholics and Orthodox do as well. They have to. They couldn’t function in everyday life without doing so.

Exactly! Duh! Then why are we engaged in this ridiculous discussion? Jason isn’t even internally consistent, in his rush to trash anything Catholic.

But when they get into discussions about praying to the saints (and angels), they often act as though all of these distinctions can be disregarded.

Do we? Maybe the proverbial old lady in a babushka and purple tennis shoes at a church picnic may talk in such a way, but I have never seen an educated Catholic, let alone a priest or scholar or apologist talk like this.

Supposedly, citing a church father’s reference to how the saints pray for us or with us or how we pray for them is sufficient to prove that the father believed in praying to the saints. To make the situation worse, some of the patristic sources who refer to something like the saints’ praying for us or with us say elsewhere that we shouldn’t pray to the saints.

Yeah, some did think that. So what? One can always find some exceptions among the Church fathers on any given topic. That has no effect on Catholic theology, as individual fathers’ opinions are not part of the magisterium.

So, even if we thought that the saints’ praying for us or with us implies the acceptability of praying to them (which it doesn’t), . . . Maybe what an advocate of praying to the saints has in mind is that the saints’ praying for us or praying with us is evidence that they have the ability to hear us. But their praying for us and with us doesn’t inherently involve hearing us, as my illustrations in the opening of this post demonstrate (a person who lives a thousand miles away can pray for you and with you without hearing you). And an ability of the saints to hear us would only get you part way to the conclusion that you can pray to them.

Well, it actually does imply invocation of saint. If they are praying for us (as even many Protestants concede), that certainly shows that they are aware of our problems, and if so, there is good reason to think that they would also be aware of a petition that we might ask of them.

the fact would remain that these church fathers didn’t follow that line of reasoning.

Again, so what? So “some” Church fathers dissented from the overall consensus. That proves nothing. It’s no disproof at all of the Catholic theological system.

To the extent that we’re considering what view these historical sources held, not what view we think they should have held, we have to make the distinctions I’ve referred to.

Yep. Everyone familiar with the patristic and biblical data does. Yawn . . .

I doubt that many Protestants, if any, would deny that angels can sometimes hear us, such as when they’re carrying out activities near us on earth, but it doesn’t follow that Protestants believe in praying to angels.

They should, since it’s taught in the Bible:

Genesis 19:13, 15, 18-21 “for we are about to destroy this place, because the outcry against its people has become great before the LORD, and the LORD has sent us to destroy it.” . . . [15] When morning dawned, the angels urged Lot, saying, “Arise, take your wife and your two daughters who are here, lest you be consumed in the punishment of the city.”. . . [18] And Lot said to them, “Oh, no, my lords; [19] behold, your servant has found favor in your sight, and you have shown me great kindness in saving my life; but I cannot flee to the hills, lest the disaster overtake me, and I die. [20] Behold, yonder city is near enough to flee to, and it is a little one. Let me escape there — is it not a little one? — and my life will be saved!” [21] He said to him, “Behold, I grant you this favor also, that I will not overthrow the city of which you have spoken.

Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament wrote about this passage:

[T]here is nothing to indicate that Jehovah suddenly joined the angels. The only supposition that remains, therefore, is that Lot recognised in the two angels a manifestation of God, and so addressed them (Genesis 19:18) as Adonai (my Lord), and that the angel who spoke addressed him as the messenger of Jehovah in the name of God, without its following from this, that Jehovah was present in the two angels. [the angels distinguish themselves from God in Genesis 19:13 above]

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary states: “His request was granted him, the prayer of faith availed . . .”

Lot petitioned an angel (Gen 19:20) and his request was granted (Gen 19:21). How is this any different from a prayer? Therefore, it is asking a petition of someone other than God by a man on earth, and the fact that it was granted and that the angel did not tell him, “you must petition / pray to God only!” proves that it was perfectly proper to do so.

After you pull out all of the weeds that shouldn’t have been cluttering up the discussion, there isn’t enough left to make a good argument for praying to the saints and angels.

Scores of articles on my Saints, Purgatory, & Penance web page prove otherwise from the Bible. It would be a fun discussion if Jason would ever interact with those, but he has chosen not to, so . . .

***

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!

***

Photo credit: see full information for this 2012 book of mine.

Summary: Protestant anti-Catholic Jason Engwer assumes that Catholics en masse are ignoramuses when it comes to basic distinctions re petitionary prayer and intercession.

2023-04-22T19:06:22-04:00

Protestant apologist Jason Engwer wrote the article, “Attempts To Make A Biblical Case For Prayers To The Dead” (Trialblogue, 6-9-08). His words will be in blue.

*****

The Biblical record gives us a lot of information about how the people of God in past ages lived in a large variety of circumstances, and prayer to God is mentioned often, whereas prayer to the deceased isn’t mentioned at all. There are hundreds of passages on prayer in the Bible, covering thousands of years of history. In all of that context, we’re never encouraged to pray to the dead.

That’s not true. The rich man in Hades prayed to the long-dead Abraham (Luke 16), and Saul made an petition to the dead prophet Samuel (1 Sam 28:14-20). Though it was in the context of a sinful occultic seance of sorts, nevertheless, the text provides no hint that this was not the actual Samuel (rather than an impersonating demon, which is the usual Protestant reply). The text says, “Saul knew that it was Samuel” (28:14, RSV), and the narrator refers to “Samuel” four times (28:12, 15-16, 20). Moreover, Samuel gave a true prophecy, which came true the next day. Demons don’t do that; they lie and deceive.

To the contrary, scripture condemns any attempt to contact the deceased (Deuteronomy 18:10-12, Isaiah 8:19, 19:3).

That’s necromancy and occultic practices which are condemned, not the communion of saints.

The evidence from the earliest patristic sources is against the practice as well. Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian wrote treatises on the subject of prayer without encouraging prayers to the dead. Instead, they either state or imply that prayer is to be offered only to God. Origen in particular is emphatic on the point (Against Celsus, 5:4-5, 5:11, 8:26; On Prayer, 10).

Some of the Church fathers didn’t get it, which is the case with just about every doctrine. There are always slow learners and late learners. The great majority of the fathers, however, did get it. So if we’re gonna count “patristic heads,” Catholics win.

In this post, I want to address some of the few New Testament passages commonly cited in support of the practice. As you think about these passages, ask yourself why advocates of praying to the dead have to resort to such argumentation.

Well, I’ve explained many times why I “resort” to these arguments. It’s because they are biblical! What I’ve asked myself is why Protestants continue to reject practices that are explicitly biblical (taught right from the lips of Jesus) and the consensus of the Church fathers.

Sometimes the Mount of Transfiguration will be cited, as if Moses and Elijah are recipients of prayers to the dead. But Moses and Elijah had returned to life on earth. No prayer is involved.

I agree, but I would also ask, “why did God will for these dead men to appear on the earth, if in fact He desires no contact at all between the living and the departed?”

And the only one who spoke with them was Jesus. Peter, James, and John didn’t speak to them.

The text doesn’t rule out possible discourse with the disciples. It simply doesn’t mention it. Since the dead man Samuel talked to a man on the earth, and received a petition from him (which he refused, as it was against God’s will), and the dead Abraham talked to a man in Hades, and received two petitions from him (which he refused, as they were against God’s will), it’s entirely permissible and possible.

Even if we were to conclude, without good reason, that Jesus had been praying to Moses and Elijah, Jesus isn’t merely human. He’s also God.

God has no reason to “pray” to men. The texts say that He was talking to them.

Another passage commonly cited in support of praying to the dead is Revelation 5:8. But the elders in that passage are referred to as carrying the prayers, not as the recipients of the prayers. (The earliest patristic commentators on Revelation 5:8 refer to the prayers in that passage as being offered to God, not to the elders.

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;

The question I’ve asked over and over (and have never seen a Protestant answer yet) is: “what in the world are dead men in heaven doing with ‘the prayers of the saints’ “? If they have nothing whatsoever to do with the process and practice of prayer, why do they possess prayers of other people (“the saints”)? This makes no sense at all from a Protestant perspective. They simply would never have them. All those prayers would have gone to God and no one else would have been involved, because God wouldn’t have allowed it: so says Protestants. If folks prayed to or invoked saints, God would make them deaf to the prayers or intercessory requests. That’s what Protestants believe: even though the Bible clearly teaches that saints in heaven are fully aware of earthly events (Hebrews 12:1: see my commentary).

But in the Catholic and Orthodox views, it’s easily explained: people on earth ask saints to intercede for them to God; therefore, the dead saints are intermediaries, have the requests, and present them to God to be either fulfilled or denied, according to His will. It’s consistent with our position, and utterly inconsistent with the Protestant one. In all such cases, I follow the inspired, inerrant Bible, not a false Protestant belief that contradicts the Bible.

Revelation 8:4, which uses similar imagery, refers to the prayers going to God.

Yes, of course. He’s the ultimate recipient of all prayers precisely because He is God.

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

But the problem is precisely the same as with Revelation 5:8: why do these angels have anything to do with “prayers of the saints”? All this shows is that we can invoke angels and ask them to intercede, too. It’s no help for the Protestant unbiblical and anti-traditional position at all.

Just as the harps in Revelation 5:8 are likely used to play music to God, the prayers mentioned in the same passage most likely are directed to God, not to the elders.

We’re not denying that. This is why we refer to the intercession of the saints. We’re asking them to pray for us to God because their prayers have much more power (Jas 5:16). We say, for example, “Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us . . .” That’s not an ultimate recipient of prayer; it’s an example of an intercessor; a prayer warrior.

The elders are presenters of the prayers, not recipients of them. 

Exactly! Now Jason is starting to get it! And why are they presenting the prayers of others? And how is this not a form of intercession or intermediary effort on their part? I’d love to hear an answer, but Jason has decided to never respond to my critiques (though he actually slipped and did recently, without mentioning my name as the one whose argument he was replying to).

In 6:9-10, we see the martyred saints asking God for justice. 

Yep. They are praying for those on earth. Since they are doing that, and since saints in heaven are quite aware and interested in what happens on the earth (the implication of Hebrews 12:1) it follows straightforwardly that we can and ought to ask for their intercession to God on our behalf or the sake of others.

And we ought to ask, given that millions of prayers are offered to the dead every day among Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, for example, how likely is it that, if the practice was accepted in Biblical times, all that we would be able to find to reflect that fact in the Biblical record would be possible allusions in passages like the Mount of Transfiguration and Revelation 5:8? If praying to the dead had been an accepted practice in Biblical times, we would expect it to be mentioned many times in many contexts, explicitly. But it isn’t.

It is, twice, and is strongly — if not explicitly — implied in these passages in Revelation, twice. See my early responses above.

Catholics and Orthodox who discuss this subject often try to shift the topic of discussion and confuse categories. They’ll enter a discussion about prayers to the dead and begin discussing prayers for the dead. They’ll cite passages in the Bible and the church fathers regarding whether the deceased pray for us, even though the issue is whether we should pray to them.

Sure, sometimes people are sloppy in logic. I haven’t done any of these things, myself.

They’ll cite passages about angels in a discussion about the deceased, as if the two are indistinguishable.

They are in the sense that both can be asked to intercede, per the Bible. Hence, Lot petitioned angels and his request was granted:

Genesis 19:13, 15, 18-21 “for we are about to destroy this place, because the outcry against its people has become great before the LORD, and the LORD has sent us to destroy it.” . . . [15] When morning dawned, the angels urged Lot, saying, “Arise, take your wife and your two daughters who are here, lest you be consumed in the punishment of the city.”. . . [18] And Lot said to them, “Oh, no, my lords; [19] behold, your servant has found favor in your sight, and you have shown me great kindness in saving my life; but I cannot flee to the hills, lest the disaster overtake me, and I die. [20] Behold, yonder city is near enough to flee to, and it is a little one. Let me escape there — is it not a little one? — and my life will be saved!” [21] He said to him, “Behold, I grant you this favor also, that I will not overthrow the city of which you have spoken.

Note how God used angels as intermediaries to accomplish His will of destroying Sodom and Gomorrah. Likewise, He uses them as intercessors (and even in some sense, He allows them to answer the prayer and “grant” the “favor.” In this passage, both things are taking place. The Bible taught this; don’t blame me!

They’ll assume that Biblical passages associating an angel or deceased person with prayer in some way, such as Revelation 5, must involve prayer that’s directed to that angel or deceased person as a recipient, even though the passage doesn’t make that association.

It strongly implies it. I want to hear a Protestant alt-explanation that’s more plausible than how I interpret those passages. It never comes. Therefore, I continue to hold my view until such tome as I hear a more feasible explanation.

They’ll assume that if a passage of scripture tells us that the deceased know about some events on earth, then all deceased believers must know about other events on earth as well, such as prayers that are offered to them.

Hebrews 12:1 strongly implies that knowledge of earthly events and concern about them is a general characteristic of departed saints. If God wants them to receive intercessory requests, He is certainly able to do so. As far as I know, evangelicals haven’t denied God’s omnipotence and omniscience yet.

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,200+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-one books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

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!

***
Photo credit: Bi.johannes (2-20-20): clouds in the Sky over France [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license]

***

Summary: I respond to Jason Engwer’s erroneous assertions that the Bible never sanctions invoking saints. It does several times, & his counter-explanations abysmally fail.

***

 

2023-04-05T14:18:29-04:00

This is a minor abridgement of a huge dialogue, originally posted on 19 March 2002. This is from the good old Internet days (now long gone) when Protestants and Catholics actually dialogued with each other at length. Jason Engwer has long ceased doing so with me, following the evasive, cynical tactics of his comrades James White and James Swan (who used to also engage me at the greatest length, for many years), and I am banned from Jason’s Triablogue site and his Facebook page. “How the mighty have fallen . . .” Nevertheless, I still critique all three, whether they choose to respond or not (they don’t).

I have sought to retain the substantive, “meaty” portions, which was probably 90% of it or more, while (mildly) editing out diversions and relative minutiae. Protestant [anti-Catholic] apologists Jason Engwer’s  and Eric Svendsen’s words will be in blue and green, respectively. The original dialogue may be seen at Internet Archive. Eventually, it will become unavailable there.

*****

Table of Contents

I. Introduction: Development and History

II. The Analogy of the Trinity in Discussions on Development

III. The Canon of Scripture as a Test Case for Protestant Development (or Lack Thereof): Preliminaries

IV. The Alleged “Completeness” of the Old Testament Canon in the Light of Protestant Biblical Scholarship

V. Recapitulation of Dr. Eric Svendsen’s Protestant “Canon Argument”

VI. Implications for Sola Scriptura in the Svendsen “Canon Argument”

VII. Disputes over the “Canonical” Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage (382-397)

VIII. 27-Point Summary of the Protestant Scholarly Case Against the Svendsen “Canon Argument”

IX. The Immaculate Conception: How Development and “Believed Always by All” are Synthesized in Catholic Thought (Vincent, Aquinas, etc.)

X. The Papacy as a Second Test Case for the Catholic “Developmental Synthesis”

XI. The Propriety and Purpose of the Citation of Protestant Scholars by Catholics / The Keys and Binding and Loosing

XII. Wrapping Up: Final Statements

I. Introduction: Development and History
*
Catholics often quote John Henry Newman saying that to be deep into history is to cease being Protestant. Actually, to be deep into history is to cease using the arguments of Cardinal Newman.

*

This is the exact opposite of the truth, and Jason will not be able to demonstrate the correctness of his assertion.

If Roman Catholicism is as deeply rooted in history as it claims to be, why do its apologists appeal to development of doctrine so frequently and to such an extent?

Jason is absurdly assuming that development and history are somehow unalterably opposed, and that “development” is a sort of synonym for “historical rationalization” in Catholic apologetics or historical analyses (as we will see from some of his derogatory statements below). In other words, this is a thoroughly loaded question, based on two false premises.

Catholics frequently make such “appeals” because development of doctrine is an unarguable, self-evident fact of Church (or Christian) history which must be reckoned with — whatever particular doctrinal or theological paradigm one operates within (and everyone has such a framework, whether they know it or not), in order to interpret the data of historical dogmatic development. What is truly foolish is the attempt to minimize or deride development, as Jason does here. This is a-historicism (always a tendency in evangelical Protestant) come to fruition. If doctrines indeed develop and our understanding of them increases over time, then this will have to be taken into account in any treatment of the history of Christian doctrine. It is historical reality, in any Christian worldview, pure and simple.

Evangelicals don’t object to all concepts of development.

Then why make the statement above? What’s the point?

Different people define development in different ways in different contexts.

Of course. Whether they do so sensibly or self-consistently, without arbitrary double standards is, of course, another matter entirely.

In my discussion with Dave Armstrong . . . we’ve discussed a church father (Vincent of Lerins), a Roman Catholic Cardinal (John Henry Newman), and a Protestant pastor (James White) who all refer approvingly to some concept of development of doctrine.

Yes. But Mr. White makes silly statements like, “Might it actually be that the Protestant fully understands development but rightly rejects it?” How does one interpret such a comment? The ongoing contra-Catholic polemic against Newmanian development (derived from the Anglican George Salmon of the 19th century) logically reduces — when closely scrutinized — to the circular argument: “we accept the developments that are consistent with prior Protestant theological assumptions [primarily the unprovable axiom sola Scriptura] and reject those which are inconsistent with Protestant assumptions.”

Clearly, one has to also defend the historical premises (inasmuch as they exist at all) which allegedly lead to such a radical begging of the question. It is also easily demonstrated that Protestants who argue in this way are inconsistent in the application of their own criteria for “good” vs. “bad” developments (following their axiomatic stance above). The canon of the New Testament is the most obvious and glaring example, and we shall be dealing with that in due course in this dialogue.

I think the Roman Catholic concept, however, is often inconsistent with Catholic teaching, unverifiable, and a contradiction of earlier teaching rather than a development.

This is easily stated, but in attempting to establish this, Jason will run into all sorts of insuperable difficulties, as I will show.

II. The Analogy of the Trinity in Discussions on Development
*
I think Dave and I are in agreement that evangelicals, including William Webster, object to some Catholic arguments for development of doctrine, not all conceivable forms of development. I don’t think William Webster denies that some aspects of the papacy can develop over time and still be consistent with what the Catholic Church teaches about that doctrine. A Pope in one century could have titles that a Pope of an earlier century didn’t have. A Pope of the twentieth century could wear different clothing than a Pope of the fifth century. A Pope of a later century could exercise his authority more often than a Pope of an earlier century. Etc. The question is where to draw the line. What type of development and how much development would be consistent with Catholic teaching? And is the development in question verifiable? Do we have evidence that the development in question is Divinely approved? I want this latest reply to Dave Armstrong to clarify these issues. I want to show that Dave’s concept of doctrinal development is unverifiable and inconsistent with Catholic teaching.
*

I will eagerly look to see what reasons Jason offers for these opinions. I think he will utterly fail in the attempt.

Catholics usually cite two examples of evangelicals relying on development of doctrine: the Trinity and the canon of scripture. In his latest reply to me, Dave seems to move away from using the Trinity as an example. He agrees with me that the concept of the Trinity is Biblical. So, unless Dave decides to take a different approach in a future response, I’m going to set aside the doctrine of the Trinity.

Saying it is “biblical” is beside the point, which is that the Trinity developed under the same processes and conditions that “distinctively Catholic” doctrines developed under. It’s an analogical argument. That’s not dealt with by seeing the word “biblical” and then concluding that there are no other important issues to be worked through. The type of issues involved in the discussion on the development of the Trinity are touched upon in a quote from Lutheran Church historian Jaroslav Pelikan, from yet another recent reply to Jason:

Despite the elevation of the dogma of the Trinity to normative status as supposedly traditional doctrine by the Council of Nicea in 325, there was not a single Christian thinker East or West before Nicea who could qualify as consistently and impeccably orthodox. . . even the most saintly of the early church fathers seemed confused about such fundamental articles of faith as the Trinity and original sin. It was to be expected, because they were participants in the ongoing development, not transmitters of an unalloyed and untouched patrimony . . .[T]he lack of any one passage of Scripture in which the entire doctrine of the Trinity was affirmed. Strictly speaking, the Trinity is not a biblical doctrine, but a church doctrine that tries to make consistent sense of the biblical language and teaching. (The Melody of Theology: A Philosophical Dictionary, Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1988, 52-54, “Development of Doctrine”, 257, “Trinity”)

In this sense, the Trinity and the canon are both issues which Protestants have to work through, in order for their argument against the “corrupt” status of Catholic developments to have any force at all, and to not be arbitrary or logically inconsistent. Pelikan’s last statement above applies just as much to the canon or the Immaculate Conception or sola Scriptura (all either entirely absent from Scripture or present in kernel, implicit form only). To paraphrase him:

The lack of any one passage of Scripture in which the entire doctrine of sola Scriptura was affirmed. Strictly speaking, sola Scriptura is not a biblical doctrine, but a church doctrine that tries to make consistent sense of the biblical language and teaching.The lack of any one passage of Scripture in which the entire doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was affirmed. Strictly speaking, the Immaculate Conception is not a biblical doctrine, but a church doctrine that tries to make consistent sense of the biblical language and teaching.

The lack of any one passage of Scripture in which the entire doctrine of the canon of the New Testament was affirmed. Strictly speaking, the canon of the New Testament is not a biblical doctrine, but a church doctrine . . .

III. The Canon of Scripture as a Test Case for Protestant Development (or Lack Thereof): Preliminaries
*
I want to turn to the canon of scripture, which is the example Dave cites repeatedly in his latest response to me . . . Elsewhere, Dave argues that a council in Rome in 382 also gave a canonical listing identical to the canon of Roman Catholicism. What Dave is saying, then, is that the New Testament canon is first listed by Athanasius around the middle of the fourth century, then by numerous church councils later in that century. Since the canon isn’t listed by anybody prior to Athanasius, evangelicals are accepting a doctrinal development of the fourth century.

*

Absolutely. No one can deny this.

Even if we were to accept Dave’s argument up to this point, what would be the conclusion to that argument? If evangelicals were to accept the development of the canon of scripture, should they therefore accept all other doctrinal developments of every type? No, you can logically accept one development without accepting another. There are different types of development and differing degrees of evidence from case to case.

That’s right. The task of the Protestant is to come up with a consistent criterion of a legitimate development: one which doesn’t self-destruct as self-defeating almost immediately upon stating it. That is what I am driving at in my arguments here and in the previous several responses to Jason. The canon is a unique issue, since all parties agree that it is utterly absent from Scripture itself.

This creates great difficulties both for the sola Scriptura paradigm of formal authority, and also with regard to the Protestant polemic against and antipathy towards so-called “unbiblical” or “extrabiblical” Catholic doctrines which at least have some biblical indication — however insignificant the critic thinks it is. And the Protestant has to explain how Tradition is wonderful and binding in one instance (the canon) but in no other. These are serious issues, and highly problematic. Anyone who thinks otherwise is not, in my opinion, seriously grappling with the historical and epistemological issues raised by these logical and “biblical” difficulties in the Protestant position.

If an evangelical accepts a fourth century doctrinal development, it does not logically follow that he should accept every doctrine Roman Catholicism develops in the sixth, tenth, or nineteenth century.

Of course it doesn’t. That isn’t my argument (not as stated in these bald, general terms, anyway), so it is a moot point. I believe that Jason’s (and all Protestants’) difficulties are the ones I just summarized.

Likewise, a Catholic who accepts the development of a Roman Catholic doctrine doesn’t have to accept every doctrinal development of the Eastern Orthodox or the Mormons, for example. I think Dave would agree.

Yes, but so what? The point in dispute is how one consistently distinguishes between a good and a bad development (i.e., a corruption or a heresy). These are fundamental and necessary considerations in a non-circular argument on these matters.

Evangelicals take three approaches toward the canon:

1. The Guidance of the Holy Spirit: Simple, but Unverifiable – The Holy Spirit can lead people to recognize what is and what isn’t the word of God (John 10:4, 1 Corinthians 14:37, 1 Thessalonians 2:13). However, this argument can also be used by Roman Catholics, Mormons, and other groups, not just evangelicals. While the principle is valid, it’s not verifiable in a setting such as this discussion I’m having with Dave. I can’t show Dave that the Holy Spirit is leading me. I think Dave would agree with me that the concept of perceiving the word of God through the guidance of the Spirit is valid, but unverifiable.

Yes, I agree; so we can dismiss this as ultimately objectively unverifiable (being subjective by nature) and no solution. It should be noted, however, that this was essentially John Calvin’s criterion of canonicity:

Those whom the Holy Spirit has inwardly taught truly rest upon Scripture, and that Scripture indeed is self-authenticating; hence, it is not right to subject it to proof and reasoning. And the certainty it deserves with us, it attains by the testimony of the Spirit . . . Therefore, illumined by his power, we believe neither by our own nor by anyone else’s judgment that Scripture is from God . . . We seek no proofs . . . Such, then, is a conviction that requires no reasons . . . such, finally, a feeling that can be born only of heavenly revelation. I speak of nothing other than what each believer experiences within himself. (Institutes of the Christian Religion, I, 7, 5)

2. The Canonicity of Each Book: Complex, but Verifiable . . . accepting a list of books isn’t the only way to arrive at a canon. You can also arrive at a canon by accepting one book at a time. Somebody living at the time of Isaiah might accept that prophet’s book as a result of the fulfillment of his prophecies. Somebody living at the time of Paul might add his letter to the Romans to the canon, since Paul’s writings have apostolic authority. We today would look at things like whether the early church accepted pseudonymous documents (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/pseudox.html) and what evidence we have for each book (D.A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992]). This approach toward the canon has the advantage of being verifiable, but the disadvantage of being complicated.

And of course it is impossible to carry out in practical terms, in history. We know this, because it has already happened. This merely puts us back in the 3rd century or earlier, where people disagreed in all sorts of particulars concerning the canon. Ecclesial authority is obviously needed.

3. The Old Testament Precedent of God’s Sovereignty Over the Canon: Simple and Verifiable – The Old Testament scriptures were entrusted to the Jews (Romans 3:2). Jesus and the apostles refer to all of scripture (Luke 24:25-27) as though there was an accepted canon everybody was expected to adhere to. Josephus and other sources outside of the Bible also refer to a general canonical consensus among the Jews. They associate the recognition of the canon with a spirit of prophecy that was believed to have departed from Israel sometime prior to the birth of Christ. The Apocryphal book of 1 Maccabees seems to refer to this (1 Maccabees 9:27). The Old Testament precedent of a widespread recognition of the canon gives us reason to expect the same for the New Testament.

IV. The Alleged “Completeness” of the Old Testament Canon in the Light of Protestant Biblical Scholarship
*
There was a “general” canonical consensus with regard to the New Testament, but that wasn’t sufficient to resolve the problem. Likewise, there was a general consensus of the Jews with regard to the Old Testament which wasn’t totally sufficient, either, which suggests that the analogy Jason is drawing is much more akin to the Catholic perspective. Accordingly, Protestant biblical scholarship tells us that in the last four centuries before Christ:

It is clear that in those days the Jews had holy books to which they attached authority. It cannot be proved that there was already a complete Canon, although the expression ‘the holy books’ (1 Macc. 12:9) may point in that direction. (The New Bible Dictionary, ed. J. D. Douglas, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1962 ed., 190, “Canon of the Old Testament”)

As for the New Testament period:

More than once the suggestion has been made that the synod of Jabneh or Jamnia, said to have been held about AD 90, closed the Canon of the Old Testament and fixed the limits of the Canon. To speak about the ‘synod of Jamnia’ at all, however, is to beg the question . . . It is true, certainly, that in the teaching-house of Jamnia, about AD 70-100, certain discussions were held, and certain decisions were made concerning some books of the Old Testament; but similar discussions were held both before and after that period . . . These discussions dealt chiefly with the question as to whether or not some books of the Old Testament (e.g. Esther, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Ezekiel) ‘soiled the hands’ or had to be ‘concealed’ . . . As regards the phrase ‘soil the hands’, the prevailing opinion is that it referred to the canonicity of the book in question . . . If indeed the canonicity of Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles was disputed, we shall have to take the following view. On the whole these books were considered canonical. But with some, and probably with some Rabbis in particular, the question arose whether people were right in accepting their canonicity, as, e.g., Luther in later centuries found it difficult to consider Esther as a canonical book . . .We may presume that the twenty-two books mentioned by Josephus are identical with the thirty-nine books of which the Old Testament consists according to our reckoning . . . For the sake of completeness we must observe that Josephus also uses books which we count among the Apocrypha, e.g. 1 Esdras and the additions to Esther . . . (Ibid., 191)

Protestant apologist Norman Geisler and others concur, with regard to the Jewish “Council of Jamnia”:

The so-called Council of Jamnia (c. A.D. 90), at which time this third section of writings is alleged to have been canonized, has not been explored. There was no council held with authority for Judaism. It was only a gathering of scholars. This being the case, there was no authorized body present to make or recognize the canon. Hence, no canonization took place at Jamnia. (From God to Us: How we Got our Bible, co-author William E. Nix, Chicago: Moody Press, 1974, 84)

The Jews of the Dispersion regarded several additional Greek books as equally inspired, viz. most of the Books printed in the AV and RV among the Apocrypha. During the first three centuries these were regularly used also in the Church . . . St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, and others placed them on the same footing as the other OT books. (Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Oxford University Press, ed. F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone, 1989, 232, “Canon of Scripture”)In the Septuagint (LXX), which incorporated all [of the so-called “Apocryphal” books] except 2 Esdras, they were in no way differentiated from the other Books of the OT . . . Christians . . . at first received all the Books of the Septuagint equally as Scripture . . . Down to the 4th cent. the Church generally accepted all the Books of the Septuagint as canonical. Gk. and Lat. Fathers alike (e.g., Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian) cite both classes of Books without distinction. In the 4th cent., however, many Gk. Fathers (e.g. Eusebius, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Gregory of Nazianzus) came to recognize a distinction between those canonical in Heb. and the rest, though the latter were still customarily cited as Scripture. St. Jerome . . . accepted this distinction, and introduced the term ‘apocrypha’ for the latter class . . . But with a few exceptions (e.g., Hilary, Rufinus), Western writers (esp. Augustine) continued to consider all as equally canonical . . . At the Reformation, Protestant leaders, ignoring the traditional acceptance of all the Books of the LXX in the early Church . . . refused the status of inspired Scripture to those Books of the Vulgate not to be found in the Heb. Canon. M. Luther, however, included the Apocrypha (except 1 and 2 Esd.) as an appendix to his translation of the Bible (1534), and in his preface allowed them to be ‘useful and good to be read’ . . . [the “Apocrypha” was] read as Scripture by the pre-Nicene Church and many post-Nicene Fathers . . . (Ibid., 70-71, “The Apocrypha”)

The early Christian Church inherited the LXX, and the NT writers commonly quoted the OT Books from it . . . In post-NT times, the Christian Fathers down to the later 4th cent. almost all regarded the LXX as the standard form of the OT and seldom referred to the Hebrew. (Ibid., 1260, “The Septuagint [‘LXX’]” )

The suggestion that a particular synod of Jamnia, held c. 100 A.D., finally settled the limits of the OT Canon, was made by H.E. Ryle; though it has had a wide currency, there is no evidence to substantiate it. (Ibid., 726, “Jamnia or Jabneh”)

The great evangelical biblical scholar F. F. Bruce commented upon the NT use of older Jewish writings:

So thoroughly, indeed, did Christians appropriate the Septuagint as their version of the scriptures that the Jews became increasingly disenchanted with it . . . We cannot say with absolute certainty, for example, if Paul treated Esther or the Song of Solomon as scripture any more than we can say if those books belonged to the Bible which Jesus knew and used . . . the book of Wisdom was possibly in Paul’s mind as he dictated part of the first two chapters of Romans . . . [footnote 21: The exposure of pagan immorality in Rom. 1:18-32 echoes Wisdom 12-14; the attitude of righteous Jews criticized by Paul in Rom. 2:1-11 has affinities with passages in Wisdom 11-15]. The writer to the Hebrews probably had the martyrologies of 2 Maccabees 6:18-7:41 or 4 Maccabees 5:3-18:24 in view when he spoke of the tortures and other hardships which some endured through faith (Heb. 11:35b-38, and when he says in the same context that some were sawn in two he may allude to a document which described how the prophet Isaiah was so treated [footnote 23: Perhaps the Ascension of Isaiah . . . ] . . .The Nestle-Aland edition of the Greek New Testament (1979) has an index of Old Testament texts cited or alluded to in the New Testament, followed by an index of allusions not only to the ‘Septuagintal plus’ but also to several books not included in the Septuagint . . . only one is a straight quotation explicitly ascribed to its source. That is the quotation from ‘Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam’ in Jude 14 f; this comes recognizably from the apocalyptic book of Enoch (1 Enoch 1:9). Earlier in Jude’s letter the account of Michael’s dispute with the devil over the body of Moses may refer to a work called the Assumption of Moses or Ascension of Moses, but if so, the part of the work containing the incident has been lost (Jude 9).

There are, however, several quotations in the New Testament which are introduced as though they were taken from holy scripture, but their source can no longer be identified. For instance, the words ‘He shall be called a Nazarene’, quoted in Matthew 2:23 as ‘what was spoken by the prophets’, stand in that form in no known prophetical book . . . Again, in John 7:38 ‘Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water’ is introduced by the words ‘as the scripture has said’ – but which scripture is referred to? . . . there can be no certainty . . .

Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 2:9, ‘What no eye has seen, nor ear heard . . . ‘, introduced by the clause ‘as it is written’, resemble Isaiah 64:4, but they are not a direct quotation from it. Some church fathers say they come from a work called the Secrets of Elijah or Apocalypse of Elijah, but this work is not accessible to us and we do not know if it existed in Paul’s time . . . The naming of Moses’ opponents as Jannes and Jambres in 2 Timothy 3:8 may depend on some document no longer identifiable; the names, in varying forms, appear in a number of Jewish writings, mostly later than the date of the Pastoral Epistles . . . We have no idea what ‘the scripture’ is which says, according to James 4:5, ‘He yearns jealously over the spirit which he has made to dwell in us’ . . .

When we think of Jesus and his Palestinian apostles . . . we cannot say confidently that they accepted Esther, Ecclesiastes or the Song of Songs as scripture, because the evidence is not available. We can argue only from probability, and arguments from probability are weighed differently by different judges. (F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1988, 50-52, 41)

Jamnia and Qumran:

It is probably unwise to talk as if there was a Council or Synod of Jamnia which laid down the limits of the Old Testament canon . . .A common, and not unreasonable, account of the formation of the Old Testament canon is that it took shape in three stages . . . The Law was first canonized (early in the period after the return from the Babylonian exile), the Prophets next (late in the third century BC) . . . the third division, the Writings . . . remained open until the end of the first century AD, when it was ‘closed’ at Jamnia. But it must be pointed out that, for all its attractiveness, this account is completely hypothetical: there is no evidence for it, either in the Old Testament itself or elsewhere. We have evidence in the Old Testament of the public recognition of scripture as conveying the word of God, but that is not the same thing as canonization. (Ibid., 34,36)

The discoveries made at Qumran, north-west of the Dead Sea, in the years following 1947 have greatly increased our knowledge of the history of the Hebrew Scriptures during the two centuries or more preceding AD 70 . . . All of the books of the Hebrew Bible are represented among them, with the exception of Esther. This exception may be accidental . . . or it may be significant: there is evidence of some doubt among Jews, as latter among Christians, about the status of Esther . . .

But the men of Qumran have left no statement indicating precisely which of the books represented in their library ranked as holy scripture in their estimation, and which did not . . .

But what of Tobit, Jubilees and Enoch, fragments of which were also found at Qumran? . . . were they reckoned canonical by the Qumran community? There is no evidence which would justify the answer ‘Yes’; on the other hand, we do not know enough to return the answer ‘No’. (Ibid., 38-40)

St. Athanasius was the first Church Father to list the 27 NT books as we have them today, and no others, as canonical, in 367. What is not often mentioned by Protestant apologists, however, is the fact that when he listed the Old Testament books, they were not identical to the Protestant 39:

As Athanasius includes Baruch and the ‘Letter of Jeremiah’ . . . so he probably includes the Greek additions to Daniel in the canonical book of that name, and the additions to Esther in the book of that name which he recommends for reading in the church, . . . Only those works which belong to the Hebrew Bible (apart from Esther) are worthy of inclusion in the canon (the additions to Jeremiah and Daniel make no appreciable difference to this principle . . . In practice Athanasius appears to have paid little attention to the formal distinction between those books which he listed in the canon and those which were suitable for the instruction of new Christians [he cites Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, and Tobit] . . . and quoted from them freely, often with the same introductory formulae – ‘as it is written’, ‘as the scripture says’, etc. [footnote 46: He does not say in so many words why Esther is not included in the canon . . . ] (Bruce, ibid., 79-80)

Bruce notes that the Council of Hippo in 393 (“along the lines approved by Augustine”) and the Third Council of Carthage in 397:

. . . appear to have been the first church councils to make a formal pronouncement on the canon. When they did so, they did not impose any innovation on the churches; they simply endorsed what had become the general consensus of the churches in the west and of the greater part of the east . . . The Sixth Council of Carthage (419) re-enacted the ruling of the Third Council, again with the inclusion of the apocryphal books . . . Throughout the following centuries most users of the Bible made no distinction between the apocryphal books and the others: all alike were handed down as part of the Vulgate . . . The two Wycliffite versions of the complete Bible in English (1384, 1395) included the apocryphal books as a matter of course. (Ibid., 97,99-100)

Lastly, the Encyclopedia Britannica noted the “fluidity” of Jewish notions of the canon for some two generations after the apostolic age:

Differences of opinion also are recorded among the tannaim (rabbinical scholars of tradition who compiled the Mishna, or Oral Law) and amoraim (who created the Talmud, or Gemara) about the canonical status of Proverbs, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, and Esther. All this indicates a prolonged state of fluidity in respect of the canonization of the Ketuvim [“the Writings”]. A synod at Jabneh (c. 100 CE) seems to have ruled on the matter, but it took a generation or two before their decisions came to be unanimously accepted and the Ketuvim regarded as being definitively closed. (1985 ed., vol. 14 [Macropedia], 758, “Biblical Literature,” “Old Testament canon, texts, versions”)

V. Recapitulation of Dr. Eric Svendsen’s Protestant “Canon Argument”
*
Eric Svendsen writes:

There is no reason to suppose that the formation of the New Testament canon would be formally different than that of the Old Testament canon.

It was similar in process, but that does not help Jason’s or Eric’s case over against Catholic notions of development of doctrine one whit, as I will explain below, because the analogy is far closer to Catholicism than to Protestantism.

Although there was no official Old Testament canon at the time of Jesus, all of Jesus’ statements in this regard reflect the belief that a canon was generally recognized and accepted.

Sure, but this doesn’t eliminate Protestant difficulties at all. This is more in line with Catholic arguments: viz., that a general consensus can be traced, yet not without numerous discrepancies and irresolvable differences, requiring an authoritative ecclesial proclamation (the Council of Carthage, or the semi-authoritative Jewish gathering at Jamnia, which operated by majority vote, much like Catholic councils) to settle it. In other words, the texts themselves were not sufficient to bring about the final result, as if some sort of “canonical sola Scriptura” mindset obtained, amongst either Jews or Christians. The Jews were still arguing about the canonicity of books written before 400 B.C. as late as 170-180 AD, and had to rely on the previous judgments of scholars in Jamnia to finally decide the issue.

Likewise, Christians rely on the authoritative “human” judgments of the Councils of Carthage (397) and Hippo (393) and of Rome (in 382) to resolve their disputes, which lasted about nine generations, over the ongoing development of the New Testament canon. Our disputes over our canon, then, took almost as long as the Jewish disputes over theirs (almost 300 years from the end of the apostolic age, and 365 or so from the death of Jesus). If that isn’t quintessentially development (which Jason is attempting to deny in some fashion), then I don’t know what is. It seems to me a self-evident, classic instance of it. Protestant contra-Catholic polemicists — as is so often the case — are forced to wage a battle against historical fact, in order to shore up their axiomatically-based, fideistic dogmatic claims.

As we shall see in the next chapter, the Hebrew canon recognized by Jesus was identical in content to the Evangelical Old Testament canon.

F. F. Bruce (a far greater biblical scholar and authority on canonicity than Dr. Svendsen) was not so sure of that, as seen in his statements above.

Many statements in the New Testament (e.g., John 10:35, “the Scripture cannot be broken” — by which Jesus means that one cannot do away with the verse cited in v. 34 since it belongs to the Scriptures as a whole) make no sense at all if the limits of the Old Testament canon were not well known and generally accepted.

That doesn’t logically follow, and is ultimately a circular argument. It breaks down to: “Many statements in the New Testament make no sense at all unless the Old Testament canon is exactly as Protestants believe it to be.” This assumes what it is trying to prove and is really no argument at all (at least not as stated here; presumably, Dr. Svendsen attempts a non-circular argument elsewhere in his book). Furthermore, it spectacularly backfires in application, because it would render null and void the entire New Testament (i.e., as a known, collective, inspired entity and revelation, whose “limits” were not yet known with certainty) before 367, when St. Athanasius became the first Church Father to list the 27 books we now accept as canonical.

So much of the New Testament (particularly the non-gospel, non-Pauline portions) would “make no sense at all” for the entire period of more than 330 years after the death of Christ that various books were indeed not “generally accepted.” This underscores all the more the circular (and thus, fallacious and failed) nature of Jason’s and Eric’s argument.

This general acceptance certainly does not attest to the notion that the Jewish leaders were somehow infallible, for they are condemned for virtually everything else [Matthew 15:1-14, 16:12, 22:29-32, Luke 11:39-52]. Instead, it attests to God’s sovereignty in preserving His word in spite of the fallibility (and error) of Israel and the church. (Evangelical Answers [Atlanta, Georgia: New Testament Restoration Foundation, 1997], pp. 96-97)

Infallibility is a separate issue. At this point we are discussing the necessity of church authority of some sort, period, in order to resolve canonical disputes. Both the Jews and the Christians were burdened by these difficulties, and neither reached a resolution by recourse to logically circular argument or appeal to mere subjectivism (as in Calvin or the Mormon’s “burning in the bosom” which “proves” to them that the Book of Mormon is inspired Scripture). Development is an unavoidable fact of reality where theology and religion (and sacred texts) are concerned.

This approach toward the canon is both simple and verifiable. It’s not difficult to see the consensus that has arisen regarding the New Testament canon, and that consensus is historically verifiable.

What good is a “consensus” if it has a million holes in it? What good is a consensus that wasn’t identical to what later came to be accepted, for 365 years? How is this somehow a compelling argument (if an argument at allagainst development of doctrine? I find this to be a remarkably wrongheaded, illogical, and obtuse line of “reasoning” (i.e., once all the relevant historical facts are “in”). Jason will cite Church Fathers who dissent in one way or another on various aspects of the papacy or Catholic proof texts for same, yet when I cite the exact same sort of anomalies in the “consensus” concerning the New Testament canon, that is (so he seems to think) nullified and rendered irrelevant by incantation (with fairy dust) of the magical word “consensus,” as if this resolves the Protestant problem or overcomes my analogical argument with regard to development, in the slightest. It does not.

Which approach to the canon do I take? All three. And all three are the result of Biblical principles. The Bible refers to the leading of the Holy Spirit, the standards by which individual books could be judged, and the precedent of God’s sovereignty over the Old Testament canon.

One can grant that (I would to some extent, but not completely); yet it doesn’t overcome the difficulties of actual determination of the canon by a believing community (the Church). Again, history has shown that this alone was thoroughly inadequate to resolve the problems of differing opinions.

When I accept canonical lists of the fourth century in the third approach discussed above, I’m looking to the fourth century because a first century principle tells me to.

Since Jason accepts “canonical lists of the fourth century,” then I guess that “first century principle” (whatever it is), leads Jason to include the so-called “apocryphal books” in Scripture, since the Councils accepted them, and even St. Athanasius accepted Baruch as canonical and denied the canonicity of Esther.

Dave could argue that the Biblical principle of Matthew 16:18-19, for example, leads him to accept Roman Catholic doctrines of later centuries. I would disagree with that argument. But I wouldn’t deny that if Matthew 16 means what Dave says it means, then that gives us reason for looking past the first century for our beliefs as Christians. We would have to examine each case individually.

Good. I agree. Now I am examining the Protestant case which is seeking to prove that canonicity is an instance of development different in kind and essence from Catholic developmental arguments for the papacy, the Immaculate Conception, or any number of doctrines, and the results do not persuade me in the least that there is any difference. If indeed that is true (as I think is abundantly clear), then Jason’s arguments against papal development, based on this false analogy, collapse, in light of the above historical documentation, all from conservative evangelical Protestant scholarly sources.

I want to make a distinction that I think a lot of Catholics fail to make. Even liberal scholarship acknowledges that the New Testament books are early documents, either entirely or almost entirely from the first century. The listing of the 27 books together appears in the fourth century, as does the nearly universal acceptance of the 27-book canon. But the canon itself existed since the first century.

So did the papacy, and at least the kernel of all Catholic beliefs, since they are all included in the apostolic deposit.

For something like the Assumption of Mary to be comparable, we would need to have one first century source referring to Mary’s tomb being empty, another first century source claiming to see Mary being taken up from the grave, and another first century source claiming to have seen Mary bodily present in Heaven.

This would also make the Resurrection of Jesus unbelievable. His tomb was seen empty, but no one saw Him actually being resurrected (they saw His Ascension, but that is a different thing), and no one went to heaven in the first century and came back to report that Jesus was bodily present there. Secondly, the mere existence of New Testament books doesn’t prove that each was canonical, anymore than the mere existence of books later not deemed canonical proves that they were part of the canon. Inspiration or existence is a separate issue from canonicity. F. F. Bruce notes similar distinctions above. New Testament books and other books were present in the first century, but the nature of individual ones was disputed, all the way up until at least 367 AD.

Likewise, Mary lived (I think Jason would agree to that), and various aspects of her life and status in the framework of Christian theology were disputed (just as in, also, the interpretation of Christology and Jesus’ life) for centuries afterwards as well, becoming more and more defined as time went on. So Jason complains that this took a little longer than the canon? I reply that the Protestant doctrines of justification, symbolic baptism and Eucharist (and several other novelties, I would argue) took over 14 centuries to assume their shape (or to be invented at all), having been almost totally or entirely absent in Christian thought in the interim.

If somebody in the fourth century then put all of these first century sources together, and arrived at the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary, and this conclusion was accepted almost universally across the Christian world, then we might have something similar to the New Testament canon. Instead, the Assumption doctrine appears out of nowhere in a fourth century apocryphal document that was condemned as heretical by numerous Roman bishops . . . So, while it’s true that the listing of the canon and its nearly universal acceptance occurred in the fourth century, that doesn’t mean that the canon belongs in the same category as something like the Assumption of Mary or numbering the sacraments at seven. There are other factors involved that should lead us to distinguish between these things.

I recognize that there are differences in the rapidity of development and in strength of patristic sources; this does not overcome the difficulties in the Protestant acceptance of the canon within the framework of their own formal principle of sola Scriptura. As usual, the Protestant tactic — when confronted with internal logical difficulties in one of their positions — is to switch the topic over to some Catholic doctrine (usually, the obligatory subject of Mariology), in order to get off the “hot seat” and to avoid grappling with the specifics of the critique of their viewpoint.

VI. Implications for Sola Scriptura in the Svendsen “Canon Argument”
*
Is it a violation of sola scriptura to arrive at the canon of the Bible by means of evidence outside of scripture?

*

Yes. Even Eric Svendsen (supposedly one of the premier critics of Catholicism these days), wrote:

We don’t believe in the Roman Catholic acorn notion of “development of doctrine.” Nothing — absolutely nothing — added to the teaching of Scripture is BINDING on the conscience of the believer . . .

The canon of the Bible is not taught in Scripture; therefore, by Eric’s logic, it is not binding on the believer. Jason is an associate researcher on Eric’s website, so I suggest that they get together to work out these internal disagreements, as their existence makes for a bad witness to the skeptical Catholic community. :-)

No, just as the miracles done by Jesus are outside of Him, yet point to His authority (John 10:37-38). No rule of faith exists in a vacuum. Every rule of faith is perceived by means outside of it. A rule of faith is a conclusion to evidence.

I see. So am I to conclude that Jason thinks that sola Scriptura is not taught in Scripture as a “perspicuous” inviolate principle, and thus must necessarily rely for its groundwork on an extraneous historical argument?

If somebody thinks that the historical evidence supports the authority claims of the Catholic Church, he’ll become a Catholic. If somebody thinks the historical evidence supports the inspiration of the Bible and a particular Biblical canon, then he’ll accept that Bible as an authority. To argue that the Bible must be identified and authenticated without going outside of it is illogical. Sola scriptura is a conclusion to evidence, including evidence outside of the Bible,

I (and many others) find it a bit strange that sola Scriptura (the notion that the Bible is the ultimate and only infallible authority in theological matters, above Church and Tradition) is not unambiguously found in Scripture itself. One might — quite reasonably and plausibly — argue that the internal logic of the position would require this, and that the Bible alone would and should be sufficient to deduce and establish it, just as it supposedly is (according to the same belief) for all other doctrines. But it is gratifying to see Jason in effect, openly admit that the Bible is insufficient to prove sola Scriptura. He would, I assume, deny this. But then he would have to explain his remarks above as harmonious with sola Scriptura itself.

just as sola ecclesia is a conclusion to evidence, including evidence outside of the Roman Catholic rule of faith.

Catholics don’t believe in sola ecclesia; we believe that the “three-legged stool” of Scripture,. Tradition, and Church are inherently harmonious and non-contradictory. It is nonsensical to speak of any being “higher” than the others.

You have to have scriptura before you can have sola scriptura, and you have to have ecclesia before you can have sola ecclesia. Both the scriptura and the ecclesia are arrived at by means of things that are outside of them. Even if one was to say that the Holy Spirit led him to scripture or to Catholicism, that conviction of the Holy Spirit would still be something outside of the rule of faith. Dave has repeatedly asserted that neither the canon of scripture nor sola scriptura is Biblical. But the principles leading to those conclusions are Biblical.

Again, we seem to see an admission from Jason that sola Scriptura cannot be proven by the principles of sola Scriptura, i.e., from the Bible Alone. This is refreshing, and I am delighted to see it. This indicates real progress in ongoing Catholic-Protestant discussions on the subject. Respected Baptist theologian Bernard Ramm wrote:

The ‘sola scriptura’ of the Reformers did not mean a total rejection of tradition. It meant that only Scripture had the final word on a subject . . . (In Rogers, Jack B., ed., Biblical Authority, Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1977, “Is ‘Scripture Alone’ the Essence of Christianity?”, 119)

How can Scripture have the “final word” on the subject of the canon? It cannot (Church tradition must); therefore, sola Scriptura has to be suspended in order to obtain the very canon which is one of its premises. Thus, the basis for sola Scriptura is as circular as a cat chasing its tail eternally and never catching it. Jason says, “Sola scriptura is a conclusion to evidence, including evidence outside of the Bible.”

Again, if by definition, the notion of sola Scriptura is the notion that Scripture has the “final word,” how can it itself be forced to rely on sources outside Scripture in order to even be established? It violates its own principle before it even gets off the ground. It’s like trying to lift yourself up by your own bootstraps. For this and many other reasons, I have always argued (since converting) that sola Scriptura is radically self-defeating.

Likewise, Clark Pinnock (back in the days when he was still an evangelical) stated:

Orthodox Protestantism holds to ‘sola scriptura,’ the conviction that Scripture is God’s infallible Word and the only source of revealed theology. Any theology which relies on an alternate source or appeals to multiple norms is humanistic because it elevates the human ego above the oracles of God. The authority of Scripture is the watershed of theological conviction, the basis of all decision-making . . . theology is to be relative to Scripture alone. ‘Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent,’ said Thomas Campbell . . .’Sola scriptura’ is the Protestant principle. Scripture constitutes, determines and rules the entire theological endeavor. What it does not determine is no part of Christian truth. Extrabiblical claims to knowledge of ultimate reality are dreams and fancies (Jer 23:16). . . The peril of Romanism and liberalism is their uncriticizability. (Biblical Revelation, Chicago: Moody Press, 1971, 113-17)

Pinnock informs us that “Scripture is . . . the only source of revealed theology.” Since the canon is not included in Scripture, does that mean, then, that it is not part of “revealed theology”? And if sola Scriptura cannot be proven in the Scriptures alone without recourse to “evidence outside of the Bible,” as Jason wrote, does it not follow by this reasoning that it, too, is no part of “revealed theology”? Moreover, if reliance on an “alternate source or appeals to multiple norms is humanistic because it elevates the human ego above the oracles of God,” then what becomes of Jason’s “outside” sources of history and some sort of Christian tradition?

Does Jason’s argument become egoistic and humanistic, according to orthodox evangelical Protestantism? What the Bible “does not determine is no part of Christian truth.” It didn’t determine the canon, nor sola Scriptura; ergo: Protestants cannot know what the Bible is in the first place, and its formal principle collapses in a heap because there is no Bible in order to appeal to it alone, and even if we appeal to the so-called “Bible” inconsistently accepted as a gift from Catholic Tradition (contrary to sola Scriptura), we cannot find sola Scriptura in it alone, as even Jason seems to imply. It doesn’t take a rocket science to observe the profound logical difficulties inherent in this outlook.

Similarly, the Bible doesn’t mention guns, but we can take the Biblical principle that murder is wrong and apply it to murdering somebody with a gun.

The truism that the Bible does not contain the sum of all particular knowledge and facts is irrelevant to discussions of both sola Scriptura and the canon. All are agreed on this.

The Biblical concept that the apostles have unique authority leads to sola scriptura if the evidence suggests that the Bible is the only apostolic material we have today.

The Bible often refers to an authoritative tradition, which is not equated with itself. Jason again admits, in effect, that the biblical evidence is not perspicuous enough to stand on its own, so that it must rest on obscure, speculative deductions like this one, much like similar ones Catholics use to support the papacy or the Immaculate Conception, which he himself excoriates. Very odd . . .

Dave can dispute the idea that the scriptures are the only apostolic material we have, but he can’t deny that apostolicity is a Biblical principle. This concept of apostolicity leads to the canon (a collection of apostolic books) and sola scriptura (the absence of any apostolic material other than those books).

So human beings sit around and determine apostolicity (just as they determine canonicity). Okay; well, that is not derived from the Bible Alone as the final source and norm for Christian belief; it is obtained from human Tradition. It may also be a divine or apostolic Tradition, but it is not derived from the Bible Alone. If Jason wants to continue arguing my case for me, he is welcome to do so. I think it is a delightful and hopeful trend in his thinking.

Dave can disagree with the application of the Biblical principle of apostolicity. He could argue that some of the books of the Bible aren’t apostolic, or that we have apostolic material outside of scripture. But disputing the application of the principle isn’t the same as disputing the principle.

Jason has neither made his case from a sola Scriptura perspective, nor has he shown that the canon is a case different in kind from other instances of development, which indeed he has to do in order to overcome my objection.

VII. Disputes over the “Canonical” Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage (382-397)
*
I want to conclude this section of my article by documenting some errors in Dave’s claims about the history of the canon. He cited three fourth century councils (Rome, Hippo, and Carthage) as agreeing with the Roman Catholic canon of scripture. But F. F. Bruce explains:

What is commonly called the Gelasian decree on books which are to be received and not received takes its name from Pope Gelasius (492-496). It gives a list of biblical books as they appeared in the Vulgate, with the Apocrypha interspersed among the others. In some manuscripts, indeed, it is attributed to Pope Damasus, as though it had been promulgated by him at the Council of Rome in 382. But actually it appears to have been a private compilation drawn up somewhere in Italy in the early sixth century. (The Canon of Scripture [Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1988], p. 97)

This has no effect on Bruce’s earlier statement (cited above), occurring immediately before Jason’s citation, where he noted that the Council of Hippo in 393 (“along the lines approved by Augustine”) and the Third Council of Carthage in 397:

. . . appear to have been the first church councils to make a formal pronouncement on the canon. When they did so, they did not impose any innovation on the churches; they simply endorsed what had become the general consensus of the churches in the west and of the greater part of the east . . . The Sixth Council of Carthage (419) re-enacted the ruling of the Third Council, again with the inclusion of the apocryphal books. (Bruce, ibid., 97)

I find it exceedingly interesting that Jason cites what he does, because it seems at first glance to contradict Catholic claims on canonicity, while ignoring the context, where the really relevant statements appear, and where Bruce makes the claim that these decrees including the disputed books were an endorsement of “the general consensus.”

The other two councils Dave cites, Hippo and Carthage, actually disagreed with the Roman Catholic canon. Both councils were held in North Africa, and the Septuagint was the primary Bible translation of the North Africans at the time. The books of Esdras in the Septuagint were different from the books of Esdras in the Vulgate. So, when we ask what the councils of Hippo and Carthage meant when they referred to two books of Esdras, we look to the Septuagint, not the Vulgate. Since Ezra and Nehemiah were one book in the Septuagint, the councils of Hippo and Carthage probably were including more than just Ezra and Nehemiah. After all, they referred to two books of Esdras. But the Catholic Church goes by the Vulgate rendering, not the Septuagint rendering. For Roman Catholicism, the two books of Esdras are Ezra and Nehemiah.

According to Protestant historian Philip Schaff (who has not, to my knowledge, ever been accused of Catholic bias), the Council of Carthage in 397 included “two books of Ezra.” These are commonly understood as Ezra and Nehemiah. He goes on to state:

This decision . . . was subject to ratification; and the concurrence of the Roman see it received when Innocent I and Gelasius I (A.D. 414) repeated the same index of biblical books. (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 3: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1974 [orig. 1910], 609)

Augustine, a North African bishop and a leader at the council of Carthage, defines the two books of Esdras for us, and he defines them differently than the Catholic Church (The City of God, 18:36). (See the reference to this in Norman Geisler and William Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible [Chicago, Illinois: Moody Press, 1986], p. 293.

He doesn’t deny that 1 and 2 Esdras are the equivalent of Ezra and Nehemiah with a different name (Esdras is the Greek and Latin form of Ezra); he simply cites 3 Esdras, in his discussion of an incident recounted in that book. St. Augustine accepted the Septuagint as inspired, as did the early Church, for the most part. But his view on 3 and 4 Esdras (whatever he called them) were not followed in official Catholic proclamations on the canon. He does not determine Catholic doctrine or dogma with his too many books in the canon, anymore than St. Jerome did with his belief that the deuterocanon was not canonical. No Father, no matter how eminent, does. It is the Church which determines these things, through councils and popes, within the process of development, led by (and protected from error by) the Holy Spirit. In the same location, Augustine states that the “books of the Maccabees . . . are regarded as canonical by the Church.”

3 and 4 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh were rejected by Trent as non-canonical. Nor were they included in the canons of Hippo or Carthage or Rome (382) — see more below. Our discussion is not about this sort of textual minutiae (which will backfire on the Protestant because of the widespread patristic espousal of books in both the Old and New Testaments which Protestants regard as non-canonical), but about whether the canon required human tradition in order to be validated once and for all, and whether this is an anomaly in the Protestant formal principle of authority, and (indirectly) whether “apocryphal books” were part of this Catholic authority which Protestantism is forced to lean upon.

Also, see Roger Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church [Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1986], p. 13, where the pseudo-Gelasian decree of the sixth century, not the canon of Hippo or Carthage, is referred to as the earliest agreement with the Roman Catholic canon.) Therefore, Dave is wrong in his citation of all three councils. He claims that the canon proclaimed by these councils was “authoritatively approved by two popes as binding on all the faithful”. It logically follows, then, that these Roman bishops were wrong, and that they “bound all the faithful” to believe something erroneous. What does that tell us about the reliability of the bishops of Rome?

I think the above paragraph is much more telling as to the unreliabilty of Jason. Pope Innocent I concurred with and sanctioned the canonical ruling of the Councils of Carthage and Hippo in his Letter to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse in 405 (also in 414), as did the Sixth Council of Carthage in 419, as Bruce notes. According to a quite reputable Protestant reference work:

A council probably held at Rome in 382 under St. Damasus gave a complete list of the canonical books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament (also known as the ‘Gelasian Decree’ because it was reproduced by Gelasius in 495), which is identical with the list given at Trent. (The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2nd ed., edited by F. L. Cross & E. A. Livingstone, Oxford Univ. Press, 1983, 232)

Patristics scholar William A. Jurgens, writes about the Council at Rome in 382:

Pope St. Damasus I is remembered as having commissioned Jerome’s translation of the Scriptures . . . St. Ambrose of Milan was instrumental in having a council meet in Rome . . . in 382 A.D. . . . Belonging also to the Acts of the Council of Rome of 382 A.D. is a decree of which three parts are extant . . . The second part of the decree . . . is more familiarly known as the opening part of the Gelasian Decree, in regard to the canon of Scripture: De libris recipiendis vel non recipiendis. It is now commonly held that the part of the Gelasian Decree dealing with the accepted canon of Scripture is an authentic work of the Council of Rome of 382 A.D., and that Gelasius edited it again at the end of the fifth century, adding to it the catalog of the rejected books, . . . It is now almost universally accepted that these parts one and two of the Decree of Damasus are authentic parts of the Acts of the Council of Rome of 382 A.D. In regard to the third part . . . opinion is still divided . . . The text of the Decree of Damasus may be found in Mansi, Vol. 8, 145-147; in Migne, PL 19, 787-793 . . . (The Faith of the Early Fathers, Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1970, vol. 1 of 3, 402,404-405)

The list from 382 — which The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church deemed as “identical with the list given at Trent” — includes: Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, and 1 and 2 Maccabees. Baruch was included as part of Jeremiah, as in St. Athanasius’ list of 15 years previously. This is indeed identical with the Tridentine list, and comprises the seven “extra” deuterocanonical books in Catholic Bibles which Protestants reject from the canon as “apocryphal.” Nevertheless, there they are in the Council of 382.

The Council of Carthage accepted the same list, as detailed by Brooke Foss Westcott (A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1980, rep. from 6th ed. of 1889, 440). Bruce questioned the authenticity of the Gelasian Decree, but note that he did not question the fact that the “Sixth Council of Carthage (419) re-enacted the ruling of the Third Council [Carthage, 397], again with the inclusion of the apocryphal books.”

Dave is also mistaken when he claims that “this [canon] is accepted pretty much without question by all Christians subsequently, as if the list itself were inspired”.

Bruce practically says the same thing I claim (even though he disagrees with it, as a Protestant):

Throughout the following centuries most users of the Bible made no distinction between the apocryphal books and the others: all alike were handed down as part of the Vulgate . . . (Bruce, ibid., 99)

Schaff concurs:

This canon [of Carthage — see above citation] remained undisturbed till the sixteenth century, and was sanctioned by the council of Trent at its fourth session. (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 3: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1974 [orig. 1910], 609-610)

Since Trent rejected 3 and 4 Esdras, and Schaff says its canon was the same as Carthage in 397, and since The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church informs us that the list from Rome in 382 was “identical with the list given at Trent,” therefore, by simple logical deduction, the early councils were also referring to “the two books of Esdras [or Ezra]” as the currently-accepted Ezra and Nehemiah (or else Schaff — considered by many evangelical Protestants as one of the greatest Church historians ever — and a widely-used and respected Protestant reference source have badly botched their facts).

For my part, I go along with them, rather than Jason’s word. I’ve always found Schaff to be an accurate and thorough historian. He definitely has his biases (as we all do), but he doesn’t let them warp and twist his presentation of historical facts (he will, e.g., often give the “Catholic” fact and then voice his theological objection to it). He tells it like it is.

There was widespread rejection of the Biblical canon of the fourth century councils in the centuries thereafter. Some people accepted more of the Apocrypha than was accepted at the fourth century councils. Other people accepted less of the Apocrypha, even none of it. Gregory the Great, a Roman bishop who lived about two hundred years after the council of Carthage, denied that 1 Maccabees is canonical.

Who are these people? What is the documentation? I can hardly answer unless I know those things.

Several hundred years after the council of Carthage, Cardinal Ximenes produced an edition of the Bible that denied the canonicity of the Apocrypha in its preface. The Bible was dedicated to Pope Leo X, and it was published with the Pope’s approval.

Again, I would have to see the details and documentation of this to comment.

Many other examples could be cited. Some are documented in the works of Bruce and Beckwith that I cited earlier, as well as in the works of other scholars.

Bring them on. The more the merrier, because the Catholic case becomes that much stronger.

VIII. 27-Point Summary of the Protestant Scholarly Case Against the Svendsen “Canon Argument”
*
Dave’s claims about the canon are false, and they’re false to a large degree.

*

I will let the reader judge who has presented a stronger, more plausible case, and which is more internally consistent and true to the facts of history, fairly examined. As for my argument, I shall now summarize the various difficulties for Jason’s position, as elaborated upon by my many Protestant scholarly citations:

1. In the four centuries previous to Christ, “it cannot be proved that there was already a complete Canon” (The New Bible Dictionary), whereas Jason claims that “there was an accepted canon everybody was expected to adhere to.” (also, F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture).

2. There was no Jewish “synod of Jamnia” per se, but rather a series of scholarly discussions, from the period of 70-100 AD, and even these did not finally settle the issue of the OT canon (The New Bible Dictionary; Norman Geisler, From God to Us: How we Got our BibleOxford Dictionary of the Christian Church; Bruce, ibid.).

3. These discussions were still dealing with the disputed canonicity of books like Esther, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, and even Ezekiel after the death of Jesus and after most or all of the New Testament was completed (The New Bible Dictionary). So Paul and Jesus (or any New Testament writer) could hardly have assumed a commonly accepted Old Testament canon before this time.

4. The Jewish historian Josephus “also uses books which we count among the Apocrypha, e.g. 1 Esdras and the additions to Esther.” (The New Bible Dictionary).

5. The Jews of the Dispersion (particularly the Alexandrian, Greek-speaking Jews) regarded several additional Greek books as equally inspired, — i.e., the so-called Apocrypha. (Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church).

6. “During the first three centuries these were regularly used also in the Church . . . St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, and others placed them on the same footing as the other OT books.” (Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church).

7. The Septuagint (LXX), incorporated all of the so-called “Apocryphal” books except 2 Esdras, and they were in no way differentiated from the other Books of the OT. (Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church).

8. “Christians . . . at first received all the Books of the Septuagint equally as Scripture . . .Down to the 4th cent. the Church generally accepted all the Books of the Septuagint as canonical. Gk. and Lat. Fathers alike (e.g., Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian) cite both classes of Books without distinction . . . with a few exceptions (e.g., Hilary, Rufinus), Western writers (esp. Augustine) continued to consider all as equally canonical . . . [the “Apocrypha” was] read as Scripture by the pre-Nicene Church and many post-Nicene Fathers . . . ” (Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church).

9. “In the 4th cent., however, many Gk. Fathers. . . came to recognize a distinction between those canonical in Heb. and the rest, though the latter were still customarily cited as Scripture.” (Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church).

10. “Luther, however, included the Apocrypha (except 1 and 2 Esd.) as an appendix to his translation of the Bible (1534), and in his preface allowed them to be ‘useful and good to be read'” (Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church).

11. “The NT writers commonly quoted the OT Books from [the Septuagint] . . . In post-NT times, the Christian Fathers down to the later 4th cent. almost all regarded the LXX as the standard form of the OT.” (Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church).

12. “We cannot say with absolute certainty, for example, if Paul treated Esther or the Song of Solomon [elsewhere Bruce adds Ecclesiastes] as scripture any more than we can say if those books belonged to the Bible which Jesus knew and used.” (Bruce, ibid.) #12 blatantly contradicts Dr. Svendsen’s assertion: “The Hebrew canon recognized by Jesus was identical in content to the Evangelical Old Testament canon.”

13. According to “The Nestle-Aland edition of the Greek New Testament (1979)” Jude 14 ff. is “a straight quotation . . . from the apocalyptic book of Enoch (1 Enoch 1:9).” (Bruce, ibid.).

14. “Several quotations in the New Testament . . . are introduced as though they were taken from holy scripture, but their source can no longer be identified. For instance, the words ‘He shall be called a Nazarene’, quoted in Matthew 2:23 as ‘what was spoken by the prophets’, . . . John 7:38 . . . is introduced by the words ‘as the scripture has said’ – but which scripture is referred to? . . . there can be no certainty . . . 1 Corinthians 2:9, . . . James 4:5 . . .” (Bruce, ibid.).

15. The Dead Sea Scrolls from the Qumran community revealed that they did not have Esther included in their canon. (Bruce, ibid.).

16. As for “Tobit, Jubilees and Enoch, fragments of which were also found at Qumran? . . . were they reckoned canonical by the Qumran community? There is no evidence which would justify the answer ‘Yes’; on the other hand, we do not know enough to return the answer ‘No’.” (Bruce, ibid.).

17. “As Athanasius includes Baruch and the ‘Letter of Jeremiah’ . . . so he probably includes the Greek additions to Daniel in the canonical book of that name . . .” (Bruce, ibid.).

18. St. Athanasius excludes Esther from the canon. (Bruce, ibid.).

19. “In practice Athanasius appears to have paid little attention to the formal distinction between those books which he listed in the canon and those which were suitable for the instruction of new Christians [he cites Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, and Tobit] . . . and quoted from them freely, often with the same introductory formulae – ‘as it is written’, ‘as the scripture says’, etc.” (Bruce, ibid.).

20. The Councils of Hippo in 393 (“along the lines approved by Augustine”) and the Third Council of Carthage in 397: . . . appear to have been the first church councils to make a formal pronouncement on the canon . . .” (Bruce, ibid.).

21. The Councils of Hippo in 393 and the Carthage in 397 “simply endorsed what had become the general consensus of the churches in the west and of the greater part of the east . . .” (Bruce, ibid.).

22. Yet Hippo and Carthage, along with “The Sixth Council of Carthage (419)” included “the apocryphal books.” (Bruce, ibid.).

23. “Throughout the following centuries most users of the Bible made no distinction between the apocryphal books and the others: all alike were handed down as part of the Vulgate . . .” (Bruce, ibid.) Yet Jason, clashing rather spectacularly with Bruce and Schaff (#27) writes: “There was widespread rejection of the Biblical canon of the fourth century councils in the centuries thereafter.”

24. “Differences of opinion also are recorded among the tannaim (rabbinical scholars of tradition who compiled the Mishna, or Oral Law) and amoraim (who created the Talmud, or Gemara) about the canonical status of Proverbs, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, and Esther.” (Encyclopedia Britannica)

25. “All this indicates a prolonged state of fluidity in respect of the canonization of the Ketuvim [“the Writings”]. A synod at Jabneh (c. 100 CE) seems to have ruled on the matter, but it took a generation or two before their decisions came to be unanimously accepted and the Ketuvim regarded as being definitively closed.” (Encyclopedia Britannica)

26. “A council probably held at Rome in 382 under St. Damasus gave a complete list of the canonical books of both the Old Testament . . . which is identical with the list given at Trent.” (The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church)

27. “This canon [of Carthage] remained undisturbed till the sixteenth century, and was sanctioned by the council of Trent at its fourth session.” (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church) #26 and 27 contradict Jason’s argument: “The other two councils Dave cites, Hippo and Carthage, actually disagreed with the Roman Catholic canon . . . Since Ezra and Nehemiah were one book in the Septuagint, the councils of Hippo and Carthage probably were including more than just Ezra and Nehemiah. After all, they referred to two books of Esdras . . . Therefore, Dave is wrong in his citation of all three councils [he includes Rome, 382].”

All this, yet Jason’s protege, Dr. Eric Svendsen, states in his book Evangelical Answers, that:

Although there was no official Old Testament canon at the time of Jesus, all of Jesus’ statements in this regard reflect the belief that a canon was generally recognized and accepted . . . Many statements in the New Testament (e.g., John 10:35, “the Scripture cannot be broken”…) make no sense at all if the limits of the Old Testament canon were not well known and generally accepted.

Also, when Jason states that he “accept[s] canonical lists of the fourth century” then he obviously has espoused (or conceded?) the deuterocanonical books (and even the Tridentine reiteration of them), according to #20-22, 26, and 27. He would argue, no doubt, that he only accepts the NT lists, but then the problem immediately arises as to why he accepts the conciliar authority for the NT but not the OT, since we have established beyond all doubt that the OT canon was not yet closed during the entire NT and apostolic period.

Therefore, “general consensus” can’t be appealed to for those books, and even Jason’s analogy of the OT canonization process to the NT canonization process collapses (because he was greatly mistaken about the OT). In both instances, Church authority is necessarily involved, and this runs contrary to sola Scriptura and the Protestant antipathy or frequent selectivity with regard to development of doctrine.

IX. The Immaculate Conception: How Development and “Believed Always by All” are Synthesized in Catholic Thought (Vincent, Aquinas, etc.)
*
The Greek term used in Luke 1:28 is also used in Sirach 18:17. Most translators, who know more about Greek than Dave does, don’t use the translation “full of grace” in Luke 1:28. Even if we were to assume that Luke 1:28 is referring to sinlessness, who would deny that Mary was sinless for some period of her life? . . . we also have numerous Biblical examples of Mary sinning and being rebuked by Jesus . . . [Etc.]

*

I deal with this line of argument (and related ones) at great length in the following places:

“All Have Sinned” vs. a Sinless, Immaculate Mary? [1996; revised and posted at National Catholic Register on 12-11-17]

Immaculate Conception: Dialogue w Evangelical Protestant [1-21-02]

Dialogue w Protestants: “Full of Grace” / Immaculate Conception [1-23-02]

Luke 1:28 (“Full of Grace”) & Immaculate Conception [2004]

And Dave is wrong not only about the historical evidence for the Immaculate Conception, but also about what his denomination teaches on this subject. The Pope refers to the Immaculate Conception doctrine itself always being taught by the Christian church with the highest of authority. The Pope explains what he means when he refers to the Immaculate Conception. He’s referring to the concept that Mary was conceived without original sin. He’s not referring to some alleged seed form of the doctrine . . . Pope Pius IX was wrong, and Dave is wrong.

This is sheer nonsense, based on the typical contra-Catholic polemical false assumption that when Catholics discuss how something has “always been believed,” that they are not also often referring to adherence to implicit or kernel-forms or the “acorns” or “seeds” of development of doctrine (i.e., they are referring to the essence of the doctrine, which was received from the apostles and never changes).

A close examination of what a pope says elsewhere confirms this. Quite obviously, if the Immaculate Conception had always been believed precisely as Pius IX was defining it — i.e., as the full-fledged, fully-developed doctrine, as developed by 1854 — then he would not have to define it in the first place. Such ex cathedra proclamations of the extraordinary magisterium, by their very nature, presuppose that much development has taken place over the centuries. But since Jason thinks that the Catholic Church somehow simultaneously accepts universal development of doctrine, yet expressly (absurdly) denies it in particulars, when defining doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception and papal infallibility, he completely misses the point.

I have provided thorough background documentation as to the Church’s teaching on development of doctrine through the centuries, in my (long-overdue) paper:

Development of Doctrine: Patristic & Historical Development (Featuring Much Documentation from St. Augustine, St. Vincent of Lerins, St. Thomas Aquinas, Vatican I, Popes Pius IX, Pius X, Etc.) [3-19-02]

That paper is highly relevant to my discussions with Jason (or anyone else) on what the Catholic Church teaches concerning development, and how it applies its principles consistently. I will draw from that now, in order to show that Pius IX was not being inconsistent or “historically dishonest” at all in his definition of the Immaculate Conception.

Pope Pius IX, in the very same document where he defines the Immaculate Conception as an infallible doctrine (ex cathedra), also refers to development of doctrine:

For the Church of Christ, watchful guardian that she is, and defender of the dogmas deposited with her, never changes anything, never diminishes anything, never adds anything to them; but with all diligence she treats the ancient documents faithfully and wisely; if they really are of ancient origin and if the faith of the Fathers has transmitted them, she strives to investigate and explain them in such a way that the ancient dogmas of heavenly doctrine will be made evident and clear, but will retain their full, integral, and proper nature, and will grow only within their own genus – that is, within the same dogma, in the same sense and the same meaning. (Apostolic Constitution Ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854; in Papal Teachings: The Church, selected and arranged by the Benedictine Monks of Solesmes, tr. Mother E. O’Gorman, Boston: Daughters of St. Paul, 1962, 71)

Supposedly, the First Vatican Council, according to contra-Catholic polemicists William Webster and Jason himself, was opposed to any development, at least where it concerns papal infallibility, which it defined as an infallible doctrine. This is manifestly false, because the same pope who convoked it and ratified its proclamations, also wrote (in the very letter of convocation of the Council, to the bishops):

Pontiffs have not neglected to convoke General Councils in order to act with and unite their strength to the strength of the bishops of the whole Catholic world . . . to procure in the first place the definition of the dogmas of the faith, the destruction of widespread errors, the defense, illumination, and development of Catholic doctrine . . . (Apostolic Letter Aeterni Patris, June 29, 1868; in Papal Teachings, ibid., 193)

In the same year of the Council, Pope Pius IX wrote:

Religion is in no sense the enemy of progress . . . If there is an immobility which in fact she cannot renounce, it is the immobility of the principles and doctrines which are divinely revealed. These can never change . . . [Heb 13:8] But for religious truths, there is progress only in their development, their penetration, their practice: in themselves they remain essentially immutable . . . All the truths divinely revealed have always been believed; they have always been a part of the deposit confided to the Church. But some of them must from time to time, according to circumstances and necessity, be placed in a stronger light and more firmly established. This is the sense in which the Church draws from her treasure new things . . . [Matt 13:52] (Allocution to the Religious Art Exposition, Rome, May 16, 1870; in Papal Teachings, ibid., 208)

In all this, Pius was merely reflecting (note the very similar wording in his first statement above: “same dogma, in the same sense and the same meaning”) the constant teaching of the Church, as stated classically by the 5th century by St. Vincent of Lerins (whom the same council cited, in its explicit espousal of development of doctrine):

[6.] Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense “Catholic,” which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent . . .[54.] But some one will say. perhaps, Shall there, then, be no progress in Christ’s Church? Certainly; all possible progress . . . Yet on condition that it be real progress, not alteration of the faith. For progress requires that the subject be enlarged in itself, alteration, that it be transformed into something else . . . but yet only in its own kind; that is to say, in the same doctrine, in the same sense, and in the same meaning.

[55.] The growth of religion in the soul must be analogous to the growth of the body, which, though in process of years it is developed and attains its full size, yet remains still the same. There is a wide difference between the flower of youth and the maturity of age; yet they who were once young are still the same now that they have become old, inasmuch that though the stature and outward form of the individual are changed, yet his nature is one and the same, his person is one and the same . . . nothing new is produced in them when old which was not already latent in them when children. This, then, is undoubtedly the true and legitimate rule of progress . . .

[56.] In like manner, it behooves Christian doctrine to follow the same laws of progress, so as to be consolidated by years, enlarged by time, refined by age, and yet, withal, to continue uncorrupt and unadulterate, . . . admitting no change, no waste of its distinctive property, no variation in its limits.

[57] . . . when in process of time any of the original seed is developed, and now flourishes under cultivation, no change may ensue in the character of the plant. There may supervene shape, form, variation in outward appearance, but the nature of each kind must remain the same . . . They may receive proof, illustration, definiteness; but they must retain withal their completeness, their integrity, their characteristic properties. (The Commonitorium [Notebooks] )

There is no contradiction here at all. Readers can follow the link to the documentation of the explicit acceptance of development of doctrine by the First Vatican Council. St. Thomas Aquinas, too, accepted all these “fine distinctions,” as I thoroughly documented:

It was necessary to promulgate confessions of faith which in no way differ, save that in one it is more fully explicated which in another is contained implicitly. (Summa Theologiae [ST] 1, q.36, a.2 ad 2)And so it is no wonder, after the rise of various errors, if modern teachers of the faith speak more cautiously and seemingly perfectly concerning the doctrine of faith so that all heresy might be avoided. Hence, if some things in the writings of ancient teachers is found which is not said with as much caution as maintained by moderns, they are not to be condemned or cast aside; but it is not necessary to embrace these things, but interpret them reverently. (Preface to Contra errores Graecorum)

What therefore in the time of ancient councils was not yet necessary is posited here explicitly. But later it was expressed, with the rising error of certain people, in a Council gathered in the West by the authority of the Roman pontiff, by whose authority the ancient councils were also gathered and confirmed. It was contained nevertheless implicitly when it was said that Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. (ST 1, q.36, a.2 ad 2)

. . . according to 1 Cor. 1:10: “That you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you”: and this could not be secured unless any question of faith that may arise be decided by him who presides over the whole Church, so that the whole Church may hold firmly to his decision. Consequently it belongs to the sole authority of the Sovereign Pontiff to publish a new edition of
the symbol, as do all other matters which concern the whole Church, such as to convoke a general council and so forth. (ST 2-2, q.1, a.10 [” Whether it belongs to the Sovereign Pontiff to draw up a symbol of faith?”]; see too Yves M.-J. Congar, O.P., “Saint Thomas Aquinas and the Infallibility of the Papal Magisterium” The Thomist 38 [1974] 81-105)

We find precisely the same thought process and paradigm (as in St. Vincent, St. Thomas Aquinas, Pope Pius IX, and St. Cardinal Newman) in Pope Pius XII, who infallibly defined the Bodily Assumption of Mary ex cathedra in 1950. In that same year, within three months of his definition, in another well-known and important encyclical, he wrote:

[T]heologians must always return to the sources of divine revelation: for it belongs to them to point out how the doctrine of the living Teaching Authority is to be found either explicitly or implicitly in the Scriptures and in Tradition. Besides, each source of divinely revealed doctrine contains so many rich treasures of truth, that they can really never be exhausted. Hence it is that theology through the study of its sacred sources remains ever fresh . . . together with the sources of positive theology God has given to His Church a living Teaching Authority to elucidate and explain what is contained in the deposit of faith only obscurely and implicitly. (Encyclical Humani Generis, August 12, 1950; in Papal Teachings, ibid., 659)

And in the very proclamation which contained the definition itself, he stated:

. . . the Universal Church, within which dwells the Spirit of Truth who infallibly directs it towards an ever more perfect knowledge of the revealed truths . . . (Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus, November 1, 1950; in Papal Teachings, ibid., 318)

X. The Papacy as a Second Test Case for the Catholic “Developmental Synthesis”
*
. . . the authority claims of the Roman Catholic Church are derived primarily from the doctrine of the papacy. But what if the papacy is itself a doctrinal development?
*

It certainly is! This is the point: we are maintaining that all doctrines develop. The Bible developed (in the unfolding of its actual writing and progressive revelation through the centuries). The canon of the Bible developed. Notions of development themselves developed (though St. Vincent expressed it in virtually all its fundamental aspects, which Newman merely elaborated upon 14 centuries later). Christology, soteriology, Mariology, eschatology, trinitarianism, the papacy, angelology, ecclesiology, etc., etc., all develop over time.

. . . The Catholic Church claims that the earliest Christians everywhere, not just in one region, viewed Peter and the bishops of Rome as having universal jurisdiction over all Christians on earth, including authority over the other apostles.

We do not claim that (and my lengthy citation from Newman already expressed this). We believe that the papacy developed just like every other doctrine, and that it was contained in the apostolic deposit and has a fairly clear biblical rationale, but not that absolutely all Christians everywhere accepted it. There are always exceptions to a consensus, just as with the New Testament canon and Christology. There are always dissidents or heretics or schismatics with regard to any Christian belief. I’m sure Jason has in mind the “Vincentian canon” (“that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all.”).

But in addition to never mentioning that Vincent discusses development in the same book (and gives the fullest exposition in the Fathers), contra-Catholic polemicists don’t seem to notice Vincent’s qualification at the end of the same section: “We shall follow . . . antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.”

This is what the Catholic Church means by “unanimous consent of the fathers.” It doesn’t mean “absolutely all, without exception,” but rather, “overwhelming consensus” (which has exceptions – just as in the case of the Fathers and the canon. Protestants like Jason exaggerate to the max all exceptions to the developing consensus on the papacy or Mariology, while minimizing and downplaying similar numerous instances of departure from the developing canonical or trinitarian consensus. This will not do. Once again, Catholic dogmatic and apologetic thought is consistent, whereas Protestant polemics is not. Not understanding the above factor, and the synthesis of development with “always believed by all” and “[oftentimes implicit only] presence in the apostolic deposit,” Jason goes on to make wrongheaded statements like:

But what does Cardinal Newman tell us we should see in the first century? He tells us that the papacy “did not at once show itself upon the surface of ecclesiastical affairs”. How can the papacy be a clear doctrine of scripture that people with perverse opinions deny, as the First Vatican Council claimed, if it was a doctrine below the surface during the earliest centuries of Christianity?

How can the Catholic Church claim that the evidence for a doctrine is clear and universally held while being below the surface at the same time? Cardinal Newman suggests that the evidence for a papacy in the earliest centuries could be “much or little”, but the teachings of Catholicism don’t allow “little” as an option. Catholics can’t argue that the papacy was clear and known to every Christian in the earliest centuries while arguing, at the same time, that the papacy was showing little evidence of its existence and was operating below the surface.

The best explanation for the papacy not being mentioned in the early centuries is that no papacy existed at the time.

The first of Dave’s two quotes also fails to prove that Augustine believed in a papacy . . . In other passages, Augustine refers to all bishops as successors of Peter. Did Augustine hold the Roman church and its bishop in high regard? Yes. Did he view the bishop of Rome as a Pope? No, . . . he rejected the doctrine of the papacy . . . I don’t see any reason to conclude that Augustine viewed the bishop of Rome as having a primacy of jurisdiction.

The Catholic Church tells us that there was an oak tree since the first century. Maybe there’s a small amount of growth in the branches, and maybe there’s a new leaf here and there. But the acorn Dave Armstrong, Cardinal Newman, and other Catholic apologists refer to is contrary to the teachings of Roman Catholicism.

Since the Catholic Church claims that the papacy, one with universal jurisdiction, is clear in scripture and was accepted by all first century Christians, the reader should compare the claims of the Catholic Church quoted above with the New Testament.

Jason then launches into a lengthy critique of the papacy and patristic support for same. That, too, has been dealt with in many of my papers and links on my site.

Cardinal Newman claims that “No doctrine is defined till it is violated”. What does he mean by “defined” and “violated”?

He meant by that what St. Thomas Aquinas meant:

It was necessary as time went on to express the faith more explicitly against the errors which arose. (Summa Theologiae 2-2, q.1, a.10 ad 1)

And what St. Augustine meant:

For while the hot restlessness of heretics stirs questions about many articles of the catholic faith, the necessity of defending them forces us both to investigate them more accurately, to understand them more clearly, and to proclaim them more earnestly; and the question mooted by an adversary becomes the occasion of instruction . . . (City of God, Book 16, chapter 2)

He refers to the Trinity not being “defined” until later in church history. The term “Trinity” is used as early as the second century. The concepts of Trinitarianism, such as the deity and co-existence of the three Persons, are explicitly Biblical and explicitly taught by church fathers long before the fourth century.

The fully developed theology was certainly not “explicitly biblical,” and wasn’t fully defined until Chalcedon in 451 and even later in some additional respects (against Monothelite heretics). Are we to conclude that Jason doesn’t know what Newman refers to when he speaks of a doctrine being “defined”?

XI. The Propriety and Purpose of the Citation of Protestant Scholars by Catholics / The Keys and Binding and Loosing
*
If those scholars go on to make arguments against the papal interpretation of Matthew 16, and you can’t refute those arguments, then it’s misleading for you to cite those scholars agreeing with part of your interpretation of the passage.

*

Not at all, as long as it is made clear that one is citing them in agreement on a particular point, just as I have cited many authorities in agreement with me on the canon, in particulars, all the while knowing full well that they don’t accept the Catholic canon themselves. That is what makes for an excellent citation, because a Protestant scholar can’t be accused of Catholic bias (and is held in much higher esteem by Protestant dialogical opponents).

In fact, Jason utilizes the same technique throughout his paper; citing Catholic historians and other scholars (though, oftentimes, liberal or heterodox ones; whereas I cite solidly evangelical, orthodox Protestant scholars and works) when he thinks they agree with him on some point of contention. But I guess he believes that is okay for him to do, whereas it is sinister and impermissible for me to use the same methodology in citing Protestant scholars in partial agreement with one or other of my views.

For example, R. T. France and D. A. Carson agree with you that Peter is the rock of Matthew 16. They also cite Isaiah 22 as being relevant to the interpretation of the keys of Matthew 16.

As I stated in my arguments utilizing their words, of course . . .

But France and Carson also explain that the other disciples are given the same authority as Peter in Matthew 18:18.

They are given the powers to bind and loose. As I stated in my book, that meant primarily to sacramentally forgive sins and to impose or soften penances (as derived from previous rabbinic usage). Catholics believe all priests can do that. The other disciples were not, however, called the Rock, upon whom Jesus said He would build His Church. Nor are they all “prime ministers” of the kingdom (the Church), as the exegetical argument from Isaiah 22 entails. There is only one prime minister in England, for example. Not everyone in the House of Commons is a co-prime minister. There was one Winston Churchill holding that office, not a hundred of them.

Carson cites the key mentioned in Luke 11:52 in his discussion of Matthew 16. Should we conclude that the people in Luke 11:52 had papal authority? How about the other figures in the Bible who are referred to as possessing keys? Were they all Popes?

Of course not, because the “key of knowledge” is not the same as the “keys of the kingdom,” given by Jesus to Peter alone.

When a scholar like France or Carson explains that what’s said of Peter in Matthew 16 is also said of other people in other passages, why cite such scholars?

I cited them because they believed that Peter himself was the Rock: a position contrary to the traditional and anti-institutional Protestant polemic that his faith was the Rock Jesus referred to.

You can’t refute their denial of the papal interpretation of Matthew 16.

I believe I just did. It wasn’t that difficult, if I do say so.

Why cite them agreeing with part of your interpretation when they also refute the other part?

Because I seek to support each of the particulars of my argument with Protestant scholarly backing, precisely because the constant accusation is that Catholic positions lack biblical support. If we are accused by Protestants of straining at gnats in our biblical arguments for the papacy, we go cite worthy exegetes and commentators such as France and Carson, or (e.g., concerning the canon), respected experts such as Bruce or Schaff or the various evangelical Protestant reference works and commentaries (which I love and consult all the time, and learn much from). Why is this so hard to understand? It’s called “hostile witness” or “logic” or “cumulative argument.” It is a standard argumentative technique or methodology (and, I think, highly effective, which is why I like to use it a lot, as plainly seen in this present paper).

Many Protestant scholars view Peter as the rock of Matthew 16, and that isn’t a problem for Protestantism.

No one said it was. But it is a support for the Catholic view that Peter is the Rock! That is one argument among many for Petrine primacy and the papacy.

But when Ephesians 2 refers to all of the apostles being foundation stones of the church, that is problematic for Catholicism.

Not in the slightest. Many bishops are not “problematic” for one pope. It’s not an “either/or” dichotomous scenario. We’ve been doing this for 2000 years. This is called an “ecumenical council.”

The keys of the kingdom are possessed by other people as well, not just Peter. Matthew 18:18 proves that.

That refers to “binding and loosing,” not to the keys of the kingdom, which were only given by Jesus to Peter. By cross-exegesis, we find that this means that Peter was the prime minister of the “kingdom” (i.e., of the Church).

You can’t logically separate the keys from the binding/loosing and opening/shutting. Some passages mention only a key (Luke 11:52), some mention only binding/loosing or opening/shutting (Matthew 23:13), and some mention both (Revelation 9:1-2). They’re all part of the same imagery. If you have the key, you can bind and loose and open and shut. And if you can bind/loose and open/shut, then you have the key. For example, when Revelation 1:18 refers to Jesus having keys, but doesn’t refer to Him being able to bind and loose or open and shut, it would be absurd to conclude that Jesus therefore wasn’t able to bind/loose and open/shut. If Jesus has the keys, it goes without saying that He can bind and loose and open and shut. It’s ridiculous, then, to argue that the keys of Matthew 16 are something separate from the power of binding and loosing.

Obviously, the Catholic argument is that possessing the keys of the kingdom is a special (and extraordinary) instance and application of possessing the keys. I went through this in great depth in our first dialogue.

In the . . . exercise of the power of the keys, in ecclesiastical discipline, the thought is of administrative authority (Is 22:22) with regard to the requirements of the household of faith . . . So Peter, in T. W. Manson’s words, is to be ‘God’s vicegerent . . . The authority of Peter is an authority to declare what is right and wrong for the Christian community. His decisions will be confirmed by God’ (The Sayings of Jesus, 1954, p.205). (New Bible Dictionary, ed. J.D. Douglas, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1962, 1018)

Just as in Isaiah 22:22 the Lord puts the keys of the house of David on the shoulders of his servant Eliakim, so does Jesus hand over to Peter the keys of the house of the kingdom of heaven and by the same stroke establishes him as his superintendent. There is a connection between the house of the Church, the construction of which has just been mentioned and of which Peter is the foundation, and the celestial house of which he receives the keys. The connection between these two images is the notion of God’s people. (Oscar Cullmann, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, Neuchatel: Delachaux & Niestle, 1952 French ed., 183-184)

And what about the “keys of the kingdom”? . . . About 700 B.C. an oracle from God announced that this authority in the royal palace in Jerusalem was to be conferred on a man called Eliakim . . . (Isa. 22:22). So in the new community which Jesus was about to build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward. (F. F. Bruce, The Hard Sayings of Jesus, Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1983, 143-144)

Jesus asks a question in Matthew 16:15. Who answers the question? Peter does (Matthew 16:16). Since Peter answered the question, would it make sense for Jesus to respond by speaking to Thomas?

This is the whole force of the point: he was made the Rock of the Church by Jesus, and why Protestants who agree with that are important to cite. If what was meant was only Peter’s faith, then Jason’s point would hold. But if the Rock is Peter Himself, then that makes him (given the context in which it occurred, and cross references) unique in the Church.

XII. Wrapping Up: Final Statements
*
When we read the writings of a Dave Armstrong, a Cardinal Newman, or a Raymond Brown, are we seeing the spirit of the Council of Trent?

*

In my case and Newman’s, yes (because we are orthodox). In Fr. Brown’s case, no (sadly), as he was a theological liberal in several respects.

Did the Catholics of the Reformation era argue the way these Catholic apologists have argued in more recent times?

In terms of the dogma of development or orthodox espousal of Catholic doctrine, yes (as we saw in Thomas Aquinas 300 years before Trent, and Vincent of Lerins 1100 years previously); in terms of exact methodology or terminology, no, because different times call for different approaches in apologetics, and we have had almost 500 more years of development of Catholic theology and apologetics, and the advent of Protestantism to contend with.

Would they agree with today’s Catholic apologists who say that doctrines like transubstantiation and priestly confession only existed as acorns early on, not becoming oak trees until centuries after the time of the apostles?

Absolutely, as I have shown beyond all doubt. I guess this is all new news to Jason, so we shall wait and see (in charity) if he is willing to modify his mistaken views or not, based on all of this documentation and information contrary to the paradigm he has constructed as to the historical beliefs of the Catholic Church.

The argument for development of doctrine, as it’s used by today’s Catholic apologists, is unverifiable, irrational, and contrary to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. It’s a nebulous excuse for Roman Catholic teachings being absent and contradicted in early church history. It’s so nebulous, so vague, so speculative, that it can be molded into many different shapes, according to the personal preferences and circumstances of the Catholic apologist who’s using the argument. When you interact with these Catholic apologists enough to get them to be more specific, as I’ve been doing with Dave Armstrong, the results for the Catholic side of the debate are disastrous. We’ve seen Dave not only repeatedly contradict the facts of history, but also repeatedly contradict the teachings of his own denomination. One of the characteristics of the modern defenders of Catholicism is that they don’t defend Catholicism. They don’t like all that’s developed.

Readers can judge for themselves whether my dialogue with Jason has been “disastrous” for my side of the argument. We all learn new things all the time, and have to modify our understanding and point of view, based on the additional knowledge we come across. It is my devout wish and hope that Jason will welcome this opportunity to better understand what the Catholic Church teaches, rather than reject this information out of hand — simply because some new insight might have come from his Catholic “opponent” (who is, in fact, his brother in Christ) — and that he will persuade his apologetic cohorts to do so as well.

If what I write is Bible truth and Christian truth, then the power of that truth lies not in me, but in the inherent dynamism that all truth possesses to (by God’s grace) enter into a man’s heart and soul, convict and compel him, if only he is willing to follow it wherever it leads, and to listen to the inner voice of the Holy Spirit, backed up (I believe, and I hope) by the objective and reasonable and biblically grounded evidences presented herein.

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,200+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-one books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

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!

***

Photo credit: dnet (1-11-08) [Wikimedia Commons /  Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License]

***

Summary: Wide-ranging & very substantive dialogue on many aspects of development of doctrine, with Protestant apologist Jason Engwer: concentrating on the biblical canon.

Follow Us!



Browse Our Archives