September 26, 2023

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: apologistdave@gmail.com. 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.

September 23, 2023

[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: apologistdave@gmail.com. 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.

July 19, 2023

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: apologistdave@gmail.com. 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.

April 22, 2023

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: apologistdave@gmail.com. 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.

***

 

April 4, 2023

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: apologistdave@gmail.com. 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.

March 13, 2023

Jason Engwer, a Protestant apologist who runs the Triablogue site, wrote posts entitled, “Agreement Among The Gospels About How Jesus Raised The Dead” (5-29-22) and “Did Jesus offer support for praying to the deceased by speaking to people he raised from the dead?” (3-5-23).  I replied with my article, “Prayers to and for the Dead: Did Jesus & Peter Talk to Dead People Before They Rose from the Dead, and — Along with Elijah and Elisha — Pray for the Dead, or Only Ask Them to Move After They Were Raised?” (3-5-23). Jason then replied to me with his piece, “Do Luke 8:55 and Acts 9:40 support praying to the dead?” (3-9-23). His words will be in blue. My Bible passages are from RSV.

*****

Jason never mentions my name in his counter-reply. But it’s clearly replying to my piece, since the two verses in his title were prominent in my reply, and he starts out by writing:

Let’s consider some objections to my post earlier this week about whether Jesus and Peter offered support for praying to the deceased when they spoke to people they raised from the dead in the gospels and Acts. Probably the two best passages that could be cited in support of interpreting this material in a way that supports prayers to the deceased are Luke 8:55 and Acts 9:40.

I had answered him on the same day he wrote his second of two articles on the topic, and his current reply came four days after that. It’s not rocket science to put two and two together.

Luke 8 mentions the return of the girl’s spirit to her body after mentioning Jesus’ comment to her. Acts 9:40 says that Peter turned to the woman’s body just before speaking to her, and we don’t normally refer to a living person with a phrase like “the body”. Rather, it’s more common to use that language when referring to a corpse. Shouldn’t we conclude, then, that Jesus and Peter were speaking to the dead in these passages, which offers support for praying to the deceased?

That was indeed my central argument. If he can’t bring himself to link to my article, so that people can read it in context, at least the next best thing is to accurately describe it to his readers. I thank him for this courtesy, which is not always a given in discussions like these, believe me.

I cited several resurrection passages across both the Old and New Testaments. The resurrections often, but not always, occur through touching (1 Kings 17:21-23, 2 Kings 4:34-37, 13:21, Acts 20:10) or occur in passages that mention touching in a way that possibly or probably was instrumental to the raising of the dead person (Matthew 9:25, Mark 5:41-42, Luke 7:14-15, 8:54-55). Notice that the two passages cited in the title of this post are in Luke’s writings and that a few of the passages just cited in this paragraph are from his writings. So, Luke is one of the sources who often associates touching with the raising of the dead.

It’s true that touching is usually involved. Jesus routinely used the physical (analogous to sacramentalism) when healing. In one case He made mud with His own saliva and rubbed it in a blind man’s eyes. The question at hand, however, is whether He and others spoke to, and/or prayed for dead persons while they were dead. This, of course, is anathema to Protestantism, which is why Jason is fighting so hard to try to escape from this interpretation of these passages having to do with raising the dead. I shall contend that he is desperately special pleading, and bring several Protestant commentators as my witnesses.

Jason proves nothing if he can’t establish with a high degree of plausibility that in all cases (or even one undeniable one) the talking and prayers occurred after the person was dead. It will do no good for him to appeal to cases where no words are mentioned. That’s simply an ineffectual argument from silence. Moreover, if the text mentions no words, it’s not proof that none were spoken (only that none were recorded, either because none were indeed spoken, or because the writer chose not to include them, for whatever reason). But that’s an argument from silence, too. In other words, this particular dispute is a wash.

But we can analyze the passages where words are recorded, to try to determine when they were uttered, which is a crucial issue to be resolved in relation to prayers to and for the dead. The first passage that Jason mentions is 1 Kings 17:21-23, where the prophet Elijah raised a child from the dead. But he doesn’t present the passage in full to his readers. I did (with 17:17-20 added):

1 Kings 17:21-22 Then he stretched himself upon the child three times, and cried to the LORD, “O LORD my God, let this child’s soul come into him again.” [22] And the LORD hearkened to the voice of Eli’jah; and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived.

Now, Jason makes an argument that these texts aren’t necessarily chronological. He wrote:

Why, then, does Luke 8:55 mention the return of the girl’s spirit after Jesus’ comment to the girl? Probably because Luke isn’t mentioning things in chronological order. People often write chronologically, but not always. Go on to verse 56. It mentions that the girl’s parents were amazed. Did their amazement not begin until after the events of verse 55? No, they surely were amazed as soon as they saw their daughter’s body moving. They wouldn’t have waited until after she had gotten up and started walking to be amazed. They would have been amazed as soon as she even started to get up, if not sooner (e.g., seeing her breathing, seeing her eyes open). What Luke is doing is focusing on some events centered around Jesus (verse 54), then focusing on events centered around the girl (verse 55), then focusing on events centered around the parents (verse 56). It doesn’t follow that the events of each of the latter two verses happened after what’s mentioned in the previous verse(s). There could be some overlap in the chronology involved. Maybe an analogy would help here. Let’s say I’m describing what a man and his wife did one day. I mention the man’s activities in chronological order: going to work, going to the bank after work to deposit a check, etc. And I mention his wife’s activities in chronological order: doing some shopping, making dinner, etc. Since I mentioned the wife’s activities after her husband’s, does it follow that everything the wife did occurred after everything the husband did? If the last activity I mentioned in the man’s life was going to bed, and the first activity I mentioned in the woman’s life was getting out of bed, does it follow that she got out of bed, went shopping, etc. after her husband went to bed? Of course not. Rather, their activities overlapped. She was shopping while her husband was at work, she was making dinner while he was going to the bank, and so on. I shifted my focus from the man’s activities to the woman’s without intending to suggest that the woman’s activities occurred later. Given the totality of the evidence, as discussed in this post and my previous two, Luke seems to be doing the same kind of thing in Luke 8.

I’ll get to Luke 8 in due course, and I freely grant that Bible writers not infrequently do not write according to strict chronology. But let’s apply this reasoning to 1 Kings 17:21-22. How does this argument overcome the clear data there? It simply cannot, because included in Elijah’s prayer is proof that he was praying for a dead person (“O LORD my God, let this child’s soul come into him again”). There’s absolutely no way to explain that away, according to hostile Protestant theology, that such an event is supposedly impossible and indeed, wicked.

Resorting to a non-literal “chronology” is powerless against it. Elijah is praying regarding a child whose soul has left him (the very definition of death), and whose soul returns, in answer to his prayer, as indicated by the next verse  (“and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived”). Like I said last time: game, set, match (that’s a tennis term, for those unfamiliar with it). Maybe this is why Jason ignored this counter-argument of mine. If you have no cogent reply, you can either concede and retract, or ignore your opponent’s argument. Jason opted for the latter, lest he be embroiled in the horrifying and unthinkable circumstance — an existential crisis, in fact — of having to admit that a Catholic has the better exegetical argument.

One of the most well-known principles of biblical interpretation, or hermeneutics, is to interpret the less clear passages from the clear ones. I just did that by presenting 1 Kings 17:21-22. But Jason wants to do the opposite: ignore this crystal-clear verse (as he in effect does by refusing to exegete it) and draw a conclusion from mere speculation about less clear passages, involving the perpetually weak argument from silence logical fallacy. This impresses no one familiar with logic (I took a course in it, in college).

It’s the same dynamic in the similar passage where Elisha raises the dead, which Jason includes in his list (and which I also wrote out in my previous reply, for the convenience of my readers). Elisha “went up and lay upon the child, putting his mouth upon his mouth, his eyes upon his eyes, and his hands upon his hands; and as he stretched himself upon him, the flesh of the child became warm” (2 Kgs 4:34). I think it’s pretty clear that the latter clause is a synonym for “came to life.”

Jason’s other point is that touch is the key factor in play (it certainly is). But again, that tells us nothing about when prayers occurred, unless the text expressly informs us. Here is Jason’s argument (I actually want my readers to read opposing views, so they can better make up their minds):

In addition to that larger context related to resurrections and touching, notice that all three of the versions of the Luke 8 resurrection (found in each of the Synoptics) involve touching. In fact, Matthew’s account mentions the touching without mentioning Jesus’ comment to the girl. Since the touching is the common denominator in all three of these Synoptic passages, whereas Jesus’ comment isn’t even mentioned in Matthew’s account, the touching seems to be the most plausible candidate for the means by which the resurrection was brought about. And Mark and Luke mention the touching before mentioning Jesus’ comment, which suggests that the girl came back to life before Jesus spoke to her. Matthew’s account has Jairus saying that Jesus can resurrect his daughter by touch, saying, “lay your hand on her, and she will live” (9:18). That’s probably why Matthew only mentions the touching, without saying anything about Jesus’ comment to the girl. It was the touch that raised her from the dead.

Further support for that reading is found in the healing that’s narrated just before this resurrection in every one of the Synoptics. Jesus heals a woman with a hemorrhage when she touches his cloak. It would make sense for two miracles brought about through touching to be grouped together in each of the Synoptics. The fact that each of the Synoptic accounts in question is preceded by an account of healing through touch increases the likelihood that the touching is the means of the resurrection mentioned in the next account.

Jason mentions Matthew 9:25:

Matthew 9:25 But when the crowd had been put outside, he went in and took her by the hand, and the girl arose.

Catholics don’t have to deny that touch was a key component. It certainly was, but this doesn’t affect our argument as to prayer for the dead. This passage doesn’t include Jesus talking to her or praying for her, but the cross-reference (Lk 8:54-55) does. Matthew simply omits that part. The individual Gospels often don’t include every detail, or present different (but complementary) details, which we fully understand from reading all of them in harmony. Thus, we interpret the less explicit passage by the clearer one with more detail.

Luke includes these words. Jesus said, “Child, arise” and then the text states: “And her spirit returned.” Thus (since we believe in inspired, inerrant Scripture), we know what happened. Jesus simultaneously talked to the dead and prayed for the dead (that the person would rise from the dead). Protestants maintain that neither thing can or should occur. Then they have a huge problem, don’t they? Flatly disagreeing with Jesus is not a good place for any Christian to be. Another passage Jason mentions is more like Luke:

Mark 5:41-42 Taking her by the hand he said to her, “Tal’itha cu’mi”; which means, “Little girl, I say to you, arise.” [42] And immediately the girl got up and walked (she was twelve years of age), and they were immediately overcome with amazement.

This includes Jesus’ touch and then words which we would say constitute prayer for and in effect also to the dead. Jason, however, argues a thing that is absolutely absent from the text: that the girl had already been raised as soon as he touched her, then, by his saying “arise” she demonstrated to the onlookers that she was raised. I submit that this is not straightforward, common sense exegesis, and that it is, rather, eisegesis (reading into a text what isn’t there).

He argues from silence and sheer speculation, demanded by a prior predisposition; I argue from recourse to the cross-reference parallel text which is clearer and more explicit: “taking her by the hand he called, saying, ‘Child, arise.’ And her spirit returned” (Lk 8:54-55). See the two different methodologies of exegesis and hermeneutics? Which do you (dear reader) find more plausible? Make up your own mind. I have given you both sides of the argument: each from its proponent. That’s what I always do in debates. I assume the intelligence, open-mindedness, and critical capabilities of my readers (whatever their denominational affiliation). Jason provides another example of a raising:

Luke 7:14-15 And he came and touched the bier, and the bearers stood still. And he said, “Young man, I say to you, arise.” [15] And the dead man sat up, and began to speak. And he gave him to his mother.

Again, I submit that the straightforward, common-sense reading is that Jesus commanded the man to rise, then “the dead man sat up” and spoke. He prayed for him (a dead man) and spoke to him, and then he rose from the dead. But Jason would have it, — with no explicit evidence whatsoever — that he was raised already when Jesus spoke to him. This passage is interesting in that Jesus didn’t touch the dead person; He only touched the “bier” (a platform on which a coffin sits). So this doesn’t fit Jason’s proposed pattern, but it perfectly fits our interpretation and theology.

There’s not much more we can say about these matters. All we can really do at this point is appeal to prominent Protestant commentators, in order to see if they think these people were dead when Jesus talked to them and/or prayed for them to be risen, and if the immediate cause of His raising them was His touch or word. Here we go. Let’s take them in reverse order:

Luke 7:14-15

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary: . . . with a word of command, bringing back life to the dead body . . .

Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible: and he said, young man, I say unto thee, arise. The Ethiopic version adds, “and he arose”: Christ spoke as one that had the keys of death and the grave; and divine power went along with his words, which raised the dead man to life . . .

Pulpit CommentaryYoung man, I say unto thee, Arise. The Lord of life performed his miracle over death in a very different fashion to those great ones who, in some respects, had anticipated or followed him in these strange deeds of wonder. Before they recalled the dead to life, Elijah mourned long over the sea of the widow of Sarepta, Elisha repeatedly stretched himself as he agonized in prayer upon the lifeless corpse of the Shunammite boy, Peter prayed very earnestly over the body of Dorcas at Lydda. The Master, with one solitary word, brings the spirit from its mysterious habitation back to its old earthly tenement – “K;m!” “Arise!”

Alford’s Greek Testament Critical Exegetical Commentary: All three raisings from the dead are wrought with words of power,—‘Damsel, arise,’—‘Young man, arise,’—‘Lazarus, come forth.’

Calvin’s Commentaries: Young man, I say to thee. By this word Christ proved the truth of the saying of Paul, that God calleth those things which are not, as they were, (Romans 4:17.) He addresses the dead man, and makes himself be heard, so that death is suddenly changed into life. We have here, in the first place, a striking emblem of the future resurrection, as Ezekiel is commanded to say, O ye dry bones, hear the word of the Lord, [37:4.] Secondly, we are taught in what manner Christ quickens us spiritually by faith. It is when he infuses into his word a secret power, so that it enters into dead souls, as he himself declares, The hour cometh, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they who hear shall live, (John 5:25.)

This is from a web page that presents many Protestant commentaries. I can find none that take Jason’s interpretation. The ones that clearly state when and how the resurrection occurred agree with my position. John Calvin’s take is particularly striking and decisive and completely contrary to Jason’s position.

Mark 5:41-42

Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers: Talitha cumi.—Here, as in the Ephphatha of Mark 7:34, the Evangelist gives the very syllables which had fallen from the lips of the Healer, and been proved to be words of power.

Bengel’s Gnomen: Talitha was used but once; for Jesus, in raising the dead, did not employ Epizeuxis [repetition of the same word; see Append.], Luke 7:14John 11:43. For His power was always instantaneous in its effect; comp. Numbers 20:11.—σοὶ λέγωI say unto thee). . .

Again, of the commentaries that took a definite stance on our issue, this is what I found. I couldn’t find any that agree with Jason. If there are some, I’m sure he will present them in his next “reply” to me, where I am not named. :-)

Matthew 9:25

Benson Commentary: As if he had been going to awake her out of sleep: and, with a gentle voice, but such as the persons in the chamber could easily hear, he said, Talitha cumi, which is, Damsel, arise. See Mark. And the maid arose — In an instant she revived and sat up, just like a person who, being called, awakes out of a soft sleep. Luke says, Her spirit came again; an expression which implies that she was really dead, and that the soul exists separately after the body dies . . .

Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible: His taking her by the hand, was not all that he did, but he called, as to a person asleep, and said unto her these words, “Talitha cumi”, as recorded by Mark, and are also in Munster’s Hebrew Gospel of Matthew; and which, in the Syriac language, signify, “maiden, arise”; and immediately, directly, as soon as ever he had thus said, the maid arose, as out of sleep; she revived, her soul came to her again, and she got off of the bed, and walked about house, and food was ordered to be given to her. All which most fully demonstrated that she was really restored to life, which was as clear a case, as that before she was really dead.

Note that these commentators incorporate Jesus’ words from parallel verses, even though they don’t appear in Matthew 9:25. That’s how importantly they take into account undoubted cross-references, because they believe in biblical inspiration and hence, internal harmony.

Calvin’s Commentaries: he proves the efficacy of the Gospel for quickening men from the fact, that at the last day he will raise the dead by his voice out of their graves.

It’s the same thing again: I can find no commentaries that reason as Jason does, and several that fully agree with my view. And remember, these are all Protestant sources, with no bias towards prayer for the dead.

Luke 8:54-55

Calvin’s Commentaries: It is easy to learn from this the great efficacy of the voice of Christ, which reaches even to the dead, and exerts a quickening influence on death itself. Accordingly, Luke says that her spirit returned, or, in other words, that immediately on being called, it obeyed the command of Christ.

Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible: And her spirit came again,…. Her soul, which was departed from her, upon the all-powerful voice of Christ, returned to her body; and “re-entered”, as the Ethiopic version adds: this shows that the soul is immortal, and dies not with the body; that it exists in a separate state from it after death, and will hereafter re-enter the body, and be again united to it in the resurrection . . .

Ditto . . .

Acts 9:40

Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible: and [Peter] kneeled down and prayed; it may be, as yet, he had not the mind of God in this matter, and therefore betook himself to prayer, in which he chose to be private and alone: and turning him to the body; the corpse of Dorcas, after he had prayed, and was well assured that the power of Christ would be exerted in raising of it: said, Tabitha, arise; which words were spoken in the name and faith of Christ, and were all one as, if Christ himself had spoken them; for to his power, and not to the apostles, is the following miracle to be ascribed: and she opened her eyes; which, upon her death, had been closed by her friends; . . .

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges: Asking God that the consolation to be given to these mourners might be the restoration of the dead woman to life.

Calvin’s Commentaries: Turning towards the corpse. This seemeth also to be contrary to reason, that he speaketh unto a corpse without feeling; but this speaking unto the dead corpse was one point of the vehemency whereunto the Spirit of God enforced Peter. And if any man desire a reason, this form of speech doth more lively express the power of God in raising the dead, than if it should be said in the third person, let this body receive life again and live. Therefore, when as Ezekiel doth shadow the deliverance of the people under a figure of the resurrection: “O dead bones,” (saith he,) “hear the word of the Lord,” (Ezekiel 37:4.) And Christ saith, “The time shall come when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God,” (John 5:25.) For this was indeed the voice of Christ, which was uttered by the mouth of Peter, and gave [back] breath to the body of Tabitha. The circumstances following serve to confirm the certainty of the miracle.

Ditto.

I rest my case, as to exegesis and [Protestant] biblical commentary.

Prayer to God is mentioned explicitly and frequently from Genesis onward. The lack of references to praying to the deceased is best explained by a lack of the practice, including in the timeframe leading up to and just after the Luke 8 passage.

Now Jason is trying to defend his predisposition that he brings to this issue: that no one prayed for the dead or even talked to them. This, too, is false. Jesus taught in Luke 16 that the rich man who was dead and in Hades, prayed to the dead Abraham; making both a petition and an intercessory request. Abraham turns him down (just as God declines some prayers), but never says that he shouldn’t ask him these things (as he was bound to do if Jason is right). The usual reply is that this is a parable, and as such, irrelevant. But that won’t do. Parables never include proper names, as this story does.

But even if we grant that it’s a parable, this attempted “escape” from its implications accomplishes nothing, since Jesus couldn’t have taught falsehood and theological error in it. Parables are for moral and theological instruction. No parable contains, for example, admonitions to lust or murder or greed. They cannot and could not do so, for that would be leading people astray and calling evil good. Therefore, even if Lazarus and the rich man is regarded as a parable, Jesus couldn’t teach the false theology (assuming Protestant premises for the sake of argument) of asking a dead man to answer a petition and intercessory request. The fact that He did do so is proof that the thing is correct and permissible. As an extra bonus it comes eight chapters after the disputed passage in Luke 8.

– The Old Testament prohibitions of attempting to contact the deceased include references to consulting mediums and such, but also use language broad enough to include praying to the deceased. I’ve discussed those passages elsewhere, and they suggest that Jesus wouldn’t have prayed to the dead or intended his comments in these resurrection passages to be taken as warrant for praying to the deceased.

This is the usual collapsing of all invocation of the saints or any talking to the dead whatever as necromancy or other forbidden occultic practice. I dealt with this in my article: Invocation of the Saints = Necromancy? [10-18-08].

As with Luke 8, it’s helpful to look at the account that’s just before the one in question in Acts 9. In the healing that occurs just before the resurrection in Acts 9, Peter says, “Aeneas, Jesus Christ heals you; get up and make your bed.” (verse 34) The verse then says the man got up, as instructed. Obviously, the man couldn’t get up and make his bed while he was paralyzed. Rather, Peter is arranging for a demonstration that a healing has already occurred.

And once again, the straightforward (and I would add, obvious) interpretation is that he was healed by Peter’s word. John Calvin, in his Commentaries, wrote about Acts 9:34:

Jesus Christ maketh thee whole. It is certain that the apostles would never have attempted the doing of miracles, unless they had been first certified of the will of God, whereupon the effect did depend. For they had no such power of the Spirit given them that they could heal whatsoever sick persons they would; but as Christ himself used a measure in his miracles, so he would have his apostles to work no more than he knew were profitable. Therefore Peter did not rashly break out into these words; because he might have set himself to be laughed at, unless he had already known the will of God. It may be that he prayed apart. The Spirit who was the author of all miracles, and which wrought by the hand of Peter, did even then direct his tongue, and did move his heart by a secret inspiration. And in these words Peter showeth plainly that he is only the minister of the miracle, and that it proceedeth from the power of Christ; that he may by this means extol the name of Christ alone.

The same is likely occurring in the next account, the one we’re focused on here. Tabitha is being told to arise in the sense of moving her body to demonstrate that she’s already been raised from the dead. She’s described as doing so in verse 40 (“she sat up”), after which Peter “raised her up” (verse 41). In one of my previous posts, I cited the example of Lazarus in John 11:43-44, who’s told to “come forth”, then is described as coming forth from the tomb. He wasn’t being told to come forth from death. Rather, he was being told to come forth from the tomb after a resurrection that occurred earlier (probably what Jesus was referring to when he thanked the Father for having heard him in verse 41, meaning that the resurrection had already occurred before Jesus said “come forth”). That seems to be what’s going on in all of these resurrection passages.

So, why does Acts 9:40 refer to how Peter turned to “the body”, as if the woman was still dead? Luke referred to the resurrected son of the widow of Nain as “the dead man” after he had come back to life, in the process of describing his sitting up and speaking (Luke 7:15). Maybe Luke did that to highlight the significance of the fact that a person who had died was involved. Luke may be doing the same thing in Acts 9:40. That would be unusual, which is problematic, but the alternative under consideration here is of an unusual, problematic nature as well. If Tabitha was still dead when Peter spoke to her, then his turning to her is unusual, since we usually don’t turn to a body to speak to somebody whose spirit has left her body. It would be like turning to your left to speak to somebody standing at your right. Either scenario under consideration here is unusual and, therefore, problematic to some extent. It’s not as though a scenario in which Tabitha is alive when Peter turns to her body is the only one that involves any such unusualness.

More importantly, though, the view that Tabitha was alive when Peter spoke to her doesn’t require that she was alive when the reference is made to “the body”. She could have returned to life between Peter’s turning and the start of his comment to Tabitha or at the same time that he spoke to her. Either of those scenarios would simultaneously avoid an unusual use of the phrase “the body” and avoid the problems involved in Peter’s speaking to a dead woman. One possible scenario is that Peter had, by whatever means, discerned that God had granted his prayer request that Tabitha be resurrected, after which he turned to the body to look for an indication that she had returned to life (by seeing her breathing again, for example), at which point he spoke to her. Or maybe God had revealed to Peter that she would return to life as he spoke to her, meaning that the return to life and the start of the speaking were simultaneous. I see no way to demonstrate that the resurrection didn’t occur until after Peter spoke or began to speak.

This is all desperate special pleading, in my opinion, based on nothing directly expressed in the texts (or even inexorably deduced from them). It’s an argument from silence. I’ve already refuted it via exegesis of the texts. In every case where there is actually enough information to actually decisively allow or determine a fuller interpretation, it is in favor of the Catholic position, as shown. But Jason’s reply gets even weirder:

But what if, for the sake of argument, we granted the view that Jesus and Peter spoke to deceased individuals in these passages? What would follow? We’d still have to explain the problems with praying to the dead that I outlined in my discussion of Luke 8. One potential way of addressing those problems would be to propose that Jesus and Peter held the common ancient Jewish view that spirits of the deceased remain near their body for some number of days after death (Francois Bovon, Luke 1 [Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress Press, 2002], 340). That could mean that the deceased individuals were viewed as still being part of life on earth, sort of like Samuel’s return to earthly life in 1 Samuel 28 and the return of Moses and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration.

I see. So the ancient Jews held that “spirits of the deceased remain near their body for some number of days after death.” “Days” is one thing, but many centuries? Moses appeared at the Transfiguration more than 1200 years after he died. Elijah (a mere spring chicken, still wet behind the ears) would have been dead some 875 years when he appeared. They both talked to Jesus (and theoretically could have possibly talked to the disciples, too, I submit). But beyond all that, Jesus was omniscient. He knew whether this alleged “common ancient Jewish view was correct or not. The evangelists say that He talked to Moses and Elijah, and Jesus Himself taught that a dead man, Abraham, could properly receive petitions and intercessory requests (i.e., prayers). Jason has to grapple with all that, rather than introduce a desperate “Hail Mary pass” such as the above, as a supposed solid last-ditch “reply.”

But the scenario I’m referring to here illustrates how something like the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox practice of praying to the saints wouldn’t follow even if we were (wrongly) convinced that Jesus and Peter spoke to the dead in these resurrection passages.

I’m sure that is what Jason would love to think. The fact remains that Jesus and Peter (and Elijah and Elisha) praying for and talking to the dead perfectly harmonizes with Catholic teaching, and fatally clashes with Protestant “dogma.” Jason knows this, which is why he is fighting so hard, but alas, with very weak arguments from silence. He knows the stakes are high, but this is all he can come up with. And he delivers up one more frail attempt before concluding:

Another possibility – for those who think that Jesus probably spoke to the dead in one or more of the relevant passages, but that Peter probably didn’t (or are agnostic about the passage involving Peter) – is that Jesus’ deity allowed him to do what the rest of us can’t. That would explain Jesus’ behavior in the passage(s) in question while simultaneously being consistent with the evidence against prayers to the dead in other contexts.

Peter was basically imitating what Jesus did when He raised the dead, and the prophets Elijah and Eisha anticipated our Lord’s miracles. Jesus said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father” (Jn 14:12). Note the striking word “greater.” These works included raising the dead:

Matthew 10:5-8 These twelve Jesus sent out, charging them, “Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, [6] but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. [7] And preach as you go, saying, `The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ [8] Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons. . . .

Obviously, when they did that, they would have followed Jesus’ example and model, which included talking to the dead that He raised (Lk 8:54; Jn 11:43) and prayer preceding raising the dead (Jn 11:41-42): both of which Peter imitated (Acts 9:40). Paul also prayed before he performed a healing: “Paul visited him and prayed, and putting his hands on him healed him” (Acts 28:8). They would have also been familiar with the stories of Elijah and Elisha, who were mere creatures as they were. So this “argument” doesn’t fly. It doesn’t even have any “wings” to fly with.

I tell you, Catholic apologetics is easy as pie, with arguments this weak and fragile to contend with from the other side.

***

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: apologistdave@gmail.com. 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: Cornelis Bloemaert II (1603-1692): The revival of Tabita by the apostle Peter [public domain / Look and Learn: History Picture Archive]

***

Summary: Protestant apologist Jason Engwer contends that Jesus, Peter, Elijah, & Elisha never made prayers to & for the dead before raising them from the dead. Wrong!

March 5, 2023

Did Jesus & Peter Talk to Dead People Before They Rose from the Dead, and — Along with Elijah and Elisha — Pray for the Dead, or Only Ask Them to Move After They Were Raised?

Jason Engwer, who runs the Tribalblogue site, wrote posts entitled, “Agreement Among The Gospels About How Jesus Raised The Dead” (5-29-22) and “Did Jesus offer support for praying to the deceased by speaking to people he raised from the dead?” (3-5-23). This is my reply. His words will be in green (earlier article) and blue (later one).

*****

When Jesus raised people from the dead, he would tell the person to move in some manner, probably at least in part to demonstrate that a resurrection had occurred. A description of the person’s movement follows, which suggests that Jesus’ references to “rising” and such were about moving the body after a resurrection rather than the resurrection itself (Mark 5:41-42Luke 7:14-158:54-55John 11:43-44Matthew 9:25 is in agreement as far as it goes, even mentioning that Jesus took the girl’s hand, but doesn’t say whether Jesus made any comments telling her to move). We see something similar with Peter’s raising of the woman in Acts 9:40-41, perhaps in imitation of what Jesus did, but the other resurrections referred to in the Old and New Testaments don’t involve any such scenario (1 Kings 17:21-232 Kings 4:34-372 Kings 13:21Matthew 27:52-53Acts 20:10Revelation 11:11). [italics and bolding my own]

He did often make comments like “arise” to those he raised from the dead, . . . But . . . it’s likely that he was telling the people to move in some way in order to demonstrate that they had been brought back to life (e.g., telling Lazarus to come out, after which Lazarus walked out of his tomb). Since the focus in these passages seems to be on physical demonstrations that a resurrection has occurred, interpreting a phrase like “arise” or “come out” as a command to come back to life is at best a secondary interpretation. Jesus may have been simultaneously telling these people to rise from the dead and to move their bodies in the relevant ways. But a “may” scenario is a reference to a possibility, not a probability. I see no way to demonstrate that it’s probable that Jesus was speaking to dead people in these passages. . . . 

And I want to reiterate a point I’ve made many times before. What does it suggest about the weakness of the case for praying to the dead when arguments like the one I’m responding to in this post have to be resorted to by advocates of such prayers? [italics and bolding my own, excepting the word “may”]

In reply to the last sentence, I say that the weakness and desperation and special pleading are all on his side of the argument, as I will now proceed to show: so great is his pathetic sophistry and eisegesis that plain meanings of biblical texts are flat-out ignored or never even comprehended, before he goes on to make his groundless arguments. Here are the “problem texts” for his wishful interpretation:

Luke 8:52-55 (RSV) And all were weeping and bewailing her; but he said, “Do not weep; for she is not dead but sleeping.” [53] And they laughed at him, knowing that she was dead. [54] But taking her by the hand he called, saying, “Child, arise.” [55] And her spirit returned, and she got up at once; and he directed that something should be given her to eat.

This verse alone makes mincemeat of Jason’s contentions, because the order of events is reversed (a. Jesus’ words, b. the child is raised, c. she gets up) from what he proposes (a. the child is raised, b. Jesus words, c. she gets up). His nonsense cannot be reconciled with the text above. And when that happens, one who wishes to be “biblical” must give up their wishful thinking. The only reason Jason attempts this absurd explanation is because he believes the prior falsehood that no one can ever communicate with a dead person. Jesus just undeniably did that here (before “her spirit returned”), so, so much for that!

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

This is the second fatal passage for Jason’s contentions. This has everything all together: Peter prayed for a dead person. We know this for a fact because any and every commentator would agree that he was praying that she would be raised. After his prayer, the text says that he spoke to a “body” and not a person who was alive. No one says that they talked to a body if the person is alive. I wouldn’t say about my wife, “I turned to Judy’s body and asked her if she wanted to go out to dinner.” That’s clearly absurd.

No; the text plainly asserts that Tabitha was still dead. Peter prayed while she was, which means both that 1) he prayed for the dead, and 2) he prayed / talked to the dead. The latter is anathema in Protestantism, and the former is for most Protestants. But here is Peter undeniably doing it, as Jesus had in Luke 8.

But there’s still more!

1 Kings 17:17-23 After this the son of the woman, the mistress of the house, became ill; and his illness was so severe that there was no breath left in him. [18] And she said to Eli’jah, “What have you against me, O man of God? You have come to me to bring my sin to remembrance, and to cause the death of my son!” [19] And he said to her, “Give me your son.” And he took him from her bosom, and carried him up into the upper chamber, where he lodged, and laid him upon his own bed. [20] And he cried to the LORD, “O LORD my God, hast thou brought calamity even upon the widow with whom I sojourn, by slaying her son?” [21] Then he stretched himself upon the child three times, and cried to the LORD, “O LORD my God, let this child’s soul come into him again.” [22] And the LORD hearkened to the voice of Eli’jah; and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived. [23] And Eli’jah took the child, and brought him down from the upper chamber into the house, and delivered him to his mother; and Eli’jah said, “See, your son lives.”

This is a reiteration of the sequence that we also saw in Luke 8:52-55 (a. Elijah’s’ words [including prayers for the dead], b. the child is raised, c. he gets up). In Luke the terminology of “her spirit returned” is used. In 1 Kings it’s ” the soul of the child came into him again” (cf. Rev 11:11).

2 Kings 4:32-37 When Eli’sha came into the house, he saw the child lying dead on his bed. [33] So he went in and shut the door upon the two of them, and prayed to the LORD. [34] Then he went up and lay upon the child, putting his mouth upon his mouth, his eyes upon his eyes, and his hands upon his hands; and as he stretched himself upon him, the flesh of the child became warm. [35] Then he got up again, and walked once to and fro in the house, and went up, and stretched himself upon him; the child sneezed seven times, and the child opened his eyes. [36] Then he summoned Geha’zi and said, “Call this Shu’nammite.” So he called her. And when she came to him, he said, “Take up your son.” [37] She came and fell at his feet, bowing to the ground; then she took up her son and went out.

The same sequence occurs for a third time (a. Elisha’s words [including prayers for the dead], b. the child is raised, c. he gets up). Note that all of these arguments come from the very biblical passages that Jason noted (thanks for saving me the trouble, my brother in Christ!). Game, set, match. Readers must choose to either be biblical and follow the Catholic and plain biblical interpretation, or unbiblical and eisegetical and follow the standard Protestant special pleading about what is occurring in these incidents. I didn’t write biblical passages. I’m simply reporting them and defending the clear and perspicuous meaning of Scripture (as our Protestant brethren always urge all of us to do; glad to oblige!).

***

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: apologistdave@gmail.com. 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: Cornelis Bloemaert II (1603-1692): The revival of Tabita by the apostle Peter [public domain / Look and Learn: History Picture Archive]

***

Summary: Anti-Catholic polemicist Jason Engwer contends that Jesus, Peter, Elijah, & Elisha never made prayers to & for the dead before raising them from the dead. Wrong!

 

January 27, 2023

St. Polycarp (69-155) was the bishop of Smyrna, and was a disciple of St. John, according to St. Irenaeus (c. 130-c. 202) and Tertullian (c. 155-c. 220). Protestant apologist Jason Engwer, the main blogger at Triablogue, recently wrote the article, “Baptism and Justification in Polycarp” (1-26-23). This is my response to it. His words will be in blue, Polycarp’s in green.

*****

Polycarp’s Letter To The Philippians [link] occasionally discusses soteriological issues, but not in a lot of depth. For example:

‘In whom, though now ye see Him not, ye believe, and believing, rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory;’ [1 Pet 1:8] into which joy many desire to enter, knowing that ‘by grace ye are saved, not of works,’ [Eph 2:8-9] but by the will of God through Jesus Christ….If we please Him in this present world, we shall receive also the future world, according as He has promised to us that He will raise us again from the dead, and that if we live worthily of Him, ‘we shall also reign together with Him,’ provided only we believe. ([Chapters] 1, 5)

The focus is on faith, but he requires works in some sense as well, probably in the sense of works being the fruit of justifying faith. Just before what I quoted in section 1 of the letter, Polycarp refers to how “the strong root of your faith, spoken of in days [Phil 1:5] long gone by, endureth even until now, and bringeth forth fruit to our Lord Jesus Christ”. He had noted that justification is “not of works”. He connects that comment in section 1 of the letter to 1 Peter 1:8, which refers to believing in Jesus. . . . 

Near the end of Polycarp’s letter, he refers again to those who “shall believe in our Lord Jesus Christ” (12). . . . The most natural reading of the references to faith is that they’re meant in an unqualified sense, . . . [i.e., faith alone].

Baptism isn’t mentioned in the letter, so we can’t know for sure what St. Polycarp thought about that.  Jason seems to think that this omission is significant. I do not. It’s simply one fairly short letter, so not “everything” will be mentioned in it. He didn’t mention the Eucharist or bishops in it, either, and we know that the entire early Church celebrated the Eucharist, and that he himself was a bishop.

But let’s examine whether he believed in faith alone: one of the two “pillars” of the Protestant so-called “Reformation.” Jason concedes that St. Polycarp “requires works in some sense”, but then opines that it’s “probably in the sense of works being the fruit of justifying faith”. This is the classic Protestant understanding of works: taught by both Luther and Calvin. It removes from good works any hint of merit or causal relation to to salvation (even if understood as always in conjunction with works and soaked with and enabled by grace).

Works are simply done in gratitude to God for the salvation already granted through faith alone. They have no direct relationship to salvation (even though I have found fifty Bible passages that teach that they definitely do have a very close relationship). Sanctification is formally separated from justification and salvation in Protestant thought. Good works are promoted, but in the final analysis, they aren’t required for salvation. This is the meaning of faith alone.  

The Catholic view, on the other hand, is that a person is justified by grace alone through faith, with the necessary addition (after initial justification) of meritorious good works: without which faith is dead. We do not believe in salvation by works alone. That is the heresy of Pelagianism or Semi-Pelagianism (which we are often falsely accused of believing by those who haven’t studied Catholic soteriology).

The Wikipedia article on Polycarp takes a view similar to Jason’s, as to the Church father’s soteriology:

Polycarp’s soteriology is not clear; he does cite Ephesians 2:8 to say salvation is by grace rather than works, though later exhorts his readers to do good works. It is not clear from the text how he views works in relation to salvation as his comments are too little to make a clear conclusion. He could have believed that works are mere results of saving grace or that they are necessary to keep salvation and that they have meritorious value, thus we cannot know if he was a monergist or a synergist.

I shall argue that we have enough information in this letter from St. Polycarp, to determine that he held to a Catholic soteriology, not a “proto-Protestant” one.

St. Polycarp, in asserting that salvation is “not of works” (citing Ephesians 2) is simply condemning salvation by works or by self-generated works, apart from grace (i.e., Pelagianism). No one disagrees with that, so it’s not at issue. It’s not the same thing as an assertion of “faith alone.” Many Protestants fail to comprehend the fine but crucial logical distinctions in play.

Jason implies that St. Peter teaches faith alone. He doesn’t. In the same First Epistle, he directly ties works and merit to salvation:

1 Peter 4:17-19 (RSV) For the time has come for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God? [18] And “If the righteous man is scarcely saved, where will the impious and sinner appear?” [19] Therefore let those who suffer according to God’s will do right and entrust their souls to a faithful Creator.

He also teaches baptismal regeneration, or justification, stating that baptism “saves” us (1 Pet 3:21).

Already in his second chapter, St. Polycarp makes it very clear that he believes in the Catholic view of justification by grace alone through faith, with the necessary addition of meritorious good works: without which faith is dead, and salvation unattainable:

But He who raised Him up from the dead will raise us up also, if we do His will, and walk in His commandments, and love what He loved, keeping ourselves from all unrighteousness, covetousness, love of money, evil speaking, false witnessnot rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing, or blow for blow, or cursing for cursing, but being mindful of what the Lord said in His teaching: Judge not, that you be not judged; forgive, and it shall be forgiven unto you; be merciful, that you may obtain mercy; with what measure you measure, it shall be measured to you again; and once more, “Blessed are the poor, and those that are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of God.” [ch. 2; added verse numbers removed, but he cites five passages in this section; my italics and bolding]

This is extraordinary! Note the bolded “if.” Our resurrection (which means salvation, since only the saved will be resurrected to glory) is conditional upon doing various works. God will “raise us up” if we “do His will” (a work, especially indicated by the “do”), if wewalk in His commandments” (several works), and if we avoid nine different sins: the avoidance of which amounts to meritorious action and behavior. That’s at least eleven things that are necessary in order for us to be saved and resurrected, followed by five more things that are opportunities for meritorious actions leading (in faith and grace) to salvation.  

If St. Polycarp in fact thought like a Protestant (in this regard of salvation), this section would have been much shorter. He would have written something like, “But He who raised Him up from the dead will raise us up also, if we believe in Him in faith alone.” All of the rest would have been relegated to a good and praiseworthy, yet optional sanctification: not related to salvation at all. But Polycarp makes our resurrection conditional upon doing all these good works and behaving the right (Christlike) way. It’s very Catholic and exceedingly unlike Protestantism.

All of this (!), and yet Jason thinks St. Polycarp believes in faith alone and not in merit and the Catholic conception of sanctification and good works (and the Wikipedia article thinks his soteriology isn’t “clear”)? I don’t see how, even giving Jason some slack for his Protestant bias (we all have bias and predispositions one way or another).

If we please Him in this present world, we shall receive also the future world, according as He has promised to us that He will raise us again from the dead, and that if we live worthily of Himwe shall also reign together with Him, [2 Tim 2:12] provided only we believe. (ch. 5; my bolding and italics)

This is again the Catholic doctrine of merit and good works as necessary in salvation, in conjunction with faith. Faith isn’t alone. This is the furthest thing imaginable from faith alone. It reminds me of this similar passage: “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” (Rom 8:17).

 neither fornicators, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, shall inherit the kingdom of God, [1 Cor 6:9-10]  (ch. 5)

He cites St. Paul in agreement. Paul is expressing merit in the opposite manner: those who habitually commit various sins and don’t cease, won’t be saved, as opposed to writing, “those who don’t have faith alone won’t inherit the kingdom of God.” 

When you can do good, defer it not, because alms delivers from death. [Tobit 4:10, 12:9] (ch. 10)

Once again, he espouses Catholic meritorious action, leading to salvation, with two deuterocanonical references thrown in as an extra bonus and a Three Stooges-like poke in the Protestant “eye.” Alms (and doing “good” in general) aren’t just nice and touchy-feely, warm fuzzy actions, done in gratitude to God for an existing, salvation that can’t be lost. No!; they can actually “deliver” one from eternal damnation.

St. Polycarp clearly would have flunked out of any evangelical Protestant or Calvinist seminary (but not before mercilessly tormenting his Protestant professors first, with innumerable “Catholic verses” from the Bible . . .).

***

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

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: apologistdave@gmail.com. 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: Arches from ancient Smyrna in western Turkey [Izmir Agora Archs / Benh LIEU SONG from Torcy, France / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license]

***

Summary: St. Polycarp (69-155), disciple of the apostle John, did not believe in faith alone: the Protestant view of salvation, but rather, salvation by faith + meritorious works.

August 2, 2022

[book and purchase information]

Jason Engwer is a Protestant anti-Catholic apologist. I have offered rebuttals of his arguments since 2000 (while he stopped replying to me years ago and bans me from his website). Presently, I’d like to make an analogical and reductio ad absurdum argument and parody, utilizing his article, “Was The Papacy Established By Christ? (Part 1)” (Tribalblogue, 6-23-06). I will use the structure of his arguments against the papacy, and (changing just a few words) apply the same reasoning to the topic of denominationalism (which he must not have any problem accepting: being a Protestant).

The question for Jason and all Protestants is: why does he (and why do they) adhere to such a thoroughly unbiblical position? The answer is that they must do so, or else they’d have to cease to be Protestants. The stakes are high, in other words. I understand that, as one who undertook the difficult, soul-searching journey from evangelicalism to Catholicism, but in the final analysis, I would say that we must follow biblical truth wherever it leads. The Bible undeniably teaches that there is one unified Church, with one doctrine, not hundreds of mutually contradictory denominational sects.

As for Jason’s arguments against the papacy, I have refuted those over a dozen times (the day before I wrote this, I did so again). See his section on my Anti-Catholicism web page for all those articles. Jason’s words will be in blue.

*****

For those who don’t have much familiarity with the dispute between Protestants and Catholics over the doctrine of the papacy, I want to post two introductory articles on the subject today and tomorrow. The first article, this one, will be about the Biblical evidence, and tomorrow’s article will be about the early post-Biblical evidence.

Roman Catholicism claims the papacy as its foundation. According to the Catholic Church, the doctrine of the papacy was understood and universally accepted as early as the time of Peter: . . . 

Some Catholics will argue that the concept of the papacy that was understood and accepted in the earliest generations involved universal jurisdiction, so that the differences between how modern Catholics and the most ancient Catholics viewed Peter and the bishops of Rome would be minor. Other Catholics claim, instead, that the earliest Christians wouldn’t have associated a concept like universal jurisdiction with Peter and the earliest Roman bishops, and they maintain that the modern view of the papacy developed more gradually. Some Catholics even go as far as to claim that there’s no need to show that a concept like universal jurisdiction was intended by Jesus and the apostles. They may argue for the papacy on the basis of philosophical speculation or personal preference, or they may claim that no argument is needed for the doctrine.

Catholics who take that last sort of approach are abandoning the battlefield without admitting defeat. Any belief could be maintained on such a basis. If we’re going to accept the papacy just because it seems to produce more denominational unity than other systems of church government, because our parents were Catholic, or for some other such inconclusive reason, then we have no publicly verifiable case to make for the doctrine. My intention in these posts is to address some of the popular arguments of those who attempt to make a more objective case for the papacy.

Those who argue that a seed form of the papacy existed early on, one that wasn’t initially associated with universal jurisdiction, would need to demonstrate that such a seed form of the doctrine did exist. And they would need to demonstrate that the concept of universal jurisdiction would eventually develop from that seed. It wouldn’t be enough to show that the development of universal jurisdiction is possible. We don’t believe that something is true just because it’s possible. If we’re supposed to accept a papacy with universal jurisdiction on some other basis, such as the alleged authority of the Catholic hierarchy that teaches the concept, then an objective case will have to be made for the supposed authority of that hierarchy.

If there had been a papacy in the first century that was recognized as a distinct office, we would expect it to be mentioned in much the same way that offices such as bishop and deacon are mentioned. We wouldn’t expect Roman Catholics to have to go to passages like Matthew 16 and John 21 to find alleged references to a papacy if such an office of universal jurisdiction existed and was recognized during the New Testament era. Instead, we would expect explicit and frequent references to the office, such as in the pastoral epistles and other passages on church government. . . . 

If there was an office that was to have jurisdictional primacy and infallibility throughout church history, an office that could be called the foundation of the church, wouldn’t we expect it to be mentioned explicitly and often? But it isn’t mentioned at all, even when the early sources are discussing Peter or the Roman church. In the New Testament, which covers about the first 60 years of church history (the prophecies in Revelation and elsewhere cover much more), there isn’t a single Roman bishop mentioned or named, nor are there any admonitions to submit to the papacy or any references to appointing Popes, determining whether he’s exercising his infallibility, appealing to him to settle disputes, etc. When speaking about the post-apostolic future, the apostles are concerned with bishops and teachers in general (Acts 20:28-31, 2 Timothy 2:2) and submission to scripture (2 Timothy 3:15-17, 2 Peter 3:1-2, Revelation 22:18-19), but don’t say a word about any papacy. . . . 

There is no papacy in the New Testament. It’s not there explicitly or implicitly. This “clear doctrine of Holy Scripture” that the First Vatican Council refers to isn’t even Biblical, much less clearly Biblical. Roman Catholics assume that a papacy is implied in some New Testament passages, but that assumption can’t be proven and is unlikely.

***

For those who don’t have much familiarity with the dispute between Protestants and Catholics over the nature of the Church and denominationalism, I want to post an analogical reductio ad absurdum parody on the subject today. This article will be about the utter lack of Biblical evidence for denominationalism, but there is also a complete absence of post-Biblical evidence for the notion, too.

Protestantism claims denominationalism as one of its inherent, foundational principles. According to Protestantism, denominationalism was understood and universally accepted and practiced as early as the time of Peter: . . . 

Some Protestants will argue that the concept of denominationalism that was understood and accepted in the earliest generations was universal in early Christianity. Other Protestants claim, instead, that the earliest Christians wouldn’t have adhered to a concept like universal denominational chaos and relativism, and they maintain that the modern view of denominationalism developed more gradually.

Some Protestants even go as far as to claim that there’s no need to show that a concept like universal denominationalism, with its ecclesiological chaos and doctrinal relativism and uncertainty was intended by Jesus and the apostles. They may argue for denominationalism on the basis of extrabiblical philosophical speculation or personal preference, or they may claim that no argument is needed for the scandalous belief.

Protestants who take that last sort of approach are abandoning the battlefield without admitting defeat. Any unbiblical or self-defeating belief could be maintained on such a basis. If we’re going to accept denominationalism just because it seems to produce more disunity than other far more biblical definitions of the Church, because our parents were Protestant, or for some other such inconclusive reason, then we have no publicly verifiable case to make for the relativistic belief. My intention in these posts is to address some of the popular arguments of those who attempt to make a more objective case for denominationalism.

Those who argue that a seed form of denominationalism existed early on, one that wasn’t initially associated with universal sectarian relativism and chaos, would need to demonstrate that such a seed form of the doctrine did exist. And they would need to demonstrate that the concept of universal denominationalism would eventually develop from that seed. It wouldn’t be enough to show that the development of universal denominationalism is possible.

We don’t believe that something is true just because it’s possible. If we’re supposed to accept a denominationalism with universal scope on some other basis, such as the alleged authority of the hierarchy of Protestant scholars that teach the concept, then there is no necessity for an objective case to be made for the supposed authority of that hierarchy.

If denominationalism had been in existence in the first century, we would expect it to be mentioned in much the same way that offices such as bishop and deacon are mentioned. We wouldn’t expect to have to go to passages like Romans 14 to find alleged references to denominationalism if such universal denominationalism, ecclesiological chaos and doctrinal relativism and uncertainty existed and were recognized and sanctioned during the New Testament era. Instead, we would expect explicit and frequent references to sectarianism, such as in the pastoral epistles and other passages on the nature of the Church.

If denominationalism was to have primacy and universal application throughout church history, a state of affairs that could be called the foundation of the Church, wouldn’t we expect it to be mentioned explicitly and often? But it isn’t mentioned at all, even when the early sources are discussing the Church.

In the New Testament, which covers about the first 60 years of church history (the prophecies in Revelation and elsewhere cover much more), there isn’t a single espousal of denominationalism, nor are there any admonitions to submit to sectarianism and ecclesiological chaos, or any references to doctrinal relativism and an uncertainty, accepted with resignation, with no possibility of theological certainty, or infallibility, or ability to definitively settle disputes, etc. When speaking about the post-apostolic future, the apostles are concerned with “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph 4:5, RSV), but don’t say a word about any denominations. . . . 

There is no denominationalism in the New Testament. It’s not there explicitly or implicitly. This “clear doctrine of Holy Scripture” that Protestants universally practice and adhere to isn’t even Biblical, much less clearly Biblical. Protestants assume that denominationalism is implied in some New Testament passages, but that assumption can’t be proven and is unlikely.

***

Related Reading

Denominationalism and Sectarianism: An Anti-Biblical Scandal [1996]

*

Sacramentarian Controversies (Calvin vs. Luther vs. Zwingli) [3-29-04]

“Absurd” Protestant Divisions: Calvin’s Revealing Lament to Melanchthon [2-6-06]

Philip Melanchthon’s Agony Over Protestant Sectarianism [2-8-06]

Bible vs. Denominationalism and Against “Primary / Secondary” Doctrines [8-18-06]

Melanchthon in 1530 Longed for Return of Catholic Bishops [11-30-07]

John Calvin: Authoritative Council Needed to Unite Protestants [1-18-08]

Unbridled Sectarianism, Sola Scriptura, Luther, & Calvin [6-24-09]

Melanchthon’s Agonized Tears Over Early Protestant Divisions [6-15-11; additions on 10-11-17]

Bible on Submission to Church & Apostolic Tradition / Biblical Condemnation of the Rebellious & Schismatic Aspects of the Protestant Revolt [8-27-11]

Early Protestant “Unity”: Calvin vs. Westphal vs. Luther [11-6-11]

Church Authority vs. Rampant Sectarianism [9-22-16]

“Reply to Calvin” #4: “Primary” & “Secondary” Doctrines [4-3-17]

Catholicism is True and Denominationalism is Anti-Biblical [National Catholic Register, 6-27-17]

Sectarianism & Denominationalism: Reply to Calvin #6 [12-19-18]

Does Sola Scriptura Create Chaos? (vs. Steve Hays) [5-15-20]

Unbiblical Denominations (vs. Lucas Banzoli) [6-9-22]

***

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

*
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: apologistdave@gmail.com. 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: I do an analogical parody and reductio ad absurdum of an article by anti-Catholic apologist Jason Engwer in order to show that denominationalism is unbiblical.

August 1, 2022

With Special Emphasis on the Protestant Exegesis of “The keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 16:19)

Protestant anti-Catholic apologist Jason Engwer again took aim at one of his favorite targets: the papacy, in his article, “How could a papacy have been referred to?” (Tribalblogue, 7-30-22). His words will be in blue.

***

[P]assages like Matthew 16, Luke 22, and John 21 don’t imply a papacy.
*
I will demonstrate in this article how Matthew 16 teaches an explicit notion of the papacy. insofar as it is the office of the headship / leadership of the Church, including an extraordinary amount of singular ecclesiastical authority. And I shall do this by citing only Protestant scholars, and presenting their learned opinions about the exegesis of the passage. If it then comes down to Jason’s own opinion vs. some two dozen or so eminent Protestant scholars, I think readers know, as I do, whose opinions are more worthy of allegiance.
*
I agree that Luke 22 and John 21 are implicit references to the papacy. I’ve already addressed Jason’s arguments against them:

Papal Passages Lk 22:31-34 & Jn 21:15-17 (vs. Jason Engwer) [5-12-20]

*
Of course, he utterly ignores any critique I make of his work (it wasn’t always this way), and has for a number of years now; and I am banned at his website. Perhaps some readers will be so kind as to mention this critique over there. Not that it’ll make him reply . . .
*
If a papacy were to be derived from such passages, it would have to be derived implicitly rather than explicitly.
*
This is true for Luke 22 and John 21 but not for Matthew 16, as I will show. There is nothing wrong with implicit arguments for Scripture. Protestants accept many of those in favor of their doctrines, and I would note that for some of their major / bedrock beliefs, there is no biblical proof at all: not even implicit (e.g., the canon of the New Testament, sola Scriptura and sola fide). Oddly enough, that doesn’t stop them from believing these things or even from literally building their theological system upon them.
*
There is no explicit reference to a papacy in any of the earliest sources.
*
The New Testament is the earliest source.
*
That raises the question of what we should expect a reference to a papacy to look like.
*
We should expect exactly what we find: St. Peter is specifically called “The Rock” by our Lord Jesus Christ: he whom the Lord would “build” His “Church” (Mt 16:18). “Peter” is a translation of the Greek petros. Jesus would have actually used the Aramaic kepha. St. Paul calls Peter the same name, eight times (a Greek transliteration of the Aramaic: Cephas): thus proving that Jesus re-named Peter “Rock”: referring to him being the human cornerstone of the new universal Church of Christ.
*
And Jesus gave Peter “the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 16:19, RSV). As we shall see, this describes the sublime leadership power in the Church that he was appointed by Jesus to possess.
*
Similarly, there are explicit references to non-papal church offices, such as apostle and elder. We’re even told what qualifications they have to meet and other details about their offices. 
*
Yes there are, and there are explicit references to the papacy: being the “Rock” upon whom the Church was built, and possessing “the keys of the kingdom of heaven”. The Bible also talks about the office of bishop: a thing that Jason never mentions. It spells out the functions and role of bishops, as I have written about. The pope is a “bishop of bishops” or a “super bishop” and remains the bishop of Rome, while he is pope of the entire Church. So in that sense, too, the Bible describes some of the functions of the papacy. The difference is that the pope’s flock is the whole Church and not just a local church.
*
There is no such term (akin to “king”, “centurion”, “apostle”, “elder”, etc.) for a papal office,
*
Yes there is: the one who possesses the keys of the kingdom of heaven and is the Rock.
*
nor is there any discussion of such an office analogous to the discussions we find of other offices in Acts, the pastoral epistles, and elsewhere.
*
The discussion lies in the in-depth exegesis that scholars do concerning Matthew 16.
*
The apostles (plural) are referred to as the first order in the church (1 Corinthians 12:28), without any singling out of Peter or Roman bishops, and we see other passages similarly referring to the apostles as equals (Matthew 19:28, Galatians 2:9, Ephesians 2:20, Revelation 21:14).
*
The apostles qua apostles were indeed equals. But the papacy is not merely an apostolic office; it’s an ongoing one (like bishops and elders and priests). The first pope just happened to also be an apostle.
*
There were ways of distinguishing Peter from the others if somebody had wanted to make such a distinction, as the distinction between Jesus and the apostles in Ephesians 2:20 illustrates, but none of the authors distinguish Peter as having more authority than the other apostles.
*
Sheer nonsense. This was what my article, 50 New Testament Proofs for Petrine Primacy & the Papacy was designed to refute. Jason — two decades ago — tried to refute and satirize it twice and I refuted him twice:
*
*
*

Recently, Brazilian apologist Lucas Banzoli outdid Jason, with his “205 Proofs Against the Primacy of Peter.” I replied in four parts:

*
*
*

Banzoli, like Jason Engwer, also seems to have fallen off the face of the earth, after I started critiquing many of his articles. Go figure . . .

When . . . various early patristic sources (Ignatius, Dionysius of Corinth, Irenaeus, Tertullian) comment on why the Roman church is significant, they mention virtues like faith, love, and generosity and other non-papal factors, like the Roman church’s faithfulness to apostolic teaching, its location in the capital of the empire, and the presence and martyrdom of Peter and Paul in Rome. A papacy isn’t mentioned . . . 

Jason conveniently skips over St. Clement of Rome (d. 99; reigned starting in 88 AD), who was — according to  Irenaeus (c. 130-c. 202) and Tertullian (c. 155-c. 220) the second or third bishop of Rome and pope after Peter. His letter to the Corinthians indicated very strong papal power. As I wrote in my article: Pope St. Clement of Rome & Papal Authority [7-28-21]:

Why is it that Clement is speaking with authority from Rome, settling the disputes of other regions? Why don’t the Corinthians solve it themselves, . . .? Why do they appeal to the bishop of Rome? . . . St. Clement writes (I use the standard Schaff translation: no Catholic “bias” there!): . . .

If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger; . . . (59, my bolding and italics)

Joy and gladness will you afford us, if you become obedient to the words written by us and through the Holy Spirit root out the lawless wrath of your jealousy according to the intercession which we have made for peace and unity in this letter. (63, my bolding and italics)

Clement definitely asserts his authority over the Corinthian church far away. Again, the question is: “why?” What sense does that make in a Protestant-type ecclesiology where every region is autonomous and there is supposedly no hierarchical authority in the Christian Church? Why must they “obey” the bishop from another region (sections 59, 63)? Not only does Clement assert strong authority; he also claims that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are speaking “through” him.

That is extraordinary, and very similar to what we see in the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15:28 (“For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things”: RSV) and in Scripture itself. It’s not strictly inspiration but it is sure something akin to infallibility (divine protection from error and the pope as a unique mouthpiece of, or representative of God).

Moreover, Max Lackmann, a Lutheran, makes the observation:

Clement, as the spokesman of the whole People of God . . . admonishes the Church of Corinth in serious, authoritative and brotherly tones to correct the internal abuses of their ecclesiastical community. He censures, exhorts, cautions, entreats . . . The use of the expression send back in the statement: Send back speedily unto us our messengers (1 Clement 65,1), is not merely a special kind of biblical phrase but also a form of Roman imperial command. The Roman judge in a province of the empire sent back a messenger or a packet of documents to the imperial capital or to the court of the emperor (Acts 25:21). Clement of Rome doubtless also knew this administrative terminology of the imperial government and used it effectively. (In Hans Asmussen, et al, The Unfinished Reformation, translated by Robert J. Olsen, Notre Dame, Indiana: Fides Publishers Association, 1961, 84-85)

Rome is about 617 miles from Corinth. That would be like the archbishop of Detroit (my hometown) issuing instructions to the bishop and people of Des Moines Iowa (600 miles away) and saying that the latter better obey, lest “they involve themselves in transgression and serious danger” and claiming that “the words written by us” were “through the Holy Spirit.” No two bishops in the Catholic Church talk like that to each other. Nor do leaders of denominations talk with each other in this rather authoritarian and superior-subordinate manner.
*
It makes no sense except as an early manifestation of self-conscious papal power and authority. We have that in this First Epistle of Clement, which is usually dated to 96 AD. Thus, explicit evidence for a papacy is present in the Bible and in a letter by an apostolic father from 96 AD. Jesus’ words are recorded in the Gospel of Matthew, which is dated by conservative Bible scholars to before 70; probably in the 60s AD.
*
If a papacy existed, it would be surprising if such a significant office weren’t referred to explicitly and often. But if it were referred to implicitly rather than explicitly, we would accept something that implicitly comes from the authority of Jesus and the apostles, even though the lack of explicit reference to it would be surprising. The problem with the papacy is that it isn’t taught explicitly or implicitly.
*
Nonsense again. I have shown an explicit reference in 96 AD from St. Clement of Rome. Keep reading to learn what many good Protestant scholars think is the teaching in Matthew 16 regarding Peter’s authority.
*
[T]here’s nothing about, say, the canonicity of Hebrews that makes it as suspicious as the papacy. . . . There’s no comparable situation with Hebrews’ canonicity. . . . Similarly, there’s no evidence supporting the papacy comparable to or better than what we have for the canonicity of Hebrews (e.g., what Eusebius reported about the widespread acceptance of Hebrews as scripture when he was composing his church history in the late third and early fourth centuries; . . . ). . . . The evidence for something like the canonicity of Hebrews is better than what we have for the papacy . . . 
*
Really? The book of Hebrews wasn’t considered canonical at all during the period of 60s-96 AD: where we have explicit evidence for the papacy. Indeed, in the west it wasn’t in the canon until the 4th century, while in the east it was accepted in the period between 250-325. It wasn’t included in the Muratorian Canon (c. 190), which did include The Apocalypse of Peter and Wisdom of Solomon. [see my The New Testament Canon & Historical Processes (InterVarsity Press, 1996).] St. Cyprian (d. 258) never cites it; nor does he ever cite James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, or Jude [F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, 1988, pp. 184-185]. Origen (d. 254) regarded Hebrews as of disputable canonicity [Bruce, ibid., p. 193]. The “Cheltenham” canon, likely from North Africa, dating from 365, doesn’t include Hebrews [Bruce, ibid., pp. 219-220]
*
Now I will present an overview of how many prominent Protestant scholars and reference works exegete “keys of the kingdom” and what they believe it to mean (with references in footnotes below).
*
W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann [1], concurring with the insights of Roland de Vaux [2]: “The keys are the symbol of authority . . . the same authority as that vested in the vizier, the master of the house, the chamberlain of the royal household in ancient Israel.” Craig S. Keener [3]: “The image of keys (plural) perhaps suggests not so much the porter, who controls admission to the house, as the steward, who regulates its administration . . .” / “probably refers primarily to a legislative authority in the church.” M. Eugene Boring [4]: “The keeper of the keys has authority within the house as administrator and teacher (cf. Isa 22:20-25, which may have influenced Matthew here). The language of binding and loosing is rabbinic terminology for authoritative teaching, for having the authority to interpret the Torah and apply it to particular cases, declaring what is permitted and what is not permitted. Jesus . . .here gives his primary disciple the authority to teach in his name.” / “authoritative teaching, . . . that lets heaven’s power rule in earthly things . . . . Peter’s role as holder of the keys is fulfilled now, on earth, as chief teacher of the church.”
*
George Buttrick [5]: “The keys of the kingdom would be committed to the chief steward in the royal household and with them goes plenary authority.” S. T. Lachs [6]: “The authority of Peter is to be over the Church, and this authority is represented by the keys.” R. T. France [7]: “Peter’s ‘power of the keys’ declared in [Matthew] 16:19 is . . . that of the steward . . . . whose keys of office enable him to regulate the affairs of the household.” / “Not only is Peter to have a leading role, but this role involves a daunting degree of authority . . . The image of ‘keys’ (plural) perhaps suggests . . . the steward, who regulates its [the house’s] administration . . . an authority derived from a ‘delegation’ of God’s sovereignty” [16]. Ralph Earle [8]: “Peter would give decisions, based on the teachings of Jesus, which would be bound in heaven; that is, honored by God.” J. Jeremias [9]: “appointment to full authority. He who has the keys has on the one side control, e.g., over the council chamber or treasury, cf. Mt. 13:52, and on the other the power to allow or forbid entry, cf. Rev. 3:7.”
*
F. F. Bruce [10]: “The keys of a royal or noble establishment were entrusted to the chief steward or majordomo; he carried them on his shoulder in earlier times, and there they served as a badge of the authority entrusted to him. 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 . . . . (Isaiah 22:22). So in the new community which Jesus was about to build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward.” Oscar Cullman [11]: “Just as in Isaiah 22:22 the Lord lays the keys of the house of David on the shoulders of his servant Eliakim, so Jesus commits to Peter the keys of his house, the Kingdom of Heaven, and thereby installs him as administrator of the house.”
*

New Bible Dictionary [12]: “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. The use of censures, excommunication, and absolution is committed to the Church in every age, to be used under the guidance of the Spirit . . . 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).” / “In the Old Testament a steward is a man who is ‘over a house’ (Gen 43:19, 44:4; Is 22:15, etc.). In the New Testament there are two words translated steward: epitropos (Mt 20:8; Gal 4:2), i.e. one to whose care or honour one has been entrusted, a curator, a guardian; and oikonomos (Lk 16:2-3; 1 Cor 4:1-2; Titus 1:7; 1 Pet 4:10), i.e. a manager, a superintendent – from oikos (‘house’) and nemo (‘to dispense’ or ‘to manage’).

Eerdmans Bible Dictionary [13]: “[T]he keys here represent authority in the Church.” Adam Clarke’s Commentary [14]: “In allusion to the image of the key as the ensign of power, the unlimited extent of that power is expressed with great clearness as well as force by the sole and exclusive authority to open and shut.” New Bible Commentary [15] “The ‘shutting’ and ‘opening’ mean the power to make decisions which no one under the king could override. This is the background of the commission to Peter (cf. Mt 16:19) . . . ”

For further references to the office of the steward in Old Testament times, see 1 Kings 4:6; 16:9; 18:3; 2 Kings 10:5; 15:5; 18:18, where the phrases used are “over the house,” “steward,” or “governor.” In Isaiah 22:15, in the same passage to which our Lord apparently refers in Matthew 16:19, Shebna, the soon-to-be deposed steward, is described in various translations as:

i) “Master of the palace” JB / NAB
ii) “In charge of the palace” NIV
iii) “Master of the household” NRSV
iv) “In charge of the royal household” NASB
v) “Comptroller of the household” REB
vi) “Governor of the palace” Moffatt

Likewise, the following Protestant scholars view Matthew 16:18 as Jesus referring to Peter himself as “the Rock”; not merely his faith. The citations and references can be found in these two articles: Primacy of St. Peter Verified by Protestant Scholars [1994] and Protestant Scholars on Matthew 16:16-19 (Nicholas Hardesty) [9-4-06]:

Henry Alford, Herman N. Ridderbos, R. T. France, William Hendriksen, Oscar Cullmann, Gerhard Maier, J. Knox Chamblin, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Craig L. Blomberg, William E. McCumber, M. Eugene Boring, John A. Broadus, Albert Barnes, David Hill, New Bible Commentary, Donald A. Hagner, Craig S. Keener, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary, Philip Schaff, Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 8, The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, W. F. Albright, and C. S. Mann (The Anchor Bible), The Layman’s Bible Commentary, New Bible Dictionary, Word Studies in the New Testament (Marvin Vincent), Encyclopaedia Britannica (1985; article by D. W. O’Connor, a Protestant), Robert McAfee Brown, D. A. Carson, Richard Baumann.

Protestants at this point (even granting the above) sometimes argue that there is no indication in the Bible of papal succession. I address that issue in many papers:

*
*
*
FOOTNOTES
*
[1] The Anchor Bible: Matthew, (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1971), 196.
[2] Ancient Israel, tr. by John McHugh (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961), 129 ff.
[3] The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament, (Downer’s Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1993), 256, 90.
[4] “Matthew,” in Pheme Perkins and others, eds., The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 8, (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995), 346.
[5] with other editors, The Interpreter’s Bible, (New York: Abingdon, 1951), 453.
[6] A Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, (Hoboken, New Jersey: Ktav, 1987), 256.
[7] Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1989), 247.
[8]  “Matthew,” in A. F. Harper and others, eds., Beacon Bible Commentary, vol. 6, (Kansas City: Beacon Hill, 1964), 156.
[9] “Kleis,” in Gerhard Kittel, ed., and Geoffrey W. Bromley, trans. and ed., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 3, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1968), 749-750.
[10]  The Hard Sayings of Jesus (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity, 1983), 143-144.
[11] Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, trans. Floyd V. Filson, (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1953), 203.
[12] J. D. Douglas, editor, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1962, 1018, 1216.
[13] Allen C. Myers, editor, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1987 (English revision of Bijbelse Encyclopedie, edited by W. H. Gispen, Kampen, Netherlands: J. H. Kok, revised edition, 1975), translated by Raymond C. Togtman and Ralph W. Vunderink, 622.
[14] abridged one-volume edition by Ralph Earle, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1967 (orig. 1832, 8 vols.), 581.
[15] D. Guthrie, and J. A. Motyer, editors, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 3rd edition, 1970 (Reprinted, 1987, as The Eerdmans Bible Commentary), 603.
[16] Vol. 1: Matthew, in Leon Morris, General Editor., Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press/Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1985, 256.
***
*
Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
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: apologistdave@gmail.com. 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: Delivery of Keys to Saint Peter (c. 1525), by Vincenzo Catena (1470-1531) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: Protestant anti-Catholic apologist Jason Engwer claims that there are no indications of the papacy in the NT. I refute him, citing prominent Protestant exegetes.

 

 


Browse Our Archives