Dave Armstrong's Blog, page 14

Veneration of, and Bowing Before Angels and Men: Absolutely Forbidden in the Bible?: Genesis chapters 18-19 and Revelation chapters 19, 22 [Etc.] (vs. Ken Temple)

 This brief exchange came about amidst combox comments for my paper,  Dialogue with an Anglican on "Praying to Mary," Patron Saints, Etc. (vs. Dr. Lydia McGrew). Pastor Ken Temple is a Reformed Protestant anti-Catholic polemicist, whom I have engaged numerous times. His words will be in blue.
* * * * *
I wrote, in the above dialogue:

Oftentimes, sadly, yes, because human beings have an endless capacity for self-deception, self-justification, and rationalization. What we need to remember regarding idolatry, is that it resides internally in the heart, first and foremost. One has to be consciously aware of what they are doing and what they believe. If a person is to replace God with a saint (as if the latter is equal to or higher than God), then they are consciously, deliberately doing so, or else it isn't idolatry per se. It may be spiritual laxity or even gross negligence, but not idolatry.

Ken then asked:

Do you think the apostle John was consciously and deliberately committing idolatry when he bowed down to the angel and was rebuked for it in Revelation 19:10 and 22:8-9?

Revelation 19:10  Then I fell down at his feet to worship him, but he said to me, "You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brethren who hold the testimony of Jesus. Worship God." For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

Revelation 22:8-9 I John am he who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed them to me; [9] but he said to me, "You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brethren the prophets, and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship God."

I replied:

Fair question. Here's what I think about that:

It is the spontaneous reaction of human beings (seen throughout Scripture) to be awed by angelic appearances or theophanies or direct manifestations of God.

In the moment you don't think "this is just an angel." You react with awe, which is what John did. He wasn't thinking theologically, as we have the luxury to do in our armchairs, but he was thinking, "this is a far greater Being than I!"

Moreover (and more to the point at hand), often in the Old Testament the Lord and His Angel ("angel of the Lord") are virtually indistinguishable, to the extent that these angels are called angels in one second and God in the next, so it wouldn't necessarily be clear which was the case.

Even in the burning bush, there is a reference to "the Angel of the Lord" (Ex 3:2) and yet two verses later, "God called to him out of the bush." John may have very well thought that this was a direct manifestation of God, in that sense, but was mistaken and corrected by the angel.

That's what I think was primarily going on, in which case it wasn't idolatry at all, because he thought it was God, or such a direct communication from God through the angel that "worship" was the proper response. 

My take apparently isn't an isolated one. The old [Catholic] Haydock Commentary stated at 19:10: 

St. Athanasius and St. Augustine think St. John took the angel to be Jesus Christ, and as such was desirous of paying him the supreme homage, or latria.

Not bad company or support for an exegetical opinion, but Ken is quite capable of blowing them off, if they don't support his (anti-Catholic) line of reasoning. Ken then counter-replied (the blue print below). My original answer was as follows:

We can speculate all day what we think an angel or God or inspired writer coulda woulda shoulda said. I think my answer was quite sufficient. As usual with you, we could go round and round forever, . . . You disagree, huh? Another shocking revelation! The anti-Catholic disagrees with the Catholic take! Stop the presses!

But since Ken is pushing the issue with a new provocative post, I decided to expand upon my reply.

I appreciate the way you answered that.

So, why did the angel rebuke John for it? 

Because (I think) he had mistaken him for Jesus. It was a category / identification mistake.

Since you say he was temporarily overwhelmed and/ or thought it was a Theophany - like in Genesis 16, or Gen. 18 or Joshua 5, etc. in which case it would not have been truly idolatry (In your opinion), why did the angel rebuke him for it?

See my last reply.

Since it does seem like it was sometimes Theophanies in the OT - and John is an apostle ( !!!)

Seems like if that was going on in John's mind, the angel should have said, "that's ok, I realize you think I am "the angel of the Lord" as in Genesis 16 or 18 or the Captain of the Lord's host in Joshua 5 (Theophanies), but I am not; I am just a creature created by God; but since you have subjectively distinguished in your mind and heart; then that is ok, since you are sincere. "

But the angel did not do that - he said "don't do that!" and "Worship God!" 

Yes, and he said, "I am a fellow servant with you" (19:10). I don't see any implausibility in believing as I do, with regard to the angel's response. It makes perfect sense in that scenario. He just didn't say as much as you thought he should. Big wow.

John sincerely thought it was God, in your opinion, or was just emotionally overwhelmed with "this being is mightier than me"

But in Roman Catholic Marian Piety, there is deliberate and planned and structed prayers and with flowering languge of praise and many times descriptions that should only be reserved for God - " I fly to you for refuge", "I cast my anxieties to you, O Mother of God"; "save me in this hour", etc. So, there is no suddenly being overwhelmed in RC Marian Piety. And in RC Marian Piety, they are supposed to know in their mind that this statue of a woman is not God nor a manifestation of God; and indeed they probably DO realize that. 

That's another topic entirely, and I don't play the rabbit trail" game. But, nice try.

And John realizes that also, once the angel tells him that he is not a theophany as in Genesis 18 or Joshua 5. So why does the angel say, don't do that, and only worship God? 

See my 4th reply up, above.

I think it is obvious that it gives the appearance of idolatry, and no one can tell the difference between real idolatry and RC Marian piety. Only the devotee him or herself can testify as to the subjective experience in their heart and mind. 

Now I will flesh out my argument here a bit. As to the sometimes "textual confusion" of the "angel of the Lord" and God Himself, see, for example:


Genesis 18:1-4, 22(RSV) And the LORD appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat at the door of his tent in the heat of the day. [2] He lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, three men stood in front of him. When he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them, and bowed himself [shachah]to the earth, [3] and said, "My lord, if I have found favor in your sight, do not pass by your servant. [4] Let a little water be brought, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree, . . . [22] So the men turned from there, and went toward Sodom; but Abraham still stood before the LORD. (cf. Heb 13:2: "Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.")
The text in-between goes back and forth, referring to "men" or "they" or "them" (18:9, 16) and "The LORD" or first-person address from God (18:10, 13-14, 17-21) interchangeably, for the same phenomenon and personal / physical / verbal encounter. But there are three men here; they can't all plausibly be God. Two of them were angels (indicated by 18:22 and 19:1). Thus, Abraham venerated them, too. St. Augustine argued that all three men were angels, but this seems ruled out by the presence (twice) in the text, of "the LORD".

A "man" is equated with God also in Genesis 32:24, 30. See the related passages Ex 3:2-6; Num 22:22-27, 31-35; Jud 6:12-16, 20-23. Here is a particularly striking and explicit example of this confusion:

Judges 13:15-22 Mano'ah said to the angel of the LORD, "Pray, let us detain you, and prepare a kid for you." [16] And the angel of the LORD said to Mano'ah, "If you detain me, I will not eat of your food; but if you make ready a burnt offering, then offer it to the LORD." (For Mano'ah did not know that he was the angel of the LORD.) [17] And Mano'ah said to the angel of the LORD, "What is your name, so that, when your words come true, we may honor you?" [18] And the angel of the LORD said to him, "Why do you ask my name, seeing it is wonderful?" [19] So Mano'ah took the kid with the cereal offering, and offered it upon the rock to the LORD, to him who works wonders. [20] And when the flame went up toward heaven from the altar, the angel of the LORD ascended in the flame of the altar while Mano'ah and his wife looked on; and they fell on their faces to the ground. [21] The angel of the LORD appeared no more to Mano'ah and to his wife. Then Mano'ah knew that he was the angel of the LORD. [22] And Mano'ah said to his wife, "We shall surely die, for we have seen God."
This passage is remarkable in that it goes back and forth between God (13:16, 19, 22) and the angel of the Lord (or of God) as His direct representative (13:15-18, 20-21 and in the larger passage, 13:3, 6, 9, 13). The angel is honored (v. 17), they fall on their faces to worship (v. 20) and at length the angel is equated with God as His visible manifestation (v. 22). But the difference between the angel and God is highlighted by the angel being described as a "man of God" (13:6, 8) and "the man" (13:10-11).

The Angel of the Lord is also equated with God (theophany) in Gen 31:11-13; Jud 2:1; but differentiated from God as well, as a representative: (2 Sam 24:16; 1 Ki 19:6-7; 2 Ki 19:35; Dan 3:25, 28; 6:23; Zech 1:8-14).


Lot also clearly venerated two angels, who appear by the text (again, 18:22 cf. 19:1) to be the same angels whom Abraham had talked to and venerated:

Genesis 19:1 The two angels came to Sodom in the evening; and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them, and bowed himself with his face to the earth,

They distinguish themselves from the LORD:

Genesis 19:13 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."

All of this suggests that it was quite possible indeed that John could have mistaken the angel for Jesus. After all, Jesus had appeared to him earlier in the book, and when He saw Him, he "fell at his feet as though dead" (1:17; cf. 1:10-20). We also know that the post-Resurrection Jesus was not recognized for Who He was, several times (cf. Lk 24:16, 31; 36-39; Jn 20:14-18, 21:4).

In any event, since angels were venerated in the Bible in Genesis 18 and 19, by Abraham and Lot, without rebuke, we know that Revelation 19 and 22 cannot be seen as "proof" (as many hopeful Protestant commentaries claim) that such veneration is forbidden, and indeed, idolatry. Ken argues that any such veneration is too confusing, too easily descends into idolatry or is seen as such by observers; therefore, shouldn't take place at all. Funny, then, that God in His inspired word (two times) sees it as perfectly acceptable (from Abraham, yet!) and doesn't rebuke it in the slightest.

Moreover, angels are bowed to in the New Testament, with no rebuke at all:

Luke 24:4-5 While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel; [5] and as they were frightened and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, "Why do you seek the living among the dead?" 

Even men (apostles) are venerated in the New Testament:

Acts 16:25-31 But about midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the prisoners were listening to them, [26] and suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken; and immediately all the doors were opened and every one's fetters were unfastened. [27] When the jailer woke and saw that the prison doors were open, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself, supposing that the prisoners had escaped. [28] But Paul cried with a loud voice, "Do not harm yourself, for we are all here." [29] And he called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas, [30] and brought them out and said, "Men, what must I do to be saved?"  [31] And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."

No biggie. King David was venerated in the Old Testament, too:

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

So was Daniel (without rebuke from him):

Daniel 2:46-48  Then King Nebuchadnez'zar fell upon his face, and did homage to Daniel, and commanded that an offering and incense be offered up to him.[47] The king said to Daniel, "Truly, your God is God of gods and Lord of kings, and a revealer of mysteries, for you have been able to reveal this mystery." [48] Then the king gave Daniel high honors and many great gifts,

The king was venerating or honoring God through Daniel, as is evident by his words. This is the sort of principle elaborated even by Martin Luther:

Thus, too, I would solve the question about adoring and invoking God dwelling in the saints. It is a matter of liberty, and it is not necessary either to do it or not to do it. To be sure, it is not so certain that God has His dwelling in many men as that He is present in the sacrament, but we do read in I Corinthians [footnote: 1 Cor 14:24-25] that an unbeliever will fall on his face and worship God in the saints, if he hears them prophesying; and Abraham saw three angels, and worshiped one Lord; and (to use your own illustration) what do we do when we “prefer one another in honor,” except honor and adore God in ourselves? Let it be free, then, to call upon God in man or out of man, in creatures or out of them, for “I fill heaven and earth,” saith the Lord. Here faith goes the safest way, for in all things it sees only God, but we cannot say enough of this to unbelievers, or prove it to them, because they are always worshiping themselves.

(Letter to Paul Speratus, 13 June 1522)

Daniel venerates an angel (seemingly Gabriel) later in the chapter, without rebuke:

Daniel 8:15-17 When I, Daniel, had seen the vision, I sought to understand it; and behold, there stood before me one having the appearance of a man. [16] And I heard a man's voice between the banks of the U'lai, and it called, "Gabriel, make this man understand the vision." [17] So he came near where I stood; and when he came, I was frightened and fell upon my face. But he said to me, "Understand, O son of man, that the vision is for the time of the end."

That's now seven instances of permitted veneration of creatures: four towards angels, and three towards men; five from the Old Testament and two (one of each type) in the New Testament. The Greek for "fell down before" in Acts 16:29 is prospipto (Strong's word # 4363). It is also used of worship towards Jesus in the following five passages:

Mark 3:11 And whenever the unclean spirits beheld him, they fell down before him and cried out, "You are the Son of God."

Mark 5:33 But the woman, knowing what had been done to her, came in fear and trembling and fell down before him, and told him the whole truth.

Mark 7:25 But immediately a woman, whose little daughter was possessed by an unclean spirit, heard of him, and came and fell down at his feet. 

Luke 8:28  When he saw Jesus, he cried out and fell down before him, and said with a loud voice, "What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I beseech you, do not torment me."

Luke 8:47 And when the woman saw that she was not hidden, she came trembling, and falling down before him declared in the presence of all the people why she had touched him, and how she had been immediately healed.

So why didn't Paul and Silas rebuke the jailer? I submit that it was because they perceived his act as one of veneration (which is permitted) as opposed to adoration or worship, which is not permitted to be directed towards creatures. Note that the word "worship" doesn't appear in the above five passages, nor in Luke 24:5 or Acts 16:29, or most of the other passages above, in the RSV. When "worship" does appear in connection with a man or angel, it isn't permitted:


Acts 10:25-26 When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped [proskuneo] him. [26] But Peter lifted him up, saying, "Stand up; I too am a man."

Thus, we see the same in Revelation 19:10 and 22:8-9, because St. John mistakenly thought the angel was Jesus, and so tried to worship / adore the angel whom he thought was God. The same thing happens, of course, when men thought that Paul and Barnabas were Zeus and Hermes and "wanted to offer sacrifice." They were rebuked, as mistaken (Acts 14:11-18).

Therefore, we conclude (as Catholics always have) that worship / adoration is reserved for God alone, while veneration / honor is encouraged to be offered to worthy, saintly men and the holy angels. All this is plainly seen in the Bible, in the examples above.

In the comments for his article, Ken kept up the litany of unbiblical falsehoods:

The problem is the statues and icons in a worship context. . . . I have no problem with pictures/icons for historical purposes or teaching purposes. The problem is when the RC or others bow in front of them and start talking to them and praying to them.

Once again, Ken has a huge problem with the Bible. As a pastor, he shouldn't be so abominably ignorant of what it teaches. 
The Jews were commanded to fashion the ark of the covenant (Ex 25: 8 ff.). God revealed to them that He was present in a special, profound sense above the mercy seat on top of it (Ex 25:22; 30:6; Lev 16:2; Num 7:89; 1 Sam 4:4; 2 Sam 6:2; 1 Chron 13:6). It even contained manna inside (Heb 9:2-4), and bread and wine were priestly offerings (Gen 14:18; Lev 23:3; Num 15:5, 7, 10). The Jews bowed towards the temple when they prayed and worshiped (2 Chron 7:3; Ps 5:7; 138:2), which was a physical object thought to be particularly holy precisely because God was "specially present" inside of it.
Now here is the "clincher" and where the point is established beyond any doubt: the Jews would not only bow down, but prostrate themselves before the ark of the covenant and pray and worship God. That's already an inanimate object fashioned by mens' hands, and people are bowing before it. This is gross idolatry, according to classical Calvinism. Here are the biblical proofs of all my assertions:

Joshua 7:6-7Then Joshua rent his clothes, and fell to the earth upon his face before the ark of the LORD until the evening, he and the elders of Israel; and they put dust upon their heads. [7] And Joshua said,"Alas, O Lord GOD, why hast thou brought this people over the Jordan at all, to give us into the hands of the Amorites, to destroy us? Would that we had been content to dwell beyond the Jordan!" (cf. 1 Chron 16:1-4)

Thus, here are the Jews, by God's permission and command, bowing before an "icon" made by human hands, and praying to God at the same time: exactly as Ken claimed shouldn't be allowed, since he thinks it is "idolatry."

But Ken might retort: "What has any of this to do with statues?" Well, the statues were the large cherubim that sat atop the ark of the covenant: representations of winged celestial beings, with feet and hands. God said that He was "enthroned" on the mercy seat on top of the ark, between the two cherubim with outstretched wings (see references above for the mercy seat; also the passage immediately above; Ps 80:1; 99:1; Is 37:16; Ezek 10:4; Heb 9:5). These were described in the detailed instructions for constructing the ark (Ex 25:18-22).

Therefore, whenever the Jews or the high priest alone or other important figures prayed and worshiped before the ark of the covenant, they were doing so also before two statues (of creatures) made by men. The objections above, from unbiblical traditions of men, are thus annihilated from explicit Scripture. God can't command and condone in one place what He supposedly condemned and prohibited in another.
Moreover, it wasn't just the ark of the covenant that had statues on it. The temple itself was filled with images and statues of cherubim (Ex 26:31; 2 Chron 3:7), so that every time worship took place in it, statues and other images were involved.

Herod's temple didn't have the statues, but rather, paintings of cherubim on the walls. The first Christians (and Jesus Himself) were still worshiping in the Temple (Acts 2:46; 3:1; 21:26; 22:7; 24:12, 17-18) and abiding by Jewish rituals. The sacrifices were still being made there.
No (desperate) objection can be made concerning the absence of literal statues in the third (Herod's) Temple, however, because the ones in Solomon's Temple (1 Kgs 6:23-35) had been approved by God ("I have consecrated this house which you have built" -- 1 Kgs 9:3). God couldn't say one thing at one time, and change His mind later on and say it was a grave sin (the omniscient God cannot change His mind, and that would overthrow His own morality, anyway, which is equally impossible). Therefore, having mere paintings later rather than statues is no indication of any fundamental change.
The Jews also worshiped God via the images of clouds (Ex 33:8-10) and fire (2 Chron 7:1-4): all expressly sanctioned by God and not condemned at all.

Ken's assertions are, therefore, decisively refuted from Scripture at every turn.

[for further discussion see my cross-posting on Facebook]

Dialogue with an Anglican on "Praying to Mary," Patron Saints, Etc. (vs. Dr. Lydia McGrew)

  Dr. McGrew is a very thoughtful and (in the right way) "provocative" Anglican writer, with a very impressive Curriculum Vitae. I ran across this article today after an anti-Catholic person I have sparred with many times classified her as a "Roman Catholic" (and of course condescendingly praised her as more "honest" since she dissented from Catholic teaching). I got quite a chuckle over that. 

This is a reply to a portion of her article, "For All Saints and All Souls: Speak of me always to Maleldil" (1 Nov. 2014). Her words will be in blue. They include some from the comboxes on her site and mine also. 

I am interested particularly in her comments about the subject in my title: not prayers for the dead, which she also discusses (something much less misunderstood -- and less opposed -- by Protestants than the former topic). She herself described this area I'm interested in defending, as "yet more delicate."
* * * * *
But first, a pause for Protestantism: I am of the opinion that it is at least somewhat theologically problematic for us to ask the saints to pray for us, and especially for our particular needs and requests. I hope that is not offensive to my Catholic friends, 

I'm not offended at all. I love the friendly challenge. What offends me is when certain Protestants claim that we Catholics aren't Christians at all if we fully adhere to Catholic dogmas. This is simply good, honest, non-hostile Protestant-Catholic debate, which I love (almost above anything else).

but it seems to me that, to assume that the dead can hear our intercessions, that they know our present state on earth, and that they are speaking of it to God is to attribute to the dead something uncomfortably close to omniscience and to give to them something uncomfortably close to prayer. 

Now we get to the heart of the issue. There are a few plain logical fallacies in the above claim that I shall address. But first things first: there are various biblical indications that the saints in heaven are quite aware of what is happening on the earth.  One of the clearest is Hebrews 12:1 (RSV):

Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us,

What is this trying to express and how does it relate to the subject at hand? I wrote about it as far back as 1998. I won't cite my whole paper (anyone can read it at the link), but the best quotation from it.

Word Studies in the New Testament (Marvin R. Vincent, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1980; orig. 1887; vol. 4, p. 536), a standard Protestant language source, comments on this verse as follows:


'Witnesses' does not mean spectators, but those who have borne witness to the truth, as those enumerated in chapter 11. Yet the idea of spectators is implied, and is really the principal idea. The writer's picture is that of an arena in which the Christians whom he addresses are contending in a race, while the vast host of the heroes of faith who, after having borne witness to the truth, have entered into their heavenly rest, watches the contest from the encircling tiers of the arena, compassing and overhanging it like a cloud, filled with lively interest and sympathy, and lending heavenly aid. [bolding added presently]

That would appear to be a good biblical argument against Lydia's denial that these saints "know our present state on earth" or that in order to do so they have to be "close to omniscience." They know about us because they are in a higher state of knowledge than we are. Being more intelligent or aware does not logically entail something close to omniscience. Lydia has simply unnecessarily ruled out categories other than quasi-omniscience in those alive after departing this earth. There is no need to do so at all.

The Bible says that we will "judge angels" (1 Cor 6:3), and that "when he appears we shall be like him" (1 Jn 3:2). It's reasonable to assume that we will have knowledge in the afterlife at least akin to that of the angels (which is itself extraordinary). The Bible says, "there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance" (Lk 15:10). Who has joy? Who is rejoicing? That's the folks in heaven!

We see an example of "imprecatory prayer" in heaven, asking for justice (Rev 6:9-11). We observe men in heaven (Rev 5:8) and also angels (Rev 8:4) somehow possessing the "prayers of the saints". Why? What are they doing with them, pray tell? Why are they involved in prayer at all? Those three passages prove, contra Lydia, that they are  "speaking of it to God". 

Incorporating some of these things, I made an argument (in my book about the communion of saints) for asking saints to pray for us, as follows:


1. We ought to pray for each other (much biblical proof).

2. “The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects” (James 5:16; cf. 5:17-18).

3. Therefore it makes eminent sense to ask more righteous people to pray for us (implied in same passage), because the possibility of a positive result is greater.

4. Dead saints are more alive than we ourselves are (e.g., Matt 22:32).

5. Dead saints are aware of what happens on the earth (Heb 12:1 etc.), and indeed, are portrayed as praying for us in heaven (Rev 6:9-10).

6. Dead saints are exceptionally, if not wholly, righteous and holy, since they have been delivered from sin and are present with God (21:27, 22:14).

7. Therefore, it is perfectly sensible and spiritually wise to ask them to pray on our behalf to God.

All of this strongly implies that they can indeed hear us and offer intercession in our behalf. And these intercessions are very powerful, because they are in a sanctified state (cf. #2 and #7 above).

The two fallacies in Lydia's statement above are equating extraordinary or supernatural afterlife knowledge with quasi-omniscience. This is false. Having great, great knowledge can still be millions of "miles" away from having all knowledge, which is what omniscience is. It's a false dilemma or an attempted "false equivalence."

The last thing she wrote above, "give to them something uncomfortably close to prayer" is also true in one sense but false in another. If "prayer" is defined as simply addressing someone and asking a request of them, then yes, we pray to saints (and should!). We also "pray" to our friends on earth in the same sense. So this "proves too much and becomes ultimately a non sequitur in the discussion (because it is really asking for their intercession to God; not asking them as if they were God). But if prayer is defined as addressing the Being (God) Who ultimately has the power to grant answers to prayer, then it is only properly spoken of being directed to God alone, even if through intermediaries.

The problem with Protestant arguments against the communion of saints is that they collapse the recourse to intermediary intercessors in prayer (i.e., the ones who have died) with requests to them as if they had the ability to answer the prayer, which is God's prerogative and power alone. Catholic prayers to saints (i.e., rightly understood, in accordance with Catholic dogma) presuppose this, but because it's not stated every two seconds, Protestants too often falsely supposes that Catholics think saints can grant prayers in and of themselves apart from God. This (a supremely important point) is the fallacy or misunderstanding or both. Lydia unfortunately falls into this misunderstanding, too, as we shall see.


I will not say that prayers to the saints are definitely and intrinsically idolatrous, 

Very good! They are, of course, not at all: not intrinsically.

but I will say that I think they raise the danger of idolatry, 

Idolatry is always possible. The question at hand is what Catholic theology teaches, not whether some old lady in purple tennis shoes and perpetual curlers in her hair in Bolivia, with colorful giant dolls of Mary and other saints (and some weird local folk religious customs mixed in) distorts that teaching and commits idolatry.

for to treat the dead in this way is to treat them "too much" as we treat God--as an invisible Personage, far greater than ourselves, who can help us in our need, to whom we fly for refuge, who is always present to us, who knows our needs and what is best for us, and to whom we should cry out.

Again, here is a fallacious equivalence. None of these things require being God or close enough to Him to become an idol.  Dead saints are invisible, greater than us, able to help us (through powerful and super-knowledgeable intercession), present for us (because they are either outside of time or in a different sort of "time" altogether), etc. None of those things are true of God alone. But He is unique in power and being able to answer the prayers yay or nay.

I also disagree with the idea, which I have often seen expressed by Catholics, that certain dead saints have special influence with God the Father or with Jesus Christ ("Doesn't it make sense to ask a man's mother to intercede with him for you?"), so that by going to them we are making our prayers more efficacious than they otherwise would be.

I don't see why. The Bible clearly teaches that different people have different levels of grace (Acts 4:33; 2 Cor 8:7; Eph 4:7; 1 Pet 1:2; 2 Pet 3:18). From this it follows, it seems to me, that some might specialize in certain areas more so than others, according to different parts of the Body of Christ (much Pauline teaching on that). I don't see why this should be either controversial or objectionable. It's usually objected to because of observed excesses, while an ironclad argument against it from Scripture is rarely made. None was made above. Lydia disagrees, but has given us no compelling reason (biblical or otherwise) for why she disagrees. Anyone can see the massive amount of biblical support I have provided.

This conveys a notion that seems to me theologically false and even unsavory--namely, a notion of needing to be "in with the in crowd" theologically rather than being loved fully by Our Lord oneself and being able and encouraged to approach Him directly with one's petitions.

That's mere speculation. The fact remains that "the prayer of the righteous man avails much." In the larger context of that passage, James states:

James 5:17-18 Eli'jah was a man of like nature with ourselves and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth. [18] Then he prayed again and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth its fruit.

Okay. Would it not follow, then, that Elijah seemed to have a particular influence over weather? Therefore, why couldn't someone ask him to pray to God about the weather, rather than someone else, since he had this record of asking for rain to cease, and it did for three and-a-half years? So he became, in effect, the "patron saint of meteorological petitions."

We do roughly the same in this life with friends, on the level of empathy. So, e.g., if a woman has difficulty with miscarriage or difficult pregnancies or deliveries, she might go to a woman who has experienced the same thing and ask her to pray to god for her. I don't see any intrinsic difficulty here. To me, it is just common sense. Catholics don't ever deny anyone the ability to "go straight to God." But we assert with James that certain prayers of certain people have more power; therefore it is sensible to go to them as intermediaries. Thus, again, in the same passage, we see "differential prayer factors":

James 5:14 Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord;

The passage doesn't say "go right to God, and if you don't, it is a danger of idolatry." Nope. The sick person is advised to go to the elders, and have them pray, and anoint . . .

I note, too, that this notion of special "influence at court" is at odds with the other claim one sometimes sees--namely, that asking for the prayers of the saints is entirely unobjectionable because it is just like asking one's friends on earth to pray for one.

This is talking about two different things. We say it is "just like asking one's friends on earth to pray" when the objection is made that the saints are dead. That's when we say that asking them is logically not different from asking a friend. In both cases it is an intercessory request, and the dead are more alive in Christ and more aware than we are, so they ought not be excluded. God never intended that. It's an arbitrary line, as if death ends all. It does not.

But in fact, we don't believe that our ordinary friends on earth have this exalted "influence at court" in the heavenly realm, such as we are encouraged to think of the dead saints, especially certain ones like Mary, as having! So the two defenses of prayers to the saints are in conflict.

That's right. We don't only insofar as they are particularly holy. Obviously, no one is gonna reach to the sublimity of Mary, who was sinless. So this is a rather silly comparison. A Catholic would have to be profoundly dumb (and plenty of them assuredly are! -- but stupidity in Christianity is by no means exclusively a Catholic trait) to not understand these basic distinctions of category.

Having now (sad to say) probably thoroughly succeeded in offending my Catholic readers,

I'm not in the slightest. I'm absolutely delighted for this great opportunity to defend the Catholic conception of the communion of saints. It's one of my favorite topics in theology. I love to be stimulated by thoughtful people and other serious Christians, seeking to better follow God.

Perhaps, as our knowledge of their state is blocked by the chasm of death, and we can pray for them only in the general terms suggested above, their knowledge of our situation is similarly blocked or greatly limited. They are finite beings, as we are, and we have no reason to believe that God has ordained that they shall have supernatural knowledge of all that is going on here on earth.


I don't see that this is the case in the Bible. I've provided plenty of relevant verses (plenty of "reason"); Lydia has provided no Bible passages at all thus far.

And if such an outpouring is effective as prayer when uttered here on earth, why would it not have effect when uttered by one in heaven? In other words, perhaps the dead really do pray for us effectually, and perhaps we really can pray for them effectually, even though we are absent from each other.

This is much better. I think the cumulative effect of the passages I have offered above, and others, show that they do in fact do so.

I find that in all actual Catholic practice of which I am aware, including that by very educated and knowledgeable Catholics, the idea that God only supernaturally makes known our prayers to the saints is not maintained as a consistent implication. Much Catholic veneration of Mary, for example, calls upon her directly to help us or says that we fly to her in our trouble. This would make little sense if every fact in question--our specific trouble and our individual prayer--had to be made known to her on a case-by-case basis by God.

This is again mixing up two different notions. Whether God makes the prayers known or the saints have additional powers in the fact of the matter of being in heaven; either way it is due to God's supernatural power. I don't see, then, that it matters much if it is one scenario or the other. It all goes back to God.

The second part of the above statement is something else, and gets back to "the power of answering prayer." Catholic veneration of Mary understands on a presuppositional level that she is not God; therefore any "answer" she can give to prayer is due to asking Him in intercession. It would be like, for example, working for one boss who is himself under a higher-up boss. We could ask our immediate boss for a raise, and if we get one, we can say, "he got it for us." But technically, the raise had to be okayed by the higher boss. Thus, the lower boss did not "answer" the request. He conveyed it as a channel. Yet we still could say "he" got us the raise.

That's how it is with Mary and God. The Catholic understands this; therefore doesn't have to point it out every time a Marian devotion is made. It's kindergarten stuff to is. But because Protestants don't partake in such devotions, they woefully misread their very nature. I've defended at length very elaborate "flowery" Marian prayers from St. Maximilian Kolbe and St. Alphonsus Liguori and St. Louis de Montfort (in my book about Mary). These are considered some of the most "idolatrous" by Protestant critics. Yet in every instance I have ever defended such piety, it was always the case that it was grounded in Jesus as the ultimate One Who answers prayer and gives Mary whatever power she has.

When Protestants attack these prayers, habitually they will find the most "terrible" examples they can come up with, for shock value (knowing that Protestant readers will be horrified and scandalized). For some reason, however, almost always they will ignore the context where Jesus is also mentioned. This gives a false impression and is a dishonest analysis. Once I provide such context, the "difficulty" disappears.

The very notion of seeking the help of the saints gives the strong impression that they are, by the nature of their situation, in a position to help us.

Absolutely: but by their more powerful intercession to God; not because they themselves can answer apart from God.

[gave examples of two Marian prayers] Many, many more examples could be found. One would never speak of asking for the prayers of a friend on earth, however godly, in those terms.

Of course not; because no one on earth is like Mary (why is it worth mentioning that at all; isn't it obvious: either assuming Catholic beliefs or assuming them for the sake of argument?). There was only one Mother of God and one immaculate sinless person, made that way by an act of God's grace at the moment of her conception.

 [second round of dialogue; from Lydia's comments in the combox below]
Part of the difficulty here, which is almost certainly going to preclude agreement, is the very fact that I am not definitely saying that prayers to the dead saints are idolatrous. This may seem ironic, but my point is it that it is the very "fuzziness" and hence relative mildness of my critique that makes it both difficult for you to refute it decisively and also difficult for me to convince you of its justice. If I were saying that speaking to dead saints is intrinsically, by its very nature, idolatrous, then I could be refuted, and we'd be done. I could write that refutation myself, in fact. It is because I am using terms like "uncomfortably" or "too much like" and so forth that it is difficult to find common ground for disagreement–because there is an ineliminable element of subjectivism in these evaluations.

And the danger is also "throwing the baby out with the bathwater." You say you're not asserting intrinsic idolatry (hence you acknowledge possible goodness and rightness in these practices) ; yet the practical result is the same: because you are always worrying about a fuzzy line and possible descent into idolatry, you don't practice invocation of saints and asking their intercession. In other words, by setting up a scenario of "possible idolatry" you (happily) avoid idolatry but you also avoid the blessings of the communion of saints that God (according, I think, to the Bible and definitely to apostolic and patristic tradition) intended to have for you.

When is a practice, for us human beings as we really are, dangerously psychologically too much like praying to God to be theologically wise?

When folks don't correctly understand the crucial differences. I think the practices are dangerous insofar as people are uneducated and ignorant as to their nature and purpose and goals. Since the Catholic Church has done an atrocious job of catechesis in the last fifty years (and most people still don't even know what apologetics is), there is a mountainous amount of such ignorance or apathy, thus making it easy for someone like you to make a case against, based on corruptions in practice (and in fact this was largely the mindset of the so-called "reformers" in the 16th century). But your solution (like that of the "reformers") is to cease doing the practice because it is abused and misunderstood. My solution is to educate people so that they will practice it in the right way and obtain blessings therefrom.

Look at your own analogy of levels of bosses and asking an intermediate-level boss to get a raise for us. Is that how we should think of God and our relationship to him?

You're missing the point. The heart of the analogy (in my intention anyway) was not that God is a big boss Who gives us goodies (or about relationship with Him), but rather, to show that we routinely say that an immediate boss "gives us" something, when technically it is the big boss who does so (i.e., primary and secondary causation). That was my analogy to reply to your objection of prayers seeming to be directly to Mary as if she grants our request apart from God (which Catholics of course deny). All analogies are imperfect. I used this one off the top of my head. For it's purpose, correctly understood, I think it succeeds.

And the author of Hebrews (Hebrews 4:16) tells us to come boldly to the throne of grace and emphasizes throughout the book that, the old covenant being at an end, we need no human intermediary other than the Lord Jesus himself. These verses and others (the Lord's prayer itself, for example) encourage believers to strive for a directness and intimacy in their relationship with God . . .

You neglect to see that, while anyone can go directly to God at any time if they so choose, intermediaries are systematically used throughout Scripture. The best treatment of this matter that I can recall is Patrick Madrid's "Any friend of God is a friend of mine."Among many excellent examples, he mentions Hebrews, as you do:

Jesus is the high priest of the New Covenant, eternally present before the Father, mediating his once-for-all sacrifice for our redemption (Heb 3:1, 4:14-15, 5:5-10, 7:15-26, 8:1, 9:11). But the Bible also says Christians are called to share in Christ’s priesthood (1 Pt 2:5-9; Rv 1:6, 5:10, 20:6).

See also my related paper, "There is One Mediator" (1 Timothy 2:5): Does This Rule Out "Mini-Mediators"? I have written often about how God uses people to distribute His grace. See, e.g.,  Human, Pauline, and Marian Distribution of Divine Graces: Not an "Unbiblical" Notion After All?

I think that the father would be rightly hurt if a son said that he asked his brother to make a request on his behalf because he thought the brother a favorite and wanted the brother to help him by "getting it for him."

Then you have not understood differential grace and merit in Scripture and tradition. This is not surprising, since most Protestants are taught to deny both (quite biblical) things. You also have to deny the bald fact of passages such as the one I already gave you:

James 5:14 Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; 

So now God would be offended because He spoke an inspired word in His revelation through James, that it is better to ask a Church elder to pray for a sickness than to go "direct to Him"? You continue to neglect the key verse of James 5:16: "The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects." That means something. What does it mean in your scenario, where everyone should go right to God and avoid asking an exceptionally holy person to pray for them? You neglect entire vast areas of biblical practice and piety. But that was what Protestantism was about: stripping Christianity to its bare bones, for a minimalist, bare minimum, skeletal type of Christianity, stripped of far too much of its miraculous and supernatural character. I don't want that. I want all of what God intended for His followers to have.

But again, you are likely simply to say that you do not agree that the analogies used or the practice as you engage in it or as your friends engage in it encourages a wrong kind of distance from God or a replacement of intimacy and closeness with God with intimacy with the saints who seem nearer to ourselves.

That's correct, because we don't see it in "either/or" dichotomous terms, as Protestants typically do. We don't pit God against His saints. We believe that He wants to involve those saints in His purposes, and that no intrinsic conflict is set up in that state of affairs. The Protestant presupposes that any invocation of or devotion to a saint somehow takes something away from God (this is precisely why it is thought to be either intrinsically idolatrous or in danger of crossing that "fuzzy" line). But it's not the case. The error lies in the false Protestant "either/or" premise.

Catholics are all for intimacy / relationship with God. This is not something (sorry to disappoint or shock anyone) that Protestants discovered in the 16th century. Have you never read The Imitation of Christ? Or you could check out the incredible, sublime intimacy of various Catholic mystics and contemplatives with God, that I recently compiled into a long book.

I can say this much, because this lies within my own personal experience: During the times when I have been most sympathetic to prayers to the saints, I have found that sympathy and inclination actually to be a distraction from what I now regard as my proper personal relationship with God.

Precisely! This is what I am saying. Because (in your theological premises before you even get to the practice) you create a false dichotomy between the saints and God, as if two different things are involved instead of one, you felt like that. But the Catholic who regards all of it as one thing: approaches to God: directly or indirectly: all glory to Him; all things in His providence, we feel no such "competition" between a saint and God. We think in "both/and" terms, and all always goes back to God.

The whole point of the request to the intermediary in those analogies is that that person is asking for you, instead of your asking yourself.

In one sense he is, in another (I say, the more essential aspect) he isn't. If I ask something of someone through an intermediary, it doesn't cease to be (ultimately or essentially) a request from me. It's still my request and only secondarily the intermediary's request, as a go-between, or messenger between myself and the ultimate goal (in the analogy, God).

In fact, it works the same in reverse. God sent prophets to earth to speak for Him. They spoke in the name of the Lord, and often said, "The Lord says," as if they were simply sorts of "telephone lines" between God and men: directly conveying God's message.

God could have communicated directly, had He chosen that. He did so in many theophanies and at the burning bush, and when Jesus was baptized and transfigured, when He spoke directly out of heaven. But He routinely  chose to speak through intermediaries: the prophets (and for that matter, in all of His Bible, which came through men; rather than falling from heaven with no human involvement).

Now, according to your logic that you set forth above, when He does that, He is not sending the message; the prophet is. You create a wedge between the messenger and God, or the messenger and the original person praying. What I'm saying is that that is nonsensical. Clearly God is speaking through the messenger, who conveys His words and thoughts. Likewise, the Catholic who makes requests of God through someone else, continues to be the main person attempting to communicate with God in some fashion. The presence of a second party doesn't eliminate that fact.

You continue (in your comments following the above) to operate on a seemingly caricatured perspective of what Catholic piety and invocation of saints is all about. In the end, beyond all the arguments I am giving, I can only observe that you don't fully grasp it yet. It involves faith. It's not simply a rational exercise. You can't accurately observe it from the outside looking in: not totally. Yet I don't appeal to mere subjectivism, as you are mostly doing. I have backed it up massively with Scripture at every turn. And I could also back it up with massive patristic support.

There's not much more I can say to a lot of your analysis in this second round. The difficulties and differences here lie at the level of premise, and I tried to undermine yours by showing Scripture that I think is contrary to them. If you reject that, then there's little more that I can do. We'll have to agree to disagree, and those on the fence or seeking can read this exchange and come away from it with whatever they may. They can decide who made a more plausible case. I'm more than happy to let them do that. 

Considering the strongness of the degree of knowledge being attributed to the saints, I think that the scriptural supports you allege are far too weak to uphold it.

We profoundly disagree on how much the saints in heaven know and are aware of. I suppose several passages might be set forth along those lines. Off the top of my head I can think of these:

1 Corinthians 2:4-16 and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, [5] that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God. [6] Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. [7] But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glorification. [8] None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. [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," [10] God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. [11] For what person knows a man's thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. [12] Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, that we might understand the gifts bestowed on us by God. [13] And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit. [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. [15] The spiritual man judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. [16] "For who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.

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

Ephesians 4:13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ;

Colossians 2:2-3 that their hearts may be encouraged as they are knit together in love, to have all the riches of assured understanding and the knowledge of God's mystery, of Christ, [3] in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

Regarding the previous four passages, I ask: how much more so will we have the riches and knowledge of Christ in heaven? Then the following two passages directly suggest extraordinary knowledge in the afterlife:

1 Corinthians 13:9-12 For our knowledge is imperfect and our prophecy is imperfect; [10] but when the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away.  [11] When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became a man, I gave up childish ways. [12] For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood. 

1 John 3:2  Beloved, we are God's children now; it does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.

Once again, you speculate endlessly in the subjectivist cocoon of your own brain and its reasoning powers (which are considerable,but have to attain correct premises in the beginning). I appeal (along with some arguments from reason alone) mostly to Holy Scripture: God's inspired revelation. Which method do you think will be more compelling to undecided readers?

One point that occurs to me is that if idolatry creeps into a Christian group or into the life of a Christian (or Jew, for that matter), it will do so in some way that can be explained away.

Oftentimes, sadly, yes, because human beings have an endless capacity for self-deception, self-justification, and rationalization. What we need to remember regarding idolatry, is that it resides internally in the heart, first and foremost. One has to be consciously aware of what they are doing and what they believe. If a person is to replace God with a saint (as if the latter is equal to or higher than God), then they are consciously, deliberately doing so, or else it isn't idolatry per se. It may be spiritual laxity or even gross negligence, but not idolatry.

I've often used a variant of this argument in defending transubstantiation. The claim is that Catholics are worshiping bread. For the critic observing from the outside, given their beliefs that no such miracle occurs, indeed this is the case, since for them the consecrated host remains bread and is no part of Christ at all; therefore it is bread-worship from their perspective.

But the claim made is idolatry on the Catholic's part, and this fails, because the Catholic doesn't believe for a second that He is worshiping (or desires to worship) mere bread and wine. We believe that it has miraculously transformed into the true Body and Blood of Christ. Whether we are right or wrong about that, it is not idolatry, because the fundamental premise is missing (deliberately worshiping bread as God).

In fact, in the very nature of the case, idolatry is the kind of thing that comes in degrees. We do admire people, so it's a question of when admiration "turns into" idolatry, and this will have fuzzy lines.

There is no "degree" in transubstantiation. The consecrated host is either bread or it is Jesus Christ. Such confusion might, however be directed towards Lutheran belief, in which both are present together.

Likewise, with communion of saints. As long as a Catholic understands the basic creature / Creator distinction and understands that God ultimately answers the prayer, however it is offered (and doesn't fall into the fallacious Protestant "either/or" mentality), then there is no idolatry. It's not complicated. Sadly, however, there are many Catholics who are ignorant about even these elementary things. This is their fault and that of their teachers, not Catholic theology itself, which is crystal-clear about all these matters.

Also, if one is theologically clever, one can explain away almost anything.

Yes they can. I think you have attempted to do that by dismissing communion of saints in its fullness because you think it is "dangerous." That may be clever, but those who follow this reasoning lose out in the end because they lose blessings that God intended for them. I think you have failed in your attempt to explain it away (though an "e for effort" and you gave it the ol' college try) and I trust that readers can and will see that by considering my critiques.

Hmmm, I'm surprised that you think you have documented your position "massively" in Scripture. Isn't that a rather strong statement, considering the strength of the position? Massively? 

Once again we encounter the different mindsets and definitions of the Protestant and Catholic camps. What I said was, "I have backed it up massively with Scripture at every turn"; meaning that I have offered plenty of biblical texts that I think have relevance, not necessarily that any or all of them are compelling or explicit (you have offered very few and mostly your own admittedly subjective analysis). 

Protestants, of course, demand (for the most part) explicit biblical evidences or else they will reject a position (part and parcel of sola Scriptura). Yet ironically there is no proof whatsoever in Scripture of sola Scriptura, (I wrote two books -- one / two -- about that), so this demand is arbitrary and non-biblical).

Protestants also, of course, reject a binding, infallible sacred tradition, in line with the magisterial teaching of the Church. We believe things not only because they are explicit in Scripture, but because they have been accepted by the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, and have been practiced by Christians from the beginning (albeit usually highly developed as time goes on). That's how the Church fathers always argued, and we agree with them and do the same.

 For example, consider the verses in James. I'm rather intrigued by the fact that you seem to think that those verses do teach that we should go to those intermediaries (e.g., the elders of the church) rather than praying on our own behalf. I would call this a type of biting the bullet.

I'm intrigued that you deny that this is (in my opinion) the obvious import of the passage. I was responding to your arguments that it is somehow improper or unsavory or unnecessary to "go through" someone else; and lo and behold, here is Scripture plainly advocating it. I don't think it's "either/or." I think that here was a clear example of an intermediary in prayer: the thing that you want to deny or minimize. You're playing the "either/or" game, not me. I (and Catholics) firmly believe in both things.

I would say that this demonstrates that our disagreement comes at the level of what degree of intimacy should obtain between Christians and God. 

I completely disagree. There is no disagreement on that between the two camps. But Protestants often caricature Catholicism as a viewpoint that supposedly stresses non-intimacy or non-relationship with God. That is nonsense, and I countered it by citing Thomas a Kempis and Catholic mystics. But to no avail . . . Our disagreement comes at the level of premises: just not this premise, where the two sides, rightly understood, completely agree. Christians ought to be in personal relationship and intimacy with God. In fact, I would argue that Catholic mystics teach an intimacy with God (up to and including theosis or divinization) that is significantly deeper and beyond anything that can be found in Protestantism. 

they absolutely do not mean that we should ask the righteous man to pray for us instead of praying for ourselves.

I completely agree. I never said that they did: only that they give an example of this sort of prayer: "going through" others of a higher state or holiness. We can pray on our own or we can go the other route, which is completely biblical.

 Why in the world would anyone take the knowledge in those verses to mean or even to include knowledge of events going on on earth, knowledge of people's trying to talk to you by ESP, and so forth? I cannot imagine.

I cited them generally, "off the top of my head," as I stated. You don't like those possibilities so you don't see them as included. We do, because we have no such prior hostility to the notion going in. "filled with all the fulness of God" and " the fulness of Christ" are profound statements, as are "we shall be like him" and " then I shall understand fully." You don't see the sorts of things we are debating (knowledge of saints of prayers, etc.) as plausibly or possibly being included in those sorts of broad statements. We Catholics absolutely do. It all goes back to premise and the worldview one adopts, which then becomes a lens or "filter" through which everything is viewed. And I didn't even get into the many Bible passage about theosis, such as (notably) our becoming "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Pet 1:4).

Your most recent comment is based on the premise that merit and differential holiness and grace either don't exist or are insignificant factors. That's a completely different discussion, and I have already spent more than enough time with this, and we aren't achieving any sort of meeting of the minds as it is.  We drift further and further apart as this continues. 

Constructive, fruitful discussion must proceed from common, shared premises and then go from there. Unfortunately, what we are doing now is discovering more and more unshared premises, and so our efforts to communicate to each other become increasingly futile. We're (for whatever reason) digressing rather than progressing, and that is usually when I become much less interested in a discussion.

But I do appreciate your strong effort and refusal to condescend into personal insults or anti-Catholicism.

* * * * *

Dialogue with an Anglican on "Praying to Mary," Patron Saints, Etc. (vs. Lydia McGrew)

  Lydia appears to me to be a very thoughtful and (in the right way) "provocative" Anglican writer. I ran across this article today after an anti-Catholic person I have sparred with many times classified her as a "Roman Catholic" (and of course praised her as more "honest" as a result). I got quite a chuckle over that.  This is a reply to a portion of her article, "For All Saints and All Souls: Speak of me always to Maleldil" (1 Nov. 2014). Her words will be in blue. The include some from the combox also. I am interested particularly in her comments about the subject in my title: not prayers for the dead, which she also discusses (something much less misunderstood -- and less opposed -- by Protestants than the former topic). She herself described this area I'm interested in defending, as "yet more delicate."
* * * * *
But first, a pause for Protestantism: I am of the opinion that it is at least somewhat theologically problematic for us to ask the saints to pray for us, and especially for our particular needs and requests. I hope that is not offensive to my Catholic friends, 

I'm not offended at all. I love the friendly challenge. What offends me is when certain Protestants claim that we Catholics aren't Christians at all if we fully adhere to Catholic dogmas. This is simply good, honest, non-hostile Protestant-Catholic debate, which I love (almost above anything else).

but it seems to me that, to assume that the dead can hear our intercessions, that they know our present state on earth, and that they are speaking of it to God is to attribute to the dead something uncomfortably close to omniscience and to give to them something uncomfortably close to prayer. 

Now we get to the heart of the issue. There are a few plain logical fallacies in the above claim that I shall address. But first things first: there are various biblical indications that the saints in heaven are quite aware of what is happening on the earth.  One of the clearest is Hebrews 12:1 (RSV):

Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us,

What is this trying to express and how does it relate to the subject at hand? I wrote about it as far back as 1998. I won't cite my whole paper (anyone can read it at the link), but the best quotation from it.

Word Studies in the New Testament (Marvin R. Vincent, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1980; orig. 1887; vol. 4, p. 536), a standard Protestant language source, comments on this verse as follows:

'Witnesses' does not mean spectators, but those who have borne witness to the truth, as those enumerated in chapter 11. Yet the idea of spectators is implied, and is really the principal idea. The writer's picture is that of an arena in which the Christians whom he addresses are contending in a race, while the vast host of the heroes of faith who, after having borne witness to the truth, have entered into their heavenly rest, watches the contest from the encircling tiers of the arena, compassing and overhanging it like a cloud, filled with lively interest and sympathy, and lending heavenly aid. [bolding added presently]

That would appear to be a good biblical argument against Lydia's denial that these saints "know our present state on earth" or that in order to do so they have to be "close to omniscience." They know about us because they are in a higher state of knowledge than we are. Being more intelligent or aware does not logically entail something close to omniscience. Lydia has simply unnecessarily ruled out categories other than quasi-omniscience in those alive after departing this earth. There is no need to do so at all.

The Bible says that we will "judge angels" (1 Cor 6:3), and that "when he appears we shall be like him" (1 Jn 3:2). It's reasonable to assume that we will have knowledge in the afterlife at least akin to that of the angels (which is itself extraordinary). The Bible says, "there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance" (Lk 15:10). Who has joy? Who is rejoicing? That's the folks in heaven!

We see an example of "imprecatory prayer" in heaven, asking for justice (Rev 6:9-11). We observe men in heaven (Rev 5:8) and also angels (Rev 8:4) somehow possessing the "prayers of the saints". Why? What are they doing with them, pray tell? Why are they involved in prayer at all? Those three passages prove, contra Lydia, that they are  "speaking of it to God". Incorporating some of these things, I made an argument (in my book about the communion of saints) for asking saints to pray for us, as follows:

1. We ought to pray for each other (much biblical proof).

2. “The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects” (James 5:16; cf. 5:17-18).

3. Therefore it makes eminent sense to ask more righteous people to pray for us (implied in same passage), because the possibility of a positive result is greater.

4. Dead saints are more alive than we ourselves are (e.g., Matt 22:32).

5. Dead saints are aware of what happens on the earth (Heb 12:1 etc.), and indeed, are portrayed as praying for us in heaven (Rev 6:9-10).

6. Dead saints are exceptionally, if not wholly, righteous and holy, since they have been delivered from sin and are present with God (21:27, 22:14).

7. Therefore, it is perfectly sensible and spiritually wise to ask them to pray on our behalf to God.

All of this strongly implies that they can indeed hear us and offer intercession in our behalf. And these intercessions are very powerful, because they are in a sanctified state (cf. #2 and #7 above).

The two fallacies in Lydia's statement above are equating extraordinary or supernatural afterlife knowledge with quasi-omniscience. This is false. Having great, great knowledge can still be millions of "miles" away from having all knowledge, which is what omniscience is. It's a false dilemma or an attempted "false equivalence."

The last thing she wrote above, "give to them something uncomfortably close to prayer" is also true in one sense but false in another. If "prayer" is defined as simply addressing someone and asking a request of them, then yes, we pray to saints (and should!). We also "pray" to our friends on earth in the same sense. So this "proves too much and becomes ultimately a non sequitur in the discussion (because it is really asking for their intercession to God; not asking them as if they were God). But if prayer is defined as addressing the Being (God) Who ultimately has the power to grant answers to prayer, then it is only properly spoken of being directed to God alone, even if through intermediaries.

The problem with Protestant arguments against the communion of saints is that they collapse the recourse to intermediary intercessors in prayer (i.e., the ones who have died) with requests to them as if they had the ability to answer the prayer, which is God's prerogative and power alone. Catholic prayers to saints (i.e., rightly understood, in accordance with Catholic dogma) presuppose this, but because it's not stated every two seconds, Protestants too often falsely supposes that Catholics think saints can grant prayers in and of themselves apart from God. This (a supremely important point) is the fallacy or misunderstanding or both. Lydia unfortunately falls into this misunderstanding, too, as we shall see.


I will not say that prayers to the saints are definitely and intrinsically idolatrous, 

Very good! They are, of course, not at all: not intrinsically.

but I will say that I think they raise the danger of idolatry, 

Idolatry is always possible. The question at hand is what Catholic theology teaches, not whether some old lady in purple tennis shoes and perpetual curlers in her hair in Bolivia, with colorful giant dolls of Mary and other saints (and some weird local folk religious customs mixed in) distorts that teaching and commits idolatry.

for to treat the dead in this way is to treat them "too much" as we treat God--as an invisible Personage, far greater than ourselves, who can help us in our need, to whom we fly for refuge, who is always present to us, who knows our needs and what is best for us, and to whom we should cry out.

Again, here is a fallacious equivalence. None of these things require being God or close enough to Him to become an idol.  Dead saints are invisible, greater than us, able to help us (through powerful and super-knowledgeable intercession), present for us (because they are either outside of time or in a different sort of "time" altogether), etc. None of those things are true of God alone. But He is unique in power and being able to answer the prayers yay or nay.

I also disagree with the idea, which I have often seen expressed by Catholics, that certain dead saints have special influence with God the Father or with Jesus Christ ("Doesn't it make sense to ask a man's mother to intercede with him for you?"), so that by going to them we are making our prayers more efficacious than they otherwise would be.

I don't see why. The Bible clearly teaches that different people have different levels of grace (Acts 4:33; 2 Cor 8:7; Eph 4:7; 1 Pet 1:2; 2 Pet 3:18). From this it follows, it seems to me, that some might specialize in certain areas more so than others, according to different parts of the Body of Christ (much Pauline teaching on that). I don't see why this should be either controversial or objectionable. It's usually objected to because of observed excesses, while an ironclad argument against it from Scripture is rarely made. None was made above. Lydia disagrees, but has given us no compelling reason (biblical or otherwise) for why she disagrees. Anyone can see the massive amount of biblical support I have provided.

This conveys a notion that seems to me theologically false and even unsavory--namely, a notion of needing to be "in with the in crowd" theologically rather than being loved fully by Our Lord oneself and being able and encouraged to approach Him directly with one's petitions.

That's mere speculation. The fact remains that "the prayer of the righteous man avails much." In the larger context of that passage, James states:

James 5:17-18 Eli'jah was a man of like nature with ourselves and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth. [18] Then he prayed again and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth its fruit.

Okay. Would it not follow, then, that Elijah seemed to have a particular influence over weather? Therefore, why couldn't someone ask him to pray to God about the weather, rather than someone else, since he had this record of asking for rain to cease, and it did for three and-a-half years? So he became, in effect, the "patron saint of meteorological petitions."

We do roughly the same in this life with friends, on the level of empathy. So, e.g., if a woman has difficulty with miscarriage or difficult pregnancies or deliveries, she might go to a woman who has experienced the same thing and ask her to pray to god for her. I don't see any intrinsic difficulty here. To me, it is just common sense. Catholics don't ever deny anyone the ability to "go straight to God." But we assert with James that certain prayers of certain people have more power; therefore it is sensible to go to them as intermediaries. Thus, again, in the same passage, we see "differential prayer factors":

James 5:14 Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord;

The passage doesn't say "go right to God, and if you don't, it is a danger of idolatry." Nope. The sick person is advised to go to the elders, and have them pray, and anoint . . .

I note, too, that this notion of special "influence at court" is at odds with the other claim one sometimes sees--namely, that asking for the prayers of the saints is entirely unobjectionable because it is just like asking one's friends on earth to pray for one.

This is talking about two different things. We say it is "just like asking one's friends on earth to pray" when the objection is made that the saints are dead. That's when we say that asking them is logically not different from asking a friend. In both cases it is an intercessory request, and the dead are more alive in Christ and more aware than we are, so they ought not be excluded. God never intended that. It's an arbitrary line, as if death ends all. It does not.

But in fact, we don't believe that our ordinary friends on earth have this exalted "influence at court" in the heavenly realm, such as we are encouraged to think of the dead saints, especially certain ones like Mary, as having! So the two defenses of prayers to the saints are in conflict.

That's right. We don't only insofar as they are particularly holy. Obviously, no one is gonna reach to the sublimity of Mary, who was sinless. So this is a rather silly comparison. A Catholic would have to be profoundly dumb (and plenty of them assuredly are! -- but stupidity in Christianity is by no means exclusively a Catholic trait) to not understand these basic distinctions of category.

Having now (sad to say) probably thoroughly succeeded in offending my Catholic readers,

I'm not in the slightest. I'm absolutely delighted for this great opportunity to defend the Catholic conception of the communion of saints. It's one of my favorite topics in theology. I love to be stimulated by thoughtful people and other serious Christians, seeking to better follow God.

Perhaps, as our knowledge of their state is blocked by the chasm of death, and we can pray for them only in the general terms suggested above, their knowledge of our situation is similarly blocked or greatly limited. They are finite beings, as we are, and we have no reason to believe that God has ordained that they shall have supernatural knowledge of all that is going on here on earth.


I don't see that this is the case in the Bible. I've provided plenty of relevant verses (plenty of "reason"); Lydia has provided no Bible passages at all thus far.

And if such an outpouring is effective as prayer when uttered here on earth, why would it not have effect when uttered by one in heaven? In other words, perhaps the dead really do pray for us effectually, and perhaps we really can pray for them effectually, even though we are absent from each other.

This is much better. I think the cumulative effect of the passages I have offered above, and others, show that they do in fact do so.

I find that in all actual Catholic practice of which I am aware, including that by very educated and knowledgeable Catholics, the idea that God only supernaturally makes known our prayers to the saints is not maintained as a consistent implication. Much Catholic veneration of Mary, for example, calls upon her directly to help us or says that we fly to her in our trouble. This would make little sense if every fact in question--our specific trouble and our individual prayer--had to be made known to her on a case-by-case basis by God.

This is again mixing up two different notions. Whether God makes the prayers known or the saints have additional powers in the fact of the matter of being in heaven; either way it is due to God's supernatural power. I don't see, then, that it matters much if it is one scenario or the other. It all goes back to God.

The second part of the above statement is something else, and gets back to "the power of answering prayer." Catholic veneration of Mary understands on a presuppositional level that she is not God; therefore any "answer" she can give to prayer is due to asking Him in intercession. It would be like, for example, working for one boss who is himself under a higher-up boss. We could ask our immediate boss for a raise, and if we get one, we can say, "he got it for us." But technically, the raise had to be okayed by the higher boss. Thus, the lower boss did not "answer" the request. He conveyed it as a channel. Yet we still could say "he" got us the raise.

That's how it is with Mary and God. The Catholic understands this; therefore doesn't have to point it out every time a Marian devotion is made. It's kindergarten stuff to is. But because Protestants don't partake in such devotions, they woefully misread their very nature. I've defended at length very elaborate "flowery" Marian prayers from St. Maximilian Kolbe and St. Alphonsus Liguori and St. Louis de Montfort (in my book about Mary). These are considered some of the most "idolatrous" by Protestant critics. Yet in every instance I have ever defended such piety, it was always the case that it was grounded in Jesus as the ultimate One Who answers prayer and gives Mary whatever power she has.

When Protestants attack these prayers, habitually they will find the most "terrible" examples they can come up with, for shock value (knowing that Protestant readers will be horrified and scandalized). For some reason, however, almost always they will ignore the context where Jesus is also mentioned. This gives a false impression and is a dishonest analysis. Once I provide such context, the "difficulty" disappears.

The very notion of seeking the help of the saints gives the strong impression that they are, by the nature of their situation, in a position to help us.

Absolutely: but by their more powerful intercession to God; not because they themselves can answer apart from God.

[gave examples of two Marian prayers] Many, many more examples could be found. One would never speak of asking for the prayers of a friend on earth, however godly, in those terms.

Of course not; because no one on earth is like Mary (why is it worth mentioning that at all; isn't it obvious: either assuming Catholic beliefs or assuming them for the sake of argument?). There was only one Mother of God and one immaculate sinless person, made that way by an act of God's grace at the moment of her conception.

* * * * *

Still Trying to Attain to the Title of "Catholic Apologist" After 20 Books Published by Six Different Publishers, 13 Years of Full-Time Work, Etc. (Sam Shamoun's Ridiculous Comment)

Please let me know when I make it! I want so badly to be a Catholic apologist. But anti-Catholic Reformed expert on Islam Sam Shamoun knows better, I guess . . . He wrote in a tweet + Facebook author post:

Another post from Stephen Haye's Triablogue where a sister takes wannabe Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong to the woodshed as well.

1. This is now the fourth anti-Catholic writer / blog that triumphantly claims that I got my butt thoroughly kicked in a debate, while being too scared to post my side of the debate (in other words, it is worthless and pathetic, but don't let anyone dare read it, so they can see that this is manifestly and self-evidently the case! Just say it and certain folks will sop it up like a sponge).

2. The debate was with Dr. Lydia McGrew, an Anglican, regarding the communion of saints. We got along fine, respected each other, and complimented each other. I told her that I'd like to be her friend. That's real, adult dialogue, not the patent imbecilic nonsense that passes for "dialogue" on anti-Catholic know-nothing sites. For those who actually read both sides of a debate instead of one, with peanut gallery Bronx cheers and junior high locker room put-downs accompanying, here is the link to the actual debate.

3. The spelling is "Steve Hays," not "Stephen Hayes." The latter is a conservative commentator who writes for The Weekly Standard . The former is a loudmouthed (i.e., endlessly prolix and quite boorish) blogger who has no published credentials at all, as far as I can tell. I have heard it said that he is a TA, which likely means that he is a wannabe academic, and so now pretends to be one on his own blog and self-published books here and there. It's particularly cute that Shamoun cites a wannabe academic and wannabe author as "proof" that I am merely a wannabe apologist.

4. If his name were "Hayes" (rather than "Haye") proper grammar would be "Hayes' Triablogue" rather than "Haye's Triablogue". Sorry to make hay about this, but hey, all in a day's work, eh?

5. I find it fascinating that the same person who calls me a "wannabe Catholic apologist" had nothing but praise for my trinitarian research when we met some ten years ago, calling it "masterful." He also wrote:

I am reading your stuff since I think it is the most thorough and perhaps the best defense of Catholicism out there . . . Dave has been nothing but respectful and kind to me. He has shown me great respect despite knowing full well that I disagree with him on the essential issues.

This respect included recommending his work on Islam for many years. I still would today, in and of itself, except that his anti-Catholicism and extreme rudeness (quite different from his demeanor when we met in person) now preclude such a recommendation.

How things change! I offered the "best defense of Catholicism" years ago (apologetics basically means "defense"), yet lo, these many years later, I'm still a "wannabe apologist."

6. On his web page, "The Trinity" he continues to recommend my trinitarian research for his readers:

"Dave Armstrong's collections 'Jesus is God: Biblical Proofs' and 'The Holy Trinity: Biblical Proofs'.

[his links are outdated; I have provided current ones above]


This link has been up on his page since at least 1 October 2006, according to Internet Archive.


7. Things changed, apparently, after I took Sam to the woodshed and blew his ludicrous historical claims out of the water, in this exchange:

"Reformed Apologist and Expert on Islam, Sam Shamoun Claims that the Catholic Church Murdered 'An Estimated 50-68 Million People'. My Reply" [4-16-14]


Read it and make up your own mind as to the facts. I even linked to his original remarks (what a novelty!!!.

8. But oops! Looks like he has now removed his idiotic claims in that combox: the ones he refused to properly defend. And after looking over my refutation, he had this to say in the same thread (perhaps he will remove this, too, in due course, now that I have broadcasted it):

Gee, how original of you Dave Armstrong: [he did bravely link to my paper. Bravo!] I guess I should be flattered that you have done a post on me, much like you have done with nearly every Protestant apologist from James White to Eric Svendsen. Is this how you try to get people to financially support your ministry, by giving the impression that you are capable of debating and refuting the "big guns" of Protestantism? It obviously isn't working now is it? You have less than 30 minutes to remove yourself as I ban you. (April 16 [2014] at 11:50 PM)

9. Can you see why I have no time to debate anti-Catholics on theology in any depth, since 2007 (this "exchange" was merely a clarification of historical facts)? Lydia is not an anti-Catholic, which is why it was a pleasure to dialogue with her.

10. No one can make this stuff up! It's too bizarre and weird. I offer it for your enjoyment and amusement. I've been hugely entertained by it, and it momentarily relieved my mind of its troubles. Hope you are, too!

[Shamoun has been informed of this paper on his Twitter account]

* * * * *

Is James White Really This Clueless? (The Mythological "Liberal" Pope Francis)

 See my public Facebook post (12-4-14)

John Calvin: Sermon 22 on Matthew 1:22-25 (Mary's Perpetual Virginity)

From: Vol. 46 of Corpus Reformatorum, pp. 259-272.

MATTH. Ch. I.

22. Or tout ceci a este faict afin que fust accompli
ce que le Seigneur avoit dit par le Prophète,
disant, 23. Voyci, une Vierge sera enceinte, et enfantera
un fils: et appelleront son nom Emmanuel,
qui vaut autant à dire que Dieu avec nous. 24. Ioseph
donc esveillé de son dormir, feit ainsi que VAnge
du Seigneur luy avoit commandé, et receut sa femme,
25. Et ne la cognut point pendant le temps qu'elle
devoit enfanter son fils premier nay: et appela son
nom Iesus.

Si nous ne conioignions la Loy et les Prophètes
avec l'Evangile, nous pourrions avoir quelque doute
en nos esprits pour la nouveauté, d'autant que cela
pourroit estre iugé estrange, que Dieu ait manifesté
son Fils au monde, comme s'estant avisé soudain
d'avoir pitié des povres creatures qui estoyent damnées.
Il a donc falu que dés la cheute d'Adam il
y eust promesse du salut qui devoit estre donné de
Dieu pour remède du mal. Les Peres se sont là
attendus, et toutes les ceremonies se devoyent rapporter
à ceste fin, comme fort souvent nous le
voyons en l'Escriture saincte. Or doncques voyci
sur quoy il nous faut estre fondez, c'est à sçavoir
que nostre Seigneur Iesus Christ n'est point apparu,
comme si Dieu avoit prins conseil de nouveau, et
avoit disposé de racheter le monde: mais que selon
qu'il avoit este prédit de tout temps, il a accompli
tout ce qu'il nous faloit espérer. Et voyla pourquoy
il est dit que l'Evangile ha tesmoignage de
la Loy et des Prophètes, que nostre Seigneur Iesus
c'est la fin de la Loy, et qu'il en est l'ame pour
la vivifier. C'est aussi pourquoy maintenant S. Matthieu
adiouste un passage notable et digne de memoire
du Prophète Isaie, pour conformer ce qu'il
avoit dit quant à nostre Seigneur Iesus Christ. Il
monstre donc qu'on ne doit point disputer comment
Iesus Christ est apparu sur terre. Car quand le
Prophète Isaie a parlé, les Peres anciens se sont
appuyez sur ceste vérité qui leur estoit certaine, et
en la mort ils se sont esiouis: comme nous voyons
mesmes devant que la Loy fust publiée, si long
temps devant qu'Isaie fust nay, que Iacob rendant
les derniers souspirs dit, I'attendray ton salut ô
mon Dieu. Par plus forte raison, quand les Prophéties
ont este adioustees, les Peres aussi ont este
asseurez de leur salut, en sorte qu'ils pouvoyent
protester qu'ils mouroyent en l'espérance de la vie
éternelle, puis qu'ils avoyent accepté la grace qui
leur estoit offerte, voire au nom de celuy qui estoit
seulement figuré par ceremonies et par ombrages,
et qui devoit estre manifesté en chair, quand le
temps de plenitude seroit venu, comme S. Paul
l'appelle.

Poisons bien donc les morts de S. Matthieu,
Tout cela (dit-il) a este faict à fin que ce qui avoit
este dit de Dieu par son Prophète, fust accompli.
Yci S. Matthieu ne se fonde point sur l'authorite
d'Isaie, le prenant comme un homme mortel, mais
comme organe du S. Esprit. Il pouvoit bien user
d'un langage plus simple, afin que ce qu'Isaie avoit
dit, fust vérifié: mais il parle d'une façon plus
autentique, à ce que sa doctrine soit receuë sans
aucune réplique. Dieu (dit-il) a parlé par la bouche
de son Prophète. C'est donc autant comme s'il
monstroit que Dieu n'a rien faict, qu'auparavant il
n'eust preveu et ordonné en son conseil, et mesme
qu'il n'eust déclaré par ses Prophètes. Que si
quelqu'un vouloit yci disputer, pourquoy Iesus Christ
n'a este donné plustost apres la cheute d'Adam, et
comme Dieu a tenu ainsi son Eglise en suspens,
nous avons à noter ce qui est dit par S. Paul, que
l'Evangile est un message de ce que Dieu a retenu
et réservé de tout temps en son conseil estroiot.
Et ce n'est pas à nous, de le faire haster: il cognoist
l'opportunité, voire et nous faut remettre là,
et nous contenter de ce qu'il a voulu que sous la
Loy les Peres espérassent en ceste redemption qui
leur e8toit promise: mesme devant la Loy qu'ils
ont espéré que Dieu leur seroit bénin et propice.
Or puis que maintenant nous surmontons ceux qui
ont V68CU devant nous, et d'autant que nostre condition
est meilleure, et que nous sommes comme
privilegez par dessus eux, que nous advisions bien
aussi de recevoir en toute humilité la grace qui
nous est communiquée.

Venons maintenant au passage du Prophète,
Voyci, une Vierge sera enceinte, et enfantera un fis
lequel sera nommé Emmanuel, c'est à dire Dieu
avec nous. Devant toutes choses il nous faut monstrer
comment ce passage doit estre entendu de
nostre Seigneur Iesus Christ, et non autrement.
Car les Iuifs ont usé de tous subterfuges qui leur
a este possible, pour faire à croire que là il n'est
point parlé de Iesus Christ ne du Rédempteur du
monde. Car ils allèguent que cela fust venu mal
à propos, pource qu'il estoit question d'asseurer le
roy Achaz que la ville de Ierusalem seroit délivrée,
laquelle pour lors estoit assiégée de deux Roys, à
sçavoir, d'Israël et de Syrie. Si donc Iesus Christ
eust este yci promis, de quoy pouvoit il servir?
Voyla (di-ie) la cavitation des Iuifs, à fin de nous
arracher ce passage, et aussi d'accuser les Evangelistes
comme s'ils avoyent abusé de l'Escriture.
Or la response est assez facile à cela. Car le Prophète
avoit donné le chois et liberté au roy Achaz
d'élire quelque signe, ou demander à Dieu un miracle,
fust au ciel, fust en la terre, afin d'estre
certifié qu'il seroit secouru en bref, et que ces deux
Rois, quelques puissans qu'ils fussent, ne pourroyent
t rien contre luy, et qu'ils s'en iroyent sans rien
faire. Achaz estoit là tremblant comme la fueille
en l'arbre, ainsi que le Prophète use de ceste
similitude: et ce malheureux estant ainsi saisi d'incredulite,
veut encore faire bonne mine, et avec
son hypocrisie il respond au Prophète, Moy? ia
Dieu ne plaise que ie demande quelque signe, ne
que ie tente mon Dieu. Le voyla (ce semble) tant
bien résolu que merveilles: et toutesfois il est enserré
d'angoisse, en sorte qu'il ne peut recevoir
nulle consolation, et reiette le bien qui luy estoit
offert. Voyla donc une povre ame damnée, et
toutesfois' il fait bien semblant d'estre tout asseuré.
Or là dessus le Prophète dit, Maison de David
(voire par reproche et non point par honneur: il
est vray que ceste maison estoit la plus honorable
qui jamais fut, ne puisse estre, d'autant que Dieu
avoit deciairé que de Jà viendroit la semence bénite
qu'il avoit promise desia à Abraham, et devant
luy, après qu'Adam fut trebusché, et que tout estoit
confus et perdu. Il dit donc, Maison de David)
qui devriez estre miroir et patron de foy, et de
crainte de Dieu: qui maintenant vous faciez la
guerre et à Dieu et aux hommes? Car vous me
voyez yci Prophète estant authorise de Dieu, vous
me despitez, et ma doctrine ne vous est que fable.
Mais qui pis est, quand Dieu m'envoye avec une
charge speciale, et qu'il vous fait ce bien de vous
mettre là comme un memorial devant vos yeux du
bien qu'il vous veut faire, et que vous le faciez
(par manière de dire) descendre yci bas pour estre
entre vous non seulement quant à son essence,
mais quant à sa vertu et maieste, comme s'il se
monstroit d'une façon visible, et que vous soyez
rassasiez de luy, et cependant que vous reiettiez
tout cela? Or quoy qu'il en soit, Dieu vous donnera
un signe, c'est que la Vierge concevera et
enfantera. Quand le Prophète parle ainsi, c'est
comme s'il disoit, Vous despitez Dieu, vous n'estes
pas donc dignes d'avoir un miracle pour monstrer
qu'il sera vostre gardien: mais tant y a que Dieu
achèvera ce qu'il a déterminé en son conseil, c'est
que la ville de Ierusalem sera guarentie. Or il les
ramené à ceste heure au fondement de toutes les
promesses: comme s'il disoit, En despit de vous si
faudra-il que Dieu se monstre fidèle, envoyant le
Sauveur qu'il a promis. Bataillez avec toutes vos
desfiances, soyez obstinez iusqu'au bout, empeschez
tant qu'il vous sera possible le décret de Dieu:
Ho, vous n'en viendrez point à bout: car Dieu
vous surmontera, et en la fin encore recueillera-il
le résidu de son peuple, et le Sauveur se declairera
tel qu'il a esté attendu et espéré de son peuple en
tout temps. Mais cela pourroit estre un peu obscur
et difficile, si nous n'avions une clef qui nous
peust servir pour nous y donner ouverture: C'est
qu'il nous faut regarder quel est le style commun
de tous les Prophètes, comme nous le voyons par
tout: à sçavoir que quand ils veulent consoler les
affligez, et qu'ils veulent donner espérance au milieu
des choses confuses, ils mettent en avant nostre
Seigneur Iesus: car c'estoit de là aussi dont tout
le reste dependoit.

Passons outre. Nous avons à distinguer entre
les promesses de Dieu. Il y en a une partie qui
comprend sous soy toutes les autres. Il y a puis
après les promesses speciales des biens que Dieu
veut faire à son peuple, comme s'il les veut secourir
en quelque besoin, s'il les veut délivrer de
quelque mal et perplexité, s'il veut avoir pitié d'eux
en quelque endroict, comme s'ils sont affligez de
guerre, ou de peste, ou de famine, et qu'il vueille
modérer son ire envers eux. Or la promesse generale
c'est ceste paction que Dieu fait avec nous
quand il luy plaist de nous adopter et nous tenir
pour ses enfans, et nous certifier qu'il nous sera
Père et Sauveur. Voyla par où il nous faut commencer:
car nous pourrions bien recevoir des promesses
speciales, et toutesfois cela seroit bien maigre,
et nous n'en attendrions pas grand profit.

Exemple. Si quelqu'un est pressé de griefve maladie,
et que Dieu luy face 6entir qu'il le veut relever
de cest ennuy-là, et bien, encores cognoistrail
la bonté de Dieu en cest endroict: mais cela
8'escoule tantost: car il n'est question que d'un
benefice particulier. Ainsi en est-il de tout le reste.
Gomme quand nous avons tesmoignage que Dieu
nous a délivrez de la main de nos ennemis, qu'il a
destourné quelque guerre de nous, qu'il a retiré sa
main après nous avoir batu de quelques verges,
soit de peste, ou de famine : et bien, cela nous
pourra servir aucunement: mais ce n'est pas pour
nous conduire au chemin de salut, et nous tenir là
du tout. Ce sera bien pour nous faire considérer
qu'il y a un Dieu, et pourrons estre pour quelque
temps debout: mais puis après nous tomberons à
bas, et nostre foy demeurera là comme amortie, et
n'y aura point de vigueur pour passer outre. Que
faut-il donc pour marcher tellement par le chemin,
que nous parvenions au but de nostre salut, et à la
perfection où Dieu nous appelle? Il nous faut avoir
ceste paction generale, c'est que nous soyons bien
résolus qu'il nous veut estre Père et en la vie, et
en la mort. Pourquoy? d'autant qu'il nous a eleus
et adoptez, qu'il nous advouë comme de sa maison
qu'il veut habiter au milieu de nous. Voyla (di-ie)
la promesse generale. Or ceste promesse yci (comme
i'ay desia dit) comprend toutes les autres, tellement
qu'elles n'en sont qu'accessoires. Il est vray que
Dieu quelques fois usera bien de quelque grace
envers les incrédules: mais cela n'ha point de sel
(comme on dit) car ils ne peuvent gouster le bien
que Dieu leur fait: mais pour appliquer les promesses
à nostre salut, ie di les promesses speciales,
il faut que nous ayons cela devant toutes choses,
que Dieu nous a choisis à soy, et qu'il nous veut
tenir pour ses enfans. Ainsi donc il nous faut
maintenant observer, que quand les Prophètes
ameinent nostre Seigneur Iesus Christ, et l'Alliance
de Dieu, il n'est pas question de promettre seulement
que Dieu aura pitié des affligez: et que ce
n'est pas en vain qu'ils parlent. Car ils ne tournent
point du coq à l'asne (comme on dit), mais
ils monstrent, Puis que Dieu vous a adoptez, il
sera Père envers vous. Or estant Père, il modérera
sa rigueur: et encores qu'il vous chastie pour
vos fautes, tant y a que iamais sa miséricorde ne
départira d'avec vous. Espérez donc que l'issue de
vos afflictions sera bonne et heureuse, d'autant que
Dieu vous est Père. Voyla sur quoy les Prophètes
se sont arrestez quand ils ont mis en avant l'adoption
du peuple, afin de donner quelque resiouissance
et allégement à ceux qui estoyent comme povres
gens esperdus. Or il nous faut sçavoir quel est le
fondement de ceste alliance: c'est à sçavoir que
Dieu a iadis adopté les enfans descendus de la
lignée d'Abraham: et qu'auiourd'huy il a voulu que
l'Evangile fust publié, afin de nous conioindre avec
ce peuple qui luy estoit pour lors peculier: voire
mais que cela a tousiours este fondé sur nostre
Seigneur Iesus Christ, comme sainct Paul dit qu'en
luy toutes les promesses de Dieu sont ouy et Amen.
Sinon donc que le peuple des Iuifs eust regardé à
nostre Seigneur Iesus Christ, ils ne pouvoyent pas
espérer que Dieu auroit pitié d'eux: mais quand
ils ont cognu que le Rédempteur leur appartenoit,
que c'estoit comme leur heritage qui ne leur pouvoit
faillir: là dessus ils ont conclu que Dieu donc
ne leur pouvoit non plus faillir: et là dessus ils se
sont tousiours fié que Dieu leur feroit miséricorde:
et combien qu'il les chastiast par fois quand ils
avoyent offensé, que neantmoins les playes ne seroyent
point mortelles, que tousiours il reserveroit
ce qu'il avoit eleu, d'autant que son adoption est
immuable, ainsi que dit Sainct Paul. Car selon
que Dieu ne se peut repentir, il faut que cela demeure
ferme et inviolable, c'est qu'il garde iusques
en la fin ceux qu'il a eleus. Nous voyons maintenant
que le Prophète a tresbien appliqué ceste
sentence, laquelle est yci récitée par S. Matthieu:
comme s'il disoit, Et bien, ie vous présente vostre
délivrance, vpus declarant que ce siege qui est
maintenant devant vostre ville sera levé: ie vous
declaire au nom de Dieu que toute la fureur et
impétuosité de vos ennemis s'en ira bas: cependant
vous n'estimez point le bien que Dieu vous offre,
mesme8 vous le despitez entant qu'en vous est, et
avez en moquerie le message que Dieu m'a commis.
Or si ne ferez-vous point pourtant, que Dieu ne
demeure Sauveur du peuple qu'il a eleu. Voyla
donc Isaie qui rameine le Roy Achaz, et tous les
autres incrédules, et pareillement les infidèles qui
estoyent meslez parmi: il les rameine (di ie) à ceste
adoption commune: comme s'il disoit, que Dieu
demeurera tousiours ferme en son propos. Ainsi,
c'est une cavillation trop frivole, quand les Iuifs
estiment que cela a este sans raison et sans fondement,
qu'Isaie ait parlé de nostre Seigneur Iesus
Christ, quand il faloit asseurer le Roy Achaz et
tout le peuple que les ennemis, c'est à sçavoir, le
roy d'Israël, et le roy de Syrie, seroyent deschassez.
Nous avons solu ceste question-là.

Cependant il y a un autre poinct, qui a troublé
ceux mesmes qui ne voudroyent point pervertir à
leur escient ce passage du Prophète. Car la malice
des Iuifs est du tout désespérée en cest endroict.
Mais aucuns qui n'eussent point voulu de propos
délibéré pervertir l'Escriture saincte, ont este confus
pource que le Prophète adiouste, Devant que l'enfant
puisse nommer ne  père ne mere, devant qu'il
discerne entre le bien et le mal, ces deux Rois I
seront ruinez: et là dessus leur a semblé que le
Prophète continuoit tousiours à parler de cest enfant
qui devoit naistre. Or ce n'est pas ainsi.
Car le Prophète, après avoir parlé de la personne
du Fils de Dieu, et avoir déclaré qu'il seroit envoyé
en son temps, il adiouste, Devant que les
petis enfans qui vivent' auiourd'huy puissent prononcer
les noms de père et de mere> qu'ils puissent
discerner entre le bien et le mal, il est certain que
vous verrez vos ennemis desconfits, et vous aurez
tesmoignage que Dieu a este le protecteur de ceste
ville de Ierusalem. Venons maintenant plus outre.
Les Iuifs après avoir tasché d'obscurcir toute la
clarté, et mesme de renverser ceste sentence, ameinent
des fables qui sont du tout pueriles: mesmes
avec leur orgueil magistral ils n'ont point eu honte
de dire qu'il estoit parlé du Roy Ezechias, lequel
avoit desia quatorze ans, et lequel ils mettent en
l'air pour devoir estre conceu puis #pres. Et voyla
desia un homme tout formé. En cela voit-on leur
bestise: et-non seulement leur bestise, mais une
horrible vengence de Dieu, qui -les a frappez de
cest aveuglement-là, qui est un iugement espovantable,
quand les hommes falsifient ainsi la vérité
pour la tourner en mensonge. Mais ils nous allèguent
que sainct Matthieu a destourné le mot dont
use le Prophète, quand il dit, Voyci, une Vierge
concevera: car il est parlé d'une fille, et non pas
d'une vierge, disent ils. Or afin de n'entrer point
en combat trop subtil, laissons-là le mot. Il est
vray qu'en l'Escriture il se prend pour une vierge
ordinairement: mais nous n'insisterons pas là dessus,
d'autant qu'il n'est ia besoin d'entrer en tels
débats, et sur tout quand nous voyons une obstination
telle et si incorrigible, que moyennant qu'ils
puissent avoir quelque petit subterfuge, ce leur est
tout un. Et de faict, ils sont là comme des chiens
mastins qui abbayent, encore qu'ils ne puissent
mordre. Dieu a là desployé une si horrible vengence,
que quand nous contemplons un Iuif, il est
certain que nous en devons estre esbahis comme
d'un monstre. Eé pourquoy? D'autant que Dieu
(comme i'ay desia dit) les a hebetez, et qu'ils ont
le voile devant leur yeux, comme sainct Paul en
parle, et encore que la clarté luise, ils n'y voyent
goutte, il n'ont point de sens commun non plus que
des bestes. Ne debatons point donc du mot, mais
regardons à la substance. Il est dit, Voyci, une
fille concevera. S'il estoit parlé d'une conception
ordinaire, et qui fust selon le cours de nature, le
Prophète ne diroit pas, Dieu vous donnera un signe:
ce ne seroit pas un miracle. Quel miracle y a-il,
qu'un homme engendre, et qu'une femme conçoyve
et enfante? Cela donc ne seroit rien. Et ainsi
nous voyons que les Iuifs foullent aux pieds l'Escriture
saincte, quand ils apportent là- leur groin
comme des pourceaux, pour faire que l'Escriture
saincte n'ait nulle reverence, et qu'ils puissent
anéantir la foy que nous avons en nostre Seigneur
Iesus Christ. Ce qu'ils machinent toutesfois en
vain: car après s'y estre efforcez tant et plus, ils
demeureront tousiours confus en leur honte. Or
donc il est bien certain qu'il est yci parlé d'une
chose notable et singulière, et non point de ce qui
estoit desia en usage commun, quand il est dit,
Dieu vous donnera un miracle, c'est qu'une fille
enfantera.

Voyla pour un item. Il y a le second, Qu'on
appellera le nom de l'enfant, Emmanuel. Il est
certain que ce nom yci ne pouvoit convenir à nulle
creature simple. Car Iesus Christ, quant à son
humanité, a bien este créé et formé: mais cependant
si est-ce qu'il est appelé, Dieu avec nous. Si
on allègue, que tousiours Dieu a eu son domicile
au milieu du peuple: comme il a dit, Voyci mon
repos: Item, Voyci ie seray au milieu de Ierusalem:
et puis tant souvent il est réitéré en la Loy, le
suis vostre Dieu qui vous sanctifie, habitant au
milieu de vous: i'ay là ma tente et mon pavillon.
.Si donc on allègue que les figures de la Loy ont
desia monstre cela, c'est tant mieux pour nous: ie
di pour monstrer que la foy Chrestienne est asseuree
de ce passage du Prophète. Et pourquoy? Quand
le nom est donné à Iesus Christ d'Emmanuel, c'est
à dire Dieu avec nous, il est certain que là il y a
une declaration expresse, combien que Dieu auparavant
se fust approché de son peuple, et qu'il
eust là conversé familièrement, que toutesfois ce
n'estoit rien au pris de ceste manifestation seconde.
Car il est yci parlé comme d'une chose nouvelle et
exquise, et qui n'a iamais este ni accoustumee ni
ouye. Voyla donc le nom d'Emmanuel, qui emporte
une autre maieste que toutes les figures, les
ombrages, les ceremonies, les tesmoignages, et les
arres, et tout ce que Dieu avoit donné de sa presence:
tout cela est de petite importance, si on
fait comparaison de la presence de Dieu en la personne
de nostre Seigneur Iesus Christ. Ainsi donc
il n'y a nulle doute que le Prophète n'ait declairé
ce que sainct Paul dit par autres mots, mais equipolens:
c'est asçavoir que Iesus Christ est Dieu
manifesté en chair. C'est (dit-il) un grand secret,
quand il parle de la charge de l'Eglise, et que c'est
une chose qui surmonte toute faculté humaine d'annoncer
l'Evangile. Comment? dit-il: est-ce peu de
chose que ce secret admirable de Dieu soit publié
par la bouche d'une creature, c'est à sçavoir que
Dieu soit manifesté en chair? Nous voyons en la
personne du Rédempteur premièrement Dieu créateur
du monde, devant lequel il faut que tout genouil
se ployé: et nous voyons cependant nostre
nature, nous voyons un corps mortel, c'est à dire
qui a este mortel, voire avec nos infirmitez. Nous
contemplons en la personne de Iesus Christ, d'un
co8té Dieu, et puis après nous, comme si Dieu
estoit uni avec les hommes. Voyla donc ce que le
Prophète Isaie a entendu. Et sainct Paul en l'autre
passage continue, en disant que Dieu estoit en
Christ reconciliant le monde à soy: comme s'il disoit
que les figures de la Loy n'ont pas este vuides.
Il est vray qu'il y a eu vertu, et que Dieu n'a
point abusé son peuple ni aux sacrifices, ni aux
lavemens, ni au Sanctuaire, ni en l'Arche, ni en
l'autel qu'il avoit ordonné. Dieu donc estoit là:
voire, mais ce n'estoit sinon pour entretenir l'espérance
du peuple, iusqu'à ce qu'il eust accompli ce
qu'il avoit promis. Or donc il s'est déclaré d'une
autre façon en Iesus Christ, pour reconcilier le
monde à soy, et cela n'avoit iamais este ni veu ni
cogneu. Et c'est pourquoy il dit tiercement en
l'autre passage, que toute plenitude de divinité
habite en Iesus Christ corporellement. Par ce mot
il discerne entre toutes les espèces de figures qui
ont este sous la Loy, et sous les Prophètes, et ceste
manifestation de Dieu envers les hommes. Dieu
donc estoit bien conioint aux hommes, et les a re
cueillis à soy de tout temps en vertu de ses promesses
qui leur a faites: mais cependant il n'y
avoit point ceste plenitude de divinité: c'est à dire,
Dieu ne s'estoit point entièrement manifesté, ainsi
donnoit en partie seulement aux Peres anciens
quelque goust de sa presence. Or en la personne
de son Fils unique il s'est déclaré en toute perfection,
tellement qu'il nous faut espérer du tout en
nostre Seigneur Iesus Christ, et ne vaguer plus ne
ça ne là, ni estre en suspens, pour dire, Dieu envoyera
encores d'avantage. Nous avons tout. Et
c'est ce qu'il adiouste, Corporellement: comme s'il
disoit, Nous embrassons (par manière de dire) en
nostre Seigneur Iesus Christ, le Dieu qui nous a
créez et formez. Non pas que son essence soit enclose
au corps de nostre Seigneur Iesus Christ:
mais il veut exprimer le bien inestimable que Dieu
nous a faict, quand il luy a pieu descendre si bas
pour se conioindre à nous en la personne de son
Fils, afin que nous soyons faits tous un ensemble,
comme il est dit au dixseptieme chapitre de
sainct lean.

Or ce qu'adiouste le Prophète conforme tousiours
ceste doctrine, quand il dit que l'enfant dont
il parle, qui naistra de ceste Vierge, mangera du
miel et du laict, iusqu'à ce qu'il discerne entre le
bien et le mal. S'il eust parlé d'un enfant commun,
cela seroit superflu, et mesmes il seroit froid et
inepte de dire, Il sera allaicté: et bien, on sçait
que les enfans sont allaittez, qu'ils croissent, et
viennent en aage de discretion, qu'on appelle. Cela
ne seroit iamais dit des enfans qui seront procréez
selon l'ordre de nature: mais pource que c'est une
chose incroyable que Dieu mangeast du miel, et
qu'il fust repeu de laict à la façon commune des
enfans, voyla pourquoy notamment le Prophète
l'exprime, comme s'il disoit, Voyci une chose qui
surmonte tout sens humain, et il nous faut adorer
ce conseil incomprehensible de nostre Dieu: que
celuy qui a créé toutes choses, et qui les ha sous
sa main et puissance, et en dispose selon son bon
plaisir et sans aucun contredit, n'empeschement,
soit subiet à faim, et ha soif: que celuy qui.nourrit
les hommes et les bestes, et les oiseaux, soit traitté
à la coustnme des enfans, et qu'il soit nourri et
alaitté: celuy qui est la Sagesse éternelle de Dieu
son Père, soit là ignorant, ne sçachant cognoistre
ne père ne mere, n'ayant nulle discretion de bien
et de mal. Voyla donc des choses qui seroyent
si estranges, qu'il seroit impossible de les croire,
sinon que nous en fussions notamment advertis.
Par ainsi nous avons encores en ceci un argument
invincible, pour monstrer qu'il est parlé de Iesus
Christ, et non d'autre. Car le Prophète a voulu
exprimer, qu'en la naissance de cest enfant il y
aura une clarté de Dieu si haute, et si profonde,
que les hommes la pourront appercevoir, sinon
qu'ils soyent hebetez du tout, pour ne point recevoir
ce qui leur sera dit. Il y a le quatrième argument,
quand il est dit que cest enfant sera le
Roy de sa terre, et mesme que la terre de Iudee
seroit sienne. Ta terre (dit le Prophète) ô Emmanuel.
Or il est certain qu'encores qu'il y eust
des Rois qui dominoyent par ci et par là, la terre
de Iudee estoit sous la main et sous l'empire de
Dieu. Quand donc ceste terre est donnée à celuy
qae le Prophète nomme Emmanuel, ce n'est pas
que Dieu quitte son droict, ne qu'il s'en despouille
pour le resigner à un autre: mais c'est d'autant
qu'en la personne de nostre Seigneur Iesus Christ
il est apparu, et a là habité, comme les Pseaumes
en parlent, qu'il a prins possession de ceste terre.
Comme par tout il est dit, Dieu regne, que les
Isles et pays lointains s'esiouissent: pource que
Dieu s'est déclaré Roy souverain de tout le monde,
et s'est assuietti ceux qui luy estoyent rebelles auparavant,
qui eBtoyent esgarez de luy, et qui n'eussent
daigné en ouir parler. Voyla donc en somme
comme ce passage ne peut estre exposé ni entendu
que de Iesus Christ.

Or cependant pour le profit et instruction de
nostre foy, poisons bien ce mot d'Emmanuel, et
cognoissons puis qu'en nostre Seigneur Iesus Christ
nous sommes conioints avec Dieu, qu'il n'est plus
question d'estre proumenez ni de costé ni d'autre,
mais il nous faut avoir un certain arrest. Et si
ceci eust este bien cognu et persuadé, il est certain
que le monde n'eust pas este distraiet en tant de
superstitions comme on le voit: et un tel labyrinthe
qu'il y a sur tout en là Papauté, iamais n'eust este
dressé par Satan. Pourquoy? Quand nous avons
cognu Dieu estre avec nous, que demanderons-nous
plus? Mail il a falu avoir des patrons et des advocats,
des moyens infinis pour plaire à Dieu, des
façons de faire: et chacun en a forgé en sa teste,
et n'y a iamais eu fin: comme aussi nous voyons
que c'est de la Papauté. Car si on regarde ce qui
s'y fait, on y trouvera une confusion si terrible,
que c'est (brief) pour nous monstrer l'ingratitude
du monde, qui ne s'est point contenté de nostre
Seigneur Iesus Christ. D'autant plus donc nous
faut-il bien arrester à ce mot, et que tous nos sens
y soyent attachez: c'est asçavoir que quand le Fils
unique de Dieu nous a este envoyé, nous avons eu
toute perfection de bien, de félicite et de ioye: et
que si nous cherchons plus, c'est à dire que Dieu
ne nous suffit point. Et quel outrage est-cela,
quel sacrilege, et quel blaspheme, que Dieu ne nous
suffise point? Où est-.ce que nous trouverons une
seule goutte de bien hors de luy? Et quand nous
en serons séparez, qu'est ce que nous pouvons attendre
sinon que le diable nous possède? Et nous
aurons un tel salaire que nous avons mérité. Notons
bien donc que Dieu a desployé en nostre Seigneur
Iesus Christ toutes ses richesses, dont nous
pouvons estre rassasiez, mais cependant si nous
faut-il profiter de iour en iour, et comprendre ce
que nous n'avons pas encores obtenu. Car il y a
une grandeur en cela qui nous est incomprehensible,
et à laquelle nous ne parviendrons point du premier
coup: mais si nous y faut il tendre, et nous y
efforcer de plus en plus, comme S. Paul aussi en
parle. Et mesme combien qu'il eust servi à Dieu
si fidèlement qu'il avoit rempli le monde de la
doctrine de l'Evangile, tellement que c'estoit merveilles
que de luy, c'estoit plustost un Ange celeste
qu'un homme, toutesfois il dit, le n'ay point encores
appréhendé: mais ie m'efforce et ie m'esten
tousiours pour parvenir là où ie desire. l'oublie
tout ce que i'ay fait: car ie pourroye me refroidir
et perdre courage, pour dire, Et que les autres
viennent en rang, quant à moy, i'en ay assez fait.
Non (dit-il) i'oublie tout cela: mais ie cognoy qu'il
me défaut encores beaucoup, et pourtant ie marche
plus outre. Voyla donc comme nous devons prendre
ce mot dont il est yci parlé.

Or le Prophète ne parle point yci du salut
que nous avons traitté ce matin: mais le tout s'accorde
tresbien: car S. Matthieu dit que là Vierge
a conceu suyvant ce qu'il avoit recité, qu'elle a este
trouvée enceinte, voire du S. Esprit. Et comment
cela? C'est la promesse qui a este donnée de tout
temps: car il a este dit qu'une Vierge concevroit,
et qu'elle concevroit le Fils de Dieu. Et pour
quelle raison? Afin qu'il fust conioint avec nous.
Or regardons maintenant quel est le lien de ceste
union, et mesmes quel est le moyen que nous
avons d'approcher de Dieu, et comment c'est aussi
qu'il nous reçoit à soy. Cependant que nous demourerons
en nos péchez, il faut que nous soyons
aliénez de Dieu: car il ne peut avoir accointance
.avec nous cependant que le pèche y domine: il n'y
a non plus d'acoord qu'entre le feu et l'eau. Il
faut donc que pour estre Emmanuel, c'est à, dire
Dieu conioint avec nous, qu'il efface nos iniquitez
en premier lieu, et qu'il nous en purge tellement,
que nous soyons revestus de sa iustice. Et voyci
le moyen de ceste union. Non sans cause donc
l'Evangeliste allègue ce passage pour monstrer que
ce qui avoit este dit par la bouche du Prophete,
et mesmes prononcé de Dieu en son nom et en
son authorité, que cela a este accompli quand la
vierge Marie a conceu, non point d'une façon commune,
ni selon l'ordre de nature, mais par la vertu
secrete et admirable de Dieu, lequel a voulu sanctifier
son Fils unique dés son origine et sa conception.
Voyla donc comme ce passage est tresbien
allégué à propos. Et ainsi, nous voyons comme le
S. Esprit a pourveu de nous conformer. Car c'eBt
afin que nous sçachions que Iesus Christ n'est point
venu à la volée, et que l'Evangile n'a point este
forgé de nouveau, mais que c'est l'accomplissement
de toutes les prophéties anciennes, que c'est une
approbation de la vérité de Dieu, laquelle a este
cachée en partie, mais en partie aussi demonstree
entant qu'il estoit utile pour le salut des hommes.
Car les Peres anciens ont receu ce qu'il leur faloit
de doctrine, combien qu'elle eust este plus obscure
qu'auiourd'huy nous ne l'avons. Quoy qu'il en
soit, Abraham a veu le iour de Iesus Christ, comme
il est dit au huitième chapitre de sainct lean, et
s'en est esiouy. Voyla donc ce que nous avons à
retenir de ce passage.

Et finalement notons ce qui est yci dit de
Ioseph, qu'estant esveillé il a fait ce qui avoit este
dit par l'Ange. D'un costé nous voyons la promptitude
qui a este en luy d'obéir : et aussi pour nous
instruire il faut faire le semblable, que si tost que
nous aurons cognu la volonte de Dieu, nous marchions
comme il a fait. Et au reste, nous voyons
la certitude qu'a eu Ioseph: car les passions qu'il
avoit eues auparavant estoyent bien dures. Estant
homme, il pouvoit avoir ceste ardeur de ialousie
en soy: et estant iuste, il ne vouloit point adherer
au mal. Or maintenant le voyla tout résolu, il
prend sa femme, il obéit. Il ne faut point donc
estimer qu'il ait eu une imagination douteuse: mais
une pleine fermeté, que Dieu luy a déclaré que
c'estoit luy qui parloit par son Ange.

Et notamment il est dit qu'il n'a point cognu
la Vierge iusqu'à ce qu'elle ait enfanté son premier
Fils. Par cela l'Evangeliste signifie que Ioseph
n'avoit point pris sa femme pour habiter avec elle,
mais pour obéir à Dieu, et pour s'aquitter de son
devoir envers luy. Ce n'a point donc este ni pour
un amour charnel, ni pour profit, ni pour rien qui
soit qu'il a pris sa femme: mais c'a este afin d'obéir
à Dieu, et pour monstrer qu'il acceptoit la grace.
qui luy estoit offerte: comme aussi c'estoit un bien
qui ne se pouvoit assez estimer. Voyla ce que
nous avons à retenir. Or il y a eu aucuns, fantastiques
qui ont voulu recueillir de ce passage que
la vierge Marie avoit eu d'autres enfans que le Fils
de Dieu, et que Ioseph avoit puis après habité
avec elle: mais c'est une folie que cela. Car
l'Evangeliste n'a pas voulu reciter ce qui estoit
advenu après: il veut seulement declarer l'obéissance
de Ioseph, et monstrer aussi qu'il avoit este bien
certifié et deuement que c'estoit Dieu qui luy avoit
envoyé son Ange. Il n'a point donc habité avec
elle, il n'a point eu sa compagnie. Et là nous
voyons qu'il n'a point eu esgard à sa personne:
car il s'est privé de femme. Il pouvoit se marier
à un autre, d'autant qu'il ne pouvoit pas iouir de
la femme qu'il avoit espousee: mais il a mieux
aimé quitter son droict, et s'abstenir du mariage
(estant toutesfois marié), il a mieux aimé (di-ie)
demeurer ainsi pour s'employer au service de Dieu,
que de regarder ce qui luy fust venu plus à gré.
Il a oublié toutes ces choses, afin de s'assubietir
pleinement à Dieu. Et au reste nostre Seigneur
Iesus Christ est nommé le premier nay. Non pas
qu'il y ait eu ne le second ne le troisième: mais
l'Evangeliste regarde au precedent. Et l'Escriture
parle ainsi, de nommer le premier nay, encores
qu'il n'y en ait point de second. Nous voyons
donc l'intention du S. Esprit: et pourtant, de nous
addonner à ces folles subtilitez, ce seroit abuser de
l'Escriture saincte, qui nous doit estre utile a edification,
comme dit S. Paul. Et au reste, quand
les hommes sont ainsi fretillans, et qu'ils ont les
aureilles chatouilleuses pour appeler des speculations
nouvelles, il faut que le diable les possède tellement
qu'ils s'endurcissent, et ne les peut-on ramener au
bon chemin, qu'ils troubleront plustost et le ciel et
la terre qu'ils ne maintienent leurs erreurs et resveries
avec une obstination diabolique. D'autant
plus donc nous faut-il estre sobres pour recevoir la
doctrine qui nous est donnée pour accepter le Rédempteur
qui nous est envoyé de Dieu son Père,
et que cognoissans sa vertu, nous apprenions de
nous tenir pleinement à luy.

Or nous-nous prosternerons devant la maiesté
de nostre bon Dieu, etc.

Translation

Matthew 1:22-25 (Victorian King James Version)

22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel [Is 7:14; 9:6], which being interpreted is, God with us.
24 On waking from sleep Joseph did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him; he took his wife home,
25 And he knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.

Did John Calvin Believe in Mary's Perpetual Virginity? Tim Staples' (I Think, Mistaken) Argument to the Contrary

[John Calvin's words will be in blue] 

Tim Staples has a new book out about Mariology, entitled, Behold Your Mother: A Biblical and Historical Defense of the Marian Doctrines .  On 10 October 2014 at the Catholic Answers blog, he wrote a related post, entitled, "Apologists Make Mistakes, Too!" Well, of course we do (as far as that goes)! No argument there. I am questioning, however, whether we have been (hugely) mistaken on this particular point.

First of all: I'm not trying to make this some big stink between Tim and I. Not at all! It's a friendly dispute about a fascinating question. Tim's a great guy. I like his stuff; he appears to like my writing. We first met in 2011 at the Catholic Answers office in California.

I think it is important to respond to this article, in particular, because it's already (quite predictably) being exploited by anti-Catholic Reformed apologist James Swan. I wrote on the CA thread about that:

It's all the more important that we get this issue nailed down, since vitriolic anti-Catholic Protestants like James Swan is already trying to exploit your post, to make Catholic apologists look stupid. He immediately seized upon it in his post, dated 10-11-14:

This is another issue that's been on this blog for many years now. . . . I look forward to utilizing Staples here the next time one of Rome's apologists bring this up. . . . I've accused Rome's defenders for years of sloppy and inaccurate historical work on the Protestant Reformation, especially the Reformers' Mariology. At times it's been like shooting fish in a barrel. . . . It's enough for me that one of Rome's popular defenders is now saying some of the same things I've been saying for years.

Thus, he is using the old tired tactic of pitting one Catholic apologist (whom he thinks is relatively more smart) over against the rest of the massive lot of dummies that he thinks we are as a class, in order to mock both Catholic apologists and the faith they defend. He despises all of us. He's only trying to "use" your post in order to make his point that Catholic apologists en masse are sloppy researchers and not to be trusted (except, of course, when they reach the same conclusion that he does).

It's important, then, that we determine where the truth lies here. . . . I believe I and others (and you, formerly) have been correct in stating that Calvin accepted the PVM. This is not a faux pas (or worse) that we have to rectify, in public or in private.

So what exactly is the dispute under consideration? Here are the standard passages from Calvin that are used to demonstrate (though not with absolute conclusiveness; I agree) that he believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary:

Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s "brothers" are sometimes mentioned. (Harmony of Matthew, Mark and Luke, sec. 39 [Geneva, 1562], vol. 2 / From Calvin’s Commentaries, translated by William Pringle, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55)

[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called "first-born"; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation. (Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107)

Under the word "brethren" the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity. (Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, [7:3] )

Some Protestants have argued that these texts are insufficient to determine what Calvin believed, or that he himself was agnostic and took no position on this issue, or in fact, opposed the notion that she was a perpetual virgin. Tim wrote in his recent post:

I also point out some errors going in the other direction. Well-intentioned Catholics—even some Catholic apologists—have presented things concerning Protestant beliefs that are just plain wrong.

And error is error no matter the source.

. . . Calvin Did NOT Believe in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

This second myth is even more widespread.  . .

The error seems to have stemmed from misunderstanding some few comments from John Calvin’s 3-volume set, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Transl. by Rev. William Pringle (Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 2009). In his commentaries on Matt. 13:55 and Matt. 1:25, in volume 1, he takes Helvidius to task for assuming Mary had other children because of the mention of the “brothers of the Lord,” in Matthew 13:55, and for assuming “Joseph knew her not until…” meant that Joseph then was being said to have known Mary conjugally after Christ was born.

Calvin correctly and sternly (in good Calvin fashion) teaches the "brothers" of the Lord may well be a Hebrew idiom representing "cousins" or some other extended relative. And he also points out that the "until" of Matt. 1:25 really says nothing about what happened after Mary gave birth. It was used there to emphasize the virginity of Mary up "until" that point.

. . . unfortunately, many Catholics have taken these two sections of Calvin's commentary out of context and claim it to mean he agreed with the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. But in fact, he never says that. He simply concludes these Scriptures to be silent on the matter. They prove neither yeah nor nay when it comes to Mary's perpetual virginity.

Tim produces as evidence for his claim, Calvin's commentary on Luke 1:34:

The conjecture which some have drawn from these words, that she had formed a vow of perpetual virginity, is unfounded and altogether absurd. She would, in that case, have committed treachery by allowing herself to be united to a husband, and have poured contempt on the holy covenant of marriage . . . 

He added:

Notice here, he not only denies this text could be used to prove the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, but he denies the doctrine itself as a possible consideration.

Now, at first glance, this evidence did seem fairly compelling for Tim's position. But I knew (because I had documented it previously) that many Calvinist  scholars and other Protestant experts on Calvin agree that he did accept the perpetual virginity, and so I wondered why that is, if Tim is correct, and I started digging for more information. I found another related citation, that I think affirms what I and others have been arguing, lo, these many years.

Max Thurian, in his Mary: Mother of All Christians (translated by Nevill B. Cryer, New York: Herder & Herder, 1963, pp. 39-40) -- I have a hard copy in my library -- notes a sermon of Calvin's on Matthew 1:22-25, published in 1562 in the shorthand notes of Denys Ragueneau. Here is his citation:

There have been certain strange folk who have wished to suggest from this passage [Matt 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! for the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph's obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company. There we see that he had never known her person for he was separated from his wife. He could marry another all the more because he could not enjoy the woman to whom he was betrothed; but he rather desired to forfeit his rights and abstain from marriage, being yet always married: he preferred, I say, to remain thus in the service of God rather than to consider what he might still feel that he could come to. He had forsaken everything in order that he might subject himself fully to the will of God.

And besides this, our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or no there was any question of the second. Thus we see the intention of the Holy Spirit. This is why to lend ourselves to foolish subtleties would be to abuse Holy Scripture, which is, as St. Paul says, "to be used for our edification."

From this we learn several things:

1. It serves as a further interpretation or clarification of his allegedly "agnostic" commentary on Matthew 1:25, as actually affirming perpetual virginity.

2. It shows that his denial of a vow of perpetual virginity from Mary is not necessarily and not in fact the same as a denial of her perpetual virginity.

3. Calvin does indeed believe in the traditional doctrine, as we see in his statement: "not because there was a second or a third" and his assertion that Joseph never dwelt with Mary. Mary had no further children. This is why he habitually refers to her as "the virgin" in his writings, much like Catholics have through the centuries. It implies perpetual virginity.

4. Since they never lived together, according to Calvin, obviously they had no children together. Thus, Mary was perpetually a virgin.

5. Moreover, it wasn't a question of corrupting marriage, per his comment on Lk 1:34, since for him, they never lived together and thus were not "united." Thus, the difficulty for the belief that he held to the PVM, suggested prima facie by his comment on Luke 1:34 vanishes. For Calvin, both things are true: Mary didn't make such a vow and they didn't live together in a chaste fashion, since he thinks they didn't live together at all.

This 1562 sermon may be one reason why many Protestant (including Calvinist) scholars agree that Calvin adhered to Mary's perpetual virginity, as I noted in my paper (alluded to and linked above) over four years ago now:

David F. Wright, in his book, Chosen by God: Mary in Evangelical Perspective (London: Marshall Pickering, 1989, pp. 173, 175), stated:

. . . his more careful biblicism could insist on only Mary’s refraining from intercourse before the birth of Jesus (i.e., her virginity ante partum). On the other hand, he never excluded as untenable the other elements in her perpetual virginity, and may be said to have believed it himself without claiming that Scripture taught it. . . . [Calvin] commonly speaks of Mary as "the holy Virgin" (and rarely as simply as "Mary" preferring "the Virgin", etc.).

Thomas Henry Louis Parker, in his Calvin: an Introduction to his Thought (Westminster John Knox Press, 1995), concurs:

. . . the Virgin Birth, which Calvin holds, together with the perpetual virginity of Mary. (p. 66)

He is the author of several books about Calvin, such as John Calvin: A Biography (Westminster John Knox Press, 2007), and Oracles Of God: An Introduction To The Preaching Of John Calvin (Lutterworth Press, 2002), Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries (S.C.M. Press, 1971), Calvin’s Preaching (Westminster John Knox Press, 1992), Calvin’s Old Testament Commentaries (Westminster John Knox Press, 1993), and several other Calvin-related volumes, and translator of Calvin’s Harmony of the Gospels in its 1995 Eerdmans edition.

Presumably, he knows enough about Calvin to have a basis for his beliefs about this matter and Calvin's own position.
The article “Mary” (by David T. Wright) in the Encyclopedia of the Reformed Faith (edited by Donald K. McKim, Westminster John Knox Press,1992, p. 237), proclaims:

Calvin was likewise less clear-cut than Luther on Mary’s perpetual virginity but undoubtedly favored it. Notes in the Geneva Bible (Matt. 1:18, 25; Jesus' "brothers") defend it, as did Zwingli and the English reformers . . .

Donald G. Bloesch, in his Jesus Christ: Savior and Lord (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2006, p. 87), joins the crowd:

Protestantism . . . remained remarkably open to the idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Among others, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Wollebius, Bullinger and Wesley claimed that Mary was ever-virgin (semper virgo). The Second Helvetic Confession and the Geneva Bible of the Reformed faith and the Schmalkald Articles of the Lutheran churches affirm it.

Geoffrey W. Bromiley in his article, “Mary the Mother of Jesus” in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: K-P (edited by Bromiley, revised edition of 1994 published by Eerdmans [Grand Rapids, Michigan], p. 269), wrote:

The post-partum or perpetual virginity concept is held by some Protestants and was held by many Reformers (e.g., Calvin in his sermon on Mt. 1:22-25) . . .

Note that this refers to the sermon I cited above, not just Calvin's Commentaries. And this is from the revised ISBE: not a source one can easily dismiss.

Derek W. H. Thomas, writing in A Theological Guide to Calvin's Institutes: Essays and Analysis (edited by David W. Hall & Peter A. Lillback; Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing [Calvin 500 series]: 2008, p. 212), makes a casual reference: "a perpetual virgin in Calvin's view!"

He is a professor of systematic and pastoral theology at Reformed Theological Seminary.  His doctoral dissertation was devoted to Calvin's preaching on the book of Job.

Calvin’s successor Theodore Beza argued that Catholics and Protestants agreed on the perpetual virginity of Mary, at the Colloquy of Poissy in 1561 (see William A. Dyrness, Reformed Theology and Visual Culture: the Protestant Imagination from Calvin to Edwards, [Cambridge University Press, 2004], pp. 86-87).
Stay tuned! If Tim Staples responds in the discussion box I'll record further exchanges here.

Tim gave a long reply in the combox that I don't think (with all due respect) refuted the heart of my objection at all: what Calvin flat-out stated in his sermon. Nor did he explain why so many Protestant and/or Calvinist scholars hold that he accepted the perpetual virginity of Mary. It's one thing for us as Catholics to look at a few texts and render our opinions. The Calvinist or the Calvinist or otherwise Protestant Calvin scholar who has an opinion on such a matter will be far more informed, as both a specialist and an advocate of Calvinism, as the case may be, than we would be (generally speaking).

He would also know a lot more than a quack Reformed polemicist like James Swan who regularly makes pronouncements on such matters as if he is some sort of scholarly expert who should be trusted as much as actual scholars. I back up my contentions with scholars, as much as possible. Swan makes his (often quite dogmatic) contentions (complete with the ubiquitous mocking of Catholics and Catholicism that is his stock-in-trade) whether scholars agree with him or not.

Such Protestant scholars also would generally disbelieve in many of the Marian doctrines, so if they assert that Calvin believed this, chances are he did, since their bias would be towards a stance that he did not. In that sense, they are sort of "hostile witnesses."

Introduction to My Book, The "Catholic" Luther: An Ecumenical Collection of His "Traditional" Utterances

I've studied Martin Luther (1483-1546), the founder of Protestantism and specifically Lutheranism, a great deal from the time of my conversion to Catholicism (1990) and even before (I remember reading Roland Bainton's famous biography, Here I Stand, around the time I got married in 1984). I've devoted a book to him, and a large website with scores and scores of articles (almost certainly the largest Catholic web page about Luther online today)
I have been very critical of Luther's theology, where one would except a Catholic apologist to be, but I've also always sought to give him credit where it is due, to defend him against bum raps, and to note as much agreement between Luther and Catholics as it is possible to do.  The first thing is (Catholic) apologetics, the second is ecumenism. I am committed to both, as an observant Catholic, since the Church encourages both things. Even the last third of my (primarily critical) book about Luther was much like this book will be: a collection of Luther's statements that Catholics can heartily agree with.
My concern and goal in the present volume is to give “balance” and greater overall accuracy to the Catholic treatment of Luther: or at least how it is perceived (which is often a very different thing from the reality). Heaven knows he wrote a lot of things that are offensive to us and that we can vigorously disagree with. But that is not all the record regarding this complex and extraordinary man (love him or not).
If we are to fully understand him, we also need to learn and understand about the orthodox and traditional aspects of his teaching, alongside those which depart from orthodoxy (from the Catholic point of view). This was actually the topic of my very first “officially published” article as a Catholic, in January 1993: entitled, “The Real Martin Luther.” I wrote in it:
[T]he real Luther is far more fascinating and complex than his detractors or hagiographers have generally realized. There exists in “the Father of the Reformation” a curious mix of orthodoxy and heterodoxy . . .
This sort of “dual analysis” has basically guided my approach to Luther ever since. When he agrees with Catholic positions, I find his arguments to be very good, solid, and (I think) convincing to one on the fence. Notable examples of this would be his defense of the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist over against Zwingli and other “sacramentarians” (as they were called), his belief in baptismal regeneration, the perpetual virginity of Mary, and the grave sinfulness of contraception. There are many more, as we shall see.
From anypoint of view, we owe it to Luther or to anyone, to present his views in their fullness and broadness; in their totality. I'm interested in the facts of the matter: whether he agrees or disagrees. We all understand that we hold to positions on all the issues, according to our Christian affiliation. But that doesn't change the nature of the facts, and how we can best arrive at them, even despite natural bias on all sides.
I can already foresee one of the criticisms that will inevitably be made against this book: “you have quoted him out of context! If you read the next paragraph, you'll see something very different . . .”, etc., etc.
In one sense, I can agree that I will be “guilty as charged,” but not as a critic who would say such a thing would imagine. Luther doesindeed often say something different in the larger context. One of his standard literary techniques (conscious or not) is to highlight one aspect of a question, and then strongly contrast it with another (to him, more important) aspect, as he sees it. I observed him doing this in the very first writing that I consulted in order to compile this book (Preface to the First Part of the German Works, edition of 1539).
I cited him as favorably viewing the Church fathers, councils, and apostolic tradition. This was not inaccurate. He didwrite those things. But he qualifies them over against Scripture, as he always does, and according to his position of sola Scriptura (Scripture as the final and only infallible source of authority, and the rule of faith). Here is almost all of this short piece, with the portion that I cited for this book italicized (not including one Latin italicized phrase in the original):
         In a quotations book, I can't explain this sort of scenario every time. It's constant in Luther's writings. So what I do instead is make strong note of it in this Introduction, with a quintessentially illustrative example, so that readers will know that I understandthis prominent aspect of Luther's thinking. With all of the above understood, I think the accusation that I am quoting out of context is unwarranted and unjustified; indeed, most unfair.
I'm simply citing the portions of Luther's writings that a Catholic would agree with. Often it will be a partial agreement, later nuanced and qualified by Luther, and sometimes contradicted by Luther, as his thought is not always necessarily logically consistent or coherent.


It should go without saying also, that Luther's views in a number of areas develop and sometimes change over time. One clear example of that would be his expressed opinions in The 95 Theses of 1517, where he espouses purgatory and even indulgences themselves (rightly understood). He was concerned with abuses of indulgences at that time. Later he would reject them outright. My chronological arrangement under topics will help readers to see any such developments in his thought.

Obviously I can't cite the entire portion above. If I did that with every quotation that I think is most pithy and “readable” and educational standing on its own, this book would be ten times longer than it is, just as the entire reading above is about ten times longer than what I drew from it. Every work of systematic theology does the same thing: citing short portions of Scripture to establish a common theme of one strand of theology. It's impossible to provide two pages of context for each passage. That's not the purpose of it.
We clearly see Luther's overall, minutely explained position in the whole, which might be briefly paraphrased as follows: “Fathers, councils, and tradition are goodto an extent, but always as understood in a qualified sense. Scripture (God's inspired revelation) is far, far superior to any of them, and they are good only to the extent that they conform their views to it.”
A Catholic (many would be surprised to find out) can almost agree to this. The difference is that we believe that legitimate apostolic tradition and magisterial Church teaching (dogmas and doctrines) do always in fact conform to Scripture. The Bible is “higher” in the sense of being inspired, but in application, all three are harmonious and work together, as three legs of a stool do. That's our rule of faith (and was very much St. Augustine's as well, as can easily be proven; Luther misrepresented his views in this work), whereas Luther's was sola Scriptura.
Both positions are widely misunderstood. Luther has a measure of respect for tradition and the fathers (as observed here), and the Catholic Church has supreme respect for Holy Scripture, even though Luther and others constantly insinuate that it does not: that it has been actively opposedto Holy Scripture and has wanted it to be obscured and buried. The actual historical record reveals this to be sheer nonsense.
In any event, I cited the italicized portions above in this work, in three sections, and what I cited remains true, as far as it goes. Luther wrote that we should “listen” to apostles. His position is not an extreme version of sola Scriptura that shuns absolutely everything that is not in the Bible itself. But he grants them less authority than Catholics do. He stated that the writings of “some” fathers and “some” councils are “useful and necessary” and “should be preserved.”  This is a respectful position regarding past precedent and received tradition, but it is qualified in a way that is different from how Catholics view the same things. I cite portions of his writingthat particularly appeal to Catholics, since we fully agree with them, with the understanding that Luther and Catholics don't agree on every jot and tittle. This is not quoting “out of context.” It's partialquotation of one truth that Luther asserts, while not necessarily always noting (as is impossibleto do in a quotations book) other truths that he places alongside these. The two things are different.  The present Introduction is, therefore, supremely important for readers to graspexactly what I am trying to accomplish and what I am asserting about Luther and his theological positions: to be interpreted within the parameters and assumed qualifications here surveyed.
The ecumenical endeavor is devoted to finding things that Christianshave in common. This book will do exactly that. My aim is not to exaggerate or distort anything in Luther, in order to make out that it is something it is not, or that he is different than he was.  Ironically, I'll likely receive heavy criticism from several directions. SomeCatholics (especially those who consider themselves more “traditional” on the spectrum) will think I am whitewashing Luther and giving the public a “cleaned-up” version who appears so Catholic that they will think there is scarcely any difference between the two theological camps. They'll object to that as dishonest and compromised.
SomeLutherans, on the other hand, may object insofar as they might think I have deliberately concealed Luther's “Lutheran distinctives” in order to make him palatable to Catholics. And this will offend them. They'll say that I'm not presenting him as he was, and not in context.
I've done neither thing. As I noted, I've been very critical of many of Luther's views for almost 25 years now, and have written reams and reams of material along those lines, including a book: so much so that no doubt there are hundreds if not thousands of Lutherans and other Protestants out there right now who are convinced I am “anti-Luther” and his greatest enemy.   They're wrong. I'm not. I'm a Catholic apologist, who defends Catholic views and critiques non-Catholic ones. Here my aim is different. Rather than highlighting differences, I highlight agreement. The second goal is equally as legitimate as the first. I don't just do one without the other. I do both. In any event, it's not dishonest. It's selective, true, but not dishonestly so, and not in the sense of quoting out of context.
Let the critics say what they will. I've explained myself, and it's not rocket science, what I am asserting. 
If I can persuade, by means of this book, many people that Catholics and Lutherans have more in common than either side (for the most part) imagined, I'll be more than happy and fulfilled, having accomplished my goal.
Every word in the rest of the book (save brief bracketed interjections here and there and these introductory sections) will be Luther's own.

Sodom and Gomorrah: the Current Archaeological Trend of a Location North of the Dead Sea

 Dr. Steven Collins, at the site

[portion of a chapter in my book, Footsteps that Echo Forever: My Holy Land Adventure of Archaeological and Spiritual Discovery]

Prior to the last ten years or so, the leading archaeological theory (for those who believe that these cities existed) placed the location of Sodom and Gomorrah on the south end of the Dead Sea, on the eastern shore; although there were severalprominent archaeological advocates for a northeastern shore location as far back as the 19thcentury, and this was, in fact, the consensus location from the 4thcentury until the early 1900s.
The “buzz” and fun discussion currently taking place is largely the result of the Tall el-Hammam excavations in Jordan, led (beginning in 2006) by archaeologist Dr. Steven Collins, Dean and Professor at Trinity Southwest University. He has written voluminously and passionately about his positions.

Dr. Collins is also an evangelical Protestant who takes Scripture very seriously as historically accurate and inspired;but apparently not a conservative enough one in the eyes of some of his critics, who dispute not only his proposed location, but the chronological scheme that he holds. Dating in particular always involves some speculation and subjectivity, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that vigorous debates occur along those lines.
These differences have led to some very lively public exchanges, with at least oneof his detractors in the field even questioning his academic credentials (which appear to be quite impressiveThe team, led by Dr. Steven Collins of Trinity Southwest University and Hussein el- Jarrah of the Department of Antiquities of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, will be excavating a large mound (“Tall” or “Tel”) called Tall el-Hammam, located amidst agricultural fields northeast of the Dead Sea in the southern Jordan River Valley. . . .
One curious, puzzling mystery relates to the layer that shows no human occupation for 500 to 700 years. . . .
Another curiosity relates to an extraordinary pottery sherd (or fragment), found within the ash “destruction” layer, which features a striking and unusual glazed appearance (see video below). Pottery glazing has not been found on pottery until more than 1,000 years later than the date of the sherd. Laboratory testing and analysis of the fragment shows that it was apparently exposed to extremely high temperatures, a level that far exceeds that normally used to fire and treat pottery, ancient or modern, and that also far exceeds temperatures typically reached during fires. Such temperatures could be produced, for example, by the effects of a thermonuclear explosion, or a cataclysm of cosmic origin.
Catholic professor of theology John Bergsma wrote on The Sacred Page(a wonderful Catholic website) about his enthusiasm over stumbling into a fascinating lecture about these excavations at an academic conference:
The sites fit the geographical and temporal context into which Sodom and Gomorrah are placed in the biblical texts. The cities at the site were suddenly and completely wiped out in the Late Bronze Age, which makes a reasonably good fit with the biblical accounts of Abraham and Lot. The entire presentation was very convincing, but never once did they deal with the “elephant in the room”: what caused the sites to be suddenly abandoned? As soon as the session was over, I was the first to raise my hand. “Did you find any arrow heads? Signs of invasion? What happened to them?” The lead archeologist paused for a moment. “I didn't want to go there,” he said. Another pause. “I'm preparing material for publication.” Pause. “All I want to say 'on camera' is, they appear to have been wiped out in a 'heat event'.” Dr. Collins showed up in the comments for the article. After greatly emphasizing the need for as objective and scientific as possible analysis, and his desire for triple-blind studies by three or more parties, he was willing to comment further on the “heat event” (and all students of the Bible know where that might potentially lead):
On our terminal MB2 event, what I can say is that multiple lines of evidence continue to confirm that not only massive Tall el-Hammam, but also its many satellite towns and villages on the eastern Kikkar, suffered some sort of fiery, civilization-ending cataclysm toward the end of the Middle Bronze Age, with the selfsame, well-watered-in-abundance area remaining devoid of settlements for the next 600 years or so . . . The entirety of Tall el-Hammam’s MB2 footprint is covered in heavy ash (from .5m-1m thick), ash filled destruction debris, and other conflagratory indicators that will be published in appropriate venues. . . .   Is Tall el-Hammam biblical Sodom? Well, if it isn’t (and I say this with complete confidence in what I know to be the facts of the case), there are going to be a lot of people with a lot of ‘splainin’ to do, Lucy! In the meantime, I welcome rational discourse pro and con (emphasis on rational!).
Brian Nixon, of Assist News Service, wrote about the same subject matter, a day after the article aboveIn my article “Sodom Found?” I wrote, “According to Collins, ‘The traditional “Southern Theory” site of Sodom does not have the geographical parallels described in the [biblical] text. Namely: 1. One can see the whole area from the hills above Jericho (Bethel/Ai), 2. It must be a well-watered place (described “like Egypt”), 3. It has a river running through it (the Jordan), and 4. It must follow the travel route of Lot" (who went to the other side of the Jordan, eastward, away from Jericho.)’”   What does all this mean? Simple: The traditional sites attributed as Sodom may be incorrect.
He cited Dr. Collins, summarizing some of the findings of the dig in the year 2010:
“To start with, the Tall el-Hammam site has twenty-five geographical indicators that align with the description in Genesis. Compare this with something well known—like Jerusalem—that has only sixteen. Other sites have only five or six. So this site has a greater number of indicators than any other Old Testament site. That is truly amazing.   “Second, our findings—pottery, architecture, and destruction layers—fit the timeframe profile. Meaning we should expect to find items like what we are finding from the Middle Bronze Age. This is exactly what we are uncovering.   “Though . . . much research still needs to be conducted, I feel that the evidence for this being the ancient city of Sodom is increasing by the day.”
Collins then went on to describe interesting skeletal finds from the dig in early 2011: indicating some sort of sudden and city-wide catastrophe:
“[T]he real big news is that we found skeletal remains that demonstrate a quick, violent death. . . . In short, the bodies were extremely traumatized in their death. . . . skeletal remains were found throughout the area, following the same patterns.”
Bob Haynes, writing on the Fundamentally Reformed websiteCollins explains why others have not looked for Sodom in this locale. It is chiefly due to theories that Sodom was under the Dead Sea or to be found on its southern shores. Ultimately these theories were based less on evidence than on unsubstantiated educated guesses from earlier and still renowned biblical archeologists. Further data has contradicted the assumption that Sodom was in the barren wasteland of the southern Dead Sea – which was never (during the time of the Biblical Sodom) an Edenic paradise that was to woo Lot to pitch his tent there. . . .
The book ends with the most exciting find of all: pottery shards that are superheated to glass on one side, yet are perfectly normal pottery on the other. The conclusion of experts is that the shards were super heated and then cooled far too rapidly than would be expected by any typical human furnace or heating method known in ancient times. Extensive, independent research compares this to molten sand left over after nuclear experiments and the green glass found in the desert at times due to meteoric events. The best physical explanation is a meteor that burned up in the atmosphere leaving no crater, but still sending a fireball to earth (as in a documented case in Siberia in the early 1900s). This may very well be concrete proof that the story of Sodom’s fiery demise as recounted in the Bible is true. 
. . . Along the way he presents an excellent example of how to hold true to Scripture and yet still seek to pursue a path of valid scientific inquiry.
This book is garnering many rave reviews from others in the field, as we see from these two on its Amazon web page:
Dr. Collins is a meticulous archaeologist with an extraordinary team of specialized scholars who are not afraid to challenge the traditional assumptions about the location and fate of the Bible’s most mysterious city—Sodom. His findings are scholarly, fascinating, educational, and extremely convincing to anyone who needs hard facts to support their conclusions regarding this famous city. The massive accumulation of the archaeological and geographical data from Tall el-Hammam, and its surrounding territory, leaves little doubt in my mind that Dr. Collins has emerged as the authority on the identification of Sodom. This riveting account of Dr. Collins’ fascinating journey and discovery has contributed a unique body of knowledge that surpasses anything published on the subject. I don’t know of a more convincing case for Sodom’s long-awaited identification.
(Joseph M. Holden, Ph.D., President of Veritas Evangelical Seminary and co-author The Popular Handbook of Archaeology and the Bible)
In this book, Collins provides the most complete discussion to date of all of the relevant biblical texts. The most compelling part of the book is Dr. Collins' argument for locating Sodom northeast of the Dead Sea, rather than further to the south as many have assumed. This book will engender a great deal of interest among the general public, but it is likely to be received with less enthusiasm by many specialists in the field. Even so, it is clear that Dr. Collins has thought very deeply about the relationship between his site and the biblical narrative. Much of the skepticism about the historicity of Sodom over the years has been conducted in an archaeological vacuum.
(Robert A. Mullins, Ph.D., Professor of Archaeology and Old Testament, Azusa Pacific University)
As early as 26 March 2007, Dr. Collins was confident enough in his findings to assert:
At this point, I am willing to say that if Tall el-Hammam's identification as biblical Sodom is still denied after an examination of the growing body of evidence to that effect, then the identification of every single biblical site not confirmed by specific epigraphic evidence must me called into question. Phil Silvia, Field supervisor for the Tall el-Hammam excavations, provides a more specific conjecture as to the cause of the city's demise at the end of the Middle Bronze Age (c. 1700 B. C.):
We are convinced, but not yet ready to discuss the details (this will be the subject of my doctoral dissertation), that this civilization ‐ ending catastrophic event was the result of an air burst explosion, probably from a comet or comet fragment since there is no crater anywhere in the area to suggest a meteor. The archaeological evidence that we are finding strongly points to this type of a destructive event. The Bible describes the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah as follows:
Genesis 19:24-25Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomor'rah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven; [25] and he overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground.
Silvia had noted in his paper that at least five surrounding cities and also Jericho, a little ways across the river, had been destroyed at the same time. This is consistent with the biblical account, as anyone can plainly see.
Bible History Daily: the website of the Biblical Archaeology Society, took note of the extraordinary nature of the destruction of this ancient city in a similar fashion:
Across Tall el-Hammam, archaeologists found widespread evidence of an intense conflagration that left the Middle Bronze Age city in ruins. They found scorched foundations and floors buried under nearly 3 feet of dark grey ash, as well as dozens of pottery sherds covered with a frothy, “melted” surface; the glassy appearance indicates that they were briefly exposed to temperatures well in excess of 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit, the approximate heat of volcanic magma. Such evidence suggests the city and its environs were catastrophically destroyed in a sudden and extreme conflagration. Prominent biblical anthropologist Alice C. Linsley noted on her blog, Just Genesis, the earlier scholarly advocates of a similar location for Sodom:
Collins has received much attention by claiming that Tall el-Hammam is the true Sodom, or what scholars call the "Sodom of the north." However, he was not the first to suggest this possibility. In the late 19th century [Henry B.] Tristram, [Claude R.] Conder, [Selah] Merrill and [William M.] Thomson made a case for a location north of the Dead Sea in the southern Jordan Valley. Dr. Collins has noted that in the 19thcentury most “explorer-scholars” held this view. In addition to the above, he cites Charles W. Wilson, H. H. Kitchener, George Grove, and Henry S. Osborn.
The real fun begins with the interaction of Dr. Collins and his critics, who favor the “southern theory” of the location of Sodom. He has engaged in quite a bit of back-and-forth with Dr. Todd Bolen, professor of archaeology at The Master's College. Dr. Bolen's BiblePlaces Bloghas run a number of articles on the topic, and Dr. Collins is usually very prominent and verbose in the comments section.   We shall survey some of this, but nowhere near comprehensively. Space considerations don't permit a full description of competing theories, so I will mainly highlight Dr. Collins' replies to other points of view and criticisms of his thesis. I urge readers to consult the referenced articles to read much more of both perspectives. Dr. Bolen proclaimed in an article dated 13 May 2006:
I know from previous study that of the three possible regions for the location of Sodom and Gomorrah based on all of the Scriptural evidence (northeast, southeast, under the Dead Sea), the least likely is the northern theory. Dr. Collins fired back in a comment on 21 June 2006:
Every argument for a southern Sodom is ludicrous. . . . I guarantee that the southern location for Sodom will die in time, as painful as it might be for some people who've married themselves to an untenable, traditional theory. I'm sorry, but there is simply zero evidence of any kind to support it!
Again, on 10 August 2009, Dr. Bolen provides a dissenting opinion on his blog:

Finding ancient sites that have Middle Bronze occupation and then a gap until Iron Age is not difficult. That’s what Collins has found. This and the others in the area are no doubt important sites, but it does not fit the biblical data about Sodom. 

 . . . With regard to the Middle Bronze occupation, . . . you must revise the biblical datesin order for Collins’ identification to match the archaeology. He lowers the date of Abraham in order to create a match with his excavation results. The traditional biblical dating of the destruction of Sodom is approximately 2100 BC, . . . Dr. Collins replied in comments on 18 August:
As for the chronology, Albright, Kitchen, and a host of other scholars would place Abraham much later in the MB. That's because they realized the formulaic nature of the patriarchal life-numbers, and took a late date for the Exodus.
And again in another comment on the same day:
The later date for Abraham is preferred by a majority of chronographers, including Finegan. The early date for Abraham can be supported ONLY by the Masoretic reading of Ex 12:40 . . . I came to this conclusion long before I ever thought about the Sodom issue. I have never “cooked” any set of data to accommodate my Sodom theory. I always go with the reasonable facts, whether biblical, geographical, or archaeological. To this point, all the factually-based data are in leaning in our direction. All the counter arguments are simply non sequiturious, like the “can't be anyone living on the Kikkar during the Iron Age” one.
By 19 December 2011, Dr. Bolen appears to be frustrated with Dr. Collins and his arguments, and decides to question his academic credentials (“Collins appears to be a professor of archaeology who has never earned a degree from a school with an archaeology program,” etc.).Indeed, my doctorates are in biblical hermeneutics and religion. But it is a fact that many of us who have enjoyed long careers as field archaeologists do not hold PhDs in archaeology per se. Much excellent work in archaeology has been accomplished by men with doctorates in theology, religion, biblical studies, Old Testament, history, and other branches of the social sciences. I could cite quite a long list. . . . let’s keep this discussion intelligent and academic, shall we?
Dr. Bolen claimed that Dr. Collins was twisting the chronology of the Bible like a wax nose, in order to fit into his theories, and (in a comment on 11 March 2012) even strongly insinuating that the quick identification of Tall el-Hammam as Sodom was a ploy “to bring millions of dollars and hundreds of volunteers to the site.” At length hedecided (in comments on 12 March 2012) to pull out all the stops and loboutright character attacks:
I have detected for as many years as I've been reading what you've written about Sodom that the issue is not the evidence but your authority. You ask other people to believe you in spite of the evidence.   . . . You are a dishonest man. You twist the truth in order to deceive.   . . . That's nine factually inaccurate statements in one paragraph. . . . If you were my student, I'd send you back to the library to open up a few books. You, however, know the facts but are purposefully distorting them to support your own agenda. I am unhappy with myself for spending my time in responding to you.   . . . A better approach is to trust the Bible.
Dr. Collins (in a comment on 13 March 2012) remained quite calm after this onslaught, asserting only that his words were being twisted and ignored. He ended by saying, “I do respect the views you hold regarding chronology. I used to have the same views. . . . I suppose that we will just have to agree to disagree on many points.” Dr. Bolen ended (on the same day) the now tedious and soiled discussion by tossing more insults:
What you really mean is “I'm humiliated by the exposure of my false statements before, but I am unwilling to admit it, so I will pretend there is another reason.” . . . I don't think you can act unethically, refuse to repent, and then assume that we can just “agree to disagree.” . . . when one distorts the truth, twists the words of others, and is very calculated in his efforts to deceive, I am not going to pretend otherwise or continue the conversation.
And so it often goes, even in academia (though this is a pretty striking instance). I'm very familiar with this sort of “discussion downgrading into a mudfight” from my own countless dialogues in my apologetics work. In my opinion, Dr. Bolen lost the combox debate by default, inresorting to personal attack. This unsavory behavior indicates to me that his case is quite likely weak; otherwise he could have confidently stuck to assertion of his theories rather than ad hominemattacks.
Also, I've long observed that when one Christian thinks (rightly or wrongly) that another is more “liberal” than they are on some matters (in this instance, biblical dates and chronology), often they assume that it is because of dishonesty or lack of faith in biblical inspiration. That seems to be what lies behind Dr. Bolen's personal contempt.
In any event, the vigorous scholarly debate about the location of Sodom and Gomorrah looks to be one of the more interesting ones in archaeology, over the next several years. Other archaeologists who claimed to have found things that seem to be primarily supported by the Bible have found themselves outcasts in their own field. Secular and anti-Christian strains still run strong in Ancient Near Eastern (“biblical”) archaeology.   Dr. Collins, however,seems like the type of person who won't let such empty threats and negative possibilities daunt him in his quest for both biblical and archaeological truth: in harmony with each other. Whether one agrees with his conclusions or not, he is to be praised for his dual respect for scientific method and for the inspired revelation of Holy Scripture.
FOOTNOTES

On the Ultimate Folly and Futility of Worrying About Swishy Bishops and Other Liberal Dissidents in the Church, and "PR" Regarding the Pope

  [compiled from remarks of mine in a recent thread on my Facebook page. Thomas Hunt's words will be in blue]
It doesn't matter what Pope Francis does. If he doesn't care at all or about "PR", or if he (on the other hand) becomes a master of all the "proper" techniques and media-savvy, it won't matter a hill of beans. The secular society believes and spins what it will, regardless of any of that. Jesus and Paul and Peter didn't care what the pagan Romans thought of their teachings. They just taught 'em. And that's why they were all killed, along with some help from the Sanhedrin.

The pope can say anything and it'll be distorted, and won't satisfy his critics. Didn't Ven. Pope Paul VI speak forcefully enough in 1968 about contraception? Did that stop the nonsense? No; the liberals went right on believing that the Church would change its teaching.

Since people are so obsessed about the Synod, let that decide for them. If some Catholic is so stupid as to not know that Church doctrine and dogma can't change, then little will educate them in the first place. Laymen need to give assent to magisterial teaching and to not rashly speculate that it could change when in fact (for the faithful Catholic) this is impossible.  

The pope works with the bishops. It's called collegiality. The Synod will straighten out all the business about divorced Catholics and receiving communion. I'm not worried about it. Bishops say lots of stupid things. When they get together in councils the Holy Spirit does extraordinary things, despite the inevitable shortcomings of men. Bishops speaking individually are not the magisterium. The Synod is part of that. Synods take votes and decide issues. Case closed.

Cardinal Kasper seems to have some liberal views. I agree. All theological errors come from Germany and England and The Netherlands (+ the US). No surprise there. It was the same at Vatican II with Dollinger (who denied papal infallibility and was excommunicated). Ho hum. ZZZzzzz (-_-) .

One day all the chronic worriers and complainers will have to stop worrying about the pope and the Church: stop acting like they have no faith that God guides and protects her.

These standard, stock, garden variety complaints are very boring to me by now, after having observed them online for 17 years. Folks of a certain sort endlessly complained about John Paul II, who is now a saint (so people like former apologist Bob Sungenis now attack the canonization process as a result).

In the thread, Thomas Hunt, who was expressing many of these concerns wrote: "no one believes doctrine will officially change. Of course it won't." Great. So let's get on with our lives, serving Christ, and relax and not be so concerned. There have always been problems in the Church, yet somehow we survive, don't we? We're still here teaching all the same biblical, apostolic stuff we've always taught.

Complaints and "o woe is us" lamentations are almost always silly and a waste of time. They don't accomplish anything. This is why I keep advising the complainers and worriers to just relax and wait for the Synod to make its decrees. I'm not worried about it at all. The Church has made it this far and will continue to be the One True Church.

My point is that Cardinal Kasper is just one man and his views won't prevail in the Ssynod. Much ado about nothing. Some people think it is a huge crisis that one bishop says stupid things. I yawn and say, "like this is something new, or anything that will change Church teaching"?

The faithful need not depend on one bishop or several liberal bishops (actually or imagined) to obtain their faith. They have all the resources under the sun available to help them: especially the Catechism. So I'm not worried about them. If they have to be led by the hand in everything, chances are they are lousy Catholics in the first place. I'm doing everything I can to help educate them in the faith and to try to spread the joy obtainable therein. But every man stands before God alone. Saying "my bishop taught me the wrong thing" won't be any excuse on Judgment Day.

I wrote recently in my revised book about Orthodoxy, that Germany, England, and the US were the source of much of the dissent in the Church: that it was that way during Vatican I in 1870 and exactly the same today ("some things never change"). I don't sit around worrying about it day and night. My philosophy is that spreading light overcomes the darkness. I defend Holy Mother Church and her true doctrines, and that is an excellent way to spend my time. Every time I teach truth I oppose any liberal bishop who is out there.

Pope St. John Paul II was bashed endlessly for not cracking down on liberals as much as the critics thought he should. When he kissed the Koran that was viewed as akin to Judas' betrayal (and I was called a "modernist" for defending him at length several times and arguing that it didn't mean all the nonsense it was said to have meant). Everything is exactly the same now as it always was. 

The thing to do is what I've said all along in this thread: simply reiterate orthodoxy and let the loose cannons spout their nonsense if the must (just like bears crap in the woods), but with increasing irrelevancy as time goes on. The liberals and the heterodox thrive on attention: as do also the radical Catholic reactionaries on the other end of the spectrum. That's most of their game. If we ignore them, they are deprived of the big thrill they get in being dissidents. Consequently, I do my best to ignore them as much as possible.

Thomas Hunt wrote about another in my thread (both are Catholics): "Your very personal approach is one you learned as a Protestant." I replied:

That doesn't necessarily follow. Blessed Cardinal Newman wrote a lot about how laymen opposed the many Arian bishops during the Arian crisis in the 4th century (when Protestantism was still 12 centuries away). If they had simply followed the bishops like sheep, wherever they led, we'd all be Arian Jehovah's Witnesses today. But the laypeople knew their faith and played a crucial role in maintaining apostolic trinitarian orthodoxy.

How is it "Protestant" to simply say [as the second Catholic noted above, did], "I try to understand my faith by mining the teachings of the Church in Scripture, the Catechism and documents published by the Vatican"? That's perfectly Catholic. There is nothing un-Catholic about it whatsoever. The Protestant doesn't do that. He does only the first and not the second and third things. Then he takes a head count of how many Protestants believe so-and-so and decides which of the many hundreds of denominations to join. That is erroneous  private judgment as a rule of faith; not what was written above.

It would be like claiming, "its a Protestant mentality to read Dave Armstrong's books and learn more about the Catholic faith." It's no more "Protestant" than to read the layman Chesterton 90 years ago. Any Catholic who knows anything knows what the magisterium teaches and what it is, and whether a lay apologist like myself is accurately conveying and defending the same teachings or not. It's perfectly possible, by virtue of seeking truth and asking God to guide one in that quest.

Clearly, it's always better to have an orthodox bishop rather than a liberal one, but on the other hand, the resources are out there and Catholic truth awaits anyone who is serious about finding it. It's as close as the Catechism.

We are what we eat. If we're in an environment where there is a lot of modernist garbage, chances are we'll pick up some of it. It's almost inevitable unless we are vigilant and prayerful. It's especially true among intellectuals, because they hate to be ostracized in academia as not "with it." Even C. S. Lewis was spurned and despise among many of his Oxford colleagues and denied a professorship at Oxford (he only got one in the 50s when he moved to Cambridge).
We are supposed to look to our bishops, especially for teaching. When we cannot do that we suffer loss (all of us)--even if we can still find truth for ourselves by study and prayer. . . . Personal study is very good and necessary. But thinking that that means bad bishops don't have a very negative effect on all of us, is naive.

All of us, huh? One bad bishop or 300 of them (if, theoretically, there were that many) doesn't have the slightest effect on my Catholic life. Not one iota. It has absolutely zero effect on how I spend my day, how orthodox I am, my apologetics. Nothing. Zero, zip, nada, zilch.

What influences me is the magisterium and writings and lives of orthodox, obedient Catholics, the saints, the Bible, etc.

Yes, we look to bishops for teaching, but particularly in council, and in line with the pope, because that is when they are speaking magisterially. Individually, they do not have that charism. We give them a lot of respect, because they are in authority over us, but sometimes they can say erroneous things, and if we know our faith, we know when that happens and we are not obligated to accept their teaching at that point, because it's wrong and false.

I already noted how in the 4th century, the laypeople massively rejected the Arian bishops. This is how Cardinal Newman developed his famous emphasis on laymen and the sensus fidelium, because he had studied that period of Church history. He in turn greatly influenced Vatican II, which brought back a renewed emphasis on the laity, which was only reclaiming an ancient heritage in the Church.

Thus, what I'm arguing right now is quite in line with Blessed Cardinal Newman and Vatican II: i.e., the magisterium and most developed Mind of the Church. 

. . . implying that their influence is negligible because I can study for myself is a Protestant reaction.

It's not at all. We are supposed to know our faith, just as Protestants do. It's not an exclusively Protestant notion, to have an intelligent, educated, informed faith. They adversely influence ignorant Catholics. The problem is ignorance, not some supposed Protestant method if a Catholic actually knows his or her faith! You're the one thinking like a Protestant here because you relegate entirely Catholic things into a supposed "Protestant-only" box, as if Catholics have to only be dumb sheep and be led entirely by bishops, and learn little or nothing on their own. That went out as early as the wide availability of books, and a corresponding widespread literacy, in the mid-15th century.

Catholicism does not allow us to be only individuals. We are always part of the flock.

No one said it did. [Name] said he studied the Bible, the Catechism and the councils. That's utterly Catholic. Protestants only do the first thing, because they deny the infallibility of tradition and the Church, so that's all they have in terms of bottom-line authority: how they try to solve problems. But they can't do it with the Bible only, which is why they are so hopelessly divided.