"Not all who are of Israel are Israel!" - A further look at Romans 9

This post builds on a recent post I did, Romans 9 like you've never heard it before. 

Thinking about Romans 9 some more, it seems there's one further detail that ties things together even more: Within the famous Patriarchal trifecta of "Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob," it seems in this passage that Paul only gave examples of the sons of Abraham (9:7-9) and Isaac (9:10-13), but Paul did not seem to mention the sons of Jacob. Or did he? Actually, it seems Paul does mention Jacob, but we probably missed it. 

In the famous (and slightly mysterious) thesis verse of Romans 9:6, Paul says: "But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel." The standard interpretation of this second sentence is that not all who are biologically Jews belong to "Spiritual Israel". And that makes sense. Calvinists go one step further, and in an erroneous way, and interpret this as basically saying there is a "visible church" and an "invisible church," such that you can be a member of the "visible church" but not actually saved. In this post, I want to consider what I think is a more satisfying interpretation of 9:6.

What is the "certificate of debt" that Jesus canceled for us?

I recently heard a popular Protestant apologist argue that Colossians 2:14 is a strong proof text for Protestant doctrines such as Penal Substitution and Faith Alone. In this article, I want to look at this verse and show why this Protestant apologist is engaging in poor exegesis. The passage (briefly) is as follows:

¹¹ You were circumcised with a circumcision not made with human hands, ¹² having been buried with him in baptism, you were also raised with him through faith. ¹³ And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, ¹⁴ by canceling the certificate of debt with its legal demands that stood against us . This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. ¹⁶ Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.

The Protestant made the claim that the phrase "certificate of debt" here was synonymous with "sin debt," and that by "canceling" it Jesus thus received the punishment our sins deserved. While his explanation is understandable, it is not genuine exegesis, and misses out on the richness of Paul's theology. Here's why.

A powerful verse against Faith Alone (Matt 7:14)

Catholics love the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew ch5-7) but Protestants generally avoid it, since it doesn't fit with their ideas of how salvation is supposed to take place. This Sermon is full of passages that contradict the Protestant doctrine of 'Salvation by Faith Alone', and in this edition of Quickie Apologetics I want to call attention to a section of the Sermon on the Mount that we all know but don't often think of: 

Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is difficult that leads to life, and those who find it are few. (Matt 7:13-14)

How often do we hear Protestants ridicule Catholics for 'complicating' Salvation. Protestants insist that 'getting saved' is so easy that all we have to do is believe, that faith alone in Christ's finished work on the Cross is all that it takes. But given the above teaching of Jesus, what is so "difficult" about the Faith Alone approach? What is so "narrow" path about it? Why are "few" saved if all they need to do is believe? The answer to all these is: nothing.

Protestants typically 'interpret' the teachings of Jesus as being either (1) meant for Old Testament folks alone, or (2) simply to show us how sinful we are, not to actually impose any commands or expectations upon us. Such is quite absurd, and effectively renders the Gospels hollow. This is why Protestants hardly ever quote/read the Gospels. The honest truth is, this is not an easy teaching of Jesus, but Catholicism has always understood that Jesus really meant it, and thus we strive to conform our life to everything Jesus taught, whether comfortable or uncomfortable.

How to punish a Calvinist (1 Cor 11:32) - Part II

I love to spring 1 Cor 11:32 upon Protestants, especially Calvinists, because of the reaction it gets from them: But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world. The plain teaching of this passage is that Christians are not "eternally secure" but rather must be disciplined to be kept from turning to sin, falling away, and being damned. I wrote about this in an older post (HERE). 

In this post, I want to call up one of my favorite Catholic apologists, John Calvin, for his thoughts on this verse:

But when we are judged Here we have a consolation that is exceedingly necessary; for if any one in affliction thinks that God is angry with him, he will rather be discouraged than excited to repentance. It is an inestimable consolation that the punishments by which our sins are chastened are evidences, not of God’s anger for our destruction, but rather of his paternal love, and are at the same time of assistance towards our salvation, for God is angry with us as his sons, whom he will not leave to perish.

When he says that we may not be condemned with the world, he intimates two things. The first is, that the children of this world, while they sleep on quietly and securely in their delights, are fattened up, like hogs, for the day of slaughter (Jeremiah 12:3.) For though the Lord sometimes invites the wicked, also, to repentance by his chastisements, yet he often passes them over as strangers, and allows them to rush on with impunity, until they have filled up the measure of their final condemnation. (Genesis 15:16.) This privilege, therefore, belongs to believers exclusively - that by punishments they are called back from destruction. The second thing is this - that chastisements are necessary remedies for believers, for otherwise they, too, would rush on to everlasting destruction, were they not restrained by temporal punishment.

The reason why John Calvin is one of my favorite Catholic apologists is because he often proves the Catholic case for us, so that his beloved followers (Protestants/Calvinists) cannot object without looking silly. For example, many Protestants would try to dodge this verse by saying Paul isn't talking about real Christians (but rather fake Christians) and/or that Paul isn't talking about damnation. Both of these (weak) objections are denied by Calvin.

Here we see that not only does being chastised not mean that God is angry with you, it is for your own good, since God only disciplines His sons. This means that His Son, Jesus, could not have been punished in some manner equivalent to eternal damnation, such as how Protestants think Jesus endured in our place while on the Cross. Next, we see that we cannot be "covered by the Imputed Righteousness of Christ," as Protestants think, nor are we eternally secure, since by acting sinfully God sees this and inflicts temporal punishments so that the Christian will reform their life and not be damned. Thus, God is not looking at the Imputed Righteousness of Christ instead of us, but rather God looks at us (Paul says we are "judged" by God) and rewards/punishes us accordingly, to keep us on the right track, since it is by our behavior as Christians that determines if we are saved. This verse is a dagger against Faith Alone.

Did the OT Animal Sacrifices "pay the price" for your sin? - More Problems with Penal Substitution

People who frequently read this blog know that I have many posts clearly explaining why the animal sacrifices in the Bible were not 'taking the punishment the sinner deserved' (Penal Substitution). In this brief post I want to share a most significant aspect that is typically overlooked entirely. 

Many folks think the animal's getting slaughtered for sacrifice were 'paying the price' for the individual's sins, so that the individual would not have to 'pay the price'. But the simple fact is, animals were not free (cf 2 Sam 24:24). Whether you raised animals or whether you had to buy them, there was a noteworthy cost. I estimate that a lamb would cost around $300 dollars. Because finances were a factor in whether someone could meet their obligation, the Law makes room for those who could not afford a lamb, e.g., those who could only afford two pigeons (Lev 5:7), or even those who could only afford a sack of flour (Lev 5:11). The point remains though, even if scaled down, the person who sinned (unintentionally) was going to take a financial hit of $300 dollars (or equivalent) each time. That's not chump change, and it can add up. 

Imagine getting a $300 speeding ticket every month of the year (which is like a monthly car payment). That would be around $3,600 in fines per year. Thus, if you're an Israelite paying a few thousand dollars for animals each year, that's definitely a significant punishment. Financial punishments are no joke. And in the context of Penal Substitution, we can see that an Israelite taking the financial punishment, not to mention the time investment, means they were the one 'paying the price' for their sins. It makes little sense to think the animal being killed was being punishment in your place when just prior to the slaughter you had to pay $300 which you worked hard to earn. If someone was making minimum wage and working 40hrs per week, then to sin within the Levitical system meant you lost wages for basically a whole week of work! You definitely didn't escape personal punishment as an Israelite. And Leviticus 6:5 (Lev 5:16) explains that if you defrauded a neighbor, you had to pay back that amount, plus an additional 20%, plus offer a sacrifice! Ouch!

In closing, I should add that such a system seems unjust for God to put people under. The fact is, this 'burden' was not originally part of what God expected of them, but rather many of these rules and regulations were placed upon the Israelites only after they kept turning to sin. St Thomas Aquinas and other theologians explain that by putting all these expectations upon them, God was trying to not leave them with any time or resources to turn back to idolatry. But, this was only a temporary fix, as the real problem was an interior one, of the soul, which requires the Sacrifice of Jesus to heal.

How Mary became the Redeemer of Jesus - More Problems with Penal Substitution

The following is passage provides a quickie argument against Penal Substitution* as well as some other gold nuggets. In Luke 2:22-24, we read: 

And when the time came for their purification according to the Law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every male who first opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord”) and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the Law of the Lord, “a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.”

Here are the fascinating gold nuggets that are worth knowing.

First, the Protestant notion of the Cross & Atonement (what they call "Penal Substitution") is that a sinner's guilt is 'imputed' to an innocent substitute, which then takes the death penalty in place of the sinner. But in this case, what was Mary's (grave) "sin" here that had the death penalty hanging over Her head, which She had to then transfer onto two turtledoves? The obvious issue here is that Mary had given birth to the Messiah, Jesus. But this certainly was not a sin in any sense. Thus, Mary's sacrifices couldn't have been about imputing the guilt onto an innocent animal substitute, much less was the animal receiving the death penalty. Thus, an animal being killed in sacrifice should not be assumed to be modeling Penal Substitution. 

That said, a Protestant might object at say that this Mary situation doesn't affect Penal Substitution at all, since some sacrifices weren't about atoning for sin but rather simply about ritual purification. While there is truth to this claim, this Protestant "objection" actually backfires. The passage which Luke is referencing is Leviticus 12, a short chapter on childbirth ritual purification. (I brought this up in an older post, HERE) The plain fact is, Leviticus 12:6-7 explains it as "a turtledove for a sin offering, and the priest shall offer it before the Lord and make atonement for her. Then she shall be clean from the flow of her blood." Notice the explicit mention of "sin offering" and "make atonement". This is yuge because it means the sacrifice Mary had offered was not something distinct from the standard "sin offering" which Leviticus 4-5 tells us about. In other words, this is clear proof that "sin offering" and "making atonement" don't need to involve Penal Substitution.

Note that Leviticus 12-15 are about various types of ritual purification, not having to do with guilt for actual sins, yet all involving "sin offering" to "make atonement". Also noteworthy is that these purification chapters come, right before Leviticus 16, which is the Day of Atonement ritual (centered on purification, see HERE and HERE). 

*   *   *

Did Jesus teach Salvation by Faith Alone? Yes, but not how you might think.

One thing I love about interacting with Protestants, especially the more intelligent ones, is how often their own claims against Catholicism end up turning into some of my most powerful apologetics tools against Protestantism. Here's a great quick example that I recently came across. A Protestant was trying to point out how Jesus taught the Protestant doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone in the situation with Jarius in Luke 8. The passage is as follows: 

40 Now when Jesus returned, the crowd welcomed him. 41 And there came a man named Jairus, who was a ruler of the synagogue. And falling at Jesus' feet, he implored him to come to his house, 42 for he had an only daughter, about twelve years of age, and she was dying. As Jesus went, the people pressed around him. 

43 And there was a woman who had had a discharge of blood for twelve years, and she could not be healed by anyone. 44 She came up behind him and touched the fringe of his garment, and immediately her discharge of blood ceased. 45 And Jesus said, “Who was it that touched me?” When all denied it, Peter said, “Master, the crowds surround you and are pressing in on you!” 46 But Jesus said, “Someone touched me, for I perceive that power has gone out from me.” 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. 48 And he said to her, “Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace.”

49 While he was still speaking, someone from the ruler's house came and said, “Your daughter is dead; do not trouble the Teacher any more.” 50 But Jesus on hearing this answered him, “Do not fear; only believe, and she will be well.” 51 And when he came to the house, he allowed no one to enter with him, except Peter and John and James, and the father and mother of the child. 52 And all were weeping and mourning for her, but he said, “Do not weep, for she is not dead but sleeping.” 53 And they laughed at him, knowing that she was dead. 54 But taking her by the hand he called, saying, “Child, arise.” 55 And her spirit returned, and she got up at once. And he directed that something should be given her to eat. 56 And her parents were amazed, but he charged them to tell no one what had happened.

Now, first of all, contrary to the Grand Protestant Strawman, Catholics fully believe that faith alone saves us. Heretics love to steal orthodox teaching and twist the doctrine and terminology. In fact, it is Protestantism which teaches we are saved by works alone, apart from faith, grace, etc. That's because their completely unbiblical doctrine of "Imputation of Christ's Righteousness" is based on their bad logic which teaches man gets to heaven by living a perfectly sinless life. They say that since Adam sinned man can no longer 'work his way into heaven', showing that in the Protestant mind, works alone are what saved from the very beginning. Protestants compound this error by thinking that in order to be saved, Jesus had to live a perfect life and 'impute' this perfect life to the sinner, so that God can see the sinner as if the sinner lived a life of 100% perfect works. All faith does in the Protestant mind is transfer Christ's perfect obedience to their account. See how works alone, at the very root, is really what the Protestant believes? The Catholic side doesn't believe this terrible logic one bit, and I've written for years against it. 

Revisiting Abraham's "faith reckoned as righteousness" (A 'new' insight on Romans 4 and Romans 2)

The other day I was thinking about Genesis 15:6 and felt I had gained a new insight. Even though I've held to elements of this before, I think this 'new' insight will help tie things together. I'm not saying I'm the first to do this, only that this was a sort of 'aha' moment for me.

The first time the term "righteousness" appears in the Bible is in Genesis 15:6. The big question is: what is righteousness? We all have a general intuitive idea, and I wrote a post on this (HERE), but I think in this case Paul was getting at something important that we end up overlooking. 

While many think of righteousness/unrighteousness in a generic sense, that's not how we should approach the Bible. It is crucial to realize that Paul's opponents saw righteousness as synonymous with living in conformity with the Mosaic Law, which was God's Law (the Torah). But Paul noticed something fascinating: Abraham was counted as righteous before God's law formal standard (the Mosaic Law) even existed. But how can Abraham be considered righteous without there being a law from which to measure his righteousness? Paul is apparently teasing out the fact that some law/covenant must have existed prior to the Mosaic Law, and that by God counting Abraham's faith/faithfulness as righteousness means God counted Abraham as living in conformity to this 'mysterious' pre-Mosaic law/covenant. 

If that's the case, then reducing our view of Romans 4 to the popular apologetics claims like "Genesis 15:6 wasn't the first time Abraham believed" (cf Gal 3:6-9; Heb 11:8; Gen 12:1-4; Rom 4:17-22) kind of miss the bigger point, even if they are true claims. What our emphasis should be on is that Paul is not  concerned about God crediting Abraham's faith as some generic righteous deed, but more specifically Abraham was righteous per some real covenant than preexisted Moses' Covenant. This means that Genesis 15:6 is saying God either was right there establishing a new unnamed covenant, or God was affirming Abraham was already living a righteous lifestyle under this unnamed covenant. 

This conclusion would fit perfectly with Paul calling Abraham "ungodly" (Rom 4:5), since this term would be referring to sinful/uncircumcised living per the Mosaic Standards. Similarly, Paul brings up David as a secondary example of "ungodly" because he gravely sinned under the Mosaic Standards, which puts one out of the Mosaic Covenant, 'nullifying' their circumcision (Rom 2:25). So in Romans 4:6-8, Paul is saying David prayed Psalm 32 (and Psalm 51) and received forgiveness under some other covenant, since the Mosaic Covenant did not forgive murder (Num 35:33).  Furthermore, David says nothing about 'faith' or 'works' in Psalm 32, meaning we shouldn't have some generic view of 'faith' or 'works' in mind. I wrote about this in an older post (HERE and HERE). 

Baptism according to Scripture. (Do Protestants Really care about the Bible?)

In the course of my apologetics, I've come to the astonishing conclusion that it doesn't seem Protestants really care about what the Bible has to say. They don't do this intentionally, but when it comes to many Biblical doctrines, I've found in my own interactions and with reading their major theologians, that they have a very bad habit of leaving out key details when formulating doctrines. And when you confront them, they just shrug it off and have no real interest in what the Bible says. In this post, I will list all the Biblical verses that refer to the Sacrament of Baptism and let readers see what the Bible plainly has to say on the matter. I have yet to find any Protestant who has actually sat down for half an hour and read through the 25 or so verses that mention Baptism to see for themself what the Bible says. Rather, they will only quote a few verses and just go with whatever their denomination or pastor says. When I ask them to just read these verses, they act like I've asked them to deny Christianity.

I think the best way to educate yourself is to actually read the Bible for yourself, and since there are only about 25 short verses to read (texts with a * indicate the term "baptism" isn't used), this should take you less than 30 minutes to get fully informed on the matter. I will then briefly analyze the data. In the Conclusion, I will speak about the general Protestant view of Baptism contradicts the Bible, while showing that the Catholic view is fully in line with Scripture.

Why "calling upon the name of the Lord" to be saved refutes Justification by Faith Alone (Romans 10:9-10).

Protestants are fond of quoting Romans 10:9-10 as 'clear Biblical proof' that we are saved by faith alone. Yet a careful look at the verse doesn't actually say this, and in fact suggests the opposite. I've posted about this in the past (HERE), but after some recent discoveries I'd like to build on what I originally said. The passage in question says:

Romans 10: 9 if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. 11 For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. 13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Notice that this text explicitly says you must do two things: believe and confess. This, taken plainly, refutes salvation by faith alone. If you bring this up, Protestants will squirm and make excuses, but it really does expose a flaw in their thinking. The more they try to explain, the less convincing faith alone sounds. 

Also worth noting is that the only place where "believe" and "confess" appear in the same passage (that I was able to find) are found in John 12:42, which is quite helpful here: "many even of the authorities believed in him, but for fear of the Pharisees they did not confess it, so that they would not be put out of the synagogue". Based on this Scripture-interprets-Scripture situation, it is clear that believing alone is not enough. Many believed in Jesus but were too afraid to openly confess Him. So this confessing before men refers to affirming you're a Christian and be willing to 'suffer the consequences'. Obviously, this is very devastating to Protestant theology, because if someone denies Jesus, that is not confessing him before men, they wont be saved per Paul's argument (cf Matt 10:33; 2 Tim 2:12). But I've come across something more fascinating to add to the above. 

The Good Thief and Bad (Protestant) Apologetics

Here's my brief Catholic response to the Good Thief "trump-card" some Protestants use, and which I turned into a cut-n-paste response since I encounter it often enough:

The “Good Thief” (Lk 23:39-43) is often cited as the star example of getting saved by faith alone. But here’s why the mature Christian wouldn’t say that: (1) We don’t know his faith background, e.g., if he was ever baptized in the past or if this was his first time meeting Jesus. His prayer “Jesus remember me when you come into your kingdom” shows he had some knowledge of the Gospel, since no such “kingdom” details are given in this passage. (2) Terms such as ‘faith’ and ‘belief’ are not used in this passage, so there’s no reason to think ‘faith alone’ is even the focus, just as the Parable of the Pharisee & Tax Collector (Lk 18:9-14) doesn’t use such terms, but rather highlights the virtue of “humility”. In fact, we see a range of virtues being expressed here, including ‘Fear of the Lord’ (23:40; cf Prov 1:7), Repentance (which Jesus distinguishes from belief, see Mark 1:5), Warning Sinners (2 Thess 3:14b), Public Professing (John 10:42; Rom 10:10b), as well as Hope of going to Heaven and certainly Love for Jesus. The thief was even willing to suffer and die for his own sins, not to be freed from them, which means he carried his own cross (Lk 9:23). So this was *far from* faith alone. (3) This was a unique situation, it isn’t the norm for how people typically accept the Gospel (see Acts for the norm), and as such it has its limits. For example, Jesus had not yet Resurrected, Ascended, or sent the Holy Spirit yet, so Dismas probably didn’t profess faith in these, whereas these aspects of Jesus’ mission are required for us to profess (Rom 10:9b). Even the command to “baptize all nations” wasn’t even given until *after* Jesus resurrected (Matt 28:19), so pointing to this as an example of ‘not needing baptism’ is kind of moot. Plus, can we take this one example as an excuse to ‘not really have to’ obey the many teachings of Jesus and the Apostles, including getting baptized, gathering to worship with others, being subject to your pastor, sharing our possessions, etc? (4) Lastly, Catholics highly honor the Good Thief, Saint Dismas, on March 25 every year, and many Catholic Saints have preached on his beautiful testimony for us. So it’s not like St Dismas (whom we have the decency to call by his actual name) is some surprise that theologians have missed all this time. For example, St Augustine preached on how this is the only death-bed repentance in the Bible, teaching us that while there’s always hope, we also shouldn’t be too presumptuous about waiting until the last minute to repent. And some saints have preached that the thief was partially converted by the prayers and testimony of Mary and the holy women and John, standing at the foot of the Cross praying for both criminals, showing us that we have a role in helping others come to Christ. 

UPDATE 5/4/22 - I would add that many Protestants think that Dismas went immediately to heaven, but the reality is heaven was not open yet until after Jesus was Resurrected and Ascended, which means Dismas went to Hades/Purgatory when he died, and Jesus only came down a few hours later when Jesus died. This is the "today you will be with me in Paradise" and what Acts 2:27-31 shows, that Jesus died and went to Hades. So Dismas was at minimum in Hades and possibly suffered some temporary Purgatory if Dismas's crucifixion suffering didn't do sufficient penance.