Why was Paul not sent to Baptize but to Preach? (Protestants misuing 1 Cor. 1:17)

A popular example of "Protestants behaving badly" that usually comes from those of the Baptist or Non-Denominational groups of Protestants is when they seem to think it's better to denigrate Baptism than to concede it does anything salvific. This is known as the fallacy of "cutting off your nose to spite your face," where someone mistakenly thinks that an argument against their opponent is "worth it" even if that same argument ultimately undermines their own position as well. In this case, a favorite "proof text" against Baptism as "necessary for salvation" is for these folks to point to 1 Corinthians 1:14-17, where Paul says: "I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius... for Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel..." These Protestants will allege that Paul is saying baptism is not important, even non-essential to salvation, because preaching and believing are what really matter, and that thus Baptism must not be that important. But is that really what Paul is alleging? I will show why this is absolutely the worst interpretation one can have. 

We will begin by looking at the full passage:

Is Christian worship a "non-essential"? (Romans 14:5)

Many modern day "Evangelical" Protestants consider Romans 14:5 as the chief proof text for the notion there can be "non-essential" doctrines within Christianity. While there are practices throughout Christian history that can be considered "non-essentials," it is more problematic to apply this to the category of "doctrine," since doctrine implies essential teaching. The logic that certain Protestants use typically reduces down to making almost nothing an "essential" and thus stripping Christianity of anything solid that gives it shape. But when read carefully, we see here that Paul was speaking in a relatively narrow range of 'liberty' in Christian disciplines, especially as these were tied to one's former life and thus they had a certain sensitivity to them, not merely a personal preference. In fact, Paul refers to these people who need special care as those who are "weak in faith," but didn't mean it as an insult, just that they were not mature enough to thrive, which all Christians are called to aspire to.

Let's look at the passage of Chapter 14 of Romans:

1 As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions [Greek: "scruples" / "doubts"]. 2 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. 3 Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. 4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. 8 For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's. ... 13 Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. 14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. 15 For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died.

The verse "one person esteems one day better than another" is commonly taken to mean that when it comes to the day of worship, that is a "non-essential" doctrine, and that it is really the freedom of each individual Christian to decide whether they want to worship alone or with a community, or on Sunday or on Saturday, etc. With this mindset, these Protestants "conclude" that a true Christian could just sleep in on Sunday and not have to worship in any formal sense at all. These Protestants claim that 14:5 proves that the Church, clergy, etc, cannot even set rules/standards such as how to worship, nor set rules on fasting, etc. But was Paul really giving each Christian such "liberty"? Only a surface level and non-contextual reading could lead to such an "interpretation," while careful look at Paul's language will see he's speaking very carefully and pastorally.

Synagogues aren't Temples - kind of a big deal Pt.2

From my recent post (here) discussing the plain distinction between the synagogue versus the Temple, it has let me to look into the "Biblical details" more of each institution, including the key passages which were already cited. This study is important because if the Bible does use worship type language in regards to the synagogue, then it would mean the prior post would have to be significantly retracted or modified. However, if the Bible does not use worship type language with regards to the synagogue, then the prior post is more firmly established.

To begin, the Greek word "worship" appears about 60 times in the NT, and it is largely used to refer to people "bowing down" in reverence. That said, "worship" is clearly tied to Jerusalem, and specifically the Temple, is clear from Luke 2:37; John 4:20-21; 12:20; Acts 8:27; 24:11; Heb 9:1;  Rev 11:1 (1 Cor 14:23-25; 2 Thess 2:4; Rev 15:4-5). Worship is associated with "religion" and "altar" (Acts 17:22-23). Worship is "regulated" by "covenant" and holy places (Heb 9:1-2).

I did not see the synagogue mentioned in any of these verses, implying "worship" (in the Biblical sense) does not take place in the synagogue. So far this data fits with the Catholic thesis that I wrote about in the prior article. Now onto the next word to look at.

Introduction to Old Testament "Feast Days"

I think it is tragic how unaware we are of the basic details of the Old Testament holidays. I think it would greatly improve our education as Catholics to learn a bit about them, especially so we can see that living liturgically has deep roots in the Old Testament, and how these OT holidays were foreshadowing of Jesus. For this post, I have decided to do some research and share what I've found, since I have never really looked into this myself and was never taught much on this subject. I might have a few details that need correction, so I welcome your feedback! 

The most important chapters on the Jewish holidays is found in Leviticus 23 and Numbers 28. First we'll look at what Moses says in Leviticus 23 as God Himself lays out the Seven Major Feasts:

Abraham and the Sacraments - another beautiful example of typology in the OT

As I was reflecting upon the fascinating chapter 17 of Genesis, where God first introduces the covenant of circumcision, I realized that the very next chapter introduces even more:

Genesis 17:26 That very day Abraham and his son Ishmael were circumcised. 27 And all the men of his house, were circumcised with him. 18:1 And the Lord appeared to him 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 were standing in front of him. When he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them and bowed himself to the earth 3 and said, “O 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, 5 while I bring a morsel of bread, that you may refresh yourselves, and after that you may pass on - since you have come to your servant.” So they said, “Do as you have said.”

With the chapter breaks, we generally don't read Genesis 17 in context with Genesis 18, but clearly there is a connection. In the very first words of ch 18, we see Abraham was most likely recovering from circumcision the day(s) prior, mentioned in the closing of ch 17. What we see is that immediately after getting circumcised, Abraham has a mysterious visit from three men, which he welcomes into his home and has a washing of feet and banquet. As with my other OT foreshadowing posts (e.g. here), we should be looking for deeper spiritual lessons when we see 'strange' things happen in the OT. In this case, I believe the Catholic tradition would happily see the New Testament Sacraments hidden here. Following our baptism, we immediately welcome the Holy Trinity into our life, and this sets us up for receiving the Eucharist and washing of the disciples feet. It is well known that Genesis 18 is a foreshadowing of the Trinity, and I'm sure there are other images here that I'm missing, but I've never seen anyone mention the circumcision/baptism connection before, though I'm sure others have.

After Abraham welcomes the "three men",
he is told Sarah will miraculously conceive

 

The limitations of the Nicene Creed in the Filioque debate

There is a great Catholic channel on YouTube called Reason & Theology and they recently featured a discussion on the Filioque (here). They have multiple episodes on the Filioque and other related topics, but this episode stood out for its unique insights by guest speaker Nathaniel. Most discussions on the Filioque tend to cover the same points, so it was great to hear what I now believe is the most important point, which I want to present here.

The Eastern Orthodox say the Filioque is not merely unauthorized modification of the Creed, but even that the Filioque is actually heresy because the EO claim that "proceeding" is a technical theological term that is reserved exclusively for the relation between the Father and the Holy Spirit. So in their mind, "proceeds" is used as the 'unique identifier' for the Third Person of the Holy Trinity. Similarly, the EO hold that "begotten" is reserved exclusively for the relation between the Father and the Son, so "begotten" is the 'unique identifier' for the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. The terms "begotten" and "proceeds" are 'actions' performed by the Father alone, and these two unique actions are the only 'thing' that distinguish the Three Persons in the Trinity. For example if there are two persons being "begotten" by the Father, then this would mean there are two sons in the Trinity, which is heresy. So the Holy Spirit must be something different than "begotten" by the Father. Similarly, it is said if the Son can produce a Person, then the Son would become another Father, which is also heresy. So the EO hold that the only way to prevent duplicate persons is the "Unbegotten Father; Begotten Son; Proceeding Spirit" understanding of the Trinity. This argument is fair and relatively straightforward. The main problem is that there is no official definition for what "proceeding" is, so it is actually impossible to formally say the Son cannot also be involved in some way with "proceeding," and some Catholics have argued that without the Son's involvement, then "proceeding" would be indistinguishable from "begetting". Historically, the bulk of the Filioque dispute with the EO has been over what "proceeds" actually means, since without having agreement on that term, it is extremely difficult to come to doctrinal agreement.

What is amazing about the argument made by Nathaniel in the YouTube discussion was that he explained that the Nicene Creed was never meant to dogmatize terms like "proceeding," but rather was focused more narrowly on affirming the Divinity of the Son and Holy Spirit. As long as a Christian affirmed the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit was Divine, then that Christian was orthodox. If Nathaniel's claim is indeed the case, then terms like "proceeds" cannot be turned into church-dividing issues, because such detail is outside the goal of the Creed. If you talk to the average practicing Christian who knows the Creed, they aren't even aware of such sophisticated details. Let's consider some reasons why the Creed never intended to turn "proceeds" into a crucial sophisticated theological term:

Brief thoughts on Fasting during Lent

I know I'm a few days late with this post, but I've just to share that Fasting has been on my mind a lot leading into this Lent. I've been praying about how to truly Fast this Lent, because too many years have gone by with hardly any effort put in, and that needs to change. Thankfully, I've been noticing various Catholic articles, videos, posts, etc, coming out encouraging "real" Fasting. The reality is, it is scandalous, shameful, and even partly sinful, the way the West has largely abandoned any meaningful encouragement to real Fasting. It is especially tragic when the "traditionalist" side has hardly mentioned Fasting, and has basically gone along with the bare minimum as well. This year, I want to really make a conscious effort to do some real Fasting during Lent, and have this become part of my life at other times of the year as well.

To give you a brief introduction to "real" Fasting, the historical understanding of Fasting had two components: (1) you avoided meat, dairy, sweets, and flavorings throughout Lent, and (b) that you ate roughly one meal and possibly a snack or two throughout Lent. The Byzantine Rites and Syriac Rites still require this type of "real" Fasting throughout Lent (and other times of the year) with some variations. The Latin Rite used to canonically require this type of "real" Fasting throughout Lent as well, but for reasons that I'm not aware of yet, the Latin Rite gradually relaxed the 'challenge' at a few key times. I recently read that just prior to the French Revolution (a major disaster for the Church and world), the Pope at the time said you could start eating meat during Lent as long as it was only at the main meal (and never on Fridays). The connection might be a coincidence, but then an even more drastic change happened in the late 1960s, just before the Sexual Revolution erupted the prior year the Pope said you only have to Fast on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday. This really does make you wonder if many of the problems in the Church today are tied to the complete neglect to "real Fasting". To be honest, we cannot even use the term Fasting if we aren't talking about real Fasting. The Latin side should actually be ashamed of not Fasting in any meaningful sense for so long. And we can be certain that Satan rejoices in our neglect of Fasting, especially those of us who are otherwise practicing the Faith throughout the week.

And to be more honest, I think we are all capable of "real Fasting", but we are spiritually immature and are afraid to try it. I think for too long we have made excuses or turned a blind eye, or proposed alternatives like giving up social media. All this to avoid "real Fasting". I'm not saying any of this to brag or put down people who have genuine needs and have to modify their needs. The point is that we need to be discussing this more and encouraging each other. This encouragement needs to include setting your Fasting goals high, rather than starting so small that you really aren't being challenged. This encouragement needs to also include how we should stop deluding ourselves by finding loopholes that actually mock the Fast, including avoiding things such as (a) meat-substitutes that taste as enjoyable as the real meat, such as veggie burgers, (b) flavorful alternatives such as McDonalds Filet of Fish (not to mention the meatless fries and soda), and (c) any restaurant or food that is generally enjoyable to eat, including sushi, grilled cheese, veggie pizza, etc, and (d) enjoyable drinks, including sodas, alcohols, beers, juices, etc. (I think coffee, tea, etc, can be permissible depending on what stage you are personally at.) We need to be honest with ourselves that if we are enjoying the taste of our food, that is a warning that we are probably not Fasting. I speak as one who has repeatedly made excuses many years, but this year I want to really make an effort to avoid meat, dairy, flavorful foods, and regular sized meals, throughout Lent. I am well aware how weak I am at resolutions, so I'm not pretending to be a guru or that I will not fall at times, but I know other people can be more strong, and I hopefully can encourage them. I wont pretend to be at the level of avoiding spices, and eating only bread, water, rice, etc, during Lent, but that is a beautiful thing to aspire to.

Fasting has many beautiful elements to it, including key parts in Scripture, such as the Garden of Eden when Adam and Eve had to "fast" from eating of the Tree. Fasting is tied to proper experience of Liturgy and Prayer, which means Fasting is tied to truly experiencing God. Our Lord Jesus says some evils can only be driven out by "Fasting and Prayer". Paul says he fasted many times (2 Cor 11:27). Spiritual masters in the Church have even explained that Fasting is the key to breaking our main sinful struggles, including sexual habits and pride. We must stop neglecting Fasting if we want to make real change in the Church and ourselves. I would say it is impossible to grow spiritually if one main pillar like Fasting is completely ignored. With things so unhealthy in the Church these days, we have to encourage each other individually, and God Willing soon the Church will make things more mandatory, so we can Fast as a community, not merely individually.

Was Abraham wicked in Genesis 15:6? (Another look at Rom 4:5)

Continuing on the same Romans 4:5 "justifies the ungodly" theme, since this verse is seen as a Protestant stronghold for Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, I want to present multiple reasons why the Protestant reading is untenable. Just as a reminder, the Protestant side insists that "justifies the ungodly" means that Abraham was a wicked ungodly unregenerate vile man at the time of Genesis 15:6, and thus had no good works of any kind to justify himself, and thus the only way God was able to justify Abraham is by imputing the Righteousness of Christ to Abraham. But if Romans 4:5 is not actually saying Abraham was wicked (such that he had no righteousness within or righteous behavior), then the Reformed reading of Genesis 15:6 fails, and thus so does Romans 4:3-5, their chief proof text for Justification by Faith Alone and Imputation. 

To prove that I'm not making this Protestant 'interpretation' up, consider the words of some respected Protestant scholars:

• Dr R. Scott Clark (12/2018 on his blog):
  

  There have been times when the church has given the impression to her members and to others that only the perfect are welcome. She did that in the Middle Ages when many of their theologians concluded that we are right with God (justified) only to the degree we are holy (sanctified). In the Protestant Reformation the story was clarified to a great degree. Martin Luther (1483–1546) helped us see that Scripture teaches that all believers are at the same time sinful and declared righteous (simul iustus et peccator) by God, that, as Paul says, Christ justifies the ungodly (Rom 4:5).”
  

• Dr Sam Waldron (Spring 2021 in a Reformed academic journal):
  

  The word “ungodly” implies that Abraham himself was not justified because he was the paradigm of obedience. Instead, he was the ungodly person justified by faith. . . . It is a significant mistake for Hays, who follows Sanders and others, to bring the concept of the merits of the patriarchs to the discussion of Abraham in Romans 4. He says, “Abraham’s faithfulness was reckoned by God to the benefit not only of Israel (as in the rabbinic exegetical tradition) but also of the Gentiles.” To speak of “the vicarious effects of Abraham’s faithfulness” is to obscure or miss the whole point. Abraham is the ungodly man - not the faithful man - in Romans 4. He is not a Christ-figure with a treasury of merit, but a sinner with no merit in need of justification. His faith is not admirable faithfulness, but empty-handed reliance on the promise of God. . . . The tension between Abraham the obedient (James 2:21–23) and Abraham the ungodly (Rom 4:3–5) must be considered. . . . But what of the assertion that Paul in Romans 4:5 refers to Abraham as ungodly in Genesis 15:6? The plain record of Abraham’s grievous failures after his calling are relevant to the question at hand. These grievous manifestations of remaining sin are a reminder of what Abraham had been, what he was by nature, and that his standing before God was not grounded on the very imperfect obedience which grew out of his faith in God’s promises. Thus, for the purposes of being justified by God, Abraham was (from the standpoint of the stringent requirements of God’s law) ungodly not only before his call, but afterwards.

• Dr John Fesko (Essay on Imputation):
  

  Abraham’s righteousness was not native to him; in fact, Paul says he was “ungodly.” So how did God consider him righteous? Because Abraham laid hold of Christ’s righteousness by faith. God therefore imputed Christ’s righteousness to Abraham. . . . This scriptural teaching stands in stark contrast to the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, which teaches that God justifies sinners on the basis of inherent, rather than imputed, righteousness. In other words, a person must actually be holy in order to receive the verdict of righteous before the divine bar. Yet, such an opinion conflicts with Paul’s testimony that God justifies the “ungodly” (Rom. 4:5).
  

• Dr DA Carson (The Vindication of Imputation pdf):
  

  More importantly, it does not bear in mind Paul’s own powerful conclusion: it is the wicked person to whom the Lord imputes righteousness. In the context, that label is applied to Abraham no less than to anyone else. In Paul’s understanding, then, God’s imputation of Abraham’s faith to Abraham as righteousness cannot be grounded in the assumption that that faith is itself intrinsically righteous. If God is counting faith to Abraham as righteousness, he is counting him righteous — not because Abraham is righteous in some inherent way (How can he be? He is asebes / ungodly), but simply because Abraham trusts God and his gracious promise.

• Dr Charles Hodge (Essay on Justification):
  

  As this righteousness is not our own, as we are sinners, ungodly, without works, it must be the righteousness of another, even of Him who is our righteousness.

• Dr Joel Beeke (The relation of Faith to Justification):
  

  In the final analysis, if we base our justification on our faith, our works, or anything else of our own, the very foundations of justification must crumble. Inevitably the agonizing, perplexing, and hopeless questions of having "enough" would surface; Is my faith strong enough? Are the fruits of grace in my life fruitful enough? Are my experiences deep enough, clear enough, persistent enough? Every detected inadequacy in my faith is going to shake the very foundations of my spiritual life. My best believing is always defective. I am always too ungodly even in my faith.
  

These quotes are representative of mainstream conservative Protestant scholarship. These Protestant scholars are well aware of challenges to their interpretation of Romans 4:5, but the Protestant side is so stuck and has bet everything on Romans 4:5 in order to uphold Imputation that they cannot afford to budge. I can confidently say that the highest academic levels of conservative Protestant scholarship has no other hope than their desperate reading of Romans 4:5.

Here are some reasons I have gathered as to why “ungodly” in the case of Abraham in Genesis 15:6 refers merely to Gentile (i.e. uncircumcised) status and does not likely refer to something more severe or “morally corrupt” in Romans 4:5. These reasons are not mutually exclusive, but can overlap:

King David and the Sacraments - a beautiful example of typology in the OT

I came across a passage which I believe testifies to the Catholic approach to reading the OT, namely seeing New Testament signs hidden therein. This is known as OT 'typology', which some Protestants might cringe at but I think is perfectly legitimate:

2 Sam 12: 19 But when David saw that his servants were whispering together, David understood that the child was dead. 20 Then David arose from the earth and washed and anointed himself and changed his clothes. And he went into the house of the Lord and worshiped. He then went to his own house. And when he asked, they set food before him, and he ate.

David was being punished for his sin with Bathsheba and Uriah, and had been fasting while his infant son was sick. When the fasting/penance period was over, David got up, washed, anointed, changed, worshiped, ate. This to me sounds like the traditional Christian practice of conversion, namely fasting as you desire to leave your old life behind, then baptism, anointing with oil (Confirmation), and putting on clean robe (Baptismal Garment), then gathering for the Mass to receive the Eucharist. I'm sure that I'm not the first to notice this, but strangely enough I've never seen anyone mention it. I just 'accidentally' came across it recently while reading the narrative. This is all I have to share for now, but I think this passage fits within my "reconsidered" understanding of the Justification narrative of Romans 4:6-8, which I've discussed (here).

Nathan telling David, "You're the man!" (not a compliment)

Is Peace (Shalom) unconditional in the Bible? (Romans 5:1)

Protestant apologist James White has a few claims he regularly brings up against Catholicism, and which many Protestants blindly repeat. The two most common claims I've seen him make are asking Catholics "who is the Blessed Man of Romans 4:8?" and "Roman Catholicism cannot provide the true peace which the Gospel provides us". White says in his book and website (see here):

There can be no doubt what lies behind Paul’s use of the term peace in this [Romans 5:1] passage. The Hebrew steeped in Scripture knew full well the meaning of shalom. It does not refer merely to a cessation of hostilities. It is not a temporary cease-fire. The term shalom would not refer to a situation where two armed forces face each other across a border, ready for conflict, but not yet at war. Shalom refers to a fullness of peace, a wellness of relationship. Those systems [e.g. Roman Catholicism] that proclaim a man-centered scheme of justification cannot explain the richness of this word. They cannot provide peace because a relationship that finds its source and origin in the actions of imperfect sinners will always be imperfect itself. The phrase "we have peace" [Rom 5:1] in regard to God, properly means, God is at peace with us, his wrath towards us is removed.

This all sounds well and good, but all too often it turns out that things that sound good to human ears are often not actually what the Bible teaches (cf 2 Tim 4:3). White's lack of Biblical analysis in his presentation of how the Bible uses the term "peace" was suspicious to me, so I decided to see for myself how the Bible uses the Greek/Hebrew terms Peace/Shalom (here). Does the Bible speak of Peace/Shalom as something that is permanent and unconditional the way White makes it out to be? Here are some texts I've found that use the same Greek/Hebrew term "peace" as in Romans 5:1 that I think cast serious doubt on White's bold assertions: 

Did Jesus forbid "vain repetitions"?

There are plenty of Catholic articles that address the issue of "vain repetition" which Jesus forbade in Matthew 6:7, so rather than repeat them I want to share some unique findings that most of those articles don't tell you. 

 

First of all, it is shocking how everyone automatically assumes "vain repetition" is even an accurate  translation in the first place! The Greek word that Matthew uses for "vain repetitions" is a single term, battalogeo (see here). This Greek word is found nowhere else in the Bible, and apparently nowhere else in Greek literature (see here). This detail alone means we cannot be too dogmatic about the meaning. The Greek term is a compound of "batta" and "words". You can look to see that scholars admit they aren't sure what "batta" means, so they can only propose various theories based on the rest of the verse! So not only does the Greek term not clearly suggest "repetition," much less "vain," there's actually plenty of room to propose other meanings. Scholars seem divided on whether "batta" refers to an ancient pagan king who "stuttered" (which could mean various things), or whether "batta" refers to a pagan poet who wrote long drawn out poems, or whether "batta" is a made up word and equivalent to our term "blah blah blah" (i.e. babbling). The last option seems the most reasonable if the word appears nowhere else, and thus Jesus was saying something along the lines of: "When you pray, do not pray blah blah blah like the pagans".

From this first point onward, we should stop giving the so-called translation "vain repetition" any credibility at all. The origin of "vain repetitions" seems to actually be a Protestant agenda to "translate" the Bible into English with an anti-Catholic spin. This is one reason Catholics were always suspicious of Protestant Bibles. Think about it, how often "vain repetition" is turned into an instant attack on the Rosary, when this one Greek term doesn't actually clearly say anything about "vain repetition"? This Protestant bias is confirmed in the fact the King James Version is what translated "vain repetitions," whereas some honest mainstream Protestant translations use other phrases (see here), such as "do not keep on babbling like pagans" (NIV), or "do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do" (ESV). The Catholic Bibles that I consulted say "speak not much, as the heathens" (Douay-Rheims and Latin Vulgate), and "do not babble like the pagans" (NAB), and "empty phrases" (RSVCE). Again, using the word "repetition" in one's translation is disingenuous per the limited data we have, and can really only signify anti-Catholic bias.

Augustine's insights on Genesis 15 - Revisiting Abraham's faith reckoned as righteousness - Part 5

Since my radical reevaluation of Genesis 15 last year, which I have in my "Revisiting Abraham's faith reckoned as righteousness" series (Here), I have recently come across a fabulous commentary by St Augustine on this situation which I feel further vindicates my position. I truly believe this will change the way most informed folks read and comment upon Genesis 15 and Romans 4. Let's jump right into it, with this passage from St Augustine's masterpiece, City of God (Book 16; Section 26):

After these things in Gen 16, Ishmael was born of Hagar; and Abraham might think that in Ishmael was fulfilled what God had promised him in Gen 15, after Abraham originally wished to adopt his home-born servant Eliezer (Gen 15:2), to which God said "This servant shall not be your heir; but he that shall come forth from your own loins, he shall be your heir." (Gen 15:4) Therefore, lest Abraham should think that what was promised in Genesis 15:4 was fulfilled in Ishmael the handmaid's son in Genesis 16, God appeared to Abraham in Genesis 17 to promise the birth of Isaac, and said "I am God; be well-pleasing in my sight, and be without complaint, and I will make my covenant between me and you, and will fill you exceedingly."

Here in Genesis 17 there are more distinct promises about the calling of the nations in Isaac, that is, in the son of the promise, by which grace is signified, and not nature; for the son is promised from an old man and a barren old woman [Rom 4:19]. For although God effects even the natural course of procreation, yet where the agency of God is manifest, through the decay or failure of nature, grace is more plainly discerned. And because this was to be brought about, not by generation, but by regeneration, circumcision was enjoined now, when a son was promised of Sarah. For what else does circumcision signify than a nature renewed on the putting off of the old? And what else does the eighth day mean than Christ, who rose again when the week was completed, that is, after the Sabbath? The very names of the parents are changed [Gen 17:5; Rom 4:17]: all these details proclaim newness, and the new covenant is shadowed forth in the old. For what does the term old covenant imply but the concealing of the new? And what does the term new covenant imply but the revealing of the old?

Wow, if only this passage of St Augustine was more well-known, it might have changed the course of Catholic & Protestant dialog a long time ago and completely changed the way we read Romans 4. This passage confirms a lot of what my own 'regenerated' understanding of Romans 4 seems to be about as I've explained in my Revisiting series. As a summary: I do not see Romans 4 as about Abraham converting in Genesis 15, nor about him getting justified a second time after Genesis 12. I do not necessarily even see circumcision as portrayed as a "work" (more on this in an upcoming post). Rather, I think the only feasible reading of Rom 4:2 "if Abraham was justified by works" can refer to is bringing about the Promised Heir of Gen 15:4 by natural human means, namely Abraham sleeping with Hagar in Genesis 16, right after the Covenant was established in Genesis 15. It makes little to no sense contextually or logically for "works" of Abraham in Rom 4 to be sins, good deeds, or even circumcision itself, much less the ceremonial works of Moses. If you do a simple substitution of any of those meanings of "works", the train of thought for Paul makes no sense. It is possible that Paul is saying Abraham's "work" of sleeping with Hagar was a "type" for the merely natural "works of the Mosaic Law" which lacked grace. Abraham truly Believed God's promise in Genesis 12 that his offspring would be great and bless the whole world, but his natural, earthly, human "Reason" was unable to see how this was to actually be. Perhaps it was Eliezer, Abraham's distant relative would be the heir. So God showed up go clarify in Genesis 15 that it was not Eliezer, but rather someone "from his own loins" (15:4b). Perhaps then it was Ishmael, Abraham's actual biological child. So God showed up again to clarify in Genesis 17 that it wasn't Ishmael, but rather a miraculous birth, made possible by regenerative circumcision. In all this, we see types/shadows/images of the insufficiency of the Old Covenant and the need to make way for the New Covenant. Paul is far more concerned with Divine Revelation unfolding, seeing Genesis with the Glasses of Faith, that he is with some silly, shallow Protestant debate on faith "versus" deeds. 

Were "those whom God foreknew" the OT saints? (Rom 8:29)

While writing my article on Romans 11:6 (here), something jumped out at me in Romans 11:2, where Paul says: "God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew." This statement sounds very similar to a few chapters prior, in Romans 8:29, where Paul famously says: "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son". While I've already discussed Romans 8:29-30 in an older post (here), I haven't looked at it through this "foreknow" lens, so I'll do that today.

In the context of Rom 11:2, the "God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew" is clearly referring to the Israelites, at least those who were faithful, as the prior verse 11:1 asks "has God therefore rejected his people?" as he then lists off marks of Israelite identity. Using the principle of "Scripture interprets Scripture," would suggest that the Israelites of Rom 11:2, "his [chosen/elect] people," at least the faithful ones, are who Paul has principally in mind in Rom 8:29 when he says "those whom He foreknew". In other words, Rom 8:29-30 is actually focused on the Old Testament saints. Others have suggested this is what 8:29 means, but now that I've come across this link to Rom 11:2, I now think the claim has better merit.

If the OT Saints are in view in 8:29, this would better explain why Paul speaks of "those" instead of "us/we" whom God foreknew. It would also better explain why God puts the "called, predestined, justified," and "glorified" all in the past tense, since it would mean the OT Saints already experienced these things. We could even say Paul's repeated use of "also" is to suggest the OT saints "also" experience these blessings along with the NT saints, thus Paul isn't so much speaking of a chain of events, but rather simply saying every blessing the Gentiles experience in Christ, the OT saints "also" experience them. Given the context of Romans 8:29 being about enduring suffering, calling upon the example of the OT saints is an excellent lesson for Paul to draw upon, since we have historical proof of OT saints having to endure trials, and see how God helped them get through it. And, finally, since Paul is concerned about Jew-Gentile tensions, it helps to show the OT saints are blessed, so that the NT saints don't feel superior to them.

St Jerome's fascinating insights on the famous verse "The righteous man shall live by faith"

In the opening chapter of Romans, Paul famously says: "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, 'The righteous shall live by faith.'" The "as it is written" verse Paul is citing here in his thesis statement is from the relatively obscure book of the prophet Habakkuk, chapter 2:4. I have always been fascinated by this verse, especially considering Paul quotes it multiple places (e.g. Rom 1:17, Gal 3:11, Heb 10:38), and thus I've been highly suspicious of the general lack of Protestant commentary on the context and meaning of Habakkuk 2:4. I think too often Protestants have glossed over this verse, thinking merely that Habakkuk is saying "a man is justified by faith". But this surface level reading does not seem to fit the actual wording of the verse nor the context. In this post, I want to consider a fascinating commentary on this verse, which I had not considered, which I stumbled upon in St Jerome's Commentary on Galatians.

St Jerome, commenting on Galatians 3:11-12, says:

We should note that he did not say that just any man lives by faith, lest he provide an excuse for the devaluation of virtuous deeds. Rather, he said that the righteous man lives by faith. This means that before having faith and the intention to live by it, one must already be righteous and must by the purity of his life have claimed certain steps that lead to faith. It is therefore possible for someone to be righteous without yet living by faith in Christ. If this is troublesome to the reader, let him consider what Paul says about himself [Phil 3:6]: "As for righteousness according to the Law, I was faultless." At the time, Paul was righteous in terms of keeping the Law, but he was not yet able to live by faith because he did not have Christ

This is astonishing, because with this explanation, Paul is basically undermining the very erroneous Protestant idea which teaches that our own sinfulness prevents our works from saving us. In Jerome's explanation, a person who is already righteous still needs faith. This fits perfectly with what I've written about numerous times (e.g. Here and Here) against the Protestant heresy of Salvation By Good Works Alone, contrasted to the Catholic teaching of St Paul which is Salvation by Faith.

This lead me to another discovery, noticing the context in which Paul quotes Habakkuk within his Galatians 3:10-12 argument:

10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” 12 But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.”

By citing Habakkuk 2:4 within the context of the "works of the law," per Jerome's insights this means that Paul has in mind particularly the Jew-Gentile controversy, and is thus saying even if a Jew were following the Mosaic Law, and thus were 'righteous per the Law', such is not enough. Faith would still be needed. Jerome further elaborates that Paul mentions "live" in two instances here: faith causes life and keeping the law causes life. Since both cannot be true in the same sense must mean that the "life" that the Law gives is a temporal living, such as long life and earthly blessings, as well as avoiding the death penalty that the Law holds over a person for grave violations of the Mosaic Covenant. Meanwhile, the "life" that faith in Christ brings is eternal life.   

UPDATE: Now there is a PART 2 of this series HERE.

Monepiscopacy in Rev 1:20 (one Bishop per city)

The past several years some Protestants have been claiming that during the Apostolic era of the Church, each congregation was run by a group of Elders, rather than a single head Pastor/Bishop. They typically claim that the 'one bishop per city/congregation' model, known as the "monepiscopacy," was a 'later' development, appearing around the year 175AD. The goal of their argument is to show that the Catholic understanding of Church leadership, led particularly by a single Bishop in Rome, was never part of the original Apostolic Church, and thus the Papacy must be a later historical invention. Much has be written about this over the past several years, but for some reason one of the chief proof-texts has not gotten much attention, so I think it's worth sharing what I've found on this matter.

Revelation 1:20. "As for the mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand, and the seven golden lampstands, the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches."

In Revelation 2-3, Jesus tells John what he is to tell these "angels," with each "angel" ruling over a major city church (including Ephesus), in which Jesus gives warnings to most of these "angels" leading the churches. While at first it might look like these "angels" are the spirit creatures we are all used to thinking of, the fact is the Greek/Hebrew word for "angel" is a more generic term for "messenger" (usually appointed by God). In fact, the term "angel" is sometimes another Biblical way of referring to God's priests (e.g. "for the lips of a priest should guard knowledge, and people should seek instruction from his mouth, for he is the messenger [Hebrew: angel] of the Lord of hosts" Mal 2:7). Moreover, in Revelation, Jesus is referred to a Angel-Messenger, and in the Old Testament, the consensus among the Church Fathers is that the pre-incarnate Son is who is meant by the "Angel of the Lord" appearing to various OT figures (see HERE).

Looking at the key text in question, Revelation 1:20 and the references to these "angels" throughout ch2-3, it makes little sense for Jesus to be issuing warnings to Spirit-Angels, given that the Spirit-Angels have already been tested before the time of Adam. This means they are all already categorized as either permanently fallen or glorified. Rather, it makes more sense if these "angels" are Bishops, who certainly have the power to correct the abuses going on in these seven congregations.

TRULY understanding Mormonism - Is it nobodies business?

I recently made a post called Truly understanding Jehovah's Witnesses, but now I feel the grace has presented itself for me to make a similar post on getting into the mind of a Mormon. In some recent discussions with Mormons, it finally became clear to me what the fundamental issue was, and how Christian apologetics has largely failed to address it. So for this post, I want to try to convey what the actual mindset of Mormons is, and thus know how to actually have a discussion with them. 

Catholic apologetics on Mormonism has largely centered around the Great Apostasy, which is the Mormon dogma that the Gospel was lost some time after the death of the last Apostle, almost 2000 years ago. Many other groups and Protestant denominations hold to a similar idea of Great Apostasy, since it gives them a basis to start up their own Church. And it makes sense, because why have a new Church if you have nothing new to present to people? Well, in this case, we need to see what it is that Mormons have that nobody else has. 

The main problem with the typical Catholic approach to Mormonism is that Catholics think that simply disproving the Great Apostasy is sufficient to win the debate. While it is easy to disprove and discredit the Great Apostasy, the Catholic fails to really get to the heart of Mormonism. Something bigger is at stake, and so just disproving the Great Apostasy doesn't actually shake the Mormon you're talking to at their core. Recall that the Jehovah's Witnesses have lots of tangential issues that Christians get hung up on (e.g. Trinity), never getting to the heart of things. So too, the Mormons have various tangential issues that Christians get hung up on (e.g. polygamy) that really don't get to the heart of things. So we must get to the heart of things.

A closer look at St Paul's "none are righteous" (Romans 3:9-20)

A common understanding of the first three chapters of the Epistle to the Romans is to see it as Paul's case for the 'universal sinfulness of mankind' (as some refer to it). This way Paul can then get his audience recognizing their need for salvation, and thus lay the groundwork for presenting us the Gospel. This interpretation quite understandable, and somewhat correct, but I've come to a more nuanced reading of the text that I think better explains the arguments Paul is making. What I'm about to present isn't my own invention, but rather an interpretation that has been widely known from even among the early Church Fathers.

I think the popular take on Romans 3:9-20 is missing the larger point Paul is trying to make. In Romans 3 when Paul says “none are righteous” and “no one seeks after God” and “all have sinned,” I don’t think he is so much concerned about individual sinfulness as he is about corporate sinfulness. This might not seem like a big deal, but if we are truly aiming for solid exegesis we cannot afford to be sloppy and reading things only at the surface level.

Did the Father "lay our sins" upon Jesus? (Isaiah 53:6) - More Problems with Penal Substitution

Back in 2014, I made a post (HERE) showing how the Early Church Fathers used the Greek Translation of the Old Testament (Septuagint aka LXX), which guided their understanding of Isaiah 53. Today, I want to point out another significant find, this time within the New Testament itself, showing that Paul saw Isaiah 53 principally through the Greek Translation as well. This information is significant, because it touches upon a popular sentence within the Hebrew edition of Isaiah 53:6 which commonly translated into English says: "the Lord laid upon him [Jesus] the sins of us all". Protestants often take this phrase as meaning our guilt was "imputed" to Jesus, such that Jesus then took the punishment we deserved (i.e. suffered God's Eternal Wrath) in our place. But while this isn't what the Hebrew idiom "bear sin" actually means (see HERE), more importantly the Greek translation saw the nuances in the Hebrew and renders this text noticeably differently: "the Lord delivered him [Jesus] up for our sins". 

The phrase "delivered up for our sins" is noteworthy because it is a phrase used by Paul in Romans 4:25 and 8:32. And the only place the Old Testament speaks of being "delivered up for our sins" is in the Greek translation of Isaiah 53:6 and Isaiah 53:12. This isn't the obvious meaning from the Hebrew text. So Paul must have had the Greek understanding of Isaiah 53 principally in mind. 

Did Jesus allow for divorce in the event a spouse commits adultery?

Someone asked me about the "except for adultery" clause that Jesus makes regarding when divorce is allowed. Many people over the centuries have though that Jesus was indeed making one sole exception to the permanence of marriage. They understandably ready this clause as if Jesus were saying you can end your marriage if your spouse commits adultery. But the Catholic Church explains this "except for adultery" in a way that pays attention to the actual words of Jesus. And this is how the Church Fathers who comment on this "except" clause also interpret it. At the Ecumenical Council of Florence, the Church gave an official explanation:

The seventh is the sacrament of matrimony, which is a sign of the union of Christ and the church according to the words of the apostle: This sacrament is a great one, but I speak in Christ and in the church. The efficient cause of matrimony is usually mutual consent expressed in words about the present. A threefold good is attributed to matrimony. The first is the procreation and bringing up of children for the worship of God. The second is the mutual faithfulness of the spouses towards each other. The third is the indissolubility of marriage, since it signifies the indivisible union of Christ and the church. Although separation of bed is lawful on account of fornication, it is not lawful to contract another marriage, since the bond of a legitimately contracted marriage is perpetual.

In brief, Jesus allows for a spouse to live in a separate dwelling space if one spouse has committed fornication. But even if separated, they remain married. Divorce merely means living separately, as if single. The sin only comes about if one of those separated spouses tries to enter another marriage.

Consider the actual words of Jesus:

• Matthew 5:31 “It was also said [by Moses], ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

• Matthew 19: 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” 8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

• Mark 10:11 And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

• Luke 16:18 “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

• 1 Cor 7:10 To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.   

Notice the repeated use of the clause "and marries another". Without the "and marries another," there is no adultery. A divorce in and of itself doesn't cause adultery. Paul's explanation above also vindicates the Catholic view: separation is ok, but remarriage is not. So we can see the official Catholic reading elegantly preserves the dignity and permanence of marriage, while also easily explaining the "except" clause. I don't know of many other groups out there that have that kind of skill when it comes to exegesis. In fact, most people are oblivious to this understanding of the text.

Next, notice that of the four times divorce is talked about in the New Testament, only Matthew includes an "except" clause. That should suggest that the "except" clause is not really to be taken as a loophole. In fact, it would be kind of insane for Jesus to point back to the beginning of Creation and speak of the permanence of marriage, only to allow for a giant loophole. People would be committing adultery all the time if it meant getting out of a marriage they didn't like. That totally undermines the goal of Jesus rebuking the Pharisees.

For a detailed look at all the available Church Fathers and Councils and Documents on this issue, see THIS ARTICLE at Called To Communion. It's an excellent apologetics article, though it is very long to read.

Lutherans and the Canon of Scripture

Lutheranism and Anglicanism have always baffled me because their approach to major Protestant doctrines like Faith Alone and Sola Scriptura (Bible Alone) do not seem to be honest with the basic meaning of these slogans. For example, Lutherans (and Anglicans) hold that Baptism doesn't interfere with Faith Alone in the slightest, whereas most other Protestants see Baptism as a "work" that undermines Faith Alone. When it comes to Sola Scriptura, both Lutherans and Anglicans will freely embrace all kinds of "Catholic traditions" that aren't directly derived from the Bible, and yet claim these do not contradict Sola Scriptura. For example, the Lutheran and Anglican Liturgies are clearly stripped down versions of the Catholic Mass. The same sorts of Catholic prayers, sign of the cross, vestments, Calendar of Saints and Holidays, etc, are not found directly in the Bible and yet are a central aspect of their worship. This is both a good and a challenging thing for Catholic apologetics. 

Ultimately, I think it is good that Lutherans and Anglicans are 'inconsistent' on Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura, because it helps prove the Catholic case that these slogans are effectively meaningless and impossible to defend or define once we scratch the surface. With that long introduction, I think I've set the stage for this post. 

Just when I've thought I've seen it all, I come across something astonishing that I'd never imagined could happen. As I was reading the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Lutheranism the other day, I came across an astonishing passage:

Lutheranism acknowledges six specific confessions which distinguish it from other churches: the unaltered Augsburg Confession (1530), the Apology of the Augsburg Confession (1531), Luther's Large Catechism (1529), Luther's Catechism for Children (1529), the Articles of Smalkald (1537), and the Form of Concord (1577). These nine symbolical books (including the Apostles Creed, Nicene Creed, and Athanasian Creed) constitute what is known as the "Book of Concord", which was first published at Dresden in 1580. In these confessions the Scriptures are declared to be the only rule of faith. The extent of the Canon is not defined, but the bibles in common use among Lutherans have been generally the same as those of other Protestant denominations.

So called "Confessional" Lutherans are those who hold that the "Book of Concord," a collection of their most authoritative documents, is the supreme Confession for what it means to be a true Lutheran. Quite often, the writings of the Book of Concord do not follow what Luther himself taught, and thus Lutheranism actually rejects many of Luther's teachings (e.g. his extreme views on Predestination and rejection of Free Will, his view of polygamy, his view that souls sleep after death rather than going to heaven). What really stood out to me though was the claim that Lutherans have not defined the Canon of Scripture anywhere within the Book of Concord, which is a few hundred pages long! Could it really be that Lutherans do not have a defined/closed Canon of Scripture? That seems outrageous, so I had to look into it more.