Does receiving the Holy Spirit prior to Baptism prove that Baptism is optional and/or symbolic?

When it comes to the Biblical teaching on Baptism, we've all come across those Protestants who are eager to nullify God's Word for their Traditions of Men (see an older post HERE). In a prior post, I talked about their favorite example, the Good Thief (HERE). In this post, I want to talk about their second favorite argument, the account of Acts 10 when the Gentiles received the Gift of Tongues prior to being Baptized. Here's the Acts 10 passage with some context:

1 At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion of what was known as the Italian Cohort, 2 a devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms generously, and prayed continually to God. 3 About the ninth hour of the day [3pm] he saw clearly in a vision an angel of God come in and say to him, “Cornelius, your prayers and your alms have ascended as a memorial before God. 5 And now send men to Joppa and bring one Simon who is called Peter.”

9 The next day, as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour [12pm] to pray. 10 And he saw the heavens opened and something like a great sheet descending. 12 In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” 14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.” 16 This happened three times.

19 And while Peter was pondering the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Behold, three men are looking for you. 20 Rise and go down and accompany them without hesitation, for I have sent them.” 23 So he invited them in to be his guests.

28 And he said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean. Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, 35 but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. 36 As for the word that he sent to Israel, preaching good news of peace through Jesus Christ. 43 To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.”

44 While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. 45 And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. 46 For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, 47 “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.

The first thing to notice here is the Liturgical connotations. Cornelius was praying at 3pm, the same hour Jesus died, which was part of the Jewish Liturgy of the Hours as we see in Acts 3:1. (This means Jesus prayed Psalm 22 on the Cross as part of the Liturgy of the Hours.) So the time of day is no accident. Catholics call this the "Hour of Mercy" for a reason. Similarly, Peter went up on the roof to pray at Noon, another major Liturgical Hour. The Jews would have recognized these times. But that's not the point of this post.

Biblical examples of Intercession of the Saints

In this "quickie apologetics" post I want to share some verses that I recently came across that I think can go into the Catholic apologist tool bag for defending Intercession of the Saints.

One of common text Catholics use is Revelation 5:8, which says: "And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders [Christians in heaven] fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints [Christians on earth]." The Elders in heaven are engaging in a liturgical offering incense, which is explained as the prayers of the Christians on earth. Thus, in some manner, the Saints in Heaven are 'receiving our prayers' and praying for us.

In Matthew 27:52-53, at the Crucifixion, the Apostle adds an interesting detail: "The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many." After Jesus died and "descended into Hell" (see HERE), when He resurrected He brought up along with Him the souls of the deceased OT saints to accompany Him when He ascended to Heaven. God had some of these glorified OT saints appear to people in Jerusalem. This is a great example of the Catholic teaching known as an "apparition".

Another example I recently noticed is Revelation 7:13-14, when an Elder in Heaven speaks with the Apostle John: "Then one of the elders addressed me, saying, 'Who are these, clothed in white robes?” I said to him, 'Sir, you know.' And he said to me, 'These are the ones coming out of the great tribulation'." So not only does John talk with angels throughout the book of Revelation, in this case John is clearly having an interaction with a Glorified Saint. Some might object that this and other situations are extraordinary and cannot be used to make any rules. I think that's a weak objection, since the most important thing here is that this interaction actually happened. Someone alive on earth actually was able to talk to someone in Heaven. That it is extraordinary doesn't change the fact the Saints in Heaven are well awake and praying and aware of what's happening on earth. As John also says: "I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the witness [Greek: martyr] they had borne. They cried out with a loud voice, “O Sovereign Lord, how long before you will avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?" (Rev 6:9-11). This verse is one reason Catholics have Relics of Saints under our Eucharistic Altars.

Furthermore, we know that the angels often interact with people throughout the Bible, and a guardian angel is especially assigned to assist us (see HERE for older post), so this further testifies to the idea those creatures in Heaven, not just God, can hear us, interact with us, etc. Some might say these texts don't give enough details for prayer to the saints, but I think the evidence is sufficient enough that it is quite reasonably confirms Catholic Tradition (see HERE), and nowhere near heresy as Protestants often charge. In fact, with that kind of logic, as some Catholics have pointed out, we shouldn't be praying directly to the Holy Spirit since the Bible doesn't really give much indication we are to do so. Yet we know from orthodox Trinitarian theology that the Holy Spirit is a Divine Person and thus as God certainly can be prayed to. Another detail worth pursuing is that Lutherans officially teach (see HERE) the angels and saints pray for us in heaven, they just don't believe we can pray to them, but they don't make too big of an issue about it. This Lutheran view can be used to show other Protestants that there isn't that big of an attack to be made at Catholicism, since it's really not a yuge deal. That said, as Catholics we definitely need to be praying to our Guardian Angels and the Saints, especially our favorite saints and the Blessed Virgin Mary!

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. 

The 'forgotten' Trinity verses.

All too often, defending the Trinity from the Bible comes down to merely looking to a few verses that show the divinity of Jesus or the Holy Spirit. This is the approach many apologetics sources today take. But this approach leaves out an equally important and traditional approach, which is to look to the texts which speak of all three Persons within the same breath. What is important to keep in mind when reading these texts is to see them as the early Christians, especially Jewish Christians saw them, namely by recognizing the simple fact that no created thing can or should be mentioned alongside God, since this implied the blasphemy of making created things equal to Him. Another thing to keep in mind is that when the term "God" is used in the Bible, it quite often refers to the Father specifically, and as a way to distinguish between the Son and Holy Spirit. There are other passages that mention the Trinity which are good to know about, but here are some of the more prominent ones:

• Matthew 3:16 After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God [the Father] descending as a dove and lighting on Him, 17 and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”
  
  
• Matthew 12:28 But if I [Jesus] cast out demons by the Spirit of God [the Father], then the kingdom of God has come upon you.
  
  
• Matthew 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit . . .
  
  
• Luke 3:22 And the Holy Spirit descended upon Him [Jesus] in bodily form like a dove, and a voice came out of heaven, “You are My [the Father’s] beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased.”
  
  
• John 14:26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My [Jesus’] name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.”
  
  
• John 15:26 When the Helper comes, whom I [Jesus] will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me . . .
  
  
• Acts 1:4 Gathering them together, He [Jesus] commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised, “Which,” He said, “you heard of from Me 5 for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”
  
  
• Acts 2:33 Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God [the Father], and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He [Jesus] has poured forth this which you both see and hear.
  
  
• Acts 10:38 You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God [the Father] anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.
  
  
• Romans 1:4 Who was declared the Son of God [the Father] with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord . . .
  
  

Overview of the Old Testament Priesthood

The following quotes are taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on "Priesthood," which I think are worth sharing. I will quote the article freely, with slight edits for readability and keeping things brief.

The word priest is derived from the Greek presbyteros (the elder). By the term is meant a (male) person called to the immediate service of the Deity and authorized to hold public worship, especially to offer sacrifice.

In the age of the Patriarchs the offering of sacrifices was the function of the father or head of the family (cf. Genesis 8:20; 12:7, etc.; Job 1:5). Hummelauer's hypothesis that this pre-Mosaic priesthood was abolished in punishment of the worship of the golden calf (Exodus 32) can hardly be scientifically established.

In the Mosaic priesthood we must distinguish: priests, Levites, and high-priest.

Priests. It was only after the Sinaitical legislation that the Israelitic priesthood became a special class in the community. From the tribe of Levi, Jahweh chose the house of Aaron to discharge permanently and exclusively all the religious functions; Aaron himself and later the first-born of his family was to stand at the head of this priesthood as high-priest, while the other Levites were to act, not as priests, but as assistants and servants. The solemn consecration of the Aaronites to the priesthood took place at the same time as the anointing of Aaron as high-priest (Exodus 29:1-37; 40:12 sqq.; Leviticus 8:1-36). 

The official duties of the priests related partly to their main occupations, and partly to subsidiary services. To the former category belonged all functions connected with the public worship, e.g. the offering of incense twice daily (Exodus 30:7), the weekly renewal of the loaves of proposition on the golden table (Leviticus 24:9), the daily offering of the morning and evening sacrifices, especially of the lambs (Exodus 29:38 sqq.). As subsidiary services the priests had to sound the trumpets announcing the holy-days (Numbers 10:1 sqq.), declare the lepers clean or unclean (Leviticus 13-14; Deuteronomy 24:8; cf. Matthew 8:4).

Was Adam's sin merely eating an apple?

I was recently listening to a talk on YouTube by a Protestant who was trying to discredit the Early Church Fathers. One example he gave of how the Church Fathers are unreliable was the claim by certain Church Fathers who said that Adam & Eve's sin in the Garden of Eden was a sexual sin. I understand how this Protestant could be shocked by this claim, because I also recall how outrageous it sounded when I heard it a few years ago. But over time I've began to think about it more, and it seems there is some merit to it. After all, it seems too basic to read the story as merely a sin of eating an apple. While I don't have the time to do much research into this, here are some reflections and details that I've come across over the past few years.

Given that Genesis is full of Hebrew idiom, nuance, and euphemism, a surface-level "plain English" reading can only take our understanding of the text so far. We need to have a mind for what the ancient Hebrews heard and thought when they read Genesis. For example, consider what is said on the fourth day of creation, when God creates the sun, moon, and stars, saying: "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years." (Gen 1:14). A surface level reading here would have us see the sun, moon, and stars as mere clocks to tell the time of day, month, and year. But the term here for "seasons" is not what we think of when we hear the term "seasons," since this is not the Hebrew word for winter, spring, summer, and fall. Rather, the term "seasons" here is the Hebrew term uniquely used for Liturgical Festivals. With this in mind, we can see God's plan was to build a Liturgical Calendar right into Creation, with Adam & Eve participating fully in the Liturgical Life. This also means that Liturgy is something deeply important to God, and as I've noted in a few prior posts, True Worship is man's highest duty.

One of the great discussions that theologians throughout history have had is whether the Son of God would have taken on human nature if Adam had never sinned. There is no "official" answer, and there decent arguments both ways, but St Thomas and many others lean towards the conclusion that the Son would have become Incarnate even if Adam didn't sin. This is largely based upon the idea that the Incarnation is not a Plan B or afterthought of God's plan, since God does not change His plans, and thus the Incarnation was meant to happen all along. Though I've not come across anyone who has brought this up, I think that Ephesians 5 lends strong credibility to the idea the Son was intended to become Incarnate all along. St Paul is talking about the union of husband and wife in this passage, but includes the following detail:

Eph 5: 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.

In this passage, Paul brings up the famous passage of Genesis 2:24, about a man leaving his father and mother to be joined to his wife. But rather than this being a surface level reading of Genesis 2:24, St Paul tells us this is a "profound mystery," which is certainly 'theologically heavy' language, saying this passage refers to Jesus and the Church. The location of this verse in Genesis 2 is noteworthy because it comes prior to Adam and Even falling into sin in Genesis 3. Thus, to me, it seems like the Incarnation was part of prophecy in Genesis 2, prior to Adam sinning, and thus was intended all along.

Did Paul have biology in mind when he spoke of "works"?

I have been looking into the connection between Paul's talk of "works" and the 'biological' references that he often uses (e.g. flesh, seed, children). Until I stopped to look into it for myself, I didn't realize how heavily emphasized the biological aspect is, such that Paul spends as much time talking about "works" as he does talking about biology. In fact, for Paul there is less emphasis on "what we do" and more about "who we are". Realizing this should influence how we read Paul's teaching on Justification.

Consider the following passages which clearly connect 'flesh' (in the lineage sense) and 'works':

• Romans 4:1-2 What shall we say by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works... [cf Rom 3:28-30, just prior to this passage]
  
• Rom 4:11 The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised
  
• Rom 9:3-10 I wish that I myself were accursed for the sake of my kinsmen according to the flesh. They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel [see my post HERE], and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac [not Ishmael] shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children [Jacob & Esau] by our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad - in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls
  

"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.

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.

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. 

Romans 9 like you've never heard it before

When we read the Bible with the wrong glasses on we will often miss some otherwise obvious themes and lessons. I think this is especially true with texts like Romans 9, which have become collapsed (usually by Calvinists) into a bare show of God's (seemingly arbitrary) display of His Power. But I want to propose that Paul had something more fascinating in mind than what any Christian already knows, i.e., that God is Providentially in control of all human events. 

I'm coming to believe that Romans 9 isn't so much focused on salvation/heaven as it is about first-born (priestly) status being lost to the younger born. Not only is there no clear talk about heaven, hell, etc, in this chapter, but there is a pretty clear First-Born theme when you know what to look for. Consider Paul's object lessons: 

• Paul's first example is Isaac being chosen over first-born Ishmael. When you read the actual story carefully, Ishmael was expelled as an illegitimate child, who mocked Isaac for being second-born (Gen 21:9-10; cf Paul says Ishmael "persecuted" Isaac, Gal 4:29-31). It is hard for us to grasp the significance of first-born status to the ancient mind, but it meant the world to them, especially when it comes to priesthood status.

• Paul's second example is of first-born Esau and second-born Jacob. God says "the elder will serve the younger," which isn't a reference to being sent to heaven/hell, but rather to supplanting birth order. Esau sold his birthright for a bowl of soup, and later on his father’s “blessing,” which likely was also a form of ordination (Gen 27:26-30).

• Paul's third example is when God tells Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy." This is not as obvious, but if you consider the context, the situation is quite striking. The context is of the Golden Calf incident, wherein the nation of Israel lost its collective priesthood status and was relegated to the Levites alone to offer sacrifices (Ex 32:25-29). The first-born son high-priest Aaron was said to be the Golden Calf ringleader (Ex 32:35), which meant it was up to second-born Moses to take upon the intercessory role of Atonement (Ex 32:30; Deut 9:18-20; Ps 106:19-23). It is within this context that God says because Moses' priestly intercession found favor in His sight, He would honor Moses' request to spare the Israelites. God was not ‘randomly’ showing mercy here as a demonstration of how He can show mercy on a whim whenever He feels like it.

• Paul's fourth example is that of Pharaoh, which was the head of the strongest nation in the world, Egypt. In some sense, Egypt/Pharaoh was first-born among the world, likely because their pagan gods were considered the strongest. The stated goal of Moses was told in Exodus 4:22-23, "You shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the Lord, Israel is my firstborn son. Let my son go that he may serve me. If you refuse to let him go, behold, I will kill your firstborn son." We know Egypt had smothered God's first-born son, and God wasn't going to let this continue. The express instructions each time Moses confronts Pharaoh is to let the Israelites go "so that they may offer sacrifices" to God (Ex 5:1, etc). It was liturgical warfare, true religion versus false, pagan God against true God. By striking down Pharaoh's first-born son, this was effectively striking down Egypt's priesthood, and thus humiliating their gods, and vindicating Yahweh as the True God.

• Paul's final example is that of the Jews versus the Gentiles. Obviously, the Jews were to be the "chosen race, royal priesthood," first-born among the nations. Yet in rejecting Jesus, they lost their status, which triggered the influx of the Gentiles into the Body, who would then become God's priests for the world, under the heading of Jesus (the Father's first-born). Hence Paul's quote from Hosea: "Those who were not my people [the Gentiles], I will call ‘my people’" (Rom 9:25).

I think there's an undeniable 'first-born son supplanted by sin' theme here that Paul is making, and it ties all the chapter together, unlike lifting a few verses here and there without any coherent thread, and missing the richness of it all. What lesson is there for God to show mercy on Moses (who was a righteous man)? If the theme was really about God showing mercy unconditionally, we should expect the major sinners like Pharaoh to be shown mercy. In each case, there is sin involved by one of the parties. It is not a 'both are sinners so let's show mercy to one of them' theme. Paul is telling the Jews of his time that all these other first-born sons lost their status, and rejecting Jesus can lead to the same for you Jews. The first-born status also being tied to priesthood also means the undercurrent is that of True Worship, which makes the real issue about glorifying God liturgically, and only secondarily about saving men. (Side note: this is why for Catholics, when Scripture is read at Mass, it is first of all a prayer to God, and only secondarily a lesson to us. This is why the Protestant “worship” being nothing more than a Glorified Bible Study is the ultimate attack on Christianity, because it removes worship of God from the main equation and shifts focus subtly onto man’s quest for knowledge.)

Which sins of the Israelites was the Passover Lamb being punished for? - More Problems with Penal Substitution

I was having a talk recently with a Protestant and it occurred to me that the Passover had nothing to do with the Israelites being sinners. If this is the case, then it makes no sense at all to think that there was Israelite sin being imputed to the Passover Lamb, and thus the Passover Sacrifice had nothing to do with Penal Substitution. And if Jesus is our Passover Sacrifice, as Paul says in 1 Cor 5:7, this is yet another clear blow to this man-made doctrine of Protestantism. 

Recall that the Passover was about the Angel of Death "passing over" the Israelite homes, while striking down the first born sons of Egypt. This was the "tenth plague" and it was specifically a punishment for Pharaoh not letting the Israelites go free. The whole story is about Egypt's sinfulness, not Israel's sinfulness. To think of the situation as if Israel was guilty of sin is ridiculous. It would undermine the whole story of their liberation, a story that the Israelites were to pass on to their children in every generation and celebrate as a perpetual Feast. What is the point if the Israelites were just as sinful as the Egyptians, but God somehow was willing to let the Israelites get off the hook while not giving the Egyptians an equal chance to have a Passover Lamb? Clearly, Penal Substitution makes no sense when projected upon the Passover situation.

We must stop being the whores of goat demons - More Problems with Penal Substitution

Another one of the developing insights I've recently come across was found in a passing sentence in the book of Leviticus, chapter 17. This is the famous chapter where God explains why blood is 'special' and why the Israelites were forbidden to eat blood. This is one of the most important chapters in the Old Testament, since it speaks on the heart of the sacrificial system. This insight should radically alter your perception of animal sacrifices, such that you will see Penal Substitution truly has no place. 

I begin by quoting the relevant portion of Leviticus 17: 

1 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “Speak to Aaron and his sons and to all the people of Israel and say to them, This is the thing that the Lord has commanded. 3 If any one of the house of Israel kills an ox or a lamb or a goat in the camp, or kills it outside the camp, 4 and does not bring it to the entrance of the tent of meeting to offer it as a gift to the Lord in front of the tabernacle of the Lord, bloodguilt shall be imputed to that man. He has shed blood, and that man shall be cut off from among his people. 5 This is to the end that the people of Israel may bring their sacrifices that they sacrifice in the open field, that they may bring them to the Lord, to the priest at the entrance of the tent of meeting, and sacrifice them as sacrifices of peace offerings to the Lord. 6 And the priest shall throw the blood on the altar of the Lord at the entrance of the tent of meeting and burn the fat for a pleasing aroma to the Lord. 7 So they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices to goat demons, after whom they whore. This shall be a statute forever for them throughout their generations.

Before the chapter goes onto speak on the issue of sacrificial blood, it begins by speaking on the location of where sacrifices are taking place. In this passage, God commands all animals which were slain for sacrifice to be brought to the priestly tent to be offered upon the altar, and anyone who fails to do this will be subject to severe punishment. Why is this such a big deal? Because God wanted to stop the Israelites from sacrificing "to goat demons, after whom they whore" themselves. This bizarre statement actually contains a crucial insight into what Sacrifices were all about: Liturgical Worship! Man's chief goal has always been to give God the form of Worship which God desires to receive; anything else is technically idolatry. In this case, the lesson seems to be that while in Egypt, the Israelites had picked up some bad religious habits, particularly offering worship to animal-idols, in this case a goat-deity. This got me reflecting and researching, which led me to some further insights by some Catholic Biblical scholars. 

Are we saved by Wine Alone? (The Apostolic dogma of mixing of Water & Wine in the Chalice.)

Most of us know that during the Sacrifice of the Mass there comes a point when the priest is preparing the chalice when he mixes water with the wine prior to Consecration. I have always seen this as a beautiful 'ritual', but until recently I didn't realize how plainly it was included in Early Church Father writings and that the Church has always insisted it is part of proper celebration of the Eucharist. In this post I want to quote some of the ancient sources I found testifying to this practice, and from there I want to bring up the question of how this squares with Sola Scriptura. (This is another post in my How Liturgy Refutes Protestantism series, see HERE and HERE for two of the main articles.) 

Here are some early Church testimonies I came across: 

• Justin, AD150 (First Apology, Sec65):
  There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father . . . those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion. And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true . . . Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings
• Irenaeus, AD180 (Against Hereies Bk4:Ch33):
  Moreover, how could the Lord, with any justice, if He belonged to another father, have acknowledged the bread to be His body, while He took it from that creation to which we belong, and affirmed the mixed cup to be His blood? ... (Bk5:Ch2) When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported ... (Bk5:36) For the Lord also taught these things, when He promised that He would have the mixed cup new with His disciples in the kingdom
  

Countering the Protestant claim that "Oral Tradition" was invented to justify unbiblical teachings.

Protestants are understandably concerned when Catholics appeal to "Tradition" when justifying certain teachings. There is a certain objectivity, and thus safety, about having a written document like the Scriptures. Indeed, that's one of the reasons why Catholics believe God gave us the Scriptures in the first place. Too often, appeals to Tradition are framed in terms of "Catholics cannot justify this teaching from Scripture, so they must turn elsewhere," and that "elsewhere" is seen as some secrete list of teachings passed on orally, from one bishop to another, even though nobody knows when or where. If this is what "Tradition" refers to, then this should be troubling to any Catholic. But fortunately, that's not the case, and in fact the answer is deceptively simple: Oral Tradition within historical Christianity is basically synonymous with the Liturgical Life, that is how the Sacraments are celebrated, the Liturgical Calendar, etc. These are very 'public' sources to consult, and more or less objective as well, so there is no hiding things and then randomly appealing to some unwritten unverifiable "tradition" when need be. 

Why Protestants reject the Council of Nicaea.

The Council of Nicaea is a very useful apologetics tool beyond just discussing matters of the Trinity. What most people don't realize is that Nicaea produced more than just a Creed, it also issued 20 canonical laws which were binding on all Christians living at that time. The information contained in these Canons is just as useful (if not more so) as any Church Father when it comes to evaluating Protestantism against the bar of Church history. Below, I will mention why each of the 20 Canons are incompatible with all Protestantism in one way or another. This leaves Protestantism in a significant bind, because virtually all Protestants wholeheartedly affirm the Creed and deem the Council to be an orthodox testimony in early Christianity. After reading these Canons, the Protestant must recognize that they cannot embrace the Creed without also embracing the Canons, because if the Canons teach heresy and error, then the Protestant has no business at all embracing the Creed which this same Council produced. Protestants have no problem affirming the Catholic Church is correct on a lot of things, but they say the Catholic Church is false and cannot be trusted because it also teaches many errors. By this same logic, a Protestant must reject Nicaea as well, for Nicaea teaches many "errors" in its Canons and binds all Christians to these "errors" as well.

Was there really no Bible until the year AD381?

I'm writing on an urgent matter that I think needs to be addressed within Catholic apologetics, namely the widespread Catholic claim that there was no Bible until Pope Damasus gave us the canon of Scripture in AD381. At best, this is a half truth, and at worst this is an implicit heresy and undermines Christianity. While it might score points against Protestants during a Sola Scriptura discussion, it's a bad argument that does far more harm than good. 

The problem with the "no Bible until 381" claim is that those who make the claim typically have in their mind that in the early Church - sometime after the Apostles died (~AD80) and up to 300 years later (~AD380) - there was mass confusion as to what books were Scripture and what weren't, such that the Pope had to call a Council to settle the matter by sifting through a massive pile of books, some which were inspired and some which were uninspired, and the "result" was the canon of Scripture. This mindset suggests that the Bible wasn't something passed onto us by Tradition, but rather something that was basically invented. The Pope most certainly did not walk into a library and start reading random books and try to "detect" if this or that book should be in the Bible.  In fact, this false 'personally feel out if this book is inspired' method is closer to the Protestant and Mormon approach to the canon of Scripture.