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.

Appreciating the "traditions of men" that Jesus condemned

In the infamous passages of Matthew 15:1-11 and Mark 7:1-22, Jesus condemns the Pharisees for teaching "traditions of men," which Protestants claim rules out "Catholic oral tradition". The Catholic response to this Protestant accusation is understandable, but also unfortunately surface level. When texts are misunderstood in the first place but never corrected, then what typically happens is that these texts turn into 'surface level apologetic' passages that never get studied at all. In this specific situation, Protestants would allege that the Pharisees randomly began taking on all sorts of random teachings and inventing a new religion, instead of simply following the Bible alone for their theology. Such a shallow reading of the text would warrant us to take a step back and see what was really being said here.  

Before looking at the verses itself, the first surface level rookie mistake Protestants make is to think that Jesus was teaching that any doctrine not written on paper is automatically not from God and cannot carry any authority. That Protestant claim is obviously wrong by the simple fact Jesus never wrote anything down and that Jesus taught 'orally' throughout His ministry. Many periods of Salvation History involved teaching being passed down orally, such as the command to circumcise given to Abraham and not written down for hundreds of years later until Moses. With that out of the way, we can now approach the passage with a different mindset.

Here is St Mark's account of the situation, which I trim down for brevity:

Can "gifts" be merited? (Eph 2:8)

I am sorry I have not had a new post of for several months. It has been a mix of life being very busy and also not really having anything new to post about. I try not to post unless I have something I feel worth sharing and that has not been talked about (much) anywhere else.

In this post I want to talk more about the Protestant favorite proof text, Ephesians 2:8-9. I have talked about this text before (HERE) on how to most effectively interpret it, on its face, without having to complicate the discussion. As a recap, simply put, when Paul says "not of works so that no one may boast," we can do a simple substitution to see what "works" means here: Paul cannot mean "sinful works" here, because sinful works do not save and don't allow anyone to legitimately boast. Paul cannot mean "good works" here because if someone can do good works they they should be saved and they should be able to boast, so there is no reason for Paul to attack good works. Paul cannot mean "works inspired by the Holy Spirit," because Paul would not denigrate the work of the Holy Spirit nor would Paul say in the same breath "you are saved by faith inspired by the Holy Spirit but are not saved by works inspired by the Holy Spirit," and thus we must also rule out that meaning. This leaves us with logically only one possible reading, that the "works" here are neutral, or only perceived to be good, or were only good under certain circumstances, and these would be "works of the law," such as circumcision, kosher, and Sabbath keeping. These "ceremonial works" were being used by the Jews to "boast" that they were better than the Gentiles, as proof that God loved them more by making them be born as Jewish. The Jews didn't say they earned it, but rather than they were privliged to be born Jewish. This fits precisely with the context, of Eph 2:11-22, which Protestants intentionally ignore. The whole "chapter" of Ephesians 2 is actually only about eight sentences long, so basically two short paragraphs, so it is disingenuous for Protestant Biblical Scholars to take only one sentence out of two paragraphs and ignore the context. This paragraph you just read you made sure to read it all so you would see my message, without taking me out of context.

This takes me to the new information I would like to share. I have talked with Protestants who say that in Ephesians 2:8-9 when Paul says salvation/faith is a "gift" from God, that this means it was not given because of anything you did. Protestants say gifts cannot be merited nor earned. Protestants say gifts cannot be given through the sacraments. As with most of Protestant "theology," it sounds good when presented but is not actually based on Scripture. Let's consider how the Bible uses the term "gift" to see that this Protestant claim is at the very least unsubstantiated.

Was Jesus "cursed" to Hell (Gal 3:13 - Part 2) - More problems with Penal Substitution

Years ago I had written about Galatians 3:13 and whether it supported the Protestant doctrine of Penal Substitution (see HERE), which I've written many posts on this blog about. The basic claim of Protestant advocates is that when St Paul says Jesus "became a curse," they say this 'clearly' teaches that Jesus suffered the eternal spiritual torments of hellfire that we deserved. One of the most popular conservative Protestant preachers of our time was RC Spoul, where he preached on this very issue at a major conference: "Jesus had some experience of the beauty of the Father until that moment that my sin was placed upon him, and the one who was pure was pure no more. And God cursed Him. It was as if there was a cry from heaven—excuse my language, but I can be no more accurate than to say—it was as if Jesus heard the words "God Damn You." Because that's what it meant to be cursed, to be damned, to be under the anathema of a Father." (Ligoner Ministries 2019). Protestants cite Gal 3:13 as if it explicitly meant God the Father cursed Jesus with eternal wrath, basically eternal damnation to hellfire. The reality is, that is reading way too much into the text and even causes many problems, some of which I have already highlighted in Part 1. In this Part 2, I will take a look at another historical view of this text that doesn't get much attention but which I feel makes far more sense.

The primary dispute on this verse is what does "cursed (by God)" mean. The Biblical term "curse" refers to speaking/wishing evil upon someone, whether deserved or not. It is not some generic term for "damn to hellfire". In fact, the term "curse" as it is used in the Bible refers almost always to physical evils that come upon someone or something. For example God curses the serpent, saying it will now slither across the ground (Gen 3:14), and God curses the ground after Adam sinned, saying the ground will now produce thorns (Gen 3:17). Noah curses Canaan saying Canaan will be a slave and mockery. In 2 Kings 2:24, Elisha calls a curse on some boys mocking him, and a bear came and tore them up. Jesus cursed the fig tree by saying it will never produce fruit again, and it withered and died (Mt 21:19). There are even times when God is said to make someone "a curse," such as in 2 Kings 22:19, Jeremiah 24:9, 25:18, all referring to the land becoming desolated as a result of the Israelites' sinful behavior. Most especially is Deuteronomy 28:15, which lists a bunch of curses God will do to the Israelites if they break the Mosaic Covenant, including sickness, drought, famine, defeated in battle, blindness, anxiety, scabs, tumors, etc. This Deut 28 curse section is the very context of Gal 3:10-13, which is what Paul is directly citing. This Biblical understanding of "curse" fits far better with the notion that Jesus was publicly humiliated with crucifixion than it does of the Protestant presumption that it must be speaking of some invisible damnation curse by the Father. And that leads us into the "new insight" of this post.

Recall that Paul is not 'randomly' saying Jesus became a curse in Gal 3:13, but that Paul is actually citing Deuteronomy 21:22-23, which says:

22 And if a man has committed a crime punishable by death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, 23 his body shall not remain all night on the tree, but you shall bury him the same day, for a hanged man is cursed by God. You shall not defile your land that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance.

Notice the verse is largely focused on taking care not to defile the Promise Land, and thus the cursed language actually more of a parentheses. So what is it about a body on a tree that defiles the land? Many would say that what "defiles the holy land" is the presence of gravely sinful individuals, such as criminals running around unpunished, which is understandable (cf Num 35:34; Lev 18:24-25). But in this case, it is specifically focused on the burial process, which I'm not sure if other texts address. This verse is unique and somewhat mysterious. This is when I came upon some Biblical commentary that indicate some commentators interpret the "cursed" (by God) text not as God cursing the individual, but rather of the mutilated body being a blasphemy, reproach, curse, etc, against God. For example, the predominant Rabbinical reading is that since man is made in God's Image, then to mutilate or defile the body is basically an insult, blasphemy, etc, against God. This fits with why the Torah forbids certain tattoos, certain fashions, certain grooming, etc, because it is human mutilation. It not only messes with the people, but it is also a bad testimony to others when you're supposed to be a good example to them. (How tragic it is when we see our fellow citizens mutilating their bodies, often because they are deeply wounded inside.)

When the human body is treated like garbage then it is an insult to God's prized creation made in His image, and it is a very pagan thing to mutilate the body. We see how disgusted we get when we think about the Aztecs who used to mutilate their enemies while still alive, and how dark of a cloud comes upon our nation when we think about abortion happening everywhere. When we see in National Geographic type magazines the Islamic form of punishment, namely decapitation, cutting off heads, cutting off hands, cutting off feet, etc, we become repulsed. Similarly, when we see a corpse hanging from a tree or pole, we become grossed out. We are not grossed out or repulsed from mere capital punishment, but rather only those which are popularly called "cruel and unusual" punishment. So similarly, imagine what God sees when the human body is mutilated. In this situation, while it was necessary to have crucifixion for grave offenses, the Mosaic Law put limits on this.

Saint Jerome mentions that some translations had even captured this "curse in the sight of God" rendering, in his Commentary on Galatians (HERE):

Why Catholics MUST believe in the Pre-Tribulation Rapture

For those who don't know, the Pre-Tribulation Rapture is a Catholic dogma that Protestants took from us and turned it into a heresy. The Protestant doctrine of PTR teaches that Christians (specifically White Evangelical Americans) will be taken away to safety in Heaven before the world gets too difficult to endure, because they think true Christians shouldn't have to suffer in this life. But the Catholic dogma derived from Scripture teaches the exact opposite. The truth is the PTR has already happened, and applies to those who have already endured some of the most painful suffering in this life. Since the dogma of "The Pre-Tribulation Rapture" is too long of a phrase, the Church decided to shorten it down to just calling it the "Assumption," where the Blessed Virgin Mary was taken up to heaven some time around 66AD, just before the Tribulation began on Jerusalem, ending with the destruction of the city and Temple in 70AD (just as our Lord predicted, see Matthew 24). In this post, I would like to look at some of the specifics of the Protestant heresy/perversion of this orthodox Catholic dogma.

One mediator between God and men - Does 1st Timothy 2:5 teach Sola Mediatora?

The main goal of this blog is to help improve our understanding of what the Bible is teaching, and not merely to 'refute' opposing claims. For example, one major theme of this blog is to address the Protestant doctrine of "justification by faith alone" by delving into what Paul is actually saying in the exact same texts Protestants bring up, rather than running elsewhere to other verses (e.g. James 2:24). It doesn't do us much spiritual good if our only use of the Bible as Catholics is to dodge the Biblcal verses which Protestants (or other groups) bring up "against" us. In this post we will look at the common case of Protestants attempting to refute the Catholic doctrine of "intercession of the saints" by their citing of 1 Timothy 2:5 where Paul speaks of Jesus as the "one mediator" between God and mankind.

The standard Catholic "response" to this shallow "Sola Mediatora" argument basically reduces down to the Catholic saying: "Isn't asking someone to pray for you also a form of mediation? So logically not all mediation is excluded." While this 'logic argument' response is not wrong for amateurish level of discussion, it is technically wrong on the deeper level of us not attempting to study the text to understand what Paul is actually saying.

Our goal when looking at Scripture is "exegesis," that is to understand what the text is saying, and be less concerned with how we can rescue our theology. We shouldn't fear what the Bible has to actually say, and in most of my study of Scripture, when you really understand what Paul is saying (especially in Romans), then the Bible 'comes alive' within your own life and spiritual growth. How often is the Bible basically ignored by Catholics who are secretly afraid that Paul could be teaching Protestant doctrine? We need to correct this mentality, and the best way is to seek to study the Bible on a deeper level than merely surface level reading of half sentences the way Protestants typically approach the Bible. In this instance, we will see that the Protestant approach to 1 Tim 2:5 is actually completely ignoring not only the context, but the full sentence itself. Thankfully, in doing some research to this post, I have found other Catholics also refusing to be satisfied with the standard "we ask others to pray for us" response.

How Seventh Day Adventists changed the Sabbath (and blamed Catholics) - kind of a big deal Pt.3

From my recent posts (here) and (here) discussing the clear distinction between what takes place at the synagogue versus what takes place at the Temple, it has led me to consider the Seventh Day Adventist's claims about the Sabbath. One of the SDA's central accusations is that the Catholic Church allegedly "changed God's day of worship from Saturday to Sunday". But if "worship" wasn't taking place on Saturday (particularly not at the synagogue) then the SDA's entire foundation is obviously deeply problematic. 

First, let's consider the Seventh Day Adventist official website's Fundamental Belief #20 "The Sabbath" (here), and the parts which I think need to be highlighted:

The gracious Creator, after the six days of Creation, rested on the seventh day and instituted the Sabbath for all people as a memorial of Creation. The fourth commandment of God’s unchangeable law requires the observance of this seventh-day Sabbath as the day of rest, worship, and ministry in harmony with the teaching and practice of Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath. (Gen. 2:1-3; Exod. 20:8-11; 31:13-17; Lev. 23:32; Deut. 5:12-15; Isa. 56:5, 6; 58:13, 14; Ezek. 20:12, 20; Matt. 12:1-12; Mark 1:32; Luke 4:16; Heb. 4:1-11.)

The Sabbath is a day of rest, reflection, enjoyment and worship for God’s people. It dates back to the seventh day of the creation week, when God stopped His work and took time to rest and savor it.

When God rested on the seventh day, He set for us an example. He gave the weekly Sabbath as a day of rest and worship for all of mankind.

“He shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and shall think to change the times and the law…” Daniel 7:25

When Jesus lived here on earth He kept the seventh day Sabbath. However, just a few hundred years after His death and resurrection, early Christians began keeping Sunday as their day of worship just as Daniel foretold. 

The change of the Sabbath as the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday happened in the year 321 A.D. The Roman Emperor Constantine issued a decree that all Christians were to begin observing Sunday as a day of rest.

[Seventh Day Adventists] decided they would begin to keep the biblical Sabbath even though most churches worshipped on Sunday. Keeping the 4th commandment became a distinctive part of their [SDA] worship. 

Notice that throughout their doctrinal explanation the SDAs use the word "worship" with regards to the Sabbath and the 4th Commandment ("Keep the Sabbath"). But what if terminology like "worship" is never to be found in any of these Biblical passages they cite as their primary proof texts, especially the 4th Commandment? That would be deeply embarrassing.

You can look at all twelve proof texts they have cited above (here). Notice that the language of "rest" and "do no work" appears multiple times. Yet, nowhere does the term "worship" or related language appear in any of these passages. This is kind of a big deal. From the outset, it looks as if the Seventh Day Adventists went around inserting or projecting the idea of "worship" onto the Sabbath day, when in reality the Bible only sees the Sabbath as a time of "resting". How could they make such a blunder?

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.

The synagogue is not the Temple - kind of a big deal

The New Testament speaks often of Jesus and the Apostles visiting various synagogues, but the synagogue is not mentioned in the Old Testament. Isn't that strange that a major facet of Jewish life in the New Testament doesn't get any (clear) mention in the Old Testament? This got me thinking about the origins and meaning of the Synagogue.

The various encyclopedias that I've come across say the synagogue originated around the time of the Babylonian Exile (600BC). Thus, while the term "synagogue" (and "church") literally means a gathering or assembly, the term synagogue referring to a "house of worship" (as we now think of it) didn't come around until 800 years after the Israelites left Egypt (1400BC). The Catholic Encyclopedia says on Synagogue:

It was probably during the Babylonian captivity that the synagogue became a national feature of Hebrew worship. Afar from their Temple, the exiled Jews gathered into local meeting-houses for public worship. Sacrifice was denied them; prayer in common was not. The longer their exile from the national altar of sacrifice, the greater became their need of houses of prayer; this need was met by an ever-increasing number of synagogues, scattered throughout the land of exile. From Babylonia this national system of synagogue worship was brought to Jerusalem. That the synagogue dates many generations earlier than Apostolic times, is clear from the authority of St. James: "For Moses [the Torah] has been proclaimed in every city since ancient times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath" (Acts 15:21).

The consensus of most sources is that since the Israelites were removed from the Promise Land and their Temple destroyed during the Babylonian exile (600-530BC), they obviously could no longer worship as they once did, and thus they needed to improvise. During the Babylonian exile, they were allowed to gather somewhat, read Scripture somewhat, have sermons, pray, etc, and so this became a new standard feature of Jewish life. Since many Israelites/Jews were scattered abroad and never returned home, the synagogue system became especially necessary to carry on their faith. 

The Mosaic Law foresaw the Israelites worshiping through a Sacrificial Priesthood, which after arriving in the Promise Land became centered in Jerusalem at the Temple (Jn 4:19-21; Jn 12:20; Acts 8:27; 24:11; Rev 11:1). Sacrifices are a prominent theme from the earliest pages of Genesis, and sacrificing to God was a central theme in letting the Israelites go free from Egypt (Ex 8:25-29 - 1400BC). Even coming back from the Babylonian Exile (530BC) had prioritized getting the Temple back up and running as soon as possible, and the Feast of the Dedication (Hanukkah) was about re-consecrating the Temple just 150 years prior to Jesus. So to just stop sacrificing is not really optional, and in fact it is a serious deformation of the Israelite religion to not have sacrifices going on (e.g. the book of Leviticus is dedicated to priestly sacrifices). Since the synagogue system was never about sacrifices this would strongly suggest it is not an actual (nor approved) replacement of sorts for the Temple sacrifices. The fact that during the ministry of Jesus the Temple sacrifices were going on at the same time as synagogue attendance even more strongly indicates they are not the same in the (ancient) Jewish mind (John 18:20; Acts 24:12). This realization, namely the the Synagogue is clearly distinct from the Temple, has serious ramifications for how we as Catholics (and Orthodox) view both the Jews and Protestants. 

By a single offering he has perfected them - Does Hebrews 10:14 refute Catholicism?

I was reading an article where a Protestant pastor cited Hebrews 10:14 as his primary proof text against the doctrine of Purgatory. The verse says: "For by a single offering he [Jesus] has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified." The pastor's interpretation was something along the lines of: by that one single sacrifice on the Cross, Jesus has perfectly saved us, leaving nothing unfinished, and thus there is no room nor need for us needing forgiveness later on (e.g. such as in Purgatory). This reading is understandable, and quite common for Protestants to make against Catholics. So I think it's a good idea to take a look at how to address this claim.

The first thing I would point out is that Christians can still fall into sin and still need to repent of any new sins (e.g. forgive us our tresspasses), as we see throughout the Bible. The congregations in Corinth and Galatia had fallen into sin and needed to repent (2 Cor 12:21). Jesus even sends John to warn the 'seven churches' of Revelation ch2-ch3 of repenting of their bad behavior. So it is a well-established fact that forgiveness is not something that takes place only once in a Christian's life. Thus, we have good reason to not interpret the "by one offering he perfected" of Heb 10:14 to mean your sins are perfectly forgiven the moment you first accept the Gospel. On top of that, even Protestants admit that our growing in inward holiness is a 'work in progress', since each day we must strive to uproot sin and become more holy, which is a very slow process, meaning Christians are far from perfect. And without the Cross, we would be unable to make any steps towards holiness at all. But then we must admit "the one offering" did not perfect our sanctification, and thus we see a second reason why the Protestant interpretation cannot work against Purgatory. With the Protestant interpretation largely discredited, that opens up the door for us to explore alternative interpretations of what Paul is saying, because it seems like a very big deal to say that the Cross perfects us.

The next reasonable step in our study is to consider the possible meanings of the words that 10:14 uses, because often times we incorrectly assume the modern day English meaning of a Biblical word. The key word of this passage is "perfected," which Greek term is found 24x in the New Testament (here), and has a range of meaning along the lines of "to complete, accomplish, finish, bring to the end goal". If you look at the verses, this Greek term "perfect" is not used in any of these verses to mean nor suggest "without sin, flawless," such that a Christian is absolutely perfect now. Consider that Jesus told his Apostles that He was 'not yet perfect' (Lk 13:32; Heb 5:9; 7:28), which obviously cannot mean Jesus was not yet sinless, but rather that Jesus had yet to attain His final goal (Cross & Resurrection). And Paul says he as a Christian has not attained perfection yet (Phil 3:12), which obviously contradicts Heb 10:14 unless we admit "perfect" can have a range of meaning. So at this point, we can safely say that Heb 10:14 means that Christians have been brought to some goal or accomplishment stage, but that is not a state of sinless perfection.

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:

Does the Bible limit the Sacraments to only Baptism and Eucharist? (Sola Scriptura)

Protestants generally hold to only two Sacraments, claiming that Baptism and Eucharist are the only two "ordinances" that Jesus commanded. Reformed pastor R.C. Sproul's ministry has a reflection on this, which says (here):

Now that we have explored the sacraments in a general sense, we are prepared to look at each sacrament in more detail. Yet before we do that, we must determine the number of sacraments revealed in Scripture. Christ instituted two sacraments: baptism and the Lord’s Supper (The Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 68).

It is easy to see why the Heidelberg Catechism singles out these ordinances as sacraments. After all, the Gospels reveal explicitly our Savior’s command to baptize disciples and to partake of bread and wine in His memory (Matt. 28:18–20; Luke 22:14–20). Some churches, in addition, have viewed foot washing as a third sacrament. Other churches do not invest foot washing with sacramental significance, although they may have special foot-washing services during the year. Both groups cite John 13:1–20 in defense of the practice.

What shall we say about this? Clearly, whatever freedom churches might have to engage in foot washing, no church body may impose it as a sacrament upon its people. First, the early church did not see in John 13 a command for the church in every age to wash feet. Acts, for example, records the disciples administering the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper (2:37–42), but this New Testament book never records Apostolic foot washing. Second, Dr. R.C. Sproul notes in his commentary John that the majority of the church has not regarded foot washing as a sacrament.

Finally, the Roman Catholic Church adds five sacraments to baptism and the Lord’s Supper: penance, confirmation, marriage, holy orders (priestly ordination), and extreme unction (last rites). Of course, Roman Catholicism is right to see some of these acts as helpful to Christian growth. A godly husband, for example, rightly regards his wife as one of the most sanctifying influences in his life. An ordinance such as penance, however, denies the gospel because it calls for sinners to make satisfaction for their sin.

While the above claims are standard Protestant claims, there are some obvious problems with the above claims that we should take a look at. First of all, the use of the terms "sacrament" and "ordinance" are not used in Scripture with regards to Baptism or the Eucharist. So it is somewhat of an "oral tradition" that Protestants are appealing to when they dogmatically apply "sacrament" to these two things. Second, the only time the Bible uses the term "sacrament" in regards to these is when Paul speaks of Marriage as a "great sacrament" in Ephesians 5:32, where the Greek term mysterion ("mystery") which is precisely what the Latin term "sacrament" means (see here). So this is another blatant inconsistency.

Third, the teaching of Jesus to wash the feet of others in John 13:1-20 does sound like something of a sacrament, especially in 13-14, where Jesus says: "If I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you." This is an outward ordinance or ritual, that Jesus expressly commands, and is clearly tied to being washed of sins and being part of the community (v8): "If I do not wash you, you have no share with me." This line of Jesus is especially noteworthy, because while Peter was already a believer in Jesus, here we see Jesus tell Peter that if Peter refuses to have his feet washed, then Jesus will disown Peter. This passage not only poses a problem for 'once saved always saved' but it also exposes the Protestant bias and inconsistency in their theology. And even if it is not a sacrament, the Church has historically seen it as an official part of the Liturgy, particularly on Holy Thursday, also called "Mandate Thursday" in Latin because Jesus "mandates" (commands) the washing of feet. So this is not "optional" for the Protestant side, yet most Protestants do not even practice the foot washing rite in any formal/concrete manner.

Were David's future sins forgiven at the moment of his conversion? (Quickie Apologetics)

I'm not sure if I have posted this before, but I want to make a quick post about it. I'd say that 'moderate/intermediate' level of Catholic apologetics knows that when Romans 4:6-8 speaks of the justification of David in Psalm 32, that this prayer in Psalm 32 was not the first time that David came to faith. Instead, David had been converted to God since David was a young man (1 Sam 17:33-37). In this case of Psalm 32, David was praying about repenting of his adultery/murder in 2 Samuel 12:13-14, where as an adult David committed mortal sin and needed to repent. Thus, if Psalm 32 is talking about Justification, as Paul says it is, this can only mean David lost his salvation by mortal sin and regained it when he repented. This refutes/undermines the standard Protestant claim that Justification cannot be lost by our sin (or regained by Repenting). This brilliant insight was first made by Robert Sungenis about 25 years ago in his published book Not By Faith Alone.

That said, certain Protestants like James White insist that David's future sins were (also) forgiven per David's words of Psalm 32, which is a serious presumption since the Bible only ever talks of past sins being forgiven. That's because the Reformed are forced to teach all future sins are forgiven in order to uphold their other erroneous views, namely Faith Alone and Imputation (discussed many times on this blog). But what if we can look even further into David's life, years later as King, and see him falling into sin again? That would obviously cause serious problems to the White/Reformed thesis. And indeed there is such a text, discovered by the Catholic blogger [HERE], where he points out that the final chapter of 2 Samuel, specifically 2 Sam 24:10, speaks of an elderly David disobeying God in another serious manner:

10 But David's heart struck him after he had numbered the people. And David said to the Lord, “I have sinned greatly in what I have done. But now, O Lord, please take away the iniquity of your servant, for I have done very foolishly.” . . . 17 Then David spoke to the Lord when he saw the angel who was striking the people, and said, “Behold, I have sinned, and I have done wickedly. But these sheep, what have they done? Please let your hand be against me and against my father's house.”

It is clear that David had sin/iniquity on his conscience before God for his bad behavior, and David was again praying for forgiveness. It is clear that God was even punishing David for his sins and had to do Penance to fix it (2 Sam 24:24-25). This is impossible if David's future sins were forgiven years earlier when David prayed Psalm 32. This is impossible if David was "covered by Christ's imputed righteousness" such that God doesn't see David's behavior but rather only sees David as righteous at all times. I think this is a wonderful find and believe it raises a Catholic to 'advanced/expert' level when he includes 2 Samuel 24:10 along with pointing out that Psalm 32 was about David's sin in 2 Samuel 12. We simply must make use of powerful arguments like these, because they can be very effective against Protestants.

The Achilles Heel of Seventh Day Adventism: 1844

The Seventh Day Adventists are best known for their promotion of "Seventh Day" (Saturday/Sabbath) Worship (which I've discussed Here), but surprisingly that Sabbath teaching isn't even their most important doctrine! Since SDAs are quite often militant against Catholics, I think this apologetics piece will be quite handy in stopping them dead in their tracks. The key is to look at the other half of their name: Adventist.

The SDAs have "28 Fundamental Beliefs" [Here] which are basically their unique set of dogmas that are required believing for any SDA to be in good standing. While everyone is aware of their Sabbath teaching, what is far less known is that the SDAs have a dogma concerning the year 1844, and the reason why you don't know about it is because it is quite embarrassing for the SDAs. The full text of the Fundamental Belief #24 says:

There is a sanctuary in heaven, the true tabernacle that the Lord set up and not humans. In it Christ ministers on our behalf, making available to believers the benefits of His atoning sacrifice offered once for all on the cross. At His ascension, He was inaugurated as our great High Priest and, began His intercessory ministry, which was typified by the work of the high priest in the holy place of the earthly sanctuary. In 1844, at the end of the prophetic period of 2300 days, He entered the second and last phase of His atoning ministry, which was typified by the work of the high priest in the most holy place of the earthly sanctuary. It is a work of investigative judgment which is part of the ultimate disposition of all sin, typified by the cleansing of the ancient Hebrew sanctuary on the Day of Atonement. In that typical service the sanctuary was cleansed with the blood of animal sacrifices, but the heavenly things are purified with the perfect sacrifice of the blood of Jesus. The investigative judgment reveals to heavenly intelligences who among the dead are asleep in Christ and therefore, in Him, are deemed worthy to have part in the first resurrection. It also makes manifest who among the living are abiding in Christ, keeping the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, and in Him, therefore, are ready for translation into His everlasting kingdom. This judgment vindicates the justice of God in saving those who believe in Jesus. It declares that those who have remained loyal to God shall receive the kingdom. The completion of this ministry of Christ will mark the close of human probation before the Second Advent. (Lev. 16; Num. 14:34; Ezek. 4:6; Dan. 7:9-27; 8:13, 14; 9:24-27; Heb. 1:3; 2:16, 17; 4:14-16; 8:1-5; 9:11-28; 10:19-22; Rev. 8:3-5; 11:19; 14:6, 7; 20:12; 14:12; 22:11, 12.)

You might be having a hard time understanding what is being said in the above FD#24 about this "Investigative Judgment" (I.J.), but that's because it isn't meant to make sense. The dogma is complete nonsense, reworded in order to save face as to the original meaning. If you read the official page dedicated to explaining this IJ [here] you will see that it spends many paragraphs saying nonsense. However, it does give us some details as to what it all originally meant, such as the following quote (trimmed back for length): 

Ukraine, Russia, and Jehovah's Witnesses

End times prophecy is such an important part of the Jehovah's Witnesses that they are one of the few groups who are excited to hear all the "bad news" going on in the world the past few years. Their featured story today on the Jehovah's Witnesses official website has an article "Russia Invades Ukraine: Is Bible Prophecy Being Fulfilled?" In that featured article, they link back to the May 2020 Watchtower Magazine where they said:

“In the time of the end the king of the south will engage with the king of the north in a pushing.”​- Daniel 11:40.

[Page 5] During World War I, the United States and Britain were welded into a powerful military alliance. At that time, Britain and its former colony became the Anglo-American World Power. As Daniel foretold, this king had amassed  “an exceedingly large and mighty army.” (Dan. 11:25) Throughout the last days, the Anglo-American alliance has been the king of the south.  Who, though, has filled the role of the king of the north?

[Page 6] Soon after World War II ended, the new king of the north, the Soviet Union and its allies, launched his own assault on God’s people. In harmony with the prophecy recorded at Revelation 12:15-17, this king banned our preaching work and sent thousands of Jehovah’s people into exile. In fact, throughout the last days, the king of the north has poured out “a river” of persecution in an unsuccessful attempt to stop the work of God’s people.

[Page 7] The king of the north has supported the king of the south in one key endeavor; they “put in place the disgusting thing that causes desolation.” (Dan. 11:31) That “disgusting thing” is the United Nations. The United Nations organization is described as a “disgusting thing” because it claims to be able to do something that only God’s Kingdom can do​—bring world peace.

[Page 13] Note why we can say that today the king of the north is Russia and its allies. (1) They have had a direct impact on God’s people, banning the preaching work and persecuting hundreds of thousands of brothers and sisters who live in areas under their control. (2) Those actions show that they hate Jehovah and his people. (3) They have been competing with the king of the south, the Anglo-American World Power.

The king of the north and the king of the south continue to compete for world domination. For example, consider what happened after World War II when the Soviet Union and its allies gained influence over much of Europe. The actions of the king of the north forced the king of the south to form an international military alliance, known as NATO. The king of the north continues to compete with the king of the south in an expensive arms race. The king of the north fought his rival in proxy wars and insurgencies in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. In recent years, Russia and its allies have spread their influence across the globe. They have also engaged with the king of the south in cyber warfare. The kings have accused each other of using destructive computer programs in an effort to damage their economies and political systems.

[Page 14] In 2017, this current king of the north banned the work of Jehovah’s people and threw some of our brothers and sisters into prison. He also banned our publications, including the New World Translation. Further, he confiscated our branch office in Russia as well as Kingdom Halls and Assembly Halls. After these actions, in 2018 the Governing Body identified Russia and its allies as the king of the north.
Who Is “the King of the North” Today?

Much of this sounds like the typical Protestant reading of the Bible's two main "prophetic books," the books of Daniel and Revelation. Many Protestants are bringing up similar points today with Russia being the "king of the north" in this current Ukraine conflict. This kind of Biblical interpretation became popular in the 1900s with American & British Protestantism's reading of the Bible, as Protestantism had lost its place in Europe after the World Wars and needed to find an "explanation" for why these wars happened. So it is no surprise that the American Protestants who lead the Jehovah's Witnesses speak of 'finding' the United States and Russia within Biblical prophecy. You've got to admit, Protestantism has a way of being entertaining, and why we shouldn't entirely ignore this (though most of it is a complete waste of time).

 

Is Eastern Orthodoxy's view of the Church tearing them apart? (Autocephaly & Patriarchate)

As many probably know, there was a schism within Eastern Orthodoxy in 2018/2019, when the Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) held a synod which decided to sever ties with the Patriarchate of Constantinople (Ecumenical Patriarchate). The cause was that the EP believed it had the authority to grant "Autocephaly" to the churches in Ukraine (which the MP claims is Russian territory), while the MP said the EP did not have such unilateral authority. While we shouldn't be happy about such events, it does provide for some Catholic apologetics material when dealing with Eastern Orthodox. Here are some things to ponder.

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:

Justification of the Ungodly - a Reformed admission

I came across a wonderful admission from a Reformed article online [1] of something I've been saying for a while regarding the problematic situation of the Reformed reading of "justifies the ungodly" (Rom 4:5) that I'd like to share. The article is short, but I trimmed it down at spots to capture the most important points:

One of the most striking and comforting expressions in the Scriptures is that God justifies the ungodly (Rom. 4:5). Nonetheless, this statement creates a theological conundrum of sorts and has led in part some Reformed theologians, including puritans, to at least suggest if not advocate a subtle form of justification before faith. So what then is the problem?

Placing regeneration and faith before justification, as the Reformed do, appears to be incompatible with the fact that God justifies the ungodly. For how can a regenerated, holy sinner who exercises sincere faith and repentance be viewed as ungodly? Yet, placing regeneration after justification has its own problems, chiefly, how can a sinner dead in sins turn to Christ in true faith and repentance?

The Reformed officially teach that before a person can even believe, the Holy Spirit must first come and cause a radical transformation inside that person, taking them from spiritual death to spiritual life (Eph 2:5), born again (Jn 3:5), giving them a new heart (Rom 2:29), making them a new creation (2 Cor 5:17), and enabling them to exercise the gift of faith. This is called "Regeneration" or "Effectual Calling" in classical Reformed language. Only after Regeneration can they then believe in the Gospel and then get Justified. But this raises the question, how can someone so powerfully transformed inside by the Holy Spirit still remain "ungodly" in any reasonable sense? To remain "ungodly" would suggest that sin is more powerful than grace, which cannot be. So the Reformed must now explain how there can be an "ungodly" in the first place when it comes to the believer getting Justified.

Did God reckon Abraham's heart as faithful? (Nehemiah 9:8 and 13:13)

As you probably know, Protestants claim that since Abraham was "ungodly" he couldn't be justified before God by his sinful actions, and instead had to use his faith to receive the "imputed Righteousness of Christ" in order to appear righteous before God. While there are numerous proofs against Protestantism's perverted reading of Genesis 15:6 (Rom 4:3), I want to present two 'new' Biblical proofs that Protestant scholars and apologists quietly ignore. Both texts are from the book of Nehemiah, which is a fascinating new use for this book in apologetics.

The first text is:

Neh 9: 7 You are the Lord, the God who chose Abram and brought him out of Ur of the Chaldeans and gave him the name Abraham. 8 You found his heart faithful before you, and made with him the covenant to give to his offspring the land of the Canaanite. And you have kept your promise, for you are righteous.

The term "faithful" here is the same term used in Genesis 15:6 - and in fact is the only time the term is used of Abraham in Genesis. The Hebrew term often means "faithful" and not merely believing. The connection to Abraham's "heart" being good further suggests that Abraham was not "ungodly" in the Protestant claim of being morally depraved, but rather being merely a Gentile (cf Rom 4:9-12). Also, the verse ends with God keeping his Promise (cf Rom 4:13), because God is "righteous". The connection with Promise Keeping and Righteousness suggests that the Righteousness in question here is more of a "faithfulness," rather than the Protetant error that claims Biblical "righteousness" means a lifetime of perfectly keeping the commandments (which doesn't even make sense when speaking of the Father's righteousness).

A quickie apologetic on Papal Infallibility

I was in a discussion with a Protestant who was arguing that Catholic converts have a mental disorder because they seek a level of certainty that only God is capable of. His goal was to show that seeking after a Infallible Magisterium is nonsense because nobody can know the Bible the way God knows the Bible. Admittedly, that's a bizarre way of objecting to the idea of Infallibility, but it led me to show him how his claim was bogus. I asked him if Peter was infallible when he interpreted various OT passages in his epistles 1 & 2 Peter. He was forced to admit Yes, Peter was infallible when interpreting the OT. I then explained that he just refuted his main thesis, because Peter was able to infallibly interpret the OT on behalf of others.

This Protestant got very embarrassed and to save face kept bringing up that Peter acted sinfully and followed false authority (Judaizers) in the incident at Antioch when Paul rebuked Peter (recorded in Galatians 2). I merely had to reaffirm that Peter acting sinfully in one circumstance doesn't mean he couldn't be infallible in other circumstances, as was already proven. I then pointed out that the Peter example actually supports the Catholic claim on infallibility, whereby we see in the example of Peter that acting sinfully in certain circumstances does not preclude a person from being infallible in other circumstances. The Catholic claim has always been the Pope is only infallible under certain circumstances, never under all circumstances! 

I'll hopefully have another post this month in a week or two.