Examples of Individuals Losing Salvation in Scripture

One of the most effective ways of refuting the Protestant (particularly Calvinist) heresy of Eternal Security (aka Once Saved Always Saved) is to point out some examples of individuals in Scripture who at one point in their life were saved but then lost their salvation through grave sin (whether they repented or not is outside the scope of this brief article). The following list is by no means exhaustive, and I welcome any suggestions for other examples.

King Uzziah:


I have to credit Dave Armstrong (bookmark him!) with pointing this example out to me a while ago. 2nd Chronicles 26 records the following about this man:

3Uzziah was sixteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned fifty-two years in Jerusalem. 4And he did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, according to all that his father Amaziah had done. 5He set himself to seek God in the days of Zechariah, who instructed him in the fear of God, and as long as he sought the LORD, God made him prosper. ...  16But when he was strong, he grew proud, to his destruction. For he was unfaithful to the LORD his God and entered the temple of the LORD to burn incense on the altar of incense. ... 20And Azariah the chief priest and all the priests looked at him, and behold, he was leprous in his forehead! And they rushed him out quickly, and he himself hurried to go out, because the LORD had struck him. 21 And King Uzziah was a leper to the day of his death, and being a leper lived in a separate house, for he was excluded from the house of the LORD.

Clearly, there was a time when Uzziah was living in God's favor, with no indication this was disingenuous. Yet, he "grew proud, to his destruction" to the point he was struck by God and never healed. (This is in contrast to those who have sinned and have healed after repenting.) This can only signify that Uzziah lost his salvation, and goes directly against the Protestant notion that good works will automatically flow. I'm sure there are similar situations for other OT Kings who at one point lived uprightly but then became corrupt.

King David:


Everyone is familiar with David's infamous sin with Bathsheba (adultery) and Uriah (murder). This was one of the most infamous and tarnishing sins in the OT, particularly because David was such a holy man (1 Kings 15:5). St Paul quotes David's repentance (in Psalm 32) in Romans 4:6-8 and calls that a moment of justification, and since David wasn't converting (for the first time) there, it can only mean his justification was lost. Indeed, Martin Luther's famous document, the Smalcald Articles (enshrined as part of the Lutheran Book of Concord) says this about the matter:

It is, accordingly, necessary to know and to teach that when holy men, still having and feeling original sin, also daily repenting of and striving with it, happen to fall into manifest sins, as David into adultery, murder, and blasphemy, that then faith and the Holy Ghost has departed from them. (Section 3:3:43)

This is very similar in essence to the Catholic teaching regarding Mortal Sin.

St Peter:

In Matthew 26:33-34 we hear Christ reveal that Peter will deny Him three times. We know this denial of Christ was influenced by Satan, but Jesus prayed that Peter would have the grace to repent afterwards and be converted (Luke 22:31-32). This is clear language of losing salvation and recovering it, especially considering denying Jesus is one of the worst sins a person can commit (Matthew 10:33).

Judas Iscariot:

This is one example in which Protestants give much opposition, since they claim Judas couldn't have been saved in the first place, since no true believer could do what he did. On top of this, their favorite proof text is John 17:12,

While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.

However, if you read this carefully, it is saying Jesus protected all 12 Apostles, and that one became "lost" (indicating there was a time he was not lost). But that's not all the data we have to consider. In John 6:70-71, Jesus says:

70Jesus answered them, "Did I not choose you, the Twelve? And yet one of you is a devil." 71He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the Twelve, was going to betray him.

Here it shows Judas was one of the Twelve, chosen by Jesus. It's impossible to be an Apostle if one is not a true believer. If the Protestant position were correct, the Bible could only have said Eleven were Apostles. Acts 1:17 says Judas "was numbered among us and was allotted his share in this ministry," and Acts 1:24-25 records the replacing of Judas by Matthias, when Peter says they need a person to "take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside." Judas had a place and apostleship, and was originally out with the Twelve, undistinguished, performing the same miracles and having power to cast out demons (e.g. Mark 6:7-13; Matthew 10:1-4). And most of the time when Judas is mentioned, his infamy traces to one thing: his future betrayal of Jesus, not some non-converted status he had the whole time. It is only in John 13 where we see Satan "entered Judas," indicating Judas consented to the betray but up until then Judas was not possessed by Satan.

The final point to consider is a very important detail which a Catholic apologist recently pointed out (bookmark his blog!) in an article he wrote on this subject. Jesus quotes a prophecy in regards to Judas in John 13:18, "But the Scripture will be fulfilled, 'He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me.'" To share bread with someone in the Hebrew mindset indicates an intimate relationship; something impossible if Judas was never a believer to begin with. But that's not all, most of us forget to look up the prophecy Jesus is quoting, which happens to be Psalm 41:9, which says: "Even my close friend in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted his heel against me." What a new picture emerges after reading this! Indeed, the idea that Judas was so close to Jesus up until then shows just how serious and enormous the betrayal was, since the worst betrayals are those from the people closest to you. Jesus even calls him 'friend' at the moment of betrayal (Matthew 26:49-50)!


Ananias and Sapphira:

The infamous account of this lie (and subsequent punishment by death) by a newly converted husband and wife is recorded in Acts 5. This story is actually a continuation of Acts 4:32-37, which shows how the first Christian community supported eachother such that nobody was needy. The account begins by contrasting their story to that of Barnabas' (in the previous verses), showing how the couple sold some of their property and were donating (some of) the proceeds to the Apostles for charity. This act makes no sense if they were indeed never believers in the first place, nor does Peter's rebuke of them indicate they were imposters or never true believers. Indeed, the only indication of sin was at the point of laying it at the Apostle's feet, not before, since Peter says the money was theirs all along and were free to use it as they pleased. Lastly, the account says a "great fear" came over the Church as a result of this, indicating this divine judgment was a warning to them; otherwise there would be no need to fear in that regard.

Simon Magus:

In Acts 8:9-24 is the account of Simon Magus trying to bribe the Apostles after seeing the miracles they could perform. In verse 12-13, it plainly says many men heard Philip preach and were converted, and that even Simon Magus "believed and was baptized" and followed Philip. When Peter and John arrived to give the Sacrament of Confirmation, Simon Magus became envious and wanted this 'power'. Peter rebukes him by saying: "May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money! You have neither part nor lot in this matter, for your heart is not right before God. Repent, therefore, of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you." Clearly, Simon had fallen away and was in danger of damnation, unless he repented of that sin. The only 'excuse' a Protestant could make is that Simon's belief and baptism recorded in Scripture must have been fake, but this is pure assumption without any warrant in the text. Further, that excuse fails to consider that Peter was rebuking Simon Magus for a specific sin, and told him to repent, not saying that he never believed in the first place.


Demas:


I found this account by accident, but it's still worthy of mention. Demas appears 3 times in the New Testament: Col. 4:14; 2 Tim. 4:10; Phm 1:24. He is a companion and fellow laborer with Paul, mentioned alongside St Luke, who helped Paul and sent their greetings to the other Christians. Yet Paul says Demas got caught up in worldly affairs and deserted him (cf. 2 Tim. 4:16). There is no reason to think Demas was some scam artist who was pretending to be a Christian this whole time, and we have little reason to think Paul would be so deluded as to not detect such a thing. As with other examples, the apostasy is tied to a specific sin, in this case abandonment in pursuit of worldly affairs (cf. 1 Tim. 6:10). 


The Seven Congregations of Revelation:

In Revelation 2-3, John records how Jesus is judging seven Christian communities in different regions of the Roman empire. The following are some excerpts:

1 To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: ... 3I know you are enduring patiently and bearing up for my name’s sake, and you have not grown weary. 4But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first. 5Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.

18"And to the angel of the church in Thyatira write: ... 19 "'I know your works, your love and faith and service and patient endurance, and that your latter works exceed the first. 20But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols. 21I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her sexual immorality. 22Behold, I will throw her onto a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her I will throw into great tribulation, unless they repent of her works

1"And to the angel of the church in Sardis write: ... "'I know your works. You have the reputation of being alive, but you are dead. 2Wake up, and strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have not found your works complete in the sight of my God. 3 Remember, then, what you received and heard. Keep it, and repent. If you will not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come against you. 4Yet you have still a few names in Sardis, people who have not soiled their garments, and they will walk with me in white, for they are worthy.
14"And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: ... 15"'I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! 16So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth. 17 For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing, not realizing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked. 18I counsel you to buy from me gold refined by fire, so that you may be rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself and the shame of your nakedness may not be seen, and salve to anoint your eyes, so that you may see. 19 Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline, so be zealous and repent.

In each case, God is eager to warn these congregations of impending punishment, and in each case tells them to repent before it's too late. This only makes sense if these are genuine Christians who have grown cold, for the language will not allow any sort of reading that entails they were never truly Christian. For example, the warning often starts out by saying they are doing certain things pleasing to God, which is impossible if they're non-Christians. There are references to "abandoning" their first love, God's servants being "seduced" into immorality, people who have not "soiled their garments," and those who are "lukewarm" rather than purely evil. 

Traditionalist Thoughts on Women's Head-Coverings (with an interesting tie-in to Sola Scriptura)

One very unpopular (and thus often forgotten about) subject that has recently caught my attention is the Christian teaching on head-coverings for women. This subject is unpopular because the underlying subject matter is so repugnant to our modern culture. I have always thought the practice of head-coverings was pious and traditional, but mostly done for reasons of modesty and aesthetics. Most males are aware of how distracting and (unfortunately) tempting it can be when women dress immodestly for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. But recently I found out there was more to the practice, much more, which touched upon very relevant theological matters.

The practice of women wearing head-coverings goes all the way back to the earliest days of the Church. Though I was aware that St Paul spoke on the practice, I didn't realize the context from which he was framing his lesson was theological.

Did John Calvin believe in "double imputation"?

The more I study historical Protestant documents, I continue to be amazed at how often later generations of Protestants depart from what the Pretend Reformers originally taught. A few months ago I was investigating a quote by a popular Reformed professor claiming Calvin taught the "imputation of Christ's Active Obedience" - yet when I examined the quote in detail and context, it seemed quite clear Calvin did not believe in such a thing.

I just happened to be reading another important passage in Calvin's Institutes (Book 3: Chapter 11) - the chapter which he speaks most 'definitively' on the doctrine of Justification - and was struck by the fact Calvin appears to never have believed in "double imputation" (which would make sense if he didn't believe in Christ's "Active Obedience"). Rather than stating justification consists in the imputation of Christ's Active Obedience to us and our sins being imputed to Christ, as 'traditional' Reformed orthodoxy would have it, it appears Calvin limited justification to the forgiveness of sins only. And the most interesting thing I found is that Calvin's own arguments can be used to refute Confessional Reformed soteriology.

Introduction to Traditionalism

The purpose of this post is to give an introduction to what it means to be a "traditionalist" Catholic. Unfortunately, the term "traditionalist" today is widely misunderstood, often signifying rash judgmentalism and disdain for all things less than perfect. In reality, this misunderstanding stems from ignorance (on all sides) and a sad (recent) history of mistreatment traditionalists. The truth is, traditionalism is nothing more than true and orthodox Catholicism (it's not technically it's own "category" or "brand" of Catholicism), since traditionalism seeks to promote and preserve what is in fact genuine Catholic teaching and heritage. A list of basic "traditionalist" teachings will help give the reader a better understanding:

• Plenary inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture; there are no historical, scientific, or theological errors anywhere in Scripture (the only so-called "exception" are minor copyist errors, which are a different issue). Many today are of the heretical camp known as "Modernists" and "Liberals" who cannot accept the idea the Bible is really inspired and thus contains no error, especially since they are of the impression difficulties in the Bible are most logically taken to be actual errors and myths. Unfortunately, these Liberals have entrenched themselves in high enough places as to keep many people confused about the Church's actual (and dogmatic) stance on the subject.

• The "Traditional Latin Mass" is an eternal treasure and ideal form of Liturgical worship for the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. When Pope Benedict issued the Motu Proprio allowing any priest to say the TLM, he made it clear in his Accompanying Letter: "In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful." The main complaint "traditionalists" have with the "New Mass" (Novus Ordo) created in 1970 by Paul VI is not in regards to it's validity - the New Mass is certainly valid since the Church cannot promulgate invalid Sacraments, and it offers to God the eternal glory of Christ's Sacrifice (so anyone who says otherwise is actually in heresy) - the 'issue' is that this mass was not part of a liturgical heritage that has been passed down and perfected through 'organic development', but rather the invention of a modern liturgical committee who basically invented a mass on the spot and with a very limited outlook (and some even say with malicious intent). The content of the "old Mass" has been perfected over time to express all the important and unique facets that define us as Catholics, while much of these prayers and gestures and music have been tossed, forgotten, or downplayed in the "new Mass," with a sad loss of heritage and richness of prayer and theology. To hate the TLM, which many liberals (sadly) do - precisely because it is 'too Catholic' for them - is to hate your Catholic heritage and even implicit cooperation with the powers who hate Catholicism and seek to undermine it.

• Every doctrine authoritatively taught in prior Councils and Encyclicals and such is still to be held and maintained today. In other words, no official doctrines have been changed or abandoned, no matter how 'unpopular', 'inconvenient', or what any dissident Catholic says (no matter their authority level). Too often, there are many 'inconvenient truths' of Catholicism - which the Church has maintained regardless of opposition - are those that many today have a hard time accepting, from the liberal theologian who cannot accept Jesus really Resurrected, to the Catholic politician who wants to divorce their faith from their politics, to mainstream layman in the pews who wants to engage in contraception.

• The centrality of the Dogma of the Social Kingship of Christ in Catholic living. Many Catholics today are unaware of this dogma, which states that Christ is not only king of believers and on "spiritual" matters, but that Jesus is in fact King of every person of every nation and His authority and theology influences every aspect of daily living from recreation to economics to civil law to theology. Many are shocked to hear that Christ is King over subjects like civil law and economics because they are taught the 'right way' to live is by "separating Church and State" - what they don't know is that such an idea is condemned by the Church as heresy and undermines Christ's Kingship. But the logic is plain: how can Christian teachings of faith and morals be divorced from one's legal or economical views? Is it suddenly ok to steal because an economics theory allows it or have abortions because a human court permits it? In such situations, the Apostles teach: "We ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29), meaning God's teachings through the Church trump the teachings of mere human authorities.

• So-called 'little-t' traditions, even if not dogmatic (i.e. 'big-t' Tradition), are none the less very important for maintaining Catholic identity and integrity - in other words, 'little-t' traditions are by no means dispensable, deplorable, or harmful. 'Little-t' traditions are prayers, devotions, art forms, music, etc, that while not absolutely necessary for moral and theological integrity (and can be altered under proper conditions), have been put in place precisely to preserve Catholic identity and culture. For example, the Rosary is a little-t traditional Catholic devotion that is a uniquely Catholic prayer, teaching and fostering uniquely Catholic piety. Externally, little-t tradition is what helps distinguish Catholics from non-Catholics, while internally little-t tradition exists to form the Catholic's mind and soul in how a Catholic is to think and pray. So with the example of the Rosary, while Catholics could abandon this devotion tomorrow without affecting dogma, they would still be negatively affecting Catholic identity and prayer, increasing the risk of Catholic devotion (which sanctifies) being obliterated or replaced by pagan or heretical devotions (which endanger). Another example (of many) is that of holy water, which not only is to help remind us of our Baptismal promises, there are graces attached to the water (by the prayer of the priest), which when used with the proper disposition can cause increase of our sanctification and protection from sin. Sure holy water is not 'necessary' to be Catholic, but it combined with all the other 'little things' adds up to a uniquely Catholic mindset (that in itself fosters sanctification and protection against sin).

Though there are other points that could be made, the above should suffice. Upon examining the above points, many Catholics (especially the younger generation) reading these would already intuitively be in agreement with what was described. In fact, many of these folks would be shocked that such things have to be spelled out, since they're obviously true on their face. The sad reality is, many Catholics are either ignorant of these details, been falsely indoctrinated with errors regarding these things, or are living in defiance of the Church on these matters. This is why traditionalists are marginalized today, because the Truth is never popular, and thus will be attacked by both Satan and those confused or with malicious intent, but the traditionalist path is rewarding and worth it.

In conclusion, it is also worth mentioning that many traditionalists have acted in very uncharitable ways towards their Catholic brothers who are simply not up to speed on traditionalism. This traditionalist triumphalism and arrogance and even verbal attacks have unfortunately scandalized many Catholics, regardless of how 'justified' the traditionalist might have felt. Such an approach is wrong, and does more harm than good. It's an easy mindset for the traditionalist to fall into, but we traditionalists must encourage eachother to not do so. One traditionalist I respect repeatedly emphasized the lack of progress and hypocrisy among many traditionalists was due to the fact they themselves couldn't keep a tight reign on their own sins and weren't themselves working towards an increase in sanctification (James 1:26).

NOTE: So-called "radical traditionalists" (RadTrads) are not really traditionalist or Catholic at all - and must not be confused with traditionalists (as described above) - since RadTrads are characterized as 'radical' precisely because they have indeed gone where no Catholic teaching ever permits, which is to areas like schism from the Pope or even sedevacantism (teaching there has been no Pope for over 50 years).

How to use James 2:24 most effectively.

As everyone is well aware, James 2:24 is a Catholic 'favorite' when it comes to refuting the Protestant heresy known as Sola Fide (i.e. Justification by Faith Alone). What many Protestants and Catholics don't know is that James 2:24 is by no means the only Biblical resource for dealing with Sola Fide, Catholics have many just as effective Biblical texts to deal with that heresy. That said, the purpose of this post is to teach Catholics how to use James 2:24 most effectively, since there are various Protestant "come-backs" to this verse that at first glance might seem plausible. I believe the best method to approach this is to provide a list of bullet points to keep in mind when discussing this verse with Protestants.

• The context of verse 2:24 is James 2:14-26

Many people forget the maxim, "prooftext without context is pretext." In other words, be careful whenever a single verse of Scripture is being presented, because ripped from its context it could actually mean something very different. In this case, the Catholic has nothing to fear because the appeal to verse 24 is taking into consideration not only the immediate context, but the context of James' Epistle as a whole. The context of this Epistle, particularly this pericope, is that of Christians who are not living up to their calling as Christians and rather living as hedonists and materialists. Many Protestants fail to realize this when analyzing 2:24, which ends up making their approach seem more plausible than it actually is. It is very important that the Catholic have read James' Epistle (it's very short and easy to read), and especially be aware of what 2:14-26 says.

• The 'thesis verse' is James 2:14, not James 2:18 (or even 2:24)

Protestants often claim that James is focused upon "showing your faith is genuine," as 2:18 appears to be saying (more on this later), rather than on "getting saved". If one simply examines James' introduction to this lesson, they will see the Protestant approach is incorrect: "What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can [that] faith save him?" The question James is asking is if faith (by itself) will "save" the Christian, meaning the subject very much is getting saved, not proving you are already saved. Since James is talking to "brothers" in Christ, that means they are already believers (James 2:1), so this "save" must be in reference to future salvation rather than conversion (i.e. initial salvation). More importantly, James is asking a question, which he is then going onto answer in verses 2:15-26, so his answer (including verse 24) must be of the same subject matter for it to be coherent and (logically) valid.

• James is speaking of faith "by itself," not "fake faith"

The classical Protestant objection is that James is speaking against 'fake faith', which they define as a "faith" that merely recalls facts but does not really have a conviction in the heart. This faith, they say, being a "non-saving faith," never saves in the first place, and thus fails to produce good works, which then goes to prove the "Christian" was never really saved in the first place. Thus, when a Protestant sees James mention "dead faith" and such, they interpret this as an inherently 'sterile faith' that cannot and never did save. While this might sound plausible, the truth is, it doesn't fit at all with what James is talking about, and thus is a false interpretation. In reality, James is never distinguishing between two 'types' of faith, an inherently "saving faith" versus an inherently "non-saving faith". That categorization is totally unbiblical, and the terminology such as 'saving faith' is nowhere to be found; it's wholly made up. This Protestant error can be demonstrated in various ways, particularly by doing a simple 'substitution' of the term "non-saving faith" into anywhere where James mentions faith. Take verse 14 for example: "Can non-saving faith save him?" Now does that make sense? Is James seriously asking if 'non-saving faith' can save someone? Such a question is absurd and hardly needs 12 verses to explain. Another example, verse 17: "So also non-saving faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead." So is James trying to prove "non-saving faith" doesn't have works and is dead? Is that really something that needs proving? No. This demonstrates the Protestant approach of two types of faith is plainly false.

Given that, James is not speaking ill of faith itself in any way, rather the problem is when good works do not accompany the (already good) faith. Notice the language throughout: "has faith but does not have works," "faith by itself, if it does not have works," "faith apart from works," etc.

• When James says things like "show me your faith," what does that mean?

As noted earlier, in order to get the subject off of salvation, Protestants have to argue the context of James is that of displaying your 'true faith' by the outward manifestation of good works (which, as also noted above, they falsely teach will flow automatically from 'true faith'). Because of this, Protestants become fixated on James 2:18-19, claiming the 'faith of demons' James describes is the 'fake faith' that never saves in the first place and thus will not automatically produce good works. But that is not what James is talking about. The phraseology of "showing" is not that of a visible and public manifestation of good works, but rather that of "proving your argument," as in "show me your argument is valid." (Standard Lexicons even indicate that the Greek word for "show" is used metaphorically for proving an argument.) How is this proven? Because when James says "do you want to be shown," he does not get up before them and perform good works, rather he goes on (in 2:20ff) to use Abraham as an example of James' argument. In other words, James is "showing" by "proving his argument," he is not focused on public manifestation of good works to prove that he possesses 'true faith'. This idea will continue to be built upon as we continue.

• What does James mean by the term "justify"?

As with the previous analysis, Protestants cannot allow the term "Justify" to be speaking of salvation. Given that, when James uses the term "justify," Protestants claim "justify" in this situation means "vindicate" (i.e. prove to be true), rather than "save". Thus when James says a man is "justified by works," Protestants interpret that as "vindicated by works" (i.e. prove themselves to have 'true faith' by the testimony of their works). While the term "justify" can mean vindicate, ultimately context decides this. In this context, remember back to the first point made: the context is 2:14-26, with the thesis being in 2:14, and the subject matter being future salvation. Thus, when James answers his thesis question on salvation, he must be using "justify" as a synonym for "save". To buttress this point, in verse 2:23, James quotes the epitome of 'salvific-justification', Genesis 15:6 (Romans 4:3), meaning James must be on that same subject - else he would be equivocating with the term justify, going from 'vindicate' in v21, to 'save' in v23, and back to 'vindicate' in v24. (Ironically, using their own biased approach Protestants would be hard pressed why Paul is not using "justify" to mean "vindicate" (rather than "save") in places like Romans 4.)

• The example of Abraham being 'justified by works'

At this point, it is clear that Protestants would consider the example of Abraham being 'justified by works' a lesson in how Abraham proved to his fellow believers that he had true faith. Again, the Catholic must keep in mind that all of this is a grand Protestant assumption, by no means proven. But more importantly, this grand assumption goes directly against the following facts:

(a) James is referencing the famous event of Genesis 22, where Abraham was to sacrifice Isaac, yet in this very situation, it was God Who commanded Abraham to do this and it was to be done before God alone (always reference Gen 22:1-2, 9-12), which is why Abraham told his helpers to stay behind (Gen 22:5). If James were thinking as a Protestant here, he picked the worst possible example, for this is the anti-thesis of doing one's works before men. Rather, this is about being justified before God, the very thing the Protestant is trying to get away from.

(b) The event of Genesis 22 happened years after the event of Genesis 15:6 (which James also quotes). If James is trying to prove good works automatically flow from the person who has "true faith," he again picked the worst example, for here the prime example of a good work doesn't flow from Abraham for many years later! This can only mean the Protestant assumption again fails.

(c) If James were discussing the nature of 'true faith' versus 'fake faith', why did he use Genesis 15:6 as his prime example? Who on earth would dare question whether Abraham's faith was genuine or not? The text plainly says Abraham's faith found favor with God, who are we or anyone else to question the validity of this? Does Abraham really need to "prove" his faith is genuine? Hardly. Again, the Protestant case doesn't make sense.

(d) James 2:22-23 indicates Abraham's faith was "active with works" and "completed by works," and that Abraham's work (sacrificing Isaac) fulfilled a Scriptural prophecy encapsulated in Genesis 15:6. In other words, Genesis 15:6 doesn't stand alone, it's has a 'fulfillment'! And to buttress this, this is what the pre-Christian Jews understood as well. For example, in 1 Maccabees 2:52 (an Old Testament book Catholics accept as Scripture but Protestants reject) says: "Was not Abraham found faithful in temptation, and it was reputed to him unto justice?" In case you missed it, Maccabees describes the Sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham using the the exact same language ("credited to him as righteousness," "reputed to him unto justice") as Genesis 15:6, including in the Greek (LXX) translation! Many people don't know that.

• Understanding the meaning of James 2:24, "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."

We finally come to the most important verse, and with everything that's been established so far, we can be very confident that the Protestant approach has no merit (and even undermines the sacred text), while the Catholic approach is the only one that harmonizes everything. As with the previous points, God has Providentially inspired this text to be phrased in such a way as to stifle any attempts at twisting it's true meaning (i.e. that the believer can increase in their justification before God by doing good works). The first detail to focus upon is that James is concluding his argument in verse 24 (which he introduced in verse 14) with "you see" (i.e. the thesis is proved). Second, the term "justify" here is distributive, that is it applies twice, once to works and once to faith, and holds the same definition in each case (else it would be equivocation). Thus, when examining the way the verse is phrased, the subject is between works "justifying" and faith (alone) not "justifying," yet if one injects "non-saving faith" into this passage, the argument becomes nonsense: who ever suggested a man is justified by non-saving faith? Or if the Protestant take is to render it as "vindicated," the nonsense remains: James would be "proving" a man is not vindicated by a "fake faith" that by definition doesn't vindicate. Third, the term "alone" here is not an adjective modifying the noun "faith" such as if creating a unique type of faith called "Faith Alone," but rather an adverb modifying the verb "justified." In other words, it is more accurately translated "faith only" rather than "faith alone". Thus, when 'expanding' the original verse, James 2:24 is really saying: a man is justified not only by faith, but also [justified] by works. Astonishingly, some Protestants actually suggest this indicates James is speaking of two types of justification, not realizing he uses the term "justify" once and that it's equivocation to assume he is using the same word to mean "save" once and in the same breath using it again to mean "vindicate".

• A final but necessary detail: James 2:26, "For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead."

The analogy James gives is sheer brilliance, for it is impossible to miss his point: he is not speaking of two 'kinds' of faith, a fake and a real, but rather only one kind of faith under two 'modes' ('living' or 'dead'). If the Protestant interpretation were correct, James would have to be making a comparison between a fake body and a real body! Faith in itself is good, but apart from good works (e.g. sin, James 2:15-17), the faith 'dies' and no longer saves. This is why Catholics teach Faith only justifies that is 'animated' by Hope and Love (cf. 1 Cor 13:2, 13; Galatians 5:6), otherwise it's belief only (which is good in itself, but not enough). Protestants teach that "true faith" automatically will be accompanied by Hope and Love, but faith is all that's needed for justification (i.e. Hope and Love are incidentally present, essentially just to prove the faith is of the 'real' variety). The Protestant picture, while sounding good, is actually unbiblical and based on various theological errors.

• Does the Catholic reading of James 2:24 contradict Paul (in, e.g., Rom 4:2-3)?

The answer is no, and the reasoning is easy: the "works" Paul was speaking against were "works of the [Mosaic] Law" (Rom 3:28ff, 4:9ff), while James was speaking of good works done in union with Christ. (NB: sacrificing one's son isn't even a commandment of the Mosaic Law.) Protestants often miss this simple 'solution' because they refuse to categorically distinguish between "works of the Mosaic Law" and good works in general, done in union with Christ - the 'works' are not the same.

To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant

Many people are aware that the title for this post comes from a statement made by the Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman, convert to Catholicism from Anglicanism. The sentiment being expressed is that you will not find any reasonable historical testimony in the Early Church Fathers (ECFs) for uniquely "Protestant doctrines." While Protestants might accept various early church teachings, such as the Divinity of Christ, in virtually every case Catholics accept that teaching as well. But the reverse is not true: there are many "Catholic teachings" found in the ECFs that Protestants not only do not accept, they contradict central dogmas of Protestantism (e.g. Sola Fide).

A popular form of 'damage control' Protestants use in response to this damning realization is to turn around and point to a few doctrines they believe don't have sufficient historical testimony and use that to say the Catholic Church must be false. This approach fails on two main grounds: (a) it doesn't get the Protestant out of the fact they are embracing a radically ahistorical Christian outlook, and (b) when looking at the 'big picture', that is all doctrines, the overall testimony of the ECFs shows the early Church to be very Catholic. Thus, for a Protestant to be fixated on something like the historical testimony for the Immaculate Conception, claiming it was not taught, and use that as their major criteria for rejecting/refuting Catholicism is a distortion of the big picture. No Catholic claims each and every doctrine has the same level of historical testimony, or even that some doctrines are not as well attested to as others; that doesn't mean we cannot form a reasonably solid conclusion on which Christian group today is best candidate for "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church".


Consider the following list of doctrines I quickly put together (there are others that I've not included), which I believe far, far more strongly testifies the ECFs were Catholic than Protestant:

Soteriology:
Almost no ECF testimony for Eternal Security, Imputation of Christ’s Active Obedience, The Father pouring out His Wrath on the Son at the Cross, Receiving Christ’s Righteousness by Faith, categorizing Justification as Forensic, etc.
On the flip side, there is clear ECF testimony for losing salvation by sin, the reality of Free Will, Justification via internal transformation, salvation by ‘works’ (i.e. entering Heaven based on your good or bad works), saving grace being available to all men, church imposed penances for falling into sin, etc (All of these latter concepts are very Catholic, but the former ones Protestants teach are essential for holding to the "true Gospel".)

The Bible:
I don’t know of a single ECF who espoused the Protestant Canon or who taught we go around determining canonicity the way the Westminster Confession teaches. There are ECFs who taught the Catholic Canon, and the rest who had a ‘mixed canon’ lean Catholic because they never totally excluded the "Deutero-Canonical" books. (Protestantism teaches the Church cannot even function without the proper canon of Scripture.)

Ecclesiology:
There is clear Patristic testimony for the three-fold (i.e. distinct) offices of Deacon, Priest, and Bishop. Clear evidence for the binding authority of Ecumenical Councils, for Apostolic Succession (rather than self-appointment), a hierarchy among bishops (with strong examples of the Bishop of Rome being at the top of the list), for the Church and/or diocese having the power to impose disciplinary practices, and encouragement for things such as celibacy and the ascetic lifestyle. (All of these are uniquely Catholic but anathema to Protestant ears.)

Worship:
There is clear evidence of the Mass being seen as a Sacrifice, the Bread and Wine being seen as really Christ (even if you want to dispute transubstantiation), Sunday being the normative day of worship (not any day you feel like it), and a structured Liturgy for each region. Further, there are prayers for the dead, veneration of Saint’s Relics, use of images, etc. Clear veneration of Mary as “Mother of God” and Perpetual Virgin, Infant Baptism, Baptismal Regeneration (including interpreting John 3:5 and Titus 3:5 as proof), and clear testimony against divorce and remarriage. (As with the other teachings, these sound much more Catholic than Protestant, with many of them being anathema to Protestant ears.)

The above list of teachings is a good example of what it means to look at the 'big picture', and this is how one should approach any Protestant challenge on the subject.

Now, to take that whole list and go trumpeting around a few doctrines and why this or that ECF didn't teach the doctrine - as if that’s the ‘big picture’ - is a distortion of the situation. On any such ‘disputed’ items, what a Protestant might consider weak evidence can be seen as sufficient evidence by Catholics in light of the strong testimony for the ‘big picture’ coming off far more Catholic than Protestant.

If a Protestant wants to respond to the overwhelming fact the ECFs come off sounding far, far more Catholic than Protestant by saying “so what,” that’s their right, but it’s also an admission of a radical ahistorical paradigm their ‘church’ is embracing. This radically ahistorical paradigm is where the concept of “to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant” comes from.

Why William Webster's Justification Aritlcle is not Scriptural.

Reformed Apologist William Webster has an articled titled, "The Biblical Teaching of Justification," in which he seeks to prove his Calvinist views on justification are correct, while refuting and exposing Catholic claims to the contrary. Since Webster has a lot of respect in Reformed apologetics, I thought it necessary and important to confront his errors. Since his article is so long, I will only focus on the portions I believe are most relevant and most erroneous.

Did Calvin believe in Christ's Active Obedience?

I've been encountering more and more Calvinists who claim John Calvin taught the concept of Christ's "Active Obedience," and quoting Calvin's Institutes, Book 2, Chapter 16, Section 5.

One such proponent of this claim was a Reformed apologist and professor, Dr R. Scott Clark, on his blog (Here). Though Clark puts special emphasis on Calvin's use of the phrase "whole course of his obedience," and "whole life of Christ," and "obedience that he manifested in his life," I think Clark is unwittingly putting words into Calvin's mouth and committing a word-concept fallacy. In short, Clark mistakenly thinks that just because Calvin uses the term "obedience," including modifiers such as "whole" and "life," that Calvin must be speaking of Christ's "active obedience" (so called).

To further buttress his argument, Clark plainly admits (in the comments section) that:

What is essential here is that Christ did not come to qualify himself to be a Savior. Note how Calvin treated Christ’s obedience as if it were for us (that’s a crucial Protestant theme) not for himself. Those who denied IAO typically (following Anselm) assume that Christ owed obedience for himself, in order to qualify himself to be a Savior on the cross. This wasn’t the framework within which Calvin interpreted Christ’s life and death.

Basically, Clark denies this "obedience" prior to Good Friday was dealing with Christ having to "qualify" as a worthy and spotless Sacrificial Lamb, and Clark even claims Calvin denied this as well.

Given this, I think it's important to look at the Calvin quote ourselves, but since it is so long I will only quote portions of it (with my own emphasis and highlights).

When it is asked then how Christ, by abolishing sin, removed the enmity between God and us, and purchased a righteousness which made him favourable and kind to us, it may be answered generally, that he accomplished this by the whole course of his obedience. This is proved by the testimony of Paul, “As by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous,” (Rom. 5:19). And indeed he elsewhere extends the ground of pardon which exempts from the curse of the law to the whole life of Christ, “When the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law,” (Gal. 4:4, 5). Thus even at his baptism he declared that a part of righteousness was fulfilled [Mt 3:15] by his yielding obedience to the command of the Father. In short, from the moment when he assumed the form of a servant, he began, in order to redeem us, to pay the price of deliverance. Scripture, however, the more certainly to define the mode of salvation, ascribes it peculiarly and specially to the death of Christ. ... [Calvin then quotes various passages of Scripture,  Mt. 20:28; Rom. 4:25; John 1:29; Rom. 3:25; Rom. 5:9; 2 Cor. 5:21] ... In the Confession of Faith, called the Apostles’ Creed, the transition is admirably made from the birth of Christ to his death and resurrection, in which the completion of a perfect salvation consists. Still there is no exclusion of the other part of obedience which he performed in life. Thus Paul comprehends, from the beginning even to the end, his having assumed the form of a servant, humbled himself, and become obedient to death, even the death of the cross (Phil. 2:7). And, indeed, the first step in obedience was his voluntary subjection; for the sacrifice would have been unavailing to justification if not offered spontaneously. Hence our Lord, after testifying, “I lay down my life for the sheep,” distinctly adds, “No man taketh it from me,” (John 10:15, 18). ...  We must bear in minds that Christ could not duly propitiate God without renouncing his own feelings and subjecting himself entirely to his Father’s will. To this effect the Apostle appositely quotes a passage from the Psalms, “Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me) to do thy will, O God,” (Heb. 10:5; Ps. 40:7, 8). Thus, as trembling consciences find no rest without sacrifice and ablution by which sins are expiated, we are properly directed thither, the source of our life being placed in the death of Christ. ...  He therefore suffered under Pontius Pilate, being thus, by the formal sentence of the judge, ranked among criminals, and yet he is declared innocent by the same judge, when he affirms that he finds no cause of death in him. Our acquittal is in this that the guilt which made us liable to punishment was transferred to the head of the Son of God (Is. 53:12). We must specially remember this substitution in order that we may not be all our lives in trepidation and anxiety, as if the just vengeance which the Son of God transferred to himself, were still impending over us.

When examining this quote, the first thing to keep in mind is that throughout all this, Calvin is commenting, line by line, on the Apostles' Creed. In the section Clark quoted, Calvin was focused upon the part of the Creed relating to Christ's birth, suffering under Pilate, and death. Notice how nothing in the Creed comes anywhere close to advocating "active obedience."

With that in mind, you'll notice how Calvin is exclusively focused on Christ's suffering in all this, nothing about "keeping the Law in our place," consigning his use of "obedience" entirely to Christ's suffering. All Calvin is saying is that Christ's suffering for us began at His birth.

The next thing to realize is that Calvin quoted many famous alleged "active obedience" proof texts from Scripture (which I highlighted in bold), notably Rom 5:19, Gal 4:4-5, Mat 3:15, and 2 Cor 5:21, yet Calvin clearly isn't interpreting them in terms of "active obedience"!

The final thing to take note of is that Calvin explicitly says, "the first step in obedience was his voluntary subjection; for the sacrifice would have been unavailing to justification if not offered spontaneously" and a bit later, "We must bear in minds that Christ could not duly propitiate God without renouncing his own feelings and subjecting himself entirely to his Father’s will." What Calvin explicitly affirms here is precisely what Clark explicitly denied Calvin (and Reformed) as teaching: that Christ's obedience prior to the Cross was precisely to qualify Him as a worthy Sacrifice.

I'd say the lesson to take away from this is twofold. First, that Dr Clark didn't accurately represent Calvin's view and words on Christ's obedience (which Calvin limited to passive obedience only), at least not in this quote. Second, that if Calvin truly believed in "active obedience," which is so critical to Reformed theology, then surely he'd have spoken clearly about this ultra critical concept elsewhere in his Institutes (which folks like Clark could then readily quote from).

BLOG ALERT - Spam problem - READ

Something disturbing happened today, about an hour ago. There is a major spam problem out there as many know, and Google/Blogger have done what they can to get rid of it. Unfortunately, Google/Blogger's system sometimes targets innocent Blogs/Accounts. This happened to me.  When I went to my blog, the page said the blog was locked/removed, without any links or process for me to get it back.

As you can guess, I was in a panic, and quickly sought a solution. It turns out, the "best" solutions were very confusing and circular, only compounding my worry. Luckily, when I logged into Gmail about 15 min later, a Gmail alert told me suspicious activity was detected and I needed to confirm my identity by entering my cellphone number. This worked and unlocked everything. Thank God.

I urge you to be aware of this, don't panic as I did, and back up your work elsewhere.
Also, as the Bible says: "Don't put your faith in men," which would be extended to include not trusting technology to "save" what is important to you. I learned today I trust technology too much, which is something I should strive to correct.

List of teachings Protestants cannot agree upon due to Sola Scriptura.

The following is a 'open' list of teachings (subject to further expansion) which Protestants cannot agree upon due to the doctrinal relativism caused by Sola Scriptura. Though many Protestants today would "solve" this problem by tossing a lot of these into the "non-essential" category, I believe the doctrinal issues I've mentioned have been clearly seen to cause division among Protestants:

1. Once Saved Always Saved
2. Universal versus Limited Atonement
3. Infant Baptism
4. Form of Baptism (e.g. full immersion vs pouring)
5. Whether Baptism is necessary in ordinary circumstances
6. Whether the Lord's Supper is purely symbolic or some sort of 'real' presence
7. Divorce and Remarriage
8. Whether icons/pictures of Christ are allowed
9. Which doctrines are perspicuous/essential
10. Whether Charismatic Gifts of the Spirit have ceased
11. Whether instruments are allowed in church
12. Female ordination
13. The "biblical" form of church government
14. Sunday versus any day worship / Whether the Sabbath is still in force in some sense.
15. House churches versus dedicated congregational churches
16. Dispensationalism
17. Rapture/Tribulation
18. Imputed Active Obedience
19. Whether traditional categories like Person/Nature are true/valid
20. Mary being "Mother of God"
21. Mary's Perpetual Virginity
22. Whether Inspiration of Scripture is plenary or limited to faith and morals
23. Whether one can/should pray to the Holy Spirit
24. Whether Sola Scriptura applied during the time of Christ and the Apostles
25. How to define/understand Sola Scriptura, especially as it relates to Creeds and Councils
26. Should Christians engage in politics, civil service, etc. 
27. Whether Christians should pray the Our Father
28. Whether prayer should be only spontaneous
29. Whether keeping the Commandments is necessary for salvation
30. Whether illness, suffering, poverty, etc, are due to sin or lack of faith
31. Whether Free Will and Double Predestination are true or not
32. Whether Mark 16:9-20, John 8:1-11, etc, are actually part of Scripture
33. Which translation of Scripture should be normative (e.g. KJV)
34. Which Protestant denominations are to be considered "Christian"

Feel free to mention some other examples in the comment box!

An array of Reformed tetimony of the ahistorical nature of Sola Scriptura

The following are quotes from well known Protestant Apologists teaching publicly on the subject of Sola Scriptura and admitting the ahistorical nature of it:

• James White: The main element of [Catholic apologist] Mr. Ray’s misrepresentation of sola scriptura can be seen in just this: the doctrine speaks of a rule of faith that exists. What do I mean by this? One will search high and low for any reference in any standard Protestant confession of faith that says, “There has never been a time when God’s Word was proclaimed and transmitted orally.” You will never find anyone saying, “During times of enscripturation—that is, when new revelation was being given—sola scriptura was operational.” Protestants do not assert that sola scriptura is a valid concept during times of revelation. How could it be, since the rule of faith to which it points was at that very time coming into being? One must have an existing rule of faith to say it is “sufficient.” It is a canard to point to times of revelation and say, “See, sola scriptura doesn’t work there!” Of course it doesn’t. Who said it did? (Source) 

•  William Webster: The sixteenth century Reformation was responsible for restoring to the Church the principle of sola Scriptura, a principle that had been operative within the Church from the very beginning of the post apostolic age. Initially the apostles taught orally, but with the close of the apostolic age, all special revelation that God wanted preserved for man was codified in the written Scriptures. Sola Scriptura is the teaching, founded on the Scriptures themselves, that there is only one special revelation from God that man possesses today, the written Scriptures or the Bible. (Source)

 

• Joe Mizzi: Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone) is the doctrine that the Holy Bible, being the Word of God, is the only infallible rule of faith and practice for Christians in the post-apostolic age. (Source)

 

• R.C. Spoul Junior: The Bible does not have specific text that suggests that the Bible alone is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice. ... ... Sola Scriptura is a biblical doctrine not because the Bible says so. That would be a tautology- the kind of argument we find in that collection of lies the Book of Mormon. Instead the Bible is our alone final authority because it alone is the Word of God. (Source)

 

• John Piper: Beware of imputing advantage to antiquity. Seventy years after the death of Jesus the churches had neither the collected New Testament nor a living apostle. It was a precarious and embattled time. Neither the experiences nor the teachers of the first 300 years of the church are as reliable as the finished New Testament. The church did not rescue the New Testament from neglect and abuse. The New Testament rescued the early church from instability and error. We are in a better position today to know Jesus Christ than anyone who lived from AD 100 to 300. They had only parts of the New Testament rather than the collected whole. That’s how valuable the fullness of revelation is in the finished Bible. Beware of idealizing the early church. She did not have your advantages! (Source) 

 

• John MacArthur: Jude 3 is a crucial passage on the completeness of our Bibles. This statement, penned by Jude before the New Testament was complete, nevertheless looked forward to the completion of the entire canon: Beloved, while I was making every effort to write to you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. ... ... Also important in Jude 3 is the word "delivered." In the Greek it is an aorist passive participle, which in this context indicates an act completed in the past with no continuing element. In this instance the passive voice means the faith was not discovered by men, but given to men by God. How did He do that? Through His Word--the Bible. And so through the Scriptures God has given us a body of teaching that is final and complete. (Source) 

 

• John H. Armstrong: Further, no true advocate of the supreme and final authority of Scripture would assert that the immediate hearers of the preaching of Jesus, or the apostles, were free to pick and choose what they would submit to since they did not receive it in written form. What is asserted in believing that Scripture alone has final and full authority is this: God revealed His Word orally and temporarily through prophets and apostles and then subsequently through the inscripturated text. Oral communication, in this post-apostolic era, is powerful precisely because it relies so faithfully on the "more certain" word of Scripture itself. Thus we conclude, with the Apostle, himself a faithful preacher, "Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ" (Romans 10:17). (Source)

 

• Robert Godfrey: [Catholics] will try to say that the phrase “the Word of God” can mean more than just the Bible. I have already granted that. The question before us is whether today anything other than the Scriptures is necessary to know the truth of God for salvation. The Scripture texts I have cited show that nothing else is needed. Our opponents need to show not that Paul referred to his preaching as well as his writing as the Word of God — I grant that; they need to show that Paul taught that the oral teaching of the apostles would be needed to supplement the Scriptures for the Church through the ages. They cannot show that because Paul did not teach that, and the Scriptures as a whole do not teach that! (Source)

 

• Greg Bahnsen: The Word of God, which was originally delivered orally, needed to be reduced to writing in order for the rest of God’s people to know about it and for it to function as an objective standard for faith and obedience. Where God had spoken by personal address orally, if that was going to be a standard for the Church at large (for all of God’s people), that oral instruction (as authoritative as it was in itself) needed to be reduced to writing so that it would be an objective standard that governed all of God’s people... God’s Word needed to be inscripturated to govern His people through all generations. (Source)

 

Why are these admissions so significant? Because in each case the Protestant is admitting that Sola Scriptura was not practiced in the Apostolic age of the Church; the Apostles didn't go around teaching Christians to engage in Sola Scriptura in word or epistle. Why? Because, as the above quotes show, the full canon of Scripture didn't exist at the time, making the practice of Sola Scriptura functionally impossible. It would be like saying we can write a dictionary (a 'word bible' so to speak) without first having and knowing all 26 letters of the alphabet. To read "Sola Scriptura" into any passage of Scripture would be anachonistic by definition. Thus, whether these well respected Protestant preachers truly realize it or not, by their own logic Sola Scriptura is unbiblical, ahistorical, and unapostolic.

John MacArthur fails to "deliver" on Sola-Scriptura

One of today's most outspoken and harshest critics of Catholicism is Reformed pastor and televangelist John MacArthur. Unfortunately, I think he spends too much time and effort condemning Catholics without actually backing up his words. But even when he does back up his accusations, this brief article will show just how absurd (and sometimes embarrassing) his attempts at refuting Catholicism can get. This article will focus on MacArthur's claim to uphold Sola Scriptura in the midst of his attempts to discredit Catholicism. Two relatively recent articles on his official webpage (each from 2009) are "Does God Still Give Revelation?" and "Scripture, Tradition, and Rome, Part 3" (which is the most important of the 3-part series). I will quote from each of those apologetics articles, highlight key phrases, and comment upon any points I believe are worth addressing.

1914 - A House Built on Sand (Jehovah's Witnesses)

Anyone who has ever had any interaction with a Jehovah's Witness (JW) will likely have noticed the extraordinary emphasis they place on the year 1914A.D. This is because this date is foundational to their whole existence. In this year, the JWs claim Jesus was installed as King in Heaven, which ushered in 'the end times' of the world, and was "confirmed" by the outbreak of World War I. (Though the JWs have revised their position a few times on just what would happen this year, the date has remained the same.) The JW's entire claim to power is that they were the only ones to correctly predict this date, based on "properly" interpreting Bible "prophecy," and as a result, their leaders were officially awarded by God the status of "Governing Body" (GB).

The GB is also termed The Watchtower Society, and is to be thought of as God's official spokesmen and teacher for all true Christians - akin to the Catholic Magisterium (though the GB is an impostor). The implications are clear: if the GB is genuinely God's official Spokesman for believers, then all Christians have a duty to accept and submit to everything they teach. Thus, a JW who comes to accept the GB will logically trust whatever the GB teaches over and above that of a non-JW interpretation of Scripture. With that in mind, arguing any given doctrine with the JW is essentially a very steep, up-hill battle, since they often wont even consider the reasonableness of a Christian's claims (the JWs are technically non-Christians) or be open to any non-JW literature at all. 


Those who have friends or relatives entrapped in this non-Christian organization should also realize that the primary (and very effective) means of controlling members is by a strict rule of shunning that goes on in this organization, so to even question the GB will often end up resulting in an ex-JW being sternly shunned by his parents, family, and friends. This fear-mongering is an added level of "security" that the Christian apologist must carefully navigate so as to not scare away any potential planting of seeds of hope in the JW's mind. While you should never speak openly of this reality to JWs (who are already worried enough), you must keep it in the forefront of your mind. Without saying it, you should always give off the impression you are their friend and that they can speak to you should they ever leave the Watchtower. (I've even been told by ex-JWs that, as a JW rule of thumb, they are taught that if a Christian tells them something that "makes sense," it's the devil trying to deceive them.)

The most effective way to plant seeds in the JW's mind is to undermine the credibility of the Governing Body by focusing on their dishonesty, since an organization built on lies cannot be operating in God's favor. It's no secret to anyone who has studied up on the JWs will know that there is no shortage of lies and errors in their teachings (e.g. see here). Given that the whole basis for their existence rests on the year 1914A.D., that is a particularly important doctrine to focus on.

It is very important that all such apologetics be based on official JW literature, this ensures that the JW you are speaking with will trust the source. A great source is the JW book "What does the Bible Really Teach?," it is an important book the JWs issued to be mass-produced for potential seekers to get an "introduction" to their teachings. Appendix 10 of that book is entitled "1914 - A Significant Year in Bible Prophecy," which will now be used to examine the JW reasoning for this calculation.

The following are key points behind this doctrine, as taken directly from that Appendix (red highlights by me to indicate key points):

• As recorded at Luke 21:24, Jesus said: “Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations, until the appointed times of the nations [“the times of the Gentiles,” King James Version] are fulfilled.” Jerusalem had been the capital city of the Jewish nation—the seat of rulership of the line of kings from the house of King David.

• How and when, though, did God’s rulership begin to be “trampled on by the nations”? This happened in 607 B.C.E. when Jerusalem was conquered by the Babylonians. 

• The ‘trampling’ would end when Jesus became King. When would that grand event occur? Jesus showed that the Gentiles would rule for a fixed period of time. The account in Daniel chapter 4 holds the key to knowing how long that period would last. It relates a prophetic dream experienced by King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. He saw an immense tree that was chopped down. Its stump could not grow because it was banded with iron and copper. An angel declared: “Let seven times pass over it.”—Daniel 4:10-16.

• Revelation 12:6, 14 indicates that three and a half times equal “a thousand two hundred and sixty days.” “Seven times” would therefore last twice as long, or 2,520 days. But the Gentile nations did not stop ‘trampling’ on God’s rulership a mere 2,520 days after Jerusalem’s fall. Evidently, then, this prophecy covers a much longer period of time. On the basis of Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6, which speak of “a day for a year,” the “seven times” would cover 2,520 years.  

• The 2,520 years began in October 607 B.C.E., when Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians and the Davidic king was taken off his throne. The period ended in October 1914. At that time, “the appointed times of the nations” ended, and Jesus Christ was installed as God’s heavenly King.* [*From October 607 B.C.E. to October 1 B.C.E. is 606 years. Since there is no zero year, from October 1 B.C.E. to October 1914 C.E. is 1,914 years. By adding 606 years and 1,914 years, we get 2,520 years.]

Now to examine these points to see if they are Biblically accurate and logically sound:

1) Luke 21:24 needs to be read in context, and I quote from the JW's official (but corrupt) New World Translation Bible (highlights by me):

20 “Furthermore, when YOU see Jerusalem surrounded by encamped armies, then know that the desolating of her has drawn near. 21 Then let those in Ju·de´a begin fleeing to the mountains, and let those in the midst of her withdraw, and let those in the country places not enter into her; 22 because these are days for meting out justice, that all the things written may be fulfilled. 23 Woe to the pregnant women and the ones suckling a baby in those days! For there will be great necessity upon the land and wrath on this people; 24 and they will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations, until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled. (Luke 21:20-24 NWT)

Taken plainly, Jesus is predicting a future event, not a past event that is still unfolding during His very lifetime! Some time after Jesus teaches this, Jerusalem will be surrounded by armies, the inhabitants will begin fleeing, since those days will see Jerusalem being sacked and the inhabitants will be tortured and will be led captive.


Given all this, the first two points of JW reasoning above are quite dubious, for not only did they rip Luke 21:24 out of context (not even quoting the full verse), they apply this to a 600 year old past event that was still unfolding even throughout Jesus' own lifetime. The JWs are mixing history here, falsely applying this future event to the Babylonian sacking of Jerusalem hundreds of years earlier, to which the Jews had already long returned and settled back into Jerusalem and even built the Second Temple there which lasted until 70AD. A far more objective and balanced interpretation is given in the Haydock Biblical Commentary on Luke 21, verse 24:

Whoever reads Josephus's history of the calamities which befell Jerusalem before its destruction, will find none of these terrible menaces unfulfilled. Seventy thousand were carried away captives in this war. After the soldiers were weary of killing, Titus ordered the finest of the young men to be kept to adorn his triumph.  ... After Jerusalem had been taken and destroyed by the Romans, another city was built from its ruins, called Ælia, after the name of the emperor Ælius Adrian. This was inhabited by pagans and some Christians for the Jews were forbidden even to come near it, for more than two or three centuries. Tertullian informs us, that they even bought, at a great price, permission to see it at a distance, and drop a tear over the ashes of their ancient and ill-fated country. Thus was Jerusalem trodden under foot, till the time of the nations was accomplished; that is, till Christianity, in every nation, had triumphed over the persecution of paganism.

This, to me, is a very plausible fulfillment of Christ's prophecy and warning, and fits the teachings of this chapter. Whether there is another fulfillment of this in the future is unclear, but I wouldn't rule it out without further examination.

The next problematic statement is the JW claim that "607 B.C.E." is "when Jerusalem was conquered by the Babylonians." Where do the JWs come up with this figure? Not from Scripture, for Scripture doesn't give us such dates. Rather, this date is derived from purely secular documents and fragments of documents, each with their own level of uncertainty and questionability. It's not a stretch to say God wouldn't have left believers guessing or relying on such "evidence" to derive such a critical date, especially when such scholarship didn't even exist until about 100 years ago! And worse yet, the very secular scholars who the JWs rely on for this date in fact give a different date for the conquering of Jerusalem by the Babylonians at approximately 587BC. But the JWs wont have any of this, and dogmatically stick with 607BC because that's what's needed to make their math "work". Any reasonable individual would note that God wouldn't have us rely on dates established by such guesswork, and reason tells us all ancient dates are approximate at best.

Moving on, the JWs say: "The ‘trampling’ would end when Jesus became King." This statement contains two serious problems: (1) nowhere does Luke 21 or any other passage say this; and (2) Jesus is already King (e.g. the sign posted on the Cross says Jesus was King of the Jews, and Matthew 28:18 says "all authority in Heaven and Earth has been given to me"). The JWs virtually invented this (and the other requirements) out of thin air, and such claims are wholly bogus. (This "installment as King" is part of their modifying their account of just what was to take place in 1914A.D., since it originally was to mark Christ's Second Coming, which they now say is simply Christ's "invisible presence," but that's for another time.)

Just when you thought things couldn't get any more weird, the JWs jump to Daniel 4, to Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar's dream, particularly the mentioning of "seven times". First of all, I encourage all to stop and read this chapter of Daniel. It has nothing to do with these so called 'Gentile times' of trampling, and doesn't even apply to the Jewish kings or lineage, but strictly to Nebuchadnezzar himself. The Prophet Daniel explicitly says:

"20The tree that you beheld [in your dream], that grew great and became strong and the height of which finally reached the heavens... 22 it is you, O king [Nebuchadnezzar], because you have grown great and become strong, and your grandeur has grown great and reached to the heavens, and your rulership to the extremity of the earth." (NWT)

And as Daniel continues, he comments upon the cutting down and says the "seven times themselves will pass over you" (verse 26) applying this punishment and time period to Nebuchadnezzar only. As the chapter concludes, it says Nebuchadnezzar eventually repented and was restored as king, fulfilling the prophecy that the stump of the tree was not to be cut but remain until the "seven times" had passed. The JWs continue to invent things out of thin air and violate the clear and explicit teachings of Scripture, contradicting Daniel's own official interpretation and fulfillment of this prophecy!


The second half of the JW argument is essentially one big math problem, something Scripture never advocates (since the Bible is not a secret-code book). First, the JWs proceed to determine what exactly "seven times" means. They come upon Revelation 12:6,14, which says '3.5 times' equals '1,260 days', and thus 'doubling' that would yield '7 times' equal to '2,520 days'. While this so-called math is 'right', that doesn't mean the two passages can or were ever intended to be combined. For example, Daniel 12:7,11, says '3.5 times' is equal to '1,290 days' (i.e. 30 days more than Rev 12), which will obviously screw up the JW's math if applied! This problem of mixing-and-matching figures will become more apparent in the next step the JWs make.


After "concluding" that the 7 times of Daniel 4 is "equal" to 2,520 days, the JWs immediately say: "But the Gentile nations did not stop ‘trampling’ on God’s rulership a mere 2,520 days after Jerusalem’s fall. Evidently, then, this prophecy covers a much longer period of time." Rather than stop and ask if maybe it is they who are doing the math wrong and falsely applying the Daniel 4 prophecy, they reason that since 2,520 "days" doesn't result in anything, well then, we should keep searching until we make this number mean something! It's a text-book case of the logical fallacy known as bait-and-switch. The use of the term "evidently" by the JWs is an implicit admission that things are not as clear as they were telling us, and that we must proceed to guess at just what this 'important' number means.


Upon setting out to make 2,520 "days" mean something 'significant', the book goes onto say: "On the basis of Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6, which speak of “a day for a year,” the “seven times” would cover 2,520 years." As with the previous calculations of 2,520 "days," the JWs jump to the conclusion these days must actually be years. And in "support" of this they appeal to Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6, giving the reader the impression this substitution is valid and warranted. But upon examining those two verses, they are not concerned with prophecy, especially not this Daniel 4 prophecy (which doesn't apply this at all), but rather a calculation used to dole out an immediate punishment. One is not free to simply substitute a-day-for-a-year on demand, especially when 2,520 and 1,260 "days" is already symbolic.

Finally comes the grand math-equation:

607BC + 2,520 years = 1914AD

On this equation rests the whole foundation for the Watchtower organization. While the "math" here works quite fine when doing simple addition, a fatal flaw exists within that equation. To highlight that flaw, I present a parallel equation:

2feet + 3meters = 5feet

What's wrong with this measurement? The units are inconsistent, even though the numeric digits add up correctly. As a result, the "answer" is totally bogus. In the case of the JW "math," the dates 607BC and 1914AD are based on the Roman Calendar consisting of 365-days-per-year, while the 2,520 "years" are Biblical years that did not consist of 365 days but rather 360! The result is:

607RomanYears + 2,520JewishYears = 1914RomanYears

Thus, the JW's - God's alleged Spokesmen - fell into a blatant math error right in the midst of their most important calculation! In their rush to build a case, they fell right into a blatant pitfall. The condemnation of Scripture is readily apparent, as St Paul says (in his quote of the Prophet Job): "God catches the wise in their own craftiness, and the schemes of the wily are brought to a quick end" (1 Cor 3:19).

There are a few potential objections which the JW might try in desperation:
(1) Claim that the math still "works" in pointing out 1914AD is when the world radically changed, namely the start of World War I, and thus such "details" of inconsistent units are irrelevant. This is desperation pure and simple, since nothing excuses blatantly incorrect math errors, especially God's chosen organization.
(2) Claim that the Jewish Year eventually catches up with the Roman Year, since there is a Jewish Calendar that is 354 days-per-year but makes up for lost days by adding an extra month at regular intervals. While there is a Jewish Calendar that is 354-days-per-year (with extra months added at regular intervals), this is a "modern" calendar that only really began to be in use around 70AD and has undergone various changes. Further, there is no indication that it just-so-happens to match up precisely to October 1914AD. More importantly, it is not a Biblically based calendar, nor does it excuse the still inconsistent units. According to the Bible, the only Jewish Year indicated was 360 days-per-year. This can be shown two ways: (a) Genesis 7-8 shows that 5 months consists of 150 days, thus indicating a month is 30 days (not 29 days-per-month as the 354 calendar requires); (b) Revelation 11:2-3 indicates 1,260 days equals 42 months, which divides out to 3.5 years (thus 3.5 'times' when applied to Rev 12) at 360 days-per-year.

Before I conclude, while I was preparing this article, I came across another devastating detail by accident, as I was simply reading over Revelation 11:2-3,

1 And a reed like a rod was given me as he said: “Get up and measure the temple [sanctuary] of God and the altar and those worshiping in it. 2 But as for the courtyard that is outside the temple [sanctuary], cast it clear out and do not measure it, because it has been given to the nations, and they will trample the holy city underfoot for forty-two months. 3 And I will cause my two witnesses to prophesy a thousand two hundred and sixty days dressed in sackcloth.” (NWT)

I was stunned when I read this, because verse 2 speaks of a time when the Gentile nations "will trample the holy city," a clear reference to the trampling of Jerusalem Jesus spoke of. Further, the Greek word for "trample" is only used 5 times in the New Testament, and the only time trampling of a city is used is here and (you guessed it) Luke 21:24!! But why are the JWs going to Daniel 4, which doesn't speak of trampling, yet avoid Revelation 11:2, which clearly speaks of trampling Jerusalem by Gentile Nations? The answer is clear: the time frame Scripture gives for this trampling is 42 months (1,260 days), exactly half of what the JWs claim it needed to be! And after doing some further investigation into this verse, it turns out the JWs ignore any connection with Luke 21:24 (for obvious reasons) and instead claim it is actually a literal 42 months, and this trampling took place between 1914AD and 1918AD when their GB leadership was being jailed for alleged legal offenses. This all too convenient JW response and interpretation is simply ridiculous and clearly done out of desperation. 


Hopefully one will begin to truly grasp just how important the year 1914A.D. is for the JWs and just how far they will go to "defend" their doctrine. As was the goal of this article, the objective reader will see that the JW's logic from start to finish is utterly fallacious, erroneous, and deceptive. It is clearly a man-made scheme, inspired by Satan, which has sadly engulfed the minds of many and hurt many families along the way. The good news is that effective apologetics for this group is on the rise, and no doubt seeds will be planted with prayer and careful preparation. The sad news is that most JWs are ignorant, and deliberately kept that way, and are under the constant fear of shunning should they begin thinking for themselves. Thinking for oneself is the cornerstone of Catholic Christian apologetics, because with the Truth on our side, we have nothing to fear or hide from!

Note to John Piper: Don’t Equate Whole Bible with Theologically Accurate

John Piper - a man I generally respect, though don't often agree with theologically - made some embarrassing comments on his blog in a brief reflection he posted on January 19. The title of his post is: "Don’t Equate Historically Early with Theologically Accurate" The post is short enough that I feel it's worth posting here in full:

Beware of imputing advantage to antiquity. Seventy years after the death of Jesus the churches had neither the collected New Testament nor a living apostle. It was a precarious and embattled time.

DEBATE INDEX PAGE

Debate Index Page

This post will host all the essays to all the debates I take part in.
It will be updated periodically (so the date of this post can change).

Eternal Security Debate (versus Vocab) - January 2011

Debate Introduction and Format
Affirmative	Negative
Opening Essay	Opening Essay
Rebuttal	Rebuttal
Cross Examination Questions	Cross Examination Questions
Cross Examination Answers	Cross Examination Answers
Concluding Essay	Concluding Essay