Catholic apologists often let us know how crucial it is to have an infallible magisterium and church Tradition in order to interpret the Bible correctly. With so many Catholic apologists now commenting on sacred scripture, I thought it would be interesting to provide their commentary on the Bible. Let's see how they've been able to rightly divide the word of truth.

"Amen!" once again. This is the verse where Martin Luther, in his first German translation of the Bible, added the word "alone," to make it say what he wanted it to say -justified by "faith alone." As a Catholic, I can say with Scripture, that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law. There is nothing in that verse contrary to anything in my faith, as long as you do not do what Martin Luther did and add the word "alone" to this verse. Furthermore, the phrase "works of law" mentioned here is again referring to the Law of Moses, not to good works in general.

These passages, and several others, seem to shed a pretty dim light on the idea that works have anything to do with our salvation. So, as Catholics, how should we respond when someone quotes one or more of these Scripture passages to us? "AMEN! I believe!" As Catholics, we believe every single one of those Scripture passages. Every single one! However, notice very carefully that nowhere - not one single time- in any of those passages does it say we are saved or justified by faith "alone," or by believing "alone." That word "alone" is simply not there!

    Was Luther trying to make the Bible say what he wanted it to say? If Luther was attempting to introduce a radical mistranslation into church history he failed. Even some Catholic versions of the New Testament also translated Romans 3:28 as did Luther. The Nuremberg Bible (1483), "allein durch den glauben" and the Italian Bibles of Geneva (1476) and of Venice (1538) say "per sola fede." Luther mentions others before him translated Romans 3:28 as he did (for example, Ambrose and Augustine). The Roman Catholic writer Joseph Fitzmyer verified Luther's claim, and also presented quite an extensive list of those previous to Luther doing likewise:

At 3:28 Luther introduced the adv. "only" into his translation of Romans (1522), "alleyn durch den Glauben" (WAusg 7.38); cf. Aus der Bibel 1546, "alleine durch den Glauben" (WAusg, DB 7.39); also 7.3-27 (Pref. to the Epistle). See further his Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen, of 8 Sept. 1530 (WAusg 30.2 [1909], 627-49; "On Translating: An Open Letter" [LuthW 35.175-202]). Although "alleyn/alleine" finds no corresponding adverb in the Greek text, two of the points that Luther made in his defense of the added adverb were that it was demanded by the context and that sola was used in the theological tradition before him.

Robert Bellarmine listed eight earlier authors who used sola (Disputatio de controversiis: De justificatione 1.25 [Naples: G. Giuliano, 1856], 4.501-3):

Origen, Commentarius in Ep. ad Romanos, cap. 3 (PG 14.952).

Hilary, Commentarius in Matthaeum 8:6 (PL 9.961).

Basil, Hom. de humilitate 20.3 (PG 31.529C).

Ambrosiaster, In Ep. ad Romanos 3.24 (CSEL 81.1.119): "sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei," through faith alone they have been justified by a gift of God; 4.5 (CSEL 81.1.130).

John Chrysostom, Hom. in Ep. ad Titum 3.3 (PG 62.679 [not in Greek text]).

Cyril of Alexandria, In Joannis Evangelium 10.15.7 (PG 74.368 [but alludes to Jas 2:19]).

Bernard, In Canticum serm. 22.8 (PL 183.881): "solam justificatur per fidem," is justified by faith alone.

Theophylact, Expositio in ep. ad Galatas 3.12-13 (PG 124.988).

To these eight Lyonnet added two others (Quaestiones, 114-18):

Theodoret, Affectionum curatio 7 (PG 93.100; ed. J. Raeder [Teubner], 189.20-24).

Thomas Aquinas, Expositio in Ep. I ad Timotheum cap. 1, lect. 3 (Parma ed., 13.588): "Non est ergo in eis [moralibus et caeremonialibus legis] spes iustificationis, sed in sola fide, Rom. 3:28: Arbitramur justificari hominem per fidem, sine operibus legis" (Therefore the hope of justification is not found in them [the moral and ceremonial requirements of the law], but in faith alone, Rom 3:28: We consider a human being to be justified by faith, without the works of the law). Cf. In ep. ad Romanos 4.1 (Parma ed., 13.42a): "reputabitur fides eius, scilicet sola sine operibus exterioribus, ad iustitiam"; In ep. ad Galatas 2.4 (Parma ed., 13.397b): "solum ex fide Christi" [Opera 20.437, b41]).

See further:

Theodore of Mopsuestia, In ep. ad Galatas (ed. H. B. Swete), 1.31.15.

Marius Victorinus (ep. Pauli ad Galatas (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15-16: "Ipsa enim fides sola iustificationem dat-et sanctificationem" (For faith itself alone gives justification and sanctification); In ep. Pauli Ephesios (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15: "Sed sola fides in Christum nobis salus est" (But only faith in Christ is salvation for us).

Augustine, De fide et operibus, 22.40 (CSEL 41.84-85): "licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intellegatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur" (Although it can be said that God's commandments pertain to faith alone, if it is not dead [faith], but rather understood as that live faith, which works through love"). Migne Latin Text: Venire quippe debet etiam illud in mentem, quod scriptum est, In hoc cognoscimus eum, si mandata ejus servemus. Qui dicit, Quia cognovi eum, et mandata ejus non servat, mendax est, et in hoc veritas non est (I Joan. II, 3, 4). Et ne quisquam existimet mandata ejus ad solam fidem pertinere: quanquam dicere hoc nullus est ausus, praesertim quia mandata dixit, quae ne multitudine cogitationem spargerent [Note: [Col. 0223] Sic Mss. Editi vero, cogitationes parerent.], In illis duobus tota Lex pendet et Prophetae (Matth. XXII, 40): licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere Dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intelligatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur; tamen postea Joannes ipse aperuit quid diceret, cum ait: Hoc est mandatum ejus, ut credamus nomini Filii ejus Jesu Christi, et diligamns invicem (I Joan. III, 23) See De fide et operibus, Cap. XXII, §40, PL 40:223.

   Catholic apologists often let us know how crucial it is to have an infallible magisterium and church Tradition in order to interpret the Bible correctly. With so many Catholic apologists now commenting on sacred scripture, I thought it would be interesting to provide their commentary on the Bible. Let's see how they've been able to rightly divide the word of truth.

1 Peter 3:18-20
18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; 19 in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, 20 who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.

   Recently on Catholic Answers, Karl Keating gave the evidence from history and the Bible for purgatory. One of the three verses he used was 1 Peter 3:19. You can listen to Mr. Keating's exegesis here.

   Mr. Keating says the "spirits in prison" are "people bound for heaven having died prior to the coming of the new covenant." They are "the patriarchs and the prophets, and all the good people of earlier times." The New Catholic Answer Bible though says "It is not clear just who these spirits are. They may be the spirits of the sinners who died in the flood, or angelic powers, hostile to God, who have been overcome by Christ" (p. 1351). So for Keating, they are good people heaven bound, for the New Catholic Answer Bible, they are sinners or angelic powers, and they say nothing about this passage being a proof text for purgatory in their commentary notes.

   Keatings says, "Where were these folks? well, they were in some third state, some third condition or place." Place? Pope John Paul II said "[Purgatory] does not indicate a place, but a condition of existence."

   Keating says, "It wasn't heaven and it wasn't hell." Interestingly, Jim Blackburn (another Catholic Answers host) says it is hell in the general sense,

"St. Peter tells us that Jesus 'went and preached to the spirits in prison' (1 Pet. 3:19). 'Prison' (Greek, Phulake) here refers to hell in the general sense of the place where departed souls rested prior to Jesus? opening the gates of heaven. The Catechism explains that 'he descended there as Savior, proclaiming the Good News to the spirits imprisoned there' (CCC 632)." [Hell? Yes! (Part I), This Rock Volume 18, Number 8, October 2007]

   Keating concludes, "Now that might of well have been purgatory, maybe some different third state, it doesn't matter. The very fact though that it existed proves that a third state like purgatory can exist." Some different third state? Given development of doctrine, anything is possible. The truly odd thing about this statement though is if you listen to the entire call in which Keating expounds on purgatory, he says 1 Peter 3:19 is a biblical citation that argues for purgatory, and it's "the most apt verse we can look at in a certain way." It sure did seem like he was using it to prove purgatory. Elsewhere, Mr. Keating says of 1 Peter 3:19, "I think it was purgatory itself, but it may have been altogether separate. Even if it were, so what?"

   Catholic apologists often let us know how crucial it is to have an infallible magisterium and church Tradition in order to interpret the Bible correctly. With so many Catholic apologists now commenting on sacred scripture, I thought it would be interesting to provide their commentary on the Bible. Let's see how they've been able to rightly divide the word of truth.

   A caller recently asked Catholic apologist Tim Staples if the rich man in Luke 16:19-31 was in hell or purgatory. Tim explains the general sense of church tradition places the rich man in hell. Tim notes the Catholic Catechism also cites this text a few times as referring to a man who has died in mortal sin, therefore in hell. So, according to Tim, here we see an interpretive church tradition in action. The majority viewpoint of the church throughout the centuries has placed the rich man in hell, not purgatory. The Catechism cites the text with the underlying assumption the man is in hell, not purgatory.

   What makes Tim's answer so interesting is that he cites a fellow Catholic apologist, Patrick Madrid, denying the general sense of the church and the Catechism by placing the rich man in purgatory. You can listen to the MP3 of this here.

   Tim let's us know it isn't that big of deal when his friend Patrick Madrid places the rich man in purgatory. Nope, not that big of a deal at all to hold your own contrary opinion on something the Catechism affirms, as does Thomas Aquinas and tradition. Tim is careful to point out the church doesn't have a definitive position on this text, so Madrid is free to interpret as he wishes. Of course, the bigger question is whether or not Luke 16:19-31 is literal or a parable, but this is usually only asked by those exegeting the text, not by those looking for purgatory.

   Some years back Mr. Madrid wrote, "As a rule of faith that, without recourse to Sacred Tradition and an infallible Magisterium, promises doctrinal certitude and a unity of faith, sola scriptura fails miserably." He also stated, "Scripture alone-Scripture forced to stand apart from the infallible teaching magisterium that has been given Christ's own authority to accurately interpret Scripture, and Sacred Tradition, which is the Church's living interpretation of those written words -is unstable and leads to the myriad of conflicting, erroneous, and sometimes spiritually fatal "human traditions." How do such comments not apply to Madrid himself? He's going against the very authority paradigm that tells him where the rich man is.

   Catholic apologists often let us know how crucial it is to have an infallible magisterium and church Tradition in order to interpret the Bible correctly. With so many Catholic apologists now commenting on sacred scripture, I thought it would be interesting to provide their commentary on the Bible. Let's see how they've been able to rightly divide the word of truth. I'll post their interpretations as I come across them.

1 John 5:16-17 If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask and God will for him give life to those who commit sin not leading to death. There is a sin leading to death; I do not say that he should make request for this.

23. Mortal And Venial Sins
In the following passage, St. John mentions that there are two categories of sin. Venial sins weaken the life of grace in the soul and weaken the soul's ability to avoid sin. Mortal sins, by their very nature, literally kill the soul by purposefully eradicating sanctifying grace. The church teaches that all grave (i.e., mortal, deadly) sins must be confessed in the sacrament of penance in which formal absolution is received from the priest. 1 John 5 16-17: "If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is a sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal."

   According to Madrid, these verses are clear biblical proof for the distinction between mortal and venial sins. The back of Madrid's book explains it's purpose is to "interpret the Bible correctly" and to "steer clear of common mistakes many people make when reading Scripture." The book explains Madrid's credentials include being the founder and publisher of Envoy magazine, a published author of some apologetics books, and the host of an EWTN television series.

   To contrast Madrid's interpretation with another Catholic source, let's see what Raymond Brown's The Gospel and Epistles of John: A Concise Commentary says. Brown doesn't appear to have the same caliber of credentials Mr. Madrid has in order to interpret scripture. Brown was only the Auburn Distinguished Professor of Biblical Studies at Union Theological Seminary, the first person to have been president of all three major biblical societies: The Catholic Biblical Association, the Society of Biblical Literature, and the International Society for New Testament Studies. From 1972 to 1978 he was the only American on the Roman Pontifical Biblical Commission, an appointment that Pope Paul VI said is only given to outstanding scholars.

First John is cautious. For most sins, the prayers will be heard; but there is a sin so serious that John does not encourage prayer for it. Evidently the readers of the letter knew all about this sin. We are not so well informed (except that we should avoid identifying "sin unto death" with mortal sin, and "a sin not unto death" with venial sin). Probably the sin for First John was joining the secession, which was a form of apostasy, a sin elsewhere judged harshly.

   Brown makes a similar statement in An Introduction to the New Testament (Anchor Bible Reference Library) on page 388. Commenting on these verses he states, "He is not making the later theological distinction between mortal and venial sin." Who's right, Madrid or Brown? Without the Roman Catholic magisterium telling us, each is entitled to his own interpretation.

   Catholic apologists often let us know how crucial it is to have an infallible magisterium and church Tradition in order to interpret the Bible correctly. With so many Catholic apologists now commenting on sacred scripture, I thought it would be interesting to provide their commentary on the Bible. Let's see how they've been able to rightly divide the word of truth. I'll post their interpretations as I come across them.

   Luke 10:16 states, "The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me." Akin explains this passage can't be used to prove the infallibility of the church. The passage was directed to the "seventy others" (Luke 10:1). Akin says because "they didn't have the kind of ongoing status in the church that would result in them being...you know... a distinct grade of ordination, for example... um, they're not like along side apostles and bishops and priests and deacons... so they had some kind of temporary role uh, in the church at least before the crucifixion." Akin says of this passage, "I don't think it's possible to derive full blown ecclesiastical infallibility out of this passage in any simple way." Akin says he would not recommend Catholics use Luke 10:16 to prove ecclesiastical infallibility: "I wouldn't just plop it down in front of somebody and say this proves without a doubt the church is infallible."

   Yet Catholic Answers (the very organization Mr. Akin works for) host a web page entitled,Papal Infallibility. This document states,

The Catholic Church's teaching on papal infallibility is one which is generally misunderstood by those outside the Church. In particular, Fundamentalists and other "Bible Christians" often confuse the charism of papal "infallibility" with "impeccability." They imagine Catholics believe the pope cannot sin. Others, who avoid this elementary blunder, think the pope relies on some sort of amulet or magical incantation when an infallible definition is due.

Given these common misapprehensions regarding the basic tenets of papal infallibility, it is necessary to explain exactly what infallibility is not. Infallibility is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16), and "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18).

If the Church is the foundation of religious truth in this world, then it is God's own spokesman. As Christ told his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Luke 10:16).

   So Catholic Answers does exactly what Akin says not to do: they "plop" down Luke 10:16 to prove the Roman Catholic Church is infallible. Karl Keating does this, so does Patrick Madrid. I have a strong suspicion that I could come up with quite a number of Catholic apologists who do exactly what Akin says not to. Who's right? Well, pick your favorite Catholic apologist.

• When cornered on the issue of the fact that the manuscript wasn't discovered in the 20th century, he claims he never hinted anything to the contrary.
• Rather than just admit that he didn't research the origin of the manuscript, he claims that there is no definitive knowledge on the subject.
• Mr. Albrecht tries to suggest that we are arguing that there is an "infallible canon" of Athanasius' works that "all agree on."
• Despite trying to argue that the manuscript is not in any standard corpus of Athanasius' writings, Mr. Albrecht tries to pull the "ask your opponent to prove a negative" ploy that we see so often in Sola Scriptura debates with advocates of Catholicism. He asks me to prove that the document went unnnoticed by the Coptic church through the centuries. This sort of absurd request just demonstrates Mr. Albrecht's unwillingness to defend his own position with real evidence.
• Although Mr. Albrecht previously claimed Le Muséon says the work is authentic, Mr. Albrecht now tries to claim that I "admit" that Le Muséon doesn't take a position on the authenticity of the work.

You may want to watch this video put up by William Albrecht. He addresses one instance in which an opponent wrongly says Catholics wrongly use the Fathers. Funny thing Fundamentalists accusing us of misusing the Fathers! Thanks William!

   Recently Dr. White pointed out the gulf between Catholic scholarship and popular Catholic apologists. I recently read a Catholic explanation of purgatory by Zachary Hayes ("a noted Franciscan theologian and Bonaventure scholar, OFM, of the Sacred Heart Province, is a retired professor of systematic theology at the Catholic Theological Union, Chicago, where he taught for thirty-seven years" [source]). Reading Hayes was far different than reading the usual suspects that have taken it upon themselves to interpret Rome. Many of the current Catholic apologists look at Biblical texts and simply assume they clearly prove purgatory. Hayes argues quite differently.

   Let's leave the apocrypha debate aside for a moment and look at the verse Catholic apologists say unambiguously teaches purgatory, 2 Maccabees 12: 41-46. The argument goes, if Luther didn't throw 2 Maccabees out of the Bible, Protestants would have to admit the passage clearly teaches purgatory.

   When Karl Keating addresses this text in Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), he first asserts "Scripture teaches that purgatory exists" (p. 193) and then among a few proof texts, he bolsters his claim with: "Then there is the Bible's approbation of prayers for the dead: 'It is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they might be loosed from their sins' (2 Macc 12:46)." In his book What Catholics Really Believe he states, "Unless it refers to Purgatory, 2 Maccabees 12:46 makes no sense" (p. 90). In his book, Answer Me This! (Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor, 2003), Patrick Madrid states, "The doctrine [of purgatory] is expressed clearly in the Old Testament book of 2 Maccabees 12" (p. 204). The New Catholic Answer Bible [Wichita: Fireside Catholic Publishing, 2005] insert answers the question "Is Purgatory in the Bible?" by stating, "The writer of 2 Maccabees praises the offering of prayers and sacrifices for the dead (see 12:38-46). Why do the departed need such assistance from us? So that their sins 'might be blotted out' (12:42)" (Insert H2). In his book, A Biblical Defense Of Catholicism [MS Word Version, 2001] Dave Armstrong has a section entitled "Scriptural Evidence for Purgatory." The account described in 2 Maccabees 12:39-42, 44-45 is said to "presuppose purgatory" (p.128).

   On the other hand, Zachary Hayes states the Council of Trent maintained the passage provides a scriptural basis, but they were reading the passage with "the mindset of late medieval people" [Four Views On Hell (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1996), p. 103]. He contrasts this with contemporary Roman Catholic exegetes, and these see these verses differently, as "evidence for the existence of a tradition of piety which is at least intertestamental and apparently served as the basis for what later became the Christian practice of praying for the dead and performing good works, with the expectation that this might be of some help to the dead" (pp. 104-105). Modern Catholic exegetes conclude:"Since the text seems to be more concerned with helping the fallen soldiers to participate in the resurrection of the dead, it is not a direct statement of the later doctrine of purgatory" (p. 105).

   These statements must not be construed to imply Hayes denies the relevance of these passages for purgatory. He argues for purgatory from tradition, and uses the classic acorn and oak tree analogy. "Is there some basis in the Scriptures for the doctrine of purgatory, or is there not? If we are looking for clear and unambiguous statements of the doctrine, we will look in vain... we might better ask if anything in Scripture initiated the development that eventually led to the doctrine of purgatory" (p.104). Hayes says of current Catholic scholarship,"Thus, Roman Catholic exegetes and theologians at the present time would be inclined to say that although there is no clear textual basis in Scripture for the later doctrine of purgatory, neither is there anything that is clearly contrary to that doctrine" (p.107).

   In their zeal to win converts, current Catholic apologists think that simply citing a verse will be enough to win converts. When they're challenged to exegete a passage, texts like 2 Maccabees 12 become minefields. For instance, Dave Armstrong's "Biblical defense" of this text boils down to saying Jewish people prayed for the dead and Jesus never corrected this belief as an error of the Jews, nor did he deny a "third state" in the afterlife (p.128). When faced with the fact that those being prayed for in 2 Maccabees were idolaters, therefore dying in mortal sin, Catholic Answers states (via This Rock),

"They died fighting in a battle to defend Israel from pagans. Thus it seems that they were fundamentally doing the right thing (defending Israel from paganism) even though they were somewhat tainted with it themselves. In this mixed state they may well have been guilty of venial rather than mortal sin, like the case of a Christian who wears a good-luck charm while still having a fundamental commitment to following God."

   I'm reminded of a certain Biblical story in which a certain "ark of God'' was about to fall, and a person "reached out toward the ark of God to take hold of it," and God struck him down, and how someone at Catholic Answers would explain this. Regardless, 2 Maccabees says their idolatry caused the loss of their lives (2 Macc. 12:40). The text says nothing about prayers for these soldiers to exit purgatory, rather it had to do with resurrection (12:43-45). Further, Catholic apologists have to struggle with historical studies like Jacques Le Goff's The Birth of Purgatory [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981] in which he points out that "at the time of Judas Maccabeus- around 170 B.C., a surprisingly innovative period- prayer for the dead was not practiced, but that a century later it was practiced by certain Jews (p. 45).

   Overall, even though disagreeing with Hayes as to the positive origin and affirming development of Purgatory, there was something fundamentally more honest in reading his analysis as compared to the Catholic apologists cited above. Hayes seems to realize that simply assuming the conclusion of what one wants to prove Biblically becomes tenuous in light of history. For Hayes, elements of Purgatory are found in 2 Maccabees 12, but as to purgatory proper, it was the result of development begun at the level of popular piety. For Catholic apologists, the text simply means purgatory.These are two very different approaches.