Dialogue With a Protestant About Catholic Sacramentalism and the Use of Physical Items (Including Relics) in Worship and Piety

No Protestant that I know of would treat a hypothetical vial with the blood of Christ in it with contempt. Why? This reaction raises deep questions concerning the relationship of matter and spirituality.

[ source ]

This is a follow-up post to my previous entry, Biblical Evidence for Candles, Incense, and Related Sacramental Symbolism for Prayer and Sacrifice. Nick, a Protestant, has been very active in the combox for that post. I wanted to interact with some of his statements there. His words will be in blue.

* * * * *

[Note: the last section of the paper above on candles, concerning "lamps" and "lampstands" ("candles" and "candlesticks" in KJV) was added after the initial exchange. So some of Nick's initial criticisms about "explicit biblical support" for candles have now been completely overcome. He is also, part of the time, responding to another person; hence the mixture of first and third person address]

Not a single verse you quote mentions candles. Not one.

I didn't claim they did, so that is a moot point.

The first three (1 from Genesis, 2 from Leviticus) are in reference to OT sacrifices/offerings to God . . . something no Christian church does.

That wasn't the main analogy in those passages, as I saw it (though I didn't state this): which was to the "pleasing odor" to the Lord, which is similar to the incense in revelation as symbolic of prayer. There are multiple layers of types and shadows here.

The other four refer to incense. Luke's reference is to incense in the Jewish Temple, due to a Jewish ceremony being held there,

That's why my first "summary" statement was the following:

Incense (i.e., a thing that burns and produce smoke and fragrances, which is similar to a candle, complete with the metaphorical smelling of the offering by God), as an image of prayer, is an explicit biblical motif.

What is biblically explicit is a burning thing that represents prayer. Later, I did find that candles themselves are explicitly mentioned, too, because I had somehow overlooked the menorah and lampstands of Hebrew worship.

and the two passages in Revelation are symbolic. The three verses from Paul are clearly metaphors.

The prayers of the saints in those passages are not metaphorical. The smoke of the incense is indeed a metaphor for prayer, which is exactly my argument. Candles are closely aligned to that, in my opinion, as I have argued.

It's certainly not indicative of something "sacramental," i.e. an actual physical thing that confers grace.

I meant "sacramental" in the very widest sense, which would be use of physical things. A candle in a Catholic church is indirectly a sacramental insofar as it entails a physical action that can be a blessing in some sense to the person who lights one. And they would have been blessed by a priest. So they are sacramentals, as opposed to sacraments.

I'm not claiming that candles are sinful, wrong, or that we should remove them from churches, but for you to claim that there's "explicit" support for them in the Bible is a bit much.

I have now produced ten prooftexts that refute your contention (and many cross-references also). My initial research was simply incomplete, whereas your assertion is flat-out false, and falsified in the Bible.

A Christian service void of candles is not incomplete or un-Biblical, by any stretch of the imagination.

I didn't make that claim, either. The purpose was to explain and justify one Catholic practice, not to run down non-Catholic worship (from which I have received a great deal in my Christian life).

I'm not opposed to the use of candles at all (along with many Protestant churches), but the Bible is basically silent on their use in Christian churches, and I just wanted to make that point. . . . the Bible is SILENT on the issue. Therefore, I make no judgement on a church, or on the Biblical soundness or validity of a given service, based on the presence or absence of candles in that service. . . . As I already said, I don't have a problem with candles. I am not in the least making it a "moral issue." Dave, in my opinion, made way too much of the indirect, metaphorical use of God smelling "fragrances" in the Bible to justify using candles in church. That doesn't mean the use of candles is "wrong," just that his Biblical defense of it wasn't particularly strong.

It's not "silent" at all, as I have shown.

Different people find beauty in different things; some people find beauty in very complex, fancy art, and others find beauty in very simplistic art. Also, "Protestant art" covers a huge range of forms, from very detailed and "Catholic" in style - with candles, incense, statues, and the like, to the very simplistic - perhaps a church composed of just one rectangular room with plain walls and a single cross behind the pulpit. . . . Personally, I don't find one more inherently sinful or another more inherently spiritual. God is far more concerned with the hearts within the people in the church than what the architecture of the church is. I also understand that, for you, a candle during Mass or some other church service may represent Christ, or some other perfectly orthodox and Biblical principle. Many Protestant churches, including mine, also utilize candles in their own services. My concern (and I think, that of Protestantism in general) lies in the fact that too much emphasis can be placed on such earthly accessories. Candles don't make us holy. If you want to light a candle in church and that represents something significant to you, cool. But having the idea in your head that that candle somehow makes you holy, or the place where you are worshipping more holy, or it gives it a "holy feel," seems to demonstrate a huge misunderstanding of what holiness is and from whence it comes. As for "elemental" components in religious services are concerned, I'm not terribly convinced that we should include things in Christian church services just because Buddhists and Hindus are. For me that's not really a detriment to Protestantism; it's a selling point. But perhaps you or someone else can convince me otherwise.

The local Catholic church is a holy place precisely because we believe Jesus is there Body, Soul, Spirit, and Divinity. Now, I understand that you probably do not believe that to be the case, but it is our belief, and that's why we think the sanctuary is holy: it is Christ-based.

That is a sacramental understanding indeed, just as the Incarnation was sacramental: God took on matter and so sanctified it by having human flesh. You and every orthodox Protestant believe in the Incarnation. Protestants (even very "low church" ones) are not entirely unsacramental. It is easy to demonstrate this. You usually have a cross in your church somewhere. There is often stained glass. Not many Protestant churches have bare white walls, Puritan-style. Protestants speak of the blood of Christ.

It depends what you mean when you say they are "sacramental."

I've explained that above. Protestants are sacramental to various degrees. Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism, was very sacramental; he believed in the Real Presence in the Eucharist and regenerating baptism.

Protestants often utilize physical things to serve as symbols for those who are worshipping, yes. You earlier said that the term "sacramental" in its "widest sense" simply means, "use of physical things." So yes, in that sense pretty much everyone and their mother is "sacramental."

Agreed.

But that's a bit of a misleading definition when you're trying to defend Catholic "sacramentalism," because when Catholics refer to the "sacraments" and being "sacramental," they rarely mean it in this "widest" sense.

Sometimes we do; other times we don't.

Earlier you said that candles in a Catholic church can be a "blessing" to one who lights them, and that they have been blessed by a Catholic priest. This seems to entail more than mere symbology, no?

Yes, but it is distinct from, say, the Eucharist, which is inherently efficacious if received properly (i.e., without mortal sin). Sacramentals are effective (and in a far lesser sense than one of the seven sacraments) only insofar as a person's internal disposition is proper.

* * *

You don't think you are sacramental? Okay; let me ask you: if you had a vial of Christ's blood (grant that we are sure it is His), would you treat it like any other blood? Would you throw it down the drain, to enter the sewer? If not, why?

This hypothetical of course hinges on the huge "if" of whether or not we literally have a vial of Christ's blood drained from His physical body.

You have dodged the question (and I understand why). Hypotheticals (by nature) involve granted assumptions, as I made clear was the case with mine. We are granting for the sake of argument that it is Christ's blood. Now, how would you treat it? It's the "horns of a dilemma" for you, as they say in classical logic. I don't think you would throw it down the drain like any other blood. I doubt that one Protestant in a hundred would do that. They just wouldn't do it. I think you (and they) would revere it and treat it with the greatest respect; and to the extent that you do that you are already approaching some particular matter (our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ's blood) as Catholics do: in the sense that some matter can convey more grace and be "spiritual" or "special" more than other matter. When Protestants refer to the blood of Christ, they get this. But in other instances they forsake the principle that they themselves accept in the example of the blood of Christ.

* * *

Would you bulldoze the site of the cross and Golgotha / Calvary and make a parking lot or a drugstore, as if it had no more significance than any other place on earth? I highly doubt it.

No, . . .

There you go. See, I knew you wouldn't do it, and you wouldn't with Jesus' blood, either. Now you have to ask yourself why. The reasons you would come up with for not doing it would either be the same reasoning Catholics apply, or at least somehow leaning in our direction.

but would you kneel down and kiss the dirt on that hill?

Yes, absolutely. Protestants often kiss the Bible. What earthly reason could they give for not kissing the very ground our Lord died for us on? You'll kiss God's verbal revelation and written Word, but not the place where the Word, Jesus, died for you? That makes no sense. Why would you kiss the one thing and not the other? What is the difference in principle? But I say that if you kiss a Bible (or, say, a photograph of a son slain in military service), there is no inherent objection to kissing the dirt of Calvary.

Would you collect some of that dirt and take it home with you, and kiss it at night when you say your prayers? Would you try to find some splinter of the cross you think Christ was crucified on, and kiss and revere that?

Absolutely; by the same principles: because we know from the Bible that matter can convey grace. It's very straightforward (I'm surprised that you don't seem to know about it):

2 Kings 13:20-21 So Elisha died, and they buried him. Now bands of Moabites used to invade the land in the spring of the year. 21 And as a man was being buried, lo, a marauding band was seen and the man was cast into the grave of Elisha; and as soon as the man touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood on his feet.

The bones or relics of Elisha had so much supernatural power or "grace" in them that they could even cause a man to be raised from the dead.

2 Kings 2:11-14 And as they still went on and talked, behold, a chariot of fire and horses of fire separated the two of them. And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. And Elisha saw it and he cried, ‘My father, my father! the chariots of Israel and its horsemen!’ And he saw him no more. Then he took hold of his own clothes and rent them in two pieces. And he took up the mantle of Elijah that had fallen from him, and went back and stood on the bank of the Jordan. Then he took the mantle of Elijah that had fallen from him, and struck the water, saying, ‘Where is the Lord, the God of Elijah?’ And when he had struck the water, the water was parted to the one side and to the other; and Elisha went over.

Acts 5:15-16 . . . they even carried out the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and pallets, that as Peter came by at least his shadow might fall on some of them. 16 The people also gathered from the towns around Jerusalem, bringing the sick and those afflicted with unclean spirits, and they were all healed.

Acts 19:11-12 And God did extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that handkerchiefs or aprons were carried away from his body to the sick, and diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them. (cf. Mt 9:20-22)

Elisha’s bones were a “first-class” relic: from the person himself or herself. These passages, on the other hand, offer examples of “second-class” relics: items that have power because they were connected with a holy person (Elijah’s mantle and even St. Peter’s shadow), and third-class relics: something that has merely touched a holy person or first-class relic (handkerchiefs that had touched St. Paul). Another example would be the woman healed by touching the hem of Jesus' garment (which would be analogous to a piece of the cross, or His blood):

Mark 5:25-30 And there was a woman who had had a flow of blood for twelve years, and who had suffered much under many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was no better but rather grew worse. She had heard the reports about Jesus, and came up behind him in the crowd and touched his garment. For she said, "If I touch even his garments, I shall be made well." And immediately the hemorrhage ceased; and she felt in her body that she was healed of her disease. And Jesus, perceiving in himself that power had gone forth from him, immediately turned about in the crowd, and said, "Who touched my garments?"

Luke 8:43-48 And a woman who had had a flow of blood for twelve years and could not be healed by any one, came up behind him, and touched the fringe of his garment; and immediately her flow of blood ceased. And Jesus said, "Who was it that touched me?" When all denied it, Peter said, "Master, the multitudes surround you and press upon you!" But Jesus said, "Some one touched me; for I perceive that power has gone forth from me." And when the woman saw that she was not hidden, she came trembling, and falling down before him declared in the presence of all the people why she had touched him, and how she had been immediately healed.
And he said to her, "Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace."

Jesus did say also that her faith was what made her well, but the point is that it was also with the aid of a physical object that was in contact with Jesus: as indicated precisely by its effect of causing "power" to go "forth from him." God used the physical object for spiritual (and supernatural physical) purposes: a healing. We see it again, when Jesus heals the blind man:

John 9:6-7 As he said this, he spat on the ground and made clay of the spittle and anointed the man's eyes with the clay, saying to him, "Go, wash in the pool of Silo'am" (which means Sent). So he went and washed and came back seeing.

Jesus could have simply declared him healed, with or without the man's faith playing a key role (as He healed both kinds of people): it could have been a wonderfully Protestant, purely "spiritual" healing, with no material object used. But, interestingly enough, Jesus didn't do that. He used a bodily fluid (his own), and also clay, or dirt, and then the water of the pool, and rubbed the man's eyes, to effect the miracle (two liquids, solid matter, and physical anointing action of fingers). Obviously, then, we can't frown upon physical things related to a holy person in some fashion, in order to perform a miracle. The example is too clear. What more proof does one require?

This is exactly how Catholics view relics. Why, then, do you frown upon these practices, and regard them as foolish, excessive, and unbiblical, with all of this clear biblical proof of them? If you claim to follow what the Bible teaches, I've just shown it to you, with regard to physical means of grace, and specifically relics.

I've written about the altogether insubstantial Protestant arguments that attempt to overthrow this plain biblical data.

Would you think the presence of those things would make your house more "holy," simply by being there when you pray? We can both cite extreme examples in either direction.

It's not extreme at all. There are such things as holy objects and holy places. The ark of the covenant was one such thing. It was so holy that a man could die by just touching it (and the Bible records one such incident). The tabernacle which contained the ark was holy, as was the temple (which had the holy of holies inside of it). Wherever God is, is holy (e.g., the "holy ground" near the burning bush: Exodus 3:5). It's because Protestants don't believe that God can be specially present (not just in his omnipresence); even physically present, anymore, that they don't believe in holy places. We do; because we follow the Bible far more closely than you do.

When I searched for the phrase "holy place" in RSV, for the whole Bible, it came up with 70 matches (taking out 15 from the Deuterocanon that you don't accept). And that includes NT proof: Jesus referred to a "holy place" in Matthew 24:15. Paul used the analogy of Christians being temples (and therefore holy), because of the indwelling Holy Spirit inside of us:

1 Corinthians 3:16-17 Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you? If any one destroys God's temple, God will destroy him. For God's temple is holy, and that temple you are.

1 Corinthians 6:19 Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? You are not your own;

2 Corinthians 6:16 . . . For we are the temple of the living God . . .

Erasmus was quite put off by the hyper-sacramentalism of Rome when he visited there. I can't remember the exact quote, but he said something to the effect that, "After all the shoes that we've had to kiss, are you going to bring us the dung of a saint to kiss as well?" The point is, too much can be made of these "sacramental" elements that are included in church services.

Sure, there have been excesses (I freely acknowledge them; people being people, and prone to extremes), but that doesn't nullify the biblical principle of relics and sacramentalism. We don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Erasmus wouldn't have denied that. He claimed many times that he accepted all that the Church taught (I know, because I recently studied one of his primary writings: the Hyperaspistes).

* * *

And you wouldn't [toss out Jesus' blood or bulldoze Calvary] because you have a sense of the sacred and of holy places, even though you may wish to argue against it when Catholics refer to it.

Don't assume that I'm rejecting anything just because "a Catholic said it." Catholics can make perfectly valid points in theological discussions as well. What I argue against is the near-obsession that many Catholics have with physical objects of adoration.

You have neither shown that it is always an obsession, nor that it is unbiblical, whereas I have shown that the justification is quite explicitly biblical; thus, that there is a proper use of this sort of piety and devotion.

I am not trying to argue against the sense of "sacramental" that you described earlier, if I understand what you meant. What I am trying to say is simply that the inner spirituality of a church is more important than its outer adornment. Fair enough?

But you want to deny the validity of relics and holy places, when the Bible doesn't do that at all. We fully agree with you that the inner disposition and the heart is fundamentally important. That's why we teach that it is a great sin to partake of Holy Communion in a state of mortal sin, and that absolution after confession can't take place if the person wasn't truly repentant. We don't dichotomize the "inward" and "outward" elements. But Protestants so often want to eliminate the physical, outward elements altogether, because their spirituality is not large enough to imagine a harmonious conjunction of both. They tend to equate "spirit" with good and matter with evil, as the ancient Gnostics and Docetics did. But that is a far more pagan Greek attitude (the folks who didn't like the Resurrection because it was physical) than Christian and biblical.

* * *

Candles reflect this holiness because the symbol of ascending smoke for prayer and sacrifice is a biblical motif, as I have shown, and part of the practice of Jews and Christians for at least four millennia.

We don't think a candle makes us holy. That is ridiculous. We think it helps foster an atmosphere of reverence and sacredness, just as stained glass, statuary, stations of the cross, etc. do. I myself have found that I am able to far more easily and deeply, reverently worship and concentrate on worshiping Jesus in my German Gothic cathedral parish than in the YMCA gyms that I sometimes worshiped in as a Protestant, and that is because beauty and truth are closely related. The beautiful fosters reverence.

Catholicism uses human impulses that are morally neutral and co-opts them for Christ. It utilizes whatever in paganism is a good thing (or at least neutral and not bad) and "baptizes" it for Christianity. The Apostle Paul did this on Mars Hill in Athens (Acts 17:16 ff.). He commended the Athenians for their religiosity and the tomb to the unknown god (17:22-23), cited two of their poets / philosophers (17:28), and, building upon that knowledge, proclaimed the gospel to them (17:23-31). He didn't run their present knowledge down as heathen garbage, but rather, used it as a bridge to the gospel.

The Catholic Church does the same in many many ways. It's sacramentalism and incorporation of beauty and physical objects into worship. That's been done in our (Judaeo-Christian) religious tradition all the way back to the Temple and Tabernacle. God Himself used fire in the burning bush as a symbol of himself when He appeared to Moses. He used the physical object. He appeared in theophanies as a man or as the "angel of the Lord." It's nothing new. To the extent that Protestantism rejects all that it is being most unbiblical and against the same mode of thought that the Incarnation is included in (physical matter conveying grace).

* * *

Christ does not want you to kiss the ground where He once stepped.

Then why are you reluctant to bulldoze Calvary, if it is not a whit different than any other place on earth? Why is it that Protestants, just as much as Catholics, love to go to the Holy Land? Why bother? If it is no different from any other place, and physical conjunction with Jesus or holy men and women is utterly irrelevant, and there is no such thing as a holy place, why do they go there? That's a Catholic idea. They implicitly accept the notion of the "holy place." So do you. But you inconsistently apply it. You won't kiss the ground of Calvary, but on the other hand you wouldn't bulldoze it.

Well, if you want to preserve it because it is valuable and has meaning, what in the world is the objection to kissing it? We kiss dogs and inanimate objects that we love. You can't produce any saying of Jesus, where He said to not do this. But I already produced an instance of touching His garment, which brought about healing in conjunction with faith. Jesus obviously believed in the holiness of the temple because He said it was His father's house. He accepted it when the woman kissed His feet (Lk 7:38,45). Why not the ground that He died on? I say your spirituality is insufficiently incarnational and too influenced by Docetism, with all this antipathy to matter and how God uses it for spiritual purposes.

He would much rather that you obeyed His commands and used His life of love and servitude as an example to love and serve others.

This is a false dichotomy. Of course those things are commands, but pious acts involving matter are eminently biblical. It is you who have a problem with the Bible's teaching in this regard.

My whole point is, I question just how balanced Catholicism truly is. It seems to me that there is far too much emphasis (perhaps just in individuals, not in the system officially) on the outwardness, and very little inwardness. Personally I think inwardness has to be the individual's focus first, when one is a Christian. Going through outward motions isn't progressing anyone spiritually. Rather, meditation/prayer, Bible study, yielding to the Holy Spirit and allowing Him to bear fruit in our lives...THOSE are the things that must come first. If we are "right" inward, the outward expressions of our inward growth will come.

We agree wholeheartedly that the inward elements are supremely important. We simply refuse to pit them against outward, sacramental, physical things, as you do. We keep both in balance, because God became man, and so sanctified matter. You practically eliminate one or so emasculate it that little good is said about it, in relation to spirituality. That's where any imbalance lies. Yet Jesus' very death on the cross and His Resurrection are intensely physical things.

If you understand the definition of a church to be a body of believers, then you're going to focus on the inner spirituality of that "church." My point was that the latter is preferable to the former.

Case in point: yet another Protestant dichotomy. The Bible uses "Church" in both senses, and we adhere to both. We don't have to choose between them and "pick sides." Both are important. It's the biblical "Both/and" outlook; not the Protestant "either/or" mentality.

As I said, if you're focus is on external THINGS, objects that you think are going to get you closer to God, then you're not going to be focused on the internal things that Christ found so much more important (it's not the things that go into a man that make him unclean, but the things that come out of him, out of the heart the mouth speaks, etc.) So yea, you can light a candle. But that candle doesn't make you more holy. It doesn't make you more spiritual. Kissing dirt where Jesus once walked doesn't make you closer to Him or more like Him. Doing as He did, walking as He walked (through yielding to the Spirit), THAT makes you more like Him.

More false dichotomies. You reason, "because thing A is good; therefore, different thing B is not good, or less good than A." But we reason, in accord with the Bible: "God has revealed that both A and B are good things, so why must folks pit them against each other?"

We agree wholeheartedly with you about wholehearted devotion to God, in righteousness and holiness and right motive. That's all wonderful. We don't disagree with any of it. Read The Imitation of Christ sometime if you want to see a Catholic treatment of that. It's fabulous. But you disagree with sacramentality and physical objects used for spiritual purposes (you seem to collapse every instance of it into extremity and inferior spirituality). I have shown that this is a most unbiblical position to take. Your burden now is to refute the biblical arguments provided. Your fight in this respect is not ultimately with Catholics, but is, I believe, with the Bible and with the God Who wrote the Bible, and how He chose to do and reveal things.

* * * * *

A certain forum dominated by cynics and relentless critics of anything I do has a thread devoted to mocking and making ridiculous comments about the photograph posted at the top of this dialogue. This mentality highlights once again the odd Protestant antipathy to physical things in Christianity: even, in this case, the nature of the crucifixion itself.

The nice European, blonde haired, blue-eyed Jesus (who looks sort of like a guy in a 70s country rock band: like Kenny Rogers or something), used to be mocked, and rightly so. But let anyone dare show what truly happened when He was beaten and crucified for our sake, and sure enough, that has to be made fun of with idiotic remarks, as if a Catholic enjoys and gets a charge out of seeing what they did to our Lord and Savior (in other words, that it is -- what else? -- abnormal, mentally-questionable behavior). I can understand agnostics saying this (it is one of their brain dead, garden-variety blasts against Christianity), but other Christians? Very odd and strange. The entire point is missed, as usual.

I didn't make the crucifixion what it is. But I know it is good and pious to meditate upon the suffering of Jesus for our sake. Paul did that so much that he writes about taking into his own body the sufferings of Christ (2 Cor 4:10, Col 1:24) and that Christians are to share His sufferings (Rom 8:17; Phil 3:10). I guess, then, he is about as morbid as they come: obsessed with all the blood and gore, etc. We'll have to give Paul a Protestant, secularist American re-education and get him up to speed. Meanwhile, look at the violent movies our culture produces. That's fine and dandy. Instead it is considered chic and intelligent and sophomoric-clever to mock a Catholic meditation on the central event in the Christian faith, as if this were not a thoroughly Christian and "biblical" thing to do.

But whatever we do, we dare not meditate on the cross! We can't have that. We must have a sanitized, bleached, streamlined feel-good, warm fuzzy, non-physical religion, just like the Gnostics and Greek pagans did. We must forget the cross at every turn. It's too bloody. We can only have a bare cross or one with a Jesus on it who looks like he is from a junior high play. These cynics want to be more like pagan Greeks than Christians in this respect, like the ones St. Paul commented upon: "but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles" (1 Corinthians 1:23).

As it is, the main reason I posted the "bloody picture" was because it had a direct relationship to one of the arguments in the paper: about the blood of Christ and how a Protestant would treat it if he had a hypothetical vial filled with it. But I don't expect that to be grasped, either, by folks who consistently show a profound inability to comprehend what I write, or what my argument is, or even my reason for making any particular argument. Even my explaining it now won't matter a hill of beans, because hostility clouds one's intellectual capacities and makes one illogical, as well as silly beyond words.

Biblical Evidence For Fasting and Abstinence (Lent)

[ source ]

[Bible passages now available only in chapter ten of my book, Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths]

* * * * *

As for the forty days of Lent, The Catholic Encyclopedia: "Lent" (subcategory: "Duration of the Fast") states:

In determining this period of forty days the example of Moses, Elias, and Christ must have exercised a predominant influence, but it is also possible that the fact was borne in mind that Christ lay forty hours in the tomb. On the other hand just as Pentecost (the fifty days) was a period during which Christians were joyous and prayed standing, though they were not always engaged in such prayer, so the Quadragesima (the forty days) was originally a period marked by fasting, but not necessarily a period in which the faithful fasted every day.

Much more on this is in the article. The New Bible Dictionary (edited by J.D. Douglass, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1962, "Number" (p. 898 for the following quotation) brings out many interesting aspects of "forty":

Forty is associated with almost each new development in the history of God's mighty acts, especially of salvation, e.g., the flood, redemption from Egypt, Elijah and the prophetic era, the advent of Christ, and the birth of the Church. The following periods of forty days may be listed: the downpour of rain during the flood (Gn. 7:17); the despatch of the raven (Gn. 8:6); Moses' fasts on the mount (Ex. 24:18, 34:28; Dt. 9:9); the spies' exploration of the land of Canaan (Nu. 13:25); Moses' prayer for Israel (Dt. 9:25); Goliath's defiance (1 Sa. 17:16); Elijah's journey to Horeb (1 Ki. 19:8); Ezekiel's lying on his right side (Ezk. 4:6); Jonah's warning to Nineveh (Jon. 3:4); Christ's stay in the wilderness prior to His temptation (Mt. 4:2), His appearances after His resurrection (Acts 1:3).

There are several more incidences of the duration of 40 years (the Jews' wandering in the wilderness, reigns of the great kings, etc.), but I'll pass on typing all those, since the immediate analogy is to the 40 days of Lent.

Biblical Evidence for Ashes on Ash Wednesday

[ source ]

[now only available in my book, Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths]

Inspired Prophets as a Biblical Analogy to Papal Infallibility

Jeremiah Lamenting the Destruction of Jerusalem, by Rembrandt

[This information (39 passages and some commentary) is now available only in chapter 3 of my book, Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths]

Q & A on Catholic Apologetics: Why I Do What I Do (As My Vocation)

With my family: August 1999, on the field of old Tiger Stadium. Our daughter was born in November 2001.

This came about as a result of questions (in my comboxes) from Scott, a Lutheran. For background, to explain several of my comments: most of his friends that he hangs out with on his own Internet discussion board, are extremely hostile to me (for various reasons: none at all valid, as far as I am concerned), but he seems infinitely less so, if at all. In the past, however, he had expressed some very pointed criticisms of yours truly as well. That whole aspect was discussed further up in the initial conversation back and forth -- if anyone cares about it --, starting with his first comment on 2-21-09.

In any event, now he seems perfectly willing and able to talk to me in a normal fashion, and to hear my side of things, for which I am eternally grateful. In the process I have spontaneously composed perhaps the longest "apologia for apologetics" that I've ever written, that may possibly have some general value in helping people understand the proper motivations for doing (mostly Catholic) apologetics and committing one's life-work to it, as I have done. His words will be in blue.

To be updated (as of 2-25-09) as further questions and my replies are added . . .

* * * * *

One question for you. Is this the appropriate format to engage in questions about what it is you do and what drives you or is there a better way? I was wondering about a few things.

If you give me your word that a serious inquisitive discussion about my apostolate will not be mocked and dissected on your site for the purpose of yet more cynical psychoanalysis of me, I'd be happy to have a discussion. The Open Forum (where this is) is the appropriate place to do it on my blog. If I think an exchange has value for a larger readership, then the paper from the exchange would end up on my General Apologetics and/or Personal Page.

You have my word that my conversation will be sincere. However, I can only speak for myself, not the peanut gallery. Let me know if you can live with that.

Okay, Scott; I'm willing. I'd like to ask you a few initial things, too, if I may (then I'll be more than happy to answer any and all of your questions). Short answers are fine, as long as they give a substantive answer to what I am asking:

1) What is your own religious affiliation (and briefly, any different past affiliations)? I argue and answer a bit differently, according to who I am talking to, because presuppositions are different, and thus need to be approached differently.

Grew up Baptist. Have passed through a couple of denominations (probably because I've moved several times and aren't really interested in any particular denomination). Most notably, I've been Episcopalian and Orthodox. Currently, I'm Lutheran, but still like to wander a bit. Given I grew up a preacher's kid and pastored myself, I don't know if I will ever truly feel settled in one church. Something about knowing the politics too well makes me squirm. However, I love worshiping with others, so I don't just sit at home. Oh, and I lean towards Christian Universalism.

2) Are you at least less cynical about and hostile to me than many of your board comrades obviously are?

Much less hostile. Not necessarily less cynical. That's why I thought chatting with you about your activities might open my eyes a bit to why you do this.

3) Have your views in that regard changed in the last two years or so since you were quite critical, yourself?

I'm probably still as critical of those who engage in apologetics as I used to be. That's nothing personal with you. But, I'm willing to hold that criticism back for the opportunity to dialogue. . . . I just became more interested in the last couple of days in actually trying to understand you.

Question for you: When I read some of your material (and I will be very honest here - most theology bores me, so I really just kind of glance through it), I see lots of arguing. Arguing with fellow Christians, arguing with atheists, etc. Your arguments tend to be about the validity or rightness of the Catholic Church. My question is how does being Christian or being Catholic affect what you do daily? How does it affect how you view and treat others? In other words, when you aren't on here driving deep theological points home, what are you doing? What do you do for others? I'm hoping to dispel the perception you sit online 18 hours a day like a pointy headed intellectual arguing fine points of theology, but never actually live your faith. (That is a myth that exists in my head, by the way. No one has said that about you. I created it about epologists, in general, so you have to live with the generalization and now can destroy it with your answer). Appreciate you taking the time to respond. I really want to know, on a practical level, what it means to you to be Christian. Please don't quote any Saints. LOL

I'm willing to trust that you are sincere, just as you have said. You seem serious in your present questioning. I'll now answer your questions.

Thanks for filling in your religious background. And thanks for noting that you are "much less hostile." I hope you will be less cynical, too, after being willing to have a dialogue: something no other of your number has yet done. Bravo! I admire that willingness, especially if it means catching hell from your friends who may think I am completely untrustworthy and not worth anyone's time at all. First, let me answer your initial query as to "why you [I] do this."

I was called by God to do apologetics; to be an apologist. I knew this in 1981, as an evangelical Protestant. Prior to that time I had little idea of what I wanted to do with my life. Then I did know (as people experience in many walks of life: musicians do this; artists, writers; any occupation, really). This came in the year after I experienced a spiritual revival and read some more apologetics beyond C.S. Lewis, whom I had read and liked in the late 70s.

The purpose of apologetics is to explain and defend Christianity and (in my case) Catholicism in particular. When I am interacting with atheists and agnostics, I make my best effort to stick to general Christianity, and don't get into Catholic distinctives at all, because I think that is improper. First things first. My task is to convince the atheist to become a theist and then a Christian. If he or she wants to explore Catholicism eventually, that's fine, but it is not my initial task. Thus, two of my books don't mention let alone defend Catholic distinctives at all (Mere Christian Apologetics and Christian Worldview vs. Postmodernism). That's why I felt perfectly at ease giving copies of them to a cousin who is a Baptist, struggling with a daughter who is questioning some things in Christianity.

The motivation of apologetics is to remove roadblocks to faith and to the Catholic faith. The Holy Spirit leads as He wills. That's not my job. It is a fundamentally positive endeavor: to help the Christian become more confident in his faith and to understand that faith is harmonious with reason and stringent thought. The Christian need not fear reason or science or philosophy. They are all our allies and support our case far better than the atheist case.

In specifically Catholic apologetics, the aim, of course, is to provide answers to all the hundreds of criticisms that we hear from our Protestant and Orthodox brethren (especially the ones who don't even consider us Christians).

I love dialogue and I love debate. I'm a Socratic, and that skill (whatever I have of it) is put to good use in defending the Catholic perspective and critiquing other views that claim to be superior to it.

For our purposes, and for those of your friends reading this, I want to stress to the utmost that apologetics (properly understood) is not about ego or "kicking butt" or belittling how stupid people are, or those who believe differently. It's not about arrogance and superiority. I have tons of ecumenical papers on my site. My record is clear. I don't have to defend my ecumenical good faith.

The goal is exactly as I have stated: to defend Catholicism against honest criticisms (and sometimes grossly unfair ones). If someone is arrogant and thinks he knows all the answers to everything, he has no business being an apologist. Our field doesn't need that kind of person. They give us a bad name. Obviously, you must have met many such people for you to look so disdainfully upon my field. Apologists are human beings like anyone else. There are good ones and bad ones: hypocrites and smart asses and people who were never fit for doing it. But the endeavor ought to be judged by its best proponents (people like Pat Madrid, Jimmy Akin, Scott Hahn, Peter Kreeft, Thomas Howard, John Martignoni, Marcus Grodi, the folks at Catholic Answers, historic figures like G.K. Chesterton and Ronald Knox, and many more), not its worst .

The thing itself doesn't rise and fall (anymore than Christianity itself) on the performance of folks who do their job poorly. Yet when it comes to Catholic apologetics, when I see criticisms of it, they always seem to actually distort what we do, or point to some wet-behind-the-ears Joe Q. Apologist on the Internet who has set up a blog and is not exactly the best example or witness of the Catholic cause.

This isn't fair. If I want to render a judgment of Protestant apologists, I don't go to Jack Chick or other anti-Catholics; I go to serious apologists like Norman Geisler and William Lane Craig and Gary Habermas and so forth, and to brilliant philosopher-apologists like Alvin Plantinga. It is judged by its best and most distinguished proponents, not by the least and least credentialed.

When I read some of your material (and I will be very honest here - most theology bores me, so I really just kind of glance through it), I see lots of arguing. Arguing with fellow Christians, arguing with atheists, etc. Your arguments tend to be about the validity or rightness of the Catholic Church.

Well, you need to step back and examine your assumed premise here. Why do you frown upon arguing? Disputation or discussion or dialogue (precisely as we are doing right now) is not mere "quarreling" or wrangling or squabbling. It is a search for truth, and a defense of truth, and willingness to follow it wherever it leads. That was Socrates' vision of the dialogue, and one that I studiously try to follow. Moreover, it is a quite biblical thing.

My conception of dialogue in the course of apologetics is most clearly laid out in my Introduction to my book, Bible Conversations, which anyone can read online. Here is a portion:

The word dialogue appears in the Bible. The Greek dialegomai occurs 13 times in the New Testament, and refers to reason, rational argument, discussion, discourse, debate, dispute and so forth. Particularly, we often see it applied to the Apostle Paul as he reasoned and argued with Jews in the synagogues (Acts 17:2,17, 18:4,19, 19:8 ) and Greeks and other Gentiles in the marketplaces and academies of the time, where the exchange of ideas took place (Acts 17:17, 18:4, 19:9-10).

St. Paul's evangelistic preaching wasn't simply thrilling oratory and edifying, "homiletic" exposition; it involved in-depth reasoning; even - at times, such as on Mars Hill (Acts 17:22-34) -, literally philosophical discourse.

Our Lord Jesus, too, often engaged in vigorous, rational, scriptural argument, especially with the Pharisees, much in the spirit of the ancient rabbis. One example of this among many occurs in Mark 12:18-27, where He is said to be "disputing" (Greek, suzeteo) with the Sadducees (cf. Acts 9:29, where the same word is used).

Rational argument, thinking, or open-minded discourse and dialogue is altogether permissible; indeed, required of all Christians who wish to have a robust, confident, reasonable faith amidst the competing ideas and faiths of the world and academia. Our Lord instructs us to love God with our minds as well as with all our hearts, souls, and strength (Luke 10:27). . . .

Apologia is also a biblical word, and appears much in the same sense as with Socrates, with regard to St. Paul's defense of himself during his lengthy trial (Acts 22:1, 25:16). It is also used with reference to Paul's defense and confirmation of the gospel (Philippians 1:7,16 - rendered defense in the RSV in all four instances).

My question is how does being Christian or being Catholic affect what you do daily? How does it affect how you view and treat others?

It affects everything. First of all, I am to love all people and to approach them respectfully and with charity and the benefit of the doubt; to believe the best about them, not the worst. This is why I detest all the calumnies on the Internet, because it is the spirit of division and antichrist and of malice and suspicion. I condemn it wherever it appears, whether against me or not. Constructive, cordial criticism is fine; calumny, slander, and gratuitous insult is a serious sin. That is unarguable from a biblical perspective, and it is a matter of rudimentary ethics that all well-meaning, conscientious people, whether religious or not, can agree upon.

So my first task as an apologist, -- and how being a committed Christian affects what I do on a daily basis --, is to show forth the love of Christ.

Secondly, you seem to assume that doing apologetics is somehow inherently antithetical to helping or serving others. That's not how I see it at all. I spend thirty hours a week now at the Coming Home Network forum, where I am the head moderator. The express purpose of that forum is to help young Catholics and those considering Catholicism to better understand and apply their faith to real life situations.

This is service; it is love. Again, I try to help people to have a better understanding of their faith. This makes them happier people, not weighed down with doubts and conflicts. We help people through the annulment process and to deal with spouses who believe something differently: who may even be anti-Catholic.

We pray for each other daily, and give constant emotional support in life's struggles. My co-worker, who helps moderate, was recently unjustly fired from his job. I immediately made a post and pinned it to the top, asking for prayer, and he has received much emotional and prayer support. Another woman's husband was laid off yesterday, so we are praying for that.

We help people to answer co-workers or family members who are asking sincere questions about Catholicism. This is service; it is teaching; it's education. It's equipping the saints to go out and be witnesses to the world. I don't see why anyone would object to that. This is the very heart of apologetics and what motivates me. I want to see people happy, fulfilled, exercising their own vocations under God, whatever it might be, joyful, at peace, confident as a Christian and as a Catholic Christian: in love with God and loving towards their fellow human beings. And of course I want to see them saved in the end and in heaven.

Is there anything "bad" in any of that? If so, you need to enlighten me. I don't see it.

In other words, when you aren't on here driving deep theological points home, what are you doing? What do you do for others?

I already mentioned quite a bit that I do for others, in my work at CHNI (and, in doing apologetics in general). I vehemently deny that this is somehow not doing anything for others. Its completely trying to help and serve others. I think I am serving you right now in carefully, comprehensively answering your questions to the best of my ability. That is a service to you. I'm taking my time (a couple of hours) replying to you because I think good, honest questions deserve good, honest answers. It would be a lack of love to blow you off and ignore you. Is that not helping you in some fashion? I think it is. You may now understand apologetics better. You may understand what motivates at least this one full-time apologist to do what he does. Perhaps you will have more interest in apologetics and utilize it to spark more theological interest in your life. It has certainly had that effect on me. I never fail to become happy and excited in studying any theological matter, and especially the Bible. I wouldn't trade it for anything. It's pure joy.

But beyond apologetics, I've done a number of things. Recently, in the last three months I was the initiator and key planner of a high school reunion of music students (Cass Tech in Detroit). That sounds like a bunch of fun, and it certainly was -- this past Saturday -- but it also had a social, charitable component. We were part of a fundraising breakfast at the school which raised money for the school now, since Detroit public schools are in trouble. We were helping to promote the music program and the arts. It is also a pleasing endeavor in terms of race relations, because Cass was a racially mixed school (about 75% black when I attended). We all got together and the color of skin was absolutely irrelevant. And I love that; it is how it should be: a colorblind society.

I have been involved in rescues at abortion clinics in the past. I was arrested five times, blocked clinic doors about 25 times, stood trial (or at least the preliminary procedures) on three occasions, spent many hours in detention in jail and one night overnight. Babies are alive today because of what we did. Have you ever been arrested for radically living out your Christian beliefs? Does that count as "doing something"?

My wife and I have always been very concerned to take care of our aging parents, and we do that; first of all by not moving away from them. We are constantly helping my parents and my wife's mother, driving them places, shoveling snow, helping run errands, working on the house and yard, etc.

Our four children are our highest immediate priority. I work my tail off so that my wife Judy doesn't have to go out and get another job in addition to mine. That enables her to do what she feels her calling is: home-schooling our four children (two with special needs: autism and OCD and other conditions).

Our goal is to disciple them and develop four radically committed Catholic Christians to go out and help the world be a better place. We constantly drive them to their youth group activities, so they can be in wholesome Christian environments and meet their friends there. We have a backyard pool and basketball backboard and net for family fun. I'm with my 7 year-old daughter all day long off and on: whenever she comes upstairs to see me. We play chess; I play chess with my 12 year-old son. I play Scrabble with two of my sons. I play video game racing with all of them. We play Monopoly. We go hiking constantly; they learn about tapping for maple syrup and lots of other things in local woods (a program sponsored by U of M-Dearborn, near Henry Ford's mansion). We play basketball and baseball together. Sometimes we go on bicycle journeys, or rafting (last summer on the Detroit River). On Sunday I went bowling with my three sons and their youth group. We do readings as a family (because my two oldest are now writing books). We take marvelous family trips like the two western ones in 2006 and 2008 and Cape Cod and Mt. Washington (which I climbed with my three sons) in 2007. We visit up in northern Michigan, on Lake Huron (swimming, campfires, hiking the beach and woods), where my wife's mother owns a home. We watch TV almost every night together, as a family. We eat dinner as a family. We talk to each other and have lots of fun joking around. My wife and I go on regular dates.

Family comes first. If I had more expendable time and money I could see myself doing any number of additional social activities, serving others, but I don't have either. As it is, I feel I am serving others by putting in many hours writing. Time is money. If I spend time doing something where I have some ability, and that others consider to be of value (and they do, because they let me know that), then that is service. Spiritual things are as important as anything in life.

I'm hoping to dispel the perception you sit online 18 hours a day like a pointy headed intellectual arguing fine points of theology, but never actually live your faith.

But of course I don't do that. People think because I write a lot, that I am here 24 hours a day, as if I don't have a life. Nothing could be further from the truth. I think fast and I write very fast. But I'm not in bondage to my work at all. I had no problem leaving it for a three week vacation last year. I've taken entire Lents off without any writing, and didn't miss it a bit. I'm not obsessed with this. I'm simply a very fast writer, and extremely motivated to do what I do.

Much of this accusation is projection as well. People look at how fast they write, and look at my output and conclude that I couldn't possibly do this without neglecting my family. They're wrong. This is my gift because it is my vocation. I'm able to write (and fast, and with great volume) because that's what God wants me to do with my life.

So today, for example, I took an hour off to visit with my mother-in-law, who was here because my wife drove her to the hospital for an operation. I took two hours, from 7-9 PM, playing Scrabble with my 12 year-old son. Then I watched the State of the Union Address for two hours, then I talked to my 15 year-old son about the book he is writing, then for a while with my wife about our upcoming vacation. Then I came back here and typed all my replies to you, from about 11 PM to 1 AM, after my wife went to bed.

So my total time typing today was about eight hours. You see how much I have written here. I also made a few dozen replies on the CHNI board in my job there, including some research on "candles" or "lamps" in the Bible, in the context of worship, and some other job tasks.

There is nothing "extreme" or "fanatical" in any of that. I spent eight hours of working and six or so with my family. How is that any different from a typical workday that anyone would have, except that I have flexibility of schedule since I work at home and spend far more time with my children than the vast majority of fathers, according to all surveys on that subject?

Someone can sit there and speculate about my supposed neglect of my wife and children. It's a lie from the pit of hell: the very opposite of the truth. All our friends know how much time we spend with our kids. People on your board don't know the slightest thing about my personal life or marriage or family. They simply project and invent myths: apparently what they would like to be true, but don't have the slightest shred of evidence for. I don't pry into any of their private lives with no knowledge. It's none of my blasted business. Nor is my home life any of theirs. But you have asked in a normal fashion, and so I've told you.

(That is a myth that exists in my head, by the way. No one has said that about you. I created it about epologists, in general, so you have to live with the generalization and now can destroy it with your answer).

It is a false charge I have heard from many quarters. I've concluded that it can only be explained by:

1) prior hostility leading to ludicrous irrationality and groundless, rather silly claims,

2) projection,

3) inability to comprehend a fast writer,

4) their own insecurities.

You highlight another possibility: you have assembled an image of online apologists, as a generalization, which is then applied to me, as one of that class. This whole nonsense of apologists being "religiopaths" is, of course, merely a variation of the hundreds-year-old charge of religion being some sort of mental illness or radical infantile insecurity. If I care too much about it and even defend it, I must be nuts.

That's weird and stupid enough coming from atheists. Coming from fellow Christians it is the height of absurdity and a magnificent victory of the devil, to get other Christians mocking someone who devotes his life to defending Christianity. How ingenious. What more could the devil ask for? It's like a basketball player mocking the roundness of a basketball or a painter ridiculing and trashing his own paintbrush. Does that make any sense?

Appreciate you taking the time to respond. I really want to know, on a practical level, what it means to you to be Christian.

My pleasure. Thank you very much for being a Christian gentleman and affording me the opportunity, and I hope I have expressed myself well and that my answer was agreeable to you, and that I can receive your Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval as a Good Christian.

It was all totally honest and from the heart.

Thanks for taking the time to respond so thoroughly. Your comments are both interesting and enlightening. It's nice to see a little bit of the person behind the persona.

You're welcome. Thanks for the opportunity. My perceived "persona" among those of my critics who have worked hard to make the real person a mere cardboard caricature, is a vastly different sort of person than the actual Dave Armstrong. I think you're beginning to see that. If so, maybe you can better understand why many of these criticisms are so utterly ridiculous and miss the mark entirely.

Being this is your field, I'm sure you are obviously aware that many of the issues that are argued between yourself and non-Catholics have been debated for nearly 2000 years.

Most of the things I debate have been issues for only 500 years. Sometimes nearly 1000.

Chances are, they will never be settled. Does that ever wear you out? Do you ever stop and think, "Man, this seems like a waste of time! I think I'll just stick to educating those within the ranks of Catholicism rather than continue to engage in debates that have existed long before I arrived on this earth and will continue to exist long after I'm gone."

Good question.

First of all, as I have noted, much of my efforts (especially now, with my work at CHNI) are already directed towards Catholics. So I am helping my own folks "in-house" much of the time. I do a lot fewer actual debates with non-Catholics than I used to, and that is because Protestants online seem (for whatever reason) to be less interested in debates with Catholics. That is excepting the anti-Catholic faction, who are as willing as ever, but too ignorant in their presuppositions and greatly mistaken in their conceptions of what Catholics believe, for any such debate to be worth anyone's trouble (thus I no longer try to debate or dialogue with them at all: having tried futilely to do so for 12 years or so before giving up).

Beyond the anti-Catholic hopeless cases, I get exasperated with individuals at times, if they are not interested in dialogue. There is a right way and a wrong way to do it and people either understand that and are willing to dialogue or not. It's a skill hardly even taught in schools anymore.

I don't get weary in a general sense because of the largeness and "stubbornness" of the usual Catholic-Protestant issues. This is for several reasons:

1) I'm not trying to end the entire divide (no one can: only God can bring that about, and even in His case, He can't overcome free will), but only trying to persuade the one person I am dialoguing with or the group of readers who is reading any particular writing of mine.

2) Trying to persuade people of one particular Christian position is like what Mother Teresa said about poverty: "we love them one at a time." So I try to persuade people one at a time. That's all anyone can reasonably shoot for as a goal.

3) If the person I am dialoguing with is unpersuaded, there is always a chance that other folks reading the paper at that time or years later may be. And so it was a success if it helped anyone at all. If we truly believe in the message we are spreading then we rejoice when anyone is convinced of it, because we think it will make them happier and more joyful and fulfilled in life.

4) I receive reports all the time of people wanting to become Catholic or returning to the Church of their youth, in some small measure because of what I have written about. That is, of course, fulfilling on a personal level, because it gives meaning and purpose to what I do. We all need that in our work, whatever it is. I'm not a Jeremiah type (see the next entry!).

5) "The Jeremiah Factor": truth is truth no matter how few (or how many) believe it. It is said that Jeremiah preached for 50-60 years and saw scarcely any fruit at all from his life's work. Yet what he preached was true. Any Catholic apologist or any Christian evangelist / apologist of any stripe seeks to convey and pass along what he believes is truth, which is a good thing (because truth always is). The name of my old Protestant campus missionary endeavor in the late 80s, was "True Truth Ministries" -- after a phrase in Francis Schaeffer.

And that is the motivation: it's not in a know-it-all, "you guys are all idiots because you don't know what I know, and what we Catholics know" stupid, arrogant sense, but in the sense of what we used to say in the evangelical world: "I'm just one beggar passing along to other beggars what I know, regarding where to get some food."

For all these reasons I don't get weary, because I'm not trying to convert the world. Technically, I'm not trying to convert anyone personally, through my own efforts. I'm simply passing along the reasons I have come to believe, for why Catholicism is the fullness of Christian truth. If that helps someone else, great, but their (possible) conversion is not ultimately my responsibility at all. It is the Holy Spirit's and their own. I'm just trying to be a good steward of the gifts that God has given me; to play my role in the whole process, which is an extraordinary privilege: to be able to be used by God in any way whatsoever. I believe everyone has a vocation from God (including every occupation in the world); this is mine.

If someone compliments me for helping them become a Catholic, I'll accept it and say "thanks" but then I always try to remember to say "all glory to God" and "it's all by His grace." I absolutely believe those things. It all goes back to God. All of us are mere leaky vessels and greatly flawed messengers at best. But God uses us poor miserable sinners for His purposes, which is the amazing thing.

Also, I didn't mean to imply you do not engage in charitable work or Christian behavior when not behind a keyboard (or even that you do not engage in them while behind one). I was just asking for examples of what you do for my own interest, which you answered. I appreciate it.

Cool. But of course I am also answering for those on your board, who are, no doubt, following this, and who are hostile to me, so I wanted to highlight some things and blow away the myths and legends that seem to surround the imaginary person that they think I am. Facts is facts. They can either believe them or continue to believe that I am the lousiest husband and father in the universe and some sort of pathetic, super-arrogant nutcase. That only harms them. If my wife and children think I'm doing a pretty good job, and (hopefully) God, too, then why should I care what some nattering nabobs think, because they have nothing better to do?

Your attitude is clearly vastly different, which makes me wonder: why do you choose to hang around people who are so cynical about many aspects of Christianity, seemingly bitter, and disenchanted with Christianity? It's the furthest imaginable outlook from my own. From my interaction with you now, you don't seem to be the sort of person who would want to spend time in such pursuits, that seem to me to serve no constructive purpose.

You distinguished being Christian and being Catholic, which I appreciate (by Catholic, I'm assuming you mean formal Catholic in the sense of being in communion with the Pope).

Indeed.

Do you believe someone can honestly be in the Will of God and not be Catholic?

I think they can be, as far as what they themselves know. If they don't truly understand Catholicism, then what it is they reject, is not really Catholicism as it actually is, but some false impression of it. So they may be (usually are) completely sincere in their present beliefs, according to their state of knowledge. And most non-Catholic Christian beliefs are good and worthy and true. Some things are in error. I think many non-Catholic Christians are more in the will of God (considered as a whole: in the sense I am describing presently) than many many Catholics.

I'll take a committed, doctrinally and morally conservative evangelical Protestant any day over a nominal, theologically liberal, dissenting, non-serious Catholic. I feel that I have much more in common with them, as a brother in Christ. I'd say that the former probably has a much better shot (all things being equal) of making it to heaven, too.

That said, being as Catholic, obviously I believe that it is the fullness of Christian truth. All Christians used to believe that about their own brand of Christianity. Luther and Calvin and Zwingli thought that about themselves (i.e., their parties). But now in Protestantism there is often a sort of odd, curious relativism, where the person no longer believes that anyone can claim to have the entire "apostolic deposit" of Christian truth. One is always searching for the truth but never finds it. I've written several times about this.

It's considered arrogant for anyone to even make such a claim. I don't see how it is arrogant to believe that one can accept in faith a Christian Tradition that has been faithfully passed down through the centuries, from Jesus and the apostles, and protected by the Holy Spirit (based in large part on historical argumentation that this was, in fact, the case). That's what we believe. The truth is out there and can be known. And I believe this notion is quite evident in Scripture, which everywhere assumes without argument that there is one faith, one doctrine, one tradition, one gospel, one Church; not thousands of variations, as if that was ever God's will.

For example, could He lead some to be Baptist, Anglican, or Orthodox?

From my perspective, I think God could very well lead them in these paths, with the eventual goal of their winding up as Catholics. God meets people where they are at. I'm convinced that for me, my evangelical period (1977-1990) was the best possible place I could have been during that period (i.e., relative to my own needs as a spiritually seeking person), and given the spiritual and intellectual place I was at, and where I came from (nominal Methodism, secularism, strong occultic affinities, strong social liberalism, ignorance of Christian theology).

What I learned there has been of great value to me ever since. And that is because most of what I learned was profoundly true. So I was far better off being in those circles than if I had been in your usual liberal, nominalistic Catholic circles that can be found almost everywhere today because of the modernist crisis in the Church.

I learned those Christian truths in those circles and then I learned other more distinctively Catholic things, such as Sacred Tradition, an infallible Church, Mariology, sacramentology, high liturgy, the papacy, the communion of saints, penance, a more historically-grounded faith, etc.

To me these appeared to be deeper developments of what I already knew. I went from a relatively "skeletal" Christianity to a full-bodied version. This is the sense in which I believe that God could lead someone into a non-Catholic Christian communion. But from our perspective God's fullest will would be for all to become Catholic in due course, because that is where the fullness of apostolic Christianity resides, and there is but one Church, and we think it subsists in the Catholic Church, with non-Catholic Christians also imperfectly part of it by virtue of baptism in particular and many other truths held in common.

If someone never becomes a Catholic, I still greatly respect them as fellow Christians and rejoice at all that we have in common (which is my strong ecumenical interest that always coexists with my apologetics).

Let me tell you why I'm asking so it doesn't appear to be a set up question. I wonder if your debates with fellow Christians are an attempt to persuade them to come to Catholic faith.

That is always the best-case scenario. On the other hand, I am usually not trying to consciously persuade someone, because that is not my immediate goal, and it is the Holy Spirit's job, anyway. I just defend Catholic teachings as true, and let the chips fall where they may. If they are persuaded, great. But it is not in my hands. I simply try to make my best argument for my position, just as any scientist or philosopher would do. That's my responsibility. I am also responsible if I do a lousy job in conveying or defending Catholic truth, or am a poor example, charity-wise, etc. God holds me responsible for that, which is "my end" of the equation.

Other times, the discussion is primarily about the many things we have in common, or to simply educate others as to what Catholics believe. You'd have to search far and wide in my writings to find anywhere where I am directly putting pressure on individuals to convert, or making them squirm or feel uncomfortable or on the spot. That's not my style at all. It wasn't even my style when I was an evangelical and believed that people could be saved in an instant. I was already more Catholic twenty or 25 years ago than I realized.

In other words, are they evangelical in nature?

Of course I would like to see anyone become a Catholic. But I am usually not consciously thinking that while I am writing. I just explain and defend Catholic views. If the other person likes them and is convinced as a result, great. That is the Holy Spirit's work. Knowing that frees an apologist from all kinds of pressure. It ain't based on us or our great persuasiveness, but on the power of God. We remove roadblocks and obstacles.

God has His own timing, as He did in my own life. It may not be time right now for a person to become a Catholic. It may be that God knows (since He knows everything and is outside of time) they will require five more years before the time is right (based on all kinds of variables). He knows that; I do not. My job is to provide cogent reasoning, and to educate people according to what they already know (as Paul always tried to do: being "all things to all people"). Conversion is not based on psychological manipulation. I always believed that, as an evangelical, too. It comes from faith, and faith is a supernatural gift from God: not the conclusion of a brilliant syllogism.

One can't be persuaded of something they know little of, or of a thing they have been fed tons of misinformation about. I knew almost nothing of Catholicism for most of my life prior to age 32 (I'm now 50). God wouldn't and couldn't have expected me to become a Catholic in those days. I had to become educated. By various paths and circumstances (e.g., the pro-life rescue movement), I was led to become curious about Catholicism, started studying both sides of the Big Debate and was convinced. The more we know, the more we are responsible to act upon.

"To whom much is given, much is required."

Or are they merely an attempt to understand various perspectives and understand how others walk in their faith while also sharing yours?

If the immediate primary goal of the discussion is ecumenical, it is of this nature, yes. Practically speaking, I don't ever assume that I will persuade the person I am directly responding to. I rarely see that happen. What happens is that I hear from people later on, who were reading some or a lot of my writing, and became convinced that Catholicism is true. I never even knew that the process was taking place. They later communicate to me that this was the case.

That's fine with me. It is exactly my style to let someone read in the comfort of their couch and to be persuaded by reason, in faith, that Catholicism is true. It's mostly how I was converted myself, by reading Cardinal Newman's Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine and other works. It wasn't through human, emotional pressure, or the sentiment of "smells and bells" or suchlike. No; it came about by comparing the competing claims and concluding that Catholicism was far more plausible and coherent and factual in terms of Christian history (and -- most surprising and shocking of all -- the most biblical).

Oh, and in the interest of fairness, feel free to ask me any personal questions as well.

It's a great discussion. At this point, I am mainly interested (per my universal thrust in dialogue) in your response to what I have written. Do you feel that you better understand the goal, nature, and aim of (Catholic) apologetics, and are less hostile to it? Do I now seem to be a more normally-adjusted (hopefully halfway intelligent) human being, and not some abnormal, obsessed freak or infantile dolt, as many of your friends are firmly convinced without cause?

Have I succeeded in showing that to be a Catholic is not the equivalent of "triumphalistic" arrogance: that it is a perfectly sincere, self-consistent, coherent position that can be respected to a significant degree as a legitimate form of Christianity, even if one disagrees with it?

There are many more myths about me still "out there": that I am merely "self-anointed" or "self-appointed," that I have no credentials, or no institutional support from the Church (Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J. wrote the Foreword to my first book; his cause is up for sainthood); that my books are merely self-published (four are not, and they are all bestsellers in their field); that my books have never received an Imprimatur (The New Catholic Answer Bible has one); that I irresponsibly quit a job, so I could neglect my familial responsibilities in order to argue with people on the Internet 23 hours a day (untrue: the delivery company I worked for went out of business in late 2001 through no fault of my own); that most of my income comes from donations (nope; maybe only 10% does, if even that); that I beg and plead and put pressure on people to contribute to my apostolate (never was true; only an occasional notice; never with any pressure or "crisis appeals"); that I don't sleep (I'd be in the hospital by now if I attempted that); that I neglect my family (LOL); that I am personally an arrogant jerk, who would be most miserable to meet in person (my many friends can speak to that); that I hate anyone (never have; never will); that I roam the Internet looking for people to belittle and embarrass (may God strike me down if so), that I jumped right into apologetics as soon as I converted (my first published article was over two years later; first time on the Internet as a Catholic over 5 years later, etc.), etc., etc. ad nauseum.

All this stuff is based on caricature, stereotype, and projection. It has no relation to reality or fact. People use all sorts of devices to dismiss and insult apologetics and apologists, just as they use them to dismiss Catholicism or general Christianity. If a person is concerned to seek truth, they won't approach anything in this fashion, but will study and actually talk to the people concerned, to see for themselves where the truth lies about individuals, endeavors like apologetics, and competing Christian claims.

You are doing that, and for that I highly commend you and offer many kudos.

Lastly, as to the amount that I write and how long it takes: all my responses to you today took me 90 minutes. You see how much it is. Most people, I suspect, could not write anywhere near that much in that time. So they project and assume that I must have been here 4-6 hours writing all this, consuming entire days. Nope. 90 minutes. If one has a gift of writing, they can do things like that. It only confirms that my vocation is exactly what I have always claimed it to be since 1981: apologetics and evangelism: mostly in writing form. Not all can do this. Some of those who can, God calls into full-time service.

And that's me. It's confirmed by the fruit of changed lives and by people being more fulfilled, confident Catholics or Christians of some stripe, in some small part by reading my writing. It's not just me making a claim, as if it is entirely subjective. There is objective fruit. And that is all by God's grace. To Him be ALL the glory.

Biblical Evidence For Apostolic Oral Tradition

[ source ]

From my 2009 book, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism (mostly just Bible passages)

* * * * *

AUTHORITATIVE ORAL TRADITION (INCLUDING “WORD” AND “WORD OF GOD”)

Matthew 13:19 When any one hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what is sown in his heart; this is what was sown along the path.

Matthew 13:20 As for what was sown on rocky ground, this is he who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; (other instances of “the word”: Matt 13:21-23; Mk 2:2; 4:14-20,33; Lk 1:2; 8:12-13,15; Jn 1:1,14 [of Jesus]; Jn 14:24; Acts 6:4; 8:4; 11:19; 14:25; 16:6; Gal 6:6; Eph 5:26; Col 4:3; 1 Pet 3:1)

Luke 5:1 While the people pressed upon him to hear the word of God, he was standing by the lake of Gennes'aret. (other instances of “word of God”: Lk 3:2; 8:11,21; Acts 6:2; 13:5,7,44,48; 17:13; 18:11; Rom 9:6; 1 Cor 14:36; Eph 6:17; Phil 1:14; Col 1:25; 1 Tim 4:5; 2 Tim 2:9; Titus 2:5; Heb 6:5; 13:7; 1 Jn 2:14; Rev 1:9; 20:4)

Luke 11:28 But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”

Acts 4:4 But many of those who heard the word believed; and the number of the men came to about five thousand.

Acts 4:31 And when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God with boldness.

Acts 6:7 And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith.

Acts 8:14 . . . Sama'ria had received the word of God . . .

Acts 8:25 Now when they had testified and spoken the word of the Lord, they returned to Jerusalem, preaching the gospel to many villages of the Samaritans. (other instances of “word of the Lord”: Acts 15:36; 16:32; 19:10,20; 1 Thess 1:8; 4:15)

Acts 10:36-44 You know the word which he sent to Israel, preaching good news of peace by Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all), the word which was proclaimed throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee after the baptism which John preached: how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power; how he went about doing good and healing all that were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him. And we are witnesses to all that he did both in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They put him to death by hanging him on a tree; but God raised him on the third day and made him manifest; not to all the people but to us who were chosen by God as witnesses, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. And he commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that he is the one ordained by God to be judge of the living and the dead. To him all the prophets bear witness that every one who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name. While Peter was still saying this, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word.

Acts 11:1 Now the apostles and the brethren who were in Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God.

Acts 12:24 But the word of God grew and multiplied.

Acts 13:46 And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, “It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles.”

Acts 13:49 And the word of the Lord spread throughout all the region.

Acts 14:3 So they remained for a long time, speaking boldly for the Lord, who bore witness to the word of his grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands. (cf. Acts 20:32: “word of his grace”)

Acts 15:7 And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.”

Acts 15:27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth.

Acts 15:35 But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also.

Acts 17:11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessaloni'ca, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

Romans 10:8 But what does it say? The word is near you, on your lips and in your heart (that is, the word of faith which we preach);

Romans 16:25 Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which was kept secret for long ages

1 Corinthians 1:18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

1 Corinthians 14:29-30 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. If a revelation is made to another sitting by, let the first be silent.

2 Corinthians 3:6 who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not in a written code but in the Spirit; for the written code kills, but the Spirit gives life.

Ephesians 1:13 In him you also, who have heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and have believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, (cf. 2 Tim 2:15: “word of truth”)

Philippians 2:16 holding fast the word of life, so that in the day of Christ I may be proud that I did not run in vain or labor in vain. (cf. 1 John 1:1: “word of life”)

Colossians 1:5 because of the hope laid up for you in heaven. Of this you have heard before in the word of the truth, the gospel

Colossians 3:16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teach and admonish one another in all wisdom, and sing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs with thankfulness in your hearts to God.

1 Thessalonians 1:6 And you became imitators of us and of the Lord, for you received the word in much affliction, with joy inspired by the Holy Spirit;

1 Thessalonians 2:13 And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.

In 1 Thessalonians “Scripture” or “Scriptures” never appear. “Word,” “word of the Lord,” or “word of God” appear five times (1:6,8, 2:13 [twice], 4:15), but in each instance it is clearly in the sense of oral proclamation, not Scripture.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 . . . stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth, or by letter.

2 Thessalonians 3:1 Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may speed on and triumph, as it did among you,

2 Timothy 1:13-14 Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me . . . guard the truth which has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.

2 Timothy 2:2 And what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

2 Timothy 4:2 preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching.

Hebrews 1:7 Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God; consider the outcome of their life, and imitate their faith.

Hebrews 2:1-4 Therefore we must pay the closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it. For if the message declared by angels was valid and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution, how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard him, while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his own will.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

Hebrews 5:13 for every one who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a child.

James 1:18 Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth that we should be a kind of first fruits of his creatures.

James 1:22-23 But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. For if any one is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who observes his natural face in a mirror;

1 Peter 1:23 You have been born anew, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God;

1 Peter 1:25 “but the word of the Lord abides for ever.” That word is the good news which was preached to you.

1 Peter 2:8 . . . they stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.

2 Peter 1:19,21 And we have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. . . . no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

1 John 1:5 This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light and in him is no darkness at all.

1 John 2:7 Beloved, I am writing you no new commandment, but an old commandment which you had from the beginning; the old commandment is the word which you have heard.

1 John 2:24 Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you will abide in the Son and in the Father.

1 John 3:11 For this is the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another,

2 John 1:6 And this is love, that we follow his commandments; this is the commandment, as you have heard from the beginning, that you follow love.

Revelation 1:2 who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw.

Revelation 3:10 Because you have kept my word of patient endurance, I will keep you from the hour of trial which is coming on the whole world, to try those who dwell upon the earth.

Revelation 6:9 When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne;

NEW TESTAMENT ALLUSIONS TO AUTHORITATIVE ORAL TEACHING NOT RECORDED IN SCRIPTURE

Matthew 13:3 And he told them many things in parables, . . .

Matthew 28:20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.

Mark 4:2 And he taught them many things in parables, . . . . .

Mark 4:33 With many such parables he spoke the word to them, as they were able to hear it;

Mark 6:34 As he went ashore he saw a great throng, and he had compassion on them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd; and he began to teach them many things.

Luke 11:53 As he went away from there, the scribes and the Pharisees began to press him hard, and to provoke him to speak of many things,

Luke 24:15-16,25-27 While they were talking and discussing together, Jesus himself drew near and went with them. But their eyes were kept from recognizing him. . . . And he said to them, "O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?" And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

John 16:12 I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.

John 20:30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; (cf. Jn 21:25: “many other things which Jesus did”)

Acts 1:2-3 until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commandment through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. To them he presented himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days, and speaking of the kingdom of God.

NEW TESTAMENT CITATIONS OF OLDER NON-BIBLICAL ORAL TRADITIONS

Matthew 2:23 And he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, "He shall be called a Nazarene."

This notion cannot be found in the Old Testament, yet it was passed down “by the prophets.” Thus, a prophecy, which is considered to be “God's Word” was passed down orally, rather than through Scripture.

Matthew 7:12 So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.

Matthew 23:2 The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat;

The phrase or idea of Moses' seat cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is found in the (originally oral) Mishna, where a sort of “teaching succession” from Moses on down is taught.

1 Corinthians 10:4 and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ.

The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement, in the related passages about Moses striking the rock to produce water (Exodus 17:1-7; Numbers 20:2-13). But rabbinic tradition does.

2 Timothy 3:8 As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith;

These two men cannot be found in the related Old Testament passage (Exodus 7:8 ff.), or anywhere else in the Old Testament.

James 5:17 Eli'jah was a man of like nature with ourselves and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth.

The reference to a lack of rain for three years is absent from the relevant Old Testament passage in 1 Kings 17.

1 Peter 3:19 in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison,

This is drawn from the Jewish apocalyptic book 1 Enoch (12-16).

Jude 9 But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you."

Jude 14-15 It was of these also that Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam prophesied, saying, "Behold, the Lord came with his holy myriads, to execute judgment on all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness which they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him."

Direct quotation of 1 Enoch 1:9.