By
Keith Thompson
Roman Catholic apologist
Jack Lake has written a bachelor’s thesis in response to my critique of the
Catholic teaching of Mary being “Maternal Mediator” i.e., coredemptrix, advocate
and mediatrix of all graces. He also defends Romish worship of Mary at the end
(Jack Lake, “A Systematic Rejoinder to the Calvinist Polemicist Keith Thompson
Concerning the Intercession, Invocation, Universal Mediation of Grace, and Cultus or Veneration of the Most Holy
Mother of God,” Bachelor Diss. Christendom College, 2018). My criticisms of
Mariolatry on these issues are found in the documentary Reformed Answers on the Roman Corruption of Christianity
and in these two [1, 2] essays which basically contain the same points.
In the present essay I intend to thoroughly address Lake’s thesis. It is well
written and quite impressive as to its length and some of the historical research
that went into it. Yet, because of all the errors of fact, erroneous arguments,
and false conclusions, I must take major issue with its content and respond
accordingly.
Mistakes
in the Introduction
There are a number of errors
in introduction of the thesis I will point out. This will be done so that Lake
does not repeat such mistakes in his future work, so as to prevent others from using
such problematic statements to discredit his future materials.
Lake identified Chris
White, a reviewer of my documentary film on Catholicism, as a Calvinist (p. 3).
However, he is not Reformed. Chris aligns more with the Baptist tradition. Another
error is that Lake asserts I make “attacks upon the Mother of God” (p. 4). This
is a common sound-bite talking point made by Catholic polemicists. They think
anyone who denies their idolatrous doctrines not found in divine revelation are
“attacking” Mary (A Catholic apologist who calls himself “Father Mateo” even
wrote a book called Refuting the Attack
on Mary). But the truth is Protestants are actually protecting her from the
idolatrous Catholic lies about her. It would pain her so much if she knew all
these Catholics were idolizing her with statues, praying to her, lighting candles
to her, excessively bowing to her, entrusting their souls and eternal salvation
to her, and giving her roles, titles and offices which belong only to God
according to divine revelation (e.g. immaculate conception, a New Covenant heavenly
efficacious mediator or advocate i.e., propitiator, mediatrix of all graces, “peacemaker”
between sinners and God, “the Helper,” the deliverer from hell, “our life,” the
crusher of the serpent’s head, and the recipient of saintly devotion in heaven
with Jesus, etc.). So, I do not attack Mary. I, along with many other followers
of God’s actual revelation, refute the satanic, man-made, idolatrous teachings
Romanism has sinfully foisted upon her.
It is also falsely claimed
that I and others “even go so far as to claim that the Patristic Church adhered
to ‘Reformation Christianity’” (p. 6). However, this is not exactly correct. My
position is if you read the works of Oden and Needham on sola fide, the works of Webster and King on sola scriptura, Gill’s work on the five points of Calvinism, and
the work of Gibson et al on particular redemption (Thomas Oden, The Justification Reader, (Eerdmans, 2002),
Nick Needham, “Justification in the Early Church Fathers,” in Bruce McCormack
(ed), Justification in Perspective,
(Baker Academic, 2006), William Webster and David King, Holy Scripture, 3 vols., (Christian Resources, 2001), John Gill, The Cause of God and Truth, (1738),
David Gibson and Jonathan Gibson (eds.), From
Heaven he Came and Sought Her, (Crossway, 2013), one can see strands of Reformation thought in the
early church fathers. But, I would not go as far as saying the fathers were
Reformation Christians, just as I would not say they were Roman Catholics.
There is clearly development on both sides. Yet, I am convinced Reformed theology
is ultimately faithful to divine revelation unlike Romish doctrine. So, here
Lake is guilty of misrepresentation.
Mary
as Coredemptrix
In my critique on Mary
being maternal mediator, one of the doctrines I examined was the idea Mary is coredemptrix.
This is the belief her suffering (or “death in her heart”) at the foot of the
cross actually contributed to Jesus’ sacrificial redemption in a saving way. On
the one hand I was disappointed that in his thesis Lake failed to defend this globally
popular Catholic teaching. But on the other hand, I appreciated he admitted it
is without basis in divine revelation. He writes, “we will not here be
responding to Thompson’s objections concerning . . . her Coredemption, since we
actually agree with him concerning that controversy” (p. 5). He continues,
“Our
private opinion is that the Blessed Virgin may be said to have cooperated in
the objective redemption only in a remote or mediate sense, i.e., insofar as
she brought forth Christ. We therefore reject the opinion of those theologians
who propose that the Virgin also directly and immediately cooperated in the
very sacrifice of Christ by means of her suffering, against which opinion
Thompson contends” (p. 5 n. 13).
It is a positive thing
that Lake rejected this evil Catholic teaching. The doctrine is indeed very
troubling and quite blasphemous. To say Mary cooperated in the redemption of
humanity by suffering at the foot of the cross is a serious error since scripture
affirms only Christ’s sufferings accomplished the expiatory and propitiatory
New Covenant sacrifice (Galatians 3:13; 1 Peter 3:18;
Hebrews 13:12). Only Jesus’ sufferings could and
did satisfy God the Father’s justice and wrath (Isaiah 53:3-5, 10; Romans 3:25;
1 Peter 1:18-19). This is never said of Mary in divine revelation. The
notion actually detracts from the sufficiency and glory Jesus alone deserves
for perfectly accomplishing the redemption at the cross. And Christians know God is jealous and will not have the glory He alone
deserves given to others (Exodus 20:5; 34:14; Isaiah 42:8; 48:11).
Also,
blood was required for the redemption (Hebrews 9:22).
Jesus spilled His. Mary did not spill hers. Thus, she did not participate in
the redemption at the cross in a saving way.
I enjoy the fact Catholic
scholars like Raymond Brown, Joseph Fitzmyer, John P. Meier, and Hans Kung
would often admit when Catholic doctrine is not supported by scripture and the primitive
church materials. This is a breath of fresh air on the matter of academic religious
honesty (compared for example to the fundamentalists of Catholic Answers who always falsely assert every Roman Catholic
teaching is biblical and primitive). But with Lake’s admission comes a major
conundrum he failed to address in his thesis.
He now has to grapple
with the fact that since at least the eleventh century A.D., starting with Arnold of Chartres and
Bonaventure, Roman Catholic leaders and popes have clearly affirmed this
wicked doctrine. Bernard of
Clairvaux, Albert the Great, John Tauler and many other prominent Catholic leaders
can be added to the list (Mark I. Miravalle, Mary: Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate, (Santa Barbara, CA:
Queenship Publishing, 1993), p. 13). Roschini and Carol provided a fuller list
of Catholic authorities who supported this doctrine from the Middle Ages into
the modern period (Roschini, Maria
Santissima Nella Storia Della Salvezza p. 179; Carol, De Corredemptione Beatae Virgininis Mariae, p.151; Idem, (ed.)
Mariology,
Volume 2, (Bruce, 1957), pp. 397-398). Pope Leo XIII went as far as to say Mary
died with Jesus in her heart (Leo XIII, Jucunda Semper, 1894). Benedict XV boldly claimed because of her
suffering near the cross “we may rightly say that she together with Christ
redeemed the human race” (Benedict
XV, Inter Sodalicia, 1918). Other
popes can be added to the list as teaching this false doctrine as well, such as
Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII, and John Paul II (For their quotes affirming this
doctrine, see Mark I.
Miravalle, Mary: Coredemptrix, Mediatrix,
Advocate, (Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Publishing, 1993), pp. 14-23).
Even the Second Vatican Council affirmed it:
“There she stood, in keeping with the divine plan, suffering grievously with her only
begotten Son. There she united herself
with a maternal heart with His sacrifice, and lovingly consenting to the
immolation of this Victim which she herself had brought forth” (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, 58).
“She
presented Him to the Father in the temple, and was united with Him in suffering as he died on the cross” (Vatican
II, Lumen Gentium, 61).
I have previously argued Vatican II documents like Lumen
Gentium must be considered infallible by Catholics.
This brings us to
the issues Lake must now address. Although this teaching is not supported by an
ex cathedra papal statement, I argue
it is dogmatic for Catholics because of Vatican II. Moreover, various Mariologists
and Catholic leaders argue it is an official Catholic dogma on basis of the
ordinary universal magisterium. That is, it was taught for so long by so many Catholic
leaders and popes that it could not be incorrect since the Catholic Church
could not propagate error for so long on such a large scale. Now, if, as Lake
believes, this teaching is not dogmatically valid for Catholics but was nevertheless
affirmed by many of Lake’s most famous and respected Catholic leaders and
popes, what kind of infallible guide would the Roman church
actually be? How can Lake
just swipe aside a teaching which has been accepted by Catholic leaders, masses
and popes for so many hundreds of years? The fact so many Catholic leaders and
popes taught this doctrine is enough for me to know it is a religion comprised
of unregenerate leaders. No regenerated person would ever believe a doctrine
which so detracts from the glory and sufficiency of Christ. Another line of
questioning is also in order: if Lake is free to believe this doctrine (even
though he does not think it is dogmatic), why doesn’t he? Does he think he is
smarter than the popes and Catholic leaders who believe(d) it is true? Is he
ashamed of the doctrine? Does he, like Protestants, recognize it is an evil
doctrine? Why the hesitancy if he is free to believe it (as many authorities
before him have)? Is he willing to clearly state that all of those Catholic
leaders and popes who affirmed the doctrine were deceived to believe and
propagate a false teaching?
Does
Divine Revelation Affirm Dead Saints in Heaven Intercede for Believers on
Earth?
In trying to defend the
Catholic teaching of the dead saints (like Mary) interceding for believers from
heaven, Lake’s first argument is an appeal to a text we do not even agree is
scripture. He argues, “The first and clearest of these texts is 2 Macc.
15:12-16, which states that Judas Maccabeus saw a vision of Onias and Jeremiah,
who were already dead, praying for the people of the Jews” (p. 13). But notice,
although this apocryphal text does affirm dead saints interceding, it does not
affirm the other aspect of this doctrine, i.e., believers on earth first
praying to dead saints. Moving forward, Lake argues a dozen or so church
fathers from Tertullian onward affirmed the canonicity of 2 Maccabees (p. 14).
However, this does not prove 2
Maccabees is part of belief-worthy divine revelation or canon. The patristics
are not the ultimate authority for doctrine, especially when they wrote as late
as Tertullian (i.e., early third century). Lake failed to mention earlier
fathers like Melito of Sardis did not regard apocryphal books like 2 Maccabees
as canonical scripture (F. F. Bruce, The
Canon of Scripture, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), p. 71). The
same is the case with fathers like Athanasius (Ibid., 78-79) and Jerome who both
said the apocrypha were good for edification, but were not to be viewed as
canon upon which doctrine is based (Athanasius, Letter 39:2-7; Schaff and Wallace, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1954),
Vol. 6, Jerome, Preface to Jerome’s
Works, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs, Daniel, pp. 492-493).
I could go into detail on other fathers who denied the apocrypha are canon (see
e.g. William Webster, Holy Scripture,
Vol. 2, (Battleground, WA: Christian Resources, 2001), pp. 333-434). But why
does their rejection of the apocrypha not count as evidence, but certain
fathers’ approval of the apocrypha does? This is a major inconsistency in
Catholic apologetics.
Uninspired church writers
who wrote hundreds of years after Christ and the apostles aside, there are some
straightforward, academic ways to demonstrate this book is not canonical
scripture. As I pointed out in my previous materials, in 2 Maccabees 14 the author praises a Jew named Razias for
committing suicide (vv. 37-38, 41-42). No Spirit-inspired author would praise
someone’s suicide. 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 says the body is God’s temple and that
those who destroy the body will be destroyed by God. In scripture those who
commit suicide are always noted for their wickedness, not their righteousness (e.g.
Abimelech in Judges 9:54; Saul in 1 Samuel 31:4, Ahithophel in 2 Samuel 17:23,
Zimri in 1 Kings 16:18, and Judas in Matthew 27:5). Lake responds by noting
Augustine held the suicide “is not praised as a morally good or
holy act, but rather one of bravery” (p. 14). But it is praised as a morally good act since it is called “noble” (v.
42). And again, Razias is called “of good report” (v.
37) and “pure” (v. 38) in the immediate context. Is Lake really
suggesting the suicide was religiously noble or brave but also immoral at the
same time? That is a contradiction. What is more, it is clear the route Razias took was the easier one and not the “brave “one
(contra Lake), even according to the text. Verse 42 says he committed suicide
rather than "fall into the hands of sinners and suffer outrages
unworthy of his noble birth.” It would have been braver to accept such
suffering, torture and martyrdom by his enemies as Jesus and certain apostles
did. Is
Lake suggesting Jesus and the inspired apostles were not as brave as Razias since they
did not just commit suicide like he did, but instead endured torture and murder
at the hands of their enemies? There are other problems Lake must address as
well. For instance, in 2 Maccabees 15:38-39 the author asks its readers
to forgive the book of its shortcomings. It says, “I also will here make an end
of my narration. Which if I have done well, and as it becometh the history, it
is what I desired: but if not so perfectly, it must be pardoned me” (2
Maccabees 15:38-39). This is not something a book inspired by the infallible
and inerrant Holy Spirit would contain. The Holy Spirit does not worry about
making mistakes or shortcomings, and would never ask to be “pardoned” on such
matters. 2 Maccabees also commits a serious historical error which an inspired
scripture would not contain. As Metzger notes, “The author now follows with an
account of the purifying of the Temple under the guidance of Judas, and the
inauguration of the Feast of Dedication (10:1-9). By an error of chronology,
this is said (10:3) to have taken place two years (instead of three years, see
I Macc. 4:52, compared with 1 Macc. 1:54-59) after the alter had been
desecrated” (Bruce Metzger, An
Introduction to the Apocrypha, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1957),
p. 144). In sum, it is very problematic to bring in 2 Maccabees as evidence for
Lake’s doctrine, much less one’s “first and clearest” evidence.
Next Lake discusses the
twenty-four elders of Revelation. Revelation 5:8 says, “And when he had taken the scroll, the four living
creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a
harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints” (Revelation 5:8). The
Catholic position is these elders are dead saints who intercede for believers
on earth. The problem is there is no evidence in the text of Revelation that
saints on earth first pray to these elders, who then bring such prayers to God.
Moving on, in Revelation 7:13 these
elders ask the identity of the triumphant multitudes in heaven (i.e., all the
redeemed saints). But this question would not need to be asked if these elders
were part of that group. Moreover, there are no other humans mentioned in
Revelation chapter 4. Mounce and Roloff also point out the elders match well with the angelic
heavenly council in OT texts like 1 Kings 22:19-22, 2 Chronicles 18:18, and Isaiah 6. And, Revelation 8:3-4 likewise
has an angel (not a deceased human saint) having believers’ prayers and
bringing them to God.
In my previous material I was very sympathetic
to Mounce’s argument that Revelation was written in light of the Jewish
background contained in texts like Tobit 12:15 and 3 Baruch 11 which state believers on
earth pray to God and then angels serve
as intermediaries who then bring those prayers up to Him (Robert H. Mounce, The Book
of Revelation: Revised, (NICNT, Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing, 1997), p. 135). These intermediaries are not first
prayed to (as in Romanism) in those extrabiblical citations. I am convinced
this is what is going on with these twenty-four elders in Revelation. They are
angelic intermediaries who take up to God the prayers which believers made to
God. Since these elders are not human saints and are not prayed to, the text
cannot be used as justification for the Catholic doctrine of praying to saints
or dead saints interceding for believers on earth. Lake did not refute the
aforementioned crucial background basis for my view of the text (i.e., Tobit
12:15 and 3 Baruch 11), even though the background matches Revelation very well.
Instead, he chose to merely offer other arguments for the position the elders
are human saints.
Concerning Revelation 5:9 (where these
elders in question are speaking), Lake argues the popular reading of “by your blood you ransomed [people] for God from every tribe and language
and people and nation” (reading 1) is wrong and should instead read “by your blood you ransomed us
for God from every tribe and language and people and nation” (reading 2). Because
there is a textual variant here in the manuscript tradition, Lake maintains his
reading is correct and thus the twenty-four elders are the “us” (i.e., human saints)
who were ransomed by Christ. He claims the exclusion of “us” (ἡμᾶς) in reading 1 is only supported by one ancient Greek
manuscript (p. 15). But he is wrong since it is supported by both Codex
Alexandrinus and P115 (Philip W. Comfort, New
Testament Text and Translation Commentary, (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House
Publishers, 2008), p. 825; Idem. and Barrett The Text of the Earliest Ne Testament Greek Manuscripts (Wheaton,
IL: Tyndale, 2001), p. 667). Also important to mention is the Ethiopian version
(eth) likewise supports it. Lake failed to grapple with the technical reasons most
text critics, the Nestle-Aland 28, the vast majority bible translations
(including Catholic ones like the NJB, NABRE, NRSV-CE, etc.), and commentators
favor reading 1. I will quote the commentators Osborne and Beale, as well as
the text critic Metzger on some of the main arguments for this position:
“. . .the shorter reading best explains the longer. Later scribes provided an object to tell the reader who was ‘purchased for God,’ so the original most likely was simply ‘purchased for God.’ Moreover, if ‘us’ is part of the text, then the four-living creatures as well as the elders (5:8) would have been redeemed, and the living creatures are certainly celestial beings” (Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, (BECNT, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), p. 268).“. . .the shorter reading is the more difficult, not having as precise an object. It is more likely that a scribe would attempt to clarify the direct object rather than the opposite. This stylistic abruptness is another expression of the Semitic influence that is characteristic of Revelation (e.g. note especially other primitive expressions with ἐκ [“from”] introduced like that of v 9b: 2:10; 3:9; 5:7; 11:9; in all these cases the ancient versions and even modern translations supply a more specific direct object). Secondly, “us” is not consistent with αὐτοὺς (“them”) in what follows in v. 10 (“he made them to God” . . .; nor is ‘us’ in v 9 harmonious with third person plural βασιλεύσουσιν [‘reign’] in v 10)” (G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, (NIGTC, Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B. Eerdmans, 1999), p. 360).“. . .this reading best accounts for the origin of the others. Wishing to provide ἠγόρασας with a more exactly determined object than is found in the words ἐκ πάσης φυλῆς καὶ, some scribes introduced ἡμᾶς either before τῷ Θεῷ (94 2344 al) or after τῷ Θεῷ (א 046 1006 1611 2053 al), while others replaced τῷ Θεῷ with ἡμᾶς (1 2065* Cyprian al). Those who made the emendations, however, overlooked the unsuitability of ἡμᾶς with αὐτοὺς in the following verse” (Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd edn., (Ger: Deutsche Biblegesellschaft, 1994), p. 666).
For one of the best technical defenses of reading 1,
see also N. B. Stonehouse, The Elders and
the Living Beings in the Apocalypse, in Arcana
Revelatam, (Kampen, 1951), pp. 139-143. In light of the best arguments
favoring reading 1, I therefore maintain my view of Revelation 5:9 is correct
and that it does not indicate these elders were dead saints, despite what Lake
and anyone else claims.
Lake then (pp. 116-117)
appeals to the arguments of André Feuillet that
various features within Revelation allegedly point to the twenty-four elders
being dead saints and not angels (André Feuillet, Johannine Studies, trans.
Thomas E. Crane (New York: Alba House, 1964), pp. 185-194). However, there are serious problems with Feuillet’s arguments. He reasoned since the
elders are depicted as wearing white (4:4), this favors them being humans
rather than angels, since in Jewish background literature and Revelation
itself, it is allegedly mostly humans who are depicted like this. However, I
will argue angels and supernatural entities are depicted as wearing white just
as often in the extrabiblical Jewish, OT and NT literature, including in
Revelation and John’s other writings. In Psalms 104:1-2, Daniel 7:9, and 1
Enoch 14:20-21 God himself is depicted as wearing white. During the
transfiguration in Matthew 17:2, Jesus’ clothing is turned white as light. In
the Jewish pseudepigraphal work the Testament of Levi 8:2 seven angels are
depicted as being dressed in white. In the empty tomb narratives of the gospels
(including John’s Gospel which has the same author as Revelation), the angel(s)
wears white (Mark 16:5; Matthew 28:2; Luke 24:4; John 20:12). In Acts 1:10 two
angels wear white. In 1 Enoch 71:1, 3, 87:2, and 90:31 angels are depicted as
wearing white. In Revelation God himself has a white throne, white face, white
hair, white horse, and is on a white cloud (1:14-16; 14:14; 19:11; 20:11).
Finally, the armies of heaven who battle alongside Jesus are depicted as
wearing white (19:14). This army is comprised of both saints (Revelation 17:14)
and angels (Zechariah 14:5, Matthew 13:41; 26:53, Revelation 12:7-9; cf. 2
Enoch 17, and Testament of Levi 3:3). Thus, my conclusion is the relevant
materials depict both humans and angels/supernatural beings as wearing white
basically at the same frequency. So, the elders in question wearing white
conclusively favors neither Lake’s position nor mine. It is therefore a faulty
argument.
We are then presented with
Feuillet’s claim
that since the elders wear crowns (4:4, 10), they must be humans because in
Revelation and in other NT texts it is victorious saints who are commonly given
crowns. However, in Revelation 14:14 Jesus himself has a
crown and he is not a saint. He is a supernatural person who took on a human
form, having two natures. Also, in Revelation 9:7 supernatural beings have gold
crowns. And in surrounding Jewish background literature angels and supernatural
beings can be depicted wearing crowns (e.g. 2 Enoch 14:2; 3 Enoch 12:3; 13:1;
21:4). So, the matter of crowns is inconclusive as well. Lake then uses Feuillet’s argument that only saints and not angels are called “elders” in
scripture (p. 17). But in Isaiah
24:23 angels are in fact called “elders.” The Hebrew word for elder used here
is זְקֵנָ֖יו and was often used in the OT of Jewish people in
leadership (W. E. Vine, Vine’s Expository
Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson,
1996), p. 68 notes, “The ‘elder’ was recognized by the people for his gifts of
leadership, wisdom and justice.”). Scholars debate if these beings here
designated as “elders” are angels or Israelite men. I am persuaded of the
former view (For the best technical defense of this position see Timothy M. Willis, “Yahweh's Elders (Isa. 24,23):
Senior Officials of the Divine
Court,” ZAW 103 (1991): 375-385). The best way to understand the
elders of v. 23 is to look at the mention of God punishing the hosts of heaven
in v. 21. Many scholars point out these hosts of heaven are rebellious,
celestial powers or angels (e.g. Geoffrey W. Grogan, “Isaiah” in Isaiah-Ezekiel, Frank E. Gaebelein (ed.),
(EBC, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1986), pp. 155; Alec Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity
Press, 1993), 206). These kinds of heavenly, angelic beings (some good and some
evil) are also mentioned in Deuteronomy 32:8, Daniel 10:13, 20, Ephesians 6:12,
2 Peter 2:4, Jude 6, and Revelation 20:1-3. In fact, the Hebrew word used in
Isaiah 24:21 for
these punished “hosts” of heaven is צְבָ֥א, which is the very same word used of angelic beings in 1 Kings 22:19
and 2 Chronicles 18:18. So, my view is when
the Lord punishes the rebellious angels in v. 21 (i.e., the “hosts” of heaven),
this is restated in another way in v. 23, i.e., His glory will be manifested
before these “elders” or “ancient ones” (v. 23). Thus, God is glorified when
punishing these
angelic “elders.” We therefore do have an example of angels being identified as
elders. Suffice it to say, there is a body of scholarly material Lake needs to
interact with before claiming angels are never called elders in scripture.
Another erroneous argument
Lake appeals to
is that “the
overwhelming majority of the Fathers interpret the elders as being men” (p. 17).
He cites Clement of
Alexandria, Victorinus, Andreas of Caesarea, Oecumenius, Primasius, and Bede (Ibid.).
However, the “overwhelming majority” of fathers do not affirm this. The
earliest and thus most methodologically important church fathers did not even comment on the
matter, i.e., Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Papias, Polycarp, the Didache, the
Epistle of Barnabas, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Shepherd, Tatian, Athenagoras, Melito of Sardis, Dionysius of Corinth,
Hegesippus, and Irenaeus. A more logical statement would therefore be: the
majority of fathers who actually commented on the matter (which are few and late
methodologically irrelevant writers) say these elders were men. But note Bede
lived in the eighth century and Oecumenius lived in the tenth century! I do not find it
determinative if a handful of men writing hundreds of years (some almost a
thousand years!) after Jesus and the inspired apostles interpreted a verse a certain
way. That is not a sound authority with which to base doctrine. Lake will
respond by noting I often quote church fathers to refute Catholicism, or demand
Catholics have church father support for their doctrines and interpretations.
However, the reason I demand Catholics find support from the church fathers,
and why I will often quote church fathers affirming doctrines and
interpretations contradicting Romanism, is only because Rome falsely claims
these men were Romanists, and because Rome often talks about her teachings
being supported by the “unanimous consent of the fathers.” However, my view is not and never has been that if some
church fathers affirm a Catholic doctrine, then that doctrine is true (I will
never grant that methodology). What can be determined from God’s infallible
divine revelation or closed deposit of faith through valid hermeneutics is the
authority for Christians. And as an historian, Lake has not demonstrated the
interpretation of the fathers he quoted derives ultimately from the orally
transmitted doctrine of the inspired apostles (which the Roman church often
appeals to). In sum, all but one of Feuillet’s arguments on this matter are faulty. The one decent argument Lake
did present from him is listed below. But when we compare the remaining
standing arguments of Lake with mine, I strongly feel my position has a lot
more to offer and is therefore correct. I will conclude my discussion of the
twenty-four elders of Revelation with this juxtaposition:
Standing arguments for my position:
- Mounce notes the elders bringing up to God the prayers of believers directed to God matches well with the Jewish idea of intermediary angels who were said to do the same, as in Tobit 12:15 and 3 Baruch 11.- Mounce and Roloff point out the elders match well with the angelic heavenly council in OT texts like 1 Kings 22:19-22, 2 Chronicles 18:18 and Isaiah 6.- In Revelation 7:13 the elders ask the identity of the triumphant multitudes in heaven (i.e., all the redeemed saints). But this question would not need to be asked if the elders were part of that group.- There are no other humans mentioned in Revelation chapter 4.- Revelation 8:3-4 likewise has an angel (not a deceased human saint) having believers’ prayers and bringing them to God.- On 5:9, the textual evidence and arguments favor the variant that implies the elders are not the redeemed saints. And if we accept the variant that indicates they were redeemed saints, then the “four living creatures” in v. 8 would also have to be redeemed saints, which is impossible since they are supernatural creatures and not redeemed saints.
Standing arguments for Lake’s
position
- Feuillet notes the elders sit on thrones which is something saints commonly do in Revelation and in other scriptures.- Along with Clement of Alexandria’s third century interpretation, five other much, much later, methodologically irrelevant writers also interpret the elders to be humans (two such writers being from the eighth and tenth centuries!).
Next, Lake raises 2 Peter
1:15 which says, “And I will make every effort so that after
my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things.” Lake notes, “Chrysostom interprets Peter’s words as being a
promise to pray for the living after his death” (p. 17). But the truth about this
text, which can be exegetically demonstrated, is that Peter meant his letter, 2
Peter, would itself be the reminder of what he taught them even after his
death, not that his alleged post-mortem prayers would. Bauckham has pointed out
the Greek for “And I will make every effort” (σπουδάσω δὲ καὶ ἑκάστοτε) “is elsewhere used of diligence or eagerness to write a letter (Barn. 1:5; 4:9; 21:9; cf. Jude 3) and
may be an instance of epistolary style. Especially striking is the fact that an
equivalent expression is found in 2 Apoc.
Bar. 78:5 (Baruch’s “testamentary” letter): “I have been even more careful
to leave you the words of this epistle before I die” (Richard Bauckham, Jude-2 Peter, (WBC, Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 1983), p. 201). Thus, Gundry notes, “By having survived the death of
Peter, this very letter of his counts as an ongoing reminder” (Robert H.
Gundry, Commentary on the New Testament,
(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2010), p. 958). Even
the Roman Catholic Bible commentator George Haydock admitted Lake’s
interpretation “does not seem the true and literal sense” (Haydock Commentary on the Bible, 2 Peter 1:15). There is nothing in
the text about Peter praying for believers after his death to help them be
reminded. That is eisegesis or reading things into the text which are not
there. It is not exegesis or drawing out the original meaning of the text using
valid hermeneutics or principles of interpretation. Citing one or two later
church fathers’ opinions where they read things into the text is not a valid
academic hermeneutic. It is the opposite and serves as a clear evidence that
Lake has fallen into idolizing or relying on the opinions of later men too
credulously, instead of submitting to the actual meaning of the holy scripture
as drawn out by good, fact-based methodologies. Later church father eisegetical
interpretations are not the ultimate authority for Christians.
Lake brings up Luke 16:27-28 “where the
rich man in hell prays for the salvation of his brothers on earth. To a much
greater extent, therefore, must the saints in heaven, who are inflamed with
charity, pray for the salvation of us, their fellow brothers in Christ” (p. 18).
The problem is this is an argument from autonomous fallen, fallible reasoning
as opposed to an argument from divine, reliable, infallible revelational
confirmation. Scripture does not make the argument that since those in hell
pray for humans on earth, therefore those in heaven must pray for those on earth. And this is the problem with many of
Lake’s arguments throughout his thesis. The problem is man’s mind is tainted with sin (i.e., the noetic effects of sin). This means reasoning, unless it is based squarely on
God’s divine revelational confirmation, is fallen, untrustworthy and inclined towards
sinfulness and error rather than righteousness and truth (Jeremiah 17:9;
Romans 3:4, 11; 1 Corinthians 1:21; 3:18-21; 1 John 3:20). Indeed, in scripture
Christians
are warned to not lean on their own understanding but are instead commanded to submit to God (Proverbs 3:5; 28:26). As a matter of fact, scripture reveals concerning doctrinal issues, reasoning from within and
apart from submission to God’s divine revelational
confirmation results in false teachings and ideas from non-believers and believers
alike (Mark 2:6-8; Luke 3:15-16). Moreover,
1 Corinthians 1:21 confirms the world using its autonomous wisdom divorced from
special revelational confirmation did not lead them to the truth about God. So,
why does Lake think his autonomous reasonings which go beyond divine
revelational confirmation (and add to it) are reliable? These texts prove it is very unwise and unreliable to do this as a basis for establishing doctrine (i.e., Lake’s assumption that people in hell pray for believers,
therefore saints in heaven must pray for believers). God did not confirm that conclusion in divine revelation. And it is not
something which necessarily follows from scripture. God’s
revelation which is perfect and infallible (unlike the fallen human mind) needs to be consulted for
confirmation on these matters if one wishes to reliably
and surely come to doctrinal truth. The thoughts/reasonings of
Lake here are not found in God’s divine revelation. And God says, “‘For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your
ways My ways,’ declares the LORD” (Isaiah 55:8). So, it is unwise to rely on such
imperfect thoughts/reasonings for doctrine. Every time Lake uses the hermeneutical fallacy of autonomous fallen
reasoning as a valid authority to establish a doctrine in his thesis (thereby
adding to divine revelation), as opposed to relying on divine revelational
confirmation and that which necessarily follows from it, I will have to call
him out on it. It is unbiblical, unchristian and offensive to God who is the
ultimate authority. He must be the one we submit to as the measure of truth for
doctrine. Man and his imperfect thoughts/reasonings are not the measure of
truth.
Excursus on “Implicit” Biblical EvidenceOn texts like Luke 16:27-28 (above) Lake will falsely claim he is drawing out the “implicit” meaning of scripture in such arguments. And since I have conceded not every true doctrine is explicit in scripture, but that some are only implicitly taught therein, he will try to get me to concede his aforementioned argumentation on Luke 16:27-28 is valid. He argues, “Thompson elsewhere concedes that things taught by the Fathers or Tradition but not explicitly contained within Scripture can still be true, provided that they do not contradict Scripture, and are at least implicitly taught therein” (p. 16). The problem is Lake is misunderstanding what the Reformation tradition means by implicit scriptural support. We define it as that which follows from good and necessary consequence of scripture, even if it is not directly stated in any one verse (Westminster Confession of Faith, 1:6). For instance, the word “Trinity” is not in the Bible. And there is no single verse stating God exists as three eternally distinct persons sharing the one essence. But we can go to implicit texts on the matter (i.e., individual texts which separately affirm the Father is God and eternal, the Son is God and eternal, the Spirit is God and eternal, and yet all of them are distinct from one another). This would be considered a valid implicit basis for the doctrine of Trinity which follows from good and necessary consequence of scripture, though is not directly stated in any one verse. But Lake’s conclusion based on his reading of Luke 16:27-28 is not a good and necessary consequence of scripture. It could be that damned people in hell pray for people and yet God forbids righteous people in heaven from doing so because Jesus is the sufficient, efficacious heavenly mediator/advocate (my view which will be demonstrated later based on John 14:14; Romans 3:25; 5:1; 10; 8:1; 34-35; 2 Corinthians 5:18; Philippians 4:6; Ephesians 2:18; 3:11-12; Colossians 1:21-22; 1 Timothy 2:5; 1 John 2:1-2; 4:10; Hebrews 7:23-25; 8:12; 9:12, 26, 28; 10:10, 14, 17; 12:7-11; cf. John 1:29; 1 Peter 1:18-19). So, Lake is not doing the same thing as Protestants. And his appeal to us allowing implicit scriptural support reveals he misunderstands what we mean by that.
Lake continues with this
faulty approach where man is viewed as the measure of what is true instead of
God’s divine revelation (and that which necessarily follows from it) being the
measure of what is true: “The fifth text is Apoc. 6:9-10, where the martyrs in
heaven ask for Divine judgment against their persecutors. Much more, therefore,
must they ask for Divine mercy upon us, their fellow Christians” (p. 18). Since in divine revelation God never says
anything from which it follows from good and necessary consequence that martyrs
must pray for believers, Christians cannot give Lake’s conclusion any weight.
Again, it could be that while martyrs pray for judgement against those who
murdered them, God forbids them from attempting to be heavenly mediatorial
intercessors for the salvation of earthly believers because Christ is the sufficient,
efficacious heavenly mediator/advocate who believers are to depend on for that
(as I will argue below based on John 14:14; Romans 3:25; 5:1; 10; 8:1;
34-35; 2 Corinthians 5:18; Philippians 4:6; Ephesians 2:18; 3:11-12;
Colossians 1:21-22; 1 Timothy 2:5; 1 John 2:1-2;
4:10;
Hebrews
7:23-25; 8:12; 9:12, 26, 28; 10:10, 14,
17; 12:7-11; cf. John 1:29; 1 Peter 1:18-19). Thus, Lake’s conclusion does not follow from Revelation 6:9-10 as a good
and necessary consequence. So why should anyone believe it? Because his
fallen, imperfect mind thinks it? Catholics clearly do not care if their
doctrine actually originates with God himself. If it comes from their own
fallible, fallen minds, that is idolatrously sufficient for them. Lake commits
the same fallacy again on the same page: “It [the doctrine of saintly
intercession from heaven] is proven secondly from those passages of Scripture
which teach that the good angels intercede or pray for us, and have care for
our salvation (e.g., Tob. 12:12,15; Ps. 34:9; 91:11; Dan. 10:13,20-21; Zech.
1:12-13; Matt. 18:10; Apoc. 8:3-4), whence it follows that the human saints do
the same” (pp.
18-19). However, none of these texts
even say angels pray for humans. Lake lied when he wrote that. Tobit 12:12, 15
says Tobit and Sarah prayed to God, and the angel Rafael then brought
that prayer to God as an intermediary. Rafael did not himself pray for Tobit
and Sarah. And Zechariah 1:12-13 is about the pre-incarnate divine Son of God
praying to the Father for believers on earth, which Protestants agree takes
place (see below where I discuss in depth how the Angel of the Lord is actually
God Himself). Christians affirm Christ is our sufficiently efficacious divine
mediator, intercessor or advocate. Thus, Zechariah 1:12-13 does not refute our
position. And Revelation 8:3-4 does not say the created angel there prays for
humans on earth. It says he has their prayers and brings them to God (though it does not say earthly saints first prayed to that angel). Despite
the fact none of Lake’s references actually say angels pray for humans on
earth, they do show angels care about humans on earth. But, so what? Just
because angels care about humans on earth, it does not follow from good and
necessary consequence that dead saints in heaven must therefore pray for humans on earth.
It could be that God forbids that, again, because Christ is the sufficient,
efficacious heavenly mediator/advocate believers are to depend on for this (as
I will argue below based on John 14:14; Romans 3:25; 5:1; 10; 8:1;
34-35; 2 Corinthians 5:18; Philippians 4:6; Ephesians 2:18; 3:11-12;
Colossians 1:21-22; 1 John 2:1-2;
4:10;
Hebrews
7:23-25; 8:12; 9:12, 26, 28; 10:10, 14,
17; 12:7-11; cf. John 1:29; 1 Peter 1:18-19).
Next, we read, “It [the
intercession of saints in heaven] is proven thirdly from Scripture’s teaching that
believers on earth ought to pray or intercede on the behalf of others, as may
be gathered from innumerable texts [texts
listed]. . . . Whence it follows that the saints, having once prayed for others while
they were alive on earth, continue to do so now that they are in heaven” (p. 19).
Again, the fallacy of autonomous
fallen, fallible reasoning as a valid authority since Lake’s conclusion does
not follow as a good and necessary consequence of scripture. It could be that
while believers on earth pray for other believers on earth, saints in heaven do
not intercede for the salvation of earthly believers because that heavenly advocate
role is designated to the efficacious Christ (as I will argue below
based on John
14:14; Romans 3:25;
5:1; 10; 8:1;
34-35; 2 Corinthians 5:18; Philippians 4:6; Ephesians 2:18; 3:11-12;
Colossians 1:21-22; 1 Timothy 2:5; 1 John 2:1-2;
4:10;
Hebrews
7:23-25; 8:12; 9:12, 26, 28; 10:10, 14,
17; 12:7-11; cf. John 1:29; 1 Peter 1:18-19). It could be that while God allows earthly believers to pray
for other earthly believers, He forbids prayer to human saints since His way of
thinking is not identical to Lake’s (Isaiah 55:8). The
opinions of many late church fathers on the matter of the intercession of the
dead (including Mary) are then presented (pp. 19-38). Lake falsely claims “the
unanimous
consent of the ancient Fathers. . . teach that
the Virgin and the other saints in heaven intercede or pray for men on earth” (p. 19).
The problem is Lake begins with Cyprian, then continues to Origen, Eusebius,
Cyril of Jerusalem, and so on. So, the earliest father (Cyprian) he can muster
on this is from the third century. He wrote roughly 230 years after Jesus and
the inspired apostles. This means Lake is not able to quote the earliest and thus most methodologically important
fathers who actually had contact with the apostles (i.e., apostolic fathers)
like Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Papias, Polycarp, the Didache, the Epistle of
Barnabas, or those right after the apostolic fathers like Aristides, Justin
Martyr, Shepherd, Tatian, Athenagoras, Melito of Sardis, Dionysius of Corinth, Hegesippus, and Irenaeus
(though we must be tentative with Irenaeus since in Against Heresies 2.22.5, he falsely claimed he received from the
apostles the idea Jesus died between the ages of forty and fifty, which can be shown to be factually inaccurate and unapostolic).
Thus, Lake’s claim of possessing “the unanimous consent of the ancient
Fathers” on the
matter is a lie. The earliest and thus most methodologically important ones do not confirm this
doctrine. If Lake wishes to
contend the apostles handed this doctrine on orally (because they sure didn’t
teach heavenly intercession of saints in the NT), these are the early fathers
Lake would need to consult as an historian. But when we consult their writings,
we do not see them affirming this idea. Lake could have saved himself a lot of
time. Instead of spending nineteen pages quoting men who wrote 230 years after
Jesus as well as ones much, much later, he could have just said “quite a few
fallible, uninspired men writing many hundreds of years after Jesus and the inspired apostles affirmed
this doctrine, even though the earliest and thus most methodologically important ones do not.”
To that I would have said, “correct.” But that does not prove the doctrine is
part of the first century faith once-for-all delivered to the saints (Jude 3)
(i.e., divine revelation which even Rome inconsistently admits is the only
basis for doctrine and morality because of Jude 1:3. See Vatican I, First Dogmatic Constitution, section 4, ed. Vincent
McNabb, The Decrees of the Vatican
Council, [Burns and Oates, 1907], p. 45; The Catholic Encyclopedia, ed. Charles George Herbermann, (Robert
Appleton Company, 1912), Volume 13, p. 4). If Lake
cannot trace this teaching to the apostolic fathers and those immediately after
them, but can only begin with Cyprian (i.e., 230 years after Jesus), that means
he does not have a valid historical basis to assert the teaching is part of
transmitted “apostolic oral tradition.” If such a tradition was passed on,
surely some of the most primitive, extrabiblical apostolic fathers and second
century apologists would have received and affirmed it somewhere in their
voluminous writings. But, they do not. The fact Lake can only begin 230 years
after Jesus and apostles is evidence the doctrine originated from the later
minds of fallible, uninspired men. Starting with Cyprian does not prove the
doctrine comes from the inspired apostles. Christians are concerned with what
God revealed through the prophets, Jesus and apostles (i.e., the deposit of
divine revelation which was finalized in the first century). We want to believe
those truths. We do not submit to what fallible, uninspired men wrote hundreds
of years later if it is not confirmed in belief-worthy divine revelation. Finally, not only do the early and thus most methodologically important apostolic
fathers and second century apologists nowhere affirm the false doctrine of
heavenly intercession of the saints, but it is interesting to note that the
fourth and fifth century Vigilantius,
like Protestants, also rejected the doctrine. So, even after this novel, false
teaching infected the church, people like Vigilantius and his supporters can nevertheless be cited as opposing it
even as late as the beginning of the Middle Age.
In sum, Lake has failed to convincingly
demonstrate divine revelation confirms the saints and Mary intercede from heaven
on behalf of believers. This means his position is unworthy of acceptance for
the Christian.
Does Divine
Revelation Permit Praying to Dead Saints in Heaven?
It is argued by Lake that in scripture human prayer to
angels is sanctioned by God. Therefore, in his mind it is fine to pray to dead
saints in heaven as well. He argues, “In Gen. 48:16, for example, the
patriarch Jacob, blessing the sons of Joseph, said, ‘The angel who has redeemed me from all evil, bless
the lads’; which angel Origen, Basil,
Chrysostom, and Theodoret interpret to be a created angel” (p. 39).
There are two problems: (1) The Angel of the Lord (who appears in numerous
scriptures) is actually God Himself and not a created angel. This is proven by
the fact that when we go back to Genesis 31 where this Angel initially
interacted with Jacob, we discover the Angel explicitly said, “I am the God of Bethel” (Genesis 31:13). Lake needs to study the scholarly materials
demonstrating many texts prove the Angel of the Lord is God Himself (e.g.
Robert Morey, The Trinity: Evidence and
Issues, (Christian Scholar’s Press), pp. 138-166; James
Borland, Christ in the Old Testament,
Revised edn., (Mentor, 2010); Keith Thompson, Jesus
as God Before Paul: Old Testament, Pre-Christian Jewish, and Apostolic Evidence
[1]; Anthony Rogers, The
Malak Yahweh, [Parts 1, 2, 3a, 3b]. That the Angel of the Lord is actually God is a view
shared by many more early fathers than Lake was able to cite. Anthony Rogers (Malak Yahweh, Part 1) cites:
“Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 58, 59, 60, 61, 76, 86, 116, 126, 127, 128; Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.6.1-5, Fragments, 53; Tertullian, Against Praxeas, 16, De Carne, 14, Against Marcion 2.27, 3.9; Novatian, On the Trinity, 18, 19, 31; Apostolic Constitutions, 5.3.20; Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 1.7; Eusebius, The Proof of the Gospel, 1.5, 4.10, 5.10, Church History, 1.2.7-8, Preparation for the Gospel, VII. 5, 14-15; Origen, Contra Celsus, 5.53, 8.27; Methodious, Symposium, 3.4; Melito, New Fragments, 15; Ambrose, Exposition of the Christian Faith, 1.13.83; Athanasius, Against the Arians, 3.25.12-14; Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, 11.3”).
Another clear proof the Angel of the Lord is God is
that He appeared to Gideon and then Gideon made a
sacrifice to Him (which my interlocutor admits should only be done to God. On p. 105
Lake said, “sacrifices . . . belong to the supreme cultus of God alone”). In fact, Gideon feared he would die after seeing
the Angel of the Lord (Judges 6:19-23). Gideon
thought this because the Jews believed if you saw God face to face you would
die (Exodus 33:20; Genesis 32:30). Thus, Gideon
affirmed the Angel was God. Now, the reason Gideon survived was because
although the Angel is God, He is not the same person as the Father. He is Jesus Christ (as those aforementioned studies, and a great many
of supposedly Romanist early church fathers affirm). (2) Praying
to a created angel and crediting it with redeeming you from all evil would be
forbidden worship due to God alone. This is because prayer is worship
according to scripture. In Acts 3:1 Peter and John pray to God in the house of
worship (the Temple). And Luke 2:37 explicitly mentions, “worshiping with fasting and prayer.” With this
in mind, in Colossians 2:18 Paul condemns the “worship of angels,” from which it
necessarily follows that praying to them is forbidden. And in Revelation 19:10; 22:8-9 an angel refuses
the worship of John (bowing in a religious context) and tells him to instead do
that to God. So, since prayer is a form of worship, and the worship of created
angels is condemned in scripture, Lake’s claim that Jacob prayed to a created
angel is heretical. Also, crediting a created angel with redeeming you from all
evil would be the sin of giving to a created being the glory God alone deserves
(That God is jealous and will not have the glory He alone deserves given to
others, see Exodus 20:5; 34:14; Isaiah 42:8; 48:11). For, it is God who is the
redeemer from evil in biblical theology (2 Samuel 4:9; 1 Kings 1:29; Job 19:25;
33:28; Psalms 19:14; 130:8; Isaiah 41:14; 48:17; Jeremiah 50:34; Titus 2:14).
Lake then argues “in Job 5:1, after Job had lost his
family and possessions, his friend Eliphaz told him, ‘Call now, if there is any that will answer you. And
to which of the holy ones will you turn?’; which ‘holy ones’ Augustine
interprets to be angels” (p. 39). The problem is Job’s friends are not always
correct. In fact, they are wrong much of the time. As OT scholar Elmer Smick
notes, “. . . we must keep in mind that the overall purpose of the book
includes the concept that the counselors were basically wrong . . . Fullerton
(pp. 326-27) rightly warns that while on the surface the speech is orthodox and
is given with ‘dignity and sobriety’ in contrast to Job’s ‘almost ungovernable
outbursts,’ yet there is ‘a subtle overtone’ of flaws that can be easily missed
by a casual reading” (Elmer B. Smick, “Job,” in 1 & 2 Kings – Job, Frank E. Gaebelein (ed.), (EBC, Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1988), p. 894). Job 42:7 confirms God got angry with the
false remarks of Eliphaz (whom Lake trusts so much): “The LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite: ‘My anger burns against you and against your two friends, for you have
not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has’” (Job
42:7). Thus, it is unwise to derive doctrine from Eliphaz’s often incorrect assertions in Job, especially when Colossians 2:18 taken
together with Luke 2:37, Acts 3:1, and Revelation 19:10; 22:8-9 condemns prayer
to creations like angels as worship due to God.
The final argument for praying to dead saints Lake
puts forth is that quite a few fallible, uninspired, later church writers starting with Ephrem the
Syrian (fourth century) did so and stated it was correct to do so (pp.
41-55). He mentions, “the ancient Fathers, who unanimously teach that the
other saints in heaven may be invoked by the Christian faithful” (p. 41). The problem is Lake begins
with Ephrem, then continues to Ambrose, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, and so on.
So, the earliest father (Ephrem) Lake appeals to is from the fourth century. He
wrote about 300 years after Jesus and the inspired apostles. This means Lake is not able
to quote the earliest and thus most methodologically important church fathers who actually had
contact with the apostles like Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Papias, Polycarp, the
Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas, or those right after the apostolic fathers
like Aristides, Shepherd, Justin Martyr, Tatian, Athenagoras, Melito of Sardis, Dionysius of Corinth, Hegesippus, and Irenaeus (though again, we must be tentative
with Irenaeus since in Against Heresies
2.22.5 he falsely claimed he received from the apostles the idea Jesus died
between the ages of forty and fifty which can easily be shown to be factually inaccurate and unapostolic). Thus, Lake’s
claim of possessing “the unanimous consent of the ancient Fathers” on the
matter is another lie. The earliest and thus most methodologically important ones do not confirm
this doctrine. If the Romanist wanted to demonstrate their doctrine is a result
of apostolic oral tradition, (because they sure didn’t teach this in scripture,
as even Lake conceded earlier: “While Scripture does not contain direct
examples of the invocation of the human saints in heaven. . .”),
these are the early fathers they would need to consult as historians. But when
we consult such primitive writings, we do not see them affirming this later,
novel teaching. Lake could have saved himself a lot of time. Instead of
spending fourteen pages quoting men who wrote 300 years after Jesus, as well as
ones much, much later, he could have just said “quite a few fallible,
uninspired men writing many hundreds of years after Jesus and the inspired apostles
affirmed this doctrine, even though the earliest and thus most methodologically important
fathers do not.” To that I would have said, “correct.” But that does not demonstrate the doctrine originated from the oral tradition of the apostles. If Lake
cannot historically document the
teaching is part of apostolic oral tradition by finding it in the earliest and
thus most methodologically important fathers, then as an historian he cannot appeal to apostolic
oral tradition as the origination of this doctrine. Starting with Ephrem does
not prove the doctrine comes from the apostles. If such a tradition was passed
on, surely some of these primitive, extrabiblical apostolic fathers and second
century apologists would have received and affirmed it somewhere in their
voluminous writings. But, they do not. Christians are concerned with what God
revealed through the prophets, Jesus and apostles (the deposit of faith or
divine revelation). We want to believe those truths. We do not submit to what
fallible, uninspired men wrote many hundreds of years afterwards, as that is
dangerous and not honoring God who is the authority for what constitutes true
doctrine. Protestants can trace their doctrines to scriptural revelation. Thus,
we do not suffer from this methodological problem of not being able to find
doctrine in scripture, resulting in the need to trace it to apostolic oral
tradition. In sum, Lake’s quoting of later church fathers here does nothing to
prove the doctrine actually originates from the tradition of the inspired apostles. Lake and
other Catholics clearly idolize the opinions of later church fathers and are
content with trusting their fallible, uninspired opinions even though they have
no divine revelational confirmation for their doctrine.
Finally, not only do the
early and thus methodologically important apostolic fathers and second century apologists
nowhere affirm praying to the dead, but it is interesting to note that the
fourth and fifth century Vigilantius,
like Protestants, also rejected the practice. So, even after this novel, false
teaching infected the church, people like Vigilantius and his supporters can nevertheless be cited as opposing it
even as late as the beginning of the Middle Age. In sum, Lake has failed to
convincingly demonstrate divine revelation sanctions the wicked and idolatrous
practice of praying to dead saints (i.e., forbidden worship due to God alone).
Lake’s Critique of my Objections on Prayer to and Intercession of Dead
Saints
In attempting to address
my criticism that scripture contains neither an example of, nor even an
exhortation to pray to
Mary or the other dead saints in
heaven, he argues
it is allegedly “implicit” in scripture because in scripture men on earth talk
to other men on earth (p. 56). However, I already I demonstrated Lake
misunderstood the Protestant notion of affirming that which necessarily follows from implicit
biblical evidence (see my above “Excursus
on ‘Implicit’ Biblical Evidence”). He does not engage in that valid
methodology but instead employs an autonomous rationalistic standard as a basis
for doctrine which does not actually follow from scripture (it adds to it).
Thus, to claim his methodology is compatible with mine is incorrect. Secondly,
although men talk to other men on earth, it does not necessarily follow praying to dead saints in heaven is thus lawful
in God’s sight. It could be that while God allows human-to-human communication
on earth, he forbids prayer to dead saints in heaven and considers that worship
(Colossians 2:18 taken together with Luke 2:37 and Acts 3:1). Thus,
this is again the fallacy of
autonomous fallen reasoning as a valid authority. No Christian would be content
with submitting to that which is derived from the imperfect, fallible,
uninspired reasonings/thoughts of men like Lake, as opposed to that which is
derived as a necessary consequence from that which is θεόπνευστος (“God
breathed”) (2 Timothy 3:16). This is again because reasoning from within and apart from divine revelational confirmation
for doctrine is unreliable (Jer. 17:9; Rom. 3:4, 11; 1
Cor. 1:21; 3:18-21; 1 Jn 3:20; Mk
2:6-8; Luk 3:15-16) and condemned (Prov.
3:5; 28:26).
He then attacks sola
scriptura claiming it is invalid to view scripture as the ultimate,
sufficient authority (i.e., to require scriptural support for a doctrine). He
argues, “Thompson’s
incessant demand for Scriptural evidence for every doctrine or practice of Christianity
is itself fallacious, since Scripture in no wise imposes such a restriction
upon the Church of Christ. Moreover, the early Christians believed that many
doctrines and practices from the Apostles were not written down within
Scripture, but were instead transmitted orally through Tradition” (p. 57).
In light of these false assertions, Lake must now address my arguments that
scripture affirms it is the ultimate, materially sufficient authority, upon
which all doctrine and morality must be based. He must also contend with the
fact many of the early church fathers (who he views as authorities and claims
were Roman Catholic) taught these fundamental components of sola scriptura (again material
sufficiency and ultimate authority). Although they believed in the concept of
tradition (as I also allow for), only a small handful believed the Council of
Trent’s later partim-partim theory of tradition Lake espouses which is that
divine revelation was given partly in scripture and partly in tradition, so
that some doctrines might not be in scripture but only in apostolic oral
tradition. A vastly larger number of early fathers rejected that, however,
since they state doctrine must
ultimately be confirmed by scripture. On the biblical teaching of scripture
being the ultimate and materially sufficient authority upon which all doctrine
and morality must be based, I have put forth and exegeted
Matthew 15:2-9, John 20:31; 1 Corinthians 4:6, 2 Timothy 3:16-17; Acts 15, and
Acts 17:11-12. And I have also refuted [1, 2] the Catholic
objections to this doctrine. In another essay I covered the
many church fathers who denied Rome’s partim-partim theory of tradition and
instead affirmed scripture is the ultimate and materially sufficient authority
upon which doctrine must be based.
These include Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Athanasius,
Ambrose,
Cyril of Jerusalem, Lactantius, etc (One can also
consult the three-volume set by Webster and King called Holy Scripture where they demonstrate even more church fathers
affirmed this). So, Lake’s claim that “the early Christians” believed
his Tridentine view of tradition is a lie. He only mustered three church fathers who he feels support that unbiblical
and ahistorical notion (p. 57). And that is not a determinative argument for
Lake’s position. He must now interact with all the counter evidence I provided
which undermines his position. The fact is Lake has no divine revelation for
his belief in praying to dead saints and for them interceding for believers. Thus,
there is no reason to believe it. Scripture does not confirm it, not even by
implicit necessity. Nor can he demonstrate he has apostolic oral tradition from
God affirming it. For, he is unable to, as an historian, show the apostles
handed this teaching to the apostolic fathers, and then them to the second
century apologists, etc. If such a tradition was passed on, surely some
of the primitive extrabiblical apostolic fathers and second century apologists
would have received and affirmed it somewhere in their voluminous writings.
But, they do not. All he can do is quote much later,
irrelevant men writing hundreds of years after the deposit of faith closed. And
that is a form of idolatry.
Hence, my view is there is no divine
revelation affirming Mary and other saints in heaven intercede or pray for
believers on earth. My second argument Lake attempted to respond to is that
praying to Mary and asking for her advocacy, whereby she temper’s God’s justice
and appeases God’s wrath for believers on earth, is pointless and unbiblical
since scripture says we can and should go directly to Christ for this as
he sufficiently propitiates God’s wrath with His perfect sacrifice and
continual heavenly intercessions or presentations of that sacrifice to the
Father (John
14:14; Romans 3:25;
5:1; 10; 8:1;
34-35; 2 Corinthians 5:18; Philippians 4:6; Ephesians 2:18; 3:11-12;
Colossians 1:21-22; 1 Timothy 2:5; 1 John 2:1-2;
4:10;
Hebrews
7:23-25; 8:12; 9:12, 26, 28; 10:10, 14,
17; 12:7-11; cf. John 1:29; 1 Peter 1:18-19). Lake
responds by claiming it would follow from my position that saints on earth
cannot pray for other saints on earth (pp. 58-59, 62). But that does not follow
at all. It only follows that New Covenant saints on earth cannot be looked to
as propitiators who temper God’s justice and wrath concerning the believer’s
sin (I address Moses and other OT prophets doing this in the obsolete Old
Covenant below). That is the sense in which Christ is our unique New Covenant
intercessor or advocate in Protestant theology. We allow for humans to pray to
God and humbly request He give others understanding, physical healing and even
saving grace, etc. But there is nothing in the New Covenant texts affirming
that in the New Covenant salvation program (based on Jesus’ new and perfect
sacrifice), that such earthly, human prayers temper God’s justice or appease
His Wrath over the person’s sin, which is what Romanism claims Mary does for
people on earth.
The problem is when it comes to the New
Covenant salvation program which God laid out in the NT writings, scripture
teaches we should, by faith, go to Jesus who alone accomplishes this with His
divine expiatory/propitiatory sacrifice and heavenly intercession for believers
where, as the perfect High Priest, He continually presents His perfect
sacrifice to the Father on our behalf which appeases God’s wrath (John
14:14; Romans 3:25;
5:1; 10; 8:1;
34-35; 2 Corinthians 5:18; Philippians 4:6; Ephesians 2:18; 3:11-12;
Colossians 1:21-22; 1 John 2:1-2;
4:10;
Hebrews
7:23-25; 8:12; 9:12, 26, 28; 10:10, 14,
17; 12:7-11; cf. John 1:29; 1 Peter 1:18-19). Mary is
never said to perform this heavenly, propitiatory function in divine
revelation. Christ is presented as sufficiently accomplishing it. And Lake’s
appeal to Moses turning away God’s wrath from OT Israel, or other OT prophets
doing the same (pp. 58-59, 62) is irrelevant since we are not in the obsolete
Old Covenant program (Hebrews 8:13). Instead we are in the New Covenant salvation
program which was instituted at Jesus’ death (Luke 22:20). And the texts
providing New Covenant instruction on how salvation through Jesus’ new, perfect
sacrifice works (listed above) are clear that Christ and His work are
sufficient for propitiation or advocacy. The reason Moses and other OT prophets
turned away God’s wrath from people even after propitiatory sacrifice was made
for them, was because the instituted sacrifices were imperfect and temporary
(as Hebrews references listed above state). However, the above scriptures also
state Jesus’ New Covenant propitiatory sacrifice is superior to the old
sacrifices and mediatorial system in that it saves believers completely,
secures eternal redemption, and forever positionally sanctifies true believers,
unlike Mosaic sacrifices. It follows that now we do
not need creatures to propitiate God’s anger for us anymore as it was in the
obsolete, Old Covenant. In divine revelation neither the saints nor Mary are
ever said to perform this function in the New Covenant context, and Lake cannot
offer one shred of proof they do. Because Rome assigns Mary and the saints to
this already and sufficiently accomplished role, Christians can easily discern
Rome has a false gospel and theology. Still, Catholics nevertheless falsely
present Mary as the one who, from heaven, appeases God’s wrath for believers
and temper’s God’s justice because Rome does not care about adhering to what
God actually affirmed in divine revelation (see below for the proof Rome
teaches this about Mary). They are content with believing what fallible,
uninspired men invented hundreds of years after the divine deposit of faith
closed.
Lake responds by
claiming he does not actually have to defend the popular and blasphemous
Catholic idea that Mary appeases God’s wrath and temper’s God’s justice because
it is allegedly neither ex cathedra
nor part of the ordinary universal magisterium (p. 61). But then he
inconsistently defends it anyway (pp. 62-63) and so I refuted his apologetic on
this matter. The fact he is not willing to commit to it even though he is
privately free to according to his system (as many of his Catholic leaders and
popes have), tells me he realizes deep down it is a false doctrine. Be that as
it may, in Lumen Gentium, 62 Vatican
II did identify Mary as “advocate” (see my article on papal infallibility for reasons why Vatican II documents like Lumen Gentium must be considered
infallible by Catholics). An advocate is someone who is a proponent to God
on the believer’s behalf. And when we go back and examine how popes and popular
Catholic leaders historically understood Mary being a proponent to God on the
believer’s behalf (i.e., how they understood Mary as “advocate”), it clearly
involved the ideas of appeasing God’s wrath and tempering His justice
(demonstrated below). So, despite Lake’s claim, this is an official, dogmatic
Catholic teaching in light of Vatican II. And this brings us to the other evidence
demonstrating this doctrine is also dogmatic for Catholics on the basis of it
being part of the ordinary universal magisterium (contra Lake).
Lake has
actually assisted me by providing a number of later, fallible, uninspired
church writers (Chrysostom, Augustine, Valerian, and Ephrem) who falsely taught saints or Mary do appease God’s wrath for others in
the New Covenant context (pp. 63-65). How sad that they would depart from
biblical theology on this point. This helps show the doctrine is dogmatic for
Catholics on the basis of the ordinary universal magisterium since Romanism
claims these writers were vital Catholic leaders. I also found that in the
eighth century, Ambrose of Autpert wrote in a prayer to Mary that, “we find no
one more powerful in merit to placate the wrath of the Judge than you” (Ambrose
of Autpert, ASS. (PL, 39, 2134)
quoted in Hilda Graef, Mary: A History of
Doctrine and Devotion, (Notre Dame, IN: Ave Maria Press, 2009), p. 131).
Also in the eight century, Germanus of Constantinople taught in Jesus’
presence, Mary has boldness and strength, and on this basis her advocacy
rescues believers from eternal punishment (Germanus of Constantinople, Homily on the Cincture). Catholic scholar Elizabeth Johnson thus mentions in the late Middle
Age, “Mary had a maternal influence over God, that she
could turn away Christ’s just anger and obtain mercy for sinners” (Elizabeth
Johnson, “Blessed Virgin Mary,” ed. Richard P. McBrien, The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, [HarperCollins
Publishers, Inc., 1995], p. 833). Richard of
St. Lawrence stated, “We would be
in a very bad way indeed, sinners as we are, if we did not have this great Advocate, who is so powerful and merciful,
so prudent and wise, that the Judge, her
Son, cannot condemn the guilty when she defends them” (Richard of
St. Lawrence quoted
in Alphonsus
Liguori,
The
Glories of Mary, (Tucker, Printer, Perry’s Place, 1852),
p.
159). Bernard of Clairvaux likewise remarked, “Thou desirest an
advocate with Him? Have recourse to Mary; the Son will graciously hear His
Mother” (Bernard of Clairvaux quoted in Alphonsus Liguori,
The
Glories of Mary, (Tucker, Printer, Perry’s Place, 1852),
p. 544). And, “[We] need a
mediator with the Mediator, and there is no one more efficacious than Mary” (Sermon
on the Twelve Stars, 1). Bonaventure taught, “as
the moon is between the heavens and the earth, so does Mary continually place
herself between God and sinners in order
to appease our Lord in their regard” (Bonaventure quoted in Alphonsus
Liguori,
The
Glories of Mary, (Tucker, Printer, Perry’s Place, 1852),
pp.
167). After this period Alphonsus
Liguori then
blasphemously
wrote, “.
. . take courage, O wretched sinners; this great Virgin
who is the Mother of your God and Judge, is also the Advocate of the whole human race: fit for this office, for she can do what she wills with God;
most wise, for she knows all the means of
appeasing Him” (Alphonsus Liguori, The
Glories of Mary, (Tucker, Printer, Perry’s Place, 1852), p. 161). And, “there was no one who could thus dare to restrain the arm of God. But now, if God
is angry with a sinner, and Mary takes him under her protection, she withholds the avenging arm of her Son,
and saves him” (Alphonsus Liguori, The Glories of
Mary, (Tucker,
Printer, Perry’s Place, 1852), p. 93). The
popular booklet Devotions
in Honor of Our Mother of Perpetual Help (Liguori Publications, June 1, 1982), quoting
a very popular Catholic prayer, says,
“Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee; come, then, to my help, dearest Mother, for I recommend myself to thee. In thy hands, I place my eternal salvation and to thee do I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me; for, if thou protect me, dear Mother, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; not even from Jesus, my Judge Himself, because, by one prayer from thee, He will be appeased.”
Notice how Jesus
is actually paralleled with sin and the devil in this blasphemous Roman
Catholic prayer. Countless Mariologists and theologians have and still affirm
Mary’s propitiatory heavenly advocacy. Many popes have also affirmed the
doctrine, which solidifies its dogmatic status on the basis of the ordinary
universal magisterium. To give examples, I can list Popes Leo X (1520), Sixtus
V (1587), Clement IX (1667), Clement XI (1708), Pius X (1903), and John Paul II
(1987) as identifying Mary as “advocate” just as Vatican II did (For the
references see Edward Sri, “Advocate and Queen,” in Mariology, (ed.) Mark Miravalle, (Goleta, CA: Seat of Wisdom Books,
2007), p. 489 n. 46; p. 491). But there are others as well who clearly
expatiate the meaning of Mary being “advocate,” which should (along with the medievals quoted above) serve as a working
definition with which we understand Vatican II and the aforementioned popes.
Pope Pius VII stated Mary, as advocate for the earthly saints, actually
“commands” Jesus’ while He is in His throne (Pope Pius VII, Apostolic Constitution, Tanto Studio, 19
February 1805, Aur 7, 511). Pope Leo
XIII taught Mary pleads the believer’s case to God which implies this leads to
God once again favoring the believer (Pope Leo XIII, Jucanda semper, 1894). Pope Pius XI identified Mary as “advocate
for sinners” (Pope Pius XI, Miserentissimus
Redemptor, 1928) and said Mary “will be our advocate before divine goodness
and mercy at the hour of our passing” (Pope Pius XI, Allocution, August 15, 1933). This implies Mary will turn away
God’s wrath and help believers escape judgement and receive mercy at the time
of their death. Pope Pius XII proclaimed,
“Our Advocate, placed between God and
the sinner, takes it upon herself to invoke clemency of the Judge so as to
temper His justice” (Pius XII, papal
allocation at the Canonization of Blessed Louis Marie Grignon de Monfort,
21 July 1947, AAS 39, 408). Thus, Lake is incorrect that all I can muster to
show this is official Catholic dogma is Pope Pius XII (p. 61). In light of all this
background from popes and major Catholic theologians, how must we understand
the title “advocate” as dogmatically ratified in Vatican II and as taught by
other popes who employed the term without expatiating on it? The meaning is
Mary allegedly temper’s God’s wrath and justice as a propitiatory figure.
Catholics like Lake must therefore affirm the doctrine as dogma, otherwise they
would have to admit these papal leaders and popes were deceived to believe and
propagate false teaching for many hundreds of years and on a massive scale. If
that were the case, what kind of infallible guide would the Roman church be?
Lake’s claim he does not have to defend this teaching is therefore incorrect.
Let us imagine
for a moment the doctrine is not dogmatic by Catholic standards (even though I
strongly feel it is) and that it is merely a personal view they are free to
believe (because past popes and Catholic leaders did), even though it has no
support from divine revelation. If this is the case, why won’t Lake affirm it?
He is free too, right? Many of his popes and influential Catholic leaders he
looks up to did (as do many modern Catholic Mariologists and theologians). So,
there should be no reason not to believe this teaching. Is Lake smarter than
those Catholic authorities and popes who affirmed the doctrine? Is he ashamed
of the doctrine? Does he recognize it is evil as Protestants do? The fact Lake
chooses not to affirm it tells me there may be hope for him, that he may be
experiencing conviction by God that this commonly held Catholic belief is
immoral, and that he is not as blind as the popes and Catholic leaders before
him who did boldly proclaim this satanic, blasphemous, teaching which detracts
from the sufficiency and glory of Christ.
Moving on, Lake
claims I asserted belief that Mary’s heavenly advocacy turns away God’s wrath
comes centuries after the fourth century (p. 65). But I never said that. I
merely said the teaching
“comes into church history even later [than the fourth century].” By “later than the fourth
century” I meant it is not until after that century that this doctrine picks up
significant steam. And this is true. Only one church father from the fourth
century can be cited as affirming this false teaching, i.e., Ephrem. But I was
already aware of this, as I even quoted Kelly in the same context noting this
kind of Mariology “is almost, though not entirely, non-existent in the first four centuries” (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, (HarperOne, 1978), p. 491). The reason I jumped to the eighth century Latin
translation of the Theophilus
Legend (which is a silly mythical story
affirming Mary appeases God’s wrath), was not because I thought it was the
earliest example of people believing the false teaching (I’m aware Ephrem and a
small handful of post-Nicene and early medieval writers also did). Rather, I
jumped to it because it was a major basis for this teaching’s acceptance and
spread throughout the West in the late Middle Age. As I noted, Catholic scholar
Elizabeth
Johnson admitted, “Translated into Latin in the eighth century, this story
exercised great influence on the
West’s notion of Mary’s power to save” (Elizabeth Johnson, “Blessed Virgin
Mary,” ed. Richard P. McBrien, The
HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, [HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.,
1995], p. 833). Lake has therefore misunderstood and misrepresented me. And he
has not shown why citing Ephrem and a handful of post-Nicene and medieval
writers affirming the doctrine would make it valid.
Lake then proposes we may actually have evidence prior to
the fourth century for the belief that Mary or saints appease God’s wrath for
others. He quotes the third century Origen who said Angels “seek His [God’s]
favour on their [other humans’] behalf; with their prayers they join their own prayers
and intercessions for them” (Origen, Against
Celsus, 8 ch. 64). Lake comments, “Origen, who
expressly states that the angels and departed saints not only “with us pray to
and supplicate” (συνεύχονται καὶ συναξιοῦσιν) God, but also “propitiate”
(ἐξευμενίζονται) Him on our behalf” (p. 65). On the contrary, this text discusses how
humans pray to God concerning themselves (not concerning others), with the help
of angels. It does not mention humans praying for other humans with the help of
angels. So even if propitiation was in view, you would only have a human
getting propitiation for himself, with the help of an angel. Thus, it would not
support saints or Mary securing propitiation for other humans. Nothing in the
quotation or immediate context suggests saints procure this for other saints,
much less Mary. What is more, Origen and Ephrem et al are, again, not the final
authority for doctrine (Origen even taught the heresy of universalism). We must affirm, as even Lake’s church admits, that
which derives ultimately from divine revelation (i.e., the deposit of faith
which closed in the first century, Jude 1:3). Yet, Lake failed to demonstrate
what Origen and Ephrem said comes ultimately from apostolic oral teaching,
because it sure does not come from scripture.
In my previous material I argued it is evil for Rome
to say Mary needs to turn God’s wrath from believers and protect them from
Jesus or God (e.g. again as
quoted above: Richard of St.
Lawrence, Bernard of Clairvaux and Alphonsus
Liguori in The Glories of Mary, [Tucker, Printer, Perry’s Place, 1852], pp. 93, 159, 544; Bernard of Clairvaux in Sermon on the Twelve Stars, 1; the
popular booklet Devotions in Honor of Our Mother of Perpetual Help (Liguori Publications, June 1, 1982); Pope Pius VII, Apostolic
Constitution, Tanto Studio, 19 February 1805; Pope Pius X, Virgine sanctissima, Papal Prayer on the
Fifteenth Anniversary of the definition of thee Immaculate Conception, 8
September 1903; A.A. 1, p. 97; Pope
Leo XIII, Jucanda semper, 1894; Pope
Pius XI, Miserentissimus Redemptor,
1928; idem. Allocution, August 15,
1933; Pius XII, papal allocation at the Canonization of
Blessed Louis Marie Grignon de Monfort, 21 July 1947, AAS 39, 408, Catechism of the
Catholic Church, [Doubleday, 1994], par. 968 p. 274; par. 966, p. 274, etc.). I contend
this is an attack on the loving character of God insofar as by faith, Jesus
sufficiently propitiates God’s wrath for believers through His perfect
sacrifice and continual High-Priestly presentation of that sacrifice to the
Father (John
14:14; Romans 3:25;
5:1; 10; 8:1;
34-35; 2 Corinthians 5:18; Philippians 4:6; Ephesians 2:18; 3:11-12;
Colossians 1:21-22; 1 Timothy 2:5; 1 John 2:1-2;
4:10;
Hebrews
7:23-25; 8:12; 9:12, 26, 28; 10:10, 14,
17; 12:7-11; cf. John 1:29; 1 Peter 1:18-19). Many of the above texts state God
is no longer angry or wrathful toward believers anymore because of Jesus’
perfect sacrifice and heavenly intercessions. Thus, when justified, true
believers sin, scripture confirms God, as the loving Father, only disciplines them to bring them back to the path of holiness (Hebrews 12:7-11).
This means He does not again become alienated, hateful and wrathful towards
them whereby they are suddenly in need of Mary’s supplementary prayers and
propitiatory advocacy which allegedly “restrains the arm of the Lord.” This
Romanist idea is based on a denial of the above scriptures. Lake responds to
this line of argument by saying in the Old Covenant Moses and some prophets
turned away God’s wrath from believers (p. 62). The error of this response,
again, is the failure to understand the sacrifices of the Old Covenant which
expiated sin and turned away God’s wrath were temporary and imperfect (unlike
Christ’s), which is why Moses and others had to also supplimentarily turn God’s
wrath from believers with their intercessions. But under the New Covenant,
Jesus’ sacrifice is everlasting and perfect whereby it saves believers
completely, secures eternal redemption, and forever positionally sanctifies
true believers, unlike obsolete, Old Covenant sacrifices which were imperfect
and temporary (John 14:14; Romans 3:25; 5:1; 10; 8:1;
34-35; 2 Corinthians 5:18; Philippians 4:6; Ephesians 2:18; 3:11-12;
Colossians 1:21-22; 1 Timothy 2:5; 1 John 2:1-2;
4:10;
Hebrews
7:23-25; 8:12; 9:12, 26, 28; 10:10, 14,
17; 12:7-11; cf. John 1:29; 1 Peter 1:18-19). Thus, Christ does not require
supplementary propitiatory advocacy of Moses, saints and Mary on behalf of
believers in the New Covenant program. So, citing Moses as propitiating God’s
wrath in the obsolete (Hebrews 8:13), imperfect Old Covenant system as an
argument for Mary being able to propitiate God’s wrath in the New, displays a
fundamental ignorance of the superior and perfect New Covenant salvation
program.
Next, one of my arguments against Catholic reliance on
Mary as advocate or intercessor is that Rome often applies to Mary blasphemous
language whereby she is presented as co-savior or even the one who actually
saves people from Jesus (e.g.
again as quoted above: Richard of St.
Lawrence, Bernard of Clairvaux and Alphonsus
Liguori in The Glories of Mary, [Tucker, Printer, Perry’s Place, 1852], pp. 93, 159, 544; Bernard of Clairvaux in Sermon on the Twelve Stars, 1; the
popular booklet Devotions in Honor of Our Mother of Perpetual Help (Liguori Publications, June 1, 1982); Pope Pius VII, Apostolic
Constitution, Tanto Studio, 19 February 1805; Pope Pius X, Virgine sanctissima, Papal Prayer on the
Fifteenth Anniversary of the definition of thee Immaculate Conception, 8
September 1903; A.A. 1, p. 97; Pope
Leo XIII, Jucanda semper, 1894; Pope
Pius XI, Miserentissimus Redemptor,
1928; idem. Allocution, August 15,
1933; Pius XII, papal allocation at the Canonization of
Blessed Louis Marie Grignon de Monfort, 21 July 1947, AAS 39, 408, Catechism of the
Catholic Church, [Doubleday, 1994], par. 968 p. 274; par. 966, p. 274, etc.) This
popular
Catholic sentiment
is very offensive to the regenerated Christian. For, in Acts 4:12 we read in reference
to Christ: “And there is salvation in no
one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which
we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). In
John 14:6 Jesus says, “I am the way
the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me” (John 14:6). 1 Thessalonians 5:9 says “For God has not
destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation
through our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thessalonians 5:9). Revelation 7:10 says,
“Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!”
(Revelation 7:10). Divine revelation nowhere presents Mary as the
heavenly one who delivers souls from death, restores supernatural life to
souls, gives eternal salvation, or saves people from Jesus. Salvation is by
Christ alone.
Lake is not persuaded by this evidence
that we are witnessing a Romanist assault on the sufficiency and glory of Jesus
as the perfect savior. He therefore ignores all this data and just falsely
claims “the Virgin
is not said to deliver or restore life to us absolutely, as God or Christ alone
is able to do, but only through her prayers” (p. 66). However, (1) Rome teaches
Mary is a savior through her prayers and
her propitiatory advocacy as I demonstrated earlier in this essay, not just
the former and (2) divine revelation does not say she saves through her prayers
and propitiatory advocacy, so the Catholic beliefs here are not sanctioned by
God. Jesus is presented as sufficiently occupying that heavenly High Priestly
office. Lake responds (pp. 66-67) by presenting five NT texts which allegedly
show men save other men (Romans 11:14; 1 Corinthians 9:22; 1 Timothy 4:16;
James 5:19-20; Jude 1:22-23). But, when in Romans 11:14 Paul says σώσω ἐξ αὐτῶν (“shall
save some of them”), he is simply affirming his preaching (Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT: Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996), 692 n. 47) would lead
unbelievers to the sufficient sacrifice and intercessions of Jesus which is the
basis of eternal salvation, clear notions in this letter and his other letters
(Romans 3:25; 5:1; 10; 8:1;
34-35; 2 Corinthians 5:18; Philippians 4:6; Ephesians 2:18; 3:11-12;
Colossians 1:21-22). Only in that sense is Paul
“saving” them. The same basic backdrop is behind the other four texts Lake
quotes. The difference is in Popery Mary is not just some women on earth whose
prayers or preachings lead to people coming to the sufficient sacrifice and
intercessions of Christ so they can be saved (and in that she “saves” people as
Paul does, etc.). No, in Popery Mary is actually in heaven doing additional
acts supplementing and supplanting Jesus’ sacrifice and intercessions with her
own prayers and propitiatory advocacy with God. We know this, again, because
Catholics commonly teach when believers sin, God’s wrath comes upon them again,
whereby they need Mary to then save believers from Christ with her propitiatory
advocacy (e.g. again Richard of St.
Lawrence, Bernard of Clairvaux and Alphonsus
Liguori in The Glories of Mary, [Tucker, Printer, Perry’s Place, 1852], pp. 93, 159, 544; Bernard of Clairvaux in Sermon on the Twelve Stars, 1; the
popular booklet Devotions in Honor of Our Mother of Perpetual Help (Liguori Publications, June 1, 1982); Pope Pius VII, Apostolic
Constitution, Tanto Studio, 19 February 1805; Pope Leo XIII, Jucanda semper, 1894; Pope Pius XI, Miserentissimus Redemptor, 1928; idem. Allocution, August 15, 1933; Pius XII, papal allocation at the Canonization of
Blessed Louis Marie Grignon de Monfort, 21 July 1947, AAS 39, 408, etc.). Thus, in popular Catholic belief Mary’s
propitiatory advocacy supplements Jesus’ previous, “ineffective” propitiatory
work which initially made the believer right with God, but which, after the
believer sins, must be added to so the person can be saved from Christ Himself.
The problem for Lake is the NT apostles who “save” are never said to do that.
They always “save” in the sense of pointing people to the sufficient and
perfect sacrifice and intercession of Jesus, thereby not detracting from the
sufficiency and glory of Christ as the perfect savior. Hence, Lake’s citing of
those five texts misses the point and does not justify the Romish position on
Mary as savior/advocate. Finally, Lake claims when the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church says Mary is “restoring
supernatural life to souls” (Catechism of
the Catholic Church, [Doubleday, 1994], par. 968 p. 274), that this is allegedly “harmonious
with Divine Revelation” (p. 67). To try to
establish this incorrect assertion, he cites 1 John 5:16 which says, “he [a believer] shall ask, and God will
give him [another believer] life.” But the difference is
in 1 John 5:16 it is actually God who restores supernatural life to souls,
while in the Catechism Mary herself is said to restore supernatural life to
souls. So, the texts are not harmonious after all. The latter is going beyond
and thus adding to divine revelation.
Lake then attempts to respond to my appeal to
Deuteronomy 18:10-11 and Isaiah 8:19 as evidence Catholic prayer to dead saints
is condemned. The texts read, “There shall not be found among you anyone
who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, anyone who practices divination
or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer or a charmer or a medium or a necromancer or one who inquires of the
dead
(Deuteronomy 18:10-11). And “when they say to you, ‘Inquire of the
mediums and the necromancers who chirp and mutter,’ should not a people inquire
of their God? Should they inquire of the dead on behalf of the living?”
(Isaiah 8:19). The word here for “necromancer” in the Hebrew is וְדֹרֵ֖שׁ. OT scholar Earl Kalland notes it refers to “(‘[one] who
consults the dead’) is one who investigates, looks into, and seeks information
from the dead” (Earl S. Kalland, Deuteronomy,
(ed.) Frank E.
Gaebelein, (EBC: Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, p. 121 n.
11). When
Catholics pray to dead saints and Mary, they often “consult” or “seek
information” from them by praying for wisdom, understanding, help, or a sign,
etc. Thus, these texts condemn the Catholic practice of praying to the dead.
Lake responds by attempting to restrict and redefine the meaning of ancient
necromancy to “solicit[ing] information
about the future” (p. 70). But, as my appeal to the learned OT exegete Earl Kalland
demonstrated, that is not all those who engaged in necromancy sought. They also
sought general information about the present. And this is exactly what
Catholics do. So, Lake’s restrictive redefinition is erroneous and dishonest.
We have evidence of OT necromancer’s trying to gain information from the dead,
and the information they gain is not limited to the future. For instance, while
cut off from God (v. 18), Saul unapprovingly sought the witch of Endor in order
to talk to the deceased Samuel. Samuel was summoned and Saul asked him for
information or wisdom, not concerning future predictions, but about what he
should do in the present in his battle with the Philistines (1 Samuel 28:6-17).
So, the question is: Do Catholics consult dead saints and Mary and seek
information from them? Yes. Again, they pray to them for wisdom, understanding,
help, or a sign, etc. This means Catholic prayer to dead saints is condemned (Deuteronomy
18:10-11) and they should instead be consulting God Himself on such matters
(Isaiah 8:19).
It is claimed by Lake the reason necromancy is
condemned in the Bible is because it is “divination wherein mediums, through
the agency of devils, attempt to summon the dead” (p. 70). However, scripture’s
emphasis is not just about how one goes about reaching the dead, but also about
consulting and seeking information from them in-and-of-itself also being sinful and
unnecessary. Isaiah 8:19’s whole point is it makes no sense to inquire of the
dead when one can inquire of God himself. This is a large part of the basis for
consulting or seeking information from the dead being condemned in scripture.
Although Catholics may not knowingly use the agency of devils or mediums to
contact the dead, they nevertheless take their place and do that themselves
(thereby becoming “functional
necromancers”), and it is the communicating and information seeking itself
which is no doubt a large part of what is condemned in scripture. Thus,
Catholics still fall under the condemnation of Deuteronomy 18:1-11 and Isaiah
8:19.
Lake then claims a
number of later church fathers agree with him that praying to saints is not
condemned by Deuteronomy 18:11-12 and Isaiah 8:19. However, it is interesting
to note the fourth and fifth century Vigilantius and his supporters affirmed it is condemned by those
biblical texts. Lake’s later writers he appeals to are not the ultimate
authority for Christians (neither is Vigilantius for me). I do not view their
later, fallible opinions as at all determinative. But here Lake claims, “Thompson regularly demands that Catholics must have
Patristic support in order for our interpretations of Scripture, such as Lk.
1:47, Isa. 22:19-22, and Apoc. 12:1-5, to be true”
(p. 71). He says this in order to be able to use later church fathers’
interpretations as justification that his interpretations are valid. But this
is not a method I anywhere confirmed. Here Lake is distorting my past
remarks. My position has always been that Rome often claims her dogmas were
always accepted by the church (i.e., “unanimous consent of the fathers”) and
that the early fathers were Roman Catholics. Thus, they should be able to show
the church fathers affirmed Catholic dogmas, or interpreted scriptures in
accord with said dogmas. This is why I will present many cases where church
fathers disagree with said Catholic dogma or scripture interpretation. However,
I never (as Lake falsely accuses me) said if some church fathers agree with the
interpretation of Catholicism on a verse, then the Catholic interpretation of
that verse is “true” That is, again, a faulty hermeneutic which idolatrously
relies on late, fallible, uninspired men too credulously. I also frequently
point out if a Catholic dogma or interpretation of a verse is going to be
claimed to originate ultimately from the transmission of apostolic oral
tradition, then Catholics must, as historians, demonstrate apostolic fathers
and second century apologists affirmed the same interpretation or dogma
(because they lived quite close to the time of the inspired apostles and often
had contact with the them or their students). I argue: If a later Romanist tradition was passed on by the apostles, surely some of the primitive extrabiblical
apostolic fathers and second century apologists would have received and
affirmed it somewhere in their voluminous writings. But, they do not.
The common Catholic appeal to Matthew 22:32 as a
response to Deuteronomy 18:11-12 and Isaiah 8:19 is then explained by Lake (pp.
68-69). Indeed, in my previous materials I noted Catholics will argue thus:
since that Matthean text identifies the departed saints in heaven as “the
living,” the condemnation of consulting and seeking information from the “dead”
in the aforementioned OT texts does not apply to Catholic prayer to departed
saints and Mary. The problem is, as Lake rightly shows he understands,
scripture still identifies deceased believers as “dead” numerous times. I cited
Joshua
1:2
and Acts 20:9 to establish this, and Lake cites (p. 69) 1 Thessalonians 4:16
and Revelation 14:13 which do the same. It follows the scriptural condemnation still falls
on Romish practice. Lake tries to get around this serious problem by claiming
Mary is in her assumed, resurrected state and is not therefore in the class of
“the dead.” But he does not meaningfully argue that her being glorified would
mean she is no longer considered dead in any sense according to divine revelation. Where
does divine revelation say that? Even if this reasoning was granted (which I do
not), it would mean although Mary is an exception, the saints are not yet
resurrected and are still considered dead, from which it follows it is still
condemned to pray to them. Another problem is there is no valid support from
divine revelation that Mary was assumed into heaven at the end of her life.
Lake would need to refute my lengthy refutation of that false doctrine (In my documentary Reformed Answers on the Roman Corruption of Christianity, or in my essay with the same
points).
I will now add that 1 Timothy 2:5 is further evidence
one cannot look to and communicate with the deceased Mary as a heavenly
efficacious mediator. The verse reads, “For
there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ
Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5). When this text calls Jesus our one “mediator,” the
next verse (v. 6) lets us know Paul is defining mediator as a heavenly
soteriologically efficacious mediator (i.e., Jesus is our “ransom” who was
ascended at the time Paul wrote
and is thus “heavenly”). This is in opposition to the surrounding culture which
often viewed other heavenly beings as mediators in a soteriologically
efficacious sense. For instance, Plutarch noted in a mystery cult, Mithras was
considered the “mediatrix” (Plutarch, Isis
and Osiris, 46). In first century Gnosticism there was the belief in many
heavenly soteriologically efficacious mediatorial aeons, angels and firmaments
(See the early Gnostic document Eugnostos
which is dated to the first century in D. M. Parrot, “Eugnostos and the Sophia
of Jesus Christ,” ABD, vol. 2, (ed.)
D. N. Freedman (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1992), pp. 668-669 and his other
relevant works which do the same). And in some strands of Judaism angels were
seen as heavenly soteriologically efficacious mediators (e.g. Philo, On Dreams, 1.142-143). This seems pretty
clearly to be the cultural background Paul was confronting. Thus, when the
Romanist comes along waving his hands saying, “Mary is a soteriologically
efficacious mediator since she suffered at the foot of the cross contributing
to the redemption, and from heaven she now turns away God’s wrath from
believers securing their salvation, and that she mediates all divine saving
graces from heaven,” the Christian will respond by pointing the Romanist back
to 1 Timothy 2:5. The Catholic will then point to Moses being considered a
mediator in the Old Covenant. True, but that covenant is now obsolete (Hebrews
8:13) and the New Covenant scriptures tell us Christ is now the one perfect,
heavenly soteriologically efficacious mediator in the New Covenant salvation
program (John 14:14; Romans
3:25; 5:1; 10; 8:1;
34-35; 2 Corinthians 5:18; Philippians 4:6; Ephesians
2:18; 3:11-12; Colossians 1:21-22; 1 Timothy 2:5; 1 John 2:1-2; 4:10; Hebrews 7:23-25;
8:12; 9:12, 26, 28; 10:10, 14, 17;
12:7-11; cf. John 1:29; 1 Peter 1:18-19). The Romanist will retort that in
scripture believers are told to pray for one another, so that makes them
mediators. But again, 1 Timothy 2:5 defines a mediator as a heavenly
soteriologically efficacious mediator. The praying saints on earth in scripture
do not occupy this office. Rather, they only request that Jesus or God
efficaciously redeem or ransom sinners. So, they would not be considered
mediators in the sense that Paul defines mediator 1 Timothy 2:5, 6 (and from
which it is defined based on the cultural background of this text). On the
other hand, if as Rome claims, Mary contributed savingly to the redemption by her suffering at the
foot of the cross, mediates all divine saving graces from heaven, and turns
away God’s wrath as advocate in heaven, then she would be considered a heavenly soteriologically efficacious
mediator (Thus, Bernard of Clairvaux in his very popular Sermon on the Twelve Stars, 1 explicit said we ”need a mediator
with the Mediator, and there is no one more efficacious
than Mary”). Hence, Rome’s view is condemned by 1 Timothy 2:5. When the verse
was written, Mary was already deceased and, according to Popery, in heaven
doing these things. So, if Paul was a Romanist, why does 1 Timothy 2:5 affirm
Christ is the one and only heavenly soteriologically efficacious mediator
between man and God? It is because Paul knew nothing of later Romish theology.
He did not believe like Catholics do. Catholics often respond by saying
although the text says, “there is one mediator,” there can still be comediators
or submediators who share in Jesus’ mediatorship in a lesser sense. But if the one
mediator can have lesser comediators, then it follows that when the same verse
says “there is one God,” there can likewise be lesser gods who share in His
deity. But this would be heretical polytheism which is condemned all over
scripture (Exodus 20:23; Deuteronomy 4:35, 39; 6:4; 32:39; 1 Chronicles 16:26;
Psalms 96:5; Isaiah 37:16; 43:10; 44:6-8; 45:6, 21-22; Acts 19:26; 1
Corinthians 8:4). It follows 1 Timothy 2:5 is another text which prohibits
communication with the deceased Mary on the basis of her alleged heavenly
soteriologically efficacious mediatorship. Lake did not respond to 1 Timothy
2:5 in his thesis even though I have cited it in my initial critiques on
Mariolatry.
In my criticism of Catholic prayer to Mary and saints,
I pointed out Revelation 21:4 presents the heavenly saints as never mourning,
crying or being in pain. But if
the saints were in heaven receiving all the prayers from Catholics around the
world concerning all of their problems, tragedies, and illnesses etc., they would surely be
grieved and in much pain. Hence, it is not possible that Mary and the saints in
heaven are
aware of those
prayers,
or that they intercede
in
light of them. Lake responds by presenting the views of the fifth and sixth
century Catholic philosopher Boethius (p. 73). Boethius argued since the bad
fortunes of believers on earth are actually “absolutely good” because they are
just God’s method of lovingly chastising believers, this means the heavenly saints
would not view the bad fortunes of believers as something to mourn, cry or be
in pain over. But this assumes that if a believer’s child is, for example,
raped and murdered or dies of cancer, that heavenly saints who heard about it
through prayer would have the divine wherewithal to block out the horrific and
tragic element and instead fully focus on the metaphysical super-understanding
of it being ultimately good. But where in divine revelation are we told the
heavenly saints will possess this level of metaphysical super-knowledge? This
is a very shaky argument based on unproven assumptions. Secondly, in heaven God
still grieves, mourns, and experiences pain as well as righteous anger and hate
as a result of the misfortunes and sins of men (e.g. Genesis 6:6; Deuteronomy 9:22;
32:36; Judges 2:18; Psalms 5:5; 7:11; 11:5; 78:40; 135:14; Proverbs 6:16;
Romans 1:18). So, Boethius’s reasoning that human misfortune should not affect
saints in heaven because it is ultimately good, is refuted on the basis that it
still affects God. Revelation 21:4 does not state God does not mourn or
experience pain, it only says heavenly saints will not. The only conclusion,
therefore, is the saints must be protected from such knowledge of human
misfortunes, as well as earthly prayers involving such. If they were not, they
would indeed experience mourning and pain over them just as God does.
Lake then affirms the Catholic
understanding of the beatific vision whereby upon seeing God
face-to-face in heaven, the saints share in God’s essence which allegedly has
no negative emotion. On this basis he argues “if the knowledge of our problems,
tragedies, illnesses, etc., necessarily disrupts the saints from their peaceful
contemplation of the Divine essence, then it logically follows that the same
knowledge, which God indubitably possesses, disrupts Him from His contemplation
of Himself.” To this I
answer by rejecting the unbiblical Catholic understanding of God’s
impassibility, again noting God does experience grieving, mourning, pain as
well as righteous anger and hate (e.g. Genesis 6:6;
Deuteronomy 9:22;
32:36; Judges 2:18; Psalms 5:5; 7:11; 11:5; 78:40; 135:14; Proverbs 6:16;
Romans 1:18).
Therefore, saints experiencing the essence of God would not preclude them from
likewise experiencing grieving, mourning, pain as well as righteous anger and
hate. So, since the saints do not experience such negative emotions (Revelation
21:4), that means they are protected from that aspect of God’s knowledge and
the misfortunes and sins of believers on earth (and thus Catholic prayers
involving such). I affirm the position developed by Hodge, Warfield et al.,
that God has emotions, it is just that he doesn’t experience them in the same
way humans do in terms of mood swings. God’s emotions are instead rooted in his
nature. The problem here is Lake, like the misled Papist scholars before him
such as Anselm and Aquinas, affirms a false understanding of God’s
impassibility whereby He has no emotions whatsoever and is not at all affected
by His relationship to creation (developed by certain church fathers and then
later by medieval Romish theologians). But this is again refuted by the
scriptures I listed above.
He also argues since angels are aware of human
misfortune (which I grant scripture affirms in Psalms 91:11), and yet they
still experience beatific vision according
to Matthew 18:10, it follows “there is no necessary incongruity between the
knowledge of our problems, tragedies, illnesses, etc. and the beatific vision” (p. 75).
The problem is Lake is again assuming his unbiblical misunderstanding of God’s
impassibility and the beatific vision. God experiences emotions rooted in his
nature over the misfortunes and sins of men (e.g. Genesis 6:6; Deuteronomy 9:22;
32:36; Judges 2:18; Psalms 5:5; 7:11; 11:5; 78:40; 135:14; Proverbs 6:16;
Romans 1:18). Thus, Lake’s arguments here stem from unbiblical assumptions about
God’s nature.
The story of Lazarus and the rich man in
Luke 16:19-31 is then presented by Lake as evidence both the damned (the rich man)
and the redeemed saints in heaven (Lazarus) have memory of past events in the
world. Therefore, Lake argues since the saints’ knowledge of past world events
does not cause them to mourn, cry or feel pain (as Revelation 21:4 says they do
not), then neither would them possessing knowledge of present sufferings of
saints on earth (as well as their prayers involving such) (pp. 75-76). But here
Lake is assuming the content and exchanges in Jesus’ illustrative parable here
actually occurred in history. This is the problem with taking illustrative
parables literally and then deriving doctrine them. If Lake was consistent, he
would also have to interpret Jesus’ parable of the Ten Minas in Luke 19:12-17
as representing a literal, factual, historical dialogue between Jesus and three
actual followers. The problem is this episode is in the context of the return
of Christ at the end of the world! So, it is not a literal, factual, historical
conversation Christ had. It is an illustrative fictional conversation average first
century folk could understand as conveying important lessons, but was not meant
to be seen as having historically occurred in every respect. Since this is
common in Jesus’ parables, it is hermeneutically irresponsible to take them
literally. It is methodologically invalid to hold the conversation between a
rich man and Lazarus was historical and thus in all respects reflective of
reality (i.e., that dead saints are aware of past earthly events, and that they
talk with the damned in hell, etc.). Another example proving my point is the
parable of the Sower in Matthew 13:3-9. It would likewise be naïve to assume
Jesus was actually talking about the historical activities of an actual first
century seed sower or farmer and not just providing an imaginative illustrative
scenario to convey a lesson.
Isaiah 66:24 is then presented as evidence
“the saints,
either after the final resurrection or also prior thereto, behold the
sufferings of the damned in hell [texts listed]. . . . if it does not disrupt the joy of
the beatific vision to see the sufferings of the damned, neither does it
necessarily disrupt it to see the sufferings of the living” (p. 76).
However, the wicked who fought against God being in hell is not something to
mourn, cry or be in pain over in the first place. Saints witnessing that divine
justice is not the same as them receiving prayers from righteous about their heartfelt illnesses, problems, and tragedies,
etc. So, this is not analogous at all. In fact,
Revelation 18:20 says the saints will actually rejoice at such divine judgement
of the wicked, not mourn, cry or be in pain over it.
Lake then notes Irenaeus, Tertullian,
Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine, and Bede believed heavenly saints have memory of
past earthly events, or that they behold the sufferings of those in hell (pp.
75-76). First, I already noted I agree heavenly saints will witness God-haters
being justly tormented in hell. But again, Revelation 18:20 says the saints
will rejoice at such divine judgement of the wicked, not mourn, cry or be in
pain over it. Secondly, Irenaeus and Tertullian do not take such things to mean
it is lawful for earthly believers to pray to dead saints as Lake does. They
nowhere taught that. Thirdly, just because certain later church fathers Lake
quoted held to certain ideas, that does not in-and-of-itself prove said beliefs
are true and part of divine revelation. Lake never tells us why he often relies
so heavily on such men as a basis for doctrine. Not everything Irenaeus said
was derived from Polycarp who then derived it from the Apostle John. Similarly,
not everything Tertullian taught was derived from students of the apostles.
For, Irenaeus again falsely taught he received from the apostles the idea Jesus
died between the ages of forty and fifty which is easily shown to be factually
inaccurate and unapostolic (Against
Heresies 2.22.5).
And Tertullian ended up affirming the heretical doctrines of the Montanist cult
which are clearly in opposition to apostolic oral preaching. So, if Lake wants
to demonstrate the views of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Gregory
of Nyssa, Augustine, and Bede on this or that issue derive ultimately
from transmitted oral tradition of the apostles, he has to do some hard,
historical work and not just assume that. This is the difference between being
faithful to God’s truth and idolizing the later opinions of fallible,
uninspired men. Christians do the former. Catholics do the latter.
Lake then cites and quotes a number of later church
fathers and medievals who affirmed heavenly saints are aware of human
tribulations and prayers involving such (pp. 76-80). But the points I just made
would apply to this argument from late patristics as well. Moreover, Lake’s
assertion that on this issue the church fathers “uniformly hold” the teaching he argues for is another lie. Here again the
earliest and thus most methodologically important fathers do affirm this position. The materials of
Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Papias, Polycarp, the Didache, the Epistle of
Barnabas, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Shepherd, Tatian, Athenagoras, Melito of Sardis, Dionysius of Corinth, and Hegesippus do not
provide evidence this doctrine comes from apostolic oral tradition and thus
divine revelation. Quoting a number of writers, starting with the fourth
century fathers Ephrem and Basil (as Lake does here), does not prove the
doctrine is part of the faith once-for-all delivered to the
saints in the first century (Jude 1:3). If Lake cannot historically document the teaching is part of apostolic oral
tradition by finding it in at least some of the primitive and thus most
methodologically important apostolic fathers and second century apologists, then as an historian
Lake cannot claim the basis for his doctrine is transmitted apostolic oral
teaching. Thus, Lake cannot demonstrate it is part of belief-worthy divine
revelation from God. The opinion of Protestant apologist Matt Slick is then
presented where he said he has no problem with saints in heaven hearing what is
said on earth (p. 80). However, Slick is basing this off Revelation 5:8-14
which I already argued earlier refers to an angelic order possessing the
earthly saints’ prayers to God, and not dead saints possessing them. So, I and
many others would disagree with Slick’s comment on scriptural grounds (this is
not to take away from the brother’s other fine materials which I often consult
and respect).
Next, in my previous materials I asserted the earliest
evidence of direct invocation of heavenly saints we possess are the Sub tuum
praesidium prayer and
Ephrem’s fourth century prayers. I pointed out the historian Maxwell Johnson affirmed
certain scholars opt to date the Sub tuum
praesidium later than the common A. D. 250 dating of it (i.e., certain
scholars will date it to the early fourth century), but that even so it would
remain “the
earliest marian prayer in existence” (Maxwell Johnson, Praying and Believing
in Early Christianity, (Liturgical Press, 2013),
p. 80). Here Lake
asserts, “other
scholars indeed opt for a post-Nicene, fourth century dating, [but] they do so
without any foundation aside from the Protestant presupposition that the
invocation of the Virgin could not have existed before Nicaea” (p. 82).
This is incorrect. One of the reasons Maxwell notes for dating it to the early
fourth century is the use of the term Theotokos
in the prayer which many scholars
feel was not widespread enough in the mid-third century (Maxwell E. Johnson, Praying and Believing in Early
Christianity, [Liturgical Press, 2013], p.
79). Although Origen and Dionysius of Alexandria employ it in the mid-third
century, that is it (hopefully Lake does not claim the Liturgy of Mari and Addai is
third century since “liturgists date [it] to the early fourth century” (Stephen
Shoemaker, Mary in Early Christian Faith
and Devotion, (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2016), p. 70).
Lake claims (p. 82) Stephen Shoemaker supports a mid-third century dating of
the Sub tuum
praesidium. But he actually says it “seems to date from the end
of the third century” (Stephen Shoemaker, Mary
in Early Christian Faith and Devotion, (New Haven and London: Yale
University Press, 2016), p. 69). And while Lake states Edgar Lobel
and Marek
Starowieyski opt for a
mid-third century date on paleographic grounds, Shoemaker nevertheless points
out “some others have continued to prefer a fourth-century date” (Stephen Shoemaker, Mary in Early Christian Faith and Devotion,
(New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2016), p. 71) and he cites
Forster (Forster, “Zur alesten Uberlieferung,” pp. 188-189) who gives various
examples of modern scholars dating it to the early fourth century for various
reasons. Thus, I take the safe position of placing it sometime between
mid-to-late third century. I will not, as Lake does, try to force a mid-third
century dating because scholars still debate this.
Lake then cites
Arthur Barnes’ 1913 study on alleged first-to-third century Christian burial
inscriptions which invoke dead saints (p. 81). Lake quotes eight examples of
these. I have argued the first
invocation of Mary and the saints is the mid-to-late third century Sub tuum
praesidium prayer. This would be proven incorrect if some of
the inscriptions Lake cites do indeed conclusively date to the first or second
centuries as he claims. But citing a dating of these inscriptions from a study
conducted in 1913 is unsatisfying (I would not stick with Schaff’s dating of
every document for instance). On the contrary, J. N. D. Kelly places such
funerary inscriptions in the third century, i.e., the same century as the Sub tuum
praesidium (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, (New York, NY:
HarperOne, 1978), p. 490). Lake failed to demonstrate with modern scholarship
any of these are first or second century. And third century inscriptional
prayers from fallible people are not evidence divine revelation confirms such a
practice. None of the ones Lake quoted which I could reliably date with modern
scholarship were first or second century. For instance, the Gentianus inscription
Lake quotes is third century since we know his friends Victoricus and Fuscian were third century (Bridgitte
Meuns, “Martyrs, Relics, and Holy Places,” in Paganism in the Middle Ages, (Leuven: Leuven University Press,
2012), p. 122). And the Matronata Matrona and Atticus inscriptions Lake
mentions are both third or fourth century (Henry Bettenson and Chris Maunder (eds.), Documents of the Christian Church (eds.), 4th edn.,
(New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), pp. 91). So, until Lake can
demonstrate with up-to-date conclusive argument and scholarship that any of
these are actually first or second century, he has not provided a valid
refutation of my position.
Lastly, Lake takes issue with my quote of Schaff
saying the fourth century patristic and later invocation of saints are similar
to paganism. Schaff noted church practice “degenerated into a form
of refined polytheism and idolatry. The saints came into the place of the
demigods, Penates and Lares, the patrons of the domestic hearth and of the
country” (Philip Schaff, History of the
Christian Church, Volume 3, [Hendrickson, 2011], p. 432).
Lake responds by saying since such later church fathers often denounced
paganism in their writings, they would not have knowingly adopted paganism (p.
83). However, Schaff was not arguing the later patristics intentionally fell
into error and adopted paganism, but that in reality their practice was very
similar to paganism (which it is). Such later fathers therefore mistakenly
thought the practice was based on divine revelation, despite the fact it is not
and is instead only similar to pagan practice (which many were inundated by in their culture). So, here Lake has misrepresented
Schaff and I. In sum, Lake has failed to
convincingly demonstrate the inaccuracy of my scriptural and historical
critiques against praying to dead saints as well as their alleged heavenly
intercessions.
Does Divine
Revelation Affirm Mary is Mediatrix of all Graces?
In my critiques I took major issue
with the common Catholic idea that Mary mediates all graces from heaven. I
provided various arguments why she does not physically apply all graces to men.
Here Lake correctly notes there is a debate among Catholic Mariologists as to
whether or not Mary is the dispenser of all graces in the sense that she
physically applies them to men herself (physical causality), or if she only
morally does so (moral causality) in that her heavenly prayers lead to God
physically dispensing all graces. Lake notes (pp. 86-89) most modern Catholic
Mariologists held to moral causality (e.g. Merkelbachm Godts, Bittremiex,
Heris, de Aldama, der Meersch, Gickler, Friethoff,
Terrien, de la Broise, Bainvel, de la Taille, Lemnerz, Carol). He then points out a limited number
of them affirmed physical causality (e.g. Hugon, Lepicier, Garrigou-Lagrange,
and Roschini who Lake interestingly elsewhere on pp. 89, 96-97 called “eminent”
and “one of the greatest Mariologists of the twentieth century”).
This picture is in a sense correct but it leaves out some important facts. Much of my previous criticism addressed the latter notion which Lake attempts to just discredit as a minority opinion worth overlooking. Yet, it must be strongly stressed it was actually affirmed by various later Catholic medievals and those proceeding them (For numerous references see Alessandro Apollonio, “Mary Mediatrix of All Graces,” in Mariology, (ed.) Mark Miravalle, (Goleta, CA: Seat of Wisdom Books, 2007), pp. 440-444). For instance, St. Bernadine of Siena said, “Every grace granted to men has three successive steps: By God it is communicated to Christ, from Christ it passes to the Virgin, and from the Virgin it descends to us” (St. Bernadine of Siena quoted in Pope Leo XIII, Jucunda semper, 1894). Liguori then clearly said all graces “should be dispensed by the hands and through the intercession of Mary” (Alphonsus Liguori, The Glories of Mary, (Tucker, Printer, Perry’s Place, 1852), p. 129). And it is affirmed by multitudes of Catholic worshipers/laymen around the world who are unaware of the debate between physical and moral causality as regards this doctrine. Moreover, it appears in 1892 Pope Leo XIII supported physical causality when he said, “She dispenses grace with a generous hand from that treasure with which from the beginning she was divinely endowed in the fullest abundance” (Pope Leo XIII, Octobri mense, September 22, 1891). He, again, even approvingly quoted Bernadine of Siena’s affirmation of physical causality (Pope Leo XIII, Jucunda semper, 1984). What is more, many Popes call her the dispenser of graces or “dispensatrix” without explaining if they affirm this in a physical or moral sense (Mark I. Miravalle, Mary: Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate, (Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Publishing, 1993), pp. 40-46). So various other popes most likely affirmed physical causality as well. This does not mean physical causality is dogmatic in Papalism (It is not affirmed enough for that to be the case). Yet, it can be argued the general idea is dogmatic on the basis of the ordinary universal magisterium (As Miravalle does in Mark Miravalle, Introduction to Mary, (Mark I. Miravalle, S.T.D., 2006), p. 111). With that said, Lake himself rejects physical causality and so does not wish to defend it. This is an important admission that various Catholic medievals, Mariologists, theologians, popes and multitudes of Catholics around the world were/are deceived to believe and propagate physical causality which Lake admits is a false doctrine. Yet, he does affirm moral causality which will therefore be the topic of discussion for the rest of this section.
This picture is in a sense correct but it leaves out some important facts. Much of my previous criticism addressed the latter notion which Lake attempts to just discredit as a minority opinion worth overlooking. Yet, it must be strongly stressed it was actually affirmed by various later Catholic medievals and those proceeding them (For numerous references see Alessandro Apollonio, “Mary Mediatrix of All Graces,” in Mariology, (ed.) Mark Miravalle, (Goleta, CA: Seat of Wisdom Books, 2007), pp. 440-444). For instance, St. Bernadine of Siena said, “Every grace granted to men has three successive steps: By God it is communicated to Christ, from Christ it passes to the Virgin, and from the Virgin it descends to us” (St. Bernadine of Siena quoted in Pope Leo XIII, Jucunda semper, 1894). Liguori then clearly said all graces “should be dispensed by the hands and through the intercession of Mary” (Alphonsus Liguori, The Glories of Mary, (Tucker, Printer, Perry’s Place, 1852), p. 129). And it is affirmed by multitudes of Catholic worshipers/laymen around the world who are unaware of the debate between physical and moral causality as regards this doctrine. Moreover, it appears in 1892 Pope Leo XIII supported physical causality when he said, “She dispenses grace with a generous hand from that treasure with which from the beginning she was divinely endowed in the fullest abundance” (Pope Leo XIII, Octobri mense, September 22, 1891). He, again, even approvingly quoted Bernadine of Siena’s affirmation of physical causality (Pope Leo XIII, Jucunda semper, 1984). What is more, many Popes call her the dispenser of graces or “dispensatrix” without explaining if they affirm this in a physical or moral sense (Mark I. Miravalle, Mary: Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate, (Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Publishing, 1993), pp. 40-46). So various other popes most likely affirmed physical causality as well. This does not mean physical causality is dogmatic in Papalism (It is not affirmed enough for that to be the case). Yet, it can be argued the general idea is dogmatic on the basis of the ordinary universal magisterium (As Miravalle does in Mark Miravalle, Introduction to Mary, (Mark I. Miravalle, S.T.D., 2006), p. 111). With that said, Lake himself rejects physical causality and so does not wish to defend it. This is an important admission that various Catholic medievals, Mariologists, theologians, popes and multitudes of Catholics around the world were/are deceived to believe and propagate physical causality which Lake admits is a false doctrine. Yet, he does affirm moral causality which will therefore be the topic of discussion for the rest of this section.
In order for Mary to be the moral cause of God’s
distribution of all graces, she would need to possess knowledge of the billions of
people who require the grace of God and to be able to understand all the languages of
people praying to her concerning required graces. But omniscience is a divine
attribute only God possesses (e.g. 1 John 3:20). Lake responds by saying Mary
possesses super-knowledge on such things not because she is herself omniscient,
but because “God manifests them unto her” (p. 94). However, if God has to reveal to her the
knowledge of the billions on earth who require grace in order for her to then
pray to God concerning their need for grace, then Mary’s alleged role becomes
inessential or unrequired. Secondly, divine revelation nowhere affirms God
grants Mary knowledge concerning the billions who require grace, or that he gives her the
ability to understand all the world’s languages (which prayers are made in). So, here again it is
demonstrated Lake believes a doctrine which does not come from God’s perfect,
infallible divine revelation, but instead comes from man’s imperfect and fallible mind. Such
a methodology is not honoring to God at all.
Lake then notes how in the past I argued there is no
patristic affirmation of the physical causality aspect. But then he says I am
incorrect because Ephrem taught moral causality (p. 94. That Ephrem taught
moral causality is affirmed by Lake when on pp. 94, 99 he interprets him as
teaching, “no man can
receive graces without her intercession” and: “Ephrem indubitably means to convey
that God is the physical cause of our receiving graces, i.e., that He is the
one who literally or actually bestows graces to men”). However, Lake cannot argue
Ephrem taught moral causality as a basis for refuting my argument he did not
teach physical causality. That is fallacious and dishonest. Moreover, Lake
claims I insinuated Catholics only have one quote of Ephrem speaking on this
topic (p. 96). But I never insinuated anything of the sort. All I said was that
Catholics state Ephrem does in fact teach this idea in a quote I provided. But I
never stated it is the only relevant quote from him on the matter. I am quite
aware he had much to say on the topic. The quote I provided reads, “After the
Mediator, you [Mary] are the Mediatrix of the whole world” (Ephrem, Oratio IV, Ad Deiparam). I then argued there is nothing in
context indicating Ephrem taught the physical causality aspect whereby Mary
actually applies grace to man physically. Oddly, Lake disagrees and says the
context does support this notion (p. 97). But in so doing he contradicts
himself since he already interpreted Ephrem as only affirming moral causality
(pp. 94, 99). I then noted scholars do disagree with the notion that here
Ephrem was affirming the physical causality aspect (as Lake himself does on pp.
94, 99). But then he contradicts himself and cites those in the minority
position like Rischini who think Ephrem was affirming physical causality. Lake
cannot have his cake and eat it too.
My opponent then quotes the eighth century
Germanus of Constantinople and Andrew of Crete as supporters of Mary being
mediatrix of all graces. However, showing the Ephrem, Germanus and Andrew and
Crete believed this teaching is not a valid basis to say it is part of divine
revelation and thus true. This teaching cannot be demonstrated to come from
divine revelation (i.e., scripture and the oral teachings of the apostles).
Yet, Lake still believes it because he does not truly care about affirming that
which comes from God himself. He is content with affirming that which comes
from the much, much later minds of fallible, uninspired men. I then provided
quotations of Clement of Alexandria, Chrysostom, and Jerome in essence denying
the physical causality aspect and affirming it is God who physically applies
graces to man. Here Lake responds by saying these fathers disagreed with me on
other doctrines (pp. 101-102). I do not contest that. But I do not see how it
is relevant. It is the Roman church which is known for claiming “unanimous
consent of the fathers” or saying fathers such as Clement of Alexandria,
Chrysostom, and Jerome were Roman Catholics. Therefore, it is relevant for me
to show all the instances in which they affirm that which modern Rome denies,
or disbelieved that which modern Rome affirms. But it is not relevant for Lake to
point out they can disagree with my beliefs because I do not claim they were
Protestants or that I have “unanimous consent of the fathers” for my teachings.
I affirm many of these later men clearly departed from divine revelation and
thus Reformation was essential.
In my past materials I repeated church
historian Alister McGrath’s point that the Latin Vulgate translation
mistranslated Luke 1:28 to mean Mary was “full of grace” (gratia plena) which later Catholics used as support for the idea
Mary was a reservoir full of grace which could be drawn upon at a time of need.
However, the sixteenth century Catholic scholar Erasmus and others then
pointed out that was a
faulty translation and that the original Greek term just meant “favored one”
(Alister E. McGrath, Historical Theology:
An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought, (John Wiley
& Sons, 2012), p. 97). Here Lake
does not contest McGrath’s point. He only says people like Ephrem, Germanus and
Andrew of Crete were not dependent on the Latin Vulgate translation of Luke
1:28 for their views of Mary’s mediatorship of graces. However, I never stated
they were. I simply pointed out later Catholics did in fact use this
mistranslation to argue for the idea. So, Lake is arguing against strawmen.
This is basically all Lake wrote on the topic of Mary
being mediatrix of all graces. Suffice it to say, he failed to demonstrate it
is part of divine revelation that all graces dispensed by God are because of
Mary’s intercessions. He did not even offer a scriptural case for this
notion. And the earliest writer he was
able to muster was the fourth century Ephrem. Thus, his best historical
evidence for his doctrine appears in church history nearly 300 years after
Jesus and the inspired apostles. That is an inadequate basis to justify his view that
the belief originates with apostolic oral tradition. Again, Rome cannot, as historians, demonstrate her false teachings come from Jesus and the inspired apostles (i.e., the
first century deposit of faith), even though it claims they do. Papalism
clearly too often relies on the later views of fallible, uninspired men for
their teachings which is dangerous and not honoring to God.
Lake’s Case
for the Catholic Worship of Mary and Saints
In this part of his thesis, Lake attempts to offer a
defense of the Roman Catholic practice of worshipping Mary and the saints the
way they do, i.e., by excessively bowing to statues of them, lighting candles
around them, and praying towards them, etc. The question is: does divine
revelation sanction this practice? Or does divine revelation identify it as
forbidden, false worship? Lake explains (pp. 103-105) the Catholic practice and
moves to his defense.
Catholics claim they only give dulia (Latin) to creatures and statues of creatures like popes, the saints and Mary.
They define dulia as acceptable
veneration. The Latin word dulia
which Catholics say they validly give to saints is based on the Greek word δουλεύω
which is found in the LXX and NT. The same is the case with the alleged hyper-dulia Catholics give to Mary. The Latin
word latria Catholics claim they give only to God
comes from the Greek λατρεύω as found in the LXX and NT. However, these distinctions
do not work biblically. Although it is true λατρεύω is worship which is only to
be given to God according to scripture, δουλεύω is not restricted to human veneration or
devotion, but is actually considered divine worship when done in religious
contexts. In Matthew 6:24 δουλεύω is used in reference to serving God as one’s
Master. The same is the case in Romans 12:11 where the word is used of serving
the Lord, and in Romans
14:18 as regards serving Christ. Hence, when it comes to religious settings of
spiritual devotion, δουλεύω is forbidden worship only to be given to God alone. In fact,
Galatians 4:8 condemns giving δουλεύω to statues or idols as Rome does. Thus,
Catholics are in error for giving δουλεύω in religious contexts to creatures. The position confirmed by divine
revelation is that bowing is fine when it is not in a religious context. For
example, paying general homage or obeisance to a king of a state or leader
would be acceptable as an ancient Israelite form of cultural greeting or
respect. However, religiously bowing in an excessive manner is condemned. This
is why for example bowing to angels is condemned in scripture and
identified as worship due only to God (Revelation 19:10, 22:8-9). It is
also why Peter forbad Cornelius to bow before him and identified it as worship due
only to God (Acts
10:25-26). These are
religious contexts.
Lake argues in divine
revelation it is fine to religiously prostrate to created angels. He cites Numbers
22:31 where Balaam bowed to the Angel of the Lord (p. 106). However, I already
provided evidence earlier that the Angel of the Lord is God Himself, and many
early church fathers affirmed this, even though Lake’s church falsely
identifies them as Romanists and often claims their practices enjoy “the
unanimous consent of the fathers.” So, this would not support religiously
prostrating to created angels. What is more, Revelation 19:10, 22:8-9 again
forbid bowing down to angels in a religious context and identifies that as
worship due to God alone. Thus, Lake’s
practice is condemned. But he cares not if scripture explicitly contradicts his
misinterpretation of Numbers 22:31. This is because, again, Catholics are not
devoted to what God revealed. They instead stand by what later, fallible,
uninspired men taught and then impose that teaching on scripture even if it
results in scripture contradicting itself. Lake then offers Joshua 5:13-14 as
evidence it is okay to וַיִּשְׁתָּ֔חוּ (prostrate) to a created angel (p. 106). But the
being Joshua bowed to here is a divine theophany of God Himself. The text
reads, “13When Joshua was by
Jericho, he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, a man was standing
before him with his drawn sword in his hand. And Joshua went to him and said to
him, ‘Are you for us, or for our adversaries?’ 14And
he said, ‘No; but I am the commander of the army of the
LORD. Now I have come.’ And Joshua fell on his
face to the earth and worshiped and said to him, ‘What does my lord say to his servant?’ (Joshua 5:13-14). For in
depth cases these kinds of texts are theophanies, see Vern Poythress, Theophany: A Biblical Theology of God’s
Appearing, (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018); Robert Morey, The Trinity: Evidence and Issues, (Las
Vegas, NV: Christian Scholar’s Press), pp. 106-137; James Borland, Christ in the Old Testament, Revised
edn., (Mentor, 2010); Scotty Neasbitt, “God the Son in Select Theophanies of
the Old Testament,” in The Journal for
Trinitarian Studies and Apologetics, (Jan 2013), pp. 119-129). Quickly I
will note the next verse demonstrates this being is God since He says, “Take off your sandals from your feet, for the place where you are
standing is holy” (Joshua 5:15). This is something God
requires when He is present (Exodus 3:4-5; Acts 7:32-33; cf. 2 Peter 1:18). The
interpretation of Origen (who Rome falsely claims was a Catholic) is in accord
with mine. He said the being in Joshua 5:13-14 was Jesus (Origen, Hom. 6). As it stands, the earliest
patristic interpretation of this text opposes Lake’s Romish interpretation.
What is more, the being in Joshua 5:13-14 had a sword in His hand.
Interestingly so did the Angel of the Lord in Numbers 22:23 who is actually God
(and the Angel of the Lord likewise had a sword in 1 Chronicles 21:16,
“stretched out over Jerusalem”). This is evidence the being in Joshua 5 was the
same Angel of the Lord who I earlier on provided evidence is God Himself. Next,
Lake finally gets to a text about an actual, created angel (p. 106). He cites
Daniel 8:17 which says, “So he [Gabriel] came near where I stood. And when he came, I was frightened and fell on my face.
But he said to me, ‘Understand, O son of man,
that the vision is for the time of the end’” (Daniel 8:17). However, as OT scholar Stephen Miller notes, “this
reaction most likely was due to the presence of God in the place (“one who
looked like a man”, v. 15), not the fear of Gabriel” (Stephen R. Miller, Daniel, (NAC: Nashville, TN: B&H
Publishing, 1994), p. 231). He provides the evidence: “Daniel does not seem to
have feared angels (cf. 7:16), not even Gabriel (cf. 9:21ff), but in v. 17 he
exhibited extreme terror and fell on his face. Such fear is characteristic of
those who have found themselves in the presence of the Holy God (cf. Isa. 6:5;
Ezek 1:28; Rev 1:17)” (Ibid.). For further evidence the being in vv. 15-16 who
looked like a man and summoned Gabriel was actually God himself, see again the
works on theophanies I cited above. In sum, none of the texts Lake offered
support the Catholic practice of bowing to creations in a religious context
(which is actually forbidden worship according to divine revelation).
The issue of scriptural
prostration towards humans is then raised by Lake. He quotes 1 Kings 18:7 which
says, “And as Obadiah was on the way, behold, Elijah met him. And Obadiah
recognized him and fell on his face and said, ‘Is it you, my lord
Elijah?’” (1 Kings 18:7). However, in ancient
Israelite culture, falling down on your face before a human simply represented
a sign of obeisance in the form of a greeting or
recognition like how modern women would do a curtsy, etc (Alec Basson, Divine Metaphors in Selected Hebrew Psalms
of Lamentation, (Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2006), p. 128). It cannot be seen as a
being equivalent to Romanists of today religiously devoting themselves to
statues or angels with prayers, candles, and excessive religious bowing, etc. These are
two different worlds. Mere cultural obeisance
is not the same as the idolatry Rome engages in. Jacob Neusner gives the
contrast as regards 2 Samuel 9:6: “Mephibosheth came to King David ‘and fell on his face and did obeisance.’ He did not ‘worship’ David”
(Jacob Neusner, Religion, Literature and
Society in Ancient Israel, (University of America Press, 1987), p. 103).
The Romanist practice is worship (as Lake admits below). The same response
applies to Lake’s appeal to 2 Kings 2:15 and 1 Samuel 28:14 (pp. 106-107). The
fact is Exodus 20:5 condemns this excessive papal practice which goes well
beyond ancient Israelite cultural greeting and respect: “You
shall not bow down to them or serve them (i.e., a carved image, v. 4), for I the LORD your God am a jealous God” (Exodus 20:5).
Lake then brings up the
early church fathers. He claims Justin Martyr was a student of Polycarp, who
was a student of John the Apostle. However, there is no evidence Justin Martyr
was a student of Polycarp. The best we have is Justin may have been familiar with
the document Martyrdom of Polycarp (Robert
Grant, Greek Apologists of the Second Century, (SCM Press, 1988), pp. 53–54). But that does not demonstrate Justin knew
Polycarp or was his student. Lake may have confused Justin Martyr with Irenaeus
because Irenaeus was indeed a student of Polycarp (Irenaeus, Letter to Florinus quoted
in Eusebius, Church History, 5.20.4-8). But, lo and behold, Irenaeus does not affirm the Romish practice of
worshipping creatures. Be that as it may, Lake quotes (p. 107) Justin saying: “But both
Him, and the Son (who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the
host of the other good angels who follow and are made like to
Him), and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore, knowing them in reason and
truth” (Justin Martyr, Apology, 6, ANF translation). The way Lake interprets Justin would have him saying it is fine to
venerate angels with the same veneration believers offer to God, which is
“worship.” Thus, here Dods and Reith
rightly translate σέβομαι and προσκυνέω
as “worship” and “adore” in the first volume of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. That Lake has
misinterpreted Justin as supporting the worship of angels is demonstrated by
various points (Here I rely on my own research and some of the findings of
Robert Alan King, “The Worship of Angels in Justin Martyr: Reassessing 1
Apology 6:1,” Scholarly Study of the
Church Fathers, (King and Associates, 2017)). Justin read the book of
Revelation (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with
Trypho, 81; Eusebius, Church History,
4.18) which clearly condemns the worship of angels in two instances (Revelation
19:10; 22:8-9). Elsewhere Justin states
Christians worship God alone (Apology,
16, 17) and is clear that angels are not God (Dialogue with Trypho, 128:4). In the same work Justin
makes a parallel comment about the worship of God, Christ and the prophetic
spirit, and there he does not include angels (Apology, 13). Justin gives no indication he believed angel worship
in other relevant, congruous places (Apology,
16, 61). What is more, scholars have pointed out two other understandings of
Justin’s words here which contradict Lake’s interpretation. The first
possibility is that Justin was simply saying the Son
taught “us these things,” as well as taught the angels these things (i.e., a loose, parenthetical remark). The second
possibility is that Justin meant the Son taught Christians about the angels
themselves (i.e., another loose, parenthetical remark). The Ante-Nicene
Fathers translation I used allows for both understandings. These
interpretations are also allowable on the basis of translations of Apology, 6 done by other scholars as
well (e.g. Jacob
Bryant, "Observations on a Controverted Passage in Justin Martyr; also on
the Worship of Angles" CJ 27 (1823), p. 262; William Cave, Primitive
Christianity, ed. John Brewster (London: C. and J. Rivington, 1825), p. 5; John Kaye,
The First Apology of Justin Martyr (Edinburgh: John Grant, 1912), p. 8). As historian and patristic scholar Bernhard Lohse
confirmed, “The rendering in ANF 1,
164, does not imply angel worship. In translating we have reproduced the
author’s literal rendering of the passage -[Translator]” (Bernhard Lohse, A Short History of Christian Doctrine,
(Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1985), p. 43). These interpretations are
also affirmed by the studies of various other scholars (e.g. W. Trollope (ed.),
Justini: Philosophie et Martyris:
Apologia Prima, (Cambridge, Macmillan, 1845), I. pp. 28-29; Marcus Dods
and George Reith, “The First
Apology” Vol. 1, The
Ante–Nicene, Nicene, and Post–Nicene Fathers, (eds.) Alexander Roberts et al, (New York:
The Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885), p. 164 n. 3. See also the survey of scholars who
held these two positions in Carl Gottlob Semisch, Justin Martyr: His Life,
Writings, and Opinions, vol. 2, trans. Jonathan E. Ryland (Edinburgh:
Thomas Clark, 1843), pp. 253-256). I am ultimately persuaded one of
these two options is best in light of the aforementioned arguments, and the
fact Justin elsewhere was fond of including loose, disruptive, parenthetical
thoughts in the middle of his sentences (e.g. King notes, “There is
even a greater disruption caused by additional thought in the middle of a
passage where Justin makes mention of the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy
Spirit” (1 Apol.
61:10–13)). So, while I
withhold judgement on which of the two interpretations is ultimately correct, I
affirm one of them has to be because Lake’s interpretation is refuted by too
much evidence.
It is very interesting
Lake affirms the worship of angels on the basis of his false understanding of
Justin Martyr’s above words. Elsewhere Lake actually admits he worships Mary
and the saints as well. He says he affirms the “the dogma of the cultus,
i.e., honor, veneration, or worship,
which is due to the Blessed Virgin and the other saints” (p. 103). Thus, he has openly
rejected divine revelation which clearly condemns the worship of anything or
anyone other than God. Along with Exodus 20:5, Revelation 19:10 and 22:8-9 command believers to
“worship God” as opposed to worshipping creations like angels. In Romans 1:25
Paul condemns the pagans who “worshiped and served the
creature”
(Romans 1:25). What
is more, in Luke 4:8 Jesus said “You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve” (Luke 4:8; cf. Matthew
4:10; Exodus 2:3-5). Moreover, in Acts 3:1 Peter and John pray to God in the house of worship (the Temple). And Luke 2:37
explicitly mentions, “worshiping with fasting
and prayer.” With this in mind, in Colossians 2:18 Paul condemns the “worship of
angels,” from which it necessarily follows praying to them is also forbidden. By admitting he and his
church pray to and, in other ways, worship creations like angels, saints and
Mary, Lake admits he rejects divine revelation and openly rebels against it in
favor of the novel, man-made traditions later men came up with hundreds of years after the divine deposit of faith closed.
Lake then (pp. 107-108)
brings up the well-known fact that Origen, Cyprian, and Carthaginian churches
affirmed commending the memory of martyrs in churches (Origen, Homilia 3; Cyprian, Epistola, 34, 37). However, this is not the same thing as modern
Romanists creating statues of saints, lighting candles to them, praying to
them, and excessively bowing to them, etc. Origen and Cyprian did not affirm
such wicked practices. So, citing them is not really relevant to the
controversy at hand. Lake then (p. 108) continues to the fourth century with
Eusebius, Basil, and so on, wherein we begin to see the emergence of the
explicit Catholic practice of worshipping dead saints the way modern Rome does
(Lake also lists other later writers affirming this on pp. 109-118). However,
this just confirms what Schaff noted long ago: “In the first three
centuries the veneration of the martyrs in general restricted itself to the
thankful remembrance of their virtues and the celebration of the day of their
death as the day of their heavenly birth. . . . But in the Nicene age it . . . degenerated into a form of refined
polytheism and idolatry” (Philip Schaff, History
of the Christian Church, Volume 3, [Hendrickson, 2011], p. 432).
I have to again note quoting such men writing hundreds of years after Jesus and
the inspired apostles is not evidence the idolatrous practice comes from divine
revelation. So, why does Lake use such quotations as primary evidence for his
position? Is Lake not actually committed to affirming that which God revealed
in the deposit of faith which closed in the first century? Is he content with
affirming that which emerged from the fallen, uninspired minds of later men and
which cannot be historically demonstrated as originating from apostolic oral tradition?
The earliest and thus most methodologically important fathers, many of which had contact with
the apostles or their students, did not affirm this practice (i.e., Ignatius,
Clement of Rome, Papias, Polycarp, the Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas,
Aristides, Justin Martyr, Shepherd, Tatian, Athenagoras, Melito of Sardis, Dionysius of Corinth, Hegesippus and Irenaeus
(though again, we must be tentative with him). Thus, as an historian, Lake
cannot argue his practice originates in apostolic oral tradition. If such a tradition
was passed on, surely some of the primitive, extrabiblical apostolic fathers
and second century apologists would have received and affirmed it somewhere in
their voluminous writings. But, they do not.
Lake’s
Answers to my Criticisms Against Catholic Worship of Mary and Saints
In my previous materials I noted that Catholics often
claim they only give Latin dulia to
saints (and hyper-dulia to Mary), but
that they do not give them latria
which they say is worship due to God alone. Dulia
again comes from the Greek word δουλεύω as found in
the LXX and NT. And latria comes from
the Greek λατρεύω, which is
likewise found in the LXX and NT. In past essays I responded to this
Catholic argument from word distinction by noting it does not hold up
scripturally, and therefore cannot be used as a basis for Catholic practice.
For, in scripture δουλεύω
is
often employed to refer to divine worship due to God (Matthew 6:24; Romans
12:11; 14:18; cf. Colossians 3:24), and it is also forbidden to be given to
anyone but God in religious contexts (e.g. Galatians 4:8; cf. Judges 10:10; 1
Kings 9:6; 1 Thessalonians 1:9). It follows this Catholic argument from word
distinction is invalid according to divine revelation. Lake responds by
claiming certain later fathers who worshipped the dead did not depend on this
argument from word distinction (pp. 120-121). However, I never said they did. I
would refute them on other grounds. He then claims this later medieval Catholic
argument from word distinction is valid because it was fine for the Romish
scholastics to “later adapt its [the word douleúō] meaning so
as to signify a distinct cultus of the saints” (p. 121). Yet, to the Christian in
submission to God’s perfect revelation as the authority, this is not fine. It
is a rejection of the fact that according to sacred scripture, δουλεύω is
not to be given to creatures in religious contexts because that would make it
divine worship due to God alone. Lake attempts to parallel the later medieval
Romish scholastic distortion of the meaning of δουλεύω as a basis to legitimize
their perverse, idolatrous practices, with the fourth century Athanasius allegedly
redefining the word ὁμοούσιος (“of one substance”) which the heretic Sabellius used previously in
his defense of Modalism (p. 121). However, Athanasius was correct since ὁμοούσιος does not in fact support Modalism at all.
Sabellius originally falsely employed the term. But God being of one substance
does not actually preclude there being three distinct persons who can share in
it. Thus, Athanasius was not incorrectly redefining the word as late medieval
Romanists did with δουλεύω,
thereby rejecting the true, scriptural meaning. This means Lake’s analogy is erroneous.
Revelation 19:10 is brought up which says,
“Then I fell down at his feet to worship him, but he said to me, ‘You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers
who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God’”
(Revelation 19:10; cf. 22:8-9). This text proves according to divine revelation, falling
down at a creature’s feet in a religious context is considered worship due to
God alone. It is therefore forbidden to be done to saints and Mary (or statues
of them) as Catholics do. Lake then posits the eisegetical opinions of later
church writers who tried to resolve the dilemma in light of their novel,
unbiblical adoption of creature-worship. He quotes Augustine’s (Augustine, Quaestiones in Genesim, q. 61) early
medieval opinion that “John mistook the angel to be God and adored him as
such” (p. 122). However, even if this were the case,
it would not resolve the fact the angel commands John to stick to worshipping
God (i.e., bowing in religious contexts). This therefore precludes worshipping
angels (i.e., bowing in religious contexts) and so does not actually solve the
problem. If Lake was correct, we would expect the angel to allow the religious
bowing while simply noting he was not God. But he did not. Instead he said,
“you must not do that!” (i.e., religiously bow). Gregory the Great’s erroneous
views (Gregory the Great, Moralia in Job,
lib. 27, cap. 11) are then provided. He claimed the angel was not opposed to
being religiously bowed to in-and-of-itself, because in Genesis 19:1 and Joshua
5:14, created angels are allegedly bowed to. However, I already demonstrated in
Joshua 5:14 the being is not a created angel but is actually God Himself (see
above in this essay). As for Genesis 19:1 which mentions “two angels” being
bowed to by Lot, Genesis 18:1-2a confirms the three angels in question who
originally appeared to Abraham right before this, were in fact “Yahweh”
Himself. It says, “And the
LORD appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat at the door of his
tent in the heat of the day. He lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold,
three men were standing in front of
him” (Genesis 18:1-2a). The three angels were therefore the Trinity
(Luther, Ellicot, Natan). Thus, when Lot bowed to two of them in Genesis 19:1,
he was bowing to two members of the Trinity and not two created angels. That
the three angels in Genesis 18-19 are actually God is demonstrated by other
considerations as well. In Genesis 18:20-21 Yahweh says He will go to Sodom.
However, it is the two angels who go to Sodom while one Yahweh stays behind
talking with Abraham (Genesis 18:22; 19:1). Thus, the two angels are also
Yahweh since they went to Sodom when it was Yahweh who said He would go there.
As for Gregory the Great’s meager claim that “because Christ, in becoming
incarnate, thereby elevated human nature, the angel had a certain reverence
for men, and refused to be bowed down to by one, especially one who was an
Apostle (pp.
122-123),” this is merely an eisegetical remark not drawn from the verse or immediate
context itself. Neither Revelation nor any other NT book states the incarnation
“elevated human nature” in this sort of way. This assumption (which is not derived from divine
revelation) is just read into the text (eisegesis) and is thus underserving of
credence. The inescapable fact is the angel was opposed to being bowed to in a
religious context since he identified that as worship. Lake
then claims none of the church fathers interpreted these two texts in
Revelation as Protestants do (p. 122). However, Cyprian’s comments on 22:8-9
indicate he believed religious bowing was worship due to God alone, and that
this was ordained for the Son to receive: “God the Father ordained His Son to be adored;
and the Apostle
Paul, mindful
of the divine command, lays it down, and says: God has exalted Him, and given Him a
name which is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things heavenly, and things earthly, and things
beneath
[Philippians 2:9-10]. And in the Apocalypse the angel withstands
John, who
wishes to worship him, and says: Do
it not; for I am your fellow-servant, and of your brethren. Worship Jesus the Lord” (Cyprian, Treatise 9, On the Advantages of Patience). Cyprian nowhere defends the action
of John, with the added corrective Lake offers (i.e., just to not confuse the
angel with God). Interestingly my
interlocutor failed to mention this exposition which undermines his claim of
patristic support (and wasn’t Cyprian allegedly a Romanist?).
Acts 10:25-26 is then brought up which says, “When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and
worshiped him. But Peter lifted him up,
saying, ‘Stand up; I too am a man’” (Acts 10:25-26). This text again demonstrates bowing in a religious context is
considered worship due to God alone. Thus, it must not be done to creatures or
statues of creatures as Rome does. Lake cites Jerome’s statement (Jerome, Contra Vigilantium, cap. 5) that
Cornelius thought Peter was a god and worshipped him as one. But, Lake argues,
Catholics are not allowed to worship creatures as gods or as though there was
“something divine” in them (p. 123). However, even if this were granted, it
would still follow bowing in a religious context was considered by Peter to be
worship due to God alone. If bowing in a religious context was acceptable as
long as the bower did not consider the person being bowed to as divine, we
would expect Peter to say “continue bowing just do not view me as God.” But
instead he commanded Cornelius to “stand up.” This indicates Peter was opposed
to the religious act of bowing itself.
Lake moves to the matter
of titles of God which Rome has sinfully applied to Mary without revelational
confirmation. Such titles include: “our life,”
all-holy one,” “peace-maker between sinners and God,” “Helper,” “crusher of the
serpent’s head,” and “a name after that of thy Son above every other name,
that in thy name every knee should bow, of things in heaven, on earth, and
under the earth,” etc. These are all applied to God alone
in scripture (1 John 5:11-12; Exodus 15:11; Isaiah 6:3; Ephesians 2:14-16; John
14:26; Galatians 1:4; Genesis 3:15; Philippians 2:10). Lake argues (pp.
124-125) in scripture God Himself will sometimes give to believers certain
titles He has used (e.g. Father, Teacher, Judge, Rock, etc.). However, just
because God Himself has the authority to apply some of His titles to His redeemed
creatures, that does not mean God sanctions Rome’s practice of applying other
titles of God to Mary which He Himself did not sanction in divine revelation.
This is the proof by example fallacy in logic. Rome inconsistently admits all
doctrine and morality must come from the closed deposit of faith or divine
revelation because of Jude 1:3 (Vatican I, First Dogmatic
Constitution, section 4, ed. Vincent McNabb, The Decrees of the Vatican Council, [Burns and Oates, 1907], p. 45;
The Catholic Encyclopedia, ed. Charles George Herbermann, (Robert
Appleton Company, 1912), Volume 13, p. 4). Yet, divine revelation does not confirm it is sanctioned by God to
apply to Mary the specific titles of God Rome applies to her. Here again we
observe how Rome does not care about sticking to divine revelation. It is
content with believing what fallible, uninspired men came up with hundreds of
years after the fact on all sorts of matters.
Lake then zeroes in on
some (though not all) of the specific titles of God Rome has sinfully and
without divine sanction applied to Mary. He claims the title “our life” does
not detract from God being the ultimate source of spiritual life (pp. 125-127).
However, the point is divine revelation does not give Mary this title. It gives
it to God alone. Therefore, applying it to Mary when it belongs to God alone is unlawful. The divine title “all-holy one” is then
examined. Lake claims it is acceptable to apply it to Mary because (1) saints
are called “holy” in scripture; (2) she and other saints receive grace to be
holy; and (3) she was allegedly sinless during her life. However, (1) saints
are called “holy” but never “all-holy one” which belongs to God alone; (2) just
because saints and Mary receive grace to be holy does not give Rome the right
to apply to Mary the divine title “all-holy one,” since divine revelation never
does so and instead reserves it for God alone; and (3) the immaculate
conception is unbiblical and ahistorical as my essays [1, 2] on the matter
demonstrate. Lake claims because Ambrose, Augustine et al taught Mary did not
sin during her life, this title is appropriate. However, as my essays I just
cited demonstrate, this is refuted by scripture which teaches she sinned at
times, and by the church fathers like Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Cyril of
Alexandria, Basil of Caesarea, and Chrysostom who taught she sinned at times
(church fathers which Rome falsely claims were Romanists and which Pope Pius IX
falsely claimed affirmed Mary’s immaculate conception in Ineffabilis Dues). The bottom line is divine revelation does not identify Mary with the
divine title “all-holy one,” and so it is unlawful to apply it to her, as that
title serves to glorify God alone in divine revelation. Concerning the title
“peacemaker between sinners and God,” Lake claims it is acceptable because Mary
intercedes for believers and obtains pardon for sins in the subjective
redemption (p. 129-130). However, above I already refuted Lake’s case for
Mary’s alleged heavenly intercession and demonstrated divine revelation does not
support the doctrine. But the bottom line again is “peacemaker between sinners
and God” is a title applied to Christ alone in divine revelation and so
applying it to a creature without God’s sanctioning from divine revelation is
unlawful and offensive. The final title Lake looks at is “the Helper” which
belongs to the Holy Spirit alone in divine revelation. Lake tries to justify
this title being applied to Mary on the basis that sometimes saints are said to
“help” others (e.g. Romans 15:30; 2 Corinthians 1:10-11). However, in divine
revelation none are given the title “the Helper” in light of this. Only God is
because He is the perfect Helper and is thus the only one truly deserving of
the glorious title. Hence, again Rome exceeds the bounds of acceptable biblical
theology by applying to Mary a title which serves to glorify God alone and
which God never sanctioned should be given to creatures. Lake
failed to defend other titles of God which Rome unlawfully applies to Mary, such as “crusher of the serpent’s head,” and “a name after that of thy Son above
every other name, that in thy name every knee should bow, of things in heaven,
on earth, and under the earth,” even though I mentioned
those in my past work.
The topic of Vatican
approved Marian apparitions is then focused on. These are some of the most
blasphemous things to ever come out Romanism. I quoted them in a past essay showing how
they (1) detract from the glory God alone deserves; and (2) contain theology
which is utterly opposed to divine revelation. Whatever this creature in these
apparitions was (either a demon or Satan), it, in the 1917 Fatima,
Portugal apparition,
said things like: people need to make sacrifices (i.e., “bearing suffering”
and “reparation
for sins” for the conversion of sinners and as atonement for “sins
committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary”), because
there is allegedly no one to do so (what about Christ’s sacrifice which
perfectly and sufficiently atones for sin and saves according to divine
revelation?). It also promised salvation to those who devoted themselves to it, claimed to be people’s refuge, and demanded a chapel be built for its
honor. I pointed out how the redeemed Mary would never contradict scripture and
say such unbiblical things since divine revelation states Jesus provided the
once-for-all, perfect, eternal, and sufficient sacrificial atonement for sins and
people’s salvation (Matthew 1:21; John 1:29; Hebrews 7:25; 9:12, 26, 28; 10:12, 14).
Moreover, those with the Holy Spirit glorify God and do not instead request
temples be built in their own honor (John 16:14). Earlier in the demonic
1531 apparition in Guadalupe, Mexico, this wicked entity requested a temple be built to it
so that it could have people seek it as a remedy from miseries, afflictions, sorrows and
distress. However, Mary would never request a temple be built to her so she
could do things which divine revelation says God does from His Temple (i.e.,
remedy distress, etc). In Psalms 18:6 David looks to God in His Temple as a
remedy from distress. What is more, it is actually the antichrist who wants a
temple built to it so it can be glorified and seen as the one who provides
remedy for such things (2 Thessalonians 2:4). And again, those with the Holy Spirit glorify God and do not instead request
temples be built to them in their own honor (John 16:14).
Lake attempts to defend these blasphemous and demonic
manifestations. He says these were true apparitions of Mary because Catholics
around the world believe they are, and the Catholic church could not be wrong
on such a large scale (p. 133). However, if the Roman church was cut off and
had its lampstand removed long ago thereby making it a false church (as Romans
11:18-22, 25 and Revelation 2:5 warn can happen, and as I will argue below did
happen), then it could easily be that it is universally deceived about demonic
apparitions. That the Roman church fell, was cut off and had its lampstand
removed as a system, I argue for in a past essay on the
basis of its satanic abominations century after century.
Historically Roman popes murdered other popes and cardinals, popes sold their
papal office for gold, popes were controlled by the wicked pornocracy family,
popes had orgies in the Vatican, Rome created deceptive forgeries to bolster
the power of the papacy such as the donation of Constantine and
Pseudo-Isidorian decretals, bishops and priests have consistently molested
children in staggering numbers, leading to popes, bishops and priests then
covering up such molestations on a massive and global scale, popes sold
indulgences for money to be able to rebuild St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome, popes
sanctioned the idolatrous worship of fraud relics, popes put corpses of past
popes on mock trial and mutilated them, popes sanctioned the brutal
inquisitions for many centuries, popes murdered and deposed other popes, Pope
John XII mutilated a priest, committed homicide and adultery, violated virgins
and widows, turned the pontifical palace into a brothel, lived with his
father’s mistress, drank to the health of the devil and invoked pagan demons
like Jupiter and Venus at the gambling table, and the Roman church ordained the
idolatrous worship of statues and denied the very gospel message of salvation (sola fide) itself at the council of
Trent. Clearly the Roman church did not take heed to the warnings found in
Romans 11:18-22, 25 and Revelation 2:4 and was therefore cut off from God as a
system. This is why Reformation was essential and why it is not difficult to
maintain the Roman church is universally deceived to believe false apparitions.
Before the gates of hell could totally prevail over the church (Matthew
16:18b), God sovereignly ordained the Reformation to prevent such a catastrophe
(as I argue in Reformed Answers on the
Roman Corruption of Christianity 5:14:35 – 5:20:10).
Lake then claims the apparitions are valid because
miracles allegedly accompanied them (pp. 133-134). He claims that noting Satan
does false miracles to deceive is similar to how the Pharisees denied Jesus’
miracles. However, Old and New Covenant scripture (including Jesus’ own
ministry teachings) are clear that Satan can and often does do counterfeit
miracles to deceive the gullible and unsaved, and so believers are to be very
vigilant and discerning and not just believe every purported miracle after
Jesus’ ascension (Exodus 7:22; 8:7; Deuteronomy 13:1-2; Job 1:7; Mark 13:22;
Matthew 24:24; 2 Thessalonians 2:9; 1 Peter 5:8; Revelation 13:11-15; 18:23;
19:20). Moreover, to parallel Jesus with the abominable Roman church and its
blasphemous, unbiblical, and demonic apparitions is an offense to God for the
reasons specified above. Lake moves on and claims although the entity stated
men need to do sacrifices for sinners, since there is
allegedly no one to sacrifice for them, this is not an attack on Christ because
the entity was not denying Jesus made a sacrifice (p. 135). However, to rely on
sacrifices made by humans (i.e., “bearing sufferings” and “reparation
for sins” for the conversion of sinners and as atonement for “sins
committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary,”) as the basis for sinners
receiving salvation, and then for the entity to claim there is no one to make
such a sacrifice, is an overlooking and thus denial of Jesus’ perfect and
sufficient sacrifice which saves and atones (Matthew
1:21; John 1:29; Hebrews 7:25; 9:12, 26, 28; 10:12, 14). By
approving this apparition, Rome is also guilty of this treacherous error
against Christ, even though elsewhere it inconsistently claims to affirm the
sacrifice of Christ (to appease the gullible). Lake claims (p. 135) Tertullian
affirmed the same concept as this entity in that human sacrifices could lead to
the salvation of other humans. He notes Tertullian said Christian sacrifices to
God are made for the salvation of the emperor (Tertullian, Ad Scapulam, cap. 2). However, again the entity claimed the
sacrifices which saved consisted of “bearing sufferings” and “reparation
for sins” for the conversion of sinners which atone for “sins
committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary.” But Tertullian did not affirm
this wicked concept. In fact, in the immediate context (i.e., later on in the
very same sentence which Lake did not quote), he defined such metaphorical
sacrifices as “simple prayer”
for others (Ibid.). Tertullian did not believe prayers bore sufferings or
atoned for sins as the wicked entity claimed. So, Lake citing Tertullian as
supporting this heresy is inaccurate. Christians believe in praying for the
salvation of others whereby Jesus’ perfect and sufficient expiatory and
propitiatory sacrifice forever removes their sin and God’s wrath, while
Catholics believe in order to obtain such a salvation and atonement, creatures
must bear suffering for other creatures and atone for others’ sins (as the
Vatican approval of this wicked apparition demonstrates).
Lake comments (p. 135) on how this wicked entity
promised salvation to those who devoted themselves to it and notes Paul said he
prayed for people’s salvation (Romans 10:1). However, the two statements are
not at all analogous. Paul never promised salvation to those who devoted
themselves to him. Paul knew this was glorious language to be applied to God
alone. Again, Paul believed orthodox doctrine later found in Acts 4:12,
“And
there is salvation in no one else [other than Jesus],
for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12),
John
14:6, “I am the way the truth and the
life. No one comes to the Father but by
me” (John 14:6), 1 Thessalonians 5:9,
“For
God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thessalonians 5:9),
and
Revelation 7:10, “Salvation belongs
to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!” (Revelation 7:10).
Never would the blessed Paul blasphemously state he promised salvation to those
who devoted themselves to him in light of divine revelation’s clear opposing
language.
Concerning this entity glorifying itself
the way I specified above, and requesting temples be built for it and to its
honor, Lake claims it did not do so to honor itself as vainglory, but instead
to honor Christ (pp. 135, 136, 137). But why then did it say “I want to
tell you that a chapel is to be built here in my honor” instead of saying “I want to tell
you that a chapel is to be built here in Christ’s honor”? And why did it say it
wants “a temple be
built to me” and not “a
temple be built to Christ”? Lake’s polemic is refuted by the very words of the
entity itself. It clearly did want personal honor as a result of the temples.
Lake then argues the entity wanted the temples built to itself because God
instructed it to say that, and we should not question God. He cites (p. 135)
Romans 9:20 which says, “who are you, O man, to answer back to God” (Romans
9:20)? First, how does Lake know God instructed the entity to say this? Did his
church declare that to be the case ex
cathedra? Is it part of the ordinary universal magisterium? Is it in divine
revelation that God confirms He would do this in 1917? Where is Lake getting
his certainty that God instructed the entity to say this? Second, it is curious
why Lake would employ Romans 9:20 when its original purpose was to combat those
who would question God as to why He still finds fault with the hard-heartedness
of unbelievers when they are just carrying out what God predestined and created
them to do (Romans 9:3-19). Yet, this is exactly how Romanists like Lake, as
well as Arminians, argue for their pagan-originated (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 3:1-2a; 5:1113b, 9,
10-13; Epicurus, Epicurus to Menoeceus,
133-155, idem. Principle Doctrines,
4; Epictetus, Doctrines, 1.1; idem.
Discourses of Epictetus, 1.1; 4.1; Cicero, Of
the Nature of the Gods, 3:237) doctrine of freedom from God. They argue:
“How can men be held accountable for their sin against God if they are not free
and if God just predestined and created them to be the way they are”? Paul is
actually combatting this Catholic and Arminian argument in Romans 9:20, and he
would say to Lake just as he said to free will heretics long ago: “who are you,
O man, to answer back to God?” (Paul would have thus refuted Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 3:1-2a who likewise
argued, “praise and blame arise upon such as are voluntary”). Hence, the very
text Lake erroneously and presumptively employs to defend his blasphemous
position, which Paul would never agree with, actually ends up condemning his pagan
anti-Calvinistic theology of man’s freedom from God. Lake then provides
passages which either show saints receive glorification from God Himself, or
that Mary should be called “blessed.” He cites 1 Samuel 2:30, John 12:26,
Romans 2:10, Luke 1:48, and I agree with all of this. However, none of those
texts say Mary or anyone else should have temples built to them in their honor.
That would actually be divine worship, as only God is honored in and by a
Temple according to divine revelation (Psalms 18:6; 48:9; Luke 24:53;
Revelation 11:1). It is never sanctioned for anyone else in divine revelation.
Lake then tries to justify temples being built to and
in honor of saints on the basis that starting with Emperor Constantine building
one for the apostles, we then see various church fathers affirming the practice
later in history (pp. 138-140). However, there is a debate if Constantine
actually built this edifice, or if it was built later as others suggest (Vered
Shalev-Hurvitz, Holy Sites Encircled: The
Early Byzantine Concentric Churches of Jerusalem, (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2015), pp. 205-206). But let us assume Eusebius was correct
that Constantine did build it. The problem would be Constantine was a
fence-sitting Pagan/Christian who continued to affirm paganism in many aspects
during his life (only on his deathbed did he truly convert to Christianity and
receive baptism). In pagan Rome, the heathen often sinfully built temples to
gods or human heroes to honor them. Thus, if Constantine (who was not a good
theologian) built one to the apostles and to honor them, this would be residual
pagan practice from his heathenistic background. G. P. Baker notes, “He was not
willing to seem too obviously to take a side. His chief efforts had all his
life been bent upon the task of conciliation and peace-making. In accordance
with this plan, he avoided any action that seemed like too plainly classifying
himself. To his pagan subjects he had conducted himself as an enlightened
pagan-very much, in fact, as his father had done. . . . Such a position on the
fence was technically allowable so long as Constantine refrained from receiving
baptism. . . . Once he received baptism, his actions would necessarily be much
more limited” (G. P. Baker, Constantine the Great, (New York, NY: Cooper Square
Press), p. 308). He was not a true Christian theologian and so was unaware that
building temples to creatures and in their honor was incompatible with divine
revelation since, again, it is clear that would actually be divine worship, as
only God is honored in and by a Temple according to divine revelation (Psalms
18:6; 48:9; Luke 24:53; Revelation 11:1). It is never sanctioned for anyone
else in divine revelation. Just because certain later church writers followed
the false tradition originated by the Pagan/Christian Constantine’s
pagan-originated practice, gave it legitimacy, and were seemingly unaware that
it was inconsistent with divine revelation for the reasons specified above,
that does not mean this practice is valid. They clearly departed from divine
revelation on this point and instead followed the novel, pagan tradition
started hundreds of years after Jesus and the inspired apostles completed the divine
deposit of faith. Something is valid if it is taught by God in divine revelation.
If you can only appeal to men writing hundreds of years after divine revelation
was already completed, then you do not have a solid foundation to legitimize
your position. Christians follow God. Romanists follow men.
We now approach the two final arguments in Lake's
thesis. The first one is his attempted rebuttal to my use of Psalms 16:6 which
again says David sought God in His Temple as a remedy for his distress. This
shows what the entity in the apparition said it could do in its temple, was
actually something divine revelation says believers should look to God for in
His Temple. Thus, the being attempted to detract from the glory and sufficiency
of God. Lake responds by again claiming the entity was really just seeking to
ultimately glorify God (p. 141). However, why then
did it say “I want to tell you that a chapel is to be built here in my honor” instead of
saying “I want to tell you that a chapel is to be built here in Christ’s
honor”? And why did it say it wants “a temple be built to me” and not “a temple be built to
Christ”? Lake’s rebuttal is refuted by the very words of the entity itself.
Also, why did the entity then claim to do what divine revelation says believers
should look to God to do? As regards my use of 2 Thessalonians 2:4 which says it
is actually the antichrist who wants a temple built for him so he can be
glorified, Lake argues the antichrist will claim to be God. And since the
entity in the apparition did not claim to be God, Lake argues these cases are
dissimilar. However, the being in the apparition put itself in the place of God
by (1) wanting a temple built for it and for its honor when divine revelation
confirms only God has Temples built to Him and for His honor; (2) by claiming it
could do things in the temple which divine revelation says one should look to
God to do in His Temple; and (3) claiming it promises salvation to those who
devote themselves to it when divine revelation affirms people are saved by
devoting themselves to God Himself (e.g. Acts 4:12,
John
14:6, 1 Thessalonians 5:9, and Revelation 7:10 ). Thus, it
is clear these points demonstrate the entity was putting itself in the place of
God just as the antichrist is predicted to do in divine revelation.
Conclusion
On the matters of the intercession of Mary and the saints,
prayer to Mary and the saints, Mary being mediatrix of all graces, and the
worship of Mary, Lake has failed to, as an historian, demonstrate these
doctrines are derived from divine revelation (i.e., the closed deposit of
faith). He also failed to adequately refute the arguments demonstrating such
doctrines are contrary to divine revelation. Instead, he was only able to find
actual support for his doctrines in the fallible, uninspired writings of men
who wrote hundreds of years after the closing of the deposit of faith. Yet, he
did not attempt to historically demonstrate the teachings found in such later
patristic writings derive ultimately from apostolic oral tradition. He was
unable to find a stream of said doctrines being passed to the apostolic fathers
and second century apologists, and so on (when at least some of them should
have received, believed and affirmed these supposedly apostolic doctrines in
their voluminous writings). Thus, as an
historian he is unable to state the doctrines found in later patristic
writings he relies on reflect what the inspired apostles taught. He may have
blind faith the apostles handed on such teachings orally, but he cannot
demonstrate it in a scholarly manner (biblical faith is never in falsehoods or in things which cannot be substantiated). My interlocutor also committed countless
errors in his interpretations of scripture and in his interpretations of the
patristics which I highlighted. He also relied on an autonomous rationalistic
methodology as a basis to add to scripture and then confused that approach with
the Reformation principle of drawing out that which necessarily follows from
the text. But I demonstrated these two approaches are not at all the same and
why Lake’s is unreliable and rejected by divine revelation. My response to Lake’s
thesis reveals that Rome looks to Mary for that which Christ sufficiently and
perfectly provides.
It is my hope and prayer that Lake will abandon Roman
Catholicism, its creature worship and its false gospel. I pray he instead
submits to what God actually revealed in divine revelation. Although these
interactions can be heated, that does not minimize my desire for his salvation.
Jesus paid for sin on the cross. That expiatory and propitiatory sacrifice is
received by trust or reliance in Christ and his saving work (the gospel, i.e.,
“good news”). By faith one receives that perfect sacrifice (Romans 3:25;
Ephesians 2:8-9; cf. Mark 1:15; Acts 16:30-31; Romans 1:16; 10:9; Ephesians
1:13; 1 Corinthians 15:1-6) and foreign righteous standing (Romans 4:2-5;
Philippians 3:9; cf. Romans 5:19; 1 Corinthians 1:30; 2 Corinthians 5:19)
credited to their account, wiping away all their sin, removing God’s wrath, and
making one acceptable in God’s sight. If only Lake and other Catholics would
submit to God’s righteousness instead of trying to establish their own by means
of Mary and others (Romans 10:3). I will end with a passage from the letter to
the Hebrews which is relevant both to the Marian controversy discussed in this
essay, as well as the saving gospel message itself: “He added, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will.’ He does
away with the first in order to establish the second. And by that will we have
been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same
sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had
offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand
of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for
his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are
being sanctified” (Hebrews 10:9-14).
Excellent examination. Roman Catholic Mariology has a bizarre developmental history, with there being various shrines and feasts established in the name of Mary during the Middle Ages. In fact, many bishops who had attended the First Vatican Council wanted "Immaculate Virgin" added to the "Hail Mary" prayer. Other attendees even wanted to add the immaculate conception of Mary to the creed. This undoubtedly reveals a dramatic increase in Marian devotion. One cannot help but wonder whether the Church of Rome has a problem with idolatry. It is simply not possible to construct the Roman Catholic version of Mary from Scripture alone.
ReplyDelete