Augustine and Calvin, the Scriptures and the Church

[Pete_Holter]

A friend of mine recently linked to a news story about a vial of John Paul II’s blood being sent to Mexico for the faithful to have recourse to as a relic of a saint, thinking that this was an obviously superstitious act on the part of the Church. I told him that, I know it sounds silly, but what he was reading about in that article is evidence of the simplicity of faith. The childlike faith we have in approaching God. And this reminded me that Reformed theologian Carl Trueman wrote an article having this same objection, wherein he complains about the faith of Catholics in relation to the relics of saints as being “a manifestation of the crassest kind of superstitious folk religion” (Reflections on Rome Part 1: Connecting the Mind and the Tongue). He says that he is “sure some people have been healed by touching the Tomb of Saint Anthony. The power of suggestion can be quite effective when connected to such a fetish” (Superstition: Catholic and Evangelical).

I’m not sure why he consulted Hans Kung on the subject, but Scripture witnesses to this same simplicity of the faith of the Catholics:

“So Elisha died, and they buried him. Now bands of Moabites used to invade the land in the spring of the year. And as a man was being buried, behold, a marauding band was seen and the man was thrown into the grave of Elisha, and as soon as the man touched the bones of Elisha, he revived and stood on his feet” (2 Kings 13:20-21).
“And behold, a woman who had suffered from a discharge of blood for twelve years came up behind him and touched the fringe of his garment, for she said to herself, ‘If I only touch his garment, I will be made well.’ Jesus turned, and seeing her he said, ‘Take heart, daughter; your faith has made you well’ ” (Matthew 9:20-22).

“And when the men of that place recognized Him, they sent around to all that region and brought to Him all who were sick and implored Him that they might only touch the fringe of His garment. And as many as touched it were made well” (Matthew 14:35-36).

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

“And God was doing extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that even handkerchiefs or aprons that had touched his skin were carried away to the sick, and their diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them” (Acts 19:11-12).

“I,” says Carl Trueman, “remain unconvinced that what I witnessed in the basilica has any real connection to biblical Christianity” (Superstition: Catholic and Evangelical). As one who, at this point, cannot appreciate the connection of the remains of the saints with our faith and hope in the resurrection, I caution him with the words of Augustine in connection with superstition, that “when the reason why a thing is of virtue does not appear, the intention with which it is used is of great importance” (, Bk. 2, Ch. 29:45On Christian Doctrine). Did Carl Trueman ask these people that he observed about their faith in Jesus Christ? Both he and I would reject an internal superstitious disposition. But what would the difference between superstition and faith look like to an outside observer? We may not be able to tell without asking the person for a reason why.

I asked my friend, who it is in the following episode that sounds like Reformed theologian Carl Trueman, and who it is that sounds like the superstitious Catholic:

“So Naaman came with his horses and chariots and stood at the door of Elisha’s house. And Elisha sent a messenger to him, saying, ‘Go and wash in the Jordan seven times, and your flesh shall be restored, and you shall be clean.’ But Naaman was angry and went away, saying, ‘Behold, I thought that he would surely come out to me and stand and call upon the name of the LORD his God, and wave his hand over the place and cure the leper. Are not Abana and Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? Could I not wash in them and be clean?’ So he turned and went away in a rage” (2 Kings 5:9-12).

Go wash in the Jordan seven times??? The superstitious guy turns out to be “the man of God,” the prophet Elisha!

Who in our day and age is bothering to take the handkerchiefs, clothing, bones, tongues, and blood of the saints to the faithful spread throughout the world? The Catholics!

I invite Carl Trueman to take another look at some of the miracle stories that Augustine collected in his own day: , Bk. 22, Ch. 8The City of God. They’re a fun read! And they’re a perfect example of a coming together in one man of what Dr. Trueman is struggling to reconcile: how to combine intellectualism and superstition into a God honoring blend of rational worship, of true Christian faith.

All of these types of miracles and devotions witness to our faith in Jesus Christ and the resurrection of the body. Amen! I hope Dr. Trueman finds his way home to the Catholic Church of Jesus Christ.

With LOVE in CHRIST,
Pete

 

[wisdomseeker]

A friend of mine recently linked to a news story about [(Reflections on Rome Part 1: Connecting the Mind and the Tongue](http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1101645.htm)). He says that he is “sure some people have been healed by touching the Tomb of Saint Anthony. The power of suggestion can be quite effective when connected to such a fetish” (Superstition: Catholic and Evangelical).

“So Elisha died, and they buried him. Now bands of Moabites used to invade the land in the spring of the year. And as a man was being buried, behold, a marauding band was seen and the man was thrown into the grave of Elisha, and as soon as the man touched the bones of Elisha, he revived and stood on his feet” (2 Kings 13:20-21).
“And behold, a woman who had suffered from a discharge of blood for twelve years came up behind him and touched the fringe of his garment, for she said to herself, ‘If I only touch his garment, I will be made well.’ Jesus turned, and seeing her he said, ‘Take heart, daughter; your faith has made you well’ ” (Matthew 9:20-22).

“And when the men of that place recognized Him, they sent around to all that region and brought to Him all who were sick and implored Him that they might only touch the fringe of His garment. And as many as touched it were made well” (Matthew 14:35-36).

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

“And God was doing extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that even handkerchiefs or aprons that had touched his skin were carried away to the sick, and their diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them” (Acts 19:11-12).

“I,” says Carl Trueman, “remain unconvinced that what I witnessed in the basilica has any real connection to biblical Christianity” (Superstition: Catholic and Evangelical). As one who, at this point, cannot appreciate the connection of the remains of the saints with our faith and hope in the resurrection, I caution him with the words of Augustine in connection with superstition, that “when the reason why a thing is of virtue does not appear, the intention with which it is used is of great importance” (On Christian Doctrine, Bk. 2, Ch. 29:45). Did Carl Trueman ask these people that he observed about their faith in Jesus Christ? Both he and I would reject an internal superstitious disposition. But what would the difference between superstition and faith look like to an outside observer? We may not be able to tell without asking the person for a reason why.

I asked my friend, who it is in the following episode that sounds like Reformed theologian Carl Trueman, and who it is that sounds like the superstitious Catholic:

“So Naaman came with his horses and chariots and stood at the door of Elisha’s house. And Elisha sent a messenger to him, saying, ‘Go and wash in the Jordan seven times, and your flesh shall be restored, and you shall be clean.’ But Naaman was angry and went away, saying, ‘Behold, I thought that he would surely come out to me and stand and call upon the name of the LORD his God, and wave his hand over the place and cure the leper. Are not Abana and Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? Could I not wash in them and be clean?’ So he turned and went away in a rage” (2 Kings 5:9-12).

Go wash in the Jordan seven times??? The superstitious guy turns out to be “the man of God,” the prophet Elisha!

Who in our day and age is bothering to take the handkerchiefs, clothing, bones, tongues, and blood of the saints to the faithful spread throughout the world? The Catholics!

I invite Carl Trueman to take another look at some of the miracle stories that Augustine collected in his own day: The City of God, Bk. 22, Ch. 8. They’re a fun read! And they’re a perfect example of a coming together in one man of what Dr. Trueman is struggling to reconcile: how to combine intellectualism and superstition into a God honoring blend of rational worship, of true Christian faith.

All of these types of miracles and devotions witness to our faith in Jesus Christ and the resurrection of the body. Amen! I hope Dr. Trueman finds his way home to the Catholic Church of Jesus Christ.

With LOVE in CHRIST,
Pete

What save us is that we can always refer back to what God has done for His people the Jews. The enemy of God will continuously try to destroy the Faith God has given us. too many voices against our Faith. Will we survive them all? our Faith has been so battled along the years by protestants, many faifthless Catholics, atheists, and other religions that we can say that it is a miracle that our Faith has survived to this day.

 

[Pete_Holter]

I tried to post the following comment to The Gospel Coalition website, specifically to the post titled, The Difference Between Protestants and Catholics on Tradition. I’m not sure if it will make it though moderation due to length, so here it is here:

Brandon Vogt wrote: “First, the Catholic Church has never taught something that contradicted with previous teachings.”

Steve Hays wrote: “For starters, try capital punishment.”

Truth Unites… and Divides wrote: “Lo and behold, I found this post by Steve Hays: Contraception and Capital Punishment.

Hi, Truth and Steve!

Augustine was the earliest witness brought forward in that Triablogue post as evidence of “the modern magisterium bucking tradition.” But if you compare the position of John Paul II and the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the one hand, with the position of Saint Augustine on the other, you will find no real difference between them. Please see my comments below Steve’s post on Contraception and Capital Punishment. And here are some additional thoughts from Augustine to help you appreciate that there is no contradiction here:

“If you listen to your neighbour in the same way that you listen to yourself, then your target will be the sin, and not the sinner. And if someone happens to be hardened against his sins being reformed, if he has turned away from the fear of God, well, you must make that element of him your target, you must try to reform that, and work to lose and remove precisely that, so that the sin is condemned, but the human being himself preserved. There are in fact two nouns, ‘human’ and ‘sinner.’ God made the human being, but the human being himself made the sinner. May the human creation perish, but God’s creation be set free!

“Do not, therefore, when you are attacking the sin, put the human being to death. Avoid the death penalty, so that there’s someone left to repent. Don’t allow the human being to be killed; then someone will be left to learn the lesson. You are a man judging other men; foster love of them in your heart, and judge the earth. Love to instill fear in them, but do so out of love. If you must be arrogant, be arrogant towards the sin, not towards the person. Vent your rage on the failing, which you dislike as much in yourself, and not on the person, who is created just as you are. You both came from the same workshop, you both had the same craftsman, the stuff you are both made of is the same clay. Why are you destroying the person you judge by failing to love him? For you’re destroying justice, by failing to love the person you’re judging. Punishments should be imposed; I don’t deny it; I don’t forbid it. But this must be done in the spirit of love, in the spirit of concern, in the spirit of reform” (Sermon 13, 8).

“Consequently, we are forced by our love for humankind to intercede for the guilty lest they end this life by punishment, only to find that punishment does not end with this life. …]

“So, if it is right for you to moderate an ecclesiastical sanction by intercession, how much more ought a bishop to intercede against your sword, since the sanction is invoked that the one against whom it is directed may lead a good life, but the sword is drawn that he may not live at all! Finally, the Lord Himself intervened among men that the adulteress might not be stoned, and thus He commended to us the duty of intercession…

“…restraint should not go so far as death, because there must be someone to whom restraint is beneficial. …]

“In the same way, when we intercede for an offender who deserves condemnation, there sometimes are consequences which we do not intend, either in the person who is set free through our intercession, so that he goes rioting about more extravagantly, because his unchecked boldness goes to greater lengths of passion, being ungrateful for the leniency shown, and his single escape from death may be the cause of many other deaths; or it may be that the object of our kindness changes for the better and mends his morals, but he may be the cause of another’s perishing as a result of an evil life, because the latter, seeing that the former has escaped punishment, commits the same crimes or even worse ones. Yet, I think, these evil consequences are not to be laid to our charge when we intercede with you, but, rather, the good aims which we have in view and which we intend when we act thus, that is, to commend mildness so as to win men’s love for the word of truth, and to ensure that those who are freed from temporal death may so live as not to fall into eternal death from which they can never be freed” (Letter 153).

I hope you all have a blessed day! And may you find the peace of God in communion with the Catholic Church of Jesus Christ.

With love in Christ,
Pete Holter

 

[Pete_Holter]

I let Steve Hays know that I responded to his comments over at The Gospel Coalition. He responded back by saying,

“I quoted extensively from an article by Cardinal Dulles. The evidence goes far beyond Augustine. This was never contingent on a singular historical witness. We’re dealing with a sustained tradition, which the Vatican recently reversed” (Devin’s rose-tinted glasses).

Before I respond, please keep in mind that Steve has told Devin Rose that he keeps “moving the goal post” (The Difference Between Catholics and Protestants on Tradition). He’s also said of me, “You have a habit of moving the goalpost every time I respond to you” (Natural Law Breaker). And what would a Catholic Apologist do if “the Bible came with a table of contents. An infallible list of the books comprising the Bible”? Steve answers, “I imagine that he’d simply shift the goalpost” (A Fallible List of Infallible Books). He has also pointed out that, “When someone answers you on your own grounds, and you move the goalposts, that’s dishonest” (Hart to Hart).

Did Steve just move the goalpost? The original argument employed by Steve was designed to take the tradition of contraception and compare it with “a parallel case” in the tradition concerning the death penalty. The Catholic.com article that Steve was challenging made the claim that “the Church has always and everywhere condemned artificial contraception” (Birth Control). But this is a claim to both unanimity and perpetuity. Consequently, if we’re going to have “a parallel case,” a single counter example in the death penalty tradition destroys the parallelism and, because of this, his argument is indeed “contingent on a singular historical witness.” Furthermore, Augustine was the stage-setter for the death-penalty-promoting tradition that the Church was supposedly repudiating in parallel to the way that Protestants themselves have disregarded the unanimously held doctrine against contracepted sex. This made Augustine an especially important witness, and we found his position to be essentially identical to what the Church teaches today.

We also have the witness of John Chrysostom:

“What then does the Master? He forbids them, saying, ‘Lest haply ye root up the wheat with them.’ And this He said, to hinder wars from arising, and blood and slaughter. For it is not right to put a heretic to death, since an implacable war would be brought into the world. By these two reasons then He restrains them; one, that the wheat be not hurt; another, that punishment will surely overtake them, if incurably diseased. Wherefore, if you would have them punished, yet without harm to the wheat, I bid you wait for the proper season.

“But what means, ‘Lest ye root up the wheat with them’? Either He means this, If you are to take up arms, and to kill the heretics, many of the saints also must needs be overthrown with them; or that of the very tares it is likely that many may change and become wheat. If therefore ye root them up beforehand, you injure that which is to become wheat, slaying some, in whom there is yet room for change and improvement. He does not therefore forbid our checking heretics, and stopping their mouths, and taking away their freedom of speech, and breaking up their assemblies and confederacies, but our killing and slaying them” (Homily 46 on Matthew).

Although it is incomprehensive in itself, if we take this thought in conjunction with the thought of Augustine and Aquinas — who both held that “religious” crimes are more deserving of punishment than other crimes — it becomes a critical piece of data when being incorporated into a synthesis that is faithful to the entire Catholic tradition.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Adding to this witness, the book, The Death Penalty: An Historical and Theological Survey (this is a book that I have not read, but have only glanced at), provides the following quotations from a couple of our popes:

Pope Gregory the Great: “But, since I fear God, I shrink from having anything to do with the death of any one” (, Book 4, Letter 47Registrum Epistolarum; quoted on page 47).

Pope Nicholas I: “You must give up your former habits and not merely avoid every occasion of taking life, but also, without hesitation and in every possible circumstance, save the life of body and of soul of each individual. You should save from death not only the innocent but also criminals, because Christ has saved you from the death of the soul” (quoted on pages 47-48).

Thomas Aquinas argued for the use of the death penalty for heresy on the basis, in part, of the secular courts administering this penalty for lesser crimes, saying that “if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics” (, 2:2, 11.3Summa Theologica). So that as the society moves to withdraw this punishment for these lesser crimes, we might see Thomas moving along with them: “if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to lifelong imprisonment by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics.” He also wrote that “it is unlawful to take a man’s life, except for the public authority acting for the common good” (, 2:2, 64.7Summa Theologica); but this “human justice… puts to death those who are dangerous to others, while it allows time for repentance to those who sin without grievously harming others” (, 2:2, 64.2Summa Theologica). Following this logic, if death-penalty alternatives became viable options to the society, then they should be preferred to the death penalty as promoting the greater justice since they simultaneously promote the common good as well as afford time for repentance.

Steve concluded his citation of Cardinal Dulles’ article with the following words of the Cardinal:

“Summarizing the verdict of Scripture and tradition, we can glean some settled points of doctrine. It is agreed that crime deserves punishment in this life and not only in the next. In addition, it is agreed that the State has authority to administer appropriate punishment to those judged guilty of crimes and that this punishment may, in serious cases, include the sentence of death.”

This is evidently the conclusion that Steve thinks the modern Magisterium has repudiated in her “break with venerable tradition.” And yet, the Cardinal’s very own conclusion drawn from this tradition is indistinguishable from the teaching of John Paul II. In Evangelium Vitae, John Paul II first quotes the Catechism where it says, “ ‘legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the State’ (, 2265CCC)”; and he then goes on to say, “Unfortunately it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose action brought it about”. From within this context, and balancing the needs both of redress and of leaving room for repentance, he says that we should only have recourse to the death penalty “when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society” (, 55, 56Evangelium Vitae).

To sum up, it is my assertion that Paragraph 2267 of the Catechism is the most comprehensive and most faithful summary of the entire tradition of the Catholic Church on the death penalty. The Church has remained just as faithful in this regard as it has in its infallible condemnation of artificial contraception. I’m so grateful to God for His Church and for keeping her faithful to Himself. I sincerely hope that Steve will be able to join us in the Christian worship of the Father offered through the Eucharistic Sacrifice of Jesus Christ. May God bless you, Steve Hays!

With love in Christ,
Pete Holter

“If everything that the Roman Catholic Church taught were true…”

 

[Pete_Holter]

(1 of 8)
Greetings in Christ!

In this series of posts, I will be interacting with TurretinFan’s article, “Trent, Augustine, Scripture, and Justification.” I’ll also interact with some of the comments he made beneath the article.

After quoting from Chapter 7 of Trent’s Decree on Justification, TurretinFan says, “these conceptions are not consistent with Augustine.” TurretinFan then goes on to give the example of the thief on the cross as a counter example to the teaching of Trent. But how we understand Trent in light of the case of the thief is not itself explained in what TurretinFan had quoted from Trent. Augustine certainly agreed with Trent that the thief could not have been saved without having a desire for baptism (cf. Canon 4 of the Decree on the Sacraments). And Augustine is actually more stringent than Trent in this regard, as we will see.

TurretinFan then brings forward the example of Cornelius against Trent. But, again, the Council of Trent does not explain how to understand its Decree on Justification in light of what happened in the case of Cornelius, and does not exclude anything that Augustine asserted concerning Cornelius.

He also says that “Augustine’s meaning is not Trent’s meaning” when they speak of “Baptism for the remission of sins.” I hope to show that their meaning is exactly the same: baptism bestows the forgiveness of sins unless an obstacle is placed in the way.

Finally, he wrote that the necessity of baptism is “a necessity of obedience,” rather than, I suppose, a necessity of sacramental participation. But, for Augustine, it really is a necessity of sacramental participation.

I think it is important to reaffirm, as TurretinFan already did in one of his comments, that Augustine does not think that Cornelius was saved without baptism, but says that “it is proved [in part from the example of Cornelius] that the sacrament of baptism is one thing, the conversion of the heart another” and that “man’s salvation is made complete through the two together” (, Bk. 4, Ch. 25:33On Baptism, Against the Donatists). Augustine says that “all the good that [Cornelius] had in his prayers and alms could not benefit him unless he were incorporated in the Church by the bond of Christian brotherhood and peace,” which incorporation took place when he learned of Christ and was baptized by Peter (, Bk. 1, Ch. 8:10On Baptism, Against the Donatists). Augustine is using Cornelius to demonstrate a distinction between (1) the sacrament of baptism and (2) our personal holiness. We have to keep in mind that requiring personal holiness in order to have valid sacraments is the Donatist error that Augustine is combatting. Augustine wants to be able to demonstrate that you can have one without the other. That’s the broader context. More specifically in this context, he’s trying to show how a valid baptism can exist without resulting in a person’s salvation when baptism is intended to effect salvation. Cyprian had argued that there is no salvation outside the Church and consequently also no valid baptism. But a plenary council of the church had maintained that the custom defended by Pope Stephen was correct, and Augustine is seeking to demonstrate why Cyprian was wrong and the council was right: baptism can exist outside the Church even though salvation does not exist outside the church.

When Augustine wonders, “what is the precise value of the sanctification of the sacrament …] and what is the effect on a man of its material application,” he has in mind perceivable changes in our moral lives (, Bk. 4, Ch. 23:31On Baptism, Against the Donatists); he’s wondering about the relationship that exists between baptism and personal holiness. In a similar vein, Augustine called for us to “not only be baptized, but also justified in Christ, and so let [us] in truth pass from the devil to Christ” (, Bk. 21, Ch. 16The City of God; see also Ch. 27: “Why do many through fear of the first saying run to baptism, while few through fear of the second seek to be justified?”). By being “justified” here, Augustine means what we mean when we talk about growing in our sanctification and godliness. By the way, this is precisely what Pope Benedict was saying when he hoped that the newly baptized infants would “become true Christians.” TurretinFan had wondered in response to this statement from the pope, “Aren’t newly baptized infants ‘true Christians’ already? What sort of theology does Benedict XVI have, in which newly baptized infants are not true Christians?” (To Whom Should We Entrust Baptized Infants?) Yes, we do believe that they are true Christians. Pope Benedict is simply reaffirming what Augustine held, as just quoted: “the sacrament of baptism is one thing, the conversion of the heart another,” and “man’s salvation is made complete through the two together” (, Bk. 4, Ch. 25:33On Baptism, Against the Donatists). To bring the two back into closer connection, what Augustine and Benedict are saying is that when a baptized infant “begins to have the discretion of manhood, he will not repeat the sacrament [of baptism], but understand its meaning, and become conformed to the truth which it contains, with his will also consenting” (Letter 98, 10).

 

[Pete_Holter]

(2 of 8)
Augustine did indeed at one time suppose that the thief on the cross demonstrated that “the want [of baptism] is supplied invisibly… when the administration of baptism is prevented, not by contempt for religion, but by the necessity of the moment.” But it is important to emphasize that he had surmised that “faith and conversion of heart” supply the want of baptism only “if recourse may not be had to the celebration of the mystery of baptism for want of time” (, Bk. 4, Ch. 22:30On Baptism, Against the Donatists). This is what Catholics refer to as “baptism of desire.” It draws upon the principle that, for good or for bad, “Whatever you will and canst not, for done God does count it” (Exposition on Psalm 58, 3).

But we should also note that Augustine points out in his Retractions that “I do not know by what proofs it can be shown that that thief had not been baptized. In certain later works of ours, especially in the one that we addressed to Vincentius Victor on the origin of the soul, this subject has been more carefully discussed” (, Bk. 1, Ch. 25.2The Retractations). It is in these later works on the soul and its origin where Augustine asserts that “nobody can prove, since none of us knows, that [the thief] had not been baptized previous to his condemnation,” and that we are to “let no rule about baptism affecting the Saviour’s own precept be taken from this example of the thief”:

“[T]here is the circumstance, which is not incredibly reported, that the thief who then believed as he hung by the side of the crucified Lord was sprinkled, as in a most sacred baptism, with the water which issued from the wound of the Saviour’s side. I say nothing of the fact that nobody can prove, since none of us knows, that he had not been baptized previous to his condemnation. However, let every man take this in the sense he may prefer; only let no rule about baptism affecting the Saviour’s own precept be taken from this example of the thief… what if he had been baptized in prison, as in after times some under persecution were enabled privately to obtain? Or what if he had been baptized previous to his imprisonment? If, indeed, he had been, the remission of his sins which he would have received in that case from God would not have protected him from the sentence of public law, so far as appertained to the death of the body. What if, being already baptized, he had committed the crime and incurred the punishment of robbery and lawlessness, but yet received, by virtue of repentance added to his baptism, forgiveness of the sins which, though baptized, he had committed? For beyond doubt his faith and piety appeared to the Lord clearly in his heart, as they do to us in his words. If, indeed, we were to conclude that all those who have quitted life without a record of their baptism died unbaptized, we should calumniate the very apostles themselves; for we are ignorant when they were, any of them, baptized, except the Apostle Paul (cf. Acts 9:18). If, however, we could regard as an evidence that they were really baptized the circumstance of the Lord’s saying to St. Peter, ‘He that is washed needs not save to wash his feet’ (John 13:10), what are we to think of the others, of whom we do not read even so much as this—Barnabas, Timothy, Titus, Silas, Philemon, the very evangelists Mark and Luke, and innumerable others, about whose baptism God forbid that we should entertain any doubt, although we read no record of it?” (On the Soul and its Origin, Bk. 1, Ch. 11 & Bk. 3, Ch. 12)

With reference to the thief, therefore, what Augustine at one time held was a strict baptism of desire sacramentology. And he left this possibility open for others to embrace, in the case of the thief.

On the other hand, he seems to have consistently believed in a “baptism of blood.” He says that whenever “unbaptized persons die confessing Christ, this confession is of the same efficacy for the remission of sins as if they were washed in the sacred font of baptism” (, Bk. 13, Ch. 7The City of God). But even in martyrdom, this only holds true for the person who did not already have time to be baptized beforehand. For when discussing the shedding of blood for Christ as a substitute for baptism elsewhere, he asks, “is it possible to say this of the Apostles, who had such ample time in which to be baptized that they even baptized others?” (Letter 265) In other words, only when there is no such “ample time” and no “contempt for religion,” only then are we able to say of martyrs that “the shedding of their blood substitutes for baptism” (Letter 265).

 

[Pete_Holter]

(3 of 8)
In terms of agreement with Trent, Augustine’s treatment of baptism in On Baptism is consistent with the Council where it speaks of people having a desire for baptism, on the one hand, and of placing obstacles in the way of the grace of the sacraments, on the other (cf. Canons 4 and 6 of Trent’s Decree on the Sacraments). Baptism of desire and obstacles to grace come together to explain why the moment of salvation may occur either before, during, or after baptism, while baptism itself still remains as what we might call the “pivotal” instrument of salvation. It is the sacrament instituted by God for the purpose of using our faith to unite us to Christ in His death to sin, and to be raised therefrom to new life.

Again, personal holiness and the sacraments are two distinct things, but salvation only comes through the two together. And, in Augustine’s work, On Baptism, this is true even when one or the other appears to be missing: “as in the thief the gracious goodness of the Almighty supplied what had been wanting in the sacrament of baptism, because it had been missing not from pride or contempt, but from want of opportunity; so in infants who die baptized, we must believe that the same grace of the Almighty supplies the want, that, not from perversity of will, but from insufficiency of age, they can neither believe with the heart unto righteousness, nor make confession with the mouth unto salvation” (, Bk. 4, Ch. 24:32On Baptism, Against the Donatists).

 

[Pete_Holter]

(4 of 8)
TurretinFan’s article drew attention to the times where baptism seems to be missing, but there are also times when faith appears to be missing. I just adduced Augustine’s complementary example of the “missing” faith of infants. He also tells us that he was aware that he communed with the “carnal minded” who held heretical opinions but who were not for that reason alone considered heretics, and that if “the carnal babes of the Church… could be individually asked for an accurate exposition of their opinions” concerning the Trinity, they “would probably show a diversity of opinions as numerous as the persons who held them” (, Bk. 3, Ch. 15:20On Baptism, Against the Donatists). He said that “it would be possible for a Catholic catechumen to light upon the writings of some heretic, and, not having the knowledge requisite for discerning truth from error, he might entertain some belief contrary to the Catholic faith, yet not condemned by the words of the creed,” and receive this doctrine “under the impression that he was studying the work of some great and learned Catholic” (, Bk. 3, Ch. 14:19On Baptism, Against the Donatists). If this man “was baptized with that belief in the Catholic Church,” what would happen to him? He would be saved in spite of having this “defective faith,” in the same way that infants are likewise saved, by the power of the sacrament alone:

“For, as in the sacraments of the old covenant some persons were already spiritual, belonging secretly to the new covenant, which was then concealed, so now also in the sacrament of the new covenant, which has been by this time revealed, many live who are natural. And if they will not advance to receive the things of the Spirit of God, to which the discourse of the apostle urges them, they will still belong to the old covenant. But if they advance, even before they receive them, yet by their very advance and approach they belong to the new covenant; and if, before becoming spiritual, they are snatched away from this life, yet through the protection of the holiness of the sacrament they are reckoned in the land of the living, where the Lord is our hope and our portion” (, Bk. 1, Ch. 15:24On Baptism, Against the Donatists).

This “defective faith” that Augustine mentioned is the other side of the coin: “defective” is to faith what “the lack of material application” is to baptism. While maintaining the necessity of both personal holiness and sacramental grace, there may be circumstances where the full presence of the one fills up what is lacking in the other.

It is important to bear in mind that TurretinFan is using the examples of the thief and Cornelius to establish a normative sacramentology with regard to baptism, whereas Augustine treats them as exceptional. Again, Augustine had at one time “stated as certain that [the thief] had not been visibly baptized”. But “this is uncertain and we should rather believe that he was baptized” (, Bk. 2, Ch. 55:3The Retractations). And as quoted already, Augustine said to “let no rule about baptism affecting the Saviour’s own precept be taken from this example of the thief” (, Bk. 1, Ch. 11On the Soul and its Origin). As for Cornelius, the Spirit descended upon him, Augustine says, “because Cornelius and his household were Gentiles, and uncircumcised”; therefore, “lest [the apostles] might hesitate to give the Gospel to the uncircumcised, before Cornelius and his household were baptized, the Holy Spirit came and filled them, and they began to speak with tongues. Now the Holy Spirit had not fallen upon any one who had not been baptized: but upon these It fell before baptism. For Peter might hesitate whether he might baptize the uncircumcised: the Holy Spirit came, they began to speak with tongues; the invisible gift was given, and took away all doubt about the visible Sacrament; they were all baptized” (Exposition on Psalm 97, 11; see also, Sermon 49/99, 12: “they who were with Peter were in doubt whether the uncircumcised ought to be baptized”).

 

[Pete_Holter]

(5 of 8)
Now in terms of what we might call “normative” for Augustine, we are saved when we die to sin and are reborn in baptism through faith. “Our very righteousness, too, though true in so far as it has respect to the true good, is yet in this life of such a kind that it consists rather in the remission of sins than in the perfecting of virtues” (, Bk. 19, Ch. 27The City of God). And this is why “justification” is readily connected by Augustine with the sacrament of baptism, by which all our sins are forgiven: “justification in this life is given to us …] first by the laver of regeneration by which all sins are forgiven” (, Bk. 2, 8:23Against Julian). In keeping with this understanding, Augustine said of his own conversion that, “rejoicing in faith, I praised Your name. And that faith suffered me not to be at rest in regard to my past sins, which were not yet forgiven me by Your baptism” (, Bk. 9, Ch. 4:12Confessions). Augustine had faith, but not the forgiveness of sins, i.e., he had faith, but he was not justified. “I say, therefore, that baptism gives remission of all sins, and takes away guilt” (, Bk. 1, Ch. 13:26Against Two Letters of the Pelagians). “For what Christian is there who would allow it to be said, that any one could attain to eternal salvation without being born again in Christ,— [a result] which He meant to be effected through baptism, at the very time when such a sacrament was purposely instituted for regenerating in the hope of eternal salvation? Whence the apostle says: ‘Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us by the laver of regeneration’ (Titus 3:5)” (, Bk. 1, Ch. 18:23On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins, and the Baptism of Infants). “[T]here is none who in baptism does not die to sin” (, Ch. 43Enchiridion). For Paul “clearly explain to us that baptism in Christ is nothing else than a similitude of the death of Christ, and that the death of Christ on the cross is nothing but a similitude of the pardon of sin: so that just as real as is His death, so real is the remission of our sins; and just as real as is His resurrection, so real is our justification” (, Ch. 52Enchiridion). And “whoever is baptized into Him dies to that same reality of which His flesh was a likeness. And as there was true death in His true flesh, so there is true remission in true sins” (, Bk. 6, Ch. 3:7Against Julian). “[T]hose who know they were baptized into the death of Christ when they were baptized into Christ may also know that they have died to sin, because to be baptized into the death of Christ is nothing else but to die to sin” (, Bk. 6, Ch. 4:10Against Julian).

A further point to make is that, although faith precedes baptism, the grace received in baptism is not merited by us in any way (cf. Trent’s Decree on Justification, Ch. 8: “none of those things which precede justification—whether faith or works—merit the grace itself of justification.”):

“On this day I address those who have been baptized, reborn in Christ Jesus, and you, my brethren, in them, and they in you. Behold, you have become members of Christ. If you consider what you have become, all your bones will cry out: ‘Lord, who is like to thee?’ For that condescension of God, namely, that grace has come gratuitously to you without any antecedent merits on your part, cannot be adequately pondered; all human utterance and feelings fail us. Because it is given gratis, for that very reason it is called grace. What grace? That you should be members of Christ, sons of God; that you should be brothers of the Only-begotten” (Sermon 224).

By the way, please enjoy Matt Maher’s “Alive Again,” inspired by the conversion of Saint Augustine.

 

[Pete_Holter]

(6 of 8)
In the following quote we see very clearly that baptism is understood by Augustine to be the pivotal moment of salvation:

“It must, I say, be understood as implying, that by this laver of regeneration and word of sanctification all the evils of regenerate men of whatever kind are cleansed and healed—not the sins only which are all now remitted in baptism, but those also which after baptism are committed by human ignorance and frailty; not, indeed, that baptism is to be repeated as often as sin is repeated, but that by its one only ministration it comes to pass that pardon is secured to the faithful of all their sins both before and after their regeneration. For of what use would repentance be, either before baptism, if baptism did not follow; or after it, if it did not precede? Nay, in the Lord’s Prayer itself, which is our daily cleansing, of what avail or advantage would it be for that petition to be uttered, ‘Forgive us our debts,’ unless it be by such as have been baptized? And in like manner, how great soever be the liberality and kindness of a man’s alms, what, I ask, would they profit him towards the remission of his sins if he had not been baptized? In short, on whom but on the baptized shall be bestowed the very felicities of the kingdom of heaven” (, Bk. 1, Ch. 33:38On Marriage and Concupiscence).

It is easy to see from what he just said why it is that he held that the alms and prayers of Cornelius were of no avail for salvation apart from the forgiveness of sins and regeneration received in baptism (cf. , Bk. 1, Ch. 8:10On Baptism, Against the Donatists). He expresses similar thoughts in going through the creed with catechumens:

“ ‘Forgiveness of sins.’ You have [this article of] the Creed perfectly in you when you receive Baptism. …] When you have been baptized, hold fast a good life in the commandments of God, that you may guard your Baptism even unto the end. …] For the sake of all sins was Baptism provided; …] Once for all we have washing in Baptism… God does not remit sins but to the baptized. The very sins which He remits first, He remits not but to the baptized. When? When they are baptized. The sins which are after remitted upon prayer, upon penance, to whom He remits, it is to the baptized that He remits. For how can they say, ‘Our Father,’ who are not yet born sons? The Catechumens, so long as they be such, have upon them all their sins” (A Sermon to Catechumens on the Creed).

Speaking of catechumens, let’s take a closer look at Augustine’s position on catechumens as it relates to baptism…

“And what profit was there that [Jesus] received the baptism of a servant? That you might not disdain to receive the baptism of the Lord. Give heed, beloved brethren. Certain catechumens were to arise in the Church of higher grace. It sometimes comes to pass that you see a catechumen who practises continence, bids farewell to the world, renounces all his possessions, distributing them to the poor; and although but a catechumen, instructed in the saving doctrine better, perhaps, than many of the faithful …] nevertheless, all his sins are upon him, and without coming to saving baptism, wherein all sins are remitted, he cannot, with all his excellence, enter into the kingdom of heaven” (The Gospel of John, Tractate 4, No. 13).

Augustine had said that “whatever the catechumen’s proficiency, he still carries the load of his iniquity: it is not forgiven him until he shall have come to baptism” (The Gospel of John, Tractate 13, No. 7). In response to this, TurretinFan wrote that Augustine is “addressing those who learn a lot but never actually want to be baptized. Those are people who lack faith…”

I want to clarify here that Augustine does not say that these catechumens that he mentions here in Tractate 13 lack faith. Rather, he says that they “disdain to be baptized with the baptism of the Lord” out of a sense of pride in their personal holiness when they compare themselves with others who are less holy, but already baptized (cf. Nos. 6-7). And although the catechumens in this particular tractate did indeed disdain baptism, in On Baptism, Augustine says that he does “not hesitate for a moment to place the Catholic catechumen, who is burning with love for God, before the baptized heretic”; and he acknowledges “that some catechumens are better and more faithful than some baptized persons”. But even though they have both faith and love, “baptism is wanting to a good catechumen to his receiving the kingdom of heaven”. He has personal holiness, but he does not have the sacraments: “The one were too little without the other; the two make perfect the heir of that inheritance” (, Bk. 4, Ch. 21:29On Baptism, Against the Donatists).

 

[Pete_Holter]

(7 of 8)
Continuing on, that catechumens “have been anointed is not all they need; let them hasten to the font if they are in search of enlightenment” (The Gospel of John, Tractate 44, No. 2). For “the sanctification of the catechumen, if he is not baptized, does not avail for his entrance into the kingdom of heaven, nor for the remission of his sins” (, Bk. 2, Ch. 26:42On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins, and the Baptism of Infants). Augustine says that “it is time that we exhort you, who are still catechumens, who have believed in Christ in such wise, that you are still bearing your sins. And none shall see the kingdom of heaven while burdened with sins; for none shall reign with Christ, but he to whom they have been forgiven: but forgiven they cannot be, but to him who is born again of water and of the Holy Spirit.” “Such are all catechumens: already they believe in the name of Christ, but Jesus does not trust Himself to them” (The Gospel of John, Tractate 11, Nos. 1 & 3). “For if you ask them, they have already believed in Jesus; but because they have not yet received His flesh and blood, Jesus has not yet trusted Himself to them. What must they do that Jesus may trust Himself to them? They must be born again of water and of the Spirit; the Church that is in travail with them must bring them forth” (The Gospel of John, Tractate 10, No. 3). And as quoted above from Augustine’s Confessions, Augustine himself had faith in Christ as a catechumen, but not the forgiveness of sins; and such is the case for all catechumens.

Next, we see that the faith that justifies the ungodly, justifies us when we are baptized, “wherein the ministers are seen to do their work in the body”:

“But prevail upon yourselves to say what is said by Truth and by the Catholic Church, that not only when the minister of baptism is evil, but also when he is holy and good, hope is still not to be placed in man, but in Him that justifieth the ungodly, in whom if any man believe, his faith is counted for righteousness. For when we say, Christ baptizes, we do not mean by a visible ministry, as Petilianus believes, or would have men think that he believes, to be our meaning, but by a hidden grace, by a hidden power in the Holy Spirit as it is said of Him by John the Baptist, ‘The same is He which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost’ (John 1:33). Nor has He, as Petilianus says, now ceased to baptize; but He still does it, not by any ministry of the body, but by the invisible working of His majesty. For in that we say, He Himself baptizes, we do not mean, He Himself holds and dips in the water the bodies of the believers; but He Himself invisibly cleanses, and that He does to the whole Church without exception. Nor, indeed, may we refuse to believe the words of the Apostle Paul who says concerning Him, ‘Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the Church, and gave Himself for it, that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word’ (Ephesians 5:25-26). Here you see that Christ sanctifies; here you see that Christ also Himself washes, Himself purifies with the self-same washing of water by the word, wherein the ministers are seen to do their work in the body” (, Bk. 3, Ch. 49:59Against Petilian).

 

[Pete_Holter]

(8 of 8)
To help us better see how faith, hope, and love are poured into our hearts when we are baptized, as Trent declared, Augustine says that an infant “becomes a believer through the sacrament of that faith” and “the sacrament will avail for his protection against adverse powers, and will avail so much on his behalf, that if before he arrives at the use of reason he depart from this life, he is delivered by Christian help, namely, by the love of the Church commending him through this sacrament unto God” (Letter 98, 10). Here we see that infants receive both “faith” and “the love of the Church”—which is the love of God shed abroad in our hearts—when they are baptized: “The Church’s love, which is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit, discharges the sins of all who are partakers with itself, but retains the sins of those who have no participation therein” (The Gospel of John, Tractate 121, 4). The same is true for everyone. But in the adult, this faith and love that are already growing in us by the grace of God have an interaction with the objective grace of the sacrament in accordance with our will and disposition. Augustine exhorts the catechumens to “hasten to the font [of baptism] if they are in search of enlightenment” (The Gospel of John, Tractate 44, No. 2).” And, remember, these catechumens hastening for enlightenment “have already believed in Jesus” (The Gospel of John, Tractate 10, No. 3). Connecting faith and enlightenment in this way with the sacrament of baptism, helps us to see that “to be enlarged in heart, that is, to have God already shed abroad in the heart, with whom [a man] might hold converse interiorly… is rightly understood as spoken in the person of him who, believing on Christ, has been enlightened” (Exposition on Psalm 4, 2). That is to say, having the love of God shed abroad in our hearts takes place only for the baptized, and when we are baptized. In speaking to catechumens, he says to them that “you are like traders seeking a valuable pearl, that is, the charity which will be poured forth in your hearts by the Holy Spirit who will be given to you” (Sermon 212). And he tells them to…

“Believe so that you may understand. For, unless you believe, you will not understand. As a result of this faith, hope for grace by which all your sins will be forgiven. Only in this way and not by your own efforts will you be saved, for [salvation] is a gift of God… He who has called you to His kingdom and glory will grant that, when you have been regenerated by His grace and by the Holy Spirit, it will be written in your hearts, so that you may love what you believe and that, through love, faith may work in you and that you may become pleasing to the Lord God, the Giver of all good things, not by fearing His punishments in servile fashion, but by loving justice as true sons of God” (Sermon 212).

As regeneration takes place when we are baptized, we see from this that we begin to love what we believe when we are baptized with hope in the forgiveness of sins. This is why infants “become conformed to the truth which [baptism] contains” as they grow into adulthood (Letter 98, 10). The same could be said to any adult: we need to grow in our conformance with the truth contained in the sacrament of baptism. We do this by refraining from sin and by living a life of faith, hope, and love. Catechumens are likewise told to “hold fast a good life in the commandments of God [so] that you may guard your Baptism even unto the end” (A Sermon to Catechumens on the Creed). “First then in order to our receiving eternal life which shall be given at the last, there comes to us a gift from God’s goodness from the beginning of our faith, to wit, the remission of sins. For while they remain, there remains in some sort enmity against God, and alienation from Him, which comes from what is evil in us; since Scripture does not speak falsely, which says, Your sins separate between you and God. He does not then bestow on us His good things, except He take away our evil things. And the former increase in proportion as the latter are diminished; nor will the one be perfected, till the other be brought to an end” (Sermon 21/71 on the New Testament, 19). Since the remission of sins owed to faith is bestowed in baptism, this event marks an increase in our faith, hope, and love, as the forgiveness of our sins makes room for them.

With love in Christ,
Pete

All Glory to God!

“It is He who sends the Holy Ghost that is given to us, through whom that love is shed abroad in our hearts whereby alone whosoever are righteous are righteous”
(On Nature and Grace, 63:74).

 

[Pete_Holter]

(1 of 5)
James Swan over at Beggars All put up a post: Hey Reformers: Got Miracles? If Not, You Were Not Called By God. I responded to this post by saying,

“I think that it is fair for Francis to expect miracles in the case of John Calvin since Calvin rejected communion with the already existing Church of Christ. Repudiating what came before, physically and doctrinally disassociating yourself from this existing communion, and providing your own new framework for moving forward within this disassociated communion is not to reform something, but is an attempt to start something new. It is an attempt to found a new church in opposition to the Church that Jesus founded. Authentic reform can only come from within.”

What follows is an expansion on my further comments I made under his post.

Why should I agree with John Calvin when he says that he is “perfectly certain that the ministry of John was the very same as that which was afterwards delegated to the apostles. For the different hands by which baptism is administered do not make it a different baptism, but sameness of doctrine proves it to be the same” (, 4.15.7Institutes)? And when he says that the fathers of Trent “vent[ed] their bile… in vain” (Antidote to Canon 1 on Baptism) when they condemned the opinion that “the baptism of John had the same force as the baptism of Christ” (Latin: Si quis dixerit baptismum Ioannis habuisse eandem vim cum baptismo Christi)? Why agree with Calvin against Trent? Calvin tells me not to “be perplexed because ancient writers labour to distinguish the one from the other” (, 4.15.7Institutes), but I am most perplexed and disturbed. Why agree with Calvin against Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, Chrysostom, etc.? A miracle would help.

Augustine noted that “the Church increased from its beginning at Jerusalem, and from there it spread into Africa, not by transferring itself there, but by growing there” (Letter 129, 3). But Calvin’s rejection of the Church resulted in such an unprophesied transference. When Jesus inaugurated His religion through His apostles, He bore miraculous witness to their mission. If someone comes along after Jesus and tries to start a new mission in opposition to the one that He Himself started, then I think it’s fair to expect a miraculous validation for this mission.

Just to be clear, the Catholic Church does not teach that the baptism of John the Baptist did not bestow the forgiveness of sins. But the Church at least distinguishes between the Baptism of John and the Baptism of Christ and asserts that the latter is of greater efficacy. Choosing to follow Chrysostom’s (and Augustine’s, and Jerome’s, etc.) interpretation of Luke 3:3 is permissible, but it’s not dogmatic. And Chrysostom’s interpretation is certainly a good one. He thinks that Luke has the ultimate end of John’s baptism in view when he says “for the remission of sins”:

“[H]ow says Luke, that ‘he came into the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins’? And yet it had not remission, but this gift pertained unto the baptism that was given afterwards; … he adds, ‘for remission,’ as though he said, ‘For this end he exhorted them to confess and repent of their sins; not that they should be punished, but that they might more easily receive the subsequent remission. For had they not condemned themselves, they could not have sought after His grace; and not seeking, they could not have obtained remission.’ Thus that baptism led the way for this” (Homily 10.2 on Matthew). Paul “did not say, ‘The baptism of John is nothing,’ but, ‘It is incomplete’ ” (Homily 40 on Acts).

I think that the differences we find between the two baptisms are more substantial than Calvin allowed. For example, John said that “I baptize with water,” but “He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit” (Luke 3:16), which shows John distinguishing his own baptism from Christ’s and admitting at the same time that Christ Himself was not baptizing through his (John’s) baptism.

John 4:1-2 helps to accentuate this point when we see that “Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John,” and that “Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples.” Once again we see that Jesus did not baptize through John, but only through His disciples:

“It may perhaps surprise you why it is said, that ‘Jesus baptized more than John’ (John 4:1); and after this was said, it is subjoined, ‘although Jesus baptized not, but His disciples’ (John 4:2). What then? Was the statement made false, and then corrected by this addition? Or, are both true, viz. that Jesus both did and also did not baptize? He did in fact baptize, because it was He that cleansed; and He did not baptize, because it was not He that touched. The disciples supplied the ministry of the body; He afforded the aid of His majesty. Now, when could He cease from baptizing, so long as He ceased not from cleansing? Of Him it is said by the same John, in the person of the Baptist, who says, ‘This is He that baptizes’ (John 1:33). Jesus, therefore, is still baptizing; and so long as we continue to be baptized, Jesus baptizes. Let a man come without fear to the minister below; for he has a Master above” (Tractate 15 on the Gospel of John).

 

[Pete_Holter]

(2 of 5)
And it’s not that Jesus was baptizing 50 disciples for every 10 that John baptized, so that they ended up with a collective pool of 60 disciples; rather, the disciples of John and the disciples of Christ are two different sets of people (Matthew 9:14, Luke 11:1, etc.). Hence, the disciples of John were baptized by Paul into Christ even though they had already been baptized by John (cf. Acts 19).

When John Calvin says that “the different hands by which baptism is administered do not make it a different baptism,” this is only true when we are speaking of Christian ministers of the Christian sacraments; but it is an obvious error when we try to include John the Baptist as a minister of these same sacraments. Calvin says that the “sameness of doctrine proves it to be the same” baptism. But not even the doctrine was the same. The two groups of disciples did not fellowship together, did not share in the same disciplines (cf. Matthew 9:14; Mark 2:18), prayed their own prayers (cf. Luke 5:33; Luke 11:1), and, most importantly, had different perceptions of Who Jesus Is (cf. Matthew 11:2-3). The apostles confessed Jesus to be the Christ and left John in order to follow Him (John 1:35-37; Matthew 16:16; John 6:68-69), while the other disciples of the Baptist were not convinced and chose to remain with John. Calvin the Luciferian this time aligns himself with Petilian the Donatist, whose position Augustine summarized as follows: “there was not one baptism of John and another of Christ, but… there was one baptism” (, Bk. 2, Ch. 34:80Answer to Petilian the Donatist). In response to this, Augustine simply reaffirmed the Catholic faith against him: “since [the disciples of John] were ordered to be baptized by the authority of an apostle, it is sufficiently made manifest that that water with which John baptized had no reference to the baptism of Christ, but belonged to another dispensation suited to the exigencies of the times” (, Bk. 2, Ch. 32:75Answer to Petilian the Donatist).

Acts 19 is important. In order to galvanize his position on the sameness of the two baptisms, Calvin did not want to have Acts 19 serve as an illustration of a second baptism, and he thought that Acts 19 was the key text that caused the “ancient writers” to err (, 4.15.8Institutes; you’ll notice that he builds his case for the sameness of the two baptisms first, and only then comes back to offer his interpretation of Acts 19). But baptism “in the Name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:5) is shown by the book of Acts to have been a water baptism (cf. Acts 8:16, 38; 10:47-48). And so we might turn Calvin’s objection back upon himself: who would rather listen to Calvin denying that the baptism performed by Paul in Acts 19:5 was a water baptism in the Name of the Lord Jesus than to Luke making it plain for us that baptism in the Name of the Lord Jesus is in fact a water baptism? “[T]hey also were baptized by Paul, who already had been baptized with the baptism of John, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles” (Cyprian, Letter 72, 24). “[C]ertain who had the baptism of John were commanded by Paul to be baptized (cf. Acts 19:3-5), for they had not the baptism of Christ” (Augustine, Tractate 5.16 on the Gospel of John).

And now some offerings from the Fathers with brief comments. Here is Augustine in agreement with Chrysostom:

“Now, those who were baptized in the baptism of John, by whom Christ was Himself baptized, were not regenerated; but they were prepared through the ministry of His forerunner, who cried, ‘Prepare ye the way of the Lord,’ for Him in whom only they could be regenerated. For His baptism is not with water only, as was that of John, but with the Holy Ghost also; so that whoever believes in Christ is regenerated by that Spirit” (, Ch. 49Enchiridion).

And here is Jerome in agreement with Chrysostom:

“[L]isten to the teaching of Scripture: the baptism of John did not so much consist in the forgiveness of sins as in being a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, that is, for a future remission, which was to follow through the sanctification of Christ. …] But if John, as he himself confessed, did not baptize with the Spirit, it follows that he did not forgive sins either, for no man has his sins remitted without the Holy Ghost. Or if you contentiously argue that, because the baptism of John was from heaven, therefore sins were forgiven by it, show me what more there is for us to get in Christ’s baptism. Because it forgives sins, it releases from Gehenna. Because it releases from Gehenna, it is perfect. But no baptism can be called perfect except that which depends on the cross and resurrection of Christ. Thus, although John himself said, ‘He must increase, but I must decrease,’ in your perverse scrupulosity you give more than is due to the baptism of the servant, and destroy that of the master to which you leave no more than to the other” (, 7Against the Luciferians).

From our point of view, we see Calvin joining with the Luciferians in an attempt to destroy the baptism of our Lord.

 

[Pete_Holter]

(3 of 5)
Here, again, is Augustine in agreement with Chrysostom, while at the same time displaying the tolerance of the Catholic Church for those who believe that John’s baptism did in fact remit sins:

“I ask, therefore, if sins were remitted by the baptism of John, what more could the baptism of Christ confer on those whom the Apostle Paul desired to be baptized with the baptism of Christ after they had received the baptism of John? But if sins were not remitted by the baptism of John, were those men in the days of Cyprian better than John, of whom he says himself that they ‘used to seize on estates by treacherous frauds, and increase their gains by accumulated usuries,’ through whose administration of baptism the remission of sins was yet conferred? Or was it because they were contained within the unity of the Church? What then? Was John not contained within that unity, the friend of the Bridegroom, the preparer of the way of the Lord, the baptizer of the Lord Himself? Who will be mad enough to assert this? Wherefore, although my belief is that John so baptized with the water of repentance for the remission of sins, that those who were baptized by him received the expectation of the remission of their sins, the actual remission taking place in the baptism of the Lord,— just as the resurrection which is expected at the last day is fulfilled in hope in us, as the apostle says, that ‘He has raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus’ (Ephesians 2:6); and again, ‘For we are saved by hope’ (Romans 8:24); or as again John himself, while he says, ‘I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, for the remission of your sins’ (Matthew 3:11), yet says, on seeing our Lord, ‘Behold the Lamb of God, which takes away the sin of the world’ (John 1:29) — nevertheless I am not disposed to contend vehemently against any one who maintains that sins were remitted even in the baptism of John, but that some fuller sanctification was conferred by the baptism of Christ on those whom Paul ordered to be baptized anew (cf. Acts 19:3-5)” (, Bk. 5, Ch. 10:12On Baptism, Against the Donatists).

Tertullian’s view:

“But we, with but as poor a measure of understanding as of faith, are able to determine that that baptism was divine indeed, (yet in respect of the command, not in respect of efficacy too, in that we read that John was sent by the Lord to perform this duty,) but human in its nature: for it conveyed nothing celestial, but it fore-ministered to things celestial; …] if it had been celestial, it would have given both the Holy Spirit and remission of sins. But none either pardons sins or freely grants the Spirit save God only. Even the Lord Himself said that the Spirit would not descend on any other condition, but that He should first ascend to the Father. What the Lord was not yet conferring, of course the servant could not furnish. Accordingly, in the Acts of the Apostles, we find that men who had John’s baptism had not received the Holy Spirit, whom they knew not even by hearing. That, then, was no celestial thing which furnished no celestial (endowments)…. And so the baptism of repentance was dealt with as if it were a candidate for the remission and sanctification shortly about to follow in Christ: for in that John used to preach baptism for the remission of sins, the declaration was made with reference to future remission; if it be true, (as it is,) that repentance is antecedent, remission subsequent; and this is preparing the way. But he who prepares does not himself perfect, but procures for another to perfect. John himself professes that the celestial things are not his, but Christ’s, by saying, ‘He who is from the earth speaks concerning the earth; He who comes from the realms above is above all’; and again, by saying that he baptized in repentance only, but that One would shortly come who would baptize in the Spirit and fire…

“… And thus it was with the selfsame baptism of John that His disciples used to baptize, as ministers, with which John before had baptized as forerunner. Let none think it was with some other, because no other exists, except that of Christ subsequently; which at that time, of course, could not be given by His disciples” (, Chs. 10, 11On Baptism).

Optatus, likewise, had discerned a greater fullness in our Lord’s Baptism:

“John was baptising many thousands of men” and “thousands of men were [thereby] washed in repentance and forgiveness of sins. But no one was washed in the Trinity, no one yet knew Christ, no one had heard that there was a Holy Ghost. But when there came the fullness of time, at a fixed moment, the Son of God gave the laws of Baptism. He gave also the way by which we might go to the Kingdom of Heaven, for He then commanded: ‘Go ye, teach all nations, baptising them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.’ From that day what He had commanded had to be done. It was not His will to amend that which had been done before that time, lest He might [seem to] give permission to rebaptise—although the Baptism of John was one thing, and the Baptism of Christ is another. Before His law [was given] He willed the Baptism of John, which was not full, to be held for full. …] Therefore, though before the commandments, the Baptism of John was imperfect, it was judged by Him, in whose place no man judges, as though it were perfect, because a certain line of division was placed between the times that preceded and those that followed His command.

“When the most blessed Paul saw some at Ephesus who had been baptised, after the commandments [of Christ], in the Baptism of John, he asked them whether they had received the Holy Ghost. They replied that they did not know whether there was a Holy Ghost, and he said to them that, after the Baptism of John, they must receive the Holy Ghost. …] [H]e did not ask about the person of the ‘Minister,’ but about the thing. With the fact, not with the person, he was dissatisfied. So he commanded the Baptism of the Saviour, that they who did not know might learn, for this they had not received, but something different. …] They who had been baptised at Ephesus, had believed in repentance and the forgiveness of sins. Rightly was it said to them, that they should be baptised in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost” (, Bk. 5, Ch. 5Against the Donatists).

And Ambrose:

“And they who said that they knew not of any Holy Spirit, although they said that they had been baptized with John’s baptism, were baptized afterwards, because John baptized for the remission of sins in the Name of the coming Jesus, not in his own. And so they knew not the Spirit, because in the form in which John baptized they had not received baptism in the Name of Christ. For John, though he did not baptize in the Spirit, nevertheless preached Christ and the Spirit. And then, when he was questioned whether he were perchance himself the Christ, he answered: ‘I baptize you with water, but a stronger than I shall come, Whose shoes I am not worthy to bear, He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.’ They therefore, because they had been baptized neither in the Name of Christ nor with faith in the Holy Spirit, could not receive the sacrament of baptism.

“So they were baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ, and baptism was not repeated in their case, but administered differently, for there is but one baptism” (, Book1, Ch. 3:41-42On the Holy Spirit).

Ephraim:

“The Spirit came down from on high—and hallowed the waters by His brooding.— In the baptism of John,— He passed by the rest and abode on One:— but now He has descended and abode—on all that are born of the water.

“Out of all that John baptized—on One it was that the Spirit dwelt:— but now He has flown and come down—that He may dwell on the many—and as each after each comes up—He loves him and abides on him” (, Hymn 6.1-2Hymns for the Epiphany).

 

[Pete_Holter]

(4 of 5)
Maximus of Turin:

“John is called a lamp by the Lord when he says: ‘He was a burning lamp.’ Lamplight is dimmed, then, when the sunlight shines, and it suffers a kind of eclipse in its brightness when it is overcome by the radiance of a brighter light. For what wise person needs a lamp in the sun? It may not be extinguished, to be sure, but it is not considered necessary. That is to say, who would come to John’s baptism of repentance when he could be saved by the Savior’s baptism? Not, to be sure, that the one is demeaned, but the other is judged more beneficial and necessary because in it the remission of sins is bestowed” (Sermon 99.4).

Cyril of Alexandria:

“The blessed Baptist then was again as in type the lamp, that was ever burning and shining in the tabernacle of testimony: and its shining in the tabernacle of testimony shews full well that his illumination was received in the churches, and will not be outside the holy and Divine Tabernacle of the Saviour. But the lamp being seen without the vail, seems to shew that he will bring in a simpler introductory illumination, saying, Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven hath drawn nigh; but of the things hidden within the vail, to wit, the mysteries of our Saviour, he revealeth nothing at all. For he baptized not unto participation of the Holy Ghost, nor did his illumination introduce within the vail: for it was in the outer tabernacle, while yet standing (cf. Hebrews 10:11), according to the mouth of Paul” (Commentary on John, Bk. 3, Ch. 1).

John of Damascus:

“The fourth [baptism] was that of John, being preliminary and leading those who were baptized to repentance, that they might believe in Christ: ‘I, indeed,’ he said, ‘baptize you with water; but He that comes after me, He will baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire.’ Thus John’s purification with water was preliminary to receiving the Spirit. The fifth was the baptism of our Lord, whereby He Himself was baptized. Now He is baptized not as Himself requiring purification but as making my purification His own, that He may break the heads of the dragons on the water, that He may wash away sin and bury all the old Adam in water, that He may sanctify the Baptist, that He may fulfil the Law, that He may reveal the mystery of the Trinity, that He may become the type and ensample to us of baptism. But we, too, are baptized in the perfect baptism of our Lord, the baptism by water and the Spirit. …] John was baptized, putting his hand upon the divine head of his Master, and with his own blood” (, Bk. 4, Ch. 9An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith).

Some thoughts from Aquinas:

“[T]he whole teaching and work of John was in preparation for Christ: just as it is the duty of the servant and of the under-craftsman to prepare the matter for the form which is accomplished by the head-craftsman. Now grace was to be conferred on men through Christ, according to John 1:17: ‘Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.’ Therefore the baptism of John did not confer grace, but only prepared the way for grace” (Summa Theologica).

“John’s baptism neither conferred grace nor imprinted a character, but was merely ‘in water,’ as he says himself (Matthew 3:11). Wherefore the faith or hope which the person baptized had in Christ could not supply this defect. Secondly, because, when in a sacrament, that is omitted which belongs of necessity to the sacrament, not only must the omission be supplied, but the whole must be entirely renewed. Now, it belongs of necessity to Christ’s baptism that it be given not only in water, but also in the Holy Ghost, according to John 3:5: ‘Unless a man be born of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.’ Wherefore in the case of those who had been baptized with John’s baptism in water only (cf. Acts 19:3-5), not merely had the omission to be supplied by giving them the Holy Ghost by the imposition of hands, but they had to be baptized wholly anew ‘in water and the Holy Ghost.’

…]

“The reason why these persons were baptized after being baptized by John was not only because they knew not of the Holy Ghost, but also because they had not received the baptism of Christ” (Summa Theologica).

“The Jewish baptism prescribed by the law was merely figurative, whereas John’s baptism, in a measure, was real, inasmuch as it induced men to refrain from sin; but Christ’s baptism is efficacious unto the remission of sin and the conferring of grace. Now Christ needed neither the remission of sin, which was not in Him, nor the bestowal of grace, with which He was filled. Moreover, since He is ‘the Truth,’ it was not fitting that He should receive that which was no more than a figure. Consequently it was more fitting that He should receive the intermediate baptism than one of the extremes” (Summa Theologica).

 

[Pete_Holter]

(5 of 5)
John Calvin asserted that it was perfectly certain that the baptisms were the same, but Augustine said that just the opposite was “clear”:

“[T]he baptism of John was one thing, the baptism of Christ another,—just as that baptism was a different thing with which the apostle says that our fathers were baptized in the cloud and in the sea, when they passed through the Red Sea under the guidance of Moses. For the law and the prophets up to the time of John the Baptist had sacraments which foreshadowed things to come; but the sacraments of our time bear testimony that that has come already which the former sacraments foretold should come…

“In like manner, therefore, the circumcision on the eighth day, which was given to the patriarchs, foretold our justification, to the putting away of carnal lusts through the resurrection of our Lord, which took place after the seventh day, which is the Sabbath-day, on the eighth, that is, the Lord’s day, which fell on the third day after His burial; yet the infant Christ received the same circumcision of the flesh, with its prophetic signification. And as the Passover, which was celebrated by the Jews with the slaying of a lamb, prefigured the passion of our Lord and His departure from this world to the Father, yet the same Lord celebrated the same Passover with His disciples, when they reminded Him of it, saying, ‘Where wilt Thou that we prepare for Thee to eat the Passover?’ so too He Himself also received the baptism of John, which formed a part of the latest foretelling of His coming. But as the Jews’ circumcision of the flesh is one thing, and the ceremony which we observe on the eighth day after persons are baptized is another; and the Passover which the Jews still celebrate with the slaying of a lamb is one thing, and that which we receive in the body and blood of our Lord is another,—so the baptism of John was one thing, the baptism of Christ is another. For by the former series of rites the latter were foretold as destined to arrive; by these latter the others are declared to be fulfilled. And even though Christ received the others, yet are they not necessary for us, who have received the Lord Himself who was foretold in them…

“Wherefore do not seek to raise confusion out of the baptism of John, the source and intention of which was either such as I have here set forth; or if any other better explanation of it can be given, this much still is clear, that the baptism of John and the baptism of Christ are two distinct and separate things, and that the former was expressly called the baptism of John, as is clear both from the answer of those men whose case you quoted, and from the words of our Lord Himself, when he says, ‘The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men?’ But the latter is never called the baptism of Cæcilianus, or of Donatus, or of Augustin, or of Petilianus, but the baptism of Christ” (, Bk. 2, Ch. 37:87-88Answer to Petilian the Donatist).

In contradistinction with the possessive form being used when speaking of “John’s Baptism,” “None of the apostles said, ‘my baptism.’ Although there was one gospel of all, yet thou findest that they said, ‘my gospel’ (Romans 2:16, 16:25; 2 Timothy 2:8): thou dost not find that they say, ‘my baptism’ ” (Tractate 5.9 on the Gospel of John).

Helping himself to conflate the two baptisms, John Calvin also said that “By ‘water and the Spirit,’ therefore, I simply understand the Spirit, which is water” (, 4.16.25Institutes); that “I cannot bring myself to believe that Christ speaks of baptism” (Commentary on John 3:5); and that “they are in error in imagining that there is any mention of baptism in this passage” (, 4.16.25Institutes). But the early Church was unanimous in seeing Christ’s Baptism in John 3:5, and John Calvin himself seems to have agreed that “no ancient writer can be quoted who gives a metaphorical meaning to the words” (Antidote to Canon 2 on Baptism; if am I reading him correctly, this seems to be what he’s conceding here). Why, again, should I agree with John Calvin against the Council of Trent and the entire early Church? John Calvin himself was concerned—when discoursing on the Eucharist—to bring forward the witness of Augustine, “Lest any one should despise” what he was saying “as a novel invention” (, 4.17.21Institutes). And yet, here he is, doing just that. A miracle would help!

It’s not that John Calvin’s Scriptural interpretations are so appalling. And there’s nothing wrong with finding something new in the Scriptures. It’s the fact that his system of doctrine was propounded with pertinacious audacity to the disregard of maintaining “the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Ephesians 4:3), and so we remind him and those who adhere to him, that “If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God” (1 Corinthians 11:16).

If John Calvin is going to break unity with the Church of Christ against the prayer of Jesus, then we should expect more than a brilliant mind and plausible exegesis before we become persuaded. Since Christ promised that His Church would not fail until He returns, to start a new church in opposition to the one that Christ Himself founded is to usher in a new period of revelation. Based on the pattern set forth in Holy Scripture: although insufficient in itself, the working of miracles would be an expected and necessary validation of this new period of revelation.

Try “The Name of Jesus” and “Father God,” etc.

With love in Christ,
Pete

 

[Pete_Holter]

(1 of 11)
Since 2009, the Pontifical Biblical Commission has been working on a document about the inspiration and truth of the Bible. Keep an eye out! But I can’t imagine that they’ll be able to move beyond, in any edifying way, what we can already learn about the nature of Sacred Scripture from the writings of Saint Augustine. I’ve collected together some citations from this godly man to give an idea of his hermeneutic, and that bear witness to the Scripture’s supreme authority, its inerrancy, its salvific import, its sufficiency, and its divine inspiration. It’s all about the King!

A.D. 388: “Why do you continue to cast reproaches on Scriptures of which you are ignorant? Do you not see the folly of your attack upon books which only those who do not understand them find fault with, and which only those who find fault fail in understanding? For neither can an enemy know them, nor can one who knows them be other than a friend to them” (, Ch. 25:46On the Morals of the Catholic Church).

A.D. 388: “ ‘On these two commandments,’ He says, ‘hang all the law and the prophets.’ What can the most shameless obstinacy say to this? That these are not Christ’s words? But they are written in the Gospel as His words. That the writing is false? Is not this most profane blasphemy? Is it not most presumptuous to speak thus? Is it not most foolhardy? Is it not most criminal? The worshippers of idols, who hate even the name of Christ, never dared to speak thus against these Scriptures. For the utter overthrow of all literature will follow, and there will be an end to all books handed down from the past, if what is supported by such a strong popular belief and established by the uniform testimony of so many men and so many times, is brought into such suspicion, that it is not allowed to have the credit and the authority of common history… For who but sees that men who dare to speak thus against the Christian Scriptures, though they may not be what they are suspected of being, are at least no Christians?” (, Ch. 29:59-60, 62On the Morals of the Catholic Church)

A.D. 392-418: “[Y]ou understand not, you fail to understand, canst not attain: honour God’s Scripture, honour God’s Word, though it be not plain: in reverence wait for understanding. Be not wanton to accuse either the obscurity or seeming contradiction of Scripture. There is nothing in it contradictory: somewhat there is which is obscure, not in order that it may be denied you, but that it may exercise him that shall afterward receive it. When then it is obscure, that is the Physician’s doing, that you may knock. He willed that you should be exercised in knocking; He willed it, that He might open to you when you knock” (, 10Exposition on Psalm 147).

A.D. 395: “For it seems to me that most disastrous consequences must follow upon our believing that anything false is found in the sacred books: that is to say, that the men by whom the Scripture has been given to us, and committed to writing, did put down in these books anything false. It is one question whether it may be at any time the duty of a good man to deceive; but it is another question whether it can have been the duty of a writer of Holy Scripture to deceive: nay, it is not another question— it is no question at all. For if you once admit into such a high sanctuary of authority one false statement as made in the way of duty, there will not be left a single sentence of those books which, if appearing to any one difficult in practice or hard to believe, may not by the same fatal rule be explained away, as a statement in which, intentionally, and under a sense of duty, the author declared what was not true” (, 3, 3Letter 28).

A.D. 397: “Whoever, then, thinks that he understands the Holy Scriptures, or any part of them, but puts such an interpretation upon them as does not tend to build up this twofold love of God and our neighbor, does not yet understand them as he ought” (, Bk. 1, Ch. 36:40On Christian Doctrine).

A.D. 397: “For if he takes up rashly a meaning which the author whom he is reading did not intend, he often falls in with other statements which he cannot harmonize with this meaning. And if he admits that these statements are true and certain, then it follows that the meaning he had put upon the former passage cannot be the true one: and so it comes to pass, one can hardly tell how, that, out of love for his own opinion, he begins to feel more angry with Scripture than he is with himself. And if he should once permit that evil to creep in, it will utterly destroy him. ‘For we walk by faith, not by sight.’ Now faith will totter if the authority of Scripture begin to shake. And then, if faith totter, love itself will grow cold. For if a man has fallen from faith, he must necessarily also fall from love; for he cannot love what he does not believe to exist” (, Bk. 1, Ch. 37:41On Christian Doctrine).

A.D. 397: “And in reading [Holy Scripture], men seek nothing more than to find out the thought and will of those by whom it was written, and through these to find out the will of God, in accordance with which they believe these men to have spoken” (, Bk. 2, Ch. 5:6On Christian Doctrine).

 

[Pete_Holter]

(2 of 11)
A.D. 397: “[H]asty and careless readers are led astray by many and manifold obscurities and ambiguities, substituting one meaning for another; and in some places they cannot hit upon even a fair interpretation. Some of the expressions are so obscure as to shroud the meaning in the thickest darkness. And I do not doubt that all this was divinely arranged for the purpose of subduing pride by toil, and of preventing a feeling of satiety in the intellect, which generally holds in small esteem what is discovered without difficulty” (, Bk. 2, Ch. 6:7On Christian Doctrine).

A.D. 397: “We must rather think and believe that whatever is there written, even though it be hidden, is better and truer than anything we could devise by our own wisdom” (, Bk. 2, Ch. 7:9On Christian Doctrine).

A.D. 397: “As, then, valid conclusions may be drawn not only from true but from false propositions, the laws of valid reasoning may easily be learnt in the schools, outside the pale of the Church. But the truth of propositions must be inquired into in the sacred books of the Church” (, Bk. 2, Ch. 31:49On Christian Doctrine).

A.D. 397: “Now Scripture enjoins nothing except charity, and condemns nothing except lust, and in that way fashions the lives of men. …] Now Scripture asserts nothing but the catholic faith” (, Bk. 3, Ch. 10:15On Christian Doctrine).

A.D. 397-401: “Most eagerly, then, did I seize that venerable writing of Your Spirit, but more especially the Apostle Paul; and those difficulties vanished away, in which he at one time appeared to me to contradict himself, and the text of his discourse not to agree with the testimonies of the Law and the Prophets. And the face of that pure speech appeared to me one and the same; and I learned to rejoice with trembling” (, Bk. 7, Ch. 21Confessions).

A.D. 400: “And, in truth, for no other reason were all those things which we read in the Holy Scriptures written, previous to the Lord’s advent, but for this,—namely, that His advent might be pressed upon the attention, and that the Church which was to be, should be intimated beforehand, that is to say, the people of God throughout all nations; which Church is His body” (, 3:6On the Catechizing of the Uninstructed).

A.D. 400: “Had you read the Gospel with care, and inquired into those places where you found opposition, instead of rashly condemning them, you would have seen that the recognition of the authority of the evangelists by so many learned men all over the world, in spite of this most obvious discrepancy, proves that there is more in it than appears at first sight. Any one can see, as well as you, that the ancestors of Christ in Matthew and Luke are different… Did all the able and learned men, not many Latin writers certainly, but innumerable Greek, who have examined most attentively the sacred Scriptures, overlook this manifest difference? Of course they saw it. No one can help seeing it. But with a due regard to the high authority of Scripture, they believed that there was something here which would be given to those that ask, and denied to those that snarl; would be found by those that seek, and taken away from those that criticise; would be open to those that knock, and shut against those that contradict… The whole question is how Joseph had two fathers… Since, therefore, the practice of adoption is common among our fathers, and in Scripture, is there not irrational profanity in the hasty condemnation of the evangelists as false because the genealogies are different, as if both could not be true…? [T]hese things you will never understand, unless either you are taught by some Catholic of superior stamp, who has studied the sacred Scriptures, and has made all the progress possible, or you yourselves turn from your error, and in a Christian spirit ask that you may receive, seek that you may find, and knock that it may be opened to you… For the sacred writers do not desire to be favored at the expense of their brethren. For their joy is in union, and they are one in Christ; and if one says one thing, and another another, or one in one way and another in another, still they all speak truth, and in no way contradict one another; only let the reader be reverent and humble, not in an heretical spirit seeking occasion for strife, but with a believing heart desiring edification. Now, in this opinion that the evangelists give the ancestors of different fathers, as it is quite possible for a man to have two fathers, there is nothing inconsistent with truth. So the evangelists are harmonized” (, Bk. 4, 2-5Against Faustus).

A.D. 400: “Again, how do they know that the Lord said, ‘Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?’ If on the authority of the evangelist, why do they not also believe that the mother and the brethren of Christ were seeking for Him? They believe that Christ said these words, which they misunderstand, while they deny a fact resting on the same authority… But why not rather believe what Christ’s own disciples tell us, who were personally acquainted with Him, and who not only had the gift of inspiration to supply defects in their knowledge, but in a purely natural way obtained information of the birth of Christ, and of His descent, when the event was fresh in memory?” (, Bk. 7, 2Against Faustus)