Today, I’d
like to address another one of Catholic speaker/writer John Martignoni’s
newsletter articles which is on faith, works, and assurance of salvation. This one is #319, titled “Matt Slick’s False
Teachings,” and it can be found here:
In this
particular newsletter, John Martignoni critiques a letter from (Protestant)
Christian apologist Matt Slick of C.A.R.M. (Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry).
I do enjoy
many of Matt Slick’s articles, but I don’t agree with his Calvinism. For the record, I’m not associated with him,
so I’m not one of his students trying to blindly defend him at all costs, or
anything like that. I just think what he
wrote in his letter is correct. But John
Martignoni doesn’t agree.
First, John
Martignoni deals with the issue of assurance of salvation. Matt Slick says that he knows he is going to Heaven.
But John accuses Matt of being arrogant in saying this and John responds
with two Bible passages:
1 Corinthians 10:12 – Therefore
let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.
In the
context of this verse, the apostle Paul is warning us not to do as the Jews did
in the Old Testament, not to fall away from the truth through unbelief and
disobedience. Of course, this is great
advice, but this verse is NOT saying that we can’t have the assurance of going to Heaven. In fact, it is implying just the
opposite! Just as a coin has two sides,
so does this promise in 1 Corinthians 10:12:
1) There is
a warning if we don’t learn from the Old
Testament Jews’ example, and
2) There is
the promise of eternal life if we do
continue to trust God. There’s the
assurance.
Either way,
the warning/promise stands. But John is
wrong if he thinks that this verse denies us assurance. If we maintain
our faith, our trust in Jesus, we will make
it to Heaven. That is a promise from
God.
The second
passage John quotes is:
1 Corinthians 4:3 – But
to me it is a very small thing that I should be examined by you, or by any
human court; in fact, I do not even examine myself.
4) I am conscious of
nothing against myself, yet I am not by this acquitted; but the one who
examines me is the Lord.
5) Therefore do not go
on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will
both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives
of men’s hearts; and then each man’s praise will come to him from God.
This passage
is speaking of passing judgment on someone concerning the stewardship of his
ministry. It is about divisions and
boasting in favor of one minister over another (v. 6). There is nothing at all here to indicate that
we cannot have assurance of salvation. So
John is trying to twist these passages and force them to say something they’re
not saying. He seems to want them to say
that we can’t have the assurance of
making it to Heaven.
But the
beloved apostle, John, says that we can
know:
1 John 5:13 – These
things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that
you may know that you have eternal life. (Emphasis added)
So, it is
not arrogant to say you have assurance of your salvation if you maintain your
trust in Christ. It is not wrong to say
that you know you are going to
Heaven.
Salvation by Works
In Matt
Slick’s letter, another of his main points is that the Catholic Church offers a
works-based salvation, which means
“faith plus works equals salvation.” Matt quotes the Catechism of the Catholic
Church several times to prove his point:
“The Lord
himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.” (CCC 1257)
“Basing
itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a
pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation.” (CCC 846)
“This
sacrament of Penance is necessary for salvation for those who have fallen after
Baptism, just as Baptism is necessary for salvation for those who have not yet
been reborn.” (CCC 980)
“The Church
affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for
salvation.” (CCC 1129)
“Service of
and witness to the faith are necessary for salvation...” (CCC 1816)
“The
authority of the Magisterium extends also to the specific precepts of the
natural law, because their observance, demanded by the Creator, is necessary
for salvation.” (CCC 2036)
Notice how
many times “necessary for salvation” occurs.
This means that the Catholic Church believes these things are the MEANS and
the CAUSE of salvation, at least indirectly; in the Catholic Church’s eyes, they
are REQUIREMENTS to get to Heaven.
· To recap the Catholic Catechism above,
sacraments (like baptism, penance, etc.) are necessary for one’s
salvation. And these are works – no one
can deny that. They are religious
formalities and rituals that one performs, or at least allows the priest to
perform on him.
· Also, the Church is mentioned as a
means of salvation. That’s because it is
the (Catholic) Church who supposedly dispenses the true sacraments. Again, works.
· The Catechism also mentions service
and witnessing. These are also works.
· And lastly, Matt Slick brings out one
part of the Catechism that requires a person to observe the Law (the Ten
Commandments). The works of the Law are
certainly considered good works. No one
denies this.
So, Matt is
correct in saying that the Catholic Church promotes a works-based
salvation. This is clear by the
Catechism quotes he used.
Strangely
though, Catholics are often offended when Protestants point this out. If you’ll
notice when you debate a Catholic on justification, that it is almost a
guarantee that they will initially deny
that they teach a works-based salvation (just as John Martignoni does in his
newsletter). It is almost as if this concept would be embarrassing to them. Yet, in the end, they will forcefully proclaim that works are indeed necessary for salvation
(again, just as John does) and will often wrongly appeal to passages like James
2:24. But the context of James 2
is NOT “how to be saved.” It is about
the demonstration of your faith when
you are truly saved.
“Grace-empowered” Works?
But John
Martignoni would say that Catholics do not believe that their works, in and of themselves, merit eternal
life. He says that it is not by a
person’s “own goodness and abilities.”
He would say that only special works can merit salvation, those that he elsewhere
calls “works empowered by God’s grace,” and he would therefore say that because
of that, they contribute to your
salvation.
But
EVERYTHING we can possibly do is by God’s grace! You can’t speak or sing or even breathe,
except by His grace. Just because we are
given grace to do something, doesn’t mean that that particular “something” will
save us. It is the work that Jesus did on the cross
that saves us – but the way to enter into
this eternal life is to believe, to trust in Him, accessing His benefits by faith, not works.
The
Scriptures clearly teach that salvation is not by works of righteous (Titus
3:5) and that it is by faith apart
from works (Romans 4:4-5). It is by
grace through faith:
Ephesians 2:8 – For by
grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the
gift of God;
9) not as a result of
works, that no one should boast.
10) For we are His
workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared
beforehand, that we should walk in them.
Paul is
saying about these works, to “walk in them,” meaning after salvation, not in order to be saved.
Question: Were
these works that the apostle Paul speaks of here “grace-empowered” saving
works?
If yes, then
why does it say that we are NOT saved as a result of these works (v. 9)?
If someone
says that the works in this context are merely “works of the Law” from the Old
Testament, or some form of “lesser” works, we can ask, why then should we walk
in them? Those same works that we should
walk in are the ones that cannot save us.
They cannot merit our salvation, but God does expect us to walk in them
daily.
The Bible never makes a distinction between “works
of righteousness that save” and “works of righteousness that don’t save.”
If these
God-ordained, “grace-empowered” works that John Martignoni mentions can save,
then Abraham should have been saved this way.
But he was clearly not saved
by his circumcision (Romans 4:9-13) – even though his circumcision
was a God-ordained work! God
specifically told him to do it. I don’t
think that John, nor any other Catholic, can answer this dilemma. Again, no matter how great a work is done by mere
humans (even if "grace-empowered"), it cannot save. Only the work of
the Savior on the cross can.
Justification vs. Sanctification
In Matt’s
letter, he states that Jesus cleanses us totally of our sin. But John asks him, “Oh, and one other thing:
If Jesus has cleansed you from your sin ‘totally,’ then how come you still
sin?”
The answer
is, we still sin because we are not yet fully
sanctified, even if we have already been justified through faith. Catholics conflate the two terms and it
causes them trouble by muddying the water, like in this scenario. What Jesus did on the cross is to totally pay
the penalty for sin. He paid it all and
there is nothing left to pay. “It is
finished!” (John 19:30). No more
works or suffering are needed as a payment for sin.
In
justification, Jesus paid the PENALTY for sin.
The sanctification process helps us against the POWER of sin, and final glorification
will deliver us from the very PRESENCE of sin.
Conclusion
Those
passages in Scripture that link salvation with works need to be balanced with the passages that teach
faith APART from works.
Question: If
salvation is by faith plus works, what were the works of the thief on the cross
(Luke
23:39-43)? He had none! Yet, for centuries, the thief on the cross
has been the great example of salvation by faith alone, i.e., by faith apart
from works.
In the end,
what does the Catholic do with passages like Romans chapters 3 and 4 (which
actually deal with justification)? There
is nothing Catholics can do to escape the plain meaning of these
passages, as well as the book of Galatians.
They either ignore them or misinterpret them by taking them out of their proper contexts.
And what about Romans
11:6:
But if it [salvation]
is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no
longer grace.
It can’t be
any plainer. It is telling us that grace
and works are opposites! John Martignoni
would have us believe that they are actually in the same category! It is not Matt Slick’s teachings in his
letter that are unbiblical, but rather, John Martignoni’s.
I have previously
seen John Martignoni accuse another Christian teacher of “linguistic trickery,”
but, in this case, he is the one
guilty of this.
