THE MOSAIC LAW AND WORKS

 

Romans 3:28:

“Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.”

 

Romans 4:4-6:

(v. 4) “Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 

(v. 5) “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. 

(v. 6) “Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works.”  

 

Galatians 2:16:

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

 

What does all this mean?  I certainly hope that everyone can see a clear pattern here.  The apostle Paul, in both of these epistles (Romans and Galatians), is saying that man is NOT saved by the deeds/works of the law (and there are plenty of other passages in Scripture that emphasize this same theme).  But to whom were these passages addressed?  Whoever the targeted audience was, it is an unmistakable and crystal clear fact that they were saved, not by the law or their works, but by faith. 

Enter Moses

But I’d like to address this from a different angle than I usually do.  Most Protestants believe in the doctrine of salvation by “faith alone” (“Sola Fide”), i.e., faith apart from the merit of works – while Catholics believe in salvation by “faith plus the merit of their works” (e.g., CCC #1129, #1257, #2068).

Of course, this Catholic belief contradicts the idea of Sola Fide, but here’s how Catholic apologists try to “get around” the verses listed above.  They will say that all these underlined key phrases – “without the deeds of the law,” “But to him that worketh not,” “without works,” “not justified by the works of the law,” and “not by the works of the law” – are ONLY referring to the works of the Mosaic Law, since these types of phrases are often (but not always) used in the context of the Jews and their laws.  But when they use this argument, are Catholics speaking of the whole Mosaic Law or just certain parts of it?

The Judaizers Refuted at the Jerusalem Council

The Catholic may say, “But Paul was only speaking here of the ceremonial works of the Mosaic Law, but not the moral aspect of the law.  Those moral laws, like the Ten Commandments (along with faith), do indeed save.”  

But this argument doesn’t hold water, as we will soon see.  We see no evidence whatsoever that Paul was referring specifically, and only, to the ceremonial-type works of Moses, whatever those might be.  Some people include circumcision here.

I’m not sure if Catholics want to put circumcision on the “ceremonial list” of works or not, but the apostle Paul was very clear when he said that physical circumcision did not save the Jew (Romans 4:9-11), even though it was a very big deal to the Jews.  It was the recognized mark of the “authentic” Jewish man.  It was to identify the people of God in the Old Testament, the very sign of the Mosaic covenant between God and the Jews.

Yet, a group of Pharisees known as the Judaizers, who were condemned by God (Galatians 1:6-9; 2:4-5) were trying to add (to the work of Jesus on the cross) both circumcision AND following the Law in order to be saved (Acts 15:1, 5).  But their idea was shot down by the apostles when they (the apostles) pointed out that the Law was a burden that neither the Jews’ of that day nor their forefathers were able to bear (Acts 15:10).  They were stressing that salvation was for those whose hearts were cleansed by grace through faith (Acts 15:9, 11), with nothing added to Jesus’ work on the cross. (See also Galatians 3:3).

The Whole Law

Furthermore, five times in Romans 2:17-23, “the law” is mentioned, and also in Romans 7:7 this same law specifically refers to things listed in the Ten Commandments (e.g., stealing, adultery, idolatry and coveting), showing us that “the law” refers to the WHOLE law of Moses and not just some “ceremonial” part of it.

So no, neither observing the rite of circumcision nor even following the Commandments justifies/saves anyone.

Some Catholics will say, “But the works of the New Covenant, the “new law” or the “law of Christ,” are by grace and God considers ‘grace-empowered’ works to be salvific.”

But the Bible nowhere distinguishes between “works of the law” and “grace-empowered works” – and by the way, couldn’t both circumcision and obedience to the Commandments also be considered “grace-empowered” works?  Were these works not also ordained and empowered by God?  Yes, they were.  But this Catholic argument proves too much.  Keep in mind that without God, we can do absolutely nothing on our own (John 15:5) and everything we do, even our breathing, is “grace-empowered” by God, but that doesn’t mean breathing is salvific. 

Any work done by a believer and done for God according to His will and with the right intent is a good and God-ordained work.  But again, nowhere in Scripture do we ever see the contrast of “God-ordained works that save” versus “God-ordained works that don’t save.”

So, for the Jew at that time period, following the ceremonial works ordained by God was a good work, just as following the Ten Commandments ordained by God is a good work.  But the issue is that THESE ARE BOTH WORKS – that is the problem!  But the moment of salvation/justification will happen “apart from works,” as the passages at the very beginning of this article forcefully demonstrate. 

Furthermore, even Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis agrees that Paul, when speaking of such passages, is NOT just talking about the ceremonial aspect of the Mosaic Law, but the whole of it.  See his article here:

https://www.scribd.com/document/698067858/works-of-the-Law-Robert-Sungenis

Sungenis argues that the Council of Trent never used this “works of the law = the ceremonial aspect” language, and he also uses quotes from the church fathers against this same argument.  Furthermore, concerning Romans 3 and 4, he virtually uses the Scriptures on this topic in his argument as Protestants would.

So, I would agree with Sungenis’ particular point that when Paul speaks of “the works of the law,” he is speaking of no less than the WHOLE Mosaic Law.

The Angle

Ok, I mentioned above that I would be addressing this issue from a different angle.  And here it is:

I believe that the argument for the salvation of the Old Testament Jews by faith, apart from the merit of any works in the Mosaic Law, has been reasonably made.  Assuming that Catholics will accept the argument presented so far, they are, in essence, agreeing with Paul (and Protestants in general) that the works of the Mosaic Law could not save the Jew (as I have shown).  

So, if no part of the Mosaic Law could save, then this means that the Jews were saved by their faith and not by the works that were introduced to them through Moses.  The simple truth is, for the Jew of the Old Testament, their salvation came by faith in the sacrificial system, which pointed forward to the cross of Calvary.  They were, in effect, trusting in God’s future provision, which is Jesus Christ and His suffering on the cross. 

So, if the Jews were not saved by the works of the law – not even the moral law – then Catholic apologists are forced to agree that the Jews of the Old Testament must have lived by the same view that Protestants embrace today – “faith alone.”

The Question

Once again, Catholics deny the doctrine of Sola Fide and think that Protestants are wrong for believing that today.  Yet, this was the salvation model for the Jews, as shown above.  This was indeed the case – and I would ask:

“If the Catholic Church is right and there is no Sola Fide today, why would the Jews of the Mosaic Covenant be the ONLY people in the history of mankind to believe and practice ‘faith alone’?” 

It just doesn’t seem to make sense.  It seems it should be that either:

1) “faith alone” was never the case for anyone in history… or

2) it was always the case for all believers throughout history. 

And I believe the latter is correct.  Here’s why…

The Answer

First of all, the ever-present theme in the background of Romans 4 is “How is man made right with God?”  This chapter is part of the most comprehensive, clearest, longest-running and continuous passage in all of Scripture that specifically deals with (and defines and explains) the doctrine of justification.  Over and over in this chapter, this question of how to be right with God is answered.

And in answering that question, the apostle Paul was speaking of believers in three different groups:

1) Those who came before the Mosaic Law (like Abraham – v.1-3, 9, 12-13, 16, 18, 23)

2) Those who lived during the Mosaic Law (like David – v. 6) and

3) Those who lived after the Mosaic Law (like the New Testament Roman Christians to whom Paul was now writing this epistle). 

Why would the Holy Spirit stress over and over that salvation was “apart from law”?  And why would the Holy Spirit bring up Abraham and David in the same context of justification if they were not saved in the same way? 

So, it was not just the people under the Mosaic Law that were living by “faith alone.”  But it was also those living before and after the Law of Moses, and for ALL of these, Paul points to faith alone, apart from the merit of works. 

Abraham was not saved by faith plus his works; David was not saved by faith plus his works; and the New Covenant saints in the Roman church were not saved by faith plus their works.  Therefore, the message of Paul is that a person is saved by faith apart from the merit of ANY good works.  

Therefore, Sola Fide is a universal fact of salvation throughout church history.  According to God-ordained Scripture, salvation was always by believing/faith, without the addition of works, all along (Genesis 15:6).  That’s why Paul quoted Genesis 15:6 in the New Testament (Romans 4:2-3) to make his point.

These passages at the very beginning of this article reflect a clear contrast of “free gift vs. debt,” “grace vs. works” and “grace vs. law.”

Again, it is undeniable that this chapter (Romans 4) is very clearly dealing with the question, “By what means must a person be saved?”  But Catholics (and others) don’t like the answer that the apostle gives them. 

I will now leave you with something very profound from the apostle Paul:

“I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died needlessly.” (Galatians 2:21 – NASV)

Here are some other articles on this topic:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/08/sola-fide-revisited.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/01/faith-alone-part-2.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2017/11/tim-staples-missing-forest-for-trees.html

 

CATHOLIC APOLOGISTS ABUSE JOHN 16:13

 

“Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth: for He shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak: and He will shew you things to come.” (John 16:13)

What exactly did Jesus mean when He said the Holy Spirit would guide His audience “into all truth”?  Is He talking about the truth found in science, logic or math?  Is He referring to the great mysteries of space and the universe? 

No, He is speaking of spiritual and eternal truths, i.e., the things of God, morality and how He expects one to live.  But someone could say that everything that God knows is the truth, so does this mean that the Holy Spirit is going to show us all things that God Himself knows?  Of course not.  There is no person or group of people that could possibly contain all the spiritual knowledge that God possesses.  So, “guide you into all truth” simply means that the Holy Spirit will give you all the truth that you need in a particular circumstance, for example: 

“And when they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say: for the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say.” (Luke 12:11-12)

“But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My name, He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” (John 14:26)

He will give you all the wisdom and direction you need and bring that which is necessary to the believer’s remembrance.  The meaning of John 16:13 is that simple.

Catholic Apologists vs. the Catholic Catechism

But there are many attempts today by Catholic apologists to use this particular verse to buttress the concept of the supposed infallibility of the Catholic Church.  They will say the Holy Spirit, through the promise of Jesus, will give Peter and the apostles (and by extension, the Catholic Church) the authority to teach infallibly and to never be able to teach error or false doctrine when “officially” addressing and teaching the whole church.  They believe that the term “guide you into all truth” applies to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church and offers a “negative charism,” i.e., an infallible gift of protection from error.  In this way, the “chair of Peter” would always fail to promote false doctrine.  

But this passage does not at all support this idea of infallibility for the Church or the popes.  In fact, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that Jesus’ words (“guide you into all truth”) do not only apply to the Magisterium, but also to individuals:

“All the faithful share in understanding and handing on revealed truth.  They have received the anointing of the Holy Spirit, who instructs them and guides them into all truth.” (CCC #91 – emphasis added)

This paragraph from the Catechism contains a footnote specifically pointing to John 16:13, so there is no doubt that it is speaking of this passage.  Therefore, the Catechism is teaching that this applies to “all the faithful” individuals in the Church.

So, what does this mean?  It means that if Catholic apologists want to claim that Jesus’ words (“guide you into all truth”) offer special protection from error for the Magisterium, they must also believe that the individual believer is specially protected from error in the same way.  And I know they don’t want to say that!

But you can’t have it both ways.  It either provides infallible protection from error for both the Church leadership AND for the individual, or it is for neither.  I will assert it is for neither.  I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: In Scripture, there is no guarantee of infallibility for anyone in the post-apostolic church. 

So, what is this “all truth” that Jesus was speaking of in this passage?  How exactly will the Holy Spirit guide us?  He tells us clearly in the very next chapter of John:

“Sanctify them through Thy truth: Thy word is truth.” (John 17:17)

God tells us in no uncertain terms, and He tells us throughout the Bible that truth lives in His Word – Scripture (e.g., see Psalm 119).

First Example

Is it really true that Catholic apologists claim that John 16:13 means that the (Catholic) Church is infallible?  For anyone who may deny this, I would like to offer a few examples.  For the first, see this article written by Jason Evert on the Catholic Answers website:

https://www.bing.com/search?q=catholic%20answers%2C%20john%2016%3A13%2C%20infallibility&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&lq=0&pq=catholic%20answers%2C%20john%2016%3A13%2C%20infallibility&sc=0-43&sk=&cvid=68F12749BE6440778C7EE5D7A52959E7

In this write-up, Evert has a short paragraph in which John 16:13 is pressed into service in an attempt to affirm the idea of the infallibility of the Catholic Church.  He says:

“The early Christians knew that they could turn to the apostolic teaching of the Church as a norm for the truth.” 

Ok, so far, so good.  Apostolic teaching is indeed a norm for the truth, but we must make sure that what we are talking about is indeed apostolic teaching.  And we determine that by looking to Scripture.

He then says, “For whoever heard the Church heard Christ (Luke 10:16), and Christ cannot teach error.”

Again, when Catholic apologists use the term “the Church,” it is almost always used to mean specifically the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.  But this is simply reading into the context of Scripture an idea that isn’t there. 

Furthermore, the reference to Luke 10:16 is forced here.  In this verse, Jesus is addressing the seventy-two disciples whom He had sent out ahead of Himself to preach the gospel (the good news) to the surrounding towns and cities.  They were sent out as ambassadors of Christ, preaching truth.  So, whoever “heard” these ambassadors were, in effect, “hearing Christ” because these preachers were faithfully sharing His message.  So, if you want to apply Luke 10:16 to your church, you’d better make sure that your message is indeed His message.  But unfortunately, not every teaching that the Catholic Church promotes is what Jesus says.

Getting back to Jason’s quote, it is certainly true that “Christ cannot teach error.”  But to equate Jesus’ infallibility with the Catholic Church (or ANY church) is ridiculous and is usurping Jesus’ authority.  Jesus shares His infallibility with no one but the other two members of the Trinity.  The only time He has shared it with man is when He stirred them to write Scripture, which is “God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20-21).

Evert then says:

“So the question should not be ‘where is infallibility in the Bible,’ but where in the Bible is the idea that Christ’s Church would teach error?”

No, Jason, I’m sorry, but you guys are the ones making the positive assertion that not only is the Catholic Church infallible, but that this information can be found, at least partially, in the Bible.  So it is up to YOU to prove your assertion and you certainly didn’t do that in your article.

Also, concerning the church teaching error, it is true that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the true church (Matthew 16:18).  Catholics use this verse all the time to point to infallibility.  But this has nothing at all to do with church leaders being exempt from teaching error.  The sad truth is that Hell will indeed prevail against MANY who claim to be part of the church (Matthew 7:21-23).  But it will not prevail over those who trust in (and keep the words of) Jesus.  

Furthermore, note that the apostle Paul sternly warned the Ephesian elders/leaders to “keep watch over yourselves and the entire flock,” and that some “from among your own selves” would draw disciples away with false teaching (Acts 20:28-30). 

That doesn’t sound like a guarantee that the church leadership has a promise to avoid false teaching.  Why would they need to “keep watch” if they had no possibility of error?  The bottom line is there is no gift of infallibility for the post-apostolic church – showing that no one is safe if he deviates from God’s Word.  This demonstrates that Catholic apologists are abusing John 16:13 and it does not prove their case.

Second Example

In the “Question Corner” of the Catholic Courier (November 7, 2013) a Catholic priest named Kenneth Doyle answers a discerning patron who is asking about infallible teachings of the Church.  Doyle points out that the doctrine of infallibility is “founded on Christ’s promise to the apostles that He would send the Holy Spirit, ‘who will guide you to all truth’ (John 16:13).”

See the question here:

https://catholiccourier.com/articles/what-teachings-are-declared-infallible/

So, again, we see a Catholic leader try to use John 16:13 as support for the Church’s so-called infallibility.  He then says:

“That secure sense of protection from error on fundamental teachings was part of the early history of the church and is reflected in St. Augustine’s fifth-century statement, ‘Rome has spoken; the case is concluded.’”

Concerning the Church’s “secure sense of protection from error,” see this article on the “Rome has spoken” quote by Doyle, which is so often abused by Catholics, and is thoroughly debunked here:

Catholic Legends And How They Get Started: An Example (Sermon 131) - Alpha and Omega Ministries

Just saying that the verse refers to infallibility does not make it so.  Again, the Catholic Church has a false sense of protection from error when they try to use John 16:13 to teach papal infallibility.

Third Example

In an article written by Kevin Noles at the Catholic 365 Website, Noles mentions John 14:16-17 together with John 16:13 to promote Catholic infallibility.  He says:

“It is clear in these two passages that there is a promise of infallibility… Since the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity this makes the Holy Spirit’s teaching necessarily infallible.”

Yes, the Holy Spirit’s teaching is indeed infallible – no argument there.  But Catholic apologists are greatly distorting that promise to be led into truth and are usurping that promise to refer to only one institution/organization – to themselves – rather than to all true believers.  There is nothing in the context of John 16:13 about either infallibility or about a particular church.

Simply mentioning the two verses he noted and saying “it is clear” that they include a promise of infallibility does not magically keep the Catholic Church from error.

Once again, skewed interpretations of the Bible do not prove an infallible post-apostolic church.  These apologists are guilty of eisegesis, that is, they are just reading that idea back into Scripture.  But a faithful look at the whole of Scripture will demonstrate their error.

More Examples

Catholic Online website:

https://www.catholic.org/news/hf/faith/story.php?id=42151

Catholic Share website:

https://www.catholicshare.com/what-is-papal-infallibility-and-when-does-it-apply/

Catholic Stand website:

https://catholicstand.com/doesnt-church-just-infallibly-interpret-every-verse-scripture/

Archdiocese of Boston website:

https://www.bostoncatholic.org/papal-infallibility

Catholic Company website:

https://www.catholiccompany.com/getfed/catholics-believe-everything-the-pope-says/

You get the idea.  This is just a small sampling of Catholic sources on the internet who wrongly tie papal infallibility to John 16:13.  It was my purpose here to focus specifically on this one passage and to show the world that these Catholic apologists, whether intentionally or not, are deceiving their audience.

Conclusion

I know that Catholics have a number of other Bible verses and other arguments for Church infallibility, but in order to avoid a multitude of links, I will not list them here, but there are also plenty articles in this blog that deal with the Catholic Church’s claim of infallibility.  You can type the words “infallible” or “infallibility” in the search bar in the upper left corner of the blog to see some of the Protestant arguments.

The consistent abuse of John 16:13 by many Catholic apologists to “prove” papal infallibility/Church infallibility is either dishonest or attempted by poorly informed Catholics.  Either way, it does not help the image of the Catholic Church, but rather weakens it.

YOU MUST BE BORN AGAIN

Jesus answered and said unto him [Nicodemus], “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, ‘Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.’” (John 3:3)

Marvel not that I said unto thee, “Ye must be born again.” (John 3:7)

In the context of these two passages, Jesus is confronted by a Pharisee named Nicodemus, who approaches Him secretly at night.  Jesus immediately tells Nicodemus that, to be right with God, he “must be born again.”  This then leads to a discussion where Jesus is contrasting physical things and spiritual things.  However, Nicodemus just doesn’t seem to get it and he stays stuck in the “physical” mindset (3:4), while Jesus’ point about being born again is about the spiritual realm (3:8).  Thus, the statement, “You must be born again” is a spiritual concept. 

The word “must” is a strong word, especially when used by Jesus Christ.  The implication here is, you MUST be born again IF you want to go to Heaven.  And who doesn’t?  It seems that everyone (at least outside the atheist camp) wants to go to Heaven.

But the question is how?  How is one born again?  What does it really mean?  I know that Protestants use the term all the time.  But why is it that when witnessing to Catholics, it happens very often that they have no idea what Protestants are talking about?  You can see that, amongst many Catholics, there is confusion and there are misconceptions about what “born again” means.  As an example, see the first five minutes of this video:

https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=ray+comfort+asking+catholics%2c+have+you+been+%22born+again%22+&&mid=751F5C79A6218169E455751F5C79A6218169E455&FORM=VAMGZC

It seems that Catholics very seldom use the term “born again,” but Catholic apologists will insist that it is just referring to water baptism.  But whatever it means, we have to recognize that these words are coming from Jesus Christ, and we have to recognize His emphasis on the term – and that whatever it is, it is a must and not a suggestion!

The Fathers

Ok, so how can we find out what Jesus really meant when He said “born again” in John 3:3 and 3:7?  The Catholic Church stresses that the early church fathers were unanimous in the belief that “born again” means that one is forgiven/saved/regenerated by the very act of being baptized in water. 

Personally, I am very limited when it comes to the beliefs of the early church fathers, so I will leave this topic to those who are much more qualified.  But for those who think that the fathers were indeed “unanimous” on the concept of baptismal regeneration (as the great majority of Catholic apologists claim), see this article:

https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2016/01/02/refutation-of-baptismal-regeneration-in-the-early-church/

Catholics seem to believe that no one can argue with the early church fathers because a few of them lived at the time of the apostles’ students and their students’ students.  They’ll say that if anyone knew what Jesus or the apostles taught, it had to be these guys. 

But my question is why stop there?  The church fathers were not infallible, so they are not the final word!  Why not go all the way back to the words of Jesus, Himself, and His apostles – the words we find in Scripture?  If what the fathers said does not line up with the Scriptures, or gives a perverted view of them, then we need to reject their views.

If there was a bank robbery in your town and the police needed the facts, whose word would be more trusted, first-hand witnesses (the ones who were actually there at that exact time) or some third- or fourth-hand account?

Furthermore, IF it is found that the early church fathers happen to be wrong, does any Catholic think that he can simply blame THEM on Judgment Day?: “Lord, I didn’t know!  The Church told me to trust in what THEY said, since they were close to the time of the apostles, so it’s THEIR fault for telling us the wrong things!”

Yes, these so-called church fathers will indeed be accountable for any wrong teachings they may have spread.  But it is each person’s responsibility to search the Scriptures, not the fathers, to see what God wants from us (Acts 17:11).  I’m not saying that the fathers were wrong on everything they taught, but I am saying that they were fallible in everything they taught.  But the Scriptures are indeed infallible in everything they teach (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

God Looks At the Heart (Not the Ritual)

According to the apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 11:27-31), a person must have the right disposition (attitude, temperament, frame of mind) when receiving communion.  And we believe the same mindset applies to water baptism, as well.  These church ordinances must not be trivialized.

The Catholic Church will agree with this.  According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, a person partaking of the sacraments (including baptism) must have the correct disposition beforehand (See CCC #1131 and CCC #1388).

So, both Protestants and Catholics agree that a person’s heart has to be right before he is baptized.  Therefore, without the right state of the heart, the ritual is useless!  Catholics will say that both the disposition and the ritual are necessary for salvation.  Ok, but what if a person has the right heart and is on his way to be baptized, but is run over by a Mack truck before he can get to the church?

Catholics will say, “But he had the ‘baptism of desire’ and he intended to get baptized (CCC #1259), so God will be merciful to him.”  Well, we Protestants would agree!  But again, this just proves that water baptism is actually not mandatory.

More proof of that is demonstrated by the Catechism where it will point out that God is not bound by sacraments/rituals (CCC #1257).  Well, (most) Protestants would agree, yet in this very same paragraph of the Catechism it states again that baptism IS necessary for salvation!  Ok, so which is it?  Is the ritual of water baptism necessary for a person to be saved or not?  This is an obvious contradiction in the same paragraph.

Now, I’m not saying that water baptism is a bad thing.  As I said earlier, it should not be trivialized.  It is something that God expects us to do, and we should indeed honor Him in doing it, because it is a way of expressing our commitment to Him.  But baptism is for those who are already saved.

Grace vs. Merit

According to the Catholic Church, water baptism is a “sacrament,” which is described as something that “merits” grace (Canon XXXII, Council of Trent).  But according to Scripture, grace, by definition, is something that CANNOT be merited:

“And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace.  But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.” (Romans 11:6) 

Again, there is no such thing as “meriting grace.”  Therefore, none of those seven things that Catholics call “sacraments” are meritorious toward salvation. 

So how does one actually receive grace?  Is it through sacraments, rituals, or good works – or is it some other way?

“Surely He scorneth the scorners: but He giveth grace unto the lowly.” (Proverbs 3:34)

“… God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.” (James 4:6)

“… for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.” (1 Peter 5:5)

Starting to see a pattern here?  The Bible tells us that we receive grace through true humility, not by earning it or by some sort of “meriting.”  It is exactly the opposite.  Grace is given to the humble, not to the one who performs sacraments or any other kind of works in order to try to merit his way to Heaven, giving him reason to boast.

The Catholic Church loves to re-define words like “merit,” and loves to play these semantic games that turn scriptural concepts on their head!  And they will indeed have to answer to God for that.

The Hard Lesson of the Galatians

But let’s say for just a moment that we concede that water baptism actually saves a person.  Ok, so what happens when this baptized person sins after baptism (and he certainly will)?  Since it is baptism itself that saves (in the mind of the Catholic), then must he be re-baptized after every sin? 

Catholics will say no, and that he must do something else.  He must now go to confession, receive communion, do penance, etc., and then these things will cause him to stay in God’s favor through merit. 

Apparently, in Catholic teaching, one thing (baptism) saves you, then other things (rituals like confession to a priest, communion, and penance) will keep you saved.

But the Bible tells us that there is ONE thing that both saves us and keeps us, and that thing is our faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ on the cross:

“O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?  This only would I learn of you, received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?  Are ye so foolish, having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?” (Galatians 3:3)

Note here that the term “made perfect by the flesh” refers to man’s attempts to earn Heaven through his good works, and the term “by the hearing of faith” of course refers to one’s faith/believing/trusting in Jesus. 

Furthermore, Paul forcefully rebuked the Galatians because Jesus Christ was preached to them and plainly set forth before their eyes as the One who suffered for all sins and the One who paid the full penalty for all men.  So Paul is emphatic: there is no room for works that are salvific (including baptism)!

Paul calls the Galatians foolish because they gave in to the ungodly Judaizers (Acts 15:1; Galatians 2:4) who thought they could add their works to the suffering and work of Christ on the cross.  In this way, the Galatians rejected the original gospel that Paul preached to them, incurring a curse on themselves! (Galatians 1:8-9) 

Conclusion

So according to the Catholic Church, it seems that Jesus SHOULD HAVE SAID in John 3:3, “You must partake of the sacraments to be saved.”  But that’s not at all what He said or implied.  There are no sacraments in the Bible because there are no works or rituals that can merit salvation.

Wouldn’t it make more sense for Jesus to simply address the heart of man, thus pointing to the meaning of “born again”?  Being born again is not a sacrament or ritual, but it is your heart being honest with God, recognizing your sin and corruption, and allowing Him to deal with your heart.  It is an ultimate surrender towards Him.  And it is given by God’s grace and activated by simple faith!

There’s certainly nothing wrong with being baptized or receiving communion, etc., but these are simply for us to identify with Jesus Christ – which is a statement to the rest of the world of your allegiance to Him (for example, Matthew 10:37; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:62).

I can understand how that many Catholics see water baptism as getting saved, since baptism seems to be so closely tied in with repentance and salvation, but common sense and a closer look at Scripture will clarify the matter. 

Being born again biblically is of the utmost importance.  If a person has not been born again, he will one day wish that he was never born at all!

For a fuller treatment of the meaning, role and effect of baptism, see this three-part series:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/05/on-baptism-part-1-few-basics.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/06/on-baptism-part-2-bible-verses.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/07/on-baptism-part-3-more-verses.html

“CATHOLIC TRUTH” AND SOLA SCRIPTURA

I saw a video recently by a Catholic named Bryan Mercier, who seems to be an intelligent guy who is passionate about the Catholic faith.  He is a Catholic speaker, author, and apologist and is also president of an organization called Catholic Truth.  

In his video titled “2 Catholic Questions Protestants can’t Answer,” Bryan attempts to tackle the issue of Sola Scriptura (Bible Alone).  His video can be found here:

https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=bryan+mercier%2c+you+tube%2c+%222+catholic+questions+protestants+can%27t+answer%22&mid=36C4E8BC37275A01786D36C4E8BC37275A01786D&FORM=VIRE

Definitions

Bryan sees, as part of the problem, that Protestants can’t even agree on a definition of Sola Scriptura.  Well, that may be somewhat true, but in my opinion, most of the serious adherents of Sola Scriptura in Protestantism do pretty much agree on the definition that I would use, and that is:

“Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith for the church today.”

They may word it slightly differently from each other, but in general, the definitions I’ve seen are very similar.  Even though we don’t have a “pope” in Protestantism to make everything “official,” we still very much agree on the concept of the “Bible alone.” 

By the way, Bryan is bemoaning the division in Protestantism on this topic, but I would like to point out that many Catholics disagree amongst themselves on different doctrines of the Catholic Church.  So Catholics need not act as though they have the high ground here.

I do want to say, though, that I find most of the bad definitions of Sola Scriptura are in Catholic circles.  And by “bad” definitions, I mean unbiblical ones.  I believe that the concept of Sola Scriptura is indeed biblical, but of course there are many (mostly Catholic) people who would disagree.  That’s why we have these discussions.

First Question to Protestants

Having said that, here is the first question that Bryan Mercier poses to Protestants:

·      Question 1:

“Can you show me from the Bible alone (Sola Scriptura) where does it say, or where does it give a definition for Sola Scriptura?”

He then brings out certain Scripture passages that some Protestants would use to support the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and then tries to debunk the Protestant arguments.  For example, he brings up Acts 17, where the apostle Paul and Silas come to the city of Berea:

“These were more noble than those in Thessalonica in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” (Acts 17:11)

Bryan then implies, “So what?”  The Catholic Church has searched the Scriptures for 2,000 years.  Yet simply searching the Scriptures doesn’t prove the concept of Sola Scriptura.

That might be true, but while this verse alone may not fully prove the concept of Sola Scriptura, it is a valid and biblical move in that direction, because the Bereans were searching “whether those things were so.”  In other words, they were verifying the words of an apostle of the church (Paul).  That is, they were confirming what a highest-ranking church leader was telling them and not just taking his word for it simply because he was a church official!  They were testing an apostle with Scripture (just as the church of Ephesus did in Revelation 2:2)!  Yes, that’s right, even the apostle Paul had to be tested to make sure that his message lined up with what was already recognized as Scripture (the Old Testament).  Notice that Paul didn’t say, “Hey, why are you guys looking this up?  Don’t you trust me?  I am a church leader (just like Peter) and you need to take me at my word!  How dare you check up on me!”

No, rather the Bereans were actually commended in Acts 17:11 for checking out what Paul was teaching, like they were supposed to.  Like I said, while this text alone may not be a proof of Sola Scriptura, it was a definite move in that direction, to be ultimately realized when the last apostle died and there would be no more new revelation from God.

An Example of Scripture Over Everything Else

Furthermore, Paul, though he was an apostle, told the Galatian church that anyone, including himself, who dared to bring another gospel to the church, one which was different than what he had first preached, was condemned!  In fact, his words were:

 “But though WE [i.e., Paul and Silas], or AN ANGEL FROM HEAVEN, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:8)

If you think that Paul was not serious, he then repeats it in the next verse:

“As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.”  (Galatians 1:9)

So, again, we see here that Scripture (the gospel message) was above even the authority of the apostles and angels, and that any other/different gospel brought by anyone should be tested by the Bible and rejected.

One of Bryan’s comments was that the Jews (being God’s chosen people) didn’t believe in Sola Scriptura.  Well that’s true, at least at the beginning of the church/New Testament age, but that’s because there was still new and ongoing revelation from God in that day, coming through the apostles.  As long as there were apostles around, new revelation was coming from God to the church.  Therefore, “Scripture alone,” as an infallible source was not a possibility at that point.  Protestants believe that Sola Scriptura exists only for the post-apostolic church. 

Second Question to Protestants

Bryan now mentions (part of) the most common Scripture passage that Protestants use to support Sola Scriptura.

·      Question 2:

“In 2 Timothy 3:16, where does it say, and how do you know, that it said, ‘All Scripture is inspired…’ or God-breathed?”

Notice that Bryan never mentions the next verse (v. 17), which is indeed key to understanding the concept of Sola Scriptura.  But he goes on to point out that the New Testament word in v. 16 for “inspired” is “theopneustos” (literally translated “God-breathed” in the Greek), but that it could be rendered as “life-giving” instead.  In fact, he falsely says that “There is no evidence of it meaning God-breathed in that whole chapter.”

So Bryan leans heavily toward its meaning as “life-giving,” because (he claims) 90%-95% of the time, external Greek sources used it that way. 

And he is convinced that the context of 2 Timothy 3 is exactly about that – about “people who are dead in their sins and how they can come to life…”  Therefore, (he says) it should mean “life-giving” more than “inspired.”  In fact, Bryan claims that the context of the passage supports “infinitely more” the idea of life-giving rather than God-breathed. 

Well, that sounds nice, but no, the context of 2 Timothy 3:14-17 is not primarily about “people who are dead in their sins and how they can come to life…” as Bryan is suggesting.  But this passage is primarily and specifically about the origin, nature and power of the Scriptures, as a rule of faith, to instruct, convict, correct and enable the man of God to fully equip the Christian.  Yes, the Bible is indeed “life-giving,” but it is far more than that.  Not only is this passage saying that Scripture originates with God, but it is inspired by God as the only infallible source and rule of faith for the church today. 

Bryan is deliberately trying to downplay the power and authority of the Scriptures – something I’m sure he would never do with the authority of the Catholic Church.  He is purposely trying to introduce a more watered-down term to describe the Holy Scriptures!  But the Bible is indeed God-breathed, since it eclipses every other source.  See these links:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2011/03/did-apostles-practice-sola-scriptura.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/11/normal-0-false-false-false-en-us-x-none.html

And the first of a series of eight articles on Sola Scriptura, starting here:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2013/03/quick-notes-on-sola-scriptura-part-1.html

There are also many other articles on Sola Scriptura on this blog – not to mention many excellent articles throughout the internet done by other highly qualified Protestants.

Hit and Run

Toward the end of the video, Bryan hints at a “freebie,” a third question for Protestants.  And this freebie question is on the biblical canon, i.e., the “official” list of books in the Bible that the church recognizes.  But this freebie is simply a “hit and run” diversion.  He brings it up as though it is a valid argument against “Bible Alone.”  But the canon is a topic that is impossible to do justice on, by only mentioning it in passing, as Bryan does.  Some of my dealings with this topic can be found in these links:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/02/canon-and-infallible-certainty.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2012/02/did-catholic-church-give-us-bible.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2013/08/quick-notes-on-sola-scriptura-part-8.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2017/12/using-canon-as-smokescreen.html

Conclusion

Catholics will say that Protestants always assume the concept of Sola Scriptura when they debate.  Maybe so, but I think that there is good reason to do so. 

I know that it is hard to shake off one’s bias and preconceived notions, but I find it hard to believe that an honest Catholic and an honest Protestant would not be able to come to the table, using Scripture (the main thing that we have in common), trying to remain as unbiased and unemotional as possible, lay out all the evidence on either side, and NOT come to the same conclusion.  I believe that it is these preconceived traditions (and emotions) that we hold that suppress the truth.  Both sides need to be careful not to allow excess emotion in proving their respective cases.  To me, the evidence in the Bible for Sola Scriptura is overwhelming.  Again, see the links just above.

A large part of the disagreement, I believe, is the different Catholic and Protestant goals.  The stated goal of the Catholic is too often to bring people to the Church, while the goal of the Protestant is to bring people to Jesus Christ.  I know that many Catholics will deny this, but in practice, this is often absolutely true.

Sola Scriptura is an extremely important topic, but I feel that Bryan Mercier’s arguments were weak and unconvincing. 

No other rule of faith mentioned in Scripture is considered God-breathed and able to equip us (the church) for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17).