THE CATHOLIC CHURCH’S FALSE CONCEPT OF “INITIAL” JUSTIFICATION

Salvation is rightly considered the most important spiritual topic there is.  We all want to one day make it into Heaven and have everlasting life with God (John 3:16).  And it goes without saying that we would also want to avoid the place the Bible calls Hell, wherein is everlasting punishment (Matthew 25:46).

But there are disagreements, even among those who call themselves Christians, concerning the requirement(s) to enter the narrow gate (Matthew 7:13-14).  So I would like to address an odd situation in Catholic apologetics concerning salvation. 

Both Catholics and Protestants agree with the idea that, for Christians, we were saved (past tense – Ephesians 2:8), that we are being saved (present tense – 1 Corinthians 1:18), and that we will ultimately be saved (future tense – Matthew 10:22).

We all believe that, in our salvation journey, there is 1) a distinct beginning, 2) a growth process, and 3) a final destination. 

The Protestant View

Generally, the Protestant believes that the first stage is “justification,” wherein he believes/trusts in the full and sufficient work of Jesus Christ on the cross.  The Protestant surrenders to the will of God with love and thanksgiving and God gives him a new heart, with new desires.  This justification is obtained apart from works (Romans 3:28) and is a one-time event, not a process. 

The second stage is what the Protestant calls “sanctification,” which is a process (1 Thessalonians 4:1-7).  Here is where he will, out of a thankful heart, start to do good works for God as he grows closer and closer to Him, conforming to the image of Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 3:18).  And even then, his works are not done to gain, earn or merit salvation, but he does good works out of a thankful heart because he is already saved! 

And thirdly, he enters Heaven, glorified with a new body to be with the Lord forever (1 Thessalonians 4:17).

The Catholic View

The odd situation of which I spoke earlier is that the Catholic Church splits justification into three parts: 1) “initial” justification, 2) “ongoing/progressive” justification (which they also call sanctification), and then 3) “final justification.”   

In the first phase, the Catholic begins his initial justification by being baptized (normally, as an infant).  Interestingly, the Church claims that initial justification is not obtained by either works of any kind or even by faith.  See here:

“… but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification – whether faith or works – merit the grace itself of justification.  For if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace.” (Council of Trent, Sixth Session, Chapter VIII)

Second, in the ongoing/progressive justification phase, his works are now able to merit “an increase of justification” for himself. 

And third, at death, the Catholic experiences final justification, which will usher him into Heaven (or more likely, Purgatory, to be first cleansed of temporal sins).

Baptism and Initial Justification

So, according to the Catholic paradigm, you get no merit from either faith or works that are done before the initial justification stage.  Yet, this same initial justification is obtained by water baptism (CCC #1992; Council of Trent, Sixth Session, chapters 6-7), which is, ironically, a ritual/work!

The Catholic Church has it backward.  The Bible says that salvation begins with faith and no works (Romans 3:28; 4:4-5; Galatians 2:16).  But the Church says that salvation begins with a work (i.e., baptism) and no faith (Council of Trent, chapter VIII, above).  There seems to be some kind of disconnect here.

What About Abraham?

As I said, Catholics believe that there are “levels” of justification.  They say that someone can receive justification and then later have an “increase” of that justification, again and again.  In their quest to prove these different levels of justification, they will often point to the example of Abraham.

The Catholic will say that Abraham was justified at least three times in Scripture, i.e., in Genesis 12:1-3, in Genesis 15:6, and in Genesis 22:1-14.  

The first time, in Genesis 12:1-3, God spoke to Abraham, telling him to leave his family and his country and to go to an unknown land.  God also told Abraham that He would make a great nation from him.  Abraham, looking forward to the promise, must have been justified about this time, because of his faith and his willingness to obey God.

I would actually tend to agree with Catholics at this point, that Abraham was probably justified here (or at least just prior to this point). 

The second time, in Genesis 15:6, Catholics will say that Abraham was “further” justified, because here God tells Abraham that his ancestors would be as the stars in Heaven, “And he believed in the Lord; and He counted it to him for righteousness.”

And, of course, this same verse is quoted by the apostle Paul in Romans 4:3, where he emphasizes the point that Abraham was justified by faith, and not by his works. 

But is Paul really using this particular verse to point out that Genesis 15:6 marked an increase of the justification that Abraham already had?  Was he saying that Abraham was more justified at this point, or that he was receiving another “installment” of justification?  No, God was simply re-stating His promise to Abraham, and Paul was just showing that Abraham’s faith here exemplified the same type of faith/trust that he exhibited earlier in Genesis 12.  Paul was simply pointing out Abraham’s continuing faith in God and his non-dependence on work.

Just a few verses later, the apostle Paul also mentions David (v. 6-8) and references David’s repentance after he sinned with Bathsheba, quoting Psalm 32.  But again, Psalm 32 was not the time that David was justified.  He was justified and made right with God long before this particular time. 

Paul’s whole point in mentioning these two great men of faith was that they were examples of someone who is credited with righteousness through faith/believing/trusting, apart from their good works (Romans 3:28; 4:4-5).  There is no reason to believe that this was about some kind of “progressive” justification, as Catholics assert.

Catholics will say that the third time Abraham was justified was in Genesis 22:1-14 where Abraham offers his son Isaac on the altar to be sacrificed.  Thankfully, God stopped him from going through with it, but here Abraham proved his faith in God by being willing to sacrifice his son.  This passage is referenced in James 2:21-24, which includes the idea that a man is justified by his works (v. 24). 

So, what does it mean to be “justified by works” and not just faith?  We can see from the context of James 2 that he is referring to the idea of how we know if a person has true faith or a fake/dead faith (v. 17, 20, 26).  So, this whole section in James (v. 14-26) is about the proof or demonstration of one’s faith.  This section is not about how to be saved, but it’s about observing the fruit of those professing to be saved.  James is saying that a man is justified by works in the sense of being vindicated, or proven, by his works.  This type of “justification” is seen elsewhere in Scripture (Matthew 11:19; Luke 7:29; 10:29; 16:15), and the context of James makes it obvious that he was referring to vindication.  See here:

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

So, saying that the life of Abraham proves that a person is justified multiple times is simply not true.

Funny how the Sixth Session of the Council of Trent (which focuses heavily on justification) never uses, or even mentions, Abraham as an example of one who is “increasing in justification,” as many Catholics try to use the term!

Wrong Category

The apostle Paul made it abundantly clear that there are no works done in the “justification” category:

“For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law.” (Romans 3:28)

“Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.  But to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” (Romans 4:4-5)

“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 no flesh shall be justified.” (Galatians 2:16). 

Again, according to Holy Scripture, in justification, there are no works that merit.  But because of the Catholic Church’s unbiblical splitting of justification, it allows their works to merit salvation in the justification stage.  This is dangerous because it (supposedly) allows our works to “merit” what only the work of Jesus on the cross could possibly merit.  

Just a side note: Catholics will also play word games with the term “merit,” as well.  Another topic for another day.

Faith Working in Love

Also, Catholics love to use Galatians 5:6 when debating justification, because it says that we are saved by faith which works through love.  And they’ll say, “See, works (of love) must be involved/present along with your faith for you to be saved!” 

But context will demonstrate otherwise:

Galatians 5:

(v. 3) “For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

(v. 4) “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

(v. 5) “For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.

(v. 6) “For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.”

And the Protestant will point out that v. 4 says that if you try to be saved using the law/commandments/works, you are “fallen from grace” (the NASV says “severed from Christ”)!  Therefore, salvation/justification is by faith, apart from works.  But this same faith will then afterward produce works of love, but the works themselves don’t save.  Very simple.

But the Catholic may say, “But this passage is only describing initial justification – that’s why works have no merit here!”

But remember, this passage contains faith, but Trent says that neither works NOR faith are used in the initial justification stage!  Therefore, Galatians 5:3-6 is not at all talking about this mythical “initial justification” phase.  Sorry, my Catholic friends, but you can’t have it both ways.

This is also how Catholics tend to deal with other critical passages on justification that speak of salvation by faith apart from the merit of works, for example, Romans 3:28; 4:5; 4:6; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8-9.  Catholics will say that these refer to the initial justification phase, yet in all of these passages, faith is clearly in view and baptism (which is the only thing that supposedly merits in this stage) shows up in none of these passages!  So, no, these key passages are not referring to this artificially fabricated phase of “initial” justification.

Can Works Merit Grace in Any Stage?

After reading books like Romans and Galatians, one can see that there is a real problem with a “faith plus works” salvation system.  And that is exactly what the Catholic Church has.  But when the Church uses this deceptive “initial justification” concept, it muddies the water concerning the role of works and faith.

But the following passage makes it very clear that works do not save in any part of our salvation journey:

Galatians 3:

(v. 1) “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?

(v. 2) “This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

(v. 3) “Are ye so foolish?  Having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?”

Notice (v. 2) that there are only two options: you are either saved by works of the law (which is impossible with mere men), or by faith.  He then equates the law (works) with operating by the flesh (v. 3).  Paul is basically saying to us, “You must start in the Spirit (faith/trusting in the cross – v. 1), and you never leave that option – you continue in your faith by never relying on works to save you.  You are made perfect (completed) by trusting in the gospel message, not in your works.”

Again, this passage is clearly telling us that IN NO PHASE of our salvation journey do works contribute to our salvation.  Works are definitely present in our lives, and we will get heavenly rewards for them, but the free gift of God (eternal life) is only obtained through faith. 

In other words, we start salvation by faith, we continue/maintain that same salvation by faith and end it by faith.  In this way, we are telling Jesus that His work/suffering on the cross was sufficient to save us and that He gets all the credit!

Conclusion

According to Scripture, there exists a justification phase and there is a sanctification phase, ultimately followed by the glorification phase.  Nowhere do we see anything called “initial justification” where faith is not required. 

There is nothing in the New Testament that tells us to “grow in justification,” or that you can be “further justified.”  Therefore, Catholics have no biblical reason to split justification into two or more categories. 

Catholics recognize that having a “works-based salvation” sounds bad.  That’s why they are quick to deny this Protestant accusation toward them.  And with the concept of “initial” justification, they feel that they can temporarily avoid the stigma of that accusation. 

If a policeman came into the home of a drug user and the homeowner told him, “But officer, I don’t have any drugs in my kitchen!”  That may be true, but that doesn’t mean that he doesn’t have drugs in another room of his home.

In a similar way, just because you Catholics don’t have works that merit salvation in one of your three categories of the salvation journey, doesn’t mean that you don’t have works that merit.  You still have a “works-based salvation,” it’s just in another category.

Yes, Catholics often deny it, but they do indeed embrace a “faith plus works” salvation.  But a faith that will later result in good works is not the same thing as a “faith plus works” system.

So, the big question is this: Is “initial justification,” as described by the Catholic Church, a biblical concept?  And the answer is no.

 

CATHOLIC APOLOGISTS’ MISUSE OF JAMES 5:16

 

(v. 14) Is any sick among you?  Let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:

(v. 15) And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.

(v. 16) Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed.  The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. (James 5:14-16)

[For the record, the word “faults” in v. 16 is translated as “sins” in the majority of our Bibles, including Catholic versions.]

James 5:16 is very often used by Catholic apologists to promote certain Catholic teachings.  In fact, there are two different teachings in which this passage is usually pressed into service. 

I will address two major points in this article, concerning the misuse of this passage, but before moving on, I want to say that I am not aware if any official Catholic sources, like the Catechism of the Catholic Church or papal encyclicals or other documents actually use this Scripture passage to promote the following teachings, but I have indeed seen certain Catholic apologists use this passage on numerous occasions to bolster these Catholic doctrines.

First Major Point – Confession to a Priest

Ok, the first major point is that one of the foundational teachings of the Catholic Church is the sacrament of Confession (also known as Penance or Reconciliation).  This sacrament normally consists of a member of the Catholic Church confessing his sins privately to a priest in order to have all his sins forgiven/absolved.  This is also called “auricular confession” by the Church. 

But Protestants will often object and say that a person can, and should, confess his sins directly to God (Hebrews 4:16).  And the Catholic will normally respond with the previously mentioned James 5 passage, especially v. 16.

But there are serious problems with trying to use this passage to support the idea of confession to a priest.  First of all, the Bible does not even recognize a “ministerial” priesthood in the New Testament church like the one in the Old Testament.  See these links:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/03/priesthood.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2018/07/where-are-all-priests-in-new-testament.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2016/05/does-exodus-196-support-catholic.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2016/06/martignoni-and-korahs-rebellion.html

Secondly, the New Testament never says to confess your sins to an elder, priest, rabbi or any specifically-designated person at all. 

Thirdly, James 5:16 says to “Confess your faults/sins ONE TO ANOTHER.”  The context is the local body of believers confessing their sins which they may have committed against each other.  It is about praying for the sick and about rectifying personal offenses toward other members in the local body.

But if this really is about confessing to a priest (as Catholics suggest), then why would James tell the local body to confess to “one another”?  If a priest is there to hear sins, shouldn’t this priest also confess his own sins to members of the laity, just as the laity confesses to him?  After all, that’s what “confessing one to another” means, right?  The context of James 5:16 is calling for reciprocal confession.  After absolving the sins of the lay person, would the priest then be willing to use the confessional box to allow a lay person be in charge of absolving his (the priest’s) sins also?  I don’t think so.  The context of this passage will not let this interaction be limited to “one-way confession.”

So I don’t think that this passage suggests auricular confession to a priest, as is found in the Catholic Church.  So James 5:16 cannot be used to promote the doctrine of confession to a priesthood.

Footnote in the Douay-Rheims

The (Catholic) Douay-Rheims Bible has this in its footnotes for James 5:16:

“[16] “Confess therefore your sins one to another”: that is, to the priests of the church, whom (ver. 14) he had ordered to be called for, and brought in to the sick; moreover, to confess to persons who had no power to forgive sins, would be useless.  Hence the precept here means, that we must confess to men whom God hath appointed, and who, by their ordination and jurisdiction, have received the power of remitting sins in his name.”

See here:

https://www.drbo.org/chapter/66005.htm

The publishers of the Douay-Rheims Bible are missing the whole point.  They are automatically assuming up front that just because the word “confess” is present in the text, it is about Catholic auricular confession, i.e., confessing to a specific person (a priest) in order to get a “clean slate.”

But the New Testament elders (Greek, “presbyterous”), not priests (which is “hiereis” in the Greek), were there to help pray for the sick, not to “hear confessions” from the “laity.”  The publishers of this Catholic Bible obviously assume that there are priests in the post-apostolic New Testament era who have the “power to forgive sins,” but this is without biblical warrant. 

If modern “priests” have the power to absolve sins at will (like Jesus did), then they would also have the power to heal people at will (like Jesus did in Luke 5:20-26).  But they can’t, and again, there is no biblical evidence for a designated (human) person to whom one must go to be forgiven.  But on the other hand, we are always free to go directly to God for forgiveness (Psalm 73:25) – even “Pope Peter” said this! (Acts 8:20-22)

Catholics wrongly turn to John 20:23 to try and justify auricular confession, believing that Jesus gave men the power to forgive sins in the confessional box.  But this is not the case.  See this link:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2011/08/hi-jacking-of-john-2023.html

Again, there is no New Testament “ministerial” priesthood to start with, as indicated in the four links I listed together above.

Second Major Point – Praying to Saints

It also seems that this passage (James 5:16) is often used by Catholic apologists to promote prayer to Mary, saints and angels.  Apparently, this would involve the concept of “communion of saints,” i.e., that spiritual union of all the saints on earth and all the saints in Heaven.  Catholics will emphasize the latter half of the verse that reads, “… The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.”

They do this to stress the righteousness of those saints who are in Heaven.  After all, those in Heaven are certainly far more righteous than we are here on earth, so (according to Catholics) their prayers would have to be very effective, and we on earth should be eager to seek their intercession! 

Catholic apologists use this particular passage, but it backfires on them, because once again, James is telling them to pray for one another, which would mean reciprocal prayers.  

So, if the saints (including Mary and angels) in Heaven are (supposedly) praying for us, then likewise, we must need to reciprocate and pray for them, as well, right?  Once more, isn’t that what “pray one for another” means? 

But if that’s the case, why in the world would we (on earth) need to pray for THEM?  If they are indeed in Heaven, they are complete in Christ – they don’t NEED our prayers.  In fact, they have need of nothing!  Why would James be telling us to pray for them?  The point is, he’s NOT.

Ahhh, then maybe James is NOT referring at all to those in Heaven in this context.  James recognizes that there are some people on earth who can pray effectual and fervent prayers.  He is simply telling the saints on earth (in the local body) to pray for other saints on earth (in that same local body).  That’s the reciprocal prayer he’s talking about.  He is actually telling them to pray (along with the elders) for each other for healing (v. 6) and for when they have offended one another.  This is about both physical and spiritual restoration for the local body.  I would assert that this is exactly what is happening here in this context.  There is nothing here suggesting prayers to Mary, saints or angels.  See also these links:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2011/02/praying-to-saints.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2019/01/dave-armstrong-on-praying-to-saints.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2014/11/praying-to-saints-revisited.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2023/10/worship-and-prayer.html

So, this is another misuse of James 5:16 by Catholic apologists.

Conclusion

I know that James 5:14-16 is not the only passage that Catholic apologists use to promote auricular confession to a priest or to promote prayer to saints.  I am aware of that, but I wanted to specifically address these Catholic teachings in relation to this Bible passage (which they themselves use).  I think that it is clear that James 5 does not support either of these teachings.

For more detailed arguments against these particular Catholic topics, see the links I posted in this article.

 

ARE CATHOLICS CHRISTIANS?

I remember as a child in elementary school going to one of my Catholic catechism classes.  We were reading from one of the books that we were using with the Catechism at the time, and this word kept popping up… the word “Christian.”  I was young and naïve and I asked the teacher what that word meant.  And she responded by saying, “It means Catholic.”  I didn’t know any better, but I kept that in mind over the years.  But later on, I realized that the two terms (“Catholic” and “Christian”) are certainly not the same thing.  A person can be a Catholic and not be a Christian, or he can be a Christian and not be a Catholic.  It seems that she was either ignorant of the difference, or she was just brushing me off.  Either way, as a catechism teacher, she should have been clearer.  At the very best, she failed to explain the correlation between the two terms.

Of course, the word “Christian” means a follower of Christ, a person who is saved – one who is serving God and headed for Heaven.  On the other hand, a “Catholic” is one who is a member of the Catholic Church, which is considered by most people a branch, denomination, or subset of Christianity. 

So, the question arises, “Are Catholics saved, are they Christians?”  I hear it often, but this question requires more than just a simple “yes” or “no.”  The answer to the question certainly has to be nuanced. 

The Heart Matters

Of course, the question can also be asked of Protestants – are they saved?  And of course, the answer is that some are and some aren’t.  The bottom line is that God looks at the heart.   It is not just being part of a certain group – just being a Lutheran, or Assembly of God, or Baptist, or Presbyterian, etc., doesn’t make one a true follower of Christ.  What does is a changed life/heart, one that is surrendered to God, believing and trusting in the work and suffering of Jesus Christ on the cross for salvation and trusting nothing else (John 3:16; Galatians 3:1-3). 

But What About Catholics?

The biblical requirement for salvation (articulated just above) is the same for everyone.  But Catholics believe that the requirement(s) for making it to Heaven are different than what some (or maybe most) Protestants believe. 

First and most important, Catholics believe in a “faith plus works” system to be saved (CCC #2068; #1129), just like the Judaizers did in the book of Galatians, but the apostle Paul harshly rebuked the Galatian church for starting to accept this false teaching (Galatians 1:8-9; 3:1-3).  Adding the merits of any kind of work/sacrament/suffering to the cross is a direct violation of the gospel of Jesus Christ, an attack on the very core of the Christian faith.  Faith, apart from the merit of works (Romans 3:28; 4:6; 4:4-5), is a non-negotiable condition of salvation. 

See this link on the concept of merit in Catholicism:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2022/02/the-concept-of-merit-in-catholicism.html

But this system of salvation through works is not the only problem with the teachings of Catholicism.  There are also many other false teachings in the Catholic Church, as well, as is demonstrated throughout this blog.

If a Catholic person truly trusts in Jesus and gets saved, it is vitally important for him to then embrace correct doctrine to maintain his faith, because doctrine can (and will) affect your relationship with God.  If one believes in any kind of false doctrine, this will skew his understanding of the nature, purpose and instructions of the God of the Bible.  And this can certainly put him in grave spiritual danger.  I personally believe that the less you trust in the tenets of Catholicism, the better off you are.  The longer you stay in this church, the more likely you will betray the Scriptures.  For a “more sure word” (2 Peter 1:19), you must stick to the principles of the Bible.

I often say that a Catholic can indeed be saved, but his salvation would be IN SPITE OF being in the Catholic Church, not BECAUSE OF IT!

God’s Grace and Man’s Accountability

God is so gracious and patient with us, even when we are being foolish and participating in an unbiblical church (whether Catholic, Protestant, or otherwise), but this kindness must not be abused or taken for granted (Romans 2:4).  There are probably many people in these churches today, honestly seeking for truth, and who are still innocent, not yet irrevocably tainted by one of these churches or its doctrines.  Perhaps they are there through no fault of their own, but how long can one be in one of these unbiblical churches before he is corrupted by the false doctrine taught within?

Only God knows that answer, but we should never put ourselves in that position to start with!  Each one of us is ultimately responsible for our own spiritual well-being.  The Bible tells us to “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15).  If we are already very familiar with the Scriptures, we are far more likely to find a good, Bible-based church.

Again, each believer is ultimately responsible for his own soul and no one will be able to say on Judgment Day, “Hey, I was just obeying the Church, like they told me I must do!  It is all THEIR fault if I believed the wrong things” (Romans 14:12; 2 Corinthians 5:10)!  I actually had a co-worker that told me this and she was very serious about it.  I tried to convince her otherwise, but she would not listen.

“But We have So Much in Common…”

In fairness, I want to say that the Catholic Church does have many teachings that are orthodox (i.e., generally accepted as right or true), for example, the resurrection, the doctrine of the Trinity, Heaven and Hell, and the Bible’s inspiration are things that Protestants and Catholics can agree on.

But I want to emphatically state that it is not how many teachings Protestants and Catholics have in common that matter most, but there are certain critical differences which corrupt the essential teaching of salvation that remove Catholics from biblical orthodoxy!

For example, I once heard a great analogy by Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason where he draws two small circles on a blackboard.  By one, he writes the word “aspirin.”  By the other, he writes the word “arsenic.”  He then asks the audience, “What do these two have in common?”  Greg points out that they are both small and they are both round, and they both start with the letter “a”.  Therefore, should we treat them the same, since they have more in common than they do differences?  Absolutely not!  The problem is obviously that one will cure your headache, but the other would kill you!  The point being that their one difference is far more important than any similarities they may have. 

And that’s how it is with the Catholic Church.  Even though Protestants may agree with them about some (or maybe even many) things, there are some teachings in the Catholic Church that are far too spiritually dangerous to embrace.  This fact greatly affects the answer to the question of “Are Catholics Christians?” 

Truth vs. False Doctrine

For those who would say that Catholics really are Christians, what exactly is it that convinces them of this?  Is it because that they are the largest single group in the world claiming to be Christian?  But we know that “majority rule” has not always been a good test for veracity.

Is it because Catholicism claims that they have a lawful and unbroken line of successors tracing all the way back to the apostles?  Most Catholics would say yes, but this has been shown to be false:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2017/08/those-nagging-gaps.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/12/apostolic-succession.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2025/02/the-mythical-chain.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2017/10/the-papacy-foundation-of-sand.html

Is it because the Catholic Church claims to have as its foundation/authority, a “three-legged stool” [i.e., 1) Scripture, 2) the Magisterium, and 3) Sacred Tradition]?

Many Catholics will say yes, but I find it interesting that 1) many of their teachings contradict the Scriptures, 2) there is no papal Magisterium in the New Testament, and 3) they vehemently claim to be true to the Sacred Traditions of the Church, yet they find it so hard to be able to tell us exactly what all this Sacred Tradition is.  See these links on Sacred Tradition:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2022/07/the-lonely-pilgrim-and-sacred-tradition.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/05/what-about-tradition.html

We could go on and on like this, but the main issue is that there are so many unbiblical teachings within the Catholic Church.

Also, I think that another problematic issue with the Church is the fact that Catholics love to invite outsiders to “Come home to the Catholic Church,” as though joining the Church is the ultimate goal of Catholic evangelism.  We Protestants don’t ask people to specifically pursue “Protestantism” or Lutheranism, or the Baptist Church, etc., but we usually invite them to have a relationship with Jesus.  No church institution is the final destination, but Jesus Christ is!

Conclusion

So, to ask the question again, “Can a Catholic be saved?”  Yes, he can be.  But let’s ask it in a different way: “Can a devout Catholic be saved?”  That’s a different question.  If the person is a devout Catholic and is unapologetically entrenched in the Catholic Church and refuses to let go of Catholic teaching (especially if he is presented with what the Bible teaches) – then the possibility of him being saved is greatly reduced.

I am not making an ultimate spiritual judgment here.  No one can absolutely conclude that a person (Catholic, Protestant, or otherwise) is eternally lost – only God knows their heart perfectly. 

Yet, God has given us (Christians) the ability to imperfectly see the state of a person’s heart through his actions and his fruit (Matthew 7:15-17).  For those who claim to be Christians, but do not have the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23), or they are steeped in false doctrine, we must warn.  That is, we are obligated to prayerfully and lovingly point to the spiritual danger in which one may be living.  It is not an act of love to allow someone to continue down a road that will obviously lead to disaster!

We are obligated to let Catholics know that theirs is a false gospel.  And a false gospel certainly excludes one from true Christianity.

May the words of John, the prophet and apostle, be heeded:

“And I heard another voice from Heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.” (Revelation 18:4)

DOES ISAIAH 22 SUPPORT THE PAPACY?

 

Ok, what exactly is the papacy?  The papacy is the office and jurisdiction of the pope, who is the human head over the Roman Catholic Church.  The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus Christ established the New Testament church by building it upon the apostle Peter and He designated Peter as the head over all the other apostles.  Jesus also gave Peter the power of “binding and loosing,” he can forgive people of all their sins and he can even operate infallibly (without error) under certain conditions.  Furthermore, his line of successors after him will also be considered popes with the same power through “Apostolic Succession.”

Of course, we Protestants don’t agree with this, but right now I’d like to recap what Jesus said and to address how Catholics use the Isaiah passage.

In Matthew 16:13-15, Jesus asks His disciples what the public thought about Him, and then He asked them what they (the disciples) thought about Him:

16 – “And Simon Peter answered and said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’

17 – And Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Blessed art thou, Simon Barjonah: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven.

18 – And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 – And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’”

This is the main and foundational passage of Scripture that the Catholic Church uses to prove its papacy.  They will emphasize that Jesus gave to Peter the “keys” to the kingdom of Heaven and thus, the authority to “bind” and “loose.”

Enter Shebna and Eliakim

Another passage they use to try and support the idea of a papacy is in the Old Testament in Isaiah 22:15-25.  In this passage, God, through the prophet Isaiah, rebukes the present treasurer/prime minister (Shebna) of Judah for his pride and for abusing his position and tells him that he will be removed from his lofty position and replaced by a righteous man named Eliakim.  Then, in v. 22-23, Shebna is told:

22 – “And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his [Eliakim’s] shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

23 – And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father’s house.”

Catholics believe that there is a connection between Peter in Matthew 16 and Eliakim in Isaiah 22.  They are convinced that the typology of Eliakim points precisely to the person of Peter, and that both these passages point to the Catholic papacy.

Comparison

Ok, I will admit that there are some similarities between the two passages in that they both reference a key or keys, which point to some kind of authority/power.  And I will admit that Isaiah 22:22 is the first passage in all of Scripture that mentions anything about spiritual/metaphorical “keys.”  And the Jews of Jesus’ day more than likely recognized (from Isaiah) the terminology that Jesus used concerning keys.  It is interesting, though, that Isaiah references the “key” (singular) of David, whereas Jesus references the “keys” (plural) of the kingdom of Heaven.

But is this really typology about the papacy?  If it is, and if Eliakim replaced Shebna, then what person did Peter the apostle replace?  If both passages are referring to the papacy, then why is Isaiah’s key about David’s throne and Jesus’ keys about the church?  If Isaiah 22 is really about the papacy (a purely spiritual, non-political authority), then where is this reflected in the office of Shebna and Eliakim? 

If Isaiah was pointing to a modern papacy, where is infallible spiritual authority alluded to in this scenario?  Where is the reference to a human authority having “full, supreme, and universal power” over a religious body? Moreover, neither Isaiah 22 nor Matthew 16 suggests anything about a chain of perpetual and infallible successors (as the modern papacy supposedly has). 

Well, someone may say that typology does not have to match in every detail.  That is true, but the similarities are so few that one has to question if there is enough here to indicate anything about Peter.  It is the amount of details that are missing that are very telling.

Furthermore, it is interesting that Isaiah 22:25 mentions Eliakim’s “peg” breaking off.  So, if this is about the Catholic papacy, when did Peter’s “peg” (authority) break off?  Let’s look a little farther into the passage in Isaiah.

A Better Fulfillment

Isaiah 22:25:

In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, shall the nail that is fastened in the sure place be removed, and be cut down, and fall; and the burden that was upon it shall be cut off: for the Lord has spoken it.

Notice the term “cut off.”  Now compare this to Daniel 9:26:
“And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for Himself…”

These are both prophecies of the Messiah to come.  They are both using the same Hebrew word for “cut off” (“karath”).  Both Isaiah and Daniel are referring to the Messiah’s death, so Isaiah is NOT speaking about Peter at all!

The name “Shebna” means “vigor” or “youthful strength” or “to grow.”  The name Eliakim means “God will establish” or “my God will arise.”

The character Shebna represents man trusting in his ability/strength/wisdom (Isaiah 22:8-11), but Eliakim represents the Messiah who does not depend on man’s strength or wisdom! 

The key referred to in Isaiah 22:22 is singular, and it is “the key of the house of David,” which can only point to the Messiah, Jesus Christ (Matthew 21:9; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 1:31-33), not to Peter or any type of papacy.  This is confirmed in Revelation 3:7:

“And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia, write; These things saith He that is holy, He that is true, He that hath the key of David, He that openeth, and no man shutteth, and shutteth, and no man openeth.”

Here, we see the Savior, the One who shuts and opens at will.  Revelation 3:7 seems to be a much better passage to fulfill the typology of Isaiah 22 than the Catholic Church’s attempt to use Peter.  It does not point to Peter, but to Christ.

The Gospel Brings it into Focus

But what is this “opening” and “shutting” that Jesus is speaking of in Revelation 3:7 just above?  I believe it has to do with the gospel and the “doors” of opportunity that are opened or closed by Jesus. 

Note that in 1 Corinthians 16:9, Paul speaks of an “open door” for ministry, and again in 2 Corinthians 2:12.  In other cases, Paul encountered the opposite when he tried to enter Asia, but was hindered by the Holy Spirit (Acts 16:6), i.e., it was a closed door.  And again, he tried to go into Bithynia and the same thing happened (Acts 16:7).  “Doors of ministry” are controlled (open and shut) by Jesus alone. 

Remember, Jesus, who holds the key of David (Isaiah 22 and Revelation 3:7) is not only the One who supernaturally opens and shuts doors of opportunity, but He is also the One who has given us the keys of the kingdom of Heaven in preaching the gospel (Matthew 16).

“Binding and loosing”/“opening and shutting” is NOT about Peter making laws which God is obligated to uphold, or Peter wielding authority over the other apostles!  The keys of Matthew 16 are all about the gospel:

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” (Romans 1:16)

Note the phrase “power of God.”  This indicates the exceptional, inherent and divine quality within the gospel message itself.  An integral part of the function of the keys is the person’s repentance (or lack thereof) and his acceptance or rejection of the gospel, which will determine his destiny.   

By the way, note that Peter did not receive the keys of Heaven in Matthew 16, because Jesus was speaking of a future event (“…I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven”).  Jesus gave them to all the apostles later, possibly in Matthew 18:18.  We know this because the effects of being given the keys (binding and loosing) were the same in Matthew 18. 

In this way, this authority/power was first given to the apostles themselves, then it was given again in the “Great Commission” (Matthew 28:18-20; Luke 24:46-47) where it was entrusted to all believers.  Even the Catholic Catechism agrees that the “Great Commission” (evangelizing/sharing the gospel) is for all believers (CCC #900).

Conclusion

Therefore, this “binding and loosing” of which Jesus spoke is about sharing the gospel with people, and if the hearers accept its message (“… he that hears you hears Me…” – Luke 10:16), then the gates of Heaven are open to them; and the one who shared the gospel can say with authority, “Since you have accepted the message of Jesus Christ, you have been forgiven – you are saved.” 

But if they reject the gospel (“… and he that despises you despises Me…” – Luke 10:16), they are refused entrance into Heaven.  And he who shared the gospel can say with authority, “Since you have rejected the message, your sins are retained – you are not right with God.”  The keys are for opening and closing the kingdom of Heaven.  The apostles certainly wielded authority, but it is all true believers who have the power of “binding” and “loosing,” not just the apostles and not just church leaders.  Matthew 16:19 is not what the Catholic Church thinks it is. 

So, to answer the question, no, Isaiah 22 does NOT support the doctrine of the Catholic papacy.  But even if Isaiah 22:22 did somehow refer to Peter, that still would not prove the modern concept of the Catholic papacy, with all its unbiblical teachings, its allegedly infallible Magisterium, and its nebulous traditions – not to mention the papacy’s “foundation” which was built on forgeries.

See these links for more information:

LINKS:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2016/10/matthew-16-keys-binding-and-loosing.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2016/09/matthew-16-who-or-what-is-rock.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2017/10/the-papacy-foundation-of-sand.html