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.

THE SACRAMENT OF HOLY ORDERS

 

As I stated in previous articles, the Catholic Church has seven sacraments, and today’s topic will be the Sacrament of Holy Orders, also called the Rite of Ordination.  As most people know, the Catholic Church has a hierarchy, the lower ranks consisting of deacon, priest and bishop – in that order.  One must be a deacon before he becomes a priest and one must be a priest before he becomes a bishop. 

Supposedly, through the leadership of these three ranks, they help continue Jesus’ presence on earth in the tradition of the apostles.  At least, that’s what the Church claims (CCC #1549, 1575). 

They also claim that when a man goes through the rite of ordination, he receives a permanent spiritual mark, called a character, which helps him represent Jesus in the Church (CCC #1558, 1563).  It goes without saying that the seven sacraments are extremely important to the Catholic Church, and they claim that the other six sacraments could not even exist without this particular sacrament (Holy Orders).

The Magnitude of the Priest’s Office

So, how important are the priests in this Church?  The priests are responsible for conducting the Mass, or celebration of the Eucharist, which is the heart of the Catholic service.  Priests are exalted in the eyes of the people, sometimes astoundingly so.  For example, in the very popular book, The Faith of Millions: the Credentials of the Catholic Religion, by Catholic priest John Obrien, he says:

“When the priest announces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man… not once but a thousand times!  The priest speaks and lo!  Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows His head in humble obedience to the priest’s command.”  See the online book here (Page 270):

https://ia903106.us.archive.org/1/items/FaithOfMillions/Faith%20of%20Millions.pdf

I don’t know about you, but this deeply offends me.  The glorified Jesus Christ does not humble himself in order to “obey” any human being.  He is the Second Person of the Trinity and no one can command Him to do anything.  This is utter blasphemy!

By the way, if someone says that this is only one man’s (O’brien’s) opinion, notice that this is a Catholic book by a Catholic priest with the Catholic seals of approval, i.e., the Church officially declaring that this book is “free of doctrinal and moral error.”  O’brien’s book is a Catholic best seller and it was reprinted in 27 editions and translated into 10 languages.  If they didn’t approve of it, they had plenty opportunity to get rid of it or put it on the Forbidden Index of books.  Instead, they openly promote it, so this blasphemy appears to be fully accepted by the Church. 

Furthermore, according to the Catechism of Trent, the priest is “justly” called a god:

“… it is evident that no nobler function than theirs can be imagined. Justly, therefore, are they called not only Angels, but even gods, because of the fact that they exercise in our midst the power and prerogatives of the immortal God.”(Under “Dignity of this Sacrament,” page 194-195, online).  See here:

https://www.catholicsociety.com/documents/Catechism_of_the_Council%20of_Trent.pdf

Which Priesthood is for Today?

The priest is not a god.  Not only is he not a god, and not only can he not call Jesus down from His throne, but the fact is, according to Scripture, the Catholic priest’s office does not even exist in the New Testament!   

The Catholic Church claims that in the Old Testament there were three types of priesthoods: a high priesthood, a ministerial priesthood and a universal priesthood of all believers.  And they say that the New Testament reflects all three of the same offices/positions.

But I would heartily disagree and point out that there are only two priesthoods in both the Old and the New Testament.  We would agree with Catholics that there was a high priesthood and a ministerial priesthood in the Old Testament, but not a universal priesthood of all believers.  Catholics will say, “But what about Exodus 19:6?   Ok, let’s take a look at this verse:

And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

Ok, sounds like the Catholic might have a point, right?  No, not if you observe the CONTEXT.  Let’s look at the previous verse:

Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: (Exodus 19:5)

Well, that changes things, doesn’t it?  Yes, God promised Israel that they would be a “kingdom of priests” and a “holy nation.” But, this is a yet UNFULFILLED promise to the Jews. Notice that God’s promise to Israel was CONDITIONAL; that this would happen IF (and ONLY if) they would obey God’s voice and keep His covenant (Exodus 19:5). But they didn’t.  Over and over, Israel had broken God’s covenant and disobeyed His commands (e.g., Jeremiah chapter 11, 13, 22, 34, etc.). This continued even until the very end of the Old Testament period, where even the ministerial priests had profaned the covenant (Malachi 2:7-10). Even to this day, Israel (as a nation) is disobedient and blinded to the truth (2 Corinthians 3:12-14; Romans 11:25, 31).

So, there was no universal priesthood back then.  Funny how verse 5 never seems to be mentioned when Catholics quote Exodus 19:6!  That’s because it doesn’t support their view.

No Veil, No Priesthood

Moving to the New Testament, we certainly see Jesus as the High Priest (Hebrews 4:14-16), and we see all Christians designated as the universal priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:5, 9; Revelation 1:6), but what is obviously missing from the New Testament is “ministerial priests” – those specifically ordained to stand and mediate between man and God, as they did in the Old Testament.  But God has shown us that the veil in the temple is torn down (Matthew 27:51), signifying that we now have direct access to God.  This doesn’t mean we don’t need leaders in the church, it just means we have no need of mediating priests.  That particular priesthood of the Old Testament has been replaced today by the universal priesthood of all believers.  So, as I said earlier, there are only two priesthoods in the Old Testament (high and ministerial) and only two in the New (high and universal).  Catholics will claim there is a ministerial priesthood in the church today (CCC #1547, #1551, #1592)…  Scripture doesn’t.

Twisting Scripture

In the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC #1590), they try to use certain Scripture verses to prove the Catholic concept of Holy Orders, using passages like 1 Timothy 3:1, 2 Timothy 1:6 and Titus 1:5, but NONE of these passages refer to an office of “priest.”  If the office of priest is so critical today, why does Scripture not even mention it?

Conclusion

While I believe that the office of deacon (Acts 6:1-6) and the office of bishop (1Timothy 3:1) are indeed biblical, again, there is no scriptural evidence for the office of “priest” in the New Testament, and no one in the Bible was ever ordained as such.  Therefore, the “Holy Orders” of the Catholic priesthood are null and void – not only the priesthood of the Catholic Church, but also any priesthood in Protestant denominations and the Orthodox Church, as well.

See these links:

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

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

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

 

MARTIGNONI, ASSURANCE OF SALVATION, AND WORKS

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:

https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/409-apologetics-for-the-masses-319-matt-slick-s-false-teachings

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.