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

ARE COUNCILS AUTHORITATIVE?

 

I recently came across an article from Catholic Answers written by an author named Parker Manning.  The title of the article was, “Do Protestants Care About Church Councils?” [With the subtitle, “Church councils aren’t worth much if you accept in them only what you agree with”]

You can find the article here:

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/do-protestants-care-about-church-councils

In the article, Manning correctly points out that Protestants, who believe in Sola Scriptura (“Bible alone”), also believe that other valid authorities exist, such as traditions and councils, but that they are less authoritative.  Protestants believe that Scripture is the ultimate and final authority for the church today, because it is the only infallible source in the post-apostolic church (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

But Manning doesn’t like the way that Protestants view the Church councils.  He says:

“Protestants like [James] White, [Jeff] Durbin, and [Matt] Slick will often try to persuade their audience into believing that they care about the early church councils when they really do not.  Or at the very least, they care about them only when they agree with their interpretation of Scripture.  Once we recognize this, it only makes sense to conclude that these Protestants really do not care about what these councils teach.”

But as Christians, we’re not obligated to embrace every word just because it comes from a council, nor are we obligated to support unbiblical concepts when presented by said council.  Having some truth mixed in with error does not make it ok.  How can a council be acceptable, much less infallible, if it contradicts Scripture?  If a council contains false teaching, those parts should be publicly rejected. 

It looks like Manning is suggesting that if we Protestants are going to accept anything from church councils, we should accept everything in these councils! 

Inconsistent?

He also stated:

“… [I]t makes little sense to argue for something because a council said so when they agree with only that part of the council that agrees with their interpretation of Scripture?  Why not just argue with Scripture?”

And I would say, “Amen to that!”  That’s where the real issue lies. 

Catholics will claim that Protestants are inconsistent when they point to Church councils because Protestants will only pick and choose the things within the councils that they like.  But I think that sometimes the reason certain Protestants even bother to point to something said in a church council at all is not to pretend to agree with everything in it, but I believe that sometimes Protestants are simply saying, “Even your Catholic council XYZ agrees with us on this particular point!” 

But that certainly does not mean that we agree with everything within that council. 

Interpretation Dilemma?

Notice that in Manning’s article, he keeps talking about when councils don’t agree with the Protestant’s interpretation of Scripture.  As if to continually expect him to interpret it wrong.  For example, in the article, Manning says things like, “They care about only what they believe Scripture says…” (emphasis added).  In using the word “believe” here, he seems to be implying that the Protestant interpretation will likely be incorrect.  Since Protestants don’t have an infallible Magisterium to interpret for them (like Catholics allegedly do), they are apparently very unlikely to get it right.

But the truth is Catholics are in the same situation.  They too are obligated to use their fallible understanding and reasoning to interpret what their “infallible” Magisterium is saying.  There’s no way out of it.  If it is a dilemma for Protestants, then it is also a dilemma for Catholics.

See these links on Bible interpretation:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2014/07/private-interpretation.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/12/dialogue-on-bible-interpretation.html

Arbitrary Dismissal?

Manning also says:

“This arbitrary dismissal of certain things councils teach is known as special pleading – a logical fallacy in which someone applies a principle or rule to others but exempts himself (or his position) without providing a valid reason for the exception.  By being inconsistent and appealing to councils and also rejecting certain parts of them, Protestants are committing this fallacy.”

Notice that he says, “…without providing a valid reason for the exception.”  Protestants will accept particular parts of a council, yet indeed reject other parts, but he does this on the basis of agreement with a greater authority – Scripture!  So, it is not an “arbitrary” dismissal at all, but a biblical one.

Perhaps we Protestants would care for councils more if they would fully align with the Bible.  Then there should be no issue from either side.

Conclusion

To answer the question, yes, councils are authoritative – they carry weight in the church.  Councils are often useful to articulate or codify the core beliefs of the church and these beliefs are fine, as long as they align with the truth of God’s Word (John 17:17), which, by the way, will judge us on the last day (John 12:48).

But if any council contradicts the principles of Scripture in any way, its words are no more than man-made traditions as Jesus said (Mark 7:1-13), “laying aside the commandment of God” (v. 8) by “teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (v.7).  

You see, “authoritative” does not necessarily mean infallible.  There are real authorities in our churches, just as there are in our everyday lives (parents, teachers, doctors, law enforcement, judges, etc.), and most people have no problem obeying these authorities, even if they are not infallible.  Councils may be authoritative, but we only have one source that is infallible (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

The apostles enjoyed, at least in a limited sense, the gift of infallibility in their day, but today it is the apostolic MESSAGE that has the built-in authority/infallibility:

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation…” (Romans 1:16). 

We don’t have apostles today, but to the extent that one is faithful with the apostolic message (Scripture), he is authoritative.  Jesus said:

“The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; but the one who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.” (Luke 10:16 - NASB)

If you are faithful in bringing the true gospel message to others, they are indeed not just hearing you, but hearing Jesus.  In the context of Luke 10, Jesus was not just speaking to the apostles, but to the seventy disciples, as well – and by extension, the universal church.  Jesus gave us the “Great Commission,” i.e., the responsibility of the whole church to spread the gospel (Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-18; Luke 24:46-49; John 20:19-23).  If the gospel message being delivered is perverted/wrong, the presenter of the message is not authoritative.  But whoever hears the person commissioned and faithfully bringing the true gospel is also hearing Jesus – and the faithful messenger is therefore authoritative.  He is authoritative because he is correctly using the highest authority.

 

THE POINT OF NO RETURN

 

Imagine yourself in a canoe, peacefully floating around on a large lake.  It’s a beautiful day and you haven’t a care in the world.  After a while, you begin to hear a sound, a continuous sound that is slowly getting louder and louder.  In horror, you finally realize the sound is a very large waterfall – and you’re headed straight toward it!  You franticly paddle, trying to move back to safety, but no, you realize that you are at the point of no return and you are sucked into the giant waterfall and perish on the rocks below.  If only someone had warned you.

Life is full of dangerous circumstances, some more serious than others.  You get it.  Those situations where you are in deep trouble (physically, financially, with relationships, etc.) and you are just unable to get out.  There is no turning back.  This point of no return is cold and ruthless.  It doesn’t care about your feelings.  It doesn’t care about your excuses or your careless attitude toward common sense rules, nor does it care about your poor decisions.  You messed up and you’re now paying the price. 

The “point of no return” concept is bad enough in the physical realm.  But it is even more terrifying in the spiritual realm.  There, it is eternal.  Death may bring relief for some who have suffered greatly, but for all those who have not surrendered to the Savior (Jesus Christ), for those who have rejected Him and His doctrine, there is no relief and there is no turning back.  They will fall paralyzed and speechless (Revelation 1:17) before Him on that day in utter horror (Revelation 6:16).  Once again, it will be too late.  But in this case, it will be the ULTIMATE point of no return!  You won’t have the time nor the chance to change your mind.  You will have made your choice.

Do We Really Love the Truth?

But what brings people to this point in their lives?  Here is a passage telling us exactly how we end up in this situation…

2 Thessalonians 2:8-12:

8 - And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 

9 - Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 

10 - And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 

11 - And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 

12 - That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

The context here is the last days when the antichrist comes on the scene.  At this time (and even now), the world will be so conditioned to believe false teachings that they will easily believe the antichrist’s lies.  They will be fully convinced through his lying signs and wonders.  These people will have had opportunity after opportunity to cling to the truth of the gospel, but they willfully continue to reject it.  They have loved and embraced false teachings so long that God is basically saying, “Ok, I won’t force you to come to Me, but if the life you’re living is what you really want, then stay there and live with your decision!”  Notice that in the passage above, they simply didn’t have a love for the truth, but favored a life of selfish pleasure and perverted doctrine, rather than godliness.

Especially for Catholics

Alright, many readers of this blog know that this blog is dedicated to articles about Catholicism.  One might ask what all this has to do with the Catholic Church.  Well, a lot, actually.  I strongly believe, and have firmly held to, the idea that the Catholic Church has always had a false gospel, one that has deceived millions and millions of its followers.  Furthermore, the Catholic Church not only has a false gospel, but it has multiple false doctrines. 

If all that I am saying is true, what will be the fate of these Catholics?  I believe that after being presented the truth of Scripture, if they continue to embrace unbiblical Catholic doctrines, their “canoe” will perish in the “waterfall,” metaphorically speaking.  To put it bluntly, they will perish in the Lake of Fire… eternally.  And they, too, will be saying, “If only someone had warned me!”  Well, I am just one of the many voices warning you now.

Common Ground

But one might ask, “But what if what the Catholic Church teaches is true?”  Well, if they really are teaching truth, then they don’t have anything to worry about.  But a little study will show that it is very obvious that they contradict many of the Scriptures, and they even contradict some of their own traditions!  See here:

 https://www.equip.org/articles/what-are-some-arguments-against-apostolic-tradition/

The question is, for Protestants and Catholics, who (if either of them) is right?  Catholics and Protestants have been debating for centuries, and of course both sides believe they are right.  Obviously, they can’t both be right, since both sides contradict each other in many areas.  The one thing both sides have in common is the fact that the Bible is God’s Word.  So I think we can use this common ground to get to the truth.  Jesus tells us that God’s Word is truth (John 17:17).

Conclusion

But the key issue is the gospel, which is the power of God for salvation (Romans 1:16).  And I believe that the Catholic Church has rejected that gospel. 

But how many times can you reject the gospel before God says “That’s enough!”?  Where is the point of no return, spiritually speaking?  I know that saying that the Catholic Church does not have the gospel of Jesus Christ may sound cruel and intolerant, but I’ve pointed out time after time on this blog that the Catholic Church has a different gospel (2 Corinthians 11:4) which has a works-based salvation, and that is an anti-biblical teaching (Romans 3:27-28; 4:4-5; Ephesians 2:8-10; Titus 3:5). 

This blog is full of warnings about many of the teachings of the Catholic Church.  There is something here on almost every major/significant Catholic doctrine.  And there are tons more in many other places on the internet by authors who are very knowledgeable in Catholic teachings and/or who were once Catholic themselves.

A Catholic may say, “But there are also many former Protestants who became Catholic, so this doesn’t prove anything!”  True, but those Protestants who have heard the gospel, but who now embrace the Catholic Church will have no excuse.  Again, we must look at the source of truth, i.e., Scripture, and we must take an honest look at the whole of Scripture, in its context!  I believe that if someone does this and is truly seeking after God, he will be saved.  For that person, the point of no return (i.e., eternity) is something to look forward to, and not a terror.

 

NO RESUME ON JUDGMENT DAY

Man, by nature, is not a humble creature.  All of us like to think highly of ourselves and we like others to think highly of us, as well.  Here in America, we spend billions of dollars every year on cosmetics, beauty aids, gym memberships, fine clothing and fancy cars.  We are very concerned about our image.  We want to look good and we want our friends, neighbors and co-workers to think we look good.

And that spills over into our morality.  Not only do we want to look good, but we want to believe that we are good persons.  Many, if not most, consider themselves to be moral people.  They just can’t imagine that they would be in the “bad person” category.  After all, they are better than Adolf Hitler, or Joseph Stalin, or Jeffrey Dahmer, or Saddam Hussein, aren’t they?  It’s hard to convince most people that they are not as good as they think they are.  For one example, see this short video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2mRCx5pkPY

Judgment Day

So, what about Judgment Day?  Will God consider most people to be good enough to get into Heaven?  Do any of them think that there’s a possibility that they might be shocked on that critical day?  It seems that many will expect God to react in their favor.  For example, let’s look at “George” (a fictional character).  George thinks that God will most likely say, “George, why should I let you into Heaven?”  And then George pulls out his lengthy resume, unrolls it like a scroll, and begins to show God, one by one, how many good things he did for the church, his family and for other people, causing “oohs” and “ahhhs” of approval from the angelic hosts.  God responds, “Wow, George, I am very impressed!  You’ve certainly earned your way into Heaven.  Come on in!”

Ok, maybe I’m exaggerating a little, but this is, I believe, pretty much what many people will be expecting on Judgment Day.  They’re trusting in their goodness, hoping that the good things they’ve done will outweigh the bad.

Is Anybody Good?

But the Bible sheds some light on Judgment Day.  In Matthew 7:21-23 we see that there are many who will be utterly shocked that God finds them to be “workers of iniquity,” instead of “good people.”  The people in this Bible passage did many “good” deeds, and they even did them “in Jesus’ name.”  And they definitely expected this to work in their favor, i.e., to merit entrance into Heaven.  Yet, to their horror, they were rejected, they were sent to Hell.  What did they do wrong?  Well, for one thing, they were trusting in their works to get them in:  “Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name and in thy name have cast out devils, and in thy name done many wonderful works?”  But the Bible is clear that we are saved only by the grace of God, through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5), and not by works (Romans 4:4-5).  Remember, Jesus said that no one is good but God (Mark 10:18). 

An Apostle’s Resume

Consider the apostle Paul.  Now this guy had an impressive resume!  He was a Jew of the tribe of Benjamin, a zealous Pharisee, a Hebrew of Hebrews and was considered faultless under the Law by his peers (Philippians 3:3-6)!  Yet, he counted all these things as dung that he may gain Christ (Philippians 3:7-9)!  Not only that, but Paul also suffered often in hard labor, imprisonment, beatings, scourgings, stoning, shipwreck, hunger, thirst, cold, lack of sleep and in frequent danger of death.  Not to mention his constant and deep concern for the churches (2 Corinthians 11:23-28).  But even this resume would not be sufficient to merit Heaven, and Paul would be the first to admit this.  No one’s resume is good enough, except for the one provided by Jesus Christ through His work on the cross (1 John 2:2; 4:10).  THAT is the resume we should boast in when we stand before God!

What About Catholics?

So what about those who teach faith plus works to be saved, like the Catholic Church?  Doesn’t this type of mindset leave room for boasting?  Indeed it does (Romans 3:27; Ephesians 2:8-9).

Many Catholics will deny that theirs is a works-based gospel.  They will often quote the Council of Trent and say that they do not believe in salvation by works.  Trent says:

“None of those things which precede justification – whether faith or works – merit the grace itself of justification.”  (Session 6, Chapter 8)

Ok, this may sound good on the surface, but it is misleading for at least two reasons:  1) Scripture tells us that faith does indeed come before and produce justification according to the plan of God (Romans 4:1-3; 9-10), and 2) Trent is saying that works don’t come before justification, yet in other places they tell us that baptism (which is a work) is indeed the cause of salvation!  So they’ve got it all twisted.

On the one hand, they will say that it’s not a works-based salvation, yet, when discussing salvation with them, they will quickly turn to James chapter 2 and insist that salvation is by works, without realizing their flip flop.  I have seen this many times. 

But let’s dispel this myth that Catholicism is not a works-based religion.  This is what they teach…

Official Catholic Teaching

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“The authority of the Magisterium extends also to the specific precepts of the natural law, because their observance… is necessary for salvation.” (CCC #2036) [Emphasis added]

“…the Second Vatican Council confirms: ‘the mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments.’” (CCC #2068) [Emphasis added]

“The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant [which are works] are necessary for salvation.” (CCC #1129) [Emphasis in original]

“…The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude…” (CCC 1257)

According to the Council of Trent:

“If anyone saith that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation… let him be anathema.” (Session 7, Canon 4)

“If anyone saith that the justice [justification] received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.” (Session 6, Canon 24)

According to the Second Vatican Council’s Apostolic Constitution on the Revision of Indulgences, Chapter 3:

“From the most ancient times in the Church good works were also offered to God for the salvation of sinners… indeed the prayers and good works of holy people were regarded as of such great value that it could be asserted that the penitent was washed, cleansed and redeemed with the help of the entire Christian people.”

This is ample evidence that the Catholic Church teaches salvation by works.  And there are many more examples we could provide.

Conclusion

So, no informed Catholic can honestly deny that the Catholic Church officially teaches that salvation is (at least to some extent) based upon one’s own works.  But according to Scripture, salvation is not of works (Ephesians 2:9), not even by works of righteousness (Titus 3:5), but rather, it is for the one who does not work, but believes (Romans 4:5).

This doesn’t mean that we Christians are never to do any good works, because God certainly wants us to walk in these (Ephesians 2:10).  But our mindset should be that it is only through God’s grace and the cross of Jesus Christ that we are saved, apart from the merits of any of our good works. To say that your works contribute in any way toward your salvation is to say that Jesus’ work on the cross was not sufficient to pay for the sins of the world.  Does anyone really want to say this?

Once again, salvation is not about how great you are, and neither is it about the good things you did for God.  Rather, it is a surrender to God, an admission of helplessness and unworthiness, a humble confession of spiritual bankruptcy on your part.

The gospel is the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16).  Accept and believe this simple gospel (the good news) of what Jesus accomplished on the cross, trust in HIS work and suffering and you will not regret it.

I pray that this article is both humbling and encouraging to all.  But I want everyone to know that if you think that your resume will pull you through Heaven’s gates, you don’t stand a chance.

WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE CHURCH AT ROME?

It has been said that the epistle of Romans, written by the apostle Paul, is one of the greatest and most sublime books of Scripture.  It is his masterpiece.  It is one of the most profound and influential books ever written.  This book is called “Romans” because it was, of course, written to the first-century church (that is, the assembly of Christians) in the city of Rome. 

   

It is a unique book, at least partly because no other book in the Bible deals specifically, and at such great length, with the doctrine of justification like this book does.  As we have said before, when discussing justification, this is the book to which one must go.  It does not deal with justification only as a passing reference, but in great detail.  All other references to justification should revolve around this context, namely, chapters three through five of Romans. 

 

Again, this message was written to the early Roman church.  But the church that most people identify as the Church of Rome today is the Catholic Church, or the Roman Catholic Church, headquartered in the Vatican.  But the “gospel” of the modern Roman Catholic Church is not the same gospel as that of the first-century assembly of believers to whom the apostle Paul wrote in Rome.  The gospel that Paul delivered has the power to save:

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.  For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, the just shall live by faith. (Romans 1:16-17 - KJV)

Notice that the just “shall live,” i.e., shall obtain eternal life and make it to Heaven – by his faith, rather than by his works.  Paul goes on into the next few chapters to make this concept abundantly clear.

But the gospel of modern Rome is “faith plus works equals salvation.”  It seems to ignore the clear message that Paul stressed 2000 years ago:

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

Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as what is due.  But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness. (Romans 4:4-5)

Just as David also speaks of the blessing upon the man to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works: (Romans 4:6 - NASV)

Justification happens that first moment when a man recognizes his desperate spiritual need, when he surrenders to God, and allows Him to change his heart.  At this point he is made right with God.  He is now eligible for Heaven.  Although the man will now go on to do good works, notice that justification is APART FROM the merit of any of those works.  It cannot be any clearer from the passages above.

So, again, the “gospel” of the Catholic Church (modern Rome) is not the one that Paul shared with the original church in Rome.  The Catholic gospel does not have power to save, since it’s power depends (at least partially) on the works of the individual striving for salvation.  This causes a man to trust in his own labor to “help” Jesus save him.  But Jesus doesn’t need any help from us.  There is nothing that we can do to “supplement” His work.  It is utterly blasphemous to think that His work is lacking in any way.  In saying this, they are denying the full atonement of Jesus Christ.   Remember, we (corrupt mankind) are the very reason that He had to go to the cross in the first place! 

No, His suffering and work on the cross is fully sufficient (all by itself) to redeem us. 

 

Whatever happened to this critical, foundational teaching given to the church of Paul’s day at Rome?  Somewhere along the way, something seriously went wrong.  Paul’s message was changed.  Mostly because man wants to take credit where he should not.

But note this claim from the Catholic Church.  According to the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, titled “Dei Verbum,” the task of the Catholic Magisterium concerning the Word of God is:

“…guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully…” (chapter 2, paragraph 10)  See also CCC #86.

But have they really guarded Paul’s original sacred message, the inspired gospel of Jesus Christ?  Are they “explaining it faithfully” today?  Indeed not.  Once again, what the Catholic Church is telling us today is not what Paul told the church at Rome back then.  What we have is a different and unbiblical message from modern Rome.  

The word “gospel” means “good news.”  And Paul’s words concerning justification are indeed good news.  They can be summed up in this way: Jesus Christ is powerful and His work is absolutely sufficient.  He has mercifully and graciously paid the full penalty for sin on the cross, so man doesn’t have to attempt to work his way into Heaven.  He doesn’t have to wonder if he did enough good deeds or earned enough “brownie points.”  He doesn’t have to worry about whether his good works outweigh his bad works.  He can rest assured of his salvation by simply maintaining his faith, by trusting only in the work of Jesus Christ on the cross. 

The great apostle Paul had quite a resume concerning his religious achievements.  But his resume meant nothing when it came to meriting salvation!  He considered all his achievements as dung (Philippians 3:4-9).  Even Paul did not trust in his works, so how much more should we avoid trusting in ours? 

 

On the other hand, the “gospel” of modern Rome is another gospel, with another Jesus, and another spirit (2 Corinthians 11:4).  The poor faithful member of “Holy Mother Church” serves a weak Jesus who is not able to fully pay sin’s penalty, and the Catholic therefore needs to “cooperate with the grace of God” by maintaining his duty to perform the sacraments – and it is indeed by his works that he must merit eternal life (Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter XVI).  Talk about bad news! 

 

To make matters worse, he is also surrounded by a multitude of unbiblical teachings from his leaders.  Yet, one of his leaders (Pope Pius X), in an official Catholic statement says that the Catholic’s “one duty” is to obey his leaders [apparently, no matter what they teach] (Vehementer Nos, paragraph 8). 

 

Conclusion

We would encourage everyone from ANY church (whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant) to do what the Bible says and test all things (1 Thessalonians 5:21) with Scripture.  That even includes testing what your own church teaches. 

 

The ancient Roman church of the first century had it right.  But somewhere along the way, that simple gospel message got corrupted.  Although they try, the modern Roman church cannot rightfully claim to be the historic Christian church.  Because of their many false teachings, they are disqualifying themselves as the church that “guards” and “faithfully explains” the Word of God.

By the way, there is no group today that can rightfully claim that they are the original, or first, Christian church.  The best they can do is to be faithful followers of the original church’s teachings found in God-inspired Scripture.

We will end on this point.  The Judaizers were another group that Paul contended with.  And they were committing the same error as the Catholic Church - the error of adding their works to the cross (Acts 15:1, 5).  And Paul strongly condemned them:

But though we, or an angel from Heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.  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 1:8-9 - KJV)

For more info. on Rome’s weak view of the work of Christ, see this link:

https://www.christiantruth.com/articles/RCJustification.html