THE SACRAMENTS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH - (PART 1) CONFESSION

This article is the first in a series on the seven Catholic sacraments, which will not be covered in any particular order.  This particular one will be on the sacrament of Confession (also known as Penance or Reconciliation).

So, first of all, what exactly are sacraments?  Webster’s dictionary describes a sacrament as:

“a Christian rite (such as baptism or the Eucharist) that is believed to have been ordained by Christ and that is held to be a means of divine grace or to be a sign or symbol of a spiritual reality.”

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“The sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us. The visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and make present the graces proper to each sacrament. They bear fruit in those who receive them with the required dispositions.” (CCC #1131)

So, what they are saying is that a sacrament is a ritual that one goes through to merit grace from God.  But that is an oxymoron.  No one can merit grace.  It is like saying that I will work for something so that it can be given to me as a free gift!  But it is either a gift or something you worked for – it is one or the other.  It can’t be both:

But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, since otherwise grace is no longer grace. (Romans 11:6 – NASB)

See this link on the sacraments:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2011/01/sacraments-gods-grace-for-sale.html

A Little History

Over the centuries, simple biblical confession has evolved in the Catholic Church into an intricate system involving “penance” (which has all but replaced biblical repentance) by “meriting” grace from God by prayer, suffering, personal works, and even indulgences.  According to the following source, Catholics see Penance as “man’s effort to satisfy God for personal sin through one’s own works.”  See this link:

https://christiantruth.com/articles/penancehistory/

The Catholic Church teaches that private confession to a priest has been the norm from the beginning (Council of Trent, Fourteenth Session, Canon VI).  But this same link above points out the fact that “auricular confession” [private confession to a priest] and “judicial absolution” [official forgiveness granted by a priest] was NOT the practice of the church from the very beginning “since there was no general agreement in the Church about the nature and necessity of such an important issue to as late a period as the 13th century.  It was a matter of debate among Scholastic theologians, most of whom demonstrate that there were conflicting opinions even among the Church Fathers.”

It Must Be to the Priest

Protestants seem to have some serious reservations about Catholic Confession.  So, what’s wrong with confessing your sins?  Don’t Protestants believe in that?  Of course, any biblically-based Protestant believes in confessing his sins.  That’s not the issue.  But the first problem is that Catholics are required to confess any “mortal” sins to a priest.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church repeatedly tells us that confessing to a priest is “essential” or a “must.”  For example:

“It is called the sacrament of confession, since the disclosure or confession of sins to a priest is an essential element of this sacrament…” (CCC #1424)

“Confession to a priest is an essential part of the sacrament of Penance…” (CCC #1456)

“One who desires to obtain reconciliation with God and with the Church, must confess to a priest all the unconfessed grave sins he remembers after having carefully examined his conscience. The confession of venial faults, without being necessary in itself, is nevertheless strongly recommended by the Church.” (CCC #1493)

(See also CCC #1448 and CCC #1449)      

Misreading James

Ok, so what’s wrong with confessing to a priest?  Doesn’t the Bible tell us to confess our sins to the elders/priests in James 5:14-16:

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: 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. 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.

First of all, the New Testament does not recognize ministerial priests, as the Old Testament does.  See this link:

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

Second, the New Testament Greek word for priest is “hiereus.”  This Greek word nowhere appears in the New Testament to describe a ministerial priest.  The word for elders in the passage above is “presbuteros,” a totally different term.  And in this context, it is not specifically talking about confessing your sins to get God’s forgiveness, to get a clean slate, as is done in Catholic Confession.  It is talking about “confessing your sins one to another,” that is, the local body of believers admitting their sins and wrongdoing toward each other, forgiving one another.  James 5:14-16 is about praying for the sick and about personal offenses toward other members of the local body. 

Third, the elders are not there to have members confess directly to them, as it is with priests in the Catholic Church.  The Bible never says to confess to a designated person, whether a priest, pastor, bishop, etc.  These can’t see the heart.  Only God can.  So, a man cannot conclusively tell another person that he (that person) is forgiven, since the man doesn’t know his heart; but he can tell him (according to the authority of Scripture) that he is forgiven IF, and only if, he repents and trusts in the gospel of Jesus Christ.  This is the New Testament requirement for salvation (Romans 1:16). 

Again, a man cannot give absolution to another, only God can, since He, and only He, knows all hearts.  Confessing to a priest, even one you trust, may make you feel good and may be comforting, but it is certainly not biblical.  See this link:

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

Problems with the Box

Not only is private confession to a priest not scriptural, it has caused some serious problems within the Catholic Church.  There is an old (non-fiction) book titled The Woman, the Priest, and the Confessional, and it was written in 1875 by a former priest.  It outlines horror stories of women being betrayed, seduced and basically destroyed by perverted priests who coaxed them in the secrecy of the confessional (under penalty of eternal damnation, of course) to reveal their deepest, darkest secrets and their most sinful desires.  Some priests took full advantage of the opportunities afforded by that private confessional box.  The people trusted the priests going in, but were betrayed.  Not only did these encounters destroy many women, but many priests, as well. 

My Catholic friends, your sins and weaknesses just may be better kept unknown to most people… even your beloved priest!  With a repentant and contrite heart, confess them to God.  He will never betray you.

The book mentioned above is quite old, yet it reads like many of today’s headlines.  I firmly believe the author was telling the truth, but the scandalous and perverted sexual encounters of his day were only to get worse in time…

The Perversion is Far from Gone

A much more recent book, The Dark Box: A Secret History of Confession, by John Cornwell, is another eye-opener.  In a National Catholic Reporter review of his book, Cornwell is painted as possibly “our most gifted and persistent chronicler of Catholicism in the context of the modern world.”  Remember, this is an article by a Catholic news source, not Protestant, and it is worth noting that Cornwell, himself, is a Catholic.

The author of the review stated:

“Confession may be good for the soul -- at least sometimes -- but it has also been used to evil effect by those who would use the secrecy of the sacrament and the power of the priesthood to exploit the vulnerable.”

“In its best passages, The Dark Box connects the sexual obsessions of the earliest priestly celibates with the abuse of confession and the suffering of untold millions of everyday Catholics. For centuries, priests functioned as ‘forensic’ interrogators, coercing or merely persuading men, women and children to reveal the secrets for which they should feel most ashamed. The institutional obsession with sexual sin tells us that clergy were themselves tortured by guilt.”

See the link here:

https://www.ncronline.org/books/2022/06/history-confession-tale-sexual-obsession-exploitation

Conclusion

Confessing your sins is absolutely critical if you want to make it to Heaven.  If you want real forgiveness, confess them directly to God.  No need for a human mediator.  God understands better than anyone else and He knows all your sins before you even open your mouth, even your most secret sins!  Then why tell Him?  Because God wants you to be honest and to humble yourself and admit your sins and your rebellion against Him:

God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble. (James 4:6)

I’m not saying that a Catholic cannot ever be forgiven in the confessional, but he could still be forgiven IN SPITE OF this unbiblical ritual!

Mandatory confession to a priest tends to cause one to trust in a system, rather than in Jesus and His work on the cross.

But I have a question…

If you confess to a priest, then what happens between confessions?  What if you commit a sin after Confession (and you will), and then die before your next confession?  A Catholic may say that God is always fair and He will give you an opportunity to be saved.  Ok, so if that’s true, then what’s the purpose, what’s the need, for confessing to a priest in the first place?

We have a wonderful example in Scripture of the end of the mediation of the priesthood.  The moment that Jesus Christ died on the cross, the great veil in the temple that separated the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies was torn in half… exposing the Ark of the Covenant!  I can’t imagine the horror that was in the faces of the priests who were working in the temple at the time, conducting the evening sacrifice.  No doubt, they thought they were going to die on the spot, since the place of God’s very presence was exposed!

But no, God was making an incredible statement that would ring through time and eternity… WE CAN NOW APPROACH THE LIVING GOD OURSELVES, EVEN CONFIDENTLY, and know that He will hear us.  No more need for a ministerial priesthood to mediate for us:

Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need. (Hebrews 4:16)

Confession directly to God is part of the new and better covenant. (Hebrews 8:6)

 

  

THE CONCEPT OF MERIT IN CATHOLICISM

 

Catholics and Protestants certainly disagree on their understanding of justification (salvation).  I would consider salvation the most important biblical topic there is, so it would be wise to delve into this subject. 

But how does one get saved?  How will anyone make it to Heaven and enjoy eternal life with God?  The Bible teaches that a person is saved by the grace (unmerited favor) of God, through faith (Ephesians 2:8-10) in the work and suffering of Jesus Christ on the cross.  This faith is apart from the merit of works that we do (Romans 3:28; Titus 3:5).  We believe that good works will be present in the life of a Christian, but they are a result of one’s salvation – never a means to cause salvation.  Many (but not all) Protestants hold to this view.  Again, it is by faith alone, i.e., apart from the merit of one’s works.

But Catholics see it differently.  The Catholic Church teaches that a person is saved by grace, through faith – so far, so good – but he needs to add certain works to the equation, and this is where they deviate from the biblical position (Romans 4:4-5).  These works, they believe, merit salvation through an increase of justification with each grace-filled work you do.  So, to briefly sum up the Catholic view, salvation equals “faith plus works.”

This is a true assessment of what they teach, but many Catholics will say, “No, we don’t teach that we work for our salvation,” and they will point out that the Council of Trent specifically says:

 “…and we are therefore said to be justified gratuitously, because none of those things that precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification." (Chapter VIII)

And they respond, “See, not justified by our works.”

Contradictions

Ok, sounds good, right?  But the Council of Trent goes on to say elsewhere:

“If any one saith, that the justice 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.” (Canon XXIV)

And again:

“If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.” (CANON XXXII)

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC #2068), Trent teaches that observance of the Commandments (which are works) is necessary for salvation.  And the Catechism footnotes Lumen Gentium, a dogmatic constitution of the Catholic Church, which reads:

“Bishops, as successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord, to whom was given all power in heaven and on earth, the mission to teach all nations and to preach the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain to salvation by faith, baptism and the fulfilment of the commandments.” (Chapter III, Par. 24 – Emphasis added)

Furthermore, the Catechism says:

“… The Church does not know of any means other than baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude..." (CCC #1257)

And again:

“The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation…” (CCC #1129)

Ok, the above quotes tell us that good works (including Catholic sacraments and obeying the Commandments) merit grace for Catholics and these are a cause of salvation.  How much plainer can it be that there is a double standard here in official Catholic teaching?  The Catholic Church seems to be speaking out of both sides of its mouth.  First, they say justification is not by works, then they say that it is!  How does the Catholic Church solve this dilemma? 

Enter the Catholic View of Merit

Catholics will say that the Council of Trent meant that there are no works done before justification that can save a person – only those done afterward will save/justify. 

But wait a minute!  Why does one need to be justified after he’s already been justified?  Why be justified again?  This is what the Council of Trent means when it speaks of an “increase” of justification.  According to this, a Catholic can be “justified” thousands of times, i.e., every time he performs a “grace-filled” work (which produces merit).  And each time this happens, he gets “more justified” – they don’t use this term, but that’s what it means!  So, theirs is actually a “point system” which earns salvation.

Now, Catholics don’t like to use the term “earn” when speaking of salvation.  This is too obviously unacceptable, so they prefer to use the term “merit” instead.

But if there is any doubt, one can go to almost any thesaurus or dictionary to find that the terms “earn” and “merit” are synonyms.  They mean the same thing!  Splitting hairs with fancy Latin terms doesn’t change that fact.

However, Catholics make an artificial distinction between earning salvation and “meriting” salvation.  They split the definition of merit into three different forms:

Strict merit – Like what Jesus has done on the cross.  He is the only One who could actually earn salvation for us.  An example of strict merit would be your boss owing you a paycheck because you truly earned it by working.  Your work was equal to the payment.  According to the Catholic Church, only Jesus can have this type of merit.

Condign merit – This is where God owes us something only because He has promised it.  I heard one Catholic compare it to a young son who rakes the leaves for his dad.  The dad gives him much more than it is worth.  The son didn’t really earn this amount of money, but the dad pays his son because of his promise to give him something.

Congruent merit – This is the lowest kind of merit.  Perhaps something wasn’t promised to you by God, but He gives it to you simply because of His kindness and His loving nature.  It’s just “fitting” that He would do this.  That’s the only reason for your meriting it.  Someone described it as “not precisely merit, but well-founded expectation.”

Are They Biblical?

Ok, so what do we make of these three distinctions?  Are they biblical, or are Catholics just splitting hairs and making up definitions? 

I agree with their meaning of “strict” merit and that only Jesus can achieve this – actually, I think that, of the three meanings above, this is the only biblical definition of merit.  But is there even such a thing as condign and congruent merit when it comes to salvation?  No, not at all.  Biblically speaking, they do not, and cannot, apply toward salvation/justification. 

Someone could possibly use these terms to make a case for earthly or physical things, or even for the rewards we will receive in Heaven, but not for salvation, itself.  We’re not talking about something as trivial as raking the leaves here.  Eternal life simply cannot be earned or merited by us.

The Promise Tells Me So

God did indeed promise salvation, so it is, in a very limited sense, owed (IF one meets the condition).  But what is the condition of that promise?  Catholics conveniently overlook that part when they talk about merit.  Their own concept of merit is read into the promise. 

But the required condition for salvation is a changed heart and surrendering to God through faith, while putting aside the (supposed) merit of your works so that you cannot boast (Romans 3:27; Ephesians 2:9).  No boasting means no merit!  The promise of salvation is based on FAITH ALONE. 

God makes a promise (salvation) and clearly tells us how to get it (by faith).  The Catholic Church then takes that promise and injects into it the idea of “condign merit,” just because a promise is involved.  They are focusing on the promise, but ignoring the way to get it, as revealed by God!  Again, it is a free gift (Romans 4:16; 5:15,18; 6:23), not something you merit.

You cannot say that you have merited something just because a promise is attached.  If a rich man promises to give an undeserving poor man a billion dollars, would the poor man dare tell him that he merited it simply because it was promised to him?  The rich man would be utterly insulted, and rightly so.  How much more is it an insult to Almighty God when anyone feels that they have in any way merited His free gift?

Defining Grace

Catholics believe that they can merit a measure of grace each time they do a good work.  But the concept of “meriting grace” is incoherent, irrational and inconsistent.  It is an oxymoron, just like the following terms are: imperfect perfection, divided unity, virtual reality, silent noise, etc.  It is a self-refuting and meaningless phrase.  By definition, grace cannot be deserved, earned or merited.  Concerning salvation, Romans 11:6 tells us:

“But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, since otherwise grace is no longer grace.” (NASV)

I’m sorry, my Catholic friends, but it can’t get any clearer than this.  It is either grace/faith… or it is works/earning/merit.  If it is one of them, then it cannot be the other, also.  They are complete opposites. You are either on one side or the other.  So it can’t be “faith plus works.”  

I find it amazing that the Council of Trent actually quotes Romans 11:6 in Chapter 8 of the Sixth Session.  How can anyone push “faith plus works” after reading this verse?  It is incredible that they would annul their own position by pointing to this passage.

Paul Destroys the “Faith Plus Works” Error!

The Catholic concept that good works save you after being justified utterly contradicts Galatians 3:1-3:

1 - “You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?”

2 - “This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?” 

3 - “Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?”

The apostle Paul made it absolutely clear to the Galatians that their salvation was not started by works and not perfected (or completed) by works.  It was by the Holy Spirit, through faith.  “The flesh” that Paul mentions in v. 3 was adding something to the gospel.

Stop and think: The sin of the Judaizers (who were influencing the Galatians) was literally ADDING GOOD WORKS (circumcision and following the Commandments – Acts 15:1, 5) TO THE GOSPEL IN ORDER TO BE SAVED.  Please let this sink in.  Was anything wrong with these works?  No, they were God-ordained works, good works, works that were normally pleasing to Him.  But God’s work of salvation is not completed by your works!  He doesn’t need man's works to save us.  Faith/trusting in His work on the cross is sufficient.

So, according to the apostle Paul, there are no works at any stage of your Christian walk that save/justify.  Not before, and not after, as Galatians 3:3 indicates.  The Galatians were guilty of adding to the gospel of grace.  Adding anything (even good works) to the cross is what the book of Galatians condemns.

Conclusion

The Catholic system of merit is a false system.  There are no “levels” of justification.  There is no “increase” of justification.  Justification happens the precise moment a person gets saved, and it is a one-time event.  According to Scripture, it is sanctification that’s a process, not justification (Philippians 2:12-13; 3:12-13; Hebrews 10:14).

The Catholic Church’s concept of merit is so warped, so far from biblical standards that it includes the “Treasury of Merit.”  According to this teaching, not only can a Catholic’s merit save him, but his “excess merit” can be applied to save OTHERS, as well:

"… In the treasury, too, are the prayers and good works of all the saints, all those who have followed in the footsteps of Christ the Lord… In this way they attained their own salvation and at the same time cooperated in saving their brothers in the unity of the Mystical Body." (CCC #1477 – Emphasis added)

The Catholic Church is guilty of re-defining merit, thus perverting the gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

BLESSED ASSURANCE

Protestant churches today are not what they used to be.  And I think that it is partially because of our neglect of the great old hymns.  They are simple, yet beautiful and full of meaning.  These hymns were foundational to the great faith of Christians in the past.  But much of today’s “contemporary Christian music” is little more than catchy, repetitious phrases of “loving Jesus,” etc.  There’s nothing wrong with loving Jesus, but the question is, does this kind of music glorify God with its worldly, hypnotic and driving beat and its shallow content?  There is not much substance to many of these contemporary songs, while the old hymns were filled with biblical doctrine.  They didn’t just give you a good feeling, they taught deep scriptural principles.

The following link contains a very good article dealing with contemporary Christian music.  The author rightly states, “Music is to worship God and not to get high on the beat.”  See here:

https://www.thescribesportion.com/todays-christian-music/

One of my personal favorites of the great hymns is Blessed Assurance.  Having been raised Catholic, I don’t ever remember this song being sung in the Catholic Church and I doubt if it ever will be.  The Catholic Church, in general, tends to stay away from the topic of assurance of salvation.  But you see, this old popular hymn is about biblical assurance.  Now, there is a balance to this doctrine of assurance of salvation because it has unsound teachings on either side of it. 

On the one hand, there is Calvinism, which often expresses what some would consider too much assurance, and on the other hand, there are some religions (including Catholicism), which tend to express too little assurance.  The biblical teaching is somewhere in the middle.

But, to their credit, Catholics don’t believe in the hardcore Calvinistic “once saved, always saved” doctrine.  And neither do many Protestants, including myself.  I have a series of articles on this particular topic pointing out some of its errors, which can be seen here:

https://theresurrectionstillspeaks.blogspot.com/2019/08/some-thoughts-on-once-saved-always.html

https://theresurrectionstillspeaks.blogspot.com/2019/09/some-thoughts-on-once-saved-always.html

https://theresurrectionstillspeaks.blogspot.com/2019/10/some-thoughts-on-once-saved-always.html

On the other hand, for biblical salvation, we don’t have to strain and sweat and work ourselves to death in hopes that we will gain enough “points” (good works) to make it into Heaven.  Catholics will say that they don’t do this, but Catholic teachings lean heavily toward such a works-based salvation and therefore, a lack of biblical assurance. 

And why would I say that a lack of assurance follows a “salvation of works”?  The truth is that it is inevitable that a person who is trusting in his works to gain Heaven will, at some point in his life, wonder if he really has enough works.  This question continually haunts the individual who bases his salvation on his good deeds.  It seems that, at some point, he begins to realize that God requires PERFECTION (Matthew 5:48; James 2:10)!  And none of us are perfect, so it is impossible to achieve Heaven through our good works, rituals or sacraments (Romans 4:4-5; Titus 3:5).  The Bible tells us that our only hope is to trust in the Person of Jesus Christ and His work of suffering on the cross.  You can’t substitute anything else for it, and you can’t add anything to the cross to “help” merit salvation.  There are plenty articles on this blog that deal with the relationship between salvation and works, if anyone wants to do a simple topic search.  

But concerning assurance, the Council of Trent, in its Sixth Session, Canon XVI states:

“If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end, unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema.”  See here:

http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch6.htm

Now, we would agree that a person today cannot have infallible certainty (only God has that).  As for as absolute certainty, that could be debated, depending on your definition of “absolute.”  But according to Scripture, we certainly can have a sufficient certainty:

“These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.” (1 John 5:13 – Emphasis added)

The Amplified Bible is more emphatic and says:

“… so that you will know [with settled and absolute knowledge] that you [already] have eternal life.”

But the Catholic Church calls this type of assurance “the sin of presumption.”  The largest lay Catholic organization in the country, Catholic Answers, says this about presumption.  They tell us that according to the Baltimore Catechism:

“Q. 1183. What is presumption?

A.   Presumption is a rash expectation of salvation without making proper use of the necessary means to obtain it.”

See here:

https://www.catholic.com/qa/the-sin-of-presumption

And again, Catholic Answers tells us that this is how the old Catholic Encyclopedia defines the sin of presumption:

“It may be defined as the condition of a soul that, because of a badly regulated reliance on God’s mercy and power, hopes for salvation without doing anything to deserve it, or for pardon of his sins without repenting of them.”

See here:

https://www.catholic.com/qa/what-is-the-sin-of-presumption

But I have a problem with both of these quotes.  The Baltimore Catechism quote speaks of the “necessary means” of salvation.  Well, to the Catholic, this includes faith (rightly so), but it also includes works, like baptism and other rituals/sacraments.  But this is not biblical, as I stated earlier.

The old Catholic Encyclopedia quote speaks of doing something to deserve salvation.  We Protestants believe in the repentance mentioned in this quote, but there is nothing we can do to deserve what Jesus did for us.  This is because “… while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:8).

Biblical assurance is not presumption.  We simply must “hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast unto the end (Hebrews 3:12-14).

Furthermore, according to Roman Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott:

“The reason for the uncertainty of the state of grace lies in this that without a special revelation nobody can with certainty of faith know whether or not he has fulfilled all the conditions which are necessary for the achieving of justification. The impossibility of the certainty of faith, however, by no means excludes a high moral certainty supported by the testimony of conscience.” (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 262)  See here:

https://cornellcatholic.org/documents/2020/12/fundamentalsofcatholicdogma.pdf

So according to this theologian, without a direct, supernatural revelation from God, no one can know with certainty whether or not “… he has fulfilled all the conditions” required for salvation.  This, my friend, is enslavement.  This is the haunting uncertainty of a works-based salvation that I just mentioned above.  But not to fear!  Let it be known that there is only ONE biblical condition for salvation – to believe (trust) in the Lord Jesus Christ and in His work on the cross (Acts 16:30-31).  This doesn’t mean that the person shouldn’t be baptized, or that he won’t do any other good works – but it does mean that he will not be trusting in these works for his salvation. 

This is the reason why we can indeed have assurance that we are saved and will go to Heaven: It is dependent on HIS work, not ours.

Yes, it is possible that someone who is saved can fall away (again, see the links above on “once saved, always saved).  But staying saved is about where you keep your trust - it is simply maintaining your trust and faith in Jesus Christ (Galatians 3:3). 

This type of faith is a true and living faith, i.e., one which will produce good works and a deep love for God.  It is not a dead faith, nor is it a blind faith.  It is a simple faith that honors God.  It is the type of faith that God, Himself, has chosen to get His people into Heaven! 

With this type of faith, the playing field is level.  Every human has equal opportunity.  It doesn’t depend on our strength, our wisdom, size, gender, physical state, finances or skill in life.  We are all equal at the cross.  Anyone and everyone can attain this free gift – if he wants it and is willing to surrender to God and to let God change his heart.

With this type of faith, you can indeed have that blessed assurance of which the great old hymn speaks.  

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.

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.