JOHN MARTIGNONI’S LOSING BATTLE

 

I’ve previously devoted several of my articles to addressing comments made by Catholic apologist and speaker John Martignoni, who maintains the Bible Christian Society newsletter.  Today, we will deal with his Newsletter #410.  You can find it here:

https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/586-apologetics-for-the-masses-410-private-interpretation-of-the-bible-vs-church-teaching

John often speaks about how Protestants (who admit to being fallible) will have a problem correctly interpreting Scripture, while claiming it is not an issue with Catholics.  He emphasizes that what the Protestant believes depends entirely on his private, fallible interpretation of the Bible, while the Catholic can rest confidently in the authority of the Catholic Church for correct interpretations.

In this particular newsletter, he gets a question from someone named “Cary L.” who asks:

“Why is your potentially fallible decision to trust the claims of the Roman Catholic Church for your salvation correct?

John Martignoni states that it is an excellent question, and I agree!  In fact, I don’t think that John (or any other Catholic) can adequately answer it the way he wants to without violating Scripture or common sense.

First Things First

But John requests that Cary first deal with a question of his (John’s) own:

“If you are not infallible in your interpretation of Scripture, then how do you have any sure way of knowing what is and is not authentic Christian doctrine and practice?”

Ok, so let me try to adequately answer John Martignoni’s question to Cary L.  It’s about certainty.  The question is assuming that infallibility is a must to be able to know basic Christian doctrine.  But this doesn’t follow.  This is the same old false dichotomy that some Catholic apologists use over and over: 1) either your interpretation is infallible (i.e., unable to err), or 2) it has to be wrong.  It is as though there is no third option.  But every single person is fallible, yet, many times a person gets the interpretation correct!  Just because an interpretation could possibly be wrong doesn’t mean that it will indeed be wrong.

Post-apostolic Christians don’t have infallibility, but we don’t need it to have enough certainty to come to the knowledge of the truth, or to be saved.  We only need a sufficient amount of certainty. 

Are there some passages more difficult than others?  Yes, there are (2 Peter 3:15-16).  Do we get it wrong sometimes?  Yes, we may.  And you may say, “That’s not very reassuring if it’s possible that we can be wrong!”  But that’s what Bible study is for, and nowhere in that Bible are we told that we need infallibility to interpret a Bible verse.  In fact, Scripture points out that the common person can indeed understand it.  Jesus expected exactly that!  See here:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2013/07/quick-notes-on-sola-scriptura-part-6.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/search?q=interpretation

In fact, it was mostly the common people who listened to and followed Jesus.  Basic hermeneutical concepts (i.e., Bible interpretation principles) and common sense go a long way here. 

What’s the Difference?

Ok, back to Cary’s question.  Cary is basically asking: “Isn’t the reasoning of the Catholic who is trusting in his understanding of Church teachings just as fallible as the reasoning of the Protestant who is trusting in his understanding of Scripture?  The answer is yes, indeed.

But Martignoni is saying no, it isn’t.  He says that what Protestants do “does not at all equate with my accepting the teachings of the Catholic Church as being authoritative and infallible.”  In other words, the Protestant has a problem, but the Catholic can’t go wrong when trusting in his “infallible” church. 

Supposedly, Protestants can’t read and understand infallible Scripture with certainty, yet Catholics can confidently read and understand their church’s “infallible” teaching.  But how is it that the Catholic is supposed to somehow have more certainty than the Protestant?  He doesn’t.  There is no difference.  Even if they end up with an infallible source, they still both have to begin with their fallible reasoning.

Martignoni’s “Infallibility”

John Martignoni goes on to state that he is indeed infallible in his first-hand knowledge of some things, for example, he “infallibly” knows that he is married, that he lives in Birmingham, that 2+2=4, etc. 

He further says that he can know something infallibly about matters of which he has second-hand knowledge, like the speed of light, the fuel for the sun, the year of the death of George Washington, etc.

Ok, I get his point, but these last things he mentioned would have less certainty, since some scientists, researchers, historians and authorities may have actually got some of their information wrong.  It happens from time to time.

But, of course, the infallibility that we are concerned with here is not about these things.  We are speaking of having infallible certainty in spiritual and moral matters.  No one but God has this level of certainty.  But again, He does give humans sufficient certainty in spiritual matters (1 John 5:13).

But John’s whole point, I think, is that the things he mentioned here are told to us by an “authoritative” source (scientists, researchers, historians, etc.).  So, apparently, according to John, if it’s based on some authority, it must be true, correct?  And of course, depending on an authoritative source is exactly what John will claim, concerning the Catholic Church.  He also makes a big deal over Cary’s admission of fallibility, and he keeps throwing it back into Cary’s face.  But fallibility is not necessarily a weakness when it comes to Bible interpretation.  We all have fallibility and Martignoni needs to stop pretending that Catholics are somehow immune to it, just because they believe their Church to be infallible. 

Double Standard

We use our fallible reasoning daily in everything we do, and most people use it effectively.  By the way, every type of communication has to be interpreted.  And the Catholic, just like the Protestant, is obligated to use his own fallible, “non-authoritative,” “private” understanding to interpret not only the Bible, but also to interpret his own church’s teachings.  Again, no one has moral infallibility today, and it doesn’t take such a gift to have a sufficient amount of certainty.  There is no getting around this fact, in spite of what John Martignoni says.  There is a double standard being used here.

All Christians should use the Scriptures to evaluate their own church’s teaching.  1 Thessalonians 5:21 says to “… test all things.”  But this does not apply only to the leaders, but to the “laity,” as well.  Checks and balances.

The problem is that John has been pushing his version of “fallibility-can’t-produce-certainty” for a long time.  He refuses to give up his argument, but he is still wrong on this. 

Biblical “Proof” of the Need for an Infallible Magisterium?

He then demeans the God-breathed Scriptures when he tells Cary:

“The Scriptures reflect the tradition of the Christian faith, they are not the source of the Christian faith, as you make them out to be.” (Emphasis mine)

Ok, first of all, I’ve never seen a Catholic who can actually fully define this Sacred Tradition.  You can’t trust in it if you can’t accurately tell us what all it contains.  See here:

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

Second, the Christian faith is indeed encapsulated in Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16-17).  This is how we know what the true Christian faith is, and this is also how we detect false doctrine.

John proceeds to mention a couple of Bible passages to attempt to prove that we need more than just the Bible.  He uses Nehemiah 8:1-8 to suggest that it was the leaders in this passage (like in the Catholic Magisterium) who had to explain what the Book of the Law was saying.  But we have to remember that, in this context, these Jews had just returned from Babylon (whose language had become ingrained in their minds for many years while there).  Many of those Jews grew up with the Babylonian language.  But the Book of the Law was written in Hebrew, so, many Jews in that seventy-year exile had to now “brush up” on their native language, while some could probably speak very little Hebrew!  That’s why the Jewish leaders had to expound/translate the Law for the people.  So, this passage does not at all prove that we need an infallible magisterium to interpret for us.

Again, John Martignoni also uses Acts 8:30-31 for the same purpose.  In this passage, the Ethiopian eunuch is reading the book of Isaiah aloud, and Philip asks the eunuch if he understands what he is reading.  The eunuch responds, “How can I unless someone guides me?” (Acts 8:31).   Catholics will often respond, “See, there it is!  We need an infallible Magisterium to interpret Scripture for us.” 

But, to use the words of John Martignoni, “Not so fast!”  Philip was NOT an apostle, a pope, or part of an infallible magisterium, but simply a deacon in the church (Acts 6:5)!  So why does John use this passage to try to prove a magisterium?  Is there some intentional deception going on here? 

Furthermore, these passages that John quoted do not negate the abundance of verses showing that the common man is expected to understand Scripture, as revealed in the links above.

Later on, John points out more passages to demonstrate that the (Catholic) Church has authority to bind and loose (Matthew 16:19), to decide between disputes (Matthew 18:15-19), to teach with authority (Luke 10:16), etc., etc., to suggest that the Catholic Church fits all that criteria.  But most of these points are addressed in the following 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/2009/09/pillar-and-foundation.html

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

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

John’s attempt to use Scripture to show that the Catholic Church is infallible falls far short of its goal.

John’s System

It’s a losing battle, but John gives it his best shot and waxes eloquent in his explanation of how he arrives at his conclusion:

“My theological system is based on the teachings of the 2000-year old Catholic Church which I believe, after careful consideration of the available evidence, and there is a lot of evidence - historical, scriptural, logical, etc. - was founded by Jesus Christ and is guided by the Holy Spirit and operates with the authority of Jesus Christ which He Himself gave to it.”

But unfortunately, John had to use his fallible reasoning, step by step, to come to this conclusion!  This happens in each of those steps in this process, yet John thinks he is bypassing this issue of man’s fallibility.  He is not.

John Martignoni greatly downplays fallibility, but if it weren’t for his fallible reasoning, he would have never discovered his “infallible Church” (even though his conclusion is wrong).  So, if John’s fallible reasoning is good enough to get him to that conclusion (after plowing through the logical data, Scripture, tons of church history, studying the multitude of church fathers, studying Sacred Tradition, etc., etc.), wouldn’t that same fallible reasoning be good enough to simply read and understand Scripture in the first place?  If your fallible reasoning can help you navigate through all that, you should be able to trust it to understand and interpret Scripture.  Apparently, the Catholic Church can’t trust you to read Scripture directly, but they can trust you to go through all the above process with no issues!  Interesting logic.

Conclusion

It is not only John Martignoni, but there are many Catholic apologists that emphasize the Catholic Church’s ability to “infallibly interpret” the Bible. 

We need to ask, though, exactly how much of the Bible is actually interpreted infallibly by the Church?  No one really knows, since Catholics disagree on the number of verses with such a status.  But know this for sure… it is only an incredibly tiny fraction of the Scriptures that the Catholic Church has interpreted with such certainty!  If infallible interpretation is so critical (and the Catholic Church seems to think that it is), then why are so few verses rendered as “infallibly” determined?  What about the “certainty” of the rest of the verses in the Bible? 

If you appeal to common sense (or something like it) then why can’t Protestants do the same thing?  The Catholic’s certainty is not any greater than ours.  See also this link:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/10/martignoni-and-authority-to-interpret.html

Catholics will say, “But if you misunderstand something in Scripture, the ‘Living Church’ can correct you, unlike the Bible.” 

But misunderstandings don’t just happen to Protestants. 
There are plenty Catholics who also misunderstand “infallibly-interpreted” Church teachings.

But the Bible is indeed a living book (Hebrews 4:12), given to us by the Word of God, Himself (John 1:1), and its words will judge us on the last day (John 12:48).  It is not the Catholic Catechism that will judge us on the last day.  And neither will the Catholic Church.  It will be the words of Jesus Christ, the Messiah, penned inside the greatest book the world has ever known.  It is a miraculous, God-proven and God-breathed book (2 Timothy 3:16), with its contents perfectly interwoven by God.  And if a person studies it, he will soon see that it does indeed correct misunderstandings, if you take it in context, and in its totality.  It is a life-changing book of such great magnitude, yet it can be understood sufficiently by mere humans whose hearts are right.

So what’s the answer when we disagree with someone else about Bible passages?  Horror of horrors [for some Catholics], it simply comes down to us debating the Bible using our fallible minds (along with decent biblical hermeneutics, common sense and a humble attitude -Luke 8:15).

John Martignoni, I hope that you will be humble enough to recognize (and admit!) that your worn-out arguments about man’s uncertainty due to his fallibility don’t hold water.  Stop misleading your audience.  Since this is a losing battle for any Catholic, let’s put this false teaching to rest.

PENAL SUBSTITUTIONARY ATONEMENT (Part 2)

 

In an article by Stephen J. Wellum, Professor of Christian Theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, he states:

“In his classic book, The Cross of Christ (IVP, 2006), John Stott famously wrote: ‘At the root of every caricature of the cross there lies a distorted Christology’ (159). I couldn’t agree more, yet it’s crucial to remember that a true Christology is also dependent on a correct theology proper. Thus, it’s more precise to say: ‘At the root of every caricature of the cross is a distorted doctrine of God.’ If we get God wrong, we will never grasp the problem of sin, and its glorious solution in Christ and his cross. In fact, all common objections to penal substitutionary atonement (PSA) are ultimately rooted in sub-biblical ideas regarding the triune God of Scripture.”

See here:

https://www.9marks.org/article/answering-4-common-objections-to-psa/

I think that sums it up pretty well.  In Part 1 of this series, I shared some thoughts on the Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) view and said that it was the most graphic demonstration of God’s love shown to mankind.  And I do believe that a wrong view of the atonement will give one a distorted view of the nature and character of God.

I also mentioned that Catholics don’t agree with PSA as it seems to be a problem for them.  They, as well as some Protestants, feel that the idea of Jesus being punished for man’s sin is barbaric.  God’s wrath could not possibly fall on His Son.  Jesus is, and always was, innocent and (according to them) punishing Him would be wrong.  But I think that a close look at the typology of the Old Testament animal sacrifices would clearly reveal the concept of PSA to be valid.

Origin of Animal Sacrifice

Just to clear the air, some compare Old Testament animal sacrifices with heathen rituals, and claim that the Old Testament based its sacrifices on these heathen ceremonies.  But the heathen were not the first to use them.  The truth is that God was the first One to use animal sacrifices – and it started with Adam and Eve.  Once they sinned, they realized that they were naked, so they used fig leaves to cover themselves.  But God took innocent animals, killed them, and used their skins to cover Adam and Eve, making them greatly aware of the seriousness of their disobedience (Genesis 3:21).  The Lord made the same point when dealing with Cain and Abel (Genesis 4:3-5) and with the Jews in the wilderness (Leviticus chapters 3-5) when they wanted forgiveness and offered up sacrifices.  Every Jew in the Old Testament understood what was going on in those sacrifices.  They saw that an innocent animal loses its life in order to pay for the sins of the one who brings the sacrifice.  It was the animal who suffered the wrath and punishment intended for the sinner.

You see, in God’s scheme of things, blood MUST be shed for the forgiveness of sins (Hebrews 9:22), and He used innocent animals to portray this fact.  But this practice of animal sacrifice was temporary, since it was fulfilled, once for all, by Jesus on the cross (Hebrews 9:12; 10:11-14).

John the baptist made an incredible statement about Jesus: 

“The next day he saw Jesus coming to him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29 - NASV)

This monumental statement by John the baptist told everyone what was going to happen.  John understood the fact that all Old Testament animal sacrifices pointed to Jesus.  And remember, it was mandatory that those sacrifices should be without blemish (Leviticus 1:3; Deuteronomy 15:21), just as Jesus was (Hebrews 9:14).  The typology of the Old Testament foreshadows the perfect sacrifice of Jesus in the New Testament.  There’s no escaping the Old Testament typology of atonement through animal sacrifices, where the innocent was punished for the guilty.

“He made Him who knew no sin to be sin in our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” (2 Corinthians 5:21- NASV)  

This is very strong language, but it satisfies the symbolism of the Old Testament sacrifices. 

I have said all this to demonstrate to Catholics and others the fact that Jesus’ atonement was indeed God’s wrath poured upon Him, showing PSA to be true.

The Suffering Servant

What did Jesus do for us at the cross?  According to Psalm 53:

·      He bore our griefs and carried our sorrows (Psalm 53:4)    

    He was wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities (v. 5)

·     The punishment that brought us peace was upon Him (v. 5)

·      We were healed [spiritually] by His stripes (v. 5)

·      The iniquity of mankind was laid upon Him (v. 6)

·      He was stricken [punished] for the transgression [wrongdoing] of God’s people (v. 8)

·      He bore our iniquities/wrongdoings (v. 11)

·      He bore the sin of many (v. 12)

·      He made intercession for us [the transgressors] (v. 12)

Notice the language here in Psalm 53: The Psalmist is saying over and over that He (Jesus Christ) carried a weight, a burden. He bore griefs; He carried sorrows; man’s punishment was upon Him; iniquity was laid upon Him; and He was bearing our burden of sin.  Wrath is attached to sin.  In the Old Testament, God expressed His wrath by placing the man’s sins upon the innocent animal.  In the same way, in the New Testament, God has expressed His wrath by placing mankind’s sins upon His innocent Son.  Again, there is no escaping the fact that Jesus endured God’s wrath/punishment.

Imputation

As I stated in Part 1, His taking our sin and us receiving His righteousness is all possible because of the doctrine of imputation.  J.V. Fesko, Professor of Systematic and Historical Theology at Reformed Theological Seminary, Jackson, Mississippi, defines imputation in this way:

“The doctrine of imputation teaches that while Adam’s sin is imputed to us because he is our natural federal head, God imputes or accredits the righteousness and suffering of Jesus to those who are in him and, conversely, imputes the sins of those redeemed to Christ.”

See here:

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/the-doctrine-of-imputation/

The apostle Paul speaks of imputation in Romans 4:6, 8, 11, and 22-24.

The biblical word “imputed” is a legal term and indicates an undeserved status - Jesus’ righteousness was imputed to us (though we are undeserving) and our sins were imputed to Him (though He is undeserving of it, i.e., sinless).  His righteousness was legally “accounted” or “credited” to us.  Again, this is only possible due to imputation.  Logically speaking, if Jesus’ righteousness was imputed to us, then our sins (and the punishment and suffering attached to them) had to be imputed to Him.  Just as righteousness is imputed to man, sin and separation were imputed to Jesus.

What the Atonement Was Not

Some will complain that the PSA view depicts a “human sacrifice,” and that the Bible forbids that (2 Kings 16:2-3).  But the atonement of Jesus Christ was not such a “human sacrifice” for at least two reasons. 

First, Jesus is not just human, but He is also divine. 

Second, His punishment on the cross was voluntarily accepted by Him. 

Human sacrifices were repeated over and over and dedicated to demonic idols (e.g., Baal, Molech, etc.) with the intention to honor and appease false gods.  Jesus’ atonement was a one-time offer to the one true God to redeem mankind.  Big difference.

Something else – Jesus did not suffer in Hell.  He went to Hell to preach to the “spirits in prison” (1 Peter 3:18-20).  But His suffering – and His victory – was on the cross.  That’s where atonement happened and that’s where forgiveness occurs, not in Hell.

How Bad Was It?

What was the extent of His suffering?  Can any human know for sure?  Remember, Jesus wasn’t the only one who died on a cross.  Over the centuries, there were many who had been crucified, some suffering several days on a cross before dying.  Jesus spent only six hours on His cross, but I refuse to believe that any of the others suffered more than He did.  Something more than just physical pain was going on at Jesus’ crucifixion.  There was something supernatural happening there, something in the spiritual realm.   

Maybe He suffered something equivalent to eternity in Hell.  I don’t know.  Perhaps, since He is an eternal being, an eternity was somehow “compressed” into those few hours of suffering in that deep darkness (Luke 23:44-45).  We don’t know, but at least some of what happened on the cross is certainly a mystery, yet, we dare not minimize His suffering there.  Whatever happened, He is God and He was able to endure such suffering.

The Ugliness of Sin

Dr. Michael Brown (a famous Jewish biblical scholar, radio host and author who understands well the Old Testament sacrificial system) said this about the atonement:

“Each human being owed a debt that none of us could pay back. But the Son of God, with His infinite ‘credit,’ said, ‘I will pay for all of it.’ So, at one and the same time, God can be perfectly just and perfectly merciful.

And He shows us how deeply He loves us by showing us how ugly sin is. If He simply said, ‘I look the other way; I forgive you,’ it doesn’t show us the ugliness of sin. It doesn’t show us God’s justice. It doesn’t give us a picture of the exchange that took place through the cross. We now receive what Jesus deserves, and He took what we deserve. This produces a gratefulness far beyond what simply saying ‘I forgive you’ could ever produce, and it produces a hatred of sin in our lives because we’ve seen the ugly consequences of it. So, without that aspect of the cross, we do not understand the love of God.”

See here:

https://decisionmagazine.com/gods-wrath-atonement/

Conclusion

Jesus’ atonement on the cross is the focal point of all human history and the determining factor of every human’s eternal destiny.  You must accept it or deny it, but no one can afford to ignore it – nor should anyone downplay it.  Let’s be careful how we present His atonement.  The magnitude of that event cannot be fully grasped by mere humans. 

The extent to which God went to purchase vile and ungrateful mankind is nothing less than shocking, yet truly priceless.  Again, we need to be careful never to diminish the amount of suffering He endured on that cross.  In that event, God expressed both the ultimate punishment for sin, and His unfathomable love for man. 

Human fathers and mothers no doubt love their offspring, and many, if not most, would venture to die for their precious children.  But no human could ever love someone as much as Jesus has loved us.  The cross proves this fact.

One might ask, “Who was it that put Jesus on that bloody cross?  Was it the Roman soldiers?  Was it the Jewish leaders?”  The truth is that it was all of us, including you and me.  You might say, “But my sins are little compared to someone like Adolf Hitler’s!  Jesus may have had to suffer a lot for him, but He didn’t have to suffer that much for me!” 

No, I’m sorry, my friend.  James 2:10 says:

“For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.”

If you think your sin is no big deal, then why did God go to such extremes?  Why the bloody cross and the horrendous suffering? 

You see, even our “tiniest” sins are excessively ugly.  God is an infinitely holy God and that means that breaking the tiniest part of His Law makes you deserving of the same Hell that Adolf Hitler deserves!  The only difference between you and him is the degree of punishment, once there.  But it will be no comfort to look across the vast, smoke-filled landscape of burning sulfur and see Adolf Hitler suffering more than you are.  That won’t remove you from there.

According to 2 Peter 3:9:

“The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.” 

No one on earth has to go to Hell.  We all have a choice.  Simply put your trust in that shocking display of love at Calvary.  Trust Him and His suffering on the cross (and that alone) to be forgiven, to get into Heaven, and to escape the wrath of God.

 

PENAL SUBSTITUTIONARY ATONEMENT (Part 1)

I have stated before that a person’s doctrine (belief system) is so very important because it shapes his beliefs about the nature and character of God.  And for those who claim to be Christians, one of the topics of utmost importance is the atonement of Jesus Christ (i.e., the suffering and death that he experienced on the cross over two-thousand years ago) and its effects.

There are several different views of the atonement, and great minds and great scholars have debated this topic for centuries.  Some of the most popular views include (but are not limited to) the “Christ as Ransom” theory, the “Christ as Substitute” theory, the “Penal Substitutionary” theory, the “Moral Influence” theory, and the “Christus Victor” theory.  See this link:

https://andrewspringer.medium.com/five-views-on-the-atonement-of-christ-d71dddca9b84

There is probably at least some merit in most, if not all of, the theories of the atonement out there.      

But for our purposes in this article, we will be discussing the Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) view, which seems to be the most popular view in evangelical circles.  In this view, Jesus is said to have received the actual punishment for the sins of all mankind.  He became our substitute in the sense that God punished Him (the innocent) rather than us (the guilty).  He took our sins away (John 1:29) when He suffered and died in our place.  He endured the wrath we so rightly deserve.  But, in turn, we get His righteousness.  This transaction has been rightly labeled “the Great Exchange”:

“God made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.” (2 Corinthians 5:21)

One definition of PSA that I’ve heard is this:

“The doctrine of penal substitution states that God gave Himself, in the person of His Son, to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for our sin.” [Quoted by Mike Winger, from the book, “Pierced for Our Transgressions” written by Steve Jeffery, Michael Ovey and Andrew Sach].

See here:

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=497109820931222

What Do Catholics Believe?

I am not aware of any official view of the Catholic Church on this topic, but most Catholics of which I am aware are against PSA.

They generally believe that Jesus did not experience the Father’s wrath in our place.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church does say that “… Jesus accomplished the substitution of the suffering Servant, who ‘makes Himself an offering for sin,’ when ‘He bore the sin of many,’ and who ‘shall make many to be accounted righteous,’ for ‘He shall bear their iniquities’… Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father.” (CCC #615)

Ok, so far so good, but it seems that Catholics don’t see Christ’s work on the cross as a literal vicarious (substitutionary) punishment toward Him.  The popular Catholic website, Called to Communion, describes Jesus’ atonement as “… a sacrifice of love that was more pleasing to the Father than the combined sins of all men of all time are displeasing to Him, and thus made satisfaction for our sins… The Passion is a revelation of the love of God, not the wrath of God.”  See here:

https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/04/catholic-and-reformed-conceptions-of-the-atonement/

They are telling us that what Jesus suffered is NOT punishment, therefore not penal substitution.  They feel that it is Christ’s “positive gift” of love to the Father, rather than God pouring out His wrath on His Son.

Is it Really Wrath and Punishment?

If Jesus died in the sinner’s place, it would logically have to mean that He took the sinner’s punishment.

Dr. Leon Morris, a leading New Testament scholar, ties together propitiation (appeasement, restoration) and God’s anger/wrath concerning the atonement:

“If there is ‘a righteous anger’ of God, and the New Testament is clear that there is, then it cannot be ignored in the process of forgiveness' (The Cross in the New Testament, p. 349). Propitiation, then, a turning away of God's wrath, lies at the heart of Christ's redemptive work.”

See here:

https://thirdmill.org/magazine/article.asp/link/fre_leahy%5Efre_leahy.Wrath.Atonement.html/at/The%20Wrath%20of%20God%20in%20Relation%20to%20the%20Atonement

Morris also implies that propitiation presupposes wrath and he delves into the Greek here:

http://internetbiblecollege.net/Lessons/Propitiation%20Removing%20Gods%20Anger.htm

It’s funny how sometimes the simplest example is the most helpful.  The repentant thief on the cross near Jesus can teach us a valuable lesson here.  In his own simple way, he accurately summed up the doctrine of PSA.  Speaking to the unrepentant thief, he said:

“Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation?  And we indeed are suffering justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our crimes; but this man [Jesus] has done nothing wrong.” (Luke 23:40-41 - NASV)

What the repentant thief does next reveals his understanding of Jesus’ work there.  He turns to Jesus (without long prayers or a list of his great accomplishments in life) and simply says, “Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom” (v. 42).  He understood that Jesus wasn’t doing this for Himself, but that Jesus was being punished for him, the sinner.

Earlier in this series of events, Jesus spoke of the “cup” of which He was about to partake :

“… the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?” (John 18:11)

“…Take this cup from Me…” (Mark 14:35-36)

Compare this with Isaiah 51:17 – “…the cup of God’s wrath/fury/anger… [toward sin]”  Jesus knew He would experience the cup of God’s wrath.  That’s why He used those statements in John 18 and Mark 14 above.

1 Peter 2:24 says that He “bore our sins.”  “Bearing sin” necessarily means bearing the PENALTY for sin, which is God’s wrath.  In spite of what the folks at Called to Communion say, the atonement demonstrates both God’s love (toward mankind) AND His wrath (toward sin).   

“It Just Doesn’t Seem Right”

Many Catholics (and even some Protestants) consider the doctrine of PSA to be “cosmic child abuse” or a “barbarous child sacrifice.”  They believe that something like this can only be done by a “Divine Bully.” 

World famous atheist Richard Dawkins says of the atonement of Jesus Christ that it is “vicious, sado-masochistic and repellent… If God wanted to forgive our sins, why not just forgive them, without having himself tortured and executed in payment?”

But is the atonement about an angry, sadistic God with a big stick in His hand?  And why would God punish a holy and pure being for someone else’s sins?  Isn’t He a God of love and isn’t He supposed to be fair?  If He’s all-powerful, couldn’t He just forgive, as Dawkins suggests? 

No, you see, God can’t “just forgive sin” without dealing with it.  He must be angry with sin.  God, Himself, would be evil if He didn’t hate sin.  God never hated Jesus, but hated the sin He bore.  By His own standard, He has to address it.  If not, then He would be indifferent and uncaring about the effects of sin on other people’s lives!  Thus, even His wrath itself is actually one of the expressions of His love. 

The atonement was not a divine temper tantrum, nor a childish emotional outburst of anger on the Father’s part.  There is a difference between human wrath and God’s wrath.  Jesus voluntarily laid down His life (John 10:17-18).  It was a judicial/legal suffering on Jesus’ part.

Again, the atonement was not a “hissy fit” – it was, as someone said, a controlled expression of justice.  Everything about the atonement was done in full agreement between Father, Son and Holy Spirit (the Trinity), and it was decided before the foundation of the world (Acts 2:23; 1 Peter 1:20).  And speaking of the Trinity…

Does PSA “Destroy” the Trinity?

“And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46)

There are some that say that this verse can’t mean what it appears to mean.  They tell us that if the Son really was forsaken, that would destroy the relationship of the Trinity, or at least dismantle it.  It would seem to mean that God was divided against Himself.  So Jesus could not have been forsaken by the Father, right?  But yet, the words are right there in verse 46 and they have to mean something!

I would suggest that it was indeed a separation/forsaking of some kind.  It could not have been an absolute forsaking, but must necessarily have been temporary from a human standpoint.  God seems to have temporarily held back His mercy from His Son while Jesus carried the burden of the sins of mankind.  The Father turned His face away for a moment, since He can’t look upon sin, and Jesus experienced the sense of abandonment that we should have received!  This was something that had never happened before, and it will never happen again.

Jesus did not actually literally become sin, or become a literal sinner, and He was never actually guilty of sin.  Here’s where imputation comes in! (Colossians 2:13-14)  He was simply treated as though He had sin; He was treated as guilty, even though He wasn’t.  The unbearable weight of sin was placed upon Him.  But, being God, Jesus was able to endure that separation and punishment.

This was a divinely planned interruption that the Trinity prepared from the beginning of time for the salvation of the world.  It needed to be this way.  My friends, the Trinity is intact.  PSA does not harm the Father, the Son, nor the Holy Spirit.  Their bond and relationship continues forever.

I would hope that Catholics (and many Protestants) would reconsider their view about the Penal Substitutionary Atonement theory, since it is the most graphic demonstration of God’s love toward mankind.

We will continue next time with Part 2.

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.