“FAITH ALONE” (PART 3)

The First Attempt

The story of the offerings of Cain and Abel (Genesis 4:1-5), the first sons of Adam, is very revealing to us, and relevant to this topic. It demonstrates the fact that, since the beginning, God never intended that man’s works would ever contribute to his salvation. Both Cain and Abel brought a sacrifice to God: Cain brought an offering of the fruit of the ground (i.e., the labor of his hands), while Abel brought an innocent animal, an unblemished victim, of his flock. And of course, the Bible tells us that God accepted Abel’s offering, and not Cain’s. Cain’s offering is man’s first recorded attempt to earn salvation.

The very fact that the work of Cain’s hands was rejected, indicates that God wants us to trust in the Innocent Substitute in order to be saved, rather than our good works. Abel’s sacrifice represents Jesus on the cross, an innocent and perfectly unblemished and righteous Person to die in the place of sinful man; while Cain’s sacrifice represents all of man’s energy, work, and suffering in his futile attempts to become right with God. But that didn’t save anyone at that time, and it doesn’t save today. If “faith PLUS works” is what saves (as Catholics believe), then why didn’t Abel offer fruits and vegetables ALONG WITH the animal sacrifice? No, there is only one thing that saves, and that is the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, to which Abel’s offering pointed.

Cain’s offering was rejected for the same reason that the fig leaves were taken away from his parents, and replaced with animal skins (Genesis 3:7, 21). That is, an innocent one had to shed his blood and die to cover their nakedness. The fig leaves were not good enough, because they too, represented the work of man’s hands. Cain was not recognizing the seriousness of his condition as a sinner and the need for an innocent life to be sacrificed. Once again, if man is saved by “faith plus works,” then why didn’t God just ADD the animal skins to the fig leaves?

To Work or Not to Work...

CATHOLIC CLAIM – BUT WHAT ABOUT VERSES LIKE PHILIPPIANS 2:12, WHICH SAYS TO “WORK OUT YOUR OWN SALVATION WITH FEAR AND TREMBLING”? DOESN’T THIS MEAN THAT WE HAVE TO WORK TO BE JUSTIFIED?

No, Paul is talking about the outworking, or the “living out” of our salvation. Once again, the context is not “how to be saved,” but Paul is describing the glorious Second Person of the Trinity, what He gave up for us, and how we should live, in light of that. It’s not about doing works in order to obtain our salvation, but it’s about our time of growth, our sanctification. We are not saved “by good works,” we are saved “in order to do good works” (Ephesians 2:10).

Catholics speak of their works being done in a “state of grace.” That is, if one does good works in this state of grace, his works will then count toward his salvation. According to them, God still gets the credit, since HE gave them the ability to do the good works in the first place. Therefore, it is “all God,” they say. And since God does these grace-infused works through us, He is glorified when we are justified through those works, right? Well… not exactly.

It is true that God is glorified when we do good works. And yes, it is true that everything good comes from God, but that doesn’t mean that everything good is salvific, (i.e., has the power to save us). God is the One Who determines what saves and what doesn’t save… and He tells us in His Word that we are justified (in the “saving” sense) – not by works – but by faith APART FROM WORKS (Romans 3:28; 4:4-6; Titus 3:5). [See Part 2 of this series]

Someone once said that people who think that these ‘grace-infused works’ will save them, will either:

1) downplay God’s demand for PERFECTION, or
2) exaggerate on their OWN righteousness

I happen to agree with that. None of us are perfect in our good works, so we must trust in that perfect work of Jesus and HIS righteousness, not ours.


CATHOLIC CLAIM – WHAT ABOUT ALL THE “ENDURE-TO-THE-END” TYPE VERSES (MATTHEW 24:13; MARK 13:13)? DON’T THESE INDICATE THAT ENDURING HARDSHIP AND DOING GOOD WORKS TILL THE END, ARE THE KEY TO SALVATION?

No, the apostle Paul said:

“You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by HEARING WITH FAITH? Are you so foolish? Having BEGUN by the Spirit, are you now being PERFECTED by the flesh?” (Galatians 3:1-3 NASB)

Paul is saying that the thing which has “birthed” us into the body of Christ (faith / trust in Jesus), will be the SAME THING which will MAINTAIN us in our Christian walk. Yes, we will have to endure to the end, but it is the maintaining of our FAITH that brings this about, and works are just a natural by-product of that (true) faith. Remember, our good works do please God, and we will be rewarded for our good works, but they are the result, not the cause, of salvation. Faith is what “gets” us saved, and faith is what “keeps” us saved. Not works.

CATHOLIC CLAIM - BUT WHAT ABOUT OUR SUFFERINGS THAT WE EXPERIENCE FOR HIM? DOESN’T THAT CONTRIBUTE TO OUR SALVATION? (CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, #1435) AFTER ALL, PAUL DOES TELL US THAT HE “…FILL[S] UP THAT WHICH IS BEHIND [LACKING] OF THE AFFLICTIONS OF CHRIST IN MY FLESH FOR HIS BODY’S SAKE, WHICH IS THE CHURCH.” (COLOSSIANS 1:24)

But there is absolutely nothing lacking in the afflictions of Christ, concerning His payment for sin. So, Paul is speaking of what is lacking in the church and is reminding us of his (Paul’s) suffering for them. But Paul never says that man’s suffering justifies anyone.

Jesus suffered for a DIFFERENT reason than we do. He suffered to pay for the sins of mankind, but we (the church) suffer in the sense of bearing each other’s burdens, and laboring to win souls.

Again, there is no “lack” in Christ’s work. Sadly, this verse is so often twisted by Catholics to say something that it doesn’t say.

CATHOLIC CLAIM – BUT SCRIPTURE TELLS US THAT FAITH, ITSELF, IS A “WORK”, ACCORDING TO JOHN 6:29: "JESUS ANSWERED AND SAID UNTO THEM, 'THIS IS THE WORK OF GOD, THAT YE BELIEVE ON HIM WHOM HE HATH SENT'.”

But those who say this miss Jesus’ whole point. Jesus was NOT defining faith as a “work” at all. The Jews were the ones who first brought up the subject of works. So Jesus just uses this as a springboard and responds to them on that topic. He is basically saying, “You’re asking what WORKS should be done to be right with God? This is the only so-called ‘work’ that God requires: You must BELIEVE IN ME. You’re looking for works, but God is requiring faith.” Jesus is actually re-directing their misguided view of works.

We believe that all of the verses that Catholics use when defending their “faith plus works” view, can be explained and reconciled with the Protestant understanding of "Faith Alone." However, we don’t believe that Catholics can reconcile their view of “faith plus works” with the context of Romans 3, 4, and 5, which clearly teaches the “Faith Alone” view.

Galatians
 
Probably the most devastating argument in the Bible against the “faith plus works” concept can be found in the book of Galatians. The apostle Paul was dealing with the error of the Judaizers, who convinced the Galatian churches that one must not only believe in Jesus’ work on the cross to be saved, but must also be circumcised. (Galatians 6:12) We see these same Judaizers in Acts 15:1, also.

Paul’s whole point was that they were (wrongly) adding to the work of the cross. They were teaching salvation by their works IN ADDITION TO faith in the cross, just as the Catholic Church does today (and unfortunately, many Protestants, also).

So, what’s the big deal? Why was Paul so disturbed by this? Isn’t it enough that Jesus’ work is being recognized? And can’t WE get at least some credit for our salvation?

Absolutely not! It’s either ALL Jesus, or not Jesus AT ALL. It can never be “Jesus PLUS my works.”

Notice the phrases used by Paul in Galatians to describe those who would add any works to the cross:

1) They NULLIFY / FRUSTRATE God’s grace (Galatians 2:21)
2) They have been SEVERED FROM CHRIST and have FALLEN FROM GRACE (Galatians 5:4 NASV)
3) They have DESERTED JESUS for a DIFFERENT GOSPEL (Galatians 1:6)
4) They are ACCURSED (Galatians 1:8-9)
Does anyone STILL want to claim that he can add to the cross, or cause some type of “increase” in his justification, through his works? [as the Council of Trent, Session 6, Canon 24 teaches]

Examples
 
Finally, we have actual examples of people who were saved by faith, apart from their works.

Romans 4:2-3 tells us that Abraham (who lived before the Mosaic Law) was justified by faith alone, and just a few verses later (verse 6), we see that David (who lived under the Mosaic Law) was likewise saved.

Jesus also told the story of the Pharisee and the publican (tax collector) in Luke 18:9-14. In this short story, it is the unlikely (and usually hated) tax collector who goes home justified, simply because he humbled himself, knowing that he was an undeserving sinner, and he surrendered to God. The bragging Pharisee, who thought surely that God would be impressed with his works, made sure to tell God how great he (the Pharisee) was. The whole reason that Jesus presented this story is to caution against the attitude of those who “trusted in themselves” (verse 9).

And of course, we have the classic example of someone saved by faith alone: the thief on the cross (Luke 23:40-43). He was one of two thieves hanging on their own crosses on either side of Jesus. At first, the “good thief” (as he came to be known) was mocking and ridiculing Jesus, like everyone else was (Matthew 27:38-44), but a little later, had a change of heart, defended Jesus, and condemned the other thief for his attitude (Luke 23:39-40). Then, with repentance, he uttered those immortal words, “Lord, remember me when Thou comest into Thy kingdom” (23:42). And of course, Jesus tells him, “Verily I say unto thee, today shalt thou be with Me in paradise.” Jesus didn’t say, “I’m sorry, but you’ll have to come down from that cross, get baptized, participate in the Eucharist, and do this list of works I’ll give you…” No, He recognized the man’s change of heart (repentance and faith in Him) and accepted him on that basis. And He does the same for us today.

Conclusion
 
Unfortunately, the Catholic Church has a number of teachings that put too much emphasis on works. Teachings like Purgatory, the Treasury of Merit, Indulgences, the idea that man can atone for sin by almsgiving (giving money), and mixing / confusing justification with sanctification… these all detract from the work of Jesus on the cross. These teachings are telling us that His suffering and dying was just not quite enough to pay the penalty for sin. WE must ADD something to make salvation complete. Catholics may not say it in these words, but this is truly the bottom line in their logic. In other words, they are saying that Jesus’ words, “It is finished,” (John 19:30) were not true. He apparently needs our “help” (according to the Catholic Church). Can any honest person deny that this is blasphemy?

But to be fair, the Catholic Church is not the only church that teaches that works contribute to a person’s justification. Sadly, there are also some Protestant churches that believe this teaching. It is also a fact that most (if not all) other world religions believe this same concept, in one form or another. You see, man (because of his nature) wants to take credit for things that he shouldn’t.

I pray that no one reading this will ever think that on Judgment Day, he will be able to stand before Jesus Christ and say, “Yes, Lord, You did Your 99% and I did my 1%, so I helped to pay for my own salvation...” God forbid.

It is my sincere prayer that no one (Catholic or Protestant) would ever fall prey to the deception and half-truths of this “faith plus works” doctrine. And may God have mercy on those who teach it.

“FAITH ALONE” (PART 2)

In part 1, we shared some basic thoughts on the doctrine of “Sola Fide” (faith alone). Today, we will focus on some common Catholic objections to this teaching and see how they hold up. So, let’s jump right in.

CATHOLIC CLAIM – THE DOCTRINE OF “FAITH ALONE” IS NOT FOUND IN THE BIBLE. IN FACT, THE ONLY TIME THE WORDS “FAITH” AND “ALONE” ARE USED TOGETHER IN THE BIBLE IS IN JAMES 2:24, WHERE IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT A MAN IS JUSTIFIED BY WORKS, AND NOT BY FAITH ALONE.

James and Justification

At first, this sounds like a good argument. But the Apostle Paul tells us that a man is justified by faith APART FROM (i.e., WITHOUT) WORKS (Romans 3:28; 4:4-5). Are James and Paul contradicting each other, or is something else going on?

This can be easily cleared up by looking at the CONTEXT in each passage. James is dealing with members of the church who claim to be Christian, yet are not showing the evidence of it. He is asking, “Where is the demonstration of your Christianity? Are you ‘walking the walk’ or just ‘talking the talk’?” James is demanding PROOF of a man’s faith: “What use is it, my brethren, if a man SAYS he has faith but he has no works?" (Romans 2:14 NASV). "SHOW me your faith without the works, and I will SHOW you my faith by my works" (James 2:18 NASV). It's all about whether one's faith is a true (demonstrable) faith or a dead one.

On the other hand, Paul (in Romans chapter 3, 4, and 5) is specifically dealing with the issue of how a man can be made right in the eyes of God, i.e., how to become justified / saved. So, these are two different contexts altogether. Romans is about achieving justification, James is about demonstrating the proof of your justification.

But, what exactly IS James talking about in chapter 2, when he says a man is “justified” by works? In this context, “justified” means VINDICATED, or PROVEN, in the eyes of men, not God. God already knows if our faith is real. There may be someone in the church who claims to be a Christian, yet demonstrates no evidence of it. If there is no proof of his salvation, why should anyone believe that he is a Christian? But the person is justified in the eyes of man, i.e., vindicated, when he exhibits the fruit of the Spirit in his life (by good works) and other people can see this proof. This same word, “justify / justified” is used in this way (to mean “vindication”) elsewhere in Scripture (Matthew 11:19; Luke 7:29, 10:29, and 16:15), so Paul’s use of the term “justified” in this way in the context of James 2, makes perfect sense.


CATHOLIC CLAIM - BUT THERE ARE SO MANY OTHER BIBLE VERSES THAT TIE SALVATION IN WITH WORKS. WHY DO PROTESTANTS ALWAYS TURN TO ROMANS 3, 4, AND 5?

The “Owner’s Manual” Analogy

Ok, let me ask a simple question. If you were having problems with the headlights on your car, to what section of the owner’s manual would you turn to fix the problem? Would you look under “Tires” or “Engine” or “Exhaust System”? No, of course not. You would go directly to the section on “Headlights” because that’s where the solution would most likely be found. Now, you might also find some relevant information on your headlight problem in other areas of the owner’s manual, like under “Fuses” or the “Electrical System”. But the most useful information, the most helpful, the most important info you would find would be under the section on headlights. To understand your headlights, this MAIN and primary section should be sought first and foremost, and all the other (secondary) sections that just touch on headlight information, would have to revolve around that main section.

In the same way, to understand justification (in the salvation sense), you would go to the section in the Bible that deals specifically and directly with that topic as a doctrine, and that would be Romans chapter 3, 4, and 5. This answers the question, “How is a person made right with God?” If there is any other section that mentions justification, it must be understood in light of those three chapters in Romans, because these chapters make up the most comprehensive, clearest, and longest-running, continuous passage in all of Scripture that SPECIFICALLY deals with how a man is made right with God. They DEFINE the doctrine of justification. Bible verses that specifically deal with a particular topic, in depth, have primacy over “passing reference” verses.

And the message of these chapters clearly indicates that justification is by faith, apart from works:

“Because BY THE WORKS OF THE LAW NO FLESH WILL BE JUSTIFIED in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.” (3:20)
“Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of WORKS? NO, but by a law of FAITH.” (3:27)
“For we maintain that a man is justified by faith APART FROM WORKS of the Law.” (3:28)
“For IF Abraham was justified BY WORKS, he has something to boast about; but NOT BEFORE GOD.” (4:2)
“Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as what is due. But TO THE ONE WHO DOES NOT WORK, BUT BELIEVES in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness. (4:4-5)
“Just as David also speaks of the blessing upon the man to whom God reckons righteousness APART FROM WORKS” (4:6)
“Therefore having been JUSTIFIED BY FAITH, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (5:1)
Looking at these passages, it’s hard to ignore Paul’s message. Over and over, we see the same idea. God justifies man by faith and not by works. God justifies the Jew by faith [“apart from his works”], and He justifies the Gentile by faith [“apart from his works”, also]. (Romans 3:27-30) Very simple and very direct.

Other verses throughout Scripture that support this concept include:

Ephesians 2:8-9 – For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Galatians 2:16 – Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Titus 3:5 - Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.

Romans 11:6 – But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace. (All verses above from the NASV)

CATHOLIC CLAIM - BUT IN ROMANS (CHAPTERS 3, 4, AND 5), PAUL IS REFERRING TO “THE LAW,” THAT IS, THE CEREMONIAL WORKS OF THE OLD MOSAIC LAW. PAUL IS NOT SPEAKING HERE OF THE “MORAL LAW,” WHERE OUR GOOD WORKS OF MERCY ARE DONE IN THE STATE OF GRACE.

Works of the Law

The “works” that Paul spoke of did indeed include those Old Testament, ceremonial works, but were certainly NOT LIMITED to those. For example, in Romans 3, he mentions “the law” (v. 21 and v.31), and “the deeds [works] of the law” (v. 28). And immediately after, in 4:1, where the same context is continued, Paul speaks of Abraham, and how he was saved by faith, apart from “the law”.

But wait a minute! Abraham lived 430 years before the Mosaic Law existed! (Galatians 3:17) So Abraham was not under that law. So why would Paul mention Abraham’s works at all, if he was limiting “works of the law” to mean those of the Mosaic Law? It was because Paul was speaking of ALL works, and not just those ceremonial laws and rituals from Moses’ time.

Paul uses Abraham (4:1) as his first example of someone saved apart from works, and then he also uses David (4:6), who WAS under the Mosaic Law. So we see here that BOTH those who were under this Law (the Jews), and also those who were not under this Law (everyone else, including us today) were ALL saved by grace, through faith, and APART from their works. That is the whole point of Romans 3, 4, and 5.
So, we see that Paul's mention of Abraham and David in the same context refutes the idea that Paul alluded ONLY to the works of the old Mosaic Law. He was, in fact, speaking of ANYONE'S works throughout history, because he included:

1) Those BEFORE the Mosaic Law existed (like Abraham)
2) Those DURING the Mosaic Law (like David), and
3) Those AFTER the Mosaic Law (like the Christians to whom he is writing in the book of Romans).


CATHOLIC CLAIM – BUT WHAT ABOUT THE TEN COMMANDMENTS? JESUS WARNED US THAT WE MUST OBEY THEM, DIDN’T HE? (MATTHEW 19:17; LUKE 10:25-28) THESE ARE GOOD WORKS DONE UNDER GOD’S SYSTEM OF GRACE. THIS IS “FAITH WORKING THROUGH LOVE” (GALATIANS 5:6)

The Ten Commandments
 
We will demonstrate that the Ten Commandments are indeed part of "the Law.” Romans 7:7 (NASV) says, "What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, ‘You shall not covet.’" Obviously, this refers to the last one of the Ten Commandments.

Now read Romans 2:20-22 (NASV). "...having in the Law the embodiment of knowledge and of the truth, you, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that one should not steal, do you steal? You who say that one should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery?…" Again, these works are clearly referring to the Ten Commandments.

So here we see that the Ten Commandments ARE part of "the Law". So when Scripture speaks of works of "the Law", it refers to the WHOLE Law: the ceremonial law AND the moral law. The apostle Paul places them in the SAME category. If one saves, then they both save. If one does not save, then neither saves. If "the Law" does not save (and it doesn’t), then the Ten Commandments don't save either, and if the Ten Commandments don't save, then NO WORKS CAN SAVE, since they are God's highest standard.

So, there is no biblical distinction between “works that save” and “works that don't save,” contrary to what Catholics often assert. Therefore, justification "apart from the works of the Law" (Romans 3:28) means justification apart from ANY and ALL works. This doesn’t mean that we don’t ever do good works, it just means that our works don’t contribute to our justification.

Here is an interesting point. Romans 4:9-11 tells us that Abraham was NOT justified by his circumcision. But why not? After all, it was a God-ordained work of obedience, wasn’t it? (Genesis 17:10) It certainly was. But, the answer to this question is simply this: Abraham was not justified by circumcision, because circumcision is a WORK.


CATHOLIC CLAIM – BUT WEREN’T THE PEOPLE IN MATTHEW 25:31-46 SAVED OR CONDEMNED ACCORDING TO THEIR WORKS, AND NOT THEIR FAITH? EVERY “JUDGMENT SCENE” IN THE BIBLE SHOWS US THAT THE FATE OF EACH PERSON IS DETERMINED BY HIS WORKS.

Sheep and Goats

Does anyone think that here, Jesus is providing a specific list of things to do to get saved? As a Catholic, one could not believe this, since things like faith, partaking of the Eucharist, baptism (and other sacraments), etc., are not mentioned here.

No, Jesus is speaking in a general sense, describing, on the one hand, the “sheep” as the type of people whose hearts were right, which then caused them to follow through with good works; and on the other hand, the “goats,” as those whose hearts were not right, and neglected God’s will.

The works mentioned here are not PREscribed (as criteria for salvation), but rather, they DEscribe (give a description of) the type of person in each category. The context is NOT how a person is made right with God. This whole chapter is about faithfulness, not justification. And the reason God points to their works in every “judgment scene” is because their works of obedience are the PROOF of their faithfulness, the evidence of what was already in their hearts, by faith. Wouldn’t these works in Matthew 25 be considered “works of righteousness”? Absolutely. But NO ONE is justified (in the “saving” sense) by works of righteousness (Titus 3:5)…
Remember, we WILL be rewarded for our good works, but justification is something totally different. It is strictly a GIFT. Again, it is not “works that save” versus “works that don’t save.” And neither are we justified by the works that God does THROUGH us, but only by the work that He has done on the cross. Nothing else.

See how great a love God has for His children! We DON’T have to try to gain enough “points” from our works and our sufferings to finally make it into Heaven. We must simply trust in His work at the cross. Let us rejoice in the simplicity of the gospel!

Stay with us as we conclude our series with the next post.

“FAITH ALONE” (Part 1)

Introduction

Perhaps the most important question that could ever be asked is, “How can a person be made right in the sight of God, that is, how can he be eligible for Heaven?” Or, as the Philippian jailer asked, “What must I do to be saved?” (Acts 16:30)

Thankfully, the apostle Paul gave the Philippian jailer a very simple and direct answer… “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved” (v. 31). No complicated formulas, no list of good works, no sacraments to observe, no prayers or Bible verses to memorize, no Jewish laws to maintain… Just believe on (trust in) the Lord Jesus, i.e., on the work that He accomplished on the cross. This is the biblical answer to that most important question, and it reflects a teaching called “Sola Fide” (faith alone), that many (if not most) Protestants believe in. Of course, Catholics will strongly deny this teaching, and will insist that one is saved by faith PLUS WORKS, and not by “faith alone.”

First off, we want to say that the term “faith alone” is not a perfectly accurate term, in the sense that faith is not the only thing present at the moment of conversion. Along with faith, there will certainly be joy, thankfulness, sorrow for one’s sins, a love for God and a willingness to serve Him, etc. A similar (imperfect) expression would be the Catechism of the Catholic Church saying that “Christ alone” teaches us (CCC #427), yet the Catholic Church (as well as every other church) also has human teachers. Another example is the phrase “salvation comes from God alone” (CCC #169), yet Catholics will argue that the Church certainly has a part in it. Just as these Catholic phrases are not precise, so it is with the phrase “faith alone.”

The focus of the term “faith alone” is on the ABSENCE OF WORK done in attempting to make Heaven. As the Scripture says, it is by faith APART FROM WORKS (Romans 3:28). It doesn’t mean that you never do any good works, it just means that none of your works contribute to your salvation. Justification is a trusting, a changed attitude of the heart (repentance), a surrender toward God, not a work which deserves a reward. Justification is always seen as a GIFT in Scripture, not a reward. Attempting to achieve justification (even partially) through works only disqualifies a person from receiving it (Romans 4:4-5).

Secondly, we are not against Christians doing good works. We should be anxious to do good works, and should do them out of love and thankfulness. However, good works are not the cause of justification, but the result; they are not the root, but the fruit of our salvation; we don’t do good works to be saved, we do them because we are saved. We do get heavenly rewards for our works, but justification itself is purely a GIFT.


The Catholic View

But what is the stance of the Catholic Church on the role of works in the believer’s life? To their credit, the Catechism says that a person is justified by grace (CCC #1996), through faith in Jesus Christ (CCC #1987). So far, so good. But we need to note some other things, as well. Here are a few quotes from official Catholic sources:


“Of this justification the causes are these… the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism…” (Council of Trent, Sixth Session, Decree on Justification, Chapter 7)


“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.” (Second Vatican Council, Apostolic Constitution on the Revision of Indulgences)


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


“If anyone 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.” (Council of Trent, Sixth Session, Canon 24)


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


There is no doubt or mystery here. The Catholic Church is telling us plainly and openly that one’s works are the CAUSE of his salvation. According to these sources, we discover that a person is justified (at least partially) by good works, prayer, and sacraments (especially baptism). Faith plus works.

But if we are indeed justified by “faith plus works,” we must ask, “How many good works does it take to save someone? When does a person know that he has accumulated enough of them to make it to Heaven?” As for as anyone can tell, we don’t know.

But, there is another problem. According to the Bible, if we are going to follow the law (any law of works) to be saved, we had better follow it PERFECTLY:


For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for “The just shall live by faith.” And the law is not of faith: but, “The man that doeth them shall live in them.” (Galatians 3:10-12)


For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. (Galatians 5:3)

For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. (James 2:10)


If anyone is trusting in good works to be justified, then he must do them completely and perfectly. But it’s too late for that. Every one of us has already defiled his own “record,” since we have all sinned (Romans 3:23). God demands moral perfection, but there is only One Who is perfect and able to follow the Law flawlessly. There is only One Who was ever able to pay the debt for our sins… Jesus Christ. And He already paid this penalty 2000 years ago on the cross to make us eligible for Heaven, that is, IF we trust in that work alone.

This is one of the reasons that it is called “the gospel.” The Greek word for “gospel” means good news. It is good news because we don’t have to wonder and fret about whether we have done enough good deeds to make it into Heaven. This is a foretaste of that Christian “rest” that God has for us. (Hebrews 4:1-11)


Two Kinds of Righteousness

No one is “good enough” to be saved on his own. We all need the righteousness of Jesus Christ. Remember, there are two kinds of righteousness in Scripture:

1) Our Personal Righteousness

A. It is imperfect (I John 1:8)
B. It can grow (John 15:2,5; 2 Corinthians 9:10)
C. We all have unequal “amounts” of it (I Samuel 24:17)
D. It is part of our Sanctification (Philippians 2:12-13; Titus 3:5)
E. It is inherent (since the new birth) (I John 2:29)
F. It is a result of Salvation (Ephesians 2:8-10)

2) The Righteousness of Jesus Christ

A. It is absolutely perfect (Ephesians 5:27; 2 Corinthians 5:21)
B. It cannot grow (Hebrews 13:8)
C. We all have the same “amount” (Romans 5:18)
D. It is for our Justification (Romans 10:3)
E. It is imputed (from outside) (Romans 4:6, 11, 22-24)
F. It is the cause of Salvation (Romans 5:18-19)

The Christian possesses both. Number 1 above (what people see in us) is a direct result of Number 2 (what happens in our heart).

One final thing: The Catholic Church sees essentially no distinction between “sanctification” and “justification” (CCC #1989; CCC #2019), but the Bible shows that justification is a one-time event (Romans chap. 3, 4, and 5), while sanctification is a process which begins at the new birth, and continues throughout the life of the believer (2 Timothy 2:21). There are no human works to do in justification, rather our works are used by God during the process of sanctification, which is our time of growth. The two terms are closely related, but still distinct.

In Part 2, we will look at some Catholic arguments against Sola Fide and see if they are valid. Until then…

APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION

“In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority. Indeed, the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #77; referencing “Dei Verbum,” a document of the Second Vatican Council)

One of the foundational claims of the Catholic Church is that of “Apostolic Succession,” which means that they (supposedly) possess an unbroken, uninterrupted, and lawful chain of legitimate successors (popes) from the Apostle Peter all the way down to the present pope, and this will last until the return of Jesus Christ. But is this claim true? Does such a continuous, lawful chain of popes really exist?

Much could be said about the incredible amount of corruption in the lives of some of the popes while in office. But rather than deal with the lives of popes after they got in office, the focus of this article will be on some of the actual methods which were used to obtain this office. Even if the office of “pope” were a valid and biblical one (and it is not), there is still a serious problem in the way that some popes acquired this position.

According to some church scholars / historians, a number of popes have obtained their positions 1) by buying their office [a form of simony], 2) through the working of influential prostitutes, or 3) by the use of force, even murdering the previous pope! These facts are validated by some eye-opening books (written by Catholics or former Catholics), which include Peter De Rosa’s “Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of the Papacy”; “Lives of the Popes” by Richard P. McBrien; Former Catholic priest Joseph McCabe and his “A History of the Popes”; J. H. Ignaz von Dollinger’s “The Pope and the Council”; and “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church,” by Malachi Martin.

Lest anyone say that these authors / scholars / historians were not good Catholics, or that they are not credible historians, we also provide the following quotes from these official Catholic sources…

1) Concerning Simony:

To uproot the evil of simony so prevalent during the Middle Ages, the Church decreed the severest penalties against its perpetrators. Pope Julius II declared simoniacal papal elections invalid, an enactment which has since been rescinded, however, by Pope Pius X. (New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, online, under “Simony.”)

“The worst period was from the ninth to the eleventh century when simony pervaded the monasteries, the lower clergy, the episcopacy, and even the papacy.” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. XIII, page 228)

Pope Benedict IX and simony:

“He was a son of Alberic III, leader of the Tusculani, and he simoniacally succeeded his uncles, Benedict VIII and John XIX.” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. II, page 274)

“Then on May 1 Benedict sold his papal office to his baptismal sponsor, the reforming archpriest John Gratian, Pope Gregory VI.” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. II, page 275)

Benedict IX not only purchased his office, but he later sold it to another pope-to-be when he was finished with it. Remember, for every “transaction” in simony, there are two guilty popes, a “buyer” AND a “seller.”

In one of his papal documents, Pope John Paul II states that if simony occurs in the election of a pope, then those guilty will be excommunicated. But at the same time, he still honors the outcome of that election, so that the validity of the election of that pope “may not… be challenged.” (“Universi Dominici Gregis,” paragraph 78, Feb. 22, 1996)

May not be challenged? Why should the validity of any simony-induced election NOT be challenged? Doesn’t such an election COMPLETELY DISPROVE the idea of God-ordained “Apostolic Succession”? In his statement, Pope John Paul II was (unsuccessfully) attempting damage control in light of an embarrassing past (when simony was common among popes). So he rebukes those who commit simony (as he should), but he then declares that it’s really not a problem for the papacy. To the Catholic Church, such an election is still “official” because “Apostolic Succession” needs to remain intact at all costs, right? Is it just me, or does anyone else see the inconsistency here?

2) Concerning the prostitute Marozia, who was the mistress of Pope Sergius III, during the era commonly known as the “pornocracy” (Rule of the Harlots):

“She imprisoned Pope John X in Castel Sant’ Angelo, where he died in 928 either by assassination…or from other causes. In 931 she had her son, probably by Sergius III…elected to the papacy as Pope John XI.” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. IX, page 253-54)

Concerning the prostitute Theodora (the mother of Marozia):

“Besides being personally avaricious, she – together with her family – exercised undue influence on Pope Sergius III and Pope John X, thus causing grave harm to the authority of the popes.” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. XIV, page 15-16)

Here, influential prostitutes were able to place in office the pope of their choice, or put him in prison, if they so desired. Indeed, “grave harm” was done to the papacy, since this influence of prostitutes reveals to all of us the false nature of this claim of “Apostolic Succession.”

3) Concerning the papal office being taken by force:

In the beginning, the Bishop of Rome was elected by the local clergy and laity along with neighboring bishops. In time, this process came under the influence of secular leaders with negative results. Influencing papal elections, powerful lords and kings hoped to manipulate the office of the papacy in order to advance their temporal ambitions. (The Modern Catholic Encyclopedia, Liturgical Press, page 653)

“From the fourth to the eleventh century the influence of temporal rulers in papal elections reached its zenith… This civil intervention ranged from the approval of elected candidates to the actual nomination of candidates (with tremendous pressure exerted on the electors to secure their acceptance), and even to the extreme of forcible deposition and imposition.” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. XI, page 572)

So, here we see heathen kings exerting their military might to forcibly depose (remove) and forcibly impose (put in office) the popes they wanted!

Should we consider any of this “lawful” or “legitimate” Apostolic Succession? Were these popes ordained by God? Anyone who obtains an ecclesiastical (church) office illegally, immorally, or violently has wrongfully acquired that position, and simply cannot be considered a legitimate holder of that office.

Would we tolerate any of this from those seeking a position in “non-religious” fields? Would you trust a medical doctor who purchased his degree? Or a schoolteacher who committed fornication to get his teaching position? Or how about a senator who took his office by force, or killed the previous senator to obtain that office? Of course, no honest institution would allow their people to obtain an office in such a way. Should we not expect far more from the “Vicar of Christ,” the (supposedly) highest ecclesiastical office of all? We rightfully demand moral accountability in the business, financial, political and medical fields, so why should a religious institution like the Catholic Church not likewise be morally accountable? There are definitely some illegitimate “links” in this “apostolic chain of successors.” But then again, all it takes is one “infected” link to make this Catholic claim (and the whole system) collapse.

Interestingly, the New Catholic Encyclopedia also states, “But it must be frankly admitted that bias or deficiencies in the sources make it impossible to determine in certain cases whether the claimants were popes or antipopes.” (Volume I, page 632)
[Note: An antipope is one who makes an illegal or false claim to the office of pope.]

By this statement alone, they have refuted their own position on Apostolic Succession. If the Catholic Church can’t really know who was actually pope at any given time, then Apostolic Succession is a myth.

The words of John the Baptist come to mind: “And think not to say within yourselves, ‘We have Abraham to our father’; for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.” (Matthew 3:9) John was condemning the unrepentant Pharisees and Sadducees, who looked to some physical lineage all the way back to Abraham for their “righteousness.” But John was showing them that God is more concerned with a person’s heart than his lineage or ancestry. The same principle applies today. All true believers are successors of the apostles (Acts 2:42), not just certain leaders. We should look to the teachings of the apostles, as outlined in Scripture, not to a physical line of successors. It may sound good, but the Catholic concept of “Apostolic Succession” is simply an unbiblical, arrogant and false claim. And since it is a foundational claim of the Catholic Church, what will happen to this “house built upon the sand”? (Matthew 7:26-27)

DIALOGUE ON BIBLE INTERPRETATION

[Catholics who deny the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (“Bible alone”) will often do so because they believe that we can’t interpret the Scriptures apart from the authority of the Catholic Church. The following is a fictional dialogue, but it is based on numerous real encounters (personal, internet, and otherwise) between Catholics and Protestants. Catholic comments will be in blue, while the Sola Scriptura believer’s comments will be in black.]


That’s just YOUR interpretation. You Protestants only have your subjective (personal) interpretation of the Bible. But we need to be CERTAIN about Scripture interpretation, because the correct meaning is vitally important. Therefore, we need someone who is INFALLIBLE to interpret for us.

And who might that be?

The Church, of course.

Meaning…the Catholic Church, right?

That’s correct.

But how does one who is searching for the truth, first determine that the Catholic Church is really the true Church, the (supposedly) infallible source of truth?

Matthew 16:18-19 tells us that Peter is the Rock upon which Jesus builds His Church, and Peter is the visible head of that Church, and it will never let the gates of hell prevail. Also, the Catholic Church has power to bind and loose, and no other church does.

So, you’re telling me that my interpretation of Scripture is “subjective” and therefore, insufficient, so I must look to the Catholic Church to interpret for me, right? Yet, in order to recognize the Catholic Church as the “true” Church, I must go to Matthew 16 to find out… but (according to you) I can’t really be sure of my interpretation in the first place. You tell me that I can’t really understand it, yet you point me to that same Bible to verify your assertion. Am I understanding you correctly?

You Protestants misread Matthew 16. But it is obvious that Jesus established His Church here.

So, the meaning of Matthew 16 should be “obvious” to an outsider (non-Catholic) who is searching for truth?

We believe an honest person would see the same truth that we see when reading Matthew 16. It is very clear to anyone seeking the truth.

Again, that seems to be a contradiction. First, you say we CAN’T trust our interpretation of the Bible, but then you say that if we read a particular passage in the Bible (Matthew 16), it is obviously telling us who CAN interpret it. In other words, we need to interpret the Bible in order to understand that our interpretation of the Bible will be wrong? Is this what you are saying?

I’m saying that we need to be absolutely SURE that our interpretation is correct.

But, would you agree that it is POSSIBLE for a seeker, apart from the Catholic Church, to correctly interpret a particular passage?

Yes, it is possible, but we need CERTAINTY, not just “possibility”.

And the Catholic has that certainty?

Yes, because he depends on the infallible Church as the authentic interpreter.

So, when a person seeking the truth chooses to join the Catholic Church, is that a fallible choice?

Yes, we, as individuals, are fallible, but we know the Church is infallible.

And you determined this (the Church’s infallibility) by your FALLIBLE reading of Matthew 16? If your original decision to join that church was a FALLIBLE one, how can you boast of having infallible certainty now? Suppose you find out later that the Catholic Church is wrong?

We can be infallibly certain because the Catholic Church IS infallible, and she tells us that we are right – that we made the right choice.

Of course she tells you that you made the right choice! Would you expect her to tell you that you were WRONG to join her? In the same way, certain cults will tell you that their leaders are also infallible, and you made the right choice in joining THEM. So how do you test them? How do you know whether THEIR church is right or wrong?

Because we Catholics not only have Scripture, but we also have Sacred Tradition to help us in deciding these things.

And exactly what IS this Tradition?

In a nutshell, it is simply the teachings of the Church.

So, let me recap… you know that the Catholic Church has infallibility based on your fallible interpretation of Matthew 16, “supported” by the Church’s Sacred Tradition, which is simply based on its OWN teachings? In other words, you are saying, “The Church is infallible because that’s what it teaches!” Sounds pretty weak and circular to me. But suppose some Catholics disagree on the interpretation of Matthew 16. What then?

We have an ultimate human leader (the pope) who can settle all disputes, unlike Protestants with their many divisions. If an interpretation is needed, he can give an official and infallible one.

Then who “infallibly interprets” HIS interpretation if there are any misunderstandings / disagreements / divisions on what HE said? At some point, the “fallible” must meet the “Infallible,” and it is still the fallible individual who must ultimately determine what the “Infallible” has said, whether it is God, the Pope, the Council of Trent, or whoever.

We believe that once the Pope has spoken, it is understandable and clear enough for the individual who exercises humble obedience and common sense.

But that is exactly how the Protestant sees the interpretation of SCRIPTURE…using humility and common sense (along with basic hermeneutical principles, of course). If interpretation by humble obedience and common sense works in understanding the Pope, then why would it not work for Scripture?

But there are things in the Bible that are hard to understand. The Bible, itself, admits this (2 Peter 3:16). When people privately interpret, they end up twisting the Scriptures to their own destruction!

This passage only says that SOME things are hard to understand. But does that mean that we give up? Stop studying? Do we neglect our responsibility to “rightly divide the Word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15) and turn the whole thing over to some (supposedly) infallible leader just because a certain passage is hard to understand? Of course not. We continue to prayerfully study and learn. Now, this doesn’t mean that we can’t learn from others, because we certainly can. We all need help interpreting now and then. But we have no biblical reason to believe in a single human leader (or organization) who MUST arbitrate for us. And by the way, 2 Peter 3:16 says nothing about an infallible human interpreter, although this would be an excellent place to mention it. Also, that passage in 2 Peter is speaking of the error of the “wicked” and unbelieving (verse 17), not the humble and prayerful person who is truly trying to find the will of God.

But the Protestant puts too much emphasis on the individual. There is too much risk here of private interpretation. The Bible also warns us against that (2 Peter 1:20).

But 2 Peter 1:20-21 is not speaking of one’s READING of Scripture, but rather, the ORIGIN of Scripture. This passage is often taken out of context by Catholics, as you just did. It is saying that no prophecy was given to the prophet by HIS OWN interpretation, but was directly from God. It is NOT telling us that the common man can’t (or shouldn’t) interpret, nor is it saying that a particular organization (like the Catholic Church) must be the only authentic interpreter.

But the Bible also tells us that we must obey our leaders (Hebrews 13:17). THEY have the truth, and THEY have the correct interpretation of Scripture. That’s why God put them there.

Does the person who happens to be in a church that teaches serious heresy have the responsibility to obey HIS leaders, too? It is true that we should obey our leaders WHO ARE BIBLICALLY SOUND, but how is one to know, if we cannot rightly divide the Word? God expects Church leaders to be “tested” and “evaluated” by their congregation to be sure that they are in line with Scripture, just as the Bereans tested the message of the Apostle Paul (Acts 17:11).

As I said before, the Catholic Church is infallible, as Matthew 16 and other passages clearly indicate. There is no need for the individual to strain and travail with his private interpretations, because he may let his prejudice and presuppositions cloud the true interpretation. God established the Catholic Church and its leaders to take care of all that.

That is the problem with many Catholics. They operate on a false assumption. That is: Either 1) One must have an INFALLIBLE interpretation of Scripture, or 2) he will inevitably have a WRONG interpretation. To these Catholics, there seems to be no middle ground… but “infallible” and “wrong” are not the only possibilities. It is certainly possible to be fallible (as all of us are) and yet be RIGHT in one’s Bible interpretation.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

Catholics often ask, “What use is an infallible book (the Bible), without an infallible interpreter (the Catholic Church)?” But this is like asking, “What use is an infallible God without an infallible human mind to understand Him?” But that’s ridiculous. He doesn’t expect us to understand Him infallibly. Infallibility is GOD’S domain. Only HE can have infallible certainty, but we humans can have sufficient certainty. So, all these Catholics who insist on “infallible certainty” are simply engaging in futility and unnecessary hype.

And one has to wonder, if infallible interpretations are so critical, then why are there only a tiny handful of Bible verses “infallibly interpreted” by the Catholic Church?

When we encourage each person to interpret Scripture, we do not mean that one can interpret it recklessly or just any way he feels like it. As mentioned above, there are basic hermeneutical principles involved, along with common sense. And it is important that one’s heart should be right, also (Luke 8:11-15). Many times, the problem is not hard Scripture, but hard hearts.

Catholics will often ask Protestants, “By what authority do you interpret Scripture?” But why should we need some special “authority” or “permission” to do something that God has already told us to do? He has already told us to “rightly divide” (interpret) His Word. This question is like asking, “By what authority do you obey the Commandments?” It has nothing to do with authority on our part. It’s simply something that God EXPECTS us to do.

Instead of telling me, “That’s just YOUR interpretation,” let’s look at the Scriptures together and exegete the relevant passages, and perhaps you can SHOW me where I am wrong in my interpretation. Let’s see which interpretation is most reasonable.

I just can’t see how a loving God would give us inspired revelation and not give the ability to understand it to those who need it most, the ones who Jesus favored…the common folk, the poor, the uneducated, and the lost… those who cried out to God. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura (“Bible alone”) does not mean that all Scripture is perfectly clear to everyone, or even equally clear to everyone, but we are ALL expected to interpret, at least to some degree. More than a dozen times in the New Testament we see the call, “WHOSOEVER has an ear, let him hear.” Anyone who “has an ear” is someone who is able to hear, interpret, and understand God’s message. The word “whosoever” is not restricted to church leaders.

Remember, Jesus, at a most critical time in His ministry, showed us how Scripture interprets Scripture. When He was tempted in the wilderness and the devil quoted Scripture to Him, Jesus didn’t say, “Oh, well, I guess I’ll have to appeal to Tradition now!” No, He went deeper into Scripture and said, “It is written AGAIN…” (Matthew 4:5-7)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The Catholic Church boasts that she is the sole authentic interpreter of the Word of God (Catechism of the Catholic Church #100), yet she has provided us with many teachings that contradict the Bible. Therefore, saying that we need the Catholic Church to interpret the Bible for us is like saying that we need the fox to guard the henhouse. Eternal souls are too precious to be put into the hands of, and be dependent upon, an organization who makes such sweeping claims, but cannot deliver the goods.

The gospel message that God has given us is not complex or hard to interpret. It is simply this: To enter Heaven, we need to believe / trust in the work of Jesus Christ on the cross, and not in a Church, organization, pope, good works, or anything else. Let’s not complicate something so simple, yet so important. To be sure, we don’t need the Catholic Church to interpret this for us.

THE CHURCH FATHERS

We stated in a previous post that the Catholic Church’s dependence on the church fathers to prove the truth of a particular teaching raises more questions than answers. For example, exactly which of the early Christians were considered to be church fathers? How do we know for sure? Does the Catholic Church have an infallible list of these? How do we know that we are correctly interpreting a certain father when we read his writings? If we can correctly interpret the fathers, shouldn’t we also be able to correctly interpret the Scriptures? Why is it that some of the fathers contradict each other? Why do they sometimes contradict the Catholic Church? And how do we know that the “heretics” were not the real fathers and the ones believed to be “fathers” weren’t the real heretics? Can the Catholic Church answer any of these questions without using circular reasoning (e.g., saying the fathers are right because the Church says so, and the Church is right because the fathers say so)?

Although Catholics are quick to use the fathers as authoritative sources, someone may find it difficult to find an “official” statement by the Catholic Church that clearly defines exactly who the fathers are, and precisely what type of authority they hold. But it seems, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) that the teachings of the fathers somehow tie in closely with Sacred Tradition (CCC #78; CCC #688). In fact, the fathers of the Church are said to be one of the “principal sources” in the creation of the Catholic Catechism (CCC #11). With this in mind, we must ask, “Are all the fathers’ teachings correct?” How do we know (again, without using circular reasoning)? The answer is simple…we compare their teachings with the Bible.


The Pope Has Spoken

But, according to a papal encyclical by Pope Pius XII, it is wrong to “judge the doctrine of the Fathers and of the Teaching Church by the norm of Holy Scripture, interpreted by the purely human reason of exegetes, instead of explaining Holy Scripture according to the mind of the Church which Christ Our Lord has appointed guardian and interpreter of the whole deposit of divinely revealed truth.” (“Humani Generis”, paragraph 22, August 12, 1950.)

In other words, according to the Catholic Church, we are not allowed to judge the teachings of the church fathers in light of Scripture without the “mind of the Church.” But the “mind” of the Catholic Church clearly contradicts the Scriptures in many of its teachings, so its claim of being the “guardian and interpreter” of the “whole deposit” of truth is an empty and deceitful boast.


The Test

The Bible commands us to TEST ALL THINGS (I Thessalonians 5:21; I John 4:1), which would include the fathers, and we test them with the Scriptures, just as Jesus did (Matthew 15:1-9). No one’s teachings are exempt from this test, whether it’s the Catholic Church, a Protestant church, any church father, or any individual or group. We are all subject to God’s ultimate authority, the Scriptures, which will judge us in the last day (John 12:48). Even the teachings of the APOSTLES were to be tested (Acts 17:11), as well as those who claimed to be apostles (Revelation 2:2). And if we can test an angel from Heaven (Galatians 1:8-9), we can certainly test the church fathers.


What If…?

But, just for the sake of argument, what if there were a perfectly unanimous agreement between all the fathers on all their teachings and Scripture interpretations? Would even this prove that the fathers’ teachings are true? The answer is still no. It’s not the level of unity on a doctrine that proves its truthfulness, but it’s whether it lines up with God’s revelation…the Scriptures.

To demonstrate the point, what if every single father firmly believed in a particular false teaching? Would that kind of unity make the teaching true? Of course not. Someone may answer, “But God wouldn’t have let them believe in it if it were false.” But this answer is just an unprovable assumption.


Apostasy in the Early Church

Can we always trust the fathers? Is it possible that even a church father could fall into error or apostasy? Yes, indeed. Note that apostasy, in one form or another, has entered the church from earliest times. Although not a complete apostasy, it was nevertheless present in different degrees and in different places early on, even in the days of the apostles. Note what the Apostle Paul said to the Ephesian elders:

28) Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

29) For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in AMONG YOU, not sparing the flock.

30) Also OF YOUR OWN SELVES shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. (Acts 20:28-30)

Paul also dealt with the errors of the Judaizers in the early church era, in his epistle to the Galatians, and he dealt with Gnosticism in his epistle to the Colossians.

The Apostle John also had to deal with the false teachings of the Gnostics in the epistle of I John. Furthermore, the Lord Jesus pointed out, through John, the false teachings within two of the seven churches of Asia that needed to be dealt with. (Revelation 2:14-15, 20)

Now, this does NOT mean that the gates of Hell had prevailed over the church (Matthew 16:18), but only that some had fallen prey to false doctrine. So, there was no guarantee that a father would automatically be right. One’s position or ecclesiastical (church) office does not make his message true. His faithfulness to God’s Truth does. (John 17:17)


“Closer-in-Time” Proves Truth?


CATHOLIC CLAIM – BUT SURELY THE FATHERS WERE IN A BETTER POSITION TO KNOW WHAT THE APOSTLES REALLY MEANT, THAN WE ARE TODAY. THEY WERE MUCH CLOSER IN TIME TO THE APOSTLES, AND THEREFORE, THERE WAS LESS CHANCE THAT THE MESSAGE WAS CORRUPTED.


Being “closer” to the time of the apostles does not necessarily mean the fathers’ teachings had to be true. Just as the apostles sometimes had problems understanding Jesus, Himself, the students of the apostles no doubt also sometimes had trouble understanding the apostles. And so on, down the line. Error can, and did, creep into the church and led to more and more false teaching. But, if “closer-in-time” proves a teaching is true, then why did heretics exist during the time of the apostles? And if “farther-in-time” weakens the truth, then wouldn’t it be pretty hopeless for us today, since we are so far removed from the time of Jesus and the apostles? How could we know any truth today? Perhaps the likelihood of being correct in those days was greater, but proximity in time does not guarantee truth. The fact is, there was both truth AND error in their day, just as it is now. We don’t have living, infallible apostles today to keep us on track, but we do have infallible Scripture.


CATHOLIC CLAIM – BUT THE FATHERS BELIEVED IN CATHOLIC DOCTRINES, LIKE THE EUCHARIST, INFANT BAPTISM, PENANCE, THE PRIESTHOOD, PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD, ETC., AND SOME OF THESE MEN WERE TAUGHT BY ACTUAL APOSTLES! SO THESE TEACHINGS HAD TO BE TRUE.


This does not necessarily follow. The New Testament speaks of men who were probably directly taught by apostles, yet were teaching false doctrine, like Hymenaeus and Philetus (2 Timothy 2:17-18). Worse yet, no doubt some had even stood in the very presence of Jesus Christ and claimed to be His disciples, and yet, misunderstood or misconstrued what He taught, and then went out and taught heresy. So, being in a line of students directly up to the apostles does not prove one’s doctrine. The Pharisees claimed a pedigree (lineage) from Abraham, but they didn’t do Abraham’s works or teach what Abraham taught (Matthew 3:7-9; Mark 7:6-8; John 8:39). Remember, these Pharisees were Jewish leaders to whom the oracles of God had been entrusted (Romans 3:2), just as the apostles had also been entrusted with the oracles of God. But this did not eliminate the possibility of error, abuse, or misunderstanding (even shortly) down the line. Once again, the teachings of the students of the apostles were true and accurate only in relation to their faithfulness to God’s Word.


CATHOLIC CLAIM – YOUR PROTESTANT ARGUMENTS ARE MERELY A “JOHNNY-COME-LATELY” THEOLOGY. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS BEEN AROUND FOR TWO THOUSAND YEARS AND HAS ALWAYS TRUSTED THE TEACHINGS OF THE CHURCH FATHERS. SO, WHO ARE YOU GUYS TO GO AGAINST THIS VENERABLE INSTITUTION WITH YOUR NOVEL IDEAS?


First of all, we’re not saying that the teachings of the fathers are never to be trusted…they just all need to be tested before they’re accepted.

Secondly, longevity does not prove truth. Just because the Catholic Church has been around a long time doesn’t mean they’re right. The Hindus have been around for about five thousand years (more than twice as long as Christianity), but I don’t think that any reputable Catholic would say that the Hindus have more truth than Christianity does.

Thirdly, there is an extraordinary assumption in the above claim: that the modern day Catholic Church is the same church that existed in the first century, i.e., the church we find in the Bible. But how can the Catholic Church be that same one when many of its teachings are not found in the Bible, and oftentimes even contradict the Bible?

It’s easy to say, “Yeah, that was US back then, and we’re still here, doing and teaching the same things as then!” But the proof of the true church is in its faithfulness to Scripture. Catholics like to say, “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.” But if someone wants to see the historical church, the church of the Bible, and what THEY taught, why look so much to the fathers in the fourth, third, or second century, as many Catholics do? Why not go all the way back in history to the Author of Christianity, Jesus Christ Himself, i.e., to Him Whose words were infallible? What someone else SAID He taught does not override our responsibility to go directly to His Words in Scripture to see what He actually did teach.


Conclusion

The Pharisees and scribes were sharply rebuked by the Lord Jesus when they put their man-made traditions above God’s Word. And just as the Pharisees put too much trust in their “tradition of the elders” (Matthew 15:2; Mark 7:3), so do Catholics today when they look to the church fathers. Let us never embrace the words of the church fathers at the neglect of the words of the Heavenly Father. (Matthew 6:26)

Please understand, we are in no way attempting to belittle the church fathers. They had good and valuable insight, their teachings were useful and informative, and they were important to the church. But we are trying to avoid the over-emphasis of their importance. Some of them were more important than others, and they had different levels of authority and recognition. But the fathers were human, just like you and me. They sometimes disagreed with each other, contradicted each other, changed their minds on certain things, and sometimes even fell into heresy.

Were the church fathers great men of God? We believe that most of them probably were. Were they good role models? Again, we believe that probably the majority of them were good Christian examples. But the real question is, “Were their teachings INFALLIBLE?” And the answer is no. Therefore, let us hold on to that which IS God-breathed and infallible, God’s Word, the Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:16-17), and let us use that as our Standard to test every teaching that comes our way.