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.

 

THE ORIGIN OF TRUTH

 

When Catholics and Protestants engage in debate, there is generally a lot of back and forth (we discuss the Marian doctrines, faith alone, Purgatory, the Eucharist, Confession, the priesthood, the papacy, etc., etc.)  But there is a foundational topic that we should probably address first: What is truth?  Where is the truth that carries authority?  How can a Catholic or Protestant know what’s true in these spiritual matters?   

Of course, different levels of truth can come from many sources, some more dependable than others.  We can get some spiritual truth from the early church fathers,  we can get it from church history, or even some secular history sources; we can get truth from eyewitnesses of biblical events, etc.  But in the end, what we are really asking is, “Where can we find the ultimate and infallible source of truth on spiritual matters that neither side can deny?” 

In these spiritual debates, both sides use Scripture as a source of truth (and rightly so).  But Catholics also insist that we need to add “infallible” Sacred Tradition and the “infallible” Catholic Magisterium (which they call “the living, teaching office” of the Church).

But are Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium really infallible sources of truth?  Let me say up front that I believe that there is only ONE infallible source of truth, or rule of faith, for the church today.  And that source is the God-breathed Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:16-17).  If this is indeed true, then Catholic arguments fail and crumble to the ground, because Catholics invest so much in the Magisterium and Tradition.

Misuse of Terms

One of the first things I wish to address is the definition of the phrase “the Church,” used so often by Catholics.  The word “church” comes from the Greek “ecclesia,” which means “called out ones.”  The phrase has only two meanings within the pages of Scripture:

1   1) The faithful members of the universal church, worldwide (in other words, all those who are saved), or

2   2) The faithful members of the local body of believers.

But Catholics have a third (and unbiblical) meaning of the term “the Church,” which they use far, far more often than the biblical meaning.  They use the term to mean the LEADERS (or the Magisterium) of the Catholic Church.  For example, when they say things like, “The Church teaches ABC…” or “The Church believes XYZ,” etc., they mean a Magisterium.  One way that they misuse the term in Scripture is when they quote Matthew 18:17: “…And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it to the church…”  Jesus is not saying to tell it to the Magisterium, He is saying to tell it to the local church body, not just the leaders, but the whole assembly.   And it is the duty of the whole congregation to treat the man as an outsider until he repents.

But, as I said, using the term to mean Magisterium is not biblical.  The term is never used this way in the Bible, so it causes much confusion between Catholics and Protestants and it distorts the idea of authority.  But when used in its intended sense, as stated above, much of the confusion can be avoided. 

I will offer the reader an experiment.  Go through the Catholic Catechism and find the word “church.”  See how many times it is described as the universal church or as the local body, as opposed to a Magisterium.  It may come as a surprise to Catholics that in the great majority of cases, it is used as the latter (i.e., in an unscriptural sense).

How the Church Started

Extravagant claims are made by the Catholic Church about itself and its authority, claiming to be the “one true Church,” i.e., the Church that Jesus Christ founded.  Why do they say this?  They usually break it down and present their argument something like this:

1   1) Jesus Christ established a Church (Matthew 16:18).

2   2) He founded this Church upon Peter (Matthew 16:18).  Peter is the foundation and human head of this Church worldwide.

3   3) Jesus gave Peter primacy over the other apostles by giving him the keys to the kingdom with the power to “bind” and “loose” (Matthew 16:19) when determining doctrine, faith and morals, and to rule over the whole Church.

4   4) This made Peter the first pope.

5   5) This authority extends to all of Peter’s successors (future popes), as well.  This is called Apostolic Succession, and it includes an unbroken, lawful chain of successors throughout history, from Peter to now.

6   6) This authority also includes the gift of infallibility (teaching without error) when the pope makes an official statement or proclamation to the whole church.

7   7) This necessarily established a Magisterium of Church leaders (with the pope as head) who are the ONLY ones who can truly interpret Scripture and Sacred Tradition (which is equal with Scripture).

8   8) This created the “three-legged stool,” consisting of Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium, faithfully preserving and transmitting this deposit of faith.

9   9) The Catholic Church’s Magisterium has truly, and infallibly, determined the correct list of books of the Bible, thus, giving the Scriptures to the world.

1 10)       The early Church fathers unanimously agreed with this and wrote about it.  Not only that, but Church history confirms all of this.

Logic Leaping and Scripture Twisting

Ok, there are a lot of assumptions and giant unproven leaps of logic here.  Catholics may say that it’s a cumulative argument – that each piece of the puzzle forms a part of the whole picture.  But I would say that if each piece individually can be refuted, then the whole thing collapses.  I will attempt to very briefly address each one now:

1   1) We all agree that Jesus Christ established a church.  No problem there.

2   2) The Church of Jesus Christ is not founded upon any mere man (like Peter).  It is Christ’s church (“Upon this rock I will build MY church” – Matthew 16:18).  And He is the Head of it.  The focus here is on Jesus, not the apostles or disciples.  The rock refers to the truth of the revelation Peter was shown just a couple of verses earlier – “And Simon Peter answered and said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’”(Matthew 16:16).  THAT is what the church of Jesus Christ is built upon.  See also this link:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2016/09/matthew-16-who-or-what-is-rock.html

3   3) Peter was definitely a prominent leader in the early church.  But there is no scriptural reason to believe he had primacy over the other apostles.  As far as the keys to “bind” and “loose,” all the apostles received them (Matthew 18:18-19).  Jesus may have first mentioned that they will be given to Peter, but that doesn’t prove primacy.  The New Testament must be taken as a whole.  It is obvious that Peter, in his day, was never recognized by the other apostles as he is by the modern Catholic Church (Mark 9:33-34).  He had a position of prominence, but not primacy over the others.  Again, all the apostles were given the keys.  See this link:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2016/10/matthew-16-keys-binding-and-loosing.html

4   4) There is no mention of an office of pope, pontiff, or “vicar of Christ” in this passage.  Actually, there is no such office anywhere in the New Testament, although several other offices are indeed mentioned there.

5   5) There is nothing in Scripture about a “lawful” and “unbroken” chain of successors with infallibility who will obtain “Peter’s office” in the future.  A direct pedigree or lineage was not, and still is not, necessary for the church to function.  Something was definitely handed down to his successors, but that was the teachings he got from Jesus, not a papal position.  See this link on Apostolic Succession:

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

6   6) Nowhere in the New Testament do we find any post-apostolic teachers or leaders who acquired infallibility. 

7   7) There are leaders in every church today, but it is extremely arrogant for any of them to say that ONLY THEY can correctly interpret for the common people.  See here: 

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

Concerning Sacred Tradition, it cannot be equal with Scripture, nor can it be infallible, since it often contradicts God’s Word.  Furthermore, Catholics cannot even tell us exactly what Tradition is.  I have asked many times, and no Catholic seems to be able to give a meaningful and specific definition of “Sacred Tradition,” much less demonstrate why it is infallible.  All we get is extremely vague descriptions, like, “It is the Living Voice of the Church,” or “The fullness of divine truth proclaimed in the Scriptures, preserved by the apostolic bishops and expressed in the life of the Church…”  In other words, it is whatever the Catholic Church wants it to be!

8   8) There can only be one ULTIMATE source of revelation for today.  It can also be demonstrated that Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium often contradict Scripture.

9   9) The Catholic Church did NOT give us the Bible.  See here:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2012/02/did-catholic-church-give-us-bible.html

1 10)    Many of the early church fathers had some valuable and useful information, but the idea of a “unanimous consent of the fathers” is inflated and untrue.  See here:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/12/church-fathers.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/10/eucharist-part-1.html

Whose Authority?

Ok, what about authority?  Who really has it?  This simply boils down to authority being for the person who is faithful to the Scriptures.  Authority does not belong to a spiritual dictator.  It does not belong to one who flirts with error or false doctrine.  A “common” Christian in the pew can use the authority of Scripture to rebuke a “pastor” who is flippant or careless with God’s Word.  Pastors, deacons and bishops have their role as leaders in the body, but they cannot, and should not, lord it over the people.  As Christians, we are all brothers and sisters (Matthew 23:8), and we all have biblical roles/positions.  But being a pastor or bishop does not automatically give one authority, but rather, responsibility in his God-given role should be emphasized, so he can rightly divide Scripture.  This produces true authority… a “Magisterium” does not.

What Has Proven True?

So where can we find truth?  I hope that we would all agree that the following entities have proven themselves:

God the Father – through mighty miracles, like creation, the parting of the Red Sea, the Jews’ victories over multiple larger armies, miraculously providing manna, the Tabernacle’s cloud and pillar of fire.

Jesus the Son – through His fulfilled prophecies, His many personal miracles, including raising the dead, and by His own resurrection.

The Bible – through the intricate tapestry of its design (God’s fingerprints are all over it), archaeological proofs, and through fulfilled prophecies and ample manuscript evidence.  Furthermore, Jesus recognized it as the Word of God, He pointed others toward it.  He lived it and obeyed it, and used it Himself during His temptation in the wilderness.  Furthermore, we cannot deny the changed lives (for the better) it has caused over the centuries.

THESE ARE TRANSCENDENT SOURCES and God has caused Scripture to prove itself as a source of divine authority.  God is using His Son (the Word) through the written Word, as the last word for the church today (Hebrews 1:1-2).

There is no Tradition of any kind and no Magisterium of any church that matches the Bible in its divine essence.  Scripture is the one infallible source for the church today.  And that, my friend, is the origin of spiritual truth.

 

 

THE POPE, THE PEDOPHILE AND THE PIMP

 

An old, but definitely interesting, photo has surfaced lately.  It is a picture of convicted billionaire pedophile and sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.  And next to him is Ghislaine Maxwell (his “handler”/madam/pimp, who “procured” and groomed young girls for him.)  What is interesting about this photo is that these two were kneeling before none other than the pope, with whom they had a private meeting and, according to the U. S. Sun, it was a meeting in which former Pope John Paul II had reportedly blessed them.  See here:

https://www.the-sun.com/news/4110742/jeffrey-epstein-ghislaine-maxwell-blessed-pope/

The article states that in 2003, Epstein and Maxwell flew to the Vatican in Epstein’s private jet (the Lolita Express), the same one that they used for sex trafficking.

But why would the pope bless these two?  Why were they given a “Benediction Papalis” (papal blessing)?  Didn’t he know who they were and what they were involved in?

Some may say that Pope John Paul II was unaware of this couple’s sordid activities.  I suppose it is possible that the pope did not know, but for what reason did he give them a blessing to begin with?  According to the following source, only Catholics can get a blessing from the pope.  See here:

https://www.italymagazine.com/featured-story/how-get-papal-blessing

But were they Catholic?  No, it indeed seems that they weren’t.  Epstein’s parents were of Jewish descent.  And Maxwell was brought up an Anglican – her father was brought up in a Jewish family and her mother was of French Protestant descent.  I am not aware of any source (Catholic or otherwise) that claims that these two had converted to Catholicism. 

So again, why would he bless this non-Catholic couple?  If he knew about their lives, then why would he have given them his approval?  But if he didn’t know them, then wouldn’t it be incumbent upon a man of such power and influence as the pope to find out about these people before meeting them, and especially before giving them a personal blessing?  It’s not like he doesn’t have the resources to investigate beforehand the people with whom he meets.  The truth is that they had been running a pedophile sex ring since the 1990’s (if not earlier).  See here:

https://www.thecut.com/2021/11/ghislaine-maxwell-jeffrey-epstein-alleged-madam.html

But the fact that they both flew there in person and had a private meeting with him strongly suggests that he did know them personally.  According to one Catholic source, you’d have to be pretty special to have a private meeting with the pontiff.  See this article:

https://www.romereports.com/en/2017/12/03/can-you-have-a-private-audience-with-the-pope-it-depends/

I could possibly be wrong, but I suspect that the pope did indeed know about their vile lives and still gave them his blessing, sanctioning their wicked lifestyle.  After all, the Catholic Church is no stranger to pedophilia and the cover-up of its perpetrators.  This is just my opinion, but I don’t believe that this meeting was innocent.  I believe they had something in common.  While this may not have been a public event, this meeting would appear to lend some “credibility” to Epstein and Maxwell, so people would say, “Wow!  They got a blessing from the pope, so they must be upstanding citizens!”  Nice cover-up.

So, this disgusting duo (Epstein and Maxwell) must have been pretty special to the pope, since, once again, they got a private meeting AND a blessing.  What are the odds?  I highly suspect that there were favors promised on both sides.  If a pope is personally and privately blessing a non-Catholic billionaire, there’s more than likely a catch.

Some say that the photo of Epstein, Maxwell and the pope was a fake, but Snopes (the fact-checker organization) rated the photo as true.  According to the Snopes article, Fox News reported that a 2005 police raid on Epstein’s Florida mansion revealed photos of Epstein with high-profile people, including Pope John Paul II.  See here:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/jeffrey-epstein-ghislaine-maxwell-pope/

Conclusion

I am reminded of the words of the apostle Paul writing to the church at Corinth:

Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.  (1 Corinthians 15:33)

You know, “Birds of a feather flock together…”  or “You become like the people you hang around with…”  You get the idea.  These are wise words because this is a biblical principle.   

Why would the pope be connected in any way with such people?  We should expect more from spiritual leaders because they are more accountable to God than most people for what they do and they must be careful whom they bless (or to whom they give approval).

Paul also told Timothy (the pastor of the church in Ephesus):

Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure. (1 Timothy 5:22)

We see the same basic thought here.  Don’t be quick to lay hands (suggesting approval) on someone.  In doing this, I believe that the pope, in this meeting with Epstein and Maxwell, became a partaker of their sins.  The “Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church” has chosen to align himself with a pedophile sex trafficker and his pimp.  More troubling, though, is the fact that this just didn’t come out of nowhere.  Pedophilia and sex scandals abound within the Catholic Church.  Now, there are many perverts and sex criminals in other religious organizations also, to be sure.  But I believe that, because of the structure of the Catholic Church and its leaders’ willingness to protect its offenders at all costs, this evil seems to be built into the system.  The idea of forced celibacy and a group of males (or females, in the case of nuns) living together in close quarters indefinitely is a breeding ground for all sorts of problems. 

Some will say that celibacy is not forced on priests.  There may be exceptions, but the norm is that it is indeed mandatory for those who choose to be priests in the Latin rite.  The chances of certain sexual sins in this institution are greatly increased under these conditions.

To my knowledge, John Paul II had never renounced the blessing he gave to Epstein and Maxwell, nor apologized to his followers for it.  It seems obvious to me that when the pope is found sanctioning wicked lifestyles, it is high time for Catholics to evaluate their faith and start detaching themselves from this corrupt system.  My Catholic friends, do you really want to stay in such a tainted and unbiblical institution?  Please search this blog and see the many articles in it demonstrating the Catholic Church’s error and corruption. 

But you do have a choice and you are not obligated to stay there.  Of course, there is no perfect church or religious assembly anywhere in the world.  But there are churches out there that are biblically sound and whose members, for the most part, live faithfully according to biblical principles.  The problem is to find one of these assemblies.  But surely, if you are sincerely searching for God’s will and have spent ample time familiarizing yourself with God’s Word, He will guide you to recognize, and desire to join, such a biblical church.  The question is, are you interested in the truth?  Are you perhaps trapped in a long-standing tradition of being Catholic, just because of your family and friends?

Hopefully, as time goes on, Catholics will see more and more clearly the errors and corruption of their system.  So, beware of the popes (and the rest of the Church hierarchy) and their connections with pimps and pedophiles.  Don’t become a partaker of their sins by your approving of, and staying in, that system.

And I heard another voice from Heaven, saying, “Come out of her, My people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.  For her sins have reached unto Heaven and God hath remembered her iniquities.” (Revelation 18:4-5)

See this link:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2021/04/the-whore-of-babylon.html

 

WHAT ABOUT THE GOOD PRIESTS?

 

The Catholic priesthood has taken some serious hits in the last fifty years or more, and rightly so.  Accusations of sodomy, child molestation, homosexuality, sex abuse and all sorts of inappropriate behavior abound.  And it is not just in the United States.  Many charges have been filed, but it may very well be just the tip of the iceberg.  Time will tell.

But many Catholics believe there are some good priests in the Church, too.   I’ve seen a Catholic bumper sticker out there that says, “I am thankful for the thousands of GOOD priests.”  So why doesn’t everybody focus on them?  Perhaps there are some priests who are morally good (when compared to others), but those who make this claim are missing the whole point of the priesthood argument.  The real question is not, “Are there any good priests?”  The question is, “Does this priesthood even exist today, in God’s eyes?”

Note these analogies:

A person in an insane asylum can claim to be “perfectly normal,” but is he?  A one-hundred pound weakling can believe he is a linebacker for the NFL, but that’s obviously not true.  An unskilled and undisciplined person who is afraid of heights can think he is an astronaut, but reality says otherwise.  All these have one important thing in common: They are all deluded – they are deceived.

Actually, when it comes to the priesthood, a more accurate analogy would be someone claiming to be the emperor of the United States.  But this is an office that does not exist.  Maybe there were emperors in another time in history and/or in other places in the world, but not now and not here in America.  Anyone in the U.S. claiming to be an emperor of this nation is truly deceived.  In this time and place, there are no emperors.  There is no one here with any such title.

Likewise, the office of “ministerial priest” today is not a biblical fact.  This office was definitely a legitimate one in the Old Testament, but it is glaringly absent from the New Testament of that same Bible.  By this fact alone, I think God is telling us something!  In fact, there is abundant biblical evidence that there is no longer that type of priesthood today.  See these links:

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

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

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2016/06/martignoni-and-korahs-rebellion.html

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

Of course, Catholics claim that there certainly is an office of “priest” in the New Testament, but one must do all sorts of Scripture torturing to come to this conclusion.  The great majority of their arguments on this topic are addressed in the links above.

I would say that the only “good priest” is the one who recognizes that this title is unbiblical and is willing to forfeit that title in order to honor God and to surrender to the principles of Scripture.