(By Nathan Williams)

A couple weeks ago I wrote on the biblical definition of justification. I believe it is vital to understand that, biblically-speaking, justification is a declaration of righteousness given by God concerning man. This past week I have been studying the doctrine of justification in preparation for a speaking opportunity on the topic of the Roman Catholic Church. I had been somewhat familiar with the Catholic Church before, but recently have grown in my understanding of the differences between Catholic and Protestant views of justification. It has always been confusing to me why so many Protestants are quick to link arms with Catholics and act as if there is little to no difference between the two systems. I have been challenged again that there is a substantial difference and that Luther did not protest in vain.

One of the major differences comes when the Catholic Church teaches that justification is initiated at baptism and that baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation. Here is a quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

“Baptism as an infant cleanses from original sin, removes other sin and its punishment, provides justification in an initial form, provides spiritual rebirth or regeneration, and is ‘necessary for salvation.’”

It is interesting to note that this quote says that baptism provides justification in its initial form. This leads to another major difference in the two views of justification. Catholics believe that justification begins at the moment of baptism, but that it is not complete until the person actually becomes righteous before God. They deny a forensic declaration of righteousness and insist that justification is a process and not a position before God. Within such a system, it makes perfect sense to speak of the inception and  increase of justification. It is something the sinner must work at throughout his or her life on earth. Those who have been baptized “work for eternal life by means of love-inspired virtues that are the fruit of the divine grace infused in the soul” (Lewis & Demarest, Integrative Theology).

Because of this, the typical Roman Catholic bases his salvation on his own level of sanctification (what God is presently doing in him), and not what Christ did for him on the cross. Because of this belief, those in the Catholic Church hold to the idea of “merit of worthiness.” Basically this means that free moral acts which are done in the state of grace earn merit before God.

Another major difference in the two views is that, according to the Catholic Church, justification can be lost and regained. (This of course fits with the idea that justification is a process.) Any time a Catholic commits a mortal sin he loses his justification but can regain it back again by performing the sacrament of penance. This sacrament involves contrition, confession, satisfaction, and absolution. If the process of justification is not completed here on earth, the sinner must spend years in purgatory being purified of any remaining sins.

But how does the Roman Catholic understanding of justification line up with Scripture? Can justification be rightly viewed as a process that can be lost and then regained by good works? No way.

The reason we need a forensic declaration of righteousness is because our sins have condemned us before God. God has examined the human race and has found us guilty before Him. Romans 1:18 explains that God’s wrath is revealed against all unrighteousness and ungodliness. Romans 3:23 informs us that we have all fallen short of the glory of God. There is no way we can live up to the standard of absolute holiness that He has set. It is impossible.

The question to ask is: Can the guilty justify themselves? NO! When we attempt to merit God’s saving grace we have destroyed the very essence of grace. Grace is God’s unmerited favor and there is no way humans can ever earn grace. If we were to come to God with all our good works in hand and seek to exchange them for a home in heaven, we would still fall well short of the perfect standard God has set. Romans 4:4-5 says that “…to the one who works, his wage is not credited 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 credited as righteousness.” This idea is echoed in Romans 11:6: “If it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.”

The point of this article is to remind and encourage Christians that justification is not a process we must pursue. It is something that has been secured once-for-all by the Lord Jesus Christ. Those who attempt to earn a right standing before God through their own good works are attempting the impossible. No one can merit His righteousness. And that is why we thank God for the perfect life and substitutionary death of His Son Jesus Christ. Without His life and death imputed to us we would still be lost in our sins, standing guilty before a holy God, with nothing but the filthy rags of human works.

In light of last week’s discussion regarding Roman Catholicism, we wanted to offer some concluding thoughts and observations on the issue.

Because this is our “last word” on last week’s dialogue, we will not be allowing comments on today’s post.

1) First, Regarding Gerry’s Challenge

Part of what sparked the discussion was the challenge which Gerry (who defended his position as Roman Catholic) issued on May 8: “I challenge anyone to find the current protestant beliefs and practices before the 1500’s.” He reiterated this challenge on May 14, when he wrote:

I have still not received an answer to my challenge from 5/8 to show me where Protestant theology existed before the 1500’s (sola fide, sola scriptura for instance). Since you are studying the fathers in detail, I’m sure that if those tenents [sic] of your theology existed that you can show some history behind it as I have.

Since sola fide and sola Scriptura were specifically mentioned, we accepted this challenge and focused primarily on those two doctrines. Throughout the week, we provided roughly 70 patristic quotations from numerous sources to support these two Reformation principles. We were also careful to define what the Reformers meant by sola fide and sola Scriptura.

The quotes we amassed are far too long to list here (taking up roughly 12 pages, single-spaced in a Word document). More could surely be found if an exhaustive study were undertaken. In any case, whether or not one agrees with sola fide or sola Scriptura, it is wishful thinking to suggest that such doctrines had no historical precedent before 1500.

Here are just a few snippets from the lists we put together:

Sola Scriptura

Tertullian (155 – 240): The Scriptures . . . indeed furnish us with our Rule of faith.

Hippolytus (d. 235): There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source.

Origen (c. 185 – 254): In the two testaments every word that pertaineth unto God may be sought and discussed, and out of them all knowledge of things may be understood. And if anything remains which Holy Scripture does not determine, no other third scripture ought to be received to authorize any knowledge . . . .

Augustine (354 – 430): What more shall I teach you than what we read in the apostle? For Holy Scripture fixes the rule for our doctrine, lest we dare be wiser than we ought.

Athanasius (295 – 375): In the Holy Scriptures alone is the instruction of religion announced—to which let no man add, from which let no man detract—which are sufficient in themselves for the enunciation of the truth.

Chrysostom (344 – 407): When there is a question of Divine things, would it not be a folly rashly and blindly to receive the opinions of others, when we have a rule by which we can examine everything? I mean the Divine law. It is for this reason that I conjure you all, without resting in the slightest degree on the judgment of others, to consult the Scriptures.

Augustine (354–430): In those things, which are plainly laid down in Scripture, all things are found, which embrace faith and morals.

Theodoret of Cyrus (393–457): Bring me not human reasonings and syllogisms, for I rely on the divine Scripture alone.

Sola Fide

Polycarp (c. 69–155): I know that through grace you are saved, not of works, but by the will of God, through Jesus Christ.

Didymus the Blind (c. 313-398): This does not mean that works can be put before faith, because a person is saved by grace, not by works but by faith.

Hilary of Poitiers (c 315-67): Wages cannot be considered as a gift, because they are due to work, but God has given free grace to all men by the justification of faith.

Athanasius (295 – 375): By surrendering to death the body which He [Jesus Christ] had taken, as an offering and sacrifice free from every stain, He immediately abolished death for His human brothers by the offering of the equivalent. For naturally, since the Logos of God was above all, when He offered His own temple and bodily instrument as a substitute for the life of all, He fulfilled by death all that was required.

Basil of Caesarea (329-379): This is perfect and pure boasting in God, when one is not proud on account of his own righteousness but knows that he is indeed unworthy of the true righteousness and is (or has been) justified solely by faith in Christ.

Ambrose (339–97): Therefore let no one boast of his works, because no one can be justified by his works; but he who is just receives it as a gift, because he is justified by the washing of regeneration. It is faith, therefore, which delivers us by the blood of Christ, because blessed is he whose sins are forgiven, and to whom pardon is granted. 

Jerome (347–420): He who with all his spirit has placed his faith in Christ, even if he die in sin, shall by his faith live forever.

Chrysostom (344 – 407): But what is the “law of faith?” It is, being saved by grace. Here he shows God’s power, in that He has not only saved, but has even justified, and led them to boasting, and this too without needing works, but looking for faith only.

Ambrosiaster (c. 366-384): God has decreed that a person who believes in Christ can be saved without works. By faith alone he receives the forgiveness of sins.

Cyril of Alexandria (412-444): For we are justified by faith, not by works of the law, as Scripture says (Gal. 2:16). By faith in whom, then, are we justified? Is it not in him who suffered death according to the flesh for our sake? Is it not in one Lord Jesus Christ.

We would also note that we believe there are many other areas of Roman Catholic theology that do not accurately represent the doctrine or practice of the early church. As we noted in our discussion, men like William Webster (in his books The Church of Rome at the Bar of History and Roman Catholic Tradition: Claims and Contradictions) have already discussed these things in detail. Some of Webster’s articles can be read at his website (see below).

Finally, we would add that, while Protestants find great encouragement and confirmation in historical testimony, we do not face the same dilemma as the Roman Catholic (for whom ecclesiastical tradition is considered authoritative). Protestants need not be overly concerned when the church fathers disagree with each other, or even when a few of the church fathers present views contrary to modern Protestant practice. Our authority is not in history, it is in the Scriptures. For the Roman Catholic, however, the contrary views of history present a major problem — since church tradition carries enormous weight, and is often in conflict with biblical teaching.

2) Second, regarding the Roman view of justification:

In our discussion this past week, it was suggested from the Roman Catholic perspective that justification is wholly by grace but not wholly by faith. As Gerry’s citation (on May 17) from Catholic Answers put it: “Good works are meritorious.” The Catholic Catechism further states:

The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians and that the justified man is still bound to keep them [fn, Cf. DS 1569-1570]; the Second Vatican Council confirms: “The bishops, succors of the apostles, receive from the Lord … the mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments” (P 2068; ellipse in original, emphasis mine).

In our interaction last week, it became clear that Roman Catholics attempt to differentiate the “good works” of Roman Catholicism from the “works of the Law” – arguing that while “good works” (such as the sacraments) are necessary for salvation, the “works of the Law” are not (being condemned by Paul in Galatians and Romans). They further contend that while we do not “earn” our salvation by works, our good works are rewarded with eternal life. Here’s a further quote from Catholic Answers:

We do not “earn” our salvation through good works (Eph. 2:8–9, Rom. 9:16), but our faith in Christ puts us in a special grace-filled relationship with God so that our obedience and love, combined with our faith, will be rewarded with eternal life (Rom. 2:7, Gal. 6:8–9; emphasis mine).

Thus, on the one hand, our good works are meritorious such that they will be rewarded with eternal life and salvation. But on the other hand, we do not “earn” our salvation through good works. On the one hand, we are to reject the “works of the Law.” But on the other hand, we must attain salvation in part by keeping the ten commandments (the heart and summary of the Law).

Such reasoning seems utterly contradictory to us. If salvation is based, even in part, on works — then it is no longer salvation wholly by grace. As Clement of Rome (who died around 100) wrote in his epistle:

And we [Christians], too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Or as the apostle Paul said:

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. (Eph. 2:8-9)

But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. (Titus 2:4–7)

Though the Roman system claims to base salvation on grace, its emphasis on works as necessary for salvation renders such “grace” something wholly different. As Paul wrote, “But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace” (Rom. 11:6).

Insofar as Roman theology confuses the basis of justification (faith in Christ alone) with the results of justification (good works that flow from faith), it is teaching something other than the biblical gospel (cf. Gal. 1:6–9).

3) Third, regarding Roman Catholic Theology in General

Our articles this last week focused on two primary areas: (1) justification by faith alone, and (2) the authority and sufficiency of Scripture. We believe these two doctrines are clearly taught in Scripture, and it is on that basis that we embrace them as authoritative. However, we also see the testimony of church history confirming these two doctrines—and we are thankful for that historic witness (even if it is not infallible).

But there are other areas of disagreement between Protestants and Catholics, beyond just sola Scriptura and sola fide. Some of these were mentioned in the discussion. Some were not. As a Protestants, here are some additional major concerns that we would have with the Roman Church:

 The veneration of Mary to the point of worship; such that she is considered a co-redeemer with Christ. To a lesser extent, the veneration of the saints (such that prayers are offered to them for guidance and protection)

 The teaching that there exists a line of papal succession back to Peter, such that today’s Popes are Peter’s infallible successors. (On a side note, the priests of the Old Testament could point to a similar line of succession [back to Aaron]; yet no one would claim that Annas or Caiaphas were infallible.)

 The use of the apocrypha as Scripture (when church fathers like Jerome, Gregory, and others clearly denied it)

 An emphasis on penance such that human beings can expiate their own sins

 The idea that communion is more than a symbolic representation of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross

 An emphasis on baptismal regeneration such that infants (who have no capacity for faith) are “saved” through baptism

 The introduction of a human priest to act as a mediator between God and men (when Hebrews denounces the need for any such mediator, other than Christ)

 The mandatory celibacy of priests (when no such mandate is commanded by Scripture, and even men like Peter had a wife)

 The teaching that the saved will pay for their sins in a post-death purgatory

 An emphasis on the sacraments as means of grace

While we do not have time to go into depth on each of these issues, we would recommend the following websites as a helpful place to start (for those who are interested):

 James White

 William Webster

 CARM

 Michael Gendron 

Note: Today’s post concludes our series on Roman Catholicism.

(By John MacArthur)

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JESUS

Let’s return to the Roman Catholic priest’s challenge (see Thursday’s post). Certainly if justification by faith alone is so crucial a doctrine, we would expect to find it clearly taught by our Lord. Indeed, that is precisely what we discover.

Although Christ made no formal explication of the doctrine of justification (such as Paul did in his epistle to the Romans), justification by faith underlay and permeated all His gospel preaching. While Jesus never gave a discourse on the subject, it is easy to demonstrate from Jesus’ evangelistic ministry that He taught sola fide.

For example, it was Jesus Himself who stated, “he who hears My word, and believes . . . has passed out of death into life” (Jn. 5:24)—without undergoing any sacrament or ritual, and without any waiting period or purgatory. The thief on the cross is the classic example. On the most meager evidence of his faith, Jesus told him, “Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise” (Lk. 23:43). No sacrament or work was required for him to procure salvation.

Furthermore, the many healings Jesus accomplished were physical evidence of His power to forgive sins (Matt. 9:5-6). When He healed, He frequently said, “Your faith has made you well” (Matt. 9:22; Mk. 5:34; 10:52; Lk. 8:48; 17:19; 18:42). All those healings were object lessons on the doctrine of justification by faith alone.

But the one occasion where Jesus actually declared someone “justified” provides the best insight into the doctrine as He taught it:

He also told this parable to certain ones who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt: “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee, and the other a tax-gatherer. The Pharisee stood and was praying thus to himself, ‘God, I thank Thee that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax-gatherer. I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.’ But the tax-gatherer, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, the sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself shall be humbled, but he who humbles himself shall be exalted” (Luke 18:9-14, emphasis added).

That parable surely shocked Jesus’ listeners! They “trusted in themselves that they were righteous” (v. 9)—the very definition of self-righteousness. Their theological heroes were the Pharisees, who held to the most rigid legalistic standards. They fasted, made a great show of praying and giving alms, and even went further in applying the ceremonial laws than Moses had actually prescribed. ”As to the righteousness which is in the Law,” they considered themselves “blameless” (cf. Phil. 3:5-6).

Yet Jesus had stunned multitudes by saying, “Unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:20)—followed by, “You are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (v. 48). Clearly, He set a standard that was humanly impossible, for no one could surpass the rigorous living of the scribes and Pharisees. Now He further astounds His listeners with a parable that seems to place a detestable tax-gatherer in a better position spiritually than a praying Pharisee.

Jesus’ point is clear. He was teaching that justification is by faith alone. All the theology of justification is there. But without delving into abstract theology, Jesus clearly painted the picture for us with a parable.

a judicial act of God

This tax-gatherer’s justification was an instantaneous reality. There was no process, no time lapse, no fear of purgatory. He “went down to his house justified” (v. 14)—not because of anything he had done, but because of what had been done on his behalf.

Notice that the tax-collector understood his own helplessness. He owed an impossible debt he knew he could not pay. All he could do was repent and plead for mercy. Contrast his prayer with that of the arrogant Pharisee. He did not recite what he had done. He knew that even his best works were sin. He did not offer to do anything for God. He simply pleaded for divine mercy. He was looking for God to do for him what he could not do for himself. That is the very nature of the penitence Jesus called for.

by faith alone

Furthermore, this man went away justified without performing any works of penance, without doing any sacrament or ritual, without any meritorious works whatsoever. His justification was complete without any of those things, because it was solely on the basis of faith. Everything necessary to atone for his sin and provide forgiveness had already been done on his behalf. He was justified by faith on the spot.

Again, he makes a stark contrast with the smug Pharisee, who was so certain that all his fasting and tithing and other works made him acceptable to God. But while the working Pharisee remained unjustified, the believing tax-gatherer received full justification by faith alone.

an imputed righteousness

Remember Jesus’ statement from the Sermon on the Mount, “Unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:20)? Yet now He states that this tax-gatherer—the most wicked of men—was justified! How did such a sinner obtain a righteousness that exceeded that of the Pharisee? If the standard is divine perfection (v. 48), how could a traitorous tax-collector ever become just in God’s eyes?

The only possible answer is that he received a righteousness that was not his own (cf. Phil. 3:9). Righteousness was imputed to him by faith (Rom. 4:9-11).

Whose righteousness was reckoned to him? It could only be the perfect righteousness of a flawless Substitute, who in turn must bear the tax-gatherer’s sins and suffer the penalty of God’s wrath in his place. And the gospel tells us that is precisely what Jesus did.

The tax-gatherer was justified. God declared him righteous, imputing to him the full and perfect righteousness of Christ, forgiving him of all unrighteousness, and delivering him from all condemnation. Forever thereafter he stood before God on the ground of a perfect righteousness that had been reckoned to his account.

That is what justification means. It is the only true gospel. All other points of theology emanate from it. As Packer wrote, “The doctrine of justification by faith is like Atlas: it bears a world on its shoulders, the entire evangelical knowledge of saving grace.”  The difference between Rome and the Reformers is not theological hair-splitting. A right understanding of justification by faith is the very foundation of the gospel. You cannot go wrong on this point without corrupting every other doctrine as well. And that is why every “different gospel” is under the eternal curse of God.

You cannot say that Luther invented the idea of justification by faith alone. Long before Luther it was taught by Augustine and Paul and Jesus and Moses. Even back in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve realized soon after their sin that the fig leaves with which they tried to cover their shame were woefully inadequate. The gospel is given in Genesis 3:21 when Moses tells us that God clothed them. They needed something they couldn’t provide for themselves; and God giving man what man needs to stand in His favorable presence is the essence of the gospel. Luther merely restated what true Christians have understood for centuries, that justification is by faith alone.

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ROME

The Church finally set forth its views on justification in the mid-sixteenth century at the Council of Trent. Trent was Rome’s answer to the Reformation, and much of the Council’s work was specifically designed to set Catholic doctrine in stark contrast to Protestant ideas. Nowhere is the divergence between Rome and the Reformers more pronounced than in the Council’s handling of justification.

The Canons and Decrees of Trent are not merely the archaic opinion of some medieval Bishops. They represent the official position of the Church to this day. All subsequent Catholic councils have uniformly reaffirmed Trent’s pronouncements. In fact, the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s declared these doctrines “irreformable.” All faithful Catholics are commanded to receive them as infallible truth. Therefore, to understand Roman Catholic doctrine on justification, we must go back to the Council of Trent.

Trent did not overtly deny that believers are saved by divine grace. In fact, the Council specifically stated that “God justifies sinners by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” That, of course, is an echo of Romans 3:24. But Scripture goes a step further than Trent was willing to go. Romans 11:6 says, “But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace” (emphasis added). Trent took a position that made works an essential part of justification. In doing so, they were left with a grace that is “no longer grace.” So although Trent started with an affirmation of divine grace, the doctrine of justification they described is actually “a different gospel” that corrupts the grace of God.

a process dependent on the believer, not a judicial act of God

The Council saw justification as a process whereby the sinner is actually made righteous. In other words, Trent said justification entails the whole process of sanctification. According to the Council, justification is “not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace and gifts by which an unrighteous man becomes righteous.”

Moreover, according to the Council, justification is a lifelong process. In fact, the process extends beyond this life and into the next. Purgatory is necessary to blot out the full debt of eternal punishment:

If anyone says that the guilt is remitted to every penitent sinner after the grace of justification has been received, and that the debt of eternal punishment is so blotted out that there remains no debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened—let him be anathema.

There is no guarantee that anyone will persevere in the process, and some may fall away and be lost forever. But “those who, by sin, have fallen from the received grace of justification may be again justified . . . through the sacrament of penance.”

In other words, good works are necessary to preserve justification, and when believers sin, they must regain their justification through a religious ritual. This is an unmistakable denial of sola fide.

Faith plus works, not faith alone

While giving lip service to the importance of faith in justification, Trent nevertheless declared that the instrumental cause of justification (the means by which it is obtained) is not faith, but “the sacrament of baptism.”

And in a similar vein, the Council ruled, “If anyone says that the righteousness received is not preserved and also not increased before God by good works, but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not a cause of its increase, let him be anathema.” In other words, works are necessary to obtain, to preserve, and to increase justification. If works are not added to faith, justification stops short of its goal.

Even grace is conferred through works in the Roman Catholic system:

If anyone says that by the said sacraments . . . grace is not conferred through the work worked but [says] that faith alone in the divine promises is sufficient for the obtaining of grace, let him be anathema.

The Council further issued an explicit repudiation of sola fide:

If anyone says that by faith alone the sinner is justified, so as to mean that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification . . . let him be anathema.

In other words, Trent decreed that anyone who claims to be justified on the basis of faith alone apart from works is condemned to eternal damnation.

grace infused, not righteousness imputed

As noted earlier, when justification is mingled with sanctification, the grounds for justification becomes the sinner’s own imperfect righteousness rather than the perfect righteousness of Christ. Trent explicitly acknowledged this:

If anyone says that men are justified either by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ alone, or by the remission of sins alone, to the exclusion of the grace and love that is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Spirit and is inherent in them; or even that the grace by which we are justified is only the favor of God—let him be anathema.

Here the Council was expressly contradicting the Reformation teaching that Christ’s perfect righteousness, imputed to the sinner’s account, is the ground on which we stand acceptable before God. Instead, the Council stated that grace is infused into the believer’s heart, resulting in a righteousness that is inherent (the believer’s own righteousness). That inherent righteousness—which must be perfected by sanctification and purgatory—provides the grounds for acceptance before God.

a different gospel, not the biblical message

Scripture teaches no such thing. In fact, the Catholic doctrine of justification is precisely what Paul condemned as “a different gospel.” According to the Bible, God “reckons righteousness apart from works” (Rom. 4:4-6). Paul counted all other things as refuse and dung for the sake of a right doctrine of justification: “In order that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith” (Phil. 3:8-9, emphasis added). 

That is a plain repudiation of the very doctrine taught by the Council of Trent!

Scripture also teaches that justification is a declarative act of God, not a process. Jesus promised immediate salvation to believers: “He who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life” (Jn. 5:24). That verse clearly states that on the basis of faith alone, sinners pass out of death and into eternal life.  Sanctification is a result, not a prerequisite; and purgatory is never even mentioned in Scripture. In fact, whenever the Bible speaks of believers’ justification, it always speaks of a past-tense event that occurs at the moment of faith: “Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 5:1, emphasis added).  “Having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him” (v. 9, emphasis added). ”There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:1, emphasis added). Our justification is an accomplished fact, not an unfinished project.

Scripture also makes clear that justification is by faith alone, not by faith plus works: “By grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast” (Eph. 2:8-9, emphasis added).

Justification by faith alone is and always has been the only way of salvation:

For what does the [Old Testament] Scripture say? ”And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” 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, just as David also speaks of the blessing upon the man to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works” (Rom. 4:3-6, emphasis added).

What must we do to be saved? Scripture answers that question in the clearest possible terms: “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved” (Acts 16:31). Works have no part in our justification. The only thing that can make any sinner acceptable to God is the imputed merit of the Lord Jesus Christ.

(To be concluded tomorrow)

Long Before Luther: Jesus and the Doctrine of Justification

No doctrine is more important to evangelical theology than the doctrine of justification by faith alone—the Reformation principle of sola fide. Martin Luther called it the article that determines whether the church is standing or falling.

History provides plenty of objective evidence to affirm Luther’s assessment. Churches and denominations that hold firmly to sola fide remain evangelical. Those willing to yield at this point inevitably capitulate to liberalism, revert to sacerdotalism, or embrace even worse forms of apostasy. Historic evangelicalism has therefore always treated justification by faith as a central biblical distinctive—if not the single most important doctrine to get right. It would not be far from the truth to define evangelicals as those who believe in justification by faith alone.

Scripture itself makes sola fide the only alternative to a damning system of works-righteousness: “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” (Rom. 4:4-5, emphasis added). Israel’s apostasy was rooted in their abandonment of justification by faith alone: “For not knowing about God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God” (Rom. 10:3).

In other words, those who trust Jesus Christ for justification by faith alone receive a perfect righteousness that is reckoned to them. Those who attempt to establish their own righteousness or mix faith with works only receive the terrible wage that is due all who fall short of perfection. So the individual as well as the church stands or falls with the principle of sola fide.

Biblical justification must be earnestly defended on two fronts. Many today misuse the doctrine to support the view that obedience to God’s moral law is optional. This teaching attempts to reduce the whole of God’s saving work to the declarative act of justification. It downplays the spiritual rebirth of regeneration (2 Cor. 5:17); it discounts the moral effects of the believer’s new heart (Ezek. 36:26-27); and it makes sanctification hinge on the believer’s own efforts. It tends to treat the forensic element of justification—God’s act of declaring the believing sinner righteous—as if this were the only essential aspect of salvation. The inevitable effect of this approach is to turn the grace of God into licentiousness (Jude 4). Such a view is called antinomianism.

On the other hand, there are many who make justification dependent on a mixture of faith and works. Whereas antinomianism radically isolates justification from sanctification, this error blends the two aspects of God’s saving work. The effect is to make justification a process grounded in the believer’s own flawed righteousness—rather than a declarative act of God grounded in Christ’s perfect righteousness. As soon as justification is fused with sanctification, works of righteousness become an essential part of the process. Faith is thus diluted with works. Sola fide is abandoned. This was the error of the Galatian legalists (cf. Gal. 2:16). Paul called it “a different gospel” (Gal. 1:6, 9). The same error is found in virtually every false cult. It is also the whole basis of the Roman Catholic doctrine of justification.

Evangelicalism is currently being assaulted with both errors. The “lordship salvation” controversy reveals the potency of modern antinomianism. Meanwhile on the other front, a push is underway for ecumenical union with Roman Catholicism. This would require evangelicals to soften their stance on sola fide and grant the stamp of legitimacy to a Galatian-style doctrine of justification that mingles faith and works. These trends are especially alarming because they emanate from within the evangelical movement itself.

And outside evangelicalism, justification by faith alone is being vigorously attacked. A new generation of Roman Catholic apologists have taken up arms against sola fide. According to them, Scripture does not teach the doctrine—it is an invention of Luther and the Reformers.

I recently listened to a taped presentation by a Catholic priest who was making these claims. He suggested that Jesus virtually ignored the doctrine of justification in His own teaching and evangelism. This man, who frequently debates Protestant theologians, said he has challenged them all to demonstrate where Jesus taught that anyone could be justified by faith alone. So far, he said, he has not found anyone willing to take him up on his dare.

Unfortunately, today’s evangelicals are poorly equipped to meet such a challenge. Many see theology as less important than the great moral issues of our day, such as abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, and similar concerns. Thrown together with Roman Catholics in the political arena, many moral activists view it as counterproductive to debate theology. They prefer to let the doctrinal differences between Rome and the Reformers fade into obscurity. At the very least they are willing to treat all doctrinal differences as secondary matters. This mindset is behind the document titled “Evangelicals and Catholics Together,” which calls evangelicals to embrace all Catholics as true brothers and sisters in Christ.

Meanwhile, ignorance and theological naivete have left many evangelicals unable to defend what Scripture teaches. Ours is an age of pragmatism, obsessed with what works and less concerned with what is true. Too few are able or willing to defend evangelical truths against contradictory views. It is easier—and it seems so much more polite—simply not to argue. Therefore attacks on crucial evangelical doctrines often go unanswered. The next generation will reap the poisonous fruit of this trend.

If doctrine as a whole has been ignored in our day, the doctrine of justification has suffered a particular neglect. Written works on justification are noticeably missing from the corpus of recent evangelical literature. In his introduction to the 1961 reprint of James Buchanan’s landmark work on justification, J. I. Packer made note of this:

It is a fact of ominous significance that Buchanan’s classic volume, now a century old, is the most recent full-scale study of justification by faith that English-speaking Protestantism (to look no further) has produced. If we may judge by the size of its literary output, there has never been an age of such feverish theological activity as the past hundred years; yet amid all its multifarious theological concerns it did not produce a single book of any size on the doctrine of justification. If all we knew of the church during the past century was that it had neglected the subject of justification in this way, we should already be in a position to conclude that this has been a century of religious apostasy and decline.

No doctrine is more important to defend than the biblical teaching that believers are justified by faith alone. Sola fide is one truth that we must keep clearly in sight if we are to steer a safe course between the twin evils of antinomianism on one side and works-righteousness on the other. The apostle Paul counted it so important that he issued a solemn curse of eternal damnation against anyone who would corrupt the gospel at this point (Gal. 1:9). No wonder so many in the Reformation gave their lives in defense of this doctrine.

In fact, justification was the doctrine that sparked the Reformation.  Catholic theology had neglected the subject for centuries. Rome was unprepared to answer the early Reformers’ doctrinal challenge. So the Church’s initial response was to deflect the debate to the issue of moral and ecclesiastical reforms. Martin Luther was frustrated by Rome’s unwillingness to address doctrine—especially justification by faith. He even stated that he would gladly yield to the pope on ecclesiastical matters if the pope would embrace the true gospel. Luther understood that all the moral and ecclesiastical offenses tolerated by the Church were ultimately a result of the eclipse of justification. The doctrine of justification by faith alone would have automatically ended the sale of indulgences and other abuses of ecclesiastical power.

So when the Reformers’ preaching about justification by faith began to awaken the masses to the truth of Scripture, it was inevitable that the Roman Catholic Church would respond.

(To be continued tomorrow)

How Do We Know the Doctrine of the Apostles?

Now let’s examine the key Scriptures Rome cites to try to justify the existence of extrabiblical tradition. Since many of these passages are similar, it will suffice to reply to the main ones. First we’ll examine the key verses that speak of how Apostolic doctrine was transmitted, and then we’ll explore what the apostle Paul meant when he spoke of “tradition.”

Second Timothy 2:2: ”The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also.” Here the apostle Paul instructs Timothy, a young pastor, to train other faithful men for the task of leadership in the church. There is no hint of apostolic succession in this verse, nor is there any suggestion that in training these men Timothy would be passing on to them an infallible tradition with authority equal to the Word of God.

On the contrary, what this verse describes is simply the process of discipleship. Far from imparting to these men some apostolic authority that would guarantee their infallibility, Timothy was to choose men who had proved themselves faithful, teach them the gospel, and equip them in the principles of church leadership he had learned from Paul. What Timothy was to entrust to them was the essential truth Paul himself had preached “in the presence of many witnesses.” What was this truth?

It was not some undisclosed tradition, such as the Assumption of Mary, which would be either unheard of or disputed for centuries until a pope declared ex cathedra that it was truth. What Timothy was to hand on to other men was the same doctrine Paul had preached before “many witnesses.” Paul was speaking of the gospel itself. It was the same message Paul commanded Timothy to preach: and it is the same message that is preserved in Scripture and sufficient to equip every man of God (2 Tim. 3:16—4:2).

In short, this verse is wholly irrelevant to the Catholic claim that tradition received from the apostles is preserved infallibly by her bishops. Nothing in this verse suggests that the truth Timothy would teach other faithful men would be preserved without error from generation to generation. That is indeed what Scripture says of itself: “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching” (2 Tim. 3:16)—but no such assertion is ever made for tradition handed down orally.

Like Timothy, we are to guard the truth that has been entrusted to us. But the only reliable canon, the only infallible doctrine, the only binding principles, and the only saving message, is the God-breathed truth of Scripture.

Acts 2:42: ”They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.” This verse simply states that the early church followed the apostles’ teaching as their rule of faith.  Once again this passage says nothing about apostolic succession and contains no hint of a guarantee that “the apostles’ teaching” would be infallibly preserved through any means other than Scripture.

Note also that this verse describes the attitude of the earliest converts to Christianity. The “they” at the beginning of the verse refers back to verse 41 and the three thousand souls who were converted at Pentecost. These were for the most part rank-and-file lay people. And their one source of Christian doctrine (this was before any of the New Testament had been penned) was the oral teaching of the apostles.

This verse is even more irrelevant to the question of infallible tradition than 2 Timothy 2:2. The only point it asserts that is remotely germane to the issue is that the source of authority for the early church was apostolic teaching.

No one who holds to the doctrine of sola Scriptura would dispute that point. Let it be stated as clearly as possible: Protestants do not deny that the oral teaching of the apostles was authoritative, inerrant truth, binding as a rule of faith on those who heard it. 

Moreover, if there were any promise in Scripture that the exact words or full sense of the apostolic message would be infallibly preserved through word of mouth by an unbroken succession of bishops, we would be bound to obey that tradition as a rule of faith.

Scripture, however, which is God-breathed, never speaks of any other God-breathed authority; it never authorizes us to view tradition on an equal or superior plane of authority; and while it makes the claim of inerrancy for itself, it never acknowledges any other infallible source of authority. Word-of-mouth tradition is never said to be theopneustos, God-breathed, or infallible.

What Tradition Did Paul Command Adherence to?

We’ve already noted, however, that Catholic apologists claim they do see verses in Scripture that accord authority to tradition. Even non-Catholic versions of Scripture speak of a certain “tradition” that is to be received and obeyed with unquestioning reverence.

What of these verses? Protestants often find them difficult to explain, but in reality they make better arguments against the Catholic position than they do against sola Scriptura. Let’s examine the main ones:

First Corinthians 11:2: “Now I praise you because you remember me in everything, and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.” Those words of Paul to the Corinthians speak of tradition, do they not?

Yet as is often true, the meaning is plain when we look at the context. And examining the context, we discover this verse offers no support whatsoever for the Roman Catholic notion of infallible tradition.

First of all, the apostle is speaking not of traditions passed down to the Corinthians by someone else though word of mouth. This “tradition” is nothing other than doctrine the Corinthians had heard directly from Paul’s own lips during his ministry in their church. The Greek word translated “traditions” is paradosis, translated “ordinances” in the King James Version. The Greek root contains the idea of transmission, and the idea is no doubt doctrine that was transmitted by oral means. In this case, however, it refers only to Paul’s own preaching—not to someone else’s report of what Paul taught.

The Corinthians had had the privilege of sitting under the apostle Paul’s ministry for a year and a half (Acts 18:11), so it is ironic that of all the churches described in the New Testament, Corinth was one of the most problematic. Paul’s first epistle to this church deals with a series of profound problems related to church discipline and practice, including serious sin in their midst, disunity among the brethren, disorder in church meetings, Christians who were taking one another to court, abuse of spiritual gifts, and so on. Second Corinthians is an extended defense of Paul’s ministry in the face of opposition and hostility. Someone in the church—possibly even someone whom Paul had entrusted with a position of leadership—had evidently fomented a rebellion against Paul during his long absence.

The Corinthians knew Paul. He had been their pastor. Yet they were obviously slipping away from the moorings he had so carefully established during his pastorate there. Far from being instruments through which Paul’s tradition was infallibly preserved and handed down, the Corinthians were rebelling against his apostleship! That is why Paul encouraged them to remember what they had heard from him and follow it to the letter. 

What did he teach during that year and a half in their midst? We have no way of knowing precisely, but we have every reason to believe that the substance of his teaching was the same truth that is recorded throughout his epistles and elsewhere in the New Testament. Once again, we do know for certain that everything essential for thoroughly equipping Christians for life and godliness was preserved in Scripture (2 Tim. 3:15-17). The rest is not recorded for us, and nothing anywhere in Scripture indicates that it was handed down through oral tradition—especially not through any means that guaranteed it would be inspired and infallible.

First Corinthians 11:2 in particular teaches no such thing. It is nothing but Paul’s exhortation to the Corinthians that they remember and obey his apostolic teaching. It reflects Paul’s own personal struggle to protect and preserve the doctrinal tradition he had carefully established in Corinth. But again, there is no implication whatsoever that Paul expected this tradition to be infallibly preserved through any inspired means other than Scripture. On the contrary, Paul was concerned lest his ministry among the Corinthians prove to have been in vain (cf. 2 Cor. 6:1).

Second Thessalonians 2:15: ”So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.” This is perhaps the favorite verse of Catholic apologists when they want to support the Catholic appeal to tradition, because the verse plainly delineates between the written word and oral “traditions.”

Again the Greek word is paradosis. Clearly, the apostle is speaking of doctrine, and it is not to be disputed that the doctrine he has in mind is authoritative, inspired truth.

So what is this inspired tradition that they received “by word of mouth”? Doesn’t this verse rather clearly support the Catholic position?

No, it does not. Again, the context is essential to a clear understanding of what Paul was saying. The Thessalonians had evidently been misled by a forged letter, supposedly from the apostle Paul, telling them that the day of the Lord had already come (2 Thess. 2:2). The entire church had apparently been upset by this, and the apostle Paul was eager to encourage them.

For one thing, he wanted to warn them not to be taken in by phony “inspired truth.” And so he told them clearly how to recognize a genuine epistle from him: it would be signed in his own handwriting: “I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand, and this is a distinguishing mark in every letter; this is the way I write” (3:17). He wanted to ensure that they would not be fooled again by forged epistles.

But even more important, he wanted them to stand fast in the teaching they had already received from him. He had already told them, for example, that the day of the Lord would be preceded by a falling away, and the unveiling of the man of lawlessness. ”Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things?” (2:5). There was no excuse for them to be troubled by a phony letter, for they had heard the actual truth from his own mouth already.

Now, no one—even the most impassioned champion of sola Scriptura—would deny that Paul had taught the Thessalonians many things by word of mouth. No one would deny that the teaching of an apostle carried absolute authority. The point of debate between Catholics and Protestants is whether that teaching was infallibly preserved by word of mouth. So the mere reference to truth received firsthand from Paul himself is again, irrelevant as support for the Catholic position. Certainly nothing here suggests that the tradition Paul delivered to the Thessalonians is infallibly preserved for us anywhere except in Scripture itself.

In fact, the real thrust of what Paul is writing here is antithetical to the spirit of Roman Catholic tradition. Paul is not encouraging the Thessalonians to receive some tradition that had been delivered to them via second- or third-hand reports. On the contrary, he was ordering them to receive as infallible truth only what they had heard directly from his own lips.

Paul was very concerned to correct the Thessalonians’ tendency to be led astray by false epistles and spurious tradition. From the very beginning the Thessalonians had not responded to the gospel message as nobly as the Bereans, who “received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11).

It is highly significant that the Bereans are explicitly commended for examining the apostolic message in light of Scripture. They had the priority right: Scripture is the supreme rule of faith, by which everything else is to be tested. Unsure of whether they could trust the apostolic message—which, by the way, was as inspired and infallible and true as Scripture itself—the Bereans erased all their doubt by double-checking the message against Scripture. Yet Roman Catholics are forbidden by their Church to take such an approach! They are told that the Church through her bishops dispenses the only true and infallible understanding of Scripture. Therefore it is pointless to test the Catholic Church’s message by Scripture; for if there appears to be a conflict—and make no mistake, there are many—Rome says her traditions carry more weight that her critics’ interpretation of Scripture.

What the apostle was telling the Thessalonians was nothing like what Rome tells faithful Catholics. Paul was urging the Thessalonians to test all truth-claims by Scripture, and by the words they had heard personally from his own lips. And since the only words of the apostles that are infallibly preserved for us are found in Scripture, that means that we, like the Bereans, must compare everything with Scripture to see whether it is so.

Roman Catholic apologists protest that only a fraction of Paul’s messages to the Thessalonians are preserved in the two brief epistles Paul wrote to that church. True, but may not we assume that what he taught the Thessalonians were the very truths that are found in generous measure throughout all his epistles—justification by faith, the true gospel of grace, the sovereignty of God, the Lordship of Christ, and a host of other truths? The New Testament gives us a full-orbed Christian theology. Who can prove that anything essential is omitted? On the contrary, we are assured that Scripture is sufficient for salvation and spiritual life (2 Tim 3:15-17). Where does Scripture ever suggest that there are unwritten truths that are necessary for our spiritual well-being? One thing is certain: these words in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 imply no such thing.

Second Thessalonians 3:6: ”Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep aloof from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us.” This is the only other verse in all the New Testament where Paul uses the words tradition or traditions to speak of apostolic truth that is to be obeyed.

By now, Paul’s use of this term should be well established. This cannot be a reference to truth passed down from generation to generation. Again, Paul is speaking of a “tradition” received firsthand from him.

This is the closing section of the epistle. Paul is summing up. And he once again underscores the importance of the teaching the Thessalonians had received directly from his mouth. The “tradition” he speaks of here is doctrine so crucial that anyone who refuses to heed it and live by it should be rejected from the fellowship.

What is this “tradition”? Is it Marian theology, or dogma about the efficacy of relics, or other teachings unique to Roman Catholicism? Not at all—it is simple, practical apostolic doctrine, taught and lived out by example while Paul was among the Thessalonians. Paul goes on to define specifically what “tradition” he has in mind:

We did not act in an undisciplined manner among you, nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with labor and hardship we kept working night and day so that we might not be a burden to any of you; not because we do not have the right to this, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you, that you might follow our example. For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone will not work, neither let him eat. For we hear that some among you are leading an undisciplined life, doing no work at all, but acting like busybodies. Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to work in quiet fashion and eat their own bread. But as for you, brethren, do not grow weary of doing good (3:7-13).

In other words, Paul was speaking of simple, practical doctrine about stewardship of one’s time, a man’s responsibility to work and provide for his family, and personal discipline in daily life. These truths are now part of holy Scripture, by virtue of Paul’s including them in this epistle. Put that together with everything else the New Testament records, and you have every part of the apostolic message that was infallibly preserved for us.

Is the sum of Scriptural truth a sufficient rule of faith for the Christian? We have the Bible’s own assurance that it is. Scripture alone is sufficient to lead us to salvation and fully equip us for life and eternity (2 Tim. 3:15-17). Therefore we may know with certainty that every essential aspect of the apostolic message is included in Scripture.

Note that Paul clearly regarded his epistles as inspired, authoritative Scripture. He charged the Thessalonians with these instructions: “And if anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of that man and do not associate with him, so that he may be put to shame.”

So the written words of Scripture are binding. Apostolic preaching was equally binding for those who heard it from the apostles’ own mouths. Beyond that, Scripture lays no burden on anyone’s shoulders. But, thank God, His own Word assures us that Scripture is fully sufficient to bring us to salvation and to equip us spiritually for all that God demands of us.

No man, no church, no religious authority has any warrant from God to augment the inspired Word of Scripture with additional traditions, or to alter the plain sense of it by subjecting it to the rigors of a “traditional” meaning not found in the Word itself. To do so is clearly to invalidate the Word of God—and we know what our Lord thinks of that (Matt. 15:6-9).

(To be continued tomorrow)

Modern Roman Catholic Apologetics and Sola Scriptura

As we established yesterday, the official Catholic position on Scripture is that Scripture does not and cannot speak for itself. It must be interpreted by the Church’s teaching authority, and in light of “living tradition.” De facto this says that Scripture has no inherent authority, but like all spiritual truth, it derives its authority from the Church. Only what the Church says is deemed the true Word of God, the “Sacred Scripture . . . written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records.”

This position obviously emasculates Scripture. That is why the Catholic stance against sola Scriptura has always posed a major problem for Roman Catholic apologists. On one hand faced with the task of defending Catholic doctrine, and on the other hand desiring to affirm what Scripture says about itself, they find themselves on the horns of a dilemma. They cannot affirm the authority of Scripture apart from the caveat that tradition is necessary to explain the Bible’s true meaning. Quite plainly, that makes tradition a superior authority. Moreover, in effect it renders Scripture superfluous, for if Catholic tradition inerrantly encompasses and explains all the truth of Scripture, then the Bible is simply redundant. Understandably, sola Scriptura has therefore always been a highly effective argument for defenders of the Reformation.

So it is not hard to understand why in recent years Catholic apologists have attacked sola Scriptura with a vengeance. If they can topple this one doctrine, all the Reformers’ other points fall with it. For under the Catholic system, whatever the Church says must be the standard by which to interpret all Scripture. Tradition is the “true” Scripture, written in the heart of the Church. The Church—not Scripture written in “documents and records”—defines the truth about justification by faith, veneration of saints, transubstantiation, and a host of other issues that divided the Reformers from Rome.

To put it another way, if we accept the voice of the Church as infallibly correct, then what Scripture says about these questions is ultimately irrelevant. And in practice this is precisely what happens. To cite but one example, Scripture very plainly says, “There is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5). Nonetheless, the Catholic Church insists that Mary is her Son’s “co-mediatrix.” And in the eyes of millions of Catholics, what the Church says is seen as the final and authoritative Word of God. First Timothy 2:5 is thus nullified by Church tradition.

If Rome can prove her case against sola Scriptura, she overturns all the arguments for the Reformation in one fell swoop. If she can establish her tradition as an infallible authority, no mere biblical argument would have any effect against the dictates of the Church.

Modern Roman Catholic apologists have therefore mounted a carefully focused attack against sola Scriptura. Hoping to turn the Reformation’s greatest strength into an argument against the Reformation, they have begun to argue that it is possible to debunk sola Scriptura by using Scripture alone! This line of argument is now being employed by Catholics against evangelicalism in practically every conceivable forum.

For example, from some articles posted on the Internet:

 The Protestant teaching that the Bible is the sole spiritual authority—sola Scriptura—is nowhere to be found in the Bible. St. Paul wrote to Timothy that Scripture is “useful” (which is an understatement), but neither he nor anyone else in the early Church taught sola scriptura. And, in fact, nobody believed it until the Reformation.

 The Bible nowhere teaches that it is the sole authority in matters of belief. In fact, the Bible teaches that Tradition—the oral teachings given by Jesus to the apostles and their successors, the bishops—is a parallel source of authentic belief. (Quotes from 2 Thess. 2:15 and 1 Cor. 11:2 follow).

From some books written by Catholic Apologists:

 Nowhere does [the Bible] reduce God’s Word down to Scripture alone. Instead, the Bible tells us in many places that God’s authoritative Word is to be found in the church: her tradition (2 Th 2:15; 3:6) as well as her preaching and teaching (1 Pet 1:25; 2 Pet 1:20-21; Mt 18:17). That’s why I think the Bible supports the Catholic principle of sola verbum Dei, “the Word of God alone,” [with "Word of God" encompassing both tradition and Scripture], rather than the Protestant slogan, sola scriptura, “Scripture alone.”

 The Bible actually denies that it is the complete rule of faith. John tells us that not everything concerning Christ’s work is in Scripture (Jn 21:25), and Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition that is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to “stand fast, and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle” (2 Th 2:15). We are told that the first Christians “were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles” (Acts 2:42), which was the oral teaching given long before the New Testament was written—and centuries before the canon of the New Testament was settled.

And from a public debate on the question of sola Scriptura:

 Sola Scriptura itself must be proved from Scripture alone. And if it can’t be done, sola scriptura is a self refuting proposition, and therefore it is false.

 [In] 2 Thessalonians 2:15, Paul commands the Church to stand firm and hold fast in the traditions that they had been given, whether orally, spoken, or through an epistle of theirs. So in other words, tradition is one major category, and there are two subsets in the one category: oral tradition, written tradition. That’s what the Word of God says.

The Sufficiency of Scripture

First, it is necessary to understand what sola Scriptura does and does not assert. The Reformation principle of sola Scriptura has to do with the sufficiency of Scripture as our supreme authority in all spiritual matters. Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture.

It is not a claim that all truth of every kind is found in Scripture. The most ardent defender of sola Scriptura will concede, for example, that Scripture has little or nothing to say about DNA structures, microbiology, the rules of Chinese grammar, or rocket science. This or that “scientific truth” for example, may or may not be actually true, whether or not it can be supported by Scripture—but Scripture is a “more sure Word,” standing above all other truth in its authority and certainty. It is “more sure,” according to the apostle Peter, than the data we gather firsthand through our own senses (2 Pet. 1:19). Therefore Scripture is the highest and supreme authority on any matter to which it speaks. But there are many important questions on which Scripture is silent. Sola Scriptura makes no claim to the contrary.

Nor does sola Scriptura claim that everything Jesus or the apostles ever taught is preserved in Scripture.  It only means that everything necessary, everything binding on our consciences, and everything God requires of us is given to us in Scripture.

Furthermore, we are forbidden to add to or take way from Scripture (cf. Deut. 4:2; 12:32, cf. Rev. 22:18-19). To do so is to lay on people’s shoulders a burden that God Himself does not intend for them to bear (cf. Matt. 23:4).

Scripture is therefore the perfect and only standard of spiritual truth, revealing infallibly all that we must believe in order to be saved, and all that we must do in order to glorify God. That—no more, no less—is what sola Scriptura means.

The Westminster Confession of Faith defines the sufficiency of Scripture like this:

The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men (1:6).

The Thirty-nine Articles of the Anglican Church include this statement on sola Scriptura:

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation (article 6).

So sola Scriptura simply means that Scripture is sufficient. The fact that Jesus did and taught many things not recorded in Scripture (Jn. 20:30; 21:25) is wholly irrelevant to the principle of sola Scriptura. The fact that most of the apostles’ actual sermons in the early churches were not written down and preserved for us does not diminish the truth of biblical sufficiency one bit. What is certain is that all that is necessary is in Scripture—and we are forbidden “to exceed what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6).

Scripture clearly claims for itself this sufficiency—and nowhere more clearly that 1 Timothy 3:15-17. A brief summary of that passage is perhaps appropriate here as well. In short, verse 15 affirms that Scripture is sufficient for salvation: “The sacred writings . . . are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” Verse 16 affirms the absolute authority of Scripture, which is “God-breathed” (Gk. theopneustos) and profitable for our instruction. And verse 17 states that Scripture is able to equip the man of God “for every good work.” 

So the assertion that the Bible itself does not teach sola Scriptura is simply wrong.

(To be continued tomorrow)

The tendency to venerate tradition is very strong in religion.  The world is filled with religions that have been following set traditions for hundreds—even thousands—of years.  Cultures come and go, but religious tradition shows an amazing continuity.

In fact, many ancient religions—including Druidism, Native American religions, and several of the oriental cults—eschewed written records of their faith, preferring to pass down their legends and rituals and dogmas via word-of-mouth.  Such religions usually treat their body of traditions as a de facto authority equal to other religions’ sacred writings.

Even among the world’s religions that revere sacred writings, however, tradition and scripture are often blended.  This is true in Hinduism, for example, where the ancient Vedas are the Scriptures, and traditions handed down by gurus round out the faith of most followers. Tradition in effect becomes a lens through which the written word is interpreted.  Tradition therefore stands as the highest of all authorities, because it renders the only authoritative interpretation of the sacred writings.

This tendency to view tradition as supreme authority is not unique to pagan religions. Traditional Judaism, for example, follows the Scripture-plus-tradition paradigm. The familiar books of the Old Testament alone are viewed as Scripture, but true orthodoxy is actually defined by a collection of ancient rabbinical traditions known as the Talmud. In effect, the traditions of the Talmud carry an authority equal to or greater than that of the inspired Scriptures.

Teaching as Doctrines the Precepts of Men

This is no recent development within Judaism. The Jews of Jesus’ day also placed tradition on an equal footing with Scripture. Rather, in effect, they made tradition superior to Scripture, because Scripture was interpreted by tradition and therefore made subject to it.

Whenever tradition is elevated to such a high level of authority, it inevitably becomes detrimental to the authority of Scripture. Jesus made this very point when he confronted the Jewish leaders. He showed that in many cases their traditions actually nullified Scripture. He therefore rebuked them in the harshest terms:

“Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far away from Me. But in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’ Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”  He was also saying to them, “You nicely set aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.  For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death’; but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, anything of mine you might have been helped by is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that” (Mk. 7:6-13).

It was inexcusable that tradition would be elevated to the level of Scripture in Judaism, because when God gave the law to Moses, it was in written form for a reason: to make it permanent and inviolable. The Lord made very plain that the truth He was revealing was not to be tampered with, augmented, or diminished in any way. His Word was the final authority in all matters: ”You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you” (Deut. 4:2). 

They were to observe His commandments assiduously, and neither supplement nor abrogate them by any other kind of “authority”: “Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it” (Deut. 12:32).

So the revealed Word of God, and nothing else, was the supreme and sole authority in Judaism. This alone was the standard of truth delivered to them by God Himself. Moses was instructed to write down the very words God gave him (Exod. 34:27), and that written record of God’s Word became the basis for God’s covenant with the nation (Exod. 24:4,7). The written Word was placed in the Ark of the Covenant (Deut. 31:9), symbolizing its supreme authority in the lives and the worship of the Jews forever. God even told Moses’ successor, Joshua:

Be strong and very courageous; be careful to do according to all the law which Moses My servant commanded you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, so that you may have success wherever you go.  This book of the law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it (Josh. 1:7-8).

Of course, other books of inspired Scripture beside those written by Moses were later added to the Jewish canon—but this was a prerogative reserved by God alone. Sola Scriptura was therefore established in principle with the giving of the law. No tradition passed down by word of mouth, no rabbinical opinion, and no priestly innovation was to be accorded authority equal to the revealed Word of God as recorded in Scripture.

Solomon understood this principle: “Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words lest He reprove you, and you be proved a liar” (Prov. 30:5-6).

The Scriptures therefore were to be the one standard by which everyone who claimed to speak for God was tested: “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them” (Isa. 8:20, KJV).

In short, tradition had no legitimate place of authority in the worship of Jehovah. 

Everything was to be tested by the Word of God as recorded in the Scriptures. That’s why Jesus’ rebuke to the scribes and Pharisees was so harsh. Their very faith in Rabbinical tradition was in and of itself a serious transgression of the covenant and commandments of God (cf. Matt. 15:3).

The Rise and Ruin of Catholic Tradition

Unfortunately, Christianity has often followed the same tragic road as paganism and Judaism in its tendency to elevate tradition to a position of authority equal to or greater than Scripture. The Catholic Church in particular has its own body of tradition that functions exactly like the Jewish Talmud: it is the standard by which Scripture is to be interpreted. In effect, tradition supplants the voice of Scripture itself.

How did this happen?  The earliest Church Fathers placed a strong emphasis on the authority of Scripture over verbal tradition. Fierce debates raged in the early church over such crucial matters as the deity of Christ, His two natures, the Trinity, and the doctrine of original sin. Early church councils settled those questions by appealing to Scripture as the highest of all authorities. The councils themselves did not merely issue ex cathedra decrees, but they reasoned things out by Scripture and made their rulings accordingly. The authority was in the appeal to Scripture, not in the councils per se.

Unfortunately, the question of Scriptural authority itself was not always clearly delineated in the early church, and as the church grew in power and influence, church leaders began to assert an authority that had no basis in Scripture. The church as an institution became in many people’s eyes the fountain of authority and the arbiter on all matters of truth. Appeals began to be made more often to tradition than to Scripture. As a result, extrabiblical doctrines were canonized and a body of truth that found no support in Scripture began to be asserted as infallibly true.

Roman Catholic doctrine is shot through with legends and dogmas and superstitions that have no biblical basis whatsoever. The stations of the cross, the veneration of saints and angels, the Marian doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, and the notion that Mary is co-mediatrix with Christ—none of those doctrines can be substantiated by Scripture. They are the product of Roman Catholic tradition.

Officially, the Catholic Church is very straightforward about her blending of Scripture and tradition. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) acknowledges that the Roman Catholic Church “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence” (CCC 82, emphasis added).

Tradition, according to Roman Catholicism, is therefore as much “the Word of God” as Scripture. According to the Catechism, Tradition and Scripture “are bound closely together and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing and move towards the same goal” (CCC 80). The “sacred deposit of faith”—this admixture of Scripture and tradition—was supposedly entrusted by the apostles to their successors (CCC 84), and “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone. . . .  This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome” (CCC 85).

The Catechism is quick to deny that this makes the Church’s teaching authority (called the magisterium) in any way superior to the Word of God itself (CCC 86). But it then goes on to warn the faithful that they must “read the Scripture within ‘the living tradition of the whole Church’” (CCC 113). The Catechism at this point quotes “a saying of the Fathers[:] Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word” (CCC 113).

So in effect, tradition is not only made equal to Scripture; but it becomes the true Scripture, written not in documents, but mystically within the Church herself. And when the Church speaks, Her voice is heard as if it were the voice of God, giving the only true meaning to the words of the “documents and records.” Thus tradition utterly supplants and supersedes Scripture.

(To be continued tomorrow)

(By Jesse Johnson)

With regret, we interrupt “Mom’s Week” to address the recent return of Francis Beckwith to his “Mother” Church — the Roman Catholic Church. Jesse Johnson is our local outreach pastor at Grace Church, and as such takes particular interest in issues related to evangelism and apologetics.

Last week Dr. Francis Beckwith, the president of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS, producer of JETS) revealed that he has been restored to full communion with the Roman Catholic Church.

In the eyes of many conservative evangelicals who follow the ETS, this is neither good nor surprising. In an organization that debates the merits of open theism, considers a metaphorical interpretation of Genesis 1, welcomes many Seventh-Day Adventists, and views the Lordship Salvation controversy too close to call, this latest revelation is more amusing than alarming.

If you missed it, Beckwith became president last November. On his blog he explains that he and his wife decided to return to full communion with the Catholic Church in March, seventeen weeks into his one-year term as president of the ETS. While he says he desired to keep his ‘conversion’ private until he was no longer part of the ETS, family matters compelled him to go public prematurely.

Pastor John MacArthur often says, “when someone falls, they don’t fall far.” Frankly, I am more surprised at the surprise of others than I am at Beckwith’s return home. This was clearly a case of mene mene tekel and parsin. In his writings, Beckwith’s Bible version of choice was the NAB (a Catholic translation of the Bible). He was raised in the Roman Catholic Church, he often quoted popes with fondness, and he had an obvious and deep familiarity with Roman Catholic philosophy and theology.

After John Paul II died, Beckwith wrote an article asking evangelicals to study this pope’s life for a message about what Catholics and Protestants have in common. That article appeared in Touchstone Journal, which (thankfully) most readers of this blog probably don’t even recognize. It is a journal that highlights “the shared belief in the fundamental doctrines of the faith . . . as revealed by the three great divisions of Christendom—Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox.”  In short, Beckwith’s writings were often more Catholic than Christian, and certainly more ecumenical than precise. (James White also noticed a similar trend in his writings).

Once his celebration of Mass at St. Joseph’s in Waco was public, the stage was set for a showdown in San Diego at the next ETS meeting. To avoid this, Beckwith resigned as president and stepped down from the ETS executive board. While he originally wrote, “I can in good conscience, as a Catholic, affirm the ETS doctrinal statement,” he later resigned his membership as well.

I was also surprised by the shallowness and superficiality of the reasons Beckwith gave to justify his abandonment of the Protestant Faith. He uses arguments like this: “The early church is more Catholic than Protestant”; Catholics have “more explanatory power to account for both all the biblical texts on justification as well as the church’s historical understanding of salvation prior to the Reformation all the way back to the ancient church of the first few centuries”; and what many Protestants take for granted, such as “the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, . . . and the canon of Scripture” were formed by the Catholic Church.

In reading through his defense, two frustrations immediately came to my mind. First, the claim that the Incarnation and the Trinity were the “result” of the Roman Catholic Church is anachronistic, and inaccurate. Second, the idea that the Roman Catholic Church formed the canon of Scripture is at the “Dan Brown level” of scholarship. 

Much more could be said in response, which made me think: Shouldn’t we expect a stronger case from a person who was the leader of our scholars? If evangelical scholarship is in a state such that the president elected by its foremost members would abandon Protestantism on the back of these types of arguments, what does that say about contemporary evangelicalism? Of course, the answer to that question is probably a different discussion altogether.

In any case, for a more in-depth dismantling of his substantive points, go here and here. For more on Roman Catholicism in general, see here, here, and here.

NOTE: This article was originally written in 1999 and revised on 30 August 2006 to reflect recent developments in the Roman Catholic apologetic community.

The unity Christ prayed for in the church is not, to begin with, an organizational unity.

When Jesus prayed that we all might be one, He was describing a spiritual unity. In John 17:11, He prayed “that they may be one, even as We are.” Verse 21 continues: “that they may all be one; even as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us” (emphasis added).

That describes a very specific kind of spiritual unity that proceeds from our union with Christ. Christ Himself likens it to the unity between Father and Son. It is certainly not something as mundane and superficial as the homogenization of all churches under one earthly hierarchy of bishops in Rome or Constantinople.

Organizational unity cannot guarantee true spiritual unity, and the proof is seen in the Church of Rome herself. Despite all the Catholic finger-wagging about the lack of unity reflected in Protestant denominationalism, there may well be more disharmony within the Roman Catholic Church than there is in the typical Protestant denomination.

Take, for example, Catholic Answers, the apologetics organization headed by Karl Keating. Although Keating and Catholic Answers did not invent the argument that Protestant denominationalism disproves sola fide, they certainly have perfected and popularized it. Staff apologists from Catholic Answers are the chief ones who brought this issue to the forefront of the Catholic-Protestant debate.

Catholic Answers published the tract cited in the first post in this series. And Keating himself personally trained a number of pro-Catholic debaters to employ this argument in their dialogues with Protestants.

Catholic Answers has hammered this same theme for years. According to them, an infallible, magisterial interpretation of Scripture is the only thing that can assure true unity, and the continuing proliferation and fragmentation of Protestant denominations is living proof that there can be no unity under the principle of sola scriptura.

Suppose for the sake of argument we grant their premises and measure the Catholic apologists themselves by their own standard? Keating is arguably the most prominent of dozens of Catholic apologists on the Internet. All of them claim they have an infallible interpretation of Scripture, given to them through the magisterium of Rome. So how has the principle of “unity” fared in the Roman Catholic apologetics community?

Not very well, it turns out. To cite one well-known example, Keating has disavowed and waged war on the Internet for several years against one of his best-known former lieutenants, Gerry Matatics, a convert from Protestantism who now heads an organization of his own. The trouble began, it seems, when Matatics declared his preference for traditional Catholicism with a Latin Mass, while Keating is staunchly in favor of the innovations instituted by the Vatican II Council—including the new Mass in the vernacular.

In 1995, Keating said he considered Matatics “a sad example of how schism leads very quickly to heresy.” [The Wanderer, February 16, 1995 p. 7.] Keating has published a number of articles over the years in This Rock magazine warning other Catholics against his former associate’s influence. [e.g., Karl Keating, "Habemus Papam?" This Rock (July/August 1995).] Both sides took their case to the World Wide Web, posting articles and open letters, debating whether Keating or Matatics best represents the “Catholic” position. [See, for example, "An Open Letter to Mr. Gerry Wells in Defense of Gerry Matatics"]

The battle raged for several years while Matatics remained in full communion with Rome. Then in early 2005, Matatics embraced a view known as sedevacantism, which is the opinion that no legitimate pope has occupied the Holy See since the death of Pius XII. Ostensibly, this involves a kind of auto-excommunication. According to Dave Armstrong (himself a lay Catholic apologist), when Matatics renounced the current pope,

he incurred latae sententiae (automatic excommunication), based on cc. 751 and 1364 of the Code of Canon Law. The first states: the aforesaid canons defines schism as “refusal of subjection to the Roman Pontiff, or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him”. The second states that the penalty for is automatic excommunication.

Matatics, of course, still considers himself a Roman Catholic—a truer Catholic than those who accept Vatican II. The ironic thing is that virtually every pope for the 450 years before Vatican II would have much more in common with Matatics than with Keating in their respective opinions about the Mass. (So much for semper eadem.)

And Matatics is not the only Roman Catholic apologist to wage a public feud with Keating. Robert A. Sungenis is still at it.

Such feuds are symptomatic of several larger conflicts within the Catholic Church. Keating is a “conservative Catholic,” whereas Sungenis is a “traditionalist.” The Roman Catholic Church is home to vast differences of opinion about the Marian doctrines, confusion about supposed Marian prophecies, disputes over canon law, and other deep-seated disagreements about important doctrines. Various factions and sects operate within the walls of the Catholic Church, waging polemic battles as lively and intense as any that ever took place between Protestant denominations.

Add into that mix the scores of radical or liberal priests who blend their peculiar doctrinal and political preferences into the Catholic system, and you have a chaos of varying opinions that is at least equal to that of even the most variegated Protestant denomination.

The simple fact is that there is really no more unity of agreement among Roman Catholics than there is among Protestants. Even with an “infallible interpretation” of Scripture, it seems, the Roman Catholic track record on true spiritual unity is as bad as, or worse than, that of the Protestants.

How much “unity” can there be, for example, between, say, Father Andrew Greely and Mother Angelica (to name two of America’s best-known Catholics)? Greely is a liberal priest and novelist, who once said on “Larry King Live” that he believes the Catholic Church eventually will not only ordain women as priests, but also elect a woman as pope. Mother Angelica is a traditionalist Franciscan nun who has used her televised talk show to criticize other Catholic leaders, including Cardinal Richard Mahoney, for their non-traditionalist stance on liturgical matters.

Do Catholic critics of Protestant denominationalism seriously imagine that their Church embodies a pure, visible, organizational, and spiritual unity comparable in any way to the unity within the Trinity?

In fact, with so many who profess loyalty to Peter’s chair waging battle among themselves over church politics and key points of truth, it should be painfully obvious to all that Roman Catholics are really no better able to agree on their own Church’s “infallible interpretation” than Protestants have been able to agree in exhaustive detail on the meaning of Scripture itself.

Clearly, an external, organizational unity cannot guarantee the kind spiritual unity Christ was praying for. It would be a serious mistake, and a serious blow to real unity, to imagine that the answer to our denominational division is the abandonment of denominations altogether, and the union of all who profess Christ into one massive worldwide organization where we affirm only what we all agree on. No real agreement whatsoever would be achieved through such means, and thus we would have no more true unity than we already enjoy. Meanwhile, the cause of truth would suffer a severe blow, and that would ultimately prove fatal to all genuine unity.

But the unity Scripture calls us to is a unity in truth. Paul wrote, “Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10). He did not counsel the Corinthians to grasp for a superficial unity by setting truth aside and embracing an organizational unity without regard to sound doctrine. Nor did Paul order them to abandon their differences and simply place a blind and implicit trust in his apostolic magisterium. He was urging them to work through their differences and strive to achieve unity in both heart and mind. Such unity is possible only when people are themselves in union with Christ. “For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he will instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ” (1 Cor. 2:16).

That is precisely the kind of unity Christ was praying for. There is nothing superficial about it. It is a unity of spirit. It is a unity in truth. And that is why, in the context of his prayer for unity, Christ also prayed, “Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth” (John 17:17).