Gospel of Grace

I had been engaged in a discussion with John Samson from the "Reformation Theology Blog" and he responded to me with a link to an audio-made-into-video, by Dr. John MacArthur:

Hi Scott,


Dr. John Macarthur (sic) shows the massive difference between a true understanding of God saving grace in the gospel, and the so called "gospel" of Rome here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qt25xnk6gfM&feature

So here is my response to that:


Quoting MacArthur (and this is a complete transcript of that youtube presentation, along with my interjections and corrections to Dr. MacArthur's errors):

I'm going to give you a little course in Roman Catholic theology, here's how it works.  Do you want to be justified and made right with God?  Here's the (precedence).  God infuses grace into you.  They use the term "infused grace"...God infuses it into you.  It's grace or slash, righteousness, and it's the grace of Christ and the righteousness of Christ and it is dumped into you. 

Well, other than the commonality of the terminology - we're OK so far.

The first dose you ever get is in infant Baptism, that is why infant Baptism is absolutely required, because it is the first dispensation of infused grace.   

Absolutely required?  No, it is not!  If it were, then anyone who was not baptized as an infant could not validly or licitly receive baptism at a later date!  Infant Baptism is practiced because, 1) it has biblical precedence (Acts 16:31-34 and 18:8, 1 Cor. 1:16 mention entire households being baptized); 2) why wait?  Yes, it is the "first dose" of Sanctifying Grace for us - so we do not withhold it from our infants.  My point of objection here is that Dr. MacArthur states it is "absolutely required" and that simply is not true. 

And according to Catholic theology at that point grace is infused into you.  That grace becomes an energy in you moving you toward justification, toward righteousness as you cooperate by good works. 

I can agree, to a point with Dr. MacArthur's interpretation here.  Grace IS infused in us and that Grace IS and energy moving us toward justification and righteousness - but the cooperation of good works is a natural outflow from "saving faith" - for a faith which can save also has works.  Faith without works is dead, and a dead faith cannot save you (James 2).

Every time you go to the Mass, every time you do penance, every time you say your beads, every time you go to Confession, every time you do any of that you get more infused grace.  That's why some Roman Catholics go to church (Mass) seven days a week... because they need lots of infused grace.

Well yes, we DO need lots of infused grace!  Certainly Jesus' Act of Grace was a one-time act - but that act was for all time, not just THAT time.  The more we encounter and embrace His Grace - the less likely we are to fall into mortal sin - that sin which is unto death - because we are more and more united with and to Him.

They operate under fear, that's why they go to Confession. 

We go to Confession because God Himself empowered certain men with the authority to forgive and retain sins (John 20:23).  So, when we sin - we MUST go to one so empowered for outside of these men there is no forgiveness of sins!  This is partially true - for we DO fear God!   We DO fear His Judgment!  We go to Confession when we have stumbled and are in need of forgiveness.

They go to Confession not because they want to tell the priest all their sins, but because they want the infused grace which perpetuates them on the process to righteousness.

YES!  We ALL need "lots of infused grace!"  Clearly we are not made clean and pure, in every way, through Baptism - for we still have a fallen nature, and we still commit sin.  Show me a person who claims they do not sin and I will show you a liar.  We ALL sin and we ALL need to be infused - and reinfused, with Sanctifying Grace.  Dr. MacArthur makes this sound like a bad thing, when in reality - going back again and again to that spring of Grace is the means of Grace which God has provided for His people through the Church which He built.

If, per chance, as you move along the road, you're getting closer and closer, you commit a mortal sin, there's two kinds of sin in Catholic theology; venial sins, which don't count like big ones and mortal sins which are really big. 

Dr. MacArthur needs to take a closer look at 1 John 5:16-17 wherein Scripture itself teaches us that there is a "sin leading to death" (mortal) and a there is a "sin not leading to death" (venial).  The concept of mortal and venial sins is quite scriptural. 

If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask and God will for him give life to those who commit sin not leading to death. There is a sin leading to death; I do not say that he should make request for this.  All unrighteousness is sin, and there is a sin not leading to death. (1 John 5:16-17 NASB).

As the reader can see above, there ARE two types of sin - one is mortal (leads to death) and the other is venial (does not lead to death).

So that Roman Catholic theology believes this: God justifies only the righteous. In other words, you're never going to be right with God until you've achieved righteousness. My Bible says: "God justifies sinners." And that is the difference. Roman Catholic theology says you'll get justified when you get righteous; the Bible says you'll get justified when you fall on your face and acknowledge you're a sinner.

Just acknowledging you're a sinner does not justify you! The demons of Hell acknowledge/know they are sinners - but that does not justify them! Those in Purgatory have ALREADY been judged "righteous" - but have some manner of impurity left upon them, and thus cannot yet enter Heaven, for nothing impure can enter Heaven (Rev. 21:27). The path to righteousness necessarily includes good works. I actually find it a bit humorous at times to see how Protestants split hairs over this issue.

Anytime you commit a mortal sin you're back to zero again in the process of justification. It is just as if you've had infant Baptism, you go all the way back to ground zero.

Most Catholics don't know these nuances at all, all they know is they are working real hard hoping they can get into Heaven, but I'm giving you the inside stuff.  This is Catholic theology.  Commit a mortal sin and you're back to square one again and you start the process.  Do that when you're 75 years old and you die when you're 76, you got a long time in Purgatory.

Well again, not quite true.  When we commit a mortal sin we are separated from Sanctifying Grace, but we're still Catholics, we still have the "mark" of Baptism upon us and we're still able to go to the Sacrament of Confession and be restored to a state of Sanctifying Grace.   And again, not quite true.  If you commit a mortal sin at 75 - AND DON'T REPENT OF IT - and then die at 76 with this still unrepented mortal sin on your soul - there's no Purgatory for you, you go straight to Hell.  Now God is the Final Judge on these matters, and He could choose to show mercy based upon the soul and intentions of the individual, but all we can teach is that unrepentent mortal sin (sin which is unto death) equates to DEATH.  Do not pass Go, do not collect $200, go straight to Hell.  Dr. MacArthur is NOT giving you "the inside stuff," he's giving you lies and propaganda.  I hope he's not doing this intentionally and will acknowledge and correct these errors.

Purgatory comes from the word "purge."  And Purgatory is where you go because you didn't make it to justification, you didn't make it to righteousness, but you're a good guy and you tried really hard... we can't send you to Hell - so we'll invent a place and you go there and over a period of three or four hundred years, or whatever it is, you get purged and finally you get righteous and then you can go to Heaven. 

Dr. MacArthur, again, has a false concept of Purgatory.  Every single soul in Purgatory IS SAVED!  They may have some unrepented venial sins, or some other impurity on their soul - but they ARE SAVED!  They WILL go to Heaven, once "every last cent is paid" (Luke 12:59; Matt. 5:26).

And you can get aided because there are some who had more righteousness than they needed.  In fact they were so good and they had extra righteousness and when they died their extra righteousness was put into what is called the Treasury of Merit.  The Treasury of Merit is a big hypothetical box, and God at His own discretion can take some of that out and give it to you while you're in Purgatory to move you faster along.  And you keep hoping that you're going to get, finally to righteous(ness),

Well again, not completely true.  Dr. MacArthur presents us with a partial truth and then creates a bit of a straw man argument.  The "Treasury of Merit" is comprised of Christ's infinite merit AND the merits of the Saints, which is quite finite.  The Church has the authority to loose these merits as she sees fit.  We can discuss this at greater depth if someone so desires.  Suffice it to say, for now, that this Treasury of Merit is not quite what Dr. MacArthur makes it out to be. 

And justification is not a process that finally culminates in Purgatory, it's an act which occurs in a moment of time when God declares you righteous and forgiven.  That is (a) HUGE difference.  One view saves, the other damns because it is a system of works.  

Justification is most certainly a process, as the very word implies!  If it were a one-time act, we'd say "justified" - past tense, and not use a word which is in present tense stating that it is on-going.

(It) sounds good, it's got grace in it, it's got faith in it, it's got righteousness in it, the righteousness of Christ is in it - they use all those terms - in fact this latest document says: "We Catholics and we Protestants believe salvation by grace and salvation by faith and salvation by Christ ALONE, and we believe in the righteousness of Jesus Christ."  And they go, and ah, and ah, (the average) Evangelical "WOW, what else can you say?"  Salvation by faith, by grace through Christ ALONE!  And then there's a paragraph at the end that says, "Of course we have yet to discuss the doctrine of imputation, the Mass and baptismal regeneration."  It doesn't mean anything!  It's just words.  HUGE difference. 

Assuming Dr. MacArthur is referring to the Joint Declaration on Justification (between Lutherans and Catholics, of which MacArthur is neither) let us be clear here... the document doesn't say, as MacArthur quotes "Of course we have yet to discuss imputation, the Mass and baptismal regeneration."  What it DOES say is this: "In this respect, there are still questions of varying importance which need further clarification. These include, among other topics, the relationship between the Word of God and church doctrine, as well as ecclesiology, ecclesial authority, church unity, ministry, the sacraments, and the relation between justification and social ethics."  Let me just say, "HUGE difference" here.  That paragraph goes on to say: "We are convinced that the consensus we have reached offers a solid basis for this clarification. The Lutheran churches and the Roman Catholic Church will continue to strive together to deepen this common understanding of justification and to make it bear fruit in the life and teaching of the churches."  So while MacArthur seems to be attempting to villify this attempt to strive for unity - the document is clearly striving for just that, and what is so wrong with focusing on points of commonality as opposed to the polemics we see far too often in apologetics?  Keep in mind the desire/will of God is that we (professing Christians) should be ONE and not divided.  Yes, this document alone does not unite Catholics and Lutherans - but it is a step in the RIGHT direction!  The objective reader here can see that comparing MacArthur's polemics to God's Will there is a "HUGE difference."

And the way God, listen to this, the way God justifies a person is not by infusing grace into them so that they can become perfect, but by not counting their what?  Trespasses against them.  It's just a matter of God saying, "OK, I'm not counting those anymore against you."  It's not God saying, "Oh. there aren't anymore there."   It's not God saying, "Well, you've reached a point where you don't have anymore trespasses, you can be declared righteous."  That's not justifying the ungodly!  God justifies the ungodly, the Bible says in Romans.  He just doesn't impute their sins.  So you can say to a person, "You want some REALLY good news?  God WANTS to save you, God WANTS to justify you and to sanctify, God WANTS no longer to count any sin you ever commit against you, ever.  That is good news!

The Joint Declaration does not speak out against these things! MacArthur is engaging (again) in straw man argumentation. Yes, God wants to save, God wants to no longer count any sin you commit against you - and for those you repent of through the channel HE provided, He does not count against you, EVER.

So, this whole matter of reconciliation is by the will of God, by the act of justification which is tantamount to complete forgiveness.

Again I must stress, justification is not a one-time act!  It IS a process we go through toward sanctification.  I also stress that sins forgiven in the Sacrament of Reconciliation are completely forgiven.

Thirdly, and I have to say this, it is by the obedience of faith, it's by the obedience of faith.  There's a faith component, verse 20.  We're going around begging people on behalf of Christ, "Be ye reconciled to God."  You say:  "If it's all of God, what are we begging people for?"  It's not apart from faith.  It's NOT apart from faith.  We're begging for a response and the response it to believe and to receive as many as received Him.  How can I say it?   They became privileged to count themselves as sons of God.  It's by faith.  So we go around calling people to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, don't we?  Be saved.  Now you know this.  So, getting people to understand this and to put their faith in Christ alone to justify them, is really what we do.  Um, just let me give you a little insight into this. You say, "So what's the actual message?"  Well, it comes down to this, "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you'll be saved," Acts 16:31.  Believe that Christ came into the world, God in human flesh, born of a virgin, lived a perfect life, died a substitutionary death on the Cross, rose from the grave, ascended to the right hand of the Father, having accomplished our redemption as our High Priest and coming King.  That's what I call the "drive train" of the Gospel.  You believe that.  You believe in the Christ who is the true Christ and in His death and resurrection - for you.

Scripture answers this "drive train" of the Gospel quite well... "Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble." (James 2:19)

I would be remiss if I did not include some of the things Scripture tells us we must DO to be saved, or have a "saving faith."

What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him? (James 2:14)

But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?  Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar?  Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect?  (James 2:20-22)

The following come from the Scripture Catholic site:Neh. 13:14, Psalm 11:7,28:4, Isa. 3:10, 59:18, Jer. 25:14, 50:29, Ezek. 9:10, 11:21, 36:19, Hos. 4:9, 9:15, 12:2, Sir. 16:12,14 - The 2,000 year-old Catholic position on salvation is that we are saved by Jesus Christ and Him alone (cf. Acts 15:11; Eph. 2:5). But by the grace of Christ, we achieve the salvation God desires for us through perseverance in both faith and works. Many Protestants, on the other hand, believe that one just has to accept Jesus as personal Lord and Savior to be saved, and good works are not necessary (they just flow from those already saved). But these verses, and many others, teach us that our performance of good works is necessary for our salvation. Scripture also does not teach that good works distinguish those who are eternally saved from those who are not saved.
Sir. 35:19; Luke 23:41; John 3:19-21, Rom. 8:13, 2 Tim 4:14, Titus 3:8,14, Rev. 22:12 - these verses also teach us that we all will be judged by God according to our deeds. There is no distinction between the "saved" and the "unsaved."

1 Cor. 3:15 - if works are unnecessary for salvation as many Protestants believe, then why is a man saved (not just rewarded) through fire by a judgment of his works?
Matt. 7:1-3 - we are not judged just by faith, but actually how we judge others, and we get what we have given. Hence, we are judged according to how we responded to God's grace during our lives.

Matt. 10:22, 24:13; Mark 13:13 - Jesus taught that we must endure to the very end to be saved. If this is true, then how can Protestants believe in the erroneous teaching of "Once saved, always saved?" If salvation occurred at a specific point in time when we accepted Jesus as personal Lord and Savior, there would be no need to endure to the end. We would already be saved.

Matt. 16:27 – Jesus says He will repay every man for what he has done (works).

Matt. 25:31-46 - Jesus' teaching on the separation of the sheep from the goats is based on the works that were done during their lives, not just on their acceptance of Christ as Savior. In fact, this teaching even demonstrates that those who are ultimately saved do not necessarily have to know Christ. Also, we don’t accept Christ; He accepts us. God first makes the decision to accept us before we could ever accept Him.

Matt. 25:40,45 - Jesus says "Whatever you did to the least of my brothers, you did it to Me." We are judged and our eternal destiny is determined in accordance with our works.

Mark 10:21 - Jesus says sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. This means that our salvation depends upon our works.

Luke 12:43-48 - these verses teach us that we must act according to the Lord's will. We are judged based upon what we know and then do, not just upon what we know.

Luke 14:14 – Jesus says we are repaid for the works we have done at the resurrection of the just. Our works lead to salvation.

Luke 23:41 - some Protestants argue that Jesus gave salvation to the good thief even though the thief did not do any good works. However, the good thief did in fact do a good work, which was rebuking the bad thief when he and others were reviling Jesus. This was a "work" which justified the good thief before Jesus and gained His favor. Moreover, we don't know if the good thief asked God for forgiveness, did works of penance and charity and was reconciled to God before he was crucified.

Rom. 2:6-10, 13 - God will judge every man according to his works. Our salvation depends on how we cooperate with God's grace.

2 Cor. 5:10 - at the judgment Seat of Christ, we are judged according to what we have done in the body, not how much faith we had.

2 Cor. 9:6 – Paul says that he who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully, in connection with God’s judgment.

2 Cor. 11:15 - our end will correspond to our deeds. Our works are necessary to both our justification and salvation.

Gal. 6:7-9 – whatever a man sows, he will reap. Paul warns the Galatians not to grow weary in doing good works, for in due season they will reap (the rewards of eternal life).

Eph. 6:8 – whatever good anyone does, he will receive the same again from the Lord.

Col. 3:24-25 - we will receive due payment according to what we have done. Even so, Catholics recognize that such payment is a free unmerited gift from God borne from His boundless mercy.

1 Tim. 6:18-19 – the rich are to be rich in good deeds so that they may take hold of the life which is life indeed, that is, eternal life.

2 Tim. 4:14 – Alexander the coppersmith did Paul great harm, and Paul says the Lord will requite him for his deeds.

Heb. 6:10 - God is not so unjust as to overlook your work and the love which you showed for His sake. God rewards our works on earth and in heaven.

Heb. 12:14 – without holiness, no one will see the Lord. Holiness requires works of self-denial and charity, and does not come about simply by a profession of faith.

1 Peter 1:17 - God judges us impartially according to our deeds. We participate in applying the grace Jesus won for us at Calvary in our daily lives.

Rev. 2:5 - Jesus tells the Ephesians they have fallen from love they used to have, and orders them to do good works. He is not satisfied with their faith alone. They need to do more than accept Him as personal Lord and Savior.

Rev. 2:10 – Jesus tells the church in Smyrna to be faithful unto death, and He will give them the crown of life. This is the faith of obedience to His commandments.

Rev. 2:19 - Jesus judges the works of the Thyatirans, and despises their tolerance of Jezebel, calling them to repentance.

Rev. 2:23 - Jesus tells us He will give to each of us as our works deserve. He crowns His own gifts by rewarding our good works.

Rev. 2:26 - Jesus says he who conquers and keeps my works until the end will be rewarded in heaven. Jesus thus instructs us to keep his works to the very end. This is not necessary if we are "once saved, always saved."

Rev. 3:2-5,8,15 – Jesus is judging our works from heaven, and these works bear upon our eternal salvation. If we conquer sin through faith and works, He will not blot our names out of the book of life. This means that works bear upon our salvation. Our “works” do not just deal with level of reward we will receive, but whether we will in fact be saved.

Rev. 3:15 – Jesus says, “I know your works, you are neither cold nor hot. Because you are lukewarm, I will spew you out of my mouth.” Jesus is condemning indifferentism, which is often based on our works.

Rev. 14:13 - we are judged by the Lord by our works – “for their deeds follow them!” Our faith during our life is completed and judged by our works.

Rev. 20:12 – “the dead are judged by what was written in the books, by what they had done.”

Rev. 22:12 – Jesus says, “Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense, to repay everyone for what he has done.”

Sirach 16:12,14 – we are judged according to our deeds, and will receive in accordance with our deeds.
May God richly bless you and all who read this.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

Is Catholicism Biblical?

John MacArthur's Sermon [1]:
Is Roman Catholicism Biblical?

A Response by Catholic Apologist, Scott Windsor

JM: In today's spirit of ecumenism, many evangelicals have called for the Protestant Church to lay aside its differences with Rome and pursue unity with the Catholic Church. Is that possible?

SW: Of course it is possible! Lay aside the innovations of the 16th century and forward and we will ecumenically welcome you back into the fold your forefathers left.

JM: Is Roman Catholicism simply another facet of the body of Christ that should be brought into union with its Protestant counterpart? Is Roman Catholicism simply another Christian denomination?

SW: No, and no! Catholicism IS the body of Christ which He founded upon the foundations of the Apostles. It is, as it always has been, in direct and valid succession from the Apostles by which the Catholic Church receives her authority from Christ Himself. The Catholic Church is neither a denomination nor denominated.

JM: While there are many errors in the teaching of the Catholic Church (for example its belief in the transubstantiation of the communion wafer and its view of Mary),

SW: Let us handle these separately.
1) The belief in transubstantiation. Quite simply, when Jesus said, "This IS my body," we believe Him! Certainly it takes faith to accept that while the substance has changed the appearance (accidents) remain, but isn't faith what Christianity is all about? Have faith in Him and His Word, and believe!
2) The Catholic view of Mary. Entire books can be written about this, but let it suffice for this response, we see her as her cousin Elizabeth did, as the Mother of our Lord! One need only look to MacArthur's The Gospel According to Jesus, chapter 1, to see that he equates "Lord" to "God" so therein he should have no problem calling Mary, "Mother of God." I could spend much more time on this, but the purpose of this article is to respond to MacArthur's sermon asking "Is Roman Catholicism Biblical?" I would be more than happy to engage him further if he so desires it.

JM: …two rise to the forefront and call for special attention: its denial of the doctrine of sola Scriptura and its denial of the biblical teaching on justification. To put it simply, because the Roman Catholic Church has refused to submit itself to the authority of God's Word and to embrace the gospel of justification taught in Scripture, it has set itself apart from the true body of Christ. It is a false and deceptive form of Christianity.

SW: Ouch! MacArthur shows his fangs! Seriously though, and please take that as a humorous comment, there are issues with sola scriptura, namely the doctrine itself is not taught in Scripture! More in a bit, as I address the section on sola scriptura. I'll also deal with justification under his fuller comments about that.

The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura

JM: In the words of reformer Martin Luther, the doctrine of sola Scriptura means that "what is asserted without the Scriptures or proven revelation may be held as an opinion, but need not be believed." Roman Catholicism flatly rejects this principle, adding a host of traditions and Church teachings and declaring them binding on all true believers--with the threat of eternal damnation to those who hold contradictory opinions.

SW: Let's look at this now. Scripture tells us that "whatsoever you shall bind on Earth is also bound in Heaven; whatsoever you shall loose on Earth is loosed in Heaven." This direction was given directly to St. Peter, alone and then later to the Apostles as a group (Matt. 16:18-19 and 18:18). So Jesus gave men this authority. We also know, from Acts 1:28, that the Apostles each held an "office" called a "bishopric" and from that same reference that this bishopric had to have a successor. Matthias became our first successor to a bishop's office. To the point… if the Church has so bound something then it has become a matter of the Faith and cannot be rejected by anyone faithful to the Christian Church. The authority of the Church is actually supported by Scripture – whereas the doctrine of sola scriptura itself is not!

JM: In Roman Catholicism, "the Word of God" encompasses not only the Bible, but also the Apocrypha, the Magisterium (the Church's authority to teach and interpret divine truth), the Pope's ex cathedra pronouncements, and an indefinite body of church tradition, some formalized in canon law and some not yet committed to writing. Whereas evangelical Protestants believe the Bible is the ultimate test of all truth, Roman Catholics believe the Church determines what is true and what is not. In effect, this makes the Church a higher authority than Scripture.

SW: Well, no, the Catholic Church does not consider the Magisterium or a pope's ex cathedra (from the chair), tradition or Canon Law to be the Word of God. Only Scripture has that distinction. What MacArthur calls the "Apocrypha" (hidden) Catholics do consider to be part of the Old Testament Scriptures, just as they are included in the Septuagint (LXX). These books were never "hidden" as the name implies, and the less polemical terminology would be to refer to them as the deuteron-canonicals. Since MacArthur brings up what is canonical and what he feels is not – the fact that he has a Bible with the exact canon of the New Testament which the Catholic Church finalized in several councils toward the end of the 4th century AD, speaks volumes (no pun intended). Ironically, virtually all of Protestantdom accepts the New Testament Canon as established by those 4th century councils – but where those exact same councils ruled the fuller Old Testament Canon, Protestants align themselves with post-Christian era Jews – the same Jews who reject that the Messiah has already come! The fact that MacArthur has the Bible he has today, in the form he has today, he owes to the authority of the Catholic Church.

JM: Creeds and doctrinal statements are certainly important. However, creeds, decisions of church councils, all doctrine, and even the church itself must be judged by Scripture--not vice versa.

SW: I would gladly submit every single dogmatic decision of the Church to the scrutiny of Scripture and I posit that you will not find one dogmatic teaching which is contrary to Scripture. Where Scripture is silent, the normative is "qui tacet consentit" – silence implies consent.

JM: Scripture is to be accurately interpreted in its context by comparing it to Scripture--certainly not according to anyone's personal whims.

SW: MacArthur posits that Scripture interprets itself. Again I would challenge him to document from Scripture where this doctrine of it self-interpreting is found. I can tell you now – it's not there.

JM: Scripture itself is thus the sole binding rule of faith and practice for all Christians.

SW: That's a broader paintbrush than I've seen other Protestant apologists use. Some will concede that the Church does indeed have binding authority, but they will not give the Church infallible binding authority. Using almost the same structure I've heard it stated, "Scripture itself is the sole infallible rule of faith (regula fide) for all Christians." MacArthur goes beyond that, Scripture is the sola regula fide – sole rule of faith – not only for things which bind Christians, but also in the disciplines which Christians practice. Either way you look at it – this teaching on the sola regula fide, or sole rule of faith, is nowhere found in Scripture itself! Thus, by its own standard, sola scriptura is not a binding teaching since it is not taught by Scripture! So those of you who have accepted this teaching in the past, feel free to reject it, it fails its own test.

JM: Protestant creeds and doctrinal statements simply express the churches' collective understanding of the proper interpretation of Scripture. In no sense could the creeds and pronouncements of the churches ever constitute an authority equal to or higher than Scripture. Scripture always takes priority over the church in the rank of authority.

SW: Catholics do not put the Church "higher" than Scripture. We too believe that Scripture is the Word of God – and nothing is "higher" than that unless God Himself were to appear in person. That being said, Jesus didn't leave His Church rudderless! He promised to send the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, to be with and guide His Church to all truth until He Himself returns in glory. The fact is, Scripture is part of the traditions of the Church! Much of Scripture is the record of the beginnings of the Early Church. Whereas we apply the commands given by the writers of Scripture to the Church throughout the ages, those writers are members of the Catholic Church to begin with.

JM: Roman Catholics, on the other hand, believe the infallible touchstone of truth is the Church itself. The Church not only infallibly determines the proper interpretation of Scripture, but also supplements Scripture with additional traditions and teaching. That combination of Church tradition plus the Church's interpretation of Scripture is what constitutes the binding rule of faith and practice for Catholics. The fact is, the Church sets itself above Holy Scripture in rank of authority.

SW: Actually, the fact is no rule of the Church supersedes Scripture. This never has happened and never will. Yes, infallibility is a charism of the Catholic Church – and that is explicitly granted by Jesus and recorded in Scripture (Matt. 16:18-19 and 18:18). If one will pause for a moment and objectively consider – if something which can be bound on Earth is also bound in Heaven; unless you believe error can be bound in Heaven, then it is infallibly bound.

SW: As for binding practices – or disciplines – yes, the Church has the authority to bind such. For example, abstinence from meat on Fridays, all Fridays throughout the year. Many, perhaps even most, Catholics may not be aware that this rule is still in effect, but it is. The rule has changed a little. It can still be abstinence from meat, but the 1983 CIC (Code of Canon Law) states that according to one's Episcopal Conference it CAN be something equivalent [CIC 1251: "Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday."] This, I must reiterate, is a discipline of the Church, not a dogma, it could be changed or even altogether dropped. Where a Catholic would get in trouble over this is if they knowingly and willingly decided to thumb their nose to the due and proper authority of the Church and choose not to observe Canon 1251.

The Doctrine of Justification

JM: According to Roman Catholicism, justification is a process in which God's grace is poured forth into the sinner's heart, making that person progressively more righteous. During this process, it is the sinner's responsibility to preserve and increase that grace by various good works.

SW: MacArthur is close here, but he misses the main thrust of the teaching on justification. Justification, in short, is "getting right with God." It is the reception of sanctifying (saving) grace and then persevering in that state of grace. I will continue after MacArthur's next comments:

JM: The means by which justification is initially obtained is not faith, but the sacrament of baptism.

SW: Baptism is a means of grace. Grace is "God's life in us." At baptism, ("which doth now save us" 1 Pet. 3:21) God's grace washes us, not merely "the removal of dirt from the flesh, but the appeal to God for a good conscience." I found MacArthur's "answer" to this very passage, and I was a bit bothered by, what I see as absolute dishonesty in diverting of this passage from 1 Peter 3:21, where he is clearly talking about baptism, to Titus 3:5, which is not about Baptism at all, and declares "It is that washing of the heart."[2] Baptism DOES now save us! Why do so many "Bible-Believing Christians" try to explain away the clear words of Scripture here?

JM: Furthermore, justification is forfeited whenever the believer commits a mortal sin, such as hatred or adultery. In the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, then, works are necessary both to begin and to continue the process of justification.

SW: In the Catholic Faith we accept that there are sins which are venial, which do not lead to death and can be forgiven through a public confession and the reception of the Eucharist, but then there are sins which are unto death (1 John 5:16), and such sin – being unto death – separates us from life in Christ, or the state of sanctifying (saving) grace. Once separated like this, we must go to one whom Jesus has empowered to forgive sins, (John 20:23). The Sacrament of Reconciliation is a means of Grace – just as each Sacrament is. The Sacrament of Reconciliation is a gift from Jesus to His People, the Church, to avail themselves to when they have separated themselves from the state of Grace through the commission of a sin which is unto death. This teaching/belief/practice is well rooted in Scripture.

JM: The error in the Catholic Church's position on justification may be summed up in four biblical arguments. First, Scripture presents justification as instantaneous, not gradual. Contrasting the proud Pharisee with the broken, repentant tax-gatherer who smote his breast and prayed humbly for divine mercy, Jesus said that the tax-gatherer "went down to his house justified" (Luke 18:14). His justification was instantaneous, complete before he performed any work, based solely on his repentant faith.

SW: The error MacArthur makes here is assuming the tax-gatherer was just then justified for the first time, ever. Scripture does not tell us that. Rather, it could be just like the Catholic, who goes to Mass every week, and regularly participates in the Sacrament of Reconciliation, who on his knees prays, "Oh my God, I am whole-heartedly sorry for having offended Thee because of Thy just punishments, but most of all because they offend Thee, my God, who is deserving of all my love! I firmly resolve, through the help of Thy Grace, to amend my life, do the penance and sin no more." [3] When the Catholic humbly prays that prayer, he is like the tax-gatherer from Luke 18, and the justification is instantaneous! At the absolution we are told, "Go in peace; your sins ARE forgiven." They are not forgiven later, or after the penance, but immediately – right then and there! No work is performed beyond the sincere repentance. You may ask, "but what of the penance?" Well, if one were to deliberately avoid doing the penance, that would constitute a different sin – not one which was already forgiven. The penance shows your sincerity in begging forgiveness and helps you not to sin again.

JM: Jesus also said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, 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" (John 5:24). Eternal life is the present possession of all who believe--and by definition eternal life cannot be lost. The one who believes immediately passes from spiritual death to eternal life, because that person is instantaneously justified (see Rom. 5:1, 9; 8:1).

SW: MacArthur is a bit inconsistent on this point. In his book, The Gospel According to Jesus, he repeatedly preaches against what he calls "easy-believism," and yet here we see that all you have to do is believe, and you are saved – not only at that moment, but there's no worry about persevering (as St. Paul repeatedly commands us to do), according to MacArthur's interpretation, it’s a "once saved, always saved" gift from God, and this salvation cannot be lost. That sure sounds like what I would call "easy-believism." Scripture, quite often tells us to "hold fast," and "persevere," and "run to win." [4]

JM: Second, justification means the sinner is declared righteous, not actually made righteous. This goes hand in hand with the fact that justification is instantaneous.

SW: Again, absolution (forgiveness) is immediate too.

JM: There is no process to be performed--justification is purely a forensic reality, a declaration God makes about the sinner. Justification takes place in the court of God, not in the soul of the sinner.

SW: This would disagree with James 2 – we are justified through works, just as Abraham was justified by his obedience which proved his faith. And faith, if it has no works is a dead faith – and a dead faith cannot save.

JM: It is an objective fact, not a subjective phenomenon, and it changes the sinner's status, not his nature. Justification is an immediate decree, a divine "not guilty" verdict on behalf of the believing sinner in which God declares him to be righteous in His sight.

SW: And again, that is precisely what happens in Confession.

JM: Third, the Bible teaches that justification means righteousness is imputed, not infused. Righteousness is "reckoned," or credited to the account of those who believe (Rom. 4:3-25). They stand justified before God not because of their own righteousness (Rom. 3:10), but because of a perfect righteousness outside themselves that is reckoned to them by faith (Phil. 3:9). Where does that perfect righteousness come from? It is God's own righteousness (Rom 10:3), and it is the believer's in the person of Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 1:30). Christ's own perfect righteousness is credited to the believer's personal account (Rom. 5:17, 19), just as the full guilt of the believer's sin was imputed to Christ (2 Cor. 5:21). The only merit God accepts for salvation is that of Jesus Christ; nothing man can ever do could earn God's favor or add anything to the merit of Christ.

SW: None of this is against Catholic teaching, with the possible exception of the last sentence. When man does good works in the state of Grace, it does indeed earn favor or merit. Scripture speaks of the rewards we shall receive based upon our works, if those works are not burned up. If those works are burned up, then we shall suffer loss. Clearly this is a reward/consequence view from God based on mans works. [5]

JM: Fourth and finally, Scripture clearly teaches that man is justified by faith alone, not by faith plus works.

SW: This is a misleading and false statement. The prohibitions against works are related to "works of the law" whereby no man can work their way to salvation outside of faith. Scripture, in the absolutely only place where the words "faith" and "alone" are used together, clearly states that faith alone is not salvific. Faith without works is a dead faith, and a dead faith cannot save. Yes, there are a few places where faith is mentioned and works are not, but if there is even one place where Scripture says works are necessary, then they are. James 2 clearly makes works part of "saving faith." So we cannot assume that in passages which do not mention works that suddenly works are not a necessity to "saving faith."

JM: According to the Apostle Paul, "If it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace" (Rom. 11:6).

SW: The context of this statement includes Romans 9:31 through Romans 11. In there we clearly see St. Paul speaking in opposition to works of the law, as if man could follow the law and save himself outside of faith in Jesus Christ. We cannot pick and choose verses which seem to support our cause when the context of the verses negates what we are saying. The Catholic will stand against a works/salvation system – just as the Protestant preaches against and falsely accuses the Catholic of.

JM: Elsewhere Paul testifies, "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; see Acts 16:31 and Rom. 4:3-6).

SW: Ephesians 2, in context, is speaking of the law of circumcision, again, works of the law are not salvific. Acts 16 speaks of believing in Jesus Christ and not only would the head of the house be saved, but all the house. Believing is also something we do, either one believes, or they do not. If they "do" then they are "doing" something. Acts 16 does not really seem to support one side or the other here. Like Ephesians 2, the context of Romans 4 is talking about circumcision again – a work of the law.

JM: In fact, it is clearly taught throughout Scripture that "a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law" (Rom. 3:28; see Gal. 2:16; Rom. 9:31-32; 10:3).

SW: And again, I reiterate the point – Catholics do not uphold "works of the law" as works which are part of "saving faith." Good deeds done in the state of Grace are meritorious. Grace precedes good deeds/works and such deeds are only "good" if done in faith. In other words, works alone are no more meritorious than faith alone is. Faith alone is dead (James 2) and likewise, works alone (outside of faith) is dead.

JM: In contrast, Roman Catholicism places an undue stress on human works.

SW: And of course, I deny this. (see following)

JM: Catholic doctrine denies that God "justifies the ungodly" (Rom. 4:5) without first making them godly.

SW: No, Catholic doctrine does not, and MacArthur does not document which doctrine he's speaking about so this is merely an unsupported allegation.

JM: Good works therefore become the ground of justification.

SW: Again, no support for this allegation! The fact is, the "ground" is GRACE. Grace comes first, then comes faith. Is that faith a "saving faith" or a "dead faith?" James 2 lets us know how to tell the difference.

JM: As thousands of former Catholics will testify, Roman Catholic doctrine and liturgy obscure the essential truth that the believer is saved by grace through faith and not by his own works (Eph. 2:8-9). In a simple sense, Catholics genuinely believe they are saved by doing good, confessing sin, and observing ceremonies.

SW: The Catholic liturgy, the Mass, is centered on Grace! The Eucharist, which is the central and focal point of the Mass is the ultimate expression of Grace as it IS the Sacrifice of Christ being made present for us (in the Jewish sense of "remembrance" [6]). What I am certain of is there are likely thousands of "former Catholics" who really did not understand what the Catholic Faith was all about before they left it. No Catholic who knows their Faith believes we are saved by our own works! We are saved by the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross – in other words, by GRACE. "Doing good" is what FOLLOWS Grace, and it is ONLY "good" if done in the state of Grace. Doing good deeds while in the state of mortal sin avails us nothing. Confessing sin IS a "good deed" and brings us back into the state of Grace.

JM: Adding works to faith as the grounds of justification is precisely the teaching that Paul condemned as "a different gospel" (see 2 Cor. 11:4; Gal. 1:6).

SW: The context of 2 Corinthians 11 speaks of false apostles preaching false gospels which are not found in Scripture. False gospels like sola scriptura and sola fide, the former not even mentioned in Scripture and the latter flatly denied by Scripture the only time it is mentioned by name! [7]
Galatians 1, in context, is the same as 2 Corinthians 11 – it speaks against false preachers. Neither passage even mentions "saving faith" which is a faith which as works with it, however, James 2 mentions this! So, either James 2 is a flat out lie – or MacArthur is imputing his presuppositions about Catholicism into 2 Corinthians 11 and Galatians 1. I, for one, do not believe James 2 is a lie and MacArthur cannot have it both ways.

JM: It nullifies the grace of God, for if meritorious righteousness can be earned through the sacraments, "then Christ died needlessly" (Gal. 2:21).

SW: MacArthur again confuses "works" with "works of the law" as we clearly see if we look at the passage instead of just throwing the reference at you:

21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. (KJV)

Notice, "if righteousness come by the LAW" (emphasis mine).

JM: Any system that mingles works with grace, then, is "a different gospel" (Gal. 1:6),

SW: Again, whereas Galations 1:6 does mention "a different gospel" it is not speaking about "works" at all! MacArthur does a very dishonest deed to impute his agenda into that verse – and I stand here to call him on that!

JM: …a distorted message that is anathematized (Gal. 1:9), not by a council of medieval bishops, but by the very Word of God that cannot be broken.

SW: Since MacArthur is repeating this error, I have to repeat the answer. Galations 1 is speaking of false apostles – and makes no direct mention of what that "distorted message" might be. The one "distorting" Scripture here is MacArthur who is imputing an anti-Catholic bias into a passage which makes no mention of what he is attacking the Church for.

JM: In fact, it does not overstate the case to say that the Roman Catholic view on justification sets it apart as a wholly different religion than the true Christian faith, for it is antithetical to the simple gospel of grace.

SW: But as we have just seen, it is MacArthur who is overstating the case left and right here by imputing his presuppositional anti-Catholic position into passages which do not even speak to what he is saying.

JM: As long as the Roman Catholic Church continues to assert its own authority and bind its people to "another gospel," it is the spiritual duty of all true Christians to oppose Roman Catholic doctrine with biblical truth and to call all Catholics to true salvation.

SW: The authority which is in the Catholic Church was put there by Jesus Christ Himself [8]. It is the spiritual duty of all who seek the truth to not just take my word for it, nor MacArthur's word for it – but to diligently and objectively seek the TRUTH. To settle for an emotive hate-speech is subjective and not an honest way to approach the Scriptures nor the truth. True salvation is to follow Jesus Christ in ALL He taught. When He taught that we must eat His body and drink His blood – then we MUST do this! We do not do this simply as a memorial, but as a "remembrance" in the Jewish and Catholic sense of the word [6 – and I strongly urge all to read that link]. It is this "remembrance" which is central to the Liturgy/Mass of the Catholic Church.

JM: Meanwhile, evangelicals must not capitulate to the pressures for artificial unity. They cannot allow the gospel to be obscured, and they cannot make friends with false religion, lest they become partakers in their evil deeds (2 John 11).

SW: And on that note, I agree with MacArthur! There should be NO capitulation of the TRUTH. Ecumenism is coming together in TRUTH, not a false unity for the sake of unity. I urge all readers of this article to try and find the doctrine of sola scriptura IN Scripture. It's not there. Sure, there are passages which speak to "sufficiency" and the "ability to teach, discipline, etc." but you will not find a single verse which supports the teaching that Scripture is the sola regula fide of the Christian Church, not one. I would also urge the readers to find even ONE other place in Scripture where the words "faith" and "alone" are used together (sola fide) outside of James 2:24 – which is in flat out denial of the concept of sola fide.

I would love to hear your comments. Feel free to leave them here in this blog, or join myself and several other very competent apologists in the Catholic Debate Forum: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/catholicdebateforum

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Scott Windsor<<<

Footnotes:
[1] http://www.gty.org/Resources/Articles/A190
[2] http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/1301-T-4.htm
[3] Act of Contrition
[4] 1 Thes. 3; 2 Thes. 2:15; Heb. 10:36; 2 Tim. 4:7; 1 Cor. 9:24 (and more).
[5] 1 Cor. 3:15
[6] http://cathapol.blogspot.com/search/label/remembrance
[7] James 2:24
[8] Matthew 16:18-19 and 18:18

MacArthur on Catholicism

At 03:36 PM 1/10/2009, Bob Jaffray. wrote:

"In the long war on the truth, the most formidable, relentless
and deceptive enemy has been Roman Catholicism It is an apostate,
corrupt, heretical, false Christianity." "It is a front for the
kingdom of Satan The true Church of the Lord Jesus Christ has
always understood this."

BJ: This is from a Sermon entitled "The Pope and the Papacy":
http://www.gty.org/PDF/ThePopeandthePapacy.pdf

Let us look closer at what Mr. MacArthur said in that "sermon,"
shall we? First off, let me comply with his copyright standard
from: http://www.gty.org/MeetGTY/Copyright and say the
"sermon" is the work of John MacArthur, http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons/90-291
COPYRIGHT (C) 2008 Grace to You. Used by permission.

OK, legal stuff is out of the way. Now, I do not intend to
go through the entire "sermon" (I quote that because he
himself says it is NOT a sermon). I will quote portions of
the "sermon" (which, for purposes of refutation exempts
me from any copyright infringement based on "fair use").
So, without further ado...

The third paragraph reads as follows:
> What was at stake? I'll tell you what was at stake.
> What was at stake is whether or not we evangelize
> Roman Catholics, that's what's at stake. One billion
> of them in the world. Are they a mission field? Or
> are they our co-laborers for Christ? That changes
> everything..everything. On the other side, one of the
> leading evangelicals said, "I think it's so wonderful
> that we can now see Catholics as Christians because
> that means millions and millions of people are
> Christians." As if somehow by them deciding they
> were Christians they became Christians. I was
> absolutely incredulous, almost fell off my chair. It
> was like what a monumental meeting this is, we just
> redeemed millions of people without leaving the room.
> But that is what is at stake in this.

MacArthur presents a straw man here. It was not the
decision of the E.C.T. which redeemed millions - rather
it was the RECOGNITION that these millions are
ALREADY Christians. The use of the word "redeemed"
here is also improper - for the entire world was redeemed
by the blood of the cross. MacArthur demonstrates an
ignorance of what the Scripture teaches in regard to who
is redeemed - and unfortunately many listen to him more
than they pay attention to Scripture.

Let's look at paragraph five next:
> Reclassifying the Pope, reclassifying the Roman Catholics
> as believers isn't that simple. It has massive implications.
> It has implications that literally overturn centuries of
> missionary effort.

As if MacArthur & Co. is not trying to overturn nearly two
millennia of missionary effort! If that is a basis, then the
Catholic position has the higher ground!

> It has massive implications that overturn centuries, if not
> millennia of martyrdom. In the long war on the truth, the
> most formidable, relentless and deceptive enemy has been
> Roman Catholicism. It is an apostate, corrupt, heretical,
> false Christianity, it is affront for the kingdom of Satan.
> The true church of the Lord Jesus Christ has always
> understood this. And even through the Dark Ages from
> 400 to 1500, prior to the Reformation, genuine Christian
> believers set themselves apart from that system, and
> were brutally punished and executed for their rejection
> of that system.

We must note, MacArthur does not NAME any of these
allegedly "genuine Christian believers" - and I doubt he
will ever do so. To actually name one of those cults would
allow us to show him (and you the reader) how UNLIKE
modern Protestants they were and how much LIKE
Catholics they were - with few exceptions - and it is the
few exceptions which got them in trouble. I sincerely
doubt Mr. MacArthur would align himself with these people
if he realized how they REALLY worshipped and believed!
Most Protestants who try to align themselves with Medieval
heretics do so solely with the knowledge that they opposed
the Catholic Church. It the "the enemy of my enemy is my
friend" mentality - and that has dangerous ramifications.

Back to MacArthur's fifth paragraph:
> It's not my purpose tonight to go into all that is Roman
> Catholicism and we will do that in the fall, we will do that.
> We'll take a look at it from many angles. But those
> believers throughout those centuries along with genuine
> and discerning believers today understand this is a false
> system. It has a false priesthood. It has a false source of
> revelation, tradition and the magisterium. It has illegitimate
> power granted to it by this magisterium, this papal curia. It
> engages in idolatry by the worship of saints and the
> veneration of angels. It conducts a horrific exaltation of
> Mary above Christ and even God. It conducts a twisted
> sacrament of the Mass by which Jesus is sacrificed again
> and again. It offers false forgiveness through the
> confessional. It calls for the uselessness of infant baptism
> and other sacraments.

Well, MacArthur has shown his true colors here and has
exposed his ignorance and bigotry. NONE of these
charges are substantiated - they are merely undocumented
allegations. That being said, let me flatly deny some of
those claims here and now and if anyone cares to support
MacArthur - or if he himself would like to defend himself
I invite him to do so. This article of mine is being posted
to the Catholic Debate Forum (CDF) and to my blog
site.

1) The charge of idol worship due to the "worship" of
Saints and the veneration of angels.

The worship due to God, and God alone is referred to
as "latria" (the more precise term than the English word
of "worship"). The honor given to Saints and angels is
called "dulia." Saints and angels are not worshiped as
gods - so the charge of idolatry is baseless and void.
MacArthur's charge here just shows how little he knows
of Catholic teaching. My guess is that he'd rather remain
entrenched in this bigotted belief than to retract his
statements as the lies they are.

2) The "horrific" charge that the Catholic Church exalts
Mary "above Christ and even God."

Again, MacArthur demonstrates his ignorance here. First
off, Mary is NOT elevated above Jesus Christ - and Jesus
Christ IS God - so there's a double faux pax in that
statement.

3) MacArthur asserts that the Mass is a "twisted
sacrament" and that Jesus is sacrificed again and again.

Again, it seems MacArthur's ignorance knows no bounds.
The Mass is based on the very words of Jesus Christ
Himself - especially at the consecration of the Eucharist.
There is nothing "twisted" about that! Secondly, it is NOT
Catholic teaching that Jesus is sacrificed "again and again,"
for we believe and confess that He was sacrificed ONCE
and for ALL TIME. The Sacrifice of the Mass is like a
time portal - it is not a re-sacrificing of Christ, but a tapping
into THE moment of Christ's Sacrifice. It is not a new
sacrifice each time - it is the SAME Sacrifice made present
for us at each Mass. It takes FAITH to accept this, and
for those who have FAITH, no further explanation is
necessary; likewise, for those who do NOT have FAITH,
no explanation will do.

I suspect there will be more from me on this later, but for
now I will close.

Respectfully yours in JMJ,
Scott<<<