Roman Catholicism

Program 1.: How Can a Sinful Person Be Forgiven and Accepted by a Holy and Righteous God?
Program 2.: A Definition of the Words and Issues Dividing Catholics and Protestants Surrounding the Doctrine of Justification
Program 3.: Is a Sinner Justified by Faith in Christ Alone or Faith Plus His Own Good Works?
Program 4.: Did Jesus Make Peter "Pope" Over the Church?
Program 5.: Did Jesus Establish Peter as Pope to Rule Infallibly in Matters of Faith and Morals?
Program 6.: What Issues Divide Protestants and Catholics Concerning Mary?
Program 7.: Does the Bible Teach That Mary Is Co-Mediatrix and Co-Redemptrix with Jesus?
Program 8.: Is It Necessary for People to Confess Their Sins to a Roman Catholic Priest Before God Will Forgive Them?
Program 9.: Is There Such a Place as Purgatory?
Program 10.: Can Indulgences Help Those in Purgatory?
Program 11.: Is Catholicism's Doctrine of Penance Found in the Bible?
Program 12.: When a Catholic Commits Mortal Sin and Loses His Justification, How Can He Get It Back?
Program 13.: Where Do Catholics and Protestants Differ on the Doctrines of Sanctification and Justification?

Program 1

How Can a Sinful Person Be Forgiven and Accepted by a Holy and Righteous God?

Introduction:

Tonight, John Ankerberg will compare what Roman Catholics and Protestants believe concerning the important question, "How can a person be forgiven and accepted by a holy and righteous God?" The answer that is given comprises what is called "the doctrine of Justification."

Both Roman Catholics and Protestants agree that Christ's death on the cross is at the center of this debate. Both agree the merits of Christ are necessary for a man to receive Justification. But where Catholics and Protestants disagree is, "How do the merits of Christ become mine?"

Catholicism teaches that there is a preparation of the sinner before he can be justified; then there is the moment at baptism when Justification itself takes place, followed by a lifetime of becoming more justified. The preparation before Justification begins with God who gives prevenient grace. This prevenient grace, also called "sanctifying grace," or "the habitus of grace," is a power God infuses into the sinner. This power begins to transform and change the person internally, so that he comes to know he is a sinner, begins to consider God's mercy, develops hope, and trusts and loves God meritoriously. During this preparatory period, the sinner realizes he can accept or reject God's grace. If he freely assents to cooperate with God's grace, he will be further inclined to detest his sins and desire to be baptized and receive Justification.

As the Council of Trent stated, "Sinners assenting to cooperate with God's grace are then disposed to convert themselves to their own Justification." This means that when a man decides to cooperate with God's power within him, he can live a life sufficient enough to merit what Catholicism calls "congruous merit"-- merit that makes it "fitting" for God to bestow Justification on him. Catholics are quick to point out that they have never taught that a sinner in his own strength can merit Justification. But Catholicism does teach that in cooperation with Christ's strength, the sinner can live a life that is meritorious enough that it makes it congruous, or fitting, for God to grant Justification.

For Catholicism, then, the merits of Christ cause the sanctifying grace God gives us, which, if we cooperate with it, we are made personally righteous within. It is this inward personal righteousness which is the real ground and reason for man's Justification in Catholicism. Then, on the basis of this real transformation, at the moment of baptism, God forgives original sin and all actual sins, and grants Justification.

In addition Trent said, "There are degrees of Justification which vary according to the gift of God and man's dispositions and cooperation with grace."

Trent also said, "Indeed the good works of the justified man are not mere signs of his religious conversion; rather, being done in grace, they are themselves the causes of an increase in the degree and reality of man's sanctification."

And finally Trent said, "To those who work well until the end, and trust in God, eternal life is to be offered. Both as a grace, and as a reward promised by God Himself, to be given to their good works and merits." Because man's cooperation with God's grace will always be imperfect and tainted with sinful acts that might destroy Justification, throughout his life man can only hope he will be finally justified and cannot enjoy the certainty he is going to be in heaven.

On the other hand, for Protestants, Justification is not God's judgment based on the personal righteousness within the believer; rather, Justification is God's judgment based on the righteousness of Christ, in whom the sinner believes.

In Protestantism, Justification is an act of God's grace, a judicial declaration acquitting the sinner of guilt and delivering him from condemnation. It's a free forgiveness of sins and a sure title to eternal life. The transformed life is vital in Protestant theology, but it is not that which justifies a man. Rather, the transformed life comes as the immediate result of being justified, which Protestants call "sanctification."

Protestants believe man cannot merit Justification in his own strength, or merit it by working in cooperation with God's prevenient grace. If he could, salvation wouldn't be totally the gift of God. Rather, Protestants teach that through faith, the sinner reaches out to Christ and the merits of Christ are imputed, or transferred, from Jesus' account so to speak, to the account of the sinner. God sees the sinner and Jesus together, and makes a legal declaration about the sinner's life. It is like the person who is condemned, waiting on death row, suddenly being granted a pardon. God pardons the sinner; that is, He declares him to be free from the penalty of all his sins and grants him eternal life. Protestants believe it is solely the merits of Christ's sacrificial death on the cross, which are imputed or transferred to the believer, that cancel out the sinner's debt. That's why for Protestants Justification is an act that can take place in a single moment-- the moment the sinner, through faith, asks for the benefits of Christ to be applied to his life.

Catholicism denies that such a legal declaration concerning Justification takes place. The Council of Trent stated, "If anyone says that men are justified by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, let him be anathema."

But in response, Protestants insist that Justification can only be by faith alone, since the Bible teaches Christ provided all that is necessary for God to justify a person. Protestants do not believe faith is a meritorious work that God looks at as the reason or the basis for a person's Justification. Rather, faith is only the instrument which allows someone to reach out to Christ, who is the sole reason and grounds upon which God justifies. A person can have a weak faith but still be fully justified because his Justification depends solely on Christ. It does not depend on the amount of his faith.

However, Roman Catholics believe that more than faith is needed in order for a person to obtain Justification. They insist, there must be both faith and works. The Council of Trent declared, "If anyone says that the good works of the justified person does not truly merit an increase of grace, and the obtaining of eternal life, let him be anathema."

So tonight, "Does the Doctrine of Justification in the Bible call for faith alone in Christ, or faith plus works?" John's guests are Father Mitchell Pacwa, an ordained Roman Catholic priest who is a member of the Society of Jesus, a Jesuit. He has an earned Doctor of Philosophy degree and is currently professor at Loyola University in Chicago. John's second guest is the late Dr. Walter Martin, director and founder of the Christian Research Institute in California. Please join us for this discussion.

Dr. Walter Martin: The whole idea of the New Testament and the whole idea of the Reformation was, "Look, you cannot get right-standing with God by human effort or by any sacerdotal system. You're going to get it by a relationship to Christ. And you said that-- very forcefully. You said, "You were trying to teach people not "what" but "who." And that the core of Christianity was a personal relationship with Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit, by which we know we have passed out of death into life. Now, this is the crux of the Reformation. When the Reformers said, "You are justified by faith," they were not trying to say the sinful nature was eradicated or man didn't need it....

Fr. Mitchell Pacwa: No, true. That's right.

Martin: They were saying, "This is what God did for you. You can't do if for yourself." This is the point I think we have to recognize. The moment that you take Trent's position and really ram it home, you run smack into Romans 4 and you run smack into First John, which tell you, "Christ is the propitiation for all our sins, and not for ours only-- for the sins of the whole world."

Pacwa: Texts are quoted in Trent...

Martin: I know.

Pacwa: And the thing that...couple of things on that. First of all, I agree with Trent that it's not a conclusion of Justification and Sanctification, but to see that this is, you know...because it is part of a relationship.

Martin: But you cannot...you're not going to make the mistake of making Justification, Romans 4, which is an act of God...

Pacwa: Right.

Martin: ...pure and simple...

Pacwa: Absolutely.

Martin: ...You can't make that as something intrinsic to man because He infuses grace into us. Then you've got Sanctification and Justification as two parts of the same thing.

Pacwa: Well, and that's, I guess, exactly what I agree with.

Martin: That's exactly what Trent did.

Pacwa: I know. And that's exactly what I agree with.

Martin: But, we have been redeemed in Christ.

Pacwa: Absolutely.

Martin: We have been justified by faith.

Pacwa: Absolutely.

Martin: Okay. The Justification by works, which you are referring to, is progressive in the life of the believer, as a result of sanctification. Because it's the Spirit that works in us to transform us into the image of Christ...

Pacwa: Absolutely! That's Trent.

Martin: ...and because of that, we are able to perform good works.

Pacwa: Well, I don't see where Trent says something different except in saying that that is part of the same process of Justification.

John Ankerberg: Well, let me give you Trent and see if we can define it here. "If anyone says that by faith alone the sinner is justified in such wise as to mean that nothing else is required"-- which is what Walter is saying...

Martin: Yeah!

Ankerberg: ...okay? "Nothing on our part is required"--Jesus did it all. It doesn't depend on us or what God does in us at that point, it depends on Jesus. Okay? Trent is saying, "If anyone says that by faith alone the sinner is justified in such wise as to mean that nothing else is required to cooperate"-- that man's got to cooperate in order for the obtaining of the grace of Justification-- "that man is to be anathema" We're saying that man does not have to do something in cooperation to have God justify him.

Pacwa: He doesn't have to say "Yes" to the grace? Do you have to say "Yes" to the grace of Christ or not? Ankerberg: I would say, "For by grace are ye saved through faith."

Pacwa: Do you have to make that act of faith by your will?

Ankerberg: Yes.

Pacwa: That is something that you are doing. That is your will...

Martin: By grace.

Pacwa: By grace, prevenient grace, but it is your will doing it and it is Christ that gives us the command to repent.

Martin: Yeah, but if God doesn't "jiggle your will" by grace, you aren't going to do it.

Pacwa: And again, though, the Council of Trent does not teach otherwise. The Council teaches that we have to have prevenient grace.

Ankerberg: Let's stick with the actual teachings of the Catholic Church...

Martin: I'm trying.

Ankerberg: Walter, are you saying this: "If anyone says that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ...." Are you saying that? Are you saying that a man is justified by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ?

Martin: Romans 4. Absolutely.

Ankerberg: Okay. Trent says, "...that man is anathema."

Pacwa: Okay. What do they mean by the word "imputation"?

Martin: Not the way he's explaining it. I don't agree with what your explanation is, but I know what you're saying. Though I don't like it.

Pacwa: Well, see, the key word there is "imputation."

Ankerberg: Okay, imputation is...

Pacwa: In other words, they're saying that it is just something that is, you know, put over you in a legal way that's a simple declaration in the way that the Nominalist philosophers just would impute something to a person. Whereas the Catholic Church is trying to say instead of imputation, it's rather a transformation of the inner person...and that's....

Ankerberg: I think we agree that the Catholic Church is saying that.

Martin: There's no problem...yeah, we know that.

Pacwa: Okay.

Ankerberg: What we're saying is, "Is that what the Scripture exactly in Romans 3 and 4 is saying?" If God is saying something different than Trent at that point, then we should stick with the Scriptures.

Martin: Abraham believed God.

Pacwa: If that's the only Scripture, but that's not the only Scripture. And that's precisely the Roman Catholic Church's point.

Ankerberg: Okay. Let me put it the other way. The fact is that Protestants have at least an explanation that Walter...well, you haven't given the one on lames 2 yet. But there's an explanation for James 2, okay, that will reconcile that with Romans 3 and 4. I have never heard a Roman Catholic reconcile Romans 3 and 4.

Pacwa: Ah! Did you read the rest of the chapters in that succession of Trent? Because one of the things that...

Ankerberg: Explicitly.

Pacwa: ...they do is deal with those texts precisely. First of all, they quote Romans 3:24 in chapter 7 [of Trent] and say that the traditional understanding of Romans 3, "Being justified freely by grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus." Okay? And also 5:1 that, "Having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ through whom we have had access by faith unto this grace." Now, the way they deal with that in the same paragraph is, "We are justified by faith because faith is the beginning of human salvation. The foundation and the root of all Justification...."

Ankerberg: All right let's stop right there...let's stop...

Pacwa: "...without which it is impossible to please God."

Martin: That is the basis...

Ankerberg: The question is, "Is it a beginning transaction or is it a final transaction?"

Pacwa: I think that's where we disagree.

Martin: Right. This is the point-- what you just read. Faith is the beginning of the transaction, right?

Pacwa: Yes.

Martin: No! "For by grace"-- past tense--"you have already been saved, through faith...."

Ankerberg: Correct.

Martin: "...not by yourselves." Not by anything working in you. Nothing like that. No transformation in you. You have been saved by grace outside yourself, which reaches down, redeems you and then justifies you, and the transformation of the Spirit coming into us in the New Birth makes us in the image of Christ. We become new creations in Christ Jesus. What Trent is saying is that faith is the beginning of the transaction of Justification. But what the text is saying is that salvation is by grace-- that's the initial act of God-- grace proceeds from mercy. Mercy proceeds from love-- the nature of God. All right, now, we're transformed by the power of grace. That's why the emphasis in Ephesians 2 is, "By grace you have already been saved"-- you're not working for it, you see? This is Catholic Catechism here, since Vatican II specifically says that Paul's wrong and I just cannot understand how Trent or they can say it. Quote: "If we follow Christ, we shall never place anyone or anything above God." Right?

Pacwa: Yes.

Martin: "We shall love and serve Him alone." Right?

Pacwa: Yes.

Martin: "And in doing this, we shall save our soul. We shall earn heaven. We shall have happiness with God forever." But if you can earn heaven, "if righteousness comes by the efforts of man," Paul says, "Christ died for nothing."

Pacwa: If, though, at the same time Christ, for instance in Matthew Chapter 6 talks about us having merits-- you know, merits by fasting, merits by prayer, merits by almsgiving-- and Jesus Himself uses that term, then is there not necessarily some form of merit?

Martin: Can I ask the question in rabbinical rhetoric?

Pacwa: Of course.

Martin: What is the context of Matthew 6? To whom is it addressed specifically? --

Pacwa: He's addressing it to the disciples in the context of the crowds to explain how not to pray, how not to give alms. and how not to fast.

Martin: And all of it is in the context of Judaism as it was then abused.

Pacwa: Right.

Martin: Right?

Pacwa: Yes.

Martin: Now, we're moving out of the concept of "law," the covenant of law, which emphasized meritorious behavior.

Pacwa: Yes.

Martin: Okay? Job was a righteous man. Why? Well, he not only believed God but he also offered sacrifices, he prayed for his children, merit, merit, merit. But your whole viewpoint changes in the New Testament because you are no longer under a covenant of law, as were the Jews, now you are under a covenant of grace. Grace does not exclude obedience to God, but grace is what redeems, not the concept of piling up merits.

Pacwa: Okay. And again, Trent, in the same paragraph says that, too. It says, "We are said to be justified gratuitously, because none of the things that precede Justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of Justification."

Martin: But by good works...

Pacwa: We don't teach in Catholicism that you can merit the grace of Justification at all. And Trent specifically rejects that. But, there is room for merit because Christ Himself gives that room by saying that you need to merit properly. Improper prayer is wrong.

Martin: But not as a means of redemption.

Pacwa: That's what they say here...that it does not merit Justification.

Martin: Okay. If it doesn't...if it doesn't...then the act of Justification itself, outside of man, is sufficient. If you can't do anything to improve Justification, what God did in Romans 4 with Abraham is "kaput," it's over.

Pacwa: Okay. And here again, the term "Justification"-- here again is where we get into disagreement...

Martin: Right.

Pacwa: "...is that they defined the term "Justification" to include the acts of love, without which you cannot know God...obeying the commandments....

Martin: That was my paint. What they did was under Justification, which Paul doesn't do. He teaches Sanctification separately after redemption, not as a means of redemption.

Pacwa: But at the same time [James] says that unless you have those acts of Sanctification, you cannot be saved.

Martin: Because they're the fruit, or the evidence of the Justification.

Pacwa: Necessary to be saved.

Ankerberg: No.

Pacwa: Correct?

Martin: No. You're not...

Pacwa: Can you know God without love?

Martin: No, you cannot know God without love and you cannot fulfill the will of God or the law of God without love.

Pacwa: Okay. Can you know Christ without obeying all His commandments?

Martin: Yeah, because you do it every day of your life and so do I.

Pacwa: Now, what does Jesus Himself, though, say?

Martin: Now, don't get Him out of context. It said, "If you love me, keep my commandments...."

Pacwa: True.

Martin: "...He that keeps my commandments is he that love me." But, He made provision for the fact that we as mortals obviously, we sin....

Pacwa: Yes.

Martin: ...otherwise, you wouldn't be hearing confessions. Right? So people sin and you give them absolution in the name of Christ, right?

Pacwa: Right.

Martin: Because they're imperfect.

Pacwa: That's right.

Martin: They're failures. They're sinners like everybody else.

Pacwa: Right.

Martin: You and I are, too.

Pacwa: Right.

Martin: So, our salvation is by grace...

Pacwa: Yes.

Martin: ...through faith...

Pacwa: Yes.

Martin: ...and unto the production of works, which testify to what God did for us, not what we did for ourselves.

Pacwa: And where we disagree is precisely there, because we understand the Scriptures to also say that those acts of obedience to the commandments are part of that process of Justification whereby if we omit that at any point, if we... Again, like I John 5 makes a distinction in different kinds of sin. But if one commits serious sin, one can cut oneself off from Christ and thereby lose one's Justification.

Martin: That's the Arminian position. I'm familiar with that. But that's not my point. My point is deeper than that position. The point that I'm trying to make is that if we're justified freely by grace...if we're justified by faith...if we're transformed by the power of God and we become new creations in Christ...

Pacwa: Yes.

Martin: ...if all of this takes place, it is by God's grace. Now, if you are going to go on from there, as Trent does, and talk about the act of Sanctification and obedience to the commandments of God and so forth, you've really got a dead end. Because the Scripture says in James, which you're fond of quoting, "Whosoever offendeth in one point of the law is guilty of all." Now, you haven't committed adultery, but you've lied. You're guilty of the law and the whole thing comes crashing down on your head.

Now, what is sin but transgression of the law? All unrighteousness is sin. You and I and everybody else, professing Christians, perform acts of unrighteousness in specific categories, whether mortal or venial, we transgress the law. By transgressing the law, we testify that the law is holy, righteous, just and good and that salvation has to be by grace, because "we ain't keepin' it!" Right?

Pacwa: Right! And again, the Catholics don't deny that it's by grace...the grace of Christ. But the thing that we have difficulty in going with you to say that I can claim to be saved, is [that] Paul, the great teacher of faith, refuses to claim that he's saved. He won't teach that about himself. He says...

Martin: Where would you get that?

Pacwa: For instance, in the first letter of Paul to the Corinthians, Chapter 9...

Martin: "I know in whom I have believed and I am persuaded that He is able to keep what I have committed to Him against that day...."

Pacwa: He...

Martin: "Neither death nor life, angels, principalities, nor powers, height nor depth, nor anything in all creation shall be able to separate me from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." That's security.

Pacwa: The one thing that he doesn't include in that list is himself, and that's why....

Martin: "I am persuaded..."?

Pacwa: No, he doesn't include himself as one of the things that can keep him separated from Christ. So he says here in I Corinthians 9, "But I do not run so uncertainly, and I don't fight like one who beats the air, but I keep my body under subjection...bring it into subjection...lest by any means, after having preached to others, I myself am disapproved." Martin: That's where I disagree. I don't think that he's saying that...

Pacwa: But when he says...

Martin: ...and I'm not arguing Calvinism, either. I'm simply saying, I don't think a man who writes multiple passages in his 13 epistles about what it is to "pass out of death into life," what it is to be justified by grace, justified by faith, and he keeps using the word "saved" in the past tense .

Pacwa: Yes.

Martin: I cannot believe that the man in one verse is going to say, "Lest I myself, after having done all of this, I'm now unsaved."

Pacwa: Well...and the thing...that's again where we disagree. That he can say both. And this is kind of being "fiddlers on the roof'-- keeping this crazy balance-- that Catholics are trying to do. That: Yes! You have to have confidence in Christ. And to commit despair is a sin, and to say to despair of Christ in any way is something that we do not advocate at all. But, at the same time, like Paul, who is concerned that he would be disqualified or cast away from the race, or disapproved, that we also have to say, "l cannot be confident that I am faithful now or will always be faithful..."

Martin: But the word is not "lost" there in the Greek.

Pacwa: "Disapproved" from a race.

Martin: It doesn't mean "lost."

Pacwa: It doesn't mean "lost" as such, but it does not mean "win" either.

Martin: Well, I mean there's a lot of people in a "no win" situation. Because a lot of people start out in the Christian life vigorously working to serve the Lord and they hit dry spots in their lives where they don't produce anything Catholics and Protestants...

Ankerberg: We need to have a final wrap-up statement from both of you. I let you go a little longer than we should and I want a final wrap-up statement. Father Pacwa?

Pacwa: Okay. The thing that I would say is that Catholicism is trying to protect two things: On one hand the first and foremost place of Christ as absolutely essential. And human will, to be able to accept that grace. And, then I guess a third thing: to see that this process of Justification is one of complete transformation of the person. Until we meet Christ, we can't be positive that we're saved, but neither should we despair of it. We can't be in despair either.

Ankerberg: Walter?

Martin: Catholicism, carried to its logical conclusion, is a denial of Justification by faith in the context of Romans 4 and 5 because it involves works as a means of merit. The Roman Catholic doctrine itself teaches that man cooperates by faith and works, for redemption, whereas biblical theology says, "It's by grace we have been saved through faith, not by ourselves; it's the gift of God, not by works, lest anyone should boast." So, for me, to carry it to its logical conclusion, 1, having gone to Catholic schools as you have, I've been trained in it, know perfectly well that I was taught, and I'm sure you were too, that you have faith in Jesus Christ and you work like a beaver, because if you don't....purgatory!"

Pacwa: Yeah...at least!

Ankerberg: All right, with that, let's get into...

Pacwa: At least!

Ankerberg: Thanks for joining us.

Martin: You got that, I can see!

Ankerberg: Join us again next week.

Program 2

A Definition of the Words and Issues Dividing Catholics and Protestants Surrounding the Doctrine of Justification.

Introduction:

This evening John Ankerberg will examine what Catholicism teaches concerning the doctrine of Justification and what are the issues surrounding this doctrine that divide Catholics and Protestants today. The doctrine of Justification deals with the question, "How can a sinful person be accepted by a holy and righteous God?"

Both Roman Catholics and Protestants agree that this doctrine is important since, if a man seeks to be forgiven in a way in which he cannot be forgiven, then he won't be forgiven. Both Catholics and Protestants agree that the benefits and merits of Christ are necessary for a man to receive Justification, but where Catholics and Protestants disagree is, "How do the merits of Christ become mine?"

[Begin Program Excerpt]

Martin: Catholicism, carried to its logical conclusion, is a denial of Justification by faith in the context of Romans 4 and 5 because it involves works as a means of merit.

Pacwa: And where we disagree is precisely there, because we understand the Scriptures to also say that those acts of obedience to the commandments are part of that process of Justification.

Martin: The Roman Catholic doctrine itself teaches that man cooperates by faith and works for redemption, whereas biblical theology says it's "by grace we have been saved through faith, not by ourselves. It's the gift of God, not by works lest any man should boast."

Pacwa: As Saint James says "Faith alone is not enough." Faith without good works is insufficient because the Justification that the Catholic Church talks about is not, as Luther taught, merely imputed.

Martin: Romans 4. Absolutely.

Ankerberg: Okay. Trent says that man is anathema.

Pacwa: Whereas the Catholic Church is trying to say instead of imputation, it's rather a transformation of the inner person and that's....

Ankerberg: I think we agree that the Catholic Church is saying that.

Martin: There's no problem. Yeah. We know that.

Pacwa: Okay.

Pacwa: We are justified by faith because faith is the beginning of human salvation. The foundation and the root of all Justification....

Ankerberg: All right let's stop right there...let's stop...

Pacwa: ...without which it is impossible to please God.

Martin: That is the basis....

Ankerberg: The question is, "Is it a beginning transaction or is it a final transaction?"

Pacwa: I think that's where we disagree.

Martin: Right. This is the point. What you just read. Faith is the beginning of the transaction, right?

Pacwa: Yes.

Martin: No! "For by grace"-- past tense-- "you have already been saved, through faith."

Ankerberg: Correct.

Martin: "Not by yourselves." Not by anything working in you. Nothing like that. No transformation in you.

[End Program Excerpt]

The whole purpose of The John Ankerberg Show is for you to understand the issues clearly. So to help de fine terms and allow you to understand the tensions that exist to this day over the issue of Justification between Roman Catholics and Protestants, John Ankerberg will define six key terms that represent what the Protestant reformers were teaching, and across from each of these points, six terms that represent Roman Catholicism's understanding of Justification.

On the Protestant side, the first key term is FORENSIC. Across from forensic on the Roman Catholic side are the words, LEGAL FICTION.

Number two on the Protestant side is SYNTHETIC. Number two under Roman Catholicism is the word ANALYTIC.

Number three on the Protestant side is IMPUTATION. Three across from Imputaton is the Catholic word INFUSION.

Number four on the Protestant side is NO HUMAN MERIT. Four across from No Human Merit is the Catholic word CONGRUOUS MERIT.

Number five on the Protestant side is CAN'T LOSE IT. Number five on the Roman Catholic side is CAN LOSE IT.

Number six on the Protestant side is FAITH ALONE. Six across from Faith Alone is the Catholic position FAITH AND WORKS ARE NECESSARY.

Tonight John Ankerberg will go through these terms with you and show you how they relate to the discussion that you will be hearing in the next two weeks concerning Justification. We invite you to join us.

Ankerberg: Good evening. We are in the midst of a series of debate programs between Jesuit Professor Father Mitchell Pacwa and Protestant scholar, the late Dr. Walter Martin, concerning the doctrines of Roman Catholicism. In the weeks to come, we will be debating papal infallibility, Catholicism's view of Mary, the mother of our Lord, confession, and purgatory.

In this program we will examine the doctrine of Justification, the main issue that caused the Reformation and still divides Catholics and Protestants today. Only if you understand the terms surrounding this issue will you be able to come to a conclusion on: "How can a sinful person be forgiven by a holy and righteous God?"

So to define the main terms and issues, I'm going to set before you a chart, containing six key terms, that represents what the Protestant Reformers were asserting, and then across from each of their points, another column of six key terms that represents the Roman Catholic understanding of the doctrine of Justification.

To begin, the first word on the Protestant side that describes what they mean by Justification is the term Forensic. Forensics has to do with speech. Maybe you were involved in a forensics club at school, so you know this term.

The reason why Protestants label their position "Forensic Justification" is because their ultimate basis of Justification is the "spoken declaration" of God. When God declares or pronounces that a sinful man is just, he is, in fact, just.

The Protestant position is based on the Scripture passage of Romans, Chapter 4, where the Apostle Paul appeals to Abraham to prove his point of Justification by Faith. Paul says that "Abraham believed God" -- when God made certain promises to him), and when Abraham believed God, as a result God reckoned, or imputed, or credited to him righteousness. That is, God declared Abraham's status to be as one who was at that moment standing righteous in God's sight.

So, for Luther and the Protestant Reformers, the basis of Abraham's Justification is found in God's declaration concerning Abraham that He pardoned or justified him the moment he believed. Forensic Justification, then, is a declaration, an act, that God does outside or apart from man. It is the judicial pronouncement of God about a sinful man, that he, as a result of placing his faith in Christ, now stands before God having the status of justness. In brief, the sinful man has been officially declared pardoned by God.

Now the Roman Catholic Church considers forensic Justification to be, as we can see in Point I on their side, a Legal Fiction; that is, this would involve God calling a man "just," when in and of himself, the man is not just.

This has its roots in the dispute stemming from Luther's very famous slogan: "Simul Justus et Peccator," which means "at the same time just and a sinner." What Luther meant by this was that when God sees that a man truly believes, He then declares that man justified legally in His sight. But at the same time, the pardoned sinner is still a sinner in and of himself.

Catholicism objected to this, believing that God will not declare a man to be just until after a man works in cooperation with God's grace and has be come just. In other words, God will not call an ashtray a rose. So Catholicism believes that the Protestant concept of Forensic Justification involves a very serious problem in the righteousness of God-- namely it involves God in a legal fiction of calling someone just, who in and of himself, is not just.

But this brings us to Point 2. To get a broader understanding of what Protestants meant by Forensic Justification, and why they said it did not involve God in a legal fiction, we need to look at the second word which describes their view. It is the word Synthetic. By this term, the Protestant Reformers meant there is a Synthesis, a combining or adding of something to the sinner's account when he stands before God. Namely, the sinner appears before God, in union with Christ.

The biblical imagery says that the sinner appears clothed with the righteousness of Christ; that is, the righteousness, the merits of Christ are given or imputed to him, and cover him. God declares a sinner just, not because He looks at the sinner's good deeds, but He declares him just in Christ. It's the unlimited merits of Christ stemming from Jesus' perfect life and atoning death which constitute a man righteous, not the merits of the man.

Now to say that the merits of Christ are Imputed, which is Point 3 underneath the Protestant side, means that the merits of Christ are reckoned, credited, counted or transferred from the account of Jesus, so to speak, and placed over in the account of the sinner. The moment the sinner believes in Christ, God sees him standing "in Christ" where all the riches and merits of Christ overwhelmingly cancel out the sinner's debts. The "Synthesis" has taken place. That is, Christ and His merits have been added to the account of the sinner. The sinner offers and pleads nothing of his own before God, but everything that Christ has done for him. It is on the basis of the merits and riches of Christ alone which are imputed to the sinner, that allows God to declare him justified or pardoned.

[Begin Program Excerpt]

Martin: Romans 4. Absolutely.

Ankerberg: Okay, Trent says "...that man is anathema."

[End Program Excerpt]

Ankerberg: Now, 2 across from Synthetic, on the Roman Catholic side, is the word Analytic which describes how they understand Justification. The word Analytic here means to analyze, to examine, to study in order to determine the outcome. Roman Catholicism believes God declares a person just only after He analyzes the person and finds within the person real righteousness, real justness within.

Now, how Catholicism says a person becomes truly righteous within is described by their word under Point 3, which is the word Infusion. By Infusion Catholicism teaches that God's prevenient grace, or the power of Christ, is infused or placed into the sinner. When this power is given, and the sinner cooperates with this power, then he can arrive in a state of justness. Only then will God declare him to be just because he has, in fact, become just. Now, Catholicism is not teaching a crass view of Justification, that a man in and of himself can live a holy and righteous life and earn Justification in the sight of God.

But Catholicism is teaching that in the power of Christ, a man can arrive at a point where he will become just within, and then God will be able to declare him justified.

[Begin Program Excerpt]

Pacwa: Whereas the Catholic Church is trying to say instead of imputation, it's rather a transformation of the inner person and that's....

Ankerberg: I think we agree that the Catholic Church is saying that.

Martin: There's no problem. Yeah. We know that.

Pacwa: Okay.

Ankerberg: What we're saying is what the Scriptures exactly in Romans 3 and 4 are saying. If God is saying something different than Trent at that point, then we should stick with the Scriptures.

[End Program Excerpt]

Ankerberg: All right, let's summarize: Catholicism believes the basis of a man's Justification is the righteousness which God finds within the person. For Protestantism, the basis of Justification is Christ Himself, His righteousness. In Protestantism, a man's righteousness within is not in any way the basis upon which God pardons a man; rather, God pardons a man solely on the basis of Christ.

In Catholicism, that which is called sanctification, or the inner transformation within a person, must come before a man can be justified.

In Protestantism, sanctification or the transformation of the person's inner life, comes only as the immediate result of Justification, and never is the means by which a man gains Justification. Protestants believe Catholicism has not accepted Paul's teaching in Romans and Galatians where he clearly defines the only basis upon which God says He will justify a man. Paul says, "To the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is 'reckoned,' imputed, or counted to him as righteousness" (Romans 4:5).

Next, under 4 on the Protestant side we find the words No Human Merit. By this, Protestants mean that man has no merit of his own whatsoever that can dispose God to justify him. Justification is not God's judgment based on the personal righteousness within the sinner or of any kind of good works a man can do. Rather, Justification is God's judgment based on the work of Christ at the cross in whom the sinner believes. The Bible says, "But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known,...This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe." The Apostle Paul emphatically states it is "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us" (Titus 3 :5).

[Begin Program Excerpt]

Martin: Catholicism, carried to its logical conclusion, is a denial of Justification by faith in the context of Romans 4 and S because it involves works as a means of merit. The Roman Catholic doctrine itself teaches that man cooperates by faith and works for redemption, whereas, biblical theology says it's "by grace we have been saved through faith, not by ourselves: it is the gift of God, not by works lest anyone should boast." Not by anything working in you. Nothing like that. No transformation in you.

[End Program Excerpt]

Ankerberg: Four across from the Protestant phrase "No Human Merit" is the Roman Catholic phrase, Congruous Merit. Catholicism teaches that working in co-operation with prevenient grace, or the infused power of Christ within a person, that the sinner can then live a life that is not absolutely perfect, but a life that is meritorious enough to make it congruous or "fitting" for God to grant him Justification. In brief, a sinful man's cooperation with Christ's infused power can lead him to do good deeds that will earn him congruous merit before God.

Now, this is very important: Those good works done in the power of Christ which earn him congruous merit are necessary for salvation and must be present before Justification takes place in Roman Catholicism. They are a condition for receiving a right standing before God that entails the promise of heaven.

[Begin Program Excerpt]

Pacwa: And where we disagree is precisely there, because we understand the Scriptures to also say that those acts of obedience to the commandments are part of that process of Justification.

[End Program Excerpt]

Ankerberg: Next, I want you to listen very carefully as we come to a very interesting one.

Number five for Protestants is the phrase "Can't Lose Justification," Historically, the Protestant Reformers argued that since a man's Justification depended solely on Christ's meritorious life and atoning death and not upon anything which a man can do, a man could not lose his Justification. Since Christ has already lived a perfect life and died to pay for all of man's sins, nothing will ever change what Christ did which is the basis of a man's Justification. Therefore, once a person believes in Christ, he or she is secure. Because salvation is totally a gift from God based on Christ's atoning death for us, while believing in Christ, the total number of good or bad deeds a person does will not change this gift from God.

It should be pointed out that though Luther agreed that the merits of Christ were the sole basis of a man's Justification and Christ's merit did not depend in any way on a man's deeds, Luther still thought that a man could lose his Justification if he decided to totally turn away from Christ. Since God's gift of forgiveness of sins and eternal life was received by faith, if a man decided not to believe and to rest his eternal destiny in Christ, and totally turned against Him, only then would a man lose his salvation. In other words, the only sin that Luther felt would cause a man to lose his salvation was the sin of apostasy.

Now on the other hand, Calvin taught that once God justified a man, God would strengthen that man's faith and protect him so that he would never want to turn away from believing in the work of Christ on his behalf.

Five across from the Protestant position of "Can't Lose Justification" is Roman Catholicism's position, "You Can Lose It." Catholicism believes that justifying grace within a man can be obliterated by his committing mortal sin. Roman Catholicism distinguishes between venial sins-- sins that are not so serious that they involve the destruction of justifying grace-- and mortal sins, which are sins so serious that the grace of Justification can be destroyed within man. If a man commits a mortal sin and destroys his Justification, in order for him to regain it, Catholicism teaches he must come via the Sacrament of Penance, which involves confession, absolution, and satisfaction.

Catholics do believe in Christ, but are reminded that their Justification also depends on their works co-operating with Christ. Catholics are taught that because a man cannot know his own heart, and because he is subject to many temptations, a man may commit a variety of mortal sins, any one of which could destroy his Justification. That is why the Council of Trent stated, "Each one, when he regards himself and his own weakness and indisposition, may have fear and apprehension touching his own grace; seeing that no one can know with a certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to error, that he has obtained the grace of God." So for Catholicism, a man can lose his Justification and can't be sure he will someday be in heaven.

[Begin Program Excerpt]

Pacwa: But if one commits serious sin, one can cut oneself off from Christ and thereby lose one's Justification.

[End Program Excerpt]

Ankerberg: Under six, representing the views of Protestants, are the famous words, "By Faith Alone."

For Protestants, faith is not just intellectual assent to certain facts about Christ's salvation; rather, faith is a knowledge of the facts plus a total trust or resting of one's eternal destiny in Jesus Christ, who is the sole reason and grounds upon which God justifies us.

For Protestants, Justification is an act that can take place in a single moment, the moment the sinner, through faith, trusts Christ completely. At that moment, the benefits of Christ are applied to the sinner's life and he is officially judged and declared by God to stand in His sight as righteous. For Protestants, the person's faith is not a meritorious work that contributes or helps provide Justification. Rather, faith is only an "instrument" which allows a sinful person to reach out to Christ, who is the sole reason, grounds, and basis upon which God justifies.

Let me try to illustrate. Picture a burning building and a person trapped on the third floor. When that person is urged to jump, to have faith that the firemen below will catch him in their net, if he jumps, it will not be the person's faith which saves him; rather it will be the net and the firemen holding the net who catch him. In salvation, it is not the component of faith which saves us; rather, it is Christ who saves us. Our faith merely decides to allow Christ to rescue us and commits us into Christ's hands.

To clearly see that faith in no way provides the basis of our salvation, answer this: How much do you think your "faith" would save you if, after you jumped off the third floor, on the way down you discovered the firemen were only standing in a circle and weren't holding any net? At that point, it would be very clear that your faith can't do anything to save you. What you need is a real net with real firemen holding it. The same is true spiritually.

It's not your faith that actually provides your salvation; rather, it is Christ who paid for all your sins on the cross, and has the strength to do all the saving. Faith is nothing more than your decision, your exercising your free will, to ask Christ to save you. Why should anyone think that your decision to ask Christ to save you, your placing your faith in Him, actually helps Him do it?

Now, six across from "Faith Alone" is Catholicism's belief that Justification is by faith plus works. For Catholicism, faith is required but they object to saying that faith alone is all that God requires for Him to justify a person. In addition to faith, Catholicism also requires "works."

[Begin Program Excerpt]

Pacwa: But at the same time, as St. James says, faith alone is not enough. Faith without good works is insufficient. Because the Justification that the Catholic Church talks about is not, as Luther taught, merely imputed.

[End Program Excerpt]

Ankerberg: The dispute centers on some key passages in the New Testament, most notably the 3rd and 4th chapters of Romans and the 2nd chapter of the Epistle of James. Let's look at these passages right now.

Romans, Chapter 3, beginning at verse 28 says: "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law." Protestants believe that since Paul says that a man is justified by Faith apart from the works of the law, then one can only conclude Justification must be by faith alone. There are no other options.

Further, Paul's own conclusion in chapter 5 is, "Therefore being justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand."

In Romans, Chapter 4, the apostle builds his case for Justification by Faith without works by giving a historical example, where he appeals to the case of Abraham. It begins, "For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about; but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." Here again, the word reckoned means to count, to impute, to place to the account of Abraham. After stating this about Abraham, Paul argues, "to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly"-- notice once again, that according to Paul, God justifies the ungodly, not the one righteous within-- "his faith is reckoned (or imputed) as righteousness."

Now, what Paul very clearly says is that when Abraham believed God, that was the time of his Justification. "Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness." Abraham believed God and he was justified by divine declaration apart from works.

So here in Chapter 4 the Apostle Paul links the statement from Chapter 3, "We are justified by faith apart from the works of the law," with the historical situation of Abraham to prove his case that a man is declared justified by God the moment he believes. Paul labors the point that it is by faith alone in Christ and nothing of man's works that is the basis of God's justifying a man.

Now, how does the Roman Catholic Church deal with this? Well, they counter this concept of Justification by Faith alone by an appeal to James 2, verse 24. It reads: "You see then that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone."

Now, Roman Catholic scholars say to Protestants, "Can the Bible make it any clearer? Here you are going around teaching that Justification is by Faith alone and yet we have a statement from the Apostle James that says, 'You see then that Justification is by works and not by faith alone.' And what's more, not only does James say that Justification is by works and not by faith alone, but he appeals to Abraham to prove his point, the very historical figure that the Apostle Paul appealed to in stating his case of Justification by faith in Romans 4."

Now, does this mean we have an irreconcilable contradiction between the two apostles? Are they teaching different doctrines? No, as we will see next week during our debate, the Apostle Paul in the book of Romans is talking about how a man is justified before God, whereas the Apostle James is talking about how a man is justified before men.

James is answering the question, "How can we tell what is true, genuine faith?" His answer is, "If a man says he has faith but has no works, that kind of faith is not a real faith-- that is a dead faith."

Luther and the Reformers would agree. They said, "Works do not bring Justification, but they [works] do grow out of it. Works are the fruit, the results, the evidence that shows that a man has a genuine faith." So the two apostles are in agreement. There is no contradiction.

James is not talking about works bringing a man into a relationship with God. He knows that Justification before God only comes by true faith in Christ. What James is saying is, since men cannot see another person's heart, as God can, to judge whether or not that person has true faith, the only thing that men can see is a person's works.

But a genuine faith will always result in producing good works. Therefore, in this sense works can justify a person before other men, but not before God. Works show [to men] that there is genuine faith present. That's why James cites Abraham's good works as the proof that Abraham had a genuine faith, while the Apostle Paul cites Abraham to prove that Abraham was justified before God the moment he believed, and before God no works were involved.

In brief, James is saying, if people want to test whether or not the faith that justifies a man before God that Paul is talking about is really in a person, the only way they can check this is by looking at the results that flow from a true faith, namely, a person's works. So, it's works that justify a man's claim to faith in front of people. It's faith alone in Christ that justifies a man before God.

Next week I hope you will join me to hear Father Pacwa and Dr. Martin debate this further.

Program 3

Is a Sinner Justified by Faith in Christ Alone or Faith Plus His Own Good Works?

Introduction:

As the Council of Trent stated, "Sinners assenting to co-operate with God's grace are then disposed to convert themselves to their own Justification." This means that when a man decides to cooperate with God's power within him, he can live a life sufficient enough to merit what Catholicism calls "congruous merit"-- merit that makes it "fitting" for God to bestow Justification on him. Catholics are quick to point out that they have never taught that a sinner in his own strength can merit Justification. But Catholicism does teach that in cooperation with Christ's strength, the sinner can live a life that is meritorious enough that it makes it congruous, or fitting, for God to grant Justification.

In addition, Trent said, "There are degrees of Justification which vary according to the gift of God and man's dispositions and cooperation with grace."

And finally Trent said, "To those who work well until the end, and trust in God, eternal life is to be offered, both as a grace, and as a reward promised by God Himself, to be given to their good works and merits." Because man's cooperation with God's grace will always be imperfect and tainted with sinful acts that might destroy Justification, throughout his life man can only hope he will be finally justified and cannot enjoy the certainty he is going to be in heaven.

So tonight, "Does the Doctrine of Justification in the Bible call for faith alone in Christ, or faith plus works?" John's guests are Father Mitchell Pacwa, an ordained Roman Catholic priest who is a member of the Society of Jesus, a Jesuit. He has an earned Doctor of Philosophy degree and is currently a professor at Loyola University in Chicago. John's second guest is the late Dr. Walter Martin director and founder of the Christian Research Institute in California. Please join us for this discussion.

Pacwa: What Trent says is that you cannot do those good actions unless Christ gives you the grace to do so. And that it is His grace empowering you to do those good acts, not your good acts.

Ankerberg: Yes. But even though Trent says that you are given that grace by God, they say, "But not to the extent that it's not you doing it in the strength of Christ."

Pacwa: Right.

Ankerberg: You have to do it. It doesn't just automatically happen.

Pacwa: That's....

Ankerberg: That's what we object to. It's Christ who does it all. No "meritum congruum." It's not condign or congruous merit. There's no merit whatsoever. Christ does it all!

Pacwa: So that there's nothing at all that you yourself do in terms of your...?

Ankerberg: Not in terms of providing redemption. That's what Scripture says.

Pacwa: I guess that neither goes with the teaching of the Church that I, obviously, am committed to as having authority, nor does it fit my own experience that there...l see in my own experience even, that I'm presented with the option to do grace, to receive a moment of grace, or to reject it. Now, when I accept it, with my own will, saying "Yes"...I'll say "Yes" to that grace of Christ. I know that it is Christ doing it in me, and that it is not me doing it by myself. But if it were me doing it on my own, I would be committing sin.

Martin: Can I quote here, please?

Ankerberg: Certainly.

Martin: A Roman Catholic scholar, The Catholic Response, Fr. Stravinskus, an apologist answering Protestants, when he's dealing with the subject we're talking about right now. Talking about salvation and the merits of Christ and so forth. "When confronted with the offer of salvation, a person is given the impulse to respond with faith, which is always a gift, always an act of the whole person. When we speak of faith as a gift, we mean that no human being can do anything to merit it..."

Pacwa: Absolutely.

Martin: "...but that it is freely bestowed by a gracious God."

Pacwa: That's right! That's Trent.

Martin: Now...I know it is. Now, if you can't do anything to merit it, how is it that after you have been saved, you can merit it for somebody else in purgatory?

Pacwa: Because what I can do is to continue to receive the grace of Christ, and say, "Lord, I want to receive this and I want to pray for this other person" just as I do when they're still alive. When people are alive-- people I've offended, for instance. One of the real healing things that helps reconcile people in this life is praying with them and for them. And what we believe is that that process is not ended by death-- not because we're powerful or because we have a little "S" on us that means we're a little savior-- but rather because they are still part of the Body of Christ. Just as much as they were on this earth.

And as a matter of fact, even more so in the sense that those who are in purgatory are absolutely assured of their salvation. They not only have confidence, they have absolute assurance of salvation. That only those who are redeemed are able to have received that purification in purgatory, to prepare them to enter the gates of heaven.

Martin: Are you trying to say that the souls in purgatory who are being punished for temporal...for temporal punishment have not only confidence in their salvation but assurance of it, and you don't?

Pacwa: I have absolute confidence in my salvation....

Martin: How about the assurance?

Pacwa: I have assurance at this moment. Again, we have to be careful about not getting into the debate about free will. We keep getting into it, but it's hard to avoid, because I don't know about the next moment whether I will continue to be faithful. I pray to God that I will always be open to His grace so that I can be faithful....

Ankerberg: But it depends on you. That's why you're not sure.

Pacwa: There is a part of it where I have to...it depends...my faith depends on grace.

Ankerberg: Can you see the difference there? Can you see the difference?

Pacwa: Oh, absolutely.

Ankerberg: If we depend on Christ, His work's already done and "in the bank."

Pacwa: Right.

Ankerberg: Okay. But if I have to in any way have His credit, His merit, His power and mine-- this is where the Protestants say, "No!" If it's on me, then yeah, we would join your ranks. But if it's based on Christ, if the solid foundation is Christ and not Christ and me-- you see, that's where we'll never get assurance. I agree with you on Catholic theology. You'll never get assurance under your system.

Pacwa: That's right.

Ankerberg: But in Protestant theology, they look at the Scripture verses that say, "It's on Christ!"

Pacwa: Well, so do we, with the addition, of course, that I have to say "Yes" to it in my free will. That I have a choice....and that's the only point at which I have anything to say. Will I, by my free will, say "Yes" to that grace? Now...well, the thing that I would have to ask you is, "Do you thereby deny that human free will has anything to do with your acceptance?"

Ankerberg: No, we just don't get credit for it. We don't merit it like you do. We believe that God helped us to come to that point....

Pacwa: So do we.

Ankerberg: ...and we don't get credit for it.

Pacwa: Right.

Ankerberg: You get credit for it, though. Congruous merit. We're saying that if you could just drop the merit point, we'd be friends. Jesus paid it all!

Pacwa: I'll be friends without dropping it, but I won't drop it. But the thing that...

Ankerberg: Friends theologically.

Martin: Go one step further...

Pacwa: The thing, though, about that merit again, it's not that my act-- and this is not the Catholic understanding at all-- that my act of free will merits anything. It's the simple saying "Yes" to what God gives as His merit by Christ on the cross.

Martin: I am concerned with one thing though, Fr. Pacwa.

Pacwa: Yes.

Martin: You quoted a moment before about those who do righteous...would you make that quote again?

Pacwa: Yes. "Ho poion dikaiosune dikaios estin"-- "The one who does righteousness or Justification, is righteous."

Martin: Okay. Now transpose that to Romans 4. It won't fit.

Pacwa: What do you mean, "It won't fit?"

Martin: Abraham is already accounted righteous by imputation before he acts.

Pacwa: Yes, except...

Martin: He didn't do righteousness. It came to him before he did it.

Pacwa: Except what does James say?

Martin: Let's stick with Romans.

Pacwa: No, no, no, no!

Martin: Then we'll go to James.

Pacwa: No, no, no! We can't understand Romans without James because James says that Abraham was justified by what?

Martin: By works.

Pacwa: By his works...

Martin: Sure, but...

Pacwa: So, we have both.

Martin: No. Well, let's...

Ankerberg: If you're going to use the word...

Pacwa: Sort of like the "Certs" commercial-- both right.

Ankerberg: No, you don't.

Martin: I never denied "dual Justification." Justification before God...

Pacwa: Well, he does. What do you mean by "dual Justification"?

Martin: I'm going to explain.

Pacwa: Oh, okay?

Martin: In dual Justification, we're talking about two spheres. The first sphere is spiritual and God alone is privy to it...

Pacwa: Yeah.

Martin: ...the second sphere is temporal and men can see it. Now, I can't see the faith you have in Christ that would justify you from your sins. But God can see it.

Pacwa: Yes.

Martin: God saw in Abraham that he was going to be declared righteous by faith. God gave him redemption. That is the sphere of God's knowledge. We can't see that.

Pacwa: Right.

Martin: But God saw it, so He says, "He's righteous." "I see it. He's righteous."

Pacwa: Right.

Martin: Now, James is saying, "Look, the kind of faith that does not move into the sphere that can be evaluated and perceived and judged is not saving faith at all. The demons have that kind of faith and they tremble. That's not going to save them.

Pacwa: Right.

Martin: So, all James is saying, "The world must see the existence of your faith in the works that you perform." That's the sphere of Justification before men. But the sphere of Justification before God precedes that. God saw in Romans 4 that Abraham...God saw in Romans 4 that Abraham already was righteous. God said so.

Pacwa: Yeah.

Martin: But yet, nobody else could see that till he raised the knife over Isaac. Then they knew. That's all James is talking about.

Pacwa: But nobody was there to see him, for one thing, when he raised the hand over Isaac. That the only...

Martin: Isaac was there.

Pacwa: Isaac was there, but nobody saw his good works. It was God who was there to see his works.

Martin: But what James is trying to point out to us, I think is very....

Pacwa: Where do you see that written down that this is what James is about?

Martin: Oh, but wait a minute! You started out a little while ago saying, "Just because it isn't explicitly affirmed doesn't mean it cannot be inferred from the context." I'm saying exactly the same thing.

Pacwa: I know, and I was just going to say, "Now you're starting to talk like you are papally infallible."

Ankerberg: No. I'd like to get in here and bring in something and ask you from the context of Scripture again. We brought up James as being the main hindrance to this idea of Justification that's imputed. And let me ask you to give me a definition of "Justification" off the lips of our Lord Jesus, where He uses the proverb and says that, "Wisdom is justified by her children." What does justified mean there? Does it mean that Wisdom will, by her children, go up and have a declaration before God somehow, or does it mean that the children of Wisdom will somehow infuse grace into Wisdom and therefore she's justified? What does it mean?

Pacwa: First of all, to deal with that text, where He's talking about John the Baptist and all, the word "justice" and "Justification" has a wide range of meanings.

Ankerberg: Yeah, but just tell me what it is there. That's what I'm shooting at first of all.

Pacwa: In that particular text He's dealing definitely with...one of the majority uses in the Old Testament, namely, a legal Justification that...

Ankerberg: No, He's not. No, He's not.

Pacwa: ...You don't think it's a legal Justification?

Ankerberg: No. It can't be. In other words, Wisdom is a proverb here and it's being personified into a woman. And it's saying that somehow her children somehow justify her.

Pacwa: Okay.

Ankerberg: Okay? Now, I would submit to you, if you will look in your Arndt & Gingrich-- your Greek Lexicon, which I'm sure you are familiar with...

Pacwa: Yes.

Ankerberg: ...you'll find seven different meanings to the word "justified."

Pacwa: Sure.

Ankerberg: And one of the things that we have a problem with is when we transfer over into James, which is Wisdom Literature, versus Paul who has Systematic Doctrine, spelled out in Romans-- you've got chapter after chapter of the doctrine that Paul is preaching. Wisdom Literature is practical and it takes that which is doctrine and applies it. Now, if I can take the same interpretation of the word "justified" off Jesus' lips, in His proverb that "Wisdom is justified by her children," which has to mean that Wisdom is vindicated by her children-- "If you want to see what real Wisdom is, look at the children." The children will vindicate Wisdom-- will prove it. You'll see the results. Now, take that same understanding of the word "justified" and put it into the context, if I can, of James 2. James says, "What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds.', Here, James is answering the question about those who say they have faith, but there are no...there is no change in their life. Okay? And he goes on: "Can such a faith save him?" Luther and the Reformers said, "No! It's a dead faith! A faith that does not result in works is a dead faith. That will never save you."

Pacwa: That's right.

Ankerberg: Then it goes on: "If one of you says to him, 'Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed' but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?" What kind of faith is that? It's no good. In the same way, faith, by itself, if it is not accompanied by action is dead. The Reformers would say, "Sure! That's true."

Pacwa: So would the Catholics.

Ankerberg: And so would the Catholics. "But someone will say you have faith, and I have deeds. Show me your faith without the deeds and I'll show you my faith by what I do." There's somebody that's standing there that's saying, "Well, listen, let's have a contest. I'll show the faith and you show the deeds." And James gets a little sarcastic in here and says, "To all of those that think they can simply believe and no transformation has to come out of their life..." he gets a little sarcastic and he says, "Hey, you do real well with your creed there...your belief in God and all of that. You believe that there is One God? Good. Even the demons believe that." You have qualified to be a demon. And Luther and the Reformers said that in terms of faith, a true faith is not just having an assent of the facts. It's not just having a knowledge of the facts...

Pacwa: Sure.

Ankerberg: I had professors at school, and I'm sure that you did, that knew church history back and forth. They knew the doctrines that we're talking about, and didn't believe a stitch of it!

Pacwa: That's right.

Ankerberg: They knew it, but that doesn't save you. The demons know it and even tremble-- they even go a little further than some people. They're a little scared about it. But it doesn't make sure that they're going to be saved. It doesn't mean they're going to be in heaven. So he goes on: "You foolish man! Do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?" Then, he goes to Abraham as the illustration, which is the same historical figure that Paul uses. Paul has got done saying, in Romans 3, that, "We conclude then that a man is justified without the works of the law." He uses Abraham as an illustration. Abraham didn't have any works. It was, "He believed God" and at that point it was "reckoned to him as righteousness."

Pacwa: Right.

Ankerberg: And then he goes back to Genesis-- a certain part of Genesis...

Pacwa: [Chapter] 22.

Ankerberg: No, [Chapter] 14, isn't it? He goes back to when Abraham believed God and...

Pacwa: Genesis 15:6.

Ankerberg: ...God says "It was reckoned to him as righteousness." James picks up Abraham and he goes to 22, and he uses Abraham. But how does he use him? That's what we've got to find out. His point is to say this, that real faith will always result in works. Real faith, if I can use the same word that Jesus used-- "justifies"-- will vindicate a man who has faith, see? And look at how it fits, perfectly. "Was not our ancestor, Abraham, considered righteous"-- or vindicated, or justified-- "Wasn't our ancestor, Abraham, vindicated for what he did?" In other words, didn't it show? Wasn't he vindicated? Was it his true faith, that Paul is talking about-- that when he believed in God, God gave it to him, and God who could see the heart, so that's a real one, no works...not any other basis except your faith and my promises-- that gave him his standing.

Which is what Romans Chapter 4 says. James picks it up and says, "That's right! And how do we prove that this guy Abraham who says he got it, how do we know that he really does? Out of his life his works will vindicate him." Which goes on-- let me just finish it up here. "You see that his faith and his actions were working together and his faith was made complete." Do we say that faith in the Reformation doctrine has to be complete? Sure! That's what Hebrews is saying. In one sense we have our standing. In the other sense, we are still being transformed into our standing, which is Christ.

Pacwa: The thing that I would ask you then, is that, first of all, to specify more carefully than you have done the difference between "Justification," as you're using it, and "vindication." What's the nuance that you're getting at that's different?

Ankerberg: Simply the fact that one comes as a result of true faith, and the other one is a different basis altogether. That Justification is a declaration that God makes on Abraham's life apart from any works, on the sole basis that he believed in God.

Pacwa: Yes, and again we...you see....

Ankerberg: Walter, is that basically what you were saying?

Martin: Yes, certainly what I was saying, but also in James, I didn't invent-- John read the whole context-- I didn't invent a traditional interpretation or anything like that. It specifically says there, "We see how Abraham was justified....We see...We see." It's a testimony, a physical thing, and something you can observe. A phenomenon you can see. His works testified to the existence of his faith. That's what vindicated him.

Pacwa: So, only if you change the meaning of the word-- the verb "justify"-- to be "vindicate" and use it in that sense, which you won't use when you apply it to Paul's usage, that then....

Ankerberg: Ah-hah! The context! You're a biblical scholar....

Pacwa: Sure.

Ankerberg: You know that the context is basically where you get the meaning of these words.

Pacwa: Exactly.

Ankerberg: All right...

Pacwa: The thing we have to see here, though, is that on both sides...l mean, I would not use "vindication" in the sense that you do to translate Paul. I don't think....

Ankerberg: I know you wouldn't, but it's a legitimate meaning right off the lips of our Lord Jesus.

Pacwa: Sure. The thing that we also have to see is that it's not the only meaning, and we can only accept the sense that you have if I accept your presuppositions and that you say that that's the context, and then I say, "Okay." But if I do not accept your translation and say that that meaning of "vindication" is here....

Ankerberg: You have an irreconcilable conflict, then, between James and Paul.

Pacwa: No, no, no!

Ankerberg: You certainly do!

Pacwa: That...no, no, no....

Ankerberg: You have no way of defining Paul.

Pacwa: You only say that we do because you also insist on the sense of imputation that's part of Protestant theology.

Ankerberg: "In a sense!" It's the words that are used!

Pacwa: And...well, not quite. Again, let me finish.

Ankerberg: "Reckoned?"

Pacwa: Well, let me....Again, I don't deny they used "reckoned" and the word "chashad," behind it. No way do I deny that. And, again, neither does Trent in Chapter VIII, Session VI.

Ankerberg: They deny it by what they say...

Pacwa: They do not deny it by what they say. They say that that's the beginning!

Ankerberg: ...because remember what I read...remember Canon XXXII there that I read to you concerning the fact that your works then cooperate with the...

Pacwa: Okay...wait, wait, wait. Let me finish a sentence, okay?

Ankerberg: ...Spirit of Christ to merit you heaven?

Pacwa: Now, let me get to the...so I can make the sense that we get out of it.

Ankerberg: Okay.

Pacwa: Okay. That we believe that these works that he does as part of his faith, as part of his Justification, are the grace of God working in him. So that we see that we don't need to change the sense....the sense of justice to vindication here, because it's these works that are flowing from the grace of Christ still acting in the man who believes. And so that rather than seeing that James and Paul are opposite or opposed to each other-- No way! They can't be. They're in Scripture. And that there has to be a unity of understanding between the two. And that is revelation.

Ankerberg: Okay. Let's have a concluding statement tonight from both of you, and Fr. Pacwa, wrap it all up in one short statement there.

Pacwa: That's tough. I guess that we would just see it as Catholics, as I've said so many times, that we're saved by the grace of Christ and saved by that alone. But that it's a grace that has effectiveness, an effectiveness in terms of our actions, and that we, by accepting it in our own act of faith, by our will, accept the grace given to us to believe. We don't believe on our own; we don't have grace on our own-- it's all that Christ does for us. But it is something that because it is God working in us, through our will, and using that will that He gave us to begin with, that there's a transformation of our personality that will affect everything that we do. And it is only because of our complete union with Christ which He gives us that we have the power to do what we do, and no other means is there. And that's the good news that we have proclaimed and is the faith of millions and millions.

Ankerberg: Okay. Dr. Martin?

Martin: The reason why there was a Protestant Reformation is because the combination of faith and works-- the individual's merit system which had been developed and evolved in the Church had gotten the Church to the place where she was selling the things of God and Trent had to admit it later on. So, what actually I would emphasize is the fact that the gift of God is eternal life. It's by grace alone, through faith, not by works lest anyone should boast. Whether it's my works, effected through the grace of Christ, or work which I try and contribute towards my salvation-- whatever the use of works may be-- it's disqualified by biblical theology. It is solely by grace, through faith, the instrument of faith, in Jesus Christ. And, God wants us to have a transformed life as a result of this, and if the transformation of the life is not evident, then there is no Justification by works in the life of the individual, the world can't see it, and that's a dead faith. That's the difference, and the difference is grace versus a combination of faith and works. And that's why there was a Reformation.

Ankerberg: Gentlemen, I surely appreciate your being here.

Program 4

Did Jesus Make Peter "Pope" Over the Church?

Introduction:

This evening John Ankerberg will examine the evidence for some of the doctrines taught by the Roman Catholic Church.

Tonight's topic, "Is There Evidence That Jesus Christ Established the Office of "Pope" Over His Church?" The Catholic church claims that Jesus conferred on Peter and his successors supreme power in faith and morals over all the other apostles and over every Christian in the Church. But is this true?

This doctrine is supposedly based on Matthew 16 where it states, "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth it shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."

But many Christians reject Roman Catholic interpretation. They point out that in the very passage appealed to before Jesus spoke to Peter, He had asked His disciples whom men were saying that he was.

Peter replied, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God."

Jesus agreed with Peter's statement and used it to teach that He Himself will be the Rock, the foundation upon which the Church will be built. For Jesus says, "Thou art Peter"-- petros, a small stone-- "and upon this petra"-- great massive rock, referring to Peter's truthful declaration of Christ's deity-- it is upon this truth that Jesus says He will build His Church.

Which of these interpretations best fits the scriptural record? What did Peter mean when he stated in his own epistle that Jesus was the chief cornerstone and all other Christians are living stones?

Other questions surrounding the doctrine of the Pope are: Why are there no Scripture verses that teach how the of office of Pope is to be transmitted by Peter to his successors? Why is it that the Apostle Paul never mentions the office of Pope in any of his epistles when he teaches about the offices in the Church? When Jesus gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom, doesn't Scripture show that Jesus gave the same keys to the other apostles? Does Scripture teach that the keys are a declaratory authority to announce the terms on which God will grant salvation, or, as Roman Catholics teach, an absolute power to admit or exclude someone from heaven? Both sides admit that in the first chapters of Acts, Peter exercises the keys to the Kingdom by declaring the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles, as Jesus said He would, but then, the other apostles declare the gospel and Peter drops from sight in the scriptural account. When Peter does reappear, at the council of Jerusalem, why is it that the Apostle James leads the Church and not Peter?

Tonight, you will hear both sides of this question. John's guests are Father Mitchell Pacwa, an ordained Roman Catholic priest. He has an earned Doctor of Philosophy Degree and is currently Professor of Old Testament at Loyola University in Chicago. John's second guest is the late Dr. Walter Martin, director and founder of the Christian Research Institute in California. Please join us.

John Ankerberg: Good evening. Tonight we're examining the claims and the authority of the specific doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. What is the evidence for their claims and their teachings? My first guest is an ordained Roman Catholic Priest-- Fr. Mitchell Pacwa, who is a member of the Society of Jesus-- a Jesuit. He has earned a Doctor of Philosophy degree and is currently a professor of Old Testament at Loyola University in Chicago. My second guest is the late Dr. Walter Martin. Dr. Martin was director and founder of the Christian Research Institute in California, and Walter was the author of many books-- especially the classic book known by both Protestants and Catholics-- The Kingdom of the Cults. Gentlemen, we're glad that you're here tonight.

Father Pacwa, I've got to come to you right off the bat here. I'm reading from the New York Catechism and I'd like to talk about the authority that the Roman Catholic Church says that they have and has taught in many of their documents. I'm reading from the New York Catechism> which says, "The Pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth. By divine right, the Pope has supreme and full power in faith and morals over each and every pastor and his flock. He is the true Vicar of Christ, the Head of the entire Church, the father and teacher of all Christians. He is the infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of and the judge of councils, the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, the supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all, being judged by no one, God Himself on earth."

And this seems to rest on the basis that was stated by Cardinal Gibbons in his book Faith of Our Fathers-- the short one here-- "The Catholic Church teaches that our Lord conferred on St. Peter the first place of honor and jurisdiction in the government of His whole Church and that the same spiritual supremacy has always resided in the popes or bishops of Rome, as being the successors of St. Peter. Consequently, to be true followers of Christ, all Christians, both among the clergy and laity, must be in communion with the See of Rome where Peter rules in the person of his successors."

The opposite way of saying this would be, "If anyone says that the blessed Apostle Peter was not constituted by Christ our Lord prince of all the apostles and visible head of all the church militant, or that he, Peter, directly and immediately, received from our Lord Jesus Christ a primacy of favor only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction, let him be anathema." Now, I know that most of the writings of Jesus establishing Peter go back to Matthew Chapter 16.

Pacwa: Yes.

Ankerberg: And I'd like to start with that tonight. Matthew Chapter 16, verses 17-19 is supposed to prove this doctrine. And I would like for you to tell us why you think that this doctrine is proved from this passage or from other verses. Let's start with that.

Pacwa: Okay. The sense that the Church developed in its understanding of that text over time was twofold....in the Church. On one hand, as almost every Protestant knows, there are two words here-- that, "You are 'Petros,' and on this 'petra' I will build my church." In the early Church, the Greek fathers and Western fathers alike, both interpreted it in two ways: (1) They said that the "Rock"-- Peter-- is the person on which Jesus is building the Church, and (2) other times, even the same fathers of the Church, like Augustine, for instance, taught that the Petra is his act of faith.

Ankerberg: Let me read the verse for the people at home so they know what we're talking about.

Pacwa: Sure.

Ankerberg: Verse 18-- and I'm reading from the Catholic Bible-- "And I say to thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Pacwa: Yes, that text there is about Peter being called "rock." On one hand, even in the early Church when they use that distinction between "petra" and "petros," you know, it's explained in different ways. "Petra," the noun, is feminine, and it was just masculinized when translating Peter's name into Greek. Okay? In Aramaic, it would be no different. "Ante kepha ve'al kepha dinnah ebanah kenisiyah sheli"-- just plain Aramaic. And there would be no distinction in terminology.

As a matter of fact, I don't know if you've been to Israel, but the place where this takes place, Caesarea Philippi, is a perfect setting for this statement. Because behind the city is this solid rock cliff that goes on for approximately a mile in either direction. It's just enormous. And so this is also a visual image here. So we see that this-- we believe...that this person and his after-faith, or both, are the basis on which Jesus builds His Church and is a principle that we see throughout the Gospels that where Jesus is, He makes His apostles, especially, and the rest of us, too. So that Jesus is the Rock of our Salvation-- to be sure, but He makes Peter "the Rock." Jesus called Himself "the Good Shepherd" in John Chapter 10. But, in another commission to Peter, which Scripture scholars of all different brands and colors consider to be the Johannine version of the same setting apart of Peter where he is called shepherd. So, Jesus, the Shepherd, makes Peter The Shepherd, because he wants to know, anyway, whether Peter loves Jesus more than all the rest.

Ankerberg: Okay. Let me stop you there and, Dr. Martin, why don't you get into this?

Martin: Well, what we're really talking about are differences that persist since Vatican II between classic Roman Catholic theology and Protestant theology or Reformation theology. And what he is saying, I'm well acquainted with as any scholar in the area would be. The problem that we have is that the statements you read before from Cardinal Gibbons, and other statements which have been made, indicate that it goes far beyond the concept of Peter's faith. It goes to the actual "individual," and I think you would be the first to admit that...

Pacwa: Yes.

Martin: For instance, in Boniface VIII's "Unum Sanctum," which Cardinal Manning says, and I quote, "Is beyond all doubt an ex cathedra." That's Manning, who is an authority, allegedly, on papal decrees. And he says, quoting "Unum Sanctum," "We declare, affirm, define and pronounce it to be necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff."

Again, Pius IX, "I alone, despite my unworthiness, am the successor of the apostles,"-- following Gibbons-- "the Vicar of Jesus Christ"-- following the Catechism-- "I alone have the mission to guide and direct the barc of Peter"-- successor of the apostles-- "I am the way, the truth and the life. They who are with me are with the Church. They who are not with me are out of the Church."

Now, what disturbs the Protestant at this particular juncture is that we are no longer talking about the "faith of Peter"-- Peter is "a little stone built up into the tabernacle." He says so himself. What we're dealing with now is a statement of the usurpation of the role of deity. And you mentioned before "what Christ was He called the apostles." Well, Christ was God. The apostles were never called "God."

Pacwa: Right.

Martin: And yet here in this particular statement that we read before-- John read from Gibbons-- you have the Pope being called "a god on earth." He's not a "god on earth"-- he's a man. And he's a sinner in need of a Savior just like all of us. And so the principal idea of carrying on the idea of the "faith of Peter" in the Church is one thing. But to argue for the supremacy of the man when the man's predecessor, Peter...if there's one person that should know what Jesus meant in Matthew 16, it's got to be Peter.

And if you go to I Peter, Chapter 2, it specifically says, "You are built on the chief cornerstone-- Jesus Christ." He said, "We're all little stones built up into a spiritual tabernacle, Jesus Christ the chief cornerstone,"-- the Church Universal, the Church invisible-- but we're all part of the building-- and we're "built upon the foundation of the apostles and the prophets, Jesus Christ, chief cornerstone." Now, you admitted before that Christ is the Rock, the Foundation, the Savior, and so forth.

Pacwa: Yes.

Martin: Great. If that's true, why is it necessary to transfer titles that belong to Christ to the papacy, such as "Holy Father"? Now, calling you "Father," or me "Father," or somebody else "Father" as a title, we both agree is a title. But to say "Holy Father," which is a title reserved uniquely for God Himself and to identify that with a man, to call him in the Catechism "a god on earth," this goes, in the Protestant mind, far contrary to the Scriptures than just the idea of "Peter's faith."

Pacwa: One of the things about...even a title, "god on earth," as you know, in the so-called "Covenant Code" in the book of Exodus, judges in Israel are called "god" in Hebrew-- they are called "Elohims."

Martin: Psalm 82:6.

Pacwa: Not only...no, in Exodus itself.

Martin: I know, but it is the same word, "Elohim."

Pacwa: Yes. That's right-- another example of it. And one of the things that I find, in Hebrew text, disturb ing, but again, it's Scripture. And it only would be applied to the Pope in his role as a judge of various issues.

Now, for sure, the Catholic Church looks upon the Pope as a successor of Peter-- not just his after-faith, but of the person. And, that he has the authority of Peter that goes from not just being a "rock" but as it also says here in the text, "I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you"-- singular-- "shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

And so that this person-- who then is author, John, told to feed the lambs and sheep-- is here given an authority to loose and to bind in a singular way. Now, the apostles are given the same authority of loosing and binding later on in Matthew 18 and also in John 20, especially in reference to forgiveness of sins....

Martin: As you made a point a moment ago of the singular usage of "l will give to you the keys of the kingdom," in Matthew 18 you have a parallel where it's a plural...

Pacwa: Right. That's right.

Martin: ...where He gives the disciples the power to bind and loose, which is "the keys to the kingdom."

Pacwa: And one of the important aspects of the Catholic teaching of the papacy is that the papacy cannot be seen apart from the college of the bishops. The Pope, even...for instance, there are two statements by Popes that claimed for sure-- claimed by them, not by Cardinal Manning, but claimed by the Popes-- to be infallible: The Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin-- which I'm sure we'll get to later, and the Assumption into Heaven of the Blessed Virgin-- which we will also get to later. No doubt! Martin: I think we better reel the tape back and get to the first one where he committed the error of begging the question and affirmed himself infallible in 1870, which the Universal Church never recognized. He said, "I am the successor of Peter." "I am the infallible teacher." And they said, "Why?" And he said, "Because I said so." And that's exactly what happened!

Pacwa: At the same time, that's not all that happened, because cardinals themselves...

Martin: But there was more...

Pacwa: ...there is quite a bit more. Cardinals and other bishops came there...

Martin: Yeah.

Pacwa: ...craving....Manning himself being one of them, a convert from Protestantism, who eventually was ordained and became the first Cardinal of England after the restoration of the bishoprics there. The bishops had not been allowed to be in England up until the early 19th Century.

Ankerberg: Father Pacwa, can I come back here...if we're going to talk about the "keys of the kingdom," which we're talking about, [there's] no doubt Jesus said "the keys to the kingdom," but also in Matthew you find that the Pharisees and the scribes had the keys to the kingdom and the other disciples are given the keys to the kingdom.... I think what the Protestant side of the Church is saying is that the definition of "the keys of the kingdom" has been overblown and where do you get these fantastic claims of authority?

Number one, to Peter, because then you'd have to justify it biblically as well as historically. And Protestants reading their Bible-- a lot of people, including Catholics that I've got quotes here-- read their Bible and they don't find Peter being supreme in the Scripture text-- the one we're reading or the one in John. Why did Jesus three times say to Peter, "Do you love me?" Because it goes back to the fact he denied Him three times when he was supposed to stand for Him.

Pacwa: Yes.

Ankerberg: Now, all the Scriptures from the time that Jesus said, "You are the rock," from that point on, right immediately, Peter turned around and said something wrong and Jesus accused him of being one that was used by Satan...

Pacwa: Sure

Ankerberg: Okay? You go on and Peter affirms later on in Matthew that he is going to stand for Jesus; he will be there and all the rest will flee. And Jesus turns and says, "No, I'll tell you what,...you're going to deny me three times." And he opposes Jesus and says, "No!" And then he goes ahead and he does it anyway. So, instead of people seeing Peter as supreme and the head of the Church, Peter blows it.

Pacwa: One of the things...I'm glad you brought that up. Because, as I started to say before, again, that supremacy of Peter among the bishops is only possible in the context of all the bishops. Okay?

Ankerberg: But we don't see it in the context of the New Testament, of the apostles.

Pacwa: That's one of the things that we Catholics disagree on in terms of understanding the New Testament. First of all, I can't think of any text where the Pharisees are said to have the keys of the kingdom.

Ankerberg: Well, let me give one to you then. Matthew Chapter 23, verse 13, you will find that the scribes and Pharisees exercised the same kind of power, but let me...we've only got about a minute left here and what we need to do in this week's program, when I talk about the fact of Peter being supreme among the apostles, I find that Paul opposed him to his face.

Pacwa: Right. Absolutely.

Ankerberg: Was he supreme there? Was he the head there?

Pacwa: At the same time...sure he was!

Ankerberg: He was wrong.

Pacwa: And that's one of the things about the papacy I think that Protestants misunderstand in terms of "infallibility." Not everything the Pope says is infallible by any means.

Martin: But in matters....

Pacwa: ...by any means.

Ankerberg: Okay. We've get just a few seconds left.

Martin: But in matters of faith and morals, he is. And he was immoral in his dealing with the Gentiles, and Paul rebuked him on a matter of faith and morals. Pacwa: There are three conditions for the Pope's infallibility in issues of faith and morals and we'll have to talk about the three conditions when we come back.

Ankerberg: Okay. I appreciate that. We're going to look into this: "Was Peter given the supremacy among the other apostles?" And we're going to look at the history as well as the Scripture concerning the early Church next week, and so I hope that you'll join us.

Program 5

Did Jesus Establish Peter as Pope to Rule Infallibly in Matters of Faith and Morals?

Ankerberg: Good evening. Tonight we're examining the claims and the authority, the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

My first guest is an ordained Roman Catholic priest, Father Mitchell Pacwa, who is a member of the Society of Jesus, a Jesuit. He has an earned Doctor of Philosophy degree and is currently a Professor of Old Testament at Loyola University in Chicago. My second guest is the late Dr. Walter Martin, who was the director and founder of the Christian Research Institute in California. Walter was the author of many books, especially the classic book known by both Protestants and Catholics, called The Kingdom of the Cults.

Gentlemen, we're glad that you're here tonight. I want to move on in our talking about the claims of the Roman Catholic Church concerning, this week, the infallibility of the Pope. Let's actually take a look at this.

Reading from Vatican Council which met in Rome in 1870 they said, "We teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed, the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith and morals to be held by the Universal Church by the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed for defining doctrines regarding faith and morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff of themselves, and not by virtue of the consent of the Church, are irreformable."

Now, we need to keep coming back for evidence. Many in the Roman Catholic Church take it for granted that that's true, but there are others that do not.

And Father Pacwa, I'd like you to comment about the fact of: If Jesus gave the supremacy to Peter, how do you deal with Paul? Because, let me give you a few facts about Paul in relationship to Peter, and I'd like you to comment, if you would, please. Peter has no say in Paul's appointment. There are 13 epistles that Paul wrote, 2023 verses. Peter only wrote two epistles-- 166 verses. Paul mentioned Peter more than once, but he never mentioned him with any special title of honor, such as the Vicar or Pope, or above any of the other apostles.

Paul did not mention the papacy when he referred to the offices of the Church in I Corinthians 12 and Ephesians 4. Paul as an apostle claimed authority over the Roman Church itself in Romans Chapter 1:5,6 and 16:17. Paul claimed for himself that "he was behind the very chiefest apostles in nothing" (2 Corinthians 12), and that then specifically you have Paul rebuking Peter, without any mention of Peter's supremacy, in Galatians 2.

Now, if Peter was the chief, it would seem that Paul would have acknowledged that in his epistles and would have acknowledged it in the respect he gave when there was a matter of doctrine on the table. We see none of that for Peter.

Pacwa: First of all, what you have in Paul and Peter's dispute in Galatians is not a dispute about some infallible statement by Peter, it is about his own practice...

Ankerberg: Okay.

Pacwa: ...on something that already had been decided by the Church. Now, Catholics do not say that we can't tell the Pope to live up to certain things in his own life. As a matter of fact, Dante, in his "Inferno" mentions that a number of Popes are in hell for various reasons.

Martin: Remember, you said that. I didn't!

Pacwa: That's right! Why not say it? I don't know that they're in hell; Dante knew-- so he says. And the thing that the Pope's infallibility does not mean is that the Pope is right all the time. In no way does the Catholic Church even teach that. He's infallible only when he speaks ex cathedra, in order to clearly speak infallibly. He has to say that explicitly to be speaking infallibly.

Secondly, it has to be to the whole Church, not to one part or one individual of the Church, but to everybody in the Church.

And thirdly, it has to be on the issue of faith and morals. He cannot infallibly say that the stock market will drop.

Ankerberg: Okay. You have continued to tell me about the fact of what he speaks. When I'm saying the word "supreme," it seems to also mean more than just what he speaks. There ought to be the respect. There ought to be the dignity, the honor...the mention of the fact of his office by all the other apostles, and we see none of that. It's silent-- dead silence in the New Testament.

Martin: I...go ahead.

Pacwa: I don't...again, I don't think that it is. It is not dead silent. Okay, again...even Paul when he...

Ankerberg: Would you show me where it is?

Pacwa: Paul does not call him Simon Barjona, does he?

Ankerberg: What does he call him?

Martin: Peter.

Pacwa: Cephas.

Ankerberg: Peter.

Pacwa: Cephas or Peter, which is a title given him, which is "Rock," not his given name. And he doesn't refer to him as Simon, ever. It always calls him by Cephas.

And even in Corinthians, what he's dealing with is a specific problem of people having been divisive on account of Peter, later on, in the next generation-- about 35 years later...well, more than that from the Corinthians-- about 45 years later-- we will see that it will be the Bishop of Rome, St. Clement 1, who is the second after Peter, and Paul who will be correcting the same Church because of division. They never learned. And so it's the Bishop of Rome that takes that authority in 95 A.D.-- before the New Testament is finished being written-- and he is the one that tells them...he sends legates over there to Corinth and says, "You Corinthians, get united with your priests again," and he orders his legates not to come back home until they're united. So he takes that authority, and the very next generation as the role of Peter to bring unity to the Church.

Ankerberg: Okay, Dr. Martin, I'd like you to put the other side of the fence. I said that there was a hypothesis that Fr. Pacwa is using-- namely that in referring to Peter, which we all agree is, "small rock," and that there is a differentiation between the other Rock. There is something different. It's not referring to Peter because of the way it's written. All right. What would be another option that would seem to fit this evidence better from your point of view? Would you please explain that so we get it on the table anyway.

Martin: I would take Augustine's position,...

Ankerberg: All right.

Martin: A very great theologian,...that Peter's confession of faith: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God" is the foundation. And that it's not Peter. Cross-referencing it to I Peter Chapter 2, Peter didn't understand it to refer to him. He put himself in with all the rest of the "little stones" built up into the spiritual house, Jesus Christ being the chief Cornerstone.

Ephesians 2:20 says, "We're built upon the foundation of the apostles and the prophets, Jesus Christ, the chief Cornerstone." He quotes Scripture, "Behold I lay in Zion a cornerstone, a rock of offense. Whoever believes on Him..."-- not Peter. Christ-- "will not be ashamed."

That Peter was a moving force, a chief apostle in the Church, there's no doubt whatsoever. That his writings were authoritative and they were accepted as such. That he recommended Paul's writings as Scripture, even calling it "Scripture," equating it with the Old Testament, is indicative of the fact that they agreed in their basic theology. Well, since they agreed in their basic theology, the facts fit the hypothesis that the whole structure of the New Testament and the first five centuries following that, historically, did not give any supreme role to the Bishop of Rome.

Ankerberg: Okay, now, I want you to go on and let's get into a definition of "the keys." Okay? Father Pacwa has defined how the Roman Catholic Church sees the keys and would you give another hypothesis for that?

Martin: Yes. The alternative to that is the parallel passage of Matthew 18 with which he is well acquainted also and mentioned it before-- namely that Christ was speaking to the disciples, not to Peter, and the apostles in general. He said, "If any two of you shall agree on anything on earth, it will have been done in heaven-- what you bind on earth is bound in heaven."

Now, the keys of the kingdom were the power to bind and loose. Peter had that power, but it wasn't Peter's power alone. Matthew 18 gives that power to you and to me to pray together that we may bind or loose. So, I'd take that to be the alternative proposition to the Roman Catholic position.

Ankerberg: Would you say that the binding and loosing is a declaratory power and not one of supremacy?

Martin: Yeah, I think it's a right to declare something by faith, and I think Peter had that right. But if he was really the supreme pontiff of the Church-- this is a very strong point, I think-- then the disciples or the apostles, the men who went into the second century, the great theologians of that time, would surely have recognized the primacy of Rome. And they didn't.

Ankerberg: Fr. Pacwa, would you respond to that hypothesis? Why do you think that the evidence of the New Testament does not fit that hypothesis?

Pacwa: First of all, you know that when Jesus is speaking in Matthew 18, He's not speaking to the crowds but to the apostles.

Martin: Right.

Pacwa: And so that, you know, it's not just "we" who have that same authority, except in a derived sense, but the apostles and their successors, the bishops, along with the successor of Peter, have that authority to make decisions that we don't. For instance, decisions like, "What goes into the New Testament?" That was not made by the New Testament, it was made by the bishops. They chose which books were to be canonical. The laypeople didn't do it except in that secondary sense.

The bishops were the ones who were the "traditores," that is, the ones who carried on the tradition as to which books derived from Paul, Peter, James and the others, and then finally in councils, and in series of councils, decided which ones....we now have the 27, and really it was not until Pope Damasus 1, in giving authority to the Councils of Carthage and Hippo in the end of the fourth century and the beginning of the fifth. So that we have for the first time 27 books of the New Testament. Before that we have 22 books. So the authority of the New Testament derives from these bishops and from the Pope and an authority which Protestants continue to accept as their own basic authority.

Ankerberg: Okay, let's get a response.

Martin: There's a severe fallacy in the reasoning. In order to establish what you just said, you must assume that there is a papacy with the power to do that...

Pacwa: Yes!

Martin: Well, I deny the assumption.

Pacwa: Yes.

Martin: So...

Pacwa: It's a fallacy only if I accept your assumption. Martin: Right! Right! Just as it's a fallacy if I accept yours.

Pacwa: That's right. That's right.

Martin: So the point...

Pacwa: We're stuck!

Martin: Yes, we're stuck! We're stuck in one important area, and I think we can get out of it pretty quickly.

Pacwa: Yes...

Martin: This is it. In Vatican I, which was the cornerstone of all the power of the contemporary papacy...we know that, because it was then at Vatican I which John just read that the statement was clearly defined for the first time in history, that this was the position, okay?

Now, when that was done at Vatican I on July 13, 1870, an argument was raised on the floor, voted on by 18 bishops supporting it, and this is what was stated, historically, if I may quote it: "Well, venerable brethren, history raises its voice to assure us that Popes have erred. You may protest against it or deny it as you please, I'll prove it. Pope Victor in 192 first approved of Montanism and then condemned it. Marcellinus was an idolator; he entered the Temple of Vesta and offered incense to the goddess. You'll say that it was an act of weakness, but I answer a Vicar of Jesus Christ dies rather than become an apostate. Liberius consented to the condemnation of Athanasius and made a profession of Arianism that he might be recalled from his exile and reinstated in the Holy See. Honorius adhered to Monothelitism. Father Gratry has proved that to demonstration. Gregory I calls anyone 'Antichrist' who takes the name Universal Bishop, and Boniface III made the patricide Emperor of Phocas confer the title upon him. Paschal II and Eugenius III authorized dueling. Julius II and Pius IV forbid it. Eugenius VI approved the Council of Basle and the reinstitution of the chalice of the Church of Bohemia. Pius II revoked the concession. Hadrian 11 declared civil marriages to be valid, Pius VII condemned them. Sixtus V published an edition of the Bible and by a Bull recommended it to be read. Pius VII condemned the reading of it. Clement XIV abolished the order of the Jesuits"-- that's you!...

Pacwa: He died.

Martin: Universal Church, bye-bye...okay? You're out!-- "permitted by Paul III and Pius VII" put you boys back in business!

Pacwa: Right!

Martin: "Pope Vigilius purchased the papacy from Belisarius, Lieutenant of the Emperor Justinian. Eugenius III"-- number four in the original-- "imitated Vigilius. Bernard [St. Bernard, the "bright star of the Reformation"] says, 'Can you show me in this great city of Rome anyone who would receive you as Pope that they had not received gold or silver for it?"'

Pacwa: Sure...

Martin: Let me finish this statement. It's important. "You know the history of Formosus too well for me to add to it. But you will tell me these are fables, not history, fables! Go, Monsignori, to the Vatican library and read Platina, the historian of the papacy and the annals of Baronius. These are facts which for the honor of the Holy See we would wish to ignore. Cardinal Baronius speaking of the papal court said, 'What did the Roman Church appear in those days? How infamous! Only all-powerful courtesans governing in Rome! It was they who gave, exchanged and took bishoprics; and horrible to relate, got their lovers, the false Popes, put on the thrones of St. Peter!"'

Ankerberg: Okay, we've got to call an end to it here, Walter. We need a statement from Fr. Pacwa here. What do you have to say concerning these things?

Pacwa: Well...

Martin: This is by an Archbishop, not me.

Pacwa: I know, and that's...we don't deny it at all. Again, that's the basis on which Dante said some of these folks are going to be in hell.

Ankerberg: So...

Pacwa: And "infallibility" does not mean Justification.

Ankerberg: No. But what I hear you say is that all the statements that the Popes made that are proven wrong-- they're not infallible.

Pacwa: Right.

Ankerberg: And also you say...

Pacwa: They don't meet the three criteria for infallibility. Ankerberg: Yeah...and the fact is that in spite of the fact that Peter is supposed to be supreme, not just the fact of what he said but supposedly "recognized" as such-- the Head of the Church, the leader. When he speaks, there ought to be some respect in listening. Okay? And you would expect that he would be leading in some other areas as well. We have yet to establish the fact that you find that in Scripture. You have yet to discount the fact that the other apostles were given the same ability. You have yet to discount the fact that Paul, in looking at Peter, never mentions it, never writes to him mentioning the fact that he's the head of the Church. And...on and on and on....

Pacwa: But, see, the problem with your "on and on and on" is that you don't accept the Catholic understanding of...well, in pointing out of other data, where Peter is head. As a matter, as Dr. Martin himself said, that Peter clearly takes the dynamic leadership of the Church after the ascension of Jesus...

Ankerberg: For three chapters and then it disappears.

Pacwa: Three chapters and Chapter 10....

Ankerberg: But in Chapter 10 he's disputing with the people that are there. They don't show him the honor that you're talking about.

Pacwa: No, no, no...you're the one that keeps on saying that supremacy means that everything you say is going to be honored.

Ankerberg: I'm not saying that....

Pacwa: Yes you are!

Ankerberg: I'm saying the respect. If the Pope were to walk into the door he should have the final word in an argument.

Pacwa: Why? Who said that? Jesus didn't say that and we don't say that Jesus did.

Ankerberg: "Supreme" means first. The first word and last word.

Pacwa: That doesn't mean in tenns of me way it's going to be enacted. That he's going to have that...you're defining it as a straw man and then saying we don't have it. We never said that that's what it means. What it means is....

Ankerberg: Define "supreme" for me, then.

Pacwa: What it means is that when he speaks to the whole Church in the name of Peter and on faith and morals that that is infallible.

Ankerberg: But he's not the head, then, of the apostles.

Pacwa: He's the head of the Church as well in terms of being the head of the....

Ankerberg: What does "head" mean? How would they recognize it from the examples that are given in Scripture?

Pacwa: Well, in terms of the examples given in Scripture, his choosing a replacement for Mythias; his being the first one to go and lead John to lay hands on the Samaritans.....

Ankerberg: But he was sent down by the Church to do that.

Pacwa: Sure!

Ankerberg: And he came back and they didn't just accept his word. They argued with him.

Pacwa: So?

Ankerberg: I don't see him being the head.

Pacwa: Again, his headship does not come from them and their approval...

Ankerberg: But they didn't recognize....

Pacwa: ...his headship comes from the fact that Jesus is the One who revealed to him so he should be baptized...

Ankerberg: So what you're saying is that the Church didn't recognize it, but he still had it.

Pacwa: Absolutely. Because it comes from Christ, not from the Church. That's one of the reasons why it's said to be apostolic and divinely instituted.

Ankerberg: Yeah, but let's follow that through, is that he had it but they didn't recognize it. Why didn't they recognize it if they were all there? I mean, Jesus never told anybody else? He only told Peter, and Peter never mentioned it?

Pacwa: In terms of recognizing things, did they recognize the existence of the New Testament yet? No. Did they recognize the definition of the Trinity? No. Did they recognize the two natures of Christ? No...in terms and ways we could talk about today? No. Lots of things they don't recognize...but over time....

Ankerberg: Did they recognize that Jesus was God? Yes! Did that go into the Chalcedonian and Nicean Councils? Yes...

Pacwa: Sure!

Ankerberg: There's a basis there. I'm saying, "I don't see any basis."

Pacwa: Well, okay. You don't accept, you know, the evidence that we accept....

Ankerberg: I don't see any evidence, is what I'm saying.

Pacwa: You don't see that Christ gives Peter this vision to go baptize Cornelius?

Ankerberg: I see that he got that, and I see Paul got others and the other apostles got that...and so now we have...

Pacwa: But who got it first?

Ankerberg: Huh?

Pacwa: Who got it first?

Ankerberg: Okay.

Pacwa: And who got it by vision, first?

Ankerberg: That's why we would say, "The keys to the kingdom are the declaratory power which Peter exercised"....

Martin: Yes.

Ankerberg: ...and then the other apostles also went and exercised it as well. And that's all it means.

Pacwa: And....no, that's not all it means. One of the things that also we see develop in the history of the Church, just like we see the development of the Christological and Trinitarian doctrines, is that [of] Peter's role-- among the other apostles, because we don't deny that the other bishops, the successors of the college of apostles, have authority to bind and loose. We don't deny that at all. They do. In local areas they have authority that the Pope does not have in their diocese. They can make rules in their diocese apart from the Pope, the way states can apart from the federal government, but....

Ankerberg: Okay. Dr. Martin, we need a final word from you here because we're out of time. Let me summarize what I hear you saying though. You're saying that the Church there did not recognize Peter as head. Peter had that headship from Jesus.

Pacwa: Right.

Ankerberg: Okay. Now, I really am amazed that you would say that.

Pacwa: Well, first of all, I didn't say they didn't recognize the head...there's not that full-blown, you know, kind of description of supremacy and headship that you would like to have us describe and also that happens later on in history.

Ankerberg: That Rome says is there.

Pacwa: He has an authority that comes from Jesus-- in Matthew 16, Luke 22, and Acts 10....

Ankerberg: It still has to be proved that that's the kind of authority. We agree that it's a declaratory. We see one example of that and then Peter fades. That's the record.

Pacwa: He fades in terms of the history of the Acts of the Apostles because Luke, for whatever purpose....

Ankerberg: If he was the head of the Church, you would think that he would actually be the head of...he would be focused on all through Acts. We find three chapters and then it turns to Paul.

Pacwa: Why? Why would you expect that?

Ankerberg: Because he's the head of the Church...

Pacwa: So?

Ankerberg: ...this is the key point. He is the chief representative, according to Rome, of Jesus Christ on earth...

Pacwa: Right. But why would they talk about him?

Ankerberg: ....and he's not going to be mentioned?

Pacwa: Why?

Ankerberg: Why? Because "he is the head of the Church."

Pacwa: If Jesus already said it, why do you have to talk about it all the time. You just do it.

Martin: You see, our problem is a semantic problem in that when we say, "The Church," we're talking about the universal Church founded by Christ, carried on by the apostles and then by their disciples on forward through history. When he is using the term, "The Church," he is speaking of the Roman Catholic Church, which is one, holy catholic and apostolic, the successor to apostolic authority. So, every time you see the word "Church" from the first century on...second century on, really...then, immediately it's cast into the context of "authority," derived from Peter...

Pacwa: And the apostles.

Martin: Yeah. That's why I keep saying that the appeal of the fathers is not to the tradition of the Church, and not to the arguments that were aroused and carried on vigorously amongst themselves. All of them, when they appeal, it's "scriptura sola." They're appealing to Scripture, Scripture, Scripture. And what John's saying and what I'm saying is this: If you want to believe that the Church made the Scripture, you have a problem. Because the kerygma, which was the preaching of the Gospel, was not inscripturated totally until the close of the first century.

Pacwa: No, that's not a problem. That's a strength of our position.

Martin: Well, no. I don't think it is the strength. Because the fathers reproduced the entire New Testament, virtually, themselves in the next thre

Roman Catholicism

Table of Contents

Program 1

Program 2

Program 3

Program 4

Program 5