Tackling Tradition 19: Reforming Indulgences .

 Indulgences 

Question: Is the Roman Catholic practice of Indulgences salvageable?  

Answer: Protestants have historically found this practice so reprehensible that they have historically reaffirmed the abolition of the practice altogether.  

As I think about this, I generally agree with the rationale behind this condemnation, but I am not generally disposed to the abolition of the practice, insofar as I believe it is reformable.  

Question:  Why? On what basis? 

Answer: The practice itself builds upon the concept of the Treasury of Merit.   In  Roman Catholic Soteriology, because their doctrine of justification involves what Charles & AA Hodge and BB Warfield would call “improving on God’s grace” in a manner that divides the faith (but not the repentance toward God) of the Believer between (the merits of) Christ, the Church, the Saints, & one’s own  personal merit, the Treasury of Merit is a necessary component to their Soteriology.    

The practice of Indulgences in 1517 AD both turned the ascription of merit into a transactional moreso than covenantal activity it reeked of Works Righteousness, which is antithetical to the Soteriological application/ use of both the Law & the Gospel. 

The Treasury of Merit is similar to the Ark of the Covenant.  The Ark contained two items, the tablets of the Law & the Rod of Aaron.    The Law  was very specific about what the Ark was supposed to contain.  Over time, it contained the tablets of the Law (Exodus 25), a pot of manna (Exodus 16, & Aaron’s Rod (Numbers 16). 

The tablets of the Law are from Moses.  These represent kingly authority.  Aaron was the High Priest.  His rod represents ecclesiastical authority.  The pot of manna represents prophetic authority.  The mercy / atonement seat rested atop the ark, seating its contents inside very like a vault.  

The Treasury of Merit, when construed & understood as a vault that contains more items than it ought to contain, the concept is patently unbiblical.  Only Christ’s merits obtain.  

However Catholicism does affirm the concepts of strict, condign, & congruent merit.   The general idea behind this does have some merit when applied what ought to be in the Treasury.  

Matt Smith @ CARM provides us with definitions of these 3 terms:  

• Strict Merit would be a reward to a person for an action that he performed. The reward is directly related, and also necessarily owed, to that person because of the work he has accomplished. An example would be a specific wage that is owed to a person for a specific amount of work. If the reward is not given, then that is wrong.
• Condign Merit is God’s reward for a work accomplished by a person who does His will. God has bound himself to reward the person for work that is accomplished with the help of the Holy Spirit. This reward is owed because God has bound himself to reward those who do his will, not that they deserve it or have earned it in a strict sense. Instead, God has promised to reward certain actions, and when those actions are performed the reward is required on God’s part. Therefore, the person should receive the reward, and if it is withheld then that is wrong.
• Congruent Merit depends on the kindness and desire of the one giving the merit. It is a reward that is undeserved, not owed. An example would be if my daughter cleaned up the living room and I took her out to get ice cream as a reward. The ice cream is not owed to her, but she “merited” the reward by her effort. If I do not take her out for ice cream, I’ve done nothing wrong.

https://carm.org/roman-catholicism/what-is-the-difference-between-strict-merit-condign-merit-and-congruent-merit-in-roman-catholicism/

Question:  Now that we have salvaged the overall concept of what the Treasury ought to contain, is it possible to reform  the manner in which it is applied?  

Answer: That is the topic of our next article.