The concept of the Treasury of Merit is a unique doctrine within Catholic theology, where a “spiritual treasury” is believed to hold the surplus merits earned by Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, and the saints. According to Catholic teaching, these merits form a reserve of grace that can be drawn upon to help reduce the temporal punishment due for sins. This concept is intricately tied to the practice of indulgences, where acts of devotion and prayer are said to access this treasury, allowing believers to lessen their or others’ time in purgatory. But when we look closely at the Treasury of Merit in light of scripture, logic, and history, this doctrine raises significant questions about its origins, purpose, and alignment with the gospel message.
Catholic teaching on the Treasury of Merit is closely connected to the Council of Trent (1545-1563), a defining moment for the Church, where doctrines were clarified in response to the Protestant Reformation. The Jesuits, an influential order founded shortly before the Council, played a significant role in shaping its teachings. They sought to defend and reinforce Catholic doctrine amidst Protestant challenges to the Church’s authority, indulgences, and sacramental practices. Many of the Council’s theological positions, including indulgences and the concept of a merit-based treasury, appear tailored to counter Reformation criticisms. Protestants argued that the sale and use of indulgences exploited the faithful, and teachings like the Treasury of Merit only seemed to reinforce their concerns. The Reformers held that salvation could not be "earned" or drawn from a treasury of merits but was a free gift from God, as Ephesians 2:8-9 declares:
“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”
Scripture consistently emphasizes that Christ’s sacrifice is sufficient for all who believe. Hebrews 10:10-12 tells us,
“we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all…this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God.”
This passage highlights that Jesus’ sacrifice was complete and fully effective. The Treasury of Merit suggests that, while Christ’s sacrifice saves, additional merits from saints are still necessary to cover temporal punishment. This logic directly challenges the concept of Christ’s “once for all” sacrifice, which scripture affirms as wholly sufficient. By adding a “treasury” of saintly merits to this, the implication is that Christ’s work alone may not fully suffice—an idea that contradicts the gospel’s message of grace.
The doctrine also defies practical logic. How is merit tracked or measured? Is there a divine ledger detailing who contributed what amount of merit? There is no scriptural basis to support a merit “bank” or that human works can be measured and distributed. Romans 3:23 tells us, “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.”
According to scripture, every person is sinful and falls short of God’s standard. Even Mary and the saints, though honored for their faithfulness, were human and, like all believers, depended entirely on God’s grace. So how can finite humans create a surplus of “merit” when, by nature, we are all in need of grace?
Historically, indulgences and the idea of “merits” gained popularity as the Church sought ways to raise funds and increase devotion. The Council of Trent did reform certain abuses, but the underlying concept of indulgences and merits remained. The Jesuits, whose influence was strong at Trent, were also dedicated defenders of papal authority and traditions that set Catholicism apart from Protestant teachings. By formalizing the Treasury of Merit, the Church established a system that reinforced its control over salvation’s means. The Bible, however, points to Jesus as the sole mediator of grace, as 1 Timothy 2:5 affirms: “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”
There is no mention of additional human mediators or a treasury of stored merit.
Furthermore, the doctrine raises troubling questions about how God’s grace is distributed and “earned.” The treasury concept implies that grace can be portioned out in degrees, almost like currency. Yet grace, by definition, is unearned and given freely by God.
Romans 11:6 clearly states,
“And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace.”
If salvation is a gift, then the idea of earning or supplementing it through human merits stands in direct contradiction to the heart of the gospel.
The Treasury of Merit creates a system that is difficult to reconcile with both logic and scripture. If grace is freely given, why must it be stored, rationed, or supplemented with the works of others? And if Christ’s sacrifice was “once for all,” as the Bible declares, then additional merits shouldn’t be needed. This doctrine, though a longstanding tradition within Catholicism, introduces complexity where scripture provides simplicity: that faith in Christ’s sacrifice alone is sufficient.
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that baptism is essential for justification, initiating a person into a life of grace, cleansing them of original sin, and making them right with God. According to the Catechism, justification is “conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith” (CCC 1992), meaning baptism brings an individual into a state of alignment with God’s grace, erasing all previous sin and transforming them spiritually. If baptism truly imparts this state of grace and complete forgiveness, as Catholic doctrine asserts, then the subsequent need for the Treasury of Merit raises logical and theological questions.
This doctrine implies that even after baptism, the believer requires additional grace from this treasury to be purified from the consequences of their sins.
But scripture suggests that true transformation in Christ doesn’t rely on a stored treasury of others’ merits; rather, it comes from the Holy Spirit’s power to transform and free a person from sin’s control.
1 John 3:9 speaks to the nature of this transformation:
“Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.”
This verse implies that those truly “born of God” and filled with the Spirit experience a profound shift in their relationship with sin. The “seed” of God within them fundamentally changes their desires and inclinations, leading them away from sin. While believers may not be entirely sinless, they no longer live under sin’s power or in habitual sin. If one who is born of God does not persist in sin, then why would they need to rely on the accumulated merits of saints to cover their actions?
The reliance on a Treasury of Merit suggests that even after baptism, a believer’s purification is incomplete without these external merits. This logic contradicts the transformative nature of salvation described in Romans 6:14
“For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.”
Once a person is baptized and filled with the Spirit, they are supposed to be under grace, freed from sin’s dominion.
If, according to Catholic teaching, baptism initiates a person into a state of grace and justification, one would logically expect this sacrament to lead to a complete, Spirit-filled transformation, making additional “merits” unnecessary. The very purpose of baptism, as described by the Catholic Church, is to cleanse a person of all sin (both original and personal), bringing them into a reconciled relationship with God. However, if this baptismal grace requires supplementation from a Treasury of Merit, it does indeed raise questions about the Catholic understanding of baptism itself.
According to the Bible, repentance and faith in Christ lead to receiving the Holy Spirit, with water baptism following as an outward sign of this inner transformation.
In Ephesians 1:13
“In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise.”
This verse indicates that the Holy Spirit comes upon believers after they have placed their faith in Christ (“after that ye believed”). It highlights that receiving the Spirit is directly tied to trusting in Christ and believing the gospel, rather than to the act of water baptism.
Romans 8:2:
“For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.”
If baptism truly brings about this Spirit-led transformation, then additional merits should not be required. A true, Spirit-filled believer is guided by the Holy Spirit to resist sin and to grow in holiness. This aligns with 1 John 3:9 which says,
“Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.”
If, as 1 John 3:9 states, those who are filled with the Holy Spirit cannot continue in sin, then the purpose of baptism must be questioned if it doesn’t lead to the infilling of the Holy Spirit and a true transformation. Catholic teaching asserts that baptism initiates justification and brings one into a state of grace. Yet, if Catholics believe they still need a Treasury of Merit to continually “dip into” for additional purification because they continue to sin, it raises a significant question: what is the true effect of baptism in this context?
If baptism alone doesn’t provide the complete justification and indwelling of the Holy Spirit that would enable a life transformed by grace, free from habitual sin, then it seems inconsistent with the promise of spiritual rebirth described in scripture. This reliance on a treasury of merit suggests that either baptism does not fulfill its intended role of justification or that its transformative power is incomplete, which directly conflicts with the Bible’s teaching on the sufficiency of Christ and the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit.
Thus, the reliance on a Treasury of Merit seems to reflect an inconsistency within the teaching. If baptism and the Holy Spirit’s indwelling don’t fully sanctify the believer, it raises the question: what, then, is the actual role of baptism?
The Catholic Catechism teaches that the sacraments—beginning with baptism—are means through which believers receive sanctifying grace, cleansing from sin, and initiation into a new life in Christ. In particular, baptism is intended to confer the Holy Spirit upon the believer, creating an inward transformation. If baptism indeed results in the reception of the Holy Spirit and transformation by grace, then logically, it should complete the purification process.
The Treasury of Merit introduces the concept that believers may still need supplementary "merits" to address the lingering temporal punishments of sin, even after receiving baptismal grace and the Spirit. This suggests that the sacramental grace conferred at baptism may not be fully sufficient on its own, leading to reliance on an external “merit” system that is mediated through the Church.
Thus, if the sacraments are seen as unable to fully impart grace and transformation—requiring additional merits to “top up” their effects—this can indeed appear to contradict the Catechism's own teaching on the sacraments' efficacy and the fullness of the Holy Spirit’s power. The idea of a need for extra "merits" may therefore seem redundant and could logically be viewed as undermining the completeness of grace given in baptism.
Why would one require the additional merits of saints when scripture promises that those under grace are free from sin’s power?
Ultimately, scripture affirms that salvation through faith in Christ and the transformative work of the Holy Spirit is complete and sufficient for each believer. The need for additional merits implies a deficiency in this transformation, yet the Bible reassures us that grace, once received, should be enough to live a life pleasing to God. If baptism and faith truly initiate and secure justification, then the Treasury of Merit becomes an unnecessary addition, overshadowing the assurance we have in Christ’s sacrifice and the Spirit’s power to change us.
Building on the complexities surrounding Catholic teachings like the Treasury of Merit and the role of baptism, the concept of Limbo offers another compelling case for the need to rely on God’s unchanging Word rather than doctrines open to human reinterpretation. Traditionally, limbo was understood as a “middle state,” a place where the souls of unbaptized infants and virtuous individuals who lived before Christ were thought to dwell. According to this view, these souls, while innocent or righteous, could not enter heaven due to original sin but were also deemed undeserving of hell’s punishment. Limbo thus provided a theological solution for what was seen as an “in-between” state.
For centuries, limbo was widely accepted and taught within the Church, even included in some Catholic catechisms. However, the Catholic Church never formally declared limbo as an official doctrine, allowing room for reinterpretation over time.
In recent years, the Church has distanced itself from this concept, focusing instead on the mercy of God.
In CCC 1261, the Catechism states, “As regards children who have died without baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God,”
expressing hope that unbaptized infants might be saved. This shift reflects a broader theological trend in which the Church now emphasizes God’s inclusive grace and mercy over rigid theological categories.
This evolving perspective on limbo raises important questions. If such a longstanding teaching can be reinterpreted or even set aside, then how can believers find assurance in doctrines subject to change? By contrast, scripture offers an unchanging foundation. In Isaiah 40:8 we read,
“The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand forever.”
The Bible provides clarity and stability, free from the inconsistencies of human institutions that may be influenced by cultural shifts or theological trends.
The Bible also reveals God’s love and desire for all to be saved, showing no need for a place like limbo. 2 Peter 3:9 says,
“The Lord… is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”
If God desires all to be saved, it follows that He would welcome innocent children into His presence, rather than consigning them to a state of limbo. Additionally, Jesus Himself emphasized God’s love for children, saying in
Matthew 19:14
“Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.”
Jesus’ words suggest a direct welcome into the kingdom, which seems at odds with the idea of a middle state where unbaptized infants would be held.
Moreover, the Catholic Catechism itself acknowledges that God’s grace is not bound by the sacraments alone. CCC 1257 teaches that, while baptism is the ordinary means of grace, “God is not bound by his sacraments.” This aligns with Romans 2:14-15, where Paul notes that God’s law is “written in their hearts,” indicating that God’s justice and mercy extend beyond human understanding. If God can operate outside sacramental boundaries, then consigning innocent souls to limbo becomes unnecessary, undermining the very idea that a middle state is required for those who have not received baptism.
If, as the Catholic Church teaches, “God is not bound by His sacraments” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257), it raises a profound question: what is the purpose of the sacraments if God can act outside of them?
Moreover, if the Holy Spirit’s indwelling through faith alone transforms believers and guides them away from sin, what additional benefit do the sacraments offer beyond this inner transformation?
These questions touch on the heart of whether sacraments serve primarily as a means of grace or as a means of fostering dependency on the Church.
According to Catholic teaching, sacraments are “effective signs of grace” instituted by Christ, intended to confer sanctifying grace and help believers grow spiritually. Baptism, for example, is said to cleanse individuals of original sin, while the Eucharist nourishes their souls. However, if God can extend grace and salvation directly, independent of sacraments, then their necessity becomes a point of debate. The sacraments seem to become less about direct access to God and more about a structured system that requires Church mediation, reinforcing the Church’s central role in the believer’s spiritual journey.
The New Testament, particularly in passages like John 14:16-17 and 1 John 3:9, describes the Holy Spirit’s role as an indwelling presence that changes a believer from within, empowering them to resist sin and live a life pleasing to God. If the Holy Spirit already transforms and guides the believer directly, then one might argue that sacraments are not necessary for salvation, as the believer’s relationship with God would already be complete. Scripture, particularly in verses like Ephesians 2:8-9, emphasizes that salvation is a gift of God’s grace, received through faith, and not contingent upon religious rites.
The need for repeated sacraments, such as the Eucharist or confession, may suggest that grace is dispensed in doses, only accessible through Church-administered rituals. This perspective naturally fosters reliance on the Church as a mediator of grace, rather than on the direct, transformative relationship with God that the Holy Spirit provides to all believers.
Thus, if God is not bound by sacraments and can act independently to grant grace and forgiveness, the sacraments may serve more as a means of institutional structure than a necessary channel of grace. They may help foster community and encourage discipline in spiritual life, but they also position the Church as an intermediary between God and individuals, which could encourage dependency rather than direct relationship with God. For many, this realization reinforces the importance of returning to God’s Word, which assures believers of a personal and unmediated relationship with Him through faith in Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
From a logical perspective, the concept of limbo introduces unnecessary complexity and casts doubt on the completeness of Christ’s redemptive work. 1 John 2:2 affirms,
“And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”
If Christ’s atoning sacrifice is truly sufficient for the salvation of all, then a separate state like limbo appears redundant. Either Christ’s sacrifice is all-encompassing, or it isn’t; creating a “middle ground” questions the fullness of His salvation.
Ultimately, both scripture and the Catechism emphasize God’s boundless mercy, suggesting that rigid theological constructs like limbo may not reflect His nature. The Bible consistently affirms God’s willingness and power to save, especially for the innocent, while the Catechism acknowledges that God operates beyond the sacraments. As a result, the concept of limbo seems to conflict with the very essence of God’s mercy and the complete redemptive work of Christ.
The fact that the RCC eventually reversed its position on the concept of limbo suggests that the Church may test certain ideas to see how well they resonate within the community before solidifying them into doctrine. This approach implies a process of theological trial and error, where certain beliefs are refined or set aside based on community response or cultural relevance. However, God’s truth doesn’t operate through public opinion or shifting theological theories.
True doctrine is not contingent upon human approval; it is a steadfast revelation from God, designed to guide believers with absolute clarity and certainty.
Interestingly, the concept of limbo emerged during a period of power struggles and instability within the Church, when questions about the fate of unbaptized infants and pre-Christ righteous individuals created theological tension. During these times, the Church sought to strengthen its authority over matters of life and the afterlife, using doctrines like limbo to emphasize the necessity of its sacraments and reinforce dependency on the Church. When cultural or theological shifts later challenged this concept, limbo was set aside in favor of emphasizing God’s mercy, revealing the adaptability of Church teachings to suit the needs of the times.
Yet God’s truth, as revealed in scripture, is unchanging and unaffected by power dynamics or shifts in popular sentiment. God’s word remains clear, constant, and uncompromising, offering believers a foundation for faith that doesn’t rely on the adaptability of human institutions.
The Church’s evolving view on limbo underscores why we should rely on God’s unchanging Word, rather than doctrines subject to reinterpretation. The Bible provides a timeless foundation for salvation that is free from human error and is consistent across generations. As John 14:6 affirms,
“I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”
Christ’s path to salvation is clear, grounded in God’s promise, and is not altered by evolving traditions. God’s Word offers the assurance of salvation that remains unshaken by the fluctuations of human tradition, providing a stable path that ultimately brings peace and certainty in an ever-changing world.
Comments