Catholics
and Protestants certainly disagree on their understanding of justification
(salvation). I would consider salvation
the most important biblical topic there is, so it would be wise to delve into
this subject.
But how does one get saved? How will anyone make it to Heaven and enjoy
eternal life with God? The Bible teaches
that a person is saved by the grace (unmerited favor) of God, through faith (Ephesians
2:8-10) in the work and suffering of Jesus Christ on the cross. This faith is apart from the merit of works
that we do (Romans 3:28; Titus 3:5).
We believe that good works will be present in the life of a Christian,
but they are a result of one’s
salvation – never a means to cause
salvation. Many (but not all)
Protestants hold to this view. Again, it
is by faith alone, i.e., apart from the merit of one’s works.
But Catholics
see it differently. The Catholic Church
teaches that a person is saved by grace, through faith – so far, so good – but he needs to add certain works to the
equation, and this is where they deviate from the biblical position (Romans
4:4-5). These works, they believe, merit salvation
through an increase of justification with each grace-filled work you do. So, to briefly sum up the Catholic view,
salvation equals “faith plus works.”
This is a
true assessment of what they teach, but many Catholics will say, “No, we don’t
teach that we work for our salvation,” and they will point out that the Council of Trent specifically says:
“…and we are therefore said
to be justified gratuitously, because none of those things that precede
justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification." (Chapter VIII)
And they
respond, “See, not justified by our
works.”
Contradictions
Ok, sounds
good, right? But the Council of Trent goes on to say elsewhere:
“If any one saith, that the justice
received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but
that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained,
but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.” (Canon
XXIV)
And again:
“If any one saith, that the good works of one that is
justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the
good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good
works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ,
whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal
life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he
depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.” (CANON
XXXII)
According to
the Catechism of the Catholic Church
(CCC #2068), Trent teaches that observance of the Commandments (which are
works) is necessary for salvation. And
the Catechism footnotes Lumen Gentium,
a dogmatic constitution of the Catholic Church, which reads:
“Bishops,
as successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord, to whom was given all
power in heaven and on earth, the mission to teach all nations and to preach
the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain to salvation by faith, baptism and the fulfilment of the
commandments.” (Chapter III, Par. 24 – Emphasis added)
Furthermore,
the Catechism says:
“… The
Church does not know of any means other than baptism that assures entry into
eternal beatitude..." (CCC #1257)
And again:
“The Church
affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for
salvation…” (CCC #1129)
Ok, the
above quotes tell us that good works (including Catholic sacraments and obeying
the Commandments) merit grace for Catholics and these are a cause of salvation. How much plainer can it be that there is a
double standard here in official Catholic teaching? The Catholic Church seems to be speaking out
of both sides of its mouth. First, they
say justification is not by works, then
they say that it is! How does the
Catholic Church solve this dilemma?
Enter the Catholic View of Merit
Catholics
will say that the Council of Trent
meant that there are no works done before
justification that can save a person – only those done afterward will save/justify.
But wait a
minute! Why does one need to be
justified after he’s already been justified? Why be justified again? This is what the
Council of Trent means when it speaks of an “increase” of justification. According to this, a Catholic can be
“justified” thousands of times, i.e., every time he performs a “grace-filled”
work (which produces merit). And each
time this happens, he gets “more justified” – they don’t use this term, but that’s
what it means! So, theirs is actually a
“point system” which earns salvation.
Now, Catholics
don’t like to use the term “earn” when speaking of salvation. This is too obviously unacceptable, so they
prefer to use the term “merit” instead.
But if there
is any doubt, one can go to almost any thesaurus or dictionary to find that the
terms “earn” and “merit” are synonyms. They mean the same thing! Splitting hairs with fancy Latin terms
doesn’t change that fact.
However, Catholics
make an artificial distinction between earning salvation and “meriting”
salvation. They split the definition of
merit into three different forms:
Strict
merit – Like what
Jesus has done on the cross. He is the
only One who could actually earn
salvation for us. An example of strict
merit would be your boss owing you a paycheck because you truly earned it by
working. Your work was equal to the
payment. According to the Catholic
Church, only Jesus can have this type
of merit.
Condign
merit – This is
where God owes us something only because He has promised it. I heard one
Catholic compare it to a young son who rakes the leaves for his dad. The dad gives him much more than it is
worth. The son didn’t really earn this
amount of money, but the dad pays his son because of his promise to give him
something.
Congruent
merit – This is the
lowest kind of merit. Perhaps something
wasn’t promised to you by God, but He gives it to you simply because of His
kindness and His loving nature. It’s
just “fitting” that He would do this. That’s
the only reason for your meriting it.
Someone described it as “not precisely merit, but well-founded
expectation.”
Are They Biblical?
Ok, so what
do we make of these three distinctions? Are
they biblical, or are Catholics just splitting hairs and making up
definitions?
I agree with
their meaning of “strict” merit and that only Jesus can achieve this –
actually, I think that, of the three meanings above, this is the only biblical
definition of merit. But is there even
such a thing as condign and congruent merit when it comes to salvation? No, not at all. Biblically speaking, they do not, and cannot,
apply toward salvation/justification.
Someone
could possibly use these terms to make a case for earthly or physical things,
or even for the rewards we will receive in Heaven, but not for salvation,
itself. We’re not talking about
something as trivial as raking the leaves here.
Eternal life simply cannot be earned or merited by us.
The Promise Tells Me So
God did indeed
promise salvation, so it is, in a very limited sense, owed (IF one meets the
condition). But what is the condition of that promise? Catholics conveniently overlook that part
when they talk about merit. Their own
concept of merit is read into the
promise.
But the
required condition for salvation is a changed heart and surrendering to God
through faith, while putting aside the (supposed) merit of your works so that you cannot boast (Romans
3:27; Ephesians 2:9). No
boasting means no merit! The promise of
salvation is based on FAITH ALONE.
God makes a
promise (salvation) and clearly tells us how
to get it (by faith). The Catholic
Church then takes that promise and injects into it the idea of “condign merit,”
just because a promise is involved. They are focusing on the promise, but ignoring the way to get it, as revealed by God! Again, it is a free gift (Romans
4:16; 5:15,18; 6:23), not something you merit.
You cannot
say that you have merited something just because a promise is attached. If a rich man promises to give an undeserving
poor man a billion dollars, would the poor man dare tell him that he merited it simply because it was
promised to him? The rich man would be
utterly insulted, and rightly so. How
much more is it an insult to Almighty God when anyone feels that they have in
any way merited His free gift?
Defining Grace
Catholics
believe that they can merit a measure of grace each time they do a good
work. But the concept of “meriting grace”
is incoherent, irrational and inconsistent.
It is an oxymoron, just like the following terms are: imperfect
perfection, divided unity, virtual reality, silent noise, etc. It is a self-refuting and meaningless phrase. By
definition, grace cannot be deserved, earned or merited. Concerning salvation, Romans 11:6 tells us:
“But
if it is by
grace, it is no
longer on the basis of works, since otherwise grace
is no longer grace.” (NASV)
I’m sorry, my Catholic friends, but it
can’t get any clearer than this. It is
either grace/faith… or it is works/earning/merit. If it is one of them, then it cannot be the other, also. They are complete opposites. You are either on one side or the other. So it can’t be “faith plus works.”
I find it
amazing that the Council of Trent actually quotes Romans 11:6 in Chapter 8
of the Sixth Session. How can anyone
push “faith plus works” after reading this verse? It is incredible that they would annul their
own position by pointing to this passage.
Paul Destroys the “Faith Plus Works”
Error!
The Catholic
concept that good works save you after being justified utterly contradicts Galatians
3:1-3:
1 -
“You foolish Galatians,
who has bewitched you,
before whose eyes Jesus Christ was
publicly portrayed as crucified?”
2 - “This is the
only thing I want to find out from you: did you
receive the Spirit by works of the Law, or by
hearing with faith?”
3 - “Are you so foolish? Having
begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?”
The apostle Paul
made it absolutely clear to the Galatians that their salvation was not started by works and not perfected (or completed) by works. It was by the Holy Spirit, through
faith. “The flesh” that Paul mentions in
v.
3 was adding something to the gospel.
Stop and
think: The sin of the Judaizers (who were influencing the Galatians) was
literally ADDING GOOD WORKS (circumcision and following the Commandments – Acts 15:1,
5) TO THE GOSPEL IN ORDER TO BE SAVED.
Please let this sink in. Was
anything wrong with these works? No, they were God-ordained works, good works,
works that were normally pleasing to Him.
But God’s work of salvation is not completed by your works! He doesn’t need man's works to save us. Faith/trusting in His work on the cross is sufficient.
So, according
to the apostle Paul, there are no works at
any stage of your Christian walk that save/justify. Not before, and not after, as Galatians
3:3 indicates. The Galatians
were guilty of adding to the gospel of grace.
Adding anything (even good works) to the cross is what the
book of Galatians condemns.
Conclusion
The Catholic
system of merit is a false system. There
are no “levels” of justification. There
is no “increase” of justification.
Justification happens the precise moment a person gets saved, and it is
a one-time event. According to Scripture, it is sanctification that’s a process, not
justification (Philippians 2:12-13; 3:12-13; Hebrews 10:14).
The Catholic
Church’s concept of merit is so warped, so far from biblical standards that it includes
the “Treasury of Merit.” According to
this teaching, not only can a Catholic’s merit save him, but his “excess merit”
can be applied to save OTHERS, as well:
"…
In the treasury, too, are the prayers and good works of all the saints, all
those who have followed in the footsteps of Christ the Lord… In this way they attained their own salvation and at the
same time cooperated in saving their brothers in the unity of the Mystical
Body." (CCC #1477 –
Emphasis added)
The Catholic
Church is guilty of re-defining merit, thus perverting the gospel of Jesus
Christ.
