THE CONCEPT OF MERIT IN CATHOLICISM

 

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.

 

THE “FAILURE” OF THE CROSS?

On September 24, 2015, Pope Francis was speaking to a group assembled in St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City and he said something that caused quite a stir within the ranks of Christendom.  In this speech, the pope mentioned “the failure of the cross.”  His statement troubled many people who wondered what to make of the pope’s remarks.  Many, especially Protestants, were deeply offended by those words.  But in what context did he use that phrase?  Does the pope really see the work of Christ on the cross as a failed event?  

According to official Catholic teaching, it is through the cross of Jesus Christ that we have redemption (CCC #517), justification (CCC #617) and salvation (CCC #1741).  To their credit, this is indeed biblical.  Again, this is official teaching, so they are at least giving lip service to the true effects of the cross.  But getting back to the speech, here is the context of what the pope actually said:

“To see and evaluate things from God’s perspective calls for constant conversion in the first days and years of our vocation and, need I say, it calls for great humility.  The cross shows us a different way of measuring success.  Ours is to plant the seeds: God sees to the fruits of our labors.  And if at times our efforts and works seem to fail and produce no fruit, we need to remember that we are followers of Jesus… and his life, humanly speaking, ended in failure, in the failure of the cross.”

http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/homilies/2015/documents/papa-francesco_20150924_usa-omelia-vespri-nyc.html

In the context of his homily, the pope may well have been alluding to 1 Corinthians 1:18, that “the preaching of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing,” thus, seeming like a failure to unbelievers.  To be fair, the pope did qualify the phrase in question by saying, “humanly speaking.”

But the magnitude and importance of this one-of-a-kind event called Calvary cannot be overstated.  So, he should have been more cautious, especially knowing that this speech was being recorded for the whole world (not just the clergy) to see and hear.  The very fact that it was controversial (even for some Catholics) demonstrates that his remarks were not entirely clear.  So, any reference to the cross as a “failure” had better be clearly explained.

 

Ok, so he certainly could have worded it more carefully.  The “failure of the cross” seemed to be a less-than-ideal choice of words (even with the qualifier), seeing how it quickly caused a commotion among Christians.  He could have used better qualifiers, e.g., “some people may think that it was a failure,” or “it only appeared to be a failure,” etc.  Anyone with his level of influence and authority should be very careful about the things he says in public, especially when it comes to the precious blood of the Savior (1 Peter 1:18-19).  Ok, so it won’t happen again.  Lesson learned, right?

Well, apparently not.

If he would have stopped there, then we would have left this alone and this article would never have been written… but he said it again.

A short time later, on November, 27, 2015, he made a similar comment.  In Nairobi, Kenya, Pope Francis said to a group of youth:

“When you don’t understand something, when desperation hits you then look at the cross. That is the great failure of God, that is the destruction of God, and it’s a challenge to our faith. And this is hope, because history did not end in that failure. Rather it’s in the resurrection of Christ that renewed all of us.”

Apparently, the pope was not fazed by the outrage that his words had caused earlier in September.  But he went much farther this time and again called Jesus’ suffering on the cross “the great failure of God,” and he also refers to “the destruction of God” and “the history of God’s failure.”  These sound more like statements from an atheist than a Christian!  See his quote here:

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/full-text-of-pope-francis-powerful-unscripted-talk-with-kenyas-youth-72927

Leaders must be careful of their words – you’d think that he would have learned the first time.  But this time he repeated it without saying “humanly speaking,” or using any type of qualifier or clarification.  And worse yet, he was speaking to the youth of that country, not scholars or theologians!  These impressionable minds can easily take this to mean that God was an actual failure in sending His Son to the cross, and that God was somehow “destroyed”!

Note that never in the speech he gave in September, nor in the one he gave in November, does the pope balance his reference to the cross as a failure with calling the cross an actual victory.  Strange, but only the term “failure” is mentioned in both speeches.  Was this intentional?  So, many youngsters will be left with a false impression of the greatest act of love (and victory!) in the history of mankind (Colossians 2:14-15).

What makes all this even more of a problem is the fact that the Catholic Church, in some of its teachings, promotes the idea that Jesus’ suffering on the cross just didn’t seem to be fully sufficient to save mankind.  Therefore, making it at least a partial failure.  We’re speaking of doctrines like salvation by “faith-plus-works,” Purgatory, penance, indulgences and sacraments.  All these entail adding some sort of work or suffering alongside Jesus’ absolutely sufficient and perfect work on the cross (John 19:30; 1 Corinthians 1:18; Hebrews 9:12, 14, 26; 10:14).

Most Catholics would defend the pope and say that the Church would never say that the cross was a failure. So, if Catholics really are against the idea of the cross failing, and if the cross really means that much to them, then why do they embrace these particular teachings that deny the sufficiency of the cross to pay for the sins of mankind?

The only failure here is on the part of the pope, not the cross.  He failed to take advantage of opportunities to exalt the work of Jesus Christ on the cross, but instead, perverted the very meaning of Calvary.

TIM STAPLES –MISSING THE FOREST FOR THE TREES

Most of our readers are probably familiar with the old adage, “He can’t see the forest for the trees.”  This is generally understood as overlooking or missing what you’re searching for, while that very thing is staring you right in the face!

This seems to be the case with Catholic apologist Tim Staples in a particular article he wrote.  Tim Staples is a mega-popular Catholic speaker and apologist who is very intelligent and articulate.  He is also the Director of Apologetics and Evangelization at Catholic Answers.

Tim’s article that we refer to is titled “Are Good Works Necessary for Salvation?” and it is attempting to refute the Protestant idea of “Sola Fide,” or “Faith Alone.”  The article can be found here:

https://www.catholic.com/index.php/magazine/online-edition/are-good-works-necessary-for-salvation

On to the Article

In his article, Tim quotes three passages that Protestants normally use to support the “Faith Alone” doctrine:

Romans 3:28 – “For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.”

Romans 4:5 – “And to one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteous.”

Ephesians 2:8-9 – “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God – not because of works, lest any man should boast.”

And then he says:

“On the surface, these texts may sound problematic, but once we examine their respective contexts, the problems go away rather quickly.”

No, sorry Tim, but the problems (for the Catholic) don’t just “go away.”  In fact, with these verses, the problems for the “faith plus works” doctrine are here to stay.  And yes, we absolutely agree that you should study the context; in fact, we insist!  Context is the key to understanding this issue.

The First Passage – Romans 3:28

Ok, so Tim first tackles the context of Romans 3:28 and says:

“St. Paul had already made very clear in Romans 2:6-7 that good works are necessary for eternal life, at least in one sense.  “For [God] will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life…”

But notice that Tim actually jumps out of the context of Romans 3:28 here when he refers to Romans 2:6-7.  For starters, we must recognize that the context of Romans chapter 1 is about the guilt and sinfulness of the Gentiles, since they do not follow the dictates of their consciences, nor the laws that they know are right.  The context of Romans chapter 2 (including v. 6-7 that Tim used) is about how even the Jews stand guilty and condemned because, although the Law was given to them, they did not keep the Law either; thus indicating a universal condemnation of man, where NONE have been able to keep the Law as he should.  But starting at about Romans 3:19, the context changes, and Paul begins to give the solution, the antidote, to man’s sin problem.  In this new context, Paul relates how a man is justified, or made right with God, and explains again and again, that this happens through faith and it is apart from the merit of any work other than that of Jesus Christ on the cross.  And this continues through to the beginning of chapter 5.  It is a new context, different than that of 2:6-7.  Just because 2:6-7 happens to be nearby doesn’t mean that it is part of the same context.  So, appealing to the context of Romans 3:28 does not help Tim Staples’ argument at all; in fact, it backfires on him.

The Second Passage – Romans 4:5

Farther down, Tim addresses Romans 4:5.  He doesn’t get very far into the context, but admits that this passage is in the same context as the previous one (Romans 3:28).  In this case, he is absolutely right, but this doesn’t help him at all, since the context works against his argument, as we demonstrated just above.

The Third Passage – Ephesians 2:8-9

And toward the end of the article, Tim tells us that the context of Ephesians 2:8-9 is talking about the “initial grace of salvation or justification,” which is “entirely and absolutely unmerited.” 

 

We agree that it is speaking of justification and we agree that it is “entirely and absolutely unmerited.”  What we don’t agree with is the Catholic belief that after this “initial” response, that one can then start meriting his salvation with works!  We see Tim expressing this idea when he says:

“St. Paul is in no way eliminating works in any sense, to be necessary for salvation; he is simply pointing out what the Catholic Church has taught for 2,000 years: there is nothing anyone can do before they enter into Christ that can justify them.  But once a person enters into Christ… it’s a whole new ballgame (see Phil. 4:13; Rom. 2:6-7; Gal. 6:7-9, etc.).”

First of all, none of the contexts of these verses he gives here at the end of this quote are about how to be justified.  So, these passages don’t help him.  Secondly, it is true that there is nothing (no works) one can do before he enters into Christ to be justified, but there is also nothing one can do to contribute to his salvation / justification AFTER he enters into Christ.  There is no “whole new ballgame” with works that now save.  From beginning to end, it is faith in Jesus’ work alone.  Ironically, Tim even quoted the verse that totally disproves his argument:

“Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law, or by hearing with faith?  Are you so foolish?  Having begun with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh…” (Galatians 3:2-3)

According to this verse, it is clear that there is no point in the Christian life that works will save.

In other words, Paul is telling the Galatians that they entered into Christ by faith apart from works; and that is exactly how they will CONTINUE in, and keep, their salvation.  They entered in through faith and they walk by faith.  Good works will certainly be there in the true Christian’s life, but if good works are ever done with the intent to achieve salvation through them, this is walking “in the flesh.” (Galatians 3:3)  Tim is missing what this verse is actually saying, and guilty of the proverbial “missing the forest for the trees.”

The Ultimate Justification Passage

It certainly seems that Catholics will always try to downplay Romans 3-5 when discussing justification, but we’re glad that Tim mentions Romans 3 in his article.  It is important because Romans chapter 3 through 5 is the longest continuous passage in all of Scripture that specifically deals with the doctrine of justification, or how a man is made right with God.  And over and over in this passage, Paul makes it obvious and presses the point that our salvation is apart from works.  This is the go-to passage for justification.  All other passages that mention justification or salvation revolve around this one.  To try and say otherwise is to turn this passage on its head.  One cannot use verses that simply mention justification, in passing, to override this main, clear, and dominant passage.

By the way, Catholics will often say that this passage is only dealing with works of the Mosaic Law.  But if this is true, then why is Abraham even mentioned in this context (Romans 4:1-3)?  Moses didn’t come along until about 430 years after Abraham (Galatians 3:16-17).  Until then, there was no Mosaic Law.  No, in the context of Romans 3-5, Paul was addressing the inadequacy of the works of those before the Mosaic Law (e.g., Abraham – Romans 4:1-3), those during the Mosaic Law (e.g., David – Romans 4:6), and those who came after the Mosaic Law (e.g., the Christians to whom he is writing the epistle of Romans).  So, Paul was dealing with any and all works.  None of them save.

James 2

And of course, like any good Catholic, Tim mentions James 2:24:  

“You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”

But by this time, Tim seems to have forgotten his emphasis on context, since he ignores the context in James 2 in order to promote his works-based salvation.  As we’ve said many times, the context in James 2 is NOT “How is a man made right with God?” but rather, “How do we really know that one is a Christian?”  It is about the demonstration of one’s true faith by his works.  It is not faith apart from the presence of works, but faith apart from the merit of works.

One more insurmountable problem for those who believe in a works-based salvation is the fact that if works do determine a person’s salvation, then he would have to do those works and the whole Law perfectly in order to be saved (Galatians 3:10-11; 5:3; James 2:10).  But that’s just not possible (Acts 15:10).

Judgment Scenes

As stated earlier, Tim mentions Romans 2:6-7, and tries to imply here that Paul is speaking of a salvation by works.  But the apostle Paul is simply referring to the Judgment scene.  In biblical Judgment scenes (for example, Matthew 7:21-23; 16:24-27; 25:31-46; Romans 2:5-10; 2 Corinthians 5:10, etc.) these scenes are speaking in general concerning those judged.  They are not specifically giving a list of things that would have caused a person to be saved.  Again, these scenarios are DE-scriptive, not PRE-scriptive – they are describing the type of people who are saved.  They are not prescribing a list of works for salvation. 

Yes, in the Judgment, God will give to every Christian according to his works.  But if salvation is by faith, then why is he judged according to his works?  Because his works are the demonstration and proof to everyone of the state of his soul.  No one will be able to say, “But God, I really DID have faith!  Why are you sending me to Hell?”  Because the person’s works will be the proof; his works are the evidence of what was already in his heart.  So, in the Judgment, the saved will be proven and exposed as true believers by their works, but they will not be saved by them.  The Judgment scene is never used as a “how to get saved” guide in Scripture.  

The Judaizers

In the article, Tim also mentioned the “Judaizer” heresy and says:

“Those attached to this sect taught belief in Christ and obedience to the New Covenant was not enough to be saved.  One had to keep the Law of Moses, especially circumcision, in order to merit heaven.”

Yes, this was the basic belief of the Judaizers, but Paul’s anger toward the Judaizer heresy was not just because they were accepting Old Testament laws that were “passed away,” but because they were adding to the finished work of his Savior, Jesus Christ, on the cross by accepting this “faith plus works” concept!  In essence, they were minimizing Christ’s suffering and work on the cross and saying that it was “just not enough”!  They must add something.  This is what provoked Paul to call this heresy “another gospel” and say that those preaching it were accursed (Galatians 1:8-9)!

Amazingly, Tim alludes to this same idea when he later says:

“When the ‘Judaizers’ were insisting a return to the Old Covenant was necessary for salvation, they were, in essence, saying Christ and the New Covenant are not enough.  And in so doing, they were ipso facto rejecting Jesus Christ and the New Covenant.”

 

Tim doesn’t realize that he is guilty of the same error as the Judaizers!  This is the “forest” that he cannot see staring him in the face!  The error of the Judaizers (and many today) is that they are guilty of adding ANY kind of work to the cross!  See this article on the Judaizers:

http://theresurrectionstillspeaks.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-curse-of-judaizers.html

What About Works of the New Law?

Tim thinks that works done “in Christ,” or under the “new law,” can save, but works done “in Christ” are still… works… whether done “under grace” or not.  We should indeed strive to do good works with the right attitude, but the Bible never says that works mixed with the right attitude can save.

The apostle Paul, who also wrote the epistle to Titus, tells us that salvation is “Not by works of righteousness which we have done…” (Titus 3:5).  Let us ask some questions:  Is baptism a work of righteousness?  Indeed it is.  Is helping your neighbor a work of righteouness?  Giving to the poor?  Abstaining from greed, theft or sexual sin?  Following the Ten Commandments?  Absolutely.  These are all works of righteousness, but Titus 3:5 says these are NOT how we are saved.  And this lines up perfectly with Romans 3-5.

To prove the point, let’s look at Abraham.  Romans 4:9-11 clearly says that Abraham’s circumcision did NOT save or justify him.  But why?  Does anyone doubt that Abraham did his circumcision with the right attitude?  Was not his circumcision also a God-ordained work of obedience?  Of course it was.  Then why did his circumcision, his work of godly obedience, NOT save him?  Simply because it was a WORK, and Paul’s whole emphasis in Romans 3-5 is salvation by faith, apart from works.  Again, even works of righteousness cannot save, as we just saw in Titus 3:5.  

Conclusion

We want to make it absolutely clear that “Faith Alone” does not mean that Christians can or should avoid good works, since we are called to do them (Ephesians 2:10).  But we do them because we are already saved, and because we want to please God – we never do them to gain justification / salvation.  They will not bring us to Heaven, but they will bring us rewards once we are in Heaven.

In the Catholic view of salvation, there is room for boasting, but God will not allow it (Romans 3:27; 4:2; Ephesians 2:8-9).  That’s why the “faith plus works” doctrine is dangerous – it allows for pride.  It allows for one’s works to somehow contribute to his salvation.  It says, “Lord, You did Your 99%, and I did my 1%.  I earned my way (at least partially) through my works.”  But this is blasphemy. 

The “Faith Alone” doctrine strips man of his own accomplishments and will not allow him to boast in his righteous works.  It demands that he surrender to God and come to Him with empty hands.  It tells the Savior, “You, Lord, are the only one who gets credit for my salvation!”

So, we see in several places in his article that Tim actually walks directly over, stumbles upon, and crashes into, verses (and their contexts) that scream “Faith Alone” (i.e., salvation by faith apart from works).  But he just doesn’t see the forest for the trees.  But you see, Tim is a faithful Catholic, and “Mother Church” will not allow him to recognize the truths with which he is colliding.