CATEGORIES OF WORKS

 

Protestants accuse Catholics of believing in a “faith plus works” salvation system.  But popular Catholic apologists will deny that and say that they are not saved by their works.  Yet, they will soon after point to passages like Matthew 25:31-46, Galatians 5:6, James 2:24 and many other verses that mention works, insisting that works will merit salvation after all.

But I believe that some of the confusion can be cleared up by recognizing the types, or categories, of work(s) that the Bible speaks of, and comparing this to what Catholics believe.

Different Types

First of all, the Bible mentions the “works of the flesh” (Galatians 5:19-21), and it also mentions “dead works” (Hebrews 6:1 and 9:14).  But of course these do not impart merit of any kind, since they are sinful works.  I think that both Catholics and Protestants would agree here.

Another category would be “works of debt,” which would be understood as works that obligate God to save you – works that produce an attitude of putting God in debt to you – but we can never put God in our debt.  These “works of debt” also would not necessarily be considered by Catholics to be the kind of works that contribute to one’s salvation, and I think again that Catholics and Protestants will agree on this.

What about works of “the Law” (Romans 3-4)?  There is a lot of confusion about this one.  Some believe that this term only refers to the “ceremonial” laws of the Old Testament (like circumcision, diet restrictions, etc.) and not the “moral” laws (like the Ten Commandments).  But Paul shows that “the Law” does indeed include the Ten Commandments (Romans 7:6-7). 

It is important to note that the apostle Paul (Romans 3-4) is not only saying that “the Law” consists of the whole Mosaic Law (Exodus through Deuteronomy), but he is also saying that we are saved apart from the merit of any and all laws/good works.  Notice that I am NOT saying that those who are saved don’t ever have to do good works – of course we do good works – I’m just saying that these good works do not contribute to one’s salvation, since they are done AFTER one is already saved.  

A Look at Paul and Abraham

Ok, so now we come to the works that Catholics would consider salvific, or saving – works that somehow contribute to one’s salvation by accumulating a certain amount of merit each time one of these good works are done.  These works are called by many names and they would include:

Good works, works of righteousness, works of faith, works of obedience, grace-filled works, God-assisted works, grace-empowered works, works done in a state of grace, works of the New Law of Christ, meritorious works, works of God, etc.

These are the types of works (along with faith) that Catholics say will merit salvation.  But notice two things here before we go on:  1) We know from Scripture that circumcision is a work.  And 2) We know that circumcision did not save Abraham.  Both Catholics and Protestants should agree with these two points, since according to Romans 4:

(v. 9) “Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also?  For we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.”

(v. 10) “How was it then reckoned?  When he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision?  Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.”

(v. 11) “And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also.”

“This blessedness” (v. 9) about which Paul is speaking is salvation/justification/the act of being forgiven and made righteous.  This is exactly what he is talking about.  And “this blessedness” is acquired by faith, not circumcision.

But why?  Was not Abraham’s circumcision a work of righteousness?  Didn’t God specifically tell him to do this work (Genesis 17:7-11) and wasn’t he obedient?  The answer is a resounding “YES”! 

Then why wasn’t this God-ordained work salvific?  Why was he not justified by it?  Was there something wrong with circumcision?  Not at all, but the reason it did not save anyone is simply because circumcision is a work.  And works don’t save us.  That’s the bottom line.

Comparing the list of the names of the good works that Catholics hold to (above), wasn’t Abraham’s circumcision a “work of obedience,” a “work of faith,” a “work of God,” a “grace-empowered” work?  Absolutely!  Is there any evidence that Abraham had some kind of ulterior motive in getting circumcised?  No, there is not.  So how was his circumcision somehow inferior to the works of the New Testament?  It wasn’t!

If this work of Abraham (circumcision) was not salvific or meritorious, then neither are any other works in the New Testament!

Context

But what about all those passages that seem to tie works in with salvation?  Fair question.  There is indeed a close relationship between the two.  But many of those passages are simply DE-scriptive in nature, i.e., describing the type of person (and the works he does) who is already saved.  But when the context of a passage is “How to get right with God” (i.e., become justified), then it is PRE-scriptive, it is prescribing how to get saved.  That’s what we don’t see in most (if not all) of the passages that Catholics quote to us Protestants.

With this in mind, we must also remember to take Scripture as a whole, and we must take Scripture passages in context.  This is the only way that all the passages make sense, that is, to determine whether they are descriptive or prescriptive.  This would clear up a lot of the issues.  As Protestants, we can reconcile passages that seem to involve works in salvation.  But I don’t think that Catholics can do the same thing when dealing with passages that talk about salvation “apart from works.”  Catholics really seem to struggle with (or avoid) such passages of Scripture.

Works of Righteousness

Speaking of salvation, observe what the apostle Paul told Titus:

“Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.” (Titus 3:5)

Did you catch that?  Salvation is NOT by works of righteousness!  And every single (biblical) good work that Catholics can name is a work of righteousness!  So this verse effectively excludes the merit of any and all works that Catholics claim will contribute to salvation.

But couldn’t they say that such passages are only speaking of “initial” justification?  No, because “initial” justification would include water baptism (by their own admission, a work of righteousness)!

The Catholic may say that all these God-assisted works of obedience are not just the works of men, but are “works of God’s grace.”  But isn’t absolutely EVERYTHING we (the saved and the unsaved alike) have, given to us by the grace of God?  Yes, indeed.  Even the air we breathe is purely God’s grace.  But that doesn’t make breathing redemptive, does it?  Just because grace is involved doesn’t mean that the act is a cause of salvation!

God’s grace may abound in all gifts, but there is only one biblical way to receive the gracious gift of salvation – and that is by the conduit of faith.  We just have to trust Him.  His work on the cross, His merit.

Conclusion

As we have seen, there are several categories and types of works for the believer.  But when we diligently study the Scriptures, we find that NONE of these works cause salvation.  I can just hear someone screaming, “But the Bible itself says that ‘baptism now saves us’ (1 Peter 3:21)!  Again, a diligent study of Scripture will show that this verse is often misunderstood.  See these links, especially Part 3:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/05/on-baptism-part-1-few-basics.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/06/on-baptism-part-2-bible-verses.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/07/on-baptism-part-3-more-verses.html

There is no special category of work that merits salvation.  An honest look at Galatians 3:3 should settle the matter, since it points out that works will not merit salvation AT ANY POINT in your spiritual walk:

“Are ye so foolish?  Having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?” 

We begin our salvation journey by faith, we maintain it by faith, and it is concluded by faith (Philippians 1:6). 

Salvation is all about the Savior, Jesus Christ, and the sufficiency of His work on the cross, His honor, His bragging rights, His merit – and none of man’s.

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH’S FALSE CONCEPT OF “INITIAL” JUSTIFICATION

Salvation is rightly considered the most important spiritual topic there is.  We all want to one day make it into Heaven and have everlasting life with God (John 3:16).  And it goes without saying that we would also want to avoid the place the Bible calls Hell, wherein is everlasting punishment (Matthew 25:46).

But there are disagreements, even among those who call themselves Christians, concerning the requirement(s) to enter the narrow gate (Matthew 7:13-14).  So I would like to address an odd situation in Catholic apologetics concerning salvation. 

Both Catholics and Protestants agree with the idea that, for Christians, we were saved (past tense – Ephesians 2:8), that we are being saved (present tense – 1 Corinthians 1:18), and that we will ultimately be saved (future tense – Matthew 10:22).

We all believe that, in our salvation journey, there is 1) a distinct beginning, 2) a growth process, and 3) a final destination. 

The Protestant View

Generally, the Protestant believes that the first stage is “justification,” wherein he believes/trusts in the full and sufficient work of Jesus Christ on the cross.  The Protestant surrenders to the will of God with love and thanksgiving and God gives him a new heart, with new desires.  This justification is obtained apart from works (Romans 3:28) and is a one-time event, not a process. 

The second stage is what the Protestant calls “sanctification,” which is a process (1 Thessalonians 4:1-7).  Here is where he will, out of a thankful heart, start to do good works for God as he grows closer and closer to Him, conforming to the image of Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 3:18).  And even then, his works are not done to gain, earn or merit salvation, but he does good works out of a thankful heart because he is already saved! 

And thirdly, he enters Heaven, glorified with a new body to be with the Lord forever (1 Thessalonians 4:17).

The Catholic View

The odd situation of which I spoke earlier is that the Catholic Church splits justification into three parts: 1) “initial” justification, 2) “ongoing/progressive” justification (which they also call sanctification), and then 3) “final justification.”   

In the first phase, the Catholic begins his initial justification by being baptized (normally, as an infant).  Interestingly, the Church claims that initial justification is not obtained by either works of any kind or even by faith.  See here:

“… but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification – whether faith or works – merit the grace itself of justification.  For if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace.” (Council of Trent, Sixth Session, Chapter VIII)

Second, in the ongoing/progressive justification phase, his works are now able to merit “an increase of justification” for himself. 

And third, at death, the Catholic experiences final justification, which will usher him into Heaven (or more likely, Purgatory, to be first cleansed of temporal sins).

Baptism and Initial Justification

So, according to the Catholic paradigm, you get no merit from either faith or works that are done before the initial justification stage.  Yet, this same initial justification is obtained by water baptism (CCC #1992; Council of Trent, Sixth Session, chapters 6-7), which is, ironically, a ritual/work!

The Catholic Church has it backward.  The Bible says that salvation begins with faith and no works (Romans 3:28; 4:4-5; Galatians 2:16).  But the Church says that salvation begins with a work (i.e., baptism) and no faith (Council of Trent, chapter VIII, above).  There seems to be some kind of disconnect here.

What About Abraham?

As I said, Catholics believe that there are “levels” of justification.  They say that someone can receive justification and then later have an “increase” of that justification, again and again.  In their quest to prove these different levels of justification, they will often point to the example of Abraham.

The Catholic will say that Abraham was justified at least three times in Scripture, i.e., in Genesis 12:1-3, in Genesis 15:6, and in Genesis 22:1-14.  

The first time, in Genesis 12:1-3, God spoke to Abraham, telling him to leave his family and his country and to go to an unknown land.  God also told Abraham that He would make a great nation from him.  Abraham, looking forward to the promise, must have been justified about this time, because of his faith and his willingness to obey God.

I would actually tend to agree with Catholics at this point, that Abraham was probably justified here (or at least just prior to this point). 

The second time, in Genesis 15:6, Catholics will say that Abraham was “further” justified, because here God tells Abraham that his ancestors would be as the stars in Heaven, “And he believed in the Lord; and He counted it to him for righteousness.”

And, of course, this same verse is quoted by the apostle Paul in Romans 4:3, where he emphasizes the point that Abraham was justified by faith, and not by his works. 

But is Paul really using this particular verse to point out that Genesis 15:6 marked an increase of the justification that Abraham already had?  Was he saying that Abraham was more justified at this point, or that he was receiving another “installment” of justification?  No, God was simply re-stating His promise to Abraham, and Paul was just showing that Abraham’s faith here exemplified the same type of faith/trust that he exhibited earlier in Genesis 12.  Paul was simply pointing out Abraham’s continuing faith in God and his non-dependence on work.

Just a few verses later, the apostle Paul also mentions David (v. 6-8) and references David’s repentance after he sinned with Bathsheba, quoting Psalm 32.  But again, Psalm 32 was not the time that David was justified.  He was justified and made right with God long before this particular time. 

[Addendum – added on 03/11/2026]

{If doing good works causes an “increase” in one’s justification (Council of Trent, Sixth Session, Canon 24), then why did the apostle Paul specifically say that Abraham was NOT justified by his circumcision (Romans 4:9-11)?  Was not Abraham’s circumcision (Genesis 17:9-14) a good, faith-filled and God-ordained work of obedience?  Yes indeed!  But, according to Paul, this work of obedience was never considered an increase in his justification, and had nothing to do with it.  If his good (and painful) work of circumcision did not add to his “ongoing” justification, then there must not BE such a concept of an “increase of justification!”}

Paul’s whole point in mentioning these two great men of faith was that they were examples of someone who is credited with righteousness through faith/believing/trusting, apart from their good works (Romans 3:28; 4:4-5).  There is no reason to believe that this was about some kind of “progressive” justification, as Catholics assert.

Catholics will say that the third time Abraham was justified was in Genesis 22:1-14 where Abraham offers his son Isaac on the altar to be sacrificed.  Thankfully, God stopped him from going through with it, but here Abraham proved his faith in God by being willing to sacrifice his son.  This passage is referenced in James 2:21-24, which includes the idea that a man is justified by his works (v. 24). 

So, what does it mean to be “justified by works” and not just faith?  We can see from the context of James 2 that he is referring to the idea of how we know if a person has true faith or a fake/dead faith (v. 17, 20, 26).  So, this whole section in James (v. 14-26) is about the proof or demonstration of one’s faith.  This section is not about how to be saved, but it’s about observing the fruit of those professing to be saved.  James is saying that a man is justified by works in the sense of being vindicated, or proven, by his works.  This type of “justification” is seen elsewhere in Scripture (Matthew 11:19; Luke 7:29; 10:29; 16:15), and the context of James makes it obvious that he was referring to vindication.  See here:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/01/faith-alone-part-2.html

So, saying that the life of Abraham proves that a person is justified multiple times is simply not true.

Funny how the Sixth Session of the Council of Trent (which focuses heavily on justification) never uses, or even mentions, Abraham as an example of one who is “increasing in justification,” as many Catholics try to use the term!

Wrong Category

The apostle Paul made it abundantly clear that there are no works done in the “justification” category:

“For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law.” (Romans 3:28)

“Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.  But to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” (Romans 4:4-5)

“Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.” (Galatians 2:16). 

Again, according to Holy Scripture, in justification, there are no works that merit.  But because of the Catholic Church’s unbiblical splitting of justification, it allows their works to merit salvation in the justification stage.  This is dangerous because it (supposedly) allows our works to “merit” what only the work of Jesus on the cross could possibly merit.  

Just a side note: Catholics will also play word games with the term “merit,” as well.  Another topic for another day.

Faith Working in Love

Also, Catholics love to use Galatians 5:6 when debating justification, because it says that we are saved by faith which works through love.  And they’ll say, “See, works (of love) must be involved/present along with your faith for you to be saved!” 

But context will demonstrate otherwise:

Galatians 5:

(v. 3) “For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

(v. 4) “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

(v. 5) “For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.

(v. 6) “For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.”

And the Protestant will point out that v. 4 says that if you try to be saved using the law/commandments/works, you are “fallen from grace” (the NASV says “severed from Christ”)!  Therefore, salvation/justification is by faith, apart from works.  But this same faith will then afterward produce works of love, but the works themselves don’t save.  Very simple.

But the Catholic may say, “But this passage is only describing initial justification – that’s why works have no merit here!”

But remember, this passage contains faith, but Trent says that neither works NOR faith are used in the initial justification stage!  Therefore, Galatians 5:3-6 is not at all talking about this mythical “initial justification” phase.  Sorry, my Catholic friends, but you can’t have it both ways.

This is also how Catholics tend to deal with other critical passages on justification that speak of salvation by faith apart from the merit of works, for example, Romans 3:28; 4:5; 4:6; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8-9.  Catholics will say that these refer to the initial justification phase, yet in all of these passages, faith is clearly in view and baptism (which is the only thing that supposedly merits in this stage) shows up in none of these passages!  So, no, these key passages are not referring to this artificially fabricated phase of “initial” justification.

Can Works Merit Grace in Any Stage?

After reading books like Romans and Galatians, one can see that there is a real problem with a “faith plus works” salvation system.  And that is exactly what the Catholic Church has.  But when the Church uses this deceptive “initial justification” concept, it muddies the water concerning the role of works and faith.

But the following passage makes it very clear that works do not save in any part of our salvation journey:

Galatians 3:

(v. 1) “O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

(v. 2) “This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

(v. 3) “Are ye so foolish?  Having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?”

Notice (v. 2) that there are only two options: you are either saved by works of the law (which is impossible with mere men), or by faith.  He then equates the law (works) with operating by the flesh (v. 3).  Paul is basically saying to us, “You must start in the Spirit (faith/trusting in the cross – v. 1), and you never leave that option – you continue in your faith by never relying on works to save you.  You are made perfect (completed) by trusting in the gospel message, not in your works.”

Again, this passage is clearly telling us that IN NO PHASE of our salvation journey do works contribute to our salvation.  Works are definitely present in our lives, and we will get heavenly rewards for them, but the free gift of God (eternal life) is only obtained through faith. 

In other words, we start salvation by faith, we continue/maintain that same salvation by faith and end it by faith.  In this way, we are telling Jesus that His work/suffering on the cross was sufficient to save us and that He gets all the credit!

Conclusion

According to Scripture, there exists a justification phase and there is a sanctification phase, ultimately followed by the glorification phase.  Nowhere do we see anything called “initial justification” where faith is not required. 

There is nothing in the New Testament that tells us to “grow in justification,” or that you can be “further justified.”  Therefore, Catholics have no biblical reason to split justification into two or more categories. 

Catholics recognize that having a “works-based salvation” sounds bad.  That’s why they are quick to deny this Protestant accusation toward them.  And with the concept of “initial” justification, they feel that they can temporarily avoid the stigma of that accusation. 

If a policeman came into the home of a drug user and the homeowner told him, “But officer, I don’t have any drugs in my kitchen!”  That may be true, but that doesn’t mean that he doesn’t have drugs in another room of his home.

In a similar way, just because you Catholics don’t have works that merit salvation in one of your three categories of the salvation journey, doesn’t mean that you don’t have works that merit.  You still have a “works-based salvation,” it’s just in another category.

Yes, Catholics often deny it, but they do indeed embrace a “faith plus works” salvation.  But a faith that will later result in good works is not the same thing as a “faith plus works” system.

So, the big question is this: Is “initial justification,” as described by the Catholic Church, a biblical concept?  And the answer is no.

 

DAVE ARMSTRONG ON PRAYING TO SAINTS

Popular Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong has written an article defending the practice of praying to, and praying for, the saints.  The “saints” to which Catholic theology refers in these cases are certain persons who lived especially holy lives and who have died and (it is assumed) went on to Heaven.  They are not referring to the biblical definiton, which says that every true believer is a saint (e.g., 2 Corinthians 1:1; Ephesians 1:1; Philippians 1:1), but rather, the Catholic definiton.  How they know that these “saints” are really in Heaven to begin with is altogether another issue.  But Armstrong’s defense of the saints giving and receiving prayer can be found here:

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/darmstrong/4-biblical-proofs-for-prayers-to-saints-and-for-the-dead

The first example that Armstrong uses in an attempt to make his case is the story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31.  He first points to the fact that in the King James Version of the Bible, the rich man used the term “I pray thee” (v. 27) and implies that this is evidence that the rich man was “praying” to Abraham.  Therefore, praying to a saint.

But we have to remember that this was “King James talk,” which was the common way to speak in the day the King James Bible was written.  The term “I pray thee” can indeed be used while in prayer, but it does not necessarily mean that one is praying.  It simply means, “I ask of you,” or “I beg of you.”  

Also, biblically speaking, prayer is only to someone who is in another realm, different than your own, for example, from earth to Heaven, and more specifically, from people on earth to God in Heaven (which is the only biblical example).  In Luke 16, Abraham and the rich man were in the same realm, near to each other.  They were certainly in two different places, but in the same realm (Hades).  So, two people in Hades communicating with each other is no different than two people in Heaven communicating with each other, or two people on earth communicating with each other – they are simply talking face to face, not praying.

Toward the end of this point, Armstrong says:

“Thus we can only conclude that human beings in the afterlife can be prayed to and that they have the power… to fulfill the requests… exactly what the Catholic communion of saints / invocation of saints holds…”

No, sorry Dave, but this is not the “only” conclusion that we can come to concerning prayer in this passage.  Actually, there is nothing at all in this passage about prayer.  Not only is yours not the only conclusion, it is not even a valid conclusion, according to the Bible.  Throughout Scripture, the only God-approved prayer is directed to God alone, not to Mary, not to saints, and not to angels.

Armstrong’s second example is King Saul “petitioning” the prophet Samuel after Samuel died (1 Samuel 28:15-16).  Actually, this is the story of how Saul, acting against God’s law, sought out the witch of Endor (1 Samuel 28:7) to conjure up Samuel to help him.  It was (and is) a sin to be involved in necromancy or to use mediums to communicate with the dead (Leviticus 19:31; Deuteronomy 18:10-12).  Even the witch knew that! (1 Samuel 28:3, 9)

It is interesting that Catholics will complain when Protestants compare praying to saints with necromancy, using mediums, or seances (all communicating with the dead), yet here, Dave Armstrong uses that very thing (the services of a medium) as an example of praying to saints!

Armstrong then states, “The Bible casually assumes that great prophets like Moses and Samuel would be praying for those on earth after they died.”  And then he uses Jeremiah 15:1 to try and support his claim:

Then the LORD said to me, “Though Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my heart would not turn toward this people.  Send them out of my sight, and let them go!”

But any “casual assumptions” about the dead praying for us in this passage are made by Catholics, not Scripture.  God is not saying that Moses and Samuel actually stood before Him and interceded for the people.  He was making the point that even if they would have, He wouldn’t answer even their request.  God also says something similar to the verse above in Ezekiel 14:14: 

Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord God.

He then repeats this concept in verses 16, 18, and 20.  But in each case God is merely saying that EVEN IF great men of God like Moses, Samuel, Noah, Daniel, or Job would try to intervene (great intercessors as they were), God STILL would not answer their prayers, because of the great sin of Israel.  That’s the point God is making here.  He certainly was not endorsing the idea of prayer from these men after death.  Nowhere in Scripture do we see anyone in God’s will praying to anyone but God, nor do we see any departed saints praying for us.

Next, Dave points out that the bystanders at Jesus’ crucifixion believed that He was asking (praying to) Elijah to come and save Him.  Supposedly, “This type of petition was commonly believed at the time.”  But these Jews had no biblical reason whatsoever to believe that one could pray to anyone other than God.  

Dave Armstrong’s third example is the apostle Paul supposedly praying for the dead in 2 Timothy 1:16-18: 

[16] May the Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me; he was not ashamed of my chains, [17] but when he arrived in Rome he searched for me eagerly and found me – [18] may the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that Day – and you well know all the service he rendered at Ephesus.

Notice that this is merely an assumption on Dave’s part.  There is no mention of anyone dead here.  It is possible that Onesiphorus was simply away from home, so maybe that is why Paul prayed for his household (2 Timothy 1:16; 4:19). 

 

But even if Onesiphorus was indeed dead when Paul wrote this, the final destiny of Onesiphorus was fixed, it was already decided (Luke 16:19-23; 2 Corinthians 5:6, 8; Hebrews 9:27).  No amount of prayer from anyone, even an apostle, could help his state after death.  

But obviously, Onesiphorus was a godly man, or Paul would not have spoken so highly of him.  Therefore, if he was dead, there was no need to ask God for mercy for Onesiphorus, since he had already obtained that final mercy.  But there was something else going on here.  If Onesiphorus was actually dead, Paul’s “prayer” for him to find mercy in that day was not specifically a petition to “help” him, but rather, a pious wish, an expression of a heart-felt desire toward him.  Like when we say “May you rest in peace” to someone who is dead.  It is not really praying for him or to him, but it is simply a sentiment toward the dearly departed, a commending of them to God.

But Catholics may ask, “But what about Purgatory?  Couldn’t Paul have been praying for Onesiphorus’ well-being in Purgatory?”  No, Scripture does not speak of such a place.  After death, there is only Heaven or Hell.  See here:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-false-doctrine-of-purgatory-part-1.html

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-false-doctrine-of-purgatory-part-2.html

And the fourth example Armstrong gives us is both Jesus and Peter supposedly “praying to saints and for the dead.”  He points to Acts 9:36-41 where a girl named Tabitha had died.  And elsewhere, Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead (John 11:41-42), speaking “directly to a dead man (in effect, ‘praying’ to him).”

This is desperation.  There is a difference between 1) praying to a dead person who is supposedly in Heaven to help someone on earth, and 2) authoritatively and miraculously speaking to a dead body to raise it from the dead.  Neither Jesus nor Peter was asking these dead persons for help, i.e., they were not praying “to” them.  And neither were they praying “for” them in the Catholic sense of praying to aid them in Purgatory.  Again, this is a ridiculous attempt by Dave Armstrong to validate the Catholic practice of praying to the dead to help the one praying, and praying for the dead to help them to get out of Purgatory.  This is a desperate, shameful, and irresponsible manipulating of Holy Scripture, confusing and deceiving multitudes of Catholics.

For more information on praying to saints, see these links:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2011/02/praying-to-saints.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2014/11/praying-to-saints-revisited.html