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 MOSAIC LAW AND WORKS

 

Romans 3:28:

“Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.”

 

Romans 4:4-6:

(v. 4) “Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 

(v. 5) “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. 

(v. 6) “Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works.”  

 

Galatians 2:16:

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 shall no flesh be justified.

 

What does all this mean?  I certainly hope that everyone can see a clear pattern here.  The apostle Paul, in both of these epistles (Romans and Galatians), is saying that man is NOT saved by the deeds/works of the law (and there are plenty of other passages in Scripture that emphasize this same theme).  But to whom were these passages addressed?  Whoever the targeted audience was, it is an unmistakable and crystal clear fact that they were saved, not by the law or their works, but by faith. 

Enter Moses

But I’d like to address this from a different angle than I usually do.  Most Protestants believe in the doctrine of salvation by “faith alone” (“Sola Fide”), i.e., faith apart from the merit of works – while Catholics believe in salvation by “faith plus the merit of their works” (e.g., CCC #1129, #1257, #2068).

Of course, this Catholic belief contradicts the idea of Sola Fide, but here’s how Catholic apologists try to “get around” the verses listed above.  They will say that all these underlined key phrases – “without the deeds of the law,” “But to him that worketh not,” “without works,” “not justified by the works of the law,” and “not by the works of the law” – are ONLY referring to the works of the Mosaic Law, since these types of phrases are often (but not always) used in the context of the Jews and their laws.  But when they use this argument, are Catholics speaking of the whole Mosaic Law or just certain parts of it?

The Judaizers Refuted at the Jerusalem Council

The Catholic may say, “But Paul was only speaking here of the ceremonial works of the Mosaic Law, but not the moral aspect of the law.  Those moral laws, like the Ten Commandments (along with faith), do indeed save.”  

But this argument doesn’t hold water, as we will soon see.  We see no evidence whatsoever that Paul was referring specifically, and only, to the ceremonial-type works of Moses, whatever those might be.  Some people include circumcision here.

I’m not sure if Catholics want to put circumcision on the “ceremonial list” of works or not, but the apostle Paul was very clear when he said that physical circumcision did not save the Jew (Romans 4:9-11), even though it was a very big deal to the Jews.  It was the recognized mark of the “authentic” Jewish man.  It was to identify the people of God in the Old Testament, the very sign of the Mosaic covenant between God and the Jews.

Yet, a group of Pharisees known as the Judaizers, who were condemned by God (Galatians 1:6-9; 2:4-5) were trying to add (to the work of Jesus on the cross) both circumcision AND following the Law in order to be saved (Acts 15:1, 5).  But their idea was shot down by the apostles when they (the apostles) pointed out that the Law was a burden that neither the Jews’ of that day nor their forefathers were able to bear (Acts 15:10).  They were stressing that salvation was for those whose hearts were cleansed by grace through faith (Acts 15:9, 11), with nothing added to Jesus’ work on the cross. (See also Galatians 3:3).

The Whole Law

Furthermore, five times in Romans 2:17-23, “the law” is mentioned, and also in Romans 7:7 this same law specifically refers to things listed in the Ten Commandments (e.g., stealing, adultery, idolatry and coveting), showing us that “the law” refers to the WHOLE law of Moses and not just some “ceremonial” part of it.

So no, neither observing the rite of circumcision nor even following the Commandments justifies/saves anyone.

Some Catholics will say, “But the works of the New Covenant, the “new law” or the “law of Christ,” are by grace and God considers ‘grace-empowered’ works to be salvific.”

But the Bible nowhere distinguishes between “works of the law” and “grace-empowered works” – and by the way, couldn’t both circumcision and obedience to the Commandments also be considered “grace-empowered” works?  Were these works not also ordained and empowered by God?  Yes, they were.  But this Catholic argument proves too much.  Keep in mind that without God, we can do absolutely nothing on our own (John 15:5) and everything we do, even our breathing, is “grace-empowered” by God, but that doesn’t mean breathing is salvific. 

Any work done by a believer and done for God according to His will and with the right intent is a good and God-ordained work.  But again, nowhere in Scripture do we ever see the contrast of “God-ordained works that save” versus “God-ordained works that don’t save.”

So, for the Jew at that time period, following the ceremonial works ordained by God was a good work, just as following the Ten Commandments ordained by God is a good work.  But the issue is that THESE ARE BOTH WORKS – that is the problem!  But the moment of salvation/justification will happen “apart from works,” as the passages at the very beginning of this article forcefully demonstrate. 

Furthermore, even Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis agrees that Paul, when speaking of such passages, is NOT just talking about the ceremonial aspect of the Mosaic Law, but the whole of it.  See his article here:

https://www.scribd.com/document/698067858/works-of-the-Law-Robert-Sungenis

Sungenis argues that the Council of Trent never used this “works of the law = the ceremonial aspect” language, and he also uses quotes from the church fathers against this same argument.  Furthermore, concerning Romans 3 and 4, he virtually uses the Scriptures on this topic in his argument as Protestants would.

So, I would agree with Sungenis’ particular point that when Paul speaks of “the works of the law,” he is speaking of no less than the WHOLE Mosaic Law.

The Angle

Ok, I mentioned above that I would be addressing this issue from a different angle.  And here it is:

I believe that the argument for the salvation of the Old Testament Jews by faith, apart from the merit of any works in the Mosaic Law, has been reasonably made.  Assuming that Catholics will accept the argument presented so far, they are, in essence, agreeing with Paul (and Protestants in general) that the works of the Mosaic Law could not save the Jew (as I have shown).  

So, if no part of the Mosaic Law could save, then this means that the Jews were saved by their faith and not by the works that were introduced to them through Moses.  The simple truth is, for the Jew of the Old Testament, their salvation came by faith in the sacrificial system, which pointed forward to the cross of Calvary.  They were, in effect, trusting in God’s future provision, which is Jesus Christ and His suffering on the cross. 

So, if the Jews were not saved by the works of the law – not even the moral law – then Catholic apologists are forced to agree that the Jews of the Old Testament must have lived by the same view that Protestants embrace today – “faith alone.”

The Question

Once again, Catholics deny the doctrine of Sola Fide and think that Protestants are wrong for believing that today.  Yet, this was the salvation model for the Jews, as shown above.  This was indeed the case – and I would ask:

“If the Catholic Church is right and there is no Sola Fide today, why would the Jews of the Mosaic Covenant be the ONLY people in the history of mankind to believe and practice ‘faith alone’?” 

It just doesn’t seem to make sense.  It seems it should be that either:

1) “faith alone” was never the case for anyone in history… or

2) it was always the case for all believers throughout history. 

And I believe the latter is correct.  Here’s why…

The Answer

First of all, the ever-present theme in the background of Romans 4 is “How is man made right with God?”  This chapter is part of the most comprehensive, clearest, longest-running and continuous passage in all of Scripture that specifically deals with (and defines and explains) the doctrine of justification.  Over and over in this chapter, this question of how to be right with God is answered.

And in answering that question, the apostle Paul was speaking of believers in three different groups:

1) Those who came before the Mosaic Law (like Abraham – v.1-3, 9, 12-13, 16, 18, 23)

2) Those who lived during the Mosaic Law (like David – v. 6) and

3) Those who lived after the Mosaic Law (like the New Testament Roman Christians to whom Paul was now writing this epistle). 

Why would the Holy Spirit stress over and over that salvation was “apart from law”?  And why would the Holy Spirit bring up Abraham and David in the same context of justification if they were not saved in the same way? 

So, it was not just the people under the Mosaic Law that were living by “faith alone.”  But it was also those living before and after the Law of Moses, and for ALL of these, Paul points to faith alone, apart from the merit of works. 

Abraham was not saved by faith plus his works; David was not saved by faith plus his works; and the New Covenant saints in the Roman church were not saved by faith plus their works.  Therefore, the message of Paul is that a person is saved by faith apart from the merit of ANY good works.  

Therefore, Sola Fide is a universal fact of salvation throughout church history.  According to God-ordained Scripture, salvation was always by believing/faith, without the addition of works, all along (Genesis 15:6).  That’s why Paul quoted Genesis 15:6 in the New Testament (Romans 4:2-3) to make his point.

These passages at the very beginning of this article reflect a clear contrast of “free gift vs. debt,” “grace vs. works” and “grace vs. law.”

Again, it is undeniable that this chapter (Romans 4) is very clearly dealing with the question, “By what means must a person be saved?”  But Catholics (and others) don’t like the answer that the apostle gives them. 

I will now leave you with something very profound from the apostle Paul:

“I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died needlessly.” (Galatians 2:21 – NASV)

Here are some other articles on this topic:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/08/sola-fide-revisited.html

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

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2017/11/tim-staples-missing-forest-for-trees.html

 

ON BAPTISM – Part 1 (A Few Basics)

For centuries, men have debated the issue of whether water baptism saves souls or not.  Catholics, Orthodox, and even some Protestants would say, yes, water baptism does save a person, or at least contributes to his salvation.  But we would certainly disagree with that conclusion.  So, today we will look at just a few basic thoughts on baptism.

No doubt, many of you are familiar with the old story of a group of blind men who were attempting to describe an elephant by touch.  One man is holding the trunk and begins to describe that part of the elephant.  One is feeling the elephant’s side and he describes that.  Another is holding and describing the tusk, another, the ear, etc., etc.  And thus, they all have a different view of what an elephant is.  But what they are overlooking in their descriptions is the fact that they are all neglecting to take the whole elephant into account.

  

And it is much the same way with particular groups who read certain Bible verses concerning baptism, like Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, and 1 Peter 3:21 and insist that water baptism saves the soul.  But again, the problem is that they are not looking at the “whole elephant,” i.e., they are not taking the whole message of Scripture into account.

First and foremost, a thorough study of Scripture will reveal that a person is saved by the grace of God, through faith (in the Person and suffering of Jesus Christ on the cross), apart from any type of works that we do (e.g., Titus 3:5, Ephesians 2:8-10, Romans 4:4-5, 11:6).  Of course, good works certainly do have an important role in the life of the Christian, but they don’t save us.  We have a number of articles on this specific topic that demonstrate this fact. (Don’t forget to see the “Comments” section of each article, as well).  See here:

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

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/01/faith-alone-part-1.html

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

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/02/faith-alone-part-3.html

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/08/sola-fide-revisited.html

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2012/09/romans-213-and-context.html

The conclusion of these articles is simply that works cannot save us.  Good works are an expression of thankfulness to God for saving us.  They are the result of true salvation, not the cause.  We don’t earn salvation through them.  Helping your neighbor, giving to the poor, following the Ten Commandments the best you can, being honest, not hurting anyone… these are all good things, and God expects us to do these.  But again, none of this saves us.  And baptism is no different.  It is a good work that does not save.

But there are also those who would agree that good works don’t save a person’s soul, but yet, they still want to believe that our sins are forgiven in the ritual of baptism.  So, trapped in their own dilemma, they will insist that baptism is not a work.  And since it is “not a work,” they can still believe that baptism saves.  Problem solved, right?  No, this argument is invalid for several reasons.   See here:

 http://theresurrectionstillspeaks.blogspot.com/2015/05/is-baptism-work.html

Three-fourths of planet earth is made up of water, but there’s not enough water in the world to wash away one single sin.  It’s not the water, and it’s not the ritual; the washing away of sin is only done by trusting in Jesus Christ and His work on the cross.  We believe that there are many who are going to Hell because they are trusting in the fact that they were baptized.

If baptism saves, then a person is necessarily an unbeliever before his baptism.  But never do we see an unbeliever baptized in the New Testament.  Water baptism is for the believer.  It is for one who is already saved, the one whose heart has been changed by God.

Ok, so if it is NOT for salvation, then what is the purpose of baptism, then?

 

Baptism is the parallel to Old Testament circumcision (Colossians 2:11-12).  The purpose of circumcision was to identify with God, and circumcision has always been a SIGN of the covenant that God had with His people (Genesis 17:10-11).  But it was not circumcision that saved Abraham, but rather, his faith (Romans 4:9-10).  In the case of adults, if we want to be honest, there is certainly more “commitment” in the act of circumcision than in the act of baptism.  Yet, Abraham’s painful circumcision DID NOT SAVE HIM.  Likewise, neither does baptism (circumcision’s New Testament parallel) save anyone today.  Baptism is simply a testimony, a (usually) public identification with Christ.  It is a sign, a symbol, a visible representation of what happened to us when we surrendered to Jesus.  Baptism is to show the world that we have “died” with Christ, we are “buried” with Him, and we are also “raised” in newness of life and in submission to Him.

Baptism is a bold statement declaring your allegiance to Jesus Christ, and your commitment to serving Him.  Things are different today, since the great majority of people in America getting baptized are not risking their lives in doing so.  The early church faced death and persecution for those who identified with Christ.  During the early church period, if you were baptized, you were often marked for death.  But back then, most were not ashamed of their Savior, and they were willing to die for Him.  This is one reason why baptism is closely associated with salvation in the New Testament.  Water baptism didn’t save them, but it certainly demonstrated their level of commitment.

Lest anyone accuse us of “hating” or “dishonoring” baptism in any way, this is not the case at all.  We respect baptism and acknowledge it as a very meaningful, God-ordained activity.  It is a profound and important event which all Christians should do and it should not be taken lightly.  Baptism is one of two church ordinances, the other being communion, or “breaking bread” / the Lord’s Supper.  Communion is a symbol that points back to what happened to Jesus on the cross, and baptism is a symbol that points back to what happened to us, the believer, when we submitted to God and allowed Him to change our hearts and lives.

Another thing to remember when dealing with this topic is that, not every verse that mentions “baptism” or “baptized” is speaking of water baptism.  We will get into this more later on.

In Part 2, we will discuss popular Bible verses on baptism.  Stay tuned…