SACRED TRADITION’S IDENTITY CRISIS

 

Sacred Tradition is a really big deal in Catholicism.  It is one of the foundational “legs” on which the Catholic Church stands.  According to the Catholic Church’s Vatican II document Dei Verbum:

“Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.” (chapter 2, paragraph 9, emphasis added)

In other words, they are to be considered equal.  So if Scripture is infallible/God-breathed, then (according to them) so is Sacred Tradition.  One is not above the other.

But is there biblical evidence for this Catholic concept of infallible Sacred Tradition?  Catholics will usually point to several Scriptures to make their case, but they will turn to one particular verse more than any other:

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle.” (2 Thessalonians 2:15)

And Catholics will say, “See, there it is.  We must obey BOTH the oral tradition (“… by word”) and the written tradition (“… [by] our epistle,”), i.e., Scripture.

When Catholics see the terms “oral” and “written” in this context, they treat it as though they are two different (and equal) bodies of information, and that we need BOTH of them to have the complete picture, God’s word in two different forms.  They see Tradition as something outside of, and distinguishable from Scripture, otherwise it is all just the written Word of God.   

A Closer Look at 2 Thessalonians 2:15

Ok, let’s actually look at the context of this passage to see what the apostle Paul is actually saying about this.  Since this is the main and pivotal verse for Catholic Sacred Tradition, we must make sure that we understand Paul.  Here is the context:

In chapter 2, we see that the Thessalonians were disturbed about news they had received, i.e., they were “shaken” and “troubled” (2:2).  Someone made them believe that the Day of the Lord had already come upon them (v. 2), apparently through a letter, falsely claiming to be from Paul.  In this second letter to the Thessalonians, the apostle Paul goes on to calm their fears and he reminds them that he had already told them in person (orally) all about the timing of the Day of the Lord (v. 5) and that they need not worry.  Then, after explaining it to them again in this letter (v. 6-12), he says to hold fast to those traditions (those teachings about the Day of the Lord that he first handed on to them) (v. 15), whether they received them orally, or by writing.  This is important – Paul is telling them that the message he gave to them at the beginning (orally) is the SAME message he was writing to them now!  How could they have forgotten already?  He did not give them two different messages, but the same one in two forms (written and oral)!  He is NOT telling them that we don’t have all of God’s Word unless we have it in both written form and some kind of oral form.  This is where Catholics deviate from Scripture.

Paul is basically asking them, “Why are you so disturbed by this letter that was supposedly from my hand?  Any true letter from me will agree with the message that I already gave to you in person!  I will never contradict the original message I gave to you in person, just as I would never give you a different gospel than the one I already gave to you (e.g., Galatians 1:6-9).”

Paul’s distinction between the two forms was NOT to emphasize a difference in content between the two, but the very opposite – to demonstrate the unity of his message in both forms.  Catholics seem to think that the Word of God is somehow emasculated if it is only contained in infallible writing, but that is certainly not the case.  The point Paul was making here was that you can forever trust what Jesus and the apostles have given you!  His point was not that infallible revelation for the church always has to be in two forms.

But the content of this “oral” aspect of Sacred Tradition is now in question, and this brings us to our main point…

For God’s Sake, Show Us What It Is!

Again, what exactly was/is the content of this “Sacred Tradition”?  The Catholic Church is more than happy to point out the contents of their infallible seventy-three books of Scripture (the written Tradition) to all who would ask.  But many (both Catholics and Protestants) have often asked about the contents of this oral Sacred Tradition, as well.  But curiously, we find that the Catholic Church is unable (or not so anxious) to expose the contents of this “infallible” oral entity.

Oh sure, they’ll give us some incredibly vague, hazy and imprecise “definitions,” for example, it is said to be:

“… not simply a collection of pious practices but the living transmission of Christ’s teaching entrusted to the apostles and perpetuated in the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.”  See here:

https://catholicus.eu/en/sacred-tradition-an-unchanging-pillar-of-faith-in-a-changing-world/

But how can the person in the pew gain an understanding of such phraseology?  It seems the Church is purposely being vague when it talks like this.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it.  Through Tradition, ‘the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes… ’” (CCC #78 – emphasis added)

Any honest person has to admit that this is just too nebulous to help anyone to know its content.

Sacred Tradition has also been called “the living and growing truth of Christ contained, not only in Scripture, but in the common teaching, common life, and common worship of the Church.”  See here:

https://markpshea.com/archive_sheavings/what-is-sacred-tradition/

This is simply more obfuscation.

According to one other source:

“Catholic Tradition is the living transmission of the faith…”

That tells us absolutely nothing meaningful.

“… encompassing teachings, practices and worship passed down from the apostles through the church over centuries…”

Again, nothing.  Which practices/teachings/worship?  And how do we know they actually came from the apostles?  It would sure help if the Catholic Church could be more specific, especially if we are talking about something that is supposedly infallible.  Protestants are not looking for examples of Sacred Tradition, but the whole of it!  Where exactly can this “infallible” information be found?  How can any generation know that the correct information has been properly handed down to them if no one can articulate exactly what it is?

One source calls it an “unbroken transmission of Christ’s revelation” and then names things that are/include non-infallible things (e.g., liturgy, creeds, writings of the church fathers, spiritual practices).  

These are just a tiny sampling of the Catholic Church’s attempt at a usable definition of Sacred Tradition.  But none of these are convincing.  The Church is not being transparent at all and these “definitions” are meaningless!  They might sound good, but are absolutely useless to help the common person understand what its contents actually are.

The Church Retaliates

Ok, when pressed to provide a meaningful definition of Sacred Tradition, the Church will often retaliate with comments like this:

• ·      “Where is ‘Sacred Tradition’ in the Protestant faith?”

If Protestant churches do claim some kind of “Sacred Tradition,” they have the same obligation to show it as the Catholic Church does.  If anyone claims to have any kind of Tradition, it is their responsibility, their burden of proof to show what it is.  You can’t just say something is infallible, and not even be able to tell us what it is!

• ·      Is this really the question for you Protestants… if we Catholics would indeed actually show you the list of all Tradition, the real question is, “Would you then become Catholic?” 

Nice try, but the answer is no.  Asking the Catholic Church to show us what Tradition is, is only the beginning of the work ahead of you!  Answering the “Tradition location question” is just the FIRST step!  There are many, many more logical and biblical issues to settle before any Protestant should even think about becoming Catholic.  By the way, I could reciprocate and ask, “If you Catholics CAN’T show us this list, will YOU become Protestant?

• ·      Your request is unreasonable!  Sacred Tradition is not just a “static” entity that can be “listed,” but is “living,” “unchangeable,” “dynamic,” and it is something that is practiced and it develops over time.  One priest said, “Asking for a list of Sacred Traditions is a bit like asking, ‘What is culture and where can I find a list of it?’  It is not that simple.”

Well, you know what?  Culture has nothing to do with infallibility, while this Tradition supposedly specifically does.  If something is considered infallible, it must be validly identified.  The Catholic Church certainly fails to do that! 

They like to claim that Sacred Tradition is the “lived experience” of the Church, but this is far too broad a description.  Let me ask a question – Wouldn’t the pedophilia in the Catholic Church also be part of the “lived experience” of many of its victims?  So, is THAT rightly considered part of Sacred Tradition, as well?  After all, it is a real experience, isn’t it?  This frequently-used “lived experience” phrase is simply meaningless when describing Sacred Tradition.  There were millions of “lived experiences” in the history of the church, many of which were bad.  The Catholic Church is purposely deflecting the question of what its Tradition is and where it can be found.

Let’s Be Honest

Ok, Catholics, let’s be honest.  If you wanted some specific information from a Protestant, especially if it was claimed to be infallible, and the Protestant answered you with such vague and meaningless terms like the Church does, you would (rightly) accuse him of deflecting or withholding the desired information.  You would claim that he was simply obfuscating and insulting your intelligence with such phrases.

And this is exactly what happens when Catholics tell us that Sacred Tradition is “the living transmission of the faith,” or “the common life, worship and teaching of the Catholic faith,” or “the unbroken transmission of Christ’s revelation,” etc., etc.  These are simply nebulous and meaningless descriptions of something that is supposed to be equal to Scripture!  The fact that you withhold any meaningful description of this Tradition, shows us that you don’t really know exactly what it is.  Otherwise, you’d be glad to tell us.

Conclusion

Does anyone, especially the common man, have time to read/research 2000 years of church history?  Because it seems that this is what it would take for one to have any clue of what “Sacred Tradition” is.

If Sacred Tradition is THAT “living” and THAT “dynamic,” and THAT elusive and uncertain – if it’s THAT hard to pin down, then we have an obligation to proclaim that no such entity can claim, by any biblical standard, to be infallible.

When Cardinal Guidi of Bologna pointed out to Pope Pius IX that his (the pope’s) views on papal infallibility were not supported by Sacred Tradition, Pius roared, “I AM TRADITION!”  In one short statement, the pope said out loud what everybody already knew: that Tradition, in effect, is whatever the pope says it is!  But the corrupt and power-hungry Pope Pius IX was at least more honest about the definition of Sacred Tradition than the Church has ever been.  Pius, in his private meeting with Guidi, didn’t try to sugarcoat it or offer vague and nonsensical definitions, as we see so many do today.

It seems that none of the Church’s popes, councils, “infallible” documents, or its modern apologists are able to convincingly identify this elusive and baffling entity the Church calls Tradition.  Therefore, Sacred Tradition, a foundational claim of the Catholic Church, suffers an identity crisis about which Catholics should be quite embarrassed.

 

THE CATHOLIC “VACCINE”

After watching, reading, and participating in hundreds of discussions and debates with Catholics, it has become obvious that some, if not most, Catholic apologists believe that their church can never teach anything wrong, even when it is obvious to others that certain Catholic teachings contradict the Bible.

Apparently, the Catholic Church is immune to any arguments against it from Scripture.  It seems there is always a reason that the Bible doesn’t really mean what it clearly seems to be saying.  What is clear to the avid Bible student is philosophized away by these Catholic apologists. 

   

So, what about philosophical arguments?  Philosophy can be a good thing, but the apostle Paul warned us against using philosophy wrongly:

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. (Colossians 2:8)

There are some Catholics today who will start off with, and base their arguments almost entirely upon, philosophy, rather than on the principles and exegesis of Scripture.  But any philosophy that is not first based on biblical principles is a deceptive philosophy (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14).

  

But philosophy is not the Catholic apologist’s only tactic.  There are many others.  It is as though Catholic apologists have received an “argument vaccine” and feel that they are therefore immune to any biblical arguments used against them, no matter how common-sense, scripturally accurate, or logical the Protestant arguments are. 

   

So, how does this Catholic system of arguments work?  Here are only a few of the many tactics that Catholic apologists use to deny the clear teachings of Scripture in order to promote Catholicism:

1  1)  When the Catholic is at a loss to refute common-sense arguments that are based on simple biblical statements or principles, he “waxes eloquent” and tries to use philosophy to prove his point (as mentioned above), but philosophy that twists biblical concepts.  

    2)  They’ll tell you that you don’t understand what the Catholic Church teaches (even though you are directly quoting official Catholic sources)

3   3) They’ll tell you that their argument is based on a “mystery” (even though this particular “mystery” is not a biblical concept)

4   4) They’ll tell you that you’re just a “Johnny come lately,” and you are ignoring the Church that Jesus has established, which has been around for 2000 years (although the Catholic can never prove from the Bible that the teachings of the church in the New Testament match his own church’s teachings – They often place their version of church history above Scripture)

5    5) When they are in a real bind and at a loss for answers, they’ll tell you that what you’re saying is “just your interpretation” of the Bible, and that we can’t really know anything for sure without an infallible interpreter of Scripture

6    6) They’ll play word games or change the defintion of certain words (for example, when Catholics claim they don’t use “their own authority” in Bible interpretation, but claim that Protestants do – or they will effectively re-define terms by clouding the meaning of words like devotion, vereration, and worship)  

7    7) They will often ignore the apostle Paul’s teaching in order to favor certain things that Jesus said, for example, when dealing with justification (even though Jesus is the One who inspired Paul to deal with the doctrine of justification at length, and inspired him to say exactly what he said in Scripture)

8    8) The Catholic will point to “development of doctrine” to prove his point (even though this “developed” doctrine totally contradicts God’s Word)

9    9) They’ll use ideas that are unfalsifiable, or untestable (For example, the concept of transubstantiation, or the changing of bread and wine into Jesus’ actual body and blood.  If someone says, “There is no change in these elements after consecration,” the Catholic will respond with, “Oh, yes, but it DOES change.  It’s just that the appearance does not change, but only the essence.”  To this nonsense, we will only say that no miracle in the Bible was ever done with this kind of fake “evidence.”

1   10) They believe that “submit to your leaders” (Hebrews 13:17) means submit to the Church, i.e., the Catholic Church, and that we Protestants should do the same (but they seemingly forget that we must follow our leaders ONLY AS THEY FOLLOW CHRIST [1 Corinthians 11:1]!  To be biblical, one does not submit to the Catholic Church) 

1   11) Sometimes they’ll protray us (Protestants) as automatically guilty by association, as they brand us as “followers of Luther” or “followers of Calvin” (even though we may be neither Lutheran nor Calvinist)

1    12) The Catholic can’t give you an answer to your scriptural points, so he casually diverts your attention by claiming that you don’t know the canon, i.e., the correct list of Bible books (even though it has nothing to do with the topic at hand)

1   13) He may argue against your point because the exact wording you used is not in the passage, for example, when denying Sola Scriptura (2 Timothy 3:16-17) they’ll say, “But it doesn’t say only Scripture!” (although the concept is there; and furthermore, we can present many, many instances where specific Catholic terminology is NOT used in Scripture, yet they can make these teachings into infallible dogmas!) 

1    14) They’ll very often ignore CONTEXT (for example, when Catholics try to refute “Faith Alone,” they use James 2 when we point to Romans 3 and 4, which specifically deals with, and defines, justification, whereas James does not)

1    15) They’ll isolate a verse without considering the whole of Scripture (like when they try to promote “prayer to the saints,” yet, they ignore the fact that NOWHERE in Scripture do we see the actual practice, but on the contrary, there are multiple warnings about prayer to someone other than God)

1    16) When losing an argument, they’ll refer to a very ambiguous (unclear, vague) term like, “But ‘Tradition’ says…” (and worse yet, they even attribute infallibility to it)

1    17) They will use special pleading, for example, when speaking of Mary’s “sinlessness.”  (Why is Mary exempt from mankind’s sin when Scripture never suggests such?)

1    18) They are very often guilty of using eisegesis, i.e., reading something into the text that isn’t there (for example, deriving Mary’s “sinlessness” from Luke 1:28)

Ok, so these are just a few of the many tactics that Catholics use in their arguments.  But what all of these tactics have in common is that they either directly violate the principles of sacred Scripture, or they point to the fact that Catholics have a low view of it.  Catholics can talk all they want about how they love the Scriptures, but these types of arguments betray them. 

This is not to say that none of these fallacies ever occur in Protestant circles.  They sometimes do.  But anyone using these types of invalid arguments is just as wrong.  The problem in either case is that they are not giving the Word of God its rightful place.

Conclusion

Someone once said that the dogmatic Catholic teaching concerning the pope is a lawyer’s dream.  There are all kinds of qualifications and exceptions so that no matter what the pope teaches, no matter how much nonsense appears to exist in his statements, there can never be an official contradiction in that teaching (paraphrased).

This same idea seems to be the goal of the tactics mentioned above.  They want to teach and promote Catholic concepts and they don’t want Scripture to interfere with that process.  But suppose there are a few Catholics who disagree with the Church?  Is a Catholic layman allowed to protest against any teachings in his church?  

Not according to Pope Pius X.  In a 1906 papal encyclical, he said:  the “one duty” of the laity “is to allow themselves to be led, and like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors.” (Vehementer Nos, paragraph 8)

Well, there you have it, folks.  Rome has spoken!  And, according to Pius X, don’t you dare question your leaders!  According to this pope, you should check your mind out at the door when you come in.  And they call this “unity.”

 

Beware of the Catholic apologist who believes that he is unstoppable.  No “Bible evidence” can sway him.  He is immune!  He has taken the powerful “Catholic vaccine” and all is well… 

until Judgment Day when he is reminded what Jesus Christ said about His Word:

He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day (John 12:48).

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.