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

 

THE CONCEPT OF MERIT IN CATHOLICISM

 

Catholics and Protestants certainly disagree on their understanding of justification (salvation).  I would consider salvation the most important biblical topic there is, so it would be wise to delve into this subject. 

But how does one get saved?  How will anyone make it to Heaven and enjoy eternal life with God?  The Bible teaches that a person is saved by the grace (unmerited favor) of God, through faith (Ephesians 2:8-10) in the work and suffering of Jesus Christ on the cross.  This faith is apart from the merit of works that we do (Romans 3:28; Titus 3:5).  We believe that good works will be present in the life of a Christian, but they are a result of one’s salvation – never a means to cause salvation.  Many (but not all) Protestants hold to this view.  Again, it is by faith alone, i.e., apart from the merit of one’s works.

But Catholics see it differently.  The Catholic Church teaches that a person is saved by grace, through faith – so far, so good – but he needs to add certain works to the equation, and this is where they deviate from the biblical position (Romans 4:4-5).  These works, they believe, merit salvation through an increase of justification with each grace-filled work you do.  So, to briefly sum up the Catholic view, salvation equals “faith plus works.”

This is a true assessment of what they teach, but many Catholics will say, “No, we don’t teach that we work for our salvation,” and they will point out that the Council of Trent specifically says:

 “…and we are therefore said to be justified gratuitously, because none of those things that precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification." (Chapter VIII)

And they respond, “See, not justified by our works.”

Contradictions

Ok, sounds good, right?  But the Council of Trent goes on to say elsewhere:

“If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.” (Canon XXIV)

And again:

“If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.” (CANON XXXII)

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC #2068), Trent teaches that observance of the Commandments (which are works) is necessary for salvation.  And the Catechism footnotes Lumen Gentium, a dogmatic constitution of the Catholic Church, which reads:

“Bishops, as successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord, to whom was given all power in heaven and on earth, the mission to teach all nations and to preach the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain to salvation by faith, baptism and the fulfilment of the commandments.” (Chapter III, Par. 24 – Emphasis added)

Furthermore, the Catechism says:

“… The Church does not know of any means other than baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude..." (CCC #1257)

And again:

“The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation…” (CCC #1129)

Ok, the above quotes tell us that good works (including Catholic sacraments and obeying the Commandments) merit grace for Catholics and these are a cause of salvation.  How much plainer can it be that there is a double standard here in official Catholic teaching?  The Catholic Church seems to be speaking out of both sides of its mouth.  First, they say justification is not by works, then they say that it is!  How does the Catholic Church solve this dilemma? 

Enter the Catholic View of Merit

Catholics will say that the Council of Trent meant that there are no works done before justification that can save a person – only those done afterward will save/justify. 

But wait a minute!  Why does one need to be justified after he’s already been justified?  Why be justified again?  This is what the Council of Trent means when it speaks of an “increase” of justification.  According to this, a Catholic can be “justified” thousands of times, i.e., every time he performs a “grace-filled” work (which produces merit).  And each time this happens, he gets “more justified” – they don’t use this term, but that’s what it means!  So, theirs is actually a “point system” which earns salvation.

Now, Catholics don’t like to use the term “earn” when speaking of salvation.  This is too obviously unacceptable, so they prefer to use the term “merit” instead.

But if there is any doubt, one can go to almost any thesaurus or dictionary to find that the terms “earn” and “merit” are synonyms.  They mean the same thing!  Splitting hairs with fancy Latin terms doesn’t change that fact.

However, Catholics make an artificial distinction between earning salvation and “meriting” salvation.  They split the definition of merit into three different forms:

Strict merit – Like what Jesus has done on the cross.  He is the only One who could actually earn salvation for us.  An example of strict merit would be your boss owing you a paycheck because you truly earned it by working.  Your work was equal to the payment.  According to the Catholic Church, only Jesus can have this type of merit.

Condign merit – This is where God owes us something only because He has promised it.  I heard one Catholic compare it to a young son who rakes the leaves for his dad.  The dad gives him much more than it is worth.  The son didn’t really earn this amount of money, but the dad pays his son because of his promise to give him something.

Congruent merit – This is the lowest kind of merit.  Perhaps something wasn’t promised to you by God, but He gives it to you simply because of His kindness and His loving nature.  It’s just “fitting” that He would do this.  That’s the only reason for your meriting it.  Someone described it as “not precisely merit, but well-founded expectation.”

Are They Biblical?

Ok, so what do we make of these three distinctions?  Are they biblical, or are Catholics just splitting hairs and making up definitions? 

I agree with their meaning of “strict” merit and that only Jesus can achieve this – actually, I think that, of the three meanings above, this is the only biblical definition of merit.  But is there even such a thing as condign and congruent merit when it comes to salvation?  No, not at all.  Biblically speaking, they do not, and cannot, apply toward salvation/justification. 

Someone could possibly use these terms to make a case for earthly or physical things, or even for the rewards we will receive in Heaven, but not for salvation, itself.  We’re not talking about something as trivial as raking the leaves here.  Eternal life simply cannot be earned or merited by us.

The Promise Tells Me So

God did indeed promise salvation, so it is, in a very limited sense, owed (IF one meets the condition).  But what is the condition of that promise?  Catholics conveniently overlook that part when they talk about merit.  Their own concept of merit is read into the promise. 

But the required condition for salvation is a changed heart and surrendering to God through faith, while putting aside the (supposed) merit of your works so that you cannot boast (Romans 3:27; Ephesians 2:9).  No boasting means no merit!  The promise of salvation is based on FAITH ALONE. 

God makes a promise (salvation) and clearly tells us how to get it (by faith).  The Catholic Church then takes that promise and injects into it the idea of “condign merit,” just because a promise is involved.  They are focusing on the promise, but ignoring the way to get it, as revealed by God!  Again, it is a free gift (Romans 4:16; 5:15,18; 6:23), not something you merit.

You cannot say that you have merited something just because a promise is attached.  If a rich man promises to give an undeserving poor man a billion dollars, would the poor man dare tell him that he merited it simply because it was promised to him?  The rich man would be utterly insulted, and rightly so.  How much more is it an insult to Almighty God when anyone feels that they have in any way merited His free gift?

Defining Grace

Catholics believe that they can merit a measure of grace each time they do a good work.  But the concept of “meriting grace” is incoherent, irrational and inconsistent.  It is an oxymoron, just like the following terms are: imperfect perfection, divided unity, virtual reality, silent noise, etc.  It is a self-refuting and meaningless phrase.  By definition, grace cannot be deserved, earned or merited.  Concerning salvation, Romans 11:6 tells us:

“But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, since otherwise grace is no longer grace.” (NASV)

I’m sorry, my Catholic friends, but it can’t get any clearer than this.  It is either grace/faith… or it is works/earning/merit.  If it is one of them, then it cannot be the other, also.  They are complete opposites. You are either on one side or the other.  So it can’t be “faith plus works.”  

I find it amazing that the Council of Trent actually quotes Romans 11:6 in Chapter 8 of the Sixth Session.  How can anyone push “faith plus works” after reading this verse?  It is incredible that they would annul their own position by pointing to this passage.

Paul Destroys the “Faith Plus Works” Error!

The Catholic concept that good works save you after being justified utterly contradicts Galatians 3:1-3:

1 - “You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?”

2 - “This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?” 

3 - “Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?”

The apostle Paul made it absolutely clear to the Galatians that their salvation was not started by works and not perfected (or completed) by works.  It was by the Holy Spirit, through faith.  “The flesh” that Paul mentions in v. 3 was adding something to the gospel.

Stop and think: The sin of the Judaizers (who were influencing the Galatians) was literally ADDING GOOD WORKS (circumcision and following the Commandments – Acts 15:1, 5) TO THE GOSPEL IN ORDER TO BE SAVED.  Please let this sink in.  Was anything wrong with these works?  No, they were God-ordained works, good works, works that were normally pleasing to Him.  But God’s work of salvation is not completed by your works!  He doesn’t need man's works to save us.  Faith/trusting in His work on the cross is sufficient.

So, according to the apostle Paul, there are no works at any stage of your Christian walk that save/justify.  Not before, and not after, as Galatians 3:3 indicates.  The Galatians were guilty of adding to the gospel of grace.  Adding anything (even good works) to the cross is what the book of Galatians condemns.

Conclusion

The Catholic system of merit is a false system.  There are no “levels” of justification.  There is no “increase” of justification.  Justification happens the precise moment a person gets saved, and it is a one-time event.  According to Scripture, it is sanctification that’s a process, not justification (Philippians 2:12-13; 3:12-13; Hebrews 10:14).

The Catholic Church’s concept of merit is so warped, so far from biblical standards that it includes the “Treasury of Merit.”  According to this teaching, not only can a Catholic’s merit save him, but his “excess merit” can be applied to save OTHERS, as well:

"… In the treasury, too, are the prayers and good works of all the saints, all those who have followed in the footsteps of Christ the Lord… In this way they attained their own salvation and at the same time cooperated in saving their brothers in the unity of the Mystical Body." (CCC #1477 – Emphasis added)

The Catholic Church is guilty of re-defining merit, thus perverting the gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

MARTIGNONI, ASSURANCE OF SALVATION, AND WORKS

Today, I’d like to address another one of Catholic speaker/writer John Martignoni’s newsletter articles which is on faith, works, and assurance of salvation.  This one is #319, titled “Matt Slick’s False Teachings,” and it can be found here:

https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/409-apologetics-for-the-masses-319-matt-slick-s-false-teachings

In this particular newsletter, John Martignoni critiques a letter from (Protestant) Christian apologist Matt Slick of C.A.R.M. (Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry).

I do enjoy many of Matt Slick’s articles, but I don’t agree with his Calvinism.  For the record, I’m not associated with him, so I’m not one of his students trying to blindly defend him at all costs, or anything like that.  I just think what he wrote in his letter is correct.  But John Martignoni doesn’t agree.   

First, John Martignoni deals with the issue of assurance of salvation.  Matt Slick says that he knows he is going to Heaven.  But John accuses Matt of being arrogant in saying this and John responds with two Bible passages:

1 Corinthians 10:12 – Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.

In the context of this verse, the apostle Paul is warning us not to do as the Jews did in the Old Testament, not to fall away from the truth through unbelief and disobedience.  Of course, this is great advice, but this verse is NOT saying that we can’t have the assurance of going to Heaven.  In fact, it is implying just the opposite!  Just as a coin has two sides, so does this promise in 1 Corinthians 10:12: 

1) There is a warning if we don’t learn from the Old Testament Jews’ example, and

2) There is the promise of eternal life if we do continue to trust God.  There’s the assurance.  

Either way, the warning/promise stands.  But John is wrong if he thinks that this verse denies us assurance.  If we maintain our faith, our trust in Jesus, we will make it to Heaven.  That is a promise from God.

The second passage John quotes is:

1 Corinthians 4:3 – But to me it is a very small thing that I should be examined by you, or by any human court; in fact, I do not even examine myself. 

4) I am conscious of nothing against myself, yet I am not by this acquitted; but the one who examines me is the Lord. 

5) Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men’s hearts; and then each man’s praise will come to him from God.

This passage is speaking of passing judgment on someone concerning the stewardship of his ministry.  It is about divisions and boasting in favor of one minister over another (v. 6).  There is nothing at all here to indicate that we cannot have assurance of salvation.  So John is trying to twist these passages and force them to say something they’re not saying.  He seems to want them to say that we can’t have the assurance of making it to Heaven.

But the beloved apostle, John, says that we can know:

1 John 5:13 – These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life. (Emphasis added)

So, it is not arrogant to say you have assurance of your salvation if you maintain your trust in Christ.  It is not wrong to say that you know you are going to Heaven.   

Salvation by Works

In Matt Slick’s letter, another of his main points is that the Catholic Church offers a works-based salvation, which means “faith plus works equals salvation.”  Matt quotes the Catechism of the Catholic Church several times to prove his point:

“The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.” (CCC 1257)

“Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation.” (CCC 846)

“This sacrament of Penance is necessary for salvation for those who have fallen after Baptism, just as Baptism is necessary for salvation for those who have not yet been reborn.” (CCC 980)

“The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation.” (CCC 1129)

“Service of and witness to the faith are necessary for salvation...” (CCC 1816)

“The authority of the Magisterium extends also to the specific precepts of the natural law, because their observance, demanded by the Creator, is necessary for salvation.” (CCC 2036)

Notice how many times “necessary for salvation” occurs.  This means that the Catholic Church believes these things are the MEANS and the CAUSE of salvation, at least indirectly; in the Catholic Church’s eyes, they are REQUIREMENTS to get to Heaven.

·      To recap the Catholic Catechism above, sacraments (like baptism, penance, etc.) are necessary for one’s salvation.  And these are works – no one can deny that.  They are religious formalities and rituals that one performs, or at least allows the priest to perform on him.

·      Also, the Church is mentioned as a means of salvation.  That’s because it is the (Catholic) Church who supposedly dispenses the true sacraments.  Again, works.

·      The Catechism also mentions service and witnessing.  These are also works.

·      And lastly, Matt Slick brings out one part of the Catechism that requires a person to observe the Law (the Ten Commandments).  The works of the Law are certainly considered good works.  No one denies this.

So, Matt is correct in saying that the Catholic Church promotes a works-based salvation.  This is clear by the Catechism quotes he used. 

Strangely though, Catholics are often offended when Protestants point this out. If you’ll notice when you debate a Catholic on justification, that it is almost a guarantee that they will initially deny that they teach a works-based salvation (just as John Martignoni does in his newsletter).  It is almost as if this concept would be embarrassing to them.  Yet, in the end, they will forcefully proclaim that works are indeed necessary for salvation (again, just as John does) and will often wrongly appeal to passages like James 2:24.  But the context of James 2 is NOT “how to be saved.”  It is about the demonstration of your faith when you are truly saved.

“Grace-empowered” Works?

But John Martignoni would say that Catholics do not believe that their works, in and of themselves, merit eternal life.  He says that it is not by a person’s “own goodness and abilities.”  He would say that only special works can merit salvation, those that he elsewhere calls “works empowered by God’s grace,” and he would therefore say that because of that, they contribute to your salvation. 

But EVERYTHING we can possibly do is by God’s grace!  You can’t speak or sing or even breathe, except by His grace.  Just because we are given grace to do something, doesn’t mean that that particular “something” will save us.  It is the work that Jesus did on the cross that saves us – but the way to enter into this eternal life is to believe, to trust in Him, accessing His benefits by faith, not works.

The Scriptures clearly teach that salvation is not by works of righteous (Titus 3:5) and that it is by faith apart from works (Romans 4:4-5).  It is by grace through faith:

Ephesians 2:8 – For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

9) not as a result of works, that no one should boast.

10) For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Paul is saying about these works, to “walk in them,” meaning after salvation, not in order to be saved.

Question: Were these works that the apostle Paul speaks of here “grace-empowered” saving works?

If yes, then why does it say that we are NOT saved as a result of these works (v. 9)?

If someone says that the works in this context are merely “works of the Law” from the Old Testament, or some form of “lesser” works, we can ask, why then should we walk in them?  Those same works that we should walk in are the ones that cannot save us.  They cannot merit our salvation, but God does expect us to walk in them daily.

The Bible never makes a distinction between “works of righteousness that save” and “works of righteousness that don’t save.”

If these God-ordained, “grace-empowered” works that John Martignoni mentions can save, then Abraham should have been saved this way.  But he was clearly not saved by his circumcision (Romans 4:9-13) – even though his circumcision was a God-ordained work!  God specifically told him to do it.  I don’t think that John, nor any other Catholic, can answer this dilemma.  Again, no matter how great a work is done by mere humans (even if "grace-empowered"), it cannot save.  Only the work of the Savior on the cross can.

Justification vs. Sanctification

In Matt’s letter, he states that Jesus cleanses us totally of our sin.  But John asks him, “Oh, and one other thing: If Jesus has cleansed you from your sin ‘totally,’ then how come you still sin?”

The answer is, we still sin because we are not yet fully sanctified, even if we have already been justified through faith.  Catholics conflate the two terms and it causes them trouble by muddying the water, like in this scenario.  What Jesus did on the cross is to totally pay the penalty for sin.  He paid it all and there is nothing left to pay.  “It is finished!” (John 19:30).  No more works or suffering are needed as a payment for sin. 

In justification, Jesus paid the PENALTY for sin.  The sanctification process helps us against the POWER of sin, and final glorification will deliver us from the very PRESENCE of sin.

Conclusion

Those passages in Scripture that link salvation with works need to be balanced with the passages that teach faith APART from works.

Question: If salvation is by faith plus works, what were the works of the thief on the cross (Luke 23:39-43)?  He had none!  Yet, for centuries, the thief on the cross has been the great example of salvation by faith alone, i.e., by faith apart from works.

In the end, what does the Catholic do with passages like Romans chapters 3 and 4 (which actually deal with justification)?  There is nothing Catholics can do to escape the plain meaning of these passages, as well as the book of Galatians.  They either ignore them or misinterpret them by taking them out of their proper contexts.

And what about Romans 11:6:

But if it [salvation] is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.

It can’t be any plainer.  It is telling us that grace and works are opposites!  John Martignoni would have us believe that they are actually in the same category!  It is not Matt Slick’s teachings in his letter that are unbiblical, but rather, John Martignoni’s.

I have previously seen John Martignoni accuse another Christian teacher of “linguistic trickery,” but, in this case, he is the one guilty of this.

WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE CHURCH AT ROME?

It has been said that the epistle of Romans, written by the apostle Paul, is one of the greatest and most sublime books of Scripture.  It is his masterpiece.  It is one of the most profound and influential books ever written.  This book is called “Romans” because it was, of course, written to the first-century church (that is, the assembly of Christians) in the city of Rome. 

   

It is a unique book, at least partly because no other book in the Bible deals specifically, and at such great length, with the doctrine of justification like this book does.  As we have said before, when discussing justification, this is the book to which one must go.  It does not deal with justification only as a passing reference, but in great detail.  All other references to justification should revolve around this context, namely, chapters three through five of Romans. 

 

Again, this message was written to the early Roman church.  But the church that most people identify as the Church of Rome today is the Catholic Church, or the Roman Catholic Church, headquartered in the Vatican.  But the “gospel” of the modern Roman Catholic Church is not the same gospel as that of the first-century assembly of believers to whom the apostle Paul wrote in Rome.  The gospel that Paul delivered has the power to save:

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.  For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, the just shall live by faith. (Romans 1:16-17 - KJV)

Notice that the just “shall live,” i.e., shall obtain eternal life and make it to Heaven – by his faith, rather than by his works.  Paul goes on into the next few chapters to make this concept abundantly clear.

But the gospel of modern Rome is “faith plus works equals salvation.”  It seems to ignore the clear message that Paul stressed 2000 years ago:

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

Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as what is due.  But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness. (Romans 4:4-5)

Just as David also speaks of the blessing upon the man to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works: (Romans 4:6 - NASV)

Justification happens that first moment when a man recognizes his desperate spiritual need, when he surrenders to God, and allows Him to change his heart.  At this point he is made right with God.  He is now eligible for Heaven.  Although the man will now go on to do good works, notice that justification is APART FROM the merit of any of those works.  It cannot be any clearer from the passages above.

So, again, the “gospel” of the Catholic Church (modern Rome) is not the one that Paul shared with the original church in Rome.  The Catholic gospel does not have power to save, since it’s power depends (at least partially) on the works of the individual striving for salvation.  This causes a man to trust in his own labor to “help” Jesus save him.  But Jesus doesn’t need any help from us.  There is nothing that we can do to “supplement” His work.  It is utterly blasphemous to think that His work is lacking in any way.  In saying this, they are denying the full atonement of Jesus Christ.   Remember, we (corrupt mankind) are the very reason that He had to go to the cross in the first place! 

No, His suffering and work on the cross is fully sufficient (all by itself) to redeem us. 

 

Whatever happened to this critical, foundational teaching given to the church of Paul’s day at Rome?  Somewhere along the way, something seriously went wrong.  Paul’s message was changed.  Mostly because man wants to take credit where he should not.

But note this claim from the Catholic Church.  According to the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, titled “Dei Verbum,” the task of the Catholic Magisterium concerning the Word of God is:

“…guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully…” (chapter 2, paragraph 10)  See also CCC #86.

But have they really guarded Paul’s original sacred message, the inspired gospel of Jesus Christ?  Are they “explaining it faithfully” today?  Indeed not.  Once again, what the Catholic Church is telling us today is not what Paul told the church at Rome back then.  What we have is a different and unbiblical message from modern Rome.  

The word “gospel” means “good news.”  And Paul’s words concerning justification are indeed good news.  They can be summed up in this way: Jesus Christ is powerful and His work is absolutely sufficient.  He has mercifully and graciously paid the full penalty for sin on the cross, so man doesn’t have to attempt to work his way into Heaven.  He doesn’t have to wonder if he did enough good deeds or earned enough “brownie points.”  He doesn’t have to worry about whether his good works outweigh his bad works.  He can rest assured of his salvation by simply maintaining his faith, by trusting only in the work of Jesus Christ on the cross. 

The great apostle Paul had quite a resume concerning his religious achievements.  But his resume meant nothing when it came to meriting salvation!  He considered all his achievements as dung (Philippians 3:4-9).  Even Paul did not trust in his works, so how much more should we avoid trusting in ours? 

 

On the other hand, the “gospel” of modern Rome is another gospel, with another Jesus, and another spirit (2 Corinthians 11:4).  The poor faithful member of “Holy Mother Church” serves a weak Jesus who is not able to fully pay sin’s penalty, and the Catholic therefore needs to “cooperate with the grace of God” by maintaining his duty to perform the sacraments – and it is indeed by his works that he must merit eternal life (Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter XVI).  Talk about bad news! 

 

To make matters worse, he is also surrounded by a multitude of unbiblical teachings from his leaders.  Yet, one of his leaders (Pope Pius X), in an official Catholic statement says that the Catholic’s “one duty” is to obey his leaders [apparently, no matter what they teach] (Vehementer Nos, paragraph 8). 

 

Conclusion

We would encourage everyone from ANY church (whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant) to do what the Bible says and test all things (1 Thessalonians 5:21) with Scripture.  That even includes testing what your own church teaches. 

 

The ancient Roman church of the first century had it right.  But somewhere along the way, that simple gospel message got corrupted.  Although they try, the modern Roman church cannot rightfully claim to be the historic Christian church.  Because of their many false teachings, they are disqualifying themselves as the church that “guards” and “faithfully explains” the Word of God.

By the way, there is no group today that can rightfully claim that they are the original, or first, Christian church.  The best they can do is to be faithful followers of the original church’s teachings found in God-inspired Scripture.

We will end on this point.  The Judaizers were another group that Paul contended with.  And they were committing the same error as the Catholic Church - the error of adding their works to the cross (Acts 15:1, 5).  And Paul strongly condemned them:

But though we, or an angel from Heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.  As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8-9 - KJV)

For more info. on Rome’s weak view of the work of Christ, see this link:

https://www.christiantruth.com/articles/RCJustification.html