RE-DEFINING JUSTIFICATION

I see it happen all the time.  A Catholic and a Protestant will be discussing salvation, and the Protestant points out that the Catholic Church teaches that a person is saved by his faith plus his works.  But immediately, the Catholic will say, “Oh no!  We don’t teach that.  Salvation is not by works.  The Council of Trent teaches that justification is unmerited and not obtained by works of any kind (Session 6, chapter 8).”  But when the Protestant points to other sections of Trent (Session 6, chapters 10 and 16) to show that the Catholic Church does indeed believe in works for salvation, then they will start to back-track and point to certain Bible verses in an attempt to claim that believers really are saved by works.  They do a flip-flop.  What they first denied, they later try to vigorously defend.  You see, what the Catholic Church teaches is often confusing, even for Catholics. 

Much of the confusion seems to come from the fact that the Catholic Church believes that justification is split into two different categories:  “initial” justification and “ongoing” or “progressive” justification.  They believe that in the initial phase there are no works that merit salvation.  And, supposedly, this initial justification is achieved by water baptism (which, ironically, is a work).  But afterward, in the progressive phase, salvation is (according to them) indeed merited / earned by good works.  So, they believe a person can be justified at one point and then re-justified (or “more justified”) later.  But the fact is, they are confusing justification with sanctification, which involves the Christian’s growth process.  “Sanctification” means to be set apart for God’s use, and it is a process in which we are gradually conformed to the image of Jesus Christ (1 Thessalonians 5:23; Hebrews 9:13-14).  Good works are part of this process, but they are done out of thankfulness for what God has done for us, never to merit salvation.

But according to the Bible, there is no such thing as “initial” or “progressive” justification.  Biblical justification refers to a judicial sentence or decision, as in a courtroom.  It is a term having strong legal overtones, and is used together with words like “impute” (Romans 4:8), “reckoned” (Romans 4:4, 9-10), and “counted" (Romans 4:3, 5).  Justification means to declare someone righteous.  It is a proclamation of one’s status by the Judge (God).  There is nothing “progressive” about such a decision.  It is a one-time proclamation.  So, there is no such thing as an “increase” of justification.   You can’t be “a little justified” or “partially justified.”  According to the Bible, you’re either justified or you’re not.
  

The righteousness we have, as Christians, is based on the righteousness of the Savior, Jesus Christ, and His perfect work.  Any type of righteousness that would involve some sort of “progressive justification” is based, to some extent, on the righteousness of the believer and his works.  But that would be an imperfect righteousness.  And that’s exactly the type of justification that the Catholic Church offers to its members.

In fact, Catholic teaching on salvation falls into the same error as that of the Judaizers.  See this article:

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

It seems that the Catholic Church’s redefining of justification has been subtle enough to confuse and deceive certain Protestants, as well.  Note, for example, the famous ECT documents (Evangelicals and Catholics Together), where some Protestants have joined with Catholics to promote “unity” and to stand together against certain evils in the world.  They even appear to now agree on justification, as well.  This may sound like a good thing.  But does this mean that the Reformation was all just one big misunderstanding, and that we should all hold hands and agree now?  Then why were there martyrs back then on both sides?  Did they all die for nothing?  Was it over a mere misunderstanding?  Hardly.  The differences between Protestants and Catholics were real back then, and they always have been.  What was error then, is still error now.  The ECT signers, in their quest for “common ground,” have come to an agreement on an unbiblical view of justification / salvation.

Conclusion

The apostle Paul was not so subtle in his view on salvation.  He says, “Are you so foolish?  having begun in the Spirit, are you now made perfect by the flesh?”  (Galatians 3:3)  Notice that Paul equates attempting to add works to the cross with living “by the flesh.”

My friends, out of all the Bible writers, it is Paul who deals with the concept of justification in the most detail (mainly Romans chapters 3-5 and the book of Galatians).  But he never tells us of a split justification like the Catholic Church teaches.  He uses no examples of “initial” or “progressive” justification in Scripture.  He offers no explanations or descriptions of this type of justification anywhere in his writings.  There is not even a brief mention of such a concept.

But on the other hand, Paul does tell us over and over that justification / salvation is obtained by faith and NOT by works (Romans 3:28; 4:2-6, 9-10; Galatians 2:16; 3:1-3; 3:11).  A man is saved by the grace of God through faith (i.e., trusting) in the work of Jesus Christ on the cross, and nothing else.  There is no list of good works, no sacraments, and no formulas that can be added to His sufficient work.  That is the simplicity of the true gospel.  But unfortunately, the Catholic view of justification is another gospel (2 Corinthians 11:4).

SOLA FIDE – REVISITED

We previously shared a three-part article on the topic of “Sola Fide” (Faith Alone), but we now want to focus specifically on one aspect of that topic in Romans chapter 3, 4 & 5. In Romans 3:28 the apostle Paul says that we are justified by faith “apart from works of the law.” The question is, exactly what works was Paul talking about? Many (if not most) Catholics would argue that he is here referring to ONLY the works of the Jewish / Mosaic Law. But we believe he was saying apart from any and all good works.

Let’s Suppose…
 
For the sake of argument, let’s assume for now that the verse is only about the Jewish Law. Ok, but what was Paul’s reason for saying that we’re saved “apart” from its works? Was something wrong with the Jewish Law? Are the oracles of God (Romans 3:2) somehow defective? Not at all, remember, salvation comes from the Jews (John 4:22). If any works were able to save, surely it would be those of the God-given Jewish Law.

So, it is understandable that the people in the Old Testament and in Paul’s day would think that following the works of the Mosaic Law could save them. After all, wasn’t this law the very highest law around? Indeed it was. It was God’s standard of morality.

The Problem
 
But the problem is not the Law. No, the problem is with US! The purpose of the Law was to act as a “tutor,” to show us that we are not able to follow God perfectly, and to show us that we could only be saved by faith / trusting in Christ (Galatians 3:24). The Law was “weak” (Romans 8:3), but not because of some inherent flaw; it was only weak because of man’s sinful heart. Therefore, salvation has always had to be by grace through faith, and never by good works… not even the works of the Jewish Law… which includes the Ten Commandments (Romans 7:7).

New Works?
 
But according to Catholics, the Old Testament “works of the Law” (which don’t save) were replaced with works of the “New Law,” “works of grace” and “charitable acts” (which supposedly do save, or at least, contribute to salvation). But were there no “charitable acts” in the Jewish Law? Indeed, there were. Wouldn’t Jesus’ summary of the Jewish Law cover every good work or “work of grace” that we could possibly think of? It certainly would. He said, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind…” and “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself… On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets” (Matthew 22:36-40). Sounds to me like that would cover every possible work. In fact, there is no good work (of the Old or New Testament) that won’t pertain to one of these two commandments. This Catholic distinction of “New Testament works that save” versus “Old Testament works that don’t save” is a false one.

We are saved by faith APART FROM works, whether it is the “ceremonial works of the Mosaic Law,” the Ten Commandments, “works of grace,” “works of charity,” or any “new” works – it is apart from ALL works. Does this mean we should avoid good works? Of course not. As Dr. Joe Mizzi says, salvation is by faith, apart from the merit of works, but not apart from the presence of works.

The Context
 
What evidence is there in Romans chapters 3-5 that would lead a person to believe that there are any works at all which save us? If Catholics are right, it certainly seems strange that Paul would never list the “works that save” in the context in which the doctrine of justification is defined. If these “saving works” exist at all, Paul would be seriously lacking as a teacher if he mentions none of them when he’s teaching us how to be saved! Where is baptism, or giving to the poor, or helping your neighbor, etc., in the context of Romans 3 thru 5? Over and over in this context, he only mentions faith as that which saves.

Catholics sometimes argue against Sola Fide by saying that Romans 3-5 does not use the words “faith alone.” That may be true, but we can use this same type of argument against them and say that Romans 3-5 doesn’t use the words “apart from only the Jewish Law,” either.

In denying salvation by deeds, sometimes Paul just uses the word “works” (as opposed to “works of the law”), e.g., in Romans 4:2, Ephesians 2:8-9, 2 Timothy 1:9, and Titus 3:5. But notice that the contexts of these last three are NOT about Jewish law at all. So the Catholic argument fails completely here.

Only Two Options…

Consider this:

Romans 4:4 - Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as what is due.

Romans 4:5 - But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness. (NASB)
Notice that this passage offers only two choices: the one who works, and the one who believes (without working); one trusts in the merits of his work, and the other trusts only in the suffering of Jesus on the cross. There is no third choice and no distinction between “types of works” here.

Galatians 3:2 - This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? (NASB)
Notice here also that Paul, when asking this question, does not give the Galatians a third option. They were saved either by works of the Law, or by faith. Again, only two choices. It is one or the other. He doesn’t add the merits of baptism or any “new” works to their faith as a third choice. This indicates that any and all works would fall into the “works of the Law” category. All that’s left is faith alone (i.e., apart from the merits of any work).

Some may still insist that there is a third option… the “Law of Christ” (Galatians 6:2). No, the concept of salvation by faith apart from works IS the Law of Christ. It is a law that freely saves the undeserving sinner and then gives him the desire and ability to do works that are pleasing to God.

Examples
 
In conclusion, consider the example of Abraham. Not only was Abraham not saved by the works of the Mosaic Law, but according to Romans 4:2, he was not saved by any of his works. Likewise, for David, it was “apart from works” (Romans 4:6). And the same goes for Gentiles, since God is the God of both Jew and Gentile, alike (Romans 3:29), saving both by faith, apart from their respective works.

So, once more, when the context of Romans 3, 4 and 5 says that we are saved “apart from” the works of the law, it is NOT just referring to those of the Mosaic Law, but every work. And the good works we do, we do out of love for God… not to try and earn / merit salvation.