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.

 

THE CONFUSION OF STEVE RAY

Catholic apologist, speaker and author Steve Ray has written an article about the debate between Catholics and Protestants on the topic of faith and the role of works in salvation.  The article is titled, “St. Paul did not Write to Us!” and it can be found here:

http://www.catholicconvert.com/blog/2004/06/11/st-paul-did-not-write-to-us/

In the article, Steve Ray mentions that when arguments about salvation come up:

“Protestants quickly accuse Catholics of teaching a salvation based on works and Catholics quickly point out that Protestants have swung the pendulum too far in the other direction by refusing to accept human cooperation and obedience as necessary to the process.”

This is pretty much an accurate account of what normally happens.  Catholics emphasize the role of works (faith plus works) and Protestants emphasize “faith alone,” or faith apart from the merit of works in order to be justified / saved.

Ray mentions the fact that Protestants usually go to the books of Romans and Galatians in the Bible to prove their point (and we would say, rightly so, because this is where justification is defined).  But according to Ray:

“But there is a huge problem here. Paul did not write these letters to us and he knew nothing of the Catholic-Protestant debate. The huge problem we have is the problem of anachronism.”

He goes on to define “anachronism,” which means:

“1. the representation of an event, person, or thing in a historical context in which it could not have occurred or existed; 2. a person or thing that belongs or seems to belong to another time.”

For example, saying that Moses looked at his wristwatch to see what time it was… or saying that the apostle John got in his Ford pickup to go to the market… these would be anachronisms, since wristwatches and Fords didn’t exist during their day.  

So, Steve Ray’s main points here are 1) Paul did not write specifically to us, 2) Paul didn’t know anything of a “Catholic-Protestant” debate back in his day, and 3) Applying Paul’s teaching in Romans and Galatians to the present day Catholic-Protestant debate is out of touch with reality in the sense that it is anachronistic.

But first of all, Ray’s point that “Paul didn’t write to us” is actually untrue and Ray is simply using this as a diversion.  Now, of course, we all know that Paul was not purposely writing SPECIFICALLY to us in the twenty-first century.  But the title of Ray’s article and his opening comments seem to suggest that Paul’s writings don’t apply to us today in any way.

But with this kind of reasoning, why should we obey any of the Ten Commandments today?  Would Ray say that since these also were not specifically written to us, but to Old Testament Jews, therefore, they are not to be observed by modern Christians?  He obviously wouldn’t say that!  So why does Ray even bring up this point?  Why use this deceptive title?  Again, this is simply a diversion that he uses to try and weaken or disregard the biblical evidence found in Romans and Galatians against Catholic teaching. 

   

But in a real sense, Paul did indeed write to us through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.  Paul’s words were infallible and God-breathed because they were Scripture (2 Timothy 3:15-17).  And ALL Scripture was written to us, indirectly, and ALL Scripture has some application for us today.  Paul’s words were not only directed to the people of his own day, but to all generations in the future, as well.  The principles within Scripture are always there, for every generation, to guide us into the truth.

Furthermore, the fact that Paul had never heard of a “Catholic-Protestant debate” is irrelevant.  But Paul was certainly very familiar with the substance of that debate.  It is not just about “Jew versus Gentile.”  It is the argument of the Judaizers, which was “faith plus works = salvation.”  But Paul specifically dealt with this same problem in both the Roman church (Romans 3:19 thru 5:21) and the Galatian church (epistle to the Galatians) in his day.   So today we are still wrestling with the same issues as they did back then.  Yet, Ray tries to spin this in such a way as to accuse Protestants of anachronism.  

But the fact is, Ray contradicts himself and admits at the end of the article that there is not really a problem after all, since he confesses that:

“… even though Paul didn’t specifically write his letters to us, if we study the cultural climate in which they were written, and stay faithful to the tradition in which they were passed on to us, the Holy Spirit (the primary author of the letters) will help us apply the principles and truth of those letters to our current situation.” (Emphasis added)

Notice the bold print.  Ray now admits that the Holy Spirit is able to help us apply these same biblical principles to our situation today.  But this is what we already said earlier.  So, where is the anachronism now?  First, he says that the principles in Romans and Galatians are anachronistic (don’t apply today), and now he’s saying that they do apply today (with the Holy Spirit’s help).  But if it applies today, then it is not an anachronism.  Steve Ray is backpedaling and admitting that there IS no “huge problem” here.  What starts off as his main complaint is now dismissed as no problem at all!  Confusion indeed.

But perhaps he would say that the biblical principles would only apply within the context of “Catholic Tradition,” but there is nothing in Tradition that can offset the clear message of unearned salvation in the inspired books of Romans and Galatians.

No, the real “huge problem” is that Catholics often ignore context in those sections of Romans and Galatians that actually deal with the specific doctrine of justification, and they try to add their works to their faith in order to earn salvation, as we have demonstrated elsewhere on this blog.  But, tragically, in combining their own works with Jesus’ work on the cross, Catholics are telling Jesus that His work and suffering was just not enough, thus bringing upon themselves the same curse that the first-century Judaizers brought upon their own selves (Galatians 1:8-9; 3:10-11; 5:1-4).  See this link:

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

See also these other related articles:

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#comment-form

SACRAMENTS (God's Grace for Sale)

Today we will take a look at the concept of sacraments. The word “sacrament” comes from the Latin “sacramentum”, signifying something sacred, namely, an oath. It also denotes a “mystery.” Sacraments may be used differently by various groups and can be found in the Catholic Church, Orthodox Church, and even in some Protestant churches. But since they are most prominent in the Catholic Church, we will deal with the Catholic view of sacraments.


Portrait of a Sacrament

So what are Catholic sacraments, and how important are they?

There are many descriptions of them, e.g., sacraments are said to be visible signs of an invisible reality… visible signs instituted by Christ to give grace… signs that really effect what they symbolize… outward signs of inward grace… signs that accomplish what they signify… vehicles of grace… signs that cause us to be united to Christ in the deepest and greatest possible way... etc., etc.

Here are some statements from Catholic sources concerning their importance:

The whole liturgical life of the Church revolves around the Eucharistic sacrifice and the sacraments. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1113)

By His power He [Christ] is present in the sacraments… (Pope Paul VI, “Sacrosanctum Concilium,” a Constitution of the Second Vatican Council, Paragraph 7)

His purpose also was that they might accomplish the work of salvation which they had proclaimed, by means of sacrifice and sacraments, around which the entire liturgical life revolves. (Ibid., Paragraph 6)

Sacraments are "powers that come forth" from the Body of Christ, which is ever-living and life-giving. They are actions of the Holy Spirit at work in his Body, the Church. They are "the masterworks of God" in the new and everlasting covenant. (CCC #1116)

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

Therefore, sacraments are extremely important to the Catholic Church. They are foundational to its existence and welfare, since they are “necessary for salvation.”

So, according to the Catholic Church, how does a sacrament actually work?

Celebrated worthily in faith, the sacraments confer the grace that they signify. They are efficacious because in them Christ himself is at work: it is he who baptizes, he who acts in his sacraments in order to communicate the grace that each sacrament signifies. (CCC #1127)

The sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us. The visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and make present the graces proper to each sacrament. They bear fruit in those who receive them with the required dispositions. (CCC #1131)

What the Catechism is saying is that sacraments are symbols that have the power to “confer” / furnish / supply grace and to actually do what they symbolize (e.g., baptism actually washes away sin, and the Eucharist actually becomes Jesus’ flesh and blood, etc.)


Warning

Finally, what happens if one does not believe it?

The Council of Trent declares:

If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law do not contain the grace which they signify; or, that they do not confer that grace on those who do not place an obstacle thereunto; as though they were merely outward signs of grace or justice received through faith, and certain marks of the Christian profession, whereby believers are distinguished amongst men from unbelievers; let him be anathema. (Session 7, Canon VI)

If any one saith, that by the said sacraments of the New Law grace is not conferred through the act performed, but that faith alone in the divine promise suffices for the obtaining of grace; let him be anathema. (Session 7, Canon VIII)

So, we see here that if one does not believe what the Catholic Church teaches about the sacraments, he is declared “anathema” by the Catholic Church. An anathema is the gravest (most severe) form of excommunication, where one is eternally condemned to Hell unless and until he does penance to the Church’s satisfaction (see the online New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia – under the topic, “anathema”).


Symbol or Reality?

There is a confusing problem with the Catholic idea of sacraments. In the Eucharist, for example, Catholics believe that Christ is somehow present in a “sacramental” way (whatever that means). But if sacraments “accomplish what they signify”, if they actually do what they symbolize, then why do they need to symbolize at all? Catholics believe the Eucharist is not JUST a symbol, but is both “the real thing” (i.e., Christ’s actual body and blood) and at the same time, a SYMBOL of the “real thing.” But a certain object cannot be BOTH a symbol of something else AND its reality. It is either one or the other. If it is a symbol of a particular thing, then it is not that particular thing. If it is literally the “real thing,” then there is no need for it to be a “symbol of itself.” You can’t have it both ways. This is simply equivocation. No such thing exists in Scripture, nor in the modern world that we live in.


A Biblical Concept?

The concept of sacraments with “special powers” that can earn (or control the amount of) grace given to someone is certainly not biblical. How can a person “control grace” by rituals, objects and ceremonies? How can grace be dependent on works (especially grace for salvation)? It isn’t. But this is a typical example of the works-based salvation of the Catholic Church.

But grace is not something you can buy through the performance of a ritual. By its very definition, grace excludes works. Grace is usually defined as “the UNMERITED favor of God.” It cannot be earned or bought.

Then how do we get grace, according to the Bible? Grace is received by FAITH, not by works, ceremonies or “sacraments.” (Romans 4:16; 5:2; 11:6; Ephesians 2:8-9) See also our three-part series on “Faith Alone” and our “Sola Fide Revisited” article, elsewhere on this blog.


Conclusion

Some may accuse us of being “anti-sacramental,” and automatically assume that we believe that “matter is evil.” But this is ridiculous and does not necessarily follow. We don’t think that matter is “evil,” nor do we make it a “spirit versus matter” issue.

And we are not against symbolism. Symbols are fine. Symbols help us to understand many concepts. They are very useful and meaningful in our everyday lives and in Scripture. But they don’t save anyone. One is saved by simply trusting in the work and the suffering of Jesus Christ on the cross for us, and that alone.

Not only is the Catholic concept of sacraments NOT IN SCRIPTURE, it is also AGAINST Scripture. It is a system of obtaining the priceless grace of God by works and rituals. Any system that can buy the grace of God is corrupt and anti-biblical, and anyone who believes in this view of sacraments is in serious doctrinal error, whether they claim to be Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant.

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.