CATEGORIES OF WORKS

 

Protestants accuse Catholics of believing in a “faith plus works” salvation system.  But popular Catholic apologists will deny that and say that they are not saved by their works.  Yet, they will soon after point to passages like Matthew 25:31-46, Galatians 5:6, James 2:24 and many other verses that mention works, insisting that works will merit salvation after all.

But I believe that some of the confusion can be cleared up by recognizing the types, or categories, of work(s) that the Bible speaks of, and comparing this to what Catholics believe.

Different Types

First of all, the Bible mentions the “works of the flesh” (Galatians 5:19-21), and it also mentions “dead works” (Hebrews 6:1 and 9:14).  But of course these do not impart merit of any kind, since they are sinful works.  I think that both Catholics and Protestants would agree here.

Another category would be “works of debt,” which would be understood as works that obligate God to save you – works that produce an attitude of putting God in debt to you – but we can never put God in our debt.  These “works of debt” also would not necessarily be considered by Catholics to be the kind of works that contribute to one’s salvation, and I think again that Catholics and Protestants will agree on this.

What about works of “the Law” (Romans 3-4)?  There is a lot of confusion about this one.  Some believe that this term only refers to the “ceremonial” laws of the Old Testament (like circumcision, diet restrictions, etc.) and not the “moral” laws (like the Ten Commandments).  But Paul shows that “the Law” does indeed include the Ten Commandments (Romans 7:6-7). 

It is important to note that the apostle Paul (Romans 3-4) is not only saying that “the Law” consists of the whole Mosaic Law (Exodus through Deuteronomy), but he is also saying that we are saved apart from the merit of any and all laws/good works.  Notice that I am NOT saying that those who are saved don’t ever have to do good works – of course we do good works – I’m just saying that these good works do not contribute to one’s salvation, since they are done AFTER one is already saved.  

A Look at Paul and Abraham

Ok, so now we come to the works that Catholics would consider salvific, or saving – works that somehow contribute to one’s salvation by accumulating a certain amount of merit each time one of these good works are done.  These works are called by many names and they would include:

Good works, works of righteousness, works of faith, works of obedience, grace-filled works, God-assisted works, grace-empowered works, works done in a state of grace, works of the New Law of Christ, meritorious works, works of God, etc.

These are the types of works (along with faith) that Catholics say will merit salvation.  But notice two things here before we go on:  1) We know from Scripture that circumcision is a work.  And 2) We know that circumcision did not save Abraham.  Both Catholics and Protestants should agree with these two points, since according to Romans 4:

(v. 9) “Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also?  For we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.”

(v. 10) “How was it then reckoned?  When he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision?  Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.”

(v. 11) “And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also.”

“This blessedness” (v. 9) about which Paul is speaking is salvation/justification/the act of being forgiven and made righteous.  This is exactly what he is talking about.  And “this blessedness” is acquired by faith, not circumcision.

But why?  Was not Abraham’s circumcision a work of righteousness?  Didn’t God specifically tell him to do this work (Genesis 17:7-11) and wasn’t he obedient?  The answer is a resounding “YES”! 

Then why wasn’t this God-ordained work salvific?  Why was he not justified by it?  Was there something wrong with circumcision?  Not at all, but the reason it did not save anyone is simply because circumcision is a work.  And works don’t save us.  That’s the bottom line.

Comparing the list of the names of the good works that Catholics hold to (above), wasn’t Abraham’s circumcision a “work of obedience,” a “work of faith,” a “work of God,” a “grace-empowered” work?  Absolutely!  Is there any evidence that Abraham had some kind of ulterior motive in getting circumcised?  No, there is not.  So how was his circumcision somehow inferior to the works of the New Testament?  It wasn’t!

If this work of Abraham (circumcision) was not salvific or meritorious, then neither are any other works in the New Testament!

Context

But what about all those passages that seem to tie works in with salvation?  Fair question.  There is indeed a close relationship between the two.  But many of those passages are simply DE-scriptive in nature, i.e., describing the type of person (and the works he does) who is already saved.  But when the context of a passage is “How to get right with God” (i.e., become justified), then it is PRE-scriptive, it is prescribing how to get saved.  That’s what we don’t see in most (if not all) of the passages that Catholics quote to us Protestants.

With this in mind, we must also remember to take Scripture as a whole, and we must take Scripture passages in context.  This is the only way that all the passages make sense, that is, to determine whether they are descriptive or prescriptive.  This would clear up a lot of the issues.  As Protestants, we can reconcile passages that seem to involve works in salvation.  But I don’t think that Catholics can do the same thing when dealing with passages that talk about salvation “apart from works.”  Catholics really seem to struggle with (or avoid) such passages of Scripture.

Works of Righteousness

Speaking of salvation, observe what the apostle Paul told Titus:

“Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.” (Titus 3:5)

Did you catch that?  Salvation is NOT by works of righteousness!  And every single (biblical) good work that Catholics can name is a work of righteousness!  So this verse effectively excludes the merit of any and all works that Catholics claim will contribute to salvation.

But couldn’t they say that such passages are only speaking of “initial” justification?  No, because “initial” justification would include water baptism (by their own admission, a work of righteousness)!

The Catholic may say that all these God-assisted works of obedience are not just the works of men, but are “works of God’s grace.”  But isn’t absolutely EVERYTHING we (the saved and the unsaved alike) have, given to us by the grace of God?  Yes, indeed.  Even the air we breathe is purely God’s grace.  But that doesn’t make breathing redemptive, does it?  Just because grace is involved doesn’t mean that the act is a cause of salvation!

God’s grace may abound in all gifts, but there is only one biblical way to receive the gracious gift of salvation – and that is by the conduit of faith.  We just have to trust Him.  His work on the cross, His merit.

Conclusion

As we have seen, there are several categories and types of works for the believer.  But when we diligently study the Scriptures, we find that NONE of these works cause salvation.  I can just hear someone screaming, “But the Bible itself says that ‘baptism now saves us’ (1 Peter 3:21)!  Again, a diligent study of Scripture will show that this verse is often misunderstood.  See these links, especially Part 3:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/05/on-baptism-part-1-few-basics.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/06/on-baptism-part-2-bible-verses.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/07/on-baptism-part-3-more-verses.html

There is no special category of work that merits salvation.  An honest look at Galatians 3:3 should settle the matter, since it points out that works will not merit salvation AT ANY POINT in your spiritual walk:

“Are ye so foolish?  Having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?” 

We begin our salvation journey by faith, we maintain it by faith, and it is concluded by faith (Philippians 1:6). 

Salvation is all about the Savior, Jesus Christ, and the sufficiency of His work on the cross, His honor, His bragging rights, His merit – and none of man’s.

THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM

Ok, so we’ve gone through five of the seven Catholic sacraments so far.  These last two that I will be addressing would be considered “heavyweights” in the world of Catholic sacraments.  Today, I will deal with the sacrament of baptism and next time, the Eucharist.  Catholics would probably consider these two to be the most important of all the sacraments.

Anyway, I have dealt with the topic of baptism before, so you can go to these links to first get a good foundation:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/05/on-baptism-part-1-few-basics.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/06/on-baptism-part-2-bible-verses.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/07/on-baptism-part-3-more-verses.html

Differing Views

Of course, we (Protestants, Catholics and others) all recognize baptism as a very important and meaningful ritual. 

Most Protestants see baptism as a profound profession of faith.  It is an ordinance (not a sacrament) within the church, a symbol of what happens to a person when he first believed.  In the ceremony of baptism, he is immersed/buried in a “watery grave” in which he “dies to self.”  The “old man” (old self) is put to death, and coming up out of the water, the “new man” is resurrected to a new life:

Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life (Romans 6:4). 

With (most) Protestants, the idea is that a person is first saved and given a new heart from God… then, and ONLY then, should he be baptized, this being a symbolic gesture to declare to the world that he has voluntarily chosen to identify with the Lord Jesus Christ and thereafter, to live for Him. 

Catholics, on the other hand, also see the ritual of baptism as a profession of faith to identify with Christ, but also as a sacrament in which a person is “meriting grace” from God.  To them, it is a sacrament of regeneration.  It is not only symbolic to them, but it also “accomplishes what it signifies” (CCC #1155; 1215; 1234).  It is supposedly a “visible sign of a hidden reality.”  When the Catholic is baptized, he is literally having his original sins washed away.  According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit… and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: ‘Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word.’” (CCC #1213 – Emphasis added)

Notice the underlined portions of the quote above.  The Catholic Church is specifically saying that this event (baptism) is what saves them.  According to them, it is water baptism that makes them eligible to enter Heaven.

What About Infant Baptism?

Most people know that the Catholic Church baptizes babies, more so than adults.  But is this practice scriptural?  Can a mere infant make a profession of faith and identify with Christ.  No, he can’t. 

You won’t find any specific biblical examples where little children are baptized.  But some will argue that this concept is implied in the text of certain passages, for example Acts 16:33, where the Philippian jailer and his whole household were baptized.  But that is simply speculation.  We just don’t know if there were infants in this family or not.  

But Catholics (and even some Protestants) claim that baptism is valid for infants because it is based on the parents’ faith.  They will point to passages like 1 Corinthians 7:14, which says that the faith of the believer sanctifies (sets apart) the children and shows that you intend to raise your children in the Lord, but this doesn’t ultimately save them.  The child still has to become mature enough to understand what is going on.  An infant certainly can’t do that.  Until that time, he is innocent.

But even if it were true that they did baptize babies and little children (those who were not accountable due to their age/state/understanding), we would still have to deal with the concept of biblical salvation – where one is saved by faith, apart from works.

One might argue that baptism is not a work, and that the infant being baptized is doing nothing at all, since he is incapable.  But this does nothing to help the Catholic case.  Since the child is incapable, neither can he make a decision to follow Christ, a decision which is absolutely necessary for salvation.  As I just said, very young children are simply innocent (and safe) in the eyes of God, at least until the child can make such decisions in his life.

The concept of infant baptism leans heavily toward the idea that baptism saves a person.  And I believe that’s why the Catholic Church teaches this.  But whether this notion is promoted by Catholic, Protestant, or anyone else, this denies the biblical teaching of faith (apart from the merits of work) for salvation (Romans 3:28; 4:4-5; 11:6).  It denies that Christ’s work on the cross was sufficient.  In fact, any sacrament, ritual or celebration that claims to “merit grace” contradicts and denies the finished and perfect work of Jesus Christ.

An Oxymoron

So, once again, the question is, does baptism save a person?   You know, any unsaved person can potentially get baptized, but it does nothing to change his heart.  His heart has to be changed before he ever decides to get baptized.

Being a believer is synonymous with being saved.  There are no saved unbelievers, nor unsaved believers.  That would be an oxymoron.  If you are unsaved, then (by definition) you are not a believer, and if you are saved, you already are a believer.

So, if it is true that baptism saves you, then aren’t you (by definition) an unbeliever until the point that you are baptized?  Yes, you would be.  But the truth is, baptism is for believers only (Mark 16:16), and there are absolutely no unbelievers in Scripture who were baptized.  The point is, you must be born again BEFORE you are baptized, therefore baptism doesn’t save anyone.

Conclusion

Another oxymoron in the Catholic Church is, as I mentioned before, the concept of “meriting” grace.  This is supposedly what sacraments do, but not only is this unbiblical, it is also illogical.  No one can “merit” grace, since, by definition, grace is the unmerited favor of God (Romans 11:6).  Even Catholics agree with this definition (CCC #1996).

In the Catholic Church, baptism is one of the seven sacraments, and they certainly claim special power in these sacraments.  But I am sorry to tell my Catholic readers that sacraments do not “make present” the “graces” necessary to be saved, as the Catholic Church teaches (CCC #1131).  This is totally unscriptural.

To be sure, baptism is an important and significant ritual to all of us, rich in meaning for all who claim to follow Christ.  But again, Catholic sacraments do not and cannot do what Catholics claim they can do.

 

THE SACRAMENTS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH - (PART 1) CONFESSION

This article is the first in a series on the seven Catholic sacraments, which will not be covered in any particular order.  This particular one will be on the sacrament of Confession (also known as Penance or Reconciliation).

So, first of all, what exactly are sacraments?  Webster’s dictionary describes a sacrament as:

“a Christian rite (such as baptism or the Eucharist) that is believed to have been ordained by Christ and that is held to be a means of divine grace or to be a sign or symbol of a spiritual reality.”

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“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)

So, what they are saying is that a sacrament is a ritual that one goes through to merit grace from God.  But that is an oxymoron.  No one can merit grace.  It is like saying that I will work for something so that it can be given to me as a free gift!  But it is either a gift or something you worked for – it is one or the other.  It can’t be both:

But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, since otherwise grace is no longer grace. (Romans 11:6 – NASB)

See this link on the sacraments:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2011/01/sacraments-gods-grace-for-sale.html

A Little History

Over the centuries, simple biblical confession has evolved in the Catholic Church into an intricate system involving “penance” (which has all but replaced biblical repentance) by “meriting” grace from God by prayer, suffering, personal works, and even indulgences.  According to the following source, Catholics see Penance as “man’s effort to satisfy God for personal sin through one’s own works.”  See this link:

https://christiantruth.com/articles/penancehistory/

The Catholic Church teaches that private confession to a priest has been the norm from the beginning (Council of Trent, Fourteenth Session, Canon VI).  But this same link above points out the fact that “auricular confession” [private confession to a priest] and “judicial absolution” [official forgiveness granted by a priest] was NOT the practice of the church from the very beginning “since there was no general agreement in the Church about the nature and necessity of such an important issue to as late a period as the 13th century.  It was a matter of debate among Scholastic theologians, most of whom demonstrate that there were conflicting opinions even among the Church Fathers.”

It Must Be to the Priest

Protestants seem to have some serious reservations about Catholic Confession.  So, what’s wrong with confessing your sins?  Don’t Protestants believe in that?  Of course, any biblically-based Protestant believes in confessing his sins.  That’s not the issue.  But the first problem is that Catholics are required to confess any “mortal” sins to a priest.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church repeatedly tells us that confessing to a priest is “essential” or a “must.”  For example:

“It is called the sacrament of confession, since the disclosure or confession of sins to a priest is an essential element of this sacrament…” (CCC #1424)

“Confession to a priest is an essential part of the sacrament of Penance…” (CCC #1456)

“One who desires to obtain reconciliation with God and with the Church, must confess to a priest all the unconfessed grave sins he remembers after having carefully examined his conscience. The confession of venial faults, without being necessary in itself, is nevertheless strongly recommended by the Church.” (CCC #1493)

(See also CCC #1448 and CCC #1449)      

Misreading James

Ok, so what’s wrong with confessing to a priest?  Doesn’t the Bible tell us to confess our sins to the elders/priests in James 5:14-16:

Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

First of all, the New Testament does not recognize ministerial priests, as the Old Testament does.  See this link:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/03/priesthood.html

Second, the New Testament Greek word for priest is “hiereus.”  This Greek word nowhere appears in the New Testament to describe a ministerial priest.  The word for elders in the passage above is “presbuteros,” a totally different term.  And in this context, it is not specifically talking about confessing your sins to get God’s forgiveness, to get a clean slate, as is done in Catholic Confession.  It is talking about “confessing your sins one to another,” that is, the local body of believers admitting their sins and wrongdoing toward each other, forgiving one another.  James 5:14-16 is about praying for the sick and about personal offenses toward other members of the local body. 

Third, the elders are not there to have members confess directly to them, as it is with priests in the Catholic Church.  The Bible never says to confess to a designated person, whether a priest, pastor, bishop, etc.  These can’t see the heart.  Only God can.  So, a man cannot conclusively tell another person that he (that person) is forgiven, since the man doesn’t know his heart; but he can tell him (according to the authority of Scripture) that he is forgiven IF, and only if, he repents and trusts in the gospel of Jesus Christ.  This is the New Testament requirement for salvation (Romans 1:16). 

Again, a man cannot give absolution to another, only God can, since He, and only He, knows all hearts.  Confessing to a priest, even one you trust, may make you feel good and may be comforting, but it is certainly not biblical.  See this link:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2011/08/hi-jacking-of-john-2023.html

Problems with the Box

Not only is private confession to a priest not scriptural, it has caused some serious problems within the Catholic Church.  There is an old (non-fiction) book titled The Woman, the Priest, and the Confessional, and it was written in 1875 by a former priest.  It outlines horror stories of women being betrayed, seduced and basically destroyed by perverted priests who coaxed them in the secrecy of the confessional (under penalty of eternal damnation, of course) to reveal their deepest, darkest secrets and their most sinful desires.  Some priests took full advantage of the opportunities afforded by that private confessional box.  The people trusted the priests going in, but were betrayed.  Not only did these encounters destroy many women, but many priests, as well. 

My Catholic friends, your sins and weaknesses just may be better kept unknown to most people… even your beloved priest!  With a repentant and contrite heart, confess them to God.  He will never betray you.

The book mentioned above is quite old, yet it reads like many of today’s headlines.  I firmly believe the author was telling the truth, but the scandalous and perverted sexual encounters of his day were only to get worse in time…

The Perversion is Far from Gone

A much more recent book, The Dark Box: A Secret History of Confession, by John Cornwell, is another eye-opener.  In a National Catholic Reporter review of his book, Cornwell is painted as possibly “our most gifted and persistent chronicler of Catholicism in the context of the modern world.”  Remember, this is an article by a Catholic news source, not Protestant, and it is worth noting that Cornwell, himself, is a Catholic.

The author of the review stated:

“Confession may be good for the soul -- at least sometimes -- but it has also been used to evil effect by those who would use the secrecy of the sacrament and the power of the priesthood to exploit the vulnerable.”

“In its best passages, The Dark Box connects the sexual obsessions of the earliest priestly celibates with the abuse of confession and the suffering of untold millions of everyday Catholics. For centuries, priests functioned as ‘forensic’ interrogators, coercing or merely persuading men, women and children to reveal the secrets for which they should feel most ashamed. The institutional obsession with sexual sin tells us that clergy were themselves tortured by guilt.”

See the link here:

https://www.ncronline.org/books/2022/06/history-confession-tale-sexual-obsession-exploitation

Conclusion

Confessing your sins is absolutely critical if you want to make it to Heaven.  If you want real forgiveness, confess them directly to God.  No need for a human mediator.  God understands better than anyone else and He knows all your sins before you even open your mouth, even your most secret sins!  Then why tell Him?  Because God wants you to be honest and to humble yourself and admit your sins and your rebellion against Him:

God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble. (James 4:6)

I’m not saying that a Catholic cannot ever be forgiven in the confessional, but he could still be forgiven IN SPITE OF this unbiblical ritual!

Mandatory confession to a priest tends to cause one to trust in a system, rather than in Jesus and His work on the cross.

But I have a question…

If you confess to a priest, then what happens between confessions?  What if you commit a sin after Confession (and you will), and then die before your next confession?  A Catholic may say that God is always fair and He will give you an opportunity to be saved.  Ok, so if that’s true, then what’s the purpose, what’s the need, for confessing to a priest in the first place?

We have a wonderful example in Scripture of the end of the mediation of the priesthood.  The moment that Jesus Christ died on the cross, the great veil in the temple that separated the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies was torn in half… exposing the Ark of the Covenant!  I can’t imagine the horror that was in the faces of the priests who were working in the temple at the time, conducting the evening sacrifice.  No doubt, they thought they were going to die on the spot, since the place of God’s very presence was exposed!

But no, God was making an incredible statement that would ring through time and eternity… WE CAN NOW APPROACH THE LIVING GOD OURSELVES, EVEN CONFIDENTLY, and know that He will hear us.  No more need for a ministerial priesthood to mediate for us:

Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need. (Hebrews 4:16)

Confession directly to God is part of the new and better covenant. (Hebrews 8:6)

 

  

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.