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.

IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH’S UNITY BETTER THAN THAT OF OTHER CHURCHES?

When Catholics debate issues about Bible teaching with Protestants, they will often say, “That’s just your opinion, and just your interpretation of the passage.  You Protestants can’t really know what the Bible says in many cases, since there are so many differences and divisions when interpreting Scripture within Protestantism.  You guys can’t agree on anything!” 

The Catholic Church claims that they are the one true church, specifically, “the one Church of Christ” which is “one, holy, catholic and apostolic” (Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, Lumen Gentium, paragraph 8).

But when Protestants point out the fact that there are many arguments within Catholicism (sometimes even about doctrine), Catholics will backtrack and are forced to admit it, but they’ll say that the Catholic Church is truly unified because it can “officially” settle disputes within its ranks.  They have the pope to do that, and he can do it “infallibly”!

But if that’s true, why do Catholics still have so many arguments with each other?  That fact is undeniable.  In just one recent example, there was an issue about Pope Francis complaining about a prominent Catholic television network (EWTN) that was attacking and insulting him. 

See these links for details:

https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2021/09/21/pope-francis-says-attacks-and-insults-against-him-are-work-of-the-devil/

https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2021/09/21/pope-francis-ewtn-critics-241472

https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatican/pope-francis-issues-thinly-veiled-criticism-ewtn-comments-gender-ideology

In these articles, the pope claims that he doesn’t mind so much EWTN’s criticism of him – what he claims to be against is this Catholic network attacking the Church.  However, it seems that the problems EWTN has with the Catholic Church revolve largely around what the pope, himself, is allowing in the Church!  After all, as the sole “human head” and “Vicar” of the Church, isn’t he the one ultimately responsible for the things going on within the Church?  And isn’t he the one who is supposed to discipline leaders, clarify misunderstandings and establish Catholic teaching?  If Pope Francis is the answer to the problem of disagreements in the Church, then why is there still such major division in Catholic circles today?

It is true that EWTN has had some strong things to say, especially about the liberal-leaning Church leaders, and the way the church is being run.  Some critics are claiming that the pope said that EWTN was a “work of the devil.”

Catholic writer and apologist Dave Armstrong (as well as other pope supporters) claims that Pope Francis did not say EWTN was a “work of the devil,” but that criticizing the Church is.  Maybe the pope meant that, or maybe he didn’t, but isn’t that pretty much the same thing?  If EWTN is attacking the Catholic Church, wouldn’t that also reflect on the pope who runs it?

Furthermore, in his article, Armstrong also names several prominent Catholic people/teachers/publishers with whom he disagrees.  You can find Armstrong’s article here:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2021/09/pope-francis-did-not-say-ewtn-work-of-the-devil.html

So we can see that this “unique” harmony and unity that the Catholic Church claims to enjoy simply does not exist. 

It’s deceptive to claim a “final human authority” who can settle all disputes, when this pope, himself, is chiefly responsible for causing so many of the divisions within his own Church, including contradicting traditional Catholic beliefs that were deeply held for centuries.

Look, divisions are inevitable (1 Corinthians 11:18-19), especially when such large groups are involved.  We Protestants are not complaining about the Catholic Church because it has divisions; every church has them.  We are simply protesting the hypocrisy and pretension involved on the part of Catholic accusations of Protestant divisions, as though Catholics don’t have them.

This whole issue of divisions is simply a distraction used by Catholics to deny the doctrine of “Sola Scriptura” (the Bible alone).  This just means that the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith for the Christian church today.  The idea is not complicated.

Protestants assert that the principles of Scripture are clear enough to settle arguments within the body if simple interpretation principles and common sense are used.  See these links:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2013/07/quick-notes-on-sola-scriptura-part-6.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2014/02/there-aremany-important-choices-that-we.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/12/dialogue-on-bible-interpretation.html

Yes, we must strive for unity in the church (John 17:20-21) – but God wants us to have unity in the TRUTH (John 17:17), not just an external, cosmetic type of unity where everyone says the exact same prayer at the same time and everyone uses the same gestures.

A small church that is unified in biblical truth is vastly superior to a billion-member church that is unified in error.  If we really want unbelievers to be drawn by our unity (John 17:22-23), then this unity must be based on scriptural truth.  A “unity” based on error is worse than irrelevant.  True unity may not come easy, but it is better to be honestly divided, than to have an artificial unity.

So, to answer the question first posed in the title of this article, no, Catholicism’s unity is not any better than anyone else’s.

 

THE CATHOLIC MINDSET

Sometimes in discussions between Catholics and Protestants, it is interesting to see how their minds operate.  Catholics are geared to think one way, while Protestants have a different mentality.  We recently read an article that clearly demonstrated the difference between the two.  The article is titled, “Is Catholicism Biblical? That Question is Backwards!” by Dr. Jeff Mirus.  It can be found here:

http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/the-city-gates.cfm?id=1127

The Cart Before the Horse?

In the article, Mirus recognizes the fact that Protestants (in general) see the Bible as the ultimate authority for the Christian.  According to Protestants, it is (or should be) the Rule of Faith.  But Mirus finds fault with this concept and believes that we Protestants have it all backwards.  He states:

“The key question is not whether Catholicism stands the test of Scripture, but whether Scripture stands the test of Catholicism.” 

He also says that it is “not whether the [Catholic] Church is Scriptural… [but] whether Scripture is Catholic—whether what we call ‘scripture’ is or is not part of the original Revelation which the Church received.”

And again, he says, “The Bible did not give rise to the Catholic Church; the Catholic Church gave rise to the Bible.” 

According to Mirus, this was all because “the Church came first.”  That is, the church was established before the Bible was, and it was the church that then “created the Bible by definitively proclaiming which early writers were inspired and which were not.” 

But is this true?

A Faulty Foundation

All right, notice that Mirus is operating on several false premises:

First, the Scriptures were not at all “created” by the church.  The early church simply recognized the Scriptures (the infallible writings) that God, Himself, created.  It was by His inspiration that every word was divinely spoken, recorded and preserved.  Yes, God used people as instruments to hear it, and to write it down, but He is the Creator of Divine revelation, which contains HIS thoughts and HIS plans (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:19-21).  It is erroneous and arrogant to say that the church “created the Bible.”

Second, the church did not “come first” (i.e., before the Bible).  The Old Testament (which makes up about three-forths of the Bible) has been around for hundreds of years before the church ever existed.  Although the church started before the canon (list of inspired books) was complete, it is not true that the church pre-existed Scripture.  This claim is deceptive, at best.

Third, it seems that every time there is a controversy with Protestants, Catholics will say something like, “But the Catholic Church is right because she gave us the canon!”  This seems to be the “go to” answer in many of their arguments!  But see these links which put this false idea to rest:

http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/sippocanon.html

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2012/02/did-catholic-church-give-us-bible.html

But building upon Mirus’ first two points above, he believes that since it is the church that has recognized which of the books are actually Scripture, that this somehow means that the Bible should be subject to the church.  But recognizing or discovering something does not make you lord over it.  Sir Isaac Newton’s discovery of gravity did not give him any authority over gravity.  He discovered it, but he was still subject to its forces.  Benjamin Franklin’s discovery of electricity in no way made him master over this powerful force, either.  It is the same with the church and Scripture.  The church recognized the inspired books, but the church is still subject to those books’ authority (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

The fourth false premise is the way most Catholics use the word “Church.”  Notice how Mirus uses the term in his article: 

•   “… the Church’s infallible authority.”

•   “… only the Church could identify which books were…inspired…”

•   “What is the judgment of the Church about this text?”

•   “Does the Church judge it to be inspired?”

•   “… only by the authority of the Church…”

•   “…the Tradition and teachings of the Church…”

•   “… Revelation which the Church received.”

In each of these, the Catholic assumes a reference to an infallible hierarchy of leaders within the organization.  This demonstrates the deep-rooted mindset of the devout Catholic.  Now, in contrast, notice how the Bible uses the word “church.”  Note that it is only used in two ways:  as either 1) the local assembly of believers, as a whole (1 Corinthians 1:2; Galatians 1:2; Revelation chapters 1, 2, and 3), or 2) the “universal” body of Christ, including all true believers worldwide (Ephesians 5:23; Colossians 1:17-18).  It is never used in the Bible to refer to a church leader (or leaders) only.  In the way that Mirus uses the seven examples above, none of them fit the biblical definition.  This point is very important, but seems to be missed by most people.  This subtle difference in the misuse of the term “church” is ingrained in the Catholic and it becomes a deep-seated part of his mentality. 

The next time you hear a Catholic use the term “the church,” listen closely and see if he is speaking of the leaders only (for example, “the Church teaches…”, or “the Church’s infallible authority…”)… OR, if is he using it biblically.  Substitute his use of it with the phrase “local assembly of believers,” or “the universal church worldwide” to see if his meaning actually lines up with the way the Bible uses the term.

Who Serves Who?

Catholics will officially claim that the Catholic Church serves Scripture (“Dei Verbum,” Chapter 2, paragraph 10), which would make their Church a SERVANT thereof, but it is obvious in practice that they see their Magisterium as ABOVE the Bible.  For example:

If the Bible says A about a particular topic, but the Ecumenical Councils say B, the Catholic will go with B.

If the Bible says C, but “Sacred Tradition” says D, the Catholic will choose D.

If the Bible says X, but church fathers say Y, the Catholic will say Y.

Time and time again, the Bible is put on the back burner so that the Catholic Church can be exalted.

It is hard to take the Catholic Church’s supposed “servant” status toward the Bible seriously, when Catholics like Dr. Mirus write this kind of article.

Word Games

In this next pitiful attempt to weaken the authority of Scripture, Mirus said:

“But Revelation was not given to a book but to persons. Revelation was not even given originally in and through a book. It was given by Jesus Christ to His apostles and disciples.” 

But saying that revelation is not given to a book, but to persons, is like saying that money is not given to a bank, but to tellers.  The point is, the money eventually ends up in the bank and is stored and protected there.  In the same way, infallible revelation is ultimately “stored” in the Bible, even if first given to men.

Conclusion

Yes, folks, this is the mentality of the devout Catholic.  He claims to have equal devotion to Scripture and to the Church’s Tradition (CCC #82), but in practice, the Bible often takes a back seat.

Jeff Mirus’ article is a good example of many Catholics’ condescending attitude toward the Bible.  Saying things like, “[it’s] not whether Catholicism stands the test of Scripture, but whether Scripture stands the test of Catholicism,” is not only untrue, but it also clearly demonstrates arrogance.  You can’t say things like that and still have a truly healthy respect for Scripture (See Psalm 119).  It is the Catholic Church’s great (and false) claims about itself that give rise to this type of mindset.