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
