Works-based Salvation

Faith and Works

          In order to grow our understanding that Catholics and Protestants have more in common than many might realize, we’ll continue our discussion with Faith and Works.

          In many publications, certain Protestants state that Catholic teaching on salvation is “works based.”  “Works based salvation” in this context seems to mean “earning your way to heaven”; a person only needs to do certain practices to be “saved” or go to heaven.  The accusation is that no belief in God is necessary.

          In an online chat conversation with the web master of a local Protestant radio station, I was told by my interlocker, who identified as “ex-Catholic”, the Catholic Church did not teach it was necessary to believe in Jesus Christ to go to heaven, you only needed to say certain prayers, go to church and do certain things to go to heaven, according to this person’s understanding of Catholicism.  They even claimed to have a Catholic Catechism implying the Catholic Church taught works based salvation.  When I asked for a specific quote from the Catholic Catechism, they were unable to give me one.

          I know most Protestants are not as ardent as this particular one was, but the knowledge is in the water in most Protestant circles, as it were, that Catholicism teaches that faith is not necessary, only works (works being defined as trying to be good enough without God).

          This is entirely false. 

First, the belief that one can be saved, without Grace, by just doing good works is called ‘Pelagianism.’[1]  The Catholic Church condemned Pelagianism in the 5^th Century.  The Catholic Church even condemned ‘semi-Pelagianism’ the belief that God does His part in salvation and man, separate from God, does his part.

          On the contrary the Catechism of the Catholic Church states unequivocally, “’Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation.’ Since ‘without faith it is impossible to please [God]’ and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life ‘But he who endures to the end.’”[2] (Emphasis added). In addition, the Catholic Church teaches that Justification is by Grace alone, through faith.[3]

          So what is this about works?  I mean, everyone knows Catholics think they must do good works to go to heaven, right?  Yes, BUT… these are not works separate from God’s Grace.  In a nutshell, Catholicism teaches that God’s Grace is SO POWERFUL it not only makes our faith salvific, but our works as well. 

“…work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.” Phil 2:12-13;

“For by Grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God – not because of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” Eph 2:8-10

“You see that faith was active along with his [Abraham’s] works, and faith was completed by his works, and the scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness”; and he was called friend of God.” Jam 2:22-23.

          According to official Catholic teaching, all these passages show God acts first – Grace is present first.  Grace then empowers belief and good works.[4] 

‘Merit’ is the word the Catholic Church uses for good works that are a result of God’s Grace working in us.  This is often misunderstood by Protestants who believe merit means we can force God, through our actions, to give us heaven.  Quite the contrary, the Catholic Church states that strictly speaking man has no right to merit anything apart from God and any merit is first and last entirely due to God’s Grace.[5]

Far from condoning a “works based salvation,” the Catholic Church teaches that without faith – which is only possible as an unearned gift from God (i.e. Grace) – no one is ever justified, nor will anyone get to heaven.

          To end, here’s a little story that shows Catholic teaching on Salvation, Grace, Faith and Works:  There was a man who died and found himself at the Pearly Gates.  In front of the gates was a kiosk with St. Peter sitting inside.  St. Peter called the man up and said, “I need you to tell me all the good things you’ve done in your life.  I will put them into my computer and they’ll be scored.  When you reach a score of 1000, you can enter heaven.”

          A big smile crossed the man’s face.  He immediately said, “I went to church every Sunday, Holy Day and most other days as well.”

          St. Peter typed on his computer and a few seconds later said, “Very good.  That’s 1 point.”

          “One point?!?” gasped the man.  “Ok, my wife and I ran a soup kitchen for 30 years where we served dozens of people, three meals a day, seven days a week.”

          St. Peter looked at his computer.  “Very good.  That’s another point!”

          The man blanched and a cold sweat came upon his brow.  “Um, I was married to my wife for 50 years.  I was a virgin when we married and I never so much as thought about another woman!”

          “Great!  Another point!”

          The man began to get desperate, his knees began to shake.  “I said a Rosary every day for my entire life!”

          “Wow!  That’s a half a point!”

          At this the man collapsed onto his knees.  The realization of his unworthiness hit him like a ton of bricks.  He began to sob.  “The only way I’m going to get in is by the Grace of God!”

          “Congratulations, that’s 1000 points.  Welcome to heaven!”

This is Catholic teaching.

---

[1] Named after Pelagius, a 5^th Century heretical theologian who taught Original Sin did not exist and essentially that man could save himself without God’s help.

[2] CCC 161

[3] cf CCC 1983, 1996-2005

[4] Note that the Ephesians passages denotes a difference between ‘works’ – believed to be a reference to ‘Works of the Law’ or the Jewish ritualistic cleanliness laws – and ‘good works’ which are not only not condemned, but shown to be the reason for our existence!

[5] Cf CCC 2006-2011

Let us indulge...

Indulgences

          In the days leading up to, and on, Oct. 31^st indulgences were center stage in many Protestant articles.  The major problem was, not one I read got indulgences right.  To be fair, most Catholics couldn’t tell you what an indulgence is and admittedly, at the time of the Reformation, Catholics were not well educated about their faith, including Martin Luther, especially about indulgences.  So, what are they?

          It might be helpful to start with what they are not.  One Protestant video stated that indulgences were where the Catholic Church “bought and sold salvation.”[1]  Another video implied indulgences were giving money to a priest who then “promised a better heaven.”[2]  Most commonly, even among poorly catechized Catholics, I have heard that indulgences were purchased as a “get out of sinning free” card.  These are all false.

          To begin to understand indulgences we must first explore the consequences of sin.  All Christians would agree there is an eternal consequence to sin (Well, ok, all Christians who believe in sin and hell, which is a decreasing number these days).  The Catholic Church teaches unequivocally, drawing from Scripture, only God can forgive the eternal consequences due to sin.[3]  Protestants and Catholics might disagree on the method or medium He has chosen to use, but that is a topic for another day.

          Recognizing what Scripture and reason show us, there are more than just the eternal consequences due to sin: there are also temporal consequences.  Many Protestants might be tempted to balk at this, but it might be helpful to know that even anti-Catholic groups agree.[4] 

          We all understand what the Catholic Church means by an eternal consequence: hurting or killing our relationship with God.  But what about “temporal consequence?”  Another way to say this is “temporal punishment” or punishment resulting from our sin that we experience in this life.  So is the Catholic Church saying that even though we are forgiven of the eternal consequences due to our sin we might still be punished?  Yup and I think we all agree with this when we take time to think about it.

How does this work?  Let’s say I steal $1,000.00 from you.  Later I have a change of heart and I ask God for forgiveness.  For the sake of argument let us say I am completely sincere.  Then I come and ask you for forgiveness.  I presume, being a Christian, you would forgive me.  Is that it?  Is everything all done?  No, of course not.  I must give back the money and even if I do there are also legal consequences to face regardless of the forgiveness I received from you and God.

Another example – one that shows the error in that previously cited anti-Catholic website’s thinking – would our parents still punish us by making us clean up a broken window even after forgiving us for breaking it?  As a father I say, oh heck yeah!  Why?  Because parents understand there is benefit for the child in it.

Wait what?  Did you just say there’s value in punishment and suffering??

The Catholic Church recognizes there is great value to suffering, as there was for Christ.  Christ’s suffering is what lead to our redemption and salvation being offered to all.  We have Christ living in us, so His power can make our suffering redemptive, in a much smaller but very real sense.  I don’t want to get lost in a fuller explanation of redemptive suffering so I’m going to skip a lot.  Sometimes God still lets us experience the punishment due to our sin to help us, among other things, realize the seriousness of our sins, to teach us not to do it again, to make reparations for our actions and thereby continue us down the path of sanctification.

          So how about Scripture?  Where is any of this in Scripture?  There are numerous examples of sin having both eternal and temporal consequences.  A good start is in the beginning of the Bible: Genesis 3:16-24.  This is after Adam and Eve disobeyed God.  We can see both consequences at play.  Listed first is all the temporal punishments that both Adam and Eve will experience because of their sin.  At the end of the passage is the eternal consequence: they’re kicked out of Eden, or their perfect relationship with God.

          Another example is King David.  King David committed adultery with Bathsheba and then murdered her husband, Uri’ah (1 Sam 11:2-22).  After Nathan confronts David – including one temporal consequence: “Now therefore the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised me…” (1 Sam 11:10) – we see the eternal consequence dealt with and another temporal consequence: “David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” And Nathan said to David, “The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die. Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the Lord, the child that is born to you shall die.” (1 Sam 11:13-14).  We see that God forgives David’s sin but he still must suffer punishment.

          So… what is an indulgence?  “An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven…”[5]

          I want to point out something: “…whose guilt has already been forgiven…”  An indulgence cannot be “buying forgiveness” because one must be forgiven before one can obtain an indulgence.

          How does someone get an indulgence?  First it is helpful to say that an indulgence is granted only through Christ’s power of binding and loosing given to the Church and specifically Peter.[6]  Someone obtains an indulgence through holy practices, prayers and disposition.  Two types of indulgences can be obtained: partial and plenary.  Plenary means all temporal punishment yet due to our sin has been removed.  Partial is exactly as it sounds: only a part of the temporal punishment is removed; how much is known by God alone.

          Why wouldn’t everyone just get a plenary indulgence?  Because it may not be possible for them: one of the conditions is to be free from the desire and attachment to all sin.  If someone attempts to obtain a plenary indulgence but does not meet all the conditions a partial may still be obtained.

          So, what is all this about selling indulgences?  I hope you can see that the sale of indulgences isn’t possible.  As a matter of fact abusing the granting of indulgences is, and always has been, considered sinful by the Catholic Church.  It is well known that these abuses have happened throughout Catholic Church history by individuals – the Church’s teaching on them has never changed, only become more detailed.  In some cases, Catholic clergy were saying if you donated money to the Church you could obtain an indulgence.  Giving alms (donating money) was one of the practices one could do to obtain an indulgence.  What the abuse seemed to be was ignoring the rest of the conditions (confession, prayers and freedom from all attachment to sin) in favor of just giving money.  This was misunderstood by some, like Martin Luther, to be “buying” an indulgence.  Bad catechesis existed back then too, and Martin Luther seems to have believed that indulgences were about forgiving eternal consequences, hence “buying salvation.”  If this was the intent of some of the Catholic clergy at the time – which I do not doubt – those “indulgences” were not real, did not do anything and were a sin on the part of those clergy.

          There is more that could be said but I feel we’ve gone over enough information to see there is a whole bunch of misinformation out there about Catholic indulgences and most of what you’ve heard is probably wrong.

          Now what questions do you have that we can discuss?

         

---

[1] YouTube video “Why TODAY is a Big Deal (Oct 31, 2017)” Warrior Poets Rally Point

[2] www.lightunshackled.com Intro video.  There is much more incorrect information in this video.  Some of which I will address in future items of discussion.

[3] Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) paragraph 1441

[4] www.justforcatholics.org “Temporal Punishment”, “We readily affirm that sin has temporal and eternal consequences…”

[5] CCC 1471

[6] CCC 1478 cf Mt 16:16-18, 18:15-18.

Let's Begin a Dialogue part 2

Definitions and Source Material

     I failed to mention in my intro piece: I use the term “Protestant” colloquially.  I know many Christians do not consider themselves “Protestant” per se but we need a term that denotes the religious or spiritual decedents of the Reformation. 

    Special considerations: I do note that our Orthodox brothers and sisters, often unjustly overlooked, are not ‘Protestants’.  I do not include them in this term.  I also do not include Mormons (Latter Day Saints) or Jehovah’s Witnesses in the term; by definition they are not Christian.  I do, however, include Baptists.[1]    

     None of this is to belittle or besmirch anyone’s religion. We merely need to have a simple term when discussing the group of Christians that are not Catholic, not Orthodox, descendants doctrinally from Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli and / or the other Reformers.

     I also will not use the term “Roman” Catholic.  This term is very misleading.  There are 24 rites within Catholicism.  The Latin rite (nicknamed “Roman”) is just one of them.  To refer only to “Roman Catholicism” is to leave out a large portion of Catholics some of which have different practices (like celibacy).  The term “Catholic” means “Universal;” It always has and still does today. 

Source Material

      Let’s say we want to know George Washington’s thoughts on a particular topic.  We could try asking a friend who’s read a book about George Washington.  This person might be able to tell us what George’s thoughts were, but we have to recognize that the information is being filtered through several hands: 1^st George’s, 2^nd the book’s author and 3^rd the friend’s.  The reliability of that information is more suspect because of all the steps from the source to us.  The best way to find out what George's thoughts on a particular topic is to read George Washington’s diary, in full, to get not only his thoughts but the context as well. 

     Sometimes we don’t have the time for that so we rely on authorities, such as a PhD in History with Revolutionary War and George Washington emphases.  But we must acknowledge that any step away from George’s own words is an opening for error, interpretation and biases.  We must also recognize the possibility of our own interpretation and biases even if we read George’s words directly.

     The same holds true for religious teaching of any kind.  Many, many times I shake my head when false claims about a religion (Catholic, Protestant or other) are made using secondary sources as their support.   Now a days, a simple internet search for official teaching / practices of a given religion could have set things strait, lead to a greater understanding of the religion or at least saved a misconception from being perpetuated.

     Two examples: In com boxes I have seen Protestants accused of “book worship.”  A simple search of Luther’s Short Catechism or the Westminster Confessional or other Protestant denominational teaching documents would show that the only worshiping Protestants do is of God alone.  To state otherwise is a sin against the Commandment “Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbor.”

     In turn, I commonly hear Catholics accused of worshiping Mary, Saints, statues or bread.  Again, a simple search of the Catechism of the Catholic Church would show that Catholics do not worship anyone or thing but God alone.[2]

    When trying to discuss what another religion believes it is imperative that we represent that teaching correctly.  Primary source material is best, however, an expert in that field is second best.  We, again, must also recognize that our own biases and interpretations may taint what the reality is about that religion’s teachings.

A word about denominations, personal experience and member examples

     I do recognize a difficulty in presenting an authentic Protestant teaching: there are many different Protestant denominations that believe different things.  When presenting a Protestant teaching, it is helpful to state which denomination the teaching comes from and what source one is using to present the teaching.  For example, I would not say, “Protestants believe in the Perseverance of the Saints (aka Once Saved Always Saved)” because many Protestant denominations believe you can lose your salvation.  But I could say “5 Point Calvinist denominations believe in the Perseverance of the Saints.”

   This point is less problematic about Catholicism.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church is the teaching document for all Catholics.  Please note that the paragraphs there in are more like thesis paragraphs and not all encompassing.  Also note that a given topic is sometimes covered several times in different ways and places in the Catechism.

Personal Experience as Evidence

     Some reading this may have been Catholic and became Protestant.  Some may have been raised Protestant and became Catholic.  Some here may have been raised Protestant, became Catholic, then returned to Protestantism.  Some here, like me, may have been raised Catholic, became Protestant and then returned to Catholicism.  Whatever the case, we may have people that have personal experience on both ‘sides’, if you will. 

     Personal experience, in my opinion, has some merit, provided it is an example of authentic teaching.  For example, someone might say that Protestants teach that the Holy Spirit is like the Force in Star Wars because someone once taught them that in a church bible study or even from the pulpit.  This is not reflected in any Protestant teaching document I know of and therefore, in my humble opinion, would not be a good example of personal experience.

      However, if someone says, “I remember being taught….” and it can be shown in teaching documents that it is an authentic belief, then that is a good example of personal experience.

     Finally, member examples, like personal examples, can have merit.  If a person acted in accordance to their religious beliefs that can be a good use of member example.  However, if a person is acting against their religious beliefs, that is a bad use of member examples.

    These ground rules will help us to get past the smoke of misconception, misrepresentation and flat out canards and on to rational discussion on substantive issues.

    Ok, I promise next essay will be an actual issue: Indulgences!

---

[1] There is a claim that Baptists are descendants of St. John the Baptist (See ‘Trail of Blood’) but this claim has been refuted by Baptists themselves: http://www.covenantlegacy.com/mopping-up-the-trail-of-blood-part-1/ It is historically verifiable that the Baptist denomination was started by Thomas Helwys in 1612 as an off-shoot of Calvinism. 

[2] Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part 3, Section 2, Chapter 1, Article 1 “The First Commandment”, paragraphs 2084-2141

Let's begin a dialogue...

         With the celebration of the 500 year anniversary of Martin Luther nailing his 95 theses to the doors of the Wittenberg Cathedral now past, I would like to begin a dialogue.  I maintained a respectful silence while brothers and sisters in Christ celebrated what they believe is ultimately the beginning of the way they get closer to Christ.  Getting closer to Christ is something I support and rejoice in as well.  Obviously I would disagree on the method.

          I am going to be presenting a series of essays regarding some of the things I heard leading up to and on Oct 31^st.

          I am not going to be posting these as an enemy of Protestantism, as an agitator and certainly not to proselytize.  The purpose I see is twofold: 

1)    To bring Catholics and Protestants closer together in understanding one another.  The world no longer cares what “denomination” we are.  The world will try to imprison us all just the same.  If I must be in prison I would rather know that the Catholic / Protestant cellmate of mine is an ally and Brother / Sister in Christ rather than believing them to be an enemy.

2)    To present authentic Catholicism and bring a little ruach to the smoke of deception / misunderstanding the swirls around Catholicism…. And there is a LOT of misconceptions believed by both Catholics and Protestants about Catholicism.

I welcome all respectful comments both on the blog here and on the Facebook page.  If we do not talk respectfully we cannot hope to understand that we share far more in common than we disagree on.  While the disagreements are important, it is as important that we understand what each side means before we point out differences.  Many of the rancor, accusations and finger-pointing has come from misunderstanding the other side’s meaning.  If we maintain this misrepresentation and misinformation we risk sinning against the Commandment, “Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbor.” 

If we do not gain understanding we cannot hope to show the world that Jesus Christ is Lord! (cf Jn 17:20-23).