Roman Catholicism offers a "plan of salvation" based on the individual Roman Catholic's merits, or works.
The Council of Trent, in countering the Protestant teaching that we are saved by grace apart from works, made the following very clear proclamations:
If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works, but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of its increase, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA [5]
Notice the phrase "the cause of its increase." The infallible council has proclaimed that it is our good works that causes justification to increase.
If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA [6]
Again, it is clear that Rome does not subscribe to salvation by "faith alone."
If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit an increase of grace, eternal life, and in case he dies in grace, the attainment of eternal life itself and also an increase of glory, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA [7]
With this canon, Rome has decreed that our salvation is due to our own merits.
If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA [8]
Interestingly, "the gospel" could accurately be defined as, "confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ's sake, and it is this confidence alone that justifies us." Yet Rome emphatically anathematizes anyone who holds to that definition. We shall shortly see that the Bible holds the exact position Rome anathematizes.
As we read through many of the infallible councils, we will note that many of the canons end with the phrase "let him be anathema." The following is what the Roman Catholic Church means when they use the term "anathema."
Anathema signifies also to be overwhelmed with maledictions, as in I Cor., xvi, 22: "If any man love not our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema." At an early date the Church adopted the word anathema to signify the exclusion of a sinner from the society of the faithful; but the anathema was pronounced chiefly against heretics. All the councils, from the Council of Nicea to that of the Vatican, have worded their dogmatic canons: "If any one says . . . let him be anathema". Nevertheless, although during the first centuries the anathema did not seem to differ from the sentence of excommunication, beginning with the sixth century a distinction was made between the two. A Council of Tours desires that after three warnings... he may fall into the curse of Judas, and "that he may be not only excommunicated, but anathematized, and that he may be stricken by the sword of Heaven". This distinction was introduced into the canons of the Church, as is proved by the letter of John VIII (872-82) found in the Decree of Gratian... "Know that Engeltrude is not only under the ban of excommunication, which separates her from the society of the brethren, but under the anathema, which separates from the body of Christ, which is the Church." [9]
Anathema is more than mere excommunication, but goes further to actually be "stricken by the sword of Heaven," separated from the body of Christ.
We've seen that the Roman Catholic Church has been very clear in its infallible proclamations that our own merits are necessary for salvation, (i.e. being made right with God, or being justified.) The Bible likewise is very clear about what is necessary for salvation.
In countering the Galatian heretics who taught that one needed to follow the Law of Moses in order to be saved, the Apostle Paul infallibly wrote:
"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" (Galatians 2:16, emphasis mine).
The "works of the law" are acts that we perform, and Paul made it clear that nobody will ever be right with God based on his or her own works. Here "faith" is clearly contrasted with "works."
"For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them" (Galatians 3:10).
Paul's warning against trusting in your own works is even stronger here, calling anyone who trusts in the law "under the curse." Why? Because it is impossible to fulfil the Law! Nobody is good enough, so it is a curse to seek to be justified that way. Compare this with what he wrote in Romans 3:10: "There is none righteous, no, not one."
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9, emphasis mine).
This verse counters all that Rome has said on the subject. Indeed we are saved by grace, and not by works! And we should be very thankful for that because if salvation were by works, none of us would be good enough to achieve it. The Apostle Paul understood, as should we, that believing in salvation by works, as Rome does, is due to having an inappropriate and inaccurate view of man's goodness. The Bible teaches that we have no goodness in and of ourselves that would impress God and prompt him to grant us eternal life. When we understand the Biblical concept of our total depravity, then we realize the ridiculousness of believing in works salvation.
To the church at Philippi, Paul wrote:
"Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith" (Philippians 3:8-9, emphasis mine).
Notice the wording "not having mine own righteousness." If Paul, the great apostle, had no righteousness to earn salvation, then neither can we!
And there are many more Bible verses that show consistently and conclusively that salvation is by grace and not by works:
"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; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life" (Titus 3:5-7, emphasis mine).
"Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight" (Romans 3:20).
"Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Romans 3:24, emphasis mine).
"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law" (Romans 3:28, emphasis mine).
In Romans, chapter 11, Paul concludes:
"Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work" (Romans 11:5-6).
The Bible is clear: grace plus works does not equal grace!!!
Bible teacher John MacArthur summed up the gospel as, "Christ's righteousness imputed to you; your sin to Him." [10]
Not only does Rome teach salvation by works, but also teaches that through our works we can lose our salvation.
Roman Catholicism teaches that the "grace of justification" can be gained and lost, gained and lost. Trent said,
"Those who through sin have forfeited the received grace of justification, can again be justified when, moved by God, they exert themselves to obtain through the sacrament of penance the recovery, by the merits of Christ, of the grace lost. (Council of Trent, session 6, 'Decree on Justification,' chapter 14)" [11]
Jesus promised eternal life based on what he had done. The Word of God promises: "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God" (1 John 5:13).
It's that simple. We who know Jesus can know that we have (present tense) eternal life. You can't have eternal life for a while and then not have it. Can you imagine someone saying, "Yeah, I had eternal life for ten minutes?"
What's so eternal about that?
Jesus said: "And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day" (John 6:39-40).
The Bible is clear that we can know that eternal life is our present possession. Yet Rome teaches that you can lose your salvation.
James White insightfully points out the implications of Rome's plan of salvation:
"Works-salvation" would refer to the concept that human works are necessary for salvation; that is, that the work of Christ, in and of itself, without human works, actually saves no one at all. If it is asserted that Christ's work is dependent upon the actions of humankind, and that God has simply made a way of salvation available that is still dependent upon works (whether these be penances, baptism, whatever), this is "works-salvation." [12]
White is spot-on; if Rome is correct, then Jesus doesn't save anyone. If Rome is correct, then we can boast when we get to heaven.
John Ankerberg and John Weldon point out what is required for Roman Catholics to get into heaven:
In sharp contrast to the Bible, the Catholic doctrine of salvation teaches or implies that actual forgiveness of sins comes not only by faith in Christ, but also through many or all of the following: a) the sacraments, such as baptism and penance, b) participation in the Mass, c) the help of the virgin Mary, d) recitation of the rosary, and e) purgatorial suffering after death. [13]
D. James Kennedy summarizes this way:
I was just reading some of the things which [The Roman Catholic Church] tells a person they must do in order to receive the grace of justification. Consider these things: they must love and worship God, to pray, fasting, they must love one's neighbor, they must practice self-renunciation, obey the commandments of God, bear witness to the Catholic faith, follow supernatural inspiration in deeds, confess the major doctrines of the church, and if they do all of these things, they may become worthy of justification. But the Bible says that God justifies the ungodly, and that we are justified apart from works. In the third chapter of Romans, where Paul gives the fullest statement of the gospel, he concludes with this concluding statement, "Therefore we conclude, that a man is justified by faith, apart from the works of the law." [14]
White outlines four differences between Biblical Justification and Roman Catholic Justification:
- We differ on the meaning and extent of the term "justification."
- We differ on the meaning of the term "impute" or "imputation."
- We differ on the means by which justification takes place. Is it faith alone, or faith plus works?
- Finally, we differ on the grounds or basis upon which sinful people can be justified.
When God imputes the righteousness of Christ to us, He is again acting as sovereign judge, crediting us with the works of another: Jesus Christ. He is not merely handing us something, for we could drop such a precious gift or in some other way fail to properly handle it. He is not infusing something into us, making a change in us as a person. Instead, as judge, He imputes to our account the righteousness of another, so that He can properly and rightly look at us and say, "This person is righteous. He is free and has peace with me." [15]
R. C. Sproul points out the dilemma of those who hold to Rome's plan of salvation:
God is just; God is righteous; and I'm not. How can I possibly survive a tribunal before a just and holy God since I know that that God requires and demands perfect righteousness for Him to justify anyone? And so the issue in the 16th century was not whether God demands righteousness in order for Him to declare somebody just; the issue was "where do we get that righteousness?" The Protestant view was this: that the only righteousness that has the merit necessary to meet the requirements of the holiness of God is that righteousness that was achieved and performed by Jesus Christ and by Jesus Christ alone. [16]
As when we analyze any religious system, it is vital that we define our words accurately. One error of Catholicism is that they make no distinction between justification and sanctification.
In Roman Catholic theology justification and sanctification are synonymous; in Protestant theology a very important distinction is made between the two terms. God changes us in regeneration and sanctification; God declares us righteous in justification. Anyone who is justified will be sanctified. It is impossible to separate justification and sanctification, but it is absolutely necessary to distinguish them. [17]
Martin Luther used a dunghill to illustrate our salvation. Imagine an offensive, odorous dunghill. Luther used this image to describe how we are before salvation. Continuing the analogy, Luther described salvation as God covering the dunghill with a pure blanket.
James White writes:
...in the same way, the believer is not changed subjectively by justification, but is covered over with an 'alien righteousness,' the 'righteousness of another,' that being the righteousness of Christ...
From Rome's viewpoint, the 'grace of justification' actually changes the dunghill into a pile of gold, so that, since it is now pleasing to God, it merits eternal life. As we noted from Karl Keating,
"The soul becomes objectively pleasing to God and so merits heaven. It merits heaven because now it is actually good." (Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, 1998, pp.167-168)
Now surely it would seem that such an illustration is far more attractive than Luther's dunghill. However, if we probe a bit further, we realize the subtle danger that Luther saw so clearly. In Rome's concept, that pile of gold can, by the commission of a mortal sin, be instantly transformed back into a pile of dung! Through the commission of venial sins and through the imperfect performance of penances, the pile of gold can become impure, so that spots of dung again cling to its shiny surface. [18]
In contrast to Rome's view of changing the dunghill into gold, the Bible teaches that God covers the dunghill.
Ankerberg and Weldon describe the situation this way:
The Bible teaches that justification is God's work of grace in Christ declaring the believer righteous. It is not God's work of grace in man to actually make him righteous, which is sanctification. [19]
In his excellent book, Conversations with Catholics, James McCarthy wrote:
Furthermore, what the Catholic Church calls grace is not grace at all. Roman Catholic grace is something that affixes to the soul. Catholics obtain it initially through baptism. It increases through reception of the Eucharist and other sacraments. Additional Catholic grace can be earned by performing good works. It can also be lost by committing a mortal sin, and regained through the sacrament of confession. [20]
From the day that a Catholic is baptized until the day he dies, he is on probation with God. Life is a trial during which he must prove by his faith and obedience that he is worthy of heaven. His eternal salvation hangs in the balance. [21]
And C. D. Cole expressed the dire situation of the Roman Catholic like this:
Romanism is a complicated system of salvation by works. It offers salvation on the installment plan, then sees to it that the poor sinner is always behind in his payments, so that when he dies there is a large unpaid balance, and he must continue payments by sufferings in purgatory, or until the debt is paid by the prayer, alms, and sufferings of his living relatives and friends. The whole system and plan calls for merit and money from the cradle to the grave and even beyond. Surely the wisdom that drew such a plan of salvation is not from above. [22]
Listen to the words of the Roman Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott:
The reason for the uncertainty of the state of grace lies in this that without a special revelation nobody can with certainty of faith know whether or not he has fulfilled all the conditions which are necessary for achieving justification. [23]
Please note the language Ott uses: "uncertainty," "conditions" and "achieving justification."
Under the Roman Catholic system, one cannot know for certain that he or she is justified.
In stark contrast, the Bible teaches:
"These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life" (1 John 5:13).
As Christians, the Bible tells us that we can know for certain that we have eternal life, and that we are presently at peace with God.
Peace with God is the present possession of the justified believer. This is not a peace that is transient; it is not a mere truce in a war that might again erupt at any time. This is a lasting peace, based upon the permanent cessation of hostilities. [24]
So the real issue is this: is God's grace sufficient to bring about justification, or must human merit be added to the grace of God? [25]
The second chapter of James' epistle is a key scriptural hotbed when debating salvation by faith versus works.
"What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?... Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone... But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?... Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only... For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also" (James 2:14,17,20-21,24,26).
So there it is! The Bible says that Abraham was "justified by works!" And then it says, "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." Shouldn't that be the end of the discussion?
Not exactly. As with any Bible passage, we must look at the context to understand what is being discussed. In Romans, chapter 4, Paul states explicitly that Abraham was justified by faith. To make his case, Paul quotes Genesis 15:6 at Romans 4:3.
"And [Abraham] believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness" (Genesis 15:6).
In James chapter 2, James says that Abraham was justified by works. But James did not appeal to Genesis chapter 15 like Paul did. To back up his claim, James appealed to the story of Abraham sacrificing Isaac, which happened in Genesis chapter 22.
Paul was speaking of Abraham being made right with God (salvation) which happened in Genesis chapter 15. James' use of the word "justify" is an entirely different thing than Paul. James referred to Genesis chapter 22, but Abraham had already been justified (in the sense of "being made right with God") seven chapters before!
So there is no conflict between Paul's claim that Abraham was justified by faith and James' claim that Abraham was justified by works.
[In James chapter 2], to 'justify' does not mean to be reconciled to God but to demonstrate the truth of a prior claim. [26]
Pastor John MacArthur sheds light on this passage as follows:
2:14 if someone says. This important phrase governs the interpretation of the entire passage. James does not say that this person actually has faith, but that he claims to have it...
does not have. Again, the verb's form describes someone who continually lacks any external evidence of the faith he routinely claims...
Can faith save him? Better translated, "Can that kind of faith save?" James is not disputing the importance of faith. Rather, he is opposing the notion that saving faith can be a mere intellectual exercise void of a commitment to active obedience... The grammatical form of the question demands a negative answer.
2:21 justified by works. This does not contradict Paul's clear teaching that Abraham was justified before God by grace alone through faith alone (Rom. 3:20; 4:1-25; Gal. 3:6,11). For several reasons, James cannot mean that Abraham was constituted righteous before God because of his own good works:
- James already stressed that salvation is a gracious gift (1:17,18);
- in the middle of this disputed passage (v. 23), James quoted Gen. 15:6, which forcefully claims that God credited righteousness to Abraham solely on the basis of his faith... and
- the work that James said justified Abraham was his offering up of Isaac (Gen. 22:9,12), an event that occurred many years after he first exercised faith and was declared righteous before God (Gen. 12:1-7; 15:6).
Instead, Abraham's offering of Isaac demonstrated the genuineness of his faith and the reality of his justification before God. James is emphasizing the vindication before others of a man's claim to salvation. James' teaching perfectly complements Paul's writings; salvation is determined by faith alone (Eph. 2:8,9) and demonstrated by faithfulness to obey God's will alone (Eph. 2:10). [27]
Bible teacher R. C. Sproul makes James chapter 2 clear like this:
2:14 Can faith save. This introduces the crucial issue of the relationship between faith and works. The question under scrutiny is, What kind of faith is saving faith? James's question is rhetorical; the obvious answer is that faith without works cannot save. Faith that yields no deeds is not saving faith. The New Testament does not teach justification by the profession of faith or the claim to faith; it teaches justification by the possession of true faith.
2:21 justified. James appeals to Abraham as his chief exhibit of one who is justified by his works. This involves no conflict with Paul who also appeals to Abraham as the chief exhibit of one justified by faith. Note that James appeals to Gen. 22, while Paul appeals to Gen. 15. In the sight of God Abraham is justified in Gen. 15, long before he offers Isaac on the altar. God knew Abraham's faith to be genuine. Abraham is justified to us, to human eyes, in Gen. 22 when he shows his faith through his obedience.
Jesus used the same verb in Luke 7:35 when he declared "wisdom is justified by all her children" (i.e., shown to be genuine wisdom by its results). Here, to "justify" does not mean to be reconciled to God but to demonstrate the truth of a prior claim. Just as true wisdom is demonstrated by its fruit, Abraham's claim to faith is justified by his outward obedience. Yet his works were not the meritorious cause of his salvation; they added no merit to the perfect and sufficient merit of Christ. [28]
Sometimes Roman Catholics believe that Evangelical Christians are against good works, but this is not the case! All Bible-believing Christians ought to be fully in favor of good works. Good works are the natural fruit of salvation!
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them" (Ephesians 2:8-10, emphasis mine).
Both the Catholic and the Evangelical agree that good works are essential. The debate lies in where good works fit in relation to salvation. Do we perform good works in order to get saved? Or do we perform good works as a result of being saved?
We have been created in Christ Jesus unto good works - not by good works, not with the help of good works, but that we might perform good works! First comes full salvation from God, then, as a result, the works prompted by the Holy Spirit of God. [29]
We have already looked at many Bible passages that consistently teach that we are not saved as a result of good works. Good works are the fruit of salvation, not the seed.
Good works, of course, are pleasing to God and they have an important and necessary place in the life of the Christian. They naturally follow if one has true faith, and they are performed out of love and gratitude to God for the great salvation that He has bestowed. Good works, in other words, are not the cause and basis of salvation, but rather the fruits and proof of salvation. "Not by works done in righteousness which we did ourselves, but according to His mercy He saved us through the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5.) The born-again Christian produces good works as naturally as the grapevine produces grapes. They are a part of his very nature. He performs them not to get saved, but because he is saved. [30]
Philippians 2:12 is a favorite verse for Roman Catholics to use to prove that salvation comes via good works.
"Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" (Philippians 2:12, emphasis mine).
One Roman Catholic publication puts it this way:
"Are you saved?" asks the fundamentalist. "I am redeemed", answers the Catholic,. "and like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling" (Phil 2:12) - with a firm hope but not with a false assurance - and I do all this as the Church has taught, unchanged, from the time of Christ." [31]
So what are we to make of Philippians 2:12 where it says to "workout your own salvation with fear and trembling?" Is it a legitimate answer to the question "are you saved?" to say "I am working out my salvation with fear and trembling?"
The context makes it clear that Paul is here speaking about sanctification and not about justification. He exhorts the believers to be united together, humbly serving one another (2:1-11), and living blameless and innocent lives in the midst of an evil world (2:14,15). He is not telling them how to become right with God, but how to live righteously and thus fulfill God's purpose for them...
Elsewhere in his letter, the apostle Paul discusses justification (Chapter 3:1-9). There, Paul emphasizes that nothing that he ever did could earn him a right standing before God. Since his conversion, he had ceased to depend on his personal obedience to the Law for righteousness. He was now trusting in Christ for justification. His desire was to "be found in Him (Christ), not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith" (Philippians 3:9). [32]
The Biblical "plan of salvation" is one of grace by faith. The Roman Catholic "plan of salvation" could not be any more different. Rome is very clear that salvation must be accomplished via the good works and merits of the individual Roman Catholic.
This document written to the glory of God.
© 2006, Mark Edward Sohmer. Please feel free to quote from it in context, and distribute it in its entirety without profit.
Author retains the right to prohibit others from distributing for illegitimate purposes.
The latest version of this document can be found at:
http://www.sohmer.net/media/GoR.
Please note that this is an HTML version of a document originally published as an Adobe Acrobat File. The original Adobe Acrobat File can be found at http://www.sohmer.net/media/Gospel_of_Rome.pdf.