Faith Only
Gospel
The Bible Teaches the Protestant Doctrine that Good Works have nothing
to do with salvation
INDEX – CLICK TO NAVIGATE
CATHOLIC INTERPRETATION OF JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH
OTHER STATEMENTS OF FAITH-ONLY DOCTRINE
Recommended Book, By Faith Alone, RC Sproul, Hodder & Stoughton,
It proves that salvation by faith without
good works is an essential for being a Christian so the Catholic Church cannot
qualify as a real Christian Church or a Church at all.
PREFACE
The apostle Paul, the first Christian writer declared that the Church believed in salvation by faith in the power of the death and resurrection of Jesus to atone and correct sin alone. This salvation is obtained without obedience and without keeping the Jewish Law given by God. Indeed Paul says that obedience to deserve Heaven was a sin itself . The obedience will necessarily be sincere but it is still no good.
The Roman Catholic Church claims that Paul meant law as in being forced to obey God. This claims that the Jews felt forced. They did not.
Galatians 2:16, 19-21 has Paul teaching that obedience to the Law does not make a man righteous and it cannot do it either and only faith in Jesus Christ does. He said that "in other words, through the Law I am dead to the Law so that I can now live for God." He means that the Law has left us dead before God and cut off from him because we can't obey it. If faith in Jesus puts us right with God then it must be because Jesus keeps the Law for us and he credits his obedience to our account if we believe.
Romans 8:10: And
if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life
because of righteousness. In this verse,
Paul declares that the living are dead because of sin and their bodies are dead
to God because of sin. We still say an
enemy is dead to us so the body is in opposition to God for sin. But the mind or spirit is alive and is
righteous. So how can a person be both
sinful and righteous and reconciled to God and not reconciled? The answer is that Paul means that God
imputes the righteousness of Jesus to the sinner. The sinner is bad and dead in sin but the
merits of Jesus are reckoned to be the sinner’s. God pretends that the sinner is good because
Jesus has done the good works for the sinner that the sinner has failed to do. The Reformation doctrine of imputed but not
real righteousness that is activated by faith alone without good works is
clearly vindicated in this verse.
Galatians 5: “You
were called to liberty but be careful that it does not become an opening to
self-indulgence. Serve one another by
doing loving works because love your neighbour as yourself is the summary of
the Law of Moses. If you are guided by
the Spirit you will be in no danger of giving in to your selfish instincts
because doing that is totally opposed to the Spirit. The Spirit is totally against self-indulgence. And it is because the Spirit is so opposed to
self-indulgence that you fail to carry out your good intentions. If the Spirit is your leader, no law will
ever touch you”.
Here we read that
any act however good that is inspired even a little bit by self-indulgence is
not pleasing to God.
What is this
liberty?
Some say it is
the freedom that comes from the power given by God to keep the law so that we
want to keep it now. The Roman Catholic
view. If we are free to keep the law
because God helps us to, then how could that liberty be in danger of becoming
self-indulgence? It would be impossible.
Some say it is
freedom not from the obligation to obey the law but freedom from the penalty of
the law no matter what sins we commit.
The Protestant view. This is the
correct view. The Bible then teaches
salvation without the necessity of good works.
The sentence, “If the Spirit is your leader, no law will ever touch you”
tells us not that we will be perfect in God’s eyes when the Spirit leads
us. Paul warns that we always carry some
sin in us which is the reason why obedience to the law cannot save. What it tells us is that no law will be able
to punish us – no law has such authority. So when our sins are overlooked it
shows that the Protestant idea that God overlooks our sins when we get saved
and blames and punishes Jesus for them as if they were his is the biblical one.
Some say it is freedom from the obligation to obey the law. The Antinomian view. Paul cautions against this view in the context.
Imputation is the idea that when you turn to Jesus for forgiveness, God credits the good works he has done to your account. So he regards you as good . There are two ways to understand this. It could be a legal fiction where God regards you as good though you are rotten. Or it could be a case of where God changes your heart so that you become a better person and he imputes Jesus merits to you to cover for your past sins. In the legal fiction scenario, there is no change to the person. In the second scenario, there is a change.
Which doctrine of imputation is the Bible one? We will see.
ABOUT
JUSTIFICATION
Justification is
declaring somebody to be innocent or in the right. All Christians believe that God declares true
Christians righteous. Justification
means that the sinner is acquitted or declared not guilty. More importantly, for Christians it has the
additional meaning of deserving Heaven.
Justification is not forgiveness but is the
result of forgiveness. You cannot be
justified unless you are forgiven first for that would be not forgiving but
condoning. Forgiveness is saying, “I am
going to treat you as if you are not guilty”, and justification is saying, “I
take away your guilt in my eyes. You are
not guilty anymore but are holy and righteous”.
Some say that justification is not forgiveness but the two go together
and are two halves of the same coin so forgiveness is not a result of
justification.
Christians disagree about the
nature of justification, and whether the deserving or justification is imputed
and not real or if it is real.
Some say it is God pretending
that a sinner is really not a sinner at all on account of Jesus obeying in the
sinner’s place. This pictures
justification like snow covering over a manure heap. There is no change in the sinner. This might appear to not really be
justification but a mere legal fiction but justification is a legal term and if
a legal system allows it, it is justification legally but not morally for the
person is still bad. But it has to be
what the apostle meant by justification for even God cannot make you a good
person if you have sinned for the sins still have been committed. All he can do is declare you good.
Catholics say that
justification is being declared righteous because you really are
righteous. You can read about it in the
excellent Anglican book on justification by faith alone, The Great Acquittal. “Justification is no legal fiction, but God’s
righteous declaration that the believer is within the covenant” (page 31). If it is not a legal fiction then it is a
declaration of innocence that is true to the facts or it could be a declaration
that a person is not good but is considered good for the sake of the covenant
which is not that different from a legal fiction. These theories fit Christ’s declaration that
he was the truth for the legal fiction has connotations of lying. The fact of the matter is, that despite many
Protestant theologians rejecting a legal fiction interpretation that is what
they believe in. To impute the
righteousness of another man to a person is to declare the latter to own the
righteousness of the former. But he
doesn’t own it, so it is a legal fiction.
Forensic imputation = legal fiction.
The view that Christ’s merits
are imputed to you implies that there must have been an atonement sacrifice for
somebody had to earn your salvation for you and be punished for you for you to
get away with your sins. The view that
God just declares you good though you are not does not unless you believe that
God has to punish sin because he can’t let it go unpunished by taking it out on
somebody innocent to get you off.
However when he just forgives you it makes no sense for him to punish
anybody else.
The only way a sinner can be
called just is by way of a legal fiction.
If you sin all your good deeds are sins for they are done in a spirit of
attachment to sin.
For many the doctrine that
salvation comes by faith alone is surmised from scripture like the
Trinity. That is true, but there are
verses that teach it plainly.
It is important that we
understand that when Paul spoke of justification or declared righteous he never
said that a person who is justified is really righteous. Justification for him did not mean to turn a
person into a good person but acquitting the sinner – overlooking the person’s
unworthiness. Justification is not about
what state a person is in but about their status or standing with God and Paul
illustrates that by emphasising that no room at all for any boasting is involved
in getting justified for after it either.
CATHOLIC
INTERPRETATION OF JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH
Paul said we are justified by faith without the works of the Law. Protestants say he meant we are saved by
faith without good works. Catholics say
we are saved by both but they say they agree that works of the Law of God have
nothing to do with justification.
Catholics say he means salvation is without the Law only for the one who
repents and believes but after that their salvation depends on their keeping
the Law. In short, they think that once
you are saved you have to obey to stay saved.
The Galatians had accepted salvation from Christ by faith alone but they
started to obey the Law of Moses to gain salvation which was why Paul severely
told them off and called them fools (page 6, Legalism – A Smokescreen). He did say they were cutting themselves off
from the miraculous gift of power to do good works and serve God but he never
said they would lose salvation for this though their new gospel would bring
damnation to any new convert by preventing that convert from accepting
salvation the only thing it would do for them would be to make them fools and
saved enemies of Christ. He would have
said if it would cost them salvation for that would be the central thing but he
didn’t. He is clearly rejecting the view
that we are meant to be saved by faith alone and kept in salvation by obedience
or that you are saved without good works at the start but afterwards you have
to obey for disobedience will cost you your salvation. In Romans 4 Paul says that we are saved by
faith without obedience like Abraham which makes Abraham the father of the follower of the path of
faith, the path that faith requires you to walk after you believe so Paul
believes that faith alone saves not just at the start of belief but while you
try to live out that belief. Paul said
that his being the hardest worker among the apostles was not down to himself
but to the grace of God (1 Corinthians 15:10) implying that good works are not
meritorious for salvation because they are all God’s doing and he just programs
us to do them and he rewards them though it is rewarding his own work. He said that Paul no longer lives but Jesus
lives in him and through him. Its not
Paul and Jesus but just Jesus.
The Protestants are right
because Paul said that the reason the Law can’t save is because we can’t obey
it. Paul said that all those who relied
on obeying God’s Law, the Law of Moses, were completely cut off from God’s
friendship (in mortal sin to use the Catholic terminology) for they did not
seek God (Romans 3:11, 20) and were unjustified. The Law offered the grace of forgiveness for
a fresh start and it still could not save.
So, if the Jews could not be saved by being forgiven and by obeying
neither could the Catholics for they have the same system of salvation by
repentance and faith with a view to obedience.
To be saved you have to agree that once you are saved you are saved
forever and nothing can make you unsaved.
I used to argue that Paul
considered even perfect obedience to be no good. I felt that when Paul said that those who
observed the Law would not be saved he meant those who kept it perfectly for
you couldn’t say that a sinner going through the motions was observing the
Law. I realise now that you could if you
teach that all are sinners like Paul did and so that all who observe the Law
are doing so only outwardly. Paul’s
statement that he was beyond reproach when it came to justice as taught by the
Law (Philippians 3:6) does not prove that he believed that the Law could be
kept perfectly and still not save because he says elsewhere that he was a
sinner at this time so he means that he was beyond reproach in the eyes of
other people not that he was perfect.
Catholics believe in mortal
sin, sin that divorces you from God completely, and venial sin, sin that does
not do this. Since Paul says that
failure to keep the Law right prevents salvation and justification it is clear
that all sin must have been considered mortal by all who tried to keep the
Law. If you sin falsely believing all
sin to be mortal you are guilty of mortal sin for that is what you meant to
commit. Catholics maintain that keeping
the Law saves but the Jews were not saved by it for they thought all sin was
grave sin or mortal.
We reject this interpretation
for these reasons:
1) What a Law does not
condemn it allows. The Law did not
condemn belief in venial sin explicitly but threatened death to all who would
not obey God (Deuteronomy 28; Leviticus 18:5) meaning that their sins were so
detested by God that he wanted them dead.
When a book says such things as if there is no such thing as venial sin
then it says there is none.
2) Paul taught that the Law itself and not peoples’ misinterpretation
of it and its doctrine about sin kept them away from God and it caused this
separation by being something they could not keep. He wrote that it is good for nothing but
exposing sin (Romans
A God who punishes sincerity is
a supreme bigot whereas the Bible God is just.
3) The Law would not be just and good like Paul says (Romans
6:12) if it omitted to teach that there was a distinction between mortal and
venial sin if there was one for that would be forcing millions to commit mortal
sin. Paul said that sin is not God’s
fault for God is holy (holy means will have nothing to do with evil). Mortal sin would be on his account, if he
misled the children of
4) The Jews did not believe in sin that only partially took one
away from God yet Paul said that the Gentiles who did believe were as badly off
as regards fellowship with God as they were (Romans 3:9,10). All are said to have been in a state of
mortal sin. So was the Gentile belief in
venial sin - a belief as ancient as the continents –faked for if they really
believed in it they would not all have been estranged from God by sin? Or is Paul saying that venial sin cuts one
off from God even if one believes it doesn’t?
No for that wouldn’t be fair.
(Bible-bashers must agree that
Paul is declaring that the whole world supernaturally knows that there is no
venial sin. Their belief implies that
the Catholic Church is opposed to God for she says it does exist. It implies the Catholics are all is
anti-Christ. And that Catholics honour
the pope before God for they won’t love the truth. They worship the pope as God in the sense
that they are treating him as something better.)
Some antichrists want us to
think that when Paul said that obedience to the Law could not make a person
right with God he only meant that the Laws about ceremonies couldn’t save and
cited circumcision as an example. The Catholic
Church says that he did not mean that good works are unnecessary for salvation
but that only the works specific to the Law of Moses like circumcision and
sacrifices were unnecessary. But he made
it clear that the Law cannot save those who obey it because it tells them what
sin is and they sin (Romans
The widely distributed Tan
booklet by Paul Whitcomb for luring the unwary into Roman Catholicism, The
Catholic Church has the Answer, advances this antichrists’ view. But Paul, the apostle, makes no such
distinction. If he meant the ceremonial
precepts he wouldn’t have called them the Law for that would be confusing and
they are not the Law but only half of it.
The Law commands people to keep the ceremony Laws and forbids breaking
them as sinful. The antichrists are
saying that God rejected those who observed the ceremonial Laws because they
thought they were doing right! They
purposely ignore the fact that it is easier to live by religious rules of
worship and cleanness as the ceremonial Laws have them than it is to be a
kindly person in daily life. This was
why the gospels condemned the Jewish leaders for having so many religious
taboos with no real moral living in daily life.
The leaders preferred the religious rules. But the Law of Moses when followed properly
without all these rules is not asking a lot with its ceremonial regulations
about washing and unclean food and circumcision and all the rest. The Jews regarded the ceremonies and indeed
the whole Law of Moses as a joy and not as a burden and not difficult
(Deuteronomy 30:10-14). The Catholic
Church’s distortion fools no one except those who want to be fooled.
Some Catholics say that the Law
failed to save the Jews because they did not have faith in the grace of God
that is the power of God to enable and help you to obey. Catholics say that to do good that merits
salvation one must trust in and accept the power of God to help you to do this
good. If one does not, then the good is
purely human good and cannot please God.
They would use Galatians 3:23 which says that before faith came we were
kept under the Law in preparation for the faith that would be revealed, as
backup. But the verse only means, not
that the Law was opposed to faith for you had to have faith in the Law and in
God to even think about trying to obey the Law, but that the Law was a
preparation for faith as Christians have it.
It was a preparation for the Christian faith with its aspirations and
dogmas. Only slightly crazy people like
Paul would believe that for there is no evidence that the Law was interested
even remotely in a person like Jesus Christ.
But the Law did advocate faith in grace and
the prophets even more so. Even more
shockingly the Law when properly interpreted and not cluttered by human
tradition is not hard to keep (Deuteronomy 30:11) so the idea that the Law was
against grace is wrong because people had no excuse for breaking it and
weakness was not an excuse. This means
that God forgave people and was their friend and supporter according to the
promises of the Law purely by grace – undeserved favour. The Catholic view that Paul only said the
Jews could not be saved by obeying the Law because they were trying to earn
salvation on their own is therefore wrong.
This means that Paul believed that obedience was totally unnecessary for
salvation.
Even Jesus Christ in Luke 16 said that the
Pharisee Jew who was rejected by God though he sincerely believed himself to be
good and thanked God for making him good believed in grace. The Pharisee did not exercise belief as a
gift from God and that was why his sincerity was no use. Jesus saw that the Law was not opposed to God
helping you to be good and that it even demanded that belief. The people had to pray to be able to do his
will better so they were asking for his divine influence. That is what grace is, God inspiring your
thoughts or feelings or both to make you attracted to his ways and to maintain
adherence to his teaching. God rejected
the Pharisee for believing that faith was not enough and good works were needed
too, to be right with God.
Paul wrote that the Law is not based on
faith. He meant faith in salvation
despite sin or in the salvation of people who refuse to abandon sin
totally. Obviously, the Law commanded
all the other kinds of faith including the kind of divinely inspired faith that
does not go as far as holding that faith alone saves without works. It did this when it commanded even those who
would never see the miracles that Moses did should believe in the Law as the
word of God meaning that only God could enable you to see that it was his word
by speaking to your heart. You can’t
obey the Law of God insincerely so you have to believe in it first. To refrain from murder though you don’t
believe in the Law banning murder is not obeying the Law but making it look
like you do for you are saying and thinking to yourself that it is not a Law
for you. If you refrain it is not out of
hearty obedience but for some other reason, you are not refraining because of
the Law.
The Law promised forgiveness so God must
have given grace for he says that he will only forgive sinners who use his
help. Yet Paul in Galatians 5:2 tells
his disciples that if they get circumcised that Jesus and the salvation he won
for them is no good to them. But all
those would have believed that if they got circumcised they were promising to
obey the law but with the help and grace of Jesus and that if they failed he
had obeyed it for them so they would still be classed by God as obedient. He would have credited Jesus’ obedience to
their account. They did not deny that
Jesus suffered for their sins and they were not agreeing to try and earn
salvation by keeping the law when they underwent circumcision. Paul is clearly indicating that to become a
Christian and stay one you must not have any religious rules. There must be no regulations about baptism
and good works. What you do is offer
nothing to God but just accept the salvation offered by Jesus Christ. You offer good works to God but these have
nothing to do with gaining salvation.
How could Paul accuse people who got circumcised of trying to be
justified by the law and severing themselves from Jesus and grace? (Gal
5:4). Because the Holy Spirit is meant
to inspire holy deeds not the law. You
do good not to satisfy the law but because the Holy Spirit makes you delight in
good. That is the whole point of what he
wrote about Christ making us free and not slaves (Gal 5:1). He is not condemning religious activity like
circumcision or good works but making an obligation of them. Thus the rites and sacraments of the Roman
Church which are obligatory are condemned.
Catholics argue that when Paul said that God
would justify the circumcised by faith without the law in Romans 3:28-30 he
meant that circumcision couldn’t save for it was not a work of grace (page 116,
Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic). They argue than that nothing in his theology
excludes the Catholic understanding of salvation by faith and good works. So we are led to think that when Paul was
using circumcision as an example that he did not mean that works, with grace
and without it, couldn’t save. We are
led to believe that he only meant that graceless works, works that were tried
without seeking the help of God, cannot contribute to salvation. But Paul never said that circumcision was a
graceless work so the verse does nothing to prove what they say. It could be a grace work, if he thought of it
as a work at all. The Catholic Church
teaches that you get grace to do what your conscience says is good even if you are
mistaken so the idea that circumcision is a graceless work is ridiculous.
There were many in the early Church that
believed just what the Catholic Church believes about good works. The earliest Church was made up of Jews. They saw no reason why they could not still
live out the Jewish Law after having become Christians and sought grace to help
them do it. Nowhere in Romans does Paul
hint that he means that good works done by grace save which he would have had
to make plain for people would take his doctrine of salvation without works to
exclude those works too.
I am tired of
The Law of Moses did advocate salvation by
grace and works so the idea that circumcision was an example of a work without
grace is mad. The Psalms are full of praise to God from people who felt they
had got their holiness and righteousness from him. Psalm 84:5 says that the man who has his
strength in God is blessed.
Circumcision was thought by the Jews to be a
gift from God that entitled one to be part of the covenant and undeserved
blessings from God. The use of this
example shows that Paul was taking care to exclude ideas such as those of the
Catholic Church that doing works by and with the grace of God are necessary for
salvation and make you deserve Heaven.
It also shows that the Catholic idea of getting grace by going to the
sacraments is likewise false.
None of the Catholic excuses for
rejecting the Protestant interpretation of Paul’s doctrine that salvation is by
faith without the works of the Law work so Protestantism is correct in its
interpretation.
OTHER STATEMENTS OF FAITH-ONLY
DOCTRINE
The First Epistle of John tells us that all Christians are sinners now (1:8)
and have eternal life now (5:13) even though all sin means you do not belong to
God (3:10) – is mortal. He is talking
about all sin not just some. If he meant
a specific kind of sin, mortal sin, like Roman Catholicism does he would have
said so. (By mortal sin in
John is telling us that
Christians are all mortal sinners and are still going to heaven for they are
forgiven because of Christ.
Hebrews 10:17-19 says that God
said that one day he will remember sins no more and it argues from this that
there will be no sacrifices for sin one day for there will be no need and then
it says that Christians are living in that time for they have the right to
enter the most holy place in Heaven.
This obviously says that God imputes no sin to the true Christian for
Jesus has died for them in their place as the sin offering that removes
sins.
Hebrews 10:12-14 says that
Jesus has perfected forever those who are sanctified. Present tense. Christians believe that we are all imperfect
in sin. This tells us that justification
need not be real. It is just a
declaration from God that we are not sinners though we are. We are perfect before God though we are not.
Catholics want an example of
somebody that was justified by faith alone in the Bible.
Jesus called Judas his friend
(Matthew 26:50). Nowhere does scripture
say that Judas was eternally damned.
Because Judas had accepted Jesus as his saviour Heaven was his not
matter what. Jesus meant it when he
called him friend for sarcasm would have been a sin. The only way Judas could be a friend of his
was by spiritual relationship through imputation. Judas was saved despite his sins. God saw him as a good person though he wasn’t
really for Jesus had paid for his sins.
THE CATHOLIC VIEW DENIED
The Catholic Church holds that the sinner gets rid of sin by repenting
and trusting in God and that makes him justified though he has done no good
works. But after that he must do good
works with God’s help to remain right with God and to become more right with
God and deserve salvation more. The only
alternative to this view if you want to believe in salvation by grace, a belief
that that is commanded by the Bible, is that once you are justified you are
justified forever even when you sin.
In Romans
In Romans
Romans
Romans
Romans 11:36 for from him and
through him and for him are all things.
This says that God has made all
things and all things come from him.
From the verse before we see what it has to do with. They are saying that we cannot deserve
salvation from him for all we are doing is giving him back what he gave to
us. That must be what it is saying for
why else would he be drawing attention to creation at this point? If you help a sick person it is God that
enables you to do it by holding you and your abilities in existence. No work that we do deserves anything from
God.
Paul rejects the Catholic
teaching that when God forgives you and declares you clean and free from sin
and fit for Heaven it is a gift but after that you have to deserve Heaven by
doing good works with the help of God’s grace.
He denies that you are justified by your good works for that means God
owes you something for doing good. If
Paul agreed with the Catholic teaching he would have written that nobody can
give God anything so that God owes him something back when that person is not
doing this work with the help of grace.
Perhaps good works are the fruit of a free salvation and so are gifts
from God as well and don’t deserve a reward though they get one? But they are still your works and you don’t
have to perform them but do them freely.
Note that Paul is speaking in
the context of saved people. Therefore
he is saying that even those who have been and are justified by faith cannot do
any good work that contributes to their salvation by making them deserve
it. The Catholic doctrine is wrong.
Romans 11:36 he says that the
reason God can owe nobody anything is because God makes all things. The Catholic Church says on the contrary that
we are justified by our good works only when God helps us do them by
grace. That is saying God owes you
salvation for doing these works that he helps you to do. But if all things belong to God as Paul says
and that is why he owes us nothing then works that God helps you to do make him
owe less than nothing to you! The
Catholic doctrine is blasphemous and is trying to manipulate God by getting
from him what he doesn’t owe. It shows
that pride is the root of Catholic spirituality not holiness.
ARE GOOD WORKS FREE AND GOOD ?
The Bible says that the saved can do good works. If all are sinful as Paul says then how can
this be? There is no evidence in the Bible
of the doctrine of free will except in freedom to sin. Perhaps good works are just works that God
programs people to do so they are not really our works at all? This is how we can be entirely bad and do
good works. Paul said in Romans 9 that
God does program people but never does the Bible actually say the good works
are the result of programs.
Luther took the position that
the good works even of the saved were bad.
He held that if you are saved you will do good works meaning sinful
works that look good and result in a lot of good. For example, the unsaved person will do more
damage in the world than the saved. The
saved person though just as sinful will not be as inclined to do the sins that
do damage and his or her sin will be mostly in the heart. I believe this is the biblical solution. The Bible then may not mean that good works
are good as in sinless but as in having good results and they further the good
plans God has for the world.
It could be the works are not
really good but God credits them as good and Jesus makes up for the
imperfections in them by proxy. So they
are not good works as far as we do them but they are good works as far as God
sees them. When the Bible calls the
works of the saved good works it means good from God’s perspective.
FAITH ONLY
DENIED?
One big boost to the anti-Jesus industry in the Catholic Church is her
too easily seen through claim that the Protestant doctrine of salvation is
contradicted by scripture. Out of pride
the Church wants to believe it has to contribute something to salvation. The Bible says that good works are essential
to salvation in the sense that the saved person will do them not in the sense
that they preserve one’s salvation or earn it.
This is what James 2 meant by saying that justification was by faith and
good works.
Jesus told the rich young man
to keep the commandments of God to have eternal life (Mark 10). This does not contradict Paul for Jesus may
have meant, “Unless you get saved once
for you won’t be able to please God and really keep his commandments. Keep them.”
He was indirectly commanding him to accept salvation by faith alone.
Other texts are twisted to make
them seem to support the Catholic doctrine. One is where Paul (Philippians
Paul wrote that there is faith,
hope and charity and that the greatest of these is charity (1 Corinthians
13). Charity is greater than faith in
the sense that it persuades a person to make a saving act of faith in
Christ. Faith is an act of love. Paul’s saying does not refute solifidianism for it is still faith that justifies.
Paul said he was nothing if he
had faith alone and no charity.
Catholics say he would have been something if faith alone would do. Maybe he meant he would be no good not that
he would have been un-saved if he did not do good works. He may have meant that if he had no charity
then he would not have really been saved at all for the saved always do good
works.
Paul said that all have to be
punished for their deeds, “what they have done in the body”, at the judgment
seat of Jesus (2 Corinthians
Catholics suppose that when
Paul declared that he had to do good works to avoid being rejected as worthless
(1 Corinthians 9:27) and that a bishop who lets his family go off the straight
and narrow is worse than an infidel (1 Timothy 5:8) that this proves that a
saved Christian can lose salvation. But
Paul meant he would be worthless not in the sense that he would not get
salvation but in the sense that he would be of no use to God or other people. The bishop can be worse than an infidel and
still be going to Heaven.
Catholics say that when Paul
said that we must not sin in the belief that we will get more grace if we do
(Romans 6:1) that his import was that salvation depends on faith and good works
and not solely on faith. Paul is not
denying that sin makes God give you more grace and justification but denying
that you should sin to get grace. Sin to
sin but not to get grace. Luther
condemned sin though he told his people to commit it meaning that they had to
sin anyway. Catholics could say the same
for they believe sin is inevitable. They
teach that the more you sin the more grace you will get when you repent. The grace is meant to undo the power of sin
so it is sinful and illogical to sin to get it.
Everybody commits a certain amount of sin and Paul is saying that extra
sins that should not be expected should not be committed. He is not saying that the more you sin the
less grace you will get but that you should not abuse God’s generosity by
abusing it by sinning. There is no hint
in this that he means that salvation by faith alone is incorrect. In fact, if he thought that it was then how
could people possibly think they get more grace the more they sin for the fact
that they sin shows they are resisting grace?
If the grace he means is just the grace of imputation, you being
considered good because Christ’s account is credited to you, and not the other
grace that changes you from inside into a holy person, people would say the
more sin the better for then the more chance God gets of being generous. So what Paul said was the extent of imputed
grace does depend on how much sin you commit but that must not be used as an
excuse for sinning. When he meant
imputed grace this denies the Catholic doctrine that you have to be really
righteous not just declared righteous as in a legal fiction.
Peter called on Christians to
make sure their election, their being saved, by doing good works (2 Peter
Salvation is a free gift but
good works earn rewards so let nobody argue that since the Bible promises
rewards for good works that it denies salvation by faith alone.
It is understandable that many
see that it is very easy to repent and believe in Jesus so it makes salvation
too easy while the Bible says that salvation is going through a narrow gate and
is unpopular. The narrow gate stuff
implies that you have to believe certain things and that most people will work
against the truth being known.
Objectively speaking, there is no reason why anybody would refuse
salvation when it is that simple. We all
want to do some good works so the person could simply purify these works when
he is doing them anyway and offer them to God.
No thief or homosexual or heretic or whatever would object to getting
saved for they could still sin afterwards.
JAMES 2
The epistle of James appears to conflict with Paul’s doctrine of
justification by faith alone. For this,
Luther called it an epistle of straw.
But this conflict is only
apparent.
I would propose for your
consideration the analysis of James’ letter in By Faith Alone, RC Sproul, Hodder & Stoughton,
Paul is talking about how a
person gets justified by faith for he wrote that obedience could not save you
for you can’t obey all the time so you have to turn to God in faith and
repentance to get saved.
James is on about a person who
supposedly has already being justified by faith alone. If that person does no good works and if
there is no improvement in that person’s life then that person’s faith is dead
or useless or unreal so he was not justified at all in the first place for
there was no genuine reception of Christ and his grace. James said that belief alone without
repentance and good deeds is hopeless for even the Devil in Hell believes. He said that this shows that you are
justified by works and not by belief alone.
The sect, the
Paul said that Abraham believed
God’s seemingly impossible promises without wavering and this was “credited to
him as righteousness or living a good life” (Romans 4:22). It says nothing about Abraham doing anything
other than believe. You might say that
somebody just believing can mean that their belief is credited to them as
righteousness. But you cannot say
somebody doing good is credited to them as righteousness because doing good is
righteousness. Paul was underlining that
Abraham was reckoned righteous for having done nothing but just for having
faith. The Roman Catholic Church cannot
teach this. It holds that belief is just
the start and it is only when you do good works to express your faith that you
are justified or made righteous by faith for they say that faith for Paul meant
faith and carrying it out.
Paul’s system stressed that we could
not boast that God saved us because of our good works. This implies that the boast is a terrible
thing. If we obeyed to stay saved we
could still boast but Paul says there is no room for boasting at all in the
scheme of salvation.
Some would add, “In other
words, he is saying you are declared and become good by works and not by belief
alone. This need not mean the kind of
good that earns salvation because you can be saved and declared good by a legal
fiction because Jesus obeyed for you and be justified or declared really good
for doing good works. Confusion will set
in unless you realise that there are two kinds of justification. People think justification means the same
kind of justification which causes them to imagine a contradiction between Paul
and James.”
James cited the example of
Abraham from Genesis. He said that
Abraham was justified by offering Isaac for this offering expressed and proved
his faith and that this proven faith justified him. He was justified by proven faith. He was indirectly justified by works because
his faith could not justify him without them.
In other words, he was justified by faith accompanied by good works and
not by faith alone that had no good works.
James is saying that we are justified by works indirectly and directly
justified by faith. All faith alone
people believe the same because though faith alone saves you, you will do good
if your faith is saving faith.
Look at his words, “You see
that a man is justified (pronounced righteous before God) through what he does
and not alone through faith” (James
James 2 says that we are saved
by works and not by faith alone. But it
says that faith means belief that is not accompanied by works like the faith of
demons is. That is the kind of faith
that is not enough. Faith that desires to do the will of God saves and it suffices
and saves even before good works are done for it makes you inclined to be a
better person. James declared that
Abraham was justified by his works when he offered Isaac BECAUSE this work
completed and proved his faith. In other
words, the work expressed his faith. The
faith produced the work so the work was faith.
James says as much when he says that Abraham’s faith activated his works
and the works were necessary to express his faith and make it real (22) and
says that this is what the Bible proves when it says that Abraham believed God
and this belief was considered to be righteousness (23). You wouldn’t quote a verse from the Bible
like that if you believed that faith and good works are necessary for salvation. You would if you believed that the works
would be necessary for salvation if they were faith. You can express faith by prayer or by doing
good works and it doesn’t matter which you use as long as you intend to express
that you are accepting Jesus as saviour and Lord who obeyed the Law on your
behalf for you. James is saying that
works like that save not because they are works but because they are
faith. So James does not mean that good
works justify in themselves but works that are faith justify simply because
faith alone justifies and they are faith.
Ephesians 2 tells the Ephesians
that they have been saved by grace through faith and that is not of themselves
but is the gift of and not of works but was done so that they would do good
works. Catholics believe in justification
by faith at the start of your walk with God but after that you have to do good
works to stay justified. The Ephesians
then were already saved by faith but now when they should be justified by works
they are still being told that works have no part in salvation.
One thing is for sure, it is
better to justify by faith alone than to justify by faith and good works even
when both positions maintain that we are saved by grace alone. Justification by faith alone is a noble
doctrine in the sense that it has you doing good because it is good and because
you are grateful and not to stay saved which the other theory has you
doing. So justification by faith and
good works is a contradiction for the result is not justification at all simply
because the works only look good and nothing more. And when God forgives the guilty at all why
can’t he forgive the guilty when they do not repent just because Jesus saved
them and obeyed for them? Christians who
want the Bible to teach justification by faith and good works are refuting
Christianity.
CONCLUSION
The Bible denies that good works have anything to do with obtaining
salvation. Thus It condemns the Roman
Catholic Church for teaching that sacraments and good works are necessary for
salvation. That the Bible says nothing
to deny that salvation or justification is by faith alone proves that the
Catholic Church is opposed to God because it won’t take that as proof that the
doctrine must be true. The Bible would
say if it didn’t want to teach that doctrine.
WORKS CONSULTED
A Catechism of Christian Doctrine, Catholic Truth Society, London, 1985
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS CATHOLICS ARE ASKING Tony Coffey, Harvest House, Eugene, Oregon, 2006
A Summary of Christian Doctrine, Louis Berkhof, The Banner of Truth Trust, London, 1971
A Withering Branch, Joseph H Harley, John English
and Co, Wexford, 1956
All One Body – Why Don’t We Agree? Erwin W Lutzer,
An Examination of Tulip, Robert L Sumner, Biblical Evangelism Press,
Apologia Pro Vita Sua,
John Henry Newman, JN Dent & Sons Ltd,
Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic, David B Currie, Ignatius Press,
Can a Saved Person Ever Be Lost, John R Rice, Sword of the Lord,
Christian Answers About Doctrine, John Eddison, Scripture
Doubt The Consequences Cause and Cure, Curtis Hutson
Sword of the Lord,
Eight Gospel Absurdities if a Born-Again Soul Ever Loses Salvation John R
Rice Sword of the Lord,
Encyclopaedia of Bible Difficulties, Gleason W Archer, Zondervan,
Four Great Heresies, John R Rice, Sword of the Lord,
How to be a Christian without Being Religious, Fritz
Ridenour, Regal Books, California, 1970
HyperCalvinism, John D Rice, Sword of the Lord,
Is it necessary
for you to be baptised to be saved? Hoyt H Houchen,
Guardian of Truth,
Legalism – A Smokescreen, Mike Allison, Sword of the Lord,
Radio Replies, Vol 1, Frs
Rumble and Carty, Radio Replies Press,
Radio Replies, Vol 2, Frs
Rumble and Carty, Radio Replies Press,
Radio Replies, Vol 3, Frs
Rumble and Carty, Radio Replies Press,
Reasons for Hope, Editor Jeffrey
A Mirus,
Saved For Certain, John R Rice, Sword of the Lord,
The Catholic
Church has the Answer, Paul Whitcomb, TAN, Illinois
The Catholicity of Protestantism Ed R Newton Flew
and Rupert E Davies, Lutterworth Press,
The Dark Side, How Evangelical Teachings Corrupt Love and Truth, Valerie Tarico, Ph.D, Dea Press, Seattle, 2006
The Eternal Security of the Believer, Curtis Hutson,
Sword of the Lord,
The Grace of God in the Gospel, John Cheeseman,
Philip Gardner, Michael Sadgrove, Tom Wright, The
Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh, 1976
The Great Acquittal, Tony Baker, George Carey, John Tiller and Tom
Wright, Fount,
The Institutes of the Christian Religion, John
Calvin, Hodder and
The Other Side of Calvinism, Laurence M Vance, Vance Publications
There is no Difference for all have Sinned, John R Rice, Sword of the
Lord,
Unitarian Christianity and Other Essays, William
Ellery Channing The Bobs-Merrill Company Inc,
Why I Disagree with All Five Points of Calvinism, Curtis Hutson, Sword of the Lord,
BIBLE TRANSLATION USED
The Amplified Bible