Reply To Melanchthon: Justification #3: Good Works 2

Trent on “Faith” / Meritorious Works / “Trust” in God / How the Error of “Faith Alone” Originated / Mortal Sin / “Faith” in James

Photo credit: *Portrait of Philipp Melanchthon* (1564), by the Workshop of Lucas Cranach the Younger (1515-1586) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Philip Melanchthon (1497-1560) was the founder of Protestantism: Martin Luther’s best friend, co-reformer, and successor as the leader of Lutheranism. Encyclopaedia Britannica (“Philipp Melanchthon“) states that “Melanchthon . . . in 1521 published the Loci communes rerum theologicarum (‘Theological Commonplaces’), the first systematic treatment of Reformation thought.” It’s considered the initiatory work in the Lutheran scholastic tradition. Modified editions appeared in 1535, 1543 and 1559.

Martin Luther wrote, “No better book has been written after the Holy Scriptures than Philip’s. He expresses himself more concisely than I do when he argues and instructs. I’m garrulous and more rhetorical” (Table-Talk, 1543; in Luther’s Works, Vol. 54, 439-440). Many think that this volume was the reason why Luther never wrote his own work of systematic theology. Melanchthon at length departed from Luther in some ways; most notably, in his denial of the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist, by the time of the 1543 edition, and on the question of free will.

In this series of replies, I will be utilizing the 1992 translation of the 1543 Latin version (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House), by J. A. O. Preuss (1920-1994), who was a pastor, theologian, and the president of the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod (LCMS) from 1969 to 1981. He wrote in the Introduction:

Luther, who had some violent disagreements with him, never criticized him publicly and never really broke with him. In fact, the verdict of history is that Luther was kinder to Melanchthon than Melanchthon was to Luther. . . . Most Lutherans in America up to the present time have been critical of him, including Schmauck, Neve, Bente, Pelikan, and many others, although that attitude is changing somewhat. (p. 7)

*

Melanchthon was a prodigy. He entered Heidelberg University at twelve and received his bachelor’s degree at 14. He moved on to Tubingen, where he earned the master’s degree at 17, . . . He never received the doctorate and was never ordained into the ministry. He never preached from the pulpit, although he had much to do with the development of the study of oratory and homiletics. He received an appointment to teach at the newly established University of Wittenberg in 1518. . . . He remained at Wittenberg the rest of his life . . . differences [with Luther] appear as early as 1530, . . . and become more evident as the years roll on. (p. 8)

See also my introductory post for this series on Facebook, which highlights his historically brand-new position of imputed justification (sola fide). For other installments of this series, see my Lutheranism web page, second section: “Replies to Philip Melanchthon’s Loci Communes.” Melanchthon’s words will be in blue. I use RSV for biblical citations.

***

Rom. 3:31, “We establish the Law through faith.” This is a very brief statement, but it teaches exactly what we are saying, that obedience cannot be begun in us, nor does it please God unless faith is added which determines that the person and the beginning obedience are both pleasing to God for the sake of the Mediator. (p. 102)

And we say that faith must also be added, . . . we . . . want to add the faith which attributes His honor to Christ . . . (p. 107)

We agree (faith comes through divine grace: see Chapter VI below). Trent’s decrees and canons on justification (Sixth Session: 13 January 1547) mention “faith” 44 times. Here are some of them:

CHAPTER II. On the dispensation and mystery of Christ’s advent. Whence it came to pass, that the heavenly Father, the father of mercies and the God of all comfort, when that blessed fulness of the time was come, sent unto men, Jesus Christ, His own Son-who had been, both before the Law, and during the time of the Law, to many of the holy fathers announced and promised-that He might both redeem the Jews who were under the Law, and that the Gentiles, who followed not after justice, might attain to justice, and that all men might receive the adoption of sons. Him God hath proposed as a propitiator, through faith in his blood, for our sins, and not for our sins only, but also for those of the whole world.

*

CHAPTER VI. The manner of Preparation. Now they (adults) are disposed unto the said justice, when, excited and assisted by divine grace, conceiving faith by hearing, they are freely moved towards God, believing those things to be true which God has revealed and promised,-and this especially, that God justifies the impious by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; . . .

*

CHAPTER VII. What the justification of the impious is, and what are the causes thereof. . . . the meritorious cause [of justification] is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father; the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified; . . . man, through Jesus Christ, in whom he is ingrafted, receives, in the said justification, together with the remission of sins, all these (gifts) infused at once, faith, hope, and charity. For faith, unless hope and charity be added thereto, neither unites man perfectly with Christ, nor makes him a living member of His body. For which reason it is most truly said, that Faith without works is dead and profitless; and, In Christ Jesus neither circumcision, availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by charity.

*

CHAPTER VIII. In what manner it is to be understood, that the impious is justified by faith, and gratuitously. And whereas the Apostle saith, that man is justified by faith and freely, those words are to be understood in that sense which the perpetual consent of the Catholic Church hath held and expressed; to wit, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all Justification; without which it is impossible to please God, and to come unto the fellowship of His sons: but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace.

The council goes on, of course, to refute the false and unbiblical doctrine of “faith alone”: using that exact phrase six times: in Chap. IX, Chap. XI (twice), Canon IX, Canon XIV, and Canon XXIX.

We shall add testimonies which clearly tell us that the works of the saints or their beginning obedience are pleasing to God. From these passages we surely are aroused to a zeal for well doing, and at the same time we instruct ourselves in regard to the immeasurable mercy of God who not only approves of our defective obedience but even adorns it with honor and rewards. (p. 102)

Melanchthon seems to have stumbled into the Catholic doctrine of merit, almost despite himself. See my article: Salvation Via Sanctification & Merit: Bible Proofs (Compendium of 78 Biblical Passages On Catholic Justification, Sanctification, Faith & Works, & Merit: Contrary to Protestant “Faith Alone” Soteriology) [8-26-24]. 46 of these passages demonstrate that merit is a biblical doctrine.

Therefore our whole life must be directed to honoring God, to showing what we profess, and to adorning the Gospel, as the passage says, “Let your light shine,” Matt. 5:16. (p. 102)

Amen!

Then this story particularly [the thief on the cross] teaches us that this is truly the meaning of the Gospel, that we are accepted by faith for the sake of the Son of God, even if we do not supply the necessary merits. (p. 103)

The thief on the cross couldn’t perform any good works, so he wasn’t required by God to do them. It doesn’t follow that meritorious works are thus excluded altogether because of one exceptional situation. Melanchthon himself acknowledged that the thief “wants to obey God” (my italics) and “perceives that we must be willing to obey God” (p. 103). The Bible teaches at least thirty-two times that works and sanctification are direct contributing (or even sole mentioned) causes of salvation (see my paper, Salvation Via Sanctification & Merit). That‘s the biblical “norm”; not the thief on the cross. Melanchthon seems to think that one verse proves his novel doctrine of “faith alone”, despite the fact that at least 32 refute it.

Faith that it is not merely the knowledge of the facts, but a trust which seeks eternal life from the Son. (p. 103)

Trent’s decrees and canons on justification also mention “trust” three times, including the following:

God forbid that a Christian should either trust or glory in himself, and not in the Lord, . . . (Chap. XVI)

If any one saith, that Christ Jesus was given of God to men, as a redeemer in whom to trust, and not also as a legislator whom to obey; let him be anathema. (Canon XXI)

Note that Canon XXI is not denying that trust in God is necessary, but rather, trust that excludes obedience. (i.e., a false and unbiblical dichotomy).

There is the necessity for retaining our faith, be cause the Holy Spirit is driven out and grieved when we permit sins against conscience. Thus it clearly says in 1 John 3:7-8, “Let no one deceive you; he who commits sin is of the devil.” And Rom. 8:13, “If you put to death the deeds of the flesh, you will live; if you live according to the flesh, you shall die.” That faith is cut off through sinful works is witnessed by this statement of Paul in 1 Tim. 5:8, “If a person does not provide for his own, especially those of his own house, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” (p. 103)

It seems to me that if sins cut one off from salvation, then righteous, meritorious good works play a necessary role in achieving salvation. The second thing is the converse of the first. Yet Protestants oddly want to deny this.

In those who have been reconciled, after conversion, their good works, since they are pleasing by faith for the sake of the Mediator, as we have said, do merit spiritual and physical rewards in this life and after this life, as the parable of the talents in Matthew 25 clearly shows, v. 29, “To him who has shall be given ..and in 1 Tim. 4:8, “Godliness … has promise of this present life and of the life to come”; cf. Mark 10:30; Matt. 10:42; Luke 6:38; Ex. 20:12; Is. 33:16; 58:10-11. Finally Scripture is full of promises of this kind concerning both spiritual and physical rewards; . . . Individuals cannot keep their faith without practicing it . . .

Therefore we must learn that there is a need for both kinds of good works and that the rewards have not been promised by God in vain, but there is the need for constant practicing of our faith, that it may grow and that we may labor more diligently even though we are undeserving of the rewards. (p. 105)

In order that faith may be kept in trim and grow, God has set forth many different kinds of works and He has added promises of aid and reward, . . . we must fight against this lack of trust on our part and do the works which have been commanded; . . . (p. 105)

Again, Melanchthon proves that merit and “faith + works” is a biblical doctrine. But what Melanchthon doesn’t do is show that grace-produced meritorious works done in faith play a direct role in salvation, as I showed in my paper linked above, giving 32 examples and 46 additional ones about merit per se. Thus he is guilty of presenting an incomplete or partial, selective truth. He denies the connection to salvation in a subtle way (perhaps realizing how radical it is):

But although it is necessary that there be a beginning of the new life, as Paul says in 2 Cor. 5:2-3, “We desire to be clothed upon with new clothing, so that we not be found naked,” yet our heart must always recognize what the psalmist says, Ps. 143:2, “In Your sight shall no flesh be justified”; Ps. 19:12, “Who can understand his sins?” Our heart must know that our virtues are not the price of our eternal life, . . . Nor can faith
rely on two things, the Mediator and our merits, . . . (p. 106)

In the second (1535) edition of Loci Communes, eight years previously (and a full eighteen years after the Protestant Revolution began), Melanchthon had actually asserted the biblical, traditional, and Catholic view that [grace-enabled, faith-accompanied] “good works are necessary for salvation” and indeed, even the “sine qua non [“essential condition”] for salvation.” Luther vigorously criticized this, and Melanchthon changed his language, and in his third edition, disconnected salvation from good works altogether. That was the radical and heretical innovation. He had initially gotten it right, but Luther’s error prevailed. And so it has been ever since in Protestantism: “faith alone” triumphant. Our separated brethren decided to go against the ancient wise advice of Solomon: “Remove not the ancient landmark which your fathers have set” (Prov 22:28; cf. 23:10; Hos 5:10).

Although we have said that sins remain in the regenerate, it is still necessary that we deal with the difference among sins. For it is a certainty that those who fall into sins which are against conscience do not remain in grace, do not keep their faith, their righteousness, or the Holy Spirit; and faith cannot stand with evil intentions in the face of conscience, that is, faith which is confidence in our acceptance by God. For these desires are absolutely opposed to one another, and true prayer cannot exist with a bad conscience which flees from God, as it says in 1 John 3:21, “If our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence toward God.”

Therefore we must retain the rule that it is necessary in those who have been reconciled that there be this righteousness of a good conscience, as it says in 1 Tim. 1:5, “The sum of the commandment is love out of a pure heart, of a good conscience, and of genuine faith. . . . many passages testify that those who allow themselves to sin against conscience are cut off from grace and drive out faith and the Holy Spirit, and be come guilty of the wrath of God and eternal punishments. For example, Gal. 5:19-21, “The works of the flesh are manifest: adultery, fornication, uncleanness … idolatry … they who do such things shall not possess the kingdom of God.” He is speaking of manifest works which are done against our conscience. 1 Cor. 6:9-10, “Do not make any mistake: neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers… shall inherit the kingdom of God.” (p. 106; my italics)

Here, Melanchthon — blessedly — correctly espouses the distinction between venial and mortal sins: the latter gravely endangering one’s salvation. One can lose grace and salvation, and fall away (over against Calvinism). Again, by analogy or parallelism, if those guilty of serious sin lose their salvation, then those who do the opposite thing and perform righteous works inherit salvation, by means of those works, necessarily and always conjoined with grace and faith. Wouldn’t that seem to logically follow? I think so, myself.

Thus, the actual logical result of what Melanchthon is saying here is “faith + works” as opposed to faith alone. As so often in Protestantism, there is incoherence and even self-contradiction, without this being realized. We’re often blind to our own errors, as opposed to being consciously aware of them.

When sin takes control it brings with it all kinds of troubles and the wrath of God and eternal death. On the other hand, when sin does
not reign over us, the godly keep the righteousness and faith which have been given to them, and thus Paul can say, “If by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the flesh, you shall live.” (p. 107).

Melanchthon basically sums up the Catholic argument, not seeming to be aware of the implications.

Yet without cause they so savagely attack the concept that has been set forth in our churches regarding justification, which undoubtedly is the very essence of the Gospel and the consensus of the holy patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and all godly people in all ages who have brought light to this subject. (p. 107)

“Faith alone” was not the consensus of prior history at all. What was taught by the apostles in the Bible and by the fathers was initial (infused / imparted) justification by faith through grace, which includes in an organic way, sanctification and good works. Melanchthon radically separated sanctification from justification. That was the primary error.

All people have believed that there must be in us repentance and that good works must follow, . . . (p. 107)

Indeed.

They say nothing about the Mediator, the promises, the Gospel, of faith or trust in the Mediator; . . . they command us to destroy
the Gospel and the promise and to bury Christ. (p. 108)

Nonsense. I have shown that this is a lie in my citations from Trent. But such a claim is ridiculous on its face even before any citations are produced. Anyone who knows anything at all about doctrinal history knows that. So why did Melanchthon — a very educated man — assert such a ludicrous lie, is the question? And this is what Catholics have had to deal with for over 500 years. The caricatures and distortions never end.

[citing allegedly Catholic views] We are not justified by faith. (p. 108)

That’s not our view. We certainly are justified by faith — even faith alone at first — but not by faith alone after we are regenerated. The story of Abraham’s justification demonstrates how it is both faith and works that are in play (“faith without works is dead” after all: says James), and that we must maintain our justification in cooperation with God, just as we maintain our status of being in His grace and salvation, as Melanchthon himself concedes.

Paul says in Rom. 3:28 that we “are justified by faith,” . . . (p. 108)

Yes he does, and he also states in the same letter:

Romans 2:6-10 For he will render to every man according to his works: [7] to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; [8] but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. [9] There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, [10] but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.

Romans 2:13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

Romans 6:22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life.

Romans 8:17 . . . heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.

All of these passages absolutely pulverize “faith alone”: especially Romans 2:13 (and all from just this one epistle). They’re perfectly consistent with Romans 3:28: logically, and in Catholic theology. But Protestant theology cannot explain the four passages above, in a way that is consistent with its false “faith alone” soteriology. Catholic theology incorporates and harmonizes all of Scripture. Protestant theology tends to pick and choose a few passages that appear prima facie to support its view, or express a partial truth, taken for a whole truth, and ignore many more.

The word “faith” signifies knowledge in the mind and an assent to the promise concerning Christ, and in the will a trust by which the will desires and receives the offered mercy and rests in it. (p. 108)

The Catholic Church doesn’t disagree with this, as far as it goes. The Catechism of the Catholic Church has several passages that incorporate “trust” in conjunction with faith. Here are twelve:

154 Believing is possible only by grace and the interior helps of the Holy Spirit. But it is no less true that believing is an authentically human act. Trusting in God and cleaving to the truths he has revealed is contrary neither to human freedom nor to human reason. Even in human relations it is not contrary to our dignity to believe what other persons tell us about themselves and their intentions, or to trust their promises (for example, when a man and a woman marry) to share a communion of life with one another. If this is so, still less is it contrary to our dignity to “yield by faith the full submission of… intellect and will to God who reveals”, and to share in an interior communion with him.

215 . . . This is why one can abandon oneself in full trust to the truth and faithfulness of his word in all things. . . .

1062 In Hebrew, amen comes from the same root as the word “believe.” This root expresses solidity, trustworthiness, faithfulness. And so we can understand why “Amen” may express both God’s faithfulness towards us and our trust in him.

1520 . . . This grace is a gift of the Holy Spirit, who renews trust and faith in God . . .

1817 Hope is the theological virtue by which we desire the kingdom of heaven and eternal life as our happiness, placing our trust in Christ’s promises and relying not on our own strength, but on the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit. . . .

2005 Since it belongs to the supernatural order, grace escapes our experience and cannot be known except by faith. We cannot therefore rely on our feelings or our works to conclude that we are justified and saved. However, according to the Lord’s words “Thus you will know them by their fruits”- reflection on God’s blessings in our life and in the lives of the saints offers us a guarantee that grace is at work in us and spurs us on to an ever greater faith and an attitude of trustful poverty.

2579 . . . His [David’s] prayer, the prayer of God’s Anointed, is a faithful adherence to the divine promise and expresses a loving and joyful trust in God, . . .

2592 The prayer of Abraham and Jacob is presented as a battle of faith marked by trust in God’s faithfulness and by certitude in the victory promised to perseverance.

2738 The revelation of prayer in the economy of salvation teaches us that faith rests on God’s action in history. Our filial trust is enkindled by his supreme act: the Passion and Resurrection of his Son. . . .

2742 . . . Against our dullness and laziness, the battle of prayer is that of humble, trusting, and persevering love. This love opens our hearts to three enlightening and life-giving facts of faith about prayer.

2797 Simple and faithful trust, humble and joyous assurance are the proper dispositions for one who prays the Our Father.

2837 “Daily” (epiousios) occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. Taken in a temporal sense, this word is a pedagogical repetition of “this day,” to confirm us in trust “without reservation.” . . .

I wrote two articles about our trust in God, and related concepts:

Trusting God as an Element of Faith & Discipleship [1-8-10]

Bible on the Nature of Saving Faith (Including Assent, Trust, Hope, Works, Obedience, and Sanctification) [1-21-10]

Therefore faith is not only a knowledge but that trust, as we have said, by which the promise is laid hold upon . . . (p. 108)

Trust is an essential part of the whole equation of faith and discipleship. This is nothing new. The Catholic Church understood this long before Melanchthon existed (because it’s in the Bible: 109 times in the Protestant OT, and 13 times in the NT), and continues to do so, to this day. Oftentimes, Catholics also think of “trust” as a synonym of “hope.” In any event, we don’t exclude it, as Melanchthon incorrectly implies, and Romans 4:5 (“And to one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness”) makes the most direct one-to-one equation of faith and trust.

No one can fail to see how absurd a notion it would be if a person should believe regarding such passages that faith means nothing else than the kind of knowledge the devil has. . . . it is easy for a sane man to understand that the faith of the church which calls upon God is not like the
faith of the devil who flees from Him. (pp. 108-109)

We fully agree, and reply that what is also absurd to pretend that the Catholic Church has ever taught such a ridiculous thing. If it did, Melanchthon could easily simply cite a proof, couldn’t he? But he never does . . .

Our love does not satisfy the law of God, . . . (p. 110)

That’s funny. St. Paul said that it did:

Romans 13:8-10 . . . he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. [9] The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this sentence, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” [10] Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

James 2:24, “You see, therefore, that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” I reply without any sophistry: It is evident that “faith” in this passage in James refers to the knowledge of the historical facts such as the damned also possess. For he says, v. 19, “The devils believe and tremble.” Furthermore it must be confessed, and we do clearly confess, that a man is not righteous by this knowledge. But Paul, when he is speaking of faith, understands confidence in God’s mercy which relies on the Mediator and for His sake receives reconciliation. Therefore we must understand “faith” in one sense in Paul, when he says in Rom. 10:10, “With the heart man believes unto righteousness,” and in another way in James 2:19, . . . (p. 111)

This is beyond silly. James 2:219 doesn’t even contain the word, “faith.” Rather, it’s “believe.” Secondly, several times throughout the book of James, “faith” is used in the way that Melanchthon states that Paul used it:

James 1:3 for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness.

James 1:6 But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind.

James 2:5 . . . Has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which he has promised to those who love him?

James 5:15 and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.

Moreover, when James is writing about how faith and works must be hand-in-hand (2:14-26), “faith” must be used in Melanchthon’s sense, rather than “belief” or “assent” because, what sense does it make to say, “my works will show you my faith” (2:18) if “faith” there means “belief”? It makes none. Technically, one can’t prove what they believe by what they do. If I think the moon is round or pumpkins are orange, what work can I do to demonstrate that I believe those things? Thus, James’ use of “faith” in the sense of belief one time proves northing about it’s use in the entire book. But there’s your tiresome Protestant cherry-picking again. Melanchthon analyzes on a surfacey, superficial level; I go much deeper and do a proper exegetical analysis.

***
*

Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 4,800+ free online articles or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

*
***
*

Photo credit: Portrait of Philipp Melanchthon (1564), by the Workshop of Lucas Cranach the Younger (1515-1586) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: Analysis of Melanchthon’s Loci Communes, including Trent on “faith”, merit, “trust” in God, how the error of “faith alone” was established, mortal sin, and “faith” in James.