![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2022\/10\/Brazilian-Cover-331x499-2.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n[see book and purchase information<\/a>]<\/p>\n Francisco Tourinho<\/span><\/span><\/a>\u00a0is a Brazilian Calvinist apologist. He described his theological credentials\u00a0on my Facebook page<\/a>:<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n I have the respect of the academic community for my articles published in peer review magazines, translation of unpublished classical works into Portuguese and also the production of a book in the year 2019 with more than 2000 copies sold (with no marketing). In addition I have higher education in physical education from Piau\u00ed State University and theology from the Assemblies of God<\/a> Biblical Institute, am currently working towards a Masters from Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary, and did post-graduate work at Dom Bosco Catholic University. Also, I am a professor in the Reformed Scholasticism discipline at the Jonathan Edwards Seminary in the postgraduate course in Philosophical Theology. [edited slightly for more flowing English]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n My previous replies:<\/p>\n Justification: A Catholic Perspective (vs. Francisco Tourinho)<\/a>\u00a0[6-22-22]<\/p>\n Reply to Francisco Tourinho on Justification: Round 2 (Pt. 1)<\/a>\u00a0[+ Part 2<\/a>] [+ Part 3<\/a>] [7-19-22]<\/p>\n This is an ongoing debate, which we plan to make into a book, both in Portugese and English. Francisco\u2019s words will be in blue<\/span>. Mine from my previous installment will be in green<\/span>. I will try very hard to cite my own past words less, for two reasons: 1) the sake of relative brevity, and 2) because the back-and-forth will be preserved in a more convenient and accessible way in the book (probably with some sort of handy numerical and index system).<\/p>\n In instances where I agree<\/em> with Francisco, there is no reason to repeat his words again, either. I\u2019ll be responding to Francisco\u2019s current argument and noting if and when he misunderstood or overlooked something I think is important: in which case I\u2019ll sometimes have to cite my past words. I use RSV for all Bible passages (both mine and Francisco\u2019s) unless otherwise indicated.<\/p>\n His current reply is entitled, Justifica\u00e7\u00e3o pela f\u00e9: perspectiva protestante (contra Armstrong): Rodada 3. Parte 1.<\/a> [Justification by Faith: Protestant Perspective (Contra Armstrong): Round 3. Part 1<\/em>] (10-12-22). Note that he is replying only to Part I<\/a> of my previous Round 2 reply. When he writes his replies to my Parts II and III and I counter-reply, the debate will be completed, by mutual agreement, except for brief closing statements. I get the (rather large) advantage of \u201chaving the last word\u201d because Francisco chose the topic and wrote the first installment.<\/p>\n I would like the reader to pay attention to the fulcrum of my argument. Any reader is \u201cauthorized\u201d to overlook any detail except this one: the perfect work of Jesus Christ on Calvary\u2019s cross! <\/span><\/p>\n Yes, of course<\/em> it\u2019s perfect because we\u2019re talking about God.<\/p>\n The foundation of Sola Fide<\/em> (justification by faith alone) is the perfect work of Jesus on the cross. For only by faith can we receive Jesus Christ, and in receiving Jesus, we also receive his merits and his righteousness. How then are we not already perfectly justified the moment we receive it? <\/span><\/p>\n We are in initial justification, but then a process is involved whereby we continually appropriate the perfect work of Jesus on the cross. I have already demonstrated this with much Scripture.<\/p>\n A process of justification in which works also justify when accompanied by faith denies the perfection of Christ\u2019s sacrifice on the cross, as it would have as a logical consequence the teaching that Christ is not enough, since my works must conquer something that Christ did not give me. Only by his death. Jesus Christ, the Just, transfers his righteousness to us, while taking our sin upon himself. Read the text with this in mind, for I will repeat this point several times, not for the absence of others, but for its gigantic importance.<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s fine to repeat an emphasis, as long as readers bear in mind that mere repetition adds nothing substantive to an existing argument. St. Paul is the one who clearly teaches some sort of process involved in justification and salvation. Yes, the work of Christ on the cross is perfect and sufficient for any person who accepts the grace to be saved. But the acceptance<\/em> and application<\/em> of it to persons (especially in Pauline theology) is not instant, and requires our vigilant effort:<\/p>\n Romans 8:17<\/strong> (RSV) and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer<\/span> with him<\/strong><\/span> in order that we may also be glorified with him.<\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 9:27<\/strong>\u00a0 but I pommel my body and subdue it, lest<\/strong> <\/span>after preaching to others I myself should be<\/span><\/strong> disqualified<\/strong><\/span>.<\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 10:12<\/strong>\u00a0Therefore let any one who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall<\/span><\/strong><\/span>.<\/p>\n Philippians 3:11-14\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong>that if possible<\/strong><\/span> I may attain the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained<\/span> this<\/strong><\/span> or am already perfect; but I press on<\/span> to make it my own<\/span><\/strong><\/span>, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Brethren, I do not consider that I have made it my own . . . I press on toward the goal<\/span><\/strong> <\/span>for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Colossians 1:22-24<\/strong> he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him, [23] provided that you continue<\/span> in the faith<\/strong><\/span>, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which has been preached to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister. [24]\u00a0Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ\u2019s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church,<\/p>\n Hebrews 3:14<\/strong> For we share in Christ, if<\/strong> <\/span>only<\/span> we hold our first confidence firm to the end<\/span><\/strong><\/span>.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Hebrews 10:39<\/strong> But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed<\/span><\/strong>, but of those who have faith and keep<\/span> their souls<\/strong><\/span>.<\/p>\n Revelation 2:10<\/strong>\u00a0Be faithful unto death<\/span><\/span><\/strong>, and I will give you the crown of life.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n If I have mentioned some of these before, they can be omitted in the book version. At this point, it\u2019s too tedious to go back and check.<\/p>\n Contrary to what I have defined, Mr. Armstrong does not make a practical \u2013 or even theoretical \u2013 difference between justification and sanctification, although at times he claims to be different things, using the terms interchangeably in his exegesis of Biblical texts. As we will see later, he fails to demonstrate the difference between one and the other.<\/span><\/p>\n They are organically connected; two sides of the same coin: just as faith and works and Bible and tradition are. But distinctions can<\/em> be made (I agree). In fact, I offered a meticulous definition of both in my previous reply<\/a> (search \u201cI\u2019m glad to do so\u201d to find it). I cited my first book, which is semi-catechetical; massively citing the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Trent. Here are brief definitions from that treatment, citing my own words in my book:<\/p>\n Justification . . . is a true eradication of sin, a supernatural infusion of grace,<\/em> and a renewal of the inner man. [derived from: CCC #1987-1992;\u00a0 Trent, Decree on Justification<\/em>,\u00a0<\/em>chapters 7-8]<\/p>\n Sanctification is the process of being made actually holy, not merely legally declared so. [CCC,<\/em> #1987, 1990, 2000]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I fleshed it out much further. I fail to see how this is insufficient for our task of debating the definitions and concepts, or how I could be any clearer than I was.<\/p>\n I made it clear last time what the practical effect was when I said in my previous article: if justification is a forensic statement in which the merits of Christ are all imputed to me through faith, then I can have peace with God, as St. in Romans 5:1: \u201cJustified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Christ Jesus.\u201d If Christ fulfilled the Law and also had perfect obedience, then his merits are perfect when imputed to me and I can therefore have peace with God \u2013 the just for the unjust. This peace will not be obtained if justification is a lifelong process, not without great difficulty.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n This is mere repetition, thus adding nothing to the debate. I already addressed it, and I did again, above, with eight biblical passages. That\u2019s my \u201cproblem.\u201d I can\u2019t figure out a way to ignore and dismiss so many scriptural passages that expressly contradict Protestant soteriology.<\/p>\n When will I be righteous before God if my justification also depends on my good works?\u00a0How many good works will I have to do to be considered righteous before God?<\/span><\/p>\n We don\u2019t need<\/em> to know that. All we need to know and do<\/em> is to<\/span> \u201cpress on toward the goal\u201d and \u201ccontinue in the faith, stable and steadfast\u201d: as the Apostle Paul did (Phil 3:14 and Col 3:23), because justification is not yet \u201cobtained\u201d (Phil 3:12). We have to \u201ckeep our eyes on Jesus\u201d: as we used to say as evangelicals. And we have to do this \u201clest\u201d we \u201cshould be disqualified\u201d (1 Cor 9:27). We also have to \u201csuffer with\u201d Jesus in order to be God\u2019s \u201cchildren\u201d and \u201cheirs of God\u201d (Rom 8:17).<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n Paul \u2014 as always \u2014 is very straightforward, matter-of-fact, and blunt about all this (one of the million things I love about him). None of this suggests (to put it mildly) instant, irrevocable justification.<\/span><\/p>\n Although faith is not against works, they are exclusive with regard to the causes of justification, sanctification and salvation before God, for Saint Paul says: \u201cFor by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves. , it is the gift of God; does not come through works, so that no one may boast on this account.\u201d Eph 2.8,9 <\/span><\/p>\n This is referring to initial justification, as I believe (without looking!), as indicated in context by 2:5 (\u201cwe were dead through our trespasses\u201d), that I have noted before in this debate. The very next verse (which Protestants habitually omit) shows the organic connection:<\/p>\n Ephesians 2:10<\/strong> For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I had a dear late devout Baptist (and Marxist!) friend, who always would point out how Protestants leave out Ephesians 2:10.\u00a0\u00a0It doesn\u2019t explicitly state here that these works are indirectly tied to salvation, in conjunction with grace and faith, but that idea occurs elsewhere, many times, as I have already shown.<\/p>\n Good works are not formal causes of salvation at any time, but only manifestations of the transformation that God makes in us, for the working follows the Being. Therefore even holy works must be the fruits of holiness, not the cause of it. To say that works are the cause of salvation, therefore, of holiness, is Pelagianism, since every good work of supernatural value presupposes grace, and the action of grace presupposes an enablement, therefore, a sanctification. Mr. Armstrong seems to forget this Biblical and metaphysical principle: the good fruit is the effect of the good tree and not the other way around; on the other hand, we know the good tree by its fruits.<\/span><\/p>\n The Bible teaches us (fifty times!<\/em><\/strong>) that works play a key role in whether one is saved<\/a> and allowed to enter heaven or not. I\u2019ve already gone through that reasoning in depth. What is most striking about the fifty passage is that faith alone<\/em> is never<\/em><\/strong> mentioned as the cause for salvation. \u201cFaith\u201d by itself is mentioned but once: in Revelation 21:8, which includes the \u201cfaithless\u201d among those who will be damned for eternity. Even there it is surrounded by many bad works that characterize the reprobate person. If Jesus had attended a good Protestant seminary and gotten up to speed on His soteriology, Matthew 25 would have read quite differently; something like the following:<\/p>\n Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books,\u00a0according to whether they had Faith Alone<\/em>. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them\u00a0according to\u00a0whether they had Faith Alone<\/em>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Instead, we hear from our Lord Jesus all this useless talk about works, as if they had anything to do with salvation! Doesn\u2019t Jesus know<\/i>\u00a0that works have no\u00a0connection<\/i> to salvation whatsoever, and that sanctification and justification are entirely separated in good, orthodox evangelical or Calvinist theology? Maybe our Lord Jesus attended a liberal synagogue. Why does Jesus keep talking about feeding the hungry, giving water to the thirsty, inviting in strangers, clothing the naked, visiting prisoners, and being judged \u201caccording to their deeds\u201d? What in the world do all these \u201cworks\u201d have to do with salvation? Why doesn\u2019t Jesus talk about Faith Alone??!! Something is seriously wrong here.<\/p>\n We have a serious problem here, for from the beginning I accuse the theology of Rome of equating justification and sanctification.<\/span><\/p>\n We make a sharp differentiation between initial and subsequent justification; and at least some distinction between sanctification and justification.<\/p>\n Mr. Armstrong denies, according to his statements, that justification is the same as sanctification, but maintains that the two are so intertwined that one cannot exist without the other, something with which I need not disagree at all.<\/span><\/p>\n Good!<\/p>\n Nevertheless, I maintain that the issue is not exactly this, but that we do not see the difference between one and the other in their definitions or in their practical applications. When he says that justification is \u201ca true eradication of sin . . . and a renewal of the inward man,\u201d the concept used here does not differ from sanctification.<\/span><\/p>\n Yes, precisely because we believe in infused and intrinsic justification, whereas Protestants believe only in declarative, imparted, and extrinsic justification. Baptist theologian Augustus Strong explains Protestant justification very well: . . .\u00a0 a declarative act, as distinguished from an efficient act; an act of God external to the sinner, as distinguished from an act within the sinner\u2019s nature and changing that nature; a judicial act, as distinguished from a sovereign act; an act based upon and logically presupposing the sinner\u2019s union with Christ, as distinguished from an act which causes and is followed by that union with Christ. (Systematic Theology<\/i>, Westwood, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell, 1967; originally 1907, 849)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n So does Presbyterian theologian Charles Hodge:<\/p>\n It does not produce any subjective change in the person justified. It does not effect a change of character, making those good who were bad, those holy who were unholy. That is done in regeneration and sanctification . . . It is a forensic or judicial act . . . It is a declarative act in which God pronounces the sinner just or righteous . . . (Systematic Theology<\/i>, abridged one-volume edition by Edward N. Gross, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1988; originally 1873, 3 volumes; 454)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n But Catholics believe that justification actually does<\/em> something in souls, based on the Bible:<\/p>\n Romans 5:19<\/strong> For as by one man\u2019s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man\u2019s obedience many will be made righteous.<\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 6:11<\/strong> But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.<\/p>\n 2 Corinthians 5:17<\/strong> Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come. (cf. Gal 6:15)<\/p>\n Titus 2:14<\/strong>\u00a0Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.<\/p>\n Titus 3:5-7<\/strong> he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, [6] which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, [7] so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life.<\/p>\n 2 Peter 1:9<\/strong> For whoever lacks these things is blind and shortsighted and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins.<\/p>\n Acts 22:16<\/strong> And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I made an argument about the last verse in my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism<\/em><\/a> (completed in 1996; published in 2003):<\/p>\n The Protestant has difficulty explaining this passage, for it is St. Paul\u2019s own recounting of his odyssey as a newly \u201cborn-again\u201d Christian. We have here the Catholic doctrine of (sacramental) sanctification\/justification, in which sins are actually removed.<\/em> The phraseology \u201cwash away your sins\u201c<\/em> is reminiscent of Psalm 51:2, 7; 1 John 1:7, 9 [\u201cthe blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. . . . will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness\u201d] and other similar texts dealing with infused justification, . . .<\/p>\n According to the standard Evangelical soteriology, the Apostle Paul would have been instantly \u201cjustified\u201d at the Damascus-road experience when he first converted (almost involuntarily!) to Christ (Acts 9:1-9). Thus, his sins would have been \u201ccovered over\u201d and righteousness imputed to him at that point. If so, why would St. Paul use this terminology of washing away sins at Baptism in a merely symbolic sense (as they assert), since it would be superfluous? The reasonable alternative, especially given the evidence of other related scriptures, is that St. Paul was speaking literally,<\/em> not symbolically. (p. 39)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Francisco cites my definition:<\/p>\n Sanctification is the process of being made actually holy, not merely legally declared so. [4] It begins at Baptism, [5] is facilitated by means of prayer, acts of charity and the aid of sacraments, and is consummated upon entrance to Heaven and union with God. [6] . . .<\/span><\/p>\n But what is the difference between this definition of sanctification and the definition of justification? <\/span><\/p>\n They\u2019re very close, as I have said, since our infused justification is essentially how you define sanctification.<\/p>\n Worthy of special attention is the denial of legal declaration, i.e., the denial of the imputation of Christ\u2019s merits to man, a point to which I will return shortly.<\/span><\/p>\n Trent didn\u2019t preclude any imputation whatsoever. I have had an article about this topic<\/a> since 1996 on my blog. It was written by Dr. Kenneth Howell, who obtained a Master of Divinity degree from Westminster Seminary, a doctorate in history, and was Associate Professor of Biblical Languages and Literature at Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, Mississippi and Associate Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Illinois. He wrote:<\/p>\n Trent does not exclude the notion of imputation. It only denies that justification consists solely in imputation. The relevant canons are numbers 9-11. Canon 9 does not even deny sola fide<\/em>\u00a0completely but only a very minimal interpretation of that notion. I translate literally:<\/p>\n If anyone says that the impious are justified by faith alone so that he understands [by this] that nothing else is required in which [quo] he cooperates in working out the grace of justification and that it is not necessary at all that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his will, let him be anathema.<\/p>\n Canon 9 then only anathematizes such a reduced form of faith that no outworking of that faith is necessary. This canon in no way says that imputation is not true but only that it is heretical to hold that justification consists solely in imputation.<\/p>\n I am puzzled why anyone would say that extrinsic righteousness might be excluded by Trent. The only righteousness that justifies is Christ\u2019s. But Catholic theology teaches that what is Christ\u2019s becomes ours by grace. In fact Canon 10 anathematizes anyone who denies that we can be justified without Christ\u2019s righteousness or anyone who says that we are formally justified by that righteousness alone. Here\u2019s the words:<\/p>\n If anyone says that men are justified without Christ\u2019s righteousness which he merited for us or that they are formally justified by it itself [i.e. righteousness] [\u2018per eam ipsam<\/em>\u2018], let him be anathema.<\/p>\n Canon 10 says that Christ\u2019s righteousness is both necessary and not limited to imputation i.e. formally. So, imputation is not excluded but only said to be not sufficient.<\/p>\n With regard to imputation, if Trent indeed excludes it, I am ready to reject it. But the wording of the decrees does not seem to me to require this.<\/p>\n How could I become a Catholic if I still thought imputation was acceptable? Because I came to see that the rigid distinction between justification and sanctification so prominent in Reformation theologies was an artificial distinction that Scripture did not support. When one takes into account the whole of Scripture, especially James\u2019 and Jesus\u2019 teaching on the necessity of perfection for salvation (e.g. Matt 5;8), I realized that man cannot be \u201csimul justus et peccator<\/em>.\u201d Transformational righteousness is absolutely essential for final salvation. . . .<\/p>\n The Protestant doctrine, it seems to me, has at least two sides. Imputation is the declaration of forgiveness on God\u2019s part because of Christ\u2019s work but it is also a legal fiction that has nothing immediately to do with real (subjective) state of the penitent. Now I think the declaration side of imputation is acceptable to Trent but not the legal fiction side. The difference between the Tridentine and the Reformation views, in addition to many other aspects, is that in the latter view God only sees us as righteous while in the former, Christ confers righteousness upon (and in) us.<\/p>\n There is another reason why I think imputation is not totally excluded but is acceptable in a modified form. Canon 9 rejects\u00a0sola fide<\/em>\u00a0but, as we know, Trent does not reject faith as essential to justification. It only rejects the reductionism implied in the\u00a0sola<\/em>. So also, canon 11 rejects \u201csola imputatione justitiae Christi and sola peccatorum remissione<\/em>.\u201d Surely Trent includes remission of sins in justification. Why would we not say then that it also includes imputation of Christ\u2019s righteousness? If faith (canon 9) and remission of sins (canon 11) are essential to justification, then should we not also say that imputation of Christ\u2019s righteousness is also necessary? . . .<\/p>\n What is wrong with the Reformation view then? It is the\u00a0sola<\/em>\u00a0part. Faith is essential but not\u00a0sola fide<\/em>. Remission of sins is essential but not\u00a0sola remissione<\/em>. Imputation via absolution is essential but not\u00a0sola imputatione<\/em>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n See my related articles:<\/p>\n Council of Trent: Canons on Justification<\/a>\u00a0(with a handy summary of Tridentine soteriology)\u00a0<\/strong><\/a>[12-29-03]<\/p>\n Initial Justification & \u201cFaith Alone\u201d: Harmonious?<\/a>\u00a0[5-3-04]<\/p>\n Monergism in Initial Justification is Catholic Doctrine<\/a>\u00a0[1-7-10]<\/p>\n Salvation: By Grace Alone,\u00a0Not<\/em>\u00a0Faith Alone or Works<\/a>\u00a0[2013]<\/p>\n I agree that the sacraments confer grace and that we feed on the body of Christ, but not without the help of faith and freedom. We Protestants reject the passivity of the human being in receiving grace through the sacraments and, although this is not the appropriate place for this debate, I take the opportunity to ask: when the Roman Catholic feeds on Christ, does he not believe that he feeds on Christ? if also of its merits? Or is the Christ of the Eucharist not the crucified, dead and risen Christ? Does the Christ of the Eucharist come without the merits earned by his obedient life and death on the cross? And if he comes with the merits of his obedience and death, how can anyone not be perfectly justified if Christ himself with his righteousness is in us? <\/span><\/p>\n We believe that the infinite merits of Christ were received upon initial justification, which is monergistic and includes imputation, as just explained.<\/p>\n Saint Paul says: \u201cAnd if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the spirit lives because of righteousness.\u201d Romans 8:10 <\/span><\/p>\n That sure sounds like infused, not imputed justification, to me.<\/p>\n To deny the present perfection of justification is to deny the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and this logical consequence is devastating for the Roman Catholic.<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s not at all, per the reasoning and Bible passages I have already presented in this reply. Catholics have a moral assurance of salvation<\/a>, which for all practical purposes, isn\u2019t all that different from Protestants\u2019 belief in a past justification. We simply acknowledge, with Paul, that we have to remain vigilant<\/em>, so we don\u2019t fall away from faith and grace. Calvinists have the insuperable burden of having to rationalize and explain away the many verses along those lines. I never accepted eternal security or perseverance of the saints (though I came close and thought that only deliberate rejection of Christ would cause apostasy), which is why I was an Arminian evangelical. I was making arguments against Calvinism in the early 1980s. But I\u2019ve also been positively influenced by many great Reformed Protestant theologians.<\/p>\n The idea that there is merit to be rewarded (congruity or condignity) presupposes a self-originating work, . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n I used the phrase \u201cself-originated works\u201d<\/span> \u2014 in context \u2014 with the meaning of \u201cwithout God\u2019s prior enabling grace.\u201d I was opposing (as the Catholic Church does) Pelagianism and works-salvation but not works altogether, which obviously involve human free will and choice.<\/p>\n To say that there is merit to be rewarded is against Christian ethics from every angle. To paraphrase Luther: there is no merit, either of congruity or of condignity; all merit belongs to Christ on the cross. But the Church of Rome teaches that the person has merit, contrary to what is said: \u201cthat God crowns his own merits\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n Yes, St. Augustine wrote that, and it perfectly harmonizes with our conception of merit. I\u2019ve written many articles about merit, as taught in the Bible. Here are some of those:<\/p>\n Catholic Merit vs. Distorted Caricatures (James McCarthy)<\/a>\u00a0[1997]<\/p>\n Does Catholic Merit = \u201cWorks Salvation\u201d?<\/a>\u00a0[2007]<\/p>\n Catholic Bible Verses\u00a0on Sanctification and Merit<\/a>\u00a0[12-20-07]<\/p>\n Our Merit is Based on Our Response to God\u2019s Grace<\/a>\u00a0[2009]<\/p>\n Merit & Human Cooperation with God (vs. Calvin #35)<\/a>\u00a0[10-19-09]<\/p>\n Scripture on Being Co-Workers with God for Salvation<\/a>\u00a0[2013]<\/p>\n The Bible Is Clear: Some Holy People Are Holier Than Others<\/a>\u00a0[National Catholic Register<\/em>, 9-19-22]<\/p>\n God crowns his own merits, not the merit that man has earned; God crowns Christ, and the merits we have are all of Christ and received by faith, not works, which is why we have no merit.<\/span><\/p>\n I contend that that\u2019s not what the Bible teaches. The Old Testament refers to \u201cthe righteous\u201d 136 times<\/a> and the New Testament uses the same sense 15 times<\/a>. Every time that occurs, merit is present: someone has achieved a relatively better status under God, with regard to an attainment of greater grace and righteousness and less sin. They\u2019ve done meritorious actions (all of which were necessarily preceded by the grace of God, to enable them) and have been rewarded for them. That\u2019s merit (and God\u2019s lovingkindness).<\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n