Every (or, at least, nearly every) religion on the planet has a "works-based" method for getting to heaven (whatever that entails). Do enough good and you'll be fine. Well, at least be better than some. At least one, I suppose. ("Well, I'm not as bad as Hitler, so I'll be okay.") The problem in the New Testament period was the notion that you could be saved by obeying the Law. Same concept. The only problem, of course, was that it was plainly impossible.
The concept of "saved by works" is ludricrous in biblical thinking. The standard in the Old Testament was "Cursed be anyone who does not confirm the words of this law by doing them" (Deut 27:26). (Compare with Gal 3:10.) Perfect obedience. The New Testament doesn't get better. Jesus said, "You are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matt 5:48). Perfect obedience. So let's think this through. What would it take to be saved by works? Well, the standard is perfect obedience, so, obviously, it would take perfect obedience. But if someone was to achieve perfect obedience, what would they need to be saved from? They wouldn't be under the wrath of God. No problem; no salvation needed. On the other hand, if someone broke one -- just one -- law, what would it take to remedy that? Extra obedience? Can't happen. 100% is 100%. You can't be more obedient than perfectly obedient. That's why Paul declares clearly and concisely, "By the works of the Law no flesh will be justified" (Gal 2:16). The Law wasn't given for that purpose. It was simply laid down to document the standard we have to meet ... or, rather, the standard we fail to meet.
Still, Satan keeps peddling his lie. "Be good enough and you can go to heaven." It is, in fact, true. It just leaves out the fact that no one, with the singular exception of the Son of God, can manage it. And foolish humans (Rom 1:22) keep buying Satan's goods. "I can do it. I can be good enough. God wouldn't keep me out of heaven just for some infractions, for some minor things" (where "minor things" can involve all manner of sin). We deceive ourselves (Jer 17:9) and think we're okay. We need a Savior, so God, in order to be both just and justifier, provided One (Rom 3:24-26). And our only hope is to trust God's provision. Thanks be to God!
19 comments:
Based on this idea, I've never understood the Catholic teaching of the merit of "Saints". According to their doctrine, we are saved only by our being righteous, and faith simply gets us started on that path. But somehow, the "Saints" did more good works than were necessary for salvation and were both able to skip purgatory and have enough merit to be given to others by the Pope. I mean, just on a logical path, that makes no sense. How can you be more than perfectly righteous?
David, Would you be willing to expound a little bit about why you are (or have been) trying to understand Catholic teaching? Are you of the mindset that you would find Catholic doctrine to be biblical if only you understood it better? I am very curious.
By way of introduction, David (and for others), I am a long-time daily reader of this blog (for at least 10 years). I never commented here during all those years but decided recently to begin doing so (as you probably have noticed :). I’m of your dad’s generation, raised a Catholic but saved to a biblical faith at age 20. I grew up in central NJ, worked at Princeton University for 10 years (while Brooke Shields attended there, if you know who she is), and then relocated in 1986 to southeastern PA with my husband of 45 years (also raised Catholic but saved while attending Trenton State College), where we raised our two children.
Oops, it was so long ago that I got the date wrong: I relocated to PA in 1988, not 1986. I always want to be accurate in what I say/write. (All the other facts I stated are correct...I think :).
For the same reason I want to know about any other religion, to be able to refute it. I've heard it said that the best way to argue against a position is to understand it. Otherwise you're just arguing strawmen. And I hang up on Catholicism because we grew out of that place as Protestants and I think it is a good idea to know what we are protesting. I do the same kind of thinking about Judaism. We do share some traditions with the Catholic Church, and even some of the same "heroes", and yet come to drastically different conclusions. Some day I'd like to actually talk theology with a Catholic or a Jew, and the more I can consider the arguments beforehand, the better. I just feel so sad for the Catholic Church because they are so close to the truth, and yet so far.
I’d sure like to take comfort by comparing myself to, say, Hitler. But Paul says in Romans 3:23 that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” and James 2:10 says that “whoever shall keep the whole law and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.” So, since no one is able to be perfect except Jesus Christ, that pretty much puts me right in the same camp as Hitler afterall!
David,
I agree with you that it is interesting and potentially valuable to study what other religions teach. I also think that knowing scripture really well is probably the most important.
I'm in a Bible study that has some RC folks in it, and it can get interesting sometimes.
David, Thanks for the clarification, which makes good sense to me. I am surmising that you have an interest in “apologetics & polemics,” which is a very worthwhile area to explore (it’s a strong interest of mine as well). When I served as librarian for our church library, I attempted to build up our “Apologetics [defending/proving doctrinal truths] & Polemics [refuting errors]” section, as well as the “Christian Denominations & Sects,” “Comparative Religions,” and “Church History” sections (topics you also referenced in your second comment). These materials certainly can assist us in reaching nonbelievers for Christ, as well as helping to firm up our own beliefs. In addition to church libraries and booksellers, there are many ministries and online resources largely devoted to apologetics & polemics that can be very helpful in this pursuit.
My home library is full of books and materials on these topics as well. I was “thrown into” studying apologetics & polemics right away in my Christian journey, not only upon abandoning the Catholic religion of my youth (and needing to explain that to family members) but also because my older brother became a fervent member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses at the very same time I was saved (and I needed to counter his proselytizing—a “baptism by fire” for me!).
In the case of studying Catholic theology, my most helpful instruction came from resources that laid out Catholic doctrine (quoted from RCC catechisms) side-by-side with biblical teaching; this enabled me to easily see the clear contrast between them. Once I saw that a particular Catholic teaching was not in alignment with what is taught in the Bible, I rejected it in favor of more biblical teaching; this happened for every one of the unique doctrines that define Catholicism (as it differs from “Protestantism”). For example, regarding the subject of “saints” mentioned in your original comment, I learned that the doctrine of Catholic “saints” essentially denies imputed justification through the finished work of Christ on the cross (and instead emphasizes personal “good works” and even “miracles”), while the biblical usage of “saints” is “sanctified ones,” or those who are “in Christ.” (One of the predominant—and often confounding—issues with comparing Catholicism to biblical Christianity is the use of the same words/terms by each but with very different meanings.) After completing the discernment exercise I described, I concentrated going forward on learning true, biblical doctrine rather than “understanding” the unbiblical Catholic dogmas. (As you described in your first comment, the process of thinking through interconnected doctrines eventually falls apart unless each step along the way is sound.)
I realize, David, that this is a much longer reply than you probably meant to solicit with your original comment, and I certainly appreciate if you have been able and willing to follow me. The reasons I visit this blog regularly is because it gives me good “food for thought” and helps me pursue a biblical way of thinking. I am guessing that you value that as well, so thanks for reading through this. And by the way, I totally share the sentiment you expressed in your final sentence!
David, now that I have written a long reply to your original comment, here is a second one. If you are short on time, just read this one :):
I am familiar with the dogma to which you are referring, and when I consider it from a biblical perspective, I, like you, find it to be illogical. Sorry that I for one can’t help you make sense of it! You might have to ask your question at a more Catholic-oriented blog. If your remarks were meant moreso to highlight the nonsensical and unbiblical nature of the thinking behind the dogma, then I say “Hear! Hear! I’m with you, brother!”
Stan, I am curious about the phrase you put in parentheses at the beginning of this post. Is there a religion that you feel is not works-based? I had read that every religion (i.e. manmade belief system) is indeed works-based. Only biblical Christianity is not, since it is truth from God and not a manmade belief system).
By the way, I also read somewhere that every religion, philosophy, or belief system that ends in “ism” is manmade. Some examples are atheism, humanism, communism, Roman Catholicism, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, asceticism, stoicism, Unitarianism, Deism, Theism (yes, people think that man invented a sovereign God), Protestantism (probably open to debate), and Baptism (just kidding about that one! :). I haven’t studied this assertion in depth, but I found it interesting to consider.
Lorna, I am cautious about making absolute statements. I allow that, although I don't know of a single one, there may be some religion out there that is not works-based. For instance, I would classify atheism and materialism as "faith-based" and, therefore, religions, but they don't even have a "heaven," so you can't get there from here. I just put the parenthetical statement for the sake of accuracy so that people won't get hung up on, "Oh, yeah, well I know of one that doesn't," completely missing the point.
I wouldn't call Judaism manmade. Certainly had been man twisted, but don't forget that we are now Israelites by adoption. The old covenant is applied to us through Christ's fulfillment of it. Certainly, modern Judaism is manmade, but like the Roman Catholics, they've put more emphasis on extra-biblical writings than they do Scripture.
David, God never established a religion. And Judaism didn’t provide adoption as God’s children to Gentiles who followed Christ—Christianity did. Adherents of Judaism would totally object to your second and third statements. (And I believe you know now that I feel that the errors of the RCC are far more serious than a misplaced emphasis or two … or a hundred.)
I won’t be reading here (or commenting) for a bit. I’m heading out on a two-week-long road-trip with my husband and will be away from my computer. I’ll catch up when I return in a few weeks. Now, back to my packing…
Actually, if "religion" is defined as "the belief and worship of a supernatural power," then God did establish a religion. And Scripture agrees (James 1:26-27).
Have a nice trip.
I would agree with David and Stan that Judiasm came directly from YHWH's commands to the Hebrews recorded in the OT and confirmed by Jesus. I certainly would agree that what YHWH handed down was grossly perverted and changed by man, to the point that it became something almost entirely different.
If course, there is always the possibility of us corrupting what God has given us. Thus the forever need of reformation.
Thanks for the good wishes, Stan.
Just a few final thoughts before I hit the road:
Stan, of course I believe that God established “belief and worship of Himself,” but I would say He revealed His truth, not “a religion.” Does James 1:26-27 refer to a specific religion (would it be Judaism? Christianity? something else?) or rather to an alternate meaning of the word (i.e. “the outward display of an inward reality”)? (Also see Col. 2:23 and Acts 17:22.)
David, I believe that “what God has given us” is His truth, which is eternal and incorruptible. In my view, if we are able to corrupt “what God has given us” then it is not actually God’s truth but something manmade (which Craig also mentions in his comment). The “need of reformation” has been by man to his imperfect belief systems (i.e. “religions”), not to God’s truth.
In any event, I am grateful to have more than a religion—a relationship with the living, true eternal God!
It seems to me that by that definition, we can never understand God's truth because everything we know about Him is through our human understanding, thus it will all be manmade.
Hopefully, our striving will be as aligned with His truth as possible, but we are all corrupted and will skew the truth. When I speak of everlasting reformation, it isn't about changing God's truth, but realigning our understanding of it to His Word. I'm not sure how you can rationally separate the human component of how we understand (ie religion by your apparent definition) and God's truth. Yes, we have more than a religion with God, but a relationship, but that relationship necessarily includes religion. It's why we have many of the Epistles, the theological greats like Aquinas or Augustine, and the Protestant Reformation, and more, because we are fallen and need correction in our understanding of God's truth, ie the religion (rites, practices, sacraments, theology) He gave through His Word. Call it religion or Relationship, but you end up actually meaning the same thing.
Post a Comment