How are we Justified?
It might seem obvious that this is the ultimate question we would need to wrestle with, for what could be more important than the eternal fate of our souls in the afterlife? It is in fact, a literal matter of life and death.
This might very well be the real question that fuels one of the biggest theological divides in the Christian world.
The question of “Being Saved through Faith vs. Works”.
The two sides are often oversimplified by each other with caricatures such as: “Protestants believe that they just need faith and then they can do whatever they want!” or “Catholics believe that they can work their way into heaven!”. I often find that this debate never gets anywhere due to the fact that both camps ultimately believe the same thing. They just have a different way of understanding it. But one thing that most people fail to realise is that all Christians, with some exceptions, are in fact united in the One Truth that we are saved through Faith. Yes, even Catholics.
Do we actually believe the same thing?
The first thing we all agree on is that we must have faith to be saved. That we are indeed saved by our faith.
We all agree that if you have faith, but do not repent for your sins, you will not be saved.
We also agree that even if you were to hypothetically not sin at all during the course of your earthly life, which would be the ideal, but yet have no faith in Christ, you will not be saved in spite of your sinlessness, due to your lack of faith.
Funny enough, using that logic also explains why Catholics believe that Mary still needed to be saved through her faith even if she had no sin. But that’s a topic for another day.
So what do we believe about the “works” part? Surely Catholics and Protestants are at loggerheads on this?
Well, a Protestant would say that if someone does not do good works, it means that they were never “saved” to begin with, because good works are the inevitable result of being saved. If you asked a Protestant if there was such a thing as someone who was “saved”, but did not do good works, they would tell you that there is no such thing, because all people who are “saved” will inevitably do good works.
Contrary to popular belief, a Catholic would definitely agree with the Protestant here.
However, the typical Catholic answer to the question “Are you saved?” is often something along the lines of “I’ll tell you when I get to heaven.”
This can often be misinterpreted as the Catholic believing that by the time they die, they might not have done enough good works to “earn their salvation”.
To avoid this misinterpretation, one must first understand why it is that Catholics do not usually speak in terms of being “saved”.
One important thing to remember, is that both Catholics and Protestants believe that if we have faith in Christ, we are inevitably going to do good works either way. Admittedly, there is some disagreement on whether this is free will or predetermination, but we nonetheless agree on the outcome.
Therefore, this answer that Catholics will often give, is merely a recognition of the reality of our broken and sinful human nature that we might not always have faith. I’m sure most Protestants would agree that if you lose your faith halfway, you probably won’t be saved. I’m sure they would agree that it is very possible for someone to lose faith at some point in time during their lives. From my understanding, a Protestant belief is that if someone loses their faith, then it would mean that they were never saved to begin with. So either way, how can we ever be 100% sure? Who will be the one to cast the first stone to say that they will never lose their faith no matter what happens to them?
Honestly, as a Catholic, it is confusing to me that different Protestants hold different beliefs on this. But either way, it is merely a recognition of this reality, that we Catholics rarely say that we are “saved”, perhaps to avoid the implication of “Once saved, Always Saved”.
That is why we have the term “Practicing Catholic”. Not exactly because we believe that if we don’t do “works” (eg. going to Mass) we won’t be saved, but because just like Protestants, we do believe that if we truly had faith, we would inevitably be doing “works” such as going to mass and worshipping God. Sometimes Protestants forget that it does actually take faith in God to do things like go for Mass every Sunday, give to charity, or serve the poor. And of course, we Catholics do believe that if we are merely doing these things, but without faith, then we obviously won’t be saved no matter how many “works” we do! And if you thought otherwise, that is honestly completely understandable, with how rampant anti-Catholic propaganda is within Protestant circles.
Again, this is why Catholics don’t typically say that we are “saved”. Because there will always be the possibility of “What if we stop believing halfway?”, or in more Calvinist terms, “What if I was never truly saved?”. Catholics are perhaps just more conscious of this reality, perhaps due to the fact that we are constantly called upon to introspect and evaluate our faith.
Perhaps a better answer to the question “Are you saved?” as a practicing Catholic would be “Well, as long as I keep it up of course!”
And surely, we can all somewhat agree on that. We do ultimately agree that it is not by our own merit, but through God’s grace alone that we are saved.
So if we both agree that we are going to do good works either way if we truly have faith, then don’t we agree that we are indeed somewhat saved by faith and works? Since we do agree that they must always inevitably come as a set anyway?
Here’s a metaphorical comparison to express just how unnecessarily exaggerated I think this conflict is.
Determining one’s salvation, vs. determining one’s gender.
We determine that a human is a boy by the merit of his XY chromosomes. We all accept the fact that all humans with XY chromosomes are boys. All boys have penises. Therefore, is it not correct to say that all humans with XY chromosomes are boys? And that all boys have penises? Therefore, is it not correct to say that a human is a boy by the merit of his XY chromosomes AND his penis since they always inevitably come as a ‘set’?
If you’re struggling, I promise the metaphor will eventually make sense in the next point.
You see, trying to nitpick the definition of salvation as “Faith ALONE” is akin to nitpicking the definition of gender as “chromosomes ALONE”. Why would there be a need to make this distinction if works are supposed to be an inevitable result of faith either way, the same way sexual organs are supposed to be an inevitable result of chromosomes either way?
If we all agree that works are an inevitable result of faith, then don’t we all actually agree that one cannot have faith but no works?
Don’t we all agree that a human cannot have XY chromosomes but no penis? And if you’re thinking of the exceptions, don’t worry, I’ll also be addressing that two paragraphs down.
That said, I do understand that Protestants mainly say this to emphasise the importance of having faith and its irreplaceable role in our salvation, but doesn’t saying “Faith Alone” just imply that it is possible to be saved by faith alone, even if one has no works?
Like perhaps, in a very rare scenario, such as referring to someone who was born intersex? I mean, that is to me the only possible reason why the “alone” would have to be emphasised, be it saying that “Chromosomes Alone” determine your gender, or “Faith Alone” determines your salvation.
The point I’m trying to make here is that ironically, harping on “Faith alone” would probably just serve to explain how the Blessed Mother was truly saved by “Faith alone”, since we Catholics believe that Mary did not “do any works” through her own merit, but merely and humbly said “Yes” to God. But of course, the Immaculate Conception is a doctrine for another day, and I apologise for the constant digression.
Hence, this emphasis on “Faith Alone” is in fact redundant to Catholics (with that one exception of course), and I do think it should be for all Christians. Martin Luther’s emphasis on this was essentially a strawman argument against what Catholics believe that served mostly to fuel his Reformation. A strawman that is akin to many Leftist accusations against Conservatives, such as the notion that Conservatives are racist because they won’t say Black Lives Matter. Just as the confused conservative would respond with “No, I believe that black lives matter, but I also believe that all lives matter, so why just ‘black'”, the confused Catholic would respond to such an insinuation with “Yes… I believe that we are saved by faith too, but what’s with the ‘alone’?”
After all, Martin Luther did literally add the word “alone” after “faith” in his German translation of the Bible.
This whole redundancy of the emphasis on “alone” is why Catholics do not say “Sola Fide”(Faith Alone), but rather “Prima Fide” (Faith First). And ultimately, is this not what Protestants believe in as well?
It just goes to show that the real debate isn’t about being saved by faith vs. works. It’s so easy to nitpick at the micro-conflicts, while completely overlooking the macro-conflicts.
The real questions
The real questions lie beyond the simplistic conflict of “faith vs. works”.
We agree that are saved ultimately through our faith, and not through the merit of our works. But does God care at all about the works we do?
If the answer is yes, then that opens up a whole new can of worms.
If our Heavenly Father does care about the works we do, are there works that are pleasing and not pleasing to Him?
Does our loving God who calls us by name, knew us in our mother’s wombs, and numbers the very hairs on our heads, actually not care about the specifics of how we live our lives, for as long as we have faith and believe in Him?
While He obviously wants us all to be saved, is He only concerned about us ultimately go to heaven?
Is our God a moral relativist, who’s standard is simply “You’ll be saved as long as you have faith in me and do whatever you think is right.” and just leaves it at that?
Do not even the demons believe, and tremble? James 2:19
So chances are, that we do once again agree on this, and we do acknowledge that God does somewhat care about the finer details of how we live our lives.
But that again, opens up another can of worms.
Is our salvation all God cares about?
Because perhaps before coming to an acknowledgement of this, the common understanding would have simply been that God merely desires for us all to be united in our belief in Christ so that we may be saved. And that, as we’ve discussed earlier, we are indeed all united in. And so, a lot of us rest easy, confident and assured in our salvation.
But if we are going to acknowledge the fact that God does actually care about the finer details, then we do have a big problem on our hands here that we’re so comfortably ignoring.
What makes us “Christian”?
Because while we may all be united in those “basic requirements” of being saved by our faith and repenting for our sins , we all know that the “church” is extremely divided on doctrine and interpretation of what the Bible says about specific things pertaining to our lives. Many Conservative Protestants enjoy taking comfort in the “us vs. them” mindset, “us” meaning “Biblical” Christians who adhere to the basic standards of morality such as sex being reserved for marriage, which is between one man and one woman, and that killing babies is evil, and “them” referring to “all those other unbiblical Christians” who are reading the Bible wrong. They would even go as far as to say, that if you don’t believe in those basic things mentioned above, you’re not just “unbiblical”, you’re not even really a Christian!
So as it turns out, perhaps we all do admit that being a Christian is more than just having “faith alone”. And once again, I do believe that most Christians agree on this.
Hence, it just goes to show that “faith vs. works” is not the real conflict here, and I do hope that we’ve managed to establish that we do in fact agree on that.
But it seems that we also agree that there are certain things besides “faith alone” that define us as Christians. We agree that there are in fact certain things that are pleasing to God, and things that are not. That we as Christians do in fact have a responsibility to do things and act in a way that is pleasing to God.
The real conflicts
It seems therefore, that the conflicts are rather, pertaining to how we believe God desires us to live as Christians. Things like what is a sin and what is not a sin. We are conflicted on what Christian morality encompasses, and what we are to believe aside from the fact that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Saviour.
For example.
- Why do some Christians believe that Baptism saves, and others do not?
- Why do some Christians believe that contraception is wrong, and others think it is perfectly fine?
- Why do different Christians have different beliefs on alcohol?
- Why do some even insist that the wine in the Bible is “grape juice”?
- Why do Christians have differing “opinions” on euthanasia, IVF, and all these other issues that may not be explicitly addressed in the Bible?
- Why do some Christians have differing beliefs on things that are explicitly said in the Bible, such as “This is my Body”?
- Who decides what is symbolic and what is not?
- Why do some Christians believe that we can lose our Salvation, while others believe that we are, Once Saved, Always Saved?
These things can only be either right or wrong in the eyes of God. Christianity is not a Democracy. Perhaps Christianity has become “Americanised”.
Whether these “finer details” affect our salvation or not, don’t we all silently agree that these things actually do matter? While we can harp on the fact that we are justified by “Faith Alone”, do we not admit that being a Christian is a lot more than simply just “Faith Alone”?
D o the ‘finer details’ beyond salvation matter?
And if these things do matter, then why are we okay with the possibility that we might not be fully pleasing our God?
Why are we okay with the fact that we might disagree with our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ on what exactly is pleasing to God?
Do we not care about what exactly is pleasing to God?
How are we just merely satisfied with our own salvation?
Once again, does it not bother us that we as Christians are not completely united in faith, and just happy to brush it off because we’re assured of our own salvation?
These are the real questions besides “Are we saved by Faith or Works?”. The question doesn’t even exist!
In our pursuit to assure ourselves of our salvation, it seems that Christians have completely neglected this huge elephant in the room which is the ridiculous amount of division in the “church”, truly an inevitable result of Martin Luther’s doctrine of Sola Scriptura. What else could one expect to happen, when you redefine Christianity to be whatever your personal interpretation of the Bible is?
If we knew for a fact that all humans, being of the same species, are supposed to have the same number of fingers, would we not be concerned if all of us had a different number of fingers? Just because at the end of the day we’re all human and our hands still kind of work, would we be so disenchanted that something so bizarre is not worth being concerned about? Would it not concern us that the truth only allows for one objectively correct number of fingers that humans should have?
Would it not concern us if every copy of the Lord of the Rings had different storylines, just because they all still had the same ending? Just because they all have the same overarching message anyway? Just as all denominations or Christians have the same “overarching message” of the Gospel?
While we Christians might be very comfortable with this reality due to the fact that we have already found Christ and given our lives to him, what of everyone else who is in need of the Gospel who has not yet found their salvation?
How selfish could we be to just be okay with this divide, when the divide within Christianity itself makes it incredibly hard for someone to accept the truth of the Gospel? Because everyone knows that with Truth, there can only be One Truth. Because to an outsider, if Christians cannot even agree on what the Bible says, it means that the scriptures themselves contradict with each other, which would then also mean that the Apostles themselves that gave us the scriptures don’t even agree with each other either, undermining the credibility of the Apostles and the entire New Testament altogether, meaning that there would be no way for people today to actually know what Christ taught. To an outsider, that is what the divide says. To an outsider, to an athiest, all of this just debunks Christianity and makes it seem like a totally bogus religion. Perhaps you’re very confident that you have the right interpretation of the Bible, but how would you explain to an Atheist, that aside from the universal truth of salvation that we all agree on, you or your denomination are right about all the other “extra” things, and everyone else is wrong? Or will you just say that God doesn’t mind his Church being divided on all the “other things”?
Beyond Justification: One God, One Consistent, Objective, Universal Truth.
And this is precisely why one of Jesus’ final requests was for Christians to be united.
“I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.” – John 17:20-21
That was one of Christ’s final requests, and now look what we’ve done. This is why Christ instituted his Church upon Peter, and gave not only him, but the apostles a clear authority.
“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” – Matthew 16:18-19
“He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives him who sent me.” – Matthew 10:40
“He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” – Luke 10:16
Having people who taught the message of Christ was clearly important in the Bible, for as we see today, simply allowing people to interpret the message of Christ for themselves would just result in a fractured and divided Church. Christ and the Apostles clearly knew this. Hence, they even passed down this authority given to them by Christ through the laying of hands. This just shows how important it was for them that this structure of authority remained even after they were gone in order to prevent something like today’s divided church. It is truly a testament to this that that the Catholic Church has stood the test of time, has never wavered in its fundamental teachings and remains the largest group of Christians in the world.
“Therefore, brethren, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may appoint to this duty. But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” And what they said pleased the whole multitude, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Proch′orus, and Nica′nor, and Timon, and Par′menas, and Nicola′us, a proselyte of Antioch. These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands upon them. And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith.” – Acts 6:3
“While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off.” – Acts 13:2-3
Even in the Bible, it is clear that the early Church had a visible teaching authority. Surely that authority did not simply disappear. After all, the Bible itself was put together by none other than the authority of the Catholic Church. Did Christ say to Peter or the apostles that the authority would disappear right after they compiled the Bible? Did Christ even command for anyone to write anything down at all? Of course, writing it down would be the most sensible way to preserve his teachings, but surely he did not want his teachings to be misinterpreted by the illiterate masses? Aside from the clear and simple truth about our salvation, which is of course the most important thing, does our God not care if his Church is divided on every other thing aside from that, impeding the effectiveness of evangelisation through the clouding of objective truth?
Would God want this?
Would a loving God just leave us all with a game of Russian Roulette where only the ones lucky enough to get the right interpretation will be able to live their lives according to his will, since we do agree that God does care about the “finer details” of our lives?
What a narcissistic God we would have, if he didn’t mind countless Christians falling into false teachings and being led astray from the fullness of truth, as long as we ultimately have faith in him and profess the one universally accepted but incomplete portion of the truth that is our salvation by faith.
Does God not care if some of us don’t have the full truth of the Gospel?
The Protestant vs. Catholic Response
I do not see how a Protestant could answer yes, for the very idea of being Protestant is that the truth is whatever is personally revealed to you through the scriptures, which has led to this ridiculous divide in doctrine in everything aside from that universal truth of salvation that we all agree on, which people seem to be so strangely comfortable with. Does it not concern you that the whole of Christianity is being made to look like a completely bogus religion due to this illogical divide in doctrine? If there can only be One Truth, and Christianity is the One Truth, then how can there be multiple truths within Christianity itself?
Is your own salvation all that matters?
The Catholic answer to this however, is and has always been, that yes, the full truth does matter. It does in fact matter that we are all united in more than just our belief on what salvation is.
“I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought.” – 1 Corinthians 1:10
Because the truth is, that there can only be One Truth. One, Full, Universal, Consistent, and Objective Truth.
And that is what the Catholic Church has done, protecting the One Full Truth from heresy and trying to prevent Christianity from dividing, even if it meant using the methods of the times like burning heretics at the stake. From the moment it was instituted by Christ himself, up until the 16th Century when Martin Luther decided to start his Protestant Deformation over some bad Priests abusing the doctrine indulgences, the Church has safeguarded not just the Truth of salvation, but the whole, entire, Truth. We have had many people in Church history who reformed the Church from within. But never did we have someone who redefined and reduced the very concept of Christianity to an ideology that ultimately led to the divided church and widespread acceptance of moral relativism that we have in the world today. Thanks, Martin Luther.
Unlike Luther who pitted the scriptures of the Paul and James against each other in an attempt to justify a doctrine of “Sola Fide”, the Catholic Church seeks to reconcile the entirety of the Bible as one, cohesive message.
While Martin Luther sought to remove the entire book of James, Revelation, and others because they contradicted with his interpretation of the Bible, the Catholic Church insists that the entire Bible is truly the fullness of God’s love story, even if the scriptures appear to contradict with each other. Martin Luther did in fact successfully remove 7 books from the Bible, and that is the Bible used by most Protestants today.
The Catholic Church does not add or remove scripture merely because it seems to be contradictory, or because it may be unfavourably interpreted against her doctrines, but rather it insists on preserving the truth in its entirety regardless. It insists on preserving the one universal truth and does not allow for contradiction or fallacy. How many times have you found scripture in the Bible that seems to refute Catholicism? Don’t you think that if it truly contradicted with her doctrines, the Catholic Church would have just removed it in the first place? Before you even saw it?
But that is not what the Catholic Church does.
The Catholic Church reconciles not just the scriptures with each other, but also the teachings of the early church fathers with the scriptures, even if they seem contrary to what is easier to understand. Catholicism does not believe that the early Christians, the Church fathers, and the first 1500 years of Church history up till the 16th Century got it all wrong.
“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” 2 Thessalonians 2
While Protestantism rejects the traditions and teachings that were passed down to us, from the sacraments, to Mary as the Theotokos, to Purgatory, Catholicism stands by it no matter how hard it is to comprehend or how unappealing it may be, because it protects the full story beyond the cherrypicked Bible verses Protestants use to back up Martin Luther’s doctrine of “Sola Fide”. While the doctrine of “Scripture Alone” is not at all found in the Bible, most, if not all Catholic doctrines come directly from scripture.
While Protestantism seeks to justify individuals with Bible verses, Catholicism not only does that, but seeks to justify Christianity itself.
It seeks to justify our justification.
The Catholic Church fights to protect the One, Consistent, Objective Truth.
Not just the truth about justification or how we are to be saved, but the whole, fullness of Truth.
The whole beautiful love story that is the story of salvation.
Beyond ourselves.
So perhaps the question is not merely how we are justified, but rather, what is the whole Truth? What is truly the fullness of faith? Because there can only be One Truth. So why would we not pursue that?
Furthermore, if we are after all united in the universally accepted truth of our salvation, then the good news is that the fullness of the One Truth will not contradict with your current, significant yet incomplete portion of the Truth. But rather, it will fulfil it.
But in order to do that, we need to look beyond merely our own salvation. Quite literally, considering that this lack of a one, singular, universal, Christian faith only serves to debunk Christianity itself and turn countless souls away from the road to eternal life.
So, as good as it is, will you continue to simply bask in your personal relationship with our Lord and Saviour, while those who do not know him look upon a divided church in doubt and confusion? Or will you accept the fact that beyond your personal salvation, the rest of what it means to live as a Christian, does in fact matter? Will you realise that we should in fact be extremely concerned that we are not united in one, consistent, universal and objective fullness of Truth, as one, consistent, universal Church on how exactly we should live our lives as Christians? Do we want to find the Truth of what exactly is pleasing to our Heavenly Father, beyond our “Faith Alone”?
Perhaps being a Christian is a lot more than just being assured of our own salvation.
Perhaps in our very human obsession in wanting to ensure our justification, we fail to justify our justification itself.
Because what good is justifying yourself through faith, if you can’t even justify your faith to yourself, let alone to others?
The choice, is yours.
