A common objection to the Catholic doctrine of merit is that it amounts to the contradiction of asserting that we can merit unmerited favor. The Catholic Church teaches that Christians can merit an increase of grace and even eternal life:
If anyone shall say, that the good works of a man that is justified are in such wise the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which are performed by him through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life, if so be, however, that he depart in grace, and, moreover, an increase of glory; let him be anathema (Council of Trent, On Justification, Canon XXXII).
But, the objection goes, grace is unmerited favor, a free gift. Hence, the claim that we can merit grace amounts to saying that we can merit unmerited favor, which is a self-contradiction. Thus, the Catholic doctrine of merit must be false. As St. Paul teaches, "[We] are justified by [God’s] grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus…Now to the one who works, his wages are not reckoned as a gift but as his due…But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace” (Romans 3:24; 4:4; 11:6).
This objection misunderstands the concept of merit in Catholic theology. What the objector seems to be getting at (and what St. Paul is teaching) is that we cannot earn anything from God (grace in particular). The Catholic Church is in full agreement with this. When the Church talks about our good works “meriting” an increase of grace, she does not mean that our good works strictly earn an increase of grace. To answer the present objection, we need to get clear on what merit is in Catholic theology. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “The term ‘merit’ refers in general to the recompense owed by a community or a society for the action of one of its members, experienced either as beneficial or harmful, deserving reward or punishment. Merit is relative to the virtue of justice, in conformity with the principle of equality which governs it” (CCC 2006). Simply put, merit is something for which a reward is given. Thus, in Catholic theology, if we do something for which a reward is given, then we have ipso facto merited in such a case. There are three kinds of merit recognized in Catholic theology: strict merit, condign merit, and congruous merit (cf. Moral Theology: A Complete Course, Vol. I, pg. 56-58), which are characterized as follows:
- Strict merit refers to earning something
from God. By strictly meriting from God, we would do something for which God
would be intrinsically in our debt, and He would thereby owe us a recompense as
a matter of strict justice. This kind of merit is impossible. As the Catechism
of the Catholic Church teaches, “With regard to God, there is no strict
right to any merit on the part of man. Between God and us there is an
immeasurable inequality, for we have received everything from him, our Creator”
(CCC 2007; cf. Romans 11:35, 1 Corinthians 4:7). Therefore, as Robert C. Koons
explains, “For this reason, [Catholics] do not speak of our ‘earning’ our
salvation, and they can agree with Paul that salvation cannot be thought of as
wages earned by work done: ‘to one who works, his wages are not reckoned as a
gift, but as his due’ (Romans 4:4)” (A Lutheran’s Case for Roman Catholicism,
pg. 38).
- Condign merit (meritum de condigno)
refers to receiving a recompense from God for a good work that He graciously
promised, by His own free will, to reward. God becomes our debtor in this case
due to His free promise. We have a right to the reward because God promised it.
As St. Augustine taught, “He bestowed forgiveness, the crown He will pay out.
Of forgiveness He is the donor; of the crown, He is the debtor. Why debtor? Did
He receive something? ... The Lord made Himself a debtor not by receiving
something but by promising something. One does not say to Him: ‘Pay for what
You received,’ but ‘Pay what You promised’” (Explanations of the Psalms,
taken from The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3, pg. 19). Scripture is
full of promises from God to reward our good works (cf. Matthew 5:12; 19:21;
25:21; 25:34, Luke 6:38, Romans 2:6-8, 1 Corinthians 3:8, 2 Timothy 4:8,
Hebrews 11:6; 11:26, Revelation 22:12).
- Congruous merit (meritum de congruo) refers to receiving a recompense from God for a good work that He did not promise to reward, but rewards anyway due to it being fitting to do so (i.e., because the work is good and pleasing to Him). According to Scripture, whatever good we do is grounds for a reward from God (cf. Ephesians 6:8). However, if the merit is merely congruous and not condign, then we do not have a right to the reward; hence, there is no injustice on God’s part if He refrains from rewarding us in such circumstances. It is also possible for someone to congruously merit on behalf of another. (This is not true of condign merit, with the exception of Christ who even strictly merited on our behalf). Scripture provides us with examples of this (cf. Genesis 15:1-6, 1 Kings 11:11-13, Matthew 15:22-28, Romans 11:28).
When Protestants speak of merit, they almost invariably have in mind what Catholics mean by strict merit. Most of the time, however, Catholic theologians simply speak of merit in an unqualified manner. When they do so, they usually have in mind condign merit. Consequently, when Protestants read these theologians, they mistakenly form the belief that Catholics believe that we can earn from God. This unfortunate fact has led to much confusion on the part of Protestants about what the Catholic Church actually teaches on this subject. Many accuse the Catholic Church of teaching “a damning system of works-righteousness,” to quote the infamous John MacArthur. But in point of fact, many Protestants (Lutherans in particular) seem to at least implicitly accept the Catholic doctrine of merit. The great Lutheran theologian Phillip Melanchthon, who was Luther’s greatest ally and arguably an even more influential theologian with respect to Lutheran doctrine than Luther himself (cf. Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, pg. 250-251), for instance, taught the following:
We do not contend concerning the term “reward.” We dispute concerning the matter, namely, whether good works are themselves worthy of grace and of eternal life, or whether they please only on account of faith, which apprehends Christ as mediator…If the adversaries will concede that we are accounted righteous by faith because of Christ, and that good works please God because of faith, we will not afterwards contend much concerning the term “reward.” We confess that eternal life is a reward, because it is something due on account of the promise, not on account of our merits…Now if passages which treat of works are understood in such a manner as to comprise faith, they are not opposed to our doctrine…Therefore, it is a sufficient reason why eternal life is called a reward, because thereby the tribulations which we suffer, and the works of love which we do, are compensated, although we do not deserve it” (Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article IV; cf. A Lutheran's Case for Roman Catholicism, pg. 42-43).
Notice that Melanchthon seems to understand the term “merit” to mean earning from God. Furthermore, he recognizes that our good works are rewarded by God, and even eternal life can be understood as a reward for “the works of love which we do.” And the reward is due not because we have strictly earned it but “because it is something due on account of the promise.” But this is exactly the teaching of the Catholic Church with respect to condign merit. Hence, there is no disagreement in substance between Catholic theology and Lutheran theology on this point. The disagreement is simply over terminology. Here, we should heed the commandment of St. Paul: “Remind them of this, and charge them before the Lord to avoid disputing about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers” (2 Timothy 2:14). In line with this sentiment, the Lutheran World Federation, in the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification signed by both it and the Catholic Church in 1999, recognizes that this is a mere terminological dispute: “Many antitheses could be overcome if the misleading word ‘merit’ were simply to be viewed and thought about in connection with the true sense of the biblical term ‘wage’ or reward” (Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, Appendix, LV: E 67). It is also worth noting that the Joint Declaration was additionally signed by the World Methodist Council in 2006 and by the World Communion of Reformed Churches in 2017. So, it would seem that genuine ecumenical progress has been made on this issue. Unfortunately, however, many individual Protestants are still ignorant about the true Catholic teaching on merit (cough, cough, Mike Winger).
With this understanding of merit in place, we are ready to answer the objection. The state of grace, i.e., the state of justification, itself cannot in any way be merited by us. It is the very principle of merit. Thus, saying that we can merit the state of grace is indeed self-contradictory. Entering the state of grace at conversion is often referred to in Catholic theology as initial justification. If a Christian enters the state of grace after having forfeited it by the commission of mortal sin, the Christian is said to be re-justified. Re-justification has essentially the same properties as initial justification. Neither initial justification nor re-justification can be merited in any way on our part. As the Council of Trent teaches, “[N]one of those things which precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace itself of justification” (Decree on Justification, Ch. VIII). Christ alone is the meritorious cause of this justification (ibid., Ch. VII). But once we are in a state of grace and have become adopted children of God (cf. Romans 8:14-17), we can have merit in God’s eyes in a similar way in which children can have merit in the eyes of their parents (cf. Matthew 6:4; 6:6; 6:18). Trent Horn presents an analogy to illustrate these ideas as follows:
Imagine a group of malnourished, filthy street children who are one day approached by a wealthy man and given the opportunity to be adopted into his family. Some of the children reject his offer because they don’t want to abandon the decrepit conditions to which they’ve grown accustomed. Others, however, accept his offer and are then adopted into the man’s family. The father takes these children home and washes them clean from the filth of their former way of life. He then instructs them in how to live to be good people.
The children who reject the wealthy man’s offer would be like people who reject God’s gift of God’s forgiveness and are never justified. In contrast, the children who accept the man’s offer would be like believers who hear God’s offer of salvation, accept it, and are then baptized and catechized so they can live out their new life in Christ. The Catechism describes this initial justification as follows: “Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, thus accepting forgiveness and righteousness from on high. ‘Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man’ (Council of Trent [1547]: DS 1528)” (CCC 1989).
Notice in our analogy that the children do nothing to earn or merit the man’s initial offer of adoption. They only choose to accept or reject it. The fact that they submit to being washed when he brings them home doesn’t mean they “earned” the right to live with him. Instead, they obeyed the man in accordance with the gift of adoption he gave them. Likewise, the Catechism teaches that “no one can merit the initial grace [emphasis in original] of forgiveness and justification at the beginning of conversion” (CCC 2010)…
When believers submit to baptism (either for themselves or their children), they do not merit the graces they receive through that sacrament. However, the process of justification also has an ongoing element that can be increased through our own actions…
We must remember that this increase of righteousness would not be something the believer earned through any of the good works he performed. Just as the adoptive father of the street children is not obligated to give his children rewards when they obey him, God is not obligated to reward our obedience to him. But, as God’s adopted children, our obedience genuinely pleases him, and so he freely rewards us with grace that increases our justification and helps us attain eternal life. Therefore, we can say, as the Council of Trent does, that good works “cause” an increase in justification, not in the sense of earning justification but in the sense of meriting it…
The analogy can also be continued in the fact that these children will probably disobey their new father. Most of the time this will be in minor matters that hurt but do not destroy their relationship with him (just as venial sins blemish but do not kill God’s grace in our souls). Unfortunately, in some cases the children may rebel against their father so severely that they end up leaving his home and returning to their squalid, former way of life (just as believers who commit mortal sins lose the grace of justification). Fortunately, God is merciful and, as the Parable of the Prodigal Son shows (Lk 15:11-32), will welcome his children back from spiritual death if they return to him with contrite hearts (The Case for Catholicism, pg. 203-204; 206-207).
The concept that as children of God we can please our heavenly Father by using His free gifts to do good works is excellently expressed by the late, great C.S. Lewis:
Every faculty you have, your power of thinking or of moving your limbs from moment to moment, is given you by God. If you devoted every moment of your whole life exclusively to His service you could not give Him anything that was not in a sense His own already. So that when we talk of a man doing anything for God or giving anything to God, I will tell you what it is really like. It is like a small child going to its father and saying, ‘Daddy, give me sixpence to buy you a birthday present.’ Of course, the father does, and he is pleased with the child’s present. It is all very nice and proper, but only an idiot would think that the father is sixpence to the good on the transaction (Mere Christianity, Book III, Ch. 11, pg. 143).
Lewis’s basic point is that we cannot earn anything from God since everything we have is from Him in the first place. This is in perfect agreement with the aforementioned teaching of the Catholic Church: “With regard to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man. Between God and us there is an immeasurable inequality, for we have received everything from him, our Creator” (CCC 2007). However, as God’s children, we can use His undeserved gifts to do good works just as the child in Lewis’s example used its father’s undeserved sixpence to buy him a birthday present, and this genuinely pleases our heavenly Father just as the birthday present pleased the father in Lewis’s example, and this may lead our heavenly Father to reward us just as an earthly father is apt to do when his children please him.
The twentieth-century Thomist theologian Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange teaches likewise:
[W]hy should we glory in the natural or supernatural good that is in us, as if we had not received it, as if it were our very own and not ordained to glorify God, the source of all good? “For it is God who worketh in you, both to will and to accomplish, according to His good will” [Philippians 2:13]…How can we glory in our merits, as if they came solely from us? Without habitual grace and actual grace, we would be absolutely incapable of the least meritorious act. As St. Augustine says: “God crowns His gifts, when He crowns our merits” (The Three Ages of the Interior Life, Vol. I, pg. 386).
Continuing,
St. Augustine…affirms that, in crowning our merits, God crowns His own gifts. This is also what the Council of Trent says: “So great is God’s goodness toward us that He wills that His gifts should become merits in us.” We can offer Him only what we receive from Him; but what we receive under the form of grace, we offer to Him under the form of merit, adoration, prayer, reparation, and thanksgiving (ibid., Vol. II, pg. 438).
According to Garrigou-Lagrange, merit is established by us receiving grace from God and doing good with said grace as an offering to God. “We can offer Him only what we receive from Him; but what we receive under the form of grace, we offer to Him under the form of merit.” This is exactly analogous to Lewis’s example: The child could offer its father only what it received from him; but what the child received under the form of sixpence, it offered its father under the form of a present.
To summarize, then, no one earns anything from God. When the Catholic Church teaches that we can merit an increase of grace, therefore, she does not mean that we can earn an increase of grace. By characterizing grace as “unmerited favor,” the objector seems to understand “unmerited” as meaning “unearned.” However, when the Catholic Church speaks of merit, she does not have earning in mind. Thus, the teaching that we can merit an increase of grace is not at all tantamount to saying that we can earn an increase of grace (given the way these terms are defined in Catholic theology). The objector, therefore, is guilty of the fallacy of equivocation. Furthermore, we cannot even merit, much less earn, the state of grace itself, which is the very basis of meriting. In this way, it is rightly said that even our merits are undeserved gifts from God. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church remarks, “The saints have always had a lively awareness that their merits were pure grace” (CCC 2011).
No comments:
Post a Comment