Objection: If good works are in any way meritorious and necessary for salvation, then this would give those who are saved grounds to boast of their moral accomplishments having earned them their salvation, which would usurp the glory of God in the context of what is most important to man, namely his salvation. This is unacceptable. Hence, Paul teaches, “Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On the principle of works? No, but on the principle of faith…What then shall we say about Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God” (Romans 3:27; 4:1-2). Likewise, Paul teaches, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God—not because of works, lest any man should boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9, emphasis added). And if good works contribute to salvation and thereby give us grounds to boast, then God would be robbed of glory. As John MacArthur sums up, “You can’t earn your way into the kingdom. A works salvation system blasts the glory of God. Man becomes a usurper who boasts that he has earned his way to God” (Justification by Faith, pg. 80). God alone gets the glory for our salvation (and everything else, for that matter). As God says in Isaiah, “I am the Lord, that is my name; my glory I give to no other” (Isaiah 42:8). This is the doctrine of Soli Deo Gloria (glory to God alone). Therefore, good works cannot be necessary for salvation, nor can it be maintained that they make a contribution to justification. As John Calvin explains:
[Those who affirm the meritoriousness of good works] by the praise of good works transfer to man what they steal from God. And seeing that good works give little ground for exultation, and are not even properly called merits, if they are regarded as the fruits of divine grace, they derive them from the power of free-will; in other words extract oil out of stone. They deny not that the principal cause is in grace; but they contend that there is no exclusion of free-will through which all merit comes. This is the doctrine, not only of the later Sophists, but of Lombard their Pythagoras (Sent. Lib. 2, Dist. 28), who, in comparison of them, may be called sound and sober. It was surely strange blindness, while he had Augustine so often in his mouth, not to see how cautiously he guarded against ascribing a single particle of praise to man because of good works. Above, when treating of free-will, we quoted some passages from him to this effect, and similar passages frequently occur in his writings (see in Psal. 104; Ep. 105), as when he forbids us ever to boast of our merits, because they themselves also are the gifts of God, and when he says that all our merits are only of grace, are not provided by our sufficiency, but are entirely the production of grace. It is less strange that Lombard was blind to the light of Scripture, in which it is obvious that he had not been a very successful student. Still there cannot be a stronger declaration against him and his disciples than the words of the Apostles who, after interdicting all Christians from glorying, subjoins the reason why glorying is unlawful: “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God has before ordained that we should walk in them,” (Eph. 2:10). Seeing, then, that no good proceeds from us unless in so far as we are regenerated—and our regeneration is without exception wholly of God—there is no ground for claiming to ourselves one iota in good works (Institutes of the Christian Religion III, 15, 7).
Response: There are two main issues to address here: (1) What kind of boasting is St. Paul talking about when he condemns boasting on the basis of "works"? (2) Do meritorious good works performed under the impulse of God’s grace give us grounds for boasting, grounds which would derogate from the glory of God? Let’s consider each of these in turn.
(1) While at first glance it might appear that Paul is talking about boasting before God (and men) of one’s good works having earned one one’s place before God, on closer inspection, this interpretation does not hold up. Although it is certainly true that no one earns salvation from God and no one has any grounds to boast before God, it is highly probable that Paul does not have this idea in mind in Romans 4:2. For Paul writes that “if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God” (emphasis added). As Jimmy Akin points out (referring to Paul’s phrase “but not before God”):
If the works and boasting Paul was talking about were of a personal moral accomplishment, then this last statement would make no sense. A person justified by his moral accomplishments would have grounds to boast in front of God. He could look to God and say, ‘See, Lord, all of the wonderful things I have done that have earned me my place before you.’ Therefore Paul is not talking about that kind of boasting or works (The Drama of Salvation, pg. 120).
Furthermore, Paul does not have in mind good works in Romans 4:2. Instead, Paul has in mind “works of the law,” i.e., the ceremonial precepts of the Mosaic Law. This is clear from the surrounding context. Paul emphasizes that Abraham’s faith was “reckoned to him as righteousness” (4:3) and that this occurred before he was circumcised (4:9-10). Paul is simply continuing the line of thought he started in Romans 3 and is using the example of Abraham to support the argument he presented therein. This is why Paul uses Genesis 15:6 as his model for justification by faith (apart from the works of the law). For Genesis 15:6 takes place before Genesis 17, when Abraham is circumcised. Paul’s point is that Gentiles will be justified by faith apart from the works of the law just as Abraham was. Circumcision is simply irrelevant to justification and salvation (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:19, Galatians 5:6; 6:15). For additional discussion of these issues, see my essay HERE.
What, then, did Paul have in mind in Romans 4:2 when he writes that Abraham would have something to boast about if he was justified by works? If not boasting in one’s own moral accomplishments, then what kind of boasting is in view here for Paul? To answer this, we must understand some of the basic theological principles of first-century Judaism, since it is this Judaism that Paul is interacting with. The biblical scholar E.P. Sanders, in his extensive study of first-century Judaism, describes first-century Judaism as being characterized by a key idea, covenantal nomism, which Sanders defines as follows:
[C]ovenantal nomism is the view that one’s place in God’s plan is established on the basis of the covenant and that the covenant requires as the proper response of man his obedience to its commandments, while providing means of atonement for transgression…Obedience maintains one’s position in the covenant, but it does not earn God’s grace as such…Righteousness in Judaism is a term which implies the maintenance of status among the group of the elect (Paul, pg. 75, 420, 544).
According to Sanders, first-century Judaism was dominated by a covenantal theology. The covenant that the Jews had with God, the Old Covenant, i.e., the Mosaic Covenant, was all-encompassing with respect to their way of life. And this covenant was seen as a gift from God, not as something that one had to earn one’s way into. Entrance into the covenant, as the Protestant scholar James D.G. Dunn states, “did not presuppose any prior merit of Israel as precondition” (“A New Perspective on the New Perspective on Paul”). Rather, Israel saw itself as having been graciously chosen by God to make covenant with. Israel knew that it had been graciously elected by God as His people (cf. Deuteronomy 4:32-40).
Against this background, first-century Jews were not in general boastful of their moral accomplishments as having earned them their way before God. Rather, what they were boastful about was the fact that God gave them the gift of the covenant and the gift of the Torah, i.e., the Law of Moses. (This attitude of praising the Torah as a wonderful gift from God to the Jewish people is illustrated in Deuteronomy 4:5-8). Their boastful attitude was not directed towards God, but rather towards Gentiles. They viewed themselves as being specially favored by God over against Gentiles. And it is this attitude that was behind the Judaizer heresy that Paul combatted again and again (cf. Acts 15:1-11, Galatians 6:12-13). Because the Law of Moses was seen as a gift from God that set the ground rules of the covenant, the Judaizers boasted of their favored relationship with God on the basis of keeping the Law, i.e., performing “works of the law,” of which circumcision was the most prominent outward example. The performance of “works of the law” symbolized the special relationship with God that the Jewish people had.
It is this kind of boasting that Paul condemns in Romans 4:2 and elsewhere. As the eminent New Testament scholar N.T. Wright explains, this is “not the boasting of the successful moralist; it is the racial boast of the Jew, as in [Romans] 2:17-24” (What Saint Paul Really Said, pg. 129). Commenting on this racial boasting in Romans 2, St. Augustine explains:
Here he plainly showed in what sense he said, “You make your boast of God” [Romans 2:17]. For undoubtedly if one who was truly a Jew made his boast of God in the way which grace demands (which is bestowed not for merit of works, but gratuitously), then his praise would be of God, and not of men. But they, in fact, were making their boast of God, as if they alone had deserved to receive His law, as the Psalmist said: “He did not the like to any nation, nor His judgments has He displayed to them [Psalm 147:20].” And yet, they thought they were fulfilling the law of God by their righteousness, when they were rather breakers of it all the while! (On the Spirit and the Letter, Ch. 13).
Paul argues that the Judaizers are wrong to boast of having a favored relationship with God on the basis of having the Law for three reasons: (1) The Gentiles, as regards the moral law, even though they were not given the Torah, have the law inscribed on their hearts (Romans 2:14-15). (2) The Jews, who were given the Torah, dishonor God because they do not keep the Torah (Romans 2:23-24). (3) Abraham was justified by faith, not by works of the law, i.e., the ceremonies of the Torah (Romans 4:1-3). Therefore, Paul concludes, Abraham is “the father of all who believe,” whether circumcised or uncircumcised (Romans 4:11). This is a powerful rhetorical flourish for Paul, since we know from the Gospel of Matthew that Jews at the time boasted of having Abraham as their father (cf. Matthew 3:9). Since, as Paul writes in Romans 3, Jews and Gentiles alike are justified by one and the same faith in God, boasting on the part of Jews qua Jews is excluded (Romans 3:27, 30). The Jews, in the New Covenant, do not have a privileged relationship with God over against the Gentiles. Rather, Jews and Gentiles are all one body in Christ (cf. Ephesians 2:16). And this teaching is completely compatible with good works playing a role in justification. As Richard A. White explains,
[F]aith is not opposed to good works any more than Rom. 3 (“a man is justified by faith”) is opposed to Rom. 2 (“the doers of the law…will be justified”). Faith and good works go hand in hand, in contrast to the “works of the law,” which do not justify (Scripture and the Mystery of the Family of God, Ch. V: “Justification as Divine Sonship: Is ‘Faith Alone’ Justifiable?”, pp. 121).
So, what Paul is expressing in Romans 4:2 is that if Abraham was justified by “works,” i.e., “works of the law,” then he had something to boast about; namely, he would have been able to boast before Gentiles of having a privileged relationship with God since he would have been doing those things prescribed by the covenant that God specially made with the Jewish people. But he wouldn’t have something to boast about before God, since the Law itself is a gift from God. Again, there is no sense here of earning God’s favor by good works. But, since Abraham was not justified by “works,” Abraham had nothing to boast about before Gentiles. In the same way, the Judaizers Paul was combatting had nothing to boast about before Gentiles because justification and entrance into the New Covenant are not brought about by “works of the law.”
Thus, by “works” in Romans 4:2, Paul has in mind “works of the law,” and by “boast,” Paul has in mind Jewish boasting before Gentiles of having a privileged relationship with God because of God’s special covenant with the Jewish people. And Paul opposes and argues against both “works of the law” and “boasting” in Romans 2 and 3, and in Romans 4 he uses Abraham as an Old Testament example to support his arguments.
What about Ephesians 2:8-9? Is Paul talking about moral boasting here? On analysis, the answer is in the negative. The objector’s interpretation is that by “works” Paul has in mind “good works,” i.e., works of righteousness and obedience to the moral law. While this is possible (given that Paul does indeed seem to use “works” in this more generic sense in, for instance, Romans 2:6-8), given the context of Ephesians 2:8-9, it is highly likely that Paul is simply using “works” as shorthand for “works of the law,” much as he does in Romans 4.
As soon as Paul states that we have been saved by grace and not by works, Paul goes on to discuss the fact that the “dividing wall of hostility” between Jew and Gentile has been broken down (Ephesians 2:14) and that Jew and Gentile are now one in Christ in the New Covenant (as Paul also emphasizes elsewhere such as in Galatians 3:25-29). It is also clear that Paul is not moving on to a different subject because Paul opens this discussion with “Therefore” (Ephesians 2:11) right after stating that we are saved by grace and not by works. Thus, for Paul, the dividing wall between Jew and Gentile stands no more because salvation is by grace and not by works. But if by “works” Paul simply means “good works,” this line of reasoning wouldn’t make much sense because the performance of morally good works is not something that separates Jew and Gentile. Paul is very clear in Romans that Gentiles have the moral law written on their hearts and that when they follow the moral law, they show they are a law to themselves (Romans 2:14-15).
However, supposing that by “works” in this context Paul means “works of the law,” Paul’s reasoning makes complete sense. For the observance of the ceremonial precepts of the Mosaic Law most certainly did constitute a dividing wall between Jew and Gentile. This was, in fact, precisely their purpose (cf. Leviticus 15:31; 20:26, Galatians 3:23). Thus, Paul is discussing works of the law and Jewish boasting before Gentiles, just as he did in Romans.
This interpretation is further corroborated by the fact that immediately after Paul speaks of salvation by grace through faith and not by works, he says, “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them” (Ephesians 2:10). It seems like what Paul is saying is that “works,” i.e., “works of the law,” are irrelevant to salvation. Rather, therefore, than being concerned with such “works,” we should instead be concerned with “good works,” which we are empowered to do by the grace of God by which we are “created In Christ Jesus.” Jews and Gentiles alike are created in Christ Jesus by grace and not because of Mosaic “works of the law.” Hence, Jewish boasting before Gentiles is excluded. “On what principle? On the principle of works? No, but on the principle of faith…since God…will justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised through their faith” (Romans 3:27; 3:30).
Finally, it should be said that even if Paul did have good works in mind in Ephesians 2:8-9, this still would not be a successful prooftext against Catholic soteriology and for the Protestant doctrine of sola fide. For it is clear that Paul is here talking about initial salvation. This is clear from the perfect tense (which indicates that an event was completed in the past, possibly with ongoing effects in the present): “For by grace you have been saved” (emphasis added). Scripture teaches that salvation is not a one-time event, but rather a process with past (cf. Luke 7:48-50, Ephesians 2:4-5; 2:8-9), present (1 Corinthians 1:18, 2 Corinthians 2:15, Philippians 1:6; 2:12, 1 Peter 1:8-9), and future (Matthew 10:22, Romans 13:11, 1 Corinthians 3:15; 5:5) dimensions. Therefore, what Paul is teaching is that “works” have nothing to do with how we come to enter a state of salvation in which we are forgiven of our sins, made right with God, and are adopted as children of God by an infusion of God’s grace.
On this interpretation, Paul would be speaking of moral boasting. What he would be saying, therefore, is that no one can boast of having been justified by God’s grace because initial justification whereby we are made right with God has nothing to do with our good works (cf. Titus 3:5). But, once we have been justified gratuitously in this way, we are expected to do good works (Ephesians 2:10), which we are empowered to do by the grace we have received in initial justification (cf. 2 Corinthians 9:8, Philippians 2:12-13), and these good works contribute to our ongoing justification (cf. Romans 6:16-22, James 2:24). Even with respect to these good works, however, we still do not have grounds to engage in moral boasting as will be seen in the remainder of this post.
(2) The second aforementioned issue is whether good works performed under the impulse of God’s grace give us grounds for boasting, which would derogate from the glory of God. The objector at this point may reply that even if we make a distinction between initial justification and ongoing justification, good works cannot have any role to play; otherwise, the objector might continue, we would have grounds for prideful and moralistic boasting of having contributed to our salvation by our moral goodness, which would derogate from the glory of God just the same as if we had contributed to our initial justification. If we make any kind of contribution to our salvation, then God gets only some of the glory for our salvation rather than all of it. In order for God to get all the glory, we must insist upon a strict monergism, which asserts that God alone acts in the order of salvation. Man contributes absolutely nothing. Our good works, therefore, make no contribution to our salvation. Even the faith that is needed to receive justification is entirely the work of God, which requires no consent or cooperation of the will whatsoever on our part. This is in contrast to synergism, which asserts that salvation involves the cooperation of God and man. This argument can be summarized as follows:
- Either God gets all of the glory and we get none of the glory or we get some of the glory and God does not get all of the glory.
- God gets all of the glory (cf. Isaiah 42:8).
- Therefore, God gets all of the glory and we get none of the glory. (1, 2).
- If our good works make any contribution to our salvation, then we would get some of the glory.
- Therefore, our good works make no contribution to our salvation (3, 4).
The second premise, by the authority of Scripture, is secure. The fourth premise also appears to be true. Salvation is the greatest good that we can come to possess. If, therefore, we make a contribution towards possessing it, then we would seem to be worthy of acclaim and honor, i.e., we would get glory. The first premise, however, is false since it constitutes a false dilemma.
The idea that our good works performed under the impulse of God’s grace derogate from the glory of God is utterly unbiblical. Rather than teaching that our good works derogate from the glory of God, Scripture teaches that our good works manifest God’s glory. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus tells us, “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 5:16). Similarly, Jesus tells us elsewhere that, “By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be my disciples” (John 15:8). St. Paul says, “They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints…To this end, we always pray for you, that our God may make you worthy of his call, and may fulfil every good resolve and work of faith by his power, so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Thessalonians 1:9-12). St. Paul elsewhere says, “So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Corinthians 10:31). As can be seen, Scripture teaches that good works give glory to God, that God is glorified by his righteous followers, and even commands us to do all for the glory of God. The very last point implies that good works do not derogate from the glory of God, otherwise it would be impossible to fulfill God’s commandments, which would be an affront to God’s justice and wisdom. This can be seen as follows:
- We are commanded to do good works (cf. Matthew 5:16, Ephesians 2:10, James 1:22).
- Hence, if good works derogate from God’s glory, then we are commanded to do something that derogates from God’s glory.
- We are not commanded to do something that derogates from God's glory (cf. Isaiah 42:8, 1 Corinthians 10:31).
- Therefore, good works do not derogate from God’s glory.
And if good works do not take glory away from God, then there can be no objection to good works contributing to our salvation on the grounds of "blast[ing] the glory of God," as MacArthur puts it.
Another issue to address is that it seems as though those who think that monergism is the only way to ensure that God gets all the glory with respect to our salvation (e.g., Calvin) have a faulty conception of God and His relationship to the world, or, at the very least, are not being consistent with their conception of God and His relationship to the world on this issue. This is where having a sound philosophical theology has relevance to soteriology. The insistence on the necessity of monergism in securing God's glory seems to conceive of God as essentially just one being alongside others, albeit far more powerful than all other beings and endowed with various unique perfections. But other than being far greater than us, God is still fundamentally related to the world in the same way we are. On this picture of the world, God and man can seem to be competitors who are competing for a fixed pie of glory. If man gets some of the glory pie, then there is less of it for God to get. But from the perspective of classical theism, this conception of God’s relationship to the world is grossly anthropomorphic and utterly wrongheaded. Classical theism is the metaphysical conception of God held to by the Church Fathers and by the great philosophical theologians such as St. Augustine, St. Anselm, and St. Thomas Aquinas. Luther and Calvin held to this conception as well (cf. Institutes of the Christian Religion I, 13; Augsburg Confession art. I).
According to classical theism, God is not just one being alongside others. Rather, in some sense, He is Being Itself. He is ipsum esse subsistens: “I AM WHO I AM” (Exodus 3:14). And rather than our relationship to God being one of competition, it is instead one of participation: “[F]or ‘In him we live and move and have our being’” (Acts 17:28). And by grace, God has “called us to his own glory and excellence” (2 Peter 1:3), and we have “become partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4). Moreover, St. Paul teaches, “[W]e all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit” (2 Corinthians 3:18). And, “Through [Christ] we have obtained access to this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in our hope of sharing the glory of God” (Romans 5:2, emphasis added). Therefore, our glory is not opposed to God’s glory. Our glory is a participation in God’s glory. To use an analogy, God is the sun, and we are the moon. The moon does not give off light in and of itself but only insofar as the sun shines on it. When we are transformed by grace, our glory is but the radiation of God’s glory (cf. Exodus 34:29, Psalm 34:5, Isaiah 60:5).
What is more, on classical theism, God moves secondary causes to act by His universal causality but in such a way that secondary causes are not superfluous but rather make genuine causal contributions to their effects. It isn't that God does part of the work and secondary causes do the rest of the work; rather, God does all of the work, and secondary causes do all of the work, but in different orders of causality. As Ludwig Ott explains:
The cooperation of the causa prima (God) and of the causae secundae (creatures) is not to be conceived as a mechanical working together, but as an organic activity in one another and with one another. Hence it is incorrect to ascribe part of the activity to the divine cause and part to the creature. The action as a whole belongs to the divine as well as to the created cause. The created cause is subordinated to the divine, in such manner, however, that its own causality is not abrogated (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pg. 98; I also direct the reader to a more extended discussion of this in a previous post of mine HERE).
On this view of things, God and creatures are not in competition. Rather, creaturely causality is a participation in God's causality. Consequently, the good works that we are moved to do by God's grace are attributable in whole to both God as primary cause and to us as secondary cause. Hence, the glory that accrues to God as a result of the good works also accrues to us. Our glory, to reiterate, is nothing but a participation in God's glory. As a result, we do not in any way rob God of glory when we ourselves obtain glory. And we are able to contribute to our salvation because God, by His grace, efficaciously moves us from within, working in us “both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Philippians 2:13). Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange has a beautiful reflection on this last point:
Without actual grace, we cannot produce the slightest salutary act, or, with even greater reason, reach perfection. This is what Christ meant when He said to His disciples: “Without Me you can do nothing” [John 15:5]. St. Paul adds with regard to the order of salvation: “Not that we are sufficient to think anything of ourselves, as of ourselves” [2 Corinthians 3:5], and that “It is God who worketh in you both to will and to accomplish” [Philippians 2:13], by actualizing our liberty without violating it. It is He who gives us to dispose ourselves to habitual grace and to act meritoriously. When He crowns our merits, it is still His gifts that He crowns, says St. Augustine. The Church has often recalled this idea in her councils…
God…[moves] our will to good by an interior motion or impulse, for He is closer to us than we are to ourselves. He preserves in existence our soul and our faculties, of which He is the Author; and, without doing violence to them, He can move them from within according to their natural inclination by giving us a new energy. An example will help to make this understood: In order to teach her child to walk, a mother takes hold of him under his arms and helps him not only with her voice by showing him an object to attain, but by her gesture, by lifting him up. What the mother does thus in the corporeal order, God can do in the spiritual order. He can lift up, not only our body but our will itself, to lead it to good. He is the very Author of our will; He has given it its fundamental inclination to good, and in consequence He alone can move it from within according to this inclination. He acts thus in us, in the very inmost depths of our will, to make us will and act. The more urgently we ask Him to do this, the more strongly does He act to increase in us the love that we should have for Him.
Moreover, this actual grace is called prevenient grace when it arouses a good thought or good feeling in us, when we have done nothing to excite it in ourselves. If we do not resist this grace, God adds to it a helping or concomitant grace, which will assist our will to produce the salutary act demanded and to realize our good designs. Thus, as St. Paul says: “God works in us both to will and to accomplish” (Phil. 2:13). (The Three Ages of the Interior Life, Vol. I, pg. 88-89, 91).
Continuing, Garrigou-Lagrange describes the mystery of the cooperation of God and man in salvation (synergism) as follows:
Without a doubt, God takes the first step toward us by His prevenient grace, then He helps us to consent to it. He accompanies us in all our ways and difficulties, even to the moment of death. On our part, we should not forget that, instead of resisting His prevenient graces, we should be faithful to them. How can we do this? First of all, we can do so by joyfully welcoming the first illuminations of grace, then by following its inspirations with docility in spite of obstacles, and finally by putting these inspirations into practice no matter what the cost. Then we shall cooperate in the work of God, and our action will be the fruit of His grace and of our free will. It will be entirely from God as First Cause, and entirely from us as second cause.
The first grace of light, which efficaciously produces a good thought in us, is sufficient in relation to a voluntary good consent, in this sense, that it gives us, not this act, but the power to produce it. However, if we resist this good thought, we deprive ourselves of the actual grace which would have efficaciously led us to a good consent. Resistance falls on sufficient grace like hail on a tree in bloom which promised much fruit; the flowers are destroyed and the fruit will not form. Efficacious grace is offered us in sufficient grace, as the fruit is in the flower; moreover, the flower must not be destroyed if the fruit is to be given to us. If we do not resist sufficient grace, actual efficacious grace is given us, and by it we advance surely in the way of salvation. Sufficient grace thus leaves us without excuse before God, and efficacious grace does not allow us to glory in ourselves; with it we advance humbly and generously (ibid., pg. 94-95).
The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches similarly:
The preparation of man for the reception of grace is already a work of grace. This latter is needed to arouse and sustain our collaboration in justification through faith, and in sanctification through charity. God brings to completion in us what he has begun, “since he who completes his work by cooperating with our will began by working so that we might will it” [St. Augustine, De gratia et libero arbitrio]:
Indeed we also work, but we are only collaborating with God who works, for his mercy has gone before us. It has gone before us so that we may be healed, and follows us so that once healed, we may be given life; it goes before us so that we may be called, and follows us so that we may be glorified; it goes before us so that we may live devoutly, and follows us so that we may always live with God: for without him we can do nothing [St. Augustine, De natura et gratia] (CCC 2001).
St. Thomas Aquinas also teaches similarly:
God does not justify us without ourselves, because whilst we are being justified we consent to God’s justification (justitiae) by a movement of our free-will. Nevertheless this movement is not the cause of grace, but the effect; hence the whole operation pertains to grace (ST I-II, 111, 2).
Given all of this, it should be clear that the Catholic doctrine of meritorious good works does not in any way derogate from the glory of God. Our glory is God's glory. Our merit is due to the grace of God and is rooted in the fact that good works are entirely from God as First Cause and entirely from us as secondary cause. Because we make a genuine contribution to good works, merit accrues to us. But because it is God that moves us by His efficacious grace from within, we have no grounds for glorying in ourselves; rather, we must say with St. Paul, "He who glories, let him glory in the Lord" (1 Corinthians 1:31). In line with all of this, the Council of Trent teaches the following:
Nor is it to be omitted, that, although, in the sacred writings, so much is attributed to good works, that Christ promises, that even he that shall give a drink of cold water to one of his least ones, shall not lose his reward [Matthew 10:42]; and the apostle bears witness that, That which is at present but for a moment and light of our tribulation, worketh for us a far more exceeding eternal weight of glory [2 Corinthians 4:17]; nevertheless far be it that a Christian man should either trust or glory in himself, and not in the Lord [1 Corinthians 1:31, 2 Corinthians 10:17], whose goodness towards all men is so great, that he will have the things which are his own gifts to be their own merits (Decree on Justification, Ch. XVI).
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 (On Justification, Canon XXXII).
If anyone shall say, that, by this Catholic doctrine touching justification, set forth by this holy synod in this present decree, aught is derogated from the glory of God, or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ, and not rather that the truth of our faith, and the glory in fine of God and of Christ Jesus are rendered illustrious; let him be anathema (ibid., Canon XXXIII).
What is more is that there is a crucial asymmetry between good works and evil works. While good works are attributable entirely to God and entirely to us, evil works, insofar as they are evil, are attributable solely to our defective wills. Hence, while God directly wills good works, He merely permits evil works. It is precisely the fact that we make a genuine causal contribution as secondary causes that allows for this asymmetry. While in our evil acts, God must provide His causality in order for there to be the acts at all, that the acts are evil as opposed to good is solely attributable to the evil contribution of our defective wills. St. Thomas succinctly explains this as follows:
The act of sin is both a being and an act; and in both respects it is from God. Because every being, whatever the mode of its being, must be derived from the First Being, as Dionysius declares (Div. Nom. v). Again every action is caused by something existing in act, since nothing produces an action save in so far as it is in act; and every being in act is reduced to the First Act, viz. God, as to its cause, Who is act by His Essence. Therefore God is the cause of every action, in so far as it is an action. But sin denotes a being and an action with a defect: and this defect is from the created cause, viz. the free-will, as falling away from the order of the First Agent, viz. God. Consequently this defect is not reduced to God as its cause, but to the free-will: even as the defect of limping is reduced to a crooked leg as its cause, but not to the motive power, which nevertheless causes whatever there is of movement in the limping. Accordingly God is the cause of the act of sin: and yet He is not the cause of sin, because He does not cause the act to have a defect (ST I-II, 79, 2).
It is in this way that synergism, in contrast to monergism, preserves God from the taint of positively willing and being the cause of evil. As Robert C. Koons puts it, “Without this element of synergism, the monstrosity of double predestination cannot be avoided, as Luther’s The Bondage of the Will demonstrates (A Lutheran’s Case for Roman Catholicism, pg. 110-111).
This suffices to answer the "No Boasting" and "All Glory to God" objections to Catholic soteriology.
No comments:
Post a Comment