One of the hottest discussions in Christianity throughout the ages has been in reference to the relationship of “works” in the book of James (Js 2:14-26) and the phrase employed by St. Paul “works of the law.” Some Roman Catholics, at least since the middle ages, have argued that the phrases are completely different from each other. Many Roman Catholics today favor this interpretation, even some apologists. After all, this is one of the direct interpretations of Scripture that the Reformers were fighting against. This interpretation, if correct, has direct bearing on the Protestant (and biblical) doctrine of sola fide (justification by faith alone), denying it outright. The Reformers held that man is justified before God by faith alone and only on the merits of Christ’s work alone. Rome countered that this was not the case, and that man is justified by faith plus works; made official Roman dogma at Trent. To understand the Roman Catholic view on justification, we must go to the Council of Trent, which speaks at length regarding justification. Therefore, the Roman Catholic view of justification is that we are not justified by faith alone, but rather, by faith plus works. A cursory reading of Scripture should show us quite conclusively that this is not the case and indeed is literally impossible, unless we are willing to allow for God accepting less than perfection. Hence, Rome solves this dilemma in that they deny the imputed righteousness of Christ to all who believe with the doctrine of purgatory, which is a perfectly logical doctrine if imputed righteousness is false and a person can be partially justified. As an aside, it is quite ironic that Rome denies imputed righteousness while a person is yet alive on Earth but in essence affirms it in purgatory, after death.
It is also quite right to point out that Protestants do not deny the importance of good works in the life of a Christian. We simply deny that these good works are capable of meriting anything before God, who demands absolute perfection. Protestant doctrine holds that we are justified by faith alone, but the faith that justifies is never alone. It will result in good works springing from a changed nature that desires to please God. Therefore, since God still demands absolute perfection and conformity to His law since He hasn’t changed, it is literally impossible for a person to be justified on these grounds, since not only have all sinned (Rom 3:23), and all are born sinful (Ps 51:5, Rom 5:12-21), but one transgression of God’s Holy Law renders us guilty of breaking all of it (Js 2:10). Simply put, if mankind must stand before God on account of their own righteousness, nobody can possibly be justified, since none have fulfilled the Law in its entirety. If we claim we have no sin, we are liars, according to St. John (1 Jn 1:8-10). Save for one. Jesus Christ.
Let us examine all of the passages that are relevant to the topic at hand. Namely, those which use the phrase “works of the Law” and those that speak about justification and works.
All Scriptures quoted from the ESV.
Romans 3:20: For by works of the law no human being will be justified in His sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
Romans 3:27-28: Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
Romans 4:2: For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.
Romans 4:4: Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.
Romans 4:6: Just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works.
Galatians 2:15-16: We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.
Galatians 3:2: Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?
Galatians 3:5-6: Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith - just as Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness?
Galatians 3:10-14: For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the law, and do them. Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for the righteous shall live by faith. But the law is not of faith, rather The one who does them shall live by them. Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us - for it is written, Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree - so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.
Ephesians 2:8-10: For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
And then, James 2:14-26.
Thus, Scripture gives us tons of passages that speak about works. To gain an understanding about what the Scriptural teaching is on the topic, we need to define a few things, or else we end up in limbo and the conclusions we come to can easily be refuted on Scriptural grounds. But before we do that, let’s check out all the passages that speak of “works of the law,” since that ultimately is the phrase that gets isolated by those who will in the end disagree with the conclusion that will be drawn here.
Per Scripture, the works of the law will not justify anyone. The question then becomes: what does “works of the law mean?” Generally, there are two main options put forth in regard to this question. First, we have the Roman Catholic idea that “works of the law” refers to Jewish ceremonial observance. Quite often, they appeal to circumcision and other ceremonial rites. Indeed, in Galatians, Paul is rebuking the Judaizers for adding Jewish rites to Christ alone for salvation. They appeal to James chapter 2; especially when James says that works justify a person. The second explanation is the Protestant one, which I will be defending here. That is, that “works of the law” refers to trying to merit any favor before God by good works of law-keeping, which includes of course, the ten commandments. In this interpretation, James is not speaking of the doctrine of justification that declares us righteous before God, but rather, speaking of the difference between a false and spurious faith and a real faith. Faith without works is dead, says James.
Scripture gives us numerous clues as to what the works of the law are. We are told that: No one will be justified by the works of the law…Since through the law comes knowledge of sin. (Rom 3:20), and instead through faith in Christ. (Gal 2:15-16)
We also know that the Spirit is received by faith and not works of the law (Gal 3:2), all who rely on works of the law are under a curse (Gal 3:10), no one is justified before God by the law (Gal 3:11), and the one who relies on works of the law must keep the entire book of the law and live by them. (Gal 3:10-11) Hence, we need Christ (Gal 3:12-14), who fulfilled the law on our behalf by becoming a curse for us through His crucifixion (Gal 3:12-14).
We also have the following information regarding works:
If Abraham was justified by works, he could have boasted (Rom 4:2). If works are what justify us before God, we are given our due and not a gift. (Rom 4:4) And we are saved by grace through faith, apart from works. (Eph 2:8-9)
When we boil this down, what we need to determine is if works of the law refers simply to Jewish observance and ceremonial actions or if it refers to doing any work that is in line with the law for justification. Some Roman Catholic apologists take this line of thought. I am convinced that this is not the official position of Rome on the issue though, and we will get to that later. But, we must refute this as well, since it would seem that this interpretation, although not the official Roman Catholic one, is a very popular one used by Roman Catholics. Romans 3 and Galatians are the places we need to go to determine this. And to get a clue as to which answer is proper, we need to examine what St. Paul says regarding works of the law and the reasoning he gives as to why these works of the law cannot justify us.
We first can see that in Romans 3, St. Paul tells us that no human being will be justified by works of the law because through the law comes knowledge of sin. That is, the law is what shows us what sin is. It is to break God’s law. We therefore cannot be justified by these works, since the law shows us what sin is and we have knowledge of this sin through the law that God has given. We also know that St. Paul gave us more reasoning in the same passage, contrasting faith and works at the conclusion off Romans 3. He states here that “one is justified by faith apart from works of the law” (Rom 3:28) and then “since God is one - who will justify the circumcised (Jews) by faith and the uncircumcised (Gentiles) through faith.” (Rom 3:30) He likewise was not an antinomian as he stated the next verse: “Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.” (Rom 3:31) The point here is that St. Paul is talking about upholding the law as someone who is already justified. Thus, in essence, what he is claiming, as he also does in Galatians, is that following the law is not the manner in which a person is justified before God.
He goes on in Galatians 2 with more of the same, saying that “yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law.” (Gal 2:16a) This coming directly after saying that he is a Jew and not a Gentile, and neither of them will be justified by law-keeping. He concludes his thought in verse 21, saying “I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.” (Gal 2:21)
But Galatians 3 is really the killer for the Jewish observance interpretation, as St. Paul states that “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” (Gal 3:10) And then, “Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for the righteous shall live by faith.” (Gal 3:11) And then of course continues on to explain the removal of the law’s curse through Christ’s crucifixion, precisely because we are incapable of being justified by law-keeping.
All of this is fine and dandy, but we also need to answer the question, “how are good works defined?” Because good works must be defined according to something. If they lie outside of God’s law, then in fact an argument could be made for the Jewish observance argument. However, this argument implies that the law itself is only for Jews, and only Jews in the pre-Christ era will be judged according to God’s law. I find this line to be problematic for this interpretation, since everyone universally is considered to be “in Adam,” precisely because Adam sinned and we are born sinners and we also sin, which is simply put - breaking of God’s law. Thus, by definition, sin is defined by God’s law. When we sin, that is exactly what we are doing - missing the mark of God’s holiness. Now I ask then - what answer does Scripture give us in regards to what sin is? The law, of course. Likewise, to not sin would then also be to adhere to the law, which of course means that we are not justified by not sinning. But we also must insist on taking this even another step further. That is to say, that good works are defined by the law as well. Jesus Christ Himself states in Matthew 22:37-40: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the prophets.” This answer our Lord gave was in response to the question “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?” (Matt 22:36) This answer that Christ gave is often called the Great Commandment (not to be confused with the Gospel or the Great Commission). Therefore, Christ sums up the law itself by loving God and loving neighbor. Now, good works must be defined in this manner. The works that are done that please God fall in these two categories. Thus, good works themselves are defined by following the law, since the summary of the law is found in Matthew 22:37-40, given by Christ. Thus, our good works cannot justify us, since good works are in essence following the law, since that is the answer Scripture gives us as to what pleases God. Therefore, it is spurious to create a category of good works apart from the law of God, since God Himself is the only one who defines what a good work is, and the answer Scripture gives us as to what actually is a good work is essentially a work pleasing to God that is in line with His law. That (His law) is what He has given us that to define what sin is, and by correlation, what sin is not.
We also must say a couple other things, because all of this could lead us to believe that our sanctification is done by law-keeping, even though our justification is clearly not. Some would affirm this idea. I must reject it for a couple reasons. First, we are conformed to the image of Christ by following the Holy Spirit, not doing works. We do works, yes. But we do not do works just to follow the law. That would be absurd. St. Paul had something like this in mind in the beginning of Galatians 3, when he states “Let me ask you this only: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?” (Gal 3:2-3) In essence, God does not save us from the curse of the law and justify us apart from our works just to drive us right back to the law to be sanctified.
Second, we also must say that the law is good, righteous, and holy, and there is nothing wrong with the third usage of it. That is, the law gives us a norm for Christian life. Specifically, the Decalogue (ten commandments). But, we do not follow the law for law-keeping sake, as St. Paul rejects in Galatians 3:2-3. On the other hand, through the agency of the Holy Spirit, we now, as New Covenant believers, have the law written upon our hearts (see Eze36:25-27), and we are conformed to Christ by following the Spirit, who brings us to Christ through grace and drives us to desire to please Him. But we also must guard against inventing our own laws that add to God’s. God has given us His, and His is what He has said is pleasing to Him. How presumptuous of us to add our own laws that we think should please Him and neglect the one He has given us!
This all brings us to James. What was James talking about? We have already shown above that good works are best defined on a Scriptural basis ultimately by keeping God’s law, and we have numerous clear statements from St. Paul that no one will be justified by works of the law (Rom 3:20, 28, Gal 2:16, Gal 3:10-14) and that, in more general terms, the biblical report is that we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, and this is not of ourselves, but is rather God’s gift - which then drives us to good works. (Ephesians 2:8-10) James however, at first glance seems to disagree with Paul. This is not possible of course. As an aside, even a great man of God and theologian Martin Luther had problems reconciling Paul and James. Luther was unsure as to the canonicity of the book of James. But, perhaps Luther simply may not have seen James’ passage in the right light. Digging in, it’s pretty clear what James is trying to say. James makes such statements as “What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?” (Jms 2:14) “Show me your faith apart from your works and I will show you my faith by my works.” (Jms 2:18) And then, “Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar?” (Jms 2:21) And, “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” (Jms 2:24)
The point we need to recognize here is that James is not erecting a false dichotomy between faith and works and separating them to the point of being completely different. If this is the case, then faith becomes no more than mental assent, and Scripture, specifically the New Testament, denies that idea everywhere else. Likewise, faith and obedience are treated as essentially the same in numerous other places in Scripture. They can be distinguished, but never separated. For instance, John 3:36, Hebrews 5:9, Romans 1:5, and Romans 16:26. The biblical report is that true faith will obey. The fruits of the Spirit will be borne, and good works will be the result. Thus, we can discern that even in James 2, that what James is contrasting is not faith and works, but true faith and false faith. He makes this clear by using demons as an example. Even they believe, he says. (Jms 2:19) When viewed in this light, Paul and James are completely consistent with each other. Paul was fighting against legalists in Galatians - those who would add works in order to be justified, while James was fighting the opposite battle; antinomianism. That is, faith with no works, which is a false and dead faith. Our faith needs to be shown by our works, and if our faith is real, it will be. Likewise, James cannot be blasting the Reformation distinctive of justification by faith alone in verse 24, for then he would not only be contradicting Paul, but also creating a new category of works that are classified outside of God’s law, which, as seen above, is very unlikely. Proponents of justification by works love to point out that the only time the phrase “faith alone’ appears in Holy Writ is in James 2:24, when James says that we are not justified by faith alone. But James does not mean it in the same sense that the Reformers and St. Paul meant it. That is, he is not creating a dichotomy between faith and works to the point they are separate, but rather, he is fighting against antinomianism, those who have a false profession but a lifestyle that contradicts what they say. This is the epitome of lying, obviously. The people James is referring to are clearly people who have the same “belief” as the demons he mentions in verse 19. That is, they believe Christ is who he claimed, but they do not possess a faith given by the Spirit of God and do not have the law written on their hearts, evidenced by their lack of works. Therefore, these people are not shown to be just simply by their profession of faith. They may even be part of the visible church, but their professions are severely lacking. Hence all the warnings in Hebrews. There were numerous people in the visible church who had false professions then, and numerous ones who have false professions now. We see that what James is saying here is not that man is justified by doing good works, as if they are a cause for merit, because Paul plainly rebukes that idea, but rather, that a true profession of faith will result in a desire to follow God and obey. A true faith will work.. It’s that simple, especially in numerous other places in Scripture the just are said to “live by faith.” (Rom 1:17, 2 Cor 5:7, etc) Therefore, the works that we do come from our faith, which is the result of a new nature implanted by the Holy Spirit through regeneration. It is precisely in this light that Paul can command us to “work out our own salvation” (Phi 2:12) because “it is God who works in you.” (Phi 2:13) God has worked it in, therefore, we need to work it out, through our obedience and works. This working out can only be done because we already possess salvation, not in order to earn it. If we did not possess it, Paul could not say that “it is God who works in you.” We know, only the adopted children of God have God working in them, since only the saved are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. (Rom 8:7-10)
But it is also quite important to point out that I just spent a bunch of time refuting the position of *some* Roman Catholic apologists and of *some* Roman Catholic parishioners. On the other hand, I am convinced that this position is NOT the official position of the Roman Catholic church, as evidenced by the Council of Trent. Therefore, I desire to be very careful not to misrepresent the Roman Catholic position on justification, lest I attempt to refute a straw man, which is absolutely not what I desire to do. As a Reformed guy, I recognize the annoyance of straw men and recognize that refuting a straw man doesn’t really refute anything. Dr. Robert Sungenis, perhaps the most formidable Roman Catholic apologist of the day (seriously - chew on some of his arguments some time, they‘re very well done in many cases), agrees with Reformed Theology in the sense that “works of the law“ cannot be referring to ceremonial observance. Sungenis quotes: “Various Catholic apologists today, when teaching on the meaning of the "works of the law," will often explain it as referring to the ceremonial law of Israel, to the exclusion, or the virtual exclusion, of the remaining law in Israel. (The ceremonial law refers to all the ritual religious practices, such as circumcision, eating kosher foods, priestly sacrifices, seventh-day sabbath observance, etc). Sad to say, that answer is at best a half-truth, and at worst, it is a distortion of the Catholic teaching on Justification.”
He continues “One of the reasons these apologists categorize "works of the law" as referring to the ceremonial law is that they have found it to be an easy polemical tool against Protestants. Protestants say that St. Paul condemns ALL work as having any part in Justification. The Catholic apologist counters by saying that when Paul uses the phrase "works of the law" he does not mean ALL works; he only means the works of the ceremonial law of Israel.”
Now, granted, I think the above arguments I made are a fairly decent refutation of that “easy polemical tool.” I believe that Dr. Sungenis would most likely agree with what I have written above regarding the works of the law (although he would disagree with my explanation of James 2). Sungenis then concludes (regarding this works of the law interpretation): “…the answer he gives as to the distinguishing characteristic (the ceremonial law) is only partially correct, and in being such, it is the wrong answer to this most crucial question.” He also points out, rightfully so, that the biggest Roman Catholic authority on justification, the Council of Trent, never uses that argumentation, and never even went so far to even speak of the ceremonial law regarding justification. Earlier theologians such as St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas agreed with Dr. Sungenis in this regard, and it would seem, most relevant theologians claimed by Rome. Thus, Sungenis, after a long and drawn out argument, says this: “In other words, "works of the law" are precisely what the phrase says - they are works performed in a system of law; works performed under a legal contract; works wherein legal payment is expected. The moral and ceremonial laws, as well as the civil laws of Israel, were all part of the legal system of the Old Covenant -- a legal system that had to be set aside in order to make room for the New Covenant, a system of grace.”
In the main, his arguments seem satisfactory to me as regarding what works of the law are. Sungenis also has some excellent insight when he says the following: “It is important to note that in Romans 4 Paul is teaching that Abraham was Justified by means of the New Covenant of grace, which, because of Christ's anticipated sacrifice, could stretch all the way back to the time of Abraham and beyond, in order to save men. That is why, for example, Hebrews 11:4-7 mentions the prominent saints of old, beginning with Abel and Enoch and Noah, who were saved by faith -- the faith required by the New Covenant in Christ. It is the same reason that Hebrews 11:26 says that Moses "considered the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt," or why 1 Corinthians 10:4 says that of those who left Egypt "a spiritual rock followed them; and that rock was Christ." The only way anyone was justified in the Old Covenant was on the basis of what Christ would do in the New Covenant.”
But I do not quite understand how the next statement he made can be drawn, when he says: “On the other hand, the circumcision Paul mentions in Romans 4:9-12, and the circumcision in which Abraham and his progeny received, represent the Old Covenant, a covenant of law which had no power to save anyone.” It is important to point out, in this case, that the circumcision Abraham received could not have been a circumcision putting him into a system of law, since the covenant made with Abraham came 430 prior to the giving of the system of law at Sinai that Israel was under. (Gal 3:17) Therefore, the sacrament of circumcision given to Abraham was in essence a sacrament that pointed to circumcision of the heart, which is the result of the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant by Jesus Christ. (See Gen 17:1-14) It is no wonder then, that Reformed Theology, as well as Roman Catholicism, sees baptism as the sacrament that replaces circumcision, although the conclusions they draw beyond that are different. Likewise, baptism then symbolizes circumcision of the heart. This of course is to assume that the promise made to Abraham is not the Old Covenant, per se, as that phrase is commonly used too refer to the law given at Sinai, but rather, is the promise of the New Covenant in its pre-Christ form. Thus, to echo Sungenis, even Abraham and all the other elect of God that lived before Christ were indeed justified by grace and not by law keeping of any form.
All of this leads Trent and Dr. Sungenis to answer the question “But aren’t we supposed to obey the moral law?” With an answer that goes like this: “If the moral law is included with the ceremonial law as that which condemns mankind, how does that square with the fact that we are supposed to obey the moral commands of the Old Testament, but not obey the ceremonial commands? The answer is very simple. We are not obeying the moral laws of the Old Covenant. We are obeying the principles of the moral laws found in the Old Covenant. More than that, we are obeying the much improved moral laws, which God placed in the New Covenant. The New Covenant of Jesus Christ borrows from the good laws of the Old Covenant and makes them better.” He then continues: “But notice this important point: It is the WHOLE system of the Old Covenant that must go, not just a part here or there. Those who teach that "works of the law" refers only to the ceremonial law are essentially teaching that only PART of the Old Covenant was set aside. What about the ceremonial law? Isn't it true that we are not to obey the ceremonial law any longer, and didn't Paul make that clear in, for example, Colossians 2:16; while also teaching in Romans 13:9 that we are to obey the moral laws? Well, we already answered the "moral law" question above. We are obeying the principles of the Old Covenant decalogue, but we are no longer under the Old Covenant itself. As for our not obeying the ceremonial laws any longer, that is true, but it is true in the same way that we are no longer obeying the moral laws of the Old Covenant. Rather, we are obeying the principles of the Old Covenant ceremonial laws.” Of course, these ceremonial laws that are now in effect are represented in Catholicism by the seven sacraments.
This brings us to the Roman Catholic view on justification, as articulated by Dr. Sungenis. Sungenis argued at length that the works of the law cannot save us and that the entire law has been set aside. Then he argues this, regarding justification, after using James 2:24 and Romans 2:6-13 as his support: “The reason these works can be rewarded with justification and eternal life is simply that they are NOT rewarded on the basis of debt or law, but on the basis of grace. The only kind of works Paul disallows for justification are works performed in the system of Law, which is a legal system totally devoid of grace. Works performed in the system of grace are always meritorious, because God, by His very nature, seeks to reward those who do good. So notice that its not the KIND of works that is at issue, but the SYSTEM in which one performs those works -- a system of Law (the Old Covenant) or a system of Grace (the New Covenant). One gets into the system of grace by accepting God in faith. Once one believes, then he can work for God, and as he works God will reward him graciously for his efforts. The more one believes and works, the closer he comes to God until, one day, his life is over and God takes him home. There, in heaven, he will receive the ultimate reward of grace.”
And now, it would seem, we have a fuller definition and idea of what the Roman Catholic view of justification is. We must, however, point out some inconsistencies with this view. First of all, after arguing that the whole law has been set aside by the inauguration of the New Covenant and therefore doing the works of the law in order to be justified, Sungenis then argues in the above paragraph that since we are not under the law, we CAN be justified by performing the works that are set forth in the law, or at least, the principles of them. It is important to point out here that Protestants do not reject what we refer to as the third use of the law (also called the normative usage). What we mean by this is that the law can provide the “norms” for Christian life. When we look in Scripture and ask “What pleases God?” The answer Scripture gives us is His law. It would seem then, that the main difference between our two schools of theology revolve around the idea of merit. In Protestant Reformed Theology (including Lutherans, Reformed, Presbyterian, and Reformational Anglicans), good works are not spurned and licentious living is not endorsed. In fact, we would put forth the argument that such fruits are an indication of a person who is unsaved and therefore not justified. Contrary to popular straw man-ology, Reformed Theology does not promote vile living and antinomianism, and contrary to some dispensationalists, Reformed Theology likewise does not put the Christian under the law. Both of these charges are false. In the same manner, I do not wish to misrepresent Rome; hence my reading of Trent and Dr. Sungenis (who, as I mentioned above, I hold in high regard as a quality theologian - in the sense that he is very thorough, honest, and difficult to refute in many cases). However, at the risk of gaining howls of protests from my Roman Catholic friends, I will state this: If we are attempting to be justified by our works, whether they be from the law or from the principles of the law, it is difficult for me to conclude that we would be under grace, no matter what we call it. In short, it is difficult to see much difference between works justifying us in a system of law or in a system of grace. In both cases, we make God our debtor and attempt to be justified by something we do. If our works are done to gain merit from God and to justify us, it seems to me that grace is completely undermined. The argument quickly degenerates into something like this: Well, we cannot be justified by the works of the law if we are under the law, but we can be justified by the works of the law if we are under grace. Same works, different systems. Thus, the phrase works of the law, to Sungenis, does not mean simply the works done that align with God’s law, but rather, the works done that align with God’s law for people that are under God’s law. Therefore, these same exact works of the law are meritorious for Christians who are not under the law. Same works, same law, but the status of the person is what makes the difference. Thus it would follow that it would not matter much if we claim to be in the New Covenant if we are relying on our works to justify us, especially if those are the same works that are sharply defined by the law of God, since, as Sungenis has claimed, “that its not the KIND of works that is at issue, but the SYSTEM in which one performs those works.” It is, however, pertinent to this topic to point out that St. Paul uses the phrase “works OF the law.” There is no mention by St. Paul in any of these specific passages to “works done UNDER the law” or “works done in a SYSTEM of law.” He simply points out that the works of the law cannot justify. This would imply that the system one is under is irrelevant, since the works OF the law would be the same in either case. Sungenis is forced to change St. Paul's words from works OF the law to works done IN A SYSTEM of law or works done UNDER the law.
Sungenis then concludes: “So, we see that the New Covenant, even though in some respects it is a much improved covenant, in another sense it is even more demanding, for with much freedom comes much responsibility. Now, as opposed to the Old Covenant Law being our judge, such that it could convict us for murder but not be able to peer into our heart to see if we actually hated our brother (cf., Matthew 5:21-24), God, in the New Covenant, is able to peer into our heart and know our most secret motives. And it is upon this basis that the New Covenant judges us (1 Corinthians 4:5; 9:27). Fortunately, God infuses grace into our soul upon confession of sin so that when He looks at us He sees a purified being, justified in His sight. But if we spurn his New Covenant graces, then we will receive the "severer" punishment, a punishment even harsher that what was given in the Old Covenant.”
Looked at in this light (and I would agree with this), Christ’s definitions of the law are even more demanding. It’s also important to note that Christ did not abolish the law, but rather, abolished the theocracy that swore “all this we will do” and failed to do it - namely, because it was impossible for Israel to perfectly obey on a national level, thereby gaining the promised land, and by extension, the eternal rest. Another thing is that since God is an unchanging God, He likewise does not change His law. Granted, more of it is revealed in different books of Scripture, but His entire law remains the same. God’s law is still God’s law and no one has ever been justified by it (because the law can only command) and no one has been justified by doing the works of it, since once again, the law can only command. Therefore, it is impossible to be justified before God by doing, since when God commands us to “do” His requirement for justification based on that doing is nothing less than perfect obedience to all of His precepts. God cannot command anything less. Such would be a violation of his holiness and a compromise on His part. God, by His nature, does not and cannot do this. This was one major point of giving Israel the law and having Israel herself swear the oath, thereby calling the curses on herself for violation, precisely to point us to Christ, who is the law keeper and fulfiller. However, the Abrahamic promise is not like that. God Himself and God alone passed through the halves of the slaughtered animals and not Abraham, thereby calling the curses down on Himself for violation. (Gen 15:12-17) Likewise, God made good on this promise by sending Christ to bear the sins of His people, as Christ took the curse upon Himself by hanging on a tree. (Gal 3:10-14) God alone took the oath for the Abrahamic promise and also the fulfillment thereof - the New Covenant, since God had already taken the oath and promised to take it once again in the ultimate fulfillment thereof. Abraham himself swore nothing. This is completely in contrast to Israel swearing obedience at Sinai and in the numerous renewals of the law found throughout the Old Testament. (Joshua 24, for one) Therefore, how is it possible to be justified by our swearing and doing via doing the works of the law, (even under grace) if we are part of a covenant of grace which God Himself has sworn upon Himself the curses? As Horton has pointed out quite well in his excellent work “Introducing Covenant Theology,” the Sinai covenant given to Israel is a classic suzerainty treaty, where the great King (in this case God) initiates a covenant with a people (in this case Israel) because the great King had done something on their behalf. This is why the giving of the law at Sinai begins with “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.” (Exo 20:2) It begins by stating what God had done for them, and therefore, since He did this, He can then command the following stipulations. In this case, God goes on to give Israel the Decalogue, followed by other various laws that take up Exodus 20-23. When we get to Exodus 24, we see that Israel confirms the covenant by swearing “All the words that the LORD has spoken we will do.” (Exo 24:3) The covenant demands perfect obedience on a national level in order to inherit the promised land. Of course, Israel failed miserably on numerous occasions, precisely because perfect national obedience was impossible. God cannot command anything less than perfect obedience, as has been pointed out. Yet God did not cast off Israel. However, God never remembered Israel based on the covenant given at Sinai, since they continually broke that covenant and God Himself swore nothing and therefore was not obligated to remember them at all. In fact, they deserved death and nothing less.
But He remembered Israel based on the covenant He made with Abraham, which was not a classic suzerainty treaty where the great King commanded and the vassal them swore, but rather, it was much closer to another type of covenant called a royal grant. God unilaterally promised and then took the oath Himself. As opposed to Sinai, when God said do all this and only then you will live, the promise given to Abraham was different. God in essence said: “I will do this and you will live.” Quite different. God therefore, dispenses His grace on the basis of His promise (the covenant of grace) and not on the basis of obeying His law, since the works of the law cannot justify, but only God’s grace can. Setting up a new system based on seven sacraments (new and better ceremonies, per Sungenis) is in essence to set up another legal system of ceremonial observance with grace dispensed through these ceremonies and likewise comes very close to denying that there was nothing in God’s law that was gracious, which would be false. On the other hand, we can also observe that in essence Rome has set up the New Covenant as nothing more than a better system of law, and per their definitions, I would agree that it is better. But it still has the form of law in many ways; namely, as it pertains to justification, where Rome claims we ARE justified by obedience to the law (or at least, to the better principles of God’s law), and this is possible only because we are under grace, or in a different system.
This however, confuses works and grace, one of the very things Sungenis labored to point out that the contrast of the two is Paul’s major emphasis in Romans. Another way of saying this is that it confuses law and Gospel, or imperatives and indicatives. This leads Rome to claim, per Sungenis: “In the Old Covenant the ceremonial laws were merely signs and seals of God's promises. But in the New Covenant the ceremonies, that is, the seven sacraments, are not only signs but they do the very thing that the sign signifies! For example, the sign of Baptism replaced the sign of Circumcision. Circumcision was a sign of the Old Covenant but it had no power to save. But Baptism is a sign of the New Covenant that actually saves us in the act of being baptized! Not only that, but baptism can be given to Jew and Gentile, male and female, child and adult. It is universal and salvific.” I do not deny that God does work through the sacraments as means of grace, and I do not view the sacraments as works of man, but rather, as gracious works of God as He descends to us, but I have a hard time accepting a system which holds to infused grace, basically turning grace into a metaphysical substance, and salvation through a sacramental system and justification with works of the law (even though we are under grace, per Rome) involved. It is a basic confusion of works and grace, turning works into something meritorious that can gain us more grace, but only if we are under grace in the first place. It almost makes one wonder -and this is a mere observation on my part- if there is some sort of sliding scale of justification in this system, where grace is infused via the sacraments and by good works of the principles of the law, and if non-Catholics need to do that much more good works to have the grace infused that they aren’t receiving through the sacraments. I do know that Roman Catholicism does open up ways of salvation for non-Roman Catholics, but I have to wonder as to how? Obviously, these people who potentially could die in a state of grace are not receiving the Catholic sacraments and therefore not being infused by grace via the sacraments. Therefore, the only option left is infused grace via good works, since the sacraments are ruled out and so is faith in Christ. This of course, overthrows much of the New Testament and it’s emphasis on faith in Christ and what you are left with is purely salvation as a reward for good works. I don’t see any way around this. I would argue that Rome was much more consistent before Vatican II, when they officially opened up salvation to Protestants, Muslims, Jews (by religion), and even Pagans. That said, I am sure Rome has some reason for dogmatizing such, although it would seem to not make much sense on a theological basis.
Therefore, our works and obedience show us to be true children of the King, and not antinomian (no works) or legalist (works to gain life and merit from God) posers. We do good works not to gain anything from God, but simply because we love God, being the recipients of a new heart, and desire nothing more than to please Him and obey his commands. Nothing can be more joyful. Both antinomianism and legalism are errors, and both are considered to be another Gospel. Legalism is condemned by Paul in Galatians 1:6-10,and antinomianism condemned by James in James 2:14-26. Therefore, our works cannot justify us, as this would make God a debtor to us, no matter what motive or reason or system we put forth, but rather, can only be the fruit of a real faith that God has so gifted to the believer. (Eph 2:8-9, Rom 12:3, Heb 12:2) God is no respecter of persons and we cannot, in our sinful fallen state, gain favor with God by anything we do, lest we overthrow God’s perfect holiness in the process. God has commanded perfection ever since the dawn of creation. He cannot command anything less, because anything less would be a compromise of His holiness. Thus, we must be in Christ, our sin-bearer, the perfect lamb of God, with His righteousness, which is perfect, imputed to us. Paul sums up the relationship between faith and works nicely in Ephesians, and on this note we shall be finished here.
Ephesians 2:8-10: For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
Due to all the above reasons, I remain a convinced Protestant.
