Why do Protestants say Catholicism leads to hell?

[SyCarl]

I would think the words of Jesus would be dispositive on that score.

And the Scripture must be taken as a whole. Jesus also tells us:

"He does not thank the slave because he did the things which were commanded, does he? “So you too, when you do all the things which are commanded you, say, ‘We are unworthy slaves; we have done only that which we ought to have done.’”
(Luke 17:9-10 NASB)

We already owe Jesus everything. How can we merit anything?

Yes Jesus says that you can judge a tree by its fruit. But the fruit is the evidence of what the tree already is. Good fruit does not produce a good tree, the good tree produces good fruit. It is how we tell the tree is good.

We will be judged according to our works. The works are the evidence that shows that shows us that God’s judgement is just. In a court you are judged according to the evidence. The evidence does not make you innocent or guilty. That is a fact independent of the evidence. Similarly we are saved through faith. Good works will be the evidence by which God’s judgemnet will be justified. They are not the cause.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Nobody denies that we should do good works. It is a question of whether they merit anything.

Doing good works merits at least a “Well done, good and faithful servant.” The Lord can’t say “Well done” if I haven’t done anything.

 

[rlg94086]

We will be judged according to our works. The works are the evidence that shows that shows us that God’s judgement is just. In a court you are judged according to the evidence. The evidence does not make you innocent or guilty. That is a fact independent of the evidence. Similarly we are saved through faith.** Good works will be the evidence by which God’s judgemnet will be justified.** They are not the cause.

Which is why works are an absolute necessity. Please explain to me how someone with faith can be saved without any good works…other than a person who converts at the very end of their life (e.g. thief on the cross).

 

[Contarini]

I would think the words of Jesus would be dispositive on that score.

What words of Jesus speak of merit? On the contrary, Luke 17:10 says that when we have done everything Jesus has commanded us, we are still “unprofitable servants.” I am aware of a lot of language in the Gospels about the necessity of good works, and even of a reward that will be given to good works, but nothing about the merit of good works.

This may simply be a semantic issue. But Catholics need to understand why Protestants object to language of merit so that we can reach common ground. I think a lot more common ground exists on this issue than most people on both sides recognize, and I think the real question is the nature of faith (can one have the faith that is a supernatural gift of God without also having charity–Catholics say one can, Protestants generally say one can’t).

Edwin

 

[SyCarl]

Which is why works are an absolute necessity. Please explain to me how someone with faith can be saved without any good works…other than a person who converts at the very end of their life.

You have made the point there. Once there is an exception then it cannot be said that something is absolutely necessary.

I think that the disagreement is largely one of semantics. It can’t be denied that we should do good works and the Reformers didn’t deny it. Does it really matter if the works merit anything or not if it is agreed that we should do them?

 

[SyCarl]

What words of Jesus speak of merit? On the contrary, Luke 17:10 says that when we have done everything Jesus has commanded us, we are still “unprofitable servants.” I am aware of a lot of language in the Gospels about the necessity of good works, and even of a reward that will be given to good works, but nothing about the merit of good works.

This may simply be a semantic issue. But Catholics need to understand why Protestants object to language of merit so that we can reach common ground. I think a lot more common ground exists on this issue than most people on both sides recognize, and I think the real question is the nature of faith (can one have the faith that is a supernatural gift of God without also having charity–Catholics say one can, Protestants generally say one can’t).

Edwin

You basically anticipated my response.

 

[Contarini]

Which is why works are an absolute necessity. Please explain to me how someone with faith can be saved without any good works…other than a person who converts at the very end of their life (e.g. thief on the cross).

This is not, for the most part, an issue of controversy. There are antinomian Protestants and they have given all Protestants an undeserved bad name. (And no, Luther was not an antinomian, although rash statements he made can be taken out of context to give the mistaken impression that he was. However, most Protestants historically have guarded against antinomianism better than Luther did.) We agree that a person who is finally saved will be a person who has done good works if they had opportunity. What Protestants (except for the antinomian fringe) claim is that good works proceed from faith so that it is impossible to have that faith which is a gift of God without also doing good works. Some Protestants (Calvinists) think that all those to whom faith has been given are among the elect and will persevere to the end in doing good works. Others (Lutherans) think that if someone turns away from God and deliberately chooses to persist in sin and not repent they will eventually stop believing in Christ. Others (Wesleyans, Anabaptists) believe like Catholics that the deliberate commission of serious sin itself causes the loss of faith and thus the loss of a saving relationship with God. But all the groups I’ve mentioned agree with Catholics that all those who are saved will be people who have done good works and have not persisted in deliberate, serious sin; and all of them agree against Catholics that a person who does not have the love of God and neighbor, does not do good works, and deliberately persists in serious sin does not possess the supernatural gift of faith.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Doing good works merits at least a “Well done, good and faithful servant.” The Lord can’t say “Well done” if I haven’t done anything.

Medieval theologians distinguished between “meritum de congruo” and “meritum de condigno.” Meritum de congruo means that an action is fittingly rewarded out of God’s sheer grace and generosity. Meritum de condigno means that it is intrinsically worthy of the reward. Protestants deny meritum de condigno. They do not deny that good works are rewarded, but they say that this reward is based on God’s generosity and not on the intrinsic value of the works. Catholics (at least as represented by the Council of Trent) agree that good works are not intrinsically worthy of reward if seen as merely human works, but they argue that works done in a state of grace are done by the Holy Spirit working within us and thus are intrinsically worthy of reward. I myself do not have a problem with this, but I think that the distinctions are not always sufficiently explained (either by Protestants or by Catholics).

Edwin

 

[rlg94086]

You have made the point there. Once there is an exception then it cannot be said that something is absolutely necessary.

I think that the disagreement is largely one of semantics. It can’t be denied that we should do good works and the Reformers didn’t deny it. Does it really matter if the works merit anything or not if it is agreed that we should do them?

Contarini:

This is not, for the most part, an issue of controversy. There are antinomian Protestants and they have given all Protestants an undeserved bad name. (And no, Luther was not an antinomian, although rash statements he made can be taken out of context to give the mistaken impression that he was. However, most Protestants historically have guarded against antinomianism better than Luther did.) We agree that a person who is finally saved will be a person who has done good works if they had opportunity. What Protestants (except for the antinomian fringe) claim is that good works proceed from faith so that it is impossible to have that faith which is a gift of God without also doing good works. Some Protestants (Calvinists) think that all those to whom faith has been given are among the elect and will persevere to the end in doing good works. Others (Lutherans) think that if someone turns away from God and deliberately chooses to persist in sin and not repent they will eventually stop believing in Christ. Others (Wesleyans, Anabaptists) believe like Catholics that the deliberate commission of serious sin itself causes the loss of faith and thus the loss of a saving relationship with God. But all the groups I’ve mentioned agree with Catholics that all those who are saved will be people who have done good works and have not persisted in deliberate, serious sin; and all of them agree against Catholics that a person who does not have the love of God and neighbor, does not do good works, and deliberately persists in serious sin does not possess the supernatural gift of faith.

Edwin

I agree with you both, which is why I think the whole argument is just silly. I can picture Our Lord at judgment day saying (this is in the American teenager vernacular ) “Seriously, you spent your time arguing about Faith versus Works?”

The Catholic Church does not teach that works alone will save/justify you and Protestants, for the most part, don’t teach that works have no merit. It would be so nice if we could all just accept that both faith and works are absolutely necessary.

As far as SyCarl’s comment regarding the exception I mentioned being the answer to my own question? Big deal! I don’t live my life by the exception. Just as God can save someone who is a non-believer because He is omnipotent doesn’t mean I can be a non-believer and figure I’ll be saved, so I believe that good works are important as I am not the good thief on the cross.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Medieval theologians distinguished between “meritum de congruo” and “meritum de condigno.” Meritum de congruo means that an action is fittingly rewarded out of God’s sheer grace and generosity. Meritum de condigno means that it is intrinsically worthy of the reward. Protestants deny meritum de condigno.

Thanks for that little Latin lesson! I learned something today. I can go to bed now.

They do not deny that good works are rewarded, but they say that this reward is based on God’s generosity and not on the intrinsic value of the works. Catholics (at least as represented by the Council of Trent) agree that good works are not intrinsically worthy of reward if seen as merely human works, but they argue that **works done in a state of grace are done by the Holy Spirit working within us **and thus are intrinsically worthy of reward. I myself do not have a problem with this, but I think that the distinctions are not always sufficiently explained (either by Protestants or by Catholics).

Edwin

Yes, historically (and especially on discussion fora such as this), Protestants and Catholics are saying a lot of the same things but using different words and wind up talking past one another.

Shameless plug: I love the Catholic Bridge website, and the Common Ground DVD available from Nineveh’s Crossing.

 

[Contarini]

As far as SyCarl’s comment regarding the exception I mentioned being the answer to my own question? Big deal! I don’t live my life by the exception. Just as God can save someone who is a non-believer because He is omnipotent doesn’t mean I can be a non-believer and figure I’ll be saved, so I believe that good works are important as I am not the good thief on the cross.

You used the phrase “absolute necessity.” That’s the problem. Now you are saying that good works are important. That’s very different. “Absolute” is one of those words that you shouldn’t use unless you really mean it!

Edwin

 

[SyCarl]

I agree with you both, which is why I think the whole argument is just silly. I can picture Our Lord at judgment day saying (this is in the American teenager vernacular ) “Seriously, you spent your time arguing about Faith versus Works?”

The Catholic Church does not teach that works alone will save/justify you and Protestants, for the most part, don’t teach that works have no merit. It would be so nice if we could all just accept that both faith and works are absolutely necessary.

As far as SyCarl’s comment regarding the exception I mentioned being the answer to my own question? Big deal! I don’t live my life by the exception. Just as God can save someone who is a non-believer because He is omnipotent doesn’t mean I can be a non-believer and figure I’ll be saved, so I believe that good works are important as I am not the good thief on the cross.

Perhaps it is the lawyer in me that makes me too picky about words. To me though, “absolutely necessity” is of a nature that if there is an exception the necessity, by definition, cannot be absolue.

 

[rlg94086]

You used the phrase “absolute necessity.” That’s the problem. Now you are saying that good works are important. That’s very different. “Absolute” is one of those words that you shouldn’t use unless you really mean it!

Edwin

SyCarl:

Perhaps it is the lawyer in me that makes me too picky about words. To me though, “absolutely necessity” is of a nature that if there is an exception the necessity, by definition, cannot be absolue.

W-H-A-T-E-V-E-R!!!

You guys completely missed the point of my post. Do you think God really cares about the word “absolutely?” Fine…remove it. Does it change your salvation? Does it make you feel more justified as Christians? What a waste of time. I am going to make a speedy exit from the Apologetics forum before I burst a blood vessel.

Tell you what, just to test the theory, I recommend that you have faith and do no good works. Good luck on that.

 

[August_AWeitzel]

And the Scripture must be taken as a whole. Jesus also tells us:

We already owe Jesus everything. How can we merit anything?

Yes Jesus says that you can judge a tree by its fruit. But the fruit is the evidence of what the tree already is. Good fruit does not produce a good tree, the good tree produces good fruit. It is how we tell the tree is good.

We will be judged according to our works. The works are the evidence that shows that shows us that God’s judgement is just. In a court you are judged according to the evidence. The evidence does not make you innocent or guilty. That is a fact independent of the evidence. Similarly we are saved through faith. Good works will be the evidence by which God’s judgemnet will be justified. They are not the cause.

On the last the Lord will divide the goats from the sheep and say to the one;
when I was hungry you gave me to eat, when I was thirsty you gave me to drink, when I was naked you clothed me,etc.
Doesn’t this address the necessaity for good works?

 

[Teflon93]

And the Scripture must be taken as a whole.

Yes it must. So where does this “merit” notion you’ve injected come in?

You haven’t addressed Matthew or John either.

Until you do you’re not taking Scripture as a whole, but cherrypicking it to support the manmade tradition you favor.

 

[Teflon93]

What words of Jesus speak of merit? On the contrary, Luke 17:10 says that when we have done everything Jesus has commanded us, we are still “unprofitable servants.” I am aware of a lot of language in the Gospels about the necessity of good works, and even of a reward that will be given to good works, but nothing about the merit of good works.

This may simply be a semantic issue. But Catholics need to understand why Protestants object to language of merit so that we can reach common ground. I think a lot more common ground exists on this issue than most people on both sides recognize, and I think the real question is the nature of faith (can one have the faith that is a supernatural gift of God without also having charity–Catholics say one can, Protestants generally say one can’t).

Edwin

Read Matthew, Luke, and John. What we do matters to the Lord.

You inject “merit” because you cannot address the fact that Christ spoke far more of doing things in an active faith than merely believing things. This is why “faith alone” appears only in James, where it is preceded by “not”.

No one “merits” salvation, not even saints, for the reward of eternity is far greater than anything man can do. It is a canard dreamed up by the men who invented your community’s theology.

So kindly go tell your own fundamentalists who preach the prosperity gospel or the “jewels in the crown” nonsense or the tithe to knock it off—such things can never merit salvation.

 

[Teflon93]

On the last the Lord will divide the goats from the sheep and say to the one;
when I was hungry you gave me to eat, when I was thirsty you gave me to drink, when I was naked you clothed me,etc.
Doesn’t this address the necessaity for good works?

Yes, it does. How we treat each other clearly matters to God.

Protestants twist themselves into mutually-contradictory knots on this issue simply because they must in order to justify disobedience. It is the original sin of the Reformers, and must be explained away somehow.

 

[Contarini]

Read Matthew, Luke, and John. What we do matters to the Lord.

You inject “merit” because you cannot address the fact that Christ spoke far more of doing things in an active faith than merely believing things. This is why “faith alone” appears only in James, where it is preceded by “not”.

No one “merits” salvation, not even saints, for the reward of eternity is far greater than anything man can do. It is a canard dreamed up by the men who invented your community’s theology.

So kindly go tell your own fundamentalists who preach the prosperity gospel or the “jewels in the crown” nonsense or the tithe to knock it off—such things can never merit salvation.

Teflon,

You used the word merit (or rather, you responded to a post using the word merit by the claim that this was in the NT). As usual, you are arguing with things I did not say. And you admitted in our earlier discussion that the “jewels in the crown” language is not about salvation (in fact, wit your usual tactics, you accused me of having said that this language was about salvation when in fact you were the one who had said it!).

I’m hovering on the brink of thinking that your frequently confusing arguments must be deliberate. I am very reluctant to conclude this. But the alternative is to ascribe to you an almost unbelievable level of mental confusion.

We agree on the substantive issue, and you seem determine throughout this thread to obscure the fact. Why?

Edwin

 

[Teflon93]

Teflon,

You used the word merit (or rather, you responded to a post using the word merit by the claim that this was in the NT). As usual, you are arguing with things I did not say. And you admitted in our earlier discussion that the “jewels in the crown” language is not about salvation (in fact, wit your usual tactics, you accused me of having said that this language was about salvation when in fact you were the one who had said it!).

I’m hovering on the brink of thinking that your frequently confusing arguments must be deliberate. I am very reluctant to conclude this. But the alternative is to ascribe to you an almost unbelievable level of mental confusion.

We agree on the substantive issue, and you seem determine throughout this thread to obscure the fact. Why?

Edwin

Oh, nonsense.

SyCarl injected all the “merit” talk, which you picked up on in your post. The “jewels in the crown” garbage, as noted previously, is a motivation for works. In the Pentecostal community in particular, it is this notion that you will be especially exalted in heaven—have more jewels in your crown—because of the works you do in this life. Let’s not pretend that that isn’t eerily similar to the “works salvation” charge Protestants make toward Catholics.

As is your usual tactic, you claim I say things out of sequence with reality when I call you on a bogus argument you’re unwilling to walk back. In that case, I pointed out how your outrage over the practice of indulgences didn’t seem to result in similar outrage against similar Protestant practices such as “jewels in the crown”. The issue at hand wasn’t even salvation, but indulgences (indulgences do the damned no good.) Keep cranking out the revisionist history, Edwin.

So before the Great Contarini switches our attention to the irrelevant, why not address the passages in Matthew, John, and Luke raised above?

Why not address the “sheep and goats” parable raised above?

Why not address Catholic arguments raised by honest-to-God Catholics rather than erect strawmen of your own which you know to be discredited?

 

[myfavoritmartin]

But the lack of them can damn us, though. We can’t work our way into Heaven, but we can certainly “not-work” our way quite easily into Hell.

There is only one reward - Heaven. If you are “without rewards” then you are in Hell. Jesus was dividing the sheep and the goats for Heaven and for Hell - not for “rewards.”

1 corinth 3:15 If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss:** but he himself shall be saved**; yet so as by fire.