01 December 2008

Pope Benedict on Justification

(Gospel e-Letter - December 2008)

Pope Benedict said that Martin Luther’s doctrine of justification by faith alone is correct if ‘faith is not opposed to charity.’ The Pope said this during a general audience in a speech on St Paul’s teaching on justification. (November 2008 link)

I am glad that the Pope corrected the false idea popularized by some irresponsible apologists that ‘sola fide’ (faith alone) implies freedom from doing good and license to sin (‘antinomianism’). The Reformers vehemently resisted and opposed the antinomian heresy. The Protestant concept of justification by faith alone never excluded good works in the life of the believer. On the character of genuine faith, Luther wrote: ‘Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn't stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever.’

Moreover the Pope also said that faith means to trust in Christ. ‘Faith is to look at Christ, to entrust oneself to Christ…’. In traditional Catholic theology, faith is defined as the assent of the intellect to divine truth. Protestants emphasized trust (‘fiducia’), in addition to knowledge and assent, as the essential element of saving faith. It is not enough to know God’s Word, or even to be convinced that it is factually true – to be saved, one must entrust himself to Christ, resting on him alone for salvation.

The Pope noted that the apostle Paul ‘places at the center of his Gospel an irreducible opposition between two alternative paths to justice: one based on the works of the law, the other founded on the grace of faith in Christ.’ In other words, one cannot be saved by faith in Christ if he also attempts to be saved by ‘works of the law’. This is exactly what Protestants mean when we speak of ‘sola fide’ – we are justified by trusting in Christ and not on account of our works.

By Faith and Works

Does this mean that Catholics and Protestants are now in agreement on the doctrine of justification? Unfortunately this is not the case. The Pope’s speech highlights the sad reality that the modern Catholic Church is still insisting on the Council of Trent’s doctrine on justification by faith and works. The divide between the two religions remains as wide today as it was in the 16th century.

On one hand the Pope endorses Paul’s teaching of justification by faith, apart from works of the law; on the other, he insists that we can really be just in the eyes of God on account of our love for God and neighbor. That is justification by love, or, justification by human works, for how can we express love apart from doing good works?

The Pope argues that faith unites us with Christ, enabling us to love God and others, and in so doing, we fulfill the law and become really righteous. He said that ‘the double love of God and neighbor the whole law is fulfilled. Thus the whole law is observed in communion with Christ, in faith that creates charity.’ He concluded his speech by saying that ‘transformed by his love, by love of God and neighbor, we can really be just in the eyes of God.’

To be sure such works of love are not done by our natural abilities; we must have faith, we must be united with Christ to really love. But ultimately, it is on account of these personal works that we are justified by God, according to Catholicism.

Works of the Law

How does the Pope resolve the contradiction between Paul’s teaching and Catholic doctrine? Didn’t Paul clearly state that ‘we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law’? (Romans 3:28).

In effect the Pope says that Paul was only referring to the Torah, the first five books of Moses. The Torah included rituals and cultural observances, in addition to ethical and moral principles, which distinguished and guarded Israel from the false religions of the pagans. But since the coming of Christ, those observances are no longer necessary. Thus when Paul says that we are not justified by the works of the Law, he was really saying that we are not justified by the Law of Moses, but he does not exclude that we are justified by the works of love. That’s the Pope’s argument in a nutshell.

The Pope rightly points out that in his epistles Paul discusses the division between Jews and Gentiles, and that now all believers are united in Christ irrespective of the ethnic background. But that was not his only concern. Paul also addresses the universal human tendency to self-righteousness, that is, our attempts to gain favour with God on account of personal works and merits.

We agree that when Paul spoke about the Law, he was thinking particularly of the Torah, the Law of Moses, and not of the law in general. But that does not mean that we can dismiss his argument as irrelevant since we are no longer required to obey to Jewish ceremonies and rituals. The Torah did indeed include ceremonial and civil precepts, but it also included moral laws. Jesus summarized the Law of Moses as the supreme love for God and love for our neighbor, and said that ‘on these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets’ (Matthew 22:37-40).

What then, if the Mosaic Law - with its ceremonial, civil and moral laws – could not justify, how can we now become just in God’s eyes if we take away the ceremonial and focus on the law’s moral teaching, namely love? Can we obey the law perfectly?
The problem is not with the Law of Moses; Paul declares that ‘the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good’ (Romans 7:12). The problem is with us, sinners by nature, and even after regeneration, the remaining corruption prevents the most mature Christians from reaching moral perfection on this side of eternity. If the Jew could not be justified by the works of the perfect Law, no-one could be justified by the works of any law. After all did not the Gentiles, though ignorant of Moses, also have ‘the law written in their hearts’ (Romans 2:14)? Yet they too were unable to be justified by works.

The Law of Moses served the purpose of keeping God’s covenant people, Israel, distinct from pagan idolatry, as the Pope said. But the moral aspects of the law, whether written on tablets of stone or on the human conscience, also served to expose our depravity, guilt and helplessness. ‘Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin’ (Romans 3:20).

By Faith, Not Works

Moreover Paul could not have limited the concept of ‘works of the Law’ to the Torah. He presented the Patriarch Abraham as the primary witness to his doctrine. He wrote:

'What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness' (Romans 4:1-5).

In this context ‘works’ could not refer exclusively to obedience of the Torah, for Abraham lived many centuries before Moses. It is therefore wrong to force Paul’s concept of ‘works of the Law’ exclusively to the Law of Moses. Clearly Paul applies the same principle to works in general. Abraham could not boast before God because he was justified faith and not by works. The same applies to us all.

Paul then gives an example from ordinary life – when a worker receives his payment at the end of the month, could it be considered as grace, a free gift, a favour? Certainly not! The worker has every right for the money he earned by his labour.
But justification is not based on the principle of merit. The very opposite is true. Justification is by grace, pure and underserved grace. Only he is counted as righteous by the divine Judge who ‘does not work’ but ‘believes’ God. That is grace!

Faith Working Through Love

Once more it must pointed out that the question is not about the propriety and necessity of good works in the life of believers. On this point, Paul, Luther and the Pope are in agreement. The question, though, has to do with the purpose of such works.

In Catholicism, the faithful are urged to do works in the hope that they will eventually become ‘really’ just in the eyes of God on account of their ‘love to God and neighbour’. In Paul’s teaching, we are not justified on account of any personal works, but by faith; good works follow after faith and justification. In Catholicism faith is insufficient; it must be supplemented by works to really justify. In biblical Christianity, faith is sufficient, faith truly justifies the beliver on account of Christ’s blood and righteousness, and having justified the sinner, faith then works by love (Galatians 5:6) to the glory of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ. In Catholicism justification is by faith and works – therefore it cannot be of grace (Romans 11:6); in biblical Christianity justification is by faith, that it might be of grace (Romans 4:16).

Here then is the dividing line between Luther and Trent, Protestantism and Catholicism, the true gospel and its counterfeit. May God give us the grace to believe in Jesus his Son, and being justified by faith alone, to give ourselves to love God and our neighbour from our hearts.

9 comments:

Nick said...

I don't think the Bible teaches that true believers are guaranteed to do good works, passages like 2 Pt 1:9-10 seem pretty clear to me.

Dr. Mizzi said: "To be sure such works of love are not done by our natural abilities; we must have faith, we must be united with Christ to really love. But ultimately, it is on account of these personal works that we are justified by God, according to Catholicism."

But Phil 2:12-13 says work out our salvation, with God's grace working in us. So no matter how it is sliced, the above objection opposes the clear teaching of Scripture. Even if it is argued that Phil 2:12f is "sanctification" (though there are no Scriptural grounds for this argument) the fact is the Christian still must cooperate in their sanctification to enter Heaven. Though Protestants divide Justification and Sanctification, they still believe Sanctification is just as necessary.


Next, I think Dr. Mizzi misunderstood the Love vs Works of the Law claim. True there are acts of love under the Torah, it is not only ceremonial. However, the Torah is a package deal that does not allow only the moral or ceremonial to be singled out, that is one reason why it is wrong to equate Works of the Law with only the ceremonial. That is not equivalent to saying any and all good moral acts are equal to Works of the Law. Thus when Paul says "apart from works of the Law" it is fallacious to say that means any work at all.

Dr. Mizzi said: "The problem is with us, sinners by nature, and even after regeneration, the remaining corruption prevents the most mature Christians from reaching moral perfection on this side of eternity"

The Bible says "nothing impure will enter," so how can even the most mature Christians not be morally perfect before death?


Dr. Mizzi said: "If the Jew could not be justified by the works of the perfect Law, no-one could be justified by the works of any law."

That is inaccurate. The Mosaic Law was not perfect, note all the talk of its temporary and inferior status to the New Covenant in places like Hebrews and even from Jesus Himself (Mt 19:7-9)


Dr. Mizzi said: "Moreover Paul could not have limited the concept of ‘works of the Law’ to the Torah. He presented the Patriarch Abraham as the primary witness to his doctrine."

That's just it though, that is Paul's main point! The main work of the Law Paul had in mind was circumcision itself, and hence Rom 4:9f Paul proves "apart from the Law" because Abraham believed before circumcised!

Paul is saying the children of Abraham are those who have faith in God's promises, not just based on physical circumcision.

The reason why nobody is justified by the Law is NOT because nobody can keep it perfectly, but because the Law lacks the power to impart life into a dead soul (Gal 3:21). Only the Indwelling of the Spirit can make a soul alive (Rom 2:28f; 2 Cor 3:6). Thus, the claim of Jesus keeping the Law perfectly in the sinner's place, for a Law that cannot save in the first place, is illogical.

Jose said...

Joe,

Why do you neglect to refer to James 2:24 on this whole topic? You did a good job in showing how close we are but then spend an extraordinary effort to show how the Catholic Church is wrong. At the same time, look at the Judgement Jesus speaks of at the end of time in Matthew 25. The sheep and the goats are separated based on their works of charity. Faith without works is dead!

Also, we are not "urged to do works in the hope that we will eventually become 'really' just in the eyes of God...". This is not what I read or hear from the Church.
Jose

Anonymous said...

I totally agree with you commentaries, guys like Dr. Mizzi really missed a LOT of passages in the Bible...yes we agree that God Justified us by the Blood of Christ but we could loose that grace if we don't cooperate with it as Apostle Paul said, Like the apostle Paul," I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12),

"See then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off" (Rom. 11:22; see also Heb. 10:26–29, 2 Pet. 2:20–21).

Philippians 2:12 says, "Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." This is not the language of self-confident assurance. Our salvation is something that remains to be worked out, with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13)."


There are many saintly men and women who have long lived the Christian life and whose characters are marked with profound spiritual joy and peace. Such individuals can look forward with confidence to their reception in heaven.

Such an individual was Paul, writing at the end of his life, "I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that Day" (2 Tim. 4:7-8). But earlier in life, even Paul did not claim an infallible assurance, either of his present justification or of his remaining in grace in the future. Concerning his present state, he wrote, "I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby justified [Gk., dedikaiomai]. It is the Lord who judges me" (1 Cor. 4:4).

Concerning his remaining life, Paul was frank in admitting that even he could fall away: "I pummel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified" (1 Cor. 9:27). Of course, for a spiritual giant such as Paul, it would be quite unexpected and out of character for him to fall from God's grace. Nevertheless, he points out that, however much confidence in his own salvation he may be warranted in feeling, even he cannot be infallibly sure either of his own present state or of his future course.

The same is true of us. We can, if our lives display a pattern of perseverance and spiritual fruit, have not only a confidence in our present state of grace but also of our future perseverance with God. Yet we cannot have an infallible certitude of our own salvation, as many Protestants will admit. There is the possibility of self-deception (cf. Matt. 7:22-23). As Jeremiah expressed it, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately corrupt; who can understand it?" (Jer. 17:9). There is also the possibility of falling from grace through grave sin, and even of falling away from the faith entirely, for as Jesus told us, there are those who "believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away" (Luke 8:13). It is in the light of these warnings and admonitions that we must understand Scripture's positive statements concerning our ability to know and have confidence in our salvation. Assurance we may have; infallible certitude we may not.

Last Judgement
Matthew 25:31-46
44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

Acts 16:29-31 and the answer by Paul, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household." (Acts 16:29-31). Salvation is the work of God not man, and it is given as a gift by God to those whom He calls. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except through Him (John 14:6).

But what exactly to we mean by believing in the Lord Jesus?

You must believe IN Jesus Christ.

To believe IN someone means that you earnestly follow and do every word and order your life after that person whom you loved.

Lastly, if you are just going to tell your new wife, I love you...I totally believed in you but without doing NOTHING and make an effort to make the marriage work, she is going to think you are nuts...TRUE relationship works both ways not just one or else it's not TRUE relationship.

Anonymous said...

Acts 16:29-31 and the answer by Paul, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household." (Acts 16:29-31). Salvation is the work of God not man, and it is given as a gift by God to those whom He calls. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except through Him (John 14:6).

But what exactly to we mean by believing in the Lord Jesus?

You must believe IN Jesus Christ.

To believe IN someone means that you earnestly follow and do every word and order your life after that person whom you loved.

Like the apostle Paul," I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12),

"See then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off" (Rom. 11:22; see also Heb. 10:26–29, 2 Pet. 2:20–21).

Philippians 2:12 says, "Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." This is not the language of self-confident assurance. Our salvation is something that remains to be worked out, with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13)."


There are many saintly men and women who have long lived the Christian life and whose characters are marked with profound spiritual joy and peace. Such individuals can look forward with confidence to their reception in heaven.

Such an individual was Paul, writing at the end of his life, "I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that Day" (2 Tim. 4:7-8). But earlier in life, even Paul did not claim an infallible assurance, either of his present justification or of his remaining in grace in the future. Concerning his present state, he wrote, "I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby justified [Gk., dedikaiomai]. It is the Lord who judges me" (1 Cor. 4:4).

Concerning his remaining life, Paul was frank in admitting that even he could fall away: "I pummel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified" (1 Cor. 9:27). Of course, for a spiritual giant such as Paul, it would be quite unexpected and out of character for him to fall from God's grace. Nevertheless, he points out that, however much confidence in his own salvation he may be warranted in feeling, even he cannot be infallibly sure either of his own present state or of his future course.

The same is true of us. We can, if our lives display a pattern of perseverance and spiritual fruit, have not only a confidence in our present state of grace but also of our future perseverance with God. Yet we cannot have an infallible certitude of our own salvation, as many Protestants will admit. There is the possibility of self-deception (cf. Matt. 7:22-23). As Jeremiah expressed it, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately corrupt; who can understand it?" (Jer. 17:9). There is also the possibility of falling from grace through grave sin, and even of falling away from the faith entirely, for as Jesus told us, there are those who "believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away" (Luke 8:13). It is in the light of these warnings and admonitions that we must understand Scripture's positive statements concerning our ability to know and have confidence in our salvation. Assurance we may have; infallible certitude we may not.

Last Judgement
Matthew 25:31-46
44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

Anonymous said...

Dr. Mizzi here is the dilemma when you implied that catholicism is a counterfeit gospel by false interpretation of the Word of God.

So with this statement should I then believe in your interpretation, mine or somebody else's pastor or church? (remember they all claimed they were guided by the same Holy Spirit). Just plain logic tells us if you have an INFALLIBLE BOOK then it follows you should must have an INFALLIBLE interpreter or else to each his own.(relativism?)guess some more confusion.

Jesus didn't leave us with copies of the bible (only after 400 years later) but He left us with 12 sinful men(Apostles) which He gave His authority to preach, teach and PRESERVE the TRUE meaning of His gospels and NOT to anybody else including me.

Now do you want to claim you have that Divine Authority to speak for Christ?

If yes, then you just made yourself your own pope (which you guys and Luther hated) and the Magisterium of the Church of God and because of that you are going to be responsible for your own soul and all the souls you influenced in front of All Holy God.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Mizzi,

Why do you insist and imply that the Catholic Church teaches ,"ONLY good works will lead you to heaven", this is utterly false and misleading, do you know that it's a grave sin to make intentional false statement like that in the eyes of God?

Have you ever read the Council of Trent and Cathecism of the Catholic Church on Salvation,Justification and Sanctification?

Here is a quick formula for your information..

Justification = faith + love(good works).

If you disagree with the interpretation of the Catholic Church I will understand but to make half-truths and stories in order to mislead ignorant people particularly catholics is a very GRAVE SIN.

For your own soul..please be fair.

Anonymous said...

I have posted these comments previously but just the same few comments on Joe Mizzi's JUSTIFICATION:


JOE MIZZI: “Moreover Paul could not have limited the concept of ‘works of the Law’ to the Torah…In this context ‘works’ could not refer exclusively to obedience of the Torah, for Abraham lived many centuries before Moses. It is therefore wrong to force Paul’s concept of ‘works of the Law’ exclusively to the Law of Moses.
Clearly Paul applies the same principle to works in general."(Romans 4:1-5).


COMMENT: Joe is at least half-way correct. Paul is not saying that only the Mosaic law is the excluded work. Paul says "works of law," not Mosaic law. This means that any work which comes from a legal system, cannot justify a man. That's why Paul can include "works of his own righteousness" in Titus 3:5; and works of the moral law in Romans 7:7-8; as works which will not justify a man, because both are legal entities. The Council of Trent recognized the same thing. It never referred to only the Mosaic law as that which cannot justify.

The problem is the failure to understand the KIND of works that cannot be used for justification. Paul is clear in Romans 4:4 that "works of debt," which are works done prior to faith, are non-salvific, since he already told us that works done in faith and repentance to God are salvific in Romans 2:6-7, 13.

The argument in Romans 4 is not that circumcision is not salvific, but that faith must come before circumcision. In other words, if Abraham had been circumcised without faith, there would be no justification for him. As Trent says in Ch 8, "faith is the root of all justification." Faith must be behind every work in order for the work to be considered a work of grace. Otherwise, the work is a work of debt. By the same token, if after he exhibited faith Abraham refused to circumcise, then he would have been condemned (lost his justification), which is clear from Genesis 17:14. This is the very reason Paul mentions David in the same context of Romans 4, since after his sin with Bathsheba, David lost his justification. It was restored when he repented of his sin.

Everyone is saved like Abraham, but what is missing is that Romans 4:9-22 says that faith must come prior to works, not that faith alone justifies. If someone tries to work without faith in God, then he is in the system of debt. Works, by themselves, will always put someone in the system of debt, and in that system, the law will always condemn him, since the law demands perfection, not repentance.

The words "faith alone" are never used by Paul in Romans 4, or anywhere. In fact, Paul used the word "alone" four times in Romans 3-4 (Romans 3:29; 4:12; 4:16; 4:23), so obviously he knew what the word "alone" meant and what it could do for his argument if he wanted to teach the concept of "faith alone," yet he never coupled "alone" with the word "faith." A devastating lacuna for the Protestant to answer.

Anonymous said...

Part - 2

JOE MIZZI: How does the Pope resolve the contradiction between Paul’s teaching and Catholic doctrine? Didn’t Paul clearly state that ‘we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law’? (Romans 3:28).

COMMENT: Where does Paul use the words "faith alone?" Granted, he says, "a man is justified by faith apart from works of law" in Romans 3:28, but that does not mean "faith alone." It only means that "works of law" are excluded from faith, not works of some other sort. In the same way that Protestants have a perennial problem in concluding that every mention of "faith" means "faith alone," they have a similar problem when they conclude that every mention of "works" is non-salvific.

Here is the great mistake of John Calvin. He assumes that "faith alone" is the same thing as "faith apart from works of law." That is absolutely false. "Faith alone" means that NOTHING can be added to faith for justification.

"Faith apart from works of law" only means that "works of law" cannot be added to faith for justification. Paul does not say "Faith apart from love" or "Faith apart from hope," since love and hope are under God's grace. "Works of law" are further explained by Paul in Romans 4:4 as works of legal debt, works upon which someone boasts and expects payment or strict merit. But Paul does not put the works of Romans 2:4-13 into this category, nor the works of Romans 14:10-12, or those of 1 Cor. 3:12-17; 2 Corinthians 5:10; or any number of passages which speak about works determining our salvation.

Paul does the same in Titus 3:5 when he says "He saved us not on the basis of deed which we have done." But Catholicism has been crystal clear on this. Read Canon 1 of Trent. It says that ANY work done by man cannot merit the grace of Justification. But unlike JOe, Trent also knows that Scripture speaks of works that DO justify (Romans 2:6-13). Obviously, then, we must make a distinction between the kind of works that justify and the kind of works that don't justify. The simplest way to describe this distinction is to refer to the one as works of grace and to the other as works of debt, after Paul's terminology in Romans 4:4. If not, then all the rest of Protestantism will be stuck trying to understand Romans 2:6-13 where Paul says that good works and obedience to the law justifies a man.

Titus 3:5 is a contrast between works devoid of Christ and works we perform in Christ. As Trent said "his own works" (which is the same as Titus 3:5's words "his own works of righteousness"), do not merit the grace of justification, for they are not in Christ. In Titus 3:5, the work we perform in Christ is submitting to the "washing of regeneration," which even Protestants agree refers to Baptism. Since Baptism is a work of grace, not a work of debt, then it is not classified as "his own works" or "his own works of righteousness."

The issue is "merit." Can our works merit, in the STRICT sense of the word, justification? The answer is clearly NO, since if they could merit justification, then justification would not be of grace (Romans 11:6). But when we do works of grace in Christ, we are not claiming to strictly merit anything. Whatever we receive for doing those works is based on grace, and the even the power to do the works comes only from grace. Unless Joe begins to understand the difference between legal works that merit legal payment as opposed to non-legal works which cannot demand payment but are rewarded by grace, then he will always misunderstand, and falsely malign, the Catholic position.

Anonymous said...

Part - 3

JOE MIZZI: In Paul’s teaching, we are not justified on account of any personal works, but by faith; good works follow after faith and justification.

COMMENT: False. There is no Scripture verse which says that faith results in works. This is the major fallacy of Protestant thought. Rather, works must be consciously and consistently added to faith by an act of the will. This principle is precisely why Abraham fell into some disbelief and bad works in Genesis 16 when he took Hagar as a wife, and in Genesis 17 when he laughed at the promise of God.

The idea that once the button of faith is pushed the conveyor belt of works will automatically start running. Faith does not inevitably produce good works. Faith only gives one a better disposition to do works. The whole book of James addresses the issue of Christians who have faith but are not producing the works they should. Read especially James 3-4, not to mention their despising of the poor man in both 2:1-5 and 2:15-16 after it is said that they have faith in James 2:1.

Protestants mistakenly regard the addition of works to faith as if the only effect of the works is for the purpose of qualifying the faith so that the faith, alone, can save; rather than seeing that salvation is procured only when faith and works act together. That is a crucial distinction. The reason they make this mistake is that they come to the text with a presupposition that faith alone justifies (which teaching they mistakenly believe to acquire from Paul). Hence, since to them faith is the only thing that justifies, then works can only act as the qualifier of the type of faith needed for justification. But James puts no such qualifiers on faith.

JOE MIZZI: If the Jew could not be justified by the works of the perfect Law, no-one could be justified by the works of any law. After all did not the Gentiles, though ignorant of Moses, also have ‘the law written in their hearts’ (Romans 2:14)? Yet they too were unable to be justified by works.

COMMENT: Yes, it is the whole law, but it is the whole law under the system of law, not grace. The system of law is a system of debt, wherein someone demands legal payment for the work they have done. But that is not the kind of works Paul requires for justification in Romans 2:4-16, the very passage Calvin and his followers dismissed as "hypothetical" and as not having any salvific import. Catholicism sees no contradiction between Romans 2 and Romans 3-4, since it makes the proper distinction between works of grace and works of debt. This crucial distinction was taught by Thomas Aquinas in his categories of STRICT merit in opposition to CONDIGN or CONGRUENT merit, a distinction with which Calvin was familiar, but refused to admit into his theology, since he was bent on destroying the Catholic Church. It is the same distinction that today's would-be critiques of Catholicism fail to make, and therefore, perpetuate the myth about "works" in Catholicism. If they would read the Council of Trent very closely, they would see that such is not the case.

"..and if you have ALL the faith to move mountains but without LOVE (good works) you are nothing. (! Cor 13:2).