Salvation by Good Works?

[Peace]

OK this might be a thread for people who are more of the theo-geek persuasion, but I am having a bit of trouble understanding the exact sense in which good works merit eternal life.

Trent, Session 6, states:

Quote

Canon 32. If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit an increase of grace, eternal life, and in case he dies in grace, the attainment of eternal life itself and also an increase of glory, let him be anathema.

Likewise, Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pp. 267-268 states:

Quote

 

1. Object of Mertium de Condigno

A just man merits for himself through each good work an increase of sanctifying grace, eternal life (if he dies in a state of grace) and an increase of heavenly glory (De fide).

According to this declaration three objects of true and proper merit are to be distinguished:

b) Eternal life, more exactly the claim to eternal life and, if one is in the state of grace in the moment of death, the real achieving of eternal life. According to the teaching of Holy Writ, eternal life is the reward for the good deeds performed in this world.

 

This is the part that I find confusing -  Let's say that a person repents, has faith in the Lord, and is baptized, putting him in a state of grace. Then, one nanosecond after his baptism, a bomb is dropped on his parish and he dies. At least in theory, this person should go to Heaven. In fact, the person should go to straight to Heaven without purgatory.

From that hypo I think we can conclude that positive "good works" are not an absolute requirement for salvation. The person died and went to heaven without having done any positive good works whatsoever.

Because positive good works are not absolutely required, I am having trouble understanding the exact sense in which our good works (while performed in a state of grace after our initial justification) merit justification (taking "merit" here in the sense of "reward").

Can anybody explain it?

I can think of two senses in which our good works "merit" eternal salvation, but I would like to confirm whether my understanding is correct, or if there is another sense in which they merit eternal salvation.

I think that they can merit salvation in these senses:

1) In addition to things like feeding the hungry, "good works" at basic level just means "being obedient to God". Because committing a mortal sin would put oneself "outside of the covenant", the "good work" of obedience (by not committing a mortal sin) keeps a person in the state of grace. In this sense the "good work" of obedience can be said to "merit" eternal life because a certain level of obedience is required to stay in a state of grace and be saved.

2) Positive good works such as feeding the hungry can merit eternal life in the sense that they increase certain virtues within us, such as charity, which assist us in staying on a path that will keep us in a state of grace (by not committing a mortal sin). Also in this sense positive good works can be said to "merit" eternal life because they contribute to our staying in a state of grace.

But, from the Ott quote in particular, the dogma appears to indicate that a person who does certain positive good works, such as feeding the poor, will be rewarded (at least in part) by God for those good works with salvation itself. If this is what the dogma means, how do you reconcile it with the idea that certain people (such as baptized infants who die) are rewarded with Heaven having performed no positive good works of their own?

Perhaps I am just totally missing something. . .

[LittleWaySoul]

It's my understanding that being Baptized is a good work in itself. In fact, it is the only absolutely indispensable Sacrament for salvation. Someone choosing to be Baptized therefore is healed of original sin and in the absence of any subsequent mortal sin, would go to heaven if they died soon afterwards. 

As for infants baptized before they die, I think it's that Baptism is a good thing, bringing them into the covenantal family, but they have not yet attained the use of reason and therefore it is impossible for them to commit a sin. In a way, this seems to be more of a "negative" good work in the sense that they do nothing out of the ordinary but remain free of sin which is itself virtuous and good. As you distinguished, "positive" good works can exist as well but I would say that the Baptism and freedom from sin following it would constitute a "good work of obedience" as you distinguished. Not sinning, whether it be because one cannot or does not, is a good "work" in itself. 

Or at least that's how I understand it anyway. 

EDIT: I should also mention that it is never our good works on our own that save (that'd be pelagianism) but that Christ works through us to make us good. We do authentically perform good works and become good people, but not of our own strength, but of the grace of God. 

Not sure if that was super relevant but it might be. 

Edited September 11, 2016 by LittleWaySoul

[dairygirl4u2c]

in my understanding, catholics believe your works albeit through Jesus cause you to be more justified. protestants believe only Jesus's works cause you to be justified. catholics id say believe what a person lacks in works is made up for via Jesus's justification. (unless i'm wrong and they think purgatory finishes a person off)

[Peace]

On 9/11/2016 at 8:14 AM, LittleWaySoul said:

It's my understanding that being Baptized is a good work in itself. In fact, it is the only absolutely indispensable Sacrament for salvation. Someone choosing to be Baptized therefore is healed of original sin and in the absence of any subsequent mortal sin, would go to heaven if they died soon afterwards. 

As for infants baptized before they die, I think it's that Baptism is a good thing, bringing them into the covenantal family, but they have not yet attained the use of reason and therefore it is impossible for them to commit a sin. In a way, this seems to be more of a "negative" good work in the sense that they do nothing out of the ordinary but remain free of sin which is itself virtuous and good. As you distinguished, "positive" good works can exist as well but I would say that the Baptism and freedom from sin following it would constitute a "good work of obedience" as you distinguished. Not sinning, whether it be because one cannot or does not, is a good "work" in itself. 

Or at least that's how I understand it anyway. 

EDIT: I should also mention that it is never our good works on our own that save (that'd be pelagianism) but that Christ works through us to make us good. We do authentically perform good works and become good people, but not of our own strength, but of the grace of God. 

Not sure if that was super relevant but it might be. 

Thanks for the response. I looked into this a bit more. The question has been wracking my nerves the past few days actually.

I am still not certain of the answer, but it appears that some of my assumptions were wrong.

I assumed that if a person is baptized, and thereafter does not commit a mortal sin, he must go heaven.  I am starting to doubt that this assumption is true.

The parable of the talents, for example, seems to suggest that each person's works are judged according to the amount of blessings (or ability) that a person has. The servant to whom the master gave 5 talents earned 5 talents more, and the master allowed the servant to "enter into his joy".  The servant to whom the master gave 2 talents earned 2 talents more, and the master allowed this servant as well to "enter into his joy". But the servant to whom the master gave 1 talent, merely buried it in the ground and returned it to the master, without earning any interest on the talent. The master threw this servant into the "outer darkness" because the servant did not do anything productive with the 1 talent that he had been given.

I think the parable helps explain the difference in treatment between infants and adults. Infants and people who are mentally incapacitated do not strictly need to have faith, nor do they need to perform any good works, if they are incapable of having faith or performing good works. Most adults, on the other hand, are held to a different standard, because we are capable. We can't just merely say "I have faith. I am baptized. As long as I don't murder anyone or commit adultery I am going to Heaven". That seems to be akin to burying one's talent in the ground. We have to take the grace that God gives us and do good works with it, to the extent that we can.

So, it seems that "positive good works" are required of some people, according to one's state in life, and that we are ultimately judged according to both the good works and the bad works that we do during our lives. One idea of "grace" seems to be that as long as we die without having committed a mortal sin, we are judged with mercy as one of God's children, as a father would judge his son, rather than being treated as though we were a merely a party to a contract (in which case anything less than perfection would cause our damnation). 

So, if I made a contract with a landscaper to mow my lawn for $50, and the landscaper mows 95% of it without finishing the job, I would be justified in not paying him the $50 (in purely contractual terms).  But if I tell my son I will take him to a baseball game if he mows the lawn, and then my son tries his best, mows 95% of the lawn, but is unable to finish, I would probably take him to the baseball game anyway, because he is my son, I love him, and he put forth an earnest effort. On the other hand, if my son did nothing, or only mowed 5% of the lawn and then just gave up because he was too lazy, I would not take him to the baseball game at all. My sense is that the Catholic doctrine on "good works" is kind of like the father and the son in my example. God does not expect us to be perfect, but if we are faithful and try to live our lives the right way and do good, he will show mercy on us and allow us into eternal life (although we do not strictly deserve it in a contractual sense, because none of us lives a perfect life).

I think this concept of mercy is what seems to be lacking from the Protestant framework. They seem to think that as a matter of justice, God is incapable of allowing one into Heaven unless he has lived a perfect life.  If you live a life that is 99% honorable and just, but commit one small infraction, God's justice requires Him to condemn you to damnation. God cannot reward your good efforts, as a loving father would reward the works of his son. Therefore, the good work of Jesus dying on the cross must be imputed to the person, and the sins of the person must be transferred onto Jesus, so that when God judges the person, He actually looks only at the life of Jesus, without considering the good works or sins of the person at all. It is a legal fiction.

For us Catholics, it seems that the question then becomes "how many good works must I do to go to Heaven" ? I don't think we know, and this is where our idea that none of us can have an assurance of salvation comes into play. It seems that we have to try to live a good life, and have confidence in God's mercy that he will reward us as a loving father would, for the work that we have done. But at the end of the day we never know, in a strict sense, how we will be judged at the end of our lives.

Edited September 13, 2016 by Peace

[LittleWaySoul]

Well said, @Peace!

[Peace]

2 minutes ago, LittleWaySoul said:

Well said, @Peace!

Thanks. Bro-theology though. I just bought a book by Jimmy Akin called "The Drama of Salvation". Hopefully that will shed some extra light on the topic.

[LittleWaySoul]

7 minutes ago, Peace said:

Thanks. Bro-theology though. I just bought a book by Jimmy Akin called "The Drama of Salvation". Hopefully that will shed some extra light on the topic.

Thing is, theology and philosophy, while academic disciplines in their own right, are also somewhat innate and intuitive for us as human persons, especially if we have well-formed consciences and active intellects. Thus mere speculation, or bro-theology, as you say, can often uncover genuine truths that escape even philosophers and theologians. Happened to me once when I was trying to write a particularly nuanced philosophy paper in response/rebuttal of a published paper. My professor and I spent 45 minutes trying to analyze the argument and understand it well enough to find a flaw. We finally found one! I went back and told the story to my roommate, a nursing major, and before I could get anywhere near explaining what we came up with, she was like, "it's simple," and proceeded to give an answer to what took my professor, a PhD in philosophy, and I, a senior philosophy and theology major, 45 minutes to work out.

Obviously this intuitiveness isn't foolproof, so it's good to check your speculation against church teaching and prominent theologians (as you do), but I genuinely think you have a knack for theological and philosophical thought, @Peace. Did you study either at some point?

[Peace]

Thank you. I have never studied any of that stuff formally. I just geek out and read a lot of stuff, and try to make the best sense out of it that I can.