At the moment of initial justification (or repentance after mortal sin), the person is made a participant in eternal life, because he has received Divine Life into his soul. But during this present earthly life, we have not yet entered into the fullness of that participation. Entering into that fullness takes place in the beatific vision. But grace is the seed of glory. Now we have grace; then we shall have glory.

Regarding merit, as Nick explained, supernatural ‘merit’ refers to what the second Council of Orange says: recompense due (by justice) to good works if they are performed in grace. The Council of Orange declared: “The reward given for good works is not won by reason of actions which precede grace, but grace, which is unmerited, precedes actions in order that they may be accomplished meritoriously.” Apart from grace, we cannot merit anything pertaining to heaven, because heaven is supernatural, and our merit would at most be at the level of nature. But once in grace, we can merit a reward at the supernatural level, because it is Christ who is working in and through us, by His Spirit.

Absolutely speaking, no man can make a debtor out of God, because every good thing we have has come from Him as a gift. All we have is a gift from God. Man’s debt of obligation to God is one of commutative justice. Because God has given us everything we have, we therefore stand in a relation of obligation to Him, by way of commutative justice, even if we can never give back all that we have been given. It is a relation of unequals, to be sure, but still a case of commutative justice (not distributive justice). This is why religion is a virtue under justice. (See Summa Theologica II-II Q.81) That’s all true even apart from grace. But God, by a free and tremendous gift of grace, elevates us such that we are proportionate to God as our supernatural end, and thus capable of meriting a supernatural end. By the infusion of sanctifying grace, and thus by our participation in the divine operation in us oriented toward God as our supernatural end, the very works which we do in God, fully satisfy the divine law according to the state of this life and truly merit eternal life. (cf. Council of Trent, Session 6, Decree 16)

The key to understanding how our acts can be truly meritorious for salvation (i.e. eternal life) is found in the three word phrase “done in God.” Without grace, our acts can be more or less meritorious or demeritorious, not for heaven (which is supernatural) but for our degree of punishment and reward in a state of separation from God. Without grace, none of our acts would be “done in God,” and hence none of our acts could be meritorious for heaven, because of the infinite gap between what can be done in the power of our own finite nature as creatures, and God. But by the infusion of supernatural Life (not just a co-spatial indwelling of the Holy Spirit, but an actual infusion such that we are truly made partakers in the divine nature) Christ works in and through us, and our acts done out of agape are not just ordered to God as our Creator and natural end, but to God as our Father and supernatural end. That is, by infused grace our acts done out of agape take on a supernatural character, directed toward heaven as our supernatural end. And this is what explains Trent 6.16, what underlies those three words “done in God.” This is why St. Thomas explains that man in grace can merit eternal life condignly. (cf. Summa Theologica I-II Q. 114 a.3) This condign merit for heaven as our supernatural end is based on commutative justice, but made possible only by the infusion of divine grace. Without the infusion of grace, there could be no merit for eternal life. Even Christ Himself, without the infusion of grace, could not have merited eternal life in His human nature.

Jesus speaks of heavenly rewards all over the gospels. The Beatitudes are one example. We see this also in Matthew 25, where Jesus shows that heaven and hell are given as rewards for (among other things) the way we treat others. Jesus elsewhere says, “For whosoever shall give you to drink a cup of water in my name, because you belong to Christ, Amen, I say to you, he shall not lose his reward.” (Mk 9:40) See also Mt 19:29, and Luke 6:38. The Holy Spirit, through St. Paul, teaches that God “will render to every man according to his works” (Rom 2:6) and that “every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labor.” (1 Cor 3:8) See also Col 3:24, Hebrews 10:35, 11:6. St. Paul writes in 2 Tim 4:8 of the “crown of justice, which the Lord, the just Judge, will render,” indicating that the eternal reward is not only a gift, but also a just recompense for St. Paul’s labors in grace, which is Christ working in and through Him.

The Council of Trent likewise addresses this, declaring:

[T]hose are opposed to the orthodox doctrine of religion, who assert that the just man sins, venially at least, in every good work; or, which is yet more insupportable, that he merits eternal punishments; as also those who state, that the just sin in all their works, if, in those works, they, together with this aim principally that God may be gloried, have in view also the eternal reward, in order to excite their sloth, and to encourage themselves to run in the course: whereas it is written, I have inclined my heart to do all thy justifications for the reward: and, concerning Moses, the Apostle saith, that he looked unto the reward. (Council of Trent, XI)

In other words, those who claim that the just man sins (either venially or merits eternal punishment) in every good work, are opposed to the orthodox doctrine of religion. Those also are in error, according to Trent, who claim that the just sins in all their good works if these just persons do these good works while having in view the eternal reward.

In chapter XVI of Session Six, the Council of Trent teaches:

Hence, to those who work well unto the end (Mt 10:22) and trust in God, eternal life is to be offered, both as a grace mercifully promised to the sons of God through Christ Jesus, and as a reward promised by God himself, to be faithfully given to their good works and merits (Rom 6:22).

Notice that eternal life is both a gift and a reward. It is not either/or. It is a gift, because without grace, we could never attain it. But it is also a reward because, by grace, it is also a reward for works done in grace.

The following three paragraphs from Trent 6.16 are worth quoting in full:

For this is the crown of justice which after his fight and course the Apostle declared was laid up for him, to be rendered to him by the just judge, and not only to him, but also to all that love his coming. (cf. 2 Tim. 4:8.) For since Christ Jesus Himself, as the head into the members and the vine into the branches, (John 15:1ff.) continually infuses strength into those justified, which strength always precedes, accompanies and follows their good works, and without which they could not in any manner be pleasing and meritorious before God, we must believe that nothing further is wanting to those justified to prevent them from being considered to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life and to have truly merited eternal life, to be obtained in its [due] time, provided they depart [this life] in grace, (Rev.14:13.) since Christ our Savior says: If anyone shall drink of the water that I will give him, he shall not thirst forever; but it shall become in him a fountain of water springing up into life everlasting. (John 4:13f.)

Thus, neither is our own justice established as our own from ourselves, (Rom. 10:3; 2 Cor. 3:5.) nor is the justice of God ignored or repudiated, for that justice which is called ours, because we are justified by its inherence in us, that same is [the justice] of God, because it is infused into us by God through the merit of Christ. Nor must this be omitted, that although in the sacred writings so much is attributed to good works, that even he that shall give a drink of cold water to one of his least ones, Christ promises, shall not lose his reward; (Matt. 10:42; Mark 9:40.) and the Apostle testifies that, That which is at present momentary and light of our tribulation, worketh for us above measure exceedingly an eternal weight of glory; (See 2 Cor. 4:17.) nevertheless, far be it that a Christian should either trust or glory in himself and not in the Lord, (See I Cor. 1:31; 2 Cor. 10:17.) whose bounty toward all men is so great that He wishes the things that are His gifts to be their merits.

And since in many things we all offend, (James 3:2.) each one ought to have before his eyes not only the mercy and goodness but also the severity and judgment [of God]; neither ought anyone to judge himself, even though he be not conscious to himself of anything; (See I Cor. 4:3f.) because the whole life of man is to be examined and judged not by the judgment of man but of God, who will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts, and then shall every man have praise from God, (1 Cor 4:5.) who, as it is written, will render to every man according to his works. (Matt. 16:27; Rom. 2:6; Rev. 22:12.) After this Catholic doctrine on justification, which whosoever does not faithfully and firmly accept cannot be justified, it seemed good to the holy council to add to these canons, that all may know not only what they must hold and follow, but also what to avoid and shun.

The relevant canons are:

Canon 26. If anyone says that the just ought not for the good works done in God to expect and hope for an eternal reward from God through His mercy and the merit of Jesus Christ, if by doing well and by keeping the divine commandments they persevere to the end, let him be anathema.

Canon 31. If anyone says that the one justified sins when he performs good works with a view to an eternal reward, let him be anathema.

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.

For more on ‘merit’ see the Catholic Encyclopedia article on merit.

It is de fide, i.e. something that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith, that by his good works, the justified man really acquires a claim to supernatural reward from God. This is something that all Catholics must affirm, and to deny this dogma obstinately is formal heresy.

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan

It depends on how you’re using the term “eternal life,” is it being used legally or ontologically?

In John’s writings, he generally uses the term “eternal life” in an ontological sense, such that in virtue of the Holy Spirit indwelling in one’s soul, they’re literally participating in eternal life (since God is the epitome of eternal life). This is why John says things like how a Christian who hates his brother no longer has “eternal life abiding in himself” (1 Jn 3:15).

In Paul’s writings, he generally uses the term “eternal life” as a legal status bestowed upon the faithful individual at the end of their life. It’s worth noting that Paul doesn’t really use the term “eternal life” in places where he’s speaking on justification (e.g. Rom 3-4). Instead, Paul says initial justification puts one in a position to keep God’s commandments and thus become worthy of eternal life when they’re judged (see texts like Gal 6:7-9, Rom 2:5-8, where Paul uses the term “eternal life”).

Eternal life is not merited in the ontological sense, and it is graciously merited in the legal.

Does this help?

I think it is fair to say that the employment of merit-language has become more than problematic today. One can understand why Latin theologians incorporated merit in their formulations of the doctrine of justification, but it has always been vulnerable to misinterpretation, often with serious consequences, as the Reformation protest bears witness. Thus Hans Urs von Balthasar”

‘The gospel may promise a “reward in heaven” to a faith that is rightly lived out, but faith itself is very far from calculating any “merit” that may bring about such a reward. The word “merit,” insofar as it concerns some value conferring a right to something, is theologically an unhappy term that would be better dropped. (In tradition it very often has a quite different sense, namely, “being found worthy” by God: tu quae meruisi portare …) We need have no qualms about dropping the word, for there is a biblical word ready to replace it: fruitfulness. God responds to Abraham’s faith in this way: “I will make you exceedingly fruitful; and I will make nations of you” (Gen 17:6). The Lord is always using the word in his parables. In John it is the grain of wheat, which dies in the earth, that brings forth much fruit. The metaphor of the vine is even clearer. Apart from Jesus a man can do “nothing,” but if he abides in him he brings forth “much” fruit. If he fails to do this, he is removed; if he succeeds, he is “cleansed,” cut back in order to produce “even more fruit.” ‘(In the Fullness of Faith, pp. 74-75)

In my humble and very private opinion, the language of merit is a way to speak of that necessary transformation in the Spirit that must occur if we to authentically participate in the life of the Holy Trinity. Theosis is not a fiction: it takes place in our the concrete reality of our personal lives. Incorporation into this divine life is never a matter of persuading God to forgive us; it is never a matter of earning God’s love; it is never a matter of quid pro quo. But we must be born anew in the Holy Spirit. We must repent of our sins. We must walk in the life of grace and love–not in order to earn God’s love but simply because this is what it means to participate in the life of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If adult believers do not, in some way and in some measure (however small), embody faith and repentance in their lives, how can their be justification? I believe this is brings us to the heart of the Catholic concern about the typical Protestant construal of forensic justification: it seems to say that one can participate in the life of God without actually participating in the life of God. This may not be a fair interpretation of the Protestant position, but it is within this light that one must, I believe, understand the Tridentine reassertion of merit.

So…at the moment of initial justification, would it be correct to say that one has ‘attained eternal life’. If so, then I am confused when I read phrases like ‘merit eternal life’, when it seems like eternal life is what one receives when they are justified- and this is not merited (right?).

Also, when a practicing Catholic falls into mortal sin and repents, is the forgiveness they receive similar to the initial justification- in that it’s unmerited. And if this is so…then when exactly do people ‘merit eternal life’.

To be honest, this is probably just two different ways of asking what does ‘merit eternal life’ mean. Do you know what it means?

Mark

The term “merit” has historically been a touchy one when it comes to Catholic-Protestant disputes. One of the biggest problems that has surrounded this has been the fact most people don’t know what Pelagianism or Semi-Pelgianism even mean. Most Protestants think it means cooperating with God in any sense, including by His enabling grace, but that’s not Pelagianism by definition and thus is really a phantom problem.

The Council of Orange is one of the most authoritative condemnations of (Semi) Pelgianism in history, going back to the time of Augustine. And while many Protestants will affirm Orange did this, they don’t realize that Orange actually affirmed many very “catholic” teachings that were not semi-pelgaian at all but in fact orthodox and true “Augustinianism” (since the Reformed have been historically fond of Augustine’s anti-Pelagianism).

Here is a quote on merit from the Council of Orange:
“CANON 18. That grace is not preceded by merit. Recompense is due to good works if they are performed; but grace, to which we have no claim, precedes them, to enable them to be done.”

This is essentially the Catholic notion of “gracious merit,” where God’s grace enables us to do the works that He is pleased to reward (cf Heb 11:6). There is nothing “Pelagian” about this, and to deny this notion is to simply *misunderstand* the real issues.

Another popular text some Protestants point to, thinking the Catholic Church is teaching Pelagianism, is the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 2010:
“2010 Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God’s wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.”

Most focus on the second sentence, in total isolation to the context. Can man graciously-merit other graces for themself and others? Of course! What does the Catechism quote as the most definitive proof of this? PRAYER! In Prayer, we ask God for things, and God is pleased to respond to that request (in whatever way He deems best). That cannot be (semi)Pelagianism, and since all Protestants agree that God answers prayer means they’re forced to admit gracious-merit is not only possible but part of Christian life.

I am just having a look and trying to understand the article, and have a few questions about some phrases used in the article, and other related questions.

1) What does it mean to ‘merit eternal life’?

2) What is the relationship between this and actually going to heaven?

3) Can one go to Heaven if they did not, ‘merit eternal life’? Must there be some ‘merit’ on our part if we are to go to Heaven?

4) Does ‘merit eternal life’ mean something different from ‘merit justification’?

5) What does ‘works’ mean? Also, are performed works (if any, of which sort) meritorious of eternal life?

6) I heard Dr. William Lane Craig say (about the Catholic view of justification) something like the following- [He infuses into us his justifying grace- this grace gives us the power to perform good works- which in turn merit eternal life.] Would you consider this a correct explanation of the Catholic view of justification, or salvation?

7) Also, what was the situation of the dying thief? How did he go to heaven, and how is his situation an example of what the Church teaches? Was there merit involved in his salvation? Was there works involved in his situation?

Conspicuously enough, that’s precisely the traditional Eastern Orthodox exclamation and expression used at/for Chrismation (which is done in our Church exactly after Holy Baptism, as it was done in both East and West before the Great Schism — which means that it was done precisely this same way in St. Basil’s time as well). — So it’s a good thing we didn’t go extinct, otherwise Jason (and his favorite authors) would spread such untruths about us as well…

“If Abraham refused to be circumcised according to the command of God, would that make him agreeable or disagreeable with the almighty? If disagreeable, wouldn’t that make him a deliberate enemy of the His will? And if a deliberate enemy of his will, by refusing circumcision, doesn’t that mean he loses friendship with God? And isn’t justification described in some places in scripture as friendship with God? If so, then how can Abraham remain a friend of God, i.e. justified, if he has put himslef at emnity with his will?”

You haven’t lived a single day of your life without being a “deliberate enemy of God’s will”. Neither have I. It’s not as though we don’t know that behavior like pride, lust, and impatience are wrong when we do such things. We know that they’re wrong, and we do them anyway. Consider the example from Abraham’s life that I cited above. God’s promises to Abraham weren’t so difficult to understand that Abraham might honestly make the mistake of thinking that he should pursue the fulfillment of those promises by having sex with Hagar in order to impregnate her. And it’s not as though Abraham’s lies and his other sins were on matters he didn’t know to be inconsistent with God’s will. Similarly, David’s adultery, John the Baptist’s questioning of Jesus’ Messiahship, Peter’s denials of Christ, the many sins of the Corinthians, the Galatians’ unfaithfulness to the gospel, etc. were sinful forms of behavior that should have been recognized as such by the people engaging in that behavior, before they engaged in it. Mistrusting God is a sin that goes against the heart of the gospel message of justification through faith, and Jesus’ disciples are frequently rebuked for a lack of faith during Jesus’ earthly ministry. But it would be implausible to argue that they were unjustified or kept going in and out of justification during the course of Jesus’ ministry. In some of the cases I’ve cited in this paragraph, we’re told (in a variety of ways) that these people remained justified while they were in the process of committing the sins in question. Even where we’re not told that, their ongoing justified status seems more likely than not.

In the case of denying Christ, which you mentioned, Jesus is addressing circumstances in which no mitigating factors are involved. When mitigating factors are involved, such as in the case of Peter, we take those into account. Or when Paul condemns those who teach a false gospel, yet allows for the Christian status of the Galatians (including teachers in the Galatian churches) who had been involved in promoting a false gospel, he’s taking into account the qualification that he knew these Galatians had believed the true gospel earlier. Paul’s condemnation of the promoters of false gospels carries with it the assumption that there are no mitigating factors involved. Similarly, you would yourself add a qualification to Jesus’ comments by noting that Jesus will only ultimately deny the person who denied Him if that person doesn’t repent, dies outside of grace, etc. In other words, even from a Catholic perspective (assuming that you’re Catholic), the general principles Jesus lays out have to be taken in their larger context, and one principle can qualify another. The atheist who quotes what Jesus said about plucking your eye out or turning your cheek, without taking into account the qualifications present in the larger context, is misrepresenting what Jesus said in His historical setting. Similarly, atheists and other critics of Christianity often distort the book of Proverbs, for example, by ignoring the qualified nature of the book and its literary genre.

These are some of the many problems with the view that justification can be lost, and critics of the preservation of the saints (or eternal security or whatever you want to call it) often seem to underestimate such evidence. They’re so focused on the alleged evidence for their own position, that they tend to underestimate or not even be aware of large amounts of evidence pointing in the other direction.

Keep in mind that an analogy between justification and friendship is, like other analogies, partial. Justification and friendship aren’t identical in every conceivable way. Think of Jesus’ parables and the problems that are created if we assume that every detail of every parable is meant to have some theological significance or an identical parallel in the larger subject matter the parable is addressing.

You write:

“And likewise, with baptism, wouldn’t a person who hears the Gospel and believes it’s message, yet refuses baptism upon the prompting of the Holy Spirit/Church, for any potential reason (why anybody would do this is hard to know, but maybe on account of fear of persecution, for example), forfeit his status as justified at that time?”

But the Catholic position isn’t that justification is lost if you don’t get baptized. Rather, the Catholic position is that justification is normally attained through baptism.

Why would a person without faith want to be baptized for any good reason? And (focusing on non-infants and setting aside infant baptism for the sake of argument) why would a responsible Christian individual or church baptize a person who didn’t have faith? If the baptized person had faith prior to baptism, as ought to be the case, then why did he have to wait until his baptism in order to be justified?

If Abraham refused to be circumcised according to the command of God, would that make him agreeable or disagreeable with the almighty? If disagreeable, wouldn’t that make him a deliberate enemy of the His will? And if a deliberate enemy of his will, by refusing circumcision, doesn’t that mean he loses friendship with God? And isn’t justification described in some places in scripture as friendship with God? If so, then how can Abraham remain a friend of God, i.e. justified, if he has put himslef at emnity with his will? And likewise, with baptism, wouldn’t a person who hears the Gospel and believes it’s message, yet refuses baptism upon the prompting of the Holy Spirit/Church, for any potential reason (why anybody would do this is hard to know, but maybe on account of fear of persecution, for example), forfeit his status as justified at that time? It appears that is what St. Peter believes is the case when he says baptism now saves us, as an appeal to God for a good conscience! For does not Christ himself say that any man who denies him (Christ) before men, he will deny before the father? Is not denying Christ the thing that is happening when one denies baptism? How does one remain justified, therefore, who is being denied to the father by Christ himself. In such a circumstance it appears without a doubt that a person’s justified status *may* involve something he did or didn’t do, and, at the least, that obedience or disobedience is a necessary component of the increase or decrease of it’s grace.

In Christ,
Jared B.

“So Paul says that Abraham was justified by the faith he had before he was circumcised. What do you believe would have happened to Abraham’s justified status if he did not circumcise himself when God commanded him to?”

There would be consequences similar to what happened when he committed other sins, including ones recorded in scripture. Loss of justification wouldn’t be one of those consequences, however. But God knew what would happen and predicted the future and established the consequences for various sins in accordance with what He knew would happen. Sometimes He works through the disobedience of His people, as with Abraham’s fathering of Ishmael, and other times He works through their obedience, such as Abraham’s obedience in circumcising himself.