How Can I Get to Heaven? is the abridged version of Not By Faith Alone. One third the size of its parent, the book is organized in an easy-to-read format, with user friendly titles, larger print, and no footnotes or appendices. The book is geared toward the lay person who wants to know the Catholic Church teaching on Justification as seen through Scripture. It is excellent for RCIA, small Bible studies, high school and college level academics.
Today, and in past centuries, thousands of people have struggled with that sometimes puzzling question. Unfortunately, there are often as many answers as there are people and churches in the world. But this book, which is the condensed version of the best-selling Not By Faith Alone: The Biblical Evidence for the Catholic Doctrine of Justification, will clear away the confusion and give you an understanding that you always knew possible but just needed the proper guidance to bring out. It is written especially for you: the beginner, the student, the housewife, the young adult, the non-scholarly layman. As with most things that are godly and true, the answer is really very simple. And if your mind and heart are open, this book will not only show you the way to heaven but it will also give you a new outlook on life on earth. After reading it, you will know what God expects of you and what will lead you to his heavenly mansion.
Published by CAI Publishing, Inc. 340 pages.
Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, 1996
Kenneth J. Howell, Ph.D writes, "This book may well become the most significant contribution to ecumenical relations between Protestants and Catholics that has appeared in a long time."
Bp. Fabian Bruskewitz, - November 23, 1996
Fr. Ronald Tacelli, - November 23, 1996
"Only some books deserve to be called 'seminal' and 'revolutionary.' This book is surely one of them."
Chapter 1
Did Paul Teach That I Can Be Saved By Faith Alone?
Okay, But How Do my "Works" fit in?
If Paul did not intend to teach faith alone, then how do we explain his statement in Romans 3:28, "that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law"? Could one not argue that the phrase "apart from" is very similar to the word alone, and thus conclude that Paul really did teach that faith is alone in justification? To answer this, we must first point out that "justified by faith alone" does not mean the same thing as "justified by faith apart from works of the law." Just based on grammar, the phrase "faith alone" means that faith is the only instrument for justification, while the statement "faith apart from works of the law" merely means that "works of the law" — whatever they are — are the only thing that cannot be coupled with faith for justification. In other words, "faith alone" excludes anything from being added to faith, while "faith apart from works of the law" excludes only "works of the law" from being added to faith. This leaves open the possibility that perhaps something may be added to faith that is not considered "works of the law," or that we could understand "faith" as being associated with other virtues that are not technically related to "works of the law."4 In light of this reasoning, we never find Paul saying, "man is justified by faith apart from love," or "man is justified by faith apart from obedience," or "man is justified by faith apart from hope." In fact, in speaking of justification, in Galatians 5:6 Paul creates an intimate bond between faith and love by the statement "faith working through love." In addition, in Romans 1:5 and 16:26 Paul demonstrates an intimate link between faith and obedience by the unique phrase, "the obedience of faith." By the same token, Paul never says "faith working through works of the law." Apparently, there is something very important to be discovered concerning Paul's meaning of works of the law which prohibits him from joining it with faith. Hence, although we must give due justice to Paul's dictum that faith must be apart from works of the law, this does not necessarily mean that faith is completely alone, especially from other virtues like love and obedience. According to certain Scriptures, there is something about the concept of works of the law which forces Paul to separate it from his concept of faith, yet dissimilar Scriptures allow, or even require, one to add other virtues, which are not necessarily associated with works of the law, in order to achieve justification.
Suppose someone were to argue, however, that love cannot be coupled with faith in justification because love itself, or even obedience or hope, should be classified as a work of the law. From this stance, someone can make the claim that if love, obedience, and hope are not separated from faith in regard to justification then there would be a contradiction between what Scripture says in one place and what it says in another. It is precisely on this particular point that Martin Luther (1483 -1546) decided to divorce love, hope, and obedience from faith, opting to use the phrase faith alone and put these three virtues on the side of works of the law that cannot justify. Other Protestants disagreed with Luther and leaned more toward defining faith in terms of love and obedience. Therein lies the controversy — a controversy not only between Catholics and Protestants, but among Protestant denominations themselves. Much of the controversy hinges on just how one defines and understands Paul's reference to works of the law.
But even if one insists on using the language "justified by faith alone" to express the uniqueness of faith in justification, one must still admit that the individual who exercises faith in God, at least in one sense, is "doing something" in order to be justified, regardless of whether that "something" is classified as an act, a work, or a mere mental process. It cannot be denied that even faith requires some effort from the individual, despite how one wishes to classify that effort, or however large or small that effort may be. It is no surprise that one's understanding of faith, either as a "work" or a "non-work," "qualified" or "non-qualified," becomes a great source of contention among various Protestant churches and denominations.
And the issue is not over. Consider this: If the justification of the person requires that faith be apart from works of the law, then what did Paul mean when he wrote just one chapter earlier in Romans 2:13, "For it is not the hearers of the law that are just with God, but the doers of the law will be justified"? In this passage Paul says precisely that the law (not love or obedience) justifies, while in Romans 3:28 he says specifically that justification comes apart from works of the law. From reading these two passages Paul suggests that there is a particular sense in which works or law justify and another sense in which they do not. To many, these passages seem somewhat confusing.
We are beginning to see why the answer to the question posed above (i.e., "OK, but how do my works fit in?") cannot be solved by simply separating faith from works, nor adding a phrase such as "faith alone" into the interpretation. In fact, if we fail to address this issue properly, a cursory study of Paul's teaching appears contradictory at some points and leads either to total confusion, or worse, leads to premature and erroneous conclusions as to what he actually taught on this subject.5 However, despite what may appear to be a confusing assortment of facts and ideas regarding Paul's view of justification, Paul himself gives us a very simple principle that enables us to understand his teaching, which we will now introduce.
Paul's Principle of "Obligation"
To begin to uncover the true relationship between faith and works, the first thing we need to understand is one of the most fundamental principles in the theology of Paul. That principle concerns the matter of legal obligation or debt. We see this principle established in that most famous of passages, Romans 4:4: "To the one working, the wage is not reckoned according to grace but according to obligation." To help us understand this principle, Paul uses the example of the employer who is obligated to pay his employee for his work. In the way Paul is using the term "obligation," it refers to a measured compensation which is legally owed by one party to another. The party in debt is obligated to pay the party owed, or the party who performs work is legally entitled to be paid for his services from the party for whom the work is done. Since we understand work as something which requires the strenuous use of one's faculties, the worker is someone who must be remunerated, in some manner, equal to his efforts. Commonly speaking, for an hour's work, he must be paid an hour's wage. Unless the employer wants to break the law, he is legally required to pay the worker what is due him. It does not matter whether the employer loves or hates, likes or dislikes, the employee. He is under obligation to pay him.
Establishing this principle of obligation, Paul introduces the foundational rule regarding anyone who attempts to "work" his way to God. If the appeal to God is based on obligation, then the relationship between God and man becomes one in which the party who works (man) is legally obligating the party for whom the work is done (God) to pay for the work performed. Hence, in regard to justification, a man who approaches God expecting legal remuneration for his efforts thus puts God in a position of being "obligated" to deem him righteous and acceptable, worthy of living with God and being blessed by him for eternity. Since in this situation God would be forced to owe a legal debt to the man who works, then the relationship is one based on law, i.e., a legal contract. If it is based on law, then it cannot be based on God's personal benevolence, otherwise known as grace. This is precisely why Paul, in Romans 3:28, says, "a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law." In the larger picture, "works of law" refers to "works done solely under legal contract" which demand payment or reward for performance, regardless of whether or not the person doing the work believes in and loves his benefactor. Conversely, if man appeals to God's graciousness, God would repay out of benevolence, but he is not legally obligated to do so.6 This is the primary distinction between grace and works. Paul reiterates this principle in Romans 11:6 by saying: "And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.7
Endnotes
4) For example, the Catholic Council of Trent held that "...he is ingrafted, receives in the said justification together with the remission of sins all these [gifts] are infused at the same time: faith, hope, and charity" (Session 6, Chapter 7, DS 800).
5) 2 Peter 3:16.
6) For example, God obligates himself to Abraham through a "promise" (Rom. 4:16f; Heb. 6:13-18). Since in this case God obligates himself, rather than man obligating God, there is no infringement on the principles of grace. Rather, God's self-imposed obligation is prompted and sustained by his grace.
7) Using Paul's wording, the Catholic Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 8, states: "...because none of those things which precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace itself of justification; for, ‘if it is a grace, it is not now by reason of works; otherwise (as the Apostle says) grace is no more grace.'"