OUR DIFFERENCES WITH ROMAN CATHOLICISM (PART 4)
In Catholic doctrine, there are two kinds of merit. The first is condign merit, that is, merit that carries with it an obligation. If condign merit is not recognized and rewarded, there is a violation of justice. For example, if you go into a restaurant and enjoy a good meal, you are obligated to pay for it. If it is a horrible meal, you may be justified in refusing to pay; but, if it is a great meal, justice requires you to pay.
Congruous merit is that which carries no obligation but is fitting or appropriate to recognize and reward. For example, if the waiter at the above restaurant gives you great service, it is fitting that you leave a good tip. However, even if you leave no tip at all, you have not violated justice.... Any tip you leave is at your discretion. If a waiter gives good service, it is certainly fitting (congruous) that you leave a good tip, and, if he gives bad service, it is appropriate to leave a small tip or no tip at all.
The Catholic Church teaches that humans cannot perform works of condign merit—that is, we can never put God in our debt so that God would “owe” us eternal life. However, according to Catholic doctrine, we can perform works of congruous merit—that is, we can do good works appropriate for God to reward. Penance is one of the works of congruous merit that will “make up for” sinful actions, but anything that would be considered a “good work” may have this kind of merit.
According to Catholic teaching, the sacrament of baptism removes original sin and returns one to a state of innocence, enabling him to perform works of congruous merit. Without these works of congruous merit, it would be incongruous (inappropriate) for God to allow entrance into heaven. If a person dies “in a state of grace”—that is, in a proper relationship with the Catholic Church, having been baptized and not having committed any mortal sin (a sin that destroys the state of grace)—but does not have enough works of congruous merit to cover his sins and to make it appropriate for God to allow him into the glories of heaven, then that person must suffer in purgatory until he has paid the temporal penalties for his sins.
... Catholics and evangelicals would both agree that Christ paid for our sins on the cross. However, Catholics affirm (and evangelicals deny) that we can make satisfaction for some of our sins as well. Evangelicals and Catholics also disagree about how we attain the positive righteousness necessary to allow us entrance to heaven. In Catholicism, this positive righteousness comes through works of congruous merit, which are the result of personal exertion and cooperation with grace. If one’s efforts are not enough, the remainder will be taken care of in purgatory. (In Catholic theology, purgatory is a part of heaven. If you make it into purgatory, it is only a matter of time before you are purified, and it will be appropriate for God to let you enjoy the glories of heaven. It may take millions or billions of years, but it will happen.) Therefore, it seems impossible to escape the conclusion that ultimate salvation as taught in Roman Catholicism is based upon a person’s works.
Evangelicals argue that, not only did Christ pay the penalty for our sins, but He is also the source of all the righteousness that we need to enter into the presence of God. The righteousness we have is not our own congruous righteousness but the righteousness of Jesus Christ. Paul emphasizes that he wants to “be found in Him, not having my own righteousness from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God on the basis of faith” (