Congruent Merit--a reward is fitting but not obligatory (Matt 5:38-48, esp 46-47; Matt 7:9-12)

Condign Merit--when by God's grace we are able to do good works which please God and, only since He has promised to do so, must be rewarded (Rom. 2:6-11, Gal. 6:6-10, I Cor 2:9,

Prov. 19:17, Rom. 13:3-4) According to the Catholic Church this is the only kind of merit we can obtain.

Christian Rebuttal: With respect to the three degrees of merit, the word "strict" does not appear in Matt. 19:17; nor does it appear in Rom. 3:19-26. Verse 17 is specifically a command to keep the commandments in order to enter into eternal life, but if you read over to verse 24 you will find that Jesus' point here is about how people put too much emphasis on their possessions instead of on spiritual and eternal things.

The passage in Romans is not about merit, it is about the sinfulness of man - in fact verse 23 (which you singled out) specifically states that "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." The balance of the passage (to verse 26) tells us that we are "justified freely by his [God's] grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." There is nothing in either of these passages about Christ 'compelling' a reward.

For congruent merit you cite (specifically) Matt. 5:46-47. These verses are not about rewards. They are an admonition to do more than merely love or salute those who love or salute us. We are being told to be good to all, no matter how poorly they treat us. See Matt. 5:44. You also cited Matt. 7:9-12 for congruent merit, but these verses have nothing to do with merit or rewards either, and this will be obvious if you read them.

With respect to condign merit; yes, it seems that certain human works will be rewarded, but the word "condign" doesn't appear anywhere in the texts you cited. These three degrees of merit are purely and simply ideas that have been read into the Scriptures for reasons unknown to me. I don't see that they serve any purpose at all. Although it may be true (as you wrote), "According to the Catholic Church this is the only kind of merit [condign] we can obtain" I do not accept the papacy's teaching on this point (or its purported authority), so this assertion has no significance for me.

Perhaps a little more to the point, what is the purpose of having these three degrees of merit? I would also like to know what your source is for these three degrees of merit, and where you obtained their definitions and where you obtained the verses you cited.

Catholic: I'm not sure what you're asking about in terms of the three kinds of merit. I have identified a few of things to try to clarify.

Are the words "strict merit", "congruent merit", and "condign merit" in the Bible?

No, they are not.

Is this a problem?

No, the word "Trinity" doesn't appear in the Bible either, but it is nonetheless a very important doctrine for all Christians.

What is my source for the verses and definitions I gave you?

In that email I just gave you verses and definitions that I remembered off the top of my head. I apologize if my references were not clear. Keep in mind that my purpose was not to show that Jesus taught about these concepts, but rather that they are natural distinctions to draw since they come out of everyday experiences. My point was that Catholics do not believe that they are earning their salvation, a point rarely understood by other Christians.

Are there better sources than my memory and ability to explain?

I did a little digging around on the internet and found an adequate explanation. The ancient quotations used show that this teaching about merit is not new, preceding the Council of Trent by well over a millennium.

Another reference of interest is paragraphs 1987-2029, especially 2006-2011, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church The larger section is the article on "grace and salvation" which has subsections on justification, grace, merit, Christian holiness, and a summary. The short section is the part on merit. The sections of the Catechism should make it clear that I am accurately representing the position of the Catholic Church.

What is the purpose of distinguishing between these kinds of merit?

Clarity. When we do good works we are not earning our salvation. Salvation is the free gift of God, which is only due us (merited) because He has promised it and made it possible.

Christian: It is true that the word "Trinity" does not appear in the Bible, but the Bible teaches clearly that God is three co-equal Persons. The Bible does not teach three different types of merit. These degrees of merit are something that has been read into the Bible by the Papacy, for reasons unknown to me. I have never heard any preacher in any Christian church anywhere ever say anything about there being three degrees of merit, nor have I ever heard any radio or TV preacher say anything about them, nor have I ever heard of or seen a book in a Christian book store about there being any degrees of merit.

When I asked for the sources of the verses purporting to support the degrees of merit, and the source of the definitions of the three degrees of merit, I was asking you to explain where you heard of them or read of them. I was sure the degrees of merit didn't originate with you, and I wanted to know your source for them - where did you hear of them. I read the article "Merit and Reward" at catholic.com, and it appears that the merits were formally declared by the Council of Trent. (That is the impression I got, although I could stand to be corrected.) Trent in turn seems to have taken the degrees from the church fathers, as they are called, whose writings are quoted at the end of the article. Note however that none of these fathers were contemporaries of the Apostles and none of them were inspired writers of Scripture, nor did they claim to be, nor does anyone claim that they were inspired.

With respect to the degrees of merit, the "Merit and Reward" article first cites Romans 2:6-11. These verses do speak of a reward, but "strict," "condign," and "congruent" are categories that men have imposed on these verses. The categories are neither implicit nor explicit in the text. The article also cites Galatians 6:6-10, but if you read these verses you will find that they say nothing about merits or rewards. Instead, Paul is pointing out that men will suffer the logical consequences of their behavior. He also tells us to keep working and to be good to all men. There is nothing here about rewards.

The paragraph that lists the three types of merit cites no verses in support of the three types it claims exist. In an earlier e-mail you gave verses to support the three degrees, but I answered most of those verses in a subsequent e-mail, so I won't cover that ground again.

I find it interesting that you write that the degrees "are natural distinctions to draw since they come out of everyday experiences." By this I assume that you mean men draw these distinctions themselves, which to me is an implicit recognition that the distinctions are not found in the Bible, but that they are man-made - which is what I said above: they are constructs of the Papacy, not something found in the Bible. If they come out of "everyday experiences" this is somewhat different from coming out of the Bible. (You also referred me to some paragraphs in the Catechism of the Catholic Church; again somewhat different from the Bible.)

You wrote, "Salvation is the free gift of God, which is only due us (merited) because He has promised it and made it possible." It is true that salvation is a free gift (Eph. 2:8-9), but do you give someone a gift because he merits it, or because you want to give of your own free will regardless of whether the recipient merits it or not? We are not due salvation, God gave it because He loves us (John 3:16).

Catholic: I am pretty sure that the use of the modifiers "strict, congruent, and condign" originated with Thomas Aquinas who wrote a couple of centuries before the Council of Trent clarified Catholic (i.e., universal) teachings. It is not an important idea except to emphasize that the Catholic Church teaches that only the sacrifice of Jesus Christ could earn our salvation for us (strict merit), and that our participation in the new covenant is completely due a gratuitous gift from God that has been promised us (condign merit). I see now that you understand this about Catholicism and only brought it up because the dodone website does seem to misrepresent Catholic teachings on this subject.

The Bible certainly does not "clearly" teach that God is three co-equal persons. This is proven by the fact that it took three hundred years for any council to define the doctrine in response to the heresies concerning's Christ being fully human and fully divine. However, it surely is a reasonable doctrine to deduce from what the Bible says. That is my own distinction, but it is an important one nonetheless for it is at the heart of all the novel teachings which have emerged since the days of the Apostles. That is, most every new thought whether it be a heresy or a devotional help like WWJD (What Would Jesus Do?) or ACTS (Adoration, Confession, Thanksgiving, Supplication) comes from its originator thinking that he or she found it in the Bible.

Christian: I don't think the Do/Done Website misrepresents Catholicism at all. If "strict merit" is true, and "the Catholic Church teaches that only the sacrifice of Jesus Christ could earn our salvation for us", what is the need for sacraments, rosaries, scapulars, and all the other artifacts of the Papacy? It is hard for me to believe that you believe Jesus only when the denomination you adhere to has all these extraneous projects and devices to help out with . . . what? If "Jesus only" gets one into Heaven, what is all this other stuff for?