The way to salvation

I do not think Joe A. Serge was precise when he noted that "Mgr Anton Gauci goes to great lengths to show that salvation is conditional on doing penance" (December 9). He would have been, even if he wanted to make use of the phrase "goes to great lengths", had he said that Mgr Anton Gauci wanted to make it clear that faith alone does not save us. That is why I quoted Matthew 7:22-23 and James 2: 14-17.

In his original letter in answer to what Fr Mario Attard had written, Mr Serge refers to "evangelical Christians". He obviously knows what these Christians teach about faith and salvation. In fact he has the words "in trusting God we may 'rest assured that salvation has already taken place in our lives'," adding that "remorse for sin and good works do not pave the way to heaven. Only trusting in the redeeming power of Christ's precious blood 'can be of sin the double cure: Save from wrath and make me pure'."

It is clear that Mr Serge wanted to insist on the evangelical Christians' teaching on the requirement of only faith for salvation. That is where we Catholics disagree and that is where we hold that the Bible supports the Catholic teaching. That is why I quoted Matthew and James. These are clear in teaching that faith alone is not enough: we have to do "the will of my Father who is in heaven". What could be clearer than James: "What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him?... Faith also, if it hath not works, is dead in itself." (James 2:14-17)?

Mr Serge will note that, this time, I have refrained from quoting Luke, St Paul or even St Peter. These mention "penance", which Mr Serge says should be "repentance", noting that the word "penance" is "an archaic term for repentance no longer found in today's Bibles". Incidentally the Bible I had quoted is also one of "today's Bibles"!

But as to "today's Bibles" and "archaic" terms! What have these Bibles to say about the Baptist's life and ministry in the desert? Do we get the idea of "penance"? Again, how do "today's Bibles" render Matthew's 11:12 about Tyre and Sidon: "they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes" or even Luke's 10:13 on the same subject? Do we get the idea of "penance", even if Protestant bibles call it "repentance"? Also the Old Testament, in various places, insists on "repentance" in "sackcloth": Isaiah (3:24), Jeremiah (4:8, 6:26, 48:37), Judith (8:6, 9:1), Psalms (34:13, 68:12), 1 Chronicles (21:16). (Note that I have here quoted, and am referring to, the King James version!)

Of course "faith is the gift of God", as Paul rightly teaches in Ephesians. Faith is not the "gift of works". "Works" required for salvation, as taught by James, come after faith. They are built on the basis of faith. But, again as James teaches, they have to be there! Again I quote the Authorised (King James) version: "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him?" (James 2:14).

I am glad to note that, in his December 9 letter, my friend Mr Serge has made it clear that: "Of course, without good works my faith would be a lie". But these "lies" could exist, as evident from Matthew's "Not everyone that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven"! I believe that also Catholics hold that, without faith, acts of penance do not make us worthy in God's eyes and make "a mockery of Calvary's cross".