It is crucial to understand that once terms such as "faith," "grace," "salvation," "redemption" and "justification" are filtered through larger Catholic theology, they become so altered they lose their biblical meaning. For example, the manner in which words are used in Canons 1-3 of the Council of Trent on justification sound biblical1—but once interpreted in light of larger Catholic theology, they mean something entirely different than what the Bible means.

Catholics themselves frequently admit their interpretation of biblical words differs from that of Reformation Protestantism. For example, The Papal Encyclicals agrees: "Faith has different meanings for a Catholic and a Protestant."2 Thus, "... in this faith sacraments and good works are included."3

But this distinction in meaning frequently goes unnoticed by both Catholic and Protestant laymen. Keating is entirely correct when he points out, "As in so many matters, fundamentalists [e.g., conservative Christians] and Catholics are at loggerheads because they define terms differently."4 Keating provides us with two examples: 1) he defines redemption as something distinct from salvation and 2) he sees faith as mere intellectual assent to Church doctrine:

Biblically however, redemption is something that only a believer has, and it is clearly stated to include the forgiveness of sins: "In him we have redemption by His blood, the forgiveness of sins..." (Ephesians 1:7, emphasis added). Muslims, Hindus and animists do not have redemption, biblically speaking, because they are not saved. When Keating distinguishes redemption and salvation in the manner he does, he makes a distinction that is unbiblical. And, of course, biblically, faith is simple trust in Christ, despite what Rome teaches. It certainly involves belief in doctrine, but much more than mere intellectual assent that such doctrines are true. Biblically, faith is not only personal trust in Christ, but involves personal trust in what God has said is true. Faith involves not just intellect, but a person’s will or volition as well.

Nevertheless, devout Catholics do not question their Church’s teaching about the definition of biblical terms because the Catholic Church believes that, "Over the Book [Bible] stands the Church.…"6 The Church has final authority over the Bible, and, therefore, it is the Church’s interpretation of biblical words that is authoritative. In the end, it is the Church’s definition of biblical terms—not the biblical definition—that wins the day.

Thus, The Papal Encyclicals correctly points out that Protestants turn to the Bible alone to determine whether or not a doctrine is true. Nevertheless, it also confesses "This is just the reverse of the Catholic’s approach to belief. As the Catholic sees it, he must accept God on God’s terms and not his own. It is not for him to ‘judge’ the divine message, but only to receive it. Since he receives it from a living, teaching organ, he does not have to puzzle over the meaning of the revelation because the ever-present living magisterium [teaching office] can tell him exactly what the doctrine intends."7

Again, Catholics turn to the Church because they have been promised that the Church exercises an inerrant authority to properly interpret the Bible. In other words, the Catholic man or woman can, in full trust, accept whatever the Church teaches them about salvation and never have to worry that the Church might be wrong. As Keating argues, "the Bible... is interpreted infallibly only by the teaching authority invested by Jesus in the Catholic Church."8

However, in his definitive critique of the Council of Trent (a council convened to oppose Protestant teaching) eminent Lutheran theologian Martin Chemnitz (1522-1586) correctly noted that the Catholic Popes and teaching office had reserved for themselves the prerogative of a biased interpretation of Scripture predicated largely upon Catholic tradition. In the words of Chemnitz, the end result was an entirely new interpretation "so that we must believe not what the Scripture says simply, strictly, and clearly but what they through their power and authority interpret for us. By this strategy they seek to escape the clearest passages [of Scripture] concerning justifying faith... the intercession of Christ, etc."9

That such a situation remains true today is difficult to deny. Consider the term grace. Catholicism teaches that salvation—i.e., forgiveness of sins—occurs through God’s grace—but a form of grace that empowers necessary works of human merit. Thus, salvation is by grace and works. The Catholic Encyclopedia asserts that God’s grace is a supernatural power that "makes it possible for them [Catholics] to place [perform] acts directed toward eternal salvation."10 And further, the "means of salvation given by Christ" are defined specifically as "the sacraments and sacrifice [Mass]" of Catholicism.11

Biblically however, (as it relates to salvation) grace is not a divine empowerment of men to help them earn their own salvation; rather it is a divine disposition toward men that offers them salvation entirely as a free gift of God’s mercy. Collectively, the following Scriptures prove this beyond doubt:

Thus, although the Bible teaches that forgiveness of sins comes solely and entirely by grace, through faith in Christ, Catholicism denies this and teaches that actual forgiveness of sins comes not solely by faith in Christ, but also through many or all of the following: a) The sacraments such as baptism and penance, b) priestly confession, c) participation in the Mass, d) the help of the virgin Mary, e) the recitation of the Rosary and f) purgatorial suffering after death. Because the true merit of man, achieved through these and other means, is in some sense responsible for salvation, Catholicism cannot logically deny that it teaches a form of salvation by works.