In an attempt to refute the need for good works in the salvation process, Evangelical apologist Dave Hunt wrote:
[W]hat seems “good” from our perspective is badly flawed in God’s eyes. Jesus said, “There is none good but one, that is God” (Mark 10:18). By God’s perfect standard, “there is one that doeth good, no not one” (Romans 3:12; cf. Psalm 14:1, 3). “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). So what seems like “good works” to us is unacceptable to God. (Dave Hunt, A Woman Rides the Beast: The Roman Catholic Church and the Last Days [Eugene, Oreg.: Harvest House Publishers, 1994], 364)
Hunt is wrong in downplaying the role of good works performed by God’s empowerment and grace, and the overwhelming biblical evidence that such works, not works attempting to put God into legal debt/obligation, are meritorious. See, for example, my response to “God Loves Mormons” on this:
Indeed, many personalities in Scripture are said to be “just/righteous,” “blameless,” and other such positive terms that are not based on an imputed righteousness but their works. For instance, speaking of Elizabeth and Zacharias, the parents of John the Baptist, Luke describes them thusly:
And they were both righteous before God, walking in the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. (Luke 1:6)
Other figures in the Bible where similar language is used to describe them would include Enoch (Gen 5:24; Heb 11:5); Noah (Gen 6:9; 7:1; 1 Pet 3:20); Abraham (Gen 17:1; Rom 4:12); Job (Job 1:1); and David (Acts 13:22).
Furthermore, Hunt and other Protestant apologists inevitably shoot themselves in the foot with such claims about works. How so? The same “arguments” could be turned on (1) their theology of works within “sanctification” and (2) the quality of their faith. As one critic of Sola Fide noted:
Protestants believe that they can "please" God in the area of "sanctification." Knowing that their works are imperfect, the basis upon which the pleasing of God is possible for them is the atonement of Christ which allows God to view and evaluate them based on grace rather than law. Catholicism just takes this principle back one step to include justification. God can accept our imperfect faith and works for justification because he looks at us through the eyes of grace as we diligently seek him. Since justification and sanctification are simultaneous and ongoing, the "pleasing" of God, under the auspices of his grace, occurs throughout our life and leads to final salvation . . . If the Protestant objects to applying these principles to justification, we must remind him that he is required to appeal to God's grace to judge the quality of what he calls "saving faith" for his own justification. In other words, since Protestants stipulate that faith must be of a certain "quality" in order for the individual to apprehend the righteousness of Christ, and since God is the only one who can judge the quality of this faith, the criterion for judging the faith must derive solely from God's grace, not from his standard of perfection. Otherwise, no one's faith would be acceptable. (Robert A. Sungenis, Not by Faith Alone: The Biblical Evidence for the Catholic Doctrine of Justification [2d ed.; Catholic Apologetics International Publishing Inc., 2009], 47-8 n. 78)
Elsewhere the author noted:
The Protestant may counter with the objection that the individual's faith only "apprehends the righteousness of Christ" and therefore he is not subject to the tribunal of God. Christ meets God at the tribunal for him. But such reasoning allows Protestantism no escape. Calvin, as well as the Protestantism that followed him, admit that the faith of the individual must be of a sufficient quality in order for God to allow the apprehension of Christ's righteousness (Calvin, Acts of the Council of Trent, 3:152). Accordingly, Protestant interpretations of the Epistle of James conclude that works must play a primary role in determining what kind of faith is possessed by the individual. It is commonly called "saving faith." If this is true, then who but God can judge whether this so-called "saving faith" is indeed sufficient to allow the apprehension of Christ's righteousness? Moreover, since there is no one else but God to judge faith's quality, would the Protestant say that God makes such a judgment from his "tribunal of perfection" or does he do so from his "gracious forbearance"? Surely, no one's faith is sufficiently perfect to satisfy the standards of God's tribunal. God must accept the imperfect quality of the faith based on his grace and mercy. However, the corollary must also be true. If God can accept faith by his grace and mercy, then he can also accept works in the same way. The Protestant may object further that faith is merely a "gift" of God and not subject to judgment. He is attempting to shift the burden away from the individual and place it on God alone. This hypothesis, however, will allow no escape from the theological corner into which he has painted himself, since Scripture is clear that everything in salvation is a gift, including the mental capacity of faith and the power to do the works that please God (Ph 2:12-13; Ep 2:8-9). In light of this argument, we must conclude that there is no justifiable reason to deny that both faith and works are necessary for justification, without any contradiction whatsoever, since both must be evaluated under the auspices of God's grace. (Ibid., 74-5)