# Are good works necessary to salvation?



## Travis Fentiman (Sep 11, 2019)

While maintaining justification by faith alone, the Reformed have historically answered this question: Yes.

Many historic reformed resources are linked on the below webpage on this issue, including many in Latin from Reformed Orthodoxy with numerous quotes from those works translated.

The Introduction on the webpage is rather full, is a gateway to these resources, and answers the issues Scripturally and in an orthodox manner inline with the distinctions of Reformed Orthodoxy, distinguishing the truth from modern errors such as the Federal Vision, New Perspective, etc.

The many distinctions and categories that Reformed Orthodoxy made on the issue are delineated and I trust will be very helpful to people, and likely new to many.

I believe this is the fullest resource on this topic that is available.

I hope it is helpful to you.

The Necessity of Good Works - ReformedBooksOnline​

Reactions: Like 8


----------



## Nate (Sep 12, 2019)

Rev. Fentiman,

Thanks for the new resource. I have enjoyed your website for many years now.

In your introduction, you teach that the orthodox, Reformed position on good works is that good works are:

1) co-instuments with faith of salvation.
2) active, inferior causes of our future salvation.
3) necessary conditions in the Covenant of Grace.

Regarding #2, that good works are an active inferior cause of our salvation, you remark that historic, orthodox Reformed writers used the term "cause" in various ways that are not necessarily equivalent to how we use the term today. You point the reader to Paul Barth for an analysis of the historic use of this term. I haven't taken the time to read Barth's work on this. Could you briefly summarize whether there was a single use of the term that the majority of the writers used, or was there a wide variation in usage?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Nate (Sep 12, 2019)

An additional question is whether you view the three items above as positively taught by Westminster or the Three Forms of Unity.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## VictorBravo (Sep 13, 2019)

Travis, the thesis of this thread and the linked resource troubles me. I know you say you will have nothing to do with Federal Vision, but the language used is very much reminiscent of Federal Vision literature.

I don't have time to go through everything, but it would be helpful to show how you are not following the Federal Vision error--the blanket statement that works are a condition of salvation seems to fly contrary to the Westminster Standards. For example, WLC Q 73:

Q73: How doth faith justify a sinner in the sight of God?
A73: Faith justifies a sinner in the sight of God, not because of those other graces which do always accompany it, or of good works that are the fruits of it,[3] nor as if the grace of faith, or any act thereof, were imputed to him for his justification;[2] but only as it is an instrument by which he receiveth and applies Christ and his righteousness.[3]

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 13, 2019)

Travis Fentiman said:


> While maintaining justification by faith alone, the Reformed have historically answered this question: Yes.
> 
> Many historic reformed resources are linked on the below webpage on this issue, including many in Latin from Reformed Orthodoxy with numerous quotes from those works translated.
> 
> ...


Good works are fruit of our salvation, but not part of it in sense of our Justification!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 13, 2019)

Nate said:


> Rev. Fentiman,
> 
> Thanks for the new resource. I have enjoyed your website for many years now.
> 
> ...



I have a question Nate. Did the following link not answer some of your question concerning cause?

https://purelypresbyterian.com/2016/06/27/causality-five-metaphysical-distinctions/


----------



## Nate (Sep 13, 2019)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I have a question Nate. Did the following link not answer some of your question concerning cause?
> 
> https://purelypresbyterian.com/2016/06/27/causality-five-metaphysical-distinctions/



The link is a useful description of how to understand the concept(s) of cause. On my reading of the link, I do not see an an indication of whether the authors Rev. Fentiman quotes are typically using one of the forms of cause as opposed to the others in the context of works and our future salvation. Perhaps I just missed it if it is in there.

One of the reasons I asked this is because some of the quoted authors seem to advocate some idea of cause, while others outright deny the idea of cause. Not all of the authors contextualize their usage of cause. Thus, I wondered if Rev. Fentiman had better insight to whether most of the authors were using one form of the concept.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 13, 2019)

Justification by faith ALONE.
"When you are engaged in discussing the question of justification, beware of allowing any mention to be made of love or of works, but resolutely adhere to the exclusive particle." —Calvin, Commentary on Galatians 5:6, (1548)

"There is therefore NOW no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." Not "We'll see whether there's condemnation when we review the whole case file one last time."

Reactions: Like 7 | Amen 3


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Sep 13, 2019)

Nate said:


> In your introduction, you teach that the orthodox, Reformed position on good works is that good works are:
> ...
> 2) active, inferior causes of our future salvation.
> ...
> ...



Nate,

I am glad you have found the site helpful over the years, and hope it will continue to be so for you.

The Reformed Orthodox (as quoted and linked on the webpage) speak of a variety of ways in which good works are an inferior 'cause' of salvation, not the least of which was Calvin himself.

While there was some diversity on the subject, yet most of the ones I looked at were comfortable calling good works a 'cause of salvation'. Many of them affirm and were comfortable with speaking of good works as:

- as an 'inferior cause' of salvation,
- as an 'instrumental' cause of 'possessing' salvation,
- as a 'positive' cause as opposed to a negative cause of salvation (where this was distinguished)
- and Rutherford specifically speaks of them as an 'active' cause of salvation, following the Holy Spirit in 2 Cor. 4:17​It is true that some of the Reformed Orthodox denied that good works were a 'cause' of salvation, instead preferring to speak of them as 'signs', a 'way' and maybe a 'means' of salvation.

I hope this answers your question. Blessings brother.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Sep 13, 2019)

Nate said:


> On my reading of the link, I do not see an an indication of whether the authors Rev. Fentiman quotes are typically using one of the forms of cause as opposed to the others in the context of works and our future salvation...
> 
> Not all of the authors contextualize their usage of cause. Thus, I wondered if Rev. Fentiman had better insight to whether most of the authors were using one form of the concept.



The provided link to Barth's article was (as was made clear enough by the context, I thought, in my introduction) only to make the point that 'cause' was often used in many ways regarding inferior causes not equivalent to an efficient cause, which is usually how it is understood today.

There is not necessarily overlap between Barth's article and mine beyond that, besides that the Reformed Orthodox on my webpage typically (with exceptions) deny that good works are an 'efficient cause' of salvation (and Barth spells out what an efficient cause is). Otherwise the RO on my page are defining 'cause' in a way wholly different, not even addressed in Barth's article; and they often define what that way is in their context.

Regarding not all the RO writers defining their terms, that is precisely the issue one runs into in historical theology.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Sep 13, 2019)

Nate said:


> An additional question is whether you view the three items above as positively taught by Westminster or the Three Forms of Unity.



The necessity of good works is nearly positively, explicitly taught in the Heidelberg Catechism. It is implicitly, in seed form, taught in Westminster, though Westminster does not explicitly state such.

Regarding the other terms and 3 items you mentioned, they are not explicitly mentioned in Heidelberg or Westminster. Though as the substance of necessity is in those confessional documents, that is why I believe the majority of the Reformed Orthodox were willing to then flesh that out and clarify the implications of that in their theological writings, which inherently entails using such terms as 'condition', 'cause', 'instrument', etc.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Sep 13, 2019)

VictorBravo said:


> Travis, the thesis of this thread and the linked resource troubles me. I know you say you will have nothing to do with Federal Vision, but the language used is very much reminiscent of Federal Vision literature.
> 
> ...it would be helpful to show how you are not following the Federal Vision error--the blanket statement that works are a condition of salvation seems to fly contrary to the Westminster Standards. For example, WLC Q 73:
> 
> ...



Victor, thanks for the questions.

There is always going to be language that the FV uses which is reminiscent of the orthodox language of the Reformed Orthodox. The only reason I have not put a page of resources together against the FV is due to time.

WLC 73 is about 'justification', which is often legitimately distinguished from 'salvation'. From near the beginning of my introduction:

"The terms ‘salvation’ and being ‘saved’ are often used with respect to the first moment of our conversion in Justification (Eph. 2:8-9; Acts 16:30-31), wherein we are found legally righteous in Christ for no works of our own, but only for his righteousness imputed to us though faith.​
However, ‘salvation’ may also refer to our whole salvation, from beginning to end (Phil. 2:12-13), including our future deliverance from this world (Rom. 8:23-24; 2 Cor. 1:6), our sinful flesh and our inheritance into future glory (Rom. 13:11; Phil. 1:9; WLC 154). As this encompasses our sanctification (1 Tim. 2:15), or our being made holy, it would be wrong to exclude the necessity of good works from the total picture of a person’s salvation."​See also the subsection on the webpage entitled 'Westminster' where there are numerous quotes from the Westminster Standards supporting the thesis of the webpage, all of which were held together by Westminster.

The Introduction, when you get time to look through it, if you so desire, also teaches against numerous of the key points that FV holds to.

I hope this clears things up. Blessings brother.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 13, 2019)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Justification by faith ALONE.
> "When you are engaged in discussing the question of justification, beware of allowing any mention to be made of love or of works, but resolutely adhere to the exclusive particle." —Calvin, Commentary on Galatians 5:6, (1548)
> 
> "There is therefore NOW no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." Not "We'll see whether there's condemnation when we review the whole case file one last time."


That last paragraph strikes me as how I feel someone like NT Wright presents Justification.


----------



## De Jager (Sep 13, 2019)

Our righteousness's are and continue to be filthy rags before and after conversion. They contribute nothing to our standing with God.

It's like a car and exhaust. Is exhaust necessary to travel from A to B? No, but if you travel from A to B, the car will produce exhaust. The exhaust in no way helps you to get from A to B, but is simply a natural byproduct of the journey. So it is with good works and the life of the Christian.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Sep 13, 2019)

De Jager said:


> Our righteousness's are and continue to be filthy rags before and after conversion.


I really appreciate your thought in separating works from justification, but our good works are surely not seen as trash before our Father after we have been born again. He delights in them like a father would delight even in a sloppy piece of art brought to him by his son. Maybe you believe this already, and maybe I just interpreted you wrong. Please correct me if so. Thanks brother!

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 13, 2019)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> I really appreciate your thought in separating works from justification, but our good works are surely not seen as trash before our Father after we have been born again. He delights in them like a father would delight even in a sloppy piece of art brought to him by his son. Maybe you believe this already, and maybe I just interpreted you wrong. Please correct me if so. Thanks brother!


Still piles of dung in regards to having any effect on our Justification before God.


----------



## De Jager (Sep 13, 2019)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> I really appreciate your thought in separating works from justification, but our good works are surely not seen as trash before our Father after we have been born again. He delights in them like a father would delight even in a sloppy piece of art brought to him by his son. Maybe you believe this already, and maybe I just interpreted you wrong. Please correct me if so. Thanks brother!



Maybe I need to think through these things a bit more, but I was not so much referring to the disposition of God towards our works, but rather the intrinsic worth of them and whether they have any bearing whatsoever on our standing with him.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 13, 2019)

Php.3:7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. 8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things _but_ loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them _but_ dung, that I may win Christ, 9 and be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

V13, Paul states that he lives presently as if, or as one who has not laid hold of the resurrection benefit concerning which *Christ has already laid hold on him* in order to give it to him. He counts what is his already as if it was not, and presses for the mark, v14. And in the following verse says:

15 "Therefore, let all of *us who are perfect*, be so minded," that is he calls on all fellow Christians to adopt a similar attitude as his towards perseverance. Don't miss it: he's speaking to those who, at the level of the question of in-or-out of permanent union with Christ, are perfect "in Christ Jesus" (the final words of v14).

Live righteously as if your salvation did depend on that urgent striving for godliness. Simultaneously regard those same efforts as of no account, for in Christ they are swallowed up in his perfection and contribute nothing to your salvation unto God. For in him you are perfect already. Your works will not mark your entrance to glory on Judgment Day.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RJ Spencer (Sep 13, 2019)

This reminds me of a debate on faith. Faith is a gift from God, it is required for salvation; but if we are debating someone that believes that their faith originates with them it is dangerous to tell them that their faith is all that is needed for salvation. A 'faith' that originates in us is mere intellectual belief and it can Not save.
In the same way, works that originate in us have no benefit whatsoever, but works that come out of regeneration are of the utmost benefit. We cannot tell the unreformed that Faith does not save, but we must draw a distinction between belief and saving faith. So to, we cannot tell the unreformed that works save but we must draw the distinction between works that originate within us and works wrought through regeneration.
Regeneration is what saves since it occurs before faith.
Regeneration is what saves since it occurs before good works.
But both of those things save as well because they are direct results of regeneration.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## cmt72 (Sep 13, 2019)

How many works did the thief on the cross have I wonder? Any? If we can save ourselves by our own works, Why did Jesus have to come to the cross?


----------



## bookslover (Sep 13, 2019)

Good works are, in no sense, necessary for our salvation.

Good works, however, are evidence that our salvation is genuine.

Ephesians 2.8-10.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 13, 2019)

I wish people would read the resource of an Original Post before they start commenting in a thread out of ignorance on the subject presented.

Reactions: Like 7 | Amen 1


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Sep 13, 2019)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I wish people would read the resource of an Original Post before they start commenting in a thread out of ignorance on the subject presented.


I agree, but this may take a long long time to read. I know I don't have the time to. But I do agree our approach could be a bit different in some ways.

"Many historic reformed resources are linked on the below webpage on this issue, including many in Latin from Reformed Orthodoxy with numerous quotes from those works translated."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 13, 2019)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> I agree, but this may take a long long time to read. I know I don't have the time to. But I do agree our approach could be a bit different in some ways.
> 
> "Many historic reformed resources are linked on the below webpage on this issue, including many in Latin from Reformed Orthodoxy with numerous quotes from those works translated."


I understand and my comment was not directed toward you. There are conditions set up in Scripture concerning our Salvation. Salvation is not just topically related to our justification alone. Good Works are the path we are to tread. They are laid out in front of us as the way toward heaven also. If we do not walk in that way we are not His. Salvation is about reconciliation to God. Christ was our full propitiation for sin so that we could be conformed to His image and be reconciled to the Law and the Lawgiver. Reconciliation is more than justification. It is a repair of the chasm that caused the rift that tore us apart. 

At the same time let me iterate that salvation on this side looks differently for each of us. We could be like King David or many of the saints who made miserable choices but always were reeled back in or caused to repent by God. They obviously persevered due to God's love and faithfulness. Or our walk may resemble good men who have not had the deviations into sin and life such as St. Paul. Perseverance against persecution seems to be a condition to glorification according to the Revelation of John. Holiness seems to be a condition to seeing God in Hebrews 12:14. There is a lot to distinguish sometimes when we speak of these things. 

A lot of this discussion had to deal with the topic of Antinomianism. I see conditions and warnings all through the scriptures and they do have attachment to how God views us. I found Mark Jone's book on antinomianism to be very helpful. In John 14:21 we are told by Jesus, " He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him." That is conditional. So is John 15:7 when Jesus says, "If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you." God hears us when we love him. King David recognised this when he penned Psalm 66:18, " If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me:" Our path of Salvation has some work in it as Paul noted that we are to work out our Salvation in God who works in us.



> Php 2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
> Php 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.



I really liked Mark Jone's piece on the Love of God. He shows what is meant by loving God and God loving us in various ways. I recommend it to you. 

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2017/08/13/the-love-of-god/

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 13, 2019)

Here are a few quotes I have appreciated. 

Joined at the Hip
It is not contradictory to say that the principles “Do this and live,” and “Live and do this,” equally apply to the believer. Witsius writes: (PR)

“In fine, it is not inconsistent to do something from this principle, because we live, and to the end, that we may live. No man eats but he lives, but he also eats that he may live. We both can and ought to act in a holy manner, because we are quickened by the Spirit of God. But we must also act in the same manner, that that life may be preserved in us, may increase, and at last terminate in an uninterrupted and eternal life.”

_Conciliatory Animadversions_, 163-164.

The New Testament lays before us a vast array of conditions for final salvation. Not only initial repentance and faith, but perseverance in both, demonstrated in love toward God and neighbor are part of that holiness without which no one shall see the Lord. (Hebrews 12:14) Such holiness is not simply definitive-- that is, it not only belongs to our justification, which is rather an imputed than imparted righteousness, but to our sanctification...

Holiness, which is defined by love of God and neighbor...is the indispensable condition of our glorification: no one will be seated at the heavenly banquet who has not begun, however imperfectly, in new obedience...

Too often we use justification and salvation interchangeably so that the suggestion we are justified without any other condition of faith leads some to conclude that it is the only condition of salvation. However, salvation is understood broadly that encompasses the whole work of God.

Introducing Covenant Theology
Michael Horton

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 13, 2019)

When dealing with recognized legalists (i.e. Rome and suchlike), the Reformers made statements that addressed and refuted the charge of "antinomianism." That was what we were accused of, by the Pharisees of the 16th Century.

Are those same charges being leveled at the Reformed churches today? I don't see it. I see a great lot of legalism in churches that formally deny the relevance of the 10C, while instituting a host of rules and "advice" and "best practices" that cumber their members, and make a bunch of them quite satisfied with their religious expression. But not much accusations thrown our way about how "antinomian" we are. No, we're the ones accused of *legalism*, because formally we don't reject the 10C (though, there's other forms of legalist baggage that we too carry).

The crying need of the hour is for the Reformed and Presbyterian churches to proclaim the truly crushing burden of the unkeepable 10C, and how everyone is condemned _in themselves_ by their inability to uphold them. And then to proclaim the glorious freedom and full salvation that comes by grace through faith in the gospel. Certainly, help Christians see how the Moral Law becomes for them a light for their way, having repaired to the cross.

But knowing the place, necessity, and utility of Good Works for the Christian in an age where we are not so much accused of antinomianism, but legalism--to rehearse that place in terms that state: "necessary to salvation," using rusty and disused scholastic categories of _causation, _in an age of profound ignorance; this strikes me as contributing to confusion, to encouraging those secret legalists that we are actually in common with them (only more open about it).

By all means, do understand and reckon with the Reformers of the first few generations and their true heirs, as they teach the place of Good Works; attending carefully their older terminology and usage--which could at times stand for some improvement! However, when it comes to the unnuanced modern hearer, don't let him hear you claiming that there are Good Works he should do to inherit eternal life. Because that's what "Good Works necessary to salvation" sounds like to the open-antinomians/secret-legalists in the majority today.

Thy works, not mine, O Christ,
speak gladness to this heart;
they tell me all is done;
they bid my fear depart.

Refrain:
To whom, save thee, who canst alone
for sin atone, Lord, shall I flee?

2 Thy pains, not mine, O Christ,
upon the shameful tree,
have paid the law's full price
and purchased peace for me. [Refrain]

3 Thy cross, not mine, O Christ,
has borne the awful load
of sins that none in heav'n
or earth could bear but God. [Refrain]

4 Thy righteousness, O Christ,
alone can cover me:
no righteousness avails
save that which is of thee. [Refrain]
[Horatius Bonar]​

Reactions: Like 5 | Amen 3


----------



## Nate (Sep 13, 2019)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I wish people would read the resource of an Original Post before they start commenting in a thread out of ignorance on the subject presented.



Randy, I have read the Introduction and made my way through much of the linked material. Hopefully my previous posts and this one that follows don't come off as me commenting out of ignorance as I do still have sincere questions even after reading and considering the content.

Even having read the material, it should not come as a surprise that some statements are provocative on a Confessional board. For example, the quotes from the introduction


> the phrase that “faith and works are co-instruments of salvation” is verbally true


 and


> there is nothing novel being taught or hidden in the phrase: “faith and works are co-instruments of salvation”


 are provocative given our understanding of the the Westminster Standards, the 3FU, and Reformation history in general. I acknowledge that I did not quote the qualifying content around the quotes which caution that, even though the phrase is accurate, it is not recommend for use, and that much careful explanation is necessary prior to positing the phrase. Yet, I would contend that it is exactly the qualifying explanations around these phrases that make them so provocative and worthy of further discussion and critique in a place like the PB. 

The qualifying explanations and quotes surrounding the phrase "faith and works are co-instruments of salvation" are intended to educate the reader that "instrument" is used in important and critically different senses when "instrument" describes faith versus when "instrument" describes good works. To me, this makes the phrase "faith and works are co-instruments of salvation" unnecessarily confusing. When I see the prefix, "co" joined to a word which then describes two items, my understanding is that the two items represent the co-_____ in the same way. They may represent it to different levels or to a greater or lesser extent, but they still both represent the word in the same way. For example, "co-pilots" are both considered pilots because they are engaged in navigating a vehicle to a destination. They may have more or less responsibilities in their piloting, but they are both appropriately called co-pilots because they are doing the same thing. 

Therefore, in my line of thinking, it is confusing to call faith and works "co-instruments" to salvation, because the introduction and quotes are used to discriminate between two different senses of the word "instrument". 

Most of what I just wrote is explained more eloquently by Rev. Fentiman himself in his introduction, yet the fact remains that is some sense he subscribes to faith and works being co-instruments of salvation. I find this section to be less well-reasoned than is typical of his content on his website.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 13, 2019)

We live in two different worlds Bruce. I probably have more friends who would not respond to you because they grew up in a different world. I actually have friends who want to hear about being a new creation. That is a condition God does for us as we are reconciled to him. They want the promise of being reconciled and being able to grow and struggle in Christ. They want to know how to deal with the warning passages as they are being discipled. They shouldn't want to just gloss over them as they are disciples of Christ. If the old terminology can be learned and understood it is very valuable. Heck, I started out reading a KJV. I struggled for years but worked my way into growing and understanding it. I know of many other examples where people had to learn and better themselves. If a new Convert is going to deal with the hard sayings of Jesus or Paul it helps to have context and helps to understand. Jesus has many hard things to say about entering the Kingdom of God. Should we just make it sound like you say a prayer and it is going to be okay in their heart and mind?

Sure Antinomianism may be addressed here but it involves so much more than that Bruce. Neonomism is addressed also. But you can't swing the pendulum to far away from the whole Gospel message of reconciliation to God to make it something it isn't. I live amongst a people who do that constantly. One of my best friends is a lady Elder. Her divorced lady friend is a Pastor. Homosexuality is rampant in our area. Two of my good friends are a lesbian married couple who grew up in the Church. The Church is in a war here in Indianapolis over homosexuality. The Catholic Church here has been the main target so far. Just google it. The minutia of sub laws have run rampant here and the decalogue has been hidden. Therefore I make statements like this often. The Ten Commandments are Eternal. The Gospel reconciles us to the Law and the Lawgiver. And it is a daily practice.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 13, 2019)

Nate said:


> Randy, I have read the Introduction and made my way through much of the linked material. Hopefully my previous posts and this one that follows don't come off as me commenting out of ignorance as I do still have sincere questions even after reading and considering the content.
> 
> Even having read the material, it should not come as a surprise that some statements are provocative on a Confessional board. For example, the quotes from the introduction
> and
> ...



Thank You brother. I understand it is confusing. I understand it is hard. It is hard to think we are co-labourers with God in his work also. I think we should hash this out and work through this again and again and see what the scriptures say and what God wants us to know. It is hard to hear St. Paul to tell us to work out our Salvation. I also know that our obedience can save us from the downfalls and chastisement sin causes. I also think things like this should be considered. I also believe Salvation is much more that justification as you may note. I also believe the definition of Gospel has been truncated for a long time to only mean justification. 

I agree with you. I do believe that these things are tied together in ways many may not understand and it may be confusing and even offensive to the palet. I appreciated the work done from a historical perspective. I am not endorsing it as anything that it isn't. It is historical theology. Men working things out. I appreciate it.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 13, 2019)

Contra_Mundum said:


> But knowing the place, necessity, and utility of Good Works for the Christian in an age where we are not so much accused of antinomianism, but legalism--to rehearse that place in terms that state: "necessary to salvation," using rusty and disused scholastic categories of _causation, _in an age of profound ignorance; this strikes me as contributing to confusion, to encouraging those secret legalists that we are actually in common with them (only more open about it).
> 
> By all means, do understand and reckon with the Reformers of the first few generations and their true heirs, as they teach the place of Good Works; following carefully their older terminology and usage. However, when it comes to the unnuanced modern hearer, don't let him hear you claiming that there are Good Works he should do to inherit eternal life. Because that's what "Good Works necessary to salvation" sounds like to the open-antinomians/secret-legalists in the majority today.



From memory, I think that Zacharias Ursinus warns against this very thing in his Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism. While he acknowledged that there was a sense in which we could say that good works are necessary to salvation, he warned against casually dropping this point into sermons, which would only sow confusion in the minds of the unlearned. 

I fear that the contemporary obsession with telling us that good works are necessary for salvation is falling into this very trap. Mark Jones has written some useful stuff on Antinomianism, but, to be truthful, I find the tendency to look for Antinomianism around every corner to be a bit on the silly side of things.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 13, 2019)

I will say this also. Obedience does save us from the pitfalls and consequences of sin. Salvation is more than the doctrine justification by faith alone. I again will quote Michael Horton using the word condition. It seems to be a word that has some up in arms also.



> The New Testament lays before us a vast array of conditions for final salvation. Not only initial repentance and faith, but perseverance in both, demonstrated in love toward God and neighbor are part of that holiness without which no one shall see the Lord. (Hebrews 12:14) Such holiness is not simply definitive-- that is, it not only belongs to our justification, which is rather an imputed than imparted righteousness, but to our sanctification...
> 
> Holiness, which is defined by love of God and neighbor...is the indispensable condition of our glorification: no one will be seated at the heavenly banquet who has not begun, however imperfectly, in new obedience...
> 
> ...



It isn't a bad thing to wrestle with language and grow to understand it. We are co-labourers with God in 1 Corinthians 3:9 but we know God does all the work in giving the increase. In Act 2:40 we are encouraged to save ourselves from this generation but we also know God is the only justifier. Language should be as precise as we can make it but we shouldn't be afraid of learning what is meant or said. Are things difficult and need to be worked through? Yes.

Example;
As in justification, are there conditions to be met? Yes there are. Faith and Repentance are required. But we also know it is monergistic and eternal. It is God's work alone on our behalf. Are they meritorious? No.

I have read the paper twice and I believe it has noted that instruments, means, conditions are noted to be non meritorious. Maybe we should try to understand that.

This isn't really about antinomianism in my estimation as much as it is about life before God, how we define the Gospel, and telling a world with whom they have to deal with as their Creator. Kind of a Whole Counsel of God thing. BTW, I started reading Richard Gamble's book 'The Whole Counsel of God'.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 13, 2019)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I have read the paper twice and I believe it has noted that instruments, means, conditions are noted to be non meritorious. Maybe we should try to understand that.



A lot of confusion emerges on this point because people do not distinguish between conditions in a _proper_ sense (as a moving or meritorious cause [1]) and conditions in an _improper_ sense as a means or requirements. Salvation or the covenant of grace is unconditional in the former sense but conditional in the latter sense. 

[1] See the Westminster Confession's usage of "conditions" in 3.2, 5.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Afterthought (Sep 13, 2019)

I'm not too fond of the phrase myself because of how much explanation it requires to safely explain it to the average person and because that we are saved unto good works: the good works that we do are part of our salvation that Christ has purchased. I think having a paper like this is useful though because it helps with understanding the older terminology, and some helpful truths are uncovered in the process.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 13, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> A lot of confusion emerges on this point because people do not distinguish between conditions in a proper sense (as a moving or meritorious cause [1]) and conditions in an improper sense as a means or requirements. Salvation or the covenant of grace is unconditional in the former sense but conditional in the latter sense.
> 
> [1] See the Westminster Confession's usage of "conditions" in 3.2, 5.


Good, we can learn it. This is the Puritanboard. It isn't some fundamentalist forum where people only argue once saved always saved and dispute the latest immorality of our world. This lands in the areas of our Confessional heritage and with those who wrote during the times of our confessions. This topic isn't just about justification. We all agree that the Covenant of Grace is unconditional on our part. Christ meritoriously met the Conditions for us.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Afterthought (Sep 13, 2019)

From Thomas Watson's _Body of Divinity_:

"Do this and live." Working was the ground and condition of man's
justification. Gal 3:12, "How different from this way of faith is the way of
law, which says—If you wish to find life by obeying the law, you must
obey all of its commands." Not but that working is required in the
covenant of grace, for we are bid to work out our salvation, and be rich in
good works. But works in the covenant of grace are not required under
the same notion, as in the first covenant with Adam. Works are not
required for the justification of our persons—but as an attestation of our
love to God; not as the cause of our salvation—but as an evidence of our
adoption. Works are required in the covenant of grace, not so much in
our own strength as in the strength of Christ. "It is God who works in
you." Phil 2:13. As the teacher guides the child's hand, and helps him to
form his letters, so that it is not so much the child's writing as the
master's. Just so, our obedience is not so much our working as the
Spirit's co-working.


But are not works required in the covenant of grace?
Yes. "This is a faithful saying, that those who believe in God, should be
careful to maintain good works." But the covenant of grace does not
require works in the same manner as the covenant of works did. In the
first covenant, works were required as the condition of life; in the second
covenant, they are required only as the signs of life. In the first covenant,
works were required as grounds of salvation; in the new covenant, they
are required as evidences of our love to God. In the first covenant, they
were required to the justification of our persons; in the new covenant, to
the manifestation of our grace.


(4.) There is no going to heaven without sanctification. "Without
holiness no man shall see the Lord." God is a holy God, and he will allow
no unholy creature to come near him. A king will not allow a man with
plague-sores to approach into his presence. Heaven is not like Noah's ark
—where the clean beasts and the unclean entered. No unclean beasts
come into the heavenly ark; for though God allows the wicked to live
awhile on the earth, he will never allow heaven to be pestered with such
vermin! Are they fit to see God—who wallow in wickedness? Will God
ever lay such vipers in his bosom? "Without holiness no man shall see the
Lord." It must be a clear eye that sees a bright object: only a holy heart
can see God in his glory. Sinners may see God as an enemy—but not as a
friend! They will have an affrighting vision of him—but not a beatific
vision! They will see the flaming sword—but not the mercy-seat! Oh then,
what need is there of sanctification!


(7.) Sanctification fits for heaven: ‘Who hath called us to glory and virtue.’ 2 Pet i 3. Glory is the throne, and sanctification is the step by which we ascend to it. As you first cleanse the vessel, and then pour in the wine; so God first cleanses us by sanctification, and then pours in the wine of glory. Solomon was first anointed with oil, and then was a king. 1 Kings i 39. First God anoints us with the holy oil of his Spirit, and then sets the crown of happiness upon our head. Pureness of heart and seeing God are linked together. Matt v 8.




From John Colquhoun's _Treatise on the Law and Gospel_: 

5. Good works are no less necessary as they are our walking in the way
which leads to heaven. Jesus Christ is the way (John 14:6). Faith and
holiness are our walking in Him as the way. This way, accordingly, is
called “the way of holiness,” or “the holy way” (Isaiah 35:8), inasmuch as
none can walk in Christ other than by faith, and by that holiness of heart
and life which is “the obedience of faith.” As no man can arrive at heaven
but by Christ, so “without holiness,” or walking in Him, “no man shall see
the Lord” (Hebrews 12:14). None is in the way to heaven but he who, by a
life of faith and the practice of those good works which are the fruits of
faith, is advancing toward perfection of holiness. It is the order
immutably fixed in the everlasting covenant that a man be made holy in
heart and in life before he is admitted to see and enjoy God in His holy
place on high. The love and practice of good works, then, in one who has
an opportunity of performing them, are necessary as appointed means of
disposing or preparing him for the holy enjoyments and employments of
the heavenly sanctuary. The redeemed, therefore, who are in the way to
the celestial city, are zealous for good works and “fruitful in every good
work” (Colossians 1:10).


We also learn from what has been advanced that good works are to be
considered as the fruits of a believers being already saved, and, at the
same time, in subordination to the glory of God as the end for which he is
saved. They are the fruits of his being already in a state of salvation. “Not
by works of righteousness which we have done,” said the Apostle Paul,
“but according to His mercy He saved us by the washing of regeneration
and renewing of the Holy Ghost” (Titus 3:5). Here our apostle argues
against salvation by our own works of righteousness on the ground that
our good works are the fruits or effects of salvation already begun in our
souls. He shows that inherent holiness from which all our good works
spring is an essential part of our salvation; for, he says that we are saved
by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost. Holiness
of heart, then, is a necessary part of salvation by Jesus Christ; and
holiness of life, or our being careful to maintain good works, is the
necessary fruit springing from that salvation (Luke 1:74-75). Good works
are also the end for which believers are saved. They are “created in Christ
Jesus unto good works” (Ephesians 2:10). The great end, in
subordination to the glory of redeeming grace, for which they have been
saved or created in Christ Jesus is that they might perform and persevere
in the practice of all good works. Such works, then, are so far from being
grounds of title to salvation that they are the fruits, or consequences of
being already in a state of salvation. True saints are actually, though not
completely, saved—and their fruits of righteousness are the evidence of it.
They are not saved by their good works, but they are saved to them; nor
are they sanctified in order to be justified, but are justified in order to be
sanctified.


The reader may hence learn how to understand aright this proposition:
“Good works are necessary to salvation.” If the term salvation is, by some,
and that without any warrant from the Scriptures, restricted to the
perfect blessedness of saints in heaven, then good works, in the case of
persons capable of them, are necessary to or toward salvation. They
necessarily exist before it, not indeed as procuring causes or federal
conditions, but merely as antecedents of it. They must of necessity go
before it inasmuch as that which, according to the covenant of grace, is
first imparted to the spiritual seed of Christ must with its genuine effects
precede that which is last of all, conferred on them. Personal and
progressive holiness is necessary to perfect holiness; and happiness
begun is requisite to happiness consummated. At the same time, I dare
not say that holiness either of heart or of life is necessary to procure or
obtain the felicity of heaven. But if the word “salvation” is taken in its
large and scriptural sense, as comprehensive both of a state of grace in
time, and of a state of glory in eternity, then good works are, properly
speaking, not necessary to it, but necessary in it. As imperfect, they are
indispensably requisite in a state of grace; and as perfect, they are
necessary in a state of glory. They are needful in progressive as well as in
perfect salvation. They are indispensably requisite in every adult person
who is justified and saved. That the term “salvation” ought to be taken in
this comprehensive meaning is evident from this, among other passages
of Scripture: “I endure all things for the elect’s sake, that they may also
obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory” (2
Timothy 2:10). Here the salvation which is in Christ Jesus is
distinguished from eternal glory.

Reactions: Like 2 | Edifying 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Knecht Christi (Sep 13, 2019)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Justification by faith ALONE.
> "When you are engaged in discussing the question of justification, beware of allowing any mention to be made of love or of works, but resolutely adhere to the exclusive particle." —Calvin, Commentary on Galatians 5:6, (1548)
> 
> "There is therefore NOW no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." Not "We'll see whether there's condemnation when we review the whole case file one last time."



This reply is not exclusively at this comment, but it seems to me that people may be talking past each other here. The original poster clearly affirms justification by faith ALONE. His position is NOT that works are necessary for justification, but for salvation. It seems many here are conflating these two things. 

To those who have disagreements with the original poster's position, you need to demonstrate that good works are not necessary for salvation. Arguments regarding justification are irrelevant (at least directly speaking), unless an argument can be made that justification and salvation have identically the same requirements.

Not trying to inject my opinion here, just hoping to advance this discussion which I follow with interest.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RJ Spencer (Sep 13, 2019)

If the term "Presbyterian" came to only represent the PCUSA to the modern ear would we abandon that term as well?

I hope that question doesn't come across to snippy. I would seriously love to know, if we stop using certain words where will it end?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 13, 2019)

RJ Spencer said:


> If the term "Presbyterian" came to only represent the PCUSA to the modern ear would we abandon that term as well?
> 
> I hope that question doesn't come across to snippy. I would seriously love to know, if we stop using certain words where will it end?



I think that that is actually a very good question. I suppose it is a matter of prudence not to use certain terms in situations/contexts where they could be unhelpful to the uneducated listener. For instance, while I defend the biblical correctness of the proposition that Mary is the mother of God (and assert that the denial of it is Nestorian), I would not wish to hear that term glibbly dropped into a public prayer.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 13, 2019)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> We live in two different worlds Bruce.... Should we just make it sound like you say a prayer and it is going to be okay in their heart and mind?


Randy,
Tell me, who around you is accusing your congregation, and the RPCNA, and Christians generally of *antinomianism? * I'd be genuinely interested in knowing that.

It's the legalists, who think we're antinomians, who should hear that we acknowledge that Good Works have some place in the Christian life even down till the day of _vindication_ of the sons of God.

But if we're telling antinomians (many of whom are closet legalists) that the Law is what helps us, and is necessary for us to obey unto our salvation, I'm sorry but attraction to the Law is no path to life. "The letter kills," full stop. You don't win them to the Law first; then sometime later spring the gospel on them. All men know enough of the moral law that at some point it already convicts them. We need to discover where they acknowledge condemnation, and lay God's provision of pardon before them. Has God given them the ability to hear and believe it?

Men need the gospel. They know the law already, and they can know it better; but we don't present the law as if it was life. It is death to everyone who is not in Christ Jesus. They need to know him as their life. And knowing him, they will have an entirely new relationship to his law. It will be mediated to them through him and through his Spirit. People who look to the church to find a "better life" and who find it there apart from union with the Mediator--those folks are lost.

I find your question at the end of the paragraph bizarre. Is this what you really think I'm advocating? I don't think you really think that's the message I preach. It's some kind of straw man representation of the preaching of the gospel that looks/sounds like shallow altar-call preaching. No, I aim to preach Christ, which is gospel-preaching, which issues in devoted life motivated by gratitude to him who is the believer's life.



PuritanCovenanter said:


> Sure Antinomianism may be addressed here but it involves so much more than that Bruce.


The issue I'm exercised with here is the infelicitous attachment of _*my*_ works to _*my *_salvation. Purely as a matter of historical theology, a long series of sermons, treatises, and statements of faith starting at the Reformation and continuing for several centuries needs to take into account the contextual concerns, especially those at the beginning, and over that long time adjusting to changes in geography and popular sentiments. If all that was at stake was whether Good Works are positive and requisite _in some true sense, _it would hardly be controversial.

When you raise the matter of "neonomianism," I wonder if you really read my post. I point out that in the oldest writings of the series (and for a couple centuries at least) those doing the writing are the ones accused of antinomianism by Rome's legalists. So, the neonomians such as Baxter are recognized by Owen and the like as reintroducing Rome's legalism by the back door. The same thing is true concerning the Arminians.

So, as I wrote already, the accusation against the truly Reformed is that THEY are antinomians, and so they must respond by affirming that they do not abolish the law, but establish it. And they find a place to acknowledge Good Works of the saints even at the end of time. But is that the concern in all times and places? Is one answer sufficient to every challenge? No. At times it will be counterproductive to speak in archaic terms or with misplaced emphasis about necessity tying my works to my salvation. The common allegation against the Reformed today is that we are _*legalist,*_ and a proper answer requires some of Apostle Paul's most clear words of defense of salvation through faith alone, from first to last.

In any case, your friends who are surrounded by, and in some cases enmeshed in the delusions of sin will not be improved by knowing the benefits of living more strictly by the moral law. For Christians, living as they ought will likely be quite painful and distressing in Indianapolis and elsewhere, if the godless get their ultimate way. Only those who are firmly attached to Christ will live joyfully that way, accompanied by suffering. I hope that you are able to convey that joy and peace to them, even while it does or will appear that such a "lifestyle choice" of following Jesus brings little or no earthly happiness.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 13, 2019)

You have not read me fully nor understood me Bruce. I am convinced of it. I live in a Campbellite area surrounded by fundamentalist Baptists and Social Justice Warrior Churches. The Ten Point Coalition started here. I fully understand that you might live in an area where the conscience is soft. It needs something different than I deal with. Read through the rest of my posts after the post you quote and gain more understanding Bruce. I think you are missing something that I am trying to say. I know you try to be thorough. I truly appreciate your Pastoral heart.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 13, 2019)

BTW, Not many outside of this forum even know the word antinomianism. And I don't deal with it from a Church perspective alone. If you may remember the Ten Commandments led me to Christ because I saw the beauty of God and I wanted to be like him. I posted that years ago.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 13, 2019)

I found the thread on the PB Bruce. Want to bring this topic up again?|


> Just as a side note. My experience was not that of Luther's. I knew I didn't measure up to the Law and I feared God's judgment but it was the beauty of the Law that drew me towards Christ. I knew there was something perfectly good and I needed it. The Law revealed beauty to me and I wanted it. So my experience and struggle was a bit different than Luther's experience.



https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...onal-concerning-the-mosaic.69258/#post-887800


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 13, 2019)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I found the thread on the PB Bruce. Want to bring this topic up again?|
> 
> https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...onal-concerning-the-mosaic.69258/#post-887800


I wasn't part of that conversation. In any case, the law had to have shown you that if you would remain "with Jesus" (see Mt.5:1) and have a place in his beautiful Heavenly Kingdom by his beautiful side, it would require your recognition that unless he made it possible, and did everything for you, you must be sent away unworthy and empty.

You were given eyes to see, and ears to hear: God is Truth, his ways Perfect, his laws Beauty. You can't enjoy any of that without the Mediator. Jesus accepted you into his heart. I'm happy to know you as a brother.

I will say no more, as we seem to talk past each other more that with one another. This portion of the Colquhoun quote (from #35 above) will close:


> But if the word “salvation” is taken in its large and scriptural sense, as comprehensive both of a state of grace in time, and of a state of glory in eternity, then good works are, properly speaking, not necessary to it, but necessary in it.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 13, 2019)

Thank You Bruce. But you are not painting a full picture. Love is reciprocated. We love God because he first loved us.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 13, 2019)

1Jn 4:10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
1Jn 4:11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.
1Jn 4:12 No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.
1Jn 4:13 Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.
1Jn 4:14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.
1Jn 4:15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.
1Jn 4:16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
1Jn 4:17 Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.
1Jn 4:18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
1Jn 4:19 We love him, because he first loved us.
1Jn 4:20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
1Jn 4:21 And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.


Joh 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.


The reason I posted the Mark Jone's discussion from my blog was to reveal what is to be discovered by these texts. It wasn't necesarrily to combat old time antinomianism. It was to reveal the ways God loves us. There are various ways to knowing and assuring ourselves of the love of God. We all need assurance and hope when we are failures. But we also need to know the truth about love. Just ask anyone who has been married. Love is more than just some formal acceptance when spoken of. Justification is more than just someone saying I do. It involves things marriage can't identify. Monergistic Regeneration and sometimes sanctification to keep you is important. That is outside of this world. 

Mark Jones didn't write this piece to highlight supposed antinomianism in a single period of time as though it only related to that time. We are all antinomianists in some form. We all presume upon God. I highlighted the following post to show what is defined as love and to encourage us in both our justification and sanctification. I believe it to be within the bounds of our Confessional heritage. And very encouraging. I also believe if you are a believer you will persevere as God knows perseverance to be different for each one of us.

I also believe it has a lot to do with this topic. 

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2017/08/13/the-love-of-god/


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 14, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> A lot of confusion emerges on this point because people do not distinguish between conditions in a _proper_ sense (as a moving or meritorious cause [1]) and conditions in an _improper_ sense as a means or requirements. Salvation or the covenant of grace is unconditional in the former sense but conditional in the latter sense.
> 
> [1] See the Westminster Confession's usage of "conditions" in 3.2, 5.



Francis Turretin would describe this distinction as a distinction between antecedent and consequent conditions. There are no antecedent conditions for those in the covenant of grace, but there are consequent conditions.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## De Jager (Sep 14, 2019)

So, how many good works do I need to do in order to see God? How much holiness do I need? It seems like I'm justified now but that isn't final salvation, so please let me know so I can get to work.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Sep 14, 2019)

De Jager said:


> So, how many good works do I need to do in order to see God? How much holiness do I need? It seems like I'm justified now but that isn't final salvation, so please let me know so I can get to work.


Makes me think of the verse that was the thrust of the reformation:
Romans 1:17 NLT
This Good News tells us how God makes us right in his sight. This is accomplished from start to finish by faith. As the Scriptures say, “It is through faith that a righteous person has life.”


----------



## Poimen (Sep 14, 2019)

De Jager said:


> So, how many good works do I need to do in order to see God? How much holiness do I need? It seems like I'm justified now but that isn't final salvation, so please let me know so I can get to work.



As many good works as God has ordained for you to do (Ephesians 2:10). The holiness of Christ in you, as given to you by his spirit (John 15:5; 1 Corinthians 1:30; Ephesians 3:16; Hebrews 12:14).

In truth, final salvation is glorification (Romans 8:30) and so, in some sense, God is never done working in us until we are dead (Philippians 1:6, 2:12) because only then shall we be fully renewed. And because God is efficient cause or mover in our sanctification, it is guaranteed in Christ. See also, Heidelberg Catechism, LD 32.


----------



## Ed Walsh (Sep 14, 2019)

cmt72 said:


> How many works did the thief on the cross have I wonder?



Quite a few,--all worthy of a genuinely Godly man. I would be happy to upload 5 or 6 pages from Lenski who artfully demonstrates a list of the thief's good works. Just ask me.

Here are a few: (they may now all be good works per se, but I think you will get the picture.

At first, both thieves mocked Jesus along with the "chief priests... with the scribes and elders," saying, "He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him. He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God." (see Matthew 29:39-44)​
Saving Faith - Later one of the thieves, perhaps due to hearing them talk about Jesus as the Son of God, the King of Israel, and His saving others, began to work on him until he in saving faith came to believe in Jesus.
Note: (see Luke 23:39-43 for the works that follow)
Then "one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and _us_." Notice the _'us' _which included the newly regenerated thief as a mocker.
Godly Rebuke - But the other boldly gave a godly rebuke to the first thief.
Fear of God - Proclaiming his newfound fear of God. "Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?"
Justified God -- by accepting their death as the deserved judgment of God.
Knowledge of God -- He acknowledged the sinlessness of Christ. "we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss."
More Knowledge of God -- Acknowledged Jesus as Lord
and, believing in the mercy and forgiveness of God, said, "Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom."
Jesus as King -- Notice he also recognized and confesses that Jesus was the King of Kings who would someday reign over all.
Note: Given points 1 through 7, was not the thief's request also a prayer? I think so.

Finally, Jesus Himself acknowledges the thief as a true Son of God and promises him even more than he asked. "Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise." Jesus' great Father gave Him one final trophy of the success of His atoning sacrifice.

Assurance -- Did not the thief now have full assurance of his salvation?
Note: Assurance might not be a good work, but I decided to give it number 9 anyway. 
Note:
Man O man, I hope I die with good works like these. All done by Grace through faith withing the few short hours he lived a victorious Christian. Praise Jesus who died for us sinners. He is the Savior of the world.

Ed

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Poimen (Sep 14, 2019)

I believe that, for most people, this is a pastoral issue more than it is theological issue because it comes down to assurance, not of dogmatic precision (though the latter is always welcome when based on scripture reasoning). This relates to those who desire assurance, those who possess it as well as those who are in neither category. Some are "hypocrites," "unregenerate" and "carnal" (WCF 18.1). Others are those who "truly believe" "love [Christ] and "walk in all good conscience before Him" (ibid). Of the latter category, we have those who have attained to some or varying measures of assurance and those who have not.

In our preaching and teaching as pastors to this mixed multitude we have a _moral_ duty to make it clear to our members, adherents and the world at large that _all_ of salvation is of Christ, and that justification is _only_ by faith. We can never lose sight of that, in any age of the church, because to lose that it to lose the gospel.

Yet a bare preaching of justification is not going to be sufficient for all of these (though it must be heard by all of these). Why? As people hear the preaching of the word and read their Bibles, they will come across moral imperatives in the scripture as well as conditional statements that seem to attach weight and gravity to our performance before death. As such, we need to formulate clear answers to genuine inquiries about how this relates to our standing before Christ on that great day of judgment. Particularly, men and women who steadfastly refuse to live holy and repentant lives must be warned that they have no part in the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9ff.).

I dare say that the New Testament gives as much space to the the latter (by faith alone) as it does to the former (work out your salvation). There is always a push and pull war between these two aspects of our confession because, as Bruce pointed out, there is little difference between antinomianism and legalism and many people are in both camps even when they claim (theologically) adherence to one side (see Sinclair Ferguson's "The Whole Christ").

And we must see that there is another pastoral issue at stake in such debates. Failing to incorporate these warning and cohortative texts into our theology and preaching, we will also fail to arm our people from the creeping influence of the various forms of teaching that ascribe merit or partial merit to the work of men. The people of God's flock may be tempted to other avenues to explain the whole counsel of God's Word and thus be led into other errors (or worse).

The Reformers and others after them help us to do _insofar_ as that is communicated in a way that most people can understand. I am reminded of Augustine's statement to his congregation in Hippo that he reads and studies _for their sake. _But this does not mean that such things, as Travis helpfully presents to us, are regularly appropriate in the pulpit or in our public prayers.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Sep 14, 2019)

Yeah, as a layman, I find it best to live by faith in Christ at every moment, looking to God for righteousness from start to finish, while doing good works because I am now free from sin and am able to joyfully do what I was created to do. These works thankfully add to my assurance of God's good work in me, but I am still ever living by faith, dependent on God and trusting in His work and grace alone. If I am in err, I would be much more comfortable erring on this side than by contributing any of my works to salvation.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Susan777 (Sep 14, 2019)

Poimen said:


> I believe that, for most people, this is a pastoral issue more than it is theological issue because it comes down to assurance, not of dogmatic precision (though the latter is always welcome when based on scripture reasoning). This relates to those who desire assurance, those who possess it as well as those who are in neither category. Some are "hypocrites," "unregenerate" and "carnal" (WCF 18.1). Others are those who "truly believe" "love [Christ] and "walk in all good conscience before Him" (ibid). Of the latter category, we have those who have attained to some or varying measures of assurance and those who have not.
> 
> In our preaching and teaching as pastors to this mixed multitude we have a _moral_ duty to make it clear to our members, adherents and the world at large that _all_ of salvation is of Christ, and that justification is _only_ by faith. We can never lose sight of that, in any age of the church, because to lose that it to lose the gospel.
> 
> ...


Thank you. That helped me understand this discussion much better. I thrill to the words “salvation is wholly of Christ”.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 14, 2019)

De Jager said:


> So, how many good works do I need to do in order to see God? How much holiness do I need? It seems like I'm justified now but that isn't final salvation, so please let me know so I can get to work.


There is the doctrine of progressive sanctification, but not progressive justification!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Nate (Sep 14, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Francis Turretin would describe this distinction as a distinction between antecedent and consequent conditions. There are no antecedent conditions for those in the covenant of grace, but there are consequent conditions.



This is an important point. A few posters on this thread are urging us to carefully evaluate the OP and interact with the OP in his own words and in the context of his arguments. The OP's paper certainly goes into great detail on the distinction between antecedent and consequent conditions. So, perhaps it would be helpful for those posters urging care in the use of terms to exhibit a similar level of care. For example, Horton's section on conditions in the covenant in the book referenced here:



PuritanCovenanter said:


> I will say this also. Obedience does save us from the pitfalls and consequences of sin. Salvation is more than the doctrine justification by faith alone. I again will quote Michael Horton using the word condition. It seems to be a word that has some up in arms also.
> 
> 
> > The New Testament lays before us a vast array of conditions for final salvation. Not only initial repentance and faith, but perseverance in both, demonstrated in love toward God and neighbor are part of that holiness without which no one shall see the Lord. (Hebrews 12:14) Such holiness is not simply definitive-- that is, it not only belongs to our justification, which is rather an imputed than imparted righteousness, but to our sanctification...
> ...



When reading through the rest of this section by Horton, it seems that he is using the word "condition" in the sense of "consequent", not "antecedent".

In light of the fact that the OP is careful to discriminate between antecedent and consequent conditions, Daniel's point seems important. Arguing for or against conditions simply as conditions on this thread misses the point of the OP.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RJ Spencer (Sep 14, 2019)

De Jager said:


> So, how many good works do I need to do in order to see God? How much holiness do I need? It seems like I'm justified now but that isn't final salvation, so please let me know so I can get to work.


 
Do you not understand reformed theology in any way? "Works must I do?" None! God is Sovereign and salvation is wholly of God. A person that is regenerated Will go on to full salvation. We understand that regeneration precedes faith, why is it so hard to understand that regeneration precedes good works? We say, rightly so, that we are saved solely by faith... Yet, Regeneration actually precedes faith. If we can say that we are saved by faith because faith will undoubtedly follow regeneration, than we are just as correct in saying that we are saved by works because works Will follow regeneration.
The other problem is this; If we cannot claim that faith originates within man, which we can't. Than how could we say that good works originate within man? There is a difference between works that come out of us, filthy rags. And works that will come from a regenerated heart.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 14, 2019)

This extract is useful to the present discussion:

Henry Smith: Good works are the way to heaven (as means, not grounds)

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Ed Walsh (Sep 14, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> This extract is useful to the present discussion:



It sure is!

Why are we afraid to say it? I will say it. Judgment is according to works, and no faithful saint will be found wanting. I would add only this observation. In the truly _good_, their works will never lead to pride, for notice the surprise of the sheep on Christ's right hand when commended for their works. (Matthew 25:31-36) They were to a man stunned for they were quite unaware of their works. See how they answered their Lord's commendation.

Matthew 25:37-40
37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.​
Consider also that in the judgment of the righteous, there is no mention of sin. Not a hint, for He bore them all.

If there is any weeping on that Day, it will be weeping for joy. -- a joy that will grow throughout all eternity.
May we all grow in our love for one another, for love is the most excellent of all works. True lover never seems like work.
Amen.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 14, 2019)

RJ Spencer said:


> Do you not understand reformed theology in any way? "Works must I do?" None! God is Sovereign and salvation is wholly of God. A person that is regenerated Will go on to full salvation. We understand that regeneration precedes faith, why is it so hard to understand that regeneration precedes good works? We say, rightly so, that we are saved solely by faith... Yet, Regeneration actually precedes faith. If we can say that we are saved by faith because faith will undoubtedly follow regeneration, than we are just as correct in saying that we are saved by works because works Will follow regeneration.
> The other problem is this; If we cannot claim that faith originates within man, which we can't. Than how could we say that good works originate within man? There is a difference between works that come out of us, filthy rags. And works that will come from a regenerated heart.


Do any good works make us more approved/justified before God then? No, as we are when first saved fully justified!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## De Jager (Sep 14, 2019)

RJ Spencer said:


> Do you not understand reformed theology in any way? "Works must I do?" None! God is Sovereign and salvation is wholly of God. A person that is regenerated Will go on to full salvation. We understand that regeneration precedes faith, why is it so hard to understand that regeneration precedes good works? We say, rightly so, that we are saved solely by faith... Yet, Regeneration actually precedes faith. If we can say that we are saved by faith because faith will undoubtedly follow regeneration, than we are just as correct in saying that we are saved by works because works Will follow regeneration.
> The other problem is this; If we cannot claim that faith originates within man, which we can't. Than how could we say that good works originate within man? There is a difference between works that come out of us, filthy rags. And works that will come from a regenerated heart.



Sorry. It was a sarcastic post. I agree with you.


----------



## RJ Spencer (Sep 14, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> Do any good works make us more approved/justified before God then? No, as we are when first saved fully justified!



The OP wasn't about justification only, but about salvation. Salvation is more than just our justification. It includes our regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification. Christ didn't die for our justification alone, His atonement includes our sanctification. What a glory to know that the truly regenerated one will move on to good works. 
Again, good works are a fruit of the Spirit. We are not talking about good works that originate in man, for we all agree that such works are filthy rags.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 14, 2019)

RJ Spencer said:


> The OP wasn't about justification only, but about salvation. Salvation is more than just our justification. It includes our regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification. Christ didn't die for our justification alone, His atonement includes our sanctification. What a glory to know that the truly regenerated one will move on to good works.
> Again, good works are a fruit of the Spirit. We are not talking about good works that originate in man, for we all agree that such works are filthy rags.


God sees all who gave been justified as already in their finished state though, as we await the resurrection event!


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Sep 14, 2019)

Being justified and glorified seem to be linked in a sense, as if it is so sure to happen, that we can say we are glorified currently.

And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
Romans 8:30 ESV


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 14, 2019)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> Being justified and glorified seem to be linked in a sense, as if it is so sure to happen, that we can say we are glorified currently.
> 
> And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
> Romans 8:30 ESV


In the mind if God, we are even now seated in Heaven in Christ, but from our view, waiting on resurrection.


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Sep 15, 2019)

Nate said:


> ...yet the fact remains that in some sense he subscribes to faith and works being co-instruments of salvation. I find this section to be less well-reasoned than is typical of his content on his website.



Nate,

I appreciate your willingness and patience in considering these things.

I readjusted that section on 'How Works are not a Means & Instrument of Salvation' in order to be more clear, specifically in not only explaining further ways in how faith and works do not operate the same as instruments of salvation, but also positively defining how they are instruments of salvation in different ways.

Also, the only reason I even brought up the phrase 'co-instruments' (which I don't like for the same reasons you enunciated) is because some prominent persons have used it. What is to be made of the phrase? One can't deny that it may bear some truth in it, and therefore may have an orthodox meaning, despite the ways in which the phrase is abused, or is suspicious.

In all of this, my introduction is only intended to be an introduction, and to give some of the conclusions I have come to on the subject, and suggest for others. Frankly, my introductions are the least well done part of my work: I am usually quite tired by the time I gather all the resources and have little energy to fully, analytically write a strong and detailed indepth analysis of the subject.

My main purpose is to point one to the resources themselves, which will much more explain these things. Nearly every resource on the page is gold.

And by the way, for all reading, I have not omitted anything in my collection. These resources and quotes are not cherry picked. That 90% of them agree on the main things on the subject is not coincidental.

If one wants some truly interesting and helpful fodder for discussion (and to learn something), for instance, see Davenant. That is only one person, from about 50 referenced that we can learn from on this.

Blessings.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 15, 2019)

If one is going to talk casually about good works and salvation for a popular audience to understand then they're better off using works like The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification or The Marrow of Modern Divinity. These are helpful in how they establish the Christian who lacks sophisticated categories of thought.

If one is going to make scholastic distinctions then one should not use casual language that is easily misunderstood. You can read the Scholastics like Turretin who can make fine distinctions that will go over the head of most listeners but who are you trying to reach? Are you trying to impress others or edify the Body?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Sep 15, 2019)

Semper Fidelis said:


> If one is going to talk casually about good works and salvation...



Rich,

Your questions are apparently directed towards me?

I had preferred not to write a book on the subject like Marshall and Fisher did, especially for a webpage, though I linked plenty of chapters from books on the page. And I doubt that the books you recommended are so easily comprehended by the popular audience, most of whom wouldn't read a book on the subject at all.

Thanks for letting me know what you think I should do.

And I am trying to edify the body of Christians out there. I assume that an interested Christian person is capable of comprehending a short article that lays things out well enough, including some scholastic distinctions.

The alternative to seeking to grow in knowledge about the Word and our faith in a full orbed way, in order to appreciate more truth and sharpen our grasp of it (especially in ways that are not often touched on in our contemporary Christianity) is to remain retaining an immature and reduced faith, liable to the many errors on this topic (which many people have made on this thread already).

I am truly disappointed that more people are not grateful for the immense amount of work I have made available to all on this subject. Most of the resources on the page are gold, and are incredibly helpful on growing in this subject. I would think people would be appreciative to read Ursinus, Rollock, Perkins, Brooks and the many others on this topic. Or are they too scholastic for a popular audience?

I would also hope people would be grateful for the amount of time and work that goes into translating Latin titles and quotes from some of reformed history's brightest minds. But I have been proven wrong.

The Lord bless you Rich. I hope you will use whatever influence you have with Christian people for their edification (Eph. 4:12-13) and not discourage them therein.

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 15, 2019)

The warnings about not using certain terminology that could confuse the impressionable listener are legitimate and have their appropriate place. Indeed, I issued one of these warnings myself earlier in the thread. Still, I get the distinct impression that those who have reacted negatively to Travis starting this thread are engaging in reaction.

Most people who regularly contribute to PB have some grounding in systematic theology and have a capacity for understanding careful, scholastic distinctions. The resource made available in the OP seems to be directed to such people, not to the recent convert.

If you have an issue with something that Travis has written on the subject on the RBO webpage, then why not highlight it and discuss it here so that we may know what the issue is? Otherwise, I think that this thread will die the death of a thousand people talk past each other.

Reactions: Like 7 | Amen 1


----------



## kodos (Sep 15, 2019)

Thank you for the work you have done, Travis. I, for one, am greatly appreciative for the work you are doing with RBO. Be encouraged by the good fruit it has borne. I consult it regularly.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 16, 2019)

Travis Fentiman said:


> Rich,
> 
> Your questions are apparently directed towards me?
> 
> ...


By your "fans" to your response, I know you would like to wrap yourself in the blanket of drawing out important categories of thought that the Reformed Orthodox brought forward. Having read Turretin and others, I have no problem with the specific distinctions as they are made for the purpose they are made. An elenctic theology has a specific purpose to correct and persuade at a certain level of discourse and correct course.

My point about the Marrow of Modern Divinity and The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification is not to simply give these books to the unlearned and let them sort through the texts but it is the *approach* of the texts toward the unlearned.

A person with such a Pastoral heart, as Bruce has repeatedly noted, would know the hearer well enough not to lead with "Are Good Works Necessary for Salvation?" and then proceed to tell them that the answer is found in an article that makes a variety of scholastic distinctions - some from the extreme voices in the broadly Reformed orthodox.

When I speak of salvation, I understand it encompasses the full range of Christ's work as the Mediator of the Covenant of Grace. I understand the language used by some of the Reformed to include even the manner in which faith is a condition of interest.

That said, when I speak to most people, I also understand that they tend to mean justification when they speak of salvation. We can (as the Pharisees and Scribes did) despise the unlearned or we can condescend to them. The Marrow and The Gospel Mystery are good examples of condescension worthy of imitation for the people to whom we minister. 

It's important to note that the Westminster Standards have these distinctions in the background but they don't choose to lead with them but to provide pastoral language that can be confessed and understood. There is an entire chapter in the Westminster Confessions devoted to how good works relate to salvation. It does the important work of articulating them in an accessible manner where the Church has come together to shave off some rough edges of those who might speak or write in ways that could be misunderstood. Your article is, at best, one man's collation of some writers and your interpretation of them. Is the work of Travis to be preferred to how the Confessions present the material and the Catechisms pose the relevant questions under consideration?

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 2


----------



## cmt72 (Sep 16, 2019)

Ed Walsh said:


> Quite a few,--all worthy of a genuinely Godly man. I would be happy to upload 5 or 6 pages from Lenski who artfully demonstrates a list of the thief's good works. Just ask me.
> 
> Here are a few: (they may now all be good works per se, but I think you will get the picture.
> 
> ...


I agree with you on what happened while he was on the cross. I should have been more clear with my question. I should have phrased the question as; Prior to the cross, Did the thief have any works? My point being, our works do not save us, only the Blood of Jesus. Thanks


----------



## kodos (Sep 16, 2019)

Since the "fans" of Travis' post/site/whatever are being called out, I'll note my thoughts.

I thought the title of the thread was to pique interest (which it clearly has done!). The linked resource is very careful in its introduction, even so far as to speak about a sensitive category: _elect infants_!

This actually seems quite *pastoral* to me. Once again, I have to wonder how many people who are criticizing this have actually read his site. So, from the resource's introduction:



> The reformers cried out that Justification is by faith alone (Gal. 2:16), though faith is never alone (James 2:20,26). Saving faith, of its nature, always produces good works in capable adults (Gal. 5:6; Rom. 6:22).† A man or woman being born again of God is given a new heart (Eze. 36:26), a root of holiness, which inclines in its circumstances to living by the faith that inevitably flows out of it (Acts 16:14; Rom. 6:4), this being manifested in the fruits of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-23) and good works (James 2:18). Hence the tree is known by its fruit (Lk. 6:43-33).
> 
> † Elect infants are excepted (Rom. 9:10-11), as well as elect mentally handicapped persons who may (or may not) be capable of an adequate comprehension and trust in the Savior (WCF 10.3), the fruit of which holiness may not be clearly observed by men in good works. Persons saved by faith alone on their death-bed in their last moments are also a qualification to this statement, though note that even the dying thief on the cross gave public witness to his trust in Christ, submitted to his punishment, rebuked the mocking malefactor next to him and justified Christ (Lk. 23:39-43).
> 
> ...



Carefully worded in my estimation. It seems to me that a key distinction between justification and salvation has been lost. I guess I didn't see the day coming where the PuritanBoard would be this closed off to a good discussion and simply claim the topic is not pastoral. This is a theology discussion board and no one (to my knowledge) has shown that the content on the site is not orthodox. Unlike the FV controversy, this does no violence to justification by faith.

Now, would I preach through Turretin's Institutes? No. But I sure am glad that it helps sharpen me and help make for clear theological distinctions! I take Travis' site in the same way. It helps to sharpen us and think more clearly in several areas.

Reactions: Like 6 | Amen 1


----------



## Ed Walsh (Sep 16, 2019)

cmt72 said:


> I agree with you on what happened while he was on the cross. I should have been more clear with my question. I should have phrased the question as; Prior to the cross, Did the thief have any works? My point being, our works do not save us, only the Blood of Jesus.



I wasn't being critical. Honest. I always said the same thing until about a year ago when I was studying Luke for leading a small group.
And like I said, I would be happy to send you a PDF of the section of Richard Lenski's commentary on Luke. Just ask.

Thanks,

Ed


----------



## Charles Johnson (Sep 16, 2019)

I fear that one who calls such statements of the necessity of good works unpastoral is in great danger of considering the very words of Scripture unpastoral, given that they are often less carefully qualified than the authors quoted in the op. "He shall give unto each according to his works."

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 16, 2019)

kodos said:


> This actually seems quite *pastoral* to me. Once again, I have to wonder how many people who are criticizing this have actually read his site. So, from the resource's introduction:


Say what you will, the title of the page/paper is "the necessity of good works," which would only be controversial if confronting people who are antinomian or who are accusing the Reformed of antinomianism. That they are necessary is Reformed, and how/how not they are necessary is crucial.

The title of this thread is a question: "Are good works necessary to salvation?" That's provocative, indeed, especially when the answer "yes" is made out to be almost the first and last word on the topic.

Then, there's the matter of the gradual _maturity _over time of the Reformed expressions, and eventual _confessional _statements on the subject. Rather than saying or contenting ourselves with such a non-nuanced question and answer, as has been pointed out in the thread already, the maturer and better declarations say that good works are necessary _in _salvation, rather than _to/unto _salvation.

"To" or "for" salvation should be regarded as retrograde prepositions in this context, more indicative of the era of struggle of the Reformed to arrive at the truest and best expressions that eliminated confusion; and drew the clear lines between the legalism of Rome and the antinomianism of the libertines, which both were repudiated.

The place of good works in the believer's life, and the sense in which they will be of any value in the end are perennial issues. Why certain treatises were written, sermons given; and when, and the nature of the opposition, etc.--these are important considerations for deciding how historical theology shall be used in a helpful manner. "Consensus" is a broad and fuzzy category. Even all the "greats" were not equally great on every matter to which he offered his judgment.

We should be gracious in verbal exchange on this board; while we are plainspoken and clear on what we view as vital, or as distinct about who we are. This area of theology is no small thing, and men should argue about the important things.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Charles Johnson (Sep 16, 2019)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Say what you will, the title of the page/paper is "the necessity of good works," which would only be controversial if confronting people who are antinomian or who are accusing the Reformed of antinomianism. That they are necessary is Reformed, and how/how not they are necessary is crucial.
> 
> The title of this thread is a question: "Are good works necessary to salvation?" That's provocative, indeed, especially when the answer "yes" is made out to be almost the first and last word on the topic.
> 
> ...


You speak of "more mature" statements, but the quote from Rutherford, which does not differ substantially from the others, is from a Westminster divines at the end of his life, over a decade after the conclusion of the assembly, in a work highly commended by Voetius, himself the standard bearer of mature reformed orthodoxy in the Netherlands. The difference in question is not between "mature" and "immature" formulations from the Orthodox era, it's between the range of expressions that were considered acceptable in the Orthodox era and the more limited scope of language thereafter, after the fallout from the marrow controversy, the collapse of the establishment churches, and the distilling of reformed thought through the chroniclers that followed - guys like John Brown of Haddington in Scotland and the Princeton men here in America.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## cmt72 (Sep 16, 2019)

Ed Walsh said:


> I wasn't being critical. Honest. I always said the same thing until about a year ago when I was studying Luke for leading a small group.
> And like I said, I would be happy to send you a PDF of the section of Richard Lenski's commentary on Luke. Just ask.
> 
> Thanks,
> ...


I didn't take it critically Brother, and yes feel free to send me the PDF.


----------



## Ed Walsh (Sep 16, 2019)

cmt72 said:


> I didn't take it critically Brother, and yes feel free to send me the PDF.



This file is the Title Page and all of chapter 23. The part about the thieves starts in verse 32, although the whole chapter is excellent.
It was a little too big to upload on the PB so I put it up. Here's the link.
https://maracorp.net/files/Luke_chapter_23.pdf​If it opens in your browser, download it, and use your PDF app. Sorry about the highlighting.

Ed


----------



## cmt72 (Sep 16, 2019)

Ed Walsh said:


> This file is the Title Page and all of chapter 23. The part about the thieves starts in verse 32, although the whole chapter is excellent.
> It was a little too big to upload on the PB so I put it up. Here's the link.
> https://maracorp.net/files/Luke_chapter_23.pdf​If it opens in your browser, download it, and use your PDF app. Sorry about the highlighting.
> 
> Ed


OK. I read what you sent me and I think we simply view "works" from a slightly different perspective. In my mind, The thief confessed his faith in Jesus and repented. I can see where someone might view that repentance as "works". I am not disputing that. I still believe that he was saved by Grace, through his confession of Faith, in Jesus as the Son of God, apart from any works of his own. "And this malefactor speaks out before all these other mockers, retracts what he has previously u$ered to the same effect, and takes his place beside Jesus. Already by rebuking the other he confesses his own true faith in Jesus." 

Maybe we are on the same page and I don't realize it! I'm slow to understand sometimes...Thanks for sending the link in any case.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 16, 2019)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I understand and my comment was not directed toward you. There are conditions set up in Scripture concerning our Salvation. Salvation is not just topically related to our justification alone. Good Works are the path we are to tread. They are laid out in front of us as the way toward heaven also. If we do not walk in that way we are not His. Salvation is about reconciliation to God. Christ was our full propitiation for sin so that we could be conformed to His image and be reconciled to the Law and the Lawgiver. Reconciliation is more than justification. It is a repair of the chasm that caused the rift that tore us apart.
> 
> At the same time let me iterate that salvation on this side looks differently for each of us. We could be like King David or many of the saints who made miserable choices but always were reeled back in or caused to repent by God. They obviously persevered due to God's love and faithfulness. Or our walk may resemble good men who have not had the deviations into sin and life such as St. Paul. Perseverance against persecution seems to be a condition to glorification according to the Revelation of John. Holiness seems to be a condition to seeing God in Hebrews 12:14. There is a lot to distinguish sometimes when we speak of these things.
> 
> ...


We do not ever get more saved, but are maturing in Christ and being confirmed daily. Too much of Christianity today seems to have a NT Wright view that never really saved until a final verdict rendered after death!


----------



## Ed Walsh (Sep 16, 2019)

cmt72 said:


> Maybe we are on the same page and I don't realize it! I'm slow to understand sometimes...Thanks for sending the link in any case.



I'm not sure where we are missing each other. Maybe I can help.

Below are a medley of Questions and Answers from Fisher's Catechism based on the Westminster Shorter Catechism. They were found from page 3 through page 538, so they are entirely out of context. I read through them all I can say that I know not any disagreement I have with any of them.

=======

Q. 21. Can no man glorify God acceptably, unless he first believe in Christ?
A. No; for, “Without faith it is impossible to please him.” Heb. 11:6; and, “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin,” Rom. 14:23.

Q. 22. How is it that faith in Christ glorifies God?
A. As it sets its seal to the record of God, John 3:33; and unites us to Christ, from whom only our fruit is found, Hos. 14:8.

Q. 23. Is not God glorified by the good works of believers?
A. Yes; “herein,” says Christ, “is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit,” John 15:8.

Q. 24. What are these fruits brought forth by believers, by which God is glorified?
A. They may be summed up in faith working by love, Gal. 5:6; or, their aiming, in the strength of Christ, at universal obedience to the law, as the rule of duty. Phil. 4:13 — “I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.”

Q. 15. Is there any danger of inverting this order, and of making duty done by us, the foundation of believing the Lord to be our God?
A. There is exceedingly great danger; for it is the very soul of Popery. By inverting this order, they were led back to a covenant of works, and the doctrine of the merit of good works, which is the foundation of the whole Antichristian superstructure.

Q. 16. Do not we find frequently in scripture, a reward promised to good works, Psalm 19:11 — “In keeping of thy commandments there is a great reward:” Psalm 58:11 — “Verily there is a reward to the righteous?”
A. True; but this is a reward of grace, not of debt: the man that is rewarded, must be a believer in Christ, whose person is first accepted, through his union to Christ by faith, and the imputation of his righteousness, before any of his works or duties can be accepted, Eph. 1:6; Gen. 4:4.

Q. 10. Are not men to have rewards given them according to their good or evil works, and consequently may be said to be in a state of probation, as well as Adam was?
A. The consequence will not hold; because these rewards are of another kind than could have taken place under the covenant of works, though it had been fulfilled; for now, they are either rewards of impartial justice, for evil works, the wages of sin being death; or rewards of free mercy to the doing persons; not for their good works, but according to them, 2 Cor. 5:10.

Q. 11. What is it for God to dispense rewards of free mercy to his people, not for their good works, but according to them?
A. It is to bestow these rewards, not on account of any worth or merit that is in their good works, in themselves considered, but as they are evidences of union with Christ, in whom their persons and performances are accepted, and through whom the rewards of grace are freely conferred; for, “the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord,” Rom. 6:23.

Q. 114. Are not good works mentioned as the ground of the sentence, Matt. 25:35, 36 — “I was a hungered, and ye gave me meat” &c.?
A. These good works are mentioned, not as grounds of their sentence, but as evidences of their union with Christ, and of their right and title to heaven in him, John 15:5, 8; even as the apostle says in another case, of the unbelieving Jews, 1 Cor. 10:5 — “With many of them God was not well pleased; for they were overthrown in the wilderness:” their overthrow in the wilderness, was not the ground of God’s displeasure with them, but the evidence of it.

Q. 115. Will there be any mention made of the sins of the righteous?
A. It appears not; “In that time, the iniquity of Israel shall be sought for, and there shall be none: and the sins of Judah, and they shall not be found,” Jer. 5:20. “Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth,” &c. Rom. 8:33, 34.

Q. 60. Why is the righteousness of Christ said to be received by faith alone?
A. That works may be wholly excluded from having any share in our justification, less or more, Rom. 3:28 — “Therefore we conclude, that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the law.”

Q. 61. If good works have no influence upon our justification, of what use are they to the justified?
A. Though they cannot justify us before God, yet they are good “evidences” of our justification, being the fruits of a true and lively faith, James 2:18, they “adorn the profession of the gospel, Titus 2:11, 12; stop the mouths of adversaries, 1 Pet. 2:15; and glorify God, John 15:8.”

Q. 11. What would be the consequence of making our faith, repentance, and good works, the procuring cause of our escaping the wrath and curse of God due to us for sin?
A. This would be setting aside the satisfaction of Christ, and making a saviour of our duties, than which nothing could nail us more effectually down under the curse, Gal. 3:10 — “As many as are of the works of the law, are under the curse.”

Q. 20. How may we know if we have that faith which feeds on Christ in the word and sacrament?
A. Where this true and saving faith is, it is of an appetising nature, whetting the spiritual appetite after more and more of him, Isaiah 26:8, 9; it purifies the heart, Acts 15:9; accounts all things but loss for Christ, Phil. 3:8; and is careful to maintain good works, Titus 3:8.​

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 16, 2019)

I just read the article in more detail and find it highly problematic in its basic form. What it is missing in its centrality is the Mediator of the Covenant of Grae through Whom the believer receives all evangelical graces. This is not a minor matter. To jump to the response of the believer in faith as if works are a fruit of faith misses the vital relationship of Christ at the center of all evangelical graces.

Notice, in contrast, the structure of the Westminster Standards that begin with the incapacity of man to have fruition with God apart from Covenant and then the introduction of Christ the Mediator from Whom all evangelical graces flow.

About the only reason, the Mediator is introduced in this paper is when quoting the Westminster Standards. Nomos, from the Marrow of Modern Divinity, could have written much of this article and drawn conclusions without reference to the Covenant of Grace. The paper suffers from grounding good works within the work of the Mediator and places the Christian as the primary actor in his response to God imputing righteousness to him.

Those who think this is somehow a repudiation of good works simply don't understand the heart of Reformed Covenant theology. Even our "condition to interest" (faith) is that which the Spirit produces and our faith as such is not our contribution.

To my thinking, any theology that tries to construct a theology of justification, sanctification, and glorification without Christ as Mediator at the center is inherently flawed. Any paper that tries to marshall quotes from Reformed thinkers without placing this at the center is misrepresenting the nature of the case.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 3


----------



## cmt72 (Sep 16, 2019)

Ed Walsh said:


> I'm not sure where we are missing each other. Maybe I can help.
> 
> Below are a medley of Questions and Answers from Fisher's Catechism based on the Westminster Shorter Catechism. They were found from page 3 through page 538, so they are entirely out of context. I read through them all I can say that I know not any disagreement I have with any of them.
> 
> ...


I honestly believe we are on the same page. I appreciate the conversation. Thanks for sharing the literature as well. I agree with the q&a.

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 17, 2019)

Semper Fidelis said:


> I just read the article in more detail and find it highly problematic in its basic form. What it is missing in its centrality is the Mediator of the Covenant of Grae through Whom the believer receives all evangelical graces. This is not a minor matter. To jump to the response of the believer in faith as if works are a fruit of faith misses the vital relationship of Christ at the center of all evangelical graces.
> 
> Notice, in contrast, the structure of the Westminster Standards that begin with the incapacity of man to have fruition with God apart from Covenant and then the introduction of Christ the Mediator from Whom all evangelical graces flow.
> 
> ...



I would like to see what Travis's response to Rich's critique is (assuming that the former has the time to reply). If the resource linked in the OP had just been a list of quotations, then Rich's criticism would not be valid. But the problem here is that the linked-to article is claiming to set forth the Reformed view of salvation and good works. Any discussion of this subject, if it is to do justice to the Reformed position, must set the mediatorial work of Christ and the covenant of grace at the forefront. 

I think Rich has touched on precisely why many of us find the current obsession in some circles with salvation and good works to be increasingly unbalanced. For instance, I keep hearing it said that _The Marrow of Modern Divinity_ is Antinomian. Now, granted, I have only read the edition in Thomas Boston's works (so I may have missed something), but when I ask people for specific examples of Antinomianism in _The Marrow_, all I ever hear in response is either nothing or else anecdotal claims about Edward Fisher being a recovering Antinomian and that factor may have influenced him. Such critics seem to overlook the fact that part of the book is an exposition of the moral law, which is strong prima facie evidence that it is not Antinomian (not to mention the book's dialogue with an Antinomian). 

Having said that, I am not an uncritical admirer of _The Marrow_. It does affirm Hypothetical Universalism notwithstanding Thomas Boston's well-meaning attempts to water down its obvious teaching. Still, just because an author is wrong on one thing does not mean he is wrong on everything, and _The Marrow_ is well within the bounds of Reformed orthodoxy - so much so that it was endorsed by some members of the Westminster Assembly who were very definitely not Antinomians.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ed Walsh (Sep 17, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I keep hearing it said that _The Marrow of Modern Divinity_ is Antinomian. Now, granted, I have only read the edition in Thomas Boston's works (so I may have missed something), but when I ask people for specific examples of Antinomianism in _The Marrow_, all I ever hear in response is either nothing or else anecdotal claims about Edward Fisher being a recovering Antinomian and that factor may have influenced him.



Didn't these people ever read Part Second of _The Marrow_? It is an exposition of the Ten Commandments that in Boston's work goes on for 68 pages. The following excerpt is only the beginning of their discussion (Evangelista and Nomologista) about the implications of the Ten Commandments recently expounded. Here is Antinomista's closing remark from Part First.
Ant. And truly, sir, I am now fully convinced that I have gone out of the right way, in that I have not had regard to the law, and the works thereof, as I shold; but, God willing, I shall hereafter (if the Lord prolong my days) be more careful how I lead my life, seeing the ten commandments are the law of Christ; and I beseech you, sir, remember me in your prayers. And so, with many thanks to you for your pains, I take my leave of you, beseeching the “grace of our Lord Jesus Christ to be with your spirit.” Amen.​
=======

Nom. But, sir, are you sure that the Lord requires that every man should keep all the ten commandments according as you have now expounded them?
THE USE OF THE LAW​
Evan. Yea, indeed he does; and if you make any question of it, I pray you, consider further, that one asking our Saviour, which is the “great commandment in the law?” he answered, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.” “This,” says he, “is the first and great commandment; and the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,” Matt. 22:6–9.

Whereupon, says a famous spiritual expositor, “God will have the whole heart;” all the powers of our souls must be bent towards him, he will have himself to be acknowledged and reckoned as our sovereign and supreme good; our love to him must be perfect and absolute: he requires, that there be not found in us the least thought, inclination, or appetite of any thing which may displease him; and that we direct all our actions to this very end, that he alone may be glorified by us: and that for the love we bear unto God, we must do well unto our neighbour, according to the commandments of God. Consider also, I pray you, that it is said, Deut. 27:26; Gal. 3:10, “Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.” Now, if you do consider these things well, you shall perceive that the Lord requires that every man do keep all the ten commandments perfectly according as I have expounded them, and concludes all those under the curse that do not so keep them.

Nom. Surely, sir, you did mistake in saying that the Lord requires that every man do keep the law of the ten commandments perfectly; for I suppose you would have said, the Lord requires that every man do endeavour to keep them perfectly.

Evan. No, neighbour Nomologista, I did not mistake, for I say it again, that the Lord requires of every man, perfect obedience to all the ten commandments, and concludes all those under the curse that do not yield it; for it is not said, Cursed is every man that does not endeavour to continue in all things, but, “Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things,” &c.

Nom. But, sir, do you think that any man continues in all things as you have expounded them?

Evan. No, no; it is impossible that any man should.

Nom. And, sir, what is it to be under a curse?

Evan. To be under the curse, as Luther and Perkins do well agree, is to be under sin, the wrath of God, and everlasting death.

Nom. But, sir, I pray you, how can this stand with the justice of God, to require man to do that which is impossible, and yet to conclude him under the curse for not doing it?

Evan. You shall perceive that it does well stand with the justice of God, to deal so with man, if you consider, that this law of God, or these ten commandments, which we have now expounded, are, as Ursinus’ Catechism truly says, “A doctrine agreeing with the eternal and immortal wisdom and justice that is in God;” wherein says Calvin, “God hath so painted out his own nature, that it doth in a manner express the very image of God.” And we read, Gen. 1:27 that man at the first was created in the image or likeness of God; whence it must needs follow that this law was written in his heart, that is to say, God did engrave in man’s heart such wisdom and knowledge of his will and works, and such integrity in his soul, and such a fitness in all the powers thereof, that his mind was able to conceive, and his heart was able to desire, and his body was able to put in execution, any thing that was acceptable to God; so that in very deed he was able to keep all the ten commandments perfectly.

And therefore though God do require of man impossible things, yet is be not unjust, neither does he injure us in so doing, because he commanded them when they were possible, and though we have now lost our ability of performance, yet it being by our voluntary falling from the state of innocence in which we were at first created, God has not lost his right of requiring that of us which he once gave us.

Nom. But, sir, you know it was our first parents only that did fall away from God in eating the forbidden fruit, and none of their posterity; how then can it be truly said, that we hare lost that power through our own default?

Evan. For answer to this, I pray you consider that Adam by God’s appointment, was not to stand or fall as a single person only, but as a common public person, representing all mankind which were to come to him; and therefore, as in case if he had been obedient, and not eaten the forbidden fruit, he had retained and kept that power which he had by creation, as well for all mankind as for himself; even so by disobedience in eating that forbidden fruit, he was disrobed of God’s image, and so lost that power, as well for all mankind as for himself.

Nom. Why then, sir, it should seem that all mankind are under sin, wrath, and eternal death?

Evan. Yea, indeed by nature they are so, “for we know,” says the apostle, “that whatsoever the law saith, it saith to them that are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God,” Rom. 3:19; and again says he, “We have proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin,” Rom. 3:9. And in another place he says, “We were by nature children of wrath even as well as others,” Eph. 2:3; and, lastly, he says, “So death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned,” Rom. 5:12.

Nom. But, sir, I pray you tell me whether you think that any regenerate man keeps the commandments perfectly, according as you have expounded them?

Evan. No, not the most sanctified man in the world.

Nom. Why then, sir, it should seem, that not only natural men, but regenerate men also, are under the curse of the law. For if every one that keepeth not the law perfectly be concluded under the curse, and if regenerate men do not keep the law perfectly, then they also must needs be under the curse.

Evan. The conclusion of your argument is not true; for if by regenerate men you mean true believers, then they have fulfilled the law perfectly in Christ, or rather Christ has perfectly fulfilled the law in them, and was made a curse for them, and so has redeemed them from the curse of the law, as you may see, Gal. 3:13.

Nom. Well, sir, now I understand you, and have ever been of your judgment in that point, for I have ever concluded this, that either a man himself, or Christ for him, must keep the law perfectly, or else God will not accept of him, and therefore have I endeavoured to do the best I could to keep the law perfectly, and wherein I have failed and come short, I have believed that Christ has done it for me.

Evan. The apostle says, Gal. 3:10. “So many as are of the works of the law, are under the curse.” And truly, neighbour No-mologista, if I may speak it without offence, I fear me you are still of the works of the law, and therefore still under the curse.

Nom. Why, sir, I pray you what is it to be of the works of the law?

Evan. To be of the works of the law, is for a man to look for, or hope to be justified or accepted in the sight of God, for his own obedience to the law.

Nom. But surely, sir, I never did so; for though by reason of my being ignorant of what is required and forbidden in every commandment, I had a conceit that I came very near the perfect fulfilling of the law, yet I never thought I did do all things that are contained therein; and therefore I never looked for, nor hoped that God would accept me for mine own obedience, without Christ’s being joined with it.
Evan. Then it seems that you did conceive, that your obedience and Christ’s obedience must be joined together, and so God would accept you for that.

Nom. Yea, indeed, sir, there have been my hopes, and indeed there are still my hopes.

Evan. Ay, but neighbour Nomologists, as I told my neighbour Neophitus and others not long since, so I tell you now, that as the justice of God requires a perfect obedience, so does it require that this perfect obedience be a personal obedience, that is, it must be the obedience of one person only. The obedience of two must not be put together to make up a perfect obedience: and indeed, to say as the thing is, God will have none to have a hand in the justification and salvation of any man, but Christ only, for, says the apostle Peter, Acts 4:12, “neither is there salvation in any other, for there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved.” Believe it then, I beseech you, that Christ Jesus will either be a whole Saviour, or no Saviour, he will either save you alone, or not save you at all.​

Boston, T. (1850). The Whole Works of Thomas Boston: An Explication of the Assembly’s Shorter Catechism. (S. M‘Millan, Ed.) (Vol. 7, pp. 439–442). Aberdeen: George and Robert King.​


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 17, 2019)

I assumed the mediatorial work of Christ in the Covenant of Grace by stating that Christ meritoriously fulfilled it and we didn't in an earlier response to Daniel. 

Maybe I am missing something here Rich. And maybe the page needs to clean this up but I have had to deal with major problems here in my area with fundamentalists who are acting in a same manner as Tullian has been acting. Yes, it is in like manner in Reformed Churches as well as Fundamentalist Baptist Churches. I didn't reply to Bruce's asking me about the situations as I am not desiring to name name's and get into those situations. But we have a major problem with Leadership's actions and those who follow them. Something does need to be taught in a very balanced sensitive way. Things need to be exposed and the qualifications of Eldership be realigned. We need to see that some men are qualified for Church office and others are disqualified via 1Timothy 3:2. 

I do know that we need to understand the differences concerning conditions as faith and repentance are conditions to justification. They are fully a result of Christ's working for us and in us as the Spirit applies that work. We do have major Problem's Houston. I suspect you have heard some of the rumblings the past few years having been an Elder.


----------



## RJ Spencer (Sep 17, 2019)

I'm reading The Morrow of Modern Divinity for the very first time. Phenomenal book! I had heard long ago that it was antinomian, but once I saw it mentioned here I figured I'd give it a go. Not antinomian at all. It answers many of the issues brought up in this thread.

I enjoyed the conversation on this thread, I don't believe any one changed their minds and I still answer to the affirmative.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost (Sep 17, 2019)

Dear Rich (@Semper Fidelis),

I sometimes wonder if we’d say things to someone’s face the way we may online? I was speaking to my sister the other day and we were disagreeing about a minute point, though we were in much greater agreement over most everything relating to the conversation. I made the poor choice of focussing on the small part I was uncomfortable with. The result was I came across as if things had to be said my way. My response made it seem like I was looking for magic words. Even if my point was correct and important in its own right, I said it in a way that was more distracting than helpful. For this I repented to her. This problem seems propounded online, though.

It’s easy to think about our online friends as less than people-- at least we likely wouldn’t speak with people face to face the way we would speak to them online. Now I may disagree with Travis on some things-- EP being one example. We’ve discussed this in person at my church and at my house. But not only things that we disagreed about, but things that we agreed about! He came to my house and we talked about all kinds of things. We even took out the Psalter and sang together.

Now if you had a family member spend much time on something for your benefit and the first thing you said about it was disparaging, how do you think they’d respond? Do you really speak to family members in person the way you (and some others) spoke to Travis online? You indirectly referred to me as one of his “fans.” Such pejorative and insensitive word choices are immediately a turn-off even before your words are heard.

I understand that words are important. But meaning is more so. I do believe that Travis was careful in describing the word choices he was using with scholastic distinctions. One may disagree with the helpfulness of such word choices, but do any of us disagree with the meaning of the doctrines? Reducing “salvation” to justification may be something that people confuse, but the confusion is neither biblical nor helpful. As those with pastoral concerns, these distinctions-- whether we prefer the wording or not-- are helpful in leading the people of God.

You said:



> Is the work of Travis to be preferred to how the Confessions present the material and the Catechisms pose the relevant questions under consideration?



Did Travis say that his formulation on this page was to be preferred over the Confession’s wording? Is the confession designed to be the “end all” in our particular word choices when discussing any particular doctrine? A confession, is a compromised document as far as word choices are concerned. It needed to be worded in a way that everyone could agree with. Rich, Im sure you already know this, but you don’t seem to reason as if you do.

Finally, must we always speak to Christ’s Mediatorial work when discussing good works? If so, Christ’s Sermon on the Mount is woefully unbalanced. I highly doubt you’d critique Christ’s own sermon concerning a lack of inclusion of His Mediatorial work, though your criteria seems to logically necessitate this critique. Not every sermon or writing is comprehensive in its scope and we have many biblical and theological writings that are not inclusive of Christ’s Mediatorial work in relation to good works. Certainly Christ’s sermon was pastoral.

I’m calling you out on this not because you’re alone in what I believe to be an uncharitable critique of Travis on this point, but because yours seemed the most blatantly cutting and pejorative.

Thanks for hearing me out.

Blessings,

Tim

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## OPC'n (Sep 17, 2019)

I always think of "salvation" as the title under which justification, sanctification, and glorification fall. So if you mean, do you have to have good works to be justified the answer is no. If you mean do you have to have good works in order to show the work of sanctification, the answer is yes. The Bible makes it clear that justification is God's work and sanctification is God's work with our cooperation to the Holy Spirit in obedience to his law.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 18, 2019)

timfost said:


> Thanks for hearing me out.



This might just be the rub. After reading Tim's post, it dawned on me that I never actually heard a word from Tim-technically speaking. Everything I read, seemed to be in my voice. Inflection is not true here. For all I know, the guy was screaming angry! Possibly just woke up and incoherent. Dialoging is tricky. Many times, a short burst may come across as rapid fire. Granted, words hurt and we must be careful. All of us have different mechanisms in our personalities. Very few of us have any touchstones in relation to our actual personalities; and many of us, in person would be seen much differently, face to face. Over the years, my dialoging has changed greatly. Some times, a few sentences escape the control I desire and things are flung out emotionally. Sadly. But generally, I just state my case and move along.

In regard to Travis' post. I have refrained from gettin in on this thread because I don't really like the subject. Tinkering around with justification by faith alone, bothers me and I don't really want to go there. in my opinion, and keep in mind, this is just my impression; the subject matter and terms are not helpful. It's like trying to squeeze more lemon out of an already squeezed lemon-half. But hey, I get it. Thats what theologians do. I am not a great mind. I try, at best. This might be one of the few things I don't really warm up to; given its complexity and the inability to actually decipher it to another person without confusing the issue more. Since it resembles some of the FV language at times, I sort of, turn my head when I read anything like it. It doesn't surprise me in the least that the historic men that dealt with the subject are saying what they are. Delve deeply into Burgess and some of the other great men of age and u will see that many times, they seem to get a bit closer than we would like to baptismal regeneration when speaking of infant baptism and our progeny.

Last week in Sunday school, this exact subject came up. I was compelled to say, 'You know, there are a few great men of faith who held to this very thin distinction on justification where they tease out of it the need to have a work involved in our justification. I believed I raised my hand and then retrieved it. I thought, 'why muddy the water?' It's a tricky subject. The title of the opening post implies we need a work-without distinctions (in the title). It is akin to 'click-baiting'. Have I ever done this in the past with FB posts or my web-page? Yes, I have.

Not to defend Rich, that he needs any defense, but again, we are dialoging and hence, many times, the reader is _reading_ into the response, how the poster might be postured. Can this be avoided? I don't really know. Can ones posturing be seen from what is dialoged? Sometimes. Is it fully accurate? I have to say, no. But using certain terms, does seem to indicate a troubling response.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 18, 2019)

Hey Scott. I think it has been stated over and over this is about more than justification. I take great comfort in the fact that justification is by faith alone and I believe Travis made that point very obvious. I take great comfort in the scriptures like John 5:24 which state I have everlasting life now. In relationship to making it to glorification Philippians 1:6 gives me great comfort that God will cause me to persevere. But when we get to scriptures like James 2:24 and Hebrews 6:6 things need to be untangled and understood. There are reasons for why God put those scriptures and warnings in the Bible. There is a reason why Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 13:5 when his authority was being challenged.

Rom 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
Rom 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Rom 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.


Jas 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only


The following verses have a context to be understood also.

Heb 6:6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

2Co 13:5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?


People need to know that Paul was writing about one thing concerning Abraham's life while James was writing about a different time and situation. We need to understand why they were being written and highlighted. Paul and James were writing for two different purposes. We don't learn that unless we struggle and wrestle with the Scriptures as a whole unit.

There are good reasons why men wrote about the topic Travis has gathered. I for one was not alarmed by the Title even. It is topically correct in my estimation.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 18, 2019)

Randy,
I agree wholeheartedly. I myself don’t struggle w these truths; however, people with a lesser knowledge base could find themselves shipwrecked. That’s my concern. I would refrain from preaching on such elements. 

Work out your salvation w fear and trembling... we are saved, being saved and will be saved! 

Deep thinking upon these two statement will cause any believer who holds to J by FA, to pause.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 18, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> however, people with a lesser knowledge base could find themselves shipwrecked. That’s my concern. I would refrain from preaching on such elements.



I prefer to help those with lesser knowledge gain a better understanding. We all need to keep growing. To shortcut or be weak in anything can be dangerous. Maturity requires struggling and a good challenge. To make any topic a priority outside of understanding Union with Christ and His Mediatorial office is dangerous. I have seen a lot in 38 years. We all need the whole Bible for the whole man.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## TylerRay (Sep 18, 2019)

I'm baffled that there has been so much opposition on this thread to the bare statement that good works are necessary for salvation. Will anyone get to heaven who has never loved God or neighbor? Is it not _necessarily _the case that a believer will bear good fruit?

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 3


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 18, 2019)

In regards to this subject, specifically, I disagree. But I love you nonetheless.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 18, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> I'm baffled that there has been so much opposition on this thread to the bare statement that good works are necessary for salvation. Will anyone get to heaven who has never loved God or neighbor? Is it not _necessarily _the case that a believer will bear good fruit?



Tyler, 
Not that I disagree. It’s the blurry fine lines and micro-minutia that is teased out of this highly deep subject. Most everyone on this board, especially those that hold to justification by faith alone, understand the principle as you described in your last post. The heat being generated in this thread is secondary to language being incorporated into the doctrine, which seems to cause unneeded tension.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Phil D. (Sep 18, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> The heat being generated in this thread is secondary to language being incorporated into the doctrine, which seems to cause unneeded tension.



I agree with this point. It seems everyone involved might be satisfied if we would simply do as Bruce noted and use the more nuanced phraseology "good works are necessary *in* salvation." I don't doubt that most PBers are theologically astute enough to distinguish what Travis is saying from rank legalism. But regarding the chosen titular phraseology, even though employed in times past and all well and good, in the present environment of continuing Federal Vision heresy and obfuscation, the less ambiguous our phraseology the better. And not everyone reading this headline is a PBer - its on an open forum viewable to all.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 18, 2019)

Phil D. said:


> I agree with this point. It seems everyone involved might be satisfied if we would simply do as Bruce noted and use the more nuanced phraseology "good works are necessary *in* salvation." I don't doubt that most PBers are theologically astute enough to distinguish what Travis is saying from rank legalism. But the chosen titular phraseology, even though employed in times past and all well and good, in the present environment of continuing Federal Vision heresy and obfuscation, the less ambiguous our phraseology the better. And not everyone reading this headline is a PBer - its on an open forum viewable to all.


Works testify that we have been born again, and are a direct result of that having already occured.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## VictorBravo (Sep 18, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> Is it not _necessarily _the case that a believer will bear good fruit?



That seems to be the essential rub. Perspective comes into play.

"Be ye holy...." Yes, of course it is necessary.

"You know them by their fruit...." Undenied.

"If ye love me, keep my commandments." Yes, Captain.

"Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves." (My perspective--focus on me):

Following this commandment to examine myself, I look closely at what I think my best work might be, and see pride mixed in. Oops, in trying ever so hard, if I am an honest Christian, I see my best efforts are stained by sin--So much for being holy.

So what now? The rest of the story: repent and cling to Christ.

Rom 7:24-25 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord....

In our day, I think when dealing with works, (especially in the context of recovering from Federal Vision disruptions) the personal perspective ("have I done enough?") needs to be addressed.

That was my main concern on the topic. Works ought not be suggested to be an end in themselves, but another way for us to rejoice in and rely on our Lord Christ.

Reactions: Like 5 | Amen 2


----------



## TylerRay (Sep 18, 2019)

VictorBravo said:


> That seems to be the essential rub. Perspective comes into play.
> 
> "Be ye holy...." Yes, of course it is necessary.
> 
> ...


Victor,
The issue is whether they are necessary antecedents, accidents, and consequents to various links in the ordo salutis. Who could doubt that they are?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay (Sep 18, 2019)

Nobody should treat the subject of good works in relation to salvation in a cavalier manner--I agree that it could be pastorally destructive. But who can blame a guy for collecting various resources from the past which touch on the subject, on an academically oriented webpage, while endeavoring to outline the various distinctions used by the older writers?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## VictorBravo (Sep 18, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> But who can blame a guy for collecting various resources from the past which touch on the subject, on an academically oriented webpage, while endeavoring to outline the various distinctions used by the older writers?



Well, to be clear, I'm not "blaming" anyone.

But I keep in mind the audience of this forum, too. Thousands of people all over the world read these discussions, not just academics. That's why I see the hashing out on this thread to be a good thing.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Sep 18, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> Nobody should treat the subject of good works in relation to salvation in a cavalier manner--I agree that it could be pastorally destructive. But who can blame a guy for collecting various resources from the past which touch on the subject, on an academically oriented webpage, while endeavoring to outline the various distinctions used by the older writers?


I see what you're saying, but on the other side, the thread is titled "are good works necessary to salvation." This is then immediately followed by "While maintaining justification by faith alone, the Reformed have historically answered this question: Yes".

To me it comes across as a fire starter, and the casual Christian seeing this may not be in a theological place to comprehend the depth of this, and may just take the statement for its face value and come to bad conclusions. Just my thought, but I'm thankful for the work of collecting the documents.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 18, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> Nobody should treat the subject of good works in relation to salvation in a cavalier manner--I agree that it could be pastorally destructive.



My point....


----------



## TylerRay (Sep 18, 2019)

VictorBravo said:


> Well, to be clear, I'm not "blaming" anyone.
> 
> But I keep in mind the audience of this forum, too. Thousands of people all over the world read these discussions, not just academics. That's why I see the hashing out on this thread to be a good thing.


The academically oriented webpage I referred to was Travis's page. I get that PB isn't an academic website.


----------



## TylerRay (Sep 18, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> My point....


Right--but who has done that here?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 18, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> Right--but who has done that here?



The subject matter itself could be 'pastorally destructive', which was my earlier point. Possibly, this thread should have been in the Officers only area of PB?


----------



## TylerRay (Sep 18, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> The subject matter itself could be 'pastorally destructive', which was my earlier point. Possibly, this thread should have been in the Officers only area of PB?


Brother, the subject matter is the truth of God. It's part of the body of doctrine revealed in the Scriptures. How can we say that scriptural, revealed truth is pastorally destructive?

The irresponsible handling of the truth can be destructive. However, Travis has handled these issues quite carefully, if one only takes the time to read his page.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 18, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> Brother, the subject matter is the truth of God. It's part of the body of doctrine revealed in the Scriptures.



I understand; however, I am sure u would agree that this item is not simply parsed and anyone that says it is is not being honest. It was not a subject to be considered, in general conversations, given its capacity for misunderstanding until most recently when the FV guys stated plugging away on it. Granted, they have abused the doctrine, but when one looks at both examples, they run pretty close and the former could be simply reconciled (along Travis' line) and the other flawed, very easily-especially by one who does not have a theological acumen.


----------



## kodos (Sep 18, 2019)

Where is the place on the PB to discuss things that require "*theological acumen*"? Or is this not a place to discuss things that require theological acumen?

And second, why has someone *featured* such a "dangerous" thread? I am guessing that wasn't Travis' doing.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 18, 2019)

This is automatic most of the time based on activity.


kodos said:


> And second, why has someone *featured* such a "dangerous" thread? I am guessing that wasn't Travis' doing.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## kodos (Sep 18, 2019)

NaphtaliPress said:


> This is automatic most of the time based on activity.



Seems like that is something that mods should have control over...


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 18, 2019)

Rom,
W/ all due respect, I am not going to go back and forth on the issue. I said my piece. For the record, I have no issue w/ Travis nor his piece. I appreciate his webpage and work. Simply put, imagine for the moment that this came out during the FV controversy timeframe. How do u think this would have been received? All I am saying is that the subject matter is not for the weak in heart. It is heady. As Tyler mentioned, if handled incorrectly, it could be pastorally destructive. I am not saying that Travis didn't handle it pastorally, but readers who are not theologically educated, could. I mean, for goodness sake, how many times have we discussed this item anywhere. Most people avoid it like the plague because it sounds FV and is mind-bending, trying to reconcile these facts, correctly. Most can't.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 18, 2019)

They do. Do you want it unfeatured? 


kodos said:


> Seems like that is something that mods should have control over...


----------



## kodos (Sep 18, 2019)

NaphtaliPress said:


> They do. Do you want it unfeatured?



I don't! However, with many of the mods being against Travis' work, I am surprised it was featured. Understanding that it is automated makes more sense. 

That said, I would like to know where on the PB something like this can be discussed if it is too insensitive for the broader PB community.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 18, 2019)

It seems to me folks have made this personal, as our MW used to say, instead of simply discussing the matters. Travis site is a useful resource, and I don't think any moderators are saying it is not of use. But somethings in the way they are handled have come up more than once on PB where some folks have disagreed with something posted. Travis's site is not above criticism, nor beyond a reasonable defense and appreciation. Our aim should be to disagree agreeably when those collide. 


kodos said:


> I don't! However, with many of the mods being against Travis' work, I am surprised it was featured. Understanding that it is automated makes more sense.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## VictorBravo (Sep 18, 2019)

kodos said:


> That said, I would like to know where on the PB something like this can be discussed if it is too insensitive for the broader PB community.



Discussion is what is going on right now. If the mods were "against" it in the sense that it was clearly unconfessional, the thread would have been gone already.

I suppose I need to make my thoughts even clearer: If one is going to post something provocative, expect pushback. If one is going to post a link to something provocative offsite, then an introductory explanation might be useful to prevent a lot of pushback.

I'll give a more extreme hypothetical: Let's say I write a sound essay on justifiable homicide for other criminal defense lawyers to read. I go through various defenses one might employ in a murder case, citing case law and statutes, and I then precisely define various terms and make nuance qualifications in the work.

Then I post a link to that essay here, saying something like "In Washington, you get to kill people."

I think I'd expect a bit of pushback too.

It's the matter of presentation that I think most are worked up about.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 18, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> Nobody should treat the subject of good works in relation to salvation in a cavalier manner--I agree that it could be pastorally destructive.





Scott Bushey said:


> My point....


It can be destructive both ways Scott. I think you would agree with me that there has been a rash of neonomism and presumption upon the Lord's graciousness the past many years. But a very good Pastor or friend can distinguish what an individual needs to hear. Sometimes we need our Nathans as David did. Sometimes we need to be reminded that Christ Paid it all, the just for the unjust, and that He will complete His work in us. Philippians 1:6

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## kodos (Sep 18, 2019)

Fair enough, the title of the thread is a bit provocative. But you don't even have to get further than the first statement in the post, where Travis states:

"*While maintaining justification by faith alone*, the Reformed have historically answered this question: Yes."

At this point, I would expect theologically curious persons (or even those who have read the book of James) to dig in deeper to understand how this is all resolved.

Like Scott, I'll bow out of this aspect of the discussion now. I don't think I have anything further to say. Blessings!

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RJ Spencer (Sep 18, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> The subject matter itself could be 'pastorally destructive', which was my earlier point. Possibly, this thread should have been in the Officers only area of PB?



I for one am thankful that I, a mere layman, could participate in this conversation. The only theological training I have comes from my own study and I did not find the subject matter difficult. I have stated numerous times on this thread that I believe just as faith comes as a gift out of regeneration so to do good works. So, we can say of both faith and good works that they are necessary for salvation. They are not completely synonymous, I know, Faith is necessary for Justification and good works are not. But they are both gifts from God and we recognize that the one that is justified Will be sanctified. 
Faith that comes out of us, rather than from God, is not true faith. Works that come out of us, rather than from a regenerate heart, is not saving works.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 20, 2019)

I'm exceedingly busy and probably ought not have waded into this thread since I won't have time to close out any loose threads.

1. I was tying my shoes today and thinking about the unthinking statements (yes, I used that word carefully) : "Golly, I can't believe anyone would have a problem with the statement that good works are necessary for salvation."

Really?

If the Pope said it, would you have a problem with it? If he had said so in the context of Roman Catholic theology would there be a reason to discuss the statement and provide a necessary correction to that statement?

Candidly, it matters little to me if you agree with my specific concerns raise in this thread but the simple statement that we ought *never* be concerned when someone attaches the necessity of good works to salvation is an unthinking comment. Put on your thinking caps as I will not respond to anyone in particular who has made this comment.

2. Regarding my tone, it reflects my irritation at the theological approach used both in the posting of this thread and the article linked, which purports to provide a historical and theological summary of how the Reformed writers view the necessity of good works. I would say the same things to the face of a man if he was to go on to an open forum and have a website dedicated to now propagating an imbalanced view of the issue.

3. Any Reformed teacher who thinks Christ's Mediation and our union with Him is incidental to this question may have read lots of Reformed theology but does not understand its center nor does it understand the center of the Christian faith. It may be counted as an oversight but that oversight is critical. One cannot "get there from here" with respect to our good works in any way being part of salvation unless Christ's Mediation is central to how that functions. It's like leaving the sun out of a discussion of photosynthesis.

4. My problem is never with the necessity of good works from a Covenant of Grace perspective. It is simply not possible that a person be united to Christ that Christ will not sanctify the person united to HIm. Christ frees the sinner from slavery to corruption and enables him to obey. He plants new desires even as we endeavor to kill the flesh. That same Christ, our Mediator-King, will subdue all our enemies and present us spotless. Hence, all of salvation is encompassed in Christ which is why the NT so often addresses us as "in Christ'.

So, on the surface of things, you might ask what my beef is. I can (with the appropriate qualifications, agree that good works are necessary for salvation. I've already identified the poverty in the way in which the Reformed writers are cited and employed within the article. A person could reasonably read that article where Christ is a spectator of much of the activity having procured justification and faith but there's little sense in the article that the activities are positionally in Him and empowered and procured and ensured by Him. One only has to have read Owen on Sin and Sanctification to see how that Puritan placed Christ as central to this work.

My other problem is years of experience dealing with people from various walks whom I have to teach and counsel. I have served on Credentials committees for almost a decade now. One of the questions we ask is the relationship of salvation to good works. We also ask about whether baptism saves. I'm actually the one who typically criticizes licentiates and candidates for ministry because they conflate salvation with justification. They rightly point out that good works don't save a person nor does baptism save a person. Yet, in a sense, both of them do save a person. When thought about more deeply (and in Christ) then we understand how Christ uses good works and the sacraments to save a man (in the fullest sense of the word).

Now, reflexively, some say: "See that's the problem with people today, they don't know the semantic and theological range of the word 'save'!" You can either understand that and speak in a way that ministers to people in a condescending or understanding way or you can speak over their heads and insist that good works are necessary for salvation and not care in the least how that statement is interpreted by the hearer or reader. After all, all you're doing is writing a blog post or a comment on a discussion forum. Meh. I care and I could actually care less about how I'm received when I'm making *plain* to the average reader that there is an imbalance in a way that a teacher ought to be presenting this material so that the unlearned don't stumble.

If I don't reply for some time then it's not that I don't care. I don't hate or despise any of you guys. Hopefully, my remarks clarify my concern. The stakes are high.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Sep 20, 2019)

Semper Fidelis said:


> ...and have a website dedicated to now propagating an imbalanced view of the issue.



While not agreeing with all of the criticisms made of my material heretofore (many of which condemn most of the puritan articles linked on the webpage, Christ and God's Word itself), nonetheless, before Rich ever mentioned Christ empowering us unto good works as the Mediator of the Covenant of Grace, I had a sense of the same issue with my article, and hence have been perfectly glad of my own accord to add this to the conclusion:

"Lest there creep into our minds the shadow of legal servitude unto works for believers attaining salvation, be it remembered that the saints’ focus on their pathway to Heaven is taking hope in the person of Christ and seeking to please Him out of love (Jn. 14:15) and gratitude for the salvation He has already given to us and further promises to us. Our strength unto obeying Christ comes not of our own natural sufficiency, but through relying on Him for grace to fulfill his precepts, knowing that He, the Mediator of the Covenant of Grace will certainly strengthen by his grace all of his elect, believing people unto good works befitting their salvation, that they might fulfill the consequent conditions of entering into the Covenant with Him, unto the salvation that He promises and purposes for them. The Lord accepts our sincere,‡ though imperfect, evangelical good works (being full of faith) as sufficient and pleasing to Him through the propitiation and mercy of our Savior. We, believers, shall be made holy; we shall see the Lord, and Christ will be seen to be all in all.

‡ Thomas Blake, _Covenant of God_, ch. 25, pp. 157-159.​Is this subject of good works in relation to salvation dispensable? Is it simply an ancillary matter of nuance in Christian theology? How does it practically and pastorally bear more particularly upon saints making their way to Heaven? For why the high view of the puritans on good works is practically important for the Christian life, see the excellent, short piece by D. Patrick Ramsey, ‘The Wherefore and the Why’ (2016, 7 paragraphs)."​

I would ask everyone, since we all are seeking to be Christ's disciples here, to ask questions of persons first, in order to find out their reasons for things (which reasons one doesn't know might be numerous and legitimate) before we criticize, condemn and possibly slander them (and the works of their hands done in and for the service of Christ) publicly.

"But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ." - Rom. 14:10​

Blessings to all, and may we humbly grow in Christ.


----------



## cmt72 (Sep 20, 2019)

Some thoughts from Charles Simeon:



DISCOURSE: 2099

SALVATION BY GRACE NOT HOSTILE TO GOOD WORKS

Ephesians 2:8-10. _By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them_.

ALL God’s works, of whatever kind they be, are designed to praise him. His works of creation proclaim his wisdom and his power: his works of providence display his goodness: his works of redemption magnify his grace. It is of these last that the Apostle is speaking in the preceding context, even of all that God has done for us in the Son of his love; and he declares that it was all done, “that in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace, in his kindness towards us through Christ Jesus.” The Gospel is too rarely viewed in this light: it is by many scarcely distinguished from the law; being considered rather as a code of laws enforced with penalties, than as an exhibition of mercies confirmed with promises. But it is as an exhibition of mercy only that we ought to view it; precisely as it is set forth in the words before us: from which we shall take occasion to shew,

I. That salvation is altogether of grace—

By “salvation” I understand the whole work of grace, whether as revealed in the word, or as experienced in the soul: and it is altogether of grace:

1. It is so—

[Trace it to its first origin, when the plan of it was fixed in the council of peace between the Father and the Son [Note: Zechariah 6:13.]: Who devised it? who merited it? who desired it? It was the fruit of God’s sovereign grace, and of grace alone. Trace it in all its parts;—the gift of God’s only-begotten Son to be our surety and our substitute; the acceptance of his vicarious sacrifice in our behalf; and the revelation of that mystery in the written word: who will arrogate to himself the honour of haying acquired these, or of having contributed to the acquisition of them in the smallest degree?

It may be thought perhaps, that, because an interest in these things is obtained by faith, we may claim some honour on account of the faith which apprehends them; which, being exercised by us, may be considered in some respects as giving us a ground of glorying before God. But this also is the gift of God, no less than the plan of salvation itself: it is not in any man by nature; nor is it to be wrought in man by any human power: it is not the effect of reasoning: for then the acutest reasoners would be the strongest believers; which is frequently far from being the case: it is solely the gift of God: and hence they who have believed, are said to “have believed through grace [Note: Acts 18:27.].” It is expressly said to be given us [Note: Philippians 1:29.]: and when Peter declared his faith in Jesus as the true Messiah, Jesus said to him, “Flesh and blood had not revealed this truth unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.” This is the true reason why many believed the testimony of Christ and his Apostles, whilst others were hardened in unbelief: those “whose hearts God opened,” as he did Lydia’s, received the truth; whilst all others treated the word, either with open scorn, or secret indifference.]

2. It must be so—

[Salvation must either be of grace or of works: the two cannot be mixed together, or reconciled with each other: if it be of works in any degree, it is no more of grace [Note: Romans 11:6.]; and in whatever degree it is of works, it so far affords us an occasion of boasting; seeing that it is then a debt paid, and not a gift bestowed [Note: Romans 4:4.].

To avoid this conclusion, some will say, that salvation may be of works, and still be also of grace; because the works being wrought in us by God, he is entitled to all the glory of them. But, granting that they are wrought in us by God, yet, inasmuch as they are _our_ works, they afford us a ground of glorying: and, to say that they do not afford us a ground of glorying, is directly to contradict the Apostle in our text, where he says, “It is not of works, lest any man should boast.” The same Apostle elsewhere says, “It is of faith, that it may be by grace [Note: Romans 4:16.]:” from both which passages it is evident, that, if it be of works, from whatever source those works proceed, it can no longer be by grace.

But here it may be asked, ‘If works, notwithstanding they are wrought in us by God, afford us a ground of glorying in ourselves, does not faith afford us the same ground of glorying?’ I answer, No: for it is of the very nature of faith to renounce all hope in ourselves, and to found our hopes solely on the merits of another: it disclaims all glorying in self, and gives all the glory to Him from whom it derives its blessings. In this it differs essentially from every other work: other works, though wrought in us by God, bring a glory to ourselves; but this, of necessity, transfers to God all the glory resulting from its exercise; and, consequently, neither does, nor can, nor desires to, arrogate any thing to itself.

Thus we hope that the point is clear,—salvation is altogether of grace from first to last. The plan of salvation as originally devised, the Saviour who wrought it out for us, the acceptance of his vicarious sacrifice in our behalf, and the faith whereby we are made partakers of his sacrifice, are all the gifts of free and sovereign grace: the foundation and the superstructure are wholly of grace: and, “when the headstone shall be brought forth, it must be with shoutings, crying, Grace, grace unto it [Note: Zechariah 4:7.]!”]

If to this it be objected, that by such doctrines we subvert the very foundations of morality, we answer,

II. That, though good works are wholly excluded from all share in the office of justifying the soul, yet is the performance of them effectually secured—

Believers are “the workmanship of God” altogether, as much as the world itself is: and as the world was created by Christ Jesus, so are they “created anew in Christ Jesus.” But we are “created _unto good works_, which God has before ordained that we should walk in them.”

The concluding words of our text shew us,

1. That God has ordained good works as the path wherein we are to walk—

[This is an unquestionable truth: the whole of the moral law demonstrates it: every promise, every threatening in the whole Bible attests it. Not a word can be found in the whole sacred volume, that dispenses with the performance of good works: on the contrary, it is expressly said, that “without holiness no man shall see the Lord.” The least idea of reaching heaven in any other path, is invariably reprobated as a most fatal delusion. The means and the end are indissolubly connected in the councils of heaven [Note: 2 Thessalonians 2:13.]: and to hope that they shall ever be separated, is to deceive and ruin our own souls. If we are not careful to maintain good works, we entirely counteract all the purposes of God in his Gospel, and cut ourselves off from all hope of salvation [Note: Titus 2:4-8. Mark the eighth verse especially.].]

2. That God has prepared and fitted his people to walk in them [Note: This perhaps is, of the two, the more exact sense of the original.]—

[He has given to his people a new nature, and infused into their souls a new and heavenly principle, by which they “have passed from death unto life.” They have received from Christ “that living water, which is in them as a well of water springing up unto everlasting life [Note: John 4:14.].” They can no more sin in the way they did before [Note: 1 John 3:9.]. Under the influence of the Holy Ghost, they move in a new direction, affecting the things of the Spirit, as formerly they affected the things of the flesh [Note: Romans 8:1-5 and Galatians 5:17.]. They are _created_ in Christ Jesus _unto_ good works; and the impulse given them in this new creation they obey. The metaphor here used, may, if not pressed too far, illustrate the matter, and set it in a clear point of view. God, when he created the heavenly bodies, appointed them their respective paths in the regions of space. To each he gave its proper impulse, having previously fitted it for the performance of the revolutions assigned it: and in their respective orbits he has ever since upheld them, so that they all without exception fulfil the ends for which they were created. Thus in the new creation, God has appointed to all their destined course through the vast expanse of moral and religious duty. He has also, at the time of its new creation, given to each soul the impulse necessary for it, together with all the qualities and dispositions proper for the regulation of its motions according to his will: and he yet further, by his continual, though invisible, agency, preserves them in their appointed way [Note: Men fit themselves for perdition: but it is God alone who fits any for glory. See Romans 9:23. where the same word is used as in the text. See also Isaiah 26:12.]. But further than this the metaphor must not be pressed: for the heavenly bodies have neither consciousness nor volition; but we have both: they too carry with them nothing that can cause an aberration from their destined course; whereas we have innumerable impediments, both within and without: hence they fulfil their destinies without the smallest intermission; whilst we, alas! deviate from the path assigned us in instances without number. Still however, in the event, the purposes of God are at last accomplished, as with them, so with us also: and, notwithstanding, in the estimation of a self-righteous Pharisee, the chief reason for performing good works is taken away, yet are they performed, and shall be performed by every one that has “received the grace of God in truth.”]

Observe then from hence,

1. What need we have of humility—

[The pride of the human heart can never endure the doctrines of grace. So tenacious are men of every thing that may give them a ground of glorying in themselves, that they will rather perish in their own righteousness, than submit to be saved by the righteousness of another [Note: Romans 9:30-33; Romans 10:3.]? But, brethren, you must submit. God will not condescend to your terms. It is in vain to contest the matter with him: it is folly, it is madness, so to do. You know full well, that the fallen angels have no claim on God for mercy: and what have you more than they? But God, who has passed by the angels, has given a Saviour to you, yea, and salvation too, if you will receive it as a gift of grace. Let it not be a hard matter with you to accept the proffered benefit. Would the fallen angels, think you, refuse it, if a tender of it were made to them? O then, prostrate yourselves before your God, as deserving nothing but wrath; and let him glorify in you the unsearchable riches of his grace!]

2. The vast importance of faith—

[It is by faith alone that you can apprehend the Saviour, or be made partakers of his benefits. You must “be saved by grace, _through faith_.” Your whole life must be a life of faith, according to what St. Paul has said, “The life which I now live in the flesh, I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.” But this faith you must receive from above. You can neither come to Christ, nor know Christ, except as you are taught and drawn by the Father [Note: Matthew 11:27. John 6:65.]. Pray to him, saying, “Lord, I believe; help thou my unbelief.” Pray also to him to “increase your faith” yet more and more: for it is only by being strong in faith that you will approve yourselves to God, or abound, as you ought, in all the fruits of righteousness to his praise and glory.]

3. What obligations lie upon you to serve and glorify your God—

[Be it so; you are not to be saved by good works: but is there no other motive that you can find for the performance of them? Do you feel no obligation to Him who sent his only-begotten Son into the world, that you might live through him? When you know that God has “ordained that you should walk in the daily exercise of good works,” have you no desire to please him? And when you know that this is the only path in which it is possible for you ever to arrive at your Father’s house, will you wilfully turn aside from it? If gratitude will not constrain you, will you be insensible to fear? But further, it is by your works that men will judge of your principles: and, though they represent the doctrines of grace as leading to licentiousness, they will expect to see you more holy than others; and if they are disappointed in this, they will cast the blame upon your principles, and upon the Gospel itself. Will you then put a stumbling-block in the way of others, and cause “the name of your God and Saviour to be blasphemed?” No; “you have not so learned Christ, if so be ye have heard him and been taught by him as the truth is in Jesus.” See then that ye abound in every good word and work; and “put to silence the ignorance of foolish men by well-doing.”]


----------



## Kinghezy (Sep 20, 2019)

Travis Fentiman said:


> I would ask everyone, since we all are seeking to be Christ's disciples here, to ask questions of persons first, in order to find out their reasons for things (which private reasons, which might be numerous, might be legitimate) before we criticize, condemn and possibly slander them (and the works of their hands done in and for the service of Christ) publicly.



I have no interest in weighing in the meat of the discussion, but I would like to push back on this. When you put something out there publicly, you are subject to pushback publicly. If Rich has concerns and doesn't express them publicly, no one except you is aware of the concerns Airing this publicly allows everyone to judge for themselves.

This isn't a Matthew 18 scenario that we need to first go to the person before bringing it to a wider body. I know it is difficult to have work you spent time on criticized (I work in an IT Dept, and most feedback we get is when something is not working well). But this board allows us to sharpen each other, which is going to require you to be gracious when people disagree with you.

My

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 21, 2019)

Travis Fentiman said:


> While not agreeing with all of the criticisms made of my material heretofore (many of which condemn most of the puritan articles linked on the webpage, Christ and God's Word itself)...


Travis,

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I'm going to assume the best possible construction but I do think it would be helpful to distinguish between two things:

1. The writings of various Puritans on subjects.
2. Your collations of those writings in order to provide a systematic treatment of what you believe their writings present.

The two are not the same. In other words, an article you present in which you purport to represent the "Reformed Orthodox" position on a topic is not the same thing as the writings of the Puritans. The quotes you decide to marshall, the emphases you choose to make, your assessment of what they are communicating, etc... - these are your observations and conclusions.

If you write an article on Owen and his views on sanctification and good works and you are criticized for the views represented then it is not the same thing as criticizing Owen nor is it the same thing as criticizing Scripture nor is it the same thing as criticizing the "Reformed orthodox position". It may be the case that you have accurately represented the overarching position but it is still subject to review and criticism of how you have represented the material.

As one example (not related to you) but one contributor here repeatedly mishandles Owen to claim that Owen did not consider the Mosaic Covenant to be an administration of the CoG. When rejecting this blogger's view, I am not rejecting Owen nor am I rejecting the Scriptures on this point but only that the person fails to properly understand the distinctions Owen makes with respect to the Covenant of Grace absolutely considered. The fact that he chooses to blog and post here publically opens him up to this criticism. He is not slandered by this criticism and how he chooses to handle correction is up to him.

My point is that it is up to you how you respond to observations regarding how you have gone about the process of presenting material on a sensitive subject. I will continue to be very forthright and critical of material that lacks what I perceive to be the kind of Pastoral sensitivity or lacks the centrality of union with Christ. When we hear sermons from men at Presbytery many will be very forthright in telling a man that they failed to properly handle a text or to put Christ forward. This is not slander but an important rebuke that can either be a cause of hurt feelings or to prepare more carefully in the future.

Reactions: Like 4


----------

