1. The law is made void by grace. Justification by faith alone renders good works unnecessary.
That statement is correct to the extent that good works are not instrumental of salvation
2. Since good works are unnecessary, obedience to the law is not required of justified persons.
Not required to save, yes.
3. God sees no sin in the justified, who are no longer bound by the law, and is not displeased with them if they sin.
Now this one we have to be VERY careful about, because this one can quickly turn into making the law as my atonement instead of Christ, because when and if I sin I fall into the trap of believing I need to try to keep the law harder to atone for my sin.
4. God therefore does not chastise justified persons for sin.
Obviously this is not supported by Scripture. While we are saved from the ultimate penalty of sin (damnation) we can surely be affected by the temporal consequences of sin
5. Nor can sin in any way injure the justified.
Again, see #4
6. Since no duties or obligations are admitted in the gospel, faith and repentance are not commanded.
Illogical. Faith is the instrumental means of justification; repentance is a natural consequence of that faith. A Christian cannot help but be repentant due to the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit
7. The Christian need not repent in order to receive pardon of sin.
Again, if you mean the false idea that our repentance rather than the finished work of Christ is the grounds of our justification, then there could be a point here (there IS a difference, btw), but repentance is a natural by-product of saving faith and will naturally follow, as Calvin indicated.
8. Nor need he mortify sin; Christ has mortified sin for him.
Yes and no. Yes, Christ's perfect obedience to the law is done on our behalf; again, in the sense that somehow our mortification contributes to our salvation, this thesis is correct. But again, the new nature and the Spirit make us WANT to mortify sin, not because it saves us, but because we are already saved. To put it in a marital analogy, I please my wife, not because I fear she'll divorce me, but because I love her. Big difference.
9. Nor ought he be distressed in conscience upon backsliding, but he should hold fast to a full assurance of his salvation in the midst of the vilest sins.
I actually agree with this statement, because the alternative to it is a step in the direction of works-righteousness. I'm sorry, but if we say salvation is in Christ alone, then we really need to mean Christ ALONE. That does not mean that wallowing in sin is desirable, to be sure, but again, the alternative to this is saying "I'm saved because I'm a good person," which is impossible because God demands perfect goodness from us, and we will never fulfill that this side of eternity.
10. Justifying faith is the assurance that one is already justified.
Not sure I understand this one. If by this the thesis purports that I am justified because of Christ's work on the cross, then this is corect. But if it means a presumptive justification without actual regeneration, then there's a problem.
11. The elect are actually justified before they believe, even from all eternity.
Now we get sticky. If you mean that the elect, at a predetermined time in history, will come to saving faith, then yes. But, all people are born condemned. In other words, I, J. Dean, at one point in my life, was NOT saved, even though I was predestined by God to come to saving faith.
12. Therefore, they were never children of wrath or under condemnation.
False. See Eph 2
13. Their sin, as to its very being, was imputed to Christ so as not to be theirs, and His holiness is imputed to them as their only sanctification.
That statement is correct ONLY IF it is understood that the effectual working of regeneration happens at a specific point in time ordained by God; but prior to that point in space-time, the elect are actually not part of the covenant people in concrete standing (in other words, were an elect person to die before conversion they would be non-elect, if that makes sense).
14. Sanctification is no evidence of justification, for assurance is the fruit of an immediate revelation that one is an elect person.
Agree completely with this. A person can do "good works," even works of a Christian nature, yet not be saved. Just because a person appears to be doing good does not mean he is truly saved. A Mormon may resemble a Christian in outward works, yet nobody here would even consider the Mormon doctrine of salvation to be orthodox.
15. No conviction by the law precedes the sinner’s closing with Christ, inasmuch as Christ is freely offered to sinners as sinners.
Violates the whole principle of "law and gospel" as understood by Luther, Calvin, et al. One must be told what one is saved from in order to say one can be saved.
16. Repentance is produced not by the law, but by the gospel only.
This thesis is only half right. Repentance is produced by saving faith. It is granted by God (I don't know the passage offhand, but Paul talks about God "granting repentence" to people). It is not "produced" by the law OR the gospel intrinsically, but by the working of the Spirit in faith.
17. The secret counsel of God is the rule of man’s conduct.
Not sure what is meant by this thesis
18. God is the author and approver of sin, for sin is the accomplishment of His will.
Contrary to Scripture insofar as that it makes God the "author" of sin. God detests sin; while it is true that God uses sin in the accomplisment of His will, God does not call evil "good," nor does He encourage the accomplishment of His will through wickedness.
19. Unless the Spirit works holiness in the soul, there is no obligation to be holy or to strive toward that end.
Again, we have to be careful about this one. For a regenerate person, the Spirit does indeed work holiness in the soul, and it is by this that the Christian desires to do good for the glory of God and for the good of his neighbor. There is an obligation externally to be holy, but this obligation MUST be kept in light of the fact that 1.) Unregenerate man cannot be holy, 2.) Unregenerate man has no desire whatsoever to be holy by the standard of God, 3.) All efforts to be holy or to strive for that end are fruitless apart from conversion, and 4.) Our striving for holiness even after conversion is not the grounds for our justification, nor is the fruit of holiness the grounds for our justification. Again, this one can easily flop into works-righteousness if care is not taken.
20. All externals are useless or indifferent, since the Spirit alone gives life.
Again, if we're talking about salvation/regeneration, then yes, this point is correct. That being said, the Spirit as He so desires can and does work through externalities (preaching of the Word, for example).
Any surprises in the above?
I don't know if I'd say there are surprises, but I would caution that the answers to some of those proposed theses are not necessarily an equal and opposing answer in the negative. As somebody who went through churches that flirted too much with works righteousness, I would say that the temptation to legalism is just as great, if not more so, as the temptation to slip into antinomianism. To be honest, I see a great deal more error in the direction of works-righteousness than I do in the direction of lawlessness, though I do not deny that the latter can be a real error for some.
AMR
