Saving Faith and the Question of Works

Recently I encountered someone bringing a rather novel interpretation to the 'Lord, Lord' passage of Matthew 7. The well-known pericope contained within the Sermon on the Mount is for many (and rightly) a source of trembling. It speaks to self-deception and false faith.

The idea in the passage is that people can make professions and yet be deceived. This is in keeping with the teaching of the New Testament. While the Apostles certainly taught about Sovereign Grace, Election and Justification by Faith alone, they also defined faith in terms of persevering trust and obedience. They defined the Christian life in terms of sacrifice, cross-bearing and antithesis.

There's a real danger of apostasy as well as false-faith. For those that have unduly overemphasised either 1.) the intellectual definition of faith rooted in knowledge and assent and/or 2.) have downplayed the question of fiducia or trust, this and many other passages are troubling to say the least. In addition a rationalised overemphasis or prioritisation with regard to Sola Fide (Justification by Faith Alone) and/or Election can also lead one into this intellectual and systematic trap.

The novel interpretation I speak of argued that the condemned people argued for access to heaven on the basis of their works. They were adherents of a merit-based soteriology and were being turned away thus.

This erroneous interpretation is easily exposed by the preceding context. Our Lord was speaking about the 'difficult' narrow gate and the fact that few find it. Additionally he was warning them of the perils associated with false teachers. These wolves come as sheep, as prophets. By implication they are within the flock, within the borders (so to speak) of God's Kingdom.

By their fruits you will know them. Obviously a mere profession is not enough. It neither exemplifies saving faith nor is it sufficient in terms of a sort of spiritual empiricism that the Church must employ. Lacking the eternal perspective of the Divine we are given a limited view. We cannot tell if someone is elect or if the Spirit is indeed dwelling within them. We have to go by the external means God has provided. There are objective means such as participation in the life of the Church, regularly expressing faith and repentance, but then there are subjective means of which we can never (in This Age) attain absolute certainty. That said, we are told that with some confidence we can 'know' who is true or false by their fruits. There are many other passages that speak to this throughout the New Testament.

Verse 21 delves deeper into this question and this is where the reality does become sobering if not troubling. Some of these wolves, these false teachers will clearly be (to a degree) sincere. They really and truly believe they are serving God. Indeed we're told elsewhere (John 16) that True Christians will be persecuted by those who think they do God service.

God is not playing games with us. You won't be a genuine believer who dies and appears before the Judgment to find out that you weren't elect and are therefore sent into damnation. There are some whose thinking if not their theology approaches this view.

If you really believe and repent then indeed you can have tremendous assurance... but that's different from presumption. Hope is not the same as absolutely possessing a thing (Romans 8.24). The Parable of the Sower warns of weeds and worldly cares. We are exhorted repeatedly to examine ourselves, to wrestle, to run the race, to endure. Repeatedly salvation is qualified by many an 'if' and even some rather grim and sober warnings.

The worldly Christian has no care for these things. The Cheap Grace Gospel of Evangelicalism reduces salvation to a 'Get out of Jail Free' card or even 'fire insurance' as it is sometimes crudely put.

We are warned that some will make merchandise of God's people. While figures like Oral Roberts and Joel Osteen immediately come to mind, not every example of this heresy need be so ostentatious and extreme. It can be just as true when it comes to a 'humble' ministry or even a local 'pastor'.

There are worldlings who enter the Church for various reasons, often seeking some variety of 'gain'. It can come in many different forms. It's not just money. There's more to mammon worship than merely the accumulation of coin.

Other worldlings enter the Church out of a desire to fit in, to be part of something, to view themselves as noble, good or respectable. Some indeed sorrow but in a worldly fashion. Their repentance isn't real. Others view Christianity as the great lore puzzle, the secret unlocking of arcane knowledge or key to some sort of elite mastery. This latter tendency occurs within certain Calvinistic factions and has been (with warrant) labeled by some as a form Neo-Gnosticism.

As mentioned previously for some the issue is philosophical. These questions rest on rational coherence. They have latched onto or anchored themselves on some point of doctrine that particularly struck them... perhaps emotionally. Whether it's the Free Grace of Justification by Faith Alone or the wonders of predestination and election... they have made these points the Centraldogma or axiomatic a priori of a rationally deduced system.

The Matthew 7 passage in some way doesn't fit in with the grid they've constructed. And yet Matthew 7 is only the beginning of their problems. A closer reading of the New Testament will reveal there are verses in virtually every chapter, yea on every page that are 'problematic' for them.

Whether the emphasis is on Sola Fide or Election the problem is the same. With regard to the prioritisation of Election, they would say it is not to be set against Sola Fide but is instead a wider and more foundational concept that seeks to explain the reality of Justification by Faith Alone. It is the doctrine upon which non-meritorious faith rests. For others the question does not entail concerns with predestination but instead is rooted in notions of rationality, human responsibility and concerns with regard to perceived equity in how God deals with mankind.

And yet the Scriptures speak extensively about works and their necessity. From Paul's declaration that we are created for good works, to James' declaration that faith without works is dead and that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone... to Paul's warnings to the Colossians that their faith must be grounded and settled and that they must not move away from the hope of the Gospel... to the multitude of divers warnings in Hebrews, we are repeatedly exhorted to continue in the faith, to put sin to death, to seek holiness and we are warned by both the author of Hebrews and Paul to avoid the sins of the Israelites in the wilderness. They were baptised as we are. They ate the same food and drink which was Christ.

And yet they stumbled and fell. They are examples for us. We are to take heed lest we fall. We are therefore to flee idolatry and overcome temptation lest we too die in the wilderness. We are to exhort ourselves and our brethren daily, not just on the Old Testament Sabbath. We are to daily avoid hardening our hearts like the Hebrews did. This is done through by a life characterised by living faith and repentance. We must be on guard due to the deceitfulness of sin. We can fool ourselves and think we're doing God service when in fact we are serving our own desires, our own bellies.

If we fall back into the world desiring the fruits and meats of Egypt, if we refuse to live by faith... by obeying... then we run the risk of being denied entry into God's rest. The warning of Hebrews 3 rings true in the words of Matthew 7. "I never knew you."

Matthew 7 is not about people bringing their works to the Day of Judgment. It's about people who while bearing the signs and seals of the New Covenant never understood the nature of saving faith or failed to heed the warnings and fell into the sin of pride. It's about people who didn't persevere and fell away. It's about people who in some cases outwardly persevered (dying as Christians in good standing) but inwardly fell prey to the flesh... even their works were rotten because they were done for self-glorification, gain, power, worldly accolade, respect or yes, in self-righteousness. They were not done to the glory of God. They were in some cases choked by the deceitfulness of riches and the cares of this world.

There's a hint of truth in what I have labeled the 'novel' reading of Matthew 7 and yet in excluding the larger context, this reading misses the mark.

And yet it is related to a larger category of questions with regard to works. What I have briefly laid out, largely by paraphrasing a host of verses from the New Testament many an Evangelical and Confessionalist will decry as a works-based salvation. They will say that the theology I espouse is somehow a denial of Justification by Faith Alone.

We encounter this regularly when reading critiques of Norman Shepherd and the Federal Vision movement. Now (some months after I wrote this) even the Calvinistic Baptist John Piper finds himself embroiled in a similar controversy. These various parties and persons are accused of being Roman Catholic in their understanding of justification, that their soteriology is all but equivalent to that of Rome and is treading down the same path.

There is much to criticise when it comes to the Federal Vision and Norman Shepherd. Their Dominion theology, Postmillennial Eschatology and in the case of Federal Vision, High Church liturgicalism are certainly in error and contrary to Scripture. Nevertheless their understanding of the Gospel, of Saving Faith and even the Scriptural duality with regard to the sacraments represents an improvement, a position much closer to the full-orbed presentation granted to us in the New Testament, yea in the whole of Scripture.

Are the charges just? Are they flirting with Rome when it comes to the Gospel?

First it must be said that many Protestants embrace a caricatured understanding of Roman Catholic soteriology. In general the theology of Rome is subtle and at times duplicitous. There are ambiguities and despite a degree of specificity in the realm of dogma there is a great deal of latitude.

But to charge the Federal Visionists, Norman Shepherd and John Piper (Calvinists all) of being Roman Catholic in their doctrine of the gospel probably qualifies for the Straw Man Fallacy on a massive scale.

Ironically it is the Federal Vision and Shepherd who have most vigorously challenged the whole notion of merit, a concept with deep roots in Medieval Roman Catholic Scholasticism. They make the case that merit theology is wrong-headed and unbiblical and they instead argue that 'obedience' as opposed to merit is the proper category to consider when we speak of Saving Faith and the work accomplished by Christ.

This debate gets bogged down and becomes confusing. It affects not just the nature of Christ's work in procuring salvation but it also touches on the theology of Adam. What was the nature of the arrangement prior to the Fall and then in what ways is the First Adam analogous to the Second?

While I will grant the Federal Vision faction that 'obedience' is both a word and concept that literally leaps off the pages of the New Testament within the discussion of saving faith and its nature, I am less than convinced of their arguments against a works principle in the Garden. I will be accused (and have been) of mixing apples and oranges, equivocating and straddling the fence between two contradictory positions on these questions. The accusation rests on a false premise, that of a coherence test. I have no real concern for such tests of validity.  I'm not interested in Systematic Theology but rather in accurately reflecting Biblical Doctrine. I'm not interested in adhering to a faction or making my position cohere with one or the other warring parties. As is often the case there's truth and error to be found in both camps.

The only justification required is whether or not the doctrine we hold and teach and the words we use to describe it are analogous to what is revealed in Scripture. Formulating speculative dogmas on the basis of rational deduction and inference is neither helpful nor Biblical.

Returning to the question of works, I rarely find anyone who raises a simple question which (to me) completely recasts the issue of whether or not Protestants insisting on a living faith, one that requires obedience and works are indeed teaching Salvation by Works akin to Roman Catholicism.

What works? What are they? How are they defined?

Are the works fruits of the Spirit such as repentance, mortification, longsuffering and self-control? Are the works rooted in the evidence of a renewed mind that thinks on a different plane with regard to questions of money, possessions and power? Are the works wed to the pilgrim ethic, the antithesis laid out so clearly by Paul in 1 Corinthians chapters 4-7? Are the works Scriptural expressions of an active and living faith?

Are these the works Rome is talking about?

Nothing could be further from the truth. Roman Catholic works have nothing to do with Scripture. Their works are wed to fallacious traditions such as supererogation, the treasury of merit, the cult of the saints and the false doctrine of Purgatory. Rome's works are tied to the sacerdotal system and a culturally syncretic tradition defined and decreed by the Magisterium and the so-called Vicar of Christ's ex cathedra proclamations.

When speaking of works as defined by Rome, Scripture is at best a peripheral concern of minimal authority. It is but a component within a larger philosophical synthesis of pagan and Christian thought.

There are many Protestants who are either guilty of gross misrepresentation and caricature or are perhaps wholly ignorant of these questions. One wonders if they are utterly lacking in their grasp of both Dogmatics and Historical Theology. Their arguments are all too often rooted in affirming the consequent, which by their own standards is a fallacy. It is they who are confusing apples and oranges in insisting that all discussions of faith and works immediately land someone in the Roman Catholic camp.

But of one thing I am certain, that many such critics are ignorant of Scripture or are unwilling to wholly submit to its teachings.

Good men may disagree over doctrinal issues but the Protestant Sola Fide metanarrative has blinded many Evangelicals and Confessionalists when it comes to these questions. Exhortations to perform works, exhibit obedience, and dire warnings fill the pages of the New Testament. Let me say it again, they fill the pages of the New Testament.

Neither I, the Federal Vision faction, John Piper or Norman Shepherd are for a moment suggesting that salvation is something acquired by Faith and Works. While a few still make this charge most will instead say that the position is held by inference. One deduces that my/our soteriology is works-based on the basis of the things we say, despite our formal claims.

While James the author of the New Testament epistle has little difficulty in stressing the necessity of works, for the sake of clarity, charity and in the interests of not precision but accuracy (they are not the same thing) we must once again declare...

Salvation is not earned. It is not achieved by a synthesis of faith and works. Salvation is not given by grace and then kept by the power of man. Works might better be defined as outworkings and evidences of faith-wrought trust and obedience. Pardon the circularity but it is somewhat unavoidable. Faith is trust. Trust in authority implies, nay necessitates a degree of obedience, a desire (albeit flawed) to follow through. It's a package or a better analogy and one I often use is that of the multi-faceted jewel.

Scripture reveals different facets (doctrinal concepts) regarding the Gospel and questions of Salvation, but we would be wrong to prioritise any of them at the expense of the others. If any concept does receive priority it's that of being 'in' Christ, in union wrought by the Spirit. It is only in light of this truth that we can begin to understand how concepts such as justification, mortification, sanctification, adoption and glorification begin to function. The Confessional habit of prioritising Justification and subordinating Sanctification under a separate heading and then precisely splitting Regeneration and Conversion are systematically somewhat dubious and certainly Biblically unsustainable. The Scriptures don't speak that way, and frankly many in their own tradition didn't either but that's a discussion for another day. Additionally there is a duality and thus a dynamism overshadowing the way the New Testament uses these terms. While it harmonises quite nicely with the Already-Not Yet (present-future) language and motif of the New Testament it does not lend itself to the precisionist impulses of the Systematician.

Discussing works and their necessity may cast shadows of doubt over certain Reformation formulations and their subsequent enshrinement in Confessional statements. Justification by Faith is true. Even Justification by Faith alone is true, though it must be rightly understood. It is implied in Romans 3, but it's not in the text itself.

Should the Confessions be re-written? Should the words be retained and be re-defined in light of a better understanding? Though some will disagree but I think what's best is to put them on the shelf and use them as historical reference, lessons in misplaced zeal and methodological error. Besides a close examination of the Confessions will reveal that in more than a few cases the redefinition and modification of terms has already occurred. How many today would be comfortable with equating Regeneration and Sanctification in the way the Reformers did? How many have confused Eternal Security with Perseverance of the Saints? They are not the same thing. And so because of the confusion in some ways it's better to set aside the Confession. All too often the arguments degenerate into battles over the tradition and who gets to 'claim' it rather than what the Scriptures teach.

The question is once again... what is saving faith?

Once this question is rightly framed the issue of a salvation based on faith and works is quickly and rightly set aside. Man-made works or a seeking of righteousness based on merit are rejections of the gospel. A saving faith that is defined by intellectual knowledge and a trusting obedience has nothing to do with 'earning' or even 'keeping' salvation.

We are wretched sinners all our days. Even when we're forgiven, possess the new nature and are granted the Spirit in earnest, we groan and are burdened. We fail every day, every hour, every minute and second. Nevertheless the Spirit intercedes and through our flawed motivations, clumsy and hubris-ridden attempts to do what is right we nevertheless please God and glorify him. This is at the heart of the Christian struggle in Romans 7. Many have argued Paul is not describing the travails of a believer but is speaking as an unregenerate Jew or parabolically as the Jews corporately speaking. This view is quite mistaken. Paul is speaking of a Christian who desires to serve God, someone seeking God. The language is not applicable to the unbeliever. Paul reiterates the Romans 7 struggle in Galatians 5.17. This is especially ironic as Galatians itself, the epistle so often appealed to by the Hyper-Solafideist crowd contains many passages which belie their understanding of saving faith.

Obedience in saving faith has nothing to do with quantitative merit, accumulation or reward. The difference is qualitative. God puts within us a heart to serve Him, to rest in Him, to repent and believe continually, to cry out for aid and solace.

We are dead to sin but like Paul (Rom 8.13, Col 3.5) we die daily and labour to put to death the deeds and desires of the flesh. This is not based on an attempt to attain salvation.

We do these things, pathetic and failing as we are... because it's who we are. We are changed, citizens of heaven. By God's grace and strength we persevere.

Romish doctrine entertains such categories. Yes, and broken clocks are right twice a day. Magisterial Protestants will be the first to admit that Rome has many things right. There are still hints of Gospel-truth buried beneath the mountains of rancid tradition and Papal filth. And yet whenever Rome does speak truth... it's always in corrupted form.

Sola Fide is a fine doctrine and in light of its context, understandable. Luther stumbled on to great truths but placed them into a flawed grid, one unable to be reconciled with Scripture. Sola Fide is true but not in the way it has often been understood and presented. Despite what some would pretend the issue is not clear-cut. Within a generation of 1517 already there were disputes over how this doctrine functions. The differences would only grow. Despite the lip service, Lutherans, Calvinists and Anglicans do not agree on what faith is... and yet anyone who dares to challenge the accepted narratives and forms of the Magisterial Reformation is quickly denounced as a heretic and a friend of Rome. If one bothers to pursue the question they will find that even within Confessional traditions the meanings and emphases of these doctrines and how they're understood has often shifted and changed over time. And yet anti-Confessionalists are decried as Pietists and Anabaptists who opened the door to theological liberalism. This narrative is bogus and self-serving.

The doctrine of Salvation by Faith is clearly taught in the New Testament and one easy to locate in Church History by both mainstream and dissenting figures.

Most understandings of the Protestant formulation of Sola Fide have no historical precedent and when compared to Scripture represent something of a reductionism. This theological tendency of reduction and systematisation hark back to basic issues of prolegomena. This is where the real debate is found and yet continues to be largely ignored. The ecumenical forms and symbols of the ancient (and yet Post-Constantinian) Church are accepted, albeit arbitrarily. The premise of systematic confessionalism is accepted by all Magisterial Protestants. It's how they define themselves and thus to challenge the very premise of the form and method is to cast down the platform upon which they stand.

Magisterial and Confessional Protestantism has dug itself into a hole and there's no way out.

It has led them to embrace historiographical dissonance, myth and some rather bizarre metanarratives. But I will take that up in the next segment.

In the meantime suffice it say that salvation is wholly of God's grace and justification is certainly by faith alone. But faith must be defined and the 'alone' must not be utilised as an a priori starting point for a deductive system constructed on man-made and dependent categories of logic.

This is heresy to many but I would ask... is it heresy because I have violated the Confessions? Is it heresy because I'm failing to follow the rules of logical deduction?

What does the Scripture say? That's my only concern. As one who rejects both the heritage of Rome and the Magisterial Reformation, the issues here are fairly clear. In this year of Reformation anniversaries many debate as to whether or not the Reformation is dead. In many ways the issues are very much alive. In other senses the Reformation and much of what it stood for died generations ago, even centuries ago.

I recently heard someone say the Reformation still matters because as Reformed Protestants they believe the Reformers 'got it right'. That statement can be challenged on its vagueness and generalisation alone, but I think we all understand what is meant.

I would modify the statement. They got it 'mostly' or really 'somewhat' right. But they also got much wrong and sowed seeds for subsequent errors (some of tremendous magnitude) that would bear fruit in future generations.

The Reformers are not heroes. They were just men, well-meaning but flawed. Some were giants in terms of the Western tradition but that does not mean they were giants in the faith.

At this moment, more than ever we need a new Reformation, a true return to Scripture. I could write another paper on why I think this is so and in particular at this time in Church History. God is sovereign and it may be His will to bring about such a reformation... or not. We do not know the mystery that is His plan nor the nature of His timetable.

We can argue for another generation about Justification and questions of Soteriology. Indeed what could be more important the Gospel?

And yet until we revisit the question of authority, the question of Sola Scriptura and what it really means, I'm afraid we're caught in a vicious circle like the proverbial hamster on a wheel.

See also:

http://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2012/02/justification-controversies-in.html

http://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2011/05/hyper-solafideism-and-meta-system-part.html

http://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2011/05/saving-faith-temporary-faith-and.html

http://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2017/09/inbox-right-and-wrong-of-nt-wright.html