Are good works necessary to salvation?

[PuritanCovenanter]

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...

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

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]

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.

 

[Afterthought]

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.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

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.

 

[Afterthought]

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.

 

[Knecht Christi]

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.

 

[RJ Spencer]

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?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

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.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

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.

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.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

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]

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.

 

[De Jager]

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.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

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]

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]

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)​

1. 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.
2. Godly Rebuke - But the other boldly gave a godly rebuke to the first thief.
3. Fear of God - Proclaiming his newfound fear of God. "Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?"
4. Justified God -- by accepting their death as the deserved judgment of God.
5. 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."
6. More Knowledge of God -- Acknowledged Jesus as Lord
7. and, believing in the mercy and forgiveness of God, said, "Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom."
8. 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.
   
9. 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

 

[Poimen]

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.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

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.

 

[Susan777]

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.

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

 

[Dachaser]

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!

 

[Nate]

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:

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...

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

...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.

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.

 

[RJ Spencer]

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.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

This extract is useful to the present discussion:

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

 

[Ed Walsh]

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]

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!

 

[De Jager]

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.