For decades John Piper has taught the substance of what he wrote in the preface to Tom Shreiner’s 2015 book, Faith Alone: The Doctrine of Justification. The claim is that Christians should believe that we “attain heaven” by more than faith, i.e., by our cooperation with grace. This proposition fits with a claim made by others that we are justified by grace alone (sola gratia), through faith alone (sola fide) but that salvation, because it is a broader category, because it includes sanctification, is partly through obedience, faithfulness, or works.1
Piper believes, as he argued in Future Grace (1995), that since he attributes the working of sanctification and good works to God that he is on solid Reformed ground. His appropriation of the Reformed tradition has been disputed, however.2
There were many Augustinian theologians in the pre-Reformation church, including Luther himself before he recovered sola fide in 1519 and the distinction between law and gospel, who said the same sorts of things that Piper says now about salvation. But the magisterial Protestant theologians and the Reformation churches came to speak differently about salvation and especially about the instrument of salvation. Further, the Reformation theologians and churches stoutly rejected one of Piper’s foundational convictions—namely, the distinction between initial justification and final salvation.
His argument that sanctification and good works are the instruments whereby we maintain our salvation contradicts the Reformed confession concerning salvation. That language has more in common with the Remonstrants than with the Reformed churches. In his August 8, 1999 sermon, “Does James Contradict Paul?” Piper said,
But when James affirms “justification by works” he means that works are absolutely necessary in the ongoing life of a Christian to confirm and prove the reality of the faith which justifies. . . . For James, “justification by works” means “maintaining a right standing with God by faith along with the necessary evidence of faith, namely the works of love.”3
As has been observed in this space, the Elder Affirmation of Faith of Bethlehem Baptist Church says, “We believe that this persevering, future-oriented, Christ-embracing, heart-satisfying faith is life-transforming, and therefore renders intelligible the teaching of the Scripture that final salvation in the age to come depends on the transformation of life, and yet does not contradict justification by faith alone. The faith which alone justifies, cannot remain alone, but works through love.”4 This was his approach in Future Grace where argued “almost all future blessings of the Christian life are conditional on our covenant keeping.”5
He argues explicitly that “future grace,” as he puts it, does not depend upon perfect obedience. Rather, he says, God has established a covenant whereby God grants grace to those who do what lies within them or, perhaps more precisely, God grants future grace to those in whom God does what lies within them. But in that case, why is he talking to us since God is the subject of the verb? Clearly, we are also co-subjects of the verb. If the language I used above sounds vaguely familiar, it was the language of Hugh of St. Victor (c. 1096–1141), Peter Lombard, (1096–1160), William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347), and Gabriel Biel (1420–95).6 They all taught that grace is future and it is contingent upon our doing: To those who do what lies within them, God denies not grace (facientibus quod in se est, Deus non denegat gratiam). Ockham and Biel both postulated that God had covenanted to accept our best, imperfect efforts toward justification and salvation. The Reformation categorically rejected that covenant theology. In the Heidelberg Disputation (1518), Luther denounced “doing what lies within us” as a moral sin.7
In contrast to Piper’s formulation, the magisterial Protestants argued that God’s law requires, as the Westminster Divines put it, “perfect and personal obedience” (Westminster Confession of Faith 7.2). Galatians 3:10, quoting Deuteronomy 27:26, says, “For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, ‘Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.’” The law makes no allowances for imperfect obedience. Thus, Christ, they argued, provided that perfect obedience not only for our justification but also for our salvation.
The Reformed rejected the covenant theology proposed by Ockham, Biel, and Piper by categorizing the covenant of works as law and the covenant of grace as gospel. These are both God’s Word but they are distinct and not to be confused. Zacharias Ursinus argued in his Larger Catechism,
Q. 36 What is the difference between the law and the gospel?
A. The law contains the covenant of nature established by God with man in creation; that means, it is known by man from nature, it requires perfect obedience of us to God, and it promises eternal life to those who keep it but threatens eternal punishment to those who do not. The gospel, however, contains the covenant of grace; that means, although it exists, it is not known at all from nature; it shows us Christ’s fulfillment of that righteousness which the law requires, and its restoration in us through Christ’s Spirit; and it promises eternal life freely on account of Christ to those who believe in him.
Ursinus’s covenant theology is the opposite of Piper’s. Where Piper, who rejects the covenant of nature, turns the covenant of grace into a covenant of congruent merit, wherein our imperfect good works become the instrument of final salvation, Ursinus clearly taught that our salvation is freely given to believers—that is, salvation is through faith alone in Christ and not through our works.
More recently, in 2017, Piper argued explicitly that we are not saved by faith alone.8 We are, he argued, initially justified by grace alone, through faith alone, but we are not saved by faith alone. He wrote, “If you substitute other clauses besides ‘We are justified . . .’ such as ‘We are sanctified . . .’ or ‘We will be finally saved at the last judgment . . .’ then the meaning of some of these prepositional phrases must be changed in order to be faithful to Scripture.” With regard to the material issue under debate, he says:
In final salvation at the last judgment, faith is confirmed by the sanctifying fruit it has borne, and we are saved through that fruit and that faith. As Paul says in 2 Thessalonians 2:13, “God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.”9
In contrast to Piper, this essay argues that we should agree with John MacArthur who said, “sanctification is a characteristic of all who are redeemed, not a condition of their receiving salvation.”10
What The Reformed Have Said
In this debate there have been claims about the history of Reformed theology, that the orthodox Reformed theologians of the seventeenth century taught justification sola gratia, sola fide but salvation (the broader category) through works. What the Reformed (e.g., Turretin) frequently said is that good works are necessary ad salutem (unto salvation) as fruit and evidence of faith. Some have drawn the inference that the Reformed intended to teach that good works are instrumental in our salvation. I have disputed this claim.
William Perkins articulated the Reformed consensus when he wrote,
Lastly I answer that the ground of the former objection is erroneous, namely that the promise of salvation depends on the condition of our works: because the Scripture saith, it is made and accomplished on man’s part freely. I grant indeed that to the promise there is annexed a condition of faith: yet faith here must not be considered as a work, but as an instrument apprehending Christ with His benefits: and withal repentance with the fruits thereof are on our part required, yet no otherwise but as they are necessary consequents of faith, and the signs and documents thereof.11
He explicitly rejected the notion that our salvation is conditioned upon works and he contrasted works as the condition of salvation with faith as the condition, and specified more precisely that faith is the sole instrument of salvation.
Louis Berkhof fairly represented the Reformed tradition when he rejected the theory that good works are instrumental in salvation:
[Good works] cannot be regarded as necessary to merit salvation, nor as a means to retain a hold on salvation, nor even as the only way along which to proceed to eternal glory, for children enter salvation without having done any good works. The Bible does not teach that no one can be saved apart from good works. At the same time good works necessarily follow from the union of believers with Christ.12
He taught that good works are fruit and evidence of salvation. Here is the basic distinction which is frequently missed in this discussion (and in the discussion of justification): is and through. It is the case that believers, who are in union with the risen Christ by the sovereign grace of the Spirit, through faith alone, produce fruit. This is the Reformed understanding of our Lord’s teaching about abiding (John 15:4). It is not the case, as some suggest, that we “get in” by grace (e.g., baptism) and we “stay in” by cooperating with grace (abiding). Any such scheme turns the covenant of grace into a covenant of works since, in any event, our abiding, our cooperating, becomes the decisive factor, the sine qua non of salvation.
Consider the language of Belgic Confession article 22:
For it must necessarily follow that either all that is required for our salvation is not in Christ or, if all is in him, then he who has Christ by faith has his salvation entirely. Therefore, to say that Christ is not enough but that something else is needed as well is a most enormous blasphemy against God—for it then would follow that Jesus Christ is only half a Savior. And therefore we justly say with Paul that we are justified “by faith alone” or by faith “apart from works.”
However, we do not mean, properly speaking, that it is faith itself that justifies us—for faith is only the instrument by which we embrace Christ, our righteousness. But Jesus Christ is our righteousness in making available to us all his merits and all the holy works he has done for us and in our place. And faith is the instrument that keeps us in communion with him and with all his benefits. When those benefits are made ours they are more than enough to absolve us of our sins. (emphasis added)
It is true that the Confession used the verb “to justify,” but by it he meant more than justification. Three times he wrote of salvation or a Savior in this part of the article. Remember, the controversy with Rome (and the Anabaptists) was not only over the doctrine of justification but it was also about the broader category of salvation. The primary author of the Confession, Guy de Bres (1522–67) knew that there are two benefits, in this life, that we receive sola gratia, sola fide: justification and sanctification. Calvin called this the duplex gratia Dei and Caspar Olevianus called it the duplex beneficium. The contest with Rome involved justification but it also involved the broader question of deliverance from the wrath to come and our sanctification in this life. Rome taught that we are sanctified unto justification and salvation by grace and free cooperation with grace or by grace and works. The Reformed churches rejected the whole scheme in favor of justification, sanctification, and salvation by favor merited for us by Christ and received by us through faith alone.
We confess explicitly that faith alone is the instrument of our justification and our salvation. As it was for Noah in the flood and for the Israelites at the Red Sea, so it is for us. We are united to Christ by the Spirit through faith alone and through faith alone we commune with him and through faith alone we have been delivered, we are being delivered, and we shall be delivered. Through faith we inherit eternal life.
Part 2 (to be published May 11, 2026)
Editor’s note: A version of this essay was first published in 2015 and appears here significantly revised and enlarged.
©R. Scott Clark. All Rights Reserved.
notes
- Thomas Schreiner, Faith Alone: The Doctrine of Justification, The 5 Solas Series, ed. Matthew Barrett (Zondervan Academic, 2015).
- See e.g., John V. Fesko’s essay, “A Historical-Theological Response To Piper’s What Is Saving Faith, Reformed Faith & Practice, 8.1 (2023): 43–52. The issue under consideration in Fesko’s article is Piper’s definition of faith as knowledge, assent, trust and affections, but Fesko’s criticisms apply generally to Piper’s appropriation of the Reformed tradition.
- See the full quotation on the Heidelblog. Thanks to Angela Werner for the transcription.
- Bethlehem Baptist Church, Elder Affirmation of Faith, 10.3.
- John Piper, The Purifying Power Of Living By Faith In Future Grace (Multnomah Books, 1995), 248.
- Harrison Perkins, Righteous By Design: Covenantal Merit and Adam’s Original Integrity, Reformed Exegetical and Doctrinal Series (Mentor, 2024), 83–136.
- Thesis 16. “The person who believes that he can obtain grace by doing what is in him2 adds sin to sin so that he becomes doubly guilty.” Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, Vol. 31: Career of the Reformer I, ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann (Fortress Press, 1999), 40.
- John Piper, “Does God Really Save Us By Faith Alone?” (September 25, 2017).
- Piper, Does God Really Save Us By Faith Alone?” (emphasis added)
- John MacArthur, The Gospel According to Jesus, Revised & Expanded Anniversary Edition (Zondervan, 2008), 211. (emphasis original)
- William Perkins, A Discourse of Conscience in The Works of William Perkins, ed. Stephen J. Yuille (Reformation Heritage Books, 2019), 8.73.
- Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing co., 1938), 543. (emphasis added)
©R. Scott Clark. All Rights Reserved.
RESOURCES
- Resources On The Controversy Over “Final Salvation Through Works”
- Subscribe To The Heidelblog!
- Download the HeidelApp on Apple App Store or Google Play
- Browse the Heidelshop!
- The Heidelblog Resource Page
- Heidelmedia Resources
- The Ecumenical Creeds
- The Reformed Confessions
- The Heidelberg Catechism
- The Heidelberg Catechism: A Historical, Theological, & Pastoral Commentary (Lexham Press, 2025)
- Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008)
- Why I Am A Christian
- What Must A Christian Believe?
- Heidelblog Contributors
- Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button or send a check to
Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization
R. Scott Clark
R.Scott Clark is the President of the Heidelberg Reformation Association, the author and editor of, and contributor to several books and the author of many articles. He has taught church history and historical theology since 1997 at Westminster Seminary California. He has also taught at Wheaton College, Reformed Theological Seminary, and Concordia University. He has hosted the Heidelblog since 2007.
More by R. Scott Clark ›
Dr. Clark,
Thank you for these thoughts. I read the following in my morning devotions from Kevin DeYoung’s book, Daily Doctrine: “The judgment to come will not render a new justification, but a final corroboration of the justification that has already taken place. Our good works will be brought forth not as the basis for a second justification but as signs, marks, and effects of the first (and only) justification.”
Kevin’s account is superior.
DeYoung’s reference to “marks” makes me think of how John Bunyan in PILGRIM’s PROGRESS described the death of Valiant-For-Truth. Just before crossing the river, Valiant starts giving away his things–his sword, his courage, his skill–but not everything. “My marks and scars I carry with me to be a witness for me, that I have fought His battles, who now will be my Rewarder.”
>>> . . . the court already knows that you have violated the order and will order you to show good cause. The presumption in such a case is that you have violated a court order, and the burden is on you to prove good cause.<<<
In God's court there isn't any presumption of anything. He knows us far better than we know ourselves. If the Supreme Judge of the Universe declares you, "Not Guilty," then you are "Not Guilty." Phillip Melancthon struggled over whether nor not his "proof" was sufficient. Luther answered, "The Gospel is outside of you."
Amen. I am in agreement. To think that the real change in status before God – that is, justification, by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness – is insufficient to attain heaven, such that further evidence is still necessary as a prerequisite, is baffling. If you are justified, it is because God has already made you not guilty. How can it be, then, that He would still require proof as a prerequisite for attaining heaven?
I now realize that I should have made it more clear that I was attempting to deal with the implications of the view that salvation = justification + sanctification. I was most certainly not espousing that view. Again, I apologize.
Dr. Clark, please help me understand . . . am I admitted to Heaven based on just a few good works in addition to scores of bad works or do I simply need to have a net gain in good works vs. bad works?
Never mind, in either case, I’m doomed.
Ordinarily in our legal system there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The burden is on the accuser to prove guilt.
In particular situations, however, the burden is reversed. If a court has ordered you, for example, to pay a fine, and you have failed to do so, the court already knows that you have violated the order and will order you to show good cause. The presumption in such a case is that you have violated a court order, and the burden is on you to prove good cause.
In order to avoid judgment, the violator must not only *possess* good cause, but must *prove* good cause. The status of the violator is “guilty” upon entering the courtroom, and without proof, that status will not change. It is the *possession* of good cause that makes a person “not guilty,” but it is the *proof* that allows the person to leave the courtroom with a “not guilty” status.
Recognizing that sinners, prior to justification, are already “guilty” under the law, it is easy to understand the conclusion that both *possession of justification* and *proof of justification* are necessary in order to receive a changed status for salvation. Of course, it would have to be Christ who provides both the justification and the proof.
Yet there is no way to escape the conclusion that this formulation makes proof not only necessary, but *the decisive element* in salvation. Absent proof, the status of the sinner is not changed, and one who is not actually guilty may still be found guilty for failing to meet the burden.
Thus it is the proof, and not the reality, that is efficacious unto salvation.
Christopher,
I’m struggling to follow this. I suspect that there’s a flawed premise in there somewhere. I suspect the first premise is flawed but there may be another lurking somewhere in there.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding you but you seem to saying that a doctrine of evidence makes it more fundamental than Christ’s righteousness imputed.
If salvation requires both faith and evidence as prerequisites, then faith alone is not sufficient for salvation. If faith alone makes one right with God, but is not sufficient for salvation without meeting other conditions, then being right with God is not sufficient for salvation without meeting other conditions. If being right with God is not sufficient for salvation without meeting other conditions, and if those conditions are not met, then it is possible to be right with God and yet not be saved. If it is possible to be right with God and yet not be saved, and if works are necessary as a prerequisite to save one who is already right with God, then by works you are saved. And if you are saved by works, Christ died for nothing.
That is what I was trying to say. I apologize for failing to express myself more clearly. I am not objecting to the doctrine of evidence, but to the claim that we “attain heaven” by more than faith, i.e., by our cooperation with grace. That claim would make works the instrument of salvation.
Thank you for your posts on this subject. They have been helpful and encouraging. If my analysis is lacking, I would appreciate correction.
This was very helpful and encouraging, thanks!
Mark Jones is too important to read what you wrote, but somebody told him about it—-I’ve been told that some folk are taking issue with John Piper’s Foreword to Thomas Schreiner’s book on justification. According to Piper, who agrees with Schreiner, we are “right with God by faith alone” but we do not “attain heaven by faith alone.” He adds that “there are other conditions for attaining heaven.”
Based on what I believe is a charitable and straight-forward reading of Piper, there is not a single word in his Foreword that seems out of place in terms of the basic Reformed approach to justification, salvation, and conditionality.
Piper affirms strongly and clearly that works do not contribute to the acquisition of salvation. But Piper also wants to affirm that good works should be considered necessary for the obtaining of salvation. I fail to understand how this idea isn’t present in literally dozens of Reformed luminaries from the Early Modern period. As Francis Turretin says:
“This very thing is no less expressly delivered concerning future glory. For since good works have the relation of the means to the end (Jn. 3:5, 16; Mt. 5:8); of the ‘way’ to the goal (Eph. 2:10; Phil 3:14); of the ‘sowing’ to the harvest (Gal. 6:7,8)…of labor to the reward (Mt. 20:1); of the ‘contest’ to the crown (2 Tim. 2:5; 4:8), everyone sees that there is the highest and an indispensable necessity of good works for obtaining glory. It is so great that it cannot be reached without them (Heb. 12:14; Rev. 21:27).”
Again, Piper says we do “not attain heaven by faith alone” and Turretin speaks of the “indispensable necessity of good works for obtaining glory”. I don’t see why we can’t agree that they are saying essentially the same thing; and, indeed, if they are, what is the problem?
For those who have trouble grasping how Piper can affirm that justification is by faith alone, but that entering glory is not by faith alone, we must keep in mind the well-known distinction between the right to life versus the possession of life.
Herman Witsius makes a distinction between the right to life (i.e., acquisition) and the possession of life. The former is “assigned to the obedience of Christ, that all the value of our holiness may be entirely excluded.” However, regarding the latter, “our works…which the Spirit of Christ works in us, and by us, contribute something to the latter.”
Similarly, Petrus van Mastricht once wrote: “in so far as God, whose law we attain just now through the merit alone of Christ, does not want to grant possession of eternal life, unless [it is] beyond faith with good works previously performed. We received once before the right unto eternal life through the merit of Christ alone. But God does not want to grant the possession of eternal life, unless there are, next to faith, also good works which precede this possession, Heb. 12:14; Matt. 7:21; 25:34-36; Rom. 2:7, 10.”
Is there anything in Piper’s Foreword that could not have come from the pen of Witsius or Turretin or Boston or Ball (see Patrick Ramsey’s post here) or Owen or Rutherford or Mastricht? I’m having trouble understanding what the problem is both biblically and historically. In fact, I can point to works by authors in the Reformed tradition who have stated the matter perhaps a little more strongly than Piper does (e.g., Mastricht, Davenant).
It seems one would have to have a built-in bias against Piper – perhaps because of his relationship to Daniel Fuller or perhaps for some other reason – to raise questions about the orthodoxy of his Foreword. And, let’s be honest, it is a serious thing to raise questions about the orthodoxy of someone on this point. It isn’t like we’re talking about complementarianism.
Piper speaks of good works as necessary for attaining heaven. Reformed theologians have spoken of good works as necessary for possessing heaven. In my mind, that’s the same thing. And, quite frankly, I think that’s the better approach rather than causing unnecessary division where there really doesn’t need to be any.
In sum, as Piper says, “there are other conditions for attaining heaven”. Or, by someone else:
“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…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.”
And if you don’t like that last quote, you can take it up with Michael Horton. But I happen to agree with it completely.
– See more at: http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2015/09/in-defense-of-piper.php#sthash.1RDVZBX9.dpuf
“Works do not contribute to the acquisition of salvation,” but “good works should be considered necessary for the obtaining of salvation.”
How can works be “necessary for obtaining” but not “contribute to the acquisition”? How are those two things different? I must not be smart enough for this.
Jack, this is a different Mark, mcculley, mcmark.
On I Corinthinians 3, check out Fesko’s wonderful book on Justification, p 329 Better yet, read the discussion beginning from p 315. Not only does Fesko show that, for the justified elect, judgement is not something different from the resurrection, but also he points us away from “the books” to that “other book”, the Book of Life.
Revelation 20:1 2 I also saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is The BOOK of life, and the dead were judged according to their works by what was written in the BOOKS 13 Then the sea gave up its dead, and Death and Hades gave up their dead; all were judged according to their works. 14 Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And anyone not found written in THE BOOK of life was thrown into the lake of fire.
Luke 10: 20 However, don’t rejoice that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.”
John 5: 24 “I assure you: Anyone who hears My word and believes Him who sent Me has eternal life and will not come under judgment but has passed from death to life…. 28 Do not be amazed at this, because a time is coming when all who are in the graves will hear His voice 29 and come out—those who have done good things, to the resurrection of life, but those who have done wicked things, to the resurrection of judgment.
Fesko argues that “the good things” is Christ’s righteousness imputed, as he also argues that view for the fine linen (Revelation 19)
Thanks, mcmark. Such good quotes. Fesko’s book on Justification doesn’t get much better… That Luke quote, short yet says so much.
I wish someone would quit nuancing the matter and just state that “we are saved by faith but we have to work to keep it.” A lot of effort is spent defending that position while at the same time, those defending, deny they actually hold to it.
America is replete with large, growing churches that offer a “saved but on probation” message. I certainly hope that the success of the “faith plus” congregations is not what is influencing this discussion in reformed circles.
>>>>Salvation involves justification and sanctification. Sanctification is by grace and cooperation with grace (works). Therefore salvation is partly by works.<<<<
Salvation involves justification, sanctification and glorification. What part of glorification is any man's works?
The imperative to “be holy” caused me to stray away from the confessional understanding of sanctification along with the unamed person in “future Grace” which john Robbins refuted to my joy, as i thought i was going mad, i left the catholic church now “reformed” people are telling me salvation is conditional based on my holiness, perhaps if you have not been under a works based religion it may go over your head how this can distract a gaze from Christ and put it on yourself. Thank you Heidelberg catechism for Question 60 & 61….and all the others while we are at it. Thanks for this blog.
John Calvin, seeing that this doctrine of faith alone confuses some when it comes to the subject of the works of believers and their place in man’s salvation, wanted to add two more of his many valuable cents:
—John Calvin, Institutes 3.17.9-10
Calvin, having more to say, thought to send along this addendum to his previous remarks:
Institutes 3.14.11
Hi I’m really perplexed about this and would like to clarify. Calvin says that our works are approved by God as if they were perfect by virtue of Christ’s righteousness covering the impurity of our works. But how does this fit with 1 Cor 3:14-15 where it says that some of our works will be burned up because they were not built on the foundation? ie: these works were sinful and hence burned up.
If God considers all our works as perfect and forgives the sin in them, then doesn’t it mean that none of our works shall be burned up and lost? Been mulling over this for a long time but with no answer, I hope someone can.
Mark,
Let me rush in with my two cents where angels and theologians (not really) fear to tread. My understanding is that the context of Paul’s writing is workers, i.e. apostles and the work they are doing or building for the kingdom of God, not everyday Christians.
The Corinthians were comparing and “grading” the apostles to the point where some were saying: “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.” Paul is asserting that what he built upon the foundation of the gospel that he laid is of one who is a wise master-builder, an apostle by the will of God. He then makes the point that not all builders (apostles) and their work are alike; yet as far as any are the Lord’s and preach Christ:
The wood, hay, and stubble of church planting and/or building up the church of some workers will perish. Yet even though their “work(s)” will be burned up yet they will be saved. Some like Paul are building with gold, silver, and precious stones. Those works will last, not in a temporal sense but eternal.
But even if one wants to take this as pertaining to all Christians, it seems to me that the same principle holds. All my works good and bad are under the blood of Christ. My good works, as defined by Scripture, are accepted because the impurity that is in them is forgiven in that I am forgiven – “Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.” On that Day, the dross of my works shall be burned up, i.e. judged under the wrath of God in Christ’s death on the cross. None of my works on their own can stand that Day. So God’s judgment becomes a refiner’s fire that brings forth the righteousness of Christ in the believer.
My theological two cents (all I’ve got).
Dr. Clark, please feel free to adjust or correct me…
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, appreciate it 🙂
Wonderful & Fulsome Rejoinder & perspicacious explication of ” the influential writer ‘s ” syntactical asymmetry in describing Sola Fide. I shall merely quote the magisterial Calvin : To wit :
450 years ago John Calvin weighed in with his more comprehensive rebuttal in his commentary on Ephesians 2:8-10: For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship,created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
Christianity and Liberalism is .99 right now on Kindle.
I encourage everyone to read Gospel Mystery chapter 8. Marshall’s treatment of “salvation” appears to be at odds with yours, Dr. Clark. He explicitly states it is more than salvation from hell, to heaven:
“One cause of these errors, that are so contrary one to the other, is that many are prone to imagine nothing else to be meant by salvation, but to be delivered from hell, and to enjoy heavenly happiness and glory; thus they conclude that, if good works are a means of glorification, and precedent to it, they must also be a precedent means of our whole salvation; and that, if they be not a necessary means of our whole salvation, they are not at all necessary to glorification. But, though salvation is often taken in Scripture, by way of eminency, for its perfection in the state of heavenly glory, yet, according to its full and proper signification, we are to understand by it all that freedom from the evil of our natural corrupt state, and all those holy and happy enjoyments that we receive from Christ our Saviour, either in this world by faith, or in the world to come by glorification. Thus justification, the gift of the Spirit to dwell in us, the privileges of adoption, are parts of our salvation which we partake of in this life. Thus also, the conformity of our hearts to the law of God, and the fruits of righteousness with which we are filled by Jesus Christ in this life, are a necessary part of our salvation.”
Your treatment of salvation is only in a legal category, from sin’s guilt. We also need and want salvation experientially, from sin’s power. Indeed, these come as a whole package in Christ by faith: those he justified he also glorified.
Jordan,
Yes, everyone should read Marshall.
No, my treatment is decided not of a purely legal character. Did you miss the section on sanctification? Salvation is also from sin’s power. We call that sanctification (and glorification) and I quite agree with Marshall that sanctification and glorification are sola gratia, sola fide. As I have tried to explain repeatedly, there is no question whether good works are necessary but how and to what end. My argument is that they are not the instrument of our salvation. Faith alone is the instrument. Did you listen to the interview with Dennis Johnson (linked above) on the Gospel Mystery?
Before commenting did you read (as I asked) the several articles I linked above? I explained all this at length there, especially in the series on the efficacy and necessity of good works.
Thanks for responding. Yes, I read all the articles when they were posted (most of them over a year old) but did not reread just now. Yes, I listened to the interview when it came out. I see now in one post you say “Having been delivered from the judgment we are now in the process of being delivered from the effects of sin” so that is satisfying.
I maintain, as a suggestion, that speaking of good works as “necessary as a consequence, evidence, and a fruit of justification and sanctification” seems to emphasize them as a mere byproduct instead of the end itself. “We then conclude that holiness in this life is absolutely necessary to salvation, not only as a means to the end, but by a nobler kind of necessity, as part of the end itself.” But I see your point and have no dispute on the instrument aspect.
Jordan,
There is an entire category of materials on the HB devoted to the doctrine of sanctification, i.e., to the moral and logical necessity of fruit as the consequence of justification and sanctification, i.e., as the fruit of salvation.
http://heidelblog.net/category/sanctification/
There is also an entire series (21 posts) of interviews (Season 5 of Office Hours) on the doctrine of sanctification:
http://heidelblog.net/category/office-hours-season-5-new-life-in-the-shadow-of-death/
Here is an entire series of 14 Heidelcast episodes on the moral law of God:
http://heidelblog.net/category/heidelcast-gods-holy-law/
As explained briefly above, we are saved “unto” good works. The categories of “fruit” and “evidence” are the Reformed confessional categories. We are saved that we might be progressively sanctified and consequently more obedient. We are being “created for good works” (ἐπὶ ἔργοις ἀγαθοῖς; Eph 2:10). That is a fruit, a consequence of salvation.
Jordan,
See this passage in Witsius.
(Mark, thanks as well for your comments/observations above.)
This post has caused me to go back and study 2 Cor. 11:3,4, where Paul is concerned that the Corinthians’ MINDS might be led away from the simplicity of Christ.
Their minds may be led to a different Jesus…
and different spirit…
and different gospel.
It’s so easy for this to happen to us… by God’s grace, we may be humbly diligent in simply trusting Christ and Christ alone… and remind one another of the simple, old, “bland” truth of the gospel.
I think the simplicity of Christ and the gospel is an offense to our pride. We want to come up with something new and flashy – some “cutting edge” doctrinal research.
Anyway, Dr. Clark, thank you for reminding us of the simple gospel.
To understand Schreiner on justification, you have to understand him on perseverance. He takes sides with Daniel Fuller against John Calvin. http://trsbu.blogspot.com/p/forty-theses-on-perseverance.html
In the book Schreiner wrote with Caneday,The Race Set Before Us (2001, IVP). Schreiner suggests a “paradox” (p 73) in which works are necessary but also for not focusing on these works but on Christ. How it’s possible to rationally live in that paradox is not so clear. Words like “premeditation” and “intention” play a big part..
I would NOT say that Schreiner’s thesis comes from the “new perspective” or the “federal vision” There’s no need to go to NT Wright or Doug Wilson to find his inspiration.. Schreiner quotes Jonathan Edwards against John Calvin to argue that “works of faith” are necessary for justification.
But I do share the amazement of Don Garlington (who wrote a book on perseverance from the new perspective and got fired for it) that Schreiner seems to be getting a free pass on this. Whether you think Schreiner is right or wrong, it’s difficult to see the big difference between what Schreiner is writing and what Norman Shepherd and Garlington write.
Schreiner agrees that he is reading the warning texts differently than Calvin did. On the question of perseverance as condition (not as evidence ), Schreiner is on the same page as Daniel Fuller ( p 313): “Paul would have agreed with James that Abraham’s work of preparing to sacrifice Isaac was an obedience of faith. He would have disagreed strongly with Calvin, who saw obedience and works as only accompanying genuine faith…James’ s concern in 2:14-26 was to urge a faith that saves a person, not simply to tell a person how they could demonstrate their saving faith…Calvin should have taught that justification depends on a persevering faith, since he regarded Abraham as already justified before Genesis 15:6.”
And then Fuller quotes Edwards: “We are really saved by perseverance…the perseverance which belongs to faith is one thing that is really a fundamental ground of the congruity that faith gives to salvation…For, though a sinner is justified in his first act of faith, yet even then, in that act of justification, God has respect to perseverance as being implied in the first act.”
Scott Clark—As the medieval church accepted the premise that God can only declare one righteous if that one is actually, intrinsically, inherently, righteous (God says what he says because you are what you are) they also developed a corollary: a distinction between initial and final justification.
In the medieval and modern Roman system, one is said to be initially justified in baptism. If one survived infancy (infant mortality rates in the middle ages and through the 16th century were very high) then one was said to have an “unformed faith” until after the grace of confirmation. Following that one is now obligated to final justification based upon inherent, intrinsic, personal sanctity. This holiness was (and is) said to be the fruit of grace, it is Spirit-wrought (condign merit) and cooperation with grace. Faith is now said to be “formed by love” (i.e., grace and cooperation with grace). At the final judgment after one has achieved perfection (following purgatory in most cases; unless one had a plenary indulgence!)
The motive of this system is obvious: To get Christians to behave themselves. It was a complete failure. It didn’t work. …. An early 16th-century council complained that the Roman church was corrupt in head and members! When Luther traveled to Rome, his one trip away from “Germany” (there wasn’t any such thing really in the 16th century), he found corruption on a scale that he could not imagine. He expected to find the holy city, the city of God, a city shining on a hill (7 of them!) but instead he found indulgences for sale to a degree that dwarfed Tetzel’s operation in Germany. The city was rife with prostitution (the scene in the recent Luther film captures this nicely). The principal customers were pilgrims and priests.
The theory is that, if we want Christians to behave, we must suspend their final standing before God upon good behavior or else they have no incentive to be good. The theory is that the best incentive to behave is fear of damnation…. The system was a total failure. The pre-Reformation popes were mostly corrupt. Some of them were outright murderers and adulterers
http://heidelblog.net/2013/08/justification-and-vindication/
“Conclusions And Pastoral Advice”…
and application – Jesus: A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit ; The good man brings out of his good treasure what is good; and the evil man brings out of his evil treasure what is evil.so then, you will know them by their fruits
Thank you for this very helpful post. Thank you for being clear on the gospel.
Seems to me that it comes down to this:
Is Christ’s death on the cross enough, or is it not?
Is Christ’s obedience to the Law credited to my account enough, or is it not?
The above syllogism/teaching seems to reveal an unbelief that Christ’s work is enough.
It ends up changing justification from forensic to factitive.
With this change, all is lost.
It’s hard to believe that “gaining heaven by cooperating with grace” teaching gets any traction in today’s Christianity.
… It’s as though The Reformation never happened.
Well said. A contributing factor to the confusion must be the minimalistic (and sometimes non-existent) Confessions of Faith.