Good Works and Salvation

John Colquhoun’s propositions on “The Necessity of Good Works” [From A Treatise on the Law and Gospel. Pages 289-303]:

In what ways good works ARE NOT necessary:

1.       Good works are not necessary to move God to be merciful and gracious to us.

2.       Our good works are not necessary to afford us a right to trust in Christ for salvation

3.       Neither are good works necessary to acquire for us a personal interest in Christ

4.       Good Works are not requisite to acquire for us a right to increasing degrees of sanctification

5.       Once more, good works have no place in obtaining for the saints a right to eternal life in heaven.

In what ways good works ARE necessary:

1.       They are necessary as just acknowledgments of God’s sovereign authority over believers, and as acts of obedience to His righteous commands

2.       Good works are indispensably requisite as being one special end of election, redemption, regeneration, and effectual vocation of the objects of God’s everlasting love.

3.       Good works are also necessary inasmuch as they are one great design of the gospel, and of the ordinances and providential dispensations of the Lord.

4.       It is indispensably requisite that believers perform good works as expressions of gratitude to their God and Savior for all His inestimable benefits vouchsafed to them.

5.       Good works are not less necessary as they are our walking in the way which leads to heaven.

6.       Good works are also indispensably requisite in order to evidence and confirm the faith of the saints.

7.       Good works are necessary to believers for making their calling and election sure to them.

8.       Good works are indispensably requisite for the maintenance or continuance of peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.

9.       Good works are no less needful in order to adorn the doctrine of God our Savior, and our profession of that holy and heavenly doctrine.

10.   Good works are also requisite to stop the mouths of wicked men and to prevent offense.

11.   They are necessary, moreover, for the edification and comfort of fellow Christians.

12.   Finally good works are indispensably requisite for promoting before the world the manifested glory of Christ, and of God in Him.

Colquhoun on Good Works and Salvation

In commending good works, John Colquhoun adds this important warning:

Believers are not saved either by their works, for their works, or according to their works:

We are not saved by them: "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us." (Titus 3:5)

We are not saved for them. "It is not for your sake do I this, saith the Lord God, be it known unto you" (Ezekiel 36:32)

We are not saved according to them. "He hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace." (2 Timothy 1:9) Men are indeed to be judged according to their works; but are not to be saved according to them. The rule of judgement will be the law; but the rule of salvation will be the gospel.

Law? What is it good for?

The Westminster Confession of Faith 19.6 contains a helpful summary of why the law is of use, even to believers under the gospel, and allows us to see obedience as being natural under the gospel, rather than how it is used in American evangelicalism as a sign of "legalism" [improperly understood]. Here, I attempt to give an outline to help demonstrate this:

6. 
   a. Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified, or condemned; [Romans 8:1]
   b. yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that,
   
   1. as a rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly;
      
   2. discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts, and lives;
      
   3. so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin,
      
   4. together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ,
      
   5. and the perfection of his obedience.
      
   6. It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin: and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve;
      
   7. and what afflictions, in this life, they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law.
      
   8. The promises of it, in like manner, show them God's approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof: although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works.
      [POINT:] So as, a man's doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourageth to the one, and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law; and, not under grace.
      

In 2007, R. Scott Clark, history professor at Westminster Seminary California pens a piece on the origins and character of what has come to be known as "Federal Vision" or "Auburn Avenue" Theology. This is an excellent primer on one of the most serious threats to the Gospel in the Reformed community:

For Those Just Tuning In: What is the Federal Vision?

by R. Scott Clark

 

In talk radio the host is supposed to “re-set” the show at regular intervals. He is to remind listeners to which show they are listening and on what network or station. One reason why the host does this is because some listeners are just tuning in. Some people are “just tuning in,” as it were, to the Federal Vision (FV) controversy and this might be a good time to re-set the show.

The FV is 33-year old movement that originated, at least in this episode, with the Rev Mr Norman Shepherd who was then teaching systematic theology at Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia). In 1974 he defined faith, in the act of justification, to be “faith and works.” It was not that, in justification, faith is “receiving and resting” and works are evidence and thus a sort of vindicatory justification of the claim that one believes. Nothing so nuanced or Reformed. Rather, he flatly claimed that there are two parts to faith in justification. When that created a predictable uproar, he modified his language to “faithfulness.” At the same time he, and others, was about revising covenant theology. In baptism, he wrote, we are all united to Christ and receive the benefits of Christ temporarily and conditionally. What is the condition of retaining them? Faithfulness!

READ MORE HERE

Pleasing and Satisfying God

A Question arises when speaking about conduct and God’s attitude towards a believer. Can God be satisfied by my actions? Can I please or displease God by my actions? To some the answer to both is an obvious yes, to others the answer is an obvious no. Those who say yes say there are actions that are more pleasing to God and actions that are less pleasing to God. Those who say no point to the work of Christ, and that his work standing for ours means that God at no point loves us more or less than with the love of His Son and so is always perfectly pleased with us.

If you noticed the two questions, you may have noticed there is a change of language from inquiring of God’s “satisfaction” to wondering about God’s being “pleased.” Such a difference in language is intentional. I wish to show why my answer to those questions is different:

1) Can God be satisfied by my actions?

My answer: No. Our actions cannot satisfy God.

Lewis S. Chaffer was known for saying to his students in class over and over again: “God is fully satisfied.” He wanted to ingrain to them that they were not in seminary or going into the ministry to satisfy God, and if they were, they were there for the wrong reason.

Satisfaction has a particular meaning referring to the justice of God. By that standard, we required the substitution of the work of Christ, Such as Described in Romans 5:17-19. Our Catechism describes the blessing of justification in such a way that “Justification is an act of God’s free grace unto sinners, in which he pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ,”

Christ has fully satisfied the justice of God. The only righteousness that causes us to be just in the sight of God is the righteousness of Christ and our actions cannot satisfy God more or less than the work of Christ.

But to the second question:

2) Can I please or displease God by my actions?

Yes. We are specifically told that our actions and our walk relate to God’s being pleased:

1 Thess 4:1 Finally, then, brothers, we ask and urge you in the Lord Jesus, that as you received from us how you ought to walk and to please God, just as you are doing, that you do so more and more.

Other places contain instructions encouraging us to “try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord.” (Eph 5:10) So this leaves us wondering, do these things contradict? To say God cannot be more satisfied, but that I ought to work towards pleasing the Lord?

These do not contradict, but sweetly comply. Satisfaction refers to the legal judgment of God. Thus, in justification we are taught that Christ’s satisfaction stands for us, that God is perfectly satisfied in his divine justice in the work of His Son taking our place and penalty. However, pleasing in the sense of the believer acting towards God does not refer to that legal aspect. We do not add to or take away from our justification. In justification, God related to us as a Judge. Now that justice has been satisfied before that Judge, we are told that we have been adopted (Gal 4:6-7). Notice, for instance, that in Galatians that while Paul lays our justification by faith (Galatians 2), that before Paul gets to our Christian walk he must pass through our Adoption at the end of Galatians 3 and beginning of Galatians 4. This is reproduced in our Catechisms where we are told that we walk through the benefits of salvation first in justification, then in adoption and finally in sanctification. That particular order is very important. Sanctification, the Christian Life, Walking in the Spirit is a process done in light of Adoption. We no longer relate to God as a Judge, but as a Father.

How does that relate to satisfy and pleasing? One must satisfy justice before a judge. One works to please a Father.

Some may object, saying that our status as sons of the Father means that God only looks on us in love and pride and would never be either angry or displeased. This formulation, however, is not the treatment we see in Scripture. God is very angry with his people, many of them true regenerates, over the sin of Achan in Joshua 7. God was angry with the generation of the Exodus, though they were his children. [Deut 1:34-37] God as a Father can be displeased with the acts of his children. We do not have a senile grandfather in Heaven, but a good Father. A good Father does not merely send his children out to live however they want without discipline:

Hebrews 12:5-11: And have you forgotten the exhortation that addresses you as sons? "My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor be weary when reproved by him. For the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives." It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline? If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. Besides this, we have had earthly fathers who disciplined us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live? For they disciplined us for a short time as it seemed best to them, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.

We forget this passage. We forget that a Father disciplines his children. We forget that God can be displeased in the acts of his sons, even when he loves them and his justice is satisfied. The regeneration of a believer, and indeed the union of the believer to Christ is not the end of God’s rod and staff. This rod and staff continue to discipline his children but in love. He disciplines for it teaches us righteousness. He disciplines us to do what pleases Him. And when we worship God we do not worship a neutered God, but one for whom we have reverence and awe, and for whom we do fear to displease, for we fear to displease our Father, though when we do we remember his acceptance and the satisfaction of Christ, not to placate our passivity, but to spur us on to actively pursue God’s character and face as given in his commands, for if we love God, we will endeavor to follow his commands.

The Gospel Assumed...

Often as Christians will admit that we live life assuming the gospel. By that, we mean we "move past" the gospel to other things. Gospel becomes those things that are elementary and then we stop declaring them to "move on" to other things. Then when we assume the gospel, we confuse the gospel (because we never talk about it and forget it). Then after we confuse the gospel we deny the gospel. I came across this selection recently and think it is appropriate to share:

Assuming the Gospel is the height of arrogance. It is as if we were saying, “We all know what God has done for us in Jesus, so we can go on to teach and learn other things today.” St. Paul gave much apostolic direction for living the Christian life – “bearing with one another” (Colossians 3:13), “speaking the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15), “walking by the Spirit” (Galatians 5:16), and seeing the “more excellent way” (1 Corinthians 12:31). Yet Paul always put such admonition in the context of Christ’s saving work for us. In fact, Paul was adamant about the priority of the cross: “I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified.” (1 Corinthians 2: 2)… No matter what else Paul had to say, the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ for our salvation are the center, the essence, the focal point of all Christian preaching. Whether the subject is justification or sanctification, it all comes back to the cross. No preaching, no Christian teaching is complete unless it brings us back to what God has done for us in Jesus Christ on the cross. Indeed, anything else the preacher might proclaim is meaningless, unless it flows into or out of the message that Jesus died and rose for us. Every doctrine of Scripture is designed by God ultimately to bring the comfort of sins forgiven and eternal life in Christ to the penitent sinner.

Herbert C. Mueller, Jr., “The Gospel Assumed is the Gospel Denied” in Concordia Pulpit Resources 15, no. 3

Law and Gospel - Thesis IV

LAW AND GOSPEL

Thesis IV

Understanding how to distinguish Law and Gospel provides wonderful insight for understanding all of Holy Scripture correctly. In fact, without this knowledge Scripture is and remains a sealed book.

Walther in this rather short lecture on Thesis IV explains that the Bible is indeed a book of great and many contradictions unless you are able to distinguish between its two great doctrines of Law and Gospel.

Example:

In fact, all of Scripture seems to be full of contradictions, worse than the Qur’an of the Turks. Here Scripture pronounces you blessed; there it condemns you. When the rich young ruler asked the Lord, “What good deed must I do to have eternal life?” the Lord replied, “If you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.” When the jailer at Philippi addressed the same question to Paul and Silas, he received this answer:” Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you and your household will be saved.” P.69

The Key to Scripture:

“Do not think that the Old Testament reveals a wrathful and the New Testament a gracious God, or that the Old Testament teaches salvation by a person’s own works and the New Testament salvation by faith. No. We find both teachings in the Old as well as in the New Testament. But the moment we understand how to distinguish between Law and Gospel, it is as if the sun were rising upon the Scriptures, and we behold all the contents of the Scriptures in the most beautiful harmony. We see that the Law was not revealed to us to put a notion into our heads that we could become righteous by it, but to teach us that we are completely unable to fulfill the Law. Then we will know what a sweet message – what a glorious doctrine – the Gospel is and will receive it with exuberant joy. P.70

Horton: What is the Gospel?

Michael Horton does a great job defining a word that has been so broadly used as to confuse its true meaning:

What is the Gospel?

Law and Gospel - Thesis III

Thesis III
To rightly distinguish Law and Gospel is the most difficult and highest Christian art - and for the theologians in particular. It is taught only by the Holy Spirit in combination with experience.

Well Walther makes the difference between Law and Gospel seem easy. Yet in reality it is hard. In the third thesis he lays out many examples. First example? Everyone:

"But in the end, when Christians have learned to apply the proper distinction between Law and Gospel in the real world, they join St John in saying, 'God is greater than my heart. He has rendered a different verdict on people who sin, and that applies to me as well'. Yet how difficult this is to do! Blessed are you if you have learned this difficult art. But even if you have learned it, do not think you are experts at it. You will always be no more than beginners at this art. There will be days when you will not be able to distinguish Law and Gospel. When the Law condemns you, you must immediately grab hold of the Gospel." Walther - P52

Law and Gospel - Thesis II

Thesis II
"If you wish to be an orthodox teacher, you must present all the articles of faith in accordance with Scripture, yet you must also distinguish Law and Gospel."

"Note this well. When you hear some enthusiast preach, you may say, 'Well, he did preach the truth...' and yet you did not feel satisfied. Here is the key for unlocking this mystery: that particular preacher did not rightly distinguish Law and Gospel, and thus everything went wrong. He preached the truth of the Law where he should have preached the truth of the Gospel, and he offered Gospel truth where he should have presented the Law. Now, anyone following such a preacher will go astray; they will not arrive at the sure foundation of the divine truth; they will not attain the assurance of grace and salvation. This frequently happens when students give sermons. You will hear comforting remarks such as 'It is all by grace,' only to be followed by 'We must do good works,' which are then followed by statements such as 'With our works we cannot gain salvation.' There is no order in such sermons. Nobody understands them - least of all the person who needs one of these two doctrines most."

C.F.W. Walther
(Law and Gospel P38-39)

The Need of Preaching the Law

Ever hear the Gospel in a sermon and think (though you would never admit it): So what?

What preceded it in the sermon? Was it historical detail? Was it Greek Grammar 101? Was it a story? Was it practical things we need to do, and perhaps are not doing (watch less tv, give to the church, give to the poor, give to the church, pitch Christianity to your co-workers, did I mention giving to the church) ?

Perhaps we did not hear and savor the Gospel, because the Law was not properly preached. Here's a section from Charles Bridges' work: The Christian Ministry


“We cannot have too much of the Gospel; but we may have too little of the Law. And a defect in the Evangelical preaching of the Law is as clear a cause of inefficient ministration, as a legal preaching of the Gospel. In such a Ministry there must be a want of spiritual conviction of sin generally – of spiritual sins most particularly -and- flowing directly from hence – a low standard of spiritual obedience. Indeed, all the prevalent errors in the Church may be traced to this source. We should never have heard of Methodist perfection – Mystic dependence upon the inward light – Antinomian delusion – inconsistent profession of orthodoxy – Pharisaical self-righteousness – or Pelagian and Socinian rectitude of nature – if the spiritual standard of the law had been clearly displayed, and its convincing power truly left. In the want of this conviction, the fullest perception of Evangelical view must fail in experimental and practical effect.

But there are Antinomian errors on the opposite side. If Antinomianism be the relaxation of obedience from the perfect standard of the law of God, is not mere moral preaching a refined species of this unhallowed leaven? Equally with the professed Antinomian, the standard of the law of God is exchanged for some indefinite and every-varying standard of inclination or caprice. The notions of mercy and salvation, as in the other case, are here used as the palliation of sin. All hope, and no fear – is the character of this preaching. How frightful to think of deluded souls sliding into eternity in this golden dream! And of what vast importance is it for the resistance of error, and for an effective exhibition of divine truth – that our Ministry should be distinguished by a full display of the spiritual character, and unalterable obligations, of the law of God!”

-Charles Bridges - The Christian Ministry. pg. 228-229

Law and Gospel - Thesis 1

Thesis I
The doctrinal contents of all Holy Scripture, both of the Old and the New Testament, consist of two doctrines that differ fundamentally from each other. These two doctrines are Law and Gospel.

In his first thesis Walther covers six differences between law and gospel to help the Christian and Christian teachers identify the difference when they read the scripture.
1. They differ as to how they were revealed to humans.
2. They differ regarding their contents.
3. The differ regarding the promises held out by each doctrine.
4. They differ regarding their threats. (Gospel has no threats whatsoever - only words for consolation.)
5. They differ regarding the function and the effect of either doctrine.
6. They differ regarding the persons to whom each of them is to be preached.

This doctrine is important not to skip over in our Christian Churches. As Walther states:
...you can gather how foolish it is-in fact, how terribly deceived so many people obviously are - when they ridicule pure doctrine and say to us, "Enough already with your 'Pure doctrine, pure doctrine'! That can lead only to dead orthodoxy. Focus on pure living instead. That way you will plant the seeds of righteous Christianity." That would be like saying to a farmer, "Stop fretting about good seed! Be concerned about good fruit instead."


So how does pure doctrine of law and gospel together lead to true Christian experience and understanding?
Again Walther:
"The Law tells us what to do and charges us with not having done it, no matter how holy we are. Thus the Law makes us uncertain; it chases us about and thus makes us thirsty. Now when Christ invites those who thirst, He means those who have been crushed under the hammer blows of the Law. These persons Christ invites directly to come to Him; of course, indirectly he invites all people. A person who is thirsting like this only needs to drink-and receive the consolation of the Gospel. When a person is really thirsty and is handed even a small glass of water, how greatly refreshed he feels! But when a person is not thirsty, you can hand him one glass of water after another - it will do him no good; it will not refresh him."