“Faith and Works”: Unbiblical, Semi-Pelagian Terminology?

Last updated on: November 6, 2017 at 11:00 am By Dave Armstrong

“Trinidad” commented underneath my article for National Catholic Register: “Biblical Evidence for Catholic Justification”:

Faith and works is the problem. The use of the word “works” creates a false dichotomy. Faith in action or Faith in love is a better description of what you find in the New Testament, the Catechism and the papal audience addresses of Pope Benedict on Paul’s teaching of Justification. Faith is not a momentary one off event followed by a series of meritorious works (too close to semi-Pelagianism), but a life time response to the grace of God which effects our salvation. Fighting old battles is an apologetic obsession. Its time to move on.

There is no clash here with the Bible or Pope Benedict, who stated in a General Audience of 11-26-08:

The Doctrine of Justification: The Apostle’s Teaching on Faith and Works” [title in the document]

. . . relationship between faith and charity, between faith and works: . . .

Often there is seen an unfounded opposition between St Paul’s theology and that of St James, who writes in his Letter: “as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead”(2: 26). In reality, while Paul is primarily concerned to show that faith in Christ is necessary and sufficient, James accentuates the consequential relations between faith and works (cf. Jas 2: 24).

I use different expressions more similar to yours as well; e.g., in my 2010 book, Biblical Catholic Salvation. Its subtitle is “Faith Working Through Love.” St. Paul uses the terminology of “work of faith” (1 Thess 1:3; 2 Thess 1:11). Faith and works are repeatedly regarded as hand-in-hand (in those words), in James (2:14, 17, 20, 22, 24, 26). James 2:18 (RSV) states: “. . . I by my works will show you my faith.” Quite biblical indeed.

This is no “apologetic obsession” nor is it “old.” Rather, your comment is too narrow and insufficiently biblical.

The phrases “faith in love” and “faith in action” never appear as such in the NT (RSV), although the association of faith and love is a strong one, as seen in this NT search.

I never denied that, but I do deny the assertion made by “Trinidad”: that the terminology of “faith and works” is an expressly unbiblical one. James 2 refutes that over and over.

“Action[s]” only appears once in the NT (RSV): “I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.” (Rom 7:15)

It was also asserted that “works” in conjunction with “faith” was not Catechism terminology. This is untrue. They are connected positively in #1815 (citing James 2), #1021 (with reference to judgment), and in #1698. #1697 reads in part: “it is by grace that we are saved and again it is by grace that our works can bear fruit for eternal life;”.

On the other hand, the phrase “faith in action” never occurs in the Catechism; nor does the concept in that terminology. Nor does the term “faith in love.” But I agree that both are acceptable as descriptions of a proper life of discipleship in faith. I never denied it. It is the denial of (or assertion of impropriety of) the phrase or notion of “faith and works” which hasn’t been established.

I do appreciate, however, the opportunity to respond to gratuitous bum raps against apologetics and apologists.

***

Photo credit: Saying by Mitch Albom [Flickr / CC BY-SA 2.0 license]

***

Debate with a Lutheran Pastor on Faith and Works

Last updated on: May 4, 2017 at 5:02 pm By Dave Armstrong

Image by “geralt” (April 2017) [Pixabay / CC0 public domain]

***

[from another public Facebook thread. Lutheran (LCMS) Pastor R. Daniel Carlson’s words will be in blue]

*****

You can’t take a passage like “whoever BELIEVES (has faith) in Me will not perish but have everlasting life”, which are Christ’s own words from His mouth, and negate it by saying that other passages imply that it’s not just believing but also works. That’s called BAD exegesis.

So instead you look at these straight forward passages (like John 3:16, Romans 3, Ephesians 2, etc.) and let them stand. Then you look at James where it says “faith without works is dead” and other such passages IN THE LIGHT of the clearer passages AND the Gospels. You also look for passages that talk about works and “fruits”…lo and behold, the ONLY conclusion that can be drawn without stepping outside of Scripture is that faith PRODUCES works/fruits. Works DO NOT go alongside with faith as an additional requirement, but follow faith. WE are saved by grace through faith….NOT of ourselves, it is the GIFT of God, NOT by works…WE are CREATED (or better we are created as Christians) to DO good works, but NOT works must be done for salvation. Again, Jesus says, “whoever BELIEVES [has faith] in me shall not perish but have everlasting life,” not “whoever believes and does good works…”

Lutherans and Catholics do NOT agree on this, and your Sacrament of Penance is a fine example of our disagreement. Roman Catholics see works as a “paying off” of sin. So you go to confession, and the priest tells you, for your penance, to do certain works in order to pay off your transgression. For Catholics, Baptism is just a seed, planted into the heart and good works are required to make the seed grow. The more good works, the closer you are to heaven, the less good works, the more time you spend in purgatory.

Lutherans believe none of this. For Lutherans, good works are a bi-product of faith, a bi-product produced by the Spirit of Christ living in us and giving to us in our Baptisms. We are FULLY sanctified, FULLY made holy, FULLY set apart – yes, FULLY saints and absolutely going to heaven when we die, no strings attached. We are thankful for God’s gifts of the spirit, for good works, but we don’t gauge our salvation by them. When we sin, we confess our sins and then, by faith trust that Christ’s death on the cross paid IN FULL the price.

[my citation of part of the above] “We are thankful for God’s gifts of the spirit, for good works, but we don’t gauge our salvation by them.”

Why do God and Scripture writers, then, mention works and never faith alone, in 50 passages concerning the final judgment? You tell me. How do you interpret that in your theological system? Why is faith alone never mentioned in those contexts, in the very place where it seems to me that we ought to expect it, if Protestant theology is correct?

[cited again] “Then you look at James where it says “faith without works is dead” and other such passages IN THE LIGHT of the clearer passages”

James is very clear. It’s not unclear at all. It’s only unclear to those who don’t care for the message he is giving:

James 2:14 (RSV) What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?

2:17-18 So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. [18] But some one will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith.

2:20-22 Do you want to be shown, you shallow man, that faith apart from works is barren? [21] Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? [22] You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works,

2:24-26 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. [25] And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? [26] For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.

Crystal clear; couldn’t be any more clear than it is!

Catholics synthesize that with the passages that discuss grace and the ones that talk of faith. It’s no problem. I’ve done it in various papers and books of mine many times. We think in “both/and” terms because (I would contend) that is the scriptural / Hebrew outlook. “Either/or” is the overly rationalistic approach. Here are relevant papers of mine:

St. Paul on Grace, Faith, & Works (50 Passages) [8-6-08]

Grace Alone: Perfectly Acceptable Catholic Teaching [2-3-09]

Bible on Participation in Our Own Salvation (Always Enabled by God’s Grace) [1-3-10]

Bible on the Nature of Saving Faith (Including Assent, Trust, Hope, Works, Obedience, and Sanctification) [1-21-10]

Justification: Not by Faith Alone, & Ongoing (Romans 4, James 2, and Abraham’s Multiple Justifications) [10-15-11]

New Testament Epistles on Bringing About Further Sanctification and Even Salvation By Our Own Actions [7-2-13]

Reply to James White’s Exegesis of James 2 in Chapter 20 of His Book, The God Who Justifies [10-9-13]

Jesus vs. “Faith Alone” (Rich Young Ruler) [10-12-15]

Dialogue: Rich Young Ruler & Good Works [10-14-15]

“Catholic Justification” in James & Romans [11-18-15]

Grace Alone: Biblical & Catholic Teaching [12-1-15]

Philippians 2:12 & “Work[ing] Out” One’s Salvation [1-26-16]

To answer some of your questions:

“Faith without works is dead”. This is a statement of fact, not a statement of condition. Also, the word “works” in many of these contexts does not equate to someone earning their way to salvation by DOING such works.

Let’s change the words “faith” and “works” to something more day-to-day. “TV” without “REMOTE” is “USELESS”. This is a point of fact, not a condition. My TV has one button and it turns the TV on or off, that’s it. Thus when I got the TV, the remote necessarily had to come with or it is worthless.

Likewise, faith which does not produce [good] works is no faith, why? Well, faith is a gift from God, given through the Holy Spirit’s indwelling in a person. Therefore works necessarily follow.

James’ statement “faith without works is dead” isn’t James shaking his pointer finger at us and saying “you better do good things or God will take your faith away”, or “you can’t have faith unless you force yourself to do good” or anything like that. If you read the greater context, James tells us what he’s trying to get at. He is saying that his faith is shown/proven/demonstrated by his good works, that anyone who says “we have faith” but no works show from it…they truly don’t have faith.

It’s not faith AND works but faith THEN works, otherwise Jesus would be wrong when He says that believing is what gives eternal life, and St. Paul would be wrong when he says that we are saved by grace (alone) through faith (alone). You take issue with the “alone” word, but since neither Christ or St. Paul, or the writer of Hebrews adds any trailing thought to this, it’s fine to say “alone” after these phrases because they stand alone. Likewise, Abraham was made right by FAITH, and with regard to his works, he was not exactly a consistent good-doer. “Abraham believed God” and what? He was righteous! That’s it.

All the other passages that you contend teach that it’s works AND faith that save, well I assert that they must be filtered and exegeted with John 3:16 in mind, and not on their own, and yes, this includes James.

You still haven’t answered my question about the 50 passages concerning judgment. That’s not surprising. I don’t think any Protestant has since I came up with the argument 15 years ago. What possible answer could there be?

Catholics aren’t saying that it is works that save (which is the Pelagian heresy). We’re saying that we’re saved by grace through faith, and that faith by nature includes works within it, in the overall matrix of faith, action, justification, and eschatological salvation.

And this is massively backed up in Scripture, as I have shown in many of my writings.

***

It becomes a big problem if one wants to only consider a particular set of Bible passages that have a certain theme, and ignore another set that has a different theme, within the overall topic of soteriology.

The Catholic position takes both sets seriously and (agree or disagree with us) harmonizes them into a coherent whole.

But Protestants too often want to ignore all the passages having to do with good works and merit and synergy and concentrate almost solely on the passages having to do with grace and faith.

We see this happening above: in the refusal to deal with the 50 passages I collected, that have to do with the final judgment, and are unanimously about works, not faith.

I see Protestants (in the course of my hundreds of dialogues these past 21 years online) doing the same thing with the Church fathers. Passages about Scripture are always produced, while the ones from the same person about tradition, Church authority, and apostolic succession are ignored.

Neither side can be hyper-selective like that. We need to take all of Scripture and all of a Church fathers’ writings into account, in order to accurately convey the teaching of either.

Many of us who used to be Protestant, became Catholics largely due to starting to look at all of Scripture rather than only the usual prooftexts, and reading the fathers to see what they actually taught, rather than relying on selected “pre-filtered” quotations, meant to prop up a Protestant outlook that began 800-1400 years after the patristic period.

[a day later] Do you plan on ever explaining to me why 50 passages in Scripture about the final judgment all talk about works but never faith alone?

Here’s my response to works playing a part in our salvation and not faith alone: [Defense of the Augsburg Confession: section on good works].

How many of my 50 passages does it address? [I then looked at it] Looks like it doesn’t deal with a single one. I am underwhelmed. So (what else is new?): no Protestant reply to fifty biblical passages about works in relation to judgment and salvation.

You can have a million passages and it doesn’t change the fact that Jesus said “believe in me…have eternal life…” and never said anything about works.

If I were to say to you that I have a dog, love my dog, and take him to the park every day and play fetch with him – you’d say “okay”. If, 20 years later, I tell you that my dog is dead, do you take these two statements and conclude that I play with my dead dog?

Of course not! The 50 passages, when I’m going to go through one by one as you’ve not gone through them one by one, ALL have to deal with Christians – we who ARE saved. They are not in refute, other than the suggestion that works are required TO BE saved. Jesus, in John 3, is telling Nicodemus how one IS saved – these are two different things and they need not be intertwined.

Dave Armstrong James, when talking to his audience, it talking to CHRISTIANS, people who ARE SAVED, who HAVE BEEN BAPTIZED, who have on their bodies the marks of Christ. He’s not to a pagan, unbelieving audience.

Note how Peter, in Acts 2, and in other places, is talking to an audience of people who are NOT saved. What does he say to them? Does he or St. Paul or anyone EVER tell them that they must do good works to be saved? NO, but only faith. It’s the same for St. Paul in Romans 3 – “a salvation APART FROM WORKS…justification BY FAITH…” Yet, St. Paul, St. Peter, and all the rest, even Jesus, all say to the faithful, to those who are saved, that good works must necessarily follow or it is dead faith – like the parable of the sower.

You can refute this all you want to, but you simply cannot say that one is saved by faith AND works….because Jesus never said it, and by saying it, you very strongly imply that Christ’s work on the cross is inadequate, and that, sir, is blasphemy.

And you know that’s also what the Baptists do with their whole “decision” and “ask Jesus into your heart” garbage – it’s all works righteousness and it’s all slander against Christ and the Holy Spirit.

Romans 1:17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, “He who through faith is righteous shall live.”

Romans 2:6-7 For he will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; (cf. 2:8; 2:10)

Romans 2:13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. (cf. James 1:22-23; 2:21-24)

Romans 8:13 for if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live. (cf. 2 Cor 11:15)

1 Timothy 6:18-19 They are to do good, to be rich in good deeds, liberal and generous, thus laying up for themselves a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of the life which is life indeed.

Titus 1:16 They profess to know God, but they deny him by their deeds; they are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good deed.

You’re not quoting anything that we don’t already know. EVERY one of these passages come from a context of preacher preaching to a child of God and NOT to pagans.

Find me a quote where the preacher is preaching to pagans and telling them “you must do good works to be saved” and then we’ll talk.

Half of my passages (Romans 1-2) deal with a wider audience than Christians. St. Paul is talking to pagans in Romans 1:18 up through 2:16: which incorporates my first three passages.

Martin Luther, in his Lectures on Romans (Luther’s Works, vol. 25, p. 155: I have the whole 55-volume set in hardcover) agrees:

[v. 1: 20] [T]he apostle with these words does not rebuke the Romans only, as many believe. He rebukes not individuals but all people, Gentiles and Romans alike. This can be seen very clearly from the words of the apostle later in Rom. 3:9: ‘We have already charged that all men, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin.’ . . . the apostle, as he writes, sees before his eyes the whole world as one body . . .

Titus 1:16 They profess to know God, but they deny him by their deeds; they are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good deed.

This passage is also written expressly about unbelievers, since the preceding verse 15 states: “To the pure all things are pure, but to the corrupt and unbelieving nothing is pure; their very minds and consciences are corrupted.” That makes it four out of six of my passages that are about unbelievers and not Christians, whereas you stated (inexplicably and remarkably): “EVERY one of these passages come from a context of preacher preaching to a child of God and NOT to pagans.”

Or find me a passage from the Gospels where Jesus tells an unbeliever that he must have faith AND works to be declared righteous by God and I will throw away my Luther’s rose.

Matthew 19:16-24 And behold, one came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?” [17] And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” [18] He said to him, “Which?” And Jesus said, “You shall not kill, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, [19] Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” [20] The young man said to him, “All these I have observed; what do I still lack?” [21] Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” [22] When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful; for he had great possessions. [23] And Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. [24] Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

What is most striking about this incident in the life of Jesus — given Protestant views — is the almost sole emphasis on works rather than faith, in Jesus’ reply to the rich young ruler’s question (I have combined elements in all three accounts), “what good deed must I / shall I do to inherit / have eternal life?” It’s reiterated over and over again: works, works, works. It doesn’t follow that faith is not involved, too. Elsewhere, Jesus and Paul and other biblical writers say plenty about faith and assent. But it does mean that works are central in the whole equation and can’t be separated from faith and put in a secondary category.

Right at the beginning of the incident, the ruler asks, “what good deed must I do?” Inheriting eternal life is clearly synonymous with “ultimate salvation.” According to Protestant soteriology (theology of salvation), this isn’t even the right question to ask. Their immediate reply would be, “you have a fundamental misunderstanding of salvation. You can’t do anything to be saved. No work you do is sufficient. All you can do is have faith in Jesus Christ, Who died for your sins.” That’s evangelical Protestant doctrine.

The interesting consideration here, then, is: why doesn’t Jesus act like a good evangelical and correct him right out of the starting-gate? Jesus would have failed Soteriology 0101 in any evangelical seminary or divinity school. Not only are good works, or deeds front and center; he also asks about which deed “must” he do. There is an element of necessity. If he doesn’t do some sort of good deed, he won’t be saved. But if this is essentially wrong and wrongheaded, Jesus would have corrected him by saying that he was wrong to be thinking about works rather than faith, and about thinking that any work was necessary for salvation.

He doesn’t do that at all. Instead, Jesus strengthens the man’s initial assumptions and explains what works he has to do to be saved: “If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” It’s a required condition for obtaining a desired goal: “If you want x, do y.” Y is necessary to obtain x, and y = keeping commandments, which are good works, in order to achieve x (eternal life). This is not like any sermon I ever heard in my 13 years as an evangelical! This is not how we were taught to share out faith in street witnessing, in order to “get people saved.”

***

You’re arguing something different from what we are arguing anyway. You’re acting as if we believe that the non-believer can be saved by faith + works at first (i.e., semi-Pelagianism), rather than be initially justified by faith through grace (as we believe). He then is required to do good works (just as in your system) to show that he has an authentic faith. If he fails to do these, he can lose this justification or (worst-case scenario) his ultimate salvation.

Our systems then diverge in that we say these works are part and parcel of merit and increase of grace, whereas as you say they are relegated to the box of sanctification, having nothing to do with either justification or salvation.

***

What the Bible actually teaches about attaining eschatological salvation; what you resolutely refuse to deal with, is summarized by the following, from the end of my paper of 50 passages dealing with judgment and final salvation:

***

In light of this survey of biblical statements on the topic, how would we properly, biblically answer the unbiblical, sloganistic questions of Matt Slick [Presbyterian pastor and head honcho of the large CARM forum]: “If you were to die tonight and face judgment and God were to ask you why He should let you into heaven, what would you tell Him? Just curious.”

He’s completely well-intentioned and has the highest motivations. He desires that folks should be saved. But he is dead wrong in his assumptions, when they are weighed against the overwhelming, (far as I can tell) unanimous biblical record. Our answer to his question and to God when we stand before Him, could incorporate any one or all of the following 50 responses: all perfectly biblical, and many right from the words of God Himself:

1) I am characterized by righteousness.
2) I have integrity.
3) I’m not wicked.
4) I’m upright in heart.
5) I’ve done good deeds.
6) I have good ways.
7) I’m not committing abominations.
8) I have good conduct.
9) I’m not angry with my brother.
10) I’m not insulting my brother.
11) I’m not calling someone a fool.
12) I have good fruits.
13) I do the will of God.
14) I hear Jesus’ words and do them.
15) I endured to the end.
16) I fed the hungry.
17) I provided drink to the thirsty.
18) I clothed the naked.
19) I welcomed strangers.
20) I visited the sick.
21) I visited prisoners.
22) I invited the poor and the maimed to my feast.
23) I’m not weighed down with dissipation.
24) I’m not weighed down with drunkenness.
25) I’m not weighed down with the cares of this life.
26) I’m not ungodly.
27) I don’t suppress the truth.
28) I’ve done good works.
29) I obeyed the truth.
30) I’m not doing evil.
31) I have been a “doer of the law.”
32) I’ve been a good laborer and fellow worker with God.
33) I’m unblamable in holiness.
34) I’ve been wholly sanctified.
35) My spirit and soul and body aresound and blameless.
36) I know God.
37) I’ve obeyed the gospel.
38) I’ve shared Christ’s sufferings.
39) I’m without spot or blemish.
40) I’ve repented.
41) I’m not a coward.
42) I’m not faithless.
43) I’m not polluted.
44) I’m not a murderer.
45) I’m not a fornicator.
46) I’m not a sorcerer.
47) I’m not an idolater.
48) I’m not a liar.
49) I invited the lame to my feast.
50) I invited the blind to my feast.

You miss the whole point of Jesus’ conversation with the young man in Matthew. He thinks he’s done all the good he needs to do – even responds with “I’ve done all these things”. Jesus then says, “one thing you lack…”, and reveals the true heart of the young man — greed and covetedness and hate and idolatry…breaking every one of the commands he thinks he keeps. Afterward, Jesus says to his disciples that with man it is impossible, but not with God, calling the disciples to believe (have faith) in God’s work of salvation. He NEVER tells the young man that he’ll be saved if he just does good works.

Man, you need to learn the difference between Law and Gospel.

But this particular text isn’t dealing with good works for salvation but revealing that, before God, no good works will save them, not from the Jews or the Gentiles or anyone because…ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

Yes, ultimately the issue is one of grace. What IS grace? Is it a substance that you can get more and more of through good works? NO. Grace is a disposition God has toward us on account of His love for us. When we are saved, we have ALL the grace He can give. Being saved is a WHOLE lot more valuable than anything. For Roman Catholics, grace is a substance, sort of like the angels in the show Supernatural have. You get enough grace in baptism for justification, but then you must do good to get more grace and more grace…

I don’t take issue with good works – and the BEST work we can do is proclaim the Gospel to the lost. Yet, all of the stuff that you’ve written about the necessity of good works for salvation is like cat screams to me. Not only do I interpret the passages you provide differently than you do, I simply refuse to say that salvation is by faith AND works. I agree with James when he says “faith without works is dead” because works are a God-given response to faith and if there is no faith, there are no works.

You may not know this, but the most opposing thing that I read – maybe you’re not trying to say this – is that works must come from the old man. See what I mean? When you say we MUST do good works to be saved, to me that’s LAW, and we cannot be saved by keeping the law because the primary purpose of the law is to show us our sinfulness. Now, if good works come from the NEW MAN, then that’s a God-thing! God is creating the good works in us, and that’s GOOD NEWS! I WANT to do good works, and God enables me and empowers me to do them. This is completely different than saying we MUST do good works to be saved, see??

In essence it’s ‘true’, but the language of “MUST” vs. “CAN” changes the whole thing. When I read Eph 2:8ff, I read that the works that God prepares for us to do aren’t burdensome, heavy, or demand, but gospel, joyful, and we’re empowered by God so that we CAN do them. Thus, if I sin, I don’t feel like I have to do 2x as much good to pay my penance – Christ has paid it all ready – instead I have the freedom to, with God’s help do better.

Thanks for your reply.

Bible on Faith, Works, and Judgment (vs. Jason Engwer)

Last updated on: May 13, 2020 at 5:11 pm By Dave Armstrong

This came about in a related discussion concerning the Judaizers — in the combox of a post about whether Francis Beckwith, prominent Catholic convert, is saved. Anti-Catholic Protestant apologist Jason Engwer’s words will be in blue.

* * * * *

We believe in sola gratia as you do, but reject sola fide as an unbiblical innovation. The fact remains that works are profoundly involved in the salvation (ultimately by grace) in some sense:

St. Paul on Grace, Faith, & Works (50 Passages) [8-6-08]

Catholic Bible Verses on Sanctification and Merit [12-20-07]

They are even central to the criteria of how God will decide who is saved and who isn’t, as I have proven from no less than 50 Bible passages:

Final Judgment in Final Judgment & Works (Not Faith): 50 Passages [2-10-08]

We interpret all this in a non-Pelagian fashion. We incorporate all of Scripture, not just our favorite pet verses. You guys simply ignore this data or act as if it is only in the realm of sanctification and has nothing whatever to do with salvation, which is absurdly simplistic and unrealistic in the face of the overwhelming data showing otherwise.

Paul’s focus in Galatians is on the means by which justification is attained (Galatians 3:2), not whether justification is attributed to grace. The idea that one can seek justification through a combination between faith and works, as long as the process is attributed to grace, is a contradiction of what Paul taught. If works are absent from Genesis 15:6, Acts 10:44-46, Galatians 3:2, and other relevant passages, then saying that the works are preceded by and accompanied by grace doesn’t make sense. There are no works for grace to accompany in such passages. To make this a matter of whether the works are attributed to grace is to get the gospel fundamentally wrong. There’s no need to discuss whether non-existent works are works of grace or graceless works. The gospel shuts us up to faith, not to a combination between faith and gracious works (Galatians 3:21-25).

Then why are works always central in every discussion of the final judgment that I could find in Scripture (50 passages: linked to above)?

The final judgment involves more than the means by which the justified attained that justification. It also involves the means by which the unregenerate are condemned, the vindication of the justified, and the non-justificatory rewarding of those individuals. I wouldn’t expect the final judgment to not involve works. In the post you’re responding to, I cited some examples of passages that are about how we attain justification. They don’t just exclude graceless works. They exclude works of any type. Many other such passages could be cited, as I discuss here and here.

Why is this the case if God is supposedly wanting to completely separate any notion of works or acts from salvation itself?

We wouldn’t have to know why works are excluded in order to know that they’re excluded. But it’s a good question, and I addressed it in a post last year.

I agree with what C. S. Lewis said: asking one to choose between faith and works is as senseless as saying which blade of a pair of scissors is more important.

It’s an organic relationship. Actually, Catholics and Protestants, rightly understood, are not far apart on this in the final analysis. It’s mostly mutual misunderstandings and unfortunate semantic confusion.

I wouldn’t expect the final judgment to not involve works.

Good. That’s part of the common ground I alluded to.

But then my question would be: why is the aspect of faith (let alone faith alone so glaringly absent in these 50 accounts of judgment (I think only one mentioned it at all, in my list), if in fact it is the central, fundamental consideration, according to Protestantism?

It’s just not plausible. The Bible doesn’t at all read as it should, were Protestant soteriology true, and Catholic soteriology false. I contend that it would read much differently indeed. As it is, it appears to overwhelmingly favor the Catholic positions.

Central to what? All that the judgment involves? No. The unjustified are condemned for their sins, so works are relevant to their judgment. And the justified are reconciled to God through faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9) for good works (Ephesians 2:10). The works evidence the faith (vindication), and the works determine non-justificatory rewards. Mentioning works is an effective way of summarizing the judgment, since it brings together so many of the relevant themes. Even when a passage only mentions works with regard to the judgment, we have to keep the nearby context in mind. The original authors (or speakers) didn’t expect their audience to take their comments in isolation, ignoring the context. Those who hear Jesus speak of works in Matthew 25:31-46 know that He was carrying out a ministry in which He forgave, pronounced peace, and healed people upon their coming to faith (see here). Those who heard Jesus speak of works in John 5:29 would also have known that He spoke of reconciliation through faith and avoidance of condemnation as a result of that faith in John 5:24. Those who believe are assured of the future resurrection of life (John 11:25-26). When Paul says that men will be judged by his gospel (Romans 2:16), he doesn’t expect his audience to ignore everything he said about justification through faith and think only of works. Works are relevant, for reasons explained in my last paragraph, but nobody reading Paul in context would think that summarizing statements that only mention works are meant to exclude what Paul said about faith. To ignore the role of faith in his gospel would cause a major distortion of his message. Paul speaks of deliverance from future wrath through Jesus’ blood (Romans 5:9) after having said that the deliverance through that blood was received through faith (Romans 5:1). Etc. And I point out, again, that citing passages on the final judgment doesn’t explain the line of evidence I mentioned earlier. As we see over and over again in Jesus’ ministry and Paul’s, people are justified through faith alone, as illustrated in the paradigm case of Abraham in Genesis 15:6. There is no issue of whether the works involved are works of grace or graceless works, since works of both types are absent.

Thanks very much for your reply, and especially for sticking directly to the issues. I think you have answered well from within your own paradigm, and it is interesting to learn how you answer the question I asked. I truly do appreciate it.

I disagree, of course, but as I said, I didn’t come here to debate. Let me conclude, if I may, by briefly clarifying that the Catholic position is not saying to ignore faith or grace (the content of your entire long second paragraph). Our position is that salvation is by grace alone, through faith, which is not alone, and includes works by its very nature.

So all your warnings about “ignoring” faith are non sequiturs, as far as Catholicism is concerned, and a rather large straw man, if you are intending to target Catholic soteriology there.

The point of my paper and question about it is not to stake out some “works alone” position (which would, of course, be a Pelagianism that Catholics totally reject as heresy), but to note that it is rather striking that only works are mentioned in the judgment passages, and never faith alone (and faith at all only once out of 50).

I realize that the Catholic view involves grace and faith as well, which is why I previously referred to faith rather than “a combination between faith and gracious works” in reference to Galatians 3:21-25, for example. The second paragraph in the post you’re responding to was meant to be an explanation of the intention of the Biblical authors, not a response to Catholicism.

In another paper I mentioned here I cite 50 passages from Paul that exhibit the threefold scenario of grace-faith-works.

We also get accused of believing in “sola ecclesia” when in fact our position on authority is the “three-legged stool” of Scripture-Tradition-Church. It’s simply Protestant either/or thinking applied to us.

Thanks again, and I will record your complete reply in a post I’ll make on the topic. You or anyone else is always welcome to comment on my site about anything.

Merry Christmas to you and yours.

* * *

I don’t see how some of the passages I mentioned in my last post, such as John 11:25-26 and Romans 5:1-9, can be exempted from an examination of judgment passages. When people are assured of a future in Heaven, the resurrection of life, the avoidance of God’s wrath in the future, etc. on the basis of faith, why wouldn’t such passages be relevant to the subject you’re addressing?

They are thematically related insofar as they are also soteriological, but my 50 passages had specifically to do with final judgment, God’s wrath, and eschatological salvation.

That came about because I was asked in debate with Matt Slick (the big cheese at CARM) what I would say if I got to heaven and God asked me why I should be let in. I replied that we had biblical data as to what God would actually say at such a time, and it was all about works, not faith alone at all. And I found that quite striking (after studying it in greater depth), though it never surprises me to find profound biblical support for Catholicism. I always do whenever I study the Bible.

Romans 5:9 does mention God’s wrath, but it is a generalized, proverbial-like statement (such as often found in, e.g., 1 John), rather than particularistic and eschatological, which is what I was talking about in my paper.

John 11:25-26 is of the same nature, and moreover, if we look at it closely, we see that the Greek for “believe” is pistuo, which is considered the counterpart of “does not obey” (apitheo) in John 3:36. 1 Peter 2:7 also opposes the two same Greek words. In other words, “believe” in the biblical sense already includes within it the concept of obedience (i.e., works). Hence, “little Kittel” observes:

pisteuo as “to obey.” Heb. 11 stresses that to believe is to obey, as in the OT. Paul in Rom. 1:8; 1 Th. 1:8 (cf. Rom. 15:18; 16:19) shows, too, that believing means obeying. He speaks about the obedience of faith in Rom. 1:5, and cf. 10:3; 2 Cor. 9:13. (p. 854)

Jesus joins faith (“belief” / pistuo) and works together, too, when He states:

John 14:12 (RSV) Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father.

So even if one grants that these passages have to do directly with judgment and eschatological salvation (as I do not), it is still the case that the “belief” mentioned in them is (through cross-referencing) seen to include obeying and works, and we’re back to the Catholic organic relationship between the two, rather than the Protestant ultra-abstraction of the two into the justification and sanctification categories.

“Faith alone” is tough to verify from Scripture once everything is taken into account and not just the garden-variety Protestant passages that are always utilized.

* * *

In other words, ‘believe’ in the biblical sense already includes within it the concept of obedience (i.e., works).

I agree that faith is obedience, but it can be obedience without being work in any relevant sense. That’s why we’re told that people can believe without working (Romans 4:5-6), that justifying belief occurs in the heart (Acts 15:7-11, Romans 10:10), that works demonstrate faith (James 2:14-26), etc. Different terms are used to refer to faith and works, because they’re different concepts. They can have obedience in common without having some other things in common.

A reference to faith can’t be assumed to include outward action, much less a specific outward action like baptism. That’s why we often see baptism and faith distinguished, for example (Acts 8:12-13, 18:8, etc.). The fact that faith is obedience wouldn’t lead us to the conclusion that other forms of obedience can be included in references to faith.

The term “faith” and its synonyms aren’t all that are relevant here. When we read of a paralytic being lowered into a house, a man visiting a Jewish temple, a crucified man, or a man listening to the gospel being preached, we don’t define what that person is doing solely by a term like “faith”. Rather, we also take into account the evidence provided by the surrounding context. It would make no sense to conclude that a paralyzed man being lowered into a house or a man visiting a Jewish temple was being baptized simultaneously or that a man nailed to a cross or a man listening to Peter preach the gospel was giving money to the poor at the same time. We judge how these individuals were justified partially through the surrounding context, not just a reference to faith or some related term. Part of the problem with the Catholic gospel is that not only do so many of the relevant passages mention faith without mentioning works, but the surrounding context gives us further reason to believe that the relevant works aren’t involved.

So even if one grants that these passages have to do directly with judgment and eschatological salvation (as I do not)

How can a passage about resurrection life and never dying (John 11:25-26) not be directly relevant? Passages of a similar nature use other phrases that are likewise relevant to future judgment and salvation, such as “on the last day” in John 6:40. Your article includes John 5:26-29, so I don’t see a problem with including verse 24 as well. Themes of resurrection and judgment are already being discussed in verses 21-22. Yet, your article only cites verses 26-29.

Similarly, Romans 5:1-9 repeatedly brings up themes of hope for the future and deliverance from future wrath.

And I want to remind the readers of something I said earlier. The coming judgment is primarily a judgment of works even from the perspective of justification through faith alone. The unregenerate are condemned by their works, and the regenerate are justified in order to do (Ephesians 2:10), vindicated by, and rewarded for their works. The emphasis on works in judgment passages doesn’t tell us, though, whether works are a means of justification. The dispute isn’t about whether works are relevant to the judgment, but rather the type of relevance they have.

Thanks for the continuing excellent discussion. Just one point:

the regenerate are justified in order to do (Ephesians 2:10), [be] vindicated by, and rewarded for their works. The emphasis on works in judgment passages doesn’t tell us, though, whether works are a means of justification.

This is classic Protestantism, of course: works are relegated to post-justification status, as part of a separate sanctification and the realm of differential rewards of those already saved. I used to believe the exact same thing, so I’m very familiar with it.

The problem is that Scripture doesn’t teach such a view. The disproofs are already in my paper, in many passages that directly connect or associate salvation with the works that one does: therefore, works are not unrelated to either justification or eschatological salvation, as you claim they are:

Matthew 25:34-36 Then the King will say to those at his right hand, `Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’

The “for” shows the causal relationship: “you are saved because you did all these works.” That’s what the text actually asserts, before false Protestant presuppositions and eisegesis are applied to it in the effort to make sure works never have to do directly with salvation (no matter how much faith and grace is there with them, so that we’re not talking about Pelagianism).

If Protestantism were true, the Bible should have had a passage something like this (RPV):

But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. Then He will also say to those on His left, “Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; for you did not believe in Me with Faith Alone.” These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous who believed with Faith Alone into eternal life.

But alas, it doesn’t read like that, does it?

John 5:28-29 . . . the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.

A direct correlation: the ones who do good works are saved; the ones who do evil are damned.

Romans 2:6-8, 13 For he will render to every man according to his works: To those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. . . . For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

Again, works are directly tied to eternal life and justification; they are not portrayed as merely acts of gratefulness that will lead to differential rewards for the saved; no, the differential reward is either salvation or damnation. Paul totally agrees with Jesus.

2 Thessalonians 1:7-9 . . . when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance upon those who do not know God and upon those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might,

Note that simply believing the gospel and knowing God is not enough for salvation. One has to also “obey the gospel” (and that involves works).

Revelation 2:5 Remember then from what you have fallen, repent and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.

If we don’t do the works, we can lose our salvation; therefore works have to do with salvation; they are not separated from that by abstracting them into a separate category of sanctification, that is always distinguished from justification. That ain’t biblical teaching. That is the eisegesis and false premises of Melanchthon and Calvin and Zwingli.

Revelation 20:11-13 Then I saw a great white throne and him who sat upon it; from his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Also another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, by what they had done. And the sea gave up the dead in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead in them, and all were judged by what they had done.

Same thing again. Obviously, St. John, St. Paul, and our Lord Jesus need to attend a good Calvinist or evangelical seminary and get up to speed on their soteriology. They don’t get it. The passage should have been written something like the following:

. . . and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to whether they had Faith Alone. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to whether they had Faith Alone.

Perhaps we should get together a council and rewrite the Bible so that it doesn’t have so many “Romish” errors throughout its pages . . . :-) The King James White version or sumpin’ . . . :-)

* * *

Part of the problem with the Catholic gospel is that not only do so many of the relevant passages mention faith without mentioning works, but the surrounding context gives us further reason to believe that the relevant works aren’t involved.

I can easily flip that around, based on the biblical data I have been highlighting:

“Part of the problem with the Protestant gospel is that not only do so many of the relevant passages mention works without mentioning faith (and especially not faith alone), but also the surrounding context gives us further reason to believe that faith alone isn’t involved.”

Since the Catholic believes in the triumvirate of GRACE—>faith—>works as the criteria for salvation, passages dealing with faith pose no problem. The more the merrier. We are saying that faith alone is the unbiblical doctrine, not faith. We’re not against faith at all, but rather, a false definition of faith, that restricts and confines it in a way that the Bible doesn’t do.

But since your position is faith alone (in terms of salvation itself), you have to explain away or rationalize all passages suggesting an important place of works in the equation, in a way that we’re not required to do (given our position) with all the passages about faith that you produce.

So you claimed, for example, that “The emphasis on works in judgment passages doesn’t tell us, though, whether works are a means of justification.” I have now produced six, plain, clear passages that do do just that. And that has to be explained from your paradigm.

I’m sure you will attempt some sort of explanation for your own sake (if even just in your own mind), because if you fail to do so, you would be forced to give up Protestant soteriology. The stakes are high.

But in any event, bringing out ten, twenty, fifty passages that mention faith does nothing against our position, because we don’t reject faith as part of the whole thing.

The problem for your side remains: how to interpret the centrality of works in the judgment / salvation passages like the six I dealt with in my last two postings, in a way that preserves the “faith alone” doctrine.

I contend that it is impossible. To do so does violence to the Bible and what it teaches. We must base our teaching squarely on biblical theology and not the arbitrary, self-contradictory traditions of men (folks like Calvin), who eisegete Holy Scripture and substitute for biblical thought, their own traditions.

Sometimes it’s easy to confuse those traditions with biblical teaching itself. But by examining Holy Scripture more deeply and over time, I think anyone can eventually see that it supports the Catholic positions every time.

That’s why we continue to see folks who study the issues deeply moving from Protestantism to Catholicism (such as Francis Beckwith: the original subject of this post).

our article includes John 5:26-29, so I don’t see a problem with including verse 24 as well. Themes of resurrection and judgment are already being discussed in verses 21-22. Yet, your article only cites verses 26-29.

Fair point. I love discussions of context. Protestants too often ignore context, but you don’t, and I respect that and commend you for it. I have explained my criterion for inclusion in my article on final judgment and works: it depends on how exactly one decides to categorize; how one determines which is a directly eschatological passage or one having to do with judgment. Reasonable folks can differ on that, as there is a subjective element. Not every systematic theologian cuts off the passages they employ at the same exact point.

But as I have been saying, a consideration also of the larger context of John 5 does nothing to harm the Catholic case. You wrote:

many of the relevant passages mention faith without mentioning works, . . . the surrounding context gives us further reason to believe that the relevant works aren’t involved.

Using John 5 as an example (since you brought it up), we see that this doesn’t apply. You say 5:21-22 mentions resurrection and judgment. Fine; indeed it does But what it doesn’t do is give the criteria for these judgments and who is resurrected. That has to come by reading on (further context). You want to highlight 5:24:

. . . he who hears my word and believes him who sent me, has eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.”

I have explained that this is a generalized statement: one could perhaps paraphrase it as “Christian believers have eternal life” or (to bring it down to a Sunday School nursery level): “all good Christians go to heaven.”

It doesn’t follow from a general statement like this that no Christian can ever fall away (though Calvinism requires this, over against many biblical passages to the contrary), or that works have nothing to do with it. We need to look at the deeper meaning of “believe” (as I have already done).

As we read on (the same discourse from Jesus) we get to 5:29:

. . . those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.”

Now, you want to highlight 5:24 and de-emphasize 5:29. I can gladly consider both of them in the entire equation. It’s once again the Catholic (Hebraic) “both/and” vs. the Protestant (and more Greek) “either/or”. Scripture is asserting two truths:

5:24 “he who hears my word and believes him who sent me, has eternal life”

5:29 “those who have done good, to the resurrection of life,”

Faith and works. For us, the two passages are entirely compatible and in harmony with our Catholic theology: one is saved by grace through faith, in believing in Jesus, and this belief entails and inherently includes good works.

But you guys can’t do that, because you wrongly conclude that any presence of good works in the equation of both justification and salvation itself is somehow “anti-faith” or antithetical to grace alone; and is Pelagianism. This doesn’t follow.

But because you believe this (the false, unbiblical premise), you have to explain 5:29 as merely differential rewards for the saved (who are saved by faith alone); whereas the actual text does not teach that. It teaches a direct correlation between good works and eternal life. It explains 5:24 in greater depth; just as I noted earlier that Jesus Himself places works and faith in direct relationship:

John 14:12 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do . . .

That’s why we often see baptism and faith distinguished, for example (Acts 8:12-13, 18:8, etc.).

Ah, but baptism (odd that you should bring up that example) is also equated with regeneration and entrance into the kingdom, so this is hardly an example amenable overall to your position:

Acts 2:38, 41 And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” . . . So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

The order is not:

1) faith
2) forgiveness
3) indwelling Holy Spirit
4) baptism

but rather,

1) faith
2) baptism
3) forgiveness (directly because of baptism)
4) indwelling Holy Spirit (directly because of baptism)

Because of the baptism, souls were added to the kingdom. They weren’t already in the kingdom, and then decided to be baptized out of obedience. Therefore, the work of baptism directly ties into both justification and final salvation.

Galatians 3:26-27 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Colossians 2:12 and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

Faith and baptism are virtually equivalent in their importance. One is “in” Jesus both through faith and through baptism. Both/and.

Baptism is not a separate, optional work. It is part and parcel of the process. Insofar as it, too, is regarded as a “work” then here we have again the Catholic grace-faith-works (and efficacious sacraments) paradigm.

* * *

Jason gave further answers in a three-part reply (one / two / three). I then wrote in conclusion:

Hi Jason,

We could go round and round on this forever, and keep trying to poke holes in each other’s arguments. Again, I think you have answered very well from within your paradigm. You can have the last word.

Thanks for sticking entirely to theology and avoiding any hint of personal attack. How refreshing, and a model to be emulated.

Merry Christmas to you and yours and all here.

***

(originally posted on 12-6-09)

Photo credit: Christ and the Rich Young Ruler (1889), by Heinrich Hofmann (1824-1911) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Vs. James White #6: Faith & Works, and First John

Last updated on: November 11, 2019 at 5:13 pm By Dave Armstrong

Reformed Baptist anti-Catholic apologist Bishop “Dr.” [???] James White took on the issue of synergy, man’s cooperation with God, God’s free gift of grace, and faith and works in his article entitled, “An Attempted Syllogism Examined” (11-3-09). He cited Catholic philosopher Francis Beckwith, denying “that Catholicism embraces ‘works righteousness’ because justification requires human cooperation (though performed in sanctifying grace)”. White’s words will be in blue.

*****

[H]e does not tell us why we should think that because Jesus was the God-Man this means the gospel has to be partly God’s work and partly man’s (a synergistic system). Further, in quoting the Roman Catholic position Beckwith embraces not only the concept of infusion, but that “Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life.” Of course, only God’s grace makes it possible for this to happen, however, we are still doing the meriting and, of course, there are those who do not “cooperate” and thus lose the grace of justification, becoming enemies of God. And so the real issue of the Reformation remains the same today as it was then: it is not the NECESSITY of grace that is at dispute, it is the SUFFICIENCY of grace that is the focus of the debate. And, of course, so many of those who are non-Roman Catholics today actually agree with Rome against the Reformers on that topic, and are thusly crippled in resisting Rome’s teachings. . . .

But there is by far a more pressing reason to reject Beckwith’s syllogism: the Bible speaks directly to the issue of the fact of God’s solitary and unique role in salvation. Not only are we told that salvation is of the Lord, but that all of salvation is of the Lord, from beginning to end, and that God, and God alone, is to be glorified as a result. Consider these words:

26 For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; 27 but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, 28 and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, 29 so that no man may boast before God. 30 But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, 31 so that, just as it is written, “LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD.” (1Co 1:26-31)

Further, the problem with Rome’s gospel can be illustrated by asking Frank Beckwith (and any other follower of Rome) the same question I asked Fr. Peter Stravinskas in 2001, a question that a truly honest Roman Catholic cannot answer as the Bible does. Dr. Beckwith, are you the blessed man of Romans 4:7-8? Are your sins imputed to you? What does your priest say when you ask him? You know the answer from Rome’s teachings, but surely you must know that Paul’s answer would be, “the blessed man is every believer in Jesus Christ.” So how do you answer this question?

Delighted to have the opportunity to interact with White’s provocative question. My answer is, yes, indeed I and any other regenerated Catholic believer, not mired in mortal sin (see 1 Jn 5:16-17), is the “blessed man” of Romans 4:7-8 (RSV, as throughout): “Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; [8] blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not reckon his sin.”

We can, however, lose this blessedness by means of our rebellious free will, and so those familiar with all the relevant biblical teaching on possible apostasy and the moral assurance of salvation (as opposed to some imaginary absolute assurance), agree with the Bible writers that we are in Christ and will be saved, provided that we don’t “turn back again to the weak and beggarly elemental spirits” (Gal 4:9), or “submit again to a yoke of slavery” leading to our being “severed from Christ” and “fallen away from grace” (Gal 5:1, 4), and “provided that” we “continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel” (Col 1:23), and do not (according to what “the Spirit expressly says”) “depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons” (1 Tim 4:1), and if we have not “strayed after Satan” (1 Tim 5:15).

The apostle Paul made it clear that he himself (as in 1 Cor 9:27) had “not . . . already obtained” this salvation, and that he had to “press on” to make that happen (Phil 3:12); he would be saved unless “after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified” (1 Cor 9:27). He also wrote that we will be “children of God” and “fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him” (Rom 8:16-17).

The writer of Hebrews is even more crystal clear and explicit. We will be saved by God’s grace unless “there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God” (3:12), or if it so happens that we are “hardened by the deceitfulness of sin” (3:13), and “if only we hold our first confidence firm to the end” (3:14). Is it clear enough yet? The same inspired writer of God’s infallible revelation informs us that “it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God, and the powers of the age to come, if they then commit apostasy” (6:4-6).

St. Peter continues the same sort of thought on apostasy: “Forsaking the right way they have gone astray; they have followed the way of Balaam, . . . For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overpowered, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them” (2 Pet 2:15, 20-21).

Thus, — bottom line –, we must sadly conclude that James White’s exegesis and soteriological teaching is shallow and hyper-selective, whereas Catholic soteriology is far more comprehensively biblical: taking into account all relevant themes and passages, so as to create a coherent whole.

I suppose that if anyone simply chose to ignore the passages I have highlighted (most of them from the apostle Paul), or had never ever learned of them at all, then sure (ignorance is bliss, as they say), he or she would believe in absolute assurance of salvation, based on the every carefully selected passages that White and other Protestant preachers and theologians and apologists produce. But that would be insufficiently biblical and it would be a simpleton man’s religion. That’s the problem.

Lastly, I would like to examine another portion of Scripture that doesn’t fit at all into James White’s and the general Calvinist / eternal security / fundamentalist mold (this argument would not apply to the many Arminian / Wesleyan-type Protestants, who believe that apostasy or falling away from grace and salvation is possible).

For White and his like-minded buddies, it’s a very simple affair: you are forgiven once and for all with a sinner’s prayer or some other outward form of committing oneself to Christ (an adult baptism or whatever). That’s it. There is no more need for forgiveness because God imputes justification to such a believer, and saves him or her once-and-for-all in that one-time event.

The problem is that 1 John (among many other passages) completely contradicts this scenario. St. John repeatedly and undeniably teaches that we must exhibit this moral assurance of salvation and being in Christ by good works (the two are hand-in-hand; two blades of a pair of scissors, or two sides of the same coin, just as they also are in James). This is most assuredly not a “faith alone” theology:

1 John 1:7 but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.

1 John 2:3-6 And by this we may be sure that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He who says “I know him” but disobeys his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him; [5] but whoever keeps his word, in him truly love for God is perfected. By this we may be sure that we are in him: [6] he who says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.

1 John 2:29 If you know that he is righteous, you may be sure that every one who does right is born of him.

1 John 3:3 And every one who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure.

1 John 3:7 Little children, let no one deceive you. He who does right is righteous, as he is righteous.

1 John 3:10 By this it may be seen who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not do right is not of God, nor he who does not love his brother.

1 John 3:22-24 and we receive from him whatever we ask, because we keep his commandments and do what pleases him. [23] And this is his commandment, that we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us. [24] All who keep his commandments abide in him, and he in them. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit which he has given us. (cf. 5:2-3)

1 John 4:8 He who does not love does not know God; for God is love. (cf. 4:11-12, 16, 19, 21)

1 John 4:20 If any one says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen.

***

Unfortunately, Money Trees Do Not Exist: If you have been aided in any way by my work, or think it is valuable and worthwhile, please strongly consider financially supporting it (even $10 / month — a mere 33 cents a day — would be very helpful). I have been a full-time Catholic apologist since Dec. 2001, and have been writing Christian apologetics since 1981 (see my Resume). My work has been proven (by God’s grace alone) to be fruitful, in terms of changing lives (see the tangible evidences from unsolicited “testimonies”). I have to pay my bills like all of you: and have a (homeschooling) wife and three children still at home to provide for, and a mortgage to pay.

My book royalties from three bestsellers in the field (published in 2003-2007) have been decreasing, as has my overall income, making it increasingly difficult to make ends meet. I provide over 2600 free articles here, for the purpose of your edification and education, and have written 50 books. It’ll literally be a struggle to survive financially until Dec. 2020, when both my wife and I will be receiving Social Security. If you cannot contribute, I ask for your prayers (and “likes” and links and shares). Thanks!

See my information on how to donate (including 100% tax-deductible donations). It’s very simple to contribute to my apostolate via PayPal, if a tax deduction is not needed (my “business name” there is called “Catholic Used Book Service,” from my old bookselling days 17 or so years ago, but send to my email: [email protected]). Another easy way to send and receive money (with a bank account or a mobile phone) is through Zelle. Again, just send to my e-mail address. May God abundantly bless you.

***

Photo credit: Piotr Siedlecki [Needpix.com / public domain]

***

St. Paul on Grace, Faith, and Works (50 Passages)

Last updated on: November 22, 2021 at 4:31 pm By Dave Armstrong

Original Title: St. Paul’s Teaching on the Organic Relationship of Grace, Faith and Works, and Obedience (50 Passages)

St. Paul (1482), by Bartolomeo Montegna (1450-1523) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

* * * * *

(8-6-08)

[all passages RSV]

Romans 1:5 through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations, (cf. Acts 6:7)

Romans 1:17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, “He who through faith is righteous shall live.”

Romans 2:6-7 For he will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; (cf. 2:8; 2:10)

Romans 2:13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. (cf. James 1:22-23; 2:21-24)

Romans 3:22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction;

Romans 3:31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

Romans 6:17 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed,

Romans 8:13 for if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live. (cf. 2 Cor 11:15)

Romans 8:28 We know that in everything God works for good with those who love him, who are called according to his purpose.

Romans 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel; for Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?”

Romans 14:23 But he who has doubts is condemned, if he eats, because he does not act from faith; for whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.

Romans 15:17-18 In Christ Jesus, then, I have reason to be proud of my work for God. For I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has wrought through me to win obedience from the Gentiles, by word and deed,

Romans 16:26 but is now disclosed and through the prophetic writings is made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith — (cf. Heb 11:8)

1 Corinthians 3:9 For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building. (cf. 3:8; Mk 16:20)

1 Corinthians 3:10 According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and another man is building upon it. Let each man take care how he builds upon it.

1 Corinthians 9:27 but I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.

1 Corinthians 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me.

1 Corinthians 15:58 Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain.

1 Corinthians 16:13 Be watchful, stand firm in your faith, be courageous, be strong.

2 Corinthians 1:6 If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation; and if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which you experience when you patiently endure the same sufferings that we suffer.

2 Corinthians 1:24 Not that we lord it over your faith; we work with you for your joy, for you stand firm in your faith.

2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body.

2 Corinthians 6:1 Working together with him, then, we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain.

2 Corinthians 8:3-7 For they gave according to their means, as I can testify, and beyond their means, of their own free will, begging us earnestly for the favor of taking part in the relief of the saints — and this, not as we expected, but first they gave themselves to the Lord and to us by the will of God. Accordingly we have urged Titus that as he had already made a beginning, he should also complete among you this gracious work. Now as you excel in everything — in faith, in utterance, in knowledge, in all earnestness, and in your love for us — see that you excel in this gracious work also.

2 Corinthians 10:15 We do not boast beyond limit, in other men’s labors; but our hope is that as your faith increases, our field among you may be greatly enlarged,

2 Corinthians 11:23 Are they servants of Christ? I am a better one — I am talking like a madman — with far greater labors, far more imprisonments, with countless beatings, and often near death.

2 Corinthians 13:5 Examine yourselves, to see whether you are holding to your faith. Test yourselves. Do you not realize that Jesus Christ is in you? — unless indeed you fail to meet the test!

Galatians 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

Galatians 5:6-7 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love. You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth?

Galatians 6:7-9 Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. For he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption; but he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. And let us not grow weary in well-doing, for in due season we shall reap, if we do not lose heart.

Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Philippians 2:12-13 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

Philippians 2:14-16 Do all things without grumbling or questioning, that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world, holding fast the word of life, so that in the day of Christ I may be proud that I did not run in vain or labor in vain.

Philippians 3:9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own, based on law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith;

Philippians 4:3 And I ask you also, true yokefellow, help these women, for they have labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.

Colossians 3:23-25 Whatever your task, work heartily, as serving the Lord and not men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward; you are serving the Lord Christ. For the wrongdoer will be paid back for the wrong he has done, and there is no partiality.

1Thessalonians 1:3 remembering before our God and Father your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ.

2 Thessalonians 1:8 inflicting vengeance upon those who do not know God and upon those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.

2 Thessalonians 1:11 To this end we always pray for you, that our God may make you worthy of his call, and may fulfil every good resolve and work of faith by his power,

1 Timothy 6:11 But as for you, man of God, shun all this; aim at righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness.

1 Timothy 6:18-19 They are to do good, to be rich in good deeds, liberal and generous, thus laying up for themselves a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of the life which is life indeed.

2 Timothy 2:10 Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain salvation in Christ Jesus with its eternal glory.

2 Timothy 2:22 So shun youthful passions and aim at righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call upon the Lord from a pure heart.

2 Timothy 4:7 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.

Titus 1:16 They profess to know God, but they deny him by their deeds; they are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good deed.

Titus 3:8 The saying is sure. I desire you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to apply themselves to good deeds; these are excellent and profitable to men.

Titus 3:14 And let our people learn to apply themselves to good deeds, so as to help cases of urgent need, and not to be unfruitful.

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 3,900+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

Vs. Geisler on Catholicism #10: “Faith Alone” 2

Last updated on: July 18, 2025 at 10:01 am By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

Including Sacraments, Grace, & Salvation; Protestants & Salvation Through Baptism & the Eucharist

**Photo credit**: *Portrait of Martin Luther* (1525), by Lucas Cranach the Elder (1472-1553) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Norman L. Geisler (1932 – 2019) was an American evangelical Protestant theologian, philosopher, and apologist. He obtained an M.A. in theology from Wheaton College and a Ph.D. in philosophy from Loyola University, and made scholarly contributions to the subjects of classical Christian apologetics, systematic theology, philosophy of religion, Calvinism, Catholicism, biblical inerrancy, Bible difficulties, biblical miracles, the resurrection of Jesus, ethics, and other topics. He wrote or edited more 90 books and hundreds of articles.

Dr. Geisler was the Chairman of Philosophy of Religion at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (1970–79) and Professor of Systematic Theology at Dallas Theological Seminary (1979–88) and a key figure in founding the Evangelical Philosophical Society. He also co-founded Southern Evangelical Seminary. He was known as an evangelical Thomist and considered himself a “moderate Calvinist”. He was not an anti-Catholic (i.e., he didn’t deny that Catholicism was fully a species of Christianity).

This is one of a series of comprehensive replies to his book, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences (co-author, Ralph E. MacKenzie, graduate of Bethel Theological Seminary-West; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 1995). It’s available online in a public domain version, which has no page numbers, so I will utilize page numbers from my paperback copy, for the sake of full reference. I consider it the best Protestant critique of Catholicism (especially in terms of biblical arguments) that I have ever found, from any time period. The arguments are, for the most part, impressively presented, thought-provoking, respectful, respectable, and worthy of serious consideration (which I’m now giving them).

I’ll be concentrating on the eight sections of Part Two: “Areas of Doctrinal Differences” (202 pages). These installments will be listed and linked on my Calvinism & General Protestantism web page, in section XVII: “Catholics and Protestants” (second from the end). Dr. Geisler’s and Ralph MacKenzie’s words will be in blue. My biblical citations are from RSV.

*****

While Roman Catholic theology claims that there is no salvation apart from God’s grace, their view of the sacraments tends to take away in practice what they have affirmed in principle. The Catholic view of a sacrament, unchanged by Vatican II, is that it is given “not merely as a sign but as a cause of grace.” Catholic dogma states: “If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law do not contain the grace which they signify, or that they do not confer that grace on those who do not place any obstacle in the way, as though they were only outward signs of grace or justice, received through faith . . . let him be anathema. ” Furthermore, it is anathema to believe that “grace is not conferred from the work which has been worked” but has come from “faith alone.” This being the case, salvation is by sacraments. God’s normative way of saving sinners is, according to Catholic dogma, through the Catholic sacramental system . . . (p. 242)

The sacraments, institutionalized as they are in the Roman Catholic Church, are necessary for salvation. (p. 243)

Dr. Geisler here employs an extreme version of the common and most unfortunate Protestant “either/or” mentality, which has to do with the propensity to create false dichotomies that don’t logically — or theologically — follow. He claims that Catholic thought is contradictory insofar as we agree on grace alone (sola gratia) but also believe in sacraments. Then he cites a Catholic source asserting that sacraments “contain” and “confer” grace. Yet to him this is a contradiction. Why? Catholics reply that it’s still be grace, and that sacraments are merely conduits or the means of obtaining grace. There is no difference. It’s only a prior irrational antipathy to sacraments (physical or material means of obtaining grace) that would bring about this supposed conflict in one’s mind.

The Bible clearly states that baptism conveys grace and salvation (I found 14 passages), as does also receiving the Holy Eucharist:

John 6:48-51 I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

John 6:53-58 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”

This is what Geisler is forced to oppose. His beef is ultimately against biblical teaching; not merely Catholic teaching, because the latter is derived from the former. It’s so clear in the Bible that many important — even the most important — Protestants agree. Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism, is one of these:

Little children . . . are free in every way, secure and saved solely through the glory of their baptism . . . Through the prayer of the believing church which presents it, . . . the infant is changed, cleansed, and renewed by inpoured faith. Nor should I doubt that even a godless adult could be changed, in any of the sacraments, if the same church prayed for and presented him, as we read of the paralytic in the Gospel, who was healed through the faith of others (Mark 2:3-12). I should be ready to admit that in this sense the sacraments of the New Law are efficacious in conferring grace, not only to those who do not, but even to those who do most obstinately present an obstacle.” (The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, 1520, from the translation of A. T. W. Steinhauser, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, revised edition, 1970, 197)

Likewise, in his Large Catechism (1529), Luther writes:

Expressed in the simplest form, the power, the effect, the benefit, the fruit and the purpose of baptism is to save. No one is baptized that he may become a prince, but, as the words declare [of Mark 16:16], that he may be saved. But to be saved, we know very well, is to be delivered from sin, death, and Satan, and to enter Christ’s kingdom and live forever with him . . . Through the Word, baptism receives the power to become the washing of regeneration, as St. Paul calls it in Titus 3:5 . . . Faith clings to the water and believes it to be baptism which effects pure salvation and life . . . When sin and conscience oppress us . . . you may say: It is a fact that I am baptized, but, being baptized, I have the promise that I shall be saved and obtain eternal life for both soul and body . . . Hence, no greater jewel can adorn our body or soul than baptism; for through it perfect holiness and salvation become accessible to us . . . (From edition by Augsburg Publishing House [Minneapolis], 1935, sections 223-224, 230, pages 162, 165)

All the major Lutheran denominations hold to baptismal regeneration. John Calvin agrees:

Let it be a fixed point, that the office of the sacraments differs not from the word of God; and this is to hold forth and offer Christ to us, and, in him, the treasures of heavenly grace. (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, 14:17)

There never can be a sacrament without a promise of salvation. (Ibid., IV, 18:19)

Those whom the Lord has once admitted into favour, and ingrafted into communion with Christ, and received into the fellowship of the Church by baptism, are freed from guilt and condemnation . . . (IV, 15:12)

God, regenerating us in baptism, ingrafts us into the fellowship of his Church, and makes us his by adoption, . . . (IV, 17:1)

It is his will that all who have believed, be baptised for the remission of sins. Hence those who have thought that baptism is nothing else than the badge and mark by which we profess our religion before men, in the same way as soldiers attest their profession by bearing the insignia of their commander, having not attended to what was the principal thing in baptism; and this is, that we are to receive it in connection with the promise, “He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved” (Mark 16:16). (IV, 15:1)

In this sense is to be understood the statement of Paul, that “Christ loved the Church, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word” (Eph. 5:25, 26); and again, “not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost” (Titus 3:5). Peter also says that “baptism also doth now save us” (1 Peter 3:21). (IV, 15:2)

We ought to consider that at whatever time we are baptised, we are washed and purified once for the whole of life. Wherefore, as often as we fall, we must recall the remembrance of our baptism, and thus fortify our minds, so as to feel certain and secure of the remission of sins. For though, when once administered, it seems to have passed, it is not abolished by subsequent sins. (IV, 15:3)

All who are clothed with the righteousness of Christ are at the same time regenerated by the Spirit, . . . we have an earnest of this regeneration in baptism. (IV, 15:12)

But how, they ask, are infants regenerated, when not possessing a knowledge of either good or evil? We answer, that the work of God, though beyond the reach of our capacity, is not therefore null. Moreover, infants who are to be saved (and that some are saved at this age is certain) must, without question, be previously regenerated by the Lord. For if they bring innate corruption with them from their mother’s womb, they must be purified before they can be admitted into the kingdom of God, into which shall not enter anything that defileth (Rev. 21:27). If they are born sinners, as David and Paul affirm, they must either remain unaccepted and hated by God, or be justified. (IV, 16:17)

They object, that baptism is given for the remission of sins. When this is conceded, it strongly supports our view; for, seeing we are born sinners, we stand in need of forgiveness and pardon from the very womb. . . . If, by baptism, Christ intends to attest the ablution by which he cleanses his Church, it would seem not equitable to deny this attestation to infants, who are justly deemed part of the Church, seeing they are called heirs of the heavenly kingdom. (IV, 16:22)

John Wesley, who was a lifelong Anglican (Anglicanism holding to baptismal regeneration), but is also considered the founder of Methodism, also concurs with Catholics, Luther, and Calvin:

By baptism we, who were “by nature children of wrath,” are made the children of God. And this regeneration, which our [Anglican] Church in so many places ascribes to baptism, is more than barely being admitted into the Church, though commonly connected therewith; being “grafted into the body of Christ’s Church, we are made the children of God by adoption and grace.” This is grounded on the plain words of our Lord, “Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” [John 3:5]. By water then, as a means, the water of baptism, we are regenerated or born again; whence it is also called by the apostle “the washing of regeneration.” Our Church, therefore, ascribes no greater virtue to baptism than Christ himself has done. Nor does she ascribe it to the outward washing, but to the inward grace, which, added thereto, makes it a sacrament. Herein a principle of grace is infused which will not be wholly taken away, unless we quench the Holy Spirit of God by long-continued wickedness. (A Treatise on Baptism; 11 Nov. 1756)

But “as by the offense of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation, so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men, to justification of life.” And the virtue of this free gift, the merits of Christ’s life and death, are applied to us in baptism. “He gave himself for the Church, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word” [Eph. 5:25-26]; namely, in baptism, the ordinary instrument of our justification. Agreeably to this, our Church prays in the baptismal office that the person to be baptized may be “washed and sanctified by the Holy Ghost, and, being delivered from God’s wrath, receive remission of sins, and enjoy the everlasting benediction of his heavenly washing;” . . . (Ibid.)

Our [Anglican] Church declares in the rubric at the end of the office, “It is certain, by God’s word, that children who are baptized, dying before they commit actual sin, are saved.” And this is agreeable to the unanimous judgment of all the ancient fathers. . . . Baptism doth now save us, if we live answerable thereto; if we repent, believe, and obey the Gospel, supposing this, as it admits us into the Church here, so into glory hereafter. . . . In the ordinary way there is no other means of entering into the Church or into heaven. (Ibid.)

Infants indeed, our Church supposes to be justified in baptism, although they cannot then either believe or repent, But she expressly requires both repentance and faith, in. those who come to be baptized when they are of riper years. (A Farther Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion, 1745)

The Churches of Christ and Disciples of Christ denominations believe in (adult) baptismal regeneration; and of course, Eastern Orthodoxy holds to baptismal regeneration. Geisler’s is a tiny, tiny minority view, both today and even more so throughout Church history. And it is because it’s contrary to Holy Scripture.

Martin Luther tied Holy Communion to salvation and forgiveness of sins:

What is the Sacrament of the Altar?

It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and the wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself. . . .

What is the benefit of such eating and drinking?

That is shown us by these words, “Given and shed for you for the remission of sins”; namely, that in the Sacrament forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation are given us through these words. For where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation. (Small Catechism, 1529, 20-21)

We go to the Communion because we receive there a treasure through and in which we obtain the forgiveness of sins. (Large Catechism, 1529, section 247).

So did John Calvin:

As bread nourishes, sustains, and protects our bodily life, so the body of Christ is the only food to invigorate and keep alive the soul. . . . to foster, refresh, strengthen, and exhilarate. . . . nourishing us unto life eternal, . . . (Institutes, IV, 17:3-4)

[H]e gave himself to be crucified for the redemption of the world; and he gives himself daily, when in the word of the gospel he offers himself to be partaken by us, inasmuch as he was crucified, when he seals that offer by the sacred mystery of the Supper, and when he accomplishes inwardly what he externally designates. . . . That Christ is the bread of life by which believers are nourished unto eternal life, . . . For there are some who define the eating of the flesh of Christ, and the drinking of his blood, to be, in one word, nothing more than believing in Christ himself. But Christ seems to me to have intended to teach something more express and more sublime in that noble discourse, in which he recommends the eating of his flesh—viz. that we are quickened by the true partaking of him, . . . (IV, 17:5)

The very flesh in which he resides he makes vivifying to us, that by partaking of it we may feed for immortality. “I,” says he, “am that bread of life;” “I am the living bread which came down from heaven;” “And the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world” (John 6:48, 51) . . . . by this food believers are reared to eternal life. (IV, 17:8)

Who sees not that the communion of the flesh and blood of Christ is necessary to all who aspire to the heavenly life? (IV, 17:9)

The true and substantial communication of the body and blood of the Lord, . . . are received not by the imagination or intellect merely, but are enjoyed in reality as the food of eternal life. (IV, 17:19)

Such, I say, is the corporeal presence which the nature of the sacrament requires, and which we say is here displayed in such power and efficacy, that it not only gives our minds undoubted assurance of eternal life, but also secures the immortality of our flesh, . . . (IV, 17:32)

So did the Anglican John Wesley:

What is to be inferred from this undeniable matter of fact,—one that had not faith received it in the Lord’s Supper? Why, 1. that there are means of grace; i. e. outward ordinances, whereby the inward grace of God is ordinarily conveyed to man; whereby the faith that brings salvation is conveyed to them who before had it not;—2. That one of these means is the Lord’s Supper;—and 3. That he who has not this faith ought to wait for it, in the use both of this and of the other means which God hath ordained. (Journal, 7 Nov. 1739)

All who desire an increase of the grace of God, are to wait for it in partaking of the Lord’s-Supper. . . . And that this is also an ordinary, stated mean of receiving the grace of God, is evident from those words of the Apostle, which occur in the preceding chapter. “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion [or communication] of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” [1 Cor. 10:16]. Is not the eating of that bread, and the drinking of that cup, the outward, visible mean, whereby God conveys into our souls all that spiritual grace, that righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost, which were purchased by the body of Christ once broken, and the blood of Christ once shed for us? Let all, therefore, who truly desire the grace of God, eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. (Sermon 16: “The Means of Grace,” 15 Nov. 1739)

We see, then, that these matters are not merely “a Catholic thing.” It’s a “mainstream Christian” and “biblical” thing. Christianity is sacramental by its very nature. Geisler is the “odd man out.”

And although some contemporary Catholics are beginning to acknowledge the Protestant contribution of forensic justification, it was not spelled out by the Council of Trent. Indeed, while there may be no logical incompatibility of forensic justification with the Roman Catholic concept of initial justification, there
are serious problems with the Catholic concept of progressive justification. (p. 247)

Trent did indeed allude to a limited sense of forensic or extrinsic justification. See: Trent Doesn’t Utterly Exclude Imputation (Kenneth Howell) [July 1996]. Therefore, this being the case, it’s not simply “some contemporary Catholics” who “are beginning” to think about these issues. It goes back almost 500 years. But in the sweeping, exclusive Protestant sense, imputed, external, declared justification is a falsehood:

Salvation and Justification in the Gospels and Acts [21 passages] [1996]

Catholic Bible Verses on Sanctification and Merit [12-20-07]

Bible on the Nature of Saving Faith (Including Assent, Trust, Hope, Works, Obedience, and Sanctification) [380 passages] [1-21-10]

Biblical “Power”: Proof of Infused (Catholic) Justification [12 passages] [3-14-11]

St. Paul’s Use of the Term “Gift” & Infused Justification [19 passages] [2013]

New Testament Epistles on Bringing About Further Sanctification and Even Salvation By Our Own Actions [7-2-13]

Biblical Evidence for Catholic Justification [National Catholic Register, 11-2-17]

Justification: Reply to Jordan Cooper (Highlighting Love as the Fulfilling of the Law & Commandments, in Relation to Justification & Salvation) [4-23-24]

Salvation as a Process: 75 NT Passages [11-16-24]

Transformation of Believers in the NT: 150 Passages (Regeneration is Only the Beginning . . .) [12-16-24]

Works & Sanctification Partly Cause Salvation: 34 Passages [1-30-25]

***

Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become a Catholic or to return to the Catholic Church, or better understand some doctrines and why Catholics believe them. If you believe my full-time apostolate is worth supporting, please seriously consider a much-needed monthly or one-time financial contribution. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV).

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle and 100% tax-deductible donations if desired), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information.

You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my two YouTube channels, Catholic Bible Highlights and Lux Veritatis (featuring documentaries), in partnership with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos and documentaries), and/or by signing up to receive notice for new articles on this blog. Just type your email address on the sidebar to the right (scroll down quite a bit), where you see, “Sign Me Up!” Thanks a million!

***

Photo credit: Portrait of Martin Luther (1525), by Lucas Cranach the Elder (1472-1553) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: Extensive biblical & historical reply to Dr. Geisler’s regarding sacraments, grace, & salvation; highlighting historic Protestants on salvation through baptism & the Eucharist.

Vs. Geisler on Catholicism #9: “Faith Alone” 1

Last updated on: July 17, 2025 at 12:48 pm By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

Including Luther’s Qualified “Faith Alone”; Catholic Soteriology Accurately Presented; Meritorious Works; Bible vs. “Faith Alone”

**Photo credit**: self-designed cover for my 2010 book.

*****

Before Luther, the standard Augustinian position on justification stressed intrinsic justification . . . . Intrinsic justification argues that the believer is made righteous by God’s grace, as compared to extrinsic justification, by which a sinner is forensically declared righteous (at best, a subterranean strain in pre-Reformation Christendom). (p. 222)

Here, Dr. Geisler bears witness to the fact that the distinctive and novel “faith alone” Protestant soteriology scarcely existed before the 16th century. Thanks for the confirmation! Catholics have been making the same point for 500 years. Geisler made similar points in other parts of his book:

For Augustine, justification included both the beginnings of one’s righteousness before God and its subsequent perfection — the event and the process. What later became the Reformation concept of ‘sanctification’ then is effectively subsumed under the aegis of justification. Although he believed that God initiated the salvation process, it is incorrect to say that Augustine held to the concept of ‘forensic’ justification. This understanding of justification is a later development of the Reformation . . . (p. 85)

One can be saved without believing that imputed righteousness (or forensic justification) is an essential part of the true gospel. Otherwise, few people were saved between the time of the apostle Paul and the Reformation, since scarcely anyone taught imputed righteousness (or forensic justification) during that period! . . . . . (p. 502)

See also my article, including the leading Protestant historian of justification, Alister McGrath’s almost identical opinion: Sola Fide (Faith Alone) Nonexistent Before the Protestant Revolt in 1517 (Geisler & McGrath) [Catholic365, 10-31-23].

Geisler even notes that the classic “faith alone” view was not, strictly speaking, initiated even by Martin Luther:

Melanchthon, Luther’s great systematic theologian, did use forensic terms to describe justification. (p. 222)

Geisler commendably points out some other qualifications in Luther’s own views, which is rare in Protestant “Reformation” apologetics. These highlighted aspects reveal that Luther’s position was closer to the Catholic belief regarding justification than most people are aware:

Amid the Protestant stress on Luther’s discovery it is sometimes forgotten that Luther also believed in a progressive sense of the word “justification.” For example, he said: “For we understand that a man who is justified is not already righteous but moving toward righteousness (WA 391, 83; LW 34, 152).” Further, “Our justification is not yet complete…. It is still under construction. It shall, however, be completed in the resurrection of the dead (WA 391, 252).” This sense of progressive justification is what many Protestants call “sanctification,” the process by which we are made righteous, not an act by which one is declared righteous. Toon adds, “Justification by faith is both an event and a process. What later Protestants were to divide, Luther kept together. He is quite clear that there is a moment when a sinner is actually justified by faith. He then has the righteousness of another, the alien righteousness of Christ, imputed to him.” However, “this is the beginning of a journey toward a time (following the resurrection of the dead in the age to come) when he will in fact possess a perfect righteousness created in him by the Spirit of God.” Luther also suggested that the believer is righteous in the eyes of God and yet sinful at the same time. “For Luther, faith is the right (or righteous) relationship to God. Sin and righteousness thus coexist; we remain sinners inwardly, but we are righteous extrinsically in the sight of God.” However, “Luther is not necessarily implying that this co-existence of sin and righteousness is a permanent condition.” Instead, for Luther, “the existence of sin does not negate our status as Christians.” (pp. 223-224; Geisler cites at length Peter Toon, Foundations for Faith [Westchester, Ill., Crossway, 1983, 58-59)

I’ve pointed this out, too, for many years. See, for example, my articles:

Luther’s “Snow-Covered Dunghill” (Myth?) [10-5-05]

Martin Luther: Good Works Prove Authentic Faith [4-16-08]

Luther on Theosis & Sanctification [11-23-09]

Martin Luther: Faith Alone is Not Lawless Antinomianism [2-28-10]

Merit & Sanctification: Martin Luther’s Point of View [11-10-14]

Calvinist Origin of Luther’s (?) “Snow-Covered Dunghill”? [5-14-19]

Trent understands justification in two senses (the second corresponding to the Reformed doctrine of sanctification), this second justification requires good works as a condition for ultimate justification. “It is thus both possible and necessary to keep the law of God.” . . . Trent understood justification in two ways: the first and second phases which Catholic scholars refer to as “initial” and “progressive” justification respectively. (p. 225)

Very good. I have noted this, too:

Initial Justification & “Faith Alone”: Harmonious? [5-3-04]

Monergism in Initial Justification is Catholic Doctrine [1-7-10]

Trent Doesn’t Utterly Exclude Imputation (Kenneth Howell) [July 1996]

Geisler makes another very helpful and ecumenical observation, accurately conveying Catholic doctrine (it’s refreshing to see):

Trent states that our initial justification must be seen as a “gift.” Thus, it comes as a surprise to many Protestants that Roman Catholics believe that “If anyone shall say that man can be justified before God by his own works which are done . . . without divine grace through Christ Jesus: let him be Further, “nothing that precedes justification, whether faith or works, merits the grace of justification. For if it is by grace, it is no more by works; otherwise, as the apostle says, grace is no more grace.” The new Catechism of the Catholic Church says clearly: “The merits of our good works are gifts of the divine goodness” (2009).

It is only fair to point out here that when Catholic scholars cite James 2:24 (“we are justified by works”) they do not mean this initial justification which comes only by grace. Rather, they are referring to progressive justification (growth in righteousness) which Protestants call sanctification. Trent does assert, however, that works are necessary for salvation in the progressive and eventual senses, making it dogma that “by his good works the justified man really acquires a claim to supernatural reward from God.” It is precisely here that Catholics and evangelicals disagree. (p. 226; italics his own, in citing Trent)

At the end, Geisler, like a good Protestant, denies meritorious works. In so doing, he opposes much Scripture:

Catholic Bible Verses on Sanctification and Merit [12-20-07]

Merit & Human Cooperation with God (vs. Calvin #35) [10-19-09]

Scripture on Being Co-Workers with God for Salvation [72 passages] [2013]

Lucas Banzoli’s Mindless Denigration of an Imagined “Mary” (Including Extensive Biblical Analyses of Exceptionally “Righteous” and “Holy” People, and Merit) [9-11-22]

The Bible Is Clear: Some Holy People Are Holier Than Others [National Catholic Register, 9-19-22]

Sinless Creatures in the Bible: Actual & Potential (Including a Listing of Many Biblical Passages About Sin, Holiness, Blamelessness, Righteousness, Godliness, Perfection, and Sanctity) [10-20-22; greatly expanded on 7-27-23]

Meritorious Works: 50 Biblical Proofs (Bible Passages On God’s Rewarding and Being Pleased by Grace-Originated Meritorious Works of the Regenerate) [10-4-24]

Explicit Biblical Argument for Merit: St. Paul’s “Boasting” and “Pride” in the Work He and Other Christians Do for the Sake of God and Evangelism [Facebook, 10-12-24]
*

Reply to Calvin’s Antidote to Trent on Justification (Highlighting “Working Together with God” and Our Grounds for “Boasting” and “Pride” in the Meritorious Work We and Other Christians Do for the Sake of God and Evangelism) [10-14-24]

Perfectly Keeping the Law: 15 Bible Passages [12-12-24]
*

Scripture teaches that grace and meritorious works are mutually exclusive. . . . neither merit in the strict sense of what is justly earned nor merit which is based in part on what is earned but goes beyond that by God’s goodness is compatible with grace. (p. 230)

Really? I must have missed that. Here are some related passages that I have found, that teach otherwise:

Romans 15:17-18 . . . In Christ Jesus, then, I have reason to be proud of my work for God. [18] For I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has wrought through me to win obedience from the Gentiles, by word and deed,
*

1 Corinthians 3:6-9 I planted, Apol’los watered, but God gave the growth. [7] So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. [8] He who plants and he who waters are equal, and each shall receive his wages according to his labor. [9] For we are God’s fellow workers . . .
*

1 Corinthians 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me.

*

2 Corinthians 6:1 Working together with him, then, we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain.

*

Philippians 2:12-13 . . . work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; [13] for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

*

2 Thessalonians 1:11 To this end we always pray for you, that our God may make you worthy of his call, and may fulfil every good resolve and work of faith by his power,

St. Paul doesn’t dichotomize faith and good works, as Dr. Geisler does. They go hand-in-hand. And according to Jesus we receive rewards for good works not just in heaven, but also in this life:

Mark 10:29-30 Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, [30] who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, . . .

St. Augustine said that our merit was merely God crowning his own gifts. That’s what the Catholic Church teaches. It ultimately doesn’t come from us; it comes from God, giving us the grace to do any good thing (Ps 51:7, 10; 84:11). But we can and should willingly participate and do what He wants us to do, and God rewards that.

Works are not a condition of salvation; salvation is a gift of grace received by faith alone apart from meritorious works. None of us works for an inheritance; it is something graciously given to us by a benefactor. If, however, we are “rewarded” for our work by salvation or eternal life, then it is not truly and solely God’s grace, despite Catholic protests to the contrary. . . . the New Testament clearly speaks against obtaining salvation (whether justification or sanctification) as a reward (i.e., wage) for work done. (p. 230)

Neither initial righteousness (justification) nor progressive righteousness (sanctification) is conditioned on meritorious works. Rather, both are received by grace through faith apart from any works of righteousness. (p. 237)

Works-for-reward come under sanctification, not justification. They are what we do as a result of being saved, not what we do in order to be saved (i.e., to
receive the gift of eternal life). (p. 238)

If we must live a life of sanctification as a condition for our ultimate justification (i.e., to get to heaven), then works have nullified grace. Works have become a de facto condition for heaven. But we cannot work for our salvation (Rom. 4:5; Eph. 2:8- 9); we can only work from it (Eph. 2:10). (p. 240)

I have collected a hundred Bible passages that contradict this understanding. Here are some of the clearest:

Matthew 7:18-21 A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. [19] Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. [20] Thus you will know them by their fruits. [21] “Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.. . .

Matthew 16:27 For the Son of man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay every man for what he has done.

Matthew 19:16-17, 20-21 And behold, one came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?” [17] And he said to him, “. . . If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” . . . [20] The young man said to him, “All these I have observed; what do I still lack?” [21] Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” (in the parallel passage Lk 10:27 the ruler says, “. . . You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” And Jesus replied, “You have answered right; do this, and you will live.”)

Matthew 25:34-35, 41-43, 46 Then the King will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; [35] for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, . . . [41] Then he will say to those at his left hand, `Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; [42] for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, [43] I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ . . . [46] And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Luke 3:9 (+ Mt 3:10; 7:19) . . . every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

Luke 6:35 But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; . . .

Romans 2:6-10 For he will render to every man according to his works: [7] to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; [8] but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. [9] There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, [10] but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.

Romans 2:13-16 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. [14] When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. [15] They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them [16] on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

Galatians 6:7-9 Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. [8] For he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption; but he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. [9] And let us not grow weary in well-doing, for in due season we shall reap, if we do not lose heart.

1 Timothy 6:18-19 They are to do good, to be rich in good deeds, liberal and generous, [19] thus laying up for themselves a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of the life which is life indeed.

Hebrews 5:9 and being made perfect he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him,

James 2:14, 17, 20, 22, 24, 26 What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? . . . [17] So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. . . . [20] . . . faith apart from works is barren . . . [22] You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, . . . [24] You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. . . . [26] . . . faith apart from works is dead.

Revelation 20:12-13 . . . And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, by what they had done. [13] . . . and all were judged by what they had done.

The following two passages also explicitly teach that sanctification is directly related to salvation, in a way that Protestantism expressly denies:

Romans 6:22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life.

*

2 Thessalonians 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.

In the Gospel of John only one condition is laid down for obtaining eternal life: belief (e.g., John 3:16, 36; 5:24; 20:31). If salvation were not by faith alone then John’s whole message would be misleading, since it states that there is only one condition for salvation when actually there are two: faith plus works. Indeed, John states explicitly that the only “work” necessary for salvation is to believe. When asked, “What can we do to accomplish the works of God?” Jesus replied, “This is the work of God, that you believe in the one he sent” (John 6:29, emphasis added). There simply is nothing else we may do in exchange for our salvation. Jesus did it all (John 19:30; Heb. 10:14). (p. 231)

Dr. Geisler has somehow overlooked these three passages in the Gospel of John that do not fit at all into his extrabiblical schema:

John 3:36 He who believes [pistuo] in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey [apitheo] the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him. (1 Pet 2:7 uses the same parallelism, with pistuo and apitheo, though RSV translates the latter as “do not believe.” KJV renders it as “disobedient” in the same way that Jn 3:36 and several other verses [Rom 1:30; 2 Tim 3:2; Titus 1:6; 3:3] do)

*

John 5:28-29 . . . all who are in the tombs will hear his voice [29] and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.

*

John 15:2, 4-6, 8 Every branch of mine that bears no fruit, he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. . . . [4] Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. [5] I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. [6] If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned. . . . [8] By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be my disciples.

We find more of the same in the epistles written by the same St. John:

1 John 2:3-5 And by this we may be sure that we know him, if we keep his commandments. [4] He who says “I know him” but disobeys his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him; [5] but whoever keeps his word, in him truly love for God is perfected. By this we may be sure that we are in him:

1 John 3:24 All who keep his commandments abide in him, and he in them. . . .

2 John 1:8 Look to yourselves, that you may not lose what you have worked for, but may win a full reward.

***

Photo credit: self-designed cover for my 2010 book, Biblical Catholic Salvation: “Faith Working Through Love” .

Summary: I address various soteriological topics, including Luther’s qualified “faith alone”; Geisler’s accurate portrayal of Catholic soteriology, meritorious works, and Bible vs. “faith alone”.

Was Martin Luther an Extreme “Faith Alone” Antinomian?

Last updated on: May 10, 2025 at 5:34 pm By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

**Photo Credit**: copyright *Lux Veritatis*, 2025.

Summary: While rejecting works-based salvation, Martin Luther passionately affirmed that genuine faith must produce good works, and he fiercely opposed the heresy of antinomianism.

Was Martin Luther an antinomian who believed Christians could sin freely without consequence? In this myth-busting exposé, Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong uncovers what Luther actually taught about faith and works—and it’s not what many Catholics (or Protestants) assume. With precise citations from Luther’s Large Catechism, Smalcald Articles, and more, Dave reveals ten powerful quotes proving that Luther’s theology of faith and works has far more in common with Catholic teaching than his critics admit. This is a must-watch for anyone who wants to speak truthfully about the Reformer and build bridges in the faith vs. works debate.

My Related Articles

“Martin Luther: Good Works Prove Authentic Faith” (4-16-08)

“Luther, James, Faith & Works: Additional Relevant Data” (3-7-23)

Related Luther Treatise

Martin Luther, On the Councils and the Church (1539), translated by C. B. Smith (London: William Edward Painter, 1847), pp. 152-153 cited.

My Books on Martin Luther

Martin Luther: Catholic Critical Analysis and Praise (my book, April 2008, 264 pages; available in paperback or for only $2.99 as an e-book)

The “Catholic” Luther : An Ecumenical Collection of His “Traditional” Utterances (my book, Dec. 2014, 166 pages; available only as an e-book, for $3.99; see details at the link)

My Web Pages on Martin Luther & Lutheranism

Martin Luther: a Catholic Critique & Appraisal

Lutheranism: Catholic Critique

Videos in The Martin Luther Series on Lux Veritatis

Did Martin Luther Support the DEATH PENALTY for Heretics? [Lux Veritatis, 5-1-25]

50 Reasons for Martin Luther’s Excommunication [Lux Veritatis, 5-2-25]

The MYTH of Luther’s “Snow Covered Dung Hills” + a Theory [Lux Veritatis, 5-3-25]

Civil War Chaos: Luther vs. Other Protestant Leaders, Etc. [Lux Veritatis, 5-4-25]

Martin Luther’s Belief in Mary’s Immaculate Conception [Lux Veritatis, 5-5-25]

Luther & the Myth of a Supposed Catholic Ban of the Bible [Lux Veritatis, 5-6-25]

Was Martin Luther an Extreme “Faith Alone” Antinomian? [Lux Veritatis, 5-8-25]

***
*

Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them. If you believe my full-time apostolate is worth supporting, please seriously consider a much-needed monthly or one-time financial contribution. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV).

You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my two YouTube channels, Catholic Bible Highlights and Lux Veritatis (featuring documentaries), where I partner with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos and documentaries), and/or by signing up to receive notice for new articles on this blog. Just type your email address on the sidebar to the right (scroll down quite a bit), where you see, “Sign Me Up!” Thanks a million!

***

New Perspective on Paul: Exegesis of “Works of the Law”

Last updated on: April 4, 2025 at 4:09 pm By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

Does “Works of the Law” Refer to All Good Works Whatsoever?

**Photo credit**: N. T. Wright (20 December 2007), by Gareth Saunders [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license]

Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575), a Calvinist leader in early Protestantism, or “reformer”, after citing Galatians 2:16, wrote the following in his most significant work, Decades (1551; rep. Cambridge University Press, 1849; first and second decades):

This is now the third time that Paul saith, that men are not justified by the works of the law: in the which clause he comprehendeth all manner of works of what sort soever. (p. 113)

John Calvin, in his Commentaries, draws the same false conclusion about Galatians 2:16:

Let it therefore remain settled, that the proposition is so framed as to admit of no exception, “that we are justified in no other way than by faith,” or, “that we are not justified but by faith,” or, which amounts to the same thing, “that we are justified by faith alone.”

Hence it appears with what silly trifling the Papists of our day dispute with us about the word, as if it had been a word of our contrivance. But Paul was unacquainted with the theology of the Papists, who declare that a man is justified by faith, and yet make a part of justification to consist in works. Of such half-justification Paul knew nothing. For, when he instructs us that we are justified by faith, because we cannot be justified by works, he takes for granted what is true, that we cannot be justified through the righteousness of Christ, unless we are poor and destitute of a righteousness of our own. Consequently, either nothing or all must be ascribed to faith or to works.

And therein lies a fundamental error, repeated by many many Protestants for over 500 years: the interpretation of a particular phrase in Paul relating to Mosaic Law, to supposedly mean all good works; thus leading to a false “faith alone” viewpoint. Recently, I proved the falsity of “faith alone” (sola fide) from a hundred passages in the Bible. But Calvin and Bullinger somehow manage to ignore that much clear teaching of the Bible. The Wikipedia article, “New Perspective on Paul” (“NPP”) provides a good overview:

The “New Perspective” movement began with the publication of the 1977 essay Paul and Palestinian Judaism by E. P. Sanders, an American New Testament scholar and Christian theologian.

Historically, the old Protestant perspective claims that Paul advocates justification through faith in Jesus Christ over justification through works of the Mosaic Law. During the Protestant Reformation, this theological principle became known as sola fide (“faith alone”); this was traditionally understood as Paul arguing that good works performed by Christians would not factor into their salvation; only their faith in Jesus Christ would save them. In this perspective, Paul dismissed 1st-century Palestinian Judaism as a sterile and legalistic religion.

According to Sanders, Paul’s letters do not address good works but instead question Jewish religious observances such as circumcision, dietary laws, and Sabbath laws, which were the “boundary markers” that set the Jews apart from other ethno-religious groups in the Levant. Sanders further argues that 1st-century Palestinian Judaism was not a “legalistic community”, nor was it oriented to “salvation by works”. As God’s “chosen people”, they were under his covenant. Contrary to Protestant belief, following the Mosaic Law was not a way of entering the covenant but of staying within it. . . .

The writings of the Apostle Paul contain a substantial amount of criticism regarding the “works of the Law“.

By contrast, “New Perspective” scholars see Paul as talking about “badges of covenant membership” or criticizing Gentile believers who had begun to rely on the Torah to reckon Jewish kinship. . . .

The “New Perspective on Paul” has, by and large, been an internal debate among Protestant biblical scholars. Many Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox scholars have responded favorably to the “New Perspective”, seeing a greater commonality with certain strands of their own traditions.

Anglican bishop and Bible scholar N. T. Wright (b. 1948) is the most well-known figure in the NPP movement. He stated in a lecture delivered at the Tenth Edinburgh Dogmatics Conference (August 2003):

In my early days of research, before Sanders had published Paul and Palestinian Judaism in 1977 and long before Dunn coined the phrase ‘The New Perspective on Paul’, I was puzzled by one exegetical issue in particular, which I here oversimplify for the sake of summary. If I read Paul in the then standard Lutheran way, Galatians made plenty of sense, but I had to fudge (as I could see dozens of writers fudging) the positive statements about the Law in Romans. If I read Paul in the Reformed way . . ., Romans made a lot of sense, but I had to fudge . . . the negative statements about the Law in Galatians. . . . it dawned on me, I think in 1976, that a different solution was possible. In Romans 10.3 Paul, writing about his fellow Jews, declares that they are ignorant of the righteousness of God, and are seeking to establish ‘their own righteousness’. The wider context, not least 9.30–33, deals with the respective positions of Jews and Gentiles within God’s purposes – and with a lot more besides, of course, but not least that. Supposing, I thought, Paul meant ‘seeking to establish their own righteousness’, not in the sense of a moral status based on the performance of Torah and the consequent accumulation of a treasury of merit, but an ethnic status based on the possession of Torah as the sign of automatic covenant membership? I saw at once that this would make excellent sense of Romans 9 and 10, and would enable the positive statements about the Law throughout Romans to be given full weight while making it clear that this kind of use of Torah, as an ethnic talisman, was an abuse. I sat up in bed that night reading through Galatians and saw that at point after point this way of looking at Paul would make much better sense of Galatians, too, than either the standard post-Luther readings or the attempted Reformed ones. . . .

I regard as absolutely basic the need to understand Paul in a way which does justice to all the letters, as well as to the key passages in individual ones) . . . the struggle to think Paul’s thoughts after him [is] a matter of obedience to scripture. . . .

When Jimmy Dunn added his stones to the growing pile I found myself in both agreement and disagreement with him. His proposal about the meaning of ‘works of the law’ in Paul – that they are not the moral works through which one gains merit but the works through which the Jew is defined over against the pagan – I regard as exactly right. It has proved itself again and again in the detailed exegesis; attempts to deny it have in my view failed. . . .

It is blindingly obvious when you read Romans and Galatians . . . that virtually whenever Paul talks about justification he does so in the context of a critique of Judaism and of the coming together of Jew and Gentile in Christ. As an exegete determined to listen to scripture rather than abstract my favourite bits from it I cannot ignore this. The only notice that most mainstream theology has taken of this context is to assume that the Jews were guilty of the kind of works-righteousness of which theologians from Augustine to Calvin and beyond have criticised their opponents; . . . I regard the New Perspective’s challenge to this point as more or less established. . . .

It seems that there has been a massive conspiracy of silence on something which was quite clear for Paul (as indeed for Jesus). Paul, in company with mainstream second-Temple Judaism, affirms that God’s final judgment will be in accordance with the entirety of a life led – in accordance, in other words, with works. He says this clearly and unambiguously in Romans 14.10–12 and 2 Corinthians 5.10. He affirms it in that terrifying passage about church-builders in 1 Corinthians 3. But the main passage in question is of course Romans 2.1–16. . . .

Here is the first statement about justification in Romans, and lo and behold it affirms justification according to works! The doers of the law, he says, will be justified (2.13). Shock, horror; Paul cannot (so many have thought) have really meant it. So the passage has been treated as a hypothetical position which Paul then undermines by showing that nobody can actually achieve it; or, by Sanders for instance, as a piece of unassimilated Jewish preaching which Paul allows to stand even though it conflicts with other things he says. But all such theories are undermined by exegesis itself, not least by observing the many small but significant threads that stitch Romans 2 into the fabric of the letter as a whole. Paul means what he says. Granted, he redefines what ‘doing the law’ really means; he does this in chapter 8, and again in chapter 10, with a codicil in chapter 13. But he makes the point most compactly in Philippians 1.6: he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion on the day of Christ Jesus. The ‘works’ in accordance with which the Christian will be vindicated on the last day are not the unaided works of the self-help moralist. Nor are they the performance of the ethnically distinctive Jewish boundary-markers (sabbath, food-laws and circumcision). They are the things which show, rather, that one is in Christ; the things which are produced in one’s life as a result of the Spirit’s indwelling and operation. . . .

I am fascinated by the way in which some of those most conscious of their reformation heritage shy away from Paul’s clear statements about future judgment according to works. It is not often enough remarked upon, for instance, that in the Thessalonian letters, and in Philippians, he looks ahead to the coming day of judgment and sees God’s favourable verdict not on the basis of the merits and death of Christ, not because like Lord Hailsham he simply casts himself on the mercy of the judge, but on the basis of his apostolic work. . . . [Paul is] clear that the things he does in the present, by moral and physical effort, will count to his credit on the last day, precisely because they are the effective signs that the Spirit of the living Christ has been at work in him. We are embarrassed about saying this kind of thing; Paul clearly is not. What on earth can have happened to a sola scriptura theology that it should find itself forced to screen out such emphatic, indeed celebratory, statements?

With that background in mind, I’d like to briefly examine the contexts of St. Paul’s use of the phrase, “works of the law.” Here are the eight instances of that phrase or “works of law” in six verses in his epistles:

Romans 3:20 For no human being will be justified in his sight by works of the law, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

Romans 3:28 For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law. (also, “works” in 3:27 seems to be in the same sense, based on the context of 3:20, 28)

Galatians 2:16 yet who know that a man is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ, and not by works of the law, because by works of the law shall no one be justified.

Galatians 3:2 Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law, or by hearing with faith?

Galatians 3:5 Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith?

Galatians 3:10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be every one who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, and do them.”

Do the immediate contexts of these passages suggest that Paul is referring to all works — even good works — , or, on the other hand, works in the sense of Jewish religious observances such as circumcision, dietary laws, and Sabbath laws, which were the ‘boundary markers’ that set the Jews apart” (as the Wikipedia article put it)? The phrase, “works of the law” — because of the word “law” — would seem to me to suggest on its face the latter position, but as we have seen, most Protestant exegetes through the centuries have not thought so, and have followed Bullinger’s and Calvin’s thinking on the issue.

N. T. Wright thinks they have been greatly mistaken, and Catholics agree wholeheartedly with that assessment. The erroneous man-generated tradition of sola fide has overcome common sense exegesis in this instance. When Paul refers to “the law” all agree that he means by that, the Mosaic Law, given to Moses on Mt. Sinai and codified in the first five books of the Bible (the Torah or Pentateuch). Let’s now examine the contexts of these passages.

Romans 3:20

The “law” is referred to in both the immediate preceding and succeeding verses:

Romans 3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God.

Romans 3:21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it,

Romans 3:28

The context of the next three verses refers to Jews and Gentiles, circumcision, and “the law” and Paul even makes it a point to stress that “we uphold the law.”

Romans 3:29-31 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, [30] since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised through their faith. [31] Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

In the next chapter, devoted to Abraham, who lived before the law, Paul still refers to “the law” five times in 4:13-16.

Galatians 2:16

Galatians 2:15 We . . . are Jews by birth . . .

Galatians 2:19-21 For I through the law died to the law, that I might live to God. . . . [21] I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification were through the law, then Christ died to no purpose.

Galatians 3:2, 5, 10

Paul had been discussing “the law” at the end of chapter 2 (2:19-21). Then he proceeds to refer to “the law” twelve more times throughout the chapter, besides 3:2, 5, 10 (3:11-13, 17-19, 21, 23-24).

*
***
*

Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them. If you believe my full-time apostolate is worth supporting, please seriously consider a much-needed monthly or one-time financial contribution. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV).

You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my YouTube channel, Catholic Bible Highlights, where I partner with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos), and/or by signing up to receive notice for new articles on this blog. Just type your email address on the sidebar to the right (scroll down quite a bit), where you see, “Sign Me Up!” Thanks a million!

***

Photo credit: N. T. Wright (20 December 2007), by Gareth Saunders [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license]

Summary: The New Perspective on Paul — in agreement with Catholics — holds that Pauline “works of the law” are “boundary markers” that set the Jews apart from other religious groups.

Works & Sanctification Partly Cause Salvation: 34 Passages

Last updated on: January 30, 2025 at 10:56 am By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

Photo credit: cover of my 2015 book published by Sophia Institute Press, designed by Coronation Media and Perceptions Design Studio.

Drawn from my larger collection, Bible vs. “Faith Alone”: 100 Proofs (8-26-24). All Bible citations are from RSV. Asterisked passages indicate a direct correlation between “sanctification” and either justification or salvation (which Protestantism denies is the case).

*****

Psalm 7:10 . . . God . . . saves the upright in heart.

Isaiah 32:17 And the effect of righteousness will be peace, and the result of righteousness, quietness and trust for ever.

Zephaniah 2:3 Seek the LORD, all you humble of the land, who do his commands; seek righteousness, seek humility; perhaps you may be hidden on the day of the wrath of the LORD.

Matthew 5:20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 7:19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

Matthew 7:21 Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. . . .

Matthew 19:16-17 And behold, one came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?” [17] And he said to him, “. . . If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” . . .

Matthew 19:29 And every one who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life. (cf. Mk 10:29-30)

Matthew 25:34-35, 46 Then the King will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; [35] for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, . . . [46] And they will go away . . . into eternal life.’

Luke 3:9 . . . every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. (cf. Mt 3:10; 7:19)

Luke 18:29-30 And he said to them, “Truly, I say to you, there is no man who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, [30] who will not receive manifold more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life.”

John 3:36 . . . he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.

John 4:36 He who reaps receives wages, and gathers fruit for eternal life . . .

John 5:29 . . . those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.

John 15:5-6, 8 I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. [6] If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned. . . . [8] By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be my disciples.

Acts 10:35 . . . in every nation any one who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.

*Acts 26:18 . . . those who are sanctified by faith in me.

Romans 2:6-7 For he will render to every man according to his works: [7] to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;

Romans 2:13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

*Romans 6:22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life.

Romans 8:17 . . . heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.

Galatians 5:19-21 Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, [20] idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit, [21] envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Philippians 2:12, 16 . . . work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; . . . [16] holding fast the word of life, so that in the day of Christ I may be proud that I did not run in vain or labor in vain.

2 Thessalonians 1:8 inflicting vengeance upon . . . those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. . . .

*2 Thessalonians 2:13 . . . God chose you from the beginning to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.

1 Timothy 2:15 Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

1 Timothy 4:8 . . . godliness is of value in every way, as it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come. . . .

1 Timothy 4:15-16 Practice these duties, devote yourself to them, so that all may see your progress. [16] Take heed to yourself and to your teaching; hold to that, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.

1 Timothy 6:18-19 They are to do good, to be rich in good deeds, liberal and generous, [19] thus laying up for themselves a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of the life which is life indeed.

Hebrews 5:9 and being made perfect he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him,

Hebrews 6:10-12 For God is not so unjust as to overlook your work and the love which you showed for his sake in serving the saints, as you still do. [11] And we desire each one of you to show the same earnestness in realizing the full assurance of hope until the end, [12] so that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises.

James 2:22, 24, 26 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, . . . [24] You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. . . . [26] . . . faith apart from works is dead.

1 Peter 4:13 But rejoice in so far as you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed.

Revelation 20:12-13 . . . And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, by what they had done. [13] . . . and all were judged by what they had done.

*
***
*

Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them. If you believe my full-time apostolate is worth supporting, please seriously consider a much-needed monthly or one-time financial contribution. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV).

***

Photo credit: cover of my 2015 book published by Sophia Institute Press (link to purchase), designed by Coronation Media and Perceptions Design Studio.

Summary: I collect 34 biblical passages, all showing that works play a role in salvation, alongside grace and faith, and that sanctification is not categorically separate from justification.