The whole debate is ridiculous. Jesus saves people in the exact same manner if they have done countless good things in their life or if they have been what the world would consider awful. This is because we are all inherently born with a sin nature and with the curse of Adam. Beyond there is no one that does good one hundred percent of the time and never does evil. And the smallest contamination of sin makes one unrighteous to God. The result is that everyone is saved in the same manner if they have any "works" or not. I know unsaved people who absolutely cannot wrap their head around this concept -- but it's absolutely true. They cannot fathom how a totally awful person could in their last minutes of life accept Jesus as their savior and go to heaven. Because they are so used to the concept of judging people by "works" they believe that such a bad person simply could not be saved.
On the flip side, after someone is saved, they remain saved even if they do no good works whatsoever. Now, if someone is authentically saved there is a huge probability that they will produce at least some quantity of good works because their fundamental nature will have shifted towards the Spirit which is full of compassion for everyone. However, there are also people who get saved, perhaps start to turn their lives around for a few days or weeks, and then get pulled right back into the world. They were as legitimately saved as anyone else! And if they go thirty or forty years living the same lifestyle, they're still saved! But they are "dead" in that their "faith" that saved them isn't doing themselves or anyone else any further or additional good.
The optimum way for a Christian to live is to obey the Holy Spirit, resist the temptations of the flesh, and do good works -- everything that could be considered loving God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself!!! If someone gets saved and then lives a faithful life of charitable service to others while obeying all the commandments is doing something wonderful: but he or she is no more "saved" than the person who did NOTHING!!!
That's the key here. There is only one kind of being saved. And it doesn't depend on works at all. However, if someone wants to live the most optimum and empowered Christian life possible, they will do good works in order to show their love for their neighbor and earn rewards in heaven. But they won't be doing so to somehow earn their way in!
Excellent write up, I’m still trying to digest the double justification of Thomas Goodwin though. Any supplemental reading on this? And in what ways do you see it as in possible conflict with Calvin’s?
I think both Calvin and Goodwin agree. Both affirm no preceding works merit salvation, and that it relies on Christ alone (his merits, union, etc.).
But Goodwin will use language like path to and possession of life that Calvin does not seem to. Instead, Calvin speaks of faith necessarily producing good works, and God reckoning those works as righteous.
I don't have a book to recommend except maybe Mark Jones's on Antinomianism.
TBH, most new books kind of ignore the actual words and arguments of these authors. They tend to summarize the reformed as having one view that does not usually correspond to reality.
I guess it seemed by the terminology of Goodwin of “right/possession” it seemed ambiguous in whether he was using it as truly a distinction (Right and/then Possession) or if he was somewhat making it a separation or pitting them against one another (Right versus Possession). But I probably need to read the greater context and I’m sure that becomes more clear. Also I couldn’t tell if Goodwin and Mastricht were using the “right” of salvation in a more “common grace” was or in a “definitive” or “special” grace sense.
The way that I’ve always tried to make sense of it while defending justification by faith alone (but not by a faith that is alone) to Catholics (and recently many from my rural town in the Stone-Campbell CoC), is that God’s words are actually efficacious. Which I’ve mostly come to understand from reading Calvin throughout his various writings, though I haven’t seen him verbalize it explicitly like this.
When we say something generally we use words to describe something that already is. This is why many people can’t wrap their heads around the idea that Justification is declarative/imputed because they think God cannot say that about someone unless they actually are just… Instead, unlike our words which are descriptive, God’s words speak things into existence they are efficacious. When God says let there be light—light proceeds forth, so when God says “let him be just” he does become just. Not just in the sense of God considers him such (in Christ), but also in that He is moved by God’s love and decree towards that end and IS necessarily conformed to the image of Christ.
My favourite way to think about it is to consider Pilgrim's Progress.
Christian has the right to life, but he still must walk on the way to the celestial city, which belongs to him by right of faith; but he must walk the path to possess it and avoid temptations along the way.
I think, for us, we really need to do two things:
1. Be truthful about the RCC view
2. Be confident in the Reformed view (which I say is biblical)
So we affirm that the only meritorious cause of our salvation is Christ alone. And we affirm that faith without works is dead, never alive; Zombies cannot make it to the kingdom. It's for the living, not the dead. God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
I would add that God justifies his own justification by us showing our good works. "I will show you my faith by my works," says James. So while God justifies by faith alone, that faith is never alone in a person but always accompanied by good works.
So I think God can pre-declare us JUST because Christ is JUST. So it's an efficacious and real justice in Christ. But it is not in us, and so Christ gives it to us. Then we have inchoate and inherent justice that we call sanctification that necessarily follows.
I guess it seemed by the terminology of Goodwin of “right/possession” it seemed ambiguous in whether he was using it as truly a distinction (Right and/then Possession) or if he was somewhat making it a separation or pitting them against one another (Right versus Possession). But I probably need to read the greater context and I’m sure that becomes more clear. Also I couldn’t tell if Goodwin and Mastricht were using the “right” of salvation in a more “common grace” was or in a “definitive” or “special” grace sense.
The way that I’ve always tried to make sense of it while defending justification by faith alone (but not by a faith that is alone) to Catholics (and recently many from my rural town in the Stone-Campbell CoC), is that God’s words are actually efficacious. Which I’ve mostly come to understand from reading Calvin throughout his various writings, though I haven’t seen him verbalize it explicitly like this.
When we say something generally we use words to describe something that already is. This is why many people can’t wrap their heads around the idea that Justification is declarative/imputed because they think God cannot say that about someone unless they actually are just… Instead, unlike our words which are descriptive, God’s words speak things into existence they are efficacious. When God says let there be light—light proceeds forth, so when God says “let him be just” he does become just (in Christ). Not just in the sense of God considers him such, but also in that He is moved by God’s love and decree towards that end and IS necessarily conformed to the image of Christ.
Superb summary conclusion to challenging series.
The whole debate is ridiculous. Jesus saves people in the exact same manner if they have done countless good things in their life or if they have been what the world would consider awful. This is because we are all inherently born with a sin nature and with the curse of Adam. Beyond there is no one that does good one hundred percent of the time and never does evil. And the smallest contamination of sin makes one unrighteous to God. The result is that everyone is saved in the same manner if they have any "works" or not. I know unsaved people who absolutely cannot wrap their head around this concept -- but it's absolutely true. They cannot fathom how a totally awful person could in their last minutes of life accept Jesus as their savior and go to heaven. Because they are so used to the concept of judging people by "works" they believe that such a bad person simply could not be saved.
On the flip side, after someone is saved, they remain saved even if they do no good works whatsoever. Now, if someone is authentically saved there is a huge probability that they will produce at least some quantity of good works because their fundamental nature will have shifted towards the Spirit which is full of compassion for everyone. However, there are also people who get saved, perhaps start to turn their lives around for a few days or weeks, and then get pulled right back into the world. They were as legitimately saved as anyone else! And if they go thirty or forty years living the same lifestyle, they're still saved! But they are "dead" in that their "faith" that saved them isn't doing themselves or anyone else any further or additional good.
The optimum way for a Christian to live is to obey the Holy Spirit, resist the temptations of the flesh, and do good works -- everything that could be considered loving God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself!!! If someone gets saved and then lives a faithful life of charitable service to others while obeying all the commandments is doing something wonderful: but he or she is no more "saved" than the person who did NOTHING!!!
That's the key here. There is only one kind of being saved. And it doesn't depend on works at all. However, if someone wants to live the most optimum and empowered Christian life possible, they will do good works in order to show their love for their neighbor and earn rewards in heaven. But they won't be doing so to somehow earn their way in!
Excellent write up, I’m still trying to digest the double justification of Thomas Goodwin though. Any supplemental reading on this? And in what ways do you see it as in possible conflict with Calvin’s?
Great Q.
I think both Calvin and Goodwin agree. Both affirm no preceding works merit salvation, and that it relies on Christ alone (his merits, union, etc.).
But Goodwin will use language like path to and possession of life that Calvin does not seem to. Instead, Calvin speaks of faith necessarily producing good works, and God reckoning those works as righteous.
I would read this on Mastrict for more: https://www.wyattgraham.com/p/petrus-van-mastricht-on-good-works
I don't have a book to recommend except maybe Mark Jones's on Antinomianism.
TBH, most new books kind of ignore the actual words and arguments of these authors. They tend to summarize the reformed as having one view that does not usually correspond to reality.
I guess it seemed by the terminology of Goodwin of “right/possession” it seemed ambiguous in whether he was using it as truly a distinction (Right and/then Possession) or if he was somewhat making it a separation or pitting them against one another (Right versus Possession). But I probably need to read the greater context and I’m sure that becomes more clear. Also I couldn’t tell if Goodwin and Mastricht were using the “right” of salvation in a more “common grace” was or in a “definitive” or “special” grace sense.
The way that I’ve always tried to make sense of it while defending justification by faith alone (but not by a faith that is alone) to Catholics (and recently many from my rural town in the Stone-Campbell CoC), is that God’s words are actually efficacious. Which I’ve mostly come to understand from reading Calvin throughout his various writings, though I haven’t seen him verbalize it explicitly like this.
When we say something generally we use words to describe something that already is. This is why many people can’t wrap their heads around the idea that Justification is declarative/imputed because they think God cannot say that about someone unless they actually are just… Instead, unlike our words which are descriptive, God’s words speak things into existence they are efficacious. When God says let there be light—light proceeds forth, so when God says “let him be just” he does become just. Not just in the sense of God considers him such (in Christ), but also in that He is moved by God’s love and decree towards that end and IS necessarily conformed to the image of Christ.
Luke,
Great insights here!
My favourite way to think about it is to consider Pilgrim's Progress.
Christian has the right to life, but he still must walk on the way to the celestial city, which belongs to him by right of faith; but he must walk the path to possess it and avoid temptations along the way.
I think, for us, we really need to do two things:
1. Be truthful about the RCC view
2. Be confident in the Reformed view (which I say is biblical)
So we affirm that the only meritorious cause of our salvation is Christ alone. And we affirm that faith without works is dead, never alive; Zombies cannot make it to the kingdom. It's for the living, not the dead. God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
I would add that God justifies his own justification by us showing our good works. "I will show you my faith by my works," says James. So while God justifies by faith alone, that faith is never alone in a person but always accompanied by good works.
So I think God can pre-declare us JUST because Christ is JUST. So it's an efficacious and real justice in Christ. But it is not in us, and so Christ gives it to us. Then we have inchoate and inherent justice that we call sanctification that necessarily follows.
Maybe you would like this article I wrote?
https://ca.thegospelcoalition.org/columns/detrinitate/how-early-reformed-theologians-distinguished-imputed-and-inherent-righteousness/
I guess it seemed by the terminology of Goodwin of “right/possession” it seemed ambiguous in whether he was using it as truly a distinction (Right and/then Possession) or if he was somewhat making it a separation or pitting them against one another (Right versus Possession). But I probably need to read the greater context and I’m sure that becomes more clear. Also I couldn’t tell if Goodwin and Mastricht were using the “right” of salvation in a more “common grace” was or in a “definitive” or “special” grace sense.
The way that I’ve always tried to make sense of it while defending justification by faith alone (but not by a faith that is alone) to Catholics (and recently many from my rural town in the Stone-Campbell CoC), is that God’s words are actually efficacious. Which I’ve mostly come to understand from reading Calvin throughout his various writings, though I haven’t seen him verbalize it explicitly like this.
When we say something generally we use words to describe something that already is. This is why many people can’t wrap their heads around the idea that Justification is declarative/imputed because they think God cannot say that about someone unless they actually are just… Instead, unlike our words which are descriptive, God’s words speak things into existence they are efficacious. When God says let there be light—light proceeds forth, so when God says “let him be just” he does become just (in Christ). Not just in the sense of God considers him such, but also in that He is moved by God’s love and decree towards that end and IS necessarily conformed to the image of Christ.
I guess I mean more or what do you see as possible nuances of Godwin’s view vs Calvin’s