Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
History and Religion
Defense of 50 NT Passages Against “Faith Alone”, Pt. 3

Defense of 50 NT Passages Against “Faith Alone”, Pt. 3

Last updated on: May 18, 2026 at 4:45 pm by Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

Defense of 50 NT Passages Against “Faith Alone”, Pt. 3 2026-05-18T16:45:54-04:00 Dave Armstrong

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Photo credit: Portrait of Philipp Melanchton (c. 1545), the originator of “faith alone”, by Workshop of Lucas Cranach the Elder (1472-1553) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

See Part One

See Part Two

I’m replying to a lengthy, multi-part critique of my article, 50 Unanswerable NT Passages Against “Faith Alone” (2-24-26) by a very nice Reformed / Calvinist woman who goes by “C Xa” online. We have corresponded off and on, and she promised to make this critique after I challenged her. I greatly appreciate the engagement, which is becoming increasingly rare these days. Her counter-responses can be read in their entirety in comments made underneath this article, and I reproduce virtually all of them, anyway. Bible passages (RSV, as always in my writing) from my article above, that she comments on, will be in green. Her words will be in blue. She uses ESV for her Bible citations.

*****

John 3:36 He who believes [pisteuō] in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey [apeitheō] the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.

[my additional comment] 1 Peter 2:7 uses the same parallelism, with pisteuō and apeitheō, though RSV translates the latter as “do not believe.” KJV renders it as “disobedient” in the same way that John 3:36 and several other verses (Romans 1:30; 2 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:6; 3:3) do.

To properly think about this verse, it is important to remember that for justification to be obtained, someone must uphold the Law or “obey” it as is stated in this verse “perfectly”. In the case of the unbeliever, because his faith is not in what Christ did, he must obey the Law perfectly (a feat impossible for man completely on his own) in order to gain life eternal, and thus he will be condemned. For the believer:

Because Christ was perfectly obedient, and believers place their faith alone in His work, grace, and willingness to take their punishment on Himself, they are justified.

Because believers have a new Spirit, given by God to them, that is in agreement with God’s Spirit, they have the ability and desire to be obedient to God’s commands once they are regenerated (having their old heart removed and given a new heart and Spirit (Ezekiel 36:26). They are obedient (a) to serve their King, (b) to glorify and honor Him, and (c) to show their gratitude for His work, sacrifice, and grace on their behalf.

As has been said previously, the obedience of the believer is not leading to their justification; rather it is an out-flowing of it. Thus, this verse like all of the above verses does not in any way counter faith in the grace of Christ alone for salvation but rather helps us see the incredible beauty of it.

I already addressed this verse in Part 2 (under Mark 16:16), citing my first book at some length. In sum: if not obeying leads to eternal punishment, then it follows logically that obeying leads to eternal life (i.e., is one of the causes of it); and we see also that believing and obeying are regarded as synonymous. But there is much more to consider.

Actually the Greek New Testament that I have says “πιστεύουσιν” and “ἀπιστοῦσιν” which are both the verb to believe (the first being to believe an the second being not to believe). In John 3:36 in contrast he uses “πιστεύων” (believing) and “ἀπειθῶν” obeying”. Thus, 1 Peter 2:7 is not a fully direct parallel to John in the Greek, and the English actually matches properly with the Greek New Testament that I have in both verses (both in the RSV and ESV).

Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, one-volume edition (that always sits on the shelf next to my desk), on pp. 819-820, confirms that apeitheō appears in both John 3:36 and 1 Peter 2:7. They are translated in RSV as “does not obey” and “do not believe” respectively, which precisely supports the point I was making: the Bible writers regard belief and obedience in conformity with said beliefs as virtually synonymous.

Likewise, pisteuō appears in both passages (exact form: Jn 3:36: πιστεύων; 1 Pet 2:7: πιστεύουσιν) according to the page for Strong’s Greek word #4100. In the “Overview of New Testament Usage” on this same page, the point I am making is entirely supported:

Belief and Obedience

New Testament writers frequently juxtapose belief with obedience, underscoring that true faith issues in action. Jesus declares, “If you hold to My teaching, you are truly My disciples” (John 8:31). Hebrews interprets the wilderness generation’s failure as unbelief (Hebrews 3:19; 4:3), linking disbelief with disobedience. James likewise points out that intellectual assent alone is insufficient: “Even the demons believe—and shudder” (James 2:19).

Likewise, Kittel, in addressing one of the prominent meanings of pisteuō states:

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)

I couldn’t have said it better, myself, and neither of these are Catholic resources. They’re standard Protestant linguistic scholarly references and authorities. I will now present all of the passages where only the verse number was cited (above), that are examples of belief and obedience being virtually identical, or organically connected:

Romans 1:5 through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith . . .

Romans 1:8 . . . your faith is proclaimed in all the world

Romans 10:3 . . . they did not submit to God’s righteousness

Romans 15:18 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,

Romans 16:19 . . . your obedience is known to all . . .

2 Corinthians 9:13 Under the test of this service, you will glorify God by your obedience in acknowledging the gospel of Christ, and by the generosity of your contribution for them and for all others;

1 Thessalonians 1:8 For not only has the word of the Lord sounded forth from you in Macedonia and Achaia, but your faith in God has gone forth everywhere, . . .

Hebrews 3:[18]-19 And to whom did he swear that they should never enter his rest, but to those who were disobedient? [19] So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief.

Hebrews 4:3 [+ 4:1-2, 6, 11] Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest remains, let us fear lest any of you be judged to have failed to reach it. [2] For good news came to us just as to them; but the message which they heard did not benefit them, because it did not meet with faith in the hearers. [3] For we who have believed enter that rest, . . . [6] Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience, . . . [11] Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, that no one fall by the same sort of disobedience.

Hebrews 11:4 By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain . . .

Hebrews 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, took heed and constructed an ark . . .

Hebrews 11:8 By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place which he was to receive as an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was to go.

Hebrews 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac . . .

Hebrews 11:27 By faith he [Moses] left Egypt, . . .

Hebrews 11:28 By faith he [Moses] kept the Passover and sprinkled the blood, . . .

Hebrews 11:29 By faith the people crossed the Red Sea as if on dry land . . .

Hebrews 11:31 By faith Rahab the harlot did not perish with those who were disobedient, because she had given friendly welcome to the spies.

Hebrews 11:32-34 And what more shall I say? For time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets — [33] who through faith conquered kingdoms, enforced justice, received promises, stopped the mouths of lions, [34] quenched raging fire, escaped the edge of the sword, won strength out of weakness, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight.

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.

All of those who have been regenerated and thus have the new Spirit god has given them will be able to do good works that the LORD commands and these works will glorify Him. All who are regenerated will place their faith in Christ alone for their salvation and because of their love for the LORD and desire to glorify Him will also desire doing good as their new Spirit will be in agreement with the Holy Spirit and thus will desire doing good works (those done for the LORD to honor and glorify Him) and will be able to accomplish them. Those who are not regenerated will not place their faith in Christ alone for their salvation and will subsequently not do works that are meant to glorify God and be for Him. Thus, their acts will be seen as evil as they are not done to glorify the LORD. Thus, just as with all of the prior verses we have looked at, these verses too do not in any way counter faith in the grace of Christ alone for salvation.

The point that needs to be addressed here — and was not — is the direct causal relationship of “those who have done good” to salvation and eternal life, and the same connection between “evil” acts and damnation. To illustrate this, let me us an analogy (not the best that could be given, but it’ll do):

“The basketball team that plays better than any and every other one, will win the NBA Finals, and those who didn’t play as well as the best team, will go home as losers. . .”

Now, no one will contend that the characteristic of “play[ing] better” had nothing whatsoever to do with, and did not cause the outcome of winning the Final; nor would anyone deny that “playing badly” was the cause of the defeat and elimination of all the other teams. We could also note that all of the NBA players — to different degrees — possess God-given gifts (and height!) in order to do what they do — without which the winning team couldn’t have won –, but this wouldn’t nullify the fact that they did it; they practiced and worked hard, and executed their game strategies, and won.

But for some reason when we get to soteriological theology from the Protestant perspective, the same sort of description, that has the same causative meaning, is dismissed when it states the exact same sort of thing, having to do with causation. Word no longer mean what they mean. The reasons stated in John 5:28-29 for salvation and damnation are doing “good” and doing “evil.” The passage didn’t assert that it was caused only by faith and belief, or lack thereof. Therefore, it can’t be dismissed as supposedly not expressing anything to do with the causes of salvation and damnation. Other passages such as Matthew 25 (the sheep and the goats) make the causal connection absolutely explicit: salvation was attained, “for [because] you did [good works] a, b, c” (faith and belief again not mentioned). And there are many similar additional passages.

A true exegesis of John 5:28-29 and other such passages would address head on this key element of obvious causation, and provide a superior alternative explanation for what sure looks to be clear, plain, perspicuous biblical teaching, but this has not been done here or throughout these replies.

John 15:14 You are my friends if you do what I command you. . . .

As with so many of the verses we have looked at thus far, this verse is simply showing us what the life of a believer looks like. Once an individual is regenerated and thus has a Spirit now within them that desires the things of God and that is in Agreement with the Holy Spirit, and as a result of being justified by their faith in the grace of Christ alone on their behalf, the believer will desire to please, honor, obey, and glorify the LORD because of their love for Him and their gratitude for what He has done for them. Thus, the believer will have a genuine desire to follow the commands of God. In contrast, non-believers, even if they happen to do any of what God commands, they are not doing it to glorify, please, obey, love, honor, or show any type of gratitude toward God. Instead they are doing it for the gratification of their flesh (ex., Romans 8:5-8; Ephesians 2:2-3). Thus, just as with all of the verses we have looked at thus far, this verse too is not in any way counter to faith in the grace of Christ alone for salvation. It simply helps support it.

This is simply a repetition of what was just expressed in the previous reply. It adds nothing new; it doesn’t directly address the central point in this passage, with regard to the issue at hand: the saved are Jesus’ “friends”; it’s a synonym for “believer” or “Christian” or “the elect.” What is the quintessential characteristic of Jesus’ “friends” according to this verse? Again, it is works and obedience to His commands — not faith and belief: at least not in this verse. Good works and obedience are — as in scores and scores of other related passages — undeniably included as necessities regarding the way to salvation, and not relegated to a category of only “works done in gratefulness” that in the end have nothing to do with salvation (imputed justification). The word “if” is very important. It has to do with causation.

Acts 2:38, 40-41 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.” . . . [40] And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” [41] So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

This passage on its own looks like very convincing evidence favoring the belief that baptism is necessary for salvation. However, if we look closely, we can see that a verse is missing. I suspect that this verse was purposefully excluded as it actually significantly weakens the argument that without it looks almost undeniable that baptism is required to be saved.

This is now the second unfounded suspicion that I have deliberately excluded something because I think it weakens my case. I never do that because I never think that any Bible passage hurts the overall case in favor of Catholicism. I was simply emphasizing the verses about baptism and also the one with “save yourselves”: which is very un-Protestant language. There is no conspiracy to hide anything here. Anyone can go look it up, anyway, if they so wish. But I’ll discuss any other verse that is brought up; no problem at all. As it is, Acts 2:39 is perfectly in accord with Catholic teaching, as I will shortly demonstrate, so this is much ado about nothing (to quote Shakespeare).

If we also add in the preceding two verses, it further helps diminish the strength of this idea. Here is the passage in its entirety:

“36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.” 37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” 38 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 will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” 40 And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” 41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.”

In verses 36-37, Peter has just accused his listeners of the crucifixion of Christ and his listeners are clearly highly distraught over this, and thus wondering what they can do based on this guilt. Thus, this entire portion of Scripture is dealing with this question rather than the question of being saved explicitly.

So writing “save yourselves” and receiving from baptism “the forgiveness of your sins” and “the gift of the Holy Spirit” have nothing to do with salvation? That’s a very strange exegesis. It’s primarily about baptism and its central role in regeneration, in receiving the indwelling Holy Spirit, and salvation.

Next, as we can see, verse 39 (the missing verse states: “For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”. This verse makes it clear that what Peter is saying is only for those to whom the promise is given (which John 6:44 tells us are those whom the Father draws to Christ (“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.”).

Yes, the elect are predestined. This is dogmatic Catholic teaching. Once again, the insinuation is that it isn’t. Otherwise, why keep reiterating it? Why bother going over ground where we agree? This is a debate about stuff we disagree on. If it wasn’t known that we agree, on the other hand, now it is known.

And we also know from other places in Scripture (ex., Romans 8:38-39; Hebrews 13;5) that no one who is drawn by the Father and given to Christ can be taken from the LORD’s Hands.

Romans 8:38-39 teaches that nothing external to us (angels, principalities, powers) can separate us from God. But we can choose to separate ourselves. Likewise, in Hebrews 13:5, God says, “I will never fail you nor forsake you.” Absolutely! But we can fail and forsake Him, and refuse Him, and reject His endless mercy and grace and free offer of forgiveness and love. One passage in particular makes this graphically clear:

Matthew 23:37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!

I have 149 other passages on this, too. Irresistible grace and perseverance of the saints are falsehoods. But we agree on the unconditional election of the elect.

Also, if we look closely at verse 38, we see that what it does not say is “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ and you will be saved”. Instead, what it actually says is “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins”. Thus, the baptism and repentance together are not for salvation itself in this verse but rather for the forgiveness of sins.

Forgiveness is a key component of the gospel, hence also of salvation (the passage being about baptismal regeneration):

Matthew 26:28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Luke 1:77 to give knowledge of salvation to his people in the forgiveness of their sins,

Luke 24:47 and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

Acts 5:31 God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.

Acts 10:43 To him all the prophets bear witness that every one who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.

Acts 13:38 Let it be known to you therefore, brethren, that through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, (cf. 26:18; see below)

Ephesians 1:7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace

Colossians 1:13-14 He has delivered us from the dominion of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, [14] in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

So in Acts 2, Peter is preaching that God conveys this forgiveness, won on the cross, to believers through the sacrament of baptism. It’s directly related to salvation, which is why Peter told the people to “save yourselves”.

It says that then you will be given the gift of the Holy Spirit, but we also have to remember that this is just as the church is first being started and the onset of Pentecost, and thus, the Holy Spirit was just beginning to come to all of the Church. So we need to be careful about how to interpret the giving of the Holy Spirit here.

Sure, but there are other passages about the baptism and the Holy Spirit in Paul’s epistles, so the teaching is established and in complete harmony with what Peter says in this first sermon and mass baptism of the Christian era:

1 Corinthians 6:11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

1 Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body — Jews or Greeks, slaves or free — and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

Titus 3:5 He saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit . . . (cf. Jn 3:5; Acts 9:17-18)

Now, let us take a look at verse 40 as this seems to be a slam-dunk for rejecting salvation through faith in the grace of Christ alone as Peter is telling them to save themselves. However, to my awareness, Roman Catholic teaching does not hold to the idea that one can save himself, but rather that he needs a savior.

Yes. It’s in the sense that I have described again and again, and which is proven by several hundred verses: cooperating with God, post-regeneration, to do meritorious good works, which in turn play an important role in our final salvation.

So, unless everything that the four Gospels and the book of Acts have taught us so far regarding our need for the Savior was a lie, then this verse can not mean what it seems to suggest (that we must save ourselves). Thus, we need to figure out what this verse actually means. If we look at the entire sermon that Peter is making here, a large portion of what we see is that he is showing how they are guilty of the crucifixion of Christ and thus he is compelling them to not be a part of the corruption around them. Thus, saving here is not a salvific term, but rather a way of not being like those who are unbelievers and separating one’s self from them and their corrupt ways.

I think that’s a very weak theory. Rather, I believe that Peter is speaking in the same sense that Paul does: “work out your own salvation” (Phil 2:12) and “by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers” (1 Tim 4:16), and his words are similar to Jesus saying, “do this, and you will live” (Lk 10:28). Peter speaks the same way in his first epistle: “As the outcome of your faith you obtain the salvation of your souls” (1 Pet 1:9). All four of those passages are undoubtedly about salvation. We also know that Acts 2 is about salvation because the text described the wonderful end result, “there were added that day about three thousand souls” (2:41). That’s people who had come into the kingdom through baptism and were now believers, and forgiven, regenerated, and given the Holy Spirit.

“Souls” is (interestingly) used in the same sense as the evangelistic terminology of “saving souls” (cf. Jas 1:21: “which is able to save your souls”; Jas 5:20: “whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death”; Mt 11:29: “you will find rest for your souls”; Heb 10:39: “those who have faith and keep their souls”.).

Thus, this set of verses too, once put into their proper context, in no way counters faith in the grace of Christ alone for salvation.

Of course I disagree, and I have thoroughly explained why I do.

Acts 26:18 to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.

It is critical to consider the context in order to know exactly what is happening in this verse. This is when Paul is on the road to Damascus. Acts 26:12-18 states:

“12 “In this connection I journeyed to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests. 13 At midday, O king, I saw on the way a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, that shone around me and those who journeyed with me. 14 And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’ 15 And I said, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ And the Lord said, ‘I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. 16 But rise and stand upon your feet, for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you as a servant and witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you, 17 delivering you from your people and from the Gentiles- to whom I am sending you 18 to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.'”

Two things take place immediately before verse 18. First, Paul is being converted. Second, and more relevant to verse 18, he is being called by Christ to his apostleship. The things said in verse 18 are what he is being commissioned as an Apostle to accomplish. Thus, it is through the power of God, and the sending of Paul that these things are going to be accomplished.

We also know from John 3:3-6 that one can not see the things of God’s Kingdom until we are regenerated, and thus, it is only by the power of God that our eyes can be opened. We can not do so ourselves.

Once again, the obvious is stated, that both sides agree with: when we are initially justified, it is God doing everything; and indeed, He predestined the elect from all eternity. We differ about what happens after that.

Remember also the difference between “can” and “may”. This is a really important distinction. “can” means has the ability, while “may” acknowledges permission. If we look carefully at how Paul speaks here, he says, “”to open their eyes, so that they [may] turn from darkness to light”. Notice that in the bracketed portion, Paul says that they “may”. They are thus given permission, however, here we need to be very careful not to read anything into this verse that is not said. Yes, we know they are given permission, but we are not told in any way if they have the ability to do so. As we just discussed, according to John, just because they are given permission, does not mean that under their own power, or the power of Paul, they will be able to open their own eyes. Again, the LORD Himself must do so.

Of course. None of this has anything to do with why I included this passage, as I will explain below.

Another point that is important to look at in this verse is Paul’s statement, “that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.'”. If we look carefully at this, there are two important things to see here. First, it is not them doing something, but receiving something. Doing is a work and an active thing, while receiving here is a passive, non-work-related activity. Thus, there is no work that the believers must do. Second, and completely counter to a works plus faith for salvation idea, the very end of the just quoted portion states that they will be part of the ones who are sanctified by “faith”.

So, this portion of the statement actually supports the idea that sanctification which leads to glorification (without a final need for justification) is by faith, not works, so this entire verse to does not counter faith in the grace of Christ alone for salvation.

My entire point was missed. If we are “sanctified by faith”, then faith / belief and sanctification are necessarily intertwined. If that is the case, then faith alone is again shown to be false, and it’s untrue that sanctification is separated from justification and salvation. That can’t possibly be, given this verse, because if it is, then faith would also be non-salvific, and both sides agree that faith is connected to salvation. In short, the Bible and Catholics keep together what Protestants arbitrarily separate.

This passage is similar to Paul’s statement that “the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life” (Rom 6:22). If the “end” of sanctification is eternal life, then it obviously can’t be separated from it, as Protestants try to do. The other statement Paul makes, relevant to this matter, is “God chose you from the beginning to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth” (2 Thess 2:13). Both of these are included in my list of fifty passages that are being debated. Obviously, if we’re saved “through sanctification” then sanctification can’t be removed from the sphere of what helps to save us. It’s right there alongside “belief”. Infused sanctification, which the Bible and Catholicism teach, is true. Imputed justification (faith alone) — a novel tradition of men that began in the 1530s — is not. We didn’t determine that; the Bible did. When the choice we have is either Paul and his teaching or Protestantism (where it contradicts him), our choice is easy: we must go with Paul, because he wrote inspired, inerrant Scripture.

Romans 2:6-8 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.

Romans 2:9-10 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.

This set of verses fits right in line with what we have already said with respect to many of the above verses. Thus, being obedient to the LORD and following His commands are required for salvation.

On the face of it, this is exactly what I’ve been saying! But of course, Protestants put a different slant on it.

Those who are not believers will be judged by how well they accomplished this on their own since they have refused to place their faith in Christ for their salvation. Because we already have seen that doing this under one’s own power and with their heart of stone (Matthew 19:26; Ezekiel 36:26) and the spirit that is naturally within them, they will not be able to meet God’s standards and thus will perish. In contrast, because those who are believers have put their faith in the work and grace of Christ alone for their salvation, His perfect fulfilling of the Law is credited to them and thus they are seen as justified. Because they have been regenerated (so have a new heart and a new Spirit that is in agreement with the Holy Spirit), they now not only are able to but desire to do what their Lord and Savior commands because they want to be obedient to their Lord; because of their gratitude for what He has done on their behalf; because of their love for Him; and to please, glorify, and honor the Lord they love. Thus, just as with all of the verses we have discussed thus far, these verses too in no way counter salvation by faith in the grace of Christ alone.

Repeating things don’t make them more true or less false. The entire point of these passages is that God renders “according to” our “works.” If we are characterized by “well-doing” God gives us “eternal life.” Romans 2:8 again puts belief and obedience together, in the wonderful phrase, “obey the truth. ” But the ones who did not obey and who didn’t do good works are lost. The works clearly have a causal role in attaining our eternal destination. There’s no way out of it. The text — like most, if not all, on my list — is too clear to explain or rationalize away. Romans 2:9-10 expresses the same thing in different terms. Salvation is given to “every one who does good” and damnation is the lot of “every human being who does evil.” Therefore, works can’t be removed from the causes of salvation. This theme is repeated over and over again in Holy Scripture: and it’s as clear as just about anything else in the Bible.

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.

What Paul here is doing is countering the belief that just because they are part of the Jews, God is not partial to them. Rather one is deemed righteous and justified by the obedience to His Moral Law rather than being part of His chosen nation. Since we have already seen that no man can do this on his own, the only way to be deemed righteous is to place one’s faith in what Christ has done on their behalf. These will be seen as righteous and will be justified. We can see that this is dealing with the idea that there is no partiality because Paul compares the gentiles who have the Law on their hearts and follow it even though it was not given to them like it was given to the Jews. They are justified because of the placing of their faith in Christ’s work on their behalf and they, as we have discussed many times, are themselves obedient to the Law not for their salvation, but for their gratitude for what Christ has done to justify them, as a sign of the faith they have placed in what Christ did on their behalf, as their serving their Lord, and as their desire to honor, please, and glorify Him. Thus, just like all of the above verses, these verses too do not counter faith in the grace of Christ alone for salvation.

And again the central issue of the passage is ignored (“the doers of the law” — not those who exercise faith alone — are “justified”). Instead we get yet another synopsis of imputed justification. But imputed justification isn’t taught here. It’s simply not what is in Paul’s mind (or so it seems to me). He didn’t write, “those who are seen as righteous will be justified.” It’s absent here and everywhere else, and is superimposed onto the text, which is the dubious practice of eisegesis, not exegesis. John Wesley expressed it well:

Frequent mention is made in Scripture, of “faith counted for righteousness.” So Gen. xv. 6: “He (Abraham) believed in the Lord, and he counted it to him for righteousness:” a text repeated, with but little variation, over and over in the New Testament. Rom. iv. 5: “To him that worketh not, but believeth on him who justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” Thus it was that “Noah became heir of the righteousness,” the justification, “which is by faith.” Heb. xi. 7. Thus also “the Gentiles,” when the Jews fell short,” attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith.” Rom. ix. 30. But that expression, the righteousness of Christ, does not occur in any of these texts. . . . We are all agreed as to the meaning, but not as to the expression, the imputing the righteousness of Christ, which I still say, I dare not insist upon, neither require any one to use; because I cannot find it in the Bible. If any one can, he has better eyes than I: and I wish he would show me where it is. Now, if by the righteousness of Christ we mean any thing which the Scripture does not mean, it is certain we put darkness for light. If we mean the same which the Scripture means by different expressions, why do we prefer this expression to the scriptural? Is not this correcting the wisdom of the Holy Ghost, and opposing our own to the perfect knowledge of God? (Thoughts on the Imputed Righteousness of Christ; 5 April 1762)

I continually affirm: to them that believe, faith is imputed for righteousness. And I do not contradict this, in still denying that phrase, the imputed righteousness of Christ, to be in the Bible . . . the doctrine which I believe has done immense hurt, is that of the imputed righteousness of Christ in the Antinomian sense. The doctrine which I have constantly held and preached is, that faith is imputed for righteousness. (Some Remarks on Mr. Hill’s Farrago Double-Distilled; 14 March 1773)

St. John Henry Cardinal Newman, my hero, and the biggest influence in my conversion to Catholicism, made several cogent, Bible-soaked observations about justification:

Now it is plain, from St. Paul, that the regenerate please God, not merely by the imputation of Christ’s obedience, but by their own obedience: by their obedience therefore are they justified. If they were justified only by imputation of Christ’s obedience, they could only please him by virtue of that obedience; but so far as they are enabled to please Him by what they are and what they do, so far may they be said, through His secret grace, to justify themselves. For instance, St. Paul says, “The God of grace … make you perfect in every good work to do His will, working in you that which is well pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ” [Heb 13:20-21]; he does not say, “imputing to you what is pleasing.” Christ then does not keep the power of justification solely in His own hands, but by His Spirit dispenses it to us in due measure, through the medium of our own doings. He has imparted to us the capacity of pleasing Him; and to please Him is that in part, which justification is in fulness, and tends towards justification as its limit. (Lectures on the Doctrine of Justification, 1838; rev. 1874, London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 3rd edition, 1908, ch. 2)

Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, was justified by an act of zeal: “Then stood up Phinehas and executed judgment, and so the plague was stayed. And that was counted unto him for righteousness unto all generations for evermore.” [Ps. cvi. 30, 31.] Zacharias and Elizabeth were “both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.” [Luke i. 6.] Words cannot be stronger to express the justification of these holy persons, than that they were “blameless and righteous before God;” yet this gift is not coupled with faith, but with acts of obedience paid to the special and particular commandments of God. In like manner St. John teaches, that “walking in the light” justifies us: “If we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin.” [1 John i. 7; iii. 7.] (Ibid., ch. 12)

How do we prove the doctrine of justification by faith only? it is nowhere declared in Scripture. St. Paul does but speak of justification by faith, not by faith only, and St. James actually denies that it is by faith only. Yet we think right to infer, that there is a correct sense in which it is by faith only; though an Apostle has in so many words said just the contrary. (Tracts for the Times #85, Sep. 1838)

Not only is the word “righteous” applied to Christians in Scripture, but the idea is again and again, in various ways, forced upon us. We read, for instance, . . . of our being “holy and without blame before Him in love;” of Christ, “who is His image,” “shining” and “living” in our hearts; of His “making us accepted” or gracious “in the Beloved;” and of His “knowing what is the mind of the Spirit” in our hearts, because “He maketh intercession for the saints in God’s way.” [. . . 2 Cor. iv. 4. Eph. i. 4, 6. Rom. viii. 27.] Such passages, I say, make it clear that acceptableness or graciousness is imparted to us as really as any other excellence belonging to Christ; and if acceptableness be what is meant by righteousness, it follows that the thing as well as the word righteousness is ours in the sense in which it is Christ’s. Christ’s righteousness, which is given us, makes us righteous, because it is righteousness; it imparts itself, and not something else. (Justification, ch. 5)

Again: we read of “righteous Abel;” we are told that “Noah was a just man, and perfect in his generations;” that Job was “perfect and upright,” that Lot was “righteous,” that Moses was “faithful in all God’s house,” that Elias was “a righteous man,” that Daniel was “righteous” and “greatly beloved,” that Zacharias and Elizabeth were “both righteous,” that Joseph was “a just man,” that Simeon was “just and devout,” that Joseph of Arimathea was “a good man and a just,” that St. John the Baptist was “a just man and an holy,” that Cornelius was “a just man, and one that feareth God,” that “the righteous shall shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father,” that “the righteous” shall go “into life eternal,” that there shall be “a resurrection of the just,” that “the Law lieth not against a just man,” that a “Bishop must be sober, just, holy, temperate.” We read of the “spirits of the just made perfect,” of “the righteous scarcely being saved,” and of “him who is just becoming more just;” [Matt. xxiii. 35. Heb. xi. 4. Gen. vi. 9. Job. i. 1. 2 Pet. ii. 7, 8. Num. xii. 7. James v. 16. Ezek. xiv. 14. Dan. ix. 23. Luke i. 6. Matt. i. 19. Luke ii. 25. Mark vi. 20. Acts x. 22. Matt. xiii. 43; xxv. 46. Luke xiv. 14. 1 Tim. i. 9. Tit. i. 8. Heb. xii. 23. 1 Pet. iv. 18. Rev. xxii. 11.] but when we would apply these statements to the great evangelical canon, “The just shall live by faith,” as explaining who are the “just” there spoken of, we are forbidden, on the arbitrary assumption that such texts speak of a sort of Jewish righteousness, even though some of them relate to times before the giving of the Law; or that they mean Christ’s imputed righteousness, even though containing in them other epithets which undeniably are personal to us. (Ibid., ch. 5)

St. Austin [Augustine] contemplates the whole of Scripture, and harmonizes it into one consistent doctrine; the Protestants, like the Arians, entrench themselves in a few favourite texts. Luther and the rest, men of original minds, spoke as no one spoke before them; . . . (Ibid., ch. 2)

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.

Before we attempt to interpret this verse, we need to put it into its fuller context. Romans 6:15-23 says:

“15 What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? 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, 18 and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. 19 I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification. 20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. 21 But what fruit were you getting at that time from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. 22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

First of all, I already commented on this verse above, underneath Acts 26:18.

[omitted summary of Protestant soteriology that has been stated many times; if someone wants to read it they can where it first appeared underneath my article (her “Part 3”). I’m now up to more than 28,000 words in three replies, with much more to go. I can’t keep citing repetitious material, for that reason. We’ll lose readers if I do, which neither of us desire. I’ve only omitted repetition.]

Now let us look specifically at verses 22 and 23 as there is something critical that we need to see to help further examine whether verse 22 does not in any way counter faith in the grace of Christ alone for salvation. There are a couple of things that we need to focus on:

1) In verse 22 it says “the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life”. If we look specifically at the beginning of this statement, what it tells us is that the fruit that leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life, is the fruit that we “get”.

Of course we “get” it ultimately from God, like every other good thing that we are or do. It doesn’t therefore follow that we are not doing the works that this sanctification entails. Its still connected directly to eternal life as a cause, and we participate in the works that brought about the connection. We don’t need to go over the fact that all good things come from God; are caused by His grace. The theologically educated folks on both sides already know and believe that. What these repeated replies amount to is that human beings do nothing whatsoever. We either just sit here or act like some sort of pre-programmed robots if we do do anything, and God does everything. It’s the extreme and unbiblical Protestant “either/or” and false dichotomy mindset. The Bible massively teaches otherwise, as the quotations from Cardinal Newman above demonstrate very well. We act as free agents; are responsible for our actions, and get credit and rewards from God for them when we perform righteous, good acts that He makes possible without superseding our wills. This reward includes salvation itself, as many Bible passages make abundantly clear.

[more repetition omitted]

2) Paul tells us in verse 23: “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”. So we see that eternal life is a gift. If this is the case, then the only way that verses 22 and 23 can make sense together, is if (a) we are sanctified by the work we do owing to the new Spirit we have been given which allows us to be obedient and which in turn helps to continue to sanctify us, and (b) that we have been justified by placing our faith alone in the free gift of grace that Christ has given us.

All of which is completely beside the point I am drawing from the passage, which is: if the “end” of sanctification is “eternal life”, it can’t be dismissed as a non-cause of that same eternal life and salvation. It’s a neat, clean refutation of imputed justification and faith alone from the great Apostle Paul.

Thus, as is very evident when we allow the larger context to guide our understanding, verse 22, just like all of the previous verses we have discussed too does not in any way counter the truth of faith in the grace of Christ alone for salvation. In fact, verse 23 strongly affirms it, which I suspect is why Dave opted not to include it.

This is now the third time I’ve been accused of cynically, deliberately omitting a verse because it would supposedly affirm Protestant distinctives. I’ve explained the other two; I won’t do it anymore. It gets really old, and is beneath my otherwise exceptionally kind and gracious opponent, to keep repeating this charge. She can’t read my mind, and isn’t familiar with my innermost motivations and intentions. I can categorically state — with God, Who knows all things, as my witness — that she has been dead wrong all three times, and that such thoughts never crossed my mind.

1 Corinthians 13:2, 13 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. . . . [13] So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

When we first look at this text, it seems very clear that faith in the grace of Christ alone can not lead to eternal life given that the text clearly says that even if Paul has full faith, without “love” he is nothing.

Thus, it has to at least be faith and love for salvation rather than faith in the grace of Christ and what He did alone that saves man. However, let us again consider the larger context associated with these two verses. Paul in this letter to the church at Corinth, is trying to address problems within the church. It is a church of believers, but they are having many issues such as causing the church service to be disorderly and conducted counter to the way that the LORD had established it to be conducted. This is the middle of a three-chapter portion of this letter where Paul is dealing with the prophetic and other charismatic gifts such as speaking in tongues and how they should be used both in and out of the gathering of the Church on the LORD’s Day.

The point that Paul is trying to make isn’t that it is faith plus something else for salvation, but rather that love is more important than anything for the believer to express to his brothers and sisters. Thus, this verse has nothing to do with whether salvation is by faith through grace in Christ alone or whether it is faith plus love, etc. Thus, we must be very careful to not extend the interpretation of a Scripture beyond what it is dealing with. If we are not careful here, we will be guilty of eisegesis, or reading our theology into the text. In contrast, we need to be very careful and ensure we are doing proper exegesis or allowing Scripture to guide our understanding/interpretation.

This is making it much more “complicated” than it needs to be, and amounts to special pleading. The Bible is very clear, as it usually is. Faith without love is nothing, just as faith without works is; moreover, love is greater than faith. Therefore, faith cannot and could not exist without it. It’s of the essence of faith, just as works also are, and it’s the essence of the law, too, as Paul teaches. Two very plain statements in inspired revelation . . . and two that Protestants deny, and have to deny, in order to maintain their system. Context doesn’t change the meaning. The counter-argument fails.

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.

As this deals with the end-times, this goes back to what was said when discussing Matthew 19 earlier. This is talking about the Judgement Seat of Christ where believers will have their good and evil works judged to determine the type of reward they will receive. So this is not talking about whether or not they will be ultimately justified and thus given eternal life, but rather it is talking about what types of rewards they will receive for the types of works they have done (good, so for the LORD or evil, so for the self…) and their devotion to Christ. Since this is a book written to a church, it is talking to primarily believers.

Thus, as with all of the verses we have looked at thus far, this verse to in no way counters faith in the grace of Christ alone for salvation as, as we saw earlier, Dave has again made a categorical error between salvation and rewards for those who are saved. This is a verse focused on rewards/punishments for the types of things we will have done when we reach eternal life, it is not a verse focused on whether one will receive eternal life or eternal death. So this is for those who have already been promised salvation.

Catholics don’t separate “the judgment seat of Christ” from other judgments of God (particular judgment of each person at death and the general or Final Judgment). We agree, however, that God gives differential rewards to believers at death because that is alluded to several times in Scripture. But assuming the Protestant eschatology for a moment, I wonder what this phrase means?: “that each one may receive good or evil”. What sense does it make for a saved person entering heaven to “receive evil”? I thought all of our sins were supposed to be wiped away at the moment of our justification? So why are they still being judged at this supposedly altogether separate sort of judgment for believers only? What is the “evil” that is received? Why wouldn’t God simply lessen the amount and numbers of “rewards” that He intends to give each believer / elect?

It winds up — ironically — sounding an awful lot like purgatory. God is giving “evil” to the saved elect in heaven, so we are told! If that’s the case, we would say He is cleansing and refining and purifying us; purging sin, which is not allowed in heaven, as many passages allude to. And we regard purgatory as the “entrance room” or vestibule right outside of heaven, where souls are prepared to enter that wonderful state and place where no sin or suffering is present. We receive “evil” or punishment or chastisement there (pick your preferred term) But that makes little sense to me within a Protestant framework. Perhaps that can be explained to me. Are we to believe that Protestants believe in a “mini-purgatory” or “purgatory lite” after all? It’s just a lot faster than the Catholic one? We get the “evil” from God and maybe suffer a day or two, learning our lesson? That’s temporal punishment (another biblical doctrine that I recently wrote about). Searching for a similar passage, I found this:

Luke 16:25 But Abraham said, ‘Son, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Laz’arus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish.

The situation there has reversed itself for both Lazarus and the rich man. Lazarus received evil things during his earthly life; the rich man is now receiving them after death, in Sheol / Hades. The problem, however, is that it’s strongly implied that the rich man is lost and will end up in hell when Sheol is emptied at the second coming of Christ (Rev 20:13-14). Here are other passages about God delivering or sending “evil”:

Judges 9:23 And God sent an evil spirit between Abim’elech and the men of Shechem . . .

1 Samuel 16:23 . . . the evil spirit from God was upon Saul . . . (cf. 18:10)

2 Kings 21:12 therefore thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, Behold, I am bringing upon Jerusalem and Judah such evil that the ears of every one who hears of it will tingle. (cf. 2 Chr 7:22; Jer 19:3)

Nehemiah 13:18 Did not your fathers act in this way, and did not our God bring all this evil on us and on this city? Yet you bring more wrath upon Israel by profaning the sabbath.”

Jeremiah 40:2 The captain of the guard took Jeremiah and said to him, “The LORD your God pronounced this evil against this place

Jeremiah 44:2 Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: You have seen all the evil that I brought upon Jerusalem and upon all the cities of Judah. Behold, this day they are a desolation, and no one dwells in them,

Jeremiah 44:11 Therefore thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: Behold, I will set my face against you for evil, to cut off all Judah.

The problem is that all of these instances are judgments of bad, wicked people or nations, not of the saved or elect or “righteous” people. So all of a sudden at 2 Corinthians 5:10, God, for the first time in the Bible (that I can find, anyway), sends “evil” to the elect? That can only feasibly be regarded — if it isn’t eternal punishment — as a pointed or perhaps non-literal, exaggerated way to describe the punishments of purgatory, which are restorative and have as their aim, eventual entrance into heaven. I don’t see any place for them in the Protestant scenario, unless they are further explained to me.

Therefore, it seems to me that Paul is referring to the particular judgment that “all” will undergo (“good” and “evil” being used as the descriptions of heaven and hell, much as in Luke 16). This is also the predominant Protestant interpretation of this verse (that it deals with all men, not just the saved). Here are eight examples:

Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers: . . . that great day, as revealing the secrets of men’s hearts, awarding to each man according to his works. “Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap” (Galatians 6:7) was to him an eternal, unchanging law. The revelation of all that had been secret, for good or evil; the perfectly equitable measurement of each element of good or evil; the apportionment to each of that which, according to this measurement, each one deserves for the good and evil which he has done: that is the sum and substance of St. Paul’s eschatology here and in 1 Corinthians 4:5.

Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary: The apostle quickens himself and others to acts of duty. Well-grounded hopes of heaven will not encourage sloth and sinful security. Let all consider the judgment to come, which is called, The terror of the Lord. Knowing what terrible vengeance the Lord would execute upon the workers of iniquity, the apostle and his brethren used every argument and persuasion, to lead men to believe in the Lord Jesus, and to act as his disciples.

Barnes’ Notes on the Bible: All – Both Jews and Gentiles; old and young; bond and free; rich and poor; all of every class, and every age, and every nation. None shall escape by being unknown; none by virtue of their rank, or wealth; none because they have a character too pure to be judged. All shall be arranged in one vast assemblage, and with reference to their eternal doom; see Revelation 20:12. . . .

The judgment-seat of Christ – The tribunal of Christ, who is appointed to be the judge of quick and dead; see the John 5:25 note; Acts 10:42; Acts 17:31 notes. Christ is appointed to judge the world; and for this purpose he will assemble it before him, and assign to all their eternal allotments; see Matthew 25.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary: The judgment shall be not only in order to assign the everlasting portion to each, but to vindicate God’s righteousness, so that it shall be manifest to all His creatures, and even to the conscience of the sinner himself.

Matthew Poole’s Commentary: Those texts which speak of believers not being judged, or not coming into judgment, must not be understood of the judgment of inquiry, (for all shall come into that judgment), but of the judgment of condemnation. . . . That every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad: the end of this judgement is declared, that every man may receive according to what he hath done in his body; that is, according to the thoughts he hath thought, the words that he hath spoken, the actions which he hath done, during the time that his soul dwelt upon the earth in his body; whether the things which he did in that state were good, and such things as God required; or sinful, and contrary to the revealed will of God. What this receiving means, we are told, Matthew 25:46: These shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal. Hence we read, John 5:29, of a resurrection of life, and a resurrection of damnation.

Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible: All the saints as well as others, ministers and people, persons of all ranks and conditions, of every nation, age, and sex; there will be no avoiding this judgment, all “must appear”, or “be made manifest”; they will be set in open view, before angels and men; their persons, characters, and actions, . . . he that believeth shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be damned.

Meyer’s NT Commentary: Our passage . . . [refers] to the last judgment . . .

Expositor’s Greek Testament: . . . that each one may receive, . . . the things done through the medium of the body . . . according to what he did, . . . whether it be good or bad (cf., . . . Ephesians 6:8, Php 1:18). Similar expressions are used of a future judgment, at, e.g., Ps. 61:13, Proverbs 24:12, Jeremiah 17:10; Jeremiah 32:19 (cf. Job 34:11?) in the O.T., and in the N.T. at Romans 2:6; Romans 14:12, 1 Peter 1:17, in all of which passages the power of judgment is ascribed to the Eternal Father. But He “hath given all judgment unto the Son” (John 5:22), and thus Christ is repeatedly spoken of as the future Judge of men, e.g., Matthew 16:27, Acts 17:31, Revelation 2:23; Revelation 22:12, and esp. Matthew 25:31-46. Cf. Luke 21:36, . . .

Go to Part Four

*****

Photo credit: Portrait of Philipp Melanchton (c. 1545), the originator of “faith alone”, by Workshop of Lucas Cranach the Elder (1472-1553) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: This is my third counter-reply of many in a dialogue with a zealous & devout Calvinist woman who critiqued my article, “50 Unanswerable NT Passages Against ‘Faith Alone’”.

Salvation & Justification

Faith Alone

Faith and Works

infused justification

Protestant soteriology

salvation caused by actions

Sola Fide

Previous Post

May 14, 2026

Defense of 50 NT Passages Against "Faith Alone", Pt. 2