Are Good Works Necessary for Salvation?

Last updated on: February 10, 2015 at 7:55 pm by Jordan Cooper

Are Good Works Necessary for Salvation? 2015-02-10T19:55:43-06:00 Jordan Cooper

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.

Mark Jones briefly responded to my post in which I critiqued his book Antinomianism. His response can be found here. The response was largely disappointing, because Jones did not engage with the primary contention of the post, that the distinction between the two kinds of righteousness is a better manner in which to guard against antinomianism, because when utilizing that distinction, one will not utter utilize such confusing phrases as “good works are necessary for salvation.”

I’m not sure that Jones knows what the 2KR distinction is, or its use in Lutheran theology. Essentially, the two kinds of righteousness distinction teaches that everyone has two kinds of relationships: a relationship with God, and a relationship with other creatures. Each of these kinds of relationships functions differently. Before God (coram Deo) one is purely passive. One cannot work to earn salvation, but one receives it as a free gift. On the other hand, before the world (coram mundo), one is called to live a life of active service of the neighbor in obedience to God’s commandments. If we consistently affirm and distinguish between these two kinds of righteousness, we can avoid the ditches of both legalism (which puts active righteousness language in the coram Deo category) and antinomianism (which neglects the importance of God’s law coram mundo). My primary contention, regarding Jones’ book, is that while he rightfully emphasizes the goodness of God’s law, the necessity of all three uses of the law, and the reality of sanctification, he conflates these two kinds of righteousness in some of his phraseology.

Let’s look at one phrase in particular which gets at the heart of it: “Good works are necessary for salvation.”

Jones contends, throughout the book, that this phrase is good, right, and salutary. He also demonstrates that this phrase has been used by some Reformed theologians, such as Anthony Burgess. This is where a contrast between a Lutheran and Jones’ view of these matters is apparent.

There was one theologian in Lutheran history, named George Major, who utilized the phrase “good works are necessary for salvation.” The authors of the Formula of Concord, in Article IV, reject Major’s claim as damaging to the gospel. Major did, like Jones, argue that salvation was a broad term which encapsulates both justification and sanctification, and thus still held on to sola fide. However, the Reformers knew how confusing such language could be. In opposition to Major, the Formula contends: ““it is proper to reject the propositiones that good works are necessary for the salvation of believers or that it is impossible to be saved without good works” (FC SD IV.22). There are two primary reasons why this phrase is rejected by the Reformers. First, it is damaging to consciences seeking comfort in the gospel. Second, it is at odds with Paul’s teaching on justification.

Joel Biermann and Charles Arand explain the pastoral necessity of separating active righteousness from one’s coram Deo relationship:

“The need to distinguish the two kind of righteousness necessitates that our active righteousness dare never become the basis for our righteousness coram Deo. For any attempt to bring works into the presence of God will lead to a rejection of the Creator-creature relationship whereby we receive our identity and life as children of God as a sheer gift. And so the Reformation teaching argued that standing before God in heaven, human beings must leave all works behind on earth and seek nothing but the righteousness of Christ that is received by faith. When terrors of conscience result from the recognition of one’s inability to obtain salvation (Rome) or inability to find assurance of salvation (Pietism), it becomes dramatically obvious that active righteousness must remain on earth within the realm of our relationships with our fellow human creatures.” Arand and Biermann, “Why the Two Kinds of Righteousness,” 121. (The entire essay can be read here)

Whatever kind of explanation can be attached to the phrase, the contention that good works are necessary for salvation is pastorally damaging. If I were to proclaim, from the pulpit, that good works are necessary for salvation, no matter what kind of nuance I put on that claim, congregants would be thrown into despair. Salvation coram Deo is not the realm in which good works need to be placed. Rather, they are a result of one’s justification, performed in the world in which one lives.

The more important issue, of course, is the Biblical teaching regarding salvation. When examining the central texts, it is apparent that the most common New Testament utilization of the term “salvation” is in reference to justification and regeneration, rather than good works. Some texts explicitly separate works from salvation:

“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.” Ephesians 2:8-9

“But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.” Titus 3:5-7

In several other texts, salvation is described in a manner identical with justification, and thus received by faith alone (Luke 1:77, 2 Tim. 3:15, Rom. 1:16, Eph. 1:13). The only text which could possibly be utilizes to argue that salvation, broadly speaking, includes good works is Philippians 2:12. However, the text need not be read in such a way. Paul is simply arguing that good works and sanctified living are the outworking of salvation. There is simply no Biblical basis to utilize the term “salvation” as something which encompasses good works as a condition. Thus, Biblically speaking, saying “good works are necessary for salvation,” is not really any different than arguing “good works are necessary for justification.”

The problem with Jones’ book is that several phrases like this are used, which conflate the two kinds of righteousness. This language is at best, extremely confusing and unhelpful, and at worst, damaging to the souls of despairing Christians.

Uncategorized

Antinomianism

Mark Jones

Two Kinds of Righteousness

Previous Post

February 9, 2015

The Doctrine of Man

Next Post

February 11, 2015 Does the Preface to the Decalogue Negate the Law-Gospel Distinction?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category American Lutheran Classics Blog Posts Book Review Christian Dogmatics Course Church Resources Curtis Leins Dogmatic Theology Ethics FAQs Historical Theology Just & Sinner Publications Luther Quotations Podcast Sermons The American Lutheran Theological Journal The complete works of Revere Franklin Weidner Theology Proper Uncategorized Videos

Select a Month October 2019 September 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who was Moses' brother?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Joshua Caleb Aaron Eleazar