The ‘Works of the Law’ and Our Salvation
May 12th, 2009 by Nathan White
In my last post I said the following in an attempt to present the gospel of Jesus Christ:
“Salvation is by works alone. But man is incapable of working his way to salvation. You need an alien righteousness, the works of Another”
If scripture clearly and emphatically declares that salvation is by faith (in Christ) alone, why would I say that salvation is by works? Let me briefly explain.
First, I am attempting to follow the model of our Lord in breaking up the fallow-ground of self-righteousness when presenting the gospel:
Matt 19:16 – “And behold, a man came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” He said to him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
Jesus broke this man’s self-righteousness by pointing him to the Law of God (the moral law of God, the Ten Commandments), and demonstrating to him his failure (inability) to keep it. He also upheld the necessity of a perfect law-keeping for eternal life (which is later explained to only be obtainable through faith in Christ, our substitute, who DID fulfill the law perfectly).
I am also attempting to follow the model of the Apostle Paul:
Rom 2:12 – “For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.”
Paul has just shown the unrighteousness of the Gentiles in Romans chapter 1, and is now beginning to show the unrighteousness of the Jews in Romans chapter 2, which he brings to a head with ‘all have sinned’ in chapter 3. But important to Paul’s argument is how he demonstrates here in chapter 2 that the Jews had not really kept the Law at all –even in their zeal for outward observance. What a shock it must have been to the Jews to hear that perfect ‘doers’ of the Law are the only ones justified!
This type of groundwork is important, and I would argue, absolutely necessary for a faithful gospel presentation. Men must understand that they have broken the Law, and that God demands absolute perfection (not trying your best) in order to be justified. Oh, for more preachers of the Law in our day, who hold it up as a standard entirely impossible to keep by sinful man! Only then will men, in their despair, run to Christ for a covering, an atonement, indeed a righteousness not their own!
Secondly, I emphasize this need for ‘works’ because there is an intrinsic connection between the law of God in our justification that is often lost or undermined in our day.
Consider,
Matt 5:17 – “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”
Notice that Christ Jesus had to ‘fulfill’ the law in order to become a substitute for sinners. It wasn’t Jesus’ inherent righteousness as the second Person of the Trinity that approved Him before God as our substitute (by faith), but it also included His coming to ‘fulfill the Law’, in our place, where we haven’t/couldn’t/wouldn’t.
As I have argued here, This text *specifically* references how a person is *saved* in the New Testament/New Covenant era. For verse 20 clearly references ‘entering heaven’, and the righteousness needed to do so.
Also consider,
Rom 8:1-4 “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.”
In accordance with the the Romans 2 chapter I quoted above (“it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.”), and Romans 3:31 (“Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.”), the Law of God is “FULFILLED” in us ONLY through Christ setting us free from the law of sin and death, and granting us His Spirit so that we may not walk by the flesh. This is where our justification (by grace/faith/Christ alone) and our sanctification (our obligation/duty/delight to obey the Law of God) meet perfectly, to the glory of God and not man.
Conclusion:
The works of the Law play an important role in salvation. That is, it is important to: presenting the gospel, our justification, and our sanctification. You may object and say ‘there is so much self-righteous, practical ’salvation by works’ in our day, the last thing we need is to mention anything about law-keeping!’. But I propose to you that Jesus and Paul lived in a far worse culture of self-righteousness and legalism, and yet they emphatically held up the true intention, purpose, and necessity of the Law.
We need to plumb these depths of our salvation more often! And we need to present the Law to men not as God grading on a curve or accepting imperfect conformity, but as the perfection necessary for salvation, only possible in running and throwing ourselves at the mercy of Christ by faith.
Wow, there are just so many assumptions in there Nathan with absolutely no explanation of the verses you threw in there. You read these passages the way you do because you already embrace the Covenant of Works. It is the starting point for you. One day I hope you see it.
For a defense of the Covenant of Works from men like Wayne Grudem, Thomas Boston, R.C. Sproul, Charles Hodge, Thomas Watson, John Calvin, A.W. Pink, R. Scott Clark, Justin Taylor (John Piper’s editor), Ligon Duncan, and Kim Riddlebarger, readers can visit this page:
http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Covenant-Theology/Overviews-of-Covenant-Theology/The-Covenant-of-Works/
For a few scripture references that are fairly explicit regarding this subject, see below:
“…Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?…If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” Matthew 19:15-17
“For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them.” Romans 10:5
“You shall therefore keep my statutes and my rules; if a person does them, he shall live by them: I am the LORD.” Leviticus 18:5
“But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me.” – Hosea 6:7
“For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.” James 2:10
“For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” – Galatians 3:10-12
“But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.” Galatians 4:4
“John would have prevented him, saying, ‘I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.’” Matthew 3:14-15
“In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence. Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered. And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek.” – Hebrews 5:7-9
(Also see Deuteronomy ch. 30; Romans 5:12-19; 1 Cor. 15:22, 45-49; Luke 22:20; Hebrews 9:15)
Nathan, despite your best efforts, none of those texts say anything about a covenantal relationship based on works. It is only because you believe in the CoW that you read those texts the way you do. You are doing the very thing you accuse me of doing, prooftexting. You believe in the CoW, then you toss some verses that if twisted to read a certain way support the CoW theory.
Also, naming a bunch of presbyterians as support of CT is moot. That would be like naming methodists in support of arminianism or naming Dallas profs as dispensationalists.
Nathan, here’s another article about the same stuff:
http://www.reformationtheology.com/2009/05/the_doctrine_of_republication.php#more
I think concepts like the Covenant of Works are important enough to discuss, but not important enough to debate or argue over. IMO, there are many Christians who don’t readily embrace the CW/CG scheme, yet are very great in the sight of God, and are much more pleasing to God than some that may believe in it. I’m not necessarily bashing James or you, Nathan, I’m just giving opinion about the whole matter.
You guys are much more theologically superior to me, so I can’t even “intelligently” enter the conversation on that level. I must say, though, that the subject matter has caused me much consternation in the past year, because it has been brought to my attention through a loved one. I’m talking about the whole issue of Law and Grace. It’s important to me to know God’s truth about this. It matters in our very lives.
This is how I see it. The lack of fulfilling the law brought us to Jesus. When we received Him, He gave us a new nature so that we wanted to “do what He wanted.” With the power of the Holy Spirit, we can now do that. Sometimes we act according to our flesh, (our old man) or we are tempted by the devil and succumb. (not taking advantage of the Spirit’s power within us) When God shows us our sin, we come to Him confessing, and asking His forgiveness, which we know He offers us and is our under His New Covenant. We don’t take advantage of that, because we love anc care about our relationship with Him, and dont’ want to hurt that or Him. As time goes on with Him, the Spirit’s nature in us becomes more and more evident. (fruit bearing) and we discover more and more about our Lord enriching our lives by Him shining through us, as we continue to abide in Him.
Amen! Jesus was the second Adam because He kept the Covenant of Works perfectly, as you mentioned. This covenant is mentioned in Amos by the Lord about Israel being covenant breakers like their father Adam. We all, from birth, are guilty of transgressing the perfect Law of God. But thanks be to God for His indescribable gift! The resurrection of Christ makes perfect sense in that Jesus was a Covenant Keeper, and because of His perfect obedience to God’s Law, death could not hold Him. For even though He was murdered, God’s promise of life to Adam on account of obedience still rung though the halls of time and found Jesus! And because He lives, so shall all who call upon Him and Him alone for salvation!!
Phil said: “For even though He was murdered, God’s promise of life to Adam on account of obedience still rung though the halls of time and found Jesus!”
Excellent point, Phil. This point also ties into the Covenant of Redemption, so labeled; another doctrine that is clear from scripture even though it isn’t derived from ‘explicit’ or ‘literal’ exegesis, thus it is often derided.
That you can say this should really bother you Nathan. You actually embrace a doctrine, with no actual scripture, that is underlying to everything else you believe. This is called a grid Nathan. You cannot exegete the covenant of works, redemption, or grace from scripture. Stop pretending to embrace sola scriptura. Scripture is not the sole authority of truth and conduct if you embrace those spurious covenants.
James-
I used quotes around ‘explicit’ and ‘literal’, not because I actually think that these doctrines aren’t explicit and/or literal, but because they do not meet the demands of some peoples definition of exegesis.
Good and necessary inference, as with the Trinity, affirms these doctrines without a shadow of a doubt. And they CAN be proved with exegesis.
James, the more you comment, the more you sound like the Dispensational I say that you are. I hear things like this all the time from those who say Israel is distinct from the church.
Good and necessary inference huh? Honestly, your commitment is to a statement of faith Nathan. Don’t forget, the good and necessary inference also allows the presbyterians (and others) to “baptize” infants. They have the same argument. If you want to use that card, you lose your ground with the same people who use the same tactic and phrases. That is another issue though.
You would also lose ground with the pretrib people who acknowledge that there is no explicit text that says the rapture is pretrib, but that it is a good and necessary inference.
The doctrine of the Trinity is nothing like the covenant of works/grace/redemption. You can point out explicit texts which equate all three members with deity, personality, thinking, emotion, will, etc. You can also point to the many passages that speak of the unity of God. That is not inference, that is good, honest study that brings out those explicit truths.
CT on the other hand assumes the truth of the covenants, finds passages that might support it, then declares that those passages do in fact teach it.
I encourage you to keep studying Nathan. Cheers.
Ah, that’s just like a NCT guy to warn that a paedo-baptizing bogyman is hiding behind every covenant rock.
The whole of the Old and New Testaments speak of God establishing His covenant with those whom He chooses. One covenant, ever unfolding. I can’t read Scripture as an epic game show where God places “tests” before men who possess “prevenient grace” to pass or fail (in the case of the latter, plan “B” is presented). The God of Scripture has no plan “B”. The god of Dispensationalism is not the God of Scripture. He is not omniscient, nor is this god sovereign over the affairs of men and nations and demonic principalities. This system of theology fails in so many areas to present accurately the great God who has sufficiently revealed Himself through the Scriptures. I will be so bold as to call it what it is- paganism. I am unapologetic in this stance, because the heresy so subtle and pervasive and damaging. It is man-centered man-worship. Humanism with a pretty little Bible label on it.
Very strong reply Nathan.
Phil, if you are going to comment on something, please do your best to be informed so these basic mistakes do not happen anymore.
1. “One covenant, ever unfolding”
Not only does the Bible not speak of one covenant, ever unfolding, but the writer of scripture go out their way to compare, contrast, and separate the covenants (not mythical and/or mystical administrations of one covenant).
2. “I can’t read Scripture as an epic game show where God places “tests” before men who possess “prevenient grace” to pass or fail (in the case of the latter, plan “B” is presented). ”
Wow, I couldn’t read scripture that way either. Yet somehow I manage to fall in the grid of CT. Careful with those strawmen, they burn easy.
3. “The god of Dispensationalism is not the God of Scripture.”
I don’t have to defend this at all. I am curious though, is John MacArthur an idolator?
4. “He is not omniscient, nor is this god sovereign over the affairs of men and nations and demonic principalities. ”
Again, this isn’t my fight, but which dispensationalist denies this?
5. “I will be so bold as to call it what it is- paganism. I am unapologetic in this stance, because the heresy so subtle and pervasive and damaging.”
You can critique DT all you want, but now this is just sad. Paganism? Really? So only the CTers of the world are the true believers, the faithful. I gotta be honest, I didn’t see that one coming.
6. “It is man-centered man-worship. Humanism with a pretty little Bible label on it.”
Oh wait, are you accusing me of DT? You read how I reject the selfimposed grid of CT upon scripture and naturally assume I am DT? My friend, ignorance is not a virtue. This is exactly why the scripture admonishes us to study them. Your knowledge of your system has led you to conclude that any variance must be DT I suppose. Stick with the Word of God Phil.
My comment was a joke in hopes of diffusing a conversation which clearly had turned volatile on your behalf.
Frankly James, I’m tired of your childishness and your rotten attitude. I don’t care what theology you profess, I want nothing to do with it if this is the kind of attitude it leads to. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Please take your comments somewhere else; this blog is not the place for such things, even among those who strongly disagree.
Thank you
Nathan, there is no rotten attitude on my part or childishness.
All I did was point out that the “good and necessary inference” is the same thing the paedos say about infant baptism. If you adopt that as a driving force of interpretation, you lose credibility on the baptism issue. The same could be true of the pretrib issue except that I am not sure DT advocates would ever say, “good and necessary inference” on anything.
I also responded point by point to Phil ridiculous charge of paganism and gameshow kinda god that non CTers use.
I have always tried to engage you strictly on what Scripture says. Even outside observers can recognize that. If you call that childish, so be it.
Phil, I can see how you come to the conclusion that dispensationalism seems to purport a very low view of God, and thus implicating the view as “heresy,” “pagan,” and “humanistic.”
However, as much as I loathe dispensational thought for the same reason, I would be more careful employ such harsh language, just because most dispensationals, like free-will advocates, don’t fully understand the theological implications and ramifications of what they believe.
I receive the correction and deeply apologize for the harsh words. DT is not able to separate children of God from their Father. It is, however, a very dark wood to be led out of. Please accept my repentance.
I’m going to jump in here again, even though my last comments weren’t acknowledged. I am pressing into this, because as I said, even as soon as yesterday, I had another very intense disagreement with a loved one about this very subject. For some reason, either we are misjudging each other’s stance, or the enemy is getting between us and causing strife here. It has affected our relationship. I find it could possibly be happening because of the timeline of eternity we are in.( or could be) What I mean is this: When Jesus said that in the endtimes, even the enemies would be of one’s household, I am wondering if that is what is happening in our situation. It is scary, I’ll tell you that. I really feel he has fallen into a doctrine of demons, as the word also talks about. He doesn’t know I think this, but I do. He recently read, Joseph Princes book, “Destined to reign,” which goes into this “grace doctrine.” It sounds so right, but there is some indiscernable thing that is so wrong with all of it-probably the 10% the enemy has mixed it with. Whenever we talk about it, (the grace he thinks he has discovered) strife results. I am fully persuaded now that whenever he comes to our home and starts to proselytisizes this new grace teaching, I am to go in another room, as I can’t seem not to try and “defend the truth,” whenever he does talk about it. You know, kind of like, if your right arm offends you, cut it off. What do any of you think about this book if you have read it? This loved one, yesterday, said I was full of judgementalism. I have opened myself up to the searchlight of the Holy Spirit to examine me on this, if it is so. I don’t think it is, but only that he has found this freedom in Christ, as he calls it, and he’s compromizing by doing things he didn’t use to do, and I believe he feels convicted, and won’t rest (even though he says he is in so much rest as never before) until we (my husband and I ) see the light, and begin to do as he does.
Nathan,
Always enjoy reading your work. Just a question on the following Quote. “I emphasize this need for ‘works’ because there is an intrinsic connection between the law of God in our justification that is often lost or undermined in our day.” Is not ‘works’ intrinsically related to our sanctification, but not our justification? I believe it is clear that the law is in no way involved in our forensic justification. I’m I correct in thinking that way or am I missing something?
James,
Your comments are enlightening and you add greatly to the discussion. You wrote; “Not only does the Bible not speak of one covenant, ever unfolding, but the writer of scripture go out their way to compare, contrast, and separate the covenants.” My question to you is where does the Bible ever explicitly speak of any individual being saved under an Old Covenant experience as spoken of by Paul or any New Testament author? It seems to me that NCT have also relied on some “good and necessary inference” material as well.
Erik, I am not entirely sure we mean the same thing by “Old Covenant”. I define it the way scripture does, the mosaic covenant. If that is what you mean, then people were certainly saved during that time period the same way we are saved now, by faith alone in the God who justifies the ungodly (Romans 4:5). The example of course would be David in that same reference and following. Abraham prelaw, David during the law, and we who are not under the law. We are all saved the exact same way.
Did that answer your question or did you mean something else?
OK- here’s the deal: this conversation has drifted off-topic and I believe it is no longer profitable.
I’m going to close the comments here.
I will do one thing first: I will answer Erik’s first question, since it is on-topic and related to what I wrote in my post. And Erik, if you’d like to respond, you may shoot me an email with a follow-up question: nathan at shepherdtheflock.com
Erik asked:
What I meant was, the scriptures quoted above (Matt 19, Rom 2, Matt 5), DO INDEED tie in the works and/or righteousness of the Mosaic Law directly into our salvation/justification. However, of course, it is not OUR works that is involved in our justification; instead, it is Christ’s works that are intrinsically related to our justification.
And if you were to ask me further, I would affirm that the same law that plays a role in our justification (Christ’s imputation by faith), is the same law that plays a role in our sanctification (Christ-likeness, here on earth, post-regeneration). Some (but not all) forms of NCT/Dispensationalism actually say that yes the Mosaic Law plays some role in our justification (via Christ’s fulfillment), but that there is a now a new and different law that plays a role in our sanctification post-conversion. I say that sound exegesis does in no way allow us to be justified by a different law than what we are sanctified to.