John Robbins's Bad Exegesis of Matthew 7:21-23

"He not only directs his discourse to them, to rouse them from the indifference, in which they lie asleep like drunk people, but also warns believers, not to estimate such masks beyond their proper value. In a word, he declares that, so soon as the doctrine of the Gospel shall have begun to bear fruit by obtaining many disciples, there will not only be very many of the common people who falsely and hypocritically submit to it, but even in the rank of pastors there will be the same treachery, so that they will deny by their actions and life what they profess with the mouth. “Whoever then desires to be reckoned among the disciples, must labour to devote himself, sincerely and honestly, to the exercises of a new life."  John Calvin

"Orthodox Protestants have always said that faith must produce good works. Faith, or what passes for faith, or what some people call faith, is dead without works."   Dr. Gordon H. Clark

Since my time is limited I will only make a few brief comments about John Robbins's hermeneutic that reads justification by faith alone into practically every passage of Scripture which emphasizes true conversion and the accompanying fruits of conversion.  Sean Gerety is a good example of someone who cares little about progressive sanctification and the other accompanying fruits which follow after a monergistic regeneration or the effectual call of the God.  In fact, I would argue that Gerety and others at the Trinity Foundation are more concerned with following the teachings of John Robbins than with following the system of logical and propositional truth that is deduced from the Bible.  Dr. Gordon H. Clark did not waver from the system of propositional truth which is summarized by the Westminster Confession of Faith.  Clark denied that saving faith is bare assent to the Gospel:

Protestants usually assert that Romanists make faith and salvation a matter of assent; the most frequent expression is that the Romanists make faith a matter of “bare” assent. It is common to declaim against “mere” intellectual faith. Bare and mere are of course pejorative adjectives, i.e., weasel words. It is unfortunate that many or most Protestant discussions on this subject, either in textbooks or encyclopedias, do not define their terms and explain what is meant. Assent, as has been seen, can be taken in several ways. Orthodox Protestants have always said that faith must produce good works. Faith, or what passes for faith, or what some people call faith, is dead without works. If this is what is meant by speaking of “mere” or “bare” assent, of course it is quite true. But I suspect that this is not what is meant.

Gordon H. Clark. What Is The Christian Life? (Kindle Locations 3042-3049). The Trinity Foundation. Kindle Edition. 

While it is true that the Westminster Confessional Standards are a fallible confession of faith and an extended creed of what Presbyterians believe, it is not true that departing from the confessional standards is optional.  The WCS are a secondary and authoritative summary of what we believe the Bible teaches.  This can be easily demonstrated from the Confession itself.  The first chapter of the Confession makes it clear that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is the most important doctrine of Presbyterianism and Calvinism.  In section one we are told that the primary reason God gave us the Scriptures is that general or natural revelation is insufficient information for saving faith.  But we are also told that the Scriptures were put into writing for "the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world . . ."  (Westminster Confession of Faith.  WCF 1:1).  It would be odd that the Westminster divines would put so much emphasis on the "sure establishment and comfort of the Church" if confessional creeds are merely optional resources of the church.  Dr. Clark made it clear that he adhered to the whole scope of Scripture and to the system of propositional truth that is laid out in summary form in the Westminster Standards:

Today many church leaders consider creeds as obstacles to ecumenical union.  It would please such men to hand over the discussions of creedal differences to those impractical fuddy-duddies, the theologians, while they themselves made the important organizational arrangements by which the right people would get the prominent positions.

There are other more humble people who sincerely believe that the adoption of a creed is an act of ecclesiastical presumption.  Therefore several denominations have no creed.  They insist on believing nothing.  There are others who regard creeds, not exactly as presumptions, but as unnecessary.  This would be the attitude of those who, though their zeal is unquestioned, find creeds, and Paul's epistles, intellectually heavy.

. . . The Westminster Confession was never intended to be either an empty form or an obstacle to church union.  With the other Reformed creeds, the Thirty-nine Articles, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Canons of the Synod of Dort, it was a statement of what all the ministers earnestly believed and faithfully preached.  These creeds were bonds of union, not causes of discord.  Discord comes when men of opposing views subscribe to the same verbal formula.  But these creeds were never intended to hide differences behind a veil of meaningless words.  On the contrary, the year before St. Bartholomew's massacre Bishop Jewel of the Anglican church wrote to Peter Martyr on the continent, "As to matters of doctrine we do not differ from you by a nail's breadth."

Dr. Gordon H. Clark.  What Do Presbyterians Believe?  The Westminster Confession Yesterday and Today.  1965.  Second Edition.  (Unicoi:  The Trinity Foundation, 2001).  Pp. 4-5.  

John Robbins's sermon on Matthew 7:21-23 is only half correct.  He correctly assesses that the Pharisees do not have a proper doctrinal understanding of the Bible when they place all the emphasis on outward works of righteousness rather than a genuine understanding of the Gospel of sovereign and free grace.  The Pharisees were outwardly clean but the inside of their souls was dirty just as the outside of the cup was clean and the inside filthy.  Jesus said that the Pharisees were whitewashed sepulchres but inwardly they were filled with the bones of dead men:

Matthew 23:23–31 (NKJV)
23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.
24 Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!

25 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and self-indulgence.

26 Blind Pharisee, first cleanse the inside of the cup and dish, that the outside of them may be clean also.

27 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness.

28 Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

29 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous,
30 and say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.’

31 “Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.

The problem with Robbins is that his view completely dismisses true piety as a necessary result of saving faith, a true and living faith.  He conflates the papist view with what orthodox Protestants have always taught, namely that a true and lively faith produces good works which can only please God because of the imputed righteousness of the cross.  Dr. Clark makes no such error.  As can be seen below, Robbins thinks the hypocrisy is believing false teaching, not living a life of hypocrisy:

Now, consider the irony of the exegetical situation. Proponents of Lordship Salvation such as Shepherd and MacArthur appeal to this passage in Matthew 7 to support their view that belief alone in the Lord Jesus Christ is not enough for salvation, that we must also practice the Lordship of Christ by faithfully performing works in order to be saved. Yet this passage clearly teaches that some of those who confess Jesus as Lord and perform amazing works will be excluded from the Kingdom of Heaven. Therefore, one may acknowledge the Lordship of Christ, perform many wonderful works, and still go to Hell. Jesus himself here warns us that many who confess his Lordship and perform many works will go to Hell. Obviously the passage does not mean what the Pope, MacArthur, and Shepherd think it means. It is not a contrast between mere believers (who are lost) and workers (who are saved), for Jesus himself says that the workers are lost.

John Robbins,  "Justification and Judgment,"  Trinity Review, November/December 2001.  P.  4. 

I have not read either edition of John MacArthur's book, The Gospel According to Jesus.  The first edition did have some confusing language about justification by faith alone and that edition was then revised after R. C. Sproul and others critiqued the book.  However, I think it is unjust of Robbins to lump MacArthur with Norman Shepherd and the Federal Vision/New Perspective on Paul crowd.  There are obviously huge differences between what MacArthur teaches and what the Shepherd/Federal Vision proponents teach.


Robbins correctly says that unless a person believes in the justification accomplished by Jesus Christ as the only basis or foundation for right standing in the final judgment that person has no assurance of salvation.  Final justification is not a matter of good works outweighing bad works and then God accepts a person on the basis of their meritorious works which become the deciding factor in their final salvation.  Final justification is and always will be the fact that Jesus lived a perfect life in our place and thus is our substitutionary righteousness in both his active obedience and his passive obedience.  His final sacrifice accomplished the actual justification of every believing and elect sinner.  (Romans 4:1-8; Hebrews 10:12-14).


What Robbins never mentions is that the Bible, the Reformed confessions, and Dr. Gordon H. Clark all say that faith without works is dead.  We do not justify ourselves by good works in order to be saved.  Instead saving faith knows that believers are justified by Christ alone and that said saving faith will produce good works.  Good works apart from faith cannot justify.  But if we are not to examine ourselves to see if we have genuine faith and obedience, why did the apostle Paul say that to partake of the Lord's supper without proper self examination would result in judgment?  (1 Corinthians 11:27-29;  2 Corinthians 13:5).  Worse for Robbins, John Calvin's exposition of Matthew 7:21-23 focuses on hypocrisy and true piety, not the doctrine of justification by faith alone:

Matthew 7:21. Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord. Christ extends his discourse farther: for he speaks not only of false prophets, who rush upon the flock to tear and devour, but of hirelings, who insinuate themselves, under fair appearances, as pastors, though they have no feeling of piety. This doctrine embraces all hypocrites, whatever may be their rank or station, but at present he refers particularly to pretended teachers, who seem to excel others. He not only directs his discourse to them, to rouse them from the indifference, in which they lie asleep like drunk people, but also warns believers, not to estimate such masks beyond their proper value. In a word, he declares that, so soon as the doctrine of the Gospel shall have begun to bear fruit by obtaining many disciples, there will not only be very many of the common people who falsely and hypocritically submit to it, but even in the rank of pastors there will be the same treachery, so that they will deny by their actions and life what they profess with the mouth. “Whoever then desires to be reckoned among the disciples, must labour to devote himself, sincerely and honestly, to the exercises of a new life.

Calvin, John, and William Pringle. Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Vol. 1. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010. Print.

The short of it all is that Robbins is so completely obsessed by his objection to the denial of justification by faith alone that he ignores the system of doctrine laid out in the Bible and summarized by the Reformed confessions.  His exegesis of Scripture is blinded by his objection to works righteousness to the point that he ignores the balanced system of logical  and propositional theology in the Bible.  Robbins never once mentions Matthew chapter 23 and how that relates to the verses he refers to in Matthew 7:21-23.


The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion put the matter succinctly:

XI. Of the Justification of Man.

WE are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore that we are justified by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort; as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification. 

XII. Of Good Works. 

ALBEIT that good works, which are the fruits of faith and follow after justification, cannot put away our sins and endure the severity of God's judgement, yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively faith, insomuch that by them a lively faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit. 

XIII. Of Works before Justification. 

WORKS done before the grace of Christ and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ, neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the School authors say) deserve grace of congruity: yea, rather for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin.

And please note that Dr. Gordon H. Clark fully approved of the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion as a Reformed confession of faith.  The term "grace of congruity" refers to the scholastic doctrine that good works make men deserving to receive another grace that makes their good works meritorious in regards to their salvation.  The Thirty-nine Articles, following the  theology of Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, rejects any idea that good works makes anyone deserving to receive grace or meritorious grace which would be congruent with justification whatsoever.  The papists teach justification by faith plus good works because sins committed after baptism must be remitted by doing good works of penance or substituted by appeals to supererogatory works of the papist saints in the treasury in heaven.  In contradistinction, the Bible teaches justification by faith alone apart from good works.  Good works apart from saving faith cannot please God whatsoever.  This in no way denies that good works are a necessary evidence of a true and lively faith, however.


To further nail the point home I can quote from the Heidelberg Catechism to affirm that sanctification is a necessary evidence of a true and lively faith:

THE THIRD PART—OF THANKFULNESS
LORD’S DAY 32 

Question 86

  Since then we are delivered from our misery, merely of grace, through Christ, without any merit of ours, why must we still do good works?

 

  Because Christ, having redeemed and delivered us by his blood, also renews us by his Holy Spirit, after his own image; that so we may testify, by the whole of our conduct, our gratitude to God for his blessings,a and that he may be praised by us;b also, that every one may be assured in himself of his faith,c by the fruits thereof; and that, by our godly conversation others may be gained to Christ.d

Question 87

  Cannot they then be saved, who, continuing in their wicked and ungrateful lives, are not converted to God?

 

  By no means; for the holy scripture declares that no unchaste person, idolater, adulterer, thief, covetous man, drunkard, slanderer, robber, or any such like, shall inherit the kingdom of God.a

Historic Creeds and Confessions. electronic ed. Oak Harbor: Lexham Press, 1997. Print.

I can also cite and quote many places in the Westminster Confessional Standards to show that sanctification is a necessary evidence of saving faith and a true profession of faith.  I hope that this establishes the point that so-called Lordship Salvation has to be defined properly and if it is defined by the Scriptures and the Reformed creeds and confessions it simply means that those who live a life of lawlessness and wickedness have no assurance of salvation even if they have made a profession of faith.  That seems to be John Calvin's exegesis of Matthew 7:21-23.  The chapter on assurance of salvation in the WCF clearly says that false assurance is a danger.  (See WCF 18:1).

WCF 16:2  Of Good Works

2.      These good works, done in obedience to God’s commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith: (James 2:18, 22) and by them believers manifest their thankfulness, (Ps. 116:12–13, 1 Pet. 2:9) strengthen their assurance, (1 John 2:3, 5, 2 Pet. 1:5–10) edify their brethren, (2 Cor. 9:2, Matt. 5:16) adorn the profession of the gospel, (Tit. 2:5, 9–12, 1 Tim. 6:1) stop the mouths of the adversaries, (1 Pet. 2:15) and glorify God, (1 Pet. 2:12, Phil. 1:11, John 15:8) whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto, (Eph. 2:10) that, having their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end, eternal life. (Rom. 6:22)

The Westminster Confession of Faith. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996. Print.

Does chapter 16 of the WCF teach final justification?  I think not.  Yet the Westminster divines clearly said that justification is evidenced by sanctification unto holiness and good works which in tandem assure believers that they will inherit eternal life.  Robbins, on the contrary, seems to have been promoting the view of Baptists who teach once saved always saved.

[Addendum:  After having listened to John MacArthur's sermons many times on YouTube, I have come to the conclusion that Johnny Mac defines Lordship Salvation as living a progressively sanctified life after an elect person has been regenerated.  MacArthur does not mean that good works in any sense whatsoever justify the Christian on the final day of judgment.  But it follows that many will discover that their faith was a false profession of faith and that they were never converted.  That is different from the Federal Vision doctrine of a final justification by faith and works.  December 25th, 2021.]

Are Good Works Necessary for Salvation?

". . . No matter how great the totality of our good works, they do not merit pardon for sin or eternal life.  Contrary to the modernist and Roman theories of salvation by works, Calvinism teaches that when we have done all we can, we are still unprofitable servants."  Dr. Gordon H. Clark

The Arminians and the Pelagians presuppose that man is not guilty of Adam's original sin.  The Arminians say that Jesus died on the cross for all men, every individual and on the basis of a universal satisfaction for original and actual sins committed by the individual, freedom from the corruption of sin is given to all by way of prevenient grace or universal grace.  Total depravity, according to the Arminians, is ameliorated so that man now is not a slave to sin in the absolute sense but only has a "bent toward sinning".  The will is not really in bondage to sin after all.  The Pelagian just says that everyone is born innocent and with a clean slate.  The difference is really not that significant since both the Arminian and the Pelagian denies that mankind is cursed by God with Adam's original sin and all are born totally corrupted by sin and become slaves to actual sin as soon as they leave their mother's womb.  (Psalm 58:3; Psalm 51:5).  Arminians and the Semi-Pelagians in the Roman Catholic Church and in Eastern Orthodoxy therefore have more in common with each other than with the Protestant Reformers.  Arminians teach salvation by works and justification by works because at the final judgment it is not the cross that justifies them before God but their own works.

It is truly astounding that so-called Calvinists are now teaching the same thing as the Arminians:  salvation and justification by works in the final judgment.  We see this in the Federal Vision controversy in the Presbyterian Church in America, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and in other denominations that were at one time Reformed in their theology.  The definition of the term "Evangelical" meant those who believed in justification by faith alone, not salvation or justification by works.  But the meaning of the term has changed so that even those who openly deny the doctrine of sola fide are now called Evangelical.  It is a misnomer.  

Dr. Gordon H. Clark has put the matter into proper perspective:

Many people in the pews, and not merely liberal ministers in the pulpits, express a distaste for doctrine and theology.  They want something practical.  Well, who can deny that good works are practical?

Unfortunately for those who dislike theology and a detailed confessional statement, there cannot be much progress in good works unless it is known what works are good and what works are evil.  And who can deny that a definition of good works is theological, doctrinal, and creedal?  The popular distinction between doctrine and practice, between theology and life, between knowing and doing, is a false one.  The theory of practice must precede the practice of theory.

What then are good works?  Are they those actions a benevolently intentioned gentleman may happen to enjoy?  Is a substantial donation to an orphanage, hospital, or church a good work?  Strange as it may seem to non-Christians, and even to uninstructed Christians, the answer is that these actions are not necessarily good.  They may be good; but again they may not be.  What then makes a work or action good?

Two requirements must be fulfilled before an act can properly be called good.  The [Westminster] Confession says, "Good works are only such as God hath commanded in his holy word, and not such as, without the warrant thereof, are devised by men out of blind zeal, or upon any pretense of good intention."  

Dr. Gordon H. Clark.  Essays on Ethics and Politics.  (Jefferson: The Trinity Foundation, 1992).  P. 104.

Worse for those who trust in their own works, the Bible teaches that good works done without the proper motivation are unacceptable to God.  Dr. Clark continues the discussion on the next page of his article:

 "Works done by unregenerate men, although, for the matter of them, they may be things which God commands, and of good use both to themselves and others; yet, because they proceed not from an heart purified by faith; nor are done in a right manner, according to the Word; nor to a right end, the glory of God; they are therefore sinful, and cannot please God, or make a man meet to receive grace from God.  And yet, their neglect of them is more sinful and displeasing unto God" (sec. vii).  [WCF 16:7].

Because a good work must proceed from a heart purified by faith, it follows that men's "ability to do good works is not at all of themselves, but wholly from the Spirit of Christ.  And that they must be enabled thereunto . . . there is required an actual influence of the Holy Spirit to work in them to will and to do of his good pleasure" (sec. iii).  Thus while good works are done voluntarily and not against our wishes and desires, they are not the result of a "free" will independent of God.  God in his sovereign grace changes our desires and makes us willing.

In conclusion, for these articles must be extremely brief, no matter how great the totality of our good works, they do not merit pardon for sin or eternal life.  Contrary to the modernist and Roman theories of salvation by works, Calvinism teaches that when we have done all we can, we are still unprofitable servants.  [Luke 17:10].  The Roman notion that some men can do actually more than God requires, and that the extra merits earned by these men avail for other less energetic sinners, is a Satanic delusion.  Christ alone has satisfied the justice of his Father, and he has satisfied it perfectly.  Deo soli gratia.

Dr. Gordon H. Clark.  Ibid.  Pp. 105-106.

The idea that good works justify us before God is based on a false exegesis of James chapter 2.  But the one thing that the Semi-Pelagians and Pelagians overlook is that all Scripture is inspired by God and there is a system of theology revealed in Scripture.  If James appears to contradict Paul, who is right?  Well, we know that there are no contradictions in the Scriptures.  Therefore we must follow the principle of Scripture interpreting Scripture.  The controversial verses in James are as follows:

“What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.” (James 2:14–26, NKJV)

The key verse in this pericope is verse 18:

“But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.” (James 2:18, NKJV)

The context here is clearly the validation of one's profession of faith before the church and before men in the church.  And the context is that the Christian church is not to show partiality or favoritism to wealthy church members or potential members over against the needs of the less well off members of the church:

 

“My brethren, do not hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with partiality. For if there should come into your assembly a man with gold rings, in fine apparel, and there should also come in a poor man in filthy clothes, and you pay attention to the one wearing the fine clothes and say to him, “You sit here in a good place,” and say to the poor man, “You stand there,” or, “Sit here at my footstool,” have you not shown partiality among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts? Listen, my beloved brethren: Has God not chosen the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him? But you have dishonored the poor man. Do not the rich oppress you and drag you into the courts? Do they not blaspheme that noble name by which you are called?” (James 2:1–7, NKJV)

Therefore to say that James is teaching salvation by works is to take the entire passage out of context.  James does not contradict Paul because James is dealing with a pastoral problem in the church.  In fact, the Apostle James presided over the council at Jerusalem where it was decided that Gentile members of the church are under no obligation to follow the Jewish law on circumcision and ceremonies.  (Acts 15).  Good works, according to James, justify Christians before men.  This is not a contradiction to Paul's teaching that good works cannot justify the believer before God:

“What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works: “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, And whose sins are covered; Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin.”” (Romans 4:1–8, NKJV)

According to Paul, justification is imputed on a legal and forensic basis, not on the basis of an infused righteousness.  God does cause the Christian to voluntarily do good works.  (Philippians 2:12-13).  But even here good works could not be done unless God causes the believer to perform them.   (John 15:5-6).  There is no contradiction between Paul and James.  The contradiction lies in the unsystematic and unconfessional approach to Scripture taken by the Semi-Pelagian Romanists and Arminians.




Good works do not justify men before God.  But they are a necessary evidence before the church and other men that Christians have a valid profession of faith.  Further, good works are necessary to attain assurance of salvation.  But assurance of salvation and salvation itself are not the same thing at all.  Good works are the result of saving faith, not the cause of our justification or our salvation.  (Ephesians 2:8-10).  Salvation does include the whole ordo salutis and therefore, technically speaking, good works are included in our salvation.  The distinction is that good works merit nothing, including eternal life.  If someone is trusting in their own good works as the basis for their righteousness or right standing before God in the final judgment, then Christ has died in vain.  Christ and Christ alone merited eternal life for his elect people.  (Matthew 1:21; Ephesians 1:4; John 10:11, 15).

In closing, I will post the entire chapter on good works from the Westminster Confession.  Please click on the hyperlinks and read the accompanying proof texts:

CHAPTER XVI—Of Good Works

  1.      Good works are only such as God hath commanded in His holy Word, (Micah 6:8, Rom. 12:2, Heb. 13:21) and not such as, without the warrant thereof, are devised by men, out of blind zeal, or upon any pretence of good intention. (Matt. 15:9, Isa. 29:13, 1 Pet. 1:18, Rom. 10:2, John 16:2, 1 Sam. 15:21–23)

  2.      These good works, done in obedience to God’s commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith: (James 2:18, 22) and by them believers manifest their thankfulness, (Ps. 116:12–13, 1 Pet. 2:9) strengthen their assurance, (1 John 2:3, 5, 2 Pet. 1:5–10) edify their brethren, (2 Cor. 9:2, Matt. 5:16) adorn the profession of the gospel, (Tit. 2:5, 9–12, 1 Tim. 6:1) stop the mouths of the adversaries, (1 Pet. 2:15) and glorify God, (1 Pet. 2:12, Phil. 1:11, John 15:8) whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto, (Eph. 2:10) that, having their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end, eternal life. (Rom. 6:22)

  3.      Their ability to do good works is not at all of themselves, but wholly from the Spirit of Christ. (John 15:4–6, Ezek. 36:26–27) And that they may be enabled thereunto, beside the graces they have already received, there is required an actual influence of the same Holy Spirit to work in them to will, and to do, of His good pleasure: (Phil. 2:13, Phil. 4:13, 2 Cor. 3:5) yet are they not hereupon to grow negligent, as if they were not bound to perform any duty unless upon a special motion of the Spirit; but they ought to be diligent in stirring up the grace of God that is in them. (Phil. 2:12, Heb. 6:11–12, 2 Pet. 1:3, 5, 10–11, Isa. 64:7, 2 Tim. 1:6, Acts 26:6–7, Jude 20–21)

  4.      They who, in their obedience, attain to the greatest height which is possible in this life, are so far from being able to supererogate, and to do more than God requires, as that they fall short of much which in duty they are bound to do. (Luke 17:10, Neh. 13:22, Job 9:2–3, Gal. 5:17)

  5.      We cannot by our best works merit pardon of sin, or eternal life at the hand of God, by reason of the great disproportion that is between them and the glory to come; and the infinite distance that is between us and God, whom, by them, we can neither profit, nor satisfy for the debt of our former sins, (Rom. 3:20, Rom. 4:2, 4, 6, Eph. 2:8–9, Tit. 3:5–7, Rom. 8:18, Ps. 16:2, Job 22:2–3, Job 35:7–8) but when we have done all we can, we have done but our duty, and are unprofitable servants: (Luke 17:10) and because, as they are good, they proceed from His Spirit; (Gal. 5:22–23) and as they are wrought by us, they are defiled, and mixed with so much weakness and imperfection, that they cannot endure the severity of God’s judgment. (Isa. 64:6, Gal. 5:17, Rom. 7:15, 18, Ps. 143:2, Ps. 130:3)

  6.      Notwithstanding, the persons of believers being accepted through Christ, their good works also are accepted in Him; (Eph. 1:6, 1 Pet. 2:5, Exod. 28:38, Gen. 4:4, Heb. 11:4) not as though they were in this life wholly unblameable and unreproveable in God’s sight; (Job 9:20, Ps. 143:2) but that He, looking upon them in His Son, is pleased to accept and reward that which is sincere, although accompanied with many weaknesses and imperfections. (Heb. 13:20–21, 2 Cor. 8:12, Heb. 6:10. Matt. 25:21, 23)

  7.      Works done by unregenerate men, although for the matter of them they may be things which God commands; and of good use both to themselves and others: (2 Kings 10:30–31, 1 Kings 21:27, 29, Phil. 1:15–16, 18) yet, because they proceed not from an heart purified by faith; (Gen. 4:5, Heb. 11:4, 6) nor are done in a right manner,according to the Word; (1 Cor. 13:3, Isa. 1:12) nor to a right end, the glory of God, (Matt. 6:2, 5, 16) they are therefore sinful, and cannot please God, or make a man meet to receive grace from God: (Hag. 2:14, Tit. 1:15, Amos 5:21–22, Hosea 1:4, Rom. 9:16, Tit. 3:5) and yet, their neglect of them is more sinful and displeasing unto God. (Ps. 14:4, Ps. 36:3, Job 21:14–15, Matt. 25:41–43, 45, Matt. 23:23)

The Westminster confession of faith. (1996). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion also says:

X. Of Free Will.

THE condition of man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith and calling upon God. Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us that we may have a good will, and working with us when we have that good will.

XI.Of the Justification of Man.

WE are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore that we are justified by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort; as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.

XII. Of Good Works.

ALBEIT that good works, which are the fruits of faith and follow after justification, cannot put away our sins and endure the severity of God's judgement, yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively faith, insomuch that by them a lively faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit.

XIII. Of Works before Justification.

WORKS done before the grace of Christ and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ, neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the School authors say) deserve grace of congruity: yea, rather for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin.

XIV. Of Works of Supererogation.

VOLUNTARY works besides, over and above, God's commandments which they call Works of Supererogation, cannot be taught without arrogancy and impiety. For by them men do declare that they do not only render unto God as much as they are bound to do, but that they do more for His sake than of bounden duty is required: Whereas Christ saith plainly, When ye have done all that are commanded to do, say, We be unprofitable servants.

XV. Of Christ alone without Sin.

CHRIST in the truth of our nature was made like unto us in all things, sin only except, from which He was clearly void, both in His flesh and in His spirit. He came to be the lamb without spot, Who by sacrifice of Himself once made, should take away the sins of the world: and sin, as S. John saith, was not in Him. But all we the rest, although baptized and born again in Christ, yet offend in many things: and if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

XVI. Of Sin after Baptism.

NOT every deadly sin willingly committed after Baptism is sin against the Holy Ghost, and unpardonable. Wherefore the grant of repentance is not to be denied to such as fall into sin after Baptism. After we have received the Holy Ghost, we may depart from grace given and fall into sin, and by the grace of God we may arise again and amend our lives. And therefore they are to be condemned, which say they can no more sin as long as they live here, or deny the place of forgiveness to such as truly repent.

Articles 10-16

Gordon H. Clark: Arminians and Justification by Faith Alone

The Arminians, even though they were born Protestants, broke away from the Lutheran and Calvinistic teaching and took one or more steps backward toward Rome.  They held that the demands of the law were lowered to the level of "evangelical obedience" and on the basis of this quite human obedience, we are justified.  But in addition to running counter to the previous references which exclude works, this impinges on the holiness of God by picturing him as satisfied with less than perfection.  -- Dr. Gordon H. Clark

The following quote is from the book, What Do Presbyterians Believe?

. . . A judge acquits a man when he declares that the man is not guilty.  Justification then is a judicial act.  It is God's declaration that this sinner is not guilty, but righteous.

But how can this be so?  How can a sinner be righteous?  It should be clearly understood that even faith is not the basis of justification.  The ground or basis of justification is the object in which faith rests; that is, Christ and his righteousness.  God acquits a sinner, declares him not guilty, on the basis of Christ's righteousness having been imputed to him.  Sometimes the expressions are shortened in Scripture, as in Romans 3:21-26.  Then again, the great passage in Romans 5:12-19 shows that as it was one act of one man that brought condemnation, so it was by the righteousness of one man alone that justification is possible.

The Arminians, even though they were born Protestants, broke away from the Lutheran and Calvinistic teaching and took one or more steps backward toward Rome.  They held that the demands of the law were lowered to the level of "evangelical obedience" and on the basis of this quite human obedience, we are justified.  But in addition to running counter to the previous references which exclude works, this impinges on the holiness of God by picturing him as satisfied with less than perfection.  The Scripture does not teach that God lowers his requirements.  On the contrary, God requires and supplies complete sinlessness.  Christ not only bore our penalty on the cross, but in his life he perfectly obeyed his Father.  It is the personal righteousness of Christ's sinless obedience that is put to our account, on the basis of which we are declared not guilty.  Read the same references again.  Cf. also Titus 3:5-7; Ephesians 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:30; Philippians 3:9; and even Jeremiah 23:6, for, remember, the Gospel is in the Old Testament and with it justification by faith.

Gordon H. Clark.  What Do Presbyterians Believe?  (Unicoi:  Trinity Foundation, 2001).  Pages 123-124.

The first thing you will notice is that Dr. Clark says that the Arminians actually deny substitutionary atonement and justification by faith alone.  The very nature of Arminianism is that good works are necessary for saving faith and justification before God.  In fact, the initial act of faith is a work that the Arminian does and sanctification, rather than a gift of God, is a work that the Arminian does to keep himself saved.  Of course, the Arminian cannot have assurance because there is no guarantee that he can keep himself to the end or persevere to the end.  It is all up to him and his "libertarian free will."

This book is available in paperback at the Trinity Foundation website:  What Do Presbyterians Believe?  You can also listen to the audio of the book being read by someone other than the author by going to the mp3 section of the Trinity Foundations website.  (Scroll down.  The book can be downloaded in audio for free.  It has the whole book or individual chapters for download in audio).  You can listen to the chapter on justification by faith alone by clicking here:  Chapter XI:  Of Justification.

Mark Driscoll Attacks Cessationists at Their Own Conference

I am no big fan of John MacArthur because of the fact that he is not a confessional Calvinist and because he gets much wrong in regards to the doctrine of justification by faith alone.  (See: The Gospel According to John MacArthur).  However, MacArthur's cessationist views are to be commended.  I find it ironic that MacArthur is attacked for standing against heresy in the realm of the charismatic movement while his compromises on justification by faith alone go under the radar.  

Apparently, Mark Driscoll just could not let it go.  He had to crash the party because his books cannot stand alone.  Click here for the rest of the story.

The Doctrine of Justification: Why It Is Essential to Saving Faith

The late Dr. John Robbins explains why the doctrine of justification by faith alone is the sine qua non of the Christian faith.  Click here to listen to this message.

Archbishop Thomas Cranmer: Quote of the Day: Justification by Faith Alone: Necessary Doctrine

 

"Now they that think they may come to justification by performance of the law, by their own deeds and merits, or by any other mean than is above rehearsed, they go from Christ, they renounce his grace . . ."  -- Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, (1489-1556).

 

 

[Galatians 5:3-4].

 

 

Now they that think they may come to justification by performance of the law, by their own deeds and merits, or by any other mean than is above rehearsed, they go from Christ, they renounce his grace: Evacuati estis a Christo, saith St. Paul, Gal. v., quicunque, in lege, judificamini, a gratia excidistis. They be not partakers of the justice, that he hath procured, or the merciful benefits that be given by him. For St. Paul saith a general rule for all them that will seek such by-paths to obtain justification; those, saith he, which will not knowledge the justness or righteousness which cometh by God, but go about to advance their own righteousness, shall never come to that righteousness which we have by God (Rom. 10:1-4); which is the righteousness of Christ: by whom only all the saints in heaven, and all other that have been saved, have been reputed righteous, and justified. So that to Christ our only Saviour and Redeemer, on whose righteousness both their and our justification doth depend, is to be transcribed all the glory thereof.

 

 

Excerpt from:  Necessary Doctrine

Last Sunday's Sermon at Christ Church, Longwood, Florida

Last Sunday's sermon at Christ Church, Longwood, Florida was certainly a turnabout.  The visiting “priest” was the Rev. J. H. Booker, Jr.  Unfortunately, his answer to the previous rector’s emphasis on the moral law of God was to preach an antinomian sermon on Christian liberty.  Unfortunately, the definition given by Booker for Christian liberty was that the moral law is legalism and that there is no “list” of right and wrong in the Bible.  This was simply amazing, especially since one of the texts read in the service was from Colossians 3:1-11.  

I took it that the minister meant that the ten commandments or the Decalogue no longer applies today.  Of course, the Thirty-nine Articles of religion stringently disagrees with that assessment, as does the 1662 Book of Common Prayer.  Article 7 of the 39 Articles of Religion plainly says that Christian men and women are still obligated to obey the moral law:

VII. Of the Old Testament.

THE Old Testament is not contrary to the New; for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and man, being both God and man. Wherefore there are not to be heard which feign that the old fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the law given from God by Moses, as touching ceremonies and rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet, notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the commandments which are called moral.

The 1662 Book of Common Prayer includes the  reading of the Decalogue in every communion service or the Lord’s Supper:  

Then shall the Priest, turning to the people, rehearse distinctly all the TEN COMMANDMENTS; and the people still kneeling shall, after every Commandment, ask God mercy for their transgression thereof for the time past, and grace to keep the same for the time to come, as followeth.

Minister.

GOD spake these words, and said; I am the Lord thy God: Thou shalt have none other gods but me.

    People. Lord, have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this law.

    Minister. Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down to them, nor worship them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, and visit the sins of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, and shew mercy unto thousands in them that love me, and keep my commandments.

    People. Lord, have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this law.

    Minister. Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless, that taketh his Name in vain.

    People. Lord, have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this law.

    Minister. Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath-day. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all that thou hast to do; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God. In it thou shalt do no manner of work, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, thy man-servant, and thy maid-servant, thy cattle, and the stranger that is within thy gates. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and ail that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it.

    People. Lord, have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this law.

    Minister. Honour thy father and thy mother; that thy days may be long in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.

    People. Lord, have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this law.

    Minister. Thou shalt do no murder.

    People. Lord, have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this law.

    Minister. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

    People. Lord, have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this law.

    Minister. Thou shalt not steal.

    People. Lord, have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this law.

    Minister. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

    People. Lord, have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this law.

    Minister. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his servant, nor his maid, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is his.

    People. Lord, have mercy upon us, and write all these thy laws in our hearts, we beseech thee.  (Exodus 20:1-17).

Even worse, the minster in question did not seem to know the law and gospel distinction that is at the heart of the Protestant Reformation, which distinction was affirmed by both Lutherans and Calvinists alike.  He instead asserted that Christian liberty is completely divorced from the law.  He openly stated that following the clearly stated moral laws revealed in Scripture is “easier” than having to figure out complex ethical situations on a case by case basis.  In other words, any idea of revealed moral law in the inspired and infallible Scriptures is to be rejected.  Can you say "relativism"?

Furthermore, the minister said that the reason for the prohibition on adultery in the Old Testament was because women were viewed as property.  This is nothing more than a liberal redefinition of adultery so as to permit extramarital sexual encounters in the name of “Christian liberty.”  The primary reason for the prohibition of adultery, according to Jesus, was that it violated the purpose of God in creation:

The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?" 4 And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning`made them male and female,' 5 "and said,`For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh '? 6 "So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." 7 They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?" 8 He said to them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery." 10 His disciples said to Him, "If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry." (Matthew 19:3-10 NKJ)

Mark 10:11-12 shows clearly that if a woman leaves her husband and marries another, an indication that women in the time of Jesus had the right to divorce, then she likewise commits adultery.  The reason for this is that women are not property.  In fact, in the creation Adam and Eve were equal.  God’s purpose in the creation was for one man and one woman to be wed in holy matrimony for life.  Any sex outside of marriage is fornication and adultery.  Amazingly, this liberal minister, Mr. Booker, also redefined fornication from Colossians 3:5 where the Greek word is porneia.  Booker said that this term is restricted to temple prostitution among the Greeks and Romans.  He also conceded that temple prostitution in the Old Testament could be in mind as well.  Unfortunately, anyone who can read Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance can see that fornication is an umbrella term that refers not only to pagan prostitution, idolatry, etc., but the term refers to all illicit sexual activity outside of holy matrimony.  That would include incest (1 Corinthians 5:1), bestiality, premarital sex, et. al.  Therefore, it does not follow that Moses had a different understanding of adultery from what we have today.  Marital unfaithfulness is not being true to the marital covenant or to God’s moral law for marriage revealed in creation.  Fornication, likewise, is any illicit sexual behavior outside of God’s purpose in creation.  (Genesis 2:20-25).

The argument I had in the fellowship hall after the service was over was revealing.  The minister made it clear that “he” thought gay marriage was wrong.  “He” has problems with it.  But he never once said that Scripture forbids it or that God forbids it.  In other words, it’s all relative.  He also said that certain fishermen in a certain part of the world where he had lived “tried out” their  future wives to see if they could bear children before they committed to marriage.  In other words, Mr. Booker approves of sex before marriage.  I thought he most likely approves of sex between homosexuals provided they are not allowed to marry.  He was a devious one and as slippery as an eel to say the least.  In his sermon he never once mentioned the moral law of God or the pedagogical use of God’s law.  He basically said the Decalogue is irrelevant and it is up to you to decide what is best for you.  His definition of Christian “liberty” is therefore lawlessness and antinomianism.  

My problem with my Evangelical friend, David Knox, who lost his job because of the liberals in the congregation, is that he rejects the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Westminster Standards as a whole because of his Armyraldianism.  For him, nailing down biblical propositions into systematic statements or creeds is to impose things that he thinks ought to be left to Christian “liberty” as well.  This is also an indicator for neo-orthodoxy, although I am not sure if he knows that is what he is espousing:

Barth asserts that the concepts of theology cannot be systematically connected, a systematic conspectus is an impossibility, and the name of Jesus Christ as used by Paul does not represent a unified thought.  Barth's point is not merely that the Bible is inconsistent.  He indeed holds that it is; he accepts only its main teaching and rejects the doctrine of infallible inspiration.  But here he is talking about theology, his own theology; and  it is his own theology that he now says is illogical, unsystematic, and self-contradictory.  The wording just quoted does not so much refer to the Biblical writers themselves as it refers to what the theologian can do with them.  Not only Paul lacks a unified thought when he uses the name Jesus Christ; this is true of Barth also.  In the name Jesus Christ "Cross and Resurrection are one, but not," Barth significantly adds, "--either for Paul, or for his first readers, or for us either--in what is stated in explanation over and above this name."  In these words, "for his first readers, or for us either," Barth denies that theology can be systematic, logical, and consistent. 

Gordon H. Clark, Karl Barth's Theological Method, 1963, 2nd Edition, (Unicoi: Trinity Foundation, 1997), pp. 63-64.

David, to his credit, does uphold the law of God as the standard for Christian living.  Unfortunately, although he does believe in justification by faith alone, he often blurred the law and gospel distinction.  My other beef with him is that he thinks “conservative” and “orthodox” Anglo-Catholics, namely those who uphold traditional views of Christian morality, are “Christians.”  I would vehemently disagree for the simple reason that Anglo-Catholics are, for all practical purposes, Roman Catholics.  The Anglo-Catholic position allows for faith plus obedience as the means of justification, which is to confuse justification by faith alone as a legal declaration with the imperfect sanctification that is our progressive process in holiness from the time of regeneration to the hour of our death.  Sanctification without justification can only merit hell for so-called Christians.  The only basis for saving faith is our justification based solely on the active and passive obedience of Christ.  He kept all the law of God perfectly for elect believers by keeping God’s moral law perfectly for them vicariously by His active obedience.  He paid the eternal penalty for the sins of His elect by dying on the cross to bear the wrath of God against them in their place as well.

Due to time constraints I am not providing all the proof texts for this.  But needless to say when law becomes the gospel—even in regards to my Evangelical friend—what happens is people feel beaten up with no relief.  A truly reformed sermon includes both law and gospel.  The gospel is what God promises to do for us because we are helpless to do those things for ourselves!  The law can only reveal us to be lowly sinners who deserve God’s eternal wrath and punishment.  (Romans 3:20; 3:20-23; 7:7).  Of course, even a liberal would not accept the three uses of God’s moral law, namely the 1) pedagogical use, 2) the civil use, and 3) the Christian duty to live by faith according to God’s moral precepts.  The pedagogical use shows us that law keeping or obedience is never enough to save us or merit salvation.  That’s why salvation must be founded on justification by faith alone.  Without justification by faith alone there is no foundation for sanctification or salvation whatsoever.  The just shall live by faith, not by the deeds of the law.  (Romans 1:16-17).  We are free from the law in that sense, that is as a means of earning or meriting or living up to an impossible standard.  But we are not free from the law as if we have a license to sin!  That is called antinomianism.  (1 John 3:4-9; Romans 6:1-2).

Mr. Booker is a false teacher who redefines biblical terms to justify his relativism and lawlessness.  (Acts 20:27-31; Jude 1:3-5).  He would approve of fornication and adultery by redefining the terms so that what the terms meant in biblical times is not applicable to the Christian today.  So long as no one is hurt it is ok to engage in gay sex, premarital sex, and even extramarital affairs!  The opposite error of my Evangelical friend is to confuse law with gospel such that the gospel is simply the law rehearsed.  It reminds me of Ronald and Nancy Reagan’s anti-drug abuse campaign:  “Just say no!”  If sinners are not slaves to sin, that would make perfect sense.  But Pelagianism has never worked.  The only sinless man who ever kept God’s law from birth to the grave without ever breaking it once was our Lord Jesus Christ.  (1 Peter 2:22-25).  Christ did not come to give the elect a license to sin all they want.  He came to set His elect people free from their slavery to sin.  (John 8:32-36).  Augustine, the bishop of Hippo in the fourth century, caused a huge controversy when he prayed, “Lord, command what you will, and grant us the grace to do what you command.”  I am paraphrasing a bit.  But the point is Pelagius—like the Arminians, semi-pelagians, papists, and liberals of today—got upset because he thought it would be unfair of God to command something men and women are unable to do:  obey.  What Pelagius forgot was that when Adam fell from grace and rebelled against God He brought a curse on all mankind.  That curse includes both the guilt of Adam’s original sin imputed to them and the traducian view that sin is passed on from one generation to the next by natural generation.  That is, sin is inborn.  (Psalm 51:4-5; Psalm 58:3; Ephesians 4:18).  God does not answer to man but man must answer to God, and, as the late Dr. Gordon  H. Clark said, nothing God does is wrong.  That would include when God strikes men with hardness of heart and reprobation (Romans 1:24; Romans 9:11-13; 1 Thessalonians 2:11-12).

My Evangelical friend, David Knox, on the other hand, needs to learn systematic theology and the law/gospel distinction.  Anyone who thinks Rome or Tractarianism offers any hope whatsoever to the reprobate has been deceived by the enemy.  One reason I keep upholding the 39 Articles of Religion and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer is that the Anglican Formularies do teach these essential doctrines.  For example, Article 7 clearly upholds the law/gospel distinction without advocating antinomianism:

Article VII

Of the Old Testament

The Old Testament is not contrary to the New; for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and man, being both God and man. Wherefore they are not to be heard which feign that the old fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the law given from God by Moses, as touching ceremonies and rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet, notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the commandments which are called moral.

The prayer of humble access and other portions of the Lord’s Supper advocate that God does not “weigh” our “merits” but instead pardons “our offenses.”  “We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy table.”  (Matthew 15:27; Mark 7:28; Luke 16:20-22).  These portions of the service clearly indicate that Archbishop Thomas Cranmer wanted to teach the doctrine of justification by faith alone through the liturgy.  But he likewise rejected antinomianism since he also included exhortations to live by faith and obedience:

Then shall the Priest say to them that come to receive the holy Communion, 

YE that do truly and earnestly repent you of your sins, and are in love and charity with your neighbours, and intend to lead a new life, following the commandments of God, and walking from henceforth in his holy ways; Draw near with faith, and take this holy Sacrament to your comfort; and make your humble confession to Almighty God, meekly kneeling upon your knees.  (The Lord’s Supper).

I can only pray for the remnant of naïve believers left at Christ Church Longwood.  May God grant them the discernment to see the lies of the enemy. May God preserve their souls and cause them to persevere to the end.

Amen.

Charlie

Lordship Salvation According to Dr. Gordon H. Clark

Martin Luther: Without Compromise: Justification by Faith Alone

"For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 "Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves. 31 "Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears. (Acts 20:29-31 NKJ)

Then Jesus said to them, "Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees." (Matthew 16:6 NKJ)

I attended a Bible study last night which was hosted by an Evangelical friend who is also ordained as an Episcopal minister or presbyter.  He recently lost his job as a rector of a small Episcopal congregation here in central Florida.  The reason being that the Anglo-Catholics and the Arminians did not like his preaching the law of God.

Unfortunately, they are mostly right because in the four or five years I have attended the church I have not heard him preach even one sermon on justification by faith alone.  Even worse, he despises the Westminster Confession of Faith and any other attempt to systematize the propositional truth claims revealed in Holy Scripture.

There is nothing wrong with teaching doctrinal sermons now and then.  When is the last time you heard a Evangelical minister preach a sermon on the Trinity?

Be that as it may, this pastor "claims" to be a Calvinist of sorts.  Oddly enough, he never says that from the pulpit.  He is in fact an Amyraldian.  Unfortunately, that wee bit of irrationalism concatenates into everything else he believes.  In other words, if your theology is not logically consistent and systematic through and through, you have an out to endorse nonsense and even heresy.  My Evangelical friend thinks that Anglo-Catholics are "Christians" and that the conservative and "orthodox" Anglo-Catholics are saved and that they are good "churchmen".  I strongly and vehemently and adamantly disagree for the following reasons:

1.  Anglo-Catholics deny the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.  Sola Scriptura is the doctrine that Scripture alone is the final authority in all matters and faith and practice.  Like Roman Catholics the Anglo-Catholics and Tractarians equate church tradition with the special and divine revelation of God that we find in Scripture.  For Papists and Tractarians the term "divine revelation" applies to both Scripture and church tradition.  The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is a non-negotiable doctrine of the Protestant Reformation.  Unless Scripture is the final authority the door is wide open to all kinds of revisionism and progressivism, including the aberrations we see in Rome where there are prayers to the saints; Mary is elevated to the place of co-mediator with Christ; and the Pope is seen as the "vicar" or "representative of Christ on earth.  Tractarians evolved in two directions: liberal and conservative.  The conservatives agree with Rome on most issues.  The liberals evolved into the direction that social justice issues are under their control as "representatives" of Christ on earth.  This is how they can justify their inclusiveness views on homosexuality and socialist progressivism.  After all, Scripture is not the final authority for them.  The church is the final authority when tradition is elevated to the level of Scripture.  That much is clear upon observing the practical results in both the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglo-Catholic tradition.

2.  Anglo-Catholics reject the doctrine of justification by faith alone.  For the Anglo-Catholic, like the Papist, justification is by faith plus works or faith plus obedience.  Their perennial attack on the doctrine of justification by faith alone centers on their anthropocentric view of everything.  Theology from below always exalts man above God, the creature above the Creator.  Scripture, however, clearly shows that all men without exception are wicked and sinful (Genesis 6:5; Romans 3:10-23).  God does not lower the standards of the absolute demands of the moral law so that men can pretend to be holy.  The law of contradiction applies here.  Either you are or you are not.  The law of excluded middle applies here as well.  There is no middle ground between justification by faith alone and justification by faith plus works.  This issue is the central issue of the Protestant Reformation.

On those two points alone Anglo-Catholics, like the Papists, are heretics.  Their churches are synagogues of satan every bit as much as any modern day cult like the Mormons, the Jehovah's Witnesses, or some prosperity gospel Charismatic cult.

Therefore, I must strongly castigate anyone--including my Evangelical friend--who willfully and deliberately endorses heresy by suggesting that these wolves are in any way whatsoever "Christian" men.  They are not.  They are deceivers out to mislead God's elect and they are to be avoided and shunned at all cost:

Then Jesus said to them, "Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees." (Matthew 16:6 NKJ)

"How is it you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread?-- but to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees." 12 Then they understood that He did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees. (Matthew 16:11-12 NKJ)

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 "You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? (Matthew 7:15-16 NKJ)

Martin  Luther, the father of the Lutheran side of the Protestant Reformation said that justification by faith alone is the one doctrine by which a true church or congregation stands or falls:

I myself can hardly believe that I was so verbose as this book shows when I publicly expounded this letter of St. Paul to the Galatians. However, I can see that all the thoughts that I find in this treatise are mine, so I must confess that I uttered all of them, or perhaps more than all of them. The one article of faith that I have most at heart is the faith of Christ. All my studies in divinity, by day and night, continually go back and forth from him, by him, and to him. Yet I could not attain anything near the height, breadth, and depth of such high and inestimable wisdom; there appear here only some poor and bare beginnings, fragments, as it were. Therefore, I am ashamed that such a barren and simple commentary should be published on such a worthy apostle and chosen instrument of God.

But then again, I consider the infinite and horrible profanation and abomination that has always raged in the church of God, and still today continues to rage against this one sure foundation, our justification (that is to say, that it is not by ourselves, nor by our works, which are less than ourselves, but by Jesus Christ, the Son of God, that we are redeemed from sin, death, the devil, and are made to share eternal life), and I am compelled to throw away all shame and to be bold above measure.

In paradise, Satan shook this rock of faith (Genesis 3:5) when he persuaded our first ancestors that they could be like God by their own wisdom and power, abandoning true faith in God, who had given them life and promised to continue it. After a while this liar and murderer, true to form, stirred up brother to murder brother, for no other reason than that his godly brother had offered by faith a more excellent sacrifice, and he offered up his own works without faith, which had not pleased God (see Genesis 4).

There followed a most intolerable persecution of Satan against this faith by Cain’s sons, until God had to purge the world by means of the Flood, defending Noah, the preacher of righteousness. Even so, Satan continued his work in Noah’s third son, Ham, and in innumerable others. After this, the whole world grew mad against this faith (as St. Paul says in Acts 14:15–16), inventing an infinite number of idols and strange religions by which people went their own way, trusting in works to please gods and goddesses without Christ’s help and seeking by their own works to redeem themselves from evils and sins. The example and writings of all nations demonstrate this.

Martin Luther, Galatians, Crossway Classic Commentaries (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1998), 14–16.

The doctrine of justification by faith alone is  not a matter of indifference or adiaphora.  It is non-negotiable, essential doctrine.  Without justification by faith alone there is no salvation.  Therefore for anyone, including my Evangelical pastor friend, to say that Anglo-Catholics are "good Christian men" or good "churchmen" is patently false.  It reveals a confusion on the part of irrationalists who try to smooth over lies as if they were acceptable to any degree at all.  To sell out an entire congregation to the Anglo-Papists simply because you're more faithful to the organization and your concerns for your own severance pay is to compromise the Gospel for selfish reasons.  Those who truly trust God are willing to preach the Gospel no matter the cost! 

I am a sinful man who deserves hell.  But when I realized that the Assemblies of God was an apostate church and a cultic synagogue of satan leading millions of people to hell, I resigned and counted the cost.  When I realized that the Reformed Episcopal Church had sold out to the heresies and the false teachings of the Anglo-Papists, I resigned and counted the cost.  True ministers of the Gospel are willing to sacrifice themselves just as Christ gave himself for the church.  They are not hirelings who are more concerned with supporting themselves financially than they are with preaching the truth to a lost and dying generation.

"For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not sit down first and count the cost, whether he has enough to finish it-- 29 "lest, after he has laid the foundation, and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, 30 "saying,`This man began to build and was not able to finish?' 31 "Or what king, going to make war against another king, does not sit down first and consider whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? 32 "Or else, while the other is still a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks conditions of peace. 33 "So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple. (Luke 14:28-33 NKJ)

"But a hireling, he who is not the shepherd, one who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees; and the wolf catches the sheep and scatters them. 13  "The hireling flees because he is a hireling and does not care about the sheep. 14 "I am the good shepherd; and I know My sheep, and am known by My own. (John 10:12-14 NKJ)

Justification by Faith Alone: The Foundation of Our Salvation

[The following is an e-mail I sent to a brother in Christ.]

As for Clark's view on synergism, I have found that Clark follows the Westminster Confession almost to the letter.  At times Clark sounds almost legalistic, at other times he sounds like he is a bit antinomian.  That's because the systematic teaching of Scripture and the Westminster Standards covers all those areas.  At times the Bible seems to be contradictory.  But Clark strived to solve all the apparent antinomies or contradictions.  That's why he changed his view of the incarnation to say that Christ's human nature was not a generic humanity but rather a fully personal human being with a reasonable human soul.  In other words, Jesus was as fully human as we are and since he had two wills, he must have been two persons within the one man, Jesus Christ.  His human person is contained within the divine person of the Logos.  Yet there is one mediator between God and men, Jesus Christ (Galatians 3:20; 1 Timothy 2:5).  It would be too complicated to go into all the details.  Basically, though, Clark defined a person as the propositions he thinks.  (Proverbs 23:7).

Clark's view of saving faith is not exactly what it would appear to be at first.  For Clark knowledge and a changed mind (repentance) results in actual change in the person's life, although, as my quote shows, Clark had to face the fact that no amount of knowledge or obedience could distinguish between true assurance and false assurance.  In my opinion, Clark never fully solved the "apparent" contradiction between the absolute demands of God's moral law and the "apparent" antinomianism of justification by faith alone.  Mike Horton calls the distinction between justification and sanctification a "paradox."  Clark said that only justification is alone.  Salvation would include the whole ordo salutis or "order of salvation."  In time and from the human perspective Clark said that salvation includes: unconditional election, regeneration, effectual call, faith, conversion, justification, repentance, adoption, progressive sanctification, perseverance o the saints, and glorification.  In other words, Clark includes the whole system in his view of salvation, not just justification.  From that perspective he would say that sanctification is necessary for assurance of salvation.  But the apparent contradiction, as Clark admitted, is that you can never know enough or obey enough to distinguish between true assurance and false assurance.  I wish he had worked on this more.  I'm thinking through this and plan to write a blog article on it in the future.  It would seem to me that the bottom line--even for Clark--is that ultimately salvation MUST be rooted in justification by faith alone.  Seen from that point of view, then, sanctification is only an outward sign before the church, not a basis for for salvation.  God does not grade on a curve.  Either you are sinless or you are not.  And since everyone is a sinner, salvation itself must be by faith alone (Romans 3:23; Romans 4:1-8).  Everything else is merely a fruit produced by the gifts of regeneration and faith.  Even sanctification is not rooted in "free will".  That would mean that we sanctify ourselves by our own efforts.  Sanctification is itself a gift since it is God who works in us (Philippians 2:13).

Moral agency is not the same thing as libertarian free will or a choice between two equally valid choices.  Choosing evil is never a valid choice.  Good and evil are not equal choices.   While we are fully accountable and responsible to obey God's moral law and we are without excuse when we break God's law, it is also true that whatever happens is ordained of God.  That would include even our moral failures.  God often humbles us by causing us to sin so that we can see the truth of the proposition that Jesus made: 

 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. (John 15:5 KJV)

Everything else results in human pride.  The Pharisees are a great example of that.  You can see that in some of the advocates of Clark's theology because many of them read Clark out of context, highlighting what he said in regards to conversion and sanctification but ignoring what he said about saving faith and justification by faith alone.  The whole system of theology has to be taken from the Bible, not just the individual propositions taken out of context.  That would mean that Monty Collier is off when he emphasizes only justification by faith alone while ignoring the implications of sanctification as a process.  And it would mean that Sean Gerety is wrong when he asserts that sanctification is synergistic when it is clear that Clark rejected the idea that sanctification is rooted in the Arminian doctrine of "libertarian" free will.  Clark's view is more nuanced than that.  And, in my opinion, Clark leaves a few loose ends for us to clear up.  He was not perfect and even Clark could make mistakes in logic.  I am certainly no expert in philosophy or logic.  Clark was a genius in that regard.  But it seems to me that if I had to choose I would much rather say that salvation is founded solely on justification by faith alone and work from there.  Without that doctrine we wind up right back in the Papist confusion of justification with sanctification.  Yet, true faith must result in some sort of change in our thinking and thus in the way we live.   Repentance is not being sorry for sin.  Repentance is "metanoia," literally a changed mind, a change in the way we think (Romans 12:1-2).

The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak (Matthew 26:41).  Romans 7 was not written prior to Paul's conversion but afterwards!  The sinful mind is at enmity with God (Romans 8:7).  Basically, it is only our faith that makes us stand (Romans 5:1-2) and it is faith that saves us from the condemnation of the law (Romans 8:1-2).  The chapter divisions in Romans, by the way, are not in the original Greek manuscripts.  The punctuation, versification, and chapter divisions are all traditions added later by the church and other scholars.

Clark's comments on salvation in his lecture on sanctification show that he believed that the habits of a regenerated person change from the moment of conversion.   He rejected the Wesleyan perfectionism which wrongly interpreted 1 John 5:18 because such a view would contradict 1 John 1:8-10.  Sin is any lack of conformity to God's moral law, not just a willful disobedience to a known moral law.  Sins committed in ignorance are still sinful.  (Cf. What Presbyterians Believe: Sanctification).

That is not to say that the elect do not fall into grievous sins and suffer temporal punishments.  They do.  The Old Testament saints prove this out well enough, as you pointed out in your e-mail earlier.  The Calvinist doctrine of eternal security is called the "perseverance of the saints" because it is not the same as the "once saved always saved" view of the Baptists.  Walking an aisle and being dunked does not save anyone.  That is called "easy believism."  On the other hand, no amount of obedience can generate assurance of salvation.  Clark said that obedience contributes to assurance but ultimately it must be justification by faith alone that gives us true assurance.  Perseverance is a lifelong struggle and there are many failures along the way.  Even though the elect can and do often lose their assurance of salvation, they can never lose salvation itself.  (Jude 1:24-25).

For Clark, the Christian needs to learn all the Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation (1 Corinthians 2:16).  For Clark the Gospel is the whole Bible, not just the inductive understanding of the bits and pieces.  The law/Gospel distinction is certainly in the Bible.  The law and Gospel are embedded in the Scriptures throughout.  But that does not mean we get to pick and choose which Scriptures to preach and teach.  A Gospel preacher must preach the whole counsel of God!   (Acts 20:27).

[Sources:  Trinity Foundation MP3 lectures].