Foreknowledge

Timothy Keller:

Of course God in his omniscience knows the future, and sees everyone who has ever lived and will ever live; but that is not what Paul is referring to here (otherwise, since those he “foreknew” he also “justified” and “glorified,” this would be teaching that everyone will be saved). In the Bible, when we are told God “knows” someone, it means he has set his love on him in a personal way. For instance, when Jesus says to some: “I never knew you” (Matthew 7:23), he doesn’t mean he won't know about them, but that he will have no relationship with them. Therefore “foreknew” means “forelove.” A survey of the other places where “foreknew” or “foreknowledge” is used (Acts 2:23; Romans 11:2; 1 Peter 1:2) shows this. Thus, God set his love on us back before the beginning of time.

(Timothy Keller, Romans 8-16 For You, [The Good Book Company, 2015; reprinted 2019], pp. 50-51.)

καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν ~ Soli Deo Gloria

Good Works, The Necessity of

Augustine of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

Through his Son God could show us the way whereby he meant to lead us to the destiny he had promised us.

(S. Augustini Episcopi, Enarrationes In Psalmos, In Psalmum CIX, §. 2; PL, 37:1447; trans. WSA, III/19:262-263.)

Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153 A.D.):

…what are called our merits may be properly described as . . . the way by which we reach the kingdom, not the moving cause of our kingship [via regni, non causa regnandi]. In a word, not them whom He found righteous, but them whom He made righteous, did God also magnify.

(S. Bernardi Abbatis Claræ-Vallensis, Tractatus de Gratia et Libero Arbitrio, Caput XIV, §. 51; PL, 182:1030; trans. The Treatise of St. Bernard Abbat of Clairvaux Concerning Grace and Free Will, trans. Watkin W. Williams, [London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1920], p. 91. Cf. Bernard of Clairvaux, On Grace & Free Choice: De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio, trans. Daniel O’Donovan, [Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications Inc., 1988], p. 111.)

Good Works—Necessary to Salvation.

The Tetrapolitan Confession (1530 A.D.):

…we are so far from rejecting good works that we utterly deny that any one can be saved unless by Christ’s Spirit he be brought thus far, that there be in him no lack of good works, for which God has created him.

(The Tetrapolitan Confession (1530), Chapter V; In: Reformed Confessions of the 16th Century, ed. Arthur C. Cochrane, [Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1966], p. 60.)

Note: Martin Bucer was the principal contributor to the Tetrapolitan Confession.

Martin Luther (1483-1546):

What Augustine says is true, “He who has created you without you will not save you without you.” Works are necessary to salvation, but they do not cause salvation, because faith alone gives life. On account of the hypocrites we must say that good works are necessary to salvation. It is necessary to work. Nevertheless, it does not follow that works save on that account, unless we understand necessity very clearly as the necessity that there must be an inward and outward salvation or righteousness. Works save outwardly, that is, they show evidence that we are righteous and that there is faith in a man which saves inwardly, as Paul says, “Man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved” [Rom. 10:10]. Outward salvation shows faith to be present, just as fruit shows a tree to be good.

(Martin Luther, “The Disputation Concerning Justification,” 1536; trans. Luther’s Works: Volume 34: Career of the Reformer, [Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1960], p. 165.)

Cf. Augustine of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

God created us without us: but he did not will to save us without us.

(Augustine of Hippo, Sermon 169.11.13; PL, 38:923; trans. CCC, §:1847; cf. WSA, III/5:231.)

Cf. Dallas Willard (1935-2013 A.D.):

Grace is not opposed to effort, it is opposed to earning. Earning is an attitude. Effort is an action. . . . the gospel of the entire New Testament is that you can have new life now in the Kingdom of God if you will trust Jesus Christ. . . . It is the life of regeneration and resurrection—and justification, which is absolutely vital, for our sins have to be forgiven. But justification is not something separable from regeneration. And regeneration naturally moves into sanctification and glorification.

(Dallas Willard, The Great Omission: Reclaiming Jesus’s Essential Teachings on Discipleship, [San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2006], pp. 61-62.)

John Calvin (1509-1564 A.D.):

     The fact that Scripture shows that the good works of believers are reasons why the Lord benefits them is to be so understood as to allow what we have set forth before to stand unshaken: that the efficient cause of our salvation consists in God the Father’s love; the material cause in God the Son s obedience; the instrumental cause in the Spirit’s illumination, that is, faith; the final cause, in the glory of God’s great generosity. These do not prevent the Lord from embracing works as inferior causes. But how does this come about? Those whom the Lord has destined by his mercy for the inheritance of eternal life he leads into possession of it, according to his ordinary dispensation, by means of good works.

(John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 3.14.21; trans. LCC, 20:787.)

Girolamo Zanchi (1516-1590 A.D.):

Good works are an instrumental cause of the possession of life eternal, for by these as by media and by the legitimate path God leads us into the possession of eternal life.

(Hieronymi Zanchii, De Natura Dei: De Divinis Attributis: Libri V, [Heidelberg: 1577], Liber Quintus, Caput Secundum, p. 630; trans. Gulielmum Forbesium, Considerationes Modestæ et Pacificæ Controversiarum: Tom. І: De Justificatione, [Oxonii: J. H. Parker, 1850], Lib. 4, de Justificatione, cap. 1, p. 313.)

Zacharias Ursinus (1534-1583 A.D.)

     The question, whether good works are necessary to salvation, belongs properly to this place. There have been some who have maintained simply and positively, that good works are necessary to salvation, whilst others, again, have held that they are pernicious and injurious to salvation. Both forms of speech are ambiguous and inappropriate, especially the latter; because it seems not only to condemn confidence, but also the desire of performing good works. It is, therefore, to be rejected. The former expression must be explained in this way; that good works are necessary to salvation, not as a cause to an effect, or as if they merited a reward, but as a part of salvation itself, or as an antecedent to a consequent, or as a means without which we cannot obtain the end. In the same way we may also say, that good works are necessary to righteousness or justification, or in them that are to be justified, viz as a consequence of justification, with which regeneration is inseparably connected. But yet we would prefer not to use these forms of speech, 1. Because they are ambiguous. 2. Because they breed contentions, and give our enemies room for caviling. 3. Because these expressions are not used in the Scriptures with which our forms of speech should conform as nearly as possible. We may more safely and correctly say, That good works are necessary in them that are justified, and that are to be saved. To say that good works are necessary in them that are to be justified, is to speak ambiguously, because it may be so understood as if they were required before justification, and so become a cause of our justification. Augustin has correctly said: “Good works do not precede them that are to be justified, but follow them that are justified.” We may, therefore, easily return an answer to the following objection: That is necessary to salvation without which no one can be saved. But no one who is destitute of good works can be saved, as it is said in the 87th Question. Therefore, good works are necessary to salvation. We reply to the major proposition, by making the following distinction: That without which no one can be saved is necessary to salvation, viz: as a part of salvation, or as a certain antecedent necessary to salvation, in which sense we admit the conclusion; but not as a cause, or as a merit of salvation. We, therefore, grant the conclusion of the major proposition if understood in the sense in which we have just explained it. For good works are necessary to salvation, or, to speak more properly, in them that are to be saved (for it is better thus to speak for the sake of avoiding ambiguity,) as a part of salvation itself; or, as an antecedent of salvation, but not as a cause or merit of salvation.

(Zacharias Ursinus, The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism: Fourth American Edition, trans. G. W. Williard, [Cincinnati: Elm Street Printing Company, 1888], Q. 91.5, pp. 484-485.)

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

     Now he could not mean to contradict himself in saying, “The doers of the law shall be justified,” as if their justification came through their works, and not through grace; since he declares that a man is justified freely by His grace without the works of the law, intending by the term “freely” nothing else than that works do not precede justification. For in another passage he expressly says, “If by grace, then is it no more of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace.” But the statement that “the doers of the law shall be justified” must be so understood, as that we may know that they are not otherwise doers of the law, unless they be justified, so that justification does not subsequently accrue to them as doers of the law, but justification precedes them as doers of the law. For what else does the phrase “being justified” signify than being made righteous,—by Him, of course, who justifies the ungodly man, that he may become a godly one instead? For if we were to express a certain fact by saying, “The men will be liberated,” the phrase would of course be understood as asserting that the liberation would accrue to those who were men already; but if we were to say, The men will be created, we should certainly not be understood as asserting that the creation would happen to those who were already in existence, but that they became men by the creation itself. If in like manner it were said, The doers of the law shall be honoured, we should only interpret the statement correctly if we supposed that the honour was to accrue to those who were already doers of the law: but when the allegation is, “The doers of the law shall be justified,” what else does it mean than that the just shall be justified? for of course the doers of the law are just persons. And thus it amounts to the same thing as if it were said, The doers of the law shall be created,—not those who were so already, but that they may become such; in order that the Jews who were hearers of the law might hereby understand that they wanted the grace of the Justifier, in order to be able to become its doers also. Or else the term “They shall be justified” is used in the sense of, They shall be deemed, or reckoned as just, as it is predicated of a certain man in the Gospel, “But he, willing to justify himself,”—meaning that he wished to be thought and accounted just. In like manner, we attach one meaning to the statement, “God sanctifies His saints,” and another to the words, “Sanctified be Thy name;” for in the former case we suppose the words to mean that He makes those to be saints who were not saints before, and in the latter, that the prayer would have that which is always holy in itself be also regarded as holy by men,—in a word, be feared with a hallowed awe.

(Augustine of Hippo, A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter, 26.45; trans. NPNF1, 5:102.)

Cf. Cyril Lucaris, Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople (1572-1638 A.D.):

    We believe that man is justified by faith and not by works. But when we say by faith, we understand the correlative or object of faith, which is the righteousness of Christ, which, as if by a hand, faith apprehends and applieth unto us for our salvation. This we say without any prejudice to good works, for truth itself teacheth us that works must not be neglected, that they are necessary means to testify to our faith and confirm our calling. But that works are sufficient for our salvation, that they can enable one to appear before the tribunal of Christ and that of their own merit they can confer salvation, human frailty witnesseth to be false; but the righteousness of Christ being applied to the penitent, doth alone justify and save the faithful.

(St. Cyril Lucaris, “Confession of the Christian Faith”, Chapter 13; trans. George A. Hadjiantoniou, Protestant Patriarch: The Life of Cyril Lucaris (1572-1638): Patriarch of Constantinople, [Richmond: John Knox Press, 1961], p. 143.)

Cf. George A. Hadjiantoniou, Protestant Patriarch: The Life of Cyril Lucaris (1572-1638): Patriarch of Constantinople, [Richmond: John Knox Press, 1961], pp. 103-104. Cf. Idem, pp. 104-106.

Johannes Piscator (1546-1625 A.D.):

Next, be it, that here the cause is defined; yet it does not follow from thence, that the merit or the meritorious cause is defined, for the word cause extends more widely than merely to merit, and certainly good works with respect to eternal life, have the nature of an efficient cause, not as merits, . . . but as the way or walking by which from the ordination of God we attain to eternal life. This thing, may here be illustrated by an analogy; As if a treasure hid at the top of a mountain were given to some one, but on this condition, that if he wished to possess it, he must ascend the mountain and dig it out; here certainly the climbing the mountain and digging up the treasure have the nature of an efficient cause in respect of the possession and enjoyment of the treasure; but they have not the nature of merit, inasmuch as the treasure had been freely given to him.

(M. Johan. Piscatore, Analysis Logica Evangelii Secundum Matthæum: Editio Tertia, [Herbornæ Nassoviorum: Christophori Corvini, 1606], cap. XXV, p. 609; trans. Gulielmum Forbesium, Considerationes Modestæ et Pacificæ Controversiarum: Tom. І: De Justificatione, [Oxonii: J. H. Parker, 1850], Lib. 4, de Justificatione, cap. 1, p. 313.)

Cf. Johannes Piscator (1546-1625 A.D.):

But this our sanctification (whereby we live holily) is itself the act of God whereby among other things He leads us to salvation, and therefore it has in some sense the nature of an efficient cause.

(M. Johan. Piscatore, Analysis Logica Sex Epistolarum Pauli: Editio Secunda, [Sigenæ Nassoviorum: Christophori Corvini, 1596], Analysis Epistolæ ad Ephesios, Cap. I, p. 88; trans. Gulielmum Forbesium, Considerationes Modestæ et Pacificæ Controversiarum: Tom. І: De Justificatione, [Oxonii: J. H. Parker, 1850], Lib. 4, de Justificatione, cap. 1, pp. 313, 315.)

Richard Hooker (1554-1600 A.D.):

We ourselves do not teach Christ alone, excluding our own faith, unto justification; Christ alone, excluding our own works, unto sanctification; Christ alone, excluding the one or the other as unnecessary unto salvation. It is a childish cavil wherewith in the matter of justification our adversaries do greatly please themselves, exclaiming, that we tread all Christian virtues under our feet, and require nothing in Christians but faith; because we teach that faith alone justifieth: whereas we by this speech never meant to exclude either hope and charity from being always joined as inseparable mates with faith in the man that is justified; or works from being added as necessary duties, required at the hands of every justified man: but to shew that faith is the only hand which putteth on Christ unto justification; and Christ the only garment, which being so put on, covereth the shame of our defiled natures, hideth the imperfections of our works, preserveth us blameless in the sight of God, before whom otherwise the very weakness of our faith were cause sufficient to make us culpable, yea, to shut us out from the kingdom of heaven, where nothing that is not absolute can enter. That our dealing with them be not as childish as theirs with us; when we hear of salvation by Christ alone, considering that (“alone” is an) exclusive particle, we are to note what it doth exclude, and where. If I say, “Such a judge only ought to determine such a cause,” all things incident unto the determination thereof, besides the person of the judge, as laws, depositions, evidences, &c. are not hereby excluded; persons are, yet not from witnessing herein, or assisting, but only from determining and giving sentence. How then is our salvation wrought by Christ alone? is it our meaning, that nothing is requisite to man’s salvation, but Christ to save, and he to be saved quietly without any more to do? . . . Howbeit, not so by him alone, as if in us, to our vocation, the hearing of the gospel; to our justification, faith; to our sanctification, the fruits of the spirit; to our entrance into rest, perseverance in hope, in faith, in holiness, were not necessary.

(Richard Hooker, A Learned Discourse of Justification, Works, and How the Foundation of Faith is Overthrown, §. 31; In: Richard Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity: In Two Volumes: Volume One (Books I-IV), Introduction by Christopher Morris, Μ.Α., [London: J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd, 1907; reprinted 1958], pp. 59-60, 60-61.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Richard Hooker (1554-1600 A.D.):

As for example; did they hold that we cannot be saved by Christ without works? We ourselves do, I think, all say as much, with this construction, salvation being taken as in that sentence, “Corde creditur ad justitiam, ore fit confessio ad salutem;” except infants, and men cut off upon the point of their conversion, of the rest none shall see God, but such as seek peace and holiness, though not as a cause of their salvation, yet as a way through which they must walk that will be saved. Did they hold, that without works we are not justified? Take justification so that it may also imply sanctification, and St. James doth say as much. For except there be an ambiguity in some term, St. Paul and St. James do contradict each other; which cannot be. Now, there is no ambiguity in the name either of faith or of works, both being meant by them both in one and the same sense. Finding therefore that justification is spoken of by St. Paul without implying sanctification, when he proveth that a man is justified by faith without works; finding likewise that justification doth sometimes imply sanctification also with it; I suppose nothing more sound, than so to interpret St. James as speaking not in that sense, but in this.

     21. We have already shewed, that there are two kinds of Christian righteousness: the one without us, which we have by imputation; the other in us, which consisteth of faith, hope, charity, and other Christian virtues; and St. James doth prove that Abraham had not only the one, because the thing he believed was imputed unto him for righteousness; but also the other, because he offered up his son. God giveth us both the one justice and the other: the one by accepting us for righteous in Christ; the other by working Christian righteousness in us. The proper and most immediate efficient cause in us of this latter, is, the spirit of adoption which we have received into our hearts. That whereof it consisteth, whereof it is really and formally made, are those infused virtues proper and particular unto saints; which the Spirit, in that very moment when first it is given of God, bringeth with it: the effects thereof are such actions as the Apostle doth call the fruits, the works, the operations of the Spirit; the difference of which operations from the root whereof they spring, maketh it needful to put two kinds likewise of sanctifying righteousness, Habitual and Actual. Habitual, that holiness, wherewith our souls are inwardly endued, the same instant when first we begin to be the temples of the Holy Ghost; Actual, that holiness which afterward beautifieth all the parts and actions of our life, the holiness for which Enoch, Job, Zachary, Elizabeth, and other saints, are in Scriptures so highly commended. If here it be demanded, which of these we do first receive; I answer, that the Spirit, the virtues of the Spirit, the habitual justice, which is ingrafted, the external justice of Christ Jesus which is imputed, these we receive all at one and the same time; whensoever we have any of these, we have all; they go together. Yet sith no man is justified except he believe, and no man believeth except he have faith, and no man hath faith, unless he have received the Spirit of Adoption, forasmuch as these do necessarily infer justification, but justification doth of necessity presuppose them; we must needs hold that imputed righteousness, in dignity being the chiefest, is notwithstanding in order the last of all these, but actual righteousness, which is the righteousness of good works, succeedeth all, followeth after all, both in order and in time. Which thing being attentively marked, sheweth plainly how the faith of true believers cannot be divorced from hope and love; how faith is a part of sanctification, and yet unto justification necessary; how faith is perfected by good works, and yet no works of ours good without faith: finally, how our fathers might hold, We are justified by faith alone, and yet hold truly that without good works we are not justified. Did they think that men do merit rewards in heaven by the works they perform on earth? The ancient Fathers use meriting for obtaining, and in that sense they of Wittenberg have in their Confession: “We teach that good works commanded of God are necessarily to be done, and that by the free kindness of God they merit their certain rewards.” Others therefore, speaking as our fathers did, and we taking their speech in a sound meaning, as we may take our fathers’, and ought, forasmuch as their meaning is doubtful, and charity doth always interpret doubtful things favourably; what should induce us to think that rather the damage of the worse construction did light upon them all, than that the blessing of the better was granted unto thousands?

(Richard Hooker, A Learned Discourse of Justification, Works, and How the Foundation of Faith is Overthrown, §§. 20-21; In: The Works of that Learned and Judicious Divine, Mr. Richard Hooker: With an Account of His Life and Death: Seventh Edition: Vol. III, arranged by J. Keble, revised by R. W. Church & F. Paget, [Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1888], pp. 506-509.) See also: ccel.org.

William Perkins (1558-1602 A.D.):

     Good workes are necessary to salvation two wayes: first, not as causes thereof, either conversant, adjuvant, or procreant; but only as consequents of faith; in that they are inseparable companions and fruits of that faith, which is indeed necessary to salvation. Secondly, they are as necessary as marks in a way, and as the way it selfe directing us unto eternall life.

(William Perkins, A Reformed Catholike, The Fourth Point: Touching the Justification of a Sinner; In: The Workes of that Famous and Worthy Minister of Christ in the Universitie of Cambridge, Mr. William Perkins: The First Volume, [London: John Legatt, 1635], p. 572.)

Cf. William Perkins (1558-1602 A.D.):

…for good workes are said to be causes of eternall life, not as meriting, procuring, or deserving any thing at the hands of God, but as they are the kings high way to eternall life, God having prepared good works, that we should walke in them. If a King promise his subject a treasure hid in the topp of a steepe and high mountaine, upon condition that he clime and digge it out: his climing and digging, is the efficient cause of enioying the treasure, but no meritorious cause of obtaining it, seeing it was freely given.

(W. Perkins, A Commentarie or Exposition, Upon the Five First Chapters of the Epistle to the Galatians, [Cambridge: John Legat, 1604], Chap. 6, p. 568.)

Gulielmus Bucanus (?-1603 A.D.):

     37. Are good workes necessarie to salvation.

     The question is ambiguous, for if it be taken in this sense, that our good workes are so necessarie to salvation that they are the cause or merite of righteousnesse, salvation and life eternall; it is false. But if it be understood, that new obedience is necessarie, so as it be a duety which we owe, and an effect necessarily following reconciliation, it is true.

     2 Because god will save noe man without repentance: and the gift of the holy ghost is necessarie to life eternall, as Christ saith. John. 3.3. unlesse a man be borne againe &c.

     3 Because faith without which it is impossible for any man to be saved, cannot be without good workes, and faith hath charitie ever joyned with her, though not in action, yet in possibility. Gal. 5.6.

     4 Because Bernard saith good workes are the way to the kingdome, not the cause of raigning Neither can any man attaine to life eternall but by the way of good workes, which God hath prepared that wee should walke in them. Ephes. 1.4.&2.10.

(William Bucanus, Institutions of Christian Religion, trans. Robert Hill, [London: George Snowdon, 1606], The two and thirtieth common place: Of good workes, §. 37, p. 376.)

George Downame [Downeham] (c. 1566-1634 A.D.):

For the Papists charge us, that we place Christian liberty in this, that we are subject to no law in our conscience, and before God; and that we are free from all necessity of doing good works: which is a most devilish slander. For although they absurdly confound justification and sanctification; yet they know we do not: neither are they ignorant, but that we put a great difference between them in this respect. For though we teach that the obedience of the law is not required in us to justification, but that we are freed from the exaction of the law in that behalf: yet we deny not, but that unto sanctification on the obedience of the law is required, and we by necessity of duty, bound to the observation thereof. We confess that to be free from obedience, is to be the servants of sin, and the willing and cheerful worship of God, in holiness and righteousness without fear, to be true liberty. We acknowledge that the moral law of God is perpetual, immutable; and that this is an everlasting truth, that the creature is bound to worship and obey his Creator, and so much the more bound, as he hath received greater benefits. Indeed we say with Luther, that in our justification we are restored to a state of justice, from which Adam fell; but yet, as we teach that we are no more bound to obedience, that thereby we might be justified, than Adam who was already just; so we profess, that in allegiance and thankfulness, we are more bound to obey than he, yea, we profess that God doth therefore free us from the curse, and the bondage of the law, that we might be enabled with freedom of spirit to obey it; and that being freed from sin, we are made the servants of righteousness. We teach, that God having sworn, that to those whom he justifieth, he will give grace to worship him in holiness and righteousness; no man can be assured of his justification, without obedience: that sanctification being the end of our election, calling, redemption, and regeneration, it is a necessary consequent of saving grace. We teach and profess, that howsoever good works do not concur with faith, unto the act of justification, as a cause thereof; yet they concur in the party justified, as necessary fruits of faith, and testimonies of justification. And as we teach with Paul, that faith alone doth justify; so with James, that the faith which is alone doth not justify. We teach, that the blood of Christ, as it acquitteth us from the guilt of sin; so doth it also purge our consciences from dead works, to serve the living God: that “he bare in his body upon the cross our sins, that we being delivered from sin, should live in righteousness:” that whom Christ doth justify by faith, them he doth sanctify by his Spirit; that “Whosoever is in Christ he is a new creature,” crucifying the flesh with the lusts thereof, and walking not after the flesh, but after the spirit. We profess that good works are necessary to salvation, though not necessitate efficientiæ, as causing it as the Papists teach; yet necessitate præsentiæ, as necessary fruits of our faith, whereby we are to glorify God, and to testify our thankfulness, to do good to our brethren, and to make sure our election, calling and justification unto ourselves; as necessary forerunners of salvation, being the undoubted badges of them that shall be saved, being the way wherein we are to walk to everlasting life, being the evidence according to which God will judge us at the last day, And lastly, that as by justification God doth entitle us unto his kingdom; so by sanctification he doth fit and prepare us thereto.

     We do not therefore by the doctrine of justification through faith, abolish the law, but rather as the Apostle saith, stablish it. For the more a man is assured of his free justification, the better he is enabled, and the more he is bound to obey it.

(George Downeham, The Christian’s Freedom, [Oxford: Printed by Leonard Lichfield, for William Webb, 1635; Reprinted by E. Couchman, 1836], Sect. 15, pp. 68-71.)

Cf. George Downame [Downeham] (c. 1566-1634 A.D.):

     To avoid Popish calumniations, it is shewed, that we doe hold the necessity of good works, and doe urge the same by better arguments, than the Popish religion doth afford.

(George Downame, A Treatise of Justification, [London: Printed by Felix Kyngston for Nicolas Bourne, 1633], The Seventh Booke: Concerning good Workes, Chap. I, p. 433.)

Cf. George Downame [Downeham] (c. 1566-1634 A.D.):

     Lastly, they are necessary necessitate medij, and as that, which though it be no cause, is called causa sine qua non. And thus they are necessary, first, as the way, which leadeth to life eternall, via qua nos perducturus est ad finem illum quem promisit, the way by which hee will bring us unto that end which he hath promised, saith Augustine. For those that are justfied, and by justification entituled to the Kingdome of heaven, they are to goe in the way of sanctification towards their glorification, Eph. 2.10. good workes therefore though they bee not the cause of raigning yet they are the way to the Kingdome. . . . Secondly, as necessary fruits of our election, for wee are elected to that end that we should bee holy, Ephes. 1.4. as necessary fruits of faith, without which it is judged to bee dead, Jam. 2.26. as unseparable consequents of our redemption and justification, Luk. 1.74. And as they are necessary consequents of our justification, so they are necessary forerunners of salvation, by which wee are fitted for Gods Kingdome, because no uncleane thing can enter into the Kingdome of heaven, Apoc. 21.27. and finally so necessary is a godly life, that without it no man shall see God. Heb. 12.14. I conclude with Bernard, that good workes are . . . the way to the Kingdome, but not the cause of our obtaining that Kingdome. For howsoever good workes are necessary in many respects, as I have shewed, necessitate presentiæ; yet they are not necessary necessitate efficientiæ, as causes of our justification.

(George Downame, A Treatise of Justification, [London: Printed by Felix Kyngston for Nicolas Bourne, 1633], The Seventh Booke: Concerning good Workes, Chap. I, §. IX, p. 438.)

Cf. Augustine of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

Through his Son God could show us the way whereby he meant to lead us to the destiny he had promised us.

(S. Augustini Episcopi, Enarrationes In Psalmos, In Psalmum CIX, §. 2; PL, 37:1447; trans. WSA, III/19:262-263.)

John Davenant (1572-1641 A.D.):

     Good works are necessary to the salvation of the justified by a necessity of order, not of causality; or more plainly, as the way appointed to eternal life, not as the meritorious cause of eternal life.

     We have before established the negative part of this conclusion; we will briefly elucidate the affirmative.

     When I say good works, I do not mean works perfectly good, which cannot be performed by man not yet perfectly renewed; but those works of inchoate holiness, which through the efficacy of grace are wrought by the regenerate. Moreover, these very works I do not determine to be so necessary to salvation, as that he who for a time should become remiss in the practice of good works, or be hurried away by any temptation to the commission of any evil work, should be wholly excluded from salvation; but that it is impossible to reach the goal of salvation, when the pursuit of good works is altogether evaded and rejected, and a loose rein is uninterruptedly given to the lust after evil works. The necessity for this is shewn from the saying of Christ, Matt. vii. 14. Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way which leadeth unto life; and few there be which find it. Hence it is plain, that a certain sure way is laid down to the kingdom of heaven by God himself, and that the same is a narrow way, namely, that of virtue and holiness: not the broad way of iniquity and lust. As therefore, if there is a certain, only, and prescribed way, which leads to any city, it is necessary to all who wish to enter that city, to take this way; so, since by the Divine appointment the way of good works leads to the goal of eternal glory, he must inevitably enter upon and hold this way, who desires to arrive thither. But what if a believer should wander from this path of good works (which often happens) and should fall into the bye-paths of his lusts? I say, that whilst treading this bye-way, he is proceeding straight to hell; and that he will never arrive at the heavenly city, unless he recover himself and return into the true way. So says the Apostle, 1 Cor. vi. 9, 10; Be not deceived: Neither fornicators, nor idolaters — — nor covetous, nor drunkards, &c., shall inherit the kingdom of God. And Gal. v., 19-21; The works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; adultery, fornication, idolatry, — drunkenness, &c. Of which I tell you before, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

     Although then the justified may halt in the way of good works, and sometimes wander out of this way, falling into the precipices of their lusts, still without letting go their state of sonship, yet for the attainment of their salvation and the heritage of sons, it is necessary that they should return into the same through penitence, and persevere in it to the end.

(John Davenant, Treatise on Justification, Or the Disputatio de Justitia Habituali et Actuali: Vol. I, trans. Josiah Allport, [London: Hamilton, Adams, and Co., 1844], Chapter XXXI.7, pp. 302-303.)

William Forbes (1585-1641 A.D.):

     7. This was always the opinion of the Fathers, the most of whom it is well known have also used the word merit to signify this efficiency, though not, as we shall hereafter show, in that sense, in which it is now understood and used by many Romanists. But as to what is commonly objected from S. Bernard, “Good works are the way to the kingdom, not the cause of reigning,” truly it is very feeble; S. Bernard merely denies that works are a cause which is meritorious of the heavenly kingdom, properly, or of condignity, as is clear from his very words, “Otherwise if what we call our merits are properly so named . . . they are the way to the kingdom,” but “not the cause of our reigning,” but affirms that they are the way, and therefore after some manner the cause of attaining to the kingdom; for a way when it is walked in, or rather the walking in the way (as we are said to walk in good works) is in truth a cause of arriving at the goal. Those Protestants therefore do not speak with due considerateness, who grant that works have to salvation the relation of the medium or the way, but deny that they have any relation of cause, save of that [cause (viz.] the sine qua non [or necessary condition]) which properly is not a cause: For every medium with respect to the end proposed, and every way with respect to the goal whereunto it leads, obtains, in the practice or actual use of things, the nature of a cause, as cannot but be evident to every one.

(Gulielmum Forbesium, Considerationes Modestæ et Pacificæ Controversiarum: Tom. І: De Justificatione, [Oxonii: J. H. Parker, 1850], Lib. 4, de Justificatione, cap. 1, pp. 309, 311.)

Cf. Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153 A.D.):

Nor is there any doubt but that both to will, and to perform according to the good will, are from God. God therefore is the author of merit, who both applieth the will to the work, and supplieth to the will the fulfilment of the work. Besides, what are called our merits may be properly described as seed-plots of hope, incentives to love, tokens of a hidden predestination, foretastes of future felicity, the way by which we reach the kingdom, not the moving cause of our kingship [via regni, non causa regnandi]. In a word, not them whom He found righteous, but them whom He made righteous, did God also magnify.

(S. Bernardi Abbatis Claræ-Vallensis, Tractatus de Gratia et Libero Arbitrio, Caput XIV, §. 51; PL, 182:1030; trans. The Treatise of St. Bernard Abbat of Clairvaux Concerning Grace and Free Will, trans. Watkin W. Williams, [London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1920], pp. 90-91. Cf. Bernard of Clairvaux, On Grace & Free Choice: De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio, trans. Daniel O’Donovan, [Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications Inc., 1988], p. 111.)

Johannes Wolleb [Wollebius] (1589-1629 A.D.):

     XV. Good workes are necessary, by the necessity of precept and of the means, but not by the necessity of the cause or merit.

     By the necessity of precept they are necessary, because the study of good works through al the Scriptures is most severely injoyned to us: They are necessary in regard of the means, because they are sure marks of Vocation, Election, and true Faith; & because they are the way and means to attain heavenly blisse: As if a man should make a journey from York to London to obtain an inheritance, the way or journey is the medium or means, but not the meriting cause or the inheritance; even so it is in this matter.

(John Wollebius, The Abridgment of Christian Divinitie: The Third Edition, trans. Alexander Ross, [London: Printed by T. Mabb for Joseph Nevill, 1660], The Second Book, Chap. I, §. XV, p. 316.)

Samuel Rutherford (1600-1661 A.D.):

     Assertion 5. Good works are understood in a threefold way to have a causative power of eternal life. 1. Condignly meritorious; which, as blasphemous, we reject against the Papists, as we have proved elsewhere. 2. That they have a lower power and instrumental causality, granted to them by the grace of God: as Gisbertus Voetius says in Thersites Heautontemerumenos, section 1, chapter 2—just as running is the cause of the prize apprehended; struggle, of victory; diet, of health. Nor is it permitted here, speaking accurately, to distinguish between a means and a cause, or between a way and a cause: for since good works are means, not passive but active, the means here is a lower cause. Whence our light afflictions work for us (κατεργάζεται, ἡμῖν) an eternal weight of glory exceedingly exceeding; they operate, they cause for us, as the Holy Spirit speaks, 2 Corinthians 4:17. Nor can we here distinguish between causes and signs; because mere signs have no causality; nor is the dawn in any way the cause of the day; nor smoke the cause, or a lower cause, of fire. But our course through good works has an active relation to the actual possession of eternal life. However, this causality: 1. Is not principal. 2. Is not meritorious. 3. Is not from the works themselves, but from the grace of God. Therefore, they are caused causes rather than innate ones; not by their own power, but by the dispensation of God. Whence it follows that in this question it is not necessary, 1. To distinguish presence and causality; or presence and efficiency; 2. Nor that distinction of cause and sign; 3. Nor that of means or way and cause; 4. Nor that of passive and active means—unless they be prudently expounded. [Assertio. 5. Bona opera tripliciter intelliguntur habere vim causativam vitæ æternæ. 1. Condignè meritoriam; quod ut blasphemum, contra Pontificos rejicimus; ut alibi probavimus. 2. Quòd habeant vim inferiorem & causalitatem instrumentalem, ex Dei gratiâ, ipsis collatam: ut ait Gisbertus Voetius in Thersite Heautontemerumeno sect. 1. cap. 2. uti cursus est causa apprehensæ coronæ; certamen, victoriæ; diæta, sanitatis. Nec licet hic distinguere accuratè loquendo inter medium & causam, aut inter viam & causam: Cùm enim bona opera sint media, non passiva, sed activa, medium hic est causa inferior: Undè leves nostræ afflictiones excellenter excellentis gloriæ pondus æternum faciunt κατεργάζεται, ἡμῖν operantur, causantur nobis; ut loquitur Spiritus Sanctus Cor. 4:17. Neque hic possumus distinguere inter causas & signa; quia mera signa nullam causalitatem habent; nec aurora ullo modo est causa diei; neque fumus causa, vel inferior ignis. Cursus autem noster per bona opera, activè se habet ad actualem possessionem vitæ æternæ: Verùm hæc causalitas 1. Non est principalis. 2. Non meritoria. 3. Non ab ipsis operibus, sed à Dei gratiâ, Ideòque sunt causæ factæ, potiùs quàm innatæ; non suâ vi, sed ex dispensatione Dei. Undè sequitur, non necessariam esse in hâc quæstione, 1. Distinctionem præsentiae & causalitatis; vel præsentiæ & efficientiæ; nec 2. Distincti­onem illam causæ & signi: neque 3. Illam medii seu viæ, & causæ: nec 4. Illam medii passivi & activi; nisi prudenter exponantur.]

(Samuele Rhetorforte, Examen Arminianismi, ed. Matthia Netheno, [Ultrajeсti: Antonii Smitegelt, 1668], Cap. XII, pp. 532-533.)

John Owen (1616-1683 A.D.):

     Suppose a person freely justified by the grace of God, through faith in the blood of Christ, without respect unto any works, obedience, or righteousness of his own, we do freely grant,—(1.) That God doth indispensably require personal obedience of him; which may be called his evangelical righteousness. (2.) That God doth approve of and accept, in Christ, this righteousness so performed. (3.) That hereby that faith whereby we are justified is evidenced, proved, manifested, in the sight of God and men. (4.) That this righteousness is pleadable unto an acquitment against any charge from Satan, the world, or our own consciences. (5.) That upon it we shall be declared righteous at the last day, and without it none shall so be. And if any shall think meet from hence to conclude unto an evangelical justification, or call God’s acceptance of our righteousness by that name, I shall by no means contend with them. And wherever this inquiry is made,—not how a sinner, guilty of death, and obnoxious unto the curse, shall be pardoned, acquitted, and justified, which is by the righteousness of Christ alone imputed unto him—but how a man that professeth evangelical faith, or faith in Christ, shall be tried, judged, and whereon, as such, he shall be justified, we grant that it is, and must be, by his own personal, sincere obedience.

(John Owen, The Doctrine of Justification by Faith, Chapter VI; In: The Works of John Owen: Vol. V, ed. William H. Goold, [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1862], pp. 159-160.)

Francis Turretin (1623-1687 A.D.):

     II. There are three principal opinions about the necessity of good works. First is that of those who (sinning in defect) deny it; such were formerly the Simonians and the modern Epicureans and Libertines, who make good works arbitrary and indifferent, which we may perform or omit at pleasure. The second is that of those who (sinning in excess) affirm and press the necessity of merit and causality; such were the ancient Pharisees and false apostles, who contended that works are necessary to justification. These are followed by the Romanists and Socinians of our day. The third is that of those who (holding the middle ground between these two extremes) neither simply deny, nor simply assert; yet they recognize a certain necessity for them against the Libertines, but uniformly reject the necessity of merit against the Romanists. This is the opinion of the orthodox.

     III. Hence it is evident that the question here does not concern the necessity of merit, causality and efficiency—whether good works are necessary to effect salvation or to acquire it of right. (For this belongs to another controversy, of which hereafter). Rather the question concerns the necessity of means, of presence and of connection or order—Are they required as the means and way for possessing salvation? This we hold.

     IV. Although the proposition concerning the necessity of good works to salvation (which was thrust forward in a former century by the Romanists under the show of a reconciliation in the Interimistic formula, but really that imperceptibly the purity of the doctrine concerning justification might be corrupted) was rejected by various Lutheran theologians as less suitable and dangerous; nay, even by some of our theologians; still we think with others that it can be retained without danger if properly explained. We also hold that it should be pressed against the license of the Epicureans so that although works may be said to contribute nothing to the acquisition of salvation, still they should be considered necessary to the obtainment of it, so that no one can be saved without them—that thus our religion may be freed from those most foul calumnies everywhere cast most unjustly upon it by the Romanists (as if it were the mistress of impiety and the cushion of carnal licentiousness and security).

     V. Now although this necessity has already been established in part (Question 1 where we treated of the connection between justification and sanctification), it is still further proved both from the command of God and from the nature of the thing itself and the condition of the believer. For since the will of God is the supreme and indispensable rule of our duty, the practice of good works cannot but be considered as highly necessary (which the Lord so often and so expressly recommends and enjoins in his word). There is no need to refer to passages for they are so numerous. Let the following be specially consulted (1 Thess. 4:3, 4; 1 Jn. 4:21; Jn. 13:34; Mt. 5:16; 1 Pet. 1:15, 16; 2 Pet. 1:5–7, 10; Rom. 6:11, 12; 12:1, 2ff.). And so far from leaving to each one the license of living according to his pleasure, it openly condemns and abhors it (Rom. 6:1, 2, 15; Gal. 5:13; 1 Thess. 4:7; 1 Pet. 2:16) and declares that believers are “debtors” who are bound to new obedience by an indissoluble and indispensable bond (Rom. 8:12; 13:7; 1 Jn. 4:11), not only by the necessity of the precept, but also by the necessity of the means. 

     VI. This can be demonstrated more clearly from the nature of the thing and the state and condition of man, whether we look to the covenant of grace entered into with him or attend to the doctrine of the gospel which he professes; or to the state of grace in which he is placed; or to the benefits which depend on it, past as well as present and future. All these draw after them the absolute necessity of good works.

…

     XIV. Works can be considered in three ways: either with reference to justification or sanctification or glorification. They are related to justification not antecedently, efficiently and meritoriously, but consequently and declaratively. They are related to sanctification constitutively because they constitute and promote it. They are related to glorification antecedently and ordinatively because they are related to it as the means to the end; yea, as the beginning to the complement because grace is glory begun, as glory is grace consummated.

     XV. Although we acknowledge the necessity of good works against the Epicureans, we do not on this account confound the law and the gospel and interfere with gratuitous justification by faith alone. Good works are required not for living according to the law, but because we live by the gospel; not as the causes on account of which life is given to us, but as effects which testify that life has been given to us.

     XVI. Believers are a willing people who ought not to be impelled to good works by necessity (ex ananchēs) (viz., by a necessity of compulsion), but spontaneously and voluntarily (hekousiōs). But still, works do not cease to be necessary by the necessity of means and of debt. Although all coaction is necessity, not all necessity is coaction. The calumnies wont to be drawn against the necessity of good works from our doctrine concerning perserverance and the certainty of faith have been discussed in Topic XV, Questions 16 and 17.

(Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 17.3.2-6, 14-16; trans. Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology: Volume Two: Eleventh Through Seventeenth Topics, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., [Phillipsburg: P&R, 1994], pp. 702-703, 705.)

Francis Turretin (1623-1687 A.D.):

For since good works have the relation of the means to the end (Jn. 3:5, 16; Mt. 5:8); of the “way” to the goal (Eph. 2:10; Phil. 3:14); of the “sowing” to the harvest (Gal. 6:7, 8); of the “firstfruits” to the mass (Rom. 8:23); of labor to the reward (Mt. 20:1); of the “contest” to the crown (2 Tim. 2:5; 4:8), everyone sees that there is the highest and an indispensable necessity of good works for obtaining glory. It is so great that it cannot be reached without them (Heb. 12:14; Rev. 21:27).

(Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 17.3.12; trans. Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology: Volume Two: Eleventh Through Seventeenth Topics, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., [Phillipsburg: P&R, 1994], p. 705.)

Petrus van Mastricht (1630-1706 A.D.):

The Reformed—deny the necessity of good works for obtaining the right to eternal life. Indeed if done with this intention they say that in consequence they are actually evil and pernicious. But they declare that they are necessary by divine prescript for receiving possession of life, as conditions without which God refuses to bestow salvation upon us.

(Petro van Mastricht, Theoretico-Practica Theologia: Tomus Secundus, [Amstelodami: Sumptibus Societatis, 1724], 6.8.27, p. 845; trans. Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. Ernst Bizer, trans G. T. Thomson, [London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1950], p. 580.)

Edward Veal (c. 1632-1708 A.D.):

It is subtilly distinguished; as if an adopted person had not a title to the possession of the inheritance the very first moment he is adopted; or as if a man might have a right to heaven, and yet not have a right to the possession of it. We acknowledge that obedience is required in a son before he come to possess his inheritance; yet that obedience, though antecedent to his possessing that inheritance, is only the way in which he is to come to it, and the means whereby he is to be fitted for it; but is not meritorious of it. There is no right to the inheritance acquired by his obedience which before he had not; though farther fitness for, and suitableness to, it there may be. The Israelites were to fight, and subdue their enemies, ere they possessed the promised land; but their right to the possession of it they had before by the promise. And who can say that they were worthy of It merely because they fought for it?

(Edward Veal, “Whether the Good Works of Believers be Meritorious of Eternal Salvation.—Negatum Est.” In: The Morning Exercises at Cripplegate, St. Giles in the Fields, And in Southwark: Being Divers Sermons, Preached A.D. MDCLIX—MDCLXXXIX: Fifth Edition: In Six Volumes: Vol. VI, ed. & trans. James Nichols, [London: Thomas Tegg, 1845], Sermon XIΙΙ (ΧΙ), p. 193.)

Johann Heinrich Heidegger (1633-1698 A.D.):

     The Helvetic Confession ch. 16 denies that good works are so necessary to salvation, that apart from them no one has ever been saved. And yet both infants are saved without good works and adults dying amid the actual beginnings of regeneration may be robbed of the time and occasion, at least as regards the outward act, of emitting good works; for them the grace of God suffices. As to the great agreement otherwise we teach that for all adults who receive time and opportunity for it good works are so necessary, that those who despise them, turn up their noses and plainly and wantonly neglect them, have no hope of salvation. . . . good works are necessary to salvation. . . . good works are necessary for obtaining salvation through grace and faith, a phrase applied to this controversy by the most learned Horneius.

(Joh. Henrici Heideggeri, Corpus Theologiæ Christianæ: Theologiæ Didactice, Elenchtice, Moralis et Historicæ: Tomus Posterior, [Tiguri: Davidis Gessneri, 1700], Locus Vicesimus Tertius: De Gratia Sanctificationis, §. LXII, p. 333; trans. Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. Ernst Bizer, trans G. T. Thomson, [London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1950], p. 580.)

Leonardi Riissenii (c. 1636-1700 A.D.):

We agree that good works are pleasing to God, that we may work with the thought of profit, if it but be a thought of profit as a free reward and does not in principle look past the glory of God; that works have some relation of order and connection with eternal life, as between means and ends, the relation of way to goal, of competition to prize, of antecedent to consequent. Finally, that God by agreement ought to pay the reward for good works, so that in this way He is somehow a debtor, not to us but to Himself and to His faithfulness. But that good works are related to eternal life as a cause in the strict sense and by intrinsic worth and worthiness deserve a reward from God and effect salvation, we deny.

(Leonardi Riissenii, Summa Theologiæ: Didactico–Elencticæ: Pars Posterior, [Bernæ: Danielem Tschiffelii, 1703], Pars Altera, Locus XV: De Sanctificatione, Decalogo et Bonis Operibus, Controversia I, p. 7; trans. Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. Ernst Bizer, trans G. T. Thomson, [London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1950], p. 580.)

Herman Witsius (1636-1708 A.D.):

We must accurately distinguish between a right to life, and the possession of life. The former must so be assigned to the obedience of Christ, that all the value of our holiness may be entirely excluded. But certainly our works, or rather these, which the Spirit of Christ worketh in us, and by us, contribute something to the latter. And here again, that excessive rigidity of disputation is inconsistent with the moderation and mildness of the scriptures. Which I shall show distinctly and in order.

   III. 1st, Scripture teacheth that man must do something, that he may obtain the possession of the salvation purchased by Christ. “Labour, (said he) for the meat which endureth unto everlasting life,” which indeed he interprets afterwards of faith, but so, that there he plainly reduces it to the catalogue of works; for justification is not the subject, John vi. 27-29. And Paul expressly says, “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling,” Phil. ii. 12. And again, “Therefore my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, immoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know, that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.” 1 Cor. xv. 58.

     IV. Neither because Christ is the way to life, is the practice of Christian piety therefore not the way to life. Christ is the way to life, because he purchased us a right to life. The practice of Christian piety is the way to life, because thereby we go to the possession of the right obtained by Christ. For it is more than a hundred times designed by the name of life: again the way of righteousness, the good way, the way of peace; yea, that nothing might be wanting, it is called the way of life and salvation. Prov. vi. 23. “The commandment is a lamp, and the law is light, and reproofs of instruction are the way of life.” And x. 17. “He is in the way unto life who keepeth instruction.” xv. 24. “The way of life is above to the wise.” Psal. 1. 23. “Whoso ordereth his way, I will cause him to enjoy the salvation of God.” And what does Christ himself understand by that narrow way which leadeth unto life, Matt. vii. 14. but the strict practice of Christian religion? which is called the way of salvation, Acts. xvi. 17.

(Herman Witsius, Conciliatory, Or Irenical Animadversions, On the Controversies Agitated in Britain, Under the Unhappy Names  Antinomians and Neonomians, trans. Thomas Bell, [Glasgow: W. Lang, 1807], Chapter XVI.II-IV, pp. 161-163.)

Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758 A.D.):

     Here, if I may humbly express what seems evident to me, though faith be indeed the condition of justification so as nothing else is, yet this matter is not clearly and sufficiently explained by saying that faith is the condition of justification; and that because the word seems ambiguous, both in common use, and also as used in divinity: in one sense, Christ alone performs the condition of our justification and salvation; in another sense, faith is the condition of justification; in another sense other qualifications and acts are conditions of salvation and justification too. There seems to be a great deal of ambiguity in such expressions as are commonly used (which yet we are forced to use), such as, condition of salvation, what is required in order to salvation or justification, the terms of the covenant, and the like; and I believe they are understood in very different senses by different persons. And besides, as the word condition is very often understood in the common use of language, faith is not the only thing in us that is the condition of justification; for by the word condition, as it is very often (and perhaps most commonly) used, we mean any thing that may have the place of a condition in a conditional proposition, and as such is truly connected with the consequent, especially if the proposition holds both in the affirmative and negative, live, as the condition is either affirmed or denied. If it be that with which, or which being supposed, a thing shall be, and without which, or it being denied, a thing shall not be, we in such a case call it a condition of that thing: but in this sense faith is not the only condition of salvation or justification for there are many things that accompany and flow from faith, that are things with which justification shall be, and without which, it will not be, and therefore are found to be put in Scripture in conditional propositions with justification and salvation, in multitudes of places; such are, love to God, and love to our brethren, forgiving men their trespasses, and many other good qualifications and acts. And there are many other things besides faith, which are directly proposed to us, to be pursued and performed by us, in order to eternal life, as those which if they are done, or obtained, we shall have eternal life, and if not done, or not obtained, we shall surely perish. And if it were so, that faith was the only condition of justification in this sense, yet I do not apprehend that to say, that faith was the condition of justification, would express the sense of that phrase of Scripture, of being justified by faith. There is a difference between being justified by a thing, and that thing universally, and and necessarily, and inseparably attending or going with justification; for so do a great many things that we are not said to be justified by. It is not the inseparable connection with justification that the Holy Ghost would signify (or that is naturally signified) by such a phrase, but some particular influence that faith has in the affair, or some certain dependence that that effect has on its influence.

(Jonathan Edwards, “Justification by Faith Alone”; In: The Works of President Edwards: In Four Volumes: Vol. IV, [New York: Jonathan Leavitt and John F. Trow, 1843], Sermon IV, pp. 67-68.)

Leonard Woods (1774-1854 A.D.):

     A heavy charge has been constantly brought by our opponents against our doctrine of justification by faith, as encouraging men to live in sin — as opening the door to all manner of wickedness. But let us pause a little, and see whether the charge is founded in truth.

     First. It is indeed true, according to our doctrine, that good works are of no account as the meritorious ground of our forgiveness and acceptance with God. But this by no means implies that good works are of no account in other ways. Because we hold that works are not necessary in one particular respect, we cannot be justly charged with holding that they are not necessary in other respects. How often is it the case that a thing is indispensable, yea, of the highest consequence, in regard to particular objects, while it has no relation to some other object, and so is of no use in regard to it. It is then evident, that those who urge this allegation against our doctrine, are chargeable with sophistical reasoning. Their objection, as every one must see, has no kind of force. And it is not only without force, but is exceedingly unjust, seeing we are not behind any Christians in asserting and insisting upon the importance and necessity of good works, — though we do not allow them to be the proper basis of justification.

     Secondly. If any, who profess to hold the doctrine of justification by faith, do in fact regard and use it as an encouragement to sin; is it right that their misapplication and abuse of the doctrine should be urged as an objection to the doctrine itself? There were those in the Apostle’s day, who turned the grace of God into licentiousness. But would it be right to make their wickedness an objection to the doctrine which they thus perverted — especially when the Apostle taught that the doctrine had a directly contrary influence? Every truth is liable to misconception and abuse, and none more so than this doctrine of justification and salvation by grace.

     Thirdly. Look at facts. Are not those Christians, who hold the doctrine of justification by faith, as much distinguished for good works — are they not as uniformly obedient to the divine commands, as those who deny the doctrine? The most strenuous opposers of orthodoxy have admitted this, and more than this. And do not the facts in the case show, that those who maintain our doctrine, instead of undervaluing good works, do really and practically consider them as of the highest moment, and as absolutely necessary to salvation?

     Fourthly. Come to the doctrine itself. I hold that the doctrine, rightly apprehended, contains, or carries along with it, a combination of the highest conceivable motives to the practice of good works. I begin with love, which is the most powerful and efficacious of all motives to obedience. Christ says, they that love him will keep his commandments. It must be so. Obedience is the natural and necessary expression of love; it is love itself, acted out in the life. But this powerful principle is inseparable from faith. Faith works by love. That faith which is without love, Paul says, is without value.

(Leonard Woods, “Lecture CIII”; In: The Works of Leonard Woods: In Five Volumes: Vol. III, [Boston: John P. Jewett & Company, 1851], pp. 213-214.)

Robert Shaw (1795-1863 A.D.):

     Good works are essentially prerequisite to an admission into heaven. Though they do not merit everlasting life, yet they are indispensably necessary in all who are “heirs of the grace of life.” Believers, “being made free from sin, have their fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.”—Rom. vi. 22

(Robert Shaw, An Exposition of the Confession of Faith of the Westminster Assembly of Divines: Eighth Edition, [Glasgow: Blackie and Son, 1857], on WCF 16.2, p. 165.)

Charles Hodge (1797-1878 A.D.):

§ 5. Necessity of Good Works.

     On this subject there has never been any real difference of opinion among Protestants, although there was in the early Lutheran Church some misunderstanding. First. It was universally admitted that good works are not necessary to our justification; that they are consequences and indirectly the fruits of justification, and, therefore, cannot be its ground. Secondly, it was also agreed that faith, by which the sinner is justified, is not as a work, the reason why God pronounces the sinner just. It is the act by which the sinner receives and rests upon the righteousness of Christ, the imputation of which renders him righteous in the sight of God. Thirdly, faith does not justify because it includes, or is the root or principle of good works; not as “fides obsequiosa.” Fourthly, it was agreed that it is only a living faith, i.e., a faith which works by love and purifies the heart, that unites the soul to Christ and secures our reconciliation with God. Fifthly, it was universally admitted that an immoral life is inconsistent with a state of grace; that those who wilfully continue in the practice of sin shall not inherit the kingdom of God. The Protestants while rejecting the Romish doctrine of subjective justification, strenuously insisted that no man is delivered from the guilt of sin who is not delivered from its reigning power; that sanctification is inseparable from justification, and that the one is just as essential as the other.

(Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology: Vol. III, [New York: Scribner, Armstrong and Co., 1874], p. 238.)

William Lindsay Alexander (1808-1884 A.D.):

     As it is for good works that the people of God have been created anew, and as the effecting of these in them is the design of the gospel dispensation under which they have been brought, it is of necessity that they should “maintain good works.” To this they are strenuously exhorted, both by our Lord and by His apostles (Matt. v. 16; Col. i. 10; Heb. x. 23, 24; 1 Pet. ii. 11, 12).

    c. Good works are thus necessary; but for what are they necessary? Not, as the Roman Catholics teach, that they may merit increase of grace and eternal life, which is an utterly unscriptural doctrine; a doctrine in itself absurd, for as the apostle reasons, “If by grace, it is no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace; otherwise work is no more work” (Rom. xi. 6); and a doctrine misleading and pernicious, inasmuch as it tends to lead those who receive it away from Christ as the sole author of salvation, and from faith in Him as the sole medium of eternal life, to an endeavour to work out a righteousness of their own by which they may merit full and complete salvation. Good works are necessary, not only as the fruits and manifestations of the actuality of sanctification in the soul, but also as they are the indispensable means by which we are to work out our own salvation. They are the outgrowth and manifestation of a holy principle within; and as they proceed from this, so they react upon it, strengthening and deepening it and rendering more easy and sure its ultimate triumph over all the evil principles which sin has implanted in us. Without the stedfast, consistent, and persevering pursuit and practice of good works, the spiritual life will become languid and feeble within us. Nothing can supply their place in respect of this. “Neither,” exclaims the eloquent Chrysostom, “neither baptism nor the remission of sins, nor knowledge, nor the communion of mysteries, nor the holy table, nor the enjoyment of the body, nor the fellowship of the blood,—no, not one of these can profit us if we do not lead a life right, and admirable, and removed from all sin.”

(W. Lindsay Alexander, A System of Biblical Theology: In Two Volumes: Vol. II, [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1888], pp. 456-457.)

Cf. William Lindsay Alexander (1808-1884 A.D.):

     As good works are necessary to sanctification, so also sanctification is itself necessary to salvation. a. Sanctification of believers is the grand end and design of the Saviour’s propitiatory work (Tit. ii. 11-14; Eph. v. 25-27). He “gave Himself for us that He might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto Himself a peculiar people.” b. The sanctification of believers is the object of the divine will. “This is the will of God, even our sanctification,”—His will both as that which He desires and that which He enjoins (1 Thess. iv. 3-7; 1 Pet. i. 15, 16). c. The sanctification of believers is the grand end and design of God’s purposes of grace in redemption (2 Thess. ii. 13; 1 Pet. i. 2). d. The sanctification of believers is a necessary consequence of their faith in Christ and union with Him; their faith works by love and overcomes the world; Christ is made of God unto them sanctification; he that is in Christ is a new man, created after God in righteousness and true holiness; and he that abideth in Christ, and Christ in him, bringeth forth much fruit; fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life (1 Cor, i. 30; Eph. iv. 24; John xv. 5; Rom. vi. 22). e. The sanctification of the believer is the necessary result of the energy and operation in him of the Holy Spirit (2 Tim. i. 7; Eph. ii. 21, 22; Gal. v. 16-25). f. Finally, that sanctification is necessary, appears from the very nature of salvation. Salvation is deliverance, not so much from guilt and condemnation, as from the love and power and practice of sin. A sinner is not saved by being pardoned; he is pardoned that he may be saved; and he is saved when he is fully delivered from sin and made holy as God is holy. When that is attained, he receives the end of his faith, even the salvation of his soul. Without this he cannot see God; without this he cannot enter heaven; without this he would be unfit to be a partaker of the inheritance of the saints in light. If a man, then, is to be saved in the full sense of that word, it must be by his being sanctified wholly, and by his “whole spirit and soul and body being preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thess. v. 23).

     We may add that holiness is necessary to a man’s being useful as a power for good in the world. It is only thus that the Christian can make his light shine before men, so that they, seeing his good works, may glorify his Father who is in heaven. It is the holy man who will be the most efficient good-doer in the world; who will be the most zealous for God and for the good of his fellow-men; who will exert the best influence on those around him; who will do most to raise others from what is degrading, debasing, and carnalizing to the pursuit of the true, the pure, and the godlike. As has been justly said, “The light of intellect is far less valuable and truly beautiful than the light of moral purity; and it is only when the fires of the former are directed and governed by the latter that they bring either good to men or glory to God.”

(W. Lindsay Alexander, A System of Biblical Theology: In Two Volumes: Vol. II, [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1888], pp. 457-458.)

Edward Harold Browne (1811-1891 A.D.):

     Thus we plainly see that good works wrought in Christ are not only useful and desirable, but are absolutely necessary for every Christian, and are pleasing and acceptable to God.

…

     To conclude, then, the Scriptures prove, and the Church teaches, that, not upon the ground of merit, but yet according to God’s will and appointment, good works, wrought in Christ, are necessary for every Christian, are pleasing and acceptable to God, and will in the end receive “great recompense of reward,” even that “crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will give in that day” (2 Tim. iv. 8).

     2. That good works “do spring out necessarily of a true and living faith,” is a proposition which may be considered to have been incidentally but fully proved in treating on the eleventh Article.

(Edward Harold Browne, An Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles: Historical and Doctrinal, ed. J. Williams, [New York: E. P. Dutton & Company, 1895], pp. 328-329, 329.)

Cf. Idem, pp. 327-328.

Edward Arthur Litton (1813-1897 A.D.):

…the Augsburg Confession and other public documents of the Reformation insist upon the necessity of good works . . . The word ‘necessary’ has here a twofold application, and advantage is taken of the ambiguity to insinuate the charge just mentioned; it is an instance of the fallacy a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter. When the Romanist urges the necessity of good works he means that they constitute a meritorious cause of justification, if not de congruo certainly de condigno; and it is only the same notion under another form when love is made the formal cause of justification. When the Protestant admits that good works are necessary to salvation, as he does, his meaning is that no one is ultimately saved who has not proved that his faith is a saving one by the fruits which it has produced. The difference relates not to the necessary existence of good works, which on both sides is acknowledged, but to the place which they hold in the economy of grace; which, according to the Romanist, is one of desert; according to the Protestant, of invariable accompaniment. …salvation is not attainable without good works. In the language of the schools, they are in ordine, the appointed way, to salvation. They are a condition sine quâ non, a very different thing from either the efficient or the meritorious cause. By the command of God; by the nature of the case, for heaven itself could not be enjoyed without that change of heart of which good works are the fruit; by the continued obligation of the law as a rule of life; by the fact that the Author of the new birth is a Spirit of holiness, good works are indispensable to a state of salvation. God saves no man in his sins. The way to eternal life is not only narrow, but of a specific character, and only they who walk in it reach the goal. But the walking in it is not what gives a meritorious title to the reward. Thus, in one sense good works are necessary to salvation, and in another not; and the senses should be carefully distinguished. Cases like that of the thief on the cross, in which, from lack of opportunity, it is not possible to give evidence of a spiritual change, stand on their own ground. Where opportunity is vouchsafed, good works cannot be absent from saving faith.

(Edward Arthur Litton, Introduction to Dogmatic Theology: New Edition, ed. Philip E. Hughes, [London: James Clark & Co., Ltd., 1960], pp. 335-336.)

Henry B. Smith (1815-1877 A.D.):

…good works are excluded only in one aspect, i. e., in relation to justification. They are as much as ever necessary in our holiness and Christian life. We are created in Christ Jesus unto good works.

(Henry B. Smith, System of Christian Theology: Fourth Edition, Revised, ed. William S. Karr, [New York: A. C. Armstrong and Son, 1897], p. 551.)

Cf. Henry B. Smith (1815-1877 A.D.):

     (a.) Good works are involved in sanctification: Eph. ii. 10 (b.) They are both internal and external. (c.) Good works are relatively such; they are not perfectly good, unmixed with sin. (d.) They are necessary: (1) As the proof of faith. They are not necessary to justification, but necessary to the working out of the faith which justifies. (2) They are necessary to the accomplishment of redemption in us. If there are no good works, there is no evidence of our being Christians. (3) They are expressly commanded to believers, in the Bible. (4) But eternal life is not merited by them. Eternal life is given for Christ’s sake. Good works fit us for eternal life. This again is in contrast with the Roman Catholic view, which makes the merit of good works to be a part of the title to everlasting life.

(Henry B. Smith, System of Christian Theology: Fourth Edition, Revised, ed. William S. Karr, [New York: A. C. Armstrong and Son, 1897], pp. 576-577.)

Heinrich Heppe (1820-1879 A.D.):

But of course good works are necessary as the God-appointed road, on which by grace we are to attain to the possession of eternal life. This naturally can hold not for those elect who die at an age of minority or at the beginning of their rebirth, but only for those who have time and opportunity for good works.

(Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. Ernst Bizer, trans G. T. Thomson, [London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1950], p. 580.)

Archibald Alexander Hodge (1823-1886 A.D.):

(6.) They are necessary to the attainment of salvation, not in any sense as a prerequisite to justification, nor in any stage of the believer’s progress meriting the divine favor, but as essential elements of that salvation, the consubstantial fruits and means of sanctification and glorification. A saved soul is a holy soul, and a holy soul is one whose faculties are all engaged in works of loving obedience. Grace in the heart cannot exist without good works as their consequent. Good works cannot exist without the increase of the graces which are exercised in them. Heaven could not exist except as a society of holy souls mutually obeying the law of love in all the good works that law requires. Eph. v. 25-27; 1 Thess. iv. 6, 7; Rev. xxi. 27.

(Archibald Alexander Hodge, A Commentary on the Confession of Faith: With Questions for Theological Students and Bible Classes, ed. W. H. Goold, [London: T. Nelson and Sons, 1870], on WCF 16.1-2, pp. 222-223.)

John MacPherson (1847-1902 A.D.):

     The effect of sanctification, strictly speaking, is Christian liberty, the power that the regenerate man has of following spontaneously and of his own free will the suggestion and prompting of the Divine Spirit. Whatever of good as revealed by the Spirit the unregenerate may do, that is, whatever obedience he renders, if he obeys at all, he is driven to do by fear of certain penal consequences should he refuse. It is only the regenerate, with the Holy Spirit dwelling in him as the sanctifier, who is able to give a willing obedience to the requirements of God’s holy law. Good works in the life of sanctification are properly the effects of this Christian liberty. The good works of the believer are everywhere described as the consequence of abiding in Christ; there can be no abiding in Him without this result. And the law which constitutes the norm for this life of new obedience is the law of Christ, which is the law of God rightly understood as interpreted by the Spirit, not as a mere rule of external righteousness but as a spiritual law, obedience to which is motived by love, and therefore rendered by the heart and will. As thus understood, it will readily be admitted that good works are necessary to salvation. If we understand salvation as perfect spiritual fellowship with God, we shall readily acknowledge that salvation consists, negatively, in the utter destruction and removal of sin; and positively, in a life of perfect righteousness and holiness according to the pattern of the life of God. It is only when the doctrine of good works is introduced at the wrong place, so as to make them conditions of justification and not fruits of sanctification, that their necessity can be denied. In regard to the good works of the Romish doctrine which bring reward of merit and contribute to a sinner’s justification, the strong denunciation of Amsdorff, perniciosa ad salutem, is not unjustifiable; for according to Scripture truth, reproduced in the theology of Protestantism, faith justifies not in view of the good works which it produces, but only because of Christ with whom it unites the justified. It is the life in Christ that is the indispensable condition and only ground of salvation, and all who are ingrafted into this life of necessity bring forth good works.

(John Macpherson, Christian Dogmatics, [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1898], pp. 406-407.)

Herman Bavinck (1854-1921 A.D.)

     Many authors have seen a conflict between this all-encompassing activity of God in grace and the self-agency of people maintained alongside of it. They have charged Scripture with self-contradiction and have for themselves sacrificed the one group of pronouncements to the other. On the one hand, it was stated that grace only serves to restore human willpower for good and to put humans themselves to work. Good works, in that case, were definitely necessary for salvation, whether by a necessity of merit (Rome) or by a necessity of causality and effectiveness (Remonstrants). And from the antinomian side it was said objectively that the righteousness and holiness of Christ remained completely external to a person, not only in justification but also in sanctification, so that repentance, conversion, prayer for forgiveness, and good works were totally unnecessary, bore a legalistic character, and failed to do justice to the perfect sacrifice of Christ.

     Lutherans tried to avoid both extremes and conducted a long-lasting and vehement debate on the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the proposition “Good works are necessary to salvation.” Some defended good works, but others considered them detrimental and went so far as to say that good works are harmful to and pernicious for salvation. The Formula of Concord condemned both positions and stated only that good works are “signs of eternal salvation,” inasmuch as it is God’s will and express command that believers should do good works, which the Spirit works in their hearts and which God accepts and rewards for Christ’s sake in this life and the life to come.

     The Reformed were more moderate in their judgment, regarded the Lutheran debate as a dispute over words, and could not see the big difference between the rejected formula “Good works are necessary to salvation” and another that some Lutherans (like Quenstedt and Buddeus) had approved: “It is impossible to be saved without good works.” They had no objection to calling good works necessary to salvation provided this did not imply a “necessity of causality or merit or effectiveness” but implied a necessity of presence of the means and ways to obtain eternal salvation. Voetius even believed that in a sense good works can be called “the cause of eternal life,” that is, not a “meritorious” but a “preparatory” and “dispositional” cause.

     Speaking along these lines, they undoubtedly had Scripture on their side. For Scripture definitely insists on sanctification, both its passive and active aspects, and proclaims both the one and the other with equal emphasis. It sees no contradiction or conflict between them but rather knits them together as tightly as possible as when it says that, precisely because God works in them both to will and to do, believers must work out their own salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12-13). They are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God has prepared for them to walk in (Eph. 2:10). God and humanity, religion and morality, faith and love, the spiritual and the moral life, praying and working—these are not opposites.

(Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: Volume 4: Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend, [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008],  §. 481, pp. 254-255.)

John H. Gerstner (1914-1996 A.D.):

     One factor contributing to Antinomianism is a misunderstanding of the Reformation doctrine of justification by grace through faith. Luther and Calvin staunchly opposed any hint of the Roman Catholic doctrine of merit in justification with its complex of doctrines such as the treasury of merit and works of supererogation. At the same time, they insisted on the inseparability of faith and works, of justification and sanctification, for the simple but profound reason that all of salvation is to be found only through a genuine union with Jesus Christ. Thus, good works may be said to be a condition for obtaining salvation in that they inevitably accompany genuine faith. Good works, while a necessary complement of true faith, are never the meritorious grounds of justification, of acceptance before God. From the essential truth that no sinner in himself can merit salvation, the antinomian draws the erroneous conclusion that good works need not even accompany faith in the saint. The question is not whether good works are necessary to salvation, but in what way are they necessary. As the inevitable outworking of saving faith, they are necessary for salvation. As the meritorious ground of justification, they are not necessary or acceptable.

(John H. Gerstner, Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth, [Brentwood: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, Publishers, Inc., 1991], p. 210.)

Cf. John H. Gerstner (1914-1996 A.D.):

…the distinction between a necessary condition and a meritorious condition…

(John H. Gerstner, Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth, [Brentwood: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, Publishers, Inc., 1991], p. 256.)

Michael F. Bird (1974- A.D.):

Good works are not the cause of salvation, for that is exclusively the work of Christ; rather, good works demonstrate the necessary evidences of a saving faith in the Savior.

(Michael F. Bird, Evangelical Theology: Second Edition, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2020], 3.5.2, p. 365.)

Note: This is true in terms of primary causality—and given that ‘good Works' are contrasted with ‘the work of Christ’ this would appear to be Bird’s intent.

Antinomianism.

Thomas Ridgley (1667-1734 A.D.):

     As to others, who are more especially known by the character of Antinomians, these are of two sorts, namely, such who openly maintain that the moral law is not a rule of life in any sense; and that good works are not to be insisted on as having any reference to salvation; and therefore, if persons presume, as they, according to them, ought to do, that Christ died for them, and they were justified before they had a being, they may live in the practice of the greatest immoralities, or give countenance to them that do so, without entertaining the least doubt of their salvation; and that it is a preposterous thing for those who thus presumptuously conclude themselves to be justified, to confess themselves guilty of sin; since that would be to deny that they are in a justified state, or in any sense, to pray for the pardon thereof; since that would argue that it is not forgiven.

(Thomas Ridgley, A Body of Divinity: In Four Volumes: Vol. III, [Philadelphia: William W. Woodward, 1815], p. 418.)

Cf. Ralph Wardlaw, Systematic Theology: Vol. III, ed. James R. Campbell, [Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black, 1857], p. 204.

Excursus: Justification and Sanctification.

John Calvin (1509-1564 A.D.):

     Why, then, are we justified by faith? Because by faith we grasp Christ’s righteousness, by which alone we are reconciled to God. Yet you could not grasp this without at the same time grasping sanctification also. For he ‘is given unto us for righteousness, wisdom, sanctification, and redemption’ [1 Cor 1:30]. Therefore Christ justifies no one whom he does not at the same time sanctify. These benefits are joined together by an everlasting and indissoluble bond, so that those whom he illumines by his wisdom, he redeems; those whom he redeems, he justifies; those whom he justifies, he sanctifies. 

     But, since the question concerns only righteousness and sanctification, let us dwell upon these. Although we may distinguish them, Christ contains both of them inseparably in himself. Do you wish, then, to attain righteousness in Christ? You must first possess Christ; but you cannot possess him without being made partaker of his sanctification, because he cannot be divided into pieces [1 Cor. 1:13]. Since, therefore, it is solely by expending himself that the Lord gives us these benefits to enjoy, he bestows both of them at the same time, the one never without the other. Thus it is clear how true it is that we are justified not without works yet not through works, since in our sharing in Christ, which justifies us, sanctification is just as much included as righteousness.

(John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 3.16.1; trans. LCC, 20:798.)

Archibald Alexander Hodge (1823-1886 A.D.):

     Now, every Christian who really has experienced the grace of Christ must, unless very greatly prejudiced, recognize the fact that this work of sanctification is the end and the crown of the whole process of salvation. We insist upon and put forward distinctly the great doctrine of justification as a means to an end. It is absolutely necessary as the condition of that faith which is the necessary source of regeneration and sanctification; and every person who is a Christian must recognize the fact that not only will it issue in sanctification, but it must begin in sanctification. This element must be recognized as characteristic of the Christian experience from the first to the last. And any man who thinks that he is a Christian, and that he has accepted Christ for justification when he did not at the same time accept Christ for sanctification, is miserably deluded in that very experience. He is in danger of falling under the judgment of which Paul admonishes when he speaks of the wrath of God coming down from heaven upon all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, and with special reference to those who “hold the truth in unrighteousness.”

(Archibald Alexander Hodge, Popular Lectures on Theological Themes, [Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1887], Lecture 15, pp. 342-343.)

Excursus: Twofold Justification.

Francis Turretin (1623-1687 A.D.):

     III. But that the state of the question may be the more easily understood, we must remark that a twofold trial can be entered into by God with man: either by the law (inasmuch as he is viewed as guilty of violating the law by sin and thus comes under the accusation and condemnation of the law); or by the gospel (inasmuch as he is accused by Satan of having violated the gospel covenant and so is supposed to be an unbeliever and impenitent or a hypocrite, who has not testified by works the faith he has professed with his mouth). Now to this twofold trial a twofold justification ought to answer; not in the Romish sense, but in a very different sense. The first is that by which man is absolved from the guilt of sin on account of the righteousness of Christ imputed to us and apprehended by faith; the other is that by which he is freed from the charge of unbelief and hypocrisy and declared to be a true believer and child of God; one who has fulfilled the gospel covenant (if not perfectly as to degree, still sincerely as to parts) and answered to the divine call by the exercise of faith and piety. The first is justification properly so called; the other is only a declaration of it. That is justification of cause a priori; this is justification of sign or of effect a posteriori, declaratively. In that, faith alone can have a place because it alone apprehends the righteousness of Christ, by whose merit we are freed from the condemnation of the law; in this, works also are required as the effects and signs of faith, by which its truth and sincerity are declared against the accusation of unbelief and hypocrisy. For as faith justifies a person, so works justify faith.

(Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 16.8.3; trans. Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology: Volume Two: Eleventh Through Seventeenth Topics, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., [Phillipsburg: P&R, 1994], p. 676.)

Richard Hooker (1554-1600 A.D.):

Now concerning the righteousness of sanctification, we deny it not to be inherent; we grant, that unless we work, we have it not; only we distinguish it as a thing in nature different from the righteousness of justification: we are righteous the one way, by the faith of Abraham; the other way, except we do the works of Abraham, we are not righteous. Of the one St. Paul, “To him that worketh not, but believeth, faith is counted for righteousness.” Of the other, St. John, “Qui facit justitiam, justus est:—He is righteous which worketh righteousness.” Of the one, St. Paul doth prove by Abraham’s example, that we have it of faith without works. Of the other, St. James by Abraham’s example, that by works we have it, and not only by faith. St. Paul doth plainly sever these two parts of Christian righteousness one from the other. For in the sixth to the Romans thus he writeth, “Being freed from sin, and made servants to God, ye have your fruit in holiness, and the end everlasting life.” “Ye are made free from sin, and made servants unto God;” this is the righteousness of justification: “Ye have your fruit in holiness;” this is the righteousness of sanctification. By the one we are interested in the right of inheriting; by the other we are brought to the actual possessing of eternal bliss, and so the end of both is everlasting life.

(Richard Hooker, A Learned Discourse of Justification, Works, and How the Foundation of Faith is Overthrown, §. 6; In: Richard Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity: In Two Volumes: Volume One (Books I-IV), Introduction by Christopher Morris, Μ.Α., [London: J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd, 1907; reprinted 1958], p. 22.) See also: ccel.org.

καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν ~ Soli Deo Gloria