Christ is the Cause of Salvation; Faith & Good Works are the Conditions

(The efficacy of the death of Christ consistent with the necessity of a good life)[1]

by William Paley (b. July 1743 – d. May 1805)

Our first argument to support the thesis stated above is that although the Bible clearly represents Christ’s atonement as efficacious for the salvation of mankind, it also clearly teaches the necessity of our own efforts toward virtue and good works for salvation’s sake. But the Scriptures go further than that. The Holy Spirit, speaking through the Scriptures, foresaw that as the death & atonement of Christ was revealed to Christians as being instrumental to salvation, that this would lead some Christians to the [mistaken] opinion that mankind’s own works, their own virtue, their personal efforts, were to be set aside or done away with. In other words, the Holy Spirit foresaw that some Christians would [mistakenly] conclude that if the sacrificial death of Christ was effective for salvation, that this would mean that all the moral efforts or good works of mankind were unnecessary for salvation. The Holy Spirit, speaking through the Scriptures, foresaw that some Christians would draw this [mistaken] conclusion from certain teachings that are now located in the New Testament and so He, through the Scriptures, provided a remedy for this erroneous interpretation.

Some believers might also arrive at this same [mistaken] conclusion, i.e. that obedience is unnecessary, upon considering the goodness of God. The Apostle Paul was aware of the potential danger of Christians arriving at such an erroneous thought. Therefore, when Paul writes about the goodness of God, he purposely directs his readers to the only right conclusion a person should come to when meditating on the subject. He wrote: “Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?”[2] It is as if Paul had said: “I can see how when a person meditates on the goodness of God it might lead them to the mistaken conclusion that they can continue in sin without any fear of punishment. But such a conclusion is far from being correct! When we meditate upon the goodness of God, if we are thinking correctly, then our thoughts should always cause us to repent or to turn away from sin, and not to any other conclusion!”

Again, when Paul wrote about the righteousness of God that is seen more clearly when it is contrasted with the wickedness of mankind, Paul knew that some Christians might misinterpret such a concept. In fact, he seems to have already experienced this because he wrote: “And why not say, ‘Let us do evil that good may come’?—as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say.”[3] But Paul regards this insinuation to be an unfair and willful perversion of his words, and of the words of his fellow Christian teachers. Concerning those who twisted their meaning in such a way, Paul wrote: “Their condemnation is just.”[4] It is as if Paul had said that such false interpreters “will be justly condemned for perverting the doctrine that we teach.” The passage itself clearly shows that any application of their teachings that might encourage a person to lead a licentious life was an application that was contrary to their intention and a perversion of their words.

Similarly, in the same chapter of Romans, immediately after the Apostle Paul teaches that “a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law,”[5] he stops to clarify himself by saying: “Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.”[6] Therefore, whatever Paul meant by his assertion concerning faith, he then takes special care to let his readers know that he did not mean this: “to make void the law.” In other words, whatever Paul meant by his assertion concerning faith, he was very careful to make it clear that he did not intend to teach that there was no longer a need for obedience or for living lawfully.

But the text best suited to our purpose is Romans 6:1-2, where after having elaborated on “grace,” Paul asks: “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?” He answers the question with a strong negative: “Certainly not!” Paul was aware of how some Christians would mistakenly interpret his teachings, and he preemptively protests any such wrong use of them.

All the numerous Scripture passages that exhort us to virtue and admonish us against vice could be quoted to show that the Bible teaches, from cover to cover, that we are all personally and necessarily obligated to make efforts toward virtue. Support for such an assertion can certainly be found on every page of the New Testament, but by way of example, consider the following two passages from the Gospels. Matthew 7:21: “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.” John 13:17: “If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them.” In both these texts, the rewards follow upon the doing, i.e. the promise is attached to works. Consider the following two passages from Paul. Romans 2:7-9a [NAS]: “to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil…” Galatians 5:19a, 21b [NRSV]: “Now the works of the flesh are obvious: [namely, certain enumerated vices]… I am warning you, as I warned you before: those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.” These are just a few of many similar texts, and they are too plain to adequately explain away. It would be nearly impossible to come up with stronger terms than those used in these passages. If a person were simply trying to prove that Scripture teaches the necessity of virtue and the danger of vice (concerning salvation), then these texts are decisive.

However, the purpose in writing all of this is to answer those people who understand certain passages of the apostolic writings (such as the passages that speak of the efficacy of Christ’s atoning death) as teaching that obedience is not necessary. One reason all interpretations of Scripture that would either say or imply that moral virtue is unnecessary (for salvation’s sake) can be seen to be erroneous interpretations is that they are the same erroneous conclusions the apostles were already aware of in their day and have already protested and provided against in their writings. The four New Testament texts quoted above show the minds of the authors on this issue more conclusively than any general exhortation to good works, or any general condemnation of sin can do. Whatever the apostles said about the efficacy of the atoning death of Christ, they said it while also understanding that Christ’s atonement did not relax the motives, the obligation, or the necessity of good works.

However, the question still needs to be answered concerning the efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice. Despite what the apostles said or meant to say, is there, in the very nature of things, an insurmountable inconsistency between: 1) the efficacy of the atoning death of Christ, and 2) the necessity of a good life? Can these two propositions reasonably stand together? Does it necessarily follow that if the death of Christ is efficacious, then good works are no longer necessary? Or conversely, does it follow that if good works are still necessary, then the death of Christ not efficacious?

In dealing with the question of how Christ’s efficacious sacrifice relates to the necessity of good works, we must consider the distinction between: 1) the cause of salvation, and 2) the condition of salvation. These two categories or classifications should not be confused. When we speak of a person being “saved,” we often understand this to mean that when that person dies, they will be placed in a state of happiness that is exceedingly great, both in degree and duration. Paul may be describing this when he writes: “…the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed…”[7] and “God has prepared things for those who love him that no eye has seen, or ear has heard, or that haven’t crossed the mind of any human being.”[8] To be saved, then, is not to merely escape punishment. Neither is it to simply be excused or forgiven, or to merely be compensated or repaid for the little good that we do. It is infinitely more! Will anyone say that heaven—glory, honor, immortality, eternal life[9]—a salvation that surpasses human understanding and casts the sufferings of this life at such a distance as not to bear any comparison with it; will anyone say that this is no more than what our virtue deserves, or no more than what, by its own merit, our virtue is entitled to receive? The greatest virtue that any human has ever attained has no such pretensions. The best good action that any person ever performed has no claim to this extent, or anything like it. It is out of all calculation and comparison and proportion; it is above and more than any human works can possibly deserve.

So, to what shall we credit it that human efforts toward virtue should and will gain such immense blessings for those who exert themselves in the way of holiness? We can only credit such an arrangement to the goodness and voluntary generosity of Almighty God, who in his good pleasure has appointed it to be this way. It is the kindness of God toward mankind that has made this inconceivably advantageous offer to us. But even though this is an infinitely gracious and beneficial offer, it is still a conditional offer, and the performance of the conditions is just as necessary as if it had been an offer of mere repayment or compensation that was strictly according to what our virtue deserves. The kindness, the benevolent open-handedness, the generosity of the offer does not make it less necessary to perform the conditions, but more so! A conditional offer can still be infinitely generous and kind on the part of the giver, and it can still be infinitely advantageous to those to whom the offer is made. If a conditional offer is made by a kind and wealthy prince or governor, it may be infinitely gracious and merciful on his part, but because it is conditional, the condition is just as necessary as if the offer had been no more than the meager and scanty wages that would be paid out by a harsh taskmaster.

In considering this matter in general, it appears to be very plain. However, when we apply this principle to religion, there are two mistakes we are liable to fall into. The first mistake is that, when we hear so much about the exceedingly great kindness of the offer, we might imagine that the conditions upon which the offer was made will not really be required of us. But merely because the offer (even with the conditions) was born from God’s love, mercy and kindness, we should not conclude that we do not need to perform the conditions. Such a conclusion is not only false in principle, it is a spiritually deadly one to put into practice because it makes us feel comfortable living in sin and disobedience. Let us diligently guard ourselves from such an error! The second mistake we are liable to fall into is that when we have performed the conditions, or think that we have performed the conditions, or when we endeavor to perform the conditions upon which the reward is offered, we immediately attribute our obtaining the reward to our performance or effort, rather than to the kindness and generosity of the original offer. This erroneous way of thinking is another spiritual danger area that needs to be warned against because it tends to suppress and extinguish our gratitude to God; it takes our attention off of Him.

Therefore, as has been stated, there are two distinct categories to consider that are of great significance: 1) the cause of salvation, and 2) the conditions of salvation. The efficacy of the atoning death of Christ relates to the cause of salvation, while the necessity of a holy life (i.e. a life of good works, obedience or sincerely striving after holiness) relates to the conditions of salvation. Upon examination, it will be seen that these two things are not incompatible. The cause of salvation is one thing, the conditions of it are another.

God—with his free will, free gift, love and mercy—is alone the source, fountain and cause of mankind’s salvation. It is God, and his benevolent love, that is the origin from which our salvation springs, and from which all our hopes of attaining to it are derived. This cause is not in ourselves, nor in anything we do or can do, but is only found in God, in his good will and pleasure. The cause of our salvation is in the graciousness of the original offer. So, whatever has played a role in moving, exciting or gaining the good will and pleasure of God, thereby causing the offer to be made, can truly be said to be efficacious in human salvation.

In Scripture, this efficacy is attributed to the atoning death of Christ, and it is expressed in a variety of ways. Scriptures tells us Christ is a sacrifice, an offering to God; a propitiation; the precious sacrifice foreordained; the lamb slain from the foundation of the world; the lamb which takes away the sin of the world. We are washed in his blood; we are justified by his blood; we are saved from wrath through him; he has once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God. All such expressions and terms assert the same thing: the efficacy of the death of Christ in bringing about human salvation. To realize the significance of these expressions, we need to think about what salvation is and how great it is. We will never realize how important and valuable the efficacy of Christ’s blood is to us unless we form accurate ideas about salvation. The phrases in Scripture that speak of Christ’s efficacious sacrifice in the highest terms are never too great because they speak about a concern and an event so vast and momentous that it makes all other concerns and events contemptible in comparison.

Unfortunately, some Christians believe there is an inconsistency between 1) the efficacy of the atoning blood of Christ, and 2) the necessity to sincerely strive to obey the will of God. But there is nothing of the sort. The graciousness of an offer does not diminish the necessity of the condition. Suppose a prince were to promise one of his subjects that if they would only comply with certain terms or perform some duties that they would be given a reward so great that it is far beyond what the compliance or performance deserves. To what or whom should such a fortunate subject attribute the happiness that has been held out to them? If they were to attribute it to any cause except to the generosity, kindness & goodness of the prince who made the offer, they would rightly be called ungrateful. Yet, it is true that the subject will not obtain what is offered by the prince unless the terms are complied with. To this extent, the subject’s compliance is a condition of their happiness. But the greatest and most astounding thing is that the offer was made at all. The offer is the main thing; it is the ground and origin of the whole arrangement. The offer is the cause of the happiness and it is only rightly attributed to the favor, grace and goodness of the prince—and to nothing else. It would be the highest degree of ingratitude for such a subject to forget their prince while thinking of themselves. Only an ungrateful subject would forget the cause while thinking that they deserved the reward for fulfilling the small condition. By thinking in such a manner, the subject will end up disregarding the generosity, kindness and open-handedness of the prince’s original offer. They will lose sight of and completely forget about how great the gift was that was offered to them, even though it had such a small condition attached to it. This scenario describes our situation with God. The love, goodness and grace of God does not do away with the necessity of the small role that He has given us to play in tending to our salvation. The efficaciousness of Christ’s atonement does not erase our need to perform the small condition given us to continue to appropriate the benefits of Jesus’ saving blood. The condition a Christian must perform to maintain their salvation is the ongoing, sincere effort to live a holy life. It is a small obligation considering how great the gift is. There is nothing inconsistent about great gifts being tied to small obligations.

A second argument to support our thesis will be set forth as we now consider the relation between good works and faith. Some people who rightly affirm that good works are a condition of salvation mistakenly assert that faith is the cause of salvation. But faith is no more the cause of salvation than good works are. The proper cause is exclusively and solely the grace and voluntary kindness of Almighty God. It misrepresents the issue to classify faith as being in a different category than good works by calling faith the cause, and good works the condition of salvation. Neither of them are the cause. Both faith and good works are conditions of salvation. To help us to think about this matter, let us ask three questions: 1) Is faith alone the condition of salvation? 2) Are good works alone the condition of salvation? 3) Are both faith and good works conditions of salvation, with neither of them being sufficient without the other?

Excluding a handful of particular, isolated Scripture texts, it is doubtful that anyone would ever have thought of suggesting that faith (when defining faith as being the mere belief of certain religious propositions) was the only condition of salvation. Upon giving serious thought to the issue, most people would be more likely to conclude that faith is only one virtue among many others, rather than the one thing that surpasses them all. Faith is a quality of our moral nature that is capable of degrees and liable to imperfections just as all the other moral qualities are. Therefore, the people who argue for the sufficiency of faith alone must base their doctrine upon a handful of particular, isolated texts of Scripture. Six of what are probably the most commonly used texts of this sort all come from the pen of the Apostle Paul. They are as follows:

1) Romans 3:28—“Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.”

2) Galatians 2:16—“knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.”

3) Galatians 3:11—“But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for ‘the just shall live by faith.’”

4) Galatians 3:22—“But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.”

5) Ephesians 2:8-9—“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.”

6) Romans 10:9—“that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.”

Because these six passages are strong texts, it should not amaze us that they (especially when combined with other inducements) have led many serious persons to emphasize them to the point of excluding good works from being considered as a condition of salvation. Some people even rely on this doctrine of “faith alone” to give them assurance of salvation while they continue to live in sin. But it should not surprise us that people interpret these passages of Paul in such a manner, especially when such passages are taken by themselves in isolation from the rest of the Scriptures. However, Scripture is to be compared with Scripture, particular texts with other particular texts, and especially with the main tenor of the whole of Scripture. When making such comparisons with the six texts given above and then applying the findings to the issue of the efficacy of faith, it is logical to say that whatever Paul meant by such expressions, he DID NOT mean to teach that a person who continued to lead a wicked life (without repentance/change) will nevertheless be finally saved due to merely believing certain doctrines of the Christian religion. Still less did Paul mean to encourage anyone to continue living in sin by way of his purposely comforting and assuring them in their sin by enticing them to believe & trust in such a doctrine.

The Apostle could not have meant to teach such a “security-in-sin” doctrine, because he would then be contradicting the general teaching of the entire New Testament. Indeed, not only would he be contradicting other texts of Scripture (including his own) that were written by writers having an authority at least equal to his own, but he would be contradicting texts of Scripture that are of the very highest authority. For example, what words can be plainer or more decisive on this point than the words of Jesus himself? Hear Matthew 7:21: “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.” The people who are represented in this verse as crying out to Jesus (saying ‘Lord, Lord’) are obviously people who believe in him, but neither their faith nor their devotion were sufficient to save them. In the verses that follow, Jesus tells his hearers (in Matt 7:22) that many will say to him in that day, “…have we not prophesied in Your name…and done many wonders in Your name?” People who would do such things in Christ’s name would surely believe in him. Yet, how does Jesus say that he will receive them on that day? “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you” (Matt 7:23a). And who are the people who shall be rejected in such a manner? It is the people who work iniquity or practice lawlessness. Jesus will tell them, “depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’” (Matt 7:23b). According to Jesus, the difference that will result from either doing good or doing evil is this: “And shall come forth; they that have done good to the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, to the resurrection of damnation.”[10] Can a greater distinction be made, or expressed in plainer words? All of Jesus’ words by which he teaches his followers how they should conduct themselves or how they should live—especially his entire Sermon on the Mount (Matt chap 5-7)—could all be used to support our thesis.

If a “faith-alone” advocate was to either substitute “belief” in the places where Jesus enjoins duties, or to substitute “belief” as an expiation for the offences forbidden by Jesus, such a substitution would set aside the authority of Jesus, the Lawgiver. Why did our Lord command and forbid things if he did not require obedience as a condition of salvation? Everything we read about repentance implies the necessity of good works for salvation, and the inconsistency of bad works with salvation. Repentance is a change from bad works to good works, and can be required upon no other supposition than that obedience and good works are necessary. We continually hear about repentance in the New Testament. John the Baptist began calling for repentance before Jesus embarked upon his public ministry. John the Baptist’s message to the Jews who came to hear his preaching was: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!”[11] When John spoke of repentance, he was not merely speaking of a change that needed to take place inside a person’s mind.[12] John the Baptist’s concept of repentance included the practice of virtue or righteousness. This is expressly declared by John himself when he said: “Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance,”[13] and when particular classes of men came to inquire of John what they should do, his answer was a warning against those particular sins to which persons of their class and character were most liable. This was John the Baptist’s own plain example of how to make a practical application of his principle of repentance, and it is a direct and clear exposition of his meaning of the term. All of this proves that a moral change, a moral improvement, practical sins, and practical virtues, and a turning from one to the other, was what he included in the very serious & alarming admonition that he proclaimed in the ears of mankind. The call to repentance that John the Baptist began with, our Lord then followed up—in the same sense and with the same purpose. “Now after John was put in prison, Jesus came to Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel.’”[14] As our Lord preached repentance himself and even made it the burden of his preaching, he then sent out his Apostles to do the same thing. He called the twelve and sent them out two by two. And what did they do? “So they went out and preached that people should repent.”[15] After our Lord’s departure from the world, the Apostles carried on exactly the same plan of religious instruction. They had learned their lesson too well and too deeply to change the essential core of it. Therefore we read: “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins;”[16] and “Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out,”[17] and “Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent.”[18] This is the explicit language the Apostle Paul held in his mind on the subject of repentance, which has a precise reference to a good and bad life rather than merely an intellectual change of mind. These texts we have considered from preachers other than Jesus contain the same message about the necessity of obedience and good works as the message that Jesus himself pronounced.

In comparing Saint Paul’s words with other Scriptures, we cannot overlook that well-known text of Saint James: “What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?”[19] In this famous passage from the brother of our Lord, James is not supposing that this hypothetical “someone” is hypocritically, and for some sinister purpose, pretending to believe what he does not truly believe. The illustration that James immediately uses clearly assumes that the belief this hypothetical person holds to is a real belief, because he compares it to the case of the demons (in 2:19), who believe and tremble! Let us remember that Saint James’s words are Scripture that is at least as authoritative as the words of Saint Paul. Let us meditate upon the fact that this is a text (especially James 2:24) which precisely, and in the most pointed terms, contradicts the interpretation that the “faith-alone” advocates give to Saint Paul’s words.

Any interpretation of Paul’s words that does away with the necessity and obligation of good works cannot be the true sense of the Apostle’s words because such an interpretation is contrary to at least one of the plainly declared goals of Christianity itself. This function and purpose of Christianity can be seen in these words from Paul in his epistle to Titus: “For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men,”[20]—and the phrase, “the grace of God that brings salvation” surely speaks of Christ, and Christianity by extension. For what purpose has it appeared? Or, why has the way of Christ (i.e. Christianity) been revealed to the world? Paul tells us:

“…teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works.”[21]

Our Savior told his disciples that “I have come to call…sinners to repentance.”[22] And in the Scriptures, as can be seen in most cases, repentance has a necessary relation to good works and bad works. The Apostle Peter described the blessing and benefit of Christianity as being its ability to convert, change, or transform people. When Peter was speaking to the Jews on a very momentous occasion shortly after Jesus’ ascension, he said: “To you first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities.”

As it relates to our main topic or thesis, it is less important that we discover exactly what Paul meant in the six texts of his that were given earlier in this discourse (which are so often cited by faith-alone advocates), but it is of the utmost importance that we discover what he did not mean in those six passages. Some steps have already been taken in that direction, but we now go further. The easiest way to show what a writer did not mean is to examine what that same writer has said elsewhere on the same subject, and better yet, what they said in the same piece of writing. Uninspired writers may indeed say something unreasonable, or something that is contrary to other authorities, or even what is contrary to the writer’s own assertions that they made at other times and in other writings, but surely even an uninspired writer’s words should not be interpreted in such a way as to make them contradict themselves in the same piece of writing—not, at least, if there is some reasonable way to avoid it.

Pursuing this line of observation, let us first notice that in Romans where Paul says that “the just shall live by faith,”[23] not only in the same epistle, but in the same sentence, Saint Paul then immediately tells us that “the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.”[24] By quoting Habakkuk’s expression (“shall live by faith”[25]), Paul could not have meant to say that faith, even when accompanied with ungodliness and unrighteousness, would result in salvation. Otherwise, Paul would be saying, not that the “just,” but rather that the unjust shall live by faith. Paul would be saying something that he immediately unsays and contradicts in the very next sentence that he writes! The most that “the just shall live by faith” can mean is that although good works are necessary and are performed, it is not by good works that the just shall live (the good works being proofs of faith), but rather, the just shall live by faith itself. Secondly, in Romans, although Paul concludes “that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law,”[26] yet, prior to this, in this very same epistle, Paul wrote:

“God…‘will render to each one according to his deeds’: eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness–indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek.”[27]

Therefore, Paul’s strong expression about faith in Romans chapter three should not be interpreted so that the author would be saying the exact opposite there of what he had just written in the second chapter of Romans. Thirdly, in Romans, four consecutive chapters (chapters 12-15) are occupied with delivering moral precepts. Therefore, let no one say that moral precepts are indifferent, or that moral practice, i.e. the conduct which these precepts command and enforce, is regarded by Paul as being unnecessary. Nor is it possible to reconcile the two following texts from Romans with the false notion that what Christians do plays no part in their final salvation. As Paul wrote to the Christians in Rome: “For the wages of sin is death,”[28] (i.e. the wages of sin is death for them–unless, of course, they repent of it) and also “For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.”[29]

This same type of observation also applies to the epistle to the Galatians. In this epistle, Paul spoke of faith in the following very strong terms: “…knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.”[30] Nevertheless, in another place in Galatians, we read this plain, clear, and very specific denunciation:

“Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.”[31]

No words can be more certain than these, and the last phrase quoted is the most certain of them all: “…will not inherit the kingdom of God.” People who have had a Christian baptism and who yet persist in the types of sins described above may have been justified or saved in a certain sense. They may have been brought into an initial state of justification or salvation at some point in their past, and they may even be outwardly taking part in the life of the church, but they shall not be finally happy—“they will not inherit the kingdom of God.” Unless, of course, they repent and cease from doing evil.

In the epistle to the Ephesians, we see again that the Apostle Paul has written some strong things about faith. Yet, at the same time and in the very same epistle, he most absolutely insisted upon a virtuous life, and he most certainly declared that when a Christian dares to live a life of unrepentant sin, it will only end in perdition. Now, concerning faith, he wrote the often-quoted words of: “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.”[32] But concerning a life of sin, he makes the following strong cautionary declaration which demonstrates his true opinion just about as clearly as words can do so:

“But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints; neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.”[33]

In Conclusion

Exactly what the Apostle Paul meant by the six or more expressions concerning faith which have been quoted above is an issue that we are not going to take the space or time to deal with here. But he did not mean to teach that a life of striving after virtue, obedience, righteousness or holiness (which is what we understand by “good works”) could simply be written off as being unnecessary. Neither did he mean to teach that a life of continued, unrepentant sin would end in salvation–by any means whatsoever, whether it be through sacraments or simply because a person believes in certain doctrines of the Christian faith. The essence of the statements made in this little discourse are very certain according to an impartial examination of the Scriptures and by consulting the teachings of the Christians who lived closest in time to the Apostles. The necessity of living a good Christian life, the necessity to live a life of obedience or to persevere in producing godly fruit—these things are certain whether or not we ever settle, to our satisfaction, what exactly Paul meant by his expressions concerning faith. Are we to suppose that Saint Paul delivered a doctrine contrary to that of Jesus and the other Apostles? Did Paul deliver teachings that are destructive to one of the clearly declared goals of the Christian institution itself?[34] Lastly, what is most improbable of all, did the Apostle Paul, at the same time and in the same manner, deliver some teachings that are directly repugnant to what he himself solemnly asserted and delivered at other times and in other places?

Notes

[1] A revised, updated, and slightly condensed version of parts 2 & 3 of William Paley’s THE EFFICACY OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST CONSISTENT WITH THE NECESSITY OF A GOOD LIFE; THE ONE BEING THE CAUSE, THE OTHER THE CONDITION, OF SALVATION.

[2] Rom 2:4

[3] Rom 3:8a

[4] Rom 3:8b

[5] Rom 3:28

[6] Rom 3:31

[7] Rom 8:18

[8] 1 Cor 2:9, Common English Bible

[9] Rom 2:7

[10] John 5:29, The Webster Bible

[11] Matt 3:2

[12] Thayer’s Lexicon says the Gk word for “repent” (metanoeo/met-an-o-eh’-o) means: 1. to change one’s mind, i.e. to repent; 2. to change one’s mind for better, heartily to amend with abhorrence of one’s past sins. In an article on repentance, written by G.W. Bromily in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (p. 136), he says that in the 56 times the word “repent”/metanoeo appears in the New Testament, with rare exception, it has the “full sense of a complete change in one’s way of life” and “spiritual change implied in a sinner’s return to God.” I.e. most of the time, it implies a change in behavior/action. Repentance is more than just a mental belief change!

[13] Matt 3:8

[14] Mark 1:14-15

[15] Mark 6:12

[16] Acts 2:38a

[17] Acts 3:19a

[18] Acts 17:30

[19] James 2:14

[20] Titus 2:11

[21] Titus 2:12-14

[22] Luke 5:32, NRSV

[23] Rom 1:17

[24] Rom 1:18

[25] Hab 2:4

[26] Rom 3:28

[27] Rom 2:6-9

[28] Rom 6:23a

[29] Rom 8:13

[30] Gal 2:16

[31] Gal 5:19-21

[32] Eph 2:8-9

[33] Eph 5:3-6

[34] The goal and purpose of any system of laws should also control the interpretation of its particular parts.