Sola Fide and the Necessity of Works

The Protestant and Reformed doctrine of salvation by grace alone (sola gratia) through faith alone (sola fide) gives rise to a cluster of theological and ethical questions: If one is completely justified before God not on the basis of good works, then personal holiness seems practically meaningless. If good works have no merit in salvation, then how do we make sense of Scripture’s clear and radical call to live holy lives before God? If a right relationship with God is the summum bonum (“highest good”) and good works do not function to secure that goal, then what is their use? If works are not meritorious, then why are there biblical promises of reward? Are good works merely a gracious response to the free gift of salvation, or are they obligatory? As the Protestant Reformation led its attack against the errors of Roman Catholic theology, “The defenders of the Roman church quickly pointed out that [sola fide] would lead to indifference toward godliness.”¹ However, this “tension” between justification (our right standing before God through faith) and sanctification (our right living before God through works) is only illusory and betrays a category mistake. Understood properly, good works performed out of obedience to the will of God do not “follow” faith, but exist as an inherent quality of the nature of faith, itself. Works accompany faith essentially, not causally.

“Sola fide” (trans. “faith alone”) was the clarion call of the Protestant Reformation. For Martin Luther, this doctrine was a watershed discovery, resulting from a long and intense search to find true peace with God. For him, the doctrine was no abstract theological idea, but a very personal and vibrant truth through which all other theological truths were to be understood, and by which he was able to live in the security and freedom of Christian liberty. For other Protestant Reformers, sola fide was not as intensely personal; yet, its theological significance was recognized by virtually all of them², and was articulated with power and precision. Nevertheless, it did not avoid severe criticism by those “steeped in the medieval church’s instruction” who were “shocked” by its “radical reduction of what was needed for justification.”³ The apostle Paul anticipated the question arising from this tension: “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?” (Rom. 6:1 ESV). Paul goes on to answer in the negative, of course, and continues his argument to demonstrate that though one is justified by faith alone, “faith is never alone,”⁴ that is, faith is, by necessity, accompanied by good works. Ulrich Zwingli put it this way: “Where there is true faith, works necessarily result, just as fire necessarily brings with it heat.”⁵

Our status before God is based on His promises, not our condition. Our guilt before God is removed by a free act of God’s grace toward us in Christ, for “while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8 ESV); and our faith in this declaration is the instrument by which the merits of Christ are credited to our account: “For by grace you have been saved through faith” (Eph. 2:8 ESV, emphasis mine). Philip Melanchthon noted that “when justification is attributed to faith, it is attributed to the mercy of God; it is taken out of the realm of human efforts, works, and merits.”⁶ It is important to understand that “although justification and sanctification are theologically distinct, they are practically inseparable.”⁷ Holy living is a necessary corollary of justification, not the cause of it. Sanctification is the fruit of being made right with God.

The Westminster Confession of Faith describes saving faith in this way:

By this faith, a Christian believes to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God Himself speaking therein; and acts differently upon that which each particular passage thereof contains; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come. But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.⁸

Here, the confession says that obedience is an act of faith, which corresponds to the apostle Paul’s expression, “obedience of faith” (Rom. 1:5; Rom. 16:26). Neither faith nor works are meritorious with regard to some “works-principle”; yet, both faith and works are necessary for salvation. “Both are produced by the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the converted sinner. Both are expressions of our ‘existential’ (subjective, experiential) union with Christ.”⁹ The concern here is that this insistence on the necessity of works would compromise the graciousness of the Gospel, but “the biblical concept of covenant keeps ethics tightly connected to redemption, where it should be, without confusing sanctification with justification.”¹⁰ In order for the effects of Christ’s death to be applied to a sinner, a covenant is necessary. “The covenant of grace may be unconditional in its origin, but ultimately it requires that conditions be met on man’s part because Christ’s death was a moral cause.”¹¹ It is within the context of covenant that “man exercises faith in order to receive the saving benefits of Christ’s works of impetration.”¹²

Still, practically, there is a pervasive but false assumption that haunts the sinner, which says that what he does precedes and determines his identity—that his doing determines his being. But the apostle Paul’s theology turns this on its head: one does not become righteous by doing righteous things (a la Aristotle); rather, it is God who deems a person righteous in Christ, and he is thereby able to live righteously. A Christian’s identity in Christ should be the focus of encouragement in the daily fight against sin. Through baptism, the believer is united with Christ in his baptism; he finds his identity to be bound up with Christ’s identity, and is declared righteous on that basis.¹³ By faith, the believer is united to Christ in his death, resurrection, and exaltation, and thus enjoys the “double grace”¹⁴ of reconciliation and, at the same time, the means by which to cultivate a godly life, where Christ has made one “wholeheartedly willing and ready from now on to live for him.”¹⁵

So there is hope of growing in grace and overcoming sin. Every Christian at one time or another has experienced the defeating effects of persistent sin. But though God hates sin and punishes it, he does so for the sake of spiritual remediation. It is no wonder, then, that God gives hope in the very midst of his curse on Adam and Eve after the fall (Gen. 3:15).¹⁶ This demonstration of God’s nature comes to full expression at the cross: God’s justice and mercy come together in Christ’s crucifixion. As Athanasius points out, it is unthinkable that God could go back on his word regarding the curse of death brought about by man’s sin. The only solution, then, is that the very same Word through whom God brought the world into being from nothing would be worthy to suffer and restore the image of God in man through his incarnate work.¹⁷ This is the substance of sanctifying faith: because Christ has remade us by his death, resurrection, and exaltation, we are free to live for him in righteousness.

Yet, in reality, faith is sometimes very weak in the sinner, and the work of grace seems very little and mixed with corruption. The persistent sinner is like “smoking flax”¹⁸ (Isa. 42:3; Matt. 12:20 KJV). There is a lot of smoke and only a fading, fragile flame, which is easily extinguished. But Christ will not quench the smoking flax. “In case of discouragement,” says the Puritan, Richard Sibbes, “we must consider ourselves as Christ does, who looks on us as those he intends for himself. Christ values us by what we shall be, and by what we are elected unto [not simply by what we now are]. We call a little plant a tree, because it is growing up to be so.”¹⁹ The Christian lives according to the promised future. So, the believer who struggles with sin should not immediately conclude he must not be justified before God, but rather should focus his thoughts on his identity in union with Christ as the bedrock of his salvation.

Sola fide is one of the hallmarks of Protestant doctrine, and though there were different emphases among the various Reformers, “these differences were variant modulations within the Reformers’ concerto”—they “all agreed in emphasizing justification sola fide.”²⁰ Instead of posing a challenge to the biblical doctrine of sanctification, however, justification sola fide actually provides the impetus for godly living. Good works (obedience) are not only the way of life, but they are also the way to life, “because thereby we go to the possession of the right obtained by Christ.”²¹ Samuel Rutherford said that “holy walking is a way to heaven.”²² A true Christian is evermore going to be impressed by their own failings, and yet strive evermore to fulfill the law of God. Just as faith in Christ unites us with his righteousness, so our dependence upon the Spirit of Christ ensures us of his continued sanctifying work in us, for “he who calls you is faithful; he will surely do it” (1 Thess. 5:24 ESV; cf. Phil. 2:12-13).

Bibliography

Adams, Jay E. The Christian Counselor’s Manual: The Practice of Nouthetic Counseling. Zondervan, 1973.

Beeke, Joel R., and Michael P. V. Barrett. A Radical, Comprehensive Call to Holiness. Mentor, 2021.

Calvin, John. The Institutes of the Christian Religion. Edited by John T. McNeill. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. 2. The Library of Christian Classics. Westminster John Knox Press, 2005.

Jones, Mark. Antinomianism: Reformed Theology’s Unwelcomed Guest? Presbyterian & Reformed, 2013.

Payton, James R. Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings. InterVarsity, 2010.

Wagner, Roger. “Ethics and Covenant: Covenant in Contemporary Perspective.” 3 in Backbone of the Bible, edited by P. Andrew Sandlin. Covenant Media Press, 2004.

Footnotes

1. James R. Payton, Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings (InterVarsity, 2010), 122. ↩

2. “While there were minor differences among them as to how divine grace impacts us as we come to faith, they nonetheless agreed on the main point of doctrine.” Payton, Getting the Reformation Wrong, 117. ↩

3. Payton, Getting the Reformation Wrong, 122. ↩

4. Payton, Getting the Reformation Wrong, 122. ↩

5. Ulrich Zwingli, An Exposition of Faith, in Zwingli and Bullinger, ed. and trans. G. W. Bromiley, Library of Christian Classics. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1953, p. 272. Quoted in Payton, p. 125. ↩

6. Philip Melanchthon, Loci communes theologici, in Melanchthon and Bucer, ed. Wilhelm Pauck, Library of Christian Classics. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969, p. 106. Quoted in Payton, p. 119-120. ↩

7. Joel R. Beeke and Michael P. V. Barrett, A Radical, Comprehensive Call to Holiness (Mentor, 2021), 27. ↩

8. WCF XIV:2, emphasis mine. ↩

9. Roger Wagner, “Ethics and Covenant: Covenant in Contemporary Perspective,” 3 in Backbone of the Bible, ed. P. Andrew Sandlin (Covenant Media Press, 2004), 49. ↩

10. Wagner, “Ethics and Covenant,” 50. ↩

11. Mark Jones, Antinomianism: Reformed Theology’s Unwelcomed Guest? (Presbyterian & Reformed, 2013), 69. ↩

12. Jones, Antinomianism, 69. ↩

13. Matthew Henry recounts how his father liked to say, “I’m going to hold you by your baptism.” ↩

14. John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, The Library of Christian Classics (Westminster John Knox Press, 2005), III.xi.1. ↩

15. Heidelberg Catechism, question 1. ↩

16. “While discussing the misery of the curse, God also promised the coming of the One who would deal definitively with sin and sweep away its misery. While speaking of the thorns of the ground, God also gave the first prophecy of His son, who in his own body would bear the curse of the thorn for his people. What God did, we who try to counsel in his shadow must do too.” Jay E. Adams, The Christian Counselor’s Manual: The Practice of Nouthetic Counseling (Zondervan, 1973), 40. ↩

17. Athanasius, On the Incarnation, II.6. ↩

18. Or, a “faintly burning wick” in the ESV. ↩

19. Richard Sibbes, The Bruised Reed. Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth, 1998, p. 17, emphasis mine. ↩

20. Payton, Getting the Reformation Wrong, 122. ↩

21. Herman Witsius, Conciliatory, or Irenical Animadversions, on the Controversies Agitated in Britain, under the unhappy names of Antinomians and Neonomians, trans. Thomas Bell (Glasgow: W. Lang, 1807), 162, quoted in Jones, Antinomianism, 71. ↩

22. A Survey of the Spirituall Antichrist (London, 1647), 2:37–38, quoted in Jones, Antinomianism, 71, n. 182. ↩