The Role of Works Quiz

Welcome to No Compromise Radio, a ministry coming to you from Bethlehem Bible Church in West Boylston.

No Compromise Radio is a program dedicated to the ongoing proclamation of Jesus Christ, based on the theme in Galatians 2, verse 5, where the

Apostle Paul said, But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you.

In short, if you like smooth, watered -down words to make you simply feel good, this show isn't for you.

By purpose, we are first biblical, but we can also be controversial. Stay tuned for the next 25 minutes as we're called by the divine trumpet to summon the troops for the honor and glory of her

King. Here's our host, Pastor Mike Abendroth. Welcome to No Compromise Radio, a ministry. My name's

Mike Abendroth, and I'm without Steve today. I just was doing a show a couple days ago.

Steve, you were here, and you're not here. You can write me, Mike, at NoCompromiseRadio .com.

Working on a new website for the church and for the station, the show. Happy to be on KAGV and KFGR.

I guess those have to be on the West Coast, because out here it's a W. It starts with a W. Gospel Assurance, a 31 -day guide to assurance, is available on Amazon.

If you want to order 10 copies or more, email me. We'll get you a drop ship and make it a little bit cheaper for you.

Who was it? Justin or someone sent a picture on Twitter, and it showed,

I think, his wife putting five gospel assurance books in one of those little free library deals, little kiosk, different places around town.

You can drop off books, pick up books. I wonder what'll happen. Right? Kind of exciting.

Today, I talk a little bit about a ... I talk a little bit.

I talk a little bit. Somebody said, do you have an editor? Do you have somebody who can go through the shows and take out certain things?

I don't think I do. It's obvious, isn't it?

As my daughter would say, Avi, it is obvious. Although I am trying to change up the intro.

We're working on that. I got some new equipment. If you'd like to contribute to that,

I think you can go to Patreon and do that very thing. We have a few remaining Patreon subscribers, and I thank you if you're doing that.

I want to talk a little bit about works in the place that they should be.

What about our works? Are we against works? Do we want to be antinomian?

Do we want to be legalist? What do we do with works? Now, I'm not talking about Jesus' works.

I'm talking about our works. So our works, where do we put them? Where should we think?

How do we think about them? Where do they go? Well, they better not go in the justification category, because they're imperfect, and to stand before God, you need perfection.

That's why Christ works need to go there. But can we put them in the response to God's work in our life, in the sanctification category, the holy living category, the gratitude category?

Faith is alone -saving, right, because it's the object of our faith that saves.

But that faith, next category, isn't alone. So we're going to look at back in 1991,

November, December, Modern Reformation article, and it's on page 32,

Affirmations and Denials, and it has 10 statements. And so let's go through these 10 statements, and let's see if we can figure out if they're right or not.

Number one, it is impossible that saving faith can exist without a new nature and thereby new affections, love, desire for holiness, etc.

What do you say? True or false? It's impossible for saving faith to exist without a new nature and thereby new affections.

I think that's true, don't you? It's impossible, and if God justifies,

He sanctifies, right? What we're after here on the show, and I'm sure what the cure is after,

Christians United for Reformation, I think that's what it used to be called, was it not? Christians United for Reformation, yes, and I think it's now,

I don't know, what is it called now? Not just White Horse Inn, but something else,

Alliance for Confessing Evangelicals, correct. Thank you, Steve, for helping me. Obviously, there are works.

Faith is alone, but that faith won't be alone. Number two, saving faith is nevertheless not the same thing as such affections or desires and does not include in its definition the effects of which the new birth is the cause.

True or false? So, saving faith isn't the same as these affections and doesn't include these affections, like love, in its definition, and the answer to this is true.

There is a, I think, kind of a little mini revival where people want something to be in faith, in the definition of faith, that's not there in Reformation studies.

We believe knowledge, assent, and trust. That's the definition of saving faith. Well, if you try to put in obedience into that definition, people would say, no, no, you can't do that.

We're against that. We're not Catholic, Roman Catholic. But people are starting to put in affections and desire and love, and I'm trying to tell you don't do that.

If you want affections, desires, and love, well, fine. New affections and love and a desire for holiness, let's just make sure that's in the right category.

That's not in the category of justification. It's in the holy living category. It's in what we'd call, generally speaking, the sanctification category.

And therefore, when people are starting to put love and affections into the definition of faith, or if we see

Federal Vision people saying it's a living faith, they're not talking about the sanctification side. They're talking about the justification side.

It's a living faith on that side with a desire to obey and love and affections.

In our house, when the kids were growing up, that's called a no -no. That's a no -no.

You can see a little kid's going to go over and touch something. It's going to hurt them or something. That's a no -no.

Maybe that should be the show's name today. That's a no -no. Why don't we ever say, that's a yes -yes?

That's a no -no. Many people try to do this. And I think

I should probably say this too. When you're studying the Bible, Biblicism, the bad

Biblicism, does this in the Bible study. Yes, I know there are 15 verses that talk about the deity of Jesus.

But what about this verse that seems to deny it? And what Biblicism ignores, many things, including, well, we have an analogy of faith.

Analogy of Scripture and analogy of faith, I think two separate things. Some don't, but let's use the analogy of faith.

What does the Bible teach? Almost you could think about it as a systematic theology. What doctrines does it teach about the triune

God? And when you come to a passage that talks about God, you're thinking about He's triune, one

God, three persons, Father unbegotten, Son begotten, not made,

Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son, et cetera. There's a lot of stuff that you think of when you come to the text.

And so if somebody gives me a verse that says Jesus didn't die for everybody, I know those other 20 teach that, but here's one that shows that He didn't.

That's not how you do Bible study. You read the many in light of the few or the few in light of the many.

Do you use analogy of faith? But people do the same thing when it comes to their favorite

Puritans, their favorite writers, their favorite Reformers. Yes, I know

John Owen in his 16 volumes taught this about saving faith, knowledge, assent, and trust.

But look at this. Look at this quote in this other volume that it seems like it contradicts it.

And I just say, don't be a Biblicist even when it comes to not just Scripture, but also people's writings.

We can factor in, in addition, don't we grow? Aren't we continuing to mature as Christians?

Do you think John Owen, his earlier writings were as doctrinally sound and precise as his later writings?

The answer is no. You can even see the growth in John Owen. I have the list of the 16 volumes and what section was written in what year, and you can see how he's refined in his monergistic sanctification for instance, and for your interest too.

Therefore, be careful. I'm going to give me a quote that seems to teach the opposite of what one of these guys taught, and therefore it's true.

Here's a quote. Why don't I just give you another quote back to teach the opposite?

What are we supposed to do? We have to look at the entire corpus of their writings and say, oh, especially when they were older and they were more defined.

I mean, if I rewrote Sexual Fidelity, and I probably should, I think I'd probably make it more

Christ -centered. I think I would make it more motivation out of gratitude. I think

I would make it, did I say Christ -centered? Not that it isn't. I mean, there's a chapter you can wear white on your wedding day and God forgives, etc.

But anyway, you have to be careful. Number three, it is not enough to say that we are justified and accepted by grace alone, for even

Rome agreed that it is only by God's grace that we can become transformed in holiness. We must add that we are justified by grace alone through faith alone, and it is a great error to change the meaning of faith to include acts of obedience and repentance in an effort to make a disposition other than knowledge, assent, and trust a condition of justification.

Okay, that's interesting, and I think the answer there is true.

Let's make sure we use things like the solas. Every time I say through faith,

I add the alone. Every time I say by grace, I try to add the alone, because I'm trying to distinguish

Christians. We distinguish. We distinguish.

Let's see. Here is what Kim Riddlebogger says,

Riddlebogger, Riddlebarger, Barger, excuse me, Kim. For repentance will never unite us to Christ nor justify us.

We cannot be saved without it, yet we are not saved by it. It is Christ who saves us by grace through faith alone, alone, and repentance, good works, and other effects of faith are

God the Holy Spirit's fruit to bear witness in our lives, not good works that we have to perform to earn his favor or to prove that we have faith, end quote.

All right, no compromise radio. Statement number four, true or false, the definition of saving faith is knowledge, which we take to mean the intellectual grasp of the relevant historical and doctrinal facts concerning Christ person and work and our misery, assent or the volitional agreement of our heart and mind that these facts are true, and trust, which is the assurance that these facts which are true are not only generally true, but true in my own case.

In this, I abandon all hope for acceptance with God besides the holiness and righteousness of Christ.

True or false? Well, I think most of it's true, and so I'm going to say in general true.

The only thing I would take exception with here, by the way, I loved it when it says I abandon all hope for acceptance with God besides the holiness and righteousness of Christ.

Isn't that good? Isn't that what saving faith essentially says? I abandon any other kind of hope.

Is it not true that there's knowledge? We understand this historical God -man. Is it not true that we give assent and we agree that these things are true?

Not just true generally, but for me, I love that. I just wouldn't say assent or volitional agreement.

I think J .I. Packer's right when he writes in his book about the Puritans. There's a chapter on justification.

Oh, yeah, that doctrine. And knowledge, assent, and trust, he said it was the

Arminians that used the volitional language in the definition of saving faith. Volitional is fine in sanctification.

And they would say things that aren't truly in a fiduciary category like trust.

And therefore, I just wouldn't say volitional agreement. I would just say agreement. Number five, not only, this is funny, their typeset wasn't so good back in 1991.

Neither was mine. O -N -1 -Y. That's supposed to be only, but it's

O -N -1 -Y. O -N -1 -E. That's a no -no. Not only is the ground of our justification the personal work of Christ, the assurance, hope, and comfort that this salvation belongs to us must have

Christ alone as its sufficient object and faith as its sufficient instrument.

True or false? You say, well, this is hard for me to hear. I have to kind of replay it to figure it out.

So, instead of pushing rewind, or the backward arrow for 15 seconds, not only is the ground of our justification the personal work of Christ, okay, so far so good, yes, true, the assurance, hope, and comfort that this salvation belongs to us must have

Christ alone as its sufficient object and faith as its sufficient instrument. Sounds good to me.

I'm a big, fat true. Number six. Let's see, what do we have here?

We stop and pause for a moment here as I drink some Keurig coffee. I never thought

I would be forced to drink Keurig, Keurig, Keurig, how do you spell it? K -E -U -K -E -R,

K -E -U -K -E -R. How do you say IKEA if you're German? I think it's something like IKEA.

You are never supposed to slurp on the radio. Now I've heard with this new board that I'm going to get that it's going to bring the slurping sounds to the forefront, so I better be careful.

I'm told that this microphone I have is just a fine microphone. So we'll keep these microphones and we'll get a new board.

New music, there's going to be new intro music, new outro music, new narrator's voice, and the narration to reflect the new focus of No Compromise Radio, that is

Duplex Gratio. Number six, cures affirmations and denials as we're thinking about where do works go?

I could tell you about a Tom Tom Club song. What's a word's worth? Word's worth.

Where's the works go? Works go. Number six, while evidences of the new birth can be discerned by ourselves and others, such evidences do not have sufficient righteousness or holiness to form a ground of assurance or a clear conscience.

True or false? And the answer is, that's a yes, yes, that's true.

We can see evidences of the Holy Spirit in our life, love, joy, peace. Isn't it interesting, it's not saying in Galatians 5 to go get those.

It's saying this is what the Spirit does in your life. It's what He does, not what you're supposed to do.

I know. We can discern some of those things, can we not?

Oh, this is what the Bible says Christians do? I see that I like to do some of that and I actually do some of that and even though I don't have good attitudes, sometimes

I fall short, but I repent, but that's my desire. Who gave you that desire? Of course, the

Spirit of God did. Oh, then I must be a Christian because I see the Lord working in my life.

You can see those evidences. Now, the one thing I will say with others seeing those fruits, the fruit, to be singular in Galatians 5, they can't see attitudes.

You could see somebody's face and say, oh, they're smiling, they have joy, but maybe they're just happy, right?

It might not be joy. Can you see somebody's peace? Well, they look really peaceful.

Well, they can be like the duck that's going across the water very peacefully on the outside, but on the underside of the water, you know, paddling like mad.

My point is you can't see someone's attitude. You can see some of their works and you can, if you're the person looking at yourself, you can notice some of those attitudes.

They quote Calvin in this number six, what's a work worth? A fine confidence of salvation is left to us if by moral conjecture we judge that at the present moment we are in grace and we know not what will become of us tomorrow.

Number seven, we affirm that although no one will be justified by works, no one will be saved without them.

Okay, what does he mean there? What does he mean? Does he mean there's going to be a final justification?

You're going to be saved by your works, this final justification stuff that's floating around out there.

They're just saying very simply, I think in light of federal vision and other stuff, they would nuance it a little bit more, final justification stuff.

I think they're going to say, listen, when God saves you, he sanctifies you.

And you say, well, what about the thief on the cross? I mean, the thief on the cross had a lot of good works. He not only recognized his own sin, but he also told people, the person next to him, told the person next to him to stop saying what he was saying because he,

Jesus, was in fact right and they were both wrong. Number eight, we affirm that it is contempt and presumption, not faith, that produces apathy with regard to the commands of God.

All right, now we get into the antinomian issue. Okay, if you're right with God, there's nothing you can do to undo it or to seal it even more.

You are good to the day of redemption, sealed by the Spirit of God. There's no condemnation. Jesus paid for all your sins, past, present, and future.

You have his perfect righteousness. You can't become more righteous in God's eyes. Well, that's going to make me slack.

That's going to make me be lazy. That's going to make me sin that grace might abound.

Well, let's hope not. It says, it is contempt and presumption, not faith, that produces apathy.

When you are apathetic and you are not wanting to obey God, that's not because it's knowledge, assent, and trust.

That's not because of anything that God did. It's called your own doing, your own sinful habits.

Number nine, we're actually going to finish this. He seeks to tear

Christ apart who imagines a Savior without a Lord. Christ offers no priesthood outside his prophetic ministry and kingly reign.

So, what do you think? What do you think? Jesus, prophet, priest, and king, right? And some will say, well, you can't have

Jesus as Savior unless you have him as Lord. You don't make Jesus Lord.

He is Lord. You have to accept him both as Savior and Lord. You can't accept him just as Savior.

And whatever's right and wrong in those statements, why don't you just start thinking this way?

Jesus is prophet, priest, and king. And they're not to be divided, right?

They're different offices, as it were, but they're not divided. He is that, right?

Jesus is the God -man. We don't divide or commingle or anything like that, the divine and the human.

Jesus is prophet, priest, and king. And therefore, if he is going to save you, what do priests do?

Priests offer sacrifices and pray. He is the sacrifice, of course, not just the sacrificer.

And, of course, he prays for us. His prophetic ministry has gone through the apostles and prophets and others to have the word proclaimed to us so we know what our response is to God.

And then his lordship talks about his kingly reign. And you go, I want Jesus as priest but not king.

Maybe that's a better way to say it. Maybe you can think through it. No, Jesus is not going to offer priesthood outside his prophetic ministry and kingly reign.

So the answer to that is true. And then finally, number 10. Those who are confident in this, that because they have exercised their will or mind in such a way that God is obligated thereby to save them, show contempt for God's holiness in Christ's cross.

If you are confident, I think that's true. I think they're all true, 1 through 10.

You're confident in what? You know what? It's my will, my mind. I've done something.

God, now you must respond. That's dumb. That's showing contempt.

It's not I've accepted Jesus in my heart and now he has to save me. God, you must do this because I have done that.

I initiate and you must respond. I think that's what they're after. If you understand obedience as a consequence, you're going to be fine.

It's a consequence to justification. And then you say, okay, as a consequence, fruit, evidence, something like that, you're going to say, fine.

Out of gratitude, I want to obey. I have the desire to walk by faith now as a Christian and to surrender and yield and volitionally love and obey.

If you say you don't need any works, well, then you are truly an antinomian. No law.

And if you say, well, the condition for my justification is works, then that's the technical thing for legalist, right?

Legalist isn't I don't celebrate Halloween. I don't smoke tobacco. I don't drink. I don't,

I don't, I don't, I don't wear this kind of pants. I don't wear this kind of hat. I don't, I don't, I don't. That's modern parlance legalism.

But technically speaking, look at Galatians. It's adding in works for justification as a necessary condition instead of a consequence.

So if you start saying condition, consequence, no, I don't need a necessary condition of my works.

I need a necessary confidence. Necessary consequence.

My name is Mike Havenroth. This is No Compromise Radio Ministry. Gospel Assurance, a 31 -day guide to assurance found on Amazon.

We're working on Audible and Kindle as we speak, if those are up your alley, and maybe some new 31 -day guides in the future.

Thanks for listening. Tell your friends. Rate us on iTunes. No Compromise Radio with Pastor Mike Havenroth is a production of Bethlehem Bible Church in West Boylston.

Bethlehem Bible Church is a Bible -teaching church firmly committed to unleashing the life -transforming power of God's Word through verse -by -verse exposition of the sacred text.

Please come and join us. Our service times are Sunday morning at 1015 and in the evening at 6. We're right on Route 110 in West Boylston.

You can check us out online at bbchurch .org or by phone at 508 -835 -3400.