In the last post we broke down two of the common myths in the faith vs works debate. Arguments that would have us believe that it really has to be just one or the other. Today I want to address two more, to really make clear that the scriptures do not teach us to take part in this feud.

Myth #1: All you have to do is confess the name of Jesus, accept him as your Lord and Savior, and then you are saved.

It is remarkable that people can say this, when Jesus, himself, explicitly denounced it!

“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven,” (Matthew 7:21).

In that one passage, Jesus makes it clear that calling on his name is not enough, and he immediately follows it up by calling for actual works, doing the will of the Father.

Consider what this myth would say of the Good Samaritan. Obviously, he is a fictional character but think how this principle would apply to the man if he were real. The Good Samaritan is, as his name suggests, good. And he is good because he does good. Because he stops to save the life of a stranger. He is not called good because of his faith in the accepted theology, though. Being a Samaritan, it is implied that he holds heretical beliefs. Thus, the Good Samaritan did good works, even though he believed wrong things. Would we really say that such a man couldn’t be saved because he lacked the correct faith?

Myth #2: Those that have died without performing the essential rituals are damned, even if they had no opportunity to do so.

This is the extreme that works-focused theology can go to. A theology that would deny salvation for the vast majority of God’s children for no other reason than that they lived in the wrong time or place, and thus never even heard the name of Jesus, and therefore never took part in the necessary ordinances or sacraments. It discounts every saintly person who served the greater good in their heart, but never through the proper channels.

This theology would also deny salvation to the Good Samaritan. It might applaud the good works that he did, but he still didn’t do perform the correct ordinances, so that isn’t enough.

Now, to be clear, I actually do think that there are ordinances that are required for salvation, but rather than assuming the damnation of all those that lacked the opportunity to take part, I assume that there must be some divine plan, some grace and allowance that will bridge that gap to those who never had the gospel but would have accepted it.

Unholy Agreement)

We have looked at the most egregious outcomes faith-only and works-only models for salvation. The two at first seemed to be polar opposites but note how they actually come to the same conclusion. Each could look at a great person, one who had devoted his life to serving truth and good, who had served his fellowman all his days, “yes, you were very good, but you were not good in the right way, so you are going to hell.” Each tries to gatekeep heaven in the most uncharitable way.

I think that there is just one more point of clarification that I would like to make on the nature of good works tomorrow, and then after that we will start to explore a theological explanation that satisfies all of the scriptures we have seen. One that both allows God to make mandatory requirements of us, but which acknowledges that we all need grace, and which offers mercy to those who never had an opportunity to worship God “the right way.”