The Bible does not explicitly command Christians to join a church because it assumes that they already have. Today there are scores of Christians who think it’s enough to attend a good church but never make a commitment. For some reason, they have come to see membership as optional rather than as a Scriptural mandate.

But the New Testament presupposes membership in several ways; by the words & phrases, pictures, and commands it uses in relation to the church. Consider the following examples:

Words & Phrases

“Yet none of the rest dared to join them” (Acts 5:13). After the death of Ananias and Sapphira, Luke tells us that “great fear came upon the church, and as many as heard these things” (v. 11). Because they were disciplined for their lie, the people realized that God was zealous for the purity and integrity of His church and it made them afraid. As a result, Luke says, “none of the rest dared to join them” (v. 15).
In this statement, the Greek term for “join” is κολλάω and has strong connotations of commitment and intimacy. The same word is used to describe someone being hired for a job (commitment) as when the prodigal son “joined himself” to a man who paid him to feed his swine (Lk. 15:15). Likewise, Paul uses this term to describe the “one flesh” unity resulting from sexual relations (1 Cor. 6:16-17), showing that this term carries the idea of great intimacy.

When Luke says that no man dared to “join” the apostles, the point is not that they refused to visit their meetings or listen to their preaching. Rather, the point is that they refused to make the same commitment to the congregation that other people had. In other words, the distinction in verse 11 between “the church” and “as many as heard these things” never went away, for the people in the latter group never joined the church.

“If the whole church comes together in one place” (1 Cor. 14:23). When the biblical writers use the phrase “the whole church” it indicates that there is a definite numeric value to the membership of each congregation. If this were not the case, then how could they know if the whole church was ever gathered together in one place? This argument is simple but forceful. Just as the phrase “the whole year” makes sense only if we know exactly how many days are in the year, so the phrase “the whole church” makes sense only if we know exactly how many people are in the church. It stands to reason that to identify the whole, half, or even part of the church means that some formal relationship had been established. Otherwise, it becomes an impossible task and the scriptural phrase loses its meaning.

Pictures of the Church

“But now indeed there are many members, yet one body” (1 Cor. 12:20). “And you are members of the household of God” (Eph. 2:19). The Bible uses many pictures and metaphors to teach us that the church is an institution with vertical and horizontal commitments. In each of these pictures, we learn that we are not to view ourselves merely as individuals united to the same entity, but united to one another as well.

For example, in the body the parts are not just “members of the body” (1 Cor. 12:12), they are also “members of one another” (Rom. 12:15). Likewise, in the household the parts are not just laid on the same foundation (Eph. 2:20), they are also “framed together” (v 23) and “built together” (v. 24) to form a holy habitation of God.

The implication of this horizontal unity is that church membership involves more than an abstract, invisible, and undefined relationship between you and God. Rather, membership in the body of Christ is a concrete, visible reality that can be known and seen, kept and broken, established and removed. It is a reality that exists between you and God, to be sure, but also between you and the other members of the church.

Biblical Commands

“Obey those who have the rule over you, and be submissive” (Heb. 12:17). “Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers” (1 Pet. 5:2). If you never join a church, it is impossible for you to “obey those who have the rule over you.” This is true for obvious reasons, one of which is that without the formal structures of membership in place, it is impossible to tell the difference between a member and a ruler.

A similar problem arises with the command for rulers to “shepherd the flock of God.” How can elders identify the particular flock that God holds them responsible for unless Christians formally align themselves with particular congregations?

Suppose Mr. Smith attends First Presbyterian Church for two years but never joins. Then he wanders over to Elm Street Baptist Church, but again he does not join. After attending Elm Street Baptist for six weeks, is Mr. Smith now under the pastoral care of the elders at Elm Street Baptist or the elders at First Presbyterian?

How can the elders of a church know whom they are charged to shepherd apart from congregants taking vows of membership? How can elders know when they are released from their responsibility to shepherd an individual unless that individual informs them that he has made a formal commitment to another church?

“And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church” (Mat. 18:17). “What have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside?” (1 Cor. 5:12). Throughout the Bible, God draws a clear line between those on the “inside” and those on the “outside” of the church. Psalm 87:6 says, “the Lord records as he registers the peoples: this one was born there.” One of the reasons for keeping records is that the church must be properly and carefully managed by adding and subtracting members. Otherwise, what does it mean that Christ will or will not blot out certain names from His book (Rev. 3:5)?

In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul reminds us that in cases of unrepentant sin it is the duty of church leaders to “purge out” the old leaven from among them (1 Cor. 5:7). This is a reference to ex-communication, a function that depends entirely on the formal difference of status between members and non-members. And this is not just another technical point. We should also consider the practicality of this as well.

If we have all kinds of people attending our church, including some who may be involved in scandalous sin, how do we protect the testimony of Christ among us when outsiders say, “So and So, that crooked businessman, goes to Church of the King!” The answer is simple. If we have church membership, our response would be, “Yes, he attends our church, but he’s not a member. We’re just glad he’s coming and inquiring about Christ.”

But when someone who is a member gets involved in scandalous sin and is unrepentant, our response would be very different, “We are presently confronting him about his sin. If he does not repent, the day will come when he will be put out of the church.”

Pastor Paul Liberati, 3/2/2022

When the average Evangelical Christian talks about being “saved” he usually refers to the first moment of conversion, or justification by faith in Christ. He tends to reduce salvation to a past event in the believer’s life: “For by grace you have been saved through faith” (Eph. 2:8). From this perspective, salvation is something that has already been accomplished.
But this perspective is myopic. The Bible paints a far richer picture, presenting salvation as an ongoing journey that culminates in the future. Believers have been saved, are being saved, and will be saved on the Last Day: “And the Lord added to the church daily those who are being saved” (Acts 2:47); “But he who endures to the end shall be saved” (Mt. 24:13).

When we take a bird’s eye view, salvation emerges as a dynamic process with three phases: initiation, continuation, and completion. While all Evangelicals can agree that salvation begins with faith alone in Christ alone, there has been some debate about the role of good works in the latter phases, especially between Lutheran and Reformed theologians. Both traditions hold to the necessity of good works in a believer’s life, yet historically, Reformed theologians had far less of a problem asserting that good works are “necessary to salvation.” Francis Turretin (1623-1687) explains:

"Although the proposition concerning the necessity of good works to salvation 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." (1)

In addition to his disagreements with Lutherans, Turretin acknowledged that some Reformed theologians hesitated to affirm the necessity of good works for salvation. However, he was clear that he himself was not among them. Turretin believed that this doctrine should continue to be upheld and taught, with the only caveat being that it must be properly understood and accurately explained.

The purpose of this essay is to explain as accurately and concisely as possible what might be called the Reformed doctrine of the Necessity of Good Works.

Produced After Conversion 

The first thing to note about good works is their location. On this point, the Reformed doctrine leaves no room for confusion: good works do not precede the initial reception of salvation. Augustine’s maxim that “Good works do not precede them that are to be justified, but follow them that are justified,” (2) was known and accepted among all Reformation Divines, including the Reformed.

Zacharias Ursinus (1534-1583), the principal author of the Heidelberg Catechism, declared: “We may safely and correctly say that good works are necessary in them that are justified and that are to be saved.” (3) Likewise, Henry Alsted (1588-1638), in his polemical work against the papists, reinforced this stance: “Good works do not precede one justified, but necessarily follow one justified, and precede unto salvation.” (4)

Turretin was more specific, arguing that good works come after justification, during sanctification, but before glorification:

"Works can be considered in three ways: they are related to justification not antecedently but consequently. They are related to sanctification constitutively because they constitute and promote it. They are related to glorification antecedently because they are related to it as the means to the end." (5)

Understanding the right position of good works is crucial because it underscores that it is the believer who is in view. Before a person believes in Jesus Christ, none of his works can be “good” in the fullest and most important sense, for “a bad tree cannot bear good fruit” (Mt. 7:18) and “without faith it is impossible to please God” (Heb. 11:6). Therefore, recognizing the proper location of these works is the first step to comprehending how the various aspects of the doctrine fit together.

Necessary for Salvation

Having established that good works appear between justification and salvation, Reformed theologians were not satisfied with saying that believers are merely expected to produce them. Rather, they argued that, in the course of an ordinary Christian life, the production of good works is an indispensable necessity. In fact, they asserted that good works are so necessary that a man cannot be saved without them. This was expressed by their use of the Latin phrase sine qua non, meaning “without which there is nothing.”

Returning to Alsted, the fuller text of his treatment reads: “Controversy 10: Whether Good Works are Necessary? The Orthodox: Good works are ordinarily necessary by adults out of the supposition or necessity: …3. Of a means, so far as they are the way of salvation, a condition and cause sine qua non.” (6) Peter Van Mastricht (1630-1706) put it this way: Good works are necessary by divine prescript for receiving the possession of life “as conditions without which God refuses to bestow salvation upon us.” (7)

American theologian and philosopher, Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758), further unpacks this concept:

"There are many other things besides faith, which are directly proposed to us, to be pursued or 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." (8)

It is important to note the future tense in Edwards’ statement. If these things (besides faith) are performed by us, we shall have eternal life. But if they are not performed, we shall perish instead. Edwards is speaking with an eye toward the judgment on the Last Day."

Turretin gave a similar “eye-to-the-future” presentation:

"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."

Turretin’s two-stage distinction between the acquisition of salvation and its obtainment appears to align with the initial reception of salvation and its final possession on the Last Day. In the former case, he asserts that good works contribute nothing; however, in the latter case, he emphasizes their indispensable role: no one can be saved without them.

A few pages later, he wrote:

"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 indispensable necessity of good works for obtaining glory." (10)

At this juncture, it is crucial to note that this was not a late development in Reformed theology but a fundamental conviction present from the beginning. While Philip Melanchthon was working on the Saxon Confession to articulate the Lutheran position, Martin Bucer (1491–1551) and Wolfgang Capito (1478–1541) published the German Tetrapolitan Confession of 1530—the first distinctively Reformed confession. In Chapter 5, they boldly declared: “We are so far from rejecting good works that we utterly deny that anyone 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.”

From the beginning, then, our reformers held a strong and robust view of the relationship between good works and salvation. Contrary to what some would later suggest, good works—proceeding from faith and empowered by the Spirit—are not mere optional accessories. Indeed, that was precisely what our first confession “utterly denied.”

But we must go further. After examining the sequence and necessity of good works, we must turn to their “causal” nature. As the Scottish Reformed theologian William Forbes (1585-1634) pointed out: “Very many passages of Holy Scriptures clearly demonstrate that good works have to salvation not merely the relation ‘of order’ but also a causal relation.”11

Causes of Eternal Life

It may come as news to those in Reformed churches today that many of their own theologians of the 16th and 17th centuries believed, taught, and defended the proposition that good works are a “cause” of our salvation. Nevertheless, this is a distinguishing feature of their theological heritage and one that must be recovered if the antinomian tendencies that have crept into the church would be effectively resisted.

In keeping with Turretin’s exhortation to explain these things accurately, we must understand the various types of causes the Reformed had in view when they articulated their position. Building on Aristotle’s idea that a ‘cause’ is anything that brings about motion or change, Reformed theologians often referred to five types: (1) The efficient cause is the agent that initiates motion or change in any sequence of causes and effects; (2) the instrumental cause is the means by which an end or goal is achieved; (3) the material cause is the substance that undergoes change; (4) the formal cause is the essence or defining nature of the thing, determining what it becomes; (5) the final cause is the ultimate purpose for which something is made or an action is performed.

To use a common illustration, consider the existence of a sculpture in its relation to these five causes. The efficient cause is the sculptor, the material cause is the marble, the instrumental causes are the hammer and chisel, the formal cause is the finished statue, and the final cause is the purpose for which the statue was made.

With this in view, it is important to note that with few exceptions Reformed theologians taught that good works are a cause of our salvation in an instrumental sense—that is, good works serve as the means by which we gain eternal life. (12) Of course, this is not to say that the right to eternal life is somehow acquired by our works. Rather, the right to life is grounded in the obedience of Jesus Christ and initially secured by the reception of true, living, and persevering faith. But this faith is followed by good works, which are now the means by which we finally possess this God-given gift of Life.

John Calvin (1509-1564) was careful to delineate the matter in similar terms:  

"Moreover, when Scripture intimates that the good works of believers are causes why the Lord does them good, we must still understand the meaning so as to hold unshaken what has previously been said—namely, that the efficient cause of our salvation is placed in the love of God the Father; the material cause in the obedience of the Son; the instrumental cause in the illumination of the Spirit, that is, in faith; and the final cause in the praise of the divine goodness. In this, however, there is nothing to prevent the Lord from embracing works as inferior causes. But how so? In this way: Those whom in mercy he has destined for the inheritance of eternal life, he, in his ordinary administration, introduces to the possession of it by means of good works." (13)

Jerome Zanchi (1516-1590), one of the most learned Italian Reformers, articulated Calvin’s position in more concise terms, when he said: “Good works are an instrumental cause of the possession of eternal life, for by these as by media and by the legitimate path God leads us into the possession of eternal life.” (14) Likewise, Gisbertus Voetius (1589-1676), after extensive deliberation on this issue, arrived at the same conclusion: “Works are a cause of salvation, and certainly ‘instrumental’ is more to be preferred than ‘efficient’.” (15)

Then, Scottish Presbyterian and Westminster Divine, Samuel Rutherford (1600-1661) declared that good works are inferior, instrumental causes of entering eternal life and (perhaps following Turretin) made a compelling biblical case for this position. Assembling many of the relevant statements of Scripture, Rutherford emphasized the active nature of good works, explicitly rejecting the so-called distinction between a means and a cause.

"Good works are understood to have a causative power for eternal life in three ways… 2. That they might have an inferior and causal instrumental power conferred upon them by the grace of God, just as running is a cause of the crown which is received, contending a cause of the victory, and diet a cause of health." (16)

He further elaborated:

"While good works are means, they are not passive, but active: a means here is an inferior cause. Therefore it is said, ‘For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory’ (2 Cor. 4:17). ‘They work’; they are causing for us, as the Holy Spirit speaks, 2 Cor. 4:17. Neither can we distinguish here between causes and signs, for mere signs have no causality; neither is the dawn in any way a cause of the day, it is rather a sign of the day; nor is smoke a cause, even an inferior one, of fire. Our running by good works, though, has an active causality unto the actual possession of eternal life, as the Scripture says: 1 Cor. 9:24-25; Heb. 12:1." (17)

Non-Meritorious Causes

We may ask the question: How exactly do good works function as a means or cause of eternal life? Johannes Piscator (1546-1625) explained it with an apt illustration:

"As if a treasure hid at the top of a mountain were given to someone, but on this condition, that if he wished to possess it, he must ascend the mountain and dig it out; here certainly 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." (18)

Piscator’s analogy provides a vivid and challenging picture. The act of climbing the mountain and digging for the treasure symbolizes the necessary actions required to obtain the treasure, which in this case represents the gift of eternal life. It is important to underscore, however, that while good works are the means by which we realize our salvation, this does not imply that salvation is somehow “earned” or “merited” by them. Instead the analogy clarifies that while the process of climbing and digging (good works) is what actualizes the possession and enjoyment of the treasure (eternal life), the treasure itself was freely given. This distinction is subtle, but critical to grasp.

To make it more apparent, consider a statement put forth by Edward Veale, the esteemed Puritan editor of Matthew Poole’s Annotations. In his work, “Whether the Good Works of Believers be Meritorious of Salvation,” Veale asserts:

"We acknowledge that obedience is required in a son before he comes 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; it is not meritorious of it. There is no right to the inheritance acquired by his obedience which he did not have before. The Israelites were to fight and subdue their enemies before 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?" (19)

Veale’s distinction between obedience and merit is helpful because it shows that something can be necessary without being meritorious. Every man must breathe to live, but who would argue that the use of his lungs has earned him the right to live? In the same way, saying that a man must work, strive, and labor to secure the possession of eternal life does not imply that he somehow earned it by that work.

To elucidate this, note that Veale describes salvation in filial rather than commercial terms. Unlike the wages that a man pays to his employee, an “inheritance” is what a loving father promises to give to his faithful son. In other words, wages are paid as a matter of debt, but inheritance is ever in the realm of Gift. (20)

Nevertheless, after all is said and done—and all the qualifications are in their place—the theologians of the Reformed tradition insisted on their common conviction: in light of the gracious provision and promise of eternal life, every man must do something in order to secure its possession. This was staunchly maintained by Herman Witsius (1636-1708), the great covenant theologian of the Dutch Reformed tradition. In the 16th chapter of his Irenicum, he cites numerous passages of Scripture to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that walking the path of active Christian piety is the only way to reach eternal life.

"Scripture teaches that a man must do something that he may obtain the possession of the salvation purchased by Christ. Paul expressly says, ‘Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling,’ Phil. 2:12. 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, but the practice of Christian piety is the way to life because thereby we go to its possession. And what does Christ himself understand by that narrow way which leadeth unto life, Matt. 7:14, but strict practice of Christian religion, which is called the way of salvation, Acts. 16:17. It is certain indeed that the true Christian lives to Christ, that is, to his glory: but it does not follow from thence that he does nothing for his own advantage." (21)

Our Evangelical Righteousness

One reason many Reformed Christians today have a hard time accepting the thesis of this paper is that their view of righteousness is deficient. In their minds, there is only one kind of righteousness, which they understand to be a sinless moral perfection in the eyes of God’s Law. In Question 62 of the Heidelberg Catechism, it is asked: “But why cannot our good works be the whole or part of our righteousness before God?” The answer is: “Because the righteousness which can stand before the judgment seat of God must be perfect throughout and entirely conformable to the divine law, but even our best works in this life are all imperfect and defiled with sin.”

It must be said that this reasoning is true, but only insofar as the righteousness in view is placed in a legal context, and salvation is something to be earned by the merits of good works. But when righteousness is defined in covenantal terms, with salvation as something to be obtained, the answer of the catechism simply does not apply. There is a difference here that must be maintained—not just of terms and definitions but of contexts and perspectives. So long as we are talking about meriting salvation, the Reformed are unanimously against the use of good works. However, when all notions of merit are stripped from the equation, and salvation is viewed in gracious, covenantal categories, the same theologians affirm that good works play a necessary and decisive role—even in the final vindication of the believer on the Last Day.

John Owen (1616-1683), arguably the greatest of the English puritan theologians, confirms this when he says:

"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 indispensably requires personal obedience of him; which may be called his evangelical righteousness. (2) That God approves of and accepts, in Christ, this righteousness so performed. (3) That hereby that faith whereby we are justified is evidenced, proved, and manifested in the sight of God and men. (4) That this righteousness is pleadable unto an acquittal 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 be so." (22)

In this statement, the first and second propositions are especially important. According to Owen, God approves and accepts the righteousness performed by his people. But this is not the legal righteousness referred to in the Heidelberg Catechism. Rather, he describes it as an “evangelical righteousness,” consisting of the personal obedience of those united to Jesus Christ and empowered by the Holy Spirit. This righteousness is performed by the living and believing members of the covenant of grace.

In propositions three and four, Owen states that this righteousness functions in several ways, including as evidence of true faith and as the means by which all false accusations can be visibly disproved. Most importantly, however, Owen declares in the fifth proposition that it is “upon this righteousness” that we will be declared righteous on the Last Day, and that without it, none shall be declared righteous.

Rejected by Many Today

This language is often startling to those in Reformed churches today, partly because their pastors have departed from the convictions of previous generations, and partly because the average layman rarely (if ever) reads the Reformed theologians of the past for himself. Consequently, when he hears this teaching in a modern context, he doesn’t know how to respond. His knee-jerk reaction, and often to his own embarrassment, is to condemn it as heretical, not realizing that in doing so, he is anathematizing the fathers of his own Reformed Faith.
But for all the confusion and unnecessary controversy, one thing is unmistakably clear: for men like Bucer, Calvin, Zanchi, Rutherford, Turretin, Witsius, Owen, and many others, this was nothing more than plain, vanilla-flavored Reformed Theology.

Pastor Paul Liberati, 8/31/2024