Journal: Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society
Volume: JOTGES 28:55 (Autumn 2015)
Article: The Role Of Good Works In Justification: A Review Of Chapter 16 Of Thomas Schreiner’s "Faith Alone—The Doctrine Of Justification"
Author: Robert N. Wilkin

---

JOTGES 28:55 (Autumn 2015) p. 3

The Role Of Good Works In Justification:
A Review Of Chapter 16 Of Thomas Schreiner’s Faith Alone—The Doctrine Of Justification

Robert N. Wilkin

Associate Editor
Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society
Corinth, TX

I. Introduction

Dr. Thomas R. Schreiner is the James Buchanan Harrison Professor of New Testament and the Associate Dean of Scripture and Interpretation at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. That school strongly advocates five-point Calvinism and justification by faith alone (understood from a Calvinist perspective).

Over the past few decades the way in which Calvinists explain justification by faith alone—sola fide in Latin—has changed somewhat. While Calvinists have long spoken of true faith (i.e., faith that perseveres in obedience to the end of life), they have been reluctant to actually say that good works are necessary for justification.

No longer.

In his new book, Faith Alone—The Doctrine of Justification,1 Schreiner freely and repeatedly says that good works are necessary for justification. In fact, Chapter 16 is entitled “The Role of Good Works in Justification” (pp. 191-206). In this article I am responding to that chapter. I have adopted Schreiner’s chapter title and his subsection titles as well. It is my

JOTGES 28:55 (Autumn 2015) p. 4

contention that Schreiner, though well-intentioned, has done precisely what he claims Free Grace advocates have done:

The Free Grace interpretation looks like an expedient to defend and support one’s theology. While Scripture interprets Scripture, at the same time we must ensure that we don’t do violence to what texts say, for otherwise we are in danger of twisting the Scripture to fit our own preconceptions.2

Let’s begin where Schreiner does, with a discussion of what saving faith is and is not.

II. Mental Assent Isn’t Saving Faith

Schreiner defines mental assent as “bare faith,” that is, as “intellectual assent to a set of statements, doctrines, or beliefs.”3 He continues, “Ascribing to and endorsing orthodox doctrines should never be confused with genuine faith.”4

If saving faith is not mental/intellectual assent to the truth of a proposition, then it is not faith, but something else.

For example, if someone bel...

visitor : : uid: ()