Other Scriptures
achieve the peace associated with justification; and that it is impossible for those said to be engaged in evil deeds to perform good works before they are transformed. What kind of deeds these were is shown in the second chapter: "When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with Christ.
He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us." In his second letter to Timothy, the first chapter: "He has saved us and called us to a holy life—not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus." He speaks of the effective calling, which justifies us, not the general calling open to all through the preaching of the word.
Since this calling is not based on merit or works, neither can justification be. To Titus, it is written, "But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy." To the Hebrews, there is affirmed only one sacrifice and offering, namely, the death of Christ, by which sins are atoned for and satisfaction made for humanity. Therefore, justification cannot be expected from works; it should suffice that the good works we perform after justification are sacrifices of thanksgiving, not propitiatory sacrifices, lest we do great injury to Christ.
Other Scriptures 17. But setting aside the epistles of Paul, let us seek testimonies also from other parts of the Holy Scriptures. Christ in the seventh chapter of Matthew says, "Every good tree brings forth good fruit, but a bad tree brings forth bad fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bring forth good fruit." To better explain the nature of those who are not regenerated, He adds, "Therefore, just as
a good tree cannot produce bad fruit, neither can a bad tree produce good fruit." Wherefore, seeing Christ asserts that this cannot be so, how dare some claim it might be, saying that men may be justified by works? Christ uses the same analogy in the twelfth chapter of Matthew, "Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad; for by the fruit the tree is known. O generation of vipers! How can you, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good things; and an evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth evil things." These words of Christ declare that those who are not yet regenerated are evil trees, which cannot produce good fruit, and they confirm that the wicked cannot speak good things, much less can they perform good works; from an evil heart, only evil can be expected. Given this, consider whether those alienated from Christ should be deemed evil.
Also, in Luke chapter 17, Christ asks, "Which of you, having a servant plowing or tending sheep, will say to him when he has come in from the field, 'Come at once and sit down to eat'? Will he not rather say to him, 'Prepare something for my supper, and gird yourself and serve me till I have eaten and drunk, and afterward you will eat and drink'?
Does he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I think not. So likewise you, when you have done all those things which you are commanded, say, 'We are unprofitable servants; we have done what was our duty to do.'" These words, spoken to His disciples and apostles—already converted and destined for salvation—imply that if even their works are considered unprofitable, what should we think of those who have not yet received the faith of Christ? Yet, sophists have misled the world into thinking that works before justification somehow deserve it; and those works that follow are deemed most profitable. Therefore, people count their prayers as if making a transaction with God,
tallying how many prayers they have said, using them to supposedly bind God to their service.
In John chapter 15, Christ compares Himself to a vine and us to the branches, saying, "Just as the branch cannot bear fruit by itself unless it abides in the vine, neither can you unless you abide in me. I am the vine, you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing." Those not abiding in me are cast out as branches and are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned. Given these words of the Lord, how can it be argued that men, strangers to Christ and not yet regenerated, can perform good works that justify them, seeing they are likened to dry branches destined for the fire? It is affirmed that only those who cleave to Christ as branches to the vine can bear fruit.
To further clarify His intent, Christ adds, "Without me, you can do nothing." This statement, often obscured by those who suggest it refers merely to Christ's role as God in sustaining all creation, misses the point. Christ did not come to teach about the general conservation of natural entities but about the fruit leading to salvation and eternal life, focusing on those who adhere to His teachings or remain apart from them.
18. Moreover, the Son of God commanded that the faithful should say in their prayers, "Forgive us our trespasses," signifying thereby that the faithful also need forgiveness for their actions; for our works are imperfect and are unable to satisfy. Therefore, if our works, which we perform after our regeneration, require cleansing through the merit of Christ and we pray they may be so cleansed, how can they be propitiatory? Even less can we think of those works performed before regeneration as being acceptable and pleasing to God. Furthermore, no one can rightly claim they are exempt from this need since God has commanded all people to pray in this
manner, and His will is not for anyone to lie in their prayers. And John also writes, "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." I assume there is no one who would deem it appropriate to suggest that there should be many mediators when there is only one mediator between God and man, namely, the man
Christ Jesus. But if, besides Him and His merits, our works could also justify us, then they would be placed between God and us, and Christ would not be the only mediator.
Moreover, the prophets everywhere pray, and David too, that God would wash, cleanse, purify, and purge their sins, specifically through forgiveness and remission. But if they could have attained this through their works, then they would not have needed to request it through prayer, or at least not with such fervency.
In Job chapter 15, it is written that even the heavens are not pure in God's sight; and in chapter 4, he declares that not even the angels are pure. What then can be said of humans before they obtain justification? David also cries out in the Psalms, "If you, Lord, should mark iniquities, Lord, who could stand?" Isaiah calls the thirsty to the waters and bids them to buy without money. Yet, our contemporaries seek to merit and be justified by merits, works, and even money. Moreover, in Isaiah chapter 40, when he heard a voice say, "Cry out," and he asked, "What shall I cry?" he was told to proclaim, "All flesh is grass, and its steadfast love, or piety, or the mercy by which one helps his neighbor, is like the flower of the field," that is, something fleeting that soon fades away and cannot endure.
He reaffirms this in chapter 64, saying, "All our righteousnesses are like filthy rags." Whether this sentence is applied to works done after regeneration or before matters little, for either interpretation supports our case. And in the same chapter, he adds, "O Lord, we are the clay, and you our potter; we are all the work of your hand." This
metaphor of clay and the potter is also used by Paul in Romans chapter 9 to illustrate that we are as incapable of contributing to our justification as clay is of shaping itself.
We might also cite testimonies about the maliciousness of our hearts from Genesis and Jeremiah, but I believe I have already provided sufficient evidence to support our argument.
I will only add that some have been so bold as to attribute some merit of justification not only to honest and morally good works but also to superstitious practices that they themselves have devised.
Who is unaware of the common charms ascribed to holy water? "By holy water may your sins be erased, and let it be to you praise and life." They also attribute the forgiveness of sins to monks' cowls, to candles, and the ashes from olive and palm branches, and to pilgrimages. They have been led to such foolish and irreligious nonsense through their perverse interpretation of the scriptures regarding merits. Undoubtedly, only those who have experienced it can understand how difficult it is for a heart, crushed and burdened with sin, to find peace in God's free promises through Christ; such a heart struggles mightily to establish firm faith. If we were to heed the sophists and advise people to consider their works, they would never find peace but would always be tormented, forever doubting their salvation, ultimately leading to despair. Let no one think that in discussing this matter, we engage in pointless debate or mere wordplay. This issue defends the honor of Christ and His unique role
—to justify and forgive sins. We insist that these attributes should not be ascribed to works or anything else of ours. We seek to ensure that the promise is secure and that troubled consciences find comfort in God's words and promises. Lastly, we seek to distinguish clearly between the Gospel and the law; but those who ascribe justification to works confuse and dangerously conflate the two. Although I could
offer many more arguments, the ones presented here should suffice; those unmoved by these reasons will likely remain unaffected by any others.
19. Nevertheless, I think it not prudent to overlook the trivial shifts and cunning deceits by which sophists attempt to evade and obscure this doctrine that we have set forth. They argue that the Holy
Scriptures, whenever they deny the justifying power of works, refer only to the ceremonies of the old law, and not to just and upright works, which they commonly call moral works. The extent to which people are misled in this matter is clearly evidenced by the testimonies of the Scriptures, particularly those of Paul, whom they claim supports their position most strongly regarding this issue.
Although this apostle discusses many aspects that seem to pertain to the rites and ceremonies of the law, his explanations also encompass a great many other aspects, indicating that he is not speaking solely of ceremonies but also of other laws of righteousness and goodness— indeed, particularly those related to behavior and even to the ten commandments.
In the first chapter, when he reproves the Gentiles, stating that without faith in Christ they could not be justified, he highlights their deeds, namely idolatry and shameful lusts. And towards the end of the chapter, he lists a long catalog of vices with which they were afflicted, mentioning nothing about the ceremonies of Moses.
Therefore, since the vices he mentions contravene the ten commandments and the moral law, it is reasonable to assume that these are also what he refers to in his writings.
In the second chapter, he reproves the Jews for similar sins, saying, "You who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? You who say people should not
commit adultery, are you an adulterer? And you who abhor idols, do you rob God of his honor?" It is evident that these issues are encompassed within the law of the ten commandments.
In the third chapter, he more clearly addresses the same issues, writing, "There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one." These matters are clearly related to behavior. If the apostle had intended to speak only of ceremonial laws, he would not have mentioned these aspects. This is further evidenced when, after stating, "No one is justified before God by the law," he adds,
"because through the law comes the knowledge of sin." Therefore, the law that informs us of sin does not justify. Accordingly, he also states in the fourth chapter, "The law brings wrath," far from justifying. It is apparent to everyone that sins are more readily recognized, and God's wrath against transgressors is more provoked by the ten commandments than by ceremonial precepts.
I will also not dwell on the general statement made in the fourth chapter that, "To the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation." Also, "God intended that the inheritance be based on grace, so that the promise might be guaranteed to all
Abraham's offspring, not just to those who adhere to the law, that boasting may be excluded," which applies equally to moral works as it does to ceremonies. It is further written in the fifth chapter that,
"The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more," which cannot be limited only to ceremonies.
Moreover, in the sixth chapter, when it was argued that by diminishing the importance of the law and works, he seemed to be
encouraging a lax and sinful lifestyle—as is often alleged against us today—he responded that we should not continue in sin because we have died to it. "Through baptism," he says, "we are buried with Christ so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life." He admonishes us to consider ourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. He adds that we must take care not to let sin reign in our mortal bodies and that we should not offer our body parts as instruments of wickedness for sin, but rather offer ourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and our body parts as instruments of righteousness leading to sanctification.
20. These things we have discussed, and those that follow even to the end of the chapter, do they relate to the ceremonies of Moses or rather to a just, sincere, and moral life? The matter is so clear that it hardly needs questioning; yet, the passages in the seventh chapter are even more explicit. Paul states that the passions in our members were stirred by the law to produce fruit leading to death. What are these passions if not lusts, filthy desires, anger, hatred, and envy, which are listed in the catalog to the Galatians where the works of the flesh are distinguished from the works of the spirit? There is no doubt that all these relate to the Ten Commandments. To better understand this, Paul adds, "What then shall we say? Is the law sin?
Certainly not! Yet I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, 'You shall not covet.' The law is indeed holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous, and good. Moreover, the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin; for what I do, I do not understand. For what I want to do, I do not do, but what I hate, that I do. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how
to perform what is good I do not find. For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? I thank God—through Jesus
Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin." Anyone who carefully considers these testimonies will easily see that the apostle is speaking entirely of the Ten Commandments, which he explicitly mentions in these words.
But the words that follow in the eighth chapter, "What the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering.
And so he condemned sin in the flesh," cannot be explained as referring only to the law of ceremonies, much less what follows:
"Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live." This cannot be referred only to ceremonies, any more than what is written to the Galatians, "The law was added because of transgressions." It is certain that boasting cannot be excluded, nor can the promise be secure, if our justification depends on adherence to the Ten Commandments and moral precepts, regardless of whether you remove the rites and ceremonies of Moses. But even more solid is the statement from the eleventh chapter of the epistle to the Romans, "If it is by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace."
This antithesis is universal and cannot in any way be limited to ceremonies. I will not mention what Paul writes to the Philippians, how besides those precepts of Moses, he also lived blamelessly in terms of the righteousness that comes from the law. For what he writes to the Ephesians in the second chapter, "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast," he writes to the Gentiles. Therefore, the works he excludes from justification cannot be understood as merely ceremonial since the Gentiles did not observe them. But what will they say about the epistle to Timothy, where in the first chapter it is plainly and absolutely stated that we are called, "not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace"? Also, to Titus, "He saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy."
21. All these points are so clear and obvious that they require no interpretation. There is no one so unperceptive that upon hearing these arguments, they wouldn't immediately understand how they cannot, without considerable distortion, be applied to the ceremonies and rites of Moses. However, I am curious about why some people deny the justifying power of ceremonial works yet readily attribute it to our moral works. Isn't it a matter of good and commendable conduct to worship God with certain prescribed rites, which God has commanded? Weren't the rites and holy services prescribed to the people of the Jews at that time commanded in the Ten Commandments? Indeed, the Sabbath observance includes these aspects. And do not these very Sophists today attribute the forgiveness of sins and the conferring of grace to their sacraments, just as in the Old Testament these were attributed to circumcision?
What kind of inconsistency is this, to say at one time that the rites of Moses had no power to justify, and at another time to admit that they
were sacraments for the patriarchs, and that circumcision forgave original sin in infants?
We certainly do not assert this; rather, we completely deny that any sacraments confer grace. They indeed present grace, but through representation. In the sacraments, the words, and the visible signs, the promise of God through Christ is conveyed to us. If we seize this promise by faith, we receive greater grace than we had before, and also, with the seal of the sacraments, we confirm God's gift which we have embraced through faith. But I am continually astonished at those who affirm and deny the same thing simultaneously.
Indeed, they respond, but not with any significant consideration, as is their usual manner. They do not completely remove the justifying power from the sacraments of the forefathers, especially circumcision, but only from the time the gospel was proclaimed, which, as they say, sparked Paul's argument that the rites of Moses should no longer be observed. But here again, in their usual manner, they are both misled and mislead others. Since the apostle teaches that Abraham was not justified by circumcision but received it after being justified by faith, he clearly removes the justifying power from that ceremony, even during the time of Abraham when it was first instituted.
David, when he asserts that blessedness consists in sins not being imputed (which, as we now discuss, is tantamount to being justified), was he speaking of his own time or another? And Habakkuk, when he says that "the righteous shall live by faith" and excludes works from justification (as Paul clearly explains), was he speaking only of his time? Undoubtedly, he spoke of both our time and his own.
Finally, when Paul explicitly writes to the Galatians in the third chapter, "All who rely on observing the law are under a curse," and
supports this statement, from where, I ask you, does he draw his evidence? Undoubtedly, from the law itself. He says, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." Therefore, since the law speaks thus and, as Paul states, condemns all who transgress its commandments to a curse, it necessarily follows that no one can be justified by works pertaining to it.
22. However, these individuals resort to another evasion. They argue that not all those who are to be justified are in the same situation: some are Hebrews and some Gentiles converted to the faith of Christ and become Christians; others, having once embraced Christ, fall into grave sins and require restoration. They claim that the circumstances of these groups differ: those who have professed
Christianity and then fallen cannot regain righteousness except through good works, such as almsgiving, weeping, fasting, confession, and other similar acts, which they consider preparatory and meritorious. These requirements are not deemed necessary for those converting directly from unbelief to Christ. But I ask these learned individuals, from which part of the Holy Scriptures do they derive this distinction? Given that the method of justification is uniformly the same for everyone, why should one group approach it differently from another? Moreover, why do they grant that those who have lapsed in Christianity can merit justification through good works, yet not extend the same principle to those converting from unbelief? Surely, those who have once known the sweet word of God and then fallen away are in a worse state than newcomers. As it is said, "The servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows." Also, "Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."
They concede that converts from unbelief may perform good deeds and perhaps partially deserve justification, at least to the extent they term 'congruity', but they deny that the same requirement applies to both groups equally.
However, as I have taught elsewhere, all their works before conversion are sinful; how then can they perform good works acceptable to God? Moreover, why are good works not required before they come to Christ and are baptized, given that no one regenerated by Christ can truly believe without sincerely repenting of their past life? True belief involves deep remorse for past sins and an acknowledgment of having grievously erred; without this, there is no genuine faith. This is illustrated by Augustine in his "Confessions" and by the Ephesians in the Acts of the Apostles, who not only confessed their sins but also burned the books they had used for superstitious practices upon converting to Christianity.
The misunderstanding arises perhaps from readings in the Church Fathers, who placed significant emphasis on tears, fasting, alms, and other pious acts of the penitent. However, these discussions were about ecclesiastical satisfactions, not about our deeds by which we might appease God or deserve forgiveness of sins. The Church, unable to see the inward faith of the fallen (since many, unwilling to endure the shame of excommunication, might feign some semblance of conversion and repentance to be more readily reconciled and readmitted into the community), required visible signs of faith and conversion such as fasting, confessions, and alms as evidence of genuine transformation. Misunderstanding this, they muddle everything and foster abhorrent hypocrisy.