Good Works, Piper, Clark and the Reformed Tradition

NOTE: several years ago, Mark Jones and I wrote an article defending John Piper and his teaching on good works. My section of the article, which is posted below, dealt with R. Scott Clark's interpretation of good works in the Reformed tradition. Clark has also critiqued Kevin DeYoung's teaching on good works, and I wrote an article in his defense, which you can find here.

In conjunction with the current debate surrounding John Piper’s recent comments on the relationship between good works and salvation, R. Scott Clark has written a post on the Heidelblog wherein he discusses the Reformed view on this subject ( https://heidelblog.net/2017/10/believers-are-saved-and-sealed/).  In one section, he addresses the distinction between title and the possession, which has been used to defend Piper’s position.  He also helpfully refers the reader to previous articles that discuss this distinction.

 

Clark rightly acknowledges that the mainstream of the Reformed tradition did teach this distinction.  The question, however, is what did they mean by it.  Clark says that there are three ways you can look at the role of good works: is (to be); through (instrument) and because (ground).  He then argues that “is” is the proper way to interpret the Reformed understanding of good works as the means and way to possessing salvation.  After surveying the writings of Turretin and Witsius, Clark says, “For Witsius, as for Turretin, It is the case that believers will do good works.”  http://rscottclark.org/2015/09/on-the-necessity-and-efficacy-of-good-works-in-salvation/

 

In line with this, Clark says that good works are merely the fruit and evidence of salvation.  He then cites The Council of Trent, which he says faithfully represented the Protestant and Reformed position by its rejection of the mere fruit position.

 

Unfortunately, Clark willingly embraces the Roman Catholic caricature of the Protestant/Reformed view of good works.  John Davenant lashes out at Bellarmine for holding to this caricature and he vigorously argues against the notion that good works are only necessary to attest or evidence true faith.  Similarly, Witsius strongly rebuked the so-called antinomian position among the English Dissenters who taught that good works in relation to salvation merely testify to the life we have in Christ.

 

In this regard, we need to point out that Clark misinterprets the Reformed distinction of title and possession.  For example, Witsius argued contrary to the mere fruit position that believers are to do good works because they live and so that they may live.  Doing good works because they live is close to Clark’s “it is the case believers will do good works.”  However, Witsius is saying more than that by noting that believers obey that they may live.  This is clear by the analogy he uses.  He likens the role of good works to eating food.  No man eats but he lives, but he also eats that he may live.  A man may not eat if he chooses.  But if he wants to keep on living, he must eat.  Clearly, gospel obedience is more than an “is” in salvation, at least for Witsius.

 

The same is true for Turretin.  He talks about good works being the means and way to possessing salvation.  But “means” cannot be reduced to “it is the case.”  The biblical analogies that Turretin uses make this evident: way to goal, sowing to harvest, labor to the reward, contest to the crown.

 

Since good works are more than “it is the case,” what language should we use to articulate that?  Clark only has three categories: “is,” “through,” and “because.”  Good works clearly are not the ground of salvation or of the possession of salvation and so we can’t use “because.”  Clark doesn’t like the word “through” or “instrument.”  And so that only leaves “is,” which we have seen is insufficient.

 

Now you don’t have to use the word “through” (2 Thess. 2:13) or “instrument” (Zanchius: good works are the instrumental cause of the possession of eternal life, cited by Lillback, Binding of God, 207) to articulate the Reformed position.  But then you need a fourth category such as “means” and “way” in distinction from “is.”  At the same time, you need to be willing to accept those who do use the word "through" or "instrument" when it is properly defined. Some used the word "efficiency" with respect to good works. A. Burgess, for example, didn't care for that language, but he admitted that it might be true if used in the broad sense, which is of course how some Reformed theologians used it.