1004. Salvation by Faith Alone

Welcome to The Daily Platform from Bob Jones University in Greenville South Carolina just over 500 years ago Martin Luther wrote his 95 theses, which is considered to be the beginning of the Reformation for the next several days will be studying some of these doctrines in a series called truth tryouts. Let's listen to today's message preached by Dr. Layton Talbert of the Bob Jones University seminary and if you would please to Romans chapter 3. One of my all-time favorite TV shows is one that probably I would estimate about 97.3% of you have never even heard of. Not because I'm that old. I don't think, but it was called yes Minister note was not a religious program. The SQL was called yes Prime Minister is a 1980s British political comedy, which might not sound a better to you than a religious program. I don't know but very clever script writing just superb delivery. It was actually revived a little bit later said on talk in the 1980s version. The later version stinks actually that the earlier version was really quite good is actually Margaret Thatcher's favorite program when she was Prime Minister of England, Great Britain, and I still enjoy watching this actually own the DVDs for the entire both of the series, and a line and one of those episodes goes something like this. The first thing that you need to do when you want to rubbish someone is to express total support for them you want to go on record as saying the summit is no good. You must be seen to be their friend. After all, it's necessary to get behind someone before you can stab them in the back that's a pretty pretty cynically accurate depiction of politics in a fallen world or business in a fallen world. I suppose it is kind of the classic wolf in sheep's clothing employee who is the who is the consummate the original wolf in sheep's clothing. Satan has practiced and perfected that strategy when it comes to deceiving God's people.

And when it comes to rubbish in God's truth because immediate outright denial of truth is not nearly as effective as initial agreement followed by slowly supplementing it with this qualification and that addition until in time, the original truth lies buried under a load of distractions and exceptions and provisos and stipulations. The truth is, and becomes unrecognizable.

The original truth like like what truth well. For instance, the five courtrooms at the heart of the Reformation and they were at the heart of the Reformation because they are at the at the heart of how to be put right with God, Scripture, the ultimate authority on salvation, faith, the means of salvation.

Grace the basis of salvation. Christ, the agent of salvation. God's glory. The ultimate motive or end for salvation.

So how were those truths overshadowed and corrupted over time and to such an extent that a Reformation was required well to Scripture was added tradition. In fact, the church came to teach that because tradition is actually more complete and thorough than Scripture, tradition actually is more authoritative than Scripture itself. Faith was overshadowed by works works were theoretically necessary to get you to heaven, but in reality they were barely enough to keep you out of hell and they ushered you into a place called purgatory where you would spend hundreds or thousands of years. Continuing to work and suffer for your sin until eventually.

Hopefully your able to make it into heaven. Grace was swallowed up by merit.

Usually someone else's merit like Mary's, or any number of other saints who were so superhumanly holy that all their extra good works were deposited into a treasury of merit in heaven not making this up and could be accessed and dispensed to help out ordinary people like us get a little bit closer to heaven accessed and dispensed, by whom you might ask. Well, that's where the next one comes in. Christ was actually supplanted by the church as the necessary mediator between man and Christ the priesthood, baptism, communion, confession, all the sacraments. All these became necessary to mediate the benefits of Christ and the merits of the other saints to us to common ordinary sinners and because of the man centeredness of all these previous distortions original truth. God's glory and salvation. Therefore, ended up being overshadowed by man's glory, man's accomplishment, man's achievement man's contribution to this whole enterprise. Now, as part of our recognition of the Reformation in this semester's series. We began focusing as of last week we began focusing on what are known as the five Solis that were recaptured by the Reformation.

Solis trip to Europe was last week so to feed a solo brought his sword solely Christmas Eve, he Solis Christison Silverdale Gloria and in each of those phrases. The nouns are the weight bearing words Scripture faith grace. Christ, God's glory. But in each case, the soul is the indispensable modifier. The indispensable qualifier. The soul is simply highlights the fact that these were not newly discovered truth by the reformers. Each of them had become over time diluted with additions and accretions that fundamentally change the nature of each of these truths.

All the solos revolve around the issue of salvation, atonement, how to be put in right relationship with God. The last Sola answer is why what is God's ultimate goal or purpose in doing this the first Sola answers says who says answers and a how can we know what is the ultimate authority on these questions of salvation and the three middle soul is basically answer the question, how do we get it we are saved by faith alone, by grace alone by Christ alone. But if those three middle ones are all answering the same question, how do we get it, aren't they kind of self-contradictory. I mean how can I say that I'm saved by Christ alone. If it's also by grace alone, and also by faith alone.

The solution, of course, is that importantly, flexible little word by it can signify basis or can signify means or can signify agency among other things, so I'm saved by faith.

But that doesn't mean that my faith is my Savior, my faith does the saving are not saved by sit by faith in the sense that the faith is the thing that is saving me if if if you're lost out in the wilderness and literally starving to death on when you've missed a meal. You're starving to death and you come across some food and you start shoveling it in your mouth it would never, it would never occur to you later to say this hand saved me from starvation mean what I came across this food in my hand reached out and then took it and and that's why I survived. I I was saved by my hand. If that's what you would say you're probably still little touch of sunstroke or something was in your hand. It was the food that actually saved you.

It is not the faith that does the saving. That's the sense in which I am saved by Christ. It's Christ, the bread of life who does the saving.

He's the Savior. He's the agent who does the saving. My faith is just my outstretched hand, by which I willingly access and appropriate the salvation that Christ is secure procured met with all that is kind of background context. Our focus today is specifically on Sola file, so here's the question, how will you be accepted by an admitted into the presence of the righteous God who has a holy hatred of sin, who is in fact described as being so pure that he cannot even look on iniquity and evil passively let alone accepting our problem is sin, our need is righteousness enough righteousness to be granted entrance into God's presence. How much is enough total total righteousness.

There can't be any evil mixed in, or God will not look favorably on that there will be no one in heaven who is not as righteous as God himself so I need God to justify me so that I can have access into his presence. How does that happen.

The text I want to lead you to addresses that need.

And the solution in remarkably Reformation.

All terms really start in Romans chapter 3 with verse nine where Paul writes what then are we better than they are.

Are we, as Jews better than the Gentiles.

We better off than them know in no wise we have before prove both Jews and Greeks Gentiles that they are all under sin.

Paul where did you prove that Gentiles are all interested in Romans chapter 1 where if you proved that Jews are all under sin. Romans chapter 2 as it is written, he goes on in verse 10 there is none righteous, no not one. That's the problem that's the issue that separates us from God.

We are not righteous. None of us so we do well earn it start becoming righteous by obeying God by keeping God's law mean after all, isn't that what the law is for.

To tell us what to do to get right and stay right with God right will see what Paul has to say about that drop down to verse 19. Here's his conclusion about that. We know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world. Jew and Gentile may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified is what I need, but by the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. Last a very encouraging, the law doesn't justify us by helping us become more righteous. Righteous enough for God to accept the law actually has the opposite effect. In fact, the law has the opposite intent of the law is designed by God to identify our offenses to specify our sins to quantify our failures to prove our guilt to demonstrate our unrighteousness and our unworthiness of God. Now let me make a quick clarification here.

Most you probably are are aware of this but maybe somebody's not if you look back at verse 10 and see the word righteous. There is none righteous, no not one now drop and look at verse 20 and see were justified. There shall no flesh be justified in his sight by the law. Those are totally different words in English, righteous, justified, justified, but there actually exactly the same word family in Greek.

You could say verse 10 like this there is none. Just no not one. Or you can say verse 20 like this by the deeds of the law no flesh will be rendered righteous in his sight. That's the issue at stake in the passage were not good enough in ourselves, we can't become good enough by our works even when we try to keep God's law. It only condemns us.

So what can we do will actually Paul says there is another way.

In fact, it's the only way by the law no flesh will be justified in his sight. That's what I need. Look at verse 21 but now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, he's just said we need to be justify what we can be justified in his sight, but now you could almost think of this in terms of but but God's justification can be obtained without the law apart from the law being witnessed by the law and the prophets, even the righteousness of God himself, which is attainable by faith in Jesus Christ on the wall and upon all those who believe Jew or Gentile, because there's no difference because as he is already prove verse 23 all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, being justified here here's artwork sweetheart. How are we justified were justified freely by his grace there. Sola Gallia through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God has sent forth to be a propitiation and appeasement of God's wrath against our sin.

God is set forth Christ to be a propitiation, here's artwork through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are passed through the forbearance of God to declare, I say at this time his righteousness that he might be both just and retain his justice in the same time justify ungodly unrighteous undeserving sinners.

How can he do that. How can he be both just and yet also justify declare righteous, the unrighteous, he does it through believing in Jesus the universe. 27. Therefore, we conclude.

Okay, here it is when you conclude Paul, we conclude that a man is justified. That's the need that's the issue, righteousness and justification by God.

A man is justified by faith.

There is a file apart from the works of the law, there is the solo that's the whole message wrapped up in a single verse that is as clear and affirmation of Sola file in a single statement as you will find anywhere in the new test. So is Paul making this up.

If he is he just kind of improvising his own theological agenda.

He says that the law and the prophets actually teach this way of justification back in verse 21. So where they teach that Paul can you give us a note to some example that validates what you're saying. He says sure.

Chapter 4 verse one what shall we say then that Abraham our father is putting in the flesh is found for same, if Abraham were justified by works, he has worked to glory, but not before God. Mother was what he saying in verse two is Abraham was not justified by works for verse three.

What set the Scripture. Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.

That's how he got what he needed to come in the presence of God by faith he believed now you may think. Wait a minute. I seem to remember about 10 years before Paul wrote this letter to the Romans James the half-brother of Jesus, no less. One of the pillars of Jerusalem church. No less James wrote a letter that seemed to argue the exact opposite of what Paul says here and even uses Abraham to prove his point, just like Paul does. So Paul says, we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law Abraham he says was not justified by works for what set the Scripture.

Abraham believed God, and it was accounted for, but James says chapter 2 verse 21 will turn their just a moment, was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar. So you see, then, that by works. A man is justified and not by faith only. So Paul says Abraham was justified by faith apart from works. James says Abraham was justified by works. Paul says, a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. James says a man is justified by works and not by faith only Paul says Sola file Romans 328 and uses Abraham to prove it.

James says not Sola file into 24 or so it seems and uses Abraham to prove it. So who's right what we work through Paul's argument here in Romans three quickly but fairly carefully. I think we understand what Paul is arguing we need to be sure that we understand James accurately and contextually, and on his own terms. So would you go back to James chapter 2 were forwarded. James chapter 2, so we can see exactly what James says about this because it sure sounds like James is blowing Paul's soul file out of the water or Paul is coming along later and blowing James out of one of the mist seems built blowing the other is water.

How can these to be possibly be agreed on this topic.

James chapter 2, he begins his argument in verse 14 when he writes, what does it profit my brethren, though a man say he has faith and have not works.

Oh, though a man say he has faith. That's not a minor detail if were going to accurately understand James's whole argument. James continues, what if it was a private man says he has faith but does networks can faith save him literally. James Wright scanned the faith save him and the definite article there that you that that you may not see in your translation.

Some translations you'll see it. It's actually functioning as a demonstrative particle of demonstrative article. So what he means is canned that faith save him or the can that kind of faith save him.

That's what James is right and then James now turns from the abstract argument to a concrete example works like this. If a brother or sister verse 15 is naked destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them depart in peace, be warmed and filled, but you give them the things that are needful for their body, what good does it do what's the point of that. What is a prophet. Even so faith and again it's even so that kind of faith, the faith of mere words. Words like being warmed and filled that kind of faith, he says, verse 17. If it doesn't have works.

It's dead being alone. In other words, if that's all there is to your so-called faith.

James makes it perfectly clear that he's talking about a guy who merely says he has faith and that is a problem up to the present day because anybody can claim anything, especially in the spiritual realm.

The only way to validate the genuineness of an invisible claim is by some kind of visible result. You can tell your history of stiff teacher that actually you really do know everything you need to know about history, civilization, and the say that is great. Congratulations.

In that case, I'm sure you'll have no difficulty taking this little exam to demonstrate all that knowledge in the academic realm. A person is justified by works, not by his professed knowledge, and if quotation marks had been invented back in the first century when James wrote this.

I suspect he would've put quotation marks around the word faith in verse 17 even so faith that kind of faith, a claim to faith, the guy who says he has faith because from his first introduction of the subject in verse 14.

He's obviously talking about professed faith claim to faith. Someone who says she has faith. Someone who says he has faith but there's no evidence there's no works to back up that claim. And if you ignore James's starting point. In verse 14.

If you ignore the fact that he's not talking about faith. He's talking about faith claim to faith professed faith.

If you ignore that starting point, you will completely misunderstand his entire argument. So James, how about an example of what this looks like what is your argument look like. Chapter 2 verse 21 wasn't Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar when they do that. Genesis 22 CSL verse 22 he writes how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made complete or perfected, or completed Becky's knees a different word next verse 23 and the Scripture was fulfilled what Scripture seven chapters earlier.

Back in Genesis 15 the Scripture that said Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness. So you see, verse 24. How man is by works him as justified and not by faith, not by faith only. That's what he's talking about. James acknowledges the Scripture that declared Abraham righteous on the basis of his faith. He acknowledges the legitimacy of that back in Genesis 15, and that declaration he says was fulfilled was proved was demonstrated by Abraham's act of obedience. Later in Genesis 22 for James is simply arguing that works are the natural, inevitable outflow of a real genuine faith. In other words works demonstrate that faith is in fact faith. So where there are no works where there is no appetite for obedience to God where there is no hunger for righteousness where there is no thirst for God's truth where there is no compulsion to Christ likeness in a person's life. There is no saving faith.

There, that's James's argument. Whatever you may claim whatever you may claim that's his entire argument for verse 26 as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

In other words, a claim to faith that doesn't produce works is a dead faith in a dead faith can't say so. Which is right. Romans 328 of James 224 who's right, Paul or change the answer is yes, there is no conflict. James wrote to combat a very common problem a claim to a faith that doesn't work, and therefore cannot save. Paul wrote to combat. Another common problem, a misconception that law works and good works are adequate to save in December and 70, is picturesque.

We put it. Paul and James are not swordsmen crossing swords with each other.

They are swordsmen standing back to back fighting opposite errors in the process defending each other's back or to modify the metaphor a little bit. Both of these passages. Romans 328 James two. Both of those passages melded together make a single sharp edge to edge sword to combat to opposite errors. The one error is the necessity of works to earn salvation. That's the error that Paul finds the other is the sufficiency of mere profession to secure salvation. That's the error that James fight the teaching of James has been had been, I think so abused and misconstrued by the Roman church for so long that Luther somewhat understandably, perhaps didn't have a very high opinion of the book of James. As you may know, and yet ironically in his preface to the book of Romans. Luther summed up the teaching of both Paul and James. He wrote faith is not that human illusion and dream that some people think it is.

They fall into error who say, faith is not enough.

You must do good works.

If you want to be virtuous and get to heaven.

That's the error that Paul is dealing with the Romans and yet just a few paragraphs later.

He says this is impossible, that faith should ever stop doing good works.

Whoever does not do such works is without faith it sounds just like James is impossible to be. It is as impossible to separate works from faith as burning and shining from fire. That sounds surprisingly like the error that James is battling his letter to Luther and their former didn't discover the doctrine of justification by faith alone, apart from the works of the law. They simply uncovered it from where it lay right there in the text of Scripture buried beneath the dust and dirt of traditions and additions by an unfaithful church if the church is to fulfill her role as the pillar and bulwark of the truth. As Paul described in first Timothy, then we you will have to be prepared to understand that truth accurately celebrated joyfully defendant vigorously proclaim it confidently so that the faith once delivered to the saints will not be lost again, especially in your generation spirit. Father, we are grateful that you've given to us a reliable record of your truth.

We thank you for free and full access to it and we pray that you would give us hearts that are eager and curious and desirous to know it and it will be faithful to it when we do pray in Jesus name. You've been listening to a sermon preached by Dr. Layton Talbert about Jones University seminary professor.

Thanks for listing and join us again tomorrow as we continue the series about the Reformation here on The Daily Platform