The Formula of Concord - Solid Declaration

IV. Good Works

[Status of the Controversy]

[1] A disagreement about good works has arisen among the theologians of the Augsburg Confession. One side uses the following words and way of speaking: “Good works are necessary for salvation; it is impossible to be saved without good works.” Likewise, “No one has been saved without good works.” They say good works are required of true believers as the fruit of faith, and faith without love is dead, although such love is no cause of salvation.

[2] The other side argued that good works are indeed necessary—however, not for salvation, but for other reasons. The expressions mentioned above are not to be tolerated in the Church. (They are not in accord with the form of sound doctrine and with the Word, and have always been and still are used by the papists to oppose the doctrine of our Christian faith, in which we confess that faith alone justifies and saves.) This is argued in order that the merit of Christ, our Savior, may not be diminished, and the promise of salvation may be and remain firm and certain to believers.

[3] In this controversy the following disputed proposition, or expression, was also used by a few people, “Good works are harmful to salvation.” Some have also argued that good works are not necessary, but are voluntary. They are not forced by fear and the penalty of the Law, but are to be done from a voluntary spirit and a joyful heart. Over against this the other side argued that good works are necessary.

[4] This ‹latter› controversy was originally caused by the words necessary and free, because the word necessary means not only the eternal, unchangeable order according to which all people are obliged and duty bound to obey God, but sometimes also refers to a coercion, by which the Law forces people to do good works.

[5] Later there was a dispute in which not only the words, but the doctrine itself was attacked in the most violent manner. It was argued that the new obedience in the regenerate is not necessary because of the above-mentioned divine order.

[Affirmative Statements]

[6] In order to explain this disagreement in a Christian way and according to the guidance of God’s Word, and by His grace to settle it completely, our doctrine, faith, and confession are as follows:

[7] First, there is no controversy among our theologians about the following points in this article: it is God’s will, order, and command that believers should walk in good works. Truly good works are not those that everyone does himself from a good intention, or which are done according to human traditions, but those that God Himself has prescribed and commanded in His Word. Also, truly good works are done not by our own natural powers, but in this way: when a person is reconciled with God through faith and renewed by the Holy Spirit. Or, as Paul says, a person is “created in Christ Jesus for good works” [Ephesians 2:10].

[8] Nor is there a controversy about how and why the good works of believers are pleasing and acceptable to God (although in this flesh they are impure and incomplete). They are acceptable for the sake of the Lord Christ, through faith, because the person is acceptable to God. There are works that apply to maintaining of external discipline. These are also done by, and required of, the unbelieving and unconverted. These works are commendable before the world and rewarded by God in this world with temporal blessings. Nevertheless, they do not come from true faith. Therefore, in God’s sight they are sins, that is, stained with sin, and are regarded by God as sins and impure because of the corrupt nature and because the person is not reconciled with God. “A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit” [Matthew 7:18], as it is also written, “for whatever does not proceed from faith is sin” (Romans 14:23). A person must first be accepted by God, for the sake of Christ alone, if that person’s works are to please Him.

[9] Faith must be the mother and source of works that are truly good and well pleasing to God, which God will reward in this world and in the world to come. This is why St. Paul calls them true fruit of faith, also fruit of the Spirit [Galatians 5:22–23]. [10] For, as Dr. Luther writes in the Preface to St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans:

[13] Since there is no controversy on these points among our theologians, we will not treat them here at length. We will only explain ourselves, part against part, in a simple and plain manner about the controversial points.

[Clarification of Terms]

[14] First, regarding the necessity or voluntary nature of good works, it is clear that in the Augsburg Confession and its Apology these expressions are often used and repeated—good works are necessary. Likewise, they say it is necessary to do good works, which necessarily follow faith and reconciliation. Likewise, we necessarily are to do, and must do, the kind of good works God has commanded. In the Holy Scriptures themselves the words necessity, needful, and necessary, as well as ought and must, are used to describe what we are bound to do because of God’s ordinance, command, and will. (See Romans 13:5; 1 Corinthians 9:9; Acts 5:29; John 15:12; 1 John 4:21).

[15] It is for this reason that the sayings and propositions just mentioned (in this Christian and proper understanding) are unfairly condemned and rejected by some people. These sayings should rightly be employed and used to reject the secure, Epicurean delusion. For many create for themselves a dead faith or delusion that lacks repentance and good works. They act as though there could be true faith in a heart at the same time as the wicked intention to persevere and continue in sin [Romans 6:1–2]. This is impossible. Or, they act as though a person could have and keep true faith, righteousness, and salvation even though he is and remains a corrupt and unfruitful tree, from which no good fruit comes at all. In fact, they say this even though a person persists in sins against conscience or purposely engages again in these sins. All of this is incorrect and false.

[16] In this matter the following distinction must be noted. The meaning of these expressions must be a necessity based on Christ’s ordinance, command, and will and based on our obligation, but not a necessity based on coercion. In other words, when the word necessary is used, it should be understood not as force, but only as the order of God’s unchanging will, whose debtors we are. [17] His commandment points out that the creature should be obedient to its Creator. In other places (2 Corinthians 9:7; Philemon 14; and 1 Peter 5:2) something is said to be of necessity that is wrung from a person against his will, by force or otherwise, so that he acts outwardly for the sake of appearance, but without and against his will. God does not want such ‹hypocritical› works. The people of the New Testament are to be a willing people (Psalm 110:3) and sacrifice freely (Psalm 54:6), “not reluctantly or under compulsion” (2 Co -rinthians 9:7). They are to be “obedient from the heart” (Romans 6:17), “for God loves a cheerful giver” (2 Corinthians 9:7). [18] In this understanding, and in this sense, it is correctly said and taught that truly good works should be done willingly, or from a voluntary spirit, by those whom God’s Son has made free. The dispute about the voluntary nature of good works was engaged in by some people specifically to make this point.

[19] Here, again, it is well to note the distinction that St. Paul makes in Romans 7:22–23:

Regarding the unwilling and rebellious flesh, Paul says, “I discipline my body and keep it under control” (1 Corinthians 9:27) and “those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified [slain] the flesh with its passions and desires” (Galatians 5:24). (See also Romans 8:13.) [20] When it is asserted and taught that good works are free to believers in the sense that they are optional for them to do or not to do, this is false, and must be rejected. It is false to say that believers might or could act against ‹God’s Law› and still have faith and God’s favor and grace.

[Negative Statements]

[21] Second, when it is taught that good works are necessary, it must also be explained why they are necessary. These reasons are listed in the Augsburg Confession and Apology.

[22] We must be on our guard well to make sure that works are not brought in and mixed into the article of justification and salvation. Therefore, the following propositions are justly rejected: “good works are necessary for believers to be saved; therefore, it is impossible to be saved without good works”. This is directly contrary to the doctrine about the exclusive terms in the article of justification and salvation. In other words, these positions conflict with the words St. Paul uses to exclude entirely our works and merits from the article of justification and salvation and to credit everything to God’s grace and Christ’s merit alone, as explained in the preceding article. [23] These propositions take the comfort of the Gospel away from afflicted, troubled consciences. They give reason to doubt, and are dangerous in many ways. They strengthen assumptions about one’s own righteousness and increase confidence in one’s own works. Besides, they are accepted by the papists, and are used in their interest against the pure doctrine of the alone-saving faith. [24] Furthermore, they are contrary to the form of sound words. For it is written, “David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works” (Romans 4:6). Likewise, in Article VI (3) of the Augsburg Confession it is written that we are saved “without works, through faith alone.” So Dr. Luther, too, rejected and condemned these propositions when they were used

[25] 1. by the false prophets among the Galatians [e.g., LW 26:124–26];

[26] 2. by the papists, in very many places;

[27] 3. by the Anabaptists, when they present this interpretation: We should not rest faith on the merit of works, but we must still have works as necessary for salvation [LW 40:227–62];

[28] 4. and also by some of Luther’s own followers, who wanted to interpret this proposition as follows: Although we require works as necessary to salvation, we do not teach people to trust in works. (See Luther’s Commentary on Genesis 22 [LW 4:162–73].)

[29] For these reasons, it is right for this matter to remain settled in our churches. The ways of speaking just mentioned should not be taught, defended, or excused. Instead, they should be thrown out of our churches and rejected as false and incorrect. These are expressions that were renewed because of the Interim. They originated from it and were again drawn into discussion in times of persecution. This happened when there was special need for a clear, correct confession against all sorts of corruptions and adulterations of the article of justification.

[Preservation in the Faith]

[30] Third, whether good works preserve salvation, or whether they are necessary for preserving faith, righteousness, and salvation is another issue in dispute. This again is of high and great importance, for “the one who endures to the end will be saved” (Matthew 24:13). Also, “For we share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end” (Hebrews 3:14). We must also explain well and precisely how righteousness and salvation are preserved in us, lest salvation be lost again.

[31] Above all, this false Epicurean delusion is to be seriously rebuked and rejected: some imagine that faith, and the righteousness and salvation that they have received, cannot be lost through sins or wicked deeds, not even through willful and intentional ones. They imagine that a Christian retains faith, God’s grace, righteousness, and salvation even though he indulges his wicked lusts without fear and shame, resists the Holy Spirit, and purposely engages in sins against conscience.

[32] Against this deadly delusion the following true, unchangeable, divine threats and severe punishments and warnings should be repeated often and impressed upon Christians who are justified through faith:

[33] The Apology provides an excellent model that shows how and when exhortations to good works can be made without darkening the doctrine of faith and of the article of justification. In Article XX (90), on the passage 2 Peter 1:10, “Be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure,” it says:

[34] On the other hand, this does not mean that faith lays hold of righteousness and salvation only in the beginning and then resigns its office to works as though they had to sustain faith, the righteousness received, and salvation. It means that the promise, not only of receiving, but also of retaining righteousness and salvation, is firm and sure to us. St. Paul (Romans 5:2) ascribes to faith not only the entrance to grace, but says that we stand in grace and boast of the future glory. In other words, he credits the beginning, middle, and end to faith alone.

[35] It is clear from God’s Word that faith is the proper and only means through which righteousness and salvation are not only received, but also preserved by God. Therefore, it is right to reject the Council of Trent’s decree, and whatever elsewhere is set forth with the same meaning. For they say our good works preserve salvation, or the righteousness of faith that has been received, or even faith itself. They say it is either entirely or in part kept and preserved by our works.

[36] Before this controversy quite a few pure teachers used similar expressions to explain the Holy Scriptures. However, they in no way intended to confirm the above-mentioned errors of the papists. Still, a controversy arose over such expressions, from which all sorts of offensive distractions followed. Therefore, according to St Paul’s admonition (2 Timothy 1:13) it is safe to hold fast both to “the pattern of the sound words” and to the pure doctrine itself. In this way, much unnecessary wrangling may be cut off and the Church preserved from many scandals.

[Comments on Philippians 3:7–8]

[37] Fourth, regarding the idea that good works are harmful to salvation, we explain ourselves clearly as follows: If anyone wants to drag good works into the article of justification, rest his righteousness or trust for salvation on them, and merit God’s grace and be saved by them, St. Paul himself answers, not us. He says and repeats it three times (Philippians 3:7–8)—such a person’s works are not only useless and a hindrance, but are also harmful. This is not the fault of the good works themselves, but of the false confidence placed in the works, contrary to God’s clear Word.

[38] However, it by no means follows that we are to say simply and flatly: “Good works are harmful to believers’ salvation.” In believers good works are signs of salvation when they are done from true causes and for true ends. That is, in the sense in which God requires them of the regenerate (Philippians 1:20). It is God’s will and clear command that believers should do good works. The Holy Spirit works this in believers, and God is pleased with good works for Christ’s sake. He promises a glorious reward for good works in this life and the life to come.

[39] For this reason, too, this idea is rebuked and rejected in our churches. As a flat statement it is false and offensive. Discipline and decency might be impaired by it, and a barbarous, loose, secure, Epicurean life be introduced and strengthened. A person should avoid what is harmful to his salvation with the greatest diligence.

[40] Christians should not be frightened away from good works, but should be admonished and urged to do them most diligently. Therefore, this bare proposition cannot and must not be tolerated, used, or defended in the Church.