In the Lutheran Church the question has been debated with great ardor whether it is correct or not to say: "Good works are necessary." (Cp. Formula of Concord, Art. IV.) Those who denied the query did so because they understood the word necessitas in the sense of coercion, so that the statement "Good works are necessary" was interpreted by them to mean: "Believers are coerced to do good works." This declaration they rightly regarded as unscriptural, and so they objected to the emphatic demand of Luther and the Gnesio-Lutherans that "good works are necessary."
While the Formula of Concord admits the truth that "good works are done by believers, not through coercion, but from a willing mind, sanctified by faith," it nevertheless insists that the statement "Good works are necessary" is ScripturaL It therefore says (Thor. Decl., Art. IV, 3): "It has been argued by some that good works are not necessary, but are voluntary (free and spontaneous) because they are not extorted by fear and the penalty of the Law, but are to be done from a voluntary spirit and a joyful heart."
And again (IV, 14. 15): "As regards the necessity or voluntariness of good works, it is manifest that in the Augsburg Confession and its Apology the expressions are often used and repeated that good works are necessary; likewise, that it is necessary to do good works, which also are necessarily to follow faith and reconciliation; likewise, that we necessarily are to do and must do such good works as God has commanded. Thus also in the Holy Scriptures themselves the words necessity, needful, and necessary, likewise ought and must, are used concerning what we are bound to do because of God's ordinance, command, and will, as Rom. 13, 5; 1 Cor. 9, 9; Acts 5, 29; John 15, 12; 1 John 4, 21. Therefore the expressions or propositions mentioned . . . are unjustly censured and rejected in this Christian and proper sense, as has been done by some; for they are employed and used with propriety to rebuke and reject the secure, epicurean delusion by which many fabricate for themselves a dead faith or delusion, which is without repentance and without good works, as though there could be in a heart true faith and at the same time the wicked intention to persevere and continue in sins, which is impossible; or as though one could indeed have and retain true faith, righteousness, and salvation even though he be and remain a corrupt and unfruitful tree, whence no good fruits whatever come, yea, even though he persist in sins against conscience or purposely engage again in these sins,- all of which is incorrect and false."
In this way the Formula of Concord, on the one hand, excludes all possible misunderstanding of the terms necessity, must, ought, etc., and, on the other, establishes on Scriptural grounds the true necessity of sanctification and good works. What Holy Scripture teaches concerning the necessity of sanctification and good works may be stated as follows: -
a. Sanctification and good works are not mcessary for salvation. This truth is expressly taught in Scripture, which ascribes salvation entirely to divine grace in Christ, Eph. 2, 8. 9 ; Rom. 4, 6, excluding at the same time most vigorously, through the use of exclusive particles (particulae exclusivae): "without Law." "without works," "by grace," all works of men, either preceding or following justification, Titus 3, 3-7.
Roman Catholic theologians teach the necessity of good works for justification and salvation (Council of Trent, Sess. VIII, Can. 24). While the Jesuits claim that salvation is gained by good works alone, others maintain that salvation is obtained through Christ and good works (the Council of Trent). However, both parties nullify grace and lead the sinner to hell. Modern rationalistic theologians likewise teach the necessity and meritoriousness of good works for salvation; this error is a corollary of the erroneous doctrine of justification by works.
The Formula of Concord rightly says (Thor. Decl., IV, 22-24): "Here we must be well on our guard lest works are drawn and mingled into the article of justification and salvation. Therefore the propositions are justly rejected that to believers good works are necessary for salvation, so that it is impossible to be saved without good works. For they are directly contrary to the doctrine de particulis exclusivis in articulo iustificationis et salvationis (concerning the exclusive particles in the article of justification and salvation), that is, they conflict with the words by which St. Paul has entirely excluded our works and merits from the article of justification and salvation and ascribed everything to the grace of God and the merit of Christ alone, as explained in the preceding article. Again they ... take from the afflicted, troubled consciences the comfort of the Gospel, give occasion for doubt, are in many ways dangerous, strengthen presumption in one's own righteousness and confidence in one's own works; besides, they are accepted by the papists and in their interest adduced against the pure doctrine of the alone-saving faith. Moreover, they are contrary to the form of sound words, as it is written that blessedness is only of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Rom. 4, 6."
While our Confession emphatically condemns the gross error of Majorism, namely, that good works are necessary for salvation,. or to acquire salvation, it rejects with equal vigor as unscriptural also the later modified form of Majorism (Major, Menius) that good works are necessary to preserve faith or salvation. As salvation is not bestowed upon man on account of his works, so it is neither preserved by him through his works, but alone by the Holy Ghost, through the Gospel and faith, Phil. 1, 6; 1 Pet. 1, 5; 2 Tim. 1, 12-14; 2 These. 3, 3.
The Formula of Concord rightly rejected the error of Majorism because its evil source was the synergism of Melanchthon (Loci of 1535: "Good works are the causa sine qua non, and hence they are necessary for salvation), which Luther so vehemently condemned, compelling his colleague at the same time to retract his false doctrine. Cp. Dr. Bente, "Historical Introductions to the Symbolical Books," Trigl., pp. 112 fi.: "This is the very theology of Erasmus, nor can anything be more opposed to our doctrine"; also : "To say that the new obedience is the causa sine qua non contingit vita aeterna means to tread Christ and His blood under our feet."
While it is true that evil works destroy faith, Eph. 4, 30; 5, 5; 1 Cor. 6, 9
It is true, the good works of believers are tokens (indicia, testimonia) of their faith and state of grace (testimonium externum Spiritus Sancti de fide et statu gratiae); but they are not the causa sine qua non, much less the causa efficiens salutis. Those who teach that good works preserve faith deny the cardinal doctrine of justification and salvation as taught in Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions and maintain the Semi-Pelagianistic error of the papists that faith saves inasmuch as it works by love (fides caritate formata). In other words, having rejected the sola fide, they base salvation on work-righteousness.
Concerning the Scripture-passage Heb. 12, 14, by which Majorism endeavored to prove its false doctrine, it may be said: 1) This passage presupposes faith and therefore also the possession of salvation, Eph. 2, 8. 9; John 5, 24; for the words are addressed to believing Christians, who should follow holiness because they already possess salvation, Heb. 12, 1. 2; Col. 3, 1
But even in the realm of the new obedience, or sanctification, it is wrong to declare: "Good works are necessary for salvation." The new obedience of the Christian is essentially the fulfilling of the Law, Rom. 13, 8-10, and as we cannot say: "The fulfilling of the Law is necessary for salvation," so we can neither say that the new obedience (good works) is necessary for salvation. Majorism therefore must be condemned in both its original and modified form, both when it is applied to the article of justification and to that of sanctification. The Majoristic assertion "Good works are necessary for salvation" is intrinsically wrong and opposed to sound doctrine.
In opposition to Majorism, Amsdorf asserted that "good works are injurious to salvation."
The Formula of Concord acknowledges that this statement originally meant to express the truth that good works are injurious to salvation provided the sinner puts his trust in them. In this sense, our Confession admits, good works are injurious to salvation.
Its declaration reads (Thor. Decl., Art. IV, 37) : "As regards the proposition that good works are said to be injurious to salvation, we explain ourselves clearly as follows: If any one should wish to drag good works into the article of justification or rest his righteousness or trust for salvation upon them, to merit God's grace and be saved by them, to this not we say, but St. Paul himself says, and repeats it three times, Phil. 3, 7ff., that to such a man his works are not only useless and a hindrance, but also injurious. But this is not the fault of the good works themselves, but of the false confidence placed in the works, contrary to the express Word of God."
On the other hand, the Formula of Concord condemns the proposition of Amsdorf on three grounds: 1) because "in believers good works are indications (indicia) of salvation when they are done propter veras causas et ad veros fines (from true causes and for true ends," Phil. 1, 28); 2) because "it is God's will and express command that believers should do good works, which the Holy Ghost works in believers"; and 3) because God "promises to them a glorious reward in this life and in the life to come." For these reasons we must not say "simpliciter and flatly": "Good works are injurious to believers for, or as regards, their salvation"; but "this proposition is censured and rejected in our churches because as a flat statement it is false and offensive, by which discipline and decency might be impaired and a barbarous, dissolute, secure, epicurean life be introduced and strengthened." (Ibid.)
b. The statement "Sanctification and good works are necessary" is Scriptural and must therefore be maintained. Scripture speaks of the new obedience as a necessity, ἀνάγκη, Rom. 13, 5; δεῖ, Acts 5, 29. Christian believers "must needs be subject to governments"; they "ought to obey God rather than men." These Scriptural expressions must never be weakened or modified, but should be taught in their full meaning and force. Whenever misinterpretations occur, these must be corrected; but the requirements of the divine will should not be altered by man, nor should His Word be changed to please the carnal heart. Sanctification must be followed by the believer, and good works must be done by him, because God demands this (necessitate voluntatis et praecepti sive mandati divini), 1 Thess. 4, 3; 1 John 3, 23.
The Formula of Concord is very insistent in inculcating the necessity of sanctification and good works. It says (Thor. Decl., IV, 31. 32): "The false epicurean delusion is to be earnestly censured and rejected, namely, that some imagine that faith and the righteousness and salvation which they have received can be lost through no sins or wicked deeds, not even through wilful and intentional ones, but that a Christian, although he indulges his wicked lusts without fear and shame, resists the Holy Ghost, and purposely engages in sins against conscience, yet none the less retains faith, God's grace, righteousness, and salvation. Against this pernicious delusion the following true, immutable, divine threats and severe punishments and admonitions should be often repeated and impressed upon Christians who are justified by faith: 1 Cor. 6, 9; Gal. 5, 21; Eph. 5, 5; Rom. 8, 13; Col. 3, 6."
While the Formula of Concord thus emphasizes the necessity of good works, it at the same time stresses the fact that it understands this necessity not as a necessitas coaction is (a necessity of coercion), but as a necessitas ordinis, mandati et voluntatis Christi ac debiti nostri (a necessity of Christ's ordinance, command, and will, and of our obligation), since it is true that "truly good works should be done willingly or from a voluntary spirit by those whom the Son of God has made free," Ps. 110, 3; 54, 6; 2 Cor. 9, 7; Rom. 6, 17. It says (Thor. Decl., IV, 16. 17): "When this word necessity is employed, it should be understood not of coercion, but only of the ordinance of the immutable will of God. (Vult enim mandatum Dei~ ut creatura suo Creatori obediat.)"
If the question is asked for whose sake believers should do good works, the answer is: 1) For God's sake, whom they serve with holy works, Rom. 12, 1. 2; 2) for their own sake, namely, that they may have true indications (indicia~ testimonia) of their state of grace, 1 John 3, 14; Matt. 6, 14. 15; 1 Pet. 2, 9, since the new obedience and good works of believers are really the testimonium Spiritus Sancti externum; 3) for the sake of the children of the world, to whom believers should prove the truth and power of the Gospel by a holy life, so that thereby they may be induced to hear the Word of God and be saved, 1 Pet. 2, 12; 3, 1. 2; Matt. 5, 13-16.
Yet this new obedience does not flow from the coercion of the Law, Rom. 7, 22, though the Law serves also the believer as a mirror, curb, and guide, Ps. 1, 2; 119, 1; 1 Cor. 9, 27; Rom. 7, 18. 19; Deut. 12, 8. 28. 32, - a fact that must be maintained against every form of Antinomianism (John Agricola, ca. 1535) ,but from faith in the precious Gospel of Christ, which inscribes the Law into the heart, Jer. 31, 31 ff., and thus makes the believer willing to, and zealous of, every good work, Ps. 110, 3; 2 Cor. 9, 7; 1 Pet. 5, 1-4. The terms willing and free, etc., must, however, not be interpreted in the sense "that it were optional with them (the believers) to do or to omit them (good works) or that they might or could act contrary to the Law of God and none the less could retain faith and God's favor and grace." (Formula of Concord, Thor. Decl., Art. IV, 20.)