Written by Gregory K. Beale |
Thursday, December 15, 2022
Christ’s justifying penal substitutionary death is the price paid “once for all” (Heb. 9:12; see 9:26–28), and the good works done within the context of Christian faith become the inevitable evidence of such faith at the final judicial evaluation, when the believer is openly acknowledged and acquitted before all. Christ’s work (both His death and His perfect obedience) is the “necessary causal condition” for justification, and the believer’s works are a “necessary (but not ultimately causal) condition’” for “acquittal” before other men.

The Bible features multiple references to the final judgment. Matthew 25 is probably the longest such passage in all of Scripture. In verses 31–46, Christ “separates the sheep from the goats,” with the former rewarded with a kingdom inheritance and the latter told to “depart . . . into the eternal fire.” Other extended discussions of the end-time judgment include Luke 19:12–27; Romans 2:5–16; Hebrews 10:26–30; 2 Peter 3:7–14; and Jude 6, 14–15, 24.

The book of Revelation has more extended presentations of the last judgment than any other biblical book. These passages either make no explicit mention of the basis of the judgment (Rev. 6:12–17; 16:17–21) or mention idolatry, sin, or works as a basis of judgment (Rev. 14:6–11, 14–20; 18:4–24; 19:11–21; 20:11–15). Revelation 20:11–15 is perhaps the most explicit text about people’s receiving final judgment based on their deeds. God judges the dead “by what was written in the books, according to what they had done . . . , and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. . . . And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.” Those whose names were “written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain” (Rev. 13:8; 21:27) are not judged, since the slain Lamb’s blood is the penal satisfaction for their sinful works. The Lamb suffered their judgment on their behalf. They enjoy their justification (God’s declaration that they are righteous) in Him.
The question needs to be posed about how the believer’s justification in Christ is related to (1) God’s final judgment and (2) the requirement that believers must show their good works to pass through the judgment. Then we need to look at (3) how the final judgment relates to non-Christians.
First, when a person believes that Christ died on his behalf, Romans 3:24–25 says that the person is “justified” by Christ’s “blood,” which means that He took the final judgment and wrath of God that we deserved for our sin. Consequently, believers are “redeemed” from that final penalty (see also Romans 5:9).

But if this is the case, we need to ask why the New Testament can say elsewhere that “works” are necessary for passing unscathed through the final judgment. For example, Romans 2:13 says, “For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified [or, better, “vindicated”].” There will be a judicial evaluation of the works of all people. God “will render to each one according to his works” at the time of the judgment (Rom. 2:6). Some who do good, though not perfect, will obtain “eternal life” (Rom. 1:7). On the other hand, others will be found wanting and undergo judgment.

Read More
Related Posts:

Written by R.C. Sproul |
Sunday, August 13, 2023
When we close our eyes in death, we do not cease to be alive; rather, we experience a continuation of personal consciousness. No person is more conscious, more aware, and more alert than when he passes through the veil from this world into the next. 

The guns of secular naturalism, when aimed at the Christian faith, resemble not so much shotguns as carefully aimed rifles. The chief target of the naturalist is the biblical doctrine of creation. If the doctrine of creation falls, all of Judeo-Christianity falls with it. Every skeptic understands that. Thus the constant shooting at Genesis 1.
But along with the assault against divine creation comes an assault against the biblical teaching of a historical Adam who is involved in a historical fall, the result of which is the entrance of death into the world. If Adam can be confined to the genre of mythology and the fall set aside with him, then we see death as a purely natural phenomenon with no relationship to sin.
Much is at stake with the biblical teaching of the fall because this doctrine is linked to the doctrine of redemption. The historical function of the first Adam is matched and conquered by the historical life of the last Adam, Jesus Christ.
In the eighteenth century, when Jonathan Edwards wrote his lengthy treatise on original sin, he argued not simply from biblical teaching. He also maintained that if the Bible itself were completely silent about a historical fall, natural reason would have to suggest that idea based on the reality of the universal presence of sin. If sin is simply a result of bad decisions that some people make, we would assume that at least 50 percent of the people born in this world would choose the right path rather than the sinful one that is so damaging to our humanity. The fact that 100 percent of the human race falls into sin indicates that there must be an inherent moral defect in the race. Of course, Edwards points to the fall, a historical event, to account for this universal fatal flaw.
In the Genesis account, we are told that the soul that sins will die. In His warning to our original parents with respect to disobedience, God declared that “the day that you eat of it you shall surely die” (Gen. 2:17). But the record goes on to say that the day Adam and Eve disobeyed their Maker, they did not experience the fullness of what the Greek translation of the Old Testament calls thanatos—physical death. Because of this, some have argued that the death that God promised was not physical death but rather spiritual death.
To be sure, spiritual death set in the very day that Adam and Eve sinned.
Read More
Related Posts:

It’s progressives who rarely defy political orthodoxy and who harbor disdain for conservatives. And the hardening lines between these two groups add weight to the thesis of J. Gresham Machen a century ago: when it comes to Christianity and theological liberalism, we really are talking about two different religions.

Are conservative Christians prone to politicizing their faith, conflating Republican Party politics with biblical fidelity?
Some are, and we could point to plenty of examples. But the bigger, underreported story is that conservative Christians are not uniquely prone to such errors, and in fact, “progressive” Christians outpace their conservative counterparts in succumbing to politicization.
One Faith No Longer
George Yancey and Ashlee Quosigk’s new book, One Faith No Longer: the Transformation of Christianity in Red and Blue America, published by NYU Press earlier this year, has a provocative thesis. Based on new research and extensive interviews, the authors claim current progressive-conservative divisions among Christians in the U.S. (descending from the modernist-fundamentalist battles a century ago) are manifestations of fundamentally different belief systems.
Yancey and Quosigk believe we are not dealing with minor alterations in doctrine and values, but belief systems that have grown so drastically different that each side’s “goals” become oppositional, thereby “interfering with one another’s ability to accomplish their desired purposes” (209).
In defining conservative and progressive Christians, the authors use theological rather than political criteria. Individuals who believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God and say Jesus is the only path to salvation are conservative Christians. Those who do not believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God and do not see Jesus as the only path to salvation are progressive Christians.
The decision to define these groups by theological rather than political criteria is itself one of the areas where the differences between progressives and conservatives are most starkly represented. Everywhere we turn, we hear that conservative evangelicalism has become overly politicized and partisan, unable to speak to power prophetically. And we can certainly point to people and places where this has been the case. But we’re wrong to assume that the answer to this politicization will be found by turning to the Christian left. On the contrary, progressive Christians who fit this description are more, not less, politically minded than the conservative Christians.
Here are three surprises from Yancey and Quosigk’s research.
1. Progressive Christians are more likely to establish their identity through politics, while conservative Christians find their identity in theology.
Put simply, progressive Christians see the world through a political lens; conservative Christians, through a religious lens (155). This doesn’t mean that progressives are atheological and conservatives apolitical, but only that the emphasis is wildly disparate between the groups.
For example, progressive Christians…

…emphasize political values relating to social justice issues as they determine who is part of their in-group; they tend to be less concerned about theological agreement. Conservative Christians, however, do not put strong emphasis on political agreement in order to determine if you are one of them—their major concern is whether you agree with them on core theological points…(4)

Read More