By Neal Griffin
After we have done all that we can, we are yet unworthy. We must yet fall back on faith by grace for salvation. Is this arguing for "faith only" salvation? I think not. The apostles emphasized faith and good works. Jesus emphasized faith and good works. The New Testament writings all emphasize faith and good works. So, why would anyone wish to emphasize anything less?
The Bible says that a saving faith is a faith that demonstrates itself. It is a light that cannot be hid. It must be evidenced by a new birth and a renewed mind. John 3:3 and Romans l2:2. It produces fruit for God. Romans 7:4. It declares Christ openly. Romans l0:l0. It serves the Lord with a boiling spirit. Romans l2:ll. It is characterized by thinking like the Spirit. Romans 8:5. It is living in the Spirit. Romans 8:ll. This is what the Bible declares. These things come from the Word of God.
But, what do men say? They say that you should be born again but it's not necessary. Men say that faith only should be emphasized. Men say that a saving faith is not necessarily evidenced by any change in character. They say that mental acquiesance to the fact of Jesus is all that is necessary for eternal salvation. Men say that every tree that does not produce good fruit will NOT be cast into the fire. They say that the foolish builders' houses will not collapse.
In conclusion, doesn't it seem reasonable that if faith only saves, there would be at least one example in the Bible of a saved person whose faith WAS NOT demonstrated? But, there is not a single such example. And to the contrary, there are numerous examples of saved ones whose faith WAS demonstrated. The faith that saves is the faith that generates good works. Good works and obedience are the by-products of saving faith-the evidences of it. James argued that his good works were indicators of his faith. Why would anyone argue otherwise? Men teach that saving faith does not need to be demonstrated. The Bible teaches that saving faith demonstrates itself. Whom shall we believe?