Does Romans 2:6-7 Teach That We Are Justified By Faith And Works? (Part 2 Of 2)

• Discussion:

          -Karlo Broussard of Catholic Answers wrote a second article for the purpose of interacting to a further extent with a few claims made by Ron Rhodes on Romans 2:6-7 as it relates to Sola Fide (i.e. "faith alone"). His comments are cited in bold and followed with critiques:

          "It’s only after we’re in grace that good works play a role in our salvation...The immediate context of Paul’s teaching in Ephesians 2:10 deals with initial salvation. Consider, for example, what Paul says in verses four and five...The immediate context of Paul’s teaching in Ephesians 2:10 deals with initial salvation. Consider, for example, what Paul says in verses four and five...Paul here is speaking of that initial transition from death to life in Christ. And it’s this initial stage of salvation where Paul thinks good works play no role."

          Whenever Paul speaks of our faith in his epistles to the Romans and Galatians, he is making reference to our justification (Romans 4:4-5; Galatians 2:16; 3:11; 22). Ephesians 2 definitely matches this context. These texts affirm justification before God to not be meritorious. In Ephesians 2:10, the phrase "for good works" means that good works constitute the purpose of being created in Jesus Christ. This is a sanctification verse. The irony of Broussard claiming that good works "play no role" in the "initial stage of salvation" is that it is accomplished through baptism, which is a work.

          "But Paul doesn’t say anything about works attesting to saving faith [in Romans 2:6-8]. He explicitly states that the good works performed in patience and the seeking for the gifts of glory, honor, and immortality are the reason for God granting eternal life. In other words, the good works are real causes that bring about a real effect: the granting of eternal life."

          God will certainly give eternal life to those who display good deeds. When God judges us, He examines all of the details concerning our personal status with Him. However, those works are not meritorious. Justification in Scripture is described as an unmerited gift of grace, not something that we can earn even in part (Romans 3:24; 5:15; 17; 6:23). The gospel is received on the basis of faith, which results in one's justification before God (John 20:31; Romans 1:16; Ephesians 1:13; 2 Timothy 3:15).

          "This principle is made even clearer in verse eight, wherein Paul contrasts the aforementioned good works with bad works: “[F]or those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.” Disobedience and wickedness are not merely manifestations of a degenerate heart, but are causes that bring about the effect of wrath and fury."

          It is true that our sin brings about the wrath of God. It is also true that our works provide a general description of our state of heart. However, the author being critiqued has not successfully shown how justification is a process. Our good works do not play a role in us attaining or maintaining a right standing before God.

Does Romans 2:6-7 Teach That We Are Justified By Faith And Works? (Part 1 Of 2)

• Discussion:

           -Karlo Broussard of Catholic Answers wrote an article interacting with a few claims made by Ron Rhodes on Romans 2:6-7. He claimed that passages such as Romans 3:28 do not so much condemn the idea of meritorious works in salvation, but specifically works of the Mosaic Law. Before responding to Broussard's claims, it is necessary to provide some background information as to what kind of interpretation of Paul's words that he employs.

           Broussard utilizes a liberal interpretation of Pauline texts which stands contrary to the traditional understanding of the words of Paul, which is that he rejects works as being necessary for our justification before God. This "new" perspective on the meaning of works and works of the law was not known by most people until former canon theologian of Westminster Abbey now turned Anglican Bishop of Durham N.T. Wright published a book on the subject titled What St. Paul Really Said.

           This school of thought maintains that the Apostle Paul never argued against depending on the moral aspects of the Mosaic Law for getting right with God, but rather that he only stood in opposition to observing the dietary and ceremonial parts of the Law. In other words, it is argued by proponents of the new perspective that Paul argued against circumcision, heeding to food laws, and the observance of Jewish Sabbaths. Thus, the phrase "works of the law" in Paul's epistles has been reduced to Jewish ethnic badges or the ceremonial law.

          It has been claimed that conservative Protestant churches have derived their soteriology on anachronistic interpretations of Scripture made by the Protestant Reformers. Proponents of this theology claim that we need to view Paul's use of the phrase "works of the Law" through a different lens of interpretation in order to reach the conclusion that he was only arguing against boundary-markers. These people claim that the Judaism of Paul's day was not legalistic. The focus of Paul is shifted from soteriological to ecclesiastical.

          "Romans 2:6-7 refers to good works that belong to the moral sphere. The “works” that Paul speaks of in Romans 3:28 and Romans 4:5 refer to works that belonged to the Law of Moses, the keeping of which was necessary for Jews (circumcision, kosher laws, ritual washings, precepts governing the offering of sacrifices, etc.)."

           A colossal problem with the above argument is Romans 3:19-20. The Law is treated as something that the entire world is subjugated to. Man is silenced before God as he stands condemned for his sins  Thus, the Apostle Paul gives the Law and "works of the Law" a universal application.

            In 1 Timothy 1:8-10, Paul uses the term "Law" in a sense broader than boundary markers. In discussing their application, Paul pinpoints moral precepts as the "Law." That destroys the distinction that some try to make between "works" and "works of the Law."

            In Galatians 5:1-3, circumcision was not part of the "moral sphere" of the Law, yet Paul said that those who seek after that ritual must obey it perfectly. That point blows the distinction made between "works" and "works of the Law" out of the water.

           "The two verses immediately following Romans 3:28 bear this out. Right after juxtaposing the standards of faith and “works of law,” Paul writes in verse twenty-nine, “Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one.” This is the premise that leads Paul to the conclusion in the next verse that God will “justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised through their faith.” If Paul is juxtaposing faith and circumcision here in verse thirty, then we can conclude that circumcision is the kind of thing he has in mind when he juxtaposes faith with “works of law” in verse twenty-eight."

           Paul places faith and circumcision side by side for contrasting effect. It would be wrong to interpret "works of the Law" as referring exclusively to the ceremonial law. Both Jews and Gentiles (i.e. "circumcision" and "uncircumcision") are justified by the same means: faith apart from works of merit. That is the Apostle Paul's argument in Romans.

            In the Bible, we never see the completion of any specific charitable deeds as being prescribed as necessary criteria for the forgiveness of sins by God. There is not even the slightest hint of Paul narrowing specifically in on the ceremonial Law throughout his writings. There is no such thing as a distinction between good works that save verses good works that do not save. We are not saved by any good works.

A Note On The Glory Of Jesus Christ

"When Jesus Christ came from eternity to our temporal world, He missed one thing, the glory that He had with the Father, the honor that He had with the Father. It was impossible for man, even redeemed man, to give Him the same recognition, the same honor, the same renown that He enjoyed with the Father in His preincarnate state. That in no sense meant that He left behind any part, or the whole, of His deity, or any or all of His divine attributes, but simply that by coming down here on earth He did not have the same recognition among men, among His creatures, even His redeemed ones, as He had with the co-eternal and co-equal Father. To recognize all that lies within another person, you must possess as much or more."

Spiros Zodhiates, Was Christ God?, p. 92

The Anthropic Principle And Intelligent Design

The "anthropic principle"-from the Greek word anthropos, meaning "man"-recognizes that conditions on earth are ideal, apparently by design, for the existence of human (and other) life.

An objective examination of the universe indicates that it is finely tuned-adjusted precisely-for the existence of complex life. Following is a sample of key factors:

• Earth is just the right distance from the sun for life to survive. If Earth were too close to the sun, everything would burn up. If it were too far from the sun, everything would freeze.
• There is just enough oxygen on Earth-comprising 21 percent of the atmosphere-for life to exist. If there were too much oxygen (25 percent or more), things would catch on fire too easily; all oxidizing processes would proceed too rapidly. If there were not enough oxygen (say, 15 percent), living beings would suffocate.
• The level of water vapor in the atmosphere is just right for life on Earth. Too much water vapor in the atmosphere would cause a runaway green-house effect. The planet would become too hot for human life. Too little water vapor in the atmosphere would yield an insufficient greenhouse effect, and the planet would get too cold.
• Volcanoes are necessary for the spreading of soil nutrients. Too many volcanoes, however, would cause critical energy from the sun to be blocked by clouds of volcanic ash.
• The Earth has one moon, which is just the right size. If Earth had more than one moon, or if our one moon were much larger, there would be tidal instability on earth. In fact, a much larger moon might cause tidal waves to engulf the land.
• Jupiter, a giant planet with a phenomenally strong gravitational pull, attracts asteroids and comets that Earth does not because of its small and commensurately weaker gravitational pull.

The reality is that there are numerous highly improbable factors that have to be precisely in place in a balanced fashion for survival of life on Earth. Without any one of these factors, life would not be possible. Life, however, exists on Earth precisely because these conditions are just right for life.

The above excerpt was taken from a pamphlet titled Intelligent Design: What You Need To Know (Quick Reference Guide), by Ron Rhodes

Notes On The Corrupt Ministry Of Todd Bentley

In 2008, Canadian-born evangelist Todd Bentley became a household name in charismatic circles when he aired nightly revival services from Lakeland, Florida, for several months. Bentley was known for shouting, "Bam!" as he smacked people on the head—or kicked them—during prayer for healing. He claimed that an angel had been sent by God to bring a great revival to America that would start in his meetings.

But as quickly as Bentley could say, "Bam!" the so-called Lakeland Revival imploded. The meetings, broadcast by GOD-TV, were shut down after news that Bentley had been carrying on an extramarital affair with a woman who had served as his family's nanny. He later divorced his wife, Shonnah; married the second woman, Jessa; and moved to North Carolina to be quickly restored to ministry by author Rick Joyner.

Immediately after the first fiasco, Joyner provided spiritual oversight for Bentley and eventually became convinced the fallen preacher was ready to go back on the road. Bill Johnson, pastor of Bethel Church in Redding, California, released a 2011 statement saying that he felt Bentley was ready to be back in the pulpit.

Fast-forward to 2019, and another Bentley scandal has erupted. Stephen Powell, who leads Lion of Light Ministries released a public statement saying he has evidence that Bentley has been engaging in inappropriate sexual behavior with both men and women over the past few years. Powell, an estranged protégé of Bentley's, says he took his accusations to Rick Joyner and that Joyner didn't do anything to protect the people hurt by Bentley.

"I believe Todd has proven over more than two decades of ministry, moral failures and abuse of others that he cannot be trusted with the care of God's people," said Powell in an Aug. 22 post on Facebook. "I believe Todd is not fit for public ministry. On top of his sexual sins, he has proven to be a compulsive liar, he lacks financial integrity when handling God's money and he is a substance abuser that has drawn many others into these sins with him over the years."

Bentley posted a rambling response to his former associate on Aug. 23. While admitting that he does "have a past," he called Powell's charges gossip and hearsay. "The majority of these accusations are absolutely not true. Not all, but the majority," Bentley said. "However, there are some that are true, some that even are partial truths. Much are exaggerated and are based on personal speculation."

Joyner also posted a video response, saying he completed Bentley's restoration process in 2012 and no longer provides spiritual covering for him. Joyner also accused Powell of "witchcraft" for coming forward with the embarrassing charges.

This ugly scandal, which feels like deja vu all over again, has triggered numerous questions from ministry leaders and people in the pews about how to deal with preachers who fail morally. How long is a restoration process? How long should a fallen leader step out of ministry? Should there be a "three strikes and you're out" rule? Is a leader ever permanently disqualified?

Personally, I blame the system for this current mess. We charismatics are more enamored with "the anointing" than character. We run after healings and miracles, even if they are questionably manufactured. We chase gold dust, feathers, goosebumps and smackdowns instead of holiness, biblical revelation and true repentance. We are addicted to hype.

More than a decade ago some people put Todd Bentley on a pedestal because he claimed to have exotic supernatural powers—and many didn't care that he abandoned one wife for another. Now we are paying for that folly. It remains to be seen whether we will clean up our act this time.

https://www.charismanews.com/opinion/77795-should-we-restore-todd-bentley-again

The Meaning Of Jesus Christ Being In The Bosom Of The Father In John 1:18

"...Jesus Christ in His full deity has always been in the bosom of the Father. What does that expression mean? The Greek word for "bosom" is kolpos, which usually refers to something physical. It is the upper part of the body in the general area of which the heart is located. The heart is always considered as the seat of our affections. We also saw that God is Spirit and must not be conceived as a physical personality. Yet it is sometimes necessary for us physical beings to use physical expressions to understand spiritual realities. Therefore, in this instance, the bosom is used as an expression of love and constant intimate communion of the Son with the Father. It does not mean that God is like us, with a body and a bosom. We are told, for instance, that when the poor man of Luke 16 died he was brought to "Abraham's bosom." That means to the place where Abraham was, into close communion and fellowship with Abraham. Thus here we are given an idea of the Son with the Father. And this follows perfectly, since through the term monogenees we have full deity ascribed to Jesus Christ, the same nature as the Father. Because of this, He knows the deepest secrets of the Father, and the love between Them is unbroken and unique."

Spiros Zodhiates, Was Christ God?, p. 27

On The Invisibility Of God To The Human Eye

"Although John in his Gospel tells us that "No man hath seen God at any time," we have to understand that this refers to the fullness of His glory. Our little cup could not contain Him, which is why we can only "know in part" (1 Cor. 13). This principle also explains the various theophanies or appearances of God to man. One that is mentioned in the Old Testament is the encounter which God had with Moses. In Exodus 33:11 we read, "And the Lord spoke unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend." Here we are told that God made Himself, not necessarily visible to the physical eye of Moses, but audible to his physical ear. This is further brought out in Numbers 12:8, "With him I will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the Lord shall be behold." Here the voice of God is heard, but only a "similitude" of God is seen, not God in the fullness of His nature. Therefore there is no contradiction at all between what John declares and the experience of Moses."

Spiros Zodhiates, Was Christ God?, p. 10

Early Signs Of Canon Process For The Old Testament

• The Author Of Ezra Recognized The Pentateuch As Authoritative:

           -"Then Jeshua the son of Jozadak and his brethren the priests, and Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel and his brethren, arose and built the altar of the God of Israel, to offer burnt offerings on it, as it is written in the Law of Moses the man of God." (Ezra 3:2)

• The Author Of Nehemiah Recognized The Pentateuch As Authoritative:

           -"Now all the people gathered together as one man in the open square that was in front of the Water Gate; and they told Ezra the scribe to bring the Book of the Law of Moses, which the Lord had commanded Israel." (Nehemiah 8:1)

• Joshua Added Further Content To The Book Of The Law:

           -"Then Joshua wrote these words in the Book of the Law of God. And he took a large stone, and set it up there under the oak that was by the sanctuary of the Lord." (Joshua 24:26)

• The Prophets Samuel And Jeremiah Put Into Writing Further Divine Revelation:

           -"Then Samuel explained to the people the behavior of royalty, and wrote it in a book and laid it up before the Lord. And Samuel sent all the people away, every man to his house." (1 Samuel 10:25)

           -"Thus speaks the Lord God of Israel, saying: ‘Write in a book for yourself all the words that I have spoken to you." (Jeremiah 30:2)

• The Books Of Chronicles Are Mentioned In 1 Kings:

           -"Now the rest of the acts of Jeroboam, how he made war and how he reigned, behold, they are written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel." (1 Kings 14:19)
           -"Now the rest of the acts of Rehoboam and all that he did, are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah?" (1 Kings 14:29)

• The Prophet Daniel Refers To The Writings Of Jeremiah As Inspired Scripture:

           -"in the first year of his reign I, Daniel, understood by the books the number of the years specified by the word of the Lord through Jeremiah the prophet, that He would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem." (Daniel 9:2)

• The Prophet Zechariah Implicitly Refers To The Writings Of Other Prophets Who Were Alive Beforehand:

           -"Yes, they made their hearts like flint, refusing to hear the law and the words which the Lord of hosts had sent by His Spirit through the former prophets. Thus great wrath came from the Lord of hosts." (Zechariah 7:12)

Does Genesis 15:6 Preclude Us Being Reckoned Righteous By Meritorious Works?

• Discussion:

          -Jimmy Akin of Catholic Answers wrote an article on the text of Genesis 15:6 as it relates to justification by faith and how he thinks the text should be applied in soteriological discussions. Each of his comments are cited in bold and are followed with a critique:

          "Abraham is already a follower of God, someone who already has faith in him, and the context stresses Abraham’s good works and righteousness: (1) He defeated the evil kings. (2) He rescued Lot and the other captives. (3) He went to a priest of God and gave thanks for the victory. (4) He refused any reward from the wicked king of Sodom. (5) And so God himself promised to give Abraham a reward instead. (6) The fact that God is rewarding Abraham for what he has done shows this isn’t a case of a sinner coming to God and repenting so he can obtain forgiveness. It’s God rewarding a follower for faithful service. That means Abraham isn’t acquiring righteousness here for the first time. He is already righteous, as his actions have shown. Then Abraham believes the incredible promise that he will have a multitude of descendants, despite his age (cf. Rom. 4:19, Heb. 11:12), and God reckons that act of belief as a new act of righteousness on Abraham’s part."

          None of the above comments really address the text of Genesis 15:6 on its own terms. The "it" is a reference to Abraham's faith. His faith is the basis for receiving righteousness. That belief does not preclude the obedience of Abraham. His trust in God and His promises was the instrumental cause of him being counted righteous, not any good works that he did. 

 

          "Some translations bring this aspect out better than others. The New American Bible does a particularly good job. It says that the Lord “attributed it to him as an act of righteousness.” Notice, by the way, that Abraham’s act of faith also wasn’t generic in nature. Abraham already believed in and trusted God in a general way. Here he is believing something very specific: that God will give him a multitude of descendants—a point Paul recognizes when he uses the verse (Rom. 4:17-22). And notice that the righteousness isn’t a counterfactual, purely legal thing. Instead, believing God when he tells you he will do something is a righteous act. Abraham did something actually righteous here."

          There are translational differences. Many readings are legitimate. However, it is important to note that the addition of the word "act" is not present in the vast majority of translations. Moreover, it is absent from the Hebrew. The Hebrew word in Genesis 15:6 is "tsedaqah," which refers to justice or righteousness. It denotes a state of being righteous or just. It refers to what something is. The New English Translation has this footnote on Genesis 15:6:

           "tn The sentence begins with vav (ו) plus a perfect verb. It does not show simple sequence, which would have been indicated with a vav plus preterite as in the surrounding clauses. The nuance may be that Abram had already come to believe or did so while God was speaking. For a detailed discussion of the vav plus perfect construction in Hebrew narrative, see R. Longacre, “Weqatal Forms in Biblical Hebrew Prose: A Discourse-modular Approach,” Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics, 50-98. The verb אָמַן (ʾaman) occurs with a Niphal and Hiphil opposition. In the Niphal it means “to be faithful, reliable, firm, enduring.” While in the Hiphil, the form used here, it means “to consider or treat something as reliable, or dependable.” Abram regarded God as reliable for this promise; he believed."

           The Jewish Study Bible has this excerpt on Genesis 15:6:

           "With nothing more than an extravagant reiteration of the promise of offspring, Abram drops his question and trusts in the LORD. "And thus you find," observes an ancient midrash about this verse, "that our father Abraham inherited this world and the world-to-come only as a reward for the faith that he had" (Mek. of Rabbi Ishmael, beshallab 7). In the Tanakh, faith does not mean believing in spite of the evidence. It means trusting profoundly in a person, in this case the personal God who has reiterated His promise."

           Richard D. Phillips, in the book titled By Faith Alone, p. 81-82, expounds on Paul's usage of Genesis 15:6 in Romans 4:

           "Paul is contrasting two approaches to righteousness. The one is secured by works and the other by faith. The one is based on merit ("his due") and the other on grace ("as a gift")...Most significant is Paul's contrast between something that is earned, so that it is credited to the person "as his due," verses something that is received by faith, which is received "as a gift." In other words, Paul says that Abraham received righteousness not as something he did but because of God's gracious gift. Carson explains: "Romans 4:4 establishes that there is a crediting, an imputing, that means something is credited to your account that you do not deserve." This means that "when faith is imputed to Abraham as righteousness, it is unmerited, it is all of grace, because it is nothing more than believing God and his gracious promise." Paul's whole argument here is that while Abraham's believing is correlated to his being credited with righteousness, this is not because he did something to earn it."

           This line of reasoning employed by Jimmy Akin seems to reduce the promises made by God to Abraham to be something short of the gospel. Galatians 3:8, however, clearly says that gospel was announced to him in advance in seed form. Abraham looked forward to Jesus' day, and rejoiced (John 8:56-58).

Is Justification Before God Ongoing Or A One Time Act?

• Discussion:

          -Tim Staples of Catholic Answers wrote an article on how Roman Catholics should respond when critics cite Romans 5:1 as a supporting text for the doctrine of justification by faith alone. He tries really hard to sandwich the text to fit with Catholic theology, even though it does not. The author's claims are cited in bold and are followed by a critique:

          "First, as baptized Catholics, we can agree that we have been justified and we have been saved. Thus, in one sense, our justification and salvation is in the past as a completed action. The initial grace of justification and salvation we receive in baptism is a done deal. And Catholics do not believe we were partially justified or partially saved at baptism."

          Romans 5:1 says that we are justified before a holy God by faith. Romans 5:2 elaborates on that thought and states that we have been reconciled to Him. In other words, we can now approach God with confidence because of what Christ has done for us. Nowhere does Romans 5:1 speak of getting justified and saved "in a sense" at infant baptism. Such an assertion utterly misses the point of Romans 5:1 in its context. Faith is our point of access to God. In fact, the gospel presented by the Roman Catholic Church is so complicated that it would be virtually impossible to even accurately describe what it is on a witnessing tract!

          "This text indicates that after having received the grace of justification we now have access to God’s grace by which we stand in Christ and we can then rejoice in the hope of sharing God’s glory. That word “hope” indicates that what we are hoping for we do not yet possess (see Romans 8:24)."

           In the New Testament, the term "hope" does not denote a state of doubt or uncertainty. It is a confident expectation that things will turn out as God wills them.

          "The major part of the puzzle here that our Protestant friends are missing is that there are many biblical texts revealing both justification and salvation to have a future and contingent sense as well as these we have mentioned that show a past sense. In other words, justification and salvation also have a sense in which they are not complete in the lives of believers. Perhaps this is most plainly seen in Galatians 5:1-5."

           Justification is the first aspect of salvation. It is fully completed at the moment of our conversion. Sanctification will be completed at the end of our redemption. The idea of justification being "in a sense" incomplete should be rejected, unless we are referring to the evidential type spoken of in texts such as James 2:14-26.

         "The Greek word used in verse 6 [actually referring to Galatians 5:5] and here translated as “righteousness” is dikaiosunes, which can be translated either as “righteouness” or as “justification.” In fact, Romans 4:3, which we quoted above, uses a verb form of this same term for justification. Now the fact that St. Paul tells us we “wait for the hope of [justification]” is very significant."

          In Romans 4:3, the term "righteousness" is not a verb but a noun.

           "The truth is: this example of justification being in the future is not an isolated case. There are numerous biblical texts that indicate both justification and salvation to be future and contingent realities, in one sense, as well as past completed realities in another sense [Matthew 10:22; Romans 2:13-16; 6:16; 13:11; 1 Corinthians 5:5]."

           In what sense is the term "justification" being used in the above texts? If it is used in the sense of proved or vindication (i.e. evidence of a changed heart), then they do fit into a forensic justification framework.

           "While the Catholic Church agrees that Abraham was justified by faith in Genesis 15:6 as St. Paul said, we also note that Abraham was justified at other times in his life as well indicating justification to have an on-going aspect to it. Again, there is a sense in which justification is a past action in the life of believers, but there is another sense in which justification is revealed to be a process."

           This is nothing but circular reasoning. Even granting that Abraham was justified multiple times throughout his life, that does not prove he was justified in the sense of having been declared righteous in the sight of God. He could have been justified in an evidential sense, which we would expect to be ongoing. 

            "For 2,000 years the Catholic Church has taken all of Sacred Scripture into the core of her theology harmonizing all of the biblical texts. Thus, we can agree with our Protestant friends and say as Christians we have been (past tense) justified and saved through our faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross. But we also agree with our Lord that there is another sense in which we are being saved and justified by cooperation with God’s grace in our lives, and we hope to finally be saved and justified by our Lord on the last day (Matthew 12:36-37)."

             The author would be correct only if he admitted that the Roman Catholic Church has tried to force a harmonization between its theology and biblical passages that contradict it. The one thing that he does here is resort to semantics. Romans 5:1 focuses on justification by faith, not the complexities Staples adds, like baptism or ongoing justification. Cornelis P. Venema offers this commentary on the meaning of being judged according to our works on the last day:

            "Paul regards justification as a thoroughly eschatological blessing...The notion of a final justification on the basis of works inevitably weakens the assertion that there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:1). A final justification on the basis of works also undermines Paul’s bold declaration that no charge can be brought, now or in the future, against those who are Christ’s (Rom. 8:33–34). Rather than treating the final judgment as another chapter in the justification of believers, we should view Paul’s emphasis upon the role of works in this judgment in terms of his understanding of all that salvation through union with Christ entails. Because believers are being renewed by Christ’s Spirit, their acquittal in the final judgment will be a public confirmation of the genuineness of their faith and not a justifying verdict on the basis of works....these good works are the fruits of faith, not the basis for a future justification. For this reason, Paul speaks of a judgment “according to,” not “on the basis of” works."