I somehow missed Green Baggins’ treatment of the first part of my chapter on justification. Again, there is not much to say because there is so much agreement. I am tempted to say that had there been no unnecessary controversy, there would be complete agreement. But, there you go.
I quoted Randy Booth in order to agree with him, and I have no trouble saying that the good works we do are demonstrative. The kind of faith that justifies is also the kind of faith that gives itself to love and good works, and we can see the former by looking at the latter. But under no circumstance does God look at our good works and say, “What a fine boy! I think I’ll let you into heaven.”
Two other points, however. I use the illustration of husband and wife, and one commenter asked why we cannot use the illustration that James used, that of body and spirit — faith without works is dead. I am happy to do that also, but it has to be said that the illustration is tighter than mine, more closely intertwined. Once, in conversation with a prominent FV critic, I pointed out that as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead, and in that illustration, the body is faith and the animating principle is works. His response was, “No!” We want the dead, inert substance to be works, and the thing that brings it to life as faith. But James has it the other way round — and of course, I believe that either is fine, depending on what error you are fighting. If you are fighting arid propositionalists, then works has to be the animating principle. If you are fighting moralistic do-gooders, then, following Paul, you should emphasize faith as the animating principle. This is because sinners like to be dead in different ways.
One last comment — a question was raised about election as a ground of assurance, and good works as a ground of assurance. I hold to both, among others. But two comments here: election raw is not a ground of assurance — it has to somehow be my faith in God, coupled with the conviction that He has elected me, that is a ground of assurance. The second comment is that I hold that good works are a ground of assurance simply because the Bible says so. Jesus says, “If you love me, keep my commandments.” By this we know we have passed from death to life, because we keep His commandments. As many as are led by the Spirit of God, in putting to death the misdeeds of the body, these are children of God. So any biblical doctrine of assurance has to include the important features of how the person is actually living. If a church can discipline someone, saying that they don’t display the marks of a Christian, based on how they are living, then certainly that individual should be able to come to the same conclusion, and true repentance would require that he do so.