The Role of Works at the Final Judgment

I have just read this 'Four Views' book edited by Alan Stanley.

Robert Wilkin gives the Dispensational View: works will determine rewards but not salvation. At the judgement seat of Christ (not the Great White Throne judgment) each believer will be judged by Christ to determine his eternal rewards, but they remain eternally secure even if the judgment reveals they have failed to persevere in good works, or even (apparently) in faith.

Tom Schreiner gives the more or less Reformed view - he makes a good fist of presenting the case for works being evidence that one is saved. Works provide a necessary condition, but not the final ground or meritorious ground, of salvation. The trouble is he does this without any reference to Romans 5:12-21 or even mentioning the word 'imputation' . It is all based on the New Testament text (or some of it) without reference to the riches of systematic theology (which of course is also based on the Bible's text) so it all seems a but thin even though correct as far as it goes.

James D.G. Dunn gives a 'New Perspective' view - that judgment is according to works, meaning based on works, but also according to faith. His very postmodern view is that since the New Testament appears to hold together 'justification by faith and not by works' alongside 'judgment according to works' (by which he means not what the Reformed view does, but that works have some merit) we should not blend them in such a way that one diminishes the force of the other. He is happy to allow Scripture to contradict itself.

Michael Barber gives the Roman Catholic view, that works merit eternal life, but that they are only possible because of the grace of God and though union with Christ by faith.

So different views are presented clearly, and as usual responded to by the others. Most noteworthy are: (i) the antinomian leanings of Dispensationalism, as works are not insisted upon as evidence of salvation'; (ii) Schreiner's failure to utilise the weaponry of Systematic theology and even of all of the NT to support his case; James Buchanan's 'Justification' has better arguments, written over 150 years ago; and (iii) the closeness in practice between the New Perspective (or at least Dunn's version of it) and the Roman Catholic views, even though in fact they are different in detail. Dunn makes comments actually rejoicing in ecumenical closeness between his view and the Roman view.

In the end both of them leave us leaning on ourselves rather than on Christ. It is difficult to see how either can give any assurance of faith - one is left trusting the mercy of God, not his justice in Christ; there is no assurance of judgment having already been passed on the believer in Christ. In both presentations Christ is almost finally irrelevant, certainly secondary.