I'm interested in exploring a theological understanding of work from a Reformed perspective. Most of the literature I find tends to be sociological, especially Weberian, but I'm specifically looking for theological treatments grounded in the Reformed tradition. Ideally, I’d like recommendations that are not politically driven or overtly proselytizing, but instead focus on biblical and theological foundations for work, vocation, and labor in Reformed thought. What are some good books or authors to start with?

In many ethical and philosophical systems, a morally good action—such as a doctor inventing a cure for tuberculosis and saving countless lives—is considered unquestionably good. However, in Christian theology, particularly within Protestant and Catholic traditions, I’ve read that "good works" are not just about doing good things, but also involve faith, grace, and the right intention before God. Ephesians 2:8–10 speaks of salvation by grace through faith, followed by a calling to do “good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.” Similarly, James emphasizes that faith without works is dead, yet the works seem to be expected as a fruit of living faith—not merely outward moral actions. My question is: **If a person does something objectively good (like curing a disease) but does not do it out of Christian faith or for God’s glory, does Christian theology still regard that as a "good work"?** How do major Christian traditions (especially Protestant and Catholic) interpret such acts? I’m not asking whether the act is socially or ethically beneficial, but whether it qualifies as a “good work” in the theological sense—something pleasing to God or meritorious in any way. Citations from Scripture, Church Fathers, or confessional documents (like the Catechism or Reformed confessions) would be helpful.

I have been taught all my Christian life that the uniquely Pauline expression "the works of the law" found in the Epistle to the Romans and the Epistle to the Galatians refers to acts of righteousness, good works and keeping God's commandment. So when Paul denounces the works of the law as lacking justification value, it is taught that it is acts of righteousness, good works and obedience to God's commandments that he denounces. Even though I often wrestled with this identification when I read some passages of Scripture that seem to contradict it, I generally accepted it as the truth. I have however studied the expression and the context in which it is used by Paul and have found it to be referring to circumcision and contingent works and not to righteousness, good works or acts of obedience to God's moral law. I am now curious to find out the origin of the interpretation. I want to be sure I have not missed anything that was considered to arrive at it which makes my conclusion to differ. Has anyone done a study on this or come across any exposition giving the background to this interpretation?

When I read Rev 20:11-15 to answer [another question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/107604/10672) an idea occurs to me. Maybe there are two books at play in the Great White Throne Judgment, the book of life (criteria for salvation) and what appears to be the "books of works" (title not given), noting the phrase "another book" and the plural form of "books" in v. 12. Here's the CSB translation: > 11 Then I saw a great white throne and one seated on it. Earth and heaven fled from his presence, and no place was found for them. 12 I also saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and **books were opened**. **Another book was opened, which is the book of life**, and the dead were judged according to **their works by what was written in the books**. 13 Then the sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them; each one was judged according to their works. 14 Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire. Is it possible that the "book of life" is the criteria of inclusion for going to heaven while the "book of works" (for lack of a better name) is for giving rewards for the "treasures in heaven" (Matt 6:19-21) that one has accumulated while on earth, namely good works out of faith? That the "book of works" contain everything that God sees we do in secret (Matt 6:4) and the unrewarded suffering we do for Christ (Matt 5:10-12)? One is also reminded about Paul talking about how the works of God's servants (who labor in the field of harvest) will be tested by fire (1 Cor 3:10-15). Or is my speculation in the preceding paragraph unwarranted because I'm mixing un-relatable concept of "works" from 3 completely different *genres* (a gospel, an epistle, and an apocalypse)? Am I guilty of reading Matthean / Pauline concepts into Revelation or am I to be applauded for doing ["inductive Bible study"](https://biblestudy.tips/inductive-bible-study/) ? My question: **Compare and contrast Reformed and Catholics view on the role of both books mentioned in the Great White Throne Judgment, especially with regards to "merit" and "reward".** What I'm trying to ascertain: - **For Reformed**: what is the use of the *other* books since it appears that what matters is only whether the names are found in the "book of life"? - **For Catholics**: does the church use the *other* books in connection with the doctrine of good works, **EITHER** with regards to the treasury of merit **OR** with regards to justification by faith and works? **OR BOTH?** *Note*: - For the sake of answerability, I only ask to contrast the Reformed position and the Catholic position as a minimal scoping, although additional position(s) are welcome as a bonus. - To defend that this Q is not opinion-based, I require citations from published Reformed and Catholic theologians.

This is certainly not found in the New Covenant of Jesus yet it is prevalent in Christian teachings, media, and reading materials.

While reviewing the superb answers to this question about *free will* , I was inspired to leave a comment for Ian that I realized ought to be its own question. As I understand (and possibly misunderstand) Reformed theology, "works" are things that we do, and as such are not included in that which provides justification nor salvation. I then consider the act of will that is making a choice to open one's heart to Jesus Christ, a decision that I finally made in my late 40's to accept salvation through Him alone. Thus began my walk in Faith (though I keep stubbing my toes on those rocks in the road ...). It appears to me that my choice, my decision to accept Salvation through Jesus Christ is a Work since it is something that involved my agency. From a more Determinist and Calvinist perspective, how does my acceptance of Jesus Christ *not* classify as a Work, since it was something that I did but that I could have chosen not to do? (If other Reformed denominations view this differently, that perspective would also be appreciated in contrast). From my perspective, I feel like I've tripped over a contradiction in the general case of not being saved nor justified by Works, yet it took my agency to accept Christ as my Savior. (It is quite possible that I simply don't understand the theology well enough, hence the question). How does the Reformed/Calvinist theology resolve this (seeming) contradiction? ----------------------------- I am under the impression that there are other Reformed denominations than Calvinist, but that may be wrong so the bottom line question needs to be answered from the PoV of Calvinist/Reformed theology. (I am seeking more help in chat to get my terminology right on this). I note that this question is related to my question in addressing the free will issue.

I have wondered that if it is faith alone that gets a Christian into Heaven, then why was it important to Jesus that his followers do certain things such as obeying His commandments and caring for their fellow man? Case in point, consider these two Biblical passages: _"Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.”_ -- John 14:21 _“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’_ _“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’_ _“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me."_ -- Matthew 25:34-40

I am pondering this question and would like other people's help/thoughts. James, the brother of Jesus, author of the Epistle of James and leader of the early Jerusalem church, writes in the book of James, "Faith without works is dead." He clearly sees that faith leads a person to action. Yet, in Acts 21, Paul comes to Jerusalem and James tells Paul to perform the Jewish ritual of purification so that other Jews do not wrongly judge Paul as being anti-law. Paul does what James asks, but the plan does not go well. Paul is nearly killed and is imprisoned. Here is my question - why did James not support Paul when he was arrested? Where is James' faith in action supporting and caring for Paul?

I struggle a little bit in understanding the Christian belief about the OT laws as a Muslim. One of the things that confuses me is that half of Christians say that deeds aren’t important; that salvation can only be through Jesus, believing he died on the cross for their sins. The other half believe that "works" are also essential. Which half is right? What do you think will be the fate / judgement of those Christians who preach to others that "works" isn’t important?

Does a Christian just temporarily stop believing that Jesus died and rose again every time they sin or something?

John 5:28–29 seems to teach salvation by works: > Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment. (ESV) How do Calvinists explain this passage?

I read that claim in an article written by A.M. Toplady (reproduced in a 2020 Christian magazine.) Toplady (1740-1778) did not go on to give his reasons for that claim, apart from adding, "An Antinomian looks to be justified by his works." Toplady is best known for hymns, such as *Rock of Ages* and verse 2 shows his view on the matter of works: "Not the labour of my hands can fulfil thy law's demands. Could my zeal no respite know, could my tears forever flow, all for sin could not atone. Thou must save, and thou alone." His article, however, was dealing with text from the Bible letter of James, written before the end of the first century. Therefore, ***I'm asking this question to those who know about ancient Gnosticism circa the end of the first century, and who also know about Antinomianism.*** Please bear in mind that I'm *not* looking for any opinions about Gnosticism and/or Antinomianism, whether they are good, bad or indifferent religious beliefs. **I'm simply wanting to know why Toplady could have made the claim, "Gnostics were the Antinomians of their day."** What basis might he have had for that?

A previous question of mine, "What is the biblical basis for the belief that good works are the fruits of faith? " provides examples of Protestant faith statements using the formula, "good works are the fruits of faith," and asks for the biblical basis of that belief. The answers to that question so far have confirmed my initial thought that the Bible does not say in plain words that good works are the fruits of faith, but that this formula derives from interpretation of various biblical statements. Here, then, is a follow-up question: Where in Christian history did the saying, "Good works are the fruits of faith," originate? What theologian or Christian doctrinal statement first used it? Did it originate among Protestant theologians, or was it already in existence in Christian writings prior to the Protestant Reformation? (*Note:* For the purposes of this question, statements that use close synonyms for or variants of "good works" and "faith" are acceptable, as are statements that use a different word order, and so on, as long as it is basically the same statement. However, I am specifically **not** asking for statements that good works are the fruits or result of *salvation,* or of *love for God,* or of *God working within a person,* and so on—**even if these things are seen as happening through or from or as a result of faith**—or of anything else that isn't precisely *faith* as that is understood within historical or Protestant Christianity. I am looking for the first use within Christian history of the formula, "Good works are the fruits of faith.")

It is common for Protestant doctrinal statements to say that good works are the fruits of faith. For example: > We confess that *good works are necessary fruits of faith* in the life of a Christian and that they proceed from a renewed heart that is thankful to God for His mercy and love. Although there is no human cooperation in the matter of one’s conversion and justification, there is a cooperation on the part of the regenerate Christian in his or her life of sanctification. Good works do not earn or contribute to one’s salvation, *but they naturally flow from the living faith* which is present in the hearts of those who have already been saved by God’s grace alone. ("We Believe, Teach and Confess ," Evangelical Lutheran Synod, italics added) And: > Although *good works, which are the fruits of faith,* and follow after justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God's judgment; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and *spring out of a true and lively faith,* insomuch that by them a lively faith may be as evidently known as a tree is discerned by its fruit. (The Articles of Religion of the Methodist Church , italics added) What is the biblical basis for the belief that good works are the fruits of faith? Please note that I am *not* asking whether good works are necessary for salvation, whether people of faith should do good works, and so on. Nor am I asking for the biblical basis of good works being a result of being saved, flowing from Christ, and so on. I am asking specifically for the biblical basis of the belief that good works are the fruits of *faith,* the result of *faith,* flow from *faith,* and similar formulations. Does the Bible anywhere state this clearly? If not, what Bible passages are quoted by Protestant churches and major Protestant theologians to support this belief, and how do they interpret those passages to support it?

The common Catholic apologetic against _sola fide_ is that St. Paul was talking about ["Works of the Law"](https://taylormarshall.com/2013/10/paul-mean-by-faith-and-works-of-the-law.html) , so assuming Catholics don't believe that works of the law save someone why are there [precepts of the Church](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precepts_of_the_Church) ? Considering the soul of a person who does everything proclaims their believe in Jesus and excels at everything, but fails to keep the precepts of the Catholic Church: If it is a mortal sin to violate the precepts of the Church; and following a precept is technically a "work of the law" in the New Testament, is it right to say that the Church teaches that works of the law save you?

A comment by a Catholic in a discussion with a Protestant about faith vs. good works startled me: > Catholics would consider going to Confession to be a work. It's a specific act you need to do. We don't have any qualms about saying Christians need to do all kinds of works, except the works of the Law. Of course confessing mortal sins are necessary for a Catholic to go back to the state of grace so they can **subsequently** do "good works" that are meritorious. **That's not what at issue here.** Secondly, although liturgy literally means "public work", I'm excluding that meaning here since "work" here seems to refer to what the Church is doing on behalf or for the benefit of the people. I'm thus not asking about the "work" done by the priests to assist a faithful's going to confession but asking **whether it is considered "good work" for the penitent**. So, within the debate with Protestants on salvation, am I wrong in saying that going to the Sacrament of Confession is technically *not* "good works" even if it's necessary to restore the state of grace in order to do "good works" for our salvation? For this question I'm defining "good work" in the sense described by this *Catholic Answers* article [Are Good Works Necessary for Salvation?](https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/are-good-works-necessary-for-salvation) In my understanding of Catholicism, good works are works of love flowing out of faith and powered by grace; works that are meritorious, which God counts toward the final justification of a believer in the state of grace. **So my question is**: According to Catholicism, is going to confession considered "good work" that increases one's righteousness, when considered from the angle that the sacrament merely **enable** us to perform works of love, the LATTER being the meritorious acts contributing to the increase of righteousness (for final justification)?

A *Gospel Coalition* short essay ([Justification and the New Perspective on Paul](https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/justification-new-perspective-paul/)) by Robert J. Cara, author of the 2017 book [Cracking the Foundation of the New Perspective on Paul: Covenantal Nomism versus Reformed Covenantal Theology](https://www.amazon.com/Cracking-Foundation-New-Perspective-Paul/dp/1781919798) , offers **3 broad critiques of NPP** from the perspective of traditional Protestant view of justification, i.e. against NPP which, **according to Cara** (which maybe a misrepresentation !), asserts that: 1. a believer's works are included as part of final justification 2. imputation of Christ's work to the believer is denied Robert Cara's three critiques are: 1. That NPP selectively excludes Jewish documents that testified that works-righteousness DID exist, thus negating the premise that St. Paul was *not* arguing against a legalistic works-righteousness view. 1. That although Paul's "works of the law" as primarily Jewish boundary markers (Sabbath, circumcision and food law) is what's primarily in view in Galatians, there is Biblical evidence for **a more basic** works-righteousness soteriology that Paul was opposing. This negates NPP assertion that to Paul there was no two soteriology (one OT and one NT) since according to NPP both are the same, i.e. OT/NT saints were finally justified based on faith in God/Christ and works. 1. NPP does not include Eph 2:8-10, 2 Tim 1:8-10 and Titus 3:4-7 as part of their analysis of Paul's view of justification, thus excluding key texts that even NPP agrees how those 3 texts support the traditional Protestant grace soteriology. This shows that opposition against works-righteousness was "in the cultural air" of early Christians, something that NPP claims was non-existent in early Judaism. **How do Protestants who support NPP respond to these 3 critiques?** - A cross-tradition Christian website *Conciliar Post* 2022 article *In Defense of the New Perspective on Paul* by Tim Arrington ([part 1](https://conciliarpost.com/theology-spirituality/salvation/in-defense-of-the-new-perspective-on-paul-part-1/) , [part 2](https://conciliarpost.com/theology-spirituality/salvation/in-defense-of-the-new-perspective-on-paul-part-2/) , and [part 3](https://conciliarpost.com/theology-spirituality/salvation/in-defense-of-the-new-perspective-on-paul-part-3/)) contains a good refutation but not supported by scholarly references from current generation NPP scholars such as N.T. Wright or Nijay Gupta, since E.P. Sanders and James Dunn have retired. - Dr. Matthew Halsted's June 2022 interview [*Playing with Theological Explosives*](https://matthewhalsted.com/2022/06/08/1802/) with Matthew J. Thomas, who wrote the 2018 Mohr Siebeck monograph later published (with improvement) by IVP Academic in the 2020 book [Paul's "Works of the Law" in the Perspective of Second Century Reception](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0830855262/) , contains a response to Cara's essay and Cara's review of his book.

In the writings of St. Alphonsus Liguori, e.g., *Dignity and Duties of the Priest*, he often makes mention of the author of the "Imperfect Work" without saying who this author is. I suspect that it is St. John Chrysostom. Does anyone know for sure? Also, I have tried many times to search the internet for this work, but have not found it. The second part of my question is: Is the "Imperfect Work" a book and where may I obtain a copy of it? Thank you.

What do the scriptures say about maintaining your faith in Christ? I know in Mormonism they teach that it's something you have to work at every day and slacking off can lead you to lose your faith and leave the church. But what does the bible say and what does Christianity say about keeping your faith strong? Is it something you have to constantly work at or is it something that once you get you don't lose? For example, in Mormonism you might hear lessons about how you need to attend church, participate and read your scriptures or else you could lose your faith and fall away. Is that strictly a Mormon thing or does Christianity also teach that you have to work at your faith or else you could fall into Atheism?

Cistercians and other catholic monks are notorious for the introduction of the advancements in technical sciences and agriculture in the Medieval ages. But I recently saw movie about Athon monks (Orthodox, not catholic) https://denpeirazei.com/ and also I am seeing Benedictine abbeys near and far from me. And all of them are adept at keeping guesthouses, doing mean agricultural works and producing food products and beverages. Usually they use almost a hypocritical mix of technologies and handwork. Actually such small-scale businesses could hardly survive without the donations. My desire is to find the monastic community that advances Artificial Intelligence, robotics and automation of jobs because precisely those advances free human beings from the oppression by each other and hence - precisely those technologies (of course, if only properly managed and put into the right socio-economic mechanisms) eradicate poverty. Hence - this is the ultimate job that the communities of work and prayer can do, in my humble opinion, this is the ultimate job. But I have not found such communities. Only advanced communities are the hospital chains managed by quasi-monastic sisters, those chains can have advanced medical research cultures indeed. Catholic universities are another story, especially Leuven in Belgium and Notre Dame in the US. But still, they are not monastic communities, even if monks are sitting in the boards of trustees and department chairs. So - what has changed that this passion for technical advancement has ceased and are there Catholic monastic movements to reignite this passion for technical innovation? *Clarification added*: It is quite possible that monks are doing research work as individual researchers and collaborate with some lay or monastic persons. My question was about communities specifically. E.g. almost sure that someone is required a community to build a robot, some is required a community (small, but still) to advance AI models or cognitive architecture. *Additional clarification added*: Some argue (e.g. in the comments) that my question is of sociological and historical nature. I.e. effectively they are trying to say (without giving explanation, sources and argumentation) that changes in monastic tradition, customs and nature are always of sociological and historical nature and that changes can not be due to the development of the spiritual practices, theological understanding and related schools of thoughts that consider monastic life in the light of theology and pastoral theology. My feeling is that my question calls for the wider deconstruction of the monastic life and the spiritual components of this destruction can be considered in this site as part of my question.