Featured Does Faith, in either system, merit salvation?

Merit - "deserve or be worthy of (something, esp. reward)"

In Calvinism, man comes to faith by a irresistible divine work of grace. Even so, does that faith merit or earn their salvation? In other words, are men saved by the "works" that God graciously caused them to do? Or are they saved by grace alone and the works are merely an outflow or fruit of that grace?

In non-Calvinism, we believe that faith and repentance are responses to God's gracious provisions...responses for which we are 'responsible' (response-abled). But, even still, the act of repenting or confessing in faith doesn't merit salvation. Someone doesn't deserve to be forgiven because they ask for it. The CHOICE to forgive anyone, even those who humbly confess, is all of Grace. God indeed will give grace to the humble, but its not BECAUSE they are humble, but because he is gracious. Their humility doesn't EARN or MERIT salvation. If not for grace, even the most faith filled and humble people in the world would die and go to hell.

 

And? Are men saved because 'with the heart they believeth' and thus merit being saved? Or is that faith a fruit of grace alone and actually not meriting anything? I think its the latter, right?

That is only true if you fail to consider God's work in bringing the gospel to the world a gracious work. OR if you believe its only a gracious work if it has irresistible saving effect on mankind.

Actually, I'm asserting as Paul stated, that faith comes by hearing the word of God, which he GRACIOUSLY sends, but I don't deny human responsibility because some might 'trade the truth in for lies' and deceive themselves, becoming defiled and hardened. I don't make the mistake of Calvinist by suggesting the gospel was just not sufficiently powerful enough to enable an actual response, thus giving unbelievers the perfect excuse for their unbelief.

Only if it were to merit something. The concept of 'works' salvation is based upon the work meriting or earning salvation, which we deny. The act of requesting God's help is not a work, because the act of requesting doesn't merit being helped. One forgiven doesn't deserve to be forgiven just by making the request.

If a man tortured and killed everyone you loved and then after feeling remorse sought out your forgiveness would he deserve to be forgiven because he asked you? Further would he deserve you not only forgiving his crime, but your choice to give him your house and all your money too? That is ALL OF GRACE.

You are making the erroneous conclusion that because a man 'freely' or 'responsibly' asks God for forgiveness that he deserves to not only be forgiven but given an eternal home in Glory, which is unfounded.

 

I don't know. And I also don't know how one group can accuse the other of this given that NEITHER group believes or teaches salvation is merited.

 

So, do you believe someone confronted by the powerful gospel appeal to be reconciled to God is equal to being 'left to himself?'

Is proof that one won't seek forgiveness also proof that one cannot respond when forgiveness is offered?

 

I realize that is the Calvinistic perspective, but the question was to bring clarity to our position, because your statement seemed to suggest that one confronted by the powerful gracious gospel truth is 'left to himself' if he isn't effectually regenerated. We obviously disagree. One confronted with the Word of God is not 'left to himself,' in our system, as your statement seemed to imply.

Whose choice was it to make all mankind born total disabled to respond to God's revelation due to Adam's fall?

 

How would you like if one of us went around saying Calvinists don't believe in evangelism, regardless of what they SAY they believe, their system is clearly anti-evangelistic. Is that fair? Is that charitable? Is that accurate?

Then why would you do that to us?

 

I understand that perspective, but I'd just remind you that works must be meritorious to be considered 'works.' Since we deny that faith or repentance earns or merits salvation you cannot rightly accuse us of believing in works salvation.

That is a categorically incorrect statement. The son's return home wasn't the 'determinate factor' in his restoration, as the father COULD have punished him instead. What you are doing is PRESUMING that because God promises to save the humble, that humility is meritorious, but that is not the case. God's choice to save the humble is gracious, because humility doesn't merit being saved. Understand?

 

It is not the final authority of what is truth or false, as that is what we are debating. However, it is the final authority of what we believe is true. If we don't believe faith earns or merits being forgiven and saved, then that is what we believe, period. Saying we believe otherwise is just a false statement.

The parable is simply an analogy I'm using to bring clarity to what we believe is true. Take it or leave it, but at least acknowledge your understanding in the process.

If it helps, change the analogy to be you and a murderous rebellious child who you, a gracious individual, seeks to reconcile with...does his return home to beg you for forgiveness merit your forgiveness? Does his return home merit his full restoration as an heir and a party with steak? Does it? Yes or no?