Continued: Does Faith Merit Salvation?

[Skandelon]

The other thread was closed for whatever reason, so I didn't have opportunity to reply to this response from Luke and others:

First my original Quote:

Originally Posted by Skandelon
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.

Luke's replies: First of all I will address this "response-able" thing you like so much.

No Calvinist has the slightest problem with God making creatures able to respond.

Well, that depends on how you define RESPOND. If it is seen as a genuine, reaction, or reply of one agent in RESPONSE to the action or words of another agent, then I do not believe your deterministic system leaves room for this concept of a 'response.' (now, I admit, guys like Biblicist are less deterministic than you are, so I may address him a bit differently on this point).

A pendulum is made "response-able". I pull it one way, it responds by rocking the other. It is enabled, in the design of it, to respond to my initial action. However it is responding EXACTLY as I designed it to respond doing exactly what I preordained it would do. Is it able to respond? Yes. Is it doing exactly what it was made to do? Yes. Is it independent? No.

This is a perfect analogy of puppetry or robotics in your system and the very reason I reject your concept of response. If you think we are mere reactionary (pendulum like) creatures that God punishes for our innate reactions then so be it. But that makes about as much since as someone pulling the pendulum back and then when it swings the other way, taking the pendulum in your hands and yelling at at saying, "Why do you swing the other way! I told you not to do that!" and then slamming it to the ground and kicking it into a fire. It is just non-sense from my perspective. I know it makes since to you, but I'm telling you how I see that view.

So... I don't see why you think this "response-able" stuff is any point in your favor.

Because I do consider that a moral 'response.' If anything it is a innate reflex or instinctive reaction...not a rational moral response.

There is a reason why John chooses Christ and Jack rejects Him.

Either John is smarter or less depraved or whatever. But there is a reason.

So Jack then is dumber or more sinful or whatever.

So in your system, God is still electing to save some and leave the others to damnation.

Question begging...you're assuming determinism's premise is true when that is the very point up for debate.

 

[Skandelon]

Originally Posted by preacher4truth:
Correct, and as we can see on BB the anti-cals and arminians believe man must enable God to save them, but when we speak of God enabling man to believe they hiss and spit at such a thought.

There is no need to wonder who is on the throne in their ideology -- it's man, and man in control, as to think of God as enabling man to them is to be repudiated.

It is only by the power of God we believe -- it is not personal achievement as preached by skan -- it is not inherent ability, it is God and God alone.

Convicted1: Woot, woot, woot! Encore, encore! Got any more goodies? LOL

This is just strange... P4T said, "Correct, and as we can see on BB the anti-cals and arminians believe man must enable God to save them, but when we speak of God enabling man to believe they hiss and spit at such a thought."

1. It is one thing to claim God enables us to respond. (i.e. "How can they believe in one whom they have not heard?"

2. It is another thing to say that God changes our nature so that we will respond in accordance with His predetermined will. (i.e. "How can they believe unless they are first regenerated and given a nature that will certainly desire to believe?")

3. It is yet another thing to say God responds on our behalf. (i.e. "How can they respond unless God does it for them")​

Clearly understanding and rationally discussing those distinctions is significant for our debate to maintain any semblance of meaning.

 

[The Biblicist]

This is just strange... P4T said, "Correct, and as we can see on BB the anti-cals and arminians believe man must enable God to save them, but when we speak of God enabling man to believe they hiss and spit at such a thought."

1. It is one thing to claim God enables us to respond. (i.e. "How can they believe in one whom they have not heard?"

2. It is another thing to say that God changes our nature so that we will respond in accordance with His predetermined will. (i.e. "How can they believe unless they are first regenerated and given a nature that will certainly desire to believe?")

3. It is yet another thing to say God responds on our behalf. (i.e. "How can they respond unless God does it for them")​

Clearly understanding and rationally discussing those distinctions is significant for our debate to maintain any semblance of meaning.

It seems to me that you must explain away the language in Philippians 2:13

"For it is God which worketh in us both TO WILL and TO DO of His Good pleasure."

Does not this language attribute WILLINGESS to do God's pleasure to God rather than to man?

It that language was applied to the lost man would not your system require you to explain it away?

 

[Skandelon]

It seems to me that you must explain away the language in Philippians 2:13

"For it is God which worketh in us both TO WILL and TO DO of His Good pleasure."

Again, this is simply of case of reading one's view INTO a text, as it never suggests that God's working in this instance is effectual. We both agree that God works to help us follow him. He provokes men with envy (Rm 11:14), which is an example of God working in lost men to help them will and do his good pleasure. None of us deny that God's provokes, persuades, influences, woos, invites, commands, warns the will of man....those are all 'works of God,' but you are merely reading an effectual nature into that 'working.'

So, the last time you sinned, I guess God didn't work in you enough? Isn't that ultimately your contention from before?

 

[kyredneck]

....So, the last time you sinned, I guess God didn't work in you enough? Isn't that ultimately your contention from before?

He posted a pertinant passage and you make light of it.

Maybe you've never experienced the 'fear and trembling' part of it.

I'm in a situation right now with 'fear and trembling', I know I better do the right thing.

But go ahead, make light of it to satisify your vain reasonings against His Sovereign Grace.

 

[Skandelon]

He posted a pertinant passage and you make light of it.

Make light of it? What are you talking about? If I was 'making light of it,' I might make a joke or ignore it altogether. Instead I wrote out a very coherent reasonable explanation of our interpretation regarding this passage. I then follow that explanation with a honest question in reference to an earlier discussion regarding 'the last time he sinned.'

Sometime I think people read tones into the typed the word that simply are not there.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by Skandelon
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 i

Agreed "we BEG you on behalf of Christ BE reconciled to God" 2Cor 5 is the sort of of appeal that goes to the core of the Arminian model.

It is an "appeal" to choice that makes room for not only the "whosoever will" of Rev 22 but also the "if anyone hears my voice AND OPENS the door I will come in" Rev 3 and of course it provides the construct for a logical non-arbitrary, reasonable and just "lament of God" in the case of the lost.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[OldRegular]

I would say that since faith is a gift of God it does not merit Salvation!