Regarding the original question, and how it related to the quoted material, I would agree that we all approach scripture from a predisposed position, at least in the beginning. Let me explain.
We are taught about Christ (and in general about God and the bible) from someone who holds to a theological system. Therefore, our beliefs concerning Christ, the gospel, the character of God, and various theological issues are shaped by the one who first taught us.
Then when we start to read the scriptures for ourselves, we see in them what we were taught. This is only natural, in my opinion. Many times, maybe most of the time, believers never subject themselves and their beliefs to the scrutiny of another teaching or develop an open-minded approach to scripture.
I can assure you that one of the scariest things on earth (if we're convinced that our beliefs have eternal implications) is to consider that what he or she believes might be wrong. I have been there a couple of times. Once was when I left a works-based, legalistic, performance religion when I received the gospel of grace. I was then exposed to Lordship Salvation byway of Christian radio, and followed headlong after it.
I then read a book that is offered in the online bookstore at the Grace Evangelical Society, and my entire approach to scripture was forever changed.
I will say, though, that after a while of interacting on the GES discussion board, and reading their Grace Notes and such, I had a weird encounter. I had subscribed to what they promoted as saving faith:
“the conviction that He is the Guarantor of eternal life for every believer.” (Wilkin)
But then I saw an article by Dennis Rokser (Duluth Bible Church) which accused Zane Hodges (and GES) of advocating a "crossless" gospel. I started to investigate the charge, and found that I understood Wilkin's definition of saving faith a whole lot differently than how he meant it.
I started a discussion there, trying to get clarification of this crossless accusation, and was accused of trying to creep in and corrupt their brand of "free grace". I was accused of adding to the simplicity of the gospel, because I was arguing that faith is not centered on an ambiguous promise that "someone" called Jesus is offering eternal life.
Their position was (maybe still is) that a man need not know, understand, or even believe that Jesus is God, that He died on a cross, the purpose of His death, or anything else in scripture about who Christ is. Simply believe that He is offering eternal life.
My position then, and now, is that we believe in a Jesus who is God, who came in the flesh, who died an unjust death as a substitution, who rose again, who is coming back, et al. Not that believing those things about Him are addendums to believing in Him, but that those things about Him make up who He is. And that without believing who He is, and what He's done, etc, then we have a different Christ who cannot save.
I forcefully argued against the GES group up until my account was deleted by someone other than me. It didn't take a long time to get kicked off their site, though.
At the time, I wasn't sure if maybe I had misunderstood much of what they taught, or if maybe they had abandoned much of what I had learned from them along the way.
I hope this isn't considered irrelevant to the discussion, as it struck me a little lopsided to see the JoGES tag in your quotes. I do, however, agree with much of this:
So the question as to whether faith itself is a meritorious deed expresses a misunderstanding about the nature and definition of faith. Faith is not a deed at all. So, it cannot be a meritorious deed. It is not a decision, but a realization that the message or promise of eternal life is true. It is what happens when we are convinced of the truth. It takes no decision and no action of the will at all. It is not a deed.
I believe that the Holy Spirit is the One who enlightens our minds with the light of Christ. And when that happens, we are convinced of the gospel. And when we are convinced of the gospel, we believe the gospel. This is how someone becomes a believer, and thus justified.
I don't believe we become convinced of truth, then walk away to ponder it, then "decide" to believe something we're already convinced of. That defies all rational thought, IMO.
Totally passive, the work of the Holy Spirit. I do believe, however, that the truth can be rejected by someone who will not allow themselves to become convinced.
Trying to define faith within the confines of a system is detrimental, to be sure, because the systems are usually defining or redefining words to best contribute to doctrinal consistency.
Much like trying to define Election from within the confines of a system. Detrimental to think that elect means chosen to receive saving grace, whether one believes it to be arbitrarily by God's sovereignty, or according to the foreknowledge of what we would choose. Both of those positions are like arguing whether a bicycle has three wheels or four. Totally out of biblical context
