Does Faith, in either system, merit salvation?

[The Biblicist]

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.

No one is claiming that "you" are claiming to believe in salvation by works any more than anyone is claiming that Rome claims to believe in salvation by works. What is being claimed is that your position is salvation by works regardless if you admit it or not just as Rome's position is salvation by works whether they admit it or not.

The parable is simply an analogy I'm using to bring clarity to what we believe is true.

That is precisely my point! Parables are not to be used for "clarity" since they can be easily used to prove whatever a person wants to prove. Precepts are provided in scripture for "clarity" not parables or allegories or spiritualizations.

 

[Skandelon]

No one is claiming that "you" are claiming to believe in salvation by works any more than anyone is claiming that Rome claims to believe in salvation by works. What is being claimed is that your position is salvation by works regardless if you admit it or not just as Rome's position is salvation by works whether they admit it or not.

Kind of like I insist on you believing in double predestination and the divine culpability for the consequences of the fall even though you deny it?

That is precisely my point! Parables are not to be used for "clarity" since they can be easily used to prove whatever a person wants to prove. Precepts are provided in scripture for "clarity" not parables or allegories or spiritualizations.

Of course they can be used for clarity. They may not be a final authority, but parables or analogies are meant to bring clarity to a point, and this one does. You just don't like it.

The other analogy I used is the one where you are asked to be forgiven by a murder, but I didn't see your reply to that yet...

 

[convicted1]

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.

The gospel is effectual to those who have been enabled to understand it, Brother Skan. Go to a morgue and get a bullhorn and yell from the top of your lungs for an hour "GET UP!!!", and see what happens. The same with the gospel. We can preach the most powerful sermon ever preached to the lost, and if God hasn't begun a work within them, it's like the "morgue and bullhorn" scenario I just gave. They can't truly hear and comprehend what we were saying, they have no desire for it.

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

Adam...

 

[Skandelon]

The gospel is effectual to those who have been enabled to understand it, Brother Skan.

Willis, I know what Calvinists believe, you don't have to tell me again and again. I'm arguing against your accusation about OUR system, as if we believe man is 'left to himself' apart from irresistible grace. Being confronted by the powerful, enabling gospel truth is NOT being 'left to yourself' even it that power isn't effectual.

Go to a morgue and get a bullhorn and yell from the top of your lungs for an hour "GET UP!!!", and see what happens. The same with the gospel.

That assumes two things:

1. That being spiritually dead equals being unresponsive, but since lost can openly reject and ridicule the gospel (something a corpse would be able to do either) this analogy falls short. We believe being 'dead' is being separated and in need of reconciliation, like when a father might say to his son, "You are dead to me." Like the father said of the Prodigal Son, "He once was dead but now is alive."

2. It assumes the gospel is as weak as your bull horn. The gospel is the power of God unto salvation. It is enabling and powerful, not some weak 'bull horn.'

We can preach the most powerful sermon ever preached to the lost, and if God hasn't begun a work within them

This assumes the sermon is not the means God might use to begin that work. Anytime God's word is proclaimed He is at work.

 

[convicted1]

BroBro. Skan, do u believe in gospel regeneration? I ask this to help progress our conversing...

 

[JamesL]

It assumes the gospel is as weak as your bull horn. The gospel is the power of God unto salvation. It is enabling and powerful, not some weak 'bull horn.'

That's good stuff.

From the title of this thread, I was under the impression that somebody would be discussing the "nature" of regeneration. The nuts and bolts of what it actually is, rather than how and when it happens, to whom, what state they're in first, etc

Alas.

As I see it, the Calvinist position must, of necessity, deny the nature of regeneration in order for it to precede faith and justification

If the nature of regeneration can be found (in part) by looking at Ezek 11, Ezek 36 and Jeremiah 31, and then referenced to Hebrews 8-10 which describes the better ministry of Christ, we can ascertain the man:

is forgiven of iniquity
has his heart of stone removed and is given a heart of flesh
is sprinkled clean
is cleansed from all filthiness
has a new spirit
walks in God's ordinances and statutes

These are the obvious implications in the WCF under "effectual calling"

All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased, in His appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by His Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and, by His almighty power, determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ: yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace.

II. This effectual call is of God’s free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.

In other words, the man is godly

But if the man is made godly as a first act of God, and before justification, how can Paul be correct in Romans 4:5 by saying that God justified the UNgodly?

Also, if the man is already godly when he comes to Christ, wouldn't justification seem a bit underwhelming at that point?

So regeneration is reduced to a paltry change of disposition in order that later acts of grace might seem to pack more punch

 

[convicted1]

Bro. JamesL, thank u for ur detailed post. I am on my nook and won't be able to giveu such a detailed response as I'd like. It is God who gave us our new heart. It is God who justifies us via faith. It is God who sanctifies us. It is God who gives us the the gift of repentance. I can't find man adding anything to the "salvation equation".

 

[BobRyan]

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.

When the murderer asks the Judge to forgive him - does the act of "asking" - earn the murderer a pardon?

Calvinists will sometimes state their case in a way that makes it appear that they believe in such a thing though they know full well it is nonsense.

So also the case with a man who asks a local company for a million dollars. Does the "act" of asking "earn the man a million dollars"? Even if the company should decide in favor of the crazy request - is it not still "a gift"???

Sometimes Calvinists will make that case as if it is "fair pay for services rendered" and not "a gift".

What is being claimed is that your position is salvation by works regardless if you admit it or not just as Rome's position is salvation by works whether they admit it or not.

There is an example of claiming that the million dollar gift is "earned by works" and not a gift at all - because "after all the man asked".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The gospel is effectual to those He has quickened to hear, react, and respond to, and no one else.

That is an example of a statement you will never find in the Bible.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[OldRegular]

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.

It seems that you are saying Salvation is only by the Grace of God. Why then are some saved and others not saved?

 

[The Biblicist]

As I see it, the Calvinist position must, of necessity, deny the nature of regeneration in order for it to precede faith and justification

Are you familiar with these Old Testament statements:

Jer 31:18 I have surely heard Ephraim bemoaning himself thus; You have chastised me, and I was chastised, as a bullock unaccustomed to the yoke:
turn you me, and I shall be turned; for you are the LORD my God.

La 5:21 Turn you us to you, O LORD, and we shall be turned; renew our days as of old.

If you take hold of a handle and turn it - you are the source of power that turns the handle and thus the handle is being turned as you exert that power.

Regeneration/born of God/quickened are expressions of God's power in changing humans. Repent/believe/conversion are expressions of humans being changed due to God's power.

Just as you cannot divorce the handle turning by your power from the handle being turned neither can you divorce conversion (repentance and faith) from quickening. The manifestation of quickening is conversion. Quickening is as inseparable from conversion as repentance is to faith - simeltaneous actions.

Quickening is God changing man by bringing man into spiritual union with God's very nature or metaphorical lightlife (Jn. 17:3; Jn. 1:4) which disperses darkness(2 Cor. 4:6 with Ephesians 4:18). That union is a revelatory creative act of God (2 Cor. 4:6) within the heart. The gospel brought TO the elect is taken by God and made His creative revelatory word of command WITHIN THE HEART which dispells metaphorical darkness (1 Thes. 1:4-5).

Hence, it is not a matter of CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER because gospel conversion is turning TO God whereas quickening is being turned BY God and are necessarily simletaneous in action just as your hand turning the knob is simeltaneous with the knob being turned. Logically the force precedes the action but chronologically they are simeltaneous in action.

Hence, there is no such thing as a regenerated unbeliever (Hardshellism) any more than there is such a thing as a unregenerated believer (Arminianism)

Thus regeneration is not completed until one is justified by faith as regeneration turns and thus justification by faith is the manifest expression of being turned.

 

[OldRegular]

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.

You say salvation is unmerited. I agree! Then why are some saved and others not?

 

[Skandelon]

You say salvation is unmerited. I agree! Then why are some saved and others not?

Because some choose to trade the truths in for lies and refuse to accept the truth so as to be saved.

If you are asking what DETERMINED the choice of each individual, you are question begging because it presumes a deterministic response is necessary. A chooser determines his choices, period.

 

[JamesL]

Regeneration/born of God/quickened are expressions of God's power in changing humans. Repent/believe/conversion are expressions of humans being changed due to God's power.[]QUOTE]

I have no real argument there. I do not believe faith comes from within a man. I believe faith is passive, and happens to us

Quickening is God changing man by bringing man into spiritual union with God's very nature or metaphorical lightlife (Jn. 17:3; Jn. 1:4) which disperses darkness(2 Cor. 4:6 with Ephesians 4:18). That union is a revelatory creative act of God (2 Cor. 4:6) within the heart. The gospel brought TO the elect is taken by God and made His creative revelatory word of command WITHIN THE HEART which dispells metaphorical darkness (1 Thes. 1:4-5).

Seems rather subjective. Scripture tends to use more objective verbiage, such as washing, cleansing, healing, etc

Hence, it is not a matter of CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER because gospel conversion is turning TO God whereas quickening is being turned BY God and are necessarily simletaneous in action just as your hand turning the knob is simeltaneous with the knob being turned. Logically the force precedes the action but chronologically they are simeltaneous in action.

Then why all the arguing about how God has to FIRST quicken someone BEFORE they can believe?

That spells chronology

I believe that the very instant that God enlightens someone's mind to the gospel, that person believes the gospel. And that very instant he is justified. And that very instant he is regenerated. And that very instant he is indwelled.

But there is no way that I would agree that there isn't chronology. Will a man be indwelt before he's justified?

Arguing "no chronology" seems more like a convenient way to dodge the issue

Thus regeneration is not completed until one is justified by faith as regeneration turns and thus justification by faith is the manifest expression of being turned.

That might be the crux of the matter. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that you would believe that regeneration encompasses the entirety of the conversion process. Yet, it seems to me that you've argued elsewhere that regeneration is the same as quickening, and that quickening comes first.

I, however, believe that regeneration is the final piece of the conversion process.

That's the issue of "what is" regeneration. if that doesn't get nailed down first, then all the other arguing is nothing but banging and clanging

 

[Skandelon]

I, however, believe that regeneration is the final piece of the conversion process.

That's the issue of "what is" regeneration. if that doesn't get nailed down first, then all the other arguing is nothing but banging and clanging

I could not agree more. This is an issue that even Calvinists disagree on because of their lack of clarity on the meaning of this term:

Even John Calvin himself wrote, "God regenerates us by faith." And... "It may be thought that the Evangelist reverses the natural order by making regeneration to precede faith, whereas, on the contrary, it is an effect of faith, and therefore ought to be placed later."

Likewise, in his commentary on Galatians, Luther wrote:

Paul as a true apostle of faith always has the word "faith" on the tip of his tongue. By faith, says he, we are the children of God. The Law cannot beget children of God. It cannot regenerate us. It can only remind us of the old birth by which we were born into the kingdom of the devil. The best the Law can do for us is to prepare us for a new birth through faith in Christ Jesus. Faith in Christ regenerates us into the children of God. St. John bears witness to this in his Gospel: 'As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name." (John 1:12.).'​

 

[OldRegular]

Because some choose to trade the truths in for lies and refuse to accept the truth so as to be saved.

If you are asking what DETERMINED the choice of each individual, you are question begging because it presumes a deterministic response is necessary. A chooser determines his choices, period.

You accuse me of "beggin the question". I accuse you of dodging the question. In the OP you say:

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.

Please note that in the OP above you are saying that nothing a person does affects in any way their Salvation.

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.

Then in your response to my question you say:

A chooser determines his choices, period.

Which completely repudiates the claims you made in the OP. Now which is it Scan. Does the individual choose to be saved as you claim in your response to my question or is Salvation all of Grace and nothing an individual does affects in any way their Salvation as you claim in the OP. Quit shuffling your feet and choose now Skan!

I might also add that you have an extreme propensity to accuse any who question you of "beggin the question". That is not a response.

 

[Skandelon]

You accuse me of "beggin the question". I accuse you of dodging the question.

So, if you refused to answer the question, "Have you stopped kicking your dog," because of the clear fallacious presumption then that would be equal to 'dodging?' Got it.

Please note that in the OP above you are saying that nothing a person does affects in any way their Salvation.

No, I argued that faith and repentance don't merit salvation. There is a difference. While it was necessary for the Prodigal to return home to experience his father grace, it was NOT the return that merited that grace, as he didn't deserve that reception. He deserved to be punished for what he did, not rewarded. His return home didn't EARN or MERIT that grace, period.

 

[OldRegular]

So, if you refused to answer the question, "Have you stopped kicking your dog," because of the clear fallacious presumption then that would be equal to 'dodging?' Got it.

Not really! You simply refuse to answer the question accusing me of "beggin the question". That is your typical dodge!

No, I argued that faith and repentance don't merit salvation. There is a difference. While it was necessary for the Prodigal to return home to experience his father grace, it was NOT the return that merited that grace, as he didn't deserve that reception. He deserved to be punished for what he did, not rewarded. His return home didn't EARN or MERIT that grace, period.

You are chasing your tail, that is, using circular reasoning. You say:

1. Faith and repentance don't merit salvation!

2. Returning home does not merit salvation!

Expanding on the above from the OP you say:

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.

But then you tell me:

A chooser determines his choices, period.

It seems to me Skan that you are running around in circles. A "chooser determines his choices, period" and that merits salvation while "faith and repentance and humility and beggin for forgiveness and being the most faith filled and humble people in the world" do not merit salvation. Am I reading you right? I would really like a straight answer instead of a dodge.

 

[The Biblicist]

Seems rather subjective. Scripture tends to use more objective verbiage, such as washing, cleansing, healing, etc

All of these terms express the ceremonial language used in Old Testament types. The external ceremonial cleansings were types of the internal work of God removing the presence and rule of sin in the human spirit (in contrast to the soul - Jn. 3:6).

Then why all the arguing about how God has to FIRST quicken someone BEFORE they can believe?

First, you will never find such a chronological statement ever defended by me in any of my posts. I have consistently stated and restated they are SIMELTANEOUS in action.

The order is only logical not chronoloigcal and let me demonstrate. Look at a door handle. If you take hold of the handle and turn it which is first, you turning it or it being turned? Remember, the words "Turn you us....we shall be turned."

I believe that the very instant that God enlightens someone's mind to the gospel, that person believes the gospel.

You are close. 2 Cor. 4:6 defines this enlightenment as actually God creating the substance of faith in the heart. John 17:3 defines eternal life to be one and the same thing as this light of knowledge being imparted. Matthew 16:17 demands the substance of faith expressed by Peter in Matthew 16:16 did not originate with "flesh and blood" but divine revelation as described in 2 Cor. 4:6. Hence, this divine enlightenment IS creation of the substance of faith in the heart and thus is the creation of a BELIEVING HEART. Such LIGHT of knowledge at the very same time removes metaphorical darkness. This light IS life and that is why Jesus said "This IS eternal life that they might KNOW" as this metaphorical light is life - Jn. 1:4.

Arguing "no chronology" seems more like a convenient way to dodge the issue

The Chronological issue is the same error that some fall into when discussing the order of divine decrees. There can be no chrono (time) order in the mind of God but only a logical order.

Likewise, there can be no chrono (time) order in the statement "turn us....and we shall be turned" as that is a simeltaneous act but logically the POWER for turning precedes the ACT of being turned.

That might be the crux of the matter. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that you would believe that regeneration encompasses the entirety of the conversion process. Yet, it seems to me that you've argued elsewhere that regeneration is the same as quickening, and that quickening comes first.

I have NEVER argued that regeneration CHRONOLOGICALLY precedes conversion - NEVER! I have always consistently argued that regeneration LOGICALLY precedes conversion.

Conversion is the experience and expression of regeneration. Regeneration is God turning man from darkness to light while conversion is man turning from darkness to light

That's the issue of "what is" regeneration. if that doesn't get nailed down first, then all the other arguing is nothing but banging and clanging

Several terms are used synonomously for regeneration (born of God; born of Spirit; quickened; created in Christ Jesus, translated, called, in Spirit; begat; etc.). Old Testament ceremonial language is used to describe regeneration "washing" "cleansing", etc.

The multiple terms are somewhat parallel with the multiple terms used to describe the office of Pastor. Several terms are used to describe the same office because of the various aspects of that one office. He is a feeder (pastor). He is aged in wisdom (elder). He is an overseer of God's work (Bishop) but all describe the same office, same man.

Likewise, these various descriptions of the new birth. Some of the terms are descriptive of its supernatural source ( born of God, born of Spirit). Some terms describe its transition from one state to another state (translated; called). Some terms describe the sort of power used to make this change "created" "new creation". Some terms are used to describe the internal alteration "washing" "new man". Some terms are used to define its essence "quickened" "in the Spirit" "eternal life". Some terms are used to emphasize the divine means for this act of creation "called" "of His own will begat He us by the word of truth" "For as God commanded" "born of the incorruptible word of God" etc.

HOwever, regeneration in essence is being brought into spiritual union with God. God is life and thus union with God is eternal life. God is Holy, thus union with God immediately imparts holiness which washes/cleanses the spirit of man from the filth of sin. God is light and thus the light of knowledge of God in the face of Jesus Christ IS life - 2 Cor. 4:6. Where there is light darkness is removed. Where there is holiness unholiness is removed (cleansing). Where this is God's presence ignorance of God is removed. This occurs in the human spirit (Jn. 3:6) rather than the soul and body of man.

 

[Skandelon]

Not really! You simply refuse to answer the question accusing me of "beggin the question". That is your typical dodge!

You obviously don't know what the fallacy of question begging is. It can't be answered except by calling it what it is. You are presuming a deterministic premise by suggesting that there must be another determiner besides the one making the determination. If you can't see how that is fallacious then I can't help you.