Does Faith, in either system, merit salvation?

[The Biblicist]

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:

The disagreement is due to attempting to define it chronologically instead of logically. As I told James, look at a door handle, now take it and turn it. You supply the power for turning it. However, you turn it and it being turned are simeltaneous actions. "Turn...us O God and we shall be turned."

1 John 5:1 provides the same truth of simeltaneous action in Greek grammar. The verb "born of God" represents a perfect tense verb. The word "believeth" represents a present tense participle. A simplistic look would conclude that the action of the verb (perfect tense) which is a completed action precedes chronologically the action of the participle and thus new birth chronologically precedes faith. The actionsart of the term translated "born" demands a completed action as birth is not a progressive incompleted action. Whereas, "beleiveth" is a progressive action.

However, a more careful consideration of the Greek grammar will demonstrate the KJV translation using the present tense "is" to be the correct translation as the action of the participle in relationship to the action of the verb shows identical action. If the participle was future tense then its action would be future to the action of the verb. If the participle was Aorist/perfect/imperfect then its action would be antecedent to the action of the verb. However, if the action of the participle is present tense then the action of the participle is PRESENT with the action of the verb. However, the new birth LOGICALLY precedes the action of believing as the writer did not use a present tense verb.

 

[OldRegular]

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.

You are wrong and are dodging my last question which I will present again after I present the initial question you refuse to answer using as an excuse that I am "beggin". You are correct in one way Skan, I am begging for an answer!

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

You tell me and the Forum that salvation is unmerited, all of Grace. I agree, Then I asked a simple question: Why are some saved and others not?

You dodge the question by insisting I am presuming a deterministic response, whatever that is and that, therefore, I am "beggin the question". Some people are apparently saved and others apparently are not. I asked you why this is true since we both agree that Salvation is by Grace alone. That seems sufficiently simple that you can provide an answer and I am begging for an answer.

Now to my other question which you also refuse to answer:

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.

Really Scan, if you are going to start a thread it seems you are obligated to answer questions regarding the assertions/assumptions/whatever made in the OP and subsequent posts.

I will pose another question which you should be able to answer. I place emphasis in hopes you will not overlook it!

How can a person exercise faith without making a choice?

 

[OldRegular]

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.).'​

It appears now that you are contradicting your OP. Can you explain? Which is it: God regenerates us by faith or God regenerates us by Grace as your OP claims.

 

[Skandelon]

It appears now that you are contradicting your OP. Can you explain? Which is it: God regenerates us by faith or God regenerates us by Grace as your OP claims.

That is a quote from Luther showing that he doesn't affirm pre-regeneration faith. I'm not sure how he would reply to the issue of merit. You can ask him when you get to heaven.

I believe we are saved by grace through faith, not of meritorious works. And I don't believe that faith merits salvation.

 

[Skandelon]

You tell me and the Forum that salvation is unmerited, all of Grace. I agree, Then I asked a simple question: Why are some saved and others not?

You dodge the question

Actually, I wrote, "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."

I stand by that answer.

Now to my other question which you also refuse to answer:

Really Scan, if you are going to start a thread it seems you are obligated to answer questions

I can't tell you what determines a chooser to make his choice if I reject the premise of determinism. I'm simply telling you that a choice to ask for forgiveness, if free or determined, doesn't merit being forgiven. God doesn't owe forgiveness to those who ask for it, even if He made them desire to ask for it.

How don't know how to be more clear about this.

 

[OldRegular]

I believe we are saved by grace through faith, not of meritorious works. And I don't believe that faith merits salvation.

You still fail to answer the question: Why are some saved and others not?

That is a valid question based on everything you say in the OP. Accusing me of "begging the question" is a false statement and simply a dodge on your part. The question is particularly valid given the following claim you make in the OP:

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.

Just what basis does God use in the salvation of one individual while leaving another in their sins? You have already said above that repentance, faith, asking for forgiveness, humility and so on are irrelevant to salvation.

 

[Skandelon]

You still fail to answer the question: Why are some saved and others not?

I've answered you. How does, "Because some choose to trade the truths in for lies and refuse to accept the truth so as to be saved," fail to answer that for you?

God said, "Humble yourselves and you will be exalted."

Do you take that to mean that humility merits being exalted? Do you believe humble people, due to their humility, deserve to be forgiven and sent to heaven? Or is it gracious of God to forgive and save humble people?

Regardless of why they are humble, if they humble themselves (as the verse states), or if God humbles them by irresistibly means, do you believe that their humility earn or merits God's forgiveness and eternal glory in heaven?

 

[OldRegular]

I've answered you. How does, "Because some choose to trade the truths in for lies and refuse to accept the truth so as to be saved," fail to answer that for you?

You have said faith does not merit salvation now you are saying that accepting truth does. In the same post you said the above you also said:

A chooser determines his choices, period.

So it appears that God honors man's choice but not his faith, repentance, humility, etc.!

 

[Skandelon]

You have said faith does not merit salvation now you are saying that accepting truth does.

That is NOT meriting. Do you know what 'merit' is? "By grace through faith," means that faith is necessary, but its by Grace that we are saved, not merit.

Look at it through an analogy, maybe that will help you understand what I'm saying.

Suppose I owed a million dollar debt and thus it was IMPOSSIBLE for me to actually pay it. Suppose Bill Gates offered to pay my debt if I would merely ask him to do so. Would my request be worth a million dollars? Would my request be worth that? Or would you consider such an offer very gracious of Bill?

Now, suppose the same situation, but this time Bill offered to pay my debt if I agreed to work the rest of my days at microsoft and sold my wife and children to work their entire lives at Microsoft too. Would that be 'gracious' of him, or just a "fair" barter?

See what I'm saying? Our request to be forgiven doesn't deserve what we get in return. It is by GRACE but its still through faith. Faith doesn't merit our salvation. Regardless of why we believe, faith still doesn't merit God's grace.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally Posted by OldRegular
You have said faith does not merit salvation now you are saying that accepting truth does.

Actually, I wrote, "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."

I stand by that answer.

I did not ask what determined the choice of each individual. I asked:

Originally Posted by OldRegular
Why are some saved and others not?

That is NOT meriting. Do you know what 'merit' is? "By grace through faith," means that faith is necessary, but its by Grace that we are saved, not merit.

Why is faith a merit and accepting truth not?:BangHead::BangHead::tonofbricks::tonofbricks:

 

[Skandelon]

I did not ask what determined the choice of each individual. I asked:

And I answered you.

Why is faith a merit and accepting truth not?

Who said faith is a merit?

 

[OldRegular]

I did not ask what determined the choice of each individual. I asked:

Why are some saved and others not?

And I answered you.

Not really!!

Why is faith a merit and accepting truth not?

Who said faith is a merit?

Perhaps I should be more precise in my semantics! Why does faith not merit salvation and accepting truth merit salvation?

In response to my question: Why are some saved and others not?

You responded:

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

 

[Skandelon]

Perhaps I should be more precise in my semantics! Why does faith not merit salvation and accepting truth merit salvation?

In response to my question: Why are some saved and others not?

You responded:

You are not understanding what 'merit' means. It doesn't mean 'get.' Do believers get salvation? Yes. Do believers merit salvation? No. Do the repentant get salvation? Yes. Do they merit it? No.

Did the Prodigal son get reconciliation as an heir? Yes. Did he merit, earn, or deserve that? NO.

See the difference yet? MERIT is to earn or deserve it based upon what you do. A wage is a merit, but we are saved by grace through faith, not merit. I've given several illustrations to explain this and i'm not sure what else I have to say.

 

[BobRyan]

1 John 5:1 provides the same truth of simeltaneous action in Greek grammar. The verb "born of God" represents a perfect tense verb. The word "believeth" represents a present tense participle. A simplistic look would conclude that the action of the verb (perfect tense) which is a completed action precedes chronologically the action of the participle and thus new birth chronologically precedes faith. The actionsart of the term translated "born" demands a completed action as birth is not a progressive incompleted action. Whereas, "beleiveth" is a progressive action.

1 John 5 is pretty interesting as it speaks to the already born-again alive-in-Christ saved saint contrasted with the lost.

5 Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves Him who begot also loves him who is begotten of Him. 2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome. 4 For whatever is born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith. 5 Who is he who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?


As for "tenses" -



Ps 9:5-6 comes to mind.


You have rebuked the nations,
You have destroyed the wicked;
You have blotted out their name forever and ever.
6 O enemy, destructions are finished forever!
And you have destroyed cities;
Even their memory has perished.


So also Romans 4 for the "tenses"

16 For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, 17 (as it is written, “A father of many nations have I made you”) in the presence of Him whom he believed, even God, who gives life to the dead and calls into being that which does not exist. 18 In hope against hope he believed, so that he might become a father of many nations according to that which had been spoken, “So shall your descendants be.” 19 Without becoming weak in faith he contemplated his own body, now as good as dead since he was about a hundred years old, and the deadness of Sarah’s womb; 20 yet, with respect to the promise of God, he did not waver in unbelief but grew strong in faith, giving glory to God, 21 and being fully assured that what God had promised, He was able also to perform.

 

[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.

I don't agree with such a simplistic understanding. Changing what about a human? Subjectively changing his disposition, or objectively changing his metaphysical makeup?

Repent/believe are expressions of a man's THINKING being changed.

When someone believes the gospel, his mind has been changed - not by himself, or by deciding to believe differently, but by the enlightening power of the Holy Spirit using God's word

faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God
gospel is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes [it]

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).

I don't agree with such a mystical definition. I do agree that quickening is synonymous with regeneration, but it is objective. When Jeremiah and Ezekiel speak of the New Covenant, using terms like washing, new heart, new spirit, etc it is not merely symbolic or poetic language.

Hebrews 9-10 contrast the Old and New
The blood of bulls and goats could never REMOVE sins

The obvious implication is that the blood of Jesus DOES remove sins.

If any man be in Christ, he is and new creation. The old has gone and the new is come. Yet it is postulated by most that the "creation" amounts to nothing more than a change in disposition. That hardly spells creation

Regeneration is used only twice in the NT - Titus 3:5 and Matt 19:28
The latter is speaking of the physical universe and is promised to be future. The essence of that regeneration will be to destroy the old and a new one created that it s not tainted by sin

The former is said to be now. He saved us...by the washing of regeneration. This cannot be a simple "turning" of the man's will and desires. It is a destruction of the sinful spirit within a man, and a new creation of his spirit. One which is not tainted by sin - NOW

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.

I agree that in terms of eternity, and God's existence outside of time, everything is now. There is no eternity past, or eternity future. I would even say that, eternally speaking, sequential is not synonymous with chronological

But we do not leave this time/space realm at the time of our conversion in order that chronology is set aside for sequence. In or dimension, they are synonymous

In God's eternity, Jesus was born now, and I was born now. But from our standpoint, within time, He beat me to this earth by almost 2,000 years. Just like at the resurrection. Christ rose first. Then the dead in Christ will rise. Then we who are alive will be changed.

There is an obvious sequence and chronology. No matter how much or how little time elapses, if it happens within time, then sequence equates to chronological

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.

Regeneration is instant, not a process. And it does not happen until after one is justified by faith.

Regeneration is a removal of sin. And God doesn't use a washing machine with various soak/rinse/spin cycles

 

[OldRegular]

You are not understanding what 'merit' means. It doesn't mean 'get.' Do believers get salvation? Yes. Do believers merit salvation? No. Do the repentant get salvation? Yes. Do they merit it? No.

Did the Prodigal son get reconciliation as an heir? Yes. Did he merit, earn, or deserve that? NO.

See the difference yet? MERIT is to earn or deserve it based upon what you do. A wage is a merit, but we are saved by grace through faith, not merit. I've given several illustrations to explain this and i'm not sure what else I have to say.

Skan,

First: I am not a child and I resent your condescending remarks. That is a habit you have which appears to come from a sense of superiority. Furthermore, the so-called illustrations you present are designed for one who is mentally challenged!

Second: I am perfectly capable of using a dictionary if I do not understand a word.

Third: Your OP does not present the traditional view of Calvinists or non-Calvinists regarding Salvation. They seem to present a whim aimed at instigating debate at best and animosity at worst.

Fourth:You have failed to answer any question that I have posed to you. You may give a response but that does not necessarily constitute an answer. When I asked why some are saved and others not, since Salvation is by Grace alone, you insist I am seeking a deterministic response and the discussion deteriorated from there. You have yet to explain why some are saved and others are not saved. In post #33 you attempted to answer as follows:

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

. Is that really your answer? If so explain how "accepting the truth" is different than faith and why it has more to do with Salvation than Faith.

 

[Skandelon]

Skan,

First: I am not a child and I resent your condescending remarks. That is a habit you have which appears to come from a sense of superiority.

You are reading a tone into my typed words which are not intended. I'm sorry if I came across as condescending, sometimes that happens after attempting several times to explain something that seems simple to the author, but may not be to the reader.

Furthermore, the so-called illustrations you present are designed for one who is mentally challenged!

Now who is being intentionally condescending?

Third: Your OP does not present the traditional view of Calvinists or non-Calvinists regarding Salvation. They seem to present a whim aimed at instigating debate at best and animosity at worst.

Would it help if I posted a paragraph from notable author and Calvinist, John Piper, who makes this same point regarding how faith is not meritorious? I assure you this view is very much discussed among scholars.

I'm sorry you are having difficulty understanding the difference between the means that God graciously imputes righteousness to our account even though we don't in anyway deserve it, and meritorious means of earning righteousness. I've explained it the best I know how and I've responded to your inquiries in the best way I can. I guess we will have to call it a day.

Blessings.

 

[OldRegular]

Skan,

You have not explained how "accepting the truth" is different than faith and why it has more to do with Salvation than Faith.

 

[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.

Amen!

Well said!

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Skandelon]

Skan,

You have not explained how "accepting the truth" is different than faith and why it has more to do with Salvation than Faith.

It is not different. Just another way of wording the same thing. We accept the truth by faith. But doing so doesn't merit what we get...nothing we could ever do could ever merit what God does for us.