Fundamental View of Faith

[Van]

Most Christian fundamentalists would claim to believe in the principle of "faith alone" i.e Grace + faith = Salvation + works.

But what do fundamentalists think faith looks like? First, are fallen natural people able to seek God and trust in Christ, or must they be "given" faith via irresistible grace?

What criteria does God use, according to scripture, to choose to credit a person's faith in Christ as righteousness?

Would the faith be lip service faith, i.e. dead faith, or demonic faith where the believer is emotionally attached to their beliefs, or dynamic faith, i.e. a faith from which flows works? (I borrowed the alliterative descriptives (dead, demonic and dynamic) from one of my favorites, Warren Wiersbe.)

 

[Don]

1. Able to seek? Debateable; however, scripture is quite clear that we must believe.

2. Off the top of my head (I'm about to walk out the door), I'd have to say belief. I'llgive a better answer later.

3. Why would a fundamentalist believe anything other than Eph 2:10 and James 2:17?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Let's be thoughtful on this thread. This thread will take in the long running Calvinist v. Armenian debate.

 

[Van]

Lets be thoughtful about the subject of a debatable assertion. Anyone can claim it is not true, and then someone else can claim it is true. So the observation that people hold differing opinions on the topic is boilerplate.

The question was are fallen natural people able to seek God and trust in Christ. What is the fundamentalist position? In my opinion, most natural fallen people do have the ability, based on Matthew 13, where three of the four soils are seeking God and trusting in Christ. Only the first soil had been so hardened as to not be able to receive the gospel and respond affirmatively.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Van, [Mod Hat On] Your OP brings up a topic which has been debated fopr over four hundred years. Don't expect it to be resolved on this thread.[/Mod Hat] Further, it's a debate that predates Fundamentalism by centuries.

Let's be thoughtful about the subject of a debatable assertion. Anyone can claim it is not true, and then someone else can claim it is true. So the observation that people hold differing opinions on the topic is boilerplate.

The question was are fallen natural people able to seek God and trust in Christ. What is the fundamentalist position? In my opinion, most natural fallen people do have the ability, based on Matthew 13, where three of the four soils are seeking God and trusting in Christ. Only the first soil had been so hardened as to not be able to receive the gospel and respond affirmatively.

 

[Don]

The problem with your question is your use of "fundamentalist." Classical arminians who consider themselves fundamentalists would agree with you. However, calvinists who consider themselves fundamentalists would disagree. Then there are the Phelps-type fundamentalists; sorry, but I have no idea where they fall regarding this subject. And then you have your Ruckmanites, who definitely consider themselves fundamentalists; but I'm not sure where they fall regarding the subject.

As was pointed out, the question isn't really about fundamentalists; it's about calvinism. Unless you're trying to figure out which fundamentalists are calvinistic and which aren't.

 

[ktn4eg]

Ephesians 2:1 clearly states, "And you [the Ephesian believers] hath he quickened [made alive spiritually] who were dead in trespasses and sins." (emphasis mine)

To me, that verse is telling me that it was God who took the initiative in our salvation, not us. It's impossible for a spiritually dead person to muster up any kind of faith in Christ's finished work of salvation on his own unless God the Holy Spirit first "quickens" him.

 

[Van]

A quick perusal of the internet provides several articles where IFB and anti-Calvinism are linked. I see the need to explore "Faith Alone" as a fundamental doctrine, but if the only folks that post want to change the subject to anything but fundamentalism, it is going to be hard sledding. My opinion is that most IFB churches believe that scripture teaches most but not all people have sufficient spiritual ability to seek God and trust in Christ.

 

[Van]

Ephesians 2:1 clearly states, "And you [the Ephesian believers] hath he quickened [made alive spiritually] who were dead in trespasses and sins." (emphasis mine)

To me, that verse is telling me that it was God who took the initiative in our salvation, not us. It's impossible for a spiritually dead person to muster up any kind of faith in Christ's finished work of salvation on his own unless God the Holy Spirit first "quickens" him.

Hi Ktn4eg, your verse does not say when we were quickened, before God credited our faith as righteousness or after when God put us spiritually in Christ. Therefore the verse does not in the slightest support your assertion.

Take a close look at Matthew 23:13. Here we have folks "entering heaven" and therefore must have mustered up some kind of faith. Yet they were turned aside, so they were not under the influence of Irresistible grace. Therefore scripture teaches it is possible for a spiritually dead person to seek God and trust in Christ.

Does your "calvinist" view reflect the view of an IFB church. I know of lots of SBC Calvinist churches. The topic is the faith alone doctrine of IFB churches claiming to be fundamentalist.

 

[SolaSaint]

Does Ephesians 2:8 tell us faith is a gift from God and that it isn't from man??

 

[Van]

Does Ephesians 2:8 tell us faith is a gift from God and that it isn't from man??

The short answer is no, the verse indicates salvation is a gift. Back to Matthew 23:13 and folks entering heaven but then blocked by false teachers/teaching. If their faith was a gift from God, via Irresistible grace, then they could not have been turned aside. Therefore the concept of "the gift of faith" as presented by Calvinism is unbiblical.

 

[freeatlast]

1. Able to seek? Debateable; however, scripture is quite clear that we must believe.

2. Off the top of my head (I'm about to walk out the door), I'd have to say belief. I'llgive a better answer later.

3. Why would a fundamentalist believe anything other than Eph 2:10 and James 2:17?

So believing is faith?

 

[Don]

So believing is faith?

Don't derail Van's thread.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Yeup, there are Fundamental Methodists\Wesleyans, Fundamental Presbyterians, Fundamental Baptists, Fundamental Bible Churchs, ect.

The problem with your question is your use of "fundamentalist." Classical arminians who consider themselves fundamentalists would agree with you. However, calvinists who consider themselves fundamentalists would disagree. Then there are the Phelps-type fundamentalists; sorry, but I have no idea where they fall regarding this subject. And then you have your Ruckmanites, who definitely consider themselves fundamentalists; but I'm not sure where they fall regarding the subject.

As was pointed out, the question isn't really about fundamentalists; it's about calvinism. Unless you're trying to figure out which fundamentalists are calvinistic and which aren't.

 

[freeatlast]

Don't derail Van's thread.

Can't answer I see. :applause:

 

[Don]

Can't answer I see. :applause:

Try answering Van's questions first; then we can discuss side issues.

 

[Van]

I see the Artful Dodgers are posting again. We are discussing the Independent Fundamentalist Baptist doctrine of faith. All these evasions are calculated to hide the doctrine.


But what do IFB fundamentalists think faith looks like?

1. Are fallen natural people able to seek God and trust in Christ, or must they be "given" faith via irresistible grace?

2. What criteria does God use, according to scripture, to choose to credit a person's faith in Christ as righteousness?

3. Would the faith be lip service faith, i.e. dead faith, or demonic faith where the believer is emotionally attached to their beliefs, or dynamic faith, i.e. a faith from which flows works?​

 

[Van]

Lets consider Demonic Faith. Lets agree to define the beliefs as ungodly, but the defenders of those beliefs are emotionally attached to them, and would defend their doctrine or belief system in an emotional way, i.e. attacking those who hold differing views with malice. They spend more time defending their beliefs than serving their brothers and sisters in love. As Warren said, defenders of the faith but not doers of the faith.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Van, what folks are trying to tell you is we have gotten tired of debating\fighting the C\A question. So, your dog won't hunt.

 

[Don]

I see the Artful Dodgers are posting again. We are discussing the Independent Fundamentalist Baptist doctrine of faith. All these evasions are calculated to hide the doctrine.


But what do IFB fundamentalists think faith looks like?

1. Are fallen natural people able to seek God and trust in Christ, or must they be "given" faith via irresistible grace?

2. What criteria does God use, according to scripture, to choose to credit a person's faith in Christ as righteousness?

3. Would the faith be lip service faith, i.e. dead faith, or demonic faith where the believer is emotionally attached to their beliefs, or dynamic faith, i.e. a faith from which flows works?​

Your questions were answered. There was no "artful dodging"; you just can't accept that your questions are too broad in scope, and address a group of people with varying ideas on the subject. You can't neatly package them into one set of beliefs.

As such, your questions are about calvinism, not about fundamentalists. Perhaps you should stop dodging, and admit your true motives behind your questions.