A Good Work?

[Guest]

Hi Steve,

Nice forum and way to dialogue. Thanks to whoever put it together.
On the matters of doctrines of grace, how about this for an open?
Is it not a “good work” for a person to “believe” ?

Cordially in Him, Jude

[_Steve]

(I would first like to point out that Jude, who has posted this question, is a dear and close friend of mine, and one who has been a faithful pastor in my life when I lived in Idaho. He is a Calvinist pastor and I am not a Calvinist, so we have enjoyed dialog on certain points regarding “the doctrines of grace” over the years.)

Jude,
It is good to see you here on this forum! As to your question about faith being a good work, this is usually raised by Calvinists to establish the idea that faith is a sovereign and unilateral gift from God, given to the elect upon the occasion of regeneration. The argument essentially is as follows: Since we know that a man is saved by grace, apart from works, there can be no action (read, “work”) taken by the unregenerate person that can be regarded as a condition for his salvation. Any “faith” that is not a gift sovereignly and unconditionally given by God would have to originate in the will of the man. Such faith would be classified as a work. Since a man isn’t saved by works, neither can he be saved on the basis of his believing, which is just another kind of work. Faith must be the result of God’s salvation, not its cause. That faith is indeed classified as a work is said to be supported by Jesus’ statement, “This is the work of God, that you may believe on Him whom He has sent.”

I think this confuses two different meanings of the word “work.” In one sense, “work” can refer to any activity or action…anything that is done. By this definition, brushing one’s teeth or pouring a bowl of breakfast cereal in the morning would be a type of work. However, going to the office and performing eight hours of contracted activity for pay is an entirely different type of “work.” The first type is simply “activity,” without any particular merit attached to it, and for which no indebtedness on the part of any other party is incurred. The second is “wage-earning”—not the mere activity of life, but the performance of special duties conducted solely for the purpose of obtaining a reward. Thus the stretching out of the hand to operate an industrial machine at a job is one kind of work. The stretching out of a beggar’s hand to receive a quarter from a passer-by is also a work (that is, an action), but of an entirely different sort. Brushing the teeth is a “good work” in the sense that it is not a bad work, and that it produces desirable results, but it is not a work that indebts any other party as does contractual labor.

Both saved and unsaved people are full of work (that is, activity) of the first type. In terms of salvation, nothing is “earned” by such work. If we use the word “work” simply to mean “doing something” (as opposed to “doing nothing”), then breathing, listening, ignoring, believing, doubting, fighting, surrendering, watching, speaking, laughing, eating—even resting!—is “work” in this sense. If anything that is done is thus called “work” whether there is merit attached to it or not, then faith is indeed a work, since it is doing something (believing) as opposed to doing nothing. However, it is not the sort of work by which the person doing it obligates anyone else to reward him. This kind of “work” does not enter into the biblical discussions of salvation and works.

It is generally in Paul’s writings that we find the contrast between a salvation by grace and a salvation merited by “works” (Titus 3:5; Romans 4:4-6; Ephesians 2:8-9). In these discussions, more often than not, Paul is specifically referring to “works of the law”—meaning the rituals of Judaism, like circumcision and ceremonial cleanness (Romans 3:20-21, 28; Galatians 2:16). But even if Paul has in mind general good deeds, in speaking of “works” in relation to salvation, he is always addressing the question of merit and debt. “Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt…And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace” (Romans 4:4; 11:6). In this connection, however, Paul makes it clear that faith as a condition for salvation is NOT the same as a work being performed for salvation, but is in fact the opposite: “But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness…Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith” (Romans 4:5; 3:27). When “works” are considered in the context of salvation, it becomes clear that Paul not only does not include “faith” in the category of “works,” but actually presents salvation on the basis of faith as the polar opposite of salvation on the basis of works.

Thus, in one sense, believing is indeed a “work” (that is, something that someone does) and is clearly a condition for salvation…but meeting a condition is not at all the same thing as earning something by working. For example, a mother may require a child to say, “Please!” as a prerequisite for receiving a cookie. Saying, “Please!” is not, in itself, a meritorious act. If I go to the bank and say, “Please, give me all your money,” no one would consider that my asking politely has somehow earned me the right to claim the cash. On the other hand, if I get a job at the bank and earn a wage, I can expect the bank to pay me as a matter of debt. The mother’s giving a cookie to the child is an act of unmerited grace on her part, whether or not she makes the gift conditional upon the child’s good etiquette. When God says, “Ask, and you will receive,” He has made asking (a “work” of a sort) a condition for receiving. But asking is not earning. So, if God says, “Only believe, and your daughter shall live,” or “If you will believe, you will see the glory of God,” or “Whoever believes shall not be ashamed,” He is clearly making “believing” a condition for the restoring of a daughter or for seeing the glory of God, or for avoiding shame—but in no case does believing merit the result. That believing is a condition for salvation is stated so frequently in Scripture as to require no documentation here, but this does not transform the doctrine of salvation into one of salvation merited by works, and is thus not in contrast with any biblical teaching on the subject.

[Guest]

Hi Steve,

Sorry to take so long with a reply. I went on a men’s retreat in Moses’s Lake. The best part was getting acquainted with some of your Alacca associates. It was good. Anyway that is the main reason for sitting on your answer to my question.

Steve if you look back, my question was not exactly the question you answered. I believe you inadvertently reformulated what I asked before dealing with it. Here was the exact wording: Is it not a “good work” for a person to “believe.” My intent in putting that question, has to do with how a person comes to the point of believing. Is it an act of the will? And if so how does one come to preforming that act? Does he come to preforming that act from his own volition? And if that is the case does he do it freely? And please bear with me. If that too is the case can he just as freely do otherwise?

May be you would want to refer me back to part of your prior response.

Thanks and the Lord's blessing to you,
Jude

[_Steve]

Hi Jude,
I appreciate the opportunity to continue this discussion. Your questions are brief; my answers are verbose. If "brevity is the soul of wit," then you may find that you are engaged in a “battle of wits against an unarmed man.” I don’t mean to overwhelm you with many words, but your short sentences present only the tip of a theological iceberg. If you would prefer for me to give single-sentence answers, please let me know. If you can endure my giving what I regard to be the kind of full answer your concerns deserve, then please bear with me.

In my previous response, I sought not only to answer your basic question (“Is faith a good work?”), but also to address the concern behind the question. I think I did the first, but I apparently missed the mark in attempting to discern what you consider to be at issue here.

If a man were not a Calvinist, and was not making reference to the special concerns that Calvinists bring to this discussion, and he asked me, “Is faith a good work?” I could give a very short answer. Concern for scriptural accuracy would compel me to say something like, “No—faith is not a ‘good work’ in any biblical sense of that expression. In fact, the Bible is at pains to present ‘faith’ as the antithesis of ‘work’ in terms of warranting salvation. You could only call faith a ‘good work’ if you wished to use the word ‘work’ in a very unusual sense—namely, to label any human action (e.g., breathing, watching, thinking, etc.) as a ‘work.’ Only then could ‘believing’ be put in that category—but the Bible generally doesn’t use the word ‘work’ in that sense, nor do we normally think of it in this way in ordinary communication.”

Now, since you are a Calvinist, I took the liberty of addressing the special concerns that I know to underlie this question in the mind of a Calvinist…but I only covered part of the ground, and the part I left untouched was apparently the part that you wished for me to address.

Let’s start again with the original question: “Is faith a good work?” There are really two questions here: 1) Is faith a “work”, and 2) Is it “good”? I think I have addressed the first of these above. The second was only briefly touched on in my earlier response. In that place I said that faith, like brushing the teeth, can be said to be “good” in a certain sense, because it is not “bad” and it produces desirable results. Faith is also “good” in the sense that it pleases God for us to believe Him, and it displeases Him when we do not believe (Heb.11:6). The choice to believe is clearly a “better” one than the choice to doubt.

I think I now pick up that your real question is: Is faith a “meritorious” work, or (perhaps) “is it a work such as an unregenerate (evil) man might perform contrary to the evil inclinations of his fallen nature?” If I am still reading your concern wrongly, I welcome further clarification. I will answer here, unless corrected about this, upon the assumption that this is the question you hope to have addressed. I would like to recast your paragraph (though using only the words you used) itemizing the subordinate points. The first line seems to state the overall concern, with the subsequent questions being subordinate components of that concern. You wrote:

My intent in putting that question, has to do with how a person comes to the point of believing:
—Is it an act of the will?
—And if so how does one come to performing that act?
—Does he come to performing that act from his own volition?
—And if that is the case does he do it freely?
—If that too is the case can he just as freely do otherwise?

In response to the introductory statement, I would have to answer that people come to hold a variety of beliefs through a variety of processes.

“Believing” is not the peculiar province of Christians. All people have things that they believe. Believing is an inevitable mental activity of human beings. What is not inevitable is the CONTENT of a given man’s belief package. He will inevitably have beliefs of some sort, whether he wishes to have any or not, but he will not believe any particular proposition which he is determined to disbelieve.

How do people come to believe what they believe? Some say they believe only things that they have seen and experienced. Others apparently believe whatever was presupposed to be true in the cultural or religious environment of their childhood. Still others believe something because they have reasoned it out, or because they have heard it reported from a reliable source, or because it has come to them as a sort of “epiphany” or “divine revelation.” I would not be surprised if every one of us believes some things for one of these reasons and other things for another. But, in the final analysis, I suspect that a great many people believe just what they prefer to believe, for whatever reasons.

At this point, I want to append your subordinate points with my brief answers, to the best of my ability, given my limited understanding of such things:

1. Is [believing] an act of the will? (Yes.)
2. And if so how does one come to performing that act? (see discussion, below)
3. Does he come to performing that act from his own volition? (Yes. At least ultimately.)
4. And if that is the case does he do it freely? (In measure, I would say, yes—though absolute freedom from outside influences probably does not exist.)
5. If that too is the case can he just as freely do otherwise? (“just as freely?”, perhaps not, in certain cases, but in others, I think so. See further discussion, below)

Now I suspect that the concern underlying all of these questions is something like this: If a man will believe what he chooses to believe, and if unregenerate man is thoroughly evil to the core (totally depraved), and all his desires are evil, then how could an unregenerate man ever even desire to make such a “good” decision as to believe in Christ? Does it not presuppose some prior “good” inclinations to exist in the sinner, to suggest that he, when free to believe what he wishes, will be inclined to choose faith in Christ over other, more sinful, options? And would not such a presupposition contradict the doctrine of total depravity and preserve some measure of merit in the man who makes the “good” decision, rendering him, in his own right, a better man than the one who makes the “bad” choice not to believe? Does this not give the believer something of which to boast?

You did not ask these specific questions, but most Calvinists do ask them, and unless I am mistaken, they appear to lie at the heart of your concern. If these are not your questions, feel free to write and let me know. If they are the questions you are really asking, I would answer as follows:

First, the doctrine of “total depravity,” as the Calvinist theology states it, makes much of the reality of “original sin,” but to the exclusion of the biblical indicators of the corresponding reality of “original righteousness.” That is, while all men have fallen into sin and are lost, the point from which they have fallen is “the image of God,” and not everything about that original image has been lost, or obliterated, in the fall (see James 3:9). There is still, in many cases, even among pagans, a passion for justice, an appreciation for kindness, a desire to know truth, a sacrificial love for spouses, children and countrymen. The existence of hundreds of pagan religions bears testimony of an innate urge or an “itch” in many men to know and to please those divine beings to whom they think themselves to be answerable. This desire for connectedness to and approval from the divinity (however inaccurately conceived) suggests that man’s penchant for sin is not the only force at work in his nature. While we may admit that no unregenerate man is capable of doing such righteous acts as would atone for his sins, we need not exaggerate the degree of depravity so as to suggest (against all evidence) that an unregenerate man cannot desire to know God. This seems clear, for example, in the story of Cornelius, who, before he was regenerated, nonetheless showed great piety toward the God of the Hebrews and whose prayers and alms were pleasant in the sight of God (Acts 10:4). If it be argued that this was only true of Cornelius because, as it turned out, he was among “the elect,” then what shall we say of the rich, young ruler, who apparently was not elect, but who had lived a conscientious life and had a heartfelt desire to obtain eternal life in right relation to God (Matt.19:16ff)? Agrippa was “almost persuaded” to become a Christian. There must have been something within him to which the gospel made a potent appeal, though he did not repent (Acts 26:28). Paul said that some of the Athenians, unregenerate as they were, were actually seeking to worship the true God, though they did not know who He was (Acts 17:23). There is nothing in scripture, nor in human experience, that would tell us that an unregenerate man cannot desire God, seek God, or choose to believe God.

Second, it is often said that even the “good” deeds done by unregenerate men are an offense and sin before God, because they are not motivated by a pure concern for the glory of God, but by a sinful self-interest. I do not know how we could say this with any certainty, since the Bible does not say any such thing about all men, and we can hardly claim to know the motives of men other than ourselves. Doesn’t this assumption go right against the Christian ethic that forbids us to judge the motives of another man?

Also, must we assume that all self-interest is sinful? If a hungry man eats food that he has gotten lawfully, isn’t this done out of self-interest? And yet who can call it sin? If, in order to feed himself and his family, he devotes the majority of his waking hours to strenuous labor, isn’t this also done out of (entirely legitimate) self-interest? Now suppose that such a man finds that the railroad track where his car has stalled has upon it a train speeding toward him. Is it not a legitimate self-interest that leads him to remove himself from the path of danger? Can anyone consider this act to be sinful? Would not the most righteous man, with the highest of motives, do the same thing? And (finally), if a man comes to understand that he, due to his way of life, is on a collision course with the uncompromising justice of the Almighty God, might not self-interest lead him to seek to make his peace with God, through whichever means commends itself to him as effectual? If he has heard the gospel, and he finds it compelling, why should he be blamed for letting his self-interest in such a case lead him to make the right decision?

I agree that it would be far more commendable for the man, if, out of a disinterested concern for the glory of God, he would simply surrender to Christ without a concern about how this may affect his own destiny. Much more commendable…but then, I do not believe fallen men to be very often capable of doing such “commendable” things (nor is it likely that any of us who are Christians can say we came to Christ without a care for our own souls’ destinies). The gospel tells us that men are not saved by doing commendable things, but are saved in spite of the fact that their natures are shot-through with obsessive self-interest. God does not call unselfish men to repentance, but sinners. Sinners, motivated largely by self-interest, are indeed capable of repentance. This is the unavoidable implication of the fact that they are called to repent, and then punished if they refuse.

God seems to assume everywhere that self-interest is the primary motivation for the sinner’s initial repentance. Once a man is saved, God can begin the long process of making him spiritual, and improving the quality of his motivations—but spiritual motivations are too much to expect from the fallen man, and the prodigal’s father is willing to run out to meet him part way in order to accompany him home. Every time God says something that amounts to, “If you do this thing, you will be rewarded…but if you do this other thing, you will smart for it,” He is appealing to man’s self-interest. The assumption seems to be that man, by nature, is apt to do what he perceives to be in his best interests, whether in the short run or the long, and that man needs to be made to understand that his surrender to Christ, to which his sinful pride and sensuality are naturally so resistant, is actually very much a better decision for him in the long run. We who are Christians may talk philosophically about the lofty ideal of men’s need to live unselfishly for the glory of God, but God’s whole approach in scripture does not appear to place such an expectation on the alienated prodigal, whose decision to return to his father was made in his own heart while he was in a far country, and—so far as we can determine from the story—was motivated entirely by self-interest.

Third, if one man, through whatever motivation, makes a better or wiser choice than another man has made, resulting in one being saved and the other lost, could not the first man take a measure of credit for his own salvation, thus depriving Christ of the full glory He deserves as our Savior? I have always thought this idea to be a peculiar one. There is no deed a man can do to earn his salvation, and he must forever give all the glory to God for having sent Christ, unbidden by man, and for having offered His atoning blood on behalf of undeserving sinners. If one man chooses to benefit from this atonement, and another does not, it is true that one has made a better decision than did the other. But no one who has sincerely made that decision is in any mood to be congratulating himself for his wise choice. His focus is on the grace of God in Christ, without which he would never have dreamed of making the choice to believe. A drowning man who reaches out to grab the life preserver that has been thrown to him from the ship’s deck is actually making a decision to accept rescue. He might (much more foolishly) have refused the assistance and drowned. Yet the rescued mariner does not strut about the deck patting himself on the back for the sterling wisdom and virtue he exhibited in accepting the rescue. He is overwhelmed with the fact that, were it not for someone who saw him in his peril and was moved to throw him the line, there would have been no such decision open to him. He cannot imagine that he could have made a different decision, unless he were completely insane. Now, had there been other sailors in the water with him, who for reasons of their own, refused to be rescued and perished in the deep, the saved man will still not be congratulating himself for the superiority of his decision over theirs. He is more likely to be puzzled at their irrational behavior and pity them that they had been so astonishingly unwise. His focus is not likely to be on himself as an agent of his own salvation at all.

Well, I have gone on long enough. If I have missed your point, feel free to clarify it. God bless you, Brother.

[Guest]

I Steve, Thanks for your reply. A couple of reasons for a delay. One is I got a new internet filter. It is the Characterlink server based filter that Bill Gotthard has to his ministry site. It operates on a "yes" list basis instead of a "no" list. In other words. All sites that can be received must be pre-approved. I liked the idea and got it. Cost ten dollars a month. Server based means everything goes through their server first. Well, your Narrow Path main page was on their "yes" list but not the Forum. I had to wait. Now it is. yea! Second reason, I went on an overnight hay run to south Idaho with Bill Calligan. That was fun and great fellowship. You said I would love the Calligans, and I do. Finally I cannot study your last response until Monday at the earliest. Have two sermons to preach tomorrow. May our Lord and Savior be with you and you family, Jude.

[Guest]

Let me quote Steve Jude,

Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt…And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace” (Romans 4:4; 11:6). In this connection, however, Paul makes it clear that faith as a condition for salvation is NOT the same as a work being performed for salvation, but is in fact the opposite: “But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness…Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith” (Romans 4:5; 3:27). When “works” are considered in the context of salvation, it becomes clear that Paul not only does not include “faith” in the category of “works,” but actually presents salvation on the basis of faith as the polar opposite of salvation on the basis of works.

Does not Paul clearly teach that faith is not a work?

[Guest]

Hello Steve. I’m excited to see your ministry branch out into this area.

I’ve recently had a conversation with friends addressing questions similar to those Jude asked earlier. The conversation clarified a question that has been in the back of my mind, so I’d like to share it below. Jude asks, “Is it [coming to the point of believing] an act of the will? And if so how does one come to preforming that act? Does he come to preforming that act from his own volition?” One friend (who is a devout Calvinist) pointed out Paul’s statement in Ephesians 2:8, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God.” He commented that this passage clearly states that even faith is a gift from God.

Another friend who is learning Greek pointed out a potential error with this assumption. He commented that the Greek word for “faith” in this passage, pisteos, is feminine in gender, and the pronoun translated, “that” (touto) is neuter in gender. If Paul had wanted to clearly reference “faith” with this pronoun, he should have used the feminine pronoun, haute. So what is “that” gift from God? Well, the word for “grace” is also feminine–wouldn’t be referring to that. My friend then pointed out that it must be referring to salvation. Salvation by faith is a gift from God, not of works.

That seemed to make sense, but not being a Greek scholar, I did a little reading to check up on this. It seems that he is right.

This does not answer conclusively whether or not one comes to belief on his own free will or not, but it does address a common argument. This passage (Eph 2:8) I have often heard quoted to teach that every part of salvation is entirely from God–even faith. It seems that such an application is inaccurate. For those who don’t know Greek, it is an innocent enough mistake. But once the grammar is examined, a person who still holds dogmatically to this application seems to be playing fast and loose with translation--something a seeker of truth should be careful not to do.

God bless,
Joaquin

[Guest]

How is it that a person who is dead in his sins, is able to choose to have faith in God? Isn't saving faith a gift of God?

[Guest]

How is it that a person who is dead in his sins, is able to choose to have faith in God? Isn't saving faith a gift of God?

We are dead because the wages of sin is death. Since we have all sinned, we are all dead in trespasses and sin. But we are not physically or mentally dead, or we would not be able to have this conversation.

Dead in sin does not mean unable to make choices.


(Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?...for he who has died is freed from sin Rom 6:1-2 &7)

A reverse question could be, in view of the quotes above, how can a Christian ever sin after conversion? It seems Paul is saying that we can never sin again. But this is obviously not the case. Just as saying "How is it that a person who is dead in his sins, is able to choose to have faith in God?" The answer is, the same way a person who is converted and dies to sin still does sin because he chooses to. Either way, man makes choices. God is involved in this decision, He can do many things to lead you. But He cannot make the choice for you. If He did, then you wouldn't really be the one who believes. Were not saved by God's faith in Himself.

"Isn't saving faith a gift of God?"

Yes, as an offer that comes from the Gospel. In other words, you don't wake up one day and decide to have faith in God from your own imagination. The author of the Bible/Gospel is God. Faith comes by hearing the word of God, so faith comes from God in that sense because He is the author of the Gospel itself. Without it man would have no way on his own to conjure up saving faith. But the offer itself does not save, but the recieving of it saves. The normative way the offer comes is by the word of God in the Gospel being preached to you. (Rom 10:14-17) I certainly believe God works to convict, and satan works to decieve. But man must recieve and believe in order to be saved.

[Guest]

I think that the doctrine of original sin states that we enter this life guilty of our sin in Adam. IN that state, we are already emenies of God, who will choose as soon as possible to deny the knowledge of God that is obvious from the creation.

>> Dead in sin does not mean unable to make choices.

But is a man who is dead in sin able to choose God on his own? Does God just make the offer, and some accept and some not? Upon what basis does one man decide to choose God, and another decide to refuse the offer? What is it that allows one man to choose God?

Do I understand correctly that you consider the saving grace of God to be merely the delivery of the Gospel to a man, and not some work that God does in a man's heart to enable him to desire God?