Faith is "trust" ... not a "work"

[Guest]

Here is the basic question: what prevents a man from boasting in reference to his salvation? We have two options.

Non-Calvinist: The governing principle (or law) of faith.

Calvinist: Faith is a gift of God.

The governing principle (or law) of faith is this: man cannot obtain righteous for himself through his works but Christ can and does “obtain” righteous for man through His death and resurrection. Faith is the humbling of man and the exaltation of Christ. This is the very essence of faith. It is on this principle that there is no boasting in oneself. Boasting is excluded. Why? Boasting is inconsistent and in stark contrast to this governing principle of faith. How can someone boast who has experienced this governing principle grip his being? Boasting is at odds with this principle and therefore it is excluded. Let’s be very clear: for those who are followers of Christ, this principle of faith is not a mental concept; it is a part of who they are. In terms of salvation, it governs how one views himself and how he views Christ. The thought never enters the mind of the one who experiences this principle that faith would be something to boast in; he only boasts in Christ. This is what Paul is writing about in Romans 3:27 when he says, “Where then is the boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith.” This law, or governing principle, of faith is that man cannot obtain righteous for himself by works but that Christ “obtains” righteousness for him through His death and resurrection. It is on this principle, that boasting is excluded because boasting is incongruous with this principle. Nothing else is necessary to prevent boasting.

I say plainly that nothing else is necessary to prevent boasting because Calvinists do in fact claim that something else is necessary. They say that they need a logical argument to prevent them from boasting. Apparently the principle of faith, not as a mental concept but as an integral part of who they are as followers of Christ, is not sufficient to prevent boasting as Paul declares. Instead they say that faith is a gift and therefore logically it is impossible for them to boast. And here in lies the very problem with Calvinism. Calvinism is a system of logic. It tries to take all aspects of salvation and view them as abstract objects—pieces of a puzzle—that they need to fit together to make some pattern that conforms to human logic. They try to look at all these objects objectively without any reference to how these objects interact with the individual. For instance, faith becomes an object. It is viewed objectively outside of its influence on man, without any regard for the principle of faith and its affect on the man. In the Calvinist system of logic, faith is merely an object; let’s call it A. Then salvation can be explained by the following formula: A + B = Eternal Life, where B represents all the other aspects of Salvation. Then according to Calvinist logic, man has something to boast in if object A was his own contribution to the equation. What Calvinists neglect is that A is not merely an abstract object distinct and incapable of interacting with man—it is a part of who he is. The very nature of A might be such that boasting is impossible and if boasting is impossible then all glory goes to God and none to man. For what glory are we talking about? We are talking about attributing to some source (God, man, etc.) glory for our salvation. If the individual does not boast in himself, but boasts in God alone, then all the glory is God’s. The law of faith prevents man from boasting, not a superfluous piece of information (faith is a gift) to logically convince our minds that we cannot boast.

Calvinists make the mistake in believing that a mental construct gives glory to God. They construct an equation, A + B = Eternal Life and assume that God receives “all” the glory if both A and B are direct gifts from God because then man cannot boast in himself and somehow steal some of the glory that is due God alone. This is their mental construct of how salvation works. What they don’t seem to grasp is that God does not receive glory because they have created a construct which they believe gives God “all” the glory. He receives glory when the truth is proclaimed regardless of whether we believe (in our human understanding) that He is receiving “all” the glory. This is a very arrogant approach to suggest that we understand the nature of God sufficiently to determine how and under what conditions God receives “all” the glory. I repeat: God does not receive glory because in our mental construct of salvation we believe that God is receiving “all” the glory; He receives glory when the truth is proclaimed. If our mental constructs are delusions, then God does not receive glory in these falsehoods.

What is the conclusion? Calvinism is a system of logic. It treats aspects of salvation as abstract objects that can be moved around into a certain pattern that conforms to their human logic. They don’t seem to grasp that these objects are not isolated from man but interact powerfully with man. Therefore, while their own logic concludes that man has something to boast in, the governing principle of the object (faith, in this case) excludes boasting. Furthermore, they convince themselves that their mental construct of salvation, in which they believe God gets “all” the glory, does in fact give God “all” the glory. They don’t seem to grasp that God receives “all” the glory when truth is proclaimed not when we think our mental construct gives Him “all” the glory.

I do not have a problem with Calvinists arguing that faith is a gift. However, if the basis of their argument is this: if faith were not a gift, then man can boast and therefore God does not receive “all” the glory. Then I say directly that they do not understand the law of faith or they have had their thinking so twisted by Calvinism that they can no longer think clearly. Furthermore, I don’t think they understand how God receives glory—He receives glory in truth not in our perceived notions of how He receives “all” the glory within our logical framework.

Lewis

[Guest]

Of all the things that Calvinists harp on, the claim that Arminians have something to "boast" about is the singularly most annoying.

I imagine it to be so, but nonetheless, if any of you cannot answer the charge, dealing with the statement, then whether or not the charge is annoying is neither here nor there.

Simply interact with the argument we put forth. If you can disprove the assertion, please simply do so.

The Arminian by an act of their free will is doing something that the unbeliever is not doing by an act of their supposed free will.
Hence, the difference between you is not sheer grace (Calvinist position), NO! It is your act of faith that makes the difference!
Justification is not by your "receiving" faith but by "doing" "your act of faith".
Whether it was being more spiritual, or more attuned, better able to grasp your need, more desire to know God etc, WHATEVER?

The bottom line is, the difference is found in "you" and not "the Grace of God alone". (Calvinism)

Now if you want to refute this "annoyance" then please explain exactly what it is between you and an unbeliever that makes you right with God, and them not right with God?

That is all I am asking for. It is really a simple question.

Man's heart is like different kinds of soil. Some receive and allow the "seed" to grow and some do not. Seed doesn't change the soil. Either man has a heart that can "accept" the gospel or he does not. (Mark 4:3-20)

(From above:)

The Arminian by an act of their free will is doing something that the unbeliever is not doing by an act of their supposed free will.
Hence, the difference between you is not sheer grace (Calvinist position), NO! It is your act of faith that makes the difference!
Justification is not by your "receiving" faith but by "doing" "your act of faith".

I don't know what "sheer grace" is, but according to Paul, not only is faith the difference, but faith is the reason it's called grace.

Rom 4:16 That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring

In order for the promise of God to be of grace, it must be by faith. This is biblical grace, which seems to differ from Calvinistic grace.

Yes, just as with Abraham, faith is what makes the difference. And also, as Paul said, grace is of faith which is not a wage owed as a debt to the one who performs it. (Rom 4:4-5)

Continuing on in thought:

The point again is a simple one, and one the scripture affirms over and over Steve. If salvation was something we do, as in faith leading to "regeneration", which is explicitly what I am referring to, then boasting is a valid attribute connected with that position.

So, by logical extension, faith in justification is something we can boast in, since it's something "we do". So Calvinist can't boast in their regeneration, but can boast in their justification before God!?
Did you "do your faith" Mark? You said you can boast in faith. So your statement, taken to it's logical conclusion is that you justified yourself before God by what you did. Even though Paul says otherwise.

Realize that any charge you make against faith being "of grace", making it something to boast about (like works) you make against Paul's own words when he describes the difference between faith and works.

And if you say that "this is about justification and not regeneration" that does not help you for two reasons:

-Paul (in Rom 3-4) differentiates between faith and works as a concept.
-Making faith like works, and therefore something to boast about makes our justification as if it were by"works" (something we do), therefore something we can boast about. Which is definitely not what Paul states. If faith is something to boast in (in regeneration) then it can be boasted in (with reference to our justification).

I'm simply at a loss to understand this concept of faith as something we can boast in, like works. This is directly refuted by Paul, yet you keep asserting it to be true. Are you trying to convince us that Paul is in error about this concept? Since you will no doubt say this is not your intention, then could you explain how faith is only like a work for the Arminian, but not like a work for the Calvinist.

[Guest]

Hello Sean,

Quote: "Man's heart is like different kinds of soil. Some receive and allow the "seed" to grow and some do not. Seed doesn't change the soil. Either man has a heart that can "accept" the gospel or he does not." (Mark 4:3-20)

Since "soil" is the condition of the heart upon which the "seed" falls, how then can the "soil" change its nature to accept the seed? I don't think the phrase you used "allow the seed" is a good descriptive choice in how our hearts are changed. We cannot change our nature any more than soil can change its condition. I do agree the "seed" in and of itself does not change the soil either. No, it is the sower of the seed who can condition the ground into "good soil" out of which a crop is produced! Amen?

Peace,
Bob

[Guest]

Man's heart is like different kinds of soil. Some receive and allow the "seed" to grow and some do not. Seed doesn't change the soil. Either man has a heart that can "accept" the gospel or he does not. (Mark 4:3-20)

Im sorry, but that is not even close to orthodox Christianity!
Man.

Mark

[Guest]

Im sorry, but that is not even close to orthodox Christianity!
Man.

Mark -
As an observer of this dialogue, I've been interested to read the points and counterpoints for the differing positions.
However, your comment, as quoted above, has added nothing beneficial to the conversation. It is merely an assertion without any evidence and levels the charge of "unorthodox" at Sean without providing any reasons why.
As someone trying to weigh the evidence of both sides, this doesn't strengthen your position, IMO.

Please see Bob's (Traveler) response to the same statement as a meaningful contrast to yours.

Hope this helps.

Dave

[Guest]

Hello Sean,

Quote: "Man's heart is like different kinds of soil. Some receive and allow the "seed" to grow and some do not. Seed doesn't change the soil. Either man has a heart that can "accept" the gospel or he does not." (Mark 4:3-20)

Since "soil" is the condition of the heart upon which the "seed" falls, how then can the "soil" change its nature to accept the seed? I don't think the phrase you used "allow the seed" is a good descriptive choice in how our hearts are changed. We cannot change our nature any more than soil can change its condition. I do agree the "seed" in and of itself does not change the soil either. No, it is the sower of the seed who can condition the ground into "good soil" out of which a crop is produced! Amen?

Peace,
Bob

That's just the point I'm making. No change is made to the soil first to allow the seed to begin to grow. You are making the assumption that a change of nature is required when the text cited makes no mention of this, so why import it? There is no mention of the soil needing to be changed before the seed can begin to grow. It is simply mentioned that there are different kinds of people in the world.

-Some don't understand the word
-Some receive it with joy but later fall away because of tribulation/persecution
-Some hear the word but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches and the desires for other things enter in and choke the word and because of this they don't bear fruit
-And finally there are some who hear the word and accept it and bear fruit

It seems there are several types of people in the world, a small minority are able to receive the word and not hinder it's growth so that fruit is borne. But in this parable, two types of people are able to receive the word but later fall away because they don't persevere. Paul warns believers not to do this very thing, but to remain faithful.

How is it then that the Reformed position states that man cannot accept the gospel unless supernaturally regenerated first (and then persevere to the end) when we see here examples of people who receive the gospel (an ability only given to the elect) but later fall away (proving they were never elect). Since it mentions that the seed does begin to grow in some, only to later die. So if it takes "regeneration" of the soil just to get it to accept the word, why is it that some seed that begins to grow later dies (If the reformed position is true)?

Man's heart is like different kinds of soil. Some receive and allow the "seed" to grow and some do not. Seed doesn't change the soil. Either man has a heart that can "accept" the gospel or he does not. (Mark 4:3-20)

Im sorry, but that is not even close to orthodox Christianity!
Man.

Mark

From Mark 4 verses 3-20, It ends with:
Mar 4:20 "But those that were sown on the good soil are the ones who hear the word and accept it and bear fruit, thirtyfold and sixtyfold and a hundredfold."


"Good soil" is explained to be the man who hears the word and accepts it (makes a choice), and then goes on to bear fruit.

[Guest]

Hello Sean,

The Sower is the one who prepares the soil for His Seed. The Gospel goes out into the world of men regardless of the conditon of their hearts.
That is to say, the Seed "lands" where it will by the activity of the Sower
broadcasting His seed. But for soil to become "good soil", requires preparation by the Sower, i.e., plowing the ground, clearing stones and introducing the amendments which will make the ground fertile. You don't need to think about this on a deeper level, it is clearly implied the Sower MUST prepare the soil first to insure a good crop. Have you ever planted a garden?
Nobody here I think, would insist we had "good hearts" or good soil upon which the Lord planted His Seed to begin with. Are you saying man is basically good by nature Sean?
Further Sean, how many people do you know of who responded immediately to the Gospel's call? I didn't. It was and is a process. That is why I believe regeneration is a process and not merely one event when you realized suddenly "you are born again". "Crops" do not come to harvest overnight do they Sean?

Peace in Him,
Bob

[Guest]

Hello Sean,

The Sower is the one who prepares the soil for His Seed. The Gospel goes out into the world of men regardless of the conditon of their hearts.
That is to say, the Seed "lands" where it will by the activity of the Sower
broadcasting His seed. But for soil to become "good soil", requires preparation by the Sower, i.e., plowing the ground, clearing stones and introducing the amendments which will make the ground fertile. You don't need to think about this on a deeper level, it is clearly implied the Sower MUST prepare the soil first to insure a good crop. Have you ever planted a garden?
Nobody here I think, would insist we had "good hearts" or good soil upon which the Lord planted His Seed to begin with. Are you saying man is basically good by nature Sean?
Further Sean, how many people do you know of who responded immediately to the Gospel's call? I didn't. It was and is a process. That is why I believe regeneration is a process and not merely one event when you realized suddenly "you are born again". "Crops" do not come to harvest overnight do they Sean?

Peace in Him,
Bob

I hear your concerns Bob, but I stand with Jesus' words. I don't read of preparation of the soil here. I read of different kinds of soil to begin with. The seed is broadcast. Some soil types promote growth and some don't.

You mention that preparation is implied but is that what the text states? Was the "path" and rocky ground prepared for the seed? I don't read of it, if it were the soil wouldn't be referred to as a "path" or "rocky" etc.

Debating over how quickly people respond is irrelevant, since the bible itself gives examples of both.

[Guest]

Hello Sean,

So by your answer, are you implying that man's heart is "good" and therefore God is looking only for those "good hearts" (soil) into which He plants His seed? Hmmm... I guess I really don't understand the work of the Sower.

Peace in Him,
Bob

[Guest]

Hello Sean,

I would like to address a few more things in your response:

Quote: " Some don't understand the word";
-Some receive it with joy but later fall away because of tribulation/persecution
-Some hear the word but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches and the desires for other things enter in and choke the word and because of this they don't bear fruit
-And finally there are some who hear the word and accept it and bear fruit"

Quote: "How is it then that the Reformed position states that man cannot accept the gospel unless supernaturally regenerated first"

Sean it is not because the "reformed" position says so to use your words, but because Jesus Himself directly taught as well as Jeremiah, Isaiah and Ezekiel throughout Scripture that man needs a "new heart" to recieve the things of God. Man is incapable to regenerate in himself a "new heart".
You and I don't miracuiously change our own hearts and then come to faith.

It is my observation that parables do not always give us "wooden smooth"
answers (coining one of Steve's descriptions of ambiguious issues). A parable is designed to make us think not only about the obvious details, but also the indirect implications behind the story. They are designed to "draw" the hearer in to seek further from the teacher its hidden message and meaning. Will the "hearer" stay and learn from his teacher the answers to his riddles, or lose interest and move on? From the beginning, Jesus is separating sheep from goats! Notice in Matt 13
that Jesus tells us 7 parables. Only 2 are interpreted for us. The rest are not. The diciples themselves did not understand Jesus without His explanation. Yet, for the other 5, no explanation is given us. Why?

Also Sean, it is not wrong for us to ask and wonder over the parables details.
Sometimes truth can be gleaned from what is not directly stated. Anyone who has some basic level of understanding about what a farmer does prior to planting his seed knows at least the ground must be plowed first.
Everything we read in the OT was God's preparation of His people to recieve His Messiah. A lot of "plowing" occured first to prepare His Vineyard that it may produce a "crop" suitable for harvest. I don't think I'm reading too much into the details of the Parable of the Sower.

Peace in Him,
Bob