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

[Guest]

... 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 ...

Traveler: I believe that all Arminians would agree with you here; specifically that man as a mere creation is incapable of regenerating himself apart from the work of God. Nearly all Non-Calvinists I've dialogued with have said that God is the first cause of salvation; as exemplified by Jesus dying on the Cross. Am I mislead in seeing things this way?

Peace.

[Guest]

Yep. Almost all Open theists and Arminians, (and I might as well go as far as saying all non-calvinists) believe that God is the Initiator in our Salvation. He Initiates the drawing, wooing, convicting, convincing, influence that brings us to co-operatively seek and believe in Christ, hence, God. Where the disagreement lies is in the nature of this Work of God.

[Guest]

Hello Loaves,

I think SE said it. The difference between what some Christians believe has to do with the nature and work of God in regeneration. Kind of like the old 'chicken n egg' question. Generally, an Arminian would say man has recieved salvation as an act of the will-then God regenerates the believer. All activitiy of God prior to 'conversion' upon a sinner is labeled as His previenient or common grace and is available to all men. Therefore,
the person becomes 'elect' in Christ upon this basis. Eternal security in Christ becomes contingent upon the believer's continued obedience and salvation can be lost as an act of his will or through specific sins.

A Calvinist on the otherhand, generally believes the man's radical depravity renders him incapable to respond to the Gospel because he is "dead in trespass and sin". Without God's efficacious grace in regeneration first, or being 'made alive', man will not respond, because he neither will not because he cannot. He is 'dead'. Election in Christ was decided in eternity past. An elect person in Christ will come to Him upon regeneration, and will choose the gospel because Gods effective grace is irrisistable, whereby this 'dead' person has been regenerated, made alive
and enabled to respond to the Gospel. Salvation in Christ is therefore secured for the believer. None are lost. If a believer could lose his salvation and become lost again, it would imply Christ is ineffective in His work as the believers mediator. It would also demand a reversal and an undoing of all the preceding works of the Father, Son, and Spirit.

I spent seven years in a Wesleyan/Armininan Nazarene Church. I met some wonderful people. But, I've never met a more confused people when it came to understanding the Gospel.
I did not come to my conclusions about regeneration through a 'Calvinist'
fellowship. I have read some 'reformed' material off and on over the years and have heard reformed theologians on radio, like RC Sproul, and Steve Brown. However, they only confirmed what I was already understanding from my own personal Bible studies. God's grace is not only effective, its radical! I am deeply humbled by it. His Grace still amazes me.

The biggest problem I see in these two views, is our inability to fully comprehend God's work and man's response in salvation. We are responsible for our choices both sides would agree. But apart from God's effective grace (which He alone initiates) no one would be saved. If God chose to display His grace to some and not others, we cannot charge Him with injustice. He owes us nothing but His justice. We have all turned our backs on Him and rejected His will with one sin! I do not want God's justice.
I want His mercy! Amen?
Well enough from me for now.

Until we reach the unity of the Faith,
Peace to you in Him,
Bob

[Guest]

Hello Bob,

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.

I'm not sure why it's been stated that the non-Reformed position is one that understands man to regenerate himself, etc. When God promised to Abraham that He would make his name great, give his seed this land and bless many nations (Genesis 12:1+) Did Abraham earn all this when he obeyed and went? (Genesis 26:5 & Hebrews 11:8)


Gen 26:4 I will multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and will give to your offspring all these lands. And in your offspring all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, 5 because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws."

Heb 11:8 By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going.

It seems that you are saying that if one responds in faith they would be regenerating themselves, or earning salvation (by works, etc).
If this were true, then Abraham actually earned his own good name by obeying God's voice. Paul brings this very point up in Romans 4 and refutes it.

Rom 4:1 What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh?
Rom 4:2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.
Rom 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness."

So, the way I see it, Abraham could no more make his own name great, give himself many descendants or the land by obedience. Rather God called Abraham. When Abraham obeyed and went (because He believed God) God did all these things for Abraham (because He promised).

This being the case, I don't see how our faith doesn't lead to regeneration. You can state that this is impossible for man to do, but the reason Abraham is raised up as a model in scripture is because of how he responded to God, Abraham responded in faith. Scripture itself does not have any problem with raising up man's faith and does exactly that. As this topic of debate continues on, this is at the "heart" :) of the issue. Is faith something that the Bible calls a work, no. Is faith something Reformed Theology calls a work, yes.

Believe me, I understand the concern. If I have faith, it seems like "I" did something. The only way to answer this concern is to look at what scripture says about faith itself. Abraham seems to make the case, being the "man of 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.

In the example I gave the explanation of the parable is given (Mark 4:13-20). So we are not left wondering what Jesus meant. We know what He meant because He told us.

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.

First, if you read the explanation of the parable given by Jesus (Mark 4:13-20), you will see I'm gleaning truth from what is directly stated, from the explanation itself.

Second, in Jesus explanation, He tells that the different types of soil refer to people and how they respond to the message. The ones who actually go on to bear fruit are the ones Jesus said hear the word and "accept it" (Mark 4:20).

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

Yes, but how much plowing was done to the Gentiles? All the plowing God did to Israel didn't seem to help much since the Jews are the ones who turned Jesus over to be crucified and later rejected (to a large degree) the Gospel where, by contrast, the Gentiles (to some degree) accepted it, without much, if any, "plowing" (Acts 13:46, Acts 18:6, Acts 28:28, etc).

In Isaiah 5;

Isa 5:1 Let me sing for my beloved my love song concerning his vineyard: My beloved had a vineyard on a very fertile hill.
Isa 5:2 He dug it and cleared it of stones, and planted it with choice vines; he built a watchtower in the midst of it, and hewed out a wine vat in it; and he looked for it to yield grapes, but it yielded wild grapes.
Isa 5:3 And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, judge between me and my vineyard.
Isa 5:4 What more was there to do for my vineyard, that I have not done in it? When I looked for it to yield grapes, why did it yield wild grapes?
Isa 5:5 And now I will tell you what I will do to my vineyard. I will remove its hedge, and it shall be devoured; I will break down its wall, and it shall be trampled down.
Isa 5:6 I will make it a waste; it shall not be pruned or hoed, and briers and thorns shall grow up; I will also command the clouds that they rain no rain upon it.
Isa 5:7 For the vineyard of the LORD of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah are his pleasant planting; and he looked for justice, but behold, bloodshed; for righteousness, but behold, an outcry!

How effective was God's "plowing"?
It's worth noting that God asked: "What more was there to do for my vineyard, that I have not done in it? When I looked for it to yield grapes, why did it yield wild grapes?"

God stated that there was nothing more He could do to get what He wanted, which was: "he looked for justice, but behold, bloodshed; for righteousness, but behold, an outcry!"

It seems God did all He could but the people still chose their own way.
If God could regenerate people so they could have faith, why would God ask: "What more was there to do for my vineyard, that I have not done in it?"

[Guest]

Hi Sean,

Before I make a comment on your last post, would you mind answering a question I posted before; Do you believe man by nature is "good" and therefore God sows His seed into "good hearts"? Is this what the parable is trying to convey to us?

Peace in Hiom,
Bob

[Guest]

Hi Sean,

Before I make a comment on your last post, would you mind answering a question I posted before; Do you believe man by nature is "good" and therefore God sows His seed into "good hearts"? Is this what the parable is trying to convey to us?

Peace in Hiom,
Bob

First, I don't know why this question of yours is so important to the parable of Mark 4. From what I gather, the reformed position is that all men are equal, unable to "receive" the word of God without regeneration first. This parable actually calls that view into question since it presents 4 types of people who hear the word. Some accept it, some don't. Of those that accept it, some don't persevere because of their own sinful choices.

Second, to your question: "Do you believe man by nature is "good" and therefore God sows His seed into "good hearts"?

My answer is no. No one has a good heart in the biblical sense, being born again accomplishes this. However, it apparently does not take a "good heart" to accept the word and allow the word itself to grow supernaturally inside us, eventually bearing it's fruit. So what does it take if not regeneration first? The parable explanation tells us. It's choice.

[Guest]

Hi Sean,

quote: "My answer is no. No one has a good heart in the biblical sense, being born again accomplishes this".

With all do respect Sean, you fail to take into consideration all the preceding work of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in regeneration. By reducing and making it merely a matter of man's "choice" to be "born again" salvation in Christ becomes entirely contingent upon an unregenerate will. While I do believe "faith" involves the activity of man, faith nevertheless has several aspects. The type of faith I am concerned with in our discussion is "saving faith". Indeed, when God commanded the patriarchs to do "this or that", we are looking at external matters, not regeneration. Their obedience to the external promises of God had to do with physical blessings contingent upon their obedience. The covenant with Israel is the same, a covenant of works whereby God commands "If you do, I will do".. Faith is therefore trust in the promises of God based upon their absolute obedience . But the object of their faith was not really God, but their own supposed obedience to the external commands of God.
They were not regenerated. They had no "root" like the one in the parable of the Sower. They needed a "new heart" , not merely a new way of thinking. This is the "good soil" Sean. And without God producing it, our "faith" will always be a matter of externals. It will be you "doing in order to be" rather than "being in order to do". The promise of God in regeneration starts with "I will give you a new heart so that you will obey me"... If this is not understood when we consider the Parable of the Sower, then my friend we are no different than Israel under a works covenant and this makes the blood of Christ of none effect...

Peace in Him
Bob

[Guest]

Bob, all I can say is that we disagree.

You have at least admitted that your interpretation of Mark 4 is read through the lens of the Reformed position (regeneration unto belief). And that's ok.

You have also stated again that if we trust in God (believe) then that must be us doing something meritorious:

And without God producing it, our "faith" will always be a matter of externals. It will be you "doing in order to be" rather than "being in order to do"

How can you state that faith is "doing" and "external". Faith is not meritorious (Romans 4 is explicit) and is not external, works are the external evidence of internal faith (James 2:17+).

It is frustrating to see a non-biblical definition imported into the scriptures (that faith is meritorious). It seems to show that you have settled on a reformed definition instead of a biblical definition of the word.

If you disagree then please show how my interpretation of Paul's explanation of faith is in error in Romans 3&4.

Faith being a work is something that has been discussed many times here recently and no one from the Calvinist perspective has yet explained to me how faith is a work, a "doing" of something that is meritorious, from a biblical perspective. I do agree how it might seem as if man "believed" then that seems to be something he "did". But the bible is not unclear that trust in what God said or has done is not a work. Here is an example:

Rom 9:32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works.

Notice that to pursue by faith, while logically it sounds like your "doing something" is actually contrasted with works in the same verse! To pursue God by faith is not the same as pursuing God by works. So why is it that God can't set the standard. Who are we to reply against God?
If God's word says faith is not a work, can't we just accept it as the word of God?

Also, Paul states that our standing before God is of faith so that it may be of Grace (Rom 4:14-16) and he even contrasts this with law (works) in the context of the passage. Paul also states that access to Grace is by faith (Rom 5:2).

The promise of God in regeneration starts with "I will give you a new heart so that you will obey me"... If this is not understood when we consider the Parable of the Sower, then my friend we are no different than Israel under a works covenant and this makes the blood of Christ of none effect

As for God giving us a new heart, I agree. Let me show you how I see this in scripture:


Psa 51:10 Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me.

Eze 36:26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you.


And the new testament:


Titus 3:5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit


So far, so good. These three verses all seem to be speaking about the same thing. But what comes first? A new heart or faith? Well, first of all, what does a man with an old "heart of stone" look like?


Mark 7:20 And he said, "What comes out of a person is what defiles him.
Mark 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery,
Mark 7:22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness.
Mark 7:23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person."

So can a person in this condition call on the Lord? Even ask for the Holy Spirit?

Luke 11:13 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!"

So we see that what makes someone evil is their heart, and one who is evil can not only give good gifts to their children, but ask God and receive the Holy Spirit.

Now, back to these verses:

Psa 51:10 Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me.

Eze 36:26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you.

Titus 3:5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit


Isn't a "clean heart" & "washing of regeneration" the same?

So the question is: Is the heart made clean and able to have faith or is it made clean through faith? I think Peter answers this for us.

Peter said:
Act 15:9 and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith.

Is this not regeneration (the heart being made clean) by faith (and not before)?

[Guest]

Sean I really would love to discuss all of this further over at doctrinesofgrace.net if you are interested.

But I look really forward to Travellers response to you here!

Blessings
Mark

[Guest]

Hi Sean,

Lets try and keep it real simple and avoid going down so many "rabbit trails" if we can, shall we? Did you read carefully what I said about saving faith? Not all faith is saving faith is it Sean?
How does one aquire saving faith? In the Parable of the Sower, some measure of faith is being exercised, is it not? But since it was all the same seed that "fell" upon the various types of soil (hearts) , how do we account for and understand how the "good soil" became good and produced a "good crop"? Soil once again, cannot change its nature. It is what it is. But, a Farmer can and does change the "soil" into the productive medium necessary for crops. If you know anything about the soil in Israel, then you know it is full of rocks and it took a lot of work to make the land fertile and bloom. It is the work of the Farmer alone who makes the soil (heart) useful and fertile, no matter what its initial nature, rocky, shallow etc.

In an Arminian view, the "soil" is changing its own nature and "saving faith" therefore becomes a self initiating enterprise of 'God will do this because of my free-will, although I had a dead, evil unresponsive heart to do so, and because I believed my bad rocky shallow soil (heart) is now "good soil" where upon God can do His work because I let Him!
This my friend, is the un-biblical reasoning of what the texts have said about regeneration and new birth where the object is passive! Jesus was not telling us in the Parable of the Sower how to be saved. He is telling us what the nature of our hearts are with no explanation of how the "good soil" was made "good".

So what kind of heart Sean did you have? A good, shallow or hard
heart? Think about it.

Peace in Him,
Bob