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

IMO, my faith in God is:

 
Total votes: 0

User avatar
_SoaringEagle
Posts: 285
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: Louisville, KY

Post by _SoaringEagle » Fri Jul 20, 2007 5:37 pm

Merely God commanding man does not mean he has ability. Who keeps the Law? In an abstract sense, God may command we do certain things and at the same time knows we cannot keep what the Law requires.
The Total Inability passed to us makes it impossible for us to comply with the command to believe in Christ. The most obvious fault with this doctrine is that it makes the gospel an unreasonable demand. How can God, who is perfectly just, "command all men everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30), knowing the command is impossible to obey?

This is a vexing problem for Calvinists. They will often assert that a command does not necessarily imply the ability to keep it. But the statement is certainly not self-evident. If God gives a command and threatens to punish as responsible agents those who do not comply, it certainly does imply the ability to obey. Orville Dewey writes: "...it would follow that men are commanded, on peril and pain of all future woes, to love a holiness and a moral perfection of God, which they are not merely unable to love, but of which, according to the supposition, they have no conception."

That puts the Calvinist in a conundrum. Man is so corrupt, he will not and cannot obey even the slightest spiritual command - nor can he appreciate or even understand it. Yet, God orders him to believe; He punishes him for not believing. As Judge of the Universe, he justly condemns the sinner for not doing what he from birth cannot do. This seems to many of us to be at loggerheads with God's revealed character.

The Old Testament demands never seemed to be presented as impossibilities for the hearers. Moses said, "Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach" (Deut. 30:11). What of Total Inability here? Are we to assume that all of the hearers had received the miracle of Efficacious Grace? Moses adds, "See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. For I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in his ways and the commands, decrees and laws..." (v.19).

Moses sets life and death before the Israelites for their consideration. There is no intimation there that he was speaking to people utterly incapable of complying with the commands. He presents the prospects of life and death as genuine options for them to ponder.

Joshua urged the Israelites, "choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord" (Josh. 24:15). There is nothing in Joshua's entreaty that suggests the Israelites were all unable to choose the Lord unless they first experienced an inward miracle.

Joshua did say that the people were "not able to serve the Lord" in their present sinful state (v.19). Repentance was in order. They were called upon to make a choice of the heart and turn from their evil ways. Joshua said, "throw away your foreign gods that are among you and yield your hearts to the Lord, the God of Israel" (v.23). Nowhere are we left with the impression that these people were all in a state of Total Inability from birth, innately incapable of yielding as Joshua commanded. Such an idea must be read into the text.

Source
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

__id_1887
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm

Post by __id_1887 » Fri Jul 20, 2007 6:36 pm

SE,

We had a pretty big deal awhile back about cut and paste jobs. Maybe you didn't see it. If these last two posts are your original work, please accept my apology in advance.

Steve wrote:
Even non-Calvinists are capable of violating these principles, but I can't think of any but Calvinists who recently have done so.

Here is fair warning:

From this point on, I will delete posts that are primarily cut-and-paste jobs, as well as those that have nothing to indicate that the poster has any love for Christ or His body. Granted, this will be a judgment call on my part. It is one I am entitled to make as the forum moderator. No one who has a modicum of civility should have any difficulty avoiding the ban.
link here:

http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=1813

Resting in Christ,

Haas
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_SoaringEagle
Posts: 285
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: Louisville, KY

Post by _SoaringEagle » Fri Jul 20, 2007 8:46 pm

If Steve wishes to delete those posts, ok. No problem. I hope that he reads them first, but nevertheless he is in charge so to speak. I respect whatever decision he may make. The only thing is, they directly touch on what our friend Traveler had to say. I could say the same thing in my own words, but, I thought it might save time to copy and paste the relevent response. If I violated any rule, my apologies.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

__id_1887
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm

Post by __id_1887 » Sat Jul 21, 2007 12:23 am

SE,
If Steve wishes to delete those posts, ok. No problem. I hope that he reads them first, but nevertheless he is in charge so to speak. I respect whatever decision he may make. The only thing is, they directly touch on what our friend Traveler had to say. I could say the same thing in my own words, but, I thought it might save time to copy and paste the relevent response. If I violated any rule, my apologies.
Sounds like a reasonable response to me. I have Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology on my computer and would love to share more of it here, but have not per Steve's request.

In Christ,

Haas
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

__id_1679
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm

Post by __id_1679 » Sat Jul 21, 2007 9:06 am

SE,

Notwithstanding the "cut and paste job" answers, I think you missed what I was trying to say. I'll phrase it in the form of a question. If obedience to the Law were possible to keep, why then did God promise a New Covenant
through which He promised a "new heart" to follow His decrees?
What necessitated the need for a "new heart" under a New Covenant? What makes the New Covenant new? How was "faith" contrasted under the two covenants? Consider one example; read in Matt.19:16-26. The rich young ruler believed from his youth he kept the Law. Also Jn 7:19.
Once again, the Law cannot and did not change the "heart". Go back and re-read Romans on the purpose of the Law. Then go back and re-read Jesus' amplification of the Law in Matt. 5:12-48. Do you feel the "heat" yet?:lol:

Peace in Him,
Bob
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_Homer
Posts: 639
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 11:43 pm
Location: Brownsville

Post by _Homer » Sat Jul 21, 2007 9:57 pm

Bob,

You wrote:
Once again, the Law cannot and did not change the "heart".
Agreed.

And you wrote:
Go back and re-read Romans on the purpose of the Law.
Do you mean "the purpose" to mean the "only" purpose or one of the purposes?

And also you wrote:
Then go back and re-read Jesus' amplification of the Law in Matt. 5:12-48. Do you feel the "heat" yet?
This comment causes me to suspect you believe the purpose of the sermon on the mount was to make us feel really, really bad so we would see our need for a Savior, someone to die for our sins. I hope this is not your position. I believe Jesus meant every word of it; although we may not obey perfectly, we should certainly try. To the extent we live as He taught in this sermon, we live in His kingdom in the here and now.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
A Berean

_Sean
Posts: 636
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 3:42 am
Location: Smithton, IL

Post by _Sean » Sat Jul 21, 2007 11:28 pm

Hello Bob, hope your felling better!
Traveler wrote: I'll phrase it in the form of a question. If obedience to the Law were possible to keep, why then did God promise a New Covenant
through which He promised a "new heart" to follow His decrees?
What necessitated the need for a "new heart" under a New Covenant? What makes the New Covenant new? How was "faith" contrasted under the two covenants? Consider one example; read in Matt.19:16-26. The rich young ruler believed from his youth he kept the Law. Also Jn 7:19.
Once again, the Law cannot and did not change the "heart".
Go back and re-read Romans on the purpose of the Law. Then go back and re-read Jesus' amplification of the Law in Matt. 5:12-48. Do you feel the "heat" yet?:lol:
So how did people have faith or please God before regeneration (that apparently came as part of the new covenant) was introduced? Apparently people could please God under the old covenant:

Luke 1:5 In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, of the division of Abijah. And he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6 And they were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord.

How was this possible? Is this possible today under the new covenant?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. (John 13:35)

__id_1679
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm

Post by __id_1679 » Sun Jul 22, 2007 12:49 pm

Hi Homer,

Quote: "This comment causes me to suspect you believe the purpose of the sermon on the mount was to make us feel really, really bad so we would see our need for a Savior, someone to die for our sins. I hope this is not your position".

Homer my friend, do you truly have a grasp on what the implications are in the Sermon on the Mount ? And if so did you come away with a 'broken and contrite heart'? If not, I really don't know what to say to you. What makes the Gospel "Good news" in your mind? I am not suggesting this was the entire purpose. I do however, see it as central. Jewish thought believed strict Torah observence to the inth degree obligated God to accept them. Jesus destroyed any such notion. Before he gave His amplification of the Law, what did He say first? "Do not think I have come to abolish the Law. I came to fulfill it'... Now why do suppose Jesus prefaced His interpretation of the Law with this statement?
And yes Homer, I do believe Jesus meant every word of it and is the standard of holiness we are to keep. But,it is not the means by which we are being saved. It is an evidence of one who is saved.

Peace in Him,
Bob
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

__id_1679
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm

Post by __id_1679 » Sun Jul 22, 2007 1:44 pm

Hi Sean,

Thanks for your concerns. I am doing better.

Now on to your question;

Quote: "So how did people have faith or please God before regeneration (that apparently came as part of the new covenant) was introduced? Apparently people could please God under the old covenant"...

Lk. 2:25-32 I think this will adequately answer your question. God was pleased with their obedience. But obedience here also included the future revelation of the Messiah, their hope as well as ours for a greater deliverence. Their "faith" didn't mean trust in themselves, but in God to fulfill all the promises made to Israel. If you look at rabbinic thought then as it is today, they believed and still do that Messiah will only come by their "strict" obedience to Torah. But Jesus counseled, "your righteousness must excede that of the Pharisees and Teachers of the Law".
What did Jesus mean here?

Peace in Him,
Bob
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_CFChristian
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:49 am

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

Post by _CFChristian » Thu Sep 06, 2007 4:56 am

NO ONE (Calvinist or Arminian/Other) can "work" for or do anything to "earn their salvation." Not only is it impossible; it is ABSURD.
(imnsho, well, it's how I voted anyway) :wink:

There are conditions to salvation, example (Repentance) and many more.
There are no conditions to GRACE.
If they had the same meaning we would only use one word!
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

Post Reply

Return to “Calvinism, Arminianism & Open Theism”