One of the central ramifications to the Calvinistic understanding of Total Depravity as total inability is the idea that people are not even able to believe in Jesus for eternal life. The reason Calvinists have this idea is because they view faith as a meritorious act of the will. They believe that faith is a work, and therefore, since people cannot do any good works, people cannot have faith.
In other words, due to their emphasis on the inability of mankind to do anything good at all, and because of the impression that faith is something we do, Calvinists conclude that humans cannot believe in Jesus for eternal life. Calvinists argue that if people were able to believe in Jesus for eternal life, then this is something that they are doing, and therefore, their faith is meritorious before God. All of this is because of their view that faith is a sort of good work.
But don’t take my word for it. Here is what some leading Calvinists have to say about the idea that faith is a work:
Faith itself is man’s act or work and is thereby excluded from being any part of his justifying righteousness. It is one thing to be justified by faith merely as an instrument by which man receives the righteousness of Christ, and another to be justified FOR faith as an act or work of the law. If a sinner, then, relies on his actings of faith or works of obedience to any of the commands of the law for a title to eternal life, he seeks to be justified by works of the law as much as if his works were perfect. If he depends either in whole or in part, on his faith and repentance for a right to any promised blessing, he thereby so annexes that promise to the commands to believe and repent as to form them for himself into a covenant of works. Building his confidence before God upon his faith, repentance and other acts of obedience, he places them in Christ’s stead as his grounds of right to the promise and so he demonstrates himself to be of the works of the law and so be under the curse (Colquhoun, A Treatise).
According to the Reformed doctrine, total depravity makes man morally incapable of making a virtuous choice [of faith] … If total depravity does anything, it renders a man totally unable because he is indisposed to respond to the overtures of grace. If [a person] maintains that man is morally able to respond to the gospel, then [that person] does not believe that man is totally depraved at all (Gerstner, Wrongly Dividing, 109).
The Arminian acknowledges that faith is something a person does. It is a work, though not a meritorious one. Is it a good work? Certainly it is not a bad work. It is good for a person to trust in Christ and in Christ alone for his or her salvation. Since God commands us to trust in Christ, when we do so we are obeying this command. But all Christians agree that faith is something we do. God does not do the believing for us. … Then why say that Arminianism “in effect” makes faith a meritorious work? Because the good response people make to the gospel becomes the ultimate determining factor in salvation. I often ask my Arminian friends why they are Christians and other people are not. They say it is because they believe in Christ while others do not. Then I inquire why they believe and others do not? “Is it because you are more righteous than the person who abides in unbelief?” They are quick to say no. “Is it because you are more intelligent?” Again the reply is negative. They say that God is gracious enough to offer salvation to all who believe and that one cannot be saved without that grace. But this grace is cooperative grace. Man in his fallen state must reach out and grasp this grace by an act of the will, which is free to accept or reject this grace. Some exercise the will rightly (or righteously), while others do not. When pressed on this point, the Arminian finds it difficult to escape the conclusion that ultimately his salvation rests on some righteous act of the will he has performed (Sproul, Willing to Believe, 25-26).
To rely on oneself for faith is no different in principle from relying on oneself for works, and the one is as un-Christian and anti-Christian as the other (Packer, Bondage of the Will, 59).
We will discuss this concept in great detail in later posts, and even look at several of the key texts they use to defend the idea that faith is a work, but for now, what are your thoughts on this Calvinistic teaching that faith is a work? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
If you want to read more about Calvinism, check out other posts in this blog series: Words of Calvinism and the Word of God.
What is their argument about the faith in parachutes, gravity, airplanes, elevators…. (Just to name a few things we put our faith in)
Not sure where you’re getting that information from but Calvinist, as I know them, call faith a gift from God. Actually it is Catholics who have view of faith as a work. More accurately stated, Catholics view faith as having to be combined with works. You seem not to fully appreciate the Calvinist perspective that spells out faith to be relying and trusting in the finished work of Jesus.
‘faith is a gift’?! So then, we are saying that to non-believers God did not give such a gift? What a nonsensical church cliche!
Faith is in our relation towards God; it’s from us. Mercy is in God’s relation toward us; it’s from God.
“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 not of works, lest any man should boast.” It is obvious that “faith” is the gift in this verse, as grace being gifted would be redundant.
The antecedent of that passage is grace, therefore it is grace that is the gift from God. Faith is the method by which we accept that grace. This does not dilute the fact that salvation or grace is completely from God.
hey, I don’t think “grace” is the antecedent of that passage for the same reason faith isn’t.
quote from Matthew Barrett:
As many have observed, “this” and “it” in the Greek do not refer specifically to faith as the gift Paul has in mind, for “faith” is feminine while “that” is a neuter pronoun. If Paul meant to say faith is a gift he would have placed the pronoun in the feminine. Likewise, the same principle applies with the word “grace,” which is also feminine in gender.
Nevertheless, we still must ask ourselves, what in Ephesians 2:8 is the antecedent of “that” (“this” in the ESV)? Paul is referring to the gift of salvation in its totality. Therefore, every aspect of salvation is by grace alone. What then should we make of “faith”? Sam Storms answers, “That faith by which we come into experiential possession of what God in grace has provided is as much a gift as any and every other aspect of salvation. One can no more deny that faith is wrapped up in God’s gift to us than he can deny it of God’s grace.”
Yuri, You are correct, kind of. I was raised Hyper-Calvinist, and yes, Calvinists believe that “saving faith”, the kind that gets you into heaven is a gift from God. They do, however, also argue that if faith came from ourselves, or was in any way something we do instead of God doing for us, then it is in some way meritorious, and since that does not jive with their understanding of total depravity, then they must claim that saving faith must only be from God, and not a response or action of any sort on our part. In the end, the point is that I have outright rejected all 5 points of Calvinism, since I cannot reconcile the theology with the Bible as a whole.
Here is one of those places. If faith is “relying and trusting in the finished work of Jesus”, then how is it also a gift. I am the one doing the relying, not God, is he somehow making me rely on Jesus work, then if that is true, then can He not also make everyone else have this same faith, and if He is able to make everyone have this same faith, and does not, then He is not good. Also, since His word says that He is not willing for any to perish, and He is able to make a person have faith through His gift, then how is it that any perish. Either He is not all powerful or He is not telling the truth about His will. You see, Calvinism just falls apart under scrutiny, unless you are willing to ignore or twist certain scriptures to fit your theology.
Edwin, thanks for sharing your experience. You probably also know that Hyper-Calvinist and Calvinist do not see eye to eye, and in fact Hyper-Calvinism is considered an aberration. It is a gift because revelation is required before you can even have faith in Jesus. When Jesus says to Peter, “For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.” Jesus actually sets the precedent for how we go on in understanding who Jesus is. Jesus will say that “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him.” The faith that you have comes as a revelation from the Father that is where the gift lies. With respect to does God desire all to be saved? Well that is a big question that many branches of Christianity try to answer. Calvinism says that God wills that everyone be saved but obviously not everyone will be. There are many examples where there appears to be 2 sides to God: “He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.” The Catholics say basically the same thing but go further to add that it is only in the Catholic church where you find salvation. The Lutheran view of faith is nearly identical to Calvinism. While Arminians frame the whole thing in that God saves based on foreseen faith or unbelief (which ironically makes faith a work). I do not claim to have all the answers. As you can see that it’s a thorny subject because it challenges the assumption that God loves everyone equally but that also falls apart under scrutiny. My best advice is that we all should have a massive dose of humility and realize with whom we are dealing. The Greek Orthodox have a breath prayer that is frequently repeated, “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.” I say this for myself many times.
Yuri, Very well put, you are correct that Hyper-Calvinism is a bit removed from traditional Calvinism, Most consider them to be an aberration since they actually hold to ALL of the teachings of Calvin. Most today call themselves 3 or 4 point Calvinists, and rarely a 5 pointer can be found, but If you were to look past the 5 Dortian Points, and look at all the teachings of Calvin, Hyper-Calvinism might not be such an aberration at all. Most successive Calvinists, starting with Dort, have made changes and alterations to John’s original institutes to make them more palatable. Each successive group making adjustments to make Calvinism fit into difficult Bible passages, rather than just abandoning the system entirely. Oh Well.
In the end, I believe that you are correct that “we all should have a massive dose of humility and realize with whom we are dealing.” The trouble with Theology Proper, is that it is, in its very nature, an attempt to understand and explain an infinite and transcendent being. All attempts to fully understand and explain God must of necessity fall woefully short or their object is not truly God.
That’s how I understand Calvinism too. It has to be a gift given to the predestined, because otherwise it would be a meritorious work.
If ever there was a false gospel created by men influenced by Satan to keep people form believing on Christ for salvation its Calvinism which stems from the teachings of Roman Catholic Augustine whom Calvin was a big fan of.. Jesus clearly gives a choice to all men to either reject him and die in their sins or believe on him to receive remission of sins the free gift of eternal life.
First there isn’t much “clear” about it, otherwise the debate wouldn’t be ongoing. There are verses in favor of both sides.
But why would say that Calvinism keeps people from believing?
Most importantly why does it matter really? Faith where ever it comes from saves. The Calvinist just gives all the glory to God, while the “chooser” 99% of the glory to God and 1% for their own choice of faith.
That’s not true. The “chooser” as you put it, gives all the glory to God. We give glory to God that He gave His Only Begotten Son, that WHOSOEVER believes in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life. That is not any percentage of glory to oneself. We acknoweldge that GOD GAVE US THE CHOICE to follow His Son into eternal life. GOD GAVE US…not we gave ourselves. Too many people are straining at gnats, as their predecessors throughout the ages.
What does believe on him mean? What must I do Lord to be saved? Keep the commandments, love me with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself. I give eternal life to those who love me, James 1. I give eternal life to those who obey me, Heb 5. God only gives his Holy Spirit to those who obey him, Acts 5. Not sure what you are trying to say but if you think believing in Jesus does not mean loving and obeying him you are sorely mistaken. Mathew 5, If your righteousnes, obedience to my commands, the law of God, does not exceed the Pharisees you will not be saved. Rom 2, only the doers of the law shall be justified. Faith that works through love, that is the God of the bible.
Yep – just read a Calvinist writer this week (well, reading – not done) and he argues that if faith were a choice, it would be something that WE do (implied – a meritorious work), but, since we are totally depraved, we cannot do any such thing. therefore, faith must be a gift from God. In their system, they hold it is a gift. They argue that in any other system, it is a work of some kind. Basically, total depravity = total inability to believe, therefore, God gives us the faith.
There are probably variations of this, as not all Calvinists are created equal. So, if you are one of those “other guys”, please do not throw any rocks 🙂
I will be interested in seeing how you address Sproul’s question. I, too, have recently been wondering the same thing: How come you are saved but your neighbor is not? Is it because you received a better gospel presentation and so were able to believe it? Or are you more enlightened than your neighbor, who is too ignorant to understand his need for a savior? Who gets the credit for you believing?
Yuri, my post tomorrow will talk about faith being a gift. The reason they teach that faith is a gift, however, is because they believe that faith is meritorious. Maybe they wouldn’t all say that “faith is a work” but they do believe that faith is something good that we “do.” The Calvinistic quotes in the post state their view in their own words…. and I don’t think that Gerstner, Sproul, or Packer are considered to be hyper-calvinists.
I think Yuri hit the nail on the head… does God love us all equally? Is God’s love for us because of who we are or because of who he is? Does our view of God’s love determine our theology, or does our theology determine our view of God’s love?
Arminians likewise believe faith is a work, for it is a work. How is it not a work when Jesus orders it? (“Have faith in God,” Mk 11.22. “You believe God; believe also in me,” Jn 14.1) Any so-called “faith” which isn’t a work, or doesn’t inspire obedience and action and greater dependence on God, is dead.
Yes, it’s a gift, just like all fruit of the Spirit is a gift—love’s a gift, joy’s a gift, patience is definitely a gift—but still something we do, and need do.
But not to worry. We’re not saved by works, for we’re not saved by faith. We’re justiifed by faith; we’re saved by grace. Christians who fret about whether faith is a work, have simply mixed up sola fide with sola gratia.
…and (God) gives eternal life to those who by patient continuance in DOING GOOD seek for glory, honour and immortality’. (Rom 2.7) . So even if faith is a good work its OK because God eternal life to those who do good.
Total Depravity? Such a confession, mindless reciting!
Actually ‘depravity’ is a wrong translation of the Latin word in the Calvin’s text. Though etymologically related, the sense is totally different. It is more like ‘utterly fallen’ (as of Adam).
‘Total Dependence to God’s Grace’ should stand for T of TULIP, if Calvin willing.
I was meditating on Calvinism today because a friend at church Is convinced of this theology and he is willing to discuss it with me…but he knows the bible so much better than I do, I have thus been reluctant. I know I am not answering the question about faith directly, but my take is that God is revealed in Jesus on the cross. I believe with all my heart that he died,i was fully God and fully man and rose again-because of historical facts as well as proof from the texts. If God is revealed through Jesus, who said, “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do,” and “love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you” , and we are made in his image–how could a loving father that looks like Jesus want to predestine some to hell and some to heaven.
None of Jesus teachings would make sense if the above statement is true. I think everything Jesus taught was that faith is something we choose and we work at, and that works are important, but we need more than works. His teachings are summed up in Love God, Love neighbor. That takes a lot of faith–to love God, and a lot of work–to love our neighbor.
If Jesus summed everything up in those two statements as the way to heaven–why would he do that if God already chose the way we would go? In addition, if any earthly father were to say, “I plan on killing one of my sons when he reaches the age of 21 just because I feel like doing that–people would think he was crazy and probably try to get his kids away from him. If as imperfect humans, we would condemn that action, why would we think that an all powerful, omniscient, intelligent, loving God would do such a thing to his children?
Patricia, the problem with your thinking here is in believing in double predestination; that God, “…predestine some to hell and some to heaven.” In that way of thinking, everyone starts off neutral, and God comes along and points to various people declaring either “Heaven” or “Hell”. In reality though, we are all already going to hell; God simply chooses to save some to be trophies of His love and grace. Had He chosen to, He could have done nothing and everyone would go to hell.
why does He only choose to save some? is He indifferent to the others?
The real question is why does He save at all?
so why does he?
I will let Paul respond to your question:
“And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion,2 but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—” (Romans 9:10-23)
God, being God, does what He wills for His glory and His pleasure and to fulfill His will:
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us2 for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. 7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, 8 which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight 9 making known3 to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ 10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.
11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, 12 so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory.” (Ephesians 1:3-12)
Verses 20 & 21 from Romans 9 seem to be evading the question posed in verse 19.
Brian: there are other interpretations of Romans 9.
recently Greg Boyd did a sermon on Romans 9 in his series on Twisted Scriptures in which he argues it is meant to teach the very opposite of what you believe it means
if you are interested, the sermon can be found on his church (Woodland Hills) website
Lisa, I agree with you, I also teach something very different from Brian on Romans 9. I do not believe that Paul was saying “God is God, so He can do whatever He wants and even if it seems unfair to us, its not, because He is God”. I think that Paul is appealing to the character of God, that He is good and just and fair, and loving, and that when things do not seem that way from our point of view, we need to try to understand what God is doing in light of His character. I think that our sense of fairness and justice is part of God’s image that he created in us, and when we sense unfairness or injustice, we are reflecting His character. God cannot act against his nature, and so I believe we can understand all teh stories in Romans 9 in a way that is consistent with love, mercy, fairness, and justice, without having to appeal to the “God is God and I am not” mentality.
Pastor FedEx
I completely agree with you, except to believe as humans, we have the same untainted view of love, mercy, fairness and justice as God, is supremely presumptuous.
Thank you, Pastor Fedex. I always appreciate your views on this blog!
“Though I admit it may be a distinction we are not able to totally understand with our finite minds.” In other words, it’s ideology — don’t expect it to make sense.
Brian,
Double predestination does not require that everyone start out neutral at all. It only requires that all start out equal. If all are damned from the beginning and the only way out is to be “chosen” by God, then he by default is “choosing” those who remain for damnation. Even John Calvin himself believed in double-predestination, the modern Calvinists have done some pretty incredible mental gymnastics to try to avoid this inevitable conclusion of Calvin’s doctrine of election. Better to reject Calvin’s view on this entirely.
And as for the passages in Romans and Ephesians, both passages are talking about being selected beforehand by God for something other than whether or not they get into heaven.
Pastor FedEx
Pastor FedEx,
While I disagree with your assessment that by choosing to save some God was necessarily choosing others for damnation, I do recognize that there is a tension there that is often seen as a matter of semantics (shown by your use of quotation marks around the word “choosing”). I believe there is a difference between choosing some for damnation and choosing to not save some from damnation. Though I admit it may be a distinction we are not able to totally understand with our finite minds.
I would be VERY intersted in hearing what you believe the passages in Romans and Ephesians are referring to if not salvation.
Brian: Greg Boyd answers that question in his recent sermon on Romans 9 as I mentioned above.
Pastor Fedex: i am not trying to undermine your answer to Brian’s question but to point out to him that there are a variety of pastors who do not read Romans 9 in the Calvinist way.
Brian,
Lets start with Romans chapter 9. In the structure of Romans, chapter 9, appears to be what is called an “objector passage”, a common literary device of the time. The author will present his argument, and then respond to possible objections. Paul has just concluded chapter 8 with the incredible statements about if God is for us then who can be against us, and nothing can separate us from His love and all these statements about how much we can Trust God.
And so chapter 9 we see a couple of potential objections raised. the first is :what about the Jews, didn’t God make them a bunch of promises and not keep them. And Paul says, “No, he kept all his promises, in fact, Jesus Christ is the fulfilment of those promises. And what about those places in the Bible where god seems unfair, what about Esau, and about Pharaoh, God did not even give them a chance. They were chosen before they had done anything right or wrong, for “apoleia. Now Apoliea could mean eternal damnation, it really could, but it can also mean temporal judgement, or even physical destruction, which we can see at least in Pharaoh’s case was the literal truth. But if Paul is saying what you think He is saying, then this passage must be about double-predestination, first because they weer chosen before they had done anything good or bad, meaning they were in fact positionally neutral, and secondly, because they were specifically chosen for apoliea or destruction. Neither of the examples given were chosen for “salvation”, meaning your argument against double-predestination is shot all to hell (literally). The other option is that they were chosen to bring God glory, just like the man born blind, who the disciples asked “is it his sin or his parents that caused his blindness.” Jesus says, neither, this happened that the Son of man might receive glory. So I would posit that Romans 9 is not at all about being chosen for heaven or hell, but rather chosen to bring glory to God whether we consider the choosing positive or negative, God gets the glory in both cases, and whether the person is apoliea in a temporal or eternal sense, God gets the glory.
Now, for Ephesians, this is gonna get complicated, but here goes. Paul gives the reason for the choosing in verse 4 and 5. “even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will”, But also notice the phrase “in Him” in verse 4, that’s right, we were chosen in Him, not chosen to be in him, this is a dramatic difference. We already at least positionally, being in Christ, before the foundation of the world, were chosen by him for a purpose, and that purpose was to be Holy and blameless and recieve the “adoption as sons” through Jesus Christ. This passage parallels the passage in Romans chapter 8:17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
Notice that while being heirs of God is only predicated on being his children, that being a “joint-heir” with Christ is predicated on suffering as Jesus suffered by joining Him on mission. So here is the choosing of Ephesians, ready for it, “I God, knowing all things before time even started, knew who would be in Christ and who would not, and I also knew what things would bring me glory, and so I planned and selected for you a special purpose that will bring me the most glory. And by accepting my chosen plan and suffering alongside the firstborn of my Sons, you can become a full inheritor of all that I have prepared for you.
Really to completely exposit on why election or eklegomai is almost never used specifically with regard to getting into heaven would take quite a large book, one which I cannot write now anyway. I do recommend a work by Dr James Reitman and Dave Anderson called “Portraits or Righteousness” in which they address the idea of election much more in depth.
http://www.amazon.com/Portraits-Righteousness-Dave-Anderson/dp/1935986317/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1368560680&sr=8-1&keywords=portraits+of+righteousness
FedEx
Lisa,
No worries, thank you for the kind words. There are many different views on Romans 8-9 and many of them are not from a Calvinist perspective. I personally think we get into the most trouble when we think that our understanding of any passage is the only correct understanding. God Bless.
Pastor FedEx
“Patricia, the problem with your thinking” is not much at all.
“how could a loving father that looks like Jesus want to predestine some to hell and some to heaven.”
I have struggled with this as well. On the other side of this coin, if this thought process is correct, why doesnt God give enough grace for everyone in the history of the world to believe? I believe when we attempt to fully understand the mind of God, or judge His actions based on what we know as human being, we do Him and ourselves a great disservice. We can also see in Scripture that it specifically states God consigns some to destruction. Romans 9:6-29. I believe it all comes down to how one views Gods sovereignty.
Only extreme Calvinists believe that God predestines some to hell. I don’t think He needs to. We do that when our sins ratify Adam’s fall. If God re-predestined some to heaven, I wouldn’t complain. Predestination just means that God planned to intervene to bring about His goals, for example, giving saving faith to a kid who was a product of rape and born in utter poverty.
Paul’s language in Romans 9 is hypothetical. It’s a mind-expanding exercise that shows how God’s “Creator’s rights” are not limited by an obligation to never intervene. He could predestine some to hell (although He doesn’t need to), but actually, when God hardens some, He only hardens what’s already there.
I hope this eases your “struggle” a bit!
Jeremy, from reading the quotes that you share, it almost seems as if “not working” has become a work in itself. This reminds me strongly of the opponents of Jesus who would ridicule him on the finer points of keeping the Sabbath. Of course, the primary question in any issue of Sabbath keeping is “What constitutes work?” Jesus’ reply to them was that they had made observation of the Sabbath a burden on people instead of allowing people the rest that God had wanted them to have (“Man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath was made for man.”) In the same way, the authors you have quoted seem so concerned with the question “What constitutes work?” that they are willing to exclude others from salvation on account of not perfectly avoiding all work altogether. So it would seem to me that they have made faith into a burdensome thing, when God meant it to be a gift to humanity.
Under their system, the issue wouldn’t exclude anybody from salvation. They believe God must regenerate (“save”) people in order for them to have faith. Thus, faith is a product of salvation. There’s no prohibition against doing good works as a result of salvation; in fact it’s commanded, and lack of works is evidence of false conversion. I don’t agree, but the distinctions seem harmless.
In contrast, if you want to talk about faith being burdensome, consider how Arminianism makes salvation contingent on good works, avoiding unpardonable sins, or perseverance, depending on whom you talk to. Calvinism has one link in the chain: God’s grace. Arminianism has two links: God’s grace and man’s continuing merit. Guess which chain is weaker? And guess which one insults the blood’s sufficiency, God’s generosity, the Father’s care, and the Spirit’s work of reforming us “both to will and to do according to God’s good pleasure”?
Calvinism goes too far in one direction, but Arminianism goes over the edge in the opposite direction. Fortunately, many people don’t learn Arminianism’s addition of works to grace until after conversion.
I love you research Jeremy. I appreciate the work you do and am drawing from it. Keep it coming!
Thanks, Joel. I appreciate the feedback and comments! I learn from you all.
AW Tozer- “My son, when you get to college you’re going to find that all of the boys will be gathered in a room discussing and arguing over Arminianism and Calvinism night after night after night. I’ll tell you what to do, Cliff. Go to your room and meet God. At the end of four years you’ll be way down the line and they’ll still be where they started, because greater minds than yours have wrestled with this problem and have not come up with satisfactory conclusions. Instead, learn to know God.”
That’s a great quote! Part of me thinks that maybe I should leave this all behind as well…
The quote sounds good, but it has an embedded problem. It accepts the Calvinist premise that Calvinism and Arminianism are opposites, and that those are the only two options. This could not be further from the truth. They are not opposites. They are two sides to the same coin of false doctrine. Arminius was raised as a Calvinist and only had good things to say about Calvin’s writings. The same hermeneutical mistakes are made, and the same presuppositions are held.
Once a person leaves both Calvinism and Arminianism, satisfactory conclusions are actually quite easy to come by.
Love Dr. Tozer.
If Christians had good evidence for the Resurrection, they wouldn’t ask you to believe by faith.
Think about that.
Historians don’t ask you to believe the historicity of any other alleged event in history…”by faith”. So why do we need faith to believe in the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth if the evidence for this event is as strong as Christian apologists claim?
Christian Americans, Muslim Iranians, Hindu Indians, and atheist Japanese all believe that Alexander the Great captured the city of Tyre; that Caesar crossed the Rubicon; and that Roman general Titus destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD. No one is asked to use faith to believe the historicity of these events. So why do we need faith to believe in the Resurrection of Jesus if the evidence for it is good?
Answer: It’s not good. In fact, its terrible; nothing but assumptions and second century hearsay.
Christians ask us to believe their ancient, supernatural tall tale based on very weak evidence, and, a jump into the dark (faith). And how do they get us to make this jump into the dark? Not by presenting us with more evidence, but by appeals to our emotions and/or our fears: Either by using, “Our almighty, all-knowing god will protect you and give you eternal life (security and hope)”, or, “Our righteous, just, and holy god will torture you for all eternity if you DON’T make the jump (using blind faith).”
It’s an ugly, manipulative, sadistic superstition, folks. Unfortunately, it is the superstition used by the largest cult on the planet.
Let’s double our efforts to debunk it.
To be fair, Jesus said to have faith/belief before he was even crucified and raised. His sacrifice was the fulling of OT prophesy and law.
The evidence is the bible. What other evidence is there but writings? And writings that survived severe persecution and threats. It leaves no other evidence than writing about it, which we have.
Where did you learn about all the history you I quoted from your poat below?
Christian Americans, Muslim Iranians, Hindu Indians, and atheist Japanese all believe that Alexander the Great captured the city of Tyre; that Caesar crossed the Rubicon; and that Roman general Titus destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD. No one is asked to use faith to believe the historicity of these events. So why do we need faith to believe in the Resurrection of Jesus if the evidence for it is good?
Whether a person is asked to “use faith” is irrelevant to whether they exercise it. People believe “history” because they have faith in the tellers of history. Faith is trusting an interpretation of the evidence.
The only time we believe without faith is when the evidence is 100% conclusive and right in front of us. Scriptures call that “sight.” The next day, we return to faith because then we’re trusting our memories. We know by sight that the sun rose today (even then, we put faith in our senses), but we know by faith that it will rise tomorrow.
Watch out for Atheists. They dishonestly redefine faith with with the definition of “blind faith.”
Ha! I just finished warning someone about how Atheists distort the definition of faith.
You don’t have to be asked to use faith to exercise it. You don’t believe anything about history without faith. Faith is trusting an interpretation of the evidence.
Your opinion about the evidence is quite… misled. The pop atheists you’ve put your faith in are not honest about the evidence being second-century hearsay. The distribution of copies of the components of the New Testament would have been impossible if the originals hadn’t been written during the generation that witnessed the resurrection, and we have first-century writings that quote from the originals.
Moreover, six of the writers were first-hand witnesses to the resurrection, one collected the accounts of his mentor, a first-hand witness, and another compiled the accounts of multiple first-hand witnesses that he interviewed and, at times, lived and worked with.
So the evidence of the resurrection is not just good, it is far superior to even the evidence for some of the things you cited. Admit it, Atheist faith and emotionalism are just as strong as anybody else’s.
But please, keep up your campaign. There are so many counterfeit Christians that genuine Christians would love to see drawn away into your error. Being deprived of their false confidence would be a big step toward becoming genuine believers. And genuine Christians get so frustrated, being clubbed over the head with the “hypocrisy” of the fakes.
Calvinists must believe that if a person steps onto a bridge that this act is equal to that of building the bridge.
In Christianity, the work of building the bridge (“I am the way” “reconciliation” “atonement”) is already complete. But that completed work does not also take the step on behalf of the person to put their confidence in the bridge with their weight. Nor can those accessing the bridge take the credit for building it. They owe everything to the bridge-builder.
That’s not what they believe. Not even close. They believe God not only built the bridge, but also picks them up and places them onto the bridge. Faith is looking around, discovering that God has placed them on the bridge, and deciding to walk across.
I don’t entirely agree with them, but I at least try to understand a system before mocking it.
I’m not a Calvinist, but I try to see things from their perspective. They explain 1 Corinthians 2:14 by saying spiritual death means a person’s spirit is dead-dead. (I believe it’s metaphorical and means a person is cut off from God and crippled with respect to understanding spiritual truths.)
As a result, they believe God must regenerate a person in order to overcome 1 Corinthians 2:14. (I believe the prevenient work of the Holy Spirit heals that disability. Scripture clearly states that grace comes THROUGH faith (Eph. 2:8-9), and faith is a gift that God gives THROUGH hearing the Word (Romans 10:17).)
Under their system, it doesn’t matter if faith is a work because God already regenerated the person. That makes faith a fruit of salvation, and Christians are commanded to do good works.
I disagree with Calvinists about such details, but these details are in the background. They don’t corrupt the presentation of the gospel, and if believed, they are not barriers to salvation. Arminianism is FAR more dangerous because it adds to grace a requirement for works — depending on whom you ask, forgiveness, good works, restraint from evil works, or perseverance. If faith and, for example, perseverance are two links in a chain, guess which one is weaker? And if you add merit to grace, you insult the blood’s sufficiency and God’s generosity. Insult the Giver, and you don’t get the gift.
Fortunately, many Arminians don’t learn about Insecurity until after conversion, so its impact is lessened. They (the genuinely converted) merely live in insecurity and with a reduced understanding of God’s greatness.
Example: A friend was diagnosed with a form of Alzheimer’s that causes angry outbursts. He experienced a long period of anxiety, fear, and defeat because he was afraid his anger would cause him to blaspheme, etc., which would cause him to lose his salvation. It was accelerating the symptoms. When I explained how God lovingly preserves His children, my friend found peace and an even greater love for God.
These Calvinists are learned men. I don’t understand how they deal with scripture like this:
“So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.” — Romans 11:5-6 ESV
Paul is not talking about God’s works here, but our works. Christians have been chosen to receive prevenient grace, and we have accepted it by faith. But that does not mean that our faith is a good work.
Just like a Totally Depraved, totally wretched fool can stop beating his head against a wall because it hurts, so too we can accept a free gift that is good without it making us good.
I hope the above verse is not just inconvenient for Calvinists so they ignore it. I do not find any contradictions in scripture.
Seems like this is the crux of most of Calvinist doctrine.
So what of faith?
— —
Eph 2:8-9states
8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast.
Romans 3:27,31
Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. 28Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
___
Faith is not something we do for salvation because it is a gift; nor are we able to boast in it.
Faith is the one attitude of heart that is the exact opposite of depending on ourselves.
When we come to Christ knowing that there is nothing we can do to be righteous before God. We give up, and trust in what Jesus did on the cross knowing that he is the one true way to our salvation.
Faith is not a work but a lack there of.
We are saved by grace alone -through faith alone – in Christ alone.
Actually, salvation is the gift. Faith is the medium through which we receive the gift and it is definitely not through works.
For the record, what is listed as a quote from Colquhoun is not actually a quote. It is close, but it has alterations from what Colquhoun actually wrote which significantly change the meaning. His “A Treatise on the Law and the Gospel” is a very helpful resource. The Reformed historically do not believe that Faith is a work of man. It is something entirely different. The Westminster Confession Section 14 is very careful to describe Saving Faith as the work of the Spirit.