# Nature of Faith



## Leslie (May 11, 2008)

When I read that salvation is by "faith alone" on the PB, what is meant? Is "faith" thus used assent to propositional truth or does it imply a concomitant commitment to obedience to the moral law (however imperfectly this may work out)? Another way of stating (what is to me) the same question is whether or not discipleship, assent to God's lordship in all of life, is requisite to salvation.


----------



## Poimen (May 11, 2008)

It is very simple Mary. The Puritanboard is a confessionally-Reformed forum so we define faith in accordance with our standards. 

The Heidelberg Catechism states:

Q21: What is true faith?
A21: True faith is not only a sure knowledge, whereby I hold for truth all that God has revealed to us in His Word, but also a hearty trust, which the Holy Ghost works in me by the Gospel, that not only to others, but to me also, forgiveness of sins, everlasting righteousness, and salvation are freely given by God, merely of grace, only for the sake of Christ's merits.

Are we called to be disciples? Yes. Discipleship begins and ends in faith. Faith is not a work of man, nor does it include any work of man. (as per the citation above) But true faith does result in good works; it bears forth the fruit of a true disciple. 

Faith, therefore, is only one part of the gift of salvation but it is surely the only instrument by which we receive salvation.


----------



## Leslie (May 11, 2008)

joshua said:


> We mean it as did the Scriptures and the Reformers who thus spake,
> 
> "We are saved by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone."
> 
> i.e. _Saving_ faith results in a commitment to be obedient to God and His Law.



If faith that is alone does not save, would you require a person who is from a pagan background to abandon witchcraft, magic, and sacrifices to evil spirits for protection? If such a person believed himself to be a sinner and that Jesus atoned for his sins but refused (presumably from fear) to renounce his pagan practices, would you consider him to be saved?


----------



## TimV (May 11, 2008)

> If faith that is alone does not save, would you require a person who is from a pagan background to abandon witchcraft, magic, and sacrifices to evil spirits for protection?



It always helps me to distinguish between Salvation and Sanctification. While they go hand in hand, salvation is a work of God, and not by itself related to anything a person does, so nothing else is or can be required of someone. 

Sanctification would be things like abandoning witchcraft, magic etc..and while these things are required to be left aside by God and the church, a person will never be free of sin, and those residual bad practices don't have anything to do with a persons salvation.


----------



## turmeric (May 11, 2008)

I think faith can grow. I would think that the fear of spirits would be one of the first things to go. St. Paul mentions that the Thessalonians forsook their idols, and he was with them only a few weeks. It's possible for a person not to think through all the implications of the Gospel, but trusting Christ for salvation seems to go against trusting anything else.


----------



## Poimen (May 11, 2008)

Leslie said:


> If faith that is alone does not save, would you require a person who is from a pagan background to abandon witchcraft, magic, and sacrifices to evil spirits for protection? If such a person believed himself to be a sinner and that Jesus atoned for his sins but refused (presumably from fear) to renounce his pagan practices, would you consider him to be saved?



Such a person may not yet either fully understood or even begun to understand the fullness of salvation: deliverance not only from the condemnation of sin but also its power. (Romans 6:1ff.) 

Really though, if such a person has confessed Jesus (Romans 10:9) and has been baptized I have no reason not to consider him saved though he may not walk in all aspects of that faith (_nota bene_: this would be different with one who had forsaken every idol and had now returned to them) However if they steadfastly refused after much explanation and pleading to give up their 'pagan practices' then one should seriously consider following the steps of discipline as commanded by our Lord (Matthew 18)

But what it really comes down to is this: do I really need to know whether they are truly saved or do I need to simply continue to counsel and disciple this weak brother? Obviously we have no need to know such a thing; we simply need to act as the Lord commands us as those in covenant with Him and one another.


----------



## Arch2k (May 11, 2008)

TimV said:


> > If faith that is alone does not save, would you require a person who is from a pagan background to abandon witchcraft, magic, and sacrifices to evil spirits for protection?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
While I think I know what you mean here, just to clarify, salvation includes sanctification. There is a past, present, and future tense to salvation. We were saved (justification), are being saved (sanctification), and will be saved (glorification). I think what you meant to distinguish was justfication from sanctification. Praise God that he continues to save his people!


----------



## moral necessity (May 11, 2008)

Leslie said:


> When I read that salvation is by "faith alone" on the PB, what is meant? Is "faith" thus used assent to propositional truth or does it imply a concomitant commitment to obedience to the moral law (however imperfectly this may work out)? Another way of stating (what is to me) the same question is whether or not discipleship, assent to God's lordship in all of life, is requisite to salvation.



After recently reading Justification By Faith Alone, by Jonathan Edwards, it became even more clear to me that the role of faith is to connect us to Christ, from whom we receive the benefits of his person. Our sin is imputed to him and his righteousness is imputed to us. It is important that we stand firm on the fact that this is done before any works of sanctification from discipleship are worked in us by the Holy Spirit. For, his Spirit indwells sinners while they are sinners, and he imparts faith unto them to believe and trust in Christ while they are still so. No prerequisite cleaning up of our lives is mandated in order to come to Christ. He invites those who are weary and heavy laden with sin to come unto him, and after they have come, he will give them rest. The Holy Spirit will use this grace of Christ towards us to compel us to love him, and to turn from certain sins. He breaks through our hearts of stone and makes them hearts of flesh...over time. His free love becomes the motivation for us to pursue sanctification, having no fear of punishment or hope of reward hanging over our heads. We pursue sanctification under the assurance that we stand fully justified before God, because we are connected to Christ through faith. And, we are so connected with Christ in oneness, that, if the Father rejects us, he must reject his own Son. And, this connection by faith to Christ gives us assurance that all of our sins (past, present, future) are fully paid for by Chirst, for he was raised from the dead, showing that the Father accepted his substitutionary sacrifice on our behalf. So, our pursuit of sanctification is not done out of fear or law, but out of adoration of God. And, our sanctification is not to be leveraged as a prerequisite to our coming to Chirst, nor is it to downplayed and not pursued after with exhortation and encouragement from others once united to him. There are no prerequisites to coming to Christ, just as there were no prerequisites for those bitten by the snake to look to the pole that Moses lifted up. They looked to the pole while they were suffering under the poison from the snakebite, and we look to Christ and are fully justified while we are still sinners. "For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law" (Rom.3:28), which includes all works of sanctification after we are in Christ.

Blessings!


----------



## moral necessity (May 11, 2008)

Leslie said:


> joshua said:
> 
> 
> > We mean it as did the Scriptures and the Reformers who thus spake,
> ...



I would exhort and implore them to abandon such a pagan background, but I would not place it as a prerequisite to them coming to Christ for salvation. As for the refusal to renounce his pagan practices once in Christ, I would still consider him to be saved based upon a present reality of his faith in Christ for salvation. For who knows, perhaps tomorrow he may not refuse to renounce these practices. A snapshot of a person's day or week or month or year does not constitute the entirety of the work of the Holy Spirit in such a person. As Luther says, a person may be being sanctified, but you may never see it. Most of the true sanctifying of a person is done internally, whether or not external fruit of such a work is visible on the leaves and branches. And how many false believers are able to clean up their external lifestyle, and yet remain full of dead bones and maggots on the inside. Yet I would say this, that if such a one refused to abandon his wicked practices, I would not hang out with them often. I think we are exhorted by Paul to not keep company with brothers who live wickedly. For, who would rightly keep close company with a patient sick with the Polio virus, while he is in the heat of the disease? The Corinthians are a good example of this sort of dillemna. 

Blessings!


----------



## Leslie (May 11, 2008)

I became a believer a bit over 3 years ago, through some sermon tapes from an FV-er. Before that, however, I was theologically well-read. It was this issue that was a stumbling block. With examining the scripture, it seems to me that a commitment to obedience to the moral law (as distinct from obedience per se) is part and parcel of faith. It's not necessary to demonstrate obedience in order to be saved, but it is necessary to renounce willful disobedience. 

My reasons: Genesis 26 where God Himself tells Isaac that Abraham's adherence to the (presumably moral) law was the basis of the extension of the covenant. Paul, in the first few verses of Romans calls the Gentiles to "the obedience of faith", and the passage in James, as well as some of the parables of Jesus and various warning passages. While I disagree with the FV and my former spiritual mentor for other reasons, it seems that they are correct on this. It's not a matter of cleaning up one's life in order to be saved, but a matter of taking a creaturely stance relative to God, assenting to His calling the shots in one's life, and thus part and parcel of faith.

A parabolic analogy: If I destroyed my kidneys by rebellion and drug abuse, my sister might offer me one of hers. However, as a condition, she would demand that I commit to abandoning the drug habit and work on cleaning up my life. I would not be earning the kidney by doing so--her demand does not negate the gracious nature of the transaction--but it could and should be an upfront precondition.

One of the factors that kept me from faith for so long was the dishonesty of the evangel--one only has to believe but then the church moves in and takes over one's life. Once I understood that true faith is obedient faith (however imperfectly this works out), it was liberating.

Does this make sense? Can any of you prove me wrong from scripture? I truly want to learn.


----------



## moral necessity (May 11, 2008)

Leslie said:


> I became a believer a bit over 3 years ago, through some sermon tapes from an FV-er. Before that, however, I was theologically well-read. It was this issue that was a stumbling block. With examining the scripture, it seems to me that a commitment to obedience to the moral law (as distinct from obedience per se) is part and parcel of faith. It's not necessary to demonstrate obedience in order to be saved, but it is necessary to renounce willful disobedience.
> 
> My reasons: Genesis 26 where God Himself tells Isaac that Abraham's adherence to the (presumably moral) law was the basis of the extension of the covenant. Paul, in the first few verses of Romans calls the Gentiles to "the obedience of faith", and the passage in James, as well as some of the parables of Jesus and various warning passages. While I disagree with the FV and my former spiritual mentor for other reasons, it seems that they are correct on this. It's not a matter of cleaning up one's life in order to be saved, but a matter of taking a creaturely stance relative to God, assenting to His calling the shots in one's life, and thus part and parcel of faith.
> 
> ...



I understand where you're coming from, for I spent a long time bogged down in this very same dillemna. As my perception of my sin deepened, I gained a much different perspective then I once held in regard to these things. I found that it wasn't very liberating at all, but rather condemning, for I saw that my sin contaminated every obedience and every repentance, and that I had to be a good liar to say I was genuinely committed to any sort of renunciation of old ways. If there are preconditions to the gospel, then, in my opinion, it is not good news, and I might as well quit. The depth of my sin is so enormous, that I have no confidence that I can repent of anything apart from the grace of God. That's why scripture says that we were "dead in our trespasses and sins", and were so until God did something and united us to Christ, so that we would be saved through his work - Eph.2:1-10. This leads to no one boasting, whereas if there were a precondition, then we would be bringing something to the table to transact the deal. No work, however is involved on our part (Eph.2:9; Rom.3:28; Gal.3:22). Faith alone unites us to Christ.

Keep in mind that the Covenant in the OT Gen.26 is not like the new, in that, for the old covenant, there was an agreement of both parties to do their part in order for the agreement to hold together. With the new, there is only one party making the agreement, and that is God. Read Hebrews and the OT prophesies about the new covenant that God would establish. Heb.6:13-20 points out that God makes the oath, and that this gives us full assurance, for he cannot lie; he will keep up his end of the deal. It was the same with his promise to Abraham, when he made the sacrifice and caused Abraham to fall into a deep sleep. Only God walked through the midst of the sacrafice, and when Abraham awoke, he saw that this was so; implying that God was promising that he would fulfill his promise to Abraham, and that Abraham had no promise of his own at stake in that covenant.

With regard to the "obedience of faith," in my opinion, this shows very well that the only obedience that God regards for our right stance with him is that of faith in the finished work of Christ. All other obediences do not justify us before the father, and a trust in any work or obedience on our part, even a repentant work, to be a precondition to his identifying us with his Son, shows a lack of faith in the work of Christ alone to justify us. Remember, he "reconciles us while we were yet enemies" and were fighting against him, before we came over to his side (Rom.5:10).

For James, I see him as writing to combat those who believed that a fruitless faith was saving. James said that it was the wrong kind of faith, for Godly faith bears fruit. Yet, as Jesus said, for some, this will be thirty-fold, for others sixty, and others a hundred. And, for all, sin will be present and active until they receive their new bodies. But, fruit takes time, as Jesus said; first the blade, then the ear, then the full corn in the ear. Sanctification may be present and yet not noticable, because remember that our perceptions are still contaminated with sin, so we may think something is sanctification when really it is not; and vice-a-versa.

For the dishonesty of the evangel, I understand your frustration here. I tend to think that the modern church and society have propped up the believer to a standard that is unrealistic. We know our sinfulness better then unbelievers do. In many ways, there are some unbelievers who are morally better than some believers even. It often depends on what snares and addictions and habits that we got into pre-conversion. To me, when evaluating a believer, I'm not too worried about at the depth of the illness of sin that they have been left to wrestle with as much as I am about the depth of their faith in the finished work of Christ alone for their justification. To me, the disheartening thing is the small faith that some have in resting in Christ as their "wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption."

Glad you are sharing your thoughts and began the thread. Feel free to share and correct me where you see otherwise.

Blessings and kind regards!


----------



## TimV (May 11, 2008)

Yes, Jeff, justification is probably more accurate than salvation.


----------



## py3ak (May 11, 2008)

Leslie, have you heard of the "Lordship salvation" controversy? I ask because the questions you raise here are related to that whole _contretemps_.


----------



## Leslie (May 12, 2008)

py3ak said:


> Leslie, have you heard of the "Lordship salvation" controversy? I ask because the questions you raise here are related to that whole _contretemps_.



That's exactly what I'm referring to. It seems to me that the only salvation there is, is lordship salvation. I'm not talking about being good enough to contribute in some small way to one's justification. No way. I know the depth of my own depravity too well. The scriptures are clear enough on our utter moral bankrupcy. It's just that if one has an arrogant attitude relative to God, determined to run his or her own life, willfully refusing a creaturely, submissive attitude toward Him, this precludes faith in any meaningful sense, in my estimation. In renouncing one's willful disobedience, a believer is not enjoying disobedience (though lapsing into it). 

As a teenager (many decades ago) I was unwilling to renounce disobedience. I was saying "If God is offering me a free fire-insurance-policy for assenting to the gospel, I'll take it but no way will He thereafter tell me what to do! I'm running my own life the way I want to. He can mind His business and I'll mind mine." Now would any PB members say that such an attitude is consistent with salvation? From my current perspective it's the very antithesis of faith.

Some troubling scripture passages in this regard are the hard sayings of Jesus regarding discipleship--loving God to the point of cheerfully renouncing human ties and creature comforts. Is being a disciple in these passages equivalent to mere salvation, or is Jesus referring to some higher spiritual state, sort of a non-charismatic, second-blessing, exalted state of sanctification? Maybe that's off-topic and should be another thread.


----------



## py3ak (May 12, 2008)

With regard to the Lordship salvation controversy, I always found one text sufficient to settle the matter in my mind, and that was [KJV]Romans 10:9-13[/KJV]. Whom do we confess? The *Lord* Jesus. On whom do we call for salvation? The *Lord*. Or you may recall that Paul told the Philippian jailer that if he believed on the *Lord* Jesus Christ he would be saved, and his house [KJV]Acts 16:31[/KJV]. This confession of Jesus as Lord which is essential for salvation is only possible by a supernatural work of the Holy Spirit in us [KJV]1 Corinthians 12:3[/KJV]. 

So over against the Scylla of easy-believism, "accept Jesus as your saviour and later if you feel like it maybe you'll want to submit to him as Lord" we assert very strongly that the faith wrought by the Spirit does recognize Jesus as Lord, it confesses Him as Lord, it invokes him in the words of Thomas as "my Lord and my God." But over against the Charybdis of other errors we assert that faith does not justify _because_ it produces obedience (although it does produce obedience) or because in one aspect it can itself be considered obedience, but faith justifies only because it lays hold of an alien righteousness: it is the instrument, not the ground of justification. And it is the only instrument of that justification.

Probably the more learned can add some detail to that, so I will sit back and see what happens.


----------



## Leslie (May 12, 2008)

py3ak said:


> With regard to the Lordship salvation controversy, I always found one text sufficient to settle the matter in my mind, and that was [KJV]Romans 10:9-13[/KJV]. Whom do we confess? The *Lord* Jesus. On whom do we call for salvation? The *Lord*. Or you may recall that Paul told the Philippian jailer that if he believed on the *Lord* Jesus Christ he would be saved, and his house [KJV]Acts 16:31[/KJV]. This confession of Jesus as Lord which is essential for salvation is only possible by a supernatural work of the Holy Spirit in us [KJV]1 Corinthians 12:3[/KJV].
> 
> So over against the Scylla of easy-believism, "accept Jesus as your saviour and later if you feel like it maybe you'll want to submit to him as Lord" we assert very strongly that the faith wrought by the Spirit does recognize Jesus as Lord, it confesses Him as Lord, it invokes him in the words of Thomas as "my Lord and my God." But over against the Charybdis of other errors we assert that faith does not justify _because_ it produces obedience (although it does produce obedience) or because in one aspect it can itself be considered obedience, but faith justifies only because it lays hold of an alien righteousness: it is the instrument, not the ground of justification. And it is the only instrument of that justification.
> 
> Probably the more learned can add some detail to that, so I will sit back and see what happens.



You express yourself differently than I do but we are basically in agreement, it seems.


----------

